ADVERTISEMENT

So just another tidbit in SS payments…

thank-you-yay.gif
You’re an idiot. Bout what expected however from some on this board .
 
Seriously here is the thing, When you see Trump say something or Musk tweet something don’t automatically take it at face value. Wait for actual reviews of what fraud and or waste actually transpired before becoming outraged. It has been proven numerous times that they are being disingenuous and then “oops, We made a mistake”.
I suppose that’s fair .
 
  • Like
Reactions: BelemNole

So are tens of millions of people over 100 years old receiving benefits?

No.

Part of the confusion comes from Social Security’s software system based on the COBOL programming language, which has a lack of date type. This means that some entries with missing or incomplete birthdates will default to a reference point of more than 150 years ago. The news organization WIRED first reported on the use of COBOL programming language at the Social Security Administration.

Additionally, a series of reports from the Social Security Administration’s inspector general in March 2023 and July 2024 state that the agency has not established a new system to properly annotate death information in its database, which included roughly 18.9 million Social Security numbers of people born in 1920 or earlier but were not marked as deceased. This does not mean, however, that these individuals were receiving benefits.

The agency decided not to update the database because of the cost to do so, which would run upward of $9 million.

A July 2023 Social Security OIG report states that “almost none of the numberholders discussed in the report currently receive SSA payments.” And, as of September 2015, the agency automatically stops payments to people who are older than 115 years old.



Hell, my college education was effectively all COBOL programming. The code we had to create to audit dates was quite interesting to say the least - and I distinctly remember having to write lines where if there was a null field for birth or death dates that it would kick those records out into a report to where the raw data could then be manually corrected to either put in the actual date or add a standard default date that was so outlandish to forever identify that we didn't have a true date to put there (and to treat those records differently).

The claims and OP are...

1024px-Looney_Tunes_2024.svg.png
 
Mostly government that still uses it
No, it's still heavily used outside of the government. For example, a local grocery store chain in Iowa ran its entire backend off a homegrown COBOL application. They are just now in the process of migrating off of it. They are two years into the effort.

As a side note the number of those who can code COBOL is shrinking.
 
Doubtful
If you don’t think the government is stealing from you I don’t know what to tell you.
You asked a question, I replied. You created a a phantom issue. Thinking just because, in an old system it didn't have a death date, that they were still sending checks. If you have been involved with anyone who has died or ect, the checks get immediately cut off. They are not still sending checks. Whether the system they pulled from doesn't have the full date of death information, does not mean that it was not completed through a paper system or other manual system at a local office and not on the main hub. That you are fantasizing about a potential issue and having an orgasm about it, seems to be rather odd.
 

So are tens of millions of people over 100 years old receiving benefits?

No.

Part of the confusion comes from Social Security’s software system based on the COBOL programming language, which has a lack of date type. This means that some entries with missing or incomplete birthdates will default to a reference point of more than 150 years ago. The news organization WIRED first reported on the use of COBOL programming language at the Social Security Administration.

Additionally, a series of reports from the Social Security Administration’s inspector general in March 2023 and July 2024 state that the agency has not established a new system to properly annotate death information in its database, which included roughly 18.9 million Social Security numbers of people born in 1920 or earlier but were not marked as deceased. This does not mean, however, that these individuals were receiving benefits.

The agency decided not to update the database because of the cost to do so, which would run upward of $9 million.
This is exactly the same problem that most computer systems had during the Y2K mess.
 
Apparently they didn’t want to spend 9 million to upgrade the computer systems.
This is the crazy thing. The government spends that much or more in about ten seconds.
What is true is that benefits are set to automatically cut off at I think it’s 115? So even though the computer doesn’t delete the names the payments stop.
Now, does that need to be modernized and brought up to date? Of course it does. And refusing to spend a very small sum to do so is ridiculous.
 
The supposed genius in charge of doge, apparently doesn't know how to read code. But the braindead maganazis like wop, hans, and sullivan will lap it up and spread it like wildfire.
I think the supposed genius might know exactly what the code meant, but he used it to further manipulate the American public.
 
  • Like
Reactions: praguehawk
This is the crazy thing. The government spends that much or more in about ten seconds.
What is true is that benefits are set to automatically cut off at I think it’s 115? So even though the computer doesn’t delete the names the payments stop.
Now, does that need to be modernized and brought up to date? Of course it does. And refusing to spend a very small sum to do so is ridiculous.
The fix was $150 million. Using a date back in time fixes the issue without having to harmonize the data. The best path forward would be to migrate off their legacy application but that's costly. One of the biggest issues with COBOL is that business rules are hardcoded everywhere making it hard to figure out how to migrate off of it without losing functionality (rules). It's also very verbose. Most procedural languages are difficult to migrate off of.

Fixing the data does nothing other than add additional technical debt.
 
The fix was $150 million. Using a date back in time fixes the issue without having to harmonize the data. The best path forward would be to migrate off their legacy application but that's costly. One of the biggest issues with COBOL is that business rules are hardcoded everywhere making it hard to figure out how to migrate off of it without losing functionality (rules). It's also very verbose. Most procedural languages are difficult to migrate off of.

Fixing the data does nothing other than add additional technical debt.
Okay. I read in the WSJ just this morning it was the $9 million but I have a hunch your information is correct to update the whole thing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hawkeyetraveler
Okay. I read in the WSJ just this morning it was the $9 million but I have a hunch your information is correct to update the whole thing.
Whether it's $9 or $150 I can assure you the project would go over budget and cost three times the estimate. That's not just the government, that's almost every major IT project regardless of sector.
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT