(04-15-2012 10:27 AM)Max Power Wrote:  

(04-15-2012 09:16 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Max is just pissed because he wasn't there to collect his contingent fee for representing the families of the survivors in wrongful death lawsuits.

Well it would be the un-survivors but yes, I mad. :muttering:

And I do offer my services free to the poor, maybe 15-20 hours every year. Considering my services are worth at least $200/hour, that's upwards of $4k. Liberhero=me.

Lemme guess, you deduct that from your taxes.

(04-15-2012 10:27 AM)Max Power Wrote:  :

And I do offer my services free to the poor, maybe 15-20 hours every year. Considering my services are worth at least $200/hour, that's upwards of $4k. Liberhero=me.

Well, look at that. Max gives a whole two days a year to the poor. Now we know where he gets his credibility on charity issues.

(04-15-2012 10:27 AM)Max Power Wrote:  And I do offer my services free to the poor, maybe 15-20 hours every year.

Don't think you want to be bragging about your selfishness. Also, you might want to think about knocking it off with the criticism of others giving far more.

Where did I say that's all the charity I give, reptiles? I was responding to SOAF's claim I don't give away my services.

It's like friggin Jurassic Park in here

(04-15-2012 01:23 PM)Max Power Wrote:  Where did I say that's all the charity I give, reptiles? I was responding to SOAF's claim I don't give away my services.

And you responded 15 to 20 hours.

(04-15-2012 10:27 AM)Max Power Wrote:  

(04-15-2012 09:16 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Max is just pissed because he wasn't there to collect his contingent fee for representing the families of the survivors in wrongful death lawsuits.

Well it would be the un-survivors but yes, I mad. :muttering:

And I do offer my services free to the poor, maybe 15-20 hours every year. Considering my services are worth at least $200/hour, that's upwards of $4k. Liberhero=me.

Early morning and typing in a hurry.

Your state bar lets you get away with only 15-20?

There is no minimum in Illinois. They just "recommend" you do 15, and you have to report annually how much you do (why, I don't know).

(04-15-2012 01:35 PM)Max Power Wrote:  There is no minimum in Illinois. They just "recommend" you do 15, and you have to report annually how much you do (why, I don't know).

That's our Max. When it comes to helping his fellow man, he does nothing more than the absolute minimum, but then complains about others not doing what he terms enough.

I actually tried to get a job with Prairie State Legal Services out of law school, a non profit that helps the poor for free, but they weren't hiring because of budget issues (Legal Services Corp., which supports them and orgs like them around the country, funding was cut by the Bush admin I believe and Obama saved them from further GOP cut attempts last year). These places are swamped with requests from poor people being jerked around by well funded and represented corporations (w/r/t collections, mortgage foreclosure, evictions etc), and others who can't afford to go to court for divorces or restraining orders or what have you.

Mac, serious question. Given a choice between two policy alternatives, one of which would enrich the "wealthy" while making everyone else better off and the other of which would hurt the "rich" but also make everyone else worse off, which would you choose? In short is it more important to make the rich poorer or to make the poor richer?

(04-15-2012 01:49 PM)Max Power Wrote:  and others who can't afford to go to court for divorces or restraining orders or what have you.

A person can do that without a lawyer.

(04-15-2012 01:54 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Mac, serious question. Given a choice between two policy alternatives, one of which would enrich the "wealthy" while making everyone else better off and the other of which would hurt the "rich" but also make everyone else worse off, which would you choose? In short is it more important to make the rich poorer or to make the poor richer?

That is a rediculous post.

(04-15-2012 02:11 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(04-15-2012 01:54 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Mac, serious question. Given a choice between two policy alternatives, one of which would enrich the "wealthy" while making everyone else better off and the other of which would hurt the "rich" but also make everyone else worse off, which would you choose? In short is it more important to make the rich poorer or to make the poor richer?

That is a rediculous post.

Why?

(04-15-2012 02:14 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(04-15-2012 02:11 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(04-15-2012 01:54 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Mac, serious question. Given a choice between two policy alternatives, one of which would enrich the "wealthy" while making everyone else better off and the other of which would hurt the "rich" but also make everyone else worse off, which would you choose? In short is it more important to make the rich poorer or to make the poor richer?

That is a rediculous post.

Why?

Because it is based on the belief that "trickle down" works.

(04-15-2012 02:22 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(04-15-2012 02:14 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(04-15-2012 02:11 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(04-15-2012 01:54 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Mac, serious question. Given a choice between two policy alternatives, one of which would enrich the "wealthy" while making everyone else better off and the other of which would hurt the "rich" but also make everyone else worse off, which would you choose? In short is it more important to make the rich poorer or to make the poor richer?

That is a rediculous post.

Why?

Because it is based on the belief that "trickle down" works.

So if a rich person buys a mansion or boat the people who make and maintain them don't get paid or do they do that crap for free? How much trickle down $$$ does a Welfare queen offer up? And not to her crack dealer, but to the economy?

(04-15-2012 02:31 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(04-15-2012 02:22 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(04-15-2012 02:14 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(04-15-2012 02:11 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(04-15-2012 01:54 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Mac, serious question. Given a choice between two policy alternatives, one of which would enrich the "wealthy" while making everyone else better off and the other of which would hurt the "rich" but also make everyone else worse off, which would you choose? In short is it more important to make the rich poorer or to make the poor richer?

That is a rediculous post.

Why?

Because it is based on the belief that "trickle down" works.

So if a rich person buys a mansion or boat the people who make and maintain them don't get paid or do they do that crap for free? How much trickle down $$$ does a Welfare queen offer up? And not to her crack dealer, but to the economy?

Man..You are trying to reason with a Socialist...

(04-15-2012 02:50 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(04-15-2012 02:31 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(04-15-2012 02:22 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(04-15-2012 02:14 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(04-15-2012 02:11 PM)RobertN Wrote:  That is a rediculous post.

Why?

Because it is based on the belief that "trickle down" works.

So if a rich person buys a mansion or boat the people who make and maintain them don't get paid or do they do that crap for free? How much trickle down $$$ does a Welfare queen offer up? And not to her crack dealer, but to the economy?

Man..You are trying to reason with a Socialist...

Sorry Ayn. I am not a socialist or communist. I am someone who thinks. Tell me, who creates more jobs, a wealthy person who buys a yacht and puts the rrest in savings or the equivalent number of middle class(same amount of income/investment profit as he wealthy person) who spend most of their income/investment profit?

(04-15-2012 03:30 PM)RobertN Wrote:  Tell me, who creates more jobs, a wealthy person who buys a yacht and puts the rrest in savings or the equivalent number of middle class(same amount of income/investment profit as he wealthy person) who spend most of their income/investment profit?

Where do these middle class get their income in the first place Robert?

(04-15-2012 03:30 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(04-15-2012 02:50 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(04-15-2012 02:31 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(04-15-2012 02:22 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(04-15-2012 02:14 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  Why?

Because it is based on the belief that "trickle down" works.

So if a rich person buys a mansion or boat the people who make and maintain them don't get paid or do they do that crap for free? How much trickle down $$$ does a Welfare queen offer up? And not to her crack dealer, but to the economy?

Man..You are trying to reason with a Socialist...

Sorry Ayn. I am not a socialist or communist. I am someone who thinks. Tell me, who creates more jobs, a wealthy person who buys a yacht and puts the rrest in savings or the equivalent number of middle class(same amount of income/investment profit as he wealthy person) who spend most of their income/investment profit?

Sorry Carl...I call it like I see it...and....You are full of sh!t. Just who in the hell builds the damn yacht? I guess you think the damn things just magically appear? I swear...my damn daughter knew more about economics at age 15 than you do now.