Republicans Don't Care About National Debt

[Doove]

Originally Posted by Waitt

200 doctors a month moving to Texas because of tort reform $750,000 max suit.

So i guess if you're a doctor who operates on someone after having a few drinks and takes out the wrong lung, hope you're in Texas. If you're the patient, hope you're in NY.

[Whirlaway]

On this one I take my lead behind the FT of London editorial.....

"...It was too little leadership, too late. To make this strategy succeed, Mr Obama needed the pressure of public opinion to force Republicans to compromise. That pressure is still too weak, and the time to fix this is running out fast. Mr Obama has infuriated much of his party – again. And he has failed to budge a pathologically intransigent Republican party – again. He has come to a moment that could settle the fate of his presidency.

Does he press on for the big deal, fighting for public support at this absurdly late hour, risking even more? Or does he climb down from his threat to veto a smaller measure, settle on terms dictated by the GOP, and look still further diminished? Neither choice looks promising. Meanwhile, the debt-ceiling clock runs down."

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/6ce92636-a...#axzz1RnRq098w

The Obama scheme includes $1 trillion in new taxes on top of the $1 trillion he has already signed into law in his Obamacare legislation.

And the new Obama taxes would be signed into law; but the promised reform of the tax code would not. That would be up for further discussion.

The Obama scheme is just another Democratic spend and tax plan; cloaked in the rhetoric of current day politics.

Good for the Republicans for hanging tough on the "cut spending pledge" that 237 members of Congress have signed onto.

[TexTushHog]

Originally Posted by Doove

So i guess if you're a doctor who operates on someone after having a few drinks and takes out the wrong lung, hope you're in Texas. If you're the patient, hope you're in NY.

Actually, New York is currently considering caps on med mal cases, too. Sad situation.

[Whirlaway]

Sad if you sue good doctors and others...- I am thinking of John Edwards and his enabler Fred Baron, as prime example. They got un godly rich off the backs of their clients.

Originally Posted by TexTushHog

Actually, New York is currently considering caps on med mal cases, too. Sad situation.

[Guest050715-1]

Originally Posted by TexTushHog

I think this will come back to hurt Republicans quite a bit in the mid-term elections. Obama can make it worse for the Republicans if he comes forward now with a Democratic proposal to cut $4 - 5 trillion off the budget via cuts and revenues and forces a vote on it in the Senate. My guess is that's too much confrontation for him (unfortunately).

Mid-term elections were last year. If you are referring to the upcoming elections, in the end, non-sentient voters, which BTW makes up a large majority of the voters, will vote the way the sound bites and their pocket books tell them to vote. Period. We are over a year away from the election. This will be all but forgotten by the sheep. What will be remembered in the voting booth is the class and moral warfare that the Democrats and Republicans respectively are successfully starting. Rich people and abortion sucks. Really, this is the best the supposedly best and brightest can come up with? What about jobs?

Obama gets up before the American people and says that he could stand to be a few hundred thousand dollars lighter. Can he forget just once that this isn’t about him? It’s infantile. If he wants to help out, he can donate his hundreds of thousands of surplus to the poor. Does he really think anyone buys his tender need to line the coffers of the US Treasury? Really, if he felt so strongly, he could fine other avenues to help the poor.

He, just like the extremist on the Republican, side is trying to distract with smoke and mirrors. He wants to redistribute wealth. It is his whole goal. If it wasn’t, he would realize tax hikes on the rich aren’t enough. The real money comes from the middle class and corporate taxes.

We need to raise revenue and cut spending. How hard is that to realize. You are all just dieing to see how some fool on the other side of the fence is going to react to reactionary rhetoric! Nothing, but nothing will be solved with that attitude. Can’t we all just work together? Jesus, if Slick Willy could do it, anyone can. United we stand; divided we fall.

Originally Posted by TexTushHog

……………….As for what we did to avoid the worst of the recession, we didn't have a big run up in housing prices because no one really wants to move here. Texas had very little population growth compared to the places that had big housing run ups -- Las Vegas, Phoenix, New York City, Miami, Boston, San Francisco, and Los Angeles. If we had the sort of population gains that those places had in the same time frame, we'd have the same issues.

Texas has always enjoyed a relatively low cost of living compared to other places. I do not agree that no one really wants to live here, but that is neither here nor there. We did have a run up in prices. Not all the cities you said have natural barriers to growth, but many of them do. We also still have our jobs. Mining cannot be shipped to China, and our taxes are reasonable compared to the rest of the country.

[Whirlaway]

The data just doesn't support your thesis....of the top 10 high growth metro counties in the US, Texas represented with 5 counties - Harris, Bexar, Tarrant, Collin and Dallas...none of the counties inlcuded the Boston, NY, or San Fran area...although San Bernadino was on the list..

Why didn't Texas over build? Because, believe it or not, the industry (builders and lenders) learned lessons from the 1980s and didn't do the level of speculative building that other areas did.

http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2007/...ties/jump.html

Originally Posted by TexTushHog

,,,As for what we did to avoid the worst of the recession, we didn't have a big run up in housing prices because no one really wants to move here. Texas had very little population growth compared to the places that had big housing run ups -- Las Vegas, Phoenix, New York City, Miami, Boston, San Francisco, and Los Angeles. If we had the sort of population gains that those places had in the same time frame, we'd have the same issues.

[Fastcars1966]

Originally Posted by Doove

So i guess if you're a doctor who operates on someone after having a few drinks and takes out the wrong lung, hope you're in Texas. If you're the patient, hope you're in NY.

Why don't we just add tort reform that places penalty on the plaintiff that brings frivolous law suites? That would eliminate a large majority of the cases that get settled due to the cost in defending such BS and not place caps on the amount of damages that can be awarded.

[TheTexasTornado]

Originally Posted by Whirlaway

Why didn't Texas over build? Because, believe it or not, the industry (builders and lenders) learned lessons from the 1980s and didn't do the level of speculative building that other areas did.

Sorta true...a lot more has to do with home prices not rising in Texas as much as some of the more speculative markets. And part of the reason for that has to do with zoning and available land. DFW for example looks far different at its fringes than it did 20 years ago. There are areas in NE and W Fort Worth, McKinney, Frisco, Allen, Plano, Lewisville, Southlake, Mansfield, etc., that were large tracts of unused land or farm land. We had room to grow. The lack of room to grow is what drove prices higher in the northeast corridor of the US and the San Fran area. Constant demand for homes within commuting range of NY/SF/Boston/DC and no room to build.

Other areas, like Las Vegas suffered from a lack of diversity in their economy. That is the real lesson that Texas took from the 1980's. Houston was decimated because of the oil situation, and Texas was way too dependent on oil. As a result, there was a concerted effort to diversify and you can see it in the variety of corporations that have moved their headquarters here.

Phoenix and Miami were pure bubble-driven speculation. There weren't enough people to live in the homes that were being purchased, but as long as their were buyers, the builders would keep on building. Eventually, the greater fools wound up holding 10 homes that they thought they could flip, only the families that were actually moving to there had already found a place to live. Oops!

[TexTushHog]

Originally Posted by Whirlaway

Sad if you sue good doctors and others...- I am thinking of John Edwards and his enabler Fred Baron, as prime example. They got un godly rich off the backs of their clients.

You don't think "good doctors" can commit acts of medical negligence? In point of fact, they can, although they do it far less often than bad doctors.

And I knew Fred Baron very well. He was a fine man and a fine lawyer. He didn't take med mal law suits. Most of he career was devoted to asbestos litigation.

I also knew, and know, John Edwards. His suits against doctors were successful because he chose them carefully. Most lawyers who do medical negligence cases turn down about 200 - 300 cases for every one they take. This is essential to their practice because the cases are expensive (average expenses are about $150,000 per case) and hard to win. John screened his cases as well as anyone.

[TexTushHog]

Originally Posted by Fastcars1966

Why don't we just add tort reform that places penalty on the plaintiff that brings frivolous law suites? That would eliminate a large majority of the cases that get settled due to the cost in defending such BS and not place caps on the amount of damages that can be awarded.

Better yet, have a provision that provides attorneys' fees to the prevailing party whether that party is the Plaintiff or the Defendant. I've tried about 230 cases in my career. I've lost five (if you define a loss as getting less than the Defendant's final offer). That law would be great as far as I'm concerned.

[Whirlaway]

I think any good practioner (medical or other) can make mistakes. I don't think lawyers should get un-godly rich because of it. The laws need to change. Should injured parties be justly compensated? Yes. Do lawyers need to become mega wealthy in the process? No.

And Edwards and Baron were not fine men. They might have been skilled lawyers, but they were (are) not "fine" men.

Originally Posted by TexTushHog

You don't think "good doctors" can commit acts of medical negligence? In point of fact, they can, although they do it far less often than bad doctors.

[Whirlaway]

We need to cap attorney fees, cap jury awards, and legislate how much of the award is divided between attorney(s) and clients.

Originally Posted by TexTushHog

Better yet, have a provision that provides attorneys' fees to the prevailing party whether that party is the Plaintiff or the Defendant. I've tried about 230 cases in my career. I've lost five (if you define a loss as getting less than the Defendant's final offer). That law would be great as far as I'm concerned.

[Guest040616]

Originally Posted by Whirlaway

We need to cap attorney fees, cap jury awards, and legislate how much of the award is divided between attorney(s) and clients.

You favor more regulation?

You might want to give the Tea Party National Legislative Director a call!

[Fastcars1966]

Originally Posted by TexTushHog

Better yet, have a provision that provides attorneys' fees to the prevailing party whether that party is the Plaintiff or the Defendant. I've tried about 230 cases in my career. I've lost five (if you define a loss as getting less than the Defendant's final offer). That law would be great as far as I'm concerned.

How many of those were never contested due to the expense? Not trying to paint you in a negative way, but you know that a lot of the cases that get settled should have never been brought to start with. If we could just eliminate those! I also don't mind anyone getting wealthy when they are the best at what they do. Lawyers, Doctors etc... If you have a record like that and are not wealthy I would think you were a.............LOL
Everyone should use common sense and discretion and quite placing the blame on something, or someone instead of self. Look at Charlie Weis for an example, he chose to have an elective procedure had complications and sued the physician after giving consent and knew the risk. He did not win, but this "what have you got to lose" attitude has to stop.
Fiscal responsibility is no different if you can't afford it you should not by it. I have a balanced budget, and so should the Government, and I pay my share of taxes and would not mind a little increase. I don't mind pulling my weight, but too many Americans want someone else to shoulder the responsibility and not give up their tax credits, and yes I mean just that. How many Americans actually pay taxes on income compared to those who get a tax credit? Everyone must pay to get us out of this mess not just the rich. I hate the fact that the president is now threatening to stop social security payments. Why doesn't he stop foreign aid, or some other means of saving trillions of dollars? Hell for that matter why don't some of these rich people that support all the foreign aid projects fund that out of private donations instead of lobbying for government money and I know a great deal is funded from the private sector like Bill Gates, and Oprah are doing in Africa etc.

Let's take care of America first. Let the churchs take on the responsibilty of charity. Seperation of Church and State. The government needs to stop trying to be the Church.

[Boltfan]

Originally Posted by TexTushHog

I also knew, and know, John Edwards. His suits against doctors were successful because he chose them carefully. Most lawyers who do medical negligence cases turn down about 200 - 300 cases for every one they take. This is essential to their practice because the cases are expensive (average expenses are about $150,000 per case) and hard to win. John screened his cases as well as anyone.

I'll bet he is wishing he put that much effort into screening his women now too.