Thank you Obama for ****ING cigar smokers and retailers

[Midnight Judges]

It isn't hard

A) Stop digging. The 1.8 trillion dollar deficit that this President and Congress have this year doesn't help

If you are in debt, you stop friggin digging. Right now, all we have is a goal of cutting the deficit in half in 4 years. That means we go from 1.8T to 900 billion in 2013! Woo-hoo.

Next I wouldn't build this

Next, I'd scrap any talk of increasing the public role in health care and well owning American companies

That whole Afghan/Pakistan/Iraq war thing. Well how about the President declare victory in Iraq and actually do as Senator Obama said, out of Iraq in 16 months. And how 'bout we not try this "surge" in Afghanistan

Oh yea, this President has spoken of entitlement reform. Lets see it brother.

And of course, lets raise them taxes on the top .5 percent, starting first with those fat cats who make 20 million dollars a film in Hollywood. I am sure the liberal actors will have no problem in paying higher taxes

First things first, stop freakin digging.

That was predictable enough. You don't have an answer. Small government blah blah. You might as well advocate taxing unicorns and crab people.

[SkinsHokieFan]

That was predictable enough. You don't have an answer. Small government blah blah. You might as well advocate taxing unicorns and crab people.

MJ's words for "I got nothing"

Peace brother

[Midnight Judges]

how about cutting spending? why is THAT never an option?

Because the population is not contracting and there is a true demand for Government services whether or not you care to admit it.

[Oldskool]

This damn thread makes me want to have a cigar.

BRB.

[skinfan133]

Because the population is not contracting and there is a true demand for Government services whether or not you care to admit it.

there may be demand, but is there truly a need? spending could be cut by half by getting rid of tons of unessential programs and departments.

dept of education, dept of homeland security. cut these two depts (one of which is unconstitutional btw) and you instanly get rid of a huge chunk of spending.

[Johnny Punani]

Taxes for those very small businesses are lower under Democrats than under your Republicans. You don't have an argument.

I don't need one because you don't have anything of substance to make a logical arguement with...

Just like being in agreement of tax increases on households making 90K a year and then in this BS comment saying taxes are lower for "very small businesses" under democrats then republicans.

Don't you get households making more then 90k would include "very small businesses" and therefore democrats would be taxing them at a higher rate then republicans? DUH!!

[Midnight Judges]

there may be demand, but is there truly a need? spending could be cut by half by getting rid of tons of unessential programs and departments.

dept of education, dept of homeland security. cut these two depts (one of which is unconstitutional btw) and you instanly get rid of a huge chunk of spending.

That just isn't realistic.

[Midnight Judges]

I don't need one because you don't have anything of substance to make a logical arguement with...

Just like being in agreement of tax increases on households making 90K a year and then in this BS comment saying taxes are lower for "very small businesses" under democrats then republicans.

Don't you get households making more then 90k would include "very small businesses" and therefore democrats would be taxing them at a higher rate then republicans? DUH!!

That depends on the definition of very small business. Can you define it?

[skinfan133]

That just isn't realistic.

these four words do not clarify your position and give me nothing to respond to.

explain.

[The Bounty Hunter #21]

I did also hear recently that a new tax on alcohol is on the way also.

[Johnny Punani]

there may be demand, but is there truly a need? spending could be cut by half by getting rid of tons of unessential programs and departments.

dept of education, dept of homeland security. cut these two depts (one of which is unconstitutional btw) and you instanly get rid of a huge chunk of spending.

Leftists believe increased government expansion and power over the people in the solution to every problem. So they would never favor decreased spending unless it was for the military.

[Midnight Judges]

these four words do not clarify your position and give me nothing to respond to.

explain.

Well, it just isn't going to happen. DHS isn't going anywhere. Obama is getting enough flak for a tiny issue like not torturing people. No politician is going to eliminate DHS. And all Presidents are politicians.

Same goes for education. Republicans might say they are against it, until angry soccor moms from their district lose federal funding for their school in a poor district that can't support itself. Again, a massively losing political proposal.

So I'm not even opposing your argument based on the fact that it ignore all that the FED does for people. I'm opposing based on the fact that it is unrealistic and isn't going to happen regardless of who is in office. Don't get me wrong, hypothetical debates are fun and stimulating. But real solutions have to be realistic.

[Johnny Punani]

That depends on the definition of very small business. Can you define it?

Can you? Nope...

Maybe that's because it doesn't exist...

http://www.sba.gov/idc/groups/public/documents/sba_homepage/guide_to_size_standards.pdf

[skinfan133]

Well, it just isn't going to happen. DHS isn't going anywhere. Obama is getting enough flak for a tiny issue like not torturing people. No politician is going to eliminate DHS. And all Presidents are politicians.

Same goes for education. Republicans might say they are against it, until angry soccor moms from their district lose federal funding for their school in a poor district that can't support itself. Again, a massively losing political proposal.

So I'm not even opposing your argument based on the fact that it ignore all that the FED does for people. I'm opposing based on the fact that it is unrealistic and isn't going to happen regardless of who is in office. Don't get me wrong, hypothetical debates are fun and stimulating. But real solutions have to be realistic.

I'll tell you what, you vote for me, I'll do it. I love this country and its ideals enough to be a one term-er who does real lasting good rather than pandering to get re-elected.

It doesn't matter if it's realistic to you or not, its the right thing to do. I'm pretty sure that to a lot of people back in the day, a bunch of backwater colonies standing up to and defeating the most powerful empire of the day was unrealistic as well

[Koolblue13]

I did also hear recently that a new tax on alcohol is on the way also.

Yep. $2 a case of beer increase is the minimal.

I thought Billion Dollar Barry was going to take from the rich, not the poor.

[ForOldDC]

Please define "upper class" for me.

Oh and there were no "Clinton-incurred" programs in place when Bush came in that had anything to do with this debt?

it's common knowledge that we achieved a multi-trillion dollar surplus under Clinton.

[illone]

Meanwhile corporations get tax breaks for shipping jobs overseas.

:hysterical:

[GoSkins561]

how about cutting spending? why is THAT never an option?

That's easy, the lower class wouldn't profit from another persons effort through free health care and handouts.

[Thiebear]

ALL items that are not life sustaining should be taxed EXACTLY the same.

Otherwise the Gov't is able to put companies in and out of business at thier whim..

Roll-your-own tobacco: $24.78 per pound (up from $1. 097)

That's insane to go from a dollar to 24$ tax per pound? You just ended easily 80% of the shops that do this business.

When they add 5$ to a 6pack of beer or 12$ to Capt Morgan's there will then be outrage. And it will be too late.

This is not a if/then... Not sending jobs overseas is not dependent on the price of a tax on a french fry.

[Burgold]

That's easy, the lower class wouldn't profit from another persons effort through free health care and handouts.

I really have no sympathy for people who whine about having to pay a tax to willingly poison themselves. You do the "crime" you pay the time. You don't light up or chew and you don't pay the tax. It's a simple enough equation.

Your smoking costs me. It raises the price of insurance for all of us. It costs me in taxes via medical and emergency fees. It becomes a permanent drain for prolonged medicare support. You want to smoke? You have that right. Don't complain about paying for it.

[twa]

Bur, where's the sin tax on refined sugar, transfats ect ?

Ya'll are costing me tax dollars.

[Stew]

Man, I wonder what a box of Opus X will lcost now...

Oh well, that may hurt, but Thanx Uncle Obama for the 8K housing tax credit i get for buying a house this year. Big ups in that dept. Seriously, that tax credit makes up for the cigar tax in my eyes.... but thats just me, a lot of you all arent first time home buyers... Obama bribed my ass good and plenty.

[Burgold]

I don't disagree with that either... and your (generically speaking) obesity is costing me money too. Get your lard butt off that chair, bike to work, and eat something green for once in your life! Gaaaah!

but mostly seriously, I don't have much sympathy for smokers who are my generation or younger. You knew going in that smoking was bad for you. You knew that it was poisoning you and had pages worth of negative health effects. You choose to poison yourself. You pay for it. Sin taxes are fine with me.

If you want to make the same argument via diabetes and heart disease with fat... I'm all for a tax surcharge at McDonalds and Taco Bell. We eventually will share in the burden of paying for you eating cheap lard laden crap.

[Stew]

I don't disagree with that either... and your (generically speaking) obesity is costing me money too. Get your lard butt off that chair, bike to work, and eat something green for once in your life! Gaaaah!

but mostly seriously, I don't have much sympathy for smokers who are my generation or younger. You knew going in that smoking was bad for you. You knew that it was poisoning you and had pages worth of negative health effects. You choose to poison yourself. You pay for it. Sin taxes are fine with me.

If you want to make the same argument via diabetes and heart disease with fat... I'm all for a tax surcharge at McDonalds and Taco Bell. We eventually will share in the burden of paying for you eating cheap lard laden crap.

I agree with this, however dont limit the Sin tax to fast food. Hostess, Little Debbie, Fruit Roll up, and the like should all be taxed as well for what they are doing to the waist lines of our youth. Also, a tax for food packaged in non bio-degradable plastic wrapping would work for me too. Was food not produced before plastic came a long?

[Burgold]

Now, your talking, Stew! I like it!

(Although, I must admit to not liking it when grocery stores want to charge me extra for the bags... then again, I don't think that fee is being used to fund plastic recycling or long term waste problems)