The children be darned! Tobacco taxes.

[blue]

I and many other tobacco users are quiting, and not for our health. We are quiting because of the 158% tax hike on tobacco products. The increase in tax is to fund the SCHIP program for children.

The POTUS promised he wouldnt raise taxes on the poor, news flash, most smokers and tobacco users are poor!

Screw the kids, Im quiting. I allready have to pay for kids to go to school even though I dont have any of my own. Im damn sure not going to pay anymore.

I do not feel represented tax wise.

[joycenalex]

when people quit smoking, there is less bladder cancer, less head and neck cancers, less lung cancers, less heart diseases, less vascular diseases, win for the children! the children who will grow up with less ear infections from second hand smoke in their homes. less demand on health care all around....a good thing right?

[happylabs]

I see this as a good thing. Smoking is very bad for you and your pets as well, as well as the environment. You can do it!

[joycenalex]

blue, i've been going around and around on this in my head and in conversation with friends.i don't smoke so that sin tax isn't paid for by me, but i do have an alcoholic drink from time to time and i pay that sin tax. i don't have kids either, so i get no direct benefit from my school taxes on my property, yet those school taxes SOMEONE else paid for made my schooling possible, that schooling made it possible for me to be a tax paying and productive citizen. kids got no choice in who their parents are. that kid deserves the same chance you got and i got. keeping kids healthy is a good thing, maybe they won't smoke, eat cheese doodles by the bagful, shoot speed, maybe one of those kids who gets that health insurance in alaska won't get tetanus cause the kids' parents could get those childhood vaccines cause of the health insurance for them.
i'm downright peeved when i make that tax payment, and i crab up a storm, but it's my paying back for what someone paid for me when i was a kid.

[Edwina's Secretary]

kids got no choice in who their parents are. that kid deserves the same chance you got and i got. i'm downright peeved when i make that tax payment, and i crab up a storm, but it's my paying back for what someone paid for me when i was a kid.

I do not have children. I am self-employed and pay taxes that would make the eyes of many roll back in their heads.

I consider it the price for living in a civilized society.

I consider the portion that goes for schools and parks and other "kid stuff" pay back as joycenalex says.

I also consider it an investment. Kids who are in school or at the park or after school programs are not breaking into my house or spraying graffitti on my building or getting knocked up.

They are getting an education so that when I am retired they can pay for things...roads, police, firefighters...and yes...social security.

[lvpets2002]

:) I am so glad I quit smoking years ago.. I sure Do Not miss it one bit.. You will feel so much better & food will taste so differant..

[Catty1]

Hey, blue - good on ya. {{{{hugs}}}}

And the money you save can go to YOUR favourite charity. Bonus!:)

[Pinot's Mom]

I also quit smoking many years ago, thank goodness.
I also have no (human) children.
I also pay taxes that would make your head spin (has anyone ever heard of Howard County, MD? Look it up - you'll be amazed) - BUT we have the best schools in the area (at least), there are families from Japan coming to this county to send their kids to school. This translates into retention of higher real estate values, even in a bad economy, and really good county programs. That's another part of the investment - it's generally a better quality of life where your taxes are higher. BEFORE ANYONE LANDS ON ME ABOUT THAT STATEMENT - I said GENERALLY - there are always exceptions.
I also consider these costs an investment.

[pomtzu]

I also quit smoking many years ago, thank goodness.
I also have no (human) children.
I also pay taxes that would make your head spin (has anyone ever heard of Howard County, MD? Look it up - you'll be amazed) - BUT we have the best schools in the area (at least), there are families from Japan coming to this county to send their kids to school. This translates into retention of higher real estate values, even in a bad economy, and really good county programs. That's another part of the investment - it's generally a better quality of life where your taxes are higher. BEFORE ANYONE LANDS ON ME ABOUT THAT STATEMENT - I said GENERALLY - there are always exceptions.
I also consider these costs an investment.

I'm rather familiar with the Ellicott City/Columbia areas, so I know exactly what you're talking about! It's a beautiful area, and I can understand your higher taxes to keep it that way. And yes - saying that it's an investment is very true indeed.

[carole]

Well i alway's thought no matter how high the taxes go, people will still continue to smoke, so Blue you have given me hope that one day my son and his girlfriend will quit too , i know they really want to, and are saving for a house, just think how much quicker that will happen if they do.

Anything that makes people quit is always a good thing in my mind, and i speak as a former smoker, having given up twenty eight years ago, and never gone back. YOU CAN DO IT and good for you no matter what the reason, you will benefit in the long run.

Yes well all of us pay taxes that we get no benefit from, but that is what living in a civilised country means, IMO, Edwina's Secretary put it well, my thoughts are along the lines of her's.

[Edwina's Secretary]

II also pay taxes that would make your head spin (has anyone ever heard of Howard County, MD?

Now I am confused. My brother keeps telling me that about Montegomery County Maryland! :D:rolleyes:;):D

[Hellow]

Gee, thanks.

[DJFyrewolf36]

I quit years ago but hubby smokes, immagine my suprise when the prices doubled overnight! I told him if he needed further convincing that quitting was a good idea this is it!

[Twisterdog]

I quit smoking on January 1st of this year, and have not had a puff since. I smoked for twenty years.

And I LOVED to smoke. LOVED it, LOVED cigarettes. :love: Smoking was one of my favorite things to do. Sad, but true. And I quit. It sounds like an old cliche, but seriously, "If I can do it, anyone can do it."

I agree with Edwina's Secretary about taxes. Other people's children will someday run this world, when we are old and feeble and helpless. Wouldn't you rather they be educated rulers?

Quitting sucks, not going to lie to you. But being a non-smoker? It's wonderful!

[blue]

Gee, thanks.

No problem.

AK has been throwing more and more money at education and it isnt helping. More money hasnt been the answer for many years now. Im glad I dont own a house in Anchorage where the property tax is only getting worse.

Raising taxes on the poor to pay for the Schip program is hypocritical, but "Its for the children" so I guess that makes it OK.:rolleyes:

This investment idea is nonsense. It is not the taxpayers responsibility to pay for after school activities for kids, at least it wasnt when was a kid. Why not give tax breaks so 1 of the parents can work part time and be home when the kids are home? My own mother as a single mom paid for after school activities for my brother and me, and she busted her a$$ to do it. I guess we no longer expect people to take care of their own anymore.

If any of you want to pay increased taxes to live in a nicer area that is your choice. I chose to live on the edge of the boondocks and pay less taxes.

I hope the new taxes cause more people to quit so this scam fails.

Going from a tax of $1.50 per pound of loose tobacco to $25 per pound is ridiculous.

[Edwina's Secretary]

.

And I LOVED to smoke. LOVED it, LOVED cigarettes. :love: Smoking was one of my favorite things to do. Sad, but true. And I quit. It sounds like an old cliche, but seriously, "If I can do it, anyone can do it."

Quitting sucks, not going to lie to you. But being a non-smoker? It's wonderful!

I just celebrated ten years tobacco-free. And it was difficult...and painful. Cigarettes were my best friends! It is something I am very, very proud to have finally done.

But being a non-smoker is the very best thing that has EVER happened to me.

However...it is just plain silly to call a tax on tobacco a tax on the poor.

Tobacco is an equal opportunity addiction!

[blue]

However...it is just plain silly to call a tax on tobacco a tax on the poor.

When the majority of smokers are poor it isnt silly.

[Edwina's Secretary]

When the majority of smokers are poor it isnt silly.

Do you have a link for that????.....:D:D:D:D

[blue]

Do you have a link for that????.....:D:D:D:D

Im sure you have one to prove me wrong so post up. :D:D:D:D

[blue]

Didnt think you could... so here is a tease.


Some policy analysts have questioned the wisdom of boosting tobacco taxes to finance health care for children. They argue that the fate of such a broad program should not depend on revenues derived from a minority of the adult population, many of whom have low incomes and are hooked on a habit. The tobacco industry is also warning that the steep increase will lead to tax evasion through old-fashioned smuggling or by Internet purchase from abroad.

Source (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29942237/page/2/).

[Pinot's Mom]

Now I am confused. My brother keeps telling me that about Montegomery County Maryland! :D:rolleyes:;):D

Montgomery County is next door - they're more on the Washington DC side of things, but yes, they have excellent schools as well. Howard and Montgomery are both very nice, but I prefer to be a little further from DC personally, as I commute to Baltimore.

No reason for confusion - they basically sit on top of each other. :)

[Laura's Babies]

My question is when they price the tobacco products so high that they price themselves right out of business... WHERE will that money come from then? What will they tax THEN? This is just the beginning, the tip of the iceberg. Will there be a fat/obese tax where you are weighed before you can buy fast food and taxed accordingly? Will there be a danger tax on ATVs, motorcycles or anything someone else deems dangerous? A tax on guns because they are dangerous and can kill? A tax on TV's, computers, and video games because they encourage people to sit inside? A unhealthy tax on foods (at the grocery store) that are not good for you? I see those all you can eat buffets going to being charged by weight of what is on your plate and you pay for each plate you fix. Once this economy stabilizes, watch how they will tax gas!!

I can see it coming, once they get use to having that money, they will not let it go and find other ways to get it. BEWARE of supporting this taxing idea, it will backfire on you someday.

[aTailOf2Kitties]

My question is when they price the tobacco products so high that they price themselves right out of business... WHERE will that money come from then? What will they tax THEN? That's easy. They'll legalize marijuana just to tax it;)

[Puckstop31]

Here is my $.50 on the tax issue.

Keep it LOCAL. If you want to live in a area with high taxes and the services they provide, do so. I know the Ellicott City, MD area myself. I have a uncle that lives there and he is VERY wealthy. You have to be to live there.

Keeping tax rates varied, depending on locale is the way, IMHO, the founders intended it to be. It provides the citizens the choice to live in an area that suits how they want to live. Plus, it is in line with the 10th Amendment.

Personally, I would MUCH prefer to live in a area with as low of taxes as possible. Just the basics is all I need/want. Roads, trash removal, public water, fire/police. I'd LOVE to not have to pay school taxes as my children are not going to public schools. I believe that educating MY children is MY responsibility, not yours or "ours". Again, this is my opinion and you all are certainly entitled to yours. So why not keep tax levels for such things at the local level and give he people their CHOICE back.

I never want to impose my way of life and views on you. So please do me favor of not suppoting laws that force your views on ME. It is what this country is supposed to be... We are promised, LIFE, LIBERTY and the PURSUIT of HAPPINESS. We are NOT promised equal results. Free people are never equal and equal people are never free.

If the Constitution does not define a power to the Federal Government, then the power to do the undefined things is given to the STATES, as per the 10th Amendment. If you want that to change, then AMEND THE CONSTITUTION. I find it quite disturbing that our previous President and our current President don't seem to care. Odd for a sitting President who was supposedly a Constitutional Professor to not pay attention to this, no?

/soap box

[Edwina's Secretary]

btw Blue...when did you become a socialist/liberal???...worrying about the poor. :D:D

Quiting smoking is difficult. But it can be done whether you are rich or poor.

Sin taxes are as old as....well sin.

[blue]

btw Blue...when did you become a socialist/liberal???...worrying about the poor. :D:D

You realy do have a sick sense of humor.

I am poor, its self interest. Less taxes means I can enjoy the things I enjoy and keep more of my money.

[lizbud]

They have banned smoking in your own car here in Indiana. In Monroe
county (Bloomington,Ind.) a proposel to ban smoking in a car with kids
under 13yrs old, passed and is now law in that county. I wouldn't have
believed it, but it happened.

http://www.wthr.com/Global/story.asp?S=7164861

[Puckstop31]

They have banned smoking in your own car here in Indiana. In Monroe
county (Bloomington,Ind.) a proposel to ban smoking in a car with kids
under 13yrs old, passed and is now law in that county. I wouldn't have
believed it, but it happened.

http://www.wthr.com/Global/story.asp?S=7164861

Yet another paper cut in the removal of individual liberty. Where will it stop? Whats next? Laws regulating what you can do in your own home?

Better yet, would you support a law banning smoking in the home?

[Laura's Babies]

Like I said, it will NOT stop with tobacco.. BEWARE of things to come!


I never want to impose my way of life and views on you. So please do me favor of not suppoting laws that force your views on ME. It is what this country is supposed to be... We are promised, LIFE, LIBERTY and the PURSUIT of HAPPINESS. We are NOT promised equal results. Free people are never equal and equal people are never free.


That is exactly what is happening and it will only get worse.

Discrimination against certian groups of people have already started and that too, will only get worse. Our freedoms are slowly being stripped away until we will have someone laways looking over our shoulders.

[pomtzu]

They have banned smoking in your own car here in Indiana. In Monroe
county (Bloomington,Ind.) a proposel to ban smoking in a car with kids
under 13yrs old, passed and is now law in that county. I wouldn't have
believed it, but it happened.

http://www.wthr.com/Global/story.asp?S=7164861

That's ludicrous! I can see banning it in public buildings as DE has - but your own car??? I know of businesses in this state that have banned smoking anywhere on their property, (even in your car in the parking lot), and an employee that was in his car, in the parking lot, before his shift even started, got written up for smoking in his car, with the threat of dismissal if it happened again.

[Pinot's Mom]

Yes, it is ludicrous to ban smoking in your car - that's just a waste of time, money and an abuse of the law enforcement system. :rolleyes: I never think anyone should smoke in the car with kids (human or fur) anyway; it's irresponsible.

Now, back to Puckstop31: Yes, I do choose where I live and I greatly appreciate the opportunity and freedom (financial and otherwise) to do so. It is therefore my choice to pay for the taxes that support the educational system so others may benefit-I believe that is a responsibility of all, to make sure the next generation is given the opportunity to be educated and cared for in the best manner possible. If I didn't feel this way, there are many other places I could live where the taxes and schools wouldn't be an issue. I have a relative that chooses to live that way; he lives in Heber, Utah, and that is just not where I want to be.

You make some fine points, and, as you said, are entitled to your opinion. I think the biggest point of difference between us is the issue of the responsibility of the education of children.

[Nomilynn]

Smoking in your car with children inside is now illegal here where I live. They have also banned smoking within 3 metres (approx. 10 feet) from any public intake into a building including patios.. so any doors, windows, apartment patios (altho I don't think that is really enforced) etc, and there is no smoking on any restaurant patio. In Vancouver, the distance is twice that.

I think this is FANTASTIC. I am not a smoker, and I am very allergic to it. It makes me incredibly ill. If someone wants to smoke, go ahead, but don't subject me to your second hand smoke because I don't want to breathe it in and get sick from it. There are dsignated smoking areas still, they are just farther away from the non-smoking public and that is a-ok with me. As for not smoking with children in the car - I think it's sad that a law needs to be passed for that, because it really should be common sense.

[Puckstop31]

Now, back to Puckstop31: Yes, I do choose where I live and I greatly appreciate the opportunity and freedom (financial and otherwise) to do so. It is therefore my choice to pay for the taxes that support the educational system so others may benefit-I believe that is a responsibility of all, to make sure the next generation is given the opportunity to be educated and cared for in the best manner possible. If I didn't feel this way, there are many other places I could live where the taxes and schools wouldn't be an issue. I have a relative that chooses to live that way; he lives in Heber, Utah, and that is just not where I want to be.

You make some fine points, and, as you said, are entitled to your opinion. I think the biggest point of difference between us is the issue of the responsibility of the education of children.

Thank you for this. I appreciate the opportunity to discuss this topic. :)

I fully understand where you are coming from when you talk about education being the community's responsibility. Not all people have the ability, time and/or money to carry out the massive task of properly educating their own children. As such, no child should be denied a proper education because of these issues. Thus while it hurts to pay those taxes at times, I do understand their purpose. Now if only that purpose was the only thing they were used for... Also, it would be better if those taxes were collected in a way, other than a school property tax, the most repressive tax we have. We never REALLY own our homes.... But I digress...

My wife and I are going to home school our child(ren). We are doing this for a lot of different reasons. The main one being the ability to customize Hannah's education to a manner that best suits her learning style, whatever that turns out to be. We are also blessed to have a very large community of homeshoolers in our area. This helps when the kids get older and get into more advanced subject matter. Several times a week, the kids are moved around to the homes of parents who are better prepared to teach the appropriate subjects. This also allows the added bonus of additional "socialization" time. (The lack of 'socialization' time being the main outcry of those opposed to homeschooling.) Another reason is we are utterly appalled at how education has become such a massive political issue. Plainly put, the Federal Government has ZERO authority to dictate to anyone how children are to be educated. This is plainly understood if you know the Constitution. The way things work today, the Federal Government holds States and local school districts hostage. You either toe the line and do it their way, or you don't get the Federal funds. Finally, for now (LOL), there is NO WAY in heck I will allow my child to be a pawn at the hands of a corrupt union that has no REAL intrest in educating our posterity. The teachers might, but the union????

There are those who would try to deny us this ability to educate our own children. They will say that we are simply trying to brainwash our children into thinking the way we do. Nothing could be further from the truth. I want our children to learn to THINK for themselves, more than anything else. Not simply to regurgitate information (often false) and pass some fake exams so that the district can keep its funding levels.

Finally, please do not misunderstand me. While I believe that the public education system is quite broken in most areas, it may not be in yours. You should be proud that you have good public schools that turn out well educated kids. It must be as my Uncle's kids grew up in the Ellicott City/Columbia area. They are all very successful and happy. But with such things come responsibility. Be wary of intrusion into it from sources outside YOUR community. (google Arne Duncan. He is President Obama's choice for Secretary of Education. This guy makes the hairs on my neck just stand straight up.)


Thanks again for the opporunity to discuss this. A breath of fresh air it is. :)

[Grace]

This has turned into a very interesting discussion. My 'child' is long gone from school; I have one grandson in college, and the other is in a magnet school that is heavy on math and science - he is thriving there.

I pay taxes to support my local schools, and have no kids there. I also support them with my physical presence. I have been a volunteer in one of the elementary schools for over 10 years. I'm so impressed with the teachers; and with the parents who also devote hours of their time to helping the kids.

Puck - may I inquire about this comment - This guy makes the hairs on my neck just stand straight up.

[joycenalex]

[QUOTE=Puckstop31;2136932]Here is my $.50 on the tax issue....
Personally, I would MUCH prefer to live in a area with as low of taxes as possible. Just the basics is all I need/want. Roads, trash removal, public water, fire/police. I'd LOVE to not have to pay school taxes as my children are not going to public schools. I believe that educating MY children is MY responsibility, not yours or "ours". ...." end quote
puck, where does the money for education for the doctor who delivers hannahs' kids come from? it comes from all of us, and it is our responsibility.

[Puckstop31]

Puck - may I inquire about this comment - This guy makes the hairs on my neck just stand straight up.

Well, for starters, he is a EXTREME anti-gun advocate. Which by itself is fine. Every person is entitled to their opinions on the subject.

(For the record, what comes next is off the top of my head, my references are not in hand right now.)

While a member of the Chicago school system, he lead a mass protest of a legal gun store. During the protest, several people, including (IIRC) Jesse Jackson and "Rev." Micheal Pfleger were arrested. Further, during this protest Mr. Duncan literally threatened the store owners LIFE. He later claimed that he did not fully understand the meaning of the term "snuff out". Not good for a "educator", would you not agree?

IF pure education was this mans goal, more power to him. But like most people of his line of thought, his goal is not to teach young people TO think. His goal is to teach young people WHAT to think.

[Puckstop31]

[QUOTE=Puckstop31;2136932]Here is my $.50 on the tax issue....
Personally, I would MUCH prefer to live in a area with as low of taxes as possible. Just the basics is all I need/want. Roads, trash removal, public water, fire/police. I'd LOVE to not have to pay school taxes as my children are not going to public schools. I believe that educating MY children is MY responsibility, not yours or "ours". ...." end quote
puck, where does the money for education for the doctor who delivers hannahs' kids come from? it comes from all of us, and it is our responsibility.

Keep reading and you will see this....


I fully understand where you are coming from when you talk about education being the community's responsibility. Not all people have the ability, time and/or money to carry out the massive task of properly educating their own children. As such, no child should be denied a proper education because of these issues. Thus while it hurts to pay those taxes at times, I do understand their purpose. "

All that said... I do not believe in the idea that "it takes a village" to raise child. You might and that is fine. I'll keep paying my taxes to support a broken system, but i'll never let any government tell me that I can't educate my own children if I choose to and do it right.

[lizbud]

Smoking in your car with children inside is now illegal here where I live. They have also banned smoking within 3 metres (approx. 10 feet) from any public intake into a building including patios.. so any doors, windows, apartment patios (altho I don't think that is really enforced) etc, and there is no smoking on any restaurant patio. In Vancouver, the distance is twice that.




They did that in Indy some years ago & I think most people accept it.
The car ban was a surprise to me. I don't think it's healthy for children
to be subject to seconhand smoke in a car or a house. I agree that
it's a shame a law was needed to do the right thing for children.

[Grace]

Well, for starters, he is a EXTREME anti-gun advocate. Which by itself is fine. Every person is entitled to their opinions on the subject.

(For the record, what comes next is off the top of my head, my references are not in hand right now.)

While a member of the Chicago school system, he lead a mass protest of a legal gun store. During the protest, several people, including (IIRC) Jesse Jackson and "Rev." Micheal Pfleger were arrested. Further, during this protest Mr. Duncan literally threatened the store owners LIFE. He later claimed that he did not fully understand the meaning of the term "snuff out". Not good for a "educator", would you not agree?

IF pure education was this mans goal, more power to him. But like most people of his line of thought, his goal is not to teach young people TO think. His goal is to teach young people WHAT to think.

So you oppose him because of his stance on guns, not his education policies?


But like most people of his line of thought, his goal is not to teach young people TO think. His goal is to teach young people WHAT to think.

Source - or is this just your own opinion based on the gun thing?

[Puckstop31]

So you oppose him because of his stance on guns, not his education policies?

Because his education policies delve deep into things other than education. He sees himself as an arbeiter of what is right "for the children." His job is to provide an education for our kids, not to impose HIS world view.

I've got more, but time is short. Din din in the over. :) I will ad some more, if you like, tomorrow.




Source - or is this just your own opinion based on the gun thing?

My own, IMHO, educated opinion. I look at his past, the things he has done in other education leadership roles and come to this opinion.


I'll toss some source at ya later if you like. But if you Google him, you will get the current administrations take on him, which of course is glowing.

[Edwina's Secretary]

I am seriously opposed to the government nosing into my home. (Assuming I do not have a meth lab going in there.:rolleyes::rolleyes:) There have been some communities that have banned smoking in homes here in California but.... those are instances of condo, rentals...places where one man's ceiling is another man's floor... It is a tough one. I can tell if someone is smoking two cars away from me. Many times I have been in my hotel room in a non-smoking hotel and I can smell that someone...somewhere in the hotel is smoking.

So, if I buy a condo...or rent an apartment. With no smoking. And someone moves in next door who smokes. Whose comforts/expectations prevail?

When we bought our house we were told the rules -- no cars on the street overnight, can only paint the house certain colors, no rvs or boats. It was our choice to buy here or not. And on the other hand -- I sure like the way the neighborhood looks and the property values stay high.

So does that infringe on someone's "right" to paint the house next door bright purple? Maybe.

But that is the problem with rights and rules - your "right" may break my "rule" and my "rule" may infringe on your "right."

[blue]

I am seriously opposed to the government nosing into my home. (Assuming I do not have a meth lab going in there.:rolleyes::rolleyes:) There have been some communities that have banned smoking in homes here in California but.... those are instances of condo, rentals...places where one man's ceiling is another man's floor... It is a tough one. I can tell if someone is smoking two cars away from me. Many times I have been in my hotel room in a non-smoking hotel and I can smell that someone...somewhere in the hotel is smoking.

I was under the impression that certain areas of Kaliforia had bans on smoking in cars due to the threat of wild fires as well.


So, if I buy a condo...or rent an apartment. With no smoking. And someone moves in next door who smokes. Whose comforts/expectations prevail?

When we bought our house we were told the rules -- no cars on the street overnight, can only paint the house certain colors, no rvs or boats. It was our choice to buy here or not. And on the other hand -- I sure like the way the neighborhood looks and the property values stay high.

So does that infringe on someone's "right" to paint the house next door bright purple? Maybe.

But that is the problem with rights and rules - your "right" may break my "rule" and my "rule" may infringe on your "right."

If you buy a house or condo in an area that has tenants you know what you can and cant do on your own property. In such a case you have voluntarily infringed on your own rights, nobody forced you into it. Your "rights" and "rules" comparison fails.

ETA: If someone moves into a nonsmoking rental and smokes inside of the unit, they are in breach of contract and in the wrong. If the rental is not specific on smoking or the renters are smoking outside, the nieghbor is SOL on comfort.

[Puckstop31]

It is a tough one.

Not really...



So, if I buy a condo...or rent an apartment. With no smoking. And someone moves in next door who smokes. Whose comforts/expectations prevail?

When we bought our house we were told the rules -- no cars on the street overnight, can only paint the house certain colors, no rvs or boats. It was our choice to buy here or not. And on the other hand -- I sure like the way the neighborhood looks and the property values stay high.

You chose to live in such a community. I am happy that you are happy with your choice.

I could never live that way. Does not make me right nor you wrong.

Re: The smoking thing. If the community rules do not prohibit smoking, the home owners expectations/confort prevails.


But that is the problem with rights and rules - your "right" may break my "rule" and my "rule" may infringe on your "right."

But only if you choose to live in a community that invokes such rules upon itself. If you want to live that way, giver. Just don't try to force other people to live the way you do. It is really, really simple.

[carole]

Blue you are gonna become a lot richer now that you have given up smoking, not only will the wealth be in the bank but in your well being as well,I hope you carry through with it and do it, no matter what the reasons are behind you choosing to give up,good for you and I have been there, done that,and it really is not that hard.,and i was a chain smoker.

[Catty1]

Ironically...any 'laws' to prevent or stop smoking will only result in defiance in many smokers themselves (addicts are notorious for being defiant!) - and I suspect many will still smoke in defiance, to maintain individuality.

Unfortunately, that's like fighting for freedom by banging yourself on the head with a hammer...it will only hurt you.

At the other extreme - if NO one smoked (very hypothetical situation) then other ways of establishing individual freedom would have to be found.

I wonder if the smoking issue and laws could be a whole red herring here...

[Twisterdog]

I've never heard of the no-smoking-in-your-car rule. I would have NOT been happy about that when I smoked, because I always smoked in my car. However, not with my child in the car with me!

As far as the injustice of telling us what we can and cannot do in our own cars ... what's the difference in a no-smoking in the car law and a seat belt law? Or a motorcycle helmet law? Or a child car-seat law?

I would guess that the money saved from not buying cigarettes is going to FAR outweigh ANY increase in taxes, hands down. Even before this latest tax increase, I was spending about $160 per month on cigarettes. That's a lot of money!

[Edwina's Secretary]

I was under the impression that certain areas of Kaliforia had bans on smoking in cars due to the threat of wild fires as well.

Where is Kaliforia????

If you buy a house or condo in an area that has tenants you know what you can and cant do on your own property. In such a case you have voluntarily infringed on your own rights, nobody forced you into it. Your "rights" and "rules" comparison fails.




The smoking or housing complex rules is just an example of rules and rights bumping up against each other.

One person's heartfelt "right" - bumps up against someone else's heartfelt "rule" all the time. It is human nature.

[blue]

The smoking or housing complex rules is just an example of rules and rights bumping up against each other.

One person's heartfelt "right" - bumps up against someone else's heartfelt "rule" all the time. It is human nature.

Fail again. If a place of residence or business has a "rule" against smoking, a smoker has no "right" to smoke there.

I have no right to smoke in your residence and you have no right to object if I smoke in mine.

Maybe you know Kalifornia better as Mexifornia?

[Grace]

Because his education policies delve deep into things other than education. He sees himself as an arbeiter of what is right "for the children." His job is to provide an education for our kids, not to impose HIS world view.
Source, please.

But if you Google him, you will get the current administrations take on him, which of course is glowing.
I didn’t. I got my information from George Will (http://www.newsweek.com/id/189237/output/print), the Pulitzer Prize-winning conservative American newspaper columnist, journalist, and author.

[RICHARD]

"I don't want the Government in MY HOUSE.....But I do want them to tell big business how to run itself.

Please,

All the whiners in this country!

A local power company wanted to run high tension wires thru a community.
The AH neighbors banded together and stopped the project.
Oh, it blocks our view, it's dangerous, electro magnetic fields.....Offer them a break in their rates for letting the lines be built and see how many of the cheap SOBs will green light the project.

All the ciggie taxes are just that, taxes.
They flow thru the bureacracy to pay for more jack holes to pass laws that cause more problems...


----------

"OPEN THE DOOR! POLICE! We know you are smoking in there!!!!"

That's a crime!:rolleyes:

[blue]

Im not the only one who uses the term "jack hole"!!!

[blue]

Collin, seriously Im sorry it has come to this. I dont expect the bad habits of others to fund my healthcare or any other expenses.

But relying on government money only makes you a slave and a slave master.

[Puckstop31]

Source, please.

I didn’t. I got my information from George Will (http://www.newsweek.com/id/189237/output/print), the Pulitzer Prize-winning conservative American newspaper columnist, journalist, and author.

Its not something you come to from just ONE source. It's a opinion developed after looking a a lot of stuff on this guy. I will get back to you one this, but I am having a crazy busy day. LOL

Actually, it goes in directions that are not part of this thread... So maybe I will post a fresh one. Because it will most likely end up with another "gun control/mind control" debate. LOL

[Grace]

Its not something you come to from just ONE source. It's a opinion developed after looking a a lot of stuff on this guy. I will get back to you one this, but I am having a crazy busy day. LOL



No need to get back with me - if you had indicated it was your opinion, I would not have responded further.

[Pinot's Mom]

My you all have been busy since yesterday! OK -


Smoking in your car with children inside is now illegal here where I live. They have also banned smoking within 3 metres (approx. 10 feet) from any public intake into a building including patios.. so any doors, windows, apartment patios (altho I don't think that is really enforced) etc, and there is no smoking on any restaurant patio. In Vancouver, the distance is twice that.

I think this is FANTASTIC. I am not a smoker, and I am very allergic to it. It makes me incredibly ill. If someone wants to smoke, go ahead, but don't subject me to your second hand smoke because I don't want to breathe it in and get sick from it. There are dsignated smoking areas still, they are just farther away from the non-smoking public and that is a-ok with me. As for not smoking with children in the car - I think it's sad that a law needs to be passed for that, because it really should be common sense.

And herein, to me, lies the basic issue with smoking bans - there are MANY of us (ex-smokers and never smokers alike) who CANNOT TOLERATE smoke, second hand, first hand, or residual, due to illness, allergies, or any other sensitivities. So, when smokers scream about their rights being violated by limiting smoking, I don't sympathize. People can die or become seriously ill from smoke (smoker included); this is more than rights being violated. However, when there is no smoking allowed, the only "right" that is violated is the "right" of freedom to make yourself and those around you ill.

That being said - smoking in your car (as long as you're alone), in your home, on your property - I don't care. They're your lungs. I know smokers; I avoid their cars & their homes (when possible). They are welcome to smoke out back at my house, but don't make me clean up after it, either! I smoked for a long time; I never inflicted my addiction on anyone else, it's just not right.

[Puckstop31]

No need to get back with me - if you had indicated it was your opinion, I would not have responded further.

Well, I want to respond further. Because you asking for a source of that opinion is a little worrisome. I mean, a guy like him would NEVER just come out and say those things. You have to do a in depth study of the MAN. Almost like doing a biography.

The historical method is a wonderful thing, it just takes time. You can see the future if you study the past.

More to come, probably. I just need to find some time. Also, no need to reply to it, just a FYI. :)

[Edwina's Secretary]

Maybe you know Kalifornia better as Mexifornia?

Aren't you the clever little racist!

[lizbud]

Well, I want to respond further. Because you asking for a source of that opinion is a little worrisome. I mean, a guy like him would NEVER just come out and say those things. You have to do a in depth study of the MAN. Almost like doing a biography.


I thought you already had done this. That's what you based your opinions
of the man on, right?

[lizbud]

Collin, seriously Im sorry it has come to this. I dont expect the bad habits of others to fund my healthcare or any other expenses.

But relying on government money only makes you a slave and a slave master.



May I assume you will never accept Medicare or Social Security ???

[sparks19]

I don't have much to add....

I smoked briefly as a teenager... VERY briefly but I've never really been a smoker.

but my parents were both smokers for years and if I recall correctly they usually paid about $5 a pack. After a while they hiked up the cost of a pack... now it's $10 a pack :O

My dad has been smoke free for 4 years I think and he has saved SOOOOOOO much money. And he smoked from the time he was about 12 and now he's 62. So if he can quit after all that time... anyone can.

[Edwina's Secretary]

May I assume you will never accept Medicare or Social Security ???

Or unemployment. Or food stamps. Or workers' comp. Or veterans benefits.

We can certainly tell he did not take advantage of public education.

He does not even know the correct names of the states!

[sparks19]

WOW :eek:

[pomtzu]

The POTUS promised he wouldnt raise taxes on the poor, news flash, most smokers and tobacco users are poor!



I just heard something on the evening news that backs this up:

34% of people with an income under $12,000 are smokers. yet only 13% of people with an income over $90,000 are smokers.

Just a little bit of useless info if anyone is interested.......:p

[Edwina's Secretary]

I just heard something on the evening news that backs this up:

34% of people with an income under $12,000 are smokers. yet only 13% of people with an income over $90,000 are smokers.

Just a little bit of useless info if anyone is interested.......:p

It would be interested to know further coorelation. Are they poor because they smoke or do they smoke because they are poor?

Is it because they cannot afford smoking cessation programs? Stress? Hopelessness?

It is a bit counter-intuitive. It is an expensive habit -- it has been for many, many years. So it would seem to be something that people who cannot afford it would not do.

Are there any other correlations that might help explain it? Education level -- anything like that?

[pomtzu]

It would be interested to know further coorelation. Are they poor because they smoke or do they smoke because they are poor?

Is it because they cannot afford smoking cessation programs? Stress? Hopelessness?

It is a bit counter-intuitive. It is an expensive habit -- it has been for many, many years. So it would seem to be something that people who cannot afford it would not do.

Are there any other correlations that might help explain it? Education level -- anything like that?

It really didn't say any more than to give the figures at the end of a discussion of the tobacco tax.
I personally think it's probably a double-edged sword: smoke/poor - poor/smoke.
And I feel that stress and hopelessness play a much bigger role than not being able to afford a cessation program. Also, most people that smoke do so because they enjoy it, and just aren't interested in quitting. Now that prices are getting out of reach for the lower income folks who do, many will do so out of necessity and not because they really want to. I doubt that you'll see much of a drastic decline in the upper income bracket folks who smoke, since money isn't as much of an issue with them. IMO of course!

[ChrisH]

They have banned smoking in your own car here in Indiana. In Monroe
county (Bloomington,Ind.) a proposel to ban smoking in a car with kids
under 13yrs old, passed and is now law in that county. I wouldn't have
believed it, but it happened.

http://www.wthr.com/Global/story.asp?S=7164861
Painter fined for smoking in van

A painter and decorator says he is "dumbfounded" after a £30 fine for smoking a cigarette in his own van. Gordon Williams, of Llanafan, Aberystwyth, says he had popped to the shops when he was pulled over by Ceredigion council officials. "I was told that because my van is my place of work I had broken the smoking laws," he said.

A council spokesman said Mr Williams had acknowledged the offence and elected to pay the fixed penalty.

"I am dumbfounded - the van is only insured for private use and to get me to and from work," added Mr Williams, from Llanafan, near Aberystwyth. "It not my place of work - I decorate houses not vans."

The grandfather decried the on-the-spot penalty as the "Big Brother state going too far". He added: "I respect anyone who chooses not to smoke, but I would also ask for the same respect to have the freedom to smoke in my own private vehicle."

Mr Williams was driving on the A487 near Aberystwyth in his unmarked blue Suzuki Carrier van when he was pulled over by council officials carrying out spot checks on the safety of vehicles.

He believes it is the first ticket of its kind handed out by the council since the smoking regulations came in last year - the fixed penalty notice was number 0001.

He was on a shopping errand to pick up teabags for his wife when he was stopped. Mr Williams added: "I take the wife shopping in the van. It is my private vehicle as well as my work van."

Mr Williams' wife Sue has already paid the fine, fearing it would increase if not settled promptly. But her husband remains defiant, and said he would be challenging the punishment. "I have appealed against this even though I initially paid the fine otherwise it would have increased to £50."

Simon Clark, the director of smoking freedom group Forest, condemned the fine as "absolutely ridiculous".He said: "It smacks of some jobsworth council official interpreting the law to the most extreme level. This surely is not what the change in the law was intended for - it was not meant to harass and persecute people going about their ordinary lives. It is ridiculous that someone should be fined for smoking in their own private vehicle away from any workplace."

A spokesman for Ceredigion council said Mr Williams's vehicle was stopped by police as part of a multi-agency operation.

"A total of 56 vehicles were stopped and inspected during the initiative and, as a result, three fixed penalty notices were issued in connection with contraventions of the smoking in smoke-free places legislation," said the spokesman. "All three fixed penalties have been paid."

"When stopped, both Mr Williams and his male passenger were found to be smoking. Based on information received from Mr Williams at the scene, fixed penalty notices were served on both persons. Both persons have now acknowledged the offences and elected to pay the fixed penalty rather than having the matter considered by the court."

The spokesman added the matter was therefore considered to be closed and no record of criminal conviction would be recorded against the individuals concerned.

A Welsh Assembly Government spokesman said: "The smoke-free regulations state that a vehicle shall be smoke-free if it is used for work by more than one person, regardless of whether they are in the vehicle at the same time, to protect everyone who uses the vehicle from the harmful effects of exposure to second-hand smoke, regardless of when they use the vehicle. Smoking is permitted in vehicles used for work purposes that are for the sole use of the driver and are not used as a workplace by anyone else, either as a driver or a passenger."

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/uk_news/wales/7524526.stm

[Catlady711]

This is just the first step, wait till you see what comes next...... http://aclu.org/pizza/images/screen.swf

[blue]

Aren't you the clever little racist!

Clever? I have my moments, if I where realy clever I would have writen the book (http://www.amazon.com/Mexifornia-Becoming-Victor-Davis-Hanson/dp/1893554732) and be a best selling author.

Racist? Hardly, unless Kalifornians are now a race of their own, but thanks for the insult.


May I assume you will never accept Medicare or Social Security ???

I dont expect either to be around in the near future, so Im planning ahead.


Or unemployment. Or food stamps. Or workers' comp. Or veterans benefits.

We can certainly tell he did not take advantage of public education.

He does not even know the correct names of the states!

I currently qualify for Food Stamps and no I am not participating, families with kids have a far greater need for the funds then I do.

Ive paid more into unemployment, and workmans comp then I have recieved back by a longshot, and they are not the same as government handouts.

To equate Veterans Benifits as a handout is an insult to every man and woman who has served the United States of America who earned those benifits by serving.

I graduated public school with honors, so again thanks for the insult.

For someone who likes to make fun of and insult others you realy dont understand sarcasm in the least.

[ChrisH]

This is just the first step, wait till you see what comes next...... http://aclu.org/pizza/images/screen.swf
Over the top maybe but, sadly, I can believe a watered down version could happen someday, maybe someday soon.

[Lady's Human]

Due to the moderators having slightly more important things to deal with at the moment, I have a request.

If you feel the need to insult, belittle or otherwise disrespect each other ,

DO IT IN PM'S

It is entirely possible to discuss politics without insults.

Try it, you might actually enjoy it.

[pomtzu]

To equate Veterans Benifits as a handout is an insult to every man and woman who has served the United States of America who earned those benifits by serving.



I'm not very often in agreement with anything that "blue" has to say, however, this is an exception. I stand behind this statement 100%!

[Puckstop31]

I'm not very often in agreement with anything that "blue" has to say, however, this is an exception. I stand behind this statement 100%!


I'll add that providing for a military is one of the very few things the Federal Government is actually allowed to do via the Constitution.

I am a combat wounded veteran. Do I personally think that entitles me to anything special? No, absolutley not. My view is that it was a PRIVILIDGE for me to serve this country that I love in the way that I was able. Sure, I have a partial hearing loss in my left ear from the service. A hand grenade explosion, being a tank crewman and LOTS of combat shooting (no ear plugs) will do that to ya. But again, I am not going to take the money I am "entitled" to because of that. I don't NEED it.

My Dad on the other hand.... He is fighting stage 3 non-hodgkins lymphoma that the VA says is the result of Agent Orange exposure from his 2 tours of duty in Vietnam. Nothing to say of the mental anguish he still quietly fights to this day. I've only seen my Dad cry ONCE in my entire life. That was at the Vietnam Veterans Memorial in DC. Don't we think he might have actually EARNED a little gratitude from our country?

So, it IS a little insulting to compare Welfare to Veterans Benefits.

[Puckstop31]

I thought you already had done this. That's what you based your opinions
of the man on, right?

Good point... :) It would be a lot of effort to show what I am talking about and the target audience would not read it all anyway.

Thanks! :)

[pomtzu]

I'll add that providing for a military is one of the very few things the Federal Government is actually allowed to do via the Constitution.

I am a combat wounded veteran. Do I personally think that entitles me to anything special? No, absolutley not. My view is that it was a PRIVILIDGE for me to serve this country that I love in the way that I was able. Sure, I have a partial hearing loss in my left ear from the service. A hand grenade explosion, being a tank crewman and LOTS of combat shooting (no ear plugs) will do that to ya. But again, I am not going to take the money I am "entitled" to because of that. I don't NEED it.

My Dad on the other hand.... He is fighting stage 3 non-hodgkins lymphoma that the VA says is the result of Agent Orange exposure from his 2 tours of duty in Vietnam. Nothing to say of the mental anguish he still quietly fights to this day. I've only seen my Dad cry ONCE in my entire life. That was at the Vietnam Veterans Memorial in DC. Don't we think he might have actually EARNED a little gratitude from our country?

So, it IS a little insulting to compare Welfare to Veterans Benefits.

Kudos to you Puck. There aren't too many folks out there that wouldn't take advantage of the benefit that they have earned in service to their country if they had the health issues that you noted. It's your prerogative to do as you see fit in this case, and if you wish to decline because you don't need the money or services, then you are among a very rare few indeed. (I would imagine anyway - no statistics to back that one up!) :eek:
But if you change your mind in the future and feel that you need the services, in no way could it ever be looked upon as a handout!

[Puckstop31]

Thanks Pomtzu. My service was, to me, just that... SERVICE.

The only VA benefits I have ever used are the GI Bill/Army College Fund and the VA home loan programs. I paid into the GI Bill, to get the benefit after I left active service. The home loan program only "gave" me about $2500 at closing. That is a one time fee that insures the loan in lieu of having to pay PMI. Saves me about $300 a month on my payment. That is more than enough for me.

[Cataholic]

So, it IS a little insulting to compare Welfare to Veterans Benefits.

How so? I am not talking about people that take advantage of either program. I am talking about the hard working individual, maybe they have worked 30 years at a low paying job, paying into the benenfit program, and all of a sudden, find them selves out of a job, unable to make ends meet. And, they apply for welfare. They are "entitled" to it, have paid for it, and "deserve" it. Does that make them less of a person, simply because they didn't serve their country?

Benefits are benefits are benefits. No one is better or worse, as a person, because of what they do for a living. And, none of this should be taken as a slight against the enlisted men and women (or former enlisted...).

[Edwina's Secretary]

I am glad to see the thick skins!

Guess it doesn't go both ways.

And...unless Alaska is different from every other state in the union - employers pay worker comp insurance and unemployment insurance. The only payroll taxes contributed to by employees are social security, medicare, and of course - income tax.

Ah Johanna! That is why you are a lawyer...you put things so much more eloquently than I!

[pomtzu]

I was not comparing apples to oranges - which is what comparing Welfare to Veterans Benefits is! I simply said that Veterans Benefits could in no way be viewed as a handout and I agreed with blue on that statement (nor is Welfare when it dispersed properly and accordingly!).
I am of the Viet Nam Era, and have seen too many lives changed forever, physically and/or mentally! The majority who served their country (and paid a great price) during this time did not do so willingly. But they put their lives on the line every day in conditions you couldn't even imagine in your worst nightmare (and too many times lost), to protect what this country is all about, just as our current military continues to do. To view any benefits that they are entitled to as a handout is obscene! IMO of course! Just remember - they died and suffered for YOU!!!

[Edwina's Secretary]

Well...in for a penny...in for a pound.

Where has anyone called veteran's benefits a handout? I don't see it. Unless...you consider receiving a public education a "handout" (and I realize some do.) That is the comparison.

Police and firefighters -- they also volunteer for a potentially dangerous public service job...and put their lives on the line every day in situations you and I cannot imagine.

The jobs with the highest on-the-job mortality in this country are timber cutters and fishers. Taxi driving is also a very dangerous profession.

But the point being made... was...if you are going to say that you will not take money from the government because that makes you "a slave" that should be any money...not just money you feel justified in taking.

[Karen]

Or unemployment. Or food stamps. Or workers' comp. Or veterans benefits.

We can certainly tell he did not take advantage of public education.

He does not even know the correct names of the states!


Well...in for a penny...in for a pound.

Where has anyone called veteran's benefits a handout? I don't see it.

Your post that I quoted just above could be seen as doing just that.

It is easy, in quickly reading posts, to jump to contusions.

Are there people who genuinely deserve Welfare, and benefit from the program? Absolutely.

Are there people who abuse the system and take advantage of Welfare? Absolutely.

As in so many situations, one cannot paint everyone with the same broad brush.

I think we can all agree the system ain't perfekt. But it is up to us, as citizens, to work to change it, not to just gripe about it and otherwise refuse to participate in the political process that can enable change.

Hate your local government? Then run for office and change it, or move somewhere else!

I pay taxes. Therefore I vote.

And in all things, folks, remember to be respectful of each other.

Sara - I knew someone who grew up, since the age of four, in Massachusetts. Attended publics schools in a town known for its good school system. Just didn't much care about any of it. As a 16-year-old, she could not accurately identify the six New England states (Psst, hint - we live in one. Hint 2 - New York isn't one of them.) Yet now that she has matured, she is a paralegal and attending law school - like many things, education only works if you try, which after high school, she decided to do.

[pomtzu]

Your post that I quoted just above could be seen as doing just that.



Precisely! Thank you!

And my post about agreeing with blue and his retort in post #68, is my view and opinion regarding Veterans Benefits. Nothing more - nothing less.

[Edwina's Secretary]

Sara - I knew someone who grew up, since the age of four, in Massachusetts. Attended publics schools in a town known for its good school system. Just didn't much care about any of it. As a 16-year-old, she could not accurately identify the six New England states (Psst, hint - we live in one. Hint 2 - New York isn't one of them.) Yet now that she has matured, she is a paralegal and attending law school - like many things, education only works if you try, which after high school, she decided to do.

All excellent points you make Karen. However, I bet even your New Englander friend knew that California is not spelled Mexifornia. Or anything CLOSE to that.

So for the record...I do not consider unemployment to be a handout...I do not consider workers' comp to be a handout...I do not consider veteran benefits to be a handout. All systems set up to protect the citizens of this country.

So do you think worker comp and unemployment are handouts?

[Karen]

All excellent points you make Karen. However, I bet even your New Englander friend knew that California is not spelled Mexifornia. Or anything CLOSE to that.

So for the record...I do not consider unemployment to be a handout...I do not consider workers' comp to be a handout...I do not consider veteran benefits to be a handout. All systems set up to protect the citizens of this country.

So do you think worker comp and unemployment are handouts?

No, I don't.

I doubt the friend I mention would have known that California is a state. She probably thought at the time at Hollywood or Los Angeles was a state, and California was something else.

Are you not familiar with the book "Mexifornia?" It was quite a sensation a couple years ago ... with a big silhouette of California on the cover.

[lizbud]

It is easy, in quickly reading posts, to jump to contusions.




Whew, let's hope we never all get trapped in a small room while
discussing opinions.:D

Sorry Karen, just kidding.:)

[Puckstop31]

How so? I am not talking about people that take advantage of either program. I am talking about the hard working individual, maybe they have worked 30 years at a low paying job, paying into the benenfit program, and all of a sudden, find them selves out of a job, unable to make ends meet. And, they apply for welfare. They are "entitled" to it, have paid for it, and "deserve" it. Does that make them less of a person, simply because they didn't serve their country?

Benefits are benefits are benefits. No one is better or worse, as a person, because of what they do for a living. And, none of this should be taken as a slight against the enlisted men and women (or former enlisted...).

I hear ya. I do. The example you provide is what the programs should be for. Limited and for extreme cases... A last resort if you will.

My work takes me to some public housing communities. The things I see there would make anybodies blood just boil. Lots of cars with "bling". Most of the residents are there, all day... hanging out and smoking. Did ALL of these people earn the right to live on our dime?

[Puckstop31]

But the point being made... was...if you are going to say that you will not take money from the government because that makes you "a slave" that should be any money...not just money you feel justified in taking.

Good point. I do understand what you are saying. It got me to thinking... LOL (Yikes)


If in the process of recieving my VA benefits, the VA decided that they could tell me how to live or what I could do to my home, I would not take it. With some programs, most noteably the recent bailouts, taking that taxpayer money makes you subject to the whims of government. So accept public benefits at your own peril I reckon.

Further, while the Libertarian in me has issues with any kind of welfare, the human being (and Christian) in me understands the need for it. But it should be in the most extreme cases and temporary. Ben Franklin said, (paraphrasing) "poverty should be uncomfortable as to motivate people to get out of it." We are good hearted people, for the most part, in this country. It is in our nature to help out those in need. That is a wonderful thing. But we should never allow people to become DEPENDANT on public programs to survive. Sadly, way too many politicians use that very dependance to their advantage to keep the dependant voting for them.

Anybody ever wonder how after having spent literally TRILLIONS of dollars on the "war on poverty", nothing has changed or even gotten worse?

This is a good discussion, for the most part. I hope we can keep looking each other in the eye, rather than down on each other.

[Edwina's Secretary]

.

Are you not familiar with the book "Mexifornia?" It was quite a sensation a couple years ago ... with a big silhouette of California on the cover.

No, I don't. As you know, I am an accidental California resident.

But I consider the intent of the poster who used that mispelling of the state to have been to make a racist statement. And not his first. And apropo of nothing. Except an intent to insult.

So Karen, what the the sensation this book created? You've got me curious. Everything I found when I googled Mexifornia is quite distasteful.

[Karen]

No, I don't. As you know, I am an accidental California resident.

But I consider the intent of the poster who used that mispelling of the state to have been to make a racist statement. And not his first. And apropo of nothing. Except an intent to insult.

So Karen, what the the sensation this book created? You've got me curious. Everything I found when I googled Mexifornia is quite distasteful.

Hmm, I think I may either have the book around in a box somewhere, or have sent it forward to Richard. It was a fairly politically inflammatory book about Hispanic immigrants - legal and otherwise - taking over California. If I remember correctly it was a "Ahhh, panic! Close the borders and make everyone speak English all the time" kind of book ... but it has been a while since I had it in my hands.

Now the term is used to kind of make fun of that attitude ...

[Edwina's Secretary]

Now the term is used to kind of make fun of that attitude ...

Really? How odd I have lived in California for 4.5 years and never heard it used -- truthfully in any way until thread.

Karen, is that what you think the poster, who alternatively spelled California as Kafornia or some such, was doing? Making fun of the hysteria over immigrants from Mexico and not a derogatory statement about Mexican immigrants?

[sparks19]

Really? How odd I have lived in California for 4.5 years and never heard it used -- truthfully in any way until thread.

Karen, is that what you think the poster, who alternatively spelled California as Kafornia or some such, was doing? Making fun of the hysteria over immigrants from Mexico and not a derogatory statement about Mexican immigrants?

Well... he DID make mention of the book so that leads me to believe he was referring to it and the hysteria.

For the record I have never heard of the book until now so I googled it... ah where would we be without google lol

[Edwina's Secretary]

Well... he DID make mention of the book so that leads me to believe he was referring to it and the hysteria.

For the record I have never heard of the book until now so I googled it... ah where would we be without google lol

Yes, I feel so much better now that I understand blue was not supporting the premise of that book but was using it this way...


Now the term is used to kind of make fun of that attitude

So...he was making fun of people who complain about too many Latin American immigrants in California.

That is what you are saying...right?

And can you help with this reference...
Kalifornians? Perhaps it is another well-known event I missed?

[sparks19]

Yes, I feel so much better now that I understand blue was not supporting the premise of that book but was using it this way...



So...he was making fun of people who complain about too many Latin American immigrants in California.

That is what you are saying...right?

And can you help with this reference...? Perhaps it is another well-known event I missed?


I don't know... perhaps he was copying richard. I don't know. I'm not into analyzing hidden meanings in posts :) I just noticed he made mention of the book so I figured that's what he was referring to.

[pomtzu]

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: ....................

Never Ending Story. I liked the movie much better! :eek:

[sparks19]

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: ....................

Never Ending Story. I liked the movie much better! :eek:

Haven't seen that movie in AGES. :eek:

[RICHARD]

DO IT IN PM'S




How ridiculous, How could I possibly PMS?:D


---------------

Let me educate (as if I could teach anyone anything!) the masses.

It Cah Lee Fuh Nee Ah, Californication or the Land of the Easily Amused.

I have a prob with all my compadres y familia que estan aqui contra las leyes.....But until I run for office, I don't hold much hope from anything getting done.


One thing that constantly amazes me is the the the desire for 'equal rights' for illegal aliens.

For some people it's a PITA and the laws need to be enforced, until you need to have your lawn pulled or some construction work done and you are too effing cheap to get a contractor.

So you drive over to Home Depot and pick up a few guys, pay them 10 bucks and hour and then panic when it comes to getting them lunch -proper etiquette deems that you serve drinks and toss out a few sandwiches- Don't do the "I'll get them some Taco Bell!" That is more insulting to us becuase we use real carne in our food....not some soy based BS that has never seen the inside of an abbatoir.


As far as the spelling of Our Great State, who really cares? We are the butt of many jokes, we have learned to roll with it. We are too busy texting and tanning.

In the last page of posts I have been named as a part to this thread.
Yeah, I'm a American of Mex descent, Yes I have had relatives who's residence here is suspect (And I say to them, get legal! You cause too many problems when the man picks you up and the family freaks out!)

As far as the Kalifornia mention-Also a movie with that brat pack actor----
Books are great! Ray Bradbury made money off of burning them and in a pinch you can use them as firestarter or Toilet paper in a pinch.:confused:

Oh, Karen.

I do have to correct you. Hollywood and Lost Angeles are states........Of mind-it's one big goofy jumble of crazy people.......:D:eek:


Now, All of you get off my cloud and let me go back to my novelas, tortillas Y carnitas.


I love you all!

[blue]

Some people use the K to reference a communist state, the Communist State of Kalifornia. The movie is pretty good as well.

For Mexifornia to be racist, Mexican, as in a resident of Mexico, would have to be a race. Have you never met a blond hair blue eyed Mexican? Next your going to tell me there are no black Mexicans. And before you try, I do not hate Mexicans or anybody else because of their country of origin.

WC and UE as stated by others are not handouts regaurdless of who, employee or the employer, pays. They are earned benifit of employment.

Back to the topic...

In an effort to fund a childrens insurance program on the backs of smokers, the children are going to be the big losers here. People are going to quit and the black market sales of tobacco products are going to jump dramaticaly, both of which will decrease tax revenue.

[Edwina's Secretary]

I read today in the new issue of TIME Magazine that the first tax on cigarettes was in 1864.

I guess we'll have to blame it on Abraham Lincoln...:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

[blue]

No. We blame the House of Congress of 1864, the POTUS dosent write tax laws.:rolleyes: Now if you can find Lincoln ran on a no new taxes campaign you might be onto something.

[blue]

Did TIME restrict their research to cigarette taxes? The first tax on tobacco was in 1794, it "was enacted, modified, suspended and repealed, with small, if any, effect upon federal revenues".

The next tax was in 1862 levied on cigars, and goes from there.

The tax increase now isnt restricted to cigarettes, its all tobacco products.

[Puckstop31]

No. We blame the House of Congress of 1864, the POTUS dosent write tax laws.:rolleyes: Now if you can find Lincoln ran on a no new taxes campaign you might be onto something.

:cool:

Nice work Dan. Magnificent use of the historical method.

<golf clap>

Not bad for somebody who did not take use of your public education. ;)

I'd think a history text is a better reference than Time. But that's just me.