From the "Putz got balls" file...no SSN no $$$

[rn79870]

Yes, the rebate checks are going out. People are getting them left and right. But some aren't. Why? They have no Social Security numbers!!!Which means 1. They don't live in the US, or 2. They are illegally here. Yet they have the nerve to complain!

It appears that Uncle Sam has finally done something reasonable. Government $$$ for Americans who are legally here, and have a SSN.

[Leuthesius]

Except for those that have stolen SSN's from others....

[themadscientist]

Yes, the rebate checks are going out. People are getting them left and right. But some aren't. Why? They have no Social Security numbers!!!Which means 1. They don't live in the US, or 2. They are illegally here. Yet they have the nerve to complain!

It appears that Uncle Sam has finally done something reasonable. Government $$$ for Americans who are legally here, and have a SSN.

You should get your facts straight before getting on your soap box guy; it will spare you the fall.

A lot of people are legally married to foreign spouses who have legitimate ITIN numbers. Those spouses also do not get counted towards the rebate. Fair enough, in a governmental way but here's the icing on the cake. If you used her ITIN number when filing jointly you don't get anything either even though you do have a SSN. Ask me how I know http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200...t_out

I got ****ed out of $600, then $1200 but according to you that's fair?

Enjoy your check "good" citizen

Greg, can we get a big middle finger smilee?

[AZhitman]

Doesn't it require that you live in the US? Or file US income tax return?

Not being argumentative, but a stimulus check to someone living abroad doesn't help the US economy.

[themadscientist]

No, people over here are getting them, it's the ITIN joint return thing that ****ed me. If you filed an 07' return and met some income requirement you get one. Let us not forget that we have the wonderful new invention called the interweb and people I know have been racing to burn that money up ordering on line. I pay taxes like a good dog, where's my food pellet? I guarantee there are thousands of illegal immigrants with stolen SSNs getting checks while law-abiding Americans who did the sinful thing of marrying a foreign person get ****ed. At least uncle sam is consistent

[rn79870]

So what fact was wrong? No SSN, no check. Seems reasonable to me given that the rebate is to stimulate the US economy, not some foreign economy.

[themadscientist]

So what fact was wrong? No SSN, no check. Seems reasonable to me given that the rebate is to stimulate the US economy, not some foreign economy.

I have an SSN, where's my check?

[rn79870]

it's the ITIN joint return thing that ****ed me

You didn't file a tax return with your SSN, therefore your SSN reported no income. No income, no check.

I thought once you were out of the country for 18 months, you didn't have to file returns for income earned outside of the US ??????

[themadscientist]

I like the way you changed your post. You really should read more before getting so opinionated. As I said, myself and others shop on line with U.S. companies. Military people all over the world shop at base exchanges, american run base exchanges. Want me to toss you down a ladder or are you going to keep digging until you hit water pipes?

You didn't file a tax return with your SSN, therefore your SSN reported no income. No income, no check.

I thought once you were out of the country for 18 months, you didn't have to file returns for income earned outside of the US ??????

No I have paid taxes and filed every year of my adult life. I did file my return with my SSN and my wifes ITIN as I am supposed to do by law.

My pay is not considered foreign earned income, it is taxable and you can bet your sweet *** it is taxed.

You are not in possesion of relevant fact which makes your dogmatic opinon rediculous.

[rn79870]

Let me ask again. What part of my statement, "No SSN - No Check," is wrong? Apparently, you are comparing my statement to your situation, which is "Have SSN, didn't get check." 2 different things.

[themadscientist]

Don't play semantics with me, you know exactly what you meant and now you are trying to backpedal. I have an SSN and I got no check. Your statement sets up the implication that an SSN gets you a check by relation and I am telling you it doesn't because of this policy that you like so much. You also seem to think you know the ins and outs of my income and how I file which also is wrong.

[rn79870]

... Military people all over the world shop at base exchanges, american run base exchanges. Want me to toss you down a ladder or are you going to keep digging until you hit water pipes?

And military people, WHO flied with SSN's will probably get checks becasue they do not fit the No SSN = No Check class.

[rn79870]

Okay, let's take a look at what the OP said...

..But some aren't. Why? They have no Social Security numbers!!!...

No SSN = No Check... That is about as clear as it gets. No confusion there...No where does it say a SSN is a guaranty of a check.

Backpedaling, nope, but you've had another swing and another miss...

And I have no clue about your income, or how you file. You are free to keep that personal, as it isn't relevant to this discussion.

[themadscientist]

And military people, WHO flied with SSN's will probably get checks becasue they do not fit the No SSN = No Check class.

Wrong again. Seriously, a quick Google search before spouting off, so simple.http://www.stripes.com/article...=true

Okay, let's take a look at what the OP said...No SSN = No Check... That is about as clear as it gets. No confusion there...No where does it say a SSN is a guaranty of a check.

Backpedaling, nope, but you've had another swing and another miss...

Really. I think we should look at what the OP said.

It appears that Uncle Sam has finally done something reasonable. Government $$$ for Americans who are legally here, and have a SSN.

That's me, no check= fail.He connects it's outta there, the crowd goes wild.

And I have no clue about your income, or how you file. You are free to keep that personal, as it isn't relevant to this discussion.

You seem to think you do and confidently comment about it. It is in fact relevant and it is you who brought it up.

You didn't file a tax return with your SSN, therefore your SSN reported no income. No income, no check.

I thought once you were out of the country for 18 months, you didn't have to file returns for income earned outside of the US ??????

batting you around like a dead mouse is almost as fun as getting a check.

[rn79870]

Geebus, never has anyone made it this easy with a cite...

Military families who file joint tax returns will not get this year’s special stimulus check if their foreign spouses do not have Social Security numbers, according to military tax experts and the Internal Revenue Service

Your "He connects it's outta there, the crowd goes wild." was short lived. The catcher caught it. You're out!

It appears that Uncle Sam has finally done something reasonable. Government $$$ for Americans who are legally here, and have a SSN.

OMG. I said it more than once...and have a SSN

Let me rephrase it.... No SSN, no checkie.

batting you around like a dead mouse is almost as fun as getting a check.

While you're playing with yourself and the mouse, why not drop a comment or two showing the incorrect part of my OP. You've had three chances now but you keep pointing out the strengths in my OP instead. Why not quote the IRS rule about No SSN, no Check, in support of your position...

[Cold_Zero]

TMS-My former boss's son still lives with them while he is in college. He has to file a separate tax return for his earnings (job while he is in school), but because he is claimed on his parents taxes as a dependent he gets no check. So your thinking my former boss gets a check right? Nope, not if the child is born before 1990. So he gets screwed either way.

[themadscientist]

OMG. I said it more than once...and have a SSN

Let me rephrase it.... No SSN, no checkie.

I have an SSN and still get no checkie. You said I get one in your first post, you are wrong.

TMS-My former boss's son still lives with them while he is in college. He has to file a separate tax return for his earnings (job while he is in school), but because he is claimed on his parents taxes as a dependent he gets no check. So your thinking my former boss gets a check right? Nope, not if the child is born before 1990. So he gets screwed either way.

No I don't think he should get one, the OP does though according to his first post.

There should be a mechanism that prevents ITIN holders from getting swept up in this policy though. At the very least their spouses should not be punished as well.

[Cold_Zero]

TMS,My point was simply that not everyone is getting one. I also know some people who were given partial amounts instead of the maximum. But hey, I dont know their tax liability to understand why they only got 300$

[rn79870]

I have an SSN and still get no checkie. You said I get one in your first post, you are wrong.

No I don't think he should get one, the OP does though according to his first post.

Noooo. I never said you would get one... What I said was no SSN, no check. You misread that. You can check the OP again if you like.

Here it is..

But some aren't. Why? They have no Social Security numbers!!!

Even the thread title = "no SSN no $$$"

I never said you would get a check if you had a SSN. Many people with SSNs who DIDN'T FILE a tax return are not getting a check either. This is not inconsistent with No SSN, no check.

There should be a mechanism that prevents ITIN holders from getting swept up in this policy though. At the very least their spouses should not be punished as well.

Maybe so.

TMS, I've given you three, maybe four chances to show where I errored and you haven't done so. I'm sorry if you misread my post, or misunderstood what you read, but my OP stands as written.

[Sil40_Mayhem]

Yes, the rebate checks are going out. People are getting them left and right. But some aren't. Why? They have no Social Security numbers!!!Which means 1. They don't live in the US, or 2. They are illegally here. Yet they have the nerve to complain!

It appears that Uncle Sam has finally done something reasonable. Government $$$ for Americans who are legally here, and have a SSN.

I think the argument against your OP deals with the "Why" portion. Here, you only provide two reasons why people haven't gotten checks, as if they are the only reasons. Perhaps if it were worded differently like "Why? Most likely they have no SSNs..." or at least adding another reason (e.g. 3. Other extenuating circumstances). That leaves some room for other possibilities. Just my opinion, but from the wording, the premise appears to be that the reasons you listed were the only reasons why someone would not have gotten a check.

By your logic, no, you did not say everyone with an SSN will get a check. However, you did not say that there could have been any reasons besides being in the U.S. illegally or not having an SSN which would keep one from getting a check.

[rn79870]

Seriously, how can anyone misunderstand the statement - "But some aren't. Why? They have no Social Security numbers!!!"

The OP title, "no SSN no $$$" and the statement "But some aren't. Why? They have no Social Security numbers!!! clearly limits the reach of the OP to those without SSNs. The reason they have no SSN is immaterial to the proposition; no SSN no $$$.

Nowhere in the OP is there a reference, even casually, to those with SSN who are not getting a check. That was added by another poster who misread the OP.

The title of the OP stands to defeats the majority of the opposing posts. My syllogism is valid.

[Sil40_Mayhem]

Seriously, how can anyone misunderstand the statement - "But some aren't. Why? They have no Social Security numbers!!!"

The OP title, "no SSN no $$$" and the statement "But some aren't. Why? They have no Social Security numbers!!! clearly limits the reach of the OP to those without SSNs. The reason they have no SSN is immaterial to the proposition; no SSN no $$$.

Nowhere in the OP is there a reference, even casually, to those with SSN who are not getting a check. That was added by another poster who misread the OP.

The title of the OP stands to defeats the majority of the opposing posts. My syllogism is valid.

Come down off the high horse a bit, and check this out. " People are getting them left and right. But some aren't." Two groups: those who are getting checks, those who are not. Still with me so far? Of those who are not, you only listed illegals and those without SSNs. The 'some' that you are so eager to point out was not directed at those within the second group, but rather referenced the second group as a whole. For heaven's sakes, man, I'm not calling you out or saying that your post is as wrong as two left shoes. I'm merely trying to get you to understand that the wording is what is tripping people up, not the intended sentiment. Bottom line: perhaps it's misread/misinterpreted because it's miswritten. And to correct something that is glaringly wrong, I'm not opposing your OP. If anything, I'm trying offer a reason as to why others are. One more time:

People are getting them left and right. <-- Group 1 But some (here, referring to Group 2 as a whole, not merely a portion of said group) aren't. <-- Group 2 Why? They have no Social Security numbers!!! <-- in reference to Group 2

My humble suggestion:Quote »Yes, the rebate checks are going out. Some people are getting them left and right. But others aren't. Why? Some of them have no Social Security numbers!!!Which means 1. They don't live in the US, or 2. They are illegally here...[/quote]Once again, I don't think it's the overall thought that's in question, but a technicality in how it was presented. Does my example still capture the essence of what you're saying? That's all I was trying to convey. I think I understand what you were trying to say, but the way it came out may have presented a different meaning to those who read it. I'm not trying to cut you down or anything. Just the opposite, actually.

[nzmoman]

Yes, the rebate checks are going out. People are getting them left and right. But some aren't. Why? They have no Social Security numbers!!!Which means 1. They don't live in the US, or 2. They are illegally here. Yet they have the nerve to complain!

It appears that Uncle Sam has finally done something reasonable. Government $$$ for Americans who are legally here, and have a SSN.

I honestly think the only reason these are going out is because the IRS wants to do something "nice" in light of all the talk about getting rid of the organization...all they are doing is giving you part of the money they took from you already and people are excited about that

So why the arguing over it?

[AZhitman]

I'm on the fence about this thing...

I also have more questions than answers now, after Mike and Bob did the tango up in this biatch.

Specifically, related to US citizens living abroad - I'd be curious to understand more of that whole issue that Bob dismissed as "private" (I'm nosy, so sue me).

Because LOTS of people contribute to the US economy via e-commerce who don't receive stimulus checks.

[rn79870]

The OP clearly targets one class and one class only. Those without SSNs. The thread title, and the first paragraph make that abundantly clear. Another poster called the Op as incorrect due to the fact that he had a SSN and didn't get a check. That may be so, but his status wasn't addressed in the statement no SSN no $$$.

Adding words to a post in an attempt to classify your position is fair, IF it does not change the clear meaning of the OP. You have changed the clear meaning by pushing the thrust beyond that class of persons described as those without SSNs, in an attempt to make it fit your logic. You must fit your logic to the OP, as written, if you wish to address any incorrect issue in it. The fact that the OP may not have addressed every conceivable possibility of why, why not a check is issued does not make the core statement incorrect.

People are getting them left and right. <-- Group 1 But some (here, referring to Group 2 as a whole, not merely a portion of said group) aren't. <-- Group 2 Why? They have no Social Security numbers!!! <-- in reference to Group 2

That was creative, but wrong. Left and right means on both sides, IE, everywhere.

I appreciate your contribution here, but the OP stands.

[Sil40_Mayhem]

Okay, whatever, it stands. I don't understand how I changed the meaning of what you said in clarifying it. Unless I'm badly mistaken, clarify does not mean change, it means to make more clear. Cleaning a window doesn't change what it is. I don't see how what I did was any different. How did I "push the thrust beyond that class of persons described as those without SSNs"? Nowhere did I focus on non-recipients other than those without SSNs. I may have suggested that they existed, but I didn't place the emphasis there. To illustrate my point:

You said 3 + 3 = 6.I said 3 x 2 = 6.

We both said that two 3's equaled 6. So how am I changing the meaning?

Again, I don't know how many times I can say this, but I never once stated that your original statement was incorrect. Why you keep alluding to that, is far beyond my comprehension. Unless you are using your responses to me to reiterate to those who do object to the OP, I don't see why you keep bringing it up (as if to say I'm attacking you under this premise). I don't quite understand the defensiveness. It's almost as if I am attempting to invalidate your very being/existence just by suggesting that the thought (which, read this carefully, I did not disagree with) may have been worded differently. As if I am standing against all you believe in and hold dear. I'm given the impression that if anyone does not say that they agree 100% with your position or even the way you worded your position, they're attacking you. It's not that deep, trust me. I won't waste the time "not arguing" with you.

Still, at least you appreciate the contribution. That's better than nothing, I guess.

EDIT:

That was creative, but wrong. Left and right means on both sides, IE, everywhere.

I'm sorry, but what in the world does that mean? On both sides of what? What point are you trying to argue here? Sorry, but this is utterly confusing and wreaks of a desperate need to make an argument. So are you now saying that everybody got them? Please, throw me a bone here.

[rn79870]

I didn’t mean to drag you so deeply into this. I understand what you are saying, however, I disagree with it. I think the OP was clear and concise. Interpreting it in any other way required creativity and misapplication of common meanings.

Sorry this went sideways.

[Sil40_Mayhem]

It's cool. Maybe I read into it what was never intended to be. You're right, I exercised my logic, because I expressed what I thought was logical, while still in accordance to your statement. I don't know about all of this 'misapplication of common meanings', as I thought I made it clear that meaning change, dependent upon context. Whatever. Anyway, no harm, no foul.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I gotta get my 22" chrome spinners out of layaway, now that I got my check.

[themadscientist]

Let me clarify what I am hot about, I think that is the problem here. Specifically this line.

It appears that Uncle Sam has finally done something reasonable. Government $$$ for Americans who are legally here, and have a SSN.

Here is why I harp on it and I did not clearly state my contestation to it. As I have pointed out I hold a SSN and I pay taxes. My wife is Japanese and she has an ITIN which is required to be included on my taxes.

I have done everything I was supposed to do and filed a legal joint return just like someone who has a two SSN return. Yet not only does my wife who is legal for inclusion in my tax return get excluded from credit towards this stimulus thing but myself as well SSN and all.

People whose checks are withheld because they are clamed as dependants on someone else's return is different, the person who's tax return they fall under rates that credit.

I think this process was mishandled. There should be a mechanism in place so ITIN holders and their spouses are not swept up in this exclusion and your statement really pissed me off because in all the rush to pat the government on the back and praise mom and apple pie etc you conpletely diregarded all those people who have been ****ed with no lube by this "no SSN no check" ****.

This is what I have been pounding drums about "no ssn" is not a monotype group, there are people in there that do not fit your description of illegals.

[rn79870]

Maybe if your first post had been a little tamer, and had not included the middle finger smiley, things might have taken a different path. As it was, you left me little choice but to defend the specific verbiage of the post.

Thanks for your contribution to the discussion.