United States Treasury Department can now legally seize assets for parent's debt.

[JimJimmers]

Social Security, Treasury target taxpayers for their parents’ decades-old debts - The Washington Post

According to the article, "someone" tucked this game-changer into the farm bill. The statute of limitations had always been 10 years in the past.

Also, to any non-Americans, is this legal where you live? Seems entirely unfair to me.

 

[kennethcadwell]

This is completely unfair. It is just another way our governmental system is slowly taking away all the rights we were given under our constitution that was made mostly by Christian standards as the model. Free speech, freedom of religion, and others are all being taken away.

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

Good find. The government handed out money to the 0.001% in "stimulus" that never stimulated the vast majority of American citizens (even half of all new job growth which was below population growth went to foreign born workers), social welfare and illegal immigrants, and government spending most of which went to pay for a failing public education system that has grown very immoral.

The national debt is unreal it's so high and the deficit spending has picked right back up again.

So now they have to double down and squeeze American citizens to this extent.

It's disgusting. So much negligence and mismanagement. So much corruption. So much immorality.

Social Security, Treasury target taxpayers for their parents’ decades-old debts - The Washington Post

According to the article, "someone" tucked this game-changer into the farm bill. The statute of limitations had always been 10 years in the past.

Also, to any non-Americans, is this legal where you live? Seems entirely unfair to me.

 

[GodIsSalvation]

Very interesting article. This is my point of view.

1. It is not unjust for the government to collect money on debts. That's just good governance. This is especially important considerring that SS is the biggest budget item the past years running and is no doubt the pre-eminent economic trainwreck waiting to happen unless some very serious and very painful reform is taken.

2. The main crux of the problem here is that the government is collecting debts that expired under a statute of limitations before such statue was lifted according to the article, 3 years a go. So my main argument here would be Retroactivity Clause. That basically if such debts were expired/forgiven prior to 2011 that the government is not allowed to retroactively try to collect them again as per the Constitution.

I do feel bad for the woman, Mary Grice, in the article and I hope she wins her case since clearly these debts expired long a go, plus I do not feel as if a child should be responsible for a parent's debt, though I cann see the government's point of view that is SS money was used for care of the child they would by technicality be responsible for at least a portion of the debt. To be honest though I think her attorney's angle of saying she received no due process will fail since one could argue the statute has been lifted for 3 years now thus it has been public knowledge for a few years even if it wasn't broadcast on media. Then again she might be able to get some sort of settlement just so Uncle Sam can make the bad press go away lol.


Very interesting article and case either way though no doubt.

 

[JimJimmers]

Very interesting article. This is my point of view.

1. It is not unjust for the government to collect money on debts. That's just good governance. This is especially important considerring that SS is the biggest budget item the past years running and is no doubt the pre-eminent economic trainwreck waiting to happen unless some very serious and very painful reform is taken.

2. The main crux of the problem here is that the government is collecting debts that expired under a statute of limitations before such statue was lifted according to the article, 3 years a go. So my main argument here would be Retroactivity Clause. That basically if such debts were expired/forgiven prior to 2011 that the government is not allowed to retroactively try to collect them again as per the Constitution.

I do feel bad for the woman, Mary Grice, in the article and I hope she wins her case since clearly these debts expired long a go, plus I do not feel as if a child should be responsible for a parent's debt, though I cann see the government's point of view that is SS money was used for care of the child they would by technicality be responsible for at least a portion of the debt. To be honest though I think her attorney's angle of saying she received no due process will fail since one could argue the statute has been lifted for 3 years now thus it has been public knowledge for a few years even if it wasn't broadcast on media. Then again she might be able to get some sort of settlement just so Uncle Sam can make the bad press go away lol.


Very interesting article and case either way though no doubt.

For point number one, I quite agree.

For point number two, I'll have to say I'm not well-versed on legalese. However, the way I understand it, she still didn't get due process for her case, in the sense that the money was seized without notifying her. It was public knowledge that it could happen, but she personally didn't receive due process.

 

[GodIsSalvation]

For point number one, I quite agree.

For point number two, I'll have to say I'm not well-versed on legalese. However, the way I understand it, she still didn't get due process for her case, in the sense that the money was seized without notifying her. It was public knowledge that it could happen, but she personally didn't receive due process.

Yes that's basically the argument her attorney will make.

The predictable argument to counter that that I think the government will make is that it is public knowledge that such a thing could happen. Plus the fact they took it from her tax return, not out of her bank or through a collections agency.

Gotta remember legalese aside even that basically SS is breaking the budget and the government is scrambling to squeak any savings possible out of it but they also cannot destroy or use common sense austerity reforms on SS because then pretty much every US middle age and senior citizen will be up in arms, plus they have all the strongest lobby groups and are the majority demographic of voters (which is why I think as the article points out no politician is quick to claim credit for adding this little sneaky bit of legislation into the farm bill since that be effectively political suicide lol.)

 

[kennethcadwell]

The thing that gets me on this as well is how they are holding people accountable for debts to make up for the SS shortage, but fail to go after the politicians that approved the removal of funds from SS to go towards other areas that needed the money which is really why SS is in bad shape. Shouldn't those politicians be made to pay back those funds to. I don't agree with any of this for even Jesus says to forgive people their debts. But if they want to get the money back to fix SS then they should go after the ones who took the money in the first place.

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

It's true that the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) including Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid is the largest item in the budget costing $940.9 billion total and representing 24.7% of the 2013 U.S. budget; however, FICA receipts for 2013 (look at Table 2.1 - Receipts by Source: 1934–2019 at the total [on budget plus off budget aggregate sums] Social Insurance and Retirement Receipts) totaled $947.8 billion.

But read 'A SUMMARY OF THE 2013 ANNUAL REPORTS' by the Social Security and Medicare Boards of Trustees and you can see we're headed to a bad place for many reasons that range from a rapidly increasing interest expense on the national debt siphoning revenues away from the annual federal budget to a rapid increase in the cost of medical services to decreasing revenue in real dollars (1990 receipts were 1.032 trillion [the real dollar amount calculates to 2.875 trillion in 2012 nominal dollars using the BLS inflation calculator] compared to 2012 receipts of 2.450 trillion, increased government spending, etc... etc... etc...

2013 United States federal budget - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Trustees Report Summary
Policy Basics: Where Do Our Federal Tax Dollars Go? — Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
http://www.hhs.gov/budget/budget-brief-fy2013.pdf

This is especially important considerring that SS is the biggest budget item the past years running and is no doubt the pre-eminent economic trainwreck waiting to happen unless some very serious and very painful reform is taken.

 

[SonInMe]

Don't take anything from the government.

Simple solution

 

[JimJimmers]

But read 'A SUMMARY OF THE 2013 ANNUAL REPORTS' by the Social Security and Medicare Boards of Trustees and you can see we're headed to a bad place for many reasons that range from a rapidly increasing interest expense on the national debt siphoning revenues away from the annual federal budget to a rapid increase in the cost of medical services to decreasing revenue in real dollars (1990 receipts were 1.032 trillion [the real dollar amount calculates to 2.875 trillion in 2012 nominal dollars using the BLS inflation calculator] compared to 2012 receipts of 2.450 trillion, increased government spending, etc... etc... etc...

Yes and yes. Many factors push the U.S. to financial disaster. Social Security is a big one, but not the only one. Makes me think of the guy who owed 1,000 talents, but went and grabbed someone by the throat and demanded "Pay me what thou owest!" (The main difference here being that, the way I read the article, poor Ms. Grice doesn't even owe the money.)

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

I was just fleshing out your correct assertion with some empirical data. Our entitlement programs, (so called as they are funded by the wages of individuals with the intent that they will be used later by the same individuals) are not welfare programs but due to their mismanagement and the much wider mismanagement of the economy and society (e.g. public education, immigration, etc...) as a whole: we are headed into very dangerous waters.

Yes and yes. Many factors push the U.S. to financial disaster. Social Security is a big one, but not the only one. Makes me think of the guy who owed 1,000 talents, but went and grabbed someone by the throat and demanded "Pay me what thou owest!" (The main difference here being that, the way I read the article, poor Ms. Grice doesn't even owe the money.)

 

[GodIsSalvation]

It's true that the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) including Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid is the largest item in the budget costing $940.9 billion total and representing 24.7% of the 2013 U.S. budget; however, FICA receipts for 2013 (look at Table 2.1 - Receipts by Source: 1934–2019 at the total [on budget plus off budget aggregate sums] Social Insurance and Retirement Receipts) totaled $947.8 billion.

But read 'A SUMMARY OF THE 2013 ANNUAL REPORTS' by the Social Security and Medicare Boards of Trustees and you can see we're headed to a bad place for many reasons that range from a rapidly increasing interest expense on the national debt siphoning revenues away from the annual federal budget to a rapid increase in the cost of medical services to decreasing revenue in real dollars (1990 receipts were 1.032 trillion [the real dollar amount calculates to 2.875 trillion in 2012 nominal dollars using the BLS inflation calculator] compared to 2012 receipts of 2.450 trillion, increased government spending, etc... etc... etc...

2013 United States federal budget - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Trustees Report Summary
Policy Basics: Where Do Our Federal Tax Dollars Go? — Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
http://www.hhs.gov/budget/budget-brief-fy2013.pdf

Very interesting and good fact-finding right here.

Personally I was going by the Debtclock estimations.

Pretty interesting little thing the Debt Clock, I been following it since Bush Days.

Mind you these are just estimates based off of mathematical algorithms. Still though its proven to be fairly accurate model for tracking US Economy. Also I like how it breaks down other factors of the economy, not just US Government debt. I will say from monitoring this for a few years, one good thing Obama has done is he did raise the amount of revenue America brings in, only problem is he has outspent that number each year, which is forgivable for his first term considerring the utter disaster Bush left him with, but I was hoping the Dems would slow down after the necessary bailouts. Then came Obamacare 1 trillion dollar plus headache. Sigh.

On the brighter side of things though the Federal Debt is excruciating you will notice that the State Revenue has exceeded State Debt for the first time in a couple years, so depending what State you live in you might be okay (for instance my state of Ohio has a Balanced Budget rule, so my State can never go into debt. I feel as if this be a prudent policy for a few other states to undergo.)
U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time

 

[SonInMe]

Stop spending more than you take in.

Debt cured....oh wait that means each may have to live by their own abilities and merits.

What a horror. Life done by you and not being taken care of by a bloated corrupt government that was never there to serve you in the first place.

Its there to control you. 1 Samuel 8:10-20

The taxes collected and targeted to welfare programs? 70% of those monies goes to the government to run it. So the next time your friendly neighborhood democrat says vote for me because I will help you? In reality all he is saying is...I want your money for myself and my cronies.

By the way, the average private charity? They keep 30% for themselves and 70% goes to help people.

Gotta love government.

 

[GodIsSalvation]

Stop spending more than you take in.

Debt cured....oh wait that means each may have to live by their own abilities and merits.

What a horror. Life done by you and not being taken care of by a bloated corrupt government that was never there to serve you in the first place.

Its there to control you. 1 Samuel 8:10-20

The taxes collected and targeted to welfare programs? 70% of those monies goes to the government to run it. So the next time your friendly neighborhood democrat says vote for me because I will help you? In reality all he is saying is...I want your money for myself and my cronies.

By the way, the average private charity? They keep 30% for themselves and 70% goes to help people.

Gotta love government.

Very good principles indeed, and always good old GOP rhetoric lol. Brother the Party probably consider you, just maybe loosen a bit up on the attack due to the geo-politics lol. Dems and GOP ain't the only Factions among factions in this world.

A bit of Public Debt will occur with about any nation, though it is possible to eliminate debt too. Either way this is just dealing with a federal paper of coinage currency. So really the game is to not be unethical and overspend and to be prudent with the national debt so as not to destroy or devalue the value of your currency, in our case the US Dollar. Sometimes the nation at the federal level must incur a debt just by fact of all the crazy stuff that happens throughout history like wars and disasters. Obviously with the problem with the American economy is its been running up too rapidly in debt and such too fast. However, if you consider the population growth and growth in interconnectivity and fair trade among Americans and much of the world mostly bordering the oceans that itself has seen tremendous postive effects for many people and to be heart hearted the money (currency) value. The Buck is not just strong in America but any country where the dollar is used today.

I'd say keeping to your same goodly ethical principles but just being a little liberal about it, recognizing from government point of view the government should at least have an obligation to help its citizens even at a bit of money or resource cost it ought to be done. I'd argue if the government were just more efficient in its spending it could make great return and investment for the nation while at the same time reducing the budget to a minimal budget defecit or maybe even a surplus, which wouldn't be too unheard of since that last occured in 2001.

Really that's where it just gets tricky is spending more efficently and not over-blowing it unless in case of an extreme emergency. A lot of that because of free economics, or western capitalism, and especially rapid growing far eastern capitalism have their own free say in business affairs. But that gets into the regulations debate and how much say federal government should have over business, maybe better for another day.

Both Parties in my view got tons of terrible Presidents economically speaking that reigned, shalt we bring up Hoover? Lol, but then there's always been presidents that were decent as well of both parties. such as Eisenhower whom though he did raise the public debt quite a bit he invested wisely for the good of his people creating one of the biggest eras of true prosperity through ethical rule.

Ironically if we isolate just Public Debt alone and ye are a conservative to America then you must give the Democrats kudos. For the First Democrat Party President is Old Hickory. Andrew Jackson is only President in all US History to totally eliminate US Debt.
Bureau of the Public Debt: Our History

Lol, US History and Politics is full of ironies.

 

[SonInMe]

I reject the notion that government is there to help you or can help you, from personal crisis point of view.

The debt is from spending more money than what is taken in.

Socialist ideals have been implemented many times and have never worked.

There is no such thing as a good liberal ideal nor is there one iota of christian value in liberalism. Not one stroke.

That's not ideology brother, that's theology. Not only is liberalism not christian, it is, fully and without question satanic, to its core...and that is not hyperbole at all but cold hard facts.

Conservatism like all of man's knowledge is corrupt as well, but it does embrace christian ideals and recognizes the value of christianity.

As far as the democrat party goes, JFK would not recognize his own party.