The beginning of America's liberalism.

Originally Posted by davidmc

The English have a system whereby, if the party bringing the suit is proven to be of a frivolous nature, the lawyer is fined. This may be true in Ireland, Scotland, Wales, Gibraltar, ect... The judge plays a part too but it would seem he/she is wary of dismissing cases only to be overruled in another court & then possibly being criticized/fined(?)
Remember, having one's "day in court" is a very important feature of our rights. It is 1st amendment, in nature.
We must look into who is driving this restraining action. Remember, if lawyers lose, they don't get paid. My father was one & he said that it was rare he would take on a case unless he thought he could win. Otherwise, it would waste his & his clients time.

Originally Posted by wolfix

I didn't mean to imply that lawyers are bad or not needed. I believe in America we just have too many. I recently went to a lawyer trying to recover $5000 wages not paid me. This was never disputed by the person who owed me. He just suggested that the law would not make him pay. My lawyer agreed. He did tell me that the case would cause me more money then I would regain. That is a fair and honest lawyer. He did not tell me what I wanted to hear, but what I needed to hear.
But the law makers are usually lawyers who head into political office.They have allowed the system to become "litigation friendly" through the laws they create. The main point that Catherine Crier makes in her book is that when a law is made or revised, you can follow the money back and almost everytime it is a lawyer who reaps the benifits.
I have experiance in small claims court that leads me to believe that that particular court is nothing but a flip of the coin. Even when I knew I was right 100% I would settle for less outside the courts.
Too many Americans want to run to the courts to grab their piece of the pie. They have a very perverse sense of justice. They feel as if they have no personal responsibility but that everybody else has a responsibility to insure their happiness. I call this the "Wal-Mart Domino Effect." I was involved in painting of homes 15 years ago. I honestly had people that wanted me to re-paint their homes because they were not happy with the color they choose. It was not the quality of the job, but the fact once they saw the color applied they were not happy.. And they honestly felt that it was my responsibility to ensure complete customer satisfaction. At Wal_mart , you can use something, and return it , no questions asked. And this overlaps into consumerism.
It is a jungle out there.

Originally Posted by davidmc

Reform is an on-going process. I'm sure there is room for reform. Senator Spector (R) Penn. is a highly respected former prosecutor and I like him very much. This coming from me who you know is not a republican (seems to be "exclusive"). I may have a conservative view or two but not enough to align w/ thier party. I have more in common w/ the democratic party (seems to be "inclusive")

Originally Posted by Hypnospin

after a time, some of the more thoughtful men among those at the firepit began to tire of the early cons music, which consisted then, as now, of repetitive twanging and yodeling.
they fashioned instruments of refinement and pleasing tone, and their playing attracted the most attractive and thoughtful females of the groups.
shunning the crude yeasty warm and flat beverage of choice among the cons, they cultivated grapes and eventualy developed and reifined the vinters art to the level of port, cream sherry, and cognac, thus intensifying the attraction of the most desirable of the females, who were also attracted by the fact thay were less likely to have their kids slapped or be dragged around and beaten themselves.
these thoughtful men developed the conventions of bathing, shaving and using an awareness of hygiene that led to the widespread acceptance of soap. they favored long hair and used pleasant smelling flower extracts to further their appeal to the opposite sex.
in order to pursue the finer things in life, they extended oppurtunities to the cons and provided meaningful employment for those who had known only the savage brutality of hunting, and trained the cons in the ways of sheepherding, agriculture, tavernkeeping, meatcutting and woodchopping.
they developed and utilized the two wheeled cycle and evolved a competition of racing, but the cons did not particpate in numbers due to the prerequisite of wearing revealing lycra tights, which aroused the cons homophbia. they preferred, instead, a bastardized soccer game of territorial injury infliction they called "merkun football".
eventualy the thoughtful men would transport themselves in swedish steel conveyances known as volvo, and perhaps appropriately in the phonetic sense, saab.
meanwhile, the cons developed a personal style that relied heavily upon the crude wagons known as "pick 'em ups" and favored flannel and bib overalls as the primary fashion statement. they adorned their vehicles with dual rear wheels and mudflaps, upon these were emblazed the outline of states such as wyoming, or the female caricature in repose. they voted for the neocon party, as did their offspring, as they knew no other way.
it is often speculated on the relative advancements these rustic cons might make if they were to avail themselves of the higher learning and teaching by example of the thoughtful men, but to this day such considerations continue to remain largely academic in nature.

Originally Posted by Induray

You make a valid point here but; I believe, right or wrong, that the people who BENEFIT MOST in our society ought to not have a problem w/ contributing a more in taxes as they enjoy a considerably better lifestyle than the lower rung of citizens. There are the "well-off",the "rich", the "uber-rich", and the "obscenely-rich" A graduated/progressive tax scale is equitable. A flat tax is repressive, plain & simple.

Originally Posted by Billsworld

This thread started out so fun and look what I did to it....Any hoo. The tax code is supposed to be a means to pay the bills . The problem is when govt tries to redistribute income to them or us or that guy over there. It is do big to distinguish who is really in need., and thats not thier job any how. Instead they dream up new and better ways to redistribute peoples hard earned money. Ill sign your bill if you sign mine. They act like rich kids with trust funds.......wait they are!! Govt needs to be pricipal based, not emotion based. Rember Meryl Streep? WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN!!! There are never enough causes and disasters to spend our money on. Watch George go, Watch George spend!




The problem with this is that Senators/Rep's and Legislators are wealthy people themselves. They create a tax code that benefits people that own businesses and investments(i.e. themselves) where the money generated (through the investements)is not taxed as general income. Goverment continues to provide sheltering of investment money. A salaried employee however, all its money is taxed and worst of all "withheld". The more you make the more they keep! Withholding your income the goverment realized one thing, the average Joe cannot see how much money they are taking in tax. As a matter of fact most "average Joe" you ask them ....How much tax you pay? And they will probably answer.."I didn't pay any, I got a refund!"..(Instead of withholding, if you, at the end of every year, would had to write a check to the goverment for $10,000-$12,000 (average income that is), most likely you would rebel...not good for the goverment).
Goverment promotes this class warfare even further by let it you think that one party or the other is going to "tax the rich" and save the poor. Progressive tax is just smoke and mirrors to make the population feel that they have an upper hand in this class warfare. More tax laws are not the solution. We need a simpler tax system that rewards saving and investing rather than consumption. AND YES LESS GOVERMENT!

Originally Posted by davidmc

Reform is an on-going process. I'm sure there is room for reform. Senator Spector (R) Penn. is a highly respected former prosecutor and I like him very much. This coming from me who you know is not a republican (seems to be "exclusive"). I may have a conservative view or two but not enough to align w/ thier party. I have more in common w/ the democratic party (seems to be "inclusive")

Originally Posted by Induray

profits made from the sale of stocks & real estate are taxed as capital gains, no They may not pay taxes every year but it eventually gets taxed. I hope & pray that BushInc. w/ their willing right wing sychophants/minions don't pass the repeal of the estate tax or that will be one of the last nails in the coffin's of the poor Besides inherited wealth is not earned by the recipient anyway. It's "found money". I say tax anything over $5 million of inheritance til' it hurts

Originally Posted by Billsworld

Hey W and co. seem to be reading my posts. Check MSNBC headlines Tax Reform . Ill reserve my WAHOO!! for laterI go beyond that. The tax system if far to complicated for efficient implementation. There is a high chance that you as a taxpayer probably are paying above your required legal limit just because the lore of tax laws that you or your accountant might miss. Bad for you , great for politicians and government. (This has been tested and proven). We need something simpler that rewards the average joe when he saves and invests. Progressive taxation is again smoke and mirrors to pacify the working middle and poor!Actually, if I remember well, Karl Marx was in favor of a progressive tax too. Historically, it has not work and the clash of classes continues. Less government is better!

Originally Posted by Billsworld

I honestly have only read the headlines to date. I should have mentioned that.