Jun 14, 2013

Get Over It Guys!

     The National Review really wants to prove that fraud is rampant at Social Security. They offer as proof the bizarre case of Charles Fisher. After Fisher died of natural causes his mentally ill daughter decided to put him on ice, not a freezer but ice, so she could keep getting his Social Security checks. At some point she decided to cut off her deceased father's hands since it would make it harder to identify him once she disposed of his remains in a more permanent way. The ice didn't work too well. Fisher's body was decaying. The police eventually came around the house since friends and neighbors wondered what happened to Fisher.The fraud was revealed.
     This sad case demonstrates that people, particularly mentally ill people, can do some very weird things. I don't think it proves anything of consequence about Social Security. Of course, there's some degree of fraud at Social Security. Tens of millions of people receive benefits. How could there be no fraud involved? There's no proof of rampant fraud at Social Security.
     The right wing needs to get over its obsession with Social Security. They've used the same arguments against Social Security for more than 75 years and they've gotten nowhere.  The American people love Social Security. There's nothing the right wing can do to make it go away.


Anonymous said...

No kidding Americans love Social Security, it's MONEY!!! Show me one rational person that doesn't like to receive money. Look, it's a SOCIAL INSURANCE PROGRAM, not an IRA or retirement fund.

Again, rampant may not be the best word to describe how prevalent fraud is at SSA. Having said that, when you deal with issues that affect people's ability to receive money, they will say and do almost anything to keep it. That is where the provocation comes from and why fraud can be out of line with what one thinks it should be.

Anonymous said...

I read the article and found it amusing. Where's the part about the right wing using this case of criminal activity as proof of rampant criminal activity?

Anonymous said...

Every time I try to mentally picture what a complaining right-winger looks like, I get the mental-image of a rich guy who made his fortune with a high-priced liquor or convenience store that caters to drunks and people on SSI. They spend their whole day pissing and moaning about how worthless the people are that are making them rich to anybody that will listen. Of course these type people are blind to the fact that it was a wealth transfer of Government money to them under sick circumstance, but they consider what they do as legitimate work, and helpful to the economy.

Anonymous said...

Edit: I forgot to add gun store owner in high-crime urban areas that specializes in selling military grade weapons to thugs and drug dealers.

Anonymous said...

That's right... let's nickel and dime the poorer segments of society who've been poisoned by Monsanto's GMO frankenfoods, run through a failing education system, and lied to by politicians who funnel 85 billion a month out to the international banking cartels. Maybe they should go get one of the nonexistent high paying manufacturing jobs..... oh I'm sorry they've all moved to china. Wake up people and stop blaming poor folks for trying to survive in a society with rapidly diminishing opportunities. Like George Carlin said, it's a club and you're not in it.

Anonymous said...

I have nothing against poor people trying to survive. That's exactly the point I've been making for years. What do all of the bleeding hearts think round happen if government aid to the poor was reformed or cut? Would they all just automatically die? The answer is a resounding NO! See human beings have an incredible ability to adapt and survive. Not to mention all of the people in this country who say they're willing to help the poor. It's funny how lots of people advocate for the poor but if they "forced" to contribute through taxation, would never give a dime of their own money. Then they complain that conservatives hate the the poor. I don't hate the poor, I hate when liberals use the poor as their mules to push their agenda. Talk about exploitation. Someone please show me proof that any if these programs aimed at helping the poor, conservative or liberal, has EVER reduced the number of people who ARE poor. They do nothing but teach people to hold out their hand.

Anonymous said...

@ 8:12 amen.

I am tired of reading in applications for disability about people who continued to work because they "had to pay the bills" or just continued to "soldier on because my family needed me to."

Sure, the jobs that are available for a high school dropout are few and far between and pay menial wages. However, if you can do the job, you are not disabled.

Anonymous said...


I think the data on people going back into the workforce, specifically single mothers (specifically single mothers of color) since Clinton-era wellfare reform (i.e. the end of true, long-term wellfare) is absolutely clear with regard to the program's success at getting people into the workforce.

Why they haven't left poverty despite increased work? Well, let's see...education, decrease in unions (funny how wages of the working class, adjusted for inflation, of course, so strongly rise and fall in tandem with union membership, isn't it?), increase in executive pay and shareholder value (and thus lower wages), etc. etc.

Be mad about the people not working, sure. But based on the numbers (and the general, American, beliefs that an honest day's work should receive an honest day's pay, and that any full-time employee should make a wage such that he can survive and assist in the survival of a kid or two...), you all should be so much more upset that there are millions and millions of full-time (or very close to it, limited by their big corp employers' brining employees below minimum wage for insurance, etc. reasons) workers whose income is poverty level.

Explain to me how any system which is moral, fair, or even economically efficient, can have such a large number of workers--full-time workers--making poverty level or relative poverty level wages.

Or do you folks of the ilk I've described believe only people with a degree (or some other opportunity) and the fortune to land one of the ever-shrinking better 50% of American jobs is entitled to ever taking a day off, ever having kids, ever taking a vacation and enjoying leisure, or ever being able to stop working before their death?

And before you say people can rise through the ranks--they all can't. Our economy has far too many minimum and close to it wage jobs, it depends on those jobs. There's no way to say every adult can work hard and get out of those jobs--we simply need too many of those jobs to keep this consumerist/capitalist economy going. Just take a look at this data http://www.bls.gov/cps/minwage2011.htm

Anonymous said...

@ 11:42

Of course not everyone can "rise through the ranks", they're not all supposed to! People are equal to the extent that they have the same rights and protections under the law, that's it. People are not at all equal. Some will prosper, most will not. The problem in America is that society has established a lifestyle that may be unattainable for many? Success and prosperity are not the same for everyone and certainly not guaranteed for everyone.

Joe public may take the bus to work. I may drive a 2008 Kia. Mr big shot drives a 2014 Mercedes. We all get to work, we're not all equal. Does joe public deserve the Kia or the Mercedes? Do I deserve the Mercedes? The answer is obviously no to both. I'm sure the analogy will be picked apart, but the bottom line is that we all have a way to get to work.

I'm do tired of every left leaning nut thinking that every person in America deserves to be successful just because they live here. That's just stupid. As for people getting rich of the backs of the less fortunate, show me a time in American history where that admit been the case.

Heck, I'm nowhere near rich. And success as stated above is relative. Am I successful compared to the guy working at Taco Bell? Maybe. Depends on your definition of success. I hate my job, I mean really hate it. But guess what, I have bills to pay and a family to support so I drag myself in everyday and suck it up. I'm wasting away in a job that is going to get me nowhere but the job market is such right now that to leave would be foolish. Bet lots of people have made those kinds of foolish decisions and are now part of your pitty party!

Anonymous said...

I worked for $8.00/hr for a while when I got out of college. Even had medical insurance deducted because I refused to take a hand out. It sucked. But guess what...I had a one bedroom apartment, I bought food and cooked instead of eating out, I didn't go out because I couldn't afford it, one winter I don't dven turn on the heat and slept in my winter coat. I also didn't father a bunch of kids, or buy a bunch if crap on credit to look cool. I had a car I paid $500.00 for. I survived, others can as well.

Anonymous said...

8:12 AM, June 15, 2013

Show you one person who isn't poor because of a govornment program? Well, I guess we have to define poor. If you view poor as being being unable to afford mediation or skipping meals because you don't have food, then yeah, I've seen a good number of a lot of people become not poor because of the Social Security program.


Anonymous said...

That's the problem. You've put them on a government program and my guess is that if you ask them, they'll still say they're poor. So now you have a ever growing population dependent on the government that are still poor.

You aren't reducing the population of poor people, you're growing it!