No, Moron, That's Not What We're Wondering ...

The dimwit in charge of the State Department (as opposed to the Wimp-in-Chief) was recently quoted in at least one news article as saying that Americans are likely asking themselves:

“How could this happen in a country we helped liberate, in a city we helped save from destruction? This question reflects just how complicated and, at times, how confounding the world can be."

Actually, no, that's not what people are thinking. They're thinking "How could you be so stupid to think it would turn out any other way?" Let's see, 9/11 the anniversary of 9/11/2001. No, nothing's going to happen then. Warnings from the Egyptian government. Ahh, they're probably just over-reacting.

And why are our sovereign lands, surrounded by anti-US militants being guarded by native, least-cost, un-trained, probably double-agent, security guards from the host country? I'm sure it's very unlikely that they might have interests stronger than risking their lives to protect American interests...

Why the hell weren't the Marines there? To keep the natives from feeling offended? Tough S**t! Let them get over it...

So now the question is no longer, should we stop giving them aid? If we'd been defending our own interests properly, and as required by these fools' Oaths of Office, that would still be the question. The question has now become, why the hell are we not dropping thousands of 500lb bunker busters on them?

These morons' inability to do their job in protecting US interests has now made things MUCH worse for US interests.

To paraphrase what a famous actor recently said, "If they aren't doin' their job, ya gotta let 'em go..." It's time for them all to go. Even their stupid, moronic questions show that they don't understand their real job...

[Edit shortly after original post]
Now we know they DID know, and they STILL did nothing.  When will Congress get some cojones and impeach this fool in the White House?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/09/14/diplomatic-western-posts-targeted-repeatedly-in-benghazi-in-run-up-to-deadly/?intcmp=trending

Should Businesses Pay Income Taxes?

This is, of course, a trick question. The answer is "no". The reason is very simple - businesses never really pay taxes, they simply collect "hidden" taxes from their customers - some of which they pass on to the government. Let me illustrate with an example of two fictitious companies, Company A and Company B.

Both companies produce a "glibbitch" product. They each have the same market share, and their annual revenues are each $10,000,000.00 dollars. Because they have a fungible product, and their production costs are similar, they have the same Costs of Goods Sold. Let's assume that it costs each company $9,000,000.00 to make their product, pay salaries, cover advertising, etc. So each of them supposedly starts with a company income before taxes (Revenue - Expenses) of a cool $1,000,000.00. However, Company B has one significant advantage over Company A that is not related to the product they both sell - Company B has better tax attorneys.

So Company A pays the Coporate Tax on $1,000,000 at say 30% or $300,000.00. However, Company B's lawyers are REALLY good at ferreting out some loopholes, and at the end of the year Company pays $100.00 in Corporate Income Tax. Now, both companies have sold the same amount of goods, earned the same amount of revenue, and made the same amount of income before taxes. Yet company A passes on $300,000.00 of the tax money it collected, while Company B only passes on $100.00 of the same $300,000.00 of tax money it collected.

Why do I say that Company A and B both collected $300,000.00 in tax money? Well, for one thing, the Government says it's not theirs (initially). Secondly, all that money, regardless of how much gets passed on, came entirely from their customers! The customers paid the $300,000.00 to each company! It was built into the price! Company B was just better at not having to pay it to the Government!

Now suppose the world changes overnight and on January 1st, 200x the Business Tax Rate goes to zero. All of a sudden A and B are on the same footing. Company A is now looking at increasing their profits by $300,000 per year while poor old Company B, that was doing so much better before, is looking at a measly $100.00 increase in their profits for the year.

But will Company A really do that?  If they do, then there is nothing to really distinguish them from Company B. And frankly, if they lowered their price so their annual income was just $9,900,000.00, they would still be be making more money and cost less than Company B. Remember, Company B has been paying only $100.00 each year in taxes. If they lower their price to match Company A, their net profits (after taxes) would actually go DOWN. That's not good for the shareholders....

So Company A's market share will increase. Remember, "glibbitch's" are a fungible product. So now more customers are paying less money to get the same product, because the hidden tax is now gone.

Eventually, the Government would have to raise the sales tax on "glibbitch's" because their revenue has gone down. But that's OK. Because now it's clear how much money is the Government's.

But more importantly, and rarely discussed, is that now Company A and B have to complete solely on their primary business - which is making "glibbitch's". Company B will have to lower their price to match A's. But since B is now making less revenue, they'll have to figure out how to make their product either less expensively, or improve it to maintain the price they were getting before. The important issue is that they will now compete on the price/value of their product - not on how good their tax lawyers are. Isn't that better for us all? (Well, maybe not the tax lawyers...)

A Democrat September Surprise?

A day or so ago, I had a premonition.

I think there will be a "September Surprise" from the Democratic Convention starting this coming week. My premonition is, that on the day that the VP candidate is to be announced and voted on, Old Joe will withdraw for family/medical reasons. The party will be thrown into apparent turmoil. "What are we do?" "We sympathize with Joe, but we need a candidate!" "We have to draft somebody!" "I know, let's draft Hillary!"

Yes, my premonition is that Hillary Clinton will be drafted as the VP candidate for the Democrats. I know the buzz is that she was "asked" and she "declined". Pundits have posited that

• If BO loses the 2012 election, then she will be associated with a second failure in a presidential campaign, and
• If BO wins, she doesn't want to be forced to defend his policies in 2016 when she runs again

But I think the party is scared, and sees her as necessary. And the party doesn't care about her reasons. They just want to win. They'll demand that she accept for the "good of the party". This scenario gives her and them perfect cover.

If BO loses 2012, she can claim that it wasn't really anything to do with her, because she was "drafted" and didn't really want it in the first place.

If BO wins, she won't have to support his policies in 2016, because she only took the job for the "good of the party", and not because she believed in them.

That would ironic wouldn't it? BO's presidential campaign saved by your "typical, old, white woman"...