61 cent federal cigarette tax

[BlisteryNixon]

WASHINGTON — Smokers would pay an extra 61 cents per pack of cigarettes to expand health insurance to about 2 million children under a tentative deal worked out Tuesday between Democrats and Republicans on the Senate Finance Committee.
The tobacco tax increase would boost the federal levy from 39 cents per pack to $1, an increase of 156%. It would raise about $35 billion over five years to pay for the largest expansion of the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) since its creation a decade ago.

"It really does come down to a choice between children and tobacco," said Sen. Gordon Smith, R-Ore., who originally proposed the 61-cent increase. "This is a 'two-fer.' It does decrease smoking, and it does connect public health care costs with one of the drivers of that cost, and that's tobacco."

Some details remain to be worked out before the committee votes on the package, probably next week. Expanding the popular program by taxing tobacco, however, has broad support, including from Republicans such as Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah.

"Tobacco politics has changed very dramatically," said Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore. In a non-binding vote in March, the Senate voted 59-40 for a tobacco tax hike of no more than 61 cents to expand the children's health program.

FIND MORE STORIES IN: George W. Bush | Congress | Cleveland | United States House of Representatives | Medicare | Medicaid | Senate Finance Committee | Health Insurance Program | Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids | Sen. Orrin Hatch | Sen. Ron Wyden | Sen. Gordon Smith
The CHIP program has insured about 6.6 million children ineligible for Medicaid. Most are in families with incomes below 200% of the federal poverty level, or $41,300 for a family of four. About 6 million children who are eligible for the program are not covered.

The federal tobacco tax, last raised in 2003, has never been increased by more than a dime per pack. Eleven states increased tobacco taxes this year, putting the national state average at $1.07.

The House is working on a similar package that could add $50 billion to the program over five years by combining a tobacco tax increase with reductions in federal payments to private insurers under Medicare. Children's advocates favor the larger figure.

President Bush could block any deal. In his 2008 budget, Bush proposed adding $5 billion over five years to the program, which currently costs almost $5 billion per year. He has criticized some states' expansions of the program to adults and less needy children.

"The program is going beyond the initial intent of helping poor children. It's now aiming at encouraging more people to get on government health care," Bush said Tuesday in Cleveland. "I'll resist Congress's attempt to federalize medicine."

Some elements of the emerging Senate deal would make the program more strict. Income limits for children would be set. No more parents could be added other than pregnant women. Adults without children would be moved to Medicaid, which pays less. Currently, 11 states cover adults under the children's program.

The tobacco industry opposes the deal, saying smokers pay $89 million a day in federal and state taxes and tobacco settlement costs. "We think that smokers are already paying enough," said Steve Kottak of R.J. Reynolds Tobacco.

Anti-smoking groups say higher taxes save lives. "Research shows a clear health benefit from higher tobacco taxes," said William Corr of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids. A 61-cent increase, he said, would prevent nearly 1.9 million children from smoking and help nearly 1.2 million adults to quit.

http://www.familiesusa.org/assets/pdfs/schip-leveling-the-playing.pdf

^^^ According to this site, 60% of children living without health insurance are minority children. For shame.

My first observation about this "tax", which I prefer to call anal rape, is that it would be perfectly reasonable for these children to receive health insurance if they were children of the smokers!!!! And if they were children of the smokers give the smokers the 1.00 back you've stole from them in the past 6 years, not counting a majority of state's taxes that have been increased over the past 2 years, and let them pay for their children's health insurance!!

Secondly, the number of white smokers far outweighs any other ethnic group. The smokers, who are disproportionately white, their 61 cent tax should benefit White America. Indeed, Sen. Smith of Oregon even says that "... it does connect public health care costs with one of the drivers of that cost, and that's tobacco." So he is asserting that adults around children smoking are affecting the health of those children. There is no doubt these children are white. It would be unreasonable to fund children's health insurance when their health is not even affected by tobacco.

Thirdly, The whites make up a substantial majority of the US population and many of them are uninsured. This SCHIP initiative is aimed at funding the health insurance for millions of minority children, who are neither affected by tobacco, nor are any more qualified than a white child to receive health insurance provided by SCHIP.

In effect, I will be paying $200+ a year for my niece and nephew to go to school with black and mexican children, who although they receive health insurance now, will, while contagious, have the idea reinforced in them that "Well I have antibiotics now, I can go back to school!" in turn getting my poor niece and nephew sick. And because they're white, they will not receive benefits under this program.

You can be gay and be a protected minority. You can be protected being black and mexican, you can be protected being a communist and a child molester. Where is the protection and assurance of rights and due process for white Americans and smokers? Because it seems to me that it is okay to hate minorities, when the public perception, the tide of information swings against them.

This is a low blow to every conservative American who recognizes the virtue of the tobacco plant. In the 1600's it was a major cash crop, stimulating the economy and enriching the nation with newfound funds.

But now, the government campaign against tobacco, indeed even the tyrannical majority's disdain for smokers has surfaced and the tobacco smokers are facing a new onslaught of challenges, hatred, and persecution.

When will this end? When will parents take the initiative and provide their own children's health insurance instead of relying on a persecuted minority to fund it? Would it be appropriate for the whites to levy a tax for legal fees when a white is imprisoned for lynching a black? The answer is a resounding "No."

We must now write our congressmen and express our anger towards this new measure. We can not continue lending support to the big money, big oil, big corporation incumbents who have ran our nation for generations. We must vote them out of office and try them for treason. It is the only way for us to take our rights back.

[Iskandar]

Wait, Americans don't already pay cigarette tax? What?

[guitrguy]

tax hike

[BlisteryNixon]

Wait, Americans don't already pay cigarette tax? What?

Americans pay 39 cents federal cigarette tax and an average of $1.07 in state taxes. That adds up to $89 million a day.

[Seafroggys]

Um, your argument fails. Senator Smith is no longer senator, he lost to Jeff Merkley in November (thank god). Thus the rest of your argument is moot.

[Iskandar]

That's nothing. You should try being a smoker in Canada.

Not that I am or anything.

[Against Miik!]

Wait, Americans don't already pay cigarette tax? What?

I believe this is saying they just raised the tax from what it previously was.

The smokers, who are disproportionately white, their 61 cent tax should benefit White America

What the hell is this?

[BlisteryNixon]

Um, your argument fails. Senator Smith is no longer senator, he lost to Jeff Merkley in November (thank god). Thus the rest of your argument is moot.

No not at all. His opinion is shared by many senators. That is the idea behind an excise tax is that it pays for troubles created by targeted peoples.

[BlisteryNixon]

What the hell is this?

Read my response to Seafroggys and tell me why the tax of white smokers, whose smoking is detrimental to the health of white children, should be given to unaffected minorties.

[Iskandar]

God, those white Americans have it so tough.

[BlisteryNixon]

God, those white Americans have it so tough.

Well I'm a little upset that in Texas, which is thought of as a conservative state of smokers and trailer trash, has raised taxes on cigarettes in the past few years. And now this. Going from 3.25 a pack to 6.00 a pack in that time is ridiculous with inflation like it is and the price of milk and everything.

But yeah I guess the blacks do have it worse. They drink chocolate milk. I mean, why's it gotta be white milk?

[Against Miik!]

God, those white Americans have it so tough.

Honestly.

Read my response to Seafroggys and tell me why the tax of white smokers, whose smoking is detrimental to the health of white children, should be given to unaffected minorties.

Are you actually saying that you don't think this tax is good because it helps black children?

[Aaron]

If you're stupid enough to choose to smoke after all the education about its medical effects, then you should pay extra taxes for that decision.

[Iskandar]

All races smoke so I really don't see what this has to do with white people.

[BlisteryNixon]

Are you actually saying that you don't think this tax is good because it helps black children?

It is totally contradictory to the purpose of an excise tax.

[BlisteryNixon]

All races smoke so I really don't see what this has to do with white people.

Because far more whites smoke than blacks.

[Iskandar]

Because far more whites smoke than blacks.Because there are far more white people. Duh.

[Against Miik!]

It is totally contradictory to the purpose of an excise tax.

Um how exactly

[Aaron]

It's not a tax on ethnic groups though, it's on individuals that smoke.

[BlisteryNixon]

It's not a tax on ethnic groups though, it's on individuals that smoke.

I would estimate 36 million white Americans smoke. Roughly 2.6 million black Americans smoke. Proportionately, SCHIP should provide benefits for 90% whites and 10% for blacks not accounting for other minorities.

[Aaron]

I would estimate 36 million white Americans smoke. Roughly 2.6 million black Americans smoke. Proportionately, SCHIP should provide benefits for 90% whites and 10% for blacks not accounting for other minorities.

Congratulations.

Doesn't change the nature of the tax system, being that it taxes individuals on their own consumer choices and incomes.

[BlisteryNixon]

Congratulations.

Doesn't change the nature of the tax system, being that it taxes individuals on their own consumer choices and incomes.

Well breaking down the numbers the maximum number of white children affected by this expansion of the SCHIP program will be roughly 40%. The minimum of black and hispanic children will be 60%. This totally goes against the purpose of an excise tax and is inherently racist legislation.

[Aaron]

Given that the government spends so much of it's own money on the education of people in relation to how bad for your health it is, then they can ask for it back if people disregard that information so overtly. It's not racist legislation, really it just highlights that white people are more inclined to disregard obvious health information.

[Iskandar]

You might have a case for it being racist if the tax only applied to white people. As it is, you don't.

[BlisteryNixon]

Given that the government spends so much of it's own money on the education of people in relation to how bad for your health it is, then they can ask for it back if people disregard that information so overtly. It's not racist legislation, really it just highlights that white people are more inclined to disregard obvious health information.

In fact, 21.9% of white Americans smoke regularly. 23% of black Americans do. This suggests that black people are more inclined to disregard obvious health information.

[BlisteryNixon]

You might have a case for it being racist if the tax only applied to white people. As it is, you don't.

How can you be so gullible? A tax paid mostly by white Americans should benefit white Americans. An insignificant number of minority citizens will be paying the 61 cent tax but will be disproportionately affected by its benefits.

[Aaron]

I'm tired of you throwing around numbers, give sources or I'll disregard them.

p.s. Aren't you reversing your argument now with those number?

[BlisteryNixon]

I'm tired of you throwing around numbers, give sources or I'll disregard them.

p.s. Aren't you reversing your argument now with those number?

Those numbers are from the CDC.

http://www.itwire.com/index2.php?option=com_content&do_pdf=1&id=15284

You just made an absurd statement and I pointed it out.

[Aaron]

My statement was not absurd. Excise taxing is a valid tool for governments to use in conjunction with education programs to reduce the effects of substance abuse.

[Iskandar]

Not if we abolish the state!

[BlisteryNixon]

My statement was not absurd. Excise taxing is a valid tool for governments to use in conjunction with education programs to reduce the effects of substance abuse.

But this isn't to fund education programs. It is to fund SCHIP.

Look at it like this. Say America is 60% white and 13% black. That is 180 million, and 39 million respectively. Say 20% of each race smokes. That's 36 million and 8 million maximum for a total of 44 million. Whites make up 80% of that figure and thus out of 2 million children who are given benefits, 1.6 million should be white. But this is not the case. In fact, children who qualify for SCHIP are only on average 40% white.

[Aaron]

lol Alex.

I didn't say it was to fund education programs. It's the taking the money from people that's important in my argument, not where it's put subsequent to that.

[Against Miik!]

Look at it like this. Say America is 60% white and 13% black. That is 180 million, and 39 million respectively. Say 20% of each race smokes. That's 36 million and 8 million maximum for a total of 44 million. Whites make up 80% of that figure and thus out of 2 million children who are given benefits, 1.6 million should be white. But this is not the case. In fact, children who qualify for SCHIP are only on average 40% white.

But why are you saying that each race should only have to support itself

[BlisteryNixon]

But why are you saying that each race should only have to support itself

I have explained this numerous times. An excise tax is for problems caused by the targeted peoples. Therefore, a cigarette tax is to fund cancer research and smoking prevention campaigns. An alcohol tax is for drunk driving incidents. A MVI or MVR tax is for road maintenance. I quoted Senator Smith of Oregon and he agrees and so do many other senators. Their reasoning is that "tobacco causes health problems, so we must increase the excise tax to fund health insurance for affected children". The problem with this though is that the affected children aren't being covered by SCHIP. In fact a majority of unaffected minority children will receive benefits from taxes paid by whites to help other whites.

I wouldn't even support benefits for all white children. Only a proportioned number of affected white children.

[Aaron]

You're an idiot if you're upset by that.

[Against Miik!]

Yeah sorry you aren't really making sense

[BlisteryNixon]

Yeah sorry you aren't really making sense

No you're repeating yourself. An example of an excise tax would be tax on liquor, cigarettes, and motor vehicle registration and inspection. The idea is that the funds raised from these taxes will help deter the problems caused by the goods. Liquor causes drunk driving, so an excise tax is added to fund prevention campaigns to teach children the value of sobriety. Tobacco causes lung cancer so with the added cost on the state and federal governments, the tax is added to fund smoking prevention and cancer research. If you drive a car you pay an excise tax on gas because you are using the roads, which need maintenance.

[Iskandar]

And ... ? I don't see the problem.

[BlisteryNixon]

So now you understand an excise tax.

So therefore, an excise tax on cigarettes to provide children's health insurance should only benefit affected children, which in this case would be the children of the smokers or the live in nieces and nephews of smokers.

[Aaron]

No.

[BlisteryNixon]

No.

Tell me why then.

[Aaron]

Because the primary function of excising taxing is taxing people their money as a disincentive to continue their current activities. Where the money goes is irrelevant.

[BlisteryNixon]

Because the primary function of excising taxing is taxing people their money as a disincentive to continue their current activities. Where the money goes is irrelevant.

It's not a disincentive to continue their current activities. The government could care less if people smoked and rake in many billions when they do. All an excise tax is for in this case is to provide health insurance for affected children.

[Iskandar]

I take it by his logic we should only tax military families to pay America's massive defense budget.

[BlisteryNixon]

I take it by his logic we should only tax military families to pay America's massive defense budget.

No. I would abolish the DHS and I would decrease defense budgets by a good 50% if I were in charge. But I'm not so my opinion means nothing.

[Iskandar]

How else would we pay for the War on Islam, though? Remember: We must fight the enemy until they're destroyed and incapable of harming America and its ally Israel or something like that.

[BlisteryNixon]

How else would we pay for the War on Islam, though? Remember: We must fight the enemy until they're destroyed and incapable of harming America and its ally Israel or something like that.

We're getting off the subject. But there's a difference between fight and kill. Fighting the insurgency takes years if not decades and costs trillions of dollars. Pulling out and occasionally dropping a few hundred thousand pound bombs on their biggest cities periodically is relatively much cheaper.

[Iskandar]

You think it's okay to bomb civilian areas as long as they're filthy Arabs?

[BlisteryNixon]

You think it's okay to bomb civilian areas as long as they're filthy Arabs?

No. I'm saying that we're killing them anyway. (well i'm not but the government and military is) All I'm saying is there;s much cheaper ways to do it rather than spend hundreds of billions a year. To think, we could have cured cancer by now with that kind of money.

[Aaron]

It's not a disincentive to continue their current activities. The government could care less if people smoked and rake in many billions when they do. All an excise tax is for in this case is to provide health insurance for affected children.

I'm going to assume your condition is effecting how your reading my posts, as you consistently confuse they as to mean the government, irrespective of the structure of the sentence it's in.

I'm saying that the government utilises excises in order to make it less attractive for people to continue smoking in order to stop them smoking, due to the health issues that smoking has. The result of this is a positive for the government as well as the general population threefold;
1) less people smoke and thus have less medical issues
2) less medical issues being encountered, less of a strain on the health system
3) Increased coffers for the government to spend, as they choose

If the government decided to pledge that money, that's great, but it's not a direct link between the excise and the money being spent.

[BlisteryNixon]

I'm saying that the government utilises excises in order to make it less attractive for people to continue smoking in order to stop them smoking, due to the health issues that smoking has. The result of this is a positive for the government as well as the general population threefold;
1) less people smoke and thus have less medical issues
2) less medical issues being encountered, less of a strain on the health system
3) Increased coffers for the government to spend, as they choose

If the government decided to pledge that money, that's great, but it's not a direct link between the excise and the money being spent.

No. An excise tax is not to deter people from participating in an activity. According to your logic, gas excise taxes should prevent people from driving and instead ride in a horse-drawn carriage.

The excise tax is to provide funds for the problems associated with the good. In this case the only people who should receive benefits for an increase in cigarette taxes are the children affected by the smoke.

[Aaron]

So you're saying that governments arbitrarily apply specific taxes, just for revenue raising, and ignore the social results of this tax?

You need to separate your opinion from obvious things that are happening in the world, if you're going to objectively argue something. It's the primary reason why most of this board laughs at you.

In this case the only people who should receive benefits for an increase in cigarette taxes are the children affected by the smoke.
They do, as the higher the cost of smoking then the less smoking that will be done.

[BlisteryNixon]

They do, as the higher the cost of smoking then the less smoking that will be done.

Negative. Increase in cigarette taxes do not decrease the number of smokers but only to a minimal extent.

In fact, with the campaign against smoking less young people are picking up smoking every year and the only thing that specifically and significantly contributes to the decrease in smoking is personal initiative and death. If you look at the recent increase in taxes on tobacco, it actually correlates very well with inflation and is also increased biennially and sometimes more often in order to make up for lost revenue. This suggests that not only is the government in the business of keeping people smoking, but that they are reaping massive profits by doing so.

[StreetlightRock]

Rainbows contain every other color but black and white. This suggests that they are Chinese. And most probably in fact spy planes. We should abolish all rainbows.

[BlisteryNixon]

But now, I can see it now. I am known for my classic solutions to problems. In fact I am highly regarded in that area. I can see you asking, "Well what do you propose VF?"

I propose a sports participation tax. We should increase the federal income tax of professional athletes by 50%, in order to solve this crisis in healthcare.

There is evidence to suggest that the sports viewing and childhood illness are related to a grave extent. The longer a drunk man sits in front of the tv watching football, the more likely the child is to get flu, strep, bronchitis, pneumonia, a cold, requiring more medical care, the tab picked up by Joe Taxpayer. We need to provide a disincentive to sports stars to continue playing professional ball, thus giving parents more time for their children, providing for better health, less obesity, and the illnesses associated with it.

[Iskandar]

The government is trying to keep people smoking by a tax intended to discourage smoking. Okay.

[BlisteryNixon]

The government is trying to keep people smoking by a tax intended to discourage smoking. Okay.

But they're not discouraging smoking. They're making up for lost revenue caused by 400,000 smoking deaths a year and the community campaigns against smoking.

[Iskandar]

You can argue about the effectiveness of the tax and have a legitimate point but arguing it's intended to encourage smoking is stupid and pointless. If the government wanted to encourage smoking they wouldn't tax cigarettes, they'd permit them to be sold to any age group anywhere.

[BlisteryNixon]

You can argue about the effectiveness of the tax and have a legitimate point but arguing it's intended to encourage smoking is stupid and pointless. If the government wanted to encourage smoking they wouldn't tax cigarettes, they'd permit them to be sold to any age group anywhere.

Exactly the opposite. It's not that they encourage smoking and would therefore remove all excise taxes, but that they add excise taxes and therefore encourage smoking.

A great example of this is the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act. The Democrats want to regulate tobacco under the FDA and grant them the power to ban menthol and candy-flavored tobacco. Any seasoned vet in Washington would know immediately to vote against the bill because if they didn't they would have less funds to appropriate and we all know the politician's drug is appropriation.

[Iskandar]

Okay, the onus is on you to prove they encourage smoking.

[McP3000]

thank you for smoking was a pretty good movie

[Already_Taken]

If you're stupid enough to choose to smoke after all the education about its medical effects, then you should pay extra taxes for that decision.

we already pay extra taxes. cigerettes are 5.50 a pack here that is ridiculous. it probably costs less than 20 cents to manufacture a pack of cigs.

[BlisteryNixon]

we already pay extra taxes. cigerettes are 5.50 a pack here that is ridiculous. it probably costs less than 20 cents to manufacture a pack of cigs.

What he is suggesting is a tax on stupidity. If that is the case we should also have a tax for brilliant attorneys who find tax loopholes, brilliant doctors who ultimately sell out to big pharma and hold their patients for a ransom.

And secondly it's not even stupidity. It could be many things including peer pressure, curiosity, anxiety problems. In fact some groups of mentally ill people smoke 3-4x as often compared to "normal" people and somehow or another are prone or exposed to it and in my case I grew up around it. Seeing everyone do it makes it kind of difficult to "just say no" when you're offered one. And people who continue smoking are probably more addicted than stupid.

I for one smoke it because it helps with anxiety and as a celebration of my Native American heritage and in honor of the Founding Fathers who made America a rich and prosperous land through the bountiful supply of tobacco.

[Iskandar]

Er, didn't you say you were 5% Native American? Besides which I don't see what smoking prepackaged cigarettes has to do with Native American tobacco ceremonies.

[BlisteryNixon]

Er, didn't you say you were 5% Native American? Besides which I don't see what smoking prepackaged cigarettes has to do with Native American tobacco ceremonies.

Well the good news is I'm no less than 6.25%, although I may be up to 11 some odd percent non-white.

[Already_Taken]

you're 100% a pitiful man

[Iskandar]

Lol at 6.25% (whatever that means) meaning you have Native American heritage. I forget what the necessary ancestry to qualify for status is here, but it's either one half or one quarter.

[Already_Taken]

yeah my great grandma's black but people wouldn't believe me so i never say anything about it. but i am decent at basketball

[BlisteryNixon]

yeah my great grandma's black but people wouldn't believe me so i never say anything about it. but i am decent at basketball

Only a black would be entertained at throwing a ball through a hoop.\

Yo nigga i gots da ball ins da hole

[Iskandar]

Stop being racist.

[BlisteryNixon]

Stop being racist.

ITT Iskandar does not understand sarcasm!

[Iskandar]

Since it wasn't funny my only recourse was to assume it was racist. Given all the complaining you do about how badly whites are treated in America I don't think that's unfounded.

[BlisteryNixon]

Since it wasn't funny my only recourse was to assume it was racist. Given all the complaining you do about how badly whites are treated in America I don't think that's unfounded.

Well I am not against blacks. I am pro-white. Big difference there.

[Iskandar]

Most "pro-white" organizations are racist and white supremacist in nature.

[Angmar]

lol

Pretty sure putting up one race inherently puts down others.

[BlisteryNixon]

Most "pro-white" organizations are racist and white supremacist in nature.

Not at all. Do you find the ADL or NAACP racist? What about Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton?

[Iskandar]

Not at all. Do you find the ADL or NAACP racist? What about Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton?No, because they have legitimate concerns about the status of their races in relation to the rest of American society. "Pro-white" is just a front for justifying the historically privileged position of Europeans.

[BlisteryNixon]

No, because they have legitimate concerns about the status of their races in relation to the rest of American society. "Pro-white" is just a front for justifying the historically privileged position of Europeans.

Well I am pro-white. But what you may not understand is that you could also call me pro-black. I would not call myself pro-black but let me clarify that. I want to see successful blacks. I want to see black doctors and black politicians and judges. I want to see millionaire blacks who give support to their families. I don't like seeing blacks suffer in poverty. If I could do anything to help blacks have a better future I would but I would never support stealing from whites and giving to blacks which is all this SCHIP expansion is.

[Iskandar]

The aim of things like affirmative action and preferential hiring is to improve the position of blacks and other minorities. It isn't to be anti-white.

[BlisteryNixon]

The aim of things like affirmative action and preferential hiring is to improve the position of blacks and other minorities. It isn't to be anti-white.

When will they ever learn? The fact is, the most qualified candidate should be admitted to top universities and never on the basis of race. Not only is it anti-white but it is also anti-black and everyone else too.

[Iskandar]

Not really since the purpose is to get more blacks and other minorities into college. If racial equality truly existed it wouldn't be necessary.

[BlisteryNixon]

Not really since the purpose is to get more blacks and other minorities into college. If racial equality truly existed it wouldn't be necessary.

And I'm sure by racial equality you mean equal grades, equal standardized testing scores and equal IQs. No racial equality certainly does not exist in that sense.

It is in fact highly racist against blacks.

[Iskandar]

Uh, you think differences in IQ exist between races?

[BlisteryNixon]

Uh, you think differences in IQ exist between races?

Well it is plainly obvious that the pre-94 SAT correlates pretty well with IQ and blacks score significantly less on the SAT.

But there are plenty of idiot whites and plenty of intelligent blacks like Obama. Although I prefer Clarence Thomas.

[Iskandar]

Er, I know you're from Texas but I would have you'd at least heard of selection bias. Racial minorities and poor people do worse on standardized tests, including IQ tests, because of inferior education and social standing.

An interesting sociological experiment was done by an American teacher in which she designated one group of students as superior and another as inferior. The inferior students had to sit apart, use different water fountains etc. When tested, the "superior" group did better than the inferior, and when the roles were reversed the same was true. Perhaps you've heard the term "self-fulfilling prophecy."

Long story short, believing some races are more intelligent than others is not only unscientific, it's blatantly racist.

[BlisteryNixon]

Er, I know you're from Texas but I would have you'd at least heard of selection bias. Racial minorities and poor people do worse on standardized tests, including IQ tests, because of inferior education and social standing.

An interesting sociological experiment was done by an American teacher in which she designated one group of students as superior and another as inferior. The inferior students had to sit apart, use different water fountains etc. When tested, the "superior" group did better than the inferior, and when the roles were reversed the same was true. Perhaps you've heard the term "self-fulfilling prophecy."

Long story short, believing some races are more intelligent than others is not only unscientific, it's blatantly racist.

It's highly scientific and highly unracist. I think Obama is a genius for one. Although George Washington Carver, like most blacks, liked his nuts. But he was a genius in his own right. Another black role model of mine is Clarence Thomas.

But to respond to your point. The IQ is not a measure of accumulated intelligence. It is a measure of analytical reasoning skills, critical thinking, logic, et cetera. It is a test that anyone can do well on regardless of race or "social standing" and to suggest otherwise is blatantly racist. You sir are the racist for suggesting that blacks don't do as well for their color.

[Knifeboy]

vf: blacks have lower iq
iskandar: because of their social standing
vf: you're a racist because your say they do worse because of their skincolor!

:confused:

can't you just ban him for trolling

[Iskandar]

Uh, the point I was making was that blacks do worse because of their social position, not because of their race.

[Against Miik!]

You are saying that there isn't something inherent in the black race that makes them less intelligent.

ok

[Iskandar]

There isn't. I don't get it.

[Against Miik!]

No I'm agreeing with you and just saying its common sense

[Iskandar]

It's their own fault they're poor. Pat Buchanan 08.

[BlisteryNixon]

Uh, the point I was making was that blacks do worse because of their social position, not because of their race.

Hardly. It has nothing to do with their social position. SAT to some extent is something that can be changed. With the proper lessons and tutoring and training, just about anyone can do very well on it. The blacks don't have as much of that or the money to pay for a prep course. But overall, blacks with just as good teachers and who attended just as good schools score significantly less on the SAT, and should likewise do equally worse on the IQ test.

[BlisteryNixon]

My point is: Blacks are significantly less intelligent and for college bound seniors by a good 10 points

Just think, if Obama had been white he would have been a super genius.

[Iskandar]

Um, what are you basing this on?

[BlisteryNixon]

Um, what are you basing this on?

Look up average SAT scores by race. The black males tend to score an average of 200 points lower than white males on the SAT. Black females 400 points lower. If you're argument were true, then that still would not explain the discrepancy between male and female scores.

Also a 200 point SAT difference corresponds to a difference of 10 IQ points according to the IQ selectivity chart.

[BlisteryNixon]

But I want to switch gears a minute. Barack Obama claimed he would cut taxes for 91% of Americans.

In fact, the Democrats even claim to be the party of "the little man". You have heard it all your lives, the Democrats are for the "little guy" and Republicans are for "the rich".

Then explain this Iskandar. A majority of smokers are from the lower class. Many are mentally ill and disabled in some shape or form.

Then why does Barack Obama want to raise taxes for the smokers?

He doesn't stand for the little guy. The Democrats have never stood for the little guy. I admit the Republicans are for the rich, but the dems aren't hardly any better because they support the middle class. I would submit to you that no one truly stands for "the little guy".

And now Obama wants to hit us where it counts by taxing us even further.

[Knifeboy]

You sir are the racist for suggesting that blacks don't do as well for their color.

My point is: Blacks are significantly less intelligent



why don't you just ban him already

[Iskandar]

Look up average SAT scores by race. The black males tend to score an average of 200 points lower than white males on the SAT. Black females 400 points lower. If you're argument were true, then that still would not explain the discrepancy between male and female scores.Um, I know they score lower on the SAT. I'm arguing it's because of socioeconomic reasons. You have to provide evidence that it's because of race (or gender) and thus far you haven't.

[BlisteryNixon]

why don't you just ban him already

Well see, I am not claiming to know why. But SATs have shown that blacks score significantly less than whites and if you regard the IQ selectivity chart as credible you must accept the average black's IQ is 10 points or more less than the average whites.

[BlisteryNixon]

Um, I know they score lower on the SAT. I'm arguing it's because of socioeconomic reasons. You have to provide evidence that it's because of race (or gender) and thus far you haven't.

Not all blacks are poor, even the ones who aren't still score less. At the same time many poor whites score higher than rich blacks. It has nothing to do with "socioeconomic" status. Even more intelligent blacks who are admitted to law or med school on the basis of race typically flunk out at a much higher rate than whites.

[Iskandar]

Oh, so blacks are just dumb?

[BlisteryNixon]

Oh, so blacks are just dumb?

No blacks are not dumb. That is not what I am saying. They just aren't as academically-inclined.

[Iskandar]

You can't make generalizations like that about entire races.

[BlisteryNixon]

You can't make generalizations like that about entire races.

Everything I say I am referring to the average. The average black is not as academically-inclined as the average white.

[Iskandar]

Okay, and you can't prove that by citing SAT scores. You have to prove it's because of race and not social factors.

[BlisteryNixon]

Okay, and you can't prove that by citing SAT scores. You have to prove it's because of race and not social factors.

I don't have to prove anything. College and high school drop out rates show quite unequivocally that blacks drop out at a higher rate but whether it is due to environmental factors or inherent inability is unknown to me.

[Iscariot]

I don't really understand the idea that raising cigarette taxes would decrease smoking. Smokers smoke. If you raise the cost per pack we'll just adjust our budget so we can keep affording them.

[BlisteryNixon]

I don't really understand the idea that raising cigarette taxes would decrease smoking. Smokers smoke. If you raise the cost per pack we'll just adjust our budget so we can keep affording them.

Exactly. The government is not in the business of deterring behavior, such as buying cigarettes or smoking, which results in more tax revenue, especially the legislature. All they are doing now is making up for lost revenue from the million or so people who have died since the last tax increase (and inflation, and the value of the dollar has decreased, they are just making up for lost revenue).

[Knifeboy]

I don't really understand the idea that raising cigarette taxes would decrease smoking. Smokers smoke. If you raise the cost per pack we'll just adjust our budget so we can keep affording them.

Actually raising taxes on cigarettes have been proven to cut down on smoking

Works best with a mixture of raising taxes and educating people about smoking though

[BlisteryNixon]

Actually raising taxes on cigarettes have been proven to cut down on smoking

A negligible number quit. Government raises more tax revenue by increasing taxes than what they lose by the number of people who quit.


Works best with a mixture of raising taxes and educating people about smoking though

Most government initiatives against smoking are organized at the local level. The federal government is in the business of maximizing profits and the shareholder is the top priority.

[mph4ever]

smokers shouldn't get healthcare. theres plenty of tax in that

[BlisteryNixon]

smokers shouldn't get healthcare. theres plenty of tax in that

Why don't you respond to my point on the sports participation tax.

[mph4ever]

Why don't you respond to my point on the sports participation tax.

does it relate to smokers not getting healthcare?

[BlisteryNixon]

does it relate to smokers not getting healthcare?

No but it is a spectacular solution to the problem of poor minority children without health insurance.

[Iscariot]

smokers shouldn't get healthcare.

Bullshit.

By that logic, drinkers shouldn't get health care either. Neither should bicyclists who frequent major roads of transportation and inhale car exhaust fumes all day. And employees at hookah shops shouldn't get health care because they voluntarily work around tobacco smoke all day.

And let's not forget other potentially fatal hobbies like skydiving, base jumping, bungee jumping, flying an airplane, driving a train, or leaving the house every day.

[BlisteryNixon]

Bullshit.

By that logic, drinkers shouldn't get health care either. Neither should bicyclists who frequent major roads of transportation and inhale car exhaust fumes all day. And employees at hookah shops shouldn't get health care because they voluntarily work around tobacco smoke all day.

And let's not forget other potentially fatal hobbies like skydiving, base jumping, bungee jumping, flying an airplane, driving a train, or leaving the house every day.

And gays shouldn't have it either because they'll probably just get AIDS anyway.

Oh and the Chinese? They might ask for a pituitary gland injection so they won't be so short! Those cost millions!

[mph4ever]

Bullshit.

By that logic, drinkers shouldn't get health care either. Neither should bicyclists who frequent major roads of transportation and inhale car exhaust fumes all day. And employees at hookah shops shouldn't get health care because they voluntarily work around tobacco smoke all day.

And let's not forget other potentially fatal hobbies like skydiving, base jumping, bungee jumping, flying an airplane, driving a train, or leaving the house every day.

you are extending the logic too far. if you purposely put yourself in a situation, other than your occupation for which i assume your employer pays for insurance, then you should not be an extra burdenon the state providing healthcare for those who don't. if you want to pay the extra to cover your unhealthy activities then you can but don't expect the same deal. alcohol fits the same as smokers.

now, i hope you know the can of worms that just opened up

[BlisteryNixon]

you are extending the logic too far. if you purposely put yourself in a situation, other than your occupation for which i assume your employer pays for insurance, then you should not be an extra burdenon the state providing healthcare for those who don't. if you want to pay the extra to cover your unhealthy activities then you can but don't expect the same deal. alcohol fits the same as smokers.

now, i hope you know the can of worms that just opened up

Or what about Europeans? Their liberal lifestyles will lead to all kinds of horrid diseases such as gonorrhea and chlamydia!

Or the Africans? They'll need special care later in life because of their gigantism!
Make those giants pay for their own health insurance! I'm a conservative I'm not paying taxes for you to grow 7 feet tall!

[mph4ever]

Or what about Europeans? Their liberal lifestyles will lead to all kinds of horrid diseases such as gonorrhea and chlamydia!

Or the Africans? They'll need special care later in life because of their gigantism!
Make those giants pay for their own health insurance! I'm a conservative I'm not paying taxes for you to grow 7 feet tall!


you might be taking the point just a little bit too far. there is no need to worry about smokers or drinkers or cyclists in africa because everyone knows that african diseases like aids and hunger and stuff will get them first.

[BlisteryNixon]

you might be taking the point just a little bit too far. there is no need to worry about smokers or drinkers or cyclists in africa because everyone knows that african diseases like aids and hunger and stuff will get them first.

Oh and why send aid to Africa? They already have AIDS!

[mph4ever]

Oh and why send aid to Africa? They already have AIDS!

hehehe, and its american aid that is killing all the palestinians

[BlisteryNixon]

hehehe, and its american aid that is killing all the palestinians

Oh and why fund student's college? Everyone knows college is a CIA front to distribute drugs to the youth of today! I'd say let em rot in McDonald's making 4.50 an hour! That'll put hair on their chest! Oh but they might need a government subsidy for razor blades too dammit!

[BlisteryNixon]

Okay guys I've had my fun for tonight. Tomorrow the serious discussion begins!

[Aaron]

Bullshit.

By that logic, drinkers shouldn't get health care either. Neither should bicyclists who frequent major roads of transportation and inhale car exhaust fumes all day. And employees at hookah shops shouldn't get health care because they voluntarily work around tobacco smoke all day.

And let's not forget other potentially fatal hobbies like skydiving, base jumping, bungee jumping, flying an airplane, driving a train, or leaving the house every day.
If you choose to increase the material risk of injury in avoidable situations, then you [or your employer] should have to pay for insurance, yes.

[mph4ever]

Okay guys I've had my fun for tonight. Tomorrow the serious discussion begins!

i always take your discussion seriously, seriously

[Chu]

No. I'm saying that we're killing them anyway. (well i'm not but the government and military is) All I'm saying is there;s much cheaper ways to do it rather than spend hundreds of billions a year. To think, we could have cured cancer by now with that kind of money.
This post probably shows your ignorance more than any other post you have ever made. (I hope it's a joke!)

It was so painful to read.

[griftadan]

well i'm pretty glad i didn't seriously respond to this

[BlisteryNixon]

This post probably shows your ignorance more than any other post you have ever made. (I hope it's a joke!)

It was so painful to read.

Well the cancer comment was more hyperbole than anything.

[GreyHam]

hmm, fags still seem much cheaper in the US than in the UK

part of my defense about peoples rights to smoke is that the tax revenue generated from cigarettes (which in the UK is about 50% of what the consumer pays) more than pays for the NHS healthcare on a yearly basis

although attitudes to smoking differ a lot from state to state dont they? i seem to remember CA and FL to be in the 'yea you can smoke - if you squeeze into an exlusion zone around specific lamposts with 30 other hacking, wheezing fag hags'

[siva_chair]

You shouldn't have to rely on tax reasons to defend people's right to smoke, tbh.

[BlisteryNixon]

You know if the excise tax on cigarettes went to what it was supposed to go for (cancer research), and they found a cure, smokers would be regarded as saviors. Ha! Likely.

Even the people who play the lottery who fund much of state's education programs are still called idiots for not investing the money. Those people need to shut up. The people playing the lottery are paying most of the taxes to send these idiot's kids to school.

[GreyHam]

You shouldn't have to rely on tax reasons to defend people's right to smoke, tbh.

i generally don't. As far as im concerned, i pay tax and contribute towards 'the system' (including the NHS) and if i want to smoke, thats up to me. its my body, im entitled to abuse at as i see fit as long as it doesnt affect those around me

now, when my lungs break and i go into hospital, people will cry 'ha! you deserve this! putrid disgusting habit that you have...wait a minute...YOU ARE COSTING ME MONEY! THIS COULD BE BETTER SPENT!'. its happened in this thread - the idea that people should not recieve healthcare for smoking as they have inflicted the damage on themselves

to retort - the tax revenue generated by the tobacco industry far exceeds the finance required to treat smoking related illnesses (and more precisely, if i smoke for 40 years at a pack of 20 a day, at the current rate, i will contribute approx £36'500 in revenue, disregarding any other tax i may be paying. id say thats a fair contribution

[siva_chair]

i generally don't. As far as im concerned, i pay tax and contribute towards 'the system' (including the NHS) and if i want to smoke, thats up to me. its my body, im entitled to abuse at as i see fit as long as it doesnt affect those around me

now, when my lungs break and i go into hospital, people will cry 'ha! you deserve this! putrid disgusting habit that you have...wait a minute...YOU ARE COSTING ME MONEY! THIS COULD BE BETTER SPENT!'. its happened in this thread - the idea that people should not recieve healthcare for smoking as they have inflicted the damage on themselves

to retort - the tax revenue generated by the tobacco industry far exceeds the finance required to treat smoking related illnesses (and more precisely, if i smoke for 40 years at a pack of 20 a day, at the current rate, i will contribute approx £36'500 in revenue, disregarding any other tax i may be paying. id say thats a fair contribution

Understand.

[Murdererer]

this is an outrage!!

[CarnageFairy]

Sure, raise the prices. More incentive for me to continue buying rolling tobacco.