A Firm Pledge?

[Mabus]

Will Obama veto the SCHIP re-authorization that calls for a $.61 per pack increase on cigarettes?

Barack Obama in Dover, NH (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0aa4ipe4fhU):

" And I can make a firm pledge, under my plan no family, making less then $250,000 a year, will see any form of tax increase; Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capitol gains taxes, not any of your taxes."


The Oral Cancer Foundation: (http://www.oralcancerfoundation.org/tobacco/demographics_tobacco.htm)

Smokers by socio-economic status

Smoking prevalence was higher among adults living below the poverty level (32.3 percent) than those living at or above the poverty level (23.5 percent).

[BriarFox]

Will Obama veto the SCHIP re-authorization that calls for a $.61 per pack increase on cigarettes?

Barack Obama in Dover, NH (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0aa4ipe4fhU):


The Oral Cancer Foundation: (http://www.oralcancerfoundation.org/tobacco/demographics_tobacco.htm)

Pretty thin straw there. Obama was speaking of directly assessed taxes, not indirect ones, like those on gas, alcohol, and tobacco.

[Parkbandit]

Pretty thin straw there. Obama was speaking of directly assessed taxes, not indirect ones, like those on gas, alcohol, and tobacco.

And you got that by Obama using the term "any"?

Who was expecting him to actually live up to any tax relief though?

[Keller]

And you got that by Obama using the term "any"?

Who was expecting him to actually live up to any tax relief though?

I assume it would be the laundry list of taxes that followed.

[Mabus]

Pretty thin straw there. Obama was speaking of directly assessed taxes, not indirect ones, like those on gas, alcohol, and tobacco.
From the quote:
"not any of your taxes"

Would it be surprising if one of the first bills he signs breaks a campaign pledge or promise? Not to some people.

[BriarFox]

From the quote:
"not any of your taxes"

Would it be surprising if one of the first bills he signs breaks a campaign pledge or promise? Not to some people.

See Keller's comment. I doubt these sort of taxes crossed his mind, nor are they the same as capital gains taxes, etc. This sort of tax is semi-voluntary.

[Stanley Burrell]

I have to admit with some groups of dedicated women, smoking has lowered their total weight and helped greatly to combat the ever-so-constant issue of having an appetite while you have a vagina.

Go nicotine!

[Keller]

From the quote:
"not any of your taxes"

Would it be surprising if one of the first bills he signs breaks a campaign pledge or promise? Not to some people.

First: he listed taxes paid on income and used a level of income to define the limit. It's a safe bet that he was talking about taxes based on income.

Second: If we're going to make straw-man semantic arguments, he said "my plan". Was this tobacco tax a part of his plan?

[Stanley Burrell]

If we're going to make straw-man semantic arguments

More importantly, I just want to know when a Politics folder thread hasn't actually done this within two posts of its creation post-HarmNone off-topic demerit era.

[Mabus]

See Keller's comment.
This message is hidden because Keller is on your ignore list.

I doubt these sort of taxes crossed his mind, nor are they the same as capital gains taxes, etc. This sort of tax is semi-voluntary.
This is a tax. This is a tax that will disproportionately affect those below the poverty line. This is a tax that will affect those making less then $250,000 a year.

If he vetoes the bill, and bases his veto on the added taxation, he will have went a long way in earning my respect.

[Daniel]

So let me get this straight. You are arguing for the president to veto a bill that will help millions of poor people get access to healthcare for their children so he does not disproportionately effect poor people buying cigarettes?

[Euler]

If he vetoes the bill, and bases his veto on the added taxation, he will have went a long way in earning my respect.

1. he will have GONE

2. I am on the phone with him right now. He really cares about winning your respect.

[Keller]

This message is hidden because you got tired of Keller making you look like a partisan douchebag.

Not everyone can stand to see themselves in the mirror. I don't blame you.

:love:

[Mabus]

So let me get this straight. You are arguing for the president to veto a bill that will help millions of poor people get access to healthcare for their children so he does not disproportionately effect poor people buying cigarettes?
A pledge is a pledge. This is a tax on people that make less then $250k. The statistics show it is also a tax that will disproportionately affect those that can least afford it; people below the poverty limit.

This added taxation on the poor will mean more hungry children of addicted smokers. They won't quit. Their children will suffer because of it.

Now I know that the vehement anti-smokers love the added tax, and hope that it will cause more people to quit. Quitting smoking is a laudable goal, and it would be great to see programs to aid people in the endeavor. No where in the bill is smoking cessation aid for adults under the poverty limit addressed.

If people do quit smoking the goal of funding the program (and keeping it within Congress-approved "pay as you go" limits) by the added taxation fails. The bill was flawed, the funding was flawed and if signed into law it will break a campaign promise.

Those are the facts.

[Keller]

A pledge is a pledge. This is a tax on people that make less then $250k. The statistics show it is also a tax that will disproportionately affect those that can least afford it; people below the poverty limit.

This added taxation on the poor will mean more hungry children of addicted smokers. They won't quit. Their children will suffer because of it.

Now I know that the vehement anti-smokers love the added tax, and hope that it will cause more people to quit. Quitting smoking is a laudable goal, and it would be great to see programs to aid people in the endeavor. No where in the bill is smoking cessation aid for adults under the poverty limit addressed.

If people do quit smoking the goal of funding the program (and keeping it within Congress-approved "pay as you go" limits) by the added taxation fails. The bill was flawed, the funding was flawed and if signed into law it will break a campaign promise.

Those are the facts.

Again, was this tobacco tax part of his plan?

[BriarFox]

My god, these comments get more and more illogical.

1. The tobacco tax wasn't part of the "plan" he was discussing, as Keller has said but I'm repeating because it's a good point and you're ignoring him. Thus, your entire primary point is moot because there's no contradiction.

2. Even if he had proposed this tax, it still wouldn't have been covered under his "pledge" because he was referring to income and capital gains taxes, not excise taxes. If a state raises a sales tax while he's president, will you claim that violates this pledge, too?

This point about the different types of taxes leads us to:

3. Smoking is voluntary (don't give me any bullshit about addiction) and so the tax on it is voluntarily assumed. Additionally, this tax will improve the health of smokers by discouraging the habit, and of children because of how the proceeds will be used.

4.
No where in the bill is smoking cessation aid for adults under the poverty limit addressed.

It's an implicit goal, because rising prices lower demand. Simple economics.


5.
If people do quit smoking the goal of funding the program (and keeping it within Congress-approved "pay as you go" limits) by the added taxation fails. The bill was flawed, the funding was flawed and if signed into law it will break a campaign promise.

It's not an immediate effect - people won't suddenly quit smoking. It will discourage them, however, and while they begin to quit, the bill will produce funds for healthcare. It's not a permanent solution, but it begins to fix the problem by making smoking more difficult and improving healthcare.

And finally:

6. A static government is a dead government. E.G.: If Obama had made a campaign promise to ease regulations on gun sales, but then one gun manufacturer somehow took advantage of that to sell guns to minors and Obama passed a more restrictive bill in response, he wouldn't be suddenly breaking his campaign promise just because he increased regulations to prevent abuse of the system.

Your thinking is curiously absolutist.

[Mabus]

My god, these comments get more and more illogical.
Yours or Daniel's? Skipping the barb, let's look at the truth.

These are facts:
1) No additional taxes of any kind on people making less then $250 as a pledge by Obama.
2) House passes SCHIP, adding $.61 a pack tax as part of the funding.
3) Cigarette smokers are disproportionally the poor or lower middle class (well below $250k a year).

Which of those are you disputing?

If you are stating that Obama never said federal consumption taxes, or "sin" taxes, would be increased can you give me the speech in which he outlined that these were separate from "any" taxes? If you cannot then you are assuming that is what he meant and not accepting him at his word.


1. The tobacco tax wasn't part of the "plan" he was discussing, as Keller has said but I'm repeating because it's a good point and you're ignoring him. Thus, your entire primary point is moot because there's no contradiction.
As I have pointed out I have certain immature trolls on ignore. As such I can hardly respond to comments in those posts.

You seem to be disputing (as I previously pointed out) that this federal tax is a tax. It is a tax.


2. Even if he had proposed this tax, it still wouldn't have been covered under his "pledge" because he was referring to income and capital gains taxes, not excise taxes.
Look at the posted video for his pledge. Read the quoted portion. He said "any of your taxes". He did not say "any of your taxes except sin taxes, excise taxes, consumption taxes and other taxes not laid out previously".


If a state raises a sales tax while he's president, will you claim that violates this pledge, too?

Come now, and you talk about "illogical"...

This will be a federal tax increase, not a state one. He will be signing a federal tax increase into law that imposes new taxes on those that make under $250k a year.


3. Smoking is voluntary (don't give me any bullshit about addiction) and so the tax on it is voluntarily assumed.
Work is voluntary. It is taxed. But at least you admit that this tax is a "tax" now.


Additionally, this tax will improve the health of smokers by discouraging the habit, and of children because of how the proceeds will be used.
How have state tax increases worked in discouraging the habit? How have they worked with the poor? How will a less nutritious diet of a poor child of a smoker improve their health?

You are assuming without posting data.

Do you even know any smokers? Really. They try, again and again to quit, and many fail for a lifetime. They will continue to smoke if the price was $50 a pack or even if tobacco was made illegal, they would just go to the black market. A black market for tobacco already exists, as do other methods of obtaining it that have been deemed illegal (high volume interstate transport, internet purchasing without taxation, as examples).

And if you have not spent time aiding people that are addicted (to quote you) "don't give me any bullshit about addiction".

Nicotine is addictive.

So prove this isn't a tax (impossible, as it is a tax), that Obama did not say "any" taxes on people making under $250k (impossible, as he has said it many times, and a friend of mine that is a big Obama supporter said she used to cringe every time he said it) or accept that he may sign a bill that breaks a campaign pledge within days of his inauguration.

He will sign a bill that will disproportionately increase taxes on the poor.

It is simple.

[Keller]

My god you're like the worst of all possible posters: dumb AND long-winded.

At least Backlash doesn't have the stamina to drool over his keyboard for more than a paragraph.

Once more, but surely not the last time, where was this tobacco tax part of Obama's plan?

[Parkbandit]

Does anyone really believe he has or had any intentions of not raising taxes? He simply said that to get elected.

[Keller]

Yours or Daniel's? Skipping the barb, let's look at the truth.

Skipping? Do you understand what that word means?


These are facts:

. . . that I made up to suit my argument . . .

1) No additional taxes of any kind on people making less then $250 as a pledge by Obama.



These are facts:

. . . that may actually be true . . .


2) House passes SCHIP, adding $.61 a pack tax as part of the funding.
3) Cigarette smokers are disproportionally the poor or lower middle class (well below $250k a year).


Which of those are you disputing?

. . . because I didn't actually read anything you said, or I'd be able to answer this on my own . . .

[Keller]

Does anyone really believe he has or had any intentions of not raising taxes? He simply said that to get elected.

He plainly stated he intended to raise taxes.

But the better question may be, "Why didn't the FBI arrest Blago before he could appoint a new senator?"

[BriarFox]

Sigh. You're restating your points while ignoring the essential arguments.

Also, if you want proof that economics works:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2007-08-09-1Alede_N.htm

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B73H6-4SXRTRV-2&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=f080b9ff7ebc459d17a9e0edda24471a

- this second one is particularly interesting because it says that, while smokers do tend to be unresponsive to cigarette price increases, where you do see a significant response is among low-income smokers (which shoots down your argument).

[Mabus]

Sigh. You're restating your points while ignoring the essential arguments.
As you have not adequately addressed the facts in those arguments they needed repeating.


Also, if you want proof that economics works:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health
/2007-08-09-1Alede_N.htm
In this case they did not address how they track the "drop" in smoking. If it is by legal sales of packs of cigarettes then they need to address non-traditional tobacco sales and usage. Many smokers in Ohio are moving to "roll your own" or tube machines, which are not taxed on a per cigarette basis, nor tracked as cigarette sales.


http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B73H6-4SXRTRV-2&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=f080b9ff7ebc459d17a9e0edda24471a

- this second one is particularly interesting because it says that, while smokers do tend to be unresponsive to cigarette price increases, where you do see a significant response is among low-income smokers (which shoots down your argument).
The second one is from Taiwan, and while it does show a slight decrease in a 44% price increase (which is not what the tax in this case would do) it also brings up "The challenges of low-price and/or smuggled cigarettes", which I attempted to address in my post about black market sales.

I suppose a new/expanded black market in tobacco could improve the "health" of citizens as well, in your view?

A 2-pack a day smoker would see roughly $451.30 a year in additional federal taxation. Deduct that from a family that is already beneath the federal poverty limit and they will change their other needs to fit, likely negatively impacting food, clothing and/or shelter.

Face it, it will be a broken pledge that also is focusing more harm on the poor then any other demographic.

Now that's change we can believe in!

[Keller]

Face it, it will be a broken pledge.

Wrong.

[BriarFox]

A 2-pack a day smoker would see roughly $451.30 a year in additional federal taxation. Deduct that from a family that is already beneath the federal poverty limit and they will change their other needs to fit, likely negatively impacting food, clothing and/or shelter.

This comment is indicative of the problems in your entire argument - how could you possibly think someone would put cigarettes before food?

[TheRunt]

This comment is indicative of the problems in your entire argument - how could you possibly think someone would put cigarettes before food?

The same way a coke/crack/heroin/meth/alcohol addict will?

[Daniel]

Does anyone really believe he has or had any intentions of not raising taxes? He simply said that to get elected.

I'll take a crack at this. Yes, I believe that he has no intention of raising taxes. That said, I would be very surprised if he can make it through the next four years without raising some sort of tax. He explicitly said he wouldn't fund any new projects without being able to pay for it. That kinda implies that money has to come from some where.

However, I'd like to raise an issue with your contention. When discussing his tax policy during the election, You - The R-Team, intentionally limited the discussion to income taxes. You argued that Obama's plan was nothing short of socialism, a redistribution of wealth if you will, because it reduced taxes to zero for poor people while raising it for richer people.

When it was pointed out that low income people still pay other taxes, you either A) Ignored the point or B) provided some flimsy justification as to why those didn't count as "taxes".

So, you'll have to excuse us if we're a bit incredulous that you, all of a sudden, feel like these taxes are now important.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

No President keeps their promises when they are campaigning, when you dissect them 100 ways and use absolutes. I'm certain he will attempt to keep the spirit of his promises. I'm also certain he'll fall short of being able to keep them to the letter of wording.

I truly believe that intentions are good, and as he learns more about how to implement his goals, they'll change and morph to become something else. That said, so what? You wouldn't want someone just doing something because they said it once in a snapshot in time with their knowledge at the time, right? Anyone who's built any project at all knows things change as knowledge grows and implementation continues.

I heard he's solely responsible for developing monks, and needs to raise some money to pay for code ninjas - hence the need to tax the cancer sticks.

[Keller]

You guys are missing the point: this tax was NOT a part of his plan. His pledge was with reference to his plan. If a tax, outside of his plan, is implemented, that is NOT breaking his campaign promise.

Surely he will break a campaign promise at some point, but this is not breaking a campaign promise.

[Daniel]

You guys are missing the point: this tax was NOT a part of his plan. His pledge was with reference to his plan. If a tax, outside of his plan, is implemented, that is NOT breaking his campaign promise.

Surely he will break a campaign promise at some point, but this is not breaking a campaign promise.

Nah. I got that too. ;)

[Gan]

This comment is indicative of the problems in your entire argument - how could you possibly think someone would put cigarettes before food?

You've never grown up with parents who were chain-smokers, obviously.

[Daniel]

You've never grown up with parents who were chain-smokers, obviously.

So, since you have you feel that not giving healthcare to children is a fair trade off to prevent some obvious psychos from potentially not feeding their children to finance their nicotine habit?

That sounds reasonable to you?

[Gan]

So, since you have you feel that not giving healthcare to children is a fair trade off to prevent some obvious psychos from potentially not feeding their children to finance their nicotine habit?

That sounds reasonable to you?

Please tell me how you have arrived at that assumption?

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

So, since you have you feel that not giving healthcare to children is a fair trade off to prevent some obvious psychos from potentially not feeding their children to finance their nicotine habit?

That sounds reasonable to you?

That's kind of a stretch from his comment, don't you think?

[Daniel]

Please tell me how you have arrived at that assumption?

Okay so what is your point Gan?

But first let's recep:

Briarfox is saying that the argument is flawed because most rational people won't buy more cigarettes as opposed to food for their kids.

The argument being put forth is saying that Obama should veto (as in not pass) a bill to increase access to healthcare for children because it includes a tax on cigarettes which will disproportionately effect children of smokers, which is more often than not poor people.

So..what point are you making Gan? Feel free to set the record straight and I'll apologize for jumping to conclusions.

[Gan]

That's kind of a stretch from his comment, don't you think?
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll102/learningtewfly/leaptoconculsion.jpg

[Daniel]

So..what point are you making Gan? Feel free to set the record straight and I'll apologize for jumping to conclusions.



...

[Gan]

So..what point are you making Gan? Feel free to set the record straight and I'll apologize for jumping to conclusions.


...how could you possibly think someone would put cigarettes before food?



You've never grown up with parents who were chain-smokers, obviously.

My parents were chain smokers. At one point in the 80's when my father was RIF'd from his job in the oilfield we lived off of my mom's secretarial salary of 14k. There were times when we went without milk or other staples, but never cigarettes.

I'm dicounting the premise that people put necessity before addition. First experienced directly and anecdotally and then reinforced by observing people on the street corner in this wonderful city of ours (Houston), in the ED at our county hospital (Ben Taub) and through my experiences as a jailer/deputy.

If you're reading anything else into what I'm saying then you are incorrect or clouded by previous bias to my posts.

Let me know if you want me to draw a picture. I'm getting pretty good at MSPaint.

[Gan]

...

:lol:

If only your maturity matched your patience.

Oh wait...

[Daniel]

My parents were chain smokers. At one point in the 80's when my father was RIF'd from his job in the oilfield we lived off of my mom's secretarial salary of 14k. There were times when we went without milk or other staples, but never cigarettes.

I'm dicounting the premise that people put necessity before addition. First experienced directly and anecdotally and then reinforced by observing people on the street corner in this wonderful city of ours (Houston), in the ED at our county hospital (Ben Taub) and through my experiences as a jailer/deputy.

If you're reading anything else into what I'm saying then you are incorrect or clouded by previous bias to my posts.

Let me know if you want me to draw a picture. I'm getting pretty good at MSPaint.

So you are supporting the position that an increase in the taxes of cigarettes will negatively effect children across the nation? Your childhood notwithstanding.

Where do you come down on the issue of whether or not that as an appropriate trade off for the passage of the SCHIP legislation?

[Gan]

So you are supporting the position that an increase in the taxes of cigarettes will negatively effect children across the nation? Your childhood notwithstanding.



If you're reading anything else into what I'm saying then you are incorrect or clouded by previous bias to my posts.


Reading Comprehension For The Loss



Where do you come down on the issue of whether or not that as an appropriate trade off for the passage of the SCHIP legislation?
I'm having trouble making sense of what you're trying to say. Clarify? (Proofread?)

If you mean this?


The argument being put forth is saying that Obama should veto (as in not pass) a bill to increase access to healthcare for children because it includes a tax on cigarettes which will disproportionately effect children of smokers, which is more often than not poor people.
Then:
I support any tax on cigs. Period. And if the revenue from said 'sin' tax can be put back into CHIP then its a bonus. Where I get concerned is the elligibility of CHIP participants with regard to family income.

[Gan]

So is this where I receive your apology?

[Daniel]

No not really. I just wanted to see where you came down on the issue.

Thanks though.

[Gan]

No not really. I suspected that you really had no point to make. I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt though. That didn't get me very far

At least you're predictable.

:lol:

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

Daniel I think you are intelligent and sometimes eloquent. However your polarity on issues blinds you to the possibility that there is a viable middle ground. I was fortunate enough to never have been for want of anything growing up or as an adult, but I agree with Gan on the cigarettes piece.
People will eat ramen instead of something with good nutritional value, to have their smokes. Is it because they are addicted, bad parents, bad economists, or just because they like em, who's to say? Hell, it make keep em from beating their children, if you want to jump to extremes.

Open up a little to opinions other than yours, you'll see everyone can learn something. I do not exclude myself from that statement either.

[Daniel]

Daniel I think you are intelligent and sometimes eloquent. However your polarity on issues blinds you to the possibility that there is a viable middle ground. I was fortunate enough to never have been for want of anything growing up or as an adult, but I agree with Gan on the cigarettes piece.
People will eat ramen instead of something with good nutritional value, to have their smokes. Is it because they are addicted, bad parents, bad economists, or just because they like em, who's to say? Hell, it make keep em from beating their children, if you want to jump to extremes.

Open up a little to opinions other than yours, you'll see everyone can learn something. I do not exclude myself from that statement either.

My polarity?

What polar position have I espoused here? I actually happen to agree with you and Gan. That said, what exactly does Gan's initial comment accomplish?

It comes out in support of a guy who is saying that it's better to encourage addiction as opposed to providing healthcare to children. Sometimes it's better not to encourage people by validating their strawman, than interjecting your 2 cents.

That's why I asked him if that was what he was actually trying to do. Now that he's said he hasn't then I'm more than willing to drop the issue.

[Gan]

Then STFU already.

[Daniel]

No u.

P.s. I edited that post because I realized I was coming across as snarky. I will apologize for that ;)

[BriarFox]

I haven't experienced it myself and it seems mildly unfathomable, but going from Gan's experience, I have to accept that addiction can override the necessities of life in some (extreme?) cases. Still, it doesn't seem that that's necessarily a reason to veto the bill because, on the balance, rationality will (I hope) win out, and more people will be discouraged from smoking than will sacrifice their families on the altars of their addiction. And then, of course, there's also the health-care funding that would result.

The situation brings up an interesting question about how you legislate for people who can't be trusted to make rational decisions - do you just take the decision away, if you can? Seems to verge on pure socialism. So do you just let them collapse and wave sadly?

[Gan]

The situation brings up an interesting question about how you legislate for people who can't be trusted to make rational decisions - do you just take the decision away, if you can? Seems to verge on pure socialism. So do you just let them collapse and wave sadly?

Free will. Pandora's box when legislation interferes with free will that is not an imposition upon another's rights of free will.

Alcohol consumption (prohibition era)

Drugs/mind altering chemicals

Fast Food/Unhealthy food (New York)

Smoking (anti-smoking legislation)

Morality (porn etc.)

Religion (extremism in any brand thereof)

Where is the line drawn? And who has the right to draw that line?