Political Punch

Hello Jake Tapper,,well,,I would offer one thought..that sensative issues cost less in these countries..
The American worker has diversified the wrong way right out of their ball-field..
..
Its all about..COST..this latest economy..American worker sustain themse lves in some DREAM..
The Corporations dissolve the facts in poor performance-even BODY language..set the American..looseily alinged to:Production..
Americans have succumbed to organized-"baloney"..in the HIGH Tech Age.

Jim - these guys are Democrats, who have not been in charge in 6 years...their mess, bad as it is (and I am no Martha Stewart by any means), is nothing compared to the mess that the GOP has brought us in the last 6 years

Are y'all just picking stories out of the NYT to air? From the senators shacking up to couples who have separate bedrooms, I just keep getting this sense of deja vu all over again.

The piece on Animal House and the people who live there, nauseating as it is, is not a surprise - they live the way they are governing the country; without respect for themselves and without regard for the welfare of the country.

Consulting an energy analyst for tax advice is as dumb as going to a plumber for heart surgery.

I have no desire to defend Halliburton, but I do have a major problem with this article. Let's look at Halliburton's savings of "hundreds of millions" of U.S. taxes.

First, if Halliburton were simply to move its corporate headquarters to Dubai, it would continue to pay U.S. tax on it income worldwide. Therefore, the move would have no federal income tax effect.

Second, in 2004 Congress enacted IRC §7874. Under the new law, if a U.S. corporation migrates to a foreign country, the corporation continues to be treated as a U.S. corportion for tax purposes. Thus, tax avoidance is eleminated. However, if Halliburton were to fall within the exception to IRC §7874, it would be subject to the sanctions imposed under old law. Upon migration, it would pay a toll charge based on the appreciation in value of all of its assets, including goodwill and intangibles. This charge has generally been enough to discourage migration of U.S. parent corporations.

Finally, if Halliburton were to incorporate a new foreign subsidiary in the UAE and move its foreign operations to the new company, it might be able to defer payment of U.S. tax until the income is is ultimately paid to the U.S. parent as a dividend. However, Halliburton would likely have to provide income tax for financial reporting purposes, thereby reducing the earning per share reported to its shareholders. Most U.S. multinational companies operate in this fashion. Congress has allowed it since 1962. The rules allow U.S. companies to compete with their foreign counterparts.

For you to quote an energy analyst who is likely not even aware of the 2004 law change, without deeper research, is sensationalism at best and irresponsible journalism at worst.

Mike in Nevada

The Animal House story is refreshing - defies the limousine liberal stereotype. Doesn't surprise me that Delahunt is in the fraternity. He's a down to earth guy.

On the other hand, the Haliburton story validates every stereotype I ever had about that company.

I saw the promo for this piece over the weekend, involving the excavation of an antique jar of olives from the refrigerator. I'll be sure to watch, if for no other reason, to see how the high and mighty can be such slobs!