What is Digg?Related by Keyword 
How are these related stories? Tell us!
- cplusplus, on 11/17/2008, -8/+19I like how they mention a bunch of "progressive" stuff then slip in "eliminate capital gains taxes" (ie a giant gift for the rich)
- PoizonFrog, on 11/18/2008, -1/+4Shhhh...that was supposed to be subliminal.
- MrGreenGenes, on 11/18/2008, -4/+3So letting people keep what they earned is a gift?
- PoizonFrog, on 11/18/2008, -3/+3Ummm...let's see..
You greedy assholes who crashed the economy just got a $700 BILLION bailout package, stolen from the tax payers(with more sure to come), coupled with years of Bush tax cuts & corporate welfare.
Now you want to preach how I have a moral responsibility to give you more of my money...yes, my money. Who do you think makes up the difference when you don't pay your fair share?
Why should I give you more? Did you help the children living on the street with my money? No...they are still there. You people preach your moral platitudes in God's name, but worship money, not God. You've killed and tortured the innocent. You are vile...
No, you may not have any more of my money! - MrGreenGenes, on 11/18/2008, -0/+3Wait, what? Are you talking to me?
- MrGreenGenes, on 11/18/2008, -0/+3Well after reading that mess again I'm going to assume you are.
"Ummm...let's see..
You greedy assholes who crashed the economy just got a $700 BILLION bailout package, stolen from the tax payers(with more sure to come), coupled with years of Bush tax cuts & corporate welfare."
What makes you think I support the bailout? Bush's tax cuts were only wrong in that he didn't back it up with decreased spending. Corporate welfare is wrong.
"Now you want to preach how I have a moral responsibility to give you more of my money...yes, my money."
What? When did I say that? You have every right to your money just as everyone else. I'm saying keep the government out of our money.
"Who do you think makes up the difference when you don't pay your fair share?"
The "fair share" is not fair. The government should be decreasing spending.
"Why should I give you more?"
I'm not asking for more, I'm saying everyone should be paying less.
"Did you help the children living on the street with my money? No...they are still there."
What?
"You people preach your moral platitudes in God's name, but worship money, not God. You've killed and tortured the innocent. You are vile..."
What?! I'm an atheist so I have no idea where the hell you're getting that ***** from.
"No, you may not have any more of my money!"
And you may not have any more of mine. - PoizonFrog, on 11/18/2008, -3/+2You are a man of few words and fewer brain cells.
Mr. GreenGenes? Is that some Psuedo Capt. Kangaroo Hillbilly Pedophile derivative? - MrGreenGenes, on 11/18/2008, -0/+6So no actual rebuttals then, just "You're stupid"?
"Mr. GreenGenes? Is that some Psuedo Capt. Kangaroo Hillbilly Pedophile derivative?"
It's a Frank Zappa song. - bene0019, on 11/18/2008, -2/+1Why not tax it at the appropriate income tax rate? Why does someone who has a bunch of money get to have a lower overall tax rate than the average family?
Why the distinction between wage income and investment income? This distinction helps the rich far more than anyone else because they are the ones with large investments. - MrGreenGenes, on 11/18/2008, -0/+3Well normally investments stimulate the economy and create jobs. Why tax money that's going towards economic development? The solution is to cut spending not taxation.
My main point here was, how can giving a a tax break be considered a gift? It was their money to begin with. It's not their fault the government spends like a little kid on the day after Christmas. - korvan504521, on 11/18/2008, -0/+5Capital gains are already taxed when the company makes its profit. Then they get taxed AGAIN when the money is parceled out to the people who own a piece of the company.
- MrGreenGenes, on 11/18/2008, -0/+1Yes, double taxation. That's the point I realized I left out.
- bene0019, on 11/18/2008, -0/+1Not necessarily Korvan.
Capital gains isn't synonymous with gross profit for a corporation. Capital gains deals with the sale of an asset. It is sales price minus purchase price and maintenance costs. It has no direct relationship with corporations.
MrGreenGenes: Have you heard of propensity to spend? It's a simple concept really, the more money you have, the less you spend as a percentage of the whole.
eg. If you make 40K per year you may spend a large percentage of that (maybe 80-130% based on people I know). If you make 20M per year you're likely to spend more money but a smaller percentage of your income (maybe 20-30%).
Giving more money to the rich doesn't stimulate anything if they're only spending a small percentage of their money.
Also, your argument about "it was their money to begin with" is just wrong. Since the government allows the markets to exist according to its rules, all players must abide by those rules. Therefore, the only money that can be considered "theirs" is the money after the appropriate taxes have been paid (call it an player's fee if you'd like instead of taxes, it amounts to the same thing. You have to pay to play the game). - EJFudd34, on 11/18/2008, -0/+0Poison Frog. You do realize that when your parents or grandparents dip into their IRA's, pensions, etc they are getting to get hit with that capital gains tax. Seriously, can people be this uneducated. Let me guess, public school.
- bene0019, on 11/18/2008, -0/+1EJ: Are you talking about early withdrawl or standard? In each case they are affected by Income taxes not capital gains taxes. Slight difference between the two that an educated person such as yourself should be able to grasp.
Early withdrawl also includes additional penalties. None of which are related to the capital gains taxes we're talking about. - MrGreenGenes, on 11/18/2008, -0/+1"Have you heard of propensity to spend? It's a simple concept really, the more money you have, the less you spend as a percentage of the whole."
I don't think that's any reason to take that money.
"Giving more money to the rich doesn't stimulate anything if they're only spending a small percentage of their money. "
I disagree that it's giving them money. It's letting them keep more of it. The fact that they may not actually invest that much of it, I find irrelevant, that's their business. We don't *need* this tax money since we should be cutting the ridiculous amount of spending this country does anyway.
"Since the government allows the markets to exist according to its rules, all players must abide by those rules."
Well I've never seen it that way. The markets would still exist without the government's rules (Taxation in this case), which are there to prop up the extravagant spending it engages in. And I say the markets would run better without these rules. The government is being paid for by us, and we are the government. It should be abiding by our rules. - EJFudd34, on 11/18/2008, -0/+0Bene depends on the IRA. Depends on how they saved for retirement as well.
- PoizonFrog, on 11/18/2008, -3/+3Ummm...let's see..
- Dalhectar, on 11/18/2008, -0/+10It's so cute you didn't finish the quote that included: "at least for small businesses". Because companies that employ less than 25 people are multinational capitalist pigs.
These are small businesses, many of which are owned by women and/or minorities, exist all over the country instead of whatever state gives them the best tax break, and employ locals from all backgrounds.
These businesses pay local and state taxes, unlike many larger corporations which can get tax breaks to move to a specific area, so money from their coffers will go towards social services like education, food stamps, and welfare (which are all primarily funded at the state level).
Greater emphasis on small employers that won't send jobs overseas is a smart thing to do. And progressive. Giving investors more incentive to invest in small businesses in the US means more corporate taxes will be levied, more property tax paid, more people employed here, and that's going to pay for your progressive agenda.- hmphargh, on 11/18/2008, -0/+2"These are small businesses, many of which are owned by women and/or minorities, exist all over the country instead of whatever state gives them the best tax break, and employ locals from all backgrounds."
And a lot of these small business owners will use a reduced capital gains tax as a tax shield and pay out to themselves over time to avoid income tax. Unless he takes away capital gains tax all together, people will still game the system.
- hmphargh, on 11/18/2008, -0/+2"These are small businesses, many of which are owned by women and/or minorities, exist all over the country instead of whatever state gives them the best tax break, and employ locals from all backgrounds."
- scotinus, on 11/18/2008, -0/+2Agreed. It's already ridiculous that income earned through actual work is taxed at twice the rate of income generated from investments.
- kalagmail, on 11/18/2008, -0/+2He can change his race like M Jackson.
- LadyOBOF, on 11/17/2008, -1/+6This is a big job and it's take going to take some cleaning up to do all just these 25 things. I believe in health insurance for all, in addition to teaching people how to be healthy. Cleaning up the environment and helping farmers grow more organic foods is a priority. I don't believe in the bailouts for companies such as GM. Close up shop. We all have work to do and it cannot be all about government...people need to get involved. I say clean out the crooks in government in order to see change. Sending aid to Africa is great..if the people who need the aid gets help.
- alankem, on 11/18/2008, -3/+35Legalizing marijuana.
- StrangeFamous, on 11/18/2008, -1/+6If not, at least decriminalize it.
- Cadicus, on 11/18/2008, -1/+4He'll save that for the 2nd term. (when he wins over Palin/Huckabee 2012)
- amishjim, on 11/18/2008, -1/+2This is a No-Brainer:
Less money spent on marijuana or fines= more money to spend on other things(boost to The Economy).
Law Enforcement can concentrate on REAL Crime. It costs thousands of dollars to train a dog to look for marijuana and up to a year of training involving many officers and resources. Does it seem worth it?
It will stop govt's stealing of innocent citizens property, money and time(in jail) for a victimless crime.
plus millions of other points. . . I'll STFU now..it just doesn't make sense. .. - GeorgeWKush, on 11/18/2008, -0/+1You only have to look at my name to realize my position on that topic.
- clickfire, on 11/18/2008, -1/+12"Allow citizens to hold government spending accountable"
How about just cut spending!- jraymilton, on 11/18/2008, -0/+3Unthinkable!
- visceroth, on 11/18/2008, -1/+3I think you missed the point, you can't cut all spending. So make sure the spending we have to spend, held accountable.
Make sure that the government is answerable to their boss.- diabetic, on 11/18/2008, -0/+1"you can't cut all spending"
you can cut most of it
- diabetic, on 11/18/2008, -0/+1"you can't cut all spending"
- DermDoc, on 11/18/2008, -0/+1626. Fix College BCS.
- coolgizmoz, on 11/18/2008, -4/+1That Bushmaina didn't
- Gravity13, on 11/18/2008, -1/+1626. Remove subsidies for processed corn
- MarkusX, on 11/18/2008, -14/+4Dugg for all and especially for 11, 12, 15, 16, 20, 21, 25.
26, ban all hand guns and any guns except for hunting rifles, that can used "only" for hunting. Then demand a periodic license from people who want to hunt, if they know how to handle and prepare the hunted animals.- vtnerd, on 11/18/2008, -0/+8Hey douchebag,
Go read the 2nd Amendment. Then reread it. Then reread it until your tiny little brain understands the words. The 2A exists so that people can protect themselves against the government. The 2A is not, in any way, about protecting anyone's right to hunt.
If you ban guns, the criminals are still going to have them and they're still going to use them. All you will succeed in doing is making sure the entire nation is disarmed and ready to be plundered by criminals and by the government. For more information on what happens in "gun free" zones, you should review the massacre at VA Tech where a gunman was able to execute 32 people. But it was a gun free zone, so he should have read the sign and stopped, huh?
And how is the crime rate in Chicago? Now that handguns are illegal, I'm sure your murder rate isn't climbing. Oh wait, gangs are still killing each other and innocent people are getting caught in the crossfire. Good thing those gangs and criminals don't have to worry about law-abiding, responsible citizens defending themselves, right? Heaven forbid that anyone would realize that allowing concealed carry has dropped the crime rate in every state that allows it except one (40 total, 1 state saw no reduction in crime but crime did not increase either). You gun grabbers are stupid, stupid *****. Don't want guns, move to the UK or Australia, but be prepared for the higher levels of violent crime too.
There are 800,000 to 2.5 million defensive gun uses per year in the US. I suggest you call people who have saved themselves and their families with a gun and tell them that they can't have it anymore. Explain to them, face to face why, even though they have been responsible, law-abiding citizens, they can't have their Constitutionally guaranteed rights anymore. Explain to them that it would be better for them to be victims than for anyone to own a gun.
Ass.- Cadicus, on 11/18/2008, -0/+1 /scared of vtnerd
- maybemable, on 11/18/2008, -0/+1jesus christ it makes me mad to read about your second amendment. because of course all laws made in the 18th century are infallable.
i admit the immediate answerin the states is not to take all the licensed guns away from the average citizen but you and your type talk as if your country is better for the fact you can buy a gun from a supermarket.
you mention va tech but all i know is if i got pissed off at my workmates tomorrow i wouldn't have a clue where to get a gun and if i tried to buy one i'd have to stay pissed off for several weeks while the police were satisfying themselves about why i want one.
yes the gangsters shoot at each other and sometimes innocent people but stories of babies shooting themselves are also non-existent. suits me. - vtnerd, on 11/18/2008, -0/+1The US has done very well for itself by respecting the foundation for the country. The 2A is part of that foundation. When you take away one right, you risk losing the other rights as well. The founding fathers understood this very well after having just fought a war against an overly oppressive government.
Our country is good because of the Bill of Rights and the Constitution and it would be even better if our politicians gave them the proper respect that they deserve. UK is seeing violent crime increase. I've seen articles where politicians are now saying that carrying a knife for protecting yourself is unreasonable. So, perhaps the next move will be to ban knives? The lesson learned should be that criminals will always be criminals and they will use weapons to hurt others to get what they want. Sometimes these criminals are part of the government. The best defense against them is an armed populace. Our founding fathers knew this and if you're going to say that 2A is wrong then you might as well say the whole Constitution is wrong too.
There are irresponsible gun owners, but they are the tiny, tiny minority. Unfortunately, the media is very strongly anti-gun and you only see the bad stories. You probably didn't read about the Israeli student who killed a terrorist that was shooting people in their school. You probably haven't read about the school shootings where principals and students have gone all the way to their cars (to get guns they were not allowed to have on school property) and returned to subdue attackers. You don't hear about the 800,000 to 2.5 million defensive uses of guns per year either but 14 (I think) separate studies have all put them in this same range. All you hear about is the jackass father who let an 8 year old shoot an Uzi or the dumbass drunk who shot his 6 year old while cleaning his gun and drinking double vodkas.
There are people that have no right owning guns, but the vast majority are incredibly responsible. It is wrong to penalize the many for the actions of a few. Just as alcohol can cause incredible damage through alcoholism and drunk driving, the vast majority of people consume it responsibly. The solution is not to ban alcohol, but to prosecute those who abuse the privilege. The same is true for gun owners; it is best to prosecute those who are irresponsible to the fullest extent of the law but disarming the overwhelming majority of responsible citizens is not going to accomplish anything worthwhile.
-------
And if it makes you less scared, I don't even own a gun. I was/am a student at VT and I saw how disarming our school made it possible for a murderer to execute people unchallenged. I watched for several years as a handful of students unsuccessfully lobbied our school to remove the weapon ban and I remember thinking how it didn't matter because we were safe. I was wrong and the school was completely wrong. Since that time I have joined concealedcampus.org and we are working to get concealed carry permitted on colleges across the US. I'm fairly easy-going, but I do not take kindly to people assaulting my rights, regardless of whether or not I am exercising them. The OP is from Chicago - a city in the US with a (soon to be unconstitutional) handgun ban and rampant gun violence as well. It's quite clear that gun control has not helped things at all there and the OP's attempt to push his city's failed (and soon to be unconstitutional) policies on the rest of the US is wrong. - nick1971, on 11/18/2008, -0/+1Look I'm sorry I love the US, have been there on business and in private a lot of times I have lots of US friends but..
The fact your constitution says you could form a militia may well have been relevant in 1787 but it does / may need to be changed in the current period of time.
The laws in Germany in 1930+ allowed us to march x Million people to the gas chamber, the Bible / Talmud allows a parent to stone a child outside the city gates for being disobedient. Can we not agree that we need better laws based upon the time in which we live.
Should it not be so that weapons / ammunition that can be held by private citizens should have a limited set of capabilities and should be only owned by people after a comprehensive background check. Look at the statistics of gun crime in Europe, is it really so difficult to believe that having a comprehensive legislative framework leads to less crime overall.
- vtnerd, on 11/18/2008, -0/+8Hey douchebag,
- AynRandfan, on 11/18/2008, -3/+9the government's job isn't to run our lives or save the world. The government is supposed to keep out of our lives and protect our individual rights. That is what the Founding Fathers Intended. For one, Obama should open up the borders to honest and productive foreigners, and he should stop all bailouts. Ultimately, this is all a matter for Congress, not the President.
- korvan504521, on 11/18/2008, -2/+1The last thing we need right now is a flood of foreigners. We need to get rid of the illegal immigrants we HAVE before we can think about changing the way we let more people in.
- AynRandfan, on 11/18/2008, -6/+7Open up the borders for hard working people, and keep abortion legal.
- charm803, on 11/18/2008, -0/+4Obama strikes me as the type of person who just can't wait until Jan. 20th....
Like, waiting for Christmas! - Revovisionary, on 11/18/2008, -0/+2Sounds easy enough...
- Revovisionary, on 11/18/2008, -1/+171. Get us out of Iraq
2. Jump start the economy following the financial meltdown
3. Eliminate capital gains taxes (at least for small businesses)
4. Ease the burden on low-income seniors
5. Simplify the tax code for all Americans
6. Ease the transition of dislocated manufacturing and service workers
7. Incentivize companies to create American jobs
8. Encourage continued research, development, and innovation
9. Invest in clean cars
10. Increase the percentage of renewable, domestically-generated energy
11. Restore America’s tarnished reputation in the eyes of the world
12. Ensure that Iran does not develop or use a nuclear weapon
13. Offer aid and support to Africa
14. Promote free trade throughout the world
15. Help ensure that all Americans have health insurance
16. Allow us to import safe generic drugs from other nations
17. Improve the appalling state of healthcare our veterans receive
18. Clean up the culture of corruption in Washington
19. End excessive corporate welfare
20. Prevent the Constitution from being amended to ban gay marriage
21. Invest In A New, Redundant and Robust Flex-Grid
22. Allow the free, uninterrupted progress of science and stem cell research
23. Restore the ideal of “government by the people, of the people, and for the people”
24. Allow citizens to hold government spending accountable
25. Strengthen the education system - tvnews, on 11/18/2008, -0/+8A lot of these are good points but they skim past some major problems that have caused the current economic crisis.
Top economists are discussing the potential for the recession to be as bad as the great depression - the Great Depression lasted 10 years!
After denying this recession would ever happen, even when many people pointed out, including members of the government and the Fed, the Federal Reserve stance was that a recession would never happen. Now they have admitted a recession that will last just 14 months. But given their past hugely over-positive outlook who can believe that it will just be 14 months.
While this recession roles on it will just increase the wealth divide as the poor get poorer and the rich get richer as they get assets such as foreclosed homes at hugely discounted prices.
The route of all this is current monetary policy yet not a single word about monetary policy has been mentioned by Obama, nor has it been mentioned in this article, and it is not mentioned very much in mainstream media.
At the same time Obama has already taken on a banker as his Chief of Staff and the options for treasury secretary are almost all very rich bankers with a history of not serving the interest of the wider population.
Obama's answer to the current crisis is to borrow more money to allow for tax cuts and to stimulate bank lending again. That essentially means printing more money which devalues the dollar and also encourages the current system to continue, even though the current system failed us.
For me the main priorities are:
- Government Transparency so we know what is being spent, what the government is doing and how the money system works so that it becomes general knowledge.
- Saving Internet Freedom. Current government is trying to control the government while Obama believes in net neutrality. The internet has the most power to spread information that is not restricted to the topics of mainstream media and can allow free exchange of information. Unless people are properly educated and informed they cannot make good decisions about the actions of their government and society as a whole. People remain unaware of a lot of what goes on. The free internet is a MUST to get people better informed of the world around them.
- To remove bankers and other members of government that have a huge conflict of interest and can influence government for their own profit. While Obama may talk about shaking up the government if he replaces it with the same conflict of interest the monetary system will not get much better. - kimsun, on 11/18/2008, -2/+2in other words, usurp market forces every opportunity you get... talk about never learning from history.
- WeThePeople2012, on 11/18/2008, -0/+518. Clean up the culture of corruption in Washington
19. End excessive corporate welfare
23. Restore the ideal of “government by the people, of the people, and for the people”
24. Allow citizens to hold government spending accountable
I can't imagine any Democrat or Republican president ever doing any of these four things, and definitely not doing all four of them. That would be amazing though. Looking at this list I'm really starting to think that people expect Barrack Obama to be some kind of great savior of the USA. If that's what your truly expecting of this man, I think that you'll end up being very disappointed. Of course he is way better than Bush, McCain, or Hillary, but he is still a politician and these expectations are highly unrealistic I'm my opinion... For one thing any man who would ever really try to clean up the culture of corruption in Washington, or end excessive corporate welfare would end up being assassinated very quickly.- smallnshort247, on 11/18/2008, -0/+1I agree with you. He is only a man when it comes down to it. I'd consider Obama a great President if he makes sure the USA stops going downhill.
- sirellyn, on 11/18/2008, -0/+1You know it's funny. You'll have average men and woman putting the life on the line every day in the armed forces for their country, but it's just a little too much to ask for the president to do the same thing. You know, risk doing the right thing, risk assassination. I guess it isn't really like the country or the free world is at stake...
- yellowcakewalk, on 11/18/2008, -12/+4Should have voted for someone already committed to these principles, instead of voting for Obama. You will spend the next four years trying to get him to Change! Change! Change! from being a self-serving corporate shill.
- WeThePeople2012, on 11/18/2008, -1/+3after looking at that list again I notice that there isn't anything on it about closing Guantanamo Bay, stop torturing people, or even protecting our civil liberties from things like the PATRIOT Act or Domestic Security Enhancement Act or restoring Habeas corpus, etc. This list could and should be so much better than this. What about ending the unconstitutional War on Drugs, or closing all of the military bases we have overseas. We have over 700 military bases in over 130 countries worldwide. what not close them all and bring all of our troops home and stop trying to rule the world with our global empire.
- Observant1, on 11/18/2008, -3/+4howabout tossing every Bush/Clinton dynasty staffer he's hiring on?
talk change, hire all the same old crew = lying. - pbmoe1585, on 11/18/2008, -0/+12Dugg because the entire list is on one page. I didn't know you could do that.
- tawnos, on 11/18/2008, -0/+4fix economy plz.
- sirellyn, on 11/18/2008, -0/+2Please fix economy but STOPPING doing things. Like stop the bailouts, stop the stimulus cheques. And empower normal average people. Make it easier to conduct small business, less forms, less restrictions.
- halftank, on 11/18/2008, -0/+226. Fire Paulson and Bernake and exile them to Cuba
- post3r3r, on 11/18/2008, -2/+127. universal bacon
- maximusfrisbee, on 11/18/2008, -0/+0Change his accidental death coverage.
- jasoninoakland, on 11/18/2008, -0/+1Replace 20 (since it didn't pass even with an anti-gay Republican president and majority in Congress several years ago) with:
20. Recognize, at the federal level, same-sex marriages, civil unions and domestic partnerships where allowed in the state. (Recognition should mean the full set of rights entitled to heterosexual married couples) - MiikeHawk, on 11/18/2008, -1/+0His clothes...
- bene0019, on 11/18/2008, -0/+1Please keep arguments to IS and ISN'T instead of SHOULD and SHOULDN'T.
Saying we don't "need" this tax money because of some situation that doesn't exist is a failure of logic.
You're argument "should" be that "This tax money isn't needed if and only if the elimination of it doesn't increase the budget deficit". That's a valid argument. There are of course 2 possibilities to make it true; 1) cut governmental spending or 2) increase tax revenue from other sources.
I agree with you that we need to cut spending (simple accounting tells us that). But we disagree on were to cut taxes when (if) spending is ever controlled. I'm not necessarily om favpr
If you want to stimulate the economy, we can do so in 3 simple steps (not necessarily easy).
1) recind NAFTA
2) re-impose Tariffs
3) eliminate handouts to corporations to send jobs overseas. - weiboconan, on 11/19/2008, -0/+1Sounds easy enough...
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009 — Content posted by Digg users is