US tax reform, if it passes, predicted to drive Apple toward $1 trillion market cap

2

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 55

    gatorguy said:
    Apple has made no allowance at all for deferred taxes on the majority of it's profits. Apple has said as much, and which makes perfect sense as there is no circumstance where they believe they ever will pay US corporate taxes on it. 
    That is an incredibly uninformed statement.

    Apple carries potential taxes owed (should offshore cash be repatriated) on its balance sheet as a contingent tax liability (the contingency being IF they repatriate the cash).  The contingent taxes owed are calculated quarterly based on Apple's effective tax rate for that period.  The cumulative rate since the last tax repatriation is about 26.94%.  Reducing the tax rate on repatriated cash to 8.75% (amount stated in the proposed tax reform act) would INCREASE Apple's Net Income by about $44.70 Billion.  Stated another way (based on estimated share count January 2018) EPS will increase by about $8.90.

    A conservative earnings multiple of 15, applied to the increase in Net Income (expressed as EPS) will increase the value of AAPL by about $100 (net of reduction in value to current earnings multiple).
    SpamSandwich
  • Reply 22 of 55
    tzm41 said:
    Why do I feel the main theme of the "tax reform" is to put heavier burden on the middle class and give more cut to the big corporates? That doesn't seem very good to me.
    What is proposed doesn’t support your feeling. Middle class and small business owners would see large cuts.
    I haven't seen any interpretation of the (so far vague) proposals suggesting large cuts for the middle class.

    From WashPo:

    According to President Trump, there's one overriding reason America needs tax cuts: They’ll get the economy humming. “It's called a middle class miracle,” Trump said at the end of September.

    But here's the catch: The White House says the U.S. economy is going to be vastly better off after slashing taxes, but just about everyone else says the impacts will be modest, especially for the middle class.

    This isn’t a liberal versus conservative debate. This is a White House and top GOP leaders versus pretty much everyone else debate.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/10/09/goldman-sachs-predicts-dinky-boost-from-trumps-tax-cuts/?utm_term=.b8f47327f727

    It's possible there are other ways to read the general plans that this administration has floated.
    dysamoria
  • Reply 23 of 55
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 21,102member

    gatorguy said:
    Apple has made no allowance at all for deferred taxes on the majority of it's profits. Apple has said as much, and which makes perfect sense as there is no circumstance where they believe they ever will pay US corporate taxes on it. 
    That is an incredibly uninformed statement.

    Apple carries potential taxes owed (should offshore cash be repatriated) on its balance sheet as a contingent tax liability (the contingency being IF they repatriate the cash).  
    Only for those funds not identified as permanently invested overseas. Those are not ever considered to be subject to US taxation and so Apple very properly does NOT make allowances for deferred US taxes on those funds. You very obviously haven't looked. So sir, YOURS would be the incredibly misinformed statement if you hadn't bothered to look, especially since the "permanently invested overseas" accounts for the majority of Apple's profits. 

    But if you happen to stumble on the account where Apple is claiming around $90B in deferred taxes let us know. 
    edited October 2017
  • Reply 24 of 55

    gatorguy said:
    IMHO not a chance in hell that Apple repatriates $219B to the US even at a 10% tax-rate, and that assumes it doesn't tick up closer to 15% to get holdout legislators on board, or even passes anyway. Apple's effective overseas tax rates are significantly less than that now.

     If I read things correctly Ireland has set up a new special tax rate of 6.5% that companies like Apple, Google and others with intellectual property can take advantage of.

    Then there is Singapore, another strategic country in Apple's tax avoidance strategies. Their standard corporate tax rate is 17 percent but it expects zero for sales generated outside of Singapore. The US will never compete with that. 
    It's appalling how little some people know about taxation.

    #1.  Ireland's tax law was established before the turn of the century.  Apple has been using Ireland since 1979 to reduce (legally) its offshore tax obligations.

    #2. Singapore, like nearly ALL of Apple's markets, divides tax between taxes on production (the 17% rate) and taxes on consumption (a national sales tax).  If the product is not consumed in Singapore there is NO national sales tax obligation.  This national sales tax is often referred to as a Value Added Tax (VAT).

    If the US adopted a similar tax strategy its exports would be priced lower, and imports (from Countries such as Singapore) would be priced higher, having the desired effect of encouraging US manufacturing vs shipping jobs offshore.  A move to a consumption tax would not effect the prices of US produced goods, sold in the US, as the sales tax would be offset by the reduction in production taxes.  You can read more about it at https://fairtax.org/about/how-fairtax-works

    There have been numerous attempts to change our tax strategy, all being thwarted by those who campaign on "tax the rich".  If the US adopted a consumption (that would put US production on an equal footing with offshore producers) tax the group thwarting the change would lose their primary campaign issue.
  • Reply 25 of 55
    frankiefrankie Posts: 373member
    The last thing multi-billion $ companies need is another tax break, when most of them are barely paying as it is.
    dysamoria
  • Reply 26 of 55
    cgWerkscgWerks Posts: 2,296member
    Huge mega-corporations will always have a lot of tax leverage, as they can play with international policy and afford the best advisors to be sure they pay the lowest amounts. They can also cut deals with certain countries, states, etc. to create jobs there in exchange for tax-breaks. (Which the media is now often labeling as cheating on taxes.)

    So, the tax rate in that regard is rather irrelevant where they are concerned. Where the tax rate really matters is for the small to medium businesses who don't have that kind of flexibility or leverage. Giving them lower taxes can have a huge impact on the economy, create more jobs, etc.

    But, I don't think Apple is going to bring a bunch of money home to the USA. The tax advantages elsewhere (even under the new proposals) are much more attractive.
  • Reply 27 of 55
    DETelecomsDETelecoms Posts: 1unconfirmed, member
    Apple deserves this! For the quality they deliver and for being the best computing ecosystem. This MUST pass!!

    God bless Trump, God bless USA!
    SpamSandwich
  • Reply 28 of 55

    gatorguy said:
    Apple has made no allowance at all for deferred taxes on the majority of it's profits. Apple has said as much, and which makes perfect sense as there is no circumstance where they believe they ever will pay US corporate taxes on it. 
    That is an incredibly uninformed statement.

    Apple carries potential taxes owed (should offshore cash be repatriated) on its balance sheet as a contingent tax liability (the contingency being IF they repatriate the cash).  The contingent taxes owed are calculated quarterly based on Apple's effective tax rate for that period.  The cumulative rate since the last tax repatriation is about 26.94%.  Reducing the tax rate on repatriated cash to 8.75% (amount stated in the proposed tax reform act) would INCREASE Apple's Net Income by about $44.70 Billion.  Stated another way (based on estimated share count January 2018) EPS will increase by about $8.90.

    A conservative earnings multiple of 15, applied to the increase in Net Income (expressed as EPS) will increase the value of AAPL by about $100 (net of reduction in value to current earnings multiple).
    You're correct in that Apple has provided for deferred tax liability on much of its as-yet unremitted foreign earnings. But it doesn't calculate that liability by applying its effective tax rate to those unremitted foreign earnings. Indeed, that effective tax rate itself includes the deferred tax liability that we're referring to.

    That deferred tax liability is calculated by determining (or estimating) how much tax would be owed if a certain portion of Apple's unremitted foreign earnings were distributed to Apple. As of now, about half of Apple's unremitted foreign earnings are intended to be indefinitely reinvested outside of the United States. Apple doesn't provide for deferred tax liability on that portion of its unremitted foreign earnings. With the rest, the deferred tax liability provided for would (more or less) be the U.S. statutory rate of 35% minus the amount of foreign taxes which was paid on those earnings.

    You are also correct that, if Apple repatriated those earnings (i.e. the portion on which it has provided for deferred tax liability) at a lower effective tax rate, that would represent additional net income for Apple. It wouldn't represent about $44.7 billion worth however. I'd have to do some digging to give a more precise estimate. But as of the end of FY 2016 Apple had a little over $100 billion worth of foreign earnings which it recognized deferred tax liability on. That deferred tax liability wouldn't have been more than around $35 billion. And, of course, whatever tax Apple paid as a result of repatriating those earnings would have to be subtracted from that amount in determining how much additional net income that repatriation (at a lowered rate) represented. If Apple repatriated part of the rest of its as-yet unremitted foreign earnings (of which it also has more than $100 billion worth), whatever taxes were due as a result would represent a reduction from Apple's net income. As it is no taxes have been provided for on those earnings.

    Whatever additional net income resulted from such developments, it wouldn't make sense to value it (as part of the value of AAPL) at a multiple of 15. It wouldn't be recurring; that kind of additional income wouldn't happen every year. There could, however, be an increase in net income going forward from a reduced corporate tax rate or from the elimination of taxes on foreign earnings. But it wouldn't, on an annual basis, be nearly $45 billion or even $30 billion.
    edited October 2017
  • Reply 29 of 55
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 21,102member
    carnegie said:

    You're better at words than I am. :) Same idea but presented more professionally for the OP. Thanks.
  • Reply 30 of 55
    gatorguy said:

    gatorguy said:
    Apple has made no allowance at all for deferred taxes on the majority of it's profits. Apple has said as much, and which makes perfect sense as there is no circumstance where they believe they ever will pay US corporate taxes on it. 
    That is an incredibly uninformed statement.

    Apple carries potential taxes owed (should offshore cash be repatriated) on its balance sheet as a contingent tax liability (the contingency being IF they repatriate the cash).  
    Only for those funds not identified as permanently invested overseas. Those are not ever considered to be subject to US taxation and so Apple very properly does NOT make allowances for deferred US taxes on those funds. You very obviously haven't looked. So sir, YOURS would be the incredibly misinformed statement if you hadn't bothered to look, especially since the "permanently invested overseas" accounts for the majority of Apple's profits. 

    But if you happen to stumble on the account where Apple is claiming around $90B in deferred taxes let us know. 
    Apple has provided for deferred tax liability on about half of its as-yet unremitted foreign earnings. As of the end of FY 2016, it had about $110 billion on which it hadn't provided for tax liability and about $106 billion on which it had. (And, of course, it has also provided for tax liability on some other foreign earnings which have been remitted to the parent company.)

    Also, to clarify - for others perhaps - we're talking about foreign earnings which are intended to be indefinitely reinvested outside the United States. Indefinitely doesn't necessarily mean permanently. But, at any rate, Apple doesn't provide for deferred tax liability on those foreign earnings.
  • Reply 31 of 55
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 21,102member
    carnegie said:
    gatorguy said:

    gatorguy said:
    Apple has made no allowance at all for deferred taxes on the majority of it's profits. Apple has said as much, and which makes perfect sense as there is no circumstance where they believe they ever will pay US corporate taxes on it. 
    That is an incredibly uninformed statement.

    Apple carries potential taxes owed (should offshore cash be repatriated) on its balance sheet as a contingent tax liability (the contingency being IF they repatriate the cash).  
    Only for those funds not identified as permanently invested overseas. Those are not ever considered to be subject to US taxation and so Apple very properly does NOT make allowances for deferred US taxes on those funds. You very obviously haven't looked. So sir, YOURS would be the incredibly misinformed statement if you hadn't bothered to look, especially since the "permanently invested overseas" accounts for the majority of Apple's profits. 

    But if you happen to stumble on the account where Apple is claiming around $90B in deferred taxes let us know. 
    Apple has provided for deferred tax liability on about half of its as-yet unremitted foreign earnings. As of the end of FY 2016, it had about $110 billion on which it hadn't provided for tax liability and about $106 billion on which it had. (And, of course, it has also provided for tax liability on some other foreign earnings which have been remitted to the parent company.)

    Also, to clarify - for others perhaps - we're talking about foreign earnings which are intended to be indefinitely reinvested outside the United States. Indefinitely doesn't necessarily mean permanently. But, at any rate, Apple doesn't provide for deferred tax liability on those foreign earnings.
    Thanks again for confirming I was not "incredibly misinformed" after all. Apple has made no allowance for taxes on the majority of their profits. You phrased it better than I did, but I like it when we actually agree.

    And in the future I'll use the work "indefinitely" rather that "permanently" (tho it could be permanently :)
    edited October 2017
  • Reply 32 of 55
    dysamoriadysamoria Posts: 2,283member
    spice-boy said:
    I am still waiting for the 1980's tax reform and the promised "trickle down" to reach the poor and middle class.....
    Corporations which will benefit from such tax reform will not use that that extra cash to create jobs in this country history has proven this. More money will be hoarded overseas in tax shelters and the consolidation of wealth and power will keep it's steady pace. 
    Wow, a sensible person who cares about society more than personal profit. Amazing!
  • Reply 33 of 55
    cgWerkscgWerks Posts: 2,296member
    spice-boy said:
    I am still waiting for the 1980's tax reform and the promised "trickle down" to reach the poor and middle class.....
    Corporations which will benefit from such tax reform will not use that that extra cash to create jobs in this country history has proven this. More money will be hoarded overseas in tax shelters and the consolidation of wealth and power will keep it's steady pace. 
    Most small to medium companies don't have oversea tax shelters or hordes of investors to keep happy. When they have more operating capital, they often invest it back into the company. Don't confuse the typical business with the few giant mega-corporations. The latter always has plenty of tax options no matter what the local government policy. If the tax burden gets too great, business slows and so does tax collection. There's nothing magic about 'trickle down'... it's kind of economics 101. (Note: I'm not agreeing with any particular linkage of those words to particular historical policies... just stating the obvious. What's you're referring to is a huge mixed bag with a bunch of other social movements, changes, and implications thrown in.)
  • Reply 34 of 55
    carnegie said:
    Apple has provided for deferred tax liability on about half of its as-yet unremitted foreign earnings. As of the end of FY 2016, it had about $110 billion on which it hadn't provided for tax liability and about $106 billion on which it had. (And, of course, it has also provided for tax liability on some other foreign earnings which have been remitted to the parent company.)

    Also, to clarify - for others perhaps - we're talking about foreign earnings which are intended to be indefinitely reinvested outside the United States. Indefinitely doesn't necessarily mean permanently. But, at any rate, Apple doesn't provide for deferred tax liability on those foreign earnings.
    Thank you for your response.  There are more than several (emotional and irrational) posts on line today about the cash repatriation that caused my blood to boil.  I rushed to press and overlooked key elements including that the windfall was not recurring earnings, and got deservedly burnt.  My numbers were driven by Daryanani's estimate of $197 Billion, on which he made no provisions for "earnings which are intended to be indefinitely reinvested outside the United and tax obligation set asides.  I leaped before looking and have the scars to prove it.

    tax reform tailwind math

    Daryanani assumes Apple will utilize 100% of repatriated cash to buyback 20% of outstanding shares at $165.  As of Apple's last 10Q Apple has been buying back at an average rate of 4.91% YoY for the past 10 quarters (roughly Maestri's period as CFO).  Twenty percent, even if spread over a year, is a mind boggling stretch.  His $165 buyback price assumes no increase in core earnings and earnings multiple, even with the appearance of a major buyer, over that year buyback period.  With WS price target consensus at $180 (and increasing), 2019 (and beyond) revenue/earnings prospects, AND we don't know the timing of bill passage/execution, I find it highly improbable that will happen.

    Thanks for calmly showing me what I should have seen.
  • Reply 35 of 55
    tzm41 said:
    tzm41 said:
    Why do I feel the main theme of the "tax reform" is to put heavier burden on the middle class and give more cut to the big corporates? That doesn't seem very good to me.
    What is proposed doesn’t support your feeling. Middle class and small business owners would see large cuts.
    Some would see large cuts. But who would see larger cuts?
    The real question is, who is actually paying the most in taxes? The answer is, those who make the most. "Fair share" talk is all hot air because those making the most and those making the least should all see an equitable FairTax style system, or something better if such a thing is possible.
  • Reply 36 of 55
    jbdragonjbdragon Posts: 2,170member
    tzm41 said:
    Why do I feel the main theme of the "tax reform" is to put heavier burden on the middle class and give more cut to the big corporates? That doesn't seem very good to me.
    What is proposed doesn’t support your feeling. Middle class and small business owners would see large cuts.


    Almost half the U.S. Population pay zero in federal taxes. That's the poor and lower middle class. When you pay out taxes and then get it all back again, you're not a tax payer. Leave the crazy high import taxes into the U.S. which is about the most expensive in the world, why would any company bring the money back here just for the U.S. Government to steal a chunk of it which wasn't even earned in this country.

    Personally, I don't think it should be taxed at all. But being greedy Governments, it at least should be under 10% if not lower. The Company's bring there money back HERE, and then it gets invested into other NEW things which at that point in time can then be TAXED!!!!

    Personally I think there should be just a Flat tax. Everyone pays the SAME FLAT RATE!!! You'r taxes easily done quickly on a postcard. No loopholes!!! If everyone is paying 10% for example, if you're poor, 10% isn't a lot of money in taxes. If you're a billionaire, that 10% is a whole hell of a lot more.

    Quite frankly, if the masses really saw out much they were paying in taxes, there would be a revolt. Local Taxes,State taxes, Federal Taxes, Property taxes. It goes on and on and on. Add all that up!!! Right now it just gets out of your pay check and so you don't think about it. It's auto added to all your bills and so yo don't really think about it. Yet taxes keep going up, why?

    We are so much in Debt, you could tax the so called rich 100% of their money and it wouldn't put a dent in it. Before we got off the Gold Standard with our money, You could put your money into the bank, it'll build interest and you could retire with that money. Inflation was very slow. Got off the gold standard so that the Government could just spend more money. Don't have enough, no problem, print a bunch more!!! Devaluing the dollar.

    The more money the Government steals from people, the more it wants. It's never enough. There's no end in site. If you let them, they'll take 100% of every single persons money and it still wouldn't be enough. There's no such thing as FREE STUFF. Someone ends up having to pay for it. As some point, it'll be you.
    cgWerks
  • Reply 37 of 55
    jbdragon said:
    tzm41 said:
    Why do I feel the main theme of the "tax reform" is to put heavier burden on the middle class and give more cut to the big corporates? That doesn't seem very good to me.
    What is proposed doesn’t support your feeling. Middle class and small business owners would see large cuts.


    Almost half the U.S. Population pay zero in federal taxes. That's the poor and lower middle class. When you pay out taxes and then get it all back again, you're not a tax payer. Leave the crazy high import taxes into the U.S. which is about the most expensive in the world, why would any company bring the money back here just for the U.S. Government to steal a chunk of it which wasn't even earned in this country.

    Personally, I don't think it should be taxed at all. But being greedy Governments, it at least should be under 10% if not lower. The Company's bring there money back HERE, and then it gets invested into other NEW things which at that point in time can then be TAXED!!!!

    Personally I think there should be just a Flat tax. Everyone pays the SAME FLAT RATE!!! You'r taxes easily done quickly on a postcard. No loopholes!!! If everyone is paying 10% for example, if you're poor, 10% isn't a lot of money in taxes. If you're a billionaire, that 10% is a whole hell of a lot more.

    Quite frankly, if the masses really saw out much they were paying in taxes, there would be a revolt. Local Taxes,State taxes, Federal Taxes, Property taxes. It goes on and on and on. Add all that up!!! Right now it just gets out of your pay check and so you don't think about it. It's auto added to all your bills and so yo don't really think about it. Yet taxes keep going up, why?

    We are so much in Debt, you could tax the so called rich 100% of their money and it wouldn't put a dent in it. Before we got off the Gold Standard with our money, You could put your money into the bank, it'll build interest and you could retire with that money. Inflation was very slow. Got off the gold standard so that the Government could just spend more money. Don't have enough, no problem, print a bunch more!!! Devaluing the dollar.

    The more money the Government steals from people, the more it wants. It's never enough. There's no end in site. If you let them, they'll take 100% of every single persons money and it still wouldn't be enough. There's no such thing as FREE STUFF. Someone ends up having to pay for it. As some point, it'll be you.
    I'm pretty much sold on the so-called FairTax, which is basically a flat tax. No more income tax and the IRS also gets shut down.
    cgWerks
  • Reply 38 of 55
    carnegie said:
    Apple has provided for deferred tax liability on about half of its as-yet unremitted foreign earnings. As of the end of FY 2016, it had about $110 billion on which it hadn't provided for tax liability and about $106 billion on which it had. (And, of course, it has also provided for tax liability on some other foreign earnings which have been remitted to the parent company.)

    Also, to clarify - for others perhaps - we're talking about foreign earnings which are intended to be indefinitely reinvested outside the United States. Indefinitely doesn't necessarily mean permanently. But, at any rate, Apple doesn't provide for deferred tax liability on those foreign earnings.
    Thank you for your response.  There are more than several (emotional and irrational) posts on line today about the cash repatriation that caused my blood to boil.  I rushed to press and overlooked key elements including that the windfall was not recurring earnings, and got deservedly burnt.  My numbers were driven by Daryanani's estimate of $197 Billion, on which he made no provisions for "earnings which are intended to be indefinitely reinvested outside the United and tax obligation set asides.  I leaped before looking and have the scars to prove it.

    tax reform tailwind math

    Daryanani assumes Apple will utilize 100% of repatriated cash to buyback 20% of outstanding shares at $165.  As of Apple's last 10Q Apple has been buying back at an average rate of 4.91% YoY for the past 10 quarters (roughly Maestri's period as CFO).  Twenty percent, even if spread over a year, is a mind boggling stretch.  His $165 buyback price assumes no increase in core earnings and earnings multiple, even with the appearance of a major buyer, over that year buyback period.  With WS price target consensus at $180 (and increasing), 2019 (and beyond) revenue/earnings prospects, AND we don't know the timing of bill passage/execution, I find it highly improbable that will happen.

    Thanks for calmly showing me what I should have seen.
    Understood.

    And you're welcome.
  • Reply 39 of 55

    gatorguy said:
    carnegie said:
    gatorguy said:

    gatorguy said:
    Apple has made no allowance at all for deferred taxes on the majority of it's profits. Apple has said as much, and which makes perfect sense as there is no circumstance where they believe they ever will pay US corporate taxes on it. 
    That is an incredibly uninformed statement.

    Apple carries potential taxes owed (should offshore cash be repatriated) on its balance sheet as a contingent tax liability (the contingency being IF they repatriate the cash).  
    Only for those funds not identified as permanently invested overseas. Those are not ever considered to be subject to US taxation and so Apple very properly does NOT make allowances for deferred US taxes on those funds. You very obviously haven't looked. So sir, YOURS would be the incredibly misinformed statement if you hadn't bothered to look, especially since the "permanently invested overseas" accounts for the majority of Apple's profits. 

    But if you happen to stumble on the account where Apple is claiming around $90B in deferred taxes let us know. 
    Apple has provided for deferred tax liability on about half of its as-yet unremitted foreign earnings. As of the end of FY 2016, it had about $110 billion on which it hadn't provided for tax liability and about $106 billion on which it had. (And, of course, it has also provided for tax liability on some other foreign earnings which have been remitted to the parent company.)

    Also, to clarify - for others perhaps - we're talking about foreign earnings which are intended to be indefinitely reinvested outside the United States. Indefinitely doesn't necessarily mean permanently. But, at any rate, Apple doesn't provide for deferred tax liability on those foreign earnings.
    Thanks again for confirming I was not "incredibly misinformed" after all. Apple has made no allowance for taxes on the majority of their profits. You phrased it better than I did, but I like it when we actually agree.

    And in the future I'll use the work "indefinitely" rather that "permanently" (tho it could be permanently :)
    I don't. :smile: 

    And you're welcome. (It is true, by a tiny bit, that Apple hasn't provided for tax liability on the majority of its as-yet unremitted foreign profits.)

    And yes, speaking generally, indefinitely could turn out to mean permanently.
    edited October 2017
  • Reply 40 of 55
    cgWerkscgWerks Posts: 2,296member
    jbdragon said:
    We are so much in Debt, you could tax the so called rich 100% of their money and it wouldn't put a dent in it. Before we got off the Gold Standard with our money, You could put your money into the bank, it'll build interest and you could retire with that money. Inflation was very slow. Got off the gold standard so that the Government could just spend more money. Don't have enough, no problem, print a bunch more!!! Devaluing the dollar. 

    The more money the Government steals from people, the more it wants. It's never enough. There's no end in site. If you let them, they'll take 100% of every single persons money and it still wouldn't be enough. There's no such thing as FREE STUFF. Someone ends up having to pay for it. As some point, it'll be you.
    And, when you see *how* it's being done, you'll get really tweaked off. It's bills stuffed inside bills... like some Veteran's Act will have all kinds of unrelated things in it, or a bunch of stuff will get burred into a budget where it's all or nothing (shut down the gov't or keep it going level stuff). To make matters worse, these bills often are introduced less than 24 hours from the vote. Some of the biggest things in the last decade (TPP for example) was done in secret where a Congress-person had to schedule to go into a room with no note-taking capabilities if they even wanted to read it or know about it before the vote. It's also not one party or the other necessarily, they are both in on it for the big stuff.

    A podcast every American needs to follow is Congressional Dish where the host (whether you agree or disagree with her take on it) keeps up on this stuff. It's pretty much a situation where they all need to be fired and we start over.
Sign In or Register to comment.