Politics

[Irish Houstonian]

Couldn't you just tax the contributions as income for the party or person running?


Just spitballin' here.

No -- for the person, it wouldn't be "received" if structured correctly. (Unless you'd want to say that all third party candidate advocacy was "income" to the benefactor, in which case you'd have a nightmare bureacracy where the cure is worse than the disease).

And the parties are either tax-exempt or could just use tax-exempt vehicles in the alternative, and you're back where you started.

 

[GoIrish41]

I'm pretty sure you can't post in this thread without personally attacking someone, but since you didn't call me an idiot this time, I will respond. First off, I didn't call anyone greedy and selfish. You, as usual, are putting words in my mouth. I simply said the rich can afford to pay more. I said that because they are rich. I'm not sure I would call poor people greedy and selfish because they don't have the means to pay federal taxes. I understand your point of view, but calling people names because they are in poverty does not strike me as the American way.

I'm not suggesting at all that social programs could not stand to be reformed -- they can. But it is fairly obvious that the GOP is not talking about reforms. They are talking about slashing the budgets of programs like Medicare that many people count on to get medical care. They are trying to dismantle the New Deal and the Great Society in one fell swoop, and they are doing it to try to preserve historically low tax rates and loopholes for the wealthy. Obamacare gave millions access to healthcare that did not have it before. That, my friend, is the American way. It is what makes me proud of my country.

Finally, the people who most vocally support the direction the GOP (particularly the Tea Party) wish to take America are the same people who will be crushed under the heel of these programs if the GOP gets its way. I've never understood how people would fight so hard against their own personal self-interest.[/QUOTE]

I am not going to try to answer for all of these people you reference, but I think a portion of them believe strongly in self-reliance. Does this introduce them to things that might go against their self interest? You bet, but they would rather take satisification in knowing what they get is what they earned, not what was given to them.

If the GOP gets its way, the deck would be stacked against them and everyone else who isn't in the "elite" class. It seems inevitable that if this happens, few will have an opportunity to earn much of anything (read the disappearance of the middle class) and there will be no safety net (read the destruction of social programs) for them to fall back on. I don't think republicans have a monopoly on the idea of self-reliance. Plenty of democrats feel that way too. It is just that they don't want to inbalance the playing field so much that winners and losers will be predertermined.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

I'm pretty sure you can't post in this thread without personally attacking someone, but since you didn't call me an idiot this time, I will respond. First off, I didn't call anyone greedy and selfish. You, as usual, are putting words in my mouth. I simply said the rich can afford to pay more. I said that because they are rich. I'm not sure I would call poor people greedy and selfish because they don't have the means to pay federal taxes. I understand your point of view, but calling people names because they are in poverty does not strike me as the American way.

I'm not suggesting at all that social programs could not stand to be reformed -- they can. But it is fairly obvious that the GOP is not talking about reforms. They are talking about slashing the budgets of programs like Medicare that many people count on to get medical care. They are trying to dismantle the New Deal and the Great Society in one fell swoop, and they are doing it to try to preserve historically low tax rates and loopholes for the wealthy. Obamacare gave millions access to healthcare that did not have it before. That, my friend, is the American way. It is what makes me proud of my country.

Finally, the people who most vocally support the direction the GOP (particularly the Tea Party) wish to take America are the same people who will be crushed under the heel of these programs if the GOP gets its way. I've never understood how people would fight so hard against their own personal self-interest.

I didn't call poor people anything. Poor people also got to be poor under different circumstances. Some never had a chance, some had a chance and blew it, others put themselves in poverty. Those who are in poverty, have no desire to get out of poverty, and plan to live as they are now forever based on others' labor? Yes, I'll call that greedy and selfish. I'm amazed that you would like people in the eye who already pay 80-90% of the country's bills and say, "Yeah, it's just not enough. We need more from you. That's fair."

Some conservatives have been talking about reforms for a few years, but those ideas are thrown aside and really useless because the dems have the Senate and the White House. It's clear Republicans are trying to reform these to reform (not destroy) these programs because we all know they'll all be broke by 2030. It is unsustainable, not by my prediction, but by anyone who can do 6th grade math. This cannot be argued. Every CBO report tells us this. So to counter your point, the dems by 2016 will have had senate control and the white house and "status quo" is good with all these programs. Sweet.

Easy with that "access" word. Everyone in this country has access to health care. No one gets turned away, no one is thrown out in the streets to die. Everyone does have to pay for their health care, one way or another. Taking from one person and giving to another without their consent is NOT the American way, my friend. But guys like Lenin, Stalin, Castro, Chavez, etc. would surely agree with you wholeheartedly.

This country will not implode because of the rich. The rich are paying for everything and have been for years, but as Margaret Thatcher says, "Eventually you run out of other people's money."

 

[chicago51]

And kill all incentive. Why become a billionaire if Uncle Sam confiscates 50% of what you earn?

Exactly so may they will raise wages of their employees since their is no point to being a multibillionair.

 

[Ndaccountant]

If the GOP gets its way, the deck would be stacked against them and everyone else who isn't in the "elite" class. It seems inevitable that if this happens, few will have an opportunity to earn much of anything (read the disappearance of the middle class) and there will be no safety net (read the destruction of social programs) for them to fall back on. I don't think republicans have a monopoly on the idea of self-reliance. Plenty of democrats feel that way too. It is just that they don't want to inbalance the playing field so much that winners and losers will be predertermined.[/QUOTE]

Fair point. But, what ends up happening all too often is that by trying to level the playing field, winners and losers are predetermined. IMO, that is what has happened the more government gets involved. I personally believe that neither D's or R's are evil people and are trying to do evil things (not saying you feel that way either). However, the rules each party have put into place (oftern trying to counter-balance eachother) end up creating a system that is unbalanced and inefficient.

 

[Ndaccountant]

Exactly so may they will raise wages of their employees since their is no point to being a multibillionair.

Or, they simply stop trying to grow.

 

[GoIrish41]

I didn't call poor people anything. Poor people also got to be poor under different circumstances. Some never had a chance, some had a chance and blew it, others put themselves in poverty. Those who are in poverty, have no desire to get out of poverty, and plan to live as they are now forever based on others' labor? Yes, I'll call that greedy and selfish. I'm amazed that you would like people in the eye who already pay 80-90% of the country's bills and say, "Yeah, it's just not enough. We need more from you. That's fair."

Some conservatives have been talking about reforms for a few years, but those ideas are thrown aside and really useless because the dems have the Senate and the White House. It's clear Republicans are trying to reform these to reform (not destroy) these programs because we all know they'll all be broke by 2030. It is unsustainable, not by my prediction, but by anyone who can do 6th grade math. This cannot be argued. Every CBO report tells us this. So to counter your point, the dems by 2016 will have had senate control and the white house and "status quo" is good with all these programs. Sweet.

Easy with that "access" word. Everyone in this country has access to health care. No one gets turned away, no one is thrown out in the streets to die. Everyone does have to pay for their health care, one way or another. Taking from one person and giving to another without their consent is NOT the American way, my friend. But guys like Lenin, Stalin, Castro, Chavez, etc. would surely agree with you wholeheartedly.

This country will not implode because of the rich. The rich are paying for everything and have been for years, but as Margaret Thatcher says, "Eventually you run out of other people's money."

How do you think the rich got rich? On the backs of the middle class -- the disappearing middle class. These folks of diminishing economic status watch the rich get richer, control an everygrowing slice of the pie. They pay 80% of the taxes because they have 80% of all the wealth in this country. It is absolutely fair. It's not as if the rest of the country has its hand out waiting for the rich to give them something. They earned the country they've got, and they deserve to be treated with more dignity and respect, escpecially by those who profited most from their labor. They should pay more because there are people who are barely making it while they live a life of privledge. The direction you are suggesting creates a permenant elite class and everyone else gets the scraps.

Also, I highly doubt there are many who aspire to be nothing but poor for the rest of their lives.

 

[Irish Houstonian]

Or, they simply stop trying to grow.

^Exactly. If you don't care whether your income grows, then you don't care whether your LLC or L.P. grows.

 

[chicago51]

This was a study the GOP tried to keep from going out and they were able to keep it quiet until the election was over.

Congressional Research Service Report On Tax Cuts For Wealthy Suppressed By GOP (UPDATE)

Actual study:
Nonpartisan Study: No Proof That Tax Cuts For Wealthy Lead To Economic Growth | Democratic Policy & Communications Center

It basically shows that is zero evidence of Reaganomics working. There is absolutely no trend positive or negative for that matter that tax breaks for the wealthiest create jobs. None. This a non partison study and basically totally destroys the whole Republican economic theory.

 

[chicago51]

Or, they simply stop trying to grow.

So you are saying if there is a large demand for services from billionaire X's bussiness that billionaire X is simply going to stop providing that service after a certain point and lose all that money he could be making on profit for that service?

Demand for something is what creates growth and jobs. You need a strong middle class to create demand.

 

[Irish Houstonian]

No data is bad, but saying something "didn't work" because GDP didn't grow more after it happened would indict a lot of things. Including a lot of Left-wing policies too.

The rebuttal is always "the economy would have shrunk more, had it not happened", and given the myriad of things affecting U.S. GDP all at once, it's almost impossible to prove or disprove.

 

[GoIrish41]

If the GOP gets its way, the deck would be stacked against them and everyone else who isn't in the "elite" class. It seems inevitable that if this happens, few will have an opportunity to earn much of anything (read the disappearance of the middle class) and there will be no safety net (read the destruction of social programs) for them to fall back on. I don't think republicans have a monopoly on the idea of self-reliance. Plenty of democrats feel that way too. It is just that they don't want to inbalance the playing field so much that winners and losers will be predertermined.[/QUOTE]

Fair point. But, what ends up happening all too often is that by trying to level the playing field, winners and losers are predetermined. IMO, that is what has happened the more government gets involved. I personally believe that neither D's or R's are evil people and are trying to do evil things (not saying you feel that way either). However, the rules each party have put into place (oftern trying to counter-balance eachother) end up creating a system that is unbalanced and inefficient.

it is also what happens when there is an absence of government involvement. In 2008, the lack of government regulation in the financial sector was a key contributor to the worst recession since the late 1920s. i don't disagree with your points though, and I don't believe that Ds or Rs are evil. but I do believe that greed cannot be the driver of everything this country does. It is unbecoming of us as a nation and as a people. The safety net, for example, is critical to this country's prosperity. We shouldn't think for a moment that programs like Medicare and Social Security did not help build this country's economic strength. These are not some nice-to-haves that can be tossed asside every time money gets tight.

The political parties must find a way to work together for the good of the country instead of trying to put up points on the scoreboard for their party.

 

[Buster Bluth]

So your saying if there is a large demand for services from billionaire X's bussiness that billionaire X is simply going to stop providing that service after a certain point and lose all that money he could be making on profit for that service?

Don't assume all business owners are billionairea. The vaaaaaast majority are struggling upper middle class folk trying to get by and also employing people.

Demand for something is what creates growth and jobs. You need a strong middle class to create demand.

True, but bringing prices down also creates more demand. The smartphone I'm using (Droid RAZR) costs $1 now, anyone can buy it. That created demand.

Once again, see the whole picture.

 

[RallySonsOfND]

How do you think the rich got rich? On the backs of the middle class -- the disappearing middle class. These folks of diminishing economic status watch the rich get richer, control an everygrowing slice of the pie. They pay 80% of the taxes because they have 80% of all the wealth in this country. It is absolutely fair. It's not as if the rest of the country has its hand out waiting for the rich to give them something. They earned the country they've got, and they deserve to be treated with more dignity and respect, escpecially by those who profited most from their labor. They should pay more because there are people who are barely making it while they live a life of privledge. The direction you are suggesting creates a permenant elite class and everyone else gets the scraps.

Also, I highly doubt there are many who aspire to be nothing but poor for the rest of their lives.

Cut the freaking rhetoric already.

So employing people, giving them jobs is 'on the back' of the middle class? If my grandpa didn't start his business then the 30 or so people he employed wouldn't have had that job. If my father didn't start his business then 60 or so people wouldn't have the current job they have.

My grandparents deserve the life they have. My grandparents on both sides came from absolutely nothing, worked their a$$es off to get where they are. Nobody gave them anything. Because of this, they set their children up for success, who have set their children up for success. See how that works?

 

[RallySonsOfND]

it is also what happens when there is an absence of government involvement. In 2008, the lack of government regulation in the financial sector was a key contributor to the worst recession since the late 1920s. i don't disagree with your points though, and I don't believe that Ds or Rs are evil. but I do believe that greed cannot be the driver of everything this country does. It is unbecoming of us as a nation and as a people. The safety net, for example, is critical to this country's prosperity. We shouldn't think for a moment that programs like Medicare and Social Security did not help build this country's economic strength. These are not some nice-to-haves that can be tossed asside every time money gets tight.

The political parties must find a way to work together for the good of the country instead of trying to put up points on the scoreboard for their party.

HAHAHAHA

OMG. No. Just No.






Self Interest drives everything. Read "I, Pencil" by Leonard Read.

 

[DSully1995]

it is also what happens when there is an absence of government involvement. In 2008, the lack of government regulation in the financial sector was a key contributor to the worst recession since the late 1920s. i don't disagree with your points though, and I don't believe that Ds or Rs are evil. but I do believe that greed cannot be the driver of everything this country does. It is unbecoming of us as a nation and as a people. The safety net, for example, is critical to this country's prosperity. We shouldn't think for a moment that programs like Medicare and Social Security did not help build this country's economic strength. These are not some nice-to-haves that can be tossed asside every time money gets tight.

The political parties must find a way to work together for the good of the country instead of trying to put up points on the scoreboard for their party.

Well, kinda, but I doubt an government could have ever regulated credit default swaps when the CEOs barely understood it..

 

[Ndaccountant]

So your saying if there is a large demand for services from billionaire X's bussiness that billionaire X is simply going to stop providing that service after a certain point and lose all that money he could be making on profit for that service?

Demand for something is what creates growth and jobs. You need a strong middle class to create demand.

Not saying they would cut the business off, but the amount of time and effort spent on growing the business would be minimized.

For example, lets look at Phil Mickelson. For the most part, Phil plays in select tournaments throughout the year. He doesn't play every week. Why not? Well, he could be prepping for an upcoming major, relaxing with his family, changing his swing etc. Another possibility is that even by playing, he doesn't stand to gain much money (not going to say his tax rate calc he used before was right, but the message was still legit). So, he can either move (in this case to avoid state taxes, like Tiger Woods did) or he can simply stop playing as much. After all, at that level, who needs to spend all that time and energy traveling just to make a few extra hundred thousand?

Well, when Phil stops playing, other lesser known players on tour might be able to finish a few spots higher in each tourny and they are now seeing the benefit that used to go to Phil. But the question is, does this benefit last? If Phil doesn't play as much, do sponsers spend as much on TV, tourney sponsorships, do fans spend the same on tickets? Overall, is the tour better or worse if he only plays in Majors and a few close to his home?

This is just an illustration, but we see the same thing with Tiger. When Tiger plays, ratings and attendance are up. When he doesn't, they are down.

 

[GoIrish41]

Cut the freaking rhetoric already.

So employing people, giving them jobs is 'on the back' of the middle class? If my grandpa didn't start his business then the 30 or so people he employed wouldn't have had that job. If my father didn't start his business then 60 or so people wouldn't have the current job they have.

My grandparents deserve the life they have. My grandparents on both sides came from absolutely nothing, worked their a$$es off to get where they are. Nobody gave them anything. Because of this, they set their children up for success, who have set their children up for success. See how that works?

if your grandpa started a business and didn't have the employees to hire, would he have been as successful? It is a mutually beneficial arrangement, for sure. I have a lot of respect for your grandpa and people like him who have taken a chance and created opportunities for others along the way, but lets not forget that the wealth that he created for himself would not have been possible without those middle class employees working to do whatever it is your grandpa's business did. That isn't rhetoric, that is reality.

I'm not going to argue with you about whether your grandparents deserve the life they have. If it is as you described, I'd be inclined to agree even if I do think they should pay more taxes if they are wealthy. If you were arguing that you, as the recipient of their good fortune, somehow deserved a better life than, say, a guy who grew up in the inner city of Baltimore, then we would be in disagreement.

 

[GoIrish41]

HAHAHAHA

OMG. No. Just No.






Self Interest drives everything. Read "I, Pencil" by Leonard Read.

Bernanke: Lack Of Regulation Helped Spark Financial Crisis

Oh, I forgot. You are pursuing an undergrad degree in economics, so you probably know more about it than the Federal Reserve Chairman.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

How do you think the rich got rich? On the backs of the middle class -- the disappearing middle class. These folks of diminishing economic status watch the rich get richer, control an everygrowing slice of the pie. They pay 80% of the taxes because they have 80% of all the wealth in this country. It is absolutely fair. It's not as if the rest of the country has its hand out waiting for the rich to give them something. They earned the country they've got, and they deserve to be treated with more dignity and respect, escpecially by those who profited most from their labor. They should pay more because there are people who are barely making it while they live a life of privledge. The direction you are suggesting creates a permenant elite class and everyone else gets the scraps.

Also, I highly doubt there are many who aspire to be nothing but poor for the rest of their lives.

It might fit your class warefare rhetoric to paint business owners and "the rich" as 1800's slave owners, but it doesn't work in reality. No one was forced to work for any of those companies, and at the same time no one is stopping anyone in the lower or middle classes from starting a business or exploring other avenues to reach a higher income bracket.

Life of privilege? This isn't 1600's England. Classes are not pre-determined in America. That's why we attract so many immigrants. You are not born into a class and stay there your whole life. You can either come from nothing and achieve much (Oprah), or you can have everything and blow it all (some pro athletes).

I am not suggesting any permanent classes, so stop implying such. I am implying that we focus more on self-reliance, reform entitlement programs, and have everyone chip in a little bit before we start demonizing and demanding those who pay 80-90% of our taxes pay their "fair share."

The left has no plans for any of this as their goal is the nanny state and social justice. Everything that came from the New Deal and Great Society will be the beginning of our undoing unless we make reforms. Again, the "rich" will not destroy this country. We will implode because of the ever growing nanny state. All the European countries experiencing this had/ have really high tax rates on their "rich", too. Still doesn't work. Never has, never will.

 

[GoIrish41]

It might fit your class warefare rhetoric to paint business owners and "the rich" as 1800's slave owners, but it doesn't work in reality. No one was forced to work for any of those companies, and at the same time no one is stopping anyone in the lower or middle classes from starting a business or exploring other avenues to reach a higher income bracket.

Life of privilege? This isn't 1600's England. Classes are not pre-determined in America. That's why we attract so many immigrants. You are not born into a class and stay there your whole life. You can either come from nothing and achieve much (Oprah), or you can have everything and blow it all (some pro athletes).

I am not suggesting any permanent classes, so stop implying such. I am implying that we focus more on self-reliance, reform entitlement programs, and have everyone chip in a little bit before we start demonizing and demanding those who pay 80-90% of our taxes pay their "fair share."

The left has no plans for any of this as their goal is the nanny state and social justice. Everything that came from the New Deal and Great Society will be the beginning of our undoing unless we make reforms. Again, the "rich" will not destroy this country. We will implode because of the ever growing nanny state. All the European countries experiencing this had/ have really high tax rates on their "rich", too. Still doesn't work. Never has, never will.

take a look back through this thread. I've said early and often that I'd be willing to pay more in taxes, and if 1% controls 35% of the wealth, shouldn't they pay more? You keep bringing it up as if it is some virtuous undertaking. Indeed, it is far more likely that they seek every trick that they can to avoid paying taxes, and almost none of those tricks are available to the little guy. Again, I agree that there should be reforms in social programs, and I have continually said as much.

If you don't think the people who live in these homes America's Most Expensive Homes 2012 - Yahoo! Finance live a life of priveledge, I don't know what to say.

 

[GowerND11]

I will be the first to admit that I am not very well versed on all of this so please go easy on me everyone haha. It is my understanding that we are all equal under the law in this country no? We all have the same rights, follow the same laws, etc. Therefore, shouldn't we all pay the same rate for taxes? As someone mentioned earlier can't we tax everyone 10% whether it is for $10 dollars or $10 billion dollars? (Example, doesn't have to be 10%) I feel that is "equal" and just.

On another note I would prefer to get rid of income tax and have a national sales tax/higher tariffs for imports.

 

[RallySonsOfND]

Bernanke: Lack Of Regulation Helped Spark Financial Crisis

Oh, I forgot. You are pursuing an undergrad degree in economics, so you probably know more about it than the Federal Reserve Chairman.

Yup it had nothing to do with banks making $hitty loans because they were BACKED BY THE GOVERNMENT.

 

[RallySonsOfND]

I will be the first to admit that I am not very well versed on all of this so please go easy on me everyone haha. It is my understanding that we are all equal under the law in this country no? We all have the same rights, follow the same laws, etc. Therefore, shouldn't we all pay the same rate for taxes? As someone mentioned earlier can't we tax everyone 10% whether it is for $10 dollars or $10 billion dollars? (Example, doesn't have to be 10%) I feel that is "equal" and just.

On another note I would prefer to get rid of income tax and have a national sales tax/higher tariffs for imports.

Oh hey logic, thought we lost ya.

 

[GoIrish41]

I will be the first to admit that I am not very well versed on all of this so please go easy on me everyone haha. It is my understanding that we are all equal under the law in this country no? We all have the same rights, follow the same laws, etc. Therefore, shouldn't we all pay the same rate for taxes? As someone mentioned earlier can't we tax everyone 10% whether it is for $10 dollars or $10 billion dollars? (Example, doesn't have to be 10%) I feel that is "equal" and just.

On another note I would prefer to get rid of income tax and have a national sales tax/higher tariffs for imports.

lets use your 10% example.

A father of two who works as a factory brings home, lets say $1000 every two weeks, and he pays $100 to the federal government leaving him $900 to pay his rent, bills, car payment and put food on the table. He certainly can't afford to put braces on his daughter's teeth or even go out to dinner with his family. He is the representation of the working poor.

His employer, who is also a father of two is the CEO of the conclomerate that owns the roofing company that the employee works for. The CEO makes, lets say, $200,000 every two weeks (just pulling this number out of my a**) and pays $20,000 in taxes, leaving him with $180,000 to pay his expenses.

Do you think that is equal? The employee labors away to line the pockets of the CEO and doesn't have two dimes to rub together, while the CEO makes more than he can ever spend. I'd say it is not equal at all.

 

[RallySonsOfND]

if your grandpa started a business and didn't have the employees to hire, would he have been as successful? It is a mutually beneficial arrangement, for sure. I have a lot of respect for your grandpa and people like him who have taken a chance and created opportunities for others along the way, but lets not forget that the wealth that he created for himself would not have been possible without those middle class employees working to do whatever it is your grandpa's business did. That isn't rhetoric, that is reality.

I'm not going to argue with you about whether your grandparents deserve the life they have. If it is as you described, I'd be inclined to agree even if I do think they should pay more taxes if they are wealthy. If you were arguing that you, as the recipient of their good fortune, somehow deserved a better life than, say, a guy who grew up in the inner city of Baltimore, then we would be in disagreement.

Didn't have the employees to hire? That is your argument? Come on bro.


So now that he is no longer working. He should still be paying tax on the money he already earned, and was subject to income tax at the time? This is what kills me. Double taxation. And yeah he is wealthy, and lives WAY below his means because they want to leave money to their children and grandchildren.

 

[Ndaccountant]

lets use your 10% example.

A father of two who works as a factory brings home, lets say $1000 every two weeks, and he pays $100 to the federal government leaving him $900 to pay his rent, bills, car payment and put food on the table. He certainly can't afford to put braces on his daughter's teeth or even go out to dinner with his family. He is the representation of the working poor.

His employer, who is also a father of two is the CEO of the conclomerate that owns the roofing company that the employee works for. The CEO makes, lets say, $200,000 every two weeks (just pulling this number out of my a**) and pays $20,000 in taxes, leaving him with $180,000 to pay his expenses.

Do you think that is equal? The employee labors away to line the pockets of the CEO and doesn't have two dimes to rub together, while the CEO makes more than he can ever spend. I'd say it is not equal at all.

Using this as a scenario, what would be fair?

 

[GoIrish41]

Yup it had nothing to do with banks making $hitty loans because they were BACKED BY THE GOVERNMENT.

I did not say that lack of regulation was the singular cause of the resession. I said it was a significant contributor. Your reaction did not suggest that you understood what I said so I thought I'd send you a link to clear it up.

 

[GoIrish41]

Didn't have the employees to hire? That is your argument? Come on bro.


So now that he is no longer working. He should still be paying tax on the money he already earned, and was subject to income tax at the time? This is what kills me. Double taxation. And yeah he is wealthy, and lives WAY below his means because they want to leave money to their children and grandchildren.

My example wasn't elegant, I'll give you that. but you get the point. Those workers contributed to your grandpa's wealth. If you are going to argue about that, there is no hope for you.

Well, now you are introducing new information that was not available to me before. i didn't know your grandfather was retired and I was talking about income (I thought we all were). So, if he is not receiving income than obviously the pertenent taxes would apply.

 

[RallySonsOfND]

I did not say that lack of regulation was the singular cause of the resession. I said it was a significant contributor. Your reaction did not suggest that you understood what I said so I thought I'd send you a link to clear it up.

We had a recession because the housing bubble popped.

The housing bubble was created by government backed loans.

Those loans were made to people who should never had gotten them.

Banks made the high-risk, high-reward loans because the risk was taken out of the equation by the government backing them.