Cali-Strutters: Discuss the props....
Swayze
14,705 Posts
There are a few that I hear a lot about... I think I know how I'll vote on them.86 - This is the one where they are going to tax cigarrettes to fund- oh wait- I don't care- don't tax my fucking smokes, man. I stress easy.87 - This the one about taxing oil to fund research for better energy. People don't like it because nobody wants to pay more at the gas pump, but then supporters say that its only the oil companies getting taxed, not prices at the pump. But the response to that is, if the companies are going to get taxed then you bet your ass that they will find a way to make it up at the pumps. So.... those motherfuckers are shady, I think I'll vote no. I don't want to pay more at the pump, and eco-friendly cars are uber gay looking anyways. (no homophobe).The abortion one - I can't make up my mind on this one. If a 15 girl gets knocked up and wants to get an abortion, shouldn't her parents know about it? I don't have kids yet, so I feel like I don't have the right to decide one way or the other. But I get the feeling that if I had a young daughter I would want to know if she was about to have MAJOR FUCKING SURGERY!! Especially if she needs my permission to get her goddam ears peirced. So, yes on that one.What else is out there? Those are the ones I hear about the most.Speak out californians, and tell me how to vote.
Comments
As for abortion: NO MORE RESTRICTIONS. This, like any other "minor" restriction, is just the state's backdoor way of eroding the right to choose. To employ an oft-miss-used phrase, this is a slippery slope. If this passes they will just push the envelope further, and I don't trust the current or future Supreme Court justices to draw the line any time soon.
As for the gas tax, not sure yet...Sure I want to tax the big oil companies. After all they are posting record profits at a time when we need to be moving away from this whole fossil fueled economy. On the other hand I do think the shady bastards will just raise their prices so the execs can continue to ball. What is needed is for the gov't to invest in alternative fuels and to tax these guys on the other end...
86 = I'd vote YES. The opposition to the bill, apart from the tobacco lobby of course, is pretty thin to me.
87 - I'd vote YES. I'm not afraid of higher prices at the pump - Americans get that shit too cheaply to begin with already. No pain, no future green gain.
85 - The abortion one. I'd vote YES. I have a daughter and if she felt like she couldn't talk to me about needing to get an abortion, then at that point, I've already failed as a parent. Trying to, at that point, force me to be part of the loop seems to be far after the point.
What about 90? That's turning out to be a lot more controversial than you would have thought, looking at it on paper. I'm going NO. Fuck a lawsuit.
People of colored lungs maybe, I dont care what color your skin is, but i dont feel i should pay for anyones health care after years of obvious self-neglect. I have many friends that are current smokers who agree w/ me and plan on voting yes on this. As an ex-smoker, I plan on voting yes also, hopefully it will dissuade new kids and influence older smokers to quit.
And no, I dont believe it will hit lower-income or people of color disproportionately, it will hit PEOPLE THAT SMOKE where it hurts, in the wallet.
cosign
a $2 tax on cigarettes is racist? I don't get it
Obviously I can respect this point of view.
I just think it's worth looking at the impact of well-intentioned taxation. It's like weight-based vehicle registration taxes or gasoline taxes: Those that can afford newer, more efficient cars don't shoulder the burden of these measures.
I understand where you're coming from re: the cigarette tax. Smoking is pushed at low income communities, especially of color, and given that disproportionate marketing, one would also expect that the burden, in turn, would hit the same communities disproportionately. However, while I accept that this may be a reality, smoking is something that requires a level of complicity on the part of the smoker in addition to whatever responsibility is owed by the tobacco companies. If a cigarette tax 1) would encourage people to quit and 2) provide resources to health care to facilitate that process, then I think that's a win-win. I don't mean to sound naive here - smoking is addictive in a way that makes quitting quite hard but taking that into mind, I still think a tax is better than no tax given those options.
And people should really vote NO on 90. I don't care if you're a property owner or not - this is incredibly insidious legislation that promises to create a whole new field of lawsuits. I think eminent domain abuses need to be curbed but this isn't the way to do it.
:5pager:
Republican hypocrisy at it's best!
A government restriction on a woman's right to choose is spun as the the government's "backing up out of the bedroom/personal/health issues of women."
I love it!
way to go critiquing other states' bills without actually voting in your own state brian
yes absolutely.
Why not put a 2 dollar tax on all junk food? We are a nation of shit eating fatasses.... obesity is the number one preventable disease killing americans right now, not smoking. Then tax drinking, and ... they ought to tax all businesses because work stresses people out and gives them heart attacks... except for the smokers because they take breaks all day....
Slippery slope, I know, and maybe its a weak argument, but so is "all of us non-smokers are paying for you unhealthy smokers!!" bullllshit.
I know I should stop smoking, and I could definitely stand to lose at least 20 pounds. In the mean time you health dorks can pay for my fat smoky ass when I hit 60 and get rolled into the hospital. Rootless, I'll see you there. Party Time!
Just tell them you are HCrink.
HA!
dude, you're right. There should be higher taxes on junk foods or anything filled with unhealthy preservatives. That shit is pretty damn unhealthy and gets a shit load of us sumffering from shit we wouldn't be suffering from elsewise (obesity rates seem to spike with every new survey)
I'm down with the junk food tax!
SHUT THE HELL UP YOU SKINNY FUCK!
Sorry... you angered the beer belly....
Dont misunderstand me, I am far from a Republican. But i dont think that restricts me from respecting their ideals. before anyone gets their panties in a bunch, I was refering to olde school republicans, not the red/blue bullschitt that gets passed off as two different parties these days.
From what I recall, early republican ideals embraced:
-keeping govt out of peoples lives; govt was for building and maintaining infrastructure, regulating business(kiss that one goodbye), and defending our country
-weaker federal govt/stronger local govt, similar in theory to what the confederate states were fighting for
-minimizing beauracracy by keeping govt small and the balance of power in the hand of the masses, something sorely lacking in modern times
Just my two cents.
http://www.ss.ca.gov/elections/elections_faq.htm
arrrrrrggghhhh
Imposing that sort of tax on a product with individual and sometimes un-quantify-able elasticity is just plain wrong.
Shit. Everyone knows smoking is bad. I have no problem w/ indoor smoking bans, (including bars) but that's where it should stop. You don't like the smoke? Get the fuck away from the smoker. Smoking is a choice, and should not have to suffer any economic burden simply because the choice was made. Everyone makes choices that negatively effect everyone else, and these negative externalities can not be quantified (just like addiction cannot... Positive externalities aren't easier to quantify, they are just not as contested because they are positive...) To attempt to do so is just stupid. (here's where i rant about stupid ass people introducing market inefficiencies and how it hurts everyone.)
Taxing the fuck out of people will just get them to buy their cigs from out of state on the internets, bypassing the stupid effing tax. The smoking tax =
...and yet you came out in favor of a governmental restriction on abortion in this very thread.
I cram to understand.
I read O-Dub's response as opposition to the prop despite the fact that he put 'yes', assuming that was a mistake? And then Belafonte cosigned him, mentioning how old-school repub's wanted to keep gov out of peoples lives?
Thats how I read it anyway..
exactly . well put. that was my bad for mis-interpeting
i think govt or anyone for that matter has a right to advise any gender for/against a major operation aside from a qualified medical practitioneer.
Time may come when this happens but right now, the fast food industry doesn't look at uber-evil as the tobacco and people still haven't made the connection that eating fast food is hazardous to their health.
Maybe "Fast FOod Nation" will change that.
(Unlikely).