The final "Who are you going to vote for" poll

[Farbin Kaiber]

The main reason I'm voting Libertarian is to make sure that my vote gets credited as being a third party, if not this election cycle, or the next, but sometime, the public will have the ability to hear from those under acknowledged parties.

[Jand3rson]

McCain.

Because if Obama wins, and his little "increased taxation of small business that make more than $250k per year" bullshit goes into effect, my boss has pretty much already told us that the doors of our shop will close.

[Maluco]

don't be a fool though, if you don't like either candidate, don't just not vote! there are other things on the ballot besides the presidential race, local props, and even in some states house and senate races. if you don't like how things are going, look at your congressmen's voting record. if you are unhappy, vote the fucker out! remember that is where the REAL power is! not the president![/

awesome inclusion bro!

[der affe]

[quote=LEANE30;1235197]seriously, i'm thinking i'll vote 3rd party, simply on principal. ...all the old people i know will vote for mccain, all the young will vote for obama. this partisan division by age as well as "class" is the same as what was seen in 2000 as well as what happened in 2004. i like "neither" canidate. odd how no one ever hears about ANY OTHER OPTION AT ALL. ...shit, i might just have to write myself in.

i'll put money on it that it's gonna be ugly when they are tallying all the "swing states" - this election my be the one that causes the public to stand up and throw out the electoral college, i foresee the coming of a new era, where each vote counts as 1 vote. anyone want to check out the founding history of aparthi-... uh, i mean-ELECTORAL COLLEGE, have fun. i personally think america is filled with douche tool-bags that can't think outside of the box (A or B) and that is why we are where we are.


shit, i remember it doing the same thing when Perot ran.
if there was a VIABLE 3rd party candidate i would vote for them (yes i threw away my vote for Perot many years ago), but alas there isn't and wont be in the foreseeable future. at best both parties took some notice in what happened with Perot getting as many votes......then they didn't really care again.

i would not throw away my vote again. i am voting for McCain. i see him as the lesser of 2 evils. i don't like his tax plan (i prefer Obama's), but who is to say either one will actually do ANYTHING they are promising now once they get elected (remember "read my lips...no new taxes"). anymore it is like running for student council " i promise free pizza every Friday, longer lunches and shorter school days" they will just say what ever they think will get them elected then go about their merry way when they get elected.

i think McCain has the better potential cabinet, i don't like his sabre rattling towards Russia (i don't feel it will ever go beyond that anyways). i like his stand on national defence.

they both still suck, unfortunately.

don't be a fool though, if you don't like either candidate, don't just not vote! there are other things on the ballot besides the presidential race, local props, and even in some states house and senate races. if you don't like how things are going, look at your congressmen's voting record. if you are unhappy, vote the fucker out! remember that is where the REAL power is! not the president!

[James Crivellone]

not even going to waste my time to support either one... I should write in Christopher Walken!

[LEANE30]

seriously, i'm thinking i'll vote 3rd party, simply on principal. ...all the old people i know will vote for mccain, all the young will vote for obama. this partisan division by age as well as "class" is the same as what was seen in 2000 as well as what happened in 2004. i like "neither" canidate. odd how no one ever hears about ANY OTHER OPTION AT ALL. ...shit, i might just have to write myself in.

i'll put money on it that it's gonna be ugly when they are tallying all the "swing states" - this election my be the one that causes the public to stand up and throw out the electoral college, i foresee the coming of a new era, where each vote counts as 1 vote. anyone want to check out the founding history of aparthi-... uh, i mean-ELECTORAL COLLEGE, have fun. i personally think america is filled with douche tool-bags that can't think outside of the box (A or B) and that is why we are where we are.

gas is less than $3/gallon.



if anyone is interested in writing me in on their ballot for president, PM me. ;)

[Rustyduktape]

well, the too stoned one fits very well, but i can't vote anyways. so my pick would be, too stoned to care?

[blunttech]

Seriously, his vote looks so out of place.

how can you see who i voted for? i dont see shit. i mean i see the poll but i cant tell who voted for who. am i missing some pixels?

edit oh i see now. i didnt click on the pixel bar. i must have made a mistake because im not voting for that piece of shit obama. i hope i dont make the same mistake at the polls.

[blunttech]

Blunt, are you joking?

about what? who im voting for or what?

[Maluco]

Does it really surprise you though???

http://www.workforce.com/section/00/article/25/83/58.php

House Democrats Contemplate Abolishing 401(k) Tax Breaks

Powerful House Democrats are eyeing proposals to overhaul the nation’s $3 trillion 401(k) system, including the elimination of most of the $80 billion in annual tax breaks that 401(k) investors receive.
October 16, 2008
House Democrats Contemplate Abolishing 401(k) Tax Breaks
Powerful House Democrats are eyeing proposals to overhaul the nation’s $3 trillion 401(k) system, including the elimination of most of the $80 billion in annual tax breaks that 401(k) investors receive.
House Education and Labor Committee Chairman George Miller, D-California, and Rep. Jim McDermott, D-Washington, chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee’s Subcommittee on Income Security and Family Support, are looking at redirecting those tax breaks to a new system of guaranteed retirement accounts to which all workers would be obliged to contribute.
A plan by Teresa Ghilarducci, professor of economic-policy analysis at the New School for Social Research in New York, contains elements that are being considered. She testified last week before Miller’s Education and Labor Committee on her proposal.
At that hearing, the director of the Congressional Budget Office, Peter Orszag, testified that some $2 trillion in retirement savings has been lost over the past 15 months.
Under Ghilarducci’s plan, all workers would receive a $600 annual inflation-adjusted subsidy from the U.S. government but would be required to invest 5 percent of their pay into a guaranteed retirement account administered by the Social Security Administration. The money in turn would be invested in special government bonds that would pay 3 percent a year, adjusted for inflation.
The current system of providing tax breaks on 401(k) contributions and earnings would be eliminated.
“I want to stop the federal subsidy of 401(k)s,” Ghilarducci said in an interview. “401(k)s can continue to exist, but they won’t have the benefit of the subsidy of the tax break.”
Under the current 401(k) system, investors are charged relatively high retail fees, Ghilarducci said.
“I want to spend our nation’s dollar for retirement security better. Everybody would now be covered” if the plan were adopted, Ghilarducci said.
She has been in contact with Miller and McDermott about her plan, and they are interested in pursuing it, she said.
“This [plan] certainly is intriguing,” said Mike DeCesare, press secretary for McDermott.
“That is part of the discussion,” he said.
While Miller stopped short of calling for Ghilarducci’s plan at the hearing last week, he was clearly against continuing tax breaks as they currently exist.
Savings rate
“The savings rate isn’t going up for the investment of $80 billion,” he said. “We have to start to think about ... whether or not we want to continue to invest that $80 billion for a policy that’s not generating what we now say it should.”
“From where I sit that’s just crazy,” said John Belluardo, president of Stewardship Financial Services Inc. in Tarrytown, New York. “A lot of people contribute to their 401(k)s because of the match of the employer,” he said. Belluardo’s firm does not manage assets directly.
Higher-income employers provide matching funds to employee plans so that they can qualify for tax benefits for their own defined-contribution plans, he said.
“If the tax deferral goes away, the employers have no reason to do the matches, which primarily help people in the lower income brackets,” Belluardo said.
“This is a battle between liberalism and conservatism,” said Christopher Van Slyke, a partner in the La Jolla, California, advisory firm Trovena, which manages $400 million. “People are afraid because their accounts are seeing some volatility, so Democrats will seize on the opportunity to attack a program where investors control their own destiny,” he said.
The Profit Sharing/401(k) Council of America in Chicago, which represents employers that sponsor defined-contribution plans, is “staunchly committed to keeping the employee benefit system in America voluntary,” said Ed Ferrigno, vice president in the Washington office.
“Some of the tenor [of the hearing last week] that the entire system should be based on the activities of the markets in the last 90 days is not the way to judge the system,” he said.
No legislative proposals have been introduced and Congress is out of session until next year.
However, most political observers believe that Democrats are poised to gain seats in both the House and the Senate, so comments made by the mostly Democratic members who attended the hearing could be a harbinger of things to come.
Advice at issue
In addition to tax breaks for 401(k)s, the issue of allowing investment advisors to provide advice for 401(k) plans was also addressed at the hearing. Rep. Robert Andrews, D-New Jersey, was critical of Department of Labor proposals made in August that would allow advisors to give individual advice if the advice was generated using a computer model.
Andrews characterized the proposals as “loopholes” and said that investment advice should not be given by advisors who have a direct interest in the sale of financial products.
The Pension Protection Act of 2006 contains provisions making it easier for investment advisors to give individualized counseling to 401(k) holders.
“In retrospect that doesn’t seem like such a good idea to me,” Andrews said. “This is an issue I think we have to revisit. I frankly think that the compromise we struck in 2006 is not terribly workable or wise,” he said.
On Thursday, October 9, the Department of Labor hastily scheduled a public hearing on the issue in Washington for Tuesday, October 21.

The agency does not frequently hold public hearings on its proposals. Filed by Sara Hansard of Investment News, a sister publication of Workforce Management. To comment, e-mail editors@workforce.com.

[Farbin Kaiber]

Last I heard it was pending a drug test.

Well, just got home from the drug screening. Awaiting results. Thanks for my own option though...

But, I am voting, and I'm voting for Bob Barr/Wayne Root. My polling place is a short "fixie" ride away.

Off to "smoke a bowl" as the youngin's call it. ;)

[TDE30]

It would be an Obamanation...

Why is that?

[Maluco]

...

[Maluco]

It would be an Obamanation...

[TurkE30]

Obama FTW