Slashdot Mirror
Study Shows Tech Execs Slightly Prefer Romney Over Obama
redletterdave writes with an excerpt from IB Times that should be met with a bit of skepticism: "A new study released by international law firm DLA Piper Monday morning shows that among technology companies and their executives, Republican nominee Mitt Romney is the preferred presidential candidate for improving and advancing the technology industry. The study surveyed thousands of entrepreneurs, consultants, venture capitalists, CEOs, CFOs, and other C-level officers at technology companies, asking them their opinions about the 2012 presidential election and the issues facing their particular industry. The majority of respondents said Mitt Romney would be better with the technology industry, with 64 percent favoring the former governor from Massachusetts, and only 41 percent favoring the incumbent president. This is a complete turnaround from 2008 when the numbers were heavily in favor of Obama, with 60 percent of respondents saying then-Sen. Obama would be better for the sector than the Republican candidate, Sen. John McCain."
There's a whole lot of number stretching going on: the results more or less indicate only a slight preference for Romney; a healthy chunk of responses were that his policies would be "neutral" and Obama's would at worst be slightly bad. Would you like six politicians, or half a dozen? One thing is universal: everyone hates SOX.
I'm surprised that high-paid execs only "slightly" prefer a republican to a democrat. You'd think it would be a landslide.
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.
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.
Wealthy people are biased in favor of the candidate that promises them yet more tax cuts, film at 11.
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.
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?
Yes, ask their employees if they'd also vote for someone who would reduce taxes for their bosses, but raise theirs.
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
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.
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
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
Mod down
The whole point of Sarbanes-Oxley is people had no clue Enron was doing weird shit. You can hate it all you want. but its goal is to encourage transparency to protect its investors. I see nothing wrong with that
http://saveie6.com/
The fact is taxes have to go up for the middle class if he is going to be revenue neutral. So, either he is lying about being revenue neutral, or lying about not raising taxes on the middle class. Can't have it both ways.
I think we can all agree that Romney is lying. That was his debate strategy, after all, to lie about his positions. He knows that his pro-CEO position is untenable if the public knew about it. Also, he's not a smart person anyways, if he was, he'd be worth far more than $250 million and into the billions that his capital management peers are worth, or he's lying about his assets. see: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/mitt-romney-is-worth-250-million-why-so-little/2012/10/05/64128882-0c20-11e2-a310-2363842b7057_story.html
And, you do need to raise taxes in the middle of a recession to grow an economy. The GDP is the sum of all spending, and it/the economy only grows when everybody spends more.
If people do not spend more (for whatever reason, maybe they fear for their future and want to save, or maybe they're now turned off by products produced by sellers, such as Samsung Galaxy's or real estate) then it is up to government to increase that total spending, in a way that causes money to flow through the economy. Normally that's done by lowering interest rates, but they can't possibly go any lower, and now government has to directly spend - take money from the public, spend it.
Economically, the government is just another person, that's really really rich. This person can cause the economy to jumpstart, by influencing the economy's spending habits directly, instead of indirectly through interest rate reduction.
The worst thing you can do in a recession is NOT SPEND. This is why conservatives are fucking clueless at growing an economy, because they like to do the exact opposite of what you need to do.
Additionally, conservatives are horrible at influencing others to spend money. When was the last time a conservative made you WANT to buy something? Liberals do it all the time - and they magically produce value out of nothing. Entertainment, fashion, higher-education, and the arts are industries that actually cause people to WANT to spend money, and produce value from nothing, because liberals have the power to produce value intellectually that conservatives do not.
Conservatives can never produce value intellectually - they're conservatives after all, and are incapable of pushing the state-of-the-art in intellectual fields. They're always stuck with industries that are based on NEED, such as real-estate, energy, etc, and can only produce value from physical resources.
I'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
I'll assume you're not just a Republican posing as an independent to post propaganda, even though you really seem like one, what with your pitch-perfect recitation of the talking points.
Romney has stated that he plans to slash income taxes by 20% and eliminate the estate tax -- a huge giveaway to the old rich that will cost $4.8T over ten years. He insists he'll pay for it all by closing loopholes, but that's mathematically impossible. Either he's going to raise taxes on the middle class, or run up the deficit, or he's just flat out lying.
Romney has stated that he plans to peg military spending to 4%, which is more than even the military is asking for. That will cost us an additional $2.1T over ten years. Against, no indication of how we're going to pay for it.
That's close to seven trillion dollars that Romney wants to spend, all to benefit the rich and powerful. Meanwhile, Obama is trying to cut military spending and bring taxes back closer to Clinton-era levels.
Sources: ... Mitt Romney will begin by reversing Obama-era defense cuts and return to the budget baseline established by Secretary Robert Gates in 2010, with the goal of setting core defense spending ... at a floor of 4 percent of GDP." -- Emphasis theirs.
http://www.mittromney.com/issues/national-defense
"Obama has already cut the projected defense budget by $487 billion. What is more, he proposed and signed into law a budget process that will result in an additional $492 billion of defense cuts over the next ten years.
http://www.mittromney.com/issues/tax
" 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)"
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
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
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.
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
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.