About 89,000 stimulus payments of $250 each to dead and incarcerated people

[andymays]

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2010/10/07/maybe-you-can-take-it-with-you-stimulus-checks-sent-to-the-dead/

Excerpt:

The SSA says that the stimulus package didn’t include a provision allowing it to try to retrieve funds that were mistakenly sent out, so it can’t try to retrieve the rest of the money. Money transferred electronically may be sitting untouched in bank accounts of dead people.

The combined total of the mistaken payments is $22.3 million. About $12 million hasn’t been returned.

[boxcar]

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2010/10/07/maybe-you-can-take-it-with-you-stimulus-checks-sent-to-the-dead/

Excerpt:

The SSA says that the stimulus package didn’t include a provision allowing it to try to retrieve funds that were mistakenly sent out, so it can’t try to retrieve the rest of the money. Money transferred electronically may be sitting untouched in bank accounts of dead people.

The combined total of the mistaken payments is $22.3 million. About $12 million hasn’t been returned.

And this is how the state operates on a really good day. :rolleyes:

Boxcar

[NJ Stinks]

Hey Andy, why don't you post a story that actually has some relevance for a change. Something like this:
_____________________________________________

Putting the $3.9 trillion extension of the Bush tax cuts in context


More needs to be done to put the numbers involved in extending the Bush tax cuts in context, so consider this: There is no policy that President Obama has passed or proposed that added as much to the deficit as the Republican Party's $3.9 trillion extension (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/14/AR2010091406838.html?hpid=topnews) of the Bush tax cuts. In fact, if you put aside Obama's plan to extend most, but not all, of the Bush tax cuts, there is no policy he has passed or proposed that would do half as much damage to the deficit. There is not even a policy that would do a quarter as much damage to the deficit.

The stimulus bill, at $787 billion, would do about a fifth as much damage. But that's actually misleading: The stimulus bill was a temporary expense (not to mention a response to an unexpected emergency). Once it's done, it's done. An indefinite extension of the Bush tax cuts is, well, indefinite. It will cost $3.9 trillion in the first 10 years. And then it will cost more than that in the second 10 years. Call that number Y. And then it will cost more than Y in the third 10 years. And so on and on into eternity. Comparatively, the stimulus bill is a tiny fraction of that. The bank bailouts, which were passed by George W. Bush and the Democrats in 2006, will end up costing the government only $66 billion (http://cboblog.cbo.gov/?p=1322). The health-care bill improves the deficit outlook.

Republicans and tea party candidates are both running campaigns based around concern for the deficit. But both, to my knowledge, support the single-largest increase in the deficit that anyone of either party has proposed in memory.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/09/putting_the_39_trillion_extens.html

[andymays]

Hey Andy, why don't you post a story that actually has some relevance for a change. Something like this:
_____________________________________________

Putting the $3.9 trillion extension of the Bush tax cuts in context


More needs to be done to put the numbers involved in extending the Bush tax cuts in context, so consider this: There is no policy that President Obama has passed or proposed that added as much to the deficit as the Republican Party's $3.9 trillion extension (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/14/AR2010091406838.html?hpid=topnews) of the Bush tax cuts. In fact, if you put aside Obama's plan to extend most, but not all, of the Bush tax cuts, there is no policy he has passed or proposed that would do half as much damage to the deficit. There is not even a policy that would do a quarter as much damage to the deficit.

The stimulus bill, at $787 billion, would do about a fifth as much damage. But that's actually misleading: The stimulus bill was a temporary expense (not to mention a response to an unexpected emergency). Once it's done, it's done. An indefinite extension of the Bush tax cuts is, well, indefinite. It will cost $3.9 trillion in the first 10 years. And then it will cost more than that in the second 10 years. Call that number Y. And then it will cost more than Y in the third 10 years. And so on and on into eternity. Comparatively, the stimulus bill is a tiny fraction of that. The bank bailouts, which were passed by George W. Bush and the Democrats in 2006, will end up costing the government only $66 billion (http://cboblog.cbo.gov/?p=1322). The health-care bill improves the deficit outlook.

Republicans and tea party candidates are both running campaigns based around concern for the deficit. But both, to my knowledge, support the single-largest increase in the deficit that anyone of either party has proposed in memory.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/09/putting_the_39_trillion_extens.html

Is the story accurate or not?

As far as asking me to post the article you like I have to ask why you don't post it yourself? Just remember to duck for cover after you post it. ;)

[mostpost]

And this is how the state operates on a really good day. :rolleyes:

Boxcar
On a really good day, such as this, the state gets 99.8% of the stimulus money to the proper recipient. That fact is in the story. A lot of the payments wre made to people who the SSA had not yet been notified were deceased. Also much of the money has been returned.

But I do have a question for the SSA. They say the law did not have provisions for them to seek return of money disbursed incorrectly. But if a regular Social Security payment is sent to a recently deceased person, they have a way of getting that money back. Why not use those same methods here?

[boxcar]

On a really good day, such as this, the state gets 99.8% of the stimulus money to the proper recipient. That fact is in the story. A lot of the payments wre made to people who the SSA had not yet been notified were deceased. Also much of the money has been returned.

But I do have a question for the SSA. They say the law did not have provisions for them to seek return of money disbursed incorrectly. But if a regular Social Security payment is sent to a recently deceased person, they have a way of getting that money back. Why not use those same methods here?

And on a really bad day, the state can't reign in BILLIONS upon BILLIONS in medicare fraud and waste. You remember hearing about this pre-ObaminationCare, right? And about how when the Obamanots promised to find all this fraud and waste to help pay for OC? But now after OC, I have a real tough time finding how that has been working out for the politicians. Where's all those billions they were going to hunt down and reforms they were going to make? They talked a really good game prior to OC passing, but now have gone suddenly very quiet.

99.8%, eh? Isn't that the same number your use to express the degree of honesty and integrity you think there is in government? :lol: :lol: :lol:

Boxcar

[mostpost]

Is the story accurate or not?

As far as asking me to post the article you like I have to ask why you don't post it yourself? Just remember to duck for cover after you post it. ;)
The story is accurate. It's your (and Boxcar's) interpretation that is lacking.
It isn't a case of government incompetence. The same thing has happened here as happens with every Social Security payment. Between the time the checks are cut and mailed or sent electronically, people die. The payments go out and are returned. That's what's happening here.
$10M may seem like a lot of money, and it is, but is one tenth of one percent of the total sent out.

[mostpost]

And on a really bad day, the state can't reign in BILLIONS upon BILLIONS in medicare fraud and waste. You remember hearing about this pre-ObaminationCare, right? And about how when the Obamanots promised to find all this fraud and waste to help pay for OC? But now after OC, I have a real tough time finding how that has been working out for the politicians. Where's all those billions they were going to hunt down and reforms they were going to make? They talked a really good game prior to OC passing, but now have gone suddenly very quiet.

99.8%, eh? Isn't that the same number your use to express the degree of honesty and integrity you think there is in government? :lol: :lol: :lol:

Boxcar
You mean like this?
http://blogs.wsj.com/health/2010/07/16/health-blog-qa-251-million-medicare-fraud-crackdown/
excerpt:
July 16, 2010, 3:29 PM ET.Health Blog Q&A: $251 Million Medicare Fraud Crackdown
or this?
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2010-09-20-medicare-new-rules_N.htm
excerpt:
Proposed regulations being unveiled Monday seek to crack down on Medicare and Medicaid fraud by subjecting operators of certain medical firms to fingerprinting and stopping payments when credible fraud allegations are made, documents show.
The rules would give federal health officials key powers to identify fraud early and reduce the estimated $55 billion in improper payments made each year in the Medicare and Medicaid programs, said Peter Budetti, director of the new anti-fraud office at the federal Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.
Here's another one you missed.
http://www.hhs.gov/secretary/about/speeches/smfsummit.html

Try watching something besides Fox News. :bang:

[boxcar]

You mean like this?
http://blogs.wsj.com/health/2010/07/16/health-blog-qa-251-million-medicare-fraud-crackdown/
excerpt:

or this?
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2010-09-20-medicare-new-rules_N.htm
excerpt:

Here's another one you missed.
http://www.hhs.gov/secretary/about/speeches/smfsummit.html

Try watching something besides Fox News. :bang:

Yeah....where's all the recovered billions that was supposed to help pay for ObaminationCare? :rolleyes:

Boxcar

[andymays]

The story is accurate.

Thanks. Enough said about that.

[NJ Stinks]

Is the story accurate or not?

As far as asking me to post the article you like I have to ask why you don't post it yourself? Just remember to duck for cover after you post it. ;)

Andy, I appreciate the opening your link provided. :) Notice that the righties in the readers of my post have ducked defending the absurdity of extending the Bush tax cuts. The tea is getting cold. Anybody out there willing to explain why the Republicans/Tea Party are right about extending the Bush tax cuts?

[newtothegame]

Andy, I appreciate the opening your link provided. :) Notice that the righties in the readers of my post have ducked defending the absurdity of extending the Bush tax cuts. The tea is getting cold. Anybody out there willing to explain why the Republicans/Tea Party are right about extending the Bush tax cuts?

Cause the thread is not about bush's tax cuts....duh

[boxcar]

Cause the thread is not about bush's tax cuts....duh

Uh, oh...You just confused him with a fact. :D

Boxcar

[JustRalph]

Bottom line, an incompetent government lost 12 mil and have no way to recover it

Business as usual

[Shemp Howard]

Most will also vote in the upcoming Chicago mayorial election. The Windy City way.

[Tom]

These people will run health care, right?
They FAILED at this very small level.

Is that the context you mentioned, NJ? :lol: