You know, I never fully understood the phrase “arguing on the internet is like running in the special olympics” until this very thread.
The reason is that it’s not you against a rational, informed, intelligent debater. It’s you against curlcoat. She’s never ever ever going to change her mind. Ever. And even if you hold out hope of that 1 in a billion chance that YOUR argument is the one that will sway her…you’ve just spent eleven pages trying to convince one person.
Wouldn’t that time have better been spent making sound and reasoned arguments to 500 or 50 or even 5 people with the mental facilities to understand you and perhaps be persuaded?
In a real world scenario, it’s like politicians holding town hall meetings and listening to five teabaggers froth at the mouth about commie socialist Nazis, while completely ignoring the hundreds of moderate, but ill-informed constituents who showed up and truly wished to understand the issues being debated.
You are demanding that your fellow taxpayers bow to your desires and fund your lifestyle by a) giving you SSDI, and b) not improving the country because it might cause you distress. If you had been more careful with your money maybe you wouldn’t be so worried about this.
You don’t say. Clearly it runs in the family. They must be so proud.
Addressed by oh, let’s say, helping them get an education? Keeping them healthy so they can continue to work or study and improve their lot? Eradicating all minimum wage jobs? I know which of these won’t work.
I can’t speak for anyone else, but I spend all day surrounded by people who are extremely smart (much smarter than me) and well informed, and I do have interesting discussions with them. We frequently disagree about things but can talk about them reasonably and usually everyone has good points. It’s good, but it’s also mentally exhausting.
There is something entertaining and relaxing about coming here and debating with such a mental midget as curlcoat - it’s so easy to refute her claims. She’s an idiot, and I actually don’t have much contact with idiots in the real world (ivory tower and all that). It’s kind of fascinating, in a car wreck at the side of the road sort of way.
I wouldn’t pass it off as too futile - there are fence sitters like me who upon reading this thread reconsider their positions. Although, 11 pages was a bit more than I needed, its definitely eye-opening for some of us.
Good call. How’s the brick wall coming? I’m guessing it’s at least a bit warmer from your breath, which is more than you could say for curlcoat.
I don’t know how edifying it’s going to be when one side of the “debate” is being propped up by someone as ill-informed and chronically wrong as curlcoat.
:rolleyes: For one thing, I demand nothing. I filed for SSDI, just as everyone else files for regular social security when they qualify for it. I filed for SSDI long after I qualified for it, but if I hadn’t gotten it, that would have been the end of it. It does not fund my lifestyle
Next, I’d pay quite a bit to improve the US, but don’t happen to agree with you that handing people another social program is the way that would happen. I’m sorry that threatens you so much that you have to spend so much time coming up with new insults instead of actually addressing the subject, but you do realize that I am far from alone in not wanting a UHC, right?
As for being more careful with my money, there are few people who are a tighter wad than I am. Doesn’t mean that it isn’t still possible for the government to tax us into trouble, particularly when my husband retires.
I wouldn’t know. Of the four kids they had, only one has become a parent and I have no idea if he is as bad with them as our parents were with us.
I know which ones won’t teach them to be responsible for themselves and to quit expecting “someone else” to fix their lives. Funny how all of your ideas seem to foster dependence - why is that?
(My Bolding). So, are you saying that your SSDI payments just augment your otherwise lavish lifestyle? That you do not actually need SSDI to survive? And you are railing against others who do need such support?
No, silly, she deserves the SSDI because of all the wonderous contributions she has made to society. All those other slackers don’t deserve anything, the lazy bastards. After all, she won’t ever take out more than she put in right?
Hypocrisy at it’s finest, people. Just like how the people in the OP were irresponsible by having a baby without having first amassed a huge medical fund (even though they had insurance), but her parents get a pass on having that. What do you think would have happened if one of their kids had been born seriously ill? I’m sure it would be okay for them to get medical care, seeing as they’re going to become such great contributors.
This is the world of the Curlinator, people. She makes the rules!
*note for Curlcoat - the above is sarcasm, this is still not me agreeing with you.
65% of initial applications for SSDI are denied. Why should anyone believe your application was approved on the first shot, especially when you admitted before that you’re capable of sedentary work?
So, we are arguing with someone, who does not need benefits, but reaps them anyhow.
And does not want people who actually need these benefits to have them, right? Since everybody else is not worth it or being lazy scumbags etc… right?
Also this is the same person, which called the US system to be corrupt and useless, but does not want to change it for the better, since she is already getting benefits and it is working well for herself…never mind these other useless individuals, that are to stupid and need to be screwed out of their houses.
Actually, it’s my impression that she doesn’t give them a pass–she hates her parents and pretty much wishes she would have been aborted. Kind of explains a lot, doesn’t it?
Yeah, you know I pretty much agree with you. Although as far as I can tell she hates them chiefly because they had the sheer audacity to be lower-class when they were young, and thus unable to shower curlcoat with the luxuries she required.
Still, she constantly uses “what happened to your parents?” or, “maybe your parents should have thought of that…” when arguing with people about health care - she’s said it to Broomstick about her husband and Desert Nomad about his own health. So she’s holding them responsible for their parents actions (even though they actually seem quite reasonable), but she is not responsible for a single bad thing that has ever happened to her.
ETA: and it does explain a lot - she sure is harbouring a lot of resentment towards them, no wonder she is so hateful all the time
Funny how that works. You *opted *to file for it. See, me, I never filed for RMI (minimal insertion revenue, the French equivalent to food stamps) and similar welfare benefits because, while I don’t make enough money to support myself yet, at the moment my folks can afford to and do help. So draining state money would be unethical of me.
If you don’t really need it, why do you still take it ? I’m sure you can at least agree some disabled folks need the cash more than you do ?
a) you are the primest of prime examples of dependence on the state and your sugar daddy. You are clearly never going to do anything useful ever again. When will you become responsible for yourself?
b) the US government has directly or indirectly supported the education of billions of children and probably millions of college and university goers. The government also provides health care to the families of military personnel and provides for the disabled. Are all those people ‘dependent’ in your mind? These things foster healthy communities, a productive workforce, and hope for people who are trying to better themselves. The fact that you see this as negative ‘dependence’ is due to your own curmudgeonly spin on things.
c) are you seriously still suggesting that we should do away with minimum wage jobs, or not allow adults to hold them, or what? Surely even you are not actually this stupid.
Aaaand, no. I’ve been over this so many times that I begin to wonder if any of you even bother to read, or if you just assert your bias over the top of my posts. Anyway, I have never said word one about people who take back what they have paid into. Such as social security, unemployment, pension plans, etc. Despite what you all (pretend you) want to believe, there is a huge difference between taking social security and getting the government to pay for some basic need, such as health care. Particularly when the only qualification for this new social program would be a lack of insurance for whatever reason.
Oh, and BTW I live nothing close to a lavish lifestyle. That would be another fiction that folks here have made up.
That’s nice.
I am not capable of holding any job, even sedentary. And I did not say that my SSDI was approved on the initial application. I’m surprised to see that only 65% are denied, since all that I have talked to had their initial application denied.
You all don’t have any sort of mandated retirement tax there? That is what I am getting, not “benefits”.
Again, try reading what I actually write, not what your fears want to see. I am already paying quite a bit in tax to provide benefits to people who, for the most part, actually cannot pay their own way. I don’t agree with the way the government handles those benefits, but the fact they exist and taxpayers fund them isn’t the issue. However, people who can afford to feed, clothe and house themselves and children are most likely not actually unable to afford health care, and I fail to see why it is that taxpayers are being told that they must fund health care for these folks who chose not to buy it themselves.
Uh, if the US system is corrupt and useless, why should it be given all responsibility for health care for all our citizens? I would love to see change for the better, but handing this worthless government more money and more responsibility is not going to get it to change at all.
:rolleyes: Yeah, abuse must equal lack of luxuries. Luxuries that I don’t have even now…
And why do you think that is? Could it be because my parents are all too common in that they had kids because babies are cute, but didn’t feel any responsibility towards them once they started to become separate individuals? I just don’t get this attitude from people who say they love children - why is it OK with you all when people have children they cannot support, don’t really take care of and dump on the world without a whole lot in the way of preparation? I could have easily ended up on welfare for the rest of my life, if I’d followed the usual route of having a couple of babies after I left my parent’s home, instead of working my way out of the hole they left me in. Just as other parents have had children with serious health problems that they don’t fund. Heck, society expects more out of dog and cat breeders, but parents can have as many kids as they want and it doesn’t matter if their situation is bad or their genes are crap. They are not only allowed to have these kids, they are encouraged to do so. Responsibility does not pay.
Uh, how do you jump from parents not being responsible to me not being responsible?
Opting to file for something I qualify for and am due is far different than demanding that the taxpayers pay for all of my health care.
Well, my folks didn’t help me yet I didn’t file for food stamps back when I qualified for them because I wasn’t going to take welfare. I didn’t take unemployment insurance a couple of times when I was unemployed either, even tho I’d paid into that. SSDI comes from something that everyone gets here, either when they retire due to age or when they retire due to disability. Those of us on SSDI get half benefits, so there is some “punishment” for retiring early.
Those “some disabled folks” will not get any more money whether I take my SSDI or not. One’s social security is based on how long you worked and more or less on how much you earned. It has nothing to do with whether or not anyone “needs” it. Do the French not have some sort of state mandated retirement fund?
