Because as scientific studies have shown, people that go to war can make better decisions. Oh wait, that's bunk.
Because, as scientific studies have shown, people who have been to war know what war is like.
(If you took this as a slight to Ron Paul, it's not. This is about McCain vs. politicians who haven't gone to war and support it)
Yes, no. He wants to get rid of all federal taxes, ideally. Income definitely.
If you get rid of income tax you're taxing everybody the same...? Which would mean that to make up for not getting 25 billion dollars a year from Bill Gates, you gotta organize some sort of tax that will still get you your money. Nothing is certain but death and taxes. The government has to tax its people in some way. If it doesn't, how will anything get done? Do we plan to let some huge corporation build our roads how they want? What about debts to China? Will huge corporations pay that for us too?
So you don't mind if the government steals your money so they can spend it on asinine things like the war on drugs and the Dept of Homeland Security?
I don't mind if my government uses it to improve sanitation around where I live, keep public schools up, improve education, make public transportation better, and improve benefits. This election is against other candidates, not Bush with all his crazy budget spending and departments and wars.
Huh? How does getting rid of a tax overtax someone? They'll still be paying taxes, just not that one.
If tax isn't based on income, it will be more evenly distributed over sections of people receiving unequal pay. See above.
Rudy and Paul couldn't be more opposite on foreign policy. Rudy doesn't want to scale it back, he wants to make it bigger. Paul wants bring ALL troops overseas home ASAP. Just to pick on Rudy because it's easy and fun the guy's a fascist, asshole, and loves to exploit 9/11.
I agree with you there. Paul seems to have a more defined plan on scramming out of Iraq.
Overall, I sort of see your point, but at this point, I'm still not in agreement. However, I am a bit biased. You'll have to really argue very well to convince me
@ Reise the Tea Party was against Taxation without Representation. Basically, some chaps in Boston thought (and rightfully so) that it was unfair for Parliament to tax them without them having some representation in Parliament to oppose it. Sure, I guess if the people want no taxes we can have no taxes, but having no taxes wasn't what this country was built on. This country was partly build on no unfair taxes that we can't oppose.
