Do we really need a Democratic and Republican party?

• gut

  isadore;1133343 wrote:that is income tax, which is not our only tax and i think i am right to say it is slightly more than 50% of Americans who pay income tax.

  SS and Medicare is technically insurance - you are paying for a benefit you will receive. So, again. you're way off-target with your argument here. And sales tax - well, that's a consumption tax, so again you are misguided.
  
  Fact is you can confiscate ALL the income from the "wealthy" and still not cover the $1.5T deficit. I don't think anyone here wishes we couldn't afford what you're advocating, we just know it's unrealistic and damaging to everyone in the long-run.
• Footwedge

  fan_from_texas;1133196 wrote:Are you saying the poor people on juries are biased against poor defendants? Seems like a good reason to blame the rich.

  Haha...no they are not biased towards the rich. But they are swayed much more easily by high priced attorneys. Defendents pay big bucks for a reason. Ask Orenthal.
• isadore

  fan_from_texas;1133513 wrote:I've participated in utility proceedings in a half dozen states, and it's true in all of them. I can't speak to things outside my expertise.

  That is in a very specific area, "public utilities" with a history of government involvement in regulation. Which is for the good of the citizens. The question is whether the type representation you described in this area is an anomaly. I think you are being somewhat disingenuous in your answer about a lack of knowledge about legal representation for poor citizens outside this specific area.
• gut

  isadore;1133525 wrote:My argument was that the government should take an active role in insuring
  "the 99% should enjoy the same protections as the 1% and believe in government of the people, by the people and for the people."

  This is moronic because it's impossible. Again, the best lawyers/doctors are going to sell their services to the highest bidder. Yep, there are cases of overworked or incompetent pro-bono/public appointed lawyers, but like 99.9% of the time people receive an adequate defense (whether they can afford it or not).
  
  You're using flawed logic advocating that everyone should be entitled to exploiting a somewhat broken legal system in the same way the rich do. It's not that the system needs fixing or is broken for the 99% - you have it backwards.
• isadore

  gut;1133521 wrote:Subsidized =/= free. Learn what the arguments are before trying to throw your hat in the ring.
  
  
  
  10 people over 30+ years? Is that seriously the argument you are making? Yes, that sucks. You can't bankrupt the whole ****ing system for 10 people. Life isn't fair. Learn to deal with it instead of looking for excuses and handouts.
  
  And, again, I've never argued for a legal system that "rewards" the rich. Nice strawman. That's no justification for what you're arguing, though at this point I'm not sure what you're arguing and am fairly certain you don't, either.

  I know subsidized, just the number of good/competent lawyers who were trained for free in no way can fill the demand of the needy for representation. That is Kentucky on death row, that is a very small sample of people receivng a very large amount of bad representation in the most serious of cases, death penalty. Where you would expect the greatest effort to find good/competent lawyers.
  Expand across the country and then consider all felonies and we see unfairness to those in need of representation.
  What an unbelieveably callous attitude toward the victims of the system. No excuse and handouts. For innocent people!
  You are making excuses a for system that punishes the innocent.
  Of course the people the system is more than fair to, is the 1%. The innocent poor go to jail, 1% crooks and murderers walk.
• majorspark

  

  Footwedge;1133530 wrote:Haha...no they are not biased towards the rich. But they are swayed much more easily by high priced attorneys. Defendents pay big bucks for a reason. Ask Orenthal.

  He can be contacted at the Lovelock Correctional Center in Lovelock, Nevada.
• isadore

  Public defense crisis spreads across the nation
  Posted: June 13, 2008 1:35 pm
  
  Lawsuit and reports allege that New York fails to provide defense counsel to poor
  Posted: November 9, 2007 12:15 pm
  
  A class-action lawsuit filed yesterday in New York alleges that people charged with crimes in New York State receive substandard defense representation, which leads to higher bail in minor cases, more guilty pleas and potentially wrongful convictions
  Column: Georgia public defenders woefully underfundef
  : September 11, 2007 3:48 pm
  
  Louisiana puts more people in prison per capita than any other state in the United States, has neglected the broken public defender system for decades and has demonstrated a complete lack of initiative to address the root causes of wrongful conviction.
  
  Op-Ed: Mayor said to be ignoring court crisis
  
  Wisconsin short of prosecutors, judges and public defenders while prison funding rises
  
  New Mexico needs 45 more public defenders to meet caseload
  Nevada’s highest court orders public defense improvements
  Why Houston’s public defense system is “fundamentally unfair”
  Posted: March 17, 2008 4:50 pm
  of the nation’s most active innocence commissions, the California Commission on the Fair Administration of Justice, reported yesterday on the woeful state of indigent defense in many California counties.
  
  http://www.innocenceproject.org/news/Blog-Search.php?check=true&tag=81
• gut

  isadore;1133555 wrote: You are making excuses a for system that punishes the innocent.

  Where have I done that? The system is not perfect. That's not a 99% vs. 1% issue. Like most liberals, you're simply clueless to that reality.
  
  You're also committing a logical fallacy assuming that only the poor receive incompetent or inadequate representation, and that only the poor get wrongly convicted. Again, the system is not perfect but the numbers don't suggest the egregious injustice you want to believe. The system is in no way "broken" or "unjust" for the 99%. Rather, "reasonable doubt" is such that if you throw enough money and resources at it you can usually convince at least 1 juror. That's not an ideal or outcome to advocate for the 99%. If it means allowing one rich prick to walk free in order to prevent 100 more innocent average joe's going to jail then I'm all for it. But the reality is 12 jurors of their peers are sending these people to jail - there's just not many innocent dudes going to the clink, especially with DNA now.
  
  If there's a flaw in the system it's overworked public defenders convincing the poor and ignorant that 12 months is better than long odds and a longer sentence in court. But you're also ignoring the fact that the vast majority of cops and DA's don't want to send innocent people to jail. You're also ignoring that a good number of those cases overturned/thrown out don't prove innocence and probably aren't innocent. The cops and DA don't simply arrest and try innocent people with no evidence, which seems to be the urgan legend you're pushing.
• isadore

  gut;1133528 wrote:SS and Medicare is technically insurance - you are paying for a benefit you will receive. So, again. you're way off-target with your argument here. And sales tax - well, that's a consumption tax, so again you are misguided.
  
  Fact is you can confiscate ALL the income from the "wealthy" and still not cover the $1.5T deficit. I don't think anyone here wishes we couldn't afford what you're advocating, we just know it's unrealistic and damaging to everyone in the long-run.

  state sales tax and excise tax are both regressive taxes that hurt the rich the least. And the excise tax is used to provide for the citizens. We would get alot than 1.5 trillion if it was a tax on not just income but on wealth.
  But even without that lets return to the pre Reagan tax rates, smaller deficit and more services.
• isadore

  gut;1133567 wrote:Where have I done that? The system is not perfect. That's not a 99% vs. 1% issue. Like most liberals, you're simply clueless to that reality.
  
  You're also committing a logical fallacy assuming that only the poor receive incompetent or inadequate representation, and that only the poor get wrongly convicted. Again, the system is not perfect but the numbers don't suggest the egregious injustice you want to believe. The system is in no way "broken" or "unjust" for the 99%. Rather, "reasonable doubt" is such that if you throw enough money and resources at it you can usually convince at least 1 juror. That's not an ideal or outcome to advocate for the 99%. If it means allowing one rich prick to walk free in order to prevent 100 more innocent average joe's going to jail then I'm all for it. But the reality is 12 jurors of their peers are sending these people to jail - there's just not many innocent dudes going to the clink, especially with DNA now.
  
  If there's a flaw in the system it's overworked public defenders convincing the poor and ignorant that 12 months is better than long odds and a longer sentence in court. But you're also ignoring the fact that the vast majority of cops and DA's don't want to send innocent people to jail. You're also ignoring that a good number of those cases overturned/thrown out don't prove innocence and probably aren't innocent. The cops and DA don't simply arrest and try innocent people with no evidence, which seems to be the urgan legend you're pushing.

  Throughout this discussion you have been completely dismissive of the fact that inadequate counsel has sent innocent people to prison, to death row and in all probability to execution. You have claimed it is a small price to pay. You have been provided with several examples of how inadequate the system of legal representation is for the poor. With the many states cutting funds, the crisis will only get worse.
  It is far from good/competent. Oh and DNA test is expensive.
• gut

  isadore;1133569 wrote:state sales tax and excise tax are both regressive taxes that hurt the rich the least. And the excise tax is used to provide for the citizens. We would get alot than 1.5 trillion if it was a tax on not just income but on wealth.
  But even without that lets return to the pre Reagan tax rates, smaller deficit and more services.

  Huh? So now you want to tax savings a second time? You again display complete ignorance of the history of taxation. Despite a wide variance in marginal rates, the govt has historically collected about 18%, give or take a point or two, of GDP.
  
  Sales tax and excise tax are consumption taxes which are generally considered to be the best form of taxation. I'm not real sympathetic to an argument that a 6% tax on an IPhone is regressive. And it's peanuts compared to FICA and income tax.
  
  You're also clueless to the fact that European style socialism - or even Canada - has much higher rates on the average joe. "FICA" in Europe is, on average, about 50% higher than here in the US. You also have a VAT of some 15-19%. And, of course, gas is like $9 a gallon.
• majorspark

  

  isadore;1133314 wrote:And you continue to argue for a legal system that rewards the rich with a license to cheat, rob and kill.

  Bernie Madoff, Jeffrey Skilling, and Lenard Kozlowski cuncur.
• gut

  isadore;1133573 wrote:Throughout this discussion you have been completely dismissive of the fact that inadequate counsel has sent innocent people to prison, to death row and in all probability to execution. You have claimed it is a small price to pay. You have been provided with several examples of how inadequate the system of legal representation is for the poor. With the many states cutting funds, the crisis will only get worse.
  It is far from good/competent. Oh and DNA test is expensive.

  The defendant doesn't pay for DNA testing. The DA will want to have that, and they don't get to just toss it out if it comes back negative. There are advocacy groups out there - no one is sitting in prison because they can't afford a DNA test that would exonerate them.
  
  And I have not been dismissive of the VERY SMALL % of innocent people going to jail - or rather, let's say "not guilty". Again, you are assuming that the DA and cops have absolutely no concern over convicting the wrong person. Nor do overworked/incompetent public defenders not lose sleep over people whom they believe to be innocent. This is what you don't get. The people getting "shortchanged" look guilty and nearly all the time ARE guilty. With a better defense, more would walk with marginal evidence against them, but then you're actually advocating injustice out of a perverse sense of, well, injustice.
  
  Finally, I have not been dismissive. Out of MILLIONS in prison, I have not doubt that hundreds, perhaps even thousands have been wrongfully convicted. Or, in other words, we get it right 99.9% of the time. These people have a right to a jury trial, and you are ignoring the fact that the DA needs enough evidence to convince 12 jurors beyond a reasonable doubt. I'll say it again, wrongful conviction =/= innocence. You're not advocating equal justice by wanting the same opportunity at INJUSTICE some of the 1% have been able to exploit. You're so blinded by jealously and hatred for the 1% that you can't even recognize what the real issue is here.
  
  By the way, Communist Russia and China did a real bang-up job with their civil rights and justice.
• isadore

  gut;1133574 wrote:Huh? So now you want to tax savings a second time? You again display complete ignorance of the history of taxation. Despite a wide variance in marginal rates, the govt has historically collected about 18%, give or take a point or two, of GDP.
  
  Sales tax and excise tax are consumption taxes which are generally considered to be the best form of taxation. I'm not real sympathetic to an argument that a 6% tax on an IPhone is regressive. And it's peanuts compared to FICA and income tax.
  
  You're also clueless to the fact that European style socialism - or even Canada - has much higher rates on the average joe. "FICA" in Europe is, on average, about 50% higher than here in the US. You also have a VAT of some 15-19%. And, of course, gas is like $9 a gallon.

  Maybe in your little circle consumption taxes are considered superior, but with anyone with any sense of social justice they are horrible taxes that inflict the most pain on those with the least resources. Maybe that 6% on a communication device doesn’t hurt you much, but some people on the lower stratum of the economy it does. Hey your answer is of course, hey they just shouldn’t get the devise. They should not buy that gasoline, they should not buy those canned soft drinks, they shouldn’t eat in that MacDonald’s.
  If the system is going to supply me with medical coverage in Canada or say Denmark systems, especially since the total cost of that coverage will be less and I will get live longer. And I know those in the 1% will be making a much fairer monetary contribution to the system than they do in the United States.
• isadore

  majorspark;1133575 wrote:Bernie Madoff, Jeffrey Skilling, and Lenard Kozlowski cuncur.

  they got in trouble for stealing from the rich.
• isadore

  gut;1133578 wrote:The defendant doesn't pay for DNA testing. The DA will want to have that, and they don't get to just toss it out if it comes back negative. There are advocacy groups out there - no one is sitting in prison because they can't afford a DNA test that would exonerate them.
  
  And I have not been dismissive of the VERY SMALL % of innocent people going to jail - or rather, let's say "not guilty". Again, you are assuming that the DA and cops have absolutely no concern over convicting the wrong person. Nor do overworked/incompetent public defenders not lose sleep over people whom they believe to be innocent. This is what you don't get. The people getting "shortchanged" look guilty and nearly all the time ARE guilty. With a better defense, more would walk with marginal evidence against them, but then you're actually advocating injustice out of a perverse sense of, well, injustice.
  
  Finally, I have not been dismissive. Out of MILLIONS in prison, I have not doubt that hundreds, perhaps even thousands have been wrongfully convicted. Or, in other words, we get it right 99.9% of the time. These people have a right to a jury trial, and you are ignoring the fact that the DA needs enough evidence to convince 12 jurors beyond a reasonable doubt. I'll say it again, wrongful conviction =/= innocence. You're not advocating equal justice by wanting the same opportunity at INJUSTICE some of the 1% have been able to exploit. You're so blinded by jealously and hatred for the 1% that you can't even recognize what the real issue is here.
  
  By the way, Communist Russia and China did a real bang-up job with their civil rights and justice.

  What do you have to say about these poor people and their inadequate representation.

  gut wrote:You can get as good as you can afford, just like everyone else.

  Now this is dismissive
  

  gut wrote:It's kind of like Travon Martin in that white people or the 1% are supposed to feel some sort of guilt or inequity because of an exception here and there. The whole victim mentality is as repulsive as it is self-fulfilling.

  gut wrote:10 people over 30+ years? Is that seriously the argument you are making? Yes, that sucks. You can't bankrupt the whole ****ing system for 10 people. Life isn't fair. Learn to deal with it instead of looking for excuses and handouts.

  Government turns down requests for dna testing.
  You seem to dismiss the inadequacy of counsel in defending so many of the accused. It makes it so much easier to convict when your opponent is not prepared to compete. Much easier to convince a jury when your opponent is incompetent or overstretched. Of course it is ok with you since it would only be a matter of thousands, or so you estimate.
  If we expand that hell it was ok to deny rights to minorities, because they were only .1%, 1%, 10%. We see above how dismissive you are of the killing of Travon Martin.
  Of course there is a 1% whose rights in the system you so much want to protect.
  Dictatorship do not worry about basic justice, what happens to the innocent.
  Democracies like Denmark, Netherlands, Norway do worry about that.
  
• isadore

  majorspark;1133557 wrote:He can be contacted at the Lovelock Correctional Center in Lovelock, Nevada.

  he went to jail when he stopped being rich.
• KnightRyder

  

  gut;1133164 wrote:I don't know anyone that's ever been busted for a crime they didn't commit...

  http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/Anthony_Michael_Green.php i wonder kind of chance this guy had in court with the public defender?
• Al Bundy

  isadore;1133581 wrote:Maybe in your little circle consumption taxes are considered superior, but with anyone with any sense of social justice they are horrible taxes that inflict the most pain on those with the least resources. Maybe that 6% on a communication device doesn’t hurt you much, but some people on the lower stratum of the economy it does. Hey your answer is of course, hey they just shouldn’t get the devise. They should not buy that gasoline, they should not buy those canned soft drinks, they shouldn’t eat in that MacDonald’s.
  If the system is going to supply me with medical coverage in Canada or say Denmark systems, especially since the total cost of that coverage will be less and I will get live longer. And I know those in the 1% will be making a much fairer monetary contribution to the system than they do in the United States.

  If a cell phone is for emergencies only, there are some very cheap deals that you can buy with a small of minutes. Even if a cell phone doesn't have an active plan, one can still call 911 for emergencies.
  
  How is going to eat at McDonald's a basic need?
• isadore

  Al Bundy;1133622 wrote:If a cell phone is for emergencies only, there are some very cheap deals that you can buy with a small of minutes. Even if a cell phone doesn't have an active plan, one can still call 911 for emergencies.
  
  How is going to eat at McDonald's a basic need?

  God forbid that any poor person get any pleasure or enjoyment out of life. Just be able to call the police when someone tries to steal their few possessions or for an ambulance
• WebFire

  I have said for quite some time that our current party system is helping to bring this great country done. It only seems to be getting worse.
• fan_from_texas

  isadore;1133538 wrote:That is in a very specific area, "public utilities" with a history of government involvement in regulation. Which is for the good of the citizens. The question is whether the type representation you described in this area is an anomaly. I think you are being somewhat disingenuous in your answer about a lack of knowledge about legal representation for poor citizens outside this specific area.

  
  I don't think it's an anomaly; it most certainly is the norm in every agency proceeding I'm aware of. I'm not being disingenuous re lack of knowledge. I have never been in a courtroom for a trial and doubt I ever will.
• Al Bundy

  isadore;1133633 wrote:God forbid that any poor person get any pleasure or enjoyment out of life. Just be able to call the police when someone tries to steal their few possessions or for an ambulance

  A person can't get any pleasure or enjoyment out of life without having a cell phone and a Big Mac?
• isadore

  fan_from_texas;1133645 wrote:I don't think it's an anomaly; it most certainly is the norm in every agency proceeding I'm aware of. I'm not being disingenuous re lack of knowledge. I have never been in a courtroom for a trial and doubt I ever will.

  and does every agency proceeding you are aware of involve the spectrum of civil and crimian proceedings the poor in America maybe involved. How about the role of public defenders supplied for them in criminal cases across this country. If you are just talking about a very narrow range of proceeding involving public utilities then you are being very disingenuous to say it is representative across the wide range we have been discussing through the thread.
• HitsRus

  

  I have said for quite some time that our current party system is helping to bring this great country done. It only seems to be getting worse

  It's not the party system itself...but the people in them. I decry the persistant attack on our great institutions.