The government and tobacco
 

Been trying to figure out why the government has been trying to ban the e-cigarettes, or at least tax. This article is quite interesting. Decide for yourself.

http://redtape.msnbc.com/2008/11/ten-years-later.html

Securitization again, are people here totally insane?

I was thinking the same thing. Speculators damn near did this country in 1893. Looks like they're set for another go.

John

In a nutshell, it seems we're more addicted to deficit spending than we are to tobacco. Leave it to Wall St. to figure a way to capitalize on anyone's cash flow.

We need capital punishment for the thieves that run Wall Street.:rolleyes: That's right, relieve them of all of their capital.

Regards,

D-Ray

Geez.............

I'll agree with the first part of your statement, but I'm not so sure about the second part. No doubt Wall Street makes a dandy whipping boy, but the politicians handed them the keys to the kingdom.

From what I'm reading, securitization was created by HUD in the 70's after they were privatized (somewhat) by the Fed Gov in an effort to free up more money for Vietnam, along with the Great Society programs.

I suppose we can pin this one on Milhous and his administration, along with abolishing Bretton Woods and opening up China.

And it worked pretty good for awhile. The US lived pretty high on the hog, which is pretty easy to do when you're living on borrowed money.

Now it''s possible my data is wrong, or I may be misinterpreting it. And it is definitely incomplete.

So I'll move to smoking.

It's amazing a program sold to us by the uplifters as a way to protect the poor nicotine addicts from "Big Tobacco" not only screwed them big time, but is now screwing everyone else as well.

Now you can blame it on Wall Street, but it was the politicians who accepted 30 cents on the dollar so they could buy more whiskey before liquor store closed.

And if think this screwing is bad, just substitute "Cap and Trade" for "Tobacco Settlement". It's all about money, our money.

What this country needs is a bunch of politicians who have the guts not only to fire the bankers, but to go back to their constituents and say "We're broke, and you get a hot dog for supper."

Bad thing is, we needed them at least 40 years ago.

Chas

Actually, you're right with regard to my gratuitous Wall St. bashing. It's just so easy and fun, even if it is sometimes not fully justified.

With regard to the article's bemoaning that the states are only getting 30-40 cents on a dollar seems to show the author doesn't know a lot about compound interest. To wit, this passage puzzled me a bit.

Many states receive only 30 or 40 cents on the dollar. In a typical example, Wisconsin would have been entitled to about $5 billion in payments through 2025. Instead, it settled on one payment of $1.6 billion in 2001.

Did somebody expect Wall St. to lend Wisconsin $5 billion over 25 years with no interest?

You're correct, much like H&R Block fronting people their tax refunds for a fee.

I would imagine that even Wall Street treats the government better than H&R does it's clients...for one, they're not dealing with a bunch of cretins.

And then you have to calculate in inflation and uncertainty.

Now the old man who used to own the local lumber yard always claimed that the 8th Wonder of the World was compound interest.

If he were alive today, he would probably call the 9th Wonder Keynesian Economics.

God, I hope they can figure out a way to keep the music playing...did I just say I'm in favor of Cap and Trade???

If so, it's the fukkin you get for the fukkin you got.

Chas

Wall street does not do business they do schemes.

i have been saying for years that when the tobacco co. are gone or the smokers all quit the gubmint is fucked.

you can bet the next vice they tax will be something that we wont be able to give up.

might even be a big tax on fresh food and meat. more likley it will be gas and fast food. also internet service and cable tv

Although I understand where you coming from on this, I'm not sure if I agree. The societal costs of tobacco use may well exceed the tax revenue it generates, although there's no way of measuring it.

Seems to me the the gubers get tax income from the time the tobacco seeds are sold all the way through to the estate taxes due when you die from lung cancer. Pretty good scheme! :mad:

"Just give me mo-uh-uh-on-ey, that's what I want."

Pete

While that may be true, tobacco related disease costs big bucks to the government for the uninsured/underinsured as well as big buck to you and me for increased health care premiums for the additional costs to to care for the insured smokers.

Again, there's no way to run the numbers on this accurately. But we would be better off if smoking would go the way of the dodo bird.

I'm with you on that.

Apparently, smoking rates continue to fall in the US but it seems I see more and more younger people smoking of late. Maybe the rate is falling because older smokers are dying faster than younger ones are picking up. :shrug:

John

still is it right to charge $10 for a pack of cigarettes that would coast $2 if not for tax? I guess now that Obie is President and smokes the tax no long targets the lower income folks.:rolleyes:

It's a "sin tax", Noone. It's designed to be exorbitant and even punitive to discourage smoking. I don't know exactly how I feel about it but I do think smoking ought to be actively, even aggressively, discouraged.

John

Problem is it a compulsive activity hence not significantly dissuaded by the cost.

It now can really harm a family financially. A light to moderate smoker will spend $300 a month just so the government can capitalize on human behavior.

how to stop kids from smoking?
 

(the above is the opening post in a thread I just saw on another board. What would you answer?)

I don't think a pack a day is light to moderate. I think it's pretty much average but point taken. There are aspects of a sin tax that are pretty darned predatory, especially where addictive substances are concerned.

I'm not far from thinking that smoking should just be outlawed. Tobacco is an addictive, poisonous substance whose use has damaging consequences far beyond those suffered by the user.

John

No, not as long as those kids were constantly seeing their role models using tobacco.

John

this was my reply:



absolutely not

only one way to teach kids and that's by example

if you parent well you child will want to emulate you

if you are absent or a poor parent your kids will looks to others for a role model and nothing you say will help

bottom line, be a good parent, set a good example and don't worry

I'd be more prone to going along with outlawing it than taxing it but I don't like either approach.

That's the name of the game. Then again, maybe "screw the other guy" is the name of the game.

Chas