Disabled person in real need

[P@triot]

Well I'll be DAMNED! Very real, very serious problems for those in need CAN be solved without any intervention by government whatsoever. Who knew?!?!

It's astounding how quickly every talking point and ideological belief by the left is just completely crumbling beneath them...

Actor Tyler Perry Donates Van to Woman With Cerebral Palsy Alicia Day After Hearing Hers Was Stolen | TheBlaze.com

 

[konradv]

Well I'll be DAMNED! Very real, very serious problems for those in need CAN be solved without any intervention by government whatsoever. Who knew?!?!

It's astounding how quickly every talking point and ideological belief by the left is just completely crumbling beneath them...

Actor Tyler Perry Donates Van to Woman With Cerebral Palsy Alicia Day After Hearing Hers Was Stolen | TheBlaze.com

I have OCD, ADD and Tourettes. Can I have your van, MFer?

 

[Noomi]

I've never heard of him, but he sounds like a wonderful young man with a kind heart to have done so much for this woman.

 

[Oldguy]

Well I'll be DAMNED! Very real, very serious problems for those in need CAN be solved without any intervention by government whatsoever. Who knew?!?!

It's astounding how quickly every talking point and ideological belief by the left is just completely crumbling beneath them...

Actor Tyler Perry Donates Van to Woman With Cerebral Palsy Alicia Day After Hearing Hers Was Stolen | TheBlaze.com

That's very nice and commendable.

But...as of August this year, 8.7 million disabled workers are drawing SS disability. You may question if that many cases are valid if you like, but the premise of this thread is that no government help is really needed as charity will take care of them.

Ok...please explain to me which charities are going to take care of the every day needs of 8.7 million people. That includes rent, food, transportation, health care. Everything. How much money would it take to support them either until they recover enough to go back to work or for the rest of their lives if they are permanently disabled? Where will that money come from? Who will give it? How? Under what circumstances?

In 2010, the total amount given to charity in the United States was $290.89 billion. That's from all sources.

Political Calculations: Charity in America: The Donors

If every, single, solitary dollar of that charitable giving was redirected to just those 8.7 million disabled workers, it would amount to roughly $33,000 each. That should be enough, but it would require no giving to anything else, by anybody. That includes cancer research, churches (yes, apparently including tithes), little league, college funds...whatever.

Now...tell me again how they'll get by just fine with no government involvement?

 

[California Girl]

Well I'll be DAMNED! Very real, very serious problems for those in need CAN be solved without any intervention by government whatsoever. Who knew?!?!

It's astounding how quickly every talking point and ideological belief by the left is just completely crumbling beneath them...

Actor Tyler Perry Donates Van to Woman With Cerebral Palsy Alicia Day After Hearing Hers Was Stolen | TheBlaze.com

That's very nice and commendable.

But...as of August this year, 8.7 million disabled workers are drawing SS disability. You may question if that many cases are valid if you like, but the premise of this thread is that no government help is really needed as charity will take care of them.

Ok...please explain to me which charities are going to take care of the every day needs of 8.7 million people. That includes rent, food, transportation, health care. Everything. How much money would it take to support them either until they recover enough to go back to work or for the rest of their lives if they are permanently disabled? Where will that money come from? Who will give it? How? Under what circumstances?

In 2010, the total amount given to charity in the United States was $290.89 billion. That's from all sources.

Political Calculations: Charity in America: The Donors

If every, single, solitary dollar of that charitable giving was redirected to just those 8.7 million disabled workers, it would amount to roughly $33,000 each. That should be enough, but it would require no giving to anything else, by anybody. That includes cancer research, churches (yes, apparently including tithes), little league, college funds...whatever.

Now...tell me again how they'll get by just fine with no government involvement?

The services needed by those in need are better delivered locally. It's not the remit of the federal government, nor are is the federal government competent to deliver cost effective, targeted, services. Put the issue on the shoulders of the states, not the idiots in DC.

 

[Lovebears65]

I've never heard of him, but he sounds like a wonderful young man with a kind heart to have done so much for this woman.

Tyler Perry is the guy who does the Madea movies... just look it up on youtube He plays Madea, his father and him as the son .. Very funny stuff.

 

[Oldguy]

Well I'll be DAMNED! Very real, very serious problems for those in need CAN be solved without any intervention by government whatsoever. Who knew?!?!

It's astounding how quickly every talking point and ideological belief by the left is just completely crumbling beneath them...

Actor Tyler Perry Donates Van to Woman With Cerebral Palsy Alicia Day After Hearing Hers Was Stolen | TheBlaze.com

That's very nice and commendable.

But...as of August this year, 8.7 million disabled workers are drawing SS disability. You may question if that many cases are valid if you like, but the premise of this thread is that no government help is really needed as charity will take care of them.

Ok...please explain to me which charities are going to take care of the every day needs of 8.7 million people. That includes rent, food, transportation, health care. Everything. How much money would it take to support them either until they recover enough to go back to work or for the rest of their lives if they are permanently disabled? Where will that money come from? Who will give it? How? Under what circumstances?

In 2010, the total amount given to charity in the United States was $290.89 billion. That's from all sources.

Political Calculations: Charity in America: The Donors

If every, single, solitary dollar of that charitable giving was redirected to just those 8.7 million disabled workers, it would amount to roughly $33,000 each. That should be enough, but it would require no giving to anything else, by anybody. That includes cancer research, churches (yes, apparently including tithes), little league, college funds...whatever.

Now...tell me again how they'll get by just fine with no government involvement?

The services needed by those in need are better delivered locally. It's not the remit of the federal government, nor are is the federal government competent to deliver cost effective, targeted, services. Put the issue on the shoulders of the states, not the idiots in DC.

The only difference is that you'd shift the burden to state government, instead of the federal government. It's still "government assistance," you know. I guess it's not a case of government having no role to play...it's just WHICH government, right?

And, a lot of the states are strapped for cash. Where's the money going to come from?

 

[California Girl]

That's very nice and commendable.

But...as of August this year, 8.7 million disabled workers are drawing SS disability. You may question if that many cases are valid if you like, but the premise of this thread is that no government help is really needed as charity will take care of them.

Ok...please explain to me which charities are going to take care of the every day needs of 8.7 million people. That includes rent, food, transportation, health care. Everything. How much money would it take to support them either until they recover enough to go back to work or for the rest of their lives if they are permanently disabled? Where will that money come from? Who will give it? How? Under what circumstances?

In 2010, the total amount given to charity in the United States was $290.89 billion. That's from all sources.

Political Calculations: Charity in America: The Donors

If every, single, solitary dollar of that charitable giving was redirected to just those 8.7 million disabled workers, it would amount to roughly $33,000 each. That should be enough, but it would require no giving to anything else, by anybody. That includes cancer research, churches (yes, apparently including tithes), little league, college funds...whatever.

Now...tell me again how they'll get by just fine with no government involvement?

The services needed by those in need are better delivered locally. It's not the remit of the federal government, nor are is the federal government competent to deliver cost effective, targeted, services. Put the issue on the shoulders of the states, not the idiots in DC.

The only difference is that you'd shift the burden to state government, instead of the federal government. It's still "government assistance," you know. I guess it's not a case of government having no role to play...it's just WHICH government, right?

And, a lot of the states are strapped for cash. Where's the money going to come from?

But, if each state is responsible, then the people of each state can decide for themselves. I have no issue with 'government assistance' as long as it's the choice of those paying for it, not some jackshit wasteful federal government bullshit. These people couldn't organize a 'piss up in a brewery', so why the fuck do people think they are capable of controlling costs in federal programs? History shows us that they can't.

 

[Oldguy]

The services needed by those in need are better delivered locally. It's not the remit of the federal government, nor are is the federal government competent to deliver cost effective, targeted, services. Put the issue on the shoulders of the states, not the idiots in DC.

The only difference is that you'd shift the burden to state government, instead of the federal government. It's still "government assistance," you know. I guess it's not a case of government having no role to play...it's just WHICH government, right?

And, a lot of the states are strapped for cash. Where's the money going to come from?

But, if each state is responsible, then the people of each state can decide for themselves. I have no issue with 'government assistance' as long as it's the choice of those paying for it, not some jackshit wasteful federal government bullshit. These people couldn't organize a 'piss up in a brewery', so why the fuck do people think they are capable of controlling costs in federal programs? History shows us that they can't.

You seem to be suggesting that Congress doesn't know what we want, but state legislatures do.

Please explain how that's so.

 

[California Girl]

The only difference is that you'd shift the burden to state government, instead of the federal government. It's still "government assistance," you know. I guess it's not a case of government having no role to play...it's just WHICH government, right?

And, a lot of the states are strapped for cash. Where's the money going to come from?

But, if each state is responsible, then the people of each state can decide for themselves. I have no issue with 'government assistance' as long as it's the choice of those paying for it, not some jackshit wasteful federal government bullshit. These people couldn't organize a 'piss up in a brewery', so why the fuck do people think they are capable of controlling costs in federal programs? History shows us that they can't.

You seem to be suggesting that Congress doesn't know what we want, but state legislatures do.

Please explain how that's so.

Congress doesn't give a shit about what 'we' want... apart from the fact that 'we' are individuals and since 'we' don't agree with each other, how could they possibly know what 'we' want. Despite that, Congress doesn't give a rats ass about you... or me... or anyone else. They are, in general, there to serve their own desires, feather their own nests and not much else.

States, on the other hand, are more easily influenced by those that elect them. They're more controllable. Quite straightforward.... unless you're a twit. Are you a twit?

 

[JoeB131]

The services needed by those in need are better delivered locally. It's not the remit of the federal government, nor are is the federal government competent to deliver cost effective, targeted, services. Put the issue on the shoulders of the states, not the idiots in DC.

It would just mean the disabled would gravitate to muncipalities and states that have better benefits...

while businesses will gravitate towards places that have less.

Why is it every "Conservative" solution these days seems to involve meanspiritedness in the pursuit of profit?

 

[Oldguy]

But, if each state is responsible, then the people of each state can decide for themselves. I have no issue with 'government assistance' as long as it's the choice of those paying for it, not some jackshit wasteful federal government bullshit. These people couldn't organize a 'piss up in a brewery', so why the fuck do people think they are capable of controlling costs in federal programs? History shows us that they can't.

You seem to be suggesting that Congress doesn't know what we want, but state legislatures do.

Please explain how that's so.

Congress doesn't give a shit about what 'we' want... apart from the fact that 'we' are individuals and since 'we' don't agree with each other, how could they possibly know what 'we' want. Despite that, Congress doesn't give a rats ass about you... or me... or anyone else. They are, in general, there to serve their own desires, feather their own nests and not much else.

States, on the other hand, are more easily influenced by those that elect them. They're more controllable. Quite straightforward.... unless you're a twit. Are you a twit?

That's the most illogical argument I've heard in awhile and, frankly, seems to be based upon some pure ignorance of just how your government works. Congress has to answer to The People every election cycle, just as do members of the various state legislatures. Why on earth anyone would think one is responsive to The People and the other not simply escapes me.

 

[Oldguy]

The services needed by those in need are better delivered locally. It's not the remit of the federal government, nor are is the federal government competent to deliver cost effective, targeted, services. Put the issue on the shoulders of the states, not the idiots in DC.

It would just mean the disabled would gravitate to muncipalities and states that have better benefits...

while businesses will gravitate towards places that have less.

Why is it every "Conservative" solution these days seems to involve meanspiritedness in the pursuit of profit?

Yeah. Whatever happend to that much-ballyhooed "compassionate conservatism?"

 

[JoeB131]

The services needed by those in need are better delivered locally. It's not the remit of the federal government, nor are is the federal government competent to deliver cost effective, targeted, services. Put the issue on the shoulders of the states, not the idiots in DC.

It would just mean the disabled would gravitate to muncipalities and states that have better benefits...

while businesses will gravitate towards places that have less.

Why is it every "Conservative" solution these days seems to involve meanspiritedness in the pursuit of profit?

Yeah. Whatever happend to that much-ballyhooed "compassionate conservatism?"

I think it got buried under the Astro-turf of the TEA Party. Kind of like Jimmy Hoffa.

 

[driveby]

But, if each state is responsible, then the people of each state can decide for themselves. I have no issue with 'government assistance' as long as it's the choice of those paying for it, not some jackshit wasteful federal government bullshit. These people couldn't organize a 'piss up in a brewery', so why the fuck do people think they are capable of controlling costs in federal programs? History shows us that they can't.

You seem to be suggesting that Congress doesn't know what we want, but state legislatures do.

Please explain how that's so.

Congress doesn't give a shit about what 'we' want... apart from the fact that 'we' are individuals and since 'we' don't agree with each other, how could they possibly know what 'we' want. Despite that, Congress doesn't give a rats ass about you... or me... or anyone else. They are, in general, there to serve their own desires, feather their own nests and not much else.

States, on the other hand, are more easily influenced by those that elect them. They're more controllable. Quite straightforward.... unless you're a twit. Are you a twit?

Nonsense, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid really care if I have healthcare, really they do!.....

 

[Oldguy]

You seem to be suggesting that Congress doesn't know what we want, but state legislatures do.

Please explain how that's so.

Congress doesn't give a shit about what 'we' want... apart from the fact that 'we' are individuals and since 'we' don't agree with each other, how could they possibly know what 'we' want. Despite that, Congress doesn't give a rats ass about you... or me... or anyone else. They are, in general, there to serve their own desires, feather their own nests and not much else.

States, on the other hand, are more easily influenced by those that elect them. They're more controllable. Quite straightforward.... unless you're a twit. Are you a twit?

Nonsense, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid really care if I have healthcare, really they do!.....

But, Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan REALLY DO...right?

 

[Inthemiddle]

And, a lot of the states are strapped for cash. Where's the money going to come from?

Well, if current circumstances are any indication, blue states will mostly get it from their own populations while Red states will mostly get it from the blue states.

 

[driveby]

Congress doesn't give a shit about what 'we' want... apart from the fact that 'we' are individuals and since 'we' don't agree with each other, how could they possibly know what 'we' want. Despite that, Congress doesn't give a rats ass about you... or me... or anyone else. They are, in general, there to serve their own desires, feather their own nests and not much else.

States, on the other hand, are more easily influenced by those that elect them. They're more controllable. Quite straightforward.... unless you're a twit. Are you a twit?

Nonsense, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid really care if I have healthcare, really they do!.....

But, Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan REALLY DO...right?

They don't want single payer, moonbats like Obama and you do.....

 

[P@triot]

Well I'll be DAMNED! Very real, very serious problems for those in need CAN be solved without any intervention by government whatsoever. Who knew?!?!

It's astounding how quickly every talking point and ideological belief by the left is just completely crumbling beneath them...

Actor Tyler Perry Donates Van to Woman With Cerebral Palsy Alicia Day After Hearing Hers Was Stolen | TheBlaze.com

That's very nice and commendable.

But...as of August this year, 8.7 million disabled workers are drawing SS disability. You may question if that many cases are valid if you like, but the premise of this thread is that no government help is really needed as charity will take care of them.

Ok...please explain to me which charities are going to take care of the every day needs of 8.7 million people. That includes rent, food, transportation, health care. Everything. How much money would it take to support them either until they recover enough to go back to work or for the rest of their lives if they are permanently disabled? Where will that money come from? Who will give it? How? Under what circumstances?

In 2010, the total amount given to charity in the United States was $290.89 billion. That's from all sources.

Political Calculations: Charity in America: The Donors

If every, single, solitary dollar of that charitable giving was redirected to just those 8.7 million disabled workers, it would amount to roughly $33,000 each. That should be enough, but it would require no giving to anything else, by anybody. That includes cancer research, churches (yes, apparently including tithes), little league, college funds...whatever.

Now...tell me again how they'll get by just fine with no government involvement?

First of all, where the fuck are the family and friends of those 8.7 million people?

Second, we have the highest corporate tax rate in the world. We have income tax, property tax, sales tax, capital gains tax, and a LOT more. Despite that, we lead the world in charity. Just imagine what we could do if we weren't be taxed to death by communist liberals?

Third, it is NOT the responsibility of government to care for anyone, regardless of your tear-dropping stories.

 

[editec]

Well I'll be DAMNED! Very real, very serious problems for those in need CAN be solved without any intervention by government whatsoever. Who knew?!?!

It's astounding how quickly every talking point and ideological belief by the left is just completely crumbling beneath them...

Actor Tyler Perry Donates Van to Woman With Cerebral Palsy Alicia Day After Hearing Hers Was Stolen | TheBlaze.com

Some person helps another person ergo government charity isn't necessary?

Honestly, Rott are you as retarded as your post here suggests you are?