The Conservative Cave

Current Events => The DUmpster => Topic started by: thundley4 on June 25, 2010, 02:37:26 PM

Title: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: thundley4 on June 25, 2010, 02:37:26 PM
Quote
Redstone   (1000+ posts)           Fri Jun-25-10 03:25 PM
Original message
The ****ing vultures are circling already. (Are you surprised?)
   
Edited on Fri Jun-25-10 03:30 PM by Redstone
Today, in my spam folder, was an e-mail with this "return address:"

Oil Spill Injury Alert!

And this subject line: Oil_Spill_Lawsuit_Compensation

Those gutter-dwelling, slime-sucking, spawn of the sons of of pox-ridden syphillitic chancres. Those inexplicable mutations of a dead-end branch of evolution gone horribly wrong. Those indescribably malignant, unrepentant users of perfectly good oxygen, to which they have NO right in the sharing of with decent human beings.

I cannot for the life of me concieve of ANY circumstance that would compel me to attempt to take advantage of those poor, desperate folks down around the Gulf; to be so base, SO evil, as to want to turn their agony into my own financial gain...using spam e-mail to do so because, well, for me to advertise via a legitimate channel would expose me for the fraud that I was.

What the ****, do you suppose, is WRONG with those parasites? God Damn every single one of them.

Redstone
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8634446

Democraps are the biggest receivers of political contributions from trial lawyers .

Quote
Laelth (1000+ posts)             Fri Jun-25-10 03:32 PM
Response to Original message
6. Without personal injury attorneys, injured people would get nothing.
   
And we work for free, usually. We don't get paid, at all, unless we win.

The attorneys working for the big corps., on the other hand, get the big big bucks and they get paid whether they win or lose.

I apologize if I misconstrued your post.

-Laelth

Nope. You read his post right. You're a vulture.  How many cases would you get if your clients had to pay the defendents if they lost?  Don't make it look like you are taking cases out of kindness.
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: DumbAss Tanker on June 25, 2010, 02:43:48 PM
Laelth is either a shitty lawyer, or being very disingenuous about the 'Working for nothing' part of that.  Contingency-fee PI attorneys are rather discriminating about taking cases, and will turn away the ones where they think they will end up getting the big goose egg.
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: AllosaursRus on June 25, 2010, 02:56:57 PM
Laelth is either a shitty lawyer, or being very disingenuous about the 'Working for nothing' part of that.  Contingency-fee PI attorneys are rather discriminating about taking cases, and will turn away the ones where they think they will end up getting the big goose egg.

Vultures like Laeth know many times big corps will just pay them off rather than go to court or waste their time defending themselves because it is frikkin' cheaper to do so.

The hot coffee at McDucks comes to mind. Look at all the stinkin' commercials we have to endure every day on TV because these asshole have no conscience!
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: zeitgeist on June 25, 2010, 02:57:24 PM
It bares repeating>  Democrats are the biggest recipients of Trial Lawyers.

Rude awakenings are just ahead for both the legal and medical professions.  There will be a wailing and gnashing of teeth.  


IMHO the dump is du-ing a great public service by demonizing those they consider to be among the rich ruling classes.   Wobblie doctors and lawyers will be on the short list subjected to the torch and pitch folk parade the primitives want to carry out.  If you know any recommend they stop by the dump to see what up!! :-)
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: PatriotGame on June 25, 2010, 03:27:04 PM
Quote
Redstone   (1000+ posts)           Fri Jun-25-10 03:25 PM
Original message

Those gutter-dwelling, slime-sucking, spawn of the sons of of pox-ridden syphillitic chancres. Those inexplicable mutations of a dead-end branch of evolution gone horribly wrong. Those indescribably malignant, unrepentant users of perfectly good oxygen, to which they have NO right in the sharing of with decent human beings.

Best DUmp mission statement description I have ever read!
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: JohnnyReb on June 25, 2010, 04:30:34 PM
Those gutter-dwelling, slime-sucking, spawn of the sons of of pox-ridden syphillitic chancres. Those inexplicable mutations of a dead-end branch of evolution gone horribly wrong. Those indescribably malignant, unrepentant users of perfectly good oxygen, to which they have NO right in the sharing of with decent human beings.
Best DUmp mission statement description I have ever read!


Is he talking about DUmp members...lawyers...or both...can't tell 'em appart without a program.

Honest lawyers are like oases in the desert....few and far between.
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: AllosaursRus on June 25, 2010, 05:59:37 PM
Is he talking about DUmp members...lawyers...or both...can't tell 'em appart without a program.

Honest lawyers are like oases in the desert....few and far between.

What are oases? Ya mean oasis'? C'mon, it's one thing for a DUmpster DIvers to be illiterate, another for us to do it! Heh! Spell check is your friend. If you use FireFox, it's built in.

BlueSate ragged me over not enough o's in stoooopid, for cryin' out loud! ( it's a joke son )

I don't think I've ever met a conservative lawyer. Politics warrant them to be big government hacks!

After all, the congress critters on both sides refused to limit claims for malpractice law suits. Never mind it pushes Docs out of the profession every year or the fact the insurance companys tell them it's a big part of premium increases.

DemonRats are forever preachin' how they're for the "little" guy, when in fact they're screwin' us with no Vaseline!

It's going to get much worse with "Bama Care"!
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: JohnnyReb on June 25, 2010, 06:51:39 PM
What are oases? Ya mean oasis'? C'mon, it's one thing for a DUmpster DIvers to be illiterate, another for us to do it! Heh! Spell check is your friend. If you use FireFox, it's built in.

BlueSate ragged me over not enough o's in stoooopid, for cryin' out loud! ( it's a joke son )

I don't think I've ever met a conservative lawyer. Politics warrant them to be big government hacks!

After all, the congress critters on both sides refused to limit claims for malpractice law suits. Never mind it pushes Docs out of the profession every year or the fact the insurance companys tell them it's a big part of premium increases.

DemonRats are forever preachin' how they're for the "little" guy, when in fact they're screwin' us with no Vaseline!

It's going to get much worse with "Bama Care"!

oases.....Mr Webster and spell checker here says it's plural...so argue with them. I've never claimed to be real educated in the english language..
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: Tucker on June 25, 2010, 07:09:28 PM
So the stone faced one must have gotten out of jail. Last we heard of him, he was driving to AZ to protest the anti immigration law. When asked when he was leaving, he replied, "I already have."

I wonder who serviced his wife while he was gone. She's a looker. I'd do her. :drool:
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: BlueStateSaint on June 25, 2010, 07:19:22 PM
BlueSate ragged me over not enough o's in stoooopid, for cryin' out loud! ( it's a joke son )

 :thatsright: :thatsright: :thatsright: :thatsright:

5 o's!

 :tongue: :tongue: :tongue: :tongue: :tongue:
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: AllosaursRus on June 25, 2010, 08:36:45 PM
:thatsright: :thatsright: :thatsright: :thatsright:

5 o's!

 :tongue: :tongue: :tongue: :tongue: :tongue:

Damn! I'm never goin' to get it right! You have to admit it's really hard when it comes to DUmbasses!
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: AllosaursRus on June 25, 2010, 08:37:25 PM
oases.....Mr Webster and spell checker here says it's plural...so argue with them. I've never claimed to be real educated in the english language..

I've never heard of such a thing! Learn sumpin new every day!
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: Laelth on June 30, 2010, 11:37:41 AM

Nope. You read his post right. You're a vulture.  How many cases would you get if your clients had to pay the defendents if they lost?  Don't make it look like you are taking cases out of kindness.

You're right, I think.  He did call me a vulture, although he backed off further down in the thread.  And I don't take cases out of charity.  I can't afford to.  As another poster rightly noted, I only take cases I think I can win because I can't afford to work for free for years and not get paid.

Hey, everybody hates lawyers these days (until they need one).  And there's no doubt that the right has been leading an organized campaign to denigrate trial lawyers (Plaintiffs' lawyers) because they want to de-fund the left and the Democratic Party.  It is also true that Plaintiffs' lawyers donate more money to Democrats than they do to Republicans.  But have you looked at the other side?  The defense attorneys are the ones who are making the big bucks.  A few Plaintiffs' attorneys make good money ... a few ... but the defense attorneys (the ones that make the big money because they work for the wealthy corporations) are the ones who make the most money, and they donate most of it to Republicans because the Republicans advance laws that favor the rich and, specifically, those big wealthy corporations.  Does the name Joe Barton ring a bell?

Either way, I thought I should just say hi given that I was being discused in this thread.  So flame away, you manly men and women.

 :cheersmate:

-Laelth
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: DumbAss Tanker on June 30, 2010, 11:51:56 AM
 :cheersmate: Laelth, I just thought you were stretching it a bit on your 'Milk of human kindness' theme, that's all.

PI attorneys do perform a valuable and necessary function helping the powerless, the problem is that many on this side of the fence see it as a 'Cure has become worse than the disease' situation.  I'm not sure it's quite that bad, myself, but there is a huge amount of our societal resources tied up very unproductively in the threat or promise, and offense and defense, of PI and class action litigation.
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: Texacon on June 30, 2010, 11:59:49 AM
You're right, I think.  He did call me a vulture, although he backed off further down in the thread.  And I don't take cases out of charity.  I can't afford to.  As another poster rightly noted, I only take cases I think I can win because I can't afford to work for free for years and not get paid.

Hey, everybody hates lawyers these days (until they need one).  And there's no doubt that the right has been leading an organized campaign to denigrate trial lawyers (Plaintiffs' lawyers) because they want to de-fund the left and the Democratic Party.  It is also true that Plaintiffs' lawyers donate more money to Democrats than they do to Republicans.  But have you looked at the other side?  The defense attorneys are the ones who are making the big bucks.  A few Plaintiffs' attorneys make good money ... a few ... but the defense attorneys (the ones that make the big money because they work for the wealthy corporations) are the ones who make the most money, and they donate most of it to Republicans because the Republicans advance laws that favor the rich and, specifically, those big wealthy corporations.  Does the name Joe Barton ring a bell?

Either way, I thought I should just say hi given that I was being discused in this thread.  So flame away, you manly men and women.

 :cheersmate:

-Laelth

Weird ... I never needed a lawyer until one was sicc'd on me.  If the person who sued me had had to pay his attorney when he LOST the suit I would NEVER have been sued.  The attorney knew there was very, very little chance of proving I had anything to do with his clients accident.

What would be wrong with 'Loser Pays'??  Spill it mr.mrs. scumsucking .... err I mean lawyer.  LOL

All kidding aside what do you have against Loser Pays?

KC
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: PatriotGame on June 30, 2010, 12:01:46 PM
You're right, I think.  He did call me a vulture, although he backed off further down in the thread.  And I don't take cases out of charity.  I can't afford to.  As another poster rightly noted, I only take cases I think I can win because I can't afford to work for free for years and not get paid.

Hey, everybody hates lawyers these days (until they need one).  And there's no doubt that the right has been leading an organized campaign to denigrate trial lawyers (Plaintiffs' lawyers) because they want to de-fund the left and the Democratic Party.  It is also true that Plaintiffs' lawyers donate more money to Democrats than they do to Republicans.  But have you looked at the other side?  The defense attorneys are the ones who are making the big bucks.  A few Plaintiffs' attorneys make good money ... a few ... but the defense attorneys (the ones that make the big money because they work for the wealthy corporations) are the ones who make the most money, and they donate most of it to Republicans because the Republicans advance laws that favor the rich and, specifically, those big wealthy corporations.  Does the name Joe Barton ring a bell?

Either way, I thought I should just say hi given that I was being discused in this thread.  So flame away, you manly men and women.

 :cheersmate:

-Laelth
I was in New York city a while back and it was SOOOOO cold!! 

(How cold WAS it?)

It was SOOOOO cold, I saw a lawyer walking down the sidewalk and he had his hands in his *OWN* pockets!!

 :rimshot: :rimshot: :rimshot:
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: USA4ME on June 30, 2010, 12:03:21 PM
Hey, everybody hates lawyers these days (until they need one).

I'm in banking, so it's good to have lawyers because that means I'm not completely at the bottom of the barrel.  :)

.
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: IassaFTots on June 30, 2010, 12:11:27 PM
I'm in banking, so it's good to have lawyers because that means I'm not completely at the bottom of the barrel.  :)

.

I'm in health insurance, so it's good to have bankers.   :-)
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: USA4ME on June 30, 2010, 12:16:07 PM
I'm in health insurance, so it's good to have bankers.   :-)

 :rotf:

I have to admit I think "loser pays" on some of these suits would curtail a lot of the nonsense.  And then there's the lawsuits where some idiot doesn't realize that if you purchase a cup of coffee from McDonald's, it's probably best not to spill it in your lap, and if you do it's your own fault, so shut up and take your medicine.  Those types of suits do nothing to help lawyers' image.

.
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: AllosaursRus on June 30, 2010, 12:19:07 PM
Hmmmmm..........what happened to our pet vulture? As soon as it was asked about "loser pays", it skedaddled!

Typical ambulance chaser!
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: Karin on June 30, 2010, 12:19:51 PM
My main issue with lawyers is that they so often go into politics.  The legal world is very different from the real world.  I would rather see more business people enter politics, as they know "boots on the ground" economics.  What is likely to inspire business expansion and job creation?   What should be common sense, seems to elude the lawyerly among us when it comes to how economic machines work.  
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: njpines on June 30, 2010, 12:20:29 PM
I'm in health insurance, so it's good to have bankers.   :-)

Heh -- I'm a military contractor so I love all of you!!  :-*
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: AllosaursRus on June 30, 2010, 12:28:11 PM
My main issue with lawyers is that they so often go into politics.  The legal world is very different from the real world.  I would rather see more business people enter politics, as they know "boots on the ground" economics.  What is likely to inspire business expansion and job creation?   What should be common sense, seems to elude the lawyerly among us when it comes to how economic machines work

Ain't that the truth! All you have to do is look at Tort Reform and how savagely they oppose it!
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: Laelth on June 30, 2010, 12:29:34 PM
:cheersmate: Laelth, I just thought you were stretching it a bit on your 'Milk of human kindness' theme, that's all.

I probably was.  LOL.

But I can hope you understand why.  First off, I work hard, and I take a big risk when I take a contingency fee case.  I have had quite a few where I ended up working for nothing.  Try it.  It's not fun working for something for eighteen months or two years and not getting paid.

Second, it makes no sense for Democrats to attack trial lawyers, especially given (as noted in this thread) that trial lawyers are some of the biggest donors to the Democratic Party.  The OP in that thread was shooting his own party in the foot, and I felt the need to explain that.

But, in truth, I could have gone to work for a big corporate defense firm.  I would have made a lot more money if I had done so.  Instead, I chose to sleep well at night.  Some of what I do is, actually, motivated by a (perhaps-misguided) instinct to protect and defend the weak.  Without people like me, many people would have no access whatsoever to the Courts.

Thanks for the response.

-Laelth
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: Ballygrl on June 30, 2010, 12:32:51 PM
I have no doubt there are good Lawyers out there, but we can't ignore the fact that there are Lawyers who are ambulance chasers, than there Lawyers out there who have been bilking good Doctors for years. I remember 1 time we had a patient who had serious surgery, she signed an informed consent, was told that the surgery might not work, the complications that could come about by the surgery, she has the surgery, it didn't work, and she sued the entire group of Doctors, she lost the suit but those Doctors had to pay their Lawyers a heck of a lot. Many times Doctors just settle because it's cheaper, even if they're in the right. I would love to see panels put together, in the case of Malpractice cases have this panel made up of Medical Professionals, and let them make the decision if the Lawsuit was frivilous, and if they determine it to be so then if the person who brings the case loses? they pay. I have personal experience in this because my Father was misdiagnosed, he had Leukemia (we saw the medical records) but it wasn't until 6 months later when he went to another Doctor that it was confirmed. He thought about suing but when it went into remission he decided he didn't want to do it, he wasn't greedy and he wasn't looking for a free ride like a lot of people in our society today are.
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: IassaFTots on June 30, 2010, 12:37:02 PM
Heh -- I'm a military contractor so I love all of you!!  :-*

I guess we are all in the clear.  No one claims to be a dentist.   :-)
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: Ballygrl on June 30, 2010, 12:37:37 PM
I probably was.  LOL.

But I can hope you understand why.  First off, I work hard, and I take a big risk when I take a contingency fee case.  I have had quite a few where I ended up working for nothing.  Try it.  It's not fun working for something for eighteen months or two years and not getting paid.

Second, it makes no sense for Democrats to attack trial lawyers, especially given (as noted in this thread) that trial lawyers are some of the biggest donors to the Democratic Party.  The OP in that thread was shooting his own party in the foot, and I felt the need to explain that.

But, in truth, I could have gone to work for a big corporate defense firm.  I would have made a lot more money if I had done so.  Instead, I chose to sleep well at night.  Some of what I do is, actually, motivated by a (perhaps-misguided) instinct to protect and defend the weak.  Without people like me, many people would have no access whatsoever to the Courts.

Thanks for the response.

-Laelth

Just a curiosity question, I've always wondered how a Lawyer can take on a case, say a murder case as an example, and the evidence is overwhelming that the client is the murderer, how can a Lawyer take on such a case and still sleep at night? I remember the Menendez Brothers case, OJ Simpson etc. I always got the feeling that Robert Shapiro regretted his involvement in the OJ case, though he never said that publicly, but during interviews I just got that feeling.
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: jukin on June 30, 2010, 12:38:13 PM
What do you call 500 dead lawyers?



A good start.
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: Tucker on June 30, 2010, 12:44:01 PM
When I think of PI lawyers, the first person who pops into my head is John Edward. Has there ever been a bigger scumbag on the face of the Earth?
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: Laelth on June 30, 2010, 12:44:40 PM
Weird ... I never needed a lawyer until one was sicc'd on me.  If the person who sued me had had to pay his attorney when he LOST the suit I would NEVER have been sued.  The attorney knew there was very, very little chance of proving I had anything to do with his clients accident.

What would be wrong with 'Loser Pays'??  Spill it mr.mrs. scumsucking .... err I mean lawyer.  LOL

All kidding aside what do you have against Loser Pays?

KC

Loser pays works in many countries in Europe.  There's nothing wrong with it, ultimately, if it's done properly.  But our legal system has been run on the English model (each side pays its own attorneys) since the founding of the country.  It would be a serious adjustment to change that.  And it might not be what you want.  Let's consider an example.

Plaintiffs' attorney is lied to by a poor client and brings a bad suit.  Rich corporate defendant runs up $100K in attorneys' fees before Plaintiffs' attorney realizes he has a loser and drops it.  Who pays that $100K bill?  Poor person?  Poor person doesn't have $100K, and rich defendant can get a judgment but can never collect on that bill.  Sould Plainitffs' attorney pay?  Just because poor client lied and Plainitffs' attorney pursued a loser.  Isn't it bad enough that Plainitffs' attorney put in a lot of work and didn't get paid a dime?  Should he also have to pay for not being able to see into the future?

Most people can't afford to hire an attorney.  A "loser pays" system will probably never be adopted here because the rich don't want it.  As it is, they have to pay their attorneys whether they win or lose.  Under loser pays, they could get a useless judgment against the poor if they win, or, if they lose, they would have to pay the poor Plaintiffs' attorney's fees too.  The rich are unlikely to allow that here.

Personally, though, I wouldn't mind it, except for the damage that it would do to the legal rights of the middle class.  The middle class actually has some assets to lose, and middle-classed people would be very afraid to bring any lawsuits if they had to risk losing their assets just to take a risk on winning in court.  And victory in court can never be guaranteed, no matter how good a case you have.  Corporate defense attorneys are very good.

Hope that at least begins to answer your question.

-Laelth
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: lastparker on June 30, 2010, 12:45:07 PM
Laelth:  Welcome!  So far, you play much nicer than your cohorts at the DUmp.

Allo:  "oases".... yup, plural. Latin classes were my favorite.

I was in New York city a while back and it was SOOOOO cold!! 

(How cold WAS it?)

It was SOOOOO cold, I saw a lawyer walking down the sidewalk and he had his hands in his *OWN* pockets!!

 :rimshot: :rimshot: :rimshot:

What's sadder than a busload or lawyers going over a cliff?







There was one empty seat.
 :rimshot: :rimshot:
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: Tucker on June 30, 2010, 12:50:07 PM
Loser pays works in many countries in Europe.  There's nothing wrong with it, ultimately, if it's done properly.  But our legal system has been run on the English model (each side pays its own attorneys) since the founding of the country.  It would be a serious adjustment to change that.  And it might not be what you want.  Let's consider an example.

Plaintiffs' attorney is lied to by a poor client and brings a bad suit.  Rich corporate defendant runs up $100K in attorneys' fees before Plaintiffs' attorney realizes he has a loser and drops it.  Who pays that $100K bill?  Poor person?  Poor person doesn't have $100K, and rich defendant can get a judgment but can never collect on that bill.  Sould Plainitffs' attorney pay?  Just because poor client lied and Plainitffs' attorney pursued a loser.  Isn't it bad enough that Plainitffs' attorney put in a lot of work and didn't get paid a dime?  Should he also have to pay for not being able to see into the future?

Most people can't afford to hire an attorney.  A "loser pays" system will probably never be adopted here because the rich don't want it.  As it is, they have to pay their attorneys whether they win or lose.  Under loser pays, they could get a useless judgment against the poor if they win, or, if they lose, they would have to pay the poor Plaintiffs' attorney's fees too.  The rich are unlikely to allow that here.

Personally, though, I wouldn't mind it, except for the damage that it would do to the legal rights of the middle class.  The middle class actually has some assets to lose, and middle-classed people would be very afraid to bring any lawsuits if they had to risk losing their assets just to take a risk on winning in court.  And victory in court can never be guaranteed, no matter how good a case you have.  Corporate defense attorneys are very good.

Hope that at least begins to answer your question.

-Laelth

So you're saying that the evil Corp. should be out of the 100K because your client is a democrat liar?
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: Laelth on June 30, 2010, 12:57:18 PM
Just a curiosity question, I've always wondered how a Lawyer can take on a case, say a murder case as an example, and the evidence is overwhelming that the client is the murderer, how can a Lawyer take on such a case and still sleep at night? I remember the Menendez Brothers case, OJ Simpson etc. I always got the feeling that Robert Shapiro regretted his involvement in the OJ case, though he never said that publicly, but during interviews I just got that feeling.

That's a good question and one that I can't honestly answer.  I don't do any criminal defense work.

But this is what I was taught in law school.  Suspects have rights, and those rights belong to all of us.  Criminal defense attorneys are what stand between us and a police state.  When the rights of any suspect are violated by the police or the criminal justice system, the Court is supposed to protect all of our rights by not letting the police or the State get away with violating anyone's rights.  Now, if a suspect admits to his or her attorney that he or she is guilty, the attorney can still fight for a favorable plea bargain, but can't condone perjury, i.e. can't allow the suspect to get on the stand and lie.  When that happens, attorney is supposed to withdraw from representing that client.  But if client says he or she is innocent, attorney is duty bound to represent client zealously (because we all have the right to zealous representation), and we lose that right if there are no attorneys willing to do it.

Does that make nay sense?  Thanks for the response.

-Laelth
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: delilahmused on June 30, 2010, 01:00:08 PM
A conversation isn't (or doesn't have to be) a flame. We can choose to have an honest one WITHOUT talking points or not. Here's what I see every time I watch television: some law firm or other is advertising a class action law suit because of some medication or other. Perhaps in A FEW cases it's justified. But every single medication carries risk, even children's Tylenol (my nephew had a weird disease when he was a baby and he could only take aspirin). Anyone who swallows a pill (or a parent who gives their children medication) knows this. Drug trials are important but they can't possibly anticipate EVERY SINGLE PROBLEM that will come along. And often, the MAJORITY of people are helped by drug.

Acutane is a good example. Both my brother and sister took this in their teens and both are in their 30's and 40's. It was dangerous then and it's dangerous now. My niece who is 14, homeschooled, and not sexually active had to be on birth control while she was using it because the risk to the baby is so great. Yet, now there's a lawsuit being trotted out. The risks are (and have been) known for a couple decades now but when someone has exhausted all other alternatives it's the only thing that works for SEVERE acne. Things like this make medications cost more and stifle research.

Frivolous lawsuits abound. McDonald's coffee is hot. So are irons. Plastic bags do not belong on the heads of 2 year olds. Light a match to someone's pajamas and they generally catch on fire or melt. At some point people have to take responsibility. Life in general carries risk. If there was some kind of law that required the loser pay (or perhaps the law firm would absorb the cost of the suit) so as to keep the frivolous out of the courts, it would prevent some of this nonsense and expense (generally passed on to consumers). Some are important but most aren't.

I'd also argue that both parties get monies from corporations. And certain industries gravitate toward certain parties. That's life and beltway politics. But the banking industry, mortgage & investment firms gave the majority of their funds to Democrats (Obama and Dodd more than most). BP gave more to Obama than any other candidate. Both have been problematic. The filthy rich are (and give more) to Democrats than Republicans. More donations to the Republican party are from smaller donations. That's just a verifiable fact. It's neither bad nor good, just a fact. And unions give more to Democrats than they do to Republicans. They are a very rich special interest that often doesn't serve (or represents) those forced to belong. Look how many union MEMBERS have conservative values (still clinging to God and guns) and work ethic. And the NEA has long ago stopped representing teachers, becoming a top down, coercive group that has too much influence on government and gives local school districts too little autonomy.

So, if industries whose unions contribute to Democrats to gain influence, it would stand to reason that the companies that hire those union workers (especially when coerced) would gravitate to the other party. That kind of tension is important for a thriving republic. It's intellectually dishonest to say "corporations give to Republicans" and that the Republicans are the party of the rich. We can't get anywhere in this country if we're going to continue to spew (and believe) outdated stereotypes. Do hang around though if you want an honest debate.

Cindie
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: AllosaursRus on June 30, 2010, 01:12:35 PM
Cindie, anyone who wallows around at the DUmp has a long way to go in order to acknowledge what you have just typed. Just sayin'........pretty easy to talk outa both sides of your mouth when convenient to do so.

I find it difficult to believe anything it has to say when it's cohorts pretty much have the exact opposite opinion!

This is by no means an attack, it's just really hard to believe if they have the opinions stated here, why in the hell would you belong to a site with so much anti-free speech? Especially a lawyer?

ETA:

You would think a lawyer would be informed of the facts or at least pursue them! Otherwise, they're just talkin out of the other side of their mouth.
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: Laelth on June 30, 2010, 01:14:48 PM
Laelth:  Welcome!  So far, you play much nicer than your cohorts at the DUmp.

I assume the vast majority of you are decent, reasonable people.  And I'm not feeling so welcome at DU these days because I refuse to toe the Party line.  Either way, thanks for the kind words.

 :cheersmate:

-Laelth
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: Laelth on June 30, 2010, 01:28:19 PM
:rotf:

I have to admit I think "loser pays" on some of these suits would curtail a lot of the nonsense.  And then there's the lawsuits where some idiot doesn't realize that if you purchase a cup of coffee from McDonald's, it's probably best not to spill it in your lap, and if you do it's your own fault, so shut up and take your medicine.  Those types of suits do nothing to help lawyers' image.

.

Loser pays, in that case, wouldn't have helped, would it?  A jury of 12 people unanimously found that McDonalds should not brew its coffee at 180 degrees because someone might just spill that coffee and get 3rd degree burns over a significant portion of their body.  The jury found that McDonalds was grossly negligent because the company had a policy of brewing its coffe at a temperature that was very dangerous.  The jury decided to punish McDonalds for that policy in order to send a message to others that it's not O.K. to hand people a cup full of a dangerous liquid out the window, knowing full well that if it slips, someone could be burned badly.  McDonalds now brews its coffee at a much lower temperature, and so do all other companies that serve coffee out of a window.  That's how tort law works, by the way--it punishes those who behave in a way that is dangerous to other people in order to eliminate the dangerous behavior.  And it works.  A big jury verdict like that makes the whole country safer.

In that case, though, because McDonalds lost, McDonalds would not only have to pay their own attorneys and the Plaintiff but also the Plaintiff's attorney.  I don't see how that would help.  But if the goal is to reduce the number of lawsuits, loser pays might do the trick.  Middle-classed people, in particular, would be very afraid to go to an attorney and bring a lawsuit because they might just lose.  I am not sure that would be beneficial, though.  Lots of people would effectively lose access to the Courts.

-Laelth
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: Laelth on June 30, 2010, 01:37:03 PM
My main issue with lawyers is that they so often go into politics.  The legal world is very different from the real world.  I would rather see more business people enter politics, as they know "boots on the ground" economics.  What is likely to inspire business expansion and job creation?   What should be common sense, seems to elude the lawyerly among us when it comes to how economic machines work.  

Interesting observation.  There was a time when well over 60% of people in the Georgia legislature were attorneys.  Now it's down to less than 25%.  From one perspective, it's good to have lawyer-legislators.  Lawyers study laws, and they do it for a living.  They argue laws in Court.  They know how to write them.  They know how to read them.  It just makes sense that you would want them to make the laws as well.  But, as attorneys become less and less popular, the sentiment you espouse becomes more widespread.  Most attoneys I know are in private practice--they either run their own business (like me) or they work for a firm that runs its own business.  To say that lawyers have no idea how business works seems a bit extreme to me.  It's also true, however, that the legislature benefits from having the perspectives of people from all walks of life and professions.  Personally, I'd like to see more poor people elected to office, but for them, given our current system, that's virtually impossible.

Thanks for the response.

-Laelth
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: DumbAss Tanker on June 30, 2010, 01:51:31 PM
I probably was.  LOL.

But I can hope you understand why.  First off, I work hard, and I take a big risk when I take a contingency fee case.  I have had quite a few where I ended up working for nothing.  Try it.  It's not fun working for something for eighteen months or two years and not getting paid.

Second, it makes no sense for Democrats to attack trial lawyers, especially given (as noted in this thread) that trial lawyers are some of the biggest donors to the Democratic Party.  The OP in that thread was shooting his own party in the foot, and I felt the need to explain that.

But, in truth, I could have gone to work for a big corporate defense firm.  I would have made a lot more money if I had done so.  Instead, I chose to sleep well at night.  Some of what I do is, actually, motivated by a (perhaps-misguided) instinct to protect and defend the weak.  Without people like me, many people would have no access whatsoever to the Courts.

Thanks for the response.

-Laelth

Unlike some of our more fiery members, I believe in keeping everything civil until there is a reason not to, like returning fire.  You're completely right about the risk level, and it is a heartbreaker to invest the effort it takes to do a contested trial and come up empty, but then again that's why the rates are so high on the contingency cases, it spreads the losses.

My colleagues back in NYC, when I lived in NJ during the 90s, who did PI often worked the defense rather than the plaintiff's side, though; the insurance company house counsel were pretty cagey about contracting out any defense work they thought they would lose, and which would therefore reflect badly on them with the bean-counting corporate overlords.

The weak and powerless do need advocates, I completely agree with your policy argument there.  Even aside from PI, look back at how the patent laws were misused to freeze out the poor bastard who invented NTSC until his patents had expired.  There is an unfortunate, and probably accurate, impression among the laity that the process has run away with the ball to the cost of the actual players.

One reform I'd like to see would be on punitive damages, relatively rare though they really are.  Presently they are a windfall to the plaintiff and his attorney, unrelated to the actual harm suffered but imposed as punishment on the losing defendant, for no particular valid policy reason.  They scare the crap out of potential defendants, a fear exploited by insurers, and I believe it would rein in a lot of the abuses yet still accomplish the 'Punishment' aspect to simply force the defendant to forfeit 90%+ of the punitives into either the general Treasury (State or Federal, depending on the court) or into a targeted public fund like the Social Security general fund, or a fund to address the huge, looming, and realistically-unfunded burden of HCRA.       
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: Laelth on June 30, 2010, 01:51:52 PM
I have no doubt there are good Lawyers out there, but we can't ignore the fact that there are Lawyers who are ambulance chasers, than there Lawyers out there who have been bilking good Doctors for years. I remember 1 time we had a patient who had serious surgery, she signed an informed consent, was told that the surgery might not work, the complications that could come about by the surgery, she has the surgery, it didn't work, and she sued the entire group of Doctors, she lost the suit but those Doctors had to pay their Lawyers a heck of a lot. Many times Doctors just settle because it's cheaper, even if they're in the right. I would love to see panels put together, in the case of Malpractice cases have this panel made up of Medical Professionals, and let them make the decision if the Lawsuit was frivilous, and if they determine it to be so then if the person who brings the case loses? they pay. I have personal experience in this because my Father was misdiagnosed, he had Leukemia (we saw the medical records) but it wasn't until 6 months later when he went to another Doctor that it was confirmed. He thought about suing but when it went into remission he decided he didn't want to do it, he wasn't greedy and he wasn't looking for a free ride like a lot of people in our society today are.

You might be surprised to hear this, but the State Bar of Georgia actively hunts down and attempts to disbar ambulance chasers.  We know they make us look bad.

And I fully understand your concern about doctors.  We need doctors, and we need to make it easier (not harder) for people to be doctors.  But Plaintiffs' attorneys don't fight against the doctors, usually.  Yes, we have to name the doctor as a defendant in the suit, but the fight is between the Plaintiff's attorney and the insurance company and their attorneys.  And it's never a fair fight.  The insurance company can afford to fight to the death, and their attorneys get paid whether they win or lose, so they're happy to bury the Plaintiff's attorney in paperwork, hoping that we'll get exhausted and give up or sell out our clients for peanuts.  Lots of times, that's exactly what happens, too.

I think the whole argument that tort reform will bring down malpractice insurance premiums is a well-orchestrated lie.  In states that have adopted various forms of "tort reform," malpractice claims have gone down but premiums have gone up, and the insurance companies are making record profits year after year.  The insurance industry has been very successful with this lie, however.  Obama even mentioned the need for tort reform in his 2010 State of the Union address.  The Democratic Party has been conquered by the insurance companies, as evidenced by the massive insurance-company enrichment that will happen when the "health insurance enrichment act" goes into effect.  It's disgusting.

But the fight, I am suggesting, is not between doctors and Plaintiffs' lawyers; it's between the insurance companies (and their servants in both the Democratic and Republican parties) and the rest of us.  At least, that's what it looks like from my perspective.

-Laelth
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: Laelth on June 30, 2010, 01:55:53 PM
So you're saying that the evil Corp. should be out of the 100K because your client is a democrat liar?

LOL.  I don't recall saying that anyone should be out that $100K.  What I said, I think, if that the rich corp. is going to be out that money no matter what if the defendant is poor.  And if rich corp. loses, they'll have to pay the Plainitff's attorney fees too.  Now, why would rich corp. want a system like that?

-Laelth
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: Laelth on June 30, 2010, 02:11:39 PM
A conversation isn't (or doesn't have to be) a flame. We can choose to have an honest one WITHOUT talking points or not. Here's what I see every time I watch television: some law firm or other is advertising a class action law suit because of some medication or other. Perhaps in A FEW cases it's justified. But every single medication carries risk, even children's Tylenol (my nephew had a weird disease when he was a baby and he could only take aspirin). Anyone who swallows a pill (or a parent who gives their children medication) knows this. Drug trials are important but they can't possibly anticipate EVERY SINGLE PROBLEM that will come along. And often, the MAJORITY of people are helped by drug.

Acutane is a good example. Both my brother and sister took this in their teens and both are in their 30's and 40's. It was dangerous then and it's dangerous now. My niece who is 14, homeschooled, and not sexually active had to be on birth control while she was using it because the risk to the baby is so great. Yet, now there's a lawsuit being trotted out. The risks are (and have been) known for a couple decades now but when someone has exhausted all other alternatives it's the only thing that works for SEVERE acne. Things like this make medications cost more and stifle research.

Frivolous lawsuits abound. McDonald's coffee is hot. So are irons. Plastic bags do not belong on the heads of 2 year olds. Light a match to someone's pajamas and they generally catch on fire or melt. At some point people have to take responsibility. Life in general carries risk. If there was some kind of law that required the loser pay (or perhaps the law firm would absorb the cost of the suit) so as to keep the frivolous out of the courts, it would prevent some of this nonsense and expense (generally passed on to consumers). Some are important but most aren't.

I'd also argue that both parties get monies from corporations. And certain industries gravitate toward certain parties. That's life and beltway politics. But the banking industry, mortgage & investment firms gave the majority of their funds to Democrats (Obama and Dodd more than most). BP gave more to Obama than any other candidate. Both have been problematic. The filthy rich are (and give more) to Democrats than Republicans. More donations to the Republican party are from smaller donations. That's just a verifiable fact. It's neither bad nor good, just a fact. And unions give more to Democrats than they do to Republicans. They are a very rich special interest that often doesn't serve (or represents) those forced to belong. Look how many union MEMBERS have conservative values (still clinging to God and guns) and work ethic. And the NEA has long ago stopped representing teachers, becoming a top down, coercive group that has too much influence on government and gives local school districts too little autonomy.

So, if industries whose unions contribute to Democrats to gain influence, it would stand to reason that the companies that hire those union workers (especially when coerced) would gravitate to the other party. That kind of tension is important for a thriving republic. It's intellectually dishonest to say "corporations give to Republicans" and that the Republicans are the party of the rich. We can't get anywhere in this country if we're going to continue to spew (and believe) outdated stereotypes. Do hang around though if you want an honest debate.

Cindie

Wow.  That's a lot to respond to.  Thanks for the toughtful post.

And, yes, as this thread proves, a civil discussion is very possible in this environment.  I suppose my first post here was a little defensive.  Sorry about that.

As for the class actions, specifically product liability actions, here in GA only one class action can be brought for each defective product (and a percentage of the award, if the Plaintiffs' win, is supposed to go to the state).  Personally, I know little about these.  I am not set up to handle a class action.  That takes a large firm with a big bankroll.  I am a solo practicioner (as, by the way, are most attorneys).  There was a time when state bar associations didn't allow any advertising.  Your reaction is part of the reason.  People think it's tacky.  All the same, I defend attorney advertising because most people don't know any attorneys, personally, and advertising has given access to legal representation that many people did not have before.

Life does carry risk, but I can assure you that if a Plaintiff survives the 12b(6) motion to dismiss, survives the motion for summary judgment, then survives and wins at trial where a jury of 12 people rule for the Plaintiff, and then the judge doesn't enter a verdict against the Plaintiff not withstanding the judgment--if all of that happens, and Plaintiff wins every step of the way, I can assure you that the Defendant took an unreasonable risk that jeopardized someone, and that a lot of people agree the defendant should be punished for it to deter others from acting so dangerously.

The deck is stacked against Plainitff so strongly that, in nearly every case, if Plaintiff wins, Plaintiff deserved to win ... big time.  And if the jury awards Plaintiff big bucks (and the Judge doesn't immediately reduce the award--which judges often do), then you can assume that that the Defendant did was really, unacceptably dangerous.

That's how this issue looks from my end, in any event.  I don't see any frivilous lawsuits.  I can't afford to work for free, nor can most Plaintiffs' attorneys.  If I don't think I can win, I don't take the case.  It simply makes no sense for any Plaintiffs' attorney to take a case (for no pay unless they win) unless they have a strong belief that they can win, and there are too many hurdles for Plaintiff to get over before a case even gets to a jury for Plaintiffs' attorney to take a bad case.

I hope that makes sense and at least sheds some light on this issue.

 :cheersmate:

-Laelth
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: USA4ME on June 30, 2010, 02:13:31 PM
Loser pays, in that case, wouldn't have helped, would it?  A jury of 12 people unanimously found that McDonalds should not brew its coffee at 180 degrees because someone might just spill that coffee and get 3rd degree burns over a significant portion of their body.  The jury found that McDonalds was grossly negligent because the company had a policy of brewing its coffe at a temperature that was very dangerous.  The jury decided to punish McDonalds for that policy in order to send a message to others that it's not O.K. to hand people a cup full of a dangerous liquid out the window, knowing full well that if it slips, someone could be burned badly.  McDonalds now brews its coffee at a much lower temperature, and so do all other companies that serve coffee out of a window.  That's how tort law works, by the way--it punishes those who behave in a way that is dangerous to other people in order to eliminate the dangerous behavior.  And it works.  A big jury verdict like that makes the whole country safer.

In that case, though, because McDonalds lost, McDonalds would not only have to pay their own attorneys and the Plaintiff but also the Plaintiff's attorney.  I don't see how that would help.  But if the goal is to reduce the number of lawsuits, loser pays might do the trick.  Middle-classed people, in particular, would be very afraid to go to an attorney and bring a lawsuit because they might just lose.  I am not sure that would be beneficial, though.  Lots of people would effectively lose access to the Courts.

-Laelth

My comments on the two were not to be taken together, but I can see how it was confusing.

Personally, I have no sympathy with someone who doesn't realize that if you spill hot coffee in your lap it's gonna sting.  If it had been me, the last thing I'd be doing is suing McDonald's, but rather I'd making note that spilling hot coffee hurts.  I mean really, if we live in a society where you have to tell grown people to not spill hot coffee in their lap, then there's not enough laws and regulations to save us from ourselves.

The thing people get fed up with are the frivilous lawsuits.  One might say that's the price we pay for having a court system in the manner that we do, but it is nevertheless frustrating to average people who see these types of things and know that some dimwit who can't hold a cup of coffee is screwing things up for the rest of us.

.
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: Ballygrl on June 30, 2010, 02:14:33 PM
That's a good question and one that I can't honestly answer.  I don't do any criminal defense work.

But this is what I was taught in law school.  Suspects have rights, and those rights belong to all of us.  Criminal defense attorneys are what stand between us and a police state.  When the rights of any suspect are violated by the police or the criminal justice system, the Court is supposed to protect all of our rights by not letting the police or the State get away with violating anyone's rights.  Now, if a suspect admits to his or her attorney that he or she is guilty, the attorney can still fight for a favorable plea bargain, but can't condone perjury, i.e. can't allow the suspect to get on the stand and lie.  When that happens, attorney is supposed to withdraw from representing that client.  But if client says he or she is innocent, attorney is duty bound to represent client zealously (because we all have the right to zealous representation), and we lose that right if there are no attorneys willing to do it.

Does that make nay sense?  Thanks for the response.

-Laelth

Thanks! glad you pointed out the part about the client admitting guilt and what basically is the Attorney's responsibility is if that happens. So in the cases of the Menendez Brothers and OJ Simpson, odds are they never admitted guilt to their Attorney's. A part of me thought that even if guilt was admitted the Attorney would still turn around and defend them.
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: Ballygrl on June 30, 2010, 02:23:02 PM
A conversation isn't (or doesn't have to be) a flame. We can choose to have an honest one WITHOUT talking points or not. Here's what I see every time I watch television: some law firm or other is advertising a class action law suit because of some medication or other. Perhaps in A FEW cases it's justified. But every single medication carries risk, even children's Tylenol (my nephew had a weird disease when he was a baby and he could only take aspirin). Anyone who swallows a pill (or a parent who gives their children medication) knows this. Drug trials are important but they can't possibly anticipate EVERY SINGLE PROBLEM that will come along. And often, the MAJORITY of people are helped by drug.

Acutane is a good example. Both my brother and sister took this in their teens and both are in their 30's and 40's. It was dangerous then and it's dangerous now. My niece who is 14, homeschooled, and not sexually active had to be on birth control while she was using it because the risk to the baby is so great. Yet, now there's a lawsuit being trotted out. The risks are (and have been) known for a couple decades now but when someone has exhausted all other alternatives it's the only thing that works for SEVERE acne. Things like this make medications cost more and stifle research.

Frivolous lawsuits abound. McDonald's coffee is hot. So are irons. Plastic bags do not belong on the heads of 2 year olds. Light a match to someone's pajamas and they generally catch on fire or melt. At some point people have to take responsibility. Life in general carries risk. If there was some kind of law that required the loser pay (or perhaps the law firm would absorb the cost of the suit) so as to keep the frivolous out of the courts, it would prevent some of this nonsense and expense (generally passed on to consumers). Some are important but most aren't.

I'd also argue that both parties get monies from corporations. And certain industries gravitate toward certain parties. That's life and beltway politics. But the banking industry, mortgage & investment firms gave the majority of their funds to Democrats (Obama and Dodd more than most). BP gave more to Obama than any other candidate. Both have been problematic. The filthy rich are (and give more) to Democrats than Republicans. More donations to the Republican party are from smaller donations. That's just a verifiable fact. It's neither bad nor good, just a fact. And unions give more to Democrats than they do to Republicans. They are a very rich special interest that often doesn't serve (or represents) those forced to belong. Look how many union MEMBERS have conservative values (still clinging to God and guns) and work ethic. And the NEA has long ago stopped representing teachers, becoming a top down, coercive group that has too much influence on government and gives local school districts too little autonomy.

So, if industries whose unions contribute to Democrats to gain influence, it would stand to reason that the companies that hire those union workers (especially when coerced) would gravitate to the other party. That kind of tension is important for a thriving republic. It's intellectually dishonest to say "corporations give to Republicans" and that the Republicans are the party of the rich. We can't get anywhere in this country if we're going to continue to spew (and believe) outdated stereotypes. Do hang around though if you want an honest debate.

Cindie

I was given Levaquin a few times for Bronchitis, I'm the type of person who actually reads the precautions, drug interaction etc. it was always mentioned in the precautions that if you have tendon problems you shouldn't use Levaquin, at that time I didn't have tendon problems, but a few years down the road I did, I was given Levaquin again and this time I had a reaction in a tendon, but I didn't let my Doctor know I was having tendon issues, so it wasn't my Doctor's fault or the fault of the company that I didn't take heed. Now all of a sudden I'm seeing commercials on Levaquin and if you've had a tendon issue because of it to call this Lawyers office. Although it seems that most people have had a problem with pre-existing tendon issues, I've heard there are spontaneous cases that pop up where people have never had tendon issues and they tore while taking Levaquin. There are times though where you need to weigh the risks, Levaquin is an amazing drug if you need it.
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: delilahmused on June 30, 2010, 02:26:29 PM
Interesting observation.  There was a time when well over 60% of people in the Georgia legislature were attorneys.  Now it's down to less than 25%.  From one perspective, it's good to have lawyer-legislators.  Lawyers study laws, and they do it for a living.  They argue laws in Court.  They know how to write them.  They know how to read them.  It just makes sense that you would want them to make the laws as well.  But, as attorneys become less and less popular, the sentiment you espouse becomes more widespread.  Most attoneys I know are in private practice--they either run their own business (like me) or they work for a firm that runs its own business.  To say that lawyers have no idea how business works seems a bit extreme to me.  It's also true, however, that the legislature benefits from having the perspectives of people from all walks of life and professions.  Personally, I'd like to see more poor people elected to office, but for them, given our current system, that's virtually impossible.

Thanks for the response.

-Laelth

I actually don't know that's always a good thing. The founders who wrote the Constitution which is the document on which all laws are (supposedly) based weren't all lawyers. Some had college, some not. They were rich & poor, lawyers, laborers, frontiersmen, store keepers, farmers, black & white, religious and not, Jewish, protestant, slaveowners and those who found the practice abhorrent. Most, even those whose education consisted of reading the Bible between farm chores, were still very well educated. The OT, Greek philosophy, Roman law, all were known to early Americans. A well-informed people don't need lawyers writing laws. Case in point: the Constitution has guided our country for over 200 years. Everyone from my (extremely wise) 91 year old grandmother with a 4th grade education to my Marine Corps son with a degree can understand and apply it to their lives. Then there's the health care bill that's so long and convoluted even the writers are discovering there's too many unintended consequences. NO law, NONE should be so difficult that any citizen can't pick it up and read and understand. Nor should any law be passed that hasn't been read by the legislators voting on it. We shouldn't have to "wait until it's passed" to see what's in it. Convoluted laws give government and lawyers more power than the people. The government serves US, not the other way around. It's why most conservatives prefer local government. The feds are too big and too far removed from the people to work FOR them anymore.

Look, I live in Oregon. It's my home and I love it but I'm well aware it's a very liberal state and I probably won't think many of the laws passed are just swell. But I have the CHOICE to move to Georgia or Michigan or Alaska if I want a different kind of lifestyle or legislature. I'm probably more libertarian than most here when it comes to gay marriage and if Massachusetts wants to pass a gay marriage law, more power to them. That doesn't mean Alabama should have to recognize said marriage. Does that complicate things? Possibly, but that doesn't make it bad.

It's why I got so ticked when the feds under Bush were fighting Oregon's right to die law. I didn't vote for it and given the chance I would vote against it again. But, the feds need to BUTT out because it's what WE voted for. Same with states that want to use capital punishment (or not), legalize medical marijuana (or not), or outlaw abortion (or not). When a monolithic, impersonal entity does something it can only paint everyone with a broad brush. That's not the way the founders intended it and isn't the way this big beautiful, complicated, diverse nation should be.

Cindie
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: USA4ME on June 30, 2010, 02:34:02 PM
I don't see any frivilous lawsuits.

Wow, I do, and way too often.

Had I been on the jury, I wouldn't have charged McDonald's because someone spilled their hot coffee.  Everyone knows if you spill hot coffee on yourself you're likely going to get burned.  After the trial, I would have been inclined to walk over to the Plaintiff with a cup of hot coffee, and then start tilting the cup their way while saying "Here, let me remind you of why you need to be careful when you drink hot coffee."  But, I can be that way sometimes.

.
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: Laelth on June 30, 2010, 02:34:53 PM
Unlike some of our more fiery members, I believe in keeping everything civil until there is a reason not to, like returning fire.  You're completely right about the risk level, and it is a heartbreaker to invest the effort it takes to do a contested trial and come up empty, but then again that's why the rates are so high on the contingency cases, it spreads the losses.

My colleagues back in NYC, when I lived in NJ during the 90s, who did PI often worked the defense rather than the plaintiff's side, though; the insurance company house counsel were pretty cagey about contracting out any defense work they thought they would lose, and which would therefore reflect badly on them with the bean-counting corporate overlords.

The weak and powerless do need advocates, I completely agree with your policy argument there.  Even aside from PI, look back at how the patent laws were misused to freeze out the poor bastard who invented NTSC until his patents had expired.  There is an unfortunate, and probably accurate, impression among the laity that the process has run away with the ball to the cost of the actual players.

One reform I'd like to see would be on punitive damages, relatively rare though they really are.  Presently they are a windfall to the plaintiff and his attorney, unrelated to the actual harm suffered but imposed as punishment on the losing defendant, for no particular valid policy reason.  They scare the crap out of potential defendants, a fear exploited by insurers, and I believe it would rein in a lot of the abuses yet still accomplish the 'Punishment' aspect to simply force the defendant to forfeit 90%+ of the punitives into either the general Treasury (State or Federal, depending on the court) or into a targeted public fund like the Social Security general fund, or a fund to address the huge, looming, and realistically-unfunded burden of HCRA.      

Hey, thanks for the thoughtful and understanding post.   :cheersmate:

But I have to add that losing a contingency fee case is not just heartbreaking, it's bankrupting.  I really can't afford to do all that work for free.  Some of the more wealthy Plaintiffs' firms can afford to lose a few ... a few, but even they can't afford to lose many.  And you're right to say that state bar association allow contingent fee contracts to make up for the fact that Plaintiffs' attorneys are going to lose a few.  It is hoped that they will be able to make up those losses on cases that they win.  But "tort reform" is making this harder and harder.  If the insurance companies had their way, they would drive all the Plaintiffs' attorneys out of business and then nobody, no matter how badly injured, would have the ability to sue because there would be no lawyers willing to do it.

And I have to disagree with you on the issue of punitive damages.  They do serve a useful social purpose (or, they're supposed to, at least).  They're supposed to deter risky behavior.  Neither McDonalds, nor any other restaurant who serves coffee from a window, now serves it at a dangerously hot temperature.  Why?  Because McDonalds got slapped hard with a big punitive damages award to deter that kind of risky behavior.  If the award had been small, it would not have been an effective deterrent.  McDonalds would have just written it off or factored the cost of the verdict into the cost of doing business.  Instaed, with a big (and unlimited) punitive damages award, McDonalds got the message and ended its dangerous corporate practice.  Other companies got the message too.  In this way, the risk of a big punitive damages award makes us all safer.  Some of these corps. are so big and so wealthy that they won't change their risky behavior without the threat of a huge judgment against them.  Limiting the size of punitive damages takes away the deterrent effect of tort law.

Despite this, legislatures around the country are moving to limit punitive damages.  I think this is a mistake.

-Laelth
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: delilahmused on June 30, 2010, 02:35:55 PM
Wow.  That's a lot to respond to.  Thanks for the toughtful post.

And, yes, as this thread proves, a civil discussion is very possible in this environment.  I suppose my first post here was a little defensive.  Sorry about that.

As for the class actions, specifically product liability actions, here in GA only one class action can be brought for each defective product (and a percentage of the award, if the Plaintiffs' win, is supposed to go to the state).  Personally, I know little about these.  I am not set up to handle a class action.  That takes a large firm with a big bankroll.  I am a solo practicioner (as, by the way, are most attorneys).  There was a time when state bar associations didn't allow any advertising.  Your reaction is part of the reason.  People think it's tacky.  All the same, I defend attorney advertising because most people don't know any attorneys, personally, and advertising has given access to legal representation that many people did not have before.

Life does carry risk, but I can assure you that if a Plaintiff survives the 12b(6) motion to dismiss, survives the motion for summary judgment, then survives and wins at trial where a jury of 12 people rule for the Plaintiff, and then the judge doesn't enter a verdict against the Plaintiff not withstanding the judgment--if all of that happens, and Plaintiff wins every step of the way, I can assure you that the Defendant took an unreasonable risk that jeopardized someone, and that a lot of people agree the defendant should be punished for it to deter others from acting so dangerously.

The deck is stacked against Plainitff so strongly that, in nearly every case, if Plaintiff wins, Plaintiff deserved to win ... big time.  And if the jury awards Plaintiff big bucks (and the Judge doesn't immediately reduce the award--which judges often do), then you can assume that that the Defendant did was really, unacceptably dangerous.

That's how this issue looks from my end, in any event.  I don't see any frivilous lawsuits.  I can't afford to work for free, nor can most Plaintiffs' attorneys.  If I don't think I can win, I don't take the case.  It simply makes no sense for any Plaintiffs' attorney to take a case (for no pay unless they win) unless they have a strong belief that they can win, and there are too many hurdles for Plaintiff to get over before a case even gets to a jury for Plaintiffs' attorney to take a bad case.

I hope that makes sense and at least sheds some light on this issue.

 :cheersmate:

-Laelth

I have no problem lawyers advertising either. And I'm not sure I know any lawyers so your perspective is helpful. I didn't realize getting a lawsuit to trial was so complicated.

Cindie
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: Texacon on June 30, 2010, 02:42:42 PM
The problem I have with PI attorneys is; The whole world must be painted as dangerous.  If an attorney for a company didn't point out that it might be dangerous to ride a bicycle at night THEN someone buys said bike and rides it at night and gets hurt .... well then THAT COMPANY SHOULD HAVE WARNED THE PUBLIC!!!!

See, it's the stupid shit that pisses off the masses ... all so attorneys on both sides can get paid.

Insurance companies and lawyers run our country right now and I think it's sad.

KC
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: Laelth on June 30, 2010, 02:53:57 PM
Wow, I do, and way too often.

Had I been on the jury, I wouldn't have charged McDonald's because someone spilled their hot coffee.  Everyone knows if you spill hot coffee on yourself you're likely going to get burned.  After the trial, I would have been inclined to walk over to the Plaintiff with a cup of hot coffee, and then start tilting the cup their way while saying "Here, let me remind you of why you need to be careful when you drink hot coffee."  But, I can be that way sometimes.

.

But why is it O.K. for McDonalds to brew coffee at 180 degrees when they could brew it at 130 degrees and have it be safe?  The company had a stated policy to brew the coffe at a temperature they knew was dangerous, and someone got third degree burns from it--required skin grafts, lots of pain and suffering, and all because McDonalds wanted to cover up how bad their coffee tastes.  And what if the person who handed the coffee out the window accidentally dropped it and Plaintiff didn't do anything wrong?  Is it fair for Plaintiff to just deal with 3rd degree burns because they ordered cofee and should have known it might burn them?

In this case the jury ruled that McDonalds took an unacceptable risk in deciding to brew their coffee that hot.  Now, fast food places don't do that.  They brew their coffee at a safer temperature because the McDonalds case taught them an important lesson in safety (one they would not have learned if it had not been for that big jury award).  That's what tort law is supposed to do ... make us all safer.  And it works.

-Laelth
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: Laelth on June 30, 2010, 03:03:57 PM
I have no problem lawyers advertising either. And I'm not sure I know any lawyers so your perspective is helpful. I didn't realize getting a lawsuit to trial was so complicated.

Cindie

Smile.  Yeah, it's really hard to get to trial.

And I agree with you about the Federal Government as you described your concerns about it in another post.  It is clear that the Federal Government is no longer responsive to the will of the people.  I am not sure what to do about this, however. 

-Laelth
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: Laelth on June 30, 2010, 03:17:45 PM
The problem I have with PI attorneys is; The whole world must be painted as dangerous.  If an attorney for a company didn't point out that it might be dangerous to ride a bicycle at night THEN someone buys said bike and rides it at night and gets hurt .... well then THAT COMPANY SHOULD HAVE WARNED THE PUBLIC!!!!

See, it's the stupid shit that pisses off the masses ... all so attorneys on both sides can get paid.

Insurance companies and lawyers run our country right now and I think it's sad.

KC

You're right to say that tort attorneys do see the world in terms of safety and risk.  They're trained to do that.  It's how they make a living.  And the particular area of the law that you're describing (failure to warn) law, is one that I am not terribly familiar with.  I have never had a "failure to warn" case.  Those silly labels you see on a lot of products are defense attorneys' silly attempts to head off a "failure to warn" case.  Sometimes those labels work, too, and people injured by those products can't win in court because, even though they were injured by the product, they were "warned," and therefore the company that made the thing isn't responsible for the injury.

I fully agree with you, however, that insurance comapnies (and their lawyers) are running the country and that this is unacceptable (so long as you throw in the bankers too).

 :cheersmate:

-Laelth
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: Laelth on June 30, 2010, 03:31:53 PM
Thanks! glad you pointed out the part about the client admitting guilt and what basically is the Attorney's responsibility is if that happens. So in the cases of the Menendez Brothers and OJ Simpson, odds are they never admitted guilt to their Attorney's. A part of me thought that even if guilt was admitted the Attorney would still turn around and defend them.

I suspect your suspicion is valid.  There probably are some attorneys that will argue for their client's innocence, even if they know their client is guilty.  They shouldn't do that, but, if the money is right, I suspect they will.

But I can't speak from experience, here.  As I said, I don't handle criminal defense cases.

-Laelth
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: Karin on June 30, 2010, 03:34:42 PM
Quote
Personally, I'd like to see more poor people elected to office, but for them, given our current system, that's virtually impossible.
I live in Northern New York, and our two legislative bodies are the Assembly and the Senate.  In my district, for Assembly, a "regular Joe" type of lady, a democrat, ran in 2008.  For a living, she did all kinds of stuff in the family business, such as waitressing, cleaning, and the like.  Her campaign theme was something like "I know hard work.  I will work so hard for you."   She was roundly riduculed.  Well, she won.  That sounds like a triumph-of-the-little guy made-for-TV movie, doesn't it?  Only thing is, I doubt she can forcefully represent us against the sharks in New York State politics.  Addie Jennie Russell vs. Sheldon Silver?  
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: Ballygrl on June 30, 2010, 03:39:44 PM
I live in Northern New York, and our two legislative bodies are the Assembly and the Senate.  In my district, for Assembly, a "regular Joe" type of lady, a democrat, ran in 2008.  For a living, she did all kinds of stuff in the family business, such as waitressing, cleaning, and the like.  Her campaign theme was something like "I know hard work.  I will work so hard for you."   She was roundly riduculed.  Well, she won.  That sounds like a triumph-of-the-little guy made-for-TV movie, doesn't it?  Only thing is, I doubt she can forcefully represent us against the sharks in New York State politics.  Addie Jennie Russell vs. Sheldon Silver?

She'd be totally strong-armed by Sheldon Silver, there's a big divide between upstate and downstate.
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: Tucker on June 30, 2010, 03:43:28 PM
LOL.  I don't recall saying that anyone should be out that $100K.  What I said, I think, if that the rich corp. is going to be out that money no matter what if the defendant is poor.  And if rich corp. loses, they'll have to pay the Plainitff's attorney fees too.  Now, why would rich corp. want a system like that?

-Laelth

That is correct. You didn't touch on it.

In your scenario, the client that lied in order to file a lawsuit, which resulted in a business being out 100K in legal expenses, should be able to force the Plaintiff as a Indentured servant after  losing the lawsuit until the fees have been satisfied. Cut down on frivolous lawsuits.

Hell. If you log onto DU, half the people there are screaming sue, sue for whatever or whomever anytime someone feels wronged.
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: DumbAss Tanker on June 30, 2010, 03:43:45 PM
Laelth, I have no problem with Mickey-D's having to pay punitive damages, contrary to all the hostile press, they really did act like total a-holes in that case until they had their butts handed to them for it by the jury.

Yes, there certainly is a social utility to punitive damages, as we all know you can't put a corporation in jail, after all.  What I have a problem with is it being a windfall for the plaintiff and plaintiff's attorney over and above all actual compensatory damages.  I'm saying that once the plaintiff's legitimate compensation is fully addressed (Or as fully as the court buys into anyway), any additional punitive level of damages probably ought to be a applied in a more socially useful way than enriching those who have already been paid in full for the harm they suffered. 
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: Laelth on June 30, 2010, 04:08:01 PM
That is correct. You didn't touch on it.

In your scenario, the client that lied in order to file a lawsuit, which resulted in a business being out 100K in legal expenses, should be able to force the Plaintiff as a Indentured servant after  losing the lawsuit until the fees have been satisfied. Cut down on frivolous lawsuits.

Hell. If you log onto DU, half the people there are screaming sue, sue for whatever or whomever anytime someone feels wronged.

Smile.  I understand your frustration, but we abolished indentured servitude a while ago.

And I will not be held responsible for what gets posted on DU for reasons that should be apparent.  ;)

-Laelth
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: Tucker on June 30, 2010, 04:15:32 PM
Smile.  I understand your frustration, but we abolished indentured servitude a while ago.

And I will not be held responsible for what gets posted on DU for reasons that should be apparent.  ;)

-Laelth

We abolished slavery as well. Now explain to me all of the social entitlement programs that keep a large segment of the populace  reliant on the Government for their existence.

(I know. I drifted)
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: Laelth on June 30, 2010, 04:27:30 PM
Laelth, I have no problem with Mickey-D's having to pay punitive damages, contrary to all the hostile press, they really did act like total a-holes in that case until they had their butts handed to them for it by the jury.

Yes, there certainly is a social utility to punitive damages, as we all know you can't put a corporation in jail, after all.  What I have a problem with is it being a windfall for the plaintiff and plaintiff's attorney over and above all actual compensatory damages.  I'm saying that once the plaintiff's legitimate compensation is fully addressed (Or as fully as the court buys into anyway), any additional punitive level of damages probably ought to be a applied in a more socially useful way than enriching those who have already been paid in full for the harm they suffered.  

You make a valid point, and several state legislatures have toyed with the idea of taking away windfall awards from Plaintiffs and their attorneys.  In Georgia, we have such a law for products liability cases.  Over a certain amount, all the windfall goes diectly into the state coffers (or, that's what the law says should happen, in any event).

But let me whine a bit.  ;)

Can't I please, please, get just a little windfall?  I mean, if I ever get a case that gives me a big jury award, I will have been been working for my client for years, for no money at all, risking my life, my marriage, and my economic future just on the hope that I might finally get paid well.  And if I do get that big award, it'll be appealed, and then I have to win at the appellate level too.  And that will take another couple of years.  By that time I will be sick of my client, and I will never want to see that person again, but I will have to keep working, and working, and working, for no pay, until it finally (maybe) pays off.  When the insurance comapny finally gives up, can't I please, please get some windfall?  I mean, I didn't bust my tail in law school and accumulate massive student loan debt just to be broke and constantly strapped for cash.  As a Plaintiff's attorney about the only chance I will ever have to retire comfortably is to win a big case and get that windfall.  Can't I have that?  Please?

LOL.  End whining.

Honestly, the main reason to have the big windfall go to Plaintiff and Plaintiff's attorney is to insure that some attorneys (insane ones like me) will still be willing to actually fight for the rights of the injured under circumstances where they work for years without getting paid.  Without the possibility that I might, one day, win a big one, it makes no sense to do what I do, and unless people like me are willing to do it, all injured people will lose their right to sue (because no attorneys will be willing to represent the injured).

Hope that makes sense, and thanks for the response.

-Laelth
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: DumbAss Tanker on June 30, 2010, 04:34:33 PM
(Channeling 'Idiocracy' here...)

Wow, you like money TOO!?!

 :rotf:
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: Hawkgirl on June 30, 2010, 05:03:45 PM
If a lawyer and an IRS agent were both drowning, and you could only save one of them, would you go to lunch or read the paper?
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: USA4ME on June 30, 2010, 05:07:53 PM
But why is it O.K. for McDonalds to brew coffee at 180 degrees when they could brew it at 130 degrees and have it be safe?  The company had a stated policy to brew the coffe at a temperature they knew was dangerous, and someone got third degree burns from it--required skin grafts, lots of pain and suffering, and all because McDonalds wanted to cover up how bad their coffee tastes.  And what if the person who handed the coffee out the window accidentally dropped it and Plaintiff didn't do anything wrong?  Is it fair for Plaintiff to just deal with 3rd degree burns because they ordered cofee and should have known it might burn them?

In this case the jury ruled that McDonalds took an unacceptable risk in deciding to brew their coffee that hot.  Now, fast food places don't do that.  They brew their coffee at a safer temperature because the McDonalds case taught them an important lesson in safety (one they would not have learned if it had not been for that big jury award).  That's what tort law is supposed to do ... make us all safer.  And it works.

-Laelth

The temperature any business brews it's coffee is up to them, the customer is free to ask what the temp is and not buy it if they don't want it.  How the coffee tastes is a matter of opinion, and the customer spilling the coffee on themselves is not the same as an employee spilling it on them.

Customers own fault, not McDonald's.  It's why we need tort reform.......... badly.

.
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: Hawkgirl on June 30, 2010, 05:18:18 PM
The temperature any business brews it's coffee is up to them, the customer is free to ask what the temp is and not buy it if they don't want it.  How the coffee tastes is a matter of opinion, and the customer spilling the coffee on themselves is not the same as an employee spilling it on them.

Customers own fault, not McDonald's.  It's why we need tort reform.......... badly.

.
Agreed.  It's a frivilous lawsuit....now we have a woman suing Google for giving her wrong directions.  Tort reform is needed badly.
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: Laelth on June 30, 2010, 05:26:50 PM
The temperature any business brews it's coffee is up to them, the customer is free to ask what the temp is and not buy it if they don't want it.  How the coffee tastes is a matter of opinion, and the customer spilling the coffee on themselves is not the same as an employee spilling it on them.

Customers own fault, not McDonald's.  It's why we need tort reform.......... badly.

.

Well, that's fine so long as you're willing to pick up the tab for the injury instead of the insurance company or the big corp.  Tort law works on this, simple principle:  Someone will pay for every injury.

If a tort suit is successful, the defendant who was negligent or reckless pays for the injury (usually his or her insurance company does).

If a tort suit is unsuccessful, the innocent plaintiff, who did nothing wrong, theoretically pays for the injury, but if the plaintiff is poor (most of us are too poor to bear the cost of a serious injury), then "We the People" of the United States pay the cost of the injury (through various social services). If plaintiff loses the suit, he or she normally becomes a massive burden on the state.

So, for every injury, we have a choice--either the state pays or the insurance industry pays. People like me (tort attorneys) do our best to make sure that liable defendants pay for the injuries they cause. They usually do so through their own insurance, but I can go after their corporate or personal assets if they don't have adequate insurance. Defense attorneys try to make sure that their clients (the insurance companies) don't pay for the injuries their insureds caused. If the defense attorney wins, that means plaintiff bears the cost of the injury (and "We the People" usually pick up the tab).

Here's how it looks from my perspective:

Republicans favor tort reform as a means of protecting insurance companies. That's it. They want, as always, to privatize profits and socialize risks. They want the government to "bail out their rich clients" when they make mistakes. As usual. Tort reform (like caps on damages and various rules that make it harder for plaintiffs to win) merely shifts the burden for paying for injuries from the insurance companies to the state.  And now the Democrats are singing the same tune.

But it's our choice.  Someone will pay--either us, or the party that actually created an unreasonable risk.

-Laelth
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: Laelth on June 30, 2010, 05:27:49 PM
(Channeling 'Idiocracy' here...)

Wow, you like money TOO!?!

 :rotf:

LOL.  Yes, me too.

-Laelth
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: thundley4 on June 30, 2010, 05:31:09 PM
LOL.  Yes, me too.

-Laelth

If you ever win one of those big "payday lawsuits", then won't you become the "wealthy" enemy  of most of the DU'ers?
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: Laelth on June 30, 2010, 05:47:26 PM
If you ever win one of those big "payday lawsuits", then won't you become the "wealthy" enemy  of most of the DU'ers?

LOL.  That won't hurt my feelings too much.   :-)

-Laelth
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: Thor on June 30, 2010, 05:59:25 PM
First of all, I'm all for PI attorneys in most cases, especially when battling the insurance companies. My experience was I got rear-ended by an 18 year old kid. Herniated two disks in my neck, but I didn't know that at the time. The kid's insurance paid some money for damages, but not nearly enough to cover the surgery, the loss of income, the permanent damage, etc. The attorney I initially hired took the case on contingency. He got me a settlement fairly quickly. However, because the kid's insurance was bare minimums, he really didn't pursue it much further. Ultimately, he referred me to another PI attorney in the Twin Cities. Since I had "Under-insured motorist" insurance on my insurance, the "new" attorney called and asked why didn't they want to pay?? They fought us and it came down to the day that I had to give my statement to the opposing side and answer questions posed to me by them. Ultimately, they asked one question to which they obviously didn't know the answer to and were totally unprepared for the answer. Did I have any witnesses to the accident? I answered, "yes" and named the witness. They folded up their notebooks and concluded the session. I saw the sinking look on their faces. At that moment, I knew that we had them!! (The police statement was vague, ambiguous and full of erroneous reporting.)

Now, as far as things that require the usage of a little common sense, like the McDonald's fiasco, I don't agree with those. First of all, to brew a decent cup of coffee requires a temp of 190°F MINIMUM. One doesn't necessarily want to boil the coffee, but it needs to be hot. Hell, even their coffee cups were marked "HOT" for many years. Like, duh, coffee IS HOT!! That's something we should have learned by the time we were three years old. As a result of the McDonald's lawsuit, we now have substandard coffee makers that won't brew a decent cup of coffee. In short, the temperature isn't high enough to do the job.

The facts of life are that if one is stupid, careless or simply abuses things, Murphy's law will strike. Look at playgrounds. How the hell did any of us over 40 survive our childhood?? What about seat belts?? I never had to wear a seat belt until long after I was an adult. Sometimes I did, sometimes, I didn't. Even with a seatbelt in use, I still suffered a whiplash injury. Did I sue Ford because the seats weren't designed for my height and caused my neck to hit the headrest at the wrong height?? No. By today's thinking, most of us would have been seriously injured or killed by the things we grew up with and even enjoyed. The bigger fact is that we can't protect everybody from every thing. People need to "man up" and take some responsibility for their lives.
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: Thor on June 30, 2010, 06:00:36 PM
BTW, Laelth, welcome. I hope to see you around more often.
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: Laelth on June 30, 2010, 06:13:24 PM
I live in Northern New York, and our two legislative bodies are the Assembly and the Senate.  In my district, for Assembly, a "regular Joe" type of lady, a democrat, ran in 2008.  For a living, she did all kinds of stuff in the family business, such as waitressing, cleaning, and the like.  Her campaign theme was something like "I know hard work.  I will work so hard for you."   She was roundly riduculed.  Well, she won.  That sounds like a triumph-of-the-little guy made-for-TV movie, doesn't it?  Only thing is, I doubt she can forcefully represent us against the sharks in New York State politics.  Addie Jennie Russell vs. Sheldon Silver?  

That's an uplifting story, and I hope she survives it.  But, as you know, for both major parties the rule in the legislature is "go along to get along."  If she won't toe the party line, the party will make life very hard on her.  It's hard for a truly ethical person to survive for long in politics.  Some do, but it's rare.  I wish her well.

-Laelth
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: SSG Snuggle Bunny on June 30, 2010, 06:17:24 PM
Well, that's fine so long as you're willing to pick up the tab for the injury instead of the insurance company or the big corp.  Tort law works on this, simple principle:  Someone will pay for every injury...

-Laelth
We the People are paying regardless.

We pay for their social services or pass-through costs when the business has its premiums go up because of incessant lawsuits. We pay the taxman or the cashier but we pay.

There has got to be a balance somewhere.
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: Ballygrl on June 30, 2010, 06:25:24 PM
LOL.  That won't hurt my feelings too much.   :-)

-Laelth

OK, I like Laelth LOL. It's so nice to speak with a sane DU'er.
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: BlueStateSaint on June 30, 2010, 06:29:03 PM
Laelth, welcome.  I hope that you don't go full-moonbat on us anytime soon--Hell, at all.  If you do, we'll probably smack each other around a bit lining up to have a shot at ya.

I really haven't followed this thread--I had to move file folders at work today (a line of them sxity-five feet long, one at a time, three times) and I didn't get a chance to read it.  I'll read it, but I'm not in any way connected with the legal profession . . . so I'll be at a disadvantage.  (Not saying that I don't have some strong opinions, but I'll hold them.)
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: Laelth on June 30, 2010, 06:29:34 PM
First of all, I'm all for PI attorneys in most cases, especially when battling the insurance companies. My experience was I got rear-ended by an 18 year old kid. Herniated two disks in my neck, but I didn't know that at the time. The kid's insurance paid some money for damages, but not nearly enough to cover the surgery, the loss of income, the permanent damage, etc. The attorney I initially hired took the case on contingency. He got me a settlement fairly quickly. However, because the kid's insurance was bare minimums, he really didn't pursue it much further. Ultimately, he referred me to another PI attorney in the Twin Cities. Since I had "Under-insured motorist" insurance on my insurance, the "new" attorney called and asked why didn't they want to pay?? They fought us and it came down to the day that I had to give my statement to the opposing side and answer questions posed to me by them. Ultimately, they asked one question to which they obviously didn't know the answer to and were totally unprepared for the answer. Did I have any witnesses to the accident? I answered, "yes" and named the witness. They folded up their notebooks and concluded the session. I saw the sinking look on their faces. At that moment, I knew that we had them!! (The police statement was vague, ambiguous and full of erroneous reporting.)

Now, as far as things that require the usage of a little common sense, like the McDonald's fiasco, I don't agree with those. First of all, to brew a decent cup of coffee requires a temp of 190°F MINIMUM. One doesn't necessarily want to boil the coffee, but it needs to be hot. Hell, even their coffee cups were marked "HOT" for many years. Like, duh, coffee IS HOT!! That's something we should have learned by the time we were three years old. As a result of the McDonald's lawsuit, we now have substandard coffee makers that won't brew a decent cup of coffee. In short, the temperature isn't high enough to do the job.

The facts of life are that if one is stupid, careless or simply abuses things, Murphy's law will strike. Look at playgrounds. How the hell did any of us over 40 survive our childhood?? What about seat belts?? I never had to wear a seat belt until long after I was an adult. Sometimes I did, sometimes, I didn't. Even with a seatbelt in use, I still suffered a whiplash injury. Did I sue Ford because the seats weren't designed for my height and caused my neck to hit the headrest at the wrong height?? No. By today's thinking, most of us would have been seriously injured or killed by the things we grew up with and even enjoyed. The bigger fact is that we can't protect everybody from every thing. People need to "man up" and take some responsibility for their lives.

Thanks for the interesting response and for the kind words in the follow-up post.

I realize that we, as a society, have become more risk averse over the past several decades, but it's important to understand why.  It was the insurance companies that pushed for all the seat-belt and safety laws.  Why?  Because they didn't want to pay out claims for injuries, and so our state legislatures gave them exactly what they wanted (as state legislatures regularly do).  And this wasn't a partisan thing.  At this point in time, both major parties are fully in the pockets of the insurance companies.  Same goes for playground equipment.  Insurance companies dictated major safety improvements to reduce their exposure to claims.

Is this a good thing?  I don't know.  We lost some freedom.  We gained some safety.  Ben Franklin's statement on this subject comes to mind, but if you're looking for someone to blame, look no farther than the insurance industry itself.  They bought our state legislatures and got exactly what they wanted.

As for the appropriate temperature to brew coffee, I know nothing other than that the coffee that comes out of my pot doesn't give me 3rd degree burns.  Perhaps I am drinking bad coffee, but I prefer it much cooler than 180 degrees.

 :cheersmate:

-Laelth
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: Texacon on June 30, 2010, 06:30:51 PM
Quote
Republicans favor tort reform as a means of protecting insurance companies.

Along the line of MSB's post above;

You speak of insurance companies and corporations as most liberals do.  As if they are some sort of secret society worthy of being run out of town on a rail for some reason.

What you are failing at is realizing 'Republicans' are not protecting insurance companies OR corporations.  They are trying to protect PEOPLE.  Isn't that, afterall, what makes up an insurance company or *shudder* a corporation?

Bottom line is WE the PEOPLE pay.  Always.  You can't make it otherwise.  Governments produce nothing therefore have nothing to pay unless and until they confiscate it from someONE.  This is the worst mistake, in my very humble opinion, that liberals make.  They try to separate everything and make groups when in fact, when you boil it all down it comes back to each and every single one of us.  You cannot tax an insurance company or a corporation you can only tax people.

By the way, welcome to the board.  I've enjoyed reading the exchange.

KC
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: bkg on June 30, 2010, 06:32:11 PM
If a lawyer and an IRS agent were both drowning, and you could only save one of them, would you go to lunch or read the paper?

What restaurants are in the area? What paper is available? Am I alone, with friends, family or on a date?
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: Laelth on June 30, 2010, 06:45:37 PM
We the People are paying regardless.

We pay for their social services or pass-through costs when the business has its premiums go up because of incessant lawsuits. We pay the taxman or the cashier but we pay.

There has got to be a balance somewhere.

Well, you're right, provided you actually frequent McDonalds or buy insurance from the same company that insures McDonalds (just to use the example above).  On the other hand, we all pay taxes, and there's a much higher chance that we will all have to pay the cost of a given injury if the insurance company gets let off the hook.  Besides which, if we keep the insurance company on the hook, we can make the country safer in the process.

Ultimately, I hear your call for balance, and I respect that.  But I have to oppose pushing the balance any more in favor of the insurance companies (and that's exactly what tort reform is designed to do).

-Laelth
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: Texacon on June 30, 2010, 06:47:05 PM
I guess what I'm saying is;

For every person who "Get's Theirs" a whole bunch of us lose a little bit of 'ours'.  This is not a lottery.  This is forced and most of us don't like it.

About 5 years ago I was sued for nothing.  I was eventually released from the suit but I spent HOURS filling out paperwork and I had to make a trip to Houston to do a video taped deposition.  I also did a phone deposition which lasted a couple of hours.  All for naught.  I did nothing wrong but I had to pay.

I was out about $5k for the ordeal (the accident I was involved in) and had no intention of suing anyone but after I went through that I counter-sued and won an award which still didn't make it worth it.  Who won?  No one. 

KC
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: DumbAss Tanker on June 30, 2010, 07:01:27 PM
...Who won?  No one. 

KC

In law school, the profs love to say 'Only half of the people going into court are going to walk out happy."  In actually practicing law over longer than I care to talk about, I have found the truth is that NOBODY walks out happy, even the 'Winners' think they should have gotten more, their lawyer got too much, and whatever happened to the other party wasn't nearly as bad as they deserved.  The guys on the losing side, well, you can figure out how they feel without further explanation, I'm sure.
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: SSG Snuggle Bunny on June 30, 2010, 07:04:20 PM
Well, you're right, provided you actually frequent McDonalds or buy insurance from the same company that insures McDonalds (just to use the example above).  On the other hand, we all pay taxes, and there's a much higher chance that we will all have to pay the cost of a given injury if the insurance company gets let off the hook.  Besides which, if we keep the insurance company on the hook, we can make the country safer in the process.

Ultimately, I hear your call for balance, and I respect that.  But I have to oppose pushing the balance any more in favor of the insurance companies (and that's exactly what tort reform is designed to do).

-Laelth
Even if I don't frequent McCess Co. the employees and stockholders do.

People trying to reach into the company's deep pockets are going to put employees on unemployment/welfare and move 401k holders onto SocSec.

So I guess I'm on the hook either way.

It's like this entire BP fiasco. It'd be nice to waterboard Hayward et al with muratic acid but FFS we suddenly find out pensioners are depending upon their revenues. So we get to decide: screw Gulf coast residents or screw pensioners? You feel like king Solomon at a custody hearing.

 :thatsright:

At least with BP the villain is cut and dry and the errors glaringly obvious. A hot cup of coffee? Liabilities? Social safety nets?

Not so much.
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: Texacon on June 30, 2010, 07:16:09 PM
In law school, the profs love to say 'Only half of the people going into court are going to walk out happy."  In actually practicing law over longer than I care to talk about, I have found the truth is that NOBODY walks out happy, even the 'Winners' think they should have gotten more, their lawyer got too much, and whatever happened to the other party wasn't nearly as bad as they deserved.  The guys on the losing side, well, you can figure out how they feel without further explanation, I'm sure.

You know DAT.  I wasn't happy about winning.  It wasn't because I wanted more.  I didn't want anything.  It was because I ended up suing someone.  It killed me that I got that vengeful.  Vengeful enough to take money from each and every person in this country. 

I was more than happy for what my attorney made.  As a matter of fact when she was wanting to settle for a lower amount I said "no".  I'm the one that held out and the only reason I did it was because I didn't think that the amount she was willing to settle for would put enough in her pocket for what she had done to that point.  That is the God's honest truth.

She was a great attorney and most of the time had me doing my own statements.  She told me she didn't usually want her clients to talk but she felt like I did a good job so she let me at it.  I called the other sides attorney to task on a few things and she got a chuckle out of it .... all because none of the attorneys involved knew nothing of riding motorcycles and NONE of them knew I had a separate accident report.  Not even my attorney.  She didn't ask and I never thought to tell her.  That caused huge confusion but it's a story for another day.

Oh and for any DUmmies reading this .... LOL  my attorney was a lesbian and I thought she was great!  I didn't need to know she was a lesbian and found out by accident.  She seemed embarrassed that I found out but she did an awesome job and I actually miss the correspondence with her.

KC
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: Laelth on June 30, 2010, 07:20:15 PM
Along the line of MSB's post above;

You speak of insurance companies and corporations as most liberals do.  As if they are some sort of secret society worthy of being run out of town on a rail for some reason.

What you are failing at is realizing 'Republicans' are not protecting insurance companies OR corporations.  They are trying to protect PEOPLE.  Isn't that, afterall, what makes up an insurance company or *shudder* a corporation?

Bottom line is WE the PEOPLE pay.  Always.  You can't make it otherwise.  Governments produce nothing therefore have nothing to pay unless and until they confiscate it from someONE.  This is the worst mistake, in my very humble opinion, that liberals make.  They try to separate everything and make groups when in fact, when you boil it all down it comes back to each and every single one of us.  You cannot tax an insurance company or a corporation you can only tax people.

By the way, welcome to the board.  I've enjoyed reading the exchange.

KC

I am a liberal and not a socialist.  I don't want to run either the insurance companies or any corporation out of town on a rail.  I support capitalism, and I support the private ownership of property.  I do not favor state ownership of all property, i.e. socialism.

But I also recognize that corporations are amoral.  That doesn't mean they're bad.  It means that questions of good and bad are not on their radar.  I also recognize that all corporations are permitted to exist solely because they are granted that right by the States.  Every Georgia company, for example, in order to exist as a company, must be granted the state's permission to exist.  In other words, companies and corporations exist only because the state allows them to.  The state has the power, and the right, and the duty, to regulate and/or eliminate companies and corporations if they do not serve the interests of the people.

Insurance companies, like all companies, exist for only two purposes--to make money and to protect their stockholders from liability.  That's it, and there's nothing wrong with that.  Companies are supposed to make money.  They are supposed to be driven by profit, alone, and they should not give a darn about the public or the general welfare.  And this is fine with me.  But I also believe that the state has a duty to regulate them, to control them to a degree, to insure that their activites do not harm us all.  Right now, imho, the insurance industry is harming us all, and both major parties, as I said, seem to be in their pockets.  The state has completely lost the ability to control these companies, and this is a serious problem (from my perspective).  We can vote out bad legislators.  Theoretically, we have some control over our government.  But corporations?  We can't vote out their CEOs or their Boards of Directors.  We are powerless against them, and if they control our government, then they control us.  I find this unacceptable and a dire threat to the Republic whose Constitution I took an oath to defend.

That, it appears to me, is where we are right now.

As for the Republican Party, it's hard to reconcile the argument that the party is trying to protect people when Joe Barton apologizes to BP for Obama's having coerced a kind of tentative settlement out of them that won't come near to paying for the damage that company caused.  Thankfully, the party spanked him for that one, but he wasn't the only one saying it.  From the perspective of the left, the Republican Party, since Teddy Roosevelt, has been the Party that supports rich people, but not all the people.  At this point, it appears the Democratic Party is not very different, and that explains, in part, why I am here.

And you're right that we will pay for every injury one way or another.  One way, though, there's a chance we might make the country safer.  The other way, we just make the insurance companies and their stockholders richer on the public dime.

Thanks for the response.

-Laelth
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: thundley4 on June 30, 2010, 07:25:41 PM
 Laelth, just a side note. You might just get a pizza from DU for posting here.
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: Ballygrl on June 30, 2010, 07:36:01 PM
Laelth, just a side note. You might just get a pizza from DU for posting here.

That wouldn't be right, she hasn't said anything bad at all.
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: Laelth on June 30, 2010, 07:40:22 PM
You know DAT.  I wasn't happy about winning.  It wasn't because I wanted more.  I didn't want anything.  It was because I ended up suing someone.  It killed me that I got that vengeful.  Vengeful enough to take money from each and every person in this country. 

I was more than happy for what my attorney made.  As a matter of fact when she was wanting to settle for a lower amount I said "no".  I'm the one that held out and the only reason I did it was because I didn't think that the amount she was willing to settle for would put enough in her pocket for what she had done to that point.  That is the God's honest truth.

She was a great attorney and most of the time had me doing my own statements.  She told me she didn't usually want her clients to talk but she felt like I did a good job so she let me at it.  I called the other sides attorney to task on a few things and she got a chuckle out of it .... all because none of the attorneys involved knew nothing of riding motorcycles and NONE of them knew I had a separate accident report.  Not even my attorney.  She didn't ask and I never thought to tell her.  That caused huge confusion but it's a story for another day.

Oh and for any DUmmies reading this .... LOL  my attorney was a lesbian and I thought she was great!  I didn't need to know she was a lesbian and found out by accident.  She seemed embarrassed that I found out but she did an awesome job and I actually miss the correspondence with her.

KC

Thanks for posting that.  I have had several clients who seemed more worried about my being compensated than they were worried about their own compensation.  It's not that uncommon when people actually get to see how much work attorneys have to do.

In addition, though, I think it's tragic that certain forces in this country try to make us ashamed to bring lawsuits.  That's what our legal system is for, after all.  It's a civil way to settle disputes.  It's certainly better than resorting to crime or physical violence.  Admittedly, it's a long and complicated process (because those with the money want to make it as hard as possible for those of us who lack the money to get into their pockets), and it can be torturous (sitting thrugh a deposition, for example, is not fun for most people), but litigation is better than any alternative we have yet been able to make work.  And there's nothing shameful about resorting to the Courts for redress of grievances (or, at least, there shouldn't be).

imho

 :cheersmate:

-Laelth
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: Laelth on June 30, 2010, 07:42:43 PM
What restaurants are in the area? What paper is available? Am I alone, with friends, family or on a date?

LOL.    :beer:

-Laelth
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: Laelth on June 30, 2010, 07:48:53 PM
Laelth, just a side note. You might just get a pizza from DU for posting here.

Wow.  That was a genuinely kind thing for you to mention.  I should go copy my journal.

And, just let me add, you have nearly all been very respectful and decent.  I am aware that I invaded your home, and you have put up with my ramblings with grace and style.  Kudos.

-Laelth
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: Ballygrl on June 30, 2010, 07:57:05 PM
Wow.  That was a genuinely kind thing for you to mention.  I should go copy my journal.

And, just let me add, you have nearly all been very respectful and decent.  I am aware that I invaded your home, and you have put up with my ramblings with grace and style.  Kudos.

-Laelth

I actually enjoy talking to liberals and happen to like them on Hannity's board, it's nice when you talk to someone of a different ideology who has common sense on issues and you and Soleil fit the meaning of what liberalism once was, but since it "evolved" into progressivism it seems like common sense has gone out the window. Glad to see that they seem to be the minority of the party. It's been a pleasure talking to you and reading what you've posted.
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: bkg on June 30, 2010, 08:04:30 PM
As for the Republican Party, it's hard to reconcile the argument that the party is trying to protect people when Joe Barton apologizes to BP for Obama's having coerced a kind of tentative settlement out of them that won't come near to paying for the damage that company caused.  Thankfully, the party spanked him for that one, but he wasn't the only one saying it.  From the perspective of the left, the Republican Party, since Teddy Roosevelt, has been the Party that supports rich people, but not all the people.  At this point, it appears the Democratic Party is not very different, and that explains, in part, why I am here.

Point of information... Barton was SPOT ON.

And there are more "rich" dems in office than "rich" repubs... Just saying...  :tongue:
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: USA4ME on June 30, 2010, 08:21:42 PM
Well, that's fine so long as you're willing to pick up the tab for the injury instead of the insurance company or the big corp.

Yeah, if I spilled hot coffee on myself I'm the one responsible for doing it.  Darn straight.  Neither Ronald McDonald nor Mayor McCheese put a gun to my head and made me buy coffee, and they sure didn't make me spill it on myself.  But that's me, I take responsibility for my own actions.  I realize there's a lot of people who'd rather pass the buck because actually acting human is a little too much for them.

Quote from:
If a tort suit is unsuccessful, the innocent plaintiff, who did nothing wrong, theoretically pays for the injury, but if the plaintiff is poor (most of us are too poor to bear the cost of a serious injury), then "We the People" of the United States pay the cost of the injury (through various social services). If plaintiff loses the suit, he or she normally becomes a massive burden on the state.

This is a separate topic and notes a difference.  I believe people who are able to help others that truly need help should do so, but I certainly don't need some oversight committee or gov't agency to do it through.  But this topic is too long to address at this point.

Quote from:
They usually do so through their own insurance, but I can go after their corporate or personal assets if they don't have adequate insurance.

Separate than the issue you bring up that I'm removing from it's context, this brought to mind this:  I have to wonder if this person who sued McDonald's would have done the same thing had it been "Mom & Pop's Coffee Shop."  Something tells me they saw the deep pockets and got dollar signs in their eyes.

Quote from:
Republicans favor tort reform as a means of protecting insurance companies.

I don't give a crap about insurance companies other than individuals who misuse the system out of their own irresponsibility who then create a situation where the insurance companies have to increase rates and make the pool deeper in case some other quack comes along and drops a can of Coke and breaks their toe then claims Coca-Cola didn't put a warning label on their can.

Look, most people are fed up with individuals who can't take responsibility for their own actions and then, seemingly, wanna make a fortune off their own stupidity.  While you may or may not agree with how it all shakes out, I highly doubt you're unfamiliar with this POV, and it's one that holds a great deal of merit with everyday people.

.
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: Hawkgirl on June 30, 2010, 08:24:37 PM
What does Hannity call them?  Leerjet/limousine liberals.  The ones who tell the public to ride bikes to work, but then jump on their private jumbo jets to attend Hollyweird functions.  Or the Geithner's/Bawney Franks of the world who want to raise taxes...yet cheat on their own.  

Lots of hypocracy on the Lib side.  
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: Ballygrl on June 30, 2010, 08:32:34 PM
What does Hannity call them?  Leerjet/limousine liberals.  The ones who tell the public to ride bikes to work, but then jump on their private jumbo jets to attend Hollyweird functions.  Or the Geithner's/Bawney Franks of the world who want to raise taxes...yet cheat on their own.  

Lots of hypocracy on the Lib side.  

My Aunt who was called a commie in the 50's and has been a staunch conservative since the 70's has always called them limousine liberals, but I think the limousine liberal has devolved into the progressives we see today. And Sean plays the Arianna Huffington clip of her excuse for riding in a private jet, which uses more fuel on a round trip to Europe and back then the average American uses in a year, and in the clip Arianna uses as an excuse that the "plane was going there anyway". :lmao:
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: Hawkgirl on June 30, 2010, 08:43:03 PM




As for the Republican Party, it's hard to reconcile the argument that the party is trying to protect people when Joe Barton apologizes to BP for Obama's having coerced a kind of tentative settlement out of them that won't come near to paying for the damage that company caused. Thankfully, the party spanked him for that one, but he wasn't the only one saying it.  From the perspective of the left, the Republican Party, since Teddy Roosevelt, has been the Party that supports rich people, but not all the people.  At this point, it appears the Democratic Party is not very different, and that explains, in part, why I am here.



-Laelth

The Conservative "Branch " of the Republican Party is strongly committed to the protection of civil liberties whereas the left wants to take them away.  The Republican Party is trying to protect Second Amendment Rights, whereas the left is seeking to disarm.  The Republican Party is trying to protect the 1st amendment rights...whereas the left would like an attempt to burn any speech that doesn't agree with their agenda (Fairness Doctrine).  What is next? controlling our diets? controlling our health? removing religion (where the Constitution advocates Freedom of religion, not NO religion)Where does this assault of our Civil Liberties stop with you leftists?  You see, it's the Liberals that are attacking our Civil Liberties, not the Conservatives.


You may be articulate and mild mannered Laeth, but I am not buying the crap you are spewing.  
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: bkg on June 30, 2010, 08:43:44 PM
What does Hannity call them?  Leerjet/limousine liberals.  The ones who tell the public to ride bikes to work, but then jump on their private jumbo jets to attend Hollyweird functions.  Or the Geithner's/Bawney Franks of the world who want to raise taxes...yet cheat on their own.  

Lots of hypocracy on the Lib side.  

Like Gore having his Prius flown in?  :rotf:
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: delilahmused on June 30, 2010, 08:45:40 PM
[snip]
As for the Republican Party, it's hard to reconcile the argument that the party is trying to protect people when Joe Barton apologizes to BP for Obama's having coerced a kind of tentative settlement out of them that won't come near to paying for the damage that company caused.  Thankfully, the party spanked him for that one, but he wasn't the only one saying it.  From the perspective of the left, the Republican Party, since Teddy Roosevelt, has been the Party that supports rich people, but not all the people.  At this point, it appears the Democratic Party is not very different, and that explains, in part, why I am here.

And you're right that we will pay for every injury one way or another.  One way, though, there's a chance we might make the country safer.  The other way, we just make the insurance companies and their stockholders richer on the public dime.

Thanks for the response.

-Laelth

Is Barton a Republican? I've never checked. I know that Obama got more from BP than anyone else, but I'm sure like most companies they hedged their bets and gave to both. I would've liked to see BP and the feds give more authority to the local governments. Those parish presidents are intimately connected to their communities and had excellent ideas and were ready to move NOW. They wanted berms to protect the coastline, were finally given permission and then were stopped so the feds could make sure they wouldn't hurt the environment. Like the oil won't? People's lives are hanging in the balance. Had the feds gotten out of the way maybe pensioners, Louisiana fishermen, and local oil workers all would've suffered less. And I have no problem with the feds picking up the tab on something this huge that affects the whole country.

I don't believe corporations should be silenced, after all PEOPLE work at them and looking out for their own interests also helps workers, shareholders, and customers. But ALL large groups (including special interests on both sides and unions) capable of hiring lobbyists and making large donations can quickly drown out voices of the people. That's not what the founders intended and I'm not sure what the solution is. This is something both sides struggle with though and the people in Washington lose sight of that once the campaign is over and they don't need the votes of the little people in flyover country.

Cindie
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: delilahmused on June 30, 2010, 09:14:08 PM
I actually enjoy talking to liberals and happen to like them on Hannity's board, it's nice when you talk to someone of a different ideology who has common sense on issues and you and Soleil fit the meaning of what liberalism once was, but since it "evolved" into progressivism it seems like common sense has gone out the window. Glad to see that they seem to be the minority of the party. It's been a pleasure talking to you and reading what you've posted.

I do too. I have many liberal friends. I live in a conservative farming county south of Eugene. Eugene is pretty much famous for being Berkeley-lite. But between Eugene and where I live is a lovely little town called Cottage Grove. I've been fascinated with it since I was a girl and my mother bought me "The Journal of an Understanding Heart" by Opal Whiteley". Anyway, it's a perfect blend of left and right. There's the National Guard on one corner and a women's bookstore on another. There's a French bakery and a cowboy barbecue, a mining museum and an artists' community. I'm as likely to pull into Walmart and park my truck with its Marine bumper stickers next to someone driving a Prius with a "peace is patriotic" sticker as I am another military parent (today was a new one at the dollar store though...it said something like "get close up with religion, lick a witch"). It's a perfect blend of people.

Cindie
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: DumbAss Tanker on June 30, 2010, 09:33:34 PM
You know DAT.  I wasn't happy about winning.  It wasn't because I wanted more.  I didn't want anything.  It was because I ended up suing someone.  It killed me that I got that vengeful.  Vengeful enough to take money from each and every person in this country. 
...KC

No slap at you or many other decent folk intended.  I was speaking of my general experience, there are of course many pleasant exceptions.  Unfortunately many of the clients in the real world, especially in tort, are every bit as venal and vindictive as the worst of their attorneys are commonly supposed to be.  There are a few people in the profession who just enjoy being jerks, but nine times out of ten the only reason the attorney is acting difficult is because the client's demands are driving the situation there.   
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: Thor on June 30, 2010, 09:35:01 PM
Laeth- As far as the seat belt laws, I fully know from where they arose and why. I still don't like them. It wasn't until I was on my second tour in the Navy that the Navy required me to wear a seat belt. Otherwise, I would have to pay for my own medical. OK, I can buy that. After all, when one joins the military, they are obliged to abide by military regulations.

What PISSES me off is the blatant hypocrisy of some states, Texas and Minnesota being a couple. They require the automobile driver to wear their seat belts and yet, these states don't REQUIRE a motorcyclist to wear a helmet. What ever happened to equal protection under the law?? The way I see it is all or nothing. If a state doesn't require a motorcyclist to wear a helmet, then they shouldn't require the automobile driver to wear their seat belts. The converse also applies. Any more, all I see the seat belt laws as are a money making scheme for the various cities, counties and states. I parallel them to the silly "red light cameras". It's not about discipline any more, it's about how much money an entity can obtain from a citizen.
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: Airwolf on June 30, 2010, 11:02:09 PM
This is a great thread. Learns a bit more about how things are in court even after my own experiance with needing a lawyer and watching a friend go to prison on what I think was a bad idea for a defence for him. I'd elaborate more on that but it would take forever to find the links to the stories about what happened.
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: Chris_ on June 30, 2010, 11:13:26 PM
The closest I've been to a court room in the last 15 years was during jury selection.  It was entertaining, to say the least.  I highly recommend it but they should probably sell popcorn.
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: Tucker on July 01, 2010, 05:59:30 AM
Laeth- As far as the seat belt laws, I fully know from where they arose and why. I still don't like them. It wasn't until I was on my second tour in the Navy that the Navy required me to wear a seat belt. Otherwise, I would have to pay for my own medical. OK, I can buy that. After all, when one joins the military, they are obliged to abide by military regulations.

What PISSES me off is the blatant hypocrisy of some states, Texas and Minnesota being a couple. They require the automobile driver to wear their seat belts and yet, these states don't REQUIRE a motorcyclist to wear a helmet. What ever happened to equal protection under the law?? The way I see it is all or nothing. If a state doesn't require a motorcyclist to wear a helmet, then they shouldn't require the automobile driver to wear their seat belts. The converse also applies. Any more, all I see the seat belt laws as are a money making scheme for the various cities, counties and states. I parallel them to the silly "red light cameras". It's not about discipline any more, it's about how much money an entity can obtain from a citizen.

I live in a state where a motorcycle helmet is required. Seat belts are also mandatory.  I wear a seat belt and would do so even if it weren't required. A seat belt saved my life. I was a passenger in a car that ran off the road and hit a telephone pole. I would have completely exited the vehicle and hit the pole if it wasn't for my having the belt on. As it were, my face went through the windshield, which resulted in a nice scar on my face.

As to helmets on my bike, if I had a choice, I wouldn't wear one. A crash over 25 mph and you're dead anyway. They're heavy and hot, adding to fatigue. They reduce your hearing and cut down on your peripheral vision.
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: Laelth on July 01, 2010, 07:39:22 AM
Look, most people are fed up with individuals who can't take responsibility for their own actions and then, seemingly, wanna make a fortune off their own stupidity.  While you may or may not agree with how it all shakes out, I highly doubt you're unfamiliar with this POV, and it's one that holds a great deal of merit with everyday people.

.

You're right.  I am quite familiar with this POV, and I am aware that it's widespread.  What concerns me, though, is that this righteous anger is misplaced.  Sure, there are some poor people who are ripping us off, abusing the system, using it to their advantage, and who do not deserve public support.  But the wealthy rip us off a lot more than the poor people do.  Look at the TARP.  Look at the S&L crisis of the 1980s.  Consider who's more likely to cheat on their taxes.  Consider who's more likely to hide assets in the Cayman Islands to avoid paying taxes.  Look at who gets tax breaks for moving good jobs to India.  The amount of money stolen from us by the poor pales in comparison to the amount of money stolen from us by the rich.  If you want to be angry about people not taking responsibility for their own actions, why wouldn't you be angry at the banks that we had to bail out on the public dime (both in the 1980s and now).  It seems to me that the wealthiest among us are the greatest beneficiaries of public welfare and that they are a much greater problem than the poor people who are ripping us off.

I'll be willing to consider more restrictive rules to insure that poor people "take responsibility" for their mistakes just as soon as we have enacted rules that insure that the rich and the big corporations have been forced to take full responsibility for their mistakes and that "We the People" don't have to pay for them.

And, I should add, that's exactly what I do for a living.  My job, as a Plaintiff's attorney, is to insure that the wealthy and their insurers take responsibility for the mistakes they make.  If I win, the actual party who caused the injury has to pay for it and "We the People" do not.   And for that I am widely ridiculed.

I should also add that nobody (and I mean nobody) these days believes in "personal responsibility."  If doctors believed in "personal responsibility" then they wouldn't buy medical malpractice insurance.  If bankers believed in "personal responsibility" then a firm like AIG wouldn't exist to insure their losses.  No, it appears to me that we all believe in "collective responsibility" which is exactly what insurance companies are designed to create.

Thanks for the response.

-Laelth
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: Karin on July 01, 2010, 08:11:16 AM
She'd be totally strong-armed by Sheldon Silver, there's a big divide between upstate and downstate.
  Just correcting for a change of tense.  "She is being....."

However, she did vote against the new $1.60 per pack cig tax to pay for all those no-show crony 6 figure NYS jobs that Patterson doled out to his buddies.  Cigs are now $11 a pack, highest in the country.  I thought the Demos didn't like regressive taxes?  That's a lot of money for most people.  So, she's not completely toeing the party line.  She doesn't want to see the state going to war with the Mohawks again.  That did not end well last time. 

On another note, Laelth says:
Quote
It seems to me that the wealthiest among us are the greatest beneficiaries of public welfare
  I'm not altogether buying this, pal. 
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: Tucker on July 01, 2010, 08:19:48 AM
On another note, Laelth says:
Quote
It seems to me that the wealthiest among us are the greatest beneficiaries of public welfare

I wonder if this is referring to Corp. and farm subsidies?
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: Laelth on July 01, 2010, 08:23:19 AM
The Conservative "Branch " of the Republican Party is strongly committed to the protection of civil liberties whereas the left wants to take them away.  The Republican Party is trying to protect Second Amendment Rights, whereas the left is seeking to disarm.  The Republican Party is trying to protect the 1st amendment rights...whereas the left would like an attempt to burn any speech that doesn't agree with their agenda (Fairness Doctrine).  What is next? controlling our diets? controlling our health? removing religion (where the Constitution advocates Freedom of religion, not NO religion)Where does this assault of our Civil Liberties stop with you leftists?  You see, it's the Liberals that are attacking our Civil Liberties, not the Conservatives.

The Patriot Act shows me that neither party is interested in protecting our civil liberties.  The left was really angry at Bush for his attempts to weaken our Constitutional protections (and there were many of them).  Obama had the power to restore habeas corpus, to weaken the "unitary executive," and to abolish the Patriot Act.  He has done none of those things.  In fact, he has made the situation worse.  And the left is abandoning him as a result.  I will not grant that the Republican Party is, in any way beyond the Second Amendment, the "protector" of our Constitutional rights.

Many on the left do want to weaken the Second Amendment.  I am not one of them.  As a practical matter, this is a lost cause for the left and you will notice that nobody on the national level is pushing for further restrictions on the Second Amendment.  The local governments that have done so (Chicago, for example) are being slapped down by the Supreme Court.  Even if I thought gun control was a good idea (and I don't), I wouldn't fight for it because that issue is a sure loser.

Quote from: Hawkgirl
You may be articulate and mild mannered Laeth, but I am not buying the crap you are spewing.  

Fair enough.  You did me the honor of reading and considering what I had to say, and that is as much as I had the right to expect.  Thank you.

-Laelth
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: Texacon on July 01, 2010, 08:23:45 AM
Quote
Consider who's more likely to cheat on their taxes.  Consider who's more likely to hide assets in the Cayman Islands to avoid paying taxes.  Look at who gets tax breaks for moving good jobs to India.  The amount of money stolen from us by the poor pales in comparison to the amount of money stolen from us by the rich.

Wow, I can't believe you just typed that.  The poor don't cheat on their taxes because they pay no taxes.  What sense would it make to pay less than ZERO.  As a matter of fact they get back, in a lot of cases, out of a pool they never paid into so in essence they do pay less than zero.

Can you say that about any rich people?  If you can't then you can't say they are stealing from us.  They are simply using the tools given to them by the government to keep a little bit more of what they earned and they STILL pay the largest burden of taxes.  How can you think they steal from us?

KC
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: Laelth on July 01, 2010, 08:25:26 AM
On another note, Laelth says:  I'm not altogether buying this, pal. 

If you're at least partially buying it, or even just considering it, then that's enough for me.  There's a lot of evidence out there in support of this position, as I am sure you can imagine.

-Laelth
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: Laelth on July 01, 2010, 08:40:40 AM
Wow, I can't believe you just typed that.  The poor don't cheat on their taxes because they pay no taxes.  What sense would it make to pay less than ZERO.  As a matter of fact they get back, in a lot of cases, out of a pool they never paid into so in essence they do pay less than zero.
Aw, come on now.  You know that's not true.  As a percentage of their income, poor people carry the highest sales tax burden of all.  They have to pay sales taxes, and it hurts them more then it does the wealthy.  In addition, as a percentage of their income, the poor carry the highest FICA tax burden of us all.  What's more, they pay the highest percentage of their income in property taxes (either directly or through their rent payments--unless, of course, they're in 0% pay section 8 housing which is rare).  The poor carry the heaviest tax burden of us all if you look at the percentage of thier income that is consumed by taxes.  Now, they may not pay income taxes, but so what?  I feel lucky when I get to pay income taxes.  That means I made good money in a given year.  You're not going to get any sympathy from me on the issue of income taxes.  Income taxes only get levied against those who are making decent money.  The other taxes I mentioned (and there are a lot more of them--the fee for filing a lawsuit and the fee for getting a driver's licence, for example) hurt the poor a lot more than they do the rich.

-Laelth
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: Laelth on July 01, 2010, 09:16:48 AM
On another note, Laelth says:
I wonder if this is referring to Corp. and farm subsidies?

You raise a difficult issue.  Farm subsidies are a matter of national security.  We have to be able to feed our people, and we can't rely on the "free market" to do it.  Farming must be subsidized, although we are, at times, getting ripped off.  To the extent that ADM is making a killing on the federal dime through farm subsidies, I am a bit resentful, but not enough to cut off the subsidy.  To the extent that mom and pop farming operations are just barely surviving with the aid of the subsidies, I am all for them.

Still, because this is a matter of national security, I will begrudgingly condone ADM's further enrichment as they continue to suck off the public teat.  I'm not happy about it, but we must have food to feed the people.  In this case, big agricultural firms like ADM are a necessary evil.

imho

-Laelth
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: DumbAss Tanker on July 01, 2010, 09:24:49 AM
Regressiveness (A perjorative, but I'll let it go) in FICA is not all that unjust since the lower two income quintiles benefit disproportionately from it, in payments as well as in its treatment as taxable income.  I really don't have a huge problem with regressive taxes, you can statisticize anything to show how disproportionate the impact on the poor or any other group may be, hence the perenniel jokes on our side about this, along the lines of "World ends tomorrow, women, minorities most affected!"

I am not totally opposed to a so-called 'Progressive' income tax scheme, unlike the flat-tax crowd, but the system we have is skewed too far in favor of transfer payments and does need to be broader if not flatter too.  When over half the voters pay llittle or no net income taxes, and are in the position to continue jacking up the rates on the rest, they system is on a toboggan ride to Hell, that is an unsustainable situation.  You may be too young to remember the legacy of the Carter years, but the 70% top income tax rate then essentially capped the level of effort people were willing to put into an endeavor, since after a certain point (A surprisingly low one, I might add, which affected even high earners in the trades) people just weren't willing to work for less than $.30 on the nominal dollar (Not even counting how much more that was reduced by State taxes and other non-income tax deductions). 

Above the REAL poverty level (Not 'Basic cable' poverty) everyone needs to be a real stakeholder in the income tax system by being a net payer at some appropriate level.  Failure to recognize this by the vote-whores of both parties in Congress will lead to a period of entitlement-taxation cycle tyranny ('Vox populi, vox Dei') which can only end in economic and probably social chaos.     
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: Texacon on July 01, 2010, 09:37:04 AM
Aw, come on now.  You know that's not true.  As a percentage of their income, poor people carry the highest sales tax burden of all.  They have to pay sales taxes, and it hurts them more then it does the wealthy.  In addition, as a percentage of their income, the poor carry the highest FICA tax burden of us all.  What's more, they pay the highest percentage of their income in property taxes (either directly or through their rent payments--unless, of course, they're in 0% pay section 8 housing which is rare).  The poor carry the heaviest tax burden of us all if you look at the percentage of thier income that is consumed by taxes.  Now, they may not pay income taxes, but so what?  I feel lucky when I get to pay income taxes.  That means I made good money in a given year.  You're not going to get any sympathy from me on the issue of income taxes.  Income taxes only get levied against those who are making decent money.  The other taxes I mentioned (and there are a lot more of them--the fee for filing a lawsuit and the fee for getting a driver's licence, for example) hurt the poor a lot more than they do the rich.

-Laelth

Uhmmmm no.  I have friends who got back almost double what they paid in income tax (that money would offset most of what you're talking about) while they were on food stamps.

Who is bilking whom?

KC
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: Laelth on July 01, 2010, 09:46:28 AM
Point of information... Barton was SPOT ON.

Personally, I hate it when the President "negotiates" with corporations (as he did with BP and as he did when he was trying to pass his "health insurance company enrichment act").  That demeans all of us.  The President of the United States shouldn't have to "negotiate" with anyone who doesn't have nuclear weapons.  Since neither BP, nor the health insurance companies, nor the pharmaceutical companies have any nuclear weapons, it makes us look weak to "negotiate" with them.

But it makes us look a lot worse to kiss their behinds, and that's exactly what Joe Barton was doing.  And that's exactly why the Republican leadership threatened to take away his committee chairmanship if he didn't retract his apology.  You can continue to support environmental criminals like BP if you wish, but most Americans consider that to be in bad taste at the moment.

Quote from: bkg
And there are more "rich" dems in office than "rich" repubs... Just saying...  :tongue:

That may be true; I wouldn't know.  At the moment, it makes no difference to me.  The Democratic Party, it appears to me, is now as beholden to the rich and the powerful as the Republican Party is.  Neither one of them appears to be interested in protecting the interests of "We the People."

-Laelth
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: DumbAss Tanker on July 01, 2010, 09:50:01 AM
The Democratic Party, it appears to me, is now as beholden to the rich and the powerful as the Republican Party is.  Neither one of them appears to be interested in protecting the interests of "We the People."

-Laelth

I believe that, at least, is one point on which many of us would agree with you.
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: Texacon on July 01, 2010, 10:07:16 AM
One other thing.  When you become a very successful and 'powerful' attorney ..... please do come back and tell us all how much you love paying your income tax.  Make sure you don't take any deductions because that would constitute stealing from the poor.

I don't make a lot of money and I'm far from rich but I can assure you I'm taxed out the ass.  We should stop withholding and force every American worker to write their own tax checks every month.  There would be a tax revolution in this country by the end of the first month.

Which, by the way, is why they won't let companies do it that way.

KC
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: Laelth on July 01, 2010, 10:11:10 AM
I am not totally opposed to a so-called 'Progressive' income tax scheme, unlike the flat-tax crowd, but the system we have is skewed too far in favor of transfer payments and does need to be broader if not flatter too.  When over half the voters pay llittle or no net income taxes, and are in the position to continue jacking up the rates on the rest, they system is on a toboggan ride to Hell, that is an unsustainable situation.  You may be too young to remember the legacy of the Carter years, but the 70% top income tax rate then essentially capped the level of effort people were willing to put into an endeavor, since after a certain point (A surprisingly low one, I might add, which affected even high earners in the trades) people just weren't willing to work for less than $.30 on the nominal dollar (Not even counting how much more that was reduced by State taxes and other non-income tax deductions).     

First off, thanks for your reasonable response.  I became politically sentient in the early Reagan years, but I have some knowledge of the history of the Federal income tax.  The following graphic is quite telling, I think.

(http://ataxingmatter.blogs.com/.a/6a00d8341cf2a753ef01127967811f28a4-800wi)

It appears to me that the rich people did just fine (and still had plenty of incentive to make more money) under much more severe income tax schemes than the one we have now.  I simply don't buy the argument that higher tax rates will cause people to try to earn less money.  That has not been my experience, nor is there any historical evidence for that theory.

The income gap between the rich and the poor has been growing (by leaps and bounds) over the past 30 years.  It seems to me that some people are benefitting from this system a lot more than others.  I am glad to hear that you're not necessarily opposed to progressive taxation (as many here undoubtedly are), but I remain of the belief that those who are benefitting most from this society ought to pay the most for it's maintenance.  Sales taxes, property taxes, FICA taxes, flat fees for government services, garbage collection taxes--all these things are a way to disproportionately shift the tax burden to the poor and the middle class.  All the while the rich get richer.  This course, it seems to me, is unsustainable.

-Laelth
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: Karin on July 01, 2010, 10:34:18 AM
You cannot compare tax rates from one decade to another, and make an apples to apples conclusion.  The definition of TAXABLE INCOME has changed dramatically.  Someone at the DUmp even pointed this out.  All the loopholes that used to exist, were wiped away. 

I remember back before that big dip from Reagan's tax cut.  A lady I worked with was doing the math, and figured if she quit her job, and just had her husband work, they would make more money.  So, she did.  There went the tax revenues to both fed and state.  Poof. 
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: Texacon on July 01, 2010, 10:39:54 AM
I don't think most Americans mind paying taxes.  It's when we see those who are getting a free ride (and I mean FREE ride) and all the wasteful government spending we realize just how much is stolen from us.

I've written about a guy in our community who is young and drawing $2,700/month in disability because he's bi polar..... only thing is he is working all the time building fences and such ... on the side.

Anyway, this guy is about to start building a brand new house ... all courtesy the U.S. Tax Payer.  He's even getting 0% down on the deal.

The only good thing about this is he will finally be paying some county taxes so we'll get SOME of our money back.

KC
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: USA4ME on July 01, 2010, 10:42:06 AM
You're right.  I am quite familiar with this POV, and I am aware that it's widespread.  What concerns me, though, is that this righteous anger is misplaced.  Sure, there are some poor people who are ripping us off, abusing the system, using it to their advantage, and who do not deserve public support.  But the wealthy rip us off a lot more than the poor people do.  Look at the TARP.  Look at the S&L crisis ......

This has nothing to do with who has how much money.  Justice is supposed to be blind, right?  So no, fair is fair when it comes to these matters, and confusing individual acts of personal responsibility compared to acts in the business world are not the same.  The idea of "too big to fail" doesn't make me happy, but it is an economic reality.

Quote from:
I should also add that nobody (and I mean nobody) these days believes in "personal responsibility."  If doctors believed in "personal responsibility" then they wouldn't buy medical malpractice insurance.  If bankers believed in "personal responsibility" then a firm like AIG wouldn't exist to insure their losses.  No, it appears to me that we all believe in "collective responsibility" which is exactly what insurance companies are designed to create.

Voluntary collective responsibility (i.e. I buy insurance that best suits my needs) is still personal responsibility in that you took it upon yourself to act as a reasonable person should.

Laelth, I'm a former Democrat and was quite liberal.  No one's going to convince me that Democrats care more about the regular individual and that liberals care about the poor (and other groups) except to use them as a prop to carry out their ideology.  Liberals could care less about protecting the interests of "We the People."  In fact, they activiely want to turn "we the people" into "those whose lives are controlled by the state."  No, thanks.  That's why I left the party; it was all lip service and lies.  I find the overwhelming majority of people who actually are willing to get their hands dirty to help others are conservatives, and most of them have migrated to the Republican party, and so did I.  To call the Dems the party of the working man and the Repubs the party of the rich/corporations just doesn't apply anymore.  Sorry guy, but I've watched DU for way too long to be convinced that anyone over there cares about anyone other than themselves.  You participate on a board a various malcontnets, kooks, and primarily selfish individuals who only want to know what's in it for them.  To try and tell myself otherwise about those at DU would be to tell myself a lie.  I don't even refer to them as people because real people don't think like they do. I'm not sure what they are, but whatever it is, it's unhealthy.  The type of country that several at DU envision, if we were invaded by a foreign country, I wouldn't be willing to pick up a weapon to defend it.  Why should I fight to remain a slave?

You're in GA and I'm in NC, so because you're a neighbor I have some empathy for what you're saying and you seem like a descent person, but on a side issue do yourself a favor and get off of DU.  That place is toxic.  The only reason to be there is to do as we're doing; read their crap and shake your head at how ridiculous they are.

.
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: Thor on July 01, 2010, 10:48:00 AM
One other thing.  When you become a very successful and 'powerful' attorney ..... please do come back and tell us all how much you love paying your income tax. 

That's uncalled for and detrimental to the decent conversation we've been having. None of us know how successful Laelth is.

I live in a state where a motorcycle helmet is required. Seat belts are also mandatory.  I wear a seat belt and would do so even if it weren't required. A seat belt saved my life. I was a passenger in a car that ran off the road and hit a telephone pole. I would have completely exited the vehicle and hit the pole if it wasn't for my having the belt on. As it were, my face went through the windshield, which resulted in a nice scar on my face.

As to helmets on my bike, if I had a choice, I wouldn't wear one. A crash over 25 mph and you're dead anyway. They're heavy and hot, adding to fatigue. They reduce your hearing and cut down on your peripheral vision.

I call bullshit on this. I rode a bike out in San Diego for a few years. The Navy also required me to wear a helmet whether on base or off base. Hot, yes, but only while stopped. I remember riding in 100°F + weather in El Cajon/ Lakeside and it wasn't bad unless I was stopped. Heavy, maybe. That's where the rider needs to adapt. For the record, I wore gloves, a leather jacket, boots, jeans and a full faced helmet. As far as the crashes over 25 MPH, there are statistics that disprove your statement. The guy I bought my motorcycle from  crashed at 70. All he got was some road rash and a broken arm. As far as peripheral vision, I never had a problem with it. I suppose that poor helmet choices would be a consideration.

As far as farm subsidies, I don't have a problem giving subsidies to the family farmer. However, we are giving subsidies to corporate farms and in my opinion, that's unreasonable. Corporate farms make TONS of money, all on their own. I have to agree with Laelth to some extent. Here we are, doling out BILLIONS of dollars to the banks, the corporations and many people who are simply bilking the system for all they can get, while there are poor people out there suffering. Are there "poor" people also bilking the system?? Certainly!! However, the amount they "steal" pales in comparison to the corporations. I have ZEERO problems with a corporation making money, but when they get unnecessary subsidies from the Government ( ultimately WE the People), that's just bullshit. The military industrial complex comes to mind here... Instead of actrually charging less than their contract allowed because they were able to do it for less, they fill their contract with overcharged equipment, like $600 hammers and $800 toilet seats. As I see it, they screw the American public just so they get ALL of the money the contract initially allowed instead of cutting us a break and charging what was really necessary.
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: Thor on July 01, 2010, 10:53:20 AM
I don't think most Americans mind paying taxes.  It's when we see those who are getting a free ride (and I mean FREE ride) and all the wasteful government spending we realize just how much is stolen from us.

I've written about a guy in our community who is young and drawing $2,700/month in disability because he's bi polar..... only thing is he is working all the time building fences and such ... on the side.

Anyway, this guy is about to start building a brand new house ... all courtesy the U.S. Tax Payer.  He's even getting 0% down on the deal.

The only good thing about this is he will finally be paying some county taxes so we'll get SOME of our money back.

KC

That's one of the flaws in the system. He should be turned in. Unfortunately, there appears that nobody is willing to take action against someone defrauding the system. If someone is on SSDI, they are not allowed to work or if they do, the amount they earn is deducted from their SSDI. And sure, there are many incidents of this type of thing happening. People need to stand up against these frauds and put a stop to it.
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: Texacon on July 01, 2010, 10:54:40 AM
That's uncalled for and detrimental to the decent conversation we've been having. None of us know how successful Laelth is.


Uhhhhmmmm what?!

What's uncalled for about that?  Laelth has implied she is the 'little guy'.  All I was saying was when she does get successful (and yes I know a lot of attorneys don't) but if/when she does she should keep that in mind.

How that is detrimental to the conversation is beyond me.

KC
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: Texacon on July 01, 2010, 10:57:14 AM
That's one of the flaws in the system. He should be turned in. Unfortunately, there appears that nobody is willing to take action against someone defrauding the system. If someone is on SSDI, they are not allowed to work or if they do, the amount they earn is deducted from their SSDI. And sure, there are many incidents of this type of thing happening. People need to stand up against these frauds and put a stop to it.

Have you ever looked into turning someone in who is on disability?  I did.  I was going to turn this guy in but there is a slight problem.  IF you turn them in and they determine this person deserves it .... you can be fined for harassment.

KC
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: delilahmused on July 01, 2010, 10:59:29 AM
Okay, here's a concept I simply DO NOT understand. How can any business be "too big to fail"? That's nuts and anti-capitalist. All my life when one company has gone under another has come in to take it's place. Those companies that received government monies have become a slush fund for various enterprises. AIG is nothing more than a place for money-laundering so the precious hands of government don't sully themselves when passing out money to their biggest campaign contributors or big corps where their buddies work. Bailing them out hasn't done ONE, not one thing to help the economy or the citizens whose labor made those bailouts possible.

Cindie
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: Thor on July 01, 2010, 11:00:26 AM
Have you ever looked into turning someone in who is on disability?  I did.  I was going to turn this guy in but there is a slight problem.  IF you turn them in and they determine this person deserves it .... you can be fined for harassment.

KC

I suppose that's where pictures or videos and witnesses come into play..........

But, NO, I've never known or witnessed anybody that was on SSDI and held an actual job on the side or under the table.
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: DumbAss Tanker on July 01, 2010, 11:02:50 AM
I appreciate you civility and temperate style as well.

You can believe it or not as you see fit, however at the 70% marginal rate I SAW people decline work because their very limited takeaway from it just wasn't worth the effort and use of their time for the return involved.  It was a pervasive-enough issue that I even remember a shot being taken at the situation in a television sitcom (Which one eludes me, however) over a plumber doing exactly that in a subplot issue, this was not as preposterous as it may sound since union scale, overtime, and the fact that Carter's inflation problem had moved many high-earning tradesmen into 'Rich' for tax code purposes while ensuring they weren't really 'rich' at all in purchasing power. 

The New Deal and Eisenhower eras were really a different kettle of fish, with WWII and the Korean War, unpleasant as the high marginal rate was, there was at least an apparent reason for it, and of course the tax code and tax shelters were comparable to those obtaining today in only the most conceptual of ways. 

To that point, your graph is fine as far as it goes, but really has very limited validity.  The way taxes actually worked through the very long time period it covers changed drastically, every major burp in that graph reflects major changes in the way the entire tax code functioned, this or that Tax Reform Act of 19XX, new programs such as Earned Income Credit, expansion and contraction of deductions, credits, loopholes, exemptions, and definitions of taxable income, not to mention the expansion of other federal taxes such as FICA and lesser withholding taxes like unemployment and Medicare.  The reliance on the bare marginal rate alone yields a wildly inaccurate picture of effective taxation and per capita impact.   
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: Texacon on July 01, 2010, 11:06:00 AM
I suppose that's where pictures or videos and witnesses come into play..........

But, NO, I've never known or witnessed anybody that was on SSDI and held an actual job on the side or under the table.

I don't know that he's working on the side.  He has built a privacy fence around his home.  He has resided his home.  He has re-roofed his home.  I watched him building a dog house the other day.

I don't know if he is working for pay for someone else but I suspect he takes cash here and there for odd jobs.  Catching someone like that is beyond difficult.

Not to mention this dude got $30,000 in 'back pay' because they denied him what was rightfully his for a couple of years.

I got online and looked it up.  I can't afford to turn him in.

KC
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: USA4ME on July 01, 2010, 11:08:12 AM
Okay, here's a concept I simply DO NOT understand. How can any business be "too big to fail"? That's nuts and anti-capitalist.

While I agree, it's a domino effect.  There's just no way to transfer all the things a big corp does to other on-going corps or create a new corp (or corps) to pick up the slack fast enough before things start falling.

A good book to read that can explain this much more concise than I would is called "Secrets of the Temple: How the Federal Reserve Runs the Country" by William Greider.  I don't agree with everything in it, but it does explain real life situations that happened where they bailed out these corps, and it explains in detail why.

But from an overall capitalistic viewpoint, I'm in full sympathy with what you said.

.
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: Karin on July 01, 2010, 01:01:18 PM
Hey DAT, thanks for going into a bit more detail in your last paragraph about what I last posted about the tax code being much different with each shift in the graph.  I'm having a busy day and had no time to elaborate. 
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: DumbAss Tanker on July 01, 2010, 01:43:38 PM
No prob, I agree with everything you said but I couldn't let that graph go without throwing in my own $.02.
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: Texacon on July 01, 2010, 01:51:15 PM
An example of what I was talking about;

Quote
The government does not prevent nearly enough fraud within our programs. According to the Association of Certified Fraud Examiners, US programs lose 7% of their money to corruption. That means before Uncle Sam even wrote the first check for the huge $787 billion stimulus package, taxpayers could already expect to see $55 billion get stolen.

http://wallstcheatsheet.com/breaking-news/is-the-mortgage-fraud-crackdown-the-start-of-addressing-economic-cancers/?p=13084/

This is $55 billion out of one program.  I'm tired of paying for this crap.

Here's another;

Quote
MIAMI – A federal program designed to help impoverished families heat and cool their homes wasted more than $100 million paying the electric bills of thousands of applicants who were dead, in prison or living in million-dollar mansions, according to a government investigation.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100701/ap_on_re_us/us_electric_bill_fraud

And we're supposed to just overlook this kind of 'accounting error'.  I guarantee you if this was a private enterprise 1.)  This wouldn't have happened and 2.)  If if DID somehow manage to happen heads would roll.

KC
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: Laelth on July 01, 2010, 05:34:24 PM
I actually enjoy talking to liberals and happen to like them on Hannity's board, it's nice when you talk to someone of a different ideology who has common sense on issues and you and Soleil fit the meaning of what liberalism once was, but since it "evolved" into progressivism it seems like common sense has gone out the window. Glad to see that they seem to be the minority of the party. It's been a pleasure talking to you and reading what you've posted.

That's very kind of you, and the pleasure has been mine.  Thanks for indulging me in some honest, civil discussion.

 :cheersmate:

-Laelth
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: soleil on July 01, 2010, 05:45:29 PM
That's very kind of you, and the pleasure has been mine.  Thanks for indulging me in some honest, civil discussion.

 :cheersmate:

-Laelth

What are your feelings about DU these days? I ask that as a former DUer. I left because it has turned to crap.
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: Laelth on July 01, 2010, 05:50:06 PM
One other thing.  When you become a very successful and 'powerful' attorney ..... please do come back and tell us all how much you love paying your income tax.  Make sure you don't take any deductions because that would constitute stealing from the poor.

I don't make a lot of money and I'm far from rich but I can assure you I'm taxed out the ass.  We should stop withholding and force every American worker to write their own tax checks every month.  There would be a tax revolution in this country by the end of the first month.

Which, by the way, is why they won't let companies do it that way.

KC

Honestly, I think you have a good idea.  It was Ronald Reagan, after all, who dramatically jacked up our FICA taxes, and I think if we had to write a check for them every week (or month) there might be some national desire to adopt a more fair tax system.  FICA taxes, after all, are highly regressive.  There are a lot more poor and middle-classed people than there are wealthy ones.  Being reminded that we are being soaked with taxes might do us some good.

For my own part, I am still paying Federal self-employment taxes from 2008.  You'd think the tax code would make it attractive to run your own business, but it doesn't.  All the politicians' rhetoric about favoring small business is complete bunk.  Their actions favor big business, and a small-business owner like me is not even on their radar.  Self-employment taxes are really steep.

-Laelth
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: Texacon on July 02, 2010, 07:10:08 AM
Honestly, I think you have a good idea.  It was Ronald Reagan, after all, who dramatically jacked up our FICA taxes, and I think if we had to write a check for them every week (or month) there might be some national desire to adopt a more fair tax system.  FICA taxes, after all, are highly regressive.  There are a lot more poor and middle-classed people than there are wealthy ones.  Being reminded that we are being soaked with taxes might do us some good.

For my own part, I am still paying Federal self-employment taxes from 2008.  You'd think the tax code would make it attractive to run your own business, but it doesn't.  All the politicians' rhetoric about favoring small business is complete bunk.  Their actions favor big business, and a small-business owner like me is not even on their radar.  Self-employment taxes are really steep.
-Laelth

Yes they are.  I've been self employed for 15 years. 

KC


Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: Karin on July 02, 2010, 07:20:09 AM
The government hates when you go into business for yourself.  They can't control and tax you as easily as when you just turn in a W2.  But, the way the job market is today, the enterprising among us have no choice but to make our own job. 
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: TheSarge on July 02, 2010, 07:28:04 AM
Quote
It was Ronald Reagan, after all, who dramatically jacked up our FICA taxes

Reagan merely signed the bill.  Congress was the one that sent the FICA taxes through the roof.

And he signed the bill because of promises made...and then reneged on by the Dems to cut spending...something like $2 dollars of cuts for every $1 in spending.

Dems never have been able to keep promises.
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: USA4ME on July 02, 2010, 07:30:35 AM
Yes they are.  I've been self employed for 15 years.  

KC

I've owned and operated my own business for almost 25 years, too.  I agree paying the 15.3% can be a bite, especially considering I'll never see it again.  Add to that your Federal Income Tax rate and it mounts up.  But as a Sub-S Corp, I use the law to my advantage.  Let's say I make $500K.  I pay myself a base salary of $100K (on which I owe the 15.3% and any applicable Fed Income Tax) and I pay the remaining $400K as Sub-S dividends, which is currently taxed at 15% and no SS taxes are garnished.  You might do the same thing already for all I know.

.
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: Laelth on July 02, 2010, 07:41:19 AM
No prob, I agree with everything you said but I couldn't let that graph go without throwing in my own $.02.

I admit that the graph that lays out the top marginal rate doesn't tell the whole story, and I have no reason to doubt you when you say that some people chose not to work (at some period in our history) because the top marginal tax rate made it unprofitable to do so.  Of course, in this economy we would say "great" to that.  That person just opened up a job that many people are dying to get given the current rate of unemployment.  But, ultimately, I agree that the tax issue is far more complicated than the graph suggests.

I still maintain, however, that those who benefit most from this society should pay the most for its maintenance, and I also believe that those who benefit most are not paying their fair share now.  The working people and the poor are being soaked.  As Warren Buffet observed:

Quote from: Warren Buffett
Mr Buffett said that he was taxed at 17.7 per cent on the $46 million he made last year, without trying to avoid paying higher taxes, while his secretary, who earned $60,000, was taxed at 30 per cent.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/money/tax/article1996735.ece

You must admit that this is not fair.

-Laelth
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: TheSarge on July 02, 2010, 07:42:52 AM
I seem to remember too hearing my dad talk about Clinton raising the SS taxes during his tenure...so much so that about '99 my dad said he couldn't afford to pay in the maximum anymore.
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: TheSarge on July 02, 2010, 07:51:04 AM


I still maintain, however, that those who benefit most from this society should pay the most for its maintenance, and I also believe that those who benefit most are not paying their fair share now.  The working people and the poor are being soaked.  As Warren Buffet observed:

*yawn* Liberal talking points.  Spare me the moronic class warfare.  Here allow me to illustrate the stupidity of your claim:

(http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/menu/cy2003.Par.0008.ImageFile.gif)

The majority of those workers you so nobly defend don't PAY taxes.

The top 1% is paying nearly ten times the federal income taxes than the bottom 50%!

You were saying something about "fair"?[/quote]




Quote
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/money/tax/article1996735.ece

You must admit that this is not fair.

-Laelth

It's not a circus either.  Seriously why punish someone for being successful?  You bust your ass your entire life...work hard and are successful...only to be told by jealous less motivated people like yourself that it's not "fair" that they make all that money?

I'm an E-6 in the Army...should an E-8 or E-9 have a portion of his check taken from him and given to me because I haven't made rank as fast just to make it fair?

Seriously.

Ok so you tax them at 90%...then you begin to suffer from the law of unintended consequences.

Who do you think funds all these charities and foundations you Liberals are so fond of championing?

Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: USA4ME on July 02, 2010, 08:08:17 AM
I've got no problem with what Warren Buffet pays.  If anything, he pays too much.  Everyone does.

Warren Buffett and his company, Berk Hath (a corp that pays $0 taxes), buy Income Tax Credits issued by the gov't to entice people to give the gov't capital to use on a short term basis.  In return, they don't pay taxes on the money.  The same type of thing happens with tax-free muni's.  These tax incentives exist for a reason, so I can't blame him for using what's been provided.

Everybody here try and pay the least amount of taxes that you can every year, just like I do?  If so, then we're the last people that need to be claiming that someone else not paying a certain amount isn't fair.

For all this talk of the middle-class and poor being taxed too much, I sure don't see the Dems (who claim to be the one's in favor of the middle and lower classes) trying to do away with the sales tax, or the high State and Fed taxes we pay on fuel, or sin taxes, or any other of these that are essentially taxes on the poor.  Here in NC, we just got the the "Education Lottery" a few years ago, and one of the top Dems in Raleigh came out and said he knew good and well it was the poor and lower middle that would be buying the tickets, but that it was justified in that they typically don't own property yet send their kids to public schools, and at least with the lottery they'd be paying something.

So no, cut it out.  The faux-caring crap by those who clearly don't has gone on long enough.

.
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: USA4ME on July 02, 2010, 08:15:47 AM
Ok so you tax them at 90%...then you begin to suffer from the law of unintended consequences.

Good points.  And as been discussing here countless times, even when the top marginal rate was 90%, the rich didn't pay it.  Anyone here really believe that Joseph Kennedy paid 90% in taxes on his income that reached that level?  Com'n, who you trying to fool.

.
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: Laelth on July 02, 2010, 08:16:35 AM
OK, I like Laelth LOL. It's so nice to speak with a sane DU'er.

Thanks.   :cheersmate:

-Laelth
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: Laelth on July 02, 2010, 08:21:30 AM
Laelth, welcome.  I hope that you don't go full-moonbat on us anytime soon--Hell, at all.  If you do, we'll probably smack each other around a bit lining up to have a shot at ya.

Thanks for the kind welcome.  As for being a moonbat, well, I am sure there are many subjects on which I will disagree with many of the members here, but that's O.K.  Disagreement can foster interesting discussion.  But on this particular subject (the way I make a living) I had every reason to believe that this audience would be receptive to what I had to say, and it appears I was right.

Thanks for that.   :cheersmate:

-Laelth
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: TheSarge on July 02, 2010, 08:24:14 AM
Good points.  And as been discussing here countless times, even when the top marginal rate was 90%, the rich didn't pay it.  Anyone here really believe that Joseph Kennedy paid 90% in taxes on his income that reached that level?  Com'n, who you trying to fool.

.

Nah I don't think Ol Nazi Joe paid near what he probably should have by law in taxes.  But at the time he made his fortune...most of the taxes we pay today weren't implemented yet IIRC.  And by the time they were he was living off of the acrued interest and his kids have all lived off of their respective trust funds.

The very wealthy have always found tax shelters to put their money away in.

Given how Congress views them as a continuous blank check and ignorantly use them as a target of ire at election time I can't really blame them.

They earned that money...they should be able to spend it the way they want to.  Not subsidize welfare queens in D.C. so they can get government paid for cell phones and internet while they sit on their ass and do nothing.

Hell I made a little over 46K last year and I'm pissed about how much the Gov't took from me.
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: TheSarge on July 02, 2010, 08:26:52 AM
Quote
I had every reason to believe that this audience would be receptive to what I had to say, and it appears I was right.

You thought we'd be receptive to Liberal class warfare rhetoric/talking points and trying to blame Ronald Reagan?  :rotf:

You SURE you came to the right website?
 

Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: DumbAss Tanker on July 02, 2010, 08:44:01 AM
I still maintain, however, that those who benefit most from this society should pay the most for its maintenance, and I also believe that those who benefit most are not paying their fair share now.  The working people and the poor are being soaked.  As Warren Buffet observed:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/money/tax/article1996735.ece

You must admit that this is not fair.

-Laelth

Well, as I said far, far upthread, I don't fundamentally object to a progressive tax structure, I just don't think our present one is structured in a way (Or headed in a direction) that cause the majority of the voters to have a stake in keeping the spending decisions reined in.  The idea that the poor are being soaked by our current income tax structure is laughable.

I have tremendous respect for Buffet's investment expertise, not so much his political and policy judgment, and I might add that the quotes in the Times when put together the way they are amount to an outrageous lie.  Let's deconstruct this extremely-disingenuous statement a bit:

"17.7 per cent on the $46 million he made last year, without trying to avoid paying higher taxes, while his secretary, who earned $60,000, was taxed at 30 per cent."

Paying 17.7% of $46 million is paying less tax than paying 30% of $60,000?  On what planet does that math work?  Further, under our 'progressive' (*Spit*) tax structure, she is not paying 30% on $60,000, she is paying differing rates on incremental additional income which I am too lazy to look up right now, but let's say zero on the first 10K, 7% on the next 15K, 21% on the next X amount, and ultimately, yes, 30% on some small fraction.  Against this she has the full set of personal and household deductions and credits, very similar to Buffet's except the odds are she has more than he does due to the stages of life they are likely in.  Her effective tax rate is likely under 10%, that is approximately what I pay, and I make more in salary than her.  Set against 46 million dollars (Taxed as it may be at a lower ultimate rate than salary for the policy goal of incentivizing investment), though, those same individual and household deductions have a trivial impact, and therefore 17.7% really is the rate at which that $46 million is diverted to government coffers.

In other words, he's lying with numbers to help out a Clinton.  Shocking, I know, but hey, you have to expect this from Democrat politicians and their powerful backers (Nothing personal, I like individual Dems just fine).  Hillary continues to lie her ass off on the border issue with her falsely-premised gun stats, also no big surprise.  Obama just proved to be better oratorically at lying than Hillary.  I suppose partly that's because he was so innocent of actual facts or economic understanding that he actually believed some of the BS he spewed, but at any rate he sounded better when he was lying than she did.       
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: USA4ME on July 02, 2010, 08:51:46 AM
Nah I don't think Ol Nazi Joe paid near what he probably should have by law in taxes.  But at the time he made his fortune...most of the taxes we pay today weren't implemented yet IIRC.  And by the time they were he was living off of the acrued interest and his kids have all lived off of their respective trust funds.

True.  I just get a kick out of those who spew the "soak the rick like we used to at 90%" nonsense.  They never stop to think that the rich never really paid 90% even when, according to these individuals, they we're in that tax bracket.  In fact, they never think at all, which is the problem.

.
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: Laelth on July 02, 2010, 08:58:18 AM
This has nothing to do with who has how much money.  Justice is supposed to be blind, right?  So no, fair is fair when it comes to these matters, and confusing individual acts of personal responsibility compared to acts in the business world are not the same.  The idea of "too big to fail" doesn't make me happy, but it is an economic reality.

In my experience, how much money you have makes all the difference in the world.  I will continue to hold that those who benefit most from this society should pay the most for its maintenance.  

And yes, "too big to fail" is a reality, and I begrudgingly admit that Bush had to bail out the banks with the TARP, but if Clinton (with the complete support of the Republican Party and with the support of all the Democrats except for the truly liberal ones) hadn't repealled Glass-Steagal, then the banks would never have been allowed to grow into institutions that are "too big to fail."  Our greedy rich people created this mess, and now "We the People," who are not so rich, have to bail them out.  This, I think, is unfair.

Quote from: USA4ME
Laelth, I'm a former Democrat and was quite liberal.  No one's going to convince me that Democrats care more about the regular individual and that liberals care about the poor (and other groups) except to use them as a prop to carry out their ideology.  Liberals could care less about protecting the interests of "We the People."  In fact, they activiely want to turn "we the people" into "those whose lives are controlled by the state."  No, thanks.  That's why I left the party; it was all lip service and lies.  I find the overwhelming majority of people who actually are willing to get their hands dirty to help others are conservatives, and most of them have migrated to the Republican party, and so did I.  To call the Dems the party of the working man and the Repubs the party of the rich/corporations just doesn't apply anymore.  Sorry guy, but I've watched DU for way too long to be convinced that anyone over there cares about anyone other than themselves.  You participate on a board a various malcontnets, kooks, and primarily selfish individuals who only want to know what's in it for them.  To try and tell myself otherwise about those at DU would be to tell myself a lie.  I don't even refer to them as people because real people don't think like they do. I'm not sure what they are, but whatever it is, it's unhealthy.  The type of country that several at DU envision, if we were invaded by a foreign country, I wouldn't be willing to pick up a weapon to defend it.  Why should I fight to remain a slave?

Let me very clear here.  I am not defending the Democratic Party.  There was a time (say, between 1934 and 1980) when the Democratic Party actually did try to represent "the people" (if you don't count the Southern Democrats who were really rich-serving Republicans but couldn't call themselves Republicans due to race-related issues).  Those of us on the left thought Clinton was an anomaly.  I like to call Clinton "the best Republican President since Eisenhower," because he passed NAFTA (which hurt a lot of working people by allowing the corporations to freely exploit cheap, Mexican labor and kill a lot of good-paying American jobs in the process), because he destroyed AFDC (and replaced it with the nearly-useless TANF), because he passed the Telecommunications Act of 1996, because he repealed Glass-Steagall, because he actually cut the size of the Federal Government by 5% (which no Republican has ever even tried to do), and because he actually balanced the Federal budget and left us with a surplus.  Clinton was a true conservative, and we liberals were really mad about a lot of what he did.  But, again, we thought he was an anomaly.

Barack Obama is proving to us that Clinton was not an anomaly.  He is proving to us that the Democratic Party has been captured and is completely controlled by the rich and by the corporations.  This is evidenced by nearly everything he has done since he has become President.  No, I will not defend the Democratic Party here.  Both major parties, now, are completely in the pockets of the rich and the powerful.  The people have no voice in government.  I am here, in large part, because I have been critical of the Democratic Party on DU, and that seems to be no longer allowed (btw, it was allowed for a long time).

Quote from: USA4ME
You're in GA and I'm in NC, so because you're a neighbor I have some empathy for what you're saying and you seem like a descent person, but on a side issue do yourself a favor and get off of DU.  That place is toxic.  The only reason to be there is to do as we're doing; read their crap and shake your head at how ridiculous they are.

And I have no desire to defend DU here, either, for reasons I alluded to above, but I don't want to be tombstoned, either, so please forgive me if I remain silent on this subject.

Thanks for the sympathy and for the response.

-Laelth
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: Laelth on July 02, 2010, 09:22:01 AM
Reagan merely signed the bill.  Congress was the one that sent the FICA taxes through the roof.
He could have vetoed it if he wanted to.  He didn't.

And I have no interest in defending the Democratic Party for reasons that I expressed up-thread.

-Laelth
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: TheSarge on July 02, 2010, 09:28:40 AM
Quote
In my experience, how much money you have makes all the difference in the world.  I will continue to hold that those who benefit most from this society should pay the most for its maintenance. 

Why?  Where in anything the Founding Fathers wrote....where in the COnstitution....where in anything this country was founded on does it say that has to be the case?

Your thinking is more in line with Hugo Chavez and V.I. Lenin than Washington Jefferson and Adams.
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: Laelth on July 02, 2010, 09:30:35 AM
You thought we'd be receptive to Liberal class warfare rhetoric/talking points and trying to blame Ronald Reagan?  :rotf:

You SURE you came to the right website?

Yes, in fact, I thought you would be receptive.  If you make over $1 million a year, I can see why you wouldn't be receptive (if you're particularly selfish, which I suspect you are not), but if you don't make that much money, you ought to be concerned that even Warren Buffett says the amount he pays in taxes is not fair compared to what his middle-classed secretary has to pay.

Liberal rhetoric or not (call it what you will), I think that those who benefit most from this society ought to pay the most for its maintenance.  As it is now, the poor and the struggling middle-class pay a higher percentage of the maintanace costs than those who truly benefit do, and I don't think that this is fair.

-Laelth
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: Hawkgirl on July 02, 2010, 09:34:39 AM
Yes, in fact, I thought you would be receptive.  If you make over $1 million a year, I can see why you wouldn't be receptive (if you're particularly selfish, which I suspect you are not), but if you don't make that much money, you ought to be concerned that even Warren Buffett says the amount he pays in taxes is not fair compared to what his middle-classed secretary has to pay.

Liberal rhetoric or not (call it what you will), I think that those who benefit most from this society ought to pay the most for its maintenance.  As it is now, the poor and the struggling middle-class pay a higher percentage of the maintanace costs than those who truly benefit do, and I don't think that this is fair.

-Laelth


That's called redistribution of wealth...and you'll find MOST Conservatives don't buy into that theory.   You want to keep taking from the successful...and taking....and taking....eventually, you'll find there's no more to take.
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: Karin on July 02, 2010, 09:36:22 AM
Are you skipping posts, Laelth?  Specifically, those written by DumbAssTanker? 
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: Laelth on July 02, 2010, 09:41:04 AM
But, the way the job market is today, the enterprising among us have no choice but to make our own job. 

That's certainly what I chose to do.  At this point, though, I wonder whether I made a good choice.  It appears that you can't get anywhere unless you're plugged into (and subservient to) corporate America.

-Laelth
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: Laelth on July 02, 2010, 09:43:17 AM
I've owned and operated my own business for almost 25 years, too.  I agree paying the 15.3% can be a bite, especially considering I'll never see it again.  Add to that your Federal Income Tax rate and it mounts up.  But as a Sub-S Corp, I use the law to my advantage.  Let's say I make $500K.  I pay myself a base salary of $100K (on which I owe the 15.3% and any applicable Fed Income Tax) and I pay the remaining $400K as Sub-S dividends, which is currently taxed at 15% and no SS taxes are garnished.  You might do the same thing already for all I know.

.

I have an LLC.  I pay myself "disbursements" from my company's income, but given the corporate structure I chose, all the income of the LLC is considered taxable income to me.  Perhaps I should look into another corporate structure.

Thanks for the response.

-Laelth
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: TheSarge on July 02, 2010, 09:45:17 AM
He could have vetoed it if he wanted to.  He didn't.

Riiiiiiight.  And have the Democrat controlled congress override the veto.

As I sad there were promises made in the approval of the hike.

But you're too myopic in your eagerness to be a typical Lib and bash Reagan for it.

Quote
And I have no interest in defending the Democratic Party for reasons that I expressed up-thread.

-Laelth

Don't bring your DU bullsh*t over here if you want people to take you seriously.  The Libs of the early 80's to INCLUDE those from the south...Byrd...Gore, Jr...Hollings...Gonzalez etc were jsut as bad as the current crop of Socialists you admire.

Save that tinfoil buffoonery for the mind numbed lemmings at your favorite Liberal haunts.

Oh and way to go avoiding the facts I've posted about who pays taxes.

Anyone who thinks this Libtard is here for any kind of intelligent discussion of the issues is fooling themselves.
[/quote]
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: SSG Snuggle Bunny on July 02, 2010, 09:47:40 AM
That's certainly what I chose to do.  At this point, though, I wonder whether I made a good choice.  It appears that you can't get anywhere unless you're plugged into (and subservient to) corporate America.

-Laelth
Isn't it amazing that in spite of all the regulations we have to choke down the big corporations can still thrive...

...but the small and medium sized businesses have to bear the same crushing weight?

Maybe we should stop trying to use government to enforce fairness of outcome and instead look to fairness of opportunity.
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: Laelth on July 02, 2010, 09:52:27 AM
Spare me the moronic class warfare.

Well, here's what Warren Buffett has to say about that:

Quote from: Warren Buffett
"There’s class warfare, all right, but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning."

http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/show/123058

On the left, we tend to say things like this:  They only call it "class warfare" when we fight back.  The income disparity between the rich and the poor in this country has been growing by leaps and bounds for over 30 years.  We are well on our way to becoming a 3rd world country.  It seems to me that we should do something about this.  The middle class is disappearing.  Surely, you will agree, this is a problem.

Quote from: TxRadioguy
Ok so you tax them at 90%...then you begin to suffer from the law of unintended consequences.

Who do you think funds all these charities and foundations you Liberals are so fond of championing?

I don't recall advocating a 90% marginal tax rate for the wealthiest among us, but I do think we need to do something about the fact that the rich keep getting richer and the poor (and middle class) keep getting poorer.

Thanks for the response.

-Laelth
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: TheSarge on July 02, 2010, 09:53:37 AM
That's certainly what I chose to do.  At this point, though, I wonder whether I made a good choice.  It appears that you can't get anywhere unless you're plugged into (and subservient to) corporate America.

-Laelth

You're just a walking talking Liberal propaganda machine aren't you?  With your class warfare corporate conspiracy theorist crap.


You've already condemned yourself to failure before you started by playing the Lib victim card.

You're using it to give you a pass for not doing what it takes to actually be successful.  Like a typical Liberal you think it should just be handed to you to make it "fair".

The small businesses that make this country run would never have gotten where they are today with your piss poor attitude.
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: TheSarge on July 02, 2010, 10:02:52 AM
Yes, in fact, I thought you would be receptive.  If you make over $1 million a year, I can see why you wouldn't be receptive (if you're particularly selfish, which I suspect you are not), but if you don't make that much money, you ought to be concerned that even Warren Buffett says the amount he pays in taxes is not fair compared to what his middle-classed secretary has to pay.

DUmmie...I'm a promotable Staff Sergeant in the U.S. Army making 46K a year...and I think that the confiscatory tax rates in this country today are too high.

I give two shits what Jimmy's older cousin has to say about that.  He can afford to say it because even if you raise his taxes he's got enough stored away that he could live off the interest...non taxable if his accountant is smart..and not have to worry whether his companies are taxed at 90% or not.

I see no reason to confiscate money from someone who has busted their ass their entire life and give it to someone who hasn't.

Let's say your company is successful...you'll be making WAY more than me...you gonna happily let the Federal Government take a healthy chunk of your profit that YOU earned and give it to me to make it "fair"?

And with EITC and other tax credits the IRS tosses out at us...I highly doubt that secretary is paying a dime in taxes.

Quote
Liberal rhetoric or not (call it what you will), I think that those who benefit most from this society ought to pay the most for its maintenance.  As it is now, the poor and the struggling middle-class pay a higher percentage of the maintanace costs than those who truly benefit do, and I don't think that this is fair.

-Laelth


Keep repeating the mantra all you want to.

You still haven't answered the question of why they should.
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: Laelth on July 02, 2010, 10:07:14 AM
Why?  Where in anything the Founding Fathers wrote....where in the COnstitution....where in anything this country was founded on does it say that has to be the case?

Your thinking is more in line with Hugo Chavez and V.I. Lenin than Washington Jefferson and Adams.

Interesting point.  Last night, I did a lot of reading about Shay's Rebellion, the historical event that actually pushed the states to create and ratify the Constitution.  I'd suggest you take a look at it, but this bit of history makes me very thankful for our 2nd Amendment--which was added to insure that when the rich are taking too much of our money and property we have the ability to take it back from them with the force of arms.

Consider Jefferson's quote (in response to Shay's rebellion):

Quote from: Thomas Jefferson
"God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion.
The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is
wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts
they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions,
it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. ...
And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not
warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of
resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as
to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost
in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from
time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
It is its natural manure."

http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quote_blog/Thomas.Jefferson.Quote.EFEC

I think you'll find that my ideals are not entirely out of sync with those of the founders (some of them, anyway).

Cheers!   :cheersmate:

-Laelth
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: Hawkgirl on July 02, 2010, 10:07:29 AM
Well, here's what Warren Buffett has to say about that:

On the left, we tend to say things like this:  They only call it "class warfare" when we fight back.  The income disparity between the rich and the poor in this country has been growing by leaps and bounds for over 30 years.  We are well on our way to becoming a 3rd world country.  It seems to me that we should do something about this.  The middle class is disappearing.  Surely, you will agree, this is a problem.

[quote author=TxRadioguyOk so you tax them at 90%...then you begin to suffer from the law of unintended consequences.

Who do you think funds all these charities and foundations you Liberals are so fond of championing?

I don't recall advocating a 90% marginal tax rate for the wealthiest among us, but I do think we need to do something about the fact that the rich keep getting richer and the poor (and middle class) keep getting poorer.

Thanks for the response.

-Laelth

1.  American corporations are the highest taxed in the world, with the exception of Japan.  How much more do you want to tax?  Do you want ALL our companies to go overseas?  Keep taxing them honey!
2.  And since when is the Middle Class considered poor?  I certainly don't consider myself poor...I have a house (well, a few), a car that's paid for, I eat well, I dress well.  I certainly am middle class, and I'm certainly not poor.
3.  Libs don't believe in personal responsibility or personal accountability...you always want 'someone else' to pay.  This is the reason you will not only lose the November elections (23% democrat congress approval rating) and the Presidency in 2012.  You see, working Americans don't buy into your ideology.
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: TheSarge on July 02, 2010, 10:10:21 AM
A couple other note about the Liberal Warren Buffett meme that this DUmmie is shoving down our throats.

Not only does he pay billions in taxes (capital gains, dividend tax) on his vast stock holdings, he pays sales on almost everything he or his companies buy.

From my understanding, he is basing his claims on the small token salary he takes as head of warren buffet corp.

There is nothing that says the Sage of Omaha can't pay MORE taxes in to the Treasury every year.  He just has to write the check for what he thinks is "fair".

And he could pay that secretary better too.

This is just more Liberal class warfare/envy by someone who when they say "I" really means everyone BUT him.
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: Laelth on July 02, 2010, 10:12:07 AM
DUmmie...I'm a promotable Staff Sergeant in the U.S. Army making 46K a year...and I think that the confiscatory tax rates in this country today are too high.
Thank you for your service to this Country.  My father was in the Navy, and my adopted father served in the Air Force.

And I agree that the poor and the struggling middle-class pay way too much in taxes.  What I don't understand is your anger.

And, again, I apologize for invading your home.  Thanks for putting up with my ramblings.

-Laelth

Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: TheSarge on July 02, 2010, 10:21:17 AM

And I agree that the poor and the struggling middle-class pay way too much in taxes.  What I don't understand is your anger.

My anger stems from your baseless claims that the middle class pays too much in taxes when in fact the bottom 50% of wage earners...that middle class you claim to be championing...pay slightly over 3% of all taxes in the country.

So your claim tht the middle class is getting soaked for taxes while the rich don't pay enough is an utter and complete lie..

The problem is that you've been so indoctrinated in the Communist Dogma of the Left in this country you don't realize how badly you've been lied to.

Quote
And, again, I apologize for invading your home.  Thanks for putting up with my ramblings.

-Laelth

<----DU is that way.  You'll find more sympathy to your propaganda over there.




Oh and Mr. Buffets and your information...since you don't think you're paying your fair share of taxes these days:

Make your check payable to the Bureau of the Public Debt, and in the memo section, notate that it is a Gift to reduce the Debt Held by the Public. Mail your check to:

Attn Dept G
Bureau Of the Public Debt
P. O. Box 2188
Parkersburg, WV 26106-2188
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: Laelth on July 02, 2010, 10:23:27 AM
That's called redistribution of wealth...and you'll find MOST Conservatives don't buy into that theory.   You want to keep taking from the successful...and taking....and taking....eventually, you'll find there's no more to take.

Yes.  It is called redistribution of wealth.  That, in fact, is the issue.  In the United States, over the past 30+ years, wealth has been re-distributed upwards (to the richest among us) to the point that those of us in the bottom 90% are on the verge of being serfs.  The wealth distribution in this country is terribly unfair.  Unless we do something to correct this problem (which neither major party seems inclined to do), we'll be a 3rd world country.

I am aware that conservatives oppose redistribution of wealth, but I also think that most of you are sane.  I think you can see that our current system redistributes wealth upwards, and that this is not healthy for the Republic.

Or, at least, so I hope.

-Laelth
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: TheSarge on July 02, 2010, 10:40:18 AM
Yes.  It is called redistribution of wealth.  That, in fact, is the issue.  In the United States, over the past 30+ years, wealth has been re-distributed upwards (to the richest among us) to the point that those of us in the bottom 90% are on the verge of being serfs.  The wealth distribution in this country is terribly unfair.  Unless we do something to correct this problem (which neither major party seems inclined to do), we'll be a 3rd world country.

Thanks to all of thee Social Welfare programs your leftist brethren keep enacting you're right...we will turn into a third world country like you claim.

The only problem with your claim is you are laying the blame at the feet of the wrong people.

Your fellow leftists don't want this country to be the best or to be successful...it's not...as you said..."fair".

So they are purposely managing the best economic engine the world has ever seen right into the ground.

How else do you explain the spin that 10% unemployment is a good thing?

Quote
I am aware that conservatives oppose redistribution of wealth, but I also think that most of you are sane.  I think you can see that our current system redistributes wealth upwards, and that this is not healthy for the Republic.

Or, at least, so I hope.

-Laelth

I suppose you have some kind of verifiable proof that this is the case?

You and the rest of the leftists in this country aren't worried about the Republic...you're too busy trying to turn America into a Socialist Utopia.

Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: TheSarge on July 02, 2010, 10:46:45 AM
If such a system were enacted, a CEO would make as much as a janitor - a construction worker would make as much as a senator - a bad artist would make as much as a good one - a 16-year-old living with his parents would make as much as a 30-year-old with three kids and a mortgage - an entry-level clerk would make as much as accountant with 20 years of experience under his belt.

While this all may sound good to a 16-year-old living at home, the rest of us have some problems with this. Kids should make less than adults, simply because they are less experienced and have fewer expenses. Some jobs simply are worth more than others, and some people need more money than others.

Now, somebody currently making $12,000 a year will probably take issue with this. I mean, who doesn't want to make more money? Even Bill Gates still manages to roll out bed every morning - even though neither he nor anybody even remotely related really needs to work another day in their life. He has more money than he will ever need, yet even he wants more.

At this point, it is important for me to note what kind of people are most likely to be reading this rant ... college students. A quick look at my current site statistics indicates that a good portion of my hits come from colleges. (Yes, Big Brother is watching you) College kids usually work part time for $6 or $7 an hour - I'm sure a lot of you probably think that a "flat pay" system is a great idea, since it would amount to a pay increase of 300%-400%. (This probably explains why some may "young" people vote for Democrats - they consider themselves poor)

I have news for you guys. You are not "the poor". You are just young. In a few years you will probably be in the middle class, or better. It really isn't very hard to do. Just the fact that you will have a college degree is usually enough to secure you a $30,000 a year as soon as you leave college, and most of you will make more than that.

When I was 19, I made about $12,500 a year. By the time I was 24, that amount doubled. Now that I'm 27, that figure has almost doubled again. That's the way this game works. As soon as you get some experience under your belt and learn how to actually be productive, society will reward you by giving you a bigger chunk of the pie.

You will probably only be in college for 4 years - you will be working in the workforce for the next 40 years. So please, stop being so selfish and take the time to think this "flat pay" thing through. Don't vote for boneheads like Clinton, just because they are promising to give you free-health care right now, when you are going to be paying for it through higher taxes for the rest of your life.


All that aside, any government that tried to enact a "Flat Pay" system would invariably run into certain difficulties. For one, it would be difficult to fill certain positions. Some jobs slots would remain empty because nobody would be willing to do certain types of work if they could make the same amount do something else. Nobody would want to take the "Dangerous" or "Dirty" jobs, when there are plenty of "cushy" jobs to be had. But somebody has to take these jobs. In order to fill all of these positions, it would be necessary to force people to take these jobs. With such a system in place, it would be government which would decide what career would be best for you. Want to be a nurse?... Too bad - We need clerical workers. Want to be a writer?... Too Bad, we need construction workers. Want to be a construction worker?... Too bad, we need policemen.

And what do you do with people that refuse to take these new jobs?... Imprison them? Kill them? Half our of population would be forced to become policeman -- just to keep the other half of society working.

http://www.newspeakdictionary.com/ct-distribution_1.html

Hows that for "fair"?
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: SSG Snuggle Bunny on July 02, 2010, 10:50:18 AM
Different tax rates for different citizens.

Different tax rates for different industries.

And you wonder why the system is distorted and why people who can't afford armies of lawyers and accountants are disadvantaged?
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: Laelth on July 02, 2010, 10:52:53 AM
Are you skipping posts, Laelth?  Specifically, those written by DumbAssTanker? 

I am having a hard time keeping up, to be honest.  :)

-Laelth
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: SSG Snuggle Bunny on July 02, 2010, 10:54:18 AM
I am having a hard time keeping up, to be honest.  :)

-Laelth
Undoubtedly.
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: USA4ME on July 02, 2010, 11:06:30 AM
The wealth distribution in this country is terribly unfair.  Unless we do something to correct this problem (which neither major party seems inclined to do), we'll be a 3rd world country.

I am aware that conservatives oppose redistribution of wealth, but I also think that most of you are sane.  I think you can see that our current system redistributes wealth upwards, and that this is not healthy for the Republic.

Or, at least, so I hope.

What's unhealthy for the Republic is redistribution of wealth.  That's not life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  And it's certainly not freedom.

If you got money you can make money; that's nothing new.  Getting the gov't involved to try and remedy this "unfairness" via redistribution will lead to serfdom long before we'll reach it by the natural order of things.  Give gov't the power to redistribute wealth and it'll realize it has powers to do any number of things contrary to what the founding fathers intended.  Given the choice to live in a corporate plutocracy and a gov't that redistributes wealth in the manner in which you speak, I'll take the corporate plutocracy.  At least we'll have Rollerball, because we certainly won't have freedom.

But you've got several at you now, so I'll bow out.

.
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: TheSarge on July 02, 2010, 11:09:56 AM
Raising Taxes on the Rich is Counterproductive

Despite these figures, many critics of the Bush tax cuts still insist that the rich aren't paying their fair share of taxes, and that marginal tax rates should be increased for those in the highest tax brackets.

Interestingly, though, historical examples show us that when marginal tax rates on the rich are higher than 30 percent, the rich actually pay less of the total tax burden, because they tend to shelter, hide or underreport more of their income to avoid those high rates. Alternately, when taxes are lowered on the rich, their share of the total tax burden climbs. Consider the following evidence from three major tax rate reductions:4

In the 1920s, the top tax rate fell from 73 percent to 25 percent, but the wealthy went from paying 44.2 percent of the tax burden in 1921 to more than 78 percent in 1928.

In the 1960s, after JFK cut the top tax rate from 91 to 70 percent, those making more than $50,000 saw their share of the tax burden rise from 11.6 to 15.1 percent.

In the 1980s, after Reagan's "supply-side" tax cuts, the top 1 percent saw their share of the income tax burden climb from 17.6 percent in 1981 to 27.5 percent in 1988.

The Myth of Spending Cuts for the Poor and Tax Cuts for the Rich

During the 2005 budget reconciliation debate, critics claimed that Republi cans were cutting spending for the poor to pay for tax cuts for the rich; however, the facts simply do not support these overheated claims and the accusation that poor families are shouldering more of the tax burden while receiving less of the spending is empirically false.

From 1979 through 2003, the total federal tax bur den on the highest-earning percentage of Americans -- who earn 52 percent of all income -- rose from 56 percent to 66 percent of all taxes.

Their share of individual income taxes jumped from 65 percent to 85 percent.

On the spending side, antipoverty spending has leaped from 9.1 percent of all federal spending in 1990 to a record 16.3 percent in 2004.

The data clearly show that the tax burden is shifting annually up the income scale while spending continues to move down the scale; the people with the highest incomes are paying more of the tax burden while the poor are receiving more of the spending.

http://taxesandgrowth.ncpa.org/news/do-the-rich-and-businesses-pay-their-fair-share
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: BEG on July 02, 2010, 11:19:52 AM
Please forgive my typos, I wrote this on my phone as I am being lazy today and still laying in bed. I cleaned my house all day yesterday and think I'm coming down with something. Also I noticed that my font size changed in a couple of areas. I have no idea why but I digress....  

The spread the wealth around crap is what pisses me off the most. They always trot out Buffet too. There is a huge difference between Buffet and someone who makes $250k a year yet Dems lump them and everyone in between together. Someone as rich as Buffet has all the loopholes and offshore accounts to their advantage. Someone making $250k (isn't that number now down to $200k?) most likely gets their money from a paycheck and not through capital gains. So the person making $250k if paying a larger percentage of their total income in taxes than Buffet.

Buffet makes more money than the average "rich" person. It affords him the luxury of never having to worry about losing his house.  He never has to worry about having a job. He has long since passed having to worry about paying his bills. Buffet gets the majority of his money through capital gains (which are taxed at 15% I believe). Well retired people get income from capital gains as well. Why dems don't see that you can't compare someone like Buffet to the average "rich" person making $250k or the elderly that are retired and living off of their capital gains is beyond me.  

My husband is, what I am positive you would consider, rich.  He went to collge for 6 years and it took us 10 years to pay off the student loans.  No help from our parents and we had a baby a year and a half before he graduated.  He started at the bottom and worked his way up (he is VP of product development of a company that I am sure you would know if I told you). He leaves the house at 5:30 in the morning and doesn't get home until after 7:00. Some nights he works from home after dinner.  

Nothing has ever been handed to him, he has worked for everything he has gotten.  He has lost his job before and when that happened he got three part time jobs until he could find a new fulltime job. With each new job we had to move (we lived in Dallas for 15 years, he has worked for the same company since 1994 until that company was bought by the company he works for now). This last job we had to move from Dallas where my parents and all of our friends were to the shitty state of CA.

Housing in southern CA is three times what it is in Dallas.  Everything cost more here. $250k in Dallas isn't the same as $250k in CA.  You can't just throw out a number and say someone is rich. With our "rich" income we are putting our son through college yet we make too much to claim it on our taxes. We lose deductions the more we make. So not only does your tax rate go up the more you make, the amount you can deduct goes down. When almost 50% of the people of this country do not pay any federal income tax it makes them have less of a stake in the tax system.

I read one of your posts where you said you wanted a " windfall" and you talk about how hard you work. Don't you think about all the other people who you would consider "rich" who work just as hard?  At some point you run out of other peoples money......then what will you do?

Dems need to stop lumping those that make $250k in with Warren Buffet.  It is intellectually dishonest.      
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: Laelth on July 02, 2010, 11:38:15 AM
What's unhealthy for the Republic is redistribution of wealth.  That's not life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  And it's certainly not freedom.

Healthy or not, that's what's happening.  The rich are getting richer and the poor and middle-class are getting poorer.

Quote from: USA4ME
Given the choice to live in a corporate plutocracy and a gov't that redistributes wealth in the manner in which you speak, I'll take the corporate plutocracy.  At least we'll have Rollerball, because we certainly won't have freedom.

They're calling it a "plutonomy" now, just so you know.  And, it appears, that's exactly what we have.  Interesting link below.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/6674234/Citigroup-Oct-16-2005-Plutonomy-Report-Part-1

-Laelth
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: SSG Snuggle Bunny on July 02, 2010, 11:40:48 AM
... I wrote this on my phone ...
You must have the thumbs of a Greek goddess.
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: delilahmused on July 02, 2010, 01:02:45 PM
Quote
Liberal rhetoric or not (call it what you will), I think that those who benefit most from this society ought to pay the most for its maintenance.  As it is now, the poor and the struggling middle-class pay a higher percentage of the maintanace costs than those who truly benefit do, and I don't think that this is fair.

-Laelth

But how do you decide who benefits most? We have to agree on this point before we can discuss it. "The poor" don't have as much as "the rich" but the rich do contribute more TO society beyond taxes and take more risk. They invest in companies who are then able to hire more workers. They own companies that provide jobs. If those companies fail, they lose. In the way society is structured today, there would be no middle class without the jobs and investment dollars provided by "the rich". Those successful companies provide investment opportunities for the middle class which greatly improves their lot in life. Even in this economy retired people living off investment income have more disposable income than those depending solely on SS.

On the other end of the spectrum you have the poor, many living off the government and often it's generational. People who are leaching off the system, especially those who have NEVER contributed exist only because the government takes money from working people and give it those who only drain the country's resources. The causes are myriad but there comes a point when one has to stop being a victim. If you look at this country before welfare, we had no victim class. We've not only created a societal burden but have made entire groups of people beholden to the government plantation. This disgusts me beyond words and is one of the things I most hate about the democratic party because a permanent victim class is a permanent voting block. If they were truly concerned they'd give them a way out.

I don't think the gap between rich and poor is important either. If I make $40,000 and my needs are met, I can afford some luxuries and I'm happy and someone else makes $40,000,000 why should that be any skin off my nose? Good for him or her, we can both be happy. She can drive her Mercedes and I'll drive my Dodge truck. I love my truck, why should I begrudge her what she has? Let the rich get richer, lets just teach the poor to earn their own keep so they can have more too.

Cindie
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: TheSarge on July 02, 2010, 01:17:09 PM
But how do you decide who benefits most?
Cindie

From each according to his ability, to each according to his need - Marx
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: Ballygrl on July 02, 2010, 01:25:36 PM
I look at it this way, I guess I'm middle class or lower middle class, I have the ability to improve my station in life, but we're comfortable the way we are and happy. I posted before that I was poor growing up, my Mother worked 3 jobs and my Father worked 2 just to put me through private school, when I was old enough to get a job I did, I worked 2 jobs for 15 years and went to college which I paid for on my own, you do what you have to do. I didn't grow up bitter nor am I bitter today that I'm not rich, because I know I can be if I choose to be rich, I can go back to school, I can move to another less costly area, there are many things I can do.

The only thing that really ticks me off is seeing 5 generations of Welfare families sitting on their butts and having kids they're not even bothering to raise and collecting money for it, and these are the same people who have designer clothes on and have really good sneakers, and get their mani/pedi's every 2 weeks, and here I am shopping at Walmart, buying shoes at Payless and doing my own nails. I have no problem with the rich who pay more then their fair share of taxes and expenses, but I do have a problem with people that I as a taxpayer are supporting to sit on their butts.
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: SSG Snuggle Bunny on July 02, 2010, 01:26:50 PM
From each according to his ability, to each according to his need - Marx
Yes, well, liberals love to tell us how we don't need luxuries. That's why liberalism always makes sure every one is reduced to being perpetually needy.

Yet, look how many people are employed by other people being able to spend disposable income.

Luxuries don't just consume wealth, it creates and spreads wealth.
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: Ballygrl on July 02, 2010, 01:29:29 PM
Yes, well, liberals love to tell us how we don't need luxuries. That's why liberalism always makes sure every one is reduced to being perpetually needy.

Yet, look how many people are employed by other people being able to spend disposable income.

Luxuries don't just consume wealth, it creates and spreads wealth.

Of course it does, if a rich person buys a yacht that money trickles down to the company that sells the yacht, then that trickles down to the company that builds the parts for the yacht, to the company that makes the paint for the yacht, to the company that build furniture for the yacht etc.
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: TheSarge on July 02, 2010, 01:33:09 PM
Yes, well, liberals love to tell us how we don't need luxuries. That's why liberalism always makes sure every one is reduced to being perpetually needy.

Yet, look how many people are employed by other people being able to spend disposable income.

Luxuries don't just consume wealth, it creates and spreads wealth.

That quote from Marx is what our Liberal friend was really dying to tell us...but she doesn't have the guts to come right out and say it.
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: Thor on July 02, 2010, 01:33:45 PM
Of course it does, if a rich person buys a yacht that money trickles down to the company that sells the yacht, then that trickles down to the company that builds the parts for the yacht, to the company that makes the paint for the yacht, to the company that build furniture for the yacht etc.

let's not forget the boat slip owners that collect rent from the yacht owner and the people that are required to maintain & service that yacht........
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: Ballygrl on July 02, 2010, 01:35:48 PM
let's not forget the boat slip owners that collect rent from the yacht owner and the people that are required to maintain & service that yacht........

Yep! no idea how the leftist mind doesn't get that.
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: USA4ME on July 02, 2010, 01:39:54 PM
Healthy or not, that's what's happening.  The rich are getting richer and the poor and middle-class are getting poorer.

I meant redistribution of wealth from those that have to those who don't, but you already knew that.  It's fundamentally not what the founding fathers intended to be the role of gov't.  As someone who has extra, I am in a much better position to personally help my fellow man in a way that is meaningful than someone sitting in a cubicle in DC who wants to reach in my pocket and hand it out as they see fit.

Not interested in your form of redistribution.  Feel free to talk to others who wish to discuss it, but don't say another word to me about it.

.
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: TheSarge on July 02, 2010, 01:42:50 PM
let's not forget the boat slip owners that collect rent from the yacht owner and the people that are required to maintain & service that yacht........

But it's not FAIR that those people can't have a Yacht too! /DU mode
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: TheSarge on July 02, 2010, 01:51:40 PM
I meant redistribution of wealth from those that have to those who don't, but you already knew that.  

Yup thought so...just like I said earlier...this one believes in:

From each according to his ability, to each according to his need - Marx
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: AllosaursRus on July 02, 2010, 02:14:22 PM
Sure glad I stayed away from this thread!

I won't have to kick the cat today, at least not yet!

You guys took care of it very well. However she will never see the folly of her liberal talking points. Liberals are so closed minded, they can't see the forest for the trees!
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: BEG on July 02, 2010, 02:30:13 PM
You must have the thumbs of a Greek goddess.

I don't even use my thumbs, that is how awsome I am.

The thing that sucks about my phone is if I hit the wrong letter it can insert a totally different word. I don't proff read on my phone so I make a ton more typos.
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: IassaFTots on July 02, 2010, 02:32:23 PM
I don't even use my thumbs, that is how awsome I am.

The thing that sucks about my phone is if I hit the wrong letter it can insert a totally different word. I don't proff read on my phone so I make a ton more typos.

BEG, forgive me.  You didn't make any typos untl proff read.  And that cracked me up.  And I am sorry. 
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: Hawkgirl on July 02, 2010, 02:36:05 PM
Yes.  It is called redistribution of wealth.  That, in fact, is the issue.  In the United States, over the past 30+ years, wealth has been re-distributed upwards (to the richest among us) to the point that those of us in the bottom 90% are on the verge of being serfs.  -Laelth

 :lmao:

Are you serious?  Really? 

How exactly is the rich taking from the poor?  The rich provide jobs, the rich are taxed to support that large percentage of americans that don't even work.   I dont think you should try twisting things around here.  That spin would work at DU, but not here.
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: BEG on July 02, 2010, 02:54:22 PM
BEG, forgive me.  You didn't make any typos untl proff read.  And that cracked me up.  And I am sorry. 

I always have an out, I've had a stroke so I get a pass.  :p
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: IassaFTots on July 02, 2010, 03:21:28 PM
I always have an out, I've had a stroke so I get a pass.  :p

That ain't right man.  Your typing on the phone is fab.  My nails get in the way, and all my i's become o's. 
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: bkg on July 02, 2010, 05:25:46 PM


You must admit that this is not fair.

-Laelth

2 points.
1 - Buffett is a fawking liar. He COULD get taxed at the full rates but CHOOSES to get paid in dividends instead of income. He's a hypocrite of the worst kind.
2 - As him when he last wrote an EXTRA check to the IRS because he didn't think he was taxed high enough...


Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: AllosaursRus on July 02, 2010, 09:12:55 PM
2 points.
1 - Buffett is a fawking liar. He COULD get taxed at the full rates but CHOOSES to get paid in dividends instead of income. He's a hypocrite of the worst kind.
2 - As him when he last wrote an EXTRA check to the IRS because he didn't think he was taxed high enough...




Ya notice Liefty disappeared didn'tcha! When confronted with facts they can't deny, whoooooooooooooosh!
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: Laelth on July 03, 2010, 07:10:37 AM
The idea that the poor are being soaked by our current income tax structure is laughable.

I never said that the poor are being soaked by our income tax structure.  I said the poor are soaked by our tax structure.  Sales taxes, property taxes, sin taxes, gasoline taxes, and government fees all hurt the poor a lot more than they do the rich.  As a percentage of their total income (from whatever source), the poor carry the heaviest tax burden of us all.

It's the middle class that's most heavily punished by our current income tax structure.  Buffett's secretary is hurt a lot more by having to pay her income taxes than Warren Buffett is, as he freely admits.  It appears to me that the people in this thread (like me) who are middle-classed and complaining about our income taxes prove his point.  We are hurt by income taxes much moreso than the wealthy.

Quote from: DumbAss Tanker
Paying 17.7% of $46 million is paying less tax than paying 30% of $60,000?  On what planet does that math work?        

It's not less in raw numbers, obviously.  But it is much less as a percentage of income.  Income taxes hurt middle-classed people more, even if, in raw numbers, a given middle-classed person is paying less in income taxes than someone who is wealthy.  It's hard for me to believe that you're trying to gin up sympathy for Warren Buffet, but I think he will do fine, even if we were to dramatically increase his tax burden.

-Laelth
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: Laelth on July 03, 2010, 07:20:58 AM
Isn't it amazing that in spite of all the regulations we have to choke down the big corporations can still thrive...

...but the small and medium sized businesses have to bear the same crushing weight?

Maybe we should stop trying to use government to enforce fairness of outcome and instead look to fairness of opportunity.

I don't think we can look to the government to do much of anything these days except to further enrich the rich.  As such, opportunities for those of us who are not rich are limited now and are likely to get more limited in the future.

Sad, but that's the way I see it.

-Laelth
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: Laelth on July 03, 2010, 07:27:00 AM
The only thing that really ticks me off is seeing 5 generations of Welfare families sitting on their butts and having kids they're not even bothering to raise and collecting money for it, and these are the same people who have designer clothes on and have really good sneakers, and get their mani/pedi's every 2 weeks, and here I am shopping at Walmart, buying shoes at Payless and doing my own nails. I have no problem with the rich who pay more then their fair share of taxes and expenses, but I do have a problem with people that I as a taxpayer are supporting to sit on their butts.

I fully understand your resentment over what you described above.  While I continue to believe that the rich rip us off a lot more than the poor people do, I'm not happy about the poor people ripping us off either.  But how do we solve this problem?  Mandatory sterilization (so much for our freedoms)?  Government-funded day care and a national jobs program that hires, transports, and works any person who doesn't have a job?  Frankly, I'd support that second option, but it would cost us more than what we're currently paying.  I see no easy solution to this problem.

But, as I said earlier, I would fully support more restrictive rules to crack down on poor people who rip us off just as soon as we address the bigger problem--the rich people who rip us off.

Thanks for the response.

-Laelth
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: Laelth on July 03, 2010, 07:32:38 AM
You still haven't answered the question of why they should.

Why should those who enjoy the greatest benefit from this society pay the most for its maintenance?

Beacause that would be fair?

What better reason do you want?

-Laelth
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: NHSparky on July 03, 2010, 07:41:53 AM
Healthy or not, that's what's happening.  The rich are getting richer and the poor and middle-class are getting poorer.

They're calling it a "plutonomy" now, just so you know.  And, it appears, that's exactly what we have.  Interesting link below.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/6674234/Citigroup-Oct-16-2005-Plutonomy-Report-Part-1

-Laelth

Simply put, noob--HORSESHIT.

I'm "middle class".  Upper middle-class, perhaps, but still middle class.  10 years ago I had just gotten out of the Navy where my greatest income to that point was just over $30,000 per year.  Within 2 years I was making $80K.  However, that was in California--where property taxes on my home ran upwards of $5K a year, I was taxed at a 9.3 percent rate, paid into state UEI and workman's comp, along with an ever-progressive federal tax and FICA.  Now did a large portion of this money which was confiscated from me go to the "rich"?  No--because I was CONSIDERED one of those "rich" people by that point.  The poor and illegals who sat on their fat asses and bitched about not getting MORE of the fruits of my labor but were unable to do for themselves is one of the main reasons I left California several years ago.

I now make somewhat more since then.  I also live in a state which has NO state income or sales tax--but if you liberals in Concord have your way, that will change.  Look at my neighbors in Maine--the highest state and local tax burden IN THE NATION.  Why?  Because Augusta has determined that redistribution is the way to go.  Pay there is for shit, because if anyone there makes over $30K a year, they get ass-raped.  Property taxes aren't that much lower.  Cops there don't have enough crime to prevent or solve (ya right) but they have enough time to turn you in to the state revenue department if someone parks outside your home with out-of-state plates (gotta get that money, boys!)

The end result?  People are leaving Maine in droves.  For the first time in over 200 years, the population of New Hampshire will exceed that of Maine.  People in Maine (and other liberal enclaves) are getting poorer because the "rich" are sick and ****ing tired of being made into the villains and are packing their shit for somewhere they'll be appreciated or at least not villainized.  Look at what's happening in places like California, New Jersey, New York, and Maryland...then tell me that the "rich" are the bad guys in all of this.

And when someone comes along with their ****ing EIC check which is LARGER than any refund I've ever received for work they never did (but I did do), which reduces their OVERALL (not just federal, but overall) tax burden not only to ZERO, but a NEGATIVE (read: they get money back they never paid in) burden, how is it "unfair" to them?  Then when you throw in every social gimme on top of that?  Can you even begin to answer that one for me?  Government at the city, state, and federal level got almost 45 percent of what I earned (EARNED!!!!) last year--nearly $55,000 dollars of MY labor--GONE to someone else, simply because they know as long as they whine with an outstretched hand, they'll be given a handout so long as they vote the "correct" way.

And you wonder why this country is heading down the road it is now.  Buffet can suck a fat dick--he's manipulating the same system he pisses on and knows full well that when tax rates head up next year, he's pulling out of the game of making money.  You can't tax wealth--only income.
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: NHSparky on July 03, 2010, 07:45:20 AM
In my experience, how much money you have makes all the difference in the world.  I will continue to hold that those who benefit most from this society should pay the most for its maintenance.  


And as a result I'm sure you'll be telling Fat Teddy's estate and the rest of the bluebloods that they need to take all their shit out of trusts and pay taxes on it like the rest of us "little people."

Once again--INCOME is taxed.  Wealth is not.  Those who make the most income pay a disproportionate share of the taxes.  Even you can't deny that.
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: NHSparky on July 03, 2010, 07:50:01 AM
You must have the thumbs of a Greek goddess.

Correct yourself, MSB.  BEG IS a Greek goddess.
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: Laelth on July 03, 2010, 07:52:36 AM
3.  Libs don't believe in personal responsibility or personal accountability...you always want 'someone else' to pay.  

If you believe this about liberals, you don't know many liberals.

Quote from: Hawkgirl
This is the reason you will not only lose the November elections (23% democrat congress approval rating) and the Presidency in 2012.  You see, working Americans don't buy into your ideology.

I don't think it matters much whether the Republicans or the Democrats win in November or in 2012.  As I have said, both parties now appear to be completely in the hands of the rich and the corporations.  Again, I am not here to defend the Democratic Party.

I am here reaching out to sane, reasonable people who might also see that this system is broken (and to defend myself as a Plaintiff's attorney, as I did upthread).  If you don't fit that description, feel free to ignore whatever I have to say.

-Laelth
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: NHSparky on July 03, 2010, 07:53:51 AM
let's not forget the boat slip owners that collect rent from the yacht owner and the people that are required to maintain & service that yacht........

The state which collects fuel taxes for the yacht, booze taxes (especially if you're a Kennedy) for the parties on the yacht, sales taxes on all items for upkeep of the yacht, business taxes for all the companies which service the yacht, etc., etc., etc...

Face it.  Government is, as Reagan stated, like a baby--an alimentary canal with a big appetite at one end and no responsibility at the other.
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: NHSparky on July 03, 2010, 07:56:27 AM
I don't think we can look to the government to do much of anything these days except to further enrich the rich.  As such, opportunities for those of us who are not rich are limited now and are likely to get more limited in the future.

Sad, but that's the way I see it.

-Laelth

Well, for the last decade, I keep getting told about how "rich" I am.  So where's all that ****ing money you keep telling me I'm getting?  All I see is a shitload of it disappearing from my check every two weeks.
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: NHSparky on July 03, 2010, 08:05:06 AM
If you believe this about liberals, you don't know many liberals.



I see enough of them bitching that "we" need to pay more.  Yet they're the first ones who shelter their income and wealth.  Michael Moore has a multi-million dollar townhome on the Upper East side of NYC--yet he's a Michigan resident.  Why?  Lower tax rate.  His income goes into a foundation run by his wife, and they "donate" just enough under IRS rules to remain so, thereby keeping his income tax exempt.  Nancy Pelosi and her husband own wineries, hotels, and restaurants, but NONE of their employees are allowed to unionize because of the expense involved. (Betcha didn't know that!)  The Kennedy's don't "own" anything, which would require payment of taxes at a much higher rate.  Everything they have is held in trust and taxes are deferred or much lower.

And as others have noted, when's the last time any of these ****ers have given ONE EXTRA DIME to the US Treasury?  IIRC, wasn't it the CLINTONS ("Government knows how to spend your money better than you...") who took a tax deduction for DONATED UNDERWEAR?  

So spare us the bullshit.  Seriously.
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: Laelth on July 03, 2010, 08:20:00 AM
A couple other note about the Liberal Warren Buffett meme that this DUmmie is shoving down our throats.

Not only does he pay billions in taxes (capital gains, dividend tax) on his vast stock holdings, he pays sales on almost everything he or his companies buy.

From my understanding, he is basing his claims on the small token salary he takes as head of warren buffet corp.

There is nothing that says the Sage of Omaha can't pay MORE taxes in to the Treasury every year.  He just has to write the check for what he thinks is "fair".

And he could pay that secretary better too.

This is just more Liberal class warfare/envy by someone who when they say "I" really means everyone BUT him.

Honestly, I thought for a good long while about how I ought to respond to this.  Given that I am a visitor in your home and that you have already invited me to leave, my first instinct was to say nothing.  But, in the end, I decided I had to respond.

Putting aside your atttack on me and your attack on liberalism, I have to say that you're going to win very few allies with this argument.  You want me to feel sorry for poor Warren Buffett who had to pay 15 million in income taxes but still had 45 million left?  Sergeant, Warren Buffett sill made in one year more money than you and I are likely to make in our entire lives.   And you want me to feel sorry for him?  You want me to believe that he's worse off than his secretary who paid $18K in taxes but had only $42K left after taxes?  I am afraid I can't go there.  It's clear to me that the secreatry carries a lot heavier income tax burden.  That $18K loss hurt her a lot more than the $15 million loss hurt Warren Buffett.

But you keep on defending him if you like.  I suspect that most people will be on my side on this issue.

-Laelth
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: Laelth on July 03, 2010, 08:24:03 AM
If such a system were enacted, a CEO would make as much as a janitor - a construction worker would make as much as a senator - a bad artist would make as much as a good one - a 16-year-old living with his parents would make as much as a 30-year-old with three kids and a mortgage - an entry-level clerk would make as much as accountant with 20 years of experience under his belt.

While this all may sound good to a 16-year-old living at home, the rest of us have some problems with this. Kids should make less than adults, simply because they are less experienced and have fewer expenses. Some jobs simply are worth more than others, and some people need more money than others.

Now, somebody currently making $12,000 a year will probably take issue with this. I mean, who doesn't want to make more money? Even Bill Gates still manages to roll out bed every morning - even though neither he nor anybody even remotely related really needs to work another day in their life. He has more money than he will ever need, yet even he wants more.

At this point, it is important for me to note what kind of people are most likely to be reading this rant ... college students. A quick look at my current site statistics indicates that a good portion of my hits come from colleges. (Yes, Big Brother is watching you) College kids usually work part time for $6 or $7 an hour - I'm sure a lot of you probably think that a "flat pay" system is a great idea, since it would amount to a pay increase of 300%-400%. (This probably explains why some may "young" people vote for Democrats - they consider themselves poor)

I have news for you guys. You are not "the poor". You are just young. In a few years you will probably be in the middle class, or better. It really isn't very hard to do. Just the fact that you will have a college degree is usually enough to secure you a $30,000 a year as soon as you leave college, and most of you will make more than that.

When I was 19, I made about $12,500 a year. By the time I was 24, that amount doubled. Now that I'm 27, that figure has almost doubled again. That's the way this game works. As soon as you get some experience under your belt and learn how to actually be productive, society will reward you by giving you a bigger chunk of the pie.

You will probably only be in college for 4 years - you will be working in the workforce for the next 40 years. So please, stop being so selfish and take the time to think this "flat pay" thing through. Don't vote for boneheads like Clinton, just because they are promising to give you free-health care right now, when you are going to be paying for it through higher taxes for the rest of your life.


All that aside, any government that tried to enact a "Flat Pay" system would invariably run into certain difficulties. For one, it would be difficult to fill certain positions. Some jobs slots would remain empty because nobody would be willing to do certain types of work if they could make the same amount do something else. Nobody would want to take the "Dangerous" or "Dirty" jobs, when there are plenty of "cushy" jobs to be had. But somebody has to take these jobs. In order to fill all of these positions, it would be necessary to force people to take these jobs. With such a system in place, it would be government which would decide what career would be best for you. Want to be a nurse?... Too bad - We need clerical workers. Want to be a writer?... Too Bad, we need construction workers. Want to be a construction worker?... Too bad, we need policemen.

And what do you do with people that refuse to take these new jobs?... Imprison them? Kill them? Half our of population would be forced to become policeman -- just to keep the other half of society working.

http://www.newspeakdictionary.com/ct-distribution_1.html

Hows that for "fair"?

I am not advocating flat pay.  Nor is any other liberal, to my knowledge.  I am arguing for a fair tax structure, however.  Nor am I arguing for state control over the professions that one may enter.  Nor, to my knowledge, is any other liberal.

Liberals are not socialists.  There is a very big difference.

-Laelth
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: Laelth on July 03, 2010, 08:26:22 AM
Yes, well, liberals love to tell us how we don't need luxuries. That's why liberalism always makes sure every one is reduced to being perpetually needy.

Yet, look how many people are employed by other people being able to spend disposable income.

Luxuries don't just consume wealth, it creates and spreads wealth.

I have never heard a liberal say anything like that.  Consumer spending is, in fact, absolutely necessary given this economy.

I have come to the conclusion that many people on this board don't know any liberals.  Your ideas about what liberals think strike me as very odd, to say the least.

-Laelth
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: Ballygrl on July 03, 2010, 08:31:13 AM
I fully understand your resentment over what you described above.  While I continue to believe that the rich rip us off a lot more than the poor people do, I'm not happy about the poor people ripping us off either.  But how do we solve this problem?  Mandatory sterilization (so much for our freedoms)?  Government-funded day care and a national jobs program that hires, transports, and works any person who doesn't have a job?  Frankly, I'd support that second option, but it would cost us more than what we're currently paying.  I see no easy solution to this problem.

But, as I said earlier, I would fully support more restrictive rules to crack down on poor people who rip us off just as soon as we address the bigger problem--the rich people who rip us off.

Thanks for the response.

-Laelth

If a person is able bodied? they need to be totally cut-off and basically forced to become responsible for themselves.

As far as the rich go? I don't have the bash the rich mentality and don't begrudge anyone who has money so I can't go there.
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: NHSparky on July 03, 2010, 08:31:29 AM
I have never heard a liberal say anything like that.  Consumer spending is, in fact, absolutely necessary given this economy.

I have come to the conclusion that many people on this board don't know any liberals.  Your ideas about what liberals think strike me as very odd, to say the least.

-Laelth

And yet you don't recognize that Obama's and the liberal tax policies and class warfare rhetoric is absolutely DESTROYING consumer spending.
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: Laelth on July 03, 2010, 08:36:13 AM
The rich provide jobs, the rich are taxed to support that large percentage of americans that don't even work.

If the rich could make the same amount of money without producing any jobs at all, that's what they would do.  If they could just have a machine that did all the work, and still allowed them to profit, then that's what they would do.  To them, creating jobs is a necessary evil.  I don't give them any credit for that any more than I give them credit for breathing.  They do it only because they have to.

But I wouldn't abolish them either.  We need them, and we need the jobs that they begrudgingly create.  I would take away the incentives they have to ship those jobs to India, however.  I would tax them fairly.  I would regulate them carefully.  I would try to make sure that their profit-making enterprises didn't hurt us too much (i.e. the Gulf of Mexico).

But, as I have also noted, neither the Democratic Party nor the Republican Party has any interest in protecting us from big business now, and I wonder what we're willing to do about this.

-Laelth
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: SSG Snuggle Bunny on July 03, 2010, 08:40:32 AM
Fair to whom and who decides what is fair?

The free market--so long as it is also free of force and fraud--decides what is fair...freely. It isn't a bunch of bureaucrats sitting around saying, "I think that company owner should have 90% of his pay taken away because his janitor is only making $7.50/hour."

The best people to decide if a janitor's time is worth $7.50/hour is the janitor and the company owner. If the janitor wants more but the owner doesn't want to pay more then the owner is free to mop his own damn floors.

Fees and percentage taxes will always hit the poorest people first but progressive tax rates encourage the tyranny of democracy as people demand their fare share from somebody else's pocket for work they effort contributed and corruption in politicians who whore themselves to lobbyists from companies vying for the best advantage.

Left to our own devises we're quite capable of managing for ourselves. Liberalism not only acts like a nanny it treats everyone as children too stupid to handle their own lives.
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: Laelth on July 03, 2010, 08:49:54 AM
2 points.
1 - Buffett is a fawking liar. He COULD get taxed at the full rates but CHOOSES to get paid in dividends instead of income. He's a hypocrite of the worst kind.
2 - As him when he last wrote an EXTRA check to the IRS because he didn't think he was taxed high enough...

LOL.  I have never understood this response.  I have no idea whether Buffett is lying or not, but the idea that those who even dare to suggest that the tax system is unfair should be made to pay more in taxes is very telling.  Why should those who have the courage to say that the system is not fair automatically have to pay more?

Becasue it serves the interests of those who benefit from the current tax scheme, that's why.  Those who do not want change attack those who dare to suggest that change is needed.

Seriously, now, whose interests does this argument serve?  Do you really want to defend Warren Buffett from those who suggest he should pay his fair share of taxes?

-Laelth
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: Ballygrl on July 03, 2010, 08:54:26 AM
Fair to whom and who decides what is fair?

The free market--so long as it is also free of force and fraud--decides what is fair...freely. It isn't a bunch of bureaucrats sitting around saying, "I think that company owner should have 90% of his pay taken away because his janitor is only making $7.50/hour."

The best people to decide if a janitor's time is worth $7.50/hour is the janitor and the company owner. If the janitor wants more but the owner doesn't want to pay more then the owner is free to mop his own damn floors.

Fees and percentage taxes will always hit the poorest people first but progressive tax rates encourage the tyranny of democracy as people demand their fare share from somebody else's pocket for work they effort contributed and corruption in politicians who whore themselves to lobbyists from companies vying for the best advantage.

Left to our own devises we're quite capable of managing for ourselves. Liberalism not only acts like a nanny it treats everyone as children too stupid to handle their own lives.

Exactly, who decides what's fair? I don't want the Government to make that decision.

How many jobs were lost when the Government raised the minimum wage?

If anyone thinks we need to keep fleecing the wealth then look at NJ. At 1 time we were considered the wealthiest State, currently $70 billion dollars has been lost to the State over the past few years when the wealthy had enough and moved out and moved to States with lower taxes, not only did that remove the $ going to the State but it also shifted the tax burden to the middle class and lower middle class, my property taxes have gone up almost $6,000 in the past 10 years to the point where my taxes are higher than my mortgage payment.
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: Laelth on July 03, 2010, 08:57:17 AM
And as a result I'm sure you'll be telling Fat Teddy's estate and the rest of the bluebloods that they need to take all their shit out of trusts and pay taxes on it like the rest of us "little people."

Once again--INCOME is taxed.  Wealth is not.  Those who make the most income pay a disproportionate share of the taxes.  Even you can't deny that.

Yes, those who make the most income pay the most income taxes.  But income is not the only thing that is taxed.  If you look at sales taxes, property taxes, sin taxes, gasoline taxes, government fees, and all the other forms of taxation we pay, it's clear that the poor pay the highest percentage of their income in taxes of all of us.  The middle-class is not much better off because we pay income taxes too (and our income taxes hurt us a lot more than income taxes hurt the wealthy).

I should also add that the government could tax wealth if it wanted to.  While I am not sure that this is a good idea, it has been dne before and it is being done now.  Property taxes, for example, are a form of "wealth" tax.

-Laelth
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: SSG Snuggle Bunny on July 03, 2010, 09:12:37 AM
Hey! You know what would really help in deciding how much to charge for taxes?

Deciding what the government should be providing.

Services that protect people from force, fraud and calamity would be awesome.

Everything else is negotiable (and, hence, dispensable).
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: Texacon on July 03, 2010, 10:03:29 AM
Laelth, I've read this whole thread and unless I'm missing something you ARE the typical liberal and yes I know some.

What makes you typical?  You have not once in this entire thread advocated for less government spending.  All you've advocated for is taking the rich to the cleaners.

No, I don't feel sorry for Warren Buffet but at the same time I don't begrudge him his wealth.  Most rich people have earned what they have.  Just as YOU are trying to do.  As I stated up thread I don't think you'll be singing this same tune if/when you hit the big lawsuit that pays you millions.  I really don't.  I think you will find a way to cry about how you worked for years making nothing and you deserve to keep what you earned because of those years.

We need the government to stop spending NOT figure out how to bilk the American people out of more money.  We also need to figure out how to get the losers off the government payroll.  As a liberal you like to talk about how much the rich are stealing because they aren't paying enough yet the poor who are on government benefits payrolls are paying nothing and you won't admit they are stealing far more than the rich because everything they get comes straight out of the working mans pocket unlike the rich who ARE paying into the system.  That's some ass backward thinking right there.

KC
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: NHSparky on July 03, 2010, 10:04:53 AM
If the rich could make the same amount of money without producing any jobs at all, that's what they would do.  If they could just have a machine that did all the work, and still allowed them to profit, then that's what they would do.  To them, creating jobs is a necessary evil.  I don't give them any credit for that any more than I give them credit for breathing.  They do it only because they have to.

But I wouldn't abolish them either.  We need them, and we need the jobs that they begrudgingly create.  I would take away the incentives they have to ship those jobs to India, however.  I would tax them fairly.  I would regulate them carefully.  I would try to make sure that their profit-making enterprises didn't hurt us too much (i.e. the Gulf of Mexico).

But, as I have also noted, neither the Democratic Party nor the Republican Party has any interest in protecting us from big business now, and I wonder what we're willing to do about this.

-Laelth

Newsflash, genius--one of the biggest reasons companies ship labor (if not the entire company) overseas is that pesky little 39 percent corporate tax rate.
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: NHSparky on July 03, 2010, 10:05:49 AM
Yes, those who make the most income pay the most income taxes.  But income is not the only thing that is taxed.  If you look at sales taxes, property taxes, sin taxes, gasoline taxes, government fees, and all the other forms of taxation we pay, it's clear that the poor pay the highest percentage of their income in taxes of all of us.  The middle-class is not much better off because we pay income taxes too (and our income taxes hurt us a lot more than income taxes hurt the wealthy).

I should also add that the government could tax wealth if it wanted to.  While I am not sure that this is a good idea, it has been dne before and it is being done now.  Property taxes, for example, are a form of "wealth" tax.

-Laelth

Post proof or retract.  If we both bought the same amount of things, then yes, they would pay a higher percentage of their income.  But guess what--they DON'T buy as many or the same things as those with higher incomes.  Sales taxes, gas taxes, "sin" (oh, how you do love that one) taxes (BTW--poor people don't buy luxury items, dearest) all affect people the same, so please don't tell me the poor pay more.

They don't.  Not even close.  And as I've stated before, which you've conveniently ignored thus far, is the fact that in many cases, EIC gives lower income folks a NEGATIVE tax burden, to say nothing of the social services they use at far greater percentages than do the middle or upper-class folks.

Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: Texacon on July 03, 2010, 10:11:33 AM
If the rich could make the same amount of money without producing any jobs at all, that's what they would do.  If they could just have a machine that did all the work, and still allowed them to profit, then that's what they would do.  To them, creating jobs is a necessary evil.  I don't give them any credit for that any more than I give them credit for breathing.  They do it only because they have to.

But I wouldn't abolish them either.  We need them, and we need the jobs that they begrudgingly create.  I would take away the incentives they have to ship those jobs to India, however.  I would tax them fairly.  I would regulate them carefully.  I would try to make sure that their profit-making enterprises didn't hurt us too much (i.e. the Gulf of Mexico).

But, as I have also noted, neither the Democratic Party nor the Republican Party has any interest in protecting us from big business now, and I wonder what we're willing to do about this.

-Laelth

This post really bothers me and is very telling on how you feel about rich people Lealth.  Why do you think the rich only create jobs because they must in order to be wealthy?

Hell, we have a whole class of people who have figured out how to make money by doing NOTHING.  You still champion them ..... why is that?

KC

Edited to Add;  I don't guess you've ever given much thought to how much the middle AND lower classes have in stock in these companies through 401k's and such ...  You cut off the trunk of a tree and the branches are going to die.  Law of unintended consequences and such.
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: USA4ME on July 03, 2010, 10:13:28 AM
If the rich could make the same amount of money without producing any jobs at all, that's what they would do.  If they could just have a machine that did all the work, and still allowed them to profit, then that's what they would do.  To them, creating jobs is a necessary evil.  I don't give them any credit for that any more than I give them credit for breathing.  They do it only because they have to.

That belief is so divorced from reality it's not worth the time try and convince you otherwise.  You have a viewpoint that the rich and multi-national corps are evil, they're out only for themselves, and your worldview is then built upon that foundation and seen throught that prism.  But you aren't the only one, practically the whole DU board is that way.  They, and you, hold that belief, and then I consistently see posts at DU asking why their viewpoints are marginalized.  But, of course, it's because they're the more intelligent and they see things and understand things that others either can't see or refuse to see.  Yeah, whatever.

.
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: DumbAss Tanker on July 03, 2010, 10:50:31 AM
I never said that the poor are being soaked by our income tax structure.  I said the poor are soaked by our tax structure.  Sales taxes, property taxes, sin taxes, gasoline taxes, and government fees all hurt the poor a lot more than they do the rich.  As a percentage of their total income (from whatever source), the poor carry the heaviest tax burden of us all.

It's the middle class that's most heavily punished by our current income tax structure.  Buffett's secretary is hurt a lot more by having to pay her income taxes than Warren Buffett is, as he freely admits.  It appears to me that the people in this thread (like me) who are middle-classed and complaining about our income taxes prove his point.  We are hurt by income taxes much moreso than the wealthy.

It's not less in raw numbers, obviously.  But it is much less as a percentage of income.  Income taxes hurt middle-classed people more, even if, in raw numbers, a given middle-classed person is paying less in income taxes than someone who is wealthy.  It's hard for me to believe that you're trying to gin up sympathy for Warren Buffet, but I think he will do fine, even if we were to dramatically increase his tax burden.

-Laelth

Well, you're kind of moving your goalposts around in that argument, since all your discussion is about income taxes.  Whatevs, I doubt you will find much support even in your own party for moving to 'more progressive' taxation in all those other areas, essentially pushing the lower two or three quintiles' non-income-tax burden onto the net payers in our progressive income tax system.  What you would likely get then would be capital flight of 'Atlas Shrugged' proportions and a government so desperate to seize resources to maintain its revenue stream that the ensuing confiscations would make even Lenin wince.
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: Doc on July 03, 2010, 11:24:37 AM
Yes, those who make the most income pay the most income taxes. But income is not the only thing that is taxed. If you look at sales taxes, property taxes, sin taxes, gasoline taxes, government fees, and all the other forms of taxation we pay, it's clear that the poor pay the highest percentage of their income in taxes of all of us. The middle-class is not much better off because we pay income taxes too (and our income taxes hurt us a lot more than income taxes hurt the wealthy).

I should also add that the government could tax wealth if it wanted to. While I am not sure that this is a good idea, it has been dne before and it is being done now. Property taxes, for example, are a form of "wealth" tax.

-Laelth

Unfortunately most liberal zealots (like yourself) miss one very important consideration in their grand schemes to "create fairness", through progressive taxation, demonization of the rich, and redistribution plans.....the simple fact that wealth is "portable"........case in point: whenever my wife and I were certain that the current group of liberals/progressives/socialists were going to come to power here in the US, a substantial portion of our "wealth" was simply and easily transferred elsewhere, out of the jurisdictional grasp of the US government.

Many individuals and corporations have already also done so, or are now in the process.  Even Obama's buddy, the CEO of General Electric, said recently in a conference in Rome, that his company was rapidly transferring their "wealth" out of the reach of the US government, and that the present administration could only be described as the "enemy of private enterprise".  Simple economics will dictate that the jobs will follow the "wealth".

Perhaps the best example that I can cite of the effect of rampant "liberalism", and the total failure if such policies is the City of Detroit.  I went to undergrad school in the area in the sixties, and for the most part, Detroit had a vibrant economy, and was overall a fairly decent place.......in the intervening five decades, the effects of unions, affirmative action, welfare, corrupt liberal politicians, and an ongoing desire to continue to feed billions in taxpayer dollars into one failed effort after another yielded what can only be described as an area that is akin to most cities in third world shitholes around the world. The worse crime, is that even now, they refuse to admit that their efforts have failed, and continue to cry and whine about the "poor", and more taxpayer funding is needed to support them.

The "poor" will always be with us......making them wards of the state does nothing to improve their overall lot.  My parents and grandparents lived through the "great depression", and were dirt poor during that period.......there were no "social safety nets", perpetual unemployment checks, section eight housing........they did what was necessary to survive, and in that survival, became fiercely independent, and determined to succeed and prosper, which they later did.  Government programs and abusive taxation to create "fairness" were not involved, and America emerged as a stronger nation as a result.

Corporations are not "villians", nor are they unlimited sources of usurpable funds to be confiscated by politicians for redistribution to the masses.......they are entities designed to make products and services, and in doing so, provide profits for their owners and stockholders.  Corporations do not have "consciences", and are not designed to have "empathy" for political causes.....efforts to make them do so, will only result in their migration to areas that will allow them to operate in the manner that THEY choose to do, to minimize the meddling of governments.

Ultimately, liberals will have to come to grips with the fact that in order to have an "economy", jobs, products and services, companies are essential, and they are going to require the latitude to accomplish those goals.

It is said that "nature abhors a vacuum", and if the current crop of liberals/progressives/socialists in government creates one for business here in the US, it will simply be satisfied elsewhere......and rightly so.....we all see how well the extension of these policies to their logical conclusion is working out in countries like Venezuela, don't we.......

doc
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: Texacon on July 03, 2010, 11:32:58 AM
Bravo Doc!  Outstanding post.

KC
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: Ballygrl on July 03, 2010, 11:37:36 AM
Laelth, I've read this whole thread and unless I'm missing something you ARE the typical liberal and yes I know some.

What makes you typical?  You have not once in this entire thread advocated for less government spending.  All you've advocated for is taking the rich to the cleaners.

No, I don't feel sorry for Warren Buffet but at the same time I don't begrudge him his wealth.  Most rich people have earned what they have.  Just as YOU are trying to do.  As I stated up thread I don't think you'll be singing this same tune if/when you hit the big lawsuit that pays you millions.  I really don't.  I think you will find a way to cry about how you worked for years making nothing and you deserve to keep what you earned because of those years.

We need the government to stop spending NOT figure out how to bilk the American people out of more money.  We also need to figure out how to get the losers off the government payroll.  As a liberal you like to talk about how much the rich are stealing because they aren't paying enough yet the poor who are on government benefits payrolls are paying nothing and you won't admit they are stealing far more than the rich because everything they get comes straight out of the working mans pocket unlike the rich who ARE paying into the system.  That's some ass backward thinking right there.

KC

Very very very well said!
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: USA4ME on July 03, 2010, 11:39:12 AM
Bravo Doc!  Outstanding post.

KC

Agreed.

There's just no reasoning with those who get this "rich and corps are evil" mantra into their heads.  Their whole worldview has to be bent and shaped in order to accomidate that belief.  It's why the majority of people who are the movers and shakers in the world just go on about their business and don't concern themselves with these types.  What other choice is there?  You can spend all day going in circles with them knowing they aren't going to change, and productive people just don't have that kind of time.

.
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: Ballygrl on July 03, 2010, 11:50:08 AM
Unfortunately most liberal zealots (like yourself) miss one very important consideration in their grand schemes to "create fairness", through progressive taxation, demonization of the rich, and redistribution plans.....the simple fact that wealth is "portable"........case in point: whenever my wife and I were certain that the current group of liberals/progressives/socialists were going to come to power here in the US, a substantial portion of our "wealth" was simply and easily transferred elsewhere, out of the jurisdictional grasp of the US government.

Many individuals and corporations have already also done so, or are now in the process.  Even Obama's buddy, the CEO of General Electric, said recently in a conference in Rome, that his company was rapidly transferring their "wealth" out of the reach of the US government, and that the present administration could only be described as the "enemy of private enterprise".  Simple economics will dictate that the jobs will follow the "wealth".

Perhaps the best example that I can cite of the effect of rampant "liberalism", and the total failure if such policies is the City of Detroit.  I went to undergrad school in the area in the sixties, and for the most part, Detroit had a vibrant economy, and was overall a fairly decent place.......in the intervening five decades, the effects of unions, affirmative action, welfare, corrupt liberal politicians, and an ongoing desire to continue to feed billions in taxpayer dollars into one failed effort after another yielded what can only be described as an area that is akin to most cities in third world shitholes around the world. The worse crime, is that even now, they refuse to admit that their efforts have failed, and continue to cry and whine about the "poor", and more taxpayer funding is needed to support them.

The "poor" will always be with us......making them wards of the state does nothing to improve their overall lot.  My parents and grandparents lived through the "great depression", and were dirt poor during that period.......there were no "social safety nets", perpetual unemployment checks, section eight housing........they did what was necessary to survive, and in that survival, became fiercely independent, and determined to succeed and prosper, which they later did.  Government programs and abusive taxation to create "fairness" were not involved, and America emerged as a stronger nation as a result.

Corporations are not "villians", nor are they unlimited sources of usurpable funds to be confiscated by politicians for redistribution to the masses.......they are entities designed to make products and services, and in doing so, provide profits for their owners and stockholders.  Corporations do not have "consciences", and are not designed to have "empathy" for political causes.....efforts to make them do so, will only result in their migration to areas that will allow them to operate in the manner that THEY choose to do, to minimize the meddling of governments.

Ultimately, liberals will have to come to grips with the fact that in order to have an "economy", jobs, products and services, companies are essential, and they are going to require the latitude to accomplish those goals.

It is said that "nature abhors a vacuum", and if the current crop of liberals/progressives/socialists in government creates one for business here in the US, it will simply be satisfied elsewhere......and rightly so.....we all see how well the extension of these policies to their logical conclusion is working out in countries like Venezuela, don't we.......

doc

That's an amazingly good post!

Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: Ballygrl on July 03, 2010, 11:53:14 AM
Doc made an especially good point about Venezuela, the poor are worse off now then they ever were before, that can be said about Cuba and North Korea too. Has how chasing out the rich helped the poor in those Countries?
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: Hawkgirl on July 03, 2010, 11:53:26 AM
Laeth, you seem to be cherry picking posts here.  Firstly, you didn't respond to BEG's post and secondly you skipped over my comment about the Corporate tax BEING THE HIGHEST IN THE WORLD.  (Second only to Japan, by a very short margin)  This will ship jobs overseas....What say you about that?  Unemployment will skyrocket if this country keeps penalizing success.
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: Thor on July 03, 2010, 12:13:21 PM
Yes, those who make the most income pay the most income taxes.  But income is not the only thing that is taxed.  If you look at sales taxes, property taxes, sin taxes, gasoline taxes, government fees, and all the other forms of taxation we pay, it's clear that the poor pay the highest percentage of their income in taxes of all of us.  The middle-class is not much better off because we pay income taxes too (and our income taxes hurt us a lot more than income taxes hurt the wealthy).

I should also add that the government could tax wealth if it wanted to.  While I am not sure that this is a good idea, it has been dne before and it is being done now.  Property taxes, for example, are a form of "wealth" tax.

-Laelth

Hey, I don't make much money as I subsist off of a military retirement. It ain't much, let me tell you. However, I can't afford to go out and buy a new car, a boat, and luxury items like that. Sure, I pay sales tax on some items that I buy but only because the state forces me to do so, and that's about it. I don't own a home, so I don't pay any property tax, either. I only buy stuff that I pretty much need. So, your  premise that the poor pay more taxes doesn't wash. It's simple, the poor pay less taxes because they can't afford to buy many of the luxury items that a wealthy person can. Hell, I consider it a "luxury" that I can even afford parts to build a new computer as my current ones are rapidly becoming dinosaurs and are ten years old.

This wasn't always this way and I've experienced the wealthy side of life, but that went away when the Real Estate market died.
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: AllosaursRus on July 03, 2010, 12:23:41 PM
Doc made an especially good point about Venezuela, the poor are worse off now then they ever were before, that can be said about Cuba and North Korea too. Has how chasing out the rich helped the poor in those Countries?

LilithTheLefty doesn't acknowledge Greece going Bankrupt, Spain soon to follow, and at the latest G2 summit when Bummer put forth the idea to keep spending, they all told hm to pound sand!

If her ideals would work so well, why is the rest of the world waking up to the fact they are sending them to hell economically?

Get this through your thick skull Lilith, there is no more ****in' money. Your savior is printing money at a rate never before seen in the history of our country! Your Messiah and his partners in crime, trying to send us into a socialist hell, put forth programs they have no chance of funding. If that wasn't bad enough, they're doing it at a time when we have close to zero growth!

Do you have children? I hope you're not polluting the gene pool with this nonsense, but if you are, how are you going to explain to your children they are going to have to pay for the bills your philosophy has burdened them, and their children with?

All you libbies think the answer is to tax everyone to death and all will be well with the world. Sure looks like the economy of Greece and Spain, with it's so called "Green Job" economy, are in direct contrast to your solutions to make the poor dependent upon you! After all, it's all about the power you people want to have over the working class in this country. Nothing more!

None of your rich buddy politicians are going to give up any of their ill gotten gains! They're just going to take it from us!

ETA:

Quote
I should also add that the government could tax wealth if it wanted to.  While I am not sure that this is a good idea, it has been dne before and it is being done now.  Property taxes, for example, are a form of "wealth" tax.

-Laelth

Do you seriously believe congress critters will tax themselves? BJ and Hitlery were middle class until they gained political power. Now their frikkin' millionaires! You really believe they are going to give up any of that wealth? Sister, you are living in never never land!

There's a long line of politicians that went from the middle class to the millionaire club thru their positions in office! The only way they would give any of it up would be by the barrel of a gun! Hell when they're caught with their hand in the cookie jar, they invent non-taxable foundations and take donations in order to not have to dip into their stash!

Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: USA4ME on July 03, 2010, 01:33:54 PM
Please feel free to look over this primitive's journal:

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Laelth

You'll find his beliefs to be as mainstream DU as they come, and you all know what that means.

.
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: TheSarge on July 03, 2010, 01:45:53 PM
I am not advocating flat pay.  Nor is any other liberal, to my knowledge.  I am arguing for a fair tax structure, however.  Nor am I arguing for state control over the professions that one may enter.  Nor, to my knowledge, is any other liberal.

The tax structure you argue for is neither fair nor very well structured.  A fair tax system is one where EVERYONE pays the same amount.  Not the class warfare you advocate.

If you were to get the "soak the rich" tax structure you so desire...you'd see more of the state doing what it's done to certain firms and corporations that have made their deal with the devil and taken the bail out money.  The state is very much telling their hard working executives how much they can and can't make.  By leaps and bound more than any other Democrat administration with the exception of FDR this administration is making a hard left towards Socialism bordering on Communism.

And YES every Liberal I can think of believes and advocates for state control of everything womb to tomb.

Quote
Liberals are not socialists.  There is a very big difference.

-Laelth

Not in 2010 in the United States there isn't.
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: TheSarge on July 03, 2010, 01:50:31 PM
If the rich could make the same amount of money without producing any jobs at all, that's what they would do.  If they could just have a machine that did all the work, and still allowed them to profit, then that's what they would do.  To them, creating jobs is a necessary evil.  I don't give them any credit for that any more than I give them credit for breathing.  They do it only because they have to.

But I wouldn't abolish them either.  We need them, and we need the jobs that they begrudgingly create.  I would take away the incentives they have to ship those jobs to India, however.  I would tax them fairly.  I would regulate them carefully.  I would try to make sure that their profit-making enterprises didn't hurt us too much (i.e. the Gulf of Mexico).

But, as I have also noted, neither the Democratic Party nor the Republican Party has any interest in protecting us from big business now, and I wonder what we're willing to do about this.

-Laelth

Ok now after two days of reading your propaganda talking points I have just one question for you.

Which Democrat member of Congress are you working for?

Only a paid political shill or a staffer for a Leftist Congress Critter would keep repeating this Socialist tripe in the face of mountainous evidence to the contrary.
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: TheSarge on July 03, 2010, 02:02:58 PM
Why should those who enjoy the greatest benefit from this society pay the most for its maintenance?

Beacause that would be fair?

What better reason do you want?

-Laelth

How about an honest one...not more Liberal class warfare rhetoric.  No where in the founding of this country was it ever said that with all the freedoms we were/are granted...was there ever anything said about things being "fair".

We were all granted the right to the right to life liberty and the persuit of happiness.  No one ever said it would be handed to our and no one ever said life would be fair.
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: AllosaursRus on July 03, 2010, 02:06:51 PM
Ok now after two days of reading your propaganda talking points I have just one question for you.

Which Democrat member of Congress are you working for?

Only a paid political shill or a staffer for a Leftist Congress Critter would keep repeating this Socialist tripe in the face of mountainous evidence to the contrary.

I think you've hit TX! How in the world these libbies can keep defending these policies with the oh so evident failure of them to work, borders on insanity!

Only brain washed sheep can still believe in them! Their argument of "it just hasn't been administered the right way yet" is ignorant!

The very thing that keeps them from ever working is the left's insatiable need for power over the rest of us. It means them first absconding with the wealth and then passing out just enough to keep us under their thumbs. All the while looking down on us from their penthouse suites with their illegal alien servants waiting on them hand and foot, jet setting around the world in private jets, and driving their SUVs down to the local 7-11 for more cheetos! Do as I say, not as I do! I'm exempt because I need these

They have no desire to give up their wealth in order to advance the socialist utopia, but they sure as hell expect us to!
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: Laelth on July 03, 2010, 02:07:06 PM
And yet you don't recognize that Obama's and the liberal tax policies and class warfare rhetoric is absolutely DESTROYING consumer spending.

LOL.  Obama is no liberal.  He's as much a Republican as Bill Clinton was.  I am a liberal, and I know the difference.

And as for tax policy, I agree.  That might be killing consumer spending because the poor and the middle class have very little to spend these days.  Tax policy might have something to do with this, but liberal tax policy?  That I do not see.  I see conservative tax policy in action ... cut taxes for the rich, soak the poor and the middle class with taxes.  That's what I see.

-Laelth
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: AllosaursRus on July 03, 2010, 02:08:06 PM
Ok now after two days of reading your propaganda talking points I have just one question for you.

Which Democrat member of Congress are you working for?

Only a paid political shill or a staffer for a Leftist Congress Critter would keep repeating this Socialist tripe in the face of mountainous evidence to the contrary.

I think you've hit TX! How in the world these libbies can keep defending these policies with the oh so evident failure of them to work, borders on insanity!

Only brain washed sheep can still believe in them! Their argument of "it just hasn't been administered the right way yet" is ignorant!

The very thing that keeps them from ever working is the left's insatiable need for power over the rest of us. It means them first absconding with the wealth and then passing out just enough to keep us under their thumbs. All the while looking down on us from their penthouse suites with their illegal alien servants waiting on them hand and foot, jet setting around the world in private jets, and driving their SUVs down to the local 7-11 for more cheetos! Do as I say, not as I do! I'm exempt because I need these things in order to reign supreme over the masses!

They have no desire to give up their wealth in order to advance the socialist utopia, but they sure as hell expect us to!
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: AllosaursRus on July 03, 2010, 02:17:16 PM
LOL.  Obama is no liberal.  He's as much a Republican as Bill Clinton was.  I am a liberal, and I know the difference.

And as for tax policy, I agree.  That might be killing consumer spending because the poor and the middle class have very little to spend these days.  Tax policy might have something to do with this, but liberal tax policy?  That I do not see.  I see conservative tax policy in action ... cut taxes for the rich, soak the poor and the middle class with taxes.  That's what I see.

-Laelth

That's because you haven't listened to any of the facts in this thread! Go back to Uranus! It's clear no amount of debate will ever get you to land on any other planet where there is daylight!

ETA:

You didn't answer the question either. Which DemonRat do you work for?
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: TheSarge on July 03, 2010, 02:19:31 PM

I have to say that you're going to win very few allies with this argument.

I've got every Conservative in the country as an ally with my argument.


Quote
You want me to feel sorry for poor Warren Buffett who had to pay 15 million in income taxes but still had 45 million left?  Sergeant, Warren Buffett sill made in one year more money than you and I are likely to make in our entire lives.

First off it's Staff Sergeant.  Secondly I wasn't trying to garner any kind of sympathy from anyone for Buffet.

He made a shit ton of money.  Good for him.  I don't begrudge him one cent.

Nor am I jealous that he made it and I didn't.

But then again I'm not base enough to believe that my life is or isn't a success based on my paycheck.  There are far more important things in my life that make me richer than Gates and Buffet combined.


Quote
And you want me to feel sorry for him?  You want me to believe that he's worse off than his secretary who paid $18K in taxes but had only $42K left after taxes?  I am afraid I can't go there.  It's clear to me that the secreatry carries a lot heavier income tax burden.  That $18K loss hurt her a lot more than the $15 million loss hurt Warren Buffett.

I never said anything of the sort.

Your reading comprehension sucks.

Quote
But you keep on defending him if you like.  I suspect that most people will be on my side on this issue.

-Laelth

Perhaps you should have gone with your first instinct and not responded.  Cause no where in her have I defended Warren Buffet.

YOU were the one that brought him into the conversation and held him up as a shining example.

I showed that you...and him are full of shit.
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: TheSarge on July 03, 2010, 02:32:55 PM
LOL.  Obama is no liberal.  He's as much a Republican as Bill Clinton was.  I am a liberal, and I know the difference.



That one statement right there gets you an automatic nomination for the 2010 DUmmie of the year.

Ralph write this one down.
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: AllosaursRus on July 03, 2010, 02:37:32 PM
That one statement right there gets you an automatic nomination for the 2010 DUmmie of the year.

Ralph write this one down.

At least a candidate for "Mind Numbing Stupidity"!
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: Doc on July 03, 2010, 02:38:52 PM
LOL.  Obama is no liberal.  He's as much a Republican as Bill Clinton was.  I am a liberal, and I know the difference.

And as for tax policy, I agree.  That might be killing consumer spending because the poor and the middle class have very little to spend these days. Tax policy might have something to do with this, but liberal tax policy? That I do not see.  I see conservative tax policy in action ... cut taxes for the rich, soak the poor and the middle class with taxes. That's what I see.

-Laelth

Anecdotally, I notice that you have avoided my discussion of liberal taxation policies and corporations like the plague........your silence in rebuttal is deafening......

Your comment that Obama and his minions are no liberals is further damning by its presence, as it infers that you are far to the left of his policies, which have been demonstrated to be basically socialist in nature......leaving us with the impression that you have graduated from liberalism, through socialism (without passing GO) and proceeded directly to some form of totalitarianism.......speaks volumes.

And by the way, the reason that consumer spending is so low (as well as consumer confidence) has nothing to do with taxation, or lack thereof, and has everything to do with the fact that one in five Americans either don't have a job right now, or are severely underemployed.......they are in survival mode.  

Reducing the overall tax burden on someone that is earning nothing is just an empty gesture, designed to appear to the uninitiated that the present bunch in charge "cares about them", when this could not be further from the truth.

Critically evaluating all of the government (read taxpayer)  funds that have been expended in one "stimulus" or another has had absolutely no effect on the basic problem of lack of private sector jobs that will be the ultimate recovery mechanism for the economy.  In the instant case, the example of Greece should tell us what the ultimate result of depending on the creation of government jobs has on the long-term stability of a nations economy.

As was wisely stated by Lady Margaret Thatcher........."Socialism is great until you eventually run out of other peoples money" (paraphrased).

doc
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: BEG on July 03, 2010, 02:48:48 PM
I'm thinking Doc is kind of hot.
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: Thor on July 03, 2010, 02:52:33 PM


And by the way, the reason that consumer spending is so low (as well as consumer confidence) has nothing to do with taxation, or lack thereof, and has everything to do with the fact that one in five Americans either don't have a job right now, or are severely underemployed.......they are in survival mode.  


doc


This is exactly why it has taken me several months to accumulate the funds to buy the parts to build my new computer.
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: Doc on July 03, 2010, 03:01:06 PM
I'm thinking Doc is kind of hot.

Unfortunately, I'm far from that.......

You, however, are definitely so, madame.......

To digress, this "Laelth" individual professes to be a lawyer, ergo, fairly well educated, and infused with a modicum of "common sense".  Thus far, I have seen no indication that this is the case, and I would certainly be reticent to hire her/him/it for legal representation based on the debating skills thus far demonstrated......

doc
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: USA4ME on July 03, 2010, 03:31:18 PM
To digress, this "Laelth" individual professes to be a lawyer, ergo, fairly well educated, and infused with a modicum of "common sense".  Thus far, I have seen no indication that this is the case, and I would certainly be reticent to hire her/him/it for legal representation based on the debating skills thus far demonstrated......

Depends.  If you were to get a divorce and wanted your wife to be left in the poor house, you could hire him to represent her.

.
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: Ballygrl on July 03, 2010, 05:30:26 PM
Anecdotally, I notice that you have avoided my discussion of liberal taxation policies and corporations like the plague........your silence in rebuttal is deafening......

Your comment that Obama and his minions are no liberals is further damning by its presence, as it infers that you are far to the left of his policies, which have been demonstrated to be basically socialist in nature......leaving us with the impression that you have graduated from liberalism, through socialism (without passing GO) and proceeded directly to some form of totalitarianism.......speaks volumes.

And by the way, the reason that consumer spending is so low (as well as consumer confidence) has nothing to do with taxation, or lack thereof, and has everything to do with the fact that one in five Americans either don't have a job right now, or are severely underemployed.......they are in survival mode.  

Reducing the overall tax burden on someone that is earning nothing is just an empty gesture, designed to appear to the uninitiated that the present bunch in charge "cares about them", when this could not be further from the truth.

Critically evaluating all of the government (read taxpayer)  funds that have been expended in one "stimulus" or another has had absolutely no effect on the basic problem of lack of private sector jobs that will be the ultimate recovery mechanism for the economy.  In the instant case, the example of Greece should tell us what the ultimate result of depending on the creation of government jobs has on the long-term stability of a nations economy.

As was wisely stated by Lady Margaret Thatcher........."Socialism is great until you eventually run out of other peoples money" (paraphrased).

doc

I was just going to post that consumer spending is down because people are out of work and the uncertainty of future economic conditions, but you did it a million times better than I ever could. Also I see no mention of curbing spending and making cuts which was a huge bone of contention amongst conservatives when it came to Bush, and even progressives used the spending argument, now total silence on spending and demonizing those who speak out against it.
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: Thor on July 03, 2010, 07:28:05 PM
Last summer, the bingo at the VFW was averaging 70+ players on a Saturday, sometimes as much as 95. This summer, we've been lucky to break 50 players. Since Bingo supports the VFW, it's starting to hurt. If this trend continues, many organizations will be forced to close their doors. For the record, last year we donated on excess of $10,000.00 to various charities. This year has been far less than that , so far. If I don't see an improvement, I can most assuredly say that we won't break the $5000.00 mark in donations.
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: USA4ME on July 03, 2010, 07:52:22 PM
These "I hate the rich and multi-national corps" type have a lot of explaining to do.  For instance, do they purchace items which in any way puts money in the pockets of the rich and/or multi-national corps? Because if they do, then that tells me they're a lot of talk with no substantial action.

.
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: SSG Snuggle Bunny on July 03, 2010, 09:10:56 PM
These "I hate the rich and multi-national corps" type have a lot of explaining to do.  For instance, do they purchace items which in any way puts money in the pockets of the rich and/or multi-national corps? Because if they do, then that tells me they're a lot of talk with no substantial action.

.
They only hate multi-nationals because they hate little brown people (LBP) who are poor and disadvantaged.

Think about it. If all them LBPs started getting high-paying indoor factory jobs then who would be left to carry back-breaking loads of coffee over the mountains in scorching mid-day heat so these limousine liberals can enjoy their over-priced half-caff, mochaccino double lattes with a sprinkle of nutmeg.

"No, no, little brown person. Those jobs are too good for you. Those jobs only belong to Americans!"
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: PatriotGame on July 03, 2010, 09:25:32 PM
LOL.  Obama is no liberal.  He's as much a Republican as Bill Clinton was.  I am a liberal, and I know the difference.

And as for tax policy, I agree.  That might be killing consumer spending because the poor and the middle class have very little to spend these days.  Tax policy might have something to do with this, but liberal tax policy?  That I do not see.  I see conservative tax policy in action ... cut taxes for the rich, soak the poor and the middle class with taxes.  That's what I see.

-Laelth
I would laugh but I know you are serious so I pity you.
Maybe you can help me out here. Just last week the 0bama administration, the Treasury, and members of Congress, some of them Democrats all stated: "The Bush tax cuts are going to expire soon and when they do, people must be prepared because the poor and middle class are going to take a hit". Those are the very same tax cuts that you and your socialist comrades on the left spent the last eight years screaming they were only for the rich.
How does that work? By your very own admission, you on the left have been LYING all along.

Now get your pretzel machine out and twist your response into some form of logic.
Quote
Hoyer: Middle-class tax cuts may be on chopping block:

Hoyer, a Maryland Democrat, also suggested that future Social Security benefits may have to be trimmed to contain the national debt.

Hoyer added, however, that as long as the economy is struggling to recover, "I don't think this is the time to increase taxes" on middle-class people. Congress is expected to let tax reductions for the wealthy expire at year's end.



Read more: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/06/22/96354/hoyer-middle-class-tax-cuts-may.html#ixzz0sfzbnaW1

Care to elaborate?
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: NHSparky on July 04, 2010, 07:14:55 AM
LOL.  Obama is no liberal.  He's as much a Republican as Bill Clinton was.  I am a liberal, and I know the difference.


That one just pegged the bullshit meter right there.
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: Hawkgirl on July 04, 2010, 09:46:25 AM
 :yawn:
 
 The more this libs posts, the more  :yawn:
We have enough liberal propaganda directed towards us on TV, from the President, from Congress....now we are to welcome it on a Conservative website?
All her talking points are about redistribution of wealth and class warfare..... :yawn:  Stop feeding the troll...no matter what anyone thinks...having libs like her post her bullshit here WILL NOT CHANGE HER IDEOLOGY.  Some of you may think that this is an outlet we can use to change one over to our party...but trust me, it's not the case with liberals...especially DUmmies.
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: SSG Snuggle Bunny on July 04, 2010, 10:03:27 AM
:yawn:
 
 The more this libs posts, the more  :yawn:
We have enough liberal propaganda directed towards us on TV, from the President, from Congress....now we are to welcome it on a Conservative website?
All her talking points are about redistribution of wealth and class warfare..... :yawn:  Stop feeding the troll...no matter what anyone thinks...having libs like her post her bullshit here WILL NOT CHANGE HER IDEOLOGY.  Some of you may think that this is an outlet we can use to change one over to our party...but trust me, it's not the case with liberals...especially DUmmies.

Understood but at least we can challenge this nonsense unlike never being allowed to challenge it at the DUmp.
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: Thor on July 04, 2010, 10:26:34 AM
Understood but at least we can challenge this nonsense unlike never being allowed to challenge it at the DUmp.

Eggggggggggggggggggsssssssssssssssssssssactly......... 


I find it somewhat humorous that all of the DUmpmonkeys seem to be finding us and migrating here. Of course, with the current meltdown at the DUmp, I can see why.

Ohhh, and Hawkgirl........ if we get rid of "chew toys", we get admonished. If we don't we get admonished. It can't be both ways. Besides, is that what you really want? A site that forces everybody to toe the line, walk in lockstep and abide by group think?? Regardless of WHICH side of the political divide a person is on, that is little more than fascism, period.
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: Hawkgirl on July 04, 2010, 10:39:08 AM
Ok, point taken.
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: thundley4 on July 04, 2010, 10:43:10 AM
Ok, point taken.

Besides, how else do we get to question their and get any answers from them, if we don't let them come here?  Skammer wouldn't allow a conservative to question DUmmies on their own turf.
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: NHSparky on July 04, 2010, 11:15:24 AM
Besides, how else do we get to question their and get any answers from them, if we don't let them come here?  Skammer wouldn't allow a conservative to question DUmmies on their own turf.

$kammer doesn't allow LIBERALS to question each other anymore.
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: delilahmused on July 04, 2010, 03:04:51 PM
Getting people off welfare rolls is something I've given a lot of thought about. Keeping people dependent on the government is akin to keeping them in slavery. And just as segregation and other racist policies were policies of southern DEMOCRATS so the current serfdom is owned solely by the democratic party. One has to wonder why they would do NOTHING to give them a hand up. The only logical conclusion is that you create a permanent voting block. All you really have to do is keep them ignorant and in fear of the "republican boogie man" and create a situation where they are excluded from the larger society. You have generations where cycles of unwed mothers with multiple children, absent fathers (many involved in gangs), and undereducated continue to repeat themselves. They live in utter hopelessness and extreme poverty having forgotten (or never learned) how to take care of themselves. No one on the left EVER does anything but keep them there. Even Clinton had to be dragged kicking and screaming to welfare reform. Incomes and living standards actually improved, some were even able to move out of their inner city plantations. Now that's going to disappear again so they can come dependent on "Obama money from his stash".

Those of us living in the real world have a system of rewards and punishments. Do a good job at work, you get praised and perhaps a bonus or raise (unless you're a union member, i.e. socialist and you don't have to do a good job to get a raise). Do poorly and you get reprimanded and even fired if you don't improve. Don't pay your rent or house payment you get evicted. Pay your bills on time and you earn a good credit rating which opens the door to other opportunities. Our own choices and not the soft tyranny of a forced dependence determine our station in life. So, here's what I would do:

First you have to eliminate the danger outside so the residents can do more than spend a life looking at the window and ducking stray bullets. Make those rich slum lords, like Obama's best buddy Valerie Jarrett, who get double funds from the government in the form of rent subsidies and rent paid by tenants, pay for specially trained armed guards (sort of like the inner city version of Blackwater). Mow down a some gang members, arrest some more as we did with insurgents in Iraq (because this IS a war zone for those who live there) and the gangs will go away.

Then the residents can leave their apartments and you can teach them to take pride in their surroundings, create a sense of self-confidence and they'll start to see possibilities. No more free rides. Have them clean their neighborhoods, create community gardens, build new playground equipment, paint buildings and make repairs inside. Apprentice some of these people to plumbers, contractors, gardeners so they learn a skill and give them a salary for their work. Have daycare centers run and staffed by residents. This frees other residents to get their GED and learn a skill. The initial cost for these programs might be more than sending out a welfare check but as those people become less dependent on the government and more self-sufficient welfare rolls will be reduced significantly which means more money in everyone's pocket (provided the powers that be don't decide to keep for something else). Anyone who wants to sit on their ass and collect funds will have their checks reduced. No more increased payments for every baby they pop out. Give extra funds for only 2 children...this would be those consequences for ones behavior that the rest of us live with.

Of course there are other things that must be done...merit pay for teachers and such but that should be country wide anyway, along with ending unions for government employees. It's called government SERVICE for a reason and public employee unions hold the citizens hostage...but that's another topic.

Cindie
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: AllosaursRus on July 04, 2010, 03:21:03 PM
Hands down that's the best post in this thread, Cin!!!!!!!!!!!111111111

I'd go a little further and make even belonging to a gang a felony, punishable by 15 yrs in the hoosegow! If they renounce gang activity, get an education and a workable skill, let them out. Recruiting youngsters as young as 8, 10, or 12, should be treated the same as pedophilia and carry a life sentence!

Gangs are the biggest threat to inner city society ever since Cosa Nostra invented it in Sicily!

Tagging a building, or any other property should get ya a caning like they do in Indonesia!
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: formerlurker on July 04, 2010, 05:55:52 PM
You're right, I think.  He did call me a vulture, although he backed off further down in the thread.  And I don't take cases out of charity.  I can't afford to.  As another poster rightly noted, I only take cases I think I can win because I can't afford to work for free for years and not get paid.

Hey, everybody hates lawyers these days (until they need one).  And there's no doubt that the right has been leading an organized campaign to denigrate trial lawyers (Plaintiffs' lawyers) because they want to de-fund the left and the Democratic Party.  It is also true that Plaintiffs' lawyers donate more money to Democrats than they do to Republicans.  But have you looked at the other side?  The defense attorneys are the ones who are making the big bucks.  A few Plaintiffs' attorneys make good money ... a few ... but the defense attorneys (the ones that make the big money because they work for the wealthy corporations) are the ones who make the most money, and they donate most of it to Republicans because the Republicans advance laws that favor the rich and, specifically, those big wealthy corporations.  Does the name Joe Barton ring a bell?

Either way, I thought I should just say hi given that I was being discused in this thread.  So flame away, you manly men and women.

 :cheersmate:

-Laelth

Seriously Laelth?  Prior to having children I was a paralegal (which included worker's compensation law -- the professional claimants) and a casualty adjuster for MVAs.   PI attorneys are the scum of the earth.  The only cases you shy a bit away from are slip and fall unless it is a clear winner, and even then there are those who take them.   

PI attorneys take on a client, tell them to treat with the doctors/chiros/scam artists these attorneys have nice relationships with, for however long they can milk it (got to love those soft tissue injuries am I right Laelth?), and then they actually pick up the file for first time to call the adjuster to settle it.   

You make money based on contingency as it is a formula when you do next to no work, so please give me a break.  On the extremely rare chance it is an injury that is going to trial, the small time putz PI attorney will most likely no longer be handling the file.   Big injuries usually go to big law firms.  I never had any issue paying claims on real injuries -- those claimants don't need attorneys.   

Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: AllosaursRus on July 04, 2010, 06:32:20 PM
Seriously Laelth?  Prior to having children I was a paralegal (which included worker's compensation law -- the professional claimants) and a casualty adjuster for MVAs.   PI attorneys are the scum of the earth.  The only cases you shy a bit away from are slip and fall unless it is a clear winner, and even then there are those who take them.   

PI attorneys take on a client, tell them to treat with the doctors/chiros/scam artists these attorneys have nice relationships with, for however long they can milk it (got to love those soft tissue injuries am I right Laelth?), and then they actually pick up the file for first time to call the adjuster to settle it.   

You make money based on contingency as it is a formula when you do next to no work, so please give me a break.  On the extremely rare chance it is an injury that is going to trial, the small time putz PI attorney will most likely no longer be handling the file.   Big injuries usually go to big law firms.  I never had any issue paying claims on real injuries -- those claimants don't need attorneys.



Exactly, "former"! My wife got T-Boned by an inattentive driver and we settled our claim without a lawyer, who would have done nothing more than jack up the price in order for them to make money and us to make less!

If you have a legitimate claim, you don't need a damn lawyer. That's what insurance companies do for the money I already pay them!
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: Thor on July 04, 2010, 07:02:46 PM

You make money based on contingency as it is a formula when you do next to no work, so please give me a break.  On the extremely rare chance it is an injury that is going to trial, the small time putz PI attorney will most likely no longer be handling the file.   Big injuries usually go to big law firms.  I never had any issue paying claims on real injuries -- those claimants don't need attorneys.



I don't know about all that. I had to sue my own insurance company because they didn't want to pay on the underinsured motorists rider I had. I had/have REAL injuries, even to this day, as a result of that accident. Like I said earlier, at my deposition, they thought they had me, asked several trick questions and ultimately, I blew them out of the water when asked if there were any witnesses. Sure, I had some hoops to jump through. It still took three years plus to settle the case, even with an operation.
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: formerlurker on July 04, 2010, 07:06:11 PM
I don't know about all that. I had to sue my own insurance company because they didn't want to pay on the underinsured motorists rider I had. I had/have REAL injuries, even to this day, as a result of that accident. Like I said earlier, at my deposition, they thought they had me, asked several trick questions and ultimately, I blew them out of the water when asked if there were any witnesses. Sure, I had some hoops to jump through. It still took three years plus to settle the case, even with an operation.

Sorry -- missed your post on your accident.   Was this a hit and run? 
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: formerlurker on July 04, 2010, 07:19:06 PM
Exactly, "former"! My wife got T-Boned by an inattentive driver and we settled our claim without a lawyer, who would have done nothing more than jack up the price in order for them to make money and us to make less!

If you have a legitimate claim, you don't need a damn lawyer. That's what insurance companies do for the money I already pay them!

Submit your meds, bills and make sure you tell the adjuster in detail how the injury has affected your life (you will get more money if you are a LL coach, active with the kids, etc. etc. and could no longer do any of that stuff).    Attorneys understand the formula I use to put a dollar figure on your claim -- they just pile on the bells and whistles to try to squeak out a few more thousand.    You can do this yourself.

Formula is easy.  Accident happened --  we look at point of impact to vehicle, amount of damage, etc.   then your injury.   Seatbelt?   we may use that as a negotiation strategy to give you some negligence.  

Ambulance to ER, treated and released for soft tissue injury -- $300-$400 for that day.  
Ambulance to ER, admitted with significant injuries -- anywhere from $300 to 1,000+ per day depending on injury.
Treatment -- type of injury,  we give you a set amount per week for consistent treatment so let's say you are a mom of 3 small kids with back injury that will not require surgery.  You go to ER, then PCP, maybe an ortho or neuro and then get referred out to chiro.   You treat 2x/week -- we give you probably $250/week for pain and suffering, maybe more depending on the claimant and how active they are.   You miss a week to go on vacation?   we drop your weekly amount by $100  -- NEVER MISS A WEEK!!!   The attorney knows this and will advise you to stay consistent with tx, and heck some sleazy attys will send you to sleazy providers who will note you attended when you never did so you are always covered.  

You treatment at some point tapers down,  you are considered at an end result for tx.  Your provider may try to give you a permanent injury rating yada yada.  We plot your treatment out over a calendar, review you meds for red flags and helpful info about your life (make sure you tell your providers if you are in pain, suffering relapses, how it is affecting your life etc. as they will include that in their office notes which we get).    Add in lost wages, medical and out-of-pocket expenses and we come to a figure.  

You can usually negotiate a very good settlement on your own.  
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: formerlurker on July 04, 2010, 07:28:03 PM
Note two things -- serious injuries/death is a different kettle of fish.   Families usually secure services of attorney and I probably recommend that as their is different type of settlement structures that should be considered, and the opportunity to settle with the insurance carrier and go after the tortfeasor who may or may not have more assets. 

Also, if you have ever filed a claim for injuries for any reason at all, be honest about it.  All claims get reported to a claims clearinghouse.   The day you file a clam your name, address is fed into that clearinghouse.   Any matches or like matches go to the adjuster.  You lie, and your file is flagged.  Not worth it.   
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: BEG on July 04, 2010, 07:45:05 PM
Exactly, "former"! My wife got T-Boned by an inattentive driver and we settled our claim without a lawyer, who would have done nothing more than jack up the price in order for them to make money and us to make less!

If you have a legitimate claim, you don't need a damn lawyer. That's what insurance companies do for the money I already pay them!

Back in 1993 I had my first run in with UVeitis. The pharmacy gave me the wrong perscription.  I didn't know it was the wrong one until I ended up in the ER two weeks later. Because I wasn't using the right medication I got seriously ill. Lost a ton of weight, very painful eye, felt like an abscess around my whole eye. Found out the medication contained sulfa and I am allergic. The night of my ER visit my husband called my doctor, the doctor didn't have my file in front of him as it was after hours. He asked my husband what he had perscribed and he said he would never perscribe that eye drop for UVeitis.

Because I basically didn't treat the UVeitis for two weeks because of the wrong perscription, it got seriously bad. It lasted for months, I ended up getting a shot in my eye and shingles. It was the worst thing I have ever gone through. The pharmacy's atty called within a couple of days of my ER trip (my doctor had called the pharmacy). He asked me what I wanted. All I asked for was that my husband's time off to care for our new baby (she was three weeks old when I got the UVeitis), asked them to pay for my ER visit and any medical care after the wrong perscription was given to me. I didn't ask for anything else but i am positive that the medication that was given to me made my illness worse and I was allergic to it. They sent the check overnight. By cashing it I gave away any right to sue at a later date. Sometimes I wish I did sue as I never found out what happened to the pharm. who filled the perscription.   It was a pharmacy that was inside a grocery store in Lake Havasu City BTW.   
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: AllosaursRus on July 04, 2010, 07:50:33 PM
I don't know about all that. I had to sue my own insurance company because they didn't want to pay on the underinsured motorists rider I had. I had/have REAL injuries, even to this day, as a result of that accident. Like I said earlier, at my deposition, they thought they had me, asked several trick questions and ultimately, I blew them out of the water when asked if there were any witnesses. Sure, I had some hoops to jump through. It still took three years plus to settle the case, even with an operation.

Oh gettin' anything out of his insurance company was like pullin' teeth, but I didn't have to split it with a frikkin' lawyer! If you have a claim, you do have to play their game, but eventually you will prevail. Took us a year.
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: Thor on July 05, 2010, 06:05:35 AM
Sorry -- missed your post on your accident.   Was this a hit and run? 

No, got rear ended. They had to tow the GMC truck away while my Ford truck was drivable, but the frame was bent, along with some fairly significant body damage. Police were called and all that good stuff.
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: Ballygrl on July 05, 2010, 11:01:04 AM
Back in 1993 I had my first run in with UVeitis. The pharmacy gave me the wrong perscription.  I didn't know it was the wrong one until I ended up in the ER two weeks later. Because I wasn't using the right medication I got seriously ill. Lost a ton of weight, very painful eye, felt like an abscess around my whole eye. Found out the medication contained sulfa and I am allergic. The night of my ER visit my husband called my doctor, the doctor didn't have my file in front of him as it was after hours. He asked my husband what he had perscribed and he said he would never perscribe that eye drop for UVeitis.

Because I basically didn't treat the UVeitis for two weeks because of the wrong perscription, it got seriously bad. It lasted for months, I ended up getting a shot in my eye and shingles. It was the worst thing I have ever gone through. The pharmacy's atty called within a couple of days of my ER trip (my doctor had called the pharmacy). He asked me what I wanted. All I asked for was that my husband's time off to care for our new baby (she was three weeks old when I got the UVeitis), asked them to pay for my ER visit and any medical care after the wrong perscription was given to me. I didn't ask for anything else but i am positive that the medication that was given to me made my illness worse and I was allergic to it. They sent the check overnight. By cashing it I gave away any right to sue at a later date. Sometimes I wish I did sue as I never found out what happened to the pharm. who filled the perscription.   It was a pharmacy that was inside a grocery store in Lake Havasu City BTW.

Something everyone should do when they get a prescription filled for the 1st time is to google your medication in images and search for the pill or drop you received and make sure you can find it and compare it to what the Doctor ordered, if you're getting a recurring prescription make sure it looks like the same pill and if not call the pharmacist or google the new pill. It takes a few extra minutes but it's worth it. It's not rampant but there are some cases of the pharmacist filling the wrong prescription.
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: Duchess on July 05, 2010, 06:11:02 PM
Quote
Laelth (1000+ posts)             Mon Jul-05-10 06:40 PM
Response to Original message
37. All white, aren't they? These people are so sad.
   
Edited on Mon Jul-05-10 06:41 PM by Laelth
For years, they endured the misery of their lives only by reminding one another that they were better than black people. Now we have a black President, and they can't do that anymore. Now they have to face the actual misery of their lives and come to grips with the fact that they have more in common with their black neighbors than they do with the Waltons, Kennedys, and Bushes of the world.

And they're upset about that. They'd rather be exploited and still feel superior.


Sad, really.

-Laelth
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8695104


Ah, an example of our friendly neighborhood visiting liberal's rationality, tolerance, reluctance to engage in caricatures, such as we on the right living in misery due to our loss of exclusivity and superiority. A bit different from the calmly reasonable persona s/he assumed here, isn't it? Once back in the comfort zone of fellow DUmmies, the usual unfounded stereotypes about the right and specifically Tea Party members, comes out, just as with the most cartoonish primitive. Scratch a DUmmie, find a hypocrite. :yawn:



Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: USA4ME on July 05, 2010, 06:27:08 PM
They only hate multi-nationals because they hate little brown people (LBP) who are poor and disadvantaged.

Think about it. If all them LBPs started getting high-paying indoor factory jobs then who would be left to carry back-breaking loads of coffee over the mountains in scorching mid-day heat so these limousine liberals can enjoy their over-priced half-caff, mochaccino double lattes with a sprinkle of nutmeg.

"No, no, little brown person. Those jobs are too good for you. Those jobs only belong to Americans!"

Their whole premise of what is and isn't important is goofed up.  They hold this belief that the left vs. right dichotomy is a tool that the ruling class uses to divides us, and therefore they try to frame things in a top vs. bottom dichotomy.  It's silly and immature, but try and convince them otherwise and they close their eyes to understanding anything other than what their simpleminded beliefs have caused them to conclude.  Like a lot of people who recognize the kookiness of it, I don't have time for it.

.
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: BEG on July 05, 2010, 07:03:57 PM
Something everyone should do when they get a prescription filled for the 1st time is to google your medication in images and search for the pill or drop you received and make sure you can find it and compare it to what the Doctor ordered, if you're getting a recurring prescription make sure it looks like the same pill and if not call the pharmacist or google the new pill. It takes a few extra minutes but it's worth it. It's not rampant but there are some cases of the pharmacist filling the wrong prescription.

This was 1993, we didn't even have a computer. I do do that now though. I like how now they even have a description of what the pill or liquid looks like stapled to the bag they put the perscription in. 
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: Ballygrl on July 05, 2010, 07:15:51 PM
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8695104

Ah, an example of our friendly neighborhood visiting liberal's rationality, tolerance, reluctance to engage in caricatures, such as we on the right living in misery due to our loss of exclusivity and superiority. A bit different from the calmly reasonable persona s/he assumed here, isn't it? Once back in the comfort zone of fellow DUmmies, the usual unfounded stereotypes about the right and specifically Tea Party members, comes out, just as with the most cartoonish primitive. Scratch a DUmmie, find a hypocrite. :yawn:

Interesting, in the future I'll reserve judgement until I get to know a poster better. So right now Soleil seems to be the only sane DU'er.
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: Ballygrl on July 05, 2010, 07:19:43 PM
This was 1993, we didn't even have a computer. I do do that now though. I like how now they even have a description of what the pill or liquid looks like stapled to the bag they put the perscription in. 

Oh yeah, I meant nowadays with computers available, and we have 1 pharmacy in our area that provides that info on the pills description, it's a great idea.
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: Thor on July 05, 2010, 07:27:53 PM
Interesting, in the future I'll reserve judgement until I get to know a poster better. So right now Soleil seems to be the only sane DU'er.

There are a few sane DUers. I'm surprised that they haven't left that site in droves (or maybe they have) :clueless: IMO, there are Liberals of yesterday's ilk, as witnessed by my knowledge of rural Minnesotans, Modern day Liberals, the Progressives, then the Socialists and ultimately the Communist DUers. About the only Liberals I DO get along with (Though I don't always see eye to eye with their beliefs) are the older, yesteryear Liberals and a very select few of modern day Liberals.
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: formerlurker on July 05, 2010, 07:49:42 PM
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8695104

Quote
drm604   (1000+ posts)             Mon Jul-05-10 04:30 PM
Response to Original message
17. Any idea what the symbolism is of the red letters scattered amongst the black ones?
   
Does it have some meaning or did he just forget them and then only had a red pen available to fill them in later?

Any idea what is meant by some of the 8 points on that "What I learned from my liberal President?" sign?

Some of them are obvious, and stupid, but some I don't even get. What's up with the 57 states bit? (Again with the red ink, what is up with that?)

WTF is up with the "corpse man" statement?

This is the reason why Rasmussen's daily numbers are all over the place........
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: Ballygrl on July 05, 2010, 07:53:12 PM
There are a few sane DUers. I'm surprised that they haven't left that site in droves (or maybe they have) :clueless: IMO, there are Liberals of yesterday's ilk, as witnessed by my knowledge of rural Minnesotans, Modern day Liberals, the Progressives, then the Socialists and ultimately the Communist DUers. About the only Liberals I DO get along with (Though I don't always see eye to eye with their beliefs) are the older, yesteryear Liberals and a very select few of modern day Liberals.

There are very few true Liberals left, you knew things were changing when so called "Liberals" wanted to start suppressing free speech, and it continues when you see so called "Liberals" denigrating citizens who protest against bad policies. These Progressives need to start being honest with themselves, is America better off today then we were a few years ago? how high does unemployment have to go for them to start facing reality? And yes, I've been to Tea Party protests and they're the most civil protests ever seen in this Country, and I'm fed-up with the stereotyping of the Tea Party protester.
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: Duchess on July 05, 2010, 08:34:24 PM
There are very few true Liberals left, you knew things were changing when so called "Liberals" wanted to start suppressing free speech, and it continues when you see so called "Liberals" denigrating citizens who protest against bad policies. These Progressives need to start being honest with themselves, is America better off today then we were a few years ago? how high does unemployment have to go for them to start facing reality? And yes, I've been to Tea Party protests and they're the most civil protests ever seen in this Country, and I'm fed-up with the stereotyping of the Tea Party protester.


I wonder if Laelth got nervous after one of our members kindly informed him that he could get banned from the Dump for posting here, and ran over there to fix matters and declare loyalty. You know in the leftist world, the quickest way to establish loyalty-cred-is to denounce the right. Same principle as "denunciations" under Mao or Stalin-point the finger at the other guy to take the heat off yourself. With the DUmp, the more outlandish and unfounded the slander of the right, the more dedicated and faithful a leftist you are. IOf you never march, never send a dime to a leftist cause, you will get more credit anyway for coming up with the most outrageous, vile, slanderous accusations and names against people on the right. Not just politicians and public figures, but everyone on the right. At best, we don't know better than to allow some little leftist fascist to tell us how to live our lives.

And misery? Hey Laelth, your guy, the socialist traitor in the White House, won, and still your DUmmy cohorts are the ones always whining and moaning! I was a happy person before he showed up, and my life is still happy, because something bigger and more important and more fundamental and most of all more reliable than petty politics and politicians in this world rules my life, and even if it didn't, I wouldn't go on political message boards and fool myself into thinking that my posted words mattered in the scheme of things, especially to the extent of the DUmmies who live in a state of misery because of their own delusions.
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: Hawkgirl on July 06, 2010, 08:06:23 AM
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8695104


Ah, an example of our friendly neighborhood visiting liberal's rationality, tolerance, reluctance to engage in caricatures, such as we on the right living in misery due to our loss of exclusivity and superiority. A bit different from the calmly reasonable persona s/he assumed here, isn't it? Once back in the comfort zone of fellow DUmmies, the usual unfounded stereotypes about the right and specifically Tea Party members, comes out, just as with the most cartoonish primitive. Scratch a DUmmie, find a hypocrite. :yawn:





So she's basically calling us racists.....so that's what she learned for being here for a few days.... :lmao:
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: NHSparky on July 06, 2010, 08:19:10 AM
So she's basically calling us racists.....so that's what she learned for being here for a few days.... :lmao:

Oh, she already thought we were racists.  Now she thinks she has "proof".

Memo to our little chewtoy--the fact that you're still active here and can post anytime you wish says loads more about our acceptance and tolerance than it ever will of yours.  I'd be willing to bet that if someone sent this thread over to $kimmer, you'd be eating a granite pizza before my finger left the (Enter) key from when I sent the thread.

Chew on that one, toots.
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: Duchess on July 06, 2010, 08:28:47 AM
So she's basically calling us racists.....so that's what she learned for being here for a few days.... :lmao:

Yep-and the funny thing is they haven't yet produced proof that the people in the pictures are either racists or miserable, much less us or people on the right in general. Actually, I seem to remember a survey from a year or two ago in which conservatives described themselves as generally happy, whereas liberals described themselves as generally unhappy. I'll have to find that.

Heck, the DUmmies themselves and their perpetual threads about their misery and angst even when their side has the White House and Congress put the blatant lie to Laelth's words.
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: Karin on July 06, 2010, 08:33:52 AM
From that thread, which shows a perfectly peacable gathering of citizens.  The OP has to trot out this tired old thing:

Quote
You will of course notice that the folks who voted against their best interest were there to see that it gets perpetuated.
 You can keep your filthy hands off my best interests.  

drm604 leads a very sheltered life, doesn't he?  This DUmmie should at least watch a little news, read a little internet news maybe.  Ignoramus.  I didn't read the thread over there, though, just wanted to see the pretty pictures.   :-)  

ETA, I did read a small sampling, and I bring back good news!

Quote
mwb970  (1000+ posts)      Tue Jul-06-10 06:59 AM
Response to Reply #27
48. You have touched on one of the saddest aspects of the conservative onslaught.
 Whole regions and states, some of them with among America's loveliest scenery, have become unvisitable for people who don't want to be overcome with Tea Parties, churches, gun shows, country music, churches, Fox "News" junkies, churches, Rush Limbaugh reruns, cockfighting, right-wing newspapers, and all the other glories of conservative redneck America. (Did I mention the endless churches?)

If I have a couple of weeks of vacation time, the last thing I want to do is spend it surrounded by wingnuts! I am looking for a vacation guide that, in addition to the average temperatures and tipping practices of various destinations, will also list the percentage of conservatives in any given area. Those above a certain threshold would simply become off limits for me.
 
   :-)


Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: Ballygrl on July 06, 2010, 08:45:25 AM
Yep-and the funny thing is they haven't yet produced proof that the people in the pictures are either racists or miserable, much less us or people on the right in general. Actually, I seem to remember a survey from a year or two ago in which conservatives described themselves as generally happy, whereas liberals described themselves as generally unhappy. I'll have to find that.

Heck, the DUmmies themselves and their perpetual threads about their misery and angst even when their side has the White House and Congress put the blatant lie to Laelth's words.

Excerpt, entire article at the link:

http://www.livescience.com/health/080507-liberal-conservative.html

Individuals with conservative ideologies are happier than liberal-leaners, and new research pinpoints the reason: Conservatives rationalize social and economic inequalities.

Regardless of marital status, income or church attendance, right-wing individuals reported greater life satisfaction and well-being than left-wingers, the new study found. Conservatives also scored highest on measures of rationalization, which gauge a person's tendency to justify, or explain away, inequalities.

The rationalization measure included statements such as: "It is not really that big a problem if some people have more of a chance in life than others," and "This country would be better off if we worried less about how equal people are."
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: Duchess on July 06, 2010, 09:17:02 AM
From that thread, which shows a perfectly peacable gathering of citizens.  The OP has to trot out this tired old thing:
  You can keep your filthy hands off my best interests. 

drm604 leads a very sheltered life, doesn't he?  This DUmmie should at least watch a little news, read a little internet news maybe.  Ignoramus.  I didn't read the thread over there, though, just wanted to see the pretty pictures.   :-) 

ETA, I did read a small sampling, and I bring back good news!
   :-)



Quote
mwb970  (1000+ posts)      Tue Jul-06-10 06:59 AM
Response to Reply #27
48. You have touched on one of the saddest aspects of the conservative onslaught.
 Whole regions and states, some of them with among America's loveliest scenery, have become unvisitable for people who don't want to be overcome with Tea Parties, churches, gun shows, country music, churches, Fox "News" junkies, churches, Rush Limbaugh reruns, cockfighting, right-wing newspapers, and all the other glories of conservative redneck America. (Did I mention the endless churches?)

If I have a couple of weeks of vacation time, the last thing I want to do is spend it surrounded by wingnuts! I am looking for a vacation guide that, in addition to the average temperatures and tipping practices of various destinations, will also list the percentage of conservatives in any given area. Those above a certain threshold would simply become off limits for me.


And that's another lie right there, because these bloodsuckers screw up their own states with their "green", tax-and-spend, "social services" for illegals,high crime, sanctuary cities, and other policies, then they move to some area where the mostly conservative inhabitants have created fairly good lives for all through production and self-responsibility and most of all common sense laws--then they proceed to re-create the cesspit from which they just moved. People in a state or region just minding their own business and living their lives, and here come the liberals to tell them how they must live, how "racist" they are for not accepting illegals and the concommitant crime and high taxes.

Yeah DUmmie, do us ALL a favor and stay away. Works for us in Mississippi. At least, the NAACP's threatened "boycott" over our flag vote didn't hurt anything. I wish the queers would boycott us too and take Constance McMillen with them.


   
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: TheSarge on July 06, 2010, 10:00:07 AM
So she's basically calling us racists.....so that's what she learned for being here for a few days.... :lmao:

Well we pretty much chewed up her talking points and propaganda...calling us racists was all she had left.
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: Laelth on July 06, 2010, 01:44:14 PM
Laeth, you seem to be cherry picking posts here.  Firstly, you didn't respond to BEG's post and secondly you skipped over my comment about the Corporate tax BEING THE HIGHEST IN THE WORLD.  (Second only to Japan, by a very short margin)  This will ship jobs overseas....What say you about that?  Unemployment will skyrocket if this country keeps penalizing success.

I honestly wasn't trying to "cherry pick" too much.  Honestly, I have been unable to keep up.  I have a job, and a family, you know.  :) 

I have no idea whether our corporate taxes are the 2nd highest in the world.  I haven't seen news of any companies picking up their headquaters and moving them to another country, however, so I assume they're not too bad.  And unemployment is skyrocketing because companies are moving their operations centers (all the labor) overseas.  Or, they're just sub-contracting out production to cheap labor centers outside the U.S.  In some cases, the Federal Government subsidizes this practice through tax policy, and it's insane.

But I don't see anyone pushing for higher corporate taxes, either, so, in many ways, this discussion is moot.  I may think that higher corporate taxes would be a good idea, perhaps, but I'd prefer higher capital gains taxes and a return to the time when you had to hold stock for five years to get the lower, long-term capital gains tax rate.  Abolishing that rule has led to a lot of speculation and volatility.

But, again, this is moot.  The pro-corporate Democratic Party has no interest in doing anything I would suggest.
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: Laelth on July 06, 2010, 01:47:37 PM
You didn't answer the question either. Which DemonRat do you work for?

I am self-employed as an attorney, as I said.  I don't work for any elected official.  The Democratic Party does not want people like me, anyway.  The liberals have been marginalized and silenced.  The Democratic Party is now as pro-rich and pro-corporate as the Republican Party.

That's how it looks from my perspective, in any event.

-Laelth
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: Laelth on July 06, 2010, 01:56:50 PM
That one statement right there gets you an automatic nomination for the 2010 DUmmie of the year.

Ralph write this one down.

Good.  LOL.  I didn't know whether to be flattered or offended by the fact that CC has never even nominated me for DUmmie of the Year.  Honestly, given the posters you chose, I finally came down on the flattered side.

It's strange, though, that a liberal can come here and tell you that Obama is a pro-corporatist, pro-Empire, pro-rich conservative, and it means nothing to you.  From my perspective, the two parties are virtually indistinguishable now.  Neither party works for the people.  Posters here seem to be completely O.K. with this, and I find that mystifying.

-Laelth
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: dutch508 on July 06, 2010, 02:14:52 PM
I am self-employed as an attorney, as I said.  I don't work for any elected official.  The Democratic Party does not want people like me, anyway.  The liberals have been marginalized and silenced.  The Democratic Party is now as pro-rich and pro-corporate as the Republican Party.

That's how it looks from my perspective, in any event.


-Laelth


fixed.
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: Laelth on July 06, 2010, 02:19:59 PM
Anecdotally, I notice that you have avoided my discussion of liberal taxation policies and corporations like the plague........your silence in rebuttal is deafening......

I'm sorry that I hurt your feelings by not responding in a timely fashion.  I have been busy working and spending the holiday with my family.  But let's be honest, here.  We're not going to see any "liberal" taxation policies in the near future.  This discussion is really moot.  

Quote
Your comment that Obama and his minions are no liberals is further damning by its presence, as it infers that you are far to the left of his policies, which have been demonstrated to be basically socialist in nature......leaving us with the impression that you have graduated from liberalism, through socialism (without passing GO) and proceeded directly to some form of totalitarianism.......speaks volumes.

The idea that Obama is a socialist is laughable.  I'm not even a socialist, as I explained upthread.  If Obama is too right-wing for me (and he is), there's no way he's even close to being a socialist.

Quote
And by the way, the reason that consumer spending is so low (as well as consumer confidence) has nothing to do with taxation, or lack thereof, and has everything to do with the fact that one in five Americans either don't have a job right now, or are severely underemployed.......they are in survival mode.

Generally speaking, I agree with you on this.  You need to educate your fellow-poster up-thread to whom I was responding.  Although, I will add that more progressive taxation would likely put more money in the hands of people who will spend it which will, in turn, stimulate the economy.  Of course, as I said above, we're not going to see any new progressive taxation anytime soon because Obama is a conservative.

Quote
Reducing the overall tax burden on someone that is earning nothing is just an empty gesture, designed to appear to the uninitiated that the present bunch in charge "cares about them", when this could not be further from the truth.

No person pays no taxes.  Conservatives like to talk about one of the only progressive forms of taxation we have (income taxes) and then pretend that income taxes are the only ones that anybody pays.  This is disingenuous, at best.  The poor pay the highest percentage of their income in taxes (through gas taxes, sales taxes, property taxes, sin taxes, utility taxes, government service taxes, and government fees).  The middle-class is also soaked, just not quite as badly (as a percentage of income).  This, it apears to me, is unhealthy for our economy and our society.

Quote
Critically evaluating all of the government (read taxpayer)  funds that have been expended in one "stimulus" or another has had absolutely no effect on the basic problem of lack of private sector jobs that will be the ultimate recovery mechanism for the economy.  In the instant case, the example of Greece should tell us what the ultimate result of depending on the creation of government jobs has on the long-term stability of a nations economy.

FDR created a lot of government jobs to get us out of the Great Depression.  We've got to find some way to get money into the hands of the poor and the middle-class, or we'll never get out of this recession.  Cutting taxes for the wealthy, so far, along with our free treade agreements, has just shipped a lot of good-paying jobs overseas.  Obviously, that strategy doesn't work.  I'd be happy to discuss other options.

Quote
As was wisely stated by Lady Margaret Thatcher........."Socialism is great until you eventually run out of other peoples money" (paraphrased).

As much as posters here might want me to be a socialist, I am not, nor am I defending socialism.  I am a liberal, and I think that Thatcher was right about socialism.

-Laelth
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: Laelth on July 06, 2010, 02:22:15 PM
Unfortunately, I'm far from that.......

You, however, are definitely so, madame.......

To digress, this "Laelth" individual professes to be a lawyer, ergo, fairly well educated, and infused with a modicum of "common sense".  Thus far, I have seen no indication that this is the case, and I would certainly be reticent to hire her/him/it for legal representation based on the debating skills thus far demonstrated......

doc

LOL.  And I think you're brilliant and an excellent debater.

-Laelth
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: Laelth on July 06, 2010, 02:26:14 PM
I would laugh but I know you are serious so I pity you.
Maybe you can help me out here. Just last week the 0bama administration, the Treasury, and members of Congress, some of them Democrats all stated: "The Bush tax cuts are going to expire soon and when they do, people must be prepared because the poor and middle class are going to take a hit". Those are the very same tax cuts that you and your socialist comrades on the left spent the last eight years screaming they were only for the rich.
How does that work? By your very own admission, you on the left have been LYING all along.

Now get your pretzel machine out and twist your response into some form of logic.
Care to elaborate?

I don't think they'll let the tax cuts (which principally benefit the rich) expire.  The Democratic Party is now as controlled by the rich as the Republican Party is.  I look forward to being pleasantly surprised if they do expire, but I doubt it will happen.

And I am furious that the administration is messing with Social Security.  It's just evidence that the Democratic Party no longer represents the people, as I have said a number of times.

-Laelth
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: Laelth on July 06, 2010, 02:28:43 PM
These "I hate the rich and multi-national corps" type have a lot of explaining to do.  For instance, do they purchace items which in any way puts money in the pockets of the rich and/or multi-national corps? Because if they do, then that tells me they're a lot of talk with no substantial action.

.

I never said I hate the rich.  I think they should pay the most in taxes, and I think corporations need to be tightly regulated by the state because they are not interested in the common good (nor should they be, and that's why they need careful regulation).  But we need them, and I have no desire to get rid of them.

As much as people here want me to be a socialist, I am not.  I am a liberal.

-Laelth
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: Laelth on July 06, 2010, 02:34:48 PM
:yawn:
 
 The more this libs posts, the more  :yawn:
We have enough liberal propaganda directed towards us on TV, from the President, from Congress....now we are to welcome it on a Conservative website?
All her talking points are about redistribution of wealth and class warfare..... :yawn:  Stop feeding the troll...no matter what anyone thinks...having libs like her post her bullshit here WILL NOT CHANGE HER IDEOLOGY.  Some of you may think that this is an outlet we can use to change one over to our party...but trust me, it's not the case with liberals...especially DUmmies.


You're right.  You're not going to change my mind, and I am not going to change yours.  But we might learn something from one another.  At the very least, you good people might benefit from seeing how a real liberal sees the world.  It appears to me that many of you don't know the difference between a socialist and a liberal, for example, so perhaps this can be an educational experience for all involved.

Of course, ymmv.

-Laelth

-Laelth
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: USA4ME on July 06, 2010, 02:36:37 PM
It's strange, though, that a liberal can come here and tell you that Obama is a pro-corporatist, pro-Empire, pro-rich conservative, and it means nothing to you.  From my perspective, the two parties are virtually indistinguishable now.  Neither party works for the people.  Posters here seem to be completely O.K. with this, and I find that mystifying.

You find it mystifying that others don't see things the way you do and agree with you?

Look, I fully understand how you view things, and summarized it in a way I'm confident you would agree.  That is...

They hold this belief that the left vs. right dichotomy is a tool that the ruling class uses to divides us, and therefore they try to frame things in a top vs. bottom dichotomy.

I have found insufficient evidence to believe that the rich/ruling class are out to lord over the rest of us.  They're too interested in their own lives (miserable lives in some cases, depending on if they allow money to rule their life or not), fighting among themselves, and not organized enough to pull anything like that off.  It has never been left vs. right or top vs. bottom to me; it's always been good vs. evil.  And as it stands, when it comes to morals (especially social morals) and freedom and liberty, liberals have pitched their tents with immorality and Big Brother gov't.  You can forget me and many others ever finding consensus with people who are immoral.  They might win a few battles for the time being, but in the long run they will lose forever.

.
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: AllosaursRus on July 06, 2010, 02:40:13 PM
That's it, just keep up with the talkin' points. Your brethren will be proud. I would think a lawyer would at least do some research over corporate tax rates before dismissing them completely.

oh, and liberal = socialist = communist! The only difference is time. Eventually they all come to the same conclusion. People like you tellin' the rest of us what's good for us!

I'm an adult. I don't need or want the likes of you tellin' me anything! Go crawl back under your rock.
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: Laelth on July 06, 2010, 03:48:26 PM
Getting people off welfare rolls is something I've given a lot of thought about. Keeping people dependent on the government is akin to keeping them in slavery. And just as segregation and other racist policies were policies of southern DEMOCRATS so the current serfdom is owned solely by the democratic party. One has to wonder why they would do NOTHING to give them a hand up. The only logical conclusion is that you create a permanent voting block. All you really have to do is keep them ignorant and in fear of the "republican boogie man" and create a situation where they are excluded from the larger society. You have generations where cycles of unwed mothers with multiple children, absent fathers (many involved in gangs), and undereducated continue to repeat themselves. They live in utter hopelessness and extreme poverty having forgotten (or never learned) how to take care of themselves. No one on the left EVER does anything but keep them there. Even Clinton had to be dragged kicking and screaming to welfare reform. Incomes and living standards actually improved, some were even able to move out of their inner city plantations. Now that's going to disappear again so they can come dependent on "Obama money from his stash".

Those of us living in the real world have a system of rewards and punishments. Do a good job at work, you get praised and perhaps a bonus or raise (unless you're a union member, i.e. socialist and you don't have to do a good job to get a raise). Do poorly and you get reprimanded and even fired if you don't improve. Don't pay your rent or house payment you get evicted. Pay your bills on time and you earn a good credit rating which opens the door to other opportunities. Our own choices and not the soft tyranny of a forced dependence determine our station in life. So, here's what I would do:

First you have to eliminate the danger outside so the residents can do more than spend a life looking at the window and ducking stray bullets. Make those rich slum lords, like Obama's best buddy Valerie Jarrett, who get double funds from the government in the form of rent subsidies and rent paid by tenants, pay for specially trained armed guards (sort of like the inner city version of Blackwater). Mow down a some gang members, arrest some more as we did with insurgents in Iraq (because this IS a war zone for those who live there) and the gangs will go away.

Then the residents can leave their apartments and you can teach them to take pride in their surroundings, create a sense of self-confidence and they'll start to see possibilities. No more free rides. Have them clean their neighborhoods, create community gardens, build new playground equipment, paint buildings and make repairs inside. Apprentice some of these people to plumbers, contractors, gardeners so they learn a skill and give them a salary for their work. Have daycare centers run and staffed by residents. This frees other residents to get their GED and learn a skill. The initial cost for these programs might be more than sending out a welfare check but as those people become less dependent on the government and more self-sufficient welfare rolls will be reduced significantly which means more money in everyone's pocket (provided the powers that be don't decide to keep for something else). Anyone who wants to sit on their ass and collect funds will have their checks reduced. No more increased payments for every baby they pop out. Give extra funds for only 2 children...this would be those consequences for ones behavior that the rest of us live with.

Of course there are other things that must be done...merit pay for teachers and such but that should be country wide anyway, along with ending unions for government employees. It's called government SERVICE for a reason and public employee unions hold the citizens hostage...but that's another topic.

Cindie

This is a lot to respond to, but I'd like to give you a thoughtful reply.  I doubt I can give it the time it deserves, however, and I will apologize up front for that.

Whereas you have been thinking about ways to get people off welfare, I have been thinking of ways to keep the rich from stealing from us, driving our country into bankruptcy, destroying our economy, and turning us into a 3rd world nation.  I see that as a much bigger problem, but I will discuss welfare if you like.

Honestly, I am never sure what people mean when they talk about "welfare."  Most of our social services money goes to medicare and madicaid.  Recipients of those benefits aren't ripping anybody off.  Those are just people who got hurt and need medical care.  Their only crime is that they lack sufficient insurance or money to cover their medical bills.  Obama thinks he has addressed this problem by passing a law that, he thinks, will force all Americans to buy insurance.  This is insane, and those of us on the left are furious about it.  Forcing people to buy insurance is no more the solution to a failed health care system than forcing people to buy houses is the solution to homelessness.  Besides which, it's a massive give-away to the health insurance companies and the pharmaceutical industries who will get subsidized federal money so that the poor can buy their products.  I hope that the Republicans repeal this unconstitutional law, but their masters in the health insurance, hospital, and pharmaceutical businesses will never allow it.  They're thrilled to be getting all this federal money.  In any event, the only way to cut our outlays for medical care will be to drive down medical costs, but the health insurance companies and the for-profit hospitals will fight this to the death.  The Democrats have no interest in fighting them, nor do the Republicans.  And Obama gave away the right of the federal government (the largest, single purchaser of pharmaceutical products) to negotiate with pharmaceutical companies for lower prices in exchange for their support of his Health Insurance Company Enrichment Act.  He betrayed the people and sold out to the corporations.  Those of us on the left are furious about this, but I don't see any solution in the current political climate.

If, on the other hand, by "welfare" you mean food stamps, I see no practical way to reduce these rolls.  One in five Americans are now on food stamps, iirc.  That should tell you something.  Lots of big companies (ADM, Kroger, etc.) make a ton of money on food stamps, and I see no way that those companies would allow us to eradicate the program.  Besides which, food is a national security issue.  People will revolt if they have no food.  Ask the French.  LOL.  I see no way to cut food stamp rolls other than to hand out well-paying federal jobs that will then reduce the number of people on food stamps.  Honestly, that might not be a bad idea, so long as we have federally-sponsored day care to allow single-mothers to work as well.

If, however, you mean AFDC (which was passed by Eisenhower), Clinton abolished it, and he wasn't either kicking or screaming when he did it.  He sold out the people for political gain, making those of us on the left furious.  As a result, he was rewarded with re-election in 1996.  If, on the other hand, you mean AFDC's replacement, the nearly-useless TANF, then you should know that you don't need to do anything to get people off those rolls.  TANF benefits last no more than two years, period.  People automatically fall off TANF rolls, and the people who do so are never eligible for TANF again, no matter what their economic situation.  You should also know that TANF eats a miniscule amount of the Federal Budget.  It's next-to-nothing, really. I don't see this as a big enough problem to even address.

I am all for job training programs for the poor.  Personally, I'd like to give lots of unemployed people federal jobs.  There's a lot of work that needs to be done in this country.  Our infrastructure is crumbling.  FDR, Truman, and Eisenhower put people to work fixing these things, and we still enjoy the benefits of their work now.

As much as we might like to legislate "work ethic," this doesn't seem possible.  But we can give people good jobs.  The Federal Government can make them, and we might all benefit from that.  I'd love to see the poor get some skills and some dignity that would allow them to break the cycle of poverty.  But we can't rely on the free market to do this.

Thanks for the thoughtful post.

-Laelth

 
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: Laelth on July 06, 2010, 04:29:09 PM
I'd go a little further and make even belonging to a gang a felony, punishable by 15 yrs in the hoosegow! If they renounce gang activity, get an education and a workable skill, let them out. Recruiting youngsters as young as 8, 10, or 12, should be treated the same as pedophilia and carry a life sentence!

Gangs are the biggest threat to inner city society ever since Cosa Nostra invented it in Sicily!

Just like many alleged conservatives--willing to take away our freedoms at the drop of a hat.  Ever heard of freedom of association?  People have the right to "hang out" with whomever they wish in the United States, and no liberal that I know of seeks to restrict this freedom.  Conservatives sometimes make me laugh when they claim to be the "protectors" of our freedoms.  It's really just "their" freedoms that they want to protect--usually the freedom to get filthy rich and the freedom to not be responsible for the misery of their fellow citizens.

-Laelth
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: Laelth on July 06, 2010, 04:41:48 PM
Seriously Laelth?  Prior to having children I was a paralegal (which included worker's compensation law -- the professional claimants) and a casualty adjuster for MVAs.   PI attorneys are the scum of the earth.  The only cases you shy a bit away from are slip and fall unless it is a clear winner, and even then there are those who take them.

I had a slip and fall case.  I took it, and it settled.  I only take cases where there's clear liability.  Whether my client is injured is up to the doctor.  I am not a doctor, so if a doctor tells my client that she is injured, I have neither the right nor the reason to argue that she's not.   

Quote
PI attorneys take on a client, tell them to treat with the doctors/chiros/scam artists these attorneys have nice relationships with, for however long they can milk it (got to love those soft tissue injuries am I right Laelth?), and then they actually pick up the file for first time to call the adjuster to settle it.

I have referred a few clients to doctors--usually because they had no insurance and couldn't get medical treatment.  The only way that my client was ever going to get any treatment was if I promised the doctor that I would pay her bill out of settlement or jury award proceeds.  I have handled soft-tissue injury cases.  Insurance companies discount these because they're just trying to pay out as little as possible, but they're real injuries.  A knife in the gut is a soft-tissue injury, but it hurts a lot, and it can do a lot of damage.  

Quote
You make money based on contingency as it is a formula when you do next to no work, so please give me a break.  On the extremely rare chance it is an injury that is going to trial, the small time putz PI attorney will most likely no longer be handling the file.   Big injuries usually go to big law firms.  I never had any issue paying claims on real injuries -- those claimants don't need attorneys.   

And you, of course, get to decide what injuries are real?  LOL.  If it weren't for me, you'd never pay out a dime.  Insurance companies are in the business to make profit, and without the threat of a lawsuit, they will either pay nothing or next-to-nothing.  Want to talk about scum of the Earth?

And I work a lot, thank you very much.  I don't have a staff of six people to do all the interviews, reaearch, and paperwork for me.  In fact, I have no staff at the moment.  Evidently the PI attorneys you knew were more successful than I.

-Laelth
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: Carl on July 06, 2010, 04:43:23 PM
Just like many alleged conservatives--willing to take away our freedoms at the drop of a hat.  Ever heard of freedom of association?  People have the right to "hang out" with whomever they wish in the United States, and no liberal that I know of seeks to restrict this freedom.  Conservatives sometimes make me laugh when they claim to be the "protectors" of our freedoms.  It's really just "their" freedoms that they want to protect--usually the freedom to get filthy rich and the freedom to not be responsible for the misery of their fellow citizens.

-Laelth

That really doesn`t apply as you state it or if it did then the Mafia would be legal.
We have criminal sanctions now for other organizations that exist to perpetuate crime.
That is the context of the word "gang" here and I am sure you understand that but as most do are trying to be obtuse about it.
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: SSG Snuggle Bunny on July 06, 2010, 04:45:27 PM
...Ever heard of freedom of association?  People have the right to "hang out" with whomever they wish in the United States, and no liberal that I know of seeks to restrict this freedom.

Except when you demean an entire political movement as racist because they don't support you.

Quote
Conservatives sometimes make me laugh when they claim to be the "protectors" of our freedoms.  It's really just "their" freedoms that they want to protect--usually the freedom to get filthy rich and the freedom to not be responsible for the misery of their fellow citizens.

-Laelth
Conservatives believe honest people deserve to be free of the threats of violence and fraud.

You on the other hand voted for the guy who is Bill Ayer's political cabana boy and you lacked the balls to admit as much during the campaign.
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: Carl on July 06, 2010, 04:46:38 PM
I had a slip and fall case.  I took it, and it settled.  I only take cases where there's clear liability.  Whether my client is injured is up to the doctor.  I am not a doctor, so if a doctor tells my client that she is injured, I have neither the right nor the reason to argue that she's not.   

I have referred a few clients to doctors--usually because they had no insurance and couldn't get medical treatment.  The only way that my client was ever going to get any treatment was if I promised the doctor that I would pay her bill out of settlement or jury award proceeds.  I have handled soft-tissue injury cases.  Insurance companies discount these because they're just trying to pay out as little as possible, but they're real injuries.  A knife in the gut is a soft-tissue injury, but it hurts a lot, and it can do a lot of damage.  

And you, of course, get to decide what injuries are real?  LOL.  If it weren't for me, you'd never pay out a dime.  Insurance companies are in the business to make profit, and without the threat of a lawsuit, they will either pay nothing or next-to-nothing.  Want to talk about scum of the Earth?

And I work a lot, thank you very much.  I don't have a staff of six people to do all the interviews, reaearch, and paperwork for me.  In fact, I have no staff at the moment.  Evidently the PI attorneys you knew were more successful than I.

-Laelth

Do you seek the opinion of a medical professional as well as others to determine impact of injury or the circumstances surrounding it?
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: Laelth on July 06, 2010, 04:58:00 PM
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8695104


Ah, an example of our friendly neighborhood visiting liberal's rationality, tolerance, reluctance to engage in caricatures, such as we on the right living in misery due to our loss of exclusivity and superiority. A bit different from the calmly reasonable persona s/he assumed here, isn't it? Once back in the comfort zone of fellow DUmmies, the usual unfounded stereotypes about the right and specifically Tea Party members, comes out, just as with the most cartoonish primitive. Scratch a DUmmie, find a hypocrite. :yawn:

Hypocrite?  I'm not following you on that one.  Am I someone who's observant enough to note that all the people in the several photographs in that thread are white whereas the county in question is nearly half black?  Yes, I notice that.   Is that irrational or hypocritical?  No.  Is it a broad-brush accusation, yes.  Does it apply to every single person assembled in that crowd?  Almost certainly not.  But I'm sure none of you perfect people has ever made a broad-brush accusation about people you don't really know.  Since you're perfect, and I am not, I will apologize for my shortcomings now.

Sorry perfect people.

-Laelth
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: SSG Snuggle Bunny on July 06, 2010, 05:04:08 PM
Hypocrite?  I'm not following you on that one.  Am I someone who's observant enough to note that all the people in the several photographs in that thread are white whereas the county in question is nearly half black?  Yes, I notice that.   Is that irrational or hypocritical?  No.  Is it a broad-brush accusation, yes.  Does it apply to every single person assembled in that crowd?  Almost certainly not.  But I'm sure none of you perfect people has ever made a broad-brush accusation about people you don't really know.  Since you're perfect, and I am not, I will apologize for my shortcomings now.

Sorry perfect people.

-Laelth
96% of blacks voting in 2008 voted for Obama

Blacks make-up between 13 to 15 percent of US voting age population

Ergo blacks are overwhelmingly racist
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: Laelth on July 06, 2010, 05:04:27 PM
Their whole premise of what is and isn't important is goofed up.  They hold this belief that the left vs. right dichotomy is a tool that the ruling class uses to divides us, and therefore they try to frame things in a top vs. bottom dichotomy.  It's silly and immature, but try and convince them otherwise and they close their eyes to understanding anything other than what their simpleminded beliefs have caused them to conclude.  Like a lot of people who recognize the kookiness of it, I don't have time for it.

I am glad you can at least hear that, even if you disagree with it.  That is, in fact, what many of us believe.  There's a lot of evidence in favor of this position, I should add.  Racism works this was especially well.  "Wedge issues" are called "wedge issues" because they're tools used to get people who should be allies to fight against one another.  The end result is that the wealthiest and most powerful among us benefit while the vast majority of us try to cut one anothers' throats.

"I can hire one half of the working class to kill the other half."
- Jay Gould

http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/j/jay_gould.html

That's exactly what they try to do.

-Laelth
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: USA4ME on July 06, 2010, 05:15:32 PM
There's a lot of evidence in favor of this position, I should add.

Yeah.  The same type of evidence that says the World Trade Center Towers were brought down by explosive charges.   :mental:

The "lot of evidence in favor of this position" for the premise that the "left vs. right dichotomy is a tool that the ruling class uses to divides us" is unimpressive, except to the easily impressionable.

Let me make this extremely clear:  If you really believe "the left vs. right dichotomy is a tool that the ruling class uses to divides us" and what "we the people" should be doing is banding together as members of the "bottom" in order to fight those at the "top," then you believe a lie.  Those who hold that view deserve to be politically marginalized.  

.
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: Laelth on July 06, 2010, 05:17:02 PM

I wonder if Laelth got nervous after one of our members kindly informed him that he could get banned from the Dump for posting here, and ran over there to fix matters and declare loyalty. You know in the leftist world, the quickest way to establish loyalty-cred-is to denounce the right. Same principle as "denunciations" under Mao or Stalin-point the finger at the other guy to take the heat off yourself. With the DUmp, the more outlandish and unfounded the slander of the right, the more dedicated and faithful a leftist you are. IOf you never march, never send a dime to a leftist cause, you will get more credit anyway for coming up with the most outrageous, vile, slanderous accusations and names against people on the right. Not just politicians and public figures, but everyone on the right. At best, we don't know better than to allow some little leftist fascist to tell us how to live our lives.

Me?  Declare loyalty?  No.  I am afraid that's not in my make-up.  I swore an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States, and that's as far as I will go.  I am on thin ice on DU.  Liberals like me feel under siege.  Obama is no liberal, and we're very mad about what he's doing, and we say so.  That is creating some problems because the Democratic Party loyalists think they shouldn't have to put up with people attacking the Democratic President on a site called "Democratic Underground."  Perhaps they have a point, but I find it difficult to keep my mouth shut, so I am "wandering, " so to speak.

And I see no leftist fascists trying to tell you how to live your life.  For the life of me, I can't see where all these bogeymen you good people seem to believe in are coming from.  We liberals will regulate your businesses if given the chance, but we wouldn't be all up in your bedrooms or your uteruses.  It's usually conservatives who go there.

Quote
And misery? Hey Laelth, your guy, the socialist traitor in the White House, won, and still your DUmmy cohorts are the ones always whining and moaning! I was a happy person before he showed up, and my life is still happy, because something bigger and more important and more fundamental and most of all more reliable than petty politics and politicians in this world rules my life, and even if it didn't, I wouldn't go on political message boards and fool myself into thinking that my posted words mattered in the scheme of things, especially to the extent of the DUmmies who live in a state of misery because of their own delusions.

Again, calling Obama a socialist is laughable to me.  He's not even a liberal.  From my perspective he's center-right--not a full-blown give-the-corporations-absolutely-everything-they-want conservative, but he's pretty close.

And we on the left do whine and moan a lot.  I admit that.  I am compelled to address injustice when I see it, and I am seeing a lot of injustice these days.  That means I whine and moan.  But I note that this whole forum seems fascinated with our whining and moaning.  What would you do for entertainment if you couldn't enjoy the misery of liberals in pain?

History will have to decide which of us is delusional.

-Laelth
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: SSG Snuggle Bunny on July 06, 2010, 05:20:54 PM
Only a liberal can complain incessantly about wealth then pretend to want to improve the station of the poor and downtrodden
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: Laelth on July 06, 2010, 05:22:01 PM
So she's basically calling us racists.....so that's what she learned for being here for a few days.... :lmao:

Honestly, I haven't seen any racism here.  Have I missed something?  Did some of you attend the rally that was being photographed and upon which I commented?

Again, I admit to making an inappropriate, broad-brush attack (based upon my knowledge of my own, deeply-racist Southern family) in my description of the photographs in that thread.  I apologize for my shortcomings, as I am sure none of you have ever suggested that all liberals are unintelligent (or DUmmies).

Did someone call me a hypocrite?

-Laelth
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: Laelth on July 06, 2010, 05:24:47 PM
Memo to our little chewtoy--the fact that you're still active here and can post anytime you wish says loads more about our acceptance and tolerance than it ever will of yours. 

I deeply, honestly admire the fact that you allow me to post here.  That is impressive, indeed, even if many of you are inexcusably rude.  I would have been banned from Free Republic long ago.

And I will not be held responsible for DU.

-Laelth
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: Laelth on July 06, 2010, 05:39:08 PM
Well we pretty much chewed up her talking points and propaganda...calling us racists was all she had left.

I don't recall calling anyone here a racist.  I wasn't aware that anyone here attended that all-white gathering.  It was, indeed, civil, but I don't recall ever saying it was un-civil either.  Are you suggesting that if it had been an all-black gathering it would have been uncivil?

Either way, it appears that you're missing the point.  I don't think those people are any more racist than their black neighbors.  I think the races have merely been pitted against one another.  The result is that a lot of white people vote against their best interests.  The racism isn't my concern.  In fact, the United States is the least racist nation in the world.  The Japanese and the British and the French are much more racist.  We have made enormous progress on that issue in the United States, and I am very proud of my country for that.

But I hate to see poor and middle-classed white people voting for the pro-rich party.  That makes no sense to me.  These days, though, voting for the Democrats is no better.  The Democratic Party is as pro-rich these days as the Republican Party.  As I have said, it appears that nobody represents the people any more.

-Laelth
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: Laelth on July 06, 2010, 05:54:02 PM
I have found insufficient evidence to believe that the rich/ruling class are out to lord over the rest of us.  They're too interested in their own lives (miserable lives in some cases, depending on if they allow money to rule their life or not), fighting among themselves, and not organized enough to pull anything like that off.  It has never been left vs. right or top vs. bottom to me; it's always been good vs. evil.  And as it stands, when it comes to morals (especially social morals) and freedom and liberty, liberals have pitched their tents with immorality and Big Brother gov't.  You can forget me and many others ever finding consensus with people who are immoral.  They might win a few battles for the time being, but in the long run they will lose forever.

For me, just because of who I am, I also see politics as a good/evil issue.  Most people do not, as I am sure you're aware.  I can not agree that government is inherently evil.  I took an oath to uphold the Constitution, after all.  I see government as a tool to enact the will of the people in a collective fashion.  In fact, it's the only democratic tool that people have to achieve that purpose--collective action.  But, ultimately, the government is only as good as the people running it, and I see a lot of evil controling the levers of power now--as I have seen for the past 30+ years.  Carter was, perhaps, the last "good" President we had, and you can see how far that got him.

-Laelth
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: Laelth on July 06, 2010, 05:56:22 PM
That's it, just keep up with the talkin' points. Your brethren will be proud. I would think a lawyer would at least do some research over corporate tax rates before dismissing them completely.

oh, and liberal = socialist = communist! The only difference is time. Eventually they all come to the same conclusion. People like you tellin' the rest of us what's good for us!

I'm an adult. I don't need or want the likes of you tellin' me anything! Go crawl back under your rock.

You're such a charming person.  Did your mother teach you those nice manners, or are you self-taught?

Or did you just get tired of calling me a coward and suggesting that I was "running away" from this discussion?   :tongue:

-Laelth
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: Doc on July 06, 2010, 06:00:35 PM
Quote
author=Laelth link=topic=45708.msg505767#msg505767 date=1278443999]
I'm sorry that I hurt your feelings by not responding in a timely fashion.  I have been busy working and spending the holiday with my family.  But let's be honest, here.  We're not going to see any "liberal" taxation policies in the near future.  This discussion is really moot.  

Egotistical of you to assume that my "feelings" would be in any manner determined by what you say, or do not........I deal in facts not "feelings", and calling a point "moot", is not a rebuttal, it is a tactic utilized to avoid discussion of a fact.  Perhaps a different approach would be for you to actually define what you consider "liberal" taxation (beyond, of course, the old, tired, soak the rich to hand to the "poor", or what I refer to as the "Robin Hood" syndrome).  So elucidate please, what is your preferred form of taxation?

Quote
Generally speaking, I agree with you on this.  You need to educate your fellow-poster up-thread to whom I was responding.  Although, I will add that more progressive taxation would likely put more money in the hands of people who will spend it which will, in turn, stimulate the economy.  Of course, as I said above, we're not going to see any new progressive taxation anytime soon because Obama is a conservative

The highlighted portion indicates to me that you are too politically naive to actually have a firm grasp on what Obama's politics actually are........or for that matter, what conservatism actually is........which rather places me at a disadvantage, since it is difficult to debate someone who has no grasp of the subject, and it is becoming rather clear that you have no clue as to what conservatives actually believe, or for that matter, what the current manifestation of liberal/progressive/democrat believes.  Not that it really matters, but it is sort of a waste of my time, and yours, which, as you alluded, could be better spent with your family, than here.

Quote
No person pays no taxes. Conservatives like to talk about one of the only progressive forms of taxation we have (income taxes) and then pretend that income taxes are the only ones that anybody pays. This is disingenuous, at best. The poor pay the highest percentage of their income in taxes (through gas taxes, sales taxes, property taxes, sin taxes, utility taxes, government service taxes, and government fees). The middle-class is also soaked, just not quite as badly (as a percentage of income). This, it appears to me, is unhealthy for our economy and our society.

And "liberals" love to point to the fact that the poor pay a larger percentage of their relative incomes in taxation than those with more wealth, which is really a strawman argument.  Who cares?  When it comes to the basic concept of taxation what percentage of one's income is actually paid isn't really the issue.  The issue regarding taxation is how it must properly and Constitutionally be spent.  

An "origionalist" like myself will argue that you will find NOTHING in our founding documents, nor in any of the collective writings of the founders that supports the argument that a welfare state should should ever be considered a part of our country (please don't insult me with the "General Welfare clause"), as both you and I know that is now, and never was intended to convey the right to food, housing, health care, or a "living wage" to the citizenry, at the point of the tax collector's gun.

Quote
FDR created a lot of government jobs to get us out of the Great Depression. We've got to find some way to get money into the hands of the poor and the middle-class, or we'll never get out of this recession.  Cutting taxes for the wealthy, so far, along with our free treade agreements, has just shipped a lot of good-paying jobs overseas. Obviously, that strategy doesn't work. I'd be happy to discuss other options

FDR created a lot of nice National Parks, and built a few roads, but any reasonable economist will advise you that his economic policies in general did far more to prolong the depression, than they did to improve the situation.  In reality, our entry into WW II is the single most significant factor in placing the country on the road to recovery during the period, which, by the way, FDR fought tooth and nail, and if it hadn't been for Pearl Harbor, he would have likely slowed the economic recovery well into the '50's.

Putting a few dollars into the hands of the "poor" will do nothing to stimulate the economy, and putting more than a "few" dollars into their hands is simply irresponsible.......as by definition, if they had any capability to manage their financial affairs, they would not be "poor" to begin with.

Becoming isolationist, and failing to take advantage of free international trade will never accomplish the goal of recovery, as you cannot put the "genie" back in the proverbrial bottle.  People want goods and services that are priced reasonably, and that will not happen here with our union/regulatory environment.  Now if you are open to changing that.....THEN we can have a discussion.   To that point, it appears that your grasp of economics is similiar to your grasp of fundamental politics.

doc



Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: Revolution on July 06, 2010, 06:01:19 PM
Quote
Carter was, perhaps, the last "good" President we had

Sparky is right. It is beyond my comprehension how you can even say this.
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: Laelth on July 06, 2010, 06:02:36 PM
That really doesn`t apply as you state it or if it did then the Mafia would be legal.
We have criminal sanctions now for other organizations that exist to perpetuate crime.
That is the context of the word "gang" here and I am sure you understand that but as most do are trying to be obtuse about it.

Honestly, I did not understand that any "gang" is presumed to be a criminal operation that falls under the jurisdiction of the RICO statutes.  Freedom of assembly and freedom of association are serious Constitutional rights, and I get defensive when people threaten them.  And I do not automatically assume that all "gangs" are involved in criminal activity.

-Laelth
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: Laelth on July 06, 2010, 06:05:05 PM
Do you seek the opinion of a medical professional as well as others to determine impact of injury or the circumstances surrounding it?

I have to.  You can't get anything out an insurance company in an injury case without some kind of medical record.  And if I go to trial, I need a medical witness that is usually not the treating physician.  I have to be very careful and very thorough about this kind of thing.

-Laelth
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: SSG Snuggle Bunny on July 06, 2010, 06:05:57 PM
Honestly, I did not understand that any "gang" is presumed to be a criminal operation that falls under the jurisdiction of the RICO statutes.  Freedom of assembly and freedom of association are serious Constitutional rights, and I get defensive when people threaten them.  And I do not automatically assume that all "gangs" are involved in criminal activity.

-Laelth
:thatsright:

RICO statutes were written expressly for the purpose of busting gangs.
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: Thor on July 06, 2010, 06:06:55 PM
Laelth:

Conservatives= Smaller government, lower and more fair taxation, less rules and regulations, more freedom to choose

Liberals= larger government, higher taxes, more government intrusion into one's life, more rules and regulations

Are Republican and Democrats similar  ?? Only in one way, both seem to be highly influenced by major corporations. In case you haven't noticed, the GOP is undergoing some major re-alignment because many are abandoning the GOP because they ARE getting to be too similar to the Dems. We call then "RINOs" (Republican In Name Only)

Basically, the Government can't even effectively run this country, why the HELL would I want them to try and run my life???

Ohhh and you consider Carter a "good" President ?!?!?!?!?  :rotf: :rotf: :rotf: :rotf: :rotf: :rotf: :rotf: :rotf: :rotf: :rotf: :rotf:

 It's obvious that you've never served in the military and probably weren't even old enough to vote wen Carter was President. Hell, I voted for the man. I regretted that decision. I figured a Navy Nuke Engineer, what do I have to lose?? Boy was I WRONG!!! Those were the absolute WORST times I had while I was USN. The way I see it, looking back on history, the very last GOOD president the US had was Eisenhower. (I voted for Reagan, but even he did some things I am STILL pissed about)
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: Laelth on July 06, 2010, 06:07:41 PM
Ergo blacks are overwhelmingly racist

They may be, but so what?  That wasn't my point.  My point was that race (as an issue) divides people who should be allies, and I see this as tragic--especially for the people in those photographs.

-Laelth
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: PatriotGame on July 06, 2010, 06:07:58 PM
I am self-employed as an attorney, as I said.  I don't work for any elected official.  The Democratic Party does not want people like me, anyway.  The liberals have been marginalized and silenced.  The Democratic Party is now as pro-rich and pro-corporate as the Republican Party.

That's how it looks from my perspective, in any event.

-Laelth

Really?

Can you offer a substantive example of how your premise is viable and why you believe your position?
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: Laelth on July 06, 2010, 06:11:54 PM
Let me make this extremely clear:  If you really believe "the left vs. right dichotomy is a tool that the ruling class uses to divides us" and what "we the people" should be doing is banding together as members of the "bottom" in order to fight those at the "top," then you believe a lie.  Those who hold that view deserve to be politically marginalized.  

Sigh.  Then if you believe that the left vs. right dichotomy is not a tool that the ruling class uses to divide us, then you believe a lie, and persons like you deserve to be politically marginalized.

See how useful an argument like that is?   :yawn:

How about we agree to disagree on that one?

-Laelth
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: PatriotGame on July 06, 2010, 06:18:46 PM
I don't think they'll let the tax cuts (which principally benefit the rich) expire.  The Democratic Party is now as controlled by the rich as the Republican Party is.  I look forward to being pleasantly surprised if they do expire, but I doubt it will happen.

And I am furious that the administration is messing with Social Security.  It's just evidence that the Democratic Party no longer represents the people, as I have said a number of times.

-Laelth
Here is a quarter - buy this clue: The ideological Democratic party that you theoretically ascribe to, died when JFK was assassinated and the 60's hippies, with their Che idolizing drug addled minds took over. And, guess what my Barnum T. Bailey validator? You continued to ignore the warning signs and supported those very same Democrats leftists for the past 40 years. In other words, your stupidity bought the lemon, you have no one but yourself to blame for your sour face.
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: Carl on July 06, 2010, 06:40:21 PM
Honestly, I did not understand that any "gang" is presumed to be a criminal operation that falls under the jurisdiction of the RICO statutes.  Freedom of assembly and freedom of association are serious Constitutional rights, and I get defensive when people threaten them.  And I do not automatically assume that all "gangs" are involved in criminal activity.

-Laelth

Nor do I but was just pointing out that there are organizations that exist to perpetuate criminality and that was what was being asserted.
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: Carl on July 06, 2010, 06:41:34 PM
I have to.  You can't get anything out an insurance company in an injury case without some kind of medical record.  And if I go to trial, I need a medical witness that is usually not the treating physician.  I have to be very careful and very thorough about this kind of thing.

-Laelth

When one disagrees with the claims and assertions of the potential client/plaintiff is one sought that does concur?
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: SSG Snuggle Bunny on July 06, 2010, 06:49:31 PM
They may be, but so what?  That wasn't my point.  My point was that race (as an issue) divides people who should be allies, and I see this as tragic--especially for the people in those photographs.

-Laelth
Well, your president propped up a racist minister with thousands of dollars of thithes for more than 2 decades and one of his first acts as POTUS was to have a default judgment against racists won by the DOJ to be thrown away.

The former was brought to light well before the election and the latter was easily prognosticated. To this day blacks are marginalized by the dems who insist on calling conservatives racists and demeaning blacks such as Dr Rice, Justice Thomas and Judge Rogers-Brown. If liberals admitted for half a minute that conservative policies were color blind and prone to generate wealth they would lose that racist 96% bloc they count on.

Liberals NEED racism.
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: Doc on July 06, 2010, 06:50:33 PM
Sigh.  Then if you believe that the left vs. right dichotomy is not a tool that the ruling class uses to divide us, then you believe a lie, and persons like you deserve to be politically marginalized.

See how useful an argument like that is?   :yawn:

How about we agree to disagree on that one?

-Laelth

Again, political naivete......

The division is really simple:

Conservatives believe in equality of opportunity

Liberals believe in the equality of outcomes.

It's really not all  that difficult.....our founding document states that ....."All men are created equal......"

"Created" is where the equality stops.....from that point on, you are on your own, to manifest your own destiny in whatever manner you wish.  No true conservative believes in the "equality" of everyone, except for the rights that we are guaranteed under our Constitution.

doc
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: Laelth on July 06, 2010, 06:52:06 PM
Egotistical of you to assume that my "feelings" would be in any manner determined by what you say, or do not........I deal in facts not "feelings", and calling a point "moot", is not a rebuttal, it is a tactic utilized to avoid discussion of a fact.  Perhaps a different approach would be for you to actually define what you consider "liberal" taxation (beyond, of course, the old, tired, soak the rich to hand to the "poor", or what I refer to as the "Robin Hood" syndrome).  So elucidate please, what is your preferred form of taxation?

It appears the irony of my salutation escaped you.  Ah, well.  If you insist on engaging in a discussion that I consider moot (progressive taxation, which isn't going to happen any time soon), then I will indulge you.  Your description, while obviously derrogatory, is essentially apt.  I prefer taxation that re-distributes wealth downward in the social strata.  This is necessary because in an unregulated capitalist society, wealth naturally flows upward.  Progressive taxation serves to counter-balance this natural tendency.

Quote
The highlighted portion indicates to me that you are too politically naive to actually have a firm grasp on what Obama's politics actually are........or for that matter, what conservatism actually is........which rather places me at a disadvantage, since it is difficult to debate someone who has no grasp of the subject, and it is becoming rather clear that you have no clue as to what conservatives actually believe, or for that matter, what the current manifestation of liberal/progressive/democrat believes.  Not that it really matters, but it is sort of a waste of my time, and yours, which, as you alluded, could be better spent with your family, than here.

Do you feel better?  The insults aren't really useful, are they?

Quote
And "liberals" love to point to the fact that the poor pay a larger percentage of their relative incomes in taxation than those with more wealth, which is really a strawman argument.  Who cares?  When it comes to the basic concept of taxation what percentage of one's income is actually paid isn't really the issue.  The issue regarding taxation is how it must properly and Constitutionally be spent.

I think that how the money is collected is extremely important too.  How it is spent is another subject altogether. 

Quote
An "origionalist" like myself will argue that you will find NOTHING in our founding documents, nor in any of the collective writings of the founders that supports the argument that a welfare state should should ever be considered a part of our country (please don't insult me with the "General Welfare clause"), as both you and I know that is now, and never was intended to convey the right to food, housing, health care, or a "living wage" to the citizenry, at the point of the tax collector's gun.

I fully admit that the Constitution does not grant the Federal government the right to legislate for the general welfare.  States have that right, of course, but the federal government does not (or, to be more precise, did not have that right originally).  It's clear, however, that, through the commerce clause, the Federal government has expanded its power to legislate for the general welfare (for better or for worse).

The fact is that the Constitution means only what the Supreme Court says it means.  This was one of the most shocking things that I learned in law school, but it makes sense when one thinks about it.  Take the old Soviet Constitution.  It guaranteed a plethora of rights and freedoms to the Soviet people.  But did the people really have those rights and freedoms?  No.  Why?  Because the Soviet Courts would not enforce the document.  Our Constitution works the same way.  We have only the rights and freedoms that the Courts, in interpreting that document, give us.  By the same token, the Federal government is limited by that document only to the extent that the Supreme Court is willing to limit the government.  Congress can pass any law it wants.  Whether that law is "unconstitutional" is for the Court to decide.  So far, it appears, the Supreme Court has allowed a good bit of "general welfare" legislation, again, for better or for worse.

Quote
FDR created a lot of nice National Parks, and built a few roads, but any reasonable economist will advise you that his economic policies in general did far more to prolong the depression, than they did to improve the situation.  In reality, our entry into WW II is the single most significant factor in placing the country on the road to recovery during the period, which, by the way, FDR fought tooth and nail, and if it hadn't been for Pearl Harbor, he would have likely slowed the economic recovery well into the '50's.

I think your "reasonable economists" are dead wqrong.  FDR didn't do enough to stimulate the economy in his early years.  That much is true.  I fully agree that it was WWII that pulled us out of the depression.  Why?  Because of the massive federal money spent to fight the war (millions of jobs created--tons of federal spending, and defecit spending too).  That's just what we need now to pull us out of this depression, though I'd prefer to spend money on bridges rather than bombs.

Quote
Putting a few dollars into the hands of the "poor" will do nothing to stimulate the economy, and putting more than a "few" dollars into their hands is simply irresponsible.......as by definition, if they had any capability to manage their financial affairs, they would not be "poor" to begin with.

The money will percolate upwards.  I could care less if it's responsible.  If the poor have money, they will spend it.  In the end, that will churn the economy and make us all richer.  Supply-side economics is bunk.

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/01/26-0

Quote
Becoming isolationist, and failing to take advantage of free international trade will never accomplish the goal of recovery, as you cannot put the "genie" back in the proverbrial bottle.  People want goods and services that are priced reasonably, and that will not happen here with our union/regulatory environment.  Now if you are open to changing that.....THEN we can have a discussion.   To that point, it appears that your grasp of economics is similiar to your grasp of fundamental politics.

Organized labor allowed the creation of the American middle class.  As such, the Republican Party has been trying to destroy organized labor for thirty years.  Organized labor is nearly dead now.  As such the income disparity between the rich and the poor is at its highest point since the gilded age.  While I do not favor political or economic isolationism, I also favor good-paying jobs for working-class Americans.  And regulated capitalism is absolutely necessary.  The Enron gas bubble, the housing bubble, the bank failures, and the gusher in the Gulf are all examples of what happens when capitalism is inadequately regulated.

As for our having a discussion in the future, I make no promises.

-Laelth
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: Carl on July 06, 2010, 06:55:32 PM
It appears the irony of my salutation escaped you.  Ah, well.  If you insist on engaging in a discussion that I consider moot (progressive taxation, which isn't going to happen any time soon), then I will indulge you.  Your description, while obviously derrogatory, is essentially apt.  I prefer taxation that re-distributes wealth downward in the social strata.  This is necessary because in an unregulated capitalist society, wealth naturally flows upward.  Progressive taxation serves to counter-balance this natural tendency.




Just a focus for a moment on this part of your quote...

Why do you think that happens?
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: SSG Snuggle Bunny on July 06, 2010, 07:00:04 PM

Just a focus for a moment on this part of your quote...

Why do you think that happens?
I've always said 2 things about wealth:

1. if one day every one was a millionaire a loaf of bread would cost $10,000

2. the next day half the population would be broke and the other half would be multi-millionaires

Of course wealth doesn't flow strictly upward. Wealthy people spread their wealth through purchases; they don't sit on giant piles of money no matter what the cartoons tell our resident buffoon.
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: Carl on July 06, 2010, 07:13:22 PM
I've always said 2 things about wealth:

1. if one day every one was a millionaire a loaf of bread would cost $10,000

2. the next day half the population would be broke and the other half would be multi-millionaires

Of course wealth doesn't flow strictly upward. Wealthy people spread their wealth through purchases; they don't sit on giant piles of money no matter what the cartoons tell our resident buffoon.

It was a very revealing quote wasn`t it. :-)
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: AllosaursRus on July 06, 2010, 07:16:34 PM
Doc:

Quote
The highlighted portion indicates to me that you are too politically naive to actually have a firm grasp on what Obama's politics actually are........or for that matter, what conservatism actually is........which rather places me at a disadvantage, since it is difficult to debate someone who has no grasp of the subject, and it is becoming rather clear that you have no clue as to what conservatives actually believe, or for that matter, what the current manifestation of liberal/progressive/democrat believes.  Not that it really matters, but it is sort of a waste of my time, and yours, which, as you alluded, could be better spent with your family, than here.

Lilith:

Quote
Do you feel better?  The insults aren't really useful, are they?

This, is an insult????????

I'm confused? We pretty much gave you a buy on your "racist' bullshit, and you think this, is an insult? No wonder yer a frikkin' lawyer. Victim-hood anyone? How many times you use that kinda crap in your arguments in court?

After reading all of your "arguments", I'm beginning to understand why I have such a disdain for lawyers. Now, that's a helluva lot closer to an insult than what you posted! Yet it is aimed at a profession, not you personally. I'm kinda gettin' where lawyers find their mentality. Everyone's a victim so we can find a reason to sue the pants of somebody!
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: Duchess on July 06, 2010, 07:26:29 PM
Hypocrite?  I'm not following you on that one.  Am I someone who's observant enough to note that all the people in the several photographs in that thread are white whereas the county in question is nearly half black?  Yes, I notice that.   Is that irrational or hypocritical?  No.  Is it a broad-brush accusation, yes.  Does it apply to every single person assembled in that crowd?  Almost certainly not.  But I'm sure none of you perfect people has ever made a broad-brush accusation about people you don't really know.  Since you're perfect, and I am not, I will apologize for my shortcomings now.

Sorry perfect people.

-Laelth

It's hypocritical because you presented yourself here as a reasonable person wanting rational debate, or give-and-take, when the generalisation you made at the DUmp is anything but rational. You have no grounds for saying that any of the people in those photographs are racists or miserable, but that's the reflexive accusation people on the right get from the DUmp monkeys. How can you possibly assume that even one of those people is racist or has had a miserable life due to their supposed "loss" of feelings of superiority? You can't assume either of those things from those photographs. Whereas, I can say that many people at the DUmp are miserable, because they themselves say so. Not to mention the survey which Ballygrl posted in a previous post in which more people on the left self-identified as being more unhappy, and people on the right in the survey self-identified as being happy.
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: Duchess on July 06, 2010, 07:32:28 PM
They may be, but so what?  That wasn't my point.  My point was that race (as an issue) divides people who should be allies, and I see this as tragic--especially for the people in those photographs.

-Laelth

There you go again. You have zero grounds for calling those people racist. Or miserable.
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: Doc on July 06, 2010, 07:35:23 PM
Quote
I prefer taxation that re-distributes wealth downward in the social strata.  This is necessary because in an unregulated capitalist society, wealth naturally flows upward.  Progressive taxation serves to counter-balance this natural tendency.

It is more than obvious that you are not an economist......when was the last time a poor person created a job?  By this simple description you have laid the fundamental foundation for socalism.......the only part that you left out was the vehicle.  The vehicle ultimately being the state seizing the means of producing wealth, and therefore controlling the distribution thereof......

You can call yourself whatever you wish, but "a rose by any other name is still a rose....."

Quote
Do you feel better?  The insults aren't really useful, are they?

I think that how the money is collected is extremely important too.  How it is spent is another subject altogether.

Actually insults are, when one must deal with lack of comprehension........telling that you choose not to address the expenditure side of government budgeting.......one must therefore assume that you don't really care how it is spent, only that you (or your political allies) have the continued capability to pick the pockets of the productive, to benefit those who are "not so productive", again "equality of outcomes", a utopian and totally unrealistic concept.

Quote
I fully admit that the Constitution does not grant the Federal government the right to legislate for the general welfare.  States have that right, of course, but the federal government does not (or, to be more precise, did not have that right originally).  It's clear, however, that, through the commerce clause, the Federal government has expanded its power to legislate for the general welfare (for better or for worse).

The fact is that the Constitution means only what the Supreme Court says it means.  This was one of the most shocking things that I learned in law school, but it makes sense when one thinks about it.  Take the old Soviet Constitution.  It guaranteed a plethora of rights and freedoms to the Soviet people.  But did the people really have those rights and freedoms?  No.  Why?  Because the Soviet Courts would not enforce the document.  Our Constitution works the same way.  We have only the rights and freedoms that the Courts, in interpreting that document, give us.  By the same token, the Federal government is limited by that document only to the extent that the Supreme Court is willing to limit the government.  Congress can pass any law it wants.  Whether that law is "unconstitutional" is for the Court to decide.  So far, it appears, the Supreme Court has allowed a good bit of "general welfare" legislation, again, for better or for worse.

This part really doesn't merit an answer.....law school technobabble......in reality, the Constitution actually means what it says..... (It's written to roughly an 8th grade comprehension level, so even a lawyer can, or should be able to understand)

If you would like, I can start a new topis and list the literally hundreds of errors that SCOTUS has made over the history of the Republic, but, it really isn't worth the effort.

Quote
I think your "reasonable economists" are dead wqrong.  FDR didn't do enough to stimulate the economy in his early years.  That much is true.  I fully agree that it was WWII that pulled us out of the depression.  Why?  Because of the massive federal money spent to fight the war (millions of jobs created--tons of federal spending, and defecit spending too).  That's just what we need now to pull us out of this depression, though I'd prefer to spend money on bridges rather than bombs.

Well, "reasonable economists" far outnumber the Keynsian hacks that are presently advising the government......those theories have been demonstrated to be wrong time and time again, but unfortunately some people just can't seem to learn from history.  

FDR was a fool.......and a zealot.......in todays political and communications environment he couldn't get elected to my local City Council.

Quote
The money will percolate upwards.  I could care less if it's responsible.  If the poor have money, they will spend it.  In the end, that will churn the economy and make us all richer.  Supply-side economics is bunk.

Percolate upwards to where exactly?  And for your information, "supply side economics" resulted in the longest period of prosperity in American history.......you think Carter was a hero.....that tells me that little you have to offer has any credibility in the real world.

 "Commondreams" as a source????? :rotf:

Now we all know why you are from DU.....lawyer or not, you simply are incapable of independent thought.

Quote
Organized labor allowed the creation of the American middle class.  As such, the Republican Party has been trying to destroy organized labor for thirty years.  Organized labor is nearly dead now.  As such the income disparity between the rich and the poor is at its highest point since the gilded age.  While I do not favor political or economic isolationism, I also favor good-paying jobs for working-class Americans.  And regulated capitalism is absolutely necessary.  The Enron gas bubble, the housing bubble, the bank failures, and the gusher in the Gulf are all examples of what happens when capitalism is inadequately regulated.

All I can say is........well......there really isn't anything that I can say at this point.

Quote
As for our having a discussion in the future, I make no promises

Trust me, I don't consider you intellectionally challenging enough to really care......

doc

Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: AllosaursRus on July 06, 2010, 07:39:11 PM
Just like many alleged conservatives--willing to take away our freedoms at the drop of a hat.  Ever heard of freedom of association?  People have the right to "hang out" with whomever they wish in the United States, and no liberal that I know of seeks to restrict this freedom.  Conservatives sometimes make me laugh when they claim to be the "protectors" of our freedoms.  It's really just "their" freedoms that they want to protect--usually the freedom to get filthy rich and the freedom to not be responsible for the misery of their fellow citizens.

-Laelth

Do you really think the gangs like MS-13, the Bloods, the Crips, the Mafia, the Aryan Nation, and countless others, are just hangin' around with each other? Oh hell, they're just like the Elks lodge ain't they. They're just helpin' out their communities by selling crack, weed, participating in drive-bys, robbin' the local convenience store, killin' innocents walkin' down the street for initiation purposes, stealin' from anyone who they think has a dollar in their pocket, and then,  if you oppose them, well hell, they'll just put a cap in their ass! You're right, I think they should have a right to associate! ( eta: in ****in' prison!! ) Comes a time when you have to draw a line, and we're way past it, thanx to liberals like yourself! After all, who do ya 'spose made the projects possible?

You belong to a site that wants to lock up Republicans, conservatives, ie TeaPartiers and throw away the key! Naw, that's not infringing on my right to association at all! Do I really need to go over and pull a thread off the DUmpster where 90% of the DUmmies interacting are stating just that? Do you read? It's a-okay for your liberal pals to express the same things, but not a conservative! That's infringing on your rights!

It's a good thing the Mods here put up with way more than I would. You cherry pick, evade, and downright refuse, to answer legitimate arguments to your philosophy and get away with it without the slightest bit of conscience whatsoever! In my book, that's about as dishonest as it gets! Typical LIB!

ETA:

Had to add some "whitey" gangs in there or get accused of bein' racist again!
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: Duchess on July 06, 2010, 07:41:20 PM
Me?  Declare loyalty?  No.  I am afraid that's not in my make-up.  I swore an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States, and that's as far as I will go.  I am on thin ice on DU.  Liberals like me feel under siege.  Obama is no liberal, and we're very mad about what he's doing, and we say so.  That is creating some problems because the Democratic Party loyalists think they shouldn't have to put up with people attacking the Democratic President on a site called "Democratic Underground."  Perhaps they have a point, but I find it difficult to keep my mouth shut, so I am "wandering, " so to speak.

Whatever you say. I was giving you the benefit of a doubt that you only said such a thing in order to not lose posting privileges at the DUmp. If you say you really meant those unfounded accusations, that's on you.

Quote
And I see no leftist fascists trying to tell you how to live your life.  For the life of me, I can't see where all these bogeymen you good people seem to believe in are coming from.  We liberals will regulate your businesses if given the chance, but we wouldn't be all up in your bedrooms or your uteruses.  It's usually conservatives who go there.

The fascists on the left such as those attempting to undermine the Second Amendment, parental rights, freedom of religion (as opposed to "freedom from" religion), freedom of association, etc.

Quote
Again, calling Obama a socialist is laughable to me.  He's not even a liberal.  From my perspective he's center-right--not a full-blown give-the-corporations-absolutely-everything-they-want conservative, but he's pretty close.

Obama himself in plain English professed to believing in "redistribution of wealth". That's as good a definition of socialism as any there is.

Quote
And we on the left do whine and moan a lot.  I admit that.  I am compelled to address injustice when I see it, and I am seeing a lot of injustice these days.  That means I whine and moan.  But I note that this whole forum seems fascinated with our whining and moaning.  What would you do for entertainment if you couldn't enjoy the misery of liberals in pain?

History will have to decide which of us is delusional.



-Laelth

A good bit, if not most, of the whining and moaning by the DUmp monkeys isn't on behalf of the downtrodden, it's on their own behalf. Why they're a victim of one kind or another almost any day of their lives. It's pathetic, not noble.
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: Laelth on July 06, 2010, 07:41:52 PM
Conservatives= Smaller government, lower and more fair taxation, less rules and regulations, more freedom to choose

Theoretically, yes.  But the Republican Party?  Not by a long shot.  Republicans have grown the size of the government under every single Republican President.  Clinton actually reduced the size of the government (i.e. the best conservative President we've had in decades).  Republicans raised taxes on the poor and middle class (FICA taxes, specifically, and cut them mainly for the benefit of the rich).  Republicans do favor fewer rules and regulations for big business but create more rules and regulations for the rest of us (did you ever get on an airplane before the "Permanent National Security Alert"?).  If you did, you'll understand that the Republican Party has no problem reglulating the heck out of "little people."

Frankly, I like conservatives, and I find them both valuable to and necessary for our national political discourse, but these Republicans that we have now are the exact opposite of what they claim to be.

This is on the FICA taxes :http://www.thenation.com/article/stockman-returneth
And this:

Quote
Supply-side advocates claim that revenues increased, but that spending increased faster. However, they typically point to total revenues even though it was only income taxes rates that were cut. That table also does not account for inflation. For example, of the increase from $600.6 billion in 1983 to $666.5 billion in 1984, $26 billion is due to inflation, $18.3 billion to corporate taxes and $21.4 billion to social insurance revenues (mostly FICA taxes). Income tax revenues in constant dollars decreased by $2.77 billion in that year. Supply-siders cannot legitimately take credit for increased FICA tax revenue, because in 1983 FICA tax rates were increased from 6.7% to 7% and the ceiling was raised by $2,100. For the self employed, the FICA tax rate went from 9.35% to 14%. The FICA tax rate increased throughout Reagan's term, jumping to 7.51% in 1988 and the ceiling was raised by 61% through Reagan's two terms. Those tax hikes on wage earners, along with inflation, are the source of the revenue gains of the early 1980s.

http://www.reference.com/browse/supply

And this is on Republicans being free-spenders of the public treasury:

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/01/26-0

Quote from: Thor
Liberals= larger government, higher taxes, more government intrusion into one's life, more rules and regulations

Liberals do generally favor larger government.  Oddly enough, Clinton is the only President who has shrunk the government lately.  Our recent Republican Presidents have all grown the size of government immensely.  As for liberals favoring higher taxes?  Not at all.  Liberals favor lower taxes for those getting the shaft in this country and higher taxes for those who derive the most benefit from this society.  In a word, liberals favor fair taxes.  Of course, "fairness" is in the eye of the beholder.  As for more rules and regulations on corprations and business--sure, I'll give you that.  Liberals do favor that.  Are the Democrats doing that though?  Did they do that under Clinton?  No.  Not at all.  Clinton repealed Glass-Steagall.  Clinton signed NAFTA.  Clinton signed the Telecommunications Act of 1996.  While "liberals" might believe in regulating business, it appears that Democrats do not.  They, in fact, seem to be killing themselves to give big business whatever it wants.  As for intrusion into people's lives, well, you'd have to give me some concerte examples.  I think the USA Patriot Act is pretty intrusive, and that was a Republican gift.  Obama has not even tried to repeal it, which shows me that neither party cares much about our fundamental rights at this point.

Quote from: Thor
Are Republican and Democrats similar  ?? Only in one way, both seem to be highly influenced by major corporations. In case you haven't noticed, the GOP is undergoing some major re-alignment because many are abandoning the GOP because they ARE getting to be too similar to the Dems. We call then "RINOs" (Republican In Name Only)

I am glad to hear that many principled conservatives are abandoning the Republican Party.  Principled liberals are definitely abandoning the Democratic Party.  It appears to me that both parties talk a good game to their bases and tell us what we want to hear, and then they just go about giving big business whatever it wants without any concern for what they promised us.  Again, I see very little difference between the two parties.

Quote from: Thor
Ohhh and you consider Carter a "good" President ?!?!?!?!?  :rotf: :rotf: :rotf: :rotf: :rotf: :rotf: :rotf: :rotf: :rotf: :rotf: :rotf:

In a moral/ethical sense, yes, and that's what was being discussed when I made that comment.  Do you disagree with that?

And I agree that Eisenhower was a good president in the broader sense you imply.  Have you seen the 1956 Republican Party Platform that was posted on DU recently?  Even I could support that.  It's clear that most Republicans were actually sane at one point in time.

-Laelth
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: Laelth on July 06, 2010, 07:49:21 PM
Really?

Can you offer a substantive example of how your premise is viable and why you believe your position?

Which one?  That the Democratic Party is now pro-corporate?  For that I give you the Health Insurance Company Enrichment Act.  No self-respecting liberal would order people to buy a product from a private corporation under penalty of law.  No liberal would give the predatory health insurance industry another 30+ million customers.  No liberal would agree to allow the pharmaceutical companies to continue to gouge the American people with drug prices that are higher than any other place in the world.  Yet Obama and his Congress did all of this, and it appears now that they're gearing up to gut (or privatize or both) Social Security--the bedrock of FDR's New Deal.

There are more examples, honestly, but those should be enough to prove my point.  I should hope.

-Laelth
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: Laelth on July 06, 2010, 07:53:37 PM
Here is a quarter - buy this clue: The ideological Democratic party that you theoretically ascribe to, died when JFK was assassinated and the 60's hippies, with their Che idolizing drug addled minds took over. And, guess what my Barnum T. Bailey validator? You continued to ignore the warning signs and supported those very same Democrats leftists for the past 40 years. In other words, your stupidity bought the lemon, you have no one but yourself to blame for your sour face.

That may very well be true.  And I don't recall blaming anyone other than the people who misled me--those who told me one thing and did something else entirely.

-Laelth

Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: Revolution on July 06, 2010, 07:54:44 PM
Quote
Now we all know why you are from DU.....lawyer or not, you simply are incapable of independent thought.

Waait a minute? Laelth is touting that he's an independent?  :rotf:

From everything I have seen writen on his part here, he's not independent. In fact, he could only be a little bit more leftist. I've had minor disagreements with thes guys, and most likely will again. No really heated debates so far, but I'm not a BIG righty by any means. I'm not a big lefty by any means. I don't conform strictly to all of either party's ideals. I fall pretty much in the middle. That's why I have yet to have any big arguments with these fire people, and THAT...is a true Independent.
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: USA4ME on July 06, 2010, 07:55:46 PM
Sigh.  Then if you believe that the left vs. right dichotomy is not a tool that the ruling class uses to divide us, then you believe a lie, and persons like you deserve to be politically marginalized.

See how useful an argument like that is?   :yawn:

How about we agree to disagree on that one?

-Laelth

But I'm not politically marginalized, rather those who believe as you do are, and rightfully so.  And there's a reason you're politically marginalized, and it's not the one you believe it to be.  When your whole world is centered on the false belief that "the left vs. right dichotomy is a tool that the ruling class uses to divide us," then quite frankly there's nothing left say, because there is no "there" there.  But, to paraphrase Don Corleone, " I want to congratulate you on your belief and I'm sure you'll enjoy discussing it among those of like viewpoints and good luck to you as you do that. As long as you keep these things to yourselves and your interests don't conflict with mine, you'll be alright."

.
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: Duchess on July 06, 2010, 07:57:14 PM
Theoretically, yes.  But the Republican Party?  Not by a long shot.  Republicans have grown the size of the government under every single Republican President.  Clinton actually reduced the size of the government (i.e. the best conservative President we've had in decades).  Republicans raised taxes on the poor and middle class (FICA taxes, specifically, and cut them mainly for the benefit of the rich).  Republicans do favor fewer rules and regulations for big business but create more rules and regulations for the rest of us (did you ever get on an airplane before the "Permanent National Security Alert"?).  If you did, you'll understand that the Republican Party has no problem reglulating the heck out of "little people."

Frankly, I like conservatives, and I find them both valuable to and necessary for our national political discourse, but these Republicans that we have now are the exact opposite of what they claim to be.

This is on the FICA taxes :http://www.thenation.com/article/stockman-returneth
And this:

And this is on Republicans being free-spenders of the public treasury:

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/01/26-0

Liberals do generally favor larger government.  Oddly enough, Clinton is the only President who has shrunk the government lately.  Our recent Republican Presidents have all grown the size of government immensely.  As for liberals favoring higher taxes?  Not at all.  Liberals favor lower taxes for those getting the shaft in this country and higher taxes for those who derive the most benefit from this society.  In a word, liberals favor fair taxes.  Of course, "fairness" is in the eye of the beholder.  As for more rules and regulations on corprations and business--sure, I'll give you that.  Liberals do favor that.  Are the Democrats doing that though?  Did they do that under Clinton?  No.  Not at all.  Clinton repealed Glass-Steagall.  Clinton signed NAFTA.  Clinton signed the Telecommunications Act of 1996.  While "liberals" might believe in regulating business, it appears that Democrats do not.  They, in fact, seem to be killing themselves to give big business whatever it wants.  As for intrusion into people's lives, well, you'd have to give me some concerte examples.  I think the USA Patriot Act is pretty intrusive, and that was a Republican gift.  Obama has not even tried to repeal it, which shows me that neither party cares much about our fundamental rights at this point.

I am glad to hear that many principled conservatives are abandoning the Republican Party.  Principled liberals are definitely abandoning the Democratic Party.  It appears to me that both parties talk a good game to their bases and tell us what we want to hear, and then they just go about giving big business whatever it wants without any concern for what they promised us.  Again, I see very little difference between the two parties.

In a moral/ethical sense, yes, and that's what was being discussed when I made that comment.  Do you disagree with that?

And I agree that Eisenhower was a good president in the broader sense you imply.  Have you seen the 1956 Republican Party Platform that was posted on DU recently?  Even I could support that.  It's clear that most Republicans were actually sane at one point in time.

-Laelth

For the sake of maintaining some civility, I will offer this-that the one thing, at a glance, with which I agree is the part I bolded. Contemporary politicians and power brokers are not my heroes, not any of them. Even the few who may begin with good intentions get co-opted by the party once they've been there any length of time. I have no faith in politicians ever making this the world conservatives want it to be, and only what liberals want in a surface way. But then that's my religious beliefs informing my political ones. I believe it will all be one world, or as a President from the right of the spectrum said, a "new world order". I don't believe that will be a good thing at all.
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: Laelth on July 06, 2010, 07:59:00 PM
When one disagrees with the claims and assertions of the potential client/plaintiff is one sought that does concur?

I am not sure how to answer this one.  The insurance company, of course, often insists that my client submit herself to the examination of their doctor (whose job it is to say that there's nothing wrong with my client or that whatever is wrong wasn't caused by the insured person, the defendant).  But if a client ever comes to me after seeing a non-insurance-company doctor where that doctor says my client is not injured, I would drop the case.  No injury = no tort.  And if my Client's own doctor says there's no injury, my chances of winning are virtually nil.  I can't afford to waste my time with a case like that.

I hope that answers your question.

-Laelth
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: AllosaursRus on July 06, 2010, 08:06:31 PM
Oh yeah, Carter shows his moral/ethical sense every time he talks about Cuba, Venezuela and Israel! That and havin' Micheal Moore sit next to him at the convention, that really showed it! GOOD GRIEF!
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: AllosaursRus on July 06, 2010, 08:11:35 PM
That may very well be true.  And I don't recall blaming anyone other than the people who misled me--those who told me one thing and did something else entirely.

-Laelth



I'm reeeeeeeeeeeeeeal curious, just what is it that would make you happy? How 'bout a list?

ETA:

Somethin' else I'm curious about, just how much do you and your peers think, say a broken bone, oughta be worth? As much as you can get right? Hell if you can get 25 mil, that's fair, ain't it?
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: Ballygrl on July 06, 2010, 08:13:37 PM
Whereas, I can say that many people at the DUmp are miserable, because they themselves say so. Not to mention the survey which Ballygrl posted in a previous post in which more people on the left self-identified as being more unhappy, and people on the right in the survey self-identified as being happy.

It's the glass half empty glass half full analogy, progressives see the glass as half empty and conservatives see the glass as half full.

Laelth, I've considered myself a Republican since birth and I'm going to give you a little background on my life just to prove the stereotype wrong about Republicans.

I'm white, I'm from a black neighborhood in Brooklyn, I grew up poor, I went to private school and only went there because my father worked 2 jobs and my mother worked 3 jobs to pay for it, I went to college and knew my parents couldn't afford it, I didn't apply for scholarships or loans, I just worked 2 jobs and went to school, and when my Dad got sick we got even poorer. When he was unable to work anymore my Parents didn't apply for welfare or food stamps, we got by on my Mothers and my little salaries, we bought chicken legs, store brand cereal, pasta and sauce to last the month, we struggled but we always had hope that things would get better and they would get better because of us, not because of what the Government could give us. My Parents never owned a home, but I do, and by extension my Mother in a way because we moved her and my Aunt with us a couple of years ago, we moved them in with us because of the high cost of living around here, I could've easily pawned my Mother and my Aunt off on the system by getting her into senior housing or even a nursing home, but I couldn't nor would I do it. I'm not looking for accolades, but I'm the face in many instances of a Tea Party protester, people at the DU would never cite someone like me in their rants because it doesn't fit their preconceived notion.

I'm going to give you a few comparisons of the lives of people I know versus my husband and I.

How do we live? kind of frugally, yes I splurge on little things once in a while but I don't put myself into debt with material things. For the longest time it seemed we were the only ones who didn't have a big screen TV, a relative decided to upgrade and gave us her 52 inch TV, we would never of bought that ourselves because we didn't want the debt. I have 4 computers in my house, 1 of them is my Aunts and hers is about 3 years old, but our computers? 2 are over 8 years old and 1 we got from my Mother in Law for free and that's about 3 years old. I'd love to go out and splurge on a new 1 but I really don't need it. All of our cars are paid off and they range in age from 9 years old to 17 years old, sure I'd love a new 1 but I really don't need it. My priorities are my mortgage and health insurance.

Now let me compare that to 2 other people I know.

I have a relative, lives in a 10 room house, built in pool, 99 inch TV, newer computers up the wazoo, a couple of nice SUV's, we got into a conversation a few years ago and I asked her what health insurance she had, she said we don't have health insurance, the kids are covered under the state plan, I was floored, I asked how she was able to do that and she said everything they own is in another relatives name, and since they make money under the table? they're basically scamming the system, and she said all her friends do it, friends who have tons of nice material things.

Another story is a friend of my inlaws, this couple owned their own business, drove around in a brand new truck, went to gamble for the weekend once a month, then he needs bypass surgery, this was a few years ago, and I asked my FIL what insurance he had because I know the medical bills could be high, my FIL said they don't have insurance and the guy said "what are they going to do deny me treatment"?

My inlaws worked damn hard for everything they have, they had their own business and worked 12 hours days everyday, very rarely got a vacation, and when it came time to retire it hit them in the wallet, they paid for supplemental insurance but had only minimal prescription coverage so they paid out of pocket, and yeah they were bitter because they worked hard all their life and never asked the Government for a dime, yet here they were retired and still paying up the wazoo for people who got a pass their whole life.

Progressives talk the talk when it comes to the rich, of course they do because it's an easy out, they can continue to live in their naive lalaland and pretend the poor are these little victims their whole lives yet they refuse to see how an awful lot of "poor" are just scamming the system. I'll take a rich person who contributes upwards of 60% of their income in taxes over a scammer anyday of the week. When people need a job they don't look to the poor person to provide it, they look to the rich and middle class to do it.

So when you see posts on Tea Party protesters at the DU or any other progressive site, those people behind those signs are me, not the imagined racist the left likes to tout. And if someone ever says that people at the Tea Party look poor and instead of being divided they should be united with the progressive poor, keep this in mind, those people at Tea Parties just want to be left alone by the Government, they're tired of being robbed by the Government to take care of the Democratic base that for 5 generations have used poverty as an excuse for not succeeding. Take it from the white girl from Crown Heights, people themselves are responsible for how they lead their lives when they become an adult.
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: AllosaursRus on July 06, 2010, 08:21:52 PM
Trust me Bally, that will fall on deaf ears. You didn't specify whether those scamming the system were Dems or Reps. I would take a guess, but I'm pretty sure I know the answer.
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: Duchess on July 06, 2010, 08:22:31 PM
Oh yeah, Carter shows his moral/ethical sense every time he talks about Cuba, Venezuela and Israel! That and havin' Micheal Moore sit next to him at the convention, that really showed it! GOOD GRIEF!

His behavior towards Israel was my first thought when I read that.
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: Ballygrl on July 06, 2010, 08:25:36 PM
Trust me Bally, that will fall on deaf ears. You didn't specify whether those scamming the system were Dems or Reps. I would take a guess, but I'm pretty sure I know the answer.

Democrats! although the relative is leaning Republican the past couple of years, and it might be because they got a legitimate taxes coming out of the check job.
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: Laelth on July 06, 2010, 08:29:16 PM
Nor do I but was just pointing out that there are organizations that exist to perpetuate criminality and that was what was being asserted.

Fair enough.  If you're right about that, then I did misunderstand that post.

-Laelth
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: Carl on July 06, 2010, 08:32:21 PM
I am not sure how to answer this one.  The insurance company, of course, often insists that my client submit herself to the examination of their doctor (whose job it is to say that there's nothing wrong with my client or that whatever is wrong wasn't caused by the insured person, the defendant).  But if a client ever comes to me after seeing a non-insurance-company doctor where that doctor says my client is not injured, I would drop the case.  No injury = no tort.  And if my Client's own doctor says there's no injury, my chances of winning are virtually nil.  I can't afford to waste my time with a case like that.

I hope that answers your question.

-Laelth

In other words you are involved in suits against OBGYNs.
Along with that you are selective about medical testimony dependent on whether a doctor says yay or nay based on their potential personal gain rather then a professional opinion.

If a doc in an insurance group says no,disregard them but if one that may benefit from a kickback says go ahead it is green light forward.
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: Laelth on July 06, 2010, 08:34:42 PM
Well, your president propped up a racist minister with thousands of dollars of thithes for more than 2 decades and one of his first acts as POTUS was to have a default judgment against racists won by the DOJ to be thrown away.

The former was brought to light well before the election and the latter was easily prognosticated. To this day blacks are marginalized by the dems who insist on calling conservatives racists and demeaning blacks such as Dr Rice, Justice Thomas and Judge Rogers-Brown. If liberals admitted for half a minute that conservative policies were color blind and prone to generate wealth they would lose that racist 96% bloc they count on.

Liberals NEED racism.

You mean our President?  Perhaps he did do that.  I don't really know, and it matters little to me.  I don't know if you've noticed, but I'm not exactly defending the President here.

Is it true that the Democratic Party needs black votes?  Absolutely.  I don't know if you've noticed this, either, but I am not defending the Democratic Party here.

So, I'm not sure what you're driving at.  It appears that you want me to call you a racist so that you can safely dismiss everything I have to say.  Too bad.  I didn't call anyone here a racist.  But I did say that race is a wedge issue used by the rich and the powerful to convince a large segment of the population to vote against their best interests.  That particular game has a long and rich history, and it works very well.  All I said is that it's tragic that people still fall for it.

-Laelth
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: Laelth on July 06, 2010, 08:38:53 PM
Conservatives believe in equality of opportunity

That may be what they say, but it's not what their policies indicate they believe.

Quote from: Doc
Liberals believe in the equality of outcomes.

Perhaps.  I have never though of liberalsim in this way, but you're absolutely right to say that conservatives seem not to care about equal outcomes.  Any policy seems to be OK with a conservative so long as it makes them richer, and to heck with everyone else.  That I'll give you.

-Laelth
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: Doc on July 06, 2010, 08:42:27 PM
 But I did say that race is a wedge issue used by the rich and the powerful to convince a large segment of the population to vote against their best interests.  That particular game has a long and rich history, and it works very well.  All I said is that it's tragic that people still fall for it.

-Laelth

Precisely what "best interest" are we being provoked by racism to vote against?  Be specific and detailed please......

Second question:  Who exactly is the arbiter of what is in "our best interest"?

doc
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: Mike220 on July 06, 2010, 08:44:16 PM
Precisely what "best interest" are we being provoked by racism to vote against?  Be specific and detailed please......

Second question:  Who exactly is the arbiter of what is in "our best interest"?

doc

Damn, beat me too that one.
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: Duchess on July 06, 2010, 08:46:15 PM
That may be what they say, but it's not what their policies indicate they believe.

Perhaps.  I have never though of liberalsim in this way, but you're absolutely right to say that conservatives seem not to care about equal outcomes.  Any policy seems to be OK with a conservative so long as it makes them richer, and to heck with everyone else.  That I'll give you.

-Laelth

Which one is it--either we're a lot of greedy pigs or we vote against our own best interests. Or can "liberal logic" manage to make it be both?

And equal outcomes? Do you think about what you're saying? Why bother to be Michelangelo when the rewards will be just as great if you finger paint rainbows (see the NEA).  The only equality of outcome there can ever be is that of the lowest common  denominator because you just can't make people more intrinsically intelligent or gifted than they are, but you can certainly suppress people's gifts. The Soviet people had a saying for it--"the nail that sticks up gets hammered". Mediocrity rules in equality of outcome.
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: Doc on July 06, 2010, 08:48:14 PM
That may be what they say, but it's not what their policies indicate they believe.

Perhaps.  I have never though of liberalsim in this way, but you're absolutely right to say that conservatives seem not to care about equal outcomes.  Any policy seems to be OK with a conservative so long as it makes them richer, and to heck with everyone else.  That I'll give you.

-Laelth

Again, methinks you are confusing "Republicans" and "Conservatives".......they are two different things.

We  conservatives tend to vote for Republicans, but with the full recognition that not all "Republicans" are conservative......

As I mentioned upthread, that distinction is important here, and some of your generalizations are misunderstood because you don't seem to grasp the difference.

doc
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: Ballygrl on July 06, 2010, 08:49:33 PM
I need to ask a question because this "race" issue is bothering me.

What has the Democratic Party, after all these decades of promises to the black community, what have they done for them? does anyone honestly think the consequences we see all these decades later wasn't purposely done by LBJ and Democrats to make the black community somehow indebted to them? I can even ask that question about Obama, what did Obama ever do to improve the lives of his constituents? as we know the slumlord problem never went away when Obama was representing them, and crime sure as heck didn't decrease. Aside from rhetoric what has Obama and the Democrats done to improve their lives?
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: Laelth on July 06, 2010, 08:49:44 PM

Just a focus for a moment on this part of your quote...

Why do you think that happens?

I am not sure why.  I just know that it does.  I don't know if you've studied Shay's Rebellion, the event that caused the founders to get together to create the Constitution, but it porvides a good example of how the wealthy are inclined to use the power of government to enrich themselves if they're not kept in check.  When Jefferson said that an occasional revolution would be a good thing, he was referring specifically to Shay's Rebellion.  Jefferson insisted on our Second Amendment because he knew that the rich would take away every dime and every inch of land that the people had if they were not perpetually afraid that the people would revolt.

In Federalist 10, Madison makes it clear that the new government was designed to prevent "faction," and by that he meant another Shay's Rebellion--an uprising of the people against the wealthy.  Federalist 57 responds to the anti-federalist's fears that the new Constitution would institute an oligarchy (which, it appears, is exactly what happened).  These were very real concerns for the founders.

http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa10.htm
http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa57.htm

-Laelth
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: Laelth on July 06, 2010, 08:54:18 PM
Of course wealth doesn't flow strictly upward. Wealthy people spread their wealth through purchases; they don't sit on giant piles of money no matter what the cartoons tell our resident buffoon.

Of course they don't sit on it.  They buy government debt and they gamble it on the stock market.  The companies they buy shares of then have more money to build new factories or service-call centers in India.  Then, when the market collapses, they cry to us and demand a bail-out.

If that money they gambled actually produced American jobs, I wouldn't mind it so much, but it doesn't seem to have that effect anymore.

-Laelth
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: AllosaursRus on July 06, 2010, 08:57:33 PM
Again, methinks you are confusing "Republicans" and "Conservatives".......they are two different things.

We  conservatives tend to vote for Republicans, but with the full recognition that not all "Republicans" are conservative......

As I mentioned upthread, that distinction is important here, and some of your generalizations are misunderstood because you don't seem to grasp the difference.

doc

Mt sentiments EXACTLY!!!!!!!1

Look who is accusing us of lumpin' political ideals together!
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: Ballygrl on July 06, 2010, 08:58:03 PM
Oh another question, any complaints about George Soros? how much did he remove from the market before it crashed? For some reason when the left complains about the wealthy George Soros is never mentioned, such an evil little man who uses his money for such personal and egotistical gain.
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: Laelth on July 06, 2010, 08:58:21 PM
It's hypocritical because you presented yourself here as a reasonable person wanting rational debate, or give-and-take, when the generalisation you made at the DUmp is anything but rational. You have no grounds for saying that any of the people in those photographs are racists or miserable, but that's the reflexive accusation people on the right get from the DUmp monkeys. How can you possibly assume that even one of those people is racist or has had a miserable life due to their supposed "loss" of feelings of superiority? You can't assume either of those things from those photographs. Whereas, I can say that many people at the DUmp are miserable, because they themselves say so. Not to mention the survey which Ballygrl posted in a previous post in which more people on the left self-identified as being more unhappy, and people on the right in the survey self-identified as being happy.

I admitted that my characterization of those people as "miserable" and as people who wanted to feel superior to blacks was broad-brush and over-generalized.  I even apologized for that.

However, I continue to note that I may be poor company to you all given that everyone here is perfect and that noone here would ever make any broad-brush, over-generalized comments about anyone.

-Laelth
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: Doc on July 06, 2010, 09:02:49 PM
Of course they don't sit on it.  They buy government debt and they gamble it on the stock market.  The companies they buy shares of then have more money to build new factories or service-call centers in India.  Then, when the market collapses, they cry to us and demand a bail-out.

If that money they gambled actually produced American jobs, I wouldn't mind it so much, but it doesn't seem to have that effect anymore.

-Laelth

A gross generalization, and downright wrong......80% of the jobs in the US (and the wealth) are created by small business (defined as less than 200 employees), not robber barons as you seem wont to portray.  The vast majority of those small business owners are middle class citizens just like you......at least they are until liberals tax them into bankroptcy.......

Please research your subject matter before you post......and not at "Common dreams".....

doc
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: AllosaursRus on July 06, 2010, 09:05:57 PM
Of course they don't sit on it.  They buy government debt and they gamble it on the stock market.  The companies they buy shares of then have more money to build new factories or service-call centers in India.  Then, when the market collapses, they cry to us and demand a bail-out.

If that money they gambled actually produced American jobs, I wouldn't mind it so much, but it doesn't seem to have that effect anymore.

-Laelth

Does this mean China, the largest holder of our debt, is also in the stock market? If so, we are in more trouble than your buddies will ever be able to dig us out of!

If I were you, I'd start voting for conservatives, be they Reps or Dems, makes no diff! Conservative principals are the only thing to bring us back from the abyss. More spending, as you and your constituents are advising, will do nothing more than make it worse! How's that stimulus workin' there Einstein? Change it Back!!!

BTW, I know of several Banks that tried to tell Bummer NO! We don't need your money! Why do ya 'spose he made them take it anyway? Oh I know, cause he's not a liberal/socialsist!

Dream on!
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: Laelth on July 06, 2010, 09:08:13 PM
Doc:

Lilith:

This, is an insult????????

I'm confused? We pretty much gave you a buy on your "racist' bullshit, and you think this, is an insult? No wonder yer a frikkin' lawyer. Victim-hood anyone? How many times you use that kinda crap in your arguments in court?

After reading all of your "arguments", I'm beginning to understand why I have such a disdain for lawyers. Now, that's a helluva lot closer to an insult than what you posted! Yet it is aimed at a profession, not you personally. I'm kinda gettin' where lawyers find their mentality. Everyone's a victim so we can find a reason to sue the pants of somebody!

Come on, man.  Seriously.  "Waaaaahhhh!  He called me a racist!  Waaaaahhhh."

Now that's plaing the victim.

-Laelth
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: Duchess on July 06, 2010, 09:14:09 PM
I admitted that my characterization of those people as "miserable" and as people who wanted to feel superior to blacks was broad-brush and over-generalized.  I even apologized for that.

However, I continue to note that I may be poor company to you all given that everyone here is perfect and that noone here would ever make any broad-brush, over-generalized comments about anyone.

-Laelth

Who said anything about anyone needing to be perfect? You can throw out "crazy right wing" all day long and I won't even notice it. Accusing people of being racist is incendiary in this day and age and you know it, and the left does it at the drop of a hat to people on the right with no basis whatsoever. It's the equivalent of saying "Have you stopped beating your wife?"--it's an unanswerable accusation.

You asked me why I thought it was hypocritical, and I told you. If you didn't want an answer, don't ask the question. You apologised, fine. Now back to our regularly-scheduled flinging of "leftist fascists" and "right-wing Nazis".
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: Doc on July 06, 2010, 09:16:07 PM
Come on, man. Seriously.  "Waaaaahhhh!  He called me a racist!  Waaaaahhhh."

Now that's plaing the victim.

-Laelth

He was referring to your response to ME.......and I have never mentioned racism........if you are going to play here, you have to keep the players straight......or review the thread.

doc

On edit:  I realize that you are one person, with half a dozen members hurling questions at you, and having been in that position, I can empathize........that said, you will NEVER hear me play the "victim card".......not in my nature.
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: AllosaursRus on July 06, 2010, 09:17:12 PM
Quote
However, I continue to note that I may be poor company to you all given that everyone here is perfect and that noone here would ever make any broad-brush, over-generalized comments about anyone.

Oh for cryin' out loud! Now you're paintin' us with your brush! I'll say it again, typical LIB, with a capitol L!

You're a lawyer, and you use noone as one word?
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: Carl on July 06, 2010, 09:18:30 PM
I am not sure why.  I just know that it does.  I don't know if you've studied Shay's Rebellion, the event that caused the founders to get together to create the Constitution, but it porvides a good example of how the wealthy are inclined to use the power of government to enrich themselves if they're not kept in check.  When Jefferson said that an occasional revolution would be a good thing, he was referring specifically to Shay's Rebellion.  Jefferson insisted on our Second Amendment because he knew that the rich would take away every dime and every inch of land that the people had if they were not perpetually afraid that the people would revolt.

In Federalist 10, Madison makes it clear that the new government was designed to prevent "faction," and by that he meant another Shay's Rebellion--an uprising of the people against the wealthy.  Federalist 57 responds to the anti-federalist's fears that the new Constitution would institute an oligarchy (which, it appears, is exactly what happened).  These were very real concerns for the founders.

http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa10.htm
http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa57.htm

-Laelth

There can be abuses everywhere rich and poor but if as you say the general nature of things is for prosperity to go to those that are successful then one needs to be honest about why,and a brush off (they cheat) mindset doesn`t answer the question.

Perhaps it is hard work,ingenuity and belief in capitalism that does it rather then a coerced,government planned system with no incentives.

You have just layed out why Capitalism when allowed will always raise those that are determined and as a corollary why Socialism always condemns the public to subsistence living.
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: Duchess on July 06, 2010, 09:19:06 PM
Come on, man.  Seriously.  "Waaaaahhhh!  He called me a racist!  Waaaaahhhh."

Now that's plaing the victim.

-Laelth

No, that's not playing the victim. You can be all kinds of things these days, but mere accusations of racism end careers and destroy reputations. A man was fired for using the perfectly neutral term "niggardly". Racism is the unforgiveable sin these days, an accusation is all it takes, and the accusations most often come from the left. Of course, they forgive their own for saying worse, ie Biden's "articulate and bright and clean". As if we needed assurance that Obama was one of those hygienic black people.
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: AllosaursRus on July 06, 2010, 09:19:58 PM
He was referring to your response to ME.......and I have never mentioned racism........if you are going to play here, you have to keep the players straight......

doc

Ding, ding, ding, ding!!!!!! We have a winnah!!!!!!!! Of course I was! sheesh! Project much?
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: Laelth on July 06, 2010, 09:20:05 PM
For the sake of maintaining some civility, I will offer this-that the one thing, at a glance, with which I agree is the part I bolded. Contemporary politicians and power brokers are not my heroes, not any of them. Even the few who may begin with good intentions get co-opted by the party once they've been there any length of time. I have no faith in politicians ever making this the world conservatives want it to be, and only what liberals want in a surface way. But then that's my religious beliefs informing my political ones. I believe it will all be one world, or as a President from the right of the spectrum said, a "new world order". I don't believe that will be a good thing at all.

I fear you may be right.  :(

-Laelth
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: AllosaursRus on July 06, 2010, 09:26:03 PM
I fear you may be right.  :(

-Laelth

I haven't seen it yet, did ya ever come up with that list that Liberals think will save our country and the world?

crickets chirpin'
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: AllosaursRus on July 06, 2010, 11:28:58 PM
I fear you may be right.  :(

-Laelth

I feel.............. you may not have a clue!

Uh.......... where's that list? Surely someone of your caliber can enlighten us lowly conservatives on the "right' way to save us from ourselves! Aren't you the smartest person in the room? Hell, with you in charge, we would have never had to go thru Reaganomics!
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: PatriotGame on July 07, 2010, 12:35:40 AM
Which one?  That the Democratic Party is now pro-corporate?  For that I give you the Health Insurance Company Enrichment Act.  No self-respecting liberal would order people to buy a product from a private corporation under penalty of law.  No liberal would give the predatory health insurance industry another 30+ million customers.  No liberal would agree to allow the pharmaceutical companies to continue to gouge the American people with drug prices that are higher than any other place in the world.  Yet Obama and his Congress did all of this, and it appears now that they're gearing up to gut (or privatize or both) Social Security--the bedrock of FDR's New Deal.

There are more examples, honestly, but those should be enough to prove my point.  I should hope.

-Laelth
HA HA HA HA HA!!

WTF??? Did you just crawl out of a WWII cave?

WTF do you think *WE* Conservatives have been telling you idiots of the left for the past 50 years?!!!


IT'S THE HYPOCRISY STUPID!

And all this time you thought Lord Zer0, William Ayres, and Rev. Wright were just little racist commies?

THEY ARE CORPORATE WHORE PAWNS!

Oh, and so are you...just on a much lower level...
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: PatriotGame on July 07, 2010, 12:40:56 AM
That may very well be true.  And I don't recall blaming anyone other than the people who misled me--those who told me one thing and did something else entirely.

-Laelth


Sorry to tell you this but ignorance can be cured with education. Stupidity is for life.
Allowing a twisted ideology, liberalism, to make you stupid is no excuse.
As the judge said, "ignorance of the law is no excuse. Stupidity of reality is worse yet.
You have no one to blame but yourself.

I do have to say here though that I admire your willingness to stick with it here and defend your positions. 
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: PatriotGame on July 07, 2010, 01:05:26 AM
Oh for cryin' out loud! Now you're paintin' us with your brush! I'll say it again, typical LIB, with a capitol L!

You're a lawyer, and you use noone as one word?
Shhhh....it's the chew toy that chews itself for ya! Noone can deny the beauty of that... :-)
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: NHSparky on July 07, 2010, 06:24:38 AM
I never said I hate the rich.

No, but the tone of your posts says it quite well enough.

I think they should pay the most in taxes,

And they do.

and I think corporations need to be tightly regulated by the state because they are not interested in the common good

Oh goody--perhaps you could describe what "common good" means?  I'll be eagerly awaiting your reply.

(nor should they be, and that's why they need careful regulation).  But we need them, and I have no desire to get rid of them.

Oh, necessary evil.  You're just so ****ing magnanamous.


As much as people here want me to be a socialist, I am not.  I am a liberal.

-Laelth

Different sides of the same coin.
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: NHSparky on July 07, 2010, 06:27:42 AM
This is a lot to respond to, but I'd like to give you a thoughtful reply.  I doubt I can give it the time it deserves, however, and I will apologize up front for that.

(Three pages of driveling cut-and-paste later...)


Thanks for the thoughtful post.

-Laelth

 

Jesus, and I thought vesta numbers had some blathering shit that went off on 50 different tangents.

You don't have enough time to give it a reply but spend HOW LONG concocting that drivel?

Drugs are bad, m'kay?
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: NHSparky on July 07, 2010, 06:31:20 AM
I deeply, honestly admire the fact that you allow me to post here.  That is impressive, indeed, even if many of you are inexcusably rude.  I would have been banned from Free Republic long ago.

And I will not be held responsible for DU.

-Laelth

Translation: Laelth will not criticize $kimmer in any way, shape, or form, lest she find herself eating the granite cookie.  Walls have ears and all that.
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: NHSparky on July 07, 2010, 07:25:08 AM
Oh, and BTW little troll, how can one be a "center-right" president when in 2007 they had the MOST LIBERAL VOTING RECORD IN THE SENATE???

http://news.nationaljournal.com/articles/voteratings/
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: Ballygrl on July 07, 2010, 08:03:51 AM
Oh, and BTW little troll, how can one be a "center-right" president when in 2007 they had the MOST LIBERAL VOTING RECORD IN THE SENATE???

http://news.nationaljournal.com/articles/voteratings/

Well since you mention that, I really would like to know what Obama has done to qualify as a center right President? if he was so much to the center he wouldn't of lost Independents over the past year. And please, no delusions that he lost the Independents because he wasn't leftist enough.
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: Revolution on July 07, 2010, 08:12:01 AM
Quote
And please, no delusions that he lost the Independents because he wasn't leftist enough.

I'm not as deep as some into politics, but I've never heard that ridiculous excuse. How can that statement even be an option for even the most leftist of the left??
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: Karin on July 07, 2010, 08:19:05 AM
Just a comment on those NC Tea Party photos, from the DUmp thread, which portrayed nary a black face.  Do you have any idea, Laelth, the abuse black conservatives experience?  This is an issue that makes my blood boil with rage, the idea that an individual black person is incapable of forming his own beliefs and political views, without the benefit of democratic party spoonfeeding. 

Perhaps there were some black people who wanted to attend, but didn't, because he just didn't want to take the shit and be called an Uncle Tom, or an Oreo. 

Did you see the black guy on TV at a teaparty, when the MSM reporter asked him "are you comfortable here?"  He said, "Yes.  These are my people.  Americans."

Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: Revolution on July 07, 2010, 08:43:13 AM
Just a comment on those NC Tea Party photos, from the DUmp thread, which portrayed nary a black face.  Do you have any idea, Laelth, the abuse black conservatives experience?  This is an issue that makes my blood boil with rage, the idea that an individual black person is incapable of forming his own beliefs and political views, without the benefit of democratic party spoonfeeding. 

Perhaps there were some black people who wanted to attend, but didn't, because he just didn't want to take the shit and be called an Uncle Tom, or an Oreo. 

Did you see the black guy on TV at a teaparty, when the MSM reporter asked him "are you comfortable here?"  He said, "Yes.  These are my people.  Americans."

Glad you mentioned that, Karin. Meet Zo.

http://www.youtube.com/user/machosauceproduction

:)
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: Laelth on July 07, 2010, 09:03:41 AM
Waait a minute? Laelth is touting that he's an independent?  :rotf:

From everything I have seen writen on his part here, he's not independent. In fact, he could only be a little bit more leftist. I've had minor disagreements with thes guys, and most likely will again. No really heated debates so far, but I'm not a BIG righty by any means. I'm not a big lefty by any means. I don't conform strictly to all of either party's ideals. I fall pretty much in the middle. That's why I have yet to have any big arguments with these fire people, and THAT...is a true Independent.

It appears to me that neither major party in this country conforms to their supposed ideals.  That, in part, is why I am here.  "We the People" seem to have no voice in government.

-Laelth
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: Laelth on July 07, 2010, 09:26:26 AM
I'm reeeeeeeeeeeeeeal curious, just what is it that would make you happy? How 'bout a list?

ETA:

Somethin' else I'm curious about, just how much do you and your peers think, say a broken bone, oughta be worth? As much as you can get right? Hell if you can get 25 mil, that's fair, ain't it?

As for a list of what would make me happy, I don't think that would be productive.  If you'd like, you're welcome to see what one liberal, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, proposed in 1944--his Second Bill of Rights.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Bill_of_Rights

Of course, any discussion of the Second Bill of Rights should include a discussion of how to pay for all of that.  And, as you know, I do favor progressive taxation, but I am not a tax expert (as many here seem to be), and I do not know what rates would be appropriate to cover what FDR proposed.  I merely know that our current tax structure is patently unfair.

As for your broken bone question, as gruesome as it may be, I am forced to consider that question on a regular basis, as are the insurance adjusters with whom I negotiate.  And if a given case is turned over to defense attorneys by the insurance campany, then they too must grapple with this question.  In both cases, we ask ourselves, "What is the jury likely to award?"  "Waht is this injury worth?"  In fact, there's an entire website devoted to this very question. They compare jury awards from around the country and try to come up with some reasonable estimates of what a given injury is worth.

I can tell you that you'd be sorely disappointed by the value of the injuries that they list.  No injury is worth one million dollars (much less twenty-five million).  You don't get that kind of money unless someone dies, and, even then, the deceased person has to be young and has to make a lot of money every year to be worth 25 million.   The big jury awards come not because of the injury (or the death) but because the tortfeasor (the defendant) does something that the jury thinks was unreasonably dangerous.  In John Edawards' most famous case, he sued a pool manufacturer for creating a drain that had killed several children.  He put up an expert that showed that the pool manufacturer knew about the problem, and that they could have fixed it by adding a 25 cent part.  The jury was furious that the company didn't make this change once the company learned about the previous children that had been drowned due to their design defect, and the jury punished the company for it--with a big punitive damages award.

No broken bone, though, is worth 25 million, and as much as I hate to engage in this kind of gruesome speculation, I have to do it in order to be able to zealously advocate for my clients.

-Laelth



Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: Laelth on July 07, 2010, 09:45:20 AM
It's the glass half empty glass half full analogy, progressives see the glass as half empty and conservatives see the glass as half full.

Laelth, I've considered myself a Republican since birth and I'm going to give you a little background on my life just to prove the stereotype wrong about Republicans.

I'm white, I'm from a black neighborhood in Brooklyn, I grew up poor, I went to private school and only went there because my father worked 2 jobs and my mother worked 3 jobs to pay for it, I went to college and knew my parents couldn't afford it, I didn't apply for scholarships or loans, I just worked 2 jobs and went to school, and when my Dad got sick we got even poorer. When he was unable to work anymore my Parents didn't apply for welfare or food stamps, we got by on my Mothers and my little salaries, we bought chicken legs, store brand cereal, pasta and sauce to last the month, we struggled but we always had hope that things would get better and they would get better because of us, not because of what the Government could give us. My Parents never owned a home, but I do, and by extension my Mother in a way because we moved her and my Aunt with us a couple of years ago, we moved them in with us because of the high cost of living around here, I could've easily pawned my Mother and my Aunt off on the system by getting her into senior housing or even a nursing home, but I couldn't nor would I do it. I'm not looking for accolades, but I'm the face in many instances of a Tea Party protester, people at the DU would never cite someone like me in their rants because it doesn't fit their preconceived notion.

I'm going to give you a few comparisons of the lives of people I know versus my husband and I.

How do we live? kind of frugally, yes I splurge on little things once in a while but I don't put myself into debt with material things. For the longest time it seemed we were the only ones who didn't have a big screen TV, a relative decided to upgrade and gave us her 52 inch TV, we would never of bought that ourselves because we didn't want the debt. I have 4 computers in my house, 1 of them is my Aunts and hers is about 3 years old, but our computers? 2 are over 8 years old and 1 we got from my Mother in Law for free and that's about 3 years old. I'd love to go out and splurge on a new 1 but I really don't need it. All of our cars are paid off and they range in age from 9 years old to 17 years old, sure I'd love a new 1 but I really don't need it. My priorities are my mortgage and health insurance.

Now let me compare that to 2 other people I know.

I have a relative, lives in a 10 room house, built in pool, 99 inch TV, newer computers up the wazoo, a couple of nice SUV's, we got into a conversation a few years ago and I asked her what health insurance she had, she said we don't have health insurance, the kids are covered under the state plan, I was floored, I asked how she was able to do that and she said everything they own is in another relatives name, and since they make money under the table? they're basically scamming the system, and she said all her friends do it, friends who have tons of nice material things.

Another story is a friend of my inlaws, this couple owned their own business, drove around in a brand new truck, went to gamble for the weekend once a month, then he needs bypass surgery, this was a few years ago, and I asked my FIL what insurance he had because I know the medical bills could be high, my FIL said they don't have insurance and the guy said "what are they going to do deny me treatment"?

My inlaws worked damn hard for everything they have, they had their own business and worked 12 hours days everyday, very rarely got a vacation, and when it came time to retire it hit them in the wallet, they paid for supplemental insurance but had only minimal prescription coverage so they paid out of pocket, and yeah they were bitter because they worked hard all their life and never asked the Government for a dime, yet here they were retired and still paying up the wazoo for people who got a pass their whole life.

Progressives talk the talk when it comes to the rich, of course they do because it's an easy out, they can continue to live in their naive lalaland and pretend the poor are these little victims their whole lives yet they refuse to see how an awful lot of "poor" are just scamming the system. I'll take a rich person who contributes upwards of 60% of their income in taxes over a scammer anyday of the week. When people need a job they don't look to the poor person to provide it, they look to the rich and middle class to do it.

So when you see posts on Tea Party protesters at the DU or any other progressive site, those people behind those signs are me, not the imagined racist the left likes to tout. And if someone ever says that people at the Tea Party look poor and instead of being divided they should be united with the progressive poor, keep this in mind, those people at Tea Parties just want to be left alone by the Government, they're tired of being robbed by the Government to take care of the Democratic base that for 5 generations have used poverty as an excuse for not succeeding. Take it from the white girl from Crown Heights, people themselves are responsible for how they lead their lives when they become an adult.

It's clear that you're a decent and ethical person.  And I have no love for people who are ripping the system off.  I do think it's tragic, however, that you and your parents refused to accept government benefits to which you were evidently entitled.  It's sad that you've been made to feel ashamed for even considering taking those benefits.  In my opinion, you should take them if you're entiled to them, just as the people you mentioned should not take them if they're not entitled to them.

And I understand the anger and frustration of those who feel they're getting ripped off.  I am especially angry about your friend with the big house who's ripping us off, but you must see that this example proves my point, in a way.  The rich rip us off a lot more than the poor do.  Id' rather tackle that problem first--as opposed to enacting draconian measures that will have the greatest impact on the poor who legally deserve assistance.

And I will repeat that no rich person believes in personal responsibility.  That's why they buy medical malpractice insurance, or home insurance, or any other instrument that assures collective responsibility.  They're the first people to ask for a government bailout when their complex financial instruments go down the tube.  They don't believe in personal responsibility.  Why should you?

-Laelth
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: Laelth on July 07, 2010, 09:46:34 AM
Trust me Bally, that will fall on deaf ears. You didn't specify whether those scamming the system were Dems or Reps. I would take a guess, but I'm pretty sure I know the answer.

Sigh.  I am not here to support the Democratic Party, and you can't understand what I have to say at all if you believe that.

-Laelth
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: Laelth on July 07, 2010, 09:51:19 AM
In other words you are involved in suits against OBGYNs.
Along with that you are selective about medical testimony dependent on whether a doctor says yay or nay based on their potential personal gain rather then a professional opinion.

If a doc in an insurance group says no,disregard them but if one that may benefit from a kickback says go ahead it is green light forward.

I've never had a case against an OB-GYN.  I do not undersatnd what you're talking about here.

But, yes, in most cases I have one doctor who says "injury" and the other doctor (the insurance company's doctor) says either "no injury" or "injury not caused by defendant."  That's as good as it ever gets from the Plaintiff's perspective, and I proceed with cases like that.  When the doctor my client chooses, however, says "no injury," I drop that case.  Plaintiff can't win if her own doctor says there's no injury.

-Laelth
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: NHSparky on July 07, 2010, 10:07:22 AM
I am not a tax expert (as many here seem to be), and I do not know what rates would be appropriate to cover what FDR proposed.  I merely know that our current tax structure is patently unfair.

That's pretty obvious.  Either you're willfully ignorant, or just in denial.  Which is it?

Oh, and what would YOU conisder "fair"?  Break it down by income and percentage which YOU think should go towards taxes.
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: Thor on July 07, 2010, 10:17:04 AM
"Fair" to me would be a 10% income tax, across the board, no deductions, no nothing.
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: Laelth on July 07, 2010, 10:20:30 AM
Precisely what "best interest" are we being provoked by racism to vote against?  Be specific and detailed please......

Second question:  Who exactly is the arbiter of what is in "our best interest"?

doc

Forgive me if I am wrong about this, but it appears that you're not really interested in my opinion on this subject.  I suspect that you're merely looking for me to post something that you can attack.  You seem to find that fun, as if this is a game to you.  I can assure you that this is no game, and I have only contempt for those who treat it as a game.  Politics is a real praxis, and it has real effects on real people.  I don't give a darn whather the "blue" team or the "red" team wins.  I care about what's going to happen to me, my children, my grandchildren, my family, my friends, and my nation.  I see all this as very real, and I am not interested in treating it as a game of "gotcha."  If it is not your intent to bait me into posting something that you can attack, then we may be able to have a civil conversation.  I look forward to your proving my suspicions wrong.

I think it's against the interests of poor and working people to vote for the party of the rich.  Sadly, the Democrats are also the party of the rich, now, so it really doesn't matter how people vote.  But on the specific issue of the tea partiers, who are calling for less government spending, it makes no sense in a recession (or depression) to call for less government spending.  We need more government spending, not less.  Massive government spending got us out of the Great Depression.  Only massive government spending will get us out of this recession.  It makes no economic sense for any American to be calling for reduced government spending at this time, and that's my objection to the tea partiers.

I also not that they were silent while Bush was producing record budget defecits, which makes me suspect that their objections to government spending are not genuine.

As for the final arbiter of their best interests, it's clear that I am applying my own, subjective assessment of their best interests on them, and perhaps I am wrong to do so.  For all I know the tea partiers want America to be a 3rd world country.  Perhaps they love the growing wealth disparity in this country.  Perhaps they like living through a depression and want to see that depression last indefinitely.  Perhaps they love losing all the good-paying jobs that our corporations are shipping overseas.  Perhaps they'd prefer to live in Somalia where there's little or no governent regulation and little or no taxes to be paid.

But I doubt it, and I am willing to make a judgment call about their best interests on that basis.

-Laelth
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: NHSparky on July 07, 2010, 10:27:04 AM
Translation:  Laelth can't answer your question, so she's not even going to try, and just waste a lot of bandwidth into bullshitting you.

Newsflash, toots--doc is arguably one of the smartest people on this board, and if he asks an intelligent question, you might want to take the time to try and answer rather than feed him (and us) pages upon pages of pablum.
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: SSG Snuggle Bunny on July 07, 2010, 10:42:17 AM
Of course they don't sit on it.  They buy government debt and they gamble it on the stock market.  The companies they buy shares of then have more money to build new factories or service-call centers in India.  Then, when the market collapses, they cry to us and demand a bail-out.

If that money they gambled actually produced American jobs, I wouldn't mind it so much, but it doesn't seem to have that effect anymore.

-Laelth
Gawd, you're such a tool...and not even a sharp one:

1. the > $250,000 crowd your president villifies create 80% of the jobs in the US. Gates, Buffett and Soros are exceptions to the rule you use as cheap caricatures.

2. When people invest in markets they provide capital for the businesses that provide jobs and you leech off of.

3. What've you got against Indians not breaking their backs in the fields? racist?

4. Bail-outs are anathema to a free market because they subsidize bad behavior but we were told going into the election that we HAD to have them or else. But then your president and his henchmen forced plenty of companies to take them and then bused their ACORN and SEIU thugs to menace their private homes.

5. Luxury spending also spreads wealth. Witness: how quickly large swathes of Clinton's luxury tax were repealed when it became immediately apparent US workers suffered but the wealthy didn't. It's not the yacht you attack it is the yacht builder, the crew and the dock master.

Forgive me if I am wrong about this, but it appears that you're not really interested in my opinion on this subject.  I suspect that you're merely looking for me to post something that you can attack...

-Laelth
You speak in nebulous terms which allows you to dodge responsibility for for any specific harms a policy you endorse might cause.

It's a neat lawyer's trick but we're smarter than that.

Unlke our little group where we pride ourselves in having solid answers.

If you ask: should there be taxes? we will say: Yes.

How much? Enough to fulfill the obligations of government but not hurt the economy at which point taxation does more harm than good.

Well, what is that level? Let's look at the Laffer Curve.


See how simple that is?
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: delilahmused on July 07, 2010, 10:43:59 AM
Something I've never been able to understand...why, if I don't want liberal policies (i.e. generally more government) I'm voting against my own interests with the implication that I don't know what's good for me, am uninformed, listen to Rush Limbaugh too much, or just not smart enough to know what's good for me?

I want as little government intrusion in my life as possible. Practically every time they try to insert themselves they fail...massively (can you say Fanny & Freddy? I knew you could). Even in today's economy people whose main retirement income comes from investments and 401k's have more money than those with only SS. Medicare is broke and it's getting harder to find a doctor. The supplemental insurance that actually provides the best coverage (it's most like private insurance), Medicare Advantage, the government is taking away next year thanks to Obamacare.

And this actually provides a good example of what I mean when I say I can look out for my own interests and that of my family better than the government can. Now as a general rule liberals call this selfish and think everyone sharing the same (usually inadequate) health care, retirement  income, etc. is just peachy...oh, and "fair". My grandmother's Medicare is a good illustration. She's 91 and she's beautiful and wise and the glue that holds our family together. My grandparent's home was the only stable place I had growing up. Lord knows where I would've ended up without them. I'm selfish in that I want her on this earth with me as long as possible. And let's be honest, she means nothing to the government, she's just one number among millions.

I'm responsible for finding the best medical insurance that meets her needs. I know what medications she takes, her health issues, her doctors. The government does not. I choose a (Medicare Advantage) policy that takes all these factors into consideration, from prescription drug coverage to the kinds of doctors she sees and how often she needs to go. The government cannot. If it proves to be inadequate or someone offers a better policy, we're free to change the following year. So, while it may be just swell for the government to spread the wealth by providing medical INSURANCE to all, it's going to be substandard at best. In looking out for "my" best interests I serve the needs of my family. Why the hell should me and mine have to suffer because someone else can't or won't get their own insurance?

We all have the same OPPORTUNITY in this country. And responsibilities. I'd bet you 90% of the people who bitch and moan about what they don't have are there because of their own choices and self-imposed limitations. Why should the rest of us have to pay for others' choices? I'm a chicken farmer. I'm not rich and I work hard but it's my choice to be where I am. I chose to be a stay at home homeschooling mom while most of my friends were 2 income families. They had (and still have) nicer houses, better cars, and probably more retirement savings. But there's no reason any of their earnings should pay to make my money equal to theirs because I made different choices?

Conversely, why should my hard earned dollars go to support some 28 year old with 4 kids who hasn't yet learned to keep her legs closed and chooses men she knows won't stay around? One is a mistake, 4 is a conscious lifestyle choice. But evidently part of my self interest involves taking care of some bimbo who refuses to grow up and be responsible for her own life. Because in being "selfish" I actually help the rest of the citizens of this country. By taking care of my family's needs, others can keep more of their own earnings and frees tax money for those things that are constitutionally mandated.

Cindie
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: Carl on July 07, 2010, 10:46:58 AM
Forgive me if I am wrong about this, but it appears that you're not really interested in my opinion on this subject.  I suspect that you're merely looking for me to post something that you can attack.  You seem to find that fun, as if this is a game to you.  I can assure you that this is no game, and I have only contempt for those who treat it as a game.  Politics is a real praxis, and it has real effects on real people.  I don't give a darn whather the "blue" team or the "red" team wins.  I care about what's going to happen to me, my children, my grandchildren, my family, my friends, and my nation.  I see all this as very real, and I am not interested in treating it as a game of "gotcha."  If it is not your intent to bait me into posting something that you can attack, then we may be able to have a civil conversation.  I look forward to your proving my suspicions wrong.

I think it's against the interests of poor and working people to vote for the party of the rich.  Sadly, the Democrats are also the party of the rich, now, so it really doesn't matter how people vote.  But on the specific issue of the tea partiers, who are calling for less government spending, it makes no sense in a recession (or depression) to call for less government spending.  We need more government spending, not less.  Massive government spending got us out of the Great Depression.  Only massive government spending will get us out of this recession.  It makes no economic sense for any American to be calling for reduced government spending at this time, and that's my objection to the tea partiers.

I also not that they were silent while Bush was producing record budget defecits, which makes me suspect that their objections to government spending are not genuine.

As for the final arbiter of their best interests, it's clear that I am applying my own, subjective assessment of their best interests on them, and perhaps I am wrong to do so.  For all I know the tea partiers want America to be a 3rd world country.  Perhaps they love the growing wealth disparity in this country.  Perhaps they like living through a depression and want to see that depression last indefinitely.  Perhaps they love losing all the good-paying jobs that our corporations are shipping overseas.  Perhaps they'd prefer to live in Somalia where there's little or no governent regulation and little or no taxes to be paid.

But I doubt it, and I am willing to make a judgment call about their best interests on that basis.

-Laelth

It was called WWII.
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: AllosaursRus on July 07, 2010, 10:48:34 AM
Quote
We need more government spending, not less.  Massive government spending got us out of the Great Depression.  Only massive government spending will get us out of this recession.  It makes no economic sense for any American to be calling for reduced government spending at this time, and that's my objection to the tea partiers.

I also not that they were silent while Bush was producing record budget defecits, which makes me suspect that their objections to government spending are not genuine.

Holy shit! What part of "we have no more ****in' money to spend", don't you libs get?

You can't be that ignorant of the facts! You think running up trillion dollar deficits will get us out of a recession? Your house of cards is on the verge of collapse and you suggest spending more! Spoken like a true follower of the messiah! And you say Bummer is not a liberal!

Oh, did you notice at the G20 that your boss suggested to the European countries, already in trouble, to do just that, and they told him to go pound sand? At least they're starting to get a clue. It's unsustainable, period! You can't just print money and expect things to get better!
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: NHSparky on July 07, 2010, 11:02:38 AM
I also not that they were silent while Bush was producing record budget defecits, which makes me suspect that their objections to government spending are not genuine.

Oh, here we go again..."record deficits".  In what regard?  In terms of total dollars?  Or as a percent of federal spending?  Or of GDP?

Because it seems to me your boy Obama has blown all of those away, and in addition has succeeded in DOUBLING the national debt in barely 18 months.  Yet like a ghetto pimp with a stolen credit card, Obama keep spending other people's money and ruining THEIR credit for decades to come on shit that one would think would make you and your ilk happy.

But it's never enough for you, is it?
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: Doc on July 07, 2010, 11:16:16 AM
Quote
Forgive me if I am wrong about this, but it appears that you're not really interested in my opinion on this subject.  I suspect that you're merely looking for me to post something that you can attack.  You seem to find that fun, as if this is a game to you.  I can assure you that this is no game, and I have only contempt for those who treat it as a game.  Politics is a real praxis, and it has real effects on real people.

Not at all....the question was a sincere one.......sincere, because we hear the "voting against ones interests" mantra from leftists of various stripes ad nauseum, and I'm seriously interested in why you would think that voting for candidates that would reduce the size of government, to the extent of lessening its impact on citizens, and allowing them to keep more of what they earn is "voting against our interests".

To a thinking person, allowing them to keep more of their resources, however "rich" one may perceive them to be is certainly "in their interests"

Now......if you define "voting against ones interests" as voting against handouts for the poor, then you have again demonstrated that you fail to understand conservatism......it is a statistically proven fact that conservatives donate more of their resources to charities, and efforts to benefit the "poor" than liberals do, by several orders of magnitude......however, conservatives in doing so reserve the right to donate to those causes that WE determine individually are worthy........and that is......essentially, the crux of the liberals complaint......that we get to actually choose what we benefit, and not some grand centralized entity.

As a lawyer, I'm certain that you make a good living, and I'm not saying this to be "snarky", but at the bottom of everyone's 1040, there is a line that allows you to contribute additional funds to the government that you seem to adore........I'd be curious to see the amount that you (as a liberal, in favor of taxing the rich) enter voluntarily on that line every year.

Quote
I think it's against the interests of poor and working people to vote for the party of the rich. Sadly, the Democrats are also the party of the rich, now, so it really doesn't matter how people vote. But on the specific issue of the tea partiers, who are calling for less government spending, it makes no sense in a recession (or depression) to call for less government spending. We need more government spending, not less. Massive government spending got us out of the Great Depression. Only massive government spending will get us out of this recession.  It makes no economic sense for any American to be calling for reduced government spending at this time, and that's my objection to the tea partiers.

We've already "plowed this ground". and you have stated your position (and it IS only your unsupported opinion).......we disagree vehemently, so lets not rehash the same old stuff........It has been proven economically that growing government in recessionary conditions is never productive........until you produce your economics degree, and can cite specific examples where this theory has actually WORKED, then it is fruitless for you to continue to proffer it........repeating the same untruth over and over, will not ultimately make it so......

Further, please also spare me another dissertation on FDR, I can cite peer-reviewed economic papers demonstrating that his policies were a complete failure, and further, as a lawyer, remind yourself that he was the cretin that actually tried to "pack" the Supreme Court, when they continually struck down his more aggressive agenda items, until his own party rebeled.  Yeah, he's a real great example of Constitutional government at work........

As far as the "working people" are concerned.......most of us here either are, or have in the past been "working people"........therefore your position makes no sense from our point of view......and we can only interpret it to mean "the "working people" that you as a liberal deem worthy of support......which is generally defined by us as "nonworking people"  And to be painfully frank, I for one, don't really give a damn about them.......this country is replete with opportunity, even in times like these......so to your "working people", I say, get off the government teat, and do something for yourselves, because the rest of us are growing weary of supporting you.  Is that harsh?  Yes it is, but sometimes reality needs to slap some folks in the face..........

Quote
I also not that they were silent while Bush was producing record budget deficits, which makes me suspect that their objections to government spending are not genuine.

And we were far from silent while that was being done.......again, the difference between "conservatives" and "Republicans"....which you again (respectfully) seem reluctant to grasp......

Quote
As for the final arbiter of their best interests, it's clear that I am applying my own, subjective assessment of their best interests on them, and perhaps I am wrong to do so.

To that I will respond.......yes of course you are, as most liberals, you have a fundamental belief that your value systems are "superior" to everyone else's........and yes you are quite wrong......

I am the final arbiter of what is in my best interest, as is every other individual on this board........this is (still) essentially a free country, and unless ultimate violence is your goal, liberals would be wise to leave it that way (if they know what's good for them)......

Quote
and I am willing to make a judgment call about their best interests on that basis

Precisely my point......"the prosecution rests, your honor......"


doc



Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: AllosaursRus on July 07, 2010, 11:34:43 AM
Nothing pisses me off more than some elite, holier than though lib telling me what my best interests are. Then, when you tell them so, they pull out the, "we're the smartest people in the room, so just shut the **** up!" mime.

That is exactly what O'bummer is telling the American people, and "chew toy" is convinced he's not a lib. Defies all logic!
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: delilahmused on July 07, 2010, 11:39:03 AM
Quote
I think it's against the interests of poor and working people to vote for the party of the rich.  Sadly, the Democrats are also the party of the rich, now, so it really doesn't matter how people vote.  But on the specific issue of the tea partiers, who are calling for less government spending, it makes no sense in a recession (or depression) to call for less government spending.  We need more government spending, not less.  Massive government spending got us out of the Great Depression.  Only massive government spending will get us out of this recession.  It makes no economic sense for any American to be calling for reduced government spending at this time, and that's my objection to the tea partiers.

Not true and most economists today realize that. We had a "mini" depression during the Coolidge administration and it was gone before it could be a blip on the radar. Europe also had a depression at the same time. Unlike ours, theirs wasn't a GREAT depression because the government didn't try to manipulate the economy and insert themselves in an area where they DO NOT belong. WWII included massive government spending but people went to work (in private and public sectors) producing things the country needed. It wasn't a bunch of government make-work projects. Greece is a perfect example of what's wrong with too much government spending. And most of these countries who drifted towards socialism are now (unlike us) going in the opposite direction because they've "run out of other people's money" and the government teat is empty and practically sagging to the ground.

Cindie
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: SSG Snuggle Bunny on July 07, 2010, 11:42:42 AM
BTW - did anyone catch how this tool thinks street gangs who deal drugs and use violence to co-opt public territory supposedly have a "freedom of association"?

I wonder what said tool thinks of the Citizen's United decision? Surely, people have a right to associate as a corporation to reduce personal liabilities for political speech of all things.
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: Doc on July 07, 2010, 11:54:34 AM
BTW - did anyone catch how this tool thinks street gangs who deal drugs and use violence to co-opt public territory supposedly have a "freedom of association"?

I wonder what said tool thinks of the Citizen's United decision? Surely, people have a right to associate as a corporation to reduce personal liabilities for political speech of all things.

Good luck getting an answer on that one....... :-)

doc
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: Carl on July 07, 2010, 12:00:36 PM
Good luck getting an answer on that one....... :-)

doc

I would like to hear an explanation as to why in a capitalist society wealth naturally flows upward and not downward.

Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: Ballygrl on July 07, 2010, 12:01:07 PM
It's clear that you're a decent and ethical person.  And I have no love for people who are ripping the system off.  I do think it's tragic, however, that you and your parents refused to accept government benefits to which you were evidently entitled.  It's sad that you've been made to feel ashamed for even considering taking those benefits.  In my opinion, you should take them if you're entiled to them, just as the people you mentioned should not take them if they're not entitled to them.

And I understand the anger and frustration of those who feel they're getting ripped off.  I am especially angry about your friend with the big house who's ripping us off, but you must see that this example proves my point, in a way.  The rich rip us off a lot more than the poor do.  Id' rather tackle that problem first--as opposed to enacting draconian measures that will have the greatest impact on the poor who legally deserve assistance.

And I will repeat that no rich person believes in personal responsibility.  That's why they buy medical malpractice insurance, or home insurance, or any other instrument that assures collective responsibility.  They're the first people to ask for a government bailout when their complex financial instruments go down the tube.  They don't believe in personal responsibility.  Why should you?

-Laelth

All the conservatives I personally know in real life are decent and ethical, we're the norm, we're not like the people the progessives like to cite when they're talking about us, it doesn't fit into their cliche's.

My Father was sick in the 80's so I'm going back quite a bit, but my Parents wouldn't take a hand-out, so what if we went through rough times? a lot of people do, so we lived within our means, and it didn't harm any of us 1 bit. And the person I cited with the 10 room house is a relative, this is how NJ works, people doing a lot of under the table work, making a lot of money, not having homes, trucks etc. in their names, then scam the system when they can and they're not even challenged, and those people tick me off more than a rich person who at least pays into the system. I won't ever fall prey to "envy the rich syndrome and become bitter because of it".

And what are you talking about when you say this:

Quote
And I will repeat that no rich person believes in personal responsibility.  That's why they buy medical malpractice insurance, or home insurance, or any other instrument that assures collective responsibility.  They're the first people to ask for a government bailout when their complex financial instruments go down the tube.  They don't believe in personal responsibility.  Why should you?

When has personal responsibility become a bad thing? you don't purchase fire insurance when your home is on fire, do you? you buy it ahead of time just in case, the same thing for health insurance and home owners insurance which I carry. As for medical malpractice insurance, why is that needed? it's needed because a segment of society wants to get rich quick.

Sorry, but that line of thought you expressed there is just plain whacked out.
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: AllosaursRus on July 07, 2010, 12:01:45 PM
BTW - did anyone catch how this tool thinks street gangs who deal drugs and use violence to co-opt public territory supposedly have a "freedom of association"?

I wonder what said tool thinks of the Citizen's United decision? Surely, people have a right to associate as a corporation to reduce personal liabilities for political speech of all things.

She never did answer my rebuttal to that insane nonsense.

She never answered anything about her brethren at the DUmp calling for locking up Tea Partiers and the Repubs in general either! 'Course that's different!
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: Karin on July 07, 2010, 12:15:22 PM
Yeah, Ballygrl, that threw me for a loop, too.  Being adequately insured is nothing but prudent personal responsibility! 

"No rich person believes in personal responsibility."  My jaw is hanging open.  That's pretty broad brush, don't you think?  Do you personally know every "rich" person on earth?  I know several, they're all quite responsible for themselves and their families.  Any self-made rich person certainly believes in it.

I can see a trust fund baby, such that you see at the DUmp, like Will Pitt, not believing in it. 

Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: Doc on July 07, 2010, 12:16:25 PM
I would like to hear an explanation as to why in a capitalist society wealth naturally flows upward and not downward.



You won't......because it doesn't........

You have heard the expression...."a rising tide lifts all boats......"

doc
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: Ballygrl on July 07, 2010, 12:19:49 PM
Yeah, Ballygrl, that threw me for a loop, too.  Being adequately insured is nothing but prudent personal responsibility! 

"No rich person believes in personal responsibility."  My jaw is hanging open.  That's pretty broad brush, don't you think?  Do you personally know every "rich" person on earth?  I know several, they're all quite responsible for themselves and their families.  Any self-made rich person certainly believes in it.

I can see a trust fund baby, such that you see at the DUmp, like Will Pitt, not believing in it.

I read the comment over and over and I admit that's a new 1.
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: NHSparky on July 07, 2010, 12:26:31 PM
I'm sure I'll be waiting quite a while for a reasoned answer to any of the questions I've directed at her thus far.
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: Carl on July 07, 2010, 12:27:31 PM
You won't......because it doesn't........

You have heard the expression...."a rising tide lifts all boats......"

doc

Yep,hard work and ingenuity pay off whereas the opposite doesn`t so must be forced.
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: SSG Snuggle Bunny on July 07, 2010, 12:31:40 PM
Yeah, Ballygrl, that threw me for a loop, too.  Being adequately insured is nothing but prudent personal responsibility! 

"No rich person believes in personal responsibility."  My jaw is hanging open.  That's pretty broad brush, don't you think?  Do you personally know every "rich" person on earth?  I know several, they're all quite responsible for themselves and their families.  Any self-made rich person certainly believes in it.

I can see a trust fund baby, such that you see at the DUmp, like Will Pitt, not believing in it.
If...

insurance = no personal responsibility by Laelth's admission

Then...

car insurance, health insurance, etc = ???

Of course liberals support illegal immigrants and they don't have car insurance so they don't add ot the collective when they harm others.
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: AllosaursRus on July 07, 2010, 12:32:03 PM
I'm sure I'll be waiting quite a while for a reasoned answer to any of the questions I've directed at her thus far.

Like I pointed out a coupla times, typical Lib!

I'm forever wantin' to throw the remote at the TV when they weave and dodge, rather than answering a direct question!
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: Chris_ on July 07, 2010, 02:19:55 PM
If...

insurance = no personal responsibility by Laelth's admission

Then...

car insurance, health insurance, etc = ???

Of course liberals support illegal immigrants and they don't have car insurance so they don't add ot the collective when they harm others.

Added to that they are essentially "judgement proof", which presents a real conundrum for a personal injury lawyer like "Laelth"

One would wonder what her standards are for "personal responsibility"??

doc
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: AllosaursRus on July 07, 2010, 02:51:21 PM
Added to that they are essentially "judgement proof", which presents a real conundrum for a personal injury lawyer like "Laelth"

One would wonder what her standards are for "personal responsibility"??

doc

I think she's made it quite apparent, it is a trait only the "rich" need o be responsible for!

Rich being, anyone who makes more than a welfare or SS check! After all, she is for the "little" people!

ETA:

Excluding herself and partners in crime at the DUmp, of course!
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: TheSarge on July 07, 2010, 02:58:28 PM
Sigh.  I am not here to support the Democratic Party, and you can't understand what I have to say at all if you believe that.

-Laelth

Then why do you keep repeating...verbatim in some cases...things that we can just as easily pull quotes up on from President Obama and the rest of the Democrat party Congress Critters.

We understand very clearly what you're saying.

Where we are calling bullshit...and rightfully so...is your silly insistence that you're not part of the Democrat Party or their belief system.

It's clear to anyone with half a brain that you are...right down to your DNC talking points and leftist media propaganda.
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: TheSarge on July 07, 2010, 03:03:50 PM
Quote
Hypocrite?  I'm not following you on that one.  Am I someone who's observant enough to note that all the people in the several photographs in that thread are white whereas the county in question is nearly half black?  Yes, I notice that.   Is that irrational or hypocritical?  No.  Is it a broad-brush accusation, yes.  Does it apply to every single person assembled in that crowd?  Almost certainly not.  But I'm sure none of you perfect people has ever made a broad-brush accusation about people you don't really know.  Since you're perfect, and I am not, I will apologize for my shortcomings now.

Sorry perfect people.

-Laelth

And only a real racist bigot still obsesses over the color of someones skin in the year 2010.

Tell me...when you're at one of your local ABA meetings...do you see a black lawyer...or a lawyer who happens to be black?
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: AllosaursRus on July 07, 2010, 03:10:39 PM
Then why do you keep repeating...verbatim in some cases...things that we can just as easily pull quotes up on from President Obama and the rest of the Democrat party Congress Critters.

We understand very clearly what you're saying.

Where we are calling bullshit...and rightfully so...is your silly insistence that you're not part of the Democrat Party or their belief system.

It's clear to anyone with half a brain that you are...right down to your DNC talking points and leftist media propaganda.

She evades the facts we have presented like the frikkin' plague! We take to facts like a duck does to water. Libs take to facts like Dracula does to Holy Water!

All you have to do is watch a Lib on the Lame Stream Media to see where she got her debating skills! She even might be Senator Kerry's clone, who fought in Vietnam, BTW
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: Hawkgirl on July 07, 2010, 04:39:43 PM


I have no idea whether our corporate taxes are the 2nd highest in the world.  

Perhaps it's something you should educate yourself with if you're going to cheer for a higher corporate tax rate.

Corporate Tax Rate by Country (http://alhambrainvestments.com/blog/2009/01/29/corporate-tax-rates-by-country-oecd/)
The Utopian countries Liberals like to bring up have a very low corportate tax rate.  If you keep taxing corporations, they will respond with lay offs or salary cuts...Is that what you really want?  They may also respond by uprooting their business overseas.  Big Government and Wealth Stealing (which IS exactly what you desire) will bring this country to it's knees.
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: Thor on July 07, 2010, 05:58:03 PM
Perhaps it's something you should educate yourself with if you're going to cheer for a higher corporate tax rate.

Corporate Tax Rate by Country (http://alhambrainvestments.com/blog/2009/01/29/corporate-tax-rates-by-country-oecd/)
The Utopian countries Liberals like to bring up have a very low corportate tax rate.  If you keep taxing corporations, they will respond with lay offs or salary cuts...Is that what you really want?  They may also respond by uprooting their business overseas.  Big Government and Wealth Stealing (which IS exactly what you desire) will bring this country to it's knees.


Then, let's not forget that many other countries don't have as strict OSHA or EPA laws........
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: AllosaursRus on July 07, 2010, 06:06:56 PM
Then, let's not forget that many other countries don't have as strict OSHA or EPA laws........

No kiddin'! What's a dead employee or two as long as LIbbers get there talking point!
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: Hawkgirl on July 07, 2010, 06:08:10 PM
United States could have highest corporate tax rate within a year
By Chris Moody - The Daily Caller | Published: 1:19 AM 06/25/2010 | Updated: 8:01 PM 06/30/2010

 
 
 Japan’s freshly minted prime minister announced last week that his new government would reduce Japan’s corporate tax rate, now the highest in the world among major industrialized nations, leaving the United States as the world leader in corporate taxation.


http://dailycaller.com/2010/06/25/united-states-could-have-highest-corporate-tax-rate-within-a-year/


So Laeth...you were saying about the rich corporations not paying enough taxes?  If I were a rich corporation...I think I'd be moving my business to Ireland.  Even Japan is going to slash taxes as an attempt to jumpstart their own economy.  So Congratulations...in a way....US will soon hold the #1 spot.
Ignorance, is indeed, bliss.
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: AllosaursRus on July 07, 2010, 06:16:37 PM
United States could have highest corporate tax rate within a year
By Chris Moody - The Daily Caller | Published: 1:19 AM 06/25/2010 | Updated: 8:01 PM 06/30/2010

 
 
 Japan’s freshly minted prime minister announced last week that his new government would reduce Japan’s corporate tax rate, now the highest in the world among major industrialized nations, leaving the United States as the world leader in corporate taxation.


http://dailycaller.com/2010/06/25/united-states-could-have-highest-corporate-tax-rate-within-a-year/


So Laeth...you were saying about the rich corporations not paying enough taxes?  If I were a rich corporation...I think I'd be moving my business to Ireland.  Even Japan is going to slash taxes as an attempt to jumpstart their own economy.  So Congratulations...in a way....US will soon hold the #1 spot.
Ignorance, is indeed, bliss.

Unfortunately, it is indeed dangerous to our economies well being!!!!! Did ya get the Lilith?
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: Reality vs DU on July 07, 2010, 08:32:59 PM
Ergo blacks are overwhelmingly racist

They may be, but so what?  That wasn't my point.  My point was that race (as an issue) divides people who should be allies, and I see this as tragic--especially for the people in those photographs.

-Laelth

So your OK with racism?
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: AllosaursRus on July 07, 2010, 09:30:01 PM
Ergo blacks are overwhelmingly racist

So your OK with racism?

Another dodge without answering I see.

It's a-okay for Blacks to be racist, Like King, whatever his name is in Philly, said today about killin' Crackers and their children, but if we even point it out, we're racist!

Gotcha!
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: Ballygrl on July 07, 2010, 09:42:22 PM
Have people at the DU or any Progressive site been in an uproar over this? Fast Forward to 27 seconds. So we have perceived racism, no proof at all of course, being spouted by the left, yet real racism that gets ignored.

[youtube=425,350]QSZ6BPkHMIY[/youtube]
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: AllosaursRus on July 07, 2010, 10:11:37 PM
Hmmmmmmmmm..........wonder where the libbie is? She's doin' a real good job of post and punt.

I know, I know, she has a job and a family so it's hard for her to do anything but mess on the carpet and run!
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: NHSparky on July 08, 2010, 07:49:24 AM
Laelth, et al;

I brought this over from another site with permission.  Take a moment to read it and give your thoughts.

Quote
As a former drug addict, my take on this issue might be a little different.

Many Americans are addicted to government. They are far beyond mere acceptance of government largess. They are intimately dependent upon government programs, money, and subsidies to live, and have been for so long that they have forgotten how it was to live without the mother’s milk of taxpayer money.

We’re at the end point of that lifestyle now - the same place when the individual drug addict has exhausted his savings, sold his belongings, frayed his relationships, and sees only the next fix tomorrow. Whether or not the party of government, the Democrats, are the addicts or the pushers is not relevant, since the Democrats are obviously addicted to government excess along with their supporters. What is scarier is the great mass of Americans and organizations also addicted to government excess who are users of taxpayer money and regulatory power but don’t recognize how deep they’ve sunk into the lifestyle. In this group I’d put all those businesses comfortable with manipulating regulation, middle-class folks trying to game the system, and limosine liberals thinking that they’re all right as long as they’re friendly with their Democrat dealers.

In any case, there’s nothing left in the stash box. The alteratives are stark - try to steal it from your nonaddicted neighbors or go cold turkey. As a country, if you go the first route, we have civil war; if we go the second route, we have chaos.

Like all addicts, though, we have to hit bottom to recognize the severity of the situation. Those of us who are sober can see that bottom rising up as we fall towards it. For the rest, the shock will leave them with the two alteratives above. Unfortunately, when the individual addict goes on his private crime wave, the police intervene. When a country decides to engage in wholesale theft by redistributing wealth, though, either people fight or the government takes everything - and it’s never enough.

When the individual addict goes cold turkey, their problems from the addiction don’t vanish, though. It’s a long struggle to reclaim your life, for others to trust to your judgment, for you to restore what was lost in the addiction. Our country faces this prospect, in my opinion.

I didn’t mention the idea of intervention because it seems as if that moment passed us by about 30 years ago - in the form of Ronald Reagan. He tried to intervene. I don’t know if it would be possible to confront those addicted to government money today without a violent response.

It looks like interesting times ahead. I really, really hope I’m wrong.



12 posted on Wednesday, July 07, 2010 12:24:57 PM by redpoll


LINK (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2548324/posts?page=49#12)
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: Ballygrl on July 08, 2010, 07:58:16 AM
That was very good NHSparky, though I have a feeling it will fall on deaf ears.
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: delilahmused on July 08, 2010, 11:47:06 AM
Laelth, et al;

I brought this over from another site with permission.  Take a moment to read it and give your thoughts.
 

LINK (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2548324/posts?page=49#12)
Wow, that's such an apt comparison. Only in this case, the government is the drug dealer and the one who pimps them out (especially the children) to get more money.

I try not to think about how thoroughly we've strayed from the Constitution...with this current regime it's like a bullet train with no breaks heading for the cliff...it makes me want to cry to see what's happening here. I mean this admin does anything they want with no resistance or reporting from the press. The majority in this country don't even know what's going on. There's a general foreboding but it's kind of like what Yoda said, "Hard to see, the dark side is". But all this taking over of businesses will just create more addicts...car companies, banks, etc. Czars that are never vetted, Supreme Court appointments that have a socialist mind bent and all the intellectual acumen of a toddler. Republican party (with the exception of a very few, well, mostly Sarah Palin and her "mama bears") offering alternatives. What the hell is wrong with the party? Whose job is it to come up with clear answers and solutions and not just "no"? Because it's not being done.

Cindie
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: Doc on July 08, 2010, 11:47:44 AM
Excellent find Sparky.........worth repeating, as it reflects my thoughts exactly.

Quote
As a former drug addict, my take on this issue might be a little different.

Many Americans are addicted to government. They are far beyond mere acceptance of government largess. They are intimately dependent upon government programs, money, and subsidies to live, and have been for so long that they have forgotten how it was to live without the mother’s milk of taxpayer money.

We’re at the end point of that lifestyle now - the same place when the individual drug addict has exhausted his savings, sold his belongings, frayed his relationships, and sees only the next fix tomorrow. Whether or not the party of government, the Democrats, are the addicts or the pushers is not relevant, since the Democrats are obviously addicted to government excess along with their supporters. What is scarier is the great mass of Americans and organizations also addicted to government excess who are users of taxpayer money and regulatory power but don’t recognize how deep they’ve sunk into the lifestyle. In this group I’d put all those businesses comfortable with manipulating regulation, middle-class folks trying to game the system, and limosine liberals thinking that they’re all right as long as they’re friendly with their Democrat dealers.

In any case, there’s nothing left in the stash box. The alternatives are stark - try to steal it from your nonaddicted neighbors or go cold turkey. As a country, if you go the first route, we have civil war; if we go the second route, we have chaos.

Like all addicts, though, we have to hit bottom to recognize the severity of the situation. Those of us who are sober can see that bottom rising up as we fall towards it. For the rest, the shock will leave them with the two alternatives above. Unfortunately, when the individual addict goes on his private crime wave, the police intervene. When a country decides to engage in wholesale theft by redistributing wealth, though, either people fight or the government takes everything - and it’s never enough.

When the individual addict goes cold turkey, their problems from the addiction don’t vanish, though. It’s a long struggle to reclaim your life, for others to trust to your judgment, for you to restore what was lost in the addiction. Our country faces this prospect, in my opinion.

I didn’t mention the idea of intervention because it seems as if that moment passed us by about 30 years ago - in the form of Ronald Reagan. He tried to intervene. I don’t know if it would be possible to confront those addicted to government money today without a violent response.

It looks like interesting times ahead. I really, really hope I’m wrong.

12 posted on Wednesday, July 07, 2010 12:24:57 PM by redpoll

The day of awakening for my wife and myself came with hurricane Katrina, and NOLA........prior to that, we had some modicum of empathy for the "poor", and underclasses in America.

As we watched the situation in NOLA unfold we suddenly became painfully aware of the hidden effects of rampant liberalism, particularly on the black community, and from that point forward, we no longer really cared about people who were either too stupid, too government dependent, or too lazy to get out of the way of a 150 mile-wide freight train that was coming at them, when they had two days advance warning.

We watched the survivors turn the Superdome into the world's biggest toilet, we watched them whine and cry for handouts and assistance from the government and the private sector, then spend our taxpayer and contribution dollars on frivolities and booze.  We watched them as they were relocated to other cities, and promptly "bit the hand that fed them" by turning portions of those communities into the same cesspools that NOLA was........some of them (12 actually) came here to Kansas City, however, they didn't stay long......as soon as we midwestern folk caught a bit of their "attitude", they were promptly sent packing.  Many of our churches sent relief to the area, but being pragmatic as we are, we sent only food, water, medical assistance, and clothing.......no money.

Our sympathy for the "poor" died during those days, we discussed it, and came to the conclusion that we were going to send our aid contribution dollars to the ASPCA, and animal rescue groups, as we knew that the animals had no choice as to where they were, and no awareness of what was unfolding around them, unlike the people.  The "citizens" of NOLA didn't get a dime from us (except for our tax contributions), and should a similar event occur, we can be counted on to take a pass again...........

In this area, we annually suffer through tornadoes, floods, and windstorms, and the people here seem to always pitch in and help our neighbors rebuild, replant, and recover.......we don't stand in the path of the event, whining for the government to bail us out.......we survive, and do so without the news media making a circus out of our misfortune.

Therefore, when some "bleeding heart" like Laelth comes to this forum, spouting nonsensical liberal talking points about redistributing our hard-earned resources to the "poor".......not only does it seriously piss me off.....but in the immortal words of Rhett Butler........."Frankly.....I don't give a damn........"

doc
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: delilahmused on July 08, 2010, 12:09:39 PM
What the left (democrats) have done to the black family in this country is disgusting and evil. It's like those Southern Democrats who tried to keep them out of their restaurants and voting booths, pissed about losing their slave labor, found another way to enslave them. Making the government husband and daddy, completely dependent, leaving the men with nothing to care about and no ambition. Stuck on the government's inner city plantations. No hope. No real help. Generations of parents unable to teach their children how to get along in the world because they were never taught. Hostage to a plantation master who can give or take away at their whim. If that's not racism I don't know what is.

Cindie
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: Ballygrl on July 08, 2010, 02:18:18 PM
The day of awakening for my wife and myself came with hurricane Katrina, and NOLA........prior to that, we had some modicum of empathy for the "poor", and underclasses in America.

As we watched the situation in NOLA unfold we suddenly became painfully aware of the hidden effects of rampant liberalism, particularly on the black community, and from that point forward, we no longer really cared about people who were either too stupid, too government dependent, or too lazy to get out of the way of a 150 mile-wide freight train that was coming at them, when they had two days advance warning.

We watched the survivors turn the Superdome into the world's biggest toilet, we watched them whine and cry for handouts and assistance from the government and the private sector, then spend our taxpayer and contribution dollars on frivolities and booze.  We watched them as they were relocated to other cities, and promptly "bit the hand that fed them" by turning portions of those communities into the same cesspools that NOLA was........some of them (12 actually) came here to Kansas City, however, they didn't stay long......as soon as we midwestern folk caught a bit of their "attitude", they were promptly sent packing.  Many of our churches sent relief to the area, but being pragmatic as we are, we sent only food, water, medical assistance, and clothing.......no money.

Our sympathy for the "poor" died during those days, we discussed it, and came to the conclusion that we were going to send our aid contribution dollars to the ASPCA, and animal rescue groups, as we knew that the animals had no choice as to where they were, and no awareness of what was unfolding around them, unlike the people.  The "citizens" of NOLA didn't get a dime from us (except for our tax contributions), and should a similar event occur, we can be counted on to take a pass again...........

In this area, we annually suffer through tornadoes, floods, and windstorms, and the people here seem to always pitch in and help our neighbors rebuild, replant, and recover.......we don't stand in the path of the event, whining for the government to bail us out.......we survive, and do so without the news media making a circus out of our misfortune.

Therefore, when some "bleeding heart" like Laelth comes to this forum, spouting nonsensical liberal talking points about redistributing our hard-earned resources to the "poor".......not only does it seriously piss me off.....but in the immortal words of Rhett Butler........."Frankly.....I don't give a damn........"

doc

Another excellent post! I remember when people from NO got I think $2,500 each? they were spending the money in Casinos. I remember commenting at that time the difference between the way people from NO handled the crisis compared to the people of Mississippi. I had very little sympathy for the people of NO, and like you I had more sympathy for the animals. An online friend at the time lived in Houston where a lot of people were relocated, she worked in the school system and said the Parents who were relocated were horrible, rude and demanding, and made the areas they were moved to worse. Obviously that's not reflective of everyone who suffered through Katrina, but way too many were like you stated.
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: Ballygrl on July 08, 2010, 02:21:33 PM
What the left (democrats) have done to the black family in this country is disgusting and evil. It's like those Southern Democrats who tried to keep them out of their restaurants and voting booths, pissed about losing their slave labor, found another way to enslave them. Making the government husband and daddy, completely dependent, leaving the men with nothing to care about and no ambition. Stuck on the government's inner city plantations. No hope. No real help. Generations of parents unable to teach their children how to get along in the world because they were never taught. Hostage to a plantation master who can give or take away at their whim. If that's not racism I don't know what is.

Cindie

I stated in another post that it makes you wonder if entitlements from the 1960's were specifically designed to break apart and destroy the black family. You can't tell me the Democrats didn't see any of this happening, and as a result they have a HUGE constituency dependent upon them to continue to receive benefits.
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: thundley4 on July 08, 2010, 02:23:24 PM
I stated in another post that it makes you wonder if entitlements from the 1960's were specifically designed to break apart and destroy the black family. You can't tell me the Democrats didn't see any of this happening, and as a result they have a HUGE constituency dependent upon them to continue to receive benefits.

The Dems have always been the party of racists, and they intend to keep blacks on the plantation as long as possible.
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: AllosaursRus on July 08, 2010, 02:41:47 PM
The Dems have always been the party of racists, and they intend to keep blacks on the plantation as long as possible.

Proven by the way they treat any Black that refuses the gubmint hand-outs and tries like hell to educate his/her brethren. Take a look at Bill Cosby! He lectures the Black fathers that abandon their children and move on to another woman to create more.

Even after pointing out what is obvious, the "Gang" mentality persists in the inner city where DemonRats have sentenced them to a life of misery. You would think at least the mothers would try to educate their young so their life expectancy is longer than the age of 26!

Cosby has been one of my heroes since I was just 8 years old. My parents had all of his comedy routines. He's been trying to help his people for as long as I can remember, but it just falls on deaf ears. Hell, Ive heard him booed at town hall meetings put on by the local Church!
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: Duchess on July 08, 2010, 06:31:02 PM
I stated in another post that it makes you wonder if entitlements from the 1960's were specifically designed to break apart and destroy the black family. You can't tell me the Democrats didn't see any of this happening, and as a result they have a HUGE constituency dependent upon them to continue to receive benefits.

If I recall correctly, one Democrat at least did-Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan. Too bad nobody listened.
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: BlueStateSaint on July 08, 2010, 06:49:12 PM
If I recall correctly, one Democrat at least did-Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan. Too bad nobody listened.

He was a socialist, and a gun-grabber, but that one point you mentioned was a tiny saving grace.
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: NHSparky on July 09, 2010, 06:11:29 AM
Three days since I last posed a question to our "guest", and still no reply.

Seems that when she can't pull up the talking points, she just goes turtle on us.
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: Ballygrl on July 09, 2010, 08:19:11 AM
I'm just posting excerpts from this article, you can read the rest at the link, I'm posting it here because of the ongoing discussion of some Progressives who feel the rich need to pay more. These comments are by rich Progressives now, that's important to note:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-07-07/aspen-ideas-festival-obama-loses-support-of-nations-elite/?cid=tag:all1

Quote
Even the Aspen Ideas Festival, an annual gathering of the country's brightest lights, isn't Obama country anymore. Lloyd Grove on the president's waning support among the intelligentsia.

Quote
You’d think the well-heeled and enlightened eggheads at the Aspen Ideas Festival—which is running all week in this fashionable resort town with heady panel discussions and earnest disquisitions involving all manner of deep thinkers and do-gooders—would be receptive to an intellectually ambitious president with big ideas of his own.

Quote
“The real problem we have,” Mort Zuckerman said, “are some of the worst economic policies in place today that, in my judgment, go directly against the long-term interests of this country.”

Quote
“If you’re asking if the United States is about to become a socialist state, I’d say it’s actually about to become a European state, with the expansiveness of the welfare system and the progressive tax system like what we’ve already experienced in Western Europe,” Harvard business and history professor Niall Ferguson declared during Monday’s kickoff session, offering a withering critique of Obama’s economic policies, which he claimed were encouraging laziness.

Quote
“The curse of longterm unemployment is that if you pay people to do nothing, they’ll find themselves doing nothing for very long periods of time,” Ferguson said. “Long-term unemployment is at an all-time high in the United States, and it is a direct consequence of a misconceived public policy.”

Quote
“We are, without question, in a period of decline, particularly in the business world,” Zuckerman said. “The real problem we have…are some of the worst economic policies in place today that, in my judgment, go directly against the long-term interests of this country.”

Quote
This was greeted by hearty applause from a crowd that included Barbra Streisand and her husband James Brolin. “Depressing, but fantastic,” Streisand told me afterward, rendering her verdict on the session. “So exciting. Wonderful!”

Quote
Our corporate tax rate, on a worldwide competitive basis, is just not competitive. Taiwan is lowering their rate to 20 to 15 percent in order to stay competitive with Singapore. These countries have made it their job to attract industry. You don’t get that sense here in the United States.”

Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: NHSparky on July 10, 2010, 06:36:48 AM
Four days.  I think she has officially run away for good.

Too bad.  I was particularly enjoying watching her get her head handed her every other post.
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: Ballygrl on July 10, 2010, 12:44:00 PM
Four days.  I think she has officially run away for good.

Too bad.  I was particularly enjoying watching her get her head handed her every other post.

I was hoping she'd come back to address the quotes I posted from her fellow Progressives at a conference.
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: NHSparky on July 11, 2010, 09:18:00 AM
And, we're on Day 5 with no answer.

Dear Laelth,

It's official.  You're a tool.
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: Thor on July 11, 2010, 09:36:11 AM
And, we're on Day 5 with no answer.

Dear Laelth,

It's official.  You're a tool.

Tools usually have some sort of function........
Title: Re: The liberal vultures are circling.
Post by: PatriotGame on July 11, 2010, 01:56:57 PM
Tools usually have some sort of function........
Oh snappy...