PACT UPDATE in the House, unfinished business...

[sgreger1]

If we were serious about constructing tax policy to reduce healthcare costs, then we would increase taxes on fresh vegetables, meats, dairy grains, gym memberships, etc, while reducing taxes or offering tax credits for cigarettes, junk food, sugary drinks, etc. Early deaths saves healthcare costs and social security payments for the taxpayers.

lololllo. Hey i'm down for that. My tax bill would be a helluva lot smaller if they taxed veggies and exercise but didn't tax beer, tobacco or television.

No but your right. I say things like this and it sounds like I am a conspiracy theorist but i'm telling you, these people are crafty bastards and will actually look at it in the way you described above. "Hey cigs kill people early, =less HC cost and no social security payout = WIN".

[snupy]

I say things like this and it sounds like I am a conspiracy theorist

Then don't merely say it, prove it:

"Lifetime health care costs for obese individuals and smokers are lower than those for healthy individuals who live years longer,......the study found that obese individuals and smokers had lower lifetime health care costs than healthy individuals because they died earlier."

[sgreger1]

I say things like this and it sounds like I am a conspiracy theorist

Then don't merely say it, prove it:

"Lifetime health care costs for obese individuals and smokers are lower than those for healthy individuals who live years longer,......the study found that obese individuals and smokers had lower lifetime health care costs than healthy individuals because they died earlier."

Lol you have a point. I think that a lot of the conspiracy (and flat out wrong) accusations over the death panels and other gubmint took my healthcare tea party types stem from the fact that they are afraid this kind of thinking will become dominant in our legislative process and that euthenasia and rationing comittees/death panels etc will be set up to mitigate against the constant increase in HC costs.

Surely cigs would be promoted if this were in fact the case, because like you pointed out, it's win win for the ogvernment and the cig lobby. More taxes, less HC costs, more profit for cig monopoly of tobacco market.

I think, and maybe I am just some radical, that a product that costs a quarter to make (pack of cigs) costing $8 in the free market demonstrates that there is no free market because of government intervention. I have no problem with taxes and I even support a single payer HC system, but to raise the value of something that costs a quarter to make to $8 via taxes is just outright theft imho.

I had hoped snus would be my secret way of evading such theivery but I knew eventualy the looters would catch on.

[dEFinitionofEPIC]

They want to tax sodas now

I wish they would. It would serve the non-tobacco users right for supporting tobacco tax increases year after year.

I hear where you are coming from.... I would also like the majority of people to understand what it's like to have a product that they use on a regular basis taxed excessively by the government.

However, I do not wish this for myself or for anyone. When they start taxing soda, salt, sugar, etc (and I know it's being talked about) we are officially screwed in this country. Not that we aren't already screwed... but seriously, that's the final nail in the coffin.

Such a thing would set the precedent that the government can literally direct our lives in ANY way they deem fit. The scary thing is that I see them setting up for such a tax. I constantly see articles in the mainstream media about how obese people cost "the taxpayers" x amount of dollars per year. And they've plastered this story about the woman who wants to be 1,000 lbs all over the place this week (of course mentioning in most articles the "cost" of this woman to the taxpayers)

The media is one giant manipulation machine. They are slowly psychologically manipulating our minds so that we won't gripe when they start taxing "junk food" By constantly force feeding us with "fat people cost you money. we (the govt) need to do something about it so that you won't bear the cost" they are changing our views and softening our minds for the blow. You wanna talk about "cost to the taxpayers" then let's talk about the federal government taking trillions of OUR dollars and handing them over to their well-connected friends at the banks DESPITE the majority of Americans being against it. "Representation" is just a word in this country.

The machine that we live in makes me sick.... :evil:

[LaZeR]

Absolutely not. Name one Republican that voted against PACT.

Nay AK-0 Young, Donald [R]
Nay AZ-3 Shadegg, John [R]
Nay AZ-6 Flake, Jeff [R]
Nay CA-4 McClintock, Tom [R]
Nay CA-42 Miller, Gary [R]
Nay CA-46 Rohrabacher, Dana [R]
Nay CA-48 Campbell, John [R]
Nay FL-1 Miller, Jeff [R]
Nay FL-16 Rooney, Thomas [R]
Nay GA-1 Kingston, Jack [R]
Nay GA-3 Westmoreland, Lynn [R]
Nay GA-10 Broun, Paul [R]
Nay KY-1 Whitfield, Edward [R]
Nay NJ-5 Garrett, Scott [R]
Nay TN-2 Duncan, John [R]
Nay TX-14 Paul, Ronald [R]
Nay TX-31 Carter, John [R]
Nay WI-5 Sensenbrenner, F. [R]
Nay WI-6 Petri, Thomas [R]
Nay WY-0 Lummis, Cynthia [R]

Source: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2010-124

Edit: Oops. ops: Sorry for the improper answer, I ****ed up and named all 20.

[snupy]

Such a thing would set the precedent that the government can literally direct our lives in ANY way they deem fit.

It's not the government. It's the aristocrats, the corporations.

[snupy]

Absolutely not. Name one Republican that voted against PACT.

Nay AK-0 Young, Donald [R]
Nay AZ-3 Shadegg, John [R]
Nay AZ-6 Flake, Jeff [R]
Nay CA-4 McClintock, Tom [R]
Nay CA-42 Miller, Gary [R]
Nay CA-46 Rohrabacher, Dana [R]
Nay CA-48 Campbell, John [R]
Nay FL-1 Miller, Jeff [R]
Nay FL-16 Rooney, Thomas [R]
Nay GA-1 Kingston, Jack [R]
Nay GA-3 Westmoreland, Lynn [R]
Nay GA-10 Broun, Paul [R]
Nay KY-1 Whitfield, Edward [R]
Nay NJ-5 Garrett, Scott [R]
Nay TN-2 Duncan, John [R]
Nay TX-14 Paul, Ronald [R]
Nay TX-31 Carter, John [R]
Nay WI-5 Sensenbrenner, F. [R]
Nay WI-6 Petri, Thomas [R]
Nay WY-0 Lummis, Cynthia [R]

Source: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2010-124

Edit: Oops. ops: Sorry for the improper answer, I ****ed up and named all 20.

Mar 11, 2010: This bill passed in the Senate by --->Unanimous<--- Consent. A record of each senator’s position was not kept.

[LaZeR]

Mar 11, 2010: This bill passed in the Senate by --->Unanimous<--- Consent. A record of each senator’s position was not kept.

My linkage don't count? and wtf was that rumble jumble link you posted. I can't evens click it. :?

Edit: Sneaky fix there. I still stand by mine.

[sgreger1]

Yah only 5 dems voted against it.

Doens't change the fact that I in no way miss Bush or any of his policies, but republicans have been more vocal about opposition to the pact act, though not with the same temwork they have been showing on HC.

[sgreger1]

It's not the government. It's the aristocrats, the corporations.

Oh cummon snupy. You can't claim the government has no input regarding the passage of legislation. It's their names that ink the deal.

[snupy]

My linkage don't count?

Of course it does, but it doesn't change the FACT no Republicans voted against it in the Senate. Further, the states aren't going to give up the much needed tobacco tax revenue, even if Bush were still in office, or if McCain had been elected. We all know the condition of state budgest right now.

and wtf was that rumble jumble link you posted. I can't evens click it. :?

The entire quote is clickable.

[snupy]

Oh cummon snupy. You can't claim the government has no input regarding the passage of legislation. It's their names that ink the deal.

The government is the puppet. Who pulls the strings?

[sgreger1]

Oh cummon snupy. You can't claim the government has no input regarding the passage of legislation. It's their names that ink the deal.

The government is the puppet. Who pulls the strings?

*GASP*

Carefull Snupy, you are starting to sound like that whackjob sgreger1.

[Norwester]

Absolutely not. Name one Republican that voted against PACT.

Since you said just one-Ron Paul.
20 Repubs voted no, 5 Dems. Bush had said he'd veto the original bill if it made it to his desk.

http://politics.nytimes.com/congress...11/house/2/124

[snupy]

Since you said just one-Ron Paul.

Since when are Republicans behind Paul? NO Republicans voted against PACT in the Senate, regardless.