StrangeSox

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ May 8, 2012 -> 10:32 AM) [/b] A 1.5% fraud rate is insane in any other industry except government. Retail "shrinkage" rates are comparable. Health insurance industry fraud rates are higher.

QUOTE (Cknolls @ May 8, 2012 -> 10:21 AM) Oh come on, the gov't is all knowing. Like I said if its 10%, that is huge and would have a large impact on the unemployment rate. Over 2 % points. If it's 10%, that would be huge. But I really don't see any reason to believe that it is that high. Recent congressional testimony seems to indicate it's closer to 1.5%. My google searching is turning up a bunch of conservative blog hits going back to an article by Mike Sherlock that infers it's 10%. Making it more difficult to qualify for benefits will mean that some who make legitimate claims will be turned away. A 10% fraud rate would be unacceptable, but a 1.5% rate doesn't warrant new restrictions that would impact legitimate claims imo.

You said committing SSI fraud and "being on the dole for life" is "sweet." You could change my statement to living the sweet life and it still works. How do you count the people defrauding SSI with illegitimate disability claims? What sort of real estimates are there for this percentage? Here's an old letter out of the Bush DOJ that is inline with your 10% ballpark, but it doesn't site data. On the other hand, here's a more recent article that claims the fraud rate is low.

Yeah, those people on SSI disability are living the high life!

1 yes 2 no 3a yes 3b no

My wife gets up for work at 5:15-5:30 because she has a long drive. I get up at 6 and don't have to leave for work until ~7:45.

That Oklahama state senator wasn't so crazy after all!

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ May 7, 2012 -> 04:25 PM) Well obviously they're not the same. And i'm not sure if they've defaulted on something like bonds, but I know they're 6 months to 2 years behind on their bills to creditors. This state is beyond f***ed. I don't think any state in the nation has actually defaulted. Illinois was leading the pack as "most likely" a year or so ago. Many would have without the Federal aid in the ARRA. No one can confidently state exactly what would have happened if the US did decide to default, but basically everyone saner than Michelle Bachmann realized it was going to be catastrophic. I think he's accurate when he uses the word "inconceivable."

QUOTE (Y2HH @ May 7, 2012 -> 01:44 PM) Same...and I'm not sure why. You would think the added necessity of having to go to a gym, which takes time, would be something to avoid...but it actually help motivate me somehow...where staying at home actually has a negative effect. I have to exercise when I get up in the morning. Way too easy to put it off at night.

Yeah, they're unique enough without being obvious about it. Still too expensive for me, but you gotta start somewhere.

this belongs in the Obama re-election megathread!

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ May 7, 2012 -> 12:55 PM) And 4 to 5 weeks? Some women find out they're pregnant when they miss their period. That's 4 weeks right there. Technically 6 weeks in Arizona now!

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ May 7, 2012 -> 12:52 PM) Okay so you merely disagree at the time frame and as Ive said, Im willing to leave that up to science. It's more of a philosophical question than a scientific one imo.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ May 7, 2012 -> 12:51 PM) 75% of women who get abortions are 30 or younger, and nearly 60% are low income. I don't think it's all that much of a jump to conclude that these women don't have all day to surf the internet to come to an informed decision about it. Women who are seeking an abortion already know that they're pregnant (unnecessary ultrasound and sonogram laws) and know the end result of their procedure: terminating the pregnancy. You don't need to surf the internet all day to be aware of the choice you're making. Making that nearly 60% that is low income pay for an additional office visit and in many cases travel costs and child care places a substantial burden on them.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ May 7, 2012 -> 12:44 PM) Lol, ok seriously? So-called? Do maternal instincts not exist or something? I like how "informing" is equated to fear mongering. Seriously, this would be like me arguing that all of the paperwork I have to fill out before a surgery, or my doctor telling me of the various risks of the surgery, is an effort to steer me away from the procedure. Or....maybe it's just informing me of what's about to happen in order to make sure that i'm 100% committed to having the surgery performed. I'm not sure what that phrase refers to, but it's really a minor point to the larger issue. It's appropriate to use "informing" in scare quotes because the language is specifically required to be strongly anti-abortion. Compare it to abstinence-only education that "informs" students how terribly ineffective contraceptives are at preventing pregnancy and STD's--surprise, surprise, the students who are "informed" of these messages are much less likely to use contraceptives.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ May 7, 2012 -> 12:38 PM) I read something a while ago that 20-30% of women regret the decision, even years later. There are also studies that have shown that some women suffer from depression or other mental anxiety over it. I'm not suggesting that it's the overwhelming majority but enough to suggest it's not some easy to decision to be taken lightly for everyone. This is the insulting part--the assumption that women choose abortion on a whim and don't really understand anything about it and they wouldn't make this choice if only they did. What evidence is there that women are ignorant of the gravity of the decision they are making over their reproductive health? What evidence is there that the women who do regret it were ignorant and took the situation lightly? BTW, I see parallels here between the increased rates of depression and substance abuse in the LGBT community. When someone is consistently shamed, there's going to be an impact. I'm not going to google a bunch of abortion studies at work, though. I wouldn't be shocked if abortion rates fell in states that enacted 24hr waiting periods, but that single stat wouldn't tell us if it was due to informing these ignorant women of the ramifications of their choices or if it is due to the extra hurdles and expenses imposed. You'd need to somehow find out how many women changed their mind after the consultation.

Here's an article that provides a pretty good backdrop on the problems with these laws. http://cregs.sfsu.edu/article/womans_right...ion_law_alabama

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ May 7, 2012 -> 12:14 PM) Its not so far fetched to say there should be some waiting, I just think that in general most people cant get abortions the day they set the appointment, so its really a non-issue. This isn't true. In states that haven't passed 24-hr laws, you can have the procedure performed in one visit.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ May 7, 2012 -> 12:20 PM) I'd bet a lot don't know about the emotional/mental ramifications, which are the most important ones. On what basis do you make this assumption?

Exactly. What sort of new knowledge do women who know they are pregnant and want to terminate that pregnancy have to consider during that 24 hours? Aside from knowing that they're going to have the run the gauntlet of anti-abortion protesters when they go back to the clinic again.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ May 7, 2012 -> 11:22 AM) Ignoring the pill version, I'm guessing most women who get physical abortions don't know exactly what will happen or what the effects will be. They set up an appointment with a doctor but they're given the explanation right there. That's not enough time to consider the ramifications of the decision IMO It's pretty insulting to assume that a woman seeking an abortion doesn't understand the ramifications of what "having an abortion" means. You don't need to know the procedure step-by-step to understand the end result. I'd be pretty shocked to learn that the 24hr waiting period actually causes people to reconsider after the consultation and isn't just another hurdle.

State of Illinois =! the US government, default reserve currency of the world. It would have shoved the rest of the Eurozone over the edge and made 2008's crash look mild. There are also very serious problems in even figuring out what happens with payments at that point, since there aren't any prioritization schemes on the books. Every single payment would be challenged in court by someone who didn't get theirs. Has Illinois actually defaulted on debt obligations?

QUOTE (Y2HH @ May 7, 2012 -> 10:15 AM) This is true, however, adding endless amounts of debt, despite still paying the "minimum payments due", is the inevitable road to bankruptcy. You can't unspend that money, though. The deficit ceiling has to be raised periodically to pay for goods and services already approved by Congress. It wasn't a budget act. If the tea party House members had gotten their way last summer, the US would have defaulted on payments it already owed. The results would have been catastrophic.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ May 7, 2012 -> 08:51 AM) ...and it failed to do any of that. Well it does allow Democrats to campaign by pointing out "look! they refuse to raise taxes on millionaires paying a lower rate than you, and they wanted to end middle-class tax cuts (payroll taxes)!" How effective those policies would be and how effective that campaigning will be remains to be seen.

That post wasn't specifically addressed to you but to those making excuses for almost allowing the US, a monetarily sovereign nation, to default on its obligations because they don't like what some of those obligations were.