Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

7962

(11,841 posts)

11. No, the article states the money was taken because of an overpayment to "someone"

Reply to JayhawkSD (Reply #7)

Sat Apr 12, 2014, 01:22 AM

Apr 2014

The FTC says it can take money from children who receive overpayments. But in this case, obviously they are doing more than that. Mary Grice didnt get the extra money. The FTC isnt going to admit they've screwed up. The govt rarely DOES admit such a thing. If they cant prove who DID get it, then there shouldnt be any money withheld from anyone.
Democrat or Republican, this type of stuff should piss all of us off.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

22 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

The Government Will Take Your Money For Your Dead Parent's Debts [View all] TransitJohn Apr 2014 OP

This country is just humming along like a well-oiled machine. Brigid Apr 2014 #1

I knew they can collect from an estate.... Historic NY Apr 2014 #2

Nice. progressoid Apr 2014 #3

, blkmusclmachine Apr 2014 #4

it's perfectly fine as long as the richest among us are never inconvenienced nt pragmatic_dem Apr 2014 #5

I can't believe this since a child would not be able to defend against a charge like that. JDPriestly Apr 2014 #6

The repayment was not for "dead parents' debt." JayhawkSD Apr 2014 #7

Awww... fleabiscuit Apr 2014 #8

Even if that's true, Art_from_Ark Apr 2014 #9

I agree. JayhawkSD Apr 2014 #16

thank you passiveporcupine Apr 2014 #10

That's not what it was. JayhawkSD Apr 2014 #17

You are correct passiveporcupine Apr 2014 #21

Except that the article inaccurately references "parents' old debts." JayhawkSD Apr 2014 #22

No, the article states the money was taken because of an overpayment to "someone" 7962 Apr 2014 #11

The article did not equivocate. JayhawkSD Apr 2014 #18

While you're correct, a child should not be held responsible. joshcryer Apr 2014 #12

Still a child cannot enter a contract. gvstn Apr 2014 #13

"who inserted the sentence" - Not a sentence, a philosophy. Popular with one side of the aisle jtuck004 Apr 2014 #14

It's not a contract... JayhawkSD Apr 2014 #19

well, they can't tax the rich, so they had to find a way to screw 2pooped2pop Apr 2014 #15

thats a gawker link pitohui Apr 2014 #20