I believe there are many white parents who do not have a bloated sense of entitlement.

My problem is that there are some parents (from my experience of watching them in action they are all upper class or upper middle class white people, go figure) who have a bloated sense of entitlement and they don’t care if other kids, even other more impaired kids—even younger, more impaired kids—go without any services at all so long as they themselves get what they want. Since there is a limited amount of money they absolutely understand that what they take is not going to go to a poor Hispanic kid or a poor Vietmanese kid, or poor white kid, even, and frankly, from what I have seen these ones with the bloated sense of entitlement don’t give a (insert pithy phrase here).

These ones are also likely to blame someone else, anyone else for their kid’s autism and they also want to sue someone.

Also even the so-called rise is based on reclassification, that reclassification has resulted in more services being needed as being labeled autistic opened the gateway for more help.

The rich white people whom I know are very kind. Better human beings than I . Not because of their wealth, but because of their love for their fellow man.

The point of screaming about a tsunami of young adults about to reach the age of needing help with getting/maintaining jobs and housing or whatever is to force the gov’t to admit that they have created a crisis through their own vaccination program or by allowing the citizenry to eat fish/chicken/french-fries or watch tv or…

There will be no fresh demand on any service provider for new programs over and above the usual need for an increase of anything based on background population growth.

So there is no need to ask about the impact of autistics on any program.

Recently I explained the difference between now and 20 years ago to Lee Grossman, president of ASA, after he tried to scare his audience with “Oh. My. Gawsh! Do you see what is about to happen in this country!!?????? There is a tidal wave of needy autistic teens about to swamp and sink entire state provider systems What’ll we do??? What’ll we do???? We’re all gonna die” That sort of thing.

I explained to him, first how we know that there hasn’t been a big increase in autism, then that he had already stated at his last presentation at the MIND institute that he realized that the epidemic numbers weren’t real. (He forgot I was there when he said it I guess.) Then I said, the “the tsunami that is about to hit is one of middle and upper class white parents with a bloated sense of entitlement. They will demand that their child (high, middle or low functioning) get the highest quality and highest quantity of services known to man and they will demand that the gov’t pay for it all. When I was a kid my parents never thought of getting services for me, and I never thought about demanding services for my kid. But now you’ve got all these parents who will sue at the drop of a hat for whatever they want and they have been getting it.”

There’s your tsunami. It’s not that there are more disabled people needing help, it’s some of them have “better” advocates.

I’m not saying that everything that the new tsunami parents will demand will be wasteful or unreasonable. I’m saying the big difference will be that for the most part the previous generations of identically “challenged” people got NOTHING or very little.

The tax payers are going to have to decide if they’d prefer to have the kids whose parents aren’t already rolling in the dough (or sleeping with lawyers) be homeless or die under bridges or in bad community care situations. The tax payers will probably be paying for the best of the best for the adult kids of rich white parents, but as for the rest? Will they continue to become homeless and die under bridges or live in awful situations with no help?

What makes a child a tax sucking burden? Is it because they require services? If so then one child needing those services according to you is a tax sucking burden. Greater numbers would mean a greater burden, lesser numbers a smaller.

So people who proclaim their children need services are demonizing them!. If someone says millions will need services they according to you are demonizing those millions. If they say one child needs services, then they, according to your logic,must be demonizing that child. It is not wrong to advocate for your child. It is not done to draw attention to one’s self.

Are you not demonizing your child by stating he needs services?

.

I pointed out that there is a reverse tsunami of people with MR and SLD. MR tends to represent kids who are “lower functioning” and “SLD” tends to represent kids who are more mildly impaired. Over all, if you look at the school data there is no change in the number of impaired kids in the school districts than there ever has been.

The people who demonize autistics and who are so desperate for attention for themselves that they are more than willing to demonize their own children as part of a class of horrific tax sucking burdens, use the imaginary “tsunami” of children about to “wipe out, destroy, devastate, etc.” various programs to scare people.

What you said sounds much like the stuff that Rick Rollens and Lee Grossman have said.

Why ask if these programs are about to be swamped? Why not focus on the fact that the number of MR and SLD kids has dropped away in a way that matches the “increase” in autism?

Why not celebrate the “windfall” of no MR kids?

No, let’s focus on how devastating and tax-dollar-sucking autistic people are or may be. No, instead, let’s look with disdain on the grubby autistics and their grubby needs. This is how exactly the dialog goes in the media and in meetings like the one I attended for the IACC.

My own very disabled ASD kid is not paying taxes and is getting various benefits. How dare you assume that I have some disdain for such people? Seriously, you have a whole lot of nerve and I think you are in denial about how you are speaking about autistic people.

The thing with higher functioning autistics needing service is true. The number of autistics of this type is stable. The way they have dealt with a lack of services for themselves is to find a way to deal without them, to suffer terribly without them, or perhaps to end up in jail or to die because they never got them them.

I am one of those people who should be getting services in some areas. I have very little chance of getting any, ever.

My own kid gets nothing from the DDS because they reject the middle functioning kids in Northern Cal. If I couldn’t take care of my kid, xe would need help from DDS, and wouldn’t get it, if the pattern would continue. But it’s not because my kid is part of the tsunami. My kid is way “pre-tsunami” and one of the people who proves the “high and stable rate” of autism.

Yes, but I don’t think more people will need them compared to how many needed them in the past (relative to the size of the general population). Whether people will ask for more services is a different matter, and I don’t know the answer to that.

Because it seems clear that more children are being given diagnostic labels these days than in times past. For example, I’m quite sure that I would’ve be given a childhood diagnosis if I had been born 30 years later than I was. This probably has an effect on how things play out, no doubt.