Elon is coming for social security

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anybody looking at these numbers for more than 10 min with a critical thinking hat on should know these are just the number of SS accounts currently active. But Elon misrepresents this as the number of people in each age bracket who are currently receiving payments, so everyone in the comments and even Faux News is OMG there's massive fraud!

However, OIG already did a report on this several years ago in which they concluded the cost associated with marking the dead people as dead was cost prohibitive as only a few age 100+ were actually receiving any benefits. The people in question either died decades ago and were not reported, or had been issued multiple SS numbers and only one was marked as deceased.

https://oig.ssa.gov/assets/uploads/a-06-21-51022.pdf

Wait, what? The cost of correcting a DATA TABLE is 'cost prohibitive'? What kind of Rube Goldberg machine are they running over there!

I'm beginning to understand the other thing Musk tweeted:

"The logic flow diagram for the Social Security system looks INSANE. No one person actually knows how it works. The payment files that move between Social Security and Treasury have significant inconsistencies that are not reconciled. It’s wild," Musk declared in a post on X.

He is lying and gaslighting. When will you people understand that? He isn't a brilliant tactitian, but rather a rich guy who started on third based and got money from nefarious sources to co-opt existing businesses and ideas. He had little to do with innnovation at PayPal and had less than zero to do with Spacex or Tesla.

Then why is it 'cost prohibitive' to correct data that lists 150+ yo people? Seems like something someone should have fixed a long time ago, or maybe NO ONE EVER NOTICED.

There’s an IG report about it. They noticed. It doesn’t actually matter because they aren’t getting paid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Even one fraudulent welfare check is too many. I think we can all agree with that.

Errors and fraud will exist in any system. What percentage do you think is acceptable 1-2%?

Zero.

So why isn’t Elon shutting it all down? Why is letting them keep making these fraudulent payments?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anybody looking at these numbers for more than 10 min with a critical thinking hat on should know these are just the number of SS accounts currently active. But Elon misrepresents this as the number of people in each age bracket who are currently receiving payments, so everyone in the comments and even Faux News is OMG there's massive fraud!

However, OIG already did a report on this several years ago in which they concluded the cost associated with marking the dead people as dead was cost prohibitive as only a few age 100+ were actually receiving any benefits. The people in question either died decades ago and were not reported, or had been issued multiple SS numbers and only one was marked as deceased.

https://oig.ssa.gov/assets/uploads/a-06-21-51022.pdf

Wait, what? The cost of correcting a DATA TABLE is 'cost prohibitive'? What kind of Rube Goldberg machine are they running over there!

I'm beginning to understand the other thing Musk tweeted:

"The logic flow diagram for the Social Security system looks INSANE. No one person actually knows how it works. The payment files that move between Social Security and Treasury have significant inconsistencies that are not reconciled. It’s wild," Musk declared in a post on X.

He is lying and gaslighting. When will you people understand that? He isn't a brilliant tactitian, but rather a rich guy who started on third based and got money from nefarious sources to co-opt existing businesses and ideas. He had little to do with innnovation at PayPal and had less than zero to do with Spacex or Tesla.

Then why is it 'cost prohibitive' to correct data that lists 150+ yo people? Seems like something someone should have fixed a long time ago, or maybe NO ONE EVER NOTICED.

Because there is a level of acceptable error in any complex system, and the level of acceptable error takes into account the cost of fixing the errors. It could very well be that no one noticed because it’s not very important in the scheme of things. It could be that it was noticed and accounted as acceptable error, or most likely, that the error is completely made up like everything else from DOGE.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Even one fraudulent welfare check is too many. I think we can all agree with that.

Errors and fraud will exist in any system. What percentage do you think is acceptable 1-2%?

Zero.

Ok, then you should bow out of the conversation and let people that understand things discuss.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:He’s laying the groundwork to halt social security checks with a new conspiracy that tens of millions of beneficiaries are actually dead:

Death field set to false== people in that age category who are not dead. That is, people who re alive. So my very much alive parents are in the “death flag set to false” list he has.

It doesn’t even look like his query shows how many people are alive and getting DC/DWB/SSI/SSDI/RSI. Although Kids do get SSI and premies at a certain point automatically get SSI (but only for a year or 2 absent a lifelong disability). As do very low IQs in kids, etc. But the young kids number is too high. It looks to me like he just ran a query to find all alive Americans— not even all alive Americans getting benefits from SSA. And remember— lots of kids also get benefits because a parent died, etc, even if they are healthy.



The correct question is how many “death flag false” people are, in fact, dead AND have someone getting DC/DWB/SSI/SSDI/ RSI in their name. This chart doesn’t answer that question. Because if SSA knew they were dead, they’d stop payment and change the flag to true and collect overpayment.

Sad! That Mr. Engineering Marvel can’t red COBOL (yep. Out ddabases are running on late 1970s tech) and doesn’t understand how to run or read a query. And has proven there a millions of people in the US who are alive and have SSNs

TL;DR: Elon is a Moron who cannot read a basic dataset.

Also, get TF out of our databases. Especially if you can read the data correctly.

[Anonymous]

Thank God! The fraud needs to stop.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anybody looking at these numbers for more than 10 min with a critical thinking hat on should know these are just the number of SS accounts currently active. But Elon misrepresents this as the number of people in each age bracket who are currently receiving payments, so everyone in the comments and even Faux News is OMG there's massive fraud!

However, OIG already did a report on this several years ago in which they concluded the cost associated with marking the dead people as dead was cost prohibitive as only a few age 100+ were actually receiving any benefits. The people in question either died decades ago and were not reported, or had been issued multiple SS numbers and only one was marked as deceased.

https://oig.ssa.gov/assets/uploads/a-06-21-51022.pdf

Wait, what? The cost of correcting a DATA TABLE is 'cost prohibitive'? What kind of Rube Goldberg machine are they running over there!

I'm beginning to understand the other thing Musk tweeted:

"The logic flow diagram for the Social Security system looks INSANE. No one person actually knows how it works. The payment files that move between Social Security and Treasury have significant inconsistencies that are not reconciled. It’s wild," Musk declared in a post on X.

He is lying and gaslighting. When will you people understand that? He isn't a brilliant tactitian, but rather a rich guy who started on third based and got money from nefarious sources to co-opt existing businesses and ideas. He had little to do with innnovation at PayPal and had less than zero to do with Spacex or Tesla.

Then why is it 'cost prohibitive' to correct data that lists 150+ yo people? Seems like something someone should have fixed a long time ago, or maybe NO ONE EVER NOTICED.

There’s an IG report about it. They noticed. It doesn’t actually matter because they aren’t getting paid.

The social security payment system should be replaced then. This isn't 1980 anymore. Just read the OIG recommendation - they said to fix it, but SSA disagreed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are these people collecting social security checks or just those with social security numbers? I think it's the latter. He needs to look at social security disability fraud.

Who knows. He may have made this up entirely. [b]Or run a report he doesn’t understand.[b]

This. He just ran a report listing the number of not dead (alive) Americans with SSNs by decades. And if you start adding, it’s pretty close to the to the census number of American citizens.

I’m ot sure what the GOTHA is here? That 300 million alone Americans have SSNs? So?

Okay KAGA, make this gotcha make sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are these people collecting social security checks or just those with social security numbers? I think it's the latter. He needs to look at social security disability fraud.

Who knows. He may have made this up entirely. [b]Or run a report he doesn’t understand.[b]

This. He just ran a report listing the number of not dead (alive) Americans with SSNs by decades. And if you start adding, it’s pretty close to the to the census number of American citizens.

I’m ot sure what the GOTHA is here? That 300 million alone Americans have SSNs? So?

Okay KAGA, make this gotcha make sense.

Didn't you see the OIG report linked upthread? They know the system has bad data, but declined to do anything about it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Thank God! The fraud needs to stop.

But he hasn’t stopped any fraud at all. He’s just letting the payments go through!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anybody looking at these numbers for more than 10 min with a critical thinking hat on should know these are just the number of SS accounts currently active. But Elon misrepresents this as the number of people in each age bracket who are currently receiving payments, so everyone in the comments and even Faux News is OMG there's massive fraud!

However, OIG already did a report on this several years ago in which they concluded the cost associated with marking the dead people as dead was cost prohibitive as only a few age 100+ were actually receiving any benefits. The people in question either died decades ago and were not reported, or had been issued multiple SS numbers and only one was marked as deceased.

https://oig.ssa.gov/assets/uploads/a-06-21-51022.pdf

Wait, what? The cost of correcting a DATA TABLE is 'cost prohibitive'? What kind of Rube Goldberg machine are they running over there!

I'm beginning to understand the other thing Musk tweeted:

"The logic flow diagram for the Social Security system looks INSANE. No one person actually knows how it works. The payment files that move between Social Security and Treasury have significant inconsistencies that are not reconciled. It’s wild," Musk declared in a post on X.

He is lying and gaslighting. When will you people understand that? He isn't a brilliant tactitian, but rather a rich guy who started on third based and got money from nefarious sources to co-opt existing businesses and ideas. He had little to do with innnovation at PayPal and had less than zero to do with Spacex or Tesla.

Then why is it 'cost prohibitive' to correct data that lists 150+ yo people? Seems like something someone should have fixed a long time ago, or maybe NO ONE EVER NOTICED.

Per the OIG report, only 2% of people over age 100 are getting pay outs. Some people do live past 100 so they're likely legitimate. If you've ever seen the news, it can be a nightmare if you're accidentally declared dead so there's probably some aversion to marking all of these people dead. The rest of the people are not receiving benefits anyway, and it would cost money to mark them dead in the system, therefore it is cost prohibitive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anybody looking at these numbers for more than 10 min with a critical thinking hat on should know these are just the number of SS accounts currently active. But Elon misrepresents this as the number of people in each age bracket who are currently receiving payments, so everyone in the comments and even Faux News is OMG there's massive fraud!

However, OIG already did a report on this several years ago in which they concluded the cost associated with marking the dead people as dead was cost prohibitive as only a few age 100+ were actually receiving any benefits. The people in question either died decades ago and were not reported, or had been issued multiple SS numbers and only one was marked as deceased.

https://oig.ssa.gov/assets/uploads/a-06-21-51022.pdf

Wait, what? The cost of correcting a DATA TABLE is 'cost prohibitive'? What kind of Rube Goldberg machine are they running over there!

I'm beginning to understand the other thing Musk tweeted:

"The logic flow diagram for the Social Security system looks INSANE. No one person actually knows how it works. The payment files that move between Social Security and Treasury have significant inconsistencies that are not reconciled. It’s wild," Musk declared in a post on X.

He is lying and gaslighting. When will you people understand that? He isn't a brilliant tactitian, but rather a rich guy who started on third based and got money from nefarious sources to co-opt existing businesses and ideas. He had little to do with innovation at PayPal and had less than zero to do with Spacex or Tesla.

Then why is it 'cost prohibitive' to correct data that lists 150+ yo people? Seems like something someone should have fixed a long time ago, or maybe NO ONE EVER NOTICED.

Have you ever worked in COBAL? No? Then you really have no place to comment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anybody looking at these numbers for more than 10 min with a critical thinking hat on should know these are just the number of SS accounts currently active. But Elon misrepresents this as the number of people in each age bracket who are currently receiving payments, so everyone in the comments and even Faux News is OMG there's massive fraud!

However, OIG already did a report on this several years ago in which they concluded the cost associated with marking the dead people as dead was cost prohibitive as only a few age 100+ were actually receiving any benefits. The people in question either died decades ago and were not reported, or had been issued multiple SS numbers and only one was marked as deceased.

https://oig.ssa.gov/assets/uploads/a-06-21-51022.pdf

Wait, what? The cost of correcting a DATA TABLE is 'cost prohibitive'? What kind of Rube Goldberg machine are they running over there!

I'm beginning to understand the other thing Musk tweeted:

"The logic flow diagram for the Social Security system looks INSANE. No one person actually knows how it works. The payment files that move between Social Security and Treasury have significant inconsistencies that are not reconciled. It’s wild," Musk declared in a post on X.

He is lying and gaslighting. When will you people understand that? He isn't a brilliant tactitian, but rather a rich guy who started on third based and got money from nefarious sources to co-opt existing businesses and ideas. He had little to do with innnovation at PayPal and had less than zero to do with Spacex or Tesla.

Then why is it 'cost prohibitive' to correct data that lists 150+ yo people? Seems like something someone should have fixed a long time ago, or maybe NO ONE EVER NOTICED.

There’s an IG report about it. They noticed. It doesn’t actually matter because they aren’t getting paid.

The social security payment system should be replaced then. This isn't 1980 anymore. Just read the OIG recommendation - they said to fix it, but SSA disagreed.

I thought you didn’t want to spend money on more government bureaucracy?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anybody looking at these numbers for more than 10 min with a critical thinking hat on should know these are just the number of SS accounts currently active. But Elon misrepresents this as the number of people in each age bracket who are currently receiving payments, so everyone in the comments and even Faux News is OMG there's massive fraud!

However, OIG already did a report on this several years ago in which they concluded the cost associated with marking the dead people as dead was cost prohibitive as only a few age 100+ were actually receiving any benefits. The people in question either died decades ago and were not reported, or had been issued multiple SS numbers and only one was marked as deceased.

https://oig.ssa.gov/assets/uploads/a-06-21-51022.pdf

Wait, what? The cost of correcting a DATA TABLE is 'cost prohibitive'? What kind of Rube Goldberg machine are they running over there!

I'm beginning to understand the other thing Musk tweeted:

"The logic flow diagram for the Social Security system looks INSANE. No one person actually knows how it works. The payment files that move between Social Security and Treasury have significant inconsistencies that are not reconciled. It’s wild," Musk declared in a post on X.

People that work with social security data regularly know how it works. He hasn't taken the time to bother understanding it and is effectively acting like an armchair quarterback. He doesn't know what he is talking about.

I know genealogy and I know how it works. One example, my grandmother died in 1951 at age 43. She had a Social Security number because she worked in a factory during WW2, but she never claimed benefits. There was no computerized database then so her death was never recorded by SS. She's probably one of those 115 year old people.

I can almost guarantee she is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anybody looking at these numbers for more than 10 min with a critical thinking hat on should know these are just the number of SS accounts currently active. But Elon misrepresents this as the number of people in each age bracket who are currently receiving payments, so everyone in the comments and even Faux News is OMG there's massive fraud!

However, OIG already did a report on this several years ago in which they concluded the cost associated with marking the dead people as dead was cost prohibitive as only a few age 100+ were actually receiving any benefits. The people in question either died decades ago and were not reported, or had been issued multiple SS numbers and only one was marked as deceased.

https://oig.ssa.gov/assets/uploads/a-06-21-51022.pdf

Wait, what? The cost of correcting a DATA TABLE is 'cost prohibitive'? What kind of Rube Goldberg machine are they running over there!

I'm beginning to understand the other thing Musk tweeted:

"The logic flow diagram for the Social Security system looks INSANE. No one person actually knows how it works. The payment files that move between Social Security and Treasury have significant inconsistencies that are not reconciled. It’s wild," Musk declared in a post on X.

He is lying and gaslighting. When will you people understand that? He isn't a brilliant tactitian, but rather a rich guy who started on third based and got money from nefarious sources to co-opt existing businesses and ideas. He had little to do with innnovation at PayPal and had less than zero to do with Spacex or Tesla.

Then why is it 'cost prohibitive' to correct data that lists 150+ yo people? Seems like something someone should have fixed a long time ago, or maybe NO ONE EVER NOTICED.

Because there is a level of acceptable error in any complex system, and the level of acceptable error takes into account the cost of fixing the errors. It could very well be that no one noticed because it’s not very important in the scheme of things. It could be that it was noticed and accounted as acceptable error, or most likely, that the error is completely made up like everything else from DOGE.

The bolded is the right answer.