This is what happened when I drove my Mercedes to pick up food stamps
- Thread starter crimsonaudio
- Start date
I'm not responding to you expecting a response in turn.. as you've said you won't be reading anyway. I'm also not flaming you.
I don't know when "life" begins exactly. I don't regard the sperm and egg as sacrosanct, and once the two unite and begin to divide into cells, I still don't believe life is present. The beginnings of it are, however. Still.. I'm not calling that a human being. However, I do very strongly believe life begins inside the womb. I really don't care what the Old Testament Jews had to say, and I'm not getting my belief from any protestant religion. The fetus, baby, whatever, cannot survive outside the womb independently no more than it can inside it. Leave it there and it will die. I give no credence to the argument because a child requires attention from another human being for many years before it can survive in any way.
Again.. I don't know when it begins. I do know it begins before birth. I'm not trying to change laws but I do find most abortions to be abhorrent. That is certainly my opinion. And if you do happen to read this, you know I'm not being harsh with you. I respect you a great deal. I'm just responding to the opinion you have which many (perhaps most) share. I also reject that my stance on abortion is me "reaching into another person's private body." If I believe that fetus is a human being, then the mother's body is no longer the only thing in question.
Anyway, just my opinion. I'm not necessarily trying to change anyone's mind but this just strikes a very sensitive nerve with me. I understand very well the problems we have in this country with children being born into situations where the parents aren't prepared or aren't present. I know the economic disaster it causes. I just believe there are better alternatives than abortion.
To CT's point about kids on free and reduced lunch - and I taught for five years - I think this is what happens..
Kid's parents get divorced. Kid lives with Mom. Mom qualifies for free/reduced lunch. Dad makes a good living doing whatever but since he's self-employed, blue collar - he deals in cash a lot. So parents appear poor legally but run a cash and carry operation that allows the kid to have a nice cell phone, lots of clothes from Abercrombie, Hollister, whatever, car, etc. But somehow the kid is on the government dole for lunch.
Of course I also once knew a principal who started having SSI checks revoked due to kids' truancy. That sure change Mom's attitude...
Kid's parents get divorced. Kid lives with Mom. Mom qualifies for free/reduced lunch. Dad makes a good living doing whatever but since he's self-employed, blue collar - he deals in cash a lot. So parents appear poor legally but run a cash and carry operation that allows the kid to have a nice cell phone, lots of clothes from Abercrombie, Hollister, whatever, car, etc. But somehow the kid is on the government dole for lunch.
Of course I also once knew a principal who started having SSI checks revoked due to kids' truancy. That sure change Mom's attitude...
I'm willing to consider that there are perfectly, legitimate reasons why some things don't appear to be so. It still bothered me, however. I'm okay with welfare if it's not abused. There are a lot of circumstances why people would need it, and the "good" people will only use the program as needed. My wife and I have also been intentional about building a rainy day fund for situations like unemployment, and for as long as we're employed, we will continue to build it until we reach about a year's worth. But, unfortunately, some people haven't learned or will not save their money because they believe they are invincible from situations like what the original article stated.
Properly construed and in my opinion only, the general welfare clause is a qualification of the tax and spend authority. The Constitution does not enumerate a federal power to do anything it wishes for the general welfare. A straightforward, unadulterated reading of the Constitution makes this clear.
The left wing interpretation of "general welfare" justifies most any sort of big government activity, which runs counter to the whole point of the Constitution.
I very much agree with most of what you've said here. Because there is so much disagreement about the first stages of life (zygote, embryo, fetus), most of us can accept that some reasonably minded people may disagree with us on at what point to begin to value a new life. I will say that a zygote is just as alive as a baby - it is a living cell, it has its own DNA, if left to its natural course it might implant in the womb and be born. At that stage, though, many zygotes/embryos are naturally aborted. Frankly, I recognize it for what it is - alive. I just give it little value. And so the same things that gave Hobby Lobby owners a fit wouldn't bother me. Wait until implantation, or a few weeks or months down the line and it's a different story. Some folks have no problem right up until and even beyond the time of birth the most extreme) with ending this new life. Ask 100 people and you'll get 98 different answers.
So while I agree that this is a difficult issue and that with so many people in disagreement the law should leave some leeway....there comes a point - I believe during the pregnancy - when ending that life should become against the law with certain exceptions.
IOW, life begin at conception (this should be obvious from a scientific standpoint), but when we place VALUE on that life is different for each of us.
By the same token, understanding this concept should help those who don't want their body encroached upon to understand why others may not want their wallet encroached upon in order to pay for things that, to them, are immoral to the nth degree.
I've seen parents drive up to school in Mercedes, Land Rovers, and Lexi and get free lunch. Some folks have no shame. In fact, most don't.
I was wondering how a 2-bit unelected public appointee could have so great an effect on a federal program. (no disrespect to princinotmypals, but really?)
He/she couldn't. The test for SSDI is black and white, by and large - disabled or non-disabled. Then it's a matter of right. There are federal grounds for removal - fraud and the like - but, once you're on the rolls, you can't really be kicked off for not conducting your life the way local officials think you should. I suppose if someone local really had it in for you - not just officials - but anyone who wanted to take pix of you lifting heavy loads, etc., they could turn you in for not being disabled. However, I'm not an SSDI lawyer, so there may be some clause in there which makes you liable to lose your SSDI status for misbehavior of your kids. I highly doubt it...
It's fraud pure and simple. However I think the links above show why some people are doing it. Personally, opening SSA up to disability was a horrible way to cover people with true disabilities, much less fraudulent. The whole system needs to be reworked, but the government has been using this as a means to "hide" the unemployed for awhile now. It isn't something that just started happening in the past 6 years, granted the numbers have grown much faster as a result of the tanked economy. This is not me saying, "hey its ok", or "nya nya others did it so its ok", but just trying to point out that the government will use whatever tools are at its disposal to hide things from the populace for as long as they can to keep them dumb, fat, and happy as long as possible. Most politicians don't care about things like this unless it is about to blow up on their watch.
I would find it hard that those companies that give a lump sum for disability payments would sign up for something that could conceivably be revoked due to originally intended recipient's behavior. These companies also should not be able to do what they do in my opinion.
Ahh, there lies the biggest part of the problem - "legally". The subordination of the law in granting these benefits is piggybacked upon the power of the local "grantees"; I have known, for a fact, people who have gotten benefits locally because they knew someone at the office, and have witnessed in the past someone cherry-picking from the application box and selecting specific individuals to "interview". It does happen, and I am pretty sure more often than some people are willing to admit. Unfortunately "legally" doesn't mean much to some.
This issue was debated during the ratification of the Constitution. The general welfare clause just shows why Congress has the power to tax: "to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States.” Supporters of ratification consistently denied that the "general welfare" clause gave Congress any new power independent of those powers enumerated in Article I, Section 8.
Gov. Randolph, another advocate of ratification, said of the general welfare clause.Mr. Lee of Westmoreland said:
Mr. George Nicholas, another advocate of ratification in Virginia endeavored to show the committee that it (the general welfare clause)Gov. Randolph said:
Later, Gov. Randolph spoke again.George Nicholas said:
Calling Federal assistance "welfare" and asserting therefore that it is permissible under the Constitution is not legitimate, or, at least, it was not what the Founders intended. If Congress were to establish a "faith" (but avoided calling it a "religion") and argued therefore that this is legitimate because the Constitution only prohibits Congress from establishing a religion, then this would be illegitimate as well, and for the same reason. Randolph said that would be "treason against common language."Gov. Randolph said:
It started with Clinton and Welfare Reform. The Republicans got to feel like they beat Clinton and forced him to reform welfare and Clinton just moved people over to disability. Once on disability you can't be taken off unless someone proves you aren't disabled. It's all a big shell game.
Not the point. We were discussing local officials being able to revoke federal benefits. I'll change my answer and take out the "legally." It can't be done, period...
Interesting chart from the Social Security Administration.
http://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/dibStat.html
Biggest increase in SSDI was in 2001. Last 3 years awards are decreasing over the prior year. I was surprised to see that in 2013 only 33.52% of the application were approved.
Applications skyrocketed when the recession began and are now starting to go down.
http://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/dibStat.html
Biggest increase in SSDI was in 2001. Last 3 years awards are decreasing over the prior year. I was surprised to see that in 2013 only 33.52% of the application were approved.
| Time period | Number of appli- cations a | Number | Increase over prior period | Percent of appli- cations | Number at end of period | Increase over prior period | Number | Increase over prior period | Termi- nation rate |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| —by calendar year— | |||||||||
| 1999 ..... | 1,200,087 | 620,488 | 2.03% | 51.70% | 4,879,455 | 3.86% | 434,489 | 6.02% | 8.51% |
| 2000 ..... | 1,330,558 | 621,650 | 0.19% | 46.72% | 5,042,334 | 3.34% | 461,626 | 6.25% | 8.72% |
| 2001 ..... | 1,498,559 | 691,309 | 11.21% | 46.13% | 5,274,183 | 4.60% | 456,258 | -1.16% | 8.31% |
| 2002 ..... | 1,682,454 | 750,464 | 8.56% | 44.61% | 5,543,981 | 5.12% | 479,606 | 5.12% | 8.34% |
| 2003 ..... | 1,895,521 | 777,905 | 3.66% | 41.04% | 5,873,673 | 5.95% | 450,720 | -6.02% | 7.46% |
| 2004 ..... | 2,137,531 | 797,226 | 2.48% | 37.30% | 6,201,362 | 5.58% | 466,332 | 3.46% | 7.32% |
| 2005 ..... | 2,122,109 | 832,201 | 4.39% | 39.22% | 6,524,582 | 5.21% | 494,592 | 6.06% | 7.36% |
| 2006 ..... | 2,134,088 | 812,596 | -2.36% | 38.08% | 6,811,679 | 4.40% | 513,292 | 3.78% | 7.28% |
| 2007 ..... | 2,190,196 | 823,106 | 1.29% | 37.58% | 7,101,355 | 4.25% | 525,012 | 2.28% | 7.14% |
| 2008 ..... | 2,320,396 | 895,011 | 8.74% | 38.57% | 7,427,203 | 4.59% | 564,518 | 7.52% | 7.34% |
| 2009 ..... | 2,816,244 | 985,940 | 10.16% | 35.01% | 7,789,113 | 4.87% | 628,478 | 11.33% | 7.79% |
| 2010 ..... | 2,935,798 | 1,052,551 | 6.76% | 35.85% | 8,204,710 | 5.34% | 646,387 | 2.85% | 7.64% |
| 2011 ..... | 2,878,920 | 1,025,003 | -2.62% | 35.60% | 8,576,067 | 4.53% | 656,902 | 1.63% | 7.42% |
| 2012 ..... | 2,820,812 | 979,973 | -4.39% | 34.74% | 8,827,795 | 2.94% | 726,432 | 10.58% | 7.90% |
| 2013 ..... | 2,640,100 | 884,894 | -9.70% | 33.52% | 8,942,584 | 1.30% | 767,738 | 5.69% | 8.17% |
Graphs of disabled worker data
(Numbers in thousands) http://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/dibGraphs.html
(Numbers in thousands) http://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/dibGraphs.html
Applications skyrocketed when the recession began and are now starting to go down.
Latest threads
-
SEC West Showdown Sends Alabama to Oxford to Meet with Ole Miss- Started by Diamond Tide
- Replies: 0
-
Davis II Named to Stopper of the Year Midseason Watch List
- Started by Diamond Tide
- Replies: 0
-
Eleven-Run Third Powers Alabama to 14-5 Win over Samford
- Started by Diamond Tide
- Replies: 0
-
Maybe aTm's Pockets Aren't So Bottomless After All -- Layoffs In The Athletic Department
- Started by 4Q Basket Case
- Replies: 5
-
Time to un-vacate 2005-2007 on field victories and un-forfeit the 1993 season?
- Started by CmdrThor
- Replies: 21
-