• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Yet Another Jury Stops the Gun Lawsuit Madness - NAACP's Ridiculous Lawsuit Against Gunmakers Shot Down

Amused

Elite Member
Jury Sides with Gun Industry

By Tom Hays
Associated Press


NEW YORK (May 14) - Rejecting a lawsuit brought by the NAACP, a federal jury Wednesday cleared 45 gun manufacturers and distributors of allegations their marketing practices have stoked violence in black and Hispanic neighborhoods.

The jury deliberated for five days before reaching its verdict in the closely watched case that now goes to the judge for a final decision. The panel was unable to reach a verdict regarding 23 other defendants.

Chris Cox, chief lobbyist for the National Rifle Association, called the ruling ``common sense'' and said the lawsuit was ``aimed at bankrupting a law-abiding American industry by holding them liable for the actions of criminals.''

Kweisi Mfume, the president of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, said he was disappointed by the jury's findings.

In an unusual ruling, U.S. District Judge Jack Weinstein decided ahead of time the jury would play only an advisory role and that he will make the final decision in the case. Both sides will submit written arguments interpreting the jury's verdict within 30 days.

The lawsuit claimed the firearms industry knew corrupt dealers were supplying products to criminals in minority communities and did nothing to stop it.

Rather than monetary damages, the NAACP sought to force distributors to restrict sales to dealers with storefront outlets, prohibit sales to gun show dealers and limit individual purchasers to one handgun a month.

The defendants and the gun industry argued it was unfair and illegal to hold manufacturers liable for the criminal use of a legal product. They also said that legislatures - not courts - should set standards for sales.

``Nobody wants to have someone selling to criminals,'' James Dorr, attorney for Sturm, Ruger & Co., said during closing arguments. ``This industry certainly doesn't.''

The verdict followed more than five weeks of testimony in the suit against 68 defendants, including Smith & Wesson Corp., Glock Inc., Colt Manufacturing and other major gun makers and distributors.

The plaintiffs built much of their case on previously sealed data - provided by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms under court order - detailing sales histories of weapons recovered at crime scenes in New York state from 1996 to 2000.

An expert witness testified that an analysis found 11 percent of handguns sold in 1996 were used in rapes, robberies, assaults and murders by 2000.

The defendants knew they were feeding a pool of illegal handguns and ``purposely turned their head away from the problem,'' NAACP attorney Elisa Barnes told the jury. ``They said, `It's not our worry.'''

Defense experts claimed the analysis was flawed. They said their own studies found that most guns used by criminals come from a secondary market of used or stolen guns.

Since 1998, more than two dozen cities, counties and states have sued gun makers, many claiming the manufacturers allowed weapons to reach criminals because of irresponsible marketing. Many suits have been dismissed or dropped, but Congress is considering legislation backed by the White House and the NRA to protect gun makers and sellers from lawsuits arising from the criminal or unlawful use of their products.

05/14/03 20:12 EDT
 
Only won cause they spent the money to win. The suits are still detrmental to the companies and will eventually win when they are too tired of to poor to fight them.

Any words on that anti-gun tort reform making it;s way though congreesss?
 
Originally posted by: Carbonyl
Only won cause they spent the money to win. The suits are still detrmental to the companies and will eventually win when they are too tired of to poor to fight them.

Any words on that anti-gun tort reform making it;s way though congreesss?

Well, the wonderful thing is that all suits have failed. Lawyers are going to wise up and refuse the cases because they'll never get paid that way.

I just read something in the news on that bill, but forgot what it was about. I'll keep an eye out for it and if I see any news on it again, I'll post it here.

Hey, it's cool we have one thing we can agree on, eh? 🙂
 
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: Carbonyl
Only won cause they spent the money to win. The suits are still detrmental to the companies and will eventually win when they are too tired of to poor to fight them.

Any words on that anti-gun tort reform making it;s way though congreesss?

Well, the wonderful thing is that all suits have failed. Lawyers are going to wise up and refuse the cases because they'll never get paid that way.

I just read something in the news on that bill, but forgot what it was about. I'll keep an eye out for it and if I see any news on it again, I'll post it here.

Hey, it's cool we have one thing we can agree on, eh? 🙂

We agree on everything regauding liberty/individual freedoms. Only sticking point is you think Bill gates is 100,000X smarter than your average bear and should'nt be taxed more because of it.
 
Originally posted by: Carbonyl
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: Carbonyl
Only won cause they spent the money to win. The suits are still detrmental to the companies and will eventually win when they are too tired of to poor to fight them.

Any words on that anti-gun tort reform making it;s way though congreesss?

Well, the wonderful thing is that all suits have failed. Lawyers are going to wise up and refuse the cases because they'll never get paid that way.

I just read something in the news on that bill, but forgot what it was about. I'll keep an eye out for it and if I see any news on it again, I'll post it here.

Hey, it's cool we have one thing we can agree on, eh? 🙂

We agree on everything regauding liberty/individual freedoms. Only sticking point is you think Bill gates is 100,000X smarter than your average bear and should'nt be taxed more because of it.

😛

No, I think Bill Gates wanted it more, worked harder for it, and had a nack for marketing. Should he be penalized for that?
You cry about jobs, yet you want to penalize those who create them.
 
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: Carbonyl
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: Carbonyl
Only won cause they spent the money to win. The suits are still detrmental to the companies and will eventually win when they are too tired of to poor to fight them.

Any words on that anti-gun tort reform making it;s way though congreesss?

Well, the wonderful thing is that all suits have failed. Lawyers are going to wise up and refuse the cases because they'll never get paid that way.

I just read something in the news on that bill, but forgot what it was about. I'll keep an eye out for it and if I see any news on it again, I'll post it here.

Hey, it's cool we have one thing we can agree on, eh? 🙂

We agree on everything regauding liberty/individual freedoms. Only sticking point is you think Bill gates is 100,000X smarter than your average bear and should'nt be taxed more because of it.

😛

No, I think Bill Gates wanted it more, worked harder for it, and had a nack for marketing. Should he be penalized for that?
You cry about jobs, yet you want to penalize those who create them.

They still did create them but under graduated tax the government creats more of them which benefits them and everyone else. This country grew at a unequaled rate of 3.3% from 1933-73 and had top marginal rates of 71-90% during that period. When Reagan came along all he did was increase the debt 4X and only showed growth of 2.3% while lowering the top rate to 28%. So I'm not covinced low taxes are the answer to job creation, in fact it looks like the opposite. And more importantly it leaves us a society without infrastucture and without an educated populous which these capitalists need for thier companies to survive.

Man I'm gonna see If I can find this article of these billionaires argueing against repeal of estate and capital gains tax. I think I saw it in investors business daily but it was in thier home edition don't know if it's online..... But they layed out why and how they would become robber barrens again and the country would face dismal times without some leash on the power thier capital garners.
 
No, I think Bill Gates wanted it more, worked harder for it, and had a nack for marketing. Should he be penalized for that?
I think you just hijacked your own thread. 😀

As for S.659, a few Senators <cough>Feinstein<cough> are threatening a filibuster, saying that it will prohibit any and all lawsuits against gun dealers or manufacturers, despite the fact that the bill has specific exclusions for defects in design or manufacture, negligence in distribution, and illegal sales.
 
Originally posted by: Carbonyl
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: Carbonyl
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: Carbonyl
Only won cause they spent the money to win. The suits are still detrmental to the companies and will eventually win when they are too tired of to poor to fight them.

Any words on that anti-gun tort reform making it;s way though congreesss?

Well, the wonderful thing is that all suits have failed. Lawyers are going to wise up and refuse the cases because they'll never get paid that way.

I just read something in the news on that bill, but forgot what it was about. I'll keep an eye out for it and if I see any news on it again, I'll post it here.

Hey, it's cool we have one thing we can agree on, eh? 🙂

We agree on everything regauding liberty/individual freedoms. Only sticking point is you think Bill gates is 100,000X smarter than your average bear and should'nt be taxed more because of it.

😛

No, I think Bill Gates wanted it more, worked harder for it, and had a nack for marketing. Should he be penalized for that?
You cry about jobs, yet you want to penalize those who create them.

They still did create them but under graduated tax the government creats more of them which benefits them and everyone else. This country grew at a unequaled rate of 3.3% from 1933-73 and had top marginal rates of 71-90% during that period. When Reagan came along all he did was increase the debt 4X and only showed growth of 2.3% while lowering the top rate to 28%. So I'm not covinced low taxes are the answer to job creation, in fact it looks like the opposite. And more importantly it leaves us a society without infrastucture and without an educated populous which these capitalists need for thier companies to survive.

Man I'm gonna see If I can find this article of these billionaires argueing against repeal of estate and capital gains tax. I think I saw it in investors business daily but it was in thier home edition don't know if it's online..... But they layed out why and how they would become robber barrens again and the country would face dismal times without some leash on the power thier capital garners.

Um, Carby, we had this discussion before. When Reagan lowered the top tax rate, he also closed a LOT of tax shelters and loopholes. In the end, the rich aren't paying any less now than they did before.

And in my opinion, the Reagan and Bush years are what built the base for the growth in the ninties. It takes many years for economic policy to have an effect on the economy.

And yes, I saw the argument of a few select wealthy folks arguing against the cuts on the Estate tax. But you must understand, these are people who have already vowed to give away virtually their entire fortune before they die. The point is moot to them.

Buffet is the funniest. He said, and I quote, "yes, I think I am under taxed." WTF??? How come you never see these liberal rich folks donating money to the IRS??? If you think you are undertaxed, over pay to the amount you think is fair.
 
I asked this in another thread and I'll ask again. How is it that Napster got shut down because members could use its services illegaly, yet gun manufacturers get off free?

Too bad common sence doesn't show up when technology is involved...

 
Originally posted by: MartyTheManiak
I asked this in another thread and I'll ask again. How is it that Napster got shut down because members could use its services illegaly, yet gun manufacturers get off free?

Too bad common sence doesn't show up when technology is involved...

There was nothing legal about napster. There is nothing in our constitution about the right to free music.

Guns are legal and our constitution gives us the right to own them.
 
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: MartyTheManiak
I asked this in another thread and I'll ask again. How is it that Napster got shut down because members could use its services illegaly, yet gun manufacturers get off free?

Too bad common sence doesn't show up when technology is involved...

There was nothing legal about napster. There is nothing in our constitution about the right to free music.

Guns are legal and our constitution gives us the right to own them.

this isn't about your constituion.

Napster's services could be used either way. If I had a CD, but downloaded MP3s, what was legal. If I downloaded something someone decided to put there for free, that was legal. If I downloaded something I hadn't brought that was illegal. But the courts never made any distinction, they said napster infringed copyrights and shut them down.

Now the same thing is happening with gun manufacturers. They provide guns, which can be used to commit crimes, defend yourself or just go shoot some targets. Yet, few people want to see the same thing happen with the Gun manufacturers as with Napster.

A curiosity...
 
Originally posted by: MartyTheManiak
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: MartyTheManiak
I asked this in another thread and I'll ask again. How is it that Napster got shut down because members could use its services illegaly, yet gun manufacturers get off free?

Too bad common sence doesn't show up when technology is involved...

There was nothing legal about napster. There is nothing in our constitution about the right to free music.

Guns are legal and our constitution gives us the right to own them.

this isn't about your constituion.

Napster's services could be used either way. If I had a CD, but downloaded MP3s, what was legal. If I downloaded something someone decided to put there for free, that was legal. If I downloaded something I hadn't brought that was illegal. But the courts never made any distinction, they said napster infringed copyrights and shut them down.

Now the same thing is happening with gun manufacturers. They provide guns, which can be used to commit crimes, defend yourself or just go shoot some targets. Yet, few people want to see the same thing happen with the Gun manufacturers as with Napster.

A curiosity...


No curiosity at all. If you have the CD you have no need to download the related mp3s.
I will agree there needs to be legislation about rights to copy and produce mp3s for personal use from your legally owned cds. I do not expect the record labels to allow filesharing to become legal, but I do expect it to change their pricing model.
 
Originally posted by: przero
Napster was used PRIMARILY for illegal purposes.

Which they did not endorse, condone , or promote or profit from. Napster had legitimate uses as well.

Just as this hammer I have has legitimate uses, until i use it to pound your brains out of your head, but you can hold craftsman accountable, not me.
 
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: Carbonyl
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: Carbonyl
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: Carbonyl
Only won cause they spent the money to win. The suits are still detrmental to the companies and will eventually win when they are too tired of to poor to fight them.

Any words on that anti-gun tort reform making it;s way though congreesss?

Well, the wonderful thing is that all suits have failed. Lawyers are going to wise up and refuse the cases because they'll never get paid that way.

I just read something in the news on that bill, but forgot what it was about. I'll keep an eye out for it and if I see any news on it again, I'll post it here.

Hey, it's cool we have one thing we can agree on, eh? 🙂

We agree on everything regauding liberty/individual freedoms. Only sticking point is you think Bill gates is 100,000X smarter than your average bear and should'nt be taxed more because of it.

😛

No, I think Bill Gates wanted it more, worked harder for it, and had a nack for marketing. Should he be penalized for that?
You cry about jobs, yet you want to penalize those who create them.

They still did create them but under graduated tax the government creats more of them which benefits them and everyone else. This country grew at a unequaled rate of 3.3% from 1933-73 and had top marginal rates of 71-90% during that period. When Reagan came along all he did was increase the debt 4X and only showed growth of 2.3% while lowering the top rate to 28%. So I'm not covinced low taxes are the answer to job creation, in fact it looks like the opposite. And more importantly it leaves us a society without infrastucture and without an educated populous which these capitalists need for thier companies to survive.

Man I'm gonna see If I can find this article of these billionaires argueing against repeal of estate and capital gains tax. I think I saw it in investors business daily but it was in thier home edition don't know if it's online..... But they layed out why and how they would become robber barrens again and the country would face dismal times without some leash on the power thier capital garners.

Um, Carby, we had this discussion before. When Reagan lowered the top tax rate, he also closed a LOT of tax shelters and loopholes. In the end, the rich aren't paying any less now than they did before.

And in my opinion, the Reagan and Bush years are what built the base for the growth in the ninties. It takes many years for economic policy to have an effect on the economy.

And yes, I saw the argument of a few select wealthy folks arguing against the cuts on the Estate tax. But you must understand, these are people who have already vowed to give away virtually their entire fortune before they die. The point is moot to them.

Buffet is the funniest. He said, and I quote, "yes, I think I am under taxed." WTF??? How come you never see these liberal rich folks donating money to the IRS??? If you think you are undertaxed, over pay to the amount you think is fair.

I remember that article Carb about the billionaires protesting the repeal of the estate tax.


Reagan and Bush built the baswe for the 90's? LMAO, stop listening to Rush. For years all we heard was how great Ronnie was because of what his economic policy did in the 80's, until Clinton came along, now Ronnie's real effect wasn't even felt until the 90's.

GO back a bit, about 6 years before Carter took power the economy started a significant downward trend. Alot of the measures Carter took helped after he left office, during Reagans first 2 years. After that we had a GOP pres and a Dem congress spending their asses off and quadrupling our national debt to get MODEST gains in the market, Bush paid the price this policy.

Another spin by the right in their attempts to remake history is the claim the stock market under clinton was driven by 401k's, not his policy in any way. Actually, they try to take credit for all his good and blame him for their mistakes. I could hardly believe the way they acted while he was in office, it was like watching a pouting spoiled child.

The balanced budget agreement of 1993 (dems) brought about the largest amount of foreign investment capital the US had seen in over 50 years, fueling the dramatic growth in the stock market initially under clinton and making it an attractive investment option, which is why you saw the flood of 401k money, etc.. from private American citizens.
 
Originally posted by: Alistar7



Reagan and Bush built the baswe for the 90's? LMAO, stop listening to Rush. For years all we heard was how great Ronnie was because of what his economic policy did in the 80's, until Clinton came along, now Ronnie's real effect wasn't even felt until the 90's.

GO back a bit, about 6 years before Carter took power the economy started a significant downward trend. Alot of the measures Carter took helped after he left office, during Reagans first 2 years. After that we had a GOP pres and a Dem congress spending their asses off and quadrupling our national debt to get MODEST gains in the market, Bush paid the price this policy.

Another spin by the right in their attempts to remake history is the claim the stock market under clinton was driven by 401k's, not his policy in any way. Actually, they try to take credit for all his good and blame him for their mistakes. I could hardly believe the way they acted while he was in office, it was like watching a pouting spoiled child.

The balanced budget agreement of 1993 (dems) brought about the largest amount of foreign investment capital the US had seen in over 50 years, fueling the dramatic growth in the stock market initially under clinton and making it an attractive investment option, which is why you saw the flood of 401k money, etc.. from private American citizens.

Sorry, I don't have an AM radio. I couldn't listen to Rush if I wanted to.

Economic policy takes years to have any real effect on the economy. If I pass a tax cut today, it will not even start to be felt for another year at least. And if it happens to be a gradual tax cut, spread out over five years, well... Moreover, if I pass a tax cut aimed at making investing in jobs easier, it will take years for the capital to be built up.

Or are you really trying to argue that economic policy has immediate effects on the economy?

Finally, the stock market was mainly fueled by the tech boom. Tech stocks growing at incredible rates made everything in the stock market look more attractive. I my opinion, the tech boom really had it's start during the (first) Bush years. That's when the tech baby was conceived. The fact that it was born as Clinton took office was a matter of luck. Nothing more.
 
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: Carbonyl
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: Carbonyl
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: Carbonyl
Only won cause they spent the money to win. The suits are still detrmental to the companies and will eventually win when they are too tired of to poor to fight them.

Any words on that anti-gun tort reform making it;s way though congreesss?

Well, the wonderful thing is that all suits have failed. Lawyers are going to wise up and refuse the cases because they'll never get paid that way.

I just read something in the news on that bill, but forgot what it was about. I'll keep an eye out for it and if I see any news on it again, I'll post it here.

Hey, it's cool we have one thing we can agree on, eh? 🙂

We agree on everything regauding liberty/individual freedoms. Only sticking point is you think Bill gates is 100,000X smarter than your average bear and should'nt be taxed more because of it.

😛

No, I think Bill Gates wanted it more, worked harder for it, and had a nack for marketing. Should he be penalized for that?
You cry about jobs, yet you want to penalize those who create them.

They still did create them but under graduated tax the government creats more of them which benefits them and everyone else. This country grew at a unequaled rate of 3.3% from 1933-73 and had top marginal rates of 71-90% during that period. When Reagan came along all he did was increase the debt 4X and only showed growth of 2.3% while lowering the top rate to 28%. So I'm not covinced low taxes are the answer to job creation, in fact it looks like the opposite. And more importantly it leaves us a society without infrastucture and without an educated populous which these capitalists need for thier companies to survive.

Man I'm gonna see If I can find this article of these billionaires argueing against repeal of estate and capital gains tax. I think I saw it in investors business daily but it was in thier home edition don't know if it's online..... But they layed out why and how they would become robber barrens again and the country would face dismal times without some leash on the power thier capital garners.

Um, Carby, we had this discussion before. When Reagan lowered the top tax rate, he also closed a LOT of tax shelters and loopholes. In the end, the rich aren't paying any less now than they did before.

And in my opinion, the Reagan and Bush years are what built the base for the growth in the ninties. It takes many years for economic policy to have an effect on the economy.

And yes, I saw the argument of a few select wealthy folks arguing against the cuts on the Estate tax. But you must understand, these are people who have already vowed to give away virtually their entire fortune before they die. The point is moot to them.

Buffet is the funniest. He said, and I quote, "yes, I think I am under taxed." WTF??? How come you never see these liberal rich folks donating money to the IRS??? If you think you are undertaxed, over pay to the amount you think is fair.

This is not reality the "rich" saw thier tax bill decrease by 53% after the AMT

And if you think Reagan and all the pro-corporate low tax presidents after have been doing good for this country as a whole you're flat out dillusionary. Here is a good comparison of the new deal era (1933 -1976) vs. the corporate era (1976-present)
Link

I especially like this:

Gross Domestic Product grew at a torrid pace: 3.4 percent a year, compared to only 2.5 percent since. Individual worker productivity was a record high 2.8 percent before 1973; but it has averaged only 1 percent since. But the point is that the New Deal saw 40 years of record-breaking growth, and nothing about the corporate special interest system has restored it.
 
Originally posted by: Amused

And yes, I saw the argument of a few select wealthy folks arguing against the cuts on the Estate tax. But you must understand, these are people who have already vowed to give away virtually their entire fortune before they die. The point is moot to them.

Buffet is the funniest. He said, and I quote, "yes, I think I am under taxed." WTF??? How come you never see these liberal rich folks donating money to the IRS??? If you think you are undertaxed, over pay to the amount you think is fair.

Doesn't he just donate to charities a lot instead? I don't really see how that's terribly different from what you're proposing.
 
Originally posted by: OS
Originally posted by: Amused

And yes, I saw the argument of a few select wealthy folks arguing against the cuts on the Estate tax. But you must understand, these are people who have already vowed to give away virtually their entire fortune before they die. The point is moot to them.

Buffet is the funniest. He said, and I quote, "yes, I think I am under taxed." WTF??? How come you never see these liberal rich folks donating money to the IRS??? If you think you are undertaxed, over pay to the amount you think is fair.

Doesn't he just donate to charities a lot instead? I don't really see how that's terribly different from what you're proposing.

iirc buffet doesn't donate anything
 
Originally posted by: Carbonyl
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: Carbonyl
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: Carbonyl
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: Carbonyl
Only won cause they spent the money to win. The suits are still detrmental to the companies and will eventually win when they are too tired of to poor to fight them.

Any words on that anti-gun tort reform making it;s way though congreesss?

Well, the wonderful thing is that all suits have failed. Lawyers are going to wise up and refuse the cases because they'll never get paid that way.

I just read something in the news on that bill, but forgot what it was about. I'll keep an eye out for it and if I see any news on it again, I'll post it here.

Hey, it's cool we have one thing we can agree on, eh? 🙂

We agree on everything regauding liberty/individual freedoms. Only sticking point is you think Bill gates is 100,000X smarter than your average bear and should'nt be taxed more because of it.

😛

No, I think Bill Gates wanted it more, worked harder for it, and had a nack for marketing. Should he be penalized for that?
You cry about jobs, yet you want to penalize those who create them.

They still did create them but under graduated tax the government creats more of them which benefits them and everyone else. This country grew at a unequaled rate of 3.3% from 1933-73 and had top marginal rates of 71-90% during that period. When Reagan came along all he did was increase the debt 4X and only showed growth of 2.3% while lowering the top rate to 28%. So I'm not covinced low taxes are the answer to job creation, in fact it looks like the opposite. And more importantly it leaves us a society without infrastucture and without an educated populous which these capitalists need for thier companies to survive.

Man I'm gonna see If I can find this article of these billionaires argueing against repeal of estate and capital gains tax. I think I saw it in investors business daily but it was in thier home edition don't know if it's online..... But they layed out why and how they would become robber barrens again and the country would face dismal times without some leash on the power thier capital garners.

Um, Carby, we had this discussion before. When Reagan lowered the top tax rate, he also closed a LOT of tax shelters and loopholes. In the end, the rich aren't paying any less now than they did before.

And in my opinion, the Reagan and Bush years are what built the base for the growth in the ninties. It takes many years for economic policy to have an effect on the economy.

And yes, I saw the argument of a few select wealthy folks arguing against the cuts on the Estate tax. But you must understand, these are people who have already vowed to give away virtually their entire fortune before they die. The point is moot to them.

Buffet is the funniest. He said, and I quote, "yes, I think I am under taxed." WTF??? How come you never see these liberal rich folks donating money to the IRS??? If you think you are undertaxed, over pay to the amount you think is fair.

This is not reality the "rich" saw thier tax bill decrease by 53% after the AMT

And if you think Reagan and all the pro-corporate low tax presidents after have been doing good for this country as a whole you're flat out dillusionary. Here is a good comparison of the new deal era (1933 -1976) vs. the corporate era (1976-present)
Link

I especially like this:

Gross Domestic Product grew at a torrid pace: 3.4 percent a year, compared to only 2.5 percent since. Individual worker productivity was a record high 2.8 percent before 1973; but it has averaged only 1 percent since. But the point is that the New Deal saw 40 years of record-breaking growth, and nothing about the corporate special interest system has restored it.

Carby, I hate to poison the well, but I will not respond to arguments using that site as a reference. It's worse than a Michael Moore movie in it's bias and bullsh!t.
 
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: Carbonyl
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: Carbonyl
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: Carbonyl
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: Carbonyl
Only won cause they spent the money to win. The suits are still detrmental to the companies and will eventually win when they are too tired of to poor to fight them.

Any words on that anti-gun tort reform making it;s way though congreesss?

Well, the wonderful thing is that all suits have failed. Lawyers are going to wise up and refuse the cases because they'll never get paid that way.

I just read something in the news on that bill, but forgot what it was about. I'll keep an eye out for it and if I see any news on it again, I'll post it here.

Hey, it's cool we have one thing we can agree on, eh? 🙂

We agree on everything regauding liberty/individual freedoms. Only sticking point is you think Bill gates is 100,000X smarter than your average bear and should'nt be taxed more because of it.

😛

No, I think Bill Gates wanted it more, worked harder for it, and had a nack for marketing. Should he be penalized for that?
You cry about jobs, yet you want to penalize those who create them.

They still did create them but under graduated tax the government creats more of them which benefits them and everyone else. This country grew at a unequaled rate of 3.3% from 1933-73 and had top marginal rates of 71-90% during that period. When Reagan came along all he did was increase the debt 4X and only showed growth of 2.3% while lowering the top rate to 28%. So I'm not covinced low taxes are the answer to job creation, in fact it looks like the opposite. And more importantly it leaves us a society without infrastucture and without an educated populous which these capitalists need for thier companies to survive.

Man I'm gonna see If I can find this article of these billionaires argueing against repeal of estate and capital gains tax. I think I saw it in investors business daily but it was in thier home edition don't know if it's online..... But they layed out why and how they would become robber barrens again and the country would face dismal times without some leash on the power thier capital garners.

Um, Carby, we had this discussion before. When Reagan lowered the top tax rate, he also closed a LOT of tax shelters and loopholes. In the end, the rich aren't paying any less now than they did before.

And in my opinion, the Reagan and Bush years are what built the base for the growth in the ninties. It takes many years for economic policy to have an effect on the economy.

And yes, I saw the argument of a few select wealthy folks arguing against the cuts on the Estate tax. But you must understand, these are people who have already vowed to give away virtually their entire fortune before they die. The point is moot to them.

Buffet is the funniest. He said, and I quote, "yes, I think I am under taxed." WTF??? How come you never see these liberal rich folks donating money to the IRS??? If you think you are undertaxed, over pay to the amount you think is fair.

This is not reality the "rich" saw thier tax bill decrease by 53% after the AMT

And if you think Reagan and all the pro-corporate low tax presidents after have been doing good for this country as a whole you're flat out dillusionary. Here is a good comparison of the new deal era (1933 -1976) vs. the corporate era (1976-present)
Link

I especially like this:

Gross Domestic Product grew at a torrid pace: 3.4 percent a year, compared to only 2.5 percent since. Individual worker productivity was a record high 2.8 percent before 1973; but it has averaged only 1 percent since. But the point is that the New Deal saw 40 years of record-breaking growth, and nothing about the corporate special interest system has restored it.

Carby, I hate to poison the well, but I will not respond to arguments using that site as a reference. It's worse than a Michael Moore movie in it's bias and bullsh!t.

Ya whatever amused he uses IRS and GAO stats for his argument and frankly his presents a very convincing agument. Fact is taxes went down on the weathiest americans after AMT and the enonomy was worse than under what you'd call insane taxation on this group. Hey I thought you'd like what he says here cuz youve talked about mob rule before:

"Also notice that there is no such thing as a 100 percent direct democracy, since voters would be overwhelmed with the requirements of voting on the nuts and bolts of every government operation. Inevitably, democracy requires some degree of delegated authority. Still, the Founders feared more direct forms of democracy, since they believed -- with historical justification -- that they increased the volitility of mob rule, reduced the chances of compromise, allowed more uninformed legislation to pass, and were usually short-lived. Thus, they insisted on a more republican form of government. However, they also knew the danger of going too far in the opposite direction. Too republican, and representatives become impervious to the will of the people. The challenge in designing a democracy is to find the right balance between direct democracy and republicanism."
 
Originally posted by: Carbonyl
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: Carbonyl
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: Carbonyl
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: Carbonyl
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: Carbonyl
Only won cause they spent the money to win. The suits are still detrmental to the companies and will eventually win when they are too tired of to poor to fight them.

Any words on that anti-gun tort reform making it;s way though congreesss?

Well, the wonderful thing is that all suits have failed. Lawyers are going to wise up and refuse the cases because they'll never get paid that way.

I just read something in the news on that bill, but forgot what it was about. I'll keep an eye out for it and if I see any news on it again, I'll post it here.

Hey, it's cool we have one thing we can agree on, eh? 🙂

We agree on everything regauding liberty/individual freedoms. Only sticking point is you think Bill gates is 100,000X smarter than your average bear and should'nt be taxed more because of it.

😛

No, I think Bill Gates wanted it more, worked harder for it, and had a nack for marketing. Should he be penalized for that?
You cry about jobs, yet you want to penalize those who create them.

They still did create them but under graduated tax the government creats more of them which benefits them and everyone else. This country grew at a unequaled rate of 3.3% from 1933-73 and had top marginal rates of 71-90% during that period. When Reagan came along all he did was increase the debt 4X and only showed growth of 2.3% while lowering the top rate to 28%. So I'm not covinced low taxes are the answer to job creation, in fact it looks like the opposite. And more importantly it leaves us a society without infrastucture and without an educated populous which these capitalists need for thier companies to survive.

Man I'm gonna see If I can find this article of these billionaires argueing against repeal of estate and capital gains tax. I think I saw it in investors business daily but it was in thier home edition don't know if it's online..... But they layed out why and how they would become robber barrens again and the country would face dismal times without some leash on the power thier capital garners.

Um, Carby, we had this discussion before. When Reagan lowered the top tax rate, he also closed a LOT of tax shelters and loopholes. In the end, the rich aren't paying any less now than they did before.

And in my opinion, the Reagan and Bush years are what built the base for the growth in the ninties. It takes many years for economic policy to have an effect on the economy.

And yes, I saw the argument of a few select wealthy folks arguing against the cuts on the Estate tax. But you must understand, these are people who have already vowed to give away virtually their entire fortune before they die. The point is moot to them.

Buffet is the funniest. He said, and I quote, "yes, I think I am under taxed." WTF??? How come you never see these liberal rich folks donating money to the IRS??? If you think you are undertaxed, over pay to the amount you think is fair.

This is not reality the "rich" saw thier tax bill decrease by 53% after the AMT

And if you think Reagan and all the pro-corporate low tax presidents after have been doing good for this country as a whole you're flat out dillusionary. Here is a good comparison of the new deal era (1933 -1976) vs. the corporate era (1976-present)
Link

I especially like this:

Gross Domestic Product grew at a torrid pace: 3.4 percent a year, compared to only 2.5 percent since. Individual worker productivity was a record high 2.8 percent before 1973; but it has averaged only 1 percent since. But the point is that the New Deal saw 40 years of record-breaking growth, and nothing about the corporate special interest system has restored it.

Carby, I hate to poison the well, but I will not respond to arguments using that site as a reference. It's worse than a Michael Moore movie in it's bias and bullsh!t.

Ya whatever amused he uses IRS and GAO stats for his argument and frankly his presents a very convincing agument. Fact is taxes went down on the weathiest americans after AMT and the enonomy was worse than under what you'd call insane taxation on this group. Hey I thought you'd like what he says here cuz youve talked about mob rule before:

"Also notice that there is no such thing as a 100 percent direct democracy, since voters would be overwhelmed with the requirements of voting on the nuts and bolts of every government operation. Inevitably, democracy requires some degree of delegated authority. Still, the Founders feared more direct forms of democracy, since they believed -- with historical justification -- that they increased the volitility of mob rule, reduced the chances of compromise, allowed more uninformed legislation to pass, and were usually short-lived. Thus, they insisted on a more republican form of government. However, they also knew the danger of going too far in the opposite direction. Too republican, and representatives become impervious to the will of the people. The challenge in designing a democracy is to find the right balance between direct democracy and republicanism."

Carby, a hint: One can pick stats that favor his argument, and leave out stats that don't. This long dead person's page is full of cherry picked stats.

Anywho, hows about we stop hijacking my thread, ok?
 
Back
Top