Free Republic
Browse · Search
RLC Liberty Caucus
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Who Should Support The Disabled?
The Future of Freedom Foundation ^ | December 26th 2012 | Lawrence M. Vance

Posted on 12/31/2012 11:19:02 AM PST by OddLane

Some of the most terrifying words the parents of a newborn will ever hear are “there is a problem with the baby.” Sometimes the dreadful news comes later after a tragic childhood accident or disease. When such children grow to adulthood they are joined by an even larger number of those who lived perfectly healthy lives as children only to become disabled in some way as adults.

Adults with a disability of some kind are many times unable to work or unable to make enough money from working to support themselves or their families, especially during periods of economic downturn like the past few years. They usually have less education and fewer assets than the general population. The question, then, is, Who should support the disabled?

This is not a question that has a definite legal or moral answer. In the case of children, the answer, legally and morally, is obviously the parents. And the same is true in the case of adults who have been unable to care for themselves since childhood. In the case of most adults, though, the party ultimately responsible for their support is themselves. If someone is unable to provide for his own support, then the case might be made that it is his family who bears that responsibility. But that is a moral, not a legal, issue.

Outside of someone in one’s immediate family, it cannot be said that any person is legally obligated to support another person. Whether someone is morally obligated to do so depends on his religion, spirituality, ethics, or moral philosophy.

(Excerpt) Read more at fff.org ...


TOPICS: General Discussion; Issues
KEYWORDS: charity; ssi

1 posted on 12/31/2012 11:19:15 AM PST by OddLane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: OddLane
There are only two choices: 1) Euthanize the disabled, or 2) Subsidize the disabled using government funds (taxes).

I sincerely believe that in the case of the disabled, it is morally incumbent upon us to support them through government subsidies. Don't all Americans pay into disability, anyway?

2 posted on 12/31/2012 11:25:48 AM PST by Obama_Is_Sabotaging_America (IMPEACH OBAMA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OddLane
The Progressives have had the same idea since the beginning.

Lebensunwertes Leben

3 posted on 12/31/2012 11:26:29 AM PST by KC_Lion (Build the America you want to live in at your address, and keep looking up.-Sarah Palin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KC_Lion

The unemployment rate among the disabled, including those able to work with accomodations is over 75%. I worked for a major corporation. They had “advocacy” groups for GLBT, Minority, Muslim, Indian (not Native American), etc. I tried to get recognition for the disabled, was rebuffed on all sides. Further, there were employment quotas for minorities, but the disabled could not get through the door.

There are millions of the disabled that would love to work, but there are no jobs for the disabled. The only alternative is support by SSDI and the family.


4 posted on 12/31/2012 11:33:04 AM PST by rstrahan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: OddLane

“While libertarians - who don’t share their admiration for the Constitution” Yep, but they sure do admire money.


5 posted on 12/31/2012 11:40:03 AM PST by blueunicorn6 ("A crack shot and a good dancer")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OddLane

Benefits for the disabled are far less objectionable than those we currently pay to the people I see in grocery store lines and convenience stores.


6 posted on 12/31/2012 11:54:41 AM PST by Erik Latranyi (When religions have to beg the gov't for a waiver, we are already under socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Erik Latranyi

If you see a Knight of Columbus selling Tootsie Rolls, buy some. The proceeds go to Disabled Youth. Mostly with MS.


7 posted on 12/31/2012 12:12:18 PM PST by massgopguy (I owe everything to George Bailey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Obama_Is_Sabotaging_America

3 - bring back freak shows. Before we got all PC many disabled got to travel the world and make a decent buck.


8 posted on 12/31/2012 12:14:28 PM PST by discostu (I recommend a fifth of Jack and a bottle of Prozac)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Obama_Is_Sabotaging_America
I sincerely believe that in the case of the disabled, it is morally incumbent upon us to support them through government subsidies.

I disagree. Failing the family's ability to support them, it is the purpose of charities to do so. The fact Americans are forced via legal fiat to 'pay' into this system, is, IMHO, itself an IMMORAL act.

It would help, however if our charities weren't being regulated into extinction.

9 posted on 12/31/2012 12:19:20 PM PST by MamaTexan (To follow Original Constitutional Intent, one MUST acknowledge the Right of secession)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Obama_Is_Sabotaging_America
There are only two choices: 1) Euthanize the disabled, or 2) Subsidize the disabled using government funds (taxes). I sincerely believe that in the case of the disabled, it is morally incumbent upon us to support them through government subsidies. Don't all Americans pay into disability, anyway?

One must wonder how old you are to have narrowed it down to those two choices. I grew up in the '50s before the family had deteriorated due to "liberal" influences. Families took care of their own to the best of their ability and charities helped out when someone couldn't manage. There are more sane choices than the two you proffer and they don't just spring from a moral and Christian society - they also have the tendency to help expand such a society. Death or the Government is exactly what the Leftist Commies want the People to think of as the two alternatives.

10 posted on 12/31/2012 1:00:35 PM PST by trebb (Allies no longer trust us. Enemies no longer fear us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: trebb

Given many families are in economic trouble, I failed to consider the family as the caretaker. Of course if at all possible YES the family is the lead responsibility. Government support follows if there’s no family to support a disabled person and of course it depend on the degree of support which a disabled person needs.


11 posted on 12/31/2012 1:06:21 PM PST by Obama_Is_Sabotaging_America (IMPEACH OBAMA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Obama_Is_Sabotaging_America
Given many families are in economic trouble, I failed to consider the family as the caretaker. Of course if at all possible YES the family is the lead responsibility. Government support follows if there’s no family to support a disabled person and of course it depend on the degree of support which a disabled person needs.

I see from you info page that you say:George Washington is my hero. I’m looking for a group in my area that meets on a regular basis to share ideas, concerns, and developing the solution for restoring the America that once was.

I hope you find such a group and that they can explain where your thinking is a bit misguided. I'm not trying to cut you down because it's obvious you put some thought into your posts and I don't want to turn you off FR or healthy debate. I have to assume you are relatively young (probably 40 tops) and that is why you tend to think of Government as a safety net vs. having families make the necessary sacrifices to take care of their own and to make use of available charities; especially ones own Church Family to help eke out a living when times are tough. Some of the most frugal and self-dependant folks I have had the privilege to call friends were those that lived through the Great Depression and they had it so much tougher than the families that "just can't make it without government handouts" have it today. They knew what "poor" meant - today the poor have cars, stereos, big screen TVs, computers, IPADs, etc. What you might consider "being poor" today was living in the lap of luxury to those who really had it hard - and they not only survived and persevered, but they became so much stronger for the hard times - they became prepared to survive things that would have today's folks committing suicide over because it's just so damned inconvenient...

Hope to see more of you on FR.

12 posted on 12/31/2012 1:20:04 PM PST by trebb (Allies no longer trust us. Enemies no longer fear us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: trebb
I made my post from personal experience because of a family member who paid into disability for nearly 40 years before becoming disabled. I don't know how much he paid into disability but I'm sure it probably exceeded $40k or so??? So, why should the money HE paid into it not be entitled to him? You can argue about the Unconstitutional or Socialist/Communist ideology of Social Security, disability, medicaid and the other entitlement programs, but nearly ALL of us pay into it because we're FORCED to.. Yes we all think it's wrong but.. Will YOU be collecting Social Security? Provided it's not out of funds you surely will.

For those disabled since birth, yes of course the family is responsible but there are perhaps even MORE Americans who become disabled later in life and are unable to work and are damn well entitled to the money stolen from them throughout their working years via SS/Disability/Medicaid/etc.. Your darned tootin'!!!!

13 posted on 12/31/2012 1:32:03 PM PST by Obama_Is_Sabotaging_America (IMPEACH OBAMA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Obama_Is_Sabotaging_America
You obviously missed my points - anyone who was forced to pay for SS and other bennies" will be applying for them, but you may have missed the part where they have spent all the money folks have put in over the years and the bucket is empty - hence it being considered an "unfunded" benefit. As with anything the government has "given" us, they can take it away - I spent 24 years in the military and when I enlisted, i was promised free health care for life and the same for my wife if I happened to have one. Guess how that turned out? SS ages are going up and talks of benefit cuts are always going on. My point is that the government should not be involved at all because, as a wise man once pointed out, "A government that is big enough to give you everything you need, is also big enough to take away everything you have".

As you point out, we who have paid in, by force, for all these years are "entitled" to reap the "b enefits" of it. I'm saying that we are only as "entilted as the Commies say we are and we are no longer entitled when they decide it is too inconvenient. Once again, my whole point is that when the People are able and willing to fend for themselves, these government pogroms have no place except in very limited and rare cases. A self-reliant and self-dependant society can tell the government to suck sand.

Once again, I hope you find the group you are looking for and that it has enough folks with the ability to formulate some really good debates.

14 posted on 12/31/2012 1:45:25 PM PST by trebb (Allies no longer trust us. Enemies no longer fear us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: OddLane

Suppose the parents have taken care of the disabled child since birth, but now they are old, disabled, or dead? Suppose they have not been able to create a trust big enough to support the child for the rest of his life, perhaps forty years more?

And please remember, having a disabled child is likely to limit one’s ability to earn money in the first place, and entail greater expenses for his care, making it harder to come up with this trust.

And some disabled people’s expenses will exceed any ability of their family (how extended, btw?) to provide for them.

Well, there is charity, and perhaps many of us would give more to charity if we were not taxed so much.

There is also considerable abuse of SS disabilit payments, another story.


15 posted on 12/31/2012 1:54:09 PM PST by heartwood
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: heartwood
Look a small child is not able to work...they are supported by the parents. .and if no parents larger society or government steps in...and as a child grows in abilities they shoulder more responsibility till they are independent. ..in the degree a person is physically or mentality handicapped and not able to achieve independent. .the parents family or state continues the level of support needed........it is able body persons that are able to support themselves...that choose to stay a child and want a nanny government to take care of them and the government that want to control it people as parent to that child...that are the problem ..the state in effect cripples it people for control..the self crippled types then burden the tax payers and in effect rob from the truly needed and handicapped. .....
16 posted on 12/31/2012 2:49:25 PM PST by tophat9000 (American is Barack Oaken)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: trebb

And now the Communists add 0bamacare to the list, because Social Security has worked out so well.. F’ing IDIOTS. Fast track to bankrupting America (Cloward & Piven). We’re allowed to b!tch about getting OUR money which we’ve been forced to pay into it. It’s the ‘forced’ part that’s wrong.. 0bamacare is more of the same and will surely be bankrupt in short order as it’s ‘honey to the bear’ when it comes to the flood of illegals we’ll incur the minute it’s operational.


17 posted on 12/31/2012 2:52:04 PM PST by Obama_Is_Sabotaging_America (IMPEACH OBAMA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: MamaTexan
Lysander Spooner said it best.
18 posted on 12/31/2012 2:53:04 PM PST by OddLane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: rstrahan; OddLane

www.olympiagloves.com

These people hire handicapped workers in their warehouse specifically. I’ve never had serious problems getting good service because of it, their prices are competitive, and the product is of good quality.
The more we can learn about and support companies that will do this for the community the better. That is support without committing other people’s money to what you believe is a good cause.


19 posted on 01/01/2013 8:19:13 AM PST by Blue Collar Christian (I hope we're ready to get a real candidate next time. C'mon GOP! <BCC><)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Blue Collar Christian

BTTT.


20 posted on 01/01/2013 12:26:41 PM PST by OddLane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: OddLane

I don,t see anything wrong with Government funding to support the disabled but Government funding should be set up for that purpose.

Many people get disability already but i do not recollect paying taxes for that specific purpose.

We pay social security tax so that we can start collecting the benefits at an age when many get to where they can not do much work and also tax for medicare.

We could do the same thing as far as disabilty is concerned.

But the idea of a general fund for the socialists in Government to do what ever they want to do with, doling out to unwed mothers and lazy asses and dope adicts and a thousand other thing is why this country is hitting rock bottem in the first place.


21 posted on 01/14/2013 10:47:26 AM PST by ravenwolf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OddLane

Lysander Spooner said it best.

Love me some Spooner...Lysander that is!


22 posted on 05/07/2013 2:52:53 PM PDT by MikeDanneskjold (www.OutlandishLLC.com Isn't it time YOU had a little something offshore?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: MikeDanneskjold

23 posted on 05/07/2013 3:15:20 PM PDT by OddLane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: OddLane

Nice as it sounds to have government pay for the care of “the disabled,” the problem is that you end up with what we have now: a proliferation of recipients whose “disability” is a lifestyle choice, and death panels for the truly helpless.


24 posted on 06/06/2013 2:31:03 PM PDT by Tax-chick (The Commie Plot Theory of Everything. Give it a try - you'll be surprised how often it makes sense.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tax-chick
When National Public Radio is making this an issue, you know we've crossed a threshold.
25 posted on 06/06/2013 2:33:46 PM PDT by OddLane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: OddLane

Good point. Was this the reporter who talked to parents who didn’t want their children to learn to read, because then they wouldn’t be “disabled”?


26 posted on 06/06/2013 4:20:46 PM PDT by Tax-chick (The Commie Plot Theory of Everything. Give it a try - you'll be surprised how often it makes sense.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Tax-chick
I don't remember the entire story, but I believe so.
27 posted on 06/06/2013 4:43:35 PM PDT by OddLane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: heartwood

A country that won’t help little old ladies or blind retarded folks is not a country I want to live in.


28 posted on 06/06/2013 4:48:27 PM PDT by Blackirish (Forward Comrades!!!!!!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: tophat9000
Look a small child is not able to work that's nonsense, before child labour laws children worked very effectively. Child Labour laws were the first great progressive triumph. When children worked the native population expanded, children had a function, so Americans produced them. You need to seriously get beyond your Rooseveltian progressivist assumptions. YES CHILD LABOUR IS A GOOD THING. BURN ME AT THE STAKE
29 posted on 11/20/2013 2:54:29 PM PST by skintight buffoonery
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Obama_Is_Sabotaging_America

If programs designed for the disabled actually screened recipients there would be far fewer on disability, but it seems many who have worked the system of welfare for years know how to scream until they get what they want. I worked with a patient once who was paralyzed from the neck down who took the initiative to get a list of shut in persons and call them every morning to make certain they were okay. She felt that was her “job” to make receiving disability herself okay in her mind. She believed everyone should contribute something.

I am well old enough to remember how families used to care for disabled members but today families simply will not do that. So what do some here who profess to be prolife suggest to do about sweet disabled person maybe with CP and a 2 year old mentality when the family dumps them in a home?


30 posted on 10/19/2015 10:03:42 AM PDT by nclaurel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
RLC Liberty Caucus
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson