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.
Slightly (Score:5, Interesting)
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)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Slightly (Score:5, Interesting)
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)
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)
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)
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: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: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: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.
Re:Slightly (Score:4, Interesting)
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)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't want to write myself in for president. Let someone else take care of that, I have more important things to do.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Slightly (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
"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
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:3)
http://www.economist.com/blogs/lexington/2010/10/estate_tax_and_founding_fathers [economist.com]
How Quickly We Forget 2000 (Score:3)
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:Slightly (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Slightly (Score:5, Informative)
maybe you should read this,
http://www.skymachines.com/US-National-Debt-Per-Capita-Percent-of-GDP-and-by-Presidental-Term.htm [skymachines.com]
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Among tech executives? Romney, of course. Much more likely to deregulate, support offshoring, and expand the H1-B visa pool.
Re: (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: (Score:3)
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: (Score:2)
Er.. thousands "or" millions.
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: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
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.
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.
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.
Goofy headline (Score:2)
Here's another survey (Score:2)
- 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
Re:Here's another survey (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
SOX (Score:2)
Two cheeks of the same ass (Score:2)
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.
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.
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: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
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!
You are know by what you despise.... (Score:3)
And why not? Most thieves hate the Law....
A vote for Obama | Romney == vote wasted (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
This is pretty much what I think about the presidential election:
http://jaypgreene.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/alien_vs_predator_quad_movie_poster_l.jpg [wordpress.com]
And of course:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rAT_BuJAI70 [youtube.com]
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:A liberal convinced me to take a second look... (Score:5, Insightful)
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:A liberal convinced me to take a second look... (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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)
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
Re: (Score:3)
Re:A liberal convinced me to take a second look... (Score:5, Informative)
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: ... 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/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.
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)"
Re: (Score:3)
the nation with the most powerful military sets the world agenda
This is false. We are long past the days of the British Empire. In this day and age, the nation with the most powerful economy and cultural influence sets the world agenda. Of course, I've always found the notion that the U.S. ought to be individually responsible for setting a world agenda to be a strange one -- it's also a notion that didn't exist before WWII. Furthermore, when our government tries to assert itself in such a way where we attempt to set a world agenda, we tend to anger other countries and a
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:3)
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
Mitt has more money than the previous ten (Score:3, Insightful)
Unknown Lamer (Score:2)
Thanks for apologizing the study for us, Lamer.
tech execs != start-up execs (Score:2)
Poll the start-up techs companies execs who they want? They will say O.
Dubious Math? (Score:2)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
It said CEOs and CFOs didn't it?
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:Correction (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, I have been listening to what Romney is saying, and he isn't saying much. He will cut the rates across the board 20%, and he will make it revenue neutral by closing some mythical loopholes.
The problem with what he is saying is that cutting the base rate = $5T over 10 years. Even eliminating the mortgage deduction, the employer's tax credit for providing health care, it barely begins to scratch that loss of revenue. Hell, cutting all foreign aid, including to Israel is barely noticeable. (Foreign aid is ~ $23B a year, over 1/3 goes to Egypt and Israel) http://www.vaughns-1-pagers.com/politics/us-foreign-aid.htm [vaughns-1-pagers.com]
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.
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:Correction (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Correction (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
The way we've been doing it in Canada is cut taxes, then put fees on everything. Buy a TV, there's a $20 environmental fee. Doesn't matter if it's a little $100 TV or large $2000 TV, you pay the same fee that goes into general revenue. Most consumer purchases now have some type of flat fee attached, therefore keeping sales tax down and being fair by charging the poor and the rich the same.
Latest has been the crown corporations. Government needs money, add a surcharge to the electric bill. My bill just went
Re: (Score:3)
...if you were referring to Romney then you haven't really been listening to what he's saying.
He says everything you want him to say:
http://www.roboromney.com/ [roboromney.com]
(see how the tech sector and Romney go together!)
Re:Correction (Score:5, Informative)
Maybe you need to listen to what Romney is saying.
From the debate:
- He says he will reduce the tax burden on the businesses that create the most jobs in this country.
- He says later on that the top 5% of businesses create most of the jobs in this country
- He admits even later that all of those businesses are raking in lots of money through existing tax cuts and benefits.
- He reiterates that he will cut taxes for the job creators
Yes, Romney will cut taxes for the top 5% of the corporate income brackets where the subsidiaries of Exxon-Mobil and Donald Trump live. This will be payed by cutting NPR, Public Health Mandate, Food Stamps, Subsidized Housing and COBRA aka everything the poorest among us have to not fall into desperate poverty, disease and hunger.
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:3)
but its goal is to encourage transparency to protect its investors. I see nothing wrong with that
To quote the late Milton Friedman, "One of the great mistakes is to judge policies and programs by their intentions rather than their results."
However noble the original goals of Sarbanes-Oxley were and remain, the results of a decade worth of experience suggest that the law as written is substantially flawed needs to be either repaired or repealed and replaced. Sarbanes-Oxley failed to prevent the financial crash and the collapse of publicly traded companies due to accounting frauds. By any reasonable and
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Romney ......Given his stage charisma
Wow. Never thought I'd hear anyone say that.
Re: (Score:2)
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. (The reason the percentages don’t add up is because respondents were allowed to choose more than one option.)
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?
Re: (Score:3)
Cthulhu / Dagon - why vote for the lesser evil?
Re: (Score:3)
I'll choose John Paul as the presidential candidate and Romney's running mate Paul Ryan as the vice-presidential candidate. ... My vote doesn't count.
Um... Do you mean Pope John Paul, or Ron Paul?
P.S. Ryan is a tool, as fast and loose with facts as he is with his marathon times...
Re: (Score:3)
and a little help from his friends, George and Ringo.
Re: (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
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: (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 th
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
People used to vote for Mickey Mouse as a write-in candidate, but, frankly, I'm afraid to see what Disney would do with that kind of power.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (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 de
Re:The fucks the difference? (Score:5, Interesting)
A trendy enough thing to say, but falls on its face out here in the Real World.
Speaking for myself, here -- I don't want to be chained to working for a megacorp to be able to buy decent health insurance. I've done that, and it sucked. If we can make it to 2014 without repeal of legislation scheduled to be enacted, I'll actually be able to buy a decent individual policy at a reasonable price, even if I'm working for myself.
Second -- there are groups I'm active in (one regarding transportation policy, the other focusing on marriage equality) where the difference between the parties on matters important to us is night and day. Which party controls Congress (and, to a lesser but by no means trivial extent, the executive branch) makes a serious difference in terms of what we're doing -- as in, fighting for incremental improvements vs fighting to avoid repeal of the last 20 years of progress -- so this "they're all the same" BS falls completely flat when exposed to actual practice.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
An anti-science president will mean the US won't be a world leader in this century.
The USA is not exactly the world leader today, and the magic 8-ball does not predict an improvement in the future. The USA is doing good basically only in one area - in agriculture. And in printing money; but that's only while other guys pretend to like USD. Some electronic products, especially memory ICs, are not even available in the USA - not because Toshiba is anti-US but simply because the US market of components isn'
Re:I'm a bit confused... (Score:5, Funny)
What am I missing here?
64% for Romney
41% for Obama
105% total
No I haven't read the article to see if those numbers in the summary match...
-5% for Ron Paul
Re: (Score:3)
My thought is that it's like HIPAA. Companies meet the requirements in the worst possible way. Often because a contractor makes it as hard as possible to extend their contract and guarantee frequent business. I've worked in multiple SOX companies, and I was a HIPAA contractor, apparently the only literate one, given that HIPAA explicitly states that encryption is not required, but everyone I ever talked to believed encryption was required.