|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Feb 4, 2008 2:53:08 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by blueneck on Feb 4, 2008 5:27:20 GMT -6
He seems to promote "sharedeconomicgrowth.org" which as we found out is a a quasi supply side/free market org in disguise - promoting more corporate welfare and tax cuts
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Feb 4, 2008 23:17:10 GMT -6
I'll have to check that out.
I doubt seriously that Robert Oak, the site's administrator, supports the ideas of sharedeconomicgrowth.com. If he does, share those views, I'll remove the link.
We don't need any more wolves in sheep's' clothing. (We already have 2 of them running for President.)
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Feb 6, 2008 2:24:58 GMT -6
He seems to promote "sharedeconomicgrowth.org" which as we found out is a a quasi supply side/free market org in disguise - promoting more corporate welfare and tax cuts It appears that the site administrator, Robert Oak, has an open forum, and that the sharedeconomicgrowth promoter has just posted his own world view at the forum. This is exactly the same article he posted here on this forum. I don't think the EconomicPopulist.org site supports sharedeconomicgrowth's viewpoint at all. In fact, parts of the quasi-supply side tax scam have been challenged on the forum, largely because the numbers don't add up. (What a surprise that a supply-sider's numbers don't add up.)
|
|
|
Post by blueneck on Feb 8, 2008 19:43:03 GMT -6
The site has some great info I'll give it that.
Did you catch Oak's response to you ULC? he continues to stick up for sharedeconomicgrowth
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Feb 8, 2008 21:10:58 GMT -6
The site has some great info I'll give it that. Did you catch Oak's response to you ULC? he continues to stick up for sharedeconomicgrowth No, I didn't catch that. The last time I checked, he was challenging specific aspects of sharedeconomicgrowth's Corporate welfare scam. It had to do with how the taxes were deducted. Once again, I'll have to investigate. SharedeconomicGrowth posted his Corporate tax scam on this forum over a week ago. At that time, I spent several hours reading his proposal, and some additional time trying to determine the actual amounts that Corporations pay in taxes. His comments that Corporations pay 35% in taxes is deceptive. Corporations can almost eliminate that amount by paying profits out in salaries. Apparently, they do have to pay taxes on stockholder dividends, though I'm not really sure about that one. However, from BEA statistics, the current annualized gross profits of Corporate America are $1,612.9 billion. According to the Treasury Dept's fiscal 2007 report, annual 2007 Corporate taxes totaled $370 billion. Using those numbers alone would make the average tax rate 23%, not 35%. At Robert Oak's site, I didn't really have the time or motivation to go back over shared's plan again, item by item. I still think it's idiotic to propose a tax cut as solution to outsourcing. It's dishonest, and makes no sense. If Chinese labor cost $130/day, instead of $4/day, shared's idea might have a smidgeon of merit. But Chinese workers are paid $4/day, not $130/day. As such, it is unquestionably labor cost savings, not tax savings, that drive Benedict Arnold American Corporations to move their production facilities overseas, and replace $140/day American workers with $4/day Chinese workers (or $2/day North Korean slave workers).
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Feb 8, 2008 22:51:06 GMT -6
Blueneck,
Thanks for the heads-up about Oak's commentary. You were right. He appears now to support sharedeconomic growth's views and position.
I'm certainly surprised at Oak's opposition to my view, and support of sharedeconomicgrowth's position. Having known Robert Oak for several years (online), I had thought he and I were in near complete agreement.
It appears I was wrong. He certainly has taken issue with my comments, and weighed in on the side of sharedeconomicgrowth's tax scam.
I posted my disillusionment at the site, and stated I was withdrawing my recommendation and support of the site.
I freely tolerate opposing points of view on my own forum. In fact, I encourage them, as they serve as a basis of discussion.
But I cannot, in good conscience, recommend a site where the admistrator and I are in fundamental disagreement—especially on something as critical as the Corporate cheap labor lobby. (I think Oak was the 1st person I ever heard use the term--"cheap labor lobby.") My continued recommendation of his site would imply my being in fundamental agreement with the views and positions. But this is no longer the case.
Since I'm no longer in fundamental agreement with Oak, I'm withdrawing my support of his site, and I will remove the link.
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Aug 20, 2008 20:21:21 GMT -6
It now appears that Robert Oak has returned to a truly pro-populist advocate. The previous diversion was apparently an isolated episode.
|
|
|
Post by proletariat on Oct 11, 2008 9:22:36 GMT -6
He also seems to be anti "protectionist" which surprised me quite a bit. It was kind of like bringing a girl home only to find out she was a ...
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Oct 11, 2008 15:37:15 GMT -6
He also seems to be anti "protectionist" which surprised me quite a bit. It was kind of like bringing a girl home only to find out she was a ... Thanks, proletariat. I wasn't aware of that. It looks like I'm going to have to reassess that site again. I know Oak is very much against H1B visas. It only seems logical that he'd be against outsourcing the very same jobs that H1B visa holders are taking away from Americans. But apparently that's not the case. Just to clarify my own position, in case anyone hadn't figured it out yet, I'm a militant and unapologetic protectionist. To me, the only "bad" tariff is one that isn't high enough.
|
|
|
Post by blueneck on Oct 11, 2008 17:28:51 GMT -6
Now hold one, before going off the deep end.
Oak doesn't agree with tariffs. That is it, but he is definitely against offshoring, jus d oesn't believe that tariffs are the right way to go about it. That is his opinion, not shared by me or many others at that site either. simply a difference of opinion
|
|
|
Post by proletariat on Oct 11, 2008 17:36:30 GMT -6
Yes, I was just about to clarify by protectionist I meant tariffs. I think it is rather difficult to be against outsourcing and tariffs. Maybe if as Pete Murphy argues we only trade with those with similar population densities. I did get the feeling he saw protectionists as a historical relic of some sort. Now hold one, before going off the deep end. Oak doesn't agree with tariffs. That is it, but he is definitely against offshoring, jus d oesn't believe that tariffs are the right way to go about it. That is his opinion, not shared by me or many others at that site either. simply a difference of opinion
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Oct 11, 2008 20:25:48 GMT -6
Yes, I was just about to clarify by protectionist I meant tariffs. I think it is rather difficult to be against outsourcing and tariff. I think it's difficult too. If you're against outsourcing, then you need to have some tangible policy to reduce it. Tariff imposition is the only action we can take ourselves that will actually reduce outsourcing. Yelling at the Chinese and begging them to stop manipulating their currency hasn't done any good at all, nor will it ever do any good. Furthermore, even if China did stop manipulating their currency, there would still be the huge wage differential, with 50¢/hour Chinese workers competing with $18/hour American workers. There is no way to offset that wage difference other than levying tariffs. If you claim you're "against" outsourcing, than you must be "for" something to actually reduce it. That policy is imposition of tariffs. Labor standards and environmental standards are not enforceable, and everyone knows it. In contrast, tariffs are enforceable. And very effective.
|
|