(Advertisement)

Womack pushing for Internet tax bill

His party gives him the most grief

Posted: December 10, 2012 at 12:14 a.m.

U.S. Rep. Steve Womack (shown) said he wrote his bill, the Marketplace Equity Act, in response to the rapid growth of Internet sales. It would give the states authority to collect sales taxes from online retailers.

With time running out and its chances dwindling, U.S. Rep. Steve Womack, the sponsor of an Internet tax bill in the House, got some encouragement from Sen. Mike Enzi, who has sponsored similarly stalled legislation in the Senate.

This story is only available from our archives.

Front Section, Pages 1 on 12/10/2012

(Advertisement)



« Previous Story

Christmas forecast mostly sunny for Netatmo U...

Netatmo’s Urban Weather Station includes a free app for Apple iOS or Android that lets you see readouts from your weather station anywhere.

I have a couple more possibilities for your Christmas lists this week. These two items may be off the beaten p... Read »

Next Story »

Pryor takes questions in town hall on Twitter

For 45 minutes, constituents grilled U.S. Sen. Mark Pryor about health care, taxes, the “fiscal cliff” and a number of other issues. Read »

I won't forget this at election time. Taxation without representation was bad enough. The same people should see it WITH representation.

Posted by: Oldearkie

December 10, 2012 at 9:44 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

i always suspected Womack was working for Walmart. i enjoy on line shopping at amazon. which is the only way i can buy comitatively with walmart in this state. if Womack succeeds in passing this legislation, it will raise the taxes on middle class arkansas again so we all have to shop ONLY at walmart. now you can order anything you want on line, even toilet paper and get it delivered at walmart prices.
a big blow to arkansas shoppers!
Vote against Womack next election, he has done nothing good for the 3rd district except the special intrests of Walmart and some military.

Posted by: ladyLiberty

December 10, 2012 at 10:06 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

But why is it fair to the local stores for you to be able to buy the same items online without paying taxes? The storekeeper is required by law to charge sales tax. So he is being penalized for following the law when you choose to buy elsewhere to avoid the payment of the sales tax.

Posted by: Vickie55

December 10, 2012 at 10:08 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Woemack, if he wondered into my yard, my cat would cover him up. Next he will introduce legislation to place meters on our noses and charge us a tax on the amount of air we use. O Vickie, when you order it online after the worthless one gets his bill passed, you will pay both tax and shipping.

Posted by: JailBird

December 10, 2012 at 11:49 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

You libs are amazing...complain about WM who creates jobs and pays millions in local taxes that provide you with local services (remember when everyone used to drive to the larger cities and gave them the tax revenues???) and now you support Amazon who Is horrendously ripping the sales tax revenue away from your local governments.

You libs always want it for your selfish best.

Having everyone on a level playing field is not a special advantage for bricks and mortar stores. It simply brings it back to even.

Yeeeeesch!

Posted by: vmhs

December 10, 2012 at 1:17 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

RE "But why is it fair to the local stores for you to be able to buy the same items online without paying taxes?"
The local store-- building, inventory and business-- is a set of local assets, which require police and fire protection. The local store generates wear and tear on streets and highways, from both deliveries of inventory and from customers. Items purchased online are subject to the same personal property taxes as items bought locally.

RE "So he is being penalized for following the law when you choose to buy elsewhere to avoid the payment of the sales tax."
A lot of people buy online because the item they want is not available locally. I don't know anybody who shops online in order to "penalize" local merchants. You might as well say that local merchants "penalize" each other by competing. Only the really big ones-- like Walmart-- do that. Speaking of Walmart: you are aware that Walmart sells online, aren't you?

Posted by: AlphaCat

December 10, 2012 at 1:32 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Western Auto, Oklahoma Tire & Supply, Gibson's, Safeway, Krogers, Woolworth, TG&Y, Piggly Wiggly, and twenty mon and pop stores just in NWA. So vmhs, why don't you go down to your beloved WalMart and kiss it right in its filthy mouth.

Posted by: JailBird

December 10, 2012 at 1:52 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

To clarify- "...used to drive to the larger cities TO SHOP and gave them the SALES tax revenues???"

Come to think about it, you tightwad libs were shutting down mainstreet mom and pops way before WM came around by driving away from your town to find cheaper prices.. If WM had not arrived to save the local small town tax revenues- you libs would be wiping out mom and pops right now by shopping at Amazon and other online retailers. Just to take care of your selfish self and unethically avoid paying sales tax.

Really great - give yourself a pat on your back. While your at it, convince your doctor to give you a handicap parking tag. just go ahead and cheat your truly handicapped neighbor- take their spaces. Tell your cat how proud you are of yourself. You are #1! Screw your neighbor - it's all about YOU!

Posted by: vmhs

December 10, 2012 at 1:53 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

RE "You libs are amazing...complain about WM who creates jobs and pays millions in local taxes...."
The complaint is not so much about Walmart. The observation is that the knuckle-dragging Teabagger chucklehead from this district does a far better job of representing Walmart than he does the constituents who actually voted for him-- or the ones who voted against him, for that matter.

RE "You libs always want it for your selfish best."
And conservatives are never selfish. Mr. Womack had a photo op at an area Head Start center-- after he voted to cut their funding-- and told food pantries to go hang. Oh, no-- there's nothing selfish about Mr. Womack.

Posted by: AlphaCat

December 10, 2012 at 1:54 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Politicians will always be politicians regardless of party affiliation. The discussion is about fair sales tax collections. It does not matter if a retailer has local bricks and mortar. The citizen still lives local and sales tax revenue provides services locally for you and your neighbors. The sales transaction is taking place in the local community. Really quite simple. Do you want to rob your local community for your selfish self? Your right - issue is not about WM.

Posted by: vmhs

December 10, 2012 at 2:08 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

When finally, Amazon, Cosco, Target, and Wal-Greens and the government combine to break Wal-mart into a thousand baby Wal-Marts like the did Bell Telephone, then, truly then, we can say that "This was our finest hour!" I can only, sad to say, park in one handicap space at a time. Sad to say I can't take all their spaces. I didn't know doctors handed out handicaped parking tags, I thought it was the State of Arkansas. Learn something new every day.

Posted by: JailBird

December 10, 2012 at 2:22 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Dear MM- Tell Ed Asner and George Soros hello for me. Have a blessed day at your neighbor's expense.

Posted by: vmhs

December 10, 2012 at 2:30 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

RE "Politicians will always be politicians regardless of party affiliation."
Especially the conservative ones. Or are you somehow saying that Mr. Womack is a liberal?

RE "It does not matter if a retailer has local bricks and mortar."
Certainly it does, when the question is fairness in regard to the collection and expenditure of sales taxes.

RE "The citizen still lives local and sales tax revenue provides services locally for you and your neighbors. The sales tax revenue provides services locally for you and your neighbors."
And the citizen who buys some things online still pays property taxes, and local sales taxes on the stuff he buys locally. A lot of local services are provided at a direct charge, too-- trash and recycling, water and sewer, for example.

RE "The sales transaction is taking place in the local community."
Think how much better the local FedEx and UPS depots are doing as a result of online sales.

RE "Really quite simple."
Yet you manage to not quite understand it.

RE "Do you want to rob your local community for your selfish self?"
Not as much as Mr. Womack does.

Posted by: AlphaCat

December 10, 2012 at 2:31 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Read the article- states have lost $34.4 BILLION THIS YEAR. The number is not insignificant. Why do libs always want everything as long as someone else pays for it.

Possibly take the log out of your eye before you complain about the speck in other's eyes. Ie., your position shows you are same selfish as you have determined Womack to be- therefore, it is best to clean up your act before complaining.

If your house catches on fire - the firemen come to YOUR HOUSE. Yes- sales tax is of course one piece of the tax revenue pie. An important one.

It is really a simple matter.

Posted by: vmhs

December 10, 2012 at 2:46 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

It sure is vmhs!

In Springdale the local Chamber of Commerce is fed from the sales tax, about $300,000 per yr must be funded by taxpayers to keep that bastion of free market enterprise alive and functioning.

What's good about Congressman Womack's proposal is that he's on record as favoring tax fairness and equal application of tax laws to all participants. There's a ton of tax fairness needed in the U.S.A. I'm glad he's on record as favoring it.

This is a huge building block for the future unless he wants to be seen as a hypocrite and total corporate serviceman.

Naturally Wal-Mart wants to level the playing field as well as other big-box stores. Walmart knows much of the future of retail will be in online sales and, as the article mentioned, they already have a notable online presence.

Future retail will become more and more specialized which is perfect for online, low-overhead retailers who can quickly respond to consumers' desires and supply niche` markets.

Ok, let's assume the Womack-Walmart tax bill passes. Then what's next?

Naturally you do what every red-blooded American businessman does, you OUTSOURCE IT.
No taxes need be collected. Have businesses just across the Canadian line or the Mexican line with multiple warehouses regionally located but the retail ownership and operation is on foreign soil.

Outsourcing works for Mitt. Works for BP. Works for Walmart.
It's the American way.

Posted by: cdawg

December 10, 2012 at 3:32 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

"My name is Steve Womack and I'm a Rebublican and this is my pledge to the district; read my lips, No new taxes. This is my solemn pledge to you the voters, you can trust me with your child and your vote. I pledge this to you with my sacred honor. I am not a hypocrite like my Democrat opponent."

Posted by: JailBird

December 10, 2012 at 3:37 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Steve Womack is a corporatist Republican. He is not a conservative or interested in lowering taxes on the middle class.

Posted by: arkcarter

December 10, 2012 at 4:37 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Wow - you guys are proof of what union members can get with their seized hard earned union dues dollars! People like you sitting around being paid with their money waiting for people like me to post. Are you part of that lib group that meets in the FYV library to post online?

Unions leaders are so great! YES- they are all about workers rights! Wait minute...NO - changed their minds! They changed course and decided THEY ARE NOT! How dare union members have their own personal choice to be in the union or not??? OUCH!

MM - Sales tax is not a new tax. If someone is cheating on their federal tax reports and under paying their taxes - and then they get caught and have to pay what is according to the current law - would you call this "raising taxes?" I guess you would say so.

You libs continue to spin for your own selfish self. You are "all for it" as long as your neighbor has to pay your way. And your comments are disengeneous. Same as Obama going after more taxes on successful people. Any rational person knows that even taxing them 100% is a drop in the bucket compared to the over spending issues of our huge bloated invasive government (and libs complain about 'the military industrial" complex and their "over-reaching power" - who gets the award for this now??? You guessed it - bloated Gov is now far in the lead!). More taxes on successful people is NOT the end goal for obama. The greater goal of our president who "loves" America is to tear us apart because of his resentment and bitterness. Excellent. What class for a president. We need some more of this kind of "love for his country." Wonder what is next?

Mr/Ms MM - Don't get excited anticipated about me showing here everyday. I have businesses to run and unfortunately will have to leave your guys to your love affairs with George Soros and Ed Asner. Wallow in your resentment and bitterness with them.

Mr CD - AND you neglected to say that outsourcing works for obama's and Clinton's and Rice's and union investments and anyone who has a range of investments in their retirement portfolio. And EVERYONE who buys products from China supports outsourcing. I personally try to avoid WM and China products. And I intentionally shop at HARPs for as much of my food as possible (they are local and employee owned). Fact is that production alway migrates to lowest costs - ALL costs - not just labor. And you and I and all of America have a higher standard of living because of it. We need to acknowledge this fact and be greatful. The fact that I have extra money to pay higher prices at Harps is a result of companies seeking the lowest cost of production. if they did not, you and I would be paying MUCH higher prices for most everything and inflation would be much higher.

continued...

Posted by: vmhs

December 10, 2012 at 5:35 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

I have often wondered, why do the unions and bitter/resentful/jealous complainers not just band together and create their own retail chain and build it EXACTLY the way they want it? We live in a free country and anyone can build a business the way they see fit. And if all of the union members and bitter/resentful/jealous complainers shop there, surely it will be a success. No one forces anyone to shop at WM. The unions have a TON of money and so does Soros. Just go do it and stop complaining.

To recap - determine to NOT take money from your neighbor (thru gov. handouts), pay your own way, pay your taxes according to the law already on the books, quit complaining and if you do not like WM - go start your own retail chain. Life is but a vapor. So turn off your PC and get a life!

Bye Bye! Best wishes!

Posted by: vmhs

December 10, 2012 at 5:35 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Wonderful, a new conservative wingnut blathering on about how it's "liberal" to be opposed to Womack imposing a huge tax increase in order to fulfill his task of shilling for Wal-Mart. Wonders never cease.

VMHS: "complain about WM who creates jobs...">>

Wal-Mart does not "create" jobs, Wal-Mart is, by far, a net job destroyer. I say this with zero animosity to Wal-Mart's ability to be more efficient and move more stuff with less people. I point it out simply because this claim (like most of your comments), is so wrong, and it's a rather common error.

Alphacat: "Mr. Womack had a photo op at an area Head Start center-- after he voted to cut their funding-- and told food pantries to go hang.">>

Exactly. Footnote for you point:

***
"Womack Tells Area Food Shelves To Go Hang"

http://www.carrollconews.com/blogs/12...

Excerpt:

"Volunteers from one of our local food shelves traveled to Washington DC recently to meet with Senator John Boozman and Congressman Steve Womack. The purpose of the visit was to provide our representatives with information about the operation of the Loaves and Fishes, Flint Street, Harvest Assembly, and Bethel food shelves.
Instead of listening to these volunteers,

Congressman Womack lectured them. He said local charities and government needed to treat food shelf users like "a college kid who misused the family credit card. You need to cut up the card," he said. "You need to figure out how to fund these programs locally because the Federal government hasn't got any more money." --ibid

Posted by: fayfreethinker

December 10, 2012 at 9:25 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

FFT,

"Wal-Mart does not "create" jobs, Wal-Mart is, by far, a net job destroyer."

What a crock of bull. Wal-Mart is the #1 non-government employer in the world.

Posted by: Tankersley101

December 11, 2012 at 6:42 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-17...

Posted by: Tankersley101

December 11, 2012 at 6:48 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

I said: "Wal-Mart does not "create" jobs, Wal-Mart is, by far, a net job destroyer.">>

Tank responds: "What a crock of bull. Wal-Mart is the #1 non-government employer in the world.">>

Whether Wal-Mart employs more people than any other business is an entirely different question of whether overall it is a *net* job creator or a net job destroyer.

Before you reach for an answer on something, or attempt to correct me on the facts, you need to begin by first understanding the question.

D.
--------------
"Wal-Mart to Create 22,000 Jobs — and Destroy Many Thousands More"

Last week, Wal-Mart announced that it would create 22,000 new jobs in the U.S. to staff new and expanded stores. More than 100 newspapers and magazines reported this news as a welcome bright spot amid the downturn. But had these news outlets turned to sources beyond Wal-Mart’s press release and attempted to provide at least some analysis of the broader impact, the headlines might not have been so rosy.

In all likelihood, Wal-Mart’s expansion will make the U.S. employment picture worse, not better. There’s plenty of evidence to suggest that the addition of 22,000 jobs at Wal-Mart will lead to the loss of at least as many, and probably more, jobs at other businesses.

According a national study led by Dr. David Neumark, an economist at the University of California at Irvine,...

http://www.ilsr.org/key-studies-walma...

...for each new retail job created by Wal-Mart, 1.4 existing jobs have been lost at competing businesses. That means every new Wal-Mart store that opens reduces retail employment by about 150 jobs.

How can this be? The answer is that Wal-Mart relies on fewer employees to accomplish the same volume of sales as the businesses it competes with. As Wal-Mart grows, and competing businesses downsize and close, the resulting layoffs outnumber the job gains.

Indeed, over the last decade, even as Wal-Mart and other big-box stores multiplied dramatically and retail spending overall grew, retail employment in the U.S. remained flat. Today, retail workers receive a smaller share of the nation’s total payroll than they did a decade ago.

Retail jobs are not the only jobs at stake, either. Wal-Mart has played a leading role in pushing millions of manufacturing jobs to low-wage countries, and, unlike independent retailers, which purchase many goods and services, like printing and accounting, locally, Wal-Mart stores provide very little support to other businesses in the community. Studies have found that only $14 of every $100 spent at a Wal-Mart store stays in the local economy."
http://www.ilsr.org/walmart-create-22...

See also: "Job Creation or Destruction? Labor-Market Effects of Wal-Mart Expansion"
University of Missouri - Department of Economics

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cf...

Posted by: fayfreethinker

December 11, 2012 at 9:11 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

>>Wow - you guys are proof of what union members can get with their seized hard earned union dues dollars!<<

When vmhs can't make a valid argument it always reverts to name-calling. What a lazy, poor substitute.

Can you name ONE union member on these pages?

I'm not, never have been. Pretty sure Alpha isn't and FFT does not belong to a union. In fact only EIGHT percent of American workers belong to a union. That must be a boot riveting number for conservatives.

Btw, I used the incorrect term for taking an operation outside the U.S. border to avoid paying taxes. Instead of "outsourcing" it should been off-shoring.

Works for Mitt who Loves America but banks in the Cayman Islands and Switzerland.

Also, I have no pension retirement in outsourced companies, another erroneous assumption by vmhs.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
For you who foolishly think unions are a threat to anything:

" Sheldon Adelson didn't spend the $100 million he promised he would to beat President Barack Obama this cycle. He didn't spend the $54 million he reported to the Federal Election Commission.

The casino billionaire spent around $150 million this election, according to Peter Stone of The Huffington Post.

If true, Adelson spent three times as much as the paperwork says he did and more than all of Mitt Romney's primary opponents combined.

How did he manage to spend $150 million and only report $54 million?

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2...

Posted by: cdawg

December 11, 2012 at 11:31 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

yes Alpha Cat i know walmart sells "on line" well sort of. You can order on your computer to the walmart site. but they will NOT deliver to your home. you must go to walmart box and pick it up. so you are really not ordering on line.
they are not job creators at all. they are monopolies, that take away and crush their competitors.
if you order from amazon or other free market competitors, you are helping many other bussinesses like UPS, fed-ex, and the companies that amazon goes to to buy your product. this covers multiple states and many lines of bussiness.
but WALMART only delivers with walmart trucks, walmart stuff, they sell lowest to crush thier competition. so you will have to ONLY go to the big box store either way (on line or not) !
It is NOT fair to stiffle out the competition on line.
we need choices too. Big monopolies are the enemy of small bussinesses not on line shopping.

walmart will need to go into the future of on line shopping and get rid of their big stores! that is fair and ppogressive. they can compete equally with the other companies out there. no need to bribe and pay politicians like Womack to force us to shop only at walmart.

Posted by: ladyLiberty

December 11, 2012 at 1:11 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Free, I find that I agree with you 100% on your Wal-Mart post and for me to agree with you is either a miracle or you are right on this issue. If its a miracle, call the Pope.

Posted by: JailBird

December 11, 2012 at 1:42 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

For all the Wally-World haters out there… if you actually have time to read before you grudgingly go to Wal-Mart because they beat everyone else’s prices….

“That people want jobs at Walmart is obvious—new Walmarts in cities like Cleveland, Oakland, Calif., and Glendale, Ariz., have received thousands of applications for hundreds of jobs. But does Walmart displace as many or more jobs than it creates? Studies show that the effect of Walmart on retail employment is, at worst, ambiguous.

The economist Emek Basker estimated that new Walmarts cause net job creation in the retail sector, albeit with slight job losses in wholesale. Another study estimated that each new Walmart job displaces 1.4 retail jobs, but still creates enough new labor in other sectors that its overall effect is neutral.”

http://www.independent.org/newsroom/a...

“Recent research shows that while some small businesses do suffer when the Bentonville behemoth builds nearby, others prosper. And when you dig into it, you find that it may not be Walmart that is hurting small retailers and small communities. It may be that they're hurting themselves, by blindly accepting the what-everybody-knows myth of the Walmart effect.”

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505143_16...

“While it is widely (or maybe not so widely) believed that Wal-Mart wipes out local jobs and depresses wages, "the findings suggest the opposite: Firm growth, employment and total earnings were somewhat stronger in Wal-Mart counties," the report says. Still, according to a Pew study cited by the report, 24% of Americans think the company is bad for the economy, and 31% had an unfavorable view of it.”

http://www.forbes.com/2008/01/09/walm...

That 24/31% should turn quit buying the “progressive” line.

continued.

Posted by: Tankersley101

December 11, 2012 at 5:20 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

“A McKinsey company study concluded that Wal-Mart accounted for 13 percent of the nation's productivity gains in the second half of the 1990s, which probably made Wal-Mart about as important as the Federal Reserve in holding down inflation.

By lowering consumer prices, Wal-Mart costs about 50 retail jobs among competitors for every 100 jobs Wal-Mart creates. Wal-Mart and its effects save shoppers more than $200 billion a year, dwarfing such government programs as food stamps ($28.6 billion) and the earned-income tax credit ($34.6 billion).

People who buy their groceries from Wal-Mart -- it has one-fifth of the nation's grocery business -- save at least 17 percent. But because unions are strong in many grocery stores trying to compete with Wal-Mart, unions are yanking on the Democratic Party's leash, demanding laws to force Wal-Mart to pay wages and benefits higher than those that already are high enough to attract 77 times more applicants than there were jobs at this store.”

http://townhall.com/columnists/george...

A Left Wing/ Union partnership to destroy business? No! Say it ain’t so!

“Why Walmart's Critics Are Wrong, In 17 Tweets”
(with an interview on MSNBC posted special just for FFT)

http://reason.com/blog/2012/11/26/why...

Posted by: Tankersley101

December 11, 2012 at 5:26 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

cdawg,

Unions are great. They guarantee people working on auto assembly lines can skip out on work to get stoned and drunk and not lose their jobs.

Posted by: Tankersley101

December 11, 2012 at 5:36 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

>>Unions are great. They guarantee people working on auto assembly lines can skip out on work to get stoned and drunk and not lose their jobs.<<

PROVE IT.

Posted by: cdawg

December 11, 2012 at 7:20 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Stoned and drunk at the same time, not an easy task to perform. Some of the US military were able to do this multitaxing stone out during the Vietnam war, but ordinary union workers most likely can not.

Posted by: JailBird

December 11, 2012 at 7:53 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Now that Tankersley, perhaps, understands the question, he moves on to changing the subject. By this I mean, I referred to net job creation, he referred to whether Wal-Mart employs people (it does), when this is pointed out, he ignores it and moves on.

Tank: "For all the Wally-World haters out there…">>

I already preemptively addressed this knowing you would reflexively resort to this irrelevant distraction. Again:

"I say this with zero animosity to Wal-Mart's ability to be more efficient and move more stuff with less people."

The question of whether Wal-Mart is, or is not a net job creator has nothing whatsoever to do with "hating" Wal-Mart, which I don't. Try to focus.

Tank: "if you actually have time to read before you grudgingly go to Wal-Mart...">>

Actually, had you taken a moment to carefully read what I had already provided, you wouldn't make the mistakes you do. For instance:

Tank: [quotes: "conservative libertarian wingnut think tank] "The economist Emek Basker estimated that new Walmarts cause net job creation...">>

Actually, we don't need to look to your libertarian wingnut sources respin because I already referred to Emek Basker: http://www.ilsr.org/key-studies-walma...

Scroll down to: "Often cited and typically misrepresented by Wal-Mart supporters,..."

Just think for a moment, for this claim to be true, we would have to believe that Wal-Mart is actually *less* efficient, employment wise, at delivering products than the smaller, higher priced stores they replace. Can you believe that? Really?

Tank: [quotes] “Recent research shows... some small businesses do suffer... others prosper.">>

Not all suffer? That's some pretty weak tea there.

Tank: "Firm growth, employment and total earnings... stronger in Wal-Mart counties,">>

Non sequiter. Look it up.

Tank: "Wal-Mart... important as the Federal Reserve in holding down inflation.">>

That's nice. Relevancy to change in net jobs? Zero.

Tank: [quote] "By lowering consumer prices,... Wal-Mart... save shoppers more than $200 billion a year,...">>

Oh really. And how do that do that? By inefficiently hiring more workers per unit of product shoveled? Really?

Tank: [quote] "dwarfing such government programs as food stamps ($28.6 billion)">>

This ties in very nicely with this nifty fact:

***
"...abusive Walmart policies have increased employee reliance on government assistance and the need for a government funded social safety net... Walmart has become the number one driver behind the growing use of food stamps in the US with "as many as 80 percent of workers in Wal-Mart stores using food stamps."

Wal-Mart's poverty wages force employees to rely on $2.66 billion in government help every year, or about $420,000 per store... Wal-Mart employees are the top recipients of Medicaid. As many as 80% of workers in Wal-Mart stores use food stamps." http://tinyurl.com/9xz7jvy

Neat.

Posted by: fayfreethinker

December 11, 2012 at 9:12 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

You are truly an impossible person, FFT. Your "doctor" Maddow has suceeded in brainwashing you.

cdawg,

"PROVE IT"... spoken like a true lawyer repsesenting the criminals that would hold Detroit hostage.

Posted by: Tankersley101

December 12, 2012 at 12:20 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

What does criminals that would hold Detroit hostage have to do with jobs at Wal-Mart? Unless, maybe, Wa-Mart is the criminal! Tank, you are a sly one, yes you are.

Posted by: JailBird

December 12, 2012 at 7:13 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

When our sales tax is already over 9% and is getting higher in July.....it has always been time to shop elsewhere.

I'm just wondering when Arkansas will put a customs toll booth on Hiway 71 south in Jane, Mo. Gotta nab all those sales tax violators who buy groceries in Missouri.

Posted by: PedalPusher

December 12, 2012 at 3:51 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Good post, PedalPusher, I agree 100%. After Woemack shuts internet sellers down with taxes, Jane might be the only place to go. Could Bella Vista build a bicycle trail up there for us gas savers?

Posted by: JailBird

December 12, 2012 at 7:07 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

>>"PROVE IT"... spoken like a true lawyer repsesenting the criminals that would hold Detroit hostage<<

There you go, again.
Substituting meaningless accusations, without basis and without merit, as substitute for making an argument.

This is not church where blanket condemnations are accepted because of faith, prejudice and belief systems.

Posted by: cdawg

December 12, 2012 at 8:30 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

TNK; You are truly an impossible person,">>

Thanks.

TNK: "Your "doctor" Maddow...">>

No need to put the word doctor in quotation marks, she has a doctorate, so that means she's a doctor. This in contrast to your knucklehead dropouts like Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck etc.,. It also means, unlike your attempts, she is likely to know what she is talking about on these political matters. Not that your obsession with wanking about her, as usual, has anything whatsoever to do with the topic at hand.

There are few reasons why you might feel so insecure, intimidated and find the need to constantly insult Dr. Maddow with vapid smears. She is a very strong, intelligent and successful woman who knows the subject matter she talks about. Perhaps you just don't have the mental acuity to accurately what she says most of the time. Or perhaps it's a little bit of both.

TNK: "Maddow... has suceeded in brainwashing you.">>

I bet she knows how to spell the word "succeeded." As I have told you many times, we gave our TV away years ago. I don't subscribe to cable TV and I don't watch cable TV programs on the internet. You've never been able to substantiate any of your baseless smears against this woman and your comments only provide an insight into your character, rather than anything about her character.

D.
-------------
"Rachael Maddow graduated from Stanford University with a degree in public policy. She then recieved a Rhodes Scholarship and began her postgraduate study at Lincoln College, Oxford. She then recieved a Doctor of Philosophy degree (DPhil) in political science from the University of Oxford. She was the first openly gay American to win a Rhodes scholarship" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rachel_M...

Honors and awards (not complete):

Emmy Award in the Outstanding News Discussion and Analysis category for "The Rachel Maddow Show"

Maddow won a Gracie Award in 2009,

March 28, 2009, Maddow received a Proclamation of Honor from the California State Senate,

April 2009, she was listed at number four in Out magazine's Annual Power 50 List.[67]

In 1994, Maddow was an Honorable Mention in the Elie Wiesel Foundation for Humanity Prize in Ethics.[71]

June 2009, Maddow's MSNBC show was the only cable news show nominated for a Television Critics Association award in the Outstanding Achievement in News and Information category.

August 2010, Maddow won the Walter Cronkite Faith & Freedom Award,... Past honorees included Larry King, Tom Brokaw, and the late Peter Jennings.

In February 2012, Maddow was presented the John Steinbeck Award by the Martha Heasley Cox Center

December 2012, The audio book version of Maddow's Drift was nominated for the Grammy Award for Best Spoken Word Album

Posted by: fayfreethinker

December 12, 2012 at 8:52 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

And now the honors won and books Tank has published: Duw, Mmm, Uah, Well, Like man, Ah, If, & Ya know how it is, Yo brother.

Posted by: JailBird

December 12, 2012 at 9:05 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

FFT,

I guess my typing proficiency and spellcheck aren't up to date. Plus, I didn't realize I was submititng a thesis. You keep on believeing what the anrgy Left on MSNBC tells you. There are plenty of people with those sought after PhDs that disagree. Of course , we are both going to cite the sources that agree with us (some REALLY like Wikipedia... real scholastic source there).

cdawg,

Don't talk to me about pedelling predujice. Your side is the one making money on it.

Isn't there some folks you guys need to go out and force to join a union?

Posted by: Tankersley101

December 12, 2012 at 11:41 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Money,

No boookd published yet. As far as honors go.... I'm proud of mine and haven't based my career off the hating other folks.

Posted by: Tankersley101

December 13, 2012 at 3:48 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Fact Arkansas like most states has a law that says when you buy out state you owe local sales tax.
If you aren't paying the taxes on internet purchases YOU are a tax cheat. You can be finded or jailed.

Posted by: john12040750

December 13, 2012 at 12:37 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

John12040750 is correct. This legislation does not effect a new tax. It only requires that the online retailer collect the tax and submit it to the state rather than individual consumer declaring the sale and submitting the appropriate tax. Arkansans were supposed to be paying sales taxes all along (assuming the items are delivered to Arkansas). Most of us, myself included, have just failed to do so. See an excerpt below from the Department of Finance and Administration guidelines.

"Delivery into Arkansas. If tangible personal property is purchased for use or
consumption in Arkansas from a seller in another state and delivery is made in
Arkansas, then such sale is subject to Arkansas compensating use tax. The outof-
state seller may be required to collect Arkansas tax. If the out-of-state seller
does not collect Arkansas tax, it becomes the responsibility of the Arkansas
customer to remit compensating use tax directly to the Department. The
Arkansas customer will be given credit for tax legally paid on the item in another
state pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. §§ 26-5-101, 26-53-131. See Ark. Code Ann. §"

Posted by: superdave10

December 13, 2012 at 2:12 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

As I mentioned above, I'm all for Congressman Womack applying tax fairness to ALL our tax laws.

I'm thankful he's gone on record favoring the fair collection of taxes. Now if he just applies such a rigorous approach to federal taxes.

What Ark's online shoppers are doing is no different than what big companies do when they off-shore profits to avoid paying federal taxes.

Posted by: cdawg

December 13, 2012 at 3:34 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

>>cdawg,
Don't talk to me about pedelling predujice. Your side is the one making money on it.
Isn't there some folks you guys need to go out and force to join a union?<

Again, when asked to demonstrate any evidence for your erroneous assumptions and accusations you come up empty. Again, you have nothing,
-------------------------------------------------------------------
"Conservatism Is A Big Racket Riddled With Scams"

-Dick Morris' most recent scam explained.
-Rove's scam laid out plain.
-Mike Huckabee's scam clearly documented:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GdDgrp...

Even conservative William Kristol at Weekly Standard is fed up:

"And the conservative movement​—​a bulwark of American strength for the last several decades​—​is in deep disarray. Reading about some conservative organizations and Republican campaigns these days, one is reminded of Eric Hoffer’s remark, “Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket.” It may be that major parts of American conservatism have become such a racket that a kind of refounding of the movement as a cause is necessary."

http://www.weeklystandard.com/article...

Posted by: cdawg

December 13, 2012 at 4:40 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

I love animals, its people I have a problem with. If people are created in God's image, then it is God I dislike, also. I don't care for folks much either especially tour bus stinkos.

Posted by: JailBird

December 13, 2012 at 5:32 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Does he know he is supposed to be a Republican? We are taxed to death. There is a tax on everything and the federal government spends more than a trillion dollars a year more than we take in. We have more revenue coming in than ever before but they are spending more than ever before. Obama hasn't passed a budget in over three years even though he is mandated by law to pass a budget every year.

Posted by: CajunBilly

December 13, 2012 at 10:16 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Womack is acting more like a democrat every day so in the next election I might vote for the democrat at least that way I know what I am getting.

Posted by: CajunBilly

December 13, 2012 at 10:17 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

>>Obama hasn't passed a budget in over three years even though he is mandated by law to pass a budget every year.<<

Care to give us a hint of which law that is and where a person could find it?

Posted by: cdawg

December 14, 2012 at 1:24 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

"Congressional Budget & Inpoundment Control Act of 1974"

Posted by: JailBird

December 14, 2012 at 6:12 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

CajunBilly cranked out five false statements in five sentences.

For the conservative team, this boy is showing some talent.

Posted by: fayfreethinker

December 14, 2012 at 10:56 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

"When statements attempted to pin the blame squarely on just one political party for the inaction, rulings of Half True were given. But in a case where blame was not heaped on just one party, as is the case with Corker’s statement, PolitiFact has gone with True or Mostly True, depending on the wording of the claim.

In any case, each of those statements cited the same date – April 29, 2009 – as the last time a budget had been approved."

http://www.politifact.com/tennessee/s...

It's a complicated hot mess.

Posted by: Tankersley101

December 15, 2012 at 2:16 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Free, you cranked out one false statement in one sentence. Let's look at Billy's:

"Does he know he is supposed to be a Republician?" A. Yes and no, Womack is a Republician only at election time.

"We are taxed to death" A. False. We are taxed before and after death, but taxes are not the cause of death.

"There is a tax on everything" A. False. So far breathing is not taxed.

"The Federal Government spends more than a trillion dollars a year more than we take in" A. False. I take in about a hundred thousand a year so the Government spends much more than that.

"Obama hasn't passed a budget in over three years even though he is mandated by law to pass a budget every year" A. False. Congress is mandated by law to pass a budget every year, not the President.

"Womack is acting more like a democrat every day so in the next election I might vote for the democrat at least that way I know what I am getting" A. True and False, "Democrats are like a box of chocolates, you never know what you are going to get until you flush."....Forest Gump

So Billy got one and a half right.

Posted by: JailBird

December 17, 2012 at 5:29 p.m. ( | suggest removal )