What is Digg?340 Comments
- jasonnazar, on 10/29/2007, -12/+60lower my taxes, free health care, no more wars: I'll buy it - easier tax returns, bullsh!t
- Jeffmr1, on 11/02/2007, -24/+61I've got a better idea, just get rid of it! The income tax does not pay for any of the services from the federal government that we 'enjoy' today. Close down some of those 705 oversea military bases and get out of some of the 130 countries we're in today, that's plenty of money to get rid of the income tax and pay down our debt!
- DropTheOxygen, on 10/30/2007, -8/+35/me stands on lunch table
Less homework! Pizza every day for lunch! 4 Day weekends! - inactive, on 11/02/2007, -30/+52Obama and tax relief my butt.
How about the kind of tax relief that gets rid of the IRS and the damned Federal Reserve?
Anything short of that then we are right back to where we are now, over taxed with a crashing dollar. - Axfire, on 11/02/2007, -2/+24The occupation of Iraq for one. That would save at least 150 billion a year.
- shortarabguy, on 10/26/2007, -6/+27Hardly any of the candidates actually spell out the inner workings of their ideas. I spent 20 minutes going through Ron Paul's website in an attempt to find some explanation of how he expects the national level of government to run without taxes, and what will happen to people who rely on federal aid, grants, and intervention. Disregarding financial nebulousness, I had some trouble finding anything material on the subject of interstate regulations...
But I digress. Good luck finding ***** on a candidate's website. - Kyderdog, on 10/29/2007, -4/+23Bushes tax reform was easy:
How much did you make....send it - bratpack8, on 11/02/2007, -8/+27First of all, whether it's Obama or Paul or anyone else, they cannot do it alone. That is unconstitutional. However, how many times have we heard the same old ***** from a politician, that he promises to make our life better, lower taxes, etc? Almost every 2 years we hear it, but there is only one candidate that has consistently voted against all tax increases, so based on track records, I will go with Paul. When elected, he will have to get Congress to vote on these issues, but he will have a huge audience listening, putting pressure on Congressman.
- kerrytacobell, on 11/02/2007, -4/+20it's a start, but i know a couple other candidates who would drop the whole damn thing and let me keep my paycheck.
- omarciddo, on 10/28/2007, -6/+21As if any candidate could get rid of it. Don't give me any Ron Paul crap either, the President does not have power over taxes, it's Congress.
- halavais, on 10/26/2007, -2/+16His name is "Obama." I know, typing is hard. You'll pick it up eventually.
I want transparency in a presidency. I don't even mind charm.
I also don't mind inexperience. It doesn't take your daddy being president to prime you for leading the government. The idea behind our form of government is that an educated citizen is qualified for the presidency: Obama has demonstrated not only that he is bright, but that he is capable. I don't agree with some of his policies, but if the worst you can say about him is that he is charismatic, charming, and has a name that sounds "funny" to people who have lived insular lives, I'm not sure what the problem is. - mindwalker, on 11/02/2007, -6/+20FTA: "He says his tax plan would give 150 million workers a $500 payroll tax credit, expand relief on mortgage interest, eliminate income taxes for seniors making less than $50,000 and simplify returns so millions could file in less than five minutes."
A $500 payroll tax credit is practically nothing, and I'm sure the simplifying of returns would be for either those making less than some ridiculously low number like $10,000 per year, or reduce the number of pages from 20 to 17. Contrast that with Ron Paul who would *eliminate* the IRS - now that would be a truly simplified tax form - and Obama's plan doesn't really do much at all. - allaboutdatiki, on 10/29/2007, -12/+26I went to look for details on Obama's tax strategy on his cluttered web site and couldn't find anything. Maybe they'll get around to posting something ... or at least bring a prominent link to his front page ... since he's one of the candidates that's touted as having an understanding of how the Internet works ...
- mattes5, on 11/02/2007, -2/+14Actually I will argue as a libertarian and not a Ron Paul supporter... But libertarian thinking takes a larger amount of intellect to understand... Especially when it comes to economic freedoms. No one likes the status quo... It hasn't worked and you arguing in favor of it is ignorant.
The FDA has caused more harm then it has good. In the FDA if you release a drug to soon and it ends up hurting people, you will face adverse consequences. You would have to appear before congress explain what happened and you will loose your job and even worse you would be sent to jail. So its in the FDA's best interested to hold drugs longer for testing then sooner. This has caused lots of unnecessary deaths for people waiting for the next innovative drug to make it through testing. Also its a ridiculous notion that the government has your best interest in mind more then you and even the company making the drug. If the company making the drug made a drug that hurt others it implications would be drastic. The cost in would be substantial. So this naturally causes corporations to make safer drugs and to further test them to avoid this. The FDA has no incentive either way.
Before the FCC people bought broadcast spectrums. For example you would be 107.7 on the radio that was yours you owned it. Now the FCC owns all the broadcast spectrum and you apply to use it. The older way was better and better protected peoples property because it was theirs and they owned it and property rights was protected with the radio station interest in mind.
To say the wonders of the free market haven't solved the American health "crisis"... would be negated to the fact that the health industry is HEAVILY regulated. Its not truly a free market. Also insurance and medicare/medicaid have caused alot of harm. People get treatment without thought of costs. So health care providers don't offer cheaper, more innovative treatments. For example cosmetic and lasik eye surgery (things medicare and insurance wont pay for) the price goes down.
We don't have enforced net neutrality now.... Other then Comcast restricted bittorrent that is easy to get around, we haven't had much problem of this.... The bottom line is companies own your access to the internet and you pay to use them... They can do was they please with them... But good news is you have a choice... you could get cable internet, DSL, satalite even... This causes ISP to provide neutral service... not bureaucratic laws.
The principles Paul brings aren't new, they aren't ignorant. If you would actually research it and understand economics then you might could comprehend them. I recommend you research Austrian and Chicago economics also look into Objectivism. Watch some youtube videos of Milton Friedman. The ideas of economic freedom are hard to understand and conceive at first but are brilliant once you truly understand them. - DirtyBrowncoat, on 10/29/2007, -3/+15Google "Reagan, Grace Commission"
Not one penny that you pay in income tax goes to any service that any American (and some non-Americans) would enjoy. It goes to pay interest on the National Debt. Roads? No. Medical Care? No. Food Stamps? No.
I'm not sure how much clearer I can get than that. - AaronS2000, on 10/30/2007, -21/+33This is awesome, I can't wait to have an easier way to send the government a big check . As a bonus, can they throw in a way to make it easier to prosecute me for tax evasion?
/sarcasm - jdb252, on 10/26/2007, -0/+11http://www.barackobama.com/issues/fightingpoverty/
There's a lot on the EITC and government funding for various programs on there. I found it in about 30 seconds. - skyshock1, on 10/28/2007, -2/+13Congrats! You've just been elected class president of the 5th grade!! YAY!!!!
- TheTaoOfBill, on 11/02/2007, -4/+15Universal healthcare is not the answer. It sounds good but the government simply can't afford it. Our dollar is already crashing. We don't need more things to spend money on. We need less. There is a time to spend money and a time to save it and when we are on the road to a great depression caused by an excessively large government the time is not to spend but to save.
We need to make health care more competitive and get the drug companies to stop charging ridiculous amounts for health care. - Shorties, on 10/28/2007, -7/+18If Obama does not get the democratic ticket (In favor of Hilary) I am going to so regret switching republican so that I could vote for RP.
- Chode2235, on 10/24/2007, -0/+11Cause they (seniors) actually vote.
- Gavagai80, on 10/25/2007, -0/+11He's shown that the veto only exists when the other party controls congress... when the president's own party is in control, all absurd spending bills get an automatic rubber stamp.
- SybotCB, on 10/25/2007, -0/+11A flat tax would raise taxes for 90% of americans, while lowering it significantly for the top 10% of americans.
Millions of poverty level families which can afford to pay no income tax at all, would be forced to turn over a percentage of their income to the government. While the richest 10% of americans get a brand new tax break. A flat tax sounds good on paper, but is very very poor idea in the real world with real problems. - UoMDeacon, on 11/02/2007, -1/+12If you have any understanding of basic economics you would know that a flat tax isn't fair. There's a difference in marginal value of a dollar for someone who makes $500,000 a year vs someone who makes $50,000. Taxing the same percentage for both of them doesn't make it equal. To make it simpler take someone who makes $1000 vs someone who makes $100. Set flat tax at 20%. So this leaves $800 and $80 respectively. Food for the year costs $50. Now this leaves $750 and $30 respectively. Extreme example, but do you see what I am trying to say?
- deft187, on 10/28/2007, -2/+12"Drug companies would be under no obligation to ensure the safety of their product before releasing it."
That funny, a wasn't aware that they were under any obligation. If you did not already know the Government subsidies drug Companies research, which in turn are then evaluated by the FDA (that your so scared of parting with). The same FDA that lets all of the harmful drugs that you see in the lawsuit ads on TV on the market. The same FDA that allows tainted food from China. The same FDA that is trying to keep consumers from hearing about herbal remedies. It just goes to show that the Government cannot efficiently regulate or manage anything, nor is it their job. Ron Paul is the only true hope we have for regaining control of this country from the grips of a huge, bureaucratic, inefficient government. - jstepno, on 10/29/2007, -12/+22Abolish the IRS and Federal Reserve RON PAUL 2008
- lewhich, on 10/25/2007, -3/+13Maybe some of those billions disappearing daily in the war fund will start being accounted for ... Or we might just suspend the Iranian war until we get our ***** at home together
- BlackJackJester, on 11/02/2007, -2/+12Who said anything about getting rid of tax? He said get rid of income tax, and bring our troops home. The 500 billion or whatever that has been spent in Iraq alone is I'm sure larger than the Income tax gain. I wouldn't even be opposed to an income tax if it all went to repaying the debt, which in itself will free up billions in interest we wouldn't have to pay.
- orxor, on 11/02/2007, -4/+14I still like the Ron Paul plan better. Just get rid of the IRS. Not a penny of that money goes to running the government, it all goes to paying the interest on the loaned money from the Fed.
- Spoomeister, on 11/02/2007, -6/+15"eliminate income taxes for seniors making less than $50,000"
***** the over-priveleged baby boomers! How about eliminating income taxes for _everyone_ making less than 50K? - zephc, on 10/29/2007, -1/+100% is very flat.
- JirkJiggler, on 10/25/2007, -0/+9Why are you equating his so-called inexperience with his trustworthiness? Could it be perhaps you really have no real support for your dislike of him? Very transparent indeed.
- Jeffmr1, on 11/02/2007, -3/+11Thanks to Toshibi for naming a few already. And why do you freedom haters (or tax lovers...take your pick) never do your own research?
Federal Taxes:
Income Tax (unconstitutional)
FICA (social security)
Medicare Tax (paid by employer)
Unemployment Tax (paid by employer)
Corporate Income Tax (constitutional)
Transfer Tax (Gift, Estate, GSTT, etc.)
Excise Taxes (fuels, alcohol, tobacco, firearms, etc.)
These taxes are only a few of many federal taxes. Today the income tax makes up about 1/3 of the U.S. revenues (doesn't count fees). The total revenues minus the income tax is approx. 1.2 trillion(?), which is still more than the total revenues for 2000. I assume that without an interventionist/global police military, we could more than easily cut costs to below year 2000 levels, leaving a surplus which could be used to pay down the national debt.
Note: Local taxes pay for schools, roads, utilities, police, fire, etc. - ncairns, on 10/29/2007, -9/+17@bratpack8
Here's the thing - Congress will *never* vote to get rid of the Fed, IRS, DoE, CIA, or ANY of the agencies Paul has said he would get rid of. Doing away with the IRS would be a very popular measure - until the public realized that doing so would necessitate the dissolution of programs like Social Security and Medicare, which are overwhelmingly supported by the American people. Doing away with agencies like the DoE and FDA, however, would be outlandishly unpopular. It won't happen no matter who the president is. - inactive, on 10/29/2007, -3/+11I love how you get penalized in this country for being successful. Robin Hood can kiss my ass.
- inactive, on 10/28/2007, -5/+13How do you propose to pay for that?
- inactive, on 10/29/2007, -11/+1940 acres and a mule!!! Vote for me!!!!
Who's going to pay for these changes or what programs are going to be cut? - rz8472, on 10/26/2007, -1/+9He's smart enough to realize that real patriotism comes through ideas, not wearing a plastic lapel pin
That probably puts him above 80% of all the other politicians already. - inactive, on 11/02/2007, -0/+8We have a lot of federal government we don't need.
The federal government was never designed to be your insurance broker and rich uncle and employer and nanny.
- GoneSouth, on 11/02/2007, -2/+10I vote we cut the unnecessary overseas war program. Plenty of savings to be had.
- bbjohnnyt, on 11/02/2007, -3/+11Obama's new easy tax filing form for the typical working American...
1. How much did you make last year?
2. Send it in. - shortarabguy, on 10/30/2007, -5/+12What's plenty of money to pay down our debt? Where does the federal government get its money if it doesn't tax imports, it doesn't tax sales, it doesn't tax income, and it stays out of all matters financial and economic?
- TheHydrogens, on 10/25/2007, -4/+11Yes... taking less money from people would DESTROY the economy.... That is obviously true because bingobongony typed it out
- inactive, on 10/29/2007, -1/+8The fair tax is a direct tax and thus unconstitutional.
- Nougat, on 11/02/2007, -4/+11He's got twice the experience in elected office than the current president.
- datdamonfoo, on 10/28/2007, -0/+7Was that English?
- rune420, on 11/02/2007, -1/+8The Federal Reserve is not a federal agency, it's a private institution.
- inactive, on 11/02/2007, -5/+12nc - You obviously know nothing of the US Constitution. The IRS and Federal Reserve are both unConstitutional to begin with.
- donte, on 11/02/2007, -3/+10Seeing as how that wouldn't even cover our annual deficit, keep going. Even without Iraq, you'd still need to cut government and social programs to do this -- something no democratic candidate is going to do.
- bratpack8, on 11/02/2007, -8/+15Paul wants to get rid of the IRS for the income tax. He also wants to allow people the choice to opt out of SS and Medicare, but he would be a proponent of fulfilling the responsibility to those who already paid into the ponzi scheme. You can believe all you want on what will get passed through Congress, but that is a subjective view. What Paul endorses isn't subjective, it is laid out on the table for everyone to see.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 328 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is