Is the Democrats or Republicans Better for Disabled Folks?

[Ainin]

Democrats=Massive welfare programs and entitlements that cost alot of money in the longrun and are probably unsustainable.

Republicans=minimal and more sustainable welfare programs that have quite a few holes.



Neither party is really good, unless your elderly, in which case the democrats provide the best bet (you dont have to bear the future economic burden)

US welfare programs are massive? Compared to who? Mexico? Because a large majority of the developed world has much larger welfare programs than the US.

[Pandeeria]

Democrats, but not by a impressive margin.

[Saiwania]

US welfare programs are massive? Compared to who? Mexico? Because a large majority of the developed world has much larger welfare programs than the US.

I'm not impressed with those developed countries in comparison to the US. Welfare spending doesn't grow an economy, it is just preventing the economically idle from dying. It would be better spent on infrastructure or business.

[Pandeeria]

US welfare programs are massive? Compared to who? Mexico? Because a large majority of the developed world has much larger welfare programs than the US.

I'm not impressed with those developed countries in comparison to the US. Welfare spending doesn't grow an economy, it is just preventing the economically idle from dying. It would be better spent on infrastructure or business.

I think keeping people alive and with access to food is a lot more important then growing giant corporations or building up infrastructure.

[The Nuclear Fist]

US welfare programs are massive? Compared to who? Mexico? Because a large majority of the developed world has much larger welfare programs than the US.

I'm not impressed with those developed countries in comparison to the US. Welfare spending doesn't grow an economy, it is just preventing the economically idle from dying. It would be better spent on infrastructure or business.

So what you're saying is that if you were crippled and needed care for the rest of your life, it's okay if you starve to death?

[Saiwania]

I think keeping people alive and with access to food is a lot more important then growing giant corporations or building up infrastructure.

Building up infrastructure and growing corporations create jobs. More workers = less people on the dole, which means less of the total budget wasted on just providing a lifeline to dependents.

[Vazdania]

I am wondering which Party has been more instrumental in passing laws and making things easier on Disabled folks. I personally like the Democrats because the Republicans seem more like Ebeenezer Scrooge to me. But I am open minded, and willl look at facts. Which party has an advatageous platform is farf as we are concerned?

Republicans.

[Neutraligon]

I think keeping people alive and with access to food is a lot more important then growing giant corporations or building up infrastructure.

Building up infrastructure and growing corporations create jobs. More workers = less people on the dole, which means less of the total budget wasted on just providing a lifeline to dependents.

You do realize that even in good economic times the physically disabled have a hard time getting jobs right?

[Geilinor]

US welfare programs are massive? Compared to who? Mexico? Because a large majority of the developed world has much larger welfare programs than the US.

I'm not impressed with those developed countries in comparison to the US. Welfare spending doesn't grow an economy, it is just preventing the economically idle from dying. It would be better spent on infrastructure or business.

So tell me what's wrong with Canada. Also, Germany has lower unemployment than the US and is close to balancing their budget.

[Geilinor]

I'm not impressed with those developed countries in comparison to the US. Welfare spending doesn't grow an economy, it is just preventing the economically idle from dying. It would be better spent on infrastructure or business.

So what you're saying is that if you were crippled and needed care for the rest of your life, it's okay if you starve to death?

According to him, yes. The Republicans have too many of such people.

[Neutraligon]

There is also this interesting piece from last year
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/05/us/de ... .html?_r=0

[Geilinor]

There is also this interesting piece from last year
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/05/us/de ... .html?_r=0

That's just the "national sovereignty" excuse taken to the extreme. The treaty is based off of US law passed under a Republican president, yet they vote against it. Since when did Republicans care about the sovereignty of other countries? They should be happy that "American goodness" is being spread to the rest of the world.

[Mistelemr]

"Is the Democrats or Republicans Better for Disabled Folks?"

Tempted, to make joke... About failing grammar

Must.. resist.

Neither, they both suck for everyone

[Vault 1]

Welfare spending doesn't grow an economy, it is just preventing the economically idle from dying. It would be better spent on infrastructure or business.

I think keeping people alive and with access to food is a lot more important then growing giant corporations or building up infrastructure.

It's not.

Keeping economically inert people alive means your efforts will have to remain focused on keeping economically inert people alive in the next generation, and the one after, and the one after that, progressively so.

Building up economic infrastructure and giant corporations means you'll have a smaller percentage of economically inert people in the next generation, smaller still in the one after, and eventually engage virtually all your population in the economy.

[Herskerstad]

As someone who leans Republican I would say the Democrats, though their healthcare reforms seem to be a mess to say the least, they do have a significant investment in granting aid to people with preexisting conditions and the disabled which I think will be the silver lining to rising costs and the new government-approved standardization, which is a dual-edged sword.

There would be an exception if there ever was a Gingrich or perhaps Huckabee administration, but both are very unlikely to happen.

[Hetalian Indie Rio de Janeiro]

Building up economic infrastructure and giant corporations means you'll have a smaller percentage of economically inert people in the next generation, smaller still in the one after, and eventually engage virtually all your population in the economy.

It takes hard to make a country so rich and progressive that it has the structures to be perfectly disability-friendly, immigrant-friendly, etc.

Oh, and btw, for a country to be perfectly disability-friendly, you still need to get welfare for them until you create an ambient where they can work for themselves because they fit in.

[Vault 1]

It takes hard to make a country so rich and progressive that it has the structures to be perfectly disability-friendly, immigrant-friendly, etc.

It's called The Internets. Despite generally being regarded as evil, through commercial companies bringing their internets to every home, everyone is given an opportunity to participate in the labor market - as a freelance coder, web designer, artist or writer for hire, market analyst, jew banker, futures trader, actuary, tax assistant, or taking up a number of other jobs.

Some of them pay as well as office jobs, most don't, but hey, they're not supposed to pay as well as office jobs, since they don't require wasting tons of gas and a month of your time every year just to get there and back.

[Kumrann]

Democrats=Massive welfare programs and entitlements that cost alot of money in the longrun and are probably unsustainable.
Neither party is really good, unless your elderly, in which case the democrats provide the best bet (you dont have to bear the future economic burden)

The Democrats providing a massive welfare program that is unsustainable? In the UK we've had a much larger welfare program than any Democrat to my knowledge has suggested and its lasted for about 60 years - it needs reform but trust me it works

[Frisivisia]

I think keeping people alive and with access to food is a lot more important then growing giant corporations or building up infrastructure.

It's not.

Keeping economically inert people alive means your efforts will have to remain focused on keeping economically inert people alive in the next generation, and the one after, and the one after that, progressively so.

Building up economic infrastructure and giant corporations means you'll have a smaller percentage of economically inert people in the next generation, smaller still in the one after, and eventually engage virtually all your population in the economy.

It's not like most people on welfare programs actually do work and are simply victims of a system designed to victimize them. They're just fucking moochers stealing from smart people like you.

[Frisivisia]

As someone who leans Republican I would say the Democrats, though their healthcare reforms seem to be a mess to say the least, they do have a significant investment in granting aid to people with preexisting conditions and the disabled which I think will be the silver lining to rising costs and the new government-approved standardization, which is a dual-edged sword.

There would be an exception if there ever was a Gingrich or perhaps Huckabee administration, but both are very unlikely to happen.

Obamacare won't send costs nearly as high as the right wants it to and what is this new "government-approved standardization"?

[L Ron Cupboard]

I would guess the Republicans have created more disabled folks with their penchant for military adventurism and aversion to universal healthcare.

[European Socialist Republic]

It's not.

Keeping economically inert people alive means your efforts will have to remain focused on keeping economically inert people alive in the next generation, and the one after, and the one after that, progressively so.

Building up economic infrastructure and giant corporations means you'll have a smaller percentage of economically inert people in the next generation, smaller still in the one after, and eventually engage virtually all your population in the economy.

It's not like most people on welfare programs actually do work

Working poor, you say? Bah, humbug! Moochers who are too lazy to get a second or third job, I say!

[The Tundra]

sense Republicans are in favor of cutting welfare, i'd say Democrats

though, they'll coddle you till your spoiled rotten.

[Vault 1]

It's not like most people on welfare programs actually do work and are simply victims of a system designed to victimize them.

The United States has a minimum wage. At $7.25 it is higher than the average wage in most of the world.
Not just higher than the third world, but higher than the average wage in most of Eastern Europe like even Hungary.
The CoL in US is quite forgiving, with cheap gas, low-cost store chains and generally lower prices than across the EU.

So why would someone who receives a minimum wage from a full-time job and pays no or little taxes need welfare to live?

[The Black Forrest]

It's not like most people on welfare programs actually do work and are simply victims of a system designed to victimize them.

The United States has a minimum wage. At $7.25 it is higher than the average wage in most of the world.
Not just higher than the third world, but higher than the average wage in most of Eastern Europe like even Hungary.
The CoL in US is quite forgiving, with cheap gas, low-cost store chains and generally lower prices than across the EU.

So why would someone who receives a minimum wage from a full-time job and pays no or little taxes need welfare to live?