My second question is how come the 56 men who signed the Declaration of Independence, only 24 were lawyers or jurists, but of the current 100 senators, 60 are lawyers ???
While it's true that there are slightly more than a million lawyers in America, that is less than one percent of the adult population. So how is it that 60% of the U.S. Senate and slightly over 30% of the House members, in addition to their party affiliation, are entitled to put Esq. after their name ???
I believe the problem is two-fold:
One, it's just too easy and too much fun being a politician;
And two, it's just too hard and not enough fun being a lawyer.
If people enjoyed being lawyers more, they wouldn't be so damn eager to run off to Albany, Sacramento, Springfield, Atlanta or Washington, D.C. Frankly, I don't know how to make the practice of law a more exciting career. So, instead, I think it behooves us to come up with ways to make politics a less attractive option.
The one notion that popped into my head was to take a leaf out of the Aztec playbook and initiate human sacrifices. Would any of us really have strong objections to Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Babs Boxer, Arlen Spector, Henry Waxman, Chucky Schumer, Susan Collins (and her twin) Olympia Snowe, Chris Dodo and Elmer Fudd .... and while we're at it, lets include Charlie Rangel, Maxine Waters, Rahm Emanual, Valerie Jarrett and Stuart Smalley ....being offered up to pacify the angry spirits of the Founding Fathers ???
No objection here,WARPH
Warph, I thought this was relevant to your post:
THIS IS WHY THERE WILL NEVER BE TORT REFORM:
Filed under: Most Recent Posts — thearizonasentinel @ 5:41 pm
This is why they will not talk about tort reform, and it is why we as states must sever our ties with Washington DC.
As Candidate for the Governor of Arizona, on of my top three items on the agenda will be just that. our campaign blog site is// www.arizona4therepublic.worpress.com word press works great ..
Perhaps this is the problem
This is very interesting! I never thought about it this way. Perhaps this is why so many physicians are conservatives or republicans.
The Democratic Party has become the Lawyers' Party.
* Barack Obama is a lawyer.
* Michelle Obama is a lawyer.
* Hillary Clinton is a lawyer.
* Bill Clinton is a lawyer.
* John Edwards is a lawyer.
* Elizabeth Edwards is a lawyer.
Every Democrat nominee since 1984 went to law school (although Gore did not graduate).
Every Democrat vice presidential nominee since 1976, except for Lloyd Bentsen, went to law school.
Look at leaders of the Democrat Party in Congress:
* Harry Reid is a lawyer.
* Nancy Pelosi is a lawyer.
Who was the last Republican president who was a lawyer? Gerald Ford, who left office 31 years ago and who barely won the Republican nomination as a sitting president, running against Ronald Reagan in 1976.
The Democrat Party is made up of lawyers. The Lawyers' Party sees these sorts of people, who provide goods and services that people want, as the enemies of America . And, so we have seen the procession of official enemies, in the eyes of the Lawyers' Party, grow.
Against whom do Hillary and Obama rail? Pharmaceutical companies, oil companies, hospitals, manufacturers, fast food restaurant chains, large retail businesses, bankers, and anyone producing anything of value in our nation.
This is the natural consequence of viewing everything through the eyes of lawyers. Lawyers solve problems by successfully representing their clients, in this case the American people. Lawyers seek to have new laws passed, they seek to win lawsuits, they press appellate courts to overturn precedent, and lawyers always parse language to favor their side.
Confined to the narrow practice of law, that is fine. But it is an awful way to govern a great nation. When politicians as lawyers begin to view some Americans as clients and other Americans as opposing parties, then the role of the leg al system in our life becomes all-consuming. Some Americans become "adverse parties" of our very government. We are not all litigants in some vast social class-action suit. We are citizens of a republic that promises us a great deal of freedom from laws, from courts, and from lawyers.
Today, we are drowning in laws; we are contorted by judicial decisions; we are driven to distraction by omnipresent lawyers in all parts of our once private lives. America has a place for laws and lawyers, but that place is modest and reasonable, not vast and unchecked. When the most important decision for our next president is whom he will appoint to the Supreme Court, the role of lawyers and the law in America is too big. When lawyers use criminal prosecution as a continuation of politics by other means, as happened in the lynching of Scooter Libby and Tom Delay, then the power of lawyers in America is too great. When House Democrats sue America in order to hamstring our efforts to learn what our enemies are planning to do to us, then the role of litigation in America has become crushing.
We cannot expect the Lawyers' Party to provide real change, real reform or real hope in America Most Americans know that a republic in which every major government action must be blessed by nine unelected judges is not what Washington intended in 1789. Most Americans grasp that we cannot fight a war when ACLU lawsuits snap at the heels of our defenders. Most Americans intuit that more lawyers and judges will not restore declining moral values or spark the spirit of enterprise in our economy.
Perhaps Americans will understand that change cannot be brought to our nation by those lawyers who already largely dictate American society and business. Perhaps Americans will see that hope does not come from the mouths of lawyers but from personal dreams nourished by hard work. Perhaps Americans will embrace the truth that more lawyers with more power will only make our problems worse.
The United States has 5% of the world's population and 66% of the world's lawyers! Tort (Legal) reform legislation has been introduced in congress several times in the last several years to limit punitive damages in ridiculous lawsuits such as 'spilling hot coffee on yourself and suing the establishment that sold it to you' and also to limit punitive damages in huge medical malpractice lawsuits. This legislation has continually been blocked from even being voted on by the Democrat Party. When you see that 97% of the political contributions from the American Trial Lawyers Association goes to the Democrat Party, then you realize who is responsible for our medical and product costs being so high!
Please — DO PASS THIS ON!!!
Quote from: Warph on November 02, 2009, 12:31:09 AM
The one notion that popped into my head was to take a leaf out of the Aztec playbook and initiate human sacrifices. Would any of us really have strong objections to Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Babs Boxer, Arlen Spector, Henry Waxman, Chucky Schumer, Susan Collins (and her twin) Olympia Snowe, Chris Dodo and Elmer Fudd .... and while we're at it, lets include Charlie Rangel, Maxine Waters, Rahm Emanual, Valerie Jarrett and Stuart Smalley ....being offered up to pacify the angry spirits of the Founding Fathers ???[/b]
No objections.. I will volunteer to lead them to the alter...... :)
**I posted a couple lines more... but deleted them....
They were not very lady like...~~ :-[
(((that damn McDonald cougar blood is working overtime in my veins)))
Probably Jimmie's fault.. ;D**
I would guess that Lawyers would be more likely candidates because they would, or should, have more understanding of federal and state laws. I think I would prefer the congressperson to be a lawyer, IMHO.
Larryj
Quote from: larryJ on November 02, 2009, 10:59:45 AM
I would guess that Lawyers would be more likely candidates because they would, or should, have more understanding of federal and state laws. I think I would prefer the congressperson to be a lawyer, IMHO.
Larryj
But larry... look where the @&%$*# government lawyers (pardon my french) has got us today. Frank's post pretty will tells it like it is:
"The Democrat Party is made up of lawyers." What we need to get the economy back on track is
"Reaganomics." The Ronald Reagan free-market revolution, which included regulation lite, a sound dollar and low tax rates, launched a three-decade-long boom. Hell, the Gipper's policies were copied around the world.... So why not try something different, OBAMA? Unfashionable as it may be today, why not go back to the supply-side model of lower marginal tax rates for individuals and businesses, large and small?..... It's the incentive model of economic growth. At lower tax rates, where folks keep more of what they earn and invest, greater after-tax rewards spur greater work effort and investment risk. They also boost asset values. This is exactly what the economy needs: a rejuvenated dose of incentives -- permanent incentives. Think of this: At the same wage level from cost-conscious businesses, a 10 percent personal tax cut provides a handsome after-tax wage-increase incentive that will spur individuals to go back to work -- simply because work will pay more after-tax. ... Simple economics.... simple Reaganomics.... IMHO, of course. 8)
didnt we just have 8 years of reaganomics?
Ok....Then why were the Bushes so anti Reagan back in the campaign days.? They tried to sink him before they ever got elected.
Anmar, maybe you are too young to remember or didn't live here when Reagan was Governor. California was floundering before he became Governor pretty much like it is today. Reagan became governor and made some brilliant decisions, this from an actor (!), and turned the economy around by cutting taxes, etc., all those things Warph mentioned. When he ran for President, he was a shoo-in based on his economic policy and the economy was good, hence Reaganomics. I don't really see a connection between the Bush economy and Reaganomics. It is hard to argue against proven economic decisions.
Pasted from Wikipedia, this is the support side of the arguement. There is a critical side, but I think this is the more important side.
_______________________________________________________________________________
According to a 1996 study[30] from the libertarian think tank Cato Institute:
On 8 of the 10 key economic variables examined, the American economy performed better during the Reagan years than during the pre- and post-Reagan years.
Real median family income grew by $4,000 during the Reagan period after experiencing no growth in the pre-Reagan years; it experienced a loss of almost $1,500 in the post-Reagan years.
Interest rates, inflation, and unemployment fell faster under Reagan than they did immediately before or after his presidency.
The only economic variable that was worse in the Reagan period than in both the pre- and post-Reagan years was the savings rate, which fell rapidly in the 1980s.
The productivity rate was higher in the pre-Reagan years but much lower in the post-Reagan years.
In the last year of the Carter Administration (1980) the US inflation rate climbed to a peak of 14.8%, the top individual tax payer rate was 78%, unemployment was 7.4%, federal outlay was 17% higher than the economy's growth rate, and the federal government grew while enacting loads of new spending programs. During this period, the US economy was the worst it had been since the Great Depression of the 1930s.[citation needed] The nation was in quite a deep hole of economic collapse when the new president Ronald Reagan took office in January 1981.[citation needed] Reagan had to devise a constructive, sound tax and monetary policy to pull the US out of its economic low point.[citation needed]
Stephen Moore of the Cato Institute stated that "no act in the last quarter century had a more profound impact on the US economy of the eighties and nineties than the Reagan tax cut of 1981." He claims that Reagan's tax cuts, combined with an emphasis on federal monetary policy, deregulation, and expansion of free trade created a sustained economic expansion creating America's greatest sustained wave of prosperity ever. The American economy grew by more than a third in size, producing a $15 trillion increase in American wealth. Every income group, from the richest, middle class and poorest in this country, grew its income (1981-1989). Consumer and investor confidence soared. Cutting federal income taxes, cutting the US government spending budget, cutting useless programs, scaling down the government work force, maintaining low interest rates, and keeping a watchful inflation hedge on the monetary supply was Ronald Reagan's formula for a successful economic turnaround. The economic principle that business expansion, jobs and wealth follow low tax rates is widely accepted.[citation needed] The last principle Ronald Reagan incorporated was the realization that immigrant workers are a key and vital component of the US economy.
Larryj
I don't recall the Bush family being anti-Reagan, George H.W. was his VP and GW was not even into politics, he was engaged in Oil and Gas Exploration in Midland Texas when Reagan was elected.
Larry, I think Reagan did a great job as President, he decontrolled Oil and dropped the price of oil from $39.50 to $10.00, he cut interest rates from 17.50%+ to 6-8%, he got the economy running great and he put people back to work. I would sure like to have Reagan back now.
I was not yet born when Reagan was governer. My point is, i thought the Bushes were operating off the same economic policies that Reagan did. Tax cuts for the wealthy, low interest rates and de-regulation. That being said, why did the economy collaps at the end of Bush's 8 year term?
I have to admit I'm being a whippersnapper again. To make a long story short, the fact of the matter is that the economic environment is a result of a whole lot of different factors. The policies of the sitting president is just a minute factor. As someone pointed out, Reagans policies led to a successful cycle of economic growth. Part of this was because he was borrowing incredible amounts of money and passing it on to the people through tax cuts and defense spending.
If we measure the affects of reagans policies for years after his administration, why are we not applying the same principle to Bush? Why is Obama being blamed for a recession that started during Bush's tenure? Shouldn't Bushs' application of Reaganomics be blamed for the events that are occurring now?
Quote from: Teresa on November 02, 2009, 10:29:36 AM
No objections.. I will volunteer to lead them to the alter...... :)
OOOO....please, please, can I hold the knife.....I WANNA HOLD THE KNIFE
I present this only to bring Reagan back to what he was, a very good President. He was not God, or even Midas. His economic policies did have some shortcomings, his accomplishments often get overstated, and some of the middle-class are still suffering from policies put in place during his administration.
Again, he was a very good President, but:
Reagan's tax policies were accused of pushing both the international transactions current account and the federal budget into deficit and led to a significant increase in public debt. Debt more than tripled from 900 billion dollars to 2.8 trillion dollars during Reagan's tenure. Advocates of the Laffer curve contend that the tax cuts did lead to a near doubling of tax receipts ($517 billion in 1980 to $1.032 trillion in 1990), so that the deficits were actually caused by an increase in government spending. However, critics argue that the doubling of revenue is significantly smaller when looking at real inflation-adjusted figures ($1,077.4 billion in 1981 to $1,235.6 billion in 1988, measured in FY2000-dollars).Furthermore, an analysis from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities argues that "history shows that the large reductions in income tax rates in 1981 were followed by abnormally slow growth in income tax receipts, while the increases in income-tax rates enacted in 1990 and 1993 were followed by sizeable growth in income-tax receipts." Specifically, the analysis calculated that the average annual growth rate of real income-tax receipts per working-age person was 0.2% from 1981 to 1990 and a much higher 3.1% from 1990 to 2001.
A recession occurred in 1982, his second year in office. This was central to Volcker's campaign against inflation: applying either the Phillips Curve or the NAIRU theory, high unemployment (more than 10 % of the labor force in both 1982 and 1983) undercuts inflation. Reagan benefited from the fact that Volcker relented (shifting to more expansionary monetary policy) after inflation had largely been beaten. Further, the sudden fall in oil prices around 1986 helped the economy attain demand growth without inflation in the late 1980s.
The job growth under the Reagan administration was an average of 2.1% per year, which is in the middle of the pack of twentieth-century Presidents. Comparing the recovery from the 1981-82 recession (1983-1990) with the years between 1971 (end of a recession) and 1980 shows that the rate of growth of real GDP per capita averaged 2.77 under Reagan and 2.50% under Nixon, Ford and Carter. However, the unemployment rate averaged higher under Reagan (6.75% vs. 6.35%), average productivity growth was slower under Reagan (1.38% vs. 1.92%) and private investment as a percentage of GDP also averaged lower under Reagan (16.08% vs. 16.86%). Furthermore, real wages declined during the Reagan Presidency. What makes this comparison so significant is that between 1971 and 1980 the economy suffered a severe recession in 1975 whereas during the Reagan recovery there was no such interruption.
Another recent critique of Reagan's policies stem from Tax Reform Act of 1986 and its impact on the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT). The tax reform was ostensibly to reduce or eliminate tax deductions. This legislation expanded the AMT from a law for untaxed rich investors to one refocused on middle class Americans who had children, owned a home, or lived in high tax states. This parallel tax system hits middle class Americans the hardest by reducing their deductions and effectively raising their taxes. Meanwhile, the highest income earners (with incomes exceeding $1,000,000) are proportionately less affected thereby shifting the tax burden away from the richest 0.5%. In 2006, the IRS's National Taxpayer Advocate's report highlighted the AMT as the single most serious problem with the tax code. As of 2007, the AMT brought in more tax revenue than the regular tax which has made it difficult for Congress to reform.
Quote from: Varmit on November 02, 2009, 07:51:37 PM
OOOO....please, please, can I hold the knife.....I WANNA HOLD THE KNIFE
NO!! I said it first!!
(http://www.rightnation.us/forums/style_emoticons/default/tantrum2.gif)
I'll let you lead them... But..... I get to hold the knife.. !
You can watch... ;D