That always struck me as the absurdity of it all

Posted By: AnnuderMT on 2009-06-10
In Reply to: Just wait! DH told me yesterday - Backwards typist

I used to live in California, and one of the first big tax increases on tobacco was going to pay for children's health care, with the stated side benefit of financially "encouraging" smokers to quit. Which at the time seemed short-sighted...if we all quit, who then is going to pick up the tab for all these services now paid for by these taxes? Not to mention the fact that, allegedly, they've become a huge black market item where the gov'nt gets absolutely no tax.

And you can't really blame this one squarely on the current administration. They've been slowly chipping away through the last several administrations, but now they're starting to target more than just the easily disdained smokers and people are suddenly realizing that just ain't right.

Complete Discussion Below:

marks the location of current message within thread

Raising taxes - cj
- How 'bout taxing health care, too - Backwards typist
  - Sorry-had to stop where i was to finish an stat job - Backwards typist
    - This article explains Sen. Kennedy's Plan - Backwards typist
  - By doing this..........sm - m
  - Are you sure that's not bassackwards? - AnnuderMT
    - I thought the discussion was - sm
      - Yes, I stand corrected - AnnuderMT
- Heard this morning about a possible "methane gas tax" (sm) - Zville MT
  - How 'bout the "luxury tax" on beer, wine and...sm. - Just wait.....
    - In my own bitter selfish way - AnnuderMT
      - Well, sure. Pretty soon blood screening - C. Mudgeon
        Not to mention they have talked about - Trigger Happy
        But think of the ''green'' jobs - C. Mudgeon
        That actually might be a - Trigger Happy
      - I truly do not see how - Trigger Happy
        Perhaps you need to re-read my post - AnnuderMT
        You did not claim to have a right to - Trigger Happy
      - Just wait! DH told me yesterday - Backwards typist
        I don't think tobacco will ever - C. Mudgeon
        That always struck me as the absurdity of it all - AnnuderMT
        Here's the article - Backwards typist
        This is a Republican brainstorm? - AnnuderMT
        If this is the work of the pubs - Trigger Happy
        And no underage teenager drinks - Trigger Happy
- Well how else was he supposed to - Trigger Happy

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu

Other related messages found in our database

If/when we are struck again

on Obama's watch.

1. It will still be Bush/the republicans' fault, even if it's years from now.

2. Obama will declare a period of serious national introspection on how we brought this upon ourselves.

3. We will apologize for making them do that to us.

4. Then we will promise to be better in the future.

5. Rinse, repeat.

You seem to have struck it rich in a
x

LOL, STRUCK A NERVE!!!
I KNEW that was you!!! You may have changed your posting style a bit but, yep, you're that 'I'm NOT INDIAN, I'M EUROPEAN!' person. I won't even say MT, cuz I'm still not convinced you are in fact at MT with your horrid grammar.

Hehehehehehe, flame me all you want, chica...I KNOW this is you now!!!

ROFLMAO -- that struck me as funny
Are you paranoid?

I am struck by the serious, if not somber expression
Flanked by more than a dozen economic advisors, Obama expressed his concern over the recent jobs report and today's news about the auto industry. He laid out his priorities for addressing economic crisis:

Implement jumpstart of economy measures outlines in his campaign plan, extension of unemployment benefits, assistance to state and local govts to prevent their problems from "compounding the problem," immediate passage of an economic stimulus package with repeated emphasis on jobs, jobs, jobs. Raising taxes seems to be on the back burner for the moment, with emphasis on tax cuts to middle class.

PA just struck down the common law marriage last year

Until then, if you stated you were married to a person, called them husband and wife, and went to a lawyer to papers made up and signed, you had the same rights as a married couple.

If you wanted to separate, you had to follow the rules of married couples and go through the courts.

Through common-law marriage, the couples were also recognized by the federal government as being married. Some states did not recognize common-law marriage, so if you wanted to move to another state, you had to be careful where you moved. You had to pick a state that recognized it.

My point being, I don't see why Civil Unions would not fall under the same rules as common-law marriages. They are the "same difference."

It's very hard to contest a will and the party who contests it is the one who must pay the legal fees (not sure if its for both parties or just the one contesting). Anyone can leave anything to anybody in a will if they are "of sound mind and judgment."

Hasn't anyone checked CA to see if they have common-law marriage?