Urban planning community

+ Reply to thread
Page 14 of 170 FirstFirst ... 4 13 14 15 24 ... LastLast
Results 326 to 350 of 4243

Thread: The NEVERENDING Political Discussion Thread

  1. #326
    Cyburbian TexanOkie's avatar
    Registered
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Oklahoma City
    Posts
    2,904
    Quote Originally posted by Hink_Planner View post
    As for the pledge. The Contract with America in 1994 at least had some specifics. This Pledge is just a bunch of talking points that have no substance. " We pledge to advance policies that promote greater liberty..." That is just a bunch of B.S. Why not actually put down on paper what you plan on doing to create a solution. We plan on cutting the budget by 10% in year one. We plan on cutting taxes by 5% across the board on year 2. We will make government more transparent by allowing CSPAN in all committee meetings, etc.

    The Contract with America worked because people were foolish enough to believe that it might be kept. I don't think this junk document has even done anything near what the Contract with America attempted.

    Also the traditional marriage, families, and religion part is just the icing on the cake. You can say you support Christians, Straight people, and married couples in a lot of different ways. It is still closed minded and bigoted.

    I like that they wanted to put something down on paper... I just don't think this is doing anyone any favors. Be honest. You have no clue what you can or can't get done. Your own party can't agree on what is the best route forward. Ugh.
    It seems somewhat clear you only read the first page, page and a half - the preamble, as it were. The 21-page document outlines the following specific actions the GOP pledges to take, if elected to a majority:
    • Permanently stopping all tax increases scheduled to take effect Jan. 1, 2011, effectively making the Bush tax cuts permanent.
    • Grant small business owners a tax deduction equal to 20% of their income.
    • Require Congressional approval of any new Federal regulation what costs $100 million or more to economy.
    • Repeal Obamacare mandate for small business to report all purchases over $600 to IRS.
    • Immediately cancel unspent stimulus funds and block any attempt to extend timeline for their expenditure.
    • Enact budget caps on discretionary spending similar to those enacted in the 1990s.
    • Cancel TARP.
    • Impose a Federal hiring freeze of all non-security employees.
    • Adopt a "sunset" provision for for all Federal programs similar to those adopted in many states.
    • Repeal Obamacare.
    • Pass medical liability reform.
    • Pass legislation allowing the purchase of health care across state lines.
    • Maintain the provision from Obamacare ensuring access for patients with pre-existing conditions.
    • Require text of legislative bills to be posted online for a minimum of 3 days prior to vote.
    • Require every bill in Congress to include a clause citing specific Constitutional authority upon which it is justified.
    • Require major legislation to be advances one issue at a time, ending the practice of piggy-backing unpopular bills with "must-pass" legislation.
    • Ensure foreign terrorists are tried in military, not civilian courts.
    • Fully restore funding to the US Missile Defense system.
    • Aggressively implement sanctions against Iran.

  2. #327
    OH....IO Hink's avatar
    Registered
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Hang on Sloopy...land
    Posts
    9,753
    Quote Originally posted by TexanOkie View post
    It seems somewhat clear you only read the first page, page and a half - the preamble, as it were.
    No I sadly read the entire 21 pages... I stand by my original statement. It is not things that can be done. It is mainly concepts that sound great, but in reality are either not possible, or extremely unlikely to come to fruition.

    i.e. Repeal Obamacare. Other than the fact that it is called Healthcare Reform (which says a lot about the respect of the party...) it has been proven over and over again that it cannot be repealed. It cannot even really be defunded. Unless the R's get a R in the presidency it isn't going to happen. Even then it will be probably too late...


    Hink_Planner promises to:
    -Serve the community...better
    -Lower the time wasted by employees
    -Change the world slowly
    -And finally bring our budget to reasonable levels

    We can all promise to do things that are not reasonably possible. Sure dreaming is awesome. Reality smacks around the dream world a whole lot though.
    A common mistake people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools. -Douglas Adams

  3. #328
    Cyburbian btrage's avatar
    Registered
    May 2005
    Location
    Metro Detroit
    Posts
    6,419
    As a left-leaning dude, here are my responses....

    Quote Originally posted by TexanOkie View post
    It seems somewhat clear you only read the first page, page and a half - the preamble, as it were. The 21-page document outlines the following specific actions the GOP pledges to take, if elected to a majority:
    • Permanently stopping all tax increases scheduled to take effect Jan. 1, 2011, effectively making the Bush tax cuts permanent. OK with this.
    • Grant small business owners a tax deduction equal to 20% of their income.OK with this.
    • Require Congressional approval of any new Federal regulation what costs $100 million or more to economy. I need more detail about this one.
    • Repeal Obamacare mandate for small business to report all purchases over $600 to IRS. OK with this.
    • Immediately cancel unspent stimulus funds and block any attempt to extend timeline for their expenditure.NO
    • Enact budget caps on discretionary spending similar to those enacted in the 1990s.OK
    • Cancel TARP.OK
    • Impose a Federal hiring freeze of all non-security employees.NO - this seems a little heavy handed
    • Adopt a "sunset" provision for for all Federal programs similar to those adopted in many states.OK
    • Repeal Obamacare.NO
    • Pass medical liability reform.OK
    • Pass legislation allowing the purchase of health care across state lines.OK
    • Maintain the provision from Obamacare ensuring access for patients with pre-existing conditions.OK
    • Require text of legislative bills to be posted online for a minimum of 3 days prior to vote.OK
    • Require every bill in Congress to include a clause citing specific Constitutional authority upon which it is justified.OK, although this seems a little silly
    • Require major legislation to be advances one issue at a time, ending the practice of piggy-backing unpopular bills with "must-pass" legislation.OK, although I'm not sure how this could be accomplished.
    • Ensure foreign terrorists are tried in military, not civilian courts. OK
    • Fully restore funding to the US Missile Defense system. NO
    • Aggressively implement sanctions against Iran. Sure, why not.
    So I agree with most of these platitudes, and yet I still dislike what the Republican Party has become.
    "I'm very important. I have many leather-bound books and my apartment smells of rich mahogany"

  4. #329
    Cyburbian TexanOkie's avatar
    Registered
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Oklahoma City
    Posts
    2,904
    Quote Originally posted by Hink_Planner View post
    No I sadly read the entire 21 pages... I stand by my original statement. It is not things that can be done. It is mainly concepts that sound great, but in reality are either not possible, or extremely unlikely to come to fruition.

    i.e. Repeal Obamacare. Other than the fact that it is called Healthcare Reform (which says a lot about the respect of the party...) it has been proven over and over again that it cannot be repealed. It cannot even really be defunded. Unless the R's get a R in the presidency it isn't going to happen. Even then it will be probably too late...


    Hink_Planner promises to:
    -Serve the community...better
    -Lower the time wasted by employees
    -Change the world slowly
    -And finally bring our budget to reasonable levels

    We can all promise to do things that are not reasonably possible. Sure dreaming is awesome. Reality smacks around the dream world a whole lot though.
    The document never officially states "Obamacare". That was my paraphrase. It states "government takeover of healthcare", which both may and may not be accurate. More accurate would have been "massive government intervention and regulation of healthcare beyond what was currently existing". But, come on - that's too long and wordy to sound cool.

    You may be right about healthcare. On the other hand, you may not. I don't think it's yet a foregone conclusion that it's permanent. The original 1994 Contract crowd managed to get a lot, nowhere near all of course, of their provisions through Bill Clinton. It depends on how they go about doing it. And I doubt they'll release (minus leaks) that before implementing it due to strategic advantage.

    I also think the document is lacking in detail in key areas. However, it is much more specific than your example list of promises.

  5. #330
    OH....IO Hink's avatar
    Registered
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Hang on Sloopy...land
    Posts
    9,753
    Quote Originally posted by TexanOkie View post
    You may be right about healthcare. On the other hand, you may not. I don't think it's yet a foregone conclusion that it's permanent. The original 1994 Contract crowd managed to get a lot, nowhere near all of course, of their provisions through Bill Clinton. It depends on how they go about doing it. And I doubt they'll release (minus leaks) that before implementing it due to strategic advantage.

    I also think the document is lacking in detail in key areas. However, it is much more specific than your example list of promises.
    R's cannot repeal it. They might be able to defund portions of it, but they are opening up a big door when they do so. I don't think they will be able to defund the portions that really make them mad.

    Barack Obama is not Bill Clinton. Obama has proved that . Bill Clinton worked in a world that understood what compromise meant. In the Tea Party environment, this isn't an option. Nothing is going to get done for two years once the R's take the House, unless they actually start to work with moderates and D's. A pledge is great, and I agree with Btrage that I agree with most of what is in there, but it doesn't matter. It is all political mumbo-jumbo until they actually compromise on some of their beliefs. This my way or the highway junk, has got to stop. A pledge to accept nothing less just heightens the inability to work cooperatively.
    A common mistake people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools. -Douglas Adams

  6. #331
    Cyburbian wahday's avatar
    Registered
    May 2005
    Location
    New Town
    Posts
    3,827
    Quote Originally posted by Hink_Planner View post
    I like that they wanted to put something down on paper... I just don't think this is doing anyone any favors. Be honest. You have no clue what you can or can't get done. Your own party can't agree on what is the best route forward. Ugh.
    And I think that is why the pledge is as vague as it is. It had to be in order to get this breadth of opinions to agree on anything.

    Historically, and around the world, conservative groups have been better at circling the wagons to present a unified front. Progressives tend to more openly quibble about the details and that often gives the impression of fracture. That the Republicans/conservatives (because, really, I'm not sure many of the Tea Party candidates that won primaries are firmly in step with the Republican platform) are as visibly fractured as they are at this point says something about the times we live in.

    It will be a very interesting mid-term election!
    The purpose of life is a life of purpose

  7. #332
    Cyburbian TexanOkie's avatar
    Registered
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Oklahoma City
    Posts
    2,904
    Off-topic:
    Quote Originally posted by Hink_Planner View post
    This my way or the highway junk, has got to stop.
    But Dalton says "no"... http://www.ugo.com/therush/images/ar...1-402/main.jpg



  8. #333
    Cyburbian mgk920's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Appleton, Wisconsin
    Posts
    4,166
    Quote Originally posted by TexanOkie View post
    The document never officially states "Obamacare". That was my paraphrase. It states "government takeover of healthcare", which both may and may not be accurate. More accurate would have been "massive government intervention and regulation of healthcare beyond what was currently existing". But, come on - that's too long and wordy to sound cool.

    You may be right about healthcare. On the other hand, you may not. I don't think it's yet a foregone conclusion that it's permanent. The original 1994 Contract crowd managed to get a lot, nowhere near all of course, of their provisions through Bill Clinton. It depends on how they go about doing it. And I doubt they'll release (minus leaks) that before implementing it due to strategic advantage.

    I also think the document is lacking in detail in key areas. However, it is much more specific than your example list of promises.
    One potential analogy that I can see with the current looming healthcare disaster is the NRA.

    No, this is not the 'NRA' of today that many here in Cyburbialand appear to know and love, this 'NRA' was, among the whole tongue-twister of 'alphabet soup' that were passed back during FDR's first term, an incredible bureaucratic disaster that was signed into law on 1933-06-16, about three months after FDR took office (it was rammed through the House of Representatives in just seven days) called the 'National Industrial Recovery Act', administered by an entirely new bureaucracy called the 'National Recovery Agency'. The law set out to micro-manage nearly every aspect of the USA's economy, including price, wage and production controls and quotas and MOUNTAINS of paperwork. Federal prison sometimes was the result of a local shopkeeper pricing something juts a few cents below the NRA's legal floor.

    It was (THANKFULLY!) declared unconstitutional in a unanimous ruling by the USSupremes on 1935-05-27, just under two years after it was signed into law.

    Could the same thing happen to Obamacare™?

    Mike

  9. #334
    Cyburbian btrage's avatar
    Registered
    May 2005
    Location
    Metro Detroit
    Posts
    6,419
    Quote Originally posted by mgk920 View post
    One potential analogy that I can see with the current looming healthcare disaster is the NRA.

    No, this is not the 'NRA' of today that many here in Cyburbialand appear to know and love, this 'NRA' was, among the whole tongue-twister of 'alphabet soup' that were passed back during FDR's first term, an incredible bureaucratic disaster that was signed into law on 1933-06-16, about three months after FDR took office (it was rammed through the House of Representatives in just seven days) called the 'National Industrial Recovery Act', administered by an entirely new bureaucracy called the 'National Recovery Agency'. The law set out to micro-manage nearly every aspect of the USA's economy, including price, wage and production controls and quotas and MOUNTAINS of paperwork. Federal prison sometimes was the result of a local shopkeeper pricing something juts a few cents below the NRA's legal floor.

    It was (THANKFULLY!) declared unconstitutional in a unanimous ruling by the USSupremes on 1935-05-27, just under two years after it was signed into law.

    Could the same thing happen to Obamacare™?

    Mike
    Could it? Sure. Will it? Probably not.
    "I'm very important. I have many leather-bound books and my apartment smells of rich mahogany"

  10. #335
    OH....IO Hink's avatar
    Registered
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Hang on Sloopy...land
    Posts
    9,753
    Quote Originally posted by mgk920 View post
    Could the same thing happen to Obamacare™?

    Mike
    It could be declared unconstitutional. I just don't think it will be. The only provision that would be even close - the mandate - will be proven to be a constitutionally sound principle under the commerce clause. Honestly though, I think that could be the only way that this gets taken away as a whole. Otherwise, if the R's want to modify it, they can try to start making relationships that can get some things done - i.e. tort reform, cost structures, personal health savings accounts - which us moderates agree with.

    It is a waste of time to try and get rid of it - work to modify it to better serve the country. It is a first draft that needs tweaking.
    A common mistake people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools. -Douglas Adams

  11. #336
    Gunfighter Mastiff's avatar
    Registered
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Middle of a Dusty Street
    Posts
    6,374
    Quote Originally posted by TexanOkie View post
    Mastiff, so what if it's the same crap the GOP pulled in '94. It got them elected. Also, while they didn't accomplish near all of the Contract, many of the things they did get accomplished were remarkable, and many things eventually even drew the support of Bill Clinton. It's just as much a ploy as "hope and change" and "transformation" was for Obama, only in this case the GOP is actually spelling out it's legislative agenda.
    Emphasis mine. That is basically all it did, because it only promised to bring bills for a vote, not to get the job done. Did some pass? Yes. Did most either die on the floor or get vetoed? Yes. I do know the Cato Institute said, "... the combined budgets of the 95 major programs that the Contract with America promised to eliminate have increased by 13%." This new crap is just recycled crap, as is the "hope and change" crap. So what happens when this new "agenda" is blocked by Dems? You think they won't roadblock the R's like they are doing now? It's... all... crap... I read it and see this:

    1) I want to get elected.
    2) I want to get elected.
    3) I want to get elected.
    4) I want to get elected.
    5) I want to get elected.
    6) I want to get elected.

    Quote Originally posted by TexanOkie View post
    Nobody's holding a gun to anyone's head. They're flashing a sheet of paper to the electorate with a promise that it will be debated. In fact, the text of the document actually furthers promise, if you read it.
    I read all of it. A promise? From a politician?! NO WAY! Show me in the "pledge" the part about removing lobbying activities, which I consider legalized bribery, and campaign finance reform, and a separation of Wall Street and corporations from politics. That would impress me...

    Quote Originally posted by TexanOkie View post
    Don't argue trickle down? Why not? It's a legitimate tax/economic theory, and has just as good/relevant a track record as Keynesian theories.
    Uh, "trickle down economics" isn't even a theory of economics... it's a political buzzword. But hey, let's put it into perspective. How about all of us folks who have just enough to feed our families take that food and make a huge feast for rich people. Then, we can wait and see if any scraps fall off the table for us. That's sound thinking... if you're one of the rich people.

    Quote Originally posted by TexanOkie View post
    The post-war economy of the 1950's and 1960's had much more to it than tax policy, and not everything was rosy with the New Deal and Great Society policies, either. There was just such a specific set of circumstances that led to that period of US economic history and dominance that it most likely would have blasted off in a similar fashion with any policy in place. When these factors started to dissipate, you got the malaise of the 1970's and recession of the early 1980's.
    Really? What circumstances? Don't come with an unloaded gun... I'm saying that a high tax rate for high earners created an incredibly strong middle class that has been eroded by both parties since then, because they prefer catering to an increasingly wealthy upper class, and don't mind one bit making them wealthy on your back. Yeah, the trickle down is from ultra-rich people to politicians.

    Quote Originally posted by TexanOkie View post
    Your last question is incredibly loaded, and can be, and should be, levied against the entire political class, not just the GOP.
    False. I'm talking to you and your Republican contemporaries because it is your people in Congress blocking this particular item. The D's wanted to extend tax cuts to those of us... yes, us... the people like you and me who can't afford it, while removing them from people making over $250,000. Do you make over that? If not, you are one of us... not one of them. It's the REPUBLICANS who have their arms crossed and refuse to do it. Nope, they say, the rich get the breaks, or no one does. How on earth do you think they speak for you?!

    Please don't give me the party line about the rich being the "job creators" of this land, because they are not. This is personal wealth, not corporate wealth. You think a CEO making $20 million in salary and benefits is going to go down to the warehouse and fire someone because his taxes go up? Bullshit. It's just a red herring to keep you occupied while they fleece you even more.

    And then this:

    "We pledge to honor families, traditional marriage, life, and the private and faith-based organizations that form the core of our American values."

    Placing that in a document... a pledge to all of America, makes me want to puke. That doesn't represent my position, and has no business in the document. It's just something to make you come out and vote. How many of the politicians who've dreamed this kind of garbage up have abandoned their families, been divorced, had mistresses get abortions, and go to church just so they can play the piety card? Many... based on the number who've been caught. It's a joke, and we're the punchline.

    Quote Originally posted by mgk920 View post
    I keep wondering why the left keeps having this death wish for the fortunes of the job-creating class. Every dollar that is seized from the job-creators through taxation is a dollar that cannot be used to research and create new and improved things and to pay the people who will be making and distributing them. Even seeing a job-creator using that dollar to improve his or her own living space means that someone is being paid for the labor and/or materials. It's all basic Econ 101.
    Your econ teacher must have sucked. Personal wealth doesn't create jobs, at least, not in the sense you are thinking. How I invest my money, were I rich, might have some effect. But it could just as well be a negative one as positive. What if I tie my wealth up in overseas markets? Is creating jobs in Taiwan good for this country?

    But, instead of arguing, explain how these awesome cuts Bush made in 01' and '03 have helped with job creation? How can unemployment be hovering at 10% with all those philanthropic rich people out there? It's just a mind scrambler!
    Last edited by NHPlanner; 23 Sep 2010 at 2:19 PM. Reason: double reply
    -----------------------------------------------------------------
    C'mon and get me you twist of fate
    I'm standing right here Mr. Destiny
    If you want to talk well then I'll relate
    If you don't so what cause you don't scare me

  12. #337
    Cyburbian TexanOkie's avatar
    Registered
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Oklahoma City
    Posts
    2,904
    Quote Originally posted by Mastiff View post
    Emphasis mine. That is basically all it did, because it only promised to bring bills for a vote, not to get the job done. Did some pass? Yes. Did most either die on the floor or get vetoed? Yes. I do know the Cato Institute said, "... the combined budgets of the 95 major programs that the Contract with America promised to eliminate have increased by 13%." This new crap is just recycled crap, as is the "hope and change" crap. So what happens when this new "agenda" is blocked by Dems? You think they won't roadblock the R's like they are doing now? It's... all... crap... I read it and see this:

    1) I want to get elected.
    2) I want to get elected.
    3) I want to get elected.
    4) I want to get elected.
    5) I want to get elected.
    6) I want to get elected.



    I read all of it. A promise? From a politician?! NO WAY! Show me in the "pledge" the part about removing lobbying activities, which I consider legalized bribery, and campaign finance reform, and a separation of Wall Street and corporations from politics. That would impress me...
    All you had to say is that the items in the pledge don't mesh with your politics. While we're at it, let's separate unions, non-profits, and individual citizens from politics. Then people can be run by automatons and thus at last finally be free from any personal bias in government!

    And you're going on about how items in the Pledge are unrealistic?


    Quote Originally posted by Mastiff View post
    Uh, "trickle down economics" isn't even a theory of economics... it's a political buzzword. But hey, let's put it into perspective. How about all of us folks who have just enough to feed our families take that food and make a huge feast for rich people. Then, we can wait and see if any scraps fall off the table for us. That's sound thinking... if you're one of the rich people.
    "Trickle-down economics", in modern parlance, is a colloquialism referring to supply side economic theories, which, in fact, ARE economic theories - peer-reviewed and everything! How are raising taxes on wealthy folks in-and-of-itself going to improve your personal economic situation? It won't. If anything, it'll lower the top so the gap isn't as large, but that still doesn't matter for your personal economic situation. Is better by comparison really any better overall, or quelling your jealousy that worthy of an end goal? Plus, if you follow the Laffer curve, when you tax people too high, the economy won't produce as much money to the necessary social programs I'm assuming you're relying on to make your argument, let alone the effects it has on (lack of) wealth creation. So even if our current tax rates are too low for efficiency, it doesn't necessarily mean we should impose 90% tax rates like we did in the 1950's.


    Quote Originally posted by Mastiff View post
    Really? What circumstances? Don't come with an unloaded gun... I'm saying that a high tax rate for high earners created an incredibly strong middle class that has been eroded by both parties since then, because they prefer catering to an increasingly wealthy upper class, and don't mind one bit making them wealthy on your back. Yeah, the trickle down is from ultra-rich people to politicians.
    How about the circumstances that the entire world's industrialized countries were either in ruins or in debt out their asses, most of it being paid to US. Combine that with our still-plentiful natural resources at the time and a large pool of money sitting in bank accounts from frugal war culture to kick things off on the home front, and you've got your circumstances.

    My question about how a high tax rate for high earners created a middle class is also applicable here. In fact, if I take your words literally, taxing high earners more is more a trickling (or in this case, a coercion) from ultra-rich to politicians than taxing them less. You're missing several needed connections to make that kind of statement. Correlation does not equal causation.


    Quote Originally posted by Mastiff View post
    False. I'm talking to you and your Republican contemporaries because it is your people in Congress blocking this particular item. The D's wanted to extend tax cuts to those of us... yes, us... the people like you and me who can't afford it, while removing them from people making over $250,000. Do you make over that? If not, you are one of us... not one of them. It's the REPUBLICANS who have their arms crossed and refuse to do it. Nope, they say, the rich get the breaks, or no one does. How on earth do you think they speak for you?!

    Please don't give me the party line about the rich being the "job creators" of this land, because they are not. This is personal wealth, not corporate wealth. You think a CEO making $20 million in salary and benefits is going to go down to the warehouse and fire someone because his taxes go up? Bullshit. It's just a red herring to keep you occupied while they fleece you even more.
    Who's more likely to invest personal wealth into some economic endeavor designed to create more wealth, personal or otherwise, one of "us" or one of "them"? And no, a CEO making $20 million in salary and benefits will probably not go down to the warehouse and fire someone because his taxes go up. Instead, he'll have less money to invest in new economic endeavors, so economic growth will slow or stagnate and inhibit creation of new wealth, which would include all the people working either for him or for some group who he can or can't invest in as much. That is economics, my friend. It is no red herring at all.


    Quote Originally posted by Mastiff View post
    And then this:

    "We pledge to honor families, traditional marriage, life, and the private and faith-based organizations that form the core of our American values."

    Placing that in a document... a pledge to all of America, makes me want to puke. That doesn't represent my position, and has no business in the document. It's just something to make you come out and vote. How many of the politicians who've dreamed this kind of garbage up have abandoned their families, been divorced, had mistresses get abortions, and go to church just so they can play the piety card? Many... based on the number who've been caught. It's a joke, and we're the punchline.
    That's in the preamble to the forward. That is not one of their pledged action items, and really it's not like it's changed from the GOP anyway, so there's not too big of a reason to make a new, bigger fuss over old news.


    Quote Originally posted by Mastiff View post
    Your econ teacher must have sucked. Personal wealth doesn't create jobs, at least, not in the sense you are thinking. How I invest my money, were I rich, might have some effect. But it could just as well be a negative one as positive. What if I tie my wealth up in overseas markets? Is creating jobs in Taiwan good for this country?

    But, instead of arguing, explain how these awesome cuts Bush made in 01' and '03 have helped with job creation? How can unemployment be hovering at 10% with all those philanthropic rich people out there? It's just a mind scrambler!
    See my previous arguments. Also, tax-cuts aren't the be-all-end-all of economic policy. Hence the other parts, which I'm sure you disagree with, of trade policy, monetary policy, can definitely help with job creation here and abroad.

    It would appear that you think that international economics seems to be almost a zero-sum game. That would be the case if new wealth weren't being created through economic activity. I'm not saying tying up wealth in overseas is automatically, or even often, good for this country's economy, or that it doesn't sometimes have similarities to a zero-sum game. However, free trade policies and the laws of comparative advantage can and often do provide mutual gains from trade from trading partners. That is also economics. Capitalist economics, anyway.
    Last edited by TexanOkie; 23 Sep 2010 at 4:04 PM.

  13. #338
    Cyburbian Duke Of Dystopia's avatar
    Registered
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Cyburbias Brewpub, best seat in the haus!
    Posts
    2,669
    What it REALLY SAYS!


    Quote Originally posted by TexanOkie View post
    [*]Permanently stopping all tax increases scheduled to take effect Jan. 1, 2011, effectively making the Bush tax cuts permanent.
    Because it worked so well the last 10 years, we should continue a policy that will continue to make the rich even more rich, while starving the many in society of needed services. Services to which they should have access, but we shall deny.

    Quote Originally posted by TexanOkie View post
    [*]Grant small business owners a tax deduction equal to 20% of their income.
    Small business means S Corp owners. S Corp owners have "pass through" taxation. Money passes through the business to the "owners". The number of owners of any business must be 100 or less. The Koche brothers are the owners of multiple "small business'". So remember serfs, the richest men in America are merely small business owners. Just like all those insignificant enterprises out there with a hand full of employees or more like the self employed.

    Quote Originally posted by TexanOkie View post
    [*]Require Congressional approval of any new Federal regulation what costs $100 million or more to economy.
    Insert filibuster/block/kill/rebuff/derail in the place of "approval". Because anything can be inflated to get the results the GOP wants. So the next time there is a Salmonella outbreak caused by factory farms the Corporations that threaten your life can not be held accountable.

    Quote Originally posted by TexanOkie View post
    [*]Repeal Obamacare mandate for small business to report all purchases over $600 to IRS.
    See "SMALL BUSINESS" above. & Because it should continue to be easy for the self employed and sub contractors to cheat the IRS and the rest of us by default from paying their fare share like everybody else. Because only wage slaves should be forced to pay taxes.

    Quote Originally posted by TexanOkie View post
    [*]Immediately cancel unspent stimulus funds and block any attempt to extend timeline for their expenditure.
    Herbert Hoover was an AMAZING president! We think his model of running the economy was right on the mark! As we also think with Shrub. So take your money OUT of your bank before its to late and stuff it in your mattress or in a jar in your back yard... or whatever.

    Quote Originally posted by TexanOkie View post
    [*]Enact budget caps on discretionary spending similar to those enacted in the 1990s.
    Because the more we cut off social services, the more successful christian organizations will be. Seriously, somebody has to help those whiny lazy slugs asking for handouts. Least we will still have money for bombs!

    Quote Originally posted by TexanOkie View post
    [*]Cancel TARP.
    See "Unspent stimulus funds" above.

    Quote Originally posted by TexanOkie View post
    [*]Impose a Federal hiring freeze of all non-security employees.
    See "Approval of all regulations" above.

    Quote Originally posted by TexanOkie View post
    [*]Adopt a "sunset" provision for for all Federal programs similar to those adopted in many states.
    because we cant do math, you will pay. We intend to end social security with its .9 percent administrative overhead cost, with wall street brokers that will start at a 5 percent fee for administrative costs and proceed to invent costs for you to pay from that point.

    Quote Originally posted by TexanOkie View post
    [*]Repeal Obamacare.
    Seriously, you don't expect the insurance industry to provide a real service to you..... do you? Sick people are going to die any way. It leaves more for the poor rich people who can afford to pay for their care.

    Quote Originally posted by TexanOkie View post
    [*]Pass medical liability reform.
    The GOP does not believe a doctor who cuts of an incorrect limb or prescribes a lethal or dangerous dose of medications should be held liable for their actions and neither should you. Besides, if you were rich enough, you could afford competent medical aid, so live with it beotches!

    Quote Originally posted by TexanOkie View post
    [*]Pass legislation allowing the purchase of health care across state lines.
    So the medical industry can hide in a solid GOP state and not have to deal with any rules required in other states. We can then take your money and provide no services.

    Quote Originally posted by TexanOkie View post
    [*]Maintain the provision from Obamacare ensuring access for patients with pre-existing conditions.
    See, we are being OVERLY generous with this provision!

    Quote Originally posted by TexanOkie View post
    [*]Require text of legislative bills to be posted online for a minimum of 3 days prior to vote.
    Don't worry, this is just a ruse. We will use it to pull some more ridiculous hi-jinks. Even if it is a good idea.

    Quote Originally posted by TexanOkie View post
    [*]Require every bill in Congress to include a clause citing specific Constitutional authority upon which it is justified.
    We like stating the obvious. We won't hold the states to this same clause or Jan Brewer in Arizona would have never ben able to make that ridiculous immigration law of hers.

    Quote Originally posted by TexanOkie View post
    [*]Require major legislation to be advances one issue at a time, ending the practice of piggy-backing unpopular bills with "must-pass" legislation.
    More common sense (if your sarah palin) sounding stuff for ya! We know we can make hay with this claus as well. It would be EASY to be able to grind the house and senate to a standstill with this thing!

    Quote Originally posted by TexanOkie View post
    [*]Ensure foreign terrorists are tried in military, not civilian courts.
    We, the GOP are afraid that 200 plus years of rule of law just doesn't work anymore. We fear that after 20 out of 30 years of GOP presidents, the judiciary is just to liberal. So we think that the JAG core is much more trustworthy, and we get to keep the results secret to boot!

    Quote Originally posted by TexanOkie View post
    [*]Fully restore funding to the US Missile Defense system.
    We won't be happy until we have trained sharks with laser beams on their heads!

    Quote Originally posted by TexanOkie View post
    [*]Aggressively implement sanctions against Iran.
    OK, we really mean declare war on Iran. You get the point. Your sons and daughters are canon fodder any way. If we don't use them when they are young, they will get old and won't have insurance any way. At least this way, they get will get vouchers for care when we defund and abolish all those VA hospitals.

    You got to understand! It took us 40 years to outlast the Russians. Look at us! Do you think most of us are going to live another 40 years just so we can gloat at a bunch of hick Mullah's? You have to believe us when we tell you that IRAN is MUCH WORSE than the Russians!
    Last edited by Duke Of Dystopia; 23 Sep 2010 at 4:51 PM.
    I can't deliver UTOPIA, but I can create a HELL for you to LIVE in :)DoD:(

  14. #339
    Cyburbian TexanOkie's avatar
    Registered
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Oklahoma City
    Posts
    2,904
    Dang, Mastiff, Duke's got you beat on fun factor.

  15. #340
    Cyburbian wahday's avatar
    Registered
    May 2005
    Location
    New Town
    Posts
    3,827
    Quote Originally posted by TexanOkie View post
    Who's more likely to invest personal wealth into some economic endeavor designed to create more wealth, personal or otherwise, one of "us" or one of "them"? And no, a CEO making $20 million in salary and benefits will probably not go down to the warehouse and fire someone because his taxes go up. Instead, he'll have less money to invest in new economic endeavors, so economic growth will slow or stagnate and inhibit creation of new wealth, which would include all the people working either for him or for some group who he can or can't invest in as much. That is economics, my friend. It is no red herring at all.
    At the same time, studies show that when you give people a large tax return, the tendency is to save it and not spend it. That is as true for the wealthy as the poor. Its also why last year's tax return was meted out little by little in your paycheck instead of coming in a large lump sum. Most did not notice this, unfortunately, though it did result in increased spending. The result, though, is that many people do not realize they did get a larger refund.

    As to the argument that wealthy people are more likely to invest in new businesses (and I don't think very many will invest in business expansion these days unless its a pretty sure thing that the demand is there), we hear a lot about how "small businesses" employ the majority of people in this country. So, who starts and runs a small business? I really don't know the answer, but I have some suspicion that a healthy percentage are started by innovative thinkers and I have certainly read a number of articles in the last year about start-ups that were stimulated by the hard times of the recession. That is, folks with good skills that are out of work and have tried innovative ways to go it alone, or find an opening in a market that others have not capitalized on. I suspect these people are not the elite $250k plus crowd, but those struggling because of difficult circumstances. They are probably not the working poor, either (as they may still have some access to credit and financing) but probably middle class.

    Personally, I really have a hard time accepting the argument about the top earners maintaining the tax break they have enjoyed in recent years. If they already have a couple million in the bank and I haven't already invested in something that would create more jobs, is that extra return on my taxes this year really going to push me over the edge?
    The purpose of life is a life of purpose

  16. #341
    Cyburbian Duke Of Dystopia's avatar
    Registered
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Cyburbias Brewpub, best seat in the haus!
    Posts
    2,669
    Quote Originally posted by TexanOkie View post
    Dang, Mastiff, Duke's got you beat on fun factor.
    True, but your not really arguing against my interpretation either....
    I can't deliver UTOPIA, but I can create a HELL for you to LIVE in :)DoD:(

  17. #342
    Cyburbian TexanOkie's avatar
    Registered
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Oklahoma City
    Posts
    2,904
    Quote Originally posted by Duke Of Dystopia View post
    True, but your not really arguing against my interpretation either....
    Duke, a large part of that is because we've had our spats in the past and we're fairly comfortable with where the other stands. Plus, your manner of presentation is less affronting to my sensibilities. I respond well to over-the-top humor, even when it's infused with pointed commentary that disagrees with my own opinions.

    No offense intended, Mastiff. I still respect your opinions. I just feel compelled to respond more often.

  18. #343
    Gunfighter Mastiff's avatar
    Registered
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Middle of a Dusty Street
    Posts
    6,374
    Quote Originally posted by TexanOkie View post
    All you had to say is that the items in the pledge don't mesh with your politics. While we're at it, let's separate unions, non-profits, and individual citizens from politics. Then people can be run by automatons and thus at last finally be free from any personal bias in government!

    And you're going on about how items in the Pledge are unrealistic?
    Unrealistic? How about a total bag of turd to get votes. Do you honestly believe that "we the people" have a say anymore? We don't. And every single time you vote one or the other party into office, you do Americans a disservice. Unions and non-profits should not have special access to our elected officials. And how can you possibly think Congress being in bed with corporations and lobbyist is a good thing?

    Quote Originally posted by TexanOkie View post
    "Trickle-down economics", in modern parlance, is a colloquialism referring to supply side economic theories, which, in fact, ARE economic theories - peer-reviewed and everything! How are raising taxes on wealthy folks in-and-of-itself going to improve your personal economic situation? It won't. If anything, it'll lower the top so the gap isn't as large, but that still doesn't matter for your personal economic situation. Is better by comparison really any better overall, or quelling your jealousy that worthy of an end goal? Plus, if you follow the Laffer curve, when you tax people too high, the economy won't produce as much money to the necessary social programs I'm assuming you're relying on to make your argument, let alone the effects it has on (lack of) wealth creation. So even if our current tax rates are too low for efficiency, it doesn't necessarily mean we should impose 90% tax rates like we did in the 1950's.
    I know that and it seems you know that. Step out to a teabag rally or some liberal crusade and ask a few people. They have no idea. Now then, quit trying to put this on me personally. It isn't my situation or some jealous reaction because others have more money, it's what is best for this country. Many economists, even Reagan's budget guy, have said that the Laffer curve is often taken much too literally and given too much credence. You think I'm some crazy lefty who wants the rich people to pay my way... and you're wrong. Our social spending and war spending, among other things, needs to be cut drastically along with higher tax rates if we ever want out of this mess.

    Who said 90%? I didn't say go back to that level. I say repeal the cuts Bush gave those over $250,000. Why? Because it's quite obvious they haven't done a damed thing but make things worse. How can you disagree with that?

    Quote Originally posted by TexanOkie View post
    How about the circumstances that the entire world's industrialized countries were either in ruins or in debt out their asses, most of it being paid to US. Combine that with our still-plentiful natural resources at the time and a large pool of money sitting in bank accounts from frugal war culture to kick things off on the home front, and you've got your circumstances.
    Much better. But also cold war spending helped, too. So, if we have to go fight in Iraq and Afghanistan, why aren't we using the spoils of those wars... oil and massive quantities of metal ore, to finance them? And man, don't get me started on WWII. It was made clear by the war presidents there would be no profiteering from the war, and oh how far we have come. The Iraq war was all about making a profit, and they sure did. Know who paid? You and me... and 4,287 of our troops who paid in blood.

    Quote Originally posted by TexanOkie View post
    My question about how a high tax rate for high earners created a middle class is also applicable here. In fact, if I take your words literally, taxing high earners more is more a trickling (or in this case, a coercion) from ultra-rich to politicians than taxing them less. You're missing several needed connections to make that kind of statement. Correlation does not equal causation.
    Surely you jest. I'm simply stating that those in power work for the rich and their corporation, not you and me. How simple is that? You don't believe that to be true? Well, here you go:

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/lis...roduction.html

    http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/a...-for-2009.html

    http://www.crewsmostcorrupt.org/

    You'll notice it spans R's and D's quite well.

    Quote Originally posted by TexanOkie View post
    Who's more likely to invest personal wealth into some economic endeavor designed to create more wealth, personal or otherwise, one of "us" or one of "them"? Instead, he'll have less money to invest in new economic endeavors, so economic growth will slow or stagnate and inhibit creation of new wealth, which would include all the people working either for him or for some group who he can or can't invest in as much. That is economics, my friend. It is no red herring at all.
    Wait, you charged that I didn't have a nexus for my argument and you put this forth? Who knows what people with gobs of money will do next! They can put it off-shore, they can invest in Sri Lanka, they can buy a yacht built in Canada! And let me tell you this, lately their "economic endeavors" haven't been to create anything, but to take money from us! Did you even read what they did to us down on Wall Street?! That wasn't an "endeavor" as must as a prison rape scene! You just keep watching the magician as they empty your pockets.

    Quote Originally posted by TexanOkie View post
    That's in the preamble to the forward. That is not one of their pledged action items, and really it's not like it's changed from the GOP anyway, so there's not too big of a reason to make a new, bigger fuss over old news.
    Bigotry and intolerance is never "old news."

    Quote Originally posted by TexanOkie View post
    See my previous arguments. Also, tax-cuts aren't the be-all-end-all of economic policy. Hence the other parts, which I'm sure you disagree with, of trade policy, monetary policy, can definitely help with job creation here and abroad.
    I'd wager you are flat wrong, and we would agree on many policies that would help the country as a whole, and not just one small segment.

    Quote Originally posted by TexanOkie View post
    It would appear that you think that international economics seems to be almost a zero-sum game. That would be the case if new wealth weren't being created through economic activity. I'm not saying tying up wealth in overseas is automatically, or even often, good for this country's economy, or that it doesn't sometimes have similarities to a zero-sum game. However, free trade policies and the laws of comparative advantage can and often do provide mutual gains from trade from trading partners. That is also economics. Capitalist economics, anyway.
    My point is that lowering taxes on the rich does not equal more jobs or prosperity for other classes. As you have pointed out, there has to be a figuring of other factors. I don't believe at this juncture keeping the Bush cuts for everyone is a good idea. The D's had this one right, and the R's stopped it. Face it, our government is... not... working... for us. If you truly believe what they tell you, or "contract" with you, or "promise" you while they pander for your vote will be accomplished, you are sadly mistaken. I may be jaded, but I don't have my head in the sand. With very few exceptions, the only concern of those in Washington is staying in Washington. If that means lying to you at election time and then suckling at the corporate tit, they'll do it.

    My rant is done.


    P.S. I'm not offended.
    -----------------------------------------------------------------
    C'mon and get me you twist of fate
    I'm standing right here Mr. Destiny
    If you want to talk well then I'll relate
    If you don't so what cause you don't scare me

  19. #344
    Cyburbian TexanOkie's avatar
    Registered
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Oklahoma City
    Posts
    2,904
    Quote Originally posted by Mastiff View post
    My point is that lowering taxes on the rich does not equal more jobs or prosperity for other classes. As you have pointed out, there has to be a figuring of other factors. I don't believe at this juncture keeping the Bush cuts for everyone is a good idea. The D's had this one right, and the R's stopped it. Face it, our government is... not... working... for us. If you truly believe what they tell you, or "contract" with you, or "promise" you while they pander for your vote will be accomplished, you are sadly mistaken. I may be jaded, but I don't have my head in the sand. With very few exceptions, the only concern of those in Washington is staying in Washington. If that means lying to you at election time and then suckling at the corporate tit, they'll do it.
    I don't "truly" believe it. I am, in fact, quite skeptical. I agree with you on politicians' primary concern. I will defend against hasty accusations, though. That's all. I did the same for Obama during the 2008 election (and some to this day), and I did with Bush during his presidency. I'll also bring down hastily applied hopes, too.

    Glad you're not offended. If we ever meet one day, allow me to buy you a beer.

  20. #345
    Gunfighter Mastiff's avatar
    Registered
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Middle of a Dusty Street
    Posts
    6,374
    Quote Originally posted by TexanOkie View post
    I don't "truly" believe it. I am, in fact, quite skeptical. I agree with you on politicians' primary concern. I will defend against hasty accusations, though. That's all. I did the same for Obama during the 2008 election (and some to this day), and I did with Bush during his presidency. I'll also bring down hastily applied hopes, too.

    Glad you're not offended. If we ever meet one day, allow me to buy you a beer.
    I suppose I show my skepticism in a different way. I'd like to have some hope, but I just don't think anyone in office cares about us anymore... and it makes me worry more about my sons than myself.

    Oh yeah, beer for sure, maybe even some single malt Irish!
    -----------------------------------------------------------------
    C'mon and get me you twist of fate
    I'm standing right here Mr. Destiny
    If you want to talk well then I'll relate
    If you don't so what cause you don't scare me

  21. #346
    Cyburbian imaplanner's avatar
    Registered
    May 2004
    Location
    Snarkville
    Posts
    6,587
    Quote Originally posted by mgk920 View post
    It's all basic Econ 101.



    Mike
    No its not. Its very questionable. in fact- studies, polling data and other research have shown that the rich are the biggest savers/hoarders of money. No one denies that the rich create jobs; but they don't spend all of their money. you know who does spend all of their money? The poor and lower middle class.
    Children in the back seat can cause accidents - and vice versa.

  22. #347
    NIMBY asshatterer Plus Richmond Jake's avatar
    Registered
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Jukin' City
    Posts
    16,482
    Quote Originally posted by imaplanner View post
    .... you know who does spend all of their money? The poor and lower middle class.
    They must....to survive.

  23. #348
    OH....IO Hink's avatar
    Registered
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Hang on Sloopy...land
    Posts
    9,753
    Quote Originally posted by Duke Of Dystopia View post
    See "SMALL BUSINESS" above. & Because it should continue to be easy for the self employed and sub contractors to cheat the IRS and the rest of us by default from paying their fare share like everybody else. Because only wage slaves should be forced to pay taxes.
    Both sides agree that the $600 is onerous. It was a poorly written law, and it will be changed. I don't see this being much of an argument.


    Quote Originally posted by Duke Of Dystopia View post
    The GOP does not believe a doctor who cuts of an incorrect limb or prescribes a lethal or dangerous dose of medications should be held liable for their actions and neither should you. Besides, if you were rich enough, you could afford competent medical aid, so live with it beotches!
    This is just silly. Bad doctors will still exist. The difference is that good doctors won't have to be as worried about bad people suing them. Problem is that there are probably more people willing to sue doctors than bad doctors around. Did your grandmother die after they tried to save her life...SUE! I am sure you will be able to find SOMETHING that the doctor did wrong. Tort reform is needed. I don't think it will lower costs tremendously, but I think it will allow the medical field to attract more smart minds. I know many people who won't be an OB/GYN, Anesthetists, or an Emergency doc because they think they will get sued. Which leaves these specialties empty or filled by less qualified applicants.
    A common mistake people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools. -Douglas Adams

  24. #349
    Cyburbian imaplanner's avatar
    Registered
    May 2004
    Location
    Snarkville
    Posts
    6,587
    As a left leaning dude- here are my thoughts
    • Permanently stopping all tax increases scheduled to take effect Jan. 1, 2011, effectively making the Bush tax cuts permanent. Not cool. Our kids will pay for the substantial increase in the debt. Repeal ALL the Bush tax cuts!!
    • Grant small business owners a tax deduction equal to 20% of their income.The GOP's idea of small business includes Halliburton, Exxon, etc.
    • Require Congressional approval of any new Federal regulation what costs $100 million or more to economy.Congress is too disfunctional
    • Repeal Obamacare mandate for small business to report all purchases over $600 to IRS.Whatever
    • Immediately cancel unspent stimulus funds and block any attempt to extend timeline for their expenditure.Let's just handicap any future econimic recovery actions, bad idea
    • Enact budget caps on discretionary spending similar to those enacted in the 1990s.Then why did the GOP block this proposed legislation just a year ago?
    • Cancel TARP.Whaever, its done
    • Impose a Federal hiring freeze of all non-security employees.retarded
    • Adopt a "sunset" provision for for all Federal programs similar to those adopted in many states.Look what happened with the Bush tax cuts "sunset provision". This is retarded
    • Repeal Obamacare.replace it with what?
    • Pass medical liability reform.Lose the wrong leg in surgery? too bad for you
    • Pass legislation allowing the purchase of health care across state lines.Will not do a single thing to help costs
    • Maintain the provision from Obamacare ensuring access for patients with pre-existing conditions.Good.
    • Require text of legislative bills to be posted online for a minimum of 3 days prior to vote.whatever
    • Require every bill in Congress to include a clause citing specific Constitutional authority upon which it is justified.retarded
    • Require major legislation to be advances one issue at a time, ending the practice of piggy-backing unpopular bills with "must-pass" legislation.right. They wont do this
    • Ensure foreign terrorists are tried in military, not civilian courts.who cares
    • Fully restore funding to the US Missile Defense system.because the terrorists are going to attack us with cruise missles?
    • Aggressively implement sanctions against Iran.translation - new war

    Quote Originally posted by Hink_Planner View post
    Both sides agree that the $600 is onerous. It was a poorly written law, and it will be changed. I don't see this being much of an argument.




    This is just silly. Bad doctors will still exist. The difference is that good doctors won't have to be as worried about bad people suing them. Problem is that there are probably more people willing to sue doctors than bad doctors around. Did your grandmother die after they tried to save her life...SUE! I am sure you will be able to find SOMETHING that the doctor did wrong. Tort reform is needed. I don't think it will lower costs tremendously, but I think it will allow the medical field to attract more smart minds. I know many people who won't be an OB/GYN, Anesthetists, or an Emergency doc because they think they will get sued. Which leaves these specialties empty or filled by less qualified applicants.
    In the states that have implemented tort reform - its been shown to do zero for lowering costs
    Last edited by NHPlanner; 27 Sep 2010 at 8:39 AM. Reason: double reply
    Children in the back seat can cause accidents - and vice versa.

  25. #350
    Cyburbian Duke Of Dystopia's avatar
    Registered
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Cyburbias Brewpub, best seat in the haus!
    Posts
    2,669
    Quote Originally posted by Hink_Planner View post
    ......

    Did your grandmother die after they tried to save her life...SUE! I am sure you will be able to find SOMETHING that the doctor did wrong. .....
    No.

    My father died because doctors can't always make right decisions. Might he still be alive if they had found out he had neuropathy so bad he couldn't move around. Maybe. He certainly would have had medication that took the nerve pain away. If he had been able to move around, he might not have contracted the rare pneumonia that did kill him. If he had access to medical marijuana, it might have relieved the pain of the neuropathy mentioned above. Maybe. It also might have gave him the munchies, so he could have fought off the rare pneumonia. The type you get when you are run down. The type a normal persons body can fight off.

    I don't hate the doctor at all. Like the VAST MAJORITY of patients out there, we have no desire to sue the Dr.

    What you don't seem to understand, is that it is not that easy to sue. If you don't win, you are liable for all costs. On top of that, harm is pretty cut and dried.

    The GOP flail their arms around over there head with a few case outliers and you seem convinced. Pass tort reform the way the conservatives want to, and you will be enshrining a permanent inability to STOP medical malpractice.

    Tell me, what is the price of the following really worth?:

    A persons life
    A family member
    Lifetime earning potential when not artificially handicapped.
    Cost to you of a lifetime of taking care of a newborn infant harmed by drugs?
    Does it happen on the 1st time a crapy dr. screws up? or after the 15th?
    Once a limit is set, can the crapy dr. just buy his way out of the repercussions (cause the cost to him will be to low for him to care about)?


    This list is endless. Seriously, why do you feel qualified to put limits on other peoples right to seek proper settlement? Remember now good folks, since you are putting the case before a panel of your peers at trial, limiting their judgment is an arbitrary limit on "the market of worth". Which, as our Teabagger friends with torches and pitchforks on high would tell you, the "Gubment" should stay out of.
    I can't deliver UTOPIA, but I can create a HELL for you to LIVE in :)DoD:(

+ Reply to thread
Page 14 of 170 FirstFirst ... 4 13 14 15 24 ... LastLast

More at Cyburbia

  1. Replies: 6
    Last post: 04 Sep 2013, 8:26 AM
  2. Replies: 3
    Last post: 30 Apr 2013, 2:53 PM
  3. Rules discussion thread
    Cyburbia Issues and Help
    Replies: 12
    Last post: 16 Mar 2012, 9:37 AM
  4. The non-political political thread
    Friday Afternoon Club
    Replies: 19
    Last post: 17 Sep 2004, 1:17 PM