Obama tax pledge ... up in smoke

[Dr Adequate]

Obama - "Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes."

I bet the only person dumb enough to not interpret that as a pledge to not add ANYTHING to the tax burden of the poor is ...

Oh, suddenly you're concerned about the poor? Wow, it's like the Road to Damascus, only with stupid.

Have you calculated the net effect of his entire tax plan on "the poor"? Assume they smoke, now do the math.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Then I guess you don't consider tobacco a highly addictive substance ... one that makes smokers victims. But hasn't the government (motivated by liberals) spent millions and millions of dollars on advertising telling us that it is? Don't tell me they've been lying to us on that score, too?

Oh yes, I seem to remember, now you mention it, that our continuous string of liberal governments have indeed been running adverts on the theme: "Smoking: It's Impossible For You To Quit".

 

[BeAChooser]

I'm all for raising the taxes to the point of forcing everyone out of the habit...if that's possible.

Let's see ... what filthy, disgusting, unnecessary, harmful habit do you have that we'd like to see exterminated by our new nanny government?

 

[Paulhoff]

Tax the hell out of cigarettes. I've lost too many family and friends to them.

Paul

 

[Dr Adequate]

I would have hoped that a politician running for the highest office in the most powerful country in the world would do EXACTLY as he said he would, no more less. In this case, he said one thing would happen, then after he got in power he made it's opposite happen. Really, I have no idea what he meant, but I know what "You won't see any taxes raised by a single dime" means.

Well, apparently not.

 

[BeAChooser]

If you want to quit bad enough, you will. I don't care who you are.

Hmmmm. So, tell us compassionate, caring liberal ... do you feel the same about less addictive substances like cocaine and heroin?

http://www.nytimes.com/1987/03/29/magazine/nicotine-harder-to-kickthan-heroin.html "Scientists have found, for instance, that nicotine is as addictive as heroin, cocaine or amphetamines, and for most people more addictive than alcohol."

http://www.indiamatters.co.in/2009/01/tobacco-more-addictive-then-heroin.html "Tobacco More Addictive then Heroin, Cocaine"

http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hl-vs/pubs/tobac-tabac/swk-dat/intro01-eng.php "In a ranking of the addictiveness of psycho-active drugs, nicotine was determined to be more addictive than heroin, cocaine, alcohol, caffeine, and marijuana."

http://www.tobaccofreedom.org/issues/addiction/index.html "Although the industry knew -- more than 30 years ago -- of the highly addictive nature of modern tobacco products, few people are aware that smoking cigarettes is similar to smoking crack cocaine."

http://www.tobacco-facts.info/tobacco_addiction.htm "Nicotine is more addictive than crack cocaine and heroin."

www.teenhealthandwellness.com/article/333/3 "The nicotine in cigarettes and chewing tobacco has been found to be more addictive than crack cocaine or alcohol."

 

[BeAChooser]

But while technically accurate from a certain point of view, this one is quite a stretch for criticism.

Is it? When it is going to seriously impact (see my post above) the very group that put him into office? The plain and simple truth is that he lied to them. After all the promises that his administration was going to be *different* from the one before it (which ironically vetoed this very tax).

Tell me, if you think this is a stretch, can we have a pledge from you that you will voluntarily (remember ... some here claim cigarettes aren't addictive) donate an additional 2% of your income to the government each and every year from now on?

 

[BeAChooser]

Did you post a similar thread when fiscal conservative Rick Perry raised cig taxes a $1/pack in 2006?

Well I don't tend to watch Texas politics so I guess I missed that one. But I have noted in the past that cigarette taxes are unfair to the poor and also that they don't really save money long term because smokers tend to die younger. If you're trying to suggest I'm a hypocrite, you need to actually find an example where I have championed taxes of this sort. And you won't find that.

 

[BeAChooser]

Quote:
"I can make a firm pledge," he said in Dover, N.H., on Sept. 12. "Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes (that fall under you making a profit.)."

Bolding mine. There ya go.

Here is the Dover September 12th speech:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0aa4ipe4fhU

Here is what he said 1:20 into the clip:

And I can make a firm pledge. Under my plan, no family, making less than $250,000 dollars a year, will see any form of tax increase, not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes.

That was followed by silence on his part. He did NOT say or even mutter "(that fall under you making a profit.)" as you indicated.

Are you a liar too, Redtail?

 

[Malkuth]

It's not about whether increases in taxes are fair or not.
It's not about whether smoking is good for you or not.
It's about Obama quite explicitly saying one thing, then quite obviously doing another.
The denial around here is getting boring.

 

[Upchurch]

Minor?

In the grand scheme of things, yes.

And as the increased prices drive some to quit smoking, the cigarette companies will respond (and have already started doing so) by increasing their profits on each pack ... making them even more expensive to those who will find it's not easy quiting this highly addictive substance.

Why, BAC! I never pictured you as an old school bleeding heart liberal!

Surely you aren't suggesting that evil cigarette companies are profiting from selling a highly addictive and harmful substance to poor and impoverished who can't help but to buy their product until they die from it? Do these smokers bear no personal responsibility for their actions? The corporations are making them do it?

I'm sure you copy of the Village Voice will be arriving any day now, ya big hippie!

 

[BeAChooser]

you don't want to pay the tax, then don't smoke. Obama isn't taxing you, you're taxing yourself.

Why doesn't that logic apply to the way democrats look at health care? According to census data, 17 million of the roughly 35 million uninsured citizens that democrats use to advocate for universal, socialized medicine (that would be paid for via taxes that aren't voluntary, btw) currently CHOOSE not to carry health care insurance even though they could clearly afford it. In fact, about 9 million of those earn more than $75,000 a year (according to the census). It seems to me that health insurance could be considered a voluntary tax that those people have elected not to tax themselves. Why isn't that ok to you democrats? Why do you insist we tax the wealthy to give those people free health insurance. To buy votes for your party?

 

[Dr Adequate]

It's not about whether increases in taxes are fair or not.
It's not about whether smoking is good for you or not.
It's about Obama quite explicitly saying one thing, then quite obviously doing another.

Oh, in that case ... no.

Are we done here?

 

[BeAChooser]

Your literal interpretation leads to an untenable position. What about people who make more money and therefore pay more taxes? What about people who enter the stock market and begin to see capital gains?

It's not untenable at all. Obama was CLEARLY talking about increasing tax RATES. Increasing the tobacco tax is an increase in a tax RATE.

 

[BeAChooser]

Oh, suddenly you're concerned about the poor?

Conservatives have always been more generous when it comes to giving their own money to the poor. Liberals are only generous with other's people's money. Which perhaps explains all the tax cheats in Obama's administration ... especially the one now running the IRS.

 

[joobz]

Why doesn't that logic apply to the way democrats look at health care? According to census data, 17 million of the roughly 35 million uninsured citizens that democrats use to advocate for universal, socialized medicine (that would be paid for via taxes that aren't voluntary, btw) currently CHOOSE not to carry health care insurance even though they could clearly afford it. In fact, about 9 million of those earn more than $75,000 a year (according to the census). It seems to me that health insurance could be considered a voluntary tax that those people have elected not to tax themselves. Why isn't that ok to you democrats? Why do you insist we tax the wealthy to give those people free health insurance. To buy votes for your party?

Because their lack of health care results in an increased cost to our economy. While smokers choosing to smoke causes an expense to our economy that a tax can help offset.

 

[Malkuth]

Oh, in that case ... no.

Are we done here?

/points to sig. Thanks for the example.

 

[BeAChooser]

Tax the hell out of cigarettes. I've lost too many family and friends to them.

The problem is that you are dealing with an addictive substance ... one that the same people who have been telling everyone to stop smoking claim is more addictive than heroin ... than crack cocaine. That being the case, most smokers ... especially amongst the poor ... are still going to use it ... regardless of it's cost. It's not a voluntary tax.

And if you still don't agree ... then I suggest we should do the same with alcohol. Afterall,

http://www.come-over.to/FAS/alcdeath.htm

100,000 deaths. That's more than a statistic. That is 100,000 individuals with faces. 100,000 individuals with lives not fully lived. 100,000 individuals grieved by mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, and children. Every year.

 

[BeAChooser]

In the grand scheme of things, yes.

So are you willing to hand over an additional 2% of your income to the government *voluntarily*? You are allowed to do that, you know.

Surely you aren't suggesting that evil cigarette companies are profiting from selling a highly addictive and harmful substance to poor and impoverished who can't help but to buy their product until they die from it? Do these smokers bear no personal responsibility for their actions? The corporations are making them do it?

This thread isn't about that. It's about whether Obama lied. Stop trying to derail the thread.

 

[Alt+F4]

First, that makes Obama a hypocrite ... because he smokes and you can bet he won't be quitting just because of the increase in taxes. If he quits, it will only be because he's now in the public eye and it was politically expedient.

So he's damned if he quits, damned if he doesn't?

Smoking actually reduces medical costs because smokers tend to die younger, and thus spare the system the cost of their very, very expensive old age.

Got any facts to back this up? I would think the lost productivity of those who die young would be in the tens of millions of dollars. In addition, the health care costs of someone dying of throat or lung cancer can be very, very expensive.