It means unmanagable pain and those people should get it
It means one might get a chance to retire early and play
It is another way to fleece taxpayers and no one should get it
who cares, it is unmanagable
who cares, it is insignificant expenditure for the US
It should be completely overhauled, re-written, and inspected for cheaters
Einstein, "science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
Most everyone on DP will be directly affected by disability before they die. You will acquire a disability or someone you love will. Often it will be life changing. If not for US disability laws many people affected would soon become penniless and often isolated and alone. I am often amazed that people would turn a cold eye to that reality when they see it in others.
You will be affected by a disability, chances are good that you will have one yourself. I hope you get one you like.
"When Faith preaches Hate, Blessed are the Doubters." - Amin Maalouf
Right now I'm building a list of contacts for local companies that are friendly toward people with mental illness (as well as people with felony records, since many of my clients have them, too).
Tucker Case - Tard magnet.
The other is simple demographics. The life expectancy is advancing faster than the retirement age and the birth rate is falling, so more and more people are collecting Social Security per person collecting-- disability (and disability fraud), as big of an issue as it is, is a drop in the bucket compared to that. As it is right now, people are only expected to work at a career for a little over forty years, and then collect retirement benefits for fifteen on average-- with some people collecting Social Security for as long, or longer, than they worked. That's unsustainable.
The top priorities, if we're to save Social Security, are to shore up flagging population growth rates and reform Social Security funding so that it's no longer vulnerable to legislative vultures.
‘This is not peace, it is an armistice for 20 years.’ (Ferdinand Foch. After the Treaty of Versailles, 1919).
What if he doesn't really care about the plight of others? There is nothing you can say to make me believe that he should be forced to take part in any sort of assistance set up by any organization be that the government or some private group. The only argument that could be made is that he should be left alone and all the individuals that agree to help should do as they desire. You mentioned that America likes to claim they're a beacon of freedom and so I ask you, do you really think your mindset is upholding it? I would say without a shadow of a doubt, no.
"[The socialists declare] that the State owes subsistence, well-being, and education to all its citizens; that it should be generous, charitable, involved in everything, devoted to everybody; ...that it should intervene directly to relieve all suffering, satisfy and anticipate all wants, furnish capital to all enterprises, enlightenment to all minds, balm for all wounds, asylums for all the unfortunate, and even aid to the point of shedding French blood, for all oppressed people on the face of the earth."You are arguing that you didn't get a personal voice in how the government operated before you were born into this country. As a people, this is the government we have chosen. If there were great numbers who believed as you do, it would be different or change would be afoot to make it that way. There isn't. You live here by choice. Consider that.
"...Finally...we shall see the entire people transformed into petitioners. Landed property, agriculture, industry, commerce, shipping, industrial companies, all will bestir themselves to claim favors from the State. The public treasury will be literally pillaged. Everyone will have good reasons to prove that legal fraternity should be interpreted in this sense: "Let me have the benefits, and let others pay the costs." Everyone's effort will be directed toward snatching a scrap of fraternal privilege from the legislature. The suffering classes, although having the greatest claim, will not always have the greatest success."
The great personal benefits of using the government towards an agenda that cares little for human rights will almost surely get people to support it. However, am I actually free to leave? As someone that qualifies for the exit tax I would say no. In fact, I would say I'm punished if I do.
Last edited by Henrin; 10-18-13 at 05:22 PM.
I don't understand, exit tax? Why aren't you free to go? Who will punish you, why and how?