Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Study Shows Tech Execs Slightly Prefer Romney Over Obama

Posted by Unknown on from the eh-is-the-new-awesome dept.

redletterdave writes with an excerpt from IB Times that should be met with a bit of skepticism: "A new study released by international law firm DLA Piper Monday morning shows that among technology companies and their executives, Republican nominee Mitt Romney is the preferred presidential candidate for improving and advancing the technology industry. The study surveyed thousands of entrepreneurs, consultants, venture capitalists, CEOs, CFOs, and other C-level officers at technology companies, asking them their opinions about the 2012 presidential election and the issues facing their particular industry. The majority of respondents said Mitt Romney would be better with the technology industry, with 64 percent favoring the former governor from Massachusetts, and only 41 percent favoring the incumbent president. This is a complete turnaround from 2008 when the numbers were heavily in favor of Obama, with 60 percent of respondents saying then-Sen. Obama would be better for the sector than the Republican candidate, Sen. John McCain." There's a whole lot of number stretching going on: the results more or less indicate only a slight preference for Romney; a healthy chunk of responses were that his policies would be "neutral" and Obama's would at worst be slightly bad. Would you like six politicians, or half a dozen? One thing is universal: everyone hates SOX.

83 of 461 comments (clear)

  1. Slightly by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

    1. Re:Slightly by thrillseeker · · Score: 3, Informative

      The word "slightly" is editorializing of a 64:41 ratio.

    2. Re:Slightly by Spy+Handler · · 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.

    3. Re:Slightly by betterunixthanunix · · 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
    4. Re:Slightly by JakeBurn · · 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.

    5. Re:Slightly by spikenerd · · 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.

    6. Re:Slightly by TubeSteak · · 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!
    7. Re:Slightly by shaitand · · 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.

    8. Re:Slightly by farble1670 · · 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

    9. Re:Slightly by dpilot · · 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.
    10. Re:Slightly by phantomfive · · 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."
    11. Re:Slightly by dave420 · · 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.

    12. Re:Slightly by Anonymous Coward · · 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!

    13. Re:Slightly by TubeSteak · · 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!
    14. Re:Slightly by artor3 · · 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.

    15. Re:Slightly by hairyfish · · 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.

    16. Re:Slightly by shaitand · · 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%.

    17. Re:Slightly by TubeSteak · · 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!
    18. Re:Slightly by phantomfive · · 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."
    19. Re:Slightly by squiggleslash · · 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.
    20. Re:Slightly by Talderas · · 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
    21. Re:Slightly by phantomfive · · 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."
    22. Re:Slightly by LanMan04 · · 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.
  2. Of course by Billly+Gates · · 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/
    1. Re:Of course by shmlco · · 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.
    2. Re:Of course by DigitAl56K · · 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.

    3. Re:Of course by Revotron · · 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.

    4. Re:Of course by grep_rocks · · 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.

  3. Why can't we apply SOX to the US Federal Gov? by hsmith · · 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.

    1. Re:Why can't we apply SOX to the US Federal Gov? by JWW · · 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.

  4. Welcome to The Presidential RACE by Crypto+Gnome · · 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.
  5. Re:Here's another survey by dietdew7 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The second option describes either Obama or Romney. What is the name of the candidate for option 1?

  6. Wealthy people by Teckla · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

    1. Re:Wealthy people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And people who live on entitlements are biased in favor of the one who promises them yet more entitlements...

    2. Re:Wealthy people by artor3 · · 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.

    3. Re:Wealthy people by Spoke · · 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!

  7. Re:How do you know? by betterunixthanunix · · 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
  8. You are know by what you despise.... by TiggertheMad · · 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!
  9. Re:The fucks the difference? by NonUniqueNickname · · 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?

  10. A liberal convinced me to take a second look... by AlphaWolf_HK · · 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
    1. Re:A liberal convinced me to take a second look... by rroman · · 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

    2. Re:A liberal convinced me to take a second look... by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

    3. Re:A liberal convinced me to take a second look... by AK+Marc · · 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
    4. Re:A liberal convinced me to take a second look... by artor3 · · 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)"

    5. Re:A liberal convinced me to take a second look... by Tora · · 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
    6. Re:A liberal convinced me to take a second look... by quantaman · · 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
    7. Re:A liberal convinced me to take a second look... by MSG · · 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.

    8. Re:A liberal convinced me to take a second look... by MSG · · 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.

    9. Re:A liberal convinced me to take a second look... by AlphaWolf_HK · · 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
    10. Re:A liberal convinced me to take a second look... by dkf · · 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'!"
    11. Re:A liberal convinced me to take a second look... by RazorSharp · · 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."
  11. Re:Correction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

  12. Re:No, Romney is Bad by tomhath · · Score: 2

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

  13. Re:The fucks the difference? by shaitand · · 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.

  14. So..? by raehl · · 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
  15. Re:The fucks the difference? by Grishnakh · · 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.

  16. Re:As a technopreneur ... by fahrbot-bot · · 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. . . .
  17. Re:The fucks the difference? by ColdWetDog · · Score: 2

    Cthulhu / Dagon - why vote for the lesser evil?

    --
    Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
  18. Re:I'm a bit confused... by Bill+Dimm · · 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

  19. Re:Correction by gander666 · · 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
  20. Re:The fucks the difference? by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

  21. Re:The fucks the difference? by Hunter+Shoptaw · · 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.

  22. Re:As a technopreneur ... by JustOK · · Score: 2

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

    --
    rewriting history since 2109
  23. Re:Correction by Billly+Gates · · 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/
  24. Re:Correction by mozumder · · 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.

  25. Re:An an Engineer living under SOX by AK+Marc · · 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
  26. Re:Here's another survey by AK+Marc · · Score: 2

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

    --
    Learn to love Alaska
  27. Re:Correction by drkim · · 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!)

  28. Re:The fucks the difference? by WarmBoota · · 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.
  29. Re:Correction by hawkingradiation · · 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
  30. Re:The fucks the difference? by kumanopuusan · · 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.
  31. Mitt has more money than the previous ten by doginthewoods · · 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
  32. Re:Correction by guruevi · · 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
  33. Re:Correction by Lord+Kano · · 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
  34. Re:The fucks the difference? by cduffy · · 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.

  35. Re:Correction by Ziggitz · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Citation needed.

    --
    There is no memory shortage. yes I have heard of XFCE. Go away.
  36. Re:Correction by CodeBuster · · 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.

  37. Enron? What about Bain?? by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

  38. Re:Correction by ZeroMS · · Score: 2

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

  39. How Quickly We Forget 2000 by cmholm · · 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.
  40. Re:Correction by mozumder · · 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.

  41. Re:Correction by oh_my_080980980 · · 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...

  42. Re:Correction by dryeo · · 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