Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Businesses Government Republicans News Politics Technology

Study Shows Tech Execs Slightly Prefer Romney Over Obama 461

Posted by Unknown Lamer
from the eh-is-the-new-awesome dept.
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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Study Shows Tech Execs Slightly Prefer Romney Over Obama

Comments Filter:
  • Slightly (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 08, 2012 @07:41PM (#41591685)

    I'm surprised that high-paid execs only "slightly" prefer a republican to a democrat. You'd think it would be a landslide.

    • Re:Slightly (Score:4, Informative)

      by thrillseeker (518224) on Monday October 08, 2012 @07:55PM (#41591797)
      The word "slightly" is editorializing of a 64:41 ratio.
    • if you RTFSummary, you would've learned that the same high-paid execs preferred democrat Obama over the republican McCain back in 2008.
    • Re:Slightly (Score:5, Interesting)

      by betterunixthanunix (980855) on Monday October 08, 2012 @08:00PM (#41591833)

      You'd think it would be a landslide

      Only if you are one of those people who thinks that the Democrats are not equally pro-corporate-system as the Republicans are. Just because the Democrats claim to be working for the benefit of "commoners" does not mean they actually are. In case you have forgotten, it was a Republican administration that kicked off the "bail out the companies that screwed up" plan, and a Democratic administration that put the plan into action. Let's not forget the various hand-outs to corporations that we have seen from Democrats: the DMCA, continued support for a standing army and the military industrial complex, widespread propaganda campaigns that help pharmaceutical companies (ahem war on drugs), the current campaign to make trademarks, copyrights, and patents more restrictive, etc.

      In America, your choice is between one set of right wing pro-corporate fascists, and another set. Or you can vote third party.

      • Re:Slightly (Score:5, Interesting)

        by spikenerd (642677) on Monday October 08, 2012 @08:20PM (#41591995)

        Or you can vote third party.

        As a Libertarian, I spent many years preaching that people should vote for a third party. Over time, I started to realize that it wasn't really so much of a social problem as a technical problem. Specifically, plurality voting has a known weakness, and it is gamed by considering only the two most-likely parties, and picking among only them. In other words, even if you manage to bring a third party into popularity, plurality voting will soon "fix" the situation until only two dominant parties remain.

        So, the answer, it turns out, is not to try to bring a third party into popularity. It is to pick one of the parties and work to reform it. Yeah, I know, it sounds imppossible, but hey, it's more possible than bringing a third party into popularity (without revising the constitution). You really do have more sway in the primaries than in the main election anyway. So, pick one of the big two, and get active in their primaries. Then don't even waste your time voting among the final two contenders--you cannot make a difference there.

        • Re:Slightly (Score:5, Informative)

          by TubeSteak (669689) on Tuesday October 09, 2012 @12:50AM (#41593519) Journal

          As a Libertarian, I spent many years preaching that people should vote for a third party. Over time, I started to realize that it wasn't really so much of a social problem as a technical problem. Specifically, plurality voting has a known weakness, and it is gamed by considering only the two most-likely parties, and picking among only them.

          What? No! Much of Europe is run by coalition governments [wikipedia.org]

          The technical problem in the USA is that the two dominant parties have rigged the system against third parties.
          It's a sad and sordid affair that involves everything from redistricting to creating the current bipartisan Presidential Debate Commission in order to shut out third parties.

          The only reason Ross Perot got into the '92 debates is because Bush & Clinton wanted him there.
          The Republican and Democratic led debate commission tried to keep Perot out and failed.
          In '96, 3/4s of the country wanted Ross Perot in the debates, but he was excluded... because the candidates wanted him out.

          Unfortunately, this problem isn't likely to be reformed from the inside, as it has the support of most politicians, or from the outside, as they have no real power to effect change.

      • Re:Slightly (Score:5, Insightful)

        by TubeSteak (669689) on Monday October 08, 2012 @08:31PM (#41592095) Journal

        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.

      • Re:Slightly (Score:5, Insightful)

        by shaitand (626655) on Monday October 08, 2012 @08:35PM (#41592137) Journal

        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:Slightly (Score:5, Insightful)

          by phantomfive (622387) on Monday October 08, 2012 @11:06PM (#41593053) Journal

          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.

          • Re:Slightly (Score:4, Interesting)

            by TubeSteak (669689) on Tuesday October 09, 2012 @02:22AM (#41593801) Journal

            No, it's a vote for apathy. That's how politicians interpret it. And they will ignore you.

            Imagine if an election was held and nobody showed up to vote.
            Is that apathy or a defacto vote of no-confidence in the government?

            Just like you'd call into question an election with 105% turnout, an election with 5% turnout is equally meaningless.
            So somewhere between the current voter turnout and zero, is a turnout rate that means the government does not represent the people.

            • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

              by phantomfive (622387)
              Your genius plan is to get no one to vote?

              Sure, keep up that plan. It only gives people like me more power. I don't care if I'm the only one who votes, if it means I get my way.
          • Exactly. Which is why I generally recommend people disgusted by both parties enough to feel it wouldn't make any difference which wins to vote third party.

            Third party votes mean two things to Big Two Party Apparatchiks:

            1. These people turned up to vote and will probably do so next time.

            2. We lost these people's votes because we didn't share the views of the third party they voted for.

            Basically you're signalling to the parties your vote is available, they just have to shift ground a little.

            The dang

        • Re:Slightly (Score:5, Informative)

          by artor3 (1344997) on Tuesday October 09, 2012 @01:09AM (#41593567)

          As long as wealth can be passed from generation to generation; taxation isn't applied to entrenched wealth but new wealth ... it won't matter who is voted in or what form the government takes.

          Funny you mention this. Here in the US, we have a tax on entrenched wealth being passed from generation to generation. It's called the "Estate Tax", or derisively referred to as the "death tax" by Republicans looking to get rid of it. It used to take ~50% of money in excess of $1M. Over the past several years, it's been watered down to just 35% of money in excess of $5M. Obama's trying to put it back to 2001 levels. Romney wants to remove it entirely.

          Voting matters. The rich and powerful want you to give up. They rely on it.

          • by shaitand (626655)

            "Here in the US, we have a tax on entrenched wealth being passed from generation to generation."

            The corporate game bypasses this for the very wealthy. As long as you continue to reinvest money it isn't profit and isn't taxed. So you simply continue to expand aka reinvest the dividends. It is a no contribution limit retirement account that can be passed from generation to generation. The death tax can also be bypassed with trusts and things bought for your children while you are still alive and with high pri

          • by Talderas (1212466)

            The estate tax does hurt since it takes into account all property and not just cash. The most direct and obvious casualty of it are the loss of small farms or maintaining a farmer caste if you want to look at it that way.

            So here's what usually happens. Farmland is extremely valuable but farmers don't have a lot of cash. The problem with farmland is that it is property so for the purpose of the estate tax it's assessed at it's full value rather than the value that could be gotten for it by selling it immedia

      • Yes, both major parties are market-oriented, and the market drivers are middle to large grossing companies and their largest shareholders. Research suggests that constituent issues primarily concerning the bottom 50% are utterly ignored, the 2nd quartile are barely acknowledged, while the top quartile get varying levels of service correlating with their campaign donation levels.

        That said, despite fact that social democratic, libertarian, et al voters are marginalized within the two parties there is signific

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by JakeBurn (2731457)
      Obama has hit a Trillion dollar deficit per year since he took over. A lot of that money was 'stimulus' paid directly to these asshats. Its almost like when random joe public awards a giant payday to someone in court. Everyone knows its a bad idea but they do it anyway in the hopes that maybe one day they'll be the lucky one to get a free payday at someone else's expense.
  • Of course (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Billly Gates (198444) on Monday October 08, 2012 @07:41PM (#41591687) Journal

    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.

    • by shmlco (594907)

      Among tech executives? Romney, of course. Much more likely to deregulate, support offshoring, and expand the H1-B visa pool.

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by HangingChad (677530)

        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.

    • Came here to say this. When you're C-level and you're getting thousands of millions of shares/options awarded to you, plus golden parachutes, it only makes sense to support a candidate whose tax policies favor these methods of income.

    • Re:Of course (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Revotron (1115029) on Monday October 08, 2012 @08:07PM (#41591893)

      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.

      • by AK Marc (707885)
        What is it when the capital gains was changed from standard to 15%, and people in the 35% bracket would be paying 35% on capital gains, but got a "20% tax cut" down to 15% for capital gains tax.

        Even the economists understand that math, and to keep people like you from complaining, often refer to percentage points (or fractions thereof, in some cases) as, just "points." Stocks go up or down "points" and you must use context to determine if that's percentage points or dollars share price. "I knocked 3 poin
      • by shaitand (626655)

        Yeah, 10k that would SUCK! Of course the "people" that make up the backbone of this country have part-time jobs at office supply stores these days (because they no longer offer full time positions, benefits and scheduling flexibility, full-time staff have too much leverage) and make 8-12k TOTAL per year.

  • by hsmith (818216) on Monday October 08, 2012 @07:43PM (#41591701)
    I mean, it seems good for the gander, why can't we apply it to the goose?

    Any business that operated the way the USG operates would be under investigation faster than you could blink.
    • Because senators don't want to be regulated.
    • by JWW (79176)

      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.

      Our politicians are so corrupt and so sold out that I see very little hope that any one presidential candidate could fix this. The two parties we currently have have conspired to lead us to ruin. They will never ever give up their power. They'd all rather see the country burn then admit that they truly totally and completely cannot provide even mildly competent leadership.

  • by Crypto Gnome (651401) on Monday October 08, 2012 @07:48PM (#41591733) Homepage Journal
    Unfortunately in order for THE MEDIA to make any MONEY off this RACE it requires there to be a competition.

    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.

  • Because 2 percentage points away from a super-majority is only a "slight" preference.
  • Ask a whole bunch of excessively wealthy men who they're going to vote for:
    - The man who will do what's best for the country even if that's going to be difficult and unpopular
    - The man who will do nothing of the sort, BUT will directly put more cash into the pocket of rich men like yourselves.

    WhoDaThunkIT: Survey of CEOs says Most Would Vote For Romney
  • Put it on the pile of the other failed "reforms" of the last generation.
  • What would be nice is to see a couple of prominent figures come out and endorse a third-party candidate. Hell, maybe other people would start to follow suit and we would actually have something more resembling an actual, like, democracy, rather than the ridiculous excuse for "choices" we have now. Coke or Pepsi, McDonald's or Burger King, FOX or MSNBC, Crest or Colgate, Romney or Obama.

  • 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.

  • Wealthy people (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Teckla (630646) on Monday October 08, 2012 @08:01PM (#41591847)

    Wealthy people are biased in favor of the candidate that promises them yet more tax cuts, film at 11.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      And people who live on entitlements are biased in favor of the one who promises them yet more entitlements...
      • by don.g (6394)

        You'd think so, but they're often enough caught up in the culture wars to vote for the other guy anyway.

        I assume you're in the USA and need reminding that your defense and agricultural industries are hugely dependent on government funding or subsidies, but somehow get missed in the "government needs to spend less" arguments.

      • by artor3 (1344997)

        Riiight, cause there's no difference between a single mom wanting help to feed her children and a billionaire wanting even more millions of dollars of spending cash each year. Clearly they're both being equally greedy.

  • by TiggertheMad (556308) on Monday October 08, 2012 @08:09PM (#41591905) Homepage Journal
    One thing is universal: everyone hates SOX.

    And why not? Most thieves hate the Law....
  • Gary Johnson or Mickey Mouse for prez.

    Obama = NDAA
    Romney = I'll say whatever you want to hear for your vote.

    I've never voted for a third party whacktard in my life. I'm sure Gary is full of crack ideas and won't get much accomplished with the senate and house but I don't much care anymore. Enough is enough.

  • by AlphaWolf_HK (692722) on Monday October 08, 2012 @08:14PM (#41591951)

    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.

    • by rroman (2627559) on Monday October 08, 2012 @09:39PM (#41592615)
      I'm not from US, but after watching the presidential debate, I'm convinced that Romney is really bad candidate. In the debate, he keep repeating, that he will support teachers, he will cancel Obama care and replace it with something, that will essentially do the same, he will lower tax rates with closing loopholes to have the revenue the same and so on WITHOUT actually saying anything specific. He basically said, that he is able to do everything well again without saying how would he achieve it. Such magic presented in the campaign is only populism and he will not be able to hold his promises. And even if I didn't see this as a problem, I still would see the fact, that he is inconsistent with himself: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cPgfzknYd20 [youtube.com] Obama on the other hand was quite specific about his plans and his plans seem to be realistic
      • by Tora (65882) on Monday October 08, 2012 @09:54PM (#41592683)

        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.

        • by MSG (12810) on Monday October 08, 2012 @11:14PM (#41593085)

          The cry that he doesn't have details is merely a tactic, because they have so little else of "meat" to argue.

          That's a load of nonsense.

          Mitt and Ann have said that they can't talk specifics, because that would give their critics a target. They've said that once they were elected, that there were going to be changes that people wouldn't like. They can't talk about their plans, because they know we won't vote for them if we know what they're going to do. That's good enough for me. If knowing their plans is going to make me not vote for them, then I have enough information to know that I don't want to vote for them.

          Then there's Ryan. Questioned about how his budget plan would work, he replied that they hadn't run the numbers on it. That's really the essence of conservative thought today, in a nutshell. It's all ideology, and no data. They don't care enough to actually test their theories, or examine how they'll work in practice. They go with their gut and hope for the best. It's absolutely ridiculous.

          • by dkf (304284)

            Mitt and Ann have said that they can't talk specifics, because that would give their critics a target.

            But now, the main election campaign, is exactly the time for specifics, for criticism. By way of compensation, you get to be able to criticize the other candidate(s). Fair is fair.

            Questioned about how [Ryan's] budget plan would work, he replied that they hadn't run the numbers on it.

            Then it's not a budget plan, it's a collection of soundbites. Yes, the plan will be inaccurate — budget plans always are because of unpredictable events — but it's better with main finance to be able to say "this is what I think will happen, and here's why" than to go into an election with no idea at all.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      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 el

    • by AK Marc (707885)
      The real problem I see with the "lets hate on the 47%/49%ers is that most of them are there without choice. I've been a 19%er. My mother retired and started drawing SS, after having paid in her entire life. That makes her a lousy free-loading liberal scum. And what do you do about the freeloading scum when you find out the one you are talking about is a 3 year old? Tell him to get a job or his milk money will be cut off? I've had this discussion with others and they don't mind hurting the children to p
    • by artor3 (1344997) on Monday October 08, 2012 @09:52PM (#41592677)

      I'll assume you're not just a Republican posing as an independent to post propaganda, even though you really seem like one, what with your pitch-perfect recitation of the talking points.

      Romney has stated that he plans to slash income taxes by 20% and eliminate the estate tax -- a huge giveaway to the old rich that will cost $4.8T over ten years. He insists he'll pay for it all by closing loopholes, but that's mathematically impossible. Either he's going to raise taxes on the middle class, or run up the deficit, or he's just flat out lying.

      Romney has stated that he plans to peg military spending to 4%, which is more than even the military is asking for. That will cost us an additional $2.1T over ten years. Against, no indication of how we're going to pay for it.

      That's close to seven trillion dollars that Romney wants to spend, all to benefit the rich and powerful. Meanwhile, Obama is trying to cut military spending and bring taxes back closer to Clinton-era levels.

      Sources:
      http://www.mittromney.com/issues/national-defense [mittromney.com]
      "Obama has already cut the projected defense budget by $487 billion. What is more, he proposed and signed into law a budget process that will result in an additional $492 billion of defense cuts over the next ten years. ... Mitt Romney will begin by reversing Obama-era defense cuts and return to the budget baseline established by Secretary Robert Gates in 2010, with the goal of setting core defense spending ... at a floor of 4 percent of GDP." -- Emphasis theirs.

      http://www.mittromney.com/issues/tax [mittromney.com]
      " Make permanent, across-the-board 20 percent cut in marginal rates
              Maintain current tax rates on interest, dividends, and capital gains
              Eliminate taxes for taxpayers with AGI below $200,000 on interest, dividends, and capital gains
              Eliminate the Death Tax
              Repeal the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT)"

    • by quantaman (517394)

      Well if you want actual unethical behaviour from Romney at Bain look at how he bailed out Bain & Company [rollingstone.com] (where Bain Capital spun off from). The basic deal was Romney took out big loans from the banks (and the FDIC) to try and save the company and avoid bankruptcy. But they were still losing money and the creditors wanted Bain & Company to declare bankruptcy so the remaining money would go back to the creditors. Instead Romney stated that instead of declaring bankruptcy he would pay out all the asse

    • by MSG (12810)

      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.)

      In a huge "fuck you" to Bain, Staples just published a press release titled "Staples, Inc. Announces Strategic Plan to Accelerate Growth" in which they announced plans to CLOSE 60 stores.

      Bain's strategy is to take over a company with a small amount of their own cash and a large amount of debt. They increase the company's revenue through acqu

      • IIRC Bain sold off Staples in the 90s when they became public, so at present those two companies have no association.

        However, even if they did, it wouldn't be because of Bain. A lot of brick and mortar stores are having trouble right now, particularly ones that deal in technology. I think they just need to learn to compete with online retailers, which it seems most refuse to do so. A notable exception is fry's electronics, who will price match any legit online retailer (the sales desks have a thick book of

  • 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.

    Thanks for apologizing the study for us, Lamer.

  • Keep in mind that tech has grown up and is now ran by short thinking MBAs who are looking out for their own stocks. As such, these are the same set of idiots that destroyed GE, Novell, McDonald Douglas, etc.

    Poll the start-up techs companies execs who they want? They will say O.
  • 64 percent favoring the former governor from Massachusetts, and only 41 percent favoring the incumbent president

    It's been awhile since I've been in school, but aren't percentages like this supposed to add up to 100? Also, if this is [somehow] correct, how can a 23% difference be called slight, as the title says?

Line Printer paper is strongest at the perforations.

Working...