Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm not against welfare and disability for the truly needy. I'm against welfare and disability for the truly lazy.
As, I'm sure, are most people. It seems to me that the right sees every recpient as lazy while the left sees everyone as needy. The problem is in weeding out those who scam the system.
your OP is a lie. NONE of us who are for responsible government are against helping the truely needy.
What we are against is government creating clients out of those who are NOT truely needy.
YOU need to stop being silly and putting up strawman arguments that have no basis in reality.
My concern is that most conservative/right wingers are just plain old hatemongers. With that kind of position your "movement" isn't going to get very far. This is why I have distanced myself from conservatism and even libertarianism. I no longer identify with any side because I see what's going on. Nobody in their right mind says you shouldn't be concerned about abuse of the system. But who says you have a right to shame innocent people. Do these people deserve to suffer because of bad apples? If you want to blame someone for destroying the integrity of the system, the government is who you should be blaming. There's plenty of evidence that the system was designed to keep people poor anyways. It was designed to be a glass ceiling. There are different things people can do to get off the system and become employed but they are "voluntary" and kept hidden unless the recipient is absolutely serious about changing their life around. Why are they voluntary? We have an abuse problem but the path to self sufficiency is "voluntary"? So don't think I'm just some liberal because I'm not. I understand both sides of this issue.
If the right is totally against helping people who are truly in need, NOT ABUSERS, which most ARE against helping the truly needy, then I just can't be apart of that.
So many people are against welfare and disability pensions for the truly needy and disabled. But if we have no safety net, and we force disabled people to work, how do we stop employers from doing this? Or is it.......survival of the fittest?
I personally don't know of anyone who is against "welfare and disability pensions for the truly needy and disabled." This has the underpinnings of a strawman argument.
First there are truly disabled people. Yes, there needs to be a safety net.
However, (and I am a physician). I have seen far too many people on disability walk into my office. I am looking at my other staff and saying WTF? Why is this person disability.
My best estimate, probably 20-30% of people on disability should still be able to get a job.
Many of these patients I see are simply overweight with back problems. Depending on your line of work, you can still work with back problems. Maybe not in construction or heavy duty jobs. But you can still find work. Yes there are still programs people can get into to reinvent themselves. But many times, I see people lack motivation. It's unfortunate many people
FYI: I do know it usually takes 3-4 years to qualify for disability.
My real question is why not carry disability insurance for yourself? I carry disability insurance in the event I have an accident/cancer diagnosis etc. This is in addition to my regular life insurance.
Depending on your income level, disability insurance can cost less than what most people pay for their cell phone bills each month. Think about that.
That sentence makes no sense Doctor. Is it a question?
...jobs, but [?]
I'm the last person that should be correcting anyone...but I'm not a Doctor.
My concern is that most conservative/right wingers are just plain old hatemongers. With that kind of position your "movement" isn't going to get very far. This is why I have distanced myself from conservatism and even libertarianism. I no longer identify with any side because I see what's going on. Nobody in their right mind says you shouldn't be concerned about abuse of the system. But who says you have a right to shame innocent people. Do these people deserve to suffer because of bad apples? If you want to blame someone for destroying the integrity of the system, the government is who you should be blaming. There's plenty of evidence that the system was designed to keep people poor anyways. It was designed to be a glass ceiling. There are different things people can do to get off the system and become employed but they are "voluntary" and kept hidden unless the recipient is absolutely serious about changing their life around. Why are they voluntary? We have an abuse problem but the path to self sufficiency is "voluntary"? So don't think I'm just some liberal because I'm not. I understand both sides of this issue.
If the right is totally against helping people who are truly in need, NOT ABUSERS, which most ARE against helping the truly needy, then I just can't be apart of that.
Again. You need to stop listenting to liars who tell you lies. that blanket statement is just a stupid lie.
Mitt Romney the most recent R candidate for President is not a hate monger. GWB was not a hate monger. shoot Newt Gingrich was not a hate monger.
Bill Crystal is not a hate monger.
I am not a hate monger. In fact the only people making the claim are leftists spouting Saul Alynski garbage.
I get you dont agree with the politcal right on issues. That doesnt mean our positions are "hate". it means we disagree. geez.
There is an organization called NAEPB and NISH that both advocate and employee people with disabilities working to produce government and commercial products, FYI
So many people are against welfare and disability pensions for the truly needy and disabled. But if we have no safety net, and we force disabled people to work, how do we stop employers from doing this? Or is it.......survival of the fittest?
[youtube]uqI1d4rLWSM[/youtube]
Nice strawman, but epic fail. Try again, properly describing our position, and we will educate you.
I suppose it depends on how hate monger is defined, but it is very easy to find racism within the GOP. Newt Gingrich
"President Obama is the food stamp president"
He may not be racist, but he gives off that vibe.
Calling Obama the food stamp president has nothing to do with race. He's the food stamp president because the number people receiving food stamps has risen dramatically during his tenure. That you assume associating someone with food stamps must be racist is racist in itself. Think about it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
