Skip to comments.
[Michigan's GOP] Speaker supports higher cigarette tax than [its liberal Democrat] governor
MILIVE ^
| 3/17/2004
| AMY F. BAILEY
Posted on 03/18/2004 6:21:13 AM PST by ClintonBeGone
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-57 next last
To: Dan from Michigan
I heard Ted Nugent endorsed Gene DeRossett as well.
DeRossett is no Mike Rogers, but I think he might be the best in that pathetic primary.
21
posted on
03/18/2004 6:57:16 AM PST
by
ClintonBeGone
(John Kerry is the Democrat's Bob Dole)
To: Blood of Tyrants
What he needs to do is to force their hypocracy into the open. Propose a $20 per pack cigarette tax and use their same arguments. Nah... This would work much better:
Put a $75 tax on all abortions and see the hypocrisy start to flow.
To: ClintonBeGone
Apparently few politicians have ever taken a course in basic economics. Increasing the tax on cigarettes--i.e., raising the price--will either cause consumers to purchase fewer cigarettes or seek cheaper substitutes such as buying untaxed (as from Indian reservations) or bootlegged cigarettes. Either way means lower revenues for the state.
To: *puff_list; Gabz; SheLion; CSM; Conspiracy Guy
It's for the chhhiiillldddrreeennn. </sarcasm>
24
posted on
03/18/2004 7:15:13 AM PST
by
Just another Joe
(FReeping can be addictive and helpful to your mental health)
To: The Great RJ
Increasing the tax on cigarettes--i.e., raising the price--will either cause consumers to purchase fewer cigarettes or seek cheaper substitutes such as buying untaxed (as from Indian reservations) or bootlegged cigarettes. Either way means lower revenues for the state.The dollar projections on the cigarette tax hike assumed a 15% decline in the number of taxed cigarettes purchased in Michigan. Whether that's sufficient to cover the actual decline in taxed cigarettes purchsed is unclear.
To: Numbers Guy
a 15% decline in the number of taxed cigarettes Sweeeeeet!
26
posted on
03/18/2004 8:03:58 AM PST
by
Wheee The People
(Oo ee oo ah ah, ting tang, walla-walla bing bang. Oo ee oo ah ah, ting tang, walla-walla bing bang!)
To: Numbers Guy
I would love to see someone with the balls to put up for a vote a bill or amendment that would prohibit the purchase of cigarettes in the state of michigan. Watch how fast the liberal scamper.
27
posted on
03/18/2004 9:24:35 AM PST
by
ClintonBeGone
(John Kerry is the Democrat's Bob Dole)
To: ClintonBeGone; *puff_list; Just another Joe; Great Dane; Madame Dufarge; MeeknMing; steve50; ...
Oh brother!
28
posted on
03/18/2004 10:35:54 AM PST
by
SheLion
(Curiosity killed the cat BUT satisfaction brought her back!!!)
To: ClintonBeGone
State House Speaker Rick Johnson = R I N O
29
posted on
03/18/2004 10:38:34 AM PST
by
SheLion
(Curiosity killed the cat BUT satisfaction brought her back!!!)
To: ClintonBeGone
![](http://www.hostfile.com/home/darlene/puke.gif)
State House Speaker Rick Johnson = R I N O
30
posted on
03/18/2004 10:39:47 AM PST
by
SheLion
(Curiosity killed the cat BUT satisfaction brought her back!!!)
To: Wheee The People
a 15% decline in the number of taxed cigarettes
31
posted on
03/18/2004 10:40:54 AM PST
by
SheLion
(Curiosity killed the cat BUT satisfaction brought her back!!!)
To: netmilsmom
While you are there, if you smoke, get an injector machine, some tubes and loose tobacco. Screw the lot of them. ![](http://www.hostfile.com/home/darlene/machine.jpg)
![](http://www.hostfile.com/home/darlene/bag.jpg)
32
posted on
03/18/2004 10:46:04 AM PST
by
SheLion
(Curiosity killed the cat BUT satisfaction brought her back!!!)
To: SheLion
http://www.seedman.com/Tobacco.htm
If your climate is right. The founders had a tea party, maybe a few tobacco plants in each yard would send a message.
33
posted on
03/18/2004 10:48:47 AM PST
by
steve50
(“Let me . . . warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party.)
To: ClintonBeGone
I'm so damned sick of these politicians sticking it to the smokers every time they need money.
The state tax on cigs here in Massachusetts is $1.51 and to add insult to injury,they include that excise tax when calculating the sales tax.In other words,they tax the tax.
The higher the taxes on cigs go,the more smokers go to the Internet.
Are all politicians idiots or does it just seem that way?
34
posted on
03/18/2004 10:52:40 AM PST
by
Mears
(The Killer Queen--caviar and cigarettes)
To: SheLion; ClintonBeGone
I am so sick and tired of getting kicked around by these blowhards, I don't know whether to laugh or cry .
Please treat me like a child, oh Great GodGov, I deserve it.
35
posted on
03/18/2004 11:01:51 AM PST
by
metesky
("Brethren, leave us go amongst them." Rev. Capt. Samuel Johnston Clayton - Ward Bond- The Searchers)
To: steve50
If your climate is right. The founders had a tea party, maybe a few tobacco plants in each yard would send a message. Boy, Steve! I have never seen the likes of such a war on a LEGAL product. Have you? I think we are all seeing what is going on here. And it sure isn't about HEALTH and the KIDDIES!
36
posted on
03/18/2004 11:26:46 AM PST
by
SheLion
(Curiosity killed the cat BUT satisfaction brought her back!!!)
To: Mears
Are all politicians idiots or does it just seem that way?Mears! I KNEW this would happen! When the lawmakers saw the taxes from cigarettes fell, they would gleefully say "Oh Look! Our smoking campaign is WORKING! People are QUITTING!" They are such dumb azzes, I tell you!
![](http://www.hostfile.com/home/darlene/taxmap.jpg)
37
posted on
03/18/2004 11:29:50 AM PST
by
SheLion
(Curiosity killed the cat BUT satisfaction brought her back!!!)
To: ClintonBeGone; All
The irony is that early in her administration, Granholm actually had the guts to take on higher education. AIEEEEE!!!
No, please, no, don't buy into that artful agitprop!
Her Majesty has a plan, and she alluded to it early in her campaign, but then wised up and then shut about it.
Remember the early talk about "tweaking" the property tax reform?
Since she took office, she has been engaged in a one bitch war on education. This is not to be taken at face value. It is imperative that you put on your hegelian spectacles before viewing it!
Look at it like this: First, create a "problem" with "education". A money problem.
Squeeze "education" so hard that it hurts.
Then, keep squeezing.
Harder.
Then, squeeze some more.
Keep squeezing until all quarters are crying out for mercy.
Then, deliver the mercy.
The coup de grace will be delivered in the form of "'property tax reform' reform".
Remember when Michigan "reformed" its property tax by moving much of the education budget to the general fund (i.e., income tax), thus lowering property taxes?
Well, brace for impact. It'll be expanded back to property taxes, with no income tax relief.
The accurate term for this maneuver is a four-letter word beginning with the letter "F" -- a word I dare not speak during the Family Hour.
That, IMHO, is her plan.
You heard it here first.
Kiss your money goodbye.
38
posted on
03/18/2004 12:35:49 PM PST
by
Don Joe
(We've traded the Rule of Law for the Law of Rule.)
To: ClintonBeGone; All
PS:
It won't be the first time Michigan has used "education" for a handy dandy "tax football" either.
Remember the lottery? The promise was that the state should go with a lottery, because the revenue would go "to education". It was one of those "look, don't trust us, look, you don't have to trust our mere word for it, see? We put it in writing!" deals.
Yeah, they put it in writing, alright. Lottery money goes to education. Education will receive a windfall. Blah, blah, blah.
What they didn't put into writing, though, was the agenda.
Yup, you guessed it.
They took the same amount of money out of education -- from the general fund -- with the net result being that the lottery money was going into the general fund.
In other words, the precise reason people resisted a lottery was precisely what happened.
Money is fungible. And legislators and governors are [insert epithet of choice].
39
posted on
03/18/2004 12:41:11 PM PST
by
Don Joe
(We've traded the Rule of Law for the Law of Rule.)
To: The Great RJ
Increasing the tax on cigarettes--i.e., raising the price--will either cause consumers to purchase fewer cigarettes or seek cheaper substitutes such as buying untaxed (as from Indian reservations) or bootlegged cigarettes. Either way means lower revenues for the state. Gee, how sad, what a tragedy.
But, all the more reason to "tweak" the "property tax reform", eh?
Don't you just love it when a plan comes together?
You're not nearly cyincal enough for life in the PRM, my friend. Not nearly cynical enough...
40
posted on
03/18/2004 12:43:00 PM PST
by
Don Joe
(We've traded the Rule of Law for the Law of Rule.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-57 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson