That tort costs are 2.2% of GDP is not debateable. What is debateable is how much of this is money well spent versus waste that goes to line trial lawyers, as well as fake claimant’s, pockets, which drives up overall costs and insurance premiums for all of us. You’ll note that I stated the same thing, albeit in a much more condensed version, above.

Debate without evidence is just emotionally charged babble. I asked blurb for evidence re: corporate welfare costs being more than tort costs because no such evidence exists. The Cato Institute itself, which is dedicated to eradicating corporate welfare ONLY estimates the cost of corporate welfare at roughly $100 billion.

Evidence, not propoganda.

I’d just like to briefly point out that actually, yes, the Economist is fairly right leaning, having been for the most part supportive of this president for the past four years.

d_c, I don’t think you understand the article or that I’m agreeing that some of this money is legitimate and should NOT be a point of debate. The numbers that Towers-Perrin, one of the top consulting firms in the world (usually ranked in the top 10), uses amount to $246 billion. TP has used the same criteria over the past 50 years to measure the cost of tort, which shows the drastic rise in tort costs.

The debate isn’t about that figure in and of itself. The debate is, as I’ve stated three times now, about whether the 2.2% number is good or bad. In other words, should the full 2.2% of GDP be included in the case for tort reform (i.e. waste) or should we decide that 60% of the $246 billion is money well spent and we should only debate how we can lower the last 40%.

Mike. Actually I do understand the article, thank you. You’ve presented us with an article from a magazine peppered with figures provided by TP, (and thank you again I know who they are, I also know who Hill & Knowlton is (desert storm-cough). You’ve presented it as non debatable evidence and I have adequately argued that its not. In the same breath you say that debate without evidence is babble. You also say that 2.2% is not miniscual and could be used to fund building schools and higher teachers. 2.2% is a debatable figure and its relevance lies in the fact that its a number higher than may be true. In which case this issue may be getting blown out of proportion by the administration in some way. That, Mike is why 2.2% IS INDEED a point of debate. You brought it up. I’m not one to be suckered,sir. I graciously extend the last word to you. This has been a lively discussion…I’m loving it.

So, given the hubbub over consultancies, like Arthur Andersen, et al, you want to buy into Towers-Perrin?? While I don’t disagree that there are people jacking the system, and it is wasteful, Bush using it as an example, and particularly asbestos as an example shows whose pocket he is in.

The Economist is hardly regarded as a left-leaning publication.

What do you think the figures are for corporations who don’t pay taxes or who game the system to not pay their way? I would guess that it is more than double.

For a President to call out a type of frivolous lawsuit in his address, and then to have this ruling come virtually the next week… All I’m saying is that Libby, Montana doesn’t fall into that category.

I don’t think anyone would argue that frivolous lawsuits are a good thing. Or that they are cheap. I’m highly suspect of numbers, even the ones I use to bolster my claims.

dude — your wife is gonna be on ABC world news — that is badass! congrats!

blurb, you and I both know that all politicians, W included, Democrats and Republicans alike, are in hock to their donors (big business, wealthy individuals, special interests).

“please give me a reason why i should respect bush and his administration. ”

To help you understand his arguments as he understands them, which allows you to address him honestly rather than some bogeyman you’ve made up in your mind. You might even learn something in the process, and respect guards against the possibility that you might be wrong.

After all, it’s characteristic of wrong opinions that you think they’re right until you realize otherwise.

Thread drift .…

Here
(http://​www​.nationalreview​.com/​t​h​e​c​o​r​n​e​r​/​0​5​_​0​2​_​0​6​_​c​o​r​n​e​r​-​a​r​c​h​i​v​e​.​a​s​p​#​055768)

is an interesting and rigorous discussion of intelligent design vs evolution. It’s toward the bottom, search for “Intelligent Design Round-Up”. There is some interesting back and forth; search “up” from there for “evolution” to find it.

Dear honeybunny
Has it ever occured to you that maybe blurbomat puts his opinions on here just so he can get people to start thinking about things, whether he is right or WRONG. I seriously doubt it hurts his feelings to be told that he is driven by blind rage when he also critisizes those who don’t agree with him.

I’m sure no one will see this late response, but I appreciate your focus on the SOTU’s asbestos comments. My grandfather sat on the docks during WWII and helped transform the country’s leisure ships into wartime vessels (and did the reverse after the war). He was the architect and project manager and was “in the trenches,” so to speak, for years. The asbestos exposure from that period of his life is what killed him, and it wasn’t pretty. I absolutely detest frivolous lawsuits, but torts have their place. Perhaps we should be legislating how much the lawyers can earn from these things (a ceiling of some sort)? As to why this issue was raised in the SOTU, when there are certainly more pressing ones at hand — well, from my perspective, it’s a bit suspect. And re: the percentages debated earlier: what is it? Lies, damn lies, and statistics. I’ve done my fair share of statistics and professional research. One should always question the numbers. Thank you for doing so.

Actully, Clinton turned his back on these workers WAY before W ever did.

You need to read about the MT/ND/SD alliance against asbestos and the mining associations findings.

The Clinton admin. killed nearly 90 complaints with merit.

Unreal… Please educate yourself.

Yeah, don’t let reality get in the way of anecdotal evidence.

FYI: Dubya’s never suggested that no one has gotten abestos poisoning at any time, ever. Just that many of the claims are frivelous. Surely you can grasp this bit of nuance.