I Guess I Had A Pretty Good Year in 2010

Because I paid more taxes than General Fucking Electric.

And so did you, assuming you paid more than zero.

(from the NY Times)

G.E.’s Strategies Let It Avoid Taxes Altogether

By DAVID KOCIENIEWSKI

Published: March 24, 2011 

The company reported worldwide profits of $14.2 billion, and said $5.1 billion of the total came from its operations in the United States.
Its American tax bill? None. In fact, G.E. claimed a tax benefit of $3.2 billion.

 

Where's an angry mob when you need one?

 How much money does GE get from government contracts? How much do they get paid to build weapons to knock down Iraq, and how much are they getting paid to participate in Iraq's "reconstruction?" I don't know, I don't have time to research it, but obviously, it's way too much. If this company is unwilling to pay a cent towards making the US a strong nation, why the hell should it get to profit off of us?

Its extraordinary success is based on an aggressive strategy that mixes fierce lobbying for tax breaks and innovative accounting that enables it to concentrate its profits offshore.

And yet, according to Think Progress:

This year, 14 unions representing more than 15,000 workers will negotiate a new master contract with General Electric. Among the major concessions GE has signaled that it will ask of union workers is the elimination of a defined contribution benefit pension for new employees, a move the company has already implemented for its non-union salaried employees. Likewise, GE is signaling to the union that it will ask for the elimination of current health insurance plans in favor of lower quality health saving accounts, a move the company has already implemented for non-union salaried employees as well.

In addition, General Electric may ask some workers for a wage freeze. Since the recession began in 2007, GE threatened to close plants in Schenectady, NY and Louisville, KY unless workers took wage concessions and adopted two-tier wage structure.

Otherwise, how could they afford to pay all those accountants and lawyers to help them cheat on their taxes?

G.E.’s giant tax department, led by a bow-tied former Treasury official named John Samuels, is often referred to as the world’s best tax law firm. Indeed, the company’s slogan “Imagination at Work” fits this department well. The team includes former officials not just from the Treasury, but also from the I.R.S. and virtually all the tax-writing committees in Congress.

Oh, and it's probably going to get worse:

Such strategies, as well as changes in tax laws that encouraged some businesses and professionals to file as individuals, have pushed down the corporate share of the nation’s tax receipts — from 30 percent of all federal revenue in the mid-1950s to 6.6 percent in 2009.
Yet many companies say the current level is so high it hobbles them in competing with foreign rivals. Even as the government faces a mounting budget deficit, the talk in Washington is about lower rates. President Obama has said he is considering an overhaul of the corporate tax system, with an eye to lowering the top rate.

Oh, boy! Hope and Change!

And Jeff Immelt, the CEO of GE, the man whose company stiffs the taxpayers while screwing its workers? That guy? He's the chairman of the president's Council on Jobs and Competitiveness.

 

You're doing a heck of a job, Jeffie!

Newt Forgets the First Rule of Holes

The first rule of holes is: When you find yourself in one, stop digging.
Newt just keeps on digging himself in deeper on the whole marital infidelity thing.

from an interview with Chris Wallace on FOX "News."

WALLACE: So, I'm going to go there. You were asked recently about the fact that you cheated on your first and your second wives. And here's how you responded.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GINGRICH: There is no question that at times in my life partially driven by how passionately I felt about this country, that I worked far too hard, and that things happened in my life that were not appropriate.

Now at this point, you oughta realize you've dug yourself a hole. Once you blame your extra-marital affairs on your passion for the US of A, you need to look around and say "shit, I'm in a hole." And by "in a hole," I mean I've made myself look like a complete idiot as well as a serial philanderer.

Dang, I better quit digging!

But no, not Newt. When you're in over your head, time to double down.

WALLACE: Speaker, you've had more than a decade to come up with an answer. And in all honesty, there were a lot of people who thought that answer was kind of lame. I know it's heart-felt. [kiss ass!] But let me explain why. You love your country and you're working hard. And so you strayed. That wouldn't work with my wife.

Nor would it work with anyone's wife. It's just idiotic. It wouldn't work in any situation.
Your honor, before you pass sentence, may I just say in my defense that yes, I did rob that bank, but I was confused by how much I love America!

Oh, you clocked me at 70 in a 35 mph zone? Well excuse me for loving America!

WALLACE: There's something else that bothers people. You were leading the charge to push Bill Clinton from office for lying about an affair and yes, he lied in a court proceeding, in a deposition, where he was sworn to tell the truth, the whole truth, but nothing but the truth. At the same time, you were leading that charge, you were having an affair. Isn't that hypocrisy?

Now this would be the time to say yes. Say "yes, that was hypocritical of me, but I've matured and blah blah blah. . . "Who wants to bet that Gingrich won't say "yes?" 

GINGRICH: No. 

 

 Really?

GINGRICH: No. Look, obviously, it's complex 

No. It isn't. How is it complex? This is one of those "Oh, you're just not smart enough to understand" defenses, isn't it? 

GINGRICH: No. Look, obviously, it's complex and, obviously, I wasn't doing things to be proud of. 

Yeah, obviously.

On the other hand, what I said, very clearly -- I knew this in part going through a divorce --

 (two divorces. Both due to Newt's scumbaggery.)

I knew this in part going through a divorce -- I had been in depositions. I had been in situations where you had to swear to tell the truth.

See, Chris, you've never fucked around on your wife, so you wouldn't understand. It's very complex. Only a true sophisticate such as myself can really understand the subleties.

I understood that in a federal court, in a case in front of a federal judge, to commit a felony, which is what he did, perjury was a felony. 

That assault on syntax should be a felony! As should this next sentence:

I thought the notion -- I mean, I don't know what you would have had me do because I think the notion that the president of the United States committing perjury -- remember, he is a lawyer. 

What else would you have me do? What could I possibly do other than drag my political opponent through a sham impeachment on trumped-up charges? It's not like I wanted to, I had to!

 

Teabaggers In Action

Congratulations, America! These are the guys you put in charge.


Greg Hinkle, State Senator, Montana.

Here is what Hinkle has been doing to make Montana and, really all of America, a better place:

Montana Lawmaker Wants Feds to Alert Sheriffs on Arrests

By Douglas Kennedy

Published March 23, 2011

FoxNews.com

These days, Greg Hinkle, like many people, feels the federal government is out of control. But to Hinkle it’s not just about the deficit.

He believes federal law enforcement agencies are a big problem -- and that they have not been held accountable.

Sure, the deficit is a problem, but these feds just going around arresting criminals willy-nilly, that's the real issue!

 

Hinkle is a Republican state senator from Thomson Falls, and he recently proposed a law, likely the first of its kind, asking federal law enforcement to first seek approval of county sheriffs before any federal intervention in the state of Montana. He calls it “The Sheriffs First Bill.”

Because why should the FBI be allowed to make an arrest without first consulting this guy?

 

For instance, Hinkle would want the FBI to first notify a Montana sheriff before executing a search warrant or making an arrest in the state of Montana.

At one point he allowed for arrest of any federal agent who didn’t comply, but has since taken out that language.

This law could have been written by the Montana Freemen.

“How on earth could the states not challenge federal law?” he asked. “That's the way our system of government works.”

Well, in a way. If a state has a problem with a federal law, they can take it to the courts, like several states are doing with healthcare reform. You can't just pass a law giving your state authority over the federal govenrment. It just doesn't work that way.

“The states are what created the federal government,” he added, “so the states should actually have more authority than the federal government."

Well, maybe they should. But they don't. It's in the Constitution. You know, the document you teabaggers love to pretend is your scripture, instruction manual, and masturbation material all rolled into one.

But that's not all that Hinkle is doing to improve the lives of Montanans and, really, the whole world. 

Home / News / State And Regional News / Montana News

Senator defends spear-hunting bill before House committee

 

Yep, Greg Hinkle is protecting your right to throw a spear at a deer.

 

Also, you can shoot an arrow at a sparrow.

Throw a rock at a gamecock.

Take a club to a cub.

Hit ducks with nunchuks.

I could do this all day.

Saying that passage of his bill allowing hunting with spears would not result in people running around the Montana woods in loincloths, [then what's the point?] Sen. Greg Hinkle, R-Thompson Falls, defended his proposal before the House Fish, Wildlife and Parks Committee on Tuesday in Helena. 
The measure, Senate Bill 112, already has passed the Senate.

As has his "Sheriff's  First" bill, by the way, so apparently Montana is sort of a kooky place.

Hinkle said a spear is similar to a large arrow and added that it has been successfully used by our ancestors for thousands of years.
“It works. It’s been around a long time,” Hinkle said.

Also, why did we ever stop lighting fires with rocks and sticks? That works perfectly well. And what's the deal with cars? What, you got a problem with horses and buggies?

So Greg Hinkle really seems to believe in individual liberties. If you want to hunt with a spear, the government shouldn't be allowed to stand in your way. The Feds have to answer to local officials, no big government, let people do what they want. Unless what they want is to smoke pot to ease the effects of chemo. Then fuck you, we gotta get the government involved to stop that. Because otherwise, well let's let Greg Hinkle explain:

Hinkle said if the current marijuana law isn't fixed, Montana will be "faced with a tsunami that is going to make what happened to Japan look mighty small."

He couldn't possibly have meant. . .  I  mean, there's no way. . .let's give him a chance to clarify.

Senator Hinkle Stands By 'Tsunami' Comment

 Senator Greg Hinkle is standing by comments he made Monday, when he compared Montana's medical marijuana problem to the tsunami in Japan. NBC Montana caught up with the senator to set the record straight.

"When that tsunami came into shore, they really had no idea of what was going to happen and it overwhelmed them," explained Hinkle."I believe the same situation is happening in the state of Montana and the United States of America with the drug problem. It's getting larger, there will be lives lost and there has been lives lost."

Yeah, good job, Montana teabaggers! This is the guy you put in a position of responsibility.

AJ's Burgers in Hilton Head, SC is very tasty.

And the people there are super nice. There's just one thing they don't really seem to get.

# 16 VEGAN (4 - 5 oz.)



A black bean chipotle burger topped w/ Sautéed onion, green peppers,
mushrooms and choice of cheese

 But if you find yourself in Hilton Head, give 'em a try.


http://www.ajsburgers.net/homeVegan. With your choice of cheese.

William Kristol Is Disgusting



This is the opening line from Kristol's column:

And so, despite his doubts and dithering, President Obama is taking us to war in another Muslim country. Good for him..

And he's not being sarcastic.

The president didn’t want this. He’s been so unhappy about such a possibility—so fearful of such an eventuality—that first he tied himself in knots trying to do nothing.

What a dick, trying to avoid additional bloodshed!

Then he decided that, if he had to act, it would be good to boast that he was merely following the Arab League and subordinating American action to the U.N. Security Council. After all, nothing—nothing!—could be worse than the perception that the United States was “invading” another Muslim country.

And why the quotes around the word invading?

Rubbish. Our “invasions” have in fact been liberations.

Seriously, you're still trotting out the liberation b.s.? We're still waiting to be greeted as liberators in Iraq.

We have shed blood and expended treasure in Kuwait in 1991, in the Balkans later in the 1990s, and in Afghanistan and Iraq—in our own national interest, of course, but also to protect Muslim peoples and help them free themselves. Libya will be America’s fifth war of Muslim liberation.

Since when do the neocons give a fuck about Muslim people? Does this sick little prick really think that anyone believes that the Republican party is willing to spend one red cent to liberate Muslims? The people they take every opportunity to demonize and villify?

The modern Republican party has played a key role in these honorable struggles. When in power, Republicans have taken the lead in fighting for liberty.

If by "fighting" you mean "sending other people's sons and daughters off to fight," then yeah, you may have a point.

 

 When in opposition, they have sought to push Democratic presidents to act—in the Balkans, and today in Libya—

Oh, yeah, I remember how you guys pushed Clinton to act in the Balkans. I believe the refrain was "No War For Monica!"

We have supported Democratic presidents when they do exactly what we tell them to do. Well, "support" is a strong word.

On March 17, for example, a few hours before the Security Council voted on Libya, the House of Representatives considered a resolution offered by Rep. Dennis Kucinich, “Directing the President, pursuant to section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution, to remove the United States Armed Forces from Afghanistan.”

God Bless Dennis Kucinich!

The Afghanistan war has had bipartisan support from the beginning.
 The beginning when it was supposed to be about getting Osama bin Laden? Sure, there was plenty of bipartisan support for that. For some reason, there might be a bit less support for keeping troops in Afghanistan indefinitely with no apparent goal.

The Afghanistan war has had bipartisan support from the beginning. The Obama administration and the GOP leadership were both opposed to Kucinich’s resolution

Which probably tells you all you need to know about the supposed lefty/liberal Obama administration.

Kucinich’s resolution—which called not merely for timetables or draw downs, but for the simple and absolute removal of U.S. forces from Afghanistan. Yet close to half the Democrats in the House of Representatives voted for retreat and defeat.

The other half voted to continue to feed our soldiers into the meat grinder of Afghanistan for no earthly goddamned good reason? Who are these assholes?

And the Republicans? 222 to 8 against withdrawal

So there are 8 Republicans with some sense of human decency? That's a little encouraging.

That is what the modern Republican party has stood for. Part of that modern Republican tradition includes, when in opposition, supporting a Democratic administration when it does the right thing. That’s what Republicans have done with regard to Afghanistan. It’s what Republicans will do as the nation prosecutes the effort in Libya. And as Republicans select a 2012 nominee, they should seek a leader who will stand unabashedly for freedom at home and abroad.

It would almost be funny if there weren't people who take Kristol seriously.