Republicans tax plan

[Zute]

[Tudamorf]

Are you implying that Democrats aren't responsible for many of those tax breaks?

[AbyssalMage]

Are you implying that Democrats aren't responsible for many of those tax breaks?

Im sure Democrats that represent oil/coal districts of course would sighn on to this. Democrats as a party, don't support this.

[Tudamorf]

Im sure Democrats that represent oil/coal districts of course would sighn on to this. Democrats as a party, don't support this.

So it wasn't Obama and the Democrat-controlled Senate that recently extended Bush's tax cuts for two more years?

Democrats also wanted to eliminate Alternative Minimum Tax, which disproportionately hits the rich.

I'm sure if you look at many of the tax breaks above, you'll see quite a few Democrats supporting/sponsoring them. For example, those "alcohol fuel tax breaks" are often touted as environmental measures, even though they're not.

And any discussion of punitive damages being deductible begs the question of why we have them in the first place, and how much they cost society by funneling billions to lawyers and people who were dumb enough to injure themselves by doing something stupid.

[AbyssalMage]

So it wasn't Obama and the Democrat-controlled Senate that recently extended Bush's tax cuts for two more years?

Mabye we watched a different debate? The Democrats as a PARTY were set to eliminate them. Republicans still have a vote, and Democrats didn't have enouph votes to elininate Bush Tax Breaks while also being able to extend unemployment and other benefits. Again, mabye we were watching to entirely different debates. It was a concession, not a sponsorship of tax cuts.

Democrats also wanted to eliminate Alternative Minimum Tax, which disproportionately hits the rich.

I'm sure if you look at many of the tax breaks above, you'll see quite a few Democrats supporting/sponsoring them. For example, those "alcohol fuel tax breaks" are often touted as environmental measures, even though they're not.

Last time I checked, the new "green fuel" is ALCOHOL. Distilled Corn makes alcohol, and what the people in the midwest are asking for is not to be penalized for making it. There was a good article in TIME Magazine or Newsweek on the tax break your specifically talking about. Democrats (in general) have been on record of supporting this tax break sense 2008. It was implementing it with out creating loopholes into current law that they were trying to work out.

And any discussion of punitive damages being deductible begs the question of why we have them in the first place, and how much they cost society by funneling billions to lawyers and people who were dumb enough to injure themselves by doing something stupid.

Punitive damages are a Republican platform. Punitive damages when applied correctly, serve a purpose. The problem is, lawyers know how to pick juries to get the most favorable verdict possible. And laws are written so poorly (by lawyers none the less, who are supposed to be some of the most educated people around) to help them pad their own pockets (I agree with you here). If reasonable effort is/was made to make you safe, and you disreguard said safety, you deserve to get injured. But the law doesn't see it that way (thanks to lawyers). I have heard plenty of examples where I thought the individual should of paid punitive damages, and I have also witnessed plenty of dumb people do dumb things.

[Tudamorf]

Mabye we watched a different debate? The Democrats as a PARTY were set to eliminate them. Republicans still have a vote, and Democrats didn't have enouph votes to elininate Bush Tax Breaks while also being able to extend unemployment and other benefits. Again, mabye we were watching to entirely different debates. It was a concession, not a sponsorship of tax cuts.

So you're saying, cutting taxes doesn't count when in your heart of hearts you really didn't want to?

The Democrats could have eliminated Bush's tax cuts by simply doing nothing -- something they're quite good at. But they choose to not only cut taxes irresponsibly, but also increase spending on unemployment and other benefits simultaneously.

Now who's taking money away from other programs?

Punitive damages when applied correctly, serve a purpose.

Yes, their purpose is to make lawyers more money. That's why they created them in the first place. Kind of like a self-sustaining lawyer stimulus program.

The stimulus program is so good though, that governments began to get jealous. In 2004, California enacted a law requiring you to pay 75% of your punitive damage award back to the state. Too bad it expired in 2006 and it wasn't extended, on account of political maneuvering.

[AbyssalMage]

Mabye we watched a different debate? The Democrats as a PARTY were set to eliminate them. Republicans still have a vote, and Democrats didn't have enouph votes to elininate Bush Tax Breaks while also being able to extend unemployment and other benefits. Again, mabye we were watching to entirely different debates. It was a concession, not a sponsorship of tax cuts.

So you're saying, cutting taxes doesn't count when in your heart of hearts you really didn't want to?

The Democrats could have eliminated Bush's tax cuts by simply doing nothing -- something they're quite good at. But they choose to not only cut taxes irresponsibly, but also increase spending on unemployment and other benefits simultaneously.

Now who's taking money away from other programs?

So they let the tax cuts expire...Like they were planning to, but then can't pass the unemployment and other benefits simultaneously like you so elegently pointed out. These are people, our neighbors, and probably a few of your friends, not statistics that the government helped. All states place a heavy burden on finding work while collecting unemployment (because some conservative idiots back during Reagan thought they were all "hippies, druggies, and losers" [BTW, this is my paraphrasing of what Republicans said back in the 80's]). So, yeah, money was taken to help out some unemployed people who couldn't find work even though they were trying to during a RECESSION. Guess I would like to have my Government spend money on people imidiatly instead of on programs that may or may not help as many people.

Yes, this is exactly the concession I was talking about.

Punitive damages when applied correctly, serve a purpose.

Yes, their purpose is to make lawyers more money. That's why they created them in the first place. Kind of like a self-sustaining lawyer stimulus program.

The stimulus program is so good though, that governments began to get jealous. In 2004, California enacted a law requiring you to pay 75% of your punitive damage award back to the state. Too bad it expired in 2006 and it wasn't extended, on account of political maneuvering.

California is DUMB and if you live there, either move, or quit complaining. The government, if you can call it one, is a sham that doesn't represent anyone but the politician and the political junkies that elected him/her.

Punitive damage when applied correctly, punish corporations(or individuals) for profitting off of gross negligence. And no, they were not created for lawyers to get rich (originally) but to prevent/deter a coporation (or individual) from using "any means necessary" to make a $$$ (buck).

Is that how it is today? No, punitive damages are a way for lawyers to make money (We both agree on this) and it rarely punishes the offender like it was intended. There is a reason you see "Punitive Damage" lawyer commercials advertised on the T.V. There always, "Just one case away from landing the Big Fish." The problem is, although the "Big Fish" exist, they catch a whole lot of "little fish" also. Things that, if given time and discussion, could be settled with out money (or at least covering any costs that incurred from the mistake). But we live in a society of "get rich quick" (And is an entirely different subject).

[Tudamorf]

Punitive damage when applied correctly, punish corporations(or individuals) for profitting off of gross negligence.

Malice actually, not gross negligence.

But if you want to punish corporations, why should the money go to someone who, by definition, don't deserve it?

And no, they were not created for lawyers to get rich (originally) but to prevent/deter a coporation (or individual) from using "any means necessary" to make a $$$ (buck).

Who created it?

What educational/occupational background do the majority of those people come from?

[AbyssalMage]

Punitive damage when applied correctly, punish corporations(or individuals) for profitting off of gross negligence.

Malice actually, not gross negligence.

But if you want to punish corporations, why should the money go to someone who, by definition, don't deserve it?

Who does deserve it? Really don't follow your logic. Victims obviously deserve it. Lawyers don't work for free. Missing the logic in your question.

And no, they were not created for lawyers to get rich (originally) but to prevent/deter a coporation (or individual) from using "any means necessary" to make a $$$ (buck).

Who created it?

What educational/occupational background do the majority of those people come from?

So people with an educational background can't get upset when they see sweat shops? They can't get upset when they see people die because Landlords don't take propper precautions?

Lets not forget, people don't pound on the doors (make phone calls/petition in the modern era) to their state representative to have laws changed?

I think you enjoy playing devils advocate. Just a simple observation I have noticed about you. Because if you truly think this way, you really need to get out and socialize with your fellow neighbor. And it is OK if you like playing devils advocate, I don't want to make it sound like its a bad thing.

[Tudamorf]

Who does deserve it? Really don't follow your logic. Victims obviously deserve it. Lawyers don't work for free. Missing the logic in your question.

Punitive damages are damages which, by definition, are NOT designed to compensate the plaintiff for losses.

They are, by definition, damages which the plaintiff doesn't deserve.

So why should he get them?

So people with an educational background can't get upset when they see sweat shops? They can't get upset when they see people die because Landlords don't take propper precautions?

You missed my point.

Most legislators are lawyers.

You have lawyers, making laws that say lawyers should be entitled to gigantic sums of money far beyond what they'd otherwise earn on a per hour basis.

You don't see a problem with that?