Obama Presidential Thread XIX: Starting a new chapter

[Bakunin]

Re: Obama Presidential Thread XIX: Starting a new chapter

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A61981-2004Jun22.html
At age 70, 88% of nonsmokers were alive vs 71% of smokers.
At age 80, 65% of nonsmokers were alive vs 32% of smokers.
http://www.tobaccofreekids.org/research/factsheets/pdf/0277.pdf
Extra lifetime costs attributed to smoking for healthcare is around $17,500 in 2004 dollars (would be about $20,000 in today's dollars).

So basically that extra healthcare is worth a little over a year of social security benefits. I'd say the shorter lifespan more than offsets that.

 

[pirate]

Re: Obama Presidential Thread XIX: Starting a new chapter

Your hypotheticals and non sequitors are more suited to a high school debate than anything else.

Government is supposed to serve us, not the other way 'round--it's been in all the papers.

What a cop-out.

Well then, it's simple isn't it? Just pass enough laws and ordinances and hire enough cops and you can force Americans to behave in a way you (and the rest of the boring facists) think is "appropriate." It's possible to justify any encroachment on the rights of free people, especially using the tax/medical expense argument. That doesn't make it so. We should resist efforts to stop us from "acting bad" by governement.

That is your post, to which I responded, and you want to claim I'm more suited for high school? Sorry, I know you are mad at the world and think fighting with everybody is some demonstration of your intellect but you ought to look in the mirror more often.

 

[Priceless]

Re: Obama Presidential Thread XIX: Starting a new chapter

What a cop-out.

Well then, it's simple isn't it? Just pass enough laws and ordinances and hire enough cops and you can force Americans to behave in a way you (and the rest of the boring facists) think is "appropriate." It's possible to justify any encroachment on the rights of free people, especially using the tax/medical expense argument. That doesn't make it so. We should resist efforts to stop us from "acting bad" by governement.

That is your post, to which I responded, and you want to claim I'm more suited for high school? Sorry, I know you are mad at the world and think fighting with everybody is some demonstration of your intellect but you ought to look in the mirror more often.

You and unofan are such typical liberals. Taking OP's rational, thoughtful posts and twisting them around to suit your own purposes.

 

[pirate]

Re: Obama Presidential Thread XIX: Starting a new chapter

1 word, taxes, never going to get banned and you know it

I think the national P&L on smoking is in the red, the taxes we take in don't cover the health care costs and other impacts, which is my opinion.

Because our government is terrible at assessing true costs, true benefits and other impacts, they will never be able to produce a comprehensive view on the subject. I'm not trying to prove the point, just suggesting that enough evidence exists that banning smoking in the US isn't crazy talk and it isn't an idea cooked up solely so I can eat my quiche and read my signed copy of the manifesto without smoke in my eyes.

Now, that doesn't mean I actually think it will happen...but if the voting population were aware of how much taxes and health care costs non-smokers pay to support smokers, I don't think the vote would be close.

And we could use the fright tactic of "what's next?, whether you can put mayo on your BLT?" but that isn't a great reason to perpetuate the ongoing issue of smoking and smoking related costs on US society.

 

[Priceless]

Re: Obama Presidential Thread XIX: Starting a new chapter

I think the national P&L on smoking is in the red, the taxes we take in don't cover the health care costs and other impacts, which is my opinion.

Because our government is terrible at assessing true costs, true benefits and other impacts, they will never be able to produce a comprehensive view on the subject. I'm not trying to prove the point, just suggesting that enough evidence exists that banning smoking in the US isn't crazy talk and it isn't an idea cooked up solely so I can eat my quiche and read my signed copy of the manifesto without smoke in my eyes.

Now, that doesn't mean I actually think it will happen...but if the voting population were aware of how much taxes and health care costs non-smokers pay to support smokers, I don't think the vote would be close.

And we could use the fright tactic of "what's next?, whether you can put mayo on your BLT?" but that isn't a great reason to perpetuate the ongoing issue of smoking and smoking related costs on US society.

You're leaving out the benefits of smoking!

NEW YORK (CNNfn) -- Smokers' early deaths may be a boon to the Czech Republic's finances, a study commissioned last year by Philip Morris Cos. said.

U.S. consulting firm Arthur D. Little International Inc. studied the impact of smoking on Czech public finances at Philip Morris' request in November 2000. The study [Microsoft Word document] found the cost benefits of smokers' early mortality, together with cigarette-tax revenue, outweighed the economic drawbacks of health-care and other smoking-related costs.

The study was commissioned by the tobacco firm's Czech unit in response to claims by the Czech health ministry that smoking's costs outweighed its fiscal benefits. It found the impact of smoking on Czech public finance to be a net gain of 5.815 billion Czech korunas (about $147 million). Most of that gain was derived from tax revenue.

But the government also saved between 943 million and 1.2 billion korunas (about $24 million-to-$30 million) in health-care, pension and public-housing costs due to the early deaths of smokers -- one of the 'positive' benefits of smoking, according to the study.

We could be saving so much more if people started smoking. I recommend that rather than giving money or old clothes to charities like the Salvation Army, give them cigarettes.

 

[pirate]

Re: Obama Presidential Thread XIX: Starting a new chapter

You're leaving out the benefits of smoking!





We could be saving so much more if people started smoking. I recommend that rather than giving money or old clothes to charities like the Salvation Army, give them cigarettes.

So, it stands to reason that we could speed the whole thing up, kill all the smokers, solve long-term Social security/Medicare issues and balance the budget. Win-Win

 

[Kepler]

Re: Obama Presidential Thread XIX: Starting a new chapter

Too funny.

 

[Priceless]

Re: Obama Presidential Thread XIX: Starting a new chapter

Vote for Milt Romney in 2012!

 

[Old Pio]

Re: Obama Presidential Thread XIX: Starting a new chapter

What a cop-out.

Well then, it's simple isn't it? Just pass enough laws and ordinances and hire enough cops and you can force Americans to behave in a way you (and the rest of the boring facists) think is "appropriate." It's possible to justify any encroachment on the rights of free people, especially using the tax/medical expense argument. That doesn't make it so. We should resist efforts to stop us from "acting bad" by governement.

That is your post, to which I responded, and you want to claim I'm more suited for high school? Sorry, I know you are mad at the world and think fighting with everybody is some demonstration of your intellect but you ought to look in the mirror more often.

And you ought to stop practicing psychology without a license, sweety. Disagreeing with you is not a character flaw, despite your inflated ego.

I just reread your post, it's still gibberish of course, but at least you have the intellectual courage to call for a prohibition, which the vast majority of boring fascists secretly yearn for but are unwilling to advocate. So hats off to you for your honesty, no matter how misguided. Who would be Elliot Ness this time around?

 

[Old Pio]

Re: Obama Presidential Thread XIX: Starting a new chapter

Too funny.

Assuming he lives long enough, perhaps Jerry Lewis can start doing telethons for PDS.

 

[Priceless]

Re: Obama Presidential Thread XIX: Starting a new chapter

Is this the Obama thread or did I click on the Nutrition thread by mistake?

Another small mistake by Fox and Fiends

Too bad those results are exactly opposite of what Fox portrayed.

USA Today/Gallup Poll: 61% Oppose Limiting Union Bargaining Power

Yesterday, USA Today and Gallup released a new poll that found that a whopping 61 percent of Americans oppose efforts like those of Gov. Scott Walker (R-WI) to strip public sector unions of collective bargaining rights. The poll also found that only a third of Americans support such a policy, indicating that Walker is pandering to the far-right of the American electorate and is hardly representative of mainstream political thought in this country.

This morning, during a debate about the situation in Wisconsin and collective bargaining rights in general, the Fox News show Fox & Friends referenced the USA Today/Gallup poll. With incredible brazenness, the Fox hosts actually reversed the results of the poll in order to claim that two-thirds of Americans supported Wisconsin-style laws rather than opposed them.

During the discussion, Fox host Brian Kilmeade asked pro-labor guest Robert Zimmerman if President Obama was taking a “big risk” by opposing Walker’s law. Zimmerman responded by saying that Obama was speaking “for the mainstream of our country, and the mainstream of Republican governors who are not siding with Governor Walker.” Kilmeade responded by saying, “I think Gallup, a relatively mainstream poll, has a differing view. And here’s the question that was posed. Do you favor or disfavor of taking away collective bargaining when it comes to salaries for government workers. 66 percent in favor, 33 percent opposed, 9 percent up in the air.” Watch it:

<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/20Ym4FwaKaY?version=3"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/20Ym4FwaKaY?version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="390"></object>

Needless to say, it is hardly “fair and balanced,” as Fox News likes to deem itself, to take the results of a poll and simply reverse them when they do not go your way.

It’s worth pointing out that, Jim Glassman, the Bush Center director who appeared on the show to argue against collective bargaining, said right after the poll was shown that “many” states actually don’t have collective bargaining. The truth is that only five states do not have collective bargaining for public employees — Texas, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, and Virginia. Those states rank 45th, 48th, 49th, 38th, and 34th, in average SAT scores, respectively. Wisconsin is 3rd.

 

[pirate]

Re: Obama Presidential Thread XIX: Starting a new chapter

And you ought to stop practicing psychology without a license, sweety. Disagreeing with you is not a character flaw, despite your inflated ego.

I just reread your post, it's still gibberish of course, but at least you have the intellectual courage to call for a prohibition, which the vast majority of boring fascists secretly yearn for but are unwilling to advocate. So hats off to you for your honesty, no matter how misguided. Who would be Elliot Ness this time around?

I've got no problem with disagreement, it makes the world go 'round. Why you have to sprinkle yours with name calling, personal attacks, veiled accusations that you later point out weren't made verbatim, etc. is beyond me.

There isn't a need for it, it doesn't help you make your point... it is just a tactic to avoid honest discourse and 'win' the argument, in my view...and it ain't just me that is coming up with that diagnosis.

You may have the time and the gumption to choose that path, don't assume that those who decide not to waste the effort battling with you are conceding the point. I just don't care enough to get into circular arguments with somebody that seems to enjoy the arguing more than the original point.

So, I won't engage you in discussion going forward...which really won't matter to you and won't reduce my enjoyment of coming on here one bit. Among the many bright sides for you, you no longer have to stoop to my intellectual level and go through the agony of deciphering my gibberish.

Good day sir.

 

[WeWantMore]

Re: Obama Presidential Thread XIX: Starting a new chapter

The truth is that only five states do not have collective bargaining for public employees — Texas, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, and Virginia. Those states rank 45th, 48th, 49th, 38th, and 34th, in average SAT scores, respectively. Wisconsin is 3rd.

False.

Lots of good points made in that link. Among them:

Consider Wisconsin’s third-place ranking in the SAT. It sounds great -- but only 4 percent of graduates in the state took the test in 2010, and those that did likely did so because they had a particular need to take the SAT as they applied to certain colleges. And that means that Wisconsin SAT takers were a self-selecting group, probably more academically advanced than average.

After we contacted the Democratic Party of Wisconsin, Melissa Baldauff, the party’s research director, wrote us to say that "after further investigation, we determined that the data was not the most up-to-date. Accordingly, we have removed the post from our Facebook page."

Consider just one statistic -- the percentage of residents living below the poverty line. Wisconsin ranked 38th in the nation, similar to Virginia (39th), and well below Texas (8th), South Carolina (9th), Georgia (13th) and North Carolina (15th). The fact that many fewer Wisconsin residents, proportionally, were impoverished almost certainly had an impact in shaping the states’ comparative test results.

 

[Priceless]

Re: Obama Presidential Thread XIX: Starting a new chapter

False.

Lots of good points made in that link. Among them:

So you're hoping that a debate about Wisconsin SAT scores will distract from the fact that Fox "News" deliberately lied by switching the results of the poll for their own political ends. Good idea.

 

[Old Pio]

Re: Obama Presidential Thread XIX: Starting a new chapter

I've got no problem with disagreement, it makes the world go 'round. Why you have to sprinkle yours with name calling, personal attacks, veiled accusations that you later point out weren't made verbatim, etc. is beyond me.

There isn't a need for it, it doesn't help you make your point... it is just a tactic to avoid honest discourse and 'win' the argument, in my view...and it ain't just me that is coming up with that diagnosis.

You may have the time and the gumption to choose that path, don't assume that those who decide not to waste the effort battling with you are conceding the point. I just don't care enough to get into circular arguments with somebody that seems to enjoy the arguing more than the original point.

So, I won't engage you in discussion going forward...which really won't matter to you and won't reduce my enjoyment of coming on here one bit. Among the many bright sides for you, you no longer have to stoop to my intellectual level and go through the agony of deciphering my gibberish.

Good day sir.

Verrrrrrrry touchy. And preachy too. Please reread your own posts to satisfy yourself (easily done, I'd imagine) that you aren't guilty of the same sins you condemn me for. The difference would be, I don't whine about it, and pose as being morally superior in the process. I think there may be a children's thread around here where you can post without fear that some bad man will disagree with you or say things that upset your delicate sensitivities.

And speaking of "circular arguments," in more than one post you suggest prohibition would be the appropriate government course of action as regards smoking. But you claim you positively, absoultely, cross my heart and hope to die oppose government restricting what people eat. Even though, at least as far as fast food is concerned, you favor government using its power to control dietary choices for people you believe need government's help to run their lives. At least a little oval, don't you think? Ciao.

 

[WeWantMore]

Re: Obama Presidential Thread XIX: Starting a new chapter

So you're hoping that a debate about Wisconsin SAT scores will distract from the fact that Fox "News" deliberately lied by switching the results of the poll for their own political ends. Good idea.

No, I don't give two hoots about what FOX does. I've just seen the SAT scores thing get mentioned a lot, and just wanted to point out that it's wrong.

Grrr FOX News. Grrrrr. Rabble rabble. Grrr.

That better?

 

[Old Pio]

Re: Obama Presidential Thread XIX: Starting a new chapter

No, I don't give two hoots about what FOX does. I've just seen the SAT scores thing get mentioned a lot, and just wanted to point out that it's wrong.

Grrr FOX News. Grrrrr. Rabble rabble. Grrr.

That better?

Pssst. Pardon me. I don't mean to interrupt. But I believe the correct usage is "Faux news." Always gets approving nods in the faculty lounge.

 

[Priceless]

Re: Obama Presidential Thread XIX: Starting a new chapter

Scott Walker is a straight shooter.

What he said at the presser today:

In terms of other ways to come on in, it's not a trick. We've said it point-blank. Come on in and talk about it ... I don't think that's a trick, I think that's something I've said time and time again in front of all of you here.

What he said on tape, when he thought he was talking to his <del>puppeteers</del> supporters the Koch brothers:

An interesting idea that was brought up to me by my chief of staff, we won't do it until tomorrow, is putting out an appeal to the Democratic leader. I would be willing to sit down and talk to him, the assembly Democrat leader, plus the other two Republican leaders—talk, not negotiate and listen to what they have to say if they will in turn—but I’ll only do it if all 14 of them will come back and sit down in the state assembly. They can recess it... the reason for that, we're verifying it this afternoon, legally, we believe, once they’ve gone into session, they don’t physically have to be there. If they’re actually in session for that day, and they take a recess, the 19 Senate Republicans could then go into action and they’d have quorum because it's turned out that way. So we’re double checking that. If you heard I was going to talk to them that’s the only reason why.

Seems honest enough.

 

[busterman62]

Re: Obama Presidential Thread XIX: Starting a new chapter

So you're hoping that a debate about Wisconsin SAT scores will distract from the fact that Fox "News" deliberately lied by switching the results of the poll for their own political ends. Good idea.

Could you please provide the link that shows the "fact that Fox "News" deliberately lied?" Seems to me that correctly reporting the poll results later in the show and then apologizing for the error just exhibits Fox's incompetence rather than subterfuge. But, then again, I'm sure I'm probably missing something and you'll be happy to direct me to the proof that Faux lied.

 

[WeWantMore]

Re: Obama Presidential Thread XIX: Starting a new chapter

Could you please provide the link that shows the "fact that Fox "News" deliberately lied?" Seems to me that correctly reporting the poll results later in the show and then apologizing for the error just exhibits Fox's incompetence rather than subterfuge. But, then again, I'm sure I'm probably missing something and you'll be happy to direct me to the proof that Faux lied.

Nonsense. We all know Rupert Murdoch entered the numbers himself, cackling maniacally all the while.