Home > Lee Ulansey, Rob Arkley > LEE ULANSEY: Rob Arkley’s hero

LEE ULANSEY: Rob Arkley’s hero

Lee Ulansey and Rob Arkley.

North Coast Journal publisher Judy Hodgson brings us the latest news on Eureka “Landowner, Entrepreneur and Community Activist Rob Arkley” in this week’s paper, reporting on his keynote speech at the Redwood Region Logging Conference.

Arkley gave his short list of heroes, including right wing blowhard Rush Limbaugh and HumCPR president Lee Ulansey, whose group purports to be for the little guy but captures the hearts of the big wigs.

However, we’re glad the cat’s out of the money bag.  Flashback to a 2007 post on the Humboldt Herald called Arkley, Maxxam find Dupes in Humboldt CPR.

Nailed it.

Arkley also admires childhood friend Bobby Figas for his trailblazing work to export local logs to China.  Who needs sawmill jobs when we’re going to have a Home Depot?

Arkley said he is a real environmentalist, “green and proud of it.”

The paper version appears to omit at least half a sentence at the end of page 8, which directs the reader to continue reading on page 11, but there you find an entirely new article.  Instead, the Arkley piece continues on page 9 but fails to contain the last part of the sentence left hanging on page 8.  Perhaps the Journal‘s new editor will work to make sure all sentences are treated equal.

  1. March 24, 2011 at 12:18 am

    I was also a bit confused by the “continued on page 11” bit. :)

    I almost thought the NCJ was adopting a “Choose Your Own Adventure” style of Journalism there. :P

  2. "HENCHMAN OF JUSTICE"
    March 24, 2011 at 4:57 am

    “……whose group purports to be for the little guy but captures the hearts of the big wigs.”

    Response: Since when did groups purport to be for the little guy, cuz those GROUPS are similar to ——–> UNIONS, as they seem to manipulatively thrive off of the little guy (Union members were catapulted ahead of the little guy, remember?).

    Factoid – Not little people have stepped forward to concur with the purportednesses of groupeenesses.

    Jeffrey Lytle
    McKinleyville – 5th District

  3. "HENCHMAN OF JUSTICE"
    March 24, 2011 at 4:59 am

    Not = No, oops.

    JL

  4. Not rich but comfortable enough
    March 24, 2011 at 6:49 am

    Can’t agree with much of what extreme right wing folks do, but basic conservative fiscal principles do ring true. Forwarded to a friend this month:

    THE TAX SYSTEM EXPLAINED IN BEER
    Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten
    comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would
    go something like this:

    The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
    The fifth would pay $1.
    The sixth would pay $3.
    The seventh would pay $7.
    The eighth would pay $12.
    The ninth would pay $18.
    The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

    So, that’s what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar every day
    and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw
    them a curve ball. “Since you are all such good customers,” he said, “I’m
    going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20.” Drinks for the ten men
    would now cost just $80.

    The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the
    first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what
    about the other six men? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that
    everyone would get his fair share? They realized that $20 divided by six is
    $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody’s share, then the fifth
    man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.

    So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill
    by a higher percentage the poorer he was, to follow the principle of the tax
    system they had been using, and he proceeded to work out the amounts he
    suggested that each should now pay.

    And so the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% saving).
    The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% saving).
    The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28% saving).
    The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% saving).
    The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% saving).
    The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% saving).

    Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to
    drink for free. But, once outside the bar, the men began to compare their
    savings.

    “I only got a dollar out of the $20 saving,” declared the sixth man. He
    pointed to the tenth man, “but he got $10!”

    “Yeah, that’s right,” exclaimed the fifth man. “I only saved a dollar, too.
    It’s unfair that he got ten times more benefit than me!”

    “That’s true!” shouted the seventh man. “Why should he get $10 back, when I
    got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!”

    “Wait a minute,” yelled the first four men in unison, “we didn’t get
    anything at all. This new tax system exploits the poor!”

    The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

    The next night the tenth man didn’t show up for drinks, so the nine sat down
    and had their beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill,
    they discovered something important – they didn’t have enough money between
    all of them for even half of the bill!

    And that, boys and girls, journalists and government ministers, is how our
    tax system works. The people who already pay the highest taxes will
    naturally get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much,
    attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In
    fact, they might start drinking overseas, where the atmosphere is somewhat
    friendlier.

    David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.
    Professor of Economics
    For those who understand, no explanation is needed.
    For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.

  5. Not rich but comfortable enough
    March 24, 2011 at 6:50 am

    I mean FROM a friend.

  6. Osprey
    March 24, 2011 at 7:00 am

    A REAL environmentalist, a REAL clean-up, h-m-mm……I think Rob needs to get REAL!

  7. Anonymous
    March 24, 2011 at 7:09 am

    “The rural lifestyle” is about as UNenvironmental as you can get. No wonder Arkley approves.
    Drive your F350 up and down the hill each day. Import propane and electricity, cutting swaths of power lines through the woods, and decentralize services such that each parcel is leaching waste into the soil. Decentralize shopping so everyone has to drive. This is green because…?

  8. 06em
    March 24, 2011 at 7:15 am

    They’ve been drinking overseas for some time now, even though they could be paying 1920’s prices for beer over here thanks to continued Republican lunacy. And isn’t the Republican idea to shrink the saloon down small enough to drown it in a shot glass? Where will we drink then?

    06em, BFD
    For those who understand, good on you.
    For those who don’t understand, turn off the FOX news and Rush.

  9. Plain Jane
    March 24, 2011 at 7:39 am

    Good one, 06em.

  10. 06em
    March 24, 2011 at 7:57 am

    Oh this is rich.

    Contrary to Internet folklore, Dr. Kamerschen is NOT the author of “Tax Cuts: A Simple Lesson in Economics” or “Bar Stool Economics” or anything similar to that. Additionally, he does NOT know who wrote it and he has no opinion on its merits.

    Thanks to snopes.com

  11. Greg B.
    March 24, 2011 at 8:09 am

    What Lee and HumCPR financial backer Barnum Timber want is NOT more of the so called “rural lifestyle”, what they want it to be able to subdivide their properties. That all their fight is about.
    Green Diamond would love to do the same, for example when they are done clear cutting the area around Strawberry Rock and the surrounding area, you can expect an application to change the zoning and one day that is where the new community of Trinidad Heights will be built. All they really need is for the Rob to get the GPU that he wants and that Virginia and most likely Ryan (who is a good guy otherwise) will support.

  12. Brady and Newman
    March 24, 2011 at 8:15 am

    Rob Arkley is the biggest employer in Northern California. Besides Security National and the millions of jobs the Marina Center is going to create, we are on his payroll too. If Rob’s heroes are Lee Ulansey and Rush Limbaugh, they’re our heroes too.

  13. Greg B.
    March 24, 2011 at 8:17 am

    It is sad (though brilliant on their part) that HumCPR has fooled so many folks to “vote” (or support) against their own interest. The original hoodwinking came by opposing code enforcement. The sad truth is that once the HumCPR backers (and Lee) get their way, and more subdivision are built in the hills, there will in the end be a MUCH greater degree of code enforcement and general encroachment on the so called rural lifestyle. No one’s going to fuck with your shit more then a bunch of city transplants living to their new “rural” ranch houses. Lee has his own self interest in that he’s been trying to subdivide his property up on Greenwood Hts Dr. since he first bought it, even though it was purchased knowing full well that it was NOT zoned to subdivide.

  14. Hella Andrew Jacksons
    March 24, 2011 at 8:19 am

    Let’s be clear folks: When HumCPR says they want to protect the “rural lifestyle”, they are talking about the “right” to turn farmland and forests into large-lot, huge-house developments; they are talking about McKinleyville, Cutten and Fortuna sprawl. They could give two shits about true rural livelihoods. Every person for their self and f@%# the rest of ya.

    One thing is sure, HumCPR has brilliantly played on the fears of homesteaders, libertarians, and NIMBY’s alike to garner pawns for their cutthroat game of Monopoly. Luckily, folks are starting to see through this ruse, and hopefully it’s not too late.

  15. Hella Andrew Jacksons
    March 24, 2011 at 8:23 am

    You read my mind, Greg B. and were a couple steps ahead. Well said.

  16. Anonymous
    March 24, 2011 at 8:24 am

    Quit picking on the rich, they have a difficult time feeding their families and getting shelter. Oh wait…

    Oh and “Not rich but comfortable enough says:”,
    If I were a minimum wage employee going for beers with a millionaire, I’d expect they’d be decent enough to pick up an $80 tab. If they got cranky that I threw in $2 for a tip rather than the $3 I threw in the week before, then I’d really think they were a prick.
    Is that what you were trying to get across – millionaires are selfish pricks? I know some and they are not.

  17. Bolithio
    March 24, 2011 at 8:27 am

    Arkley also admires childhood friend Bobby Figas for his trailblazing work to export local logs to China. Who needs sawmill jobs when we’re going to have a Home Depot?

    What a stupid, uninformed statement. Figas’s risky export last year feed hundreds of Humboldt families last year. They are a mill – which means jobs! Until America wants sustainable wood products from our area (as opposed to cheap subsidized wood from Canada and elsewhere), these exports are a godsend.

    Heraldo: its not all bad, just becuase RA is involved some how. I think you would smoke a pack of Arkley a day if you could.

  18. Ed
    March 24, 2011 at 8:40 am

    Is that the same Figas who was caught bulldozing a creek a few years ago?

  19. Anonymous
    March 24, 2011 at 8:41 am

    “What Lee and HumCPR financial backer Barnum Timber want is NOT more of the so called “rural lifestyle”, what they want it to be able to subdivide their properties. That all their fight is about.”

    You are forgetting Arkley’s big Table Bluff subdivision as well.

  20. Plain Jane
    March 24, 2011 at 8:41 am

    The novel, “The Milagro Beanfield War,” is an entertaining read as well as an excellent and easy to understand lesson about what happens when rich people bring “progress” to rural areas. If you haven’t read it, I won’t spoil it for you. If you have, you know what I’m talking about.

  21. High Finance
    March 24, 2011 at 8:47 am

    Regardless of who wrote it, the post at 6.49am is a classic that has been going around for years.

    It explains our tax system and the mentality of too many people perfectly.

    It should be required reading & in depth study. Not just here but in every high school and college.

  22. Anonymous
    March 24, 2011 at 8:50 am

    Lee Ulansey is a recent transplant from Santa Barbara. His “rural” lifestyle in a very large house with all the amenities is funded by his ownership of urban properties. His “rural lifestyle” is neither sustainable or green. He does have a beard and calls himself an artist, so I guess he is one of us now.

  23. Not rich but comfortable enough
    March 24, 2011 at 9:02 am

    If I am going out for drinks with someone with more money than I have, I expect to split the tab equally. I always offer to pay my fair share, or trade off treating.

  24. Anonymous
    March 24, 2011 at 9:08 am

    If all society received for its taxes, rich or poor, was beer, then maybe that analogy would work. Since it does not consider the actual values derived from functioning and funded government services and infrastructure for working families and huge subsidies to the rich it is bullshit. The rich aren’t going anywhere, their fences are just getting taller.

  25. Plain Jane
    March 24, 2011 at 9:09 am

    Ridiculous, HiFi. In that silly e-mail everyone is receiving the same amount of the same product which doesn’t translate to our tax system, no matter how many fools forward it to economic illiterates such as yourself. The fact that they falsely ascribed it to an economics professor was to give it credibility it doesn’t deserve.

  26. March 24, 2011 at 9:15 am

    Gee, I was waiting for the goofy parable that Not-rich posted above to address the wonders of the “trickle-down” effect.

  27. High Finance
    March 24, 2011 at 9:17 am

    I see Plain Jane did her usual open minded examination of the facts before posting.

    I didn’t expect you to understand PJ, I expected you to post exactly what you posted.

  28. Plain Jane
    March 24, 2011 at 9:30 am

    No surprise that you are incapable of comprehending just about everything, HiFi. You must be a masochist the way you keep setting yourself up to be spanked.

  29. "HENCHMAN OF JUSTICE"
    March 24, 2011 at 9:30 am

    HiFi @ 8:47 am makes a fair point. One thing though missing in that economic piece is costs, which also needs to be part of the same curriculum, since costs help the wealthier earn higher incomes and get “over the hump, sts” for tax percentage rate-cuts against their earned incomes (gift of employments?).

    I will find a good hoot in the direction of the example as to where it applies to the $20 savings in beer…..Wealthy #10 had no problem @ $59 when costs were higher…BUT, only when 5-10 experienced lower costs (or nothing) equaling a savings for #10 @ $49, then the whining to no-show event. Classic.

    Hey, think of it this way in reverse – the savings ($20) represents the type of reverse argument one could have when comparing earned income tax rates and how the wealthy (#10) pay a lesser income tax rate once a certain income level is reached; therefore, the dollar per dollar tax rate is lower, thus the dollar per dollar savings on income is greater than a lower earned income taxpayer who is STILL paying a higher percentage tax rate on their dollar per dollar earnings………So, Fair Tax (flat tax essentially)?

    I’d hate to be the guy or gal who makes 1 cent, 1 dollar, etc.. below any tax threshold, knowing that right above you in the tax rate arena, some person is making out like a bandit.

    Anyhow, I don’t care how rich or wealthy anyone wants to be, but o one can deny honestl or factually that the taxing economic system Americans live by is not, how shall it be said, favorable (rigged) to those with power and control who HAVE mega wealth and need a wealth class below the MEGA welath class to help keep the wealth class puttering along. kinda also depends on if everyone with wealth is a stuck-up snob, or are they appreciative of those “others” who have assisted in creating that personal wealth.

    Jeffrey Lytle
    McKinleyville – 5th District

  30. Owltotem
    March 24, 2011 at 9:33 am

    What a shock

  31. Anonymous
    March 24, 2011 at 9:45 am

    pj and hifi. i feel like you two are either married or screwing on the downlow. if not, you two at least need to meet up for drinks one of these nights. i can see the sparks flying.

  32. Plain Jane
    March 24, 2011 at 9:49 am

    Not all opposites attract, 9:45. The sparks would be lightning strikes and poor HiFi would be left a smoldering cinder, not that he wouldn’t enjoy the even more public humiliation.

  33. Anonymous
    March 24, 2011 at 9:54 am

    What HiFi needs is a brain enema.

  34. Anonymous
    March 24, 2011 at 9:56 am

    Heard that a mill in Eureka has shut down due to lack of logs, and log exporters are heroes? Scratching head.

  35. Farmer
    March 24, 2011 at 10:18 am

    Yeah, Arkleys a $Green$ alright. BTW, they’ve been cutting apart the trains at the balloon track with a blowtorch yesterday and today. They should save a couple for an exhibit- “Stranded trains of the lost coast” or something.

  36. Not rich but comfortable enough
    March 24, 2011 at 10:20 am

    Regardless of who wrote it, I find the beer analogy quite appropriate. PJ and others will never see it. People on different blogs, and many of my friends enjoyed it and wrote how simple and significant it is to true life.

  37. Anonymous
    March 24, 2011 at 10:25 am

    Simple yes, accurate to how life really works, no.

  38. Plain Jane
    March 24, 2011 at 10:28 am

    Doesn’t say much for you or your friends critical thinking skills, Not Rich.

  39. Teacher
    March 24, 2011 at 10:29 am

    I have seen this on the heraldo before. A story about Arkley, a bunch of bitching and moaning about the guy and his views on life, politics, etc., and laying the blame for Eureka’s sad state of affairs at his feet. Any solutions and/or alternatives anyone? What should Eureka do to turn itself around?
    Heraldo, how about an insightful article where you put yourself out there and give us your personal opinion on what could be done to better our community? Unfortunatley, it’s a lot harder to form a well-educated opinion than to simply make fun of the same guy over and over for his views when they differ from yours (whatever your views are because nobody actually ever defines anything other than to say “we need good jobs” and “let’s make this place better” and “rich people suck and should share”). blah, blah, blah.

  40. Plain Jane
    March 24, 2011 at 10:36 am

    Here is a critique of the beer analogy, too long to post in its entirety so I just copy / pasted the most important section and you can read the rest at the link:

    “In the US and throughout most of the rest of the world, the tenth man would have paid off a politician for $10 to get a beer subsidy of $30 per night(to create jobs for the bartender). Of this $30, $10 of course would have covered the lobbying expense, $10 would go in his own pocket, $1 would go to the bartender to keep his mouth shut, and $9 would go to the bar.

    The Bar would give him a kickback of $10 each night for bringing in his 9 buddies to make them into alcoholics, repeat customers for life.

    The Bar would then raise their prices to $130 citing inflation and higher taxes.

    The tenth richest man would then secure his finances in a Dutch Holding Company managed by a trust in Ireland which invests in Chase and Bank of America. He would then explain to his buddies that he is as poor as the rest of them and can’t afford to pay himself as he cries into his beer that night citing his latest financial report which shows him to be broke on paper so that he doesn’t have to pay taxes in the United States ever again.

    Citing his former generosity, the other nine men would agree that the tenth man can now pay nothing like the 4 poorest.

    The others would then be faced with an adjusted amount of

    The fifth would pay $3.
    The sixth would pay $10.
    The seventh would pay $22.
    The eighth would pay $38.
    The ninth would pay $57

    link

  41. Anonymous
    March 24, 2011 at 10:38 am

    The point is PJ, they all still chose to become alcoholics. Personal choice.

  42. March 24, 2011 at 10:45 am

    The tax we pay on beer is a consumption tax, a “sin” tax or both but it applies equally to all of us who drink beer, rich or poor. It is a flat tax, the poor beer drinker pays the same tax as a rich beer drinker. It is simply not true that the poorest four “drink for free.”

    It is an attempt by the right wing to conflate and obfuscate the progressive (at least in theory) income tax with the regressive flat rate sales tax. As such it is an outright lie.

    This bullshit suffers from a flawed premise right from the beginning.

    have a peaceful day,
    Bill

  43. Bolithio
    March 24, 2011 at 10:55 am

    Heard that a mill in Eureka has shut down due to lack of logs, and log exporters are heroes? Scratching head.

    Id be scratching my head too if I didn’t use my eyes. Have you seen the log decks recently? Dont believe everything you hear.

  44. Anonymous
    March 24, 2011 at 10:56 am

    Bill, it’s an analogy. It’s not supposed to be taken literally. Instead, it is supposed to symbolize how are actuall tax system works.

  45. walt
    March 24, 2011 at 10:56 am

    Ya gotta love the Right. Check out Snopes on “David R. Kamerschen, professor of economics” as the author of this wonderful little screed. He exists, but he didn’t write this. Turns out it was really a letter to the editor from some unknown TEN YEARS AGO. Buckley quoted it is coming from a friend of his, but the bottom line is, it’s bogus. Not the least because, folks like RA DON’T PAY TAXES. They pay accountants and advisors tens of thousands per year to make sure they don’t. Under the real system, the highest payer for beer would end up owning the bar AND the brewery that made the beer, and thus would profit twice from all sales.

  46. Not rich but comfortable enough
    March 24, 2011 at 11:08 am

    Yeah, we covered that Walt. It’s the idea of it, not who wrote it. Ha ha. You don’t tink RA pays taxes? What a complete fantasy.

    I think the philosophy of the beer story is completely accurate, even if you think (and I don’t) that the numbers aren’t close to the truth. PJ will always find someone to blame, a conspiracy theory or a pay off to blame wealth on. The fact is that some people end up luckier than others, work hard, have opportunities work out better, yada yada, but they didn’t cheat the unfortunate and the poor to get there. Yes, there are those who do, but not all the wealthy have ill gotten gains.

  47. Plain Jane
    March 24, 2011 at 11:33 am

    But they all benefit from the ponzi schemes cooked up between crooked pols and their sponsors, Not Rich.

  48. March 24, 2011 at 11:34 am

    The beer analogy appears to have originated on Craigslist, which should give anyone pause :)

  49. March 24, 2011 at 11:39 am

    Oh dammit, someone already figured out the source. My bad.

  50. Anonymous
    March 24, 2011 at 11:40 am

    Yes “Not Rich”, but there is also something called social responsibility.
    I don’t think I’m rich either, but my kids do because we have good meals each day, a house, and a few luxuries. Just like all rich do not have ill gotten gain, not all poor got that way by being lazy or not working hard enough.
    Social responsibility is helping your fellow human and gaining the satisfaction of a healthy and happy community. So, I don’t complain about my taxes and I gladly support public institutions like schools, libraries, mental health services, and state-funded health care.
    Sure some people are luckier than others and some work harder, but a person’s character is evident when saving a few bucks here or there becomes more important than helping out someone down on their luck.
    Social Responsibility – isn’t this what Jesus would do?

  51. Not rich but comfortable enough
    March 24, 2011 at 11:49 am

    If you want to bring religion into it, that’s a whole other story. I don’t want to. Not everyone is a Christian here.

    In my opinion, and I have paid taxes and made a living for quite a long time, there are socially responsible rich and poor people, and there are the opposite. I don’t think all rich persons benefited from ponzi schemes, Jane, and I think the beer story is so right on, and any other do as well. You are welcome to disagree with it.

  52. Not rich but comfortable enough
    March 24, 2011 at 11:50 am

    meant to say “many” others do as well.

  53. Auntie Arkley
    March 24, 2011 at 11:53 am

    Arkley loves this community sooooo much that he is proud that his butt-buddy started the practice of shipping logs (and, now pay attention right-wingers, JOBS) to China. Wow, we are so lucky to have Arkley looking out for our interests. He just proves that all the right-wing rhetoric is just bullshit. Just goes to show how these right-wingers are anti-American traitors. They should all be treated as such.

  54. Plain Jane
    March 24, 2011 at 11:56 am

    You can tell a lot about people by what they believe, Not Rich. Simplistic little mind games like your beer analogy are believable to a certain type of person – those who lack real life experience and critical thinking skills.

    Bet you also fell for the “don’t buy gas on ____” to bring the price down and “dividing up the stimulus and writing checks to make us all rich” e-mail hoaxes as well.

  55. High Finance
    March 24, 2011 at 11:56 am

    Anyone who thinks RA doesn’t pay taxes should get a brain.

  56. Not rich but comfortable enough
    March 24, 2011 at 11:57 am

    The mass majority of people in the middle, the moderate republicans and the moderate democrats have much in common. Auntie does not appear to fit into that category.

  57. Not rich but comfortable enough
    March 24, 2011 at 11:59 am

    Jane, you are too funny. Sometimes the people with the most life and business experience appreciate a simplistic example more than those who have reaped a boat-load of negativity over lack of progress in their own life.

  58. Teacher
    March 24, 2011 at 12:03 pm

    11:53, I guess you proved that homophobia is not just a problem belonging to conservatives. Your junior highish name calling does not speak well for your intelligence and/or maturity (unless you are a 12 year old on the school computer). I know both Figas and Arkley personally. There is plenty to dislike about both (Rob’s confrontational personality and Bob’s environmental record). However, they both provide good jobs for our community. At some point, people need jobs. I asked earlier and nobody answered, if we don’t want jobs from Arkley and Figas, how do you see the economy in Eureka and Humboldt in general functioning? What do you think should happen locally to improve our economy? Can someone who is opposed to Arkley and Figas please give me specifics on what we are supposed to do here in Humboldt?

  59. Plain Jane
    March 24, 2011 at 12:10 pm

    I’m sure those who wish to stay in denial do, Not Rich. This is another one of those issues which facts and evidence are irrelevant to true believers. You can’t provide any data which shows our economic system isn’t tilted to increase the accumulation of wealth at the top so you pass around a silly little analogy which is based on a lie, that the scenario of who pays what for beer, can be used to explain our tax system, and finishes with a lie about who wrote it.

  60. March 24, 2011 at 12:12 pm

    We could start building affordable housing in Eureka, that would improve neighborhoods and create jobs.

    Redevelopment money could be channeled into actually building new housing instead of funnelling it into real estate speculators.

    How many millions of dollars has Eureka Redevelopment spent in the last 15 years and what is there to show for it?

    have a peaceful day,
    Bill

  61. Teacher
    March 24, 2011 at 12:15 pm

    PJ, I agree with you. To a degree, the system is slanted to help the rich get richer. Would you agree that the rich people like Arkley also provide jobs and are an important part of our local economy?

  62. Teacher
    March 24, 2011 at 12:16 pm

    Bill, have you seen all the houses for sale? Why would we build more houses? Who would buy those houses? Who is going to pay for those houses to be built? That’s really your answer. Build more houses?

  63. HiFi The Low Brow
    March 24, 2011 at 12:20 pm

    “Is that the same Figas who was caught bulldozing a creek a few years ago?”
    Yep.
    As well as the weekend “work” at the gravel quarry off of Old Arcata Rd.
    No permits?
    No problem!
    No county staff on hand during the weekend to report this activity to.

  64. Plain Jane
    March 24, 2011 at 12:23 pm

    When you get down to the nitty gritty, Teacher. Jobs are provided by consumers. A good economy requires a strong middle class and decent wages that don’t need to be subsidized by the taxpayers. Rich employers who keep an inordinate share of the profits rather than pay better wages are further tilting the scale in their own favor. They are the only people who have money to buy land and open businesses so they garner a larger and larger share of the economic pie as well as a greater share of political power which they use to further tilt it in their favor. That’s why concentration of wealth is such a danger to a democracy and to any nation that strives to remain in the first world.

  65. Teacher
    March 24, 2011 at 12:27 pm

    PJ, you didn’t answer anything. Let’s get rid of the Figas’s and Arkley’s in Eureka. What do we do to make our economy better? You are always on here whining about all the things you don’t want from the people who are actually motivated and have ideas. What are your ideas?
    By the way, you are 100% wrong to say that Arkley doesn’t pay his employees well. I worked for him almost 10 years ago and he paid me well. I still have friends who work at all different levels for SNC and they all get paid well.

  66. Plain Jane
    March 24, 2011 at 12:34 pm

    To put it into a different perspective, Teacher. St. Joseph Hospital is our largest private employer. They require patients who can pay their bills to continue to employ people. Poor people, working or not, can’t pay their hospital bills. The rich could pay cash for their services; but without enough patient’s from the other classes spending money there, the hospital can’t stay open. It’s a great hospital, pays good wages with bennies, etc. But without enough customers who can afford their services, they can’t provide jobs.

    The same is true of every other business in every community. The business owner provides the venue for consumers to create jobs.

  67. Plain Jane
    March 24, 2011 at 12:36 pm

    Is SNC the only place Arkley employs people, 12:27?

  68. March 24, 2011 at 12:36 pm

    Houses are sitting vacant because they are too expensive. Free market 101. The price needs to come down.

    The need is for apartments anyway not mcmansions. Most people can’t afford or don’t need a stand alone house.

    Start building affordable apartments in Eureka and the slumlords and weekly motels will disappear. win win.

    And BTW, where has that redevlopment money been spent? Still waiting for an answer…..

    have a peaceful day,
    Bill

  69. Teacher
    March 24, 2011 at 12:45 pm

    I’ve heard you use that example before PJ and I’m not sure what you are trying to get at. First off, the hospitals are heavily subsidized by the government for people who cannot afford to pay their bills. Bottom line, a bill unpaid is transferred in cost over to you, me, and the rest of the patients at St. Joe’s and the taxpayers in general.
    Secondly, the business owner takes the risk, and if they are successful there will be profits and in most cases, consumers. It is up to the business owner to decide how he or she wants to split up that pie. Back to what we were talking about, Arkley, and the fact that he does pay people well.
    You didn’t address any of the things I’ve asked you. I understand how St. Joe’s the hospital works. I keep asking you, in all sincerity, what your ideas are for the economy in Humboldt and Eureka specifically. Are you suggesting we open more hospitals? What do you think we should do aside from getting rid of Arkley and Figas?

  70. Stay in school
    March 24, 2011 at 12:53 pm

    Teacher, your questions indicate you are approaching the critical thinking point.

    With the market glutted with houses that aren’t selling, why build more?

    The system is skewed to disproportionally benefit the rich.Good points.

    Think again about the jobs “created” by the rich in this county. Most jobs here are government or institutional. Many jobs are with small businesses owned by people who are not rich.

    Your question “if we don’t want jobs from Arkley and Figas, how do you see the economy in Eureka and Humboldt in general functioning?” implies lack of understanding about the objectionable qualities of Arkely and Figas.

    Namely, they think they are above the laws. They think because they have some money, they are entitled to make their own rules, to own our politicians.

    If they create jobs, good all around. The employees benefit as do the employers. It does not give them special status and privileges. Your questions imply that they should have special standing because they are rich and therefore capable of offering a few jobs.

  71. Plain Jane
    March 24, 2011 at 12:54 pm

    Where did I ever say ANYTHING about getting rid of anyone? Taxpayers heavily subsidize hospitals because most employers who pay low wages don’t provide health insurance benefits. Employers profits are subsidized by taxpayers when they don’t pay a living wage. Why should they receive tax cuts for providing a job to someone who makes them profit which is subsidized by taxpayers who may not even use his product?

    It IS up to the business owner to decide how he wants to split up the income from his business; but it’s the government’s job to set tax policy which doesn’t allow for vast accumulation of wealth, doesn’t benefit those who pass off their employee costs to the taxpayer and doesn’t destroy the economy for the majority. Kapeesh?

  72. Stay in school
    March 24, 2011 at 12:57 pm

    “What do you think we should do aside from getting rid of Arkley and Figas?”

    Teacher, who’s said we should “get rid of” anyone? You are putting words into others’ comments. Your bias is showing. You are not being honest or thinking clearly.

  73. Stay in school
    March 24, 2011 at 12:59 pm

    PJ and I are thinking/typing in synchronicity.

  74. kale estanoche
    March 24, 2011 at 12:59 pm

    Teacher,
    To make the economy better in eureka, you first have to make it a place where people want to be. We need to get away from looking solely at individual projects and the short-term economic ramifications they may have and look at projects as part of a whole…Community-based planning looking at long-term effects.

    The main drag through Eureka is a drag – not a pleasant place to be. It is disjointed and unsafe from a pedestrian perspective. More infill and mixed-use development, rather than parking lots and big box stores would be a start. (If the Community as a whole truly wants a home depot, or other big boxes, put them at the failing Mall site where there is already space and ample parking.)

    I am not an Arkley fan but feel that half of what is proposed as part of the Marina Center project could be positive (wetland restoration and the mixed-use component). Instead of Home Depot, there could be a “Rebuilding Center” that sells recycled building materials as they have in Portland, OR http://rebuildingcenter.org/ and other stores that support local business and local workers.

    Blue Ox millworks could also move there, tying in nicely to the historic flavor of Old Town, and providing a convenient educational destination for folks.

    Eureka has a lot of potential, we just need to get away from entrenched politics and hot-headed “my way is the only way” antics from some in the developer crowd.

  75. March 24, 2011 at 1:03 pm

    Anonymous says:

    March 24, 2011 at 10:56 am

    “Bill, it’s an analogy. It’s not supposed to be taken literally. Instead, it is supposed to symbolize how are actuall tax system works.”

    Of course it IS supposed to be taken literally by Joe Six Pack. It is a cleverly crafted piece of right wing propaganda.

    The income tax doesn’t work at all the way the beer analogy suggests it does. The sales tax does.

    If you are so enamored witht the flat rate sales tax but don’t like the progressive income tax why don’t we just scrap both and go to a flat rate wealth tax?

    Everyone pays 3% (1/33) of their *wealth* each year in taxes, and we eliminate all other taxes.

    How do you think your stupid beer analogy would work then?

    have a peaceful day,

    Bill

  76. Plain Jane
    March 24, 2011 at 1:06 pm

    Oh, and lest we forget – those necessary taxpayer subsidies which keep the hospital doors open have been under attack for quite a while now. It’s funny how those who most benefit from low wage, no benefit employees are the least supportive of the government subsidies which keep their employees fed, housed, and healthy.

  77. Teacher
    March 24, 2011 at 1:08 pm

    PJ, I guess we’ll stop at the understanding that you refuse to address the straight-forward question I keep asking you about how, specifically, would you improve our local economy? And, on a fundamental level, I disagree with you PJ that the government is here to prevent people from accumulating a vast amount of wealth.
    12:53, you misinterpretted what I was saying. In no way should Arkley or Figas be shielded from the law. I agree with you completely. However, how has Arkley broken the law??? Where did that idea come from? I have no idea what you are talking about there.
    Does Figas skirt environmental laws? From everything I’ve heard, hell yes he does. I think he should be fined and punished. When people are logging, there will always be people taking short-cuts and trying to maximize profits. They shcould be punished.
    Back to my point, what do you want to do to make things better around here?

  78. Teacher
    March 24, 2011 at 1:13 pm

    Thank you Kale. Those ideas sound great to me. Now make them happen… Wait, that requires developers with capital…

  79. anonymous
    March 24, 2011 at 1:13 pm

    Well said, stay in school. As for Arkley, objectionable qualities is an understatement but you captured his attitude perfectly -above the law, entitled, without regard for how his actions impact others.

  80. Plain Jane
    March 24, 2011 at 1:15 pm

    I think the most effective thing to improve our economy is getting people to shop local as much as possible to keep what money there IS here – here. Our county and city governments should be actively seeking light manufacturing which create new jobs as opposed to big boxes which result in a net loss. That’s good profit for the owners, but not so great for the community as those job losses spiral out and impact every other business.

  81. Plain Jane
    March 24, 2011 at 1:22 pm

    If I was of a paranoid mindset, I might wonder if there aren’t people who are doing everything they can to bust the economy while they sit on piles of money waiting for the inevitable fire sales to further increase their share of the pie as well as further their agenda of shredding the social safety net, gutting unions and taking us several giant steps toward the third world they seem to be relishing.

  82. Teacher
    March 24, 2011 at 1:25 pm

    PJ, do you think that the recession helped Arkley?

  83. kale estanoche
    March 24, 2011 at 1:27 pm

    “Thank you Kale. Those ideas sound great to me. Now make them happen…Wait, that requires developers with capital…”

    By Jove, I think you’re on to something!

  84. Plain Jane
    March 24, 2011 at 1:31 pm

    I have no idea, Teacher. Lots of people were hurt short term but long term, if the recession ends, not so much. It did greatly help some people, Teacher. If I were a landlord type with a pot of gold, I might be finding some pretty good buying opportunities about now all over the country. Housing prices will go up, if not to their previous levels anytime soon.

    And then there’s this from 6/2010 and things have only gotten better since then for some:

    (Reuters) – The rich grew richer last year, even as the world endured the worst recession in decades

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/06/22/us-wealthreport-idUSTRE65L36T20100622

  85. Steve
    March 24, 2011 at 1:31 pm

    Teacher- you say Figas provides good jobs for our community but those jobs are destroying our environment and he needs to be fined and punished. That’s a good thing?

  86. Stay in school
    March 24, 2011 at 1:32 pm

    Bad news, Teacher. We are broke. The bankers are richer than ever, but the government is poorer than ever. Sorry, your position has been cut.

    To help out, we will take turns playing “teacher”. Now take a student’s seat and let PJ be the teacher for awhile.

  87. Anonymous
    March 24, 2011 at 1:36 pm

    I support private property rights. Might as well get it over with, evict the farmers and the cows and the rest of the timber workers, and put big houses on every rural parcel. Why can’t the county just support Arkley’s quest to develop the property around Ferndale in this way? After all, he bought it fair and square, and property rights come above all others, right?

  88. Teacher
    March 24, 2011 at 1:37 pm

    What is your point PJ? The rich get richer. It’s true. What are you advocating? What should we do? I feel like you just make the same complaints day after day. You are like a fat person who complains about being fat every day and continues to sit on the couch, eat potato chips, and watch TV. Why don’t you start an armed revolution or something? What are you suggesting? What are you going to do?

  89. Anonymous
    March 24, 2011 at 1:42 pm

    Too bad your property right doesn’t take into account my property value.

  90. Plain Jane
    March 24, 2011 at 1:49 pm

    I hope you’re not really a teacher, Teacher. We live in a democracy and the way we change tax policies is by electing people who share our beliefs. To get those people elected you have to share information about why they should be elected as opposed to their opponents, what their agendas are and how that will effect the people you are talking to.

    If you get bored reading my “fat person” comments about the state of our economy and how we ended up mired in the swamp, then just skip over them. I’ll do the same for your future posts since you don’t seem to have any solutions that go beyond ineffectually defending the rich in general and Arkley in particular.

  91. TimH
    March 24, 2011 at 1:50 pm

    “but it’s the government’s job to set tax policy which doesn’t allow for vast accumulation of wealth, doesn’t benefit those who pass off their employee costs to the taxpayer and doesn’t destroy the economy for the majority”

    citation please.

  92. Stay in school
    March 24, 2011 at 1:52 pm

    What is your point, Teacher? PJ and Kale offered a number of ideas. We have yet to hear any suggestions from the Teacher. What is Teacher going to do?

    Time to step down from your self constructed podium. Shoddy work, not safe up there.

  93. Surely You Jest
    March 24, 2011 at 1:57 pm

    If parasitic company’s like SNC were better regulated, not outlawed, they would be more inclined to negotiate, instead of maximizing the rates of turnover and the banking fees this generates.

    Yes, it creates jobs.

    Shipping resources overseas creates jobs…

    Parasitic interest rates, (illegal for decades), have enabled the finance industry to comprise the largest sector of our economy.

    This too creates JOBS!!!

    And on, and on, and on….

    All those accountants and plethora of bureaucrats needed to ship our manual, skilled, technical and manufacturing jobs overseas, the professionals needed to write the tax laws for offshore shelters, and all those corporate analysts and lobbyists needed to rewrite all our law to serve their needs, to liberalize interest rates, Tariffs, oh, and that interesting end-run around Constitutional declarations of war…prior to bombing the world’s poorest nations that hold the greatest wealth in resources and child labor…extracted with great efficiency (jobs) under the protection of the U.S. military (jobs), court system(jobs), and stable currency(jobs)…ALL subsidized by the average taxpayer who loses their job, drowns in debt, bankrupted by illness, shamed into homelessness when mass-outrage is more appropriate, as we’re currently witnessing around the globe.

    Lets teach “Teacher” how to dig a deep hole and get in it.

    It’s a job!!!

    Or, we can buy him a bus ticket to Arcata where their industrial parks, manufacturing incubators, and affordable in-fill housing will soon become essential as the cost of fueling a Chinese tanker becomes $10 million.

    Every good Girl Scout, (and a growing number of U.S. cities with far less natural resources), understands the patriotism of self-reliance.

  94. Plain Jane
    March 24, 2011 at 2:00 pm

    Do you REALLY need a citation to understand that, TimH?

    Do you remember why they said they couldn’t let the Bush tax cuts expire, TimH?

    Do you remember the justification for them in the first place?

    Are you capable of understanding that a government which lowers taxes to help the economy, regardless of their effectiveness, is setting tax policy just as certainly as one who raises them for the same reason?

  95. Constitutionally speaking
    March 24, 2011 at 2:00 pm

    TimH holds these truths to be self evident…

    That it’s the government’s job to set tax policy which

    ALLOWS for vast accumulation of wealth,

    Benefits those who pass off their employee costs to the taxpayer

    Destroys the economy for the majority…

    Or so it would appear.

  96. Stay in school
    March 24, 2011 at 2:10 pm

    Surly You Jest, thanks for your astute observations. You put a smile on my face!

    Tough job, this thinking, but someone has to do it. Girl Scouts, unite!

  97. Freedom ring
    March 24, 2011 at 2:11 pm

    …….. Under the real system, the highest payer for beer would end up owning the bar AND the brewery that made the beer, and thus would profit twice from all sales…….

    No under real system the business owner would pay through the nose in heavy taxes, licenses, environmental health inspections, and the government aristocrats would redistribute that wealth to themselves via union contracts, with high wages and life time benefits.

  98. TimH
    March 24, 2011 at 2:12 pm

    Yes Plain Jane, I need a citation. Constitutionally speaking, obviously I never implied any of that, but you know that.

    PJ makes a statement, I say back it up.

  99. Plain Jane
    March 24, 2011 at 2:12 pm

    I just came upon this NYT archived article of Thomas Marshall’s speech (Thomas Jefferson’s VP) warning men of vast wealth. It should be read by the rich today.

    link

  100. Greg B.
    March 24, 2011 at 2:15 pm

    What would be great is if someone would do a real investigative piece on Arkley and all of his business practices. One big giveaway of where he actually makes money is when he says of SN “they buy low grade loans and make them perform”. Folks love to speak proudly of the local jobs SN offers, but if they were to learn of the lives they destroy and the families they put on the street on a daily basis, it would lose some of its glamor. Of course most of the bad paper Arkley buys is not local, so you need to go to Louisiana and Alaska and elsewhere to meet these folks and its not likely any of our local publishers are going to foot the bill for that type of investigative journalism, but they could of course still do more then sip wine while they record and transcribe a speech he gives to a logging conference! Arkley is a major player in the community and he aggressively inserts himself into our politics in many ways under many names (HELP, Sunshine, Eureka Coalition for Jobs, SN, Cue VI et. al). No reason not to at least know what’s public information.

  101. Plain Jane
    March 24, 2011 at 2:17 pm

    The constitution gave congress the power to assess taxes, TimH. They didn’t set policy. That’s the job of congress. Do you need a citation for that?

  102. Constitutionally speaking
    March 24, 2011 at 2:22 pm

    Tim, if you need a citation to validate the statement, you must doubt it is true. If you believe the statement is false, then you must either believe the opposite (what I said), or have a completely different notion of government’s duties regarding taxation.

    Since you offer none, I may logically assume you believe the opposite of PJ’s statement.

  103. TimH
    March 24, 2011 at 2:23 pm

    I would like a citation for your statement, “it’s the government’s job to set tax policy which doesn’t allow for vast accumulation of wealth”

    That’s the one I’m looking for.

  104. Greg B.
    March 24, 2011 at 2:26 pm

    This seems timely:

    “there’s class warfare, all right,” warns Warren Buffett. “But it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning.”

    http://www.marketwatch.com/story/new-civil-war-erupts-led-by-super-rich-gop-2011-03-22

  105. TimH
    March 24, 2011 at 2:27 pm

    CS, disagree. I like to read things for myself. This is not taking a position one way or the other, regardless of your bias.

  106. Plain Jane
    March 24, 2011 at 2:27 pm

    “Jefferson’s belief was that unlimited expansion of commerce and industry would lead to the growth of a class of wage laborers who relied on others for income and sustenance, as happened during the Industrial Revolution and Gilded Age. Such a situation, Jefferson feared, would leave the American people vulnerable to political subjugation and economic manipulation. The solution Jefferson came up with “was a graduated income tax that would serve as a disincentive to vast accumulations of wealth and would make funds available for some sort of benign redistribution downward.”

    Jenkinson, Becoming Jefferson’s People, p. 26

    “”These revenues will be levied entirely on the rich …. The Rich alone use imported article, and on these alone the whole taxes of the General Government are levied. The poor man … pays not a farthing of tax to the General Government, but on his salt; and should we go into that manufacture also, as is probable, he will pay nothing.”

    The Jeffersonian cyclopedia

  107. Plain Jane
    March 24, 2011 at 2:30 pm

    Of course, Adam Smith, the father of modern economics was also a staunch supporter of progressive taxation for the same reason. It’s what works best for a country’s economy. Vast accumulation of wealth destroys it.

  108. Plain Jane
    March 24, 2011 at 2:32 pm

    That’s page 849 of the Jefferson Cylopedia.

  109. TimH
    March 24, 2011 at 2:35 pm

    Is that a law?

  110. Plain Jane
    March 24, 2011 at 2:37 pm

    So, it’s been shown that we’ve always had progressive taxation. The real dispute is the rates. Obviously they aren’t right now since the economy hasn’t been functioning well with current rates. The low marginal rates aren’t creating jobs, aren’t adequately funding government and the wealth concentration which is resulting from it is being used to gain more power, lower taxes and to disempower the other classes even more.

  111. Plain Jane
    March 24, 2011 at 2:40 pm

    TIM! The LAW is the Constitution granting the power to assess taxes to congress. The rates they choose are the law.

  112. TimH
    March 24, 2011 at 2:44 pm

    Gotta go Jane, or this will go on forever. Still looking for that citation.

  113. Not rich but comfortable enough
    March 24, 2011 at 3:05 pm

    Jane’s constant whining about rich people, landowners and their “pots of gold” makes me wonder if she really has a realistic view of people with property, and especially rentals. They are not all wealthy, and I am wondering why she is so negative about those with money. This is a common theme here, “hate the rich” “the rich are greedy, “rich landlord”, etc. So much hate in such a short typing space, and not just PJ, many others too.

  114. Plain Jane
    March 24, 2011 at 3:09 pm

    It is destroying my country, 3:05. That bothers me and would any one with more sense than a goose.

  115. Not rich but comfortable enough
    March 24, 2011 at 3:13 pm

    I think your negativity might be damaging to you, personally. Not everyone with money is bad. Being so judgmental is destructive, and name calling has got to hurt you more than those you label.

  116. Plain Jane
    March 24, 2011 at 3:22 pm

    You put quotes around your paraphrases of my posts and then accuse me of name calling? I didn’t say ANYWHERE that ANY group of people are bad. I’m talking about tax policies being designed to benefit the country and the economy and the danger from those which allow the vast accumulation of wealth. Attacking me because you can’t factually attack my points is understandable. Your view can’t be supported.

  117. Not rich but comfortable enough
    March 24, 2011 at 3:29 pm

    Alrighty then, let’s move on. You seem like a reasonable person.

  118. Surely You Jest
    March 24, 2011 at 4:08 pm

    The Founders were much closer to understanding the excesses of centralized power and wealth having experienced revolution against the crown.

    This is why they authored a Constitution with the tools to avoid the path to tyranny and feudalism that has been routinely repeated by nations. Tyranny always has its supporters, including on this blog!

    Revolution against the centralized political power and wealth of a small cadre of corporations that manage to loot the public Treasury at will, is inevitable.

    Defending them, and the policies that allow corporate power to rival the state, is traitorous.

  119. Plain Jane
    March 24, 2011 at 4:19 pm

    This isn’t the first time in our country when the income / wealth gap has been a problem and, if history is any indication, they will address it before there is revolt when wiser heads prevail. Unfortunately, right now the dunderheads and crooks outnumber the wise ones.

  120. Teacher
    March 24, 2011 at 4:31 pm

    Surely You Jest, surely you haven’t read your history books closely. The people who authored our Constitution were the wealthy elite (Jefferson, Franklin, etc). The largest landholder in the US at the time the Constitution was written was a guy named George Washington.
    PJ, I am a real teacher. We have different world views. I want my kids exposed to people who have different world views. I want them to hear opinions similar to mine and opinions similar to yours and everything inbetween. I want them to make up their minds. Unlike you, I don’t think that everyone has to think like I do in order to be “right.”
    You should check yourself before your self-righteousness wrecks yourself. Your unwillingness to listen to others points of view is bad for everyone’s health.

  121. Plain Jane
    March 24, 2011 at 4:44 pm

    Where did you get the impression I don’t listen to other points of view, Teacher? Obviously I listened to yours and everyone else on this thread and debated them. You seem to think that because I didn’t change my mind, I wasn’t listening. Did you notice that none of you I’ve discussed with today has provided a single bit of evidence that concentration of wealth isn’t dangerous or that progressive taxation isn’t a valid tool that can be used to address it? All the views in the world aren’t going to help you if you lack critical thinking skills.

  122. Ed
    March 24, 2011 at 4:48 pm

    I thought this was a school day. Maybe you’re “kids” are on spring break?

  123. Ed
    March 24, 2011 at 4:49 pm

    that’s your kids.

  124. Anonymous
    March 24, 2011 at 5:19 pm

    You with the sad eyes
    don’t be discouraged
    oh I realize
    it’s hard to take courage
    in a world full of people
    you can lose sight of it all
    and the darkness inside you
    can make you fell so small

    But I see your true colors
    shining through
    I see your true colors…

  125. Not rich but comfortable enough
    March 24, 2011 at 5:24 pm

    You must admit, Jane, you said others who don’t see it your way have the sense of a goose.

  126. High Finance
    March 24, 2011 at 5:26 pm

    Yes PJ and Mouse, not just Tim but all the clear headed posters would like a citation of where it is stated that the tax systems job is to not allow accumulation of wealth?

    Quoting Trotsky & Lenin doesn’t count.

  127. High Finance
    March 24, 2011 at 5:33 pm

    I have also asked PJ many times, how is the rich getting richer “destroying our country” ?

    You are so steeped in class envy and hatred of the “rich” that you are consumed by it.

    Wouldn’t a healthy person stop obsessing on making the rich poorer and instead concentrate on helping the poor & middle class become better off ?

  128. Plain Jane
    March 24, 2011 at 5:33 pm

    I’ve quoted Thomas Jefferson and Adam Smith, HiFi, as to the dangers of accumulated wealth. As I stated, the constitution grants congress the power to set tax rates. It is congressional responsibility to set rates at levels which benefit the country as a whole and, as has not been refuted, accumulated wealth does not benefit the country but harms it. That’s why politicians lie about the expected results of their tax schemes. If they admitted they were working to help the already rich amass always more wealth while the working classes declined, they wouldn’t get elected.

  129. Plain Jane
    March 24, 2011 at 5:37 pm

    How many times do I have to explain to you that low taxes encourage the rich to pay lower wages, HiFi? How many times do I have to show you the data which shows every time the top tax rates are cut, wages decline in the working classes? Do you think its coincidence? I think you are just incapable of processing any information that doesn’t fit into your already strongly held beliefs, especially since every time this subject comes up you ask the same exact question, which is answered, and then you ask it again. Are you so brainwashed that you can’t even remember debates of a few days ago?

  130. Not rich but comfortable enough
    March 24, 2011 at 5:37 pm

    There are so many levels of rich too. How rich do you have to be to be hated here? I am not what RA would consider rich but I enough and will for some time. Doesn’t that make me rich? Is rich having more than you need and poor needing more than you have, regardless of what you have?

  131. Teacher
    March 24, 2011 at 5:45 pm

    PJ, you said you hoped I wasn’t a teacher. Since you only know me through my posts, I assumed the reason you said you hoped I wasn’t a teacher was because you didn’t want me expressing my beliefs. That means to me that you don’t like people expressing opinions that aren’t the same as yours. Did I get the wrong impression?
    Sometimes you bring up points I agree with, sometimes I agree with HiFi’s conservatives posts, and sometimes I have my own views. However, I don’t take the stance you seem to take that anyone who disagrees with me has no sense or “lacks critical thinking skills” or “shouldn’t be a teacher.” Who are you to throw those things out there? Because you sit around on this blog all day and cut and paste what others say never formulating an idea of your own, you are somehow smarter than the rest of us. I don’t see it that way.

  132. High Finance
    March 24, 2011 at 6:01 pm

    No you haven’t quoted Thomas Jefferson or Adam Smith. What you have done is linked to other people’s articles.

    So short of forcing me to read a 10,000 word essay that I don’t have time for, what is it doing to destroy our country ?

    BTW, Thomas Jefferson was a very naive person that might have destroyed our country for real had Washington and Congress listened to him more than Adams or Hamilton.

    How does cutting tax rates have any impact on lowering wage rates for the middle class ? It is not a coincidence because those two actions are totally unrelated !!

    Middle class incomes after adjusting for inflation have remained stagnate compared to the 50’s because of the global market. Unskilled jobs have gone to other countries because of competition dear, not because of any conspiracy.

  133. March 24, 2011 at 6:01 pm

    “The true friend of property, the true conservative, is he who insists that property shall be the servant and not the master of the commonwealth; who insists that the creature of man’s making shall be the servant and not the master of the man who made it. The citizens of the United States must effectively control the mighty commercial forces which they have called into being.

    There can be no effective control of corporations while their political activity remains. To put an end to it will be neither a short nor an easy task, but it can be done.

    We must have complete and effective publicity of corporate affairs, so that the people may know beyond peradventure whether the corporations obey the law and whether their management entitles them to the confidence of the public. It is necessary that laws should be passed to prohibit the use of corporate funds directly or indirectly for political purposes; it is still more necessary that such laws should be thoroughly enforced. Corporate expenditures for political purposes, and especially such expenditures by public-service corporations, have supplied one of the principal sources of corruption in our political affairs. ”

    “No man should receive a dollar unless that dollar has been fairly earned. Every dollar received should represent a dollar’s worth of service rendered-not gambling in stocks, but service rendered. The really big fortune, the swollen fortune, by the mere fact of its size, acquires qualities which differentiate it in kind as well as in degree from what is possessed by men of relatively small means. Therefore, I believe in a graduated income tax on big fortunes, and in another tax which is far more easily collected and far more effective-a graduated inheritance tax on big fortunes, properly safeguarded against evasion, and increasing rapidly in amount with the size of the estate. ”

    Theodore Roosevelt, Republican, 1910, “New Nationalism Speech”

  134. High Finance
    March 24, 2011 at 6:04 pm

    Good question Comfortable.

    So all you liberals out there spouting hatred of the “rich”, what is rich in your POV ?

    I know a druggie who says nobody should be allowed to make more than $50,000. Clinton and Al Gore said anyone who made more than $250,000 was “rich”.

    PJ and others, define “rich” please and with a numeric value. Is it income or assets ?

  135. Plain Jane
    March 24, 2011 at 6:05 pm

    Your questions to me after a post about what I proposed to do about the problems, start a revolution, is why I asked if you were really a teacher. Nothing I have ever written has advocated revolution. Talking about changing the tax rates back to where they were in 2000 is hardly revolutionary, nor is talking about the danger of wealth accumulation, so I have to question your critical thinking skills. Further, that you think someone who disagrees with you isn’t listening to you is somewhat irrational. Reminds me of kids when they are told no and the parent won’t change their mind no matter how many times the kid says, “But mom, you aren’t listening to me.”

  136. Plain Jane
    March 24, 2011 at 6:06 pm

    And you put paraphrases into quotes. Not an English teacher, I hope.

  137. Plain Jane
    March 24, 2011 at 6:12 pm

    You stand logic on its head, HiFi. When people can pay less in wages and keep more in profit while paying lower taxes, GASP! many do. That wages have declined is not disputed. That lower wages for the majority have seriously hurt the economy is not disputed. That tax cuts have increased the deficit is not disputed. That the deficit is causing cuts to programs which benefit those who have been harmed the most in the recession is not disputed. That all of these cuts have cost jobs is not disputed. That jobs were outsourced for more profit with lower taxes is not disputed. He can’t even refute the fact that wealth accumulation is an obvious danger to democracy. But he repeats over and over again that there is no connection to low marginal tax rates and low wages for the majority in spite of the fact that every time we have cut taxes, wages decline, jobs are lost and the rich get richer. EVERY TIME. But they have nothing at all to do with one another no matter how many economists say they do. Not until Glen and Rush sing it in harmony will HiFi get it.

  138. Anonymous
    March 24, 2011 at 6:15 pm

    This video explains the ramifications of the “rural lifestyle” that HumCPR/Arkley support.

  139. Plain Jane
    March 24, 2011 at 6:17 pm

    And for the record, saying that I think rich people pay too little in taxes is not expressing hatred. That’s such a cheap and transparent ploy. Turned around, HiFi is expressing hatred of the working classes because he doesn’t believe they should make decent wages and should pay more in taxes to relieve the rich of their burden.

  140. March 24, 2011 at 6:23 pm

    Taxes that rich people pay (income, inheritance, capital gains, interest income, corporate income) are at a 50 year low, taxes that poor people pay (sales and use taxes) are at a 100 year high.

    Why doesn’t anyone want to cut sales tax rates? If high taxes are “job killers” then high sales taxes kill jobs too.

    If no one else can answer that question, I will.

    have a peaceful day,
    Bill

  141. Plain Jane
    March 24, 2011 at 6:27 pm

    “Productivity growth increased substantially in
    the 1990s. For each hour that a worker spends
    on the job, more is being produced. The higher
    productivity has lowered costs and boosted company revenues, but workers have not shared in
    the gains.
    Higher productivity means that workers should
    be experiencing a faster rise in real wages than
    in past decades. When productivity grows, employers, in general, have the ability to grant wage
    increases above the rate of inflation, and realize
    higher profits at the same time. But productivity
    growth in recent decades has not led to higher
    wages as it should. Instead, the buying power of
    workers has declined as employers continue to
    make every effort to hold down wages.
    In contrast to the situation of workers, profits
    and executive salaries are increasing at a startling
    rate. The benefits of rising productivity have been
    captured by the richest Americans, who have allowed nothing to trickle down to the rest.”

    http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1002&context=laborunions&sei-redir=1#search=“workers+share+of+production+gains”
    Now where is the increased profit from increased productivity going while the worker’s wages decline?

  142. Not rich but comfortable enough
    March 24, 2011 at 6:27 pm

    Much of what you said, PJ, is refuted, and arguable. Just because you say it is so or isn’t, doesn’t make it that way. Your dislike of the wealthy is not difficult to see by your many, many comments, and your swift and passionate rebuttals to any argument regarding the rich, especially painting those with money in a more positive light.

    You can’t be argued with. Your information is set in stone, to you, and you believe the sources that many of us question.

  143. March 24, 2011 at 6:38 pm

    How rich is rich? For millionaires, it’s $7.5 million

    “The more than 1,000 households surveyed had an average of $3.5 million in investable assets. About 42 percent said they don’t feel wealthy, saying they would need about $7.5 million to feel rich.”

    http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2011-03-15/business/fl-millionaires-survey-20110315_1_millionaires-spectrem-group-household-wealth

  144. "HENCHMAN OF JUSTICE"
    March 24, 2011 at 6:39 pm

    highboldtage says:
    March 24, 2011 at 12:12 pm
    We could start building affordable housing in Eureka, that would improve neighborhoods and create jobs.

    Redevelopment money could be channeled into actually building new housing instead of funnelling it into real estate speculators.

    How many millions of dollars has Eureka Redevelopment spent in the last 15 years and what is there to show for it?

    have a peaceful day,
    Bill

    Response: At $90,0000 taxes paid per $200,000.00 median valuated sfr, think how much subsidization the gubbamint would need in apying its own tax base of $90,000.00 per $200,000.oo median sfr.

    As far as costs (taxes too), don’t expect MFR’s to be anything but a losing financial proposition. So, when elected idiots finally admit they are ruining the ability for liveable housing, then maybe people get places to live. Until then, the scammers in gubbamint will do whatever to keep valuations inflated……like forcing builders of “NEW” sfr’s to install Fire suppression systems (Like in apartments). Too bad the money did not go into green energy productions like solar panels or something. This is CALIFORNIA HYPOCRACY.

    JL

  145. March 24, 2011 at 6:43 pm

    OK, now how could we produce jobs in Humboldt County…legally, that is? Well, for starters, Rob could use a much larger portion of his Balloon Track for a light industrial park. Forget the big box. It’s an economy killer on the local scale. Now couple the increase in production of goods to the Short Sea Shipping system that could load containers right down the street (minimum handling). Then add the fact that Humboldt County has a LARGE number of entrepreneurs eager to start small businesses (see ARCATA). Voila! Not a total restoration but a HUGE advance for living wage jobs and general prosperity.
    Sorry to lead you down the path. Rob wants none of that “general prosperity” nonsense. Not enough in his own pockets, I guess. So he keeps hammering the demonstratably harmful big box shopping maul model and will NOT compromise. An so the rich keep (trying, at least) to get richer. What a world!

  146. Plain Jane
    March 24, 2011 at 6:46 pm

    What was refuted, Not Rich? Please educate me as to where I’ve gone wrong. I don’t dislike the wealthy. I just want them to pay taxes at a rate that won’t let them take total control of my government. Is that so unreasonable? HiFi is the only one who even attempted to use logic as well as personal attacks, which is all you and Teacher did. I provided proof that we have always had a progressive tax system, in the beginning even more progressive than it is today since people didn’t pay taxes on their incomes, just levies on imports which were paid almost entirely by the rich. Find some data that refutes wages have declined as profits and productivity has increased. Find some data that shows wages went up or jobs created when taxes were cut. Repeatedly saying, “you just hate rich people,” doesn’t refute anything.

  147. Plain Jane
    March 24, 2011 at 6:50 pm

    And maybe one of you could explain why tax on investment income is lower than taxes on labor if not to influence the economy?

  148. Not rich but comfortable enough
    March 24, 2011 at 6:53 pm

    All of your comments regarding the economy are constantly argued back and forth between the left and right; none of them are agreed upon by all.

    It is your tone that results in comments that describe your dislike for those with money.

    I find that debates here are useless. One side quotes Fox and various studies from the right wing. You quote various left wing sources and your favorite media. There is no answer, only opinion. Mine stands, so does yours, and now it is time for me to work.

  149. March 24, 2011 at 6:53 pm

    “In 1862, [Abraham Lincoln, REPUBLICAN] in order to support the Civil War effort, Congress [REPUBLCIAN MAJORITY] enacted the nation’s first income tax law. It was a forerunner of our modern income tax in that it was based on the principles of graduated, or progressive, taxation and of withholding income at the source. During the Civil War, a person earning from $600 to $10,000 per year paid tax at the rate of 3%. Those with incomes of more than $10,000 paid taxes at a higher rate. Additional sales and excise taxes were added, and an “inheritance” tax also made its debut. In 1866, internal revenue collections reached their highest point in the nation’s 90-year history—more than $310 million, an amount not reached again until 1911.

    Read more: History of the Income Tax in the United States — Infoplease.com http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005921.html#ixzz1HZX1h8GA

  150. Plain Jane
    March 24, 2011 at 7:04 pm

    Your perception of my tone is undoubtedly influenced by your belief that rich people shouldn’t pay higher taxes and anyone who thinks they should is guilty of hate, Not Rich. The class envy card doesn’t work now that there are decades of data which prove the working classes are falling further and further behind as the rich suck it all up. At what point is it a danger, in your opinion, NotRich? What percentage of all wealth is acceptable in the hands of the top 1%? 99.9%?

  151. High Finance
    March 24, 2011 at 7:06 pm

    PJ, 6.12pm, It is hard to answer you when you make so many mistakes in just one post.

    The tax cuts did not cause lower wages. Global competition did. The refrigerator, TV manufacturers and toaster maker companies that did NOT ship unskilled jobs overseas went bankrupt trying to compete in the global market.

    Tax cuts did not cause the deficit. A recession and out of control spending to an obscene degree did. Bush drastically increase spending and then Obama made Bush look like a piker.

    You simply saying that wealth accumulation at the top threatens democracy doesn’t make it so.

    Kennedy cut taxes, wages did not decline. Bill Clinton increased taxes, wages did not increase.

    Your argument in 6.17pm is childish. I have never said, nor do I believe, that working classes shouldn’t make decent wages.

  152. High Finance
    March 24, 2011 at 7:09 pm

    Mouse, if there was any demand for light industrial space in Eureka RA would build that into the MC plans. There isn’t.

    A big box is not an economy killer. It might damage some businesses but it is ludicrous to claim the overall economy would be hurt.

  153. Anonymous
    March 24, 2011 at 7:10 pm

    New York Times article on how GE not only avoids paying taxes, but the government actually owes it money on an annual basis

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/25/business/economy/25tax.html?_r=1&hp

  154. High Finance
    March 24, 2011 at 7:14 pm

    BTW, I believe the first modern income tax in 1913 did not tax incomes below $25,000.

    In today’s dollars, adjusting for inflation, that means the tax wouldn’t start until your income was over $550,000.

    The import levies affected everybody or don’t you remember the protests against the “tea tax” ?

  155. Timh
    March 24, 2011 at 7:15 pm

    So jane, if the role of government is as you suggest, why doesnt the government simply sieze the assetts of the wealthy and give them away?

  156. Stay in school
    March 24, 2011 at 7:15 pm

    HiFi, can you explain why concentration of wealth and political power in the hands of a very few is good for this country?

    Sorry to hear about your aversion to reading to expand your knowledge. You you taught by Teacher?

  157. Anonymous
    March 24, 2011 at 7:21 pm

    Why not just do away with government and capitalism and material wealth and all other hierarchical power structures, and allow we the people to figure it out for our own damned selves?

  158. "HENCHMAN OF JUSTICE"
    March 24, 2011 at 7:24 pm

    A 3% income tax from 1862 thru 1866 to cover the civil war costs is far lower than 28-33% LIKE TODAY FOR SO MANY.

    I doubt anyone paying a 3% income tax would complain. Darned SSI and Medi that has become a problem. So, back to other people paying to subsidize the underfunded. The sad part is ALL those people who worked hard, but not enough to receive “full benefits of retirement, etc…”. So, these people’s pay goes to subsidize the full benefits of others but not themself WHEN that person barely misses the next higher-up benefit earned income threshold.

    When labor has benchmarks that are subsidized by tax dollars, there need not be a reason as to why people fail to reach that benchmark, because the gubbamint who pays out benefits don’t care since you just made it easier for gubbamint to care for one less retired person who gets less to zero benefits for not meeting a benchmark for earned income over your working life.

    JL

  159. Not rich but comfortable enough
    March 24, 2011 at 7:31 pm

    Did HiFi say the concentration of wealth and power in the hands of a very few is good for the economy?? Searching for that comment. Ok, back to work.

  160. Plain Jane
    March 24, 2011 at 7:32 pm

    Were the owners forced to cut wages because we can’t work for a bowl of rice a day, HiFi? Would raising taxes on those increased incomes due to outsourcing help to cushion the loss of income on the economy, or maybe even encourage higher wages if it cost them more to keep it? Higher wages for the majority actually does lift all boats. Tax cuts for the rich raises theirs at the expense of the rest. Maybe we could even afford to keep the people who will never be employed again alive and comfortable. Or should they just be a further drain on the already diminished resources of their family? This can’t continue indefinitely. At what point do you believe wealth concentration becomes a problem, if not now?

  161. March 24, 2011 at 7:32 pm

    Adam Smith in The Wealth of Nations:

    “The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be anything very unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.”

  162. Plain Jane
    March 24, 2011 at 7:34 pm

    He doesn’t think it’s enough of a problem to do anything to address it, Not Rich, just the opposite. If you believe it is dangerous, what is the remedy? If you don’t believe it is, then at what point does it become dangerous and how would you address it then?

  163. March 24, 2011 at 7:37 pm

    Hi Finance, you do know Adam Smith, the socialist, communard, redistributor of wealth, and hater of the rich, don’t you? Will he now fall out of your pantheon?

    have a peaceful day,
    Bill

  164. March 24, 2011 at 7:37 pm

    “It might damage some businesses but it is ludicrous to claim the overall economy would be hurt.”

    Gee HiFi, that’s some trenchant analysis.

  165. Hella Andrew Jacksons
    March 24, 2011 at 7:43 pm

    In other words, Adam Smith argues that given the greater privileges that come with wealth so too should the wealthy contribute a proportionally greater amount to the public expense. Given our finite planet, this only seems “fair”.

  166. March 24, 2011 at 7:52 pm

    In other words, yes, Adam Smith favored a progressive tax system, which he regarded as fair.

    have a peaceful day,
    Bill

  167. Oldphart
    March 24, 2011 at 8:02 pm

    Plain Jane – you resent the rich. It is apparent in your posts from times past to today. Let it go. Breathe in, breathe out, release the negative feelings. Or, then again, fuck it, tell everyone who doesn’t agree with you that they are incapable of critical thinking. God, you are a piece of work.

  168. March 24, 2011 at 8:04 pm

    Jeezus, are there really 166 comments on this thread? I guess Arkley is to Heraldo what the big green pot leaf is to the front page of the Times-Standard – a guaranteed uptick in traffic.

  169. Plain Jane
    March 24, 2011 at 8:10 pm

    <<>>

  170. March 24, 2011 at 9:18 pm

    Gee, HiFi, I wonder why there is a waiting list of start-ups in Arcata for limited space? Don’t you think we could capture some of that? Rob doesn’t want it so it doesn’t happen here. There has NEVER been any kind of industrial park in Eureka like most other cities have, even Weaverville!!!

    And if you’re so dumb and blind and illiterate that you don’t know about big corporations TAKING the MONEY OUT of the local economy, then you’d better crawl back in your hole. How could it be otherwise? Big Boxes “grace” us with their presence to USE us as ATM’s to send OUR CASH to their corporate offices. EVERY economic study ever done on the subject shows a net LOSS to the local economy from the monetary extraction caused by Big Boxes. Then there is the added governmental cost of various kinds of assistance for the poor minimum wage partime people just to help them survive. (read the Hospital example above). HiFi, if all boats don’t float on the tide, the ones at the top become topheavy and eventually capsize (or are capsized). Now tell me how the middle class is thriving while the sad, berated, misunderstood rich (sob!!) have to pay taxes on their priveledge. This is a link I’ve GOT to see!
    What a shlumball!!!(no typo)

  171. March 24, 2011 at 9:21 pm

    And as far as I know, most of Rob’s Economic Fuel start-up money ends up everywhere BUT in Eureka. I suspect some clever ‘targeting’ would easily fill his nonexistent light industrial space. Think about it.

  172. Lovelace basher
    March 24, 2011 at 9:30 pm

    hey good news for you proggie dicks.
    Mark Lovelace nomination was denied at
    today’s Hcaog meeting tonight. enjoy
    dumb shits. hahahahA.

  173. Decline To State
    March 24, 2011 at 9:53 pm

    Huh?

  174. Flip
    March 24, 2011 at 9:59 pm

    Dreadful, bitter, nasty piece of work.

  175. Anonymous
    March 24, 2011 at 10:14 pm

    who, rob or lee?

  176. Prophet of The End
    March 24, 2011 at 10:16 pm

    In apportioning the inheritance of His people, it was God’s purpose to teach them, and through them the people of after generations, correct principles concerning the ownership of the land. The land of Canaan was divided among the whole people. Though one might for a season dispose of his possession, he could not barter away the inheritance of his children. When able to do so, he was at liberty at any time to redeem it; debts were remitted every seventh year, and in the fiftieth, or year of jubilee, all landed property reverted to the original owner. Thus every family was secured in its possession, and a safeguard was afforded against the extremes either of wealth or of poverty.

    By the distribution of the land among the people, God provided for them, as for the dwellers in Eden, the occupation most favorable to development–the care of plants and animals. A further provision for education was the suspension of agricultural labor every seventh year, the land lying fallow, and its spontaneous products being left to the poor. Thus was given opportunity for more extended study, for social intercourse and worship, and for the exercise of benevolence, so often crowded out by life’s cares and labors.

    Were the principles of God’s laws regarding the distribution of property carried out in the world today, how different would be the condition of the people! An observance of these principles would prevent the terrible evils that in all ages have resulted from the oppression of the poor by the rich and the hatred of the rich by the poor. While it might hinder the amassing of great wealth, it would tend to prevent the ignorance and degradation of tens of thousands whose ill-paid servitude is required for the building up of these colossal fortunes. It would aid in bringing a peaceful solution of problems that now threaten to fill the world with anarchy and bloodshed.

  177. Anonymous
    March 24, 2011 at 10:30 pm

    What a lot of mean-spirited, posts from the hard working, lucky or whatever they are – comfortable, if not rich. Do you people really have no understanding of what is happening to people everywhere these days as a result of pure greed? True, not fair to “hate” the wealthy for what they have but equally unfair to assume that those who are struggling are somehow inferior – less educated, less hard working, intelligent which you do imply.

  178. March 24, 2011 at 11:55 pm

    You’re being manipulated.

  179. Plain Jane
    March 25, 2011 at 7:03 am

    Sure Rose. Manipulated with facts. Maybe you can answer the questions that HiFi, Not Rich, Teacher and OldFart couldn’t.

    Do you believe wealth concentration is a problem that should be addressed? How should it be addressed?

    If you don’t believe it is a problem at this point, at what point would you consider it a problem and how would you address it then?

    These are simple questions, not intended to manipulate. Calling people haters for stating facts is manipulation, trying to shut up the fact teller and damage their credibility.

  180. Anonymous
    March 25, 2011 at 7:24 am

    As a casual visitor I only want to say Plain Jane is whackier than bat poop.

  181. Plain Jane
    March 25, 2011 at 7:30 am

    Thanks, 7:24. Now would you like to take a stab at the questions?

    Krugman’s column today is a must read for anyone who cares about the facts.

  182. "HENCHMAN OF JUSTICE"
    March 25, 2011 at 8:15 am

    Do you believe wealth concentration is a problem that should be addressed? How should it be addressed?

    Response: I believe wealth is not good nor bad so long as those who attain wealth did so honestly and ethically. The big problem is all the schemes that gubbamint and corporate conglomerates endorse, yet keep quiet so very well about …..like the SEC or FDA as an ongoing example; or, The Federal Reserve( A HUGE FRAUD), etc…. In fact PJ, maybe we should concentrate on those who aide and abet those with false wealths (the wealths that are graftations secured due to scams and manipulations. In fact, part of the wealth disparity is the tax code, the tax collection system, and anything else that “forces costs upwardly” like regulations. Hey, try this raincoat on PJ – California state legislators decide to “force” homeowners of sfr’s to install fire suppression systems, thus raising the COSTS EVEN MORE. So, more costs, less jobs, need to go green instead of wasting supplies, labor , energy, time, liabilities, etc… on a fire sprinkler system – good for the plastic makers and copper mining profits though when natural resource costs are sky-rocketing in the metals arena. To think PJ that solar panels would have been a better mandate that sprinklers…….

    California is a hypocracy that creates wealth for the misfit and manupulator types, thus funneling or channeling that wealth to essentially people who deserve it less. So, if more “little people” want wealth, then vote outta office the abusers in politics!

    Too bad “real economic thinkers” get lamblasted too often cuz people (mostly those who hide and whine) are VERY scared to lose their segregated values and ideals that render certain types of social power and control over the masses of humanoids………….. next question.

    Sarcastically though, I had a UFO contact dream last night and the Gods told me about the past, so everything economics is wrong, next heard of followers.

    JL

  183. olmanriver
    March 25, 2011 at 8:29 am

    After the Wisconsin debacle, the joke going around had a banker, a union leader, and a tea party member sitting around a table with ten cookies. The banker takes nine of the cookies and turns to the tea party member and tells him that the union leader is trying to steal his cookie.

  184. Plain Jane
    March 25, 2011 at 8:33 am

    So far only one response and that from someone who didn’t even understand the question. Typical.

    That joke has gone viral, Olmanriver. Probably because it’s true but still darkly humorous.

  185. Plain Jane
    March 25, 2011 at 8:40 am

    Why does the GOP hate poor people?

    http://www.nytimes.com/Let Them Eat Cutbacks
    Published: March 24, 2011

    “Food stamps are part of the social safety net, but they work more as the ultimate ground-level crutch for Americans staggering against poverty. During the recession, food stamps were an important factor in helping an estimated 4.5 million Americans stave off the official poverty (no more than $21,756 annually for a family of four) that engulfed nearly 16 percent of the nation. The stamps are win-win: $9 in fast economic stimulus for every $5 spent on food for a hungry family.

    Sad wonder, then, that cuts in food stamps are the latest proposal heading for the House Republicans’ budgetary chopping block. An attempt to set them back at the levels of 2007 — and cost a family of four $59 out of their $294 monthly allotment — is part of welfare “reform” legislation being proposed by leaders of the powerful Republican Study Committee. This group, embraced by two-thirds of the House majority, is the conservative engine driving much of the deficit-slashing mania to extremes.”

    2011/03/25/opinion/25fri3.html?ref=opinion

  186. Teacher
    March 25, 2011 at 8:46 am

    I’ll answer your question despite the fact that you refuse to answer mine. No, I do not believe that the concentration of wealth is a problem. I believe that laws unfairly helping people gain and maintain wealth are currently a major problem. I believe that the influence that big money has in politics is a major problem. However, is somebody simply earning an obscene amount of money a problem, no.
    PJ, what would you do to help the economy in Eureka? Please don’t cut and paste a link to another article.

  187. Anonymous
    March 25, 2011 at 8:51 am

    Prophet of the End,
    Long read. But a good read.

  188. olmanriver
    March 25, 2011 at 8:52 am

    “The financial scam of the century – In 2010 we added 600,000 millionaires while 5,000,000 people were added to the food stamp program. Wealthy derive profits from stocks while middle class hold most of their net worth in housing.”
    and… 45,000,000 Americans are on food assistance.

    I have no solutions, but I appreciate how much awareness there is of class warfare these days.

  189. Plain Jane
    March 25, 2011 at 9:00 am

    You need to review the thread, Teacher. I already answered that question. See my post of 3/24 at 1:15.

    You didn’t answer my question at all, Teacher. The question was whether concentration of wealth, not if “earning obscene amounts” is a problem. Concentration of wealth allows for the concentration of power, which you admit is a problem. That concentration of power allows wealth to tilt the table more and more to their benefit. That’s why we see tax cuts for the rich at the same time they are trying to cut food stamps, WIC, Headstart, essentially every program that benefits the working poor when they need it most; programs with the most bang for the buck in stimulating the economy and feeding people who need it. It’s heartless and insane.

  190. "HENCHMAN OF JUSTICE"
    March 25, 2011 at 9:01 am

    PJ,

    “How old are you?” Just curious as to your reading ideologies and how you like to not recognize anything you disagree with by saying someone does not even understand something, anything….classic. Your a special mixed-bred blogger and we all luv ya for it, otherwise, what knowledge could be gained about the types of people living in this world.

    Cheers,

    JL

  191. Plain Jane
    March 25, 2011 at 9:06 am

    Jeff, I rarely read your comments because they are mostly gibberish that only you can understand. Your post in response to my question was about wealth, not concentrated wealth as I asked. You addressed WHY wealth was concentrating, but nothing about why it is or is not a problem or how it should be addressed. Now you go back on the “don’t bother to read” list where you belong.

  192. "HENCHMAN OF JUSTICE"
    March 25, 2011 at 9:07 am

    olmanriver says:
    March 25, 2011 at 8:52 am
    “The financial scam of the century – In 2010 we added 600,000 millionaires while 5,000,000 people were added to the food stamp program. Wealthy derive profits from stocks while middle class hold most of their net worth in housing.”
    and… 45,000,000 Americans are on food assistance.

    I have no solutions, but I appreciate how much awareness there is of class warfare these days.

    Response: Don’t forget the Central Banking System Fiat currencies throught The Fed), Freddie and Fannie and the VA, etc… for duping people into purchasing over-valuated homeloans with credit and no job guarantees for those over-paying real-estate onwers in the NEAR FUTURE, ouchy wahwah, that’s gotta hurt.

    Costs are too darned high, and that is what centralizes wealth my friends to those who don’t earn it on the ground.

    JL

  193. Teacher
    March 25, 2011 at 9:08 am

    I agree with you PJ regarding the funding of programs that enable the poor to work and help them educate their children.
    I thought I was extremely clear but let me try again. The concentration of wealth does not bother me as long as laws are not being manipulated to line people’s pockets. I realize that is often times how wealth is accumulated. However, to your question, no, I do not believe the concentration of wealth is a problem.

  194. Plain Jane
    March 25, 2011 at 9:17 am

    Do you consider using great wealth to elect officials who will cut taxes on the rich while they are cutting programs to the poor to be manipulation to line people’s pockets, Teacher? Are you aware that not only the “father of modern economics” but many of our founding fathers considered vast accumulation of wealth to be dangerous to a democracy? Are you even aware of how much wealth has concentrated at the top? I know you don’t like links provided to support opinions, but you might want to further your economic education by doing a little research of your own as to the current state of wealth ownership in this country, especially as compared to the rest of the world. Take a step outside your comfort zone and think about the inevitable result of wealth concentration, if you dare.

  195. "HENCHMAN OF JUSTICE"
    March 25, 2011 at 9:19 am

    Plain Jane,

    You have always maintained that attitude, nothing new. The fact still remains you are more than just argumentative….you make stuff up. C’mon PJ, your personal attacking style in your responses is past getting old and wrinkled, kinda like the Botox conditioned skin too people bare and tan.

    JL

  196. Anonymous
    March 25, 2011 at 9:21 am

    PJ, have you ever considered that these round robin wealth and poverty discussions are just a distraction from the local issues that could be addressed here.

  197. Not rich but comfortable enough
    March 25, 2011 at 9:26 am

    Have to agree with Teacher. As long as gains are not ill-gotten, I have no issue with them accumulating. Hopefully they are used to churn the economy. Also, as much as I agree with PJ that Henchman’s postings can be difficult to decipher, he is usually polite. PJ’s verbal abuse and put-downs to those who disagree override my desire to communicate with her. I do believe she cares about the world and people, so I give her that.

    One thing about the economy is, that there are many theories and none are without some cracks and fissures in their philosophies. We all develop these ideals from our own life histories and experiences.

  198. Plain Jane
    March 25, 2011 at 9:26 am

    9:21, have you ever considered that wealth concentration could be at least a partial cause of the local issues that should be addressed here? Is it possible that bringing in big corporations to undercut local business could play a role in concentrating wealth?

  199. Plain Jane
    March 25, 2011 at 9:31 am

    Sure, Not Rich. Posts of personal attacks accusing me of hating the rich (over and over and over) in response to links, opinions and logic aren’t verbal abuse, in your world.

  200. "HENCHMAN OF JUSTICE"
    March 25, 2011 at 9:33 am

    For Simpletonians and their answers,

    “to decide whether or not wealth concentrations is a problem, the respondent must understand how wealth concentrates; otherwise, the answer is inaccurate.”

    Ya see, concentrating wealth BECOMES wealth concentration. Explaining how wealth is concentrating exposes the understanding of how wealth accumulates. Too bad that the “fix” to address “wealth concentrations” was not something you enjoyed PJ (government regulations, schemes, tax colection scams, laws that force economics, etc… are a problem needing addressment).

    JL

  201. "HENCHMAN OF JUSTICE"
    March 25, 2011 at 9:37 am

    Plain Jane @ 9:31 am,

    Hmmm, what do you expect when you curse in acronyms….a holiday gift card.

    And yes Not Rich – I am a “way deep thinker”! I will note I really don’t do spell check for the missed hypothesis or colon or comma or reverse letters like “ei instead of ie”, but hey, I am only human.

    JL

  202. Anonymous
    March 25, 2011 at 9:38 am

    Ok PJ, but please tie that into Ulansey somehow.

  203. Plain Jane
    March 25, 2011 at 9:39 am

    It was Not Rich who brought up the issue of taxes, 9:38. Ask him.

  204. Plain Jane
    March 25, 2011 at 9:40 am

    In the third post of the thread, if you don’t know where to find it.

  205. Teacher
    March 25, 2011 at 9:46 am

    9:21- I completely agree with you. PJ’s not here to discuss anything.
    9:21- what would you do to help the Eureka economy flourish?
    JL, I like the positivity of your posts. They come from a good place.

  206. Plain Jane
    March 25, 2011 at 9:50 am

    Contrary to your claim, I have been discussing everything, providing links to data to support my opinions and all I get back are “PJ won’t discuss.” “PJ hates the rich.” I have responded to your questions about what I would do to help the local economy and you just refuse to acknowledge it. I guess when the tax cuts to further concentrate wealth at the top ends YOUR job or results in cuts to your salary and lifestyle, you might wake up.

  207. High Finance
    March 25, 2011 at 10:07 am

    I too have answered your question many times PJ, I do NOT think the concentration of wealth at the top is a problem.

    Again, the only problem is getting EVERYBODY’S income up.

  208. Teacher
    March 25, 2011 at 10:21 am

    PJ, I read you post where you did indeed answer my question. I completely agree about shopping local. However, I believe that is a choice we have to make as individuals. For example, I have friends who echo many of your liberal sentiments. However, they choose to shop at WinCo to save a couple dollars. Until people’s pocketbooks back up there mouths, things won’t change.
    Aside from shopping local, how do we get light-industrial jobs here? What exactly are light-industrial jobs? Why are they not here already?

  209. Stay in school
    March 25, 2011 at 10:40 am

    Teacher, shouldn’t you be in class right now? What subject do you teach? Hope it is not English. (“there” mouths should be “their” mouths.

    Teacher, here is an assignment. Please attempt to answer the questions you asked: how do we get light-industrial jobs here? What exactly are light-industrial jobs? Why are they not here already?

    It would be a good exercise for your own cognitive development. Stop asking to be spoon fed.

    If you can manage assignment #1, you can move on to assignment #2. Expand upon your statement “I do not believe the concentration of wealth is a problem.”
    Specifically, discuss the relationship of concentrated wealth to economies, democracy and religion (or morality).

    Come on Teacher, show us that finely tuned intellect of yours.

  210. Anonymous
    March 25, 2011 at 10:42 am

    Two interesting article related to some of this thread:

    1. The detailed editorial in yesterday’s TS about how the Texas’ plan to cut taxes as a stimulus for economic recovery has failed, and now Texas is worse off and making bigger cuts than California to essential things like education.
    “The Texas troubles are largely driven by the “supply side” economic beliefs of Perry and other Republican leaders in that solidly “red” state, who have long been convinced their government could survive and thrive with the third-lowest tax rates in the nation…”
    http://www.pasadenastarnews.com/opinions/ci_17542088

    Read more: http://www.pasadenastarnews.com/opinions/ci_17542088#ixzz1HdNpbybq

    2. Comments on the NCJ article by Ryan Burns regarding the local economy. How local realtors and the Eureka Reporter completely blew it when they ridiculed the HSU economics professor who said, in 2007, that we had a housing bubble that would burst and lead to dramatic reductions in housing prices. These captains of industry said it was nonsense and wouldn’t happen.
    http://www.northcoastjournal.com/news/2007/10/18/grab-your-pitchfork/

    Two big strikes for the cut taxes, grow, grow, grow crowd. And, now these people, including the ones in this thread, are telling us more of the same and want to tell us how to plan and run government. How many times do you need to see an idea crash and burn before you change direction?

  211. Plain Jane
    March 25, 2011 at 10:51 am

    Local government has to encourage them instead of more big box retail on property best suited to light industrial, Teacher. Arcata has been very successful at attracting them so their approach would be a good model. Light industrial could be anything from commercial kitchens to wood products, metal fabrication to call centers.

    I agree that there is a disconnect between ideology and consumer choices, but people are being squeezed by declining incomes and trying to make their money stretch. Being forced by declining income to corporate businesses to save a few pennies is a side effect of the bad economy while it further exacerbates it. Another win-win for the corporate owners. Winco, btw, is an ESOP company where the employees are given shares per year of service, so at least the money spent there is helping the employees of Winco in addition to their wages, not just investors.

  212. Stay in school
    March 25, 2011 at 10:53 am

    One more point for you to consider, Teacher. You said:

    “The concentration of wealth does not bother me as long as laws are not being manipulated to line people’s pockets.”

    Please research and be prepared to discuss the government (public) bail out of big banks and how that action relates to manipulation of the law. Keep in mind the enormous bonuses these bankers paid themselves immediately following the public bail out, and please discuss why those bonuses did not constitute lining of pockets.

  213. retired guy
    March 25, 2011 at 10:56 am

    Geez folks! Just watch FOX if you want all the answers. HiFi and his buddies get all their info there. Hey, just screw the unwealthy. They deserve it, ’cause they are unwealthy. Vote Republican, just look how the govs. back East have been figuring out how to put the unwealthy in their place.

    Yeah, the unwealthy need to be taught a lesson. They are too uppity. And, no, the wealthy are taxed enough. If their taxes are increased, all these new jobs that are being created will disappear.

    Yeah, everything is hunky dory. Stop your complaining. Let the rich (use your own definition) handle things. Just watch FOX and enjoy, everything will be fine.

  214. Not rich but comfortable enough
    March 25, 2011 at 10:59 am

    “Please research and be prepared to discuss”—- too funny!! Please take your blue books out and open to page 1.

  215. Plain Jane
    March 25, 2011 at 11:02 am

    Yeah, because researching, discussing and supporting your opinions is hilarious. Who needs that when you can just insult and then accuse others of being insulting.

  216. Teacher
    March 25, 2011 at 11:05 am

    PJ, I agree with everything you said. My only difference of opinion would be to agrue that there is no demand for commercial kitchens, wood products, and the other things you mentioned. We can’t create light-industrial jobs that produce things which aren’t in demand. To bring this back to Arkley, I do not love the idea of a Home Depot. However, I love the idea for development in the blighted balloon tract. I have seen the plans and think that they are far superior to what currently exists. As far as the Home Depot goes, I would love it if the local community decided to shop local and essentially boycott Home Depot and thus drive it out of business. I believe the individual consumer should have that choice.
    In summary, if what you purposed was on the ballot and close to being realized, I would support it. Since Arkley seems the only capable of bringing some changes in Old Town to fruition, I support what he is purposing. What I want most is change in Eureka. I believe it is in a bad place right now.

  217. Plain Jane
    March 25, 2011 at 11:11 am

    Aren’t you concerned that Home Depot will cost jobs by transferring customers from established local businesses and send more money out of the county without bringing any more in, Teacher? FYI, this isn’t my opinion but the conclusion of every study ever done on the effect of big boxes on local businesses. I’d provide a link, but you hate links.

  218. Teacher
    March 25, 2011 at 11:11 am

    Stay in school, you proved your incredible intellect. Until now, I never understood the difference between “there” and “their.” Now, thanks to you, I do. If, in the future, I make any further grammatical and/or spelling mistakes, feel free to let them slide as I do not spell check or reread my posts before posting. Thanks for being “that guy” on the blog who picks out a grammatical mistake as a way of proving that your liberal arts degree from HSU actually has some value. I be you could even tell me the difference between “then” and “than.”

  219. Quick Question
    March 25, 2011 at 11:12 am

    Teacher, if there is a waiting list for light industrial space in Arcata for commercial kitchens, wood products and the other things PJ mentioned, doesn’t that demonstrate demand?

  220. Teacher
    March 25, 2011 at 11:13 am

    That does worry me. However, I am more concerned with cleaning up the Balloon Tract. I also think that Arkley has the right to develop the tract as he wants, and we, the consumers, have the right to shop locally and avoid Home Depot. I am completely on your side when it comes to shopping locally.

  221. Teacher
    March 25, 2011 at 11:15 am

    I didn’t know there is a waiting list. If there is, then that would be a demonstration of demand. Why are those business waiting for availability in Arcata instead of opening up in Eureka?

  222. "HENCHMAN OF JUSTICE"
    March 25, 2011 at 11:17 am

    High Finance says:
    March 25, 2011 at 10:07 am
    I too have answered your question many times PJ, I do NOT think the concentration of wealth at the top is a problem.

    Again, the only problem is getting EVERYBODY’S income up.

    Response: I disagree, as the key to wealth for more people is LOW COSTS!

    JL

  223. Anonymous
    March 25, 2011 at 11:19 am

    Two interesting article related to some of this thread:

    1. The detailed editorial in yesterday’s TS about how the Texas’ plan to cut taxes as a stimulus for economic recovery has failed, and now Texas is worse off and making bigger cuts than California to essential things like education.
    “The Texas troubles are largely driven by the “supply side” economic beliefs of Perry and other Republican leaders in that solidly “red” state, who have long been convinced their government could survive and thrive with the third-lowest tax rates in the nation…”
    http://www.pasadenastarnews.com/opinions/ci_17542088

    2. Comments on the NCJ article by Ryan Burns regarding the local economy. How local realtors and the Eureka Reporter completely blew it when they ridiculed the HSU economics professor who said, in 2007, that we had a housing bubble that would burst and lead to dramatic reductions in housing prices. These captains of industry said it was nonsense and wouldn’t happen.
    http://www.northcoastjournal.com/news/2007/10/18/grab-your-pitchfork/

    Two big strikes for the cut taxes, grow, grow, grow crowd. And, now these people, including the ones in this thread, are telling us more of the same and want to tell us how to plan and run government. How many times do you need to see an idea crash and burn before you change direction?

  224. Stay in school
    March 25, 2011 at 11:21 am

    That’s right, not rich. Take out your blue books and put on your thinking caps. You left school before learning to research, think, discuss or defend you positions. Time for some remedial work.

    PJ and others on this thread have referenced many sources to support their thesis. You, Teacher, and HiFi have supplied nothing to support your thesis (that extreme concentration of wealth is not a problem). Nor have you made the effort to read, evaluate and respond to the ideas put forth here, or in the referenced materials.

    And still, you expect to be taken seriously? Very funny.

  225. Plain Jane
    March 25, 2011 at 11:22 am

    Your worries are badly misplaced, Teacher. The balloon tract will be cleaned up, it’s court ordered. What goes in there after the clean up will have a major impact on our local economy and none of it good if it includes a big box which shifts consumers from local businesses with a net loss of jobs and more money leaving the area.

    Those businesses waiting for an opening in Arcata don’t have the funding to build industrial parks for themselves and the people who have the ability to fund it prefer big box retail because it is personally more profitable to them and they don’t care about the local businesses that will suffer. Of course, that economic impact will also eventually affect them; but the corporate mindset is all about the bottom line of the next quarter, not long term community economic health. That’s the difference between people who invest in a corporation for a period of time, sell and invest in another corporation, and those who own and work in a local business.

  226. March 25, 2011 at 11:22 am

    Would it be fine with you Teacher if Arkley decided to put a hog feed lot down there? Would he have the right to do that since it’s his property?

    Or perhaps some city regulation would be called for?

    have a peaceful day,
    Bill

  227. Teacher
    March 25, 2011 at 11:24 am

    stay in school, you do not need a comma after the word “here” in your previous post as you are not joining two independent clauses.

  228. Stay in school
    March 25, 2011 at 11:27 am

    Teacher says: “I do not spell check or reread my posts before posting.”

    Too bad. Revision often leads to refinement of the thought being expressed. It can help you avoid publishing work filled with errors, grammatical and logical.

    I hope you don’t encourage this kind of laziness and sloppiness in your students.

  229. March 25, 2011 at 11:34 am

    I agree with many people who are aware that big box stores are destructive to local economies. It is a fact beyond dispute, proven by study after study.

    Even so there are still people who want to have the option to shop at a big box. I think a Home Depot or a Wal-Mart will damage the local economy but it will not break it.

    If we let a few more big boxes into Eureka our biggest problem will be dealing with the empty boxes in a few years as most of these boxes go broke or move away, or when the cost of cheap Chinese goods doubles or triples.

    If we must have Wal Marts and Home Depots lets put them down at the Mall that desperately needs some anchor stores and lets leave the Balloon Tract for a much higher value use than some tacky warehouse store.

    If developed properly it could be the crown jewel of the city of Eureka, Arkley knows this but his plans are shit. Let us help Mr. Arkley raise his sights to a higher, better use of this property.

    I don’t care if Arkley makes a reasonable profit, but in this case I think it is vanity, egotism and inflexibilty that is driving the Marina Center Project.

    How much better off we would be if Arkley called an honest open frank town meeting or two and listened to some better ideas for this property, and then perhaps some consensus could be reached on new directions. But he would have to put the Marina Center on the table.

    have a peaceful day,
    Bill

  230. March 25, 2011 at 11:36 am

    “Do you believe wealth concentration is a problem that should be addressed? How should it be addressed?”

    Sure, Jane, first by your getting off the blogs and going out and making some money, if money is what motivates you.

    It doesn’t hurt me if some people have a nicer car or house than i do – or if they make more money than I do or can afford to shop in places I cannot. Wealth envy is not productive – but you are lucky to live in a nation where you can make as much money as you want to if you are willing to work hard. Or if you have a great idea. Like the Pet Rock guy, or the Facebook guy.

    But at any rate you are being manipulated by one of the wealthiest men on the planet – and wealth envy is one of his favorite cards. “We’re not broke” “There’s plenty of money, and it all belongs to us! All we have to do is take it back”

    They want you frothing at the mouth, Jane, and then going out and holding up signs. Or haranguing people on heraldo.

  231. Random Guy
    March 25, 2011 at 11:38 am

    Excellent, 11:19. I don’t think developers blew it when they ridiculed publicized predictions of doom, though. They were protecting their profits, they were lying to us. They let their true colors show in retrospect, and for that we can thank them for putting the proof in writing!

    …no accident that the Eureka Reporter’s archives aren’t available anymore, either.

  232. Plain Jane
    March 25, 2011 at 11:39 am

    I’m not going to bother with Rose’s post full of straw men, the only debating skill she has.

  233. Stay in school
    March 25, 2011 at 11:47 am

    Here’s an easy assignment for HiFi, Teacher, and Not.

    Respond to the Anonymous post at 11:19. Specifically, read and consider the two links given. (Yes, HiFi, you’ll have to READ something.)

    I, too would like to know…
    “How many times do you need to see an idea crash and burn before you change direction?”

  234. Random Guy
    March 25, 2011 at 11:49 am

    highboldtage…I can’t take a stand on other people’s ego…everybody’s got a right to be a hardass, it’s survival instinct if nothing else.

    …BUT…only a certian kind of ego would want a prominent building named after themself when they’re still alive.

  235. Plain Jane
    March 25, 2011 at 11:50 am

    Me too, Stay in School. My favorite definition of insanity “doing the same thing over and over while expecting a different result” seems highly relevant here.

  236. Julie Timmons
    March 25, 2011 at 11:53 am

    Anyone truly interested in the jobs and economy of tomorrow should pay a visit to Humboldt Plan It Green Saturday, April 2, 8-4, at the Arcata Community Center and plan to attend the $10 dinner with keynote address by social entrepreneur David Hopkins. 80% of the jobs of the future don’t even exist today, will be created by the next generation of green businesspeople. I’m doing publicity for them so I’m biased, but this is a great event for both adults and kids. Visit their Facebook page or the Humboldt Plan It Green website. Carpool, walk or bike please-the parking lot will be full of exhibitors. Valet parking for bikes! and a bike mechanic on duty. Create your future! Don’t leave it to others.

  237. March 25, 2011 at 11:54 am

    “But at any rate you are being manipulated by one of the wealthiest men on the planet – and wealth envy is one of his favorite cards. “We’re not broke” “There’s plenty of money, and it all belongs to us! All we have to do is take it back”

    They want you frothing at the mouth, Jane, and then going out and holding up signs. Or haranguing people on heraldo.”

    Rose, what are you talking about? This is a real question. As far as I know the world’s richest man is Carlos Slim, followed by Bill Gates and Warren Buffet, and maybe a few of the Waltons. None of them have asked me to carry a sign. WTF?

    Just give me a name for starters…..

    have a peaceful day,
    Bill

  238. March 25, 2011 at 11:58 am

    Random Guy, I am not really criticising Arkley’s ego, as a performing musician I am familiar with ego and its upsides and downsides. I am just suggesting that he had an idea that wasn’t accepted so well in the community and he might be taking it personally.

    It is time for flexibility.

    have a peaceful day,
    Bill

  239. Plain Jane
    March 25, 2011 at 12:02 pm

    She’s referring to Michael Moore, Bill. He is one of 2 men (Soros being the other) who (according to Rose’s main man Beck)is manipulating people into falsely believing that there is an alarming concentration of wealth occurring which is being exacerbated by tax cuts on the wealthy, job cuts for the lower classes and defunding education and social programs. Anyone who accepts these “falsehoods” is guilty of hating the rich and being a socialist tool, regardless of the factual basis of those beliefs.

  240. Plain Jane
    March 25, 2011 at 12:08 pm

    That sounds great, Julie! Making a note to attend. Thanks. Not surprised it’s in Arcata.

  241. skippy
    March 25, 2011 at 12:13 pm

    “However, we’re glad the cat’s out of the money bag”

    Fat Cats they are. Wait until both start pulling the landmark strings of the ‘Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission’ case next election cycle for their chosen agendas. You’ll remember this decision by the Supreme Court ruled corporate funding of independent political broadcasts in candidate elections cannot be limited under the First Amendment. Think they won’t?

    Scroll down for a sample taste of both Security National and HumCPR being being wed together here last night.

  242. Sam Spade
    March 25, 2011 at 12:35 pm

    Junior really has no shame. One of his “heroes” is Bobby Filgas for selling raw logs to China. And he tells this story at the logging conference, seemingly unaware that selling raw logs reduces jobs in Humboldt county and America. I was hoping he would talk about Statewide Bank, a local community bank more than 100 years old, which he bought and ran into bankruptcy. “You have done enough. Have you no sense of decency sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?”

  243. Not rich but comfortable enough
    March 25, 2011 at 12:42 pm

    Stay in School- I remember that I took a very enlightening course called “Research Methods” when I was in graduate school and that I did receive an A. You think I should be quoting studies and research for each statement I post? My use of blogs is quick entertainment between work tasks and my opinions are the result of my own experiences and life philosophy, not random studies found on the internet and repasted here. To understand a study, one must check the population and variables used, and I am not about to spend my day madly searching for quick resource to fit the various opinions I have. It’s more in depth than that, for me.

    Back to work.

  244. Sam Spade
    March 25, 2011 at 12:43 pm

    Correction: 84 year old local bank

    “Covington-based Statewide Bank issued cease and desist order
    By Reports
    Publication: New Orleans CityBusiness
    Date: Friday, April 24 2009
    You are viewing page 1

    The Federal Deposit Insurance
    Corp. has issued a cease and desist order to Covington-based Statewide Bank.

    The bank consented to the March 25 issuance of the order “solely for the purpose of this proceeding and without admitting or denying the alleged charges of unsafe or unsound banking practices
    Ads by Google
    Risk Management Partner
    Premier provider of bank internal audit and risk management services
    http://www.bankvisioninc.com

    and violations of law and/or regulations,” the order says.

    “The FDIC and the Louisiana Office of Financial Institutions considered the matter and determined that they had reason to believe that the bank had engaged in unsafe or unsound banking practices and had violated laws and/or regulations,” the order says.

    Calls were placed to Statewide for comment.

    The order says the bank is to cease and desist from the following:

    – Operating the bank with an inadequate level of capital protection for the kind and quality of assets held by the bank.

    – Engaging in speculative or hazardous investment practices.

    – Operating with an inadequate investment policy
    .

    – Operating the bank with an excessive level of adversely classified loans or assets.

    – Operating the bank with an excessive level of delinquent and nonaccrual loans.

    – Creating concentrations of credit.

    – Operating the bank with inadequate written loan policies and procedures.

    – Operating the bank with management whose policies and practices are

    detrimental to the bank and jeopardize the safety of its deposits.

    – Operating the bank in violation of applicable federal and state laws and

    regulations.

    – Operating the bank without a realistic or comprehensive strategic plan.

    – Operating the bank with inadequate earnings to fund growth, support dividend

    payments and augment capital.

    – Operating the bank without adequate liquidity or proper regard for funds

    management in light of the bank’s asset and liability mix.

    The bank has locations in Abita Springs, Mandeville, Folsom, Slidell and Covington.

    Credit: CityBusiness Staff Reports

    Statewide Bank began in 1926.”

  245. March 25, 2011 at 1:44 pm

    I’m still laughing at HiFi’s comment that the only problem is getting EVERYBODY’S income up. He sees no problem in wealth concentration at the top. I’m kinda curious about what he proposes to USE to bring “everyone’s income up” if it’s all at the TOP?
    Another stroke of genius, HiFi.

    The problem for small business in this area has long been the cost of transportaion for raw materials in and finished goods out. Short Sea Shipping, container barges, promises to bring those costs down by close to 30%, enough to make Humboldt goods competetive. Are we chasing SSS with both hands? HA! We say “how nice” and go on courting Home Depot. There is demand for light indutrial products of many kinds. Look at Wing Inflatables, Lost Coast beer, Craig Electronics, Fire and Light glassware, and several major jewelry manufacturers for example.

    As to why there is a waiting list for the Arcata Food Works, it is simply because Eureka has NOTHING like it and Arcata ENCOURAGES this kind of business start-up while Eureka could care less.

    Yes, Rob Arkley is having a profound affect on our town. He and his cronies are trying very hard to prevent us from becoming what we might become in the interest of profit for themselves. It’s nice to have a theater but it’s nicer to have a job that allows us to afford to go to the theater.

  246. Ben
    March 25, 2011 at 2:04 pm

    Have your checked, Wing Infatables left a long time ago.

  247. Not rich but comfortable enough
    March 25, 2011 at 2:06 pm

    I think Rob tries to help this town. He just has a different view of how to do it than the left types do.

    Where did Wing Inflatables go?

  248. Anonymous
    March 25, 2011 at 2:11 pm

    And I’m still laughing about the idea of Rob Arkley being the savior of Old Town and currently being in the financial position to undertake new development.

  249. Stay in school
    March 25, 2011 at 2:15 pm

    Not Rich asked: “You think I should be quoting studies and research for each statement I post?”

    Answer: No, but one or two citations from a credible source to bolster your position wouldn’t hurt. Otherwise, you are spouting opinion with no basis in reality.

    Like your THE TAX SYSTEM EXPLAINED IN BEER. After this construct was thoroughly debunked, your responded with:

    “People on different blogs, and many of my friends enjoyed it and wrote how simple and significant it is to true life.”

    Simple and significant and WRONG.

    Not, you also said several times that “this is a common theme here, “hate the rich”. That is dishonest. PJ and others have repeatedly corrected this notion, but you ignore those statement and choose to misrepresent what they actually said.

    Not, you claim: “Much of what you said, PJ, is refuted, and arguable.” Where is it refuted? Certainly, you need an example. Your “own experiences and life philosophy” alone do not refute PJs statements. You’ll need to work harder to do that.

    Not says “you believe the sources that many of us question.” Such as? Why are they questionable? This statement needs to be validated with a least ONE example.

    Not says “I find that debates here are useless. One side quotes Fox and various studies from the right wing.” What studies from the right wing were quoted here? None. In your world, uninformed opinion is sufficient.

    And Not asked, “Did HiFi say the concentration of wealth and power in the hands of a very few is good for the economy?? Searching for that comment. Ok, back to work”

    Well, Not an A Student, here is HiFi’s comment. “I too have answered your question many times PJ, I do NOT think the concentration of wealth at the top is a problem.”

    And that comment was on THIS thread. Did not have to go far to find it. Back to work, indeed.

  250. Random Guy
    March 25, 2011 at 2:17 pm

    The video posted by 6:15 is worth watching, food for “think globally, act locally” thought…Humboldt’s open space is it’s biggest commodity, HANDS DOWN. Once paved and raised, it’s just another bunch of new residence and cheap chain businesses riding the downward slope. There’s no take backs once the open space is gone.

  251. Quick Question
    March 25, 2011 at 2:18 pm

    Ben, isn’t Wing Inflatables still at 1220 5th Street in Arcata, as their website states? Doesn’t Arcata also now have Eureka Boiler Works and other Eureka light manufacturing businesses that have relocated there for lack of appropriate facilities in Eureka?

  252. Not rich but comfortable enough
    March 25, 2011 at 2:21 pm

    You can spend your time quoting your own sources and trying to solve the world’s problems in blog world, but honestly, most of us have actual work going on and real problems to solve in between bits of commenting. If you want to make a difference, put those opinions into some real action. You don’t trust my sources and I don’t trust all of yours.

  253. retired guy
    March 25, 2011 at 2:25 pm

    Wing left the area? When and where did they go? Anyone?

  254. Sam Spade
    March 25, 2011 at 2:34 pm
  255. Not A Native
    March 25, 2011 at 2:40 pm

    FWIW, Former charman of the Federal Reserve Bank, Ben Bernanke is of the opinion that growing inequality in the US is a problem for both economic, political and security reasons.And he’s totally committed to capitalism.

    But of course, commenters here will minimize his opinion. Afer all, he’s not local. What does he know compared to the trusted Humboldt economic elite? BTW, Rich Ghilarduci’s sentencing has again been continued.

  256. Plain Jane
    March 25, 2011 at 2:41 pm

    They may be thinking of Yakima which did leave Arcata – for Mexico.

  257. Plain Jane
    March 25, 2011 at 2:44 pm

    Bernanke hates the rich! He’s just a tool of Michael Moore.

  258. Anonymous
    March 25, 2011 at 2:57 pm

    This was posted three hours ago:

    Here’s an easy assignment for HiFi, Teacher, and Not.
    Respond to the Anonymous post at 11:19. Specifically, read and consider the two links given. (Yes, HiFi, you’ll have to READ something.)

    Both “Teacher” and “Not…” blew right past this – giving a spin about not having the time, etc.

    But, these links provide very specific details about how conservative, low tax, pro-growth types got it wrong. The links provide specific facts about what was said and done.

    The lack of a response is an acknowledgment that they don’t have a response when their idea fail.

  259. High Finance
    March 25, 2011 at 3:56 pm

    Hey, give me a break !

    It has been a rough day at the office. Eviciting widows & orphans, raping another forest and stealing money from the poor takes a lot of time & energy.

  260. Anonymous
    March 25, 2011 at 4:20 pm

    HiFi – you wouldn’t have been one of those nodding his head in agreement with the Eureka Reporter and Larry O. Doss when they denounced the professor’s work as “ridiculous,” “totally fictitious,” “full of hot water” [sic] and — most damning of all — “just a theory.” I mean how outlandish to predict a crash of housing prices in 2007…

  261. March 25, 2011 at 4:21 pm

    Pet rocks? Rose must be drinking the Billy Beer again.

  262. High Finance
    March 25, 2011 at 4:22 pm

    “Stay in School” should have.

    Your post at 2.15pm is a perfect example of somebody who lacks basic comprehension skills one would expect of a 7th grader.

    Just because I said that a concentration of wealth at the top is not a problem, does NOT mean that I said it was a good thing. For heaven sakes, is English hard for you to understand ?

    The beer analogy was never “debunked”. Close minded liberals like you & PJ do not understand it nor believe in it or even want to think about it. Your minds knee-jerked closed without doing anything other than a quick scan.

  263. High Finance
    March 25, 2011 at 4:29 pm

    Yes Anonymous 4.20pm, at the time I did think the professors dire prediction of a huge drop (I remember he said something like 40%) was overstated. I thought that a 10% was more reasonable.

    I was wrong then. But then so were you and 99% of the people in Humboldt County. The only difference between me & you is that you lie and claim you knew it was going to happen.

    And your challenge at 4.07pm is childish. Your two points at 11.19am are; Texas cut taxes and therefore is in trouble and that the professor was right in his prediction of a housing drop.

    Yes, Texas cut taxes and is in trouble. California raised taxes and it is in financial trouble. In fact almost every state, tax cutter or tax raiser or status quo is in trouble. So ? That is what a recession is all about.

  264. March 25, 2011 at 4:41 pm

    Highboldtage – you’re serious? You haven’t heard about this on “Democracy Now!”?

    Color me shocked! So here’s the thing: Stephen Lerner brags about an unfolding campaign to be launched to take down JP Morgan Chase and destroy the financial industry:

    “The goal would be that we will roll out of New York the first week of May. We will connect three ideas:
    — that “we are not broke there is plenty of money”
    — “they have the money – we need to get it back”
    — and that they are using Bloomberg and other people in government as the vehicle to try and destroy us
    — And so we need to take on those folks at the same time. And that we will start here we are going to look at a week of civil disobedience – direct action all over the city.”

    Then he says it can’t look like the Labor Unions are doing it. It’s gotta be the “community organizers” that are doing it…

    Now who have you heard spouting that meme? yes, Jane is CORRECT, for once, it is Michael Moore says:
    — “We’re not broke.”
    — “This country is not broke; state of Wisconsin is not broke.”
    —“There’s a ton of cash in this country, trillions of dollars of it….What’s happened is that we’ve allowed a vast majority of that cash to be concentrated in the hands of just a few people… We’ve allowed them to take that.”
    — “That’s not theirs, that’s a national resource, that’s ours.”

    They seized the moment in Wisconsin – never let a good crisis go to waste, dontcha know? It’s already in play – and they depend on you to eat it up and spout it back out… Jane is obviously aware, but she at least is a willing dupe, so great is her hatred for “the rich.”

    Not Glenn Beck’s words. Stephen Lerner’s words and Michael Moore’s regurgitation of those exact same words. Talking points fed to you by rich men. And you all the willing dupes, as evidenced by this thread.

  265. Anonymous
    March 25, 2011 at 4:49 pm

    HiFi
    The difference between you and me is that I don’t immediately discount an opinion, especially one backed up by data, just because it does not fit my initial understanding of a situation.
    I didn’t know the crash was coming, but I do remember thinking that this guy makes a good point and I distinctly remember the severity of the backlash by the local chamber of commerce boys and girls. They protested a bit too much – hmmm, I wonder why?

    Secondly, the point of the other article is this:

    “But there’s also no longer any way to claim, as many have over the last two years, that lower taxes and fewer government regulations assure economic success for Texas while dooming California to decline.”

    Have you ever said that lower taxes and fewer government regulations lead to economic success? Just askin?

  266. Not rich but comfortable enough
    March 25, 2011 at 5:07 pm

    I have to take the time to read the article about Texas. To me, the one issue with the taxes is being blamed for the larger problem with the general economy. You are attaching this one ingredient as the major reason for the problem, when there is so much more involved, I believe.

    The issue with the Eureka Reporter rings a loud bell here. The original article in the paper stated covered the story accurately that the professor had predicted the 40% drop in property value, and if my memory serves me correctly, there was such a backlash by the loudest realtor mouths that the editor of the Reporter came back and spoke against the prediction in his editorial.

    Of course, the professor was pretty close to being right on. I think 25% is closer to the actual, maybe 30%. This depends on the area of Humboldt County, of course. In some areas, 40% is the number.

    Don’t criticize something for not having time to provide proof for their opinions. Maybe this is your major forum to express yourself. Again, to make a real difference, take some action.

  267. High Finance
    March 25, 2011 at 5:28 pm

    I have said, Anonymous, that cutting taxes during a recession is one way to help spur the economy.

    I have also said that I am not opposed to raising taxes when the recession is over. However I do not want to stick the bill to just one group. All taxpayers should share in the pain when it happens.

    BTW, “Not Rich” brought up a good point. While housing prices elsewhere have dropped 40% in some places, Humboldt County is more like 30%. At least that is what has happened to my home and I had appraisals done at the peak and just recently.

    It seems likely that we will experience a bit more of a drop here.

  268. Bolithio
    March 25, 2011 at 5:35 pm

    Still going?

    Have you guys tried moving closer to the center? Lets tax more giant corporations, and loosen regulations that are duplication and killers for small business.

  269. March 25, 2011 at 5:45 pm

    Sorry Rose I killed my TV six years ago. I swear I have committed no violence since then. So though I know who Amy Goodman is I have never seen an episode and the NPR radio station here is sketchy with the reception so I don’t listen to her on the radio.

    So apparently you think that what is going on in Wisconsin is some sort of Bolshevik uprising? The union movement’s goal is to destroy capitalism? I’m sorry Rose you are hyperventilating. Slow down old girl. Get out a brown paper bag and blow into it.

    have a peaceful day,

    Bill

  270. Anonymous
    March 25, 2011 at 6:01 pm

    My point HiFi is that tax cuts in Texas did not spur spending and investment; it made matters worse because, apparently, those that benefit from the tax cuts are accumulating the wealth without significant reinvestment.
    Tax cuts reduce the amount of money we have to spend on essential societal needs – like education. So, at least for the last two years, the tax cuts have only made matters worse. There is nothing that requires the tax cut “trickle down” to occur. If I invest my tax windfall in goods, services, and investments in other states and countries, then the tax cut simply takes money away from my city and state.
    Your lucky you took advantage of higher education when it was affordable; if this trend continues it will soon be a luxury of the wealthy.

    I would come to middle ground on regulations which might inspire the beneficiaries of tax cuts to invest in jobs.

    As for the Humboldt County housing decline, I think the chamber boys and girls owe the HSU prof an apology (full page ad?). They didn’t just disagree, they vilified the man

  271. Anonymous
    March 25, 2011 at 6:03 pm

    I mean: You are= You’re

  272. beel
    March 25, 2011 at 6:08 pm

    Is that the same Figas who caused a power outage from Eureka to McKinleyville from sloppy logging in Indianola earlier this year? Admirable!

  273. Stay in school
    March 25, 2011 at 6:11 pm

    Now HiFi says:

    “Just because I said that a concentration of wealth at the top is not a problem, does NOT mean that I said it was a good thing.”

    OK, silly, sidestepping semantics aside, lets rephrase your sentence to say:

    … it is not a good thing but it is not a problem. There must be some other condition between not good and not a problem. But don’t try to explain. I recognize diversionary tactics when I see them.

    You are worming out of your previous position but don’t want to admit it. Changing your position after being effectively out debated would be so un-ditto head-ish of you You might be stripped of your neo con credentials and have to admit that you are a closet thinker.

  274. Stay in school
    March 25, 2011 at 6:28 pm

    Speaking of thinking, HiFi, think again about your assertion that you were wrong about the housing bubble but…

    “But then so were you and 99% of the people in Humboldt County. The only difference between me & you is that you lie and claim you knew it was going to happen.”

    Now you HAVE to be kidding. Do you really think everyone was as delusional as you? I remember during the bubble seeing a High Financier on TV predicting, with a straight face, that in 20 years the average house would cost $1.5 MILLION.

    That’s right, this guy was as sure of himself as you are HiFi. He just took that bubble-induced price increase rate and extrapolated it out for 20 years, with no foreseen obstacles on the horizon. Anyone with an ounce of common sense could see that the bubble was sure to burst. But you could not?

  275. March 25, 2011 at 6:55 pm

    Rose, or Hi Finance, either one, what do you think of my proposal for a flat rate wealth tax instead of an income tax. I think if everyone was taxed perhaps 1/33 of their wealth every year a reasonable size government might be supported. That is just over 3% a year, everyone, you and I would all pay the same percentage. It seems even “fairer” than the flat rate “fair tax” that has been proposed, don’t you think?

    have a peaceful day,
    Bill

  276. Plain Jane
    March 25, 2011 at 7:01 pm

    Because anyone with a lick of sense knew that most people couldn’t afford those houses being sold with ARM’s and balloon payments a few years down the road when ever fewer people would be able to afford them, ad nauseam, Stay. Can you believe Rose implying that no one had an idea that wealth was concentrating at the top until a few weeks ago when Michael Moore said it? She seems to live in a state of denial so dense she can’t even see reality from there.

  277. "HENCHMAN OF JUSTICE"
    March 25, 2011 at 7:41 pm

    Anonymous says:
    March 25, 2011 at 11:19 am
    Two interesting article related to some of this thread:

    1. The detailed editorial in yesterday’s TS about how the Texas’ plan to cut taxes as a stimulus for economic recovery has failed, and now Texas is worse off and making bigger cuts than California to essential things like education.
    “The Texas troubles are largely driven by the “supply side” economic beliefs of Perry and other Republican leaders in that solidly “red” state, who have long been convinced their government could survive and thrive with the third-lowest tax rates in the nation…”
    http://www.pasadenastarnews.com/opinions/ci_17542088

    2. Comments on the NCJ article by Ryan Burns regarding the local economy. How local realtors and the Eureka Reporter completely blew it when they ridiculed the HSU economics professor who said, in 2007, that we had a housing bubble that would burst and lead to dramatic reductions in housing prices. These captains of industry said it was nonsense and wouldn’t happen.
    http://www.northcoastjournal.com/news/2007/10/18/grab-your-pitchfork/

    Two big strikes for the cut taxes, grow, grow, grow crowd. And, now these people, including the ones in this thread, are telling us more of the same and want to tell us how to plan and run government. How many times do you need to see an idea crash and burn before you change direction?

    Response: Ummmm, the economist at HSU (can;t remember name) actually was opposite of what you cite that Ryan cited. In fact, on this blog many moons ago, some of the “economist’s sophisticated thoughts” were responded in threads as ridiculous and naive, to say it nice. To be more poignant, the economists various articles on housing was boneheaded and showed that their economic degrees meant very little. Pffft, those wads wish they were as smart as they bamboozle college students.

    JL

  278. High Finance
    March 25, 2011 at 7:43 pm

    Yes 6.01pm, I agree the tax cuts weren’t enough to spur growth but that is because we are in a recession. You might even be right, it might have made matters worse these last two. But only because these are not normal times.

    In normal times Texas not having an income tax has really helped them.

    I do not remember the Chamber “villifying” the HSU Prof. Although some members certainly did disagree with him and said so.

  279. High Finance
    March 25, 2011 at 7:46 pm

    Geeze Stay in School ! You’re a little slow aren’t you ?

    As long as it was done legally, wealth concentrating at the top is neither good nor bad but just is. Maybe if I wrote it out in crayon you could understand it.

    Not everybody in Humboldt County believes as me, only the successful or soon to be successful people. Many of the others believe like you.

  280. High Finance
    March 25, 2011 at 7:51 pm

    Bill, the flat tax would be great for me but it would mean a huge tax increase for you. The only ones that would benefit would be the rich. The poor and the lower middle class would be hit very hard.

    Even the proponents of the flat tax admit the tax rate would have to be close to 20% for the revenue to break even with today’s tax revenue.

  281. Plain Jane
    March 25, 2011 at 7:56 pm

    Please note that HiFi once again completely misread a question. Bill’s question was about taxing WEALTH, not income. Would you like to try again?

  282. High Finance
    March 25, 2011 at 8:05 pm

    Do you know we already have a couple of forms of wealth tax already?

    And what is wealth ? Would people be taxed on just their investments or would it include their homes and cars and clothes and jewelery and computers ?

    How does the government audit this ? What about the retired couple living on Social Security and all they own is their home ?

    Where did the figure of 3% come from ? We already have a property tax of 1% in Calif and the state income tax alone dwarfs that collection. What about farmers and dairy cattlemen that are “land rich” but money poor ? They would lose their farms.

    It is a looney idea and would be unenforceable.

  283. March 25, 2011 at 8:38 pm

    High Finance,

    The figure of 3% is of course a first estimate but given that estimated private wealth in the US is around $50 trillion then 3% will produce about $1.5 trillion in tax receipts, which is in the ballpark for a federal government the size we had during Bill Clinton’s presidency. That is the last time the budget was at that level.

    And again, all other federal taxes could be eliminated.

    have a peaceful day,
    Bill

  284. Anonymous
    March 25, 2011 at 8:43 pm

    The person who posted at 11:19 am regrading the Eureka Reporter and how they “totally blew it” has it only partly correct. The paper wrote an article quoting the HSU Prof, only to be bombarded with calls from local realty companies. At that point, the Ed wrote a retraction or at least a statement saying that the paper didn’t agree with the Prof’s prediction. I would guess the local realty companies threatened to pull all of their ads, and the struggling paper relented.

  285. Plain Jane
    March 25, 2011 at 8:54 pm

    What was Arkley’s stake in the real estate bubble continuing?

  286. March 25, 2011 at 8:57 pm

    Hi Finance,

    According to free market theory, if someone is “land rich but money poor” then whatever capital they control is being mismanaged. Since they cannot even obtain a paltry 3 percent ROI they will be taken out by the Invisible Hand of the Free Market and their capital redistributed to more able business people who can better deploy it productively. That’s how our wonderful Free Market works, God Bless America. You do believe in the Free Market, don’t you Hi Fi?

    A reasonable wealth tax will only enhance and accelerate this natural free market process of weeding out the weak and encouraging the strong and productive.

    have a peaceful day,
    Bill

  287. March 25, 2011 at 9:38 pm

    “They want you frothing at the mouth…”

    Like Rose, you should think for yourself and froth at the mouth.

  288. tra
    March 25, 2011 at 10:37 pm

    On its front page this morning, the New York Times reported that General Electric — the world’s largest company — made $14.2 billion in profits ($5.1 billion in America) and managed to not pay a dime in federal taxes. In fact, the company actually received “a tax benefit of $3.2 billion.”

    http://thinkprogress.org/2011/03/25/geo-ceo-greed-taxes/

  289. Anonymous
    March 26, 2011 at 7:01 am

    tra, these are loss carry forwards. you lose 10 billion in 2007 and make 5 billion in 2008 you get to carry your 10 billion loss forward until your income exceeds your losses. make 5 billion in 09 and you start paying taxes again in 2010. GE capital lost tons of money for a couple of years. none of these inflammatory articles ever mentions how much they were paying up until 08 or the reason behind the writeoffs. these big corps normally pay billions in income taxes annually and they will again when they have worked through their losses. ask your accountant.

  290. Not rich but comfortable enough
    March 26, 2011 at 7:46 am

    and of course those who have GE stocks will pay income taxes on those dividends, once they are distributed.

  291. Plain Jane
    March 26, 2011 at 7:54 am

    Great justification, but that’s not what the NYT said about how GE pays no taxes:

    “Its extraordinary success is based on an aggressive strategy that mixes fierce lobbying for tax breaks and innovative accounting that enables it to concentrate its profits offshore. G.E.’s giant tax department, led by a bow-tied former Treasury official named John Samuels, is often referred to as the world’s best tax law firm. Indeed, the company’s slogan “Imagination at Work” fits this department well. The team includes former officials not just from the Treasury, but also from the I.R.S. and virtually all the tax-writing committees in Congress.”

    “A review of company filings and Congressional records shows that one of the most striking advantages of General Electric is its ability to lobby for, win and take advantage of tax breaks.

    Over the last decade, G.E. has spent tens of millions of dollars to push for changes in tax law, from more generous depreciation schedules on jet engines to “green energy” credits for its wind turbines. But the most lucrative of these measures allows G.E. to operate a vast leasing and lending business abroad with profits that face little foreign taxes and no American taxes as long as the money remains overseas.”

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/25/business/economy/25tax.html?hp=&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1301151061-X++8nW8TPRlGOa5rlchhkA

    Now care to rephrase your claim that they paid no taxes because of losses in previous years?

  292. Plain Jane
    March 26, 2011 at 7:58 am

    For those too lazy to read the whole thing or incapable of understanding it, GE uses its wealth to buy politicians who write favorable tax policies for them.

  293. Not rich but comfortable enough
    March 26, 2011 at 9:31 am

    But it appears it does pay taxes.

  294. Plain Jane
    March 26, 2011 at 9:39 am

    Not to the US, Not Rich. I guess campaign donations, lobbyists, corporate jobs for those who do their bidding after they lose re-election or retire, hiring former IRS officials really pays off. Where can I buy a politician?

  295. Not rich but comfortable enough
    March 26, 2011 at 9:41 am

    What about 7:01’s comment?

  296. Plain Jane
    March 26, 2011 at 9:44 am

    Getting your former CEO appointed Chairman of Obama’s President’s Council on Jobs and Competitiveness is, of course, priceless.

  297. Plain Jane
    March 26, 2011 at 9:46 am

    From the same article:

    “While the financial crisis led G.E. to post a loss in the United States in 2009, regulatory filings show that in the last five years, G.E. has accumulated $26 billion in American profits, and received a net tax benefit from the I.R.S. of $4.1 billion.”

    How did I know some people would be too lazy to read the article?

  298. Not rich but comfortable enough
    March 26, 2011 at 10:12 am

    How did I know you couldn’t answer without some form of put-down or rude cutting remark? It’s over, Jane.

  299. Stay in school
    March 26, 2011 at 10:24 am

    Not Rich, some people are fed up with the attitude displayed by followers of the Fox/Rush network. This attitude says in essence “we don’t need no stinking facts to back up our assertions. We are right, regardless of the mountains of evidence that proves we are wrong”. This attitude is destroying our country.

    Don’t want to be put down? Educate yourself. Read. At minimum, take a couple minutes to read the material that is being discussed. Maybe then you will elicit more respect.

  300. Plain Jane
    March 26, 2011 at 10:25 am

    That you didn’t read the article was obvious, Not Rich. I actually hoped that my post before you made that so obvious was that people would read the article since its long and contains a wealth of information about how big corporations get tax laws written to benefit them and then milk the taxpayers for welfare due to these laws, legally bribe lawmakers, hire them after they leave office, etc. Wealth accumulation translates to political power which translates to laws written to increase that wealth accumulation. It’s perfectly legal after they had the laws written to make it so. But you don’t see a problem here and anyone who does is just suffering from class envy and hate the rich.

  301. Not rich but comfortable enough
    March 26, 2011 at 10:26 am

    Sorry, I don’t watch Fox and I don’t live on this blog 24/7 like some people. If it’s your whole life and Jane’s as well, so be it. Show me someone she thinks is her intellectual equal, and I’ll show you someone who also agrees with her on every topic important to her.

  302. tra
    March 26, 2011 at 10:34 am

    Here’s a suggestion, “Not rich,” try to ignore the tone and just respond to the substance.

    If you read the article, it seems pretty clear that GE has taken huge profits while avoiding taxes, and that this is NOT just attributable to losses carried forward. Care to respond to that?

  303. Plain Jane
    March 26, 2011 at 10:35 am

    People who don’t seek information on which to form their opinions, who then want their opinions given the same respect as informed opinions, are really frustrating. Why would someone with so little interest in political debate that they don’t bother to inform themselves spend any time on a political blog?

  304. Not rich but comfortable enough
    March 26, 2011 at 10:42 am

    Although I know enough about journalism to know how slanted an article like that can be, it does appear, tra, that things are amiss at GE and of course with the tax laws currently as they are, other large corporations as well. And no, I don’t need to “try to ignore the tone” and respond to anyone as rude as Jane. There are other people to respond to here, like yourself, who want to have a positive conversation. I feel it’s a learning process for me, economics, and that life’s too short to have to interact with those who cannot be civil.

  305. "HENCHMAN OF JUSTICE"
    March 26, 2011 at 10:47 am

    “and because those with more wealth become concerned when more of a tax will take it, the wealthy argue it will help them, but hurt you” … gee whiz, if that is the case, the wealthy are very generous.

    Anyhow, a “Flat Tax” is different than the “Fair Tax”. Fair Tax = no sales taxes on basic goods and services needed to exist in life like basic foods, basic clothings, basic medical expenses or basic supplies based upon actual health issues (not cosmetic surgeries or supplies or stuff like that), etc…. So, if you have less wealth, the only sales tax you will really only pay is when you “splurge” on non-basic items….this is what bothers the extremely wealthy – paying a higher sales tax rate on splurge consumptions (after the income tax write-offs have helped to keep more wealth prior to the sales tax) that impact the environment, BUT this splurge spending also provides higher end jobs to others who can & can’t, do & don’t, and will or won’t be their own boss. So, based on the premise that many people are able, willing and abiding economic participants, the debate of who pays taxes goes on…..

    High Finance says:
    March 25, 2011 at 7:51 pm
    Bill, the flat tax would be great for me but it would mean a huge tax increase for you. The only ones that would benefit would be the rich. The poor and the lower middle class would be hit very hard.

    Even the proponents of the flat tax admit the tax rate would have to be close to 20% for the revenue to break even with today’s tax revenue.

    Plain Jane says:
    March 25, 2011 at 7:56 pm
    Please note that HiFi once again completely misread a question. Bill’s question was about taxing WEALTH, not income. Would you like to try again?

    JL

  306. Plain Jane
    March 26, 2011 at 10:54 am

    Not Rich’s definition of civility:

    PJ will always find someone to blame, a conspiracy theory or a pay off to blame wealth on.

    Jane’s constant whining about rich people

    This is a common theme here, “hate the rich” “the rich are greedy, “rich landlord”, etc. So much hate in such a short typing space, and not just PJ, many others too.

    You can’t be argued with. Your information is set in stone, to you, and you believe the sources that many of us question.

    And many snide comments about how much time is spent here while you have to work, as if others don’t.

    I suppose I SHOULD have changed my mind to your way of thinking with the persuasive arguments you presented, but I am biased on the side of facts, not uninformed opinions.

  307. "HENCHMAN OF JUSTICE"
    March 26, 2011 at 10:57 am

    For HB Bill,

    is that tax upon wealth devoid of double taxation, multiple taxations, cumulative taxations or any other tax scheme known or possible to mankind to take again and again? So, for FY 2000, Person A gets taxed at a gross wage of $1,000,000.00. Outta that $1 mil the net was lets say $970,000.00. Is that $30k a one time wealth tax charge based on that generated wealth for FY 2000 only? Or, is the retained wealth of $970k taxed upon itself in an incremental fashion again … like Prop 13 does here in CA most of the time?

    Huge tidbit to understand thoroughly if your trying to explain your tax collection idea.

    JL

  308. Not rich but comfortable enough
    March 26, 2011 at 10:57 am

    Looked up HH’s “about” section on his menu. The purpose of the blog?

    “The Humboldt Herald exists to bring you news and views from and about Humboldt County, California.”

    Not a “political blog” necessarily. I visit here for other reasons usually. And now it’s time to get to that recycling that has been piling up.

  309. Stay in school
    March 26, 2011 at 11:01 am

    Not Rich, would you respond to someone as rude as HiFi?

  310. Not rich but comfortable enough
    March 26, 2011 at 11:20 am

    HiFi hasn’t been rude to me yet. The topic doesn’t matter, it’s definitely the tone. I have spoken on many topics I am more well-informed in, and the treatment is the same. I contend it is more about disagreeing than being informed. This is my work-break, my entertainment, my little mini vacation away from the duties. Who needs the abuse?

  311. Phan
    March 26, 2011 at 11:21 am

    Jane – you obviously bring out the best in people.

  312. Plain Jane
    March 26, 2011 at 11:34 am

    Not Rich brought up the topic and lobed a lot of insults so his hurt feelings are more likely due to his retreat behind “differences of opinion” being so lame. All opinions are not created equal no matter how many times the right wing echo chamber tells you they are. If I had the opinion that the sun didn’t come up yesterday, is that equal to others that it did? How much respect do you think they would have for my opinion that it didn’t?

  313. Steak n Eggs
    March 26, 2011 at 11:36 am

    “I contend it is more about disagreeing than being informed.”

    It is that way for many here. However, I don’ think these type of people are making an impression on anybody besides themselves and the other sheep. Those with an open mind, interested in other opinions, or perhaps “the other side of the story” eventually blown them off. Lets face it, there is always some “Know it all” in every crowd. Deal with.

  314. Plain Jane
    March 26, 2011 at 11:49 am

    It’s them uppity womin that really get you riled up, (especially when they prove you wrong) since a number of regular posters on both sides of the divide are never called on their insults. It’s hilarious that people who complain about others being closed minded have never been seen to admit they were wrong or changed their minds. If their far less than convincing opinion doesn’t change your mind, then you’re closed minded. They don’t need anything to support those opinions but their own high opinion of their opinion and they complain when others provide supporting data. JEEZUS!

  315. tra
    March 26, 2011 at 11:50 am

    Actually, P.J., the sun didn’t come up yesterday, or any other day…the earth rotated on its axis.

    ;)

  316. Plain Jane
    March 26, 2011 at 11:51 am

    HA! Tra

  317. March 26, 2011 at 12:06 pm

    Jeffrey you still are confusing wealth with income.

    For a wealth tax you simply add up everything you own. If a small businessperson like yourself has $100,000 dollars in wealth then you would pay $3,000 or so a year in taxes. Someone like Hi Fincance might have $5,000,000 in wealth, he would pay around $150,000 a year in taxes. Yes your wealth would be reduced by 3% a year if your wealth produces no income. Of course in a capitalist system we assume that all capital is directed towards productive use by the Invisible Hand, so the situation where an accumulation of capital (i.e. “wealth”) does not produce at least a modest ROI is a perversion don’t you think Jeffrey?

    have a peaceful day,
    Bill

  318. Not Hi but Enough Fi
    March 26, 2011 at 12:10 pm

    Facts?!
    We don’t got no facts!
    We don’t gotta show you now stinkin FACTS!

    (Sorry, couldn’t help myself.)

  319. Not Hi but Enough Fi
    March 26, 2011 at 12:16 pm

    NO stinkin FACTS.

    No way. Sets a bad tone.

  320. Stay in school
    March 26, 2011 at 12:23 pm

    Not Rich says “HiFi hasn’t been rude to me yet.”

    Try disagreeing with him.

  321. March 26, 2011 at 12:39 pm

    Another thing to consider Jeffrey,

    the income tax puts a real drag on wealth accumulation. The ambitious hardworking person who wishes to work those extra hours and take chances with his or her own small business investments must overcome the yearly drag of an income tax on the growth of their wealth.

    On the other hand the wealth tax only taxes wealth after it has accumulated. Therefore hard working ambitious people can get wealthy quite a bit faster if we tax wealth instead of income.

    have a peaceful day,

    Bill

  322. Phan
    March 26, 2011 at 2:04 pm

    PJane is a woman?!?!

  323. Not rich but comfortable enough
    March 26, 2011 at 2:07 pm

    I am as well but have been referred to as a “he”. Interesting.

  324. Phan
    March 26, 2011 at 2:16 pm

    I am of the opinion that gender is unimportant to the discussion.

  325. Plain Jane
    March 26, 2011 at 2:28 pm

    You’d think; however, no one complains about the men who insult, and Not Rich can’t even acknowledge that she insulted too. Or maybe she doesn’t recognize accusing people of being haters and closed minded is insulting. Trying to have a respectful debate with someone who refuses to read the offered information, yet continues to argue points that have been disproven by a highly reputable source in an in depth investigative news article, not opinion. Continuing to claim, against all evidence and expert opinion that has been widely discussed, that vast wealth accumulation is not a problem and then getting all pouty because they think their admittedly uninformed opinion is equal to facts is hilarious. Playing the class envy card doesn’t work any more.

  326. Random Guy
    March 26, 2011 at 3:52 pm

    Haven’t read all comments here, maybe it’s already been said…just read the blip by judy hodgepodge @ the NCJ. The man in his own words…wow…what more do you need to read to paint a complete psychological profile of the individuals who are royally screwing us all for profit.

    Where to begin? Proud to be in that top 1% of wealth, and encouraging his fellow fat cats to take over school boards across the country…not for the sake of education or teacher’s quality of living mind you, but for logging and real estate interests!!!!! WTF!!!

  327. Not rich but comfortable enough
    March 26, 2011 at 4:37 pm

    I will acknowledge that I insulted you, Jane. I will apologize if it hurt your feelings.

    I disagree that your sources for information and “investigative reporting” are always factual, or that they are seen as factual by all; I know how slanted reporters can be. They present what they want to present. I do agree it’s important to read all you can though, to hear all sides.

    I am through watching you beat this dead horse.

  328. "HENCHMAN OF JUSTICE"
    March 26, 2011 at 5:14 pm

    highboldtage says:
    March 26, 2011 at 12:06 pm
    Jeffrey you still are confusing wealth with income.

    For a wealth tax you simply add up everything you own. If a small businessperson like yourself has $100,000 dollars in wealth then you would pay $3,000 or so a year in taxes. Someone like Hi Fincance might have $5,000,000 in wealth, he would pay around $150,000 a year in taxes. Yes your wealth would be reduced by 3% a year if your wealth produces no income. Of course in a capitalist system we assume that all capital is directed towards productive use by the Invisible Hand, so the situation where an accumulation of capital (i.e. “wealth”) does not produce at least a modest ROI is a perversion don’t you think Jeffrey?

    have a peaceful day,
    Bill

    Response: I don’t think so. Now, back to some serious economic discussions about wealth and earned income…..ya see, earned income thus far in reality gets taxed (err, unless your a GE, a GM or G-Girl); then, money that is left over (net) becomes wealth (already has been taxed). So, your response to my straightforward question is apparantly above.

    Note: If my labor is my rate of return on investment, then taxing again and again (instead of just once) the products of my labor is “taking away my labors”. Wow, such an evil concept. Why work at all???

    Now, If your 3% only applied to “wealth” when it was created (a one shot taxation deal), then you could be on to something; but alas, it has been explained further as not so. So, nope, your idea could never work unless people are willing to work less, if at all; but, with skyrocketing costs, no work means no way to pay those bills, Bill.

    So, we both do unbderstand the whole tax code gets burnt and a new, short and subtl and to the point taxing system is put into words where the electorate will be convinced that prior to a vote, the material will be read and understood to be “FAIR”?

    Now, you still think that a “fair tax” is still not good, but I must opine that of those against the “fair tax idea”, who and how many want a smaller government that guarantees no labor generated income taxes? In a world of increasing costs, zero% labor generated income taxes becomes an economic catalyst for the private sector, and an increased sales tax keeps the money in the states, rather than going to the Federal tax dollar wasters who decide, rather than the states, how much tax dollar revenue comes back to the state, not to mention the umbraged feeling of the processes and energy it takes to get back tax dollars that should have never left the states.

    To end, who would want to tax those who, for if they labored, never got above water…….and, if to just be above water (bobbing head), then how long before that becomes yesterday’s dry rag? Then, one must consider their “personal rate of return of/on investment” of anything generated by their labor (who makes out like a King). So, is everyone ready to shitcan the tax code all at once and start over? This is an important question to answer as well.

    Tax day is coming too, darned it Bill, so people should not blow out their brain cells too soon before having a really good reason too, lol.

    JL

  329. "HENCHMAN OF JUSTICE"
    March 26, 2011 at 5:21 pm

    highboldtage says:
    March 26, 2011 at 12:39 pm
    Another thing to consider Jeffrey,

    the income tax puts a real drag on wealth accumulation. The ambitious hardworking person who wishes to work those extra hours and take chances with his or her own small business investments must overcome the yearly drag of an income tax on the growth of their wealth.

    On the other hand the wealth tax only taxes wealth after it has accumulated. Therefore hard working ambitious people can get wealthy quite a bit faster if we tax wealth instead of income.

    have a peaceful day,

    Bill

    Response: and why work to make money (taxable earnings or not) if ya ain’t gonna spend it after being forced to spend it?

    JL

  330. March 26, 2011 at 5:41 pm

    Jeffrey,

    I will get to work right away on a beer analogy describing how a wealth tax works, perhaps it will be more understandable.

    No promises though, I am capable of satire but it does not always flow as freely as pure logic.

    And Jeffrey, I have met you in person and I think you are a pretty decent guy I respect your opinions even if we disagree.

    have a peaceful day,
    Bill

  331. Stay in school
    March 26, 2011 at 5:56 pm

    Not Rich, maybe on a future thread we can discuss how factual and objective an article in the NY Times is compared to, let’s say, Rush Limbaugh. You said you don’t watch FOX, (good for you) but I sense that your opinions have been influenced by their rhetoric. Perhaps via someone else you listen to.

    At any rate, you should not be so dismissive of investigative reporting done by the Times. It is a highly respected newspaper with rigorous standards. I’d be interested to know what sources you consider reliable.

  332. tra
    March 26, 2011 at 6:25 pm

    At 10:42am this morning, “Not Rich” said:

    “it does appear, tra, that things are amiss at GE and of course with the tax laws currently as they are, other large corporations as well.

    After that statement, I’m not sure that there is really all that much disagreement left in this discussion, at least not much disagreement about the current tax-dodging by GE and some of the other corporate giants.

    In my opinion, the key phrase in Not Rich’s 10:42 comment is “with the tax laws currently as they are.” If we agree that the tax laws that allow this kind of corporate tax-dodging are wrong and should be changed, then it seems to me that we’re more or less on the same page, at least on that issue.

  333. Plain Jane
    March 26, 2011 at 6:36 pm

    Your acknowledgement that you insulted is appreciated, Not Rich. My skin isn’t so thin that unknown people on the internet can hurt my feelings no matter how insulting they are. In my comment about sources for facts, I was referring to one specific source on one specific subject, not all sources on every issue. It sounds like you must be in a real quandary as to where to get the information required to be an informed voter which is so vital to maintaining a democracy.

  334. tra
    March 26, 2011 at 7:08 pm

    When I originally posted the info about GE’s impressive record of tax-dodging, I did so without comment, figuring that its relevance to the discussion on this thread was more or less self-evident.

    But if it wasn’t self-evident, P.J. did a great job of summing up the situation in the comment where she said:

    Wealth accumulation translates to political power which translates to laws written to increase that wealth accumulation. It’s perfectly legal after they had the laws written to make it so.

    This, it seems to me, is a pretty strong challenge to those who take the position that wealth accumulation is nothing to worry about as long as it’s done legally.

    The problem with the “as long as it’s legally” argument is that a great deal of harm can be done by people and institutions acting unethically and immorally, even when they are not actually breaking any laws.

    However, since those individuals and institutions are restricting themselves (mostly) to actions that are at least legal according to the current laws that we have on the books, then — at least in theory — we should be able to change their behavior by changing the laws (eliminating loopholes, tax shelters, the offshoring of profits, etc.).

    The challenge, of course, is that these same institutions and individuals use their accumulated wealth to block such changes, and that can be a very significant barrier to overcome.

    Still, all it would really take would be maybe 20% of those who do not normally vote waking up to the reality of the situation and starting to work for change. A tall order, no doubt, but well within the realm of possibility, especially as this kind of corporate tax-dodging continues to cause more of a tax burden on the middle class, and big cuts in services to the middle class, the working poor, and the truly destitute.

    But the overall wealth accumulation problem, and the specific problem of tax-dodging by America’s corporate giants, may both have to get a lot worse before enough people realize that there is a problem, and are motivated enough to do something about it.

  335. Double taxation
    March 26, 2011 at 9:43 pm

    Corporate tax is double taxation. If you tax a corporation it get’s taxed twice. When it’s earned by the corp, and then again when it’s earnings are passed on to employees, executives, and shareholders. Good tax strategy always tries to minimize double taxation. Corporation are supposed to be flow through entities. We all benefit, investors, and employees. Now if you want to complain about high executive salaries, or the high price of preferred stocks (stocks which pay dividends) then you have a complaint, but trying to get the “evil corporation” is just a myth. Unless of course the corporation is engaged in unfair competition through economies of scale or control of resources, or price fixing. But that is why we have anti-trust laws. So complain that your beloved politicians are not breaking up these huge oligopolies.

  336. tra
    March 26, 2011 at 10:06 pm

    DT,

    If I have to pay income tax when I earn money, and then pay sales tax when I buy something with that money, is that also “double taxation?” Just curious.

    At any rate, GE is clearly engaging in what I think any reasonable person would recognize to be “unfair competition” by using its tremendous wealth to influence government to give them special tax breaks and subsidies that give them an unfair advantage over other corporations or individuals that don’t get these sorts of sweetheart deals. Is this free-market economics? Or might the term “corporate welfare state” be a more accurate description of the status quo?

    I do agree, however, that we should demand that our lawmakers act to strengthen anti-trust laws and other laws addressing anti-competitive corporate behavior, and beyond that we should give the boot to any lawmakers who fail to make serious efforts in that direction.

    Meanwhile, I also think that any time one of these “too big to fail” banks or other corporations goes bust and leaves American taxpayers to clean up the mess by bailing them out (under the threat that our economy will totally collapse if we don’t), those banks or other corporations should immediately be broken up into much smaller parts, so that they will no longer be “too big to fail” entities that might require yet another taxpayer bailout somewhere down the line. I don’t think that’s too much to ask.

  337. tra
    March 26, 2011 at 10:16 pm

    Corporate “persons” have certain advantages over real persons, for example they can live for hundreds of years, and the owners enjoy limited liability. On the other side of the ledger, they are supposed to pay corporate taxes.

    In other words, our system grants certain benefits to those who organize their business activities as a corporation, and in return for these benefits those entities are expected to share some of the financial benefits of that arrangement with the public purse.

    So it really comes down to a question of some folks who want to organize their attainment of wealth using the benefits of the legal entity called a “corporation” but don’t want to live up to the responsibilites that come with that. That’s not surprising, but it’s pretty lame.

  338. Plain Jane
    March 26, 2011 at 10:18 pm

    And exactly who pays the taxes on the billions spent on lobbying and campaign contributions?

  339. Plain Jane
    March 26, 2011 at 10:21 pm

    Since I’ve already paid taxes on my income, does the grocer, doctor, lawyer, etc. whose services I buy not have to pay taxes on the same money again?

  340. tra
    March 26, 2011 at 10:21 pm

    Well the lobbyists would have to pay income taxes, but I’m pretty sure that political campaigns don’t have to pay taxes on the donations they receive.

  341. Plain Jane
    March 26, 2011 at 10:28 pm

    I’m not referring to the wages paid to lobbyists, which of course they would pay income tax on, but the other expenses involved in lobbying: offices, transportation, entertainment, etc.

  342. tra
    March 26, 2011 at 10:33 pm

    Oh, I see. I don’t know, are lobbying expenses deductible as a “business expense?” I’d be interested in the answer to that.

  343. Plain Jane
    March 26, 2011 at 10:36 pm

    Here’s one opinion:

    Political and Lobbying Expenses – Nondeductible

    Expenses for the following activities are not deductible business expenses:
    Lobbying Expenses, or expenses used to influence legislation at the local,state, or federal level.
    Expenses for political activities, such as campaign dinners and events for political parties or candidates
    Political contributions or gifts to political candidates.
    In addition, you cannot claim a charitable deduction for contributions to a group which conducts lobbying activities that have a direct effect on your business.

    http://biztaxlaw.about.com/od/taxdeductionsatoz/a/politicallobby.htm

  344. Random Guy
    March 26, 2011 at 11:34 pm

    …seriously, do you realize how this man’s little right wing version of the daily show is seriously fucked up in light of what we can actually see happening with our own two eyes? Who’s doing what now? and whatever gave you these ideas? funny haha it all? is what I’d ask him.

  345. Random Guy
    March 26, 2011 at 11:43 pm

    “Why exactly IS the general public ridiculing you as a wealthy sycophant, Mr. Arkley? You are regularly compared along the lines of Rush Limbaugh and a heartless sitcom tycoon…does that mean anything to you?”

  346. March 27, 2011 at 10:08 am

    I see the “leaderless Cells” are at it again. No instruction necessary; they know what to do. Go on “progressive” blogs and deny, deny, deny.
    Jews and Gypsies celebrating “Hitler”.

  347. "HENCHMAN OF JUSTICE"
    March 27, 2011 at 10:18 am

    highboldtage says:
    March 26, 2011 at 5:41 pm
    Jeffrey,

    I will get to work right away on a beer analogy describing how a wealth tax works, perhaps it will be more understandable.

    No promises though, I am capable of satire but it does not always flow as freely as pure logic.

    And Jeffrey, I have met you in person and I think you are a pretty decent guy I respect your opinions even if we disagree.

    have a peaceful day,
    Bill

    Response: Thanks Bill, maybe the two of us will find mankind’s centrist tax collection answer for the short time left in this world as we know it. I will say though, I am not fooled EVER regarding economics or politics, ever! So, not to be arrogant and poignant, but just a reminder.

    JL

  348. "HENCHMAN OF JUSTICE"
    March 27, 2011 at 10:23 am

    Double taxation says:
    March 26, 2011 at 9:43 pm
    Corporate tax is double taxation. If you tax a corporation it get’s taxed twice. When it’s earned by the corp, and then again when it’s earnings are passed on to employees, executives, and shareholders. Good tax strategy always tries to minimize double taxation. Corporation are supposed to be flow through entities. We all benefit, investors, and employees. Now if you want to complain about high executive salaries, or the high price of preferred stocks (stocks which pay dividends) then you have a complaint, but trying to get the “evil corporation” is just a myth. Unless of course the corporation is engaged in unfair competition through economies of scale or control of resources, or price fixing. But that is why we have anti-trust laws. So complain that your beloved politicians are not breaking up these huge oligopolies.

    Response: The complaint falls upon deaf ears when only stock shareholders get to vote for many of those executive or board benefits, salary, stock options, etc…. So, in essence, nothing helps the non-stock owner……in so far as being able to make a choice for a difference. If ya wanna play, ya gotta pay is the phrase people should start thinking about, economically.

    JL

  349. Walt
    March 27, 2011 at 10:35 am

    PJ, I was checking the teaparty website to see if they claimed tax exempt status, and stumbled across THE PERFECT GIFT for the “little Patriot” in your family. They don’t, by the way.
    http://www.teapartypatriots.org/ColoringBook.aspx

  350. Plain Jane
    March 27, 2011 at 10:35 am

    When I pay taxes on my income and then spend it, the businesses where I spend it pay taxes which increase the prices I have to pay for their products. The businesses where they spend the money they got from me also have to pay taxes and those taxes increase the prices they pay and on and on and on. Every single dime is taxed over and over and over and the very idea that corporations should be exempt is absurd.

  351. Stay in school
    March 27, 2011 at 10:38 am

    Double Taxation, if corporations are allowed to spend undisclosed, unlimited amounts on political campaigns, they should be obliged to pay taxes too. As we REAL people do.

  352. Plain Jane
    March 27, 2011 at 10:39 am

    No political contributions are tax exempt, Walt. So corporations like GE who are spending millions every year on political contributions while not only not paying any taxes on any of their profits (actually getting corporate welfare from the taxpayers) aren’t paying taxes on their political contributions either, unlike you and I. What a system!

  353. tra
    March 27, 2011 at 8:05 pm

    …I am not fooled EVER regarding economics or politics…

    Quite a claim!

    The problem is, if you are successfully “fooled,” then by definition you don’t know about it.

    Just sayin’.

  354. Max Jefferson
    March 27, 2011 at 9:12 pm

    Highboldtage,
    Must say I appreciate what you added to this thread. I wish that the majority of the Republicans/capitalists alive today were as intelligent and ethically minded as those you cited above. It is utterly reprehensible when self-interest prevails over ethics and social justice…it seems about time to utilize more drastic means to circumvent their control.

  355. skippy
    March 28, 2011 at 7:55 am

    “Arkley also admires childhood friend Bobby Figas for his trailblazing work to export local logs to China. Who needs sawmill jobs when we’re going to have a Home Depot?”

    More logs are on the way. This just in from the Times-Standard this morning:

    “A lucrative log export market has made its way to Humboldt Bay, giving those in the timber industry and related trades some hope of recovery. While a dismal housing market in recent years has had adverse effects for the domestic logging market, China’s growing need for raw timber may be the shot in the arm the county needs, according to some timber industry experts…

    The Humboldt Bay port saw its first export ships from the evolving market last week, including one that was scheduled to be loaded with debarked logs from Green Diamond Co. on Saturday… the market began late last year after Figas Construction of Eureka began exporting logs…

    Each ship is estimated to generate nearly $143,000 for the community through revenue such as longshoreman wages, pilot boat service fees and dock fees…”

    There’s 18-25 ships on the way into the future and the ‘horses are heading in the right direction,’ according to Donna Tam’s article. More of Donna Tam’s reporting, “Growing China Log Export Market Buoying Humboldt County Timber and Harbor Activities”
    can be found here.

  356. skippy
    March 28, 2011 at 8:27 pm

    Hank Sims is back in the house, his House, and reports all may not be so economically rosy in the above article and Pollyanna Log Land pioneered by Mr. Figas. In his article at the Lost Coast Outpost you can
    read more about this here

    …and Mr. Sims brings up the larger question posed by Cedar Reuben, associate of formidable mill owner Mr. Schmidbauer, of whether such a move to export Humboldt County logs could drive our mills into the ground “given that raw logs bypass our local mills, could this thing be a net negative on our economy?” He makes a very good and discerning point by way of explanation. Mr. Reuben knows what he’s talking about.

    You can read a bit more on Mr. Sims’ Lost Coast Outpost page
    that can be found here as point #4

  357. Ed
    March 28, 2011 at 8:45 pm

    Good point Skippy, we can thank our local captains of industry for helping to throw mill workers under the bus. Those of us with a little timberland would be wise to wait and let our forests mature. Our mill workers, and the businesses that supply them and that they patronize will prosper because we looked at the big picture.

  358. Anonymous
    March 28, 2011 at 8:48 pm

    I saw the headline in the TS today. Depressing.

  359. Ed
    March 28, 2011 at 8:55 pm

    Reminds me of how wise Judi Bari was when she spoke of earth first’s rules for the timber industry, they included “added value timber products only”

  360. Walt
    March 28, 2011 at 9:35 pm

    In Hawaii they’re sweating what the disaster in Japan will do to tourism, especially in Honolulu: I wonder what economic effect the loss of that market will have on China?

  361. "HENCHMAN OF JUSTICE"
    March 28, 2011 at 11:41 pm

    Plain Jane says:
    March 27, 2011 at 10:39 am
    No political contributions are tax exempt, Walt. So corporations like GE who are spending millions every year on political contributions while not only not paying any taxes on any of their profits (actually getting corporate welfare from the taxpayers) aren’t paying taxes on their political contributions either, unlike you and I. What a system!

    Response: What kind of system, free market or fascist?

    JL

  362. "HENCHMAN OF JUSTICE"
    March 28, 2011 at 11:49 pm

    Tra @ 8:05 pm,

    good point I suppose if and when foolishness is proven. Yet, ultimately, nothing economics ever works the way engineers design. Somehow, someway, economies falter from fruition. So many advanced societies just kaplunk, down the drain. So, a fool I am, I’ll admit; am I fooled on economics and politics…..I don’t think so, but then again, Gomer Pyle said, “surprise, surprise.”

    JL

  363. January 5, 2012 at 7:13 am

    “What kind of system, free market or fascist? JL 11:41”

    Why not free market fascist?

  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