Liberals and Biglaw Forum

[Renzo]

Problem with this thread is that it umps liberals and progressives together. Liberals can work for large companies. Progressives or radicals / anti-capitalists can't without undermining their beliefs. My law school experience has been: lots of liberals not too many progressives.

Problem with Fox News is that is has convinced you that progressive=radical anti-capitalist.

Really? You've moved onto Fox News? I thought everything was Bush's fault?

Psshh. I've never blamed anything on Bush. That would be like giving a chimpanzee credit for building the zoo.

[1ferret!]

This thread is getting off course in its focus on conserativism. The problem is that liberalism in its contemporary form in the US is a coherent set of principles based on a kind of reasonable contract (Rawls, Dworkin, etc). But conservativism in its contemporary form in the US is not: rather, it is an amalgamation of mutually inconsistent principles (libertarianism, nationalism, and religious fundamentalism). If we can't pin down the conservative position, then we cannot assess whether conservativism is consistent with biglaw. But we still can return to the OP's central concern about liberalism and biglaw.

hahahahahahahaha. that is all.

[GettingReady2010]

Lawyers are overwhelmingly liberal. Structuring IPOs and/or litigation/arbitration between giant companies doesn't really involve your politics too often.

Yeah, until they start working dehumanizing hours and the government takes half their paycheck and redistributes it.

--ImageRemoved--

A simple tactic from a simple man/women. Seriously, can you get anymore cliche?

[GettingReady2010]

This thread is getting off course in its focus on conserativism. The problem is that liberalism in its contemporary form in the US is a coherent set of principles based on a kind of reasonable contract (Rawls, Dworkin, etc). But conservativism in its contemporary form in the US is not: rather, it is an amalgamation of mutually inconsistent principles (libertarianism, nationalism, and religious fundamentalism). If we can't pin down the conservative position, then we cannot assess whether conservativism is consistent with biglaw. But we still can return to the OP's central concern about liberalism and biglaw.

hahahahahahahaha. that is all.

Is that a segment from one of your undergrad polisci essays that you copied and pasted?

[nealric]

Yeah, until they start working dehumanizing hours and the government takes half their paycheck and redistributes it.

There are plenty of liberals who worked dehumanizing hours, paid plenty of taxes, and are still flaming liberals. I'm going to be starting Biglaw in a few months, and while I'm not excited about the taxes I will pay, I completely accept them.

I wouldn't have been able to go to law school without the government underwriting my student loans. As a lawyer, I would make no money at all if the government wasn't enforcing the rule of law. While I may never need social services, I will sleep a bit easier knowing that I will get unemployment benefits if I get laid off, and food stamps will keep me from going hungry if things get really bad. Even if I never end up on social services I benefit from them. My neighborhood is safer because the city has provided public housing- keeping people off the street who might be desperate and homeless to the point of criminality. So when I pay my taxes, I'm paying for services rendered and for insurance. Is there inefficiency and waste? Sure there is, but no system is perfect- and it is our job as citizens to advocate for the best run government possible though speech and the ballot box. And sure, there is an argument that the government is trying to do too much- even a hard-line communist would draw the government-involvement line somewhere. If you feel that way- just advocate for it. But ranting about "redistribution" is just ineffectual whining.


As to the OP, there is no conflict with liberals (as defined by membership in the American left) as long as one is not of a categorically anti-corporate ideology. However, there are some populist conservatives who would have issues with biglaw. Biglaw is a quintessential part of the "Coastal Elite" that a lot of conservative populists like to rant about.

[legalease9]

Lawyers are overwhelmingly liberal. Structuring IPOs and/or litigation/arbitration between giant companies doesn't really involve your politics too often.

Yeah, until they start working dehumanizing hours and the government takes half their paycheck and redistributes it.

--ImageRemoved--

A simple tactic from a simple man/women. Seriously, can you get anymore cliche?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLni3wbndls


... Just for you

[GettingReady2010]

Yeah, until they start working dehumanizing hours and the government takes half their paycheck and redistributes it.

There are plenty of liberals who worked dehumanizing hours, paid plenty of taxes, and are still flaming liberals. I'm going to be starting Biglaw in a few months, and while I'm not excited about the taxes I will pay, I completely accept them.

I wouldn't have been able to go to law school without the government underwriting my student loans. As a lawyer, I would make no money at all if the government wasn't enforcing the rule of law. While I may never need social services, I will sleep a bit easier knowing that I will get unemployment benefits if I get laid off, and food stamps will keep me from going hungry if things get really bad. Even if I never end up on social services I benefit from them. My neighborhood is safer because the city has provided public housing- keeping people off the street who might be desperate and homeless to the point of criminality. So when I pay my taxes, I'm paying for services rendered and for insurance. Is there inefficiency and waste? Sure there is, but no system is perfect- and it is our job as citizens to advocate for the best run government possible though speech and the ballot box. And sure, there is an argument that the government is trying to do too much- even a hard-line communist would draw the government-involvement line somewhere. If you feel that way- just advocate for it. But ranting about "redistribution" is just ineffectual whining.


As to the OP, there is no conflict with liberals (as defined by membership in the American left) as long as one is not of a categorically anti-corporate ideology. However, there are some populist conservatives who would have issues with biglaw. Biglaw is a quintessential part of the "Coastal Elite" that a lot of conservative populists like to rant about.

Not saying any of this. I just think it's ridiculous that the harder you work, the more money the government takes from you. IMO there should be a uniform tax of 15% across the board that starts at around 30k. There is absolutely no reason why 50% of the US should pay NOTHING in income tax and live off the other 50%. FYI - I'm in the bottom 50. The point is that people earned their money, it's nobody else's. By that I don't mean that state should not levy taxes to pay for public works, rather I'm saying that it is not any other individual's property. People should decide if they want to give money to the less fortunate, not the government.

As for where you draw the line with entitlement programs, you draw once the very basic necessities are met. Reason being, there is so much damn fraud when you give people welfare checks and food stamps. When I used to work at a grocery store, you would not believe how many moms were using food stamps while their kids had $100 tennis shoes. Also, I know one women who uses food stamps to buy shrimp for her cats, and I know another women who receives a welfare check while at the same time she receives lots of money from her aunt. Ok, so that's our money. I should point out that the person that was receiving money from her aunt was eventually caught by the IRS. But how much money did we waste there?

Finally, these entitlement programs that you're so fond of simply do not work. Social security, medicare, and medicaid are bankrupt.

The main reason I'm against excessive taxation is because it has been demonstrated time and time again that a regulated economy simply does not work. I mean how many examples do people need to see that while in college textbooks and in theory a highly regulated economy is a good idea, but when you apply it to reality it just does not work. No matter how much people wish the world worked that way, it never will.

[Oban]

50 percent of the us pays no income tax because they are fucking poor, united states has become one of the worst countries in terms of income distribution.

[GettingReady2010]

50 percent of the us pays no income tax because they are fucking poor, united states has become one of the worst countries in terms of income distribution.

And the wealthiest. Hmmmm. I wonder if there's a reason why the US is the only remaining superpower while Cuba, North Korea, and the like are hell holes.

[Thomas Jefferson]

50 percent of the us pays no income tax because they are fucking poor, united states has become one of the worst countries in terms of income distribution.

Why should income distribution matter? How many people are poor should matter, ie the poverty rate should be minimized, but why does it matter if the uber rich are uber uber rich?

[GettingReady2010]

50 percent of the us pays no income tax because they are fucking poor, united states has become one of the worst countries in terms of income distribution.

Why should income distribution matter? How many people are poor should matter, ie the poverty rate should be minimized, but why does it matter if the uber rich are uber uber rich?

TITCR

[nealric]

Not saying any of this. I just think it's ridiculous that the harder you work, the more money the government takes from you. IMO there should be a uniform tax of 15% across the board that starts at around 30k. There is absolutely no reason why 50% of the US should pay NOTHING in income tax and live off the other 50%. FYI - I'm in the bottom 50. The point is that people earned their money, it's nobody else's. By that I don't mean that state should not levy taxes to pay for public works, rather I'm saying that it is not any other individual's property. People should decide if they want to give money to the less fortunate, not the government.

It's a bit disingenuous to say that the 50% who pay no income tax are living off the rest of us. EVERY worker pays FICA and EVERYONE pays sales taxes. Those social security and medicare programs that you hate so much are funded through FICA- not the income tax. It's also extremely disingenuous to say that those who earn more necessarily work harder, or that working harder necessarily leads to more income. While I will certainly work very hard in Biglaw, I don't think I will be working as hard as the building Janitor who is working 3 jobs at minimum wage to make ends meet- and the Janitor won't pay income taxes no matter how hard he works. And if I bill 2400 hours instead of 2200, it will have nothing to do with taxes- and it won't affect my income at all in any immediate sense.

But you seem to miss a big part of the point: the money isn't "yours" just like a business is not entitled to every penny of its gross income.

SS/Medicare are certainly problematic, but they are not as "bankrupt" as you claim. It's true, SS will eventually be run into the ground provided nothing changes in the next 50 years. But that won't happen. All we need to do is cut benefits and/or raise the retirement age, and SS is solvent again. Medicare is a much tougher nut to crack- but mostly because people scream "death panels" anytime someone wants to cut anything from it. The problem is that many (if not most) retired people could never pay for their care outright and no insurance carrier would take them- and nobody is willing to advocate letting grandma die in the street.

And yes, there are people who abuse various social welfare programs- but the "welfare queen" accusations are mostly trumped-up nonsense. Nobody is living large of wellfare or foodstamps. If you think otherwise, you should hang around Anacostia DC or East New York sometime.

And the wealthiest. Hmmmm. I wonder if there's a reason why the US is the only remaining superpower while Cuba, North Korea, and the like are hell holes.

Yep, and Sweeden is the biggest hell-hole of them all

But to compare the U.S. tax regime to Cuba or North Korea is patently absurd.

[Oban]

It's no that they are ubber ubber rich, it's that the majority of the country is far from well off.

Meanwhile other countries have middle classes with higher incomes, free health care, guaranteed pensions, lower infant mortality, lower crime rates, smarter school children, and gasp! High taxes for the rich and 8 dollar gasoline.

[Thomas Jefferson]

It's no that they are ubber ubber rich, it's that the majority of the country is far from well off.

Ok well you said the income distribution was bad, not poverty. [Edit: Also, the median income in the US is quite sufficient to live a decent life, so I don't know how you're getting that "the majority of the country is far from well off."]

Meanwhile other countries have middle classes with higher incomes, free health care, guaranteed pensions, lower infant mortality, lower crime rates, smarter school children, and gasp! High taxes for the rich and 8 dollar gasoline.

And they have slower growth, less innovation, and are going bankrupt.

[Lonagan]

Over/under on how many pages before this thread devolves into gold standard / "the fed" / masturbating to pictures of Ron Paul?

[Oban]

It's no that they are ubber ubber rich, it's that the majority of the country is far from well off.

Ok well you said the income distribution was bad, not poverty. [Edit: Also, the median income in the US is quite sufficient to live a decent life, so I don't know how you're getting that "the majority of the country is far from well off."]

Meanwhile other countries have middle classes with higher incomes, free health care, guaranteed pensions, lower infant mortality, lower crime rates, smarter school children, and gasp! High taxes for the rich and 8 dollar gasoline.

And they have slower growth, less innovation, and are going bankrupt.

Nothing wrong with slow growth, and the united states is pretty much brankrupt as well. Capitalism is kind of a fail these days.

[Thomas Jefferson]

Nothing wrong with slow growth, and the united states is pretty much brankrupt as well. Capitalism is kind of a fail these days.

While economic growth isn't the sole component of social welfare, it is positively correlated with it. And our problems are (1) still marginally less than Europe's (I'm assuming that what the "other countries" refers to, more or less) and (2) not principally the fault of capitalism.

[thechee]

It's no that they are ubber ubber rich, it's that the majority of the country is far from well off.

Ok well you said the income distribution was bad, not poverty. [Edit: Also, the median income in the US is quite sufficient to live a decent life, so I don't know how you're getting that "the majority of the country is far from well off."]

Meanwhile other countries have middle classes with higher incomes, free health care, guaranteed pensions, lower infant mortality, lower crime rates, smarter school children, and gasp! High taxes for the rich and 8 dollar gasoline.

And they have slower growth, less innovation, and are going bankrupt.

Nothing wrong with slow growth, and the united states is pretty much brankrupt as well. Capitalism is kind of a fail these days.

And the alternative is....

[GettingReady2010]

Not saying any of this. I just think it's ridiculous that the harder you work, the more money the government takes from you. IMO there should be a uniform tax of 15% across the board that starts at around 30k. There is absolutely no reason why 50% of the US should pay NOTHING in income tax and live off the other 50%. FYI - I'm in the bottom 50. The point is that people earned their money, it's nobody else's. By that I don't mean that state should not levy taxes to pay for public works, rather I'm saying that it is not any other individual's property. People should decide if they want to give money to the less fortunate, not the government.

It's a bit disingenuous to say that the 50% who pay no income tax are living off the rest of us. EVERY worker pays FICA and EVERYONE pays sales taxes. Those social security and medicare programs that you hate so much are funded through FICA- not the income tax.

I don't understand. Doesn't that undermine your previous point. FICA is a benefit that funds social security and other retirement programs. It's not like this money is used to fund the military or a national park.

It's also extremely disingenuous to say that those who earn more necessarily work harder, or that working harder necessarily leads to more income. While I will certainly work very hard in Biglaw, I don't think I will be working as hard as the building Janitor who is working 3 jobs at minimum wage to make ends meet- and the Janitor won't pay income taxes no matter how hard he works. And if I bill 2400 hours instead of 2200, it will have nothing to do with taxes- and it won't affect my income at all in any immediate sense.

I think it's extremely disingenuous to say that working harder doesn't lead to more income. You act as though most adults in the US are working as long as a biglaw associate. I would bet (and this is just speculation) the average adult works around 45 hours per week.

But you seem to miss a big part of the point: the money isn't "yours" just like a business is not entitled to every penny of its gross income.

I never said you were entitled to every penny you make. I simply said that your money should not be taken from people and given to other people (again, except to provide the basic necessities). Look, contrary to what you may think, I'm not some heartless bastard. I don't want to see people living on the street or going hungry. If people need help, I think society should help them. What I think is wrong is when people think that the wealthier should give money to the less fortunate simply because the former has more money.

SS/Medicare are certainly problematic, but they are not as "bankrupt" as you claim. It's true, SS will eventually be run into the ground provided nothing changes in the next 50 years. But that won't happen. All we need to do is cut benefits and/or raise the retirement age, and SS is solvent again. Medicare is a much tougher nut to crack- but mostly because people scream "death panels" anytime someone wants to cut anything from it. The problem is that many (if not most) retired people could never pay for their care outright and no insurance carrier would take them- and nobody is willing to advocate letting grandma die in the street.

Ok, it's not technically bankrupt - there's maybe 35 cents left. Yes, the retirement age needs to be raised in order for the program to survive. I think, however, we should get rid of it completely or create private accounts. But that's a debate to save for another day.

And yes, there are people who abuse various social welfare programs- but the "welfare queen" accusations are mostly trumped-up nonsense. Nobody is living large of wellfare or foodstamps. If you think otherwise, you should hang around Anacostia DC or East New York sometime.

See, you accuse me of being disingenuous and then you completely and purposely change what I was trying to say. I was mainly referring to the fraud and abuse. The point is that if you are on welfare and food stamps, you should not have any luxuries (i.e. cable television, a cell phone, or shop anywhere but Walmart).

And the wealthiest. Hmmmm. I wonder if there's a reason why the US is the only remaining superpower while Cuba, North Korea, and the like are hell holes.

Yep, and Sweeden is the biggest hell-hole of them all

But to compare the U.S. tax regime to Cuba or North Korea is patently absurd.

Ok I'll admit that the Cuba/North Korea comparison was unfair. However, I don't think it's unfair to compare the U.S. with Greece. Also, you're right Sweden is not a hell hole, but they also don't have the wealth (and yes, poverty) that we do. Their citizens also don't have much incentive to create anything (i.e. pharmaceuticals), and businesses are certainly not flocking to Sweden to take advantage of their low taxes.

This as far as I go with this internet debate - I hate them. Feel free to respond to this post. I will definitely read it.

[fenderjsm88]

Biglaw is a quintessential part of the "Coastal Elite"

Now let's not get ahead of ourselves.

[bigben]

50 percent of the us pays no income tax because they are fucking poor, united states has become one of the worst countries in terms of income distribution.

Why should income distribution matter? How many people are poor should matter, ie the poverty rate should be minimized, but why does it matter if the uber rich are uber uber rich?

it's that relative poverty mang

[Thomas Jefferson]

50 percent of the us pays no income tax because they are fucking poor, united states has become one of the worst countries in terms of income distribution.

Why should income distribution matter? How many people are poor should matter, ie the poverty rate should be minimized, but why does it matter if the uber rich are uber uber rich?

it's that relative poverty mang

Yeah I've always thought of that as income distribution by another name. If you can afford food, shelter, clothes, etc. the fact that Bill Gates can afford a new Maserati every month doesn't make you any less able to afford food, shelter, clothes, etc.

Edit: apparently I missed the obvious sarcasm.

[Renzo]

Over/under on how many pages before this thread devolves into gold standard / "the fed" / masturbating to pictures of Ron Paul?

Uh, I thought it was already there.

[prezidentv8]

Over/under on how many pages before this thread devolves into gold standard / "the fed" / masturbating to pictures of Ron Paul?

Uh, I thought it was already there.

Yeah this got ugly and "d-u-m-m" pretty fast

[ajmanyjah]

The main reason I'm against excessive taxation is because it has been demonstrated time and time again that a regulated economy simply does not work. I mean how many examples do people need to see that while in college textbooks and in theory a highly regulated economy is a good idea, but when you apply it to reality it just does not work. No matter how much people wish the world worked that way, it never will.

Prove that all regulated economies do not work. Western Germany seems to be pretty well off, China is improving...

And there really is only one nation with an unregulated economy...Somalia