Lucky...

I wouldn't say always, post WWII inflation outled spending and during the late 70's inflation led as well. But during the CLinton years total inflation was ~20% and spending increased only 27%, so it was close, a sustained period of great economic success paired with debt recovery and deficit to surplus management. I think it's fair to say that you are right with The Reagan and GWB years that spending FAR LED (many times over) inflation, as spending was runaway. Doesn't it make sense that it's both collections and spending? What do you think creates the government's general fund? You have outlays on the spending end and tax revenues on the intake, i's both that matter. So if tax revenues fall to 10% of what they now are, as Libertarians would love, then you say that wouldn't affect the debt? The annual deficit is basicallly the number between revenue collections and outlays. Of course I'm talking Republican here, as much of Clinton's time we called that difference a suplus.

As a percentage of GDP it has remained constant, therefore the independent variable would be the taxation rate/collection: http://www.marktaw.com/culture_and_media/TheNationalDebtImages/ReceiptsOutlaysPercentGDP.gif Notice how under Clinton it is a surplus and under GWB it turned to a deficit? That's the drastic tax cuts enacted by GWB. It's more obvious here when not a % of GDP: http://www.marktaw.com/culture_and_media/TheNationalDebtImages/ReceiptsOutlaysFY2000.gif As for spending, here's a chart: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2008/pdf/hist.pdf Look at page 26. From 1981 to 1988 Regan's spending was from 678,000,000 to 1,064,000,000 Difference of 386,000,000 or a 57% increase. Under 4 years of GHWB spending was 1,143,000,000 to 1,381,000,000 Difference of 238,000,000 or a 21% increase (adjusted for 8 years it would be 42%). Under 8 years of Clinton spending went from 1,409,000,000 to 1,789,000,000 Difference of 380,000,000 or a 27% increase. Under 8 years of GWB spending went from 1,863,000,000 to 2,902,000,000 Difference of 1,039,000,000 or 56% increase. The methodology I used to determine these numbers was the first year to the last year of presidency, although there is a gap year in budget, we could apply the 2nd year of a president's term as their first since that is their first budget year passed, but also some presidents sign immediate spending / taxing measures right off the bat, so I chose this method. If anyone chooses a different method and calculation post it with methodology. So this is a case where we are both right, gross cutting of taxation under Republicans and gross overspending by Republicans is the cause of the 12T debt.....kinda what I was saying. Let's summarize your point: spending: Reagan = 57% increase GHWB = 42% increase (was 21% in 4 years, adjusted for 8) Clinton = 27% increase GWB = 56% increase Along with the GROSS TAX CUTS under Reagan and GWB there is your answer: both cuts and overspending are to blame for the massive debt increase Reagan and GWB created. I've said for a while now that Reagan and GWB are the same type president, thx for pushing me to do this research, I see how right I was.

Wait, the debt was 900B as Reagan took office, it's now 12T and the only Dem president in there was Clinton who did nothign but lower the debt increase and create a surplus from a deficit every year solid, so how is it that the Dems are culpable please?

It's your story, tell it how you want it. Don't you have a rimshot for the end of that one-liner? Mike, am I factually wrong? Please, let's deal with data and numbers; valid ones. Please tell me how the numbers are measurably/grossly wrong and I will concede. Debt increase from 1981 to 1992 = ~250B/yr Clinton's last year (2000) debt increase = ~33B I'm not really good at math, but I just did the round numbers and all I see is that 33 is about 1/9th of 250. Also, it wasn't a fluke, the debt increase lowered every year. Not being partisan, I think GHWB did a great job setting the stage for this success by signing the 1990 Debt Reconcilliation Act that was drafted by the Dem Congress.

The 1993 Omnibus Bill, huge tax increase, was drafted and signed by all Dems, where's the substance with your remarks? And as for the deficit not comming under control until the Repubs took Congress in 95, again, patently false. http://static.scribd.com/profiles/images/auw7rfzmnovul-full.gif As you can see the graph started turning around right at the very end of GHWB's term, that's because GHWB and the Democrat-drafted 1990 Debt Reconcilliation Act that he signed brought us out of the recession and started the healing / set the stage for Clinton's success. Actually all that came out of the Repub Congress were more small tax cuts as in 96 and 97; Clinton had to give those to get things like minimum wage increases. So how did GWB's tax cuts work out? The deficit didn't grow under Clinton as an annual reference. Furthermore, the debt increase shrank every year Clinton was in office. It is assumed that the debt would have fallen if Clinton had 1 more year in office, which would be the first time since 1969 or more substantively since Eisenhower.

I can: http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005921.html TAX INCREASE: Following what seemed to be a yearly tradition of new tax acts that began in 1986, the Revenue Reconciliation Act of 1990 was signed into law on Nov. 5, 1990. As with the '87, '88, and '89 acts, the 1990 act, while providing a number of substantive provisions, was small in comparison with the 1986 act. The emphasis of the 1990 act was increased taxes on the wealthy. On Aug. 10, 1993, President Clinton signed the Revenue Reconciliation Act of 1993 into law. The act's purpose was to reduce by approximately $496 billion the federal deficit that would otherwise accumulate in fiscal years 1994 through 1998. In 1997, Clinton signed another tax act. The act, which cut taxes by $152 billion, included a cut in capital-gains tax for individuals, a $500 per child tax credit, and tax incentives for education. AND WHAT APPENED FOLLOWING THESE INCREASES? Oh yea, fiscal harmony. TAX CUTS: In 1981, Congress enacted the largest tax cut in U.S. history, approximately $750 billion over six years. The tax reduction, however, was partially offset by two tax acts, in 1982 and 1984, that attempted to raise approximately $265 billion. On Oct. 22, 1986, President Reagan signed into law the Tax Reform Act of 1986, one of the most far-reaching reforms of the United States tax system since the adoption of the income tax. The top tax rate on individual income was lowered from 50% to 28%, the lowest it had been since 1916. Tax preferences were eliminated to make up most of the revenue. In an attempt to remain revenue neutral, the act called for a $120 billion increase in business taxation and a corresponding decrease in individual taxation over a five-year period. President George W. Bush signed a series of tax cuts into law. The largest was the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001. It was estimated to save taxpayers $1.3 trillion over ten years, making it the third largest tax cut since World War II. The Bush tax cut created a new lowest rate, 10% for the first several thousand dollars earned. It also established a slow schedule of incremental tax cuts that would eventually double the child tax credit from $500 to $1,000, adjust brackets so that middle-income couples owed the same tax as comparable singles, cut the top four tax rates (28% to 25%; 31% to 28%; 36% to 33%; and 39.6% to 35%). The Jobs and Growth Tax Relief and Reconciliation Act of 2003 accelerated the tax rate cuts that had been enacted in 2001, and temporarily reduced the tax rate on capital gains and dividends to 15%. In 2004, the U.S. was forced to eliminate a corporate tax provision that had been ruled illegal by the World Trade Organization. Along with that tax hike, Congress passed a cornucopia of tax breaks, which for individuals included an option to deduct the payment of whichever state taxes were higher, sales or income taxes. Two tax bills signed in 2005 and 2006 extended through 2010 the favorable rates on capital gains and dividends that had been enacted in 2003, raised the exemption levels for the Alternative Minimum Tax, and enacted new tax incentives designed to persuade individuals to save more for retirement. AND WHAT HAPPENED AFTER THESE TAX CUTS? Oh yea, fiscal disater on both counts. SO there you have it, a citation, tax increase/cut references; what now?

Kind of easily explains how Clinton lowered the debt increase to just 1/9th of what it had been for the 12 years prior to him taking office - no fluke, the debt increase lowered every year he was in office, if he had been in office 1 more year it probably would have actually lowered the debt number. As well, it also explains how the annual deficit fell every year until it turned into a surplus of 236B his final year. It also explains how, under the 3 previous Republican presidents the debt went crazy as a shortfall of tax revenues amounted to 2/3 of the total debt today, more than 2/3 if you look at the debt total of 11.3T when Bush left office, probably 9/10th or more you look at the totality of the debt situation: National debt was 900B in 1981, now it's 12T, all of that increase from 900B should be attributed to the Republicans considering it all happened under 3 Republicans since 81 but for 1.6 under Clinton which he inherited a mess and left a virtual flat debt increase. I can't understand how this isn't clear to some, or perhaps it is but denial prevails.

In your opinion, or if you agree with the changes they want to make. Um, no - tax cuts take people from the lower income levels entirely OFF the tax rolls. >>>>>>>In your opinion, or if you agree with the changes they want to make. Well, if you posted the rest of what I wrote it would be explaned. Either side of Congress, we have a bunch of millionaires, some want tax breaks and overall help for themselves and their fellow rich guys, others want to help the poor at the cost to themselves. So my opinion is supported by self-sacrifice over personal greed; how do you support your opinions on this issue? >>>>>>>>>>>>>Um, no - tax cuts take people from the lower income levels entirely OFF the tax rolls. How do you pose this as the added $400 or whatever insignificant amount of benefit the poor person receives per year means nothing, versus the 100,000's of thousands of dollars or millions these breaks mean to the rich? Mike, let me show you here with this data, when McCain says, "Tax cuts my friends" he means that his friends are the rich. ttp://www.ntu.org/main/page.php?PageID=6 So the poor, people in that 32 and sub-32k margin, account for less than 3% of the overall tax income for the government, so they don't pay shit anyway, the best way to help them is thru social programs, education, etc. Tax cuts, my friends, mean nothing to the poor. The poor have never been taxed off the poverty roles. Macrostructurally, not to mention that federal tax cuts have never done anything positive. The biggest tax cuts over the last 100 years have led to disaster. Early Hoover - pre Great Depression Hoover drastically cut taxes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_Hoover Prior to the start of the Depression, Hoover's first Treasury Secretary, Andrew Mellon, had proposed, and saw enacted, numerous tax cuts, which cut the top income tax rate from 73% to 24%. When combined with the sharp decline in incomes during the early depression, the result was a serious deficit in the federal budget. Congress, desperate to increase federal revenue, enacted the Revenue Act of 1932. The Act increased taxes across the board, and the percentage increased with income, to near pre-1928 levels for top income earners. It also implemented a 13.75% tax on corporations. To pay for these and other government programs and to make up for revenue lost due to the Depression, Hoover agreed to roll back previous tax cuts his Administration had effected on upper incomes. In one of the largest tax increases in American history, the Revenue Act of 1932 raised income tax on the highest incomes from 25% to 63%. The estate tax was doubled and corporate taxes were raised by almost 15%. Also, a "check tax" was included that placed a 2-cent tax (over 30 cents in today's dollars) on all bank checks. Economists William D. Lastrapes and George Selgin,[36] conclude that the check tax was "an important contributing factor to that period's severe monetary contraction." Hoover also encouraged Congress to investigate the New York Stock Exchange, and this pressure resulted in various reforms. Then, after it was too late, he enacted a big tax increase in 1932 as he ws about leave office, this no doubt set the stage for FDR's succcess. The GDP fell and unemployment rose every year of Hoover's term. Unemployment fell from 25% every year and the GDP rose every year of FDR's 12+ years except 1937 when there was a tiny recession within the recovery. Oh, FDR raised taxes to a higher level than any other president in history. Reagan's tax cuts - the debt flew from 900B to almost 3T and there wasn't even a war. In fact, I praised Reagan for his foreign policy, he wasn't prone to jump off into a pathetic foreign mess. This tax cut set took GHWB and Clinton to enact 2 major tax increases and until 5.5T debt before it was headed off. GWB's tax cuts - 5T dollar increase; need we say more? Oh, the war? It acounted for 17% of that, where's the rest? TAX INCREASES - I've already stated them but again: Hoover's late term increase led to 2 decades of benefit. FDR's most major tax increase led to success out of the GD. GHWB's tax increase led to success in teh 90's and out of his recession. Clinton's tax increase (1993) led to amazing success in the 90's. So, yes, Mike, this is my opinion, but that is my support, please show me where it's flawed or you have other evidence that trumps it. All I'm saying is that when we cut taxes, we get disaster and when we raise them we heal, debt, unemployment, GDP, etc.

So by destroying the middle class by making them take on the burden of providing for the people that don't provide for themselves this fixes class disparity? The upper class just uses their accountants and lawyers to find the loopholes. Republicans (historically) were the party that was for less government intervention, so if someone is looking for the government to provide for them vs. give them or businesses opportunities then yes, they might think "THEY COULDN'T CARE LESS ABOUT POOR PEOPLE AND STRUGGLING FAMILIES." Give a fish, teach to fish...

The problem is that this dumbest information has data to support it. When Reagan took office in Jan 81 the debt was about 900B, by the time GHWB left office 12 years later it was 4 trillion and climbing out of control. Clinton came in and curbed the debt increase to virtually shutting it down in 8 years where the debt increase was 1/9th of what it was the previous 12 years before him. Then GWB came in and cut taxes and spent like crazy and pumped the debt by about 5 trillion in 8 years. So right off the bat the debt grew by 8 trillion under Reagan, Bush, Bush, it is now 12 trillion. That's 2/3rds. Now, let's look at where Reagan received the debt status. The debt was slightly climbing as it was when most presidents take office, but it wasn't crazy; very manageable. When Reagan/Bush handed it off, it went from 900B to 4 trillion and was climbing hard; 250-290b/yr increase. Clinton, thru tax increases and military cuts was able to virtually flatten the debt increase in 8 years, but in this process the debt grew about 1.5T. Is it fair to attribute that to him? The Debt and decreased and the deficit turned to a surplus every years he was in office, so how is it that he inherited a 12-year mess and he owns the blame? I think all of that can and should be attributed to Reagan's mess. To use an analogy, if a truck were coming at you at 80 mph versus 5 mph, how would it be your fault if the 80mph truck hit you? So then what did GWB do with this surplus and taxation? He screwed them both away and increased the debt 5T. So my point is this, there have been 4 presidential runs since 1981 including the current one: -Reagan/Bush -Clinton -GWB -Obama -The Reagan/Bush run received a shaky economy, but a stable debt increase scenario. -Clinton inherited a mess and left a very descent economy. -GWB inherited a very descent economy and left a mess. -Obama inherited a mess. Just look at the debt picture since 1981: 900b = very manageable. We've had 7 full presidential terms and the new start of another one. - 3R - 2D - 2R Economically, the Democratic run was the only one that gave healing to the US, the other 5 were caustic. Now, as I say that, I do remove GHWB from the blame as he: - Cut about as many troops as Clinton yet in 1/2 the time, so twice the rate. - Signed the 1990 Debt Reconciliation Act to curb Reagan's mess. This cost him the election, but it was a patriotic thing to do, this set the stage for Clinton to be successful. Then Clinton signed the 1993 Omnibus Spending Bill which drastically raised taxes on the rich, moderately on the MC. He slightly lowered taxes in 96-97 when the debt started to get repaired. _______________________________________________ Now, for the Congress. You claimed 50 years, the fiscal health of the nation wasn't in question 50 years ago, in fact, the last real conservative, Eisenhower, actually lowered the debt then, so going back 50 years only supports my argument. Let's go from where the whole thing became ugly; 1981. http://uspolitics.about.com/od/usgovernment/l/bl_party_division_2.htm If you scroll down and look at the chart you'll see who had majority in each chamber of Congress. From 1981 until now there were 14 different 2-year terms of Congress. If we break that down to each chamber, there were 28 2-yar blocks of the House and Senate. I know Senators for 6 years, but since they overlap it’s the most fair to follow 2-year blocks. Of the 28 blocks 14 were controlled by each. As a side note, this page considers the 07-09 Senatorial session to be owned by the Dems, when in reality the split was 49-49-2. One independent caucused and voted with the Dems, the other, Lieberman was a switch-hitter and was pro-war and pro McCain, so to call him a Dem is ridiculous. His state, I believe Connecticut, the Dems failed to nominate him in the primaries, so he ran as Indep and 2/3 of the voters for him were registered Repubs, so I think this is false to call him a Dem, hence the Senate was split 50-50 with the VP breaking some ties and the Senate in that frame ran more by the R’s than the D’s. Now let’s look at who really ran the Congress at which times. During the Reagan years the Dems ran the House all of it and ran the Senate only the last 2 years. During the GHWB years the Dems ran the entire Congress all 4 years as well as Clinton’s first 2 years. This is when the 1990 Debt Reconciliation Act and the 1993 Omnibus Spending Bill were passed and this is what laid the groundwork for Clinton’s fiscal success. I hope you do think the Clinton years were fiscally successful, the data overwhelmingly supports that. Then the R’s took Congress and Clinton had to deal to get things done such as raise the minimum wage he had to give tax cuts, which is why taxes were slightly lowered in 96 and 97. But make no mistake, GHWB played a part in Clinton’s fiscal success by laying the groundwork. GHWB and Clinton were very much the same president, most notably with NAFTA. This is why we see them doing events together. GHWB is obviously ashamed of his son for his mess with massive tax cuts and the mishandling of the Middle East, something GHWB did masterfully. And now the biggest mess of all, the GWB years. Who ran the Congress then? The chart shows 5 of 8 2-year terms, but really 6 of 8 unless you call Lieberman a Dem. The Dems almost ran him out of their caucus when Obama was elected for campaigning for McCain, as well as other tyrannies. Either way, the R’s ran the Senate for at least the first 6 years of Bush’s term. I realize the knee-jerk reaction when a party you align with is screwing up is to try to share the wealth of blame, but it just doesn’t pan out. In realty all we have to do is look at the presidential runs: - Reagan/Bush = inherited a bad economy but a stable debt/deficit, left a mess - Clinton = inherited a mess and left a very descent economy - Bush = inherited a very descent economy, left a huge mess Clinton did nothing but fix the economy, GHWB helped but inherited Reagan’s mess as well, but GWB then took that gem and turned it to shit. Kennedy was the last Dem president to inherit a good economy and stable debt, most R’s have recently done that but left a mess. So Clinton and Obama weren’t left an economy they could do anything with but try to fix, they couldn’t run on a neutral economy.

I think this attitude is at the crux of why the Republican Party is on the downslide now. Democrats worry about providing positive support for Americans who are underpriv'd, Republicans are more worried about someone getting something for free. All the while, class disparity is spreading and more and more people are going without basics and all the Republicans offer is a semantic argument of whether it's 30 or 45 million without any medical coverage whatsoever. I guess I would ask if 30 million is a negligible amount. What if it's 5 million? In reality, mitigation of the number of uninsured only bolsters the drive for limited uni-care in that it will be less costly. What the Republican Party should do is to be honest and say how they really feel; THEY COULDN'T CARE LESS ABOUT POOR PEOPLE AND STRUGGLING FAMILIES. And the nuts irony behind all of this is that virtually all of the nation's debt has occurred due to Republicans and they are cringing at spending.

Yes, just look for the one making the most noises about "family values", or most loudly condemning someone caught in a recent scandal, and you have found one with 99% certainty. Gawd, here's a list of them: http://www.dkosopedia.com/wiki/Republican_Sex_Scandals But how Trent Lott, speaker of the House urging the Clinton impeachment andd voting for it, didn't make the list makes me feel that the list is very deficient. http://bigheaddc.com/2007/11/26/trent-lott-fallout-the-gay-escort-who-knew-too-much/ BTW, family values Lott was involved in a gay scandal, the demon-seed of the right. Perhaps if CLinton had had a gay relationship it would have been ok, but instead he had an affair with an icky girl, in his thoughts.

Fair enough, just one man's perspective. Peace bro.

Seriously? Sure it is a case when you want to say "pot meet kettle" but it is crazy to think the democrats are so truthful. I personally think Obama is lying straight to the American people. Actually I know he is but so are all the other politicians on both sides of the isle. They can lie all they want as long as it does not impact my life! Clinton screwing around and lying about it is something I do not give a rats ass about but Obama's lies directly impact me and my children as did some of the lies Bush told! I love that you call the GOP the "party of liars" like the dems are such good people. I'm sorry but this is just laughable!!! If you look at agenda from each side I think you can find the Dems far more noble in their agenda. Most Congress members are millionaires, most non-Congress members in the USA are not. The Dems in Congress want to bring economic stability to all Americans, whereas the Republican agenda seems to want tax cut, which only really help the rich, and they want social cuts. Socialized uni-care doesn't help millonaires, it helps many others outside them. What advantage does Obama, Pelosi, Clinton, etc have to establish Uni-care? Does it mean they can finally visit the doctor? Of course not, it means they can fullfill an humanist agenda; bring us up to world standards as far as all Americans receiving healthcare. After Obama's healthcare passage he will next reduce the military and raise taxes as GHWB did to start curbing the debt. Will that help him personally? But when you're a millionaire and you advocate tax cuts you are advocating your position. This is too close to greed at a personal gain agenda. There was a guy 150 years ago who did the same thing, he freed millions of people out of slavery for no personal gain, in fact it cost him his life. Remember that great first Republican president? The Republicans won the presidency for 44 of the next 52 years from 1860 because they were so great and the Dems / Whigs were so rotten and so self-motivated with their agendas; what happened to those great Republicans? They are so bent on self-motivated agendas and so willing to ignore the underclass, a concept for which the party at its origin rejected. I pray they find their way again and become so great they beat the Dems, until then we need the Dems to help the underclass. This is why the lies from the Republican Party are so damaging. Sure both sides lie, it's politics, but when your lies are venemous and self-fullfilling they are so much more damaging and reveal perhaps an evil agenda. Lying about a trillion dollar war is not the same as lying about a fling. And when one side holds the other to the fire for a meaningless lie and then commits that same lie (Larry Craig, etc) and looks past it, then they are hypocritical liars. Generally people in these positions don't go overboard with their witchhunts knowing they are also witches, but the Republicans have also done that. The drubbing the Republicans took the last 2 elections was well-warranted and will probbaly continue until they fix themselves. Of course that could be decades as people are learning that 2/3 of the nations total debt since its inception occurred under the last 3 Republican presidents. And if we examined more indepth we could probably attribute 5/6 of that to the Republicans, so are teh Republicans going the way of the Whig? It seesm they have too big a follwoing, but so did the Whigs in the mid 1800s'......

The conservative movement hasn't mad many real dignified representatives since Eisenhower. GHWB was a very good president, but even if they are composed their agendas as often so off-track that they are relegated to not being true conservatives.

If they are mandated by the government they are socialist. Unemployment compensation is solialist in that the employer does not have the option to participate. Collectivism and redistribution. Now if you buy or your employer volluntarily buys short term disability, etc that is not socialism, it is voluntary. If it's compulsory by the government then it has a socialist aspect to it. Companies provide pensions as an option, there are none that I'm aware of that are mandated other than perhaps the USPS and I would then call that an aspect of socialism if it is government mandated, perhaps more on the fringe. I'm not saying it isn't earned, just collected and redistributed.

Evidence that there are objectors to social medicine who accept and use it can be found with anyone, esp seniors who receive Medicare, Medicaid, SS checks, etc. There are millions of these people who denounce social medical aid in one form or many receive that same social care. Socialism is basically collectivism and redistribution, so their SS checks, Medicare, Medicaid, etc are forms of that. Of course they claim they paid into it so they are due these services. That may be true, but they are still socialists is denial for not turning it away; one of my favorite arguments.

You forgot about GWB teaching kids how to speak: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UwLres-ZDcg Where were the Republicans then? Where was the unrest? Hide your kids, everyone.

Yeah it's touchy for sure. Juries can be funny, insurance companies can be funny, state laws can be funny. Lot of if's and in there. They definitely need a good lawyer. I'd give anything if they could prove it was a heart attack, sure would make it simpler for them. OK, let's say it was a heart attack, was the onset of it caused by adrenaline as he left the acft? Or would it have happened watching internet porn? Was it in the cards as a time-is-up thing? See, we raise several questions as we try to answer 1. But I agree with you that this case isn't as easy as: He died with a parachute on; it must be a skydiving accident. These cases are interesnting, many cases in the law are more cut-n-dried, this one needs much investigation. I do think the ins co should partially pay, based upon what we now know. But if I learned of more strict exclusionary language it might change things. As a point, if it's a massive, and it occurred regardless of the dive, and it occurred while at a hospital under a known code blue, I think many/most times it is irrecoverable. So if that was teh case, it wasn't a skydiving accident, but a medical accident. Hell, even the data that is maintained by skydivers has a classification for medical rather than a legitimate skydiving-related death. That ahole who jumped from that Jersey 182, was that a skydiving accident or a suicide? If he had a chute on and intentionally disabled it, would that make it a skydiving accident? The Brittish guy that killed himself a couple years back, pulled the handles and made it look like murder, was that a murder, a suicide or a skydiving accident? So we have a ton to learn of the details and a ton of interpretation to do as well.

We don't know teh exclusion's language and we don't know teh COD, so it's all speculation. IF he died from a heart attack before he hit the ground, or it could be professionally believed he would have died if he were sitting in his living room while teh heart attack occurred, the COD is medical, not skydiving. Ever watch a trial? They are all over the place at times and the outcomes are unpredictable at times. I'm not advocating insurance fraud, but let's see the COD and go from there. I do have a slant against ins co's tho, they are there to collect premiums but look for an angle to avoid payment as a first resort. As with most issues, when you answer 1 question you raise 3 more, this is no different.

Actually most DZ's hire staff as independent contractors, so workman's comp isn't really an issue.

Juries are strange animals. I think a lot depends upon the language in the policy, the state laws and the willingness of the ins co to action this vs a partial settlement. Died while skydiving, died as a result of skydiving? Again, these statements pose more questions than they answer. Either way, it will likely result in each party paying their own costs whichever way it ends, as neither side is being frivalous. Might as well action it if the ins co won't pay or settle. A lot depends upon the COD report, perhaps most of the case does. I would rather be the plaintiff against the ins co with today's climate, I think people have had enough of corporations and juries are people, usually people who are not wealthy.

I'm neither, but I'm also of the school that every issue stands alone and many legal cases support that notion. Address a couple of my issues I've posted, I'd be interested to hear your take on them.

Ditto what Tom said. But I want to add one thing. Unless the insurance policy said "Death from skydiving caused by impacting the earth" then you have no case and an autopsy won't help you here. Skydiving death is a skydiving death whether it happened between getting on the plane and before he hit the ground, or the result of hitting the ground. Based upon what standard? If a person has a heart attack while driving a car and then runs off a cliff and dies, what was the cause of death? Would teh person have died even if near a hospital and care was immediately administered? The law covers some of these issues, often buried deep in teh archives of case law, sometimes statutory, not usually tho, but remember, this case will likely go before a jury if it can't be settled, so how will they feel about the issues? What will the jury instructions be? The burdon is the plaintiff's, but as soon as they make their case, if they can, then it shifts to the defense; what will their affirmative defense be? I think a lot of this issue will be settled in the wording of the insurance policy. If it states that if a death occurrs anywhere near or losley associated with skydiving, then that tends to help the insurance co. If the wording is more like a death resulting from skydiving, that language is more narrow and would help the insured/estate. A lot will rest upon the finding of death and if possible, the probability that the outcome would be different if the deceased was rushed to the hospital immediately upon noticing the condition. If the experts say he was doomed regardless, the fact that he was buzzing to earth at 120MPH is moot. The law is interesting, this is why OJ gets acquitted, and many other odd events occur; the law can't be nailed down.

>>>>>>>>>>>To the orignal poster I think it would be near impossible to prove that skydiving is not what killed him. Even if he had a mid air heart attack one could argue that the extra adrenaline released when skydiving may have cause the heart attack. How many heart attacks / aneurisms are fatal with immediate help? How many heart attacks / aneurisms are fatal due to the victim being alone and no one there to help? How do we know there was a big adrenaline rush with a guy with these jump numbers and currency? A student? Ok, big A rush, a 10k jumper, current; not so much. Point I'm making is that it is just so unknown as to what impact the skydive had on his death. How many times do skydivers come down limp in their harness? How many times do safety checks of elderly result in finding a corpse in a chair with the TV on? If a guy has a double-mal, that's a skydiving-related death, if a guy has a heart attack and has no AAD, who knows if he would have lived even with an AAD or if he were driving down the road, sitting at home, etc? More questions than answers and a jury might be prone to agree with some of these rhetorical questions, esp in this environment where the financers are so hated. Legal issues are rarely easy and usually raise more questions than they answer.