Home > Balloon Track, Big box, Eureka California, Marina Center, Rob Arkley > Wal-Mart to push smaller stores

Wal-Mart to push smaller stores

As noted by several recent comments here on this blog, Wal-Mart “is planning an aggressive push into urban markets with a new small format that’s a fraction of the size of its supercenters.”

Followers of developer Rob Arkley’s controversial plans for the Eureka Balloon Track property recall that a provision written into Measure N, which will ask voters in November to weigh-in on zoning designations for the property, would ban such superstores from locating on the project site if passed. The provision was added amid concern that Arkley would happily replace the planned Home Depot with a Wal-Mart.

The provision was toothless from the beginning since Wal-Mart builds stores that don’t rise to the level of a “supercenter.” But now it appears the smaller stores will be part of their “aggressive” norm.

As noted earlier, there is little evidence that Home Depot still has any interest in locating on the Balloon Track, and ample evidence to the contrary.

Eureka voted overwhelmingly to oppose a Wal-Mart on the Balloon Track in 1999.  But it is growing increasingly obvious that Measure N has the same implications, even if the word “Wal-Mart” is omitted from the ballot.

No on Wal-Mart.  No on N.

  1. High Finance
    September 21, 2010 at 12:03 pm

    Free the people from oppressive nanny liberals and let them shop where they wish.

    Yes on N. Yes to freedom.

  2. Smokemonster
    September 21, 2010 at 12:19 pm

    OT- How come no mention yet as to the quote from councilman Frank jager in todays TS about his vote on the city’s smoking ban.’He said he voted for the ordinance “in the spirit of cooperation” with the rest of the council’. WTF frank,are you to scared to be your own man? And some of you want this fence rider as mayor? What other votes have been ‘in the spirit of cooperation’? Who exactly are you cooperating with and for? IMPEACH JAGER

  3. nanny liberals against wal-mart
    September 21, 2010 at 12:28 pm

    “oppressive nanny liberals” ?? now that’s just funny

  4. the Janitor
    September 21, 2010 at 12:32 pm

    Smaller Wal*Mart, smaller paychecks, more disposable junk from across the ocean which will be landfill in a short time, less mom and pop stores, and more profits for Rob Junior. What is the problem here folks? Join the Brady Bunch and get Hooked on Crack so I can buy a microwave oven for $29 already!

  5. Anonymous
    September 21, 2010 at 12:39 pm

    More important than you choice of where to shop, we get to choose the zoning of a very large and important part of our city. Sort of.

    Problem is, is that the lame council only gave us two of the many possible choices.

    I vote for an industrial park zoning for some real living wage jobs actually producing something. Is there a “write-in” spot on the ballot?

  6. When Pigs Fly
    September 21, 2010 at 12:50 pm

    Hey, if you’ve got $30,000, you can have your own ballot measure too.

    (Though it definitely helps to wave it back and forth at the city council meeting podium.)

  7. 06em
    September 21, 2010 at 12:58 pm

    Industrial park??? We can’t have an industrial park in our town. It would run the risk of actually creating local businesses and employing people. That would be like those godless communist oppressive nanny liberals in Arcata, and we can’t have that. We need to widen 101 at that hippy redwood grove and truck in the cheap plastic trinkets so we can barter them for more local money to send out of the area. WHAAAH! WHAAAH! I WANT MY WALMART!!!

  8. Anonymous
    September 21, 2010 at 1:00 pm

    HiFi has his head up his ass again.

  9. Anonymous
    September 21, 2010 at 1:00 pm

    Uh, oppressive nanny liberal Fortuna has a business park.

  10. Reinventing The Wheel
    September 21, 2010 at 1:21 pm

    It’s quite the spectacle to watch “free-to-shop” ninnies trying to deny others their “freedom” to live in Ridgewood Village.

    Local republicans could learn a lot from conservative values that would demand that ALL large projects prove they contribute more to our community than they extract in public subsidies.

  11. Not A Native
    September 21, 2010 at 1:34 pm

    “free the people”, Hi Fi? You really have no respect for interest in a liberal worldview, do you?

    I’d say that in your opinion liberals are just a mob of mindless slogan ranting conformists whose main goal is to follow the equally stupid lemming in front of them. Pat ’em on the back, serve ’em up some crummy food, and give them a warm dry hole, put a protest placard in their hand, and they’ll agree with whatever you tell them. Right, Hi Fi?

  12. just another nanny
    September 21, 2010 at 1:49 pm

    THese places are constantly studying peoples’ buying habits. All the major stores have been downsizing in quiet…dwindling things down to the top selling merchandises. Walmarts and Targets had already began downsizing when they introduced franchises like mcdonalds to set up…they’ve been scaling back shelf density and size…carrying more cheap knockoffs of items that sell…all sorts of subtle indications that there was a lot less inventory in the store. Now even busy big boxers like Target have eliminated almost another half of their inventory…in lieu of groceries. People are buying groceries at these places, which are like subscription purchases (maybe prescription is more accurate). It’s all a big mess.

  13. just another nanny
    September 21, 2010 at 2:00 pm

    reinventing the wheel…the place hasn’t even been built yet. The issue is about its time and place. I say not here, not now. I could tell you to go live where you want if you want a ridgewood mega-village to be built here…there are plenty of ridgewood mega-villages out there already.

  14. September 21, 2010 at 2:19 pm

    There are no plans for a Walmart, so drop it. The definition includes % of space used for groceries, which even the small Walmarts have.

    YES on Measure N. We need the Marina Center NOW !!

  15. September 21, 2010 at 2:31 pm

    ”It’s not going to be a big box. Repeat: It’s not going to be a big box.” — Cherie Arkley, 2004.

    We need the Marina Center NOW!!” — Chris Crawford, 2010.

  16. Plain Jane
    September 21, 2010 at 2:38 pm

    Have you forgotten the definition of “need,” Chris? What do we NEED the Marina Center for? It won’t provide good jobs, we are already awash in empty buildings and over-saturated with home improvement retail. Every study ever done has proven that big boxes are a net drain on jobs and money in a community and parasitic of publicly funded infrastructure. The ONLY people who stand to profit from the Marina Center are Arkley and Home Depot and it will be at OUR expense.

  17. the Janitor
    September 21, 2010 at 2:41 pm

    And I “need” a microwave oven for $29!!! Go Wal*Mart! (Screw Eureka)

  18. Quick Question
    September 21, 2010 at 2:48 pm

    It appears Measure N would not prohibit (for 10 years) a 99,999 square foot WalMart with 4.99% of it’s space dedicated to groceries. Is this correct?

    “Walmart Discount Stores are discount department stores with size varying from 51,000 square feet (4,738.1 m2) to 224,000 square feet (20,810.3 m2), with an average store covering about 102,000 square feet (9,476.1 m2).[43] They carry general merchandise and a selection of groceries.”
    -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wal-Mart

  19. Quick Question
    September 21, 2010 at 2:59 pm

    Where can we get a $29 microwave? Still looking…

    Walmart: $51.54 (not available in stores)
    -http://www.walmart.com/ip/Haier-0.7-Touch-Microwave/10992856

    Target: $49.95 (available at Eureka store)
    -http://www.target.com/s/ref=in_se_pagelist_btm_next?ie=UTF8&keywords=microwave&searchSize=30&searchView=grid5&searchNodeID=1038576|1287991011&searchPage=2&fromGsearch=true&rh=&searchBinNameList=subjectbin%2Cprice%2Ctarget_com_primary_color-bin%2Ctarget_com_size-bin%2Ctarget_com_brand-bin&searchRank=price

  20. SaveMoneyLiveBetter
    September 21, 2010 at 2:59 pm

    Crawford says: “The definition includes % of space used for groceries, which even the small Walmarts have.”

    This is pure BS. I’ve been to plenty of “small” WalMarts in the South that have no more (or less of a) food component than our local Target. WalMart is smart enough, and has enough legal power, to design a store that bypasses this simplistic ordinance language.

  21. Read your history
    September 21, 2010 at 3:05 pm

    Chris Crawford (along with Randy Gans) is Eureka’s best-known liar.

    If he is saying it, it’s fairly safe to consider that the exact opposite is true.

  22. High Finance
    September 21, 2010 at 3:16 pm

    Such angry insults from the left here.

    But, as said many times before, cheaper goods do benefit the poor and middle class. There is a place for nose-in-the-air elitists to buy their overpriced groceries at the Co-Op and their overpriced clothes at Macy’s. There is also room for the poor to buy their food & clothes on the cheap.

    And the result does not impact the local economy negatively as much as the opponents think. The dollars freed up by people buying the cheaper goods are spent elsewhere in the economy. If somebody saves $1,000 a year on essentials at a WalMart, they turn around & spend that same $1,000 somewhere else locally & other businesses benefit.

    Yes to freedom to shop where you wish whether it is WalMart or Home Depot. Yes on N.

  23. Steve
    September 21, 2010 at 3:24 pm

    There’s a Macy’s in Eureka? Cool!

  24. Phone call for Hi-Fi
    September 21, 2010 at 3:31 pm

    Hi Fi, your neck just called your ass.

    It wants its head back.

  25. the Janitor
    September 21, 2010 at 3:34 pm

    Poor disposable junk does not benefit the poor. It costs half as much and last a year or two. Quality products last much longer. My 50 year old GE fan still works. The one I bought at K-Mart was dead in a year or two. Wake up and smell the landfill. Buying products made on a DIFFERENT continent does not help our economy at all! But the spin-meisters want to seduce us into going for their lousy paying jobs so we can stuff our hovels with their disposable crap. Ah Freedom. Freedom to wreck our own economy. Freedom to buy elections for a mere $30,000.

  26. Walt
    September 21, 2010 at 4:12 pm

    Hi fi, for those of us who think exporting jobs to China is unAmerican, encouraging Walmart and Home Depot is TAKING AWAY our right to choose where we shop, in addition to taking away jobs and trashing the economy. If you support sending more jobs to the Chinese and putting more Americans out of work, by all means vote yes on N. Better brush up on your Mandarin, too.

  27. Decline to State
    September 21, 2010 at 4:34 pm

    I think the most frightening part of this new Wal-Mart push is that it’s going to be an aggressive push (their words).

    Man, I thought they were pretty aggressive back in the late 1990’s. I dread this go round.

  28. Jeff Bird
    September 21, 2010 at 5:31 pm

    Hey everyone, the balloon tract is currently of use to nobody but hookers and meth addicts. Arkley’s plans are a huge step up from what we currently have. Walt, I’m not sure what you are trying to say. Nobody’s is advocating forcing you to shop at Home Depot. You will still have the right to support local stores like Pierson’s if you wish.

    Also, why not use our real names so the conversation may be a little bit more genuine?

  29. Not A Native
    September 21, 2010 at 5:51 pm

    OK Jeff, you’re on. Put some gates in the fence and lets make it a park that will be of use to people.

    Jeff Leonard can get playground equipment donations and Virginia Bass can organize community volunteers to landscape it and Mike Jones can start a maintenance fund by selling vanity bench plates, and Rob Arkley can remove the toxic pollution. City of Eureka can put in some trash cans paid by the TOT collections paid by visiting tourists who may also patronize those hookers, creating high hourly rate local income. Oh, but I forgot that the only use that can be considered at all is the one Arkley has ordained.

  30. anonymous
    September 21, 2010 at 6:14 pm

    I say bring on the Walmart because the words like cheap, bully and lacking class will then be forever linked to Arkley (and Bass, Leonard and a few others)

  31. anon
    September 21, 2010 at 6:22 pm

    For the millionth time, voting yes on N doesn’t guarantee a Walmart or Home Depot or anything else. HiFi why are you acting stupid

  32. Plain Jane
    September 21, 2010 at 6:35 pm

    Unfortunately, being smeared with association to Arkleymart won’t make up for economic problems that will come with it. Just look at Redding. They have every big box and franchise store there is, subdivisions everywhere and their housing market is in the toilet even with home prices down 43% since 2006. Even with all that retail, Redding is in the same, if not worse, financial shape than Eureka is. Why, if Home Depot and Walmart, etc. are so great for a community, why are things so bad in Redding that they have to cut their public safety as well as other department budgets?

  33. Toohey
    September 21, 2010 at 6:42 pm

    The Walmart obsession continues. If it had wanted to Walmart would be here in Humboldt County today. The Balloon Tract wouldn’t be needed if they had moved into the Bayshore Mall with just some minor permits. The zoning is already there. Just a strawman argument to beat old Arkley with.
    You should be more concerned with Prop 19 passing and deflating the local lefts political coffers.

  34. High Finance
    September 21, 2010 at 7:28 pm

    Yeah Plain Jane, take a look at Redding & compare it to Eureka.

    Housing prices down in Redding 43%? Lady, have you looked at housing prices here? But compare average wages in Redding & you’ll find they are a lot higher there. They cut their public safety & well as other budgets? Have you even read the news here this last year?

    3.31pm, get a life and stop humping my leg as Jane would say.

  35. anon
    September 21, 2010 at 7:30 pm

    Walmart/Home Depot/whatever will never happen and the concerned folks in Eureka, and the coastal commission, will ensure that. Measure N or not. There is NO use for that bullshit development near the Bay in what used to be coastal wetlands.

    Take your big box, blue vest jobs out of the coastal zone. Too many hoops for even Robbie’s money to buy. Throw some more $$ on top of the millions that SN’s spent on trying to swat away Baykeeper. how’s that workin’ for ‘ya?

  36. anon-a-pissed
    September 21, 2010 at 7:32 pm

    ….methinks there is a shit-storm a comin’ for the MC…….grab Toto Robbie.

  37. Plain Jane
    September 21, 2010 at 8:22 pm

    So HiFi, A reasonable person might think with people having more money to spend (higher wages) and all that cheap big box competition in which to spend it that Redding’s coffers would be overflowing from all that sales tax. Why does Redding not have a balanced budget like we are being promised if we follow their lead and welcome Home Depot and any other big box that people have a “right” to shop in?

  38. Anonymous
    September 21, 2010 at 8:47 pm

    Why is no one screaming about the Best Buy that is coming to town??

  39. Reality Check
    September 21, 2010 at 9:16 pm

    I think that it’s time we all heard from Virginia Bass-Palin just ten years ago. You’ll really enjoy this Bass supporters-it highlights how your candidate is a hypocrite and completely unreliable! Oh, the smile on my face-
    Virginia Bass 2000 interview

    Virginia Bass on the Balloon Track, Home Depot & Light Industrial
    From an interview in the North Coast Journal, Oct 2, 2000:
    http://www.northcoastjournal.com/101200/eccinterviews1012.html
    “So as far as it being a big box issue … my basic thought is that I don’t mind Home Depot. I shop at Home Depot when I go out of town. I don’t think it belongs on the balloon tract. I’d like to see it cleaned up put into 2/3 industrial park, 1/3 park. I don’t mind some park down there that makes it a nice comfortable place for people who work there. But I don’t think it’s a place for a big store.
    The decision was right not to put Walmart there. When it comes to the Arkleys offer regarding the balloon tract, it’s a wonderful offer, my questions are probably the same as many other people. Off hand, the clean-up, I would hope … There is an estimate for the cleanup, I don’t know how accurate that is. I’ve never dealt with clean-up. I would just be concerned that it could grow bigger knowing that the Costco was quite pricey. But that one had an estimate and I could deal with that. The cost of the park, I never saw anything outlining where the money would come from to build the park. I would assume it would come from the city, but I don’t know how much that would be. Then there’s maintenance of the park that I was concerned about because, can we maintain what we have already? And I also heard… there was also new information that I heard that could have played a part. I recently talked to somebody who said that it didn’t have to be a park along that grand scale, that the Arkley would have been happy with something much smaller. … I never heard that before.
    If additional information comes in that’s difference, I can understand changing my thought. As far as industrial goes, my thought is that that would be the perfect place to put it. I’m not talking smokestack industrial. I don’t think anybody is.“
    “I believe in a balanced approach to growth and development. I guess my thoughts are that retail and service dollars don’t provide the kind of income to drive the area. Granted people from out of Eureka … would come in here and spend their money some here. But generally when you’re dealing with the retail and service business, most people live in the same town where they work and make minimum wages (up) to $8 an hour. It’s not a real high-paying segment.”
    -Virginia Bass

  40. Goldie
    September 21, 2010 at 9:33 pm

    In a world where all things Virginia change and then change again one thing remains the same: “But generally when you’re dealing with the retail and service business, most people live in the same town where they work and make minimum wages (up) to $8 an hour. It’s not a real high-paying segment.”

  41. Anonymous
    September 21, 2010 at 10:40 pm

    Not sure if this will provide any useful information, but Money Magazine has an article about Home Depot in its current issue.

  42. Walt
    September 22, 2010 at 5:34 am

    $8 an hour works out to $16,600 a year, assuming they work 40 hrs/wk and 52 weeks a year (which of course they don’t). Does that mean Walmart CEO Michael Duke ($20 million/year) is WORTH 1250 of them? Do you really believe that?

  43. A-Nony-Mouse
    September 22, 2010 at 8:15 am

    WalMarts exist for one reason and one reason only: to suck up EVERY available dollar from every location it can find. Believe me, we’re NOT immune.
    Home Depot is a WalMart clone, using the same business model and many of the same tactics. They are NOT in business to do us a favor or to provide less expensive goods. They are in business to gobble up EVERY available dollar in whatever area they locate. Never forget that.

  44. just another nanny
    September 22, 2010 at 8:41 am

    wow, virginia bass said something intelligent! That was before she became the spokesperson she is today, right?

    “I believe in a balanced approach to growth and development. I guess my thoughts are that retail and service dollars don’t provide the kind of income to drive the area. Granted people from out of Eureka … would come in here and spend their money some here. But generally when you’re dealing with the retail and service business, most people live in the same town where they work and make minimum wages (up) to $8 an hour. It’s not a real high-paying segment.”

    She’s completely backwards on this now though, right? Too bad. The local retail and service industries have almost all general bases covered…the last thing they need is outsourced competition opening up across the street. It’s not just about product price, which doesn’t change significantly anyway (look at gas…costco’s is unecessarily marked up just enough to beat local ripoff prices by a penny or two, safeway does the same thing…look at retail, better bicycle pumps are available at local shops for about the same price as the disposable one’s at target and kmart)…etc.

    It not only knocks everybody’s minimum wage down a notch and is an unquestionable element of urban sprawl, it also makes us one step closer to a nationalized marketplace…even the people making the most money off the deal are international multi-millionaire stockholders, not some boss hog yokels in polo shirts from our own hills.

  45. just another nanny
    September 22, 2010 at 8:43 am

    anonymous 8:15, I agree.

  46. High Finance
    September 22, 2010 at 11:45 am

    Yes Walt, he is.

  47. Edie
    September 22, 2010 at 11:57 am

    Walmart is still the cheapest place to buy quality cat litter. Vote Yes on N.

  48. Plain Jane
    September 22, 2010 at 12:17 pm

    Great news, Edie. I’m sure your friends and neighbors who would lose their jobs if Walmart locates here will be happy to hear they can save a few pennies on their cat litter.

  49. Enough Nonsense
    September 22, 2010 at 1:54 pm

    At11:45 High Finance confirmed my suspicion that he’s an adherent to the Benito Mussolini School of Economic Planning.

  50. High Finance
    September 22, 2010 at 3:05 pm

    Enough nonsense, Enough Nonsense. You will never succeed in life or in the work world until you understand how the world of business works.

    Everybody makes what the economic value of their output warrants. WalMart is not going to pay that teenager behind the cash register or the guy pushing a broom $20 an hour because they do not produce enough of value to the company to warrant that kind of pay.

    In well run corporations, they pay the CEO the same way. They compete against other corporations for the best talent they can buy. If a great CEO saves the company a $100 million (or if a bad CEO might cost the company $100 million), who are you to say that guy doesn’t deserve $20 million a year? You? What about your background gives you the expertise to decide that for the owners of that company?

    EN, I hope this knowledge helps you on the way to better life. This advice is not free & I expect compensation later.

    You’re welcome.

  51. Anonymous
    September 22, 2010 at 5:47 pm

    Hi Fi,
    Just so you know, at least one other person on here gets that. Walt and the others don’t want people to make lots of money because it’s not them and they are jealous. Put the broom-pusher in charge of the company for a year and see what he’s really worth. Hopefully there will be a company left at the end.

  52. Plain Jane
    September 22, 2010 at 5:53 pm

    Without taxpayer bail outs there would be a lot of corporations with very highly paid CEO’s bankrupt today. I doubt the janitor could have done much worse. No one is worth the pay of 1000 people. Not the president of the US, not the CEO of Walmart.

  53. the reasonable anonymous
    September 22, 2010 at 8:09 pm

    “Everybody makes what the economic value of their output warrants”

    So Bernie Madoff was really, really productive? Ken Lay? Charlie Hurwitz?

    It’s a nice theory, HiFi, and sometimes real life matches up with it…but often not.

  54. September 22, 2010 at 8:13 pm

    What a poster-child for capitalism. It covers all false myths about why people are paid starvation wages. Capitalism is oppression, injustice and dictatorship; all rolled into one.

  55. Anonymous
    September 22, 2010 at 8:25 pm

    who got the big bailouts jane? GM – to pay for the union pensions. yes, RA, bernie madoff is a typical example of a CEO. if you hire a manager and he/she takes your company from 5 million to 50 million in sales, you don’t think you should share the loot with them? some progressive you are…and I thought you were reasonable.

  56. Plain Jane
    September 22, 2010 at 9:12 pm

    When CEO’s get rewarded for starving their employees, for shipping jobs offshore, for high risk investments, for bundling risky mortgages and selling them fraudulently and betting that they’ll fail, the whole economy suffers and that is what they do to “earn” those multi-million dollar salaries. When their big gambles fail, they don’t have to pay back those huge salaries, they get a golden umbrella to float away on. As they destroy the economy and the environment with their brilliant money-making tactics, the rest of us pay for it. Encouraging that sort of behavior is sociopathic.

  57. Plain Jane
    September 22, 2010 at 9:15 pm

    And just how many union workers do you suppose got bailed out in the financial sector?

  58. Anonymous
    September 23, 2010 at 8:02 am

    jane, i hate the bankers too, so you are preaching to the choir. they made money under false pretenses, just like CALPERS did when they invested in Enron. nobody made CALPERS give their money back either. for every CEO you can name that screwed the employees, there are probably 100 middle managers and workers who did such a shitty job the company had to outsource to compete.

    what about bill gates? should he be on minimum wage?

  59. Plain Jane
    September 23, 2010 at 8:11 am

    Where did I say that any CEO, or ANYONE for that matter, should be on minimum wage? CEO salaries have escalated to many, many times the wages of their average workers as our economy and opportunities for middle class people have just as rapidly deteriorated. In 1980 the average CEO pay package was 42 times their average worker’s income. In 2000 it was 525. In 2009 it was 263. How much proof do people need to recognize that wealth accumulation at the top comes from the pockets of the working classes and it is they whose spending fuels the economy. Cut their pay and increase the pay at the top and the economy crashes. While it crashes on the rich as well as the poor, the rich have a comfortable cushion to land on and a buying opportunity to increase their assets at the fire sales.

  60. Anonymous
    September 23, 2010 at 8:46 am

    sorry, i was exaggerating. nice thing about america is that you too can be the CEO if you want. i would like to see some other measure aside from multiples of employees salaries. working wages have not kept up, i agree but i don’t believe all the ceos just cut wages to line their pockets. there are so many factors, besides, the good employees will go to the competition, the crappy ones will stay and eventually the ceo will be out of a job too.

  61. High Finance
    September 23, 2010 at 8:49 am

    Comrade Plain Jane, I think your brand of socialism has already been tried.

    How did that turn out for them?

    Who are YOU to decide how much a private company should be allowed to pay its own employees? To the laborers working at Sun Valley, YOU make far too much money & your wage should be limited & given to them. Once you go down the path of class envy & hate where does it stop?

  62. Bolithio
    September 23, 2010 at 9:00 am

    I think it boils down to apathy. We all know that the fat cat has stacked the deck. Its been that way for ever. Why does apathy prevail? Because thus far, our rulers have kept us happy with a standard of living (even for bums in my opinion) that is in the stratosphere when compared to the worlds average man.

  63. Plain Jane
    September 23, 2010 at 9:00 am

    It has to do with what is best for the country, HiFim not class envy or hate. The class warfare rhetoric is coming from the rich against union workers, inciting envy of lower wage workers for those with better pay. Steeply progressive tax rates worked best throughout our modern history and the economy crashes every time wealth accumulates at the top. Do you need an economic history lesson along with reading comprehension? Pay them whatever you like but tax the hell out of them for their greed which hurts our country.

  64. politics, potty-licks
    September 23, 2010 at 9:23 am

    The perspective of apathy from the people has been argued for way too long now, bolithio. Reconsider the source of the apathy. “We” DO care…look at us wasting our time complaining about things on the internet, 100 times the complaints to the praises all over the world…a balance tipped by human nature, unsolicited concern…The “rulers” as you say are completely apathetic to the people beyond their own agenda (which includes intentionally pacifying the people). That is the problem. It’s not apathy on the peoples’ part, but highway robbery on the rulers’ parts. The rulers will act with Tforce against the people. That’s not an option for the people living in their empire.

  65. Bolithio
    September 23, 2010 at 9:41 am

    I wasn’t trying to promote a perspective. I was speaking of apathy more as an adjective. In other words people aren’t really choosing apathy – its just that much like their CEO counterparts, they also put their agenda #1, which has to do with trying to get laid…er feeding their families, or whatever.

  66. politics, potty-licks
    September 23, 2010 at 9:54 am

    right…my point is that it doesn’t all boil down to apathy, because we the people DO care…we understand others as we understand ourselves, no? our agenda doesn’t include taking advantage of docile marks. So…we’re not apathetic, they’re intentionally ripping us off knowing there’s only so much will…let alone CAN do…if that makes sense.

  67. High Finance
    September 23, 2010 at 10:57 am

    “It has to do with what is best for the country”
    Comrade Plain Jane, September 23, 2010.

    Words also spoken by dictators throughout history to rationalize away their taking our freedoms away, seizing private assets for the government to exercise more power.

    It has nothing at all to do with what is best for the country & everything to do with class envy & hatred. It hurts the country not one bit if Joe Smith, CEO of WYZ company makes $2 million or $20 million. Pray tell, Plain Jane or anybody else here, how does it affect you whatever Home Depot pays its top management?

    What is interesting is that you class envy people hate the XYZ corporation paying its CEO $10 or $20 million but protest not at all Barbara Streisand’s company paying her $100 million a year or Hollywood companies paying Susan Sarandon $50 million a year.

    Why is that? Why the selective outrage?

  68. politics, potty-licks
    September 23, 2010 at 12:27 pm

    You miss the point of the argument, is why High Finance. Also, barbara streisand’s and susan sarandon’s and oprah’s and brad pitt’s and evangelica mcglokenshpiel’s companies sell their stuff in or through XYZ corporation…not as selective as you think to begin with.

  69. Plain Jane
    September 23, 2010 at 12:38 pm

    You are just too ignorant to grasp even the most simple concepts, HiFi. Apparently you’ve been in a coma for the last 2 decades while wealth was concentrating at the top at a rate not seen since the Great Depression. When wages stagnate and jobs are lost due to the greed of those at the top, the entire economy suffers and those at the bottom suffer the most. I didn’t know Eisenhower was a socialist, but apparently he was since incomes over $250,000 were taxed at a marginal rate of 91%, the middle class expanded and our economy boomed. With every cut in taxes on the wealthy, the working classes have lost in jobs, wages and benefits. You should try reading a few REAL economists instead of the Fox frauds and you might understand what has happened, but I doubt it.

  70. High Finance
    September 23, 2010 at 3:04 pm

    Comrade Jane, you are full of it. Your lifestyle is not affected in any way by how much somebody else makes. You could possibly make a shallow argument for it if you were talking about your own boss, but it is laughable for you to make that assertion about anybody else.

    In your rushed attempt to avoid thinking, the wages earned by others & the progressive tax rates are two entirely separate issues. Either you are desperately avoiding talking about the income argument by throwing in a straw man or you flat out are confused & don’t know what you are talking about.

    Now Jane, potty-licks at least made a confusing attempt to answer the question, a question you are afraid to think much about.

    Why does this concentration of wealth at the CEO level bother you while Babs, Tom Cruise, Woody Harelson not bother you?

    And another thing you are woefully uneducated about, you mention the 91% marginal rates before JFK. The key word is “marginal”. There were many tax shelters available in those days that are not possible today. You are comparing apples to oranges with that moronic argument.

  71. The Monitor
    September 23, 2010 at 3:33 pm

    FEWER PEOPLE hold more wealth than ever before in our history. That leaves everyone else the lessor for it. The more wealth is concentrated in the hands of the few, the less equality and opportunity for the rest of us. The rest of us will consume less, have less effect on the political process, will be able to afford less in the way of education, and will not be as healthy for lack of the best in health care. That is not a level playing field or anywhere near it. HIFI, I am sure you will say that none of this is true, however saying it does not make it so.

  72. Plain Jane
    September 23, 2010 at 3:45 pm

    HiFi isn’t worth the time. He just keeps spewing the same old crap over and over which proves “rich” people aren’t as smart as he likes to think. Giving him facts is futile.

  73. Walt
    September 23, 2010 at 3:56 pm

    “Your lifestyle is not affected in any way by how much somebody else makes.”

    I’m with Jane and The Monitor: in a closed economic system, concentration of obscene amounts of wealth in a few undeserving hands means less credit, less money, and most important, less political power is available for the rest of us. Arguably Gates created something, but what did the CEOs of the S&P 500 “create”, other than more wealth and power for themselves and their friends? And I’m sorry, there’s never been a man or woman born who is WORTH $20 million dollars, much less a billion, when their employees are trying to get by on minimum wages. And I’d agree that movie stars and basketball players are not “WORTH” a fraction of what they are paid. . .what do they create? All the palatial homes, the fancy cars, the coke, etc etc are paid for by US. And we get Big Macs, diabetes, AIDS and mandatory private insurance.

  74. High Finance
    September 23, 2010 at 4:16 pm

    I must try to withhold the insults and remember I am dealing with people that have a child like grasp of the business world & economics.

    First, the fact that Joe Smith accumulates more wealth does not mean there is less wealth for you. The total money available is not static but grows or shrinks. It flucuates with the economy & not with the success or failure of any group in society. His success does not take away from your opportunity for success.

    Second, what did the S&P 500 create? JOBS Walt, JOBS! They also created goods that people value more than the money they paid for those goods. If Walt buys a new IPAD for $200, then that means he values that IPAD more than $200 cash. The company is richer, because it has $200 cash & Walt is richer because he has merchandise worth more than $200 to him.

    Even that movie star created value. Babs (not my cup of tea) created enjoyment for her fans that the fans valued more than the $100 million dollars they paid her.

    These are the basic rules of economics in a free society. You three (Monitor, Jane & Walt) lacking any understanding of these basic rules I fault the public schools for. The school system fails to require students to take any economics other than some very rudimentary classes.

    Your lack of understanding only becomes dangerous to others when you vote. Too many politicians also fail to understand these rules & pander to the economically illiterate and to class envy & hatred.

  75. Plain Jane
    September 23, 2010 at 4:20 pm

    The fact that workers earning less means less money circulating through the main street economy and the negative effect that has on the entire economy is a foreign concept to HiFi. I swear he must own a payday loan store that profits from poor people not making enough to make it from paycheck to paycheck and that’s why he “can’t” grasp basic economic truths.

  76. Plain Jane
  77. Anonymous
    September 23, 2010 at 4:57 pm

    HiFi, the “asset” of a zoning designation is not owned by the landowner. It is owned by the public. That is why they are asking the public for the change. The public, within the law, can choose whatever they deem is in the public’s best interest.

  78. High Finance
    September 23, 2010 at 5:00 pm

    Jane, I swear you just don’t read or listen. Workers earning less means less money circulating through the economy is true.

    But, AND TRY TO LISTEN, the fact that Joe Smith CEO makes $1 million or $10 million has NO IMPACT on how much you make.

    Geez Louise, it is not that difficult to understand!

  79. Plain Jane
    September 23, 2010 at 5:14 pm

    One last attempt and then I’m done trying to deal with this fool. When those at the top make more, employ fewer people and pay less in wages, their workers have less to spend and that affects other businesses’ ability to keep people employed and pay decent wages. If my business has less business due to fewer people working at lower wages, it impacts not only on how much I make but on how much I spend on wages, consumption and so on. As the reduced spending snowballs, it negatively impacts more and more people. Corporations don’t exist in a financial bubble where their actions only affect their own bottom line. Tax rates should be used to discourage money hoarding which hurts everyone, even those who delude themselves into thinking they are rich and immune.

  80. Bolithio
    September 23, 2010 at 5:21 pm

    But it does HI-FI. In order for Joe Smith to make 10 million over 1, he has to outsource all of his labor to Asia. Further, the products themselves need to be made from resources where there are no regulations governing their extraction. Lowest common denominator for maximum yield. Meanwhile people loose there jobs here from the closed factory to the cotton fields. There is nothing patriotic about carrying the torch for these people. But, you are right Hi Fi, this is how its done in a free economy.

  81. Anonymous
    September 23, 2010 at 5:40 pm

    jane, do you feel that government regulation has anything to do with outsourcing?

  82. Plain Jane
    September 23, 2010 at 5:42 pm

    Yes, 5:40. The lack of import regulations has everything to do with outsourcing.

  83. Not A Native
    September 23, 2010 at 6:01 pm

    Former Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan testified in the senate that growing economic inequalities that exist in the US is a threat to national security. I think he has sufficient credentials in economic understanding to be taken seriously.

    What larger warning does Hi Fi need to understand that inequality of wealth at the level we now have creates a divided society where cooperation and common purpose becomes scarce? People stop contributing to a system that is rigged against them, even if that means deprivation.

    Oh yeah, I forgot. Hi Fi is a traitor to the US. He denies constitutional authority of Government to regulate commerce. OK Hi Fi, secede from this country and find out if anyone besides Fred will agree to join into your Libertarian paradise.

  84. Plain Jane
    September 23, 2010 at 6:04 pm

    They probably didn’t report that on Fox or reich wing radio, Nan.

  85. Plain Jane
    September 23, 2010 at 6:15 pm

    “But, you are right Hi Fi, this is how its done in a free economy.”

    But we don’t live in a “free economy.”

  86. Anonymous
    September 23, 2010 at 7:44 pm

    where can i find that greenspan testimony?

  87. Plain Jane
    September 23, 2010 at 8:22 pm

    I can’t find a link to the text of his entire testimony, but there are numerous articles available about it. Here are two:

    http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0614/p01s03-usec.html

    http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2005/11/07/alan_greenspan_egalitarian.php

    And of course, you have to have his testimony about how incredibly wrong he was in his views on deregulation:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/24/business/economy/24panel.html

  88. Anonymous
    September 23, 2010 at 9:18 pm

    jane, you should read what you are linking to.

  89. Anonymous
    September 23, 2010 at 9:19 pm

    and NAN, what is the reason for the threat, do tell?

  90. Plain Jane
    September 23, 2010 at 9:29 pm

    What specifically did I miss? I scanned them.

  91. Plain Jane
    September 23, 2010 at 9:32 pm

    The reason for the threat is the rapidly increasing wage inequality.

  92. 06em
    September 24, 2010 at 7:21 am

    High Finance = Thurston Howell III.

  93. Anonymous
    September 24, 2010 at 7:31 am

    greenspan said he was concerned with the wage inequity because it would eventually cause disenfranchised people to vote for bad economic policies. the answer to this was not redistributing wealth, it was to focus on education. (paraphrased)

    “America’s powerful central banker hasn’t suddenly lurched to the left of Democratic National Committee chief Howard Dean. His solution is better education today to create a flexible workforce for tomorrow – not confiscation of plutocrats’ yachts.”

    “The single central action necessary to ameliorate these imbalances and their accompanying consequences for income inequality,” Greenspan assured his listeners, “is to boost the skills, and thus earning potential, of those workers lower on the skill ladder.”

    this doesn’t say anything about keeping walmarts out.

  94. Plain Jane
    September 24, 2010 at 7:51 am

    You seem to be very confused, 7:31. No one said the links said anything about keeping Walmart out. The links were in response to an Anonymous’ request for Greenspan’s testimony regarding income inequality being dangerous. Furthermore, if you read the links you undoubtedly saw the rebuttal to Greenspan’s claim that education was the answer:

    “But educated Americans saw no income explosion in these years. Between 1973 and 2001, the real hourly wages of Americans with college degrees rose all of 11 cents per year. In the 1990s, entry-level pay rates for men with college degrees actually dropped.

    The incomes of CEOs, meanwhile, soared over 200 percent in the 1980s and over another 500 percent in the 1990s.”

    The idea that people who are told “let them eat cake” as they are starving might destabilize a society is such an original concept. LOL!

    Of course Greenspan many times has wailed about the exorbitant pay of CEO’s, saying “The vast majority of things which human beings can do, everyone can do, and the difference between those basic skills relative to what the base is, is really very small.”

    Translated, no one is worth 1000 times the average worker’s pay.

  95. High Finance
    September 24, 2010 at 8:50 am

    Jane, I despair of you ever thinking & opening up your very closed little mind.

    But, you say if the CEO makes $10 million that means there is less money available for other workers? That his success was dependent only upon cost cutting & hiring fewer workers?

    Nonsense. Lets take Home Depot as an example again. In 2005 its SALES increased by over NINE BILLION DOLLARS. Its total revenue was $ 91.8 BILLION dollars. It can well afford to reward its CEO for his part in that success.

    To say import regulations are solely to blame for the increased outsourcing is plain stupid. When people refer to outsourcing they are usually referring to the new trend of using people in India & other countries via phone lines. “Import regulations” has nothing to do with Compaq computers having Indians helping people over the phone with problems or orders.

  96. High Finance
    September 24, 2010 at 8:53 am

    If a high flying CEO comes in & increases my business income by nine billion dollars, I would be estatic to pay him $20 million or $120 million dollars !

    He easily would be worth 1,000 times the pay of my secretary. He would be worth 10,000 times the pay of my secretary.

  97. Plain Jane
    September 24, 2010 at 8:57 am

    I don’t despair over your brainwashed mind, HiFi. You have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that you are incapable of learning anything new. You are stuck on the old “greed is good mantra” and nothing is going to change that so I won’t bother reading or responding to your posts in the future. Blather on….

  98. Ne'er-do-well
    September 24, 2010 at 9:05 am

    Was up fishing out of Crescent City recently and had a chance to tour the Walmart and Home depot there. One thing that immediately hit me in the Walmart was the food section was filled with lots of cheap JUNK food! Cheap chips and dips and lunch meat dripping with cholesterol. Not a vegetable or piece of fruit in the entire food section. The average size of the shoppers reflected this, even more so than in Humboldt county. An interesting side note: they requested my zip code, which I refused to give them, for a “survey” they were doing, which was to find out where shoppers were from so they could determine if there was enough of a demand for a Walmart in other areas, according to the sales clerk. The Home Depot was mainly empty, and the sales person that I had to walk a mile to find to help me find something acted bored because he had to walk a mile back to where my thingy I was shopping for was. Then he just kind of hung out there acting like he was doing something helpful but basically killing time because I was deciding which thingy I needed and he did not have any useful knowledge of the thingy, but it gave him a chance to look like he was helping a customer, and not have to wander around looking for other customers in need……….. Haven’t had a chance to post on here for a while, but reassuring to see that Crawford and HF still have their heads planted firmly up their arrogant asses.

  99. Anonymous
    September 24, 2010 at 9:21 am

    don’t shop there anymore.

  100. Not A Native
    September 24, 2010 at 10:24 am

    Look, according to Greensapn there are two errors in the arguments being used by Hi Fi.

    First, Hi Fi’s credits all economic growth to managers. That conflicts with Greenspan’s opinion that all workers contribute to economic growth. Greenspan forcasts workers will receive a larger share of it as their productivity improves.

    Second, the central aspect of Greenspan’s analysis is that income inequality is a serious problem, in and of itself, and it must be reduced as a national priority. His particular prescription, more education is his suggested plan but not the exclusive plan.

    A practical matter, not addressed by Greenspan, is that the cost of more education comes from taxes. That implies that taxes should be raised to increase eduaction. And the source of those taxes should be those with higher proportionate incomes in support of Greenspan’s policy of achieving greater income equality.

    Greenspan said the nation must create economic growth AND greater income equality. Both are esential to national security. That directly conflict with Hi Fi who believes income inequality is of no concern at all as long as there is economic growth(increase in sales). Even so, Hi Fi tacitly acknowledges that a CEO is just a worker, hired to perform a function. Thats no different from the workers the CEO hires. Hi Fi’s error is he assumes all credit for growth accrues to the particular set of workers he has directly hired and therefore they are entitled to a disproportionate share of that growth. Thats not what Greenspan assumes.

  101. High Finance
    September 24, 2010 at 10:35 am

    Not a Native. I don’t mean to credit all company growth to the top managers, but they sure are responsible for a lot of it as they determine the direction of the company.

    I simply do not agree with the need for income equality as long as everybody is better off. For example, if the average CEO’s pay goes up $1 million dollars and the average workers pay goes up only $10,000 the most important point is that everybody is better off.

    One way to have greater income equality is for the CEOs to have a 50% drop in income while the worker’s average income drops 10%. Everybody loses, but that is OK because there is greater income equality?

  102. Plain Jane
    September 24, 2010 at 10:36 am

    Another flaw in his thinking is his delusion that for the government to use taxation to address inequality is somehow communistic. He fails to understand that it is one of our government’s prime directives to maintain a stable society and tax policies and social programs are some of the most basic methods to do so. The fact that the right wing is screaming about the dangers of letting the tax cuts expire on schedule proves that they too accept the government’s responsibility to use monetary policy and taxation to improve economic stability, slow inflation and increase the GDP, but only when it is to their advantage.

  103. Ne'er-do-well
    September 24, 2010 at 10:59 am

    No problem with not shopping there 9:21. The problem I have is building it on the Home Depot site when Home Depot tells Arkley to go F yourself because their economic model does not justify putting one in Eureka, and Walmart comes knocking with Arkley’s new “anchor store. Put the damn thing out in Indianola or “friendly” Fortuna where the Curmudgeons would welcome it with open arms. Put something meaningful on one of the last beautiful bay sites besides a parking lot for chrisakes. And thanks to Cherry’s generous gift, Eureka gets to vote on it, sort of.

  104. High Finance
    September 24, 2010 at 11:02 am

    As usual Plain Jane misrepresents my position by exaggeration.

    I am not opposed to the progressive tax rate structure and have never said I am. I do take issue with those that say the “rich” do not pay their “fair share”. I point out & posted the undeniable fact that the upper quintiles of income pay a far greater share of the total income taxes paid than their share of the total income.

    And it is not just the conservatives who are opposed to letting the Bush tax cuts expire. A number of prominent Democrats in the House & Senate are also opposed. They understand you do not allow the greatest tax increase in the history of the world to occur when the country is in danger of slipping into a second dip recession.

    The reason Harry Reid & Obama have stopped their plans for a vote on the tax increase is that they found they were going to lose.

  105. High Finance
    September 24, 2010 at 11:05 am

    Ne’er-do-well, do you live in Eureka or care about Eureka’s city budget?

    If Home Depot or WalMart was built in the county or in Fortuna, the loss of sales tax revenue to Eureka would hurt us plenty. More Eureka cops, more Eureka fire fighters would be laid off. More Eureka services would be cut & fees increased.

    If you care about Eureka, the last thing you would want is to lose a big box to a nearby city.

  106. Anonymous
    September 24, 2010 at 11:35 am

    Race to the bottom!

  107. Not A Native
    September 24, 2010 at 11:36 am

    So Hi Fi, can you please explain exactly how a Home Depot built outside Eureka would cause a “loss of sales tax revenue to Eureka”? Also since you write it “would hurt us(Eureka) plenty” do you have an estimate of the amount of reduction in revenue?

    BTW you “simply do not agree” with Greenspan’s economic analysis, without any justification. Your credentials and experience are certainly on a par with his. But I notice you later bring up conservatives and Democrats to change the basis of your argument from economics to politics. It clear that politics, not economics, is the basis of your disagreement with Greenspan’s opinion.

  108. Plain Jane
    September 24, 2010 at 11:49 am

    I rest my case. Anyone who claims allowing a 3% tax increase to expire as promised is the “greatest tax increase in the world” is absolutely insane.

    In 1916 the highest tax rate increased from 7 to 15%.
    1917 67$.
    1918 77%.
    1919 73%.
    1922 58%.
    1924 46%.
    1925 25%
    1932 63%
    1932 79%
    1941 81%
    1942 88%
    1944 94%
    1945 91%
    1951 92%
    1954 91%
    1964 77%
    1965 70%
    1982 50%
    1985 35%
    1990 28%

    The belief that Democrats aren’t voting to maintain the middle class tax cuts while letting those for the rich expire has nothing to do with what the voters want. They are overwhelmingly in favor of doing just that. The DINO’s in Congress are opposed to letting the tax cuts for the rich expire because they care only about their big donors, not the idiots who vote for them.

  109. Plain Jane
    September 24, 2010 at 11:53 am

    Anyone who has even glanced at a history book knows that we have had our worst financial crises when taxes were lowest and had the greatest periods of income inequality. I’m sure some will claim its just a coincidence, but oftentimes coincidences are co – incidences that are causally related.

  110. Reinventing The Wheel
    September 24, 2010 at 1:42 pm

    Oh, let’s not have facts interfere with the game, “who’s the commie”.

    One of the reasons the right-wing can make up their own economic crap is that most of the costs of imperialism are hidden. Of course that CEO is worth $250 million! He just dumped $1 billion of externalities onto the American taxpayer. To this day, economics degrees rarely attempt to integrate the environmental, health and other social costs of planned obsolescence, terminator seeds, pollution, etc, etc. Economic experts have calculated the actual cost of one gallon of gasoline at about $15 if you include the amount of U.S. military required to protect it, the carbon released from production and transportation, the environmental disasters fishery industry fallout, etc.

    What’s hilarious is hearing fools cry “communist” at opponents of this tyranny, while ignoring hundreds of thousands of U.S. corporations headquartered offshore, exploiting the world’s resources and child-labor, paying ZERO in taxes for the extraordinary burden on the American people to provide them with the benefits of a stable currency, a court system to enforce their contracts, and 730 foreign military bases keeping their “trade” safe.

    No, you’re called a “commie” for being ungrateful for the “low prices”, while the world’s biggest welfare cheaters interlock their boards, enjoy a revolving door to the White House, author much of our Legislation, they almost never go to jail, they write-off paltry criminal penalties…they belong to the same clubs, marry each other, and live in the same communities.

    Under this level of corporate tyranny, no one can sanely argue that the prices are low!

  111. Plain Jane
    September 24, 2010 at 5:06 pm

    Well said, Reinventing!

  112. Anonymous
    September 24, 2010 at 5:35 pm

    Well said indeed 1:42! There is a thing called “The common good” that seems to be missing. This appears to be especially true when corporate profits are in contention. It’s basically “screw all else” and only consider $ when making any decision. What happened to “the common good”? Unfortunately, the Republican party (conservatives) follow this mantra even though it negatively effects them as much as anyone else. Only those with wealth (top 2-3 %) do well under this corporate greed and the consequent effects it has on all others. This, I believe, is not what the Founding Fathers had in mind. How folks like HF can countenance this inequality is just beyond me.

  113. Reinventing The Wheel
    September 24, 2010 at 8:02 pm

    Tyranny has always had its cheerleaders. The fallacy of the “free-market” and the blind faith that it will trickle-down…has been exposed. In Congressional testimony in July of 2008, Alan Greenspan called it a “failed ideology”.

    We waited 30 years for his enlightenment.

  114. The Monitor
    September 24, 2010 at 11:16 pm

    Trickle down economics doesn’t, it flows up. I guess Alan didn’t say it loud enough.

  115. Walt
    September 25, 2010 at 6:22 am

    “It’s basically “screw all else” and only consider $ when making any decision.” That’s the first problem of corporate personhood: the good of the whole does not figure into decisions. The other, bigger problem is that political power, it turns out, does not come from the barrel of a gun, but from the vault of a bank. With ALL politicians for sale, and the minds of the voting public controlled by media, he who has the most gold wins. Walmart will win until the basis of political power changes, and enough people aren’t hungry enough for that to happen. Yet.

  116. Walt
    September 25, 2010 at 6:31 am

    By the way, Jane, the statistic about the tax rate is as meaningless as the unemployment rate. The CEO class actually pays NO TAX, since, among other perks, their “salaries” include $50-70k for financial planning to ensure they get all the breaks. Remember when St. Reagan paid zero tax? That was before they got really good at this. It would be interesting to find out how much Hi Fi ACTUALLY paid the IRS and Franchise tax board. Or how much RA paid.

  117. FoxStudio
    September 26, 2010 at 7:56 am

    “One unimpeachable view of this wage gap comes from a Federal Reserve report that examined the period leading up to the housing bust and recession, and noted that “income became more ‘unequally’ distributed over the 1988-2006 period.”

    http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/09/26/BU7T1FIKPE.DTL&tsp=1

  118. High Finance
    September 27, 2010 at 2:36 pm

    Plain Jane on the 24th 11.49am shows why statistics can be useless or even dangerous in the hands of the uninformed.

    Comparing tax rates among different decades and thinking that proves something is ludicrous. You have to look at the other side of the equation, the deductions and how taxable income is calculated. Deductions allowed today versus even the 1950’s is so limited the comparison of just the top tax brackets is irrelevant.

    The US economy, the one you lefties rail against, is the same economy that singlehandily picked up all of Europe & Asia after the devastation of WWII. The same economic system that brought about the biggest economic powerhouse in the entire world.

    And Walt may spew his class hatred & say that CEOs don’t pay any income taxes, but saying it is so does not make it so. It only makes him & those that agree look like complete & utter fools.

  119. Plain Jane
    September 27, 2010 at 2:43 pm

    I understand that there are different deductibles now and different levels at which the marginal rates apply, HiFi. When they were 91% after WWII the marginal rate kicked in at $250,000. That doesn’t alter the fact that your claim that Obama is proposing the largest tax hike in history is a proven blatant lie.

  120. High Finance
    September 27, 2010 at 6:19 pm

    Obama is refusing to compromise Jane, gauranteeing all the Bush tax cuts will expire.

    Therefore it is the largest tax increase in world history. It will affect everybody with any taxable income including the poor & middle class. Every single person with dependent children will get socked by $500 per child from what I have read.

    This tax increase is so unpopular that Pelosi is refusing it to come to a vote. She knows there are a lot of Democrats that will vote with the Republicans that ALL the Bush tax cuts will be extended.

    On the radio driving in to work this morning, they were talking about a letter to the editor written by your soul mate Jane. He said something like, what does he care if a millionaire’s take home pay drops from $650,000 a year to $605,000 a year? Well, you & the letter writer will care if he is your boss (or one of your children’s boss) and he decides to pay for that tax cut by laying off you or your child.

  121. Walt
    September 27, 2010 at 7:05 pm

    Lemme guess, Hi Fi: you were listening to Fox News, maybe? The same folks who brought us “death committees.” Walmart CEO Michael Duke only made $20 million in 2009, down from $29 million in 2008. No doubt his employees took a big hit, too. Now Chairman Obama wants to cut Mikey’s tax cut, which will doubtless mean Walmart employees will be eating dog food by February. Isn’t that what Mr. Beck says? It MUST be true!

  122. the reasonable anonymous
    September 27, 2010 at 8:22 pm

    “Well, you & the letter writer will care if he is your boss (or one of your children’s boss) and he decides to pay for that tax cut by laying off you or your child.”

    What’s missing here is the basic fact if the employee is producing less value than their salary, they aren’t retained in the first place. On the other hand, if the employee is producing more value than their salary, that means the boss, and/or the owner(s) of the company, is making money on them. If the boss and/or owner(s) of the company have to pay more taxes, and they respond by laying off or firing employees who are ultimately making money for them, that would be like shooting themselves in the foot.

    HiFi, you make it sound like people are employed as an act of charity, and therefore if we take tax revenues from the benefactor the charity will simply be reduced. But as I’m sure you know, people are kept on as employees because their work produces profit for the business that is employing them, not as an act of philanthropy.

    Now you could argue that ACTUAL philanthropy may be recuded, because that’s somewhere that a businessn or individual CAN make cutbacks without really impacting their financial bottom line. (Assuming they give a signinficant amount in charitable donations in the first place…many wealthy folks do, a surprisingly large number do not).

    Or, the hypothetical “boss” in HiFi’s example might have to tighten the old belt, luxurywise, and somehow scrape by on “only” $605,000 this year. I know…the horror of it…

  123. Plain Jane
    September 27, 2010 at 8:39 pm

    Actually, Obama HAS compromised. He has said all but the top few percent will keep their tax breaks which is exactly what the vast majority support. Enough Democrats have fat cat funders who don’t want the tax increases to make it a political risk in the opinion of some. Bringing something to a vote without having the votes required, regardless of popular support, is dumb. Using HiFi’s twisted logic, the Republicans are trying to force a tax increase on everyone because they aren’t willing to compromise to let the tax cuts on the top few percent expire. They are holding the tax cuts for middle class and poor people hostage to gain more tax cuts for the rich.

  124. High Finance
    September 27, 2010 at 9:25 pm

    No Jane, he has not. Some top Democrats want to at least not have the tax increases by extending the tax cuts for another two years until we get out of the recession.

    Obama wants the tax increases right NOW. The Republicans want the tax cuts permanent. A compromise would be to extend them for two years.

  125. Plain Jane
    September 27, 2010 at 9:41 pm

    Staking out an extremist position, making all the tax cuts permanent, and then “compromising” to increase them for 2 years when they hope to control Congress and the White House due to their obstruction of anything to really end this recession, is not compromising. I suppose if Obama had staked out an irresponsible position like doubling taxes for everyone making over $100,000, he could be said to be compromising if he said tax cuts would expire on everyone making over $100,000 and rates would be doubled on everyone making over a million. It’s really odd that the people who have been screaming about the deficit don’t care about hundreds billions they would add to it with tax cuts for the rich while demanding spending cuts that will cost jobs and increase the misery of the poor. Tax cuts for the rich don’t stimulate the economy with the same bang for the buck as the working classes because poor people spend their money which creates jobs.

  126. Plain Jane
    September 27, 2010 at 9:43 pm

    And Obama has probably learned that negotiating with Republicans is wasted time. They demand concessions and compromise and when they get them, they still vote no. F-ck em!

  127. Plain Jane
    September 27, 2010 at 9:44 pm

    “then “compromising” to increase them for 2 years”
    should have said “compromising to extend them for 2 years”

  128. Anonymous
    September 27, 2010 at 10:05 pm

    Alls I can say is that when I suffer, so do my employees.

  129. Plain Jane
    September 27, 2010 at 10:34 pm

    And when employees suffer, so do employers. If the rich had been trickling down ANY of the gains they made with tax cuts over the years (and more profit due to increased productivity), everyone would be better off but they didn’t. As their incomes climbed, their employees’ incomes declined and more jobs were outsourced. How blind greedy do you have to be to not understand that the working class people need money to spend or the economy crashes? Who doesn’t need customers buying their product or services to make money? Even if all your money comes from the stock market, if people aren’t spending money there are no dividends and share values drop. The economy would be even better off if the money from letting tax cuts for the rich expire and those funds used to increase tax cuts or earned income credits for the poor. You know, people who will spend it to create more jobs instead of blowing up another bubble?

  130. The Devil outsourced your soul, for a profit
    July 19, 2011 at 10:27 pm

    Don’t worry, that cheap foreign made crap will soon to be shipped to that recycling place in Willits. It will be sent out of the coastal zone and become their problem. Why not fill their wetlands with our garbage. Then you can plant weeds on it and let the cows eat to their content.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s