Slashdot Mirror
Study Shows Tech Execs Slightly Prefer Romney Over Obama
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.
I'm surprised that high-paid execs only "slightly" prefer a republican to a democrat. You'd think it would be a landslide.
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.
http://saveie6.com/
Study shows tech execs slightly prefer being shot in the head over the chest.
Word it how you like.. We're still stuck with a no-choice choice and can not 'win'.
Romney lies through his teeth, so how do you know what his policies would be?
Include tech execs in the title to make it seem relevant to this site yet it's just a underneath the BS it's just a business/politics article.
Maybe Tech execs like the idea of wiping out all electronic records of everything they have ever done when they switch jobs? Especially when they use other people's money to do it?
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.
Surely we can save everyone the time and trouble and just assume that for nearly every business:
Study Shows ________ Execs Slightly Prefer Romney Over Obama
Why you shouldn't let religious kooks run the government: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6oxTMUTOz0w Scientific progress stopped because mathematics are created by the devil.
Don't stop where the ink does.
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.
Visit CryptoGnome in his home.
It said CEOs and CFOs didn't it?
My company is fairly strict about SOX.
The result is that engineers are not allowed to know how much the products we're designing cost. We're not allowed to know the cost of the components. We're not allowed to know what we sell them for. Nothing.
When we design a new product, when we look for parts, we ask the commodity team whether we can use it, and they give a yes or no, based on cost. But, we're not allowed to know the numbers.
Complying with SOX is a royal pain in the rear for engineers.
Because 2 percentage points away from a super-majority is only a "slight" preference.
Slashdot: Playing Favorites Since 1997
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
Visit CryptoGnome in his home.
Put it on the pile of the other failed "reforms" of the last generation.
Fugue for Aaron Swartz
I wouldn't vote right if I was paid. Obama has done some good things, but he's not left enough so far for my liking. Perhaps in his second term with nothing to lose, he'll actually be able to get something done and past the thugs in congress.
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.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
no damn wonder americans aint no good at math.....
Worse one term President since Jimmy C. Good riddance.
Wealthy people are biased in favor of the candidate that promises them yet more tax cuts, film at 11.
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...
Why can't we deep six a half a dozen politicians?
One thing is universal: everyone hates SOX.
And why not? Most thieves hate the Law....
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
.... I see a "slight" slashdot bias here. The title says Romney is only "slightly" preffered with 64%, while the clip says they were "heavily" in favor of Obama in '08 with only 60%.
Now the article doesn't mention how many were in favor of McCain in '08, so it might be that most of the rest of the 40% were undecided or not voting, in which case 60%-0% would be a huge margin compared to 64-41, but the headline is still misleading
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?
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.
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.
Careful with names containing L slashdot.org/~AiphaWolf_HK slashdot.org/~AlphaWoif_HK slashdot.org/~AiphaWoif_HK
Yes, ask their employees if they'd also vote for someone who would reduce taxes for their bosses, but raise theirs.
Thanks for apologizing the study for us, Lamer.
sig: sauer
The "small guys" trying to get NYSE listed are being kept down by a 0.5% cut to revenue? How small do you think is small?
Learn to love Alaska
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.
I am pretty sure that people can't favor both Romney -and- Obama over the other.
... and I've been in the field for decades, my choice is neither.
If I have to choose from the existing pool of American politicians - except for tweedledee and tweedledum - I'll choose John Paul as the presidential candidate and Romney's running mate Paul Ryan as the vice-presidential candidate.
But then, I ain't a power-broker in D.C.
My vote doesn't count.
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
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.
paintball
You are precisely wrong.
Not voting is considered a win for BOTH sides. If you don't vote, you don't vote for the wrong canidate.
It always seems to be Republican supporters who do the "they're both as bad as each other" game.
So a Republican will attack women, and the next minute a Republican apologist will be claiming Democrats hate women too.
Republican will be calling 'evolution a lie from the pit of hell and an apologist will claim it's Democrats that are anti-science.
Republicans will spend into the ground, and an apologist will blame Democrats for doing it.
You're pretending that the Democrats are as corporate as the Republicans, yet they corps are lined up behind the Republicans and spending accordingly on fake ads.
They are not the same as each other. The Republicans are the problem with American.
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.
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.
What do we do now?
Wait for Godot.
Our news team has learned that C-Level executives lean toward the republicans. Stop the fucking presses.
Cthulhu / Dagon - why vote for the lesser evil?
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Studies show those making mid to high 6 figure incomes also support Romney. How about a demographic that is not more interested in their money than everything else next time?
Honestly this whole damned election has glossed over the real issues. Is Mitt going to end the wars and bring our people home? IS Mitt going to demand china start playing nicer with trade? Is Mitt going to stop the US policy of pissing off the rest of the world?
He wont answer any of these questions or any others in any real detail. And how is he going to deal with the fact that the Senate is mostly democrats and will go into a "dont pass anything" mode?
Compare what happened before Sarbanes-Oxley, and what happened after Sarbanes-Oxley; before SOX, you were able to find out that Enron's books were full of shit before you lost money. After SOX, you only found out about this sort of strange accounting after your financial institution went under, and you found yourself left with nothing.
Newsflash, BOTH sides are the same side.
Whining about Sarbanes–Oxley Act (SOX) will get no sympathy from me.
Basically, SOX makes you do the most basic, low-level, elementary internal controls for publicly traded/owned companies. You have to count your money, check on IT security, and not lie. That's it.
The biggest problem is that executive officers have to sign a paper that says "We are not committing Enron/Worldcom/TYCO/Countrywide/BofA/CITIBank/MorganStanleyVampireSquid-style fraud, under penalty of going to PMITA prison." It's that last part that executives don't like and whine about -- being accountable and responsible for their own failures. Executives are very accustomed to not being questioned, not being accountable for failures, and are generally a selfish bunch of single-spoiled-child five-year-olds.
Suck it, spoiled rich people.
And divert us away from alternate candidates. Can't risk another Nader Thing. This has been the democrats' plan all along. Romney is a sleeper, working for them.
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
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.
Suppose you were an idiot and suppose you were a member of Congress
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.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
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?
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.
And while I have your attention I'd add, don't kid yourself, you have the choice of Romney or Obama.
Voting third party will harm your issues. There is a mechanism for more choice, but it's too late for this election. They're primaries. I'm so tired of people who never bother with primaries complaining about not having more choice. Participate in one of the two parties of your choice, press for candidates that better address your issues and/or candidates who support reforms that would make true third parties feasible through run-offs or ranked voting or another mechanism.
For now, you have Romney or Obama. Try not to go too much on one media source alone, or one talking head. Try not to allow internet boards to influence your choice too much. Try to do your own research. Read your voter's pamphlet, view some YouTube videos, read multiple media sources including possibly foreign sources. Don't take it from me, or anyone else.
But if you want my opinion, I'm sticking with the president. He saw his mother's health suffer and her having to deal with health insurance policies designed to deny her coverage and while the result is not perfect or really that good, you have to respect that he stuck to healthcare reform as he did and some good has come of it. Despite what pundits will swear, I don't believe most presidents would have put their presidency on the line even to take out a foe like Bin Laden. Obama did. Imagine what those pundits would have said if the SEAL team was killed and Bin Laden survived.
And that last one really gets to me. Not because Bin Laden is dead, although I am thankful for that. Rather, Obama has proven he is going to do what he feels is right regardless of what it may cost him personally. He may make mistakes. He may come across barriers. He may feel the need to fudge on the details when he isn't yet sure of them. But most fundamentally, Obama has proven himself to me to be an honest man. Mitt Romney on the other hand changes positions like a weather vane and will tell whatever crowd he is standing before exactly what they want to hear regardless of his real intent. His positions before the recent debate and his positions during are a great example of this, he was suddenly against everything he ever said he was for and claimed never to be for it. He was betting that most of the audience wouldn't bother double checking those "facts" later and sure enough if the polls are any indication, he was right.
Mitt Romney talks tough, but spent Vietnam in France. Mitt Romney has said he will stand up to China, but those companies he harvested began outsourcing China. He's referred to Russia as our "number one geopolitical foe" as if the cold war never ended and Putin has used this statement to suggest that extremism is on the rise in America - Putin has used it as the justification for continued Russian opposition to the missile shield. I would remind everyone here of a little basic civics. Congress collects revenue and spends it. Congress makes the laws. The president has executive orders of limited scope and the veto pen. That's basically it for domestic issues and the veto pen can be overridden by Congress. Despite all the media's attention on a president's domestic agenda, the presidency is mainly foreign policy.
Do you want a reactionary who has tantrums before going on television or do you want the man you've had the helm for the last 3.5 years?
To me, that's the ball game.
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.
People vote for the candidate who is closest to what they support. In order to get 29% the 3rd party candidate will need to offer something closer than either of the other two. That's not likely to happen as long as the two major parties try to get as close to the center as they can without pissing off their respective lunatic fringes.
There is no third party. Take a look at how the Electoral colege is set up (via the Constetution) and find a way for a third party to gain ground. Also, show me a president that was elected out of a third party that WASN'T George Washington. *P.S. Whigs don't count. They developed into one of the controlling parties today.
It doesn't matter if you vote or not, the President is picked by the Electoral College. Even if no one voted, they still would.
Actually, a small Liberatarian contigency of about 10% would be very powerful. They could side with the Democrats on things like drug legalization and they could side with the Republicans on smaller government. Because Libertarians have agreements (and disagreements) with both parties, they could would have a lot of clout (like the 5th vote in the SCOTUS). Also, maybe slightly ironically, those other 2 parties would get what they are asking for, but maybe not what they actual want. :)
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
http://saveie6.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.
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
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.
I couldn't agree more. The bipartisan game consists on having people thinking they should pick between two parties, forcing people overlook other candidates. Furthermore, in certain countries, where the gap between candidates is smaller, the voters are convinced they should vote for the less bad.
Once people understand the two parties are the same with the same, they start looking around for other options, the hard part is getting people to understand there's no JUST two parties even though it looks like.
...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/
(see how the tech sector and Romney go together!)
Bain capital don't create jobs, they lend money. The same way bankers lend money. They extract a profit for it, the more profit they take out the less investment the company makes and the fewer people they employ.
TARP was Bush's, and if you're interested in where the debt comes from it's practically all Republican:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/07/26/infographic-where-does-our-national-debt-come
Romney is funded 3:1 by business like Koch brothers, who also also funding the Republican PACS.
You voted in Republicans to Congress, they've blocked legislation including ending the Bush tax cuts for the super rich, so this statement is disingenuous:
"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,"
Despite this, he's killed Bin Laden, he's partially reformed the bankrupt healthcare system, extracted you from wars, and kept the dollar stable. That's no mean feat given the mess the Republicans left, and the obstruction from Congress.
What if I find the third party candidates even more objectionable than the mainstream ones?
I like my population studies with rigorously documented statistical methods and sample selection procedures. This one has neither, so it is neither news for nerds, nor stuff that matters.
Except that real-life libertarians are invariably self-absorbed assholes. And thankfully, the amount of assholes is not that large even in the US.
...Duh...!
Petro-slick seesaw, the center we lay,
'Tween two cloacae of maundering twain!
'Doesn't matter the direction it sway,
To the right or the left is only bane.
A duality of one, is a poor selection,
So why to such systems, do heed we pay,
For what may as well be, a faux election?
Won't the plebs be soiled, either way?
Forward! -- Emperor Norton, 2012
Blowing mod points.... there is a common economic model that describes where each candidate would have to reside in order to obtain the most votes from their particular brand of lunatic fringe. Look up the Hotelling model. This explains why the candidates in a two party system are just the top and bottom of a shit sandwich.
90% of everything is crap. Also, crap is relative.
you probably have personal issues with rich people
If you don't think, you have problems with rich people, you are either very rich or very stupid.
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
"Tech Execs" are more likely to be in the 1% than the 47%
If 41% of wealthy people in an industry that tends to run libertarian are voting against Romney, it is evidence that Romney or the Republican Party must really suck.
How many rich CEO's spend money on helping the economy to grow? Lately they have been saving all of their money in offshore tax havens. It would take a really silly rich person to spend his money on general consumer goods instead of airplanes and "yachts in Dubai" which an increase of production in would not help the general population. However, if capital is given to the general population, the money will be more readily spent on everyday goods that some owner could produce. Even more so for the poor. One of the only benefits of being insanely rich would be to invest in new science and technology which has been seen with ventures like SpaceX and Tesla. But how many of the oil-loving barons in Congress and others are doing that? Not too many. In summary of what I have been saying is that most rich people are insanely irresponsible for the economy and science. That is what needs to change.
Society use your Sciences
Republican tax cuts for the rich, 2001, 2004, Bush President, Republican Congress.
Republican unfunded wars, Bush President, Republican Congress
Republican medicare 2003, Bush President, Republican Congress.
Medicare alone would have bankrupted the US by 2030, even without the unfunded wars, and rich man tax cuts.
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.
Use of the words "good", "bad" or "evil" is almost invariably the result of oversimplification.
Mitt has more money than the previous ten Presidents combined, and he thinks that it is OK for a US President to hide his money overseas to avoid paying US taxes. What kind of an example does he set when he thinks it is OK for a US President to do this? Mitt refuses. unlike every president before, unlike what he demanded of his VP choice Ryan, unlike what his very own father did, to release ten years of taxes, then Mitt expects us to believe you when you say there's nothing there? Here's a clue- McCain scouted Mitt for VP, and, when Mitt released ten years of his taxes to McCain, McCain chose of all the idiots in the world. Palin. Stop for a moment. Palin. was. chosen. over. Romney...An Alaskan trailer park quitter was chosen over Mitt. . Does that tell you something is very wrong with Mitt?
Republican leadership = Idiocracy
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.
The majority of Americans already don't vote. What's a few more percent? If you don't like any of your realistic choices, convince one of your unrealistic choices to run in a primary and then help them get out the vote.
Why are we taking it as a given that third parties are important? Our country has had two dominant parties for pretty much its entire history, I see nothing to suggest that all of a sudden, two is not enough. First past the post makes a multiparty election unlikely, that won't be changed by people simply voting for a third party.
Honestly, I don't know of any problems the two party system causes or that multiparty systems would solve, even if you DID change the constitution to give room for more than two.
Seriously, what's the attraction? Who is even a third party candidate worth voting for? Nader, Perot, Johnson... do people honestly think there's something special about them aside from "OOhh! A THIRD option!" To me they seemed like ordinary candidates, except they couldn't secure a nomination.
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.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
Technology companies would rather have Democrats running the Government including the White House.
*It was the Democratic Party that pushed for Internet across the Nation,1990's.
*It was a Democratic Party/Leadership that allowed Intel Corp to sell their Flag Ship Product which was Pentium 586 to China. Since China didn't want to buy Intel's 486 CPU, 1990's.
*It was the Democratic Party/Leadership that created laws to create Internet companies.
*It was the Democratic Party that increased TAXES so that Corporations can get Tax Incentives and grow their business.
Republicans don't care about the old/elderly. Republicans just wants to put their monies in the military and give $Billions of TAX dollars to the oil industry.
WHEN YOU HEAR OF LOP-SIDED LIKE 64%/REPUBLICAN AND 41%/DEMOCRAT VOTING RESULTS THEN IT'S NORMALLY FROM THE REPUBLICAN PARTY/SUPPORTERS.
If you liked Bush and McCain's foreign policy, you'll love Romney's. They don't want america to "lead from behind". They want to spend a lot of money on an active foreign policy backed by military might. It gives a lot of credibility to Russia and China when they talk about America wanting to rule the world.
With regards to military spending, in 2010
$26 billion on construction
$80 billion on R&D and testing
$102 billion on buying weapons
$136 billion on salaries
$186 billion on operations and maintenance
$130 billion on supplemental overseas wars (you can bet some of that stuff is on operations and maintenance)
for a grand total of $664 billion
So, that Bush active foreign policy costs quite a bit. One can still have a nice high tech military for by firing some soldiers and putting some weapons in storage, and stop the nation building crap. Here we have 10 Nimitz carriers using up their expensive reactors. America could get some extra life out of those carriers, if it chose to. Instead Romney wants to hire more soldiers, and have more military action overseas. He criticized Obama for not being aggressive enough in Syria. He wants to support Alli(es) (as in more than just Israel) in the middle east. He wants more support to Iranian dissidents. Romney calls RUSSIA?!?! the number one geopolitical foe of the united states. For this reason alone, I will be voting for Obama.
Only if you're an uninformed idiot.
Fees, not taxes. Fees are much more fair then taxes as everyone pays the same. And fees aren't taxes so you can raise funds in a fair manner without raising taxes.
If everyone has to pay $10,000 in fees then that's 2.5 trillion raised, all fairly.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
Even eliminating the mortgage deduction, the employer's tax credit for providing health care, it barely begins to scratch that loss of revenue.
Tax cuts result in increased revenue. Every single time. It usually takes two years for the effect to be seen, but it always happens. There is no loss in revenue. Never.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
It would take a really silly rich person to spend his money on general consumer goods instead of airplanes and "yachts in Dubai" which an increase of production in would not help the general population.
It's funny that you mention this. The yachts in Dubai used to be yachts in Miami. What changed? When Bush Sr. broke his "no new taxes" promise, one of the taxes is a luxury boat tax. What happened? People with enough money to buy yachts stopped buying them here. Overnight we destroyed an industry and lost 600,000 jobs. Why? Because some petty assholes thought it would be a good idea to punish the rich. The problem with that kind of thinking is that it's limited. The rich weren't punished. The tradesmen who used to make boats for the rich were punished.
Of course, don't let reality get in the way of ideology
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
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.
I'm not voting for either of them. I'm still voting, but fuck Obama and Romney. Fuck them in the ear with an iron stick.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
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 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
It appears that you don't really understand what Romney is planning, or how it works, or what the actual numbers are. I guess great minds think alike as your comments are very similar to the Obama campaign talking points about Romney's plan. Try this article, from which I excerpt, for a better understanding of Romney's plan:
The Romney Tax Plan: Not a Tax Hike on the Middle Class - By Alex Brill, The American - a magazine of ideas by the American Enterprise Institute
. . . In many regards, the Romney plan is like that of Obama’s bipartisan Simpson-Bowles Commission. Both plans share a structural consistency of low tax rates and a broader tax base. One important difference is that Romney proposes to keep the top tax rate on capital gains and dividends unchanged while Simpson-Bowles proposes raising those rates considerably. Furthermore, the Simpson-Bowles plan is an explicit tax increase–$80 billion a year more than even Obama has proposed–while Romney’s tax reform plan is revenue neutral.
Fallacies Behind the Democrats’ Attack
The core of the Democrats’ argument is that you can’t reduce income tax rates by 20 percent, as the Romney plan proposes, without raising taxes on the middle class. The analysis supporting this attack comes from a report by the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center (TPC), purveyors of a proprietary tax model used to estimate the budgetary and distributional consequences of tax proposals. The TPC analysis concludes that there are not enough tax breaks (excluding tax preferences for savings and investment) for high-income earners to offset the cost of the lower rates. As a result, TPC estimates that the Romney plan would reduce the tax payments of high-income earners by $86 billion in 2015 and that revenue neutrality would then require an $86 billion tax increase on the middle class.
The core of the Democrats’ argument is that you can’t reduce income tax rates by 20 percent, as the Romney plan proposes, without raising taxes on the middle class.
The TPC model has an important limitation when it is used to consider the impact of such large reforms as Romney’s plan. It assumes that any tax reform would not help the economy. In this sense, the TPC model is consistent with the models used by the official revenue estimators at the U.S. Treasury Department and the Joint Committee on Taxation. But those models are intended primarily to analyze the impact of modest changes to the tax code, not fundamental tax reform. In fact, there is plentiful economic evidence that tax reform could result in measurable economic growth. Depending on the reform and the model used to analyze it, tax reform can increase the capital stock, encourage work and innovation, and improve the allocation of resources in the economy.
In addition to the modeling limitation, TPC also misconstrues analysis on the relationship between tax reform and economic growth. Not only does the TPC model assume zero economic growth, but the Center’s analysis (subsequently echoed by many other commentators) points to research I published with AEI colleague Alan Viard to argue that economic growth is not possible from revenue-neutral income tax reform. This conclusion is a false interpretation of our research.
An increase in labor supply is one means by which an economy can grow; as Viard and I pointed out, revenue-neutral tax reform is indeed unlik
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
executives like mitts we don't have to care healthcare plan.
Where they can make people 39.9 part timers, let them offer cheap joke care plans.
Um, how about the fact that the two parties are almost identical, they're both warmongers, they're both spending us into oblivion, they're both sold out to corporations, I could go on and on. Did you miss the part where most third-party candidates (and Ron Paul) are in favor of scaling back our military expenditures, whereas the two main parties are not, and Romney now says we need to start a new war in Syria?
Staples made those jobs, not Bain Capital, not Romney.
A credit crunch is great for Bain, it reduces the sources of money, meaning Bain can extract more profit for each deal. However the more profit it extracts, the lower the bottom line and the fewer jobs the company can create.
"Opening one staples store costs more than three million dollars today. If they couldn't open that first store due to a lack of funds, then there'd be no jobs at all"
Every 3 million more that Bain can extract from a business in a credit crunch is one staples store less. Capital creates jobs, not Bain. They're just taking advantage of the credit crunch to make capital more expensive.
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
Transparency is fine in the abstract, but the implementation has a big role in determining if it is good or bad policy. Sarbanes-Oxley isn't looking so good in retrospect.
Reforming Sarbanes-Oxley: How to Restore American Leadership in World Capital Markets
THE HONORABLE TOM FEENEY: As Milton Friedman said, often a congressional solution is worse than the problem. That's another one of those truisms that has been proved by Sarbanes-Oxley. Another one is that Congress tends to have two speeds-zero and overreact. In the case of Sarbanes-Oxley, we clearly overreacted. And most importantly, I think, Sarbanes-Oxley proves the rule that the unanticipated, unintended consequences of complex legislation are often much, much worse than the positive effects that you intended. . . .
. . . some accountants, for example, have looked at the newspaper subscriptions for the officers in a $2 billion or $5 billion company. We're talking about $70 or $100 or $150 a year for newspapers in a $2 billion company, and that has generated reviews that will cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. Procurement decisions on a very minor level have triggered these things. Why is this?
Time to Reform Sarbanes-Oxley
Obama Endorses Sarbanes-Oxley Reform To Make Small IPOs Easier
President Barack Obama backed the recommendations of his jobs council to amend the Sarbanes-Oxley regulations to make it easier for small companies to go public.
The jobs council, headed by GE CEO Jeff Immelt and including Sheryl Sandberg and Steve Case, found that the Sarbanes-Oxley was a key factor in reducing the number of IPOs smaller than $50 million from 80 percent of all IPOs in the 1990s to 20 percent in the 2000s.
Obama also said the "Spitzer Decree," which bans investment banks from using banking revenues to pay for research and expert analysis of publicly-traded companies, deserves reconsideration as well. The council said the rule shares the blame for the decline in IPOs among small companies.
The Crimes of Sarbanes-Oxley
No one denies that there was a corporate governance problem that came to a head with the Enron scandal. But in their zeal to pass new legislation, no one in Congress ever stepped back to consider the magnitude of the problem. Some 12,000 companies are required to file public financial statements with the Securities and Exchange Commission. According to George Benston, professor of accounting at Emory University, no more than a few dozen per year have ever been implicated in dishonest bookkeeping. But rather than simply step up enforcement by the SEC, all companies were treated as guilty until proven innocent and forced to comply with onerous new regulatory requirements.
The most burdensome provision of the Sarbanes-Oxley legislation is section 404, which requires establishment of extensive new internal controls for financial reporting. A recent study by Financial Executives International, an industry group, found that the average compliance cost for large companies was $4.6 million, involving 35,000 hours of internal manpower, $1.3 million for external consulting and software, and additional audit fees of $1.5 million.
These numbers are probably very low. FEI admits that the complia
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
Citation needed.
There is no memory shortage. yes I have heard of XFCE. Go away.
Goal != actual effect
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.
The revenue neutrality of Romney's tax cut plan is based upon the idea of bringing the US economy quickly back to full employment and productivity growth. If this can be done it would, in theory, increase the number of Americans currently paying income tax from 47% to some higher number. This would broaden the base, increasing the total tax revenue, while at the same time supporting the same or even lower rates on all taxpayers. In effect, the number of middle class taxpayers would be increased, but not their rates. Now, whether or not you believe this is up to you, but to call it simply a "lie" is inaccurate and offers nothing in the way of productive rebuttal or counter-argument of this policy position.
I agree with you. I'm not yet old enough to be able to vote in this year's presidential election. I am going to have to wait until college for that. But I wish I could vote in this election. And I don't see why anyone who could vote would even consider not voting. But sadly, more than 50% of the voting-eligible population does not even turn out for the vote.
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 objective measure, the Sarbanes-Oxley law failed to achieve it's primary objective. Namely to prevent another crises and meltdown of a major publicly traded firm due to "off balance sheet" transactions and accounting frauds.
I would have thought they supported Romney because the Obama administration has demonstrated a strong support for the kind of software patents that led to Oracle vs. Google and backing the current USTR in pushing our obnoxious copyright and patent "reforms" on the rest of the world with browbeating and blackmail.
Maybe you need to listen to what Romney is saying.
You can find more information and commentary on the plan here.
It doesn't seem to resemble your comments much.
This will be payed by cutting . . . 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.
I believe that it is Governor Romney's* plan to move as many people off those programs as possible to a replacement that is much better for both the poor and the taxpayer while leaving the programs for the truly needy. This replacement is called a "job". I hear they work marvels. It is strange that President Obama is trying to gut the Workfare requirements in law.
You do know he was governor of "right wing" Massachusetts, infamous for its poor farms and debtors prisons, right?
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
Why focus on Enron, Bain Capital, his *star* claim was bailed out by the Federal Govt in a dubious manner:
http://www.drudge.com/news/160516/federal-bailout-saved-mitt-romney
He loaned money from a bank, took the money out as 'bonuses' from Bain and the Federal Govt had to bail Bain out so the loans didn't drag the banks down. The bonus system agreed that allowed this he got from a political crony he later hired from the Federal govt into Bain.
Nasty and corrupt.
Sure he can. He's lieing about the revenue neutral aspect, and lieing about not raising taxes on the middle class.
It's a sad thing that so many people in the past listened to Friedman......
This election is like a country-sized union negotiation where Obama is representing the 'union' and Romney the 'execs'. The 'execs' are saying that we will not and don't have to compromise...if you ask for too much (Obamacare, regulations etc), we will just dig our heels, hoard our cash and not create any jobs in USA. We can always get the work done outside USA - the workers there don't ask for anything so why should we care about you?
What makes it interesting is that while 'execs' have a disproportionately high amount of money they have a disproportionately low number of votes. So they try to use what they have (money) to influence and get what they don't (votes).
Trying to imagine how that can even be done brings this realization: the only way this can be done legally is by fooling people.
Why do they think that a majority of electorate can be fooled? Its because the 'execs' strongly believe in and betting on this: "People who are not-rich are not rich because they are dumb". So are we?
Aspersion deceit callumney ..."?
Ryan messed up an interview. The guy asks him about the gun problem, which he said doesn't require new gun laws, it requires new opportunities in the cities, teach good discipline in the cities, jobs, etc. etc. Fair enough so far.
Then the interviewer asks him how cutting taxes will do that, and he says "those are your words not mine". [OOPS, so Romney's tax cuts won't work]. His handler immediately realizes what he's done and abruptly ends the interview.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=zo3xQ8mZpBU
He couldn't even stay on message for 2 questions.
Fees, not taxes. Fees are much more fair then taxes as everyone pays the same. And fees aren't taxes so you can raise funds in a fair manner without raising taxes. If everyone has to pay $10,000 in fees then that's 2.5 trillion raised, all fairly.
$10,000 is chump change for the very wealthy. A $10,000 fee would push millions of people under the poverty line. And what will we do with the last third of the population who isn't able to pay $10,000 in the first place?
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 significant policy differences between them. There was a difference in 2000, 2004, 2008, and today. The 2000 election was a large-scale experiment testing the theory that since both parties by-and-large represented corporate interests, that was the end of the story. A significant number of voters decided to have some fun in the booth and voted Mickey Mou... Ralph Nader. The theory wasn't answered with a no, it was a fuck no, even if you discount the wee matter of a war with Iraq.
Luke, help me take this mask off
Cthulhu / Dagon - why vote for the lesser evil?
Dagon, of course. Doesn't seem evil, really.
This space unintentionally left blank.
Does anyone "slightly prefer" Romney over Obama? Or Obama over Romney? As an observer from the other side of the pond everyone thinks that one or the other is a great saviour and if the other gets in it will be the end of the USA!
And how would you tell if it were?
None of the above needs to be there and given power (taking it away from those who currently have it) if it wins.
I.e. no new votes, no action, no new laws and sunsetting of any current laws. If none of the above win, the executive is disbanded and there are no salaries to pay for senators or congressmen.
It requires CEO's sign that their accounts are true and accurate. Previously CEO's didn't have to, the accounts could be garbage and the CEO just pretended not to know.
It requires CEO repay bonuses if the accounts are fraudulent. No more pocketing money based on fraud and refusing to pay it back.
It requires they disclose how their accounts are checked, (section 404 you bitch about ), so no more excuses about 'not knowing they were fraudulent'.
It stops venture capitalists making fake accounts to get a company out the door the pretending they didn't know the accounts were fraudulent. Fraudster VC's hate it, investors they normally scam love it.
To be listed in London, you have to have corporate governance stricter than Sarbannes Oxley:
http://fsahandbook.info/FSA/html/handbook/DTR
Frausters complain about Sarbannes Oxley, real companies are happy to sign off their accounts as true.
"I really want this multi-million dollar yacht but I don't think I can pay the 10% luxury tax" said no one ever.
Yah, rich people don't care about luxury tax. No rich person has ever worried about taxes. Ever.
Sorry, but try another excuse to attempt to justify your libertarian tax cuts.
Hold on. Need to think back on how this type of argument works. I know you are but what am I?
John Kerry seems to have said something similar. Well, maybe the rich people aren't that concerned about the details, but they employ people who are barely rich to manage their money, and they certainly care.
"sign of dissent" ? Rally? Do you think that a politician will listen to a sign? They do not listen to a loud clear sentence. They don't listen to a petition. They listen to money. They don't listen to violence, though they may react to it if it threatens them directly.
I don't vote for the same reason an athiest doesn't go to church. Think about that. Again. Until you understand it.
My stance is athiest with regard to government, not apathetic or even agnostic. Athiest. Get it? This means that not only have I thought long and hard about it, but I have deliberately, consciously, and permanently come to this conclusion.
No, I won't ever join your team -- and neither will I join your enemy's team. If you still refuse to understand, then you have only strengthened my beliefs, and further convinced me that I am right.
Then why does the cost of government only go up over the long term? You have to admit that growth is one of their major goals -- just like any other business.
If you read the survey methodology (at the end of TFA), you'd under stand that there 'should be' a huge margin of error attached to it as it's an email survey sent to those on a law firm's mailing list.
This was the pervasive theme throughout DLA Piper’s fifth Technology Leaders Forecast survey, which was developed in conjunction with the firm’s 2012 Global Technology Leaders Summit
The 2012 survey is the fifth such technology market analysis developed by DLA Piper, with the last survey issued in the Spring o 2012 and the inaugural survey issued just prior to the recession in October 2008
DLA Piper is a law firm, not a survey company, it's mailing list is based on people who have responded to their previous surveys (or don't trash them) and those who have an interest in their services. Selection bias can be accounted for, but I don't see any control questions. A good one would be 'who did you vote for in 2008?'
The force that blew the Big Bang continues to accelerate.
Those are problems, yes, but I see no indication that they're CAUSED BY the two party system. Personally I blame the voters and their apathy and ignorance. There's nothing about the two party system which ensures any of those things, and there's nothing about a multiparty system that solves any of those things. Ron Paul, under a three party system, would still fail to be a significant part of a coalition.
Warmongering, for example. Israel fits the bill for me, the government ignores the settlers stealing Palestinian land. They don't have a two party system. Sold out to corporations, name for me a single country where corporate money does not buy undue influence in government. Italy is multiparty, yet they're ridiculously corrupt. To actual criminal organizations.
If the two parties are identical, it's the same reason that all TV channels and pop music seem the same: because the people they're catering to are pretty homogenous about what they want: crap. Blame the voters. They're easier to change anyway than the two party system.
If government were run like a business it would not only be taking care of the disabled, it would be doing it while making a profit. Nearly every convenience of modern life, from the food you eat, to the clothes you wear, to the shiny smartphone in your hand was made by a private business business, not government.
"We receive as friendly that which agrees with, we resist with dislike that which opposes us" - Faraday
John Stewart for President
Rick B.
Here in Ohio there aren't many tech execs. Silicon Valley has no influence whatsoever on the election outcome. In fact, if I didn't live in Ohio, voting in the presidential election would seem rather pointless. I would still vote, but it would be more out of a sense of duty and to vote for the congressional/local elections. I would probably explore third-party options if I lived in a state that was solid-blue or solid-red. Here in Ohio, there's too much at stake to vote for a third party, as we learned in 2000 (damn you Ralph Nader!).
"From the depths of my skeptical and rationalist soul, I ask the Lord to protect me from California touchie-feeliedom."
Wow, that's some pretty topsy-turvy logic right there.
You surely must be a Fox Fan.
The claim is that is impossible for Romney to cut taxes by 20% and maintain revenue neutrality. The lost of revenue from a 20% cut is $86b. Revenue neutral means that he has to come up with $86b between economic growth and other cuts. Some economic models are showing $53b in new revenues from additional economic activity which drops it down to around $33b left to cover and there are two cuts that will cover that and generate an additional $12b in revenues.
"Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
The basic fact Romney wants to avoid is that if his plan is revenue neutral (a big if), it either raises some people's taxes and lowers or others, or changes no ones. In the second case, there's no point. In the first case, who's taxes is it raising, and who's is it lowering?
Of course, he goes with answer (c), that it'll 'grow the tax base', much like how the Bush tax cuts were supposed to increase revenue. And we all know how that failed horribly.
Raising taxes or rather ending the Bush Temporary Tax Cuts on the Rich would not hurt the economy. Cutting taxes during a time of war, however, is a very bad - excellent way to increase the deficit.
LMOL tradesmen making yachts. Wow you are silly aren't you.....
I'm not rich, and Mr. Obama's policies have been a calamite for me. If you manage to save, say, $500,000 - over your entire working life - the current interest of 1% will net you $5000, which is hardly enough to live on. And, at that, the $5000 will be treated as income and taxed that way, despite the fact that it is less than inflationary loss, so there is negative after-inflation gain. The small interest income one might traditionally earn is effectively entirely confiscated by the government.
Then we have the fact that Mr. Obama has been pulling in dramatically more money from donors than Mr. Romney, and spending much more on advertising too. And the two richest Americans, Mr. Gates and Mr. Buffett are both long-time ardent Democratic supporters.
I really do get tired of this indefensible meme that somehow Republicans are the rich and Democrats the poor.
Actually no this has not happened but thanks for perpetuating this fantasy. Reagan did this during the '80s and trippled the deficit. Bush jr did this and went from a budget surplus to a budget deficit.
LMOL - American Enterprise Institute - yeah those aren't the talking points for the Romney campaign, a conservative think tank. Try again Potsy.
Way to parrot the GOP talking points, gut the workfare requirements....you mean the same thing that Governor Romney was trying to do...
You really need to stop quoting the Heritage foundation. It shows how truly clueless you are.
This isn't quite true. A quick Google search turned up the figure of 62% for the 2008 election, while this site puts it at 57%, the highest turnout since 1968. Of course, you'll also notice that the off-years (2010, 2006, etc.) were much worse as those years didn't have Presidential elections.
Wow nobody have posted that before? I'm so disappointed in slashdot right now.
http://www.collegehumor.com/video/6830834/mitt-romney-style-gangnam-style-parody
http://www.mueller-public.de - My site http://www.anr-institute.com/ - Advanced Natural Research Institute
I respect Fareed Zakaria of CNN, he seems to be one of the few journalists around these days who does not have an agenda. He is about presenting facts, no matter how flattering or not the facts are or where the facts fall.
In this short clip from his show Zakaria shows that the United States has been rated by international organizations as one of the MOST FRIENDLY PLACES TO DO BUSINESS in the WORLD.
The video also shows that the conservative meme of high taxes is not only false, but opposite of what is true. Taxes are at a historic low.
Zakaria blames the sluggish economy on
1. Long term neglect of the American infrastructure
2. Long term insufficient investments in education
3. Long term devaluation among people for saving money
http://beforewisdom.com/blog/politics/zakaria-the-real-burden-on-the-u-s-economy/
I think we can all agree that Romney is lying. That was his debate strategy, after all, to lie about his positions.
And I think we can all agree that the definition of "lie" and even "hate speech" has changed over the past few years in order to make arguments more inflammatory.
How many rich CEO's spend money on helping the economy to grow? Lately they have been saving all of their money in offshore tax havens.
Ahh don't you just love the smell of class warfare in the morning!
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.
After visiting their parks this year I'm guessing it will bring excessive number of employees waiting on you, clean streets, mowed grass and lots of maintenance jobs bringing happiness to everyone? Though given the nature of it all being run by the central planning government would be a bit creepy. Toodles!
There are multiple factors at play in each example. Tax cuts could increase revenue, but doubtful where the rates are now.
The Laffer Curve is real. The debate is about where we are on that curve. All the Laffer Curve theory states is that with 0% tax there is no revenue. At 100% tax, there is also no revenue (since no one will work). Therefore, there must be a maximum revenue tax rate. No one really knows where we are on that curve. I and you believe we are on the left side, which means an increase in taxes equates to an increase in revenue.
But I hate when Liberals discount the Laffer Curve because they equate it to meaning we are on the right side of that curve. Just argue where we are on it, not that it is an invalid theory.
I think that's the "Fiscal Cliff" that virtually every respected economist in the country has been warning will drive the economy back into recession.
Where, pray tell, would the money to pay for those profits come from? Please tell me how a poor person who has literally no assets, yet has become disabled, would be able to pay for care in such a way that it is not a net cost to the system, let alone a profit.
Government should cover those things which should not be for-profit and those things which are essential but businesses cannot figure out how to do profitably. I include health care and national defense in the category of "things that should not be for-profit" and universal access to education as one of the things businesses haven't been able to figure out how to do for a profit, at least in a way that scales to cover every child in the country.
Since I can't tell them apart, I treat all ACs as the same person.
Fees, not taxes. Fees are much more fair then taxes as everyone pays the same. And fees aren't taxes so you can raise funds in a fair manner without raising taxes. If everyone has to pay $10,000 in fees then that's 2.5 trillion raised, all fairly.
Can you explain the difference to a non-American?
The Laffer Curve is real. The debate is about where we are on that curve. All the Laffer Curve theory states is that with 0% tax there is no revenue. At 100% tax, there is also no revenue (since no one will work). Therefore, there must be a maximum revenue tax rate.
Bullshit: It is shown that, in a general equilibrium model with one private good, one public good, labour and an income tax, certain widely-assumed properties of the Laffer curve do not necessarily hold. For well-behaved functional forms it may not be continuous and may not have an interior maximum. Its slope depends on technology as well as on the tax elasticity of labour supply. For certain technologies, a more negative elasticity may imply a more positive slope. Moreover, the relevant tax elasticity is a general equilibrium one which may differ in sign from the widely- quoted partial equilibrium one.
You must not know many rich people. Some are the most frugal SOBs - they know the taxes and make decisions based on what saves them the most money. It's a game.
You are not far off, many Americans do not think beyond what the media presents to them. Most voters are like that. A small group "in the middle" decide elections; sadly, many of them are not too bright either - because the hype works so well they can't decide which one is worse.
Then there are the few realists, many of us do not vote. I'm one who does; but I do realize that regardless despotism is coming to America, I just vote to slow it down so I won't have to be around for the worst of it. Sometimes I contemplate acceleration because it might be better to just get it over with and collapse while we have something left which can be used to rebuild. (off record, Nader was saying this back in 2000 - I was there standing next to him when he said it.)
Both sides are not equal. The Republicans are batshit crazy and out of touch with reality. Used to be it was propaganda used for their easily controlled voters but it has escalated to the point where the suckers are starting to run things; that BS they spew on FOX is for votes not for the brainwashing "thinking class" of future party officials. Like an addiction cycle, it is now a self-sustaining cycle. The Dems are another method of control in a dysfunctional cycle of its own. Dude, McCain used to believe in global warming and doing something about it-- many old repubs have flipped; for a while they'd make huge lies for votes-- but now they have to carry on the whole act and actually follow through like never before; even then teabagger morons can unseat them in a primary for not being convincingly batshit enough.
A congressman has a thinking end and sitting end. If they spend all their time thinking about their seat, what good is it all?
Yeah the execs here are only "slightly" enthusiastic about the prospects of a Romney win... ... with "slightly" meaning a bunch of middle-age white men in $600 Brooks Brothers suits were break-dancing in the corridor outside the conference room the morning after the debate.
You don't care what is best, only what is best for yourself?
I would be ashamed to call you a friend.
"They're both the same" is code for either "I'm too lazy to research" or "I'm simply going to lie to support my team".
Hail Eris, full of mischief...
E pluribus sanguinem
What's wrong with NPR that it needs a replacement? What is the replacement?
What's wrong with the Public Health Mandate (besides that there is a lot missing such as a public option due to Republican push-back)? What's the replacement?
What's wrong with Food Stamps and Subsidized Housing and COBRA all of which he slams but offers no replacement for.
Jobs won't appear magically when you cut those programs and Romney says he will make jobs by cutting those programs which is a tautology. People use those programs because they've lost their jobs, cutting them and replacing them for the 'very needy' (who falls under that definition?) won't help anyone but the very rich as people are going to be forced to work for the lowest pay they're being offered without any collective rights.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
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.
But, those people sell their vote for a cell phone subsidy. So, it would appear that everyone is selling their vote, it's just a question of how cheap the sluts are.
Rich corporate executives favor the candidate from the party that panders to rich corporations? I'm shocked!
Unix is user friendly, it's just selective about who its friends are.
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 have been numerous studies that suggest that a candidates potential is a suggestive bias. In other words, we alaredy know what the incumbent has done. We don't know what the new guy will do yet. As a result, it is human nature to believe that the potential of a person is better than what is known.
Untrue. Those who carefully examined Enron's books smelled something funny, and then when word got out, investors and creditors panicked, causing Enron's demise. Compare this with MF Global, where nobody who carefully examined MF Global's books could tell that MF Global had pissed away its customer's money.
Good call. Surely everything that the poor and middle class buy is produced in America, right? That happy middle class person with a tax rebate will go right off to best buy, ask for their section of American made electronics and....Fuck.
Actually no this has not happened but thanks for perpetuating this fantasy. Reagan did this during the '80s and trippled the deficit. Bush jr did this and went from a budget surplus to a budget deficit.
Nonsense. There hasn't been a budget surplus since Eisenhower.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
I'm not arguing that the super wealthy aren't buying yachts. I'm saying that more of them are buying them overseas.
It's basic economics. You tax a behaviour that you want to discourage. Ask someone who lives near a state border, people will drive several miles out of the way to save $0.03 per gallon gasoline. People will do the same to save $0.25 on a pack of cigarettes. If you don't think that someone will get their yacht in Dubai or the Cayman Islands to save $1,000,000; you're plain naive.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
You must not know many rich people. Some are the most frugal SOBs - they know the taxes and make decisions based on what saves them the most money. It's a game.
You're absolutely right.
Look at this.
Some people become rich by luck, but they stay rich by not being stupid.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
It's a sad thing that so many people in the past listened to Friedman
These people may yet come to regret their failure to listen. We shall see.
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 from $60 to $80 for 2 months even though my power usage is still 34 KW/hrs a month. Once again fair as whether you use no power or 100's of KW/hrs you pay the same extra $10 a month.
They now want to put tolls on all bridges to pay for transit as raising the gas tax unfairly makes those with large vehicles pay more and that isn't fair.
Many government services that used to be free or a token payment now have large fees, need ID so you can vote and the government has a picture of you for their facial scanning systems, that's now a hundred dollars.
The list goes on with the government wanting to add ever more fees and brag about having low taxes with the poor paying a larger percentage of their income to the government then the rich. But this is good as we're continuously reassured that once the rich get rich enough they'll create some jobs.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
Luckily the right wing plans on building lots of jails. All Made in America stuff I see here in Canada is made by prison labour and more prisoners allows America to remain productive.
Of course I'm exaggerating a bit but that has been what my right wing government has been doing for the last decade. They keep getting voted in on the basis of lowering taxes. Flat fees on everything keep going up. The poor including the bottom half of the middle class pay an ever increasing percentage of their income to the government while he rich pay less.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
In Canada we had a budget surplus for about 10 years until the Conservatives got voted in by claiming they were better at handling the budget and with a budget surplus we should cut taxes, instead of paying of the debt.
Now we have a deficit and the government is madly cutting things like food inspections (industry will regulate itself you know) resulting in large numbers of people being put out of work when the food processing factory finally gets closed down due to other countries not excepting our e. coli infected meat and thousands of farmers not being able to sell their produce.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
Thanks for your comment putting this into perspective.
"They're both the same" is code for either "I'm too lazy to research" or "I'm simply going to lie to support my team".
I'm generally familiar with the overall (good) quality of your typical posts, but I'm at a loss to find any redeeming value in what you've said here.
This chart shows the 2012 US Presidential Candidates political positions.
Here's where I'm at, mapped to the same chart.
I've researched. Which is "my team?" Which "team" represents the interests of the 99%? Since you're apparently relying on an erroneous/planted/compromised/imaginary codebook, allow me to offer a clue in English plaintext: NONE OF THEM.
Thank you, Edward Snowden.
"Arguments from authority are worthless." —Carl Sagan
Simply because none of the options are what you want doesn't mean it doesn't matter which one you get.
So you are saying that there would be revenue at 100% tax rate?
Indeed. I'm in the ballpark area of cffrost's Political Compass result and I don't especially care for either major party or its candidate, but that's entirely orthogonal from whether there are real differences between the two.
He simply hasn't done his research if he really can't see any difference at all between the two, unless perhaps his hobby horse is something like civil liberties.
Hail Eris, full of mischief...
E pluribus sanguinem
So what? Are you on the civil liberties uber alles hobby horse? I can sympathize with that but you still can't say the two are exactly the same.
Hail Eris, full of mischief...
E pluribus sanguinem
Let me quote myself: For well-behaved functional forms it may not be continuous and may not have an interior maximum. If you do not understand what the bolded part means you should check out the Weierstrass extreme value theorem.
I understand that it doesn't have to parabolic. I understand that you know your stuff. But there must be a maximum. That maximum may shift based on the present conditions and it may be reached more than once, but there must be a maximum. Even under your quoted theorem, it shows that there must be a maximum (and a minimum).
In taxes, there are bounds. 0% to 100% and you can't have negative revenue (you can have a deficit, but that bring in spending). The minimum is already defined at 0% as $0 revenue. At some rate, 0-100%, there is a maximum. I don't see how you could argue that the function is not continuous. At a certain rate, it doesn't "jump". It may rise and fall many times and at different slopes, but it is still continuous. But I find it hard to believe that at 100% tax, that one could argue that there would be revenue. Maybe short term. Or maybe in a slave-driven society. But outside of that, there HAS TO BE a rate or rates that provide maximum revenue between 0% and 100%.
Under what scenario could it not have an internal maximum? And we are talking the simple case of income tax only. Maybe there are other properties of the Laffer Curve that I am ignoring... What is external? -5%? 110%? Maybe you are looking at a mix of different types of taxes.
This is like a car travelling from place A to place B. It has to stop at the A and B, but in between, there must have been a maximum speed.
I don't see how you could argue that the function is not continuous.
The paper I quoted gives a concrete example of a non continuous Laffer function.
At a certain rate, it doesn't "jump". It may rise and fall many times and at different slopes, but it is still continuous.
"Continuous" is a mathematical term. Proof by "intuition" doesn't work in math. Malcomson's example that I quoted above is a good demonstration on how your intuition can fool you in spots like these. In a nutshell: The only thing that you know about a Laffer function is that it maps income tax rate to tax revenue; this doesn't suffice to make the function continuous in all possible cases. Maybe the Laffer function for the country you live in is continuous, maybe it's not. Nobody knows (i. e. can prove) what it really looks like but we do know that there are Laffer functions that are not, so your's might also not be continuous.
But I find it hard to believe that at 100% tax, that one could argue that there would be revenue.
I tend to believe that a system with a 100% tax rate would instantly collapse, I don't believe that a purely "slave-driven society" would be stable enough to collect any taxes.
Oh ... and the the initial "Bullshit" was probably way harsher than I intended. Sorry about that.
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
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.
=============
Everything out of Romneys lips are dreams, not based on facts or on reality. Read the past weeks Doonsbury comics to show you what you are dealing with.
Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
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
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.
==================
What bothers me is that he only paid $13k taxes in a year for the recent past years. I bet if you go back further, he paid no taxes.
Furthermore, I bet his secretary pays more taxes than he has paid.
Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada