>>>>With that much money at stake it's guaranteed the best financial/legal minds on the planet will do their best to find workarounds. And not just the companies with overseas holdings, but the tax havens that are benefiting from the current arrangement.
>>>
>>>It's more likely that I'll win the upcoming Masters golf tournament (a recurring fantasy) than that this idea will do more than provide Fox News with some anti-Obama ammunition.
>>>Given the congressional makeup, it will never see daylight.
>>
>>But, as I asked earlier, how is the GOP going to argue against it? What can even Fox say?
>>
>>Sure, the GOP can oppose the measure just because they can, but the Dems can make them look stupid and score some serious points. And the prospect of $280B right now focuses the mind wonderfully.
>
>Many, if not most of the GOP legislators have taken oaths not to approve ANY increases in federal revenue.

That's not an argument. Besides, what did they swear?

- No revenue increases at all (neglecting the effects of inflation, population growth etc.)?

- No revenue increases funded by the American taxpayer? If so they should have no problem accepting payments from offshore accounts

>After having lived in New Jersey for a while and seen first hand the blatant levels of corruption that governments can reach, I'm inclined to agree with them.
>You give those thieves -in both parties- this kind of money and they'll go through it overnight- worse- they might start some more wars while they're at it.
>Until these governments- federal, state and local clean house- and I mean by putting the cuffs on hundreds of people- we shouldn't give them any more money.
>
>
>Before Kevin and Marcia reach for the + keys though, I'll hasten to add that I'd like to see a massive shift in the tax burden away from low and middle income taxpayers to the high income taxpayers.
>I know families that live almost exclusively on Social Security and pay tax rates higher than Mitt Romney pays.
>That's criminal.
>We can do that by shifting rates and not giving the thieves anymore money to spend.
>
>If we can't do that- and under current leadership we probably can't- then we certainly shouldn't give them more money.

If you think your various governments are crooks, you know what to do.

As for $280B, that represents almost $1K per capita and probably close to $1K per taxpayer. All other things being equal, that's an extra gee to provide more government programs (Dems) or tax relief (GOP) or otherwise buy votes (cynics). Hard for either party to argue against that.