FOXNews.com - Congressional Democrats Propose Cigarette Tax Hike to Pay for Children's Health Coverage - Politics | Republican Party | Democratic Party | Political Spectrum

Do you guys ever get tired of being lied to? The Democrats have their gstrings in a wad to get this expansion of health care program passed, but they're being pretty dishonest about how it will be paid for.

"Why, cigarette smokers will pay for it."

It'll take 22 million new cigarette smokers to pay for this thing. While Dirty Harry says:

Talk about a shell game. What they're telling you is that it'll basically be free because those wretched cigarette smokers will pay for it, and it will cut down on the number of wretched cigarette smokers at the same time!

The government school educated populace doesn't see the problem here because they see a new entitlement dangling in front of their face. If Dirty Harry is right, the revenue stream intended to pay for this program will continue to shrink and they won't be able to pay for it.

If he is wrong, it'll mean 22 million new smokers, most of whom are poor and minority, will be paying for it. 1/3 of adults living in poverty smoke cigarettes. 35% of people without high school education smoke. The rate at which successful and educated people smoke is lower.

This means Democrats are introducing a regressive tax. If this program is so damn vital, why don't they pay for it by taxing something everyone needs? Like water and food? In another generation, even poor people won't be dumb enough to smoke cigarettes - at least not many of them.

The plan is for them to get their hooks in, get more people dependent on the government (why buy your own health care when you can qualify for the government to pay for it) and then once the revenue stream starts to die out, they'll just yank the money from some other target like lumping even more taxes on the productive people.

Obviously ;P


I'm to lazy to struggle with this whole wall of text right now.

But isn't that about people who themselves would cost more are paying more?

I don't know much about the complete proposal of the democrats, but what's wrong about this part?

How much lower?

For one thing, it's a dwindling revenue stream. They're even selling it as having the benefit of making less people smoke, but if less people smoke, there won't be anyone to pay for the plan.

The other thing is Democrats always claim to be looking out for the common man, the poor guy, and the minority, but this tax plan is regressive and will hit those groups the hardest.

How about if cigarettes are so damn bad, make the illegal, and meanwhile, let people buy their own health care plans.

But if less people smoke, you'd have less to pay for.


less people smoke, less people get sick because of smoking, less money to pay.

21% lower. Only 12% of people with college education smoke cigarettes, and I'm sure that number is dropping quickly.

If this program is so important and they need it paid for without dipping into the deficit, why not tax something everyone consumes like water?

The health care plan in question is geared mostly towards kids - at least that's how they're selling it. Children don't generally smoke cigarettes.

Edit: Yeah, its a $35billion increase in children's health care coverage.

What if they're lying?

I mean children are good for advertising your stuff, especially in politics as you can't show tits.

I don't believe money will be checked if it comes from a smoking person and will send directly to an ill child.

It probably would be used in the same way as money from a non smoking person.

According to TFA, the beneficiaries of this measure will be children. A lower rate of smokers paying this tax only means reduced revenue for children's insurance.

Hmm aren't you all telling me people in the US are getting more stupid every day?

Yeah.

I really think this made up, so people are more in favour of the idea.

If they'd really intend to take care of which money helps this or that patient. They're going to loose so much money because of bureaucracy...

Reminds me of this thing they did in TN. There was a budget crunch. What did they start cutting? Education. They kept right on doing road construction, but all of a sudden they couldn't afford to pay the teachers. Why? Because they wanted to raise taxes, and they knew they could get the people to go for it if it was "for the children." Dirty politics. That's what this sounds like.

Dirty politicians indeed. This is why Congress has a lower approval rating than Bush.

Once they milk the smokers dry, I wonder what group they'll go after next? Probably fat people - another group that is more often poor.

Fixed.

Hell no! Smokes are already to expensive.

Sorry, but poor people tend to be fat more than successful people. In the U.S. anyway. Weird huh?


Keep that in mind the next time you hear one of these snake oil salesmen politicians tugging your heart strings about the plight of the poor. Our poor people buy cigarettes, are fat, usually own at least one car and one television.

This is JustNonsense. I want to add my 2 cents.

My Mom told me that when she was an unmarried slut, she used to go out to all the shit kickin bars in town and spend her money on booze and other types of cock-tails.

What her daddy did besides molest her was charge her rent to live in the house. His reasoning was that if she is going to spend her money on wasteful things she might as well give some to the family for the good of the household. Kinda like what those democrats are doing with the smokers...Can ya see it, can ya see it???

I wasn't disagreeing with you that they are normally poor. I was just making the point that politicians prey on the week.

Absolutely - I agree. Cigarette smokers, fat people, successful people - all of them are politically correct to hate and steal money from.