US Senate fails to ratify UN treaty on disabilities

[quote name='GBAstar']Yep. The 2% of all disabled american's would be fucked. I agree.[/QUOTE]

Yeah might as well take them out back and shoot them right? Lets just go back to the ways of Sparta and throw all the disabled babies off a cliff while we are at it.
 
[quote name='cancerman1120']Yeah might as well take them out back and shoot them right? Lets just go back to the ways of Sparta and throw all the disabled babies off a cliff while we are at it.[/QUOTE]
Actually come to think of it, the GOP does does have a spartan like attitude when it comes to others.
 
The reason the ADA was needed is very similar to the Orphan drug laws we have. Sometimes the free market completely fails certain groups of people. In these cases the government is needed to either force the market to recognize these needs or provide incentives to meet them. The Orphan Drug Act provides incentives for companies to research diseases that effect 200,000 or less people in the US. A far smaller amount than those who are confined to wheelchairs or have other disabilities. According to what I have read from some here they would argue that those people are just shit out of luck and the government has no place trying to help those people.
 
[quote name='cancerman1120']Yeah might as well take them out back and shoot them right? Lets just go back to the ways of Sparta and throw all the disabled babies off a cliff while we are at it.[/QUOTE]

I'm guessing when he watches slumdog millionaire he's screaming "yes, oh yes!" at all the wrong parts.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by egofed
Hehehehhhheehhe....My point is that I don't like the government having the power to tell private entities what and how to do things. )
Quote:
Originally Posted by egofed
I AM for major government rules on anybody receiving a check from the taxpayers. Accountability is all I'm really asking for....
Quote:
Originally Posted by egofed
More laws and regulations are the last thing I want.
You're a complex guy who's able to hold several different positions at once. __________________

[quote name='IRHari']You're a complex guy who's able to hold several different positions at once.[/QUOTE]


I've stated my position before, but let me clarify it for you again. If you have proven that you can not "exist" without taxpayer assistance, then I want super strict rules applied to your ass. As soon as you get your act together and remove yourself from the government teat, then you resume being a full fledged "private" citizen and not a ward of the nanny state. Hell, no vote for welfare recipients!!! Prove you can contribute and deserve the freedoms and liberty we have....votes to continue and increase your welfare entitlements are self destructive. I'll go a step further, no federal income tax paid this year? No vote! You should only have a voice if you actually have some skin in the game. Shame is no longer an issue in this country so other incentives must be tried.

These "regulations" are only necessary if we keep these oppressive programs. End all government welfare (public, corporate, and foreign) and then we'd be beholden to only ourselves.
 
[quote name='egofed']I've stated my position before, but let me clarify it for you again. If you have proven that you can not "exist" without taxpayer assistance, then I want super strict rules applied to your ass. As soon as you get your act together and remove yourself from the government teat, then you resume being a full fledged "private" citizen and not a ward of the nanny state. Hell, no vote for welfare recipients!!! Prove you can contribute and deserve the freedoms and liberty we have....votes to continue and increase your welfare entitlements are self destructive. I'll go a step further, no federal income tax paid this year? No vote! You should only have a voice if you actually have some skin in the game. Shame is no longer an issue in this country so other incentives must be tried.

These "regulations" are only necessary if we keep these oppressive programs. End all government welfare (public, corporate, and foreign) and then we'd be beholden to only ourselves.[/QUOTE]

Well calm down because everything you just said will never happen.
 
[quote name='egofed']
I've stated my position before, but let me clarify it for you again. If you have proven that you can not "exist" without taxpayer assistance, then I want super strict rules applied to your ass. As soon as you get your act together and remove yourself from the government teat, then you resume being a full fledged "private" citizen and not a ward of the nanny state. Hell, no vote for welfare recipients!!! Prove you can contribute and deserve the freedoms and liberty we have....votes to continue and increase your welfare entitlements are self destructive. I'll go a step further, no federal income tax paid this year? No vote! You should only have a voice if you actually have some skin in the game. Shame is no longer an issue in this country so other incentives must be tried.

These "regulations" are only necessary if we keep these oppressive programs. End all government welfare (public, corporate, and foreign) and then we'd be beholden to only ourselves.[/QUOTE]

Even better, we should only allow land owners to vote...

Why have just Diet Plutocracy, when you can have the full flavor Plutocracy?
 
I'm actually surprised that the republicans haven't proposed that welfare recipients not be allowed to vote. Think about it, how likely do you think welfare recipients are to vote republican? Keeping them off the rolls would probably help the GOP. In a similar way that keeping ex-felons from voting probably helps them. Look at Gore v Bush in Florida in 2000, that decision came down to just a few hundred votes, were the ex-felons allowed to vote, that election may have turned out very differently.
 
I know it is a long shot, camoor, as it would require us to hold people responsible for their own actions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by egofed
no vote for welfare recipients!!
Quote:
the freedoms and liberty we have yow.

You still have freedom and liberty, until you decide you want to exchange it for a monthly check courtesy of the workers. Want to vote? Work and contribute. Maybe you retain your voting status for a year after your last federal taxable employment or capital gains event while on welfare, but, eventually, you are part of the problem. Everybody should contribute some amount to retain a little civic responsibility. If you only take from the system, why would I want you to be a factor in deciding its future?

What do you guys think about Michigan? Forced Union dues and membership in order to work does not sound like freedom to me....
 
[quote name='egofed']You still have freedom and liberty, until[/QUOTE]

How very American of you. You love freedom and liberty so much that you put conditions on it.
 
[quote name='IRHari']You're a complex guy who's able to hold several different positions at once.[/QUOTE]

[quote name='mykevermin']How very American of you. You love freedom and liberty so much that you put conditions on it.[/QUOTE]


You should know that all freedom has conditions put on it. I am free to rob and murder, but I have to realize that repercussions for my actions will affect my freedom. If you make poor life decisions and want to be supported by others, then you must have some consequence enacted upon your life in order to hopefully better yourself.

As soon as those who take outnumber those that produce, and realize that they have the power to vote in any "entitlement" they wish, is when our representative republic has truly run its course.
 
[quote name='egofed']I know it is a long shot, camoor, as it would require us to hold people responsible for their own actions.[/QUOTE]

Of just maybe it's because everyone thinks you're nuts.
 
[quote name='egofed']You should know that all freedom has conditions put on it. I am free to rob and murder, but I have to realize that repercussions for my actions will affect my freedom. If you make poor life decisions and want to be supported by others, then you must have some consequence enacted upon your life in order to hopefully better yourself.

As soon as those who take outnumber those that produce, and realize that they have the power to vote in any "entitlement" they wish, is when our representative republic has truly run its course.[/QUOTE]

We wouldn't want to stigmatize the poor.. let alone make the uncomfortable.

That is why they have fancy EBT cards instead of food stamps.

That is why we will never universally adopt a program where welfare recipients are drug tested and their benefits depend on the outcome.

the Obama fone program exists... (just kidding about that one----sort of).

http://www.fcc.gov/guides/universal-service-support-mechanisms


It's a wonder that poor people existed, let alone survived for so long without these perks.

But to be fair welfare related programs are only the third largest government expenditure. If we really wanted to be a progressive country we'd find a way to boost that to number one.

Edit: In before someone states "No one wants to be on welfare"
 
[quote name='GBAstar']We wouldn't want to stigmatize the poor.. let alone make the uncomfortable.

That is why they have fancy EBT cards instead of food stamps.

That is why we will never universally adopt a program where welfare recipients are drug tested and their benefits depend on the outcome.

the Obama fone program exists... (just kidding about that one----sort of).

http://www.fcc.gov/guides/universal-service-support-mechanisms


It's a wonder that poor people existed, let alone survived for so long without these perks.

But to be fair welfare related programs are only the third largest government expenditure. If we really wanted to be a progressive country we'd find a way to boost that to number one.

Edit: In before someone states "No one wants to be on welfare"[/QUOTE]

Those darn poor people - they get all the breaks! Why do rich people have to shoulder all of society's burdens?

tumblr_ltchu17icB1qh9cmio1_500.png
 
[quote name='GBAstar']It's a wonder that poor people existed, let alone survived for so long without these perks.[/QUOTE]

BTW, you do know that social security was created because old people were starving in the streets. I mean, you do know that, right? You do know what kind of society you are advocating right? One where people who can't find a job starve - that's what you want right?
 
Wow, I am actually, truly stunned that there are people who honestly think that people who are down on their luck really deserve to be stripped of their dignity as well as their civil rights... I just, I don't have words to describe how disappointed I am. Wow, just wow.
 
[quote name='egofed']You should know that all freedom has conditions put on it. I am free to rob and murder, but I have to realize that repercussions for my actions will affect my freedom. If you make poor life decisions and want to be supported by others, then you must have some consequence enacted upon your life in order to hopefully better yourself.

As soon as those who take outnumber those that produce, and realize that they have the power to vote in any "entitlement" they wish, is when our representative republic has truly run its course.[/QUOTE]

welfare is always the cause of "poor life decisions" by the recipient?

just want to be clear that you're actually arguing that.
 
[quote name='RedvsBlue']Wow, I am actually, truly stunned that there are people who honestly think that people who are down on their luck really deserve to be stripped of their dignity as well as their civil rights... I just, I don't have words to describe how disappointed I am. Wow, just wow.[/QUOTE]

I'm am stunned that there are people who think everyone on welfare is down on their luck and furthermore that there are people who think because someone wants to see welfare reform and a decline in welfare abuse that it means they want people to starve on the streets.
 
[quote name='GBAstar']I'm am stunned that there are people who think everyone on welfare is down on their luck and furthermore that there are people who think because someone wants to see welfare reform and a decline in welfare abuse that it means they want people to starve on the streets.[/QUOTE]

Double-down. Give me specifics. What is 'reform'? How much is cut? From where? What are you adjusting; amount eligible for, people who qualify, etc.? How do you target only abuse without hurting those that actually need it not due to any fault of their own? Surely you can't be saying there's a concrete system to target only the 'abusers'. Are the people who aren't guilty of gaming the system acceptable losses and necessary to achieve 'reform'? Because egofed certainly sounds like he wants to do away with a social safety net altogether.
 
[quote name='GBAstar']I'm am stunned ...that there are people who think because someone wants to see welfare reform and a decline in welfare abuse that it means they want people to starve on the streets.[/QUOTE]

Are you really stunned I saw through you? You're not that clever by half.
 
[quote name='GBAstar']I'm am stunned that there are people who think everyone on welfare is down on their luck and furthermore that there are people who think because someone wants to see welfare reform and a decline in welfare abuse that it means they want people to starve on the streets.[/QUOTE]

So just because there might be some who are abusing public assistance it means that anyone seeking help should be stripped of their dignity and civil liberties?

There's some citizens out there who commit crimes, perhaps all citizens should be subject to search at all times to prevent crimes from occurring. Same principle at play, broad response of stripping all members of a group of their civil liberties in order to prevent a percentage of that group from committing fraud/crimes.

While you haven't outrighted stated you agree with egofed's stance of stripping welfare recipients of the right to vote, you have jumped in his camp. Here's your chance to to either flatly support or deny his standpoint of stripping welfare recipients of their right to vote. Are you ready to strip people of the right to vote, a fundamental right of this country?
 
[quote name='egofed']You should know that all freedom has conditions put on it. I am free to rob and murder, but I have to realize that repercussions for my actions will affect my freedom. If you make poor life decisions and want to be supported by others, then you must have some consequence enacted upon your life in order to hopefully better yourself.

As soon as those who take outnumber those that produce, and realize that they have the power to vote in any "entitlement" they wish, is when our representative republic has truly run its course.[/QUOTE]

there ought to be limits to freedom
Click to expand...

Reminds me of the genius who said that.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']A) I don't think anyone in this thread has said anything supporting ending all public assistance because some people abuse it. Funny how that keeps coming up.[/QUOTE]
I'd cut most or even all welfare programs and boost the EITC. The EITC is one the few welfare programs to actually have any significant positive results. So let's cut what is not working and invest in what is working. The EITC also has bipartisan support.

The EITC would provide for most in need because most people in need can work. There would be other much smaller programs for those who truly cannot work, but that would not include otherwise able-bodied people, but people with club feet or something. Like this guy.

I70IK.jpg


He gets to collect welfare and never work a day in his life, though he does routinely refuse to work while being offered jobs. He was offered a role on Couger Town but lost it to a fake Italian guy because he kept turning down potential ideas.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']

B) There is no fundamental right to vote in this country. While I don't support the idea of revoking someone's ability to vote, it sure would be nice if folks understood how voting actually works and all.[/QUOTE]

Bob, earlier in the thread you said you didn't think much of SCOTUS but here you are talking about fundamental rights, a notion created by the Court while interpreting the Constitution. My point is that our system of government is far from perfect but it's much better than anything else out there. The problems we face today are due to a lack of bipartisanship and a reluctance to comprise by both sides as exemplified by this treaty.
 
The whole welfare debate is a really easy subject to castigate especially in recent years of economic downfall. Does it need reform yes but is that change going to actually do anything? I can see more cons than pros coming from it, the expenditure from trying to police welfare would cost way too much.

At the same time the same thing can be said about Wall Street, why is that there are numerous companies out there with millions of dollars in profits but still cry over taxes. The willing are trying to get by while the ones that can do something about it are trying everything possible to get out of paying there share.
 
Also notice how everyone bitches about welfare reform, but don't seem all that concerned about the shit that the Wallstreeteers pull?
 
[quote name='Clak']Also notice how everyone bitches about welfare reform, but don't seem all that concerned about the shit that the Wallstreeteers pull?[/QUOTE]
Wall Street reform is very easy. Just don't bail them out.
 
[quote name='Clak']Also notice how everyone bitches about welfare reform, but don't seem all that concerned about the shit that the Wallstreeteers pull?[/QUOTE]
Not to mention other corporate welfare, in general...
[quote name='Spokker']Wall Street reform is very easy. Just don't bail them out.[/QUOTE]

...and let the entire economy collapse with them. Great, got it.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']A) I don't think anyone in this thread has said anything supporting ending all public assistance because some people abuse it. Funny how that keeps coming up.[/QUOTE]

[quote name='RedvsBlue']So just because there might be some who are abusing public assistance it means that anyone seeking help should be stripped of their dignity and civil liberties?

There's some citizens out there who commit crimes, perhaps all citizens should be subject to search at all times to prevent crimes from occurring. Same principle at play, broad response of stripping all members of a group of their civil liberties in order to prevent a percentage of that group from committing fraud/crimes.

While you haven't outrighted stated you agree with egofed's stance of stripping welfare recipients of the right to vote, you have jumped in his camp. Here's your chance to to either flatly support or deny his standpoint of stripping welfare recipients of their right to vote. Are you ready to strip people of the right to vote, a fundamental right of this country?[/QUOTE]

You're right, no one is this thread is arguing that, I don't know who keeps bringing it up though.
 
[quote name='kill3r7']Bob, earlier in the thread you said you didn't think much of SCOTUS but here you are talking about fundamental rights, a notion created by the Court while interpreting the Constitution. My point is that our system of government is far from perfect but it's much better than anything else out there. The problems we face today are due to a lack of bipartisanship and a reluctance to comprise by both sides as exemplified by this treaty.[/QUOTE]

I never said I didn't think much of the Supreme Court. I take issue with those who use the most recent Supreme Court decision to back up their point of view as being "right"; A)with little-to-no reasoning as to why this particular decision is more correct than any previous decision other than "I agree with this, so it's right." or "It's the Supreme Court, so of course it's right.", and B) typically while shunning-to-ignoring any Supreme Court decisions that don't agree with his or her world view.
 
[quote name='Spokker']I'd cut most or even all welfare programs and boost the EITC. The EITC is one the few welfare programs to actually have any significant positive results. So let's cut what is not working and invest in what is working. The EITC also has bipartisan support.

The EITC would provide for most in need because most people in need can work. There would be other much smaller programs for those who truly cannot work, but that would not include otherwise able-bodied people, but people with club feet or something. Like this guy.

I70IK.jpg


He gets to collect welfare and never work a day in his life, though he does routinely refuse to work while being offered jobs. He was offered a role on Couger Town but lost it to a fake Italian guy because he kept turning down potential ideas.[/QUOTE]

So now you're using the Howard Stern show for evidence?
 
[quote name='IRHari']You're right, no one is this thread is arguing that, I don't know who keeps bringing it up though.[/QUOTE]
Actually...
[quote name='egofed']

I've stated my position before, but let me clarify it for you again. If you have proven that you can not "exist" without taxpayer assistance, then I want super strict rules applied to your ass. As soon as you get your act together and remove yourself from the government teat, then you resume being a full fledged "private" citizen and not a ward of the nanny state. Hell, no vote for welfare recipients!!! Prove you can contribute and deserve the freedoms and liberty we have....votes to continue and increase your welfare entitlements are self destructive. I'll go a step further, no federal income tax paid this year? No vote! You should only have a voice if you actually have some skin in the game. Shame is no longer an issue in this country so other incentives must be tried.

These "regulations" are only necessary if we keep these oppressive programs. End all government welfare (public, corporate, and foreign) and then we'd be beholden to only ourselves.[/QUOTE]
 
[quote name='camoor']So now you're using the Howard Stern show for evidence?[/QUOTE]
I'm sure the Ehlers–Danlos is just a bit.
 
[quote name='RedvsBlue']Not to mention other corporate welfare, in general...


...and let the entire economy collapse with them. Great, got it.[/QUOTE]
Sometimes I get the feeling that a few people took Fallout 3 waaaaayyy too seriously.
 
[quote name='Spokker']I'm sure the Ehlers–Danlos is just a bit.[/QUOTE]

OMG I was joking dude. But you're serious. You're fucking serious. You're using a comedy show with engineered bits as 'evidence'.

What's next - are you going to start quoting the Jerry Springer show and Jersey Shore. These are not the sources you should be using son!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top