Fox Host Tells Caller Her Bipolar Disorder Is "Made Up" And "The Latest Fad" For Money | Blog | Media Matters for America

This is why I fight, because ignorant fucks like Tom Sullivan,,,

“I’m very skeptical. And I’ve got to tell you, if you haven’t been told, I will tell you. I think bipolar is like the latest fad. Everybody and their brother is getting diagnosed with bipolar. And last time I checked, we all have good days and we all have bad. And I don’t consider that an illness. And I don’t consider it a disability.”

Latest "fad" my ass!! Another able-bodied, privileged, white male telling us how life really is. Honey child, you wouldn't last 24 hours in my world on my best day. You would be crawling back to your momma asking to suckle on her teet and protect you from the monster that is your brain (if you have one).

Oh and Tom in answer to your question, "What were these people called 25 years ago?" They were called manic depressives back then, it was my original diagnosis 22 years ago. You may want to brush up on your pre-Hippocratic history to understand more and then follow up with a more contemporary history. It was in the 1850s that the "concept" of manic-depression (or what we call bipolar disorder) took its current place in psychiatry beginning with Baillarger and Falret. Kraeplin continued in the early 1900s coining the term manic depressive psychosis. It progresses from there,,, [Edited to add: The DSM-III (1980) is the first official publication in the US where the nomenclature surrounding bipolar disorder was changed from manic-depression.]

Make no mistake in believing that this was "just" an off-hand comment(ary). Unless one was living on a remote island, who can forget Romney's forty-seven percent comment. But this animosity towards the under-served and disadvantaged seems to be a common thread among the Reich. Consider, Rand "get them a job on the first floor" Paul's recent statement alluded to in the article:

You know, the thing is is that with all of these programs, there's always somebody who's deserving and everybody in this room knows somebody who is gaming the system. What I tell people is, "If you look like me and you hop out of your truck, you shouldn't be getting a disability check." You know, over half the people on disability are either anxious or their back hurts. Join the club! [Laughter] Who doesn't get up a little anxious for work every day and their back hurts?! Everybody over 40 has a back pain.

This is no coincidence, the Reich has made it clear what they are trying to accomplish. As TPM points out, it has been going on for 80 years:

Social Security, in more ways than one the mother of all U.S. entitlement programs, has been the dragon that conservatives have succeeded in slashing, but never slaying, over its 80-year history. Their opposition has morphed from outright ideological grounds as the program was being debated during the New Deal era to a campaign masked in careful rhetoric once Social Security became virtually untouchable as a political animal.

Republicans know they have a new opportunity with the disability trust fund and a leverage point that comes along once every 20 years, and they're seizing it. Price floated some favorite proposals like means-testing, increasing the eligibility age, and individual accounts (otherwise known as privatization). He described it as the GOP's effort to "normalize the discussion and debate about Social Security."

Privatization is their goal and has been since the early 80s, beginning in earnest with Reagan's luke-warm attempt at revamping the program.

Privatization -- called "individual accounts," which had people investing their money, eliminating the base benefit that Social Security had been conceived as -- was the goal. They considered young people "the most obvious constituency for the private alternative" and pondered ways "to detach, or at least neutralize" the older Americans who were or would soon be benefitting from the program in its current form.

It continues to this day.

As one of its first orders of business upon convening Tuesday, the Republican House of Representatives approved a rule that will seriously undermine efforts to keep all of Social Security solvent.

The rule hampers an otherwise routine reallocation of Social Security payroll tax income from the old-age program to the disability program. Such a reallocation, in either direction, has taken place 11 times since 1968, according to Kathy Ruffing of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

But it's especially urgent now, because the disability program's trust fund is expected to run dry as early as next year. At that point, disability benefits for 11 million beneficiaries would have to be cut 20%. Reallocating the income, however, would keep both the old-age and disability programs solvent until at least 2033, giving Congress plenty of time to assess the programs' needs and work out a long-term fix.
,,,
The rule change reflects the burgeoning demonization of disability recipients, a trend we've reported on in the past. it's been fomented by conservative Republicans and abetted by sloppy reporting by institutions such as NPR and "60 Minutes."

Disability recipients are easily caricatured as malingering layabouts by politicians, academics and journalists too lazy to do their homework. They'll say disability benefits are easy to obtain, so lavish they discourage work, and convenient substitutes for welfare payments. None of that is true.

As Jason Easley explained in response to Bernie Sander's statement, "[t]he rule change is a part of a Republican effort to kill Social Security. If the disability fund can’t be replenished, Benefits will have to be cut, and some of the most economically vulnerable people in our society will be pushed deeper into poverty. According to experts, the problem with the Social Security disability cash assistance programs is that it limits the earnings of disabled individuals to just above the poverty line. This creates a trap that makes it impossible for individuals who can’t work to escape poverty."

The Reich is doing what they do best, continuing their insidious attack against those that are unable defend themselves. Creating a wedge issue where one should not be by polarizing the lower and middle classes against each other while the rich just get richer.  "[N]ormalizing the discussion and debate about Social Security" means only one thing, cut it.

During his January 16, 2005, interview with the Washington Post, President George W. Bush corrected the reporter's use of the term "privatization plan", insisting on the phrase "personal savings accounts." Privatization is no longer the term used by Republicans to describe the plan, due to its poor performance in polls and focus groups.  Another euphemism was deployed by Karl Rove during a February 9, 2005, interview with Hannity & Colmes on Fox News. According to the News Hounds blog, Mr. Rove spoke of modernizing Social Security.

Rove's favorite euphemism was also used in a memo sent to the Social Security Administration's regional and public relations directors in February 2004. It stated that "Modernization must include individually controlled, voluntary personal retirement accounts." Also in the memo were talking points on the "long-term challenges facing Social Security." Critics said the memo was evidence of the Bush administration instructing a government agency to promote a certain political agenda.

Fox Host Tells Caller Her Bipolar Disorder Is "Made Up" And "The Latest Fad" For Money | Blog | Media Matters for America

Social Security, Treasury target taxpayers for their parents’ decades-old debts - The Washington Post

A few weeks ago, with no notice, the U.S. government intercepted Mary Grice’s tax refunds from both the IRS and the state of Maryland. Grice had no idea that Uncle Sam had seized her money until some days later, when she got a letter saying that her refund had gone to satisfy an old debt to the government — a very old debt.

When Grice was 4, back in 1960, her father died, leaving her mother with five children to raise. Until the kids turned 18, Sadie Grice got survivor benefits from Social Security to help feed and clothe them.

Now, Social Security claims it overpaid someone in the Grice family — it’s not sure who — in 1977. After 37 years of silence, four years after Sadie Grice died, the government is coming after her daughter. Why the feds chose to take Mary’s money, rather than her surviving siblings’, is a mystery.

[,,,]
The Treasury Department has intercepted $1.9 billion in tax refunds already this year — $75 million of that on debts delinquent for more than 10 years, said Jeffrey Schramek, assistant commissioner of the department’s debt management service. The aggressive effort to collect old debts started three years ago — the result of a single sentence tucked into the farm bill lifting the 10-year statute of limitations on old debts to Uncle Sam.

[,,,]
Grice filed suit against the Social Security Administration in federal court in Greenbelt this week, alleging that the government violated her right to due process by holding her responsible for a $2,996 debt supposedly incurred under her father’s Social Security number.

Social Security officials told Grice that six people — Grice, her four siblings and her father’s first wife, whom she never knew — had received benefits under her father’s account. The government doesn’t look into exactly who got the overpayment; the policy is to seek compensation from the oldest sibling and work down through the family until the debt is paid.

Social Security, Treasury target taxpayers for their parents’ decades-old debts - The Washington Post

Barry Lynn talks Hobby Lobby on Point of Inquiry (Pt 7)

In regards to the case United States v. Lee (1982), three points Justice Burger brought to bare and why this case is good precedent in regards to the Hobby Lobby case:

1]  Burger points out that the Congressional exemption, mention above concerning Byler, was only for self-employed Amish, not Amish who employed others; therefore, that exemption could not be construed as being applicable here.

2]  Although Burger agreed that Lee's religious beliefs were sincerely held, ",,,not all burdens on religion are unconstitutional. The state may justify a limitation on religious liberty by showing that it is essential to accomplish an overriding governmental interest."

3]  "Congress and the courts have been sensitive to the needs flowing from the Free Exercise Clause, but every person cannot be shielded from all the burdens incident to exercising every aspect of the right to practice religious beliefs. When followers of a particular sect enter into commercial activity as a matter of choice, the limits they accept on their own conduct as a matter of conscience and faith are not to be superimposed on the statutory schemes which are binding on others in that activity."

In other words, entering into commercial business (ie Hobby Lobby) is voluntary.  Choosing to become a business owner entails certain legal responsibilities, "The social security system in the United States serves the public interest by providing a comprehensive insurance system with a variety of benefits available to all participants, with costs shared by employers and employees."

Compare that to Lynn's statement:

"The administration, and those of us that support it with 'friends of the court briefs,' will argue that there is a legitimate State interest in creating a healthcare system that works; and that it works for men and women, the rich and poor. This is an effort to have a comprehensive system of healthcare in America; at least the beginnings of a comprehensive system. That's the argument we will  use and I think it is a very good one."

Personally I do not see how HL will over come this hurdle.  Burger's assessment and opinion of Lee set outstanding precedent.

Barry Lynn talks Hobby Lobby on Point of Inquiry (Pt 6)

A bit of history to clarify Lynn's comparison to the Amish in regards to Social Security:

In 1935 "The Social Security Act" which included "Old Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance," passed Congress.  In 1955 the Act was extended to include farm operators which set up the dispute(s) with the Amish.  Though they are supporters of "paying unto Caesar what is Caesar’s," they do have issue with commercialized insurance.  Under their doctrine, use of insurance is seen as not trusting God and of the world.  More succinctly it is a violation of their strongly held view of church-state separation, the paying of monies to the government in return for some form of benefit/welfare.  As Lynn mentioned, the care of the elderly is seen as the responsibility of the family and community, not the government.  They take car of their own.  In 1956 a group of Old Order Amish farmers began a legal battle with the IRS to preserve their faith.

The first case stemmed from a trend begun in the 50s, While Social Security was called a tax and administered by the IRS,  it was also clearly described as a form of old age and survivors insurance.  The Amish refused to pay the "premium" nor accept the benefits

Valentine Byler owed four years of IRS taxes, with interest the amount owed was $308.96.  In a 1960 case before the Pittsburgh U.S. District Court, Byler basically challenged the the use of the words "and Disability Insurance" which violated his religious beliefs.  The case was dismissed, but in 1961, the IRS in true conspiratorial fashion, seized 3 horse and tackle as payment.  ",,,People have no right to use their religion as an excuse not to pay taxes."

Later in 1961 following the seizure a meeting occurred with the IRS commissioner in Washington and Amish bishops citing I Timothy 5:8,  "But if any provide not for his own, and especially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith and is worse than an infidel."  It was decide that other means would be pursued.  In the end, the Amish pursued a legislative exemption which was included in the 1965 Medicare bill, "a clause exempting the Old Order Amish, and any other religious sect who conscientiously objected to insurance, from paying Social Security payments, providing that sect had been in existence since December 31, 1950."

The preceding information was condensed from the following article:  Pay Unto Caesar - The Amish & Social Security

Barry Lynn talks Hobby Lobby on Point of Inquiry (Pt 5)

Q::Could it be argued that Hobby Lobby is asking for the freedom to impose it's own religious agenda over that of it's employees?

Lynn seemed a bit hesitant and unclear in his answer but talks of how it is the "the guy who runs the company" whose "religious views are being foisted on ALL of his employees."  Lynn demonstrates this point by pointing out that if one were to take a "poll of their employees, like the rest of the public, 9 of 10 women will have used contraception."  [This next statement a bit unclear and I'm not sure what Lynn is inferring.  Is he referring to actual printed company policy or some type of board of directorship?]  "I wouldn't say that companies have any of these positions themselves, but in this case the president of the company does.  The president of the company is the one who rules in these employee policies IF the SCOTUS buys this bogus argument."

Q::The RFRA says that the exception is when there is a legitimate State interest.  If the anti-Hobby Lobby side is going to prevail, what State interest are they going to articulate in terms of what they are defending?

Lynn characterizes the HL position as such, "They are going to say there is no legitimate State interest here because insurance coverage for contraception is not that big of deal.  You can go out and buy a box of condoms and it only costs a few dollars." [Pondering, will Viagra be cover under the ACA? If so, are they fighting against that?]

"The administration, and those of us that support it with 'friends of the court briefs,' will argue that there is a legitimate State interest in creating a healthcare system that works; and that it works for men and women, the rich and poor.  This is an effort to have a comprehensive system of healthcare in America; at least the beginnings of a comprehensive system.  That's the argument we will use and I think it is a very good one."

Lynn talks of the similarities of this case to the Amish in regards to Social Security law.

"The Amish, who have filed a number of very important lawsuits,,,have claimed that they should not only be exempt from Social Security themselves,,,but they have also said, we don't want to take social security out of our non-Amish employees who work for Amish companies.  The SCOTUS soundly rejected that idea over 20 years ago." [I believe Lynn may have misspoke here in regards to Amish employees as the case United States v. Lee (1982) dealt with an Amish employer, employing other Amish but failed to withhold social security taxes from his employees or to pay the employer's share of such taxes.  Unless there is another case I am not aware of.]

"It is very similar in some ways to the challenge HLs making and it's certainly going to be a case the HL side will need to distinguish itself from if it thinks it's going to get 5 votes, even with this conservative SCOTUS."