Am I the only one on here bothered by this?

Post Reply New Topic

Sorry...it didn't copy the quote right...I've corrected it now.

ps...there is other places they get money but in the context of this thread it is the tax income is at question. And how it is spent.

Last edited by ellomo on 04 Jul 2010, 3:25 am, edited 1 time in total.

I already gave you proof: the example of West Germany Vs East Germany

you can't honestly get a better example of that. If you still believe Statism is so much superior, then I certainly hope whatever country you're from that has no people making any money has some way to afford that social safety net that you think can't be achieved any other way.

What did that one point have to do with getting disability support? Are you serious? You folks were bashing me earlier yesterday, insisting that free-market principles don't work so well, which is why those social programs are needed...and now you're asking me what countries with crippling regulations and virtually no free market have to do with my point?

Do...do you even actually read what I say--or for that matter what you do--before responding?

1 example doesn't equate to proof. Have you forgotten about The PRC? It is far from a free market.



I doubt you really care much at all if I get my support pension but that aside, what has Stalinism got to do with it? You can have a social security system without Stalinism.



Free market principles applied to charity yes. Not as a general principle applied to everything.
When applied to charity it doesn't work as well as a gov system.



I do yes
Do you read what others are saying and spend any time contemplating it? Or are you too busy trying to convince?

Peace ellomo

What makes you think I have not pushed forward? Oh yes, I remember, you are under the impression that people with disabilities are lazy.



I was applying to the only jobs in the area that did not require a bachelors degree and a minimum two years experience. I applied to all of the supermarkets, all of the department stores, a Home Depot, Staples, another office supply store, and pretty much every other entry level, undesirable minimum wage job I could find that there was a reasonable chance that I could do. I also applied to a few technical jobs.

The fact of the matter is, when you have reduced job options as it is due to a physical disability, don't have your own transportation, and then come across as socially "off", people don't want to hire you. When they do hire you and find out you can't do a seemingly simple task, or are even more socially "off" than they initially realized, they want to fire you.



No it doesn't. It comes down to whether or not the hiring manager decides to hire you, and whether your boss and co-workers decide to put up with you. You have an unrealistic view of things because you have not been in my particular situation yourself and have an inability to empathize. You should consider that perhaps this is due to your AS.




This is actually one job I cannot do. At least not to most employers expectations. So it should be apparent right there why that greatly narrowed my job options. However I had applied for those jobs anyway on the assumption they would not fire me in a seasonal position.



That's great, but you fail to understand it doesn't always work out that way for everyone. Just because you have the same "syndrome" as someone else doesn't mean you face the same challenges. Many people with AS also have other issues which may overshadow the AS, such as learning disabilities, coordination issues, OCD, Tourette Syndrome, epilepsy, sleep disorders, etc.

I think most people on SSI would give it up in an instant in return for a cure for their condition.

Hear Hear

I didn't say Stalinism; I said Statism; granted, there's usually not much of a difference, but one is typically a more extreme example of the other. And no, you can't have social security without statism, cause in order for said system to work, people have to believe the state can take care of them; without that, it "all falls down".

Very true...Soviet China is far from a free market; and...where exactly are you going with that?

Now wait...you said "Free market principles applied to charity yes. Not as a general principle applied to everything. When applied to charity it doesn't work as well as a gov system."

Um....WHA?! !! !! !! !! !! !! I don't even understand what you mean by that statement.


So Chronos, what you're basically saying is that your success in life is to be determined by everyone else; is this correct? That's certainly what it sounds like you're saying.

I never said people with disabilities are lazy; please don't put words into my mouth.

Oh...you really think people would give up SSI instantly for a "cure"? Two things about that:

1. That already implies "victim" mentality.

Don't go attacking me because you believe you're a victim.

2. No....no, most wouldn't. Y'know why? That's supposed to be the very point of Social Security: dependency on the welfare state.

In many cases when people get too dependent on something, they often times can wind up with a feeling of entitlement for it...funny enough, I experienced that earlier on in this thread as well. Go figure.


Finally, I said I'd get some information from my other forum for you, and here're some of the responses; I haven't truncated them in any way....they're exactly as they were posted( bear in mind that some of these may have some political leanings, but I wasn't the one who made the political comparisons; they were):

"I recommend Who Really Cares? by Arthur Brooks. It's an empirical study of charitable behavior in the US (with some comparisons to Europe). Its most conspicuous finding is that conservatives are more charitable than liberals, but it contains numerous other interesting findings. The proportionally least charitable economic sector is the upper middle class (household incomes of $100,000 - $300,000); their explanation is invariably that all their income is spoken for and they just don't have the money. Poor people on the average aren't much more generous than the upper middle class, but if you break them down into welfare recipients and the working poor, the latter are quite generous. Liberals are likelier to give money to a stranger, conservatives directions.

Brooks has a great time demolishing the inevitable comeback to his major finding: yes, conservatives donate more, but that's to their churches. Turns out they donate more to secular charities as well."


here's another:


"I wish I could remember any threads regarding this issue. You might try searching Reason.com.

The issue really boils down to principle rather than practice, but your opponents won't understand that.

Principle 1 is this: No one has a right to the means of survival. Period.

Principle 2 is: Human nature is inherently benevolent, not sadistic. (But the more government imposes itself on human action, the more sadistic it becomes.)"


and one more:

"What is it that they claim you advocate which would prohibit them from carrying out their desire to help whoever they want?

They should feel free.

What is it about their fear of what you may or may not be doing enough of to help those who they believe should be helped that justifies their accessing the guns of government to force you to implement their worldview for them?

You should feel free, too.

Tell them if they are that concerned about it, then they should show up at their local Special Olympics functions this weekend and volunteer their services and resources, and if they aren't, then they should s.t.f.u.

As opposed to, dreaming up reasons to unfetter the guns of government and aim them at others, and what they unilaterally fear others aren't doing enough of. They aren't the emperors of should be.

Try to get them to explain why a legitimate use of the guns of government should be to implement control over others lives to implement their pet Soc. grad school theories; there is nothing stopping them from implementing their own pet Soc. grad school theories, minus the guns aimed at others who may not agree with their pet Soc. grad school theories."

And no...I was being biased in the choices I made of what to post...those were literally all the responses I've received about it up to this point.

The government has no financial interest of its own. It's not a for-profit corporation and doesn't have any stockholders.. It doesn't "take' any money for itself. Levying taxes and then using them to provide services is a way of creating a community that shares at least some of its wealth for the benefit of all. Sharing wealth for the greater good of the community has been the norm in all human societies from the beginning of time (except in cases where despotic rulers took over, like feudal kings, and in those cases the people suffered immensely). Imagine hunter-gatherers who wouldn't share the meat they had hunted?

(Whether the government chooses to fund the right programs or entities and whether those actually benefit the people is another matter.)

Actually, from an economic perspective the PRC is far MORE of a free-market than the United States. Since the loosening of regulations bounding market activity, China has experienced huge economic growth. As a result of free-market policies, the standard of living has increased so much that people over there love the government despite the social oppression.

Well you can call it whatever you want, but the fact of the matter is that if you don't support a particular policy and decide not to hand over a certain amount of money to the government then they will throw you in jail. How does that not qualify as 'taking'?

I personally do think that there are people on SSI who truly are incapable of working, and as said before, I would gladly spend some of my own money to support those in my local community. Some people might not pay up, but I think it's wrong to force people to support my political opinions. I respect differences in opinions. You left-wingers do not afford others that same respect. You advocate forcibly taking other peoples money and spending it for YOUR OWN political views. That's just wrong.

I have Asperger's and paranoid schizophrenia. I live in London, UK and I claim Employment and Support Allowance, Disability Living Allowance and Housing Benefit. I live in supported accommodation under a carer paid for by the Housing Benefit. However these are not at all for the AS, but for the schizophrenia. Some people with AS have co-morbid mental illnesses I guess.

I have Asperger's and paranoid schizophrenia. I live in London, UK and I claim Employment and Support Allowance, Disability Living Allowance and Housing Benefit. I live in supported accommodation under a carer paid for by the Housing Benefit. However these are not at all for the AS, but for the schizophrenia. Some people with AS have co-morbid mental illnesses I guess.

I have Asperger's and paranoid schizophrenia. I live in London, UK and I claim Employment and Support Allowance, Disability Living Allowance and Housing Benefit. I live in supported accommodation under a carer paid for by the Housing Benefit. However these are not at all for the AS, but for the schizophrenia. Some people with AS have co-morbid mental illnesses I guess.

The PRC isn't a very good example of either a free-market economy or a socialist economy. It's more like a fascist state, though nobody will call it what it is. Also, its economic growth wouldn't have happened without the massive trade surplus with the US.

At least with the government you are, at least theoretically, able to influence how your tax money is spent through voting, writing to your local representative, etc. With a private company you have no influence.

Consider this. What if all the grocery stores in your state had a monopoly? What if this monopoly suddenly decided to refuse to sell food to you because the owner doesn't like you and decided to blacklist you? This isn't coercion after all since it's *their* product and they have a *right* to not sell *their* possessions to you if they don't want to. Are you just going to take that sitting down? Are you going to put in hours of extra work to grow your own food while your neighbors can just buy thier food? What if you can't do this. Perhaps move to a different state? But what if the monopoly spreads to every state?

Your definition of "coercion" is completely academic. This company might as well be placing a gun to your head and there's nothing you can do about it. Nobody else is going to start a new grocery store just to sell to you. Nobody else has your problem because you're the only one blacklisted. Maybe they could donate some food to you charitably but they have no obligation to if they don't want to.


The fact of the matter is people are personally effected by this and it could be a matter of life or death.

Consider this. You're locked in a room full of people for several weeks and you're the only one getting fed. You earn your food because the guard specially chose you as his personal servant, yet there is only one guard and he doesn't want more than one personal servant. Eventually the rest are going to kick the s**t out of you and take some of your food if you refuse to share. They aren't going to care that you consider the food "yours" since you're the only one that "earned" it.

If "we" are supporting people "we" aren't doing a very good job, judging by how many homeless and poor people there are around here. It's really bad. If this is what goverment support looks like, you are right, it is wasting money. We need to be doing more to support, not less.

The political structure of China is what it is (fascism isn't a bad word for it, actually). I'm simply saying when you consider the economic factors that affect business (like taxes, regulations, price floors and ceilings) China is much more of a free market than the US. Whether or not China's economic growth could have happened without a trade surplus with the US is neither possible to determine nor relevant to this discussion.

You don't have to give your money to a private company if you don't want to. You DO have to give your money to the government if you don't want to. If a company set up a voting system to give you the illusion of influence, would that entitle them to a sum of money from everyone in America?

First of all, free markets tend produce far fewer monopolies than markets where regulations make entry into a market
expensive and difficult.

As for your blacklist example, there are far more historical examples of government abusing people like this then there are of business owners! Most successful business owners would rather take your money then blacklist you. A good example is bus companies in the south who were AGAINST segregation (which was imposed by GOVERNMENT) because most of their customers were black.

That is a meaningless hypothetical situation that in no way represents the structure of a market economy.

The answer is there are comparatively fw people who get it who don't need it. That myth goes back to the English Poor Laws, which started claiming that in order to mistreat those who required assistance. Then the myth continued until the present day in all such programs as an excuse to help as few people as possible. Every person who repeats the myth is partially responsible for the way poor people in need of aid are treated. Knowing a person that you think doesn't deserve the help is not a confirmation of the myth any more than knowing an autistic person who can't talk confirms that autistic people can't talk (the example is a bad one because a larger percentage of autistic people can't talk than people are bilking the system but you know what I mean).

I know lots of people on public assistance. Only one is scamming the system. And she isn't even scamming it by collecting money she doesn't need, she's just collecting more service hours than she needs (and I would never say this without serious evidence more than just a stereotype). So that's one person out of over two hundred. And she still actually needs the SSI. So she may not even really count as a good example. And yet because of the myth, every single applicant is treated like a potential scam artist. I am one of the few people I know who got SSI and every kind odservices I applied for on the first try. People with just as good cases are denied. I would far rather see a few scammers get money they don't need than see people who need the money turned away because of a myth. People here debate this in the abstract while people on the system are treated like criminals because of beliefs like yours.

It is relevent since you claimed that free-market policies and laxed labor regulation in the PRC is what increased the standard of living while ignoring the trade surplus.


In some cases you do as I address below. The second statement is ridiculous. A private companies sole purpose is to make a PROFIT while a governments purpose is to serve the people. Of course you don't owe a private company anything if they don't have a contract to serve you. By being a tax-paying citizen, the govrnment has a contract to serve you through public facilities such as police, firefighters, public roads and transportation systems, etc... If you drive on the interstate highway and refuse to pay taxes you are in effect stealing from the government.


First of all, you don't even need to have a monopoly to see this kind of abuse. A collection of companies can simply decide not to serve people on a joint basis.

There are also many more examples of private companies in the south who refused to serve blacks or provided inferior service to blacks. The only thing that foced these companies to change was the eventual enforcement of the Civil Rights Act. Government coercion was NEEDED to protect a minority from unfair treatment.
That wasn't my point. The point is that everyone in a society feels entitled to certain basic things, yet you dogmatically cling to your idea that *any* forced sharing / spreading of the wealth in society is *wrong* with absolutely no exceptions. If you were one of the people in the room not being fed you would join in and steal from the person who was hoarding all the food. I can guarantee it. You have to put yourself in someone elses shoes and think deeply to see that things aren't so simple and black-and-white. It's the people who stand to benefit the greatest from this kind of black-and-white thinking (i.e. large corporations and their political lobbyists) who want to brainwash everyone into believing it.