Republicans pretend to care about the poor
The is up for renewal. A bipartisan group of lawmakers want to increase the number of children covered under the program by 10 million. So how do you argue with that? Republicans that oppose the bill are using logic they typically aren't familiar with.
Part of the program will be paid for by increasing taxes on tobacco. Republican lawmakers, who are all , have found a way to argue against it. They contend that a tobacco tax increase is bad because it would :
Republicans will argue that tobacco taxes fall hardest on theworking poor, the very people SCHIP was designed to help. About a thirdof adults who live in poverty are smokers.
"Under this scheme, the poorest Americans will be burdened with evenhigher federal taxes so that wealthier families and businesses canshift the cost of their health care coverage to the Americantaxpayers," said Reps. Joe Barton, R-Texas and Nathan Deal, R-Ga, in a letter to colleagues.
The GOP, the same party that wants a national sales tax, claims to be genuinely concerned about a tobacco tax because it is regressive. Do you buy that?. Anytime Republicans talk about poverty, there is usually some other motivation.
OH PUH-leee-az!!
Gives us a good view of the prevailing attitude toward preventative health care!!
Can't tax those cigarettes and make it harder for the less wealthy to get some more smoking into those lungs - but those little kids can just roll with the old dice on health care. What the hey! Those children can start smoking earlier, too.
I wonder what these guys think we're smoking.
What ARE we smoking? We elect this kind of drivel!?
Posted by: granny | 2007.09.25 at 04:57 PM
Why stop at only 10 mil more? why not 20 or 30 mil?
Let's just cover everyone and really go into debt.
This again, is an INCREASE in the spending already out there.
I don't know if it is covered or not, but the illegal immigrant children I am sure are a major factor for the shortage already occuring.
Big Tobacco pays Dems and Republicans.. if Smoking is such a damned evil thing, why don't we just ban it all together instead of just taxing it more..oh wait, then our government would have to do without some money.
.. I fail to see what is wrong with a national sales tax and wiping out the tax code.
It will never happen, but it would make more sense then the spider web of a tax code we have now.
Plus everyone would be taxed..there are many people who do work, and high paid work, for cash under the table that is never taxed..this would actually end in an INCREASE in the amount of tax collected to the federal government, as no one would be able to dodge.
And I am pretty sure the national sales tax ideas are NOT attatched to food products.
Steve Forbes was right on with this idea.
Ted Kennedy would be the first in line to scream against it, mostly because it would affect him and his trust fund.
Posted by: Ted K. | 2007.09.25 at 05:55 PM
"Let's just cover everyone and really go into debt".
Now that WOULD be a new concept for us, wouldn't it!? Debt, for something that might save lives, and strengthen the nation, rather than mass murder, thievery and treachery, and best of all, profit. Hells Bells, we can throw money around like the wind when it's for a GOOD reason, right?!
And the relevance of this in the conversation "Big Tobacco pays Dems and Republicans..." is...??
How does that go? Since some are taking dirty money, all might as well? Or, if you're getting yours I want to be sure I get mine?!
But this:"I don't know if it is covered or not, but the illegal immigrant children I am sure are a major factor for the shortage already occurring" ... is right to the point!
GOD FORBID! You mean little children who are not "invited" might be treated with compassion and decency? I SPIT on demonic raisins!
Posted by: granny | 2007.09.25 at 07:19 PM
Ted, you are complaining about an increase in spending, yet you turn around and don't want tobacco to be taxed so much! Your two arguments offset, as far as government revenue is concerned.
Secondly, banning tobacco would only empower black market sellers.
And also, Ted, by a 3 to 1 margin, big tobacco gives money to the GOP.
And btw, thanks for your well wishes about visiting Canada. I had a great time visiting the graduate schools at SFU and UBC. It's very scenic up there. Got into a few political debates, which was fun. It surprised me how patriotic they are up there. Not as divided as we are.
Posted by: | 2007.09.25 at 08:15 PM
My two arguments are NOT offset.
Tobacco is taxed enough..why are we picking on individuals for that habit and not others that have other habits?
If Your Dem Party thinks that the economy sucks so badly and people are worse off under Bush, why don't they repeal taxes on cigarettes or gasoline?
Because government can NEVER do with less, even though the individual is expected to.
Here is an economics lesson for you.
If you look at revenues collected when taxes are cut they always ALWAYS bring more money into Washington.
This economic reality was never more apparent then when the Great Ronal Reagan cut the highest bracket at 72% all the way down to under 30%, and more money came into the Feds than before.
How could this be if he didn't raise taxes?
More money flooded into Washington when Bush made his evil tax cuts.
The idiots claiming to be conservative Republicans spent it all, but that is another issue.
And Granny, the war on Terrorism is ultimately saving lives in America and around the Globe.
The Feds #1 job is the country's security, NOT giving health care and other entitlements to everyone.
Move to Switzerland or Finland, or some other country that doesn't have to worry about an army or their borders and can spend their funds on socialistic causes- oh and by the way, their and most of Europes laws conscerning illegal immigrants are MUCH tougher than ours.
Even Mexico's illegal immigration laws make ours look silly.
Posted by: Ted K. | 2007.09.26 at 01:25 AM
I'm with Gravel. His FairTax IS the only way to eliminate the barrier created by politicians-lobbyists to reward themselves, fundraiser constituents, and create a captive constituency.
While many who are invested in the current income tax system seek to , FairTax's theoretical underpinnings have been , and its acceptance in the continues to grow.
Renown economist Laurence Kotlikoff believes that failure to enact the FairTax - choosing instead to try to "flatten" what he deems to be a non-flattenable income tax system - will eventuate into an because of the hidden aspects of the current system that make political accountability impossible. Tom Frey, of the DiVinci Institute, foresees the of the income tax system.
Here is why the FairTax MUST replace the income tax. It's:
???ぎ?? SIMPLE, easy to understand
???ぎ?? EFFICIENT, inexpensive to comply with and doesn't cause less-than-optimal business decisions for tax minimization purposes
???ぎ?? FAIR, loophole free and everyone pays their share
???ぎ?? LOW TAX RATE, achieved by broad base with no exclusions
???ぎ?? PREDICTABLE, doesn't change, so financial planning is possible
???ぎ?? UNINTRUSIVE, doesn't intrude into our personal affairs or limit our liberty
???ぎ?? VISIBLE, not hidden from the public in tax-inflated prices or otherwise
???ぎ?? PRODUCTIVE, rewards, rather than penalizes, work and productivity
Its benefits are as follows:
For INDIVIDUALS:
???ぎ?? No more tax on income - make as much as you wish
???ぎ?? You receive your full paycheck - no more deductions
???ぎ?? You pay the tax when you buy "at retail" - not "used"
???ぎ?? No more double taxation (e.g. like on current Capital Gains)
???ぎ?? Reduction of "pre-FairTaxed" retail prices by 20%-30%
???ぎ?? Adding back 29.9% FairTax maintains current price levels
???ぎ?? FairTax would constitute 23% portion of new prices
???ぎ?? Every household receives a monthly check, or "pre-bate"
???ぎ?? "Prebate" is "advance payback" for taxes payable on monthly consumption to poverty level
???ぎ?? FairTax's "prebate" ensures progressivity, poverty protection
???ぎ?? Finally, citizens are knowledgeable of what their tax IS
???ぎ?? Elimination of "parasitic" Income Tax industry
???ぎ?? NO MORE IRS. NO MORE FILING OF TAX RETURNS by individuals
???ぎ?? Those possessing illicit forms of income will ALSO pay the FairTax
???ぎ?? Households have more disposable income to purchase goods
???ぎ?? Savings is bolstered with reduction of interest rates
For BUSINESSES:
???ぎ?? Corporate income and payroll taxes revoked under FairTax
???ぎ?? Business compensated for collecting tax at "cash register"
???ぎ?? No more tax-related lawyers, lobbyists on company payrolls
???ぎ?? No more embedded (hidden) income/payroll taxes in prices
???ぎ?? Reduced costs. Competition - not tax policy - drives prices
???ぎ?? Off-shore "tax haven" headquarters can now return to U.S
???ぎ?? No more "favors" from politicians at expense of taxpayers
???ぎ?? Resources go to R&D and study of competition - not taxes
???ぎ?? Marketplace distortions eliminated for fair competition
???ぎ?? US exports increase their share of foreign markets
For the COUNTRY:
???ぎ?? 7% - 13% economic growth projected in the first year of the FairTax
???ぎ?? Jobs return to the U.S.
???ぎ?? Foreign corporations "set up shop" in the U.S.
???ぎ?? Tax system trends are corrected to "enlarge the pie"
???ぎ?? Larger economic "pie," means thinner tax rate "slices"
???ぎ?? Initial 23% portion of price is pressured downward as "pie" increases
???ぎ?? No more "closed door" tax deals by politicians and business
???ぎ?? FairTax sets new global standard. Other countries will follow
It's well past time to and pay for government the way that America's working men and women are paid - when something is sold.
Posted by: | 2007.09.27 at 12:49 AM
Yeah, and regressive.
Posted by: | 2007.09.27 at 06:13 AM