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.
Hell no. That's socialism and is pure evil. The disabled person should have insured himself against such things. If not, his family or church can take care of him. And if not that, then well, he should die in the street. Actions have consequences. It's called personal responsibility.
Would you have said that 20 years ago when all this "America is turning Socialist" talk was NOT going on like it is now? I'm not trying to be rude, but I think some of the people that talk like yourself didn't even use the word "socialism" until the media made it the talking point.
I hope that a lot of people realize that they are being TOOLS in all of this. TOOLS ...
It's interesting to me how people think it's so easy to get disability.
I was told I would have to be unemployed due to my cancer for 6 months before I could get disability even though my doctor did not want me working full time. I am facing a relapse and might be able to get it quicker because a relapse means about 2 months of being hospitalized. Still, it's not an easy process.
I am, as always, dismayed at the lack of humanity and compassion shown here. So, if a person becomes disabled and cannot support herself, should she be thrown in a workhouse? State asylum? Or should we just execute them so they are not a drain on society?
So what is your basis for all this "humanity and compassion"? That sounds almost religious or something. Why are we having Darwinism, survival of the fittest taught in schools if we're not to believe in it?
[/b]
You do have to prove that you are still disabled every couple of years.
Yes, and often the only proof is that you're still addicted to drugs or still an alcoholic, still have some hyperactivity that's called a disorder or are still a little too depressed to get out of bed and get to work.
The problem is that there isn't enough money to go around. If we as a society want to take care of the truly disabled, the best thing would be to limit it to true physicial and mental disabilities, not drug addictions and minor conditions.
To keep making it easier and easier for people to get on welfare programs is just going to destroy this country's ability to provide for the few who actually do need it.
While I agree that the truly disabled and truly needy should be helped by everyone else in a perfect world, I wonder just how many people the working class can be expected to support. Big Business has been on a binge to make sure everyone still getting a paycheck is working 80 hours a week (in other words, doing two jobs and being paid for one), with the rest laid off. The name of the game is to minimize employees. Any job that can be sent overseas, has been, or will be.
So we have fewer and fewer people paying the bills, while our government refuses to protect our borders, and in fact invites anyone and everyone to sign up for the government give-aways. Every politician knows that the more programs he invents and expands, the more grateful recipients will give votes and convince others to vote also. The most non-productive in our society are encouraged to produce children, and every new child brings a new windfall from the taxpayer. We are subsidizing and rewarding irresponsible behavior.
The question of whether the TRULY needy should get help, is lost because so many are happy to game the system. I was a liberal before I worked for the Department of Housing and Urban Development. Even though I was not wealthy enough to be paying huge income tax bills then, I was horrified to see the amount of money distributed to people who were NOT needy, but WERE playing the system. In fact, I only came across ONE person who legitimately deserved help--and that person only took $750 of the $5,000 that particular program provided, and PAID IT BACK 6 months later even though I told her NOBODY pays the money back; it's not required. That one person is the only person to take LESS than the program maximum, and the only person to pay it (or any portion of it) back. That person also would have done fine without ANY government assistance. I saw millions go through various programs into the hands of the same group of people, and they would have done fine in their underground inner-city economies without ANY income flow from taxpayers. They did enjoy it, though; they wore more gold jewelry than most survivalists have stashed away today.
While I agree that the truly disabled and truly needy should be helped by everyone else in a perfect world, I wonder just how many people the working class can be expected to support. Big Business has been on a binge to make sure everyone still getting a paycheck is working 80 hours a week (in other words, doing two jobs and being paid for one), with the rest laid off. The name of the game is to minimize employees. Any job that can be sent overseas, has been, or will be.
So we have fewer and fewer people paying the bills, while our government refuses to protect our borders, and in fact invites anyone and everyone to sign up for the government give-aways. Every politician knows that the more programs he invents and expands, the more grateful recipients will give votes and convince others to vote also. The most non-productive in our society are encouraged to produce children, and every new child brings a new windfall from the taxpayer. We are subsidizing and rewarding irresponsible behavior.
The question of whether the TRULY needy should get help, is lost because so many are happy to game the system. I was a liberal before I worked for the Department of Housing and Urban Development. Even though I was not wealthy enough to be paying huge income tax bills then, I was horrified to see the amount of money distributed to people who were NOT needy, but WERE playing the system. In fact, I only came across ONE person who legitimately deserved help--and that person only took $750 of the $5,000 that particular program provided, and PAID IT BACK 6 months later even though I told her NOBODY pays the money back; it's not required. That one person is the only person to take LESS than the program maximum, and the only person to pay it (or any portion of it) back. That person also would have done fine without ANY government assistance. I saw millions go through various programs into the hands of the same group of people, and they would have done fine in their underground inner-city economies without ANY income flow from taxpayers. They did enjoy it, though; they wore more gold jewelry than most survivalists have stashed away today.
What they should do is look for patterns to show the increased incidence in abuse and scammers.
How many children and what portion of SSI recipients were disabled children in 1965 and what portion of SSI recipients are "disabled" children in 2011. What portion of SSI recipients are immigrants. Compare disability rates in the overall population back when the program started to what those rates are today. That would give a good indication of the fraud being committed.
People who care about the welfare programs should be the ones most against the abuse of these programs, they should want to protect them for those who really do need them.
I dunno, how would a HUMAN BEING answer that question?
Sadly, some here feel like we have a darwinian society and the weak should be culled from the heard through natural selection. Basically we have some animals who only have two abilities and that is to parrot libertarian talking points and vote.
Sadly, some here feel like we have a darwinian society and the weak should be culled from the heard through natural selection. Basically we have some animals who only have two abilities and that is to parrot libertarian talking points and vote.
Do you believe in evolution and that it should be taught in schools?
Why teach it if you don't intend to allow it to work?
Do you believe in evolution and that it should be taught in schools?
Why teach it if you don't intend to allow it to work?
Absolutely, and I believe some people are less evolved than others. Reasoning skills and compassion are examples of more evolved species. Just saying...don't take it personally.
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.
