Support NeoGAF

[RDreamer]

http://blog.chron.com/bigjolly/2013/01/is-texas-sen-john-cornyn-ripe-for-a-primary-challenge/

I think it's hilarious whenever conservatives gripe about an Obama tax cut bill adding 4 TRILLION DOLLARS to the deficit. What, was he supposed to let the tax cuts expire? Was he supposed to pay for them by cutting 4 trillion dollars in spending at the same time? I'm not really sure what they wanted here. And they probably aren't either.

Oh well, at least it makes it easy to run attack ads in 2014 in primaries against Republican congressmen. "John Fucker voted to add 4 trillion dollars to the deficit!"

This is very very confusing. Good god.

He voted to increase federal income taxes on “rich folks”, giving more revenue to a bloated government without demanding cuts in spending.

LOL, according to Sen. Cornyn, “Our spending is unsustainable” – so he votes for more spending? No restraint? Another $4 TRILLION added to the country’s debt?

Does this guy realize these two complaints are literally opposite? Raising taxes is bad because it gives money to a terrible government... lowering taxes is bad because it adds to the debt. What's this dude supposed to do?

 

[Clevinger]

Does this guy realize these two complaints are literally opposite? Raising taxes is bad because it gives money to a terrible government... lowering taxes is bad because it adds to the debt. What's this dude supposed to do?

Lower taxes to zero while lowering spending to zero

 

[Rubenov]

I'm shorting the markets one week before the debt ceiling deadline (Feb 15 last I saw), and covering the day before it hits depending on how I see the political situation.

 

[Tim-E]

The funny thing is that once we get close to a shut down and Obama mentions Social Security checks, republicans will throw a fit and accuse him of withholding checks. Just like they did in 2011

I heard this one on Facebook throughout December. "OBAMA SAYS IF THEY DONT REACH A FISCAL CLIFF DEAL HES GOING TO WITHHOLD OUR CHECKS STARTING JANUARY 1"

 

[empty vessel]

If I made $50,000 a year I'd care ever less. If that money is that important to people they can easily cut their smartphone, HBO, cable, etc.

And that, my friends, is exactly how tax raises--especially against those who spend most of their income--depress aggregate demand and slow the economy.

 

[Oblivion]

I have a somewhat weird sounding question. Can someone name some companies that are deep in the red, but are still "healthy"?

 

[RDreamer]

I have a somewhat weird sounding question. Can someone name some companies that are deep in the red, but are still "healthy"?

First thing that pops into mind is just how long Microsoft's Xbox division was in the red for so long. That's not a whole company, though.

 

[pigeon]

I have a somewhat weird sounding question. Can someone name some companies that are deep in the red, but are still "healthy"?

Amazon has never made money and doesn't even project doing so any time soon.

 

[RDreamer]

Amazon has never made money and doesn't even project doing so any time soon.

Wait...

What?

 

[el retorno]

Amazon has never made money and doesn't even project doing so any time soon.

http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1018724/000119312512032846/d269317d10k.htm

they made a few hundred million in 2011

 

[bananas]

Amazon has never made money and doesn't even project doing so any time soon.

What are you smoking?

 

[Trouble]

Amazon has never made money and doesn't even project doing so any time soon.

wat? Amazon had it's first negative quarter in more than 5 years recently.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/amazon-reports-big-quarterly-net-201043157.html

 

[Oblivion]

First thing that pops into mind is just how long Microsoft's Xbox division was in the red for so long. That's not a whole company, though.

Yup, one of the ones I was thinking of.

Isn't Sorny as a whole also a few billion in the red?

 

[RDreamer]

Yup, one of the ones I was thinking of.

Isn't Sorny as a whole also a few billion in the red?

I do keep hearing they're losing money hand over fist. I'm not sure they're an example of "healthy" really. I mean I think most expect them to return, but still. It is probably worrying for them.

 

[pigeon]

Okay, that was obviously wrong, but Amazon didn't make any money in 3rd quarter 2012 -- $274 million loss compared with $63 million income in 3rd 2011 -- and nobody seemed to notice.

Edit: http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox...xist_but_the_company_keeps_on_keeping_on.html

Here's what I remembered wrong.

 

[RDreamer]

Okay, that was obviously wrong, but Amazon didn't make any money in 3rd quarter 2012 -- $274 million loss compared with $63 million income in 3rd 2011 -- and nobody seemed to notice.

After looking it up I guess Amazon is pretty amazing in that they didn't really profit from 96 to 2002, and even now have a razor thin margin of like 1% compared to every other giant's like 25%+

 

[Trouble]

Okay, that was obviously wrong, but Amazon didn't make any money in 3rd quarter 2012 -- $274 million loss compared with $63 million income in 3rd 2011 -- and nobody seemed to notice.

Heavy infrastructure investment and selling lots of Kindles at near or below cost. Investors just didn't freak out too bad because it was intentional and part of a long-term plan.

 

[kehs]

Amazon reinvested most of their profits. That's why they "didn't make money". They did what a company is supposed to do, reinvest in the company instead of piling up a mountain to later swim in.

 

[bananas]

Amazon reinvested most of their profits. That's why they "didn't make money". They did what a company is supposed to do, reinvest in the company instead of piling up a mountain to later swim in.

avatarquote.jpg

 

[Tideas]

Amazon reinvested most of their profits. That's why they "didn't make money". They did what a company is supposed to do, reinvest in the company instead of piling up a mountain to later swim in.

err...i don't think you understand accounting...lol.

They can still reinvest by making profits. It's called making profit one quarter, and then reinvesting it netx quarter, but the profits will still show up in this quarter's BS

 

[kehs]

err...i don't think you understand accounting...lol.

They can still reinvest by making profits. It's called making profit one quarter, and then reinvesting it netx quarter, but the profits will still show up in this quarter's BS

Yes? That's what I'm saying in regards to the quarter where they had less profits.

 

[Gruco]

Lower taxes to zero while lowering spending to zero

That would create infinite revenue, and the giant surpluses would then require inefficient government spending.

 

[Chumly]

err...i don't think you understand accounting...lol.

They can still reinvest by making profits. It's called making profit one quarter, and then reinvesting it netx quarter, but the profits will still show up in this quarter's BS

????????????


Or they could just constantly be investing instead of waiting for a profit and waiting to invest it the following quarter.

 

[speculawyer]

That would create infinite revenue, and the giant surpluses would then require inefficient government spending.

Gruco
Captain of Awesome
(Today, 08:37 PM)

 

[FyreWulff]

http://www.kmtv.com//185959772.html

""There is no reason why the state of Nebraska should be subsidizing the sugar, sweet and beverage industry.""

That's going to go over like a lead-lined box of rocks

 

[Tideas]

????????????


Or they could just constantly be investing instead of waiting for a profit and waiting to invest it the following quarter.

then what would be the point of being a shareholder of the company then>

 

[speculawyer]

http://www.kmtv.com//185959772.html

""There is no reason why the state of Nebraska should be subsidizing the sugar, sweet and beverage industry.""

That's going to go over like a lead-lined box of rocks

A Nebraska politician suggesting that? Googles.

Bill Avery
Member of the Nebraska Senate
from the 28th district
Incumbent
Assumed office
2007
Preceded by Chris Beutler
Personal details
Born February 7, 1942 (age 70)
Harnett County, North Carolina
Political party non-partisan

Ah. Non partisan in Nebraska probably Dem or Dem-lean.


Well I think it is a good proposal. I can see not taxing food to help the poor . . . but soda? It is not really food. "Snack taxes" have appeared in many places because of this and it makes sense. Provide a disincentive for a junk food and raise revenue.

 

[Link]

Yup, one of the ones I was thinking of.

Isn't Sorny as a whole also a few billion in the red?

Not as bad as Magnetbox and Panaphonic.

 

[speculawyer]

then what would be the point of being a shareholder of the company then>

Most silicon valley companies work this way (until they get too big to do it). The theory is that instead of making a profit and paying out dividends, you reinvest and grow the company. The shareholder benefits because the stock value keeps going up as long as the company keeps growing.

 

[Chumly]

then what would be the point of being a shareholder of the company then>

The company grows by reinvestment and is worth more than just paying out profit in dividends.

 

[Black Mamba]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...-problem-we-have-a-military-spending-problem/


Damn you Obama you massive spender you!

 

[bodyofanamerican]

I hate to sound like some Ted Cruz obsessed lunatic in here, but now I'm reading the guy is getting Presidential buzz? How is this possible? He's been in Congress a week.

 

[Oblivion]

Salon: The conservative movement is still an elaborate moneymaking venture

Color me shocked.

Though, thinking about it, I could use an additional source of income....

 

[Black Mamba]

I hate to sound like some Ted Cruz obsessed lunatic in here, but now I'm reading the guy is getting Presidential buzz? How is this possible? He's been in Congress a week.

latino name = solution to gop problems


It would behilarious if the 2016 field is:

Ted Cruz
Marco Rubio
Alan West
Invisible Collin Powell sitting on a chair
Herman Cain


Even more hilarious is there is just 1 white guy in that mix and he wins.

 

[Black Mamba]

Amid a smattering of calls for President Obama to skirt a looming debt ceiling fight by minting a couple of trillion-dollar coins, one Republican lawmaker says he's introducing a bill to make sure it doesn't happen.

Rep. Greg Walden, R-Ore., announced today that he plans to introduce a bill that would make it illegal to mint high-value platinum coins as a means to paying down government debt.

LAWL

They really have no cohesive plan.

 

[Oblivion]

I hate to sound like some Ted Cruz obsessed lunatic in here, but now I'm reading the guy is getting Presidential buzz? How is this possible? He's been in Congress a week.

Not surprising. The righties went gaga over Scott Brown before he was even sworn in.

LAWL

They really have no cohesive plan.

As someone on Dailykos pointed out, by creating a bill that wouldn't allow such a thing to happen, they're implicitly admitting that this could happen.

 

[bodyofanamerican]

Not surprising. The righties went gaga over Scott Brown before he was even sworn in.

Yep, I looked up Cruz's endorsements and man, he has EVERYONE. Mark Levin, Erick Erickson, Sara Palin, both Pauls, Club for Growth.

Then again, if all those nuts like the guy, he's not someone that can get widespread support in a Presidential election.

 

[PhoenixDark]

I hate to sound like some Ted Cruz obsessed lunatic in here, but now I'm reading the guy is getting Presidential buzz? How is this possible? He's been in Congress a week.

tokenism

Instead of engaging on issues Hispanics care about (like, immigration), republicans prefer to tell them what they should be more concerned about (taxes, deficit, gay marriage, etc) and trot out a Hispanic candidate under the impression that his mere existence will cause fellow Hispanics to vote for him. This strategy was perhaps most prominent with Hermain Cain during the primaries when tea party and right wing advocates seriously argued Cain would split the black vote, thus ensuring a republican victory; the assumption being that blacks would be so confused by having two black candidates to choose from that they wouldn't know what to do.

I don't say that to demean Cruz or Rubio - they seem like true conservatives. But if they were truly interested in accomplishing something beyond making money, they would be attempting to craft conservative legislation that appeals to their fellow Hispanics. You want border control? Come up with a specific (bipartisan) plan that could "close" the border, and then start focusing on real immigration. Support the full DREAM Act and use your specific border control plan to beat back "magnet" accusations from far right nihilists who couldn't care less about Hispanics. Start beating back some of the ugly language used by republicans: ie stop calling Hispanics "illegals."

Republicans are letting a loud minority ruin their party. They'll never get anything done if they're afraid of the moneymaking outrage machine that Salon article mentions. It's time to slap those people down on immigration.

 

[Gotchaye]

tokenism

Instead of engaging on issues Hispanics care about (like, immigration), republicans prefer to tell them what they should be more concerned about (taxes, deficit, gay marriage, etc) and trot out a Hispanic candidate under the impression that his mere existence will cause fellow Hispanics to vote for him. This strategy was perhaps most prominent with Hermain Cain during the primaries when tea party and right wing advocates seriously argued Cain would split the black vote, thus ensuring a republican victory; the assumption being that blacks would be so confused by having two black candidates to choose from that they wouldn't know what to do.

I don't say that to demean Cruz or Rubio - they seem like true conservatives. But if they were truly interested in accomplishing something beyond making money, they would be attempting to craft conservative legislation that appeals to their fellow Hispanics. You want border control? Come up with a specific (bipartisan) plan that could "close" the border, and then start focusing on real immigration. Support the full DREAM Act and use your specific border control plan to beat back "magnet" accusations from far right nihilists who couldn't care less about Hispanics. Start beating back some of the ugly language used by republicans: ie stop calling Hispanics "illegals."

Republicans are letting a loud minority ruin their party. They'll never get anything done if they're afraid of the moneymaking outrage machine that Salon article mentions. It's time to slap those people down on immigration.

This is probably harder for Cruz or Rubio to do than it would be for any other Republican of similar prominence. There's a racist "only Nixon can go to China" thing here; the conservative rank-and-file will give especially close scrutiny to immigration reform proposals from Hispanic politicians. It's not the same thing, but look at how pervasive all the talk of Obama being a secret radical was. As you say, their appeal to Republicans broadly is based on the idea that they can be uncompromising conservatives while still attracting traditionally Democratic voters. Someone like Rubio will get tossed aside the moment he seems less like a conservative Trojan horse among Hispanics and more like a Hispanic Trojan horse among conservatives. Republicans will moderate on immigration, if they do, because of the advocacy of white conservatives.

Edit: As further (and very vague) support for this, I offer the example of what happened to some black conservative-ish guy who criticized Gingrich for something he said in the primary. Am I remembering this right? Edit2: Yes, Juan Williams, who moderated one of the primary debates and who took a lot of flak afterwards for pushing back on "some of the ugly language used by Republicans".

 

[Black Mamba]

Wow, Alex Jones really lost his composure on Piers Morgan.

Not that I think Alex Jones should ever be given a format like mainstream media as it does nothing but bring him to a larger audience to potentially fill his coffers.

But he really did look like a buffoon.

 

[FyreWulff]

A Nebraska politician suggesting that? Googles.

Bill Avery
Member of the Nebraska Senate
from the 28th district
Incumbent
Assumed office
2007
Preceded by Chris Beutler
Personal details
Born February 7, 1942 (age 70)
Harnett County, North Carolina
Political party non-partisan

Ah. Non partisan in Nebraska probably Dem or Dem-lean.


Well I think it is a good proposal. I can see not taxing food to help the poor . . . but soda? It is not really food. "Snack taxes" have appeared in many places because of this and it makes sense. Provide a disincentive for a junk food and raise revenue.

It's just the fact that he's claiming they won't subsidize the industry when Nebraska uses a tons of subsidies anyway. It's basically saying "WE won't subsidize it, but we'll let the other 49 states do it".

It is kind of silly soda is considered a food though for non-taxing purposes. But to be honest, I don't think it will slow down consumption. 24 packs are already at 8$, it'll just make them cost 8.56$. And if the tax is enough to make a restaurant lose money on soda, they must be selling 99% syrup in their fountain drinks.

 

[Black Mamba]

fountain drinks probably have some of the biggest profit margins for vendors, especially restaurants and movie theaters, of any good out there.

A movie theater soda can be like $5 for what must cost 15 cents for the cup + water + syrup.


I wish we'd stop subsidizing the corn syrup lobby market, though. Hell, corn in general.

 

[FyreWulff]

fountain drinks probably have some of the biggest profit margins for vendors, especially restaurants and movie theaters, of any good out there.

A movie theater soda can be like $5 for what must cost 15 cents for the cup + water + syrup.


I wish we'd stop subsidizing the corn syrup lobby market, though. Hell, corn in general.

I wish we would too. I wish we would. King Corn was a pretty good documentary on that.

 

[PhoenixDark]

This is probably harder for Cruz or Rubio to do than it would be for any other Republican of similar prominence. There's a racist "only Nixon can go to China" thing here; the conservative rank-and-file will give especially close scrutiny to immigration reform proposals from Hispanic politicians. It's not the same thing, but look at how pervasive all the talk of Obama being a secret radical was. As you say, their appeal to Republicans broadly is based on the idea that they can be uncompromising conservatives while still attracting traditionally Democratic voters. Someone like Rubio will get tossed aside the moment he seems less like a conservative Trojan horse among Hispanics and more like a Hispanic Trojan horse among conservatives. Republicans will moderate on immigration, if they do, because of the advocacy of white conservatives.

I think a Hispanic conservative could accomplish this, but it has to be a talented politician with a record to back up his stance. I don't think Rubio or Cruz are particularly good politicians, which means they'll likely be unable to move the party forward on immigration. However I do believe Rubio has the record to defend himself with right now, if he were to moderate; so far he has been everything conservatives dreamed of: a no vote on everything.

This gives Rubio the opportunity to shore up his right front with border security too. Bush (white republican) failed on immigration in part because he didn't truly address the border, thus allowing the extremists of his party to kill the bill with FUD. After 2012 the republican establishment recognizes the importance of immigration and will give Rubio cover as long as he doesn't go too far off the reservation; likewise he's a Fox regular and can defend himself well enough.

Which is why if I was Obama, I'd be approaching Rubio, Cruz, Graham, and others in an attempt to craft something that can pass the senate with large numbers. It's a win win for the White House: they can work really hard but fail due to republican obstruction, or get it passed and reap the benefits immediately. It's worth noting that whatever border security Obama proposes will be rejected by republicans inside and outside of Washington, so he should let Rubio and republican senators come up with some type of bipartisan agreement.

 

[Aaron Strife]

A Nebraska politician suggesting that? Googles.

Bill Avery
Member of the Nebraska Senate
from the 28th district
Incumbent
Assumed office
2007
Preceded by Chris Beutler
Personal details
Born February 7, 1942 (age 70)
Harnett County, North Carolina
Political party non-partisan

Ah. Non partisan in Nebraska probably Dem or Dem-lean.

Nebraska legislature is nonpartisan, no one gets elected on party lines.

 

[Gotchaye]

I think a Hispanic conservative could accomplish this, but it has to be a talented politician with a record to back up his stance. I don't think Rubio or Cruz are particularly good politicians, which means they'll likely be unable to move the party forward on immigration. However I do believe Rubio has the record to defend himself with right now, if he were to moderate; so far he has been everything conservatives dreamed of: a no vote on everything.

This gives Rubio the opportunity to shore up his right front with border security too. Bush (white republican) failed on immigration in part because he didn't truly address the border, thus allowing the extremists of his party to kill the bill with FUD. After 2012 the republican establishment recognizes the importance of immigration and will give Rubio cover as long as he doesn't go too far off the reservation; likewise he's a Fox regular and can defend himself well enough.

Which is why if I was Obama, I'd be approaching Rubio, Cruz, Graham, and others in an attempt to craft something that can pass the senate with large numbers. It's a win win for the White House: they can work really hard but fail due to republican obstruction, or get it passed and reap the benefits immediately. It's worth noting that whatever border security Obama proposes will be rejected by republicans inside and outside of Washington, so he should let Rubio and republican senators come up with some type of bipartisan agreement.

That just sounds like suicide for Rubio to me. Being Hispanic, pushing the party to moderate on immigration, and working with Obama? No amount of Fox propaganda can spin that, and I really doubt Fox would line up behind him.

I'm also not sure the Democrats want a bipartisan deal on immigration. Given the political rewards, it's probably pretty easy for them to justify emphasizing the differences between the parties. It would not surprise me if Democrats ended up claiming that a few things which are absolute deal-breakers for most Republicans are must-haves in a deal. That is, working really hard and failing may actually be the best outcome for Democrats, politically, as long as Republicans are clearly the reason for the failure. Rubio would also want to be careful that Democrats don't praise him too much for his forward-thinking on the issue. Edit: And Obama has previously displayed a willingness to troll conservatives by praising one of them.

 

[jamesinclair]

I have a somewhat weird sounding question. Can someone name some companies that are deep in the red, but are still "healthy"?

When people complain about Amtrak, ask them to name an airline company outside of southwest that hasnt gone through bankruptcy in the past decade.

I Believe Zipcar has never turned a profit, and Avis just bought them.

A lot of the web companies havent made money....im thinking groupon and living social and twitter. Not sure though, youll have to check, but it rings a bell. If they make money now, they spent many, many years not doing so.

You need to spend money to make money.

Fresh and Easy has 300 stores, has been around for 5 years and has never made a dime. I love fresh and easy

 

[RustyNails]

Anyone else witness Alex Jones' crazy on Piers Morgan? Wow. The guy needs to be in a straitjacket.

 

[codhand]

Amazon reinvested most of their profits. That's why they "didn't make money". They did what a company is supposed to do, reinvest in the company instead of piling up a mountain to later swim in.

Like this guy?

avatarquote.jpg

EDIT
beaten like alex jones by TSA security.



Also, that Alex Jawns shit is hilarious
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AtyKofFih8Y

Piers: How many gun murders were there in Britain last year?
Jones: How many Chimpanzees can dance on the head of a pin?

man, who did his background check, seriously?

Apprently the crazy was out in full force yesterday, here's Fox airing an interview with a Texas secessionist.
http://crooksandliars.com/blue-texan/fox-news-airs-serious-thoughtful-interv

 

[adamsappel]

As someone on Dailykos pointed out, by creating a bill that wouldn't allow such a thing to happen, they're implicitly admitting that this could happen.

I'm sure most Americans have no idea about this. By proposing legislation to stop it, they open up a dialog on explaining it.

It's worth noting that whatever border security Obama proposes will be rejected by republicans inside and outside of Washington, so he should let Rubio and republican senators come up with some type of bipartisan agreement.

Okay, I'm going to take your word you're not trolling anymore. What kind of legislation do you think Republicans would actually propose that Democrats would support? Would they just stick to the electric fence and armed drones at the border, but drop the moat of fire?