OT: More wacky school admin

[eavesdropper]

[quote=AN][quote=briansd1]I can see that girl turn into a 200-pound woman. 20 years from now, she’ll be on Oprah (or whoever at that time) telling us about her food ordeal.

I was at Costco today I couldn’t believe number of fat people out there.

Conservatives should be condemning irresponsible eating behavior because we are all paying dearly for it.[/quote]
You mean liberal should be condemning irresponsible eating behavior because they love to tell others what to do. Who am I to say what you eat is right or wrong? That’s your own choice. Go ahead, eat yourself to death. Just don’t make me pay to prolong your life.[/quote]

But that’s the problem: we are paying, not only to prolong their lives via health care, but for them just to exist day-to-day. There are more people applying for Social Security disability payments than there are applying for retirement benefits. Obesity is considered grounds for these payments, not to mention all of the diseases and disorders caused or exacerbated by obesity: hypertension, heart disease, diabetes, low back pain, asthma, and on and on.

In 2009, there were 2.8 millions new applications. 7.8 million individuals actually received SS disability income, along with Medicare or Medicaid health benefits. Compare this with 1999, with 1.3 applicants and 4.2 million recipients.

I’m not saying that we should control what people eat. I’m a believer in personal responsibility. But if our esteemed leaders aren’t going to do away with these programs, or at least restore them to their original status, many Americans are going to eat our country right into bankruptcy.

[an]

eavesdropper, I don’t deny that we’re paying for it. But that’s still not enough ground to start controlling others diet. Those like Brian probably support taxing calories, fat and suggar too, right?

[an]

eavesdropper, I don’t deny that we’re paying for it. But that’s still not enough ground to start controlling others diet. Those like Brian probably support taxing calories, fat and suggar too, right?

[an]

eavesdropper, I don’t deny that we’re paying for it. But that’s still not enough ground to start controlling others diet. Those like Brian probably support taxing calories, fat and suggar too, right?

[an]

eavesdropper, I don’t deny that we’re paying for it. But that’s still not enough ground to start controlling others diet. Those like Brian probably support taxing calories, fat and suggar too, right?

[an]

eavesdropper, I don’t deny that we’re paying for it. But that’s still not enough ground to start controlling others diet. Those like Brian probably support taxing calories, fat and suggar too, right?

[eavesdropper]

[quote=AN]eavesdropper, I don’t deny that we’re paying for it. But that’s still not enough ground to start controlling others diet. Those like Brian probably support taxing calories, fat and suggar too, right?[/quote]

AN, I definitely see your point, but I guess I’m just frustrated that no one seems to recognize the incredible overgrowth (no pun intended) of the “welfare” system. I’m not talking about the widespread perception of the lifelong “welfare queen” whose only real job has been to give birth to more jobless AFDC recipients. I’m not denying the existence of individuals that fit this description, but I think that we’re focusing so much attention on one stereotype, that we’re missing what amounts to a ticking time bomb in our national economy.

I think of Social Security disability as middle-class welfare. For the life of me, I can’t understand why the Social Security system was ever expanded to cover income for disabled people, with no accompanying tax to pay the costs (and while Democrats may have been responsible for the original expansion, Republicans have played a part in maintaining it). But I do know that the criteria for the original recipients was that they have an chronic illness (with no hope of improvement or recovery) or permanent injury so disabling as to not be able to perform ANY type of work. So, for example, if you became parylyzed from the waist down from a diving into a shallow pool, and could no longer work construction, you were still expected to go to work at a job you could do with your upper body. It didn’t matter if you had to get different training, or if the new job wouldn’t pay as much as your prior occupation did.

It’s completely different now. You cannot believe what qualifies as total disability. What’s even more mind-boggling is that parents are working to get their children on SS disability. For anyone wondering how Octomom was able to make it (before the recent additions to her brood), three out of her six kids were receiving SS payments for disabilities such as ADHD, delayed speech, and mild autism.

I’m a hopeless C-Span radio addict, and listen to their morning call-in show. I’m stunned by the number of callers in their 30s and 40s, eschewing ultraconservative views, who then reveal that they’re on SS disability for a variety of physical ailments related to lifestyle choices. They’ll condemn the poor, the unemployed, the unwed and divorced mothers for causing all the country’s economic ills, but really believe their form of government aid is justified.

Sorry to go off on this, but it not only frustrates me tremendously – it scares the hell out of me. If raising taxes and the level of surveillance on people’s eating choices can bring attention to the abuse of the Social Security systems by undeserving individuals, and the resulting exponentially-expanding debt, I’ll go for it. Surveillance exists already by the private health insurers, who are dumping overweight subscribers with obesity-related issues. Where do you imagine they go from there? You guessed it!

[eavesdropper]

[quote=AN]eavesdropper, I don’t deny that we’re paying for it. But that’s still not enough ground to start controlling others diet. Those like Brian probably support taxing calories, fat and suggar too, right?[/quote]

AN, I definitely see your point, but I guess I’m just frustrated that no one seems to recognize the incredible overgrowth (no pun intended) of the “welfare” system. I’m not talking about the widespread perception of the lifelong “welfare queen” whose only real job has been to give birth to more jobless AFDC recipients. I’m not denying the existence of individuals that fit this description, but I think that we’re focusing so much attention on one stereotype, that we’re missing what amounts to a ticking time bomb in our national economy.

I think of Social Security disability as middle-class welfare. For the life of me, I can’t understand why the Social Security system was ever expanded to cover income for disabled people, with no accompanying tax to pay the costs (and while Democrats may have been responsible for the original expansion, Republicans have played a part in maintaining it). But I do know that the criteria for the original recipients was that they have an chronic illness (with no hope of improvement or recovery) or permanent injury so disabling as to not be able to perform ANY type of work. So, for example, if you became parylyzed from the waist down from a diving into a shallow pool, and could no longer work construction, you were still expected to go to work at a job you could do with your upper body. It didn’t matter if you had to get different training, or if the new job wouldn’t pay as much as your prior occupation did.

It’s completely different now. You cannot believe what qualifies as total disability. What’s even more mind-boggling is that parents are working to get their children on SS disability. For anyone wondering how Octomom was able to make it (before the recent additions to her brood), three out of her six kids were receiving SS payments for disabilities such as ADHD, delayed speech, and mild autism.

I’m a hopeless C-Span radio addict, and listen to their morning call-in show. I’m stunned by the number of callers in their 30s and 40s, eschewing ultraconservative views, who then reveal that they’re on SS disability for a variety of physical ailments related to lifestyle choices. They’ll condemn the poor, the unemployed, the unwed and divorced mothers for causing all the country’s economic ills, but really believe their form of government aid is justified.

Sorry to go off on this, but it not only frustrates me tremendously – it scares the hell out of me. If raising taxes and the level of surveillance on people’s eating choices can bring attention to the abuse of the Social Security systems by undeserving individuals, and the resulting exponentially-expanding debt, I’ll go for it. Surveillance exists already by the private health insurers, who are dumping overweight subscribers with obesity-related issues. Where do you imagine they go from there? You guessed it!

[eavesdropper]

[quote=AN]eavesdropper, I don’t deny that we’re paying for it. But that’s still not enough ground to start controlling others diet. Those like Brian probably support taxing calories, fat and suggar too, right?[/quote]

AN, I definitely see your point, but I guess I’m just frustrated that no one seems to recognize the incredible overgrowth (no pun intended) of the “welfare” system. I’m not talking about the widespread perception of the lifelong “welfare queen” whose only real job has been to give birth to more jobless AFDC recipients. I’m not denying the existence of individuals that fit this description, but I think that we’re focusing so much attention on one stereotype, that we’re missing what amounts to a ticking time bomb in our national economy.

I think of Social Security disability as middle-class welfare. For the life of me, I can’t understand why the Social Security system was ever expanded to cover income for disabled people, with no accompanying tax to pay the costs (and while Democrats may have been responsible for the original expansion, Republicans have played a part in maintaining it). But I do know that the criteria for the original recipients was that they have an chronic illness (with no hope of improvement or recovery) or permanent injury so disabling as to not be able to perform ANY type of work. So, for example, if you became parylyzed from the waist down from a diving into a shallow pool, and could no longer work construction, you were still expected to go to work at a job you could do with your upper body. It didn’t matter if you had to get different training, or if the new job wouldn’t pay as much as your prior occupation did.

It’s completely different now. You cannot believe what qualifies as total disability. What’s even more mind-boggling is that parents are working to get their children on SS disability. For anyone wondering how Octomom was able to make it (before the recent additions to her brood), three out of her six kids were receiving SS payments for disabilities such as ADHD, delayed speech, and mild autism.

I’m a hopeless C-Span radio addict, and listen to their morning call-in show. I’m stunned by the number of callers in their 30s and 40s, eschewing ultraconservative views, who then reveal that they’re on SS disability for a variety of physical ailments related to lifestyle choices. They’ll condemn the poor, the unemployed, the unwed and divorced mothers for causing all the country’s economic ills, but really believe their form of government aid is justified.

Sorry to go off on this, but it not only frustrates me tremendously – it scares the hell out of me. If raising taxes and the level of surveillance on people’s eating choices can bring attention to the abuse of the Social Security systems by undeserving individuals, and the resulting exponentially-expanding debt, I’ll go for it. Surveillance exists already by the private health insurers, who are dumping overweight subscribers with obesity-related issues. Where do you imagine they go from there? You guessed it!

[eavesdropper]

[quote=AN]eavesdropper, I don’t deny that we’re paying for it. But that’s still not enough ground to start controlling others diet. Those like Brian probably support taxing calories, fat and suggar too, right?[/quote]

AN, I definitely see your point, but I guess I’m just frustrated that no one seems to recognize the incredible overgrowth (no pun intended) of the “welfare” system. I’m not talking about the widespread perception of the lifelong “welfare queen” whose only real job has been to give birth to more jobless AFDC recipients. I’m not denying the existence of individuals that fit this description, but I think that we’re focusing so much attention on one stereotype, that we’re missing what amounts to a ticking time bomb in our national economy.

I think of Social Security disability as middle-class welfare. For the life of me, I can’t understand why the Social Security system was ever expanded to cover income for disabled people, with no accompanying tax to pay the costs (and while Democrats may have been responsible for the original expansion, Republicans have played a part in maintaining it). But I do know that the criteria for the original recipients was that they have an chronic illness (with no hope of improvement or recovery) or permanent injury so disabling as to not be able to perform ANY type of work. So, for example, if you became parylyzed from the waist down from a diving into a shallow pool, and could no longer work construction, you were still expected to go to work at a job you could do with your upper body. It didn’t matter if you had to get different training, or if the new job wouldn’t pay as much as your prior occupation did.

It’s completely different now. You cannot believe what qualifies as total disability. What’s even more mind-boggling is that parents are working to get their children on SS disability. For anyone wondering how Octomom was able to make it (before the recent additions to her brood), three out of her six kids were receiving SS payments for disabilities such as ADHD, delayed speech, and mild autism.

I’m a hopeless C-Span radio addict, and listen to their morning call-in show. I’m stunned by the number of callers in their 30s and 40s, eschewing ultraconservative views, who then reveal that they’re on SS disability for a variety of physical ailments related to lifestyle choices. They’ll condemn the poor, the unemployed, the unwed and divorced mothers for causing all the country’s economic ills, but really believe their form of government aid is justified.

Sorry to go off on this, but it not only frustrates me tremendously – it scares the hell out of me. If raising taxes and the level of surveillance on people’s eating choices can bring attention to the abuse of the Social Security systems by undeserving individuals, and the resulting exponentially-expanding debt, I’ll go for it. Surveillance exists already by the private health insurers, who are dumping overweight subscribers with obesity-related issues. Where do you imagine they go from there? You guessed it!

[eavesdropper]

[quote=AN]eavesdropper, I don’t deny that we’re paying for it. But that’s still not enough ground to start controlling others diet. Those like Brian probably support taxing calories, fat and suggar too, right?[/quote]

AN, I definitely see your point, but I guess I’m just frustrated that no one seems to recognize the incredible overgrowth (no pun intended) of the “welfare” system. I’m not talking about the widespread perception of the lifelong “welfare queen” whose only real job has been to give birth to more jobless AFDC recipients. I’m not denying the existence of individuals that fit this description, but I think that we’re focusing so much attention on one stereotype, that we’re missing what amounts to a ticking time bomb in our national economy.

I think of Social Security disability as middle-class welfare. For the life of me, I can’t understand why the Social Security system was ever expanded to cover income for disabled people, with no accompanying tax to pay the costs (and while Democrats may have been responsible for the original expansion, Republicans have played a part in maintaining it). But I do know that the criteria for the original recipients was that they have an chronic illness (with no hope of improvement or recovery) or permanent injury so disabling as to not be able to perform ANY type of work. So, for example, if you became parylyzed from the waist down from a diving into a shallow pool, and could no longer work construction, you were still expected to go to work at a job you could do with your upper body. It didn’t matter if you had to get different training, or if the new job wouldn’t pay as much as your prior occupation did.

It’s completely different now. You cannot believe what qualifies as total disability. What’s even more mind-boggling is that parents are working to get their children on SS disability. For anyone wondering how Octomom was able to make it (before the recent additions to her brood), three out of her six kids were receiving SS payments for disabilities such as ADHD, delayed speech, and mild autism.

I’m a hopeless C-Span radio addict, and listen to their morning call-in show. I’m stunned by the number of callers in their 30s and 40s, eschewing ultraconservative views, who then reveal that they’re on SS disability for a variety of physical ailments related to lifestyle choices. They’ll condemn the poor, the unemployed, the unwed and divorced mothers for causing all the country’s economic ills, but really believe their form of government aid is justified.

Sorry to go off on this, but it not only frustrates me tremendously – it scares the hell out of me. If raising taxes and the level of surveillance on people’s eating choices can bring attention to the abuse of the Social Security systems by undeserving individuals, and the resulting exponentially-expanding debt, I’ll go for it. Surveillance exists already by the private health insurers, who are dumping overweight subscribers with obesity-related issues. Where do you imagine they go from there? You guessed it!

[an]

I understand your frustration and I share them too. However, I still don’t think the government have any place in our diet. What if the child has been good, eating their vegetable and doing their daily exercise, are we not allow to reward them with a candy once in a awhile? Most things in moderation are not bad for you. But big brother will never know who’s doing it in moderation and who’s chugging it down.

[an]

I understand your frustration and I share them too. However, I still don’t think the government have any place in our diet. What if the child has been good, eating their vegetable and doing their daily exercise, are we not allow to reward them with a candy once in a awhile? Most things in moderation are not bad for you. But big brother will never know who’s doing it in moderation and who’s chugging it down.

[an]

I understand your frustration and I share them too. However, I still don’t think the government have any place in our diet. What if the child has been good, eating their vegetable and doing their daily exercise, are we not allow to reward them with a candy once in a awhile? Most things in moderation are not bad for you. But big brother will never know who’s doing it in moderation and who’s chugging it down.

[an]

I understand your frustration and I share them too. However, I still don’t think the government have any place in our diet. What if the child has been good, eating their vegetable and doing their daily exercise, are we not allow to reward them with a candy once in a awhile? Most things in moderation are not bad for you. But big brother will never know who’s doing it in moderation and who’s chugging it down.

[Author]

Posts