Re: How Apple avoids taxes

ther

for

se a

be no

I meet a scary number of ordinary people just off the street these days who think all this Obanomics will come to violence, and it's the only answer. Not that want it mind you, but who think that's where it's going.

The producers can always win this issue, no bloodshed required. If they really are upset that some people work harder and get more, just don't be one of those people. Just produce less. Or consume less.

Then we'll all have less. Problem solved.

Oh, and the people who live on (depend on) others' excess production? There won't be any excess.

(Ouch. That might not be as cool as they thought.)

Yes we can!

-- Cheers, James Arthur

"The best welfare program is a job." --Reagan

Even a flat tax would be a huge improvement. That might be a simpler first step.

In an easy year I spend a week or so--collecting data, planning, and doing taxes--sometimes two or three times that, all told. That's wasted productivity, 2-5% of GDP easily reclaimed, for free.

-- Cheers, James Arthur

That's happening. People are de-leveraging, paying off debt and saving more. Perhaps they're not doing enough, yet, but it's happening.

You don't think there is the possibility of violence here? This promises to be a long-hot summer. The Democrats can't wait to repeat '68 but I don't see how they think they can win with that strategy any better than they did then.

...go Gault.

Any chance two foreign wars caused any money to be spent? The answer to that would be yes. So anyone that voted for Bush should shut the f*ck up when it comes to deficits, or at least admit their vote was an epic fail.

The wars totaled roughly a trillion, total, mostly on Bush's watch. Barack's dug us over 5 trillion deeper on his watch.

Bush handed PresBO a deficit, and PresBO quadrupled it. So, initially it was 1/4 Bush, 3/4 PresBO.

Before quadrupling it PresBO promised to cut that in half--called it unAmerican for Bush to saddle kids with that debt--but all he ever wants to do is spend more. And more. And more. And golf.

At this point it's all PresBO. Every time someone wants to cut a cent, PBO say's it'll kill babies.

-- Cheers, James Arthur

Bush also handed PresBO with no way to pay for it.

Which we all know was done by design.

The Repubs knew they were not going to win in 2008, so they had to do something to piss everyone off.

But, they did not realise that "the markets" was out to get everyone.

Ask Phil Gramm how he setup the fall of "the markets".

il.

Bush was spending "x", Obama's increased that to "x+y." How on earth is Bush responsible for "y"? I don't get it.

Puhleeze.

The gang that couldn't shoot straight? You mean they whipped out their crystal balls and hatched a plan that made Nancy, Harry, and PBO spend "y", like lambs to the slaughter?

Not in this universe! They're lucky just getting their shoes on the right feet.

-- Cheers, James Arthur

Bush gave tax cuts and Obama had to keep it going. Duh

Bush drove up spending, he had to know it would that would drive up the debt. He did it for years.

Why is this news ??

So you do agree that Bush Jr had no idea what he was doing ?

Well then who ran up two wars and cut revenue at the same time.

This is not a formula for debt ??

When you leave the keys to the bank with morons......

No comment about Phil Gramm ?

ent

to

fail.

lly

Why? Obama could've not signed it.

You just need to look up those numbers at the Tresury to see you're wrong. Bush's last year spent $3.0T, Barack jacked that up to $3.6T.

I'm kind of speechless--I know a lot of the actual numbers, and that graph is nonsense. If you don't instantly smell something rotten I'm not sure I can help, but I'll try.

a) If you just look at the Treasury numbers directly, they make it all perfectly clear. b) the Obama numbers are projections, over a long haul, based on "assumptions" that are pure fabrications. (i.e., that Medicare payments will be cut drastically, and that Barack will hike taxes viciously, and that people will just line up and pay them.) c) the plain fact is that the Obama deficits already greatly exceed Ezra's numbers, and it ain't 2017 yet.

Yes of course it can be. But, those aren't the biggest ticket item. "Stimulus" is. The wars are something like $120B (guesstimate) a year,

Obama took Bush's worst year and tacked on another $600B in spending-- on top of the wars--and made it permanent.

I think Obama added on an extra $100B or two on war too, for the Afghan surge.

-- Cheers, James Arthur

Almost all of the money "spent" on TARP was repaid (and then spent again, by Obama). How much of Obama's spending has been repaid?

When the Bush tax cuts expire, the revenue Bush took out of the equation will be restored.

Too bad it did not happen two years ago as planed.

fail.

Yes, the bottom 50% need to pay their fair share, too.

Indeed, the economy needs to slow down some more.

fail.

I guess that you are part of that 50%.

You are only guessing, and do not know what the result would be.

Even the "experts" don't know.

Please let me know what kind of "expert" you are.

to

fail.

You're an idiot. That's clear.

No, I know what happens when you steal more money from people. They hide it better or don't bother to replace it. See: Laffer Curve

You leftist "experts" don't know what time it is.

Part of the 100% that know you're a moron.

to

fail.

by

A strait answer from a right wing kook.

"Its not my fault"

Thanks for proving my point, you criminal cretin. You would have had to have been born to be able to be a bastard. You rate closer to 'dung heap'.

Have a nice day, Mr Nymbecile. :-)

spent

answer to

fail.

initially

by

Fact.

Spoken just like the Obama nut you are.

spent

answer to

watch.

epic fail.

initially

earth

the

again, by

=20

Gosh and just who was it that forestalled the expiration of those cuts?

?-)