SCHIPS Oregon style

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: senseamp
At least Democrats are honest about their goals of growing government programs, GOP talks small government, but does big government when it has the power.

But they're dishonest because they don't tell us about the imminent tax increases which accompany their socialist utopia.

 

[senseamp]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: senseamp
At least Democrats are honest about their goals of growing government programs, GOP talks small government, but does big government when it has the power.

But they're dishonest because they don't tell us about the imminent tax increases which accompany their socialist utopia.

Yes they do. Pay Go. Republicans are the ones who killed Pay Go while they were in power, so they could expand government programs while cutting taxes, and saddling our kids with debt. Tell me, how did Republicans plan to pay for their Medicare expansion? They lied about how much it was going to cost, and they had no plans to offset even the lowball cost they claimed when passing this bill. Just put it on the credit card.

 

[Pabster]

senseamp, can you show me where the Democrats are telling us about imminent tax increases? All we are getting is proposal after proposal, with little to zero specificity. And when they do talk funding, it is always "take from the rich, give to the poor". If these guys are so "honest" as you spout, why not just come out and tell the truth? What's wrong with that?

 

[senseamp]

Originally posted by: Pabster
senseamp, can you show me where the Democrats are telling us about imminent tax increases? All we are getting is proposal after proposal, with little to zero specificity. And when they do talk funding, it is always "take from the rich, give to the poor". If these guys are so "honest" as you spout, why not just come out and tell the truth? What's wrong with that?

SCHIP -> Tobacco Tax Increase
AMT Fix -> Hedge fund manager tax increase.

Now your turn. Show me one case where Republicans proposed ANY new taxes to offset their increased spending.
Fill in the blank:

Medicare expansion -> ______________ tax increase.
Iraq war -> _______________ tax increase.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy
How many Senators would have voted for SCHIP in ANY form if it was a Constitutional Amendment?...-snip-

Oh puhleez.

That whole thing about it failing just because it was an amendment instead of a law is pile of BS.

5% of population doesn't know the difference or care. You guys act like Oregon is a state full of constitutional lawyers who understand the nuiances and technicalities of law.

Bull.

Fern

The general populace may not know the difference, but when the major advertisements against something raise it as an issue, people begin to regurgitate it as a talking point, and it ends up influencing their decision. My friend, good guy, but not the sharpest knife in the drawer, and almost politically retarded (he doesn't follow politics, he doesn't have a keen knowledge of laws or constitutional vs. statutory, etc.), told me he would vote against this. I naturally assumed that this was because he's a smoker who complains about the already high cost of cigarettes. Imagine my shock when he said he didn't want this sort of tax law in our constitution. I asked where he had heard that, and he responded "an ad, I think, or maybe someone at group told me..." He didn't know where he had heard it, he didn't understand the difference between the two, but because it became a talking point, he knew that putting tax code in the constitution was wrong (or at least perceived it as wrong based on the marketing). So it most definitely can influence people who have no idea what it actually means.

As for your percentage; 5% of the population not knowing the difference is essentially irrelevant when discussing a measure that lost by 20% (and given Oregon's prior voting on such issues, seemed destined to pass with a similar margin). That 5% that doesn't know the difference between statutory and constitutional doesn't bother to vote in special elections like this (which included a whopping 2 measures and a proposed county increase in firemen/police compensation packages).

So you can chalk this up as proof that "blue states" (and if you take Portland out of the picture, Oregon is overwhelmingly Republican) are against SCHIP and similar bills. But by completely dismissing the specific context of each measure, you are no better than the vote-tallying liars who claim that their opponents voted to increase taxes because it was hidden in a telecommunications bill somewhere. It's partisan nonsense and it reeks of bullshit.

 

[homercles337]

"Libural", "blue stater" here. How about looking at the details? Fern == right wing troll.

 

[shortylickens]

Originally posted by: Satchel

Originally posted by: Narmer

Originally posted by: Wreckem

Originally posted by: Narmer
Fine, if you guys don't want to tax tabacco companies, then all smokers should be banned from getting state healthcare since they are clearly choosing to worsen their own health. But that would be bias and illegal. Hence we have to tax them. That only makes sense since we cannot ban them from the public trough.

Then the same should go for anyone who eats unhealthy.

Obesity kills vastly more people than smoking.

Then tax the damn thing. Taxation can be extremely efficient if applied smartly. I don't understand why people hate it so much. It's meant for the public, not politicians.

I'm curious, do you live in Oregon?

I live in Oregon and I have no fucking clue what you people are talking about.
Did he just suggest putting a tax on food?
Because we have no sales tax, (which is probably why our schools get shit for funds and we are ranked #47 in the country, but thats another issue).

 

[Arglebargle]

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy
How many Senators would have voted for SCHIP in ANY form if it was a Constitutional Amendment?...-snip-

Oh puhleez.

That whole thing about it failing just because it was an amendment instead of a law is pile of BS.

5% of population doesn't know the difference or care. You guys act like Oregon is a state full of constitutional lawyers who understand the nuiances and technicalities of law.

Bull.

Fern

The general populace may not know the difference, but when the major advertisements against something raise it as an issue, people begin to regurgitate it as a talking point, and it ends up influencing their decision. My friend, good guy, but not the sharpest knife in the drawer, and almost politically retarded (he doesn't follow politics, he doesn't have a keen knowledge of laws or constitutional vs. statutory, etc.), told me he would vote against this. I naturally assumed that this was because he's a smoker who complains about the already high cost of cigarettes. Imagine my shock when he said he didn't want this sort of tax law in our constitution. I asked where he had heard that, and he responded "an ad, I think, or maybe someone at group told me..." He didn't know where he had heard it, he didn't understand the difference between the two, but because it became a talking point, he knew that putting tax code in the constitution was wrong (or at least perceived it as wrong based on the marketing). So it most definitely can influence people who have no idea what it actually means.

As for your percentage; 5% of the population not knowing the difference is essentially irrelevant when discussing a measure that lost by 20% (and given Oregon's prior voting on such issues, seemed destined to pass with a similar margin). That 5% that doesn't know the difference between statutory and constitutional doesn't bother to vote in special elections like this (which included a whopping 2 measures and a proposed county increase in firemen/police compensation packages).

So you can chalk this up as proof that "blue states" (and if you take Portland out of the picture, Oregon is overwhelmingly Republican) are against SCHIP and similar bills. But by completely dismissing the specific context of each measure, you are no better than the vote-tallying liars who claim that their opponents voted to increase taxes because it was hidden in a telecommunications bill somewhere. It's partisan nonsense and it reeks of bullshit.

Thanks for the info on this. It makes a lot of sense to anyone with much political knowledge. And the right thing to do.

Just compare this to Texas, which probably has the worst state constitution in the USA, the incredibly heavilly ammended 1879 Reconstruction Constitution. The Texas Constitution mandates such things as the hours the state library has to stay open. All sorts of simple changes that should be legislatively driven require constitutional amendments.

 

[OutHouse]

Originally posted by: Narmer

Originally posted by: Wreckem

Originally posted by: Narmer
Fine, if you guys don't want to tax tabacco companies, then all smokers should be banned from getting state healthcare since they are clearly choosing to worsen their own health. But that would be bias and illegal. Hence we have to tax them. That only makes sense since we cannot ban them from the public trough.

Then the same should go for anyone who eats unhealthy.

Obesity kills vastly more people than smoking.

Then tax the damn thing. Taxation can be extremely efficient if applied smartly. I don't understand why people hate it so much. It's meant for the public, not politicians.

OMG....

<<totally lost for words.

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Pabster
senseamp, can you show me where the Democrats are telling us about imminent tax increases? All we are getting is proposal after proposal, with little to zero specificity. And when they do talk funding, it is always "take from the rich, give to the poor". If these guys are so "honest" as you spout, why not just come out and tell the truth? What's wrong with that?

SCHIP -> Tobacco Tax Increase
AMT Fix -> Hedge fund manager tax increase.

Now your turn. Show me one case where Republicans proposed ANY new taxes to offset their increased spending.
Fill in the blank:

Medicare expansion -> ______________ tax increase.
Iraq war -> _______________ tax increase.

He suddenly disappeared! Shocker!