Republican Congressmen want to help fraudsters rip off seniors...

[CrusaderFrank]

Then we'll need a bill to cover female Seniors!

Then Irish female Seniors!

Then Lefthanded Irish female Seniors!

 

[RetiredGySgt]

All the bill does is create an agency to SPEND tax money on "awareness" programs for Seniors. It has no provisions for judging the effectiveness of said programs and no over sight on who is getting the money for said programs. It allows something like 4 agencies to pick who gets to spend money on "awareness" programs.

In other words a waste of Government funds on a problem that this program will have almost no effect on.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

By the way? The title of this thread is misleading and inflammatory, where is a mod when you need one? I notice when a right of center poster does something like this it gets moved right away.

 

[mudwhistle]

Oh, I see, this is different fraud from mail fraud or wire fraud it's fraud against Senior citizens, right. So we need a whole new infrastructure to cover this.

Makes sense.

Not infrastructure. We need jobs....so Obama is gonna pay a bunch of white-collar folks massive amounts of cash to make everyone feel good about how seniors are being made aware of possible rip-offs on the internet.

 

[mudwhistle]

Isn't this bill just about Obama's concerns for internet rip-off awareness towards seniors?

Obama isn't in Congress. Believe it or not, not every bill introduced in Congress is about Obama.

Actually since he's gonna sign it the damned thing will become about Obama. Once it becomes law the FBI can be called in to investigate anything that's posted on the internet if somebody feels it fraudulent against seniors. Maybe even conservative "lies".

I'm really sure that's all it's about.

Jesus you're gullible.

It is. You could read the text yourself but I understand 8 pages is a pretty lengthy read. As noted above, this passed the House under suspension of the rules with 335 ayes. It's not particularly controversial, nor is it incomprehensible.

Government isn't really all that opaque, most people are just lazy.

Most people don't understand reading above a 5th grade level ether.

8 pages is not a lengthy read to someone like me, asshole....but it seems that 10 was too much for the DOJ and the White House where AZ was concerned. You said it would take 2 mins to read eight pages. How much comprehension do you think anyone would have reading such a document that fast? Most people can read 500 words per min and get a reading comp of around 90 percent. Have you counted how many words are in this bill? Do you think it's possible for anyone to have a complete grasp of what it means in only 2 mins?

Another thing that you may have not noticed....why is it seniors are the only concern here? Why not everyone? Get back to me on that one.

By the way...if you really think this piece of shit legislation is worth anyone's time and money....please explain why? You seem to be quick to point out what it contains but you're a little slow on explaining what benefit it has for the target group it covers.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Republicans Who Voted Against Senior Fraud Protection Legislation

Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn (TN)
Boehner (OH)
Bono Mack
Brady (TX)
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Burgess (TX)
Burton (IN)
Buyer (IN)
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cantor (VA)
Carter (TX)
Chaffetz (UT)
Coble (NC)
Coffman (CO)
Conaway (TX)
Duncan (TN)
Flake (AZ)
Fleming (LA)
Foxx (NC)
Franks (AZ)
Garrett (NJ)
Gingrey (GA)
Goodlatte (VA)
Graves (GA)
Hastings (WA)
Hensarling (TX)
Herger (CA)
Hunter (CA)
Inglis (SC)
Issa (CA)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan (OH)
King (IA)
Kingston (GA)
Lamborn (CO)
Latta (OH)
Lummis (WY)
Mack (FL)
Manzullo (IL)
Marchant (TX)
McCarthy (CA
McClintock (CA)
McKeon (CA)
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (CA)
Myrick (NC)
Nunes (CA)
Olson (TX)
Paul (TX)
Roskam (IL)
Royce (CA)
Pence (IN)
Petri (WI)
Price (GA)
Radanovich
Roe (TN)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher)
Ryan (WI)
Schmidt (OH)
Sensenbrenner (WI)
Simpson (ID)
Stearns (FL)
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry (TX)
Tiberi (OH)
Upton (MI)
Walden (OR)
Westmoreland (GA)
Wilson (SC)
Young (AK)

Really? They're so dead set on undermining the Democrats that they vote against legislation to protect seniors from fraud?

Wow. Good Work!

A bill is only as good as what's written in it. So tell us why the Republicans voted against such a worthy endeavor?

 

[Greenbeard]

All the bill does is create an agency to SPEND tax money on "awareness" programs for Seniors.

Can we stop with the "creates an agency" thing? Consumer protection already falls under the purview of the Federal Trade Commission. All this bill does is give them a small amount of additional funding to target information dissemination at seniors and their caregivers. The main justifications of this take up the bulk of the bill and are in the "findings" section. Some of the key ones include:

(6) The Federal Bureau of Investigation notes that seniors in the United States are less likely to report fraud because they do not know to whom to report, they are ashamed to have been a victim of fraud, or they do not know that they have been a victim of fraud. In some cases, a senior who has been a victim of fraud may not report the crime because he or she is concerned that relatives may conclude that the senior no longer has the mental capacity to take care of his or her own financial affairs.

(7) According to a 2009 report by the MetLife Mature Market Institute, the annual financial loss by victims of senior financial abuse is estimated to be at least $2,600,000,000.

(14) A 2003 report by AARP found that, though the crime of telemarketing fraud is grossly underreported among seniors who have been victims of such fraud, seniors who are properly counseled by trained peer volunteers are less likely to fall victim to fraudulent practices.

(15) The Federal Bureau of Investigation reports that the threat of fraud to seniors is growing and changing. This is largely due to the fact that many younger Baby Boomers have considerable computer skills and criminals have responded by targeting seniors through online scams like phishing and email spamming, in addition to traditional telephone calls and mass mailings.​

It has no provisions for judging the effectiveness of said programs and no over sight on who is getting the money for said programs. It allows something like 4 agencies to pick who gets to spend money on "awareness" programs.

So if the bill appropriated money for a study of the impact of consumer education on fraud, you wouldn't be complaining about that? Anyway, internal oversight of FTC finances is conducted by the relevant OIG and oversight of the competitive grants program to law enforcement agencies and non-profits would be something worked out administratively within the FTC.

And, no, it doesn't let agencies pick who spends the money, it requires the FTC to consult with the Attorney General, HHS, the Postmaster General, the Chief Postal Inspector for the United States Postal Inspection Service, and the Director of the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection before it decides how to best use the money for information dissemination.

You said it would take 2 mins to read eight pages. How much comprehension do you think anyone would have reading such a document that fast? Most people can read 500 words per min and get a reading comp of around 90 percent. Have you counted how many words are in this bill?

Microsoft Word seems to think it's about 1400 words. Very well, I should have said three minutes. Sorry.

Another thing that you may have not noticed....why is it seniors are the only concern here? Why not everyone? Get back to me on that one.

The entire spirit of the bill is that seniors are especially vulnerable to fraud and thus would benefit from direct FTC dissemination activities that extend beyond the FTC's existing consumer protection work (which does apply to everyone).

By the way...if you really think this piece of shit legislation is worth anyone's time and money....please explain why? You seem to be quick to point out what it contains but you're a little slow on explaining what benefit it has for the target group it covers.

It really depends whether you want to dedicate resources to helping seniors defend themselves from fraud. There's no right answer here.

My concern here isn't to advocate for this bill; I just prefer when people have some idea what the hell they're talking about.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The Conservative President in 2012 will have to dismantl...er I mean reform, a lot of this wasteful Progressive stupidity.

What a waste of money! And at a time when we have a $1.5T deficit and the Chinese cut our credit rating

Progressives are determined to run us into bankruptcy

 

[CrusaderFrank]

How's this: let's raise awareness that Dems have no respect for the Constitution or taxpayer money.

 

[Vast LWC]

What's the matter boys, can't take your own talking point medicine?

Yeah, the post doesn't tell the whole story, it's a talking point.

How did you like your own tactics being thrown back at you?

Yeah boyee. Hit and run Spinimeister thread!

Typical dimwit, proved a liar and you spin it. I suppose you blindly support the socialist in charge?

Wow, some people on these boards are seriously messed up.

Tell me, who "proved me a liar" before I made this post? Hell, who "proved me a liar" after I made this post?

Answer: No one.

I was making a point, one which I readily admitted to about 5 posts into this thread.

The spin was in the first post of the thread, as I pointed out. Not in the following posts.

Thanks for playing though!

 

[mudwhistle]

All the bill does is create an agency to SPEND tax money on "awareness" programs for Seniors.

Can we stop with the "creates an agency" thing? Consumer protection already falls under the purview of the Federal Trade Commission. All this bill does is give them a small amount of additional funding to target information dissemination at seniors and their caregivers. The main justifications of this take up the bulk of the bill and are in the "findings" section. Some of the key ones include:

(6) The Federal Bureau of Investigation notes that seniors in the United States are less likely to report fraud because they do not know to whom to report, they are ashamed to have been a victim of fraud, or they do not know that they have been a victim of fraud. In some cases, a senior who has been a victim of fraud may not report the crime because he or she is concerned that relatives may conclude that the senior no longer has the mental capacity to take care of his or her own financial affairs.

(7) According to a 2009 report by the MetLife Mature Market Institute, the annual financial loss by victims of senior financial abuse is estimated to be at least $2,600,000,000.

(14) A 2003 report by AARP found that, though the crime of telemarketing fraud is grossly underreported among seniors who have been victims of such fraud, seniors who are properly counseled by trained peer volunteers are less likely to fall victim to fraudulent practices.

(15) The Federal Bureau of Investigation reports that the threat of fraud to seniors is growing and changing. This is largely due to the fact that many younger Baby Boomers have considerable computer skills and criminals have responded by targeting seniors through online scams like phishing and email spamming, in addition to traditional telephone calls and mass mailings.​

It has no provisions for judging the effectiveness of said programs and no over sight on who is getting the money for said programs. It allows something like 4 agencies to pick who gets to spend money on "awareness" programs.

So if the bill appropriated money for a study of the impact of consumer education on fraud, you wouldn't be complaining about that? Anyway, internal oversight of FTC finances is conducted by the relevant OIG and oversight of the competitive grants program to law enforcement agencies and non-profits would be something worked out administratively within the FTC.

And, no, it doesn't let agencies pick who spends the money, it requires the FTC to consult with the Attorney General, HHS, the Postmaster General, the Chief Postal Inspector for the United States Postal Inspection Service, and the Director of the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection before it decides how to best use the money for information dissemination.



Microsoft Word seems to think it's about 1400 words. Very well, I should have said three minutes. Sorry.

Another thing that you may have not noticed....why is it seniors are the only concern here? Why not everyone? Get back to me on that one.

The entire spirit of the bill is that seniors are especially vulnerable to fraud and thus would benefit from direct FTC dissemination activities that extend beyond the FTC's existing consumer protection work (which does apply to everyone).

By the way...if you really think this piece of shit legislation is worth anyone's time and money....please explain why? You seem to be quick to point out what it contains but you're a little slow on explaining what benefit it has for the target group it covers.

It really depends whether you want to dedicate resources to helping seniors defend themselves from fraud. There's no right answer here.

My concern here isn't to advocate for this bill; I just prefer when people have some idea what the hell they're talking about.

Sorry...fail.

Anybody check to see how many senior citizens even own computers much less surf the net?

Most don't.

Next stupid post.

 

[mudwhistle]

How's this: let's raise awareness that Dems have no respect for the Constitution or taxpayer money.

I think we need a blue ribbon commission that raises awareness of corruption in government and keeps us informed on how much the Dems have spent and on what. Make sure that we're all aware of pending legislation and all hiring and firing by the White House...the backgrounds of everyone that is hired at least 30 days before they start work.

Call it the voter protection commission or VPC.

 

[rdean]

Seniors are NOT corporations. Only corporations are really important.

 

[mudwhistle]

Seniors are NOT corporations. Only corporations are really important.

Maybe seniors as a whole are too big to fail.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Bush deregulated Seniors!