Another (incredibly trivialized) attack on Social Security

The National Journal, an elite newsmagazine that claims to be “regarded as the most influential publication in Washington,” is trumpeting a big scoop about Social Security on its homepage.

“Social Security Doles Out More Than $500,000 to Sexual Predators,” the Journal reports.

Since the National Journal also claims to be “fiercely honest and scrupulously non-partisan,” this sounds like something worth looking into.  Full Article


Social Security Doles Out More Than $500,000 to Sexual Predators

Related posts

Notify of
We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...  
  1. Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  2. Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  3. Swear words should be starred out such as f*k and s*t
  4. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  5. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  6. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  7. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  8. We cannot connect participants privately - feel free to leave your contact info here. You may want to create a new / free, readily available email address.
  9. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  10. Please do not post in all Caps.
  11. If you wish to link to a serious and relevant media article, legitimate advocacy group or other pertinent web site / document, please provide the full link. No abbreviated / obfuscated links.
  12. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  13. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  14. Please choose a short user name that does not contain links to other web sites or identify real people
  15. Please do not solicit funds
  16. If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), or any others, the first time you use it please expand it for new people to better understand.
  17. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  18. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
ACSOL, including but not limited to its board members and agents, does not provide legal advice on this website.  In addition, ACSOL warns that those who provide comments on this website may or may not be legal professionals on whose advice one can reasonably rely.  

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

and we can see this leading to banning Register Citizens from SS benefits like section 8 and food stamps

I’m not sure what this means, sex offenders do not get social security benefits?

Dr: No, that is not what the article pointed out. It only noted that anyone in jail or prison does not receive SS benefits and that Sex Offenders, if housed in “Civil Commitment Centers” after prison, also are not eligible to receive SS benefits while at those centers.

Sounds like another “loophole” that needs to be closed ASAP. Good thing someone is always trying to take something else away from registered citizens…now that this has been brought to light, we’re going to have to pass a law and rewrite policy so that victims don’t have to bear the anguish of thinking about an offender having more rights than them. There is no sarcasm capable of keeping up with reality anymore…

I love the National Journal. I have never read it and plan to avoid it. But the value system they represent reminds me of garbage.

Recently I have been reading a book from the 1930’s entitled, Lower Middle Class Morality and Moral Indignation. As is well known, many scholars have cited strong parallels between lower middle class morality, and the ideology of the Nazis.

There is no arguing with foolish and ill informed people. But here is what you CAN do, and what I am working on, now that I have completed parole: you can offer a positive point of view, minus the nastiness of middle class morality. Unbeknownst to the National Journal, many who have served their time are busying themselves to create a more positive future for ALL people—-including the foolish, including the ill-informed.

When I started paying into Social Security, the retirement age to receive my benefits was 65. I thought that was guaranteed like an insurance policy. But in the early 1990’s I got the letter stating the “new” retirement age would be 67 1/2. This in itself seems wrong to change the agreement after I had already paid into the fund for over 12 years. So now I suppose I’ll have to worry about some politician passing a (vote-for-me) law banning S.S. benefits to all Registered Citizens?

Oh boy; here we go again. Won’t anyone ever ask those making these kind of statements to prove their statements are true? Are people that unthinking? I’m beginning to think so.

The federal government needs to print out a pamphlet about what programs you are now available has a Registered Citizen

I know THIS issues if not one of “protection”, but at least they are trying to distinguish between high risk/level vs. low risk/level offenders that the law would apply to.

Unlike Orange County, CA (and other cities in the state) that say they want to “protect children against SEXUAL PREDATORS”, then go and pass ordinances that only list “registered sex offenders” as being who it applies to.

Still, like all such laws, it should not be retro active.