Alaska Darin Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 My buddy and his wife wanted to give back so they became foster parents. They took in a bunch of different kids. Some for a day or two, some for a few months. About 2 years ago, they took in 3 girls. Parents are "short bussers" who have already had a kid permanently taken from them. Mom doesn't work steady and dad has never had a job paying above minimum wage. The goal of the "program", of course, is to eventually get the kids back in the biological's home. So the State pays a buncha money sending these window lickers to counseling, etc but it's finally determined that they'll never be fit parents so they convince them to sign away their parental rights forever. During this time, it's disclosed that mommy is pregnant with baby number 5, who'll be snatched and put into the system upon leaving the womb. So last summer my buddy and his wife permanently adopt these kids. They give them a great home with attention and things they'd never have had if they'd stayed where they were. Each has developmental challenges. So what does Social Security have to do with it? Yesterday, the SSA sends them a letter telling them they owe $3800 PER CHILD for overpayment of some sort based on their income in 2004/5. THEY DIDN'T EVEN KNOW THESE KIDS DURING THAT TIME. So they go to SSA yesterday and they tell them they have to fill out a waiver. So much for innocent until proven guilty. No good deed goes unpunished. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finknottle Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 :So what does Social Security have to do with it? Yesterday, the SSA sends them a letter telling them they owe $3800 PER CHILD for overpayment of some sort based on their income in 2004/5. THEY DIDN'T EVEN KNOW THESE KIDS DURING THAT TIME. So they go to SSA yesterday and they tell them they have to fill out a waiver. So much for innocent until proven guilty. No good deed goes unpunished. Poignent story, but as a practical matter innocent until proven guilty doesn't apply to commerce. When you get a bill, whether from the government or a private company, you generally have to pay it up front and sort it out later, or else risk whatever fines would occur normally. SSA seems to have it wrong, but I don't fault them for that nor for requiring a waiver. How are they supposed to know in advance who lived with whom when? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 Sad story. Happens all the time, its Gov. I think the most interesting part of your post is that, you have a Buddy. FAG....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 My buddy and his wife wanted to give back so they became foster parents. They took in a bunch of different kids. Some for a day or two, some for a few months. About 2 years ago, they took in 3 girls. Parents are "short bussers" who have already had a kid permanently taken from them. Mom doesn't work steady and dad has never had a job paying above minimum wage. The goal of the "program", of course, is to eventually get the kids back in the biological's home. So the State pays a buncha money sending these window lickers to counseling, etc but it's finally determined that they'll never be fit parents so they convince them to sign away their parental rights forever. During this time, it's disclosed that mommy is pregnant with baby number 5, who'll be snatched and put into the system upon leaving the womb. So last summer my buddy and his wife permanently adopt these kids. They give them a great home with attention and things they'd never have had if they'd stayed where they were. Each has developmental challenges. So what does Social Security have to do with it? Yesterday, the SSA sends them a letter telling them they owe $3800 PER CHILD for overpayment of some sort based on their income in 2004/5. THEY DIDN'T EVEN KNOW THESE KIDS DURING THAT TIME. So they go to SSA yesterday and they tell them they have to fill out a waiver. So much for innocent until proven guilty. No good deed goes unpunished. I would like to take this opportunity to criticize you, on BravinSeattle's behalf, for denigrating the most successful government program in history. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted January 14, 2009 Author Share Posted January 14, 2009 Poignent story, but as a practical matter innocent until proven guilty doesn't apply to commerce. Please explain to me exactly how this is "commerce". One party had NOTHING to do with any money that ever exchanged hands but is now being handed a bill. That's doesn't fit any definition of "commerce" that I've ever been privy to. Sounds more like extortion to me. SSA seems to have it wrong, but I don't fault them for that nor for requiring a waiver. How are they supposed to know in advance who lived with whom when? Know in advance? The time frame they're trying to collect from is years AGO. The money paid out by SSA went to different people with different Social Security numbers. It's an amazingly stupid issue that will likely require lawyers to fix. The only thing the SSA should have to do is query the IRS for who claimed the kids on their tax return (I'm assuming their own paperwork is goofed up somehow) - but why should the government talk amongst themselves when they can put an innocent citizen in the crosshairs... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted January 14, 2009 Author Share Posted January 14, 2009 I would like to take this opportunity to criticize you, on BravinSeattle's behalf, for denigrating the most successful government program in history. Shutup. I'm old before my time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bills_fan Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 I would like to take this opportunity to criticize you, on BravinSeattle's behalf, for denigrating the most successful government program in history. Or the biggest Ponzi scheme.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RkFast Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 I think having to go to the local SS office is punishment enough. I still have flashbacks for when I had to go there to get my kid a SSN. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaJoe Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 Window lickers? Dude... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blzrul Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 This happens all the time. Non-custodial parents overpay child support when custody changes, etc. It's a snafu you have to expect when EVERYTHING requires documentation and there's a lag in processing it. I realize the mindset here is to PERSONALIZE everything and react to it as it it's an intentional slap in the face. This is the way all things work. The fact is they got a chance to fix it - the big bad agency didn't garnish their wages, throw them in jail, or take their kids. So the system isn't great, but it worked. I am sure they suffered angst during this time period and I don't blame them, but it sounds as if it had a happy ending. If you're using the story to try for a conclusion such as "don't be a nice guy and help kids", that would be stupid. And I have to say I find it HYSTERICALLY FUNNY that you of all people raise the point about the presumption of guilt versus innocence. I guess in this case it's sort of an inconvenient truth, eh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted January 14, 2009 Author Share Posted January 14, 2009 This happens all the time. Non-custodial parents overpay child support when custody changes, etc. It's a snafu you have to expect when EVERYTHING requires documentation and there's a lag in processing it. I realize the mindset here is to PERSONALIZE everything and react to it as it it's an intentional slap in the face. This is the way all things work. The fact is they got a chance to fix it - the big bad agency didn't garnish their wages, throw them in jail, or take their kids. So the system isn't great, but it worked. I am sure they suffered angst during this time period and I don't blame them, but it sounds as if it had a happy ending. Nice reading comprehension, Debbie. There is now a lawyer involved. The system DIDN'T work. It rarely does. You've either got very lofty standards (sarcasm) or are a complete moron if you can surmise that something works when you get a bill for something you weren't ever involved in. They weren't "non-custodial" parents. They didn't even know these people during the time frame the government is trying to charge them (a fact you must have missed, despite the fact that I capitalized the entire sentence). If you're using the story to try for a conclusion such as "don't be a nice guy and help kids", that would be stupid. I'm not using the story as anything. Though I'm more glad now that I posted it because it's made you look even more ridiculous than usual. Who knew that was even possible. And I have to say I find it HYSTERICALLY FUNNY that you of all people raise the point about the presumption of guilt versus innocence. I guess in this case it's sort of an inconvenient truth, eh? Go ahead and expound on this. I'd love to hear some more of your twisted lahjik. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finknottle Posted January 14, 2009 Share Posted January 14, 2009 And I have to say I find it HYSTERICALLY FUNNY that you of all people raise the point about the presumption of guilt versus innocence. I guess in this case it's sort of an inconvenient truth, eh? I found it funnier that a liberatarian is upset because all the different government agencies don't routinely pass around private records to catch the error before it happens. To think he has me defending the SSA - yikes! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted January 14, 2009 Author Share Posted January 14, 2009 I found it funnier that a liberatarian is upset because all the different government agencies don't routinely pass around private records to catch the error before it happens. I'm not a libertarian. I'm a !@#$ing independent. Jesus Christ, would you people stop trying to pidgeon hole me? There is a gigantic difference between the government sharing information within itself and disclosing it to entities that aren't authorized access. Do you really need that explained? Or would you like to be in charge of one of the intelligence agencies, because with that mindset you're obviously qualified. Just don't be surprised when the witch hunt begins because you didn't tell someone something they needed to know to prevent some catastrophe. To think he has me defending the SSA - yikes! If you call that a defense, you're making Perry Fewell look like Rex Ryan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts