novatownhall blog

Where you are held accountable for your convictions and record

[Scroll down - links to the NBC video clips of Sarah Palin on SNL are at the bottom of this post.]

Anybody else watching this?

She was pretty good in the opening “skit” – not much of a skit, but some humorous banter with Lorne Michael and Alec Baldwin (said “Stephen is my favorite Baldwin brother”).

Not sure if that’s it or what, but more power to her for doing it.

UPDATE: Boy, it is going to be a little painful having to watch all the non-Palin skits in the meantime. Maybe it’s like that philosopher dude once speculated about music – that eventually all the possible melodies would be used and that would be it: Maybe all the jokes have already been written, and there is nothing left for SNL to do but play out the string. At 11:45 pm this is some unfunny stuff going on here in this first sketch and it is supposed to be the good material at the beginning, right?

UPDATE II: The real VW and Burger King commercials are FAR more entertaining than the SNL “MacGruber” McGyver parody. Lorne Michael should go to Madison Ave and hire some writers.

UPDATE III: 11:56 pm – Maybe no more Palin? The Suze Orman sketch was lame. I’m gonna surf the Web while this is on because this is one upcoming hour of life I know I won’t get back.

UPDATE IV: Elsewhere, African Press International says the Michelle Obama story will be updated tomorrow. This could be big news. Michelle apparently called in to complain about something and let slip that Barack Obama was adopted by a foreign national after he was born, and thus was not a U.S. citizen. Supposedly API is going to release the audio of the phone call from Michelle Obama, a phone call the Obama campaign reportedly says never took place.

UPDATE V: Powerline was worried the Palin appearance would be like going into the lion’s den but if that at the beginning was it, no harm done to her and she performed fine, certainly reminded why people love her. And a nice counterpoint to the Tina Fey impersonation version of herself which was playing at the same time. Made Fey’s look pretty insipid. But all in good fun.

UPDATE VI: She’s back, on Weekend Update. “I’m not gonna do the piece we rehearsed … I think it just might cross the line.” A rap. Sarah is playing along … heh. This is pretty funny actually.

UPDATE VII: Man, Sarah Palin is a natural in front of the camera. No wonder she strikes such apocalyptic fear in the hearts of her opponents. I know I speak for all of America when I say: We want to see more Sarah Palin!

UPDATE VIII: Whoa. Barack Obama and Bill Ayers shared an office for three years. That does not seem like it’s made it into the narrative yet; it will be interesting to see how this will update the “when I was 8 years old” data point, you know, the one where Barack Obama knows practically nothing about Bill Ayers.

UPDATE IX: NBC says the video of Sara Palin’s appearances will be up on their Web site, not there yet though. Here’s a snippet of the first portion on youtube. (May not be there long … copyright issues).

UPDATE X: Sarah came out for the farewell from the stage, about 15 seconds. Tina Fey did not appear to be out there.

UPDATE XI: NBC videos coming up now. Here is the opening. (Does Sarah Palin look good in comparison or what?) And here is the Palin rap.

UPDATE XII: Wow, Palin brought the highest SNL ratings in 14 years.

I found this rather interesting. While I am not of the Russian Orthodox (or Eastern Orthodox in general) church, I felt the writings of Solzhenitsyn almost prophetic. The number of categories this falls under are profound … it is the basis for what is wrong with all of society: those in power, those wanting power, the “right to abortion”, the 2nd amendment (and the need for it), the campaign, the economy, history, immigration, the judiciary, politics, religion, explicitly socialism, and war.

While I don’t think McCain is the best person for the office of the president (yet closer to that ideal than Obama) the main reason I will vote for Palin is that I would not want to see a Justice Hilary Clinton on the court. The Republican machine at this point is running on the presumption that the core conservative vote will not abandon them, and because of the person the Dems have up, that is true this time around. While Obama himself is bad enough, an even worse thought would be Justice Clinton — heaven help us — but with him in office, I could see that happening.

Thank you, John McCain, this is a start:

At least in Europe, the Socialist leaders who so admire my opponent are upfront about their objectives…

But soon, Mr. McCain, we need to hear you say something much more like this.

Are you ready for this kind of change, America?

So I reached for the sign that he ripped up, and he grabbed another sign, broke it, and ripped it to shreds. And when I said, “You can’t do that,” he took the stick from the sign and started beating me on the head with it. He broke the skin on my head, he scratched my wrist, and almost broke my glasses, and then he left.

I followed him down the stairs to the subway until I could get the police and I said, “You’re not going to get away with it.” And as soon as he saw the police he immediately went calm. He still had the stick in his hand, and you could see the injury on my face, and he admitted it. He was arrested. He actually said, “I don’t know why I did this. It’s just those signs, and this election, it has me so upset.”

The story is not so much another dangerous Obama follower, but the media which will refuse to report on yet another incident of radical suppression of free speech by the Obama followers.

In two and a half weeks it looks like we are well on our way to getting our first communist, pro-terrorist, pro-infanticide president of the good old US of A. How is it happening? Simple:

the Democrats’ entire strategy is based upon blaming the Republicans for the subprime catastrophe they themselves caused.

A great big whopping lie that our side is too timid to refute.

But there is hope, there are things we can do: Following are all of your marching orders – read them all.

Sanity has proposed some good thoughts on the question of “What would companies do if there were no corporate income taxes?”  They are misconceptions, but they are easy ones to make and are commonly made, and they deserve to be addressed.

(1) Reduce investing money back in the company since it will be cheaper to pay dividends – Shareholders will put even more pressure on.

It is by investments (in R&D, new equipment, etc.) that companies grow.  They grow to make even more money for their investors.  As they grow, their stock prices generally go up.  Those gains are not taxed until the stock is sold.  This does provide a tax incentive to not pay dividends, which are subject to double taxation — once as corporate income, and once as personal income to the shareholders.

At some point, companies do get to the point at which they have more profits than they believe can be profitably invested, at which point they start paying dividends.   (By “profitably” I mean providing a reasonable return, not just a positive return.)  Microsoft is a classic example.  After many years of growth, and plowing the profits back into the company for R&D to fuel that growth, Microsoft’s board decided to start paying dividends.  I do not doubt that the reduction in the taxation of dividends had an effect on that decision.   But even with the tax advantages of not paying dividends, the board decided to pay dividends.

So where will the money go?  To the shareholders, of course.  What will the shareholders do with it?  Some will spend it, of course, but those people would have gotten the money out of their investments by selling shares if they were not getting it in dividends.  The rest, wanting their money invested, will reinvest it.  In other words, they will put their money into other companies that are putting their money into R&D, not dividends.  (Really, this only works for IPOs and secondary offerings, but the effect is that the money gets there eventually.)  In short, dividends move capital from one company, through the shareholders, to another that can more profitably employ that capital.

I would rather our tax code not hamper that flow of capital.


(2) Reduce or eliminate charitable spending as they will get no direct benefit from it.

At the highest corporate tax rate, 39%, a company will get $39 back for every $100 it gives in charity.  No matter how you slice it, that’s $61 in lost profit.  As in (1), that money could be reinvested for growth, or paid in dividends, which, in a roundabout way, ends up reinvested.  So in no case is charity a plus for a company, save perhaps in “goodwill.”


(3) Reduce payroll as this will not be deductible any more.

Possible, but not likely.  In fact, I would expect the opposite to be more likely, as companies, having more money to spend, would bid up the wages of workers to get them.


(4) Others that don’t come to mind immediately but I could easily research if I cared more.

Apathy — a most expensive commodity.