Am I the only one on here bothered by this?

Post Reply New Topic

Okay, I thought you were only referring to what the Salvation Army actually does, which is, in my city: provide dinners to the homeless, and some services for druggies.
I have never heard of them giving people a place to live, besides a bedbug infested cot in a church basement in the winter. So it seemed offensive to me.
If you were unemployed and hungry and desperate, you would think differently.

I agree. Most people that rely on disability are grateful to be able to eat, and sleep indoors. They do not sit around and spend their money on beer, and laugh at the working folk.
Don't blame society for having disability, blame the employers who refuse to hire people with different kinds of disabilities! If people were more accepting, and inclusive, and compassionate, we would not need disability insurance. Sadly, that is not the case.

I have mixed feelings about this. I don't regard myself as disabled or sick but as an aspie I had terrible trouble holding down a decent job. So, having been sacked from yet another company do I apply for unemployment benefits? Hell yeah!

Vanilla_Slice

Actually, I can give you an answer to that:

it is actually better to have a private charity handle it. The main reason being that the money is coming from people who actually have a desire to give, and are more likely to give in the amounts they want to...in some cases more than you'd even expect. To top it off, the money that comes from a charitable donation is obviously not taxed, and you actually wind up receiving what is donated...whereas when the feds handle it, due to so many forms they have to go thru and everything, what they take out to give to the department is not necessarily what the recipient will be getting; so just to clarify: basically the majority of money that the feds take out for disabled people or whatnot go solely to federal processing of forms and whatnot, leaving much less for the people that the program is initially supposed to help.

The charity on the other hand...it's main focus is that charitable cause, and can focus more time on getting what is needed to those who need it as opposed to loads of boondoggle from feds who aren't well equipped to handle it in the first place.

And once again: either way, it's coming out of the pocket of other people, but in one case it's from people who are willing to assist; in the other case, not necessarily.

Well i guess the oracle has spoken then.




Do you have anything to back that claim or is it just your assumption. Personaly I think it's a load of rubbish. The reason there is social security is because charities can't do the job alone.



Again I say what a load of rubbish. Can you back these claims or is it just your assumption? Don't you think charities have overheads as well such as rent, wages, insurance and the list goes on.?



So you have a problem with it coming from people 'made' to pay rather than just those who 'want' to pay is that right?

Can I ask which group would you be in?

Peace ellomo

You can look at countries that don't have Social Security, such as Singapore, to see how well private charities take care of things. The result is they don't, and so the burden falls on the family. If there's no family, or the family is too poor, the person begs, starves, dies (well, they probably end up in jail for being on the street in Singapore).

Or even in the USA before Social Security -- there are reasons why it came into being. History is always too easily forgotten. Chile and Uraguay (sp?) about 20 years ago are other examples of what it looks like when there are no social programs.

The information I have was brought to my attention several years ago, but I would be more than happy to get updates for you from several forums I generally visit in semi-relation to these topics if it is indeed requested.

In regards to what the Salvation Army actually is able to cover, again I wouldn't fully know...and they may've been able to cover far more than what they do now in the past; it's not something I confess I fully read up on. To be fair though, at the time the Salvation Army was mostly used, most of the standards of living you mention were apparently very common regardless.

However, there may be some charities that can handle these things, if the Salvation Army isn't one of them. Again, I'd be more than happy to get information from the forums I post on about that, for anyone who'd be interested.

If you really want to know, I'm in the group that's "made" to pay; I'm not saying there aren't charities I don't want to give to eventually, because there are in fact several I am hoping to eventually contribute to.

And being that we're Autistic here--being able to use logic over emotion--please don't try any guilt trips with that information. I would indeed also like to remind you here that LFA aren't the only folks who use SSID; in many cases, it's also people who either can work but choose not to, or can work and also do; I happen to know one of each( even though I've ended my friendships with both those people...and no, not for those reasons) and I assure you I'd rather not be footing the bill for either one.

This is actually a fair unfair example as you're comparing the services of more impoverished nations to those of much more prosperous "first-world" nations.

And unfortunately those aren't the reasons they came into being. I'd go into those reasons, but I could see little more than a stupid political squabble erupting sooner or later even though it wouldn't even be intentional.

Singapore is doing fine. And the Latin American countries ended up impoverished -- they didn't start out that way. Look up "the Chicago Boys." They ended up that way because of radical free-market ideas, including no social services.



http://www.socialsecurity.gov/kids/history.htm



I'm sure the Cato Institute has generated thousands of pages about how that's not really what happened, but oh well.

I don't request things it if I don't mean it
So yes...it is indeed requested.
Are they just comments buy other posters. (because I have no interest in seeing them) Or actual 'recognized' economic and social studies?



Alot of "I don't actually know" and "maby's" there. The reality is that charity's can't do the job alone.



I'm sorry if you feel put out by it. I do think you're views on this may be being tainted somewhat by the way you feel about it though. Is it possible I'm right do you think?



If it comes across in anyway thats what I am doing. It is not my intention at all.



Of course there is. There will always be some who are able to abuse any system. I just think you are putting way to much emphasis on a small minority and helping to continue and fuel the discrimination many, who are on disability support legitimately, already receive by doing so.


Peace ellomo

The current DSM-IV-TR states that AS causes considerable disability, and failure to obtain work is one of the important areas of functioning that may be affected.

So, if you're unable to work due to the symptoms of the disorder, which is considered a disability, you would then be entitled to disability allowances.

That's black and white right there (official diagnostic criteria).

You are wrong. Not "maybe wrong", not "I think" or "I feel you are wrong."

(I) Qualitative impairment in social interaction, as manifested by at least two of the following:
(A) marked impairments in the use of multiple nonverbal behaviors such as eye-to-eye gaze, facial expression, body posture, and gestures to regulate social interaction
(B) failure to develop peer relationships appropriate to developmental level
(C) a lack of spontaneous seeking to share enjoyment, interest or achievements with other people, (e.g.. by a lack of showing, bringing, or pointing out objects of interest to other people)
(D) lack of social or emotional reciprocity
(II) Restricted repetitive & stereotyped patterns of behavior, interests and activities, as manifested by at least one of the following:
(A) encompassing preoccupation with one or more stereotyped and restricted patterns of interest that is abnormal either in intensity or focus
(B) apparently inflexible adherence to specific, nonfunctional routines or rituals
(C) stereotyped and repetitive motor mannerisms (e.g. hand or finger flapping or twisting, or complex whole-body movements)
(D) persistent preoccupation with parts of objects

(III) The disturbance causes clinically significant impairments in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning.

Some, but not all, of that can be put down to "evil NT society!11! discriminating against us weirdos" , but it doesn't matter. We are disabled relative to the majority by definition.

I think that those complaining that disability money comes out of their taxes fail to realize that even if they did away with government assistance for such things the government would just find something else to tax you for, so it is not as if you'd be paying vastly less in taxes if not for all the people on disability.

No one is happy about paying taxes, instead of complaining about the people on disability, who actually need that money to live, how bout you complain about funding the two wars we've got going that are completely unnecessary.

Just my two cents.

What is the government for if not to make sure people are doing okay and have at least the bare minimum that they need? That's pretty much its only function. It's the reason why we have police departments and fire departments, roads, public schools, etc. are you suggesting we should do away with all those things? Most people who are on disability are on it because they need the help. The amount of the assistance is paltry (I think SSI pays about $500 a month, at least it did several years ago).

Of course, in practice the government does many things that are not for the benefit of the average person. Look at corporate welfare, pork barrel spending, the build up of the military, whose purpose is mainly imperialism rather than protecting the people, though it does also protect the people and is in that sense another government service (should that be eliminated too?)

I am unable to work because I have chronic fatigue, but the social security disability system makes it so difficult to get disability that even though I am actually disabled I was turned down, and if my parents weren't helping me I would be out on the street.

I see where you're coming from OP. At the moment I am on DLA (disability living allowance) but my mum arranged that after I got diagnosed.
I don't want it though! I don't feel deserving of it, I can go out and catch a bus to places on my own within reason, I am applying for a summer job and I do well in college. It doesn't feel right to be getting this money when there are more deserving people than me. A soon as I start earning proper money, I am crossing my name off the DLA thingy. My mum doesn't want me to, but I don't care what she says. I'm not disabled enough!

But people with severe AS that won't ever be independant, well they do deserve it.

I'm bothered by anyone with no shame, receiving public funds who does not need them; whether using Autism, Asperger's or anything else to justify technically. I so often see perfectly able-bodied, able-minded people making plenty of money under the table, and still collecting government "help". It especially bugs me to see people show up at the grocery store in a new Mercedes, and use food stamps. I am happy to see anyone with a true need, receiving help. We need to grossly overhaul the system with regard to qualifying for financial aid. In CA, it's so difficult to apply for any aid, that only intelligent, NT people are able to figure out how to apply in the first place.

Charles