What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

What's wrong with government in the U.S. (1 Viewer)

The two-party system is not the problem, but rather loyalty to the parties above all else.

And can someone explain Strom Thurmond and Robert Byrd to me, and John McCain too, to name a few? I stop just short of endorsing term limits, but I find it obscene that constituents re-elect senators that are so damn old and clearly don't do #### beyond shaking a fist and making a wisecrack.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The government is ####ed up because politicians play word games and by that I mean the definition of enemy combatant can be changed to include unarmed Americans. A fetus can be called a life or not a life depending on who you ask. Assault weapons or personal defense weapons depending on whether citizens or government officials are carrying them etc...

 
The Wages of Unemployment

• Social Security disability payments. The health of Americans has improved, and the decline in the number of relatively dangerous industrial production and mining jobs should have led to a smaller proportion of Americans unable to work because of disability. Yet the opposite is the case.

WSJ link
UGH!! The fact that one can collect more SSD than what they put into the system is going to be a problem!! MY SIL is in her mid-late 30's and worked for a total of maybe 10 years. She made it clear that she never wanted to work after having kids, but had too as her husbands income was not enough to support the family. They have three kids (two she had after she was diagnosed with Lupus.) As mentioned, she has Lupus and is collecting SSD and using Medicaid. I am glad that she has access to Medicaid as she can get care that she could not previously receive. I am also glad that she is able to collect the money in which she put into the system, although how is the gov't coming up with the money she will continue to collect (until she passes on) after she has exhausted the funds that she put into the system? Also, she is paid an extra allotment for each child so that they can got to college. I do believe she should be entitled to everything that she has put into the system and possible even more than that, but where do we draw the line? Why should I have to pay for her to live in a $250,000 house and drive a new mini-van? Also, I'm not sure I believe I should have to pay for her children to go to college. Why can't they make the grades and get scholarships/loans like most other people? At what point is this system going to go bankrupt? Then what?

 
SEC vs Illinois

An agency bites political dogs story.

The Securities and Exchange Commission announced civil fraud charges Monday against the state of Illinois, which means it's now official: The Land of Lincoln has the nation's most reckless and dishonest state government when it comes to pension liabilities.

This week's order from the SEC reports that in multiple bond offerings from 2005 to 2009 "the State of Illinois misled bond investors about the adequacy of its statutory plan to fund its pension obligations and the risks created by the State's underfunding of its pension systems."

Unlike Illinois officials, the numbers don't lie. The state's five main pension funds are 40% funded, with a shortfall of close to $100 billion—and much more by some private estimates. It's hard to express how irresponsible politicians have to be to dig a hole this big. By comparison, the average state plan is funded at 75%, which is itself dangerously low.

Even Illinois politicians admit that their pensions ought to be 90% funded, and in 1994 they pretended they were enacting reform with the ironically titled "Pension Funding Act." But the law's methodology "structurally underfunded" the state's obligations and "backloaded the majority of pension contributions far into the future," says the SEC.

By 2009, one of the pension system's actuaries warned of "significant funding peril" while the Governor's budget office raised "serious concerns about the financial strain," says the SEC. But "this information was not disclosed to bond investors."

The only other state ever to be sued for fraud by the SEC was New Jersey in 2010. That case also involved pension shenanigans, but the state has since begun to reform.

In Illinois, there's little sign of reform, which suggests the SEC has more work to do. According to its sorry custom, the SEC announced a settlement with the state at the same time it announced the charges. As usual, there were no individuals charged, only an institution, and the institution neither admitted nor denied anything but merely promised to behave in the future.

Kudos to the SEC for shining a light on accounting practices that would get private market participants thrown in jail. But frauds are not committed by buildings or desks or chairs. They are committed by the people who occupy them, and the commission should hold them accountable.
 
The Wages of Unemployment

• Social Security disability payments. The health of Americans has improved, and the decline in the number of relatively dangerous industrial production and mining jobs should have led to a smaller proportion of Americans unable to work because of disability. Yet the opposite is the case.

WSJ link
UGH!! The fact that one can collect more SSD than what they put into the system is going to be a problem!! MY SIL is in her mid-late 30's and worked for a total of maybe 10 years. She made it clear that she never wanted to work after having kids, but had too as her husbands income was not enough to support the family. They have three kids (two she had after she was diagnosed with Lupus.) As mentioned, she has Lupus and is collecting SSD and using Medicaid. I am glad that she has access to Medicaid as she can get care that she could not previously receive. I am also glad that she is able to collect the money in which she put into the system, although how is the gov't coming up with the money she will continue to collect (until she passes on) after she has exhausted the funds that she put into the system? Also, she is paid an extra allotment for each child so that they can got to college. I do believe she should be entitled to everything that she has put into the system and possible even more than that, but where do we draw the line? Why should I have to pay for her to live in a $250,000 house and drive a new mini-van? Also, I'm not sure I believe I should have to pay for her children to go to college. Why can't they make the grades and get scholarships/loans like most other people? At what point is this system going to go bankrupt? Then what?
Excellent point! I couldnt agree more. Why do my hard earned dollars go in someone else's pocket that doesn't do squat. I have a brother in law who has no business collecting SSI and he gets fatter & lazier by the day.
 
The Wages of Unemployment

Social Security disability payments. The health of Americans has improved, and the decline in the number of relatively dangerous industrial production and mining jobs should have led to a smaller proportion of Americans unable to work because of disability. Yet the opposite is the case.

WSJ link
UGH!! The fact that one can collect more SSD than what they put into the system is going to be a problem!! MY SIL is in her mid-late 30's and worked for a total of maybe 10 years. She made it clear that she never wanted to work after having kids, but had too as her husbands income was not enough to support the family. They have three kids (two she had after she was diagnosed with Lupus.) As mentioned, she has Lupus and is collecting SSD and using Medicaid. I am glad that she has access to Medicaid as she can get care that she could not previously receive. I am also glad that she is able to collect the money in which she put into the system, although how is the gov't coming up with the money she will continue to collect (until she passes on) after she has exhausted the funds that she put into the system? Also, she is paid an extra allotment for each child so that they can got to college. I do believe she should be entitled to everything that she has put into the system and possible even more than that, but where do we draw the line? Why should I have to pay for her to live in a $250,000 house and drive a new mini-van? Also, I'm not sure I believe I should have to pay for her children to go to college. Why can't they make the grades and get scholarships/loans like most other people? At what point is this system going to go bankrupt? Then what?
I didn't know you could collect SSDI because of Lupus. Does it have to be very severe? My GF currently works with this, but I feel it is not very good for her health long term. She expects to have to work continuously to be able to afford health insurance given her substantial expenses, which I do not like the idea of.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ah, Wilderness! Mountain Man vs. the Building Inspector

County Shuts Rustic Preserve; Self-Sufficiency Doesn't Meet Code

BOONE, N.C.—Eustace Conway says he has stared down a grizzly bear, wrestled a thrashing buck and ridden a horse from coast to coast. But he may have met his match in the Watauga County planning department.

Mr. Conway, 51 years old, is best known as "The Last American Man," the title character of a 2002 biography and National Book Award finalist by Elizabeth Gilbert, the author of "Eat, Pray, Love." He has lived in the wilderness since the early 1980s.

He traps, shoots and grows much of his own food, makes pants out of buckskin and stitches his own wounds. He bathes in the cold creek that rolls through his 1,000-acre Turtle Island preserve in the Blue Ridge Mountains of North Carolina. And he teaches others how to live off the land.

But now, Mr. Conway is devoting most of his time to the type of meetings, red tape and compromises he went to the woods to avoid.

Last fall, a team of health, construction and fire officials showed up for an unannounced inspection of the preserve, acting on an anonymous tip. Escorted by two sheriffs' deputies, they executed what Mr. Conway describes as a "SWAT-team raid"—peering into outhouses, stomping around log cabins, and climbing hand-hewn ladders.

Their findings are compiled in a 78-page report with a bullet-point list of violations. Mr. Conway's sawdust urinal and outhouses? Unpermitted, according to the officials. The wood he used to erect two dozen buildings? Built with lumber that isn't "grade-marked," meaning it doesn't specify the mill where it was produced.

The open-air kitchen, with its crates of potatoes and stacks of pots? "Not protected from insects and animals," according to the report. "It is, in fact, outdoors."

The health department has shut down Turtle Island (which isn't an actual island) to outsiders who flock to Mr. Conway for lessons on how to rough it. He says on his website he teaches people how to "break rocks to make stone tools, bend bark to fashion baskets, and spin sticks to create fire," as well as "wash the dust off by standing in the rain, watching the deer come closer, listening to the wren's call."

Visitors include scouts, school groups and interns who stay for 14 months. Costs range from $65 for a two-hour, horse-drawn carriage tour with Mr. Conway to $1,400 for a two-week camp for teens. Turtle Island operates as a not-for-profit educational organization. Mr. Conway has run programs there for more than 20 years.

The county says Mr. Conway must rebuild or tear down his cabins, barn, kitchen, blacksmith shop and sawmill, and create a septic system before hosting any more classes and camps.

"These buildings aren't fit for public use," says Joseph A. Furman, county planning director.

Mr. Conway says primitive facilities are precisely the point.

"Modern inspectors know how to measure a board, but not how to build a building," he says as he tours one of the structures deemed fit for condemnation. The lumber's not stamped with a grade because he produced it himself at his own sawmill, from trees felled nearby, he says.

He likens his construction techniques—such as interlocking corner notches and cantilevered roofs—to those of frontiersman Daniel Boone, namesake of the county seat.

"Codes don't apply to what we're doing," he says.

Mr. Conway has attracted supporters, including Don Carrington, vice president of the John Locke Foundation, a libertarian-leaning Raleigh, N.C.-based think tank. "Why can't you do what you want on your own land?" he asks. "Shouldn't you be able to have guests come in, and say here's where you go to the bathroom, here's where you eat, and if you don't want to do that, don't come?"

State building officials say they would like to help Mr. Conway and are considering changes. Local officials say their hands are tied because the codes are written by the state. They also say even amending building codes wouldn't address fire and health issues at Turtle Island.

Mr. Furman, the county official, says it is simple. The cabin built and slept in by campers last summer needs a bathroom, fire sprinklers and smoke detectors. "Does anyone sleep there? Then it has to meet the residential code," he says.

Mr. Conway can't sell his $10 Turtle Island T-shirts, either, unless the common area where they are on display has a restroom. As for the old trucks used on the property, parked by a maintenance shed? "That could be considered an automobile garage, but let's not go there," Mr. Furman says.

Watauga County Commissioner Perry Yates said the problem isn't Mr. Conway's primitive methods but rather his less primitive ones, like using an oven range in the outdoor kitchen. "If we are going to teach 1776, let's teach it the way it really was," Mr. Yates says.

"There needs to be give and take on both sides," he says. "We need to respect our ancestors' way of life, but we also need to do it in a sanitary manner."

Last year, Mr. Conway was featured on the History Channel's "Mountain Men," a reality TV show about what it is like to "shed the complications of modern society." He and two other men, in Montana and Alaska, are depicted facing hungry animals, bad weather and contentious assistants. The second season started filming last month at Turtle Island.

Mr. Conway questions why the local government is acting now. "Maybe we were oblivious, but we had no reason to think about it," Mr. Furman says. "We're liable for it now that we know."

Mr. Conway says his property is safe because visitors spend most of their time outdoors. "People say, 'think outside the box,' and I say, 'just think outside,' " he says. "I mean, really, go outside! Think!"

Retired history teacher David Gould took nearly 2,000 ninth-graders over the years on retreats to Turtle Island from Durham Academy, a prep school. "Most of these kids come from privileged backgrounds and have virtually no knowledge of the out-of-doors," he says. They learn how to trek through the woods in the dark, use a hunting knife and make their own meals. "The girls in particular come back way more self-confident and empowered," he says.

More than 11,000 people have signed a petition from the change.org website asking the N.C. Building Code Council to exempt primitive structures like those at Turtle Island. Mr. Conway is answering supporters by email. "I write something on a piece of paper, then I tell it to someone and then they email it," he says. The computer in the camp office is solar powered, as the camp doesn't have electricity.

"I believe our founding fathers would do anything to come back and get in on this one," he said in the email.
Looks like the furloughs from the sequester hit the wrong spots. :mellow: :thumbdown:
 
The Wages of Unemployment

• Social Security disability payments. The health of Americans has improved, and the decline in the number of relatively dangerous industrial production and mining jobs should have led to a smaller proportion of Americans unable to work because of disability. Yet the opposite is the case.

WSJ link
UGH!! The fact that one can collect more SSD than what they put into the system is going to be a problem!! MY SIL is in her mid-late 30's and worked for a total of maybe 10 years. She made it clear that she never wanted to work after having kids, but had too as her husbands income was not enough to support the family. They have three kids (two she had after she was diagnosed with Lupus.) As mentioned, she has Lupus and is collecting SSD and using Medicaid. I am glad that she has access to Medicaid as she can get care that she could not previously receive. I am also glad that she is able to collect the money in which she put into the system, although how is the gov't coming up with the money she will continue to collect (until she passes on) after she has exhausted the funds that she put into the system? Also, she is paid an extra allotment for each child so that they can got to college. I do believe she should be entitled to everything that she has put into the system and possible even more than that, but where do we draw the line? Why should I have to pay for her to live in a $250,000 house and drive a new mini-van? Also, I'm not sure I believe I should have to pay for her children to go to college. Why can't they make the grades and get scholarships/loans like most other people? At what point is this system going to go bankrupt? Then what?
I didn't know you could collect SSDI because of Lupus. Does it have to be very severe? My GF currently works with this, but I feel it is not very good for her health long term. She expects to have to work continuously to be able to afford health insurance given her substantial expenses, which I do not like the idea of.
Lupus is on the SSDI list. Your girlfriend will have to apply for SSDI, be denied (you are always immediately denied), and then hire an attorney to represent her. The attorney fees will come from the 2 back-years lump sum that SSDI pays out once approved. Your girlfriend will have to provide a TON of documentation of her condition, she will have to go in front of a judge and explain how this disease makes it impossible to hold a full-time job and then a judgement is made. This process usually takes around 2 years.
 
No more pensions for politicians. It's asinine that we are paying benefits and salaries to ex presidents, congressmen, and senators.

If we don't do term limits for politicians, make them ineligible to participate in private sector facets while in office. Meaning, all of their children are now in public school, period. Their medical benefits are now run through the governmental programs rather than a third party payer, period. Make them have some skin in the game rather than creating laws and lobbing stuff over the wall at others.

 
No more pensions for politicians. It's asinine that we are paying benefits and salaries to ex presidents, congressmen, and senators. If we don't do term limits for politicians, make them ineligible to participate in private sector facets while in office. Meaning, all of their children are now in public school, period. Their medical benefits are now run through the governmental programs rather than a third party payer, period. Make them have some skin in the game rather than creating laws and lobbing stuff over the wall at others.
Good call. The best way to improve government is to kick out all the people with lots of experience. Or barring that, make service much less attractive so the candidate pool is even worse.
 
No more pensions for politicians. It's asinine that we are paying benefits and salaries to ex presidents, congressmen, and senators.

If we don't do term limits for politicians, make them ineligible to participate in private sector facets while in office. Meaning, all of their children are now in public school, period. Their medical benefits are now run through the governmental programs rather than a third party payer, period. Make them have some skin in the game rather than creating laws and lobbing stuff over the wall at others.
Good call. The best way to improve government is to kick out all the people with lots of experience. Or barring that, make service much less attractive so the candidate pool is even worse.
Not possible.
 
No more pensions for politicians. It's asinine that we are paying benefits and salaries to ex presidents, congressmen, and senators.

If we don't do term limits for politicians, make them ineligible to participate in private sector facets while in office. Meaning, all of their children are now in public school, period. Their medical benefits are now run through the governmental programs rather than a third party payer, period. Make them have some skin in the game rather than creating laws and lobbing stuff over the wall at others.
Good call. The best way to improve government is to kick out all the people with lots of experience. Or barring that, make service much less attractive so the candidate pool is even worse.
Not possible.
No kidding. The problem here is that they have made their own positions in govt' so cushy that there is no reason to move onto a private sector gig where they would actually have to work. There is ALWAYS someone else that can do their job.
 
No more pensions for politicians. It's asinine that we are paying benefits and salaries to ex presidents, congressmen, and senators.

If we don't do term limits for politicians, make them ineligible to participate in private sector facets while in office. Meaning, all of their children are now in public school, period. Their medical benefits are now run through the governmental programs rather than a third party payer, period. Make them have some skin in the game rather than creating laws and lobbing stuff over the wall at others.
Good call. The best way to improve government is to kick out all the people with lots of experience. Or barring that, make service much less attractive so the candidate pool is even worse.
Not possible.
No kidding. The problem here is that they have made their own positions in govt' so cushy that there is no reason to move onto a private sector gig where they would actually have to work. There is ALWAYS someone else that can do their job.
Can do it, yes. Can do it well, no. It's common sense- the more attractive the job, the better the candidates. That's undeniably true in any industry, and that includes politics. And being a member of congress is a tough job, despite what you may think. If you deny that in favor of stupid rhetoric about "those clowns in Congress" and how they can't possibly be any worse, you're basically just leaning on jokes from bad comedians instead of thinking carefully and critically about government. People like that in the voting booth are part of the problem.

 
No more pensions for politicians. It's asinine that we are paying benefits and salaries to ex presidents, congressmen, and senators.

If we don't do term limits for politicians, make them ineligible to participate in private sector facets while in office. Meaning, all of their children are now in public school, period. Their medical benefits are now run through the governmental programs rather than a third party payer, period. Make them have some skin in the game rather than creating laws and lobbing stuff over the wall at others.
Good call. The best way to improve government is to kick out all the people with lots of experience. Or barring that, make service much less attractive so the candidate pool is even worse.
Not possible.
No kidding. The problem here is that they have made their own positions in govt' so cushy that there is no reason to move onto a private sector gig where they would actually have to work. There is ALWAYS someone else that can do their job.
Can do it, yes. Can do it well, no. It's common sense- the more attractive the job, the better the candidates. That's undeniably true in any industry, and that includes politics. And being a member of congress is a tough job, despite what you may think. If you deny that in favor of stupid rhetoric about "those clowns in Congress" and how they can't possibly be any worse, you're basically just leaning on jokes from bad comedians instead of thinking carefully and critically about government. People like that in the voting booth are part of the problem.
So you're suggesting that congress can do a worse job? Interesting.
 
No more pensions for politicians. It's asinine that we are paying benefits and salaries to ex presidents, congressmen, and senators.

If we don't do term limits for politicians, make them ineligible to participate in private sector facets while in office. Meaning, all of their children are now in public school, period. Their medical benefits are now run through the governmental programs rather than a third party payer, period. Make them have some skin in the game rather than creating laws and lobbing stuff over the wall at others.
Good call. The best way to improve government is to kick out all the people with lots of experience. Or barring that, make service much less attractive so the candidate pool is even worse.
Not possible.
No kidding. The problem here is that they have made their own positions in govt' so cushy that there is no reason to move onto a private sector gig where they would actually have to work. There is ALWAYS someone else that can do their job.
Can do it, yes. Can do it well, no. It's common sense- the more attractive the job, the better the candidates. That's undeniably true in any industry, and that includes politics. And being a member of congress is a tough job, despite what you may think. If you deny that in favor of stupid rhetoric about "those clowns in Congress" and how they can't possibly be any worse, you're basically just leaning on jokes from bad comedians instead of thinking carefully and critically about government. People like that in the voting booth are part of the problem.
I don't want people in Congress because the job is attractive. I want people in Congress who want to be there because they are driven to make the United States better. Because they're tired of the injustices, corruption, and utter waste that is rampant. Not because they get a kick-### pension, benefits, and the power to use the good old boy network to be set for life when they finally get voted out. The fact that the jobs are so insulating and attractive brings people in for the wrong reason.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
It's common sense- the more attractive the job, the better the candidates. That's undeniably true in any industry, and that includes politics. And being a member of congress is a tough job, despite what you may think. If you deny that in favor of stupid rhetoric about "those clowns in Congress" and how they can't possibly be any worse, you're basically just leaning on jokes from bad comedians instead of thinking carefully and critically about government. People like that in the voting booth are part of the problem.
I don't want people in Congress because the job is attractive. I want people in Congress who want to be there because they are driven to make the United States better. Because they're tired of the injustices, corruption, and utter waste that is rampant. Not because they get a kick-### pension, benefits, and the power to use the good old boy network to be set for life when they finally get voted out. The fact that the jobs are so insulating and attractive brings people in for the wrong reason.
Most members of Congress take a substantial pay cut when they leave the private sector. It just doesn't seem credible that people are running for Congress so that they can get rich.
 
No more pensions for politicians. It's asinine that we are paying benefits and salaries to ex presidents, congressmen, and senators.

If we don't do term limits for politicians, make them ineligible to participate in private sector facets while in office. Meaning, all of their children are now in public school, period. Their medical benefits are now run through the governmental programs rather than a third party payer, period. Make them have some skin in the game rather than creating laws and lobbing stuff over the wall at others.
Good call. The best way to improve government is to kick out all the people with lots of experience. Or barring that, make service much less attractive so the candidate pool is even worse.
Not possible.
No kidding. The problem here is that they have made their own positions in govt' so cushy that there is no reason to move onto a private sector gig where they would actually have to work. There is ALWAYS someone else that can do their job.
Can do it, yes. Can do it well, no. It's common sense- the more attractive the job, the better the candidates. That's undeniably true in any industry, and that includes politics. And being a member of congress is a tough job, despite what you may think. If you deny that in favor of stupid rhetoric about "those clowns in Congress" and how they can't possibly be any worse, you're basically just leaning on jokes from bad comedians instead of thinking carefully and critically about government. People like that in the voting booth are part of the problem.
I don't want people in Congress because the job is attractive. I want people in Congress who want to be there because they are driven to make the United States better. Because they're tired of the injustices, corruption, and utter waste that is rampant. Not because they get a kick-### pension, benefits, and the power to use the good old boy network to be set for life when they finally get voted out. The fact that the jobs are so insulating and attractive brings people in for the wrong reason.
First, it's wildly naive to think that making a job less attractive is gonna bring in a better quality of candidate who will go all "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington." Sorry. Second, IMO most of them run for office for the reasons you state. Almost all of them could make a LOT more money in the private sector- the perks just give them slightly less financial motivation to leave. If they were all just about the money, almost all of them would leave for law firms and businesses and be replaced by people whose earning ability maxes out around $150,000- in other words, mostly people who lack both advanced degrees and business acumen.

Finally, it's one of the least insulated jobs around. A good % of them are "fired" every two years. That's a much higher clip than pretty much anywhere else. The ones that aren't are the ones whose constituents decide they want their member to continue to represent them. Why would we want to take that option away from the voters with term limits? Not fans of democracy?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
'Oracle said:
The Wages of Unemployment

• Social Security disability payments. The health of Americans has improved, and the decline in the number of relatively dangerous industrial production and mining jobs should have led to a smaller proportion of Americans unable to work because of disability. Yet the opposite is the case.

WSJ link
UGH!! The fact that one can collect more SSD than what they put into the system is going to be a problem!! MY SIL is in her mid-late 30's and worked for a total of maybe 10 years. She made it clear that she never wanted to work after having kids, but had too as her husbands income was not enough to support the family. They have three kids (two she had after she was diagnosed with Lupus.) As mentioned, she has Lupus and is collecting SSD and using Medicaid. I am glad that she has access to Medicaid as she can get care that she could not previously receive. I am also glad that she is able to collect the money in which she put into the system, although how is the gov't coming up with the money she will continue to collect (until she passes on) after she has exhausted the funds that she put into the system? Also, she is paid an extra allotment for each child so that they can got to college. I do believe she should be entitled to everything that she has put into the system and possible even more than that, but where do we draw the line? Why should I have to pay for her to live in a $250,000 house and drive a new mini-van? Also, I'm not sure I believe I should have to pay for her children to go to college. Why can't they make the grades and get scholarships/loans like most other people? At what point is this system going to go bankrupt? Then what?
I didn't know you could collect SSDI because of Lupus. Does it have to be very severe? My GF currently works with this, but I feel it is not very good for her health long term. She expects to have to work continuously to be able to afford health insurance given her substantial expenses, which I do not like the idea of.
Lupus is on the SSDI list. Your girlfriend will have to apply for SSDI, be denied (you are always immediately denied), and then hire an attorney to represent her. The attorney fees will come from the 2 back-years lump sum that SSDI pays out once approved. Your girlfriend will have to provide a TON of documentation of her condition, she will have to go in front of a judge and explain how this disease makes it impossible to hold a full-time job and then a judgement is made. This process usually takes around 2 years.
Ssdi is an insurance program that everyone who works is automatically enrolled in and pays for. Like all insurance programs, it's possible to get out more than you put in, but only if you are found to be disabled. SSI is a program for the poir. You only qualify if you are disabled and have below a low threshold of assets. It pays very little.To apply, you cannot have worked for the prior 5 months. It takes up to 2 years before you get a final decision and you cannot have any substantial income for that whole time and it must be because you are incapable of working due to your impairments.

 
80 retired New York police, firefighters charged in disability fraud schemeBy Victoria Cavaliere

NEW YORK Tue Jan 7, 2014 4:54pm EST

(Reuters) - Eighty retired New York police officers and firefighters were charged on Tuesday in a massive disability scam in which dozens of suspects falsely claimed to have been traumatized by the September 11th attacks to receive benefits they did not earn, authorities said.

In all, 106 suspects were charged in a scheme that goes back to the late 1980s, according to Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance, whose office led the two-year probe.

"The total amount stolen from taxpayers could reach $400 million," said Vance.

Prosecutors said many of the suspects claimed U.S. Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) benefits of $30,000 to $50,000 a year for psychiatric ailments like post-traumatic stress disorder, anxiety and depression that were so incapacitating they were unable to work - or, in some cases, even to leave their homes.

A bail letter released by prosecutors includes images of a number of the purportedly disabled suspects engaged in activities that include jet-skiing, martial arts instruction and piloting a helicopter.

"The brazenness is shocking," Vance said at a Tuesday press conference, referring to one suspect who officials say ran a martial arts studio. "So if you're 'disabled' and running around running a judo studio, that's brazen."

By early Tuesday afternoon, officials said, 84 of the 106 were in custody, and most of the remaining 22 defendants were expected to surrender or be arrested. Investigators said they are still collecting evidence and more people could be charged.

Officials said four men masterminded the wide-ranging scheme, directing hundreds of applicants to the SSDI benefits program and teaching them how to feign symptoms of mental and psychiatric damage in order to obtain benefits to which they were not entitled.

"Since at least 1988, these men are charged with coaching hundreds of individuals on how to convince the Social Security Administration that are unable to work at any job because they suffer a psychiatric condition and are, therefore, entitled to monthly disability payments," Vance said.

The four men charged with organizing the scheme include a retired NYPD officer, an NYPD detective's union official, a pension consultant and an attorney, officials said.

Newly appointed New York police commissioner Bill Bratton, who stood beside Vance at the press conference, said he could "only express disgust" at the actions of the suspects.

"The idea that many of them chose the events of 9/11 to claim as the basis for their disability brings further dishonor to themselves," Bratton said.

The 106 defendants are being charged with varying degrees of grand larceny and attempted grand larceny and face a range of jail sentences if convicted of all charges.

Defense attorneys for the suspects could not immediately be identified on Tuesday.

(Reporting by Victoria Cavaliere; editing by Chris Francescani and Gunna Dickson)
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/01/07/us-usa-newyork-fraud-idUSBREA0617M20140107

:(

 
What's wrong is simply: bureaucracy. Every single government entity seeks to increase its power, and to do that, increases the regulations and hoops that people have to go through to get anything done. Additionally, the more regulations, the more possibility there is for corruption. It gradually slows the wheels of the economy, as it becomes more and more sclerotic.

There is always an argument for more laws, more protection, more regulation. But that comes with a cost; small at first but gradually looming larger and larger. There is a reason why totalitarian Communism failed; and that reason is bureaucracy.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top