Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Leafsnail]

People who could afford it, for one...

[Truean]

People who could afford it, for one...

Knew that was coming.

Very small group of people. Costs still easily in the $100 Billion range.

[Leafsnail]

Ok.

So... only a small group of people can afford lawyers at $30 a week.  I understand that's what you're saying?

Ok, so, that means the majority of people won't be able to use lawyers at all?

[Blacken]

People who could afford it, for one...

Again, bull. Who decides? I'm sorry, but $150/hour when something is really really important just isn't that much money compared to the alternative--that is, presenting a sucky argument and losing.

Class envy does not make good policy.

[Leafsnail]

In which case, I can't see what you're trying to argue.  That the law is a luxury for the rich?  Seriously, help me out here.

[darkrider2]

If Mommy Government pays for them--well, no, Mommy Government won't pay for it, I will, because I pay taxes. Why should I pay for your consults?

Why should you pay insurance then? God forbid some of that money goes towards someone else.

[Truean]

In which case, I can't see what you're trying to argue.  That the law is a luxury for the rich?  Seriously, help me out here.

Dude, really?

Alright, honestly you are waaaay oversimplifying things here. This is a very complex issue and you're kind of trying to squeeze one line answers out of it.

Ok.

So... only a small group of people can afford lawyers at $30 a week.  I understand that's what you're saying?

Ok, so, that means the majority of people won't be able to use lawyers at all?

*Sigh*

Especially in this recession, no most people can't afford an extra monthly bill. Foreclosures are way up, as are bankruptcies.  Moreover, if taxes paid for this, then it most likely wouldn't be an across the board thing. Most people couldn't pay for it, which means the burden would shift to those who "could." This of course leads to people paying for more than one person at $35 per month. If each person had to pay for two people, then that's $70/month. If they had to pay for 3 people, that's $105 a month. 4 people per payer is $140 per month. See how tax condensation works?
Again this assumes no corruption, so double those amounts to factor that in and the figures quickly become prohibitive.

It's the same thing with social security. Used to be 3 working adults per one retiree/beneficiary. Now that's reversed and the whole thing's going down.

Honestly, if it were simple and easy as 4th grade math, we might have done it by now.
$100 Billion in expenditures is not a small thing.

[Leafsnail]

Ok... but still, what is your point?  Are you saying that people who cannot afford lawyers should not be represented in courts?  If you aren't, what are you saying?

[Truean]

Not at all. There is an enormous difference between what should happen and what is. There might be an even bigger difference between what should happen and what can happen.

My point is that we can't afford it, unfortunately. $100 Billion+ is a lot of money. Where will it come from? Please don't say "the rich," because as I pointed out above with tax compounding, that doesn't work.

In a perfect world, there would be no shortages in anything. We do not live in that world. Practicalities prevent it.

[Blacken]

If Mommy Government pays for them--well, no, Mommy Government won't pay for it, I will, because I pay taxes. Why should I pay for your consults?

Why should you pay insurance then? God forbid some of that money goes towards someone else.

Because I have the choice in the insurance situation. Insurers give me the choice of medical care that's in their network. If a provider I want to use isn't in their network, I get a new insurer--my choice again--or I pay the extra to deal with it myself. But that insurance is not compulsory. I am vastly skeptical of the quality of representation that a government not particularly well-known for quality control will provide for my money. If I spend it myself, I am able to do a better job of evaluating the representation I will choose than the government. Because I am not a goddamn moron.

Governmental "choice" would end devolve into a mess that is similar to Medicare--refusing to pay fair market rates to the professionals who are forced by law to accept the custom of people using it. No, thank you. I want them to be paid well, because I want to be paid well when I do work for them. (One of those things about the market system that's absolutely marvelous: if you have salable skills, good fortune has this great tendency to roll downhill. It's in your hands.)

In which case, I can't see what you're trying to argue.  That the law is a luxury for the rich?  Seriously, help me out here.

Clearly you can't. What I have said is that if it is important to you, you will find a way to pay for it. If it's not important to you, then you will not spend the money to address it.

There are always ways. Sometimes it's harder for some than for others. That's life. Take responsibility for yourself.

[Leafsnail]

Clearly you can't. What I have said is that if it is important to you, you will find a way to pay for it. If it's not important to you, then you will not spend the money to address it.

There are always ways. Sometimes it's harder for some than for others. That's life. Take responsibility for yourself.

Right... would you mind explaining the ways that, say, an unemployed single mother would be able to raise these funds?

[Blacken]

Clearly you can't. What I have said is that if it is important to you, you will find a way to pay for it. If it's not important to you, then you will not spend the money to address it.

There are always ways. Sometimes it's harder for some than for others. That's life. Take responsibility for yourself.

Right... would you mind explaining the ways that, say, an unemployed single mother would be able to raise these funds?

Something something get a job.

Again: it's harder for some than others. Life sucks. Wear a helmet.

[Cthulhu]

If she's an unemployed single mother, maybe she should think twice or thrice about getting into a legal battle withs someone.

[Leafsnail]

Because it's always possible to find a job, and I guess she can afford childcare somehow?

[Aqizzar]

But that insurance is not compulsory.

Auto insurance is.  What do you have to say about that?

I am vastly skeptical of the quality of representation that a government not particularly well-known for quality control will provide for my money.

You do realize that the reason the government has such a poor history of quality control is because you keep electing people who campaign on dismantling the government who stop trying halfway through.