Differing opinions are fine, but let's have a reality-based debate. No state is attempting to unilaterally tax Amazon unless it has buildings and employees in the state.
The corporation has real facilities you can walk into in 19 states. It collects sales tax in just five of these (two are in states without statewide sales tax). See http://www.amiba.net/resources/news-archive/amazon-nexus-subsidiaries for the list and documentation.
This is scary. I looked for coverage of the court hearing on the Libertarian lawsuit at Google News searching for badnarik + arizona + debate + lawsuit. I got exactly one hit: the NY Sun.
The fact that it's probably not at all conspiratorial makes it even more frightening. The media will tell us what we need to know.
Also, the CPD provided absolute proof that it is a partisan organization when the Rs and Ds first created it in 1987. Its inaugural press release states that the CPD is "a bipartisan, nonprofit, tax exempt organization formed to implement joint sponsorship [of debates]...between their respective nominees" (from pdf available on ReclaimDemocracy.org).
Yes, but Kerry and Bush usually disagree on topics covered in the debates because the moderators only chooses questions that exagerrate their differences.
I posted the articles below in a sub-thread to correct Rice's error about the timeline, but her article is really a poor place to start a discussion (though I agree with her) -- it's inacurrate on a couple of items and not well substantiated. So let me suggest some better references.
To clarify on some apparent confusion: the debates that Bush & Kerry agreed to are staged by the Commission on Presidential Debates, a non-profit that was created by, and is controlled by, the two dominant parties.
The non-partisan Citizens' Debate Commission has no commitments from either major party candidate. It is questionable whether any third-party candidate would meet the CDC participation criteria this year (last year, both Buchanan and Nader would have qualified).
The issue go beyond who participates, however. Under the two-party debate commission, the events are more like alternating sound bites than real debates, and the questions are carefully selected to accentuate differences between the Rs and Ds, while critical issues that they prefer not to bring up simply are squelched. See http://reclaimdemocracy.org/political_reform/citiz ens_debate_commission_proposal.html for convincing evidence of this (ReclaimDemocracy.org was the instigator of the Citizens' Debate Commission and I volunteered briefly when they began organizing). Much more interesting background on this controversy is available there: http://reclaimdemocracy.org/political_reform/debat es_resources.html and at: http:opendebates.org
In fact, most of the least populous states will never receive a visit or serious attention from the major party candidates because so many of those states are solidly R or D. In Idaho, I can't recall any visits from pres candidates because we're already chalked up in the "R" column by both parties. And Ohio will likely receive more attention than every Western state combined this year.
A popular vote would increase the chance of voters in small states having their voices heard.
I found a good op-ed by the leader of ReclaimDemocracy.org -- a nonpartisan pro-democracy group that appears to have first advanced this idea as a legislative bill in some states a few years back (the Denver Post mangled the formatting): http://63.147.65.175/opinion/guest0315.htm
I don't have anything new to say, but I wanted to recommend an interesting and thorough resource that's well worth exploring for those seriously interested in this case--especially the idea of corporations claiming constitutional rights.
Re: "the giant social, medical, and pension programs that we paid into all our lives will be gone by the time that we are old enough to need them."
This may be true of corporate pensions, but there is no basis for believing U.S. government programs like Social Security will not be alive and well. I don't want to sound condescending, but you've bought into misleading propaganda and we need to take a critical look at who is behind the false messages and their motives.
I believe you will find this effective PR campaign is largely funded by Wall St corporations that aim to reap billions by convincing Americans that their SS accounts are in danger.
Even with the unrealistic official projections, the system would run a surplus for almost thirty more years. But Social Security projections are based on an assumption of 1.6% economic growth, when 2% is far more realistic and basically eviscerates the "crisis."
The Bush Administration clearly has a corporatization agenda. I encourage everyone to look at the numbers themselves before accepting the corporate scare tactics. The think tank Economic Policy Institute http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/issueguides_soci alsecurity_socialsec has a collection from a left perspective.
And on a related note, I just read an excellent analysis of the gap between the "unemployment" statistics and real joblessness rates that I recommend:http://reclaimdemocracy.org/articles_200 4/misleading_statistics_joblessness_growing.html
Sorry I can't get these urls to link--this is my first post here and my accustomed... isn't working. Help in a reply would be welcomed.
Slashdot Mirror
Differing opinions are fine, but let's have a reality-based debate. No state is attempting to unilaterally tax Amazon unless it has buildings and employees in the state. The corporation has real facilities you can walk into in 19 states. It collects sales tax in just five of these (two are in states without statewide sales tax). See http://www.amiba.net/resources/news-archive/amazon-nexus-subsidiaries for the list and documentation.
The fact that it's probably not at all conspiratorial makes it even more frightening. The media will tell us what we need to know.
Also, the CPD provided absolute proof that it is a partisan organization when the Rs and Ds first created it in 1987. Its inaugural press release states that the CPD is "a bipartisan, nonprofit, tax exempt organization formed to implement joint sponsorship [of debates]...between their respective nominees" (from pdf available on ReclaimDemocracy.org).
What if there were a real town hall debate (not the phony event staged last week where the audience members are mere props and the moderator chooses the questions) and citizens could ask questions about issues like these http://reclaimdemocracy.org/political_reform/debat es_exclusion_issues.html
I found this article clarifying the Perot story http://www.commondreams.org/views/100100-103.htm
The same writer has an excellent current analysis that present a much more fact-based, but no less damning critique of the CPD and, more importantly, introduces a real plan for change: http://reclaimdemocracy.org/political_reform/bi-pa rtisan_appearances_real_debates.html . Some interesting background links follow the article.
The same writer has an very good new article (that link is from 2000) that presents a much more fact-based, but no less damning critique than Rice's: http://reclaimdemocracy.org/political_reform/bi-pa rtisan_appearances_real_debates.html
The non-partisan Citizens' Debate Commission has no commitments from either major party candidate. It is questionable whether any third-party candidate would meet the CDC participation criteria this year (last year, both Buchanan and Nader would have qualified).
The issue go beyond who participates, however. Under the two-party debate commission, the events are more like alternating sound bites than real debates, and the questions are carefully selected to accentuate differences between the Rs and Ds, while critical issues that they prefer not to bring up simply are squelched. See http://reclaimdemocracy.org/political_reform/citiz ens_debate_commission_proposal.html for convincing evidence of this (ReclaimDemocracy.org was the instigator of the Citizens' Debate Commission and I volunteered briefly when they began organizing). Much more interesting background on this controversy is available there: http://reclaimdemocracy.org/political_reform/debat es_resources.html and at: http:opendebates.org
In fact, most of the least populous states will never receive a visit or serious attention from the major party candidates because so many of those states are solidly R or D. In Idaho, I can't recall any visits from pres candidates because we're already chalked up in the "R" column by both parties. And Ohio will likely receive more attention than every Western state combined this year. A popular vote would increase the chance of voters in small states having their voices heard. I found a good op-ed by the leader of ReclaimDemocracy.org -- a nonpartisan pro-democracy group that appears to have first advanced this idea as a legislative bill in some states a few years back (the Denver Post mangled the formatting): http://63.147.65.175/opinion/guest0315.htm
ReclaimDemocracy.org
Re: "the giant social, medical, and pension programs that we paid into all our lives will be gone by the time that we are old enough to need them."i alsecurity_socialsec has a collection from a left perspective. 0 4/misleading_statistics_joblessness_growing.html ... isn't working. Help in a reply would be welcomed.
This may be true of corporate pensions, but there is no basis for believing U.S. government programs like Social Security will not be alive and well. I don't want to sound condescending, but you've bought into misleading propaganda and we need to take a critical look at who is behind the false messages and their motives.
I believe you will find this effective PR campaign is largely funded by Wall St corporations that aim to reap billions by convincing Americans that their SS accounts are in danger.
Even with the unrealistic official projections, the system would run a surplus for almost thirty more years. But Social Security projections are based on an assumption of 1.6% economic growth, when 2% is far more realistic and basically eviscerates the "crisis."
The Bush Administration clearly has a corporatization agenda. I encourage everyone to look at the numbers themselves before accepting the corporate scare tactics. The think tank Economic Policy Institute http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/issueguides_soc
And on a related note, I just read an excellent analysis of the gap between the "unemployment" statistics and real joblessness rates that I recommend:http://reclaimdemocracy.org/articles_20
Sorry I can't get these urls to link--this is my first post here and my accustomed