Disability payments and fraud explode in america with Obama approval

[edthecynic]

That's when the economy collapsed you freaking idiot. Learn to assess economic factors before you spout more lies. Any economy whether it be Bush's or Roosevelt's would have (if they existed in 1929) would have seen a sharp increase in applications.

But then again, in this chart, it shows no spike in 2008, but in 2010, in both percentage of applications received and approved. If you want to spin charts, you had better not do it with me. I've used your own weapons against you.

The bottom chart shows an increase in approvals throughout the Bush regime! A decline does not happen until Obama's third year.

Are you kidding me? No they did not. Applications went up, but approvals remained steady. You really aren't going to win this argument, ed. Pack up. Go home. You're through.

If you can't see approvals were higher in 2008 than 2001, you are blind.

Here are the numbers, Bush had only one down year in 8. Obama already has 2.

Disabled-worker data: applications & awards

 

[TemplarKormac]

The bottom chart shows an increase in approvals throughout the Bush regime! A decline does not happen until Obama's third year.

Are you kidding me? No they did not. Applications went up, but approvals remained steady. You really aren't going to win this argument, ed. Pack up. Go home. You're through.

If you can't see approvals were higher in 2008 than 2001, you are blind.

Here are the numbers, Bush had only one down year in 8. Obama already has 2.

Disabled-worker data: applications & awards

Not what this chart says.

Bush had 6 down years; 2000-2004, 2006, and 2007, and only 2 up years, 2005 and 2008. Beginning in 2000, the percentage of approvals per amount of applications actually went down. Bush was elected in 2000, numbskull, and your argument is now dead in the water.

 

[edthecynic]

SSDI approvals have been going down since Republicans were elected to the house.

I love it, I disprove the OP blaming Obama with a lie, and the Right then tries to take credit for the truth.

Is that an admission of defeat? Or an overall admission that you're a liar? Pathetic.

Is that an admission that the number of APPLICATIONS fails to prove the OP and serves only to deceive the gullible?
The Right is pathetic!

 

[TemplarKormac]

I love it, I disprove the OP blaming Obama with a lie, and the Right then tries to take credit for the truth.

Is that an admission of defeat? Or an overall admission that you're a liar? Pathetic.

Is that an admission that the number of APPLICATIONS fails to prove the OP and serves only to deceive the gullible?
The Right is pathetic!

You're desperate. You can't combat my argument anymore, then viciously lash out at the author of this thread, and issue a cliche "The right is pathetic!"

No, you're pathetic. This argument is now over.

 

[edthecynic]

Are you kidding me? No they did not. Applications went up, but approvals remained steady. You really aren't going to win this argument, ed. Pack up. Go home. You're through.

If you can't see approvals were higher in 2008 than 2001, you are blind.

Here are the numbers, Bush had only one down year in 8. Obama already has 2.

Disabled-worker data: applications & awards

Not what this chart says.

Bush had 6 down years. 2000-2004, 2006, and 2007, and only 2 up years, 2005 and 2008. Beginning in 2000, the percentage of approvals per amount of applications actually went down. Bush was elected in 2000, numbskull. And your argument is destroyed.

Notice how the Right always move the goalposts and switch charts when they are proven wrong!
And Bush took office in 2001, idiot.

 

[TemplarKormac]

If you can't see approvals were higher in 2008 than 2001, you are blind.

Here are the numbers, Bush had only one down year in 8. Obama already has 2.

Disabled-worker data: applications & awards

Not what this chart says.

Bush had 6 down years. 2000-2004, 2006, and 2007, and only 2 up years, 2005 and 2008. Beginning in 2000, the percentage of approvals per amount of applications actually went down. Bush was elected in 2000, numbskull. And your argument is destroyed.

Notice how the Right always move the goalposts when they are proven wrong!
And Bush took office in 2001, idiot.

Notice that you can only score a small error in my statements. Even still, a decrease took place after 2001, even still, Bush had more down years than Obama, and even still, you're wrong. The Republican Party held both houses in 2000, so your point is moot. They started going down even when they took offices in 1999. You still have nothing to throw at me. Beat it.

 

[TemplarKormac]

A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes.”

― Mark Twain

 

[edthecynic]

Applications went up, but approvals remained steady. You really aren't going to win this argument, ed. Pack up. Go home. You're through.

Not what this chart says.

Bush had 6 down years. 2000-2004, 2006, and 2007, and only 2 up years, 2005 and 2008. Beginning in 2000, the percentage of approvals per amount of applications actually went down. Bush was elected in 2000, numbskull. And your argument is destroyed.

Notice how the Right always move the goalposts when they are proven wrong!
And Bush took office in 2001, idiot.

Notice that you can only score a small error in my statements. Even still, a decrease took place after 2001, even still, Bush had more down years than Obama, and even still, you're wrong. The Republican Party held both houses in 2000, so your point is moot. They started going down even when they took offices in 1999. You still have nothing to throw at me. Beat it.

You got caught switching charts. Your first statement matched the first chart you used so it was no error, and you know it but are too dishonest to admit you and the OP are wrong.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Applications went up, but approvals remained steady. You really aren't going to win this argument, ed. Pack up. Go home. You're through.

Notice how the Right always move the goalposts when they are proven wrong!
And Bush took office in 2001, idiot.

Notice that you can only score a small error in my statements. Even still, a decrease took place after 2001, even still, Bush had more down years than Obama, and even still, you're wrong. The Republican Party held both houses in 2000, so your point is moot. They started going down even when they took offices in 1999. You still have nothing to throw at me. Beat it.

You got caught switching charts. Your first statement matched the first chart you used so it was no error, and you know it but are too dishonest to admit you and the OP are wrong.

Actually, Your charts contradicted one another. That's what you get for not linking two relevant charts to one another. Nice try.

 

[Politico]

And still the ones who actually need it can't get what they are owed.

 

[edthecynic]

Applications went up, but approvals remained steady. You really aren't going to win this argument, ed. Pack up. Go home. You're through.

Notice that you can only score a small error in my statements. Even still, a decrease took place after 2001, even still, Bush had more down years than Obama, and even still, you're wrong. The Republican Party held both houses in 2000, so your point is moot. They started going down even when they took offices in 1999. You still have nothing to throw at me. Beat it.

You got caught switching charts. Your first statement matched the first chart you used so it was no error, and you know it but are too dishonest to admit you and the OP are wrong.

Actually, Your charts contradicted one another. That's what you get for not linking two relevant charts to one another. Nice try.

No they don't. As the number of applications increase, the number of rejections increase bringing down the % approval per number of applications. That is why using the number of applications, as the OP did, is deliberately misleading to claim an "EXPLOSION" of disability benefits. Each chart disproves the OP in different ways.

 

[FA_Q2]

You got caught switching charts. Your first statement matched the first chart you used so it was no error, and you know it but are too dishonest to admit you and the OP are wrong.

Actually, Your charts contradicted one another. That's what you get for not linking two relevant charts to one another. Nice try.

No they don't. As the number of applications increase, the number of rejections increase bringing down the % approval per number of applications. That is why using the number of applications, as the OP did, is deliberately misleading to claim an "EXPLOSION" of disability benefits. Each chart disproves the OP in different ways.

No, they really do not because the number of applications accepted ALSO is completely meaningless without more data.

Now, it is worthy to note that the attached link does not support the Op at all - there is nothing there about Obama or his administration exploding the public dole. What it does state is possibly a huge problem - those roles are expanding quickly.

The only way that accepted claims matters is if you also include the number of claims that end in that same time period. If the accepted claims grow by 1 million a year (as your charts state) but those falling off the program are only 500K a year then that IS a problem. It is a particularly bad problem when you include the fact that the labor participation rate is as low as it is now as those in the workforce are the ones that have to pay those claims.


I don't actually know what the drop off rate is but without that, ALL of this information is out of context and really proves nothing.

 

[edthecynic]

Actually, Your charts contradicted one another. That's what you get for not linking two relevant charts to one another. Nice try.

No they don't. As the number of applications increase, the number of rejections increase bringing down the % approval per number of applications. That is why using the number of applications, as the OP did, is deliberately misleading to claim an "EXPLOSION" of disability benefits. Each chart disproves the OP in different ways.

No, they really do not because the number of applications accepted ALSO is completely meaningless without more data.

Now, it is worthy to note that the attached link does not support the Op at all - there is nothing there about Obama or his administration exploding the public dole. What it does state is possibly a huge problem - those roles are expanding quickly.

The only way that accepted claims matters is if you also include the number of claims that end in that same time period. If the accepted claims grow by 1 million a year (as your charts state) but those falling off the program are only 500K a year then that IS a problem. It is a particularly bad problem when you include the fact that the labor participation rate is as low as it is now as those in the workforce are the ones that have to pay those claims.


I don't actually know what the drop off rate is but without that, ALL of this information is out of context and really proves nothing.

The LPR is another worthless stat whose only purpose is to deceive. The LPR is affected by demographics, in this case by Boomers retiring, and means nothing about the quality of the economy. And those Boomers have PREPAID for over 50 years trillions into SS to cover those claims.

 

[KNB]

If trickle-down theory actually worked, record corporate profits would lead to a lower unemployment rate.

 

[candycorn]

When you file, about 2/3 get turned down for SSD.

So lets say 100 people file;

33 get SSD when they file
67 get denied.

Out of the 67, half will appeal. So 33 appeal.

Out of the 33, if they get representation, two thirds or 22 of them get SSD.

Here is the kicker: In the appeal hearing, the federal government does not send a lawyer to the hearing to try to stop the previously-denied person from getting disability. Nobody from the governemnt outside of the judge is in the freaking room!!!! Nobody is there to say, "Your honor, this person is not disabled due to XYZ...


SIDEBAR: The check the lawyers get comes out of the award SSD makes to the plaintiff--directly from the Government. One year, a law firm named Binder & Binder got a check for $68 Million Dollars from the government for winning these cases where their attorney was in a court room without opposing counsel present.

More Here: http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/285551-if-you-want-to-be-angered.html

 

[edthecynic]

Applications went up, but approvals remained steady. You really aren't going to win this argument, ed. Pack up. Go home. You're through.

Notice that you can only score a small error in my statements. Even still, a decrease took place after 2001, even still, Bush had more down years than Obama, and even still, you're wrong. The Republican Party held both houses in 2000, so your point is moot. They started going down even when they took offices in 1999. You still have nothing to throw at me. Beat it.

You got caught switching charts. Your first statement matched the first chart you used so it was no error, and you know it but are too dishonest to admit you and the OP are wrong.

Actually, Your charts contradicted one another. That's what you get for not linking two relevant charts to one another. Nice try.

Well, since you can't read charts, here are the numbers. No matter how you slice it, award %s are down under Obama in spite of an aging Boomer population.

Disabled-worker statistics

 

[FA_Q2]

No they don't. As the number of applications increase, the number of rejections increase bringing down the % approval per number of applications. That is why using the number of applications, as the OP did, is deliberately misleading to claim an "EXPLOSION" of disability benefits. Each chart disproves the OP in different ways.

No, they really do not because the number of applications accepted ALSO is completely meaningless without more data.

Now, it is worthy to note that the attached link does not support the Op at all - there is nothing there about Obama or his administration exploding the public dole. What it does state is possibly a huge problem - those roles are expanding quickly.

The only way that accepted claims matters is if you also include the number of claims that end in that same time period. If the accepted claims grow by 1 million a year (as your charts state) but those falling off the program are only 500K a year then that IS a problem. It is a particularly bad problem when you include the fact that the labor participation rate is as low as it is now as those in the workforce are the ones that have to pay those claims.


I don't actually know what the drop off rate is but without that, ALL of this information is out of context and really proves nothing.

The LPR is another worthless stat whose only purpose is to deceive. The LPR is affected by demographics, in this case by Boomers retiring, and means nothing about the quality of the economy. And those Boomers have PREPAID for over 50 years trillions into SS to cover those claims.

false.

The LPR as an indication of the relative health of the economy is irrelevant. That is not what this thread is about. As an indication of the number of people paying into the system - it is very relevant. Fewer people are paying in while more are taking about. This is a known fact and is very relevant to the availability of the funds for actually paying those benefits. This matters greatly.

Further, the idea that those drawing retirement have prepaid for it is also irrelevant. It is only relevant in a conversation about whether or not they deserve the payments considering they already paid for them. That is not in contention atm. Those 'prepayments' don't actually exists and the social security 'trust fund' is nothing more than a IOU. This is also fact. The way the program is structured is such over payments go into governmental bonds - basically paid into the general fund with a promise to pay them back from that same fund. Simply put - it was SPENT.

Now, I am not arguing about whether or not this system is a good one or should be the way that we handle SS BUT it is haw we actually do handle those payments and when the claims against the fund INCREASE while the payments to it do not keep pace there is a very real problem.

Again, this all feeds back to the fact that all the data provided in this thread amounts to a hill of beans because it is presented without anything to place it in context such as the number of claims that end in a given year.

 

[edthecynic]

No, they really do not because the number of applications accepted ALSO is completely meaningless without more data.

Now, it is worthy to note that the attached link does not support the Op at all - there is nothing there about Obama or his administration exploding the public dole. What it does state is possibly a huge problem - those roles are expanding quickly.

The only way that accepted claims matters is if you also include the number of claims that end in that same time period. If the accepted claims grow by 1 million a year (as your charts state) but those falling off the program are only 500K a year then that IS a problem. It is a particularly bad problem when you include the fact that the labor participation rate is as low as it is now as those in the workforce are the ones that have to pay those claims.


I don't actually know what the drop off rate is but without that, ALL of this information is out of context and really proves nothing.

The LPR is another worthless stat whose only purpose is to deceive. The LPR is affected by demographics, in this case by Boomers retiring, and means nothing about the quality of the economy. And those Boomers have PREPAID for over 50 years trillions into SS to cover those claims.

false.

The LPR as an indication of the relative health of the economy is irrelevant. That is not what this thread is about. As an indication of the number of people paying into the system - it is very relevant. Fewer people are paying in while more are taking about. This is a known fact and is very relevant to the availability of the funds for actually paying those benefits. This matters greatly.

Further, the idea that those drawing retirement have prepaid for it is also irrelevant. It is only relevant in a conversation about whether or not they deserve the payments considering they already paid for them. That is not in contention atm. Those 'prepayments' don't actually exists and the social security 'trust fund' is nothing more than a IOU. This is also fact. The way the program is structured is such over payments go into governmental bonds - basically paid into the general fund with a promise to pay them back from that same fund. Simply put - it was SPENT.

Now, I am not arguing about whether or not this system is a good one or should be the way that we handle SS BUT it is haw we actually do handle those payments and when the claims against the fund INCREASE while the payments to it do not keep pace there is a very real problem.

Again, this all feeds back to the fact that all the data provided in this thread amounts to a hill of beans because it is presented without anything to place it in context such as the number of claims that end in a given year.

So basically the fact that you ignore the links makes everyone else wrong.