PDA

View Full Version : Are you a democrat?



KABOOKIE
2/15/2011, 07:05 AM
I think this country should identify every single democrat, registered or not, and then have their taxes raised to 75% with no allowable tax deductions.

After all, its the democrats that want the government to fix everything that is wrong with their miserable lives and to do it, the gov't is going to need a lot more financial help.

pphilfran
2/15/2011, 07:12 AM
Are you a republican?

I think this country should identify every single republican, registered or not, and then have their taxes raised to 75% with no allowable tax deductions.

After all, its the republicans that want the government to fight every war without being concerned about the debt, the gov't is going to need a lot more financial help.

sooner n houston
2/15/2011, 07:43 AM
And why was the federal government established in the first place?

Thats right, to provide for the general defense of the states!

KABOOKIE
2/15/2011, 07:47 AM
And why was the federal government established in the first place?

Thats right, to provide for the general defense of the states!

EXACTLY! This is why under my plan Republicans will continue to pay the same amount in taxes as before. These items have been properly funded and are essential to the survival of America.

dwarthog
2/15/2011, 07:57 AM
:pop:

pphilfran
2/15/2011, 08:15 AM
And why was the federal government established in the first place?

Thats right, to provide for the general defense of the states!

I didn't realize....I guess we should use 100% of GDP for defense since it is allowed by the Constitution...

Sooner5030
2/15/2011, 08:19 AM
the $14 trillion accumulated debt has been a bipartisan, check and balance effort. Pols only legislate what it takes to get the mob to vote them back in. Who could win an election on the promise to provide fewer services yet charge you more?.....which is the only way to reverse $1.X trillion deficits.

sappstuf
2/15/2011, 08:55 AM
I'm suprised the Obama 2012 budget doesn't have it's own thread... It is an absolute disaster.

The President lives in the land of pixy dust and unicorns.

And phil.. I think the cold has gone to your head.. ;) The combined cost of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars to date are about 1.1 trillion dollars. Obama's projected deficit for 2012 is $1.6 trillion. For one year!! It never goes below $1.1 trillion annually over the next 10 years. And it is not like it doesn't propose tax increases... $1.6 trillion over the next 10 years in new revenue from tax increases.

Obama's own debt commission said that $4 trillion needed to be cut from federal spending over the next decade. What did Obama propose? $1.1 trillion over the decade.. $500 billion less than the deficit of next year alone!!

http://www.gifsoup.com/webroot/animatedgifs/418787_o.gif

I think this post from someone who was an ardent support of Obama during the election says it all.


They (the Senators) have to lead, because this president is too weak, too cautious, too beholden to politics over policy to lead. In this budget, in his refusal to do anything concrete to tackle the looming entitlement debt, in his failure to address the generational injustice, in his blithe indifference to the increasing danger of default, he has betrayed those of us who took him to be a serious president prepared to put the good of the country before his short term political interests. Like his State of the Union, this budget is good short term politics but such a massive pile of fiscal bullsh!t it makes it perfectly clear that Obama is kicking this vital issue down the road.

To all those under 30 who worked so hard to get this man elected, know this: he just screwed you over. He thinks you’re fools. Either the US will go into default because of Obama’s cowardice, or you will be paying far far more for far far less because this president has no courage when it counts. He let you down. On the critical issue of America’s fiscal crisis, he represents no hope and no change. Just the same old Washington politics he once promised to end.

Ouch.

pphilfran
2/15/2011, 09:08 AM
Sapp...I started a budget thread yesterday...

I took the shot at Kabookie because it is not only the dems that have gotten us in this mess...

The proposed Obama budget is obscene...

SoonerDan74012
2/15/2011, 09:24 AM
I have no desire to be a liberal.

Jammin'
2/15/2011, 09:44 AM
And why was the federal government established in the first place?

Thats right, to provide for the general defense of the states!

You forgot the next four words (and part of your own statement is off) that follow "provide for the common defense".

They are "Promote the general welfare".


carry on.

jkjsooner
2/15/2011, 09:46 AM
the $14 trillion accumulated debt has been a bipartisan, check and balance effort. Pols only legislate what it takes to get the mob to vote them back in. Who could win an election on the promise to provide fewer services yet charge you more?.....which is the only way to reverse $1.X trillion deficits.

+1

sappstuf
2/15/2011, 09:53 AM
Sapp...I started a budget thread yesterday...

I took the shot at Kabookie because it is not only the dems that have gotten us in this mess...

The proposed Obama budget is obscene...

Ah, I missed it. I will post over there.

jkjsooner
2/15/2011, 09:55 AM
Obama's own debt commission said that $4 trillion needed to be cut from federal spending over the next decade. What did Obama propose? $1.1 trillion over the decade.. $500 billion less than the deficit of next year alone!!

Ouch.

While I agree that we're in serious trouble and need to cut the budget, a little fairness is in order. Obama made some tough decisions and some decent cuts. I didn't see Bush making as significant cuts.

All Bush did was increase spending while lowering tax revenue. Boy, that was a hard decision! /sarcasm

It was easy for the Republicans to sit back and make the voters happy when a Republican was in office but now a Democrat is in office they expect him to make all sorts of sweeping unpopular changes. Hypocrites?

pphilfran
2/15/2011, 10:04 AM
While I agree that we're in serious trouble and need to cut the budget, a little fairness is in order. Obama made some tough decisions and some decent cuts. I didn't see Bush making as significant cuts.

All Bush did was increase spending while lowering tax revenue. Boy, that was a hard decision! /sarcasm

It was easy for the Republicans to sit back and make the voters happy when a Republican was in office but now a Democrat is in office they expect him to make all sorts of sweeping unpopular changes. Hypocrites?


What the f does Bush have to do with it? Is he currently in office? Can he currently make policy?

Obama did nothing to attack the vast majority of the deficit...SS? Medicare? Real cuts to the military complex?

He wants to cut Pell grants....cut charitable giving (so he can take the money for the fed use)...decrease AMTRACK subsidies yet add 50 billion for high speed rail...

Cut oil, gas, and coal subsidies that will increase our costs....why approving low cost loans to Brazil so they can develop their offshore resources....

What is going to happen to debt servicing when interest rates climb and the current short term debt needs to be reissued?

SoCaliSooner
2/15/2011, 10:07 AM
I recall when John Kerry was running for prez he and his wife were out there championing the "we're wealthy but have NO problem paying more in taxes". Then when their returns were released they were paying at the 12.4% level..far below what most middle class were paying.

I think it was also mentioned she had 7 or 8 different accountants and attorneys specifically to help reduce their taxes.

Face it, nobody likes paying taxes, I just don't like people telling me we need to share the pain and raise them...while trying to get out of it.

pphilfran
2/15/2011, 10:17 AM
JK, you actually buy into the rhetoric that the Clinton tax increases were the cause of increased fed revenue?

Have you actually looks at where the Clinton revenue came from?

Multiple choice...

When Clinton pulled in 20.6% of GDP where did that revenue come from?

A. Increased revenue from personal income taxes due to the tax increase?
B. Increased revenue from corporate income taxes due to the tax increase?
C. Increased revenue from cap gains due to a booming stock market?

Hint: http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=161

pphilfran
2/15/2011, 10:20 AM
I recall when John Kerry was running for prez he and his wife were out there championing the "we're wealthy but have NO problem paying more in taxes". Then when their returns were released they were paying at the 12.4% level..far below what most middle class were paying.

I think it was also mentioned she had 7 or 8 different accountants and attorneys specifically to help reduce their taxes.

Face it, nobody likes paying taxes, I just don't like people telling me we need to share the pain and raise them...while trying to get out of it.


Our tax system is a joke....it is so complicated and convoluted that we spent 10's of billions of dollars a year having our taxes done by experts or software...

Many votes were purchased with the building or our current tax code...

delhalew
2/15/2011, 10:31 AM
Ah, I missed it. I will post over there.

Well, it is understandable to have made that mistake. It gets a little confusing when a newly elected congress is trying to finalize a budget that was supposed to be done by the previous congress. Thank god, they didn't do their job.

Phil thread doesn't actually say, Obama's proposed 2012 budget. But the thread is there...and yes, it is a bad joke.

JohnnyMack
2/15/2011, 10:47 AM
And why was the federal government established in the first place?

Thats right, to provide for the general defense of the states!

General Defense does not equal Nation Building.

OUMallen
2/15/2011, 10:48 AM
Interesting question begged by the initial post:

Repubs or Dems or whatevers- how much tax would you feel comfortable voluntarily paying?

Jammin'
2/15/2011, 10:52 AM
Interesting question begged by the initial post:

Repubs or Dems or whatevers- how much tax would you feel comfortable voluntarily paying?

24% (ish) for all.

done.

DIB
2/15/2011, 10:56 AM
Interesting question begged by the initial post:

Repubs or Dems or whatevers- how much tax would you feel comfortable voluntarily paying?

10%

OutlandTrophy
2/15/2011, 10:58 AM
15% max if no deductions

pphilfran
2/15/2011, 11:00 AM
Obama cuts defense spending by 90 billion dollars by 2015...

Interest on the debt increases by 356 billion in the same time frame...up to 562 billion...

Midtowner
2/15/2011, 11:04 AM
Whenever I see a post holding up one political party as being the paragons and champions of chastity and virtue while the other party is relegated to the status of villain, I assume (correctly) one of two possibilities:

1) The person is joking. Clearly no one could be that stupid.
2) Sentence two of the above numbered statement is wrong.

The solution to our problems right now has not been proposed by either party. Outside of solutions championed by the likes of Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul, which are unpalatable for various reasons for all but the political extremists, the political establishment has offered pedestrian stopgaps which aren't aimed at solving anything and aren't even really aimed at buying more time. What we get are these measures which are really nothing more than mildly psychologically palliative measures for whichever of the partisan koolaid drinkers happen to have their guys in power.

It's all pretty depressing. The voters are easily misled. Facts don't matter. Confirmation bias reigns supreme. When you have members of Congress who believe in a 6,000-year-old Earth and that Jesus rode around on dinosaurs or that the government can spend and spend and spend and spend without any eventual consequences, what hope is there for us lowly plebians?

okie52
2/15/2011, 11:04 AM
Obama cuts defense spending by 90 billion dollars by 2015...

Interest on the debt increases by 356 billion in the same time frame...up to 562 billion...

Are there any projected cost savings from wars in Iraq and Afghanistan winding down included in the budget?

pphilfran
2/15/2011, 11:08 AM
Total US wages are somewhere around 7.5 trillion dollars...(300 million pop at 25k per capita income)

Current revenue is about 2.1 trillion...

It will take about 30% federal at current spending levels...

Position Limit
2/15/2011, 11:10 AM
i always find it amusing when 35k a year W2 republicans offer opinions on taxes.

jkjsooner
2/15/2011, 11:10 AM
What the f does Bush have to do with it? Is he currently in office? Can he currently make policy?

It is relevant when discussing the hypocrisy of the Republican congress who seemed all to happy to increase the deficit while Bush was in office.


Obama did nothing to attack the vast majority of the deficit...SS? Medicare? Real cuts to the military complex?

Let's be honest here. I don't see any administration making cuts to any of these things.


Cut oil, gas, and coal subsidies that will increase our costs...

So you are in favor of the government meddling in private industry?


What is going to happen to debt servicing when interest rates climb and the current short term debt needs to be reissued?

I agree. We're in deep trouble. My post was asking for fairness from the Republican congress. I don't mind general criticism of the budget but when some act as if everything was fine a few years ago and all of a sudden Obama has to make drastic change it screams of hypocrisy.

pphilfran
2/15/2011, 11:11 AM
Are there any projected cost savings from wars in Iraq and Afghanistan winding down included in the budget?

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals/

Table 3.2

No specific breakdown that I can find at the current time...

Midtowner
2/15/2011, 11:12 AM
If the gov't wanted to force its hand at making fiscal conservatism popular, perhaps a Constitutional Amendment requiring that tax revenue = government spending [including debt service] would be in order?

Just imagine the wailing and gnashing of teeth which would issue from the client industries of the government if something like that were to happen.

Suddenly, fiscal Conservatism would equate to Nazism.

okie52
2/15/2011, 11:13 AM
Whenever I see a post holding up one political party as being the paragons and champions of chastity and virtue while the other party is relegated to the status of villain, I assume (correctly) one of two possibilities:

1) The person is joking. Clearly no one could be that stupid.
2) Sentence two of the above numbered statement is wrong.

The solution to our problems right now has not been proposed by either party. Outside of solutions championed by the likes of Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul, which are unpalatable for various reasons for all but the political extremists, the political establishment has offered pedestrian stopgaps which aren't aimed at solving anything and aren't even really aimed at buying more time. What we get are these measures which are really nothing more than mildly psychologically palliative measures for whichever of the partisan koolaid drinkers happen to have their guys in power.

It's all pretty depressing. The voters are easily misled. Facts don't matter. Confirmation bias reigns supreme. When you have members of Congress who believe in a 6,000-year-old Earth and that Jesus rode around on dinosaurs or that the government can spend and spend and spend and spend without any eventual consequences, what hope is there for us lowly plebians?

People elect these idiots. How can anyone top the island capsizer who was handily re-elected after his statement?

I'd put proponents of ethanol right up there with these buffoons.

The problem for voters is they may be faced with an advocate of ethanol vs a young earth person. I'd say some vote insanely because of their religious beliefs except that to many their party has become their religion and offer just as stupid nonsense (if not moreso) as those that cling to some literal interpretation of the Bible.

jkjsooner
2/15/2011, 11:14 AM
JK, you actually buy into the rhetoric that the Clinton tax increases were the cause of increased fed revenue?

Have you actually looks at where the Clinton revenue came from?

Multiple choice...

When Clinton pulled in 20.6% of GDP where did that revenue come from?

A. Increased revenue from personal income taxes due to the tax increase?
B. Increased revenue from corporate income taxes due to the tax increase?
C. Increased revenue from cap gains due to a booming stock market?

Hint: http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=161

WTF does this have to do with anything?

DIB
2/15/2011, 11:14 AM
i always find it amusing when 35k a year W2 republicans offer opinions on taxes.

I don't fall in to either category, but I am curious about what is so amusing about a 35k a year republican offering opinions on taxes? Can only Democrats and rich Republicans have opinions on taxes?

okie52
2/15/2011, 11:14 AM
i always find it amusing when 35k a year W2 republicans offer opinions on taxes.

How many of them are your boss?

KABOOKIE
2/15/2011, 11:15 AM
i always find it amusing when 35k a year W2 republicans offer opinions on taxes.

It's no different than when all these 12K a year W2 democrats do the same.

But that also sheds light on the situation. 75% of nothing is still nothing.

pphilfran
2/15/2011, 11:16 AM
It is relevant when discussing the hypocrisy of the Republican congress who seemed all to happy to increase the deficit while Bush was in office.



Let's be honest here. I don't see any administration making cuts to any of these things.



So you are in favor of the government meddling in private industry?



I agree. We're in deep trouble. My post was asking for fairness from the Republican congress.

The best you have is my guy ain't worth a chit but he is still better than Bush...

I am sick of the focus on the past while decisions being made TODAY will impact our future much more than when Bush was in office...

I would hold you to higher esteem without the leftist anti Bush rhetoric...

As far as meddling in private business...what is our energy goal? The administrations is to get us off of CO2, no matter the cost....my goal is to get us off Mid East crude...many things could be put into place to help both situations but Obama and the left don't want to compromise on their CO2 stance....

okie52
2/15/2011, 11:16 AM
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals/

Table 3.2

No specific breakdown that I can find at the current time...

Aren't all US troops supposed to be out of Iraq by the end of 2012?

pphilfran
2/15/2011, 11:18 AM
WTF does this have to do with anything?

You were bashing Bush for eliminating the Clinton tax increases and believe that those tax cuts created the increased deficit...while in fact that tax increase/cut did little or nothing to help/hurt revenue....

pphilfran
2/15/2011, 11:19 AM
Aren't all US troops supposed to be out of Iraq by the end of 2012?

That is the rumor...

jkjsooner
2/15/2011, 11:24 AM
Interesting question begged by the initial post:

Repubs or Dems or whatevers- how much tax would you feel comfortable voluntarily paying?

I'm willing to pay my part to help out our financial situation. I'm not willing to "voluntarily" pay anything. I'm not going to sit back and allow others to skirt their responsibilities. That's why the original post in this thread is absurd. I'm not going to pay 10% more than my neighbor out of goodwill.

jkjsooner
2/15/2011, 11:26 AM
The best you have is my guy ain't worth a chit but he is still better than Bush...



That is not at all what I am saying. I'm saying the Republican congress does not have the moral authority to act as they are acting. There is a distinct difference in these two stances.

pphilfran
2/15/2011, 11:30 AM
I wouldn't have as big a problem cutting oil/gas/coal subsidies if it didn't cost me an arm and a leg...

Those cuts will cause our energy prices to increase in the future...our leadership in their infinite wisdom is just going to blow that saved money in other areas and not lower overall spending...

In summary: my energy costs will go up and my taxes will not go down...

Sounds like a screwing to me...

Midtowner
2/15/2011, 11:30 AM
People elect these idiots. How can anyone top the island capsizer who was handily re-elected after his statement?

I'd put proponents of ethanol right up there with these buffoons.

The problem for voters is they may be faced with an advocate of ethanol vs a young earth person. I'd say some vote insanely because of their religious beliefs except that to many their party has become their religion and offer just as stupid nonsense (if not moreso) as those that cling to some literal interpretation of the Bible.

I suppose I wasn't clear.

The issue here is that the American people by and large shouldn't be allowed to vote. If they are unable to process facts and information (all since the Internet coming into being are easily available) to arrive at obvious conclusions, then there's really no hope.

I equally condemn proponents of ethanol, deregulation of the stock markets, young-Earthers, etc., because all of those concepts have been shown through either science or practice to be DOA. Yet confirmation bias leads some people to seek out a news source which they think they disagree with, which they will listen to uncritically. That source may be the editorial page of the Huffington Post or it may be Glenn Beck. Either way, folks lack the critical thinking skills to separate the wheat from the chaff.

Case in point, here in Oklahoma, we are going to be implementing a number of tort reform measures. What? Tort reform!? That's good, right?

Wrong.

Instead of allowing juries to decide things, we are placing damage awards in the hands of insurance industry lobbyists.

One of these tort reform measures, which will be one of the first things Gov. Fallin signs will have this effect: Say a doctor kills your wife in surgery because they choose to do open-heart surgery while they are still drunk from the previous night's partying. Your significant other had the foresight to carry a $500,000 life insurance policy, plus there will be an award of social security and such. The insurance company, which only has hard caps of $250K in punitive damages to worry about, offers you $500K in actuals and $250K in punitive damages, which again, because of tort reform is all you can get (and it's unlikely they'd offer that, but as you can imagine, that's probably not enough to compensate you for your injury, even if it is a best case scenario). You accept the offer.

The insurance company writes you a check for $175K and they're off the hook. You see, under new Oklahoma law, because your wife had the foresight and responsibility to plan for her family in the event of her untimely demise, the insurance company will now get to count her life insurance award against their liability as an offset, effectively making the liability insurance carrier of the person who killed your wife the beneficiary of her insurance policy! Further, they will get to count the money which you will receive from social security against the final award.

That takes a little explaining to do, but I'm sure you're convinced that this is a bad thing. But tort reform is good, right?

Sometimes all it takes is knowing what words mean to change ones mind... yet so few of us go out of our way to even find out what the words our politicians are using, which may significantly impact our lives, mean. That's probably a bad thing.

pphilfran
2/15/2011, 11:32 AM
That is not at all what I am saying. I'm saying the Republican congress does not have the moral authority to act as they are acting. There is a distinct difference in these two stances.

I don't give a chit what anyone thought or did yesterday....

It is tomorrow that should be our priority...if somebody wants to get on board than fine by me...

My Opinion Matters
2/15/2011, 11:36 AM
Why stop there? How about free train rides for all non-Republicans to some type of "work camp", so they could be labeled, tracked, studied and "concentrated" into one convenient location? They would be so much less problematic that way.

WHITE "MIDDLE CLASS" AMERICAN NATIONALISM! **** YEAH!

TUSooner
2/15/2011, 11:38 AM
I don't know how I can still be amazed at the simplistic, childish, extreme, backward, narrow, thoughtless, and venomous political posts on the SO.
But I am. :( <shakes head sadly>

(And I only read the original post in this thread!)

Position Limit
2/15/2011, 11:38 AM
spending should be cut. homeownership and children should'nt be subsidized.

pphilfran
2/15/2011, 11:39 AM
During his press conference Obama just showed how far out of touch he is with reality...

He was talking about the 5 billion in incentives to the oil/gas/coal industries...

He said that when crude spiked we needed to subsidize the industry to spur growth to lower prices...now that prices are somewhat stabilized today we don't need those subsidies...IF prices spike again we can add the subsidies back into the budget...

He must think the oil industry is "shovel ready"...toss a few bucks out there and next week we will see more crude being produced..he is looking at a long term industry as a short term industry...

It takes a decade to get new fields on line...

And I also like the "IF crude prices spike again"......

3rdgensooner
2/15/2011, 11:39 AM
I don't know how I can still be amazed at the simplistic, childish, extreme, backward, narrow, thoughtless, and venomous political posts on the SO.
I really do need to stop reading these threads.

pphilfran
2/15/2011, 11:41 AM
spending should be cut. homeownership and children should'nt be subsidized.


I can go with limited tax deductions...250k-500k or less in home value/loan and you get a tax break...

I agree with the child deductions being eliminated...Okie will chime in on this one...

pphilfran
2/15/2011, 11:42 AM
I really do need to stop reading these threads.

Treat it like a Stephen King horror novel...

sappstuf
2/15/2011, 11:47 AM
How many of them are your boss?

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_wNJtF1XNe8Y/S13sdXNJipI/AAAAAAAABys/TaEgm_mHkYg/s400/rim-shot-.jpg

Position Limit
2/15/2011, 11:49 AM
I can go with limited tax deductions...250k-500k or less in home value/loan and you get a tax break...

I agree with the child deductions being eliminated...Okie will chime in on this one...

why should any tax break be awarded for any home value? it's a scam created 30 years ago to spur collateralized mortgage backed securities. why go on rewarding it? get rid of it and the non existant bond vigilantes would keep hiding.

having children should mos def be taxed. the current policy is wrong on so many levels.

okie52
2/15/2011, 11:52 AM
I suppose I wasn't clear.

The issue here is that the American people by and large shouldn't be allowed to vote. If they are unable to process facts and information (all since the Internet coming into being are easily available) to arrive at obvious conclusions, then there's really no hope.

I equally condemn proponents of ethanol, deregulation of the stock markets, young-Earthers, etc., because all of those concepts have been shown through either science or practice to be DOA. Yet confirmation bias leads some people to seek out a news source which they think they disagree with, which they will listen to uncritically. That source may be the editorial page of the Huffington Post or it may be Glenn Beck. Either way, folks lack the critical thinking skills to separate the wheat from the chaff.

Case in point, here in Oklahoma, we are going to be implementing a number of tort reform measures. What? Tort reform!? That's good, right?

Wrong.

Instead of allowing juries to decide things, we are placing damage awards in the hands of insurance industry lobbyists.

One of these tort reform measures, which will be one of the first things Gov. Fallin signs will have this effect: Say a doctor kills your wife in surgery because they choose to do open-heart surgery while they are still drunk from the previous night's partying. Your significant other had the foresight to carry a $500,000 life insurance policy, plus there will be an award of social security and such. The insurance company, which only has hard caps of $250K in punitive damages to worry about, offers you $500K in actuals and $250K in punitive damages, which again, because of tort reform is all you can get (and it's unlikely they'd offer that, but as you can imagine, that's probably not enough to compensate you for your injury, even if it is a best case scenario). You accept the offer.

The insurance company writes you a check for $175K and they're off the hook. You see, under new Oklahoma law, because your wife had the foresight and responsibility to plan for her family in the event of her untimely demise, the insurance company will now get to count her life insurance award against their liability as an offset, effectively making the liability insurance carrier of the person who killed your wife the beneficiary of her insurance policy! Further, they will get to count the money which you will receive from social security against the final award.

That takes a little explaining to do, but I'm sure you're convinced that this is a bad thing. But tort reform is good, right?

Sometimes all it takes is knowing what words mean to change ones mind... yet so few of us go out of our way to even find out what the words our politicians are using, which may significantly impact our lives, mean. That's probably a bad thing.

I hadn't heard about this tort reform measure, particularly the way you described its possible ramifications. No way should anyone's own insurance diminish someone else's liability.

Of course, like just about everything, there are 2 sides to that coin.

Take for instance uninsured motorist in OK. Now policies can be pretty specific about coverage and in this case about 15-16 years ago a major carrier in OK had UM coverage at 10/20 on a particular individual's car. The individual owned 4 cars with this carrier and each car specifically had 10/20 UM. Well, an aggressive attorney decided that his client was due more than just 10/20 so he demanded that the 4 policies be "stacked" and thereby create a UM coverage of $40/80 even though the policy and the rates were expressly stating 10/20 for a vehicle. Guess what? He won and OK's UM rates have suffered ever since that hairbrained decision.

Not only that but then the OK legislature made it mandatory that for insurance companies to offer UM coverage every time a new car was added to a policy or a new policy was written. Doesn't sound bad, right? Just looking out for the consumer's interest by our good ole state legislature made up of fine attorneys. Except that in the absence of a form being signed by the insured declining UM the insurance carrier was forced to pay as though he did have coverage....right up to limits equal to his liability limits. Now here is the kicker...the insurance companies had no power to make the insured sign a waiver of UM and, according to our attorneys, if we automatically put UM on the policy for the insured without his authorization we could face "bad faith", which I am sure you are aware could result in a payment equal to many times what the UM coverage could have cost. But, hey, its the insurance companies that are the bad guys and the "attorneys" are the men of honor.

In the end the consumer's pay for this nonsense, one way or the other.

pphilfran
2/15/2011, 11:52 AM
why should any tax break be awarded for any home value? it's a scam created 30 years ago to spur collateralized mortgage backed securities. why go on rewarding it? get rid of it and the non existant bond vigilantes would keep hiding.

having children should mos def be taxed. the current policy is wrong on so many levels.


Total elimination of the mortgage credit would create Round 2 of the housing crash...

You could phase it out slowly over 20 or 30 years...

Midtowner
2/15/2011, 12:00 PM
I hadn't heard about this tort reform measure, particularly the way you described its possible ramifications. No way should anyone's own insurance diminish someone else's liability.

Of course, like just about everything, there are 2 sides to that coin.

Take for instance uninsured motorist in OK. Now policies can be pretty specific about coverage and in this case about 15-16 years ago a major carrier in OK had UM coverage at 10/20 on a particular individual's car. The individual owned 4 cars with this carrier and each car specifically had 10/20 UM. Well, an aggressive attorney decided that his client was due more than just 10/20 so he demanded that the 4 policies be "stacked" and thereby create a UM coverage of $40/80 even though the policy and the rates were expressly stating 10/20 for a vehicle. Guess what? He won and OK's UM rates have suffered ever since that hairbrained decision.

Not only that but then the OK legislature made it mandatory that for insurance companies to offer UM coverage every time a new car was added to a policy or a new policy was written. Doesn't sound bad, right? Just looking out for the consumer's interest by our good ole state legislature made up of fine attorneys. Except that in the absence of a form being signed by the insured declining UM the insurance carrier was forced to pay as though he did have coverage....right up to limits equal to his liability limits. Now here is the kicker...the insurance companies had no power to make the insured sign a waiver of UM and, according to our attorneys, if we automatically put UM on the policy for the insured without his authorization we could face "bad faith", which I am sure you are aware could result in a payment equal to many times what the UM coverage could have cost. But, hey, its the insurance companies that are the bad guys and the "attorneys" are the men of honor.

In the end the consumer's pay for this nonsense, one way or the other.

There's a rule of contract construction employed as a matter of case law against insurers--that everything should be construed against the insurer. I suppose in a sense, that is probably a good thing. People are compensated for their injuries. I suppose in a sense, it's probably better to leave a multibillion dollar company holding the bag (usually a pretty small bag for them) instead of a person who was injured by the negligence (at least) of the insurer's insured. Not to mention, getting insurance companies to pay keeps their insured people from being sued and keeps the courts less congested, and lets folks get on with their lives following tragedies.

It is a safe assumption that the multi-billion dollar industry will always have more and better lawyers, and more and better resources. Why shouldn't the law handicap the match in court just to make it a little more fair?

If insurers would deal fairly with people, attorneys would not be necessary. And really, it is pretty common knowledge that the provisions of insurance contracts are construed in a certain way. Surely, with the high-dollar talent these insurance companies have at their disposal, they could foresee these issues and dispose of them?

sappstuf
2/15/2011, 12:06 PM
That is not at all what I am saying. I'm saying the Republican congress does not have the moral authority to act as they are acting. There is a distinct difference in these two stances.

I don't think you are comprehending how much spending has increased under Obama. I don't blame you, it is hard to understand.

Bush's last budget was 2008. It should have been 2009, but the Dems in Congress just didn't pass a budget until Obama came into office so they could stuff everything they wanted to into it, but that is off topic.

Bush's last budget included expenditures of $2.9 trillion.
Obama's proposed budget for FY2012 is $3.73 trillion.

Almost a trillion dollars more in spending annually. That has nothing to do with revenue, just spending.

So if you want to hit Bush and Repubs on not cutting spending fine.. Just as long as you understand that if Obama cut the average of all of Bush's eight annual deficits from Obama's proposed FY2012 budget that Obama would STILL have a $1 trillion deficit on top of that.

In other words, you cannot even compare the spending levels of Bush and Obama.

Position Limit
2/15/2011, 12:10 PM
Total elimination of the mortgage credit would create Round 2 of the housing crash...

You could phase it out slowly over 20 or 30 years...

good lord, since when is finding intrinsic value a bad thing? the "housing crash", whatever that means, was created by unstandardized packaging of crappy mortgages and false credit ratings. well that and the ability for banks to mark theirs product where the wanted. elimination of the deduction would be one step closer to value.

okie52
2/15/2011, 12:10 PM
There's a rule of contract construction employed as a matter of case law against insurers--that everything should be construed against the insurer. I suppose in a sense, that is probably a good thing. People are compensated for their injuries. I suppose in a sense, it's probably better to leave a multibillion dollar company holding the bag (usually a pretty small bag for them) instead of a person who was injured by the negligence (at least) of the insurer's insured. Not to mention, getting insurance companies to pay keeps their insured people from being sued and keeps the courts less congested, and lets folks get on with their lives following tragedies.

It is a safe assumption that the multi-billion dollar industry will always have more and better lawyers, and more and better resources. Why shouldn't the law handicap the match in court just to make it a little more fair?

If insurers would deal fairly with people, attorneys would not be necessary. And really, it is pretty common knowledge that the provisions of insurance contracts are construed in a certain way. Surely, with the high-dollar talent these insurance companies have at their disposal, they could foresee these issues and dispose of them?

Please, don't act like the trial lawyers are some noble defender of the poor and helpless. They are no better than the insurers when money is involved.
They want their share and they don't care about the impact of a decision on the consumers beyond their contingency fees. They could care less about an innocent person being restored to whole hence they adamantly oppose
"loser pays". But, we've already had this discussion and we didn't see eye to eye then and we obviously don't now...other than I agree with your position about tort reform not diminishing someone's damages award based on his own insurance coverage.

bigfatjerk
2/15/2011, 12:11 PM
The budget that Obama just came up with would add 7 trillion dollars to the debt over the next decade and that is only if we have 5% economic growth every year. If it's the same type percentage we've had over the last few years which is around 2% it'll be well over 10 trillion dollars.

Until we have a national leader that will actually lead in areas of entitlement reform we will not even touch much of the budget. Even if we try to go after military spending. Because if we get rid of the military we will still have entitlement issues to deal with.

SouthCarolinaSooner
2/15/2011, 12:11 PM
That is the rumor...
Also heard we were going to be out of Germany in 47 and Korea in 55

okie52
2/15/2011, 12:16 PM
Also heard we were going to be out of Germany in 47 and Korea in 55

I'm for those withdrawals, too, but I would like to know what benefit we are getting from those deployments beyond "location". Does this help our trade, influence, etc...by having bases there (Japan, too)?

Europe, Japan and S Korea can definitely take of themselves so there must be some added value for these locations and the costs we incur to keep our troops there. Otherwise, they make absolutely no sense.

delhalew
2/15/2011, 12:19 PM
During his press conference Obama just showed how far out of touch he is with reality...

He was talking about the 5 billion in incentives to the oil/gas/coal industries...

He said that when crude spiked we needed to subsidize the industry to spur growth to lower prices...now that prices are somewhat stabilized today we don't need those subsidies...IF prices spike again we can add the subsidies back into the budget...

He must think the oil industry is "shovel ready"...toss a few bucks out there and next week we will see more crude being produced..he is looking at a long term industry as a short term industry...

It takes a decade to get new fields on line...

And I also like the "IF crude prices spike again"......

That was really something. I give the guy credit for still being able to drop my jaw with his distance from reality two years into this adventure.

sappstuf
2/15/2011, 12:21 PM
I'm for those withdrawals, too, but I would like to know what benefit we are getting from those deployments beyond "location". Does this help our trade, influence, etc...by having bases there (Japan, too)?

Europe, Japan and S Korea can definitely take of themselves so there must be some added value for these locations and the costs we incur to keep our troops there. Otherwise, they make absolutely no sense.

The nightlife is great..

bigfatjerk
2/15/2011, 12:25 PM
I'm for those withdrawals, too, but I would like to know what benefit we are getting from those deployments beyond "location". Does this help our trade, influence, etc...by having bases there (Japan, too)?

Europe, Japan and S Korea can definitely take of themselves so there must be some added value for these locations and the costs we incur to keep our troops there. Otherwise, they make absolutely no sense.

I can understand a little with South Korea. The other 2 make no real sense to me. Especially with the numbers we have there. I barely understand why we are still in Afghanistan anymore though.

sappstuf
2/15/2011, 12:31 PM
During his press conference Obama just showed how far out of touch he is with reality...

He was talking about the 5 billion in incentives to the oil/gas/coal industries...

He said that when crude spiked we needed to subsidize the industry to spur growth to lower prices...now that prices are somewhat stabilized today we don't need those subsidies...IF prices spike again we can add the subsidies back into the budget...

He must think the oil industry is "shovel ready"...toss a few bucks out there and next week we will see more crude being produced..he is looking at a long term industry as a short term industry...

It takes a decade to get new fields on line...

And I also like the "IF crude prices spike again"......


I heard just a small part.. He was talking about the Pell Grant.

He said that he has exanded the Pell Grant to millions more people and has increased the size of the grant to each person. But then he said that he has cut spending in relation to the Pell Grant.

He has obviously been snorting too much pixie dust...

okie52
2/15/2011, 12:37 PM
The nightlife is great..

;)

PDXsooner
2/15/2011, 12:42 PM
the blatantly off-target interpretation of liberal ideology on this board is absolutely comical at times.

delhalew
2/15/2011, 12:43 PM
I can understand a little with South Korea. The other 2 make no real sense to me. Especially with the numbers we have there. I barely understand why we are still in Afghanistan anymore though.

Our treaty with S Korea is different than most.

I was intrigued by something that clown Trump said last night. With the amount of money S Korea makes selling us tvs and cars, while we are excluded from exporting to them, they should pay us protection money.

That is not workable without breaking our word, but interesting just the same.

okie52
2/15/2011, 12:49 PM
the blatantly off-target interpretation of liberal ideology on this board is absolutely comical at times.

Please remove the comedy and explain it to us.

DIB
2/15/2011, 12:49 PM
the blatantly off-target interpretation of liberal ideology on this board is absolutely comical at times.


the blatantly off-target interpretation of conservative ideology on this board is absolutely comical at times.


the blatantly off-target interpretation of libertarian ideology on this board is absolutely comical at times.


the blatantly off-target interpretation of socialist ideology on this board is absolutely comical at times.


the blatantly off-target interpretation of tea party ideology on this board is absolutely comical at times.


the blatantly off-target interpretation of every ideology on this board is absolutely comical at times.

I agree.

jkjsooner
2/15/2011, 01:06 PM
I don't give a chit what anyone thought or did yesterday....

It is tomorrow that should be our priority...if somebody wants to get on board than fine by me...

I didn't ask you to give a chit. I made a statement that some in congress are being hypocrites. I also said we have more work to do with budget cuts. If you didn't care about the first statement then you shouldn't have addressed it.

Bourbon St Sooner
2/15/2011, 01:18 PM
If this thread doesn't get to 10 pages and have multiple Hitler references, I'll be disappointed.

MamaMia
2/15/2011, 01:25 PM
I'm a Conservative. Thats means I'm against pork, government waste, and politicians doing people favors to get reelected with our money. I'm not real happy with either parties performance over the last two decades. It does look however that the Republicans learned their lesson about spending and are at least making an effort, however too late.

If they cant get their business together and cut this out of control spending, then its okay by me if the government shuts down in May.

AlboSooner
2/15/2011, 01:27 PM
Are you a republican?

I think this country should identify every single republican, registered or not, and then have their taxes raised to 75% with no allowable tax deductions.

After all, its the republicans that want the government to fight every war without being concerned about the debt, the gov't is going to need a lot more financial help.

I've always thought you were a true conservative (whatever that means). Kudos to you for staying true to your principles regardless of party creed.

jkjsooner
2/15/2011, 01:28 PM
Total elimination of the mortgage credit would create Round 2 of the housing crash...

You could phase it out slowly over 20 or 30 years...

I agree. While I'm a strong believer that the housing market still has a sizeable correction left, I don't think now would be the time to eliminate the mortgage interest deduction.

We never should have subsidized housing in the first place but once we did it the subsidy got rolled into the value of the house - and thus we really didn't make home ownership more affordable. We merely transferred wealth from new buyers to those who already owned.

As for child tax credit, well, I don't qualify which was news to me the first time I did taxes after my son was born. I agree to an extent but we need to be careful that we don't fall into the trap that Japan is now in. Too little growth can be a problem.

We have a problem right now that those with means are not having kids (due to financial considerations) and those without means are having kids. I strongly believe that the poor (as a whole) don't consider financial issues when having children and the middle and upper class do. I'd be hesitant to give those with means even less of an incentive to have children.

Position Limit
2/15/2011, 01:36 PM
I'm a Conservative. Thats means I'm against pork, government waste, and politicians doing people favors to get reelected with our money. I'm not real happy with either parties performance over the last two decades. It does look however that the Republicans learned their lesson about spending and are at least making an effort, however too late.

If they cant get their business together and cut this out of control spending, then its okay by me if the government shuts down in May.

how noble of you. it's truely a sacrifice to be against pork and gov waste and politicans being politicans. conservatives truely have this figured out!!!

treasury markets disagree with you on out of control spending.

Bourbon St Sooner
2/15/2011, 01:40 PM
having children should mos def be taxed. the current policy is wrong on so many levels.

Why do you hate Social Security?

SCOUT
2/15/2011, 01:50 PM
I agree. While I'm a strong believer that the housing market still has a sizeable correction left, I don't think now would be the time to eliminate the mortgage interest deduction.

We never should have subsidized housing in the first place but once we did it the subsidy got rolled into the value of the house - and thus we really didn't make home ownership more affordable. We merely transferred wealth from new buyers to those who already owned.


You should post in the SS thread. You could keep the same basic argument and only have to change a couple of words.

IndySooner
2/15/2011, 01:50 PM
We have a problem right now that those with means are not having kids (due to financial considerations) and those without means are having kids. I strongly believe that the poor (as a whole) don't consider financial issues when having children and the middle and upper class do. I'd be hesitant to give those with means even less of an incentive to have children.

This is SO true.

I'm registered a democrat, but I consider myself VERY independent and would prefer that a party would emerge that thought like NORMAL EVERYDAY AMERICANS!

Frankly, I think the Tea Party was an example of this, though WAY too far right for my liking. Then it got hung up with funding from the Republicans and completely lost its way.

MamaMia
2/15/2011, 02:02 PM
how noble of you. it's truely a sacrifice to be against pork and gov waste and politicans being politicans. conservatives truely have this figured out!!!

treasury markets disagree with you on out of control spending.

How naive of you to not know that the treasury market would take care of itself when and if both sides of the isle would stop the out of control spending. How on earth can you possibly think that spending money we don't have, printing cash and borrowing from China is a good thing?

Position Limit
2/15/2011, 02:11 PM
How naive of you to not know that the treasury market would take care of itself when and if both sides of the isle would stop the out of control spending. How on earth can you possibly think that spending money we don't have, printing cash and borrowing from China is a good thing?

why do you think the treasury markets are not currently taking care of itself? gov can borrow at very low rates. are markets locked up? if you want to argue about a credit bubble im willing to listen.

where did i say currency expansion was a good thing? i merely pointed out that the treasury markets are not implying the same amount of risk as you are.

MamaMia
2/15/2011, 02:45 PM
why do you think the treasury markets are not currently taking care of itself? gov can borrow at very low rates. are markets locked up? if you want to argue about a credit bubble im willing to listen.

where did i say currency expansion was a good thing? i merely pointed out that the treasury markets are not implying the same amount of risk as you are.

You brought up the treasury market. I didn't express my opinion about the present state of the treasury market one way or the other. In response to your comment I stated that "the treasury market would take care of itself when and if both sides of the isle would stop the out of control spending." You can assume whatever you like, however I'm not in the habit of making 'implications' on what others say. If I were, I could just as easily say that you are implying that the treasury market would go to hell in a hand basket if we weren't overspending, printing money and borrowing from China.

Position Limit
2/15/2011, 02:47 PM
do you feel dizzy?

MamaMia
2/15/2011, 02:51 PM
do you feel dizzy?Do you feel full?

bonkuba
2/15/2011, 02:56 PM
If I were a dim I would feel both full and dizzy :D

pphilfran
2/15/2011, 03:32 PM
I didn't ask you to give a chit. I made a statement that some in congress are being hypocrites. I also said we have more work to do with budget cuts. If you didn't care about the first statement then you shouldn't have addressed it.

It is this type attitude that is so pervasive in DC and has caused the gridlock we currently see from our leaders...

It is all about pointing fingers and looking for a scapegoat and not abouit having a common goal to achieve...

sooner59
2/15/2011, 03:47 PM
If any President gets into office and actually makes the necessary moves to right the ship, it will infuriate everyone....Dem, Pub, and everyone in between. They will be hated by all, including their own party. There will be massive movements calling for them to be impeached, then stoned to death on the White House lawn. Lots of people think they could do something in office only to find that the people don't want it fixed, because that would personally affect them negatively. There isn't a solution that makes everyone happy and fixes the problem. And politicians are just not willing to destroy their career/image to do what needs to be done.

So look for this to continue until someone dives on the grenade and takes one for the team....or more likely....there is a national crisis that changes the country forever because for several decades we refused to look at the balance on Uncle Sam's credit card statement and just kept paying the minimum and charging more because it was scary to look at and we are a growing family who is accustomed to a certain standard of living and not willing to cut back and face reality.

PDXsooner
2/15/2011, 03:58 PM
Please remove the comedy and explain it to us.

I don't have the desire or time to do that. However, there was a social psychologist on NPR earlier today, and he put it like this:

"People can spot information that supports their belief system hiding in a tree from 200 yards, but if it's dangling in their face and refutes their ideology, they won't see it."

The bottom line is, people believe what they want. It's human nature. They're going to twist and spin everything they read and hear to fit into their worldview.

There is no better shining example than here on Soonerfans. This is somewhat of a moral/tribal community where most of the people in this board are conservative and religious. Many of you come here because you share values with each other and you're constantly confirming and validating each other's beliefs.

And, FYI, plenty of the theories flung around here that garner plenty of support amount to no more than a heaping, shining mound of poop.

Midtowner
2/15/2011, 04:05 PM
Please, don't act like the trial lawyers are some noble defender of the poor and helpless. They are no better than the insurers when money is involved.

Is that so? Who is looking out for the best interest of the injured party? If it was the insurance company, lawyers would be totally unnecessary. And are lawyers always noble? Definitely not. But they are the only folks on the side of the injured parties, and the good ones represent their clients interests with zeal.


They want their share and they don't care about the impact of a decision on the consumers beyond their contingency fees.

Do you go to your job, do work and not get paid?

Do you go to your insurance job every day wanting to make sure that premium payers pay as little as possible? Please. Spare me.

Even in the states with the most draconian tort reform, insurance rates have climbed along with everyplace else. Just ask any medical professional in Texas.

If all of this was really for the benefit of insurance payers, small business, kittens, puppies, etc., then why not do what require the insurance companies to lower their rates if we're guaranteeing they're going to have smaller liabilities?

Not willing to do that? Why?


They could care less about an innocent person being restored to whole hence they adamantly oppose "loser pays". But, we've already had this discussion and we didn't see eye to eye then and we obviously don't now...other than I agree with your position about tort reform not diminishing someone's damages award based on his own insurance coverage.

Agree to disagree.

Loser pays is a great system if you have a 7-figure litigation budget.

Position Limit
2/15/2011, 04:09 PM
I don't have the desire or time to do that. However, there was a social psychologist on NPR earlier today, and he put it like this:

"People can spot information that supports their belief system hiding in a tree from 200 yards, but if it's dangling in their face and refutes their ideology, they won't see it."

The bottom line is, people believe what they want. It's human nature. They're going to twist and spin everything they read and hear to fit into their worldview.

There is no better shining example than here on Soonerfans. This is somewhat of a moral/tribal community where most of the people in this board are conservative and religious. Many of you come here because you share values with each other and you're constantly confirming and validating each other's beliefs.

And, FYI, plenty of the theories flung around here that garner plenty of support amount to no more than a heaping, shining mound of poop.


that sums it up nicely. it wouldnt be such a problem though if these worldviews were not so easily formed from talking points and unoriginal thought. these unsuspecting rubes are sold a crappy product and they dont know it. i feel sorry for them more than anything. the need to identify with such rubbish.

DIB
2/15/2011, 04:15 PM
And pretentious liberal dooshbaggery is so much better.

okie52
2/15/2011, 04:16 PM
I don't have the desire or time to do that. However, there was a social psychologist on NPR earlier today, and he put it like this:

"People can spot information that supports their belief system hiding in a tree from 200 yards, but if it's dangling in their face and refutes their ideology, they won't see it."

The bottom line is, people believe what they want. It's human nature. They're going to twist and spin everything they read and hear to fit into their worldview.

There is no better shining example than here on Soonerfans. This is somewhat of a moral/tribal community where most of the people in this board are conservative and religious. Many of you come here because you share values with each other and you're constantly confirming and validating each other's beliefs.

And, FYI, plenty of the theories flung around here that garner plenty of support amount to no more than a heaping, shining mound of poop.


Probably true to some degree, but
that's no different than a bunch of libs converging on a huffington post blog and validating the latest dogma thrown to the masses as conventional wisdom from their favorite lib (whomever that might be). Whereas many conservatives have religion, many libs ideology/party has become their religion which they embrace with the same blind loyalty and disregard for evidence to the contrary that is thought to solely be reserved for conservatives.

sappstuf
2/15/2011, 04:22 PM
Yeah. It is nice to live above the fray and cast judgment down on the mouthbreathers from afar without actually engaging in a debate.

REDREX
2/15/2011, 04:24 PM
England and most Western democracies seem to think the loser pays Tort system works quite well----Why not the USA?

okie52
2/15/2011, 04:25 PM
Is that so? Who is looking out for the best interest of the injured party? If it was the insurance company, lawyers would be totally unnecessary. And are lawyers always noble? Definitely not. But they are the only folks on the side of the injured parties, and the good ones represent their clients interests with zeal.

They are looking out for their client, not necessarily the innocent party. Certainly not the same thing.



Do you go to your job, do work and not get paid?

Do you go to your insurance job every day wanting to make sure that premium payers pay as little as possible? Please. Spare me.

Even in the states with the most draconian tort reform, insurance rates have climbed along with everyplace else. Just ask any medical professional in Texas.

If all of this was really for the benefit of insurance payers, small business, kittens, puppies, etc., then why not do what require the insurance companies to lower their rates if we're guaranteeing they're going to have smaller liabilities?

Not willing to do that? Why?

Most states regulate insurance companies much like utilities, rate hikes must be approved in OK by the Insurance Commissioner. Some states don't allow insurance carriers to make over 15% profit. If they do the rates have to be lowered and/or the excess profit has to be returned to the customer.Can the lawyers say that?



Agree to disagree.

Loser pays is a great system if you have a 7-figure litigation budget.

And, again, agree to disagree. Those noble lawyers can still file any case on their contingency basis...but an innocent party is going to be restored to whole unlike the current abomination we have now.

PDXsooner
2/15/2011, 04:26 PM
Probably true to some degree, but
that's no different than a bunch of libs converging on a huffington post blog and validating the latest dogma thrown to the masses as conventional wisdom from their favorite lib (whomever that might be). Whereas many conservatives have religion, many libs ideology/party has become their religion which they embrace with the same blind loyalty and disregard for evidence to the contrary that is thought to solely be reserved for conservatives.

It's human nature. I never said "libs" were better than whatever you call yourself. One thing I know is that actual productive discussion here doesn't ever last more than 3 or 4 posts before some ashole floats in on his parachute armed with meaningless nonsense and starts lobbing idiot grenades before the masses jump in and the carnage ensues.

okie52
2/15/2011, 04:27 PM
England and most Western democracies seem to think the loser pays Tort system works quite well----Why not the USA?

Cause we've got too many lawyers.

How ya doing Red!!!!

Sooner5030
2/15/2011, 04:28 PM
if our debt was allocated or apportioned (either flat or income weighted) and assigned by SSN to each citizen we'd have more voting participation and we'd all look at taxing and spending differently when it's not someone else's money. How'd you like to see a US debt balance owed on your credit report?

okie52
2/15/2011, 04:30 PM
It's human nature. I never said "libs" were better than whatever you call yourself. One thing I know is that actual productive discussion here doesn't ever last more than 3 or 4 posts before some ashole floats in on his parachute armed with meaningless nonsense and starts lobbing idiot grenades before the masses jump in and the carnage ensues.

Now that's pretty funny and very true.

As far as my political label I don't think I have one that fits very well. I'm all over the board.

REDREX
2/15/2011, 04:33 PM
Cause we've got too many lawyers.

How ya doing Red!!!!---Just enjoying the oil business--- a Law degree and being in the Oil business ----I am sure that many of the Liberals think I am worse than Hitler

okie52
2/15/2011, 04:35 PM
---Just enjoying the oil business--- a Law degree and being in the Oil business ----I am sure that many of the Liberals think I am worse than Hitler

:eek:

sappstuf
2/15/2011, 04:40 PM
Now that's pretty funny and very true.

As far as my political label I don't think I have one that fits very well. I'm all over the board.

Trebuchet Party??

http://www.bytelove.com/images/uploads/Gadgets/Toys/desktop_trebuchet_img1.jpg

SoonerBorn
2/15/2011, 04:44 PM
We have a problem right now that those with means are not having kids (due to financial considerations) and those without means are having kids.

Almost sounds like the plot to Idiocracy. Someone check Big Ben and see if it's blinking 12:00.

okie52
2/15/2011, 04:44 PM
Trebuchet Party??

http://www.bytelove.com/images/uploads/Gadgets/Toys/desktop_trebuchet_img1.jpg



I like that one. :D

Bourbon St Sooner
2/15/2011, 04:50 PM
why do you think the treasury markets are not currently taking care of itself? gov can borrow at very low rates. are markets locked up? if you want to argue about a credit bubble im willing to listen.

where did i say currency expansion was a good thing? i merely pointed out that the treasury markets are not implying the same amount of risk as you are.


Treasury Market? You mean the one that the Fed is manipulating by printing money and buying up bonds? We'll see what the market really thinks when the government manipulation ends. It will probably look a lot like the housing market.

Sooner5030
2/15/2011, 04:59 PM
Many of us who have been frustrated for so long have been finding ways to "opt out" of the crazy system we have. There are plenty of legal ways to lower your income, live a more simple life and increase you ability to be self-sufficient and less dependent on the system. Starve the f'ing beast!

Use linux, grow your food, use pre-paid cell phones. Stop letting the leach society, high caste plutocracy and large corporations bend you over......also don;t save in $......the gubment is stealing your wealth with each new FRN printed.

pphilfran
2/15/2011, 05:09 PM
I like that one. :D

I could manufacture it...

okie52
2/15/2011, 05:14 PM
I could manufacture it...

I still have your prototype on display.

SpankyNek
2/15/2011, 05:18 PM
Interesting question begged by the initial post:

Repubs or Dems or whatevers- how much tax would you feel comfortable voluntarily paying?

I would feel comfortable paying any amount that still allowed my family to live in comfort...it's a perk of the dice coming up "American Citizen"

EnragedOUfan
2/15/2011, 05:24 PM
I'm a Democrat.....

More of a Conservative Democrat because I'm all for the death penalty and owning guns. My Democratness comes from my sense that I feel we must protect the environment and not let our children inhale toxic sh%t just because we're scared on how many jobs we will lose. Or stay away from recycling because its brainwashed into our heads that its pointless.....

One thing I do know after living in Deutschland for 4 years is that Americans don't know crap about high taxes..........

Germans pay 46-51% in taxes. In Germany, there's a 19% sale tax figured into the prices of all consumer items. In Germany, you have to pay a tax on how many televisions you own in your home.

So when I hear people crying about a 1 or 2 percent tax increase, or when I hear people crying about how wrong it is make the Bill Gateses and Donald Trumpses pay higher taxes (Republicans), it irritates the heck out of me because people don't have a clue.

Sooner5030
2/15/2011, 05:29 PM
So when I hear people crying about a 1 or 2 percent tax increase, or when I hear people crying about how wrong it is make the Bill Gateses and Donald Trumpses pay higher taxes (Republicans), it irritates the heck out of me because people don't have a clue.

It's not about having a clue......more about the way in which you prefer to be governed. Plenty of folks across the political spectrum have a "clue" or are highly intelligent. They just have a different idea/wish on how to be governed.

okie52
2/15/2011, 05:39 PM
I'm a Democrat.....

More of a Conservative Democrat because I'm all for the death penalty and owning guns. My Democratness comes from my sense that I feel we must protect the environment and not let our children inhale toxic sh%t just because we're scared on how many jobs we will lose. Or stay away from recycling because its brainwashed into our heads that its pointless.....

One thing I do know after living in Deutschland for 4 years is that Americans don't know crap about high taxes..........

Germans pay 46-51% in taxes. In Germany, there's a 19% sale tax figured into the prices of all consumer items. In Germany, you have to pay a tax on how many televisions you own in your home.

So when I hear people crying about a 1 or 2 percent tax increase, or when I hear people crying about how wrong it is make the Bill Gateses and Donald Trumpses pay higher taxes (Republicans), it irritates the heck out of me because people don't have a clue.

So you agree with the German rate of taxation?

GrapevineSooner
2/15/2011, 05:41 PM
To me, it's not so much about the taxation as it is the spending.

Which I simply don't believe is sustainable.

C&CDean
2/15/2011, 05:52 PM
the blatantly off-target interpretation of liberal ideology on this board is absolutely comical at times.

Says Mr. 6'10" Yankee (or was it Red Sox - meh, who cares, they both suck) Oregonian humper. To you, the word "liberal" is pretty much = God. Again, meh. You're way too extreme for this thread.

C&CDean
2/15/2011, 05:54 PM
I'm a Democrat.....

More of a Conservative Democrat because I'm all for the death penalty and owning guns. My Democratness comes from my sense that I feel we must protect the environment and not let our children inhale toxic sh%t just because we're scared on how many jobs we will lose. Or stay away from recycling because its brainwashed into our heads that its pointless.....

One thing I do know after living in Deutschland for 4 years is that Americans don't know crap about high taxes..........

Germans pay 46-51% in taxes. In Germany, there's a 19% sale tax figured into the prices of all consumer items. In Germany, you have to pay a tax on how many televisions you own in your home.

So when I hear people crying about a 1 or 2 percent tax increase, or when I hear people crying about how wrong it is make the Bill Gateses and Donald Trumpses pay higher taxes (Republicans), it irritates the heck out of me because people don't have a clue.

Oh. So we should just follow the krauts' lead and everybody pays fiddy %? C'mon Man!..that's why we're Americans. We'll find every ****ing way we can to cheat the man on our taxes. Hell, it's the American way.

C&CDean
2/15/2011, 05:55 PM
Oh yeah, I almost forgot. Buy a farm. It makes the whole April 15th thing much more palatable. YWIA.

Midtowner
2/15/2011, 06:01 PM
And, again, agree to disagree. Those noble lawyers can still file any case on their contingency basis...but an innocent party is going to be restored to whole unlike the current abomination we have now.

And why on Earth would I file a case knowing I would lose?

Again, do you like to go to work and not get paid?

pphilfran
2/15/2011, 06:05 PM
And why on Earth would I file a case knowing I would lose?

Again, do you like to go to work and not get paid?

I usually stay out of discussions when Midtowner is involved...I will toss in my two cents and the stfu....

You might win one out of ten....but that one win will bring in the really big bucks....

REDREX
2/15/2011, 06:06 PM
I wonder how many times I have been told that they will settle for the cost of defense ?

C&CDean
2/15/2011, 06:08 PM
And why on Earth would I file a case knowing I would lose?

Again, do you like to go to work and not get paid?

Perfect. Spoken like a true, dirty, filthy, ****ing whore. Niiice.

okie52
2/15/2011, 06:10 PM
And why on Earth would I file a case knowing I would lose?

Again, do you like to go to work and not get paid?

I guess you didn't have much of a case to begin with. Those stinking barristers in England have got it all wrong.

Nobody removed your contingency fee, but evidently in your eyes an innocent party being made whole is not a very important part of a case.

bigfatjerk
2/15/2011, 06:12 PM
To me, it's not so much about the taxation as it is the spending.

Which I simply don't believe is sustainable.

That's about right. Taxes will never be that much different in the US. Maybe they are higher on some groups but the revenues the US government gets is about the same and has been for a long time. I'm sure phil will have a chart up as soon as he reads this.

Midtowner
2/15/2011, 06:17 PM
I usually stay out of discussions when Midtowner is involved...I will toss in my two cents and the stfu....

You might win one out of ten....but that one win will bring in the really big bucks....

And that one in ten will not have been a frivolous case. And I guarantee you, I'm not wasting my time on nine lawsuits which won't go anywhere.

I'm sure you're referring to that "study" which found only 10% of medmal suits result in plaintiff's verdicts. If you knew the mechanics of the medmal suit, that'd make sense. You have to sue pretty much everyone on the chart in order to avoid committing malpractice yourself. This is because if you sue the wrong folks (not sue the right folks), which can be hard to determine if the Plaintiff is now dead or was unconscious when the malpractice occurred, can be hard to identify until you've investigated your case.

If you want to get rid of the statute of limitations once a case has been filed, allowing unlimited time to add parties, that number would look a lot different. You have to understand that hospitals don't exactly help you out when you're trying to determine which of their employees might have killed or injured someone.

Midtowner
2/15/2011, 06:18 PM
I guess you didn't have much of a case to begin with. Those stinking barristers in England have got it all wrong.

Nobody removed your contingency fee, but evidently in your eyes an innocent party being made whole is not a very important part of a case.

Not everyone who gets a defense verdict is completely innocent. You can lose because of procedure. You can lose because your lawyer doesn't find it profitable to continue in the representation. There are lots of reasons defendants get verdicts. Actual innocence isn't always it.

But where it is, consider my above example.

My client comes in and tells me that her mother went to the hospital, complaining of chest pains. She was given something by the nurse, and then inexplicably, she lapsed into a coma and died. Often, in medmal cases, your initial facts look like that--oh and the statute of limitations runs next week. The only thing to do here is to sue everyone who has any connection whatsoever to the case and sort it out later. There is simply no other procedure available. If you have loser pays when the plaintiff voluntarily dismisses defendants, you're effectively making it impossible for a plaintiff to sue in our system.

And you should really look into English Rule jurisdictions before you make assumptions about them. Even there, in most cases, fee shifting to unsuccessful plaintiffs does not happen. Even they don't embrace this idea with the zeal of the insurance industry... for somewhat obvious reasons.

Like anything else, this would have no effect on insurance premiums. Just on margins and dividends. And yes, people who have been injured will no longer be find compensation or even properly investigate their cases. Of course your industry wants this.

SouthCarolinaSooner
2/15/2011, 06:20 PM
Says Mr. 6'10" Yankee (or was it Red Sox - meh, who cares, they both suck) Oregonian humper. To you, the word "liberal" is pretty much = God. Again, meh. You're way too extreme for this thread.
Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.

Which part of liberalism might you disagree with?

pphilfran
2/15/2011, 06:24 PM
And that one in ten will not have been a frivolous case. And I guarantee you, I'm not wasting my time on nine lawsuits which won't go anywhere.

I'm sure you're referring to that "study" which found only 10% of medmal suits result in plaintiff's verdicts. If you knew the mechanics of the medmal suit, that'd make sense. You have to sue pretty much everyone on the chart in order to avoid committing malpractice yourself. This is because if you sue the wrong folks (not sue the right folks), which can be hard to determine if the Plaintiff is now dead or was unconscious when the malpractice occurred, can be hard to identify until you've investigated your case.

If you want to get rid of the statute of limitations once a case has been filed, allowing unlimited time to add parties, that number would look a lot different. You have to understand that hospitals don't exactly help you out when you're trying to determine which of their employees might have killed or injured someone.

I wasn't talking about any study...just pulled the number out of my azz....

Midtowner
2/15/2011, 06:26 PM
Perfect. Spoken like a true, dirty, filthy, ****ing whore. Niiice.

What do you do for a living?

Would you still go to work if they didn't pay you?

Midtowner
2/15/2011, 06:27 PM
I wasn't talking about any study...just pulled the number out of my azz....

There's a commonly cited study on the subject which has a rather questionable methodology.

Position Limit
2/15/2011, 06:28 PM
Treasury Market? You mean the one that the Fed is manipulating by printing money and buying up bonds? We'll see what the market really thinks when the government manipulation ends. It will probably look a lot like the housing market.

yeah that treasury market. the fed manipulated one!!! you must be long a crap ton of puts. can i borrow your crystal ball or you model some time?

soonercoop1
2/15/2011, 06:36 PM
They should make liberals/progressives live their lives oil/coal free...we'll see how that works out for them...:)

SouthCarolinaSooner
2/15/2011, 06:40 PM
They should make liberals/progressives live their lives oil/coal free...we'll see how that works out for them...:)
Progress and freedom suck don't they :)

PDXsooner
2/15/2011, 07:31 PM
I'm a Democrat.....

More of a Conservative Democrat because I'm all for the death penalty and owning guns. My Democratness comes from my sense that I feel we must protect the environment and not let our children inhale toxic sh%t just because we're scared on how many jobs we will lose. Or stay away from recycling because its brainwashed into our heads that its pointless.....

One thing I do know after living in Deutschland for 4 years is that Americans don't know crap about high taxes..........

Germans pay 46-51% in taxes. In Germany, there's a 19% sale tax figured into the prices of all consumer items. In Germany, you have to pay a tax on how many televisions you own in your home.

So when I hear people crying about a 1 or 2 percent tax increase, or when I hear people crying about how wrong it is make the Bill Gateses and Donald Trumpses pay higher taxes (Republicans), it irritates the heck out of me because people don't have a clue.

pssst: Rich people don't pay taxes. But don't tell anyone on here.

PDXsooner
2/15/2011, 07:33 PM
Progress and freedom suck don't they :)

You'd be surprised at how many people in Portland do. Or at least come close.

oops, meant to respond to this quote:


They should make liberals/progressives live their lives oil/coal free...we'll see how that works out for them...:)

PDXsooner
2/15/2011, 07:34 PM
Says Mr. 6'10" Yankee (or was it Red Sox - meh, who cares, they both suck) Oregonian humper. To you, the word "liberal" is pretty much = God. Again, meh. You're way too extreme for this thread.

Oh, go stick your face in a toilet and hold flush down for 10 seconds. And it's 6'9", not 6'10"!

MsProudSooner2
2/15/2011, 08:07 PM
I'm a registered Republican but I haven't voted for very many Republican candidates lately.

soonercruiser
2/15/2011, 11:31 PM
Back to the Federal Budget and Deficit!

Didn't Obama "PROMISE" to cut the deficit in half by the end of his first (and hopefully last) term???

http://www.businessinsider.com/obama...by-2013-2010-6

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/...n4821499.shtml

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...lf-four-years/

http://money.cnn.com/2009/02/23/news...mmit/index.htm

MamaMia
2/16/2011, 03:14 AM
Back to the Federal Budget and Deficit!

Didn't Obama "PROMISE" to cut the deficit in half by the end of his first (and hopefully last) term???

http://www.businessinsider.com/obama...by-2013-2010-6

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/...n4821499.shtml

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...lf-four-years/

http://money.cnn.com/2009/02/23/news...mmit/index.htm

None of those pages can be found, but I'm sure he did. Most of them lie.

SoonerKnight
2/16/2011, 05:03 AM
Republicans shouldn't have to pay taxes!! When they want government service they should be told "**** off dip ****!"

TheHumanAlphabet
2/16/2011, 05:16 AM
If anyone with half a wit would have look passed the cliche' sound bites of Barry Soetoro, you would have know he was for lots of spending on things most Americans don't believe in or want the gov't, to spend money on. Thank you to all who looked at his lack of record and his history and voted against him. Hopefully we will have more voting against him in 2012.

SoonerKnight
2/16/2011, 06:13 AM
What the f does Bush have to do with it? Is he currently in office? Can he currently make policy?

Obama did nothing to attack the vast majority of the deficit...SS? Medicare? Real cuts to the military complex?

He wants to cut Pell grants....cut charitable giving (so he can take the money for the fed use)...decrease AMTRACK subsidies yet add 50 billion for high speed rail...

Cut oil, gas, and coal subsidies that will increase our costs....why approving low cost loans to Brazil so they can develop their offshore resources....

What is going to happen to debt servicing when interest rates climb and the current short term debt needs to be reissued?

The high speed rail will pay for itself. It might just add jobs those people my by some **** and taxes might just get paid. Actually one could describe that as trickle down economics. OH WAIT! You might actually believe that private industry was ever brave enough to fund risky programs like I don't know the intercontinental rail road was that privately funded? :rolleyes:

pphilfran
2/16/2011, 08:29 AM
The high speed rail will pay for itself. It might just add jobs those people my by some **** and taxes might just get paid. Actually one could describe that as trickle down economics. OH WAIT! You might actually believe that private industry was ever brave enough to fund risky programs like I don't know the intercontinental rail road was that privately funded? :rolleyes:


High speed rail will probably never pay for itself...

Japan subsidies their system...Europe tosses in 42 billion a year to keep their rail system afloat...

There are a couple of areas that could break even..the NE corridor and Cali...Florida and texas are also possible areas of expansion...though the cost is extremely high for all areas...

We won't see dedicated coast to coast HSR for decades, if that...

The original rail system built by private companies had no competition...other than horses and wagons...so they had all passenger and shipping locked up...throw in the fact that they had wide open spaces that were owned by no one and it was a no brainer...

We must get local mass transit in place prior to high speed rail...currently we have only a handful of cities capable of moving significant amounts of people over large areas of those metro's....

pphilfran
2/16/2011, 08:39 AM
Another pearl of wisdom from the Obama speech yesterday...

How he wants to tax/fine companies that ship jobs overseas...

Sounds good...until you look at the business aspect, something our leadership have no clue about...

Company USA is competing against Company Korea...Company USA is getting undercut on price due to the low labor costs in Korea, and the trade agreements do not take all of that difference into account...

So Company USA has a decision to make...risk lost sales and hold their higher price or move manufacturing outside the US so they can use the same cheap labor force that Company Korea uses on a daily basis...

But businessman Obama wants to fine Company USA and raise their costs above the level that Company Korea can produce...

So Company USA is screwed...stay in the US and be undercut on price....or move jobs overseas and pay a fine and get screwed...

Damned if you do...damned if you don't...

sappstuf
2/16/2011, 08:46 AM
High speed rail will probably never pay for itself...

Japan subsidies their system...Europe tosses in 42 billion a year to keep their rail system afloat...

There are a couple of areas that could break even..the NE corridor and Cali...Florida and texas are also possible areas of expansion...though the cost is extremely high for all areas...

We won't see dedicated coast to coast HSR for decades, if that...

The original rail system built by private companies had no competition...other than horses and wagons...so they had all passenger and shipping locked up...throw in the fact that they had wide open spaces that were owned by no one and it was a no brainer...

We must get local mass transit in place prior to high speed rail...currently we have only a handful of cities capable of moving significant amounts of people over large areas of those metro's....


It will NEVER be profitable.. Never.

The only true profitable HSR line in the world is Tokyo to Osaka. That is it. Nowhere in the United States do we have the population density of those two cities. Osaka has something like 6700 people per square kilometer and Tokyo comes in at 4700 per square kilometer.

The closest US city is Los Angeles with 2700 people per square kilometer and coming in second is the San Fransico at 2300. The distance is almost the same between the two sets of cities. So our best case scenerio doesn't even have 1/2 the population density of the Japanese.

The bullet train in Japan takes about 2.5 hours one way. A flight takes about an hour...

It will never work. It is a perfect mix of pipe dream and money pit.

okie52
2/16/2011, 10:04 AM
Another pearl of wisdom from the Obama speech yesterday...

How he wants to tax/fine companies that ship jobs overseas...

Sounds good...until you look at the business aspect, something our leadership have no clue about...

Company USA is competing against Company Korea...Company USA is getting undercut on price due to the low labor costs in Korea, and the trade agreements do not take all of that difference into account...

So Company USA has a decision to make...risk lost sales and hold their higher price or move manufacturing outside the US so they can use the same cheap labor force that Company Korea uses on a daily basis...

But businessman Obama wants to fine Company USA and raise their costs above the level that Company Korea can produce...

So Company USA is screwed...stay in the US and be undercut on price....or move jobs overseas and pay a fine and get screwed...

Damned if you do...damned if you don't...

Can't get labor cost differentials through these morons heads.

okie52
2/16/2011, 10:23 AM
Not everyone who gets a defense verdict is completely innocent. You can lose because of procedure. You can lose because your lawyer doesn't find it profitable to continue in the representation. There are lots of reasons defendants get verdicts. Actual innocence isn't always it.

But where it is, consider my above example.

My client comes in and tells me that her mother went to the hospital, complaining of chest pains. She was given something by the nurse, and then inexplicably, she lapsed into a coma and died. Often, in medmal cases, your initial facts look like that--oh and the statute of limitations runs next week. The only thing to do here is to sue everyone who has any connection whatsoever to the case and sort it out later. There is simply no other procedure available. If you have loser pays when the plaintiff voluntarily dismisses defendants, you're effectively making it impossible for a plaintiff to sue in our system.

And you should really look into English Rule jurisdictions before you make assumptions about them. Even there, in most cases, fee shifting to unsuccessful plaintiffs does not happen. Even they don't embrace this idea with the zeal of the insurance industry... for somewhat obvious reasons.

Like anything else, this would have no effect on insurance premiums. Just on margins and dividends. And yes, people who have been injured will no longer be find compensation or even properly investigate their cases. Of course your industry wants this.

Every cost affects insurance premiums, at least in P & C. But, they are ultimately passed on to the consumer like it is done in every industry. There is no way around that unless you want to go out of business.

And, again, innocent parties can be made whole rather than having to mortgage their home or take out a loan just to defend themselves. But,
trial lawyers don't care about that. As I have had many say to me "it's just
a cost of doing business".

And the court case loads in Europe are substantially lower than here in the States. Now that is something that would concern a group of lawyers.

As I have said before we have already had this discussion and we will just have to agree to disagree.

Midtowner
2/16/2011, 10:51 AM
And the court case loads in Europe are substantially lower than here in the States. Now that is something that would concern a group of lawyers.

That should concern everyone. If the system discourages even meritorious claims from being filed, then it's a bad system. If that system further protects wrongdoers from being held accountable for their wrongdoing, then it's a bad system.

With these hard caps on damages, we're allowing companies to be able to make decisions like Ford made in the Pinto case. They knew keeping the gas tank where it was would kill and maim people. They even had a best guess as to how many it would kill or maim. They also knew it would cost about $15/car to fix it.

But since the projected costs of litigation and settlement was less than the cost of not killing and maiming people, they chose to kill and maim. The only thing they hadn't counted on was a "runaway jury" finding their conduct to be so egregious that they slapped them with a verdict which made such intentional tortuous conduct to be unprofitable.

And this "passing along to consumers" line is B.S. To remain competitive, that is not always possible. Unless you are suggesting that insurance companies conspire to fix prices in order to protect margins, then you're full of it. If that's what you're suggesting, then perhaps someone needs to file some antitrust litigation.

And your repeated slandering of my profession is reprehensible. Yes, I get paid pretty well to do my job. And I love my job. I get to help people to use the court system to right wrongs. If it wasn't for us noble trial lawyers, the only way to seek redress for grievances would be self-help.

Is the system perfect? No. It is definitely expensive. We definitely can't trust P&C adjusters to be fair with people. If it was up to your employer to decide to pay or not in the event of a claim, it would elect not to pay every single time--and I'm quite sure it does even when a claim is meritorious. I've got one of those cases in the office right now. A seven-figure claim where the insured is guilty as hell. The insurer is choosing to try their luck in front of a jury because they have some cockamamie theory which our experts agree is totally impossible.

And do I even have to get into the State Farm program which actually gave cash incentives to adjusters to deny as many claims as possible?

Bourbon St Sooner
2/16/2011, 11:11 AM
yeah that treasury market. the fed manipulated one!!! you must be long a crap ton of puts. can i borrow your crystal ball or you model some time?


Have you watched the treasury market lately? If I had puts I'd be making a **** ton of money. I don't have enough money to gamble in the futures markets. That's for the hedge funds.

bigfatjerk
2/16/2011, 11:45 AM
The high speed rail will pay for itself.

We simply don't have the population density in the US for high speed rail to work. It might work in certain areas. But in most of the country it would be a financial disaster.

okie52
2/16/2011, 12:21 PM
That should concern everyone. If the system discourages even meritorious claims from being filed, then it's a bad system. If that system further protects wrongdoers from being held accountable for their wrongdoing, then it's a bad system.

With these hard caps on damages, we're allowing companies to be able to make decisions like Ford made in the Pinto case. They knew keeping the gas tank where it was would kill and maim people. They even had a best guess as to how many it would kill or maim. They also knew it would cost about $15/car to fix it.

But since the projected costs of litigation and settlement was less than the cost of not killing and maiming people, they chose to kill and maim. The only thing they hadn't counted on was a "runaway jury" finding their conduct to be so egregious that they slapped them with a verdict which made such intentional tortuous conduct to be unprofitable.

And this "passing along to consumers" line is B.S. To remain competitive, that is not always possible. Unless you are suggesting that insurance companies conspire to fix prices in order to protect margins, then you're full of it. If that's what you're suggesting, then perhaps someone needs to file some antitrust litigation.

And your repeated slandering of my profession is reprehensible. Yes, I get paid pretty well to do my job. And I love my job. I get to help people to use the court system to right wrongs. If it wasn't for us noble trial lawyers, the only way to seek redress for grievances would be self-help.

Is the system perfect? No. It is definitely expensive. We definitely can't trust P&C adjusters to be fair with people. If it was up to your employer to decide to pay or not in the event of a claim, it would elect not to pay every single time--and I'm quite sure it does even when a claim is meritorious. I've got one of those cases in the office right now. A seven-figure claim where the insured is guilty as hell. The insurer is choosing to try their luck in front of a jury because they have some cockamamie theory which our experts agree is totally impossible.

And do I even have to get into the State Farm program which actually gave cash incentives to adjusters to deny as many claims as possible?

You seem to have no problem slandering my profession/industry. Of course, costs are passed on to the consumer. I don't know what dream world you live in the the land of attorneys but industries pass business costs on to their consumers. Litigation costs/damages are part of the expenses insurers face in doing business.

Glad you mentioned competition because in P&C there is plenty of it (unlike healthcare) so insurers have to try to keep down expenses to remain competitive. An insurer has to have his rate increases approved/reviewed by the Insurance commissioner. They are virtually regulated like a utility.

Attorneys being a noble profession? Although I am now switching to oil and gas there are plenty of slime balls in the legal profession. I have been dealing with an attorney for over a year on an estate his firm has had 9 years to get through probate. The estate was under $100,000 and the firm has already been paid by the estate for their services. Very little was required to get this estate settled yet there it sits...9 years later. Can't get the scumbag attorney to return phone calls, emails, or written correspondence. The heir to the estate can't be leased due to the language in the will (which was drawn up by the same firm) and there he sits hoping for some action, being denied his inheritance due to the incompetence/laziness of his father's estate legal representatives. Shameful.

I never held out that insurance companies were noble. They are businesses that provide a service and are subject to the same pitfalls of other industries such as greed, incompetence, mismanagement, etc...you know, the same thing that exists with the ambulance chasers.

You seem to think your profession is above the human frailties that exist in virtually all other industries...or even religions for that matter. The reason trial lawyers fight loser pays is because it is going to put many of them out of business. The merits of loser pays has little to do with it, just a profession that wants to keep its excess amount of jobs at the consumers expense with absolutely no regard concerning the impact of bankrupting an innocent person.

Noble profession indeed.

usaosooner
2/16/2011, 12:32 PM
This thread sucks

Aldebaran
2/16/2011, 12:38 PM
Are you a republican?

I think this country should identify every single republican, registered or not, and then have their taxes raised to 75% with no allowable tax deductions.

After all, its the republicans that want the government to fight every war without being concerned about the debt, the gov't is going to need a lot more financial help.

http://shadowsbastion.com/gallery/albums/uploads/thumb_exploding-head.gif

KABOOKIE
2/16/2011, 05:20 PM
This thread sucks

Shut up n00b

MamaMia
2/16/2011, 05:47 PM
Republicans shouldn't have to pay taxes!! When they want government service they should be told "**** off dip ****!"I'm cool with that. :D

KantoSooner
2/16/2011, 05:52 PM
Hey, Okie52, it sounds like what you need to do is to file an ethics complaint with the state bar association (right there on Lincoln Ave, in OKC). Unlike Drs., lawyers love to rip each others licenses up. If the firm is really dicking you around, they will put pressure on the firm to move it or lose it.

okie52
2/16/2011, 06:00 PM
Hey, Okie52, it sounds like what you need to do is to file an ethics complaint with the state bar association (right there on Lincoln Ave, in OKC). Unlike Drs., lawyers love to rip each others licenses up. If the firm is really dicking you around, they will put pressure on the firm to move it or lose it.

I'm not their client so they don't have any obligation to me. The young Native American is the one who is getting butted around so he may have to be the one to file a complaint. If we/he can't get these guys moving that may be what happens.

soonercoop1
2/16/2011, 06:16 PM
Another pearl of wisdom from the Obama speech yesterday...

How he wants to tax/fine companies that ship jobs overseas...

Sounds good...until you look at the business aspect, something our leadership have no clue about...

Company USA is competing against Company Korea...Company USA is getting undercut on price due to the low labor costs in Korea, and the trade agreements do not take all of that difference into account...

So Company USA has a decision to make...risk lost sales and hold their higher price or move manufacturing outside the US so they can use the same cheap labor force that Company Korea uses on a daily basis...

But businessman Obama wants to fine Company USA and raise their costs above the level that Company Korea can produce...

So Company USA is screwed...stay in the US and be undercut on price....or move jobs overseas and pay a fine and get screwed...

Damned if you do...damned if you don't...

Seems the only way to fix that is to refuse trade with those countries...

GKeeper316
2/16/2011, 08:09 PM
I'm not their client so they don't have any obligation to me. The young Native American is the one who is getting butted around so he may have to be the one to file a complaint. If we/he can't get these guys moving that may be what happens.

and the bar assn. takes complaints very very seriously.

soonercruiser
2/16/2011, 10:02 PM
I'm a Democrat.....

More of a Conservative Democrat because I'm all for the death penalty and owning guns. My Democratness comes from my sense that I feel we must protect the environment and not let our children inhale toxic sh%t just because we're scared on how many jobs we will lose. Or stay away from recycling because its brainwashed into our heads that its pointless.....

One thing I do know after living in Deutschland for 4 years is that Americans don't know crap about high taxes..........

Germans pay 46-51% in taxes. In Germany, there's a 19% sale tax figured into the prices of all consumer items. In Germany, you have to pay a tax on how many televisions you own in your home.

So when I hear people crying about a 1 or 2 percent tax increase, or when I hear people crying about how wrong it is make the Bill Gateses and Donald Trumpses pay higher taxes (Republicans), it irritates the heck out of me because people don't have a clue.

Beside being conservative, what really irritaes the he11 out of me is progressives comparing the free Republic of the great USofA with some European socialist state! If it's so great, please go back!
Just sayin'.....:rolleyes:

SouthCarolinaSooner
2/16/2011, 10:04 PM
Beside being conservative, what really irritaes the he11 out of me is progressives comparing the free Republic of the great USofA with some European socialist state! If it's so great, please go back!
Just sayin'.....:rolleyes:
You are "that American" the world hates, congratulations on making the rest of us look bad.

Blue
2/16/2011, 11:18 PM
You are "that American" the world hates, congratulations on making the rest of us look bad.

We didn't give a **** what the world thought for 200 years and look where it got us. Now all the sudden we do and look where its getting us.

Like i give two ****s about what some other country who would rather see us fail cares about our country.

SouthCarolinaSooner
2/16/2011, 11:32 PM
We didn't give a **** what the world thought for 200 years and look where it got us. Now all the sudden we do and look where its getting us.

Like i give two ****s about what some other country who would rather see us fail cares about our country.
http://images2.memegenerator.net/ImageMacro/4156497/Cant-tell-if-serious-.jpg

Blue
2/16/2011, 11:32 PM
I don't have the desire or time to do that. However, there was a social psychologist on NPR earlier today, and he put it like this:

"People can spot information that supports their belief system hiding in a tree from 200 yards, but if it's dangling in their face and refutes their ideology, they won't see it."

The bottom line is, people believe what they want. It's human nature. They're going to twist and spin everything they read and hear to fit into their worldview.

There is no better shining example than here on Soonerfans. This is somewhat of a moral/tribal community where most of the people in this board are conservative and religious. Many of you come here because you share values with each other and you're constantly confirming and validating each other's beliefs.

And, FYI, plenty of the theories flung around here that garner plenty of support amount to no more than a heaping, shining mound of poop.

We see what we want to see I guess. I see this board as being very liberal and God hating just for the fact that they seem to voice their opinions the most and nobody really stands up to them.

Soonerfans a Christian board? Ha! No everybodys too scared of being labeled a hypocrite to stand up for God.

Blue
2/16/2011, 11:37 PM
Many of us who have been frustrated for so long have been finding ways to "opt out" of the crazy system we have. There are plenty of legal ways to lower your income, live a more simple life and increase you ability to be self-sufficient and less dependent on the system. Starve the f'ing beast!

Use linux, grow your food, use pre-paid cell phones. Stop letting the leach society, high caste plutocracy and large corporations bend you over......also don;t save in $......the gubment is stealing your wealth with each new FRN printed.

Get that common sense outta here. Folks would much rather argue and rearrange deck chairs on the Titanic.

Blue
2/16/2011, 11:40 PM
Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.

Which part of liberalism might you disagree with?

Liberals are extremely tolerant and open minded until you disagree with them. That definition is laughable.

SouthCarolinaSooner
2/16/2011, 11:41 PM
Liberals are extremely tolerant and open minded until you disagree with them. That definition is laughable.
Well then you aren't talking to a liberal then are you

SoonerKnight
2/17/2011, 01:57 AM
High speed rail will probably never pay for itself...

Japan subsidies their system...Europe tosses in 42 billion a year to keep their rail system afloat...

There are a couple of areas that could break even..the NE corridor and Cali...Florida and texas are also possible areas of expansion...though the cost is extremely high for all areas...

We won't see dedicated coast to coast HSR for decades, if that...

The original rail system built by private companies had no competition...other than horses and wagons...so they had all passenger and shipping locked up...throw in the fact that they had wide open spaces that were owned by no one and it was a no brainer...

We must get local mass transit in place prior to high speed rail...currently we have only a handful of cities capable of moving significant amounts of people over large areas of those metro's....

Look the first railroad was built by private companies paid by the government look it up!!

"The construction and operation of the line was authorised by the Pacific Railroad Acts of 1862 and 1864 during the American Civil War. The Congress supported it with 30-year U.S. government bonds and extensive land grants of government-owned land. Completion of the rail road was the culmination of a decades-long movement to build such a line. It was one of the crowning achievements in the crossing of plains and high mountains westward by the Union Pacific and eastward by the Central Pacific."

PDXsooner
2/17/2011, 11:38 AM
I see this board as being very liberal and God hating

I know this isn't actually true, but even suggesting this is funny.

C&CDean
2/17/2011, 12:28 PM
I know this isn't actually true, but even suggesting this is funny.

I see it as about 50-50. Seriously. There's about an = number of wingnuts on both sides, and most of us are somewhere within the bell curve of "normal."