Posted on 08/17/2009 8:22:33 AM PDT by Jbny
At some point about five years ago, America became a “One-Party Country”—and the party in question was the GOP. Such, at least, was the conclusion of Los Angeles Times reporters Tom Hamburger and Peter Wallsten in the book they wrote under that title following the 2004 presidential election. Bizarre as their claim may sound today, it stood on solid ground. In November 2004, George W. Bush had won re-election with the largest number of votes up to that point in American history while racking up the seventh Republican win in the previous 10 races for the White House. Republicans, moreover, were in control of the Senate by a margin of 10 seats, and of the House by a margin of 30. To complete the sweep, they also boasted a majority of the nation’s governorships and a plurality of state legislatures.
(Excerpt) Read more at commentarymagazine.com ...
The trial lawyers will try to counter any attempt to rein them in. Even “wonderful” France has set limits on its lawyers when it comes to their fabulous healthcare system.
Yes. I think France has ALJ’s to handle it.
First little winky. On page xiii, they compute total direct tort costs at 2.2% of GDP. They estimate 1.3% GDP “excess” Assume 14 trillion GDP, at 1.3% you get 196 billion direct tort costs. They do a little 1.3/2.2 and get 59% “escess” which they then apply to their total estimated tort cost and lo and behold we supposedly waste 589 billion.
Interesting when the total “direct” cost is 196 billion, using their own numbers. Talk about pumping up some numbers.
parsy, who is slogging thru it.
Oh, and on the lawyer comment. Medmals are hard cases to win. Usually have to find conduct outside of acceptable medical standards. So, a doctor nips carotid artery during neck surgery, probably not med malpractice. Accidents happen.
Then there is the cost. Expert witnesses. Depositions. etc etc. So only a few firms specialize in medmal. They tend to be larger type firms.
parsy, who has had a little experience in this
Our government was not empowered to spend tax payer money to advance or protect social agendas.
JACK CADE.
Valiant I am.
SMITH [aside].
‘A must needs; for beggary is valiant.
JACK CADE.
I am able to endure much.
DICK [aside].
No question of that; for I have seen him whipp’d three market-days together.
JACK CADE.
I fear neither sword nor fire.
SMITH [aside].
He need not fear the sword; for his coat is of proof.
DICK [aside].
But methinks he should stand in fear of fire, being burnt i’ th’hand for stealing of sheep.
JACK CADE.
Be brave, then; for your captain is brave, and vows reformation. There shall be in England seven half-penny loaves sold for a penny: the three-hoop’d pot shall have ten hoops; and I will make it felony to drink small beer: all the realm shall be in common; and in Cheapside shall my palfrey go to grass: and when I am king,- as king I will be,-
ALL.
God save your majesty!
JACK CADE.
I thank you, good people:- there shall be no money; all shall eat and drink on my score; and I will apparel them all in one livery, that they may agree like brothers, and worship me their lord.
DICK.
The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers.
“So if we want to change the world we must burnish our conservative image, find a candidate with the charisma of Ronald Reagan, and work like hell. In the meantime, some really fine minds must undertake to turn the demographics around by devising a true message for Hispanics and women, especially single women”
Or, the GOP can continue to cater to the 5% or so of the wealthy in the country by tax cuts, and capital gains treatments, and by deregulating financial markets.
You’re on the right path.
parsy, who says git there fustest with the mostest (And did you ever read the book about NBF and Irwin Rommel?)
True, for communism or tatalitarianism to prosper, you must get rid of the lawyers. You, and Shakespeare, said it.
“JACK CADE.
I thank you, good people:- there shall be no money; all shall eat and drink on my score; and I will apparel them all in one livery, that they may agree like brothers, and worship me their lord.
DICK.
The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers.
parsy, who must be having a good effect on you and bringing you around.
Where do you get this drivel parsy? Would you rather everyone be poor, and third world just to be fair? If we follow your (and coincidentally all good socialists and modern day democrat) advice, maybe we could be as well off as Cuba is or the Soviet Union was.
Parsy who is economically ignorant.
Heres another winky. Page 5, 2nd paragraph, from the specific to generalization. Concluionary statements based on crap, “civil courts give awards to people who have not suffered injuries”. The source for this broad indictment of the system, is the California Worker’s comp system, which isn’t a tort system and certainly doesn’t apply nartionwide.
parsy, who is beginning to hate you
What are you talking about? I supported the invasion, and a surge long before it was one.
But I did oppose the screw up of having let the State Dept. run the political operations and also let its wing of communists make the determination whether we had found any WMD.
W was warned he was making a collossal blunder to entrust these back-stabbing saboteurs to have ANY role whatsoever in as vital a mission as this. But of course...none of the RINOs such as W himself...and you are...listened to us.
“Our government was not empowered to spend tax payer money to advance or protect social agendas.”
Exactly. I would say that on the abortion issue, that Roe ought to be overturned and then each state could decide what abortion restrictions they would have. Unfortunately I also believe that at the national level the GOP has no interest in getting rid of abortion as a carrot to dangle in front of social conservatives.
Abortion and affirmative action were invented rights. Simply put, they empower one group of people over another and by that element should be considered unconstitutional.
Is all politics local? 3 house seats in purple Illinois shifted from R to D
The 8th Crane to Bean, then McSweeney to Bean.
The 11th Weller (ret) to Halvorsen
The 14th Hastert(ret) to Foster
In none of them was Iraq in the top 5 issues. Corruption, Beltway Republican ads out of touch with voters, lack of constituent service, Republican invisibility, hypocrisy on taxes and spending all worked against the Republicans. Immigration worked against the Republicans, especially in the 14th.
Iraq was only an issue in the hotly contested 6th with the most pro-war Roskam (R) beating proud Iraq veteran Duckworth who was pro-war but anti-Rummy strategy. Seein an opportunity to win in VA, the Dems paid their anti-war wackos to “volunteer” for Duckworth. They cost her votes, and maybe the election with their anti-war campaigning.
Other Republicans clearly lost because they appeared mean-spirited on immigration. Duckworth gained by being soft on illegals.
Other Republicans lost for a variety of reasons. Please someone point to a district where the Republican lost over Iraq. There must be at least one who lost due to the war. But I can’t think where.
(Self ping: http://www.atlanet.org/cps/rde/xchg/justice/hs.xsl/2324.htm)
Ignore the above. Part of my research I wanted to have when I leave office.
No I don’t want everyone poor. I don’t even care if we have a few rich around. What I like is justice across the spectrum. Problem with GOP has been that critical mental functions stop working the higher up the income ladder they look.
They expect responsibility from welfare recipients. So do I. I think people should work if they are on welfare, and if they don’t I would have them out picking up garbage ont he side of the road. Whatever, no sitting home watching TV if you are able-bodied.
Problem is, many jobs don’t pay enough for a person to live, even marginally without help from gov’t. This is BS. Rich compnaies and employers should have to pay a livable wage floor.
Will all people make the same. Of course not. But how do you care so little for those who can’t make it, and care so much for the those who have more than enough, particulalrly when a lot of these big companies are using taxpayer money to subsidize their workers. That is crap. Problem is the GOP doesn’t see a lot of the corporate welfare. They don’t see the screwings that go on daily agaisnt the poor and middle class.
Above is perfect example. Bush helped the banks and credit card companies and said to heck with the poor debtors. Now 7 1/2 years later, we have this little bo-bo with bad loans and now some are starting to come around and realize responsibility applies to all income brackets. And wjhile the rich will lose some, most of them will have a roof over their head. And 2 Mercedes. And a bank account.
The victims who had $100,000 in their 401K and watched it go to $50,000, are SOL. The people who lose their homes are SOL.
Sorry, but it is GOP who is mainly responsible for this debacle. Not Barney Frank. Not the poor. Not the CRA.
parsy, who says the rules should apply for everybody
Few people are unfamiliar with the phrase "The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers". Rueful, mocking, it often expresses the ordinary person's frustration with the arcana and complexity of law. Sometimes it's known known that the saying comes from one of Shakespeare's plays, but usually there's little awareness beyond that. This gap in knowledge has inspired a myth of "correction", where it is "explained" that this is line really intended as a praise of the lawyer's role.
For example, one legal firm states:
"The first thing we do," said the character in Shakespeare's Henry VI, is "kill all the lawyers." Contrary to popular belief, the proposal was not designed to restore sanity to commercial life. Rather, it was intended to eliminate those who might stand in the way of a contemplated revolution -- thus underscoring the important role that lawyers can play in society. (from Dickstein Shapiro Morin & Oshinsky LLP Firm Profile)
Or
As the famous remark by the plotter of treachery in Shakespeare's King Henry VI shows - "The first thing we must do is kill all the lawyers," - the surest way to chaos and tyranny even then was to remove the guardians of independent thinking. (from THINKING LIKE A LAWYER)
The argument of this remark as in fact being favorable to lawyers is a marvel of sophistry, twisting of the meaning of words in unfamiliar source, disregard of the evident intent of the original author and ad hominem attack. Whoever first came up with this interpretation surely must have been a lawyer.
The audience must have doubled over in laughter at this. Far from "eliminating those who might stand in the way of a contemplated revolution" or portraying lawyers as "guardians of independent thinking", it's offered as the best feature imagined of yet for utopia. It's hilarious. A very rough and simplistic modern translation would be "When I'm the King, there'll be two cars in every garage, and a chicken in every pot" "AND NO LAWYERS". It's a clearly lawyer-bashing joke. This is further supported by the dialogue just afterwards (which is actually quite funny even now, and must have been hilarious when the idiom was contemporary):
parsy, is a nut job.
You should have kept googling past the spectacle article. Try Daniel Kornstein’s book. It is online.
And, I’m nuts? I’m reading 68 pages of junk to answer you. Have your read the link I provided?
parsy, the earnest
Oh, and BTW, thank you for the link to Jackpot Justice. I think I have found the fatal flaw in the article. I hope I am the first to find it. I have to review the critical articles first.
parsy, who is just beaming
Oh crap, the other guys beat me to it. When I reviewed the 10 countries on page 32 of JJ, I noticed these countries have natl health care. Since meds and future meds are an element of tort claims, AHA!, there s the difference. JJ doesn’t mention this in its calcs of “excess” tort claims.
Alas and alack! On page 8 of the Junk Science paper, the authors hit this as one of three reasons why JJ was off on its calcs.
So now, I can truthfully say, Jackpot Justice should be renamed Crackpot Justice.
parsy, who read thru it.
What I like is justice across the spectrum.
A socialist, and very foolish man, one who luxuriates in the wealth and priviledges of this nation and then spits on it and giggles like a spoiled kid while it writhes around.
Jim Thompson needs to send in the Viking kitties.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.