• 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 .
Fiddytree said:
Even modestly? Are we arguing over net benefits to a population or are we arguing political philosophy?
Click to expand...

Even net benefits is subjective. :shrug:
 
Henrin said:
Considering it exists that is pretty weird thing to say.
Click to expand...

In moderated amounts, perhaps. Even then, your moderated ideas needed significant alterations.
 
Fiddytree said:
I'm suggesting that your own feelings toward what you are doing is a lesser concern than the overall impact on a population.
Click to expand...

Okay, well make a point then. Just telling me what "scholars" say doesn't prove anything. Make a point, tell me who made the US such an awesome country before entitlements if it wasn't the government, and why could't they have done the same or better than the government since the inception of entitlements?
 
JC Callender said:
Okay, well make a point then. Just telling me what "scholars" say doesn't prove anything. Make a point, tell me who made the US such an awesome country before entitlements if it wasn't the government, and why could't they have done the same or better than the government since the inception of entitlements?
Click to expand...

They really couldn't have done more in the same time period since the government has access to more resources and more power over the economy, but they could have pushed towards the same ends just fine.
 
Fiddytree said:
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.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't argue that. But I don't see us as the greatest country in history and I don't see us as the greatest country today. Top 10, no argument.
 
JC Callender said:
Okay, well make a point then. Just telling me what "scholars" say doesn't prove anything. Make a point, tell me who made the US such an awesome country before entitlements if it wasn't the government, and why could't they have done the same or better than the government since the inception of entitlements?
Click to expand...

So what would prove anything? Would a group consensus of the disabled work? Because if that would be the case, I would say the evidence would be damning. If scholars don't work, if statistical data does not work, but apparently mindless yammering does, then I'm afraid I wouldn't be able to convince.

If you cannot handle the fact that private initiatives had neither the resources nor infrastructural reach to grab anywhere near the same population as the government does today, then what more can I really do?
 
JC Callender said:
I'm not against the government setting certain rules, I don't like the massive payments through transfer of wealth.
Click to expand...

Don't you see "transfer of wealth" as one of the scary Conservative labels? What does it really mean?
 
Henrin said:
They really couldn't have done more in the same time period since the government has access to more resources and more power over the economy, but they could have pushed towards the same ends just fine.
Click to expand...

I think it would be interesting to see how things would've turned out.
 
Henrin said:
And why is that?
Click to expand...

Because protectionism worked, regulations worked, the invisible hand never existed among its greatest proponents, and philanthropy had its unfortunate limits.
 
JC Callender said:
It means taking from one person against their will and giving to another person.
Click to expand...

So it sounds then like you would see any form of taxation as a transfer of wealth?
 
JC Callender said:
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?
Click to expand...

As I said earlier, I have read a great deal about it. I've been involved in the field at different levels local and state. I have taken classes, graduate classes concerning disability and disability law. I know about the history. There are a number of books and articles and research papers and magazines dealing with the subject of disability, disability history, disability law, individual disabilities. They are out there if you want to read them. It seems to me you haven't. One of my favorites is the Mask of Benevolence by Dr. Harlan Lane. There are many. If you'd like, I'll be glad to furnish you with some titles.

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.
Click to expand...

No, I'm sorry. I am speaking from fact based knowledge. You are the one assuming. If you want to provide factual sources please put them up here. I'll read them. I'm late for a dinner with friends. However, I'd love to discuss the paragraph above with you later if you want to bring your sources into discussion.
 
Risky Thicket said:
As I said earlier, I have read a great deal about it. I've been involved in the field at different levels local and state. I have taken classes, graduate classes concerning disability and disability law. I know about the history. There are a number of books and articles and research papers and magazines dealing with the subject of disability, disability history, disability law, individual disabilities. They are out there if you want to read them. It seems to me you haven't. One of my favorites is the Mask of Benevolence by Dr. Harlan Lane. There are many. If you'd like, I'll be glad to furnish you with some titles.



No, I'm sorry. I am speaking from fact based knowledge. You are the one assuming. If you want to provide factual sources please put them up here. I'll read them. I'm late for a dinner with friends. However, I'd love to discuss the paragraph above with you later if you want to bring your sources into discussion.
Click to expand...

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?
 
JC Callender said:
No, the roads for instance benefit everyone.
Click to expand...

So in principal then, you are not opposed to contributing to practices that benefit others, it's just a matter of where the line is drawn?
 
JC Callender said:
My factual source is the history of the United States.
Click to expand...

Oh man, that's trumped our historians. Look out fellas, we got the history of the United States on board now.
 
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...

First of all, I made it possible. I was the one that fought his way off the streets, I was the one that earned himself two degrees, I was the one that started his own business, I was the one that did without sleep for years to make it a success, and I will be damned if I'm told without protest that the government made my business possible. We the people make the governments existence possible and it is because of people like myself that makes the welfare state have enough resources to survive. If it wasn't for me many people would be without jobs and their families would be subsistence, healthcare, or any well being to speak of. All the government did was provide my business with easier access to greater profits and force me to agree to terms I did not desire to agree to when I started my business.

Second of all, you have no merit to tax me when I leave the country for good. I have already paid for what I have used and asking for further payment is asking me to pay for things that I will not use or at all benefit from. Telling me I must pay you and get nothing in return for it is akin to slavery.
 
Last edited:
Korimyr the Rat said:
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.
Click to expand...

^^^^^

This.... X 1000.
 
APACHERAT said:
Do you live in a basement ?
Click to expand...
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".
 
JC Callender said:
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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
Fiddytree said:
Because protectionism worked,
Click to expand...

Protectionism has worked? What a strange and rather unaccepted idea. Protectionism impedes economic growth, holds up bad economic policy, raises the cost of goods and services, impedes competition, and leads to monopolies. Most economic minds agree with me on this no matter the era.

regulations worked
Click to expand...

Again, what are you talking about? Regulations control private property, violates liberty, punishes innocent parties and allows the government to direct the market. Saying it worked is a such a strange word to use. You could do much of it through punishing violators of peoples rights without allowing the government to control the property of people and lives of people.

the invisible hand never existed among its greatest proponents, and philanthropy had its unfortunate limits.
Click to expand...

The limits of voluntarily giving to others is self evident. It doesn't need to be explained to anyone that the welfare state has far greater capability than any voluntary arrangement will ever have. It could never have the goal of the welfare state and anyone foolish enough to think it could is ignorant on the demand of resources that it takes to reach the heights the welfare state has. The ends are however also judged by the means and there is little doubt which idea here is superior in those regards. If your goal is help others than it doesn't make much sense to abuse others in the process as well. I do not support immoral actions due their being benefits behind them, sorry.
 
opendebate said:
So it sounds then like you would see any form of taxation as a transfer of wealth?
Click to expand...

When the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong that is transfer of wealth. When this occurs the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom