Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Why should the government "help" people with Aspergers?

Page 8 of 16 [ 252 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 ... 16  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 34,470
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

22 Mar 2015, 9:37 pm

Fogman wrote:
K_Kelly wrote:
Do you believe that the government should "help" people with Aspergers? I find the government trying to "help" any minority offensive. It makes me feel somehow lower.


F*** NO!! ! ! Every time the Government tends to 'help' they wind up really f***ing things up. Every time the Government gets bigger and more intricate, the more unwieldy and problematic it becomes, and this only mires once free people in regulations, inconcgruent policies and red tape. --I need Government help and case management like I need a hole in my head.

To draw a quick comparison of this, look at all of the 'help' the US Government gav the Native Americans, and how Native American tribes have gone from being sovereign nations to groups of people killing themselves off thanks to the welfare subsistance handouts given to them. --I will NOT subject myself to this type of 'help'. :evil:


In my opinion the government has a duty to its citizens....there is a problem with government corruption. Is even realistic to have no government at all?....it seems probably not, so I'd think a better solution is better government and less corruption, however a lot of people just seem to stick their head in the sand about the corruption...or spout that they shouldn't do anything to help the public including people at a disadvantage, seems more realistic to address the corruption.


_________________
We won't go back.


Canadian1911
Sea Gull
Sea Gull

User avatar

Joined: 20 Mar 2015
Gender: Male
Posts: 227
Location: Getting ready to attack Fort Niagara!

22 Mar 2015, 9:39 pm

Fogman wrote:
auntblabby wrote:
^^^
i'll take what help you don't want, then.


I have experienced firsthand the type of 'help' that they offer. Firstly when I was institutionalised when I was 11- 14, and also through a series of foster homes from when I was fifteen until the day that I turned 18 and I was turned out on the street to fend for myself.

A caseworker will set you up in a taxpayer funded apartment, and provide you with food, and perhaps clothing as well at taxpayer expense but when you want something tangible such as job, or vocational training, or even further education they will give you the classic liberal line of 'Well, we're so sorry, but the government (That they get $30K-$40K yearly in salary for essentially doing nothing) spends so much money on the military that they can't afford to help you with that'.

The entire system that exists would be better if it was completely dismantled, and the the caseworkers involved would be more productive as human beings if they were out in the middle of a traffic intersection with a big 'WILL WORK FOR FOOD' sign.

If you want my share of that type of 'help', then you are more than welcome to it.


Move to ontario, they actually do help with finding work here. As well as money.



Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 34,470
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

22 Mar 2015, 9:43 pm

Fogman wrote:
auntblabby wrote:
^^^
i'll take what help you don't want, then.


I have experienced firsthand the type of 'help' that they offer. Firstly when I was institutionalised when I was 11- 14, and also through a series of foster homes from when I was fifteen until the day that I turned 18 and I was turned out on the street to fend for myself.

A caseworker will set you up in a taxpayer funded apartment, and provide you with food, and perhaps clothing as well at taxpayer expense but when you want something tangible such as job, or vocational training, or even further education they will give you the classic liberal line of 'Well, we're so sorry, but the government (That they get $30K-$40K yearly in salary for essentially doing nothing) spends so much money on the military that they can't afford to help you with that'.

The entire system that exists would be better if it was completely dismantled, and the the caseworkers involved would be more productive as human beings if they were out in the middle of a traffic intersection with a big 'WILL WORK FOR FOOD' sign.

If you want my share of that type of 'help', then you are more than welcome to it.


How is that a liberal line, sounds more like a lame excuse for government negligence towards those who do need help. Also if the entire welfare system was completely dismantled that would mean I would not be able to afford food, medical care, therapy or other living costs. Improving the system would probably be a better option.


_________________
We won't go back.


auntblabby
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 113,740
Location: the island of defective toy santas

22 Mar 2015, 9:44 pm

some people don't wanna "improve the system" - they just wanna watch it burn, come what may. they don't want to consider things any further than that.



Canadian1911
Sea Gull
Sea Gull

User avatar

Joined: 20 Mar 2015
Gender: Male
Posts: 227
Location: Getting ready to attack Fort Niagara!

22 Mar 2015, 9:44 pm

Sweetleaf wrote:
Fogman wrote:
auntblabby wrote:
^^^
i'll take what help you don't want, then.


I have experienced firsthand the type of 'help' that they offer. Firstly when I was institutionalised when I was 11- 14, and also through a series of foster homes from when I was fifteen until the day that I turned 18 and I was turned out on the street to fend for myself.

A caseworker will set you up in a taxpayer funded apartment, and provide you with food, and perhaps clothing as well at taxpayer expense but when you want something tangible such as job, or vocational training, or even further education they will give you the classic liberal line of 'Well, we're so sorry, but the government (That they get $30K-$40K yearly in salary for essentially doing nothing) spends so much money on the military that they can't afford to help you with that'.

The entire system that exists would be better if it was completely dismantled, and the the caseworkers involved would be more productive as human beings if they were out in the middle of a traffic intersection with a big 'WILL WORK FOR FOOD' sign.

If you want my share of that type of 'help', then you are more than welcome to it.


How is that a liberal line, sounds more like a lame excuse for government negligence towards those who do need help. Also if the entire welfare system was completely dismantled that would mean I would not be able to afford food, medical care, therapy or other living costs. Improving the system would probably be a better option.


Agreed - people who say to entirely dismantle it, are extremely short-sighted.



auntblabby
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 113,740
Location: the island of defective toy santas

22 Mar 2015, 9:47 pm

Canadian1911 wrote:
Agreed - people who say to entirely dismantle it, are extremely short-sighted.

and more often than not, unconcerned about who it hurts, as well.



Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 34,470
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

22 Mar 2015, 9:50 pm

auntblabby wrote:
some people don't wanna "improve the system" - they just wanna watch it burn, come what may. they don't want to consider things any further than that.


IDK last I checked the definition of Liberal is:
1.
favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.
2.
(often initial capital letter) noting or pertaining to a political party advocating measures of progressive political reform.
3.
of, pertaining to, based on, or advocating liberalism, especially the freedom of the individual and governmental guarantees of individual rights and liberties.
4.
favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, especially as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.
5.
favoring or permitting freedom of action, especially with respect to matters of personal belief or expression:
a liberal policy toward dissident artists and writers.
6.
of or relating to representational forms of government rather than aristocracies and monarchies.
7.
free from prejudice or bigotry; tolerant:
a liberal attitude toward foreigners.

So given that 'we can't spend money to help the public and help people to enrich their lives because we would rather spend a disportionate amount on the military equipment(because remember most people in the military get paid kinda sh*tty given the risk of the job and physical/mental damage it can cause)' coming from the government does not seem very liberal of them. lol


_________________
We won't go back.


Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 34,470
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

22 Mar 2015, 9:52 pm

Canadian1911 wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
Fogman wrote:
auntblabby wrote:
^^^
i'll take what help you don't want, then.


I have experienced firsthand the type of 'help' that they offer. Firstly when I was institutionalised when I was 11- 14, and also through a series of foster homes from when I was fifteen until the day that I turned 18 and I was turned out on the street to fend for myself.

A caseworker will set you up in a taxpayer funded apartment, and provide you with food, and perhaps clothing as well at taxpayer expense but when you want something tangible such as job, or vocational training, or even further education they will give you the classic liberal line of 'Well, we're so sorry, but the government (That they get $30K-$40K yearly in salary for essentially doing nothing) spends so much money on the military that they can't afford to help you with that'.

The entire system that exists would be better if it was completely dismantled, and the the caseworkers involved would be more productive as human beings if they were out in the middle of a traffic intersection with a big 'WILL WORK FOR FOOD' sign.

If you want my share of that type of 'help', then you are more than welcome to it.


How is that a liberal line, sounds more like a lame excuse for government negligence towards those who do need help. Also if the entire welfare system was completely dismantled that would mean I would not be able to afford food, medical care, therapy or other living costs. Improving the system would probably be a better option.


Agreed - people who say to entirely dismantle it, are extremely short-sighted.


I have said that out of anger from time to time...but anger does make one short-sighted I think, in the long term however it may not be for the best, typically going about it that way kind of just leaves breeding ground for a system just as bad if not worse much of the time.


_________________
We won't go back.


Canadian1911
Sea Gull
Sea Gull

User avatar

Joined: 20 Mar 2015
Gender: Male
Posts: 227
Location: Getting ready to attack Fort Niagara!

22 Mar 2015, 9:54 pm

auntblabby wrote:
Canadian1911 wrote:
Agreed - people who say to entirely dismantle it, are extremely short-sighted.

and more often than not, unconcerned about who it hurts, as well.


True but I think most people see a difference between "disability" and "Welfare".



auntblabby
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 113,740
Location: the island of defective toy santas

22 Mar 2015, 9:54 pm

Sweetleaf wrote:
So given that 'we can't spend money to help the public and help people to enrich their lives because we would rather spend a disportionate amount on the military equipment(because remember most people in the military get paid kinda sh*tty given the risk of the job and physical/mental damage it can cause)' coming from the government does not seem very liberal of them. lol

IMHO, if you look in the dictionary next to "America 2015" you will find the following definition:
"an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization."



auntblabby
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 113,740
Location: the island of defective toy santas

22 Mar 2015, 9:56 pm

Canadian1911 wrote:
auntblabby wrote:
Canadian1911 wrote:
Agreed - people who say to entirely dismantle it, are extremely short-sighted.

and more often than not, unconcerned about who it hurts, as well.


True but I think most people see a difference between "disability" and "Welfare".

reminds me of a conversation between a reporter and presidential adlai Stevenson back in the day-

"(reporter) you have the votes of all thinking people."
"(adlai)"but I need a majority."



Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 34,470
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

22 Mar 2015, 10:00 pm

Canadian1911 wrote:
auntblabby wrote:
Canadian1911 wrote:
Agreed - people who say to entirely dismantle it, are extremely short-sighted.

and more often than not, unconcerned about who it hurts, as well.


True but I think most people see a difference between "disability" and "Welfare".


Well there are two types of disability, one you could say people pay into....that would be SSDI, which people can get if they have had a job/jobs to support themselves and become disabled. Then there is SSI if you are too disabled to initially work and support yourself which I think would fit the definition of welfare. Also people on either are entitled to medicaid and with SSI food stamps, sometimes SSDI puts people over the limit to be elgible for food stamps though.


_________________
We won't go back.


Canadian1911
Sea Gull
Sea Gull

User avatar

Joined: 20 Mar 2015
Gender: Male
Posts: 227
Location: Getting ready to attack Fort Niagara!

22 Mar 2015, 10:05 pm

Sweetleaf wrote:
Canadian1911 wrote:
auntblabby wrote:
Canadian1911 wrote:
Agreed - people who say to entirely dismantle it, are extremely short-sighted.

and more often than not, unconcerned about who it hurts, as well.


True but I think most people see a difference between "disability" and "Welfare".


Well there are two types of disability, one you could say people pay into....that would be SSDI, which people can get if they have had a job/jobs to support themselves and become disabled. Then there is SSI if you are too disabled to initially work and support yourself which I think would fit the definition of welfare. Also people on either are entitled to medicaid and with SSI food stamps, sometimes SSDI puts people over the limit to be elgible for food stamps though.



Again this is where Canada comes into play, there's actually disability here, each province calls it something different - but "Disability" is in the title. Like for ontario - it's the Ontario Disability Support Program



Canadian1911
Sea Gull
Sea Gull

User avatar

Joined: 20 Mar 2015
Gender: Male
Posts: 227
Location: Getting ready to attack Fort Niagara!

22 Mar 2015, 11:38 pm

I mean, I'm 20. Finishing college next month. I get the disability pension money and it's how I live on my own. I am going to use the employment support to find me a part-time job, because they do that too. I'm calm knowing my bottom line is liveable. I do understand how if you already had a lot and then had to go on little, it would be a problem and then again Canada and the U.S are drastically different. the U.S is our ret*d cousin.



auntblabby
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 113,740
Location: the island of defective toy santas

23 Mar 2015, 12:28 am

Canadian1911 wrote:
the U.S is our ret*d cousin.

that is putting it diplomatically, as Canadians are wont to do.



Canadian1911
Sea Gull
Sea Gull

User avatar

Joined: 20 Mar 2015
Gender: Male
Posts: 227
Location: Getting ready to attack Fort Niagara!

23 Mar 2015, 12:57 am

auntblabby wrote:
Canadian1911 wrote:
the U.S is our ret*d cousin.

that is putting it diplomatically, as Canadians are wont to do.


"wont to do"

I never heard someone someone say "won't" in that manner, what's it mean?