Wisconsin Gov. Jim Doyle says cigarette tax is designed to get people to quit smoking

In Gov. Jim Doyle's proposed state budget, he sent a 75-cent message to smokers.

[Bang]

When the smokers all stop.

Who will be next, fat people??

Put that tax on a whooper!!!

[Mari Monsen]

Who do we go to to protest the cigarette tax hike?

[Free_America]

Mari Monsen wrote:

Who do we go to to protest the cigarette tax hike?

Contact your state senator and legislature.
You can get their email and addresses here
http://www.legis.wisconsin.gov/w3asp/waml/wam...
You can also join us at
http://banthebanwisconsin.wordpress.com/

[youou]

Good..youou said that long time ago. youou wins again...where is my trophey....SHERI!!!

[Free_America]

youou wrote:

Good..youou said that long time ago. youou wins again...where is my trophey....SHERI!!!

Doyle Knows the ban was not going to pass so he tacked it on to his budget. It still won't pass!

[Daniel in Hobbs]

I am so grateful the government controls every aspect of my life...

[Happy Contented Soul]

youou wrote:

Good..youou said that long time ago. youou wins again...where is my trophey....SHERI!!!

Here's your trophy youou.... http://tinyurl.com/c47yzz

[youou]

Free_America wrote:

<quoted text>Doyle Knows the ban was not going to pass so he tacked it on to his budget. It still won't pass!

And so will the other thousands of bans US wise. Dreamer...nothing but a dreamer...fa...wishing he was youou...
It must suck to be you and it must suck to be a butt next to you...because sooner or later..you are going to suck it.

[Free_America]

youou wrote:

<quoted text>
And so will the other thousands of bans US wise. Dreamer...nothing but a dreamer...fa...wishing he was youou...
It must suck to be you and it must suck to be a butt next to you...because sooner or later..you are going to suck it.

Now why would a normal person wish to be a pretender and a liar?

[Psd in WI]

youou wrote:

<quoted text>
And so will the other thousands of bans US wise. Dreamer...nothing but a dreamer...fa...wishing he was youou...
It must suck to be you and it must suck to be a butt next to you...because sooner or later..you are going to suck it.

What a MORON! Why don't they just out law smoking? OH ya right the government makes all them $$$$ off of the taxes. More than any bodie else. If the did then they would have to cut all the commy/socialist programs that the tax pays for. On second thought I like the idea,let all them lazy libb's pay for their own bills.

[Anndee]

Tax "Tea Party" Across America
Green Bay, Wi
March 7th 2009
11am
Titletown Brewery

Illegal aliens can apply for mortgage relief under the Obama administration's $275 billion plan, according to immigration experts and a group the government will use to help homeowners modify loans.

[youre outa here]

Mari Monsen wrote:

Who do we go to to protest the cigarette tax hike?

Just quit smoking, That'll show them.

[CB can see both sides]

Bang wrote:

When the smokers all stop.
Who will be next, fat people??
Put that tax on a whooper!!!

Anything which promotes healthy lifestyles, especially in children.

[Free_America]

CB can see both sides wrote:

<quoted text>Anything which promotes healthy lifestyles, especially in children.

“The state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people. As long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of the children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation.”-Mein Kampf, Adolf Hitler, Publ. Houghton Miflin, 1943, Page 403

[CB can see both sides]

Free_America wrote:

<quoted text>
“The state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people. As long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of the children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation.”-Mein Kampf, Adolf Hitler, Publ. Houghton Miflin, 1943, Page 403

and so are you suggesting we forget the children's health then. Just asking.

[Free_America]

CB can see both sides wrote:

<quoted text>and so are you suggesting we forget the children's health then. Just asking.

Yes. If the liberals want it they can take the money out of their pockets for a change.

Sixteen months ago, Arthur C. Brooks, a professor at Syracuse University, published "Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism." The surprise is that liberals are markedly less charitable than conservatives.

If many conservatives are liberals who have been mugged by reality, Brooks, a registered independent, is, as a reviewer of his book said, a social scientist who has been mugged by data. They include these findings:

-- Although liberal families' incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs.$1,227).

-- Conservatives also donate more time and give more blood.

-- Residents of the states that voted for John Kerry in 2004 gave smaller percentages of their incomes to charity than did residents of states that voted for George Bush.

-- Bush carried 24 of the 25 states where charitable giving was above average.

-- In the 10 reddest states, in which Bush got more than 60 percent majorities, the average percentage of personal income donated to charity was 3.5. Residents of the bluest states, which gave Bush less than 40 percent, donated just 1.9 percent.

-- People who reject the idea that "government has a responsibility to reduce income inequality" give an average of four times more than people who accept that proposition.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/200...
This cartoon pretty much says it all.
http://www.reason.com/UserFiles/cartoons/bokd...
The smokers already got hit for $1.00 last year by Doyle. We just got hit by the FEDS for $0.67
And commandant Doyle wants to hit us again for $0.75. Why? BECAUSE AS A TYPICAL PROGRESSIVE/SOCIALIST HE IS VERY GENEROUS WITH SOMEONE ELSES MONEY. Let him pony up his own for a change.

[CB can see both sides]

Free_America wrote:

<quoted text>Yes. If the liberals want it they can take the money out of their pockets for a change.
Sixteen months ago, Arthur C. Brooks, a professor at Syracuse University, published "Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism." The surprise is that liberals are markedly less charitable than conservatives.
If many conservatives are liberals who have been mugged by reality, Brooks, a registered independent, is, as a reviewer of his book said, a social scientist who has been mugged by data. They include these findings:
-- Although liberal families' incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs.$1,227).
-- Conservatives also donate more time and give more blood.
-- Residents of the states that voted for John Kerry in 2004 gave smaller percentages of their incomes to charity than did residents of states that voted for George Bush.
-- Bush carried 24 of the 25 states where charitable giving was above average.
-- In the 10 reddest states, in which Bush got more than 60 percent majorities, the average percentage of personal income donated to charity was 3.5. Residents of the bluest states, which gave Bush less than 40 percent, donated just 1.9 percent.
-- People who reject the idea that "government has a responsibility to reduce income inequality" give an average of four times more than people who accept that proposition.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/200...
This cartoon pretty much says it all.
http://www.reason.com/UserFiles/cartoons/bokd...
The smokers already got hit for $1.00 last year by Doyle. We just got hit by the FEDS for $0.67
And commandant Doyle wants to hit us again for $0.75. Why? BECAUSE AS A TYPICAL PROGRESSIVE/SOCIALIST HE IS VERY GENEROUS WITH SOMEONE ELSES MONEY. Let him pony up his own for a change.

It makes no difference to me who gives the most. Everyone is going to pay for the health care when the children have physical health problems in the future. It's far more intelligient to be preactive plus the luxury of good healthy life for these children.

[Free_America]

CB can see both sides wrote:

<quoted text>It makes no difference to me who gives the most. Everyone is going to pay for the health care when the children have physical health problems in the future. It's far more intelligient to be preactive plus the luxury of good healthy life for these children.

Problem is there are plenty of private charities that do a much better job. Any time the government gets involved in ends up costing twice as much for half the service.

[youou]

CB can see both sides wrote:

<quoted text>and so are you suggesting we forget the children's health then. Just asking.

CB..this denying drug addict only cares for himself. You are smart enough to see his conniving ways. I have read way too much to like him...he is about him.
He will hide behind "freedoms" and "businesses"...but bottom line...this low pay receiving addict care for only #1.

[spurs09]

that sorry sack of _sh**___wants to raise our taxes by $.75 a pack to pay for health insurence,for some welfair mom with a shi* load of kids,why is it our respounsibility to pay for their health care insururence?If them welfair cases want to have all them baby's they should pay for their own health care!