Obama Administration Just Raised Taxes--Significantly--For Millions Of Low/Middle Income Americans

A friend of mine (thanks, Mark) alerted me to this continuing blog, which has some very interesting information and food for thought.

30 Mar 2009 - 00:44	21155
Nexusofknowhere Joined: 05 Mar 2008	Tobacco users are funding the Children's Health Program. Now. I'm used to smokers being non-smokers favorite punching bag--but is this fair? He's actually raising the insanely bloated miltary budget--cutting that would be a more reasonable, across the board sharing of the financil responsibility(all taxpayers) for childeren's healthcare, for example. What about from corporate taxes, as in oil, or pharmaceutical companies ? I'm a light smoker--anywhere from 2-5 organic tobacco cigs/day. In fact, a doctor suggested it to me several years ago due to the constant fluid build-up in my upper lungs(symptomatic of the advanced chronic illness I have). Smoking helps me breathe. Now, I'm paying the equivalent of $100/year more, so I can breathe a little easier...but no health plan for me out it...I just get to pay for other people's kids. --Nexusofknowhere Federal Excise Tax Increase and Related Provisions __________________ I don't give a FUCK about a tobacco tax [which pays for children's healthcare]--xxdr_zombiexx The folks who know the truth aren't talking…The ones who don't have a clue, you can't shut them up! --Tom Waits

30 Mar 2009 - 00:56	21156
chlorocardium Joined: 05 Sep 2006	As someone with a mother battling lung cancer after a smoking career, I have little doubt that the ciggy companies are criminal for advertising the damn things. Still, its your choice. I'd say grow your own. And have you tried mullein (Verbascum thapsus)? Far milder herb, and used medicinally by a number of the indigenous of Turtle Island. "Help I'm a Scroph..." __________________ And they thought it couldn't happen here ~ Frank Zappa Will you tell us when to live, will you tell us when to die? ~ Cat Stevens Last edited by chlorocardium (30 Mar 2009 - 02:01)

30 Mar 2009 - 02:24	21157
Nexusofknowhere Joined: 05 Mar 2008	chlorocardium: I'm sorry to hear about your mother and hope she doesn't suffer too greatly...and that she has access to pain medication(if and when needed), but that's a whole other thread topic potentially. Studies I've read in the past have pointed to the (up to) 600 additives permitted--as major carcinogenic factors. Further carcinogens come from fertilizer/pesticide residue. Quantity, of course, is also a factor, even if smoking the organic tobacco(which would eliminate the first two risks). I can understand your being bothered by the advertising(which for decades has been controlled, including a health and addiction warnig)--however, the anti-smoker propoganda is equally pervasive. I'm more troubled that (in general), progressives and Dems. tend to display a Republican-like lack of compassion, towards a segment of society suffering from addiction. The vast majority of Americans are not paying a dime towards the Children's Health Plan--just those suffering from tobacco addiction. What if all the smokers quit tommorrow--would all the non-smokers step up to the plate and pay for it? The fact is, this particular segment of society is easy prey for taxation. Based on my personal example in the first post, the more common 1 pack/day smoker, is now paying $400 more per year in taxes. Why didn't alcohol get the hit? Thousands of people each year get killed by drunk drivers. What about all the industrial pollutant producers--Is second-hand smoke on par with the damage and death they cause? Unlikely, given that these days smoking is only allowed outdoors in most places. BTW, I have tried mullien and have grown it in my garden. In my case, it doesn't have the medicinal benefit that tobacco provides...but I appreciate the thought. Incidently, fresh mullien leaves were also used as a first rate toilet paper by the First Nation people and occasional hikers in the woods today. Tobacco needs proper curing(which I found out after I did grow it), making it too big a project for somebody in compromised health. __________________ I don't give a FUCK about a tobacco tax [which pays for children's healthcare]--xxdr_zombiexx The folks who know the truth aren't talking…The ones who don't have a clue, you can't shut them up! --Tom Waits

30 Mar 2009 - 04:58	21160
mewkitty Joined: 05 Sep 2006	Me, I have no medical reason... I'm just addicted, and I enjoy it. My to do list for tomorrow (Monday, 3/30) includes buying groceries- including a couple cartons of my Virginia Slims- to beat the tax increase going into effect 4/1. "Sin" taxes have done so much for the population as a whole- the Bob Devaney Center in Lincoln was built with state cigarette taxes- I'm really tired of being treated as a second class citizen. I compare it to being a leper, because that's the way I feel... one to be avoided.

30 Mar 2009 - 05:52	21161
Senior Citizen Joined: 21 Oct 2006	THE most regressive tax in U.S. history And it was passed by a Democratic President and a Democratic Congress at the same time that they were giving trillions of dollars to the richest of the rich, the wall street financiers and big bankers, and increasing the defense budget to finance wars based on lies. It isn't just cigarette taxes that have been increased--as I posted earlier, the tax on rolling tobacco has been increased by two thousand one hundred and fifty-nine percent (2,159%). There is not a single rich or middle class person in the United States who rolls their own tobacco, although many wealthy people smoke, including those who smoke expensive cigars. Some working class people roll their own cigarettes to save money, although most simply don't have the time. The tax on rolling tobacco is directed against the poorest of the poor, primarily the homeless of whom many are military veterans. They smoke to ease the stress of their lives, help cope with PTSD, and to ward off hunger pangs. I'm very fortunate. I'm not homeless any more, although I was for more than twenty years, and I was able to buy enough bulk rolling tobacco to last me a year. My freezer is now stocked with tobacco instead of food. The company I bought my rolling tobacco from is going out of business. It has been known since 1972, when it was scientifically proven by a joint Swiss-American study, that while cigarettes are harmful, they are not the cause of most lung cancers. There are ten times higher cancer rates among both smokers and nonsmokers for all types of cancers in areas where there is heavy vehicle traffic or industrial pollution, as opposed to areas that have few cars or factories. What does it mean when a Democratic President and a Democratic Congress pass the most regressive tax in U.S. history while continuing a Republican agenda of deregulation, globalization, and wars of aggression? Why are they taking from the poorest of the poor so that they can redistribute wealth to the richest of the rich? Where is the hope or change? Where is the party of the working class or the ordinary American? The Democrats have known how to fund children's health care for decades. Former Democratic Congressman Ronald V. Dellums (now Mayor of Oakland, California), introduced a single-payer health care plan in Congress every single year of his 24-year tenure. But most Democrats have taken campaign donations from the health care industry, the pharmaceutical industry, and the insurance industry, and they know that homeless people don't contribute money to their election campaigns. In order not to offend their big donors, they place the burden of health care on the poor. This isn't about whether or not you smoke or whether or not you approve of smoking. This is about taking from the poorest of the poor while giving to the richest of the rich. This is the single most regressive tax in U.S. history and it was passed by a Democratic President and a Democratic Congress. They weren't going to fund children's health care by taxing private jet planes, luxury yachts, or other obscene trappings that they and their millionaire cronies are accustomed to. After April 1st, many homeless veterans are going to find that they can no longer afford to buy an ounce of rolling tobacco. In some cities, it will actually be cheaper for them to buy a gun. If you ever have to get out of your car in an area where there are homeless people, I'd advise not having an Obama sticker or button. Homeless veterans may not have other job skills, but they know how to shoot.

30 Mar 2009 - 05:53	21162
Nexusofknowhere Joined: 05 Mar 2008	We will not raise taxes on anybody making less then $200K...unless you're one of those smoking lepers Quote mewkitty: Me, I have no medical reason... I'm just addicted, and I enjoy it. My to do list for tomorrow (Monday, 3/30) includes buying groceries- including a couple cartons of my Virginia Slims- to beat the tax increase going into effect 4/1. "Sin" taxes have done so much for the population as a whole- the Bob Devaney Center in Lincoln was built with state cigarette taxes- I'm really tired of being treated as a second class citizen. I compare it to being a leper, because that's the way I feel... one to be avoided. With the Organic American Spirit...the price already went up a couple weeks ago, in anticipation of the 4/1 date. To be fair, mewkitty, My medical reason notwithstanding, I'm habituated and I enjoy it, too. Additionally. the doctor's recommendation was "no more than 2/day" People who know me personally, and the extent of my illness, ask: "Why do you smoke and occasionally drink, with your health so compromised?" Because it gives me a few minutes of pleasure each day. There's a wierd trip about addiction in this country, that makes one feel like a leper. Hell, I've even had family members(who has observed me slowly shuffling around with a cane) call me a "drug addict" because of the doctor prescribed pain meds, which enable me to slowly shuffle around! __________________ I don't give a FUCK about a tobacco tax [which pays for children's healthcare]--xxdr_zombiexx The folks who know the truth aren't talking…The ones who don't have a clue, you can't shut them up! --Tom Waits

30 Mar 2009 - 06:00	21163
Nexusofknowhere Joined: 05 Mar 2008	Quote Senior Citizen: And it was passed by a Democratic President and a Democratic Congress at the same time that they were giving trillions of dollars to the richest of the rich, the wall street financiers and big bankers, and increasing the defense budget to finance wars based on lies. It isn't just cigarette taxes that have been increased--as I posted earlier, the tax on rolling tobacco has been increased by two thousand one hundred and fifty-nine percent (2,159%). There is not a single rich or middle class person in the United States who rolls their own tobacco, although many wealthy people smoke, including those who smoke expensive cigars. Some working class people roll their own cigarettes to save money, although most simply don't have the time. The tax on rolling tobacco is directed against the poorest of the poor, primarily the homeless of whom many are military veterans. They smoke to ease the stress of their lives, help cope with PTSD, and to ward off hunger pangs. I'm very fortunate. I'm not homeless any more, although I was for more than twenty years, and I was able to buy enough bulk rolling tobacco to last me a year. My freezer is now stocked with tobacco instead of food. The company I bought my rolling tobacco from is going out of business. It has been known since 1972, when it was scientifically proven by a joint Swiss-American study, that while cigarettes are harmful, they are not the cause of most lung cancers. There are ten times higher cancer rates among both smokers and nonsmokers for all types of cancers in areas where there is heavy vehicle traffic or industrial pollution, as opposed to areas that have few cars or factories. What does it mean when a Democratic President and a Democratic Congress pass the most regressive tax in U.S. history while continuing a Republican agenda of deregulation, globalization, and wars of aggression? Why are they taking from the poorest of the poor so that they can redistribute wealth to the richest of the rich? Where is the hope or change? Where is the party of the working class or the ordinary American? The Democrats have known how to fund children's health care for decades. Former Democratic Congressman Ronald V. Dellums (now Mayor of Oakland, California), introduced a single-payer health care plan in Congress every single year of his 24-year tenure. But most Democrats have taken campaign donations from the health care industry, the pharmaceutical industry, and the insurance industry, and they know that homeless people don't contribute money to their election campaigns. In order not to offend their big donors, they place the burden of health care on the poor. This isn't about whether or not you smoke or whether or not you approve of smoking. This is about taking from the poorest of the poor while giving to the richest of the rich. This is the single most regressive tax in U.S. history and it was passed by a Democratic President and a Democratic Congress. They weren't going to fund children's health care by taxing private jet planes, luxury yachts, or other obscene trappings that they and their millionaire cronies are accustomed to. After April 1st, many homeless veterans are going to find that they can no longer afford to buy an ounce of rolling tobacco. In some cities, it will actually be cheaper for them to buy a gun. If you ever have to get out of your car in an area where there are homeless people, I'd advise not having an Obama sticker or button. Homeless veterans may not have other job skills, but they know how to shoot. Great post...and thanks for the link. __________________ I don't give a FUCK about a tobacco tax [which pays for children's healthcare]--xxdr_zombiexx The folks who know the truth aren't talking…The ones who don't have a clue, you can't shut them up! --Tom Waits

30 Mar 2009 - 07:01	21164
MissMarple Joined: 05 Sep 2006	Over eating, eating things that are bad for you, also cause health problems. But only smoking and chewing tobacco, when done appropriately, causes health problems. Tobacco is not good for you, whether you use it by mouth or smoke, it causes a variety of health problems including asthma, several cancers, emphysema, gum disease, wrinkles, poor blood circulation, and hair loss. Even years after you stop using tobacco, you can suffer the diseases of tobacco use. It has no socially redeeming value. Alcohol, when used in moderation, is a socially significant, positive influence on people. That has been true for thousands of years. Food, when reasonably prepared and eaten, is good for people and sustains the human body. It is the failure of moderation that is the problem, not the food or alcohol itself that is the problem, unlike tobacco. There is a percentage of people who have an addictive personality, who are more likely to become addicted to tobacco and alcohol, and have a harder time quitting them. But it is the other people who do not have an addictive personality, who become addicted to tobacco, and have a hard time quitting, that is concerning. As many suspected, and now we know, tobacco companies added chemicals to make cigarettes more addicting. There is no reason to believe they have stopped. If you want a drug you have to take, like a pain medication your doctor gives you, to get into your blood stream fast, chew up the pill, if that is what it is, and distribute it around in your mouth. It will penetrate the mucous membrane and into the blood stream fast. The same is true of chewing tobacco. That is what young men are doing these days. Young men in high school and college have been conned into believing that they can avoid cancer by chewing tobacco instead of smoking it. I wish I could show each of them the picture I saw of the young man, 20 I believe, who had cancer in his jaw. They kept taking parts of his jaw and then his face until he died. He began to chew tobacco to avoid smoking. His mother wished she had realized how dangerous it was, but she didn't. Tax tobacco until nobody can afford it, or make it available by prescription only. __________________ Read your damn Constitution! How can you rely on a document you haven't read since high school?

30 Mar 2009 - 08:04

21170

Senior Citizen Joined: 21 Oct 2006

Miss Marple, before you posted your talking points, did you bother to read this paragraph in my comment: It has been known since 1972, when it was scientifically proven by a joint Swiss-American study, that while cigarettes are harmful, they are not the cause of most lung cancers. There are ten times higher cancer rates among both smokers and nonsmokers for all types of cancers in areas where there is heavy vehicle traffic or industrial pollution, as opposed to areas that have few cars or factories. There is no way that carbon monoxide can be inhaled appropriately. There is no way that the carcinogenic hydrocarbon particulates from automobile exhaust can be inhaled appropriately. Those who inhale the most vehicle exhaust in cities where the everyday air is equivalent to between one and three packs of cigarettes for nonsmokers, are toddlers and small children who are walking or being pushed in strollers right at the level of vehicle exhausts and who have the smallest lungs and are the most vulnerable. There is no appropriate way to inhale the microscopic nonbiodegradable particles that are spewed through the air in every direction from the normal wear and friction on vehicle brakes and tires. There is no way that anyone who lives near streets, roads, or freeways, can avoid inhaling carcinogenic hydrocarbon particles from vehicle exhaust. That's why there are ten times higher rates of lung cancer among both smokers and nonsmokers, along with ten times higher rates of all other types of cancer, in areas with a lot of vehicle traffic or industrial pollution than in areas without vehicle traffic or industrial pollution. Show me how anyone can inhale carbon monoxide, hydrocarbon particulates, or microscopic metal and rubber particles from vehicles "appropriately," or avoid inhaling them in any area where there are cars. There is no medicinal use for carbon monoxide, carcinogenic hydrocarbon particles, or microscopic particles of rubber and metal from cars. If your concern is about health, please explain why you do not favor taxing automobiles until nobody can afford to drive. I don't think your concern is about health at all. I think you know that it takes a certain amount of money to be able to own, lease, or make payments on, insure, fuel, and maintain an automobile, and that the poorest of the poor can't afford them. I think you want to exempt anyone who can afford a car from taxes, because they are not the poorest of the poor, and tax only the poorest of the poor, those who cannot even afford to buy cigarettes and have to roll their own, at higher rates than anyone else in America, even though smoking or not smoking doesn't change the incidence of cancer while proximity to vehicle traffic does. In Europe, where the scientific facts have not been suppressed, smokers aren't demonized the way we are here. We're not killing Iraqi babies because they smoke -- Iraqi babies don't smoke. We're killing them because we want Iraqi oil for our cars. We send our military to kill innocent people in Iraq and Afghanistan because we want oil for automobiles, and then when our troops come home wounded, crippled, with PTSD, lacking job skills, and end up homeless, we tax one of the very few comforts that they have, smoking, at a higher rate than anything else in the country by way of thanks. The most regressive tax in U.S. history, no matter how you may try to justify it, IS NOT PROGRESSIVE. Last edited by Senior Citizen (30 Mar 2009 - 11:34)

[click here to read additional comments}