Who likes taxes? Apparently big business...

[Zeus]

Hey, if people stopped voting for these morons who ass-fuck you any chance they get, maybe it wouldn't keep happening? Voting for someone other than the Republicans or Democrats might actually provide a third-party. Bitching (which you Americans are amazing at) heavily may actually force change so that people have a choice other than the rock or a hard place.

Then again, so will a revolution. But that shit ain't gonna happen, people are far too comfy where they are. Sadly, there's no chance it'll change in my lifetime.

[Flip]

The big money saver that they are talking about was the addition of a Domestic Production Deduction that the AJCA created. Companies got an extra deduction if they produced goods or performed services in the US. Next year and the year after the deduction is supposed to be even larger, so the bitching has just begun. We work with small businesses in our firm so we occassionally had an engineering firm, etc., save a few grand on their taxes or whatnot due to the DPD.

I guess our gov thought the money saved would lead compnies to try and do more within the US? I think it is still too early to tell whether or not it is working... maybe IBM will see their huge savings, realize it could be even better next year and actually do more domestic producing, but havent had time to implement it yet.

[Flip]

I see that they did in fact qualify their headline in the second paragraph, but it still is typical, and shitty, of the press to call the thing a refund in their headline when it defenitely is not. I hate that shit.

[Zeus]

I think it's a little more than that. IT's been known for years now that any money you save a company will not be spent in the manner you "hope" unless you put a restriction to ensure it so. For instance, they should have a restriction which has a tax inclusion for additional amounts not spent domestically to make sure something like this works. They could simply say that the tax deduction is the difference in specifically-coded (for tax) expenses from prior year to current year minus that same figure less specifically-coded expenses difference from prior year to current year. It would be a big pain in the ass for accountants and auditors but it would at least ensure that the money is spent properly.

But I think the real benefit of something like this is for the fat cats to get fatter while getting some PR out of it. I'm sure there was a lot of press at the time this was announced praising it but, since the mainstream press are a bunch of pussies and everyone seems to have ADHD (Attention Deficit Hyperactive Disorder or something along those lines), no one follows up on the actual results of such a thing afterwards. Sure, you get your few liberal, anti-gov't people (like a lot of us here) paying attention and bitching about it, but the masses have moved on a long time ago.

And that's the real problem. No accountability because the people don't care or demand it (same thing here in Canada).

[Julius Seeker]

Hey, if people stopped voting for these morons who ass-fuck you any chance they get, maybe it wouldn't keep happening? Voting for someone other than the Republicans or Democrats might actually provide a third-party. Bitching (which you Americans are amazing at) heavily may actually force change so that people have a choice other than the rock or a hard place.

Then again, so will a revolution. But that shit ain't gonna happen, people are far too comfy where they are. Sadly, there's no chance it'll change in my lifetime.

Proportional representation is the only way to accurately guage a populations opinion, otherwise people will chicken out of voting for the good party, and instead vote for a bad bigger party who is just a lesser evil.

[SineSwiper]

Hey, if people stopped voting for these morons who ass-fuck you any chance they get, maybe it wouldn't keep happening? Voting for someone other than the Republicans or Democrats might actually provide a third-party. Bitching (which you Americans are amazing at) heavily may actually force change so that people have a choice other than the rock or a hard place.

Right now, voting for a third-party is a wasted vote because our voting system doesn't work for third parties. You can talk about Canada all you want, but you have the advantage(?) of a regionially split nation, in terms of parties. We have historicial either let third-parties die or elevated the third party to first party by killing the previous first party.

So, it's a vicious cycle that will continue until we change our party system to something else beside one vote per party. However, that will never happen since both of the partys control every branch of the government.

[Zeus]

Hey, if people stopped voting for these morons who ass-fuck you any chance they get, maybe it wouldn't keep happening? Voting for someone other than the Republicans or Democrats might actually provide a third-party. Bitching (which you Americans are amazing at) heavily may actually force change so that people have a choice other than the rock or a hard place.

Right now, voting for a third-party is a wasted vote because our voting system doesn't work for third parties. You can talk about Canada all you want, but you have the advantage(?) of a regionially split nation, in terms of parties. We have historicial either let third-parties die or elevated the third party to first party by killing the previous first party.

So, it's a vicious cycle that will continue until we change our party system to something else beside one vote per party. However, that will never happen since both of the partys control every branch of the government.

Just for one election, get Nader 5% if for no other reason than to give a third party some federal funding. Just try it on for size for 4 years THEN tell me it doesn't work. There's no way the Republicans or Democrats are going anywhere, so try a third one on for size, just because you know that what you have now ain't working. Hell, we have it and it's barely workin'. At least this time when we got a minority they didn't spend the ENTIRE TIME trying to put a vote of non-confidence through

[Nev]

Right now, voting for a third-party is a wasted vote because our voting system doesn't work for third parties.

Not really. It's true that a third-party vote at a high level almost never has a chance of getting that person into office. However, if, for example, every poll taken in a particular election has a weak candidate of one party, that you'd ordinarily vote for if outcome were the only thing that mattered, running at a double-digit lead over a weaker candidate from the other party, it's a pretty safe bet that switching over and voting for a strong third-party candidate won't affect the actual outcome in your state one bit, but will send a message about preferred types of policies and voter dissatisfaction through a stronger showing for the third-party candidate. The main parties do notice these things and adjust their policies accordingly, and that's pretty much been the function of third-party stuff in our system for awhile now.

My own state, California, is often an example of what I'm talking about. Assuming the Democrats don't run someone just blitheringly, waste-of-a-candidacy bad (*cough* *cough* Dukakis *cough* *cough*), California is often in little to no danger of falling on the Republican side of things. Strong showings for the Green and/or Libertarian parties in a particular election tend to send a message to the Democrats that they're losing touch with the Democratic mainstream, and need to change their ways to avoid *really* losing their power.

[Nev]

Just for one election, get Nader 5% if for no other reason than to give a third party some federal funding.

Sorry, but no. I can't put my vote behind someone that impractical. If Nader had gotten out of the 2000 election at practically any point along the way - especially near the end of it - he would've almost certainly given it to Gore, and I don't think I need to explain to this bunch what that would have avoided. To me, that shows how much damage even a single decision based on principle over practicality in the wrong situation can cause.

Unless someone is just a true, true statesman, like Washington or Lincoln - and I'm sorry, but Nader just isn't it - putting principle before practicality is a very good way to piss off many, many people and accomplish few, few things. Even the great statesmen of U.S. history were very eminently practical people in the majority of their political maneuvers, and only exercised their principles in cases where they truly felt it was worth it. And even then, they often took a political walloping for it.

No, Nader would not really be my choice for any sort of office at all higher than a local one, I would have to say. I might start voting Green, but only if they start showing less ignorance of the system in their choices for candidacy.