Your source for news affecting the U.S. Social Security Administration/© Charles T. Hall
Shhh...don't tell the WSJ. This doesn't fit the "narrative."
10:16a,Right, but the number of applications skyrocketed between December 2014 and January 2015, which they could spin to fit the narrative.Alternatively, the narrative could be that shining a media spotlight on SSDI and SSI abuse has led to gradual reform in the way benefits are administered.I don't think cherry-picking one column from a chart with several columns is enough to deflect the pitchforks.
Instead of a media spotlight shining a light on so-called "abuse," I'd go with the demographic trends that SSA's own actuaries have been predicting for decades. But then again, that doesn't get as much attention or clicks about takers gaming the system...
@2:19-- Tell it!
1:57, the number of apps in December is always especially low. Claimants are doing other stuff. People who want to apply in person don't get appointments because staff is taking leave. Attorneys go on vacation. People aren't going to their doctors and getting diagnosed with stuff, or having elective surgeries that go bad. Everything slows down in December and so January has some pent-up demand. You can see that the same thing happened 2013-4 as 2014-5 but the more recent year is lower overall.
Since only about 11% of the people who apply for Disability benefits get placed there by decisions of ALJ's, the decline in the numbers approved by ALJ's from roughly two thirds to one half is just a pimple in the overall picture. The prediction in 1996 was a rise and a leveling off or slight decline. The cause was demographics then and demographics now.
Too bad the demographics didn't take into account the millions of illegals that will be filing next year..
@ 7:58do you, with such disdain, refer to any other resident of this country, your state, or community, etc., as an illegal? I mean, surely you know plenty of people who, say, steal cable (thus committing and ongoing crime and, at least according to what people like you say is their basis for calling undocumented people living here, fitting the definition of "an illegal"), drink and drive regularly, abuse their family members, steal from work, cheat on taxes, etc. etc.Or do you only save that horrible, dehumanizing term for brown-skinned people you don't think should be in "your" country?I'd love to read your response. And if you are going to say yes, I'd love some proof--another blog comment, an audio recordiing--anything showing you've used the term when describing anyone but a brown person here without documents before just now after me calling you out. Or your explanation as to why you've just not happened to have occasion to use the term on any other type of "illegal" before that doesn't involve racism.
Oh, yes, the illegals demonstrating in Ferguson that burned down buildings and caused rioting. There are many things that are illegal and I call it as it is. An illegal President that defies the Constitution. An illegal Attorney General that does not do his job. An illegal Secretary of state that does not use the Government e-mail. When someone breaks the law, they are illegal. When 10,000,000 people from other countries enter my country illegally, they are illegals. Trust me, my disdain isn't only for one sector of crooks, it cuts a wide swath.
Oh, by the way, it wouldn't be racism, it would be nationalism. See, if your mother was a muslim from Iran and entered the county illegally, she would be illegal to me even if she wasn't brown...
there's my boy, I knew you'd say something really great if I just goaded you a little.So you're not just a racist, you're a full-blown crackpot. Great to know.
And now you just need to know which of your cases I will be adjudicating. I will be the one on the bench in the Black robe. You will be the one unprepared for the hearing, as usual.
Post a Comment