# I hope McCain wins



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

I really do. Not because I agree with much of his politics; I don't. But I think it would be better for him to manage (or whatever the word would be) this situation:



A Democrat would only end up taking the fall for Bush's $10-12 billion/month adventure. 

Of course, four more years of bleeding money in Iraq may leave little here worth governing. Is that the plan? 

Still, I think I will vote McCain. He does have a pretty wife.


----------



## brokencycle (Jan 11, 2008)

McCain doesn't want to fight in Iraq for 100 years like the New York Times will have you believe. He believes we should be in Iraq like we are in Korea or Japan - a small military presence to help our allies and discourage enemies from attacking.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

That does not give me so much confidence in the left. Wishing for awful things to happen so that you can gain political advantage from it is not an attractive thing. 

However, people on the right lust for power just as much and are just as bad.


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> That does not give me so much confidence in the left. Wishing for awful things to happen so that you can gain political advantage from it is not an attractive thing.
> 
> However, people on the right lust for power just as much and are just as bad.


What awful things are you talking about? I thought we were winning this war. I certainly don't wish awful things to happen to gain political advantage, and, by the way, one need not wish for them to happen. They are and have been happening.

I'm just saying let McCain and his war party sort them out. Why should a democratic president have to pick up the shite? I'm not joking.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

brokencycle said:


> McCain doesn't want to fight in Iraq for 100 years like the New York Times will have you believe. He believes we should be in Iraq like we are in Korea or Japan - a small military presence to help our allies and discourage enemies from attacking.


I know that's what he's been saying lately, although not consistently. He's also said 1000 years.

Still, there are a couple of important questions he isn't answering:

1. What's the evidence that we are going to get the situation in Iraq to be similar to the situation in postwar Japan or South Korea, and when is it going to happen?

2. What if we don't get there? Is he prepared to accept the current level of hostilities and casualties as a permanent fact of life? If not, how will he decide when to get out?


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

jackmccullough said:


> I know that's what he's been saying lately, although not consistently. He's also said 1000 years.
> 
> Still, there are a couple of important questions he isn't answering:
> 
> ...


Right, and how accurate are the parallels between Iraq and Japan or South Korea to begin with? Does McCain really think we're going to set up shop in Baghdad indefinitely and NOT get fired upon? It ain't Germany. I say let him sort it out though.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

Bertie, I think we agree on a lot of political issues, and I would implore, or at least encourage, you not to vote for McCain. This is one of the most important elections I've ever had to vote in and there are too many important issues at stake to give the policies of the present administration a third term.


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

jackmccullough said:


> Bertie, I think we agree on a lot of political issues, and I would implore, or at least encourage, you not to vote for McCain. This is one of the most important elections I've ever had to vote in and there are too many important issues at stake to give the policies of the present administration a third term.


Well, there are other considerations too, like the Supreme Court. I'd be disinclined to see Johnny stack that deck.

But I think there are real dangers for a democratic president, especially a woman or Black man, coming into a job that's almost doomed to failure. If Americans didn't so often have cultural amnesia and would not punish the new leader for the sins of the old if things aren't sorted out entirely and in record time after Jan. 2009, I'd be more optimistic. I see Obama or Clinton getting shafted by the electorate once it's understood how complex and difficult it's going to be picking up the pieces after 8 years of Bush. It would be a long time before another woman or minority had the chance to run, I fear.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

This thread has real potential for greatness. Excellent work BertieW!


----------



## JRR (Feb 11, 2006)

BertieW said:


> Well, there are other considerations too, like the Supreme Court. I'd be disinclined to see Johnny stack that deck.
> 
> But I think there are real dangers for a democratic president, especially a woman or Black man, coming into a job that's almost doomed to failure. If Americans didn't so often have cultural amnesia and would not punish the new leader for the sins of the old if things aren't sorted out entirely and in record time after Jan. 2009, I'd be more optimistic. I see Obama or Clinton getting shafted by the electorate once it's understood how complex and difficult it's going to be picking up the pieces after 8 years of Bush. It would be a long time before another woman or minority had the chance to run, I fear.


One thought, Dems could develop actual candidates with leadership experience.

Or at least force Gore to run.


----------



## Mark from Plano (Jan 29, 2007)

JRR said:


> One thought, Dems could develop actual candidates with leadership experience.
> 
> Or at least force Gore to run.


They actually had several this time around. They just weren't devious or radical enough to make it through the primary process.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Jack,



jackmccullough said:


> Bertie, I think we agree on a lot of political issues, and I would implore, or at least encourage, you not to vote for McCain. This is one of the most important elections I've ever had to vote in and there are too many important issues at stake to give the policies of the present administration a third term.


Would you agree with Obama that McCain would be better than Bush? And you may not agree with McCain on much but I expect better from you than to repeat the old canard that a McCain presidency would be a third term for the current administration.

And even the Obama camp is now admitting in dribs and drabs that it is unlikely he would pull US forces out of Iraq for quite some time. And do you really think the Democrats will cut spending and restore fiscal sanity? They may increase taxes but there will be no entitlement reform or drastic cuts in discretionary spending. If the government wants to spend like a drunken sailor then perhaps its better to elect the candidate who actually once was a drunken sailor, no?

Karl


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

BertieW said:


> Still, I think I will vote McCain.


I hope you do. Thanks.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

Hi, Karl.

I can't imagine why Obama would say something like that. I don't think there is any evidence to support it, and some evidence to the contrary. A friend of mine (who is to my left, if you can believe it) thinks McCain will be worse because there's a whole lot more that he's interested in that Bush just doesn't care about. My response is that McCain is manifestly uninterested in domestic policy, but my friend's response is that McCain simply views everything the government does domestically as "wasteful government spending". He may be right.

McCain is clearly determined to continue Bush's disastrous foreign policy, at least in Iraq, and probably elsewhere. What's more, the next president will make some crucial Supreme Court appointments, and it's a certainty that he would try to appoint people as bad as Scalia, Thomas, Alito, and Roberts.

As for the budget, it's like Casey Stengel supposedly said to an outfielder. "You've got left field screwed up so bad nobody can play it!" There is nothing the next president can do to undo the damage Bush has done to the national budget quickly. You must know as well as I do that discretionary domestic spending isn't enough to dig us out of the hole Bush dug for us, even if it's cut to zero.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Jack,

I disagree but I take your points. But be honest you really don't like Scalia bc he's a Xavier alumnus!

Karl


----------



## Spence (Feb 28, 2006)

jackmccullough said:


> Hi, Karl.
> 
> I can't imagine why Obama would say something like that. I don't think there is any evidence to support it, and some evidence to the contrary.


I did the video of that remark, I think it was inspired by a little Bush bashing but I also think he does believe it. Obama, like McCain, seems to demonstrate some refreshing candor now and then.

-spence


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

BertieW said:


> I'm just saying let McCain and his war party sort them out. Why should a democratic president have to pick up the shite? I'm not joking.


And what if things work out for the better? One could take your remarks to mean that you have no confidence in the Dems being able to manage the situation.


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

pt4u67 said:


> And what if things work out for the better? One could take your remarks to mean that you have no confidence in the Dems being able to manage the situation.


If things work out for the better, I'd be thrilled. I don't expect them to. They haven't in recent years, so clearly the Republicans haven't a clue. But I say give them ONE MORE MULLIGAN and keep your fingers crossed.

If nothing else, we can look forward to 8 or more years of democratic rule after McCain. And if, against the odds, the old man ushers in a New Golden Age, we're all winners.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

jackmccullough said:


> ...the next president will make some crucial Supreme Court appointments, and it's a certainty that he would try to appoint people as bad as Scalia, Thomas, Alito, and Roberts.


I knew this thread could deliver and it did! Keep up the good work guys. :icon_smile_big:


----------



## Helvetia (Apr 8, 2008)

I feel like this is the first time in a long time that I will have two good xhoices for POTUS. I liked McCain when he ran against Bush in 2000. I live in Illinois so I wouldn't mind seeing another POTUS from my home state.

It's nice to have a choice for once.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

'Winning' in Iraq at this point is like coming home from the county fair with a stuffed animal that cost $20 in baseballs. At best we need to figure out how to lose less badly than the thugs shooting at us.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

BertieW said:


> If nothing else, we can look forward to 8 or more years of democratic rule after McCain. _And if, against the odds, the old man ushers in a New Golden Age, we're all winners_.


I wish more people felt the way you did! In the end what matters is that our country is safe and prospers.


----------



## chatsworth osborne jr. (Feb 2, 2008)

*gonna get (even) worse before it gets better*

Seriously I was saying essentially the same thing yesterday at work. The Republicans need to face the consequences instead of letting their successor take the blame. Also, Republicans have a nasty habit of starting wars and letting a Democratic president finish them up. Time for some tough love.

The American empire is already in rapid decline, which is not entirely a bad thing. I'd prefer us to scale down to a proud nation.

Also, Clinton was a great conservative president, so theoretically the converse could work and McCain could wind up cooperating with liberals... oh yeah, he's already proven he can do that.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Vietnam was a classic republican war 'cleaned up' by a Democrat. Oh yeah


----------



## JibranK (May 28, 2007)

JFK himself didn't want the war though. Johnson did. I think the former is more of a Democratic icon than the latter. In any case, though, I agree with you that Dems start stupid wars as much as Repubs.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

chatsworth osborne jr. said:


> Republicans have a nasty habit of starting wars and letting a Democratic president finish them up. Time for some tough love.
> 
> The American empire is already in rapid decline, which is not entirely a bad thing. I'd prefer us to scale down to a proud nation.


Are you high?

#1 America never built an empire.

#2 Vietnam - entered by Kennedy(D), escalated by LBJ(D), ended by Nixon(R), and cleaned up by Ford(R)

#3 Korea - entered by Truman(D), ended and cleaned up by Eisenhower(R)

#4 Israel-Palestenians - entered by Truman(D) established Jewish state , being cleaned up by W(R) palestenian statehood, probably finished by McCain(R)

#5 WW2 - entered by FDR(D), ended and cleaned up by FDR(D)

#6 WW1 - entered by Woodrow Wilson(D) ironically after wining a 2nd term by keeping us out of the war, Cleaned up by Coolidge(R)

So, actually you have a history of Democrats entering wars and either cleaning them up themselves (IN THE OLD DAYS) or having a nasty habit of Republicans have to clean them up for them.

Republicans have done some stupid things, but habitually starting wars Democrats have to clean up ain't one of them.

An exception is Lincoln(R) & Johnson(D), but that's a bit unusual ... Andrew Johnson was a Southern Democrat working with the union as a Yankee Republican. Basically, reconstruction was a Republican operation which was finished by Grant(R) and Hayes(R).


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

JibranK said:


> JFK himself didn't want the war though. Johnson did. I think the former is more of a Democratic icon than the latter. In any case, though, I agree with you that Dems start stupid wars as much as Repubs.


As a typical gun clinging white Republican, I'm confused as to the distinction between a Democrat and a Democratic icon in the current discussion.

That's as confusing to me as qualifying stupid wars vs. non-stupid wars IMHO. Which wars weren't stupid? WW2 is largely held out as the last justified war, but wasn't WW2 pretty stupid? FDR was elected in '33, Italy invaded in '35, Japan China in '37 and FDR sided with China in '37 providing them assistance. Maybe the right thing, but pretty stupid to think Japan wasn't going to come for us. At least after '39 there shouldn't have been a possibility of a 'surprise attack' with FDR supplying Britain, China, and Russia against Germany and Japan. FDR famously gave a speech declaring the US the "arsenal of democracy" almost exactly one year (Dec. 29, 1940) before Japan attacked us. Thank God for IKE! It's not like one of the two most eloquent advocates of Freedom in the 20th Century wasn't telling FDR and the world what was happening.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Thanks for eviscerating him ksinc, it saved me the time. What an uneducated statement. I guess the public schools have fully integrated that revisionist history.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> Thanks for eviscerating him ksinc, it saved me the time. What an uneducated statement. I guess the public schools have fully integrated that revisionist history.


Well, you heard what Wright said about left-brained, right-brained learning in the integrated school system ... :devil:

You're quite welcome! :aportnoy:


----------



## baloogafish (Oct 4, 2007)

Anybody agree with McCain's tax benefits on large corporations ?


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

Kav said:


> *'Winning' in Iraq at this point is like coming home from the county fair with a stuffed animal that cost $20 in baseballs. *At best we need to figure out how to lose less badly than the thugs shooting at us.


That's a good one, Kav! :icon_smile_big:


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

baloogafish said:


> Anybody agree with McCain's tax benefits on large corporations ?


You should explain to us what you think they are in detail first.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> You should explain to us what you think they are in *detail* first.


I'd settle for something broad and incoherent. I think it's the best we're going to get.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Gents,

McCain wants to cut the corporate tax rate from 37% to 25% - considering that the US has the second highest corporate tax rate in the OECD this is a smart move. I hope however that this is done in conjunction with a closing of most corporate tax loopholes. 

Karl


----------



## Mark from Plano (Jan 29, 2007)

chatsworth osborne jr. said:


> Also, Republicans have a nasty habit of starting wars and letting a Democratic president finish them up. Time for some tough love.


Hmmm...curious historical assertion.

WWII--President in the beginning: FDR (D) President at the end: HST (D)
Korea--President in the beginning: HST (D) President at the end: DDE (R)
Vietnam--President in the beginning: JFK (D) President at the end: RMN (R)
Cold War--President in the beginning: Debateable, probably DDE (R); President at the end: RWR (R)
Grenada--All Reagan (R)
Gulf War I--All GHWB (R)
Bosnia--All WJC (D)

You're right...a clear and obvious pattern.

EDIT: Dang it. Breach of posting discipline...read the whole thread before posting. Should have known this idiocy wouldn't have stood this long without being shot down.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Mark from Plano said:


> Hmmm...curious historical assertion.
> 
> WWII--President in the beginning: FDR (D) President at the end: HST (D)
> Korea--President in the beginning: HST (D) President at the end: DDE (R)
> ...


Mark:

Nice, easy to read summary. Let us see if any reply will be forth coming from Mr. Dailykooktalkingpoints.


----------



## baloogafish (Oct 4, 2007)

Karl89 said:


> Gents,
> 
> McCain wants to cut the corporate tax rate from 37% to 25% - considering that the US has the second highest corporate tax rate in the OECD this is a smart move. I hope however that this is done in conjunction with a closing of most corporate tax loopholes.
> 
> Karl


Right on. The idea is that it will also help stimulate the economy. If we're giving tax breaks to the corporations of America, *hopefully* these corporations will funnel that extra money into cash compensation for its employees.

Not sure if that's the actual brains behind the plan, but that's what I can gather from what McCain has said. If you ask me, it's a bunch of nonsense that won't even make it past Congress.

McCain also wants to create tax incentives for R&D (research and development). He wants 10% of all expenses on R&D to be tax-deductible. Not sure what to think of this one - could help push along the Green Revolution, but would it really motivate the Exxons of the world to find alternative fuel sources?


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

Karl89 said:


> Gents,
> 
> McCain wants to cut the corporate tax rate from 37% to 25% - considering that the US has the second highest corporate tax rate in the OECD this is a smart move. I hope however that this is done in conjunction with a closing of most corporate tax loopholes.
> 
> Karl


Karl,

Reich would go him one better on this:


----------



## burton (Nov 11, 2007)

ksinc said:


> Are you high?
> 
> #1 America never built an empire.
> 
> ...


I think many of these points are open to interpretation. As a disclaimer, I don't think that evaluating current political parties based on the actions of individual past Presidents makes very much sense. But in the interest of advancing the conversation, I submit the following, much of which I learned at school, and so, according to a prior post, it must be considered suspect knowledge at best.

1 - Maybe America never built an empire in the classic sense. But if that's the case, I wonder we what we were doing fighting a native insurrection in the Philippines, years after the Spanish (empire) ceded it to us. Also, most of the western US was taken by military conquest from the Mexicans. We don't call it an empire, because the people who would ordinarily be considered the empire's subject peoples were wiped off the face of the earth. Empires sometimes behave that way.

2 - Military advisors were in Vietnam during the Eisenhower administration. That doesn't mean he "started" the war, but your depiction above makes it sound like Kennedy jumped into the fiasco on his own. He didn't - he inherited the situation from Eisenhower. Whether Kennedy handled it well once he got in is another question.

And whether Ford cleaned up Vietnam is also open to debate. Are those images of the evacuation of the embassy in Saigon what you're thinking of when you say he cleaned up? Or were you thinking of the thousands of boat people, bobbing about in the South China Sea after the NVA took Saigon? Does cutting and running constitute cleaning up when it's undertaken by a Republican?

3 - Correct, if you consider the failure to achieve a peace treaty the equivalent to "cleaning up." Last I heard, the Korean War has never officially ended, and each side still has thousands of guns pointed at the other, up and down the DMZ. Sure, Eisenhower got us out, but that's about it.

4 - Reaching a bit, aren't we? I haven't heard anything to indicate that we're any closer to a settlement in Palestine than we were back in Oslo, and that didn't exactly produce lasting peace. But we can safely assume that Bush and McCain will get the job done? Why? Because America's standing in the world is so much higher now?

5 - FDR died before the war was over. And Truman takes a lot of flack for caving in to the Soviets at Potsdam. MacArthur certainly cleaned up in Japan, and the Marshall Plan may have saved Western Europe, but I don't think Truman is immune to criticism.

6 - I'm not sure how Coolidge could have cleaned up after WWI. Wilson blew the Treaty of Versailles in the Senate, but it's hard to see where he failed to clean up what he started. The war was over, the empires of Central and Eastern Europe were dismantled, and rather than involving themselves in the League of Nations to help keep the peace, Americans turned their attention to Babe Ruth, Jazz, Klan membership, and gaming the stock market. As far as I know, Coolidge spent most of his time fishing. And by the way, your analysis conveniently overlooked the good work of the scandal-plagued Harding administration, which did absolutely nothing for three years, until Coolidge took over and continued to do absolutely nothing, until Hoover took over and continued to do nothing. But he has a dam named after him.


----------



## Lushington (Jul 12, 2006)

ksinc said:


> Are you high?
> 
> #1 America never built an empire.


The United States is undoubtedly an empire- and has been almost from its inception. It came into existence through the express imperial ambitions of Great Britain, and after it achieved independence it continued the imperial enterprise with more vigor than the British ever showed. The Monroe Doctrine, to take only one example, is a declaration of imperial ambition, as were the many versions of Manifest Destiny. The Louisiana Purchase and Seward's folly were peaceful inter-imperial transfers of territory, the Mexican-American War was a classic imperial land grab, and the Civil War was fought to determine the ultimate form that the American imperium would assume. Our current expedition to the Rivers of Babylon is virtually a textbook example of an imperial military adventure, much like the Roman conquest and rule of the Middle East 2000 odd years ago. Of course, like most mature empires the US prefers not to undertake such expensive and dangerous expeditions, and prefers to rule through satraps and lackeys and to employ less brutal means of hegemony (Dollar Diplomacy, The Washingon Consensus, etc.); but when indirect rule fails matters must be dealt with directly. When an imperial power loses the ability to impose its will by direct force, or to plausibly threaten to do so, its decline commences in earnest. The US has not yet reached that point; thus rumors and celebrations of the "decline of empire" are premature.



> #2 Vietnam - entered by Kennedy(D), escalated by LBJ(D), ended by Nixon(R), and cleaned up by Ford(R)
> 
> #3 Korea - entered by Truman(D), ended and cleaned up by Eisenhower(R)
> 
> ...


The fact of American Empire not being in dispute, partisan finger-pointing about US war-making is as pointless as debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. It may fascinate those who are easily fascinated by political metaphysics, but it has small relevance to the real world. You didn't start this nonsense, but as you bothered to follow up . . .

US involvement in Vietnam began long before the Kennedy Administration. Kennedy inherited it from Eisenhower, who inherited it from Truman. Both of these presidents sent millions of dollars of equipment and materiel, as well as limited personnel, to anti-communists in Vietnam. With the US rejection of the Geneva Accords in 1956, massive US intervention was just a matter of time, and this began in 1961.

There will be no Palestinian state under any American Administration.

FDR was dead by the time WWII ended, not that it mattered much. I suppose you could say that despite this he "cleaned" up WWII . . .

. . . in which case, how did the Coolidge Administration "clean up" WWI? the Kellogg-Briand pact? Coolidge attained office nearly five years after the war ended, Versailles was completed, the US had rejected membership in the LON, and the Washington Naval Conference occurred during Harding's time in office, as did revocation of many parts of Espionage and Sedition Acts and the release of many of the political prisoners jailed under the Act. No American administration took any action to adjust war debt until the Hoover Moratorium of 1931, and adjustment of war debt was perhaps the one thing that could have "cleaned up" WWI. I might be overlooking something obvious, but how did Silent Cal "clean up" WWI?



> An exception is Lincoln(R) & Johnson(D), but that's a bit unusual ... Andrew Johnson was a Southern Democrat working with the union as a Yankee Republican. Basically, reconstruction was a Republican operation which was finished by Grant(R) and Hayes(R).


Reconstruction was never finished; it was abandoned in 1877 in the deal that gave Hayes the presidency. This abandonment, much more than the legacy of slavery, was the cause of the ineradicable racial divide that exists in the US.


----------



## Lushington (Jul 12, 2006)

brokencycle said:


> McCain doesn't want to fight in Iraq for 100 years like the New York Times will have you believe. He believes we should be in Iraq like we are in Korea or Japan - a small military presence to help our allies and discourage enemies from attacking.


This is easily the funniest thing I've read this week. Who, exactly, are our "allies" in Iraq? And our "small" military presence is intended to discourage whose enemies from attacking Iraq? The United States is the only country that has attacked Iraq. Is our "small" military presence intended to prevent us from attacking Iraq? Not a bad idea, actually; but I thought we attacked Iraq in the first place to "discourage" Iraq from attacking. . . . someone . . . with WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION that didn't exist. Now it develops that we attacked Iraq to "discourage" . . . . someone else . . . from attacking Iraq and our "allies" within Iraq, who also don't exist. I see: here we have yet another example of American altruism and concern for the wretched of the Earth. We are a noble nation, are we not? Forever killing people for their own benefit and safety. It is just a shame that we are so misunderstood, that our unprecedented virtue and selflessness is forever being mistaken for imperial ambition and naked self-interest. Bummer.

For purposes of the Iraq war, it doesn't matter which of the remaining "candidates" is elected in November. They are all warmongers to greater or lesser degrees, and all will continue the war if they can do so. The nominal political affiliation of the winner is of small importance in this respect.


----------



## Lushington (Jul 12, 2006)

ksinc said:


> AThank God for IKE! It's not like one of the two most eloquent advocates of Freedom in the 20th Century wasn't telling FDR and the world what was happening.


FDR knew exactly what was happening. He went to sleep every night after September 1, 1939 hoping that the Japanese would do something stupid to facilitate US entry into WWII. The American electorate was dead set against any US involvement in the war, and something was needed to overcome that inertia. The hell of it was, the Japanese proved strangely reluctant to do something stupid. The cooler heads in Japan knew that they could not win a war against the US, and when push came shove caution gained an upper hand. Finally, events overcame caution and the Japanese did something stupid. Then Hitler did something even more stupid. FDR couldn't have asked for a better outcome.


----------



## BertieW (Jan 17, 2006)

Lushington said:


> This is easily the funniest thing I've read this week. Who, exactly, are our "allies" in Iraq? And our "small" military presence is intended to discourage whose enemies from attacking Iraq? The United States is the only country that has attacked Iraq. Is our "small" military presence intended to prevent us from attacking Iraq? Not a bad idea, actually; but I thought we attacked Iraq in the first place to "discourage" Iraq from attacking. . . . someone . . . with WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION that didn't exist. Now it develops that we attacked Iraq to "discourage" . . . . someone else . . . from attacking Iraq and our "allies" within Iraq, who also don't exist. I see: here we have yet another example of American altruism and concern for the wretched of the Earth. We are a noble nation, are we not? Forever killing people for their own benefit and safety. It is just a shame that we are so misunderstood, that our unprecedented virtue and selflessness is forever being mistaken for imperial ambition and naked self-interest. Bummer.
> 
> For purposes of the Iraq war, it doesn't matter which of the remaining "candidates" is elected in November. They are all warmongers to greater or lesser degrees, and all will continue the war if they can do so. The nominal political affiliation of the winner is of small importance in this respect.


Lushington,

Well when you put it like that, it reads a lot more like Joseph Heller! LOL.

Cheers.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Lushington,

As to the US rejection of the Geneva Accords it was the correct policy bc they rested on the fiction that there could be a free elections in North and South Vietnam. And lets be honest Diem was in a very difficult position (though JFK made it even more so in 1963!)

It can even be said that Nixon lost Vietnam bc of Watergate. Watergate and its aftermath and the political paralysis it caused in Washington prevented Ford from supplying South Vietnam with the necessary matieral and air support it needed to defend itself against Soviet sponsored North Vietnamese aggression. Remember that in 1972 the ARVN, with US air support and material assistance was able to defeat the Easter Offensive of North Vietnam.

Had South Vietnam survived I have little doubt that it would have followed a development path similiar to that of the Republic of China or South Korea. Another failure of Nixon I guess.

Karl


----------



## Lushington (Jul 12, 2006)

Karl89 said:


> Lushington,
> 
> As to the US rejection of the Geneva Accords it was the correct policy bc they rested on the fiction that there could be a free elections in North and South Vietnam. And lets be honest Diem was in a very difficult position (though JFK made it even more so in 1963!)


Yeah, JFK put Our Man In Saigon in the dead position, which may or may not be difficult, depending on many variables. Of course, this is precisely what an imperial warlord does with an incompetent satrap.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Lushington,

Lets not forget that it was largely bc of FDR's policies that the European powers were unable to reconstruct their Asian empires. The Japanese truly did achieve an East Asia for East Asians but not quite in their manner of choice. And the US did grant the Phillipines almost immediate independence and the Filipinos prompted elected a Japanese collaborator - though our man in Manila was only a few years off, to the delight of high end shoe makers everywhere.

Karl


----------



## Lushington (Jul 12, 2006)

Karl89 said:


> Lushington,
> 
> Lets not forget that it was largely bc of FDR's policies that the European powers were unable to reconstruct their Asian empires. The Japanese truly did achieve an East Asia for East Asians but not quite in their manner of choice. And the US did grant the Phillipines almost immediate independence and the Filipinos prompted elected a Japanese collaborator - though our man in Manila was only a few years off, to the delight of high end shoe makers everywhere.
> 
> Karl


Actually, US strategic thinking in the Pacific theater was much like the recent thinking leading up to the Iraq misadventure. With the Japanese playing the imperial game with a vengeance, the dream of American East Asian expansionists suddenly appeared attainable. Japan was already doing much of the heavy lifting, so all the U.S. had to do was muscle the Japanese out of the way, and the Open Door would fall off its hinges. The Japanese, however, proved downright intransigent and had ideas of their own. The US was never going to stand by and watch the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere play out, so something had to be done. It eventually was; but by that time Uncle Joe was mucking about in the Far East and the Kuomintang were on the run. Interesting times lay ahead.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

burton said:


> I think many of these points are open to interpretation. As a disclaimer, I don't think that evaluating current political parties based on the actions of individual past Presidents makes very much sense. But in the interest of advancing the conversation, I submit the following, much of which I learned at school, and so, according to a prior post, it must be considered suspect knowledge at best.
> 
> 1 - Maybe America never built an empire in the classic sense. But if that's the case, I wonder we what we were doing fighting a native insurrection in the Philippines, years after the Spanish (empire) ceded it to us. Also, most of the western US was taken by military conquest from the Mexicans. We don't call it an empire, because the people who would ordinarily be considered the empire's subject peoples were wiped off the face of the earth. Empires sometimes behave that way.
> 
> ...





Lushington said:


> The United States is undoubtedly an empire- and has been almost from its inception. It came into existence through the express imperial ambitions of Great Britain, and after it achieved independence it continued the imperial enterprise with more vigor than the British ever showed. The Monroe Doctrine, to take only one example, is a declaration of imperial ambition, as were the many versions of Manifest Destiny. The Louisiana Purchase and Seward's folly were peaceful inter-imperial transfers of territory, the Mexican-American War was a classic imperial land grab, and the Civil War was fought to determine the ultimate form that the American imperium would assume. Our current expedition to the Rivers of Babylon is virtually a textbook example of an imperial military adventure, much like the Roman conquest and rule of the Middle East 2000 odd years ago. Of course, like most mature empires the US prefers not undertake such expensive and dangerous expeditions, and prefers to rule through satraps and lackeys and to employ less brutal means of hegemony (Dollar Diplomacy, The Washingon Consensus, etc.); but when indirect rule fails matters must be dealt with directly. When an imperial power loses the ability to impose its will by direct force, or to plausibly threaten to do so, its decline commences in earnest. The US has not yet reached that point; thus rumors and celebrations of the "decline of empire" are premature.
> 
> The fact of American Empire not being in dispute, partisan finger-pointing about US war-making is as pointless as debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. It may fascinate those who are easily fascinated by political metaphysics, but it has small relevance to the real world. You didn't start this nonsense, but as you bothered to follow up . . .
> 
> ...


1- "Maybe America never built an empire in the classic sense." I try to stick with the classic sense of words, such as recession or empire. I think that's the only way to have a fair and reasonable discussion instead of a vitriolic debate. Just my opinion. I do agree America has acted in some ways that violate the concept of a Republic and coincide with the behavior of an Empire. However, the fact remains we did not build one as you said "in the classic sense." My views on McKinley v Wilson and the scoundrel AKA President Lincoln are previously documented on the Interchange I think. So, I was trying to cut to the chase rather than beat a dead horse.

2- I will concede your point that it was not Kennedy(D) that "started" Vietnam, but Truman(D). I'm not sure how that helps the OP.

3- I agree in large part and I was being generous with "cleaning up" as getting us out of active combat. The objective was met of keeping NK above the parallel. I do admit that seems to run counter to the classic sense of cleaning up. Clearly, I was in a false dichotomy imposed by the OP. That's my story and I'm sticking to it! 

4- Yes, stretching a bit, but last I checked W(R) has done more to clean up the obvious mistake one-sidedness of the diplomacy of a real empire and the approval of Truman. They have what a President, a Prime Minister and democratic elections and an agreement on a Palestenian State path. Not sterilized, but cleaner than say Clinton's meeting with Arafat.

5- Ok, I was kind of giving Ike the credit for Normandy, but YMMV.

6- Yes, I skipped Harding for the reason you mentioned and because it was not linked to the OP's thesis. Coolidge cleaned up a lot of Wilson's stupidity if only returning to a policy of conservative Federal government. Perhaps he cleaned up TR v Taft more than WW1.

The point was not to sell the (R)s as cleanerupers, but to point out that no war has been started by a (R) and then cleaned up by a (D) which was not oly the thesis presented, but presented as a habitual pattern. Yes, I took some conveniences and shortcuts in retelling the history of the US since 1860 in 250 words. I apologize. 

Certainly history is open to interpretation, but the OP's thesis went beyond any reasonable interpretation. I was trying to hit the high points. I hope my view on a detailed inspection and debate of each incident was shown by my question regarding "stupid wars v. non-stupid wars." You are right FDR begged for it, the main point being he was not a (R).


----------



## AMVanquish (May 24, 2005)

In the interest of fairness, I guess we should note that HW Bush started Somalia and Clinton had to end it.


----------



## Lushington (Jul 12, 2006)

The always excellent War Nerd hits one out of the park with a V-E Day celebration of the Red Army and Uncle Joe's "mucking about in the Far East":

https://www.exile.ru/print.php?ARTICLE_ID=18939&IBLOCK_ID=35

A couple of mild inaccuracies, but overall a virtuoso piece.


----------



## TMMKC (Aug 2, 2007)

ksinc said:


> #2 Vietnam - entered by Kennedy(D), escalated by LBJ(D), ended by Nixon(R), and cleaned up by Ford(R)


Not that I am a Kennedy fan (he was WAY overrated and history has been far too kind to him), but wasn't it Eisenhower who first sent "Advisors" into Vietnam?


----------



## DukeGrad (Dec 28, 2003)

*Eisenhower*

Gentlemen

I am reading his biography, yes to sending troops to Vietnam. Mike Korda did the bio, excellent bio.
Gentlemen, am a veteran and served 2 years. Was Republican, till Bush 2, now switched.
Please my friends, do a Google on McCain, read what happened in the prison camps.
I swear he is hell bent on getting back, to our leaving Vietnam, or is having some type of PTSD. W dont need any more conflicts with any other country. We cant carry the load. The Marine Corps is screaming to get out of Afganistan, and we are understrength, beaten, and not doing well here in this country.The Army is having a depressing time of it as well.
IMO,, I see no good candidates, this is depressing as well. For the interim, Hillary, her husband is well loved overseas. Something else we need! We need dire help in this country gentlemen

Nice day


----------



## DukeGrad (Dec 28, 2003)

*25 years*

Gentlemen
Sorry, rushed through my note, served 25 years.
No to McCain

Later
Nice day my friends


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

DukeGrad said:


> Gentlemen...IMO,, I see no good candidates, this is depressing as well. For the interim, Hillary, her husband is well loved overseas. Something else we need! We need dire help in this country gentlemen
> 
> Nice day


As another veteran, I regret to have to say...I disagree most strongly with one of your conclusions, in this instance! Bill Clinton was a draft dodger, whose often boorish, self serving decisions brought great disgrace to an Office to which he never should have been elected. Having spent 27 years wearing the uniform, my greatest regret is having chosen to continue serving after that A** was elected to the Presidency. Sadly, Hillary, given her almost pathological bent towards dishonesty, deserves Bill but, the Country doesnt!


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

TMMKC said:


> Not that I am a Kennedy fan (he was WAY overrated and history has been far too kind to him), but wasn't it Eisenhower who first sent "Advisors" into Vietnam?


It depends on where you start with "first" Truman was in there in the first indochina war supporting the French.


----------



## DukeGrad (Dec 28, 2003)

*Eagle*

Gentlemen, Eagle

I understand your argument and in agreement with you regarding certain political or human errors. Draft dodging is a term I am not comfortable with. We, you and I, serve to protect those very people. In the Vietnam era, there was a lot of confusion.You know as well as I, people make decisions, life moving decsions regarding issues. Going to war for instance.
I have no qualms about who served, or who did not. I am content with my choice, and respect anyother persons decision regarding war. I feel, that it is not in every bodies mind to serve in the military. This is my opinion. Thus, I do not use the term draft dodger.
I have family on wifes side that did not serve, and have had all my family serve. I respect their decision.
IMO, the military needs to respect everyone, women, gays, and religions. IMO I say.

Bill Clinton, kept our foreign friends happy, and peaecful with us.
Not what is happening now.
I have been proud to serve in uniform, "no matter" who was the man in charge.
This is a sad issue we have, unfortunately no resolution in sight.
My friend, this fora is a boiling point I can see, you have a nice day.
As I tell my kids, keep your chin up, smile, and have a happy day..And go fly fishing.
Nice day my friends


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^Thanks for your very eloquently stated reply Jimmy. Sorry if my post came off as a bit abrupt. However, it is not just Bill Clinton's efforts to avoid military service that concerns me. There is also his reprehensible personal conduct, while in office; his dishonesty with the American public; questionable pardons, granted for contributions and favors; and the over $200,000 in damages done to the White House as the Clinton Administration cleaned out their desks. I suppose I could go on with the examples of 'bad' but, what purpose would be served? The bottom line is, it is truly depressing to think this is the best this Country can offer to assume responsibility for our national leadership! 

Take care my friend and I hope you catch some big ones, with that new fly rod today!

Chuck


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

eagle2250 said:


> ^ There is also his reprehensible personal conduct, while in office; . . . and the over $200,000 in damages done to the White House as the Clinton Administration cleaned out their desks.


Again with this canard?

First off, according to the GAO report, you're off by a factor of ten.

Second, the GAO report tried to figure out whether things were any worse in the Clinton-Bush transition than during previous transitions, and the evidence is, at best, equivocal.

I know conservatives like to talk about this as evidence of how immature the Clinton people were, but it doesn't hold water.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^ Gee Jack, I guess you must be discounting the 'property of the people' that was packed up and taken by the Clintons by mistake (my a**!), and returned when they were questioned about the missing items. Something tells me the Clintons, both being lawyers at the time, should have known the difference between a State gift and a personal gift! Sorry Jack...they give trailer trash a bad name.


----------



## hopkins_student (Jun 25, 2004)

DukeGrad said:


> Bill Clinton, kept our foreign friends happy, and peaecful with us.


So you're telling me the idea to attack the United States on September 11th was not developed until after January 20, 2001? If not, then I suppose all of our foreign friends weren't quite happy and planning to be peaceful with us when Bill Clinton was president.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Jack, did you actually bother to read that before you posted it? It does not support your thesis at all.


----------



## agnash (Jul 24, 2006)

Karl89 said:


> Gents,
> 
> McCain wants to cut the corporate tax rate from 37% to 25% - considering that the US has the second highest corporate tax rate in the OECD this is a smart move. I hope however that this is done in conjunction with a closing of most corporate tax loopholes.
> 
> Karl


I listen to a radical right wing radio station (National Public Radio) during my evening commute. I heard yesterday several Democratic Senators say that the corporate income tax rate needs to be reduced in order to be competitive. The same sort of thing seems to be happening over in England.


----------



## DukeGrad (Dec 28, 2003)

*McCain*

Gentlemen

Just thought I bring this back up for the heck of it.
Just wanted to say, nice evening

Jimmy


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

"DukeGrad -Bill Clinton, kept our foreign friends happy, and peaecful with us."

*The first World Trade Center bombing
*Khobar Towers bombing – Saudi Arabia
*U.S. Embassy bombings - Kenya/Tanzania
*USS Cole Bombing - Yemen

There were obviously some folks who were pretty unhappy with us even during those good ole Clinton days.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

World trade towers - weren't they bombed from in the basement during the Clinton years? And didn't Hillary pester her husband to go into Iraq to take out Saddam Hussein?

We've had Bush (4), Clinton (8), Bush (8)- do we want another 4 or 8 years of the same families in the White House? 20 years of two families is more than enough. 24 or 28 years is toooo many. Change is needed in the White House. Don't care for what is offered (MaCain or Obama), but change is needed.


----------



## DukeGrad (Dec 28, 2003)

*WA, Relayer*

WA, good points, agree with you regading same individual in office. Maybe Andy here will run.
What do we do.

Relayer, I do not understand your comments. Compared to Bush, Bill Clinton had a fav. rating of 70 percent, George 30 I believe.
I am not talking about minor skirmishes, and Kenya, the Cole, Yeman were minor skirmishes that were induce on by the UN peacekeeping force. Clinton, his one big move o to ssay was he sent the 10th Mountain to Africa, after the killing of Pakistan troops by the crazy mobs.
He did not spend freaking billions on a war, put this country into a recession, and with his buddy the VP want to go to another country and start it again.
I believe Clinton, one time pulled the plug and sent a missle, one or two into Saudia arabia.
This is not a war monger, this suggest diplomacy. Sometimes we need that.
We need to revert, get out, like Vietnam, and regroup.
McCain, as I have stated earlier, an admirable man, not a man for president, not this time.
I have no idea gentlemen who is the person, just discussing the mass confusion in the white house now.
Our troops are tired, drained.
I am sorry if I bumped heads on my opinion, I am hoping you all see that it is my passion, my love for my country that is driving me. I see, and read my friends. We are in deep kimshee, broke, poor, hunger, no jobs, no money, and a world of hurt in our present soldier/sailor and Marine enviroment.
Nice day my friends

See ya all afer weekend


----------



## DukeGrad (Dec 28, 2003)

*Our enemies*

Gentlemen

I want to clarify my self some. I am of the mind, we have a lot of reaking enemies out there. I know this immensely.
A whole slew of people that hate this country.
The old WW 2 types, god rest my father. Knew hot to put a war, or a battle to the end.
Sad to say, we are too proud to use this might.
We have always skirted around conflict, carried them out, and left.
I know a lot of military, old and young know this.
If I had my way, there would be plenty of parking for us in the Middle East!
This is IMO.
I am going to the gym, then fishing

Nice day my friends


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

DukeGrad,

When you posted that "Clinton kept our friends happy and peaceful with us", did you mean our "ally" kind of friends? If so, I believe that we have been at peace with those friends throughout Bush's term. When you quote favorability rating of 30%, are you now speaking of US polls? 

Those terrorist incidents that you dismiss as "minor skirmishes" where very indicative of some major issues for the US that culminated in the 9/11 terror attack... hardly minor. 

Maybe because of Clinton's diplomacy our favorability ratings amongst our friends was excellent. Apparently amongst our enemies we were somewhat less esteemed.

And there's nothing wrong with a litte head bumping in my opinion. Its just discussing differing views.


----------



## DukeGrad (Dec 28, 2003)

*Relayer*

Your are so right!

You win, I lose, now I am going fishing!
I am gonna vote for McCain too.
Have a nice day my friends
LOL
Jimmy


----------



## DukeGrad (Dec 28, 2003)

*Happy Mothers day!*

Nice day my friends

Jimmy


----------



## Cadillac-89 (May 6, 2008)

BertieW said:


> I really do. Not because I agree with much of his politics; I don't. But I think it would be better for him to manage (or whatever the word would be) this situation:
> 
> A Democrat would only end up taking the fall for Bush's $10-12 billion/month adventure.
> 
> ...


I'm not American so it shouldn't matter to me, but I also hope McCain wins. Obama doesn't know what he's doing and the other choice, who seems so sickingly desperate to win, isn't even worth mentioning.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

DukeGrad said:


> I believe Clinton, one time pulled the plug and sent a missle, one or two into Saudia arabia.
> This is not a war monger, this suggest diplomacy.


Although UN backed, (then again, so was invading Afghanistan) are we not forgetting a few things? Bosnia? Blowing up the Chinese embassy by "mistake" right when the Clinton/Chinese campaign scandal was growing, factories blown up the day Monica testified? No, Bill was not afraid to send some messages or have people killed to divert from his personal mistakes.

I am not happy with Dubya's war, never have been, said so many times for years here now, but Clinton was not above having a place bombed for very personal reasons. I find this at least as bad.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Cadillac-89 said:


> and the other choice, who seems so sickingly desperate to win, isn't even worth mentioning.


Well said. It also gave me my first laugh of the day.

Obama has said nothing but hope, that is like Bush going into Iraq with no exit strategy. Hope with no mechanical methods for action is like eating a dream pizza when starving- when I'm straving I want a real pizza, not a dream pizza. Obama has said nothing concrete.


----------



## StickPig (Feb 8, 2008)

baloogafish said:


> Anybody agree with McCain's tax benefits on large corporations ?


I'd like to know what economists think of his proposal. I'm not an economist, but it seems logical to me that corporations really pay little to no actual tax. The money they pay is just transferred to the price of the goods and services they sell.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

StickPig said:


> I'd like to know what economists think of his proposal. I'm not an economist, but it seems logical to me that corporations really pay little to no actual tax.* The money they pay is just transferred to the price of the goods and services they sell.*


That is a common fallacy. Taxes are not transferred on a 1:1 basis to the consumer. In fact, a tax increase might well be absorbed 100% by a corporation. There will be a disequilibrium in the supply/demand intersection as the demand line will not change but the supply line with shift towards the left, becoming "supply + tax" for pricing vs. just the "supply" line, which will reside lower/to the right of the "supply + tax" line. The usual effect is that less product will be sold and also less profits will be made by the organization. Long term, this will affect capital allocation, as why would a rational actor put new capital into that market vs. a more profitable one?


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

StickPig said:


> I'd like to know what economists think of his proposal. I'm not an economist, but it seems logical to me that corporations really pay little to no actual tax. The money they pay is just transferred to the price of the goods and services they sell.


Actually, it is a bit more complicated than that. First one must distinguish between the legal incidence of a tax versus the economic incidence of a tax. The former is pretty easy to identify, just look to which legal person cut the check. But artificial entities do not bear economic tax burdens -- real flesh and blood individuals do. If that were not the case, real flesh and blood people wouldn't be concerned about tax levies imposed on corporations. The economic burden of the corporate income tax is a matter of considerable controversy and uncertainty. We know that the economic burden of the tax is borne by some combination of shareholders (through reduced returns), consumers (through higher prices) and employees (through reduced wages). We also know that the relative burdens among these groups differ by industry and are fluid, because the market variables that determine such things vary by industry and are fluid. But that is about all we know with confidence. It can be argued that the corporate tax is among our silliest of taxes since its burden (i.e., economic burden) is largely unknown and therefore somewhat random and arbitrary. But because the burden is hidden, it will remain a popular tax. Now all that said, it can certainly be argued that because corporations are legal persons that receive legal benefits (such as access to courts to enforce contracts) they should bear some direct legal burden, and this is sensible. One must ask, though, whether one-third of their income is a fair exaction for such beneifts.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Mike:

Good post. I was assuming he meant the incidence of taxation would be on the corporation. I like how you included shareholders, etc. in your summary. Very Mankiw of you


----------



## gnatty8 (Nov 7, 2006)

StickPig said:


> I'd like to know what economists think of his proposal. I'm not an economist, but it seems logical to me that corporations really pay little to no actual tax. The money they pay is just transferred to the price of the goods and services they sell.


Depends on the elasticity of demand. For products where demand is extremely inelastic, tax increases can usually be passed through one for one (think tobacco), whereas when demand is more elastic (responsive to price), firms find it more difficult to pass taxes through and get away with it. As with much in economics, it depends.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> Mike:
> 
> Good post. I was assuming he meant the incidence of taxation would be on the corporation. I like how you included shareholders, etc. in your summary. Very Mankiw of you


Thank you, Wayfarer. I am a corporate tax lawyer who happens to have a B.A. in Economics, so this is kind of in my wheelhouse.

Gnatty8 is absolutely right that elasticity of product/service demand is key, and the corporate taxpayer's investment (i.e., capital) and employment (i.e., labor) markets also have relevant elasticities; and such elasticies are a function of the interplay of many constantly changing variables, which makes them almost as interesting to study as they are difficult to fully understand or predict in practice. There is a reason why command economies simply do not work.


----------



## agnash (Jul 24, 2006)

*Corporate taxation*

There have been several excellent posts on corporate taxation, and on who or what pays, but politicians are not known for their intellectual capability, especially when working in groups. Most of the dimwits, oops, I mean senators, who I have heard interviewed have simply looked at from a position of competitive advantage: companies have some ability to cherry pick the jurisdiction of their legal residence. If the tax burden becomes high enough, they can simply move their registration to pay lower taxes. Or, as is often the case, the original registration is in a location with a low taxburden.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

agnash said:


> [C]ompanies have some ability to cherry pick the jurisdiction of their legal residence. If the tax burden becomes high enough, they can simply move their registration to pay lower taxes. Or, as is often the case, the original registration is in a location with a low taxburden.


Just to clarify, while some planning opportunities do exist, a corporation that does business in the US generally must pay US taxes on the income it earns in the US regardless of its legal domicile. That said, the relatively high US corporate tax rate does serve to incent corporations to locate select operations (as opposed to simply their "registration") elsewhere. For example, a US company might form a foreign subsidiary in a lower tax jurisdiction to manufacture goods for it (the parent) to sell. The subsidiary would charge the US company a fair price for such goods, including some profit component, thereby shifting some of the business's profit from the high tax US to the lower tax foreign nation. Similarly, a foreign corporation might decline to locate a manufacturing plant in the US for the same reason, even if it has a US affiliate selling to US consumers. In order to ensure that these intercompany transactions allocate profits fairly, extensive laws and regulations prevent the US company from paying (actually deducting) more than a fair price (i.e., an arm's length price representing what unrelated parties would agree upon) for the goods it purchases from an affiliate. The IRS enforces these rules with considerable diligence.

While these types of tax-sensitive decisions on where to locate operations (and related jobs) are plainly perfectly sensible and appropriate business practices, politicians -- as aptly noted by agnash -- are often quick to score populist rhetorical points by characterizing them as abusive, cheating, etc., especially if the location decision involves the exportation of existing US jobs.


----------

