Sabyen91: TommyDeuce: What's sad about sequestration is how badly the defense industry is panicking about it. I got laid off for an Aerospace firm (that already does 60%+ of it's work in the civilian side) and word is we'll lose almost another 5% of or workforce this year. Which I guess makes sense to someone when you realize those cuts would take the Pentagon down to just a few billion dollars over the 2008 budget.

Do we really want to roll our military back that far into the benighted depths of our history?

The defense industry is taking hits now? Excuse me if I don't feel too goddamned sorry for you.

It's one of the few industries making money, unfortunately. I understand the need for defense cuts, but I don't think adding several hundred thousand to the unemployment lines is the best thing right now. Let's talk about fixing the defense budget and streamlining the system, but not with wholesale cuts that won't be applied to the correct programs.

I hate being an engineer and having a better grasp of economics than some "economists."

shotglasss: BMulligan: Sabyen91: overfienduglar: Didn't Ryan vote for Bush's bugets, Medicare part D, both wars, and the bailout?

Yup.

Seems to have gotten religion fairly recently - say, within the past four years or so.

At least leaders of his religion aren't screaming about God damn America.

Bless your heart.

but there's no question that it has triggered the ire of political elites, and Huntsman's velvet-gloved rebuke is emblematic of that.

The butthurt... it's beautiful!!!

theknuckler_33: but there's no question that it has triggered the ire of political elites, and Huntsman's velvet-gloved rebuke is emblematic of that.

The butthurt... it's beautiful!!!

dammitt

Feel bad for him! He is in danger of losing the only job he has ever known with this VP run. Supported by the public for years, yet somehow an expert on telling other people what they should do with their business, he might have trouble finding a real world job unless there is a company that wants someone to come in and tell them that they are doing everything wrong no matter what it is.

Sabyen91: BMulligan: Sabyen91: overfienduglar: Didn't Ryan vote for Bush's bugets, Medicare part D, both wars, and the bailout?

Yup.

Seems to have gotten religion fairly recently - say, within the past four years or so.

January 20, 2009.

And these people say Obama never did anything for them. If it wasn't for Barack, Paul Ryan's soul would still be hellbound as a hypocrite.

Where wolf: Sabyen91: TommyDeuce: What's sad about sequestration is how badly the defense industry is panicking about it. I got laid off for an Aerospace firm (that already does 60%+ of it's work in the civilian side) and word is we'll lose almost another 5% of or workforce this year. Which I guess makes sense to someone when you realize those cuts would take the Pentagon down to just a few billion dollars over the 2008 budget.

Do we really want to roll our military back that far into the benighted depths of our history?

The defense industry is taking hits now? Excuse me if I don't feel too goddamned sorry for you.

It's one of the few industries making money, unfortunately. I understand the need for defense cuts, but I don't think adding several hundred thousand to the unemployment lines is the best thing right now. Let's talk about fixing the defense budget and streamlining the system, but not with wholesale cuts that won't be applied to the correct programs.

I hate being an engineer and having a better grasp of economics than some "economists."

If the government has to spend less money on something, why not cut the defense budget? We can pay some defense contracter to make an unneeded 2nd engine for an unneeded new plane, and sure he'll make money. But how does that plane go on to improve the quality of life for anyone?

On the other hand, we can take that same amount of money and hire a metric fark-ton of teachers. They'll get paid, and educate a new generation of citizens, who can then go on to get better and more productive jobs.

Face it, of all the things that the government could spend a buck on, you couldn't find something that would give less return on investment or do as little to get us out of a recession as building a few more brand spanking shiny new bombs.

Karac: Where wolf: Sabyen91: TommyDeuce: What's sad about sequestration is how badly the defense industry is panicking about it. I got laid off for an Aerospace firm (that already does 60%+ of it's work in the civilian side) and word is we'll lose almost another 5% of or workforce this year. Which I guess makes sense to someone when you realize those cuts would take the Pentagon down to just a few billion dollars over the 2008 budget.

Do we really want to roll our military back that far into the benighted depths of our history?

The defense industry is taking hits now? Excuse me if I don't feel too goddamned sorry for you.

It's one of the few industries making money, unfortunately. I understand the need for defense cuts, but I don't think adding several hundred thousand to the unemployment lines is the best thing right now. Let's talk about fixing the defense budget and streamlining the system, but not with wholesale cuts that won't be applied to the correct programs.

I hate being an engineer and having a better grasp of economics than some "economists."

If the government has to spend less money on something, why not cut the defense budget? We can pay some defense contracter to make an unneeded 2nd engine for an unneeded new plane, and sure he'll make money. But how does that plane go on to improve the quality of life for anyone?

On the other hand, we can take that same amount of money and hire a metric fark-ton of teachers. They'll get paid, and educate a new generation of citizens, who can then go on to get better and more productive jobs.

Face it, of all the things that the government could spend a buck on, you couldn't find something that would give less return on investment or do as little to get us out of a recession as building a few more brand spanking shiny new bombs.

And here's the problem: the cuts won't come from development programs. It will come from sustainment money, keeping 30 year old aircraft flying so we can retire some of the tails from the 60s.

I don't want to build f35s, i just want to make life easier for kids bending wrenches in the desert.

TheJoe03: Sabyen91: It is his turn though, dammit!

Don't want to jinx it but I would love to see his concession speech.

I'm not looking forward to it. I'm expecting him to go with a "We may have lost the election, but we vow to continue our fight against the Obama!"

He'll rile up the crowd and keep the anything-but-Obama crap going for another four years.

Monkeyhouse Zendo: Here'sJohnny: Cap gain taxes exist to discourage investment while barely raising money, as in America today fairness trumps efficiency in government policy priorities.

Are you insane? Capital gains taxes are distinct from and, in some cases, lower than income taxes in order to encourage long term investment. Personally, I think capital gains taxes should be done away with and both capital gains and carried interest taxed as income (which they are).

Having lower capital gains taxes discourages long term investment and encourages short term investment. Having lower tax means that you can churn your investments more frequently. If the tax were higher, and matched other forms of income, you would invest for longer periods and also might consider other forms of investment that would create jobs. The rich would not just sit on their money, not matter what the tax rate was, you still want to make more money.

So the teatards were elected to CUTCUTCUTCUT, but now that cuts - which many of them voted for - appear imminent, they're complaining about the cuts?

I thought the whole point was that they were setting a target ($1.2T) and a deadline (end of this year) and were going to work sometime in the last year to do something to avoid it. It's like when you sign a contract, and a day before the end of the term, one of the signors is like "WTF! I have to produce a whole 100-page report on the entirety of the work I've done in a single day?! How unfair!"

Morons - you had all the time in the world to do something, but wanding vaginas was more important. Go sit in the corner.

// of course, they won't
// they'll cry and scream about how the big bad Democrats want to make our country less safe
// farking George "Macaca" Allen is running an attack ad against Connolly for voting for this bill - farking George "Macaca" Allen would have voted for it twice

MaudlinMutantMollusk: Grand_Moff_Joseph: Of course, let's not forget that Ryan voted against the debt commission's plan, which led to the existence of the sequester that he just voted for. AND he voted against all attempts to pass a budget, leading to the stop-gap measure that he just voted FOR.

Truly, a man of conviction that should be convicted.

FTFY

/criminal hypocrisy

o/~ Right wing rulers
Like the Norths and Nixons
Wouldn't fool us
They're men of convictions o/~

"Loonies Of The Right" (Music Of The Night) - The Capitol Steps

Monkeyhouse Zendo: KarmicDisaster: Having lower capital gains taxes discourages long term investment and encourages short term investment. Having lower tax means that you can churn your investments more frequently. If the tax were higher, and matched other forms of income, you would invest for longer periods and also might consider other forms of investment that would create jobs. The rich would not just sit on their money, not matter what the tax rate was, you still want to make more money.

How the fark does having lower tax rates on long term investments encourage churn in your investments? Did I wake up in Bizarro world this morning?

The bolded bit is precisely why I think all carried interest and capital gains should be taxed as income. The wealthy aren't going to put cash into a coffee can, it's going to be invested if only to protect its value from inflation.

I fully agree on taxing it as income. People are still going to invest. As for the other part, I was going to post some detailed examples, but I have stuff to do. So here is the abbreviated version:

As an investor, I am constantly managing my tax burden. That's how Romney pays (he says, who knows) 13% (although he appears to have hidden a lot off the books). Because of that, I want to manage my capital gains, controlling when I sell profitable stocks (in my case) so that I don't take all my capital gains on profits all in one year. Instead, I try to smooth out the gains, which means holding some things longer while taking offsetting losses when I need them. Losses come off at 100% (socialize the risk hehe) A lower tax rate on gains though means that I can afford to sell more profitable stocks per year. If taxes were higher and I wanted to pay the same tax, I would have bigger consequences for taking a capital gain and would hold things longer. That means that I can churn my portfolio more than if taxes were higher; I can sell something that was profitable and re-invest in something more profitable with less consequence. For traded companies, that means that they have to take a short term view for their stock; so they fire 1000 for short term gain today when that will hurt them in 5 years. So lower gains tax actually encourages more focus on immediate profit and shorter term investing.