The check Isn't in the Mail (to buy, bankrupt, health)

[BritPop]

Firstly, I'm not your "Bro"

Secondly, the quoted source is a lawyer trying to drum up litigation work.

It's an "estimate" of that single source and as such has no basis in fact.

Q.E.D.

[yoko]

Originally Posted by twobums

" Unemployment is $275 a week... fast food jobs pay more than that.

I have little sympathy left for people whining about losing UI bennies after 99 weeks.

Here is where the tax payers should be anger for abuse of resources:
A. paying for their fraud
B. paying for their salaries



Just an example:



" Today, former Cape Coral police officer Stephen Px, the son of just-retired police chief Robert Px, is scheduled to be sentenced in federal court for his role in a $4 million mortgage fraud scheme.

He represents at least nine Southwest Florida law enforcement officers who are awaiting trial or who have been convicted of crimes in recent years.


CAPE CORAL POLICE DEPARTMENT

Stephen Px - money laundering and conspiracy to commit bank and wire fraud,
James O'x - loan and application fraud,
Nelson Alex Gx - conspiracy to commit money laundering (illegally accessing the FBI's National Crime Information Center).

FORT MYERS POLICE DEPARTMENT

Leon Yx - misdemeanor DUI.


LEE COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE

William Ex - burglary, possession of burglary tools and larceny (petty theft, loitering and prowling),
Peter Gx - grand theft (pending),
Troy Hx - two counts of grand theft and one count of official misconduct,
Christopher Hx - loan and credit application fraud,
Joshua Px - two counts of lewd or lascivious conduct (pending). "



July/06/2010
http://www.news-press.com/article/20...es-spoil-image



And they are not the only ones in the country.

[Ten]

Originally Posted by TXRyan23

Instead of being mad at the government for helping your less fortunate brother and sister Americans that haven't been afforded the same opportunities or have been a victim of our economy, Why not be mad at the government for spending $1.2 trillion on the war in Iraq ? Why not be mad for their spending $270 billion in aid to poorer countries around the world ?

It's not government's job to manage the economy, TXRyan23. It's not government's job to manage the poor and in effect, create generational poverty by way of the welfare state.

In other words, I don't accept your strawman argument that anyone is "mad" about assistance because it temporarily helps select members of the poor class, at least until it fails.

Originally Posted by TXRyan23

Keep in mind, While you're talking about the jump in unemployment and welfare, You're not talking about the poor of the chronic welfare abusers in society, You're talking about middle class people that have worked hard their whole lives and have had it taken away from them.

"Taken away from them" is another strawman if the construct aims to justify redistribution. If that's the intent, it's a fallacy.

It's not a fallacy if you're willing to look at the bigger picture and see that it's the fraudulent monetary system that's ruined us. That is having your future squandered without your having any say in the matter. That is our reality in 2010 and going forward.

Who did it? The same corrupt government that you appear to expect shall provide for the poor. That government is nearly one hundred trillion dollars upside down.

The road to financial hell is paved with those good intentions and history more than reminds us that every single time collectivism is attempted it ends in failure. Any system based on envy and theft naturally must fail. In our case we've coupled a fraudulent monetary system with these increasing levels of collectivist progressivism - commonly called liberalism although intellectually it's anything but liberal - to construct an insolvent system.

Originally Posted by TXRyan23

It's not like these people are just saying " Hell with it, I lost my job and since the government is giving me free money, I'll never work again. " They worked hard at their jobs and were laid off and would like to work again but the economy in Florida is what ? 3rd worse to Michigan and California ?

Their intent is irrelevant to the point of the argument. The net effect is that all statist assistance is ultimately ruinious - the central federal State is utterly bankrupt and thus all of its programs are bankrupt.

Originally Posted by TXRyan23

Edit: btw, Just because one is or has conservative values doesn't mean one cannot also be humanitarian. I've been through this routine in Florida and I went through it during a time frame when the economy was considered to be pretty good..

Conservatism defines humanitarianism by way of private charity so that's a third strawman argument I reject. What's anti-humanitarian is impoverishing the individual, destroying his liberties, taking his property and leaving him a dependent.

That's not conservative, that's progressive and that's been our course for the last half century or more.

[yoko]

Ten,

I agree with TXRyan23. A government cannot forget its own people.

I especially like the fact that TXRyan23 does not allow any frame to be put on individual's ideology.

TXRyan has an A+ from me.

[Ten]

yoko, the history of collectivism is a history of misery. "A government cannot forget its own people" has to mean something, such as a government cannot forget to feed, clothe, and house its own people which historically is a guarantee of failure, or a government cannot forget its own people's liberties and properties, which is the history of American exceptionalism, an exception to the rule of historical tyrannies that made the States what they are.

Collectives killed seven thousand of their own people every day for the last century. Their aim is not benevolence and even the most benign of them are largely bankrupt today. They are not feasible.

Advocating for collectivism because it seems the compassionate thing to do is historical folly. The only thing in the history of man has ever built security for the masses is individual liberty and individual property. Such a system once existed here in the US before the envious and arrogant decided to start redistributing that exceptionalism and by so doing, bring it to an end.

[TXRyan23]

Ten, I must admit that I'm very much tied into groups that are in favor of the secession of the State of Texas from the United States to form the Republic of Texas. I do not like or care for our federal government.

That said..

I feel, If the government can ruin millions of peoples lives and all of the sudden it's not okay for them to issue unemployment benefits and/or welfare for people to take care of their families when there are no jobs and there is no way out then the government is, in effect, causing those people to arm themselves and "take" what they need.

I'm sure you're sitting in your house or in your cushy office cublicle with a starbucks typing and out of touch with reality but I'm sorry, You can say whatever you want but it means little to nothing to a man that lost his job and now has hungry kids and lives in his car.

[TXRyan23]

Originally Posted by Ten

yoko, the history of collectivism is a history of misery. "A government cannot forget its own people" has to mean something, such as a government cannot forget to feed, clothe, and house its own people which historically is a guarantee of failure, or a government cannot forget its own people's liberties and properties, which is the history of American exceptionalism, an exception to the rule of historical tyrannies that made the States what they are.

We can spend trillions on a war to liberate a country thousands of miles away and send food and aid to poor countries in Africa, Asia, and South America...

But we can't extend unemployment benefits for 6 more months or until the economy gets a kick start ?

pathetic argument.

[TXRyan23]

Originally Posted by yoko

Ten,

I agree with TXRyan23. A government cannot forget its own people.

I especially like the fact that TXRyan23 does not allow any frame to be put on individual's ideology.

TXRyan has an A+ from me.

Thank you, Yoko.

[Ten]

Originally Posted by TXRyan23

I feel, If the government can ruin millions of peoples lives and all of the sudden it's not okay for them to issue unemployment benefits and/or welfare for people to take care of their families when there are no jobs and there is no way out then the government is, in effect, causing those people to arm themselves and "take" what they need.

At any rate, I see you demanding that government provide food, clothing, and shelter after it eliminated the individual's ability to acquire them himself...and if that government doesn't supply those things that it or your neighbor be violently overthrown and/or that we revert to anarchy.

"Take" or take, poster - in my dictionary they mean the same thing regardless how you may want to couch them so as to make your premise palatable. Anarchy...or rioting in the streets? Need or theft? Define your terms, poster.

Originally Posted by TXRyan23

I'm sure you're sitting in your house or in your cushy office cublicle with a starbucks typing and out of touch with reality but I'm sorry, You can say whatever you want but it means little to nothing to a man that lost his job and now has hungry kids and lives in his car.

Dead wrong, but I suppose such factless, flailing stereotyping fits the kind of person who'd present the series of fallacious arguments you have and then do nothing to back them up.

Did you really expect me to argue your bad-faith point based on your stereotyping me?

[Ten]

The Law, original French title La Loi, is a 1850 book by Frédéric Bastiat. It was written at Mugron two years after the third French Revolution of 1848 and a few months before his death of tuberculosis at age 49. The essay was influenced by John Locke's Second Treatise on Government and in turn influenced Henry Hazlitt's Economics in One Lesson.[1] It is the work for which Bastiat is most famous along with The candlemaker's petition and the Parable of the broken window.

In The Law, Bastiat states that "each of us has a natural right — from God — to defend his person, his liberty, and his property". The State is a "substitution of a common force for individual forces" to defend this right. The law becomes perverted when it punishes one's right to self-defense in favor of another's acquired right to plunder.

Bastiat defines two forms of plunder: "stupid greed and false philanthropy". Stupid greed is "protective tariffs, subsidies, guaranteed profits" and false philanthropy is "guaranteed jobs, relief and welfare schemes, public education, progressive taxation, free credit, and public works". Monopolism and Socialism are legalized plunder which Bastiat emphasizes is legal but not legitimate.

Justice has precise limits but philanthropy is limitless and government can grow endlessly when that becomes its function. The resulting statism is "based on this triple hypothesis: the total inertness of mankind, the omnipotence of the law, and the infallibility of the legislator". The relationship between the public and the legislator becomes "like the clay to the potter". Bastiat says, "I do not dispute their right to invent social combinations, to advertise them, to advocate them, and to try them upon themselves, at their own expense and risk. But I do dispute their right to impose these plans upon us by law—by force—and to compel us to pay for them with our taxes".[2]

The Law (1850 book) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(bolding mine.)

Collective "right" to a living or to the property of others via exclusive State redistribution - which is mere theft legalized by the tyranny of the majority's voter - is not benevolence, it is the antithesis of benevolence just as servitude and slavery are for they are precisely where it leads. The advanced society often cited for its obligation to provide for personal needs is not advanced, it is barbaric.

It appears we're about to relive that history.