Find Your Valentine
Slog
News & ArtsThursday, April 2, 2009
News Glenn Beckwatch: Lying, Thieving Obama Doesn't Want to Make Kids Sick
Posted by Paul Constant on Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 11:33 AM
From the desk of Glenn Beck:
Remember when presidential candidate Senator Obama said 'if you make under $250,000 a year you will not see a tax increase of any kind' and his running mate, Joe Biden, said the same? That's the latest campaign promise to go up in smoke, as the unprecedented tax hike on cigarettes went into effect yesterday. The hike is six times bigger than any other cigarette tax hike in history—-and since people making less than $250,000 a year are more likely to smoke it's a disproportionate tax on the poor. Not only that, the tax will likely discourage low income people from smoking—-thus hurting the original reason given for the tax—-funding S-CHIP, the health care program for kids. Glenn comments on the broken promise here.
Glenn Beck oozes truth out of every pore. Truly, this Obamonster must be stopped: He is discouraging smoking among the poor!
2
Is there a spot we can comment of his website? I kind of want to fuck with the people who take Beck seriously.
4
I hate to agree with Glenn Beck about anything, but sin taxes are regressive, and we as a nation already rely too heavily on regressive taxation.
I was living in Chicago during a time when cigarette taxes were basically going up $1/pack/year, but that was never what made me quit smoking. I was more worried about my health. And no, I've never been wealthy enough to shrug off those kinds of expense increases.
And ultimately, sin taxes are an unreliable source of revenue. It may be more justifiable if these dollars were used to fund public smoking cessation programs, but as a way to boost the general budget, it's bad. It plays on the unpopularity of the targeted "sin" against the general unpopularity of tax increases. That is what we call a cynical ploy.
Having said that: fuck Glenn Beck in the soul.
I was living in Chicago during a time when cigarette taxes were basically going up $1/pack/year, but that was never what made me quit smoking. I was more worried about my health. And no, I've never been wealthy enough to shrug off those kinds of expense increases.
And ultimately, sin taxes are an unreliable source of revenue. It may be more justifiable if these dollars were used to fund public smoking cessation programs, but as a way to boost the general budget, it's bad. It plays on the unpopularity of the targeted "sin" against the general unpopularity of tax increases. That is what we call a cynical ploy.
Having said that: fuck Glenn Beck in the soul.
6
Monique, according to www.politifact.com, eight of 'em have gone up in smoke so far, not counting this one.
Let me say this straight off: Glenn Beck is an ass. But he's right about this one. And he's not the only one all over this story; the AP is too.
Let me say this straight off: Glenn Beck is an ass. But he's right about this one. And he's not the only one all over this story; the AP is too.
7
@4,
I mostly agree with you, but smoking causes disease and poor people are more likely to need public assistance in order to get health care. I'd rather see a more direct link between cigarette taxes and funding for Medicaid for instance, but SCHIP is a decent compromise.
I mostly agree with you, but smoking causes disease and poor people are more likely to need public assistance in order to get health care. I'd rather see a more direct link between cigarette taxes and funding for Medicaid for instance, but SCHIP is a decent compromise.
12
Clearly, what the government should be doing is providing free cigarettes to everyone.
Beck's tax logic is, of course, insane. If increasing the amount of tax on a thing decreases its consumption, that hardly means the amount of tax collected will decline. Fewer packs, but more dollars per pack can still equal more dollars.
Beck's tax logic is, of course, insane. If increasing the amount of tax on a thing decreases its consumption, that hardly means the amount of tax collected will decline. Fewer packs, but more dollars per pack can still equal more dollars.
13
@6 - Fifty-Two-Eighty "eight of 'em have gone up in smoke so far, not counting this one."
Nope - I just checked there and they only show three as "broken":
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/…
Nope - I just checked there and they only show three as "broken":
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/…
14
#4. This isn't a regressive tax on essential items. If you don't want to pay the sin tax quit smoking. There aren't too many taxes you can choose not to pay.
16
@3
Off the top of my head...
-No lobbyists in the administration
-Posting all bills online for comment at least 5 days prior to signing
Off the top of my head...
-No lobbyists in the administration
-Posting all bills online for comment at least 5 days prior to signing
17
@14: Yeah, yeah. "Doctor, it hurts when I go like this!" "Don't do that!" But beyond the black and white Calvinism that you're promoting, the fact remains that these taxes are popular because A) it's popular to hate smokers; B) tax increases aren't popular; C) states need money, so they will increase taxes most where it meets the least popular resistance.
Personally, I've already quit smoking. My point is that 500% taxes on something that is both legal and predominantly indulged in by lower income people is both regressive and unsustainable. If we're concerned about public health, we should help people quit. Taxing them to the poor house -- believe me -- does not help with the kind of stress that leads to that habit.
Personally, I've already quit smoking. My point is that 500% taxes on something that is both legal and predominantly indulged in by lower income people is both regressive and unsustainable. If we're concerned about public health, we should help people quit. Taxing them to the poor house -- believe me -- does not help with the kind of stress that leads to that habit.
18
Fnarf, you're logic only works if the tax increase is high enough to offset the revenue lost to quitters... and the higher the tax, the more people will quite, causing the tax to be raised again, and the cycle continues until only the uber-rich can afford cigerettes and the rest buy them from the black market.
(That, or they increase tax on other vices instead- i.e. alcohol.)
(That, or they increase tax on other vices instead- i.e. alcohol.)
19
@18, you should have just stopped after "lost to quitters". If the tax increase is high enough, some will quit, but if the tax is high enough, the revenue will stay the same or increase. Full stop. Stasis will resume.
And the affordability of cigarettes to the poor is not a public policy goal or a public health goal. Can't afford to smoke? Quit. Cigarettes are cheap. Addicts always whine about the cost of their addictions.
And the affordability of cigarettes to the poor is not a public policy goal or a public health goal. Can't afford to smoke? Quit. Cigarettes are cheap. Addicts always whine about the cost of their addictions.
20
My problem with Becks logic is it's incredibly self defeating.
He's outraged that Obama would "raise taxes on the poor" but also outraged that the bill "won't actually raise taxes on the poor" because fewer of them will be smoking.
So which is it? Are you for the poor paying less in taxes? Are you for giving more money to the poor? He seems to think that the poor will lose out because they will have to choose between paying a lot of money for a non-necessary drug with lung cancer as a major side effect and not wasting any money at all whatsoever on said drug...
...BWUH?
He's outraged that Obama would "raise taxes on the poor" but also outraged that the bill "won't actually raise taxes on the poor" because fewer of them will be smoking.
So which is it? Are you for the poor paying less in taxes? Are you for giving more money to the poor? He seems to think that the poor will lose out because they will have to choose between paying a lot of money for a non-necessary drug with lung cancer as a major side effect and not wasting any money at all whatsoever on said drug...
...BWUH?
21
Wow, so 3 whole promies broken vs. 26 that are done and in the books? All before the first 100 days, and during an economic crisis? Wow, Obama really is turning into such an amazing president.
Also, there are not words for how much I hate Glenn Beck. HATE.
Also, there are not words for how much I hate Glenn Beck. HATE.
23
@19: So is arm-twisting addicted poor people into balancing state budgets a public health goal?
This "you get what you deserve" Calvinism always winds up depending not so much on inherent good reasoning, but on attacking the character of those who would oppose it. C'mon, Fnarf, make an argument for regressive taxation on a fiercely addictive but completely legal, and fully regulated, drug. Your argument should not depend on whether smokers have a right to purchase cigarettes at reasonable prices, but on whether such a tax is a good thing for the state to implement, vis a vis other strategies for raising funds and/or other strategies for defending public health.
My point is that cigarette taxation is a cynical way of making money off poor people, placating the growing public distaste for tobacco, and making empty gestures about public health. Smokers shouldn't smoke: fine. But you are very hasty to condemn the smokers and seem to want the cynical lawmakers off the hook altogether. Perhaps I am misunderstanding you?
This "you get what you deserve" Calvinism always winds up depending not so much on inherent good reasoning, but on attacking the character of those who would oppose it. C'mon, Fnarf, make an argument for regressive taxation on a fiercely addictive but completely legal, and fully regulated, drug. Your argument should not depend on whether smokers have a right to purchase cigarettes at reasonable prices, but on whether such a tax is a good thing for the state to implement, vis a vis other strategies for raising funds and/or other strategies for defending public health.
My point is that cigarette taxation is a cynical way of making money off poor people, placating the growing public distaste for tobacco, and making empty gestures about public health. Smokers shouldn't smoke: fine. But you are very hasty to condemn the smokers and seem to want the cynical lawmakers off the hook altogether. Perhaps I am misunderstanding you?
24
1. Upset unpatriotic neocons - check.
2. Reduce health care costs for America - check.
3.
4. Profit!
2. Reduce health care costs for America - check.
3.
4. Profit!
25
Glenn Beck is a dishonest dirt bag whose only interest in life is his own bottom line. His kind of rabble-rousing is the most cynical, disengenuous, dangerous form of 'free speech' that we as a society are forced to tolerate. What makes him and his ilk so poisonous is that they prey on the fear and ignorance of that segment of the population that is most uninformed, most isolated, most consumed with xenophobic hysteria. They (Glenn, Rush, Ann, etc..) know this and latch onto it, stroking it and feeding it, realizing that they've tapped into a bottomless source of income....
They're not trying to enlighten anyone, they're not trying to bridge any gaps, they're not reaching out to anyone to try to build a better future... They're simply throwing more and more dung onto an already raging fire.
It's the worst kind of irresponsibility. Someday their sins WILL come home to roost, and it won't be a pretty sight.
They're not trying to enlighten anyone, they're not trying to bridge any gaps, they're not reaching out to anyone to try to build a better future... They're simply throwing more and more dung onto an already raging fire.
It's the worst kind of irresponsibility. Someday their sins WILL come home to roost, and it won't be a pretty sight.
27
I don't know....I smoke weed recreationally (gasp!), would love to see it legalized, and would be happy to pay a hefty tax that went to support worthwhile programs. So I can't really say "sin taxes" like this upset me all that much.
Then again, marijuana is not addictive. I guess the answer is to switch from smoking tobacco to smoking weed. (And yes, I know people can develop psychological dependencies if they abuse it. Save the posts.)
Then again, marijuana is not addictive. I guess the answer is to switch from smoking tobacco to smoking weed. (And yes, I know people can develop psychological dependencies if they abuse it. Save the posts.)
28
SCHIP is a true simulacrum of a parasite, in legislative form. What will happen when the smoking hosts die out? @9 - SCHIP does not only address the health needs of asthmatic children. Soon cigarette prices will equal and then surpass that of marijuana...
29
This Just In: Glenn Beck Wants All Poor People to Die of Lung Cancer!!!
Stupid fearmongering works both ways. Think poor people should have lower cigarette taxes? Then you must want them to smoke themselves to death.
Stupid fearmongering works both ways. Think poor people should have lower cigarette taxes? Then you must want them to smoke themselves to death.
30
"Think poor people should have lower cigarette taxes? Then you must want them to smoke themselves to death."
@29 gets it!
@29 gets it!
32
Did you know Glenn Beck not only *is* a Mormon, but actually *became* a Mormon in adulthood.
I think he came on board right about the time I left.
I think he came on board right about the time I left.
33
Just because you don't like the guy doesn't mean he's wrong on this. Give the devil his due.
Raising the taxes of smokers only, as though it is the only public health problem and costs everyone more in healthcare dollars, and it's therefore justified to fund public health programs is insane.
If you totaled up the cost of smoking related health problems as opposed to say, I don't know OBESITY, I think you'll find in the long term obesity in this country cost a lot more than smoking. Heart, lungs, limbs, pancreas, vascular all fall victim to obesity.
Smokers on average live shorter lives, what is it seven years? So the cost is front loaded, they get sick they die. But you are not medicating them for the rest of their lives - and paying Social Security. Obesity takes some years off - but for an awful lot of the years proceeding death, they are medicated because of their illnesses.
So if we are going to tax the things that cost medically, how about taxing soft drinks, snack foods, fast foods, and overly processed foods. How about a hefty tax on high fructose corn syrup!!!
Tax fairly. Don't just choose the most unpopular vice and single them out. And a clue about how all this is going to turn out:
The state of Missouri approved riverboat, and eventually land based, gambling as a revenue producer for education. The taxes on the casinos was to go to education - and it does. But what this state does is - let's say they budget 10 million for education for the year. Let's say the casinos bring in 5 million in taxes which by law has to be spent on education. What the state then does is reduce their education budget by 5 million dollars and uses the money for something else. So - you have the vice sold to the community as a way to fund education. You have the casinos getting rich. You have the addicted ruining their lives. And education doesn't get an extra DIME.
The states will do the same thing with money funneled to them from the feds for healthcare. Whatever the feds give, the states will take away. Blessed be the states.
More...
Raising the taxes of smokers only, as though it is the only public health problem and costs everyone more in healthcare dollars, and it's therefore justified to fund public health programs is insane.
If you totaled up the cost of smoking related health problems as opposed to say, I don't know OBESITY, I think you'll find in the long term obesity in this country cost a lot more than smoking. Heart, lungs, limbs, pancreas, vascular all fall victim to obesity.
Smokers on average live shorter lives, what is it seven years? So the cost is front loaded, they get sick they die. But you are not medicating them for the rest of their lives - and paying Social Security. Obesity takes some years off - but for an awful lot of the years proceeding death, they are medicated because of their illnesses.
So if we are going to tax the things that cost medically, how about taxing soft drinks, snack foods, fast foods, and overly processed foods. How about a hefty tax on high fructose corn syrup!!!
Tax fairly. Don't just choose the most unpopular vice and single them out. And a clue about how all this is going to turn out:
The state of Missouri approved riverboat, and eventually land based, gambling as a revenue producer for education. The taxes on the casinos was to go to education - and it does. But what this state does is - let's say they budget 10 million for education for the year. Let's say the casinos bring in 5 million in taxes which by law has to be spent on education. What the state then does is reduce their education budget by 5 million dollars and uses the money for something else. So - you have the vice sold to the community as a way to fund education. You have the casinos getting rich. You have the addicted ruining their lives. And education doesn't get an extra DIME.
The states will do the same thing with money funneled to them from the feds for healthcare. Whatever the feds give, the states will take away. Blessed be the states.
34
Wow--looks like someone decided to act on how he felt on 9/12:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/04/03/bing…
http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/04/03/bing…
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
SL Letter of the Day: Daddy Loves Who? by Dan Savage
-
SL Letter of the Day: Life Sentence by Dan Savage
-
Crowdsourcing Uncut Police Video from the Dec. 12 Occupy Protest at the Port of Seattle by Eli Sanders
-
Slog Bible Study: Deuteronomy 21:10-14 by Goldy
-
The AP Is Reporting That Whitney Houston Is Dead by Paul Constant
-
The Onion Is on a Roll: "Iran Worried U.S. Might Be Building 8,500th Nuclear Weapon" by Charles Mudede
-
Announcing The Stranger's Tournament of Dunces! Who's the Dumbest Representative in the State House? by Christopher Frizzelle
-
Survey Says: Cyclists Would Rather Give Up Sex Than Their Bikes by Bethany Jean Clement
-
Stranger Tournament of Dunces, Match 3: Rep. Mark Hargrove vs. Rep. Norma Smith by Eli Sanders
-
Rachel Maddow Uncovered the Secret Ron Paul Strategy by Paul Constant
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (34) RSS