Sorry. You guys are correct. Admittedly there's some frustration knowing I am paying into a pot that will be empty by the time I'm eligible to receive it but others shouldn't suffer here and now because of that.

^^^ Thanks.

quote:

Originally posted by ridewv:

quote:

Originally posted by tleddy:
…

Have you read Fed161's response to the above in another thread?

https://sigforum.com/eve/forum...935/m/6450086315/p/2

I did and note the following element:

quote:

Every office gets a listing of beneficiaries attaining age 100. SSA EE's do a personal FACE to FACE visit with all of the 100 attainments. ID is reviewed. The beneficiary (or caregiver) is also questioned to verify identity of the person seen face to face. After the 100 attainment cases are worked, periodically we get listings of older people who already had the 100 attainment review, but are still collecting. Same review process. The listings are annotated electronically by the employee who did the review with date, time of review etc. If you take a 120 year old for example, they have had multiple face to face reviews at different times by different employees.

Then why did DOGE discover 12 million of them?


I’m spitballing here, but the statement that the “listings are annotated electronically by the employee who did the review with date, time of review etc.…” shows those employees aren’t doing their job with even a modicum of care.

quote:

Then why did DOGE discover 12 million of them?

I’m spitballing here, but the statement that the “listings are annotated electronically by the employee who did the review with date, time of review etc.…” shows those employees aren’t doing their job with even a modicum of care.

Yes, with all due respect to Fed161, I'm sure care and diligence and even motivation vary greatly person to person, and even office to office depending on the supervisor. Just like in the private sector... there are bad actors but not all of them are bad.

quote:

Originally posted by Carpentermaass84:
Sorry. You guys are correct. Admittedly there's some frustration knowing I am paying into a pot that will be empty by the time I'm eligible to receive it but others shouldn't suffer here and now because of that.

The pot is already empty. Smoke and mirrors are used to make it appear to have assets, but the fund has been pillaged to be spent elsewhere. The taxpayer is on the hook to pay back the iou's!

It could have been saved 40 years ago. Now it is just a matter of whether it is brought to a controlled end or do the politicians play footsie until it suddenly fails spectacularly.

I'm just referring to:

"According to a Social Security Administration (SSA) inspector general report, approximately 6.5 million Social Security NUMBERS are linked to people listed as being 112 years old or older. Those are NUMBERS, NOT BENEFICIARIES....."

quote:

Originally posted by Sig2340:

Then why did DOGE discover 12 million of them?


I’m spitballing here, but the statement that the “listings are annotated electronically by the employee who did the review with date, time of review etc.…” shows those employees aren’t doing their job with even a modicum of care.

That was a snippet of Fed161’s post. Also in that same post was:

quote:

But you have to consider. Is it worth the time, money and effort for SSA to hunt down whether there is an unreported death if no checks are involved? I'll anticipate a question and answer it- where do these SSNs come from where no death is annotated and they were never a beneficiary. Example - children who sadly pass away, the never married 30 yr old who dies in an auto accident etc.

if you notice all the things talk about people at ridiculous ages in the database who are eligible to receive benefits. I have yet to see something saying that those 375 year olds actually are receiving benefits.

Personally, I am OCD enough that I would want the database cleaned up so that the list of eligible people was correct, not just the list of actual beneficiaries, but I can understand the economic reason not to go to that extreme.

I’m not saying there aren’t opportunities to cut costs, find and terminate fraud, etc, because I am sure there are. I’m just pointing out that SSA is probably not even remotely like USAID.

quote:

Originally posted by slosig:
I’m not saying there aren’t opportunities to cut costs, find and terminate fraud, etc, because I am sure there are. I’m just pointing out that SSA is probably not even remotely like USAID.

And I wouldn't bet money on it. Right now, I can assume, based on ALL federal agencies and such, I have ZERO trust in SSA being even somewhat trustful. I'll let DOGE dig deeper, they are actually creating sub-divisions of DOGE for various agencies, including Social Security.

quote:

Originally posted by Fly-Sig:

quote:

Originally posted by Carpentermaass84:
Sorry. You guys are correct. Admittedly there's some frustration knowing I am paying into a pot that will be empty by the time I'm eligible to receive it but others shouldn't suffer here and now because of that.

The pot is already empty. Smoke and mirrors are used to make it appear to have assets, but the fund has been pillaged to be spent elsewhere. The taxpayer is on the hook to pay back the iou's!

It could have been saved 40 years ago. Now it is just a matter of whether it is brought to a controlled end or do the politicians play footsie until it suddenly fails spectacularly.

Yeah... which is why this whole DOGE thing is so important. Social Security is just an obligation of the federal government. It has a "trust fund" of IOU's from the federal government, but it doesn't have separate assets.
When it "suddenly fails spectacularly" it will be part of the entire government and financial system that "suddenly fails spectacularly".

Which brings us to why it will fail spectacularly: It's a ponzi scheme that relies on more people contributing than taking out payments. It relies on an increasing population, which we don't have.

Writing in the Wall Street Journal, Paul Kiernan states:

“As a result of these changes, deaths are expected to exceed births in 2033, seven years earlier than the nonpartisan agency projected a year ago.”

The report shows the population receiving Social Security will grow from its current total of 342 million to 383 million by 2054. The current ratio of people aged 25–64 compared to those over 65 is 2.9-1. By 2054, it will be 2.2-1.

While better health care has resulted in longer life expectancies, thus increasing this ratio, the nation’s current population growth rate is 0.2 percent, with much of that driven by immigration rather than births. In fact, the CBO projects that the fertility rate will be approximately 1.70 percent, below the replacement level of 2.1.

So, while people living longer is one contributing factor, it is just that: one factor. There are more and greater factors in play. Perhaps the most important one is this: Americans are not getting married or forming families, or if they are, it happens later in a woman’s prime childbearing years.

For instance, in 1970, married couples made up 71 percent of all American households. By 2022, that percentage had decreased to just 47 percent. In 1962, 90 percent of all 30-year-olds were married, with that percentage dropping to 51 percent in 2019.

Dr. Peter H. Schuck, professor emeritus at Yale Law School, perhaps put it best when he wrote in his book, “One Nation Undecided: Clear Thinking About Five Hard Issues That Divide Us”:

“The family is the essential core of any society, and the steady decline of two-parent households is probably the single most consequential social trend of the half-century.”

https://www.zerohedge.com/poli...ming-our-death-knell

quote:

“The family is the essential core of any society, and the steady decline of two-parent households is probably the single most consequential social trend of the half-century.”

I know three youngish women who have had children by artificial insemination; they are bright, well-educated women who, despite years of dating, never found a mate.
IMO feminism and the sexual revolution the chief culprits; along with a decline in participation in organized religion. To put it another way, men have become what women made them, and women don't like what they see.

quote:

Originally posted by sjtill:
men have become what women made them, and women don't like what they see.

This.

quote:

Originally posted by sjtill:

quote:

“The family is the essential core of any society, and the steady decline of two-parent households is probably the single most consequential social trend of the half-century.”

I know three youngish women who have had children by artificial insemination; they are bright, well-educated women who, despite years of dating, never found a mate.
IMO feminism and the sexual revolution the chief culprits; along with a decline in participation in organized religion. To put it another way, men have become what women made them, and women don't like what they see.

Yep. Without disparaging those 3 in particular, many of those bright, well-educated women who, despite years of dating, never found a mate... but were sexually active the entire time. Birth control and abortion have made sex a merely recreational activity for both sexes, rather than monogamous and procreational.

quote:

Originally posted by TomS:

quote:

Originally posted by sjtill:
men have become what women made them, and women don't like what they see.

This.

I don’t agree. Many men have gone along with the flow and became what women appeared to want, sure. Women didn’t make men though, (so called) men chose to be that way.

It isn’t always easy or comfortable to say “Screw conventional wisdom or whatever ‘everybody else’ is doing.” and be true to what you believe, but it can be done. And while it won’t make one the homecoming king, in my experience there are folks out there who respond well to people who are authentic, where or not they are in sync with others.

This whole SSN "age" problem is beyond me??? If you're an administrator or department manager, or team lead, or team member why the fuck has no one demanded a report of everyone over say... 100 years old? No one in SSAs IT department said, all these null birthdays are making a lot of people look older that 150 years old? Nobody thought of these issues? Give me a fucking break, this was by design and my guess is there were a lot more people involved that a few bosses.

Jesus

https://x.com/libsoftiktok/status/1891945288832577621

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
Jesus

It appears that President Donald J. trump has surrounded himself with team members who, like himself, don’t allow themselves to be boxed into directly answering a “Are you still beating your wife?” question. Instead they turn the question on it’s head, cut straight to the heart of the matter, and eviscerate the morons trying to box them in. It was refreshing and delightful when President Trump did it, but it is almost magical now that his whole team is doing it!


Another thing that is wonderful about this time around is that instead of just President Trump being the “bad guy” with the entire libtard political, media, and tech worlds ganging up to paint this one man as the antichrist, his whole team is out there, moving the ball down the field, exposing corruption and waste and forcing the libtards to try to defend the corruption and waste that a majority of American voters sent him and his team to Washington DC to root out and eradicate. It just exposes them for the slimy fecal sacks that they are.

It truly is a glorious time to be alive, particularly after the last several administrations, going back to at least all of them post Reagan. Something tells me that when we look back after this 47th administration, even Reagan’s star will be shining a little less brightly.

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
Jesus

https://x.com/libsoftiktok/status/1891945288832577621

[FLASH_VIDEO]<iframe id="twitter-widget-1" scrolling="no" src="https://platform.twitter.com/embed/Tweet.html?dnt=true&embedId=twitter-widget-0&frame=false&hideCard=false&hideThread=false&lang=en&theme=&id=1891945288832577621" style="position: static; visibility: visible; width: 550px; height: 648px; display: block; border: medium; background-repeat: no-repeat; background-image: url('https://codejanitor.net/embeds/images/bgmessage.png'); background-position: center 85px; background-size: 200px; overflow: hidden;" title="Twitter Tweet"></iframe>[/FLASH_VIDEO]

She looks like there is something stuck in her rectum.

Bullshit. Illegals' are not stealing taxpayer dollars, or fraudulently using SSANs or getting any benefits or stuff.

It's all unpossible bullshit.

quote:

Originally posted by sigmonkey:
Bullshit. Illegals' are not stealing taxpayer dollars, or fraudulently using SSANs or getting any benefits or stuff.

It's all unpossible bullshit.

What? I hope this was a poor attempt at a joke?