• 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 .
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.

In the developing world these conditions can still be observed, especially in regard to mental disability.
 
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.

Also we can and do make highly worthwhile contributions to society. Stephen Hawking comes to mind just to start
 
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.

Technology and advances in industrial America, while aiding to benefit Americans writ large (both non-disabled and disabled) also led to the further degradation of the disabled person's status in American life.

Public policy has played an important role in shaping the lives of all Americans in the twentieth century, as stated-related activity has become central to the functioning of all levels of the economy and most arenas of public life. Government has served as a major contextual factor in much of private life as well, by promoting technological development and establishing ground rules for many kids of private transactions. People with disabilities, however, have had a larger stake than many other citizens in the expanding role of the state in economic and social life as, with the rise of the industrial economy, they came to be stigmatized and excluded. The accommodations people with disabilities may require for participation in public life have often depended on state subsidies or mandates. Political scientist Harlan Hahn, in his analysis of the barriers to participation faced by disabled people, writes that "all aspects of the environment [for people with disabilities]...are fundamentally molded by public policy." Richard K. Scotch, "American Disability Policy in the Twentieth Century"

Of course, this is but one scholar. I have plenty of texts on vocational rehabilitation published since the 1950s that echo similar thoughts.
 
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.

When you can take whatever you want and affect whatever you desire to affect your influence will be great. No surprise there.
 
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.

Disability public policy has historically been heavily imbued with the external sense that the disabled person has to earn the status of benefactor before being granted any sort of accommodation, entrance to the public square, or subsidies.
 
So you are advocating for this:


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.

I'm not advocating it, I'm saying that bad things are going to happen no matter what. I've heard some pretty bad stories of VA hospitals too.

Sullivan's description of her horrors sounds a lot like Shania Twains, from her autobiography. Another person who grew up in abject poverty with an abusive upbringing and went on to realize an incredible potential.

Will we ever put an end to the bad things that happen, I don't think so. We have to have negative to have positive in this world. Sullivan, Lincoln, and Twain in my opinion exemplify that.

With that said, would I have a desire to help the disabled if there were no government assistance? Yes. The difference between me helping and the government is that I'm giving a heartfelt, personal gift to them and they're often receiving it with humility and gratefulness and a desire to do as much on their own as they can. A government entitlement is a nameless check...not a gift, but something one should expect. Some do receive it with humility, buy many don't. After all, why...we're entitled to it.
 
When you can take whatever you want and affect whatever you desire to affect your influence will be great. No surprise there.

Translation: my idea doesn't work, but your idea is coercive or built into the system, so it is categorically wrong, regardless of outcome.
 
Disability public policy has historically been heavily imbued with the external sense that the disabled person has to earn the status of benefactor before being granted any sort of accommodation, entrance to the public square, or subsidies.

I am referring more the attitudes of people judging the recipients. It makes sense to get medical confirmation on a claim of disability. But the reality is the standards are pretty strict. People cheat, they always have and always will. But you don't deny the deserving because of that.

Judging someone because they feel it is something they need is another matter.
 
Last edited:
With that said, would I have a desire to help the disabled if there were no government assistance? Yes. The difference between me helping and the government is that I'm giving a heartfelt, personal gift to them and they're often receiving it with humility and gratefulness and a desire to do as much on their own as they can. A government entitlement is a nameless check...not a gift, but something one should expect. Some do receive it with humility, buy many don't. After all, why...we're entitled to it.

This tells me that in your view, your own impulses for charity disproportionately weigh on the consideration if it is a better system.
 
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.

We live in a much more technologically sophisticated society with much more emphasis on health and safety than we did back in the 1920's. Are you going to credit the government for all of that? If so, who are you going to credit for making America possibly the greatest success story of any country in history in it's own short history from it's inception to the beginning of entitlements?
 
I am referring more the attitudes of people judging the recipients. It makes sense to get medical confirmation on a claim of disability. But the reality is the standards are pretty strict. People cheat, they always have and always will. Judging someone because they feel it is something they need is another matter.

Yeah, I am backing up what you are saying, by stating that it has always influenced the thought behind public policy, for better or for worse.
 
We live in a much more technologically sophisticated society with much more emphasis on health and safety than we did back in the 1920's. Are you going to credit the government for all of that? If so, who are you going to credit for making America possibly the greatest success story of any country in history in it's own short history from it's inception to the beginning of entitlements?

I'm going to credit the federal government for much of the regulated advances we have today, yes. Much of that safety was at the behest of increased governmental intervention after the Gilded Age. When you are talking about a group like the disabled, you have to square with some of these mantras that are mindlessly spouted off.
 
I don't understand your point.

I'm suggesting that your own feelings toward what you are doing is a lesser concern than the overall impact on a population.
 
Translation: my idea doesn't work, but your idea is coercive or built into the system, so it is categorically wrong, regardless of outcome.

My ideas work fine for what they are intended to do. They however do not work fine at what they are not intended to do.
 
We live in a much more technologically sophisticated society with much more emphasis on health and safety than we did back in the 1920's. Are you going to credit the government for all of that? If so, who are you going to credit for making America possibly the greatest success story of any country in history in it's own short history from it's inception to the beginning of entitlements?

The Greatest country really? Do you believe that is still true?
 
My ideas work fine for what they are intended to do. They however do not work fine at what they are not intended to do.

I'm reminded of the communist that intends to convince his audience that communism would work if it was allowed to do what it was supposed to do.
 
I'm reminded of the communist that intends to convince his audience that communism would work if it was allowed to do what it was supposed to do.

You are reminded of a utopia? My ideas have nothing in common with a utopia.
 
The Greatest country really? Do you believe that is still true?

It may not be the greatest in history (that's a matter of debate, as you could swing to Rome), but it should be near the top at the very least.
 
You are reminded of a utopia? My ideas have nothing in common with a utopia.

To the utopian, everything they believe is grounded in reality.
 
I'm going to credit the federal government for much of the regulated advances we have today, yes. Much of that safety was at the behest of increased governmental intervention after the Gilded Age. When you are talking about a group like the disabled, you have to square with some of these mantras that are mindlessly spouted off.

I'm not against the government setting certain rules, I don't like the massive payments through transfer of wealth.
 
The Greatest country really? Do you believe that is still true?

It's just the personal opinion of how someone defines great. It's a pretty meaningless way to judge things.
 
I'm not against the government setting certain rules, I don't like the massive payments through transfer of wealth.

Even modestly? Are we arguing over net benefits to a population or are we arguing political philosophy?
 
Back
Top Bottom