...of the elderly poor.

not the government have any $$ to give you back for your Golden Years.

Shut up and die.

man will further be disabled while we keep sending more money to further our invasion of Iraq.

the ADA.

It pays to have priorities...I wonder how much in taxes this man paid in a lifetime of
work, next they'll be denying social security for unpaid library fines.

his little selfish self can only think of food and medicine for himself...has he not heard we are running out of money for Haliburton and Co? I'm telling you if we cannot rip off the least of us who can we rip off? (do I need the :sarcasm: icon?)

<snip>

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals had said that Congress eliminated a 10-year time limit on the government's right to seize payments to settle defaulted student loans.

<snip>

Congress.

REPUBLICAN Congress.

The law was changed in 1991. Which means the congress was controlled by ?

CLINTON!?!?!!

And Senate majority leader Mitchell.
And FYI in 1991 Bush was Pres.

Edited to correct Senate Majaroity Leader.
Gephardt was House Majority Leader in 91.
(My error)

Were Federal Student Loans being defaulted on by people who had six figure incomes. Like say maybe a doctor filing bankruptcy upon graduation? i.e. Was this a loophole being exploited by the rich?

Business, personal or otherwise. They will lose their license.

The pull shit like this. My God, I remember America. Where has it gone?

Not every morally repugnant choice by COngress is the SC's responsibility to reverse.

A Supreme Court that feels the authority and consent to decide all issues on the basis of 'morality' will have the power to pick and coose it's moralities and use it arbitrarily for or against yours.

seems fair to me. :evilgrin:

surely we have the right to keep it (out of our checks) for our own purposes? After all, wasn't he going to let us do that in order to invest in the stock market?

they've been spending our Social Security for years and never reimbursing a cent. It's time we seized their congressional retirements and put them on Social Security.This is a really sick way for them to balance the books.

Ss is bankrupt, so how can they take it away from us?

SS is something that "isn't there". The SS trust fund contains treasury securities totaling roughly 1.7 trillion. Nevertheless, SS was never meant to be a big pool of money - it's a pay-as-you-go program. The trust fund is simply a reserve meant to cushion the impact of the boomers' retirements.

Republicans want us to believe that the SS system is a joke - that there's nothing there - because a loss of faith in its solvency undermines support for the program. Republicans have despised the SS program since its inception. By lowering expectations they hope to prepare us for a day when they can eliminate it altogether without an outcry. And they are making real progress because we're seeing a more widespread belief that there's "nothing there" - even here at DU. The WW2 generation would have buried any politician who failed to protect and defend SS. Younger generations should also expect SS to be there for them, and be willing to fight like hell for it. But unless we all start with the assumption that "it damed well better be there for me", they'll succeed in killing it eventually. We MUST ensure that republicans know that the demise of SS will bury them, and we can't do that unless we believe in the program.

student loans were forgiven.

and after they conduct a full investigation as to whether having loans dismissed due to disability is deemed valid. If this man took out the loans knowing he had a disability and he failed to pay them back, he is stuck.

There was a new law passed under the loan consolidation passed c. 1995 or so that if you did not pay them off (regardless of condition) they will be dismissed after 20 years if not paid off.

However, if you are disabled and take out student loans knowing it and you don't pay them back, they will get you. I know of a person in this exact situation. He has ignored the notices and lives on SSI/SSA at the moment. Jesus. :(

:kick:

But Social Security Disability, ...

UNFUCKINGBELIEVABLE!

I worry that all of this is designed to get poor kids who have no other recourse for college to join the military instead.

Remember those S & L's?

It just gets worse and worse and worse everyday with this Administration!:(

My guess is that the precedents are crystal clear on this.

DTH

there are probably other issues going on with respect to government contracts, entitlements and acts of Congress. This decision could be cited as precedent for things that the corporatocracy may not be pleased with....

Have an outstanding judgement against you from Citibank for an old credit card? We're going to take part of your social security!

Now that I think about it, maybe it's already like that?

They could always attach straight social security to repay student loans, but ssi which is federal welfare for the disabled was hands off.
I'll probably be finding out first hand before long, living on ssi, and having old loans in default.

in light of new Bankruptcy rulings.

By GINA HOLLAND, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court ruled unanimously Wednesday that the government can seize a person's Social Security benefits to pay old student loans.

Retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote the decision that went against a disabled man, James Lockhart, who had sued claiming he needed all of his $874 monthly check to pay for food and medication.

His government benefits had been cut by 15 percent to cover debts he incurred for college in the 1980s.

Lockhart also lost at the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which said that Congress had eliminated a 10-year time limit on the government's right to seek repayment on defaulted student loans by seizing payments, including Social Security, to individuals.

The Bush administration had maintained that the case was important because outstanding student loans total about $33 billion, which includes about $7 billion in delinquent debt. Of the delinquent loans, about half are over 10 years old, government lawyers have said.

Justices were called on to clarify federal laws that sent conflicting messages about the collection of loans that are more than a decade old.

In a concurring opinion, Justice Antonin Scalia said that Congress "unambiguously authorized, without exception, the collection of 10-year-old student loan debt ... in doing so, it flatly contracted and thereby effectively repealed part of the Social Security Act."

He complained that Congress in passing laws often wrongly claims that these acts cannot be changed in the future. Such an attempt "does no favor to the members of Congress, and to those who assist in drafting their legislation," Scalia wrote.

Groups like the AARP and the National Consumer Law Center had urged the court to safeguard Social Security benefits in the Lockhart case, arguing they "are critical in preserving a measure of financial independence for older and disabled workers."

Lockhart, 67, a former postal worker who now lives in public housing in Seattle, has heart disease, diabetes and other health problems. He has about $77,000 in student loan debt.

O'Connor's ruling, a brief 4 1/2 pages, will likely be one of her last. She is retiring after 24 years.

Also Wednesday, new Chief Justice John Roberts announced his first ruling, in a case involving legal fees. The 9-0 decision backed insurance companies, which argued that they should not have to pay legal fees of a New Mexico couple in a case that was shuffled from state court to federal court, then back to state court.

The student loan case is Lockhart v. U.S., 04-881, and the lawyer fees case is Martin v. Franklin Capital Corp., 04-1140.

___

On the Net:

Supreme Court opinion in Lockhart v. U.S.:

http://wid.ap.org/documents/scotus/051207lockhart.pdf

Can they seize social security retirement income too?

:grr:

if they can seize SS Disabilty from a disabled person to repay a debt, they can certainly seize a retiree's SS. A disabled person is in a lot worse of a position than a healthy retired person,
so do you think they will let everyone else slide? I think not.

They spent more on litigation than they will ever collect in payments.

$77,000 from a man who is retired and disabled? If the government gets back a quarter of that, I'll be amazed. But litigating this case probably cost the government tens of thousands. When this guy dies the rest of the loan will be written off as a loss.

because when that guy isn't able to pay for food or medications, he will turn to the state's medicaid program for assistance. So, when applied to low income disabled persons, the amount of money the federal government saves as a result of this case, will most likely be equalled by amounts paid out by the state. Well, that was a fun exercise.

Oh wait...medicaid's almost gone too, thanks to the Bush administration. What is this guy supposed to do?

Everybody repays what they owe! Except, of course, for the corporations defaulting on their pensions and worker's contracts.

a rip-off and and a sham. Why not just stick us all into caskets now. How about debtor's Prison? Hell... they can harvest blood from us useless members of the corporate thiefdom until we die.

just think if he'd spent his time hitting on a crack pipe and collecting welfare he wouldn't have to pay back a damn thing

loans are cut back.

I read the ruling, and it sounds like they simply reaffirmed the law as written.

I would like to read the plaintiff side, but I'd like to know how much his loans were in total. Has he made ANY effort to pay them back?

I don't want to penalize any disabled or SS recipients, but I also don't want people to be able to hide long enough that their student loans age beyond 10 years, and they can just walk away.

Unfortunatly, there are scmmers who will find loopholes like that to get away with a lot of different things.

Yeah, like republicans and corporations.

Do you really want anyone to be able to get a student loan, somehow hide out past the ten year mark, and never have to repay it? I don't.

I know lots of people who would try anything to get out from under those loans...legal or illegal...they wouldn't care!

Something just sounds a little odd for that guy to have accumulated $77,000 in student loans at age 50+. Don't you think? Not that you can't do that, but then not to have been able to get a high enough paying job that he couldn't repay it??? At least part of it.

work for the Post Office.

It's possible that he went to school early on and then took on the Postal job
because he saw more security in that, then later on he became disabled.

Also, to get Disability from Social Security you have to be totally disabled,
that means you can't do shit!

It's really difficult if not impossible to pay for anything behond
the basic necessities of life when you're only recieving $874 a month,
because even that's not even enough to make ends meet.

Do you really think that this guy is actually playacting disabilty to suffer off of $874 a month
just to avoid paying a student loan? And after working for the Post Office for several years
how do you expect that person to just go out and get this "high paying job"
that you're talking about?

It sounds like you think that all disabled people are "lazy" or are faking it. Do you?

Just remember that your reality may not be someone elses reality.

And if he worked for the U.S.P.S he deserves the benefits!

Come on, have more respect for your Civil Servants!:)

I said I would like to know why he didn't at least begin paying off the loans after he graduated. I haven't heard if he did or not, that's why I said I wanted to know what the original loan amount was.

Also, people on SSDI are not unable to do anything at all. Two of my closest friends are on disability and both work at sedintary jobs. They are restricted to the amount they can earn and still keep their disability.

Aand for what it's worth, the people who most often try to find a way out of paying what they owe are usually those who could most easily afford to pay their debt.

is able to work. It depends on what their disability is.
Your friends are very lucky that the kind of disabilites they have allow them to take on sedentary jobs.

Some disabilities leave a person exhausted and unable to work at all,
and it depends on what part of the body is disabled. And some people have mental/emotional disabilities that prevent them from doing any meaningful work at all.

And then who knows, maybe this guy went to school and then became disabled?:shrug:
Anyway, if the guy is that bad off (which does happen sometimes) then he has no resources
to make new money and barely enough money to live on from $874 a month.

I just think it's sad that any disabled person becomes strapped with a debt like that,
when they have minimal money to live on, and are unable to get any more money.
I think that the debt should be waived that case.

Why don't they just take the money out of the Halliburton Till?:evilgrin:

Thank you.

It helps.

KNOWLEDGE IS POWER

It could be you.

How very right you are. :thumbsup:

:kick:

Unfortunately a lot of people don't understand or realize this stuff until it happens to them!

You're on the mark. As one who served people with disabilities for 30 years, most who receive SSDI aren't able to compete in the employment marketplace. To receive SSDI one must be declared unable to perform substantial gainful activity (I believe that is roughly $860 in 2006). So it's conceivable that one could go out and work part-time and earn a few hundred bucks, but usually the severity of the disability makes that virtually impossible. And for those very few who can, the system is so complex and convoluted that most recipients fear venturing out and falling into a trap that results in the loss of benefits - and as one who knows the system, I think their fear is well-placed. And on top of all that, this idea that there are a bunch of part-time, sedentary jobs available with all the necessary accommodations for those SSDI recipients who are willing to work is pure bullshit. And even if one could find the right job, they'll need every penny of it just to make ends meet, because living life with a severe disability is terribly expensive and difficult! Anyway, and as I'm sure you know, the issues are far too complex to cover here, but this ruling demonstrates to me that we are losing our heart and soul as a country - there can be no rationale that makes this right - NONE.

and what makes it worse is that businesses don't want to hire anyone with a disability anyway (the ones who are able to work) They will just make an excuse not to hire them (we've found sombody "more qualified") They would rather have a young up-and-coming corporate go-getter.

What is this country coming to?:(

You and I think alike on this issue... I suspect you've either worked in the field or had some personal experience with the real world of disabilities. You're right, employers generally prefer to steer clear of anything they don't understand. They see it as a big hassle. Furthermore, the neocons have so demonized government employees (and the ADA) that those tasked with the job of helping break down some of these barriers face an almost impossible task. At the end of the day most people with severe disabilities who are able to do some work end up in dead-end, low paying jobs with no benefits and no future. That's a fact. The few exceptions are held up as shining examples, and that's a double edged sword, IMO. On one hand it's good for the public to see that some people with disabilities are able to do great things. But it also poses problems:

-- The public tends to lump everyone together. "If he can work, why can't she?" So the ones who can work are used as a club to beat on the ones who can't.
-- There are people in the rehab community who proclaim that anyone can work - no matter what. Besides being complete bullshit, it's the type of thinking that could eventually lead to the elimination of all SSDI/SSI.
-- It fosters the mentality that a person's worth is equivalent to their economic output - and that is dangerous thinking.

Anyway, I appreciate your posts, Megahurtz. I don't have a disability and I have retired from the work, but I did have the pleasure of knowing thousands of people with disabilities and their families. We all should remain vigilant and defend them at every opportunity because, ultimately, how we treat our most vulnerable defines us as a society. Furthermore, we all live in bodies that are incredibly fragile and each of us is only one accident or illness away from being in the same boat.

I was a single mother and instead of staying home watching soaps and collecting benefits; I tried, I worked, I went to the plasma bank twice a week, and I went to school part time over the years trying desperately to earn a degree and set a good example for my son (school enabled me to be able to take time off when my son got sick with things like chicken pox and Scarlet Fever)

I have friends who stayed home smoked pot and crack and collected every damn social service they could. They're laughing at me, they've graduated on to SSI, and now it seems I WAS the dumb one of the bunch. They owe nothing ( they have free medical, housing, food stamps, you name it) and I owe everything and have no health insurance or anything. If I get cancer or need a transplant, I'm dead and I know it.

going into debt for the left of their lives. Only the wealthy will be educated and receive health care in this country.

are abusing the system, rather than instituting something this broad, that penalizes those people with disabilities who are probably already reeling from the disappointment of not being able to work? This is really kicking someone when they are down. Why not try to address the problem of fraud or abuse of the system itself, rather than making a law/decision that affects all the many people with disabilities who made a genuine effort to participate in the workplace.

The idea that someone would deliberately scam the system for years, all with the intent of obtaining the wonderful, huge benefit of $874 a month, is just absurd. This may not have actually been the fault of the SC, it may be the law itself needs to be re-written, to focus on the real problem, rather than disabled people as a group. Maybe there could be some sort of floor established to exempt those disabled people whose monthly benefit was below a certain amount.

Oh I forgot, so we can create the haves and the have-nots!!!:think:
We wouldn't want everyone to be equal now or anything would we???:sarcasm::argh:

of investing in education. It's not just Republicans who think that way, either.

This sends a bad message to them. Why go to college for 4 years with rising tuitions and rack up $50K of debt to get a job in the new "booming" Bush economy that pays $5.15 an hour? It makes no sense anymore, and as a previous poster said, this is going to steer a lot of poorer youths toward the military.

what Bush wants UGH!:puke:

i think the government should ultimately provide for all people, as a last resort.
but the money should come from the right program, not just from wherever you can get it.

the person should get his food and medication but the student loan provider shouldn't get screwed.

the answer seems obvious to me. the student loan provider can seize social security benefits to make him whole.
the person then has not enough money to pay for food and medication and so should get further assistance in the form of food stamps and/or medicaid.

better yet, the government should just directly pay down the student loan under certain conditions like this one.

someone's disability benefits to pay off other types of debts too...

Now the only way to get out of it is to kill yourself. They excuse them when you die.

The bitches where I go to school have done everything they can to prevent me from getting a degree. They won't accept my credits from a recognized state college (LSU), they changed the rules on the math (now you have to have an A to pass) All this when I'm supposedly 6 hours from nirvana and with respectable 3.0. I'm not a genius, but not exactly stupid either, well except for the all student loans and my choice of college (UALR) /that was pretty stupid of me.

I'm in debt for the rest of my life with very little chance of ever being able to pay back what I borrowed. I wonder if they can repossess cardboard boxes.

However, the provision to have loans dismissed due to disability are quite restrictive and it is not a simple process.

<< When can I cancel or discharge a student loan?
All student loans authorized by Title IV of the Higher Education Act can be canceled if you die or become permanently and totally disabled . Stafford, PLUS, and WLS loans disbursed ( given to you) after January 1,1986, can be canceled under two additional circumstances:

(a) the school you attended improperly certified your ability to benefit from the training given, or

(b) the school you attended closed while you were in attendance or within 90 days after you withdrew from the school. >>>

more here ...

http://www.clarkcountylegal.com/student_loans.htm

:dem: :kick:

I'll read it and see who I can help including myself, again thank you.

Federal student loans already have a provision that requires repayment for as long as 25 years, after which time the loans will be forgiven. Under this provision, you could put off STARTING to pay off your loans until age 40 and still have them forgiven by age 65.

Of course, Congress could change this. Another reason to get Dems in power ASAP.

Reagen was for tax cuts to corporate criminals, but had a big hard on for people who couldn't pay their student loans. Same shit over and over again.

or otherwise known as compassionate conservative

I always knew that Scalia and Thomas and Roberts and Kennedy were closet activist judges.

pay outstanding Credit Card debts.

Our fascist Supreme Court strikes again.

Murtha has flat-out stated the military will be requesting another $100 billion next year.

Can we all have a chorus of :wtf:

:wtf:

???????

:wtf:

Lost a limb? Too bad!!! Welcome to Compassionate bullshit.

Would it be a good thing to get back funds from student lendees whose payments are in arrears? Sure. But why now? Why suddenly? Are these folks on disability in a better position financially to pay back these loans than say, four years ago? Can't say I believe that. It's a jaded move by this out of control administration to try and wring money out of the people who don't have it to wring. Excellent point, that the government will bail out s&l's, airlines, it's loyal money grubbing CORPORATE citizens. This makes me want to wretch. There is absolutely NO justification for this short sighted, let's slap a band-aid on the bleeding money trough piplelined to Iraq. These bastards have no shame.

I've been thinking about this for several hours now, and have concluded that the message being sent by the federal government to people with disabilities is entirely contradictory.

Here are my thoughts:
On the one hand, for a very long time, particularly since the passage of the ADA in 1990, disabled people have been encouraged by the feds (as well as a tremendous number of state programs and private agencies), to pursue a higher education.
http://www.ed.gov/programs/disabilities/index.html
http://www.ahead.org/

This has been accompanied with a similar federal effort to assist people with disbilities to find and keep employment.
http://www.dol.gov/odep/
http://www.ilr.cornell.edu/edi/

Yet, even despite these efforts, the rate of unemployment for people with disabilities remains tremendously high, at about 70% for those of working age with severe disabilities. (2004 statistics)
http://www.dol.gov/odep/faqs/working.htm

And a Harris study found only small improvements between the years 1986 and 2000, despite years of federal funding in attempts to overcome the barriers to employment:



http://www.nod.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=page.viewPage&pageID=1430&nodeID=1&FeatureID=1422&redirected=1&CFID=2709771&CFTOKEN=42035077

So, now we have a different

Keep in mind that although this very admirable man has been successful in working even with the serious disability of multiple sclerosis, he had established his career and job with the Mayo clinic before becoming disabled, yet even he describes significant barriers.

ttp://www.mayoclinic.com/health/disability/WL00009

Thx!

I'm sorry ... but this is just WRONG