« New York Times Retroactively Scrubs Story to Support ACORN | Main | Sexual Harassment Rules Employed to Silence Dissent »

Didn't Obamadinejad say in his joint session that the public option would be self-sustaining (self-funded, no outside input) and that it wouldn't be subsidized?... This goes to show that we will, in some manner, be subsidizing an insurance plan that we may not be a part of.

It's like me paying for someone else's car... oh, wait.

Foot, meet mouth. More blatant lying by Community Liar in Chief.

It's almost as though he goes out of his way to lie, CONSTANTLY. Isn't this something known as a "pathological liar?"

Alcohol is already among the most taxed of all consumables, so your attempt at levity falls flat. Humor was never the strong suit of the lunatic fringe to begin with, I suppose.

Further, I believe that you are truly grasping at straws if you think this is worthy of note. No matter who is in the White House, vice taxes are a reliable source of income. If McCain were there, he would be doing the same thing. Palin didn't rescinsd vice taxes in Alaska. In fact, every single state and every single representative, have voted in favor of vice taxes.

Who cares about soda costing a few cents more, anyway? It is not a dietary staple, is in no way a necessity to anyone, and can easily be culled from household budgets, if that extra $.60 really breaks the bank.

Is a tax on soda 'socialist'? Is it 'facist'? Is it 'just like Hitler'? Nope - This is just bitching for the sake of bitching. Which we all know is what the fringe of the GOP has devolved into, but to be so transparet about it... really?

There goes the price inelasticity of soda...

Further, I believe that you are truly grasping at straws if you think this is worthy of note. No matter who is in the White House, vice taxes are a reliable source of income. If McCain were there, he would be doing the same thing. Palin didn't rescinsd vice taxes in Alaska. In fact, every single state and every single representative, have voted in favor of vice taxes.

Just because they MAY have supported it, DOES NOT MAKE IT RIGHT. You're justifying one's behavior because someone else did it. What's next, justifying murder because RayRay down the street murdered Johnny?

We are at least consistent with our beliefs, unlike the twister left. Constantly changing to validate whatever stupid behavior they choose to embark upon.

so now soda is a "vice"? don't drink it myself, but i would assume the poor and minorities would be the "hardest-hit" on this one, does this constitute "not raising taxes on those making less than 250k"?

Seriously? Vice taxes are among the most democratic of taxes. You can avoid paying them entirely, by simply avoiding the associated vices. And the additional consequence of a healthier populace is merely an added benefit.

Unless you are an unrepentant lardass, this should strike you as an excellent idea. And the lardass people are costing us a fortune in medical costs anyway; screw 'em. Pay for your own slovenly lifestyle.

This is not rocket science. What exactly is the clever GOP plan to raise capital? (Remember, 'magic' is only a valid response to jesus-freaks. Here in 'reality' we need actual solutions to problems...)

What exactly is the clever GOP plan to raise capital?
Posted by: EpicFail at September 17, 2009 9:17 AM

easy, cut spending.

You can avoid paying them entirely, by simply avoiding the associated vices.
Posted by: EpicFail at September 17, 2009 9:17 AM

lolz, you liberals are totally retarded, let's take your hypothesis to it inevitable conclusion and everyone stops their "vices" and revenue dries up, what then? simple for you dumbasses, raise taxes on other "vices" like meat, carbon emissions, etc...

EpicFail...

I could pound down a 12-pack in a day and still hold my figure. It's a matter of personal responsibility to say in shape. You're justifying FORCED behavior under the guise of "I R THINK THIS BE VICE."

You really are bereft of any sort of intelligence.

Unless you are an unrepentant lardass, this should strike you as an excellent idea. And the lardass people are costing us a fortune in medical costs anyway; screw 'em. Pay for your own slovenly lifestyle.

Yet it is YOUR side that is justifying socialized medicine which, when you merely SCRATCH THE SURFACE, equates to me paying for you. You're consistently inconsistent with your logic.

Wow. Lots of defenders of the sugary-crap industry. "let's take your hypothesis to it inevitable conclusion and everyone stops their "vices" and revenue dries up" - people who can comfortably afford it will still purchase it. It is a luxury good, not a dietary staple. And it is freaking 60 cents. I know the majority of the lunatic-fringe are penniless hillfolk, but the few billionaires that use your ignorance as a bludgeon will still buy their Mountain Dew... and raise revenue. And the people who are fatass wastes of O2 the rest of us could be using will have to pay something to support their vices.

Whatever. None of you would recognize a reasonable idea if it kicked you in the balls.

Here's hoping Obama ignores every GOP member and rams everything he is planning down your throats. And then in a few years when we haven't reverted to some bizzare socialist distopia, you will be forced to admit that you are, at this moment, wrong about essentially everything.

people who can comfortably afford it will still purchase it. It is a luxury good, not a dietary staple. And it is freaking 60 cents.
Posted by: EpicFail at September 17, 2009 9:39 AM

you only enforce my assertion that the poor and minorities will be the "hardest-hit", so you are saying that the revenue won't be affected if a majority of soda-buyers quit? no rebuttal of our idea to "cut spending" guess that is a good idea?

Hmmmm....

What about all the people, as a result of this tax reducing soda purchases, that will lose their jobs at Coca-Cola and Pepsi?

Oh well, "screw them", huh?

Oh, they can just get high paying green jobs (whatever those are)

You have to admit "epic fail" is a perfect decription of it's ideals.

Speaking as someone in the vending machine business, this would be devastating to an already depressed business sector.

I suppose that would matter if Democratic party gave a rats arse about small business.

Cut WHAT spending, retard?

Go back in time and let the banks fail? (Oh, there's a GREAT idea...) Maybe stop with all that annoying 'infrastructure' we have in America? Or go ahead and kill of Social Security and Medicare (after all, who cares about those people? They aren't ME?) - look, whine all you want, but what we are doing now is actually for the good of america as a whole, NOT just for the jesus-freaks and the billionaires (a la W's tenure).

W's tax cuts cost a trillion dollars. The Medicare Part D costs $700 Billion. Both only affected a tiny portion of the populace. Where were you on that one, smart guy?

Lemme guess... you went to the "University of I Don't Remember" with Glen Beck. (Were the midterms hard?)

The twister left doesn't understand the inherent problem with taxes. They constrict the job market, make things COST MORE, yield (by nature) less people paying in... which in turn, forces EVEN MORE tax increases.

Taxes are inherently counterproductive because the enforce a strict system of HAVING TO INCREASE taxes continuously to fight off the loss of revenue caused by previous tax increases. It's a vast misunderstanding of how the outcome of taxes radiates through the system.

Go back in time and let the banks fail? (Oh, there's a GREAT idea...)

Equality of opportunity, not equality of outcomes.

The fundamental understanding of capitalism is that some things will fail while others succeed. To guarantee success, defeats personal determination to succeed because it will be given to them, regardless of their inclination (or lack thereof) to be a functioning member of the entire system. I thought the left was about "the collective" even though you're now arguing against the economy (which is a collective of the interests of society).

Consistently inconsistent.

Attc, epic spew obviously graduated suma cum dumbass from "Tax everyone the money will never run out State college for liberal dumbasses".

Cutting spending across the board or in specific sectors DOES NOT yield a perpetual system of having to cut spending whereas taxes contribute to the need for more taxes.

You're arguing on behalf of a system that needs to enact more expensive measures to continue, which correlates to a weaker economy (less spending).

Cut spending yields lower taxes yields more spending yields strong economy yields happy country.

the leftist has no concept of economics beyond top-down directives.

... and just in case I wasn't clear... in the above post, where it says "yields more spending," that refers to consumer spending. I know, your twister mind can't wrap around that concept. You only understand government spending which equates to the government directly controlling consumer spending which, by very definition, means YOU DONT HAVE A CHOICE, gub'mint will decide your spending habits.

That better be a joke... after all the GOP-led 'trickle-down' policies have failed a statistically-significant 100% of the time, one would think you would have learned you lesson... how many of you are actually billionaires, huh?

Ok.

I'll draw a small example:

The revenue the government needs is $20,000. There are currently 10 people paying into that system (and they all make $100,000/year) which means that each of those people are looking at paying $2,000 = 2% tax.

Now, Let's say government now needs $30,000. Now, each person would have to pay $3,000 = 3% tax.

Let's say that this 3% tax is too much for 1 of these people. Therefore, you're going to have 9 people paying a 3% tax instead of 10 people. That means that the government is only going to take in 9 * ($100,000*.03) = $27,000. That's $3,000 short. What is your idea? MORE TAXES.

Notice how this system compounds in failure? More people will duck out as taxes goes higher, thus forcing less people to pay more, which continues to need more tax hikes and the vicious cycle continues.

Therefore, you're dumb.

attc these have to be children, anyone living through the "malaise" of carter remembers what left-wing economic "policies" led to, and also how to get out of it(freidman,laffer economics and a bad-ass president).

Reaganomics tax cuts compared to Democrat alternative

"the Reagan proposal is estimated to provide an individual tax cut of significantly greater magnitude than that of the Democrats. Reagan's proposal in calendar year 1982 provides a $41.4 billion cut in individual taxes, while the Democrats have provided a $40 billion individual tax cut. In calendar year 1983, the Reagan tax cut totals $84.8 billion compared to $56 billion for the Democrats. After 1983, the gap between the Reagan and Democratic individual tax cuts continues to widen. This occurs because in 1983 Reagan has recommended an additional 10 percent proportional reduction in tax rates affecting 77 million taxpayers. The Democrats have chosen to forfeit any personal tax cuts that year. The third-year tax cut of 10 percent recommended by Reagan provides taxpayers at least $43 billion more in relief in 1984 than the Democratic alternative. In later years, the difference in the magnitude of the tax cuts will grow even larger. In reality, even the Reagan proposal is not a tax cut at all; it only offsets the tax increases due to inflation-induced tax-bracket creep expected over this period. It is estimated that the Reagan tax cut offsets 98 percent of the tax increase expected over the next four years due to inflation -- leaving the tax burden about the same that it is today.6 The Democratic alternative, however, does not even come close to offsetting the expected tax increases due to inflation, not to mention the social security tax increases expected over this period. This occurs because the Democrats have chosen not to enact a tax cut in the third year, while Reagan has recommended a 10 percent across-the-board reduction. Thus, if the Democrats' smaller tax cut is enacted, the total tax burden on the American public can' be expected to grow substantially larger over the next three years."

Tax cuts work, you're out of your league here.

The top marginal tax rate cuts that were the heart of the "trickle down" theory have resulted in 25 years of unprecedented prosperity. Even the recessions were pretty cush compared to the tail end of the seventies. Do you realize that the top (of many) marginal rate back in the 50's was NINETY PERCENT? What is the motivation to create wealth when it's confiscated like that? To create wealth inevitably creates jobs, and the wealth "trickles down". Get it? I'd call it an unqualified success.

I would hope these are mere children because I'm 22 and I'm pretty sure I have a firm grasp on how the economy works (on a broad scheme) but the intricacies are where I have little understanding.

Mr. Evilwrench.

We prefer trickle-down wealth... they prefer trickle-up poverty. World of difference.

This is exactly the reason marijuana should be decriminalized, regulated and taxed-like-crazy. The marijuana tax should then be funneled into mandatory drug rehabilitation programs. Liberals would finally be putting their vice money toward something useful.

Obama PROMISED (over and over and over and over again) not to raise taxes on anyone making less than $250K.

So - only rich people drink sodas, huh?

"Cut WHAT spending, retard?"

How about the unspent portion of the "stimulus" package...retard!

"Go back in time and let the banks fail? (Oh, there's a GREAT idea...)"

Ye, it was a great idea - the effect would have been over by now. Instead we get a prolonged recession/depression - just like withFDR!

"Maybe stop with all that annoying 'infrastructure' we have in America?"

You mean one of the few legitimate concerns of government?

"look, whine all you want, but what we are doing now is actually for the good of america as a whole, NOT just for the jesus-freaks and the billionaires (a la W's tenure)."

Forget soda - you REALLY need to cut back on the Kool-aid. You have exactly ZERO idea what you're talking about. How is this "for the good of america as a whole"?

"W's tax cuts cost a trillion dollars. The Medicare Part D costs $700 Billion. Both only affected a tiny portion of the populace. Where were you on that one, smart guy?"

Infant, tax cuts don't 'cost' anything. The only people who believe that line are those that believe the people are here to serve the government, rather than the other way 'round. Medicare part D? I'm against it. Both only affected a tiny portion? No, infant, all taxpayers got a rate cut.

As for it being a reasonable idea, let's do a thought experiment: Let's put a 10% tax on capming equipment. After all, it's a luxury good, right? Only a small percentage of the population would be affected, and they can easily avoid paying the tax by giving up camping, right?

How about a 10% tax on iPods? Another luxury item. Are you beginning to get a clue yet as to why your arguments don't fly? I can think of bad examples all day.

You really chose your screen name well, didn't you?

Bereft of intelligence and logical thought patterns are fundamental tenets of liberalism.

As long as we're taxing vices, let's tax the hell out of AZT and poppers. Make the fruits pay for their vice.

Seriously, though, we see the liberal mind at work. People are making decisions that liberals think are unsound? Why, liberals say, let's coerce them into making good decisions, i.e., the decisions liberals would make. It's for their own good, because liberals know better than the people directly involved do.

Liberals don't get the core principle of American philosophy (and conservatism): people have a right to make own decisions, regardless of whether others think they're sound or not. Even when liberals are right, and people are making stupid decisions, they have a right to make those stupid decisions. It's not anyone else's place to substitute his judgment for another's.

"Ye, it was a great idea - the effect would have been over by now"

Wow. I hope that is also a joke. If W/Obama had just let them all fail, we would be in a worldwide crisis for decades. How many companies use banks? How many individuals? (I'm going with 'all of them'...) If every major financial institution crumbles, where exactly do you see the abrupt magic recovery coming from?

I swear, the poeple on this crappy blog are just about the most short-sighted people on earth...

If W/Obama had just let them all fail, we would be in a worldwide crisis for decades.

No one really has any idea just what would have happened. That's one of the problems - we are (and have been in) uncharted territory.

So dial back the intellectual pretention. Japan failed to let its markets clear back when, and lost a generation's worth of economic growth. Is the situation similar? Yes, and no. Bottom line: no one really knows.

The CSPI is run by some busybody egghead MICHEAL JACOBSEN who thinks were too dumb to take care of ourselves and so him and his band of wheatgerm inhaling health freaks must tell us how to live TELL JACOBSEN TO PINCH HIS FINGERS IN HIS SLIDERULE AND BE GONE

It sounds like anon can't help his elitist self. You're just here to edumacate us peasants aren't you anon.

Wow. I hope that is also a joke. If W/Obama had just let them all fail, we would be in a worldwide crisis for decades. How many companies use banks? How many individuals? (I'm going with 'all of them'...) If every major financial institution crumbles, where exactly do you see the abrupt magic recovery coming from?

We would have, without doubt, entered a depression had we allowed major financial institutions to fail. Instead, we have propped up zombie banks, transferred toxic debt to the Fed's balance sheet, and literally printed hundreds of billions of dollars intended to ease liquidity and jump-start lending. And now, we see that deflationary pressures are still acting, the bad debt is still on the books (albeit different books now) and we're still allowing insolvent institutions to exist. In short, we've made things worse and ensured that we emerge from the still-coming depression in a monetary crisis that's certain to result in hyper-inflation, assuming we don't nationally default before then.

If you don't let those making bad decisions suffer the repercussions, and instead penalize those who make good decisions by forcing them to prop up the idiots, you *gasp* encourage the very irresponsible behavior you're trying to mitigate the effects of.

We were faced with a deflationary crisis (depression) to begin with. We chose to make the slide as long and painful as possible before we get there. We can thank Bush for starting it, and Obama for picking up the speed.

the way these tards simplify things says a lot about their "education level", you assume the worst-case scenario and that the ONLY solution is government intervention, when in truth the government caused the majority of the troubles and if left to their own devices these institutions would have had to make the tough decisions immediately and yes people would suffer in the "short-term" but be on a sounder footing over the "long-term".

The aptly- named EpicFail seems to epitomize the far- left trolls:
1. Portrays those who disagree with him as stupid.
2. Portrays those who would oppose this policy as disgusting, morbidly- obese hillbillies.
3. Feels the need to express his hatred of the Christian faith (Which has nothing to do with the issue at hand) by calling us "jesus-freaks."
4. Believes the government has the duty to impose oppressive taxes on people to try and force them to make what he (The liberal troll) believes would be good decisions, rather than giving them a choice in the matter.
5. Expresses a trademark hatred of mean old billionaire boogeymen.
6. Derides trickle- down economics as supposedly not working, even though, as we all showed here, it DOES work. I myself experienced the negative side of it (Taxing the hell out of the wealthy inevitably causes the poor workers to suffer) firsthand a year ago, when I lost my job at the small hardware store I worked at due to budget cuts, at least one other coworker also got laid off, and the employees who stayed on all had their hours cut. However, these realities are apparently too much for the ultra- liberals to grasp.

Bone smuggling homos are costing a fortune in medical expenses due to rampant HIV infections. All those drugs they use to keep themselves alive and spreading AIDS aint cheap.

"W's tax cuts cost a trillion dollars."
Posted by: EpicFail at September 17, 2009 9:55 AM

Explain how tax cuts cost money. Unless you're talking about money that Fedzilla was deprived of, that statement makes no sense. Even if you are referring to money that Fedzilla was deprived of, why on Earth should we feel bad about that? I sense that you think Fedzilla is entitled to OUR money, and we shouldn't object to their mandated thievery.

I ask those of you who are in favor of adding additional vice taxes to 1) Soda 2) Tobacco 3) Alcohol. Which is it, to A) Raise revenue or B) Improve ones health. It can't be both. The latest one dollar per pack tax increase has caused revenue to drop 25% and I know damn well the number of people required to stop buy the product haven't done so. They merely find another source. As was with prohibition back in the day did not stop people from buying and consuming illegal alcohol. This topic has been kicked around for decades and the tax and spenders still don't get it.
I trust you get my drift.

"Even when liberals are right, and people are making stupid decisions, they have a right to make those stupid decisions. It's not anyone else's place to substitute his judgment for another's."

Fine by me. Eliminate the government entirely. No taxes. Build your own roads. Don't regulate anything at all, and let markets crash constantly. So.... Utter anarchy is your answer?

Sometimes, the smart people are smart. Guess what? EVEN IF YOU DON'T WANT TO DO WHAT IS BEST, WE ALL LIVE IN SOCIETY TOGETHER. Thus, if your 'choices' negatively affect other people, you must be coerced into doing what is good for everyone. Reducto ad absurdum: If we all thought like you, there would be no society at all.

That 'me first, me second, me third, and fuck everybody that isn't me' thinking is NOT a viable way to run a society. I am well aware that you do not understand that, but the failing is between your keyboard and your chair, not with our willingness to embrace the fact that in society, some people are not equipped to take care of themselves.

Would I love it if we eliminated every 'nanny state' rule on the books? Of course I would... but that is the stupid, selfish part of me. We live in a society. There must be something in place to maintain that society.

Refuter -

Do you have any idea how a "budget" works? America is spending $X on things like a pointless war in Iraq, and those things cost money.

W took what would have been a source of money to PAY THOSE BILLS, and removed it. There was no measurable benefit to anyone not already a billionaire or a multinational corporation... which are you that you are so up in arms defending what was, in hindsight, a stupid, shortsighted way to earn campaign cash?

some people are not equipped to take care of themselves.

Nanny states needlessly hinder those who can take care of themselves (majority) and lowers their choice level to the lowest denominator (minority, those who "can't" take care of themselves)...

You're advocating mediocrity which goes against human nature. Ipso facto, you're attempting to undermine nature.

Am I supposed to believe, that had there been no war in Iraq, you moonbat Statists would have been fine with the Bush Tax cuts? LIKE HELL. Just admit it, you don't consider it OUR money. You think Fedzilla is entitled to it.

Good point ATC, 's kinda funny we made it this far without this much 'help' isn't it?

They may use the worlds PUBLIC INTEREST but its only their own interets they have

Fine by me. Eliminate the government entirely. No taxes. Build your own roads. Don't regulate anything at all, and let markets crash constantly. So.... Utter anarchy is your answer?

What an incredible, almost textbook example of the "strawman fallacy."

some people are not equipped to take care of themselves

Yes, they're called "liberals".

I know how I'm going to make my first million if this passes--bootleg soda pop!

Fine by me. Eliminate the government entirely. No taxes. Build your own roads. Don't regulate anything at all, and let markets crash constantly. So.... Utter anarchy is your answer?

Ref, stop the fight! That straw man is down for the count!

Seriously, stop being so childish. You jump from wanting to regulate what people eat to not building roads?

Sometimes, the smart people are smart.

And sometimes they're not. And sometimes smart people disagree. Again, stop being so sophomoric. Ever attend a faculty meeting? As a retired academic, I have – more than I care to remember. A whole room full of smart people who cannot agree on what day of the week it is.

Thus, if your 'choices' negatively affect other people, you must be coerced into doing what is good for everyone.

You're beginning to think here. Under what circumstances is it legitimate to coerce others' behavior for the good of others? There is a balance to be struck. People want to rob, kill, and rape others? Nope – we will coerce them into not doing that. We fully agree there. People want to drink soda pop, or eat trans fats? I don't see how that negatively affects anyone else, and therefore oppose coercion.

Also, bear in mind that people are herd animals, and prone to fads and misconceptions. At one time, cigarette smoking was thought to be especially healthful. IQ tests indicated that northern Europeans were brighter than southern Europeans, and the average black scored as borderline retarded. Progressives – as they called themselves then, as now – promulgated efforts to discourage these mental defectives from entering the country (immigration laws) and/or reproducing (the origins of Planned Parenthood). Progressives strongly promoted eugenics, including sterilizing mental defectives, "for the good of everyone." No prizes for guessing who was a great admirer of the progressive movement, or why the word "progressive" was a dirty one until recently revived.

some people are not equipped to take care of themselves.

Granted. That's why we have institutions to care for the feeble-minded. Anyone who is allowed to vote is presumed to be capable of taking care of himself, and conversely, anyone who cannot take care of himself should not be allowed to vote. Agreed?

"A democracy ... can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largess of the public treasury. From that time on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the results that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship"

-- Sir Alex Fraser Tytler

Liberalism at work.

Who cares about soda costing a few cents more, anyway?

More moonbat math, wherein 67 and 144, 50% increases mind you, are "a few cents." I wonder, did we only spend "a little" on the stimulus and only "a couple" people were killed at Auschwitz too?

It is not a dietary staple, is in no way a necessity to anyone, and can easily be culled from household budgets, if that extra $.60 really breaks the bank.

1. I guess nobody drinks more than a a bottle of soda a year? I guess moonbat math doesn't have advanced concepts like "multiplication."

2. This is beside the point. First of all, if the moonbats weren't trying to ram mandatory goverment insurance down our throats, there would be no reason to worry about unhealthy habits. Secondly, who the hell are you to take even more of the money I earn and squander it on the worthless?

Good point, Anon. In absolute terms, per can, the difference does amount to cents. But let gasoline increase in price by the same proportion, and liberals howl about "windfall profits," despite the cost of petroleum being simply a matter of supply and demand.

Another perspective is that these types of things aren't really designed to promote health, but rather to raise revenue. Many people think that about red-light cameras, for instance.

I guess with the soda being priced so dear, Ill have stronger Bourbon/Rum and coke. Even though its a sacrifice I'm willing to make, I turn on liberal trolls when I'm drunk.
Just something to think about,troll.