Send News. Want a reply? Read this. More in the FAQ.   News Forum - All Forums - Mobile - PDA - RSS Headlines  RSS Headlines   Twitter  Twitter
Customize
User Settings
Styles:
LAN Parties
Upcoming one-time events:

Regularly scheduled events

Curt Schilling on 38 Studios' Demise

Former baseball star Curt Schilling was interviewed this morning on the Dennis & Callahan sports radio show on WEEI in Boston in the first such appearance since the demise of 38 Studios, the developer he founded. Boston.com quotes some of the conversation where Schilling spoke of investing all of his personal assets into the company while never a penny back out. He also says his former employees "have every right to be upset" as they were "blindsided" by the studio's closure after he promised a month or two of advance warning, admitting he "bombed on that one in epic fashion." He also describes the last ditch effort to save the company that failed because Rhode Island refused to go along with the plan, and addresses accusations that his acceptance of tax credits and loan guarantees from the state were hypocritical in light of his outspoken conservative viewpoints: "I don't know how that correlates to this. I donít have any problem with government helping entrepreneurs and businesses." Thanks JJ.

View
105 Replies. 6 pages. Viewing page 3.
< Newer [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 ] Older >

65. Re: Curt Schilling on 38 Studios' Demise Jun 23, 2012, 03:14 cappy
 
RollinThundr wrote on Jun 23, 2012, 01:38:
Neither side wants to work with the other, and neither side is serious about cutting spending.

The dems only want to cut the military. repubs want to cut social spending, and really with how fucked up the welfare system is with the amount of loopholes it has, I dunno call me unfeeling or an asshole or whatever, but I kinda side more with the GOP on where to cut.

When I was growing up I was taught that no one is going to hold my hand or give me a life or a roof over my head, I was taught to work hard, and earn shit. People nowadays don't get that. They expect government to hold their hand.

I get it, you need some form of social net for those who can't work, or temporarily fall on hard times and need a hand, I have no issue with that. But our welfare system is completely broken and doesn't at all work that way.

I also have no issue with raising taxes since they're the lowest they've ever been pretty much.

The things I have a problem with however is increasing government size and them dictating how people should live, Bloomberg with his wanting to ban surgary drinks or snacks from movie theaters as an example. That tends to be what liberals are about on the social level. They want government to decide for them because god forbid they're responsible for themselves. That and the whole political correctness bullshit. Obama with his "Bush's fault Bush's fault I'ma go play some golf" Hey O, you've almost served a full term now, the Bush's fault excuse is wearing a tad thin. The libs gave Bush so much shit anytime he took a vacation or played golf, Obama's played over 100 rounds so far. The media could care less. MSN is so soft on the guy it's not even funny.

I also can't stand the people he tends to associate himself with. Marxists and socialists. Fact of the matter is aside from making the right call about going in after Bin Laden he's not kept one campaign promise, (and yes I realize they all lie, they're politicians that's what they all do regardless of party)

But for a guy who campaigned on transparency and turning this country around, he's done the opposite, spent even more than Bush, quicker than Bush, and has done more back room deals and played bipartisan games after preaching about working with the GOP and being a "transparent administration. Kudos on him sealing those fast and furious documents btw. Wouldn't want to paint himself in a bad light, especially if he was at all involved. Add in his love for the UN above his own citizens with his apologize for America tour and the kowtowing he does to anyone and everyone except Israel.

And please don't solely try to blame the GOP on passing a budget. Every single one of Obama's budget proposals has been unanimously defeated by both sides, 414-0, 97-0. The man is not a fiscal conservative by any means. His spending shows it. His own party won't even vote for his budgets. That should mean something.

On the Buffet thing, I'll start taking him seriously when he pays all the back taxes his company owes. Until then he and his secretary can eat a dick.

Welfare as LBJ devised it wasn't going as intended, which is why Clinton and the Gingrich Congress did a massive reform and significantly reduced the number on welfare (let alone "permanent" welfare). When we look at budget numbers for "welfare," a lot of it is still being dominated by those receiving temporary benefits due to the economic issues and rise in unemployment rates. These temporary welfare rolls have swollen as a result. Unemployment insurance especially has become a significant part of "welfare"-related government expenditures. But the majority of these programs are designed with a time limit. There are still ways for some to receive benefits over extended periods of time, but it's nothing close to what it was 20 years ago.

In any event, as you say there is nothing wrong with a social net for those who temporarily fall on hard times or can't work (I assume you mean for disability reasons). And the problem is that some people will abuse any system ever created. There are no perfect systems. The best that can be done is to try to ensure that, on the whole, the system benefits some. And hold out noses because we know that some cheaters and abusers of the system will also get through. Same for business - some businesses engage in illegal activities. On the whole, businesses mostly toe close to the line. So we keep businesses going and we regulate to try to reduce the abuses. Nothing is perfect and we either accept imperfect systems and try to keep an eye on them, or we abandon them.

I'm of mixed opinions on the public health legislation. Cigarette smoking and other "collective" regulations are fine. Because it isn't just the smoker who breathes the air, and it isn't just a driver who gets to breathe the leaded exhaust belching from a tailpipe. It's the greater mass of nearby pedestrians. Sugary drink bans seem ridiculous to me, though. Having restaurants make calorie counts available is fine, so people have a choice.

But what conservatives call "political correctness" goes both ways. Liberals often tend to legislate people's behavior for reasons of health (foods, pollution, etc.) while conservatives do the same for reasons of morality (defining marriage, trying to return to covenant divorce laws rather than the looser no-fault rules, Sunday Blue Laws, etc.). It tends to strike me as much as one side pointing at the other side's "wasteful pork spending" while stuffing their own hand surreptitiously in the trough.

Caveat: libertarians don't try to legislate morality if they're truly abiding by their platform. Although many who claim they're libertarian are not, probably because the platform's social positions are way to the left of even the Democratic Party. Sort of a "best of extremes of both worlds."

I don't see much different from what Obama has done as far as dealing with obstinate opposition than most other Presidents since we elected the first one. Backroom deals and pulling executive orders out of the hat are pretty standard fare. But everyone reacts like it's a new trick each time a new guy gets elected. The exact same accusations were leveled against Bush. Bush campaigned as a "uniter not a divider" and then leveraged a pretty sharp political mind (Rove) to his benefit. I particularly liked the Bush-Mount Rushmore moment (you can Google the pictures). They positioned the press cameras so his profile would fit in place next to the others on the mountain. He had slick production and played jujitsu legislation and policy that forced even people like Hillary Clinton to kowtow and fall in line for awhile.

For what it's worth, I'm not a fan of Presidents taking long public holidays where there's an appearance they're living apart during troubled times. But it's been awhile since Presidents buckled down and put in a tough four years without taking weeks off and getting photographed golfing, yachting, and so on.

I didn't lay the blame on the GOP about the Senate not passing budget proposals. The articles I cited laid out what was happening pretty clearly, I thought.

As far as Buffett goes, big firms discover tax liabilities all the time. It usually comes from audits (internal or external) that uncover incorrect treatment of financial vehicles or charges. So they restate and deal with it. There are very few articles about this - all dating from last year. And according to them, the tax liability was self-reported by Berkshire rather than being the result of an IRS levy or investigation (although it's certainly possible an IRS inquiry led to the discovery) and they're working toward paying it which they certainly will do. No one voluntarily announces a tax liability in a 10-K and then blows off the IRS.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
64. Re: Curt Schilling on 38 Studios' Demise Jun 23, 2012, 02:37 cappy
 
RollinThundr wrote on Jun 22, 2012, 23:07:
fact of the matter is, he did surround himself with socialist loving douches. He tends to lean quite a bit towards socialistic policy. You don't need to watch Limbaugh to do some thinking on that.

Let me know when anything Obama does reaches anything like the level of what LBJ and FDR did. I won't hold my breath.

Instead, what he's pursued has been pretty middle-of-the-road. Healthcare reform has been bandied around at least since Nixon's time - and by both Parties. And again, Obama's healthcare bill owes a lot of its genesis to the heavy lifting done by GOP and conservatives. It was not a particularly original idea.

Objectively, I don't see much different from him versus Dubya or even Reagan on the domestic side. I tend to see Clinton and H.W. Bush as being somewhat similar. His policies are not revolutionary, and they're hardly even evolutionary. They're certainly not even close to being on the scale of LBJ or FDR.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
63. Re: Curt Schilling on 38 Studios' Demise Jun 23, 2012, 02:26 cappy
 
RollinThundr wrote on Jun 22, 2012, 23:03:
Spending trillions doesn't exactly instill confidence in consumers. Let the damn market correct itself. No Gov has to meddle and make shit worse like they do with every thing they touch, hey lets have them control healthcare too, they've done such a bang up job with medicare and SS.

Ford from what I understand didn't take any bailout money, and they seem to be doing just fine.

I'm actually fine with letting the Bush tax cuts expire believe it or not. But at the same time I want to see both parties actually get serious about cutting spending. Which neither party seems to want to actually do.

on point 4, I realize that but still, it's pretty scary how much we've borrowed from countries that honestly don't much like us.

Precedence is why government intervenes. It's been shown to work better than laissez faire. A lot of the current approach owes its origin to J.P. Morgan working with the government and industry during meltdowns a century ago. Ditto for Long-Term Capital Management. Greater intervention in larger meltdowns. Plus the Fed playing roles in liquidity, or working against inflation as Volcker did under Reagan, etc.

Markets are definitely messy and prone to extreme fat tail events. What the government tries to do is to keep things closer toward a normalized middle. And generally they've probably done that when they've intervened in crises rather than allowing them to spiral further.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
62. Re: Curt Schilling on 38 Studios' Demise Jun 23, 2012, 02:12 cappy
 
RollinThundr wrote on Jun 22, 2012, 22:15:
When a president leaves office, there's this thing called inheritance. That you buy into the "Obama's a fiscal conservative" line of bullshit the left is trying to feed people it's you're own damn fault.

The man surrounded himself at Harvard with Marxist socialists. I guess that makes him a free market fiscal conservative though right? Obamacare anyone? Hello? You know that unconstitutional healthcare bill that only hard lefties and his base of "Obama's gunna pay my mortgage" types want?

USA Today is generally liberal leaning and even they don't buy into it. http://tinyurl.com/7u437fs
"The deficit was $5 trillion last year under those rules. The official number was $1.3 trillion. Liabilities for Social Security, Medicare and other retirement programs rose by $3.7 trillion in 2011, according to government actuaries, but the amount was not registered on the government's books." Hooray for fuzzy math.
oh and of course "Bush's fault"

Trying to get this straight - so you admit that Presidents inherit budgets and programs from their predecessors (which is certainly true - every President gets that for better or worse). Which goes in line with the fact that many of the programs Obama are continuations from his predecessor (TARP, auto bailout, tax cuts, wars in Iraq and Afghanistan). While we're talking about "unfunded," the wars were unfunded which many conservatives took a lot of issue with over the last decade - but the other "conservatives" (the ones in quotes) didn't have a problem with it.

As far as healthcare goes, the current situation isn't sustainable and even Obama's reform won't be immutable. So cheer up. Everyone will get to shape and form it (or replace or even repeal it) later. Personally, since pretty much every state requires residents to purchase automobile liability insurance (so rates will be lowered overall by having larger participation) I think it makes sense to try to work it into healthcare in some way. Whether Obama's approach is the right way remains to be seen, and in any event the Supreme Court is reviewing it anyway. The way things stand now, everyone's premiums have been rising for decades - despite promises of HMOs bringing down rates, or hospital consolidations bringing greater cost efficiencies, or hospitals lowering costs by outsourcing, or tort reform laws capping payouts, or whatever. That's a lot of fingers stuck in the dike and the water is still leaking. Rates have gone up, and employers have also been passing more of those increases along to the employees, while fewer employers offer insurance than was the case decades ago. This isn't a recent phenomenon that just began happening since Obama took office. It is a trend that extends back for decades.

As far as Obama mixed in the same breath as "socialism" anyone who has actually studied socialism is not particularly worried (unless they want to play with hyperbole and conflate reality with wishful thinking). The healthcare reform has so much origin in conservative circles that go back for years that it isn't like he came up with it on his own.

Social Security and Medicare unfunded liabilities are one of those "inheritance" items you mentioned. Trying to give Obama credit for those is pretty tough. The only way he could fix those is to cut spending in those areas - which would be resisted on a bipartisan front - or do what Ronald Reagan did and raise payroll taxes. Reagan's speeches supporting Social Security are pretty illuminating, by the way: http://www.ssa.gov/history/reaganstmts.html

As far as veterans being homeless - if they've put in their time and gotten a pension, they're better off than many Americans for whom a pension hasn't been a part of working life for a couple decades. The military has recently begun to cut its pensions and transition toward voluntary contributory plans, which I suspect are no more popular than they have been in private industry. While veterans have done something for their country - so have farmers and ranchers. Without them, America would be importing food and there would be severe shortages. Without those working in industry, there would be no one paying the massive budget for Defense and paying the salaries and benefits of the millions serving in the military. America is overall a team and I don't see much point in singling out one part and claiming it did it all by itself and deserves the lion's share of credit. Not all veterans even end up in combat (during the periods of time when America even has engaged in wars in the past 40 years) which was just as true even in the Second World War where it took something like 7 support people to support 3 in combat. If we were to hold any at the highest level, we'd be holding up the relatively small percentage who served in combat and relegating the majority of military who weren't exposed to perhaps the same level as the farmers, ranches, and industry workers who are the reason we have a military at all. Because without all of these others, we wouldn't have a military - unless there are more altruists than I believe there are.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
61. Re: Curt Schilling on 38 Studios' Demise Jun 23, 2012, 01:53 Veterator
 
Thumps up cappy, makes sense to me and is exactly what you see in my area. Hell the government is starting to bleed employees at this point and cutting contract spending, so all the contractors are bleeding employees. I think what we have here is an economic balance that could easy tumble right back down the cliff. It certainly doesn't look like it's going to start running again with how everything is going.

Businesses are laying off and failing every month, where the month before they were reporting "growth". Can't believe anything anymore, it seems all of it's based on indicators that really in the end mean nothing.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
60. Re: Curt Schilling on 38 Studios' Demise Jun 23, 2012, 01:45 RollinThundr
 
cappy wrote on Jun 23, 2012, 01:32:
RollinThundr wrote on Jun 22, 2012, 20:47:
No no they haven't. They paid back some of it. Plain and simple the Government should have given them jack shit. It's humorous to me, that you liberals cry about corporate welfare but if a dem is at all involved. Hey it's ok!

The problem is spending, regardless of who the president is, we spend far far more than what we take in. Here you have a president who added 5 trillion to our debt in less than one term. You're fine with that. Yet cried like little girls about Bush's spending. If you're going to bitch at least be consistent with it.

Hell you have a president who hasn't passed a budget in nearly 4 years. Yet that's quite alright, let's just spend some more money it'll automagically fix the economy and hey let's blame corporations! Oh except Apple, because we liberals like our Iphones. Oh and the Rich people who pay the most taxes in this country, well they should pay more so those people too lazy to get a fucking job living on welfare can have some more welfare, because really, they're entitled to it.

So I assume since you're arguing from a fiscal conservatism standpoint that you're very critical of Reagan and George W. Bush (along with Obama), but would praise both H.W. Bush and Clinton. For consistency, at least.

jdreyer already pointed out earlier in the thread about a survey where self-identified Republicans (who probably consider themselves "conservative" but probably more from social viewpoints than fiscal ones) are alarmed about the state of the budget but don't want to cut spending or raise taxes - either or both of which would be needed to balance a budget. I don't ever want to be stuck sitting in the middle of a railroad crossing with a person like that at the wheel, because they will neither want to go forward nor back.

Some folks aren't getting jobs because, well, because jobs are hard to find. That's why we have unemployment rates. Not because people are too lazy and stubborn to bring the unemployment rate by forcing companies to hire them when the companies don't have openings.

While I've no doubt anyone can point to a local grocery store that could use a few more part-time sackers and cashiers - those kinds of jobs don't replace a lot of the ones that were lost. And those kinds of places don't like to hire "over-qualified" workers anyway. That's assuming the grocery store even wants to hire more sackers and cashiers. Businesses have focused more attention on increasing productivity with leaner crews for many years now, and this becomes especially true during recessions.

Apple is being sued by the federal government - I'm sure you'll be happy to hear and I'm surprised you haven't. It's an anti-trust lawsuit relating to violations of the Sherman Act. They are alleged to have colluded with the largest publishing firms in the U.S. in a price-fixing scheme. Apple and two publishers have chosen to fight it in court (or likely, delay and eventually settle). Two publishers settled. One publisher is state's witness and turned over plenty of documentation that was quite revelatory about executives promising to "double-delete" incriminating emails while Apple executives did "nudge-nudge, wink-wink" meetings with them.

As far as those who pay taxes, remember that many of the largest Fortune 500 firms pay no taxes. There are a good many low-income Americans who pay no federal income taxes as well. Although whenever people like to trot that one out, they conveniently overlook that this demographic has a very large percentage of retired people. But I suppose after working all their lives, they should still continue to pay federal income taxes so people won't spit on them for shirking in their later years. Also, a large cohort of students and late teens early in careers or working part-time jobs - many or most of whom gravitate into federal-income-tax-paying work. And most are paying payroll taxes, as well as state sales and consumption taxes (since virtually every state has sales taxes) as well as indirect taxes like property taxes which are embedded in rents - since most people in lower incomes rent rather than own property.

Actually I didn't like Bush JR at all either for the same spending reasons. Ronnie did spend alot, but we were fighting a technological cold war with the Russians. Though to be honest, there's alot that Reagan did that I didn't agree with either. However, Reagan was a far better leader than Obama and Bush put together.

Clinton I didn't have too many issues with either, aside from his policy changes that got the ball rolling on the eventual recession.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
59. Re: Curt Schilling on 38 Studios' Demise Jun 23, 2012, 01:38 RollinThundr
 
cappy wrote on Jun 23, 2012, 01:01:
RollinThundr wrote on Jun 22, 2012, 14:35:
Hold on a second. What most conservatives, at least fiscal conservatives complain about is rewarding those that refuse to work when they're capable of it.

I don't think anyone is against helping out small businesses (not that 38 Studios really fits into that category) or having a safety net for veterans or people who are truly disabled that can't work.

You're using the usual liberal stereotype that only Republicans are rich. Or only Republicans get corporate lobbying etc. Which is total bs. Oprah's pretty rich, Bill Cosby and most of liberal hollywood are pretty rich, Obama's certainly not a poor man. Warren Buffet, who's company owes billions in back taxes is a liberal last I checked.

Obama didn't need to bail GM out with tax payer money, they could and SHOULD have filed for bankruptcy and refinanced/restructured themselves. GM still owes the taxpayers millions, and guess what we'll never see it. The only entity that won out in that deal was the auto workers union, surprise surprise. Same thing with Crysler, the kicker there? Crysler is now owned by a European car maker.

The man added 5 trillion to the debt in 3 and half years. Has yet to pass a single budget since coming into office, has wasted tons on a failed stimulus, failed green energy companies, all on the tax payer's dime.

Obama didn't bail out the auto industry. Remember that TARP and all the accompanying bailout legislation happened in the last quarter of 2008 under President Bush. When Obama took office several months later, he continued those programs and expanded some of them:

Auto Bailout Timeline

As far as Buffett being a "liberal" - that's completely debateable. Let's see - on the conservative side of the coin, he is quite wealthy and always expanding his massive business with new opportunities. He buys companies because he believes they will be profitable, not because he sympathizes with their goals or politics. He took major stakes in Goldman Sachs and other firms that no liberal investor would touch. He lives in the same house in Omaha he's owned for decades, and rather modestly - especially when compared with people on the coasts like Ellison or Trump. In other words, he is personally and fiscally conservative.

His social views are more progressive or liberal, but they're performed under the mantle of his conservatism. Like Bill Gates (with whom he's partnered for his philanthropy) he's doing careful and targeted approaches toward social spending - basically areas where they believe they can achieve return on investment in a big way.

When he argues for increasing taxes to what they were in the 1990s, somehow that's deemed "liberal" I suppose. But he's not advocating pre-1982 top rates of 70% or anything like that.

I would call him a conservative in virtually every major aspect of his life, with some liberal social leanings.

As far as "Obama hasn't passed a budget in 3 years" I believe you're getting that confused with the criticism the Senate has been taking for not passing a budget resolution for the past 3 years:

Wall Street Journal

Politifact

HuffingtonPost

And as far as the increase in debt, again - a good amount owes itself to TARP and other programs already put into place before he took office, as well as effects related to extending tax cuts and the general state of the economy. I suppose he *could* have just terminated TARP and reined in spending to see what would happen. But that's academic debate (mostly debated by non-academics) on Keynes vs. Friedman vs. whatever other economic school du jour is popular to prop up one's chosen policies.

A couple more balanced looks (that take issue with both sides):

FactCheck

Washington Post Fact Checker

I don't see anything conservative about "conservatives" who stridently cry out about debt and spending but then sheepishly shuffle their feet when it's pointed out that Defense Spending accounts for the greatest amount of discretionary spending. No one wants to cut that one. And realistically, no one really wants to cut Social Security and Medicare, either.

Instead, we get entertained with clown and pony shows - where ridiculous self-styled "conservatives" go on about pennies hidden between couch cushions (million-dollar programs allocated to some special-interest or another). We're assured that those "dollars add up" - except they don't. The entirety of Coburn's most recent "wasteful spending" opus would account for only about a day or so of interest on the national debt.

If someone wants to play real "conservative" - here's how:

If you want to balance a budget, you need to bring in more revenue, or make meaningful (and quite large and painful) cuts in spending. It's that simple!

But when the angry howls rise against raising taxes of any sort (never mind that even Reagan was ever pragmatic and doesn't get nearly enough credit for that and raised payroll taxes to shore up Social Security and Medicare for years to come), that sort of flies in the face of anyone being serious. I'd just as soon they just shut up. They can stay quiet and work on the problem if they want. But the puling and whining makes me want to spank the lot of them.

As far as cutting spending, they're big boys and girls and they know the rules. You don't get to cut just the other side's spending and leave your own intact. It doesn't work that way. So quit pointing fingers and work with the other side if they're really serious about it. Which they aren't.

Neither side wants to work with the other, and neither side is serious about cutting spending.

The dems only want to cut the military. repubs want to cut social spending, and really with how fucked up the welfare system is with the amount of loopholes it has, I dunno call me unfeeling or an asshole or whatever, but I kinda side more with the GOP on where to cut.

When I was growing up I was taught that no one is going to hold my hand or give me a life or a roof over my head, I was taught to work hard, and earn shit. People nowadays don't get that. They expect government to hold their hand.

I get it, you need some form of social net for those who can't work, or temporarily fall on hard times and need a hand, I have no issue with that. But our welfare system is completely broken and doesn't at all work that way.

I also have no issue with raising taxes since they're the lowest they've ever been pretty much.

The things I have a problem with however is increasing government size and them dictating how people should live, Bloomberg with his wanting to ban surgary drinks or snacks from movie theaters as an example. That tends to be what liberals are about on the social level. They want government to decide for them because god forbid they're responsible for themselves. That and the whole political correctness bullshit. Obama with his "Bush's fault Bush's fault I'ma go play some golf" Hey O, you've almost served a full term now, the Bush's fault excuse is wearing a tad thin. The libs gave Bush so much shit anytime he took a vacation or played golf, Obama's played over 100 rounds so far. The media could care less. MSN is so soft on the guy it's not even funny.

I also can't stand the people he tends to associate himself with. Marxists and socialists. Fact of the matter is aside from making the right call about going in after Bin Laden he's not kept one campaign promise, (and yes I realize they all lie, they're politicians that's what they all do regardless of party)

But for a guy who campaigned on transparency and turning this country around, he's done the opposite, spent even more than Bush, quicker than Bush, and has done more back room deals and played bipartisan games after preaching about working with the GOP and being a "transparent administration. Kudos on him sealing those fast and furious documents btw. Wouldn't want to paint himself in a bad light, especially if he was at all involved. Add in his love for the UN above his own citizens with his apologize for America tour and the kowtowing he does to anyone and everyone except Israel.

And please don't solely try to blame the GOP on passing a budget. Every single one of Obama's budget proposals has been unanimously defeated by both sides, 414-0, 97-0. The man is not a fiscal conservative by any means. His spending shows it. His own party won't even vote for his budgets. That should mean something.

On the Buffet thing, I'll start taking him seriously when he pays all the back taxes his company owes. Until then he and his secretary can eat a dick.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
58. Re: Curt Schilling on 38 Studios' Demise Jun 23, 2012, 01:37 cappy
 
RollinThundr wrote on Jun 22, 2012, 21:35:
Like I keep saying, taxes aren't the issue, spending is. If China tomorrow said, pay us all the loans we've given you tomorrow we'd be fucked. And here you have Obama wanting to raise the debt ceiling again, our credit rating gets lowered for the first time in history, he adds 5 trillion to the debt, and that wasn't enough, he wants to do it again.

You honestly don't see a problem with that? Both parties are driving us off the cliff with spending, dems have the pedal to the floor.

China won't. They have pursued fiscal and economic policies that work in their favor on the whole. They're not surprised children about any of this, and they prefer the current situation over cashing out.

Besides, Japan owns almost as much Treasuries, and several other countries combined own even more:

http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/data-chart-center/tic/Documents/mfh.txt
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
57. Re: Curt Schilling on 38 Studios' Demise Jun 23, 2012, 01:32 cappy
 
RollinThundr wrote on Jun 22, 2012, 20:47:
No no they haven't. They paid back some of it. Plain and simple the Government should have given them jack shit. It's humorous to me, that you liberals cry about corporate welfare but if a dem is at all involved. Hey it's ok!

The problem is spending, regardless of who the president is, we spend far far more than what we take in. Here you have a president who added 5 trillion to our debt in less than one term. You're fine with that. Yet cried like little girls about Bush's spending. If you're going to bitch at least be consistent with it.

Hell you have a president who hasn't passed a budget in nearly 4 years. Yet that's quite alright, let's just spend some more money it'll automagically fix the economy and hey let's blame corporations! Oh except Apple, because we liberals like our Iphones. Oh and the Rich people who pay the most taxes in this country, well they should pay more so those people too lazy to get a fucking job living on welfare can have some more welfare, because really, they're entitled to it.

So I assume since you're arguing from a fiscal conservatism standpoint that you're very critical of Reagan and George W. Bush (along with Obama), but would praise both H.W. Bush and Clinton. For consistency, at least.

jdreyer already pointed out earlier in the thread about a survey where self-identified Republicans (who probably consider themselves "conservative" but probably more from social viewpoints than fiscal ones) are alarmed about the state of the budget but don't want to cut spending or raise taxes - either or both of which would be needed to balance a budget. I don't ever want to be stuck sitting in the middle of a railroad crossing with a person like that at the wheel, because they will neither want to go forward nor back.

Some folks aren't getting jobs because, well, because jobs are hard to find. That's why we have unemployment rates. Not because people are too lazy and stubborn to bring the unemployment rate by forcing companies to hire them when the companies don't have openings.

While I've no doubt anyone can point to a local grocery store that could use a few more part-time sackers and cashiers - those kinds of jobs don't replace a lot of the ones that were lost. And those kinds of places don't like to hire "over-qualified" workers anyway. That's assuming the grocery store even wants to hire more sackers and cashiers. Businesses have focused more attention on increasing productivity with leaner crews for many years now, and this becomes especially true during recessions.

Apple is being sued by the federal government - I'm sure you'll be happy to hear and I'm surprised you haven't. It's an anti-trust lawsuit relating to violations of the Sherman Act. They are alleged to have colluded with the largest publishing firms in the U.S. in a price-fixing scheme. Apple and two publishers have chosen to fight it in court (or likely, delay and eventually settle). Two publishers settled. One publisher is state's witness and turned over plenty of documentation that was quite revelatory about executives promising to "double-delete" incriminating emails while Apple executives did "nudge-nudge, wink-wink" meetings with them.

As far as those who pay taxes, remember that many of the largest Fortune 500 firms pay no taxes. There are a good many low-income Americans who pay no federal income taxes as well. Although whenever people like to trot that one out, they conveniently overlook that this demographic has a very large percentage of retired people. But I suppose after working all their lives, they should still continue to pay federal income taxes so people won't spit on them for shirking in their later years. Also, a large cohort of students and late teens early in careers or working part-time jobs - many or most of whom gravitate into federal-income-tax-paying work. And most are paying payroll taxes, as well as state sales and consumption taxes (since virtually every state has sales taxes) as well as indirect taxes like property taxes which are embedded in rents - since most people in lower incomes rent rather than own property.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
56. Re: Curt Schilling on 38 Studios' Demise Jun 23, 2012, 01:13 bhcompy
 
Sepharo wrote on Jun 22, 2012, 19:53:
RollinThundr wrote on Jun 22, 2012, 14:35:
Obama didn't need to bail GM out with tax payer money, they could and SHOULD have filed for bankruptcy and refinanced/restructured themselves. GM still owes the taxpayers millions, and guess what we'll never see it. The only entity that won out in that deal was the auto workers union, surprise surprise. Same thing with Crysler, the kicker there? Crysler is now owned by a European car maker.

You don't really know what you're talking about.

Global auto industry crisis 2008-2010
U.S. in 2008-2010 auto industry crisis

Bush put $17.4 billion into the bailout using executive powers to redirect TARP money after the Senate rejected the bill (a rare thank you to Mr. Bush!). Both Chrysler and GM filed for bankruptcy. Obama later put $21.6 billion into the bailout and fired GM's CEO. Chrysler has since "repaid its loans" years ahead of schedule, unfortunately GM owes much more still but it's still paying it off and has since become the #1 auto maker in the world again.

All that said, the numbers are all over the place and the bailout wasn't any one loan or event. It was over years and for various different reasons and funding sources... PolitiFact has more.

So yeah billions still to be paid off but I think saving a national industry and an entire metro region of about 5 million people was worth it especially considering what a huge success it was. Meanwhile Mitt "Let Detroit Go Bankrupt" Romney writes a fucking article in the top paper of his "home" state shitting on the people there and then after the successful bailout changes his name to Mitt "Iíll take a lot of credit" Romney. What a piece of shit.

Bottom line: A capitalistic system relies on ebbs and flows to remain healthy. What happened is not healthy for the system long term and instead prevents a true correction.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
55. Re: Curt Schilling on 38 Studios' Demise Jun 23, 2012, 01:01 cappy
 
RollinThundr wrote on Jun 22, 2012, 14:35:
Hold on a second. What most conservatives, at least fiscal conservatives complain about is rewarding those that refuse to work when they're capable of it.

I don't think anyone is against helping out small businesses (not that 38 Studios really fits into that category) or having a safety net for veterans or people who are truly disabled that can't work.

You're using the usual liberal stereotype that only Republicans are rich. Or only Republicans get corporate lobbying etc. Which is total bs. Oprah's pretty rich, Bill Cosby and most of liberal hollywood are pretty rich, Obama's certainly not a poor man. Warren Buffet, who's company owes billions in back taxes is a liberal last I checked.

Obama didn't need to bail GM out with tax payer money, they could and SHOULD have filed for bankruptcy and refinanced/restructured themselves. GM still owes the taxpayers millions, and guess what we'll never see it. The only entity that won out in that deal was the auto workers union, surprise surprise. Same thing with Crysler, the kicker there? Crysler is now owned by a European car maker.

The man added 5 trillion to the debt in 3 and half years. Has yet to pass a single budget since coming into office, has wasted tons on a failed stimulus, failed green energy companies, all on the tax payer's dime.

Obama didn't bail out the auto industry. Remember that TARP and all the accompanying bailout legislation happened in the last quarter of 2008 under President Bush. When Obama took office several months later, he continued those programs and expanded some of them:

Auto Bailout Timeline

As far as Buffett being a "liberal" - that's completely debateable. Let's see - on the conservative side of the coin, he is quite wealthy and always expanding his massive business with new opportunities. He buys companies because he believes they will be profitable, not because he sympathizes with their goals or politics. He took major stakes in Goldman Sachs and other firms that no liberal investor would touch. He lives in the same house in Omaha he's owned for decades, and rather modestly - especially when compared with people on the coasts like Ellison or Trump. In other words, he is personally and fiscally conservative.

His social views are more progressive or liberal, but they're performed under the mantle of his conservatism. Like Bill Gates (with whom he's partnered for his philanthropy) he's doing careful and targeted approaches toward social spending - basically areas where they believe they can achieve return on investment in a big way.

When he argues for increasing taxes to what they were in the 1990s, somehow that's deemed "liberal" I suppose. But he's not advocating pre-1982 top rates of 70% or anything like that.

I would call him a conservative in virtually every major aspect of his life, with some liberal social leanings.

As far as "Obama hasn't passed a budget in 3 years" I believe you're getting that confused with the criticism the Senate has been taking for not passing a budget resolution for the past 3 years:

Wall Street Journal

Politifact

HuffingtonPost

And as far as the increase in debt, again - a good amount owes itself to TARP and other programs already put into place before he took office, as well as effects related to extending tax cuts and the general state of the economy. I suppose he *could* have just terminated TARP and reined in spending to see what would happen. But that's academic debate (mostly debated by non-academics) on Keynes vs. Friedman vs. whatever other economic school du jour is popular to prop up one's chosen policies.

A couple more balanced looks (that take issue with both sides):

FactCheck

Washington Post Fact Checker

I don't see anything conservative about "conservatives" who stridently cry out about debt and spending but then sheepishly shuffle their feet when it's pointed out that Defense Spending accounts for the greatest amount of discretionary spending. No one wants to cut that one. And realistically, no one really wants to cut Social Security and Medicare, either.

Instead, we get entertained with clown and pony shows - where ridiculous self-styled "conservatives" go on about pennies hidden between couch cushions (million-dollar programs allocated to some special-interest or another). We're assured that those "dollars add up" - except they don't. The entirety of Coburn's most recent "wasteful spending" opus would account for only about a day or so of interest on the national debt.

If someone wants to play real "conservative" - here's how:

If you want to balance a budget, you need to bring in more revenue, or make meaningful (and quite large and painful) cuts in spending. It's that simple!

But when the angry howls rise against raising taxes of any sort (never mind that even Reagan was ever pragmatic and doesn't get nearly enough credit for that and raised payroll taxes to shore up Social Security and Medicare for years to come), that sort of flies in the face of anyone being serious. I'd just as soon they just shut up. They can stay quiet and work on the problem if they want. But the puling and whining makes me want to spank the lot of them.

As far as cutting spending, they're big boys and girls and they know the rules. You don't get to cut just the other side's spending and leave your own intact. It doesn't work that way. So quit pointing fingers and work with the other side if they're really serious about it. Which they aren't.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
54. Re: Curt Schilling on 38 Studios' Demise Jun 23, 2012, 00:01 jdreyer
 
RollinThundr wrote on Jun 22, 2012, 23:03:
Spending trillions doesn't exactly instill confidence in consumers. Let the damn market correct itself. No Gov has to meddle and make shit worse like they do with every thing they touch, hey lets have them control healthcare too, they've done such a bang up job with medicare and SS.

Ford from what I understand didn't take any bailout money, and they seem to be doing just fine.

I'm actually fine with letting the Bush tax cuts expire believe it or not. But at the same time I want to see both parties actually get serious about cutting spending. Which neither party seems to want to actually do.

on point 4, I realize that but still, it's pretty scary how much we've borrowed from countries that honestly don't much like us.

1. We spent billions bailing out the auto industry not trillions

2. "Let the market correct itself" This was a disaster. Would you have suggested the same thing for NOLA during Katrina?

3. The government makes everything they touch worse? Should we outsource the military? Outsourcing to KBR has cost the military much more than if they'd done the job themselves, and provided worse service to boot. Our private healthcare currently costs half again as much as the rest of the industrial world for equivalent or worse healthcare. If it's true the gov't is worse, why did all the insurance companies fight against the public option? What were they so scared of? The truth is Medicaid/medicare provide more healthcare bang for the buck than private insurance. And most places offer one or two choices for healthcare, hardly a "free market". And even single payer makes sense. Healthcare isn't a choice, it's a necessity. It makes sense to provide it as a government service, like the national defense.

4. The Dems are serious about cutting the debt: Cut the military and raise revenues. The Republicans are not.

Thanks for the debate, RollinThundr. Real life is calling, but I may be back on later.
 
Avatar 22024
 
"It's just a bunch of mystic bovine scatology to me." - 1badmf
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
53. Re: Curt Schilling on 38 Studios' Demise Jun 22, 2012, 23:44 Dades
 
I don't see any point in trying to reason with someone who says "Bamacare" and I'm not sure why anyone else does either. At that point the whole thing is already beyond salvage. Politics has always been full of crooks and rhetoric but more than ever it seems incredibly polarized which just further divides the country. For all of his many faults Obama is probably the most truly centrist politician the US will see in a long time and it's a shame that both parties have wasted the opportunity to come together for the sake of the country.  
Avatar 54452
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
52. Re: Curt Schilling on 38 Studios' Demise Jun 22, 2012, 23:38 jdreyer
 
RollinThundr wrote on Jun 22, 2012, 22:15:

The man surrounded himself at Harvard with Marxist socialists.

See, this is why I think you're blowing smoke.

This.

"They thought that he would be able to bring together the factions that had developed as a result of the divisions, the ideological divisions on the law review, on the left and the right," said Cassandra Butts, a close friend of Obama's during law school and now his White House deputy counsel. After he became president, Obama appointed several conservatives to top positions at Law Review, which angered some liberals.

And this:

From among those, the conservatives were eager to have somebody who would treat them fairly, who would listen to what they had to say, who would not abuse the powers of the office to favor his ideological soul mates and punish those who had different views. Somebody who would basically play it straight, I think was really what we were looking for.
[snip]
And ultimately, the conservatives on the Review supported Barack as president in the final rounds of balloting because he fit that bill far better than the other people who were running. ...

As for that tinyurl, I'd love to read what you've posted, but could you provide a real URL? I won't follow a tinyurl blindly, no offense.

As for USA Today, really? That's the best you can come up with? The fluffiest newspaper in the nation? I wouldn't call USA Today liberal or conservative, just sensationalist with the main goal of selling as many copies as possible.
 
Avatar 22024
 
"It's just a bunch of mystic bovine scatology to me." - 1badmf
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
51. Re: Curt Schilling on 38 Studios' Demise Jun 22, 2012, 23:20 Mr. Tact
 
RollinThundr wrote on Jun 22, 2012, 23:03:
Ford from what I understand didn't take any bailout money, and they seem to be doing just fine.
This is simply because Ford failed sooner. They failed before the economic meltdown which led to the credit markets drying up. They got all the loans they needed, then the economy tanked. So, Ford was good only because they already had gotten the money they needed. But the meltdown took GM over the brink -- and there was no one to loan them money. Sepharo is correct. It would have been a liquidation if the government hadn't stepped in, not a "controlled restructuring".
 
Truth is brutal. Prepare for pain.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
50. Re: Curt Schilling on 38 Studios' Demise Jun 22, 2012, 23:11 Mr. Tact
 
RollinThundr wrote on Jun 22, 2012, 22:02:
Honestly 38 from the start just seemed bound for failure. I agree though, a company that size doesn't fit my definition of small business owner.
This is at the core of the partisan bickering -- the definition of "small business".

Common sense would tell you that to most people a small business is a company with a few dozen employees at most. Can you really call it a small business if you have 100 or more employees? However according to tax law, there are world spanning corporations with thousands of employees which qualify as a "small business". So, whenever someone uses those two words, what do they mean? Basically, it depends partly on the context and partly on which end of the political spectrum they reside on.
 
Truth is brutal. Prepare for pain.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
49. Re: Curt Schilling on 38 Studios' Demise Jun 22, 2012, 23:07 RollinThundr
 
Kem!kaL wrote on Jun 22, 2012, 22:51:
Feel better RT?

"surrounded himself with socialist marxists"?
Jesus dude you sound like a lunatic.

I could care less, but really- the two parties have been this way forever, it's not "code" it's just a fact. He's a Dem- he thinks govt has a role, but that doesn't mean he's the Manchurian candidate, or a marxist.

No one call the Right fascist for the same reason- it's an extreme on the political spectrum. And they're not your enemies they're your freaking neighbors.

Settle the hell down and turn off the Limbaugh already.

1. don't watch Rush, don't much care for him.
2. fact of the matter is, he did surround himself with socialist loving douches. He tends to lean quite a bit towards socialistic policy. You don't need to watch Limbaugh to do some thinking on that.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
48. Re: Curt Schilling on 38 Studios' Demise Jun 22, 2012, 23:03 RollinThundr
 
jdreyer wrote on Jun 22, 2012, 22:44:
RollinThundr wrote on Jun 22, 2012, 21:35:
Sepharo wrote on Jun 22, 2012, 21:18:
RollinThundr wrote on Jun 22, 2012, 20:47:
Do a search for politifact gm bail out.


Are you fucking kidding me Rotfl

Read my post.

You're missing my point, had they restructured without Government bailing their asses out, the tax payers wouldn't be on the hook for billions that will never be paid back.

They would have been fine, and really it's their own fault for continuing to think they could rely on huge gas guzzlers while Japanese car makers like Toyota were making fuel efficient models.

Like I keep saying, taxes aren't the issue, spending is. If China tomorrow said, pay us all the loans we've given you tomorrow we'd be fucked. And here you have Obama wanting to raise the debt ceiling again, our credit rating gets lowered for the first time in history, he adds 5 trillion to the debt, and that wasn't enough, he wants to do it again.

You honestly don't see a problem with that? Both parties are driving us off the cliff with spending, dems have the pedal to the floor.

Dude. I'm sorry, but you're totally clueless.

1. There was no one else to bail out GM or Chrysler. The gov't was lender of last resort. If no one had done it, GM and Chrysler would have been liquidated and Ford would be the only US car maker left. Bankruptcy is death for an automaker, b/c no one will buy their products. It's estimated that a half million jobs would have been forever lost and that would rain suffering on millions of people.

2. Almost every government bailed out at least part of its auto industry. France bailed out Peugeot and Renault. Japan bailed Toyota (Yes, even Toyota). Sweden bailed out Volvo and Saab. The UK bailed out Jaguar. Germany bailed out Opel. The point is this was a once in a lifetime world-wide event. This is the exact reason government exists, for these types of catastrophic emergencies. Yes, GM made some bad decisions, but not unrecoverable ones, nor ones that would have sunk them in a normal economy. This is how it's supposed to work.

3. The billions are being paid back and will be. With interest. The government makes money.

4. China would never do that, because sinking our economy would sink their economy. Besides, China owns only 8% of US public debt. If for some stupid reason they called it in, we could handle it.

5. Debt as a % of GDP is still lower than it was in the 1940s. It does need to be addressed, but it's more important now to GET THE ECONOMY GOING AGAIN. And you need to spend to do that. And when no one else is spending, the government has to be the spender of last resort. It's classic Keynesian economics. Spending recovers the economy, and you pay it back when the econ is strong. Austerity begets recession.

Also, too: Let the goddamn Bush tax cuts expire at the end of 2013.

Spending trillions doesn't exactly instill confidence in consumers. Let the damn market correct itself. No Gov has to meddle and make shit worse like they do with every thing they touch, hey lets have them control healthcare too, they've done such a bang up job with medicare and SS.

Ford from what I understand didn't take any bailout money, and they seem to be doing just fine.

I'm actually fine with letting the Bush tax cuts expire believe it or not. But at the same time I want to see both parties actually get serious about cutting spending. Which neither party seems to want to actually do.

on point 4, I realize that but still, it's pretty scary how much we've borrowed from countries that honestly don't much like us.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
47. Re: Curt Schilling on 38 Studios' Demise Jun 22, 2012, 23:02 Kem!kaL
 
And sorry but "Obama raised the debt ceiling"?

Come on man. The GOP did it like 5 times under Bush, or more, because you can't default on the nation's loans and crash the economy. And with Google you know as much as you want to know so don't blame "the media."

That's my point.

You seem to hate the Dems so much you just refuse to accept obvious truths, or you end up doing what you accuse the Dems of doing and just "blaming Obama."

Whatever- you guys scream he's the devil so often you may convince enough dumb voters to believe it.

We'll see.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
46. Re: Curt Schilling on 38 Studios' Demise Jun 22, 2012, 22:51 Kem!kaL
 
Feel better RT?

"surrounded himself with socialist marxists"?
Jesus dude you sound like a lunatic.

I could care less, but really- the two parties have been this way forever, it's not "code" it's just a fact. He's a Dem- he thinks govt has a role, but that doesn't mean he's the Manchurian candidate, or a marxist.

No one call the Right fascist for the same reason- it's an extreme on the political spectrum. And they're not your enemies they're your freaking neighbors.

Settle the hell down and turn off the Limbaugh already.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
105 Replies. 6 pages. Viewing page 3.
< Newer [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 ] Older >


footer

Blue's News logo