Law School Discussion

Life As An Associate

cui bono?

  • ****
  • 3785
  • blah bliggetty blah
    • View Profile
Re: Life As An Associate
« Reply #1570 on: February 26, 2008, 08:50:06 PM »
Don't live in NYC and you won't have to pay almost half your salary in taxes. That combined with COLA makes New York very unappealing.

Amen!

Burning Sands, Esq.

  • *****
  • 6525
  • Yes We Kan-sas!!!
    • View Profile
Re: Life As An Associate
« Reply #1571 on: February 26, 2008, 09:06:22 PM »
Don't live in NYC and you won't have to pay almost half your salary in taxes. That combined with COLA makes New York very unappealing.


Don't live in NYC?!?  Good God man!!!  To speak of such a thing is treason!

Seize Him!!!

Re: Life As An Associate
« Reply #1572 on: February 26, 2008, 10:07:15 PM »
Guys, in case you didn't read the comments on ATL, I just want to point out how incredibly biased that piece is.  First--and most importantly--Obama did NOT say he would get rid of the SS cap altogether.  He suggested raising it, and suggested a "donut hole" in the 100-200k range, but just mentioned them as possibilities for fixing SS.  He did not promise to do either, and they in no way constitute a "plan" as the article states.

Moreover, given that McCain voted against the Bush tax cuts (which I applaud him for, given how ridiculously fiscally irresponsible they are).  There is no reason to suppose he would extend them--or more importantly, that he would approve of Congress spending them.  The fact that Congress holds the spending power seems to have escaped the ATL writer altogether.  McCain has pledged to continue our trillion-dollar war for "as long as it takes," with no plan to pay for it. 

GIven our enormous deficit, and the SS and health care finance problems facing this country, whoever becomes prez is going to have to make some very tough choices.  Bush has run the economy into the ground, and we will either have to significantly raise taxes or cut programs to pay back what we owe.  15% of our annual budget goes to paying INTEREST on our debt.  Without more cash/less spending, we're just screwing older versions of ourselves, and our children.

A.

  • *****
  • 13843
    • View Profile
Re: Life As An Associate
« Reply #1573 on: February 26, 2008, 10:12:49 PM »
Yeah the piece was quite obviously biased.  But yeah, when I don't have money, I stop spending.  Government should do the same.

Re: Life As An Associate
« Reply #1574 on: February 26, 2008, 10:16:59 PM »
"Bush has run the economy into the ground, and we will either have to significantly raise taxes or cut programs to pay back what we owe."


My biggest pet peeve in politics is how much control people think the president has over the economy.  George Bush has not run the economy into the ground just like no president single handily saves the economy.  It amazes me that intelligent people honestly believe that the President has that much authority over the economy, whether it be good or bad.  Business cycles is the name of the game.

Astro

  • *****
  • 9930
  • Happy birthday goalie!!!
    • View Profile
Re: Life As An Associate
« Reply #1575 on: February 26, 2008, 10:34:04 PM »
Pretty big pet peeve, I have to say.

Re: Life As An Associate
« Reply #1576 on: February 26, 2008, 10:41:44 PM »
Pretty big pet peeve, I have to say.


And four times over!

OK, I'll revise:  Bush, along with a complicit Congress, have run the economy into the ground by cutting taxes and spending wildly.  The Prez does exert a great deal of power on his own, although as I said above Congress generally has to get on board.  But Bush has never met a spending bill he didn't like (when he could have used his veto power) and certain policies to promote an "ownership society" were strongly advocated for by the executive branch... which contributed to the current mortgage crisis. 

Freak

  • ****
  • 4767
  • What's your agenda?!
    • AOL Instant Messenger - smileyill4663
    • Yahoo Instant Messenger - smileyill
    • View Profile
Re: Life As An Associate
« Reply #1577 on: February 27, 2008, 10:56:25 AM »
Pretty big pet peeve, I have to say.


And four times over!

OK, I'll revise:  Bush, along with a complicit Congress, have run the economy into the ground by cutting taxes and spending wildly.  The Prez does exert a great deal of power on his own, although as I said above Congress generally has to get on board.  But Bush has never met a spending bill he didn't like (when he could have used his veto power) and certain policies to promote an "ownership society" were strongly advocated for by the executive branch... which contributed to the current mortgage crisis. 

Come on, I'm not Bush's biggest fan, but this "Blame Bush" mentality is getting a little ridiculous. The blame for the current mortgage crisis falls on the individuals and the banks. Individuals are to blame for making the decision to take out the loans when they shouldn't have, and the banks are at fault for being greedy enough to take advantage of these people. It's not Bush's fault!

I can't stand Bush, but TITCR

Re: Life As An Associate
« Reply #1578 on: February 27, 2008, 12:27:47 PM »
Pretty big pet peeve, I have to say.


And four times over!

OK, I'll revise:  Bush, along with a complicit Congress, have run the economy into the ground by cutting taxes and spending wildly.  The Prez does exert a great deal of power on his own, although as I said above Congress generally has to get on board.  But Bush has never met a spending bill he didn't like (when he could have used his veto power) and certain policies to promote an "ownership society" were strongly advocated for by the executive branch... which contributed to the current mortgage crisis. 

Come on, I'm not Bush's biggest fan, but this "Blame Bush" mentality is getting a little ridiculous. The blame for the current mortgage crisis falls on the individuals and the banks. Individuals are to blame for making the decision to take out the loans when they shouldn't have, and the banks are at fault for being greedy enough to take advantage of these people. It's not Bush's fault!

I didn't say it was all his fault, nor do I think the Fed's blame is necessarily greater than any of the other parties involved.  But that's not to say they're without fault--I used the word "contributed," and I stand by it.  See, e.g.: http://www.slate.com/id/2182709/pagenum/all (describing how the Fed acted to preempt state laws prohibiting subprime loans).

More importantly, if you recall, Bush and many other Republicans ran on platforms of deregulation and the benefits of an "ownership society."  Deregulation, of course, has been a longstanding goal of the Republican party.  From the party's 1992 platform:  "LIBERATION THROUGH DEREGULATION -- . . . We support President Bush's [the first's] freeze on new regulations. We applaud his Competitiveness Council, under Vice President Quayle, for fighting the regulatory mania..."

The subprime crisis didn't happen earlier because there were regulations in place to prevent this behavior by banks:

"[T]he 1933 Glass-Steagall Act, which prohibited the same financial company from being both a commercial bank and an investment bank, ... was devised to prevent a repeat of the 1920s' scams, in which banks made speculative investments, turned the debts into securities, and sold them off to unsuspecting investors with the blessing of the bank....If you fast forward to 2000, much of this protective apparatus has been repealed. Regulators who didn't believe in regulation and a compliant Congress have allowed financial engineers to evade what remains. In the 1980s, regulators began allowing exceptions to Glass-Steagall. In 1999, Congress finally repealed it outright, permitting financial supermarkets like Citigroup to operate any kind of financial business they desired, and profit from multiple conflicts of interest."
http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=the_bubble_economy

The repeal of G-S was not Bush II's doing, but it was the work of deregulation-loving Republicans.  Bush continued a policy of deregulation once in office; if the gov had been more willing to regulate bank behavior, the problem could have been stemmed much earlier.




Freak

  • ****
  • 4767
  • What's your agenda?!
    • AOL Instant Messenger - smileyill4663
    • Yahoo Instant Messenger - smileyill
    • View Profile
Re: Life As An Associate
« Reply #1579 on: February 27, 2008, 05:05:16 PM »
Pretty big pet peeve, I have to say.


And four times over!

OK, I'll revise:  Bush, along with a complicit Congress, have run the economy into the ground by cutting taxes and spending wildly.  The Prez does exert a great deal of power on his own, although as I said above Congress generally has to get on board.  But Bush has never met a spending bill he didn't like (when he could have used his veto power) and certain policies to promote an "ownership society" were strongly advocated for by the executive branch... which contributed to the current mortgage crisis. 

Come on, I'm not Bush's biggest fan, but this "Blame Bush" mentality is getting a little ridiculous. The blame for the current mortgage crisis falls on the individuals and the banks. Individuals are to blame for making the decision to take out the loans when they shouldn't have, and the banks are at fault for being greedy enough to take advantage of these people. It's not Bush's fault!

I didn't say it was all his fault, nor do I think the Fed's blame is necessarily greater than any of the other parties involved.  But that's not to say they're without fault--I used the word "contributed," and I stand by it.  See, e.g.: http://www.slate.com/id/2182709/pagenum/all (describing how the Fed acted to preempt state laws prohibiting subprime loans).

More importantly, if you recall, Bush and many other Republicans ran on platforms of deregulation and the benefits of an "ownership society."  Deregulation, of course, has been a longstanding goal of the Republican party.  From the party's 1992 platform:  "LIBERATION THROUGH DEREGULATION -- . . . We support President Bush's [the first's] freeze on new regulations. We applaud his Competitiveness Council, under Vice President Quayle, for fighting the regulatory mania..."

The subprime crisis didn't happen earlier because there were regulations in place to prevent this behavior by banks:

"[T]he 1933 Glass-Steagall Act, which prohibited the same financial company from being both a commercial bank and an investment bank, ... was devised to prevent a repeat of the 1920s' scams, in which banks made speculative investments, turned the debts into securities, and sold them off to unsuspecting investors with the blessing of the bank....If you fast forward to 2000, much of this protective apparatus has been repealed. Regulators who didn't believe in regulation and a compliant Congress have allowed financial engineers to evade what remains. In the 1980s, regulators began allowing exceptions to Glass-Steagall. In 1999, Congress finally repealed it outright, permitting financial supermarkets like Citigroup to operate any kind of financial business they desired, and profit from multiple conflicts of interest."
http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=the_bubble_economy

The repeal of G-S was not Bush II's doing, but it was the work of deregulation-loving Republicans.  Bush continued a policy of deregulation once in office; if the gov had been more willing to regulate bank behavior, the problem could have been stemmed much earlier.

So basically, the great depression showed that people are basically stupid & greedy so FDR regulated them.

Later Congress thought hey, maybe people aren't as stupid & greedy as in the 1920's, but nope people are still as stupid & greedy now as then, just look at the sub-prime borrowers, lenders & investors.

Which is the real reason Government grows - greed & stupidity. I wonder if you can tell the ratio of stupidity & greed in a country by the size of its government - probably.