Skip to main content

View Diary: Social Security Administration suspends collection on old debts (52 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  May not have realized the impact (3+ / 0-)

    This seems to me - although I could be wrong - like one of those changes that makes sense on the surface. If we realize someone has cheated the government 11 years ago, should we be barred from going after them? What could not have been foreseen (and if it could, off with their heads) would be going after people who could not have legally entered into the financial obligation to begin with. If you were too young to sign a contract, even if you benefitted from the overpayment, there is no legal way they can take it from you now, I would think.

    Cruelty might be very human, and it might be very cultural, but it's not acceptable.- Jodie Foster

    by CPT Doom on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 11:00:41 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  We are barred from going after those who commit (14+ / 0-)

      financial crimes after 5 years. We can't even prosecute the bankers & 1% who brought about the collapse of the world economy but we can go after the peanuts that were over paid to people over earned lifetime benefits? Do you know how crazy your argument sounds when placed against any simple comparison of who gets money from the government and what they are allowed to get away with?

      “The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those that speak it.” George Orwell

      by Tool on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 11:04:33 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  If they did not realize the impact, that (9+ / 0-)

      would also be a problem.

      But they aren't claiming they didn't realize it.  They're claiming they have no idea who "slipped it in the bill".

      This isn't about people who "cheated the government".  There are no charges of fraud here, no penalties for fraud.

      These are cases where the government screwed up and gave people more money than they should have, based on the facts known to the government at the time.

      I'd love to see our Government devote the same energies to resolving underpayment issues.

      People who drop spoilers without warning roll their turds in little balls.

      by JesseCW on Tue Apr 15, 2014 at 11:07:30 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Of course, they aren't going after estates (4+ / 0-)

      They're going after the current income of people who had nothing to do with the over payment and may not even be the child who benefited from the payments if the payments were even received which they don't even seem to have to bother to document.

      What could not have been foreseen (and if it could, off with their heads) would be going after people who could not have legally entered into the financial obligation to begin with. If you were too young to sign a contract, even if you benefitted from the overpayment, there is no legal way they can take it from you now, I would think.
      •  Depends. (0+ / 0-)

        Offsets will hit estates - if an estate is entitled to a refund or some other Federal payment for some reason.

        However, generally estates aren't entitled to any payment from the government for a refund or otherwise, so there is nothing to offset.  Hence why they don't appear to be "going after" estates.

        "There was no such thing as a "wealthy" hunter-gatherer. It is the creation of human society that has allowed the wealthy to become wealthy. As such, they have an obligation to pay a bit more to sustain that society than the not-so-wealthy." - Me

        by Darth Stateworker on Wed Apr 16, 2014 at 12:08:42 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site