Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: strk on May 14, 2004, 06:54:02 AM
-
these are quotes from the GOP platform in 2000. The irony is baked right in!
"The arrogance, inconsistency, and unreliability of the administration's diplomacy have undermined American alliances, alienated friends, and emboldened our adversaries."
"Gerrymandered congressional districts are an affront to democracy and an insult to the voters. We oppose that and any other attempt to rig the electoral process."
"Nor should the intelligence community be made the scapegoat for political misjudgments. A Republican administration working with the Congress will respect the needs and quiet sacrifices of these public servants as it strengthens America's intelligence and counter-intelligence capabilities and reorients them toward the dangers of the future."
"The current administration has casually sent American armed forces on dozens of missions without clear goals, realizable objectives, favorable rules of engagement, or defined exit strategies. Over the past seven years, a shrunken American military has been run ragged by a deployment tempo that has eroded its military readiness. Many units have seen their operational requirements increased four-fold, wearing out both people and equipment."
"The rule of law, the very foundation for a free society, has been under assault, not only by criminals from the ground up, but also from the top down. An administration that lives by evasion, coverup, stonewalling, and duplicity has given us a totally discredited Department of Justice."
"Sending our military on vague, aimless, and endless missions rapidly saps morale. Even the highest morale is eventually undermined by back-to-back deployments, poor pay, shortages of spare parts and equipment, inadequate training, and rapidly declining readiness."
"Our goal for NATO is a strong political and security fellowship of independent nations in which consultations are mutually respected and defense burdens mutually shared."
"As the traditional advocate of America's veterans, the Republican Party remains committed to fulfilling America's obligations to them. That is why we defeated the administration's attempt to replace veterans' health care with a national system for everybody."
"The weak leadership and neglect of the administration have allowed America's intelligence capabilities, including space based systems, to atrophy, resulting in repeated proliferation surprises such as Iraq's renewed chemical and biological weapons programs."
"The Social Security surplus is off-limits, off budget, and will not be touched. We will not stop there, for we are also determined to protect Medicare and to pay down the national debt. Reducing that debt is both a sound policy goal and a moral imperative. Our families and most states are required to balance their budgets; it is reasonable to assume the federal government should do the same. Therefore, we reaffirm our support for a constitutional amendment to require a balanced budget."
"Inspired by Presidents Reagan and Bush, Republicans hammered into place the framework for today's prosperity and surpluses. We cut tax rates, simplified the tax code, deregulated industries, and opened world markets to American enterprise. The result was the tremendous growth in the 1980s that created the venture capital to launch the technology revolution of the 1990s. That's the origin of what is now called the New Economy: the longest economic boom in the Twentieth Century, 40 million new jobs, the lowest inflation and unemployment in memory." [ed. the reason I find this ironic is becaues it contradicts administration claims that the recession began under Clinton]
"A Republican president will work with businesses and with other nations to reduce harmful emissions through new technologies without compromising America's sovereignty or competitiveness -- and without forcing Americans to walk to work."
"We applaud Governor Bush's pledge to name only judges who have demonstrated that they share his conservative beliefs and respect the Constitution."
"Reacting belatedly to inevitable crises, the administration constantly enlarges the reach of its rhetoric -- most recently in Vice President Gore's "new security agenda" that adds disease, climate, and all the world's ethnic or religious conflicts to an undiminished set of existing American responsibilities. If there is some limit to candidate Gore's new agenda for America as global social worker, he has yet to define it."
"A new Republican administration will patiently rebuild an international coalition opposed to Saddam Hussein and committed to joint action. We will insist that Iraq comply fully with its disarmament commitments. We will maintain the sanctions on the Iraqi regime while seeking to alleviate the suffering of innocent Iraqi people. We will react forcefully and unequivocally to any evidence of reconstituted Iraqi capabilities for producing weapons of mass destruction."
"The administration has used an arsenal of dilatory tactics to block any serious support to the Iraqi National Congress, an umbrella organization reflecting a broad and representative group of Iraqis who wish to free their country from the scourge of Saddam Hussein's regime."
"Republicans prefer an America that is far less dependent on foreign crude oil. A Republican president will not be so tolerant if OPEC colludes to drive up the world price of oil, as it has done this past year."
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2000/conventions/republican/features/platform.00/#1
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/5/14/2440/62372
-
"The Social Security surplus is off-limits, off budget, and will not be touched. We will not stop there, for we are also determined to protect Medicare and to pay down the national debt. Reducing that debt is both a sound policy goal and a moral imperative. Our families and most states are required to balance their budgets; it is reasonable to assume the federal government should do the same. Therefore, we reaffirm our support for a constitutional amendment to require a balanced budget."
"Nor should the intelligence community be made the scapegoat for political misjudgments. A Republican administration working with the Congress will respect the needs and quiet sacrifices of these public servants as it strengthens America's intelligence and counter-intelligence capabilities and reorients them toward the dangers of the future."
Nice post strk.. These were among my favorites.. Dont figure too many Bush supporters will chime on this one.. hehe
dude
-
So for breakfast today I actually has some toast. I used to eat alot of toast as a kid but it just sounded good. One w/ jelly....the other w/ honey. Than and my coffee and morning cig. what a good way to start a friday.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
I will. Those are all OK point but I really think they're reaching. Keep trying though.
lol
Those are not points.. Those are statements, many by Bush, and everyone of them have been trampled underfoot by our current administration... Not some of them... ALL of them...
dude
-
"The Social Security surplus is off-limits, off budget, and will not be touched. We will not stop there, for we are also determined to protect Medicare and to pay down the national debt. Reducing that debt is both a sound policy goal and a moral imperative."
Oh boy, that one strikes a nerve. I feel a rant building.
-
Originally posted by Sixpence
"The Social Security surplus is off-limits, off budget, and will not be touched. We will not stop there, for we are also determined to protect Medicare and to pay down the national debt. Reducing that debt is both a sound policy goal and a moral imperative."
Oh boy, that one strikes a nerve. I feel a rant building.
YOu know they have pills for that now. It's the 21st century and we have a pill to fix just about everything......even rants. I had a friend who suffered from rants and he was a libral to. He did nothing to fix it and all his hair fell out and eventually the acid in his stomach burned all the way through. He had a very painfull death mumbling somthing about socialized medicine.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
YOu know they have pills for that now. It's the 21st century and we have a pill to fix just about everything......even rants. I had a friend who suffered from rants and he was a libral to. He did nothing to fix it and all his hair fell out and eventually the acid in his stomach burned all the way through. He had a very painfull death mumbling somthing about socialized medicine.
A friend, or was it really..............you! cept for the dead part
-
Originally posted by Sixpence
A friend, or was it really..............you!
Ok you got me. It wasnt me but truth be told I dont have any friends. I do live in California so its hard to make friends here without being called a Fascist Nazi. It doesnt help the fact that I wear my "Hippies suck" Tshirt all the time
-
I don't know, you seem to know alot of peace pots.
-
how many were stated before Sept 11, 2001?
-
Show me a perfect administration anywhere in our history.
We can go back and forth on this finger pointing, and I know most of us do, but there isn't any reason that hasn't been rehashed before.
Both parties cater to the middle when it comes to votes, but since I am closer to the right than the left the Repub's more often than not get my vote.
Quit nominating idiots Dems and you will see votes coming.
-
Ok.. so show me where the republicans did any spending that would increase debt that was not related to this war?
This war will end but democrat social programs go on forever.
lazs
-
Here is a post at some political forum, not sure about the numbers though http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-rlc/1100848/posts
-
Originally posted by Sixpence
Here is a post at some political forum, not sure about the numbers though http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-rlc/1100848/posts
And this one is from "The American Conservative"
http://amconmag.com/2_16_04/feature.html
-
yep... pretty much as I expected.. republicans spend on defense and democrats spend on buerocracy and socialist issues.
lazs
-
I guess you can't read.
-
I don't know what is the absolute truth in politics and maybe the republicans are every bit as bad as the democrats and maybe they are all imply scum so it doesn't matter but...
All this spending was being hashed over when Regan was in. Pretty much the same situation.. maybe a lot of you are too young to recall just how scary the cold war was... Regan spent on defense and the Soviet Union fell... I believe if we would have had a Klinton in then the soviet union would still be alive and well...
I believe the war on terror is pretty much the same thing.. if they run out of countries and backing then they will be no threat... a joke... a few arabs sitting around the dinnette set with AK's in some ****hole backwoods country... I believe if we do nothing they, and their backers will get bolder and then they will be wearing suits, staying in the best hotels and carrying suitcase nukes or bio weapons.
Only problem I see is that Regan was such a good actor that he sold his plan and Bush is a terrible public speaker...
fortunately... the democrats have rounded up the usual abhorent clowns tho.
lazs
-
"One example was Bush’s early desire to pour money into the public-education system, which will only entrench its problems. Since 2001, education spending has surged by over 50 percent to $61 billion. And Bush kept squandering long after it became apparent to everyone outside the administration that deficits were going to deepen. As the libertarian-leaning Cato Institute points out, the $400 billion for Medicare prescription drugs is more than double the sum Bush first requested in his 2002 budget.
Looking at spending unrelated to defense and so-called mandatory outlays like Social Security and Medicare reveals Bush’s inherent need to splurge. This exercise also blows away the attempts of some on the Right to compare Bush’s deficits with Reagan’s. In inflation-adjusted dollars, Bush increased non-defense discretionary spending by 20.8 percent in his first three years, versus a 13.5 percent cut under Reagan’s first three years, according to Cato."
-
splurge? he is spending, or asking for less than social security and medicare take in. The problem is that no funds are dedicated. you pay 35 cents for gas at the pumps and 20 cents of it is spent on say welfare. You pay 70 bucks a month on medicare and very little of it is used to pay medicares debts. Schools... well he is wrong on that one.. we should privatize em.
lazs
-
Oh... I get it. Republicans are liars.
Don't get your panties in a wad. So are the Democrats.
Maybe it's a politician thing.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
you pay 35 cents for gas at the pumps and 20 cents of it is spent on say welfare.
lazs
:lol
-
While we're at it, somebody 'splain to me why I see Democratic Congressmen ranting about the "Bush Prescription Plan for Seniors".
I'm cornfused.
I thought just about everyone agreed we need to help our Seniors with prescriptions. Seems I heard it touted as a goal of the Dems for years, with them blaming the Reps for not getting it done.
Then the Reps try to get it done and the Dems opposed it. It finally passed but somehow that's a bad thing.
All agree that it isn't perfect but it has to be better than what the Seniors had before which is basically nothing.
So, 'splain this all please. I admit I didn't follow it too closely at the time. Just seems odd to see a Democratic Congressman on the tube railing against prescription coverage for Seniors.
-
Originally posted by Toad
While we're at it, somebody 'splain to me why I see Democratic Congressmen ranting about the "Bush Prescription Plan for Seniors".
I'm cornfused.
I thought just about everyone agreed we need to help our Seniors with prescriptions. Seems I heard it touted as a goal of the Dems for years, with them blaming the Reps for not getting it done.
Then the Reps try to get it done and the Dems opposed it. It finally passed but somehow that's a bad thing.
All agree that it isn't perfect but it has to be better than what the Seniors had before which is basically nothing.
So, 'splain this all please. I admit I didn't follow it too closely at the time. Just seems odd to see a Democratic Congressman on the tube railing against prescription coverage for Seniors.
"During the Clinton years a $400 billion per anum prescription drug dole for seniors would have been called wasteful spending, "creeping socialism" or a generally bad idea. Yet after President Bush's State of the Union address, it was welcomed as "a binding commitment of a caring society."
-
toad.. if medicare were prigvatized then there would be plenty of money for perscriptions.
six... I meant 34 cents in "road taxes" the money is suppossed to go for fixing the roads.
sandie... my point is that I don't worry about the soviet union anymore... I don't want to worry about terrorists. If terrorists suddenly become a problem then I want my president to spend money to nullify that. I don't care if he promised to reduce the deficit before...
lazs
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Oh... I get it. Republicans are liars.
Don't get your panties in a wad. So are the Democrats.
Maybe it's a politician thing.
NO T3H D3/\/\0CR4TZ ER T3H H0N35T!!!!
(http://www.realchange.org/kerry.jpg)
P\/\/NT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!111111111111111111
-
So six, all you've got to say is that the Dems are against it now because the Republicans did it? After the Dems crying about the lack of prescription benefits for Seniors for years?
-
Originally posted by Toad
So six, all you've got to say is that the Dems are against it now because the Republicans did it? After the Dems crying about the lack of prescription benefits for Seniors for years?
Ahh, I think I was saying the same thing, it's a 2 way street.
-
Well, I don't think the new benefits are perfect or even real cost-effective. But they are something where we had about nothing before.
So....... it's a good thing, IMO.
-
Here is some more http://slate.msn.com/id/2095237/
Now mind you, almost every link I have posted have come from conservative sites or written by conservatives.
"Those conservatives who sincerely believe that government needs to spend less—a small but important Republican constituency—are furious at Bush right now because he's increasing domestic discretionary spending more rapidly than Bill Clinton did. During his two terms in office, Clinton increased domestic discretionary spending by 10 percent. Bush, in not quite one full presidential term, has already increased domestic discretionary spending by 25 percent. This according to the White House's own budget charts! (The numbers are adjusted for inflation.)
Knowing this, it's all the more extraordinary that when Bush got asked about his spending habit on Meet the Press, this was his answer:
If you look at the appropriations bills that were passed under my watch, in the last year of President Clinton, discretionary spending was up 15 percent, and ours have steadily declined.
That isn't even close to being true. Under Bush, overall discretionary spending (i.e., with defense spending included) has increased every single year. It's now 31 percent higher than it was when Bush arrived.
But perhaps Bush meant to say, "domestic discretionary spending." Well, that, too, has increased every single year of Bush's presidency, and, as previously noted, is now 25 percent higher than it was when Bush arrived.
It seems almost gratuitous to add that in the last year of President Clinton's term, discretionary spending was up not 15 percent, but 3 percent, and that domestic discretionary spending was up not 15 percent, but 5 percent.
It should be obvious how the Meet the Press lie about spending differs from the usual Bush lie. He's lying to a different audience. Bush isn't gaslighting Democrats; although Democrats worry about deficits, they don't lose sleep over large increases in government spending. (Indeed, the liberal Center for Budget and Policy Priorities has lately been complaining that the spending increases projected in Bush's proposed 2005 budget aren't large enough.) To most Democrats, Bush's transparently false claim that he's cut discretionary spending will provoke at best mild academic interest.
Bush is gaslighting small-government Republicans. He's lying to the Heritage Foundation's Brian Riedl, who has observed that federal spending has grown twice as fast under Bush as it did under Clinton. He's lying to Paul Gigot, who edits the Wall Street Journal's editorial page, which says runaway spending is evidence that "the Republican imperium is starting to show signs of ideological dry rot." He's lying to Rush Limbaugh, who recently told his listeners that Bush hopes to soften "people's view of conservatism by making Americans work more for government and less for themselves," and that this strategy won't work. He's lying to Andrew Sullivan, the hawkish conservative blogger who's in utter despair over Bush's spending spree. He's lying, in short, to people who believe in him. Or rather, believed; Sullivan is drifting rapidly leftward and has already struck out at Bush's dishonesty on Meet the Press. If others follow, Bush could see serious erosion in his political base."
-
the oldies can't get free drugs or discounted drugs from canada so it is a bad thing
instead of looking at what they gained they cry that they did not get it all .. typical
-
Originally posted by Toad
While we're at it, somebody 'splain to me why I see Democratic Congressmen ranting about the "Bush Prescription Plan for Seniors".
I'm cornfused.
I thought just about everyone agreed we need to help our Seniors with prescriptions. Seems I heard it touted as a goal of the Dems for years, with them blaming the Reps for not getting it done.
Then the Reps try to get it done and the Dems opposed it. It finally passed but somehow that's a bad thing.
All agree that it isn't perfect but it has to be better than what the Seniors had before which is basically nothing.
So, 'splain this all please. I admit I didn't follow it too closely at the time. Just seems odd to see a Democratic Congressman on the tube railing against prescription coverage for Seniors.
IIRC
Clintons plan would of combined all govn't agencies giving them 75% market share effectively controlling the market. They could then call the shots on prices.
Bush's plan kepts them all separate so they lack the leverage and will still pay the same high price for the drugs. They'll just get less for the same amount of money as they would have with Clinton's.
The top drug companies for years have had a 18% return, added the fact they usually spend 6% on R&D and 4% on advertising.
Special interest groups at their best.
-
Originally posted by Sixpence
Here is a post at some political forum, not sure about the numbers though http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-rlc/1100848/posts
Great post sixpence.
:aok
-
Originally posted by lazs2
yep... pretty much as I expected.. republicans spend on defense and democrats spend on buerocracy and socialist issues.
lazs
Like education...bad idea to waste money on that nonsense...:rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by MrCoffee
Great post sixpence.
:aok
Yeah, great source...the far, far right militants that post there are some of the most disgusting republicans that infest this planet....but don't take my word for it, go read the forum for yourselves, it'll make any person with an ounce of humility or just an active conscience come away with a feeling of the possibility that forced sterilization isn't such a bad idea when there are idiots like this in the world.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
Ok.. so show me where the republicans did any spending that would increase debt that was not related to this war?
This war will end but democrat social programs go on forever.
lazs
ever heard of the tax cuts??
ever heard of tax cuts during a war??
the time for full medical insurance coverage is long overdue. As Howie D pointed out, we are the only industrialized nation without universal health care. As the Kooch stated - we are already shelling out what it would cost for single payer - and leaving 40 million americans uninsured. The difference is the profits taken by the insurance companies
so lessee - do we want the insurance companies to make millions or health care coverage for every child, man and woman. no brainer. I hate insurance companies
-
Originally posted by MrCoffee
Great post sixpence.
:aok
lol, not my post, I linked because of it being to the right. I should have realized it would be taken that way though.
-
so strk... you are against tax cuts? Oh I see... you don't like tax cuts because we should be giving the government more of our money so that they can set up a universal health care system that will work as effieciently as all the other systems they run... like social security? Schools?
as for schools.. throwing money at em doesn't work... they waste it.. they have no competition... they stay open only 6 months a year and have 87% adminestrators... the buildings and teachers are idle most of the year. they are the best paid part time workers in the world with the most chiefs and fewest indians.
The schools with the most money thrown at em don't do the best in turning out product. private schools do much better with much less... private retirement returns far more than forced govenment ones do... What makes you think governmet health care will work any better?
As for that sight... those guys are as radical in their way as the total left winger nut jobs are in theirs. If you think they dislike bush.... wait till you see what they think of kerry. they discount all the normal conservative groups like the Wall street journal and Heritage as being "fooled" by Bush while they have the straight scoop... sorry... have to see some unbiased numbers. linked to something official. I don't believe a thing they said at this point.
I do believe Bush is more of a socialist than I would like but he is night and day better than any democrat we could get.
strk.... Why should I pay for your healthcare? Why should I pay social security? I don't owe you healthcare but that is what you are saying... you want me to pay your way. pay your own friggin helathcare.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
so strk... you are against tax cuts? Oh I see... you don't like tax cuts because we should be giving the government more of our money so that they can set up a universal health care system that will work as effieciently as all the other systems they run... like social security? Schools?
as for schools.. throwing money at em doesn't work... they waste it.. they have no competition... they stay open only 6 months a year and have 87% adminestrators... the buildings and teachers are idle most of the year. they are the best paid part time workers in the world with the most chiefs and fewest indians.
The schools with the most money thrown at em don't do the best in turning out product. private schools do much better with much less... private retirement returns far more than forced govenment ones do... What makes you think governmet health care will work any better?
As for that sight... those guys are as radical in their way as the total left winger nut jobs are in theirs. If you think they dislike bush.... wait till you see what they think of kerry. they discount all the normal conservative groups like the Wall street journal and Heritage as being "fooled" by Bush while they have the straight scoop... sorry... have to see some unbiased numbers. linked to something official. I don't believe a thing they said at this point.
I do believe Bush is more of a socialist than I would like but he is night and day better than any democrat we could get.
strk.... Why should I pay for your healthcare? Why should I pay social security? I don't owe you healthcare but that is what you are saying... you want me to pay your way. pay your own friggin helathcare.
lazs
no tax cuts for the rich. is that so hard to understand?
show me one school system that had money thrown at it that did poorly.
I pay my own healthcare thank you. I also provide it for my employees. THe people you are paying are the insurance companies, which take that money as profits. I say cut out the blood sucking insurance corps. is that hard to understand? you like giving them your money? I would be happy if what I paid could cover some poor child's insurance too and the insurance company doesnt get a cut. I would even be happy if you got some insurance on it too.
I am an american and I care about other americans a lot more than I care about the profits of some insurance corp.
If you want to worship the corps then you are free to do so. Send them some extra money if you love them so much
-
Originally posted by strk
show me one school system that had money thrown at it that did poorly.
Are you kidding? All of them, well, ok, not all of them, but many of them. Throwing money at something does not solve the problem. You create even more waste. It has to be managed well, and that's where we are failing. I see a main problem is finding good teachers, no one wants to teach, and I would imagine it would have something to do with the pay. The saying around here is, "if you can't do anything else, you teach". I'm all for paying teachers well, because you are going to anyway when you decide to send your children to private school to get an education. But the unions don't want to replace teachers with more qualified ones, and to give them credit, they are there to protect their members, but in this case the union is going to have to bend to better the public school system. The public school system needs an overhaul(here anyway), not more money, or at least it needs to be fixed before it gets more money.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
so strk... you are against tax cuts? Oh I see... you don't like tax cuts because we should be giving the government more of our money so that they can set up a universal health care system that will work as effieciently as all the other systems they run... like social security? Schools?
as for schools.. throwing money at em doesn't work... they waste it.. they have no competition... they stay open only 6 months a year and have 87% adminestrators... the buildings and teachers are idle most of the year. they are the best paid part time workers in the world with the most chiefs and fewest indians.
The schools with the most money thrown at em don't do the best in turning out product. private schools do much better with much less... private retirement returns far more than forced govenment ones do... What makes you think governmet health care will work any better?
As for that sight... those guys are as radical in their way as the total left winger nut jobs are in theirs. If you think they dislike bush.... wait till you see what they think of kerry. they discount all the normal conservative groups like the Wall street journal and Heritage as being "fooled" by Bush while they have the straight scoop... sorry... have to see some unbiased numbers. linked to something official. I don't believe a thing they said at this point.
I do believe Bush is more of a socialist than I would like but he is night and day better than any democrat we could get.
lazs
1. 87% Administrators? where are you getting that data?
1a.While ptivate colleges offer some advantages regarding access to resources, there are some real issues that private colleges face that public colleges don't. There are regulations private colleges don't have to adhere to (rampant drinking, illicit drug use, abortion funds for students...yes they Do have sex in college..and a host of other things they don't need to report to the State that I doubt most would want their kids going to.
Schools stay open 6 months a year? which schools did you attend?
2. Do you have any idea at all what the best teachers do, such as creating lesson plans, parent-teacher conferences, spending personal money on classroom supplies? Yes there are some bad ones, but like any company, nothing is 100% w/o cheaters and those that take advantage of the system. How many of you are using the work computer to post this BBs? case in point...
3. It has to be a real tragedy for you that Bush (hopefully) doesn't share youre racially bigoted and homophobic views.
4. For someone who's as determined to holding on to his money, you don't seem to have any problem w/ Bush being given a blank check to Iraq. Your flip-flopping is making me airsick...or maybe it's just you and your malignant hate mongering making me sick in general...
-
You mean a polotician lied!
Oh say it aint so:rofl
-
anyone who thinks that more money won't help schools is listening to Limbaugh, not the facts.
I defy anyone to tell me how giving LESS money is going to help.
To prove my point, compare the literacy, SAT score and dropout rates per state with the per-student amount spent in each state. You will find that schools in MOntana, Alabama and Texas are worse than schools in New York and California.
Now look at the case of Dare County, North Carolina - Outer Banks - they have lots of tourist money coming in, the schools have state of the art class rooms and do very well
Look at Fairfax County, VA - highest paid teachers in the state and the best public schools in the state.
The numbers don't lie folks, the GOP has been trying to sell this idea of destroying the public school system - remember Newt wanted to eradicate the Dept of Education? I think it goes back to lingering bad feelings about de-segregation, the effort to dumb-down our population, and the ease with which the issue can be played off of the average joe - I mean who didnt hate school?
-
interesting strk... so you simply want to "tax the rich" maybe we could eat em too? You want to leverl the playing field... sorta... "from each according to his abilities and to each according to his needs" ?? I would take it then you are against cities giving tax breaks to companies and "incentives" so that they will move to that area?
schools... Summer school is not "school" and the teachers get paid that deign to teach it. The buildings are deserted much of the time in California.
In Los Angeles county the school system has 87% adminestrators. I know of no other system that is run as basdly as the school system unless it is another socialist program.. provate schools consistently give a better product with less money thrown at em than least funded public school. We are not talking higher educatin here (yet) this is 1-12.
redtail... so.. not wanting to pay your health health care or keep the public school mess makes me a homophobe and a biggot? I take it that you are a black gay guy and have somehow taken the cutting off of your government tit as a threat? If you wish to call that homopbic/biggot.... so be it.
I think it is gay black guys like you tho who are the real biggots... but then... that's just me.
lazs
-
Originally posted by strk
The difference is the profits taken by the insurance companies
so lessee - do we want the insurance companies to make millions or health care coverage for every child, man and woman. no brainer. I hate insurance companies
Ah, I see now. Under a DEMOCRATIC plan, there would be no profit for insurance companies. NO waste, no stupidity, no fraud no "favor" to "big business cronies. It's only Republican lawmakers that do that stuff. Gotcha.
I guess this is because saintly Democratic politicians are immune from the lobbyists and always put what's really best for the nation ahead of their personal interests.
Thanks, now I understand.
As for the schools, I think you missed one of Lazs basic points. I guess if you throw enough money at something you can get some sort of results. We all probably agree on that.
But there's nothing you can name that the national government does that is truly an efficient use of money. That's just the way it works. Get "big government" involved and there's no true urge to economize. They've got an unending source of income and they know it. So they just don't care. Boston's "big dig" comes to mind.
Now, OTOH, allow Private Enterprise to handle it, inject the profit motive and the risk of LOSING money and you almost always get a better product.
Crossing an idea from another thread; The search for a workable hydrogen fueled car engine. Which do you think would give us a workable hydrogen engine faster: A $500 billion Federal Government research program or offering a $250 billion prize (tax free of course.. threw that in to stoke your sense of unfairness and outrage) to the first company to meet the standards?
-
Originally posted by strk
no tax cuts for the rich. is that so hard to understand?
Yeah, brilliant... Because a guy who busts his bellybutton for 130k a year only to give half of it away to the government is really in league with a 30million/year CEO.
Most 'rich' people are anything but. They take out loans, go into debt, have kids to feed and put through school and pay mortgages. They don't owe you, or the system, any more percentage points than anyone else.
Higher tax brackets are nothing but symbolic gestures to gain votes. Contratulations.
Get a grip on reality.
-
Originally posted by Toad
I guess if you throw enough money at something you can get some sort of results. We all probably agree on that.
No, I don't, I think it has to be managed well or there will be more waste.
Get "big government" involved and there's no true urge to economize. They've got an unending source of income and they know it. So they just don't care. Boston's "big dig" comes to mind.
Getting off subject, but that has to do more with corrupted government with ties to contractors than it does with big government.
Now, OTOH, allow Private Enterprise to handle it, inject the profit motive and the risk of LOSING money and you almost always get a better product.
With the school system you have to educate everyone, even the poor and the poor-middle class, shoot, even alot of the middle class would not be able to afford private school. But put that aside, even if private business did run it, they would run into the same problem, they would have to pay the teachers a competitive salary. A better teacher will produce a better education. We need to put our teachers on the same pedestal as our fireman and police. And I don't want to privatize those either. One thing that Bush says that I agree with is we need involvement with our community and I think the public school system is a good start.
Crossing an idea from another thread; The search for a workable hydrogen fueled car engine. Which do you think would give us a workable hydrogen engine faster: A $500 billion Federal Government research program or offering a $250 billion prize (tax free of course.. threw that in to stoke your sense of unfairness and outrage) to the first company to meet the standards?
Neither, cause trillion dollar oil corporations still have alot of oil to sell.
-
Originally posted by Capt. Pork
Yeah, brilliant... Because a guy who busts his bellybutton for 130k a year only to give half of it away to the government is really in league with a 30million/year CEO.
Most 'rich' people are anything but. They take out loans, go into debt, have kids to feed and put through school and pay mortgages. They don't owe you, or the system, any more percentage points than anyone else.
Higher tax brackets are nothing but symbolic gestures to gain votes. Contratulations.
Get a grip on reality.
You obviously have no idea how the tax sysem favors the wealthy - case in point - INCOME only, and not wealth is taxed.
-
Originally posted by Capt. Pork
Yeah, brilliant... Because a guy who busts his bellybutton for 130k a year only to give half of it away to the government is really in league with a 30million/year CEO.
Most 'rich' people are anything but. They take out loans, go into debt, have kids to feed and put through school and pay mortgages. They don't owe you, or the system, any more percentage points than anyone else.
Higher tax brackets are nothing but symbolic gestures to gain votes. Contratulations.
Get a grip on reality.
yeah - brilliant - so you want the poor to pair a higher percentage of their disposable income as taxes - who already pay a higher percentage for basic survival. Who needs a tax cut more?
the rich sure as hell do owe a debt to this country because of the OPPORTUNITY that the US gives them.
oh, and btw higher tax brackers - like the deficit reduction act - spurred the economy because we stopped running deficits. You just cant admit that the dread Clinton got it right.
it kills me how you people are ready and willing to shill for the rich
-
Originally posted by lazs2
interesting strk... so you simply want to "tax the rich" maybe we could eat em too? You want to leverl the playing field... sorta... "from each according to his abilities and to each according to his needs" ?? I would take it then you are against cities giving tax breaks to companies and "incentives" so that they will move to that area?
schools... Summer school is not "school" and the teachers get paid that deign to teach it. The buildings are deserted much of the time in California.
In Los Angeles county the school system has 87% adminestrators. I know of no other system that is run as basdly as the school system unless it is another socialist program.. provate schools consistently give a better product with less money thrown at em than least funded public school. We are not talking higher educatin here (yet) this is 1-12.
redtail... so.. not wanting to pay your health health care or keep the public school mess makes me a homophobe and a biggot? I take it that you are a black gay guy and have somehow taken the cutting off of your government tit as a threat? If you wish to call that homopbic/biggot.... so be it.
I think it is gay black guys like you tho who are the real biggots... but then... that's just me.
lazs
yeah that is right - we should invest in high quality education for our nation's future rather than short term tax breaks to lure companies to a town. once that got started, corps would shop for the location that would be the biggest potato for their interests
guess what? they figured it was cheaper to go overseas. THt is why we lost over 2 million manufacturing jobs - so slaves in china could make goods for import to the US
-
Point 1:
Please name a huge, nationwide mult-billion long term project that the Federal Government has "managed well".
There's where your entire argument falls to sub-atomic size pieces. Case in point is the Kansas City, Mo. school district. It was "taken over" by the Feds years ago because the local school board couldn't pour piss out of a boot if the instructions were written on the heel.
Guess what? The KC school district is now, offically, in worse shape than it was when the Feds took over.
Just one example.
Getting off subject, but that has to do more with corrupted government with ties to contractors than it does with big government.
Oh, the "big dig" was just a local fubar? I see. Well, go ahead, name that big Fed program that works so well. The one without major fraud, waste and abuse that's incredibly efficient use of our tax dollars. Medicare perhaps? Social Security maybe? Highway program? Go ahead, I'll wait.
Gee..... private industry would have to pay teachers more money? Is that a BAD thing? (Hey, strk! maybe they'd move up in to that "rich" category and you could tax the living shirt out of them!!)
Private business might even have performance standards teachers had to meet......oh, wait.. that'd be BAD wouldn't it? I mean, expecting people to perform their jobs well and all. How unfair!
Lastly, you tell me no would would work on a hyrdrogen engine project if there were a $250 billion prize because the oil companies have oil?
Well, that's a thought I guess. You're right... there's no smart people out there that would want $250 billion.
However, that was not the question, was it? The question was:
Which do you think would give us a workable hydrogen engine faster: A $500 billion Federal Government research program or offering a $250 billion prize (tax free of course.. threw that in to stoke your sense of unfairness and outrage) to the first company to meet the standards?
-
Originally posted by Toad
Please name a huge, nationwide mult-billion long term project that the Federal Government has "managed well"
I think NASA has done well
There's where your entire argument falls to sub-atomic size pieces. Case in point is the Kansas City, Mo. school district. It was "taken over" by the Feds years ago because the local school board couldn't pour piss out of a boot if the instructions were written on the heel.
You are making my argument, why couldn't the local school board pour piss out of a boot? Who puts these people on the school board? You and I don't get involved, it falls to pieces, so we pass the buck. It has not been private for how long in our history? Why is it failing now when it has been public all this time b4?
ss what? The KC school district is now, offically, in worse shape than it was when the Feds took over.
Who wants the feds to take over?
the "big dig" was just a local fubar? I see. Well, go ahead, name that big Fed program that works so well. The one without major fraud, waste and abuse that's incredibly efficient use of our tax dollars. Medicare perhaps? Social Security maybe? Highway program? Go ahead, I'll wait.
So there is no corruption in the private sector? If it involves your tax dollar, it will be bloated, private or not. Medicare, SS, Highway, are not these funds being raided by our pres? (oh, and don't forget the military retirement fund. The big dig was built by PRIVATE contractors.
... private industry would have to pay teachers more money? Is that a BAD thing?
What are you talking about, do you read what I wrote? You have to pay them more money, that is a big problem right now. There is a saying around here, "if you can't do anything else, you teach". Why does it have to be private to give them more money? Are you saying our fire dept and police dept should go private too?
Private business might even have performance standards teachers had to meet......oh, wait.. that'd be BAD wouldn't it? I mean, expecting people to perform their jobs well and all. How unfair!
Again, more babbling, didn't I write a better teacher makes for a better education? You could make the same argument for fireman and policemen, you wanna make that private too?
Lastly, you tell me no would would work on a hyrdrogen engine project if there were a $250 billion prize because the oil companies have oil?Well, that's a thought I guess. You're right... there's no smart people out there that would want $250 billion.
It's not that, it's that there are smarter people with a lot more money and power that are not going to let it happen. We could be using biodiesel, but we don't, there is no push to use it, why don't we?
However, that was not the question, was it? The question was:
Which do you think would give us a workable hydrogen engine faster: A $500 billion Federal Government research program or offering a $250 billion prize (tax free of course.. threw that in to stoke your sense of unfairness and outrage) to the first company to meet the standards?
Again, same answer as the last post.
-
Originally posted by strk
it kills me how you people are ready and willing to shill for the rich
I'd very much like to be one of them some day, and not have to worry about a government playing Robin Hood with my hard earned dollars.
Yes, the country gives opportunities to those that take it. I owe a debt, sure, but to say that somebody that makes a little more owes a disproportionately larger debt is implying that they took advantage of somebody else to get into that position. That may be true in very rare cases, and those rare cases may create a bad rep for the rest of the group, but it's not the average.
Again, and I know this will be lost on you since you only read the first line, there's nothing 'Rich' about some guy working 80 hours a week to just barely fit into that exclusive upper bracket. He has no more obligation to you, or the government, or to the guy who'd just as soon work fewer hours week and complain about it. He worked for his money. He improves the economy and the nation with his labor--which is a service in and of itself.
Of course, it sounds so nice when a million-dollar ketchup bottle starts spewing about taxing the rich. Re-distrubution of wealth!
I'm sure you'll be hearing Chariots of Fire playing in your head, causing the hairs on the back of your neck to stand on end as you cast your vote for him.
-
Let me just add, we already have private schools. Those who can afford it do so. How is a private group going to be able to make money if the people it is directed to cannot afford it?
This has arguments on both sides, but the bottom line is our schools could do well if we got more involved.
http://www.teacherszone.com/Parpublicsch.htm#Public
"As research has shown, success in school is due in part to, the teacher, the school and but largely to a parents' involvement in their child's academics progress."
You could even make more of an argument for homeschooling, which if you have a parent willing to stay home and do it, is a great idea.
MAJOR FINDINGS - ACHIEVEMENT
Almost 25% of home school students were enrolled one or more grades above their age-level peers in public and private schools.
Home school student achievement test scores were exceptionally high. The median scores for every subtest at every grade (typically in the 70th to 80th percentile) were well above those of public and Catholic/Private school students.
On average, home school students in grades 1 to 4 performed one grade level above their age-level public/private school peers on achievement tests.
Students who had been home schooled their entire academic life had higher scholastic achievement test scores than students who had also attended other educational programs.
There were no meaningful differences in achievement by gender, whether the student was enrolled in a full-service curriculum, or whether a parent held a state issued teaching certificate.
There were significant achievement differences among home school students when classified by amount of money spent on education, family income, parent education, and television viewing.
-
I would just like to point out that spending during a recession for the fifteenth billion time is a sound economic policy.
Don't listen to what democrats or republicans say about spending during a recession. They only say it to make uneducated people think that the other side is doing something awful. They are not.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
I would just like to point out that spending during a recession for the fifteenth billion time is a sound economic policy.
Don't listen to what democrats or republicans say about spending during a recession. They only say it to make uneducated people think that the other side is doing something awful. They are not.
Yeah, when you are in debt up to your eyeballs, and can barely pay the mortgage, go out and borrow another 20k to spend, this is sound policy.
-
Sure you want to use NASA? Cost overruns abound, inefficiencies, botched missions and disasters.
I'm not making your argument. There IS no argument at all. The local board was a government running a school. There was no accountability, no profit/loss or performance reveiws. They failed so totally that the Feds stepped in and took over the school system. Guess what with a bigger "big government" running the show, things got WORSE. It's a graphic demonstration of where your method leads.
What would have happened if the "big dig" had been let as a contract to build and construct a privately funded "toll road"? This is how highways got built in the early part of our nation's history. Allow them a certain number of years to run the toll road to make back their investment plus a reasonable profit. I think it would have gottne done a lot cheaper with far less drain on the US taxpayer..... how about you?
If it involves your tax dollar, it will be bloated, private or not.
Disagree. It's all in how you structure the contract to the private contractors.
Paying teachers more money is a good thing. Even you realize that. What's the best, quickest way to get them more money AND get accountability on their performance? Private schools. Plain and simple. Paying them more in a public system such as we have provides no accountability. Note the hand wringing and crying about having to meet the minimal Federal standards we have right now.
I'd support privatizing police and fire if they were as dysfunctional as our public schools. Say, what do you think of all the privatized prisons being run for the states all over the country right now? Isn't that privatized police, in essence?
I simply want what works. Public schools don't work anymore, for a whole lot of reasons. Mainly, I think it's because there is no parental control of the schools. The edicts come down from on high and must be followed. And, like always, the guys farthest from the trenches seldom have a clue of what's going on or what is needed.
It's not that, it's that there are smarter people with a lot more money and power that are not going to let it happen.
Oh, yeah.. that's right! Like the 200 mpg Fish carburetor. Look, "big oil" can't buy off all the folks that would crop up going for the $250 billion prize. Even they can't afford that. Beyond that, the market for that technology would be so great that gazillions would be made. I'm betting that with that kind of incentive, the big oil companies would put their own scientists to work on the project.
Biodiesel has one big problem you conveniently overlook. It's probably the lowest cost alternative fuel but it's still not as cheap as petrodiesel. That may change as oil prices rise. But you can't get around the basic fact that it costs more to use and that's why it's not the predominant diesel fuel.
-
Originally posted by Sixpence
Yeah, when you are in debt up to your eyeballs, and can barely pay the mortgage, go out and borrow another 20k to spend, this is sound policy.
FDR sure thought so.
-
No, you don't follow. Government spending is different then Household spending. That's why there are two entirely different courses in College.
To raise the GDP (I.E. make the economy do well), you can do one of two things Fiscally. The First is to increase spending. This puts more money into the economy, thus Pushes it up, bringing everything else along with it.
Next you can decrease taxes. However, the amount you decrease the taxes is some multiplier greater then 1 what it will do to the economy.
I.E. You lower taxes 40 billion dollars, the economy might only go up 25 or 30 billion. However, if you spend 40 billion dollars, the economy will go up a little bit more then 40 billion dollars.
You are spending money now, so you can save later.
Note that what kerry wants to do is called a Balanced Budget government. While it will balance the government's debt, it will not help the economy at all. Infact, fiscally it will probably hurt the economy because you are doing the opposite of what I described above.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Biodiesel has one big problem you conveniently overlook. It's probably the lowest cost alternative fuel but it's still not as cheap as petrodiesel. That may change as oil prices rise. But you can't get around the basic fact that it costs more to use and that's why it's not the predominant diesel fuel.
Well, there is one thing you conveniently overlook, the cost of securing foreign oil. Over the last 10 years we have spent almost 96 billion a year securing foreign oil. And since the war began in Iraq, you can double that. When that is factored in, the cost of biodiesel is much cheaper, and saves us lives. For instance, in 1996, it was estimated that the military costs of securing foreign oil was $57 billion annually. Foreign tax credits accounted for another estimated $4 billion annually and environmental costs were estimated at $45 per barrel. For every billion dollars spent on foreign oil, America lost 10,000 – 25,000 jobs
-
Prove your thesis that all that military spending is solely "military costs of securing foreign oil".
Sources?
Not opinion, either; proof.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Prove your thesis that all that military spending is solely "military costs of securing foreign oil".
Sources?
Not opinion, either; proof.
Our military presence in the middle east the last 20 years isn't proof enough? The cost of bases, the costs of keeping fleets in the gulf? Are you saying we have spent no money securing foreign oil? How much does it cost to maintain the 5th fleet in the gulf? And how much for our military presence in saudi arabia, care to take a guess? Or do I have to show prove that the 5th fleet was actually there?
-
Prove all that was solely related to oil.
For example, how much was for support of Israel?
It's just not that simple, sorry.
But go ahead and document the costs specifically related to oil.
Go ahead.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Prove all that was solely related to oil.
For example, how much was for support of Israel?
It's just not that simple, sorry.
But go ahead and document the costs specifically related to oil.
Go ahead.
And if you want to dance around it, go ahead.
BTW, here is a nice quote for ya
"If Kuwait grew carrots, we wouldn't give a damn."
--Lawrence Korb, assistant defense secretary under Reagan, as the U.S. prepared its massive military assault on Iraq in 1991.
And the $3 billion in aid and loans given to Israel, as well as the aid to Egypt, are a drop in the bucket of US spending in the Middle East.
-
Originally posted by Capt. Pork
I'd very much like to be one of them some day, and not have to worry about a government playing Robin Hood with my hard earned dollars.
Yes, the country gives opportunities to those that take it. I owe a debt, sure, but to say that somebody that makes a little more owes a disproportionately larger debt is implying that they took advantage of somebody else to get into that position. That may be true in very rare cases, and those rare cases may create a bad rep for the rest of the group, but it's not the average.
Again, and I know this will be lost on you since you only read the first line, there's nothing 'Rich' about some guy working 80 hours a week to just barely fit into that exclusive upper bracket. He has no more obligation to you, or the government, or to the guy who'd just as soon work fewer hours week and complain about it. He worked for his money. He improves the economy and the nation with his labor--which is a service in and of itself.
Of course, it sounds so nice when a million-dollar ketchup bottle starts spewing about taxing the rich. Re-distrubution of wealth!
I'm sure you'll be hearing Chariots of Fire playing in your head, causing the hairs on the back of your neck to stand on end as you cast your vote for him.
that is a convenient example. You think every over paid executive puts in hours like that? Im sure that a lot bust their ass, but a lot of poor and middle class folks bust their bellybutton too. Lets look at the other end of the spectrum - WHat about the guy who works 9 months of the year, makes 30 million dollars. Do you think it matters if he is taxed at 30 or 35 %? He wont notice it.
You subscribe to the fallacy of wishing one day to join the ranks of the rich. Yet you vote for a party that will cause you to pay a higher percentage of your non-survival income as taxes, thereby blocking you from accumulating wealth. You are like a chicken voting for Colonel Sanders.
When did America adopt this culture of greed? was it gordon gekko and miami vice?
-
Again, you're either not reading, not comprehending, or not paying attention. I'm not talking about 30mil/year CEOs, I'm talking about the guy who works hard and just barely makes the cut for the high tax bracket.
This isn't the land of greed. This is the land of unhindered possibility. Or at least it was, until some of us starting getting guilt complexes to cover for something rooted deeper in the psyches.
The happy ending to all this, strk, is that for every five people that think the way you do, there's a tax attorney out there to make sure there's a way out. I'll be in Law School next year. Maybe I'll kill two birds with one stone and become one.
-
Originally posted by Capt. Pork
Again, you're either not reading, not comprehending, or not paying attention. I'm not talking about 30mil/year CEOs, I'm talking about the guy who works hard and just barely makes the cut for the high tax bracket.
Do you know how much you have to make in order to get into the high tax bracket?
-
288,000 or higher.
Of course, the one directly underneath it affects anyone making over 135,000 a year.
Still pretty short of 30 million, if I'm not mistaken
Look, my point is mostly in principal... There should definitely be fewer tax brackets. Those that are barely getting by should get breaks, but the highest tax brackets, by that same token need to apply to wealthier people--the truly wealthy. Most residents of this nation, who are niether starving nor driving around in white testarossas or arguining about which super yacht to buy, should belong to a consolidated tax bracket.
-
If Taxpayer's Income Is... Then Estimated Taxes Are...
Head of Household
$0 $10,000 $0 10% $0
$10,000 $35,150 $1,000 15% $10,000
$35,150 $90,800 $4,772.50 27% $35,150
$90,800 $147,050 $19,798.00 30% $90,800
$147,050 $288,350 $36,673.00 35% $147,050
$288,350 - - - - - $86,128.00 38.6% $288,350
-
Originally posted by Capt. Pork
288,000 or higher.
Of course, the one directly underneath it affects anyone making over 135,000 a year.
Still pretty short of 30 million, if I'm not mistaken
Damn it will be hard to afford 2 new H2's for their kids 16th birthday. Let me shed a tear. Explain to me why people that can barely afford to live in America do not deserve a larger tax cut.
-
Read my edit....
And nobody's asking you to shed a tear. Like I said, all this, as well as the rediculous estate tax, can all be taken care of with a few visits to a tax attorney.
-
Originally posted by Capt. Pork
Again, you're either not reading, not comprehending, or not paying attention. I'm not talking about 30mil/year CEOs, I'm talking about the guy who works hard and just barely makes the cut for the high tax bracket.
This isn't the land of greed. This is the land of unhindered possibility. Or at least it was, until some of us starting getting guilt complexes to cover for something rooted deeper in the psyches.
The happy ending to all this, strk, is that for every five people that think the way you do, there's a tax attorney out there to make sure there's a way out. I'll be in Law School next year. Maybe I'll kill two birds with one stone and become one.
well if you learn to love tax law I say more power to you. And since you have taken the LSAT I dont need to explain what a straw man argument is.
Here is some advice for you - get the book entitled "Planet Law School" and follow the advice to the letter. You will be ahead of your class from day one.
And I agree about the tax cheats - it doesnt make it right - and imo its unpatriotic
-
STRK, don't forget. The people who make the most money are spending the most money.
While 5% from a rich guy might not seem like much to him, compare it to 5% out of all rich guys.
That is a hell of a lot of money that is not being spent in the economy.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
STRK, don't forget. The people who make the most money are spending the most money.
While 5% from a rich guy might not seem like much to him, compare it to 5% out of all rich guys.
That is a hell of a lot of money that is not being spent in the economy.
the government doesnt just put it in a mason jar and bury it in the WH lawn, they spend that money for the common good, which is the whole purpose.
-
Like I said before, taxes have a much smaller effect on the economy then government spending does (be they for more or less taxes).
If taxes were cut to the american people 40 billion dollars, only 20 would make it into the economy.
However, if Government spending went up 40 billion dollars, about 55-60 billion dollars would be put into the economy through various bank, tax and other processes.
(Those numbers were a slight exhaggeration to show the effects. They do change based off of certain multipliers).
-
Originally posted by strk
well if you learn to love tax law I say more power to you. And since you have taken the LSAT I dont need to explain what a straw man argument is.
Here is some advice for you - get the book entitled "Planet Law School" and follow the advice to the letter. You will be ahead of your class from day one.
And I agree about the tax cheats - it doesnt make it right - and imo its unpatriotic
I will certainly read it. I made the mistake of reading 1L(Turow) before deciding to follow the Law track and am still trying to talk myself down from the hysteria.
Nevertheless, there are many things with which I do not agree. My dad's a doctor. For the last 5 years, he's been elected, by his peers, as the favored practitioner of his specialty in the state of DE(small, I, know, and his specialty is Neurosurgery, thus putting him up against no more than 7 or 8 others at any one time). I would have liked to practive Medical Law, to defend innocent MDs from frivolous law suits. It pisses me off... Because why should my pops, who, at the age of 60, and with a triple by-pass and a titanium heart valve, need to pay over 300k a year in mal-practice insurance when he's never been sued, for any reason(knock on wood)? He cannot retire because he cannot afford to keep paying 300k a year for 5 years, which is what they require of him in the event of a lawsuit down the line... He's a good man, who gives at least ten hours a week of his time to charity, and performs 30% of his operations free of charge because, after all, doctors, especially in his field, exist to save lives, first and foremost...
I think that your friend Bill Clinton did much to ruin the situation for good MDs. He is one of the reasons I'm a conservative at a relatively young age.
I will not make it into malpractice law because I want to work sooner, rather than later, and malpractice law requires a working knowledge of the medical profession and thus, far more education and invested time.
The closest thing I can do is to defend other hard-working, high-earning americans from the injustice of disproportionately elevated income taxes. This is my belief, however unpopular, and I shall stick to it.
Either that or entertainment law, as I still dream of becoming a novelist one day(creative writing is my number-one hobby, followed closely by drinking and looking at naked women--one eye partially drooping and tongue hanging).
Either way, STRK, I respect your beliefs, in spite of my previous statements. I'm glad we can share a nation where at least there's some sort of conceivable middle ground--albeit one that I cannot, at the moment, conceive of myself.
-
Originally posted by Capt. Pork
I will certainly read it. I made the mistake of reading 1L(Turow) before deciding to follow the Law track and am still trying to talk myself down from the hysteria.
Nevertheless, there are many things with which I do not agree. My dad's a doctor. For the last 5 years, he's been elected, by his peers, as the favored practitioner of his specialty in the state of DE(small, I, know, and his specialty is Neurosurgery, thus putting him up against no more than 7 or 8 others at any one time). I would have liked to practive Medical Law, to defend innocent MDs from frivolous law suits. It pisses me off... Because why should my pops, who, at the age of 60, and with a triple by-pass and a titanium heart valve, need to pay over 300k a year in mal-practice insurance when he's never been sued, for any reason(knock on wood)? He cannot retire because he cannot afford to keep paying 300k a year for 5 years, which is what they require of him in the event of a lawsuit down the line... He's a good man, who gives at least ten hours a week of his time to charity, and performs 30% of his operations free of charge because, after all, doctors, especially in his field, exist to save lives, first and foremost...
I think that your friend Bill Clinton did much to ruin the situation for good MDs. He is one of the reasons I'm a conservative at a relatively young age.
I will not make it into malpractice law because I want to work sooner, rather than later, and malpractice law requires a working knowledge of the medical profession and thus, far more education and invested time.
The closest thing I can do is to defend other hard-working, high-earning americans from the injustice of disproportionately elevated income taxes. This is my belief, however unpopular, and I shall stick to it.
Either that or entertainment law, as I still dream of becoming a novelist one day(creative writing is my number-one hobby, followed closely by drinking and looking at naked women--one eye partially drooping and tongue hanging).
Either way, STRK, I respect your beliefs, in spite of my previous statements. I'm glad we can share a nation where at least there's some sort of conceivable middle ground--albeit one that I cannot, at the moment, conceive of myself.
you may be suprised to learn that I did not like Clinton and did not vote for him in 96. He was far too centrist with his DLC leadership and promotion of NAFTA. Also the idiot couldnt keep his dick or his cigar out of fat interns.
As far as MD malpractice - I know that the insurance is a problem and I don;t have any knowledge of Med Mal law but I will tell you what I have heard and that is that the AMA is partially responsible for the high MD Malpractice Insurance rates because it is very hard to pull a MD license even after they really screw up. THerefore it is .01% of the MDs that jack up the rates for all the other MDs like your dad who have never had a problem.
edit - check out what Va (my state - and the toughest bar exam in the nation) is doing with this problem - the state is going to insure high risk MDs so that rates can be lowered for the rest - a pretty nifty idea imo
Turow's 1L is ok, the other book that shows the quintessential 1L experience is "THe Paper Chase" - but that Planet Law School book is a how to kick bellybutton in L school guide that will help you a lot.
I think the best description of the 1L experience is " Learning to play chess by playing with a master before you even know the rules of the game" Get those outlines early and you will have agreat LSchool career
-
Originally posted by Sixpence
And if you want to dance around it, go ahead.
LOL. You can't show Jack.
It's isn't just aid to Israel, it's the whole Arabs vs Israel in the Middle East that is part and parcel of that expense.
You say the Sixth Fleet is in the Med to "protect our oil" but you can't back it up. You refuse to consider that it's just as likely that the Sixth is "muscle" to keep Israel alive, is a part of our Nato committment, etc., etc.
BTW, just who is all that military muscle "protecting our oil" from? From the guys who want to sell it to us? What?
There's dancing going on but I'm sitting watching someone do the two-step.
-
Originally posted by strk
Do you think it matters if he is taxed at 30 or 35 %? He wont notice it...
Yet you vote for a party that will cause you to pay a higher percentage of your non-survival income as taxes,...
When did America adopt this culture of greed? was it gordon gekko and miami vice?
Ah, OK. I get it now. As long as the victim "won't notice it" the new morals are that it is OK to steal from him. Gotcha!
Hey, Kewl! Every few years we can redraw the line on where the guy will begin to notice it and then we can smugly and morally steal MORE from him!
And that party would be the Democrats, btw.
When did America adopt this culture of theft justified by envy?
-
Originally posted by strk
they spend that money for the common good,
If only that were true.
-
Originally posted by Toad
LOL. You can't show Jack.
It's isn't just aid to Israel, it's the whole Arabs vs Israel in the Middle East that is part and parcel of that expense.
You say the Sixth Fleet is in the Med to "protect our oil" but you can't back it up. You refuse to consider that it's just as likely that the Sixth is "muscle" to keep Israel alive, is a part of our Nato committment, etc., etc.
BTW, just who is all that military muscle "protecting our oil" from? From the guys who want to sell it to us? What?
There's dancing going on but I'm sitting watching someone do the two-step.
The only one two stepping is you, and you are being rediculous, we have been securing oil for years. Yeah, all that military presence in the middle east is to help the farmers count their sand granules. And it's the 5th fleet, and they're there as a commuter ferry.
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20030701faessay15401/kenneth-m-pollack/securing-the-gulf.html
IT'S THE OIL, STUPID
America's primary interest in the Persian Gulf lies in ensuring the free and stable flow of oil from the region to the world at large. This fact has nothing to do with the conspiracy theories leveled against the Bush administration during the run-up to the recent war. U.S. interests do not center on whether gas is $2 or $3 at the pump, or whether Exxon gets contracts instead of Lukoil or Total. Nor do they depend on the amount of oil that the United States itself imports from the Persian Gulf or anywhere else. The reason the United States has a legitimate and critical interest in seeing that Persian Gulf oil continues to flow copiously and relatively cheaply is simply that the global economy built over the last 50 years rests on a foundation of inexpensive, plentiful oil, and if that foundation were removed, the global economy would collapse.
'If Kuwait grew carrots, we wouldn't give a damn."
--Lawrence Korb, assistant defense secretary under Reagan, as the U.S. prepared its massive military assault on Iraq in 1991.
Lol, and saddam didn't invade Kuwait for it's oil, it's just plain rediculous. He invaded for their WMD. BTW, didn't you lose a bet? You're not exactly batting a thousand are ya?
-
Again, you discount all other factors and attribute the entire cost to "protecting the oil". We maintain huge fleets and troops in other areas of the world that have no oil. There's the basic flaw.
You can't quantify the actual cost, therefore your biodiesel "true cost" can't be determined.
Beyond that, the only biodiesel price that actually matters is the pump price. You won't get people to actively seek it out until the pump price is lower than petrodiesel. At the present time it isn't, so the answer to your question "why aren't don't we use biodiesel" is quite simple and obvious to the casual observer.
It's because end user the pump price is/would be higher than petrodiesel.
Rant about fleets and this and that but there's the bottom line.
-
Yeah, I lost a bet. Two, actually.
So?
-
Originally posted by Toad
Again, you discount all other factors and attribute the entire cost to "protecting the oil". We maintain huge fleets and troops in other areas of the world that have no oil. There's the basic flaw.
You can't quantify the actual cost, therefore your biodiesel "true cost" can't be determined.
Beyond that, the only biodiesel price that actually matters is the pump price. You won't get people to actively seek it out until the pump price is lower than petrodiesel. At the present time it isn't, so the answer to your question "why aren't don't we use biodiesel" is quite simple and obvious to the casual observer.
It's because end user the pump price is/would be higher than petrodiesel.
Rant about fleets and this and that but there's the bottom line.
Rant? It's a plain fact, you want to deny we spend billions securing the middle for it's oil, well, I can see why you lost that bet. And that has to be factored in, those are our tax dollars. Beside that the benefits to our farmers would be great, they would have an infinite income from renewable energy, not to mention the evironmental cost of oil,lost jobs, and wealth leaving the country. I flew with a guy in fighter ace who worked for an oil corporation, and I asked him when the known oil reserves will run out. He told me that in 80 years that will happen, which surprised me a little because I was expecting hundreds of years at least. Now we use oil for plastics and other things, so to me now is the time to stop wasting it as fuel for cars, that would be common sense if we think of the future, no? Biodiesel would become much cheaper at the pump as more competition grows, but there is no initiative to do so. It's a no brainer.
found this, a little off subject, but not by much, he rips into Clinton big time, then has a few choice words for Bush
http://www.intelbriefing.com/bocfr.htm