[Krusty]

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.j...toryID=6586406

The $140 billion in new business tax breaks included many special interest provisions sharply criticized by public interest groups and fiscal conservatives, which congressional aides said explained Bush's decision to sign it in private.

McCain of Arizona, who has been campaigning for Bush, called the measure "the worst example of the influence of special interests that I have ever seen."

.....
The bill includes a $10 billion industry-financed buyout for tobacco farmers.

The bill also includes tax breaks for U.S. multinational companies, some of which critics say will encourage companies to ship jobs overseas.

A one-year tax holiday for multinationals was included that will allow them to return billions of dollars in profits to the United States at a dramatically lower 5.25 percent rate instead of the normal 35 percent top corporate rate.

[constrictor]

But McCain isn't a "real Republican." He's one of those oldtimer Republicans who believes in fiscal responsibility and the fact that big business will do just fine in America if they don't have a loophole for every goddamn tax they're supposed to pay.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by Krusty:

Damn, she's looking fine!

Edit: in a Kate Beckinsale/Underworld kinda way... yum.

[Secret__Police]

This just in...........
The President and both houses of Congress do not serve the people.
The only 'persons' they serve is the corporate 'person'

[Krusty]

Originally posted by Secret__Police:
This just in...........
The President and both houses of Congress do not serve the people.
The only 'persons' they serve is the corporate 'person'

Good point ... and well known by most of us. Dems aren't much better (they just have different corporations that they favor).

Re: Macinstein. Yeah .. that's why I just HAD to post that pic. W looks suspiciously like he just "scored"

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by Krusty:

Re: Macinstein. Yeah .. that's why I just HAD to post that pic. W looks suspiciously like he just "scored"

If I were him, given half a chance, I would.

[itai195]

American companies still pay taxes???

But seriously, I recall news a few months ago that most companies doing business in the US didn't pay any taxes in the 1990s. Democrats and Republicans are pretty much in the same boat when it comes to corporate taxation and corporate welfare.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by Krusty:
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.j...toryID=6586406

Why didn't you include this part?

The new law aims to end a trade fight with the European Union by repealing U.S. export tax subsidies that violate global trade rules. But the EU has objected to some of the provisions and has yet to say whether it will remove its sanctions on $4 billion worth of U.S. goods.

EU sanctions on $4 billion woth of US goods is quite significant.

Other key snippets you conveniently excluded were: the majority of Democrats suported the bill, and once again Kerry failed to show up to vote on it.

I'm sure that won't prevent Kerry from running around denouncing it. If he was so opposed to it, he should have served his constituency and tried to rally support against it.

If Kerry doesn't show up, he shouldn't bitch about what happens in his absence (which seems to be all the time).

[Krusty]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Why didn't you include this part?EU sanctions on $4 billion woth of US goods is quite significant.

Other key snippets you conveniently excluded were: the majority of Democrats suported the bill, and once again Kerry failed to show up to vote on it.

I'm sure that won't prevent Kerry from running around denouncing it. If he was so opposed to it, he should have served his constituency and tried to rally support against it.

If Kerry doesn't show up, he shouldn't bitch about what happens in his absence (which seems to be all the time).

I didn't include every part ... because I linked, capiche?

$4 billion in goods is absolutely piss-in-the-bucket compared to $140 billion in lost revenue.

The Democrats that supported it suck too. You seem to have conveniently left out the part of my post where I said:
"Dems aren't much better (they just have different corporations that they favor)."
For the record (for the 30th time), I'm NOT a Democrat .. registered independent my whole life. I'm voting Dem in this election because I think Bush and Co. are a bunch of incompetent boobs "playing government". All Republicans aren't .. just this crew of half-baked chicken hawks.

The "tax holiday" idea is EXACTLY the sort of thing that encourages outsourcing. Its a global economy now, we have to face that .. but we don't need to tip the scales toward accelerating the demise of indigenous industry.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by Krusty:
$4 billion in goods is absolutely piss-in-the-bucket compared to $140 billion in lost revenue.

You should probably do some research on this law/bill that passed through Congress with overwhelming support.

The $140 billion in new business tax breaks WAS OFFSET by the closing of many corporate tax shelters and loopholes, and the repeal of export subsides.

The "tax holiday" is meant to encourage multinationals to return billions of $$$ in profits back to the US at a much lower rate. Without dropping this rate, these multinational companies would continue to manuever their cash through less-taxed, non-US avenues.

A repeated goal of Bush's is to make the US the best place in the world to do business. Many of this law's provisions fit into that vision.

[dgs212]

Originally posted by spacefreak:

The "tax holiday" is meant to encourage multinationals to return billions of $$$ in profits back to the US at a much lower rate. Without dropping this rate, these multinational companies would continue to manuever their cash through less-taxed, non-US avenues.

How about - GASP - making that "maneuver" illegal and vigorously prosecuting those who break said law, rather than hoping pretty please with a cherry on top that corporations will favor us with the money they earn (snicker) from us?

Corporations should serve us, not the other way around. Unless you're a CEO, I don't understand why anyone would be confused about this.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally posted by dgs212:
[B]How about - GASP - making that "maneuver" illegal and vigorously prosecuting those who break said law, rather than hoping pretty please with a cherry on top that corporations will favor us with the money they earn (snicker) from us?

First of all, that wouldn't be enforceable- it would probably just discourage foreign-owned multinationals from doing business openly in the US. (But they'd still find a way.) Secondly, would we really want to subject our own multinational companies to the same rules abroad? (I�m talking in the adult world, not in some childish anti-corporation at all costs fantasy world). I�m guessing that such would also be a gross violation of existing international trade rules.

Sorry, but for all the bluster, realistic incentives work far better than unrealistic, unenforceable laws.

[tie]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Why didn't you include this part?EU sanctions on $4 billion woth of US goods is quite significant.
...
You should probably do some research on this law/bill that passed through Congress with overwhelming support.

The $140 billion in new business tax breaks WAS OFFSET by the closing of many corporate tax shelters and loopholes, and the repeal of export subsides.

Have you done any research? The whole point of the bill was to repeal export tax subsidies that the WTO had ruled to be illegal, and therefore to stop Europe's punitive tariffs. But the bill doesn't even do this. It phases out the subsidies, so they will last until the end of 2006. Europe is free to continue increasing punitive tariffs in the meantime.

The tax breaks were not really offset -- they were only "offset" according to the supporters manipulating the numbers. Nobody realistically believes the costs will be offset.

The same supporters whose numbers you so gullibly trust also decided to give a tax break for manufacturing. After all, under Bush's watch, we have lost 2.8 million manufacturing jobs. However, pork is pork: the bill labels architects, software engineers, farmers, oil refiners, and film and music companies as "manufacturers." You still believe their made-up numbers?

[dgs212]

Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:
First of all, that wouldn't be enforceable- it would probably just discourage foreign-owned multinationals from doing business openly in the US. (But they'd still find a way.) Secondly, would we really want to subject our own multinational companies to the same rules abroad? (I�m talking in the adult world, not in some childish anti-corporation at all costs fantasy world). I�m guessing that such would also be a gross violation of existing international trade rules.

Sorry, but for all the bluster, realistic incentives work far better than unrealistic, unenforceable laws.

This attitude is completely unfathomable. Oh well, corporations are going to do what they want, so we may as well play nice with them. Bullsh*t. If a US corporation or a multinational corporation that seeks to do business here (excuse the anthropomorphism) behaves in such a way so as to undermine the public's best interest, then let's do something about it. If a particular egregious "behavior" is currently legal, change the laws so it's illegal. If a "behavior" is illegal, revoke the corporation's charter. What is so difficult? Why would you tolerate exploitation?

All I'm aking for is accountability. It seems you advocate letting the biggest bullies on the playground make the rules for everyone else. Talk about childish.

[Mithras]

I have an idea: can we pretend there isn't an election on, and stop just lining up on the same boring partisan sides? Maybe we could be like, independently critical or something.

I realize it'd be better if I asked for this in a "Dumb Liberal Move" thread, but it bears saying here anyway. This is a dumb bill, and Democrats and Republicans that voted for it (with all its dumb provisions) are dumb.