• 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 .
Gina said:
I am helping the disabled with my own money, via taxes. I don't miss that money, because it's small in comparison to other portions of the federal budget. 12% of the budget goes to support safety net programs. I also already donate to organizations which support the disabled, anonymously, because I don't need that feeling you are describing. I am not self-aggrandizing and nor do I wish to ever make anyone feel beholden to me.

If all federal programs were to end, 12% of my taxes would not go very far in helping a single disabled person so that they could survive on part time pay and my heart would break to see their small measure of self-sufficiency end as they had to take refuge in some horrid institution. I do not believe in putting innocent people into potentially hellish conditions so that few Annies, Abes and Twains might pop out. Scarred by the experience as they would too be.

So now we are back to discussing what would happen to those for whom charity cannot provide. Charitable contributions go down in hard times. So what about those who are lucky enough to receive charity, but then whose lives are upended when charity runs out in a down turn? Government funds can be effected, but not like a charity, which can dry up over night.
Click to expand...

I don't think it's self-aggrandizing to want your money to go to a personal charity of your choice in a much more efficient way than the government could handle it. I also don't think there's anything wrong with feeling good about giving to those in need, unless one is doing it solely for recognition. And your 12% may not be much, and neither is mine, but what about the millionaires? What if you were a millionaire, that 12% would be much more. Think of what you could do with that. I'm sure most millionaires are where they're at because they now how to be efficient and frugal with their money, searching for the best investments.

Charitable donations may dry up during recessions, but the huge charities that would administer these donations I'm sure would make investments that would ensure people are taken care of during these times. Look at how inefficient the government is, don't you think if you ran a charity that you could do better?
 
JC Callender said:
I don't think it's self-aggrandizing to want your money to go to a personal charity of your choice in a much more efficient way than the government could handle it. I also don't think there's anything wrong with feeling good about giving to those in need, unless one is doing it solely for recognition. And your 12% may not be much, and neither is mine, but what about the millionaires? What if you were a millionaire, that 12% would be much more. Think of what you could do with that. I'm sure most millionaires are where they're at because they now how to be efficient and frugal with their money, searching for the best investments.

Charitable donations may dry up during recessions, but the huge charities that would administer these donations I'm sure would make investments that would ensure people are taken care of during these times. Look at how inefficient the government is, don't you think if you ran a charity that you could do better?
Click to expand...

I feel good giving, in private. I do not need to be acknowledged. Preening while I hand someone a check? Looking into their eyes at a time when they are possibly most defeated at the same time grateful. No, that is not for me.

Millionaires got where they are by maximizing their income making potential. There is no income to be made in charitable enterprises. They are not investments and I would not be so foolhardy as to believe they would in turn giveaway that 12%.

Oh, yes, huge charities invest. They invest in the same kinds of financial instruments the rest of us do and while our 401 (k)s became 201 (k)s in 2008, so did those investments held by charities. They are no more bullet proof than the rest of us.

I don't know that I could do better. When a person is receiving a subsidy or a disability check, the government has a right to review their circumstances to see that they qualify. Such would not be the case for a charity. There a limitations and fraud would be more rampant. Charities are defrauded, all the time.
 
JC Callender said:
I understand we have to tolerate corporate welfare, but I'm against it just as I'm against regular welfare. And I wouldn't end these programs today (well, maybe corporate welfare), I would scale them down over maybe 5 years. Wouldn't you be at least a little excited at the thought of how you could help the disabled yourself with your own money that you would be getting back since the government wouldn't be using it anymore? I'm sure you, like most people, are more efficient with your own money than the government is, and the look on someones face as you personally hand them a check, or the thought of walking into an organization that you had a personal hand in building and/or maintaining would be a pretty satisfying feeling.
Click to expand...

The problem with this premise is it seems to believe it is an effective means of dealing with societal ills for this population. It's not. From my angle, all I see is the argument to strip down the nature of social programs so that we disabled folk can admire your philanthropic fantasies and be grateful for the crumbs you give. Meanwhile, our lot in life has decreased.

Frankly and crudely, if you want to masturbate, don't ask us to help you out.
 
Last edited:
Gina said:
I feel good giving, in private. I do not need to be acknowledged. Preening while I hand someone a check? Looking into their eyes at a time when they are possibly most defeated at the same time grateful. No, that is not for me.

Millionaires got where they are by maximizing their income making potential. There is no income to be made in charitable enterprises. They are not investments and I would not be so foolhardy as to believe they would in turn giveaway that 12%.

Oh, yes, huge charities invest. They invest in the same kinds of financial instruments the rest of us do and while our 401 (k)s became 201 (k)s in 2008, so did those investments held by charities. They are no more bullet proof than the rest of us.

I don't know that I could do better. When a person is receiving a subsidy or a disability check, the government has a right to review their circumstances to see that they qualify. Such would not be the case for a charity. There a limitations and fraud would be more rampant. Charities are defrauded, all the time.
Click to expand...

I think there is income to be made from contracting with charities, they have to buy their stuff from somewhere. I'm sure they wouldn't pay nearly what the government pays for things, but contractors could definitely make money. And I'm sure some millionaires would give more than 12 percent. Many of them leave tons of money to charities when they die.

And a government does review a persons circumstances before giving them benefits, but have historically had a pretty horrible record of rampant corruption because of their lackluster efforts. I'm sure most charities wouldn't put up with it to that extent, because if they did, people would just donate elsewhere.
 
Fiddytree said:
The problem with this premise is it seems to believe it is an effective means of dealing with societal ills for this population. It's not. From my angle, all I see is the argument to strip down the nature of social programs so that we disabled folk can admire your philanthropic fantasies and be grateful for the crumbs you give. Meanwhile, our lot in life has decreased.

Frankly and crudely, if you want to masturbate, don't ask us to help you out.
Click to expand...

Why does someone else who you've never met owe you a comfortable living?
 
JC Callender said:
Why does someone else who you've never met owe you a comfortable living?
Click to expand...

There it is. Is this that tacit acceptance that our lot in life will decrease with your ideas? Of course it was not long ago you claimed that charity would improve matters. The real driving impulse seems to come out when you expose the frailty of the Ayn Rand doctrinaire.
 
JC Callender said:
I think there is income to be made from contracting with charities, they have to buy their stuff from somewhere. I'm sure they wouldn't pay nearly what the government pays for things, but contractors could definitely make money. And I'm sure some millionaires would give more than 12 percent. Many of them leave tons of money to charities when they die.

And a government does review a persons circumstances before giving them benefits, but have historically had a pretty horrible record of rampant corruption because of their lackluster efforts. I'm sure most charities wouldn't put up with it to that extent, because if they did, people would just donate elsewhere.
Click to expand...

The government is consistent. Having to rely on the largesse and willingness of charitable givers is a haphazard way to operate any enterprise that provides the basics to live; three hots and a cot. That is, if someone can get a millionaire to be interested in their project. I don't know why you think the wealthy would come out of the woodwork to serve the disabled. If it's such a hot investment, why aren't there better services for them now? Or the homeless? Shelters have to constantly hunt for resources. It takes great human effort to fulfill their needs. Have you ever worked with the homeless? Or know anyone who does that work?

Why would you think that people would be any less likely to bilk charities than they are the government? Charities cannot impose penalties, fines or prison for fraud. The government can and people still flaunt the government. Charities have no authority and no resources to verify information they do get.
 
Gina said:
The government is consistent. Having to rely on the largesse and willingness of charitable givers is a haphazard way to operate any enterprise that provides the basics to live; three hots and a cot. That is, if someone can get a millionaire to be interested in their project. I don't know why you think the wealthy would come out of the woodwork to serve the disabled. If it's such a hot investment, why aren't there better services for them now? Or the homeless? Shelters have to constantly hunt for resources. It takes great human effort to fulfill their needs. Have you ever worked with the homeless? Or know anyone who does that work?

Why would you think that people would be any less likely to bilk charities than they are the government? Charities cannot impose penalties, fines or prison for fraud. The government can and people still flaunt the government. Charities have no authority and no resources to verify information they do get.
Click to expand...


The government is consistently bad. A charity that performed that way wouldn't be around long enough to perform that way. And why do you believe you have the desire to help but the wealthy wouldn't?

We have a food bank in Detroit called Gleaners, and the incredible amount of food they receive always amazes me. It seems like every food drive from schools to churches to other organizations and charities goes down to Gleaners. Think of all of the different churches alone in your area and the money, food, and clothes they collect and still many people don't give to the poor and disabled in America anymore because they feel like the government is handling it. As far as the homeless go, there are resources in shelters and food, but I don't know what else can be done for them.

And to your last point, people will take advantage of charities, but the corruption wouldn't have to go nearly as deep as it does in the government because people aren't forced to give to charities. They can give somewhere else if they think one is irresponsible enough. I've seen Bill O'Reilly exposing charities on his show and many people who see that decide to give their money elsewhere.
 
JC Callender said:
The government is consistently bad. A charity that performed that way wouldn't be around long enough to perform that way. And why do you believe you have the desire to help but the wealthy wouldn't?

We have a food bank in Detroit called Gleaners, and the incredible amount of food they receive always amazes me. It seems like every food drive from schools to churches to other organizations and charities goes down to Gleaners. Think of all of the different churches alone in your area and the money, food, and clothes they collect and still many people don't give to the poor and disabled in America anymore because they feel like the government is handling it. As far as the homeless go, there are resources in shelters and food, but I don't know what else can be done for them.

And to your last point, people will take advantage of charities, but the corruption wouldn't have to go nearly as deep as it does in the government because people aren't forced to give to charities. They can give somewhere else if they think one is irresponsible enough. I've seen Bill O'Reilly exposing charities on his show and many people who see that decide to give their money elsewhere.
Click to expand...

That the government is consistently bad, is your platitude. Those who receive disability might have complaints but they are consistently getting aid because the government will be around unlike the charity that does a bad job or cannot sustain its funding. Those, by your own words, can and do dissolve. Why do I believe I have a desire the wealthy don't? Because there aren't widespread charitable programs to fill the needs the government doesn't meet now. There are multi-millionaires and billionaires, with more than enough to give millions now, without taxes being returned, yet there are massive needs out there.

There are Gleaners in my area too. They do a fantastic job of feeding people. At this level. Throw thousands off disability, and it would stress their ability to provide.

You are clearly not getting what disability provides for people. It keeps them living independently or in group homes. They can work part time, if capable, and still be independent. Take that away. Now what? Describe what you see happening.

To your last paragraph, there you have a glaring reason to not depend on charity, as I stated in my first paragraph, they go away. People depending on bad charities would be left in a lurch and possibly dire circumstances. There are loads of them now which are scams. Increasing charitable donations would only exacerbate that.
 
JC Callender said:
The government is consistently bad. A charity that performed that way wouldn't be around long enough to perform that way. And why do you believe you have the desire to help but the wealthy wouldn't?
Click to expand...

The middle to upper class rich would disproportionately help the disabled in comparison with the lower classes, but that is due to leisure and potential social mission work. If there is no wide-scale social impulse as there was in the late 19th and early 20th century, you get less middle class and upper class folks helping those causes. The private social reform impulse in America was largely dormant until the late 19th and early 20th centuries, and eventually subsided. That being said, it did not get the job done. That's why the middle and upper classes engaged in private associations bothered advocating for such governmental interventions in the first place. The problems were considered too big to conquer through private association alone.

There are limits to government action, and traditional methods of ameliorating social distress need to be promoted (hence why I thought the Bush and Obama administrations correctly perceived the nature of faith-based initiatives) but it is immensely foolish to suggest that an entirely private venture would do more than make matters worse.

We have a food bank in Detroit called Gleaners, and the incredible amount of food they receive always amazes me. It seems like every food drive from schools to churches to other organizations and charities goes down to Gleaners. Think of all of the different churches alone in your area and the money, food, and clothes they collect and still many people don't give to the poor and disabled in America anymore because they feel like the government is handling it. As far as the homeless go, there are resources in shelters and food, but I don't know what else can be done for them.
Click to expand...

The rate of "incredible" is rather low if you are wanting to compare it to a district and statewide program, let alone national.

And to your last point, people will take advantage of charities, but the corruption wouldn't have to go nearly as deep as it does in the government because people aren't forced to give to charities. They can give somewhere else if they think one is irresponsible enough. I've seen Bill O'Reilly exposing charities on his show and many people who see that decide to give their money elsewhere.
Click to expand...

You're seriously suggesting consumer choice has meaning here?
 
Last edited:
Gina said:
That the government is consistently bad, is your platitude. Those who receive disability might have complaints but they are consistently getting aid because the government will be around unlike the charity that does a bad job or cannot sustain its funding. Those, by your own words, can and do dissolve. Why do I believe I have a desire the wealthy don't? Because there aren't widespread charitable programs to fill the needs the government doesn't meet now. There are multi-millionaires and billionaires, with more than enough to give millions now, without taxes being returned, yet there are massive needs out there.

There are Gleaners in my area too. They do a fantastic job of feeding people. At this level. Throw thousands off disability, and it would stress their ability to provide.

You are clearly not getting what disability provides for people. It keeps them living independently or in group homes. They can work part time, if capable, and still be independent. Take that away. Now what? Describe what you see happening.

To your last paragraph, there you have a glaring reason to not depend on charity, as I stated in my first paragraph, they go away. People depending on bad charities would be left in a lurch and possibly dire circumstances. There are loads of them now which are scams. Increasing charitable donations would only exacerbate that.
Click to expand...

You can consider my assessment of the government a platitude, but look at the Congressional approval ratings. Look at the constant reports of outrageous waste and corruption. I've never met a person who thought the government ran efficiently. And you're trying to use the current state of charities as what it would look like if there were no government assistance, but the charities would be much more widespread. Gleaners would expand to fill the void, and if they're doing such a great job, I would much rather give my money to them than the government anyway. And as far as the massive needs out there now, do you have a few examples?

I just can't believe that if the disabled weren't getting government checks anymore that they wouldn't be helped in one way or another. Why wouldn't an organization come about to give them aid, along with their family and friends? Why wouldn't you lead the charge to do something like that? Why could the Komen Foundation do it and you couldn't? I've said that if we didn't like a charity, then we wouldn't donate to it anymore, but that doesn't mean that people wouldn't donate to that cause, someone would come up with a better charity. That's how the free market works and why it would be more successful than the government who has no competition and very little concern as to whether you like them or not.
 
JC Callender said:
You can consider my assessment of the government a platitude, but look at the Congressional approval ratings. Look at the constant reports of outrageous waste and corruption. I've never met a person who thought the government ran efficiently.
Click to expand...

Congressional approval ratings are irrelevant here, but one important caveat is the difference between whole house approval rating and approval rating per representative of their district and state.

The first thing that I had to do was moderate public complaints against waste, fraud, and abuse by looking at what actually was. On one hand, there are indeed cases of waste, fraud, and abuse. However, many times public scandals surrounding government bureaucracy run on overly simplistic notions of "common sense", avoiding the more troublesome question as to whether or not the supposed "waste" actually served its purpose. Complaints about $10,000 coffee machines neglected to understand that they ran more efficiently and lasted longer for the purposes of the military instead of the constant breaking down of equipment by more consumer-grade products. Complaints about coffee cups engineered to break in 5 specific pieces were created that way so there was far less danger involved in military-owned aircraft. Then, on top of that, the more famous complaints about waste and abuse end up being on the rare spectrum, despite getting the most public play.

In another way, government bureaucracy can be both efficient and effective just as it can be inefficient or at times ineffective. Part of that is by design. Accountability measures demanded by the public (often-times that demand comes from people with your political inclinations) slow matters down due to increased oversight. In many other ways, however, effectiveness and efficiency have been remarkable over the past 20 years. More and more departments have been attempting to get the right balance between the two, and they are frequently responding to those needs through internal study.

The public is largely unaware of these matters though. They tend to keep to the same bland complaints and get bored whenever someone wants to actually discuss what happens and why it happens.
 
Fiddytree said:
The middle to upper class rich would disproportionately help the disabled in comparison with the lower classes, but that is due to leisure and potential social mission work. If there is no wide-scale social impulse as there was in the late 19th and early 20th century, you get less middle class and upper class folks helping those causes. The private social reform impulse in America was largely dormant until the late 19th and early 20th centuries, and eventually subsided. That being said, it did not get the job done. That's why the middle and upper classes engaged in private associations bothered advocating for such governmental interventions in the first place. The problems were considered too big to conquer through private association alone.

There are limits to government action, and traditional methods of ameliorating social distress need to be promoted (hence why I thought the Bush and Obama administrations correctly perceived the nature of faith-based initiatives) but it is immensely foolish to suggest that an entirely private venture would do more than make matters worse.



The rate of "incredible" is rather low if you are wanting to compare it to a district and statewide program, let alone national.



You're seriously suggesting consumer choice has meaning here?
Click to expand...

Yeah, look at the ridiculous failure the Komen Foundation has made of themselves! Forget your town turning completely pink when they role in and practically every organization on earth participating.
 
JC Callender said:
Yeah, look at the ridiculous failure the Komen Foundation has made of themselves! Forget your town turning completely pink when they role in and practically every organization on earth participating.
Click to expand...

So are you going to bother dealing with the weaknesses of private associations when they were at their zenith in America, or would you prefer to give me one foundation during a time in which they are dramatically less prominent?
 
Fiddytree said:
Congressional approval ratings are irrelevant here, but one important caveat is the difference between whole house approval rating and approval rating per representative of their district and state.

The first thing that I had to do was moderate public complaints against waste, fraud, and abuse by looking at what actually was. On one hand, there are indeed cases of waste, fraud, and abuse. However, many times public scandals surrounding government bureaucracy run on overly simplistic notions of "common sense", avoiding the more troublesome question as to whether or not the supposed "waste" actually served its purpose. Complaints about $10,000 coffee machines neglected to understand that they ran more efficiently and lasted longer for the purposes of the military instead of the constant breaking down of equipment by more consumer-grade products. Complaints about coffee cups engineered to break in 5 specific pieces were created that way so there was far less danger involved in military-owned aircraft. Then, on top of that, the more famous complaints about waste and abuse end up being on the rare spectrum, despite getting the most public play.

In another way, government bureaucracy can be both efficient and effective just as it can be inefficient or at times ineffective. Part of that is by design. Accountability measures demanded by the public (often-times that demand comes from people with your political inclinations) slow matters down due to increased oversight. In many other ways, however, effectiveness and efficiency have been remarkable over the past 20 years. More and more departments have been attempting to get the right balance between the two, and they are frequently responding to those needs through internal study.

The public is largely unaware of these matters though. They tend to keep to the same bland complaints and get bored whenever someone wants to actually discuss what happens and why it happens.
Click to expand...

Government Spending Waste: 25 Wasteful Items - Business Insider

I could go on and on and on....
 
Fiddytree said:
So are you going to bother dealing with the weaknesses of private associations when they were at their zenith in America, or would you prefer to give me one foundation during a time in which they are dramatically less prominent?
Click to expand...

No, I'm going to ask you to explain why the Komen Foundation is so successful? That's what matters today anyway. As far as the 19th and early 20th century, going back to my initial argument, I'd say Annie Sullivan took pretty great care of Helen Keller. Now tell me why that happened as well?
 
JC Callender said:
No, I'm going to ask you to explain why the Komen Foundation is so successful? That's what matters today anyway. As far as the 19th and early 20th century, going back to my initial argument, I'd say Annie Sullivan took pretty great care of Helen Keller. Now tell me why that happened as well?
Click to expand...

If you want to discuss the undermining of the entire welfare state, you have to account for why it started and gained legitimacy in the first place. We don't need to play anecdotal games worthy of intellectual simpletons like Bill O' Reilly. What you know of one person cannot substitute an institutional reality that has been well-documented in history. Besides, we went over that ground before...or at least I did. All you could do was hopelessly wander in the woods and show me a stick you found in an entire forest.
 
JC Callender said:
Your reply is a reference to a book on Amazon? And it looks like your book is meant to consider reasons the government could be more efficient. I don't get your point.
Click to expand...

If you would read it, you would understand that in many ways it undermines your essential viewpoint of government bureaucracy.
 
Goshin said:
Take some guy who barely graduated high school and spends the next 20 years working the loading dock, but he hurts his back. He's no longer able to lift anything heavy most days; driving for more than an hour causes severe pain; etc. Well, he's effectively disabled for any job he could actually GET, given his education and experience. I suppose we could try to retrain him as a computer programmer but honestly if he barely passed HS and spent 20 yrs on the dock how well is that likely to go? (not too very)
Click to expand...

Probably better (and cheaper) then leaving him to live off the state for the rest of his life.

That said there is lots of factory work you can do sitting down (some people at the chocolate factory i work at literally spend all day placing molds on a conveyor belt) , but the problem is that the management may prefer to rotate people, or to have the option of moving someone somewhere else. This is going to be a big problem in a job market that allows employers to be picky in who they hire. Which is why IMHO its pointless to discuss disability outside of the context of the economy as a whole and how we have been running it for the past two decades.

I even knew of a guy with schizophrenia who was too paranoid to go outside, but eventually found a job where he could go to a workshop by himself in the small hours of the morning, paint furniture and then go home, but ultimately cases like this are rare as there is too much focus on getting the employee to adapt for the employer and not the other way around.
 
JC Callender said:
The government is consistently bad....

We have a food bank in Detroit called Gleaners, and the incredible amount of food they receive always amazes me. It seems like every food drive from schools to churches to other organizations and charities goes down to Gleaners....
Click to expand...

It is Interesting ...to note that in 2012 Gleaners of southeast Michigan received almost $1 million
( $955,000 plus some odd dollars )
In a grant from the Federal government.
 
minnie616 said:
It is Interesting ...to note that in 2012 Gleaners of southeast Michigan received almost $1 million
( $955,000 plus some odd dollars )
In a grant from the Federal government.
Click to expand...

Who didn't the Federal government give money to?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom