You're pretty obviously way in the black as far as the public dime goes due to the simple fact that you have been paying federal, state and possibly even local cigarette taxes for decades. Of course the hypocritical virtue signalers never account things like that. https://taxfoundation.org/how-high-are-cigarette-taxes-your-state/ Probably quite a chunk of change when compounding is applied over the years.
Yes, I know what I said. What I don't know is exactly what you take exception to, and why. Would you like to tell me why you disagree with the two statements you cite? Or would you prefer to call me a nazi bigot and leave it at that?
True. Thanks. I wasn't specific in the OP but I pay $1 a pack to support Texas schools and $1 a pack to support CHIP.... for starters.
I'm questioning your morality only in the sense that, no matter how they rationalize it, conservatives feel that fiscal responsibility prioritizes protection of our financial resources over promoting the general welfare. . . . I disagree with THAT, because withholding charity and assistance is a sin of omission.
Frankly, I don't like the government being left to promote the general welfare. Private organizations are able to do a far better job of seeing to people's needs. That's been my experience, anyway. And when the government mandates the use of my money, that use can no longer be considered charity, because I have no say in the matter. Helping is a very good thing, but having monies taken from the population in order to have specific things done in specific ways? Ways which often times end up being neither particularly efficient nor cost effective? You might think that a good thing, but me, I look at it as wasteful on a number of different levels.
If all government employees were conscientious, qualified individuals, there would be no problem. Problems in a democratic government are a reflection of problems in the populace. . . . When we are busy fighting each other, we relinquish our control of government. According to the Constitution, "promote the general welfare" is considered to be one of government's primary duties.
General Welfare doesn't mean "welfare" as in free money. It's defined here: http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2014/08/28/the-general-welfare-clause-is-not-about-writing-checks/ In short: "The phrase simply means that any tax collected must be collected to the benefit of the United States as a whole, not for partial or sectional (i.e. special) interests. The federal government may promote the general welfare, or common good, but it must do so within the scope of the powers delegated and without favoritism."
Exactly. Sorry that my previous post was muddied. Let me clarify: I am all for the government promoting the general welfare in the way in which that phrase is used within the Constitution. The government has a responsibility to see to the well being of the citizens of the country, which is the simple definition as given in the free dictionary: General Welfare. The concern of the government for the health, peace, morality, and safety of its citizens. Providing for the welfare of the general public is a basic goal of government. The preamble to the U.S. Constitution cites promotion of the general welfare as a primary reason for the creation of the Constitution. That is not the sense in which the phrase was being used by thinkitout... That is simply incorrect. The use of the term "the general welfare" is inappropriate in this context.
You denied that you were paying Medicare taxes for others and then admitted that you were paying Medicare taxes for others. Furthermore MY Medicare taxes pay for the smoking related illnesses of smokers like you!
Utter nonsense! Non smokers SUBSIDIZE the Medicare of smokers like you. That is how the system works. The healthy pay for the sick in the knowledge that if they get sick they will be covered too. No smoker is "healthy"!
That blogger is entitled to his opinion but it does not alter the FACT that the Constitution was formed with the stated intention of PROVIDING for the General Welfare of We the People.
Then your interpretation of my post was inappropriate. . . . Your response is merely a semantic deflection. My post:
Just an observation from the peanut gallery: Instead of responding to SillyAmerican's specific query, you throw mud on a large group with tens of millions. Second, a society/country that puts promoting the public welfare over protecting its resources is known as bankrupt.
I can tally what I have paid into Medicare and what Medicare has paid for my medical care for over a decade, and I have paid Medicare more than they have paid for me. You and all other non-smokers have not subsidized my Medicare one penny (so far), let alone my non-Medicare coverage which is magnitudes more than my Medicare. On the other hand, the $1 a pack tax that I pay that goes directly to the CHIP medical program directly reduces the federal tax that you have to pay for CHIP. So I am, without question, subsidizing you and all other non-smokers.
The first large-scale meta-study was done by the EPA in the 90s. It was so bad and unscientific and untruthful that it not only was thrown out by a federal district court, the judge came within a hair of holding the EPA in contempt. There have been many efforts since. One of the biggest was when the zealots tried to co-op all of the sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) -- a few thousand at the time -- on the basis that some SIDS had smokers in the house and that was close enough for their scientific inquiry. That died a quick moronic death. Other studies have been made that tried to show death or harm from second hand smoke. Some have shown correlation with harm, though none statistically significant. None have shown any deaths. As of 2015, the last I looked, there has not been one death definitely medically attributable to second hand smoke. Gut estimates have ranged as high as the hundreds to low thousand. Then the CDC comes out as a secondary advertiser and says "second hand smoke might cause as many as 50,000 deaths a year." That's the kind of hype and deliberate misleading falsehoods that would land a CPA in jail.
Oh I would love to answer this question ... you see back in The Good Old Days; old, white, Christian, registered Republican males who smoke, could just go take what they wanted and call it your Stuff. Those days are over ... if you want Stuff, you got to come get it. You see, it ain't the Good Old Days anymore ... you need to strap on a set and come get it from someone who don't take the crap anymore. Example: back in The Good Old Days; you can order someone to stand and do whatever you wanted them to do. Now a days, these same people don have to follow your orders. I can see where your anxieties are coming from ... Good Luck ... and you can alway come get your Stuff, it's right here waiting for you to come get it.
I am fully aware of the thousands of studies that attribute cigarette smoking to damn near any human ill they can think of. It used to be just lung cancer. Then radon was discovered and the radon people stole a bunch of deaths from the cigarette people so they had to find replacement. First it was heart, then the entire cardio vascular system, then the liver, then the intestine, then the esophagus and throat and they were on a roll and very giddy. Anybody can take a rough estimate, add a couple of decimal points and make it look scientific and precise. These studies are a dime a dozen and the politically correct thing to do and the herd of independent minds fall right into place. Would a researcher who wanted to improve on his theory that cigarettes were not as bad as many claim have any hope of getting a government grant? The Jon Levitt ("Yeah, that's the ticket") school of analysis is alive and cooking. Do you really think I have to fabricate numbers, or is that just answer # 279 from the liberal playbook?
Nope! That was your feeble attempt and since it contained nothing but your BIASED opinion it only "blew off" your credibility instead.
I hear they are bottom fishing for toenails now. Not disingenuous at all. Probably a little less than you get from the zealots.
I certainly DID respond DIRECTLY to the query, and furthermore, YOUR highlighted response strongly reinforces and reaffirms MY observations. . . . The PUBLIC (American citizens) is by far the most precious of our resources.
