Study Shows Tech Execs Slightly Prefer Romney Over Obama 461
redletterdave writes with an excerpt from IB Times that should be met with a bit of skepticism: "A new study released by international law firm DLA Piper Monday morning shows that among technology companies and their executives, Republican nominee Mitt Romney is the preferred presidential candidate for improving and advancing the technology industry. The study surveyed thousands of entrepreneurs, consultants, venture capitalists, CEOs, CFOs, and other C-level officers at technology companies, asking them their opinions about the 2012 presidential election and the issues facing their particular industry. The majority of respondents said Mitt Romney would be better with the technology industry, with 64 percent favoring the former governor from Massachusetts, and only 41 percent favoring the incumbent president. This is a complete turnaround from 2008 when the numbers were heavily in favor of Obama, with 60 percent of respondents saying then-Sen. Obama would be better for the sector than the Republican candidate, Sen. John McCain."
There's a whole lot of number stretching going on: the results more or less indicate only a slight preference for Romney; a healthy chunk of responses were that his policies would be "neutral" and Obama's would at worst be slightly bad. Would you like six politicians, or half a dozen? One thing is universal: everyone hates SOX.
Of course (Score:3, Insightful)
If you have money Romney is your man. A 15% tax cut if you make $200,000 a year could net you $30,000! I am surprised it is this low actually as the very rich support Romney by a very large margin.
Having low regulations to rip off citizens and guarantee corruption too is a plus for your business.
How do you know? (Score:1, Insightful)
Romney lies through his teeth, so how do you know what his policies would be?
Why can't we apply SOX to the US Federal Gov? (Score:5, Insightful)
Any business that operated the way the USG operates would be under investigation faster than you could blink.
Welcome to The Presidential RACE (Score:5, Insightful)
Analysts In The Know have made it VERY clear that Romney is pretty close to a complete NON STARTER and all this MEDIA HYPE about how close (insert airquotes here) this election is amounts to nothing more than bulldust, baloney, hot air, media hype, manufactured statistics, and damn close to out and out blatant lies.
As you can see from TFA, MUCH loud ballyhoo'ing about "CEOs Prefer Romney" but when you read the numbers in actual fact that is "only just barely not actually a complete lie".
Despite their preference for Romney, 76 percent of all respondents said Obama will win the November election.
One thing is universal: everyone hates SOX. (Score:2, Insightful)
Let's try that again.
One thing is universal: everyone hates the Public Company Accounting Reform and Investor Protection Act
"Business leaders" against accounting reform and investor protection?
How... unsurprising.
Re:Here's another survey (Score:4, Insightful)
Wealthy people (Score:5, Insightful)
Wealthy people are biased in favor of the candidate that promises them yet more tax cuts, film at 11.
Re:Wealthy people (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Of course (Score:5, Insightful)
A 15% tax cut if you make $200,000 a year could net you $30,000!
I really, really hope you're joking. Because this is kind of idiotic math has no place in politics (except maybe Keynesian economics). A 15% tax cut means "the amount you pay in taxes is reduced by 15%", not "you keep 15% more of your annual salary." For instance, someone making $200,000 and getting taxed at 33% effective is paying about $66,000 in taxes a year. A 15% tax cut is "15% of $66,000", a bit under $10,000. Well, it's not that exact because of the progressive structure, but it's SURE as hell not $30,000 a year.
Re:The fucks the difference? (Score:5, Insightful)
We're going to be screwed either way [...] take your pick
But it's so difficult to pick one... Oh, why can't we just have FL and OH decide for everyone?
A liberal convinced me to take a second look... (Score:3, Insightful)
Really I've not been interested in voting this next election as the POTUS in particular seems to be elected not much differently than people would vote for their favorite sports team, or vote for the high school prom king. I've heard everything from "because he's a cool guy" to "because my friends are voting for him" and the scary thing is that this seems like the majority of those I've run into. So I wonder, why bother?
Well, in trying to convince me to get out and vote for Obama, a liberal pointed out to me that Romney is has ripped off the poor and killed jobs at Bain Capital, namely through selling companies and pilfering their pensions. I looked this up, and found that Bain Capital was actually responsible for the success of many companies that have tons of employees (Staples and Domino's among them.) While some have faltered, it seems to be a slight minority of them (as in somewhere less than half.) As for the raiding of their pensions, it appears that there was only one incident that could remotely be interpreted as that, however it wasn't what you could call raiding it. Apparently, Bain Capital owned a company called GS something, but took no part in their management. Somebody within that company wasn't properly funding the pension, and when they went bust, they couldn't pay the employees their full pension, reducing $400 a month from it. I'm not sure how you pin that on Romney.
Another one was that Romney's campaign was being funded by banks, and therefore he must be in bed with them. I looked at his source, and it included a disclaimer that said it wasn't the banks themselves, but their employees. Even if they did support him, I'm not sure what that is supposed to prove. The argument was that he was in favor of TARP, so the banks want him in. That didn't make sense to me because no politician has been a bigger supporter of TARP than Obama. On that same token, I noticed that Hugo Chavez endorses Obama, but I somehow doubt that will make Obama sympathize with him.
Although I did find out (from seeing excerpts of the debate) that Obama gave very large government loans to several corporations who contributed to his campaign (the actual corporations, not the employees,) and then went bust, effectively pilfering government money. When Romney threw that argument out there (albeit in far less harsh words) you could see the expression of "yeah, that wasn't one of my best moments" in Obama's face.
I also heard the argument that Romney will make the rich richer. Looking back though, that is exactly what has been happening over the last four years under Obama's watch, but I'm supposed to believe that giving him another four years will make that go away? I've also heard the standard argument of "If X gets elected, he'll sell out our country," which is the same argument I've heard every election.
So far, Obama's supporters have only convinced me that voting for him would be a bad idea. Especially his running mate Joe Biden who effectively announced that we're worse off now than we were four years ago.
Still though, I don't see any convincing reason to vote for that particular office at all. The only person I'm thinking of voting for is Jeff Flake who came out against SOPA/PIPA, and actually does have a record of reducing spending, which I as a libertarian do find attractive.
Re:Slightly (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Correction (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, ask their employees if they'd also vote for someone who would reduce taxes for their bosses, but raise theirs.
Re:The fucks the difference? (Score:3, Insightful)
And yet... millions of people who feel that way are going to vote for them anyway.
Seriously people, grow a pair and vote for a third party or none of the above. Not voting is a vote. If record lack of turn-out at the polls isn't a strong enough sign of dissent to get a response then there is no peaceful action left.
Who knows, maybe one of these days we will get rid of political parties and force candidates to run on their individual stances, past records, and merits. No more herding everyone like brainless cattle into two corals.
Re:Slightly (Score:5, Insightful)
Only if you are one of those people who thinks that the Democrats are not equally pro-corporate-system as the Republicans are.
When was the last time the Republican Party thought regulating anything other than abortion or gayness was a good idea?
I'm not disputing that both parties have significant agreements on fundamental policy issues that we both seem to disagree with,
but most of those issues would be a complete disaster if "right wing pro-corporate fascists" were allowed to deregulate.
So..? (Score:5, Insightful)
Any business that operated the way the US govt does would declare bankruptcy and be forced to sell off all it's assets after a year.
Any government that operates the way a business does would execute the disabled at birth.
One would not care to have a government run like a business any more than they would care to have a business run like a government.
Re:Slightly (Score:5, Insightful)
Third party doesn't accomplish much either. I wouldn't want most of those guys as president either.
Don't feel compelled to pick one, if there is nobody there worth picking then vote none of the above. Lack of participation in the political system is a vote as well. A vote that you are no longer fooled by the political system or buy that it is anything more than a rigged game to control the masses. We need reform but nothing you do in the voting booth will EVER end the system put in place to divide society into economic classes.
They revise the system now and then to more effectively yoke the lower classes and solidify the position of the upper class but the end goal is the same as it was in feudal society. The voting booth only exists to give enough illusion of participation that people don't feel oppressed enough to actually do something about it. If people did do something about it, people of the upper classes would worm their way in and make sure the new regime served the same purpose as the old one. Easy to do, just help make sure some of the new guard becomes the new old guard and greed will do the rest.
As long as wealth can be passed from generation to generation; taxation isn't applied to entrenched wealth but new wealth; and paper entities exist that allow one to profit from abuses without assuming liability for them; nothing will change. So long as these things remain, it won't matter who is voted in or what form the government takes.
Re:The fucks the difference? (Score:5, Insightful)
I disagree: don't refuse to vote. Get out there and vote. But vote third-party. If you don't vote at all, that's not really a vote, because then everyone will just say you're apathetic, you're not interested in politics, etc. But if you vote, and vote for a third-party, they can't pull the apathy card; if lots of people are pissed off and vote for third-party candidates, that will show that people aren't apathetic, they care, but they're totally pissed about the mainstream candidates and want a better choice.
If you don't vote, your "no-vote" won't show up, except in turn-out polls and raw voting numbers. When people look at the results, they'll see something like 48% Romney, 49% Obama, 3% other. If lots of you vote third-party instead, we could see something like 35% Romney, 36% Obama, and 29% Other. Suddenly, the idea of a non-Dem, non-Rep candidate becoming President looks like a real possibility.
Re:The fucks the difference? (Score:2, Insightful)
The third party candidates aren't any better than the two party ones.
There is only one way to cast a vote that says the entire political process is a corrupt farce and that is not to participate in it. Stop doing it, join your local militia instead.
" If you don't vote at all, that's not really a vote, because then everyone will just say you're apathetic"
In the current system .0001% have most of the say in what happens be it in congress, the presidency, or even the courtroom and your vote only changes how that say is spun in the media. Third party votes don't change that. They are just different spin engines. Voting in the current system amounts to picking a flavor of BS. You are just supporting a less popular flavor.
Vote for none of the above. The only vote that indicates you think the system is utterly broken and that you are prepared to support those who will take effective action to end it.
Re:Of course (Score:2, Insightful)
Much more likely to deregulate, support offshoring, and expand the H1-B visa pool.
That's because of those moocher tech workers who feel entitled to 8 hour work days, decent salaries and health care coverage.
Obviously they've never lived in the "real world". Where if you don't like your crappy, slave-wage job you can just ask daddy if you can borrow enough money to start your own company.
Re:The fucks the difference? (Score:3, Insightful)
Not voting is a vote.
Some day, I'd like for someone to explain to me how abstention leads, in any way, to revolution... and why that would be a good thing.
I know people love drama, but revolutions are seldom without severe consequences for everyone, involved or not, and often end in monumental disaster. Anyone remember what happened the last time someone in the US tried this on a large scale? Bloodiest event in our history, something like 600,000 dead, economy annihilated, permanent rift among the citizenry that we're still dealing with every day.
We're not talking about Browncoats in movies here, just shouting Jefferson quotations instead. We're talking genuine stuff of nightmares. Gunshot wounds to women and children, IED's, chemical weaponry, death from above, a domestic insurgency that will do anything, etc. Meanwhile, outside threats and deals with the devil. Ugly, ugly shit.
Re:Slightly (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh, come on...
EVERY problem can be solved by tax cuts and deregulation!
Or to paraphrase what my wife told me she once read...
Democrats like to regulate and throw money at problems.
Republicans like to deregulate and throw money at Republicans.
Re:Correction (Score:4, Insightful)
Mod down
The whole point of Sarbanes-Oxley is people had no clue Enron was doing weird shit. You can hate it all you want. but its goal is to encourage transparency to protect its investors. I see nothing wrong with that
Re:Correction (Score:5, Insightful)
The fact is taxes have to go up for the middle class if he is going to be revenue neutral. So, either he is lying about being revenue neutral, or lying about not raising taxes on the middle class. Can't have it both ways.
I think we can all agree that Romney is lying. That was his debate strategy, after all, to lie about his positions. He knows that his pro-CEO position is untenable if the public knew about it. Also, he's not a smart person anyways, if he was, he'd be worth far more than $250 million and into the billions that his capital management peers are worth, or he's lying about his assets. see: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/mitt-romney-is-worth-250-million-why-so-little/2012/10/05/64128882-0c20-11e2-a310-2363842b7057_story.html [washingtonpost.com]
And, you do need to raise taxes in the middle of a recession to grow an economy. The GDP is the sum of all spending, and it/the economy only grows when everybody spends more.
If people do not spend more (for whatever reason, maybe they fear for their future and want to save, or maybe they're now turned off by products produced by sellers, such as Samsung Galaxy's or real estate) then it is up to government to increase that total spending, in a way that causes money to flow through the economy. Normally that's done by lowering interest rates, but they can't possibly go any lower, and now government has to directly spend - take money from the public, spend it.
Economically, the government is just another person, that's really really rich. This person can cause the economy to jumpstart, by influencing the economy's spending habits directly, instead of indirectly through interest rate reduction.
The worst thing you can do in a recession is NOT SPEND. This is why conservatives are fucking clueless at growing an economy, because they like to do the exact opposite of what you need to do.
Additionally, conservatives are horrible at influencing others to spend money. When was the last time a conservative made you WANT to buy something? Liberals do it all the time - and they magically produce value out of nothing. Entertainment, fashion, higher-education, and the arts are industries that actually cause people to WANT to spend money, and produce value from nothing, because liberals have the power to produce value intellectually that conservatives do not.
Conservatives can never produce value intellectually - they're conservatives after all, and are incapable of pushing the state-of-the-art in intellectual fields. They're always stuck with industries that are based on NEED, such as real-estate, energy, etc, and can only produce value from physical resources.
Re:A liberal convinced me to take a second look... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:A liberal convinced me to take a second look... (Score:3, Insightful)
LOL, you think Bain Capital had anything to do with the ACTUAL jobs at any of the companies?
Try again.
They didn't do anything but offer financing, which they actually transacted in such a way as to guarantee themselves a profit regardless of the company's success or failure.
You really should pay more attention to your own words. They owned, but did not manage.
Somebody else built that. Don't give them credit.
You're also misinformed about how campaign financing works. Corporations can't directly fund an election, so they "encourage" their employees to do so. This has been known for years. Try reading the novel Grass Roots for an example.
So far, your argument has convinced me that you're as mendacious as Mitt Romney, but the truth comes out of your words anyway.
PS, those corporations Romney talked about? He was factually deficient there too. Solyndra had as many investors who are donors to the Republican party as Democrat, and you know what? They didn't fail because of anything they did. They failed due to Chinese dumping of Solar Panels at lower cost.
Of course, they're only one out of over three dozen companies funded by that program which was created under George W. Bush, but don't let that bother you, go with Romney's lie about how many of them failed.
I know, Obama didn't bring all of this up, and that's a problem, just like he didn't mention how Massachusetts schools were best in the nation before Mitt Romney, so basically he could have done nothing, but you could look up some facts yourself. I guess Obama must have been told not to argue with Mitt's BS fest or something.
Either that or he was unprepared for the litany of lies. perhaps he should have had somebody prep him with research from Slashdot.
Re:A liberal convinced me to take a second look... (Score:4, Insightful)
The cry that he doesn't have details is merely a tactic, because they have so little else of "meat" to argue. The Obama camp's responses have descended to schoolyard "liar!" and "I know you are but what am I" type responses. This is what happens when somebody has already lost the argument.
The reality is, you don't WANT to get into the weeds of how it'll work right now because doing so would preclude the entire concept of bi-partisanship. If you want to leave the door open for bi-partisanship, you define a direction (which Romney has done) and you define core principals that will be used as a guide (which Romney has done). Arguing that there are no details is frankly getting hoodwinked by the Obama campaign, it is short-sighted and ignorant, and more people need to wake up and recognize it for the sleight of hand tactic that it is.
Consider this, if he came out and outlined a plan that was 100% palpable to every voter and it was detailed with clarity, the Obama campaign would then argue that he is not being bi-partisan, because they didn't have a chance to give input! Plus, they would argue that he has changed direction in some random way, because it doesn't match word for word some comment made six years ago!
The latter is laughable. Is it really a BAD THING if somebody changes their position after listening to both sides and carefully considering the options? I would think this is a GOOD THING, yet for some reason the political system (both sides) have used it over and over as a cry that somebody is somehow a bad person if they change their opinion over time, and they keep shouting this over and over in hopes that eventually enough people will believe it!
Answer me this: have you EVER changed your mind? On any topic? Are you a horrible person because of this?
The sad thing is, because of how human psychology works, despite the facts, many people just listen to the "party line" and stick with it, without taking the time to do the proper research (getting away from the "party" propaganda sites), as did the 2nd parent.
Kudos to you AlphaWold_JK.
Re:Correction (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Slightly (Score:5, Insightful)
Lack of participation in the political system is a vote as well. A vote that you are no longer fooled by the political system or buy that it is anything more than a rigged game to control the masses.
No, it's a vote for apathy. That's how politicians interpret it. And they will ignore you.
Mitt has more money than the previous ten (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Slightly (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Wealthy people (Score:4, Insightful)
I want tax cuts because it means I can keep more I my own money and re-invest it into my business.
BS and one of the most widely told lies by conservatives.
Taxes encourage you to immediately spend more of your money on your business. If you put all your profit back into the business by hiring employees and building stuff - you turn your profits into a bigger business without paying much in taxes.
For example: Let's say your current small business makes $1M / year in profit. Normally everything above $388k or so would be taxed at 35%. Let's simplify and say it's a flat tax and you pay $350k in taxes. Now let's say you hire 20 employees instead at $50k / year which eliminates your profit. Now you've got 20 more employees to grow your business and you're not paying any income taxes. Problem solved. w00t!
Re:Correction (Score:4, Insightful)