[PCALMike]

Originally Posted by TRex2

OK, then, you are a socialist (by definition) and
you do find it easy to be generous with other
people's money. Thanks for clearing that up.

Taxes should absolutely be used to support the disabled. So you are saying that public support for the disabled is socialism and cynical and cruel treatment of the disabled where they have to beg for help is the way forward? I dont get it.

[TRex2]

Originally Posted by PCALMike

... I dont get it.

No. You don't.

[explorearkansas]

I wonder what State you live in Mike?

[Hollynla]

Originally Posted by PCALMike

Not true. People who are born disabled do not get SSDI. People who are born disabled or was involved in a car accident as a child or for some other reason do not have a long work history can only get SSI, not SSDI.

The reason why it is such a paltry sum is precisely because so many people are fighting to keep it that way. Or fighting to cut medial help for the disabled. The idea that we should actually provide a decent standard of living for those who drew the short end of the straw in life is met with ferocious resistance. We see it here as well. People dont want to hear it and try to close their ears.

You are arguing your own case. You want the disabled to get more but you don't want to stop lazy do-nothings to stop sucking up all the funds. Wouldn't it make sense that there could be more money to help the disabled if others, who don't deserve it, weren't getting so much of it.

No a single person on this forum has stated they want to cut funds from disabled people, yet you are continuing with this argument as if it's exist.

[nmnita]

Originally Posted by PCALMike

Taxes should absolutely be used to support the disabled. So you are saying that public support for the disabled is socialism and cynical and cruel treatment of the disabled where they have to beg for help is the way forward? I dont get it.

you are the one that compared us with other countries. I could give you so many examples of how you are wrong. My husband was the public affairs director the Health and Human services in DC so I do have a pretty good understanding about how our system works, but obviously you are not about to listen to anyone, cause you are right in your mind. go a head and pat yourself on the back. The rest of us are about to move on to other discussions. If fact I am not sure how you got started on this crap about disabled. The thread was about panhandlers. I haven't seen too many disabled standing near the freeway exits.

[PCALMike]

Originally Posted by Hollynla

You are arguing your own case. You want the disabled to get more but you don't want to stop lazy do-nothings to stop sucking up all the funds. Wouldn't it make sense that there could be more money to help the disabled if others, who don't deserve it, weren't getting so much of it.

No a single person on this forum has stated they want to cut funds from disabled people, yet you are continuing with this argument as if it's exist.

You know its an excuse. One question to you: Do you or the people you vote for want to substantially increase the benefits for people born disabled so they can live a decent life? Try to answer without going off on a tangent about the slothful.

[PCALMike]

Originally Posted by nmnita

you are the one that compared us with other countries. I could give you so many examples of how you are wrong. My husband was the public affairs director the Health and Human services in DC so I do have a pretty good understanding about how our system works, but obviously you are not about to listen to anyone, cause you are right in your mind. go a head and pat yourself on the back. The rest of us are about to move on to other discussions. If fact I am not sure how you got started on this crap about disabled. The thread was about panhandlers. I haven't seen too many disabled standing near the freeway exits.

You havent seen it? How do you know if they are disabled or not? Do you think mental disability doesnt exist? This is the problem we are facing in America. So many people simply refuse to support a radically improved public safety net for the people who need it. Thats what we hear from the media and the puppets in DC 24/7. Why? Because the people who fund the campaigns do not want to hear about the disabled.

[Hollynla]

Originally Posted by PCALMike

You know its an excuse. One question to you: Do you or the people you vote for want to substantially increase the benefits for people born disabled so they can live a decent life? Try to answer without going off on a tangent about the slothful.

Excuse for what? What are you referring to?


Benefits for disabled hasn't been a subject I've kept up with, I can admit that. But nice job completely ignoring what I said.

[Hollynla]

Originally Posted by PCALMike

You havent seen it? How do you know if they are disabled or not? Do you think mental disability doesnt exist? This is the problem we are facing in America. So many people simply refuse to support a radically improved public safety net for the people who need it. Thats what we hear from the media and the puppets in DC 24/7. Why? Because the people who fund the campaigns do not want to hear about the disabled.

I'm guessing you also think drug addicts are disabled as well and deserve a government check. The government sure thinks so.

[PCALMike]

Originally Posted by Hollynla

Excuse for what? What are you referring to?


Benefits for disabled hasn't been a subject I've kept up with, I can admit that. But nice job completely ignoring what I said.

Bringing up the lazy folks is an excuse for not addressing the plight of the disabled. Its a red herring. Why do you think the politicians and media networks who most frequently bring up (and exaggerate) the problem of lazy people are also the ones who propose deep cuts to Medicaid, SSI, SSDI, SS etc? When has these people ever proposed a significant boost for SSI and SSDI beneficiaries?

I'll ask you again; do you think $700 a month to survive on for people who were born disabled is appropriate?