What is Digg?259 Comments
- carpespasm, on 10/11/2007, -13/+107WON'T SOMEONE PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN!?!
- Ajajadude, on 10/11/2007, -8/+84Leaving no child behind...let 'em all fend for themselves!
- tehbishop, on 10/11/2007, -5/+74But on the other hand, Bush is quick to want to fund the war for hundreds of billions at the same time. Who knew?
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -1/+64Instead of raising taxes all the time, maybe the government should quit spending money somewhere else. Wow, what a concept.
- dukeeeey, on 10/11/2007, -7/+32There is plenty of tax money. The government is lying about how much money they are taking from the people. I suggest you see this ..
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5823209513192072459&q=alex+jones+comprehensive+annual+financial+reports+exposed&total=26&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=1 - EarlOfLade, on 10/11/2007, -18/+41As long as it doesn't cost money, they think about the children.
Americans are the most egocentric and selfish bunch of people you can find. Universal health Care? Hell no? It cost me money and I;m not sick.. blablah blah. Well, you pay a ***** to the military and you get nothing back, but I don't hear Americans complain about all the taxes that goes to the military.
You are a bunch of selfish hypocrites. - spinchange, on 10/11/2007, -1/+22"In addition, Mr. Fratto said, the Senate plan does not include any of Mr. Bush’s proposals to change the tax treatment of health insurance, in an effort to make it more affordable for millions of Americans."
That's becuase proposals to change the taxable treatment of insurance costs are TAX proposals, not HEALTHCARE ones, Mr. Fratto - miriclaire, on 10/11/2007, -1/+20Like the WAR!
- MatttK, on 10/11/2007, -16/+34This bill seems win-win. 1. Increase taxes on cigarettes, which encourages smokes to quit, increasing their health and the health of the overall population. 2. Give better insurance to children. gg George Bush
- badfrog, on 10/11/2007, -12/+28It's attitudes like that bringing us closer to the nanny states of America. Tax things you don't like to get people to act a certain way. Next up, twinkie taxes and red meat taxes, and bigger government. Joy.
- cobrabyte, on 10/11/2007, -4/+19Won't someone please think of my cigars!?!
- shawnbttu, on 10/11/2007, -1/+15Bush is like some sort of evil genius minus the genius part
- zeblith, on 10/11/2007, -2/+16Maybe in a land of unicorns and faeries your #1 could happen, but back here in reality it just widens the economic divide. People don't quit smoking if they can't afford it, they give up other things instead. It's addiction, which, if you haven't noticed, is how the tobacco industry holds on to as many customers as it does.
- rnwen2750, on 10/11/2007, -7/+21And why shouldn't tobacco be taxed? Alcohol is taxed, gas is taxed, almost everything is taxed.
- brhoades, on 10/11/2007, -7/+18your choice to smoke cheaply supersedes a child's to have proper healthcare? how can a child not necessarily need insurance? that's ridiculous.
- nwoantibody, on 10/11/2007, -1/+12i did, even before you elected him
i mean... what else can u expect from a cokehead - EarlOfLade, on 10/11/2007, -0/+10Nope. I work from home, I have an old car that I use maybe once a week.
- epgyd, on 10/11/2007, -4/+13"All it does is degrade your health and the health of all the second hand smokers you expose your smoking to."
First of all, you're implying that all smokers expose people to second-hand smoke, so should be fined pre-emptively. Second of all, you're attempting to regulate human behavior through the belief that people should be fined for what they wish to do with their bodies. Finally, you have the audacity to say that private transactions partially belong to whatever random government program the excise taxes are funding at the moment. - dboone74, on 10/11/2007, -3/+12Not to mention the fact that changing the tax treatment of health insurance will mostly help those that already have health insurance, not the uninsured. This administration is so out of touch with reality.
- Andrej73, on 10/11/2007, -14/+22Bush KILL babies!!!
- fantasticFlan, on 10/11/2007, -1/+9How are 2 all beef patties a Big Mac?
- MatttK, on 10/11/2007, -12/+20Tobacco should be taxed. There's no benefit to smoking. All it does is degrade your health and the health of all the second hand smokers you expose your smoking to. You do have a choice: quit smoking and you won't have to pay for their insurance anymore (if this bill were to be law).
- galael, on 10/11/2007, -1/+9Why do Conservatives seem to care so much about children before they're born, but not give a rat's ass about them afterwards?
- PopcornDave, on 10/11/2007, -2/+10Gas taxes are supposed to maintain roads. I'm unclear on why alcohol is taxed, because I don't see it going to treat alcoholism. If you want to tax tobacco put it towards tobacco health related problems.
In other words, don't ***** me by taxing me for something and tossing the money elsewhere. Rob Reiner wanted to raise tobacco taxes in California to pay for preschool but thank god that got voted down. Why should smokers pay for preschool? Besides that, when people stop smoking, all that money is lost, so the powers that be is going to have to find it elsewhere. No government institution ever likes to spend less money. - adarkmethod, on 10/11/2007, -2/+10How many of you have actually read the Bill in question? do you now the burden it will place on the country financially? Do you know how far we're aleady past bankruptcy as a country? I'm all for a better health care system, its a joke as it currently stands, but just tossing out random bills that help certain people is far from a real solution
- Vicissidude, on 10/11/2007, -1/+9In 2001, there wasn't any extra money available in the budget for a war. But then, someone somewhere found enough money for TWO wars AND cutting taxes!
- Pake, on 10/11/2007, -4/+12How can they justify the spending of $8,500+ for one child a year, when the cost for a family of four is anywhere between $6,500 and $10,000...
Sounds like someone is looking to use the "Will someone think of the children?!" plea to pocket some extra change themselves. - detokaal, on 10/11/2007, -4/+11Tell their parents to stay in school, stay married, marry the kid's mother, get a job and cancel their cellphone, cable TV, broadband internet, new car payments and $300 Nikes. Amazing how this might free up a few bucks for catastrophic health insurance for $95/month.
- spinchange, on 10/11/2007, -2/+9the children just need another tax cut.
- epgyd, on 10/11/2007, -0/+7Uh, you're taxing the addicts just as much as the industry itself.
- endgame, on 10/11/2007, -1/+8I say ***** THE CHILDREN! -George Carlin
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6If #1 actually works, then there won't be any money for #2.
- Pake, on 10/11/2007, -3/+9So apparently it cost $8,500+ to insure one kid this way, while the cost for a family of four is $11,500 and for a single person is $4,500 a year. Someone explain how the congress comes up with their math, because my numbers are being extremely generous when in fact the averages for a family of four and a single person are lower. Even if this was for an entire family, that would only be the cost of a family in the top four most expensive states.
- JaybeasCorpus, on 10/11/2007, -5/+11I dunno, I see the name "Alex Jones" associated with anything, and I immediately question its credibility.
- iamcool, on 10/11/2007, -2/+7Here is a concept. If you have children, you need to pay for them.
Though I don't smoke I don't feel anyone should have to pay for other peoples children. We already pay taxes which funds public schools, not to mention having children are a tax write off on exemptions. Essentially, I pay more taxes than the next guy simply because he decided to have children, then I get to pay for his child to go to school. This doesn't include federal funding for child support services.
If you have children. You need to pay for them! - Derrekito, on 10/11/2007, -1/+6BUG ME NOT MOFO!
- D2daizon, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5Ironically, the State of Michigan regularly increases the cost of cigarettes and booze to cover some type of social program (typically the state Medicaid system) they always end up missing the amount of money they want from the tax because the price increase reduces the amount of smokers and drinkers. So they always have to make up the cost from the general fund. Which takes money away from everything else. It's a ***** circle and both political parties know it.
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5The funny thing is that more of your tax money goes to health care (per capita) than in Canada, yet we get universal healthcare. Suckers!
- cranium, on 10/11/2007, -2/+7You'd think that the leftists would be against this bill, a large part of the new tax burden would fall on the lower classes.
- omn3s, on 10/11/2007, -3/+8How can you even spin this story to the press?
- dagnome1984, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4You can't raise the taxes too high or people are going to turn to the black market to get their fix. Hell they are even doing it now being that you can get untaxed versions of the same products imported and at current levels they are the same product for half the price. If taxes are raised too high the illegal cigarette trade will have profit margins that would put other drugs to shame. It would be funny seeing the government trying to stop it. We all know how well the government sucks at stopping the drug trade.
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -3/+7If the money is supposed to go to children, they should tax something that children use, like Happy Meals or toys.
- galael, on 10/11/2007, -2/+6Or maybe teach sex-ed in high school, make birth control readily available, and keep abortion legal - all of which Bush opposes. It makes one wonder why Bush is considered to be pro-life when he (and you) obviously don't care about the kids once they're out of the womb. Me thinks Conservatives like to keep women in their place.
- Eleo, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5MatttK...tobacco IS taxed.
- RogueOstrich, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4Sorry but smoker =/= neo con. Neither does not wanting to be taxed for issues you're not involved with. No one here has any obligation to the other sorry but it's true, whether they want to get involved or not is entirely there decision. No one should be forced to spend the money they earn on other people. His comment is no different than the people who refuse to pay taxes because they don't support the war. Some people don't like kids, some people don't care if kids don't get health care and I'm not saying I hate kids, this in no way is reflecting what I believe nor am I speaking for badfrog. What I'm saying is if he doesn't want to spend his money on other people than he shouldn't have to. You're as bad as Bill O'Reiley and the ***** News Casters that blow off every conflicting opinion as being on the left or right or whatever, the world isn't in black in white *****. Forgive me however I'm about to generalize here, because the majority of Digg users seem to be on Ron Paul's nuts but then something that actually holds true to libertarian ideals IE non-taxing pops up and you all start to go off about how it's Neo-Con drivel. Stop with the sensationalist ***** kthx. Yea our president is pretty stupid, however if he's actually vetoing something that would increase government then there's no reason to sit here and go off on a tangent about it.
- blackjack75, on 10/11/2007, -4/+8Wow. That's what I call compassionate people...
So what's the responsibility of the government, if it's not to care for everyone? I thought that was the EXACT definition of a government. - Eleo, on 10/11/2007, -2/+5It's easy to step all over smokers, now more than ever. It's an easy group to target, especially now with increasing smoking bans. (In my area there's a hospital that now refuses to even hire smokers.) Smoking is unhealthy, unnecessary, and has the potential to affect other people, but is it a significant cause for health problems in children? Enough that the taxes already on tobacco aren't enough?
What happens when the number of smokers is reduced? Because the tax is not at all proportional to to what it's being used for, if all smokers were to all at once quit smoking (ignoring the unlikelihood of such a sudden event), there would be no revenue for this health insurance expansion anymore, even though the necessity of the expansion would still exist. At that point there'd either have to be cutbacks on the program, or they'd have to start stepping on someone else; probably something along the lines of raising taxes on alcohol.
More kids having insurance is a great ideal to work toward, but it's incredibly absurd to simply dump the costs of this onto a single, hardly related group instead of spreading the costs more evenly amongst everyone. - nairanvac, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3We have a health system? O_o
- GrizzlyWG, on 10/11/2007, -2/+5Yeah...let's spread the wealth some more. Why don't their parents/guardians get a job with insurance? With the millions of children involved they can't all be orphans. If the welfare of your children isn't first and foremost then there is more problems than looking after the uninsured. Personally I'm tired of entitlement programs for lazy bums.
- PopcornDave, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4Close. The bit about Cheney eating the babies was left out.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 249 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is