5150sick
Under Ground Hustler
Staff member
VU Administrator
Senior Moderator
VU Donator
Diamond Contributor
Press Corps
Member For 5 Years
Mod Team Leader
Become a Patron!
New York Loses $400 Million After Imposing The Nation’s Highest Cigarette Tax Read more: http://d
- Thread starter 5150sick
- Start date
upstate
Member For 4 Years
Member For 3 Years
Member For 2 Years
Member For 1 Year
Member For 5 Years
You would think that they would have been smart enough to know this would happen. Soon as they hiked taxes and a pack cost $10, I started buying cigarettes at the reservation for $2 a pack. Greedy idiots.
I'm sure. They are addicted to the additives in cigarettes. They have no choice - if they are law abiding citizens that don't hit the black market or travel out of state. NY should be ashamed of themselves for taking advantage of their poor citizens.
Its just another example of how progressive government policies are repressive to the rights, freedoms, and liberties of the population. Disgusting.
Its just another example of how progressive government policies are repressive to the rights, freedoms, and liberties of the population. Disgusting.
5150sick
Under Ground Hustler
Staff member
VU Administrator
Senior Moderator
VU Donator
Diamond Contributor
Press Corps
Member For 5 Years
Mod Team Leader
It's more like they are so poor they have no car and can not travel any further than the nearest corner store.
When you are forced to blow 1/4 of your earnings on sin taxes you wouldn't be able to afford much else.
VU Math
--One full day at $8 per hour. $64 per day pre-tax. Say net is $40.
--Prices vary, but one pack of stinkies is at least $14 in NYC, after taxes.
--So if it's a pack-a-day habit, that's a third of your income right there.
They should increase the tax to offset the loss...
Well, they're already losing so much revenue with the current tax vs. black market, that's a risky proposition. Easier solution: more taxes for vaping. (Chicago comes to mind.)
5150sick
Under Ground Hustler
Staff member
VU Administrator
Senior Moderator
VU Donator
Diamond Contributor
Press Corps
Member For 5 Years
Mod Team Leader
Emanuel and de Blasio are chummy. Guaranteed this has been a topic of conversation.
They won't admit to adding an extra sin tax on vaping to make up the vanishing cig money. So they make up reasons. If you refer to the political playbook, you mention children. Always remember our precious children. Then you hammer home the shocking candy flavors of juice. These poor children will get addicted. Tax and regulate it. For the children.
Number manipulation is worth bringing up here. They do a study, word the questions carefully, juggle the findings, and all of a sudden, massive percentages of teens are getting addicted to nicotine without ever touching a cancer stick.
It's a lose-lose, for the both the voters and whoever's elected. The income disparity is crazy there, and there are so many stumbling blocks to get anything done.
A few years ago, just trying to get the cost of school-kid transportation to a more affordable level led to strikes and everyone freaking out. The city was spending almost $7,000 on each student, every year, just to bus them around. Over a billion dollars. No idea what it is now.
If you've ever followed a current-events-type pissing match, and both sides are so ridiculous you can't even take sides... that's NYC politics.
upstate
Member For 4 Years
Member For 3 Years
Member For 2 Years
Member For 1 Year
Member For 5 Years
Because they continue to vote for whoever their party supports. People don't take the time to study the issues, and they vote for the party their parents voted for. The best way to improve the present system is to have the taxpayer fund the campaign. Big money and their lobbyists need to be out of the voting process.
NY just incubates and hatches them. Many have escaped and made their way around the globe. One of the studs has a quaffed hairdo and is threatening the very existences of all the is good.
He gobbles up a political party and acts like a moron, until all his peers hate him. Then he threatenes to leave the party and go independent. Now they have to be nice to him, because if he leaves, they all lose.
That, in a nutshell, is what's wrong with the party system. It's not about who's better or what's better for voters... it's about what's good for the party.
He's got my vote whether he's in the party or not. So yeah, they'll lose. His peers(politicians) hating him is why he has my vote. Fuck 'em.
This painful 3-plus-year election cycle... if he switches, that would be the first legitimately interesting thing.
I actually find what he says much more interesting. He's a bully, like Putin. I like that. How many politicians before him lay out their "comprehensive plan" to do something, only to have the idiot representatives and congress fuck it over?
At least with him, I think he will take them to task for fucking around. This could be the best thing to happen to Washington DC since the revolution. I'd rather gamble with Trump, than I would gamble with ANY other mealy mouthed politician right now.
I prefer he stays with the R's. We're stuck with a two party system, like it or not. If he get's the nomination, it might encourage acceptance of others rather than the usual good 'ol boys. People might actually have to learn something to choose candidates in the future rather than taking what the party spoon feeds them.
They have to pay back the tobacco bonds which went into the politicians pork fund.
I was before I started my journey at GE...I was working at Alderman's Chevy as a Head Detailer and only made $9/hr. I look back on those days and wonder how I got by with 3 kids, but it was a time I started to manage my money better and then apply to many other jobs, which got me where I am today.
I pretty much agree with what you just said. I think of it like this. Maybe Trump really is doing this because he wants to do something great before he dies. He's won the game financially. He could just wrap it up, take his ball, and go home. He doesn't need any of this. The job of President is a gigantic pay cut for him, so the money isn't the reason he is running. He could spend the rest of his life on a tropical island with umbrella drinks brought to him every half hour. So why in the hell would he do this? In the back of my mind, I keep coming back to the conclusion that maybe he really does want to "fix" America. It really would be easy enough to do. Our brakes have been locked up by the progressive political machine that is destroying us from within. Obama clearly has no interest in fixing a single damn thing that would make the average American safer, more prosperous, or protect our freedoms. He is trying to set us up to fail. It is as plain as the nose on your face. Now Trump, on the other hand. "Make America Great Again". Jeesh... that sounds scary. Is it possible that his goal is to do exactly that? He's smart enough. He's dilligent enough. He does know how to lead teams of people through large, complicated projects that do get finished. Can he be doing this for the "right" reason? Maybe he wants to go down in history as a great leader that saved a great country? Why else would he do any of this?
Here's the interesting part. I was in an automotive repair facility the other day, and I heard 3 young men talking about how they had never voted before, but were registering to vote so that they could vote for Trump. Now that really suprised me because first of all, I'm in Maryland (one of the lemming capitals of the world), and second, it was one white guy and two black ones, all in their 20s. I was shocked...
I am scared to vote for anyone trying to get into office and have been since Clinton....I didnt get to vote before that and Im glad I cant be blamed for voting the half retarded agenda oriented presidents before that....I have yet to see a person I would say is good for the American freedom our country was fought and built upon run for president in the last century...
I remember when they doubled the tax on booze and beer in MD. Pissed a lot of people off, but for some reason Cisco, Thunderbird, Night Train, and MD 20/20 bum wines stayed the same price in the major cities.
We'll never know this for sure, but I wouldn't be surprised if he's just doing this to shake things up. There are times his actions seem like some giant social experiment.
Here in MN taxes go up whether we have a D or an R. It doesn't matter.
Over the last decade we've had Pawlenty; who is a quasi-progressive neocon who vowed not to raise taxes, he just raised fees (fuel, sales tax, cigarettes, licenses and vehicle registration, etc).
Then we have Dayton; who also raises taxes and pretends to be progressive, but told a group of people with cancer and other ailments remedied by m*rijuana that they'd have more luck buying it illegally on the street than of getting any help from him; which people are still doing because medical m*rijuana costs more than street m*rijuana and MN insurance companies don't cover it.
I am a fan of progress and progressive thought and politics. I will put good money on none of the fear-mongering freak show R candidates (whoever ends up getting the nomination) getting more than 30% of the vote. Progressives are going to turn out in record numbers this election cycle to do anything in their power to ensure that none of the Republicans make it to the presidency (and other elected offices).
Sent from my XT1058 using Tapatalk
Over the last decade we've had Pawlenty; who is a quasi-progressive neocon who vowed not to raise taxes, he just raised fees (fuel, sales tax, cigarettes, licenses and vehicle registration, etc).
Then we have Dayton; who also raises taxes and pretends to be progressive, but told a group of people with cancer and other ailments remedied by m*rijuana that they'd have more luck buying it illegally on the street than of getting any help from him; which people are still doing because medical m*rijuana costs more than street m*rijuana and MN insurance companies don't cover it.
I am a fan of progress and progressive thought and politics. I will put good money on none of the fear-mongering freak show R candidates (whoever ends up getting the nomination) getting more than 30% of the vote. Progressives are going to turn out in record numbers this election cycle to do anything in their power to ensure that none of the Republicans make it to the presidency (and other elected offices).
Sent from my XT1058 using Tapatalk
I've voted against people for a long time. Reagan was the last guy I voted for - twice. I was just getting out of college, and was fortunate to that I was able to ride his wave. When he took office, mortgage rates were in the double digits, jobs were hard to find, and we were getting hit hard by the utility monopolies. He busted up a lot of crony capitalism and opened up a bunch of doors for people like me. Not to mention that it just felt good hearing him on the radio. You could tell that he really was looking out for all of us. Of course, the people who's power trips he messed up have been slandering him ever since. Good thing I was there to see it, or otherwise I'd think he sucked as President. I really liked him.
"Progresive thought" means giving up your individual rights and freedoms to a government entity who in theory, knows how to make the decisions in your life better than you do. It is regressive towards the free will of the citizenry. Support for those principles is a clear indication that you do not have enough self confidence to do these things on your own. Why do you believe that you are incapable of making the decisions for yourself? There isn't any need for 90% of the government we have. The dirty little secret of "progressivism" is that it is progress BACKWARDS to the days when people were controlled by others. Sometimes it was a king, other times a dictator, sometimes a "council" but all were the inevitable result of a government that had gotten so huge, and the power amassed in a centralized location that it was easy for the taking. The end result of that kind of progress has always been bad. Why do progressives want to go back and take a 2000th try at a benevolent, all powerful government when it has failed in spectacular (and usually bloody) fashion 1999 times before? The definition of insanity.
Question: What in the hell is a neocon? I actually like the sound of it, and once the conservatives take the GOP back, I'm going to suggest that we use it as the new party name. "Republicans" sounds boring, "Neocon" is way cooler in a Matrix, hip, sorta way. Might make us more popular with the "yutes". So, back to the question. I know several hundred or more conservatives. None of them has ever said to me "I'm a Neocon" when I ask if they are a liberal. Every one says "conservative". Hell... If there is something new going on in conservatism... We wanna know about it... But from now on, I'm going to start calling myself a Neocon because it is cool. At any rate, it is a serious question. Conservatism has always been about ensuring personal freedom and liberty, personal responsibility, and the chance to sink or swim on your own, and of your own accord. These things have been the same since the beginning of time. There isn't a need to go "neo" (aside from the hip sound to it). Theses concepts and principles date back to the dawn of man.
Last edited:
Neocon. While official definitions vary a bit, I think there is a general use definition.
It's more foreign policy than domestic. The common neocon(for instance Hitlery Clinton is considered a neocon by many), shows a propensity to believe that US exert it's force, both economic and military, over other countries, governments and leaders simply because we know what's best for them. Which makes sense since neo means 'new'. Conservatives of old believed in "ensuring personal freedom and liberty, personal responsibility, and the chance to sink or swim on your own, and of your own accord"(as you put it), but also applied that to foreign policy. For instance, they would let the people of Syria decide who and what their government would be rather the "Assad must go" mantra of today's neocons that actively use US power, again both economic and military for the neocons to decide Syria's government rather than the Syrian people.
That's why, in large part, the R party has shrunk. Many would be R's that believe "ensuring personal freedom and liberty, personal responsibility, and the chance to sink or swim on your own, and of your own accord"(as you put it) can't and won't be persuaded that using force and coercion on those outside the country is a good idea. Empire building by it's nature requires a very strong and big central government and that is counter productive to liberty or conservative values. In other words, you can't have a far reaching foreign policy with a small central government and you can't have a free population with a large one. Neocons are a counter productive lot.
Today's Republicans have a serious hypocrisy issue. They abhor the thought of socialism, but insist on having a colossal US military presence policing the world; which is in and of itself socialism.
The US military IS a form of socialism; there is no way around it. Therefore Neocons are socialists and definitely in favor of "big government" especially when it comes to pretending to police the world.
What you're referring to is fascism and despotism, not socialism. Far-right dictatorships and monarchies have done exactly what you're talking about (what you're incorrectly referring to as "progressivism") and have been doing so since they have existed.
Free market capitalism has been PROVEN not to work, especially after the "great recession". OUR tax dollars were used (yours AND mine, and A LOT of them) to bail out the largest US financial institutions and the US auto industry that got in trouble because of 40 years of regressive deregulation legislation. If this was a fully free capitalist market (as Neocons want) Wall Street, the financial institutions, and the auto industry would've been SOL just like the rest of us. Instead, they got ass loads of money (618 BILLION DOLLARS) and not so much as a slap on the wrist to the execs that took advantage of the system to the point of destroying the economy. The burden of a couple dozen people's screw up was placed on the American people at a cost that can't be measured in just dollars. A complete loss of livelihood doesn't have a dollar amount, but these people didn't receive a bailout, unless unemployment extensions count as a bailout.
Progressivism isn't about taking away people's rights or liberties or making a benevolent government.
And Neocon sounds a bit like Neo-Nazi to me.
Progressives are dumber than neocons. At least the neocons have it half right.
You say free market capitalism has proven not to work and then you go on to prove that we don't have free market capitalism. You can't say it's proven to not work when it's not what we have.
What has been proven not to work is progressivism. The more progressive the country has become, the worst shape it is in. Blaming free market capitalism when we have not had it for several generations now, is silly.
What I said is that we let the market be too free and it had to be rescued by socialism.
And now the Republicans want to further decrease regulations.
Why don't we just get it over with and put an assault rifle in everyone's hands and have it out in total anarchy? That's the next step right?
Sent from my XT1058 using Tapatalk
Who told you that we let the market be too free? Who told you that it had to be rescued?
I'm afraid you don't know enough about the "market", our system, how things went down or how things work in order for me to want to continue a conversation about it. I don't have time to educate you. I would suggest you spend some time reading about these things so that you are not so easily manipulated into believing such bull.
Last edited:
Sounds good. I don't much care for Fox News anyway. I guess I've been being manipulated into believing the things that have happened to me as fact. I'll just erase 2009-2011, they were pretty crappy years anyway. There was also a college economics class as well as an American Government class in there as well that I should just forget. They didn't learn me nothin' anyway.
I don't watch FOX News. I'm not a Republican. Neither will give you a proper education. You'll have to turn off the other "news" outlets as well and pick up a book or two.
I'm not sure what you think has happened to you. If you feel like you've been punched in the head, so to speak, it would help if you took the bag off your head and look around(educate yourself) rather than leaving the bag on your head and listening to the several folks around you to decide which is doing it. Clue: It might just be all of them are responsible.
Bunk.
Capitalism on its own hasn't been around since prior to the great depression. Liberals keep putting layers of ridiculous rules in place to prevent the free exercise of true free market Capitalism. Their philosophy is not to teach underachievers to achieve, but to hold achievers back to the underachiever level. Any successful capitalist venture in the US since before the great depression is a truly amazing feat given that the system has been working against it at every turn.
Bailouts? That 618 billion dollars went straight into the pockets of the corporations and banks that have used their connections in the government to buy their very existence. As I said, prior to the depression, any person or group of people could start a bank. After 200 years of progressive government regulations, only people with connections inside of the controlling government can be in the banking business. Open your eyes, man. The more regulations that are put in place, the fewer people have the opportunity to get there. Us conservatives blew up over that bail out. They tried to stop it at every turn, but the level of panic was so high, that everyone capitulated. Here's a news flash for you. Both George Bush were lousy conservatives. We had to vote for them or get stuck with Michael Dukakis, Al Gore or John Kerry. I actually played a part in getting Bill Clinton elected. I voted Perot because Bush lied on the "no new taxes" pledge. Many of us conservatives did the same thing. We said fuck you. If you are going to be a conservative, then be a damn conservative. He wasn't, and I was left with only one choice that wasn't Bill Clinton. I, and many others did this knowing exactly what would happen. The GOP has done it again. Omnibus trillion dollar bills that nobody reads, funding baby killing (there are plenty of people that support abortions that can financially support abortion with funds from outside of the tax system - the libs lie when they say that we want to end it, we just want to end the compulsory paying for it by people who object to it - that is freedom), letting other countries' entire populations come and go as they please, and the list goes on and on. They are allowing the progressives to destroy our freedom without a fight. That is why every single establishment candidate is in the single digits in the polls right now. Translation - get conservative, or we are done with you.
Look. The Conservative philosophy is to give the power back to the people. That is about the complete opposite of what any dictator or monarch in their right mind would support. To be a dictator, a sufficient portion of the population has to buy into the need for someone to rule them, or there just wouldn't be a dictator. The citizenry themselves enforce the policies of the dictator. Definitely NOT conservative. I have no idea where you went to school, but you certainly should go apply for a refund. Right wing Neocons like myself (and all of my Neocon friends... hehe... I really like that...), absolutely disagree with the concept of a dictator or monarch on its face. We would sooner die than support a dictator, a monarch, or a homeowner's association president that wanted to take away our freedoms. Speaking of which... Homeowners Associations - absolutely a progressive liberal thang. When I hear liberals (progressives, whatever they hell you are calling yourselves this week...) talk about conservatives, I think they are reading Dr. Seuss Does Politics in Bizzaro World. You folks think that you know what we conservatives want and stand for, but you are soooo far off the mark. You have been sold such a raft of shit that you've bitten hook line and sinker. I can't believe how gullible you are. The people demonizing us, are stealing everything right out from under your noses. Throwing gay people a prize here, a minority group a prize there, another group a bonus payola program there. It goes on and on. When the hell will people wake up and smell the coffee? Corporations are the other straw man used to distract the gullible. They are evil, and must be taken down. Fine. Stop buying their shit if you don't like them, and they will go broke. Try that with your precious government. They'll just pry open your back pocket and pull out the money to reimburse you for your patriotism. Comrade.
Neo is actually just Latin for "new". It really can't or doesn't apply to conservatives. Nothing has changed. We want everyone to be free to live their lives. But freedom means free. Able to speak our minds without persecution. Able to give away what part of our income that we are able and want to give away to help others, but not until after we put food on our own family's table. We want people to be able to start a business. We want 13 year old kids to be able to take part time jobs making $5/hr during the summer sweeping floors, or helping in a workshop when they are young. Businesses shouldn't be forced to provide "living wages" for that, it just locks kids out of that sort of thing. We don't need government telling people who to hire, how much to pay them, or anything else. We need the government to educate people in high school, that minimum wage is the lowest price that someone is willing to do the job. If the job is difficult, or requires skill, DO NOT DO IT FOR A LOW WAGE, I repeat DO NOT DO IT FOR A LOW WAGE. Believe it or not, that one simple little statement is the difference between people in their 50s who clamor for a "living wage", "stick it to the man" candidate like Bernie Sanders and those who don't (which is ironic, in that the government that they love so much will eventually be the one putting the stick to them, while pointing at "the man" who will be taking the blame for the aforementioned government "sticking").
Maybe the neo-natzis would be nicer people this time around since the old concept didn't work out too well for them last time? We conservatives have a Neo we don't really need, but are willing to sell to them for a fair (after tax) price. It's gonna be a high price though. After all, we're giving up a cool name like Neocon.
Obviously...
Last edited: