Lucky...

They really are 2 seperate animals. They are generally established in diff bills at diff times. Historically, regardless of spending, higher taxes = less debt and more economic stability. Few kajillionaires, which breaks our hearts. BTW, you must be a huge fan of Clinton then; he did both. Right, to libertarians. Taxing is the issue for liberals. Objectively controlling both is the key and cutting our military is neccessary for both. I just don't hear any R's saying that and very few Libertarians saying that, perhaps it's because they are basically the same thing. Show me where this has ever worked. You can't. Reagan cut taxes and tax revenues increased. problem is that spending was astronomical, so that was the reason tax revenues increased. Clinton reduced spending, but increased taxes and tax eceipts skyrocketed. Your theory is a fantasy. So then letting the banks fail and the economy fix itself with GD type numbers would have been the answer? I see. Who's stirring the pot? Obama and teh Dem congress and look at the GD - type mess that has been averted.

I could work with a guy like Andy. What kind (area) of law do you practice. out of curiosity. I got my start in penile law. Eventually I came to realize: it all is. Right, so you were criminal defemse / prosecution? Are you something else now?

I agree today's politicians are incapable of cutting spending. So we need something new - the only long term solution is on the spending side. Focusing solely on the revenue side is an admission of failure. And self fulfilling. Really? Then why can we go thru history since WWI and see that when taxes are lowered: - class disparity grows - Debt usually rises - Corporate corruption is more likely and when the opposite is true the inverse occurs? I think you're trying to custom fit this together rather than objectively look at history and draw a conclusion.

Right, I'm saying that you can be sued for libel, the 1st can't protect you and I see you eliminated my other previous asertions that there is no protection from one person to another as far as the US Const, I guess you cherry-pick like your hero, GWB. That's right, it's designed to establish protection via the gov to a citizen, not from a citizen to a citizen, as to what the bound and limits of expression can be. Also that the gov won't establish a religion, we see how worthless that is as the pledge contains the word, "god" (we know that means Jebus and his queer dad) and it is mandated in public schools - we see what a meaningless joke the US Const is at every turn. No, you're taking a statement like: "The 1st is really very weak and you can be sued for libel easily" and trying to then interpret into it that what I mean was that if the 1st were stronger, it could shield you from a civil suit of libel. What I'm saying is that it won't reach anywhere near protecting a person from a civil suit; that's not it's intention. Again, the US Const only has a relationship between the gov and person, how can that intervein between 2 persons? My, Mikey, your imagination works in really neat ways, perhaps you should write fiction with all that spare time you have. In a way, but the flip side of that is that restriction on government is that it gives supposedly inalienable rights to individuals, so yours is a pessimistic view rather than global. For example, part of the 5th restricts a gov from requiring a person to testify against themselves, OTOH it permits a person the ability to not testify against themselves. So I see your tea baggerish perspctive, but I look at it form teh other end. Isn;t it funny how people become paranoid of gov when their party isn't in representing control? I see it happens on both sides. Even a regular person has no expectation of privacy in public, the exception is with of course restrooms, which aren't really public unless it's a public restroom - still privacy is expected. And with audio conversations via wire and probably wireless. Katz v Ohio dealt with a payphone that was bugged w/o a warrant: People have privacy, not places, so bugging w/o a warrant was not allowed. That's an old case - 40+ years - but still relevant as far as I know. Things in teh law aren't like Lawrocket likes it: right or wrong / black or white; it's bizzare to hear a lawyer speaking in terms of absolutes, as teh law is anything but. I was warned by Bill for saying that to you, I wonder if that will happen to you? From a guy that has never stepped foot on a university, hell, a community college. I feel so blessed that you are marginally giving me the LAST bump, thank you so much. W/o looking it up, you couldn't tell me the least about the LAST. As for the minority bump, all the case law that affords minorities the bump in points, they can score as I did and get in and get a full ride as well. It was mostly a bunch of crusty ole white dudes that did that, so I hold nothing against racial minorities getting a freebee; I would. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gratz_v._Bollinger The University of Michigan used a 150-point scale to rank applicants, with 100 points needed to guarantee admission. The University gave underrepresented ethnic groups, including African-Americans, Hispanics, and Native Americans, an automatic 20-point bonus on this scale, while a perfect SAT score was worth 12 points. Yes, I know you're wrong again, that's ok. As for not from a rich family, there are ABA schools that require no minimum LSAT, but are 25k/yr+, counting expenses, I would need 50k/yr for 3 years to do law school, IOW's, prohibitive. In the early 70's when women were allegedly so injured, we had Title 9 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_IX Giving women the bump and a free ride into and thru law schools/grad schools. Now that they have achieved equality, that is gone as evidenced by the U of M case. Again, nothing against the women who took advantage of that, I would too, just the knee-jerk reaction the ugly sides of America create new ugly sides.

I could work with a guy like Andy. What kind (area) of law do you practice. out of curiosity.

Right, so how did I say or infer that the 1st can shield a person from a libel suit????? I'm saying that the 1st could never shield a person from a libel suit. I think you read into that that I'm sayign if the 1st were stronger it could protect a person from a libel suit. Meikey, Mikey, Mikey, read all the other stuff I've written in this thread and otehr swhere I clearly state the US Const has a 1-way relationship between the gov and a citizen, that should put to reat any ridiculous inferrence that the 1st could ever shield a person from libel suit. Now celebrities have a diminished right to be left alone in the press, but that's a bit obscure. I don't owe you constitutional rights and you don't owe me them; the gov owes both of us them so how could a person try to be shielded from a libel suit as another person makes a libelous statement claiming the 1st as a defense? Where there's no duty, there's no claim or defense. Yea, I've rwad your legal guesses, incl the one above. Show examples. Didn't LSAT well Not a racial minority Not from a rich family A guy like you, who I can guess never stepped foot on a college campus, doesn't understand the political dynamics behind academia, so it would be futile to try to impress it upon you.

I've never thought or written that. Show me or look, once again, unfounded. LOL, Mikey, my legal knowledge dwarfs yours. I beat 2 lawfirms in a civil action during arbitration, I was a process server for 9 years, BS in Justice, etc.... I still keep in touch with lawyer friends. I don't give advice, I'm not an attny, but I have a well-grounded understanding of civil, criminal and administrative law. Funny story, I took a paralegal class last fall, the teacher was a city prosecutor for a small jurisdiction, so he was contract and not full-time; he also teaches law school on the side. Anyway, issues came up and I disagreed in class, I was right 3 of 4 times. Of course attny arrogance prohibited him from conceeding, but I would go home after class and cite the statute, data or whatever the issue. He's a good guy, knew more than I did/do about the law, but I did get him on 3 points. Thing is he works with small kangaroo ct BS, so he is insulated from trial cts. and he knew squat about civil actions. So yea, I can hang with most attnys, it really is BS like has been illustarted in many movies, they get a dimploma from teh highest school possible and hang it as high on the wall as possible and try to intimidate you. All they do is learn a little language, a few processes and then tehy lean on you. IF you have the merits in your corner you will generally prevail.

Only if it's sold. A pending increase in capital gains tax spurred people to buy....riiiiiight.... So Obama and the Dem congress, which will still be Dem at the end of the year won't buy it and will vote to continue the tax cuts? Right and even if your wet dream come true and the R's control congress, you need Obama to sign it or congress to override his veto with 2/3. IOW's, let it go; it aint gonna happen, bro. As for capital gains dissuading people from buying, did you not think that thru? Listen carefully: CAPITAL GAINS ARE APPLIED WHEN CAPITAL IS GAINED, NOT PURCHASES MADE. I think you are confusing that with a luxury tax. Cap Gains Tax increase will do nothing to dissuade people from buying, perhaps it will cause people to not sell off and cash out stocks, houses, etc unless tehy immediately reinvest, creating more stability, more reinvestment as a shield.

Control. Agree... sort of. To the constituency of the Democrats, no. They wouldn't be in control. To the leadership of the Democrats, yes. They're all over this because of the control they seek. They've passed forced "Health Care". Not sure what the order will be, but next will be things like "Imagration Reform" (read: amnisty) and "Gun Control", to garner them support and soldify the control they seek. So Reagan's amnesty was about control too, then. I guess "forced" HC was preceded by "forced" tax cuts, my friends and all the many, many times the R's used reconcilliation was a product of being, "FORCED" unless this is a 1-way street.

Control. Or that fascist Capitalism has taken a shit, every time we get more Capitalistic we get more in debt; more Socialistic, more toward being of less debt. Right, Mikey, it's a grand conspiracy.

Which has nothing to do with the form of government - but thanks for playing. The process in which we elect the people who control the government has nothing to do with the form of gov we have? Sure and if a country is a Monarchy that has nothing to do with their form of gov either, right? Welcome to reality.

Last I checked free speech had a relationship between the government and all citizens. The AMA and the Hypcratic oath are administrative.....too bad, so sad. So yes, the government could not prosecute him for hanging that sign, however the AMA or whoever licenses doctors in his state could act. As well, if alib was already being seen by him, that lib entered his office for an ongoing care issue and then he toild that doctor he voted for Obama and hopes for the HC Bill, there is a, "Just add water" conflict of interest that could lead to big lawsuits. I mean, that doc could hardly keep seeing him on a doc-patient basis, so would that doc have to pay for his transfer to another doctor? The doctor is an idiot, I wouldn't want any pro or anti HC Bill BS posted on my docs door....of course this is hypothetical as I'm not in teh class that gets to have the luxury of HC. What do you mean by "transfer"; do they charge a fee to change doctors where you live? Gee, I don't know, I'm an American so I don't have HC right now. But there would be the burden of relocating to a new doctor, hoping he/she could dial on with your history, etc. There could easliy be fees attached for a transfer that is as the result of a doctor shirking his fiduciary duty for his clients over politics. See, if your auto mechanic turned into a tea bagging tool, you might have to get a new mechanic, no fiduciary duty attaches. Your doc doesn't have that luxury and needs to be your doctor absent things like he/she retires or other justifyable reasons. He/she might be able to drop you if they are narrowing their practice with fair notice, I don't know the rules and they probably vary by state, but just because you wake up with a stick up your ass violates the fiduciary duty that you owe your patients. Obviously Dr Dickhead knew this and after telling any Dems to go fuck themselves, he followed by saying, "awe shucks, I'll still see you." That is pathetic, I would file a complain with teh state lic board and file suit for any other damages if I were a patient. If I were an employee of his, I would at least record the matter and basically own him after that.

A lot of us have been doing that for years. And most of the rest of us can join you. This law will carry some people, but it does more to regulate the HC ins cos.

Sue, it was 94% at teh peak of WWII and we were still running deficits, but then they left it about there thru the Eisenower years and the debt fell, not just the deficit. Anyway, I think 40% is toolow, it worked because Clinton cut spending and we had the .com boom, so I think 50-60% top brkt is about right.

Sounds like the Bush/Cheney era doesn't it? No, they had a policy of aggre with us or be arrested.

Repubs come pre-demonized, I mean, what kind of creature would vote down or veto children's HC? Esp just after ripping OT pay from workers. Do I need to continue? I think not.

Blatant twist-Why are you so scared of the question Kallend pays more in taxes than I earn, prolly more than you too - and he doesn't whine; why do you whine for paying less and prolly a < % too? I don't think he's whining. There's a difference between whining and throwing a tantrum because you don't get your own way. Yea, it just all smells the same.

I hope so or I need a new accountant-So, do you know why he doesn't answer the question? Do you take steps to minimize your tax bill? I go 1040EZ, no way to minimize. WHen I had a house of course I used an accountant.

https://www.ehealthinsurance.com/ehi/Alliance?allid=Goo18811&sid=QUOTES+042106+1 Here you go. Now if you don't have health insurance it's your choice. Write the check and shut the fuck up already One problem: He's not willing to pay for it. You and I pay for it; hell yeah. Something tells me you don't earn 100's of 1,000's per year, we'll all pay for our own. But if it makes you feel better, yea, you can pay for it. Have a good one

Yea, some plans do they say, I bet they're limited in scope and have massive deductables with huge premiums. Go cry in your pillow, HC is here - WOO HOO

https://www.ehealthinsurance.com/ehi/Alliance?allid=Goo18811&sid=QUOTES+042106+1 Here you go. Now if you don't have health insurance it's your choice. Write the check and shut the fuck up already I was thinking all the people whining about the removal of pre-existing conds, to take effect later, should shut the fuck up. See, the BS site you gave me wouldn't cover pre-existing conds., so it's basically worthless, not to mention a huge deductable. Nah, I think I'll wait Have a nice day.

Blatant twist-Why are you so scared of the question Kallend pays more in taxes than I earn, prolly more than you too - and he doesn't whine; why do you whine for paying less and prolly a < % too?

Nah, the massive debt has and will create an exchange rate prohibitingg the import of many goods, hence we will have to start making our own shit again.

Please; why? Tea baggers? I don't think are much but bla, bla-de bla, bla.

Nope - I believe that no candidate of either party can cut spending regardless of what they promise. History is on my side in this. Neither Reagan, nor Bush I nor Bush II could do it despite promises. When Bush I inherited Reagan's deficit he was forced to renege on his lip reading promise. Bush II had a friendly Congress for several years and all they did was increase the deficit even when the economy was in fairly good shape. Too many sacred cows in government spending - it will NOT be cut significantly over the long haul. The only solution is on the revenue side. Altho I agree that taxation is the way to shore up the overall fiscal picture, GHWB cut spending slightly and Clinton did so quite a bit. History proves your point, as the top tax brkt was inteh 90%+ from 1945 to 1961ish the debt fell several years. As it hit the 70% the debt dropped 1 year and as FR cut them from 70% to 28% it shot thru the roof. we have decades of evidence to support your claim, however, Clinton would have cut the debt had he been given 1 more year even with the top brkt at only 40%. Of course, as I said, he cut spending and had huge receipts.