CNN Poll" 66% Support Cut, Cap, and Balance. 74% Support Balanced Budget Amendment

Only Republicans who want to crush Democrats can be trusted.

 

Can you provide any evidence of this?

 

In fact, most of the complexity of the IRC was written by industry lobbyists. They put it in there. And of course it has nothing to do with the vast majority of Americans who get w-2s.

Now, I actually don't begrudge them that -- the complexity often reflects the economic reality an industry faces. A tax code by nature has to be complex to the extent it reflects complex economic transactions. The partnership rules under IRC 703 and 756 are some of the densest legal, accounting rules I've ever have had to face as an attorney, but in fact they make perfect sense, and anybody knows who used to litigate partnership disputes before their enactment. Without 756, it was pretty easy for promoters to take investors to the cleaners and leave the IRS in the cold.

In any case, the meme of the overly complex tax code is a bogus argument. If there are reasons to change provision in the IRC, let's change them. But complexity is part of economic life and will always be reflected in a tax code if the rules make economic sense.

 

Your asking him to provide something more extensive than a one lined baseless blather with an ad hom.

Good luck.

 

"It" is what and what did "It" do to lower lending standards?

Be specific or get out. Your Tea Party memes are no good here.

 

http://newmediajournal.us/indx.php/item/2200

 

BUZZZZZ.

Another lie.

Holder is enforcing redlining rules that prevent banks from NOT making loans to qualified borrower. Redlining rules never require a bank to make a loan to an unqualified borrower.

Keep lying.

By the was "New Media Journal" as a source? BWHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH.

Cite the law that requires banks to make loans to unqualifed borrowers. Be specific. No Tea Parties allowed.

 

Justice spokeswoman Xochitl Hinojosa said the anti-discrimination notice "does not compel the banks to make loans to people who do not qualify."

Thanks.

 

Who cares what liars who work for the liar Eric Holder say?

 

Translated: you can't cite any law that requires banks to make unqualified loans. You're just lying while citing a lying source.

EXPOSED!

 

Looks to me like the republicans in congress have the lowest approval ratings.

In 2012 all 435 seats are up for re-election in the house. Considering congress just got the lowest approval ratings ever recorded in a recent poll, it does not look good for ANY incumbants.

 

How many pages in the IRC? How much is it estimated that business and individuals spend per year to be compliant?

Pages over 16 thousand pages

Cost $250 Billion (est and it is expected to grow to 480 Billion by year 2015)

We know Attorney's and CPA's and those that work for these firms love it but the average citizen it is not simple, grant you most get their taxes taken out of their check which is only a testament to the fact the Government is smart and don't want the People to know exactly what is going on. I beleive that taxes should be charge directly to the People and not via business, it would in of itself help the situation if they had to write out a check or visit a Federal Judge about the issue but taxes would be simplified and lowered overnight!

 

Yes.

Andrew Cuomo, Janet Reno, and now Eric Holder threatened banks.

 

Your figures are meaningless for the reasons I gave.

95% of Americans don't have to deal with but a few pages of the Code, if at all. Basically they get a w-2, fill out two pages on a 1040EZ and send it in. Take 30 minutes.

As to businesses, yep you have to fill out schedule C and that involves taking deductions. But deductions are GOOD things not bad things. Businesspeople don't want less deductions, but more.

As to cost, yep, if you're a large corporation whose lobbyist wrote complex rules to reflect complex economic reality, you will need to hire a CPA. So? Complex businesses have high accounting costs. They asked for that by making the code detailed enough to fit their industry.

So, again, what problem are you trying to solve by this weird fixation on parts of the code that apply only to particular industries and reflect economic reality.

 

Translated: you can't cite what law "forced" banks to make loans to unqualified poor people.

You're totally exposed as a Tea Party knownothing. T-O-T-A-L-L-Y

 

I've posted this lots of times.

http://www.bos.frb.org/commdev/commaff/closingt.pdf

 

In short, it is illegal to refuse to make loans to QUALIFIED individuals who happen to live in a poor zip code.

So? Tell us how that forces banks to make loans to unqualifed people? Go into detail.

 

Government threatened banks who did not chuck underwriting requirements.

And the housing market crashed.

 

And where does it say that banks have to loan to an unqualified borrower?

What percentage of bad subprime loans do you claim were forced loans to unqualified borrowers?

Source please.

 

Nope, regulators informed banks to follow the law and not to commit redlining.

You keep losing. It's hilarious.

Now cite a law passed by Democrats that forces banks to make loans to unqualified poor people. Give details. Cite the Federal Code. If not, get out. It's painful to watch you squirm.

 

Banks did what they were told by government.

Make loans to poor people who couldn't prove they could pay them back.

And the housing market crashed.

 

The poll is clear.

The people of the United States are right in line with the TEA Party.

The people of the United States are dead against the Democratic / Barack Obama position.

 

Keep flailing. You still haven't shown anybody where "government told banks" to make loans to unqualified borrowers.

Honestly this is getting painful. You're squirming so bad. It's like watching Palin attempt calculus.

 

Yeah, baby, try to psych yourself on this one. Say it loud and nobody will notice that most Americans think the GOP is bat(*)(*)(*)(*) crazy and want tax increases on the rich who made out like bandits under Bush.

 

I thought that was what would kill Republicans in 2010.

Whah happened?