• 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?

  • It means unmanagable pain and those people should get it

    Votes: 4 14.8%

  • It means one might get a chance to retire early and play

    Votes: 2 7.4%

  • It is another way to fleece taxpayers and no one should get it

    Votes: 1 3.7%

  • who cares, it is unmanagable

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • who cares, it is insignificant expenditure for the US

    Votes: 1 3.7%

  • It should be completely overhauled, re-written, and inspected for cheaters

    Votes: 23 85.2%
  • Total voters
    27
  • Poll closed .
AngryOldGuy said:
could you point me to where that is happening (in this country)?
Click to expand...

AngryOldGuy said:
and somehow you've been lead to believe that isn't a good thing?

2el5xuf.jpg
Click to expand...

According to you the country has gone socialistic? If that's true how could the rich be getting richer, unless capitalism and those who benefit the most from it aren't being greedy beyond all that's sane?
 
JC Callender said:
Yes, we did it before welfare. Annie Sullivan grew up in an alms house which certainly wasn't ideal, but grew up to teach Helen Keller how to communicate. Before that, people like Keller were viewed by some as borderline animals with no hope of ever communicating. Imo, Sullivan gained a great deal of insight and empathy from her rough childhood that assisted her in helping Keller.
Click to expand...

Actually not long ago the lives of people with disabilities were often miserable. It is because of laws such as the ADA that millions of Americans can work and pay taxes. As for churches and families providing attendant care today compared to 40 or 50 years ago, it isn't the same thing. Decades ago assistive technology was nothing compared to what it is today. The same for durable medical equipment.

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.
 
Higgins86 said:
Doesnt really bother me either way to be honest, I obviously would hope my government caught those ripping off the system but I dont waste my time worrying about it. If someone wants to spend their short stay on this planet by being lazy and collecting checks then thats their waste.
Click to expand...

Man when my heart was totally screwed and I was stuck in bed an inordinate amount o time resting and sleeping I wanted more than anything to get and do things!
 
Korimyr the Rat said:
There's a low-income mental health and social work clinic in my area that I am making use of. They do much of the same thing, though their "job placement assistance" is questionable at best.
Click to expand...

Job placement is one of the hardest parts. It's a double-edged sword because by being associated with a mental health group, companies then know that your clients have a mental illness, and despite our best efforts to counter them, the stigma against people with mental illnesses is still way too high. When we try to place someone, the employer becomes aware of their mental illness, and in too many cases, they don['t want to hire a person with a mental illness. They can't legally say it outright, though, so they give the interview and then come up with some bull**** reason not to hire the person. People with mental illness have to deal with a ****load of discrimination.

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).
 
Fiddytree said:
Let's flip this shall we? If the general public hears about waste, fraud, and abuse constantly, but rarely investigates the claims and just takes it for granted, they are much more willing to accept that belief. I nearly always err on the side of skepticism anytime the general public comes up with a platitude. It has rarely held me back in getting to the truth. In this case it is waste, fraud, and abuse of the SSDI program.

Low and behold Coburn's report. It throws up all of the goodies that folks generally too ignorant to bother themselves with fact checking want. Nevermind the fact that most institutionalized knowledge points in the other direction. No, no, we are the ones who are naive...not the ones who don't know any better.
Click to expand...

That. And still no one has produced Coburn's statute.
 
ChrisL said:
Your Social Security Disability is running out of money.
Click to expand...

Yes, but it isn't running out of money because of fraud-- at least, not disability fraud. One of the reasons it's running out of money is because the thieving whores in Congress took the money from the Social Security budget and spent it.

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.
 
winston53660 said:
Man when my heart was totally screwed and I was stuck in bed an inordinate amount o time resting and sleeping I wanted more than anything to get and do things!
Click to expand...

Yeh I can imagine its awful that's why I just dont understand people who live to do nothing. Makes no sense to me.
 
Rocketman said:
they have twice this year, as two people I called attention to lost their benefits, people like you look the other way when people cheat the taxpayers, I am not one of them
Click to expand...

Do you turn people in who cheat on their taxes? Or who get goods under the table to avoid paying sales tax? etc etc.
 
Gina said:
No, he said: You assume that I or anyone else should care?

By that response, he doesn't care.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. Still, when you support a policy that makes others pay so that someone else gets a benefit from what they provide you are either assuming they care and thus attempting to do their bidding and hoping your assumption is correct or you are simply supporting your own agenda and not caring for them or their objection. The problem is there really is no way to do the former unless you just took from those that voluntarily gave to your cause, but then using the government towards those ends would no longer have any advantages and most likely get less than other means available.

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.

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.
Click to expand...

"[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."

"...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:
Henrin said:
Fair enough. Still, when you support a policy that makes others pay so that someone else gets a benefit from what they provide you are either assuming they care and thus attempting to do their bidding and hoping your assumption is correct or you are simply supporting your own agenda and not caring for them or their objection. The problem is there really is no way to do the former unless you just took from those that voluntarily gave to your cause, but then using the government towards those ends would no longer have any advantages and most likely get less than other means available.

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."

"...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.
Click to expand...

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.

I don't understand, exit tax? Why aren't you free to go? Who will punish you, why and how?
 
Exit taxes mean that he will be taxed exorbitantly for attempting to remove his wealth from the country. He isn't free to "vote with his feet".

Which is exactly as it should be, in my opinion. He made his money here, in the country whose markets and economic climate made it possible-- if he wants to abandon ship because he doesn't like our economy, he should pay for the privilege.
 
Korimyr the Rat said:
Exit taxes mean that he will be taxed exorbitantly for attempting to remove his wealth from the country. He isn't free to "vote with his feet".

Which is exactly as it should be, in my opinion. He made his money here, in the country whose markets and economic climate made it possible-- if he wants to abandon ship because he doesn't like our economy, he should pay for the privilege.
Click to expand...

Ah! Ok. Thank you! Now I get it and I agree. He played, he pays.
 
There is a lot of abuse, especially of parking privileges and I would like to see better enforcement. However, there are people with hidden disabilities. For one example, I know a guy in his 40s who looks very healthy and fit, but he has a congenital heart problem that requires a pacemaker and keeps him from walking long distances. Also, I have driven my father-in-law's van with a disabled placard. If you saw me driving it and then loading groceries, you would be correct that I am not disabled. The placard is still kept visible, but I don't use disabled spaces unless I am with him.
 
grip said:
According to you the country has gone socialistic? If that's true how could the rich be getting richer, unless capitalism and those who benefit the most from it aren't being greedy beyond all that's sane?
Click to expand...

Depends. During the 19th century a socialist movement was created that didn't try to remove capitalism completely, but simply tried to relieve what they saw as unequal or unfair parts of it. You know, the whole relieve the world of it's suffering bull****. Still, the rest of it was all there, but they denied any association with socialist ideals and claimed themselves as capitalists. Of course, they didn't at all endorse a free market, free trade, and didn't really support private property or the private means of production. They set forth to control industry, control prices, control what people could bought, what they were buying it with, what people were paid. how they were paid, what they were to be provided, what could be sold, how it could be sold, they were interested in all of it. In the end, all that was left was the illusion that the property was private. In fact, much like it is today it was more true to say that government owned the property of the people than the people owned it. Much like it is today they lacked most of the ability to control it and where treated much like something is merely renting and allowed to enjoy the property as long as they obeyed the rules and paid the state. In the end, it was just another approach towards the same ends. A different strain of the same principles and goals, but without the obvious objectionables. What was interesting perhaps is the results were different in some regards.
 
Last edited:
Gina said:
There are no longer alms houses.
Click to expand...

Well there would be something in their place then, unless you have no hope in the potential of people to do good for one another without government assistance. My point was that people made it work before there was government welfare and disability.
 
JC Callender said:
Well there would be something in their place then, unless you have no hope in the potential of people to do good for one another without government assistance. My point was that people made it work before there was government welfare and disability.
Click to expand...

To what end result, JC? There is absolutely no doubt amongst disability studies scholars and historians that government intervention was a massive benefit for the disabled population.
 
JC Callender said:
Well there would be something in their place then, unless you have no hope in the potential of people to do good for one another without government assistance. My point was that people made it work before there was government welfare and disability.
Click to expand...

When there wasn't enough charity to go around and orphanages, state hospitals and the like existed. Those places were houses of horror and mistreatment where the disabled languished in the most meager of existences. Unlearned and their potential to contribute to society, undeveloped.
 
Fiddytree said:
To what end result, JC? There is absolutely no doubt amongst disability studies scholars and historians that government intervention was a massive benefit for the disabled population.
Click to expand...

How can they possibly tell how things would've turned out without massive welfare? America became an incredible success story....the envy of the world, before we even had big government. Our potential was amazing, how does anyone know that we couldn't have handled disabilities better without big government?
 
Gina said:
When there wasn't enough charity to go around and orphanages, state hospitals and the like existed. Those places were houses of horror and mistreatment where the disabled languished in the most meager of existences. Unlearned and their potential to contribute to society, undeveloped.
Click to expand...

That wasn't the case with every alms house, just like every government sponsored program isn't the greatest. Annie Sullivan did live under such circumstances as you've mentioned, and she turned out quite well. She was the only person in history who could reach someone like Keller. Why do you think that is....what made Sullivan so successful for someone who grew up at what would seem like such a disadvantage?
 
JC Callender said:
That wasn't the case with every alms house, just like every government sponsored program isn't the greatest. Annie Sullivan did live under such circumstances as you've mentioned, and she turned out quite well. She was the only person in history who could reach someone like Keller. Why do you think that is....what made Sullivan so successful for someone who grew up at what would seem like such a disadvantage?
Click to expand...

I've read a biography of Annie Sullivan and though she turned out to be exceptional at communicating with Helen Keller, I could never sanction such an upbringing for any other child.
Unexpected good has filled the chinks of frustration in my life. But at times melancholy without reason grips me as in a vice [sic]. A word, an odd inflection, the way somebody crosses the street, brings all the past before me with such amazing clearness and completeness, my heart stops beating for a moment. Then everything around me seems as it was so many years ago. Even the ugly frame-buildings are revived. Again I see the unsightly folk who hobbled, cursed, fed and snored like animals. I shiver recalling how I looked upon scenes of vile exposure—the open heart of a derelict is not a pleasant thing. I doubt if life, or eternity for that matter, is long enough to erase the errors and ugly blots scored upon my brain by those dismal years.
Click to expand...

From Annie herself. And it was Annie, not the disgusting conditions she endured that made her life what it became. Surely you do not advocate a return of such as she reported?
 
Risky Thicket said:
Actually not long ago the lives of people with disabilities were often miserable. It is because of laws such as the ADA that millions of Americans can work and pay taxes. As for churches and families providing attendant care today compared to 40 or 50 years ago, it isn't the same thing. Decades ago assistive technology was nothing compared to what it is today. The same for durable medical equipment.

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.
Click to expand...

How do you know their lives were miserable and that the government made their lives better? Do you think Helen Keller was glad that Annie Sullivan came into her life? Was Sullivan sent by the government?

You're assuming that the great leaps in technology that have led us all to live more comfortable, safer lives are all due to the government. I think that the amazing ingenuity of America before there were even welfare and disability payments would've continued and we would've found ways to take care of each other without the government.
 
Last edited:
Gina said:
I've read a biography of Annie Sullivan and though she turned out to be exceptional at communicating with Helen Keller, I could never sanction such an upbringing for any other child.


From Annie herself. And it was Annie, not the disgusting conditions she endured that made her life what it became. Surely you do not advocate a return of such as she reported?
Click to expand...

I think it's the hardships that made Annie who she was. I believe hardships give us insight and empathy, and I think that's what drove Sullivan to her success with Keller.

Another example is Abe Lincoln, who grew up in poverty with no formal education. He had his own serious mental issues. In the book "Lincoln's Meloncholy" the author describes how the many failures in his life as well as his depression let to his greatness. Two wonderful people in our history who did amazing things for humanity, and both of them probably wouldn't be who they are today because they wouldn't have faced the same hardships.
 
JC Callender said:
I think it's the hardships that made Annie who she was. I believe hardships give us insight and empathy, and I think that's what drove Sullivan to her success with Keller.

Another example is Abe Lincoln, who grew up in poverty with no formal education. He had his own serious mental issues. In the book "Lincoln's Meloncholy" the author describes how the many failures in his life as well as his depression let to his greatness. Two wonderful people in our history who did amazing things for humanity, and both of them probably wouldn't be who they are today because they wouldn't have faced the same hardships.
Click to expand...

So you are advocating for this:
I doubt if life, or eternity for that matter, is long enough to erase the errors and ugly blots scored upon my brain by those dismal years.
Click to expand...

That we purposely create that kind of environment and place innocent children in the midst of such depravity so as to create more Annies and Abes? What of those countless thousands who didn't overcome the abuse but succumbed to it, like her brother who died there? I read Annie's story as a 10-year-old. Absolutely terrifying. I could never condone placing children in such conditions.
 
JC Callender said:
How can they possibly tell how things would've turned out without massive welfare? America became an incredible success story....the envy of the world, before we even had big government. Our potential was amazing, how does anyone know that we couldn't have handled disabilities better without big government?
Click to expand...

JC, when you are able to look at how life for the disabled was prior to government programs and interventions, you are able to make that determination. During the zenith of private organization social gospel folks of the Gilded Age, their reach was hardly anywhere near the capacity of the local, state, and federal governments. No amount of platitudes can overcome that reality.
 
Fiddytree said:
Ah, no. Very much relevant. You, Joe Bob Smith, don't have access to, nor are allowed access to, Jane Jackson's medical records to determine that she is not disabled or is disqualified.
Click to expand...

You know it occurred to me that the idea of denying yourself and others disability is rooted in some pretty unhealthy, typically American thinking. I am referring to the "tough guy" image. That pick-yourself- upbyyourbootstraps, cowboy thing we impose on one another. We work ourselves to death and if you don't then you're the one doing something wrong. Why else would anyone push themselves to exhaustion because of pain and then be proud of themselves for what they forced themselves to endure? Why is it an issue of pride to care for yourself? As if, denying yourself what you need to improve the quality of your life somehow makes you a better person. Seems a little foolish and martyerish to me. If we have the resources to keep people out of pain by either providing the medical care they need or relieving them from working all day why would we not do that? So that we can see their toughing it out??? Rising to our ridiculous standards of sacrifice and denial?? Not being a *****?? Stupid.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom