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
 

JayhawkSD

(3,163 posts)
22. Except that the article inaccurately references "parents' old debts."
Sun Apr 13, 2014, 02:17 AM
Apr 2014

The text of the article is somewhat more accurate than the headline, in that it describes the original payment as death benefits, but it manages to leave the impression that the benefit was paid to Mary Grice's mother rather than, as is actually the case, directly to her. As has been discussed elsewhere, it is unreasonable and unfair to collect overpayment which was made to a child 30+ years after the fact, but the fact remains that the government is collecting her debt, not her parents' debt.

"Who keeps records that far back?" Which is, of course, the whole point of the statute of limitations, along with fading memories and the availability of witnesses, and is precisely why the statute should not have been increased beyond ten years.

"And apparently the ten year statute of limitation being dropped was inserted into a farm bill three years ago, and nobody knows who did it?" Yes, appalling. Too much nasty legislation is passed by inserting "riders" into "must pass" legislation; items which could never pass on their own merits and which are totally unrelated to the bill to which they are attached, but which get passed unnoticed as "add ons" in critical bills which cannot be voted down. The authorship of the rider is deliberately left off, for obvious reasons. It is a monstously corrupt practice which is as common as wheels on a freight train, and is but one small symptom of the sewer of corruption that our government has deteriorated into.

Recommendations

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

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
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»The Government Will Take ...»Reply #22