It's interesting that not one of the corporate-hating, big government/nanny state-loving people posting here can answer the simple question of why Apple (or any other corporation) should be taxed AGAIN on income that has already been taxed?
As others have pointed out, Apple has already PAID taxes on this income in other countries. I'd like for one of the big government liberals to explain why Apple should pay taxes again.
It's no wonder that our country is failing and that no one wants to do business here. So many Americans believe that it's their right to take what others have earned.
If I'm an individual working overseas where's my tax break? There are many countries for which I won't receive one. Government sshould offer to tax a US companies _more_ when it keeps it's money offshore.
The first $97,000 you earn oversees is not taxed by the US Govt. Any tax you pay to a foreign government offsets what you would owe to the US.
Pretty fair, and about what a tax holiday does.
Given that apple is now paying a dividend, and the dividend rate is going up, the US would do well to allow a 5% repatriation tax rate. That is the only way it will come back, and it would effectively get taxed at 28% between repatriation, dividend tax, and the new Medicare tax.
honestly...if the money was earned overseas and all income from overseas production I do not see why they should be taxed to bring it here...if I go work in England for a month and come back to the US do I have to pay a tax? (honest question as I never worked overseas)
Or at least if they are requiring a tax to be paid it should be significantly less than the 35% (if I'm reading it correctly) that they're asking for.
I don't see how money earned and taxed in country A should be taxed again in country B...but being that I am unversed in these sort of dealings my opinion isn't worth a damn, but still...I say no tax, or no default tax rate at the very least based on what I know.
For starters, people are ignoring the fact that it's a global economy. It is not correct to call Apple a 'U.S. company'. It's a global company.
More importantly, it is incorrect to say that all the money was earned overseas and all income was from overseas. R&D was done in the U.S. Much of the sales were in the US (companies routinely use transfer pricing to shift their profits overseas). And, the corporate offices are in the U.S. Considering that Apple doesn't do its own production, it's hard to claim that most of the money was earned overseas. Most of the money was earned by design, R&D, and corporate decisions - all of which were made in the U.S.
Finally, if the money is going to be distributed to US shareholders, it needs to be brought back to the U.S. Since it's going to US shareholders, that means it is being classified as US profits.
For starters, people are ignoring the fact that it's a global economy. It is not correct to call Apple a 'U.S. company'. It's a global company.
Of course it is, but people want to have things both ways. They want the manufacturing advantages of Asian manufacturing (which is fine), they want international markets (which is great), but they still want the company identified as an "American" company.
This is the kind of thing that will eventually break down national borders, but I think we're stuck with these issues for a while. Whether you feel the government is getting screwed due to lost revenue, or the companies are getting screwed due to "excessive" taxation, it's all part of a much larger paradigm shift.
Right... Corporations should get a free ride and accumulate billions by using the commons paid for by everyone else. Give me a break. I love Apple, but they're showing their free lunch corporatism which is no surprise.
Without a healthy, educated workforce, laws to protect their IP, roads to deliver their products, etc etc, there would be no Apple.
I dnt expect them to behave differently, but I expect and applaud our President for telling them to shove it and start carrying their weight for the benefits they get.
I disagree with this. It's not just reasonable levels of useful infrastructure that the federal government puts in place for companies like Apple to use to find success. The federal government asks the private sector to pay for all sorts of wasteful spending and vote-buying entitlement schemes (that benefit politicians' careers) and failed "green energy" initiatives (that benefit politicians' cronies) and economy killing regulatory bodies and possibly Ms. Fluke's contraceptives and God knows what else.
If we want a better economy the conversation should not be about how we can get corporations or anybody else to pay more to the bloated federal government. The conversation should be about gutting federal spending so there is less need for tax dollars. That way more dollars are left in the hands of real innovators and job creators like Apple and fewer dollars are needed to pay for failures like Solyndra.
You leave money where it is working not confiscate it to put it where it is being wasted and where things are failing.
Of course it is, but people want to have things both ways. They want the manufacturing advantages of Asian manufacturing (which is fine), they want international markets (which is great), but they still want the company identified as an "American" company.
This is the kind of thing that will eventually break down national borders, but I think we're stuck with these issues for a while. Whether you feel the government is getting screwed due to lost revenue, or the companies are getting screwed due to "excessive" taxation, it's all part of a much larger paradigm shift.
Be careful Conrail. If another user adopts the name CSX or NS then they will partially own you.
...except in Detroit, New York, or parts of Pennsylvania.
The bottom line: Apple, and every other corporation, uses the argument that repatriating the money held overseas through a tax holiday will stimulate significant job/economic growth. This argument isn't supported by the statistical evidence from previous corporate tax holidays. Additionally, corporate tax cuts in general are one of the least effective ways of stimulating economic activity according to statistics. It doesn't even need to be repatriated tax cuts. Companies don't primarily base their spending or hiring on tax windfalls. They primarily base it on the current or projected demand for their products/services.
If we want a better economy the conversation should not be about how we can get corporations or anybody else to pay more to the bloated federal government. The conversation should be about gutting federal spending so there is less need for tax dollars. That way more dollars are left in the hands of real innovators and job creators like Apple and fewer dollars are needed to pay for failures like Solyndra.
Solyndra participated in a federal loan guarantee program that was intended to support business growth. That loan guarantee program was passed in 2005 by a GOP controlled Congress. The fact that Solyndra ultimately failed is not a factor of the government being involved, but rather the realities of the worldwide solar cell market. Loans always involve some level of risk, regardless of whether they're being made by the public sector or the private sector. Loans are also generally considered to be a POSITIVE when it comes to stimulating economic and business growth.
The current issue here is the HIGH tax rate. Lowing the tax rate on foreign money will encourage domestic investments once companies like Apple bring back profits from overseas.
Two choices:
$0 of the $60,000,000,000 with current tax rate or
$x of the $60,000,000,000 with a lower tax rate
That $x multiplies when it's injected in this nation's economy.
.
$0 of $60B means depriving shareholders of that money as well. If shareholders want their dividends, they'll convince Apple to bring the money back at the current tax rate.
Apple can pay taxes like every other entity in this country.
Solyndra participated in a federal loan guarantee program that was intended to support business growth. That loan guarantee program was passed in 2005 by a GOP controlled Congress. The fact that Solyndra ultimately failed is not a factor of the government being involved, but rather the realities of the worldwide solar cell market. Loans always involve some level of risk, regardless of whether they're being made by the public sector or the private sector. Loans are also generally considered to be a POSITIVE when it comes to stimulating economic and business growth.
The realities of the worldwide solar cell market is that China has been dumping cell panels on the market below cost - clear predatory pricing. Solyndra is not the only company that got hurt.
It's too bad that neither political party has been willing to put pressure on China to play fair.
Wrong. The opposite. Taxing income earned abroad when repatriated encourages companies to stockpile income outside the US, and when the firm wants to build a call support center, or R&D facility, data center etc they will be incentivized to use the funds held outside the US, which means it will be spent outside the US.
The government demands that firms must pay to bring money back, then they will just keep hoarding it abroad. The government will receive $0. Agreeing to a 5% tax may not be 35%, but better than nothing.
Did you not read my prior post?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Galbi
If the government caves into the demands of the business community, it isnt going to help with the overall economy as a whole.
This will only encourage companies to send jobs or manufacturing plants OUTSIDE of the US in anticipation of future tax breaks from Congress to take advantage of.
Companies are already utilizing tax planning to extreme measures and finding loopholes in the system to take advantage of.
To cave into the demands of these organizations is only going to make matters worse than it is already.
Solyndra participated in a federal loan guarantee program that was intended to support business growth. That loan guarantee program was passed in 2005 by a GOP controlled Congress. The fact that Solyndra ultimately failed is not a factor of the government being involved, but rather the realities of the worldwide solar cell market. Loans always involve some level of risk, regardless of whether they're being made by the public sector or the private sector. Loans are also generally considered to be a POSITIVE when it comes to stimulating economic and business growth.
The Bush White House disapproved the loan. It was the Obama administration that aggressively pushed the loan guarantee. While one can find some Republican involvement in the early legislation to guarantee the loan it was the Democrats who made sure it happened and the failure occurred on Obama's watch.
I don't like government loan guarantees. The politicians and bureaucrats making the decisions to guarantee the loans are using taxpayer funds and really could not care less whether or not the loan is repaid. If the venture fails they will just borrow more or raise taxes or whatever to cover the loss. If they are Democrats they know that they will not be held responsible because Democrat voters always blame everything on Republicans and corporations somehow no matter what.
In a worst case scenario these federal loan program administrators would lend money to these ventures intending for the ventures to fail but to do so in a way where the creditors to whom the hundreds of millions are paid are big Democrat party contributors. It stinks.
Nothing is stopping Apple from investing it's money in the US. How about starting by, I don't know, investing money in the US? One great way to invest money in the US is to bring that money back to the US and paying rightful taxes on it. It's not like they couldn't afford it and it's not money lost either. The states is trillions of dollars in debt in part because companies keep sending jobs overseas due to greed.
I like and use Apple products, and I own a bunch of AAPL shares which have had a really nice effect on my life. I also contribute my time and money to a variety of charity organizations of my choosing. Giving our government even more money to waste by going to war with whomever we're even at war with right now, and growing even larger than the already bloated mess that we have now, are not the charities I choose to contribute to. Neither, for that matter, are the "middle class."
If you want to donate your money to either our government or "the middle class," please go right ahead, but I could really give a s--t about either. I pay the bare minimum of taxes required of me by law; I buy Apple products because I like to use them, I purchased AAPL stock as an investment, and out of the charities I choose to give money to, our government certainly isn't one of them, it steals more than enough from me already and sets fire to it on a mind-boggling collection of retarded projects and goals that I've no interest in funding.
Manufacturing WILL come back to the united states. The week after robotics advances to a state where unskilled workers are no longer necessary. The purpose of a corporation is to generate revenue for the shareholders, not take care of the dysfunctional who are used to spending far more money on credit, then they can ever hope to repay in their lifetimes; or paying taxes twice on the same money.
The "middle class" are not poor. I think it's safe to say that nobody living in poverty is spending their time hanging out and ranting on an Apple message board. Real poverty is horrible, and to reiterate I give both my time and my money to help organizations I feel are making a difference. Pinheads from middle America with a massive sense of entitlement, 5 giant-screen TVs and a house they could never afford to purchase in the first place, are not people I'm terribly interested or concerned with.
Maybe eliminating special interest groups and lobbyists would be a good first step.
I'm thinking an amendment to the Constitution that changes the wording of how bills are created to this:
Quote:
All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills. All bills for the approval of new states shall originate in the Senate; but the House of Representatives may propose of concur with Amendments as on other Bills.
Every law, or resolution having the force of law, shall relate to but one subject, and that shall be expressed in the title.
Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by Yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.
Every Order, Resolution, or Vote to which the Concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of Adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the Same shall take Effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the Rules and Limitations prescribed in the Case of a Bill.
The President may approve any appropriation and disapprove any other appropriation in the same bill. In such case he shall, in signing the bill, designate the appropriations disapproved; and shall return a copy of such appropriations, with his objections, to the House in which the bill shall have originated; and the same proceedings shall then be had as in case of other bills disapproved by the President.
I bolded the most important takeaway, but there are certainly others.
It's no wonder that our country is failing and that no one wants to do business here. So many Americans believe that it's their right to take what others have earned.
Do you mean the greedy bankers who lost millions of customers $$$ in high risk investments, made millions in bonuses for doing so ..... Basically went broke because of their actions ..... Then took taxpayers money ( bailout) to save their asses. Is that who you mean? ..... Didn't think so.
Comments
As others have pointed out, Apple has already PAID taxes on this income in other countries. I'd like for one of the big government liberals to explain why Apple should pay taxes again.
It's no wonder that our country is failing and that no one wants to do business here. So many Americans believe that it's their right to take what others have earned.
If I'm an individual working overseas where's my tax break? There are many countries for which I won't receive one. Government sshould offer to tax a US companies _more_ when it keeps it's money offshore.
The first $97,000 you earn oversees is not taxed by the US Govt. Any tax you pay to a foreign government offsets what you would owe to the US.
Pretty fair, and about what a tax holiday does.
Given that apple is now paying a dividend, and the dividend rate is going up, the US would do well to allow a 5% repatriation tax rate. That is the only way it will come back, and it would effectively get taxed at 28% between repatriation, dividend tax, and the new Medicare tax.
Instead, the government wants a 53% cut.
BS..."the entire Republican party" does not take the position that corporate taxes should be zero.
Once again, brainwashed corporation-hating liberals have to resort to lies to prop up support for their totalitarian command/control ideology.
Oh...and wasn't it under Obama's administration that GE paid zero taxes?
...and received government subsidies for these dubious "green economy" initiatives?
GE paid the highest corporate taxes, 35%, when Reagan plugged all the corporate loop holes created by Carter and other democrat cronies.
GE not surprisingly hires former Carter's tax laywers to lobby for tax-breaks and now pays the effective rates of 12%.
thx liberals
honestly...if the money was earned overseas and all income from overseas production I do not see why they should be taxed to bring it here...if I go work in England for a month and come back to the US do I have to pay a tax? (honest question as I never worked overseas)
Or at least if they are requiring a tax to be paid it should be significantly less than the 35% (if I'm reading it correctly) that they're asking for.
I don't see how money earned and taxed in country A should be taxed again in country B...but being that I am unversed in these sort of dealings my opinion isn't worth a damn, but still...I say no tax, or no default tax rate at the very least based on what I know.
For starters, people are ignoring the fact that it's a global economy. It is not correct to call Apple a 'U.S. company'. It's a global company.
More importantly, it is incorrect to say that all the money was earned overseas and all income was from overseas. R&D was done in the U.S. Much of the sales were in the US (companies routinely use transfer pricing to shift their profits overseas). And, the corporate offices are in the U.S. Considering that Apple doesn't do its own production, it's hard to claim that most of the money was earned overseas. Most of the money was earned by design, R&D, and corporate decisions - all of which were made in the U.S.
Finally, if the money is going to be distributed to US shareholders, it needs to be brought back to the U.S. Since it's going to US shareholders, that means it is being classified as US profits.
For starters, people are ignoring the fact that it's a global economy. It is not correct to call Apple a 'U.S. company'. It's a global company.
Of course it is, but people want to have things both ways. They want the manufacturing advantages of Asian manufacturing (which is fine), they want international markets (which is great), but they still want the company identified as an "American" company.
This is the kind of thing that will eventually break down national borders, but I think we're stuck with these issues for a while. Whether you feel the government is getting screwed due to lost revenue, or the companies are getting screwed due to "excessive" taxation, it's all part of a much larger paradigm shift.
Right... Corporations should get a free ride and accumulate billions by using the commons paid for by everyone else. Give me a break. I love Apple, but they're showing their free lunch corporatism which is no surprise.
Without a healthy, educated workforce, laws to protect their IP, roads to deliver their products, etc etc, there would be no Apple.
I dnt expect them to behave differently, but I expect and applaud our President for telling them to shove it and start carrying their weight for the benefits they get.
I disagree with this. It's not just reasonable levels of useful infrastructure that the federal government puts in place for companies like Apple to use to find success. The federal government asks the private sector to pay for all sorts of wasteful spending and vote-buying entitlement schemes (that benefit politicians' careers) and failed "green energy" initiatives (that benefit politicians' cronies) and economy killing regulatory bodies and possibly Ms. Fluke's contraceptives and God knows what else.
If we want a better economy the conversation should not be about how we can get corporations or anybody else to pay more to the bloated federal government. The conversation should be about gutting federal spending so there is less need for tax dollars. That way more dollars are left in the hands of real innovators and job creators like Apple and fewer dollars are needed to pay for failures like Solyndra.
You leave money where it is working not confiscate it to put it where it is being wasted and where things are failing.
Of course it is, but people want to have things both ways. They want the manufacturing advantages of Asian manufacturing (which is fine), they want international markets (which is great), but they still want the company identified as an "American" company.
This is the kind of thing that will eventually break down national borders, but I think we're stuck with these issues for a while. Whether you feel the government is getting screwed due to lost revenue, or the companies are getting screwed due to "excessive" taxation, it's all part of a much larger paradigm shift.
Be careful Conrail. If another user adopts the name CSX or NS then they will partially own you.
...except in Detroit, New York, or parts of Pennsylvania.
If we want a better economy the conversation should not be about how we can get corporations or anybody else to pay more to the bloated federal government. The conversation should be about gutting federal spending so there is less need for tax dollars. That way more dollars are left in the hands of real innovators and job creators like Apple and fewer dollars are needed to pay for failures like Solyndra.
Solyndra participated in a federal loan guarantee program that was intended to support business growth. That loan guarantee program was passed in 2005 by a GOP controlled Congress. The fact that Solyndra ultimately failed is not a factor of the government being involved, but rather the realities of the worldwide solar cell market. Loans always involve some level of risk, regardless of whether they're being made by the public sector or the private sector. Loans are also generally considered to be a POSITIVE when it comes to stimulating economic and business growth.
The current issue here is the HIGH tax rate. Lowing the tax rate on foreign money will encourage domestic investments once companies like Apple bring back profits from overseas.
Two choices:
$0 of the $60,000,000,000 with current tax rate or
$x of the $60,000,000,000 with a lower tax rate
That $x multiplies when it's injected in this nation's economy.
.
$0 of $60B means depriving shareholders of that money as well. If shareholders want their dividends, they'll convince Apple to bring the money back at the current tax rate.
Apple can pay taxes like every other entity in this country.
Solyndra participated in a federal loan guarantee program that was intended to support business growth. That loan guarantee program was passed in 2005 by a GOP controlled Congress. The fact that Solyndra ultimately failed is not a factor of the government being involved, but rather the realities of the worldwide solar cell market. Loans always involve some level of risk, regardless of whether they're being made by the public sector or the private sector. Loans are also generally considered to be a POSITIVE when it comes to stimulating economic and business growth.
The realities of the worldwide solar cell market is that China has been dumping cell panels on the market below cost - clear predatory pricing. Solyndra is not the only company that got hurt.
It's too bad that neither political party has been willing to put pressure on China to play fair.
Wrong. The opposite. Taxing income earned abroad when repatriated encourages companies to stockpile income outside the US, and when the firm wants to build a call support center, or R&D facility, data center etc they will be incentivized to use the funds held outside the US, which means it will be spent outside the US.
The government demands that firms must pay to bring money back, then they will just keep hoarding it abroad. The government will receive $0. Agreeing to a 5% tax may not be 35%, but better than nothing.
Did you not read my prior post?
If the government caves into the demands of the business community, it isnt going to help with the overall economy as a whole.
This will only encourage companies to send jobs or manufacturing plants OUTSIDE of the US in anticipation of future tax breaks from Congress to take advantage of.
Companies are already utilizing tax planning to extreme measures and finding loopholes in the system to take advantage of.
To cave into the demands of these organizations is only going to make matters worse than it is already.
Check this link for more information:
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3593
Solyndra participated in a federal loan guarantee program that was intended to support business growth. That loan guarantee program was passed in 2005 by a GOP controlled Congress. The fact that Solyndra ultimately failed is not a factor of the government being involved, but rather the realities of the worldwide solar cell market. Loans always involve some level of risk, regardless of whether they're being made by the public sector or the private sector. Loans are also generally considered to be a POSITIVE when it comes to stimulating economic and business growth.
The Bush White House disapproved the loan. It was the Obama administration that aggressively pushed the loan guarantee. While one can find some Republican involvement in the early legislation to guarantee the loan it was the Democrats who made sure it happened and the failure occurred on Obama's watch.
I don't like government loan guarantees. The politicians and bureaucrats making the decisions to guarantee the loans are using taxpayer funds and really could not care less whether or not the loan is repaid. If the venture fails they will just borrow more or raise taxes or whatever to cover the loss. If they are Democrats they know that they will not be held responsible because Democrat voters always blame everything on Republicans and corporations somehow no matter what.
In a worst case scenario these federal loan program administrators would lend money to these ventures intending for the ventures to fail but to do so in a way where the creditors to whom the hundreds of millions are paid are big Democrat party contributors. It stinks.
Nothing is stopping Apple from investing it's money in the US. How about starting by, I don't know, investing money in the US? One great way to invest money in the US is to bring that money back to the US and paying rightful taxes on it. It's not like they couldn't afford it and it's not money lost either. The states is trillions of dollars in debt in part because companies keep sending jobs overseas due to greed.
I like and use Apple products, and I own a bunch of AAPL shares which have had a really nice effect on my life. I also contribute my time and money to a variety of charity organizations of my choosing. Giving our government even more money to waste by going to war with whomever we're even at war with right now, and growing even larger than the already bloated mess that we have now, are not the charities I choose to contribute to. Neither, for that matter, are the "middle class."
If you want to donate your money to either our government or "the middle class," please go right ahead, but I could really give a s--t about either. I pay the bare minimum of taxes required of me by law; I buy Apple products because I like to use them, I purchased AAPL stock as an investment, and out of the charities I choose to give money to, our government certainly isn't one of them, it steals more than enough from me already and sets fire to it on a mind-boggling collection of retarded projects and goals that I've no interest in funding.
Manufacturing WILL come back to the united states. The week after robotics advances to a state where unskilled workers are no longer necessary. The purpose of a corporation is to generate revenue for the shareholders, not take care of the dysfunctional who are used to spending far more money on credit, then they can ever hope to repay in their lifetimes; or paying taxes twice on the same money.
The "middle class" are not poor. I think it's safe to say that nobody living in poverty is spending their time hanging out and ranting on an Apple message board. Real poverty is horrible, and to reiterate I give both my time and my money to help organizations I feel are making a difference. Pinheads from middle America with a massive sense of entitlement, 5 giant-screen TVs and a house they could never afford to purchase in the first place, are not people I'm terribly interested or concerned with.
Trade lifts all parties.
Really, try asking the Native Americans how that "Manhattan Deal" worked out for them.
Starve the beast, that's the only way to shrink it.
Maybe eliminating special interest groups and lobbyists would be a good first step.
Maybe eliminating special interest groups and lobbyists would be a good first step.
I'm thinking an amendment to the Constitution that changes the wording of how bills are created to this:
All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills. All bills for the approval of new states shall originate in the Senate; but the House of Representatives may propose of concur with Amendments as on other Bills.
Every law, or resolution having the force of law, shall relate to but one subject, and that shall be expressed in the title.
Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by Yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.
Every Order, Resolution, or Vote to which the Concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of Adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the Same shall take Effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the Rules and Limitations prescribed in the Case of a Bill.
The President may approve any appropriation and disapprove any other appropriation in the same bill. In such case he shall, in signing the bill, designate the appropriations disapproved; and shall return a copy of such appropriations, with his objections, to the House in which the bill shall have originated; and the same proceedings shall then be had as in case of other bills disapproved by the President.
I bolded the most important takeaway, but there are certainly others.
I'm thinking an amendment to the Constitution that changes the wording of how bills are created to this:
Every law, or resolution having the force of law, shall relate to but one subject, and that shall be expressed in the title.
Sounds good to me.
what is $1.5 trillion dollar deficit?
2011 US trade deficit $558 billion
m
US National Debt $15+ trillion
The U.S. budget deficit ....... Google it!
It's no wonder that our country is failing and that no one wants to do business here. So many Americans believe that it's their right to take what others have earned.
Do you mean the greedy bankers who lost millions of customers $$$ in high risk investments, made millions in bonuses for doing so ..... Basically went broke because of their actions ..... Then took taxpayers money ( bailout) to save their asses. Is that who you mean? ..... Didn't think so.