StrangeSox

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jun 22, 2011 -> 09:37 AM) Like I said prior, I would rather see the credit go away, and Fannie and Freddie get phased out, while the government divulges as many of its properties and land ownings as possible. If you are going to keep the government in the housing business, I'd rather see them do it right. Ok but that has nothing to do with mandatory drug testing. You can be against mortgage tax credits and FHA loans and also against erosion of 4th amendment rights to chase down the evil drug boogeyman.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jun 22, 2011 -> 09:36 AM) Again, it sounds like the whole "we are paying for it anyway" argument of universal health care. Paying for what? The costs of drug testing a population that's stereotyped as drug users because they're poor and largely minorities?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jun 22, 2011 -> 09:35 AM) And besides, I'll go out and say the program was one of the main drivers of this whole last financial mess with Fannie and Freddie putting the foundations down for the housing crisis. So even getting rid of all intervention in the housing industry wouldn't bother me at all. What program? Please say CRA, that would be almost as good as citing the McKinsey study!

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jun 22, 2011 -> 09:33 AM) It sounds like you are talking about the coming health care program, but I am sure you have a major problem with that, right? I don't claim to be an advocate for "small government" so idk what point you're trying to make. "Mandatory drug testing for all Americans who receive some sort of benefit, service or good from the government" and "small government" don't really seem to work well together.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jun 22, 2011 -> 09:30 AM) Stop and think about this for a minute. The whole point behind having a ginormous government to give out trillions of dollars a year is supposed to be to improve people's lives. Here is one way we actually have a shot at doing that, by trying to break the cycle of addiction, or even preventing people from trying that crap in the first place. As always prevention is cheaper than treatment. It isn't on the top of my "to-do" list, but like I said, I wouldn't have a problem with it for sure. I'd rather see service programs instituted to accompany many of these programs. Cutting people off from public aid, people who can't otherwise afford to eat or have a place to sleep, isn't going to improve their lives. And, given our current "war on drugs" state, they're more likely to end up in prison than to get any sort of treatment.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jun 22, 2011 -> 09:26 AM) Why not? Aside from the invasion of privacy, unreasonable search & seizure and the massive costs? lol "small government" conservatism

How many government services, programs, credits or assistance should require mandatory drug testing? Student loans? Public schools? DMV or library? All sorts of tax credits? What about executives at big banks that received TARP? Mandatory drug testing for them?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jun 22, 2011 -> 09:18 AM) In the grand big picture, I would much rather see ways of having people have certain responsibilities for receiving government aid. For example, getting a pell grant? You need to put in a set amount of community service. We have plenty of projects that need to be done around this country, and we are giving this money away anyway, why not require people who are able bodied/minded, and free of time commitments to "pay back" some of that money. To your eta, yes, I wouldn't have a problem with requiring a drug test to get a mortgage, let alone the deduction. I'm guessing the rate of foreclosure is higher among drug users anyway, so that ends up being a wasted payment (and directly taxpayers money) in those cases. You'd really be willing to submit to annual drug testing for your mortgage tax deduction? lol "small government" conservatism

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jun 22, 2011 -> 08:50 AM) Not really sure where to put this, but since i'll rant about it, I guess the Rep thread is as good as any: http://www.suntimes.com/6090804-417/cha-ki...-residents.html CHA actually had some balls for a second and considered drug tests for public housing tenants and applicants. Of course they gave in. I'm still not sure why the majority doesn't win this argument. The unreasonable search and seizure argument is bulls***, as these people choose to receive public aid just like other people choose to take a job (like being a cop) that requires drug tests. I'm fine not including recreational drugs like pot, but meth, heroin, crack, etc. why not? Well, s&s is not a bulls*** argument and it's not equivalent to taking a public sector job. But it really addresses a non-issue. Drug use for people on public aid isn't statistically significantly higher than the population at large, so off the bat it stigmatizes them as "likely drug users." Second, it's really expensive to do this. It's going to cost a lot more money than it saves. Third, what's the end result? "You're addicted to heroin, sorry, out in the streets with ya" I struggle to see it as anything more than further punitive "war on drugs" crap. eta: I guess you'd be cool with mandatory drug testing for your mortgage deduction, right? Since it's basically the same thing, the government paying for part of your housing costs?

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/06/0...lar-debasement/

QUOTE (SoxFanForever @ Jun 21, 2011 -> 08:41 PM) It is absolutely nasty out there. I don't see the game continuing anytime soon. WBBM is saying the weather will be in the area for an hour or so. No problems here in Woodridge, but the sirens did make me stop grilling in the middle of dinner

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jun 21, 2011 -> 05:02 PM) He's right that people arguing a reduction in deficit and debt will magically creatr stimulus or other direct investment results is bats***. But that's not the legitimate argument for doing so either. The legitimate argument for reducing the deficit and debt is lowering economic risk, broadening the ability to make discretionary spending decisions by giving the budget more breathing room, and enhancing the value of US dollars and debt (which has many positive effects). Feel free to ignore the legitimate reasons and focus on the loons, but you are then just missing the bigger picture. I think the larger point of people who are saying "ignore the debt" is that we're still stuck in the bottom of the recession and that's its silly to worry about short-term revenue gaps over getting the economy recovered. Which, as a side effect, will generate more revenues such that the problem fixes itself, at least in large part. I know I've seen plenty of graphs lately (Krugman, Klein, Sullivan, etc.) that show the US dollar doing just fine.

Ok, so there's not financial risk, but there's still significant time investment and a prerequisite ability to understand that you've been defrauded, interpret the law correctly and prove your claim for what could be a pretty small dollar amount. Again, not sure how that doesn't result in a whole lot less people bringing legitimate claims.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jun 21, 2011 -> 04:54 PM) Just for reference, have you ever been involved in a case involving a Pro Se Plaintiff, or even witnessed a case involving a Pro Se Plaintiff? Nope! What, if any, are the financial risks for a pro se plaintiff who brings a non-frivolous claim but loses?

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jun 21, 2011 -> 04:53 PM) This rarely, if ever happens, and most laws are written to protect pro se plaintiffs and give them the benefit of the doubt, especially when construing things like complaints and charges of discrimination and the like. And attorneys fees and costs, at least in Illinois and Federal courts, aren't available except in frivolous cases, and I think only against attorneys who bring those cases, not pro se plaintiffs. Fair enough. If you lose as a pro se plaintiff, can you still be responsible for defendants' filing fees?

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jun 21, 2011 -> 04:44 PM) As I explained before you can get a fee waiver, so no cost to Pro Se Plaintiff. Yeah but you risk losing to powerful corporate attorneys on a technicality and being ordered to pay filing fees and maybe attorneys fees. You also need to be sufficiently intelligent and capable enough to realize the damages, file the appropriate claim and defend it on your own. Not sure how losing class action (mandatory arb. with no class cases) doesn't wind up as effectively keeping poor and less-intelligent people from ever getting recourse from legitimate damages. But like I've said, I'm not arguing the decision in Walmart was wrong, this is more about class suits in general.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jun 21, 2011 -> 04:42 PM) The Court is there to address those who have the time and effort to care. This still ignores the moral hazard Breyer points out. Structure the fraud such that you still get huge benefits worth millions of dollars from it, but spread it out such that individuals won't "care" enough to spend significant amounts of time over a low-dollar complaint they might not even be aware of, and you're highly unlikely to see any problems. The balance of power is still heavily tilted.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jun 21, 2011 -> 04:41 PM) Um, ok? Look, you clearly have some irrational bias towards Walmart and big companies. Hell, you've already determined for everyone that there IS a corporate policy for discriminating against women. So what's the point in arguing with you? Assuming a position or claim for the sake of an argument isn't bias, it's making an argument. eta but Walmart is a horrible company, plenty of rational reasons to hate them.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jun 21, 2011 -> 04:28 PM) We went over this before, but i'm too lazy to look it up. It didn't bar you completely from filing suit. At some point you had the choice to continue with the arbitration process or seek redress in court. QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jun 21, 2011 -> 04:28 PM) I responded to that idea, which I disagree with. And class actions are not being removed, they are being narrowed. AT&T's clause in that specific contract didn't, but there are many that do and I pulled up several. You can be forced into mandatory binding arbitration with zero ability to act in a class in a contract. Many consumer and, increasingly, employment contracts contain such provisions.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jun 21, 2011 -> 04:31 PM) In the hypothetical he has a point. But in reality it's not a good one because everyday people get screwed in various ways. They could file suit if they want, but ultimately it's not worth the cost of filing a suit. So you eat the cost. It sucks, but it's life. Class actions don't deter companies from doing whatever they did wrong, so it's not like the system is some great savior to society. As I've argued before, in the long run it's probably more expensive to have to defend 100k small claims than to pay out a 1.5 million person class action. It wasn't a hypothetical, it was the actual dollar amount the Concepcions claim they and thousands of others were defrauded over. And the point is you're not going to get 100k small claims. You'll get a handful, maybe. Much less than 1.5M worth.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jun 21, 2011 -> 04:24 PM) An individual can get punitive damages. That is the "punishment", think of the McDonalds coffee lawsuit. She won millions of dollars for all of the cups of coffee that were served to hot. That lawsuit could have been a claim where millions of people from McDonalds sued because McD's served coffee to hot. So they would have each gotten a coupon to McD's while their attorneys made millions. Isn't that a little different because she was actually physically harmed, and pretty seriously? That's different from someone who's claim would be "I burned my tongue on their coffee" even if the cause was the same. That's what the AT&T v Concepcion case was. It was a suit over their "Free" phone offer where the people had to pay taxes on the phone. Anyone who bought the same plan and phone had the same incident. Dubious claim, maybe, but that wasn't at issue in the decision. But who the hell is going to bother filing over $30? So even if AT&T was in the wrong, thousands are not going to bother with arbitration for $30. And I don't see why the court would suddenly award millions to one person for that since its substantially different from actually being injured like the McD's coffee case. Keep the fraud small and bar any class suits, and you'll get away with it. Which could be a substantial number of people if the fraud wasn't blatant. That doesn't make their damages any less legitimate but feeds right into "keep it small and you'll get away with it. I got $150 from UnitedHC as part of a class suit. I didn't know I was being systematically overcharged for out-of-network care, but I was. Without that class suit, UnitedHC doesn't have to come to a 9-figure settlement. And yeah, the lawyers took a big chunk, but the alternative is "tens of thousands never know they were defrauded and get nothing" No, it still doesn't. If anything, it reinforces the contention that if you keep it small, it simply will not be worth the time, effort and potential financial risk for most people to file, if they even realize that you've defrauded them. It tips the balance strongly in favor of the defrauders over the defraudees.

BTW I still haven't seen anyone address Breyer's contention that restricting class action will essentially eliminate many legitimate claims because they're too small for individuals to file suit over.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jun 21, 2011 -> 04:15 PM) So? I have yet to hear a good reason why arbitration is such a bad system. It's an efficient means of settling small claims. And most of the time you have the right to still sue in court as an alternative. Plenty of contracts require arbitration and bar you from filing a claim in court or from acting as a class. The AT&T agreement was actually one of the better ones, but it still completely barred class action. Not sure why companies should be able to limit your access to the courts. Arbitration itself isn't something evil, but the current system is ripe for abuse and limiting claimants' rights.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jun 21, 2011 -> 04:06 PM) First, that's not the case. If its actually literally "small claims" court, they cost is zero if they win and they don't need legal representation. But if they lose, they can be made to pay the large company's attorneys' fees, which will be pretty substantial and not worth the risk. Or, if it's a relatively small amount (the $30 in AT&T v Concepcion), it's not worth the risk just for the few hundred in filing fees. Sure, but since we're discussing potential impacts of these decisions, you should focus on the most important examples that highlight potential problems.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jun 21, 2011 -> 04:05 PM) You mean that individual plaintiffs will have to deal with the costs of bringing lawsuits, instead of getting a free ride as a member of a class? At the end of the day class action lawsuits generally benefit 1 group of individuals, lawyers. Millions of dollars are paid to the class action attorneys, very little real money ever reaches the classes hands. Its just a stupid system regardless, but if you want to sue a company, you should have to pay the cost of the lawsuit. They are free to file pro se and most likely the Defendant would settle for nuisance (you can generally get a few hundred dollars just for them not having to file appearance actually hire an attorney). As I said Class Actions are for the benefit of attorneys who make millions, while the injured class gets pennies. Honestly Im not a huge fan of class actions just because they are really nothing more than individual claims that are joined together so that a law firm can get a big pay day. I really dont believe class action suits are there for the benefit of the actual individuals, otherwise you wouldnt see the type of settlements that the class action attorneys sign off on. As long as the attorneys get paid, they could care less what happens to their "plaintiffs". Id be far more cynical if class action lawsuits could only be brought by NFP law firms with the majority of the money going to the harmed class. Pointing out problems with class-actions and how attorneys take the lions-share doesn't really address this: Basically, without class action, a company can get away with large-scale fraud, discrimination, etc. if the effects on each individual are spread out enough so as to not make it worth their time or potential attorneys' fees to pursue remedies. Obviously losing the ability to file class actions isn't going to make legitimate suits for thousands of dollars go away, but it will make thousands of suits for low dollars go away.