- Joined
- Jul 10, 2012
- Messages
- 4,136
- Reaction score
- 915
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Conservative
If you believe that supports his point, you've misread it. Fixing the problems are costly, difficult, and often requiring more then elected leaders. So it has little to do with his claim. Having people dependent for votes s not what that is saying.
First off, "see point 2" was to redirect you to the subsistence of my argument, rather then swerving off into your rhetorical talking points. I have yet to see you address what I am actually saying, and rather you instead are trying to undermine me (or other posters) using greedy reductionism. Reducing my argument to "vilifying people" or "jumping overboard" or any of your other ridiculously vague statements is childish. And if you say you aren't reducing my argument, then you are simply saying such things unsolicited and are talking past me. Either way, its subtraction by addition.
Now to the specifics.
Like I said, I agree with him that Democrats are sympathetic to more lax standards for disability benefits. It is a major component of their base that they wouldn't risk pissing off, but at the same time I don't know if I think they are rigging the system strictly to win votes.
The article does show that there has been quite a steady rise in disability benefits for working age citizens. Also having to "prove you cannot function in a working place environment" means absolutely nothing when the standards for the words "prove" and "cannot" are ambiguous and can be exaggerated.