|
|
|
|
|
| | Help Me Understand....Page 5 of 11 (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11) | I enjoy writing. Read more closely. You may get insight. PS Anybody can SAY they care.
Now you can come up with your "proof". But hey! I don't care. I'll ask your permission before I post next time...um...no I won't. Thanks Mr. 20%.
It's nice that you enjoy writing, however, if you post in these forums you're supposed to actually contribute something to the discussion (per forum posting rules).
If you post nonsense that is non-contributory to the topic being discussed, if you insult other posters (instead of the topic), or if you flame bait, your posts will be deleted and/or your posting privileges will be suspended and/or revoked.
Happy opining.
P.S. Next time you want to add a post script, try using the link that says "edit post" instead of making a second post.
And if you think that helps the economy, your nuts.
Is that right....well next time I need an assessment of my mental health, I'll know who to call now won't I? Be careful about insulting the poster vs. the topic; see paragraph above. | |
|
| Help Me Understand....
Posted: 9/13/2008 6:21:55 PM |
Don't like what I wrote? Skip over it.
Nah, I'll just report you instead.  | |
|
| Help Me Understand....
Posted: 9/13/2008 8:16:57 PM |
Let's clarify this shall we. Do lawyers come to YOU with their legal problems or do YOU go to THEM with YOURS? Please explain.
They create problems that did not have reason to exist except to line the pockets of lawyers. Often the cost of being right is more than the cost of settling. This is the case with a great many medical and product law suits. When I was a teenager, a neighbor attempted to take 5 acres of the ranch. My mother, a widow, went to the DA to have the trespasser evicted. He advised we hire an attorney. Although the neighbor should not have known anything by then, we were sued for squatter's rights that same day. We hired the head of the county bar but the fist time in court, the district attorney, a lawyer friend of our attorney, barged into court as "friend of the court" and accused my mother of trying to get him to help her rip off this neighbor. We could prove he was lying but our attorney would not question the DA. We tried to fire our attorney but those ABA rules got in the way. It took thousands to get our 5 acres of rural land back in legal fees. During the process, the sheriff asked me to kill the neighbor saying he would make it look good. Sure. It seems the neighbor laundered drug payoff money for the DA and I guess the sheriff wasn't getting his share. I had a price on my head for a while. The lawyers stretched the case to three court sessions but since the neighbor had absolutely no grounds to sue, it was thrown out. The DA is now a private practicing attorney who also deals in selling used cargo planes in Caribbean and Mexico. In the process of our case, the neighbor discovered a survey mistake by his previous landowner. Donated land for a church parsonage of the church he attended was a couple of feet on his property. He threatened to sue the church he belonged to and offered to settle by exchanging equal land on the other side of the church in exchange for the whole parsonage and its land that he later used as rental property. It was cheaper for the church to settle than deal with crooked lawyers policed by lawyers. Tell me how lawyers aren't the cause of legal problems.
I have been told I should write a book and/or movie script as there are many more bizarre details. I have lots of lawyers in my family and many say I would make a great lawyer. Its that morality thing. I attended a seminar by one of the top lawyers in the country, a relative. He advised the law students that if they told their first prospective client they would get the client justice, they were in the wrong profession. Chances are, your prospective client does not want justice.
Since those days, I have invented and developed several patented technologies and a great many more I would like to develop. In that time, I dealt with a great many lawyers. They consumed a great deal of my time and charged my employers a great deal of money. It was quite an aggravating process making the lawyers a lot of money. Being privileged to see what the patent office said about their efforts, I concluded they were a complete waste of money. In my most recent patent filing, I did the entire thing myself in half the time. The only thing the patent examiners said in issuing the patent was to complement my work. Since Tesla's day, the attorneys have turned innovation into a punishable offense. Been there, done that. In prosecuting the application, I studied the rules and past examinations for patent attorneys. They are written by lawyers and only cover the legal aspects of the process, not technology. I found many of the rules rigged for attorneys and in some cases, they direct attorneys to deceive clients. One specific involves advising a client on the patentability of a technology or invention.
I've been practicing for over 35 years and I've never seen it (any more than you have).
I assume you are familiar with this:
American Bar Association
Model Rules of Professional Conduct
Rule 1.2 Scope Of Representation And Allocation Of Authority Between Client And Lawyer
"a lawyer shall abide by a client's decisions concerning the objectives of representation"
I should note that the state of California does not police or license lawyers. Most states don't. The profession is policed solely by the Bar association itself. The foxes watching the hen house.
What are lawyers supposed to contribute to health care?
Certainly not increase the cost. Taking Edwards as an example, he has made millions from health care providers. Unlike any of the providers he has mostly threatened to sue, Edwards has done nothing for the sick except add a cost to the bill. Medical providers buy insurance to cover the cost of law suits. ALL providers must pay and indirectly, all patients. Rarely are incompetent doctors forced out of business as most such cases are settled and kept confidential.
Obama, a lawyer who has made a fortune promoting the perception of racial discrimination, I know what you mean. When MLK was first assassinated, I was the first one out there decrying that "perception". Don't 'cha just hate that stuff.
You mean he was assassinated more than once? In a way, I suppose so. His dream was for skin color to not matter. People like Rev Wright and those who to whom he has been a spiritual leader, have made skin color reason for privilege. For some in the legal profession, there is profit to be made from any perception that skin color may have caused a withholding of privileges based on racial status. Again, to protect a reputation, even if no discrimination exists, settlements are made quietly out of court. When it comes to race, the threat can even involve community activism by community organizers.
Palin has experience running a business What business was that?
Commercial salmon fishing with her husband.
The question was why would anyone vote for McCain and Palin. Most people only think in terms of two parties and as a third part kind of guy, I explained why many people would make the choice. The opposition to McCain and Palin are lawyers and lawyers in general have earned their negative public perception. One of the top Dallas accident lawyers recently crashed his 2008 Bentley into a fire truck making an emergency run to an accident. Why do I find this so darn funny. | |
|
| Help Me Understand....
Posted: 9/13/2008 9:08:56 PM | charlemagne~
lol!
mcain is hardly a hitler in waiting and obama is hardly a peacemaker. i listed many reasons above for not supporting obama. if you take the time to do your research might find some interesting incongruencies between his public image and his agenda. also, being a part-time state legislater is hardly a prerequisite for being an executive.
but regarding the mcain hitler comparison...
hitler was a socialist. he was ANTI capitalism. he wrote scathing things about capitalism. the nazi party platform supported a socialist economic system, hence the name "nazi," which was shorthand for "national socialism." the nazis were very much into perserving the environment. they were big into organic farming and were also huge advocates of animal rights. hitler was also a vegetarian and into "alternative medicine." hitler was extremely popular. hitler was also a huge supporter of the arts, (but having a rather neo-classicist aesthetic he didn't appreciate the more modernist direction that the arts were taking in germany at the time - e.g., bau haus et al. hitler was actually a failed artist, and some intersting insight on that can be found in eric hoffer's "true believer: thoughts on mass movements").
now aside from the racism, imperialism, and exterminating people, i'd say the modern day liberal movement (which isn't very liberal, and isn't very modern) has much more in common with hitler then john mcain - a capitalist, reformer, and moderate republican. mcain is much closer then the modern liberal to the true definition of "liberal." he's more of a classic liberal - think john locke.
i find the contradictions intersting though...because the label "war monger" is something that is alwasy thrown around by the left in this country...yet the obama supporters don't seem to mind that obama advocates invading pakistan - one of the US allies in the region. but I suppose it's okay for obama to preemptively invade pakistan because he really speaks well... kind of like hitler.
lar | |
|
| Help Me Understand....
Posted: 9/13/2008 11:17:51 PM |
but in your defense i can honestly say that it is not your fault. it is the fault of our education system.
You can say that again.Lol You can't even write a sentence the correct way. You do realize they are supposed to start with a capital letter right? It's really quite easy,just hold down the caps loc key.
i can promise you that even if obama becomes president, he'll maintain a military base in iraq.
You can promise ha? Good for you.
as you can see there are plenty of reasons for not supporting obama. obama is such a economic moron
I understand you may not agree with him on many issues but to call him a moron? He is far from it. You on the other hand.....well your kinda making yourself sound like one:) But then again you do seem to think you know everything.Why don't you run for president?!! If anyone is a moron between the two canidates it is McCain. The man doesn't even know how many houses he owns. Enough said.
FYI
McCain: The average taxpayer in every income group would see a lower tax bill, but high-income taxpayers would benefit more than everyone else.
Obama: High-income taxpayers would pay more in taxes, while everyone else's tax bill would be reduced.
Under both plans, all American taxpayers could pay a price for their tax cuts
McCain's tax proposals could increase the national debt by as much as $4.5 trillion with interest, while Obama's could add as much as $3.3 trillion.
The reason: neither plan would raise the amount of revenue expected under current tax policy - which assumes all the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts expire by 2011. And neither plan would raise enough to cover expected government costs during those 10 years.
The net result: compared with their tax bill today, taxpayers on average would see their tax bill cut by nearly $1,200. That means their after-tax income would rise by 2%.
But those in the lowest income groups would only see their after-tax income rise by less than 1% (or between $19 and $319). By contrast, the highest-income households - those with incomes of at least $603,000 - would see a boost in after-tax income of 3.4%, or more than $40,000.
Obama's plan would keep the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts in place for everyone except those making more than roughly $250,000, and he would increase the capital gains tax.
Obama would also introduce new tax breaks for lower and middle-income groups. Such breaks include expanding the earned income tax credit, giving those making less than $150,000 a $500 tax credit per person on the first $8,100 in income, giving those making under $75,000 a 50% federal match on the first $1,000 of savings, and exempting seniors making less than $50,000 from having to pay income tax.
The net result: compared with their tax bill today, taxpayers on average would see their tax bill cut by nearly $160 under Obama's plan. That means their after-tax income would rise by 0.3%.
But those in the lowest-income groups would enjoy the biggest after-tax income rise as a percentage of income - between 2.4% and 5.5% (worth between $567 and $1,042). By contrast, the highest-income households - those with at least $603,000 in income - would see a dramatic decline in their after-tax income - a drop of 8.7%, or $116,000.
Middle-class families get tax cuts that are three times larger from Obama than from McCain,And the McCain plan gives nearly one-quarter of its benefits to households making more than $2.8 million annually - the top 0.1%.
Niether plan is perfect by any means. But Obama's would benefit more American's. | |
|
| Help Me Understand....
Posted: 9/13/2008 11:24:07 PM | centaur~
thank you for your kind words.
too me, it is about the issues. it's not about the man when you get down to it. politicians, as we know, have to try to appeal to a wide swath of the voting public and in order to do that they often have to "stretch" thier positions to meet somewhere in the middle.
the best way too really cut through the garbage and spin is to look first at the record, and then at the advisors that the candidate surrounds himself with. advice is policy. obama doesn't have a long legislative record to look at so for me his advisors have attracted most of my focus. (i absolutely despise his economic advisor austen goolsbee and am terrified of this man becomming the treas sec).
i am sure obama is a decent enough man, i honestly believe that; however, when you don't agree with the guys positions on ANY issue there is simply no way that you can pull the lever for 'em. it would go against ones principles on a deep level. i truly think obama would be disastrous for this country economically. IF he got everything he wanted.
lar | |
|
| Help Me Understand....
Posted: 9/14/2008 2:56:40 AM | I can't understand it either. Especially with crap like this...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/13/conservative-political-fo_n_126243.html
And this is the party that espouses Christian values? Wow. | |
|
| Help Me Understand....
Posted: 9/14/2008 4:18:00 AM | the best way too really cut through the garbage and spin is to look first at the record, and then at the advisors that the candidate surrounds himself with. advice is policy.
good point!
i truly think obama would be disastrous for this country economically. IF he got everything he wanted.
since when did a president get everything he wanted? especially from an economic perspective. there are way too many other people with pull in that arena, more pull than the president even, e.g. the Class A board of directors of the federal reserve. pol pot, now there was a man who got everything he wanted. our constitution pretty much prevents that from happening. theoretically speaking.
obama advocates invading pakistan...
mccain advocates backing up soviet georgia against the russians...
i could add *many* other things to this list against both candidates... but i am sure the point is made. could it be that we are totally screwed no matter who we vote for? it might be true!
everybody gets real excited during an election. not me, i am cynical from start to finish. because when all is said and done, you're stuck with some guy that -- 4 or 8 years later -- you just can't wait for him to get the hell out! it is most certainly true for bush, but it was also true for clinton before him.
and so it goes. for me, voting all boils down to which guy is going to cause me and this country the least amount of pain and anguish. all things considered, i still think that's obama. | |
|
| Help Me Understand....
Posted: 9/14/2008 5:00:02 AM |
post script: read the closing paragraph of message 106. NO! Really! Read it. I had you in mind when I wrote it. Nothing personal. You're bright and articulate. Yup. It is just class resentment on my part. Ok! Now: work me over!
and if we didn't understand before we certainly do now.  | |
|
| Help Me Understand....
Posted: 9/14/2008 8:15:37 AM |
What do you mean there, jelunc? Who is this "we" that now understand? What does that flaming icon thing mean? Are you my enemy? I read your profile. But no indicators.
You can tell me that politics are not about class struggle. You can tell me that. Go ahead tell me. I'll take it under consideration. Remember the downtrodden, the losers (even by degree) have character deficiencies, else wise they would all be unctuous, smug, self righteous, lefty, liberal (probably corporate) lawyers , that got rich and now have too much time on their hands.
On the other hand, on a one to one basis..."Can't we, can't we all just get along?"
The royal we, of course.
Enemy? You cannot be an enemy any more than you can be a friend. | |
|
| Help Me Understand....
Posted: 9/14/2008 9:25:39 AM |
Heheheheheeheeh. Using the Royal we: we find you completely irrelevant to our lives as well, your Highness. I read your post history and um...er...it was very interesting. Have a nice day.
Around here we say whoopdee****indoo | |
|
| Help Me Understand....
Posted: 9/14/2008 12:39:08 PM | | Oh, Bluesman, you can dish it out but you can't take it can ya. I used to be a legal secretary in my much younger days. Generalizations are great because most of them are true to some extent. That is the reason they really piss people off because they know there is some truth in them. Nobody likes to think they are basically just like everyone else and not really "special". So, your generalization "Texans are inbred", may have some truth for all I know. I do know that there are a lot of Rednecks in Texas and they like guns. | |
|
| Help Me Understand....
Posted: 9/14/2008 8:55:16 PM | pretty mommy~
i appreciate your editing skills; however, since this is a forum, i.e. an informal setting, it is not neccessary to adher to what linguists refer to as "prescriptive english." i am a lazy typer but if it will make things easier for you i'll be sure to preface any future posts with a disclaimer that says, "written in the style of e.e. cummings." would that help?
obama... yes i think the guy is a moron. i am sure he is a nice person who means well but that doesn't change the fact that he is clueless when it comes to taxes, corporate taxes, and pretty much everything else having to do with other people's money.
yes the next president will maintain a military base in iraq.
taxes... could you please explain to me why we need to increase taxes anyway?
lar | |
|
| Help Me Understand....
Posted: 9/14/2008 9:04:34 PM | motown cowgirl~
since when did a president get everything he wants?
good point.
i agree with you. as we know it is the legislature that sets the agenda as to what bills even come up for vote. congress holds the purse strings and in numerous ways acts as a check on the power of the executive branch. that is one of the greatest things about our system. however, if obama becomes president and has a democratically controlled congress he could very well get a lot more then he should...and that aint no good!
personally i am a huge proponent of divided government. it worked very nicely under reagan, clinton, and dubya. which again leadas us to yet ANOTHER reason to vote for mcain!
divided government! a balance of power! yeah!
lar | |
|
| Help Me Understand....
Posted: 9/15/2008 1:29:03 AM |
Generalizations are great because most of them are true to some extent.
Sure. All black got rhythm. All Jews have money. All lawyers are crooks. All politicians are liars. All...(fill in the blanks). Generalizations are not great. They're ridiculous because they sidestep the necessity to think which makes one intellectually lazy and they disregard facts and are simply used in an attempt to score points which are ultimately lost.
I used to be a legal secretary
Then you should have learned something. You should have learned that facts talk and bullshit walks....generally speaking of course.
yes i think the guy is a moron. i am sure he is a nice person who means well but that doesn't change the fact that he is clueless when it comes to taxes, corporate taxes, and pretty much everything else having to do with other people's money.
And McCain is a cannibal. He eats babies. Of course I can no more prove that than you can prove that Obama, who graduated with honors from probably the most prestigious law schools is a "moron". In fact, only a moron would make a statement like that.
yes the next president will maintain a military base in iraq. [/quote Only if that next president is McCain (god help us). But the Iraqis might just have something to say about that don't you think? Or do you think that just we took the country apart that we own it? Of course you do. could you please explain to me why we need to increase taxes anyway? In case you didn't get the memo, THIS COUNTRY IS FREAKING BROKE. Do you GET that? | |
|
| Help Me Understand....
Posted: 9/15/2008 4:47:47 AM | If I vote it will be for McCain. I will not vote for Obama because:
1. His tax policies will hinder and reduce the formation of capital, i.e. cap gains tax increase, corp tax rate increase, etc.
2. His energy policy as stated by him is that he would "target 150 billion of investment over the next ten years for the development of renewable/alternative sources." Who would do this targeting?? DOE, appoint Al Gore as energy and have him do it, congress (oh Lord please no). Gov't just needs to offer some tax incentives for it and then step aside and let private industry do it.
3. He does not support nuclear power. Idiot!
4. And finally I do not trust him to lead the most powerful nation on earth. I can find nothing in his record where he has ever fought for anything of consequence, when losing meant something. I cannot find any evidence that when he was in the Illinois legislature or the U.S. Senate where he has ever put his "politcal life" on the line for anything, ever, period. Hence, I cannot say what, if any, core values he holds except what he says, but never by what he's done. Plain and simple I see him as an empty suit.
I cannot trust him that in a time of crisis or when America needs to stand strong on the world stage he won't blink so to speak.
5. And finally, in my opinion, he is nothing more than a product of the Chicago political machine. | |
|
| Help Me Understand....
Posted: 9/15/2008 5:11:47 AM | 1. His tax policies will hinder and reduce the formation of capital, i.e. cap gains tax increase, corp tax rate increase, etc.
Bear with me, please, as a person who admits she has virtually no knowledge of the economic function of corps or what I see as the pretense of dollars existing that are not really anywhere to be found.
I have just one short question to ask those folks who think that investment (or wise investment) should occur from these current lowered tax rates.
IF the past 5 or 6 years of these rates have put investments in place that benefit us all why are we having to bail out Fannie, Freddie, BearStearns (but not Lehmann's) ?
Why are the airlines and auto companies in such terrible shape?
Just where are all these dollars?
OK, more than one. | |
|
| Help Me Understand....
Posted: 9/15/2008 5:18:59 AM | Pretty damn fine question Jel.
Yes... corporations do get breaks to be able to raise capital and create jobs allowing their prosperity to "trickle down".
And unemployment threatens to shatter previous records. Corporations are continually moving more and more production overseas. The gap between the rich and the poor grows ever wider.
So the current system is working? | |
|
| Help Me Understand....
Posted: 9/15/2008 5:30:01 AM |
So the current system is working?
As far as I can tell it may be working for folks who are pretty shortsighted about taking care of the nation they call home.
But, hey. They can always relocate to one of those nice warm places, following their stored dollars or would they have converted to Euros? What the heck does China call it's currency? Hey, look. I could run for VP. I don't know shti, either. | |
|
| Help Me Understand....
Posted: 9/15/2008 5:59:21 AM | lol lar!
pray for *gridlock*, that's what i always say!
i have to say though, that in the end, i am totally put off by mccain's military posturing and related comments. i can't vote for him, but you can! | |
|
| Help Me Understand....
Posted: 9/15/2008 6:17:41 AM |
could you please explain to me why we need to increase taxes anyway?
In case you didn't get the memo, THIS COUNTRY IS FREAKING BROKE. Do you GET that?
well i can't leave this one alone. broke schmoke. since a "dollar" is an instrument of debt, somebody please tell me how you can ever pay a debt with a debt?
raising taxes will not "pay" for anything. since the government creates nothing, pays for nothing, and prints all the money it wants, the real and primary function of taxes is to siphon off the excess capacity in the form of "dollars". taxes do not pay for government largess when that government is printing its own money. taxes only serve to reinforce the psychological value of what is otherwise worthless paper, and prevent hyper-inflation. | |
|
| Help Me Understand....
Posted: 9/15/2008 10:30:45 AM | No the curent system is not working, so instead of fixing it lets make it worse. The United States has the second highest corporate tax rate in the world.
Introduction
A wave of corporate income tax reduction is sweeping through many countries in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), but not the United States. The latest to consider corporate income tax rate reductions are Australia,1 Germany,2 New Zealand,3 and Spain.4 Others, like Canada, are continuing to phase in corporate rate reductions in 2006 and beyond.5 This movement transcends political philosophy, with center-right ( Australia), centrist ( Germany) and center-left ( New Zealand, Spain) governments all considering corporate income tax rate cuts.
As OECD countries continue to lower their corporate income taxes, they can expect to reap more foreign direct investment from the U.S. A recent study by Deveraux and Lockwood found that a 10 percent corporate rate reduction by an EU member-state can reap a 60 percent short-run increase in investment by U.S. multinational corporations.6
While foreign governments entice U.S. investors by lowering their corporate tax rates, the federal government in the U.S. stands pat with the same rate structure it has had since 1994. Indeed, one of the ironies of tax policy during the Bush presidency is that five years of tax-cutting legislation have left the corporate income tax rate unchanged.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/1466.html
US tax rate in 2006 - 39.3% Mexico - 30.0% US companies pay 20% in India, China rrecently reduced its corporate tax to 25%.
So you own a business and the costs of maintaining that company is part of your bottom line, so where will you open up shop? Not the US. And if Obama gets his way you definately dont want to be a business in America. Corporate Tax increase, capitol gains increase. | |
|
| Help Me Understand....
Posted: 9/15/2008 10:41:04 AM | Yeah, I have a hard time understanding McCains support as well. You know things are getting bad when FOX NEWS and KARL ROVE is coming out againt McCain. That's BAD.
Here's a clip: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/15/foxs-megyn-kelly-works-ov_n_126473.html | |
|
| Help Me Understand....
Posted: 9/15/2008 3:11:05 PM |
IF the past 5 or 6 years of these rates have put investments in place that benefit us all why are we having to bail out Fannie, Freddie, BearStearns (but not Lehmann's) ?
Why are the airlines and auto companies in such terrible shape?
Just where are all these dollars?
The airlines and auto companies are not in bad shape because of lack of capital, but because of lack of profit.
Increasing taxes will not improve that one bit. | |
|
| Help Me Understand....
Posted: 9/15/2008 4:35:28 PM | bluesman~
obama is a smart man who is a moron when it comes to economics. he is a constitutional "scholar" who taught at the university of illinois, yet he never published ONE scholarly work. nope. that is unheard of for an adademic. but that isn't really the point, the point is being well educated in one field does not make one an expert in other disciplines.
i know many very well educated people with lots of letters after thier names that couldn't run a car wash let alone a country. i also know lots of people with lots of letters after thier names from very elite schools that are really very dumb. imagine that! there is a very unique level of stupidity that seems only attainable by the chattering classes. i don't know why it is but i do have a theory: if one is an expert in one field they mistakenly believe that they are also an authority on everything. this hubris increases in direct proportion as to where ones alma mater ranks in the hierarchy of the elite bastilles.
taxes and the phenomenon of empty pocket spending...
first of all. yeah, i know that the country is broke. but why is that? it's broke because the gov spends spends spends. what is the solution to the debt? raise revenues, and CUT spending. wouldn't you agree?
lar | |
|
|
|
|
Page
5
of
11 (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11)
|
|
Home
login 
