Reasons? He likes the “principle” of “net neutrality” and he also likes the idea of “sav[ing] money on lobbying fees” by having a President who will respond to Cerf’s every desire.
Don’t believe me? Read this.
I guess it is true what they say. Barack Obama will run the lobbyists out of Washington. There is, after all, no need for middlemen to occupy the space between Obama and his political benefactors when the latter group comes by to collect the quid it was promised for its quo.
Dan McLaughlin: The 5 conservative candidates have won 48% of the GOP vote so far, the 2 moderates 41%, Paul 11%. (Not counting ME-not final) #rsrh
Moe Lane: MoeLane: #rsrh So, you hate your choices in the GOP primary. http://t.co/90xA65jV
Neil Stevens: McCain, Hutchison, Chambliss, Murkowski, Grassley, and others to propose their own cybersecurity bill. Good. #rsrh
Moe Lane: MoeLane: #rsrh "Peace Sells." http://t.co/mrSNJqV9
Moe Lane: MoeLane: #rsrh Sen Scott Brown: Elizabeth Warren hates freedom of conscience. And Ted Kennedy! http://t.co/Zbe33NF9
Steve Maley: Last Katrina FEMA trailer leaves New Orleans. #rsrh http://t.co/Tn485jYy
Moe Lane: MoeLane: #rsrh QotD, Been There, Done That Edition. http://t.co/Z77ubCQM
Dan McLaughlin: So, these Katrina victims spent 3 years in FEMA trailers under Obama. Heckuva job. http://t.co/W3XT8elu @KatMcKinley #rsrh
Moe Lane: MoeLane: #rsrh I just have one thing to add to Chimicanga-gate. http://t.co/RvjSJSpE
Moe Lane: MoeLane: #rsrh OK, I admit it: I'm probably guilty... http://t.co/RpaX4TrZ
In other news, skunks stink.
spainishirish (Diary) Sunday, October 19th at 10:54PM EST (link)But I repeat myself.
This is an issue I am many others
Doc Holliday (Diary) Sunday, October 19th at 11:28PM EST (link)are struggling with. I have not read your link Pej (I will I promise
) But I would not say I am surprised Google is endorsing Obama and more than I am surprised the sun comes up each morning.
The issue I face, along with pretty much everyone else, is what do we do with our investments? Do we buy “conservative” stocks such as Altria, Hal, XOM, and LMT out of a sense of patriotism? No, we can’t do that because the mantra with money is don’t get emotional about stocks.
So do we buy the companies we know will do well under Obama such as Google and Berkshire Hathaway, even though we know they are run by lefties with close ties to the Democrats? I should also throw in Real Networks as being ultra lib but I don’t think they will do well either way
There are even broader investing implications than these stock examples. Do we realize the damage a socialist economy will do and move our money to more free markets, such as Singapore, Hong Kong, Eastern Europe, and Ireland? do we put money in Gold?
I am not the type that predicts doom and gloom and yells fire very often. I am not doing this here in fact. Even if Obama is elected, most of the best companies in the world are in the USA. And who knows, we could retake the Congress in two years and freedom might reign again and Wall Street might come back to be a symbol of American Greatness.
There is no one right answer to these issues, but they are the things I am thinking about AND ACTING ON! I refuse to sit back and simply watch my investments do whatever if Obama is elected. I am not saying I will make the right choice, or outperform anyone else. But I do know I am thinking about the right questions.
I probably should have made this a diary lol, but I think it is relevant to the diary.
Molon Labe!
Oh, buy Google if it gets low enough.
spainishirish (Diary) Sunday, October 19th at 11:48PM EST (link)And hold your nose.
As capitalists, we should care less to whom a corporatition gives public fellatio. Heck, that may be all the reason to buy.
Cerf's reasons?
duckhawk Monday, October 20th at 12:36AM EST (link)Seems like you’re implying that those are actually Cerf’s words. The Valleywag post is tagged “Vint Cerf” but is actually bylined by Owen Thomas. A tech blogger’s cynicism does not constitute shocking proof of Cerf’s nefarious motives.
Of course, Thomas could be right. But this is like accusing a pro-life congregation of wanting to “save money on lobbying fees” by endorsing Governor Palin. Of course Cerf would endorse the candidate who already agrees with him. This is why politicans have policy platforms!
Shouldn't an evangelist support the Messiah?
bk (Diary) Monday, October 20th at 12:46AM EST (link)Ref: Google Evangelist
And in case you were wondering, Cerf said that people shouldn’t make fun of Al Gore’s creating the Internet.
yeah
Doc Holliday (Diary) Monday, October 20th at 12:57AM EST (link)I agree, I owned wind, solar, and ethanol plays, even though I find them pie in the sky solutions. But I am not totally sure about Google because they need a decent economy. But as you say, you are basing this on a particular price.
Molon Labe!
Father of the Internet
mrdodgy Monday, October 20th at 1:46AM EST (link)In case folks don’t know their Internet history, Vint Cerf and Bob Kahn actually did invent the Internet., at least designed the protocols that allowed multiple, independent, packet-switched networks to talk to each other, and in doing so, allowed the ARPANet to link to other netwroks and evolve into the Internet we know.
While I (a screaming liberal geek) think that net neutrality is important (although not exactly high on list of reasons that I support Obama) I’ve generally found theoretic computer scientists to be oddly extreme in their politics, be it to the left or the right. I’d take this with a pinch of salt.
–
Mr. Dodgy is a ‘anybody but Clinton’ lefty and you should take anything he says with a pinch of salt. And probably a shot of tequila. Or two.
Cerf didn't mention lobbyists
Woodywoodchopper Monday, October 20th at 2:59AM EST (link)The blog you linked to quotes from Valleywag, here.
Valleywag comments on a video of Cerf endorsing Obama which can be found here.
Cerf states that he has endorsed Obama because he agrees with Obama’s stance on Net Neutrality and disagrees with McCain’s position.
He doesn’t mention access to Obama, and that’s just supposition by Valleywag.
It is though, IMHO, the case that Obama owes a lot to executives in technology companies. For example this article (by a supporter) states that early on his campaign received crucial funds and support from Silicon Valley.
Think about that for a minute
olderthangandalf Monday, October 20th at 5:59AM EST (link)How is it that we’ve gotten to the stage where the beating heart of world wide entrepreneurialism can be counted on to support Democratic candidates?
Shouldn’t it be, in the natural order of things, the Republican candidate who gets a crucial early boost from folks whose livelihoods depend on a creative and expanding economy?
Can it be that know-nothing threads like this one make people in the business of creating new businesses think that they are not welcome in the GOP?
One point of contention
mikefisk (Diary) Monday, October 20th at 7:09AM EST (link)Corporations trying to get the government to hand them what they want on a silver platter isn’t capitalism, but rather a tactic more reserved for the command economies of Communist states.
Yes, it is perfectly acceptable from the perspective of enterprise with the system we currently have, but it doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s not something we should lift up as the model.
Pro-business doesn’t necessarily mean pro-market.
“Once within the maw of Leviathan, degree of digestion is irrelevant.” – Michael Fisk
9.25, -4.77
Calling Cerf a "father" of the Internet is an insult
Dave_in_Fla (Diary) Monday, October 20th at 8:11AM EST (link)Cerf has been claiming credit for Bob Kahn’s work for 20 years now.
Cerf was the DARPA program manager. If you have worked at DARPA (I have), you find the the PMs don’t do anything other than allocate money to the project. It is the Principle Investigator (PI) who actually guides the technical work and is the genius that creates the results. Kahn was the PI.
I’ve met Bob Kahn at a DARPA Christmas party. He is down to earth and very humble. He is happy to keep doing what he does, without needing to be a media whore.
Cerf is a media whore, and happy to claim credit for Kahn’s work to boost his creditability. It surprises me not at all the Cerf would endorse Obama. They are made for each other.
“If they were merely incompetent, then at least SOME of their actions would have been to the benefit of the country.” – Joe McCarthy
Buffet
Badill_T Monday, October 20th at 8:20AM EST (link)Buffet is certainly a lefty, but the best sort. His reason for changing the tax rate: he pays less in taxes, on a percentage basis, than his secretary.
Buffet offered a million dollars to his wealthy pals if they could prove they paid more in taxes than Buffet’s $50k/year secretary.
Anyhow, Buffet also takes a very rational approach with his money, and if he’s endorsing Obama he probably believes the economy will be fine under Obama. He seems to think it won’t be bad under McCain, either, although he is not neutral.
Buffet says to buy American stocks, but he never says which one.
Your post should link to what he said.
cos Monday, October 20th at 9:50AM EST (link)That’s a link to a link to a blog post that links to another blog post, neither of which seems to link to Vint Cerf’s words.
Neither of the blog posts shows any understanding of net neutrality (though they mock it), so… yes, I would like to see what he actually said rather than just believing you about it.
Buffet a lefty?
liberalrepublican (Diary) Monday, October 20th at 11:25AM EST (link)That is hilarious.
Read what he has said -
Derivatives (what took down Bear Sterns etc) are weapons of financial mass destruction.
Executive pay on Wall St was way out of hand and likely to encourage risky behavior
He pays far less in taxes ( by %) than the average middle class American (as much as half) and thinks that makes no sense.
He believes a Million dollars of tax relief spread out over 10,000 Americans @ $1000/each will fuel the economy more than giving a rich guy like himself an extra $10 million in a tax cut
He is the person who is able to swoop in and buy GE and Goldman Sachs…
“Broadly speaking, liberalism emphasizes individual rights and equality of opportunity. … including extensive freedom of thought and speech, limitations on the power of governments, the rule of law, the free exchange of ideas, a market or mixed economy”
McCain never comprehended this. That's how we ended up with McCain-Feingold.
Martin Knight (Diary) Monday, October 20th at 11:39AM EST (link)And irony of ironies, today McCain is bearing the brunt of it.
No, Buffett's worse
Spartan4Life (Diary) Monday, October 20th at 12:17PM EST (link)It’s not that he’s a liberal. He’s a Democrat party hack. He’ll support the Democrat regardless of the policy prescriptions. He’s rich enough that he won’t be hurt regardless of who gets elected but the rest of us get stuck with Obama.
In an interview I saw with him recently he even admitted that some of the things that Obama was proposing were counter productive. But, he still supports him.
he's honest
Badill_T Monday, October 20th at 12:43PM EST (link)He disagrees with some of Obama’s policies and admits it. Still, on the whole he supports Obama.
You do yourself a great disservice to completely dismiss him as a Democratic hack.
It’s ironic that Buffet, a man whose financial abilities dwarf those of any poster here, believes that Obama’s policies are better for the American economy and Americans as a whole, while you accuse him of being a hack because he doesn’t care if he has to pay more taxes because he’s rich – money he worked hard to earn, while saving every penny he could.
There are plenty of people who disagree with his philosophy, and they have good reason for doing so, but to accuse him of hackery when he is willing to sacrifice for what he sees as the good of the nation is emblematic of the overall malaise within the GOP – anyone who dares disagree with conservative dogma is an enemy, a hack, anti-American and to be verbally assaulted at every turn.
He pays 17%
liberalrepublican (Diary) Monday, October 20th at 1:13PM EST (link)He made $50 million last year and paid 17%.
Does that make sense to you?
Seriously – what do you think will fuel the economy more – a $10 million tax cut for Buffet or a $1000 in tax relief for 10,000 middle class Americans?
I strongly believe in lower taxes.
But we’ve had a spending orgy over the past 8 years so we have to collect taxes or borrow more from the Chinese.
Should a guy making $50 million a year pay a smaller % (by a lot) than the middle class???
“Broadly speaking, liberalism emphasizes individual rights and equality of opportunity. … including extensive freedom of thought and speech, limitations on the power of governments, the rule of law, the free exchange of ideas, a market or mixed economy”
Do What is Best For You
sturner Monday, October 20th at 4:41PM EST (link)Some of those “conservative” stocks are companies that funnel money offshore and treat their workers as contract employees to avoid payroll taxes. I’m not bashing the companies, just saying that patriotism has little to do with business in my opinion. Those companies care about making money for their shareholders.
But I say to invest with what is best for you. I don’t think you should only do business or invest with people who you agree with, it limits your potential. I don’t want to tell my kid he can’t go to a better college because I didn’t like the political opinions of someone at Google.
Capitalism is a dog eat dog world. It’s the strong surviving. Go with the strongest companies, the ones that make you the most money. That’s more patriotic in my opinion than investing in companies just because you agree with their executives.
Buffett
Doc Holliday (Diary) Monday, October 20th at 8:51PM EST (link)Is incredibly wise, level headed, and an investing genius. But that does not change the fact that he is left wing politically.
His actions in business do not correlate with his political leanings. I will go into this further when I respond to the guy who said it is a joke to call him a lefty.
But he is not the “best sort” of lefty, in many ways he is the worst sort. He is a hypocrite because he lives and acts as a capitalist, but he does not believe in small government and individual freedom, I will explain why down thread.
No one is questioning his business abilities, George Soros has a similar reputation, but is even more cut throat, yet is he not a lefty?
This has nothing to do with hoping CEO’s pay more in taxes. Our corporate taxes are among the highest in the world. We know Buffett does not pay himself a big salary, I believe I heard it was $1, but he pays taxes, more than any secretary I promise. His wealth is in Berkshire, and Berkshire pays no dividend, but the companies pay a ton in taxes and that affects his wealth.
Regardless, Buffett, who was the son of a Republican Congressman, is a liberal big government, anti individual freedom Democrat, full stop. BTW, I have read many books on the man, many recommended by the man, and read most of his letters to shareholders. I know a bit about him, and there is much to admire.
Molon Labe!
Threadjack on "Googles God-Given Right"
Next93 (Diary) Monday, October 20th at 8:59PM EST (link)Personally, I support the idea of net neutrality primarily because I agree that Google DOES have a God-given right to not share revenue with ISPs.
Google created the content, developed the business model, and sold the advertising. They took the risks, did something innovative, and reaped the rewards. That’s the way the system is supposed to work.
The ISPs are in the business of delivering bandwidth, not content. I haven’t heard of any ISPs coming to the rescue of content providers who didn’t make it. They went into the safe end of the internet industry, and they have a reliable, if not sexy, revenue stream.
The internet is changing the way people communicate because it’s bringing freedom of the press to people who people who can’t afford a press, and it’s doing it in a way that pays the ISPs for thier work and thier capital. If they don’t think they’re making enough money, they should find another line of work; I’m sure someone will come along and fill the niche (that’s another part of the way the system is supposed to work, too). The ISP’s desire to stick thier hands into the content provider’s pockets is going to destroy exactly what makes the internet unique.
Without net neutrality, the internet becomes nothing more than a high-speed Sears catalog.
That being said, I think the senior managers at Google are a bunch of jerks. “Do no evil”??? You’re a search site fer cripesakes. Get OVER yourselves!
Obama was The One in 2008.
He’ll be a BIGGER one in 2012.
You guys are just wrong on Buffett
Doc Holliday (Diary) Monday, October 20th at 9:41PM EST (link)I was going to give some real inside info and explain a bit about Buffett the investor and Buffett the progressive liberal Democrat. I was also going to explain why these tricks such as saying he pays less in taxes than a secretary or the guy who empties the trash are illusions. But although you as a “liberal Republican?” might be earnest, the other deniers in this thread are obvious trolls. So, I am just not in the mood to explain this much because I think it would be a waste of time and I don’t want to give away the knowledge to those who don’t really want it.
However, I will say a few things to support those who know Buffett is no friend of financial liberty. And I will refute a few one liners that are simply wrong.
First of all, Buffett did not save GE or GS. He did not “buy in” in the sense people believe. He used his incredible name, something those failing companies needed, to basically exctract blood from them. Yes he believes they will stay in business and possibly prosper, but he made them pay HIM dearly for the right to say he “invested in them”.
What Buffett did is give these companies new capital, he did not buy their common stock. He purchased new preferred shares (basically bonds) that pay him 10 percent a year. Now you just try to buy a GE bond or preferred stock yielding 10 percent. You can’t, Buffett got a deal you and I can not. Why did he do this? because he could. And along with this outrageous yield, which will be paid buy common stock holders, he got something like 30 million stock options at present value,that don’t expire for years. Yes, he got them for free. So if GE stock goes up buffett makes a killing with little to no risk. You see if a secretary or even a guy making $250,000 a year can get in on that deal.
As towards the comment he pays less in taxes than a secretary or custodian, this is just another trick. Yes he pays less in INCOME taxes, because he set his company up to AVOID THEM. He pays himself a pittance of a salary so he doesn’t have to pay taxes. His stock does not pay a dividend, although it is flush with Billions, so he and the stock holders will not pay taxes on dividends. The companies that make up Berkshire pay millions in taxes. If Buffett wanted to pay a higher tax rate, he could pay himself 20, 30, or 40 million a year in salary, but he does not.
Another reason this stuff about secretaries and custodians is false is because a large percentage of Americans, those with the least income, pay NO TAXES AT ALL! They pay 0 percent in taxes.
The reason some wealthy people pay a lower percentage in taxes, is because dividends and capital gains taxes have been lowered. The average guy making $70,000 does not likely make much in dividends and capital gains, his income is salary and is taxed at salary rates. So what do you guys want to do, raise taxes on dividends and capital gains and destroy everyone’s 401K plans? Also, these horrible milionaires creat jobs, that is better than paying a bit more in taxes. BTW, Buffett and many millionaires avoid taxes through charitable donations, is that a bad thing too?
Another left wing, and the most egregious in my opinion, idea from Buffett is to increase the death tax progressively to the point of 100 percent at a certain level. His explanation is that it would be better for America to not allow the accumulation of wealth from one generation to the next.
He thinks that those who inherit money will be less productive and creative than those who have to work and innovate to build their wealth. If we all start at square one, we must work and fight hard to get ahead. The thing is, as an economic theory, this may have some credence. But there is one tiny problem.
The problem with this idea is that it goes against everything this country stands for. A man should have the right to pass on his lifes acheivements to his heirs, or to anyone else he wants to, including charity. The government has not right to steal our life’s work and distribute it as they see fit. This is a country based on individual freedom, not centralized socialism. It is this position by Buffett that is the most dangerous, and puts him squarely in the camp of left wing radicals.
If anything, Buffetts smart (could be considered cut throat) business moves, when compared to his neo Marxist ideas, put him is a lesser light.
I want to be clear here, I respect the man’s acumen, but he has some very conflicting and strange ideas. Not ideas he wants to implement with his money, but he wants to implement with ours. He has every right to believe crazy things, he has every right to give a billion dollars to a secretary (he doesn’t), but he has no right to decide how everyone in this country should behave. He can put this forward in the arena of ideas, but WE have a right to fight it with all our might.
short version= yes he is a liberal Democrat
Molon Labe!
That's Not What I Said
Spartan4Life (Diary) Tuesday, October 21st at 11:02AM EST (link)I said Buffett is supporting Obama despite the fact that even he had to admit Obama’s policy prescriptions are bad medicine for the economy. He never said he thought Obama had any good ideas. He was a Hillary supporter from the get go.
When you support something that you know is bad just because it has a party label on it, that is hackery.
Points to your points...
liberalrepublican (Diary) Tuesday, October 21st at 12:03PM EST (link)I didn’t mean that he bought GE or GS as a whole, just that he was in a position to make large investments and they were on the brink of disaster. A contrast his abilities vs. the people running those companies.
Your point about the special deal he got just goes to show that we don’t have to give the super rich additional benefits – like super low capital gains taxes – they already have massive advantages.
Look – I don’t like taxes but this country spends money like a drunken sailor so until we fix that, we have to get revenue.
You didn’t address my primary point – what would stimulate the economy more – Buffet with $10 million ready to swoop in a cut a special deal to buy stock and build his wealth or $1000 for 10,000 American middle class?
What would help Joe the plumber more? Buffet would only hire one plumber but 10,000 Americans probably hire 500 plumbers a year.
If you look historically, periods of capital gains tax result in the rich getting richer and the rest being flat.
A different tax plan where the money stays in the hands of the middle class results in a faster growing economy that benefits everyone rich, poor, middle class.
I know capital gains is a sacred cow of the Reagan years, but can we look at it again with more information?
“Broadly speaking, liberalism emphasizes individual rights and equality of opportunity. … including extensive freedom of thought and speech, limitations on the power of governments, the rule of law, the free exchange of ideas, a market or mixed economy”