• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

What does disability mean to you and who qualifies?

What does disability mean and who should get it?

  • who cares, it is unmanagable

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    27
  • Poll closed .
No, but I'd bet that I've poured and finished more concrete basement floors than you will ever set foot on in your entire life. That is why I instantly knew you were full of Shiite when you started blabbing on about "100 pound bags of concrete".

I hope your not one of those in the trade who instead of calling for a concrete mixer truck and a pumping service lifts bags of concrete and mixes his own to save a buck and the endgame being you file a disability claim because of your back pain.

I didn't walk over to see if he was loading concrete, Portland cement or plaster. All I know he wasn't loading those small pantywaist 60 pound bags.
 
I've personally known several people who were collecting disability and did not need to be, and it was QUITE obvious that these people were quite capable of working, at least part-time. Our country has become a nation of weaklings who want everything handed to them for nothing in return. I'm not saying that ALL people who are collecting don't need it. My mom gets it because she has MS. SHE really needs it. She is incapable of working and it's not because she's "sad" either.

Of the over 100 people we know receiving disability or receiving full unemployment and poverty benefits, only 3 are actually disabled and employable or working for cash off record. There is NO policing.
 
My factual source is the history of the United States. Did we not become an amazing nation in the short period of time from our inception until the beginning of entitlements and big government intervention? If so, how?
:2rofll:

LOL! OK, hotdog. Who is the author and would you please cite the specific chapters and pages relevant to disability.
 
Yes, bad things will happen and you can be assured lots of bad things will happen in situations that are ripe for it like institutions. So you are willing to accept that negative, to create the circumstances you think will deliver people of Annie's, Abe's and Twain's caliber? You think it's ok because there might be someone to come out of a hell hole that will make all the others who suffer worth it?

Have you no empathy?

JC's answer seems to be "let somebody else do it". Certainly in JC's History of the World reference book he can tell us the approximate number of deafblind contemporaries were around when Annie worked with Helen. Of those how many deafblind adults were as well educated and as enlightened as Helen? Hint: Helen Keller's story is unique because of her ability and because of Annie. The odds against Helen Keller were monumental. Fact is there weren't many other Annies. If it had been left up to JC nothing would have happened. His answer is let somebody else do it. Sadly, we continue to hear that again and again from people on this forum like JC and Henrin.
 
JC's answer seems to be "let somebody else do it". Certainly in JC's History of the World reference book he can tell us the approximate number of deafblind contemporaries were around when Annie worked with Helen. Of those how many deafblind adults were as well educated and as enlightened as Helen? Hint: Helen Keller's story is unique because of her ability and because of Annie. The odds against Helen Keller were monumental. Fact is there weren't many other Annies. If it had been left up to JC nothing would have happened. His answer is let somebody else do it. Sadly, we continue to hear that again and again from people on this forum like JC and Henrin.

Let somebody else do it, while they enjoy tax supported services the government provides that others would not choose to pay for. It's all in one's POV. I guess. "What I enjoy is necessary while what others need to subsist, not so much."

The idea that because some extraordinary people came from terrible circumstances is a reason to create horrible circumstances so that a few more like them can emerge, at the expense of countless other children who won't overcome abuse and neglect in an institution, is unconscionable.
 
Let somebody else do it, while they enjoy tax supported services the government provides that others would not choose to pay for. It's all in one's POV. I guess. "What I enjoy is necessary while what others need to subsist, not so much."

The idea that because some extraordinary people came from terrible circumstances is a reason to create horrible circumstances so that a few more like them can emerge, at the expense of countless other children who won't overcome abuse and neglect in an institution, is unconscionable.

If it weren't for the ADA and the American government's support of disability related services Rush Limbaugh would have been out of work years ago. He directly benefitted from cochlear implant technology after he became suddenly deaf. In the interim after becoming deaf Limbaugh was able to continue his program using CART captioning service. Even with all his money, the research and the expertise for that technology would not have been possible without US government involvement.

I am very proud that the US has led the way in enabling people with disabilities.
 
If it weren't for the ADA and the American government's support of disability related services Rush Limbaugh would have been out of work years ago. He directly benefitted from cochlear implant technology after he became suddenly deaf. In the interim after becoming deaf Limbaugh was able to continue his program using CART captioning service. Even with all his money, the research and the expertise for that technology would not have been possible without US government involvement.

I am very proud that the US has led the way in enabling people with disabilities.

That's another use of taxpayer funds that is over looked or scoffed at as the responsibility of the "free market". Government funding of research has had a great impact on medical advancements. I'm sure many people who have benefited from those advances are the same people who want to eliminate future research in favor of the magical free market that would provide the same or even better discoveries if the government would just get out of the way. :2razz:

I am proud of that too Risky.
 
The government pays for lots of services we don't all use, or would care to support. There are avid pacifists who would prefer not to support the military. There are retired people and child free who don't have kids, but none-the-less still pay taxes to support education. Taxes are not cafe style and people hold those beliefs as dearly as you hold yours against supporting welfare and disability.

If every person has the right to defend even by force — his person, his liberty, and his property, then it follows that a group of men have the right to organize and support a common force to protect these rights constantly. Thus the principle of collective right, its reason for existing, its lawfulness is based on individual right. This common force, this collective right, cannot logically have any other purpose or any other mission. It follows then that since an individual cannot lawfully use force against the person, liberty, or property of another individual, the government for the same reason cannot lawfully be used to destroy the person, liberty, or property of individuals or groups. The military acts towards the mission of the government I have laid out and thus while a dangerous institution is a lawful one.

I didn't answer your question due to Korimyr already answering it. Hopefully that's fine. If not, I will gladly do so. :)
 
Last edited:
If it weren't for the ADA and the American government's support of disability related services Rush Limbaugh would have been out of work years ago. He directly benefitted from cochlear implant technology after he became suddenly deaf. In the interim after becoming deaf Limbaugh was able to continue his program using CART captioning service. Even with all his money, the research and the expertise for that technology would not have been possible without US government involvement.

I am very proud that the US has led the way in enabling people with disabilities.

You know a heck of a lot about Rush Limbaugh. I'm not sure he's worth knowing that much about.

Let somebody else do it, while they enjoy tax supported services the government provides that others would not choose to pay for. It's all in one's POV. I guess. "What I enjoy is necessary while what others need to subsist, not so much."

Basic needs are not a function of federal government. That doesn't mean others' needs are not necessary. They are necessary, to them. My needs are necessary to me. Your needs are necessary to you. That's why we all do useful productive things and trade with one another -- to meet our own needs.

Some people become truly disabled, thus in a sense reverting back to dependency on others for basic needs like there was in childhood. This is inevitable. People end up getting schizophrenia, brain damage, paralysis, and many other things. Others are always disabled, e.g. mental retardation. They cannot reasonably provide for themselves. No big deal. I'm not suggesting euthanasia for these folks per se. We can provide for these truly disabled people any number of ways. Even government programs. I'll tolerate it, despite my montrous, heartless, libertarian "let them die in the streets" attitude. Provide for the truly disabled.

But what's happening with SSDI is that people who can't find a job but are ABLE to work are signing up for it by blaming their inability to find gainful employment on a medical condition. This is fraud, and it's very, very hard (read: time consuming and expensive) to effectively clamp down on.
 
You know a heck of a lot about Rush Limbaugh. I'm not sure he's worth knowing that much about.



Basic needs are not a function of federal government. That doesn't mean others' needs are not necessary. They are necessary, to them. My needs are necessary to me. Your needs are necessary to you. That's why we all do useful productive things and trade with one another -- to meet our own needs.

Some people become truly disabled, thus in a sense reverting back to dependency on others for basic needs like there was in childhood. This is inevitable. People end up getting schizophrenia, brain damage, paralysis, and many other things. Others are always disabled, e.g. mental retardation. They cannot reasonably provide for themselves. No big deal. I'm not suggesting euthanasia for these folks per se. We can provide for these truly disabled people any number of ways. Even government programs. I'll tolerate it, despite my montrous, heartless, libertarian "let them die in the streets" attitude. Provide for the truly disabled.

But what's happening with SSDI is that people who can't find a job but are ABLE to work are signing up for it by blaming their inability to find gainful employment on a medical condition. This is fraud, and it's very, very hard (read: time consuming and expensive) to effectively clamp down on.

Fine, clamp down on fraud. Leave the people who are legit alone. Good on you that you can see this need and will provide for it.
 
I've seen it myself on more than one occasion. I was an acquaintance of a woman who was actually arrested for. The police came to her home while her and her young daughter were there and arrested her. I had to baby sit her daughter. She was collecting disability and working under the table too. At the time, I didn't know it, but apparently someone turned her in.

I just thought about coming back to this one. The arrest would have been accounted for in SSA's internal monitoring statistics. Had she been arrested and found guilty of disability fraud, she would have been part of that 1% statistic, which in fact merely backs up what I am saying.
 
Fine, clamp down on fraud. Leave the people who are legit alone. Good on you that you can see this need and will provide for it.

I'm guessing that you would find my way of clamping down to be fairly sweeping, i.e., we would disagree on who all to include in the "legit" category. Entire conditions or even classes of conditions would no longer qualify.
 
Yes, bad things will happen and you can be assured lots of bad things will happen in situations that are ripe for it like institutions. So you are willing to accept that negative, to create the circumstances you think will deliver people of Annie's, Abe's and Twain's caliber? You think it's ok because there might be someone to come out of a hell hole that will make all the others who suffer worth it?

Have you no empathy?

I'm not going to deny you have empathy, but I don't understand how pointing at one person with money and demanding they give it to someone else is proof of it. You see a person suffering and feel like something should be done, well so do I. The difference is that I believe we should be able to help on our own free will, not against it. Your talking about squalid conditions that occurred at times over 100 years ago when society in general lived a much less comfortable and safe life with nowhere near the technology we have now and comparing it to today. Do you believe all of our advancements in helping the disabled are due solely to government subsidies and entitlements? Doesn't it strike you as odd that Washington is usually considered to be corrupt, incompetent, and greedy with poor approval ratings (Congress at least) and your assigning our advancements in compassion and empathy to them?
 
:2rofll:

LOL! OK, hotdog. Who is the author and would you please cite the specific chapters and pages relevant to disability.

What do you mean by "hotdog"? My basic question was how did the US become such an incredible nation in such a short period of time between it's inception and the beginning of entitlements, which I of course believe it did, but now you want sources?
 
I just thought about coming back to this one. The arrest would have been accounted for in SSA's internal monitoring statistics. Had she been arrested and found guilty of disability fraud, she would have been part of that 1% statistic, which in fact merely backs up what I am saying.

It is just beyond naive if you believe only 1% of the population is "faking it." :roll: I should say 1% of the disability collecting population.
 
You know a heck of a lot about Rush Limbaugh. I'm not sure he's worth knowing that much about.

LOL! Indeed. I use him as an example in that he is a well known person who is beyond wealthy yet without government disability related programs, he could not with all his money, have purchased the technology that enabled him to continue to bloviate across public airwaves. The technology would not have existed and/or would have been in its infancy. What's more, the medical expertise required would have been damn near inexistent.
 
I'm guessing that you would find my way of clamping down to be fairly sweeping, i.e., we would disagree on who all to include in the "legit" category. Entire conditions or even classes of conditions would no longer qualify.

Can you give us examples?
 
I'm not going to deny you have empathy, but I don't understand how pointing at one person with money and demanding they give it to someone else is proof of it. You see a person suffering and feel like something should be done, well so do I. The difference is that I believe we should be able to help on our own free will, not against it. Your talking about squalid conditions that occurred at times over 100 years ago when society in general lived a much less comfortable and safe life with nowhere near the technology we have now and comparing it to today. Do you believe all of our advancements in helping the disabled are due solely to government subsidies and entitlements? Doesn't it strike you as odd that Washington is usually considered to be corrupt, incompetent, and greedy with poor approval ratings (Congress at least) and your assigning our advancements in compassion and empathy to them?

1. People pay, via taxes, for all kinds of things they would choose not to, had they they opportunity. I've demonstrated this over several posts. Maybe I'd prefer not to give Archer Daniels Midland hundreds of billions in farm subsidies. A multi-billion dollar corporation doesn't need my tax dollars. I'd much rather my hard earned money go to people who NEED help to live a better life.

2. Even in this day, institutional abuse and neglect occur. The elderly are victimized at rest homes. Juveniles abuse and take advantage of each other in juvenile halls. It would be no different in an orphanage. The squalor may not be there, but the victimization would.

3. Washington is considered all that more by some than others, but government financed research yields advances private enterprise would deem too risky to begin to invest in. The research private enterprise sees profit in, it pursues. The rest of the risk is taken on by the government to finance.
 
1. People pay, via taxes, for all kinds of things they would choose not to, had they they opportunity. I've demonstrated this over several posts. Maybe I'd prefer not to give Archer Daniels Midland hundreds of billions in farm subsidies. A multi-billion dollar corporation doesn't need my tax dollars. I'd much rather my hard earned money go to people who NEED help to live a better life.

2. Even in this day, institutional abuse and neglect occur. The elderly are victimized at rest homes. Juveniles abuse and take advantage of each other in juvenile halls. It would be no different in an orphanage. The squalor may not be there, but the victimization would.

3. Washington is considered all that more by some than others, but government financed research yields advances private enterprise would deem too risky to begin to invest in. The research private enterprise sees profit in, it pursues. The rest of the risk is taken on by the government to finance.

I wouldn't want A.D.M. getting those subsidies either. And to your second point, I agree that institutional abuse occurs, but there are already laws against it. And your third point, there are hugely successful charities that do wonderful things as well. Look at the Susan G. Komen Foundation, they've had the White House lit up in pink and NFL players are wearing pink! They're everywhere raising massive amounts of money. If there are charities raising massive amounts of money, there will follow entrepreneurs interested in earning some of that money.
 
I wouldn't want A.D.M. getting those subsidies either. And to your second point, I agree that institutional abuse occurs, but there are already laws against it. And your third point, there are hugely successful charities that do wonderful things as well. Look at the Susan G. Komen Foundation, they've had the White House lit up in pink and NFL players are wearing pink! They're everywhere raising massive amounts of money. If there are charities raising massive amounts of money, there will follow entrepreneurs interested in earning some of that money.

Yet, you and I have to tolerate corporate welfare. You can't be, "but I don't understand how pointing at one person with money and demanding they give it to someone else is proof of it" about welfare when the same one person's money is also being given to wealthy corporations, who really don't need it. Multi-billion dollar corporations have their own resources to depend on while you would have the disabled begging for charity because they don't.

Yes, there are laws against it, but throwing millions off of welfare or disability and into institutions that would have to be opened, after the fact because nothing like it exists on the scale necessary at this point in time, and then only maybe because charity is not going to fall out of the heavens to instantaneously build them, is nothing short of cruelty. Once open, the sheer number of people and the tenuous nature of consistent funding, would place those in such places at constant risk of being tossed out on the street. With so many more to deal with, the numbers of those abused and neglected would be immense. I still cannot condone reopening and institutionalizing people who are living lives as normal as they can be right now.

Susan G. Komen Foundation is not all it's cracked up to be: Insight: Komen charity under microscope for funding, science | Reuters
 
It is just beyond naive if you believe only 1% of the population is "faking it." :roll: I should say 1% of the disability collecting population.

Unless we can prove that: 1) SSA cooked the books 2) The GAO were either: fooled or complicit in the inaccurate reporting; such anecdotal evidence (at worst) adds weight to the long-established statistics.
 
Can you give us examples?

Anxiety disorders, depressive disorders, substance addiction disorders, personality disorders, and somatoform disorders are some examples of conditions that shouldn't qualify.
 
Yet, you and I have to tolerate corporate welfare. You can't be, "but I don't understand how pointing at one person with money and demanding they give it to someone else is proof of it" about welfare when the same one person's money is also being given to wealthy corporations, who really don't need it. Multi-billion dollar corporations have their own resources to depend on while you would have the disabled begging for charity because they don't.

Yes, there are laws against it, but throwing millions off of welfare or disability and into institutions that would have to be opened, after the fact because nothing like it exists on the scale necessary at this point in time, and then only maybe because charity is not going to fall out of the heavens to instantaneously build them, is nothing short of cruelty. Once open, the sheer number of people and the tenuous nature of consistent funding, would place those in such places at constant risk of being tossed out on the street. With so many more to deal with, the numbers of those abused and neglected would be immense. I still cannot condone reopening and institutionalizing people who are living lives as normal as they can be right now.

Susan G. Komen Foundation is not all it's cracked up to be: Insight: Komen charity under microscope for funding, science | Reuters

I understand we have to tolerate corporate welfare, but I'm against it just as I'm against regular welfare. And I wouldn't end these programs today (well, maybe corporate welfare), I would scale them down over maybe 5 years. Wouldn't you be at least a little excited at the thought of how you could help the disabled yourself with your own money that you would be getting back since the government wouldn't be using it anymore? I'm sure you, like most people, are more efficient with your own money than the government is, and the look on someones face as you personally hand them a check, or the thought of walking into an organization that you had a personal hand in building and/or maintaining would be a pretty satisfying feeling.
 
I understand we have to tolerate corporate welfare, but I'm against it just as I'm against regular welfare. And I wouldn't end these programs today (well, maybe corporate welfare), I would scale them down over maybe 5 years. Wouldn't you be at least a little excited at the thought of how you could help the disabled yourself with your own money that you would be getting back since the government wouldn't be using it anymore? I'm sure you, like most people, are more efficient with your own money than the government is, and the look on someones face as you personally hand them a check, or the thought of walking into an organization that you had a personal hand in building and/or maintaining would be a pretty satisfying feeling.

I am helping the disabled with my own money, via taxes. I don't miss that money, because it's small in comparison to other portions of the federal budget. 12% of the budget goes to support safety net programs. I also already donate to organizations which support the disabled, anonymously, because I don't need that feeling you are describing. I am not self-aggrandizing and nor do I wish to ever make anyone feel beholden to me.

If all federal programs were to end, 12% of my taxes would not go very far in helping a single disabled person so that they could survive on part time pay and my heart would break to see their small measure of self-sufficiency end as they had to take refuge in some horrid institution. I do not believe in putting innocent people into potentially hellish conditions so that few Annies, Abes and Twains might pop out. Scarred by the experience as they would too be.

So now we are back to discussing what would happen to those for whom charity cannot provide. Charitable contributions go down in hard times. So what about those who are lucky enough to receive charity, but then whose lives are upended when charity runs out in a down turn? Government funds can be effected, but not like a charity, which can dry up over night.
 
Back
Top Bottom