I got my first disabality check! :D

[Wedge]

dont make us pay for it

I'm not making you pay for it. I'm electing people who keep these laws in the book, and I will continue to vote for these people forever because it's the right thing to do.

For one, I don't support freedom for all.

That's a crying shame but that doesn't bother me. But let's not disguise your argument. For those who do care about freedom they should see your argument for what it really is.

I'm saying we should be FREE to not pay for some person we don't even know. You're the one arguing against freedom, not me.

Your freedom to do what? Have marginally more money? No sorry, this really doesn't infringe on your freedom at all.

Even if someone is working incredibly hard and not making enough money doesn't mean we should support them involuntarily. Like I said, giving money to somebody who is disabled is fine, but don't make me do it when I don't give a stuff about this random guy.

We're not asking you to care about them. We're saying the deserve the same rights that you are gaurenteed under the Constitution. It's not an issue of "I don't care about other people," it's an issue of what's legal and what's not. Building a library with 2 foot wide doors to exclude fat people is a violation of human rights. Building buildings that disabled people cannot access and not providing the means for them to do so is a violation of a basic human right.

[Ad Bot]

[LizzyRascal]

Bravo, Wedge!

[Aces]

Bravo, Wedge!

/agree

[Black and White]

wow Wedge nice

...and a cookie

although I partly disagree on some of that but no mater

[Murkling]

I know im late to this thread, but, why?

You're stealing money from our government and using it for nothing important.

[Texan101]

I believe that charity is best left to the churches, not the government.
When the government takes care of it, everyone is suddenly required to donate to charity, and less money actually ends up with those who need it.
When a church takes care of charity, more of the same money, but this time given voluntarily, reaches the people it is meant to.

[Qwepir]

I know im late to this thread, but, why?
You're stealing money from our government and using it for nothing important.

stuff son, you a dumb motherforgeter. Why don't you scroll up a little and read what one of our resident sages had to say at the top of the page.

[Aces]

I know im late to this thread, but, why?

You're stealing money from our government and using it for nothing important.

Medicine and basically everything she needs to help ease her diseases.

Gosh Frozen.

[stuntman021]

I know im late to this thread, but, why?

You're stealing money from our government and using it for nothing important.

stop crying about SUPPORTING PEOPLE WHO NEED IT OH NO

[LizzyRascal]

I know im late to this thread, but, why?

You're stealing money from our government and using it for nothing important.

Sure because my over 200$ dollar physical therapy sessions aren't important.

Or expensive joint replacements I need or may need in the future aren't important.

Or medicine that'll help with my 3 illnesses aren't important.

[Aces]

Sure because my over 200$ dollar physical therapy sessions aren't important.

Or expensive joint replacements I need or may need in the future aren't important.

Or medicine that'll help with my 3 illnesses aren't important.

get an automail arm

[LizzyRascal]

get an automail arm

That would be cool.

[LizzyRascal]

Bump.

[Wedge]

I believe that charity is best left to the churches, not the government.
When the government takes care of it, everyone is suddenly required to donate to charity, and less money actually ends up with those who need it.
When a church takes care of charity, more of the same money, but this time given voluntarily, reaches the people it is meant to.

The primary issue I have with this is that this sounds a lot like an anecdotal argument. You say that churches are more efficient at giving out money, but do you actually know this? Have you tested or researched it? Right now it just sounds like a gut feeling. I don't necessarily think that you're totally wrong, but I think that if you looked at the numbers you would find that some charities are extremely efficient, and some are not so efficient, and government assistance falls somewhere in between. You would probably also find that some departments in the government are more efficient than others. This lead into another issue I have with this argument.

Some things might take a long time for the government to determine, like whether you should qualify for veteran's assistance or something. It takes a long time to process and a bunch of money is thrown at paperwork. Other things might be snap decisions that are extremely efficient, like waving a fee to get your license at the DMV because you earn under $X a year. So here's a question: if the government is somewhere in between, what do you do? Do you cut out the government and all the charities that are less efficient? Is there some arbitrary line that you draw, where some programs are cut, some are not, and all charities below this line have their non-profit status revoked? Or do you just penalize the government but leave all the charities alone? Should we cut veterans' assistance but keep waiving fees at the DMV? Why?

The last issue I have is not so much with charity but with churches specifically. There are several very popular religions in the world, and thousands of religions in general. If a church takes my money and promises to do the work of God with it, how do I know which church has the right God? Obviously I wouldn't want to give it to the wrong church, because then they are not inspired by the one true god (possibly gods?) and instead it's just some random guy giving out money to whoever the hell he wants.

[Jerkface]

-snip-

May I say again, "Very nice job, Wedge!"

...Oops, I did.