Study Shows Tech Execs Slightly Prefer Romney Over Obama

Slightly by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-08 11:41 · 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 by thrillseeker · 2012-10-08 11:55 · Score: 3, Informative

The word "slightly" is editorializing of a 64:41 ratio.
Re:Slightly by Spy+Handler · 2012-10-08 11:58 · Score: 2

if you RTFSummary, you would've learned that the same high-paid execs preferred democrat Obama over the republican McCain back in 2008.
Re:Slightly by betterunixthanunix · 2012-10-08 12:00 · 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.

--
Palm trees and 8
Re:Slightly by JakeBurn · 2012-10-08 12:16 · Score: 2, Insightful

Obama has hit a Trillion dollar deficit per year since he took over. A lot of that money was 'stimulus' paid directly to these asshats. Its almost like when random joe public awards a giant payday to someone in court. Everyone knows its a bad idea but they do it anyway in the hopes that maybe one day they'll be the lucky one to get a free payday at someone else's expense.
Re:Slightly by spikenerd · 2012-10-08 12:20 · Score: 4, 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 by TubeSteak · 2012-10-08 12:31 · Score: 4, 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.

--
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
Re:Slightly by shaitand · 2012-10-08 12:35 · 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 by farble1670 · 2012-10-08 13:16 · Score: 4, Informative

maybe you should read this,
http://www.skymachines.com/US-National-Debt-Per-Capita-Percent-of-GDP-and-by-Presidental-Term.htm
Re:Slightly by dpilot · 2012-10-08 13:20 · Score: 3, 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.

--
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
Re:Slightly by deanklear · 2012-10-08 14:37 · Score: 1

Everything you just said is true unless you don't care about gay rights, immigrant rights, reproductive rights, civil rights, publicly funded social programs, a modicum of union rights...
Even if you're a conservative, Romney can't be a good choice. He is promising a 5 trillion dollar tax cut as well as deep cuts to fundamental social programs that will not solve any problems, but kick the can down the road. And he's promising to increase "defense" spending. The last conservative President to attempt to balance the budget with a combination of social spending cuts, military cuts, and a reasonable top tax rate was Bill Clinton, who followed Bush Sr, who also raised taxes an attempt to pay down the doubling of the federal deficit brought about by Reaganite policies of the 80s -- tax cuts for the rich, huge defense spending, empire building, deregulation (remember the S&L crisis?), which also resulted in larger deficits.
When Bush Jr was in office, his Administration launched two wars, continued deregulation of Wall Street, and cut taxes to largely benefit the wealthy. Once again, the deficit soared, and the economy was wrecked by over-leveraged bets covered by the middle class. Romney is literally promising more of the same. So if you are going to vote, pay careful attention to the differences. Sometimes they are small, but of the five elections I have seen, the difference between Obama and Romney could not be more obvious.
Re:Slightly by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-08 14:46 · Score: 1

"Psychopathy and the CEO: Top executives have four times the incidence of psychopathy as the rest of us"
http://www.thestar.com/business/article/1222162--psychopathy-and-the-ceo-top-executives-have-four-times-the-incidence-of-psychopathy-as-the-rest-of-us
Re:Slightly by phantomfive · 2012-10-08 15:06 · 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.

--
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Re:Slightly by dave420 · 2012-10-08 15:34 · Score: 3, Insightful

The fact you picked Greece is very telling. Why didn't you pick one of the multi-party systems which is doing really well, like Germany? Making a point is one thing, but to intentionally misrepresent the truth in order to make your point is fucking disgusting.
Re:Slightly by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-08 15:48 · Score: 2, Interesting

It took you many years to realize that people were behaving in an economically rational way with their votes? That's hilarious. More libertarian-irony stories, please!
Re:Slightly by PopeRatzo · 2012-10-08 16:04 · Score: 1

I'm surprised that high-paid execs only "slightly" prefer a republican to a democrat. You'd think it would be a landslide.
I'm surprised that every single tech worker believes he's an "exec".

--
You are welcome on my lawn.
Re:Slightly by bondsbw · 2012-10-08 16:07 · Score: 1

As a percentage of GDP, the debt has risen 27.6% over Obama's term.
This compares with a rise of 6.3% and 10.1% respectively in GWB's terms, and a rise of 2.2% and reduction of 10.4% in Clinton's two terms.

--
All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
Re:Slightly by siride · 2012-10-08 16:18 · Score: 1

But the GDP growth has slowed considerably, and programs put in place before Obama have continued to balloon. Only so much blame can be placed on him, mostly in the form of blaming him for *not* doing something about the balls in motion. I certainly blame him for that.
Re:Slightly by amRadioHed · 2012-10-08 16:29 · Score: 1

Palin was a poison pill most rational voters just couldn't swallow.

--
We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
Re:Slightly by TubeSteak · 2012-10-08 16:50 · Score: 4, 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
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.

--
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
Re:Slightly by artor3 · 2012-10-08 17:09 · Score: 4, 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:Slightly by hairyfish · 2012-10-08 17:51 · Score: 2

To be fair, Obama inherited the worst possible position, the GFC and knee deep in two unwinnable wars. Really, could the country have possibly been in any worse state when Bush left? The US is a big boat to turn around and if you look at trends, Obama appears to have halted the slide that began under Bush and slowly started a recovery.
Re:Slightly by phantomfive · 2012-10-08 17:51 · Score: 1

Is there something interesting you wanted to draw our attention to in all that data?

--
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Re:Slightly by shaitand · 2012-10-08 18:19 · Score: 2

"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 priced private school educations. In online games they call it "tinking" and it is generally viewed as a form of cheating.
The death tax mostly impacts those who need some notable portion of their wealth liquid at any moment. It will hit the one percent but the one percent is a decoy to distract you from the .0001%.
Re:Slightly by TubeSteak · 2012-10-08 18:22 · Score: 3, 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.

--
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
Re:Slightly by phantomfive · 2012-10-08 18:28 · Score: 2, Informative

Your genius plan is to get no one to vote?

Sure, keep up that plan. It only gives people like me more power. I don't care if I'm the only one who votes, if it means I get my way.

--
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Re:Slightly by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-08 20:51 · Score: 1

Actually, Romney has spent a fair amount of time suggesting that there should have been more regulation, such as Glass-Steagall, before the recession. He mentioned it during the debate as well... and it was something of a black eye for the President, who has been leaning on Clinton credit lately. Most didn't actually understand what he was saying though.
He's also in favor of various healthcare regulations, specifically ones forbidding the exclusion of people with existing conditions.
I might dislike him, but at least I won't lie to get my way.
Re:Slightly by squiggleslash · 2012-10-08 23:17 · Score: 2

Exactly. Which is why I generally recommend people disgusted by both parties enough to feel it wouldn't make any difference which wins to vote third party.
Third party votes mean two things to Big Two Party Apparatchiks:
1. These people turned up to vote and will probably do so next time.
2. We lost these people's votes because we didn't share the views of the third party they voted for.
Basically you're signalling to the parties your vote is available, they just have to shift ground a little.
The dangers are:
1. Bush gets in, Gore loses, albeit nobody realized in 2000 what an utter disaster Bush was going to be, so there's a limit to what you can do in those terms. Whether you're left or right wing, neither of the current political candidates for office seems as dramatically underqualified. You genuinely have to be careful when you vote as your strategy may be long term, but you want there to be a country left in four years.
2. You vote for a party for one reason, the Big Two picks policies from it that aren't that reason. You don't want the government interfering in your sex life or telling you what drugs you can take, so you vote Libertarian. The Republicans see you as someone who wants their taxes cut, no matter what the costs. You want universal healthcare and a social safety net so you don't have to be terrified of unemployment or sudden illness, so you vote socialist. The Democrats see you as someone who will vote for them if they impose more regulations on businesses.
In some ways, it'd be better if there were more one-issue parties. Perhaps we'll see that at some point.

--
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Re:Slightly by drinkypoo · 2012-10-08 23:31 · Score: 1

When was the last time the Republican Party thought regulating anything other than abortion or gayness was a good idea?
The democrats regulate through restrictions, the republicans accomplish it through subsidies that make it effectively impossible to otherwise be a player. Both parties are united in fucking over certain groups though, e.g. farmers (both are heavily pro-Monsanto, which is how you know both parties are truly, literally evil.)

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:Slightly by drinkypoo · 2012-10-08 23:34 · Score: 1

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.
I'm not sure why you think you have THE ANSWER, or why you think it is a new idea, but you don't, mostly because it's not. Both parties have been on a continual slide away from something which has positive goals to being simply half of a system designed to serve the mercantilists.
You can not and will not reform either major party without another party gaining credibility, because they have no incentive to change, and every incentive to continue along their present path.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:Slightly by drinkypoo · 2012-10-08 23:44 · Score: 1

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.
Since "both" "parties" are united in fucking over the populace, it doesn't matter who you vote for; if you get your way you're a shitheel, and if you're not a shitheel, you don't get your way.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:Slightly by hibiki_r · 2012-10-09 00:50 · Score: 1

Most of Europe is run by coalition governments, because they do not have winner-take-all elections for electing their equivalent to congressmen. To sit someone in Spain's Parlamento, for instance, you might need 5-10% of the vote in a state. To do the same in the US, I need a similar percentage of state votes, but the votes all have to come from the same congressional district, which is a far harder task: Libertarians would have to concentrate in a very small area to become that relevant, and even then, their district could get gerrimandered away.
Re:Slightly by Talderas · 2012-10-09 01:13 · Score: 2

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 immediately. Further, the estate tax needs to be fairly quickly if you don't want the IRS hounding you over it which necessitates selling the land quickly. The problem then becomes that the only entity that is able to buy your farmland immediately is going to be the megafarms and they're only going to do it at a steeply discounted price. If you're lucky you'll have a decent amount of cash left over after selling the land and paying the estate taxes but the probability is far greater that you may still owe estate tax or have such a negligible gain that it's not worth it.
The other option is to pay the estate tax with the cash inheritance and keep the land and hope that you can see it for closer to market pricing (in which case you're paying the property tax on those lands that aren't doing anything for you) or someone in the family keeps up the farm or you lease the land for farmers and hope that the farm turns enough to maintain the lease.

--
"Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
Re:Slightly by LordLimecat · 2012-10-09 01:17 · Score: 1

The technical problem in the USA is that the two dominant parties have rigged the system against third parties.
The US has basically been two party since its inception.
Re:Slightly by LordLimecat · 2012-10-09 01:19 · Score: 1

Surely we can cram a few more strawmen into this thread. Maybe something about how republicans hate old people?
Re:Slightly by h4rr4r · 2012-10-09 01:19 · Score: 1

Fucking over farmers?
You mean those folks who collect subsidies on crops they grow and on when they leave a field fallow?
I wish I would get free money on top of my salary if I work or if I don't.
Re:Slightly by Deus.1.01 · 2012-10-09 01:29 · Score: 1

That's true enough, but also there is a huge unrealistic idea that they can just sweep the country of their feet by winning the general election.
Its not going to happen that way, they way the social democrats and labor parties got credibility(hell even the communists enjoyed some outside of the Warsaw pact for a brief time ) was to work upwards doing stuff locally.
Now, I'm not expert on local and regional politics in the states, but it seems to me all the ho-ha from the libertarians comes from getting Ron Paul nominated for the presidency.

--
My -1 Troll is actually a +1 funny. And my -1 flame is actually a +1 insightfull.
Re:Slightly by drinkypoo · 2012-10-09 01:53 · Score: 1

You mean those folks who collect subsidies on crops they grow and on when they leave a field fallow?
Everyone would be better off without the system in which small farmers need subsidies to exist, but we have it anyway. Meanwhile, corporations collect the majority of farm subsidies. And you probably really don't wish you were a farmer, it's suspiciously like real work.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:Slightly by jythie · 2012-10-09 02:08 · Score: 1

Well, yes, europeans often have coalition governments because their voting system works differntly then ours. It is because we have a plurality voting system that we end up with two parties.. not rigging, not some conspiracy, just math. If you look at other countries with similiar sytems they end up with too parties too. No amount of funding or air time or other things that 3rd parties keep complaining that they are not getting will change this.
Re:Slightly by jythie · 2012-10-09 02:17 · Score: 1

Except historically (i.e. actual concervative economics, not this new fangled concervatative fantasy flavored economics we have today), deficit spending during a recession is the classic and effective method for decreasing the impact of an economic downturn and reversing it. So it is not a case of 'everyone knows it is a bad idea', it is a case of 'some people think it is a bad idea based off untested economic theories wrapped in concervative language'... but we should call those ideas what they are, progressive. Deregulation and tax cuts do not have a track record of reversing a downturn, in fact they have a historical pattern of increasing instability, producing a short term bump followed by a deeper dive.
Re:Slightly by T+Murphy · 2012-10-09 02:52 · Score: 1

No, a sudden drop in participation would show a lack of public approval. The US already has relatively low voter participation, if it steadily declined over time it would just seem people don't care.

Also, if you got what you want and only 10% of voters show up, and the candidates were to actually realize the public is protesting the election by... doing nothing... what should they do? Sure, you don't want either candidate, but how do they decide who does win the election? Unless you want no government, I don't see how giving the government no direction whatsoever solves anything.

If you can get 80%+ of voters to now show up, you could easily get enough to actually show up and vote for what you actually want, instead of sitting at home whining about it.

--
My webcomic
Re:Slightly by The+Grim+Reefer · 2012-10-09 02:54 · Score: 1

Romney can't be a good choice. He is promising a 5 trillion dollar tax cut as well as deep cuts to fundamental social programs that will not solve any problems, but kick the can down the road.
Please stop regurgitating campaign bullshit as fact. The Washington Post is calling bullshit on this one. Hell, even Stephanie Cutter admits it's not true.
Re:Slightly by TubeSteak · 2012-10-09 02:57 · Score: 1

Your genius plan is to get no one to vote?
No. My point is that if no one votes, the government does not have the consent of the people and consequently lacks any legitimacy to govern.
This is the end state of voter apathy, not loud minorities running rampant over the rest of the non-voting electorate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popular_sovereignty_in_the_United_States

I don't care if I'm the only one who votes, if it means I get my way.
If you're the only one that votes, I sure hope you write yourself in for President.
It wouldn't matter, but that's what I'd do.

--
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
Re:Slightly by jacknifetoaswan · 2012-10-09 03:04 · Score: 1

As a conservative libertarian, I agree 100%. There's simply just no way to change them but to force them to change. Do I want to vote for Mitt Romney? No. Do I 'have' to? Yeah. It sucks. I voted third party in 2008, because I just couldn't get behind McCain, but I live in NJ, and a conservative or libertarian vote means nothing, anyway. That said, I'm moving to South Carolina, where a conservative vote DOES matter. A vote against a Republican candidate will be felt more in an area where they actually have a chance to win. Unfortunately, I'm moving next month, and have to vote in absentia in New Jersey, so I can't enact my bold plan until 2016! Curses!
Re:Slightly by jacknifetoaswan · 2012-10-09 03:06 · Score: 1

Paul Ryan's Medicare plan is a thinly disguised effort to replace Medicare with vouchers for cat food!!!!11!!!11!! /troll
Re:Slightly by Bigby · 2012-10-09 03:07 · Score: 1

They both like to regulate just as much...just different things.
Re:Slightly by Bigby · 2012-10-09 03:09 · Score: 1

I think 50% of the country (not of voters, but of people) should have to vote for a single person for that person to be President. If they don't get to 50%, then we should have the top 3 as a shared Presidency.
Re:Slightly by Compaqt · 2012-10-09 03:11 · Score: 1

One of the reasons libertarians focus on federal politics is that most of the anti-government ire is against the federal government.
At the local level:
1) you can affect the government much more easily. You can drive to your local council easily, and lobby/get a chance to speak.
2) you can run for local council, and you probably won't be asked what your opinion on the federal income tax or Medicare is. Many/most of these seats are nonpartisan, anyway.
3) the local level is what provides you your schools, local roads, parks, etc. I.e., bang for buck. The federal government is much more nebulous.

--
I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog
Re:Slightly by deanklear · 2012-10-09 03:34 · Score: 1

He is proposing a 5 trillion dollar tax cut. He's claiming that he will close the gap in revenues by closing loopholes, but won't reference any specifics. Even if he eliminated all loopholes for the very wealthy, there would still be a shortfall that would have to be taxed on the rest of the population, and that's if the economy grows as he claims it will. Did the Bush Tax Cuts, military spending increases, and deregulation help the economy and the deficit from 2001 to 2009? Please provide references if you say that they did.
Additionally, you should have read more than the summary cherry picked for your political purposes.

We found that a tax reform plan that simultaneously met the first four goals would imply reduced tax burdens on families with income above $200,000. Meeting the fifth goal â" revenue neutrality â" would then imply increased tax burdens on other taxpayers, a necessary but perhaps unintended consequence. This was true even though we made the financing of the plan via tax expenditure reductions as progressive as possible by assuming that tax expenditures would be eliminated from the top down: first, we eliminated all available tax expenditures for those with income above $200,000; only if those revenues were insufficient to achieve revenue neutrality (which in fact they were) did we reduce tax expenditures for households with incomes below that level...
The basic logic of our central finding is captured in Figure 2 from our paper (attached here as well). The graph shows that cutting individual income tax rates by 20 percent from todayâ(TM)s levels would reduce tax burdens by $251 billion per year (in 2015) among households with income above $200,000. But, if we assume a strict interpretation of the second goal â" preserving and enhancing incentives for saving and investment (see footnote 2) â" there are only $165 billion of available tax expenditures to close in that group if tax rates are cut). As a result, to achieve revenue neutrality, the resulting $86 billion annual shortfall must be made up by raising taxes on the rest of the population.
We showed, in addition, that the same qualitative conclusions arise even when we added in feedback effects of tax changes on economic growth and revenues, using estimates of those effects that were developed by Harvard professor, and economic advisor to the Romney campaign, Greg Mankiw.
Over ten years that amounts to close to one trillion dollars, if and only if his prophesy about raising revenues comes true. And according to that same study:

We are not saying that the most likely way that tax expenditures would be reduced in the real world would be âoefrom the top down.â Instead, we show that even if tax expenditures were reduced in that most progressive manner, the Romney proposals as a whole imply a shift toward a less progressive tax system...
Estimates from the Congressional Budget Office and other sources indicate that the effects of tax cuts on the macroeconomy are likely to be small or even negative over the typical 10-year budget window, depending in part on how they are financed.
In revenue-neutral tax changes, the tax rate reductions can raise incentives to work, but the base- broadening measures increase the portion of Americansâ(TM) income that is subject to tax, and create incentives that would work in the other direction. At the end of the day, the net effects are likely to be small (Auerbach and Slemrod 199711, Brill and Viard 201112). A 2007 Treasury report that analyzed the effects of business tax changes on business competitiveness concluded the following: "Indeed, the Treasury Department estimates that the combined policy of base broadening and lowering the business tax rate to 28 percent might well have little or no effect on the level of real output in the long run because the economic gain from the lower corporate tax rate may well be largely offset by the economic cost of elimina
Re:Slightly by phantomfive · 2012-10-09 03:46 · Score: 2

If your plan has enough support to get 95% of the people to not vote, then your plan will have enough support to amend the constitution. Do that, it'll be easier.

I don't want to write myself in for president. Let someone else take care of that, I have more important things to do.

--
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Re:Slightly by Capt+James+McCarthy · 2012-10-09 03:47 · Score: 1

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.
I still don't understand why a person who earns a dollar and pays a tax on that earning, only to see it taxed again because it's given to someone else after death. There is no purchase with that transaction, so how could it be considered income to the beneficiary for the tax to be legit? Life insurance beneficiaries pay no taxes on those dollars from the policy. So why do estates(cash/property) get held to a different measure?
And as for the 'rich and powerful,' don't hate success because you have not obtained it. Folks to this day still can obtain great wealth with sweat equity and smart moves. The 'rich and powerful' are not holding you back from your money. Just ask folks like zuckerberg.

--
There are no loopholes. It's either legal or it's not.
Re:Slightly by phantomfive · 2012-10-09 03:51 · Score: 1

We need to get rid of parties altogether.

--
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Re:Slightly by phantomfive · 2012-10-09 03:54 · Score: 1

I know there are dangers, but I think it would be better overall if we got rid of parties, than if we avoided a bad president for a few years. Having Bush would be worth it, if that lead to getting rid of parties. Unfortunately it didn't.

--
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Re:Slightly by cayenne8 · 2012-10-09 03:57 · Score: 1

Everything you just said is true unless you don't care about gay rights, immigrant rights, reproductive rights, civil rights, publicly funded social programs, a modicum of union rights...
Let's see...
Don't care, same as any person's sexual orientation..who cares what you do in the dark? No one should get any special treatment.
Don't care (if they're illegal, they shouldn't be here)
Don't care (what? No one is forcing you to fuck or not fuck...have a little personal responsibility when pulling your pants down, eh?)
Already encoded by constitutional amendment
Don't care
That's my views....but hardly those espoused by Romney and his campaign.

--
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Re:Slightly by Tanath · 2012-10-09 04:03 · Score: 1

There's also the fact that the Obama administration wants the tech industry beholden to a portion of the smaller entertainment industry, which you'd think would tip the scales further.
Re:Slightly by buglista · 2012-10-09 04:09 · Score: 1

Obxkcd: http://xkcd.com/326/
Re:Slightly by LanMan04 · 2012-10-09 04:14 · Score: 2

http://www.economist.com/blogs/lexington/2010/10/estate_tax_and_founding_fathers

With Thomas Jefferson taking the lead in the Virginia legislature in 1777, every Revolutionary state government abolished the laws of primogeniture and entail that had served to perpetuate the concentration of inherited property.
Jefferson cited Adam Smith, the hero of free market capitalists everywhere, as the source of his conviction that (as Smith wrote, and Jefferson closely echoed in his own words), "A power to dispose of estates for ever is manifestly absurd. The earth and the fulness of it belongs to every generation, and the preceding one can have no right to bind it up from posterity. Such extension of property is quite unnatural."
Smith said: "There is no point more difficult to account for than the right we conceive men to have to dispose of their goods after death."

--
With the first link, the chain is forged.
Re:Slightly by BigDaveyL · 2012-10-09 04:17 · Score: 1

IIRC the vast majority of millionaires and billionaires are self made.
Re:Slightly by betterunixthanunix · 2012-10-09 04:24 · Score: 1
Everything you just said is true unless you don't care about gay rights, immigrant rights, reproductive rights, civil rights, publicly funded social programs, a modicum of union rights...
I do care about those issues, but it is worth pointing out that:
1. The major battles of the gay rights, reproductive rights, and civil rights movements were won decades ago. Today's big gay rights battle is about marriage, despite the widespread availability of civil unions; in the 1960s, it was illegal for two men to dance together at a night club in many states (including the place of my birth, New York). Today's big reproductive rights battle is about defending nationwide access to abortions; yet at one time, the battle was about allowing women to choose whether or not they would become pregnant without having to bow to their husbands' wishes. Today's big civil rights questions are about affirmative action and the limits of free speech rights; the major battles were about whether or not people could drink from the same water fountain, whether people could be members of the communist party, and if the news media could publish reports about our reasons for going to war (despite everything that has happened with Wikileaks, we have still improved since the Pentagon Papers).
2. Publicly funded social programs are not substantially better after four years of Obama's leadership. The one thing that would really have helped us -- publicly funded health care and the end of health insurance as an industry -- is dead. Our education system is so poorly funded that some schools are asking students to bring toilet paper, because the school district cannot afford it. We have "public" universities where students graduate saddled with debt, and the Obama administration's answer to that was "keep interest rates low, and increase the intensity of the pursuit of delinquent debtors." I guess you could say there is a choice: Republicans with overt attacks on these programs, or Democrats who corrupt the programs and render them worthless.
3. Democrats remain slightly better than Republicans on union rights, but hardly enough to justify my vote. Unions are being attacked at the state level by both Democrats and Republicans, and the Obama administration has done little to stop it.
Oh, and regarding civil rights? The Obama administration has stepped up the number of paramilitary raids on marijuana dispensaries in California. The past four years have seen more such raids than all eight years of the Bush administration combined. The DEA under the Obama administration has exercised its power to unilaterally declare drugs to be illegal over and over again -- and there has been a push to expand that power. One of the most serious civil rights issues we face today is the war on drugs, and the fact that as a direct result of it, we have the largest prison population on the planet. Neither Obama nor Romney have even bothered to publicly state their opposition to drug prohibition.

So you can spend your life paying attention to the superficial differences between Democrats and Republicans if you want. Your life is not likely to be substantially different if one side or the other is in power. You are just as likely to find yourself in prison. You are just as likely to find yourself or your children dealing with an enormous and inescapable debt. You are just as likely to have your interests ignored, and just as likely to see corporate interests promoted.
--
Palm trees and 8
Re:Slightly by deanklear · 2012-10-09 04:32 · Score: 1

The major battles of the gay rights, reproductive rights, and civil rights movements were won decades ago
By which party?

One of the most serious civil rights issues we face today is the war on drugs
Romney's support among African Americans is statistically zero. His Latino support is better, but not by much. Are you trying to tell me that those two groups know less about their own situation than you do?

So you can spend your life paying attention to the superficial differences between Democrats and Republicans if you want. Your life is not likely to be substantially different if one side or the other is in power
If there's no difference, why not vote for the party with a track record of at least pretending like they give a damn?
Re:Slightly by The+Grim+Reefer · 2012-10-09 04:38 · Score: 1

Look, I'm not saying Romney is the second coming or that his unspecified plan is going to work. Or that I even want him to be president. But there a hell of a difference between $5 trillion over ten years and $860 billion. I'm so fucking tired of the bullshit that both parties are claiming. I think I got pretty burned out on President Obama at the beginning of his term. This was supposed to be the "most transparent government in history" and unemployment wouldn't rise above 8% and the ocean levels were going to recede, blah, blah, wretch. To make matters worse, no plans are really designed by any one in office to matter past the next election. When they do, all of the painful shit happens after they are going to be out of office. Not that, that ever happens because the next person in office over turns it all anyhow. It's similar to the debt reduction that Bill Clinton put in place. Congress would have had to not increase spending until 2008 or 20010, or when ever the fuck it was. Even without 9-11, Congress would have found some reason to spend more money. That's what they historically seem to do, no matter which party is in control. I've voted for independents in every election in my life except for two. Sadly there isn't even an independent worth voting for this time.
Re:Slightly by lexman098 · 2012-10-09 04:38 · Score: 1

I believe it would actually be easier to institute a new party by allowing run-off voting to ween people off of the big two instead of trying to change one of them. People voting against the candidate they hate the most without regard to what they actually want is a cancer of democracy.
Re:Slightly by Belial6 · 2012-10-09 04:43 · Score: 1

I have been telling people this for years.

Romney even acknowledged that undecided or third party voters were the only voters that counted in the election. As much as the Obama supporters wanted to twist his words in the notorious 47% video, Romney was NOT saying that he would not represent 47% of the population, or doesn't care about them. He was specifically making the point that ~47% of the population was going to vote Democrat no matter what. He also said in a little less direct way that ~43% of the population will vote Republican no matter what. His point was that catering to either of those groups was a pointless exercise when it comes to getting elected. Their votes are fixed.

His exact quote was "What I have to do is convince the five to ten percent in the center that are independents, that are thoughtful, that look at voting one way or the other.

This is the ugly elephant in the room that is still being missed when people watch that video. It is naive to think that Obama is not just as aware of the situation as Romney.
Re:Slightly by betterunixthanunix · 2012-10-09 04:49 · Score: 1

The major battles of gay, civil, and reproductive rights were not won by a party, they were won by people -- people who went out and protested, people who were beaten up and arrested, people who had fire hoses sprayed at them. They had support by some politicians, mostly Democrats, but those politicians are not running for election now. The Democrats of the 50s, 60s, and 70s are not the Democrats of today. In fact, the 70s marked a turning point for the Democrats: it was the point at which they started accepting big campaign contributions from corporations.

Romney's support among African Americans is statistically zero. His Latino support is better, but not by much. Are you trying to tell me that those two groups know less about their own situation than you do?
Did I say people should vote for Mitt Romney?

If there's no difference, why not vote for the party with a track record of at least pretending like they give a damn?
I am planning vote for the party that does not need to pretend, because they actually do give a damn. Hint: their name starts with a G.

--
Palm trees and 8
Re:Slightly by Nimey · 2012-10-09 05:51 · Score: 1

Because that's sure to happen. ::eyeroll::
No, what'll happen is what's been happening with the Republicans: the process gets hijacked by ideological extremists who are motivated to change things to suit themselves, and who are enabled by "moderates" who stop bothering.

--
Hail Eris, full of mischief...

E pluribus sanguinem
Re:Slightly by deanklear · 2012-10-09 06:13 · Score: 1

If you're voting in a non-contested state, then I fully agree with voting for a third party candidate. If you are voting in a tossup state, you should take a moment to consider the very real possibility that the rights you enjoy won by earlier progressive movements could continue to be eradicated at a greater pace should you fail to pick the least evil of the two options we have in this election.
Re:Slightly by drinkypoo · 2012-10-09 11:36 · Score: 1

We need to get rid of parties altogether.
That's what many of the founders thought. They felt so strongly about it that we don't have any mention of parties in the constitution. Therefore we have no limits on their power. I think you have to accept parties as a necessary evil, and then plan for them.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:Slightly by phantomfive · 2012-10-09 11:44 · Score: 1

I'm not sure why you think parties are a necessary evil.

Ideally, we'd vote for our representatives based on their character, and we'd vote for ones who want to help the country. Then there would be no need for parties, we'd just have congress get together and see how to improve things.

Of course, that requires a more involved populace, but then democracy generally gives the populace the government they deserve.....

--
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Re:Slightly by dpilot · 2012-10-09 12:01 · Score: 1

I'm not saying that tax cuts and deregulation are never the correct course - sometimes they are. I'm just saying that no single simplistic solution is always the correct course - and that counts for more regulation and throwing money at the problem, also.
I will say this about tax cuts - look at history. The Bush tax cuts were one of the first things he did upon inaguration. They don't appear to have worked wonders, and we've had them for nearly 12 years. OK, we can discount them working during the Obama administration, and blame that on him. But for the 8 years prior to that they weren't working either - at least not for working Americans. My personal sense of finance peaked under Clinton, and hasn't gotten back to the same level.

--
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
Re:Slightly by Meski · 2012-10-09 14:08 · Score: 1

It's like slightly preferring the taste of dogshit to catshit.
Re:Slightly by drinkypoo · 2012-10-09 15:18 · Score: 1

I'm not sure why you think parties are a necessary evil.
Because people naturally band together into groups which resemble political parties, and if you outlaw them you'll only create outlaws, you won't prevent partisan-style politicking.

Ideally, we'd vote for our representatives based on their character, and we'd vote for ones who want to help the country. Then there would be no need for parties, we'd just have congress get together and see how to improve things.
No, ideally we'd have an emperor or senate or big computer that handled any busywork for us without any wrongdoing or misdeed, acting faithfully and flawlessly at all moments. Unfortunately, my stock of pixie dust and unicorn farts has gone a bit low and I don't think I can work that out.

Of course, that requires a more involved populace, but then democracy generally gives the populace the government they deserve...
That's a son of a bitch if you're a member of an enlightened majority. Maybe we should find something better than democracy. Maybe there's actually something new out there, who knows. I reject the notion that our system cannot be improved...

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:Slightly by phantomfive · 2012-10-09 16:16 · Score: 1

That's a son of a bitch if you're a member of an enlightened majority.
Yeap, but if you really are part of the enlightened minority(?), you can usually find a way to manipulate the system to your advantage.

--
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Re:Slightly by shaitand · 2012-10-09 22:20 · Score: 1

Making the chances of success equal for children and taking away advantages not actually earned by the child is not punishing success. The only advantage you should be able to pass down generations is genetic. You might argue that the successful are successful as a result of merit but your merit and accomplishments do not belong to your kids. They need to achieve their own success by rising to success without being given any advantage over their counterparts with parents that aren't successful.
Saying the wealthy do not deserve to dodge paying taxes on the wealth they hold is not demonizing or punishing either. For the most part, taxes are spent supporting and protecting wealth. If you have a billion dollars it represents substantial wealth and that wealth cost society much more to protect, police, defend, transport, and build. This cost doesn't just happen when the wealth is created but also when it is maintained. As a consequence your tax burden should be proportional to the amount of wealth you have because your burden on public services is proportional to the same. If you have a million times more wealth than me you should pay a million times the tax I do. How much income we had shouldn't be a factor.
Even the "taxes are punishment" argument fails to negate this. Taxing income is punishing the generation of wealth. Taxing wealth is therefore punishing the hording of wealth while rewarding fluidity of wealth and wealth generation that exceeds the tax rate. Additionally it is most fair. The more benefit you've derived from the policies, laws, and protections of society the more you give back. If you aren't accumulating wealth then society isn't really doing you much good.
In short, if you have a billion dollars worth of wealth it costs a billion times more public resources than one dollar's worth of wealth and this is an ongoing and not a one-off cost. Lots of people might have used that wealth but it is the person who ended up with it and enjoys the benefit of that portion of societies output who owes the cost to maintain it. As such, you should not tax income but rather wealth and you should tax every dollar of it (including the valuation of non-liquid wealth).
If you make a great deal of money but don't manage to accumulate wealth then your tax burden should be low. That wealth ended up in the hands of someone and that someone is who should owe the burden. It shouldn't matter if that "someone" is some form of paper entity. A corporation with a billion dollars worth of holdings that made $1 profit should pay based on the billion not the $1 because it will have used far more resources to maintain that billion worth of holdings than a corp that has no holdings and made $1.
This doesn't stop someone from being wealthy but it does encourage the wealthy to spend the wealth and use it in more aggressive ways that stimulate the economy. It also requires them to pay a truly fair tax based on how much they cost society without allowing for loopholes or tax tricks.
Re:Slightly by Pros_n_Cons · 2012-10-10 00:06 · Score: 1

It appears editorializing happens everywhere.
Summery states: "Study Shows Tech Execs Slightly Prefer Romney Over Obama" on a 64% approval for Romney.
Yet later in the summery :"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."

So when Romney beats Obama by 64% its slight
When Obama beats McCain by 60% its heavily in favor.

I've been up all night and clock out in an hour so maybe I'm missing something. Wonder where these wacko Fox news rednecks get this media bias stuff from? This is exactly why Obama got his clock cleaned in the debate. He hasn't been pressured by an English speaking news organization his whole term and had no idea what responses to give in a "debate" which forces you to explain your positions. BTW did anyone notice a slashdot story on the debates? I didn't search but on front page I couldn't find one. Think there would be a "story" on it here if Obama cleaned Romneys clock?
third point? watch how this post is modded down. and you wonder why fox news kicks the crap out of CNN, MSNBC, Etc.

--

-- "of course thats just my opinion, I could be wrong." --Dennis Miller
Re:Slightly by squiggleslash · 2012-10-10 01:02 · Score: 1

As much as the Obama supporters wanted to twist his words in the notorious 47% video, Romney was NOT saying that he would not represent 47% of the population, or doesn't care about them.

Yes, actually, he did.
These are people who pay no income tax. 47 percent of Americans pay no income tax. So our message of low taxes doesnâ(TM)t connectâ¦ my job is not to worry about those people. Iâ(TM)ll never convince them that they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/09/17/romney-my-job-is-not-to-worry-about-those-people/)
His comment was doubly stupid because the 47%, people "who don't pay income tax" (yes, he explicitly defined it that way) is made up in large part of pensioners, the military, and southern blue collar workers - all of which are dominated by Republicans, in my experience.

--
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Re:Slightly by Whorhay · 2012-10-10 08:54 · Score: 1

That's probably true but "millionaires" covers people like my Father who did not make crazy amounts of money but through wise saving and investing now own assets worth more than a million. There are a lot of older middleclass folks that fit the title of Millionaire. Being a Billionaire is a good bit more difficult but most of those people started out as millionaires, instead of scrimping and saving their way to it. There is a huge difference between the two. And it's been cited to death that the healthy majority of the 1% were born into that class, even if they weren't given their fortune by their parents they had enormous advantages because of the privileges of their class. While it is still true that someone could boot strap themselves from birth into abject poverty up to immense wealth, the odds are so ridiculously stacked against it as to make buying lottery tickets a better investment. It takes money to make money isn't based in fantasy.
PS. I've seen some people who incorrectly believed they were in the 1% because they were worth more than $1 million. While I believe the delineating factor is actually something like having an annual income around that size, not just total assets owned.
Re:Slightly by Belial6 · 2012-10-10 18:03 · Score: 1

His 47% comment and use of the words "my job" was specifically in the context of the election. Only people who are willfully trying to misunderstand him would read that in any other context. Romeny specifically said "There are 47% of the voters who will vote for the president no matter what."

Followed by "These are people who pay no income tax. 47 percent of Americans pay no income tax. So our message of low taxes doesnâ(TM)t connectâ¦ my job is not to worry about those people. Iâ(TM)ll never convince them that they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives."

He finished the idea with "It is my job to convince the 5 or 10% in the center"

Did you not watch the whole video? There is no confusions that his context was strictly in relationship to getting votes. Unless you think that 47% + 5% or 10% = 100% you can't reasonably come to the conclusion that he was talking about who he would represent as president.

The only stupid and incorrect part of what he was saying was in saying that Democrats, the 47% of the population that don't pay taxes, and the people that are part of the victim society are the same people. All of those groups exist, and he was trying to villainize Democrats by claiming that they were the fake victims and people who don't pay taxes. Those were just attempts at extra jabs while making the very valid point that ~47% of the voters will vote party line no matter what for the Democrat candidate, and ~42% of the voters will vote party line for the Republican candidate. That means that In The Context Of Getting Elected it is not the candidates job to worry about anyone but the ~10% of voters that there is any chance of swaying the vote.

While party line voters (whether Democrat, Republican, or Third Party like you) may not like it, he is 100% correct in his assessment concerning who he needs to be concerned about in the election. Even if he figured out how to power cars with children's laughter and cure cancer with butterfly kisses, 47% of the voters are not going to vote for him. Only an idiot would spend his time futilely trying to get those voters to turn from their position. Likewise, only an idiot would spend his time trying to convince people who are already going to vote for him. He already has those votes. That leaves the 5-10% that he specifically called out as being who he to "worry about".

Your willful misunderstanding of what he said proves his point. As time goes on, I am becoming more and more convinced that Romney will win. The reason is that while he is focusing on the 5-10% that will swing the election one way or the other, the Democrats are spending their time trying to get 'gotcha' quotes from him. So, instead of pointing out actual failings in the guy, they are claiming he said things that he clearly did not say. While this might make them feel good, it also pushes the most valuable votes to Romeny.

Of course by Billly+Gates · 2012-10-08 11:41 · 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.

--
http://saveie6.com/

Re:Of course by shmlco · 2012-10-08 11:53 · Score: 2

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

--
Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
Re:Of course by DigitAl56K · 2012-10-08 11:55 · Score: 2

Came here to say this. When you're C-level and you're getting thousands of millions of shares/options awarded to you, plus golden parachutes, it only makes sense to support a candidate whose tax policies favor these methods of income.
Re:Of course by DigitAl56K · 2012-10-08 11:56 · Score: 1

Er.. thousands "or" millions.
Re:Of course by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-08 12:04 · Score: 1

I kind of favor giving tax breaks to people working rather than giving handouts to people that are not.
Re:Of course by Revotron · 2012-10-08 12:07 · 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:Of course by AK+Marc · 2012-10-08 12:33 · Score: 1

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

Even the economists understand that math, and to keep people like you from complaining, often refer to percentage points (or fractions thereof, in some cases) as, just "points." Stocks go up or down "points" and you must use context to determine if that's percentage points or dollars share price. "I knocked 3 points off my mortgage by refinancing" indicates a decrease in the rate to a rate 3% lower than before, not a decrease in the rate by 3%. That's the "normal" use of percentage change, and your definition may be mathematically correct, but not linguistically. You don't get to define the language, the users do, you can only use it or object to it. You are objecting, but you don't get to define him as "wrong" because you started correcting before you even knew for sure what he meant, and even if you were correct you still don't get to define the language.

--
Learn to love Alaska
Re:Of course by shaitand · 2012-10-08 12:39 · Score: 1

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:Of course by HangingChad · 2012-10-08 12:59 · Score: 1, 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.

--
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
Re:Of course by Billly+Gates · 2012-10-08 13:16 · Score: 1

In which case you vote for someone who favors caping interest rates on credit cards, expanding student loans, lowering interest on your existing ones, and having your employer pay for it.
You can be conservative and be mad at me, but in such a situation Obama is clearly more aliagned for your interests as you live by the credit card if you are short from an unexpected expense, owe student loans yet get paid minimum wage, and desperately need to go back to school to get out of your hellish situation.
Romney of course no matter what you do if you are a C level executive! Your goal is to keep your money and not care about anything else as a tax cut for you is a new car. Not several six packs of beer.

--
http://saveie6.com/
Re:Of course by AK+Marc · 2012-10-08 13:58 · Score: 1

You are bad at taxes. As a top 10% wage earner (right at the 10% line), I pay 10% of my income as federal income tax. The total I pay in taxes, federal, state, and local, is under 20%.

--
Learn to love Alaska
Re:Of course by Billly+Gates · 2012-10-08 15:56 · Score: 1

Movie stars do not gain more money from deregulation. Their executives might but not htem. Union guys vote for democrats because they will help keep them in power and not have someone like Scott, or Walker make states right to work or strip union rights of public employees. It makes more financial sense to vote democrat.
If you are a corporate tool the republican party offers you no transparency, bribing, no regulation, corporate tax cuts, and personal tax cuts. No matter what your field it is a nice place to be to have a tea party person or afar right wing governor to help you out. Black athletes get none of that. Maybe a tax break and that is it.

--
http://saveie6.com/
Re:Of course by AlphaWolf_HK · 2012-10-08 20:45 · Score: 1

I don't really get the complaints about the capital gains rate anyways. The taxes on that income were paid before it reached your hands at a higher rate to begin with. That's like saying we should tax businesses based on revenue.

--
Careful with names containing L slashdot.org/~AiphaWolf_HK slashdot.org/~AlphaWoif_HK slashdot.org/~AiphaWoif_HK
Re:Of course by TFAFalcon · 2012-10-08 21:18 · Score: 1

You hire people until all your income is spent do you? If that was the case for everyone, then there would be no 'filthy rich' - they would accumulate no money, since they'd spend it all as they 'earned' it.
Like it or not, there are only so many employes that a person needs. And once those slots are filled, any extra income is likely to be put into savings or investments, rather then new jobs.
Re:Of course by LordLimecat · 2012-10-09 01:22 · Score: 1

We better stick it to the man like France and Spain, thats SURE to fix the economy!
Re:Of course by grep_rocks · 2012-10-09 03:25 · Score: 2

You realize all those examples are of people who actually _work_ and by that I mean earn most of thier money by performing some sort of labor - I would sure as hell favor tax policies that favored _work_ over just collecting rents on capital which is what we have now in our country - a guy like Mitt Romney does not work, he pays people to work for him and get huge tax breaks for doing so - fuck him - at least a football player _does_ something for his fucking money instead of paying someone else to play football for him and then collecting a check from his employee's labor - when tax labor and not capital the society devolves into feudalism.
Re:Of course by T+Murphy · 2012-10-09 03:28 · Score: 1

Talking about percent changes to a percent tends to be ambiguous, no need to be a jerk about it.

--
My webcomic
Re:Of course by argStyopa · 2012-10-11 06:49 · Score: 1

So by your logic, there should never be any managers of any kind? Or in any case, they shouldn't get paid?
I'll break that news to Barack Obama next time I talk to him.
Further I'll be happy to discuss this after you pass menarche because it's apparent that you could seriously use a period.

--
-Styopa

How do you know? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-08 11:42 · Score: 1, Insightful

Romney lies through his teeth, so how do you know what his policies would be?

Re:How do you know? by Oh+Gawwd+Peak+Oil · 2012-10-08 11:44 · Score: 1

Why did you just apologize for Mitt Romney?
Sincerely,
Mitt Romney
Re:How do you know? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-08 11:50 · Score: 1, Interesting

Romney lies through his teeth, so how do you know what his policies would be?
Given his stage charisma and lack of honesty, I suspect Romney may be a sociopath.
Re:How do you know? by phantomfive · 2012-10-08 12:03 · Score: 1

Romney ......Given his stage charisma
Wow. Never thought I'd hear anyone say that.

--
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Re:How do you know? by betterunixthanunix · 2012-10-08 12:03 · Score: 2

Well, people wondered why someone with strong political opinions would say, "I am not watching the debate tonight" when I told them just that. I do not vote major party, because no matter what they say, they do the same thing. Neither party has worked to end the "leave people with inescapable debts when they are just starting out in life" system, neither party has worked to end the "send paramilitary assault teams into innocent civilians' homes" approach to drug policy, and neither party has worked to end the standing army / military-industrial-complex money sink. Romney is not going to work to advance goals that benefit commoners, because he is just as beholden to corporations as Obama or any other major party candidate.

--
Palm trees and 8
Re:How do you know? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-08 12:23 · Score: 1

Romney ......Given his stage charisma
Wow. Never thought I'd hear anyone say that.
Look who he had to compete against.
Anyone remember what Obama did four years ago when Hillary finally figured out that she might lose and she actually went after Obama in a debate?
Yeah. Hillary crushed Obama - just like Romney did.
It was Obama's last debate of the 2008 primary season. He refused to debate after that.
Last week was no fluke. That was the REAL Obama.
Re:How do you know? by Attila+Dimedici · 2012-10-08 23:17 · Score: 1

Perhaps you might look at more than just what he has done while he is campaigning? Of course, why should you attempt to determine anything about somebody by the way they have actually lived their lives? You know, the way he shut down a multi-million dollar corporation so that its employees could go and look for the missing daughter of one of those employees? Or the way he loaned the money to a family so they could buy the house they had been renting from him when no banks would give them a mortgage?
Of course, if you did that, you might have to question whether the man who can't even be bothered to send a few dollars to his own brother, who is living in poverty, really cares about the "little guy".

--
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Re:How do you know? by Hatta · 2012-10-09 01:25 · Score: 1

No, Romney lies through his smirk.

--
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!

Role Model by Oh+Gawwd+Peak+Oil · 2012-10-08 11:43 · Score: 1

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?

Why can't we apply SOX to the US Federal Gov? by hsmith · 2012-10-08 11:43 · Score: 4, Insightful

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.

Re:Why can't we apply SOX to the US Federal Gov? by phantomfive · 2012-10-08 12:00 · Score: 1

Because senators don't want to be regulated.

--
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Re:Why can't we apply SOX to the US Federal Gov? by JWW · 2012-10-08 12:16 · Score: 2

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.
Re:Why can't we apply SOX to the US Federal Gov? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-08 15:00 · Score: 1

Chase has a debt to income ratio of around 50 to 1 and they're considered one of the stronger banks. So the meme the U.S. Government would have to declare bankruptcy if it was a business is absurd. The U.S. Government has a DTI of around 8 to 1. Many, many companies operate just fine with that. And let's not forget the run government finances like your household. How many people have mortgages, autos, student loan and credit card debt that is greater than 8 times their income? Truth is Government debt is right in line with private debt. In that respect at least, they are very representative of the people.
Re:Why can't we apply SOX to the US Federal Gov? by im_thatoneguy · 2012-10-08 16:49 · Score: 1

Ummmm No.
In 2005 http://www.wikinvest.com/stock/Amazon.com_(AMZN)/Data/Debt_to_Equity/2005?ref=chart
Amazon had a debt to equity ratio of 15:1. If you view the nation of the United States as the potential equity of the country (that could hypothetically be nationalized) then the US Debt to Equity Ratio is more like 1:10.
Re:Why can't we apply SOX to the US Federal Gov? by subreality · 2012-10-08 18:08 · Score: 1

Where the hell did this idea of a government being run like a business come from?
Republicans. Their candidates frequently propose doing so.
Re:Why can't we apply SOX to the US Federal Gov? by jythie · 2012-10-09 02:20 · Score: 1

Have you seen governments that are run like buisnesses? They are usually 3rd world hellholes.

A state is not a buisness and should not behave like one, the goals of the two domains are diometrically opposed.

(fill-in-the-blank) execs, you mean by Kyd_A · 2012-10-08 11:47 · Score: 1

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

Welcome to The Presidential RACE by Crypto+Gnome · 2012-10-08 11:48 · Score: 4, Insightful

Unfortunately in order for THE MEDIA to make any MONEY off this RACE it requires there to be a competition.

Analysts In The Know have made it VERY clear that Romney is pretty close to a complete NON STARTER and all this MEDIA HYPE about how close (insert airquotes here) this election is amounts to nothing more than bulldust, baloney, hot air, media hype, manufactured statistics, and damn close to out and out blatant lies.

As you can see from TFA, MUCH loud ballyhoo'ing about "CEOs Prefer Romney" but when you read the numbers in actual fact that is "only just barely not actually a complete lie".

Despite their preference for Romney, 76 percent of all respondents said Obama will win the November election.

--
Visit CryptoGnome in his home.

Re:Welcome to The Presidential RACE by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-08 11:53 · Score: 1

Why can't you admit that Romney will emerge glorious and victorious over the socialist-communist-fascist-terrorist-activist-hippie-marxist-islamist-environmentalist fringe that encroaches upon our great country today???
Why do you hate freedom?
Re:Welcome to The Presidential RACE by AlphaWolf_HK · 2012-10-08 20:52 · Score: 1

Rasmussen has been pretty accurate in the last few elections, and their numbers pretty much show a deadlock.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

--
Careful with names containing L slashdot.org/~AiphaWolf_HK slashdot.org/~AlphaWoif_HK slashdot.org/~AiphaWoif_HK
Re:Welcome to The Presidential RACE by LordLimecat · 2012-10-09 01:23 · Score: 1

It can be close, and everyone can still know whats likely to happen.
Re:Welcome to The Presidential RACE by Talderas · 2012-10-09 01:38 · Score: 1

Cue responses that Rasmussen is a Republican shill.

--
"Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork

Re:Correction by Pinky's+Brain · 2012-10-08 11:49 · Score: 1

It said CEOs and CFOs didn't it?

Goofy headline by MSTCrow5429 · 2012-10-08 11:53 · Score: 1

Because 2 percentage points away from a super-majority is only a "slight" preference.

--
Slashdot: Playing Favorites Since 1997

Here's another survey by Crypto+Gnome · 2012-10-08 11:53 · Score: 1

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.

Re:Here's another survey by dietdew7 · 2012-10-08 11:59 · Score: 3, Insightful

The second option describes either Obama or Romney. What is the name of the candidate for option 1?
Re:Here's another survey by OneAhead · 2012-10-08 12:26 · Score: 1

Exactly what I was thinking. This is supposed to be "news for nerds" or what? *yawn*
Re:Here's another survey by AK+Marc · 2012-10-08 13:39 · Score: 2

Ross Perot. Good luck on the time machine to get him elected in 1992.

--
Learn to love Alaska
Re:Here's another survey by bloodhawk · 2012-10-08 14:00 · Score: 1

Who is the candidate for option 1? I thought you only had Romney and Obama to pick form at this stage?
Re:Here's another survey by Dragonslicer · 2012-10-08 14:51 · Score: 1

The second option describes either Obama or Romney. What is the name of the candidate for option 1?
Jon Stewart?
Re:Here's another survey by phantomfive · 2012-10-09 04:17 · Score: 1

I'm pretty sure both of them actually try to be #1. In fact, I'm pretty sure Bush tried to be #1 as well; fail.

--
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."

SOX by Stirling+Newberry · 2012-10-08 11:54 · Score: 1

Put it on the pile of the other failed "reforms" of the last generation.

--
Fugue for Aaron Swartz

Two cheeks of the same ass by OldSport · 2012-10-08 11:57 · Score: 1

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.

Re:Two cheeks of the same ass by ineffablepwnage · 2012-10-08 20:42 · Score: 1

I don't know about you, but I get some wendy's and drink a 7 up while watching a Ron Paul documentary on CBS, and brush with aquafresh afterwards.

One thing is universal: everyone hates SOX. by TubeSteak · 2012-10-08 11:59 · Score: 1, 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.

--
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!

Wealthy people by Teckla · 2012-10-08 12:01 · Score: 5, Insightful

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

Re:Wealthy people by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-08 12:02 · Score: 2, Insightful

And people who live on entitlements are biased in favor of the one who promises them yet more entitlements...
Re:Wealthy people by don.g · 2012-10-08 12:36 · Score: 1

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.

--
Pretend that something especially witty is here. Thanks.
Re:Wealthy people by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-08 13:17 · Score: 1

I was homeless in my early 20's. With the help of friends who encouraged me I got back on my feet and decided I didn't like being broke. Through a lot of study and entrepreneurship I'm becoming wealthy in more ways than just money. I'm not in the 1%, but I believe I will be. I have a few friends who are more wealthy than me. We are all givers into our community with time and finances.
I have a desire to help other people achieve whatever desire is in their hearts. I specifically want to help anyone who wants to lift themselves out of poverty and away from poverty thinking. The best way I know to do that is to help people learn about how money works and encourage entrepreneurship.
I wouldn't mind having a tv show where I can teach people about money and how to become more valuable monetarily in their communities and not make a penny from it.
I want tax cuts because it means I can keep more I my own money and re-invest it into my business. No one became poorer because I'm making more money. I'm bringing as many people with me as I can. Nothing would make me happier (other than maybe 6 wives lol) than to create an army of new 1%ers.
IMHO people who see people as rich and poor and choose one group over another as morally superior are just silly.
Bring on the tax cuts. But more than that, bring on some stability. We haven't had stability in the tax code, or even had a budget for how long? Enough of this silliness.
Re:Wealthy people by artor3 · 2012-10-08 13:34 · Score: 2

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 by Spoke · 2012-10-08 16:05 · Score: 3, Insightful

I want tax cuts because it means I can keep more I my own money and re-invest it into my business.
BS and one of the most widely told lies by conservatives.
Taxes encourage you to immediately spend more of your money on your business. If you put all your profit back into the business by hiring employees and building stuff - you turn your profits into a bigger business without paying much in taxes.
For example: Let's say your current small business makes $1M / year in profit. Normally everything above $388k or so would be taxed at 35%. Let's simplify and say it's a flat tax and you pay $350k in taxes. Now let's say you hire 20 employees instead at $50k / year which eliminates your profit. Now you've got 20 more employees to grow your business and you're not paying any income taxes. Problem solved. w00t!
Re:Wealthy people by Billly+Gates · 2012-10-08 16:06 · Score: 1

The difference is that tax cut will help Joe six pack buy a few 12 packs of beer in a years time ... assuming he gets one at all. A single Mom did not get any tax cut at all under Bush. Correct me if I am wrong? I could be but it is hardly anything. ... now if you make 200+ and have a whole bunch of vacation homes and tax shelters you get a new Mercedes! The rich guy gets one hell of a payout more than the single Mom so as a result the Mom might be more inclined to vote for Obama. Lower interest rates on cards, lower student loan rates, and other things would certainly help her out the best.
The rich guy? Not at all.
Also a corporate tax cut will raise the share price so the executive then gets a performance bonus on top of his salary! Think the Mom working at CVS will get a bonus? Nope ...

--
http://saveie6.com/
Re:Wealthy people by optimus2861 · 2012-10-09 02:31 · Score: 1

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!
That's funny, I must have missed the part in Economics 101 where it says the goal of business is to earn zero profit, and that the accompanying goal of the government is to tax the business so as to encourage that outcome. Was it in the section about Marxism, perhaps?
How does tripe like this get modded to +5?
Re:Wealthy people by grep_rocks · 2012-10-09 03:37 · Score: 1

That is an interesting point, I have no idea why we celebrate profit, profit indicates market inefficiency -- of course most businesses love profit, which means, perversely you have try to do everything possible to prevent others from competing with you
Re:Wealthy people by toddestan · 2012-10-10 14:28 · Score: 1

So poorly run business goes out of business. Sounds like a free market to me, or are you one of those people who believes it's the government's job to guarantee profits for your business?
Re:Wealthy people by Whorhay · 2012-10-11 01:03 · Score: 1

S/he was just pointing out that taxes do not prevent you from investing money back into the business because taxes are only paid on profits. Money invested back into the company is considered a business expense and so tax deductible, or in other words, not taxed. And just because the example given reduced the profit to zero doesn't mean that would be optimal or livable. You'd probably want to draw just enough of a salary to live on while keeping your tax burden low, heck you could probably keep yourself in that 47% that doesn't end up owing any Federal income taxes.

You are know by what you despise.... by TiggertheMad · 2012-10-08 12:09 · Score: 2

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!

Re:64+41 100% by tomhath · 2012-10-08 12:11 · Score: 1

RTFA:

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.)

slight bias by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-08 12:11 · Score: 1

.... 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

Re:The fucks the difference? by NonUniqueNickname · 2012-10-08 12:12 · Score: 5, Insightful

We're going to be screwed either way [...] take your pick

But it's so difficult to pick one... Oh, why can't we just have FL and OH decide for everyone?

A vote for Obama | Romney == vote wasted by WaffleMonster · 2012-10-08 12:14 · Score: 1

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:A vote for Obama | Romney == vote wasted by AlphaWolf_HK · 2012-10-08 12:26 · Score: 1

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
And of course:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rAT_BuJAI70

--
Careful with names containing L slashdot.org/~AiphaWolf_HK slashdot.org/~AlphaWoif_HK slashdot.org/~AiphaWoif_HK
Re:A vote for Obama | Romney == vote wasted by Hatta · 2012-10-09 01:32 · Score: 1

Vote Jill Stein. A candidate willing to get arrested to make a point is a candidate I want.

--
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!

A liberal convinced me to take a second look... by AlphaWolf_HK · 2012-10-08 12:14 · 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.

--
Careful with names containing L slashdot.org/~AiphaWolf_HK slashdot.org/~AlphaWoif_HK slashdot.org/~AiphaWoif_HK

Re:A liberal convinced me to take a second look... by rroman · 2012-10-08 13:39 · Score: 5, Insightful

I'm not from US, but after watching the presidential debate, I'm convinced that Romney is really bad candidate. In the debate, he keep repeating, that he will support teachers, he will cancel Obama care and replace it with something, that will essentially do the same, he will lower tax rates with closing loopholes to have the revenue the same and so on WITHOUT actually saying anything specific. He basically said, that he is able to do everything well again without saying how would he achieve it. Such magic presented in the campaign is only populism and he will not be able to hold his promises. And even if I didn't see this as a problem, I still would see the fact, that he is inconsistent with himself: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cPgfzknYd20 Obama on the other hand was quite specific about his plans and his plans seem to be realistic
Re:A liberal convinced me to take a second look... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-08 13:42 · Score: 3, Insightful

LOL, you think Bain Capital had anything to do with the ACTUAL jobs at any of the companies?
Try again.
They didn't do anything but offer financing, which they actually transacted in such a way as to guarantee themselves a profit regardless of the company's success or failure.
You really should pay more attention to your own words. They owned, but did not manage.
Somebody else built that. Don't give them credit.
You're also misinformed about how campaign financing works. Corporations can't directly fund an election, so they "encourage" their employees to do so. This has been known for years. Try reading the novel Grass Roots for an example.
So far, your argument has convinced me that you're as mendacious as Mitt Romney, but the truth comes out of your words anyway.
PS, those corporations Romney talked about? He was factually deficient there too. Solyndra had as many investors who are donors to the Republican party as Democrat, and you know what? They didn't fail because of anything they did. They failed due to Chinese dumping of Solar Panels at lower cost.
Of course, they're only one out of over three dozen companies funded by that program which was created under George W. Bush, but don't let that bother you, go with Romney's lie about how many of them failed.
I know, Obama didn't bring all of this up, and that's a problem, just like he didn't mention how Massachusetts schools were best in the nation before Mitt Romney, so basically he could have done nothing, but you could look up some facts yourself. I guess Obama must have been told not to argue with Mitt's BS fest or something.
Either that or he was unprepared for the litany of lies. perhaps he should have had somebody prep him with research from Slashdot.
Re:A liberal convinced me to take a second look... by Tora · 2012-10-08 13:44 · Score: 1

How dare you speak facts and reason!

--
tora
Re:A liberal convinced me to take a second look... by AK+Marc · 2012-10-08 13:52 · Score: 2

The real problem I see with the "lets hate on the 47%/49%ers is that most of them are there without choice. I've been a 19%er. My mother retired and started drawing SS, after having paid in her entire life. That makes her a lousy free-loading liberal scum. And what do you do about the freeloading scum when you find out the one you are talking about is a 3 year old? Tell him to get a job or his milk money will be cut off? I've had this discussion with others and they don't mind hurting the children to punish the parents for their "crimes" of being bad with money or stupid or whatever. All that does is make another generation that can't help themselves, they dropped out of school at 12 to work so they could eat. When they make it to 18, they can collect welfare, but are unemployable. It's cheaper to help the poor than to care for their children, but the "small government" conservatives would love for there to be a huge private prison system, paid for with increased taxes, that housed the poor and criminal. It's cheaper to pay $100 for HeadStart than $150 for their crimes later, but the conservatives want the largest government possible, so long as the goal is to lock up undesirables and keep the streets "clean".

--
Learn to love Alaska
Re:A liberal convinced me to take a second look... by artor3 · 2012-10-08 13:52 · 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:
http://www.mittromney.com/issues/national-defense
"Obama has already cut the projected defense budget by $487 billion. What is more, he proposed and signed into law a budget process that will result in an additional $492 billion of defense cuts over the next ten years. ... Mitt Romney will begin by reversing Obama-era defense cuts and return to the budget baseline established by Secretary Robert Gates in 2010, with the goal of setting core defense spending ... at a floor of 4 percent of GDP." -- Emphasis theirs.
http://www.mittromney.com/issues/tax
" 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:A liberal convinced me to take a second look... by Tora · 2012-10-08 13:54 · 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.

--
tora
Re:A liberal convinced me to take a second look... by Tora · 2012-10-08 14:04 · Score: 1

Please take your own advise. When you get to an income bracket where you can itemize taxes, suddenly you will have a new realization that our system is very screwed up. Itemizing is not "dodging taxes", that is just the oppositions tagline. He has paid millions in taxes every year, he does everything legally, and on top of that pays millions more to charity. This last round he didn't even claim everything he could potentially claim, and he's still lamblasted for it. It is laughable how ridiculously illogical his opposition is.
Glad to see you can join in the choir, and complain about others.

--
tora
Re:A liberal convinced me to take a second look... by quantaman · 2012-10-08 14:21 · Score: 2

Well if you want actual unethical behaviour from Romney at Bain look at how he bailed out Bain & Company (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 assets as loans to the top executives (though not the other employees), unless the creditors agreed to only get back 35% of the loan they'd get nothing at all. After one such round of bonuses the creditors agreed.
I think my two main issues with Romney are ethics and uncertainty. You can see the reputation for Romney's dishonesty at politifact as compared to Obama. As well there's a huge uncertainty about how he will govern. He's gone from very moderate in Massachusetts, to far right wing in the primaries and early as last week, and back to moderate in the debates, and not just in tone, but policy as well. I think there is a real outstanding question about how he will govern.

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.
This actually makes me doubt your sincerity, who cares if we're better off than four years ago? That's just a talking point.
We were at point X in a massive economic collapse, shift X a couple months and you get a completely different answer. The question is about what will happen in the next 4 year.

--
I stole this Sig
Re:A liberal convinced me to take a second look... by yuhong · 2012-10-08 15:04 · Score: 1

Yea, Congress is more interesting as that is who makes the laws.
Re:A liberal convinced me to take a second look... by MSG · 2012-10-08 15:05 · Score: 2

I looked this up, and found that Bain Capital was actually responsible for the success of many companies that have tons of employees (Staples and Domino's among them.)
In a huge "fuck you" to Bain, Staples just published a press release titled "Staples, Inc. Announces Strategic Plan to Accelerate Growth" in which they announced plans to CLOSE 60 stores.
Bain's strategy is to take over a company with a small amount of their own cash and a large amount of debt. They increase the company's revenue through acquisitions (which may hide any revenue which is lost relative to the the sum of the individual company revenues prior to the acquisition), and sell their interest in the companies. The companies, meanwhile, have the responsibility of paying the debt that Bain used to take them over.
http://www.salon.com/2012/10/02/how_mitt_romneys_bain_harvested_sealy_mattress_company/
I'm not going to say that half of those companies fail, but if you think that a failure rate of nearly half is acceptable, I have no idea what planet you're from. Failure rate among Bain's acquisitions is vastly higher than it is among operating businesses in general.
The DoE did make loans to some green energy companies that failed. Not "half", as Romney claimed during their debate, but less than 10%. That's in line with start-up businesses in general. It's disappointing, but realistic. That's not pilfering, it's not even a sign of bad choices.
Re:A liberal convinced me to take a second look... by MSG · 2012-10-08 15:14 · Score: 4, Interesting

The cry that he doesn't have details is merely a tactic, because they have so little else of "meat" to argue.
That's a load of nonsense.
Mitt and Ann have said that they can't talk specifics, because that would give their critics a target. They've said that once they were elected, that there were going to be changes that people wouldn't like. They can't talk about their plans, because they know we won't vote for them if we know what they're going to do. That's good enough for me. If knowing their plans is going to make me not vote for them, then I have enough information to know that I don't want to vote for them.
Then there's Ryan. Questioned about how his budget plan would work, he replied that they hadn't run the numbers on it. That's really the essence of conservative thought today, in a nutshell. It's all ideology, and no data. They don't care enough to actually test their theories, or examine how they'll work in practice. They go with their gut and hope for the best. It's absolutely ridiculous.
Re:A liberal convinced me to take a second look... by AlphaWolf_HK · 2012-10-08 15:18 · Score: 1

I'm not sure what there is to rationalize. Tax avoidance is a legal practice that I've yet to see anybody not do. I don't know whether he has done tax evasion, but I'm think that with the big microscope he is under, if he has broken the law, somebody would know it by now. Meanwhile, any suggestion that he has is just hearsay.
Honestly I get tired of hearing that such and such politician has some secret agenda with some evil plans, it's just petty and stupid.
Regarding taxes, I think you know the tax system is broken when there is a whole industry dedicated to figuring the damn thing out. It's one thing if it's a process you only have to go through when something goes wrong (e.g. the legal system) but its another thing when you have to repeat it like clockwork until you die.

--
Careful with names containing L slashdot.org/~AiphaWolf_HK slashdot.org/~AlphaWoif_HK slashdot.org/~AiphaWoif_HK
Re:A liberal convinced me to take a second look... by TheNastyInThePasty · 2012-10-08 15:42 · Score: 1

How are you supposed to have "meat" to argue anything when someone has no meat to their plans? Any plans he has, he hasn't explained how to achieve them. Any views he had, have probably changed. I visit fact checking websites on a regular basis and they have trouble checking any claims made against Romney on account of "we don't know what he'll do."

What regulations are you going to cut? "The bad ones?" What tax loop holes are you going to close? "The ones that make it revenue neutral?" What federal programs will you cut? How will you fix social entitlements?

I watched Romney's debating, he just told everyone that they could have their cake and eat it too. That and trust him, when he gets into office it will be totally awesome.

--
The best thing about UDP jokes is I don't care if you get them or not
Re:A liberal convinced me to take a second look... by AlphaWolf_HK · 2012-10-08 15:53 · Score: 1

I'm a libertarian and I want small government. I would really like social security to go away. To me it has all of the hallmarks of a ponzi scheme; the initial investors make bank, and the people at the end get screwed. I'm being forced to "invest" into it, and unless I live to be 80 (doubtful given a medical issue I have) I won't see a dime of that back. Even if I did live that long, I wouldn't get back anything near what I put into it. A ponzi scheme would be better in comparison, because at least if I did get something, I could pass it to my next of kin.
I don't know about the 47% figure, but I know that the number of people on disability has increased over 50% over the last decade, which is much faster than the growth of the population. You can't tell me that more people are becoming sick and disablfed; SOMETHING is wrong, and the system IS being abused.

--
Careful with names containing L slashdot.org/~AiphaWolf_HK slashdot.org/~AlphaWoif_HK slashdot.org/~AiphaWoif_HK
Re:A liberal convinced me to take a second look... by AlphaWolf_HK · 2012-10-08 16:01 · Score: 1

Change we can believe in is a talking point. What has changed? How come he doesn't use that any more?
Anyways, I am sincere. I will leave POTUS blank on the ballot this november.

--
Careful with names containing L slashdot.org/~AiphaWolf_HK slashdot.org/~AlphaWoif_HK slashdot.org/~AiphaWoif_HK
Re:A liberal convinced me to take a second look... by quantaman · 2012-10-08 16:24 · Score: 1

I'm not sure how "change we can believe in" relates to being better off than 4 years ago. It's a slogan developed before the recession, and besides, the change in question didn't refer to the economy which is what Biden was likely talking about.
Besides, on the slogan I'd say Obama has delivered about as well as could be expected, he got through Health Care reform, ended Don't Ask, Don't Tell, and has endorsed gay marriage. The only places I really feel he's failed to act is in continuing to abuse state secrets provisions to quash lawsuits, leaving Guantanamo open, and not scaling down the war on drugs.
The thing with change is it's bound to be less spectacular once it happens, and he's still only a single person operating in a highly dysfunctional political system. If you really can't stomach him than leave it blank, but I still see a vote for the slightly less worse candidate to be a mild nudge in the proper direction.

--
I stole this Sig
Re:A liberal convinced me to take a second look... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-08 16:40 · Score: 1

Would somebody else have made that investment if Bain hadn't? The answer is quite...open to speculation. What we do know is that none of the actual processes involved in making those businesses successful cared who supplied that money. Money is quite fungible. So unless you can argue that nobody else would provide them funding on good terms, you're really just saying somebody who wrote a check (and expected to be paid back for it) is supposed to be credited with the hard work?
Maybe you ought to apply some thinking. That, and check something more on Factcheck.
Here's a sample of what you apparently don't care about:
Mitt Romney made numerous bogus claims in the Oct. 3 debate about the $90 billion in grants, guaranteed loans and tax breaks for energy projects in the stimulus bill:
Romney falsely claimed “about half” of the clean-energy companies that received U.S.-backed loans “have gone out of business.” But 26 companies received loan guarantees under a loan program cited by Romney, and three of those have filed for bankruptcy. The three firms were approved for about 6 percent of the loan guarantees.
Romney incorrectly claimed the “$90 billion in breaks to the green energy world” was provided “in one year.” It was over several years.
He stated at one point that Obama put $90 billion “into solar and wind.” But only $21 billion went for renewable energy projects, “such as the installation of wind turbines and solar panels,” according to a White House document cited by the Romney campaign. The spending also included $18 billion for transit projects and $10 billion to upgrade the nation’s electrical grid.
He falsely claimed the $90 billion was equal to “about 50 years’ worth of what oil and gas receives” in tax breaks, which he estimated at $2.8 billion. By his own figures, it would have been 32 years’ worth. But it’s even less than that. The administration estimates that eliminating oil and gas tax preferences would raise about $3.9 billion a year (23 years’ worth). The industry itself says the administration would increase its taxes by $8.5 billion a year (10.5 years’ worth).
He falsely claimed Obama “put $90 billion into green jobs that would have hired 2 million teachers.” But that $90 billion included loans, not just grant money, and the government can’t hire teachers with loans.
Whereas Factcheck stretches Obama's words to make his statement about the analysis of Romney's promises to be of the same factual insufficiency? Their statement there misses the forest for the trees. Obviously they didn't hear the parts where Obama mentioned where his reference came from, and they're giving Romney too much credit for his promises. They complain about the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act not slowing premium increases, but agree spending has gone down? Whatever. They try to get uptight about a rounding from 4.6 to 5 million?
Can you find anything that meets the substance of Romney's statements? I can't.
Again, their pettiness shows they are trying too hard to cover for Romney. He's been given way too much free reign on his mendacity. He ought to be called on the spot, instead of being allowed to make bald-faced lies.
Re:A liberal convinced me to take a second look... by rollingcalf · 2012-10-08 17:23 · Score: 1

"I don't know about the 47% figure, but I know that the number of people on disability has increased over 50% over the last decade, which is much faster than the growth of the population. You can't tell me that more people are becoming sick and disablfed; SOMETHING is wrong, and the system IS being abused."
The system is being abused, but the system is also abusing people.
There are many on disability who can do some form of work and some who were actually working before the recession, but the bad economy and the way the system works strongly discourages them from working again.
When a disabled person gets a job, their disability benefits are reduced or eliminated, and then if/when they lose the job they have to go through the long bureaucracy to prove their disability all over again which can take over a year. Before the recession when jobs were easier to find, many would take jobs knowing that the job would either last a long time or they'd be able to find a new job reasonably quickly.
But with high unemployment, any job they get is less secure, and finding a new job takes much longer than it used to, and their job search time is longer than average due to the limited types of jobs they can do. So they don't want to take a job that will reduce or eliminate their disability benefits, knowing that the job could disappear tomorrow and then they could be without work and without disability benefits for the next year. It's safer to just sit back and keep collecting disability.

--
---------
There is inferior bacteria on the interior of your posterior.
Re:A liberal convinced me to take a second look... by hairyfish · 2012-10-08 18:03 · Score: 1

Mod up. That is it in a nutshell. Romney is like a car salesmen promising whatever you want to hear with none of the detail. Regardless of political leanings, that type of personality always triggers my bullshit detector
Re:A liberal convinced me to take a second look... by CodeBuster · 2012-10-08 18:41 · Score: 1

Meanwhile, Obama is trying to cut military spending.
Which would be a major strategic blunder. A powerful military allows the United States to maintain a controlling interest in vital resources and geopolitical affairs. It would be a serious mistake for the United States to abdicate this position of strength to Russia or China. Like it or not, the nation with the most powerful military sets the world agenda. If you think that diplomacy alone can achieve the same results then you're being naive. Look at how Russia and Putin have played Obama for the fool after his attempt to "hit the reset button" on relations. The Russians have managed to put serious pressure on the United States, forcing us to expend many more resources than would otherwise have been necessary, to maintain our vital interests around the world. It's as if Putin has kept our knight, rook and queen busy by adroitly repositioning a few of his pawns. Now is not the time for the United States to retreat from world affairs and leave the military field to the Chinese and the Russians.
Re:A liberal convinced me to take a second look... by F.Ultra · 2012-10-08 19:58 · Score: 1

And why would you get anything back if you don't need it? Can you not just be happy that you are in a position economically and health wise so that you have no need for the welfare system while your money will be distributed to those that don't share your good life?
Re:A liberal convinced me to take a second look... by AlphaWolf_HK · 2012-10-08 20:36 · Score: 1

Perhaps they would have, however whoever else would have done it would have wanted a return on investment the same as Bain, so I don't really see what you're getting at. How many venture capitalists do you know who wouldn't?
As far as factcheck, they are often accused of being left biased, especially considering that several of their founders were involved in left wing publications. In light of that, I think it is a stretch to say that they would push favor towards Romney.

--
Careful with names containing L slashdot.org/~AiphaWolf_HK slashdot.org/~AlphaWoif_HK slashdot.org/~AiphaWoif_HK
Re:A liberal convinced me to take a second look... by AlphaWolf_HK · 2012-10-08 21:11 · Score: 1

Probably because it is my money to begin with, being taken away by force, or "by the sword" as the old saying goes.
That's like saying its ok to take away your cell phone, because you can be happy with a landline (and indeed you can) therefore you don't need it.

--
Careful with names containing L slashdot.org/~AiphaWolf_HK slashdot.org/~AlphaWoif_HK slashdot.org/~AiphaWoif_HK
Re:A liberal convinced me to take a second look... by Dr.+Evil · 2012-10-08 21:19 · Score: 1

After Romney's behaviour in England and Israel, do you really think he'll be a good representative on the world stage?
Re:A liberal convinced me to take a second look... by AlphaWolf_HK · 2012-10-08 21:24 · Score: 1

That slogan was being used extensively just prior to the 2008 election, long after the recession began.
I don't remember where I found it, but there was a video of Larry Lessig talking about how him and many others were under the impression that Obama would take money out of politics, but he bowed to Hollywood contributors when he signed ACTA into law without even allowing the senate (or anybody at all) to review it, which is completely against the constitution by the way.
That, and with all of the talk about restoring the right to privacy, he willingly signs NDAA into law (which the republicans are also partially guilty of.)
I really don't see what has changed, so again, it's just a talking point.

--
Careful with names containing L slashdot.org/~AiphaWolf_HK slashdot.org/~AlphaWoif_HK slashdot.org/~AiphaWoif_HK
Re:A liberal convinced me to take a second look... by AlphaWolf_HK · 2012-10-08 21:42 · Score: 1

I'm not sure if I've mentioned it in this thread, but I have mentioned in the past that I really don't believe presidents have as much influence on unemployment as most people think they do. I always chuckle a bit when I hear a president say "I created x jobs" or some pundit says "y president cost us x jobs."
I remember attending some event in early 2003 where people representing candidates for the democratic primary (one of John Kerry's daughters was there) were speaking about their candidate at my college. Many of them kept repeating that Dubya cost us 3 million jobs. I was wondering to myself "how did he do that?" They never really said why, or how it could be fixed, just that he had to go. It occurred to me later though that this was much more likely the result of a combination of the tech bubble and 9/11. Even if Bush did break something, he wasn't yet in office long enough to see any result of that. Anyways, those jobs (and more) had already recovered by the next election. Some democrats say that Kerry was just a throw away candidate because they didn't expect Dubya to lose.

--
Careful with names containing L slashdot.org/~AiphaWolf_HK slashdot.org/~AlphaWoif_HK slashdot.org/~AiphaWoif_HK
Re:A liberal convinced me to take a second look... by AlphaWolf_HK · 2012-10-08 22:05 · Score: 2

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 websites that they match) and I think it is working well for them. I bring my android phone in there and fire up shop savvy, and I usually get a good deal.

--
Careful with names containing L slashdot.org/~AiphaWolf_HK slashdot.org/~AlphaWoif_HK slashdot.org/~AiphaWoif_HK
Re:A liberal convinced me to take a second look... by dkf · 2012-10-08 22:25 · Score: 2

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.

--
"Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
Re:A liberal convinced me to take a second look... by RazorSharp · 2012-10-09 00:16 · Score: 2

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 alienate them, thus diminishing our influence rather than amplifying it, as was the case during GWB's presidency.
Final point: We could make major cuts to our military without diminishing its capacity to wage war and continue functioning as it is. Much of our military spending essentially amounts to pork that will never materialize on the battlefield.

--
"From the depths of my skeptical and rationalist soul, I ask the Lord to protect me from California touchie-feeliedom."
Re:A liberal convinced me to take a second look... by F.Ultra · 2012-10-09 01:29 · Score: 1

No it's not since they don't take away all you money, only a small subset of it.
Re:A liberal convinced me to take a second look... by HellYeahAutomaton · 2012-10-09 02:14 · Score: 1

The average wage slave loses 38% of their take home pay, and then there are the hidden costs of inflation, state & local tax, and the cost increases for businesses that also has to pay taxes.
By the time all is said and done every dollar spent is under close to 75% taxation, which is not just a small subset, it's a majority.
Re:A liberal convinced me to take a second look... by thoth · 2012-10-09 02:24 · Score: 1

because doing so would preclude the entire concept of bi-partisanship
Have you been conscious the last 4 years? Bi-partisanship to republicans means "our way or the highway". Congressional republicans have fought everything Obama has tried to do, and are even trying to squirm out of agreements they made (i.e. sequester and cutting the defense budget).
There is no bipartisanship involving republicans. They want the country to tank since it enhances their election prospects.
Re:A liberal convinced me to take a second look... by TheNastyInThePasty · 2012-10-09 02:31 · Score: 1

You should read this: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/sep/14/mitt-romney/romney-claims-5-studies-back-his-tax-plan/

"Rosen’s main point is that any assessment of the Romney tax plan that ignores its impact on economic growth is incomplete.[...]

Some news organizations noted the Tax Policy Center did factor in higher growth in its original study. It used a model developed by a Romney adviser, Gregory Mankiw, and found that while growth softened the burden on people making less money, the shift is still there.

"Our results are not qualitatively different, even if we include additional taxes generated from the growth effects," the authors wrote.

The center said groups including the Congressional Budget Office and the Joint Committee on Taxation take a cautious approach on assuming that tax changes alone will lead to new growth. This is particularly true when tax cuts are combined with base-broadening, which lies at the heart of the Romney plan. The center pointed to a study from two American Enterprise Institute economists that found the two changes largely cancel each other out, leaving effective tax rates about the same and thus have little impact on growth."

Here's the American Enterprise Institute link: http://www.aei.org/files/2011/09/27/TPO-Sept-2011.pdf

--
The best thing about UDP jokes is I don't care if you get them or not
Re:A liberal convinced me to take a second look... by Attila+Dimedici · 2012-10-09 03:10 · Score: 1

Why would I turn to an arm of the Democratic Party for an evaluation of a Republican proposal when I can get the interpretation of an economics professor from one of the country's most prestigious schools. Most importantly the question is I addressed was whether or not Romney's proposal was mathematically possible, the answer is that, contrary to what was categorically stated by the poster I responded to, it is. It is entirely another question whether or not you believe that it will be executed in the manner which Romney claims, but it is mathematically possible for it to be done.
We do not know whether Romney has the will, or political ability to do what he claims he is going to do with the tax code. We do however know that Obama did not have the will (and probably not the political ability--it is open to question whether anyone would have) to cut the deficit in half in his first term. It seems improbable that he will attempt to do so in his second term either, since none of his budget proposals have come anywhere close to actually executing any reduction in the rate of increase of the deficit, let alone actually reducing it.

--
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Re:A liberal convinced me to take a second look... by AK+Marc · 2012-10-09 08:07 · Score: 1

I collected all my direct tax expenses for a year, and they came to under 20%. Perhaps I made too much to count as "average" but every cent of directly paid tax was counted. What wasn't counted was all the taxes that the anti-tax nutjobs count as paid that they didn't pay, employer taxes, corporate taxes, and all that. They count the same dollar 1000 times, even when it wasn't taxed (i.e. they count "corporate" taxes at some ungodly corporate worst-case rate, when so many corporations don't pay any tax, or a tiny percentage of revenue). But if you count the tax *you* pay to the government, federal, state or local, tell me what that number is, not some inflated theoretical worst case might be. For me, that number was about 19% (just about 10% was federal income tax alone, so the other 10% was SS, medicare, property, sales, and all other taxes combined). It's not nearly as bad as the nutjobs claim.

--
Learn to love Alaska
Re:A liberal convinced me to take a second look... by AK+Marc · 2012-10-09 08:43 · Score: 1

I consider myself a long-term view libertarian. It's cheaper to spend $10 on Head Start now, than $15 later on increased societal costs that libertarians agreed should be covered (police, judges, prisons).

I don't know about the 47% figure, but I know that the number of people on disability has increased over 50% over the last decade, which is much faster than the growth of the population. You can't tell me that more people are becoming sick and disablfed; SOMETHING is wrong, and the system IS being abused.
The problem is that you presume the system is being abused, then look for support for that position. There's a debate out there regarding similar things in other fields. Is Autism increasing, or has the definition clarified and testing increased so that "border" cases, previously un (or mis) diagnosed are now being caught appropriately?

A similar thing could be happening with disability. The definitions change such that it could be subtle changes in the definitions by the private medical industry that drove the increase, and not any change by the government or those collecting disability. Instead, you assume that the cause is people abusing the system, then look to support that hypothesis.

And I don't know your situation, but I do know a number of people who did collect someone else's SS after their deaths, so the system may be screwing you, but it isn't designed to screw everyone. And it isn't a Ponzi scheme, because it can go on forever. A Ponzi scheme is, by definition, one which *can't* go on forever. Usually they rely on redistribution of wealth from the new entrants to the old entrants. The growth must be exponential to sustain even levels of income across the scheme. SS relies on linear growth, but even that is not set in stone. There's nothing that would prevent a redistribution of 1% of SS income going into a "buy out SS" fund that, when big enough, would transition it into an actual savings account that some think of it as. They don't because the voters don't want that. The politicians make big hand wavings about reform, but nobody has thought about any way that something could be done that didn't screw those receiving payments now or those paying in now (or both). So we do nothing. And the political realities of the system require that what I suggested be ignored. It's too slow. It'll fix the problem in 100 years or so, but with 25 administrations (and 50 congresses) between now and then, someone would steal the money from there, so why save now? The US lives on a quarterly outlook, and as such will run itself into the ground irreparably.

That goes back to my initial point where I'm a libertarian with a long-term outlook. If spending $1 now saves me $2 later, why would I not just spend the $1 now to save $2 tomorrow? But with the immediacy so many have, the question becomes, how do I spend the least amount today, and let someone else worry about tomorrow.

Everyone agrees the system needs reform. The only arguments are about the manner of that reform.

That, and what to do with old people who, inconveniently, aren't all independently wealthy and some would die destitute in squalor if someone didn't protect them from themselves. SS was started because so many old people were dying from starvation and such because they had no means to provide for themselves. Yes, they "should" have provided for themselves, but what do you do with the ones that don't?

--
Learn to love Alaska
Re:A liberal convinced me to take a second look... by TheNastyInThePasty · 2012-10-09 10:11 · Score: 1

Only in your Republican-biased world view is the Tax Policy Center an arm of the Democratic Party. The analysis was done by members of BOTH parties. Take a look: "Looney is a senior fellow in economic studies at Brookings who has a Ph.D. from Harvard University. He served on Obama's Council of Economic Advisers in 2009 and 2010. William Gale, another of the authors, is vice president of Brookings and director of its economic studies program. He served on President George H.W. Bush's Council of Economic Advisers. [...] The Tax Policy Center, whose director is another former adviser to Bush, is well-respected for its unbiased work, and even the Romney campaign praised it in November 2011 for offering 'objective, third-party analysis.'"

So, to summarize: an author from one of the country's most prestigious schools, an author that served under a Republican president, a director that served under a Republican president, AND a glowing recommendation from the Romney campaign itself.

--
The best thing about UDP jokes is I don't care if you get them or not
Re:A liberal convinced me to take a second look... by TheNastyInThePasty · 2012-10-09 10:22 · Score: 1

I also wanted to mention, the study mentioned here: "The center said groups including the Congressional Budget Office and the Joint Committee on Taxation take a cautious approach on assuming that tax changes alone will lead to new growth. This is particularly true when tax cuts are combined with base-broadening, which lies at the heart of the Romney plan. The center pointed to a study from two American Enterprise Institute economists that found the two changes largely cancel each other out, leaving effective tax rates about the same and thus have little impact on growth."

That was done by a CONSERVATIVE think tank. Not an arm of the Democratic Party. Far from it.

--
The best thing about UDP jokes is I don't care if you get them or not
Re:A liberal convinced me to take a second look... by Attila+Dimedici · 2012-10-09 11:46 · Score: 1

You referenced an article on politifact.com, which is what I referred to as an arm of the Democratic Party, not the Tax Policy Center. Once again, the point I made was specifically that Romney's claim for his tax plan is mathematically possible. I have no interest in discussing whether it is likely to actually happen. The fact that you jump all over me for arguing that claiming it is not mathematically possible indicates that you are blinded by partisanship.
I have yet to hear any credible source make the case that Romney's tax plan is mathematically impossible. You counter that by a study which, according to you, says it is unlikely. I do not care enough to investigate whether you are accurately portraying what your sources say, since they do not contradict the point I was making.

--
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Re:A liberal convinced me to take a second look... by Magius_AR · 2012-10-09 15:45 · Score: 1

Have you been conscious the last 4 years? Bi-partisanship to Obama means "my way or the highway". Obama has ignored everything congressional republicans have tried to do, and is even trying to squirm out of agreements he made (i.e. sequester and cutting domestic programs). There is no bipartisanship involving Obama. He just wants any and all legislation to pass, no matter how poorly designed, since it enhances his election prospects.
FTFY
Re:A liberal convinced me to take a second look... by quantaman · 2012-10-09 16:06 · Score: 1

But the slogan originated from before the recession, so didn't refer to it.
As for taking the money out of politics, it's hard to say what's going on inside the administration with the ACTA, but he has reduced the number of lobbyists in his administration and has been less accessible to big doners than other presidents.
He could have done a lot better, but really, you shouldn't be surprised that a change you can believe would be a bit underwhelming. It's not like a movie, even if he wanted to completely change how politics is done there's a ton of institutional inertia that's really hard to change, notwithstanding the fact that he had a number of major issues to deal with. The question isn't whether he lived up to his promise, it's whether he's better than the alternative.

--
I stole this Sig
Re:A liberal convinced me to take a second look... by CodeBuster · 2012-10-09 16:38 · Score: 1

This is false. We are long past the days of the British Empire.
Perhaps not as far off as you might suppose. To suggest that the average American is more cultured and civilized than the average Victorian era Englishman is laughable. If anything, the level of the public discourse has declined substantially since the days of the British empire. One need only glance at Twitter to see the truth of the matter.

it's also a notion that didn't exist before WWII
Clearly it was a lesson learned at great cost. Isolationism was the rule of the day before Dec 7th 1941 proved decisively otherwise.

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 alienate them, thus diminishing our influence rather than amplifying it, as was the case during GWB's presidency.
It would be a mistake, in my estimation, to retire the military option, which will be the effect of severe cuts, simply because the card was not well played by certain previous Presidents.

Final point: We could make major cuts to our military without diminishing its capacity to wage war and continue functioning as it is.
No. Wrong. It has long been the policy of our nation's military to maintain sufficient forces to fight two (2) major wars and a third regional conflict all while simultaneously protecting the homeland. We have not always achieved that level of readiness, but it remains the goal and the gold standard of US military strategic planning. Given the dual threats of Russia and China as well as numerous regional powers, such as Iran and North Korea, this is a necessary and prudent policy and there exists a substantial body of documents, essays and books written by many top ranking military officers, both current and former, who support essentially this same policy.
Re:A liberal convinced me to take a second look... by RazorSharp · 2012-10-10 12:38 · Score: 1

I enjoyed your rebuttal (how rare it is to see one that isn't inflammatory), yet I still disagree and have some points for you to consider:
- The average Victorian Englishman wasn't your average English Victorian gentleman. Victorian gentlemen were hardly representative of England's population, let alone the world's. Those are like Ivy-leaguers today. An interesting book that examines how out of touch the Victorian gentleman was is Where Angels Fear to Tread, by E.M. Forrester. Regardless, I think you missed my point. I didn't mean that in the days of the British Empire that men were brutes - I meant that global affairs were handled differently. Warfare was more common, accepted, and feasible.
- I advocate neither the pre-WWII isolationism nor the post-WWII meddle in everyone's affairs approach to foreign policy. I think the goal of any U.S. foreign policy relations should be to benefit the U.S. directly and objectively -- foreign policy that exists to assert the correctness/propagation of ideals such as capitalism, democracy, or symbolic support for Israel (our anti-nuclear Iran stance, for example) is not only a waste of resources, it's also morally wrong. This is one area where I agree with Ron Paul. We ought to respect the sovereignty of other nations - we shouldn't expect them to respect our sovereignty because we have a larger military but because it's a mutual respect that every government morally owes every other government.
- Discussing Russia and China as military threats is just silly. Especially in the case of China, where we are so economically dependent on one another that war would destroy us both without a single bomb being dropped. There's a reason why we only wage wars on underdeveloped countries. Also, any conflict between first world countries is more effectively waged by means of espionage, political and economic leverage, assassinations, and other areas where the military is more a peripheral player than the acting agent. We are not far off from war, at least in the traditional sense, being a thing of the past. Jarheads are useless in a conflict with China. An NSA computer hacker who speaks five languages is more useful than every marine put together in that type of conflict.
- Top ranked military officials have a strong self-interest in a strong military. They also have a hard time accepting that the world is transforming into a place that doesn't require soldiers or tanks or fighter planes or anything else that resembles traditional militaries. They're like Polish cavalries in WWI.
- The physical means to engage in warfare is useless without the financial means to set those machines in motion. "Hey, China, can we borrow some money to go to war with you?" We're like that guy with a hotrod that he can't drive around because he can't afford to put gas in the tank. My Accura will blow it off the line purely based on the fact that it runs, even though the hotrod wins the eyeball test.

--
"From the depths of my skeptical and rationalist soul, I ask the Lord to protect me from California touchie-feeliedom."
Re:A liberal convinced me to take a second look... by MSG · 2012-10-13 10:09 · Score: 1

IIRC Bain sold off Staples in the 90s when they became public, so at present those two companies have no association.
Yes, that's how Bain operates, as I pointed out. Bain increases revenue through acquisitions and then sells the company, leaving it with tremendous debt. Bain gets to claim that businesses do well while Bain has a controlling interest, largely because they divest their interest before the effects of the acquisition policy can affect the company.

However, even if they did, it wouldn't be because of Bain.
You think that making large debt payments during an economic recession doesn't impact the company's bottom line?
Re:A liberal convinced me to take a second look... by MSG · 2012-10-13 10:14 · Score: 1

No, this is the sort of thing I'm talking about:
http://thinkprogress.org/election/2012/10/07/972501/gop-strategist-admits-romney-is-witholding-details-of-his-tax-plan-to-avoid-criticism/
That line of reasoning has been the campaign's excuse for not being specific about their tax plans.

Re:Correction by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-08 12:18 · Score: 5, Insightful

Yes, ask their employees if they'd also vote for someone who would reduce taxes for their bosses, but raise theirs.

Unknown Lamer by ichthus · 2012-10-08 12:19 · Score: 1

There's a whole lot of number stretching going on: the results more or less indicate only a slight preference for Romney; a healthy chunk of responses were that his policies would be "neutral" and Obama's would at worst be slightly bad.

Thanks for apologizing the study for us, Lamer.

--
sig: sauer

Re:Unknown Lamer by ichthus · 2012-10-08 14:51 · Score: 1

Eh? I'm calling him by his name (see who posted the story?).

And, if you think I'm a liberal dem for calling Lamer out at a lib apologist, you need to pay closer attention.

--
sig: sauer

Re:No, Romney is Bad by tomhath · 2012-10-08 12:20 · Score: 2

And that link has what to do with Romney? (Hint: Nothing)

Re:Correction by AK+Marc · 2012-10-08 12:21 · Score: 1

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

Re:The fucks the difference? by shaitand · 2012-10-08 12:23 · Score: 2, Insightful

And yet... millions of people who feel that way are going to vote for them anyway.

Seriously people, grow a pair and vote for a third party or none of the above. Not voting is a vote. If record lack of turn-out at the polls isn't a strong enough sign of dissent to get a response then there is no peaceful action left.

Who knows, maybe one of these days we will get rid of political parties and force candidates to run on their individual stances, past records, and merits. No more herding everyone like brainless cattle into two corals.

So..? by raehl · 2012-10-08 12:34 · Score: 4, 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.

--
paintball

Re:So..? by dkf · 2012-10-08 22:17 · Score: 1

Any government that operates the way a business does would execute the disabled at birth.
Much earlier, actually. Get those female workers back to their jobs instead of having them stop to mess around with bearing a child that you're going to eliminate. Being properly business-friendly means you have to have abortion allowed (even mandatory in some cases) until very late.

--
"Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"

Re:The fucks the difference? by Grishnakh · 2012-10-08 12:36 · Score: 4, 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:As a technopreneur ... by fahrbot-bot · 2012-10-08 12:38 · Score: 2

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...

--
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .

Re:The fucks the difference? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-08 12:39 · Score: 1

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.

Breaking news... by nighthawk243 · 2012-10-08 12:41 · Score: 1

Our news team has learned that C-Level executives lean toward the republicans. Stop the fucking presses.

Re:The fucks the difference? by ColdWetDog · 2012-10-08 12:41 · Score: 2

Cthulhu / Dagon - why vote for the lesser evil?

--
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!

Re:I'm a bit confused... by Bill+Dimm · 2012-10-08 12:46 · Score: 4, 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:Correction by gander666 · 2012-10-08 12:50 · 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

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 ... but I repeat myself. - Mark T

tech execs != start-up execs by WindBourne · 2012-10-08 12:51 · Score: 1

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.

Dubious Math? by SwabTheDeck · 2012-10-08 12:54 · Score: 1

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:The fucks the difference? by shaitand · 2012-10-08 12:56 · Score: 1, Insightful

The third party candidates aren't any better than the two party ones.

There is only one way to cast a vote that says the entire political process is a corrupt farce and that is not to participate in it. Stop doing it, join your local militia instead.

" If you don't vote at all, that's not really a vote, because then everyone will just say you're apathetic"

In the current system .0001% have most of the say in what happens be it in congress, the presidency, or even the courtroom and your vote only changes how that say is spun in the media. Third party votes don't change that. They are just different spin engines. Voting in the current system amounts to picking a flavor of BS. You are just supporting a less popular flavor.

Vote for none of the above. The only vote that indicates you think the system is utterly broken and that you are prepared to support those who will take effective action to end it.

Re:No, Romney is Bad by shawnhcorey · 2012-10-08 12:58 · Score: 1

A presidential candidate that support creationism is not a religious kook? An anti-science president will mean the US won't be a world leader in this century.

--
Don't stop where the ink does.

Re:The fucks the difference? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-08 13:02 · Score: 3, Insightful

Not voting is a vote.

Some day, I'd like for someone to explain to me how abstention leads, in any way, to revolution... and why that would be a good thing.

I know people love drama, but revolutions are seldom without severe consequences for everyone, involved or not, and often end in monumental disaster. Anyone remember what happened the last time someone in the US tried this on a large scale? Bloodiest event in our history, something like 600,000 dead, economy annihilated, permanent rift among the citizenry that we're still dealing with every day.

We're not talking about Browncoats in movies here, just shouting Jefferson quotations instead. We're talking genuine stuff of nightmares. Gunshot wounds to women and children, IED's, chemical weaponry, death from above, a domestic insurgency that will do anything, etc. Meanwhile, outside threats and deals with the devil. Ugly, ugly shit.

Re:The fucks the difference? by tomhath · 2012-10-08 13:02 · Score: 1

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.

Re:The fucks the difference? by Hunter+Shoptaw · 2012-10-08 13:02 · Score: 1

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.

Re:The fucks the difference? by Hunter+Shoptaw · 2012-10-08 13:04 · Score: 2

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.

Re:As a technopreneur ... by galabar · 2012-10-08 13:15 · Score: 1

I think he means that he "has not yet begun to fight!"

Re:The fucks the difference? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-08 13:20 · Score: 1

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. :)

Re:As a technopreneur ... by JustOK · 2012-10-08 13:20 · Score: 2

and a little help from his friends, George and Ringo.

--
rewriting history since 2109

Re:Correction by Billly+Gates · 2012-10-08 13:21 · 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

--
http://saveie6.com/

Re:Correction by mozumder · 2012-10-08 13:27 · 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

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:An an Engineer living under SOX by AK+Marc · 2012-10-08 13:36 · Score: 2

I'm an engineer in a SOX company, and I get to know part costs.

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. SOX seems to be the same. You "could" know things like you describe, but your knowledge of it would need to be documented. The compliance is "easier" if they only let a few see any numbers at all, and punish the rest of the company. They do it so there's nothing you could do that would violate SOX compliance (sell your used laptop on eBay without wiping the drive would be OK). But if you did have the access, they'd need to track, audit, and protect the information.

If you are suffering from SOX, it's likely because your managers hired incompetent contractors.

--
Learn to love Alaska

Re:No, Romney is Bad by tftp · 2012-10-08 13:42 · Score: 1

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't worth maintaining. No company here will buy a million reels of the latest DDR3 or SLC Flash. As result many datasheets exist only in Asian languages; developers in the USA are forced to address their prayers to local companies like Micron.

Re:Obama was a mistake by AK+Marc · 2012-10-08 13:43 · Score: 1

He may be the worst one term president since Jimmy, but he was better than his predecessor, and his opponent. That's the state of politics in the US. Where the bottom is never low enough. Mitt will make it a nice chain of the last 4 being worse than the previous. Changing the clown at the head of the class doesn't change the fact we are living in a circus.

--
Learn to love Alaska

Re:The fucks the difference? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-08 13:43 · Score: 1

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.

Re:Correction by drkim · 2012-10-08 13:44 · Score: 2

...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!)

Re:The fucks the difference? by nomadic · 2012-10-08 13:48 · Score: 1

What if I find the third party candidates even more objectionable than the mainstream ones?

B-o-o-o-o-gus by pesho · 2012-10-08 13:49 · Score: 1

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.

Re:No, Romney is Bad by shawnhcorey · 2012-10-08 13:59 · Score: 1

But the US was the world leader for the second half of the 20th century largely because of the scientific advances it made in atomic physics, agriculture, electronics, computers, and space, to mention a few. That's the point of the video: stop the science and kiss world-leadership goodbye.

--
Don't stop where the ink does.

Re:I wouldn't vote... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-08 14:05 · Score: 1

You seem to have rather conveniently forgotten the trashing of the constitution done by Bush and his republican minions. From waterboarding -- something we hung the Japanese for doing, by the way -- to huge 4th amendment incursions, "free speech zones", ex post facto laws, unlawful takings of firearms, and more...

Seems to me that Obama has done no more, and arguably a good deal less, constitution-trashing than the republicans have done.

Also, hyperbole aside, Obama isn't out to "make the rich poor". Taxes accrue primarily on earnings. The rich are already rich; no one will take that away from them. What happens is that in the future, they earn (a little) less than previously.

In the meantime, the poor, who cannot afford more taxes, get a little relief, not to mention health care.

If this country has ANY sense remaining at all, it'll see to it that Obama gets another term.

And maybe -- just maybe -- he'll address some of the "3rd rail" issues that you just can't if you want to be re-elected. Like the drug war, the actual wars, and so on. Or maybe not. But I suspect he will: He's already addressed a couple things that sent the republicans into a tizzy, like consumer credit abuses, health care, gay rights and gays in the military, for which I give him enormous credit.

Also, how can you trust Romney? I mean, seriously, here he is. You watch this and tell me what his true position is:

Romney flip-flopping like a recently landed fish

Also: Don't want to go to war in/with Iran. Don't want to expand our military by two trillion dollars. Don't think Russia is our "greatest enemy". Don't think people are only entitled to the "best education they can afford." Don't think 47% of the country are "moochers." The man couldn't even be civil WRT another country's Olympics on his "foreign exchange mission." And I wouldn't put my dog on the roof of my car. The man is an ass.

Hobson's Choice by Penurious+Penguin · 2012-10-08 14:17 · Score: 1

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

Re:The fucks the difference? by WarmBoota · 2012-10-08 14:31 · Score: 2, Interesting

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.

Andin other news by rossdee · 2012-10-08 14:39 · Score: 1

"Tech Execs" are more likely to be in the 1% than the 47%

That glass is half full by 0xdeadbeef · 2012-10-08 14:44 · Score: 1

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.

Re:Correction by hawkingradiation · 2012-10-08 14:58 · Score: 4, Insightful

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

Bush's Tax Cuts for the Rich by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-08 14:58 · Score: 1

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.

Re:The fucks the difference? by kumanopuusan · 2012-10-08 15:06 · Score: 2

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 by doginthewoods · 2012-10-08 15:07 · Score: 3, Insightful

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

Re:Mitt has more money than the previous ten by Convector · 2012-10-09 03:23 · Score: 1

That's exorbitant. I'm only willing to pay half of that rate.

Re:An an Engineer living under SOX by alcourt · 2012-10-08 15:09 · Score: 1

I've done SOX compliance more than once or twice. For IT workers, SOX is fundamentally, have logging, separation of duties, and a strong security policy that you follow.

Much of the SOX rules boil down to "do you have a security policy that covers topics A, B and C? Now, do you follow it for systems that have significant financial impact?"

There is so much misinformation about the IT requirements alone of the SOX audit that I used to spend hours on end explaining what our real rules were. Then I let a coworker deal with SOX while I worked PCI.

--
"I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend unto the death your right to say it." -- Voltaire

Re:The fucks the difference? by interkin3tic · 2012-10-08 15:28 · Score: 1

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.

Re:Correction by guruevi · 2012-10-08 15:30 · 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.

--
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com

Re:No, Romney is Bad by tftp · 2012-10-08 15:33 · Score: 1

Nobody explicitly "stopped the science" aside from stem cells (that one they did, yes.) The science died out along the manufacturing and engineering, as a side effect of the general decay of the country. In other words, world-leadership and science are both outputs of a healthy society - which is not in evidence since what, 1980's?

The USA was not particularly remarkable all the way up to the World War II. During the war changes occurred internally (accelerated development of the industry) and externally (destruction of competitors in Europe.) This resulted in a significant kick in the rear which was a sufficient propulsion to sail close to the end of the 20th century. But then laziness set in; why to make products if you can just borrow the money and buy them? Why to have factories and pollute your precious land if you can outsource to China and pollute there? Why to study calculus if there is no manufacturing anymore? Why to even bother working if properly collected entitlements (there are many!) may come close to an honest salary? Why to hire people if the legally mandated minimum wage exceeds the worth of those people? The end result is here - a society that doesn't want to work, and is largely unable to work even if it had to. You can't be a world leader with such an approach.

Re:Bankers don't create jobs by AlphaWolf_HK · 2012-10-08 15:37 · Score: 1

If it takes a few million to get started, you have to secure that money from somewhere. 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. Nobody anywhere is going to loan money to a for profit business without expecting a return on investment.

--
Careful with names containing L slashdot.org/~AiphaWolf_HK slashdot.org/~AlphaWoif_HK slashdot.org/~AiphaWoif_HK

Re:The fucks the difference? by siride · 2012-10-08 16:14 · Score: 1

Only if you're an uninformed idiot.

Re:Correction by dryeo · 2012-10-08 16:27 · Score: 1

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

Re:Correction by Lord+Kano · 2012-10-08 16:32 · Score: 1

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

Re:Correction by Lord+Kano · 2012-10-08 16:38 · Score: 2, Interesting

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

Re:The fucks the difference? by cduffy · 2012-10-08 16:38 · Score: 4, Interesting

Newsflash, BOTH sides are the same side.

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:The fucks the difference? by Lord+Kano · 2012-10-08 16:41 · Score: 1

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

executives like mitts we don't have to care health by Joe_Dragon · 2012-10-08 16:45 · Score: 1

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.

Re:The fucks the difference? by Grishnakh · 2012-10-08 16:50 · Score: 1

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?

Re:I'm a bit confused... by LynnwoodRooster · 2012-10-08 17:10 · Score: 1

Chicago votes... That 124% turnout tends to skew things...

--
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!

Re:Correction by cold+fjord · 2012-10-08 17:53 · Score: 1, Informative

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

Re:Correction by Ziggitz · 2012-10-08 17:57 · Score: 3, Insightful

Citation needed.

--
There is no memory shortage. yes I have heard of XFCE. Go away.

Re:Correction by CodeBuster · 2012-10-08 18:11 · Score: 1

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.

Re:The fucks the difference? by girlinatrainingbra · 2012-10-08 18:21 · Score: 1

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.

Re:Correction by CodeBuster · 2012-10-08 18:23 · Score: 2

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.

Re:Correction by cold+fjord · 2012-10-08 18:43 · Score: 1, Interesting

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

Enron? What about Bain?? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-08 18:43 · Score: 2, Interesting

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.

Re:Correction by ZeroMS · 2012-10-08 19:04 · Score: 2

It's a sad thing that so many people in the past listened to Friedman......

Are we dumb enough? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-08 19:30 · Score: 1

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?

Re:Correction by a0me · 2012-10-08 20:02 · Score: 1

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?

How Quickly We Forget 2000 by cmholm · 2012-10-08 20:30 · Score: 2

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 ... Just for once, let me butterfly kiss you with my own eyes.

Re:How Quickly We Forget 2000 by drinkypoo · 2012-10-08 23:37 · Score: 1

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.
You don't get to use this argument (spoilers) unless you address the issue of election fraud, which was demonstrated to be widespread in both Bush elections. I'm frankly tired of hearing it. I'm also tired of hearing that we wouldn't have gone to war with Iraq under a differerent president. There is no evidence whatsoever to support that claim, and when someone uses it they prove their prejudice.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"

Re:The fucks the difference? by Scarletdown · 2012-10-08 20:52 · Score: 1

Cthulhu / Dagon - why vote for the lesser evil?

Dagon, of course. Doesn't seem evil, really.

--
This space unintentionally left blank.

Re:Entrepreneurs create jobs, not Romney by AlphaWolf_HK · 2012-10-08 21:03 · Score: 1

Without investors like Bain, there's no capital to begin with, and thus no jobs.

The goal behind any business does not include making jobs, the goal is to make a profit. Even Obama admits that and said it is fine.

--
Careful with names containing L slashdot.org/~AiphaWolf_HK slashdot.org/~AlphaWoif_HK slashdot.org/~AiphaWoif_HK

Does anyone "slightly prefer" Romney over Obama? by Chrisq · 2012-10-08 21:49 · Score: 1

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!

Re:Correction by mozumder · 2012-10-08 22:32 · Score: 2

"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.

Re:The fucks the difference? by shaitand · 2012-10-08 22:41 · Score: 1

Hold on. Need to think back on how this type of argument works. I know you are but what am I?

Re:Correction by misexistentialist · 2012-10-08 23:12 · Score: 1

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.

Re:The fucks the difference? by rastos1 · 2012-10-08 23:32 · Score: 1

"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.

Email survey from a law firm's mailing list by rednip · 2012-10-08 23:46 · Score: 1

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.

Re:The fucks the difference? by interkin3tic · 2012-10-09 00:11 · Score: 1

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.

My vote by Grand+Facade · 2012-10-09 00:20 · Score: 1

John Stewart for President

--
Rick B.

Does it matter? by RazorSharp · 2012-10-09 00:24 · Score: 1

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."

Re:Correction by benjfowler · 2012-10-09 00:35 · Score: 1

Wow, that's some pretty topsy-turvy logic right there.

You surely must be a Fox Fan.

Re:Correction by Talderas · 2012-10-09 00:39 · Score: 1

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

Re:Correction by oh_my_080980980 · 2012-10-09 01:05 · Score: 1

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.

Re:Correction by oh_my_080980980 · 2012-10-09 01:06 · Score: 1

LMOL tradesmen making yachts. Wow you are silly aren't you.....

Re:Correction by oh_my_080980980 · 2012-10-09 01:09 · Score: 1

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.

Re:Correction by oh_my_080980980 · 2012-10-09 01:10 · Score: 1

LMOL - American Enterprise Institute - yeah those aren't the talking points for the Romney campaign, a conservative think tank. Try again Potsy.

Re:Correction by oh_my_080980980 · 2012-10-09 01:13 · Score: 2

Way to parrot the GOP talking points, gut the workfare requirements....you mean the same thing that Governor Romney was trying to do...

Re:Correction by oh_my_080980980 · 2012-10-09 01:15 · Score: 1

You really need to stop quoting the Heritage foundation. It shows how truly clueless you are.

Re:The fucks the difference? by Grishnakh · 2012-10-09 01:15 · Score: 1

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.

Re:Sarbanes Oxley is great by oh_my_080980980 · 2012-10-09 01:16 · Score: 1

Thank You!

Mitt Romney Style by devent · 2012-10-09 01:23 · Score: 1

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

They May Not Appreciate What They Have by assertation · 2012-10-09 01:45 · Score: 1

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/

Re:Correction by Grizzley9 · 2012-10-09 01:58 · Score: 1

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!

Re:The fucks the difference? by Grizzley9 · 2012-10-09 02:06 · Score: 1

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!

Re:Correction by Bigby · 2012-10-09 02:17 · Score: 1

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.

Re:Duh.... by Talderas · 2012-10-09 02:24 · Score: 1

No one of importance is asking those questions.

--
"Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork

Re:Don't speak for me by Lost+Race · 2012-10-09 02:28 · Score: 1

The word for that is "anarchist".

Re: by thesandtiger · 2012-10-09 02:45 · Score: 1

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.

Re:Correction by RespekMyAthorati · 2012-10-09 03:24 · Score: 1

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?

Re:Correction by oreaq · 2012-10-09 03:41 · Score: 1

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.

Re:Correction by FatAlb3rt · 2012-10-09 03:42 · Score: 1

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.

Re:The fucks the difference? by Nimey · 2012-10-09 05:48 · Score: 1

"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

Re:Correction by guruevi · 2012-10-09 07:40 · Score: 1

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

Re:Correction by Shagg · 2012-10-09 07:58 · Score: 1

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.

Re:An an Engineer living under SOX by Kelbear · 2012-10-09 08:39 · Score: 1

IAPCFA (I am a public company financial auditor).

SOX isn't keeping you from knowing how much the products you're designing cost. Your management decided for their own reasons that you can't know your project costing information.

From an auditor's perspective, so long as you don't have access rights/authorization allowing you to commit fraud as a sole agent we don't care about you having information on the purchasing process of your project. View-only rights are rarely going to cause separation-of-duties issues.

Wild guess from when I used to work in capital equipment purchasing for a manufacturing company, I suspect that someone in purchasing may want to get volume deals with certain vendors to save overall costs and doesn't want individual project leads to handcuff that negotiation by arguing for another vendors who might quote lower on one deal but higher on others, as opposed to the one vendor is offering consistently good pricing. Basically purchasing wants to have final authority on the purchase without meddling.

Re:Correction by Just+Another+Poster · 2012-10-09 09:01 · Score: 1

The whole point of Sarbanes-Oxley is people had no clue Enron was doing weird shit.

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.

Re:Correction by Lord+Kano · 2012-10-09 12:34 · Score: 1

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

Re:Correction by Lord+Kano · 2012-10-09 12:56 · Score: 1

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

Re:Correction by Lord+Kano · 2012-10-09 12:58 · Score: 1

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

Re:Correction by CodeBuster · 2012-10-09 16:45 · Score: 1

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.

Re:Correction by dryeo · 2012-10-09 17:38 · Score: 2

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

Re:Correction by dryeo · 2012-10-09 17:47 · Score: 1

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

Re:Correction by dryeo · 2012-10-09 18:00 · Score: 1

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

Re:Correction by a0me · 2012-10-09 18:20 · Score: 1

Thanks for your comment putting this into perspective.

Re:[What the] fuck [is] the difference? by cffrost · 2012-10-10 02:22 · Score: 1

"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

Re:[What the] fuck [is] the difference? by cduffy · 2012-10-10 02:26 · Score: 1

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.

Simply because none of the options are what you want doesn't mean it doesn't matter which one you get.

Re:Correction by Bigby · 2012-10-10 02:36 · Score: 1

So you are saying that there would be revenue at 100% tax rate?

Re:[What the] fuck [is] the difference? by Nimey · 2012-10-10 04:48 · Score: 1

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

Re:[What the] fuck [is] the difference? by Nimey · 2012-10-10 04:56 · Score: 1

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

Re:Correction by oreaq · 2012-10-10 05:30 · Score: 1

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.

Re:Correction by Bigby · 2012-10-10 06:39 · Score: 1

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.

Re:Correction by oreaq · 2012-10-10 08:22 · Score: 1

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.

Re:Correction by lsatenstein · 2012-10-11 04:54 · Score: 1

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

Re:Correction by lsatenstein · 2012-10-11 04:57 · Score: 1