Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Holden McGroin on November 07, 2007, 07:36:19 AM
-
Oregon Gov. Ted Kulongoski also blamed money after voters opted not to raise the cigarette tax by 84.5 cents a pack to $2.02 to fund health insurance for about 100,000 children lacking coverage.
Tobacco companies opposing the measure outspent supporters by a 4-1 margin, contributing nearly $12 million.
"What happened was, the tobacco industry bought the election," the Democratic governor told The Associated Press.
"What happened was, the tobacco industry bought the election," is Kulongoski speak for "These hicks are too stupid to think for themselves so they just vote for the heavist advertizer."
-
are you saying that people are stupid if they don't vote to raise taxes on an industry?
Or are you saying they are stupid if they don't pay for health care for other peoples kids?
lazs
-
Yes...
-
Those stupid No on 50 ads were the only thing that made me want to vote Yes on it. Even so, there was no compelling explanation as to why stinky smokers should be made to pay for childrens' health care.
-
Most sin taxes fail to deliver. If you raise the taxes high enough people go to a neighboring state, indian reservation, the black market or find a workaround on the internet and stock up. That has been the experience in New York. Of course, geography plays a role, and in some states there are fewer easy alternatives.
Charon
-
I used to order my smokes online from an upstate reservation and have them delivered to my home in NYC, but Bloomberg cracked down several years ago and it's become more difficult.
$8.00 a pack here...
-
so who pays for all these wonderful socialist programs when people quit smoking because of the cost?
Oh.. I know.. some other sinner. the guy who eats fast food or drinks coffee or booze or shoots guns or fills his tank with gas...
no matter what... someone who works and pays for his kids health care.
lazs
-
Aint socialism grand.
I switched to a pipe. Should've done it years ago, not only is it healther and much cheaper, but it's very tastey and relaxing and smells much more agreable.
-
Over here it cost £5.50 a pack ($11)!!!! and Petrol is now at £1 a litre or about £4.40 ($8.80) a Gallon, just remember how lucky you lot are that your government is not scre**ng you as much as they are over here!!!!
*Wishing he still only paid £0.50 for a packet of Ciggies and £1 for a Gallon of petrol*
-
The idea of a "Sin tax" is to divide and conquer. Instead of proposing a tax that affects everyone and that everyone might vote no on, you pick one small group and get the rest to gang up on them because it doesn't affect the 'righteous'.
Then you simply choose a different sin to tax that encompasses another group, and repeat the process.
Group psychology at work, amazing stuff. Good to see it failed here.
-
Looks like the A state finally made a good choice.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
are you saying that people are stupid if they don't vote to raise taxes on an industry?
Or are you saying they are stupid if they don't pay for health care for other peoples kids?
lazs
I'm saying that our Governor doesn't believe that the electorate is intellegent enough to make the choice.
I voted no on Measure 50 because raising taxes on smokers was an effort to curb smoking. If that part of the measure were successful, fewer people would smoke, and fewer dollars would be raised through the tobacco tax.
The other part was an enhancement of a children's health insurance program. The cost of which would naturally rise.
Paying for a increasing liability with a shrinking resource seems inherently flawed.
But what do I know? My Governor is obviously smarter than I am.
-
I can see why people would not want to tax themselves. They were playing the "think of the children" card and it failed to work this time. Now they won't be able to redirect that extra cash after it get approved for kids insurance.
It's not just democrats that pull that.
-
I think taxes like that are stupid.. However people that claim giving healthcare to everyone = socialism are pretty retarded.
9 times out of 10 those very people never say a word when the govt gives big business tax breaks and bails them out when they screw up. If health care for everyone = Socialism shouldn't Tax breaks, subsidies and bail outs for big business also = socialism?
-
Originally posted by crockett
I think taxes like that are stupid.. However people that claim giving healthcare to everyone = socialism are pretty retarded.
9 times out of 10 those very people never say a word when the govt gives big business tax breaks and bails them out when they screw up. If health care for everyone = Socialism shouldn't Tax breaks, subsidies and bail outs for big business also = socialism?
Bail outs and subsidies are. Tax Breaks aren't. Health Care is.
Here, because you're not bright enough to figure it out, I'll clearly explain socialism.
If you take other people's money with out their choice, to spend on other people, this is Socialism. I.E. A Bail Out or Subsidy is when the government spends money it STOLE from me to save a company that SHOULD have failed in the free market.
A tax break is not socialism. The government isn't GIVING money to the company, they are stealing LESS.
-
ok crok-it....
explain how forcing me to pay for your medical bills is not socialism.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
ok crok-it....
explain how forcing me to pay for your medical bills is not socialism.
lazs
Sure if you explain how giving big business no bid contracts, bail outs that me as a small business owner would never see and the same with the subsidies they get as well as the unfair tax breaks.
When I mention tax breaks it's because Big Business pays far less of a percentage than a normal person or small business owner. So yes I consider that a hand out because it's basically giving them a unfair advantage, by not making them pay the same tax precentage as I do.
Do you think having a govt funded police dept is socialism? What about a fire dept? Is that socialism? Is getting your mail everyday from the US post office socialism?
Are city workers whom take care of our streets socialism? Lard the list goes on and on.. yet the only thing you righties care to claim is socialism is when it has to do with helping others.
Guess what Lard, your precious tax dollars are wasted on a crap load of things.. Why aren't you crying socialism about that? Black water just got a 15 billion dollar contract to fight narcoterrorism. Another useless made up war.
Why aren't you upset about that Lard it's "your" tax money that's being used for something that doesn't benefit you, much less anyone else. So why aren't you screaming socialism about all this stuff that the govt provides using our tax dollars?
At least show a little consistency then, maybe, just maybe you might not sound like someone whom is a selfish old hag.
Guess what, I pay taxes too and I'd much rather see "my" tax dollars wasted helping others rather than just profiting a few. Sorry, I guess I must be a Liberal someone who actually cares about other people rather than just myself.
-
wow I actuualy agree. Great post Crockett
-
crock-it... that was stirring but it did not answer the question... how is my being forced to pay your medical not socialism?
You are talking to the wrong guy if you think I want all the "services" you talk about given to me by the government. I think the government should raise money for legeslative and judical branches and for an army and that't it.
simply because we have some socialism is no excuse to heap on more. There is no justification there.
As for city and state services... these of course are not federal and... if you don't like to pay for streets or garbage... move a few miles. big difference between choice and force.
I am not a fan of subsidies... tell you what.. lets get rid of em.. not... add more as you want.
There is just so much wrong with what you say that I can't even begin to straighten you out without pages of explanation.
But suffice it to say that it appears that you admit that socialized medicine is socialism.
at least... that is what I got.. even tho I had to sift through a lot of mindless and incorrect rant to get to it.
If you think that "incorrect" is too harsh... I will be glad to debate every single one of your points one at a time.
lazs
-
Living in Oregon I think they need to fix the health plan that we already have before they try to get a new one. I mailed mine in and I received a letter that my signature on my registration did not match my ballot so I have to re register to vote all together. What ever.
-
Main Entry: so·cial·ism
Pronunciation: \ˈsô-shə-ˌli-zəm\
Function: noun
Date: 1837
1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done
Municipal police departments, fire departments, and street departments are not "means of production and distribution of goods", so no socialism.
Welfare is an 'unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done', so socialism.
Distribution of health care regardless of the ability to pay: socialism
-
The Republicans call it "socialized medicine", Democrats call it "universal health care". Whatever you call it, it's not a bad thing when anyone can get medical care when they need it, not just the ones that can afford it.
-
However you distribute health care, it must be paid for by a sound financial underpinnings.
Thats why I voted against this particular scheme, a guaranteed recipe for uncontrolled government bloat and eventual bankruptcy .
-
As I said before, the money would not go to healthcare. As soon as it was approved, they would reappropriate it.
The "think of the children" campaign is usually a sure fire winner for stuff like that.
-
Originally posted by rpm
The Republicans call it "socialized medicine", Democrats call it "universal health care". Whatever you call it, it's not a bad thing when anyone can get medical care when they need it, not just the ones that can afford it.
Any time you take someone's money for ANY reason without their permission, it's a bad thing.
-
So any tax is a bad thing?
-
Originally posted by rpm
So any tax is a bad thing?
Any income tax is. Usage taxes are necessities.
-
So how do you propose to pay for the military? Even if they all volunteer to fight for free, you still have to feed, clothe, outfit and train them. Or are they just a bunch of socialists?
-
(tap, tap, tap) Hello? Is this thing on?
Ground Control to Major Tom....
-
I will answer.. all taxes are evil. the constitution does provide for supporting the government tho.. that would be an army and the legeslative and the judicial branches... nothing else.
socialized medicine is evil.. it does hurt to force someone to pay for anothers lifestyle and health. Why is health a right? why is a doctors labor the property of those who wont pay for it? why is mine?
Why do you rpm.. live in a better house than someone else? should you not pay for a home for others? should you not move some in to your home?
At what point are you uncomfortable with paying for others lifestyle?
I know what my point is.. that point would be.. I will pay to raise an army to protect us all... I will pay for a system of justice to make sure everyone gets a fair trial and that the constitution is upheld.
Anything else.. is state or local and I can participate or not. I will pay fees for services I find useful and I will give to charities that I choose.
you can shove your socialism up your butt.
lazs
-
and crock-it/rpm and other socialists here... I guess you won't be voting for ron paul after all then huh?
he hates socialized medicine.. he wants to do away with dozens of government agencies including social security, the department of education and the IRS.. he is against federal abortion support and is very pro life.
He may get you out of one war and let you smoke your pot but.. he will get rid of socialism at the same time.
None of these things bother me of course but you will all have hissy fits of historic proportions if he ever got in.
lazs
-
No matter who gets the White House, they have to work through Congress. It's Congress, and I'm talking both houses here, that has the responsibility to pass law and fund the Government operations. Unless Congress cooperates, nothing much will get done. Even with the Military, the President only has 90 days that he can act unilaterally, after that it's only with the approval of Congress.
-
well yeah mav.. there is that. We have slipped to far into socialism to really recover in any rapid fashion.. we will get the bends if we try to come up too fast but...
To suggest, as they do, that because we have fallen so badly into socialism already.. that... it is excuse enough to get even worse and add more socialism... well.. as they say... "the mind boggles"
What the hell are they thinking?
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
and crock-it/rpm and other socialists here... I guess you won't be voting for ron paul after all then huh?
So far his "pros" outweigh his "cons". I consider healthcare to be a basic human right instead of the money machine it is today. Is the military healthcare system socialism? Everyone gets treated, all the doctors are paid the same according to rank. A system like that would be a good model to work from.
-
rpm... what "pros" I have not seen you say anything ever that is remotely going along with him.. except his missguided cut and run iraq policy.
The constitution allows for the raising of an army.. that would be their medical too.. that does not mean for citizens. They deserve and have earned their medical.
I don't see why you can't grasp that.
soooo...you want to end the irs and department of education? to cut dozens of socialist programs and departments?
lazs
-
Originally posted by rpm
I consider healthcare to be a basic human right instead of the money machine it is today.
So human rights are based on the technology available?
Jefferson wrote, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"
When did the creator endow me with the right to a coronary bypass or a polio vaccine?
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
"What happened was, the tobacco industry bought the election," is Kulongoski speak for "These hicks are too stupid to think for themselves so they just vote for the heavist advertizer."
Money doesnt always buy an election. Here in Jersey one Jennifer Beck (GOP) considered a longshot at best to win. Defeated encumbant Ellen Karcher (Dem) in the state senate elections dispite being outspent by Karcher 5-1
Pretty amazing considering this is a largely Democratic state
The feeling is the difference maker was Beck actually went out door to door an knocked on the doors of some 12,000 homes.
As opposed to just running TV and radio ads
-
Originally posted by rpm
So far his "pros" outweigh his "cons". I consider healthcare to be a basic human right instead of the money machine it is today. Is the military healthcare system socialism? Everyone gets treated, all the doctors are paid the same according to rank. A system like that would be a good model to work from.
I don't agree, miltary doctors are volunteers, not to mention some of them have had their education partially paid by the military. I'm forever in debt to them, but remember they are volunteer military.
Civilian doctors are just that civilian. Why should the income be the same for a world class brain surgeon, as a small town proctologist? Now you're limiting income based on a system not on talent.
Just a thought RPM ya commie bastage. ;)
-
Rather than hijack this into Ron Paul debate, I'll reply to Lazs in a RP thread.
Life, is the most basic of human rights. Health is right behind it. The healthcare system has run amuck and needs to be redesigned. It wasn't that long ago that a doctor would come to you, not the other way around. Doctors were more concerned with their patients health than their ability to pay.
If you go into medicine for the profits, you are going in for the wrong reason and probably should find a new career.
-
Originally posted by rpm
If you go into medicine for the profits, you are going in for the wrong reason and probably should find a new career.
All the work, dedication, and long hours required to be a physician should not be rewarded? As soon as you run out of the few idealist, what are going to do for doctors? Force people into the medical profession. It would no longer be a profession. Personally I don't want a physician with the same attitude as your local 7-11 cashier. Even Al Gore and Hillary expect a healthy profit annually. I don't see why somebody in the business of saving lives couldn't expect the same.
-
yes shifty.. that is what he is saying.. the mind boggles! especially in light of the fact that he thinks that the saints he calls teachers he believes are not getting enough money!
Health is not a part of life except as the individual makes it. I am not forcing anyone to live any unhealthy or, for that matter, healthy lifestyle. They deserve the right to live but not as was said... the right to a coranarry bypass or kidney transplant or even a flu shot.
Ron paul does not believe in socialized medicine.. nor does he believe in social security for that matter or the IRS or.. the department of education or fema.
I see ron paul as the anti-rpm
lazs
-
I'd rather a physician was more concerned with patients health than his stock portfolio. I see this less and less these days.
-
ron paul is a physician and... he does free work all the time.
He still thinks socialized medicine is evil.
lazs
-
So he's not perfect.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
I'm saying that our Governor doesn't believe that the electorate is intellegent enough to make the choice.
If for some perverse reason, someone searches for evidence that "the public" chooses stupidly politically now and then, don't think they'll have any problem finding boatloads.
-
I have ducked the social medicine issue for 3 years now, I was just too angry to contribute in a meaningful way.
About 3 years ago socialized medicine killed my son in law, a resident of country with compulsory socialized medicine, he went to his clinic with a head injury and was sent home with aspirin. Three days later he was dead from cerebral meningitis. Having served 14+ years in the Army I "Know" how a government medical program works.
Regardless of whether or not it is a good use of our money, the government is not the provider that can do the job.
The other provider, or the way we have it now leaves us with runaway costs and insurance providers that calculate acceptable death tolls in to there "Service".
I don't have the answer, but there is a problem.
Regards,
Kevin
-
Originally posted by gunnss
I have ducked the social medicine issue for 3 years now, I was just too angry to contribute in a meaningful way.
About 3 years ago socialized medicine killed my son in law, a resident of country with compulsory socialized medicine, he went to his clinic with a head injury and was sent home with aspirin. Three days later he was dead from cerebral meningitis. Having served 14+ years in the Army I "Know" how a government medical program works.
Regardless of whether or not it is a good use of our money, the government is not the provider that can do the job.
The other provider, or the way we have it now leaves us with runaway costs and insurance providers that calculate acceptable death tolls in to there "Service".
I don't have the answer, but there is a problem.
Regards,
Kevin
All these libs crying for socialized medicine are the same ones holding malpractice suit reforms at bay. Do they not realize that when medicine is socialized you can't sue the government for malpractice? 20 years in the AF taught me that.