patrick.net

When G.W.H. Bush signed The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) civil rights law in 1990, the intent was to prohibit discrimination based on disability and provide access for the disabled. Instead, sleazy attorneys have abused the law by filing TENS OF THOUSANDS of predatory ADA lawsuits, not meant to improve access for the disabled, but to extract money from small business owners, especially in California.

More than ever, when California companies crack under the strain, they to move to a more business friendly state, why shouldn't they?

DISHonest Abe, please refrain from PLAGIARIZING someone else's work, You should quote and attribute it.

You have lifted text from this article:

http://www.sbsun.com/pointofview/ci_18712378

The article in question leaps from anecdotal example of one possible ambulance chaser abusing the law to TENS OF THOUSANDS without backing up this claim. Didn't even name the one lawyer, making it unnecessarily difficult to verify. It's an assertion, not a proof. I could as easily say because I claim I saw one caregiver using their employers handicap tag to park, that we should eliminate all handicap parking.

Vicente says

DISHonest Abe, please refrain from PLAGIARIZING someone else's work, You should quote and attribute it.

Nice. Someone got pwned.

Again, proof please. Show me that payouts have been increasing. Show me that frivolous cases aren't being dismissed. Show me it's disproportionate to other states. I have given you several frameworks to support your assertion.

The US Chamber "study" (if you can call it that) is also based on anecdote and rumor if you look at the methodology. It's largely a way for GCs to bitch about stereotypes. It does not discuss payouts, it does not compare number of lawsuits, it does not compare lawsuits to dismissal rates, and it doesn't do much of anything except perpetuate stereotypes.

Again, I'm telling you, ask tech companies about patent lawsuits in Texas.

Vicente says

What is the "right" ratio of debt to GDP?

This just hit me Vincent, the ratio used to be a good risk in housing is about 30% , right? So, maybe our debt for the next years budget should never be more than 30% of our GDP (lets use the GDP that finds the CPI they use to figure SSI COLA). Is that stupid of kinda make sense?

Vicente says

What is the "right" ratio of debt to GDP?

Sucks that so much of our debt is housing debt.

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=1Hs

Most of us has been living in this country for hundreds of years, have we not? Where did all the equity go between generations???

Much of that debt is just the cost of the title to land, too. The house is almost secondary in many places.

The land title's production cost is pennies, yet we pay so much for it.

Bap33 says

This just hit me Vincent, the ratio used to be a good risk in housing is about 30% , right? So, maybe our debt for the next years budget should never be more than 30% of our GDP (lets use the GDP that finds the CPI they use to figure SSI COLA). Is that stupid of kinda make sense?

30% sounds good. Now if only we had some grownups who would keep an eye on stuff like this, and when the party gets too rowdy say "hey gang, this is a BUBBLE and y'all should stop!". So far we've been poor at this part. When it's BOOM time nobody wants to hear the Negative Nancies like Patrick. They always laugh at this guy:

I mean it was only a decade ago that all the big investment bankers were colluding to dismantle those staid capital reserve ratios they used to live under just fine.

Honest Abe says

When G.W.H. Bush signed The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) civil rights law in 1990, the intent was to prohibit discrimination based on disability and provide access for the disabled. Instead, sleazy attorneys have abused the law by filing TENS OF THOUSANDS of predatory ADA lawsuits, not meant to improve access for the disabled, but to extract money from small business owners, especially in California.

More than ever, when California companies crack under the strain, they to move to a more business friendly state, why shouldn't they?

The ADA is a federal law and has nothing to do with states. Maybe California has the most ADA lawsuits since it is the most populated state?

Bap33 says

Is that stupid of kinda make sense?

I know you're talking to Vincent, but just wondering whether you understand. I'm sure you must, but then I don't understand what you're suggesting.

The deficit is the annual amount by which our government spending exceeds our govt revenues. Currently I believe the annual deficit is near 10% of GDP, which is two high (note GDP growth has been terrible - a big part of the problem).

Our debt is our total accumulated debt, currently near 100% of GDP.
There are three ways (at least) for debt as a percentage of GDP to shrink. Either run a surplus or default, or increase GDP by more than you increase the debt.

But since debt is now 100% of GDP, even running a surplus somehow next year, might only bring the debt down to 95% of GDP.

We need higher GDP and lower deficits. But since government spending (deficit spending) contributes so much to our current economy, this is not a simple problem.

In boom or even just moderately good economic times times, I really like the idea of having a rule that we must run a surplus. That is, I do think there is something to your idea, of forcing the issue, but it is immensely complicated by our government's significant role in the economy, which is appropriate for modern times.

Bush's tax cuts, killing what were overestimated to be "surpluses as far as the eye can see," was one of the greater government mistakes of modern times. But it's easy to understand how it happens. The leaders are all rich, and there is a retarded philosophy out there that says even when taxes are low, lowering them more, will help the economy so much that it will increase revenue to the govt.

You can almost see the wheels turning in the typical rich guy's head. "You mean if I believe this, then I get to believe that more money for me(via lower taxes), is the best thing for everyone ? That is SO AWESOME !!"

Bush probably also saw the cuts as helping to reduce the chance of a bad recession at a time when it was extremely natural to have one (that is dealing with the deflation of the stock market's irrational exuberance we had going in to the millennium.) Bush was right in thinking that a bad recession would have been bad for him politically. But look at the cost of his tax policies.

We put off the big recession, and had a much worse one later instead.

I think something like a balanced budget or surplus when GDP is growing by a certain amount, and a sliding scale, allowing deficits up to a certain level,, maybe 6% of GDP when in a recession , and maybe real small deficits when the GDP growth is flat might make sense.

Strong growth should require surpluses, mostly so that when GDP and revenue drops, it won't cause deficits to be too big.

But it has to rely on well defined measures of past GDP, and I don't know that those exist.

marcus says

We put off the big recession, and had a much worse one later instead.

Wasn't really the tax cuts that made the system unsustainable. . .

Here's an update of an earlier chart:

yellow is the cumulative household debt stimulus
red is the cumulative deficit-spending stimulus under Bush
green is the cumulative deficit-spending stimulus under Obama.

Bellingham Bob says

Wasn't really the tax cuts that made the system unsustainable. . .

I believe that that all three factors:

1) tax cuts

2) war spending

3) bs credit driven continuing real estate bubble

contributed to the bad recession we should have had, starting somewhere around 2002, being postponed to the much worse recession we had starting in 2008.

@Vicente

>Now when my X-Ray machine errors out and gives me a lethal overdose, my family can try to sue a bunch of Chinese subcontractors. Awesome! I'm so glad they are making best use of GE tax benefits to offshore jobs, layoff Americans, and enrich communists. Everything seems going according to the Koch Brothers plan nicely.

Great one! I just read it today...

@Troy

Thanks again for the graph...

HousingWatcher says

Of the 50% of the country that does not pay federal income tax, 75% of them make LESS than $20,000 a year. So youw ant to raise taxes on peopel all the way at the bottom while not raising taxes at the top?

Yes. I never said that it had to be a lot. When I made that little (or less) I had to pay income taxes.