I'm going to derail the "MS" discussion at this point as it is really taking my article off course as it's not a discussion of diseases.  Back the point- people use their "disability" as an excuse.    SSD *is* a government program that is abused by many.  There are also many people on SSD that are on it because it is *easier* than trying to do something more productive. A previous quote of mine:

There are two ways that people live with their life altering disease/disability:
1) They let it define them
or
2) They live beyond it

Agreed.

I don't think SSD should be eliminated however since there are people who are on it who are on it for legitimate reasons. I believe there should be better regulation, and perhaps hiring of more employees so they can check up on those people who are abusing the system.

Once again, your belief is, and if I'm restating to simply please let me know, that since some people abuse the system we should eliminate it, and my belief is that some people abuse the system, and they should be eliminated from the system, but the system itself should be maintained for those people who really need it.

Cheers

No, I don't think it should be eliminated.  I think that it (and welfare for all that matters) should be taken back to its roots.

SSD should be for people who can't work anywhere.  People who are so disabled that there is no job that they can qualify for or be trained for.  (I much rather pay to train somebody to do a different job than to have somebody be non-productive in society).  

Welfare should go back to what it was- bare survival.  "Food Stamps" should allow you to buy food staples from the government store so that you won't starve.  "standard of living" shouldn't play a part.  It should provide enough to keep you alive until you can fend for yourself.

I have a beef with SS to begin with.  SSD just adds to my beef.

Alrighty then, it appears as if we to share common ground. Again, my apologies if I painted you with too broad a liberal brush.

It seems then as if my arguement with both you, Karma, and Brad is over taxes, and well, I can live with having that be our sole arguement.

Cheers

I've said privately that if I were to take an extended leave, Jeb, I would want to put you in charge of the site. So even though we disagree on some issues, you always put forth a very rational, civilized, and often (unfortunately for my side) lethal argument.

Well thanks Brad, that's the nicest thing I've been told all day.

Cheers

Don, I don't follow your example with sports stadiums.

I'm uncertain as to what you are questioning.

A sports team is a business. Why should my tax money go to support it, by building a new stadium, so that this company can improve its profits? If, like the city of Green Bay, the team is owned by the public, so profits then repay the stadium outlay, then I get it. But why is a wealthy corporation getting to use my tax money, otherwise?

In my mind, this is very similar to giving money to individuals whose neediness is questionable.

A similar example would be the new mall going up down the road. The businesses receive a ten year exemption from paying property taxes. he plus side to this for the community is that we get more jobs and stores. The negative side is that local costs go up as sewage and traffic patterns change, and so the local citizens must now pay higher taxes. Further, the new jobs are mostly offset by competing businesses down the road declining and/or going under -- creating empty storefronts and lowering nearby property values. This assistance for the new businesses was just as unnecessary as the assistance for the marginally disabled, yet this kind of thing is far less noticed.

Small businesses pay a *ton* of taxes.  There is a difference in exempting a business from property taxes (which is really a small bit of their overall taxes) and giving money to somebody.  The new businesses also bring cash flow into your community.  You say that they compete with established businesses.  Competition is only bad when you can't compete.  I don't know what state you live in, but most state schools are funded mainly by sales tax revenues.  The poorer the economy, the less money for your state schools. 

Sport stadiums are partially funded by taxes in Michigan (and we have quite a few of them) but they are also mainly funded by the sponsor.  The stadiums also serve as a place for other community functions, not just for the sports team to play.  It also provides jobs and tourism, which brings more money into the community.

You really can't compare sport stadiums and government assistance.

Karma, when Brad took me to task concerning my comment to you on the "Sherye" blog, I realize that one can't be too careful when not knowing the history of a fellow blogger. Again I apologize for lumping you with the arrogance of an existentialist not accounting for so many without the wherewithal to make something of themselves. You, obviously did take on the true spirit of existentialism and heroically succeeded. Keep up your magnificently spirited karma.

You really can't compare sport stadiums and government assistance.

I could not disagree more.

Business conservatives hate the comparison because they take the rather arrogant view that what is good for them is good for everyone. Truth be told, the same could be said for government assistance to the needy; practically 100% of the money goes right back into the economy. (It is the dirty secret of the history of public assistance that much of the reason for its existence is to prevent damage to the general economy that results when spending goes down. As you posted originally, such assistance is often counterproductive for the recipients but rarely so for the local economy.)

Further, when you excuse someone from their normal share of taxes, you are giving them money. If the five furniture stores along the road each have to pay X number of dollars in property tax, but the sixth one does not due to its going into a new mall, you have given that store X dollars. They are being provided with the local services paid for by local taxes for free. Free services provided by government is government assistance.

As to competition only being bad when you can't compete... I can understand why the older furniture stores would resent competition which does not have the same overhead that they have. But that is not my main point. My main point is that there is not much additional cash flow for the community if the new store simply takes away customers from other stores. In effect, you and I pay a larger local tax load so that local services can be provided for free in order that some businessman will have a built in advantage over some older business, typically resulting in deserted storefronts.

And I don't know about Michagan, but here in New York property taxes are high enough that businesses complain plenty and threaten to leave. I assume that if they would move over the issue, it is worthwhile to be exempted from the cost.

I know of some veterans who receive partial disability for receiving a Purple Heart because of a silly thing like cutting a finger on a C-ration can.