English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

According to the CBO estimates in order to pay for the Schip program expansion 22 million more people must start smoking within the next 6 years.

They also have said that the arguement that says the program is paid for is flawed because that estimate assumes that in the next 6 years 6 million people will be moved OFF the program. I dont seem to remember ANY social program that has ever been decreased.

2007-10-19 04:07:33 · 20 answers · asked by CaptainObvious 7 in Politics & Government Politics

actually most conservative estimates on revenue from lotteries say only about 40% goes to schools. it is all put in a general fund and distributed to the most worthy need (according to politicians)

2007-10-19 04:18:32 · update #1

20 answers

If you study communist movements in 3rd world countries, you'll see that democrats are using the same tactics. They are desperate, they are trying to buy votes, and they are constantly making appeals for "the children", "the elderly" and the labor class (the prolotariat).

They're idiots.

They don't seem to know that these tactics only work in 3rd world countries because these countries have extensive populations in poverty or near poverty who can push an election the opposite direction.

In the US, we have a very powerful and successful middle class. Liberals can't appeal to them as if they were poor; they're not.

Ultimately, the best thing any leader can do for their country is lift the entire country into prosparity, and lift the poor of the country along with it, and that's what Reagan did for us. Bush was not so successful because America was already prosperous under Clinton.

2007-10-19 04:17:37 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1 4

Nah, it sounds as though such as you employ weed properly. I smoke weed fantastically much as quickly as each and every week if i'm getting a splash greater funds and that i'm between the quickest men, if no longer the quickest, at my college. I ran song and outran many others so weed did no longer seem to influence my athletically. if your worried approximately your lungs regardless of the undeniable fact which you will constantly eat it as butter in cookies er cakes. Its a greater useful intense and its completely nice wellbeing smart. you additionally can use a vaporizer it relatively is additionally greater appropriate on your wellbeing or a bong with some ice in it facilitates very much additionally. yet there is often the potential of having caught...it relatively is easily the only reason to no longer smoke weed which i've got self belief is BS. besides i wish you stumble on my advice functional. Oh yeah and to all that say it makes you stupid...I easily have an IQ above genius point and likewise set state records for quite a few attempt rankings so suck on those information! Lol

2016-10-07 05:31:08 · answer #2 · answered by gearlds 4 · 0 0

Why not the smokers pay so much just to say I am a second hand citizen. I wounder why people 65 & younger are not dropping like flies right now, with all the smokers they had then and all that leaded gasoline or did they invent a filtration system to remove all the gases from just leaded gasoline.

You people are no old enough to realize what is killing you and are so gullible you believe anything that comes from the air wave, thats what Hitler did to get the masses to listen to him so keep a sharp ear out, because you'll never see it coming

2007-10-19 04:24:36 · answer #3 · answered by man of ape 6 · 0 1

I will only agree to give one lung for the little kiddies. I don't understand how a group of people can be taxed when the tax is applied to an addictive substance. If it was a matter of choice, most people would stop smoking. To me it's the same as taxing heroin addicts.

2007-10-19 04:15:48 · answer #4 · answered by Zardoz 7 · 1 0

I suggest legalizing marijuana. The revenue that would be created through regulating and taxing marijuana vendors (not to mention the money that would be saved on law enforcement) would easily pay for the program. Now that would be "smokin'"!

2007-10-19 04:18:21 · answer #5 · answered by teenhamodic 4 · 1 0

OR - many people quit smoking in outrage and quit costing the health care system money and THAT PAYS FOR IT.

Republicans are big on outrage - I can see them quitting over this when they couldn't before.

2007-10-19 04:32:43 · answer #6 · answered by oohhbother 7 · 1 0

Well, I gamble for the kids, don't you? Since Lottery revenues often go to the school systems.

2007-10-19 04:10:58 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2 1

I was looking for a good reason to quit smoking. I will die of nicotine withdrawals before i give more money to social programs for people who make more money than i do. No way I'm giving one toilet soaked penny to people who make $80,ooo per year.

2007-10-19 04:16:43 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0 2

Who cares how they pay for it?...as long as the spending is offset by either additional revenue, or decreases in spending elsewhere, its a worthwile program..... If the republicans had maintiained the pay/go rules that were in effect during the Clinton administration we wouldnt be running trillion dollar deficits........ If as a country we cant provide health care for our kids, we should be ashamed

2007-10-19 04:12:14 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 3 3

Well we could just start the kids smoking........that way they can fund their own program, get lung disease and yet have the coverage they need..........it's a circular program.

2007-10-19 07:35:49 · answer #10 · answered by Cherie 6 · 2 0

fedest.com, questions and answers