Since Jersey Shore was absolute, irrefutable GARBAGE this week, let me speak once again about the political reality show America’s experiencing right now..
I’m a fan of logical thinking.
I don’t personally believe that there can be really honestly differing opinions on subjects that can both be majorly effective.
For instance… I don’t see how supposedly-intelligent people can possibly have diametrically-opposed viewpoints on what’s going to create jobs for Americans.
The Democrats say.. Oh.. First of all, if you feel like I’m not correct about this stuff, feel free to click here and leave me a response in the comment section.
The Democrats say that if you “PASS THIS BILL RIGHT NOW!!! :O”, a bunch of teachers and construction workers and armed forces veterans will be able to go to work and get money to feed their families and pay for their homes before they default on their mortgages and get evicted.
The Republicans say that President Obama’s plan is merely a temporary band-aid and that the way to stimulate growth of the economy and create jobs is to lower taxes and get rid of a bunch of regulations on businesses, to ease the burden on the people that they have named “Job Creators” and give them confidence to create jobs and live up to their given titles.
There is No Way.. AT ALL.. That both of these are correct.
I can’t see how the way out of this situation isn’t obvious to the most intelligent people in both parties….
Both parties don’t share the same goals. o_O
Before I continue, none of this has anything to do with me.
First of all, I’m an Independent, so I can vote for whomever I like.
Second, I’m a freelancer. This means that the more people that get laid off, the MORE work I get.
Personally, I couldn’t possibly care any less whether the Democrats and Republicans decide to create one single job for one single American ever again in life, because The Kid‘s gonna get paid, regardless.
Having said that, I’ve been trying to look at this situation as if I were one of the people adversely affected by unemployment… This led to my being the subject of many funny jokes by a close girlfriend of mine when I told her I was trying to empathize with “the people”.
I was raised on Baseball, Hot Dogs, Apple Pie, and Chevrolet. I was born to win. I was bred to win. I was raised to win. I was conditioned to make the best out of whatever situation was presented to me. I’ve been trained to ignore what people say I can’t do and do it anyway.
I don’t know any other way of life. I don’t know how to see things any differently. I graduated from the top college on the planet http://alum.mit.edu/www/billcammack/ as a computer programmer, built a second career as a video editor because I felt like it google.com/search?gcx=w&ix=c2&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=video+editor+resume, and now I’m building a third career as a music mixer… because I felt like it.
I can not be stopped.
At least 6 industries would have to evaporate before I could even begin to come anywhere near understanding how it feels to be an assembly-line worker in the sticks, when the corporation he or she works for moves the plant to another country so they can pay people a fraction of what they currently pay Americans and distribute the savings as bonuses to their officers and dividends to their investors:
- Video Production and Editing
- Music Production and Mixing
- Web Design
- Social Media
- Life Coaching
- Physical Training (gym)
So, yes, she was right to snap all over me, because, try as I might, there’s no way I’m ever going to actually feel like someone who depends on a company to give me a job, which are the people that are *REALLY* being affected by the political nonsense that’s been going on for months now and really looks like there’s no end in sight.
Anyway… I’ve been trying to experience this situation from the perspective of someone who gives a flying ****, and here’s what I think about the 2012 Presidential Election at this point..
The only reason I forced myself to watch this political garbage is that I was completely caught off guard in the 2008 election cycle.
I had thought the Democrats were going to run Hillary Clinton and that she was going to lose => http://billcammack.com/2007/02/09/reelsolidtv-episode-39-when-hillary-is-president/ .. Next thing you know, somebody’s like “This black guy is running for President” and I’m like “oh, word? o_O”.
At the time that I made that post, which was February 9th, 2007 I had never in my life heard of Barack Obama.
Again, this is because I don’t pay any attention to politics, because they have ZERO bearing on my life, whatsoever.
When Obama easily bypassed Clinton, I was like “Maybe this guy is actually going to win. o_O”
When the Republicans selected Sarah Palin to run for VICE. PRESIDENT. OF. THE. UNITED. STATES. OF. AMERICA., I knew immediately that Barack Obama was going to win.
John McCain wasn’t in fantastic health during his 2008 campaign, so voting for Palin as VP was tantamount to voting for Palin as PRESIDENT, which nobody in their right mind would ever do.. Therefore, I had no doubts at all that the USA was going to experience its first non-white President… or, non-fully-white, or whatever.
This is why I’ve been watching all these damned pundit shows this year. I wanted to understand the process that led the Republicans to throw the election in 2008 by running someone for VP that yells all day about “family values” while her unwed daughter got tapped by some dude and is currently pregnant.
The question in my mind, when I found out they were running Palin (whom I had *also* never heard of), was “Don’t they have anybody better than her to send to the big dance? o_O”
I mean.. That’s like when you’re choosing teams for dodgeball and your second pick is the fat kid that can’t catch and can’t dodge… I mean what the **** is THAT? 😀 haha Do you just want an excuse for the reason that you lost?
Yeah… We would have waxed your asses if we didn’t have the fat kid on our team!
Yeah… McCain would have been President if he didn’t have Palin on his team!
I *REALLY* wanted to understand how something like that could happen, so I’ve been paying attention this time, and it’s surprisingly not much better.
I can’t believe the Republicans haven’t been grooming someone from the very day that they selected Palin to run for VP so that person could be their secret weapon to defeat President Obama in the 2012 elections.
I honestly thought I was going to be witnessing political genius when I started watching these stupid-ass pundit shows, but, instead, I’ve been treated to complete, absolute, and utter bullshit, and I’m pretty disgusted with this entire process.
One of the problems with pundits is that they’re basically like lawyers. You know damned well that the person is guilty, but it’s your job to try to get them acquitted, so when you speak to the public, you act as if you think your client is innocent.
In the political arena, you have to act as if you think your client is intelligent when you know damned ******* WELL that they’re IDIOTS! :/
What’s worse is that nobody’s ejected from being a Presidential Candidate for their stupid ideas.. It’s only when they run out of money that they have to get off the stage.
The “running out of money” part is about to happen soon, so we’ll be rid of all these Non-Romneys in a hot minute.
What I mean by that is that this entire process is an attempt by Republicans to NOT nominate Mitt Romney. This is why you keep seeing unelectable people like Herman Cain and Michele Bachmann leading in polls.
Unfortunately for them.. As SOON as their front-runners actually SPEAK, they immediately drop in the polls.
Bachmann spouts fantasies about hypothetical futures that she can’t possibly create, such as forcing a free market to sell gas for $2 per gallon.
She says all these things that ideologically sound good to True Believers, but have zero basis in reality, which is obvious to the most casual of observers.
What’s worse than that is that she refuses to answer direct questions. You can see her formulating her speech while the moderator’s talking. Whenever the question finishes, she completely ignores it, because she just finished spending all her time rehearsing what she wanted to say, and goes “Well.. What I wanted to say was..” and then talks about whatever the **** she feels like talking about, which normally results in the name Obama coming out of her mouth.
I don’t know who trained these people, but there’s NO REASON that they should be mentioning Barack Obama in Republican debates.
If you look at commercials, they say stuff like “We make Cadillacs” and “We outperformed our closest competitor”. Nobody says “We make Cadillacs instead of Ferraris” because YOU’RE. ADVERTISING. FOR. FERRARI!!! :/
Similarly.. If you’re participating in a REPUBLICAN debate, everybody in the house is ALREADY ANTI-OBAMA!… There is NO REASON that you need to keep bringing him up.
That’s like if you’re trying to steal someone’s girl and you keep mentioning her boyfriend’s name. Cut it out. It’s stupid. Everyone sitting in the Reagan Library cheering for uninsured people to die has already sided with you AGAINST Barack Obama, so your time is better spent informing people why they should nominate you instead of the other Republican candidates that are currently SQUASHING YOU in the polls.
Anyway.. Bachmann’s entirely unelectable. Even more so than Sarah Palin. Turning on a television show and listening to people who are paid to pretend she’s a viable candidate is entirely disgusting.
Ron Paul is entirely unelectable because he tells it like he sees it.
**** the flood victims because it didn’t happen in your state? o_O .. How about **** YOU while your entire state goes up in flames from wildfires?
Nobody’s voting for him over President Obama.
Rick Santorum isn’t even worth talking about.
Gary Johnson and Buddy Roemer are sharing like one half of one percent of the poll statistics. They can forget it.
In fact, there are another seven dudes I’ve never even heard of that are listed as Republican hopefuls on 2012.republican-candidates.org. Ridiculous.
I’ve personally been saying that they should send Jon Huntsman this entire time, however, a) he sounds like a Democrat when he speaks, and b) he’s Mormon, like Mitt Romney, so you know how that’s going to play in the South, so he’s not going anywhere.
Newt Gingrich? 😀 HAHAHA C’MON, SUNN!!! >:D
I think Herman Cain will sell a lot of books and make a lot of money on the lecture circuit and I applaud his accomplishments in the private sector and I’m looking forward to watching him in some kind of comedy television show and he’ll probably get some kind of political appointment if the Republicans somehow pull off a highly unlikely victory in 2012, but he’s not a Presidential candidate by any means whatsoever.
It’s just that he’s the only viable Non-Romney left.
Every week, Rick Perry makes himself look worse and worse.
The more he speaks, the further his aspirations funnel down the drain.
Look at this clown-ass answer:
In the interest of letting readers decide for themselves, we present the entirety of that portion of the interview, which Governor Perry gave to Parade contributing writer Lynn Sherr:
Governor, do you believe that President Barack Obama was born in the United States?
I have no reason to think otherwise.
That’s not a definitive, “Yes, I believe he”—
Well, I don’t have a definitive answer, because he’s never seen my birth certificate.
But you’ve seen his.
I don’t know. Have I?
You don’t believe what’s been released?
I don’t know. I had dinner with Donald Trump the other night.
That came up.
And he said?
He doesn’t think it’s real.
And you said?
I don’t have any idea. It doesn’t matter. He’s the President of the United States. He’s elected. It’s a distractive issue.
DUHHHHHHHHH… My Momma Done Told MEEEE…. To Get Something For Dinnerrrrr…
This is right along the lines of Perry not denouncing that dude that called Mormonism a cult.
This brings us to the major problem that I think is going to trounce Republican hopes in 2012… Well, I mean, besides that they haven’t fielded any viable candidates.
In political terms, Republicans need to sprint “to the right” in order to get the nomination of their party, and then they have to spint back “towards the center” to win the general election.
Most of them can’t possibly make it.
The only two that can make it are Romney and Huntsman.
All the rest of the Republican candidates have already offended too many people to be viable in a general election against Barack Obama.
Their only hope is the sweeping changes they’re passing into law across the country which affect early voting and citizens needing to have certain types of identification to be allowed to vote.
Let me rephrase that…
Their only hope *WAS* the sweeping changes they’re passing into law across the country which affect early voting and citizens needing to have certain types of identification to be allowed to vote.
The U.S. military invaded Iraq in 2003 without permission. But now that it no longer has approval from Baghdad’s post-Saddam government to stay beyond 2011, all U.S. forces will be pulling out by year’s end, President Obama said Friday. “After nearly nine years, America’s war in Iraq will be over,” Obama said at the White House. “Today I can say that our troops in Iraq will definitely be home for the holidays.”
The decision effectively ends a U.S.-initiated war — arguments have raged over that decision, both inside and outside the U.S. military and government, since President George W. Bush launched it — at a cost of nearly 4,500 U.S. troops’ lives and a trillion dollars. It began March 20, 2003, with what the Pentagon called a “shock and awe” aerial bombardment that succeeded in ousting Saddam Hussein in less than three weeks. But it was followed by more than three years of internal violence that the U.S. did little to prevent.
“Today is a historic day for the United States and for the people of Iraq,” said Paul Rieckhoff of the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America. “And it’s an especially poignant time for the veteran community –many of us gave a large part of our lives, and some gave all.”
Obama’s announcement caps a remarkable string of recent foreign-policy successes for his Administration: in addition to a total pullout from Iraq (which could boomerang if the country reverts to civil war), he has overseen the killings of Osama bin Laden and U.S.-born Anwar al-Awlaki, along with playing a key role in the Libyan campaign that effectively ended Thursday with the death of Moammar Gaddafi.
THIS is the end of Republican dreams.
If the troops are brought home before the end of the year, the United States will be infused with a bunch more unemployed people who will clearly understand that the Republicans blocked every single effort by President Obama to PASS THIS BILL which directly names armed forces veterans as beneficiaries as far as receiving gainful employment = jobs.
Quite a few people joined the armed forces because otherwise, they would have been broke… poor… destitute… They would have been jobless before they went overseas, so they’re going to be jobless when they return.
Unfortunately for the Republicans, they all have identification as well, so they can’t be prevented from voting.
Meanwhile.. Overseas.. Bad guys have been dropping like adjacent dominoes.
By the time the election rolls around, President Obama’s going to have an impressive military record, which removes the “He’s not a leader” card that the Republicans have been trying to play for a couple of months now.
He will also have 14 months’ worth of yelling “PASS THIS BILL” and the American television viewers seeing Republicans not only obstructing the President’s efforts to get them paid, but going on television every week, yelling about “OBAMA’S GOING TO BE A ONE-TERM PRESIDENT!!! :D” while Americans are like “Who gives a ****? \o/ We’re starving RIGHT NOW, *****! :/ DO SOMETHING TO HELP US! :(”
So then.. The Republican plan “to help the American people” is to ease taxes and regulations that discourage so-called “Job Creators” from hiring Americans, right?
I agree with that concept in theory.
I agree that nobody wants to hire someone and then find out next year that their employee costs them more than they thought and their business plan got whacked.
I agree that there are probably way too many useless regulations that make it take a very long time for people to start businesses or secure patents or whatever.
However.. There’s no direct correlation between “Job Creators” getting tax breaks and them creating *AMERICAN* jobs.
We already saw this scenario play out, only a few years ago:
By Aviva Aron-Dine
January 30, 2008
When the Senate Finance Committee considers stimulus legislation today, Senator John Ensign is expected to offer an amendment dealing with repatriated foreign earnings. Modeled on a provision included in the 2004 American Jobs Creation Act, Senator Ensign’s amendment would create a tax holiday during which repatriated earnings would be taxed at a rate of just 5 percent, rather than at the normal corporate income tax rate of 35 percent. That is, for a specified period, controlled foreign corporations could pay dividends to their U.S. parent corporations, and the parent corporations would pay tax on these dividends at an extremely low rate.
Senator Ensign’s proposed repatriation measure suffers from the same basic problem that plagues most other business tax breaks offered as stimulus measures: it would infuse cash into large, profitable corporations unlikely to spend it quickly, and so would have little effect in stimulating the economy in the near term. Evidence from the 2004 repatriation tax holiday confirms that such a provision is more likely to provide a windfall to shareholders than to promote substantial new U.S. investment.
In addition, the Ensign Amendment would not only be ineffective as stimulus, but would also create significant new problems for the economy and the tax system. A repeat of the 2004 tax holiday will lead firms to expect more tax holidays, with the unfortunate result that they will be more inclined to invest in tax havens and less inclined to reinvest earnings in the United States.
The Bush Administration opposed the repatriation provision enacted in 2004, arguing that it was weak stimulus and bad tax policy. Then-Treasury Secretary John Snow wrote that an analysis by the Counsel of Economic Advisors found the provision “would not produce any substantial economic benefits,” while Tax Notes reported that “Treasury questioned the true stimulative effect of the provision, given that money is fungible” and expressed concern over making “a fundamental change [to international tax rules] on a temporary basis.” For the same reasons, adding the Ensign Amendment to the Finance Committee stimulus package would be unsound economic and tax policy today.
The Ensign Amendment would not provide effective stimulus. The 2004 experience suggests that while a tax holiday for repatriated earnings would entice firms to bring cash back to the United States, that does not mean they would actually reinvest it in the U.S. during the economic downturn. As a recent Goldman Sachs analysis notes, “companies don’t spend money just because it’s there to spend. To justify outlays for new projects, the expected returns have to exceed the costs, and that usually requires growth in demand strong enough to put pressure on existing resources.” The most promising strategy for boosting business production and investment during a slowdown or recession involves measures to boost consumer demand, not measures to simply boost business cash flows.
In case you can’t understand what all that said, think about it this way..
Let’s say, hypothetically, that I was a “Job Creator” and I decided that I was going to move my factory from Flint Michigan to Mexico so I could get the same work for much less money and increase my company’s profits as well as my own take-home monetary bonus.
Now.. Let’s say that I didn’t want to bring the money I made in Mexico back to the United States because they were going to charge me googobs of tax on it.
If they tell me “Here’s a temporary break, so you can bring your money back home for 5% instead of 35%”, I’m going to say “SWEET!!! 😀 … NOW, I CAN HIRE MORE *MEXICANS*!!! :D”
I know you think I’m being funny.. And I am, but I’m not.
Maybe this will make more sense to you.. Let’s say I know a bunch of chicks that are down to have sex with me right now, and I also know a bunch of chicks that are going to require me to wait a couple of weeks to feel them up and then a couple more weeks to make out with them, etc.
It doesn’t matter how you change the game. I still have to jump through unnecessary hoops with the latter set of chicks to get the same thing I can get right now from the former set.
What’s my incentive to do that? o_O .. Nothing.
So.. As it stands right now.. The Democrats are saying that teachers, construction workers, and they myriad war veterans they’re about to bring home before the election can have jobs RIGHT NOW, and the Republicans are saying that IF you give tax breaks to the people that already created jobs in other countries, MAYBE they’ll create some jobs with that money, and MAYBE those jobs will be for AMERICANS instead of them hiring more NON-AMERICANS like they already did, or else Repatriation of Earnings” wouldn’t be an issue at all, because they would have hired AMERICAN in the first place.
The Overseas Profits Elephant in the Room
There’s a trillion dollars waiting to be repatriated if tax policy is right.
By JOHN CHAMBERS AND SAFRA CATZ
During last year’s “Jobs Summit,” President Obama said he was open to any good idea to get the economy moving again. Today he should be especially so, since Washington’s many monetary and fiscal policy decisions have not been able to spur the robust growth or job expansion that we all would like. And yet there is a simple idea, the trillion-dollar elephant in the room that has apparently been dismissed for no good reason.
One trillion dollars is roughly the amount of earnings that American companies have in their foreign operations, and that they could repatriate to the United States. That money, in turn, could be invested in U.S. jobs, capital assets, research and development, and more.
But for U.S companies such repatriation of earnings carries a significant penalty: a federal tax of up to 35%. This means that U.S. companies can, without significant consequence, use their foreign earnings to invest in any country in the world. except here.
The U.S. government’s treatment of repatriated foreign earnings stands in marked contrast to the tax practices of almost every major developed economy, including Germany, Japan, the United Kingdom, France, Spain, Italy, Russia, Australia and Canada, to name a few. Companies headquartered in any of these countries can repatriate foreign earnings to their home countries at a tax rate of 0%-2%. That’s because those countries realize that choking off foreign capital from their economies is decidedly against their national interests.
Many commentators have pointed to the large cash balances sitting on U.S. corporate books as evidence that the economy is still stalled because companies aren’t spending. That analysis misses the point. Large cash balances remain on U.S. corporate books because U.S. companies can’t spend their foreign-held cash in the U.S. without incurring a prohibitive tax liability.
Especially with corporate bond rates falling below 4%, it’s hard to imagine any responsible corporation repatriating foreign earnings at a combined federal and state tax rate approaching 40%.
By permitting companies to repatriate foreign earnings at a low tax rate?say, 5%?Congress and the president could create a privately funded stimulus of up to a trillion dollars. They could also raise up to $50 billion in federal tax revenue. That’s money the economy would not otherwise receive.
The amount of corporate cash that would come flooding into the country could be larger than the entire federal stimulus package, and it could be used for creating jobs, investing in research, building plants, purchasing equipment, and other uses. It could also provide needed stability for the equity markets because companies would expand their activity in mergers and acquisitions, and would pay dividends or buy back stock. And when markets go up, confidence increases and businesses and consumers begin to spend.
The $50 billion boost in federal tax revenue, meanwhile, could be used to help put America back to work. For example, Congress could use it to give employers?large or small?a refundable tax credit for hiring previously unemployed workers (including recent graduates). The tax credit could equal up to 50% of a worker’s first-year and second-year wages, capped at $12,500 per year (or $25,000 total per new hire).
Such a program could help put more than two million Americans back to work at no cost to the government or American taxpayers. How’s that for a good idea?
Mr. Chambers is chairman and chief executive officer of Cisco Systems. Ms. Catz is president of Oracle Corporation.
Did you see how many times the word “COULD” was used in that article? 😀 hahaha “Could” means MAYBE, not DEFINITELY.
If you cross the street when the sign says “Don’t Walk”, you COULD get hit by a car.
That doesn’t mean you DEFINITELY WILL get hit by a car, especially if no cars are coming and you looked both ways before you crossed the street.
How would you feel if you walked up to a hooker and she told you “Give me $50 and MAYBE I’ll blow you”? o_O
That’s Right.. You’d say “GEEEEEEEEEEEET THE **** OUTTA HERE!!!” >:D
You’re paying the hooker because the sex is GUARANTEED. Otherwise, you’d be at home, taking your chances with your wife.
Good Luck that it’s your birthday or you got a raise today…..
The Republicans may very well be right. Easing the tax burden and getting rid of unnecessary regulations might very well be the only way to stimulate business growth in the USA over the long term.
Even if that’s true, it doesn’t do jack shit for Americans who are currently unemployed, not eating well, losing their homes, and have no hope in sight, while wealthy politicians act like it’s cool that people are starving and losing.
Cain says that if you’re broke, it’s your fault.
Romney says to let you lose your house so the housing market can self-correct.
Bachmann says maybe your church will look out for you if you don’t have health care.
Paul says **** you if a natural disaster blows your house down outside of Texas.
Who cares what Santorum says?
Perry says YEEEE-HAWWWW!!! 😀 and gives the Democrats more ammunition against him for attack ads every. single. week. without. fail.
Gingrich plays Rodney King every debate, talking about “Can’t we all just get along? :(”
This is serious comedy, except it’s not funny.
I’d honestly like to know why the Republicans have fielded such poor candidates for the most important job on the planet, for two cycles in a row (seven years).
I’d honestly like to know why the people that the Republicans have been *BEGGING* to run, like Chris Christie and Paul Ryan refuse to do it.
I’d honestly like to know why since the Republican-skewed pundits talk all this **** about how horrible President Obama is and how easy it’s going to be for them to replace him with a Republican in 2012, why there aren’t like 80 DUDES trying to be the next President.
Speaking of dudes.. I’d like to know why the Republicans think they can counter a female presence like Hillary Clinton with the likes of Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann. Do y’all *REALLY* think there’s a mental comparison? I mean, really? o_O
This whole situation is pathetic, but it’s still better than Jersey Shore.
We’ll be rid of all of these clowns other than Romney, Perry, and Cain very very soon, because you get ejected from the race eventually if you don’t have enough money.
Sarah Palin did the smart thing. She pretended like she was going to run, got a lot of contributions and then bounced. >:D Props to her. Now *THAT’S* Pimpin’!!! >:D
Herman Cain will probably be the next Jerry Springer.
If they have the nerve to send Cain against Obama, Cain will be verbally demolished and lose the election horribly.
If they send Perry, they may as well double down and send Bachmann as his VP.. or, even better.. Throw Trump on the ticket for comedic effect.
The Republicans’ *ONLY* chance in 2012 is to back Romney, which is why name-brand politicians have started publicly announcing that they endorse him.
Part of the reason that Romney’s viable is the same reason that he’s having trouble in the polls… Conservatives know that he’s not actually a Conservative.
As soon as he wins the nomination, you’ll start seeing him getting blasted in Democratic attack ads for saying different things at different times, depending on who he’s speaking to and what he wants them to do.
If you can’t wait that long, go visit www.whichmitt.com and play the multiple-choice game:
Romney has a chance to defeat President Obama because he’s going to appeal to the general public by telling them whatever they want to hear.
Perry & Cain are bought and paid for, so there’s no way they’re going to change their statements from what they’ve been saying over the last few months.
Neither of their dogs are going to hunt in the general election.
If we have *ANY* President other than Barack Obama after the 2012 election votes are tallied, I’ll be ultimately surprised, because this is a Republican fiasco.
The ones that say they’re happy with their field of candidates are lying.
The pundits that treat Bachmann, Gingrich & Santorum like viable candidates are losing credibility every day, but making sure they get their paycheck.