Redstone (1000+ posts) Fri Jun-25-10 03:25 PMhttp://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8634446
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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"!
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:
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..
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
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.I was in New York city a while back and it was SOOOOO cold!!
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
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. :)
.
I'm in health insurance, so it's good to have bankers. :-)
I'm in health insurance, so it's good to have bankers. :-)
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.
:cheersmate: Laelth, I just thought you were stretching it a bit on your 'Milk of human kindness' theme, that's all.
Heh -- I'm a military contractor so I love all of you!! :-*
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
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
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:
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
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.
Laelth: Welcome! So far, you play much nicer than your cohorts at the DUmp.
: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.
.
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.
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
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.
So you're saying that the evil Corp. should be out of the 100K because your client is ademocratliar?
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
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
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
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
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 don't see any frivilous lawsuits.
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.
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
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.
.
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
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
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.
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?
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?
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.
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
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.
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.Agreed. It's a frivilous lawsuit....now we have a woman suing Google for giving her wrong directions. Tort reform is needed badly.
Customers own fault, not McDonald's. It's why we need tort reform.......... badly.
.
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.
.
(Channeling 'Idiocracy' here...)
Wow, you like money TOO!?!
:rotf:
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?
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.
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...We the People are paying regardless.
-Laelth
LOL. That won't hurt my feelings too much. :-)
-Laelth
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.
Republicans favor tort reform as a means of protecting insurance companies.
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?
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.
...Who won? No one.
KC
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.Even if I don't frequent McCess Co. the employees and stockholders do.
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
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.
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
Laelth, just a side note. You might just get a pizza from DU for posting here.
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
What restaurants are in the area? What paper is available? Am I alone, with friends, family or on a date?
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
Republicans favor tort reform as a means of protecting insurance companies.
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.
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
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.
[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
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.
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
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.
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.
.
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....."
It seems to me that the wealthiest among us are the greatest beneficiaries of public welfareI'm not altogether buying this, pal.
It seems to me that the wealthiest among us are the greatest beneficiaries of public welfare
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.
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.
On another note, Laelth says: I'm not altogether buying this, pal.
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.
On another note, Laelth says:
I wonder if this is referring to Corp. and farm subsidies?
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
Point of information... Barton was SPOT ON.
And there are more "rich" dems in office than "rich" repubs... Just saying... :tongue:
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 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).
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 ......
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.
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.
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 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 uncalled for and detrimental to the decent conversation we've been having. None of us know how successful Laelth is.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
It was Ronald Reagan, after all, who dramatically jacked up our FICA taxes
Yes they are. I've been self employed for 15 years.
KC
No prob, I agree with everything you said but I couldn't let that graph go without throwing in my own $.02.
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.
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
Ok so you tax them at 90%...then you begin to suffer from the law of unintended consequences.
OK, I like Laelth LOL. It's so nice to speak with a sane DU'er.
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.
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.
.
I had every reason to believe that this audience would be receptive to what I had to say, and it appears I was right.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
But, the way the job market is today, the enterprising among us have no choice but to make our own job.
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.
.
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
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.Isn't it amazing that in spite of all the regulations we have to choke down the big corporations can still thrive...
-Laelth
Spare me the moronic class warfare.
"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
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?
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
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
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.
"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
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
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
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
Are you skipping posts, Laelth? Specifically, those written by DumbAssTanker?
I am having a hard time keeping up, to be honest. :)Undoubtedly.
-Laelth
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.
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.
... I wrote this on my phone ...You must have the thumbs of a Greek goddess.
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?
Cindie
From each according to his ability, to each according to his need - MarxYes, 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.
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.
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.
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........
Healthy or not, that's what's happening. The rich are getting richer and the poor and middle-class are getting poorer.
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........
I meant redistribution of wealth from those that have to those who don't, but you already knew that.
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.
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
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
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...
The idea that the poor are being soaked by our current income tax structure is laughable.
Paying 17.7% of $46 million is paying less tax than paying 30% of $60,000? On what planet does that math work?
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.
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.
You still haven't answered the question of why they should.
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
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.
You must have the thumbs of a Greek goddess.
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.
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........
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
If you believe this about liberals, you don't know many liberals.
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.
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"?
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 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
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
The rich provide jobs, the rich are taxed to support that large percentage of americans that don't even work.
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...
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.
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.
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
Bravo Doc! Outstanding post.
KC
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
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
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?
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
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
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
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
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.
And yet you don't recognize that Obama's and the liberal tax policies and class warfare rhetoric is absolutely DESTROYING consumer spending.
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.
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 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
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.
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
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
I'm thinking Doc is kind of hot.
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......
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
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.
.
LOL. Obama is no liberal. He's as much a Republican as Bill Clinton was. I am a liberal, and I know the difference.I would laugh but I know you are serious so I pity you.
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
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
LOL. Obama is no liberal. He's as much a Republican as Bill Clinton was. I am a liberal, and I know the difference.
:yawn:Understood but at least we can challenge this nonsense unlike never being allowed to challenge it at the DUmp.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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!
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?
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.
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
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!"
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.
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:
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.
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.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8695104
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?
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.
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:
So she's basically calling us racists.....so that's what she learned for being here for a few days.... :lmao:
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.
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.
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.
From that thread, which shows a perfectly peacable gathering of citizens. The OP has to trot out this tired old thing:Quote
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!
:-)
So she's basically calling us racists.....so that's what she learned for being here for a few days.... :lmao:
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.
You didn't answer the question either. Which DemonRat do you work for?
That one statement right there gets you an automatic nomination for the 2010 DUmmie of the year.
Ralph write this one down.
I am self-employed as an attorney, as I said.I don't workfor 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
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).
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
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?
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.
.
: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.
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.
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.
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
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!
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.
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
...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.Conservatives believe honest people deserve to be free of the threats of violence and fraud.
-Laelth
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
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.96% of blacks voting in 2008 voted for Obama
Sorry perfect people.
-Laelth
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.
There's a lot of evidence in favor of this position, I should add.
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.
So she's basically calling us racists.....so that's what she learned for being here for a few days.... :lmao:
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.
Well we pretty much chewed up her talking points and propaganda...calling us racists was all she had left.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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
Carter was, perhaps, the last "good" President we had
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.
Do you seek the opinion of a medical professional as well as others to determine impact of injury or the circumstances surrounding 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.:thatsright:
-Laelth
Ergo blacks are overwhelmingly racist
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.Really?
That's how it looks from my perspective, in any event.
-Laelth
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.
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.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
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
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
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
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.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.
-Laelth
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
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
I've always said 2 things about wealth:
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.
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?
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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
Conservatives= Smaller government, lower and more fair taxation, less rules and regulations, more freedom to choose
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
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)
Ohhh and you consider Carter a "good" President ?!?!?!?!? :rotf: :rotf: :rotf: :rotf: :rotf: :rotf: :rotf: :rotf: :rotf: :rotf: :rotf:
Really?
Can you offer a substantive example of how your premise is viable and why you believe your position?
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 sameDemocratsleftists 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.
Now we all know why you are from DU.....lawyer or not, you simply are incapable of independent thought.
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
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
When one disagrees with the claims and assertions of the potential client/plaintiff is one sought that does concur?
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
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.
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!
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.
Nor do I but was just pointing out that there are organizations that exist to perpetuate criminality and that was what was being asserted.
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
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.
Conservatives believe in equality of opportunity
Liberals believe in the equality of outcomes.
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
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
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
Just a focus for a moment on this part of your quote...
Why do you think that happens?
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.
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
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.
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
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
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!
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
Come on, man. Seriously. "Waaaaahhhh! He called me a racist! Waaaaahhhh."
Now that's plaing the victim.
-Laelth
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.
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
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......
doc
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
I fear you may be right. :(
-Laelth
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.HA HA HA HA HA!!
There are more examples, honestly, but those should be enough to prove my point. I should hope.
-Laelth
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.Sorry to tell you this but ignorance can be cured with education. Stupidity is for life.
-Laelth
Oh for cryin' out loud! Now you're paintin' us with your brush! I'll say it again, typical LIB, with a capitol L!Shhhh....it's the chew toy that chews itself for ya! Noone can deny the beauty of that... :-)
You're a lawyer, and you use noone as one word?
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
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
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
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/
And please, no delusions that he lost the Independents because he wasn't leftist enough.
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."
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.
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?
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.
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.
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 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.
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
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.Gawd, you're such a tool...and not even a sharp one:
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
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 speak in nebulous terms which allows you to dodge responsibility for for any specific harms a policy you endorse might cause.
-Laelth
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
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.
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.
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 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 deficits, 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.
and I am willing to make a judgment call about their best interests on that basis
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.
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
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
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?
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.
I would like to hear an explanation as to why in a capitalist society wealth naturally flows upward and not downward.
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.
You won't......because it doesn't........
You have heard the expression...."a rising tide lifts all boats......"
doc
Yeah, Ballygrl, that threw me for a loop, too. Being adequately insured is nothing but prudent personal responsibility!If...
"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'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.
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
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
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
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.
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.
Then, let's not forget that many other countries don't have as strict OSHA or EPA laws........
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.
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
Ergo blacks are overwhelmingly racist
So your OK with racism?
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
Laelth, et al;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 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)
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
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.
The Dems have always been the party of racists, and they intend to keep blacks on the plantation as long as possible.
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.
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.
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.
“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.â€
“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.
“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.â€
“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.â€
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!â€
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.â€
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.
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........Oh snappy...