hey, Ms. Suek… would you mind summarizing *your* point on your links? Thanks…

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Here’s an interesting article – especially when the first link is then combined with the info in the second link…

http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2009/02/smoking-gun-caller-explains-stimulus-as.html

http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2009/02/were-up-against-decades-of-bitter.html

And heck…while we’re on it…might as well combine those two with this one in the same vein:

http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2009/02/big-dig-ulus.html

Like or Dislike: 0  0

….. gawd I’m glad you’re back, Aye. You do so make me laugh!

Like or Dislike: 0  0

@MataHarley:

Ah yes, the US Constitution.

I seem to remember that.

Such fond, pleasant memories of how things once were.

I do wonder however if anyone in the Obamanation will have the courage, the spine, the wherewithal, or dare I say it, the sheer impudence to question “The One” on this particular decision.

Or shall they continue to line up like sheep, bleating back the chant of “O-baaaa-ma O-baaaa-ma”.

We’ll see.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Thanks for the info/Constitutional reality back up, Missy.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Larry, if you increase the taxes but decrease the number of smokers without a significant demand on the increased taxes outlay for a mandated health plan, the increased taxes may indeed bring in more revenue without spending….

…for a while.

Certainly not for a long term health program who’s costs increase yearly.

Thus, that is not the case in SCHIPS. You can’t decrease the base that funds the program, fund a program who’s costs increase yearly, and expect this to work indefinitely.

INRE California specific, last I remember is Rob Reiner… one of the big players in reaping the cash for anti-smoking ads, was complaining that he was running out of cash for his cause because the ads and nanny legislation worked. There were less smokers funding his coffers, and he could make less ads.

Perhaps you’d like to give us a few more specifics about how it “worked” in California. Perhaps you’ll tell us, other than *not* funding an irate Rob Reiner on more ads for “STOP SMOKING”, how it “worked” in relation to a funded health program.

BTW, in Oregon, it never got out of the gate. They wanted to fund a health program, and the numbers didn’t add up even to those in favor it of. You see, they wanted to fund more than Rob Reiner’s ads.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

@MataHarley:

You’re right!

Pat Dollard looked it up:

http://patdollard.com/2009/02/obamas-bid-to-control-the-2010-census/

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Good idea… fund a program on smokers, then spend more money to reduce the number of smokers that will fund the program. That nonsense has failed even here in liberal Oregon, fer heavens sake!

Here in California the strategy worked brilliantly: increased government tax revenues and decreased the number of people smoking. What a deal!

What happened in Oregon, precisely? Tobacco tax legislation is always win-win. Either it increases revenues or it decreases smoking, but, actually, in every case, save for Oregon (of which I’m dubious) it does both. What a deal!

So what the heck happened in Oregon? Did the number of smokers increase and tax receipts went down? Somehow, I doubt that.

- Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Dang, ruaqtpi2… guess I forgot to use the official FA “sarcasm” icon… LOL

Nope. No “wondering” on my part. Which is why I was laughing my tail off. It was at their PR campaign to save their stupid hides. You are absolutely correct. The outrage was merely a bad partisan circus show. Perhaps it entertained many of those not in command of reality on the first “stimulus/bailout” bill. But most certainly for me, it was ironic entertainment at best.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

MataHarley,

Do you honestly wonder why the politicians were upset and surprised at not knowing where the first $350 billion TARP money went, even though these same politicians knew that there was zero accountability written into the distribution rules?

Maybe I’m just jaded, but I think the “outrage was simply a show to make the angry public believe that the pols were also upset. After a week or so of tongue lashing, Paulsen and Kashkari went back to business as usual.

I’d be more than happy to trade place with either of these two crooks. I can take a week of name-calling and inuendo in order to be able to spend $350 billion on my friends.

Until these mopes (and our “concerned congressional representatives) are able to account for how the first $350 billion was spent, they should be locked up and not allowed to go near public funds. It’s all a big con game, and we’re hopelessly screwed until we figure out how to wrestle power away from the ruling corporate elite.

Like or Dislike: 0  0