About some of the conventional wisdom about yesterday's voting.

[upaloopa]

I read several times this morning that big tobacco won in CA yesterday. I saw the tobacco ads which said things like "the money could be spent out of state" and a few others I can't recall.

I voted against the measure and it wasn't because of the big tobacco ads I saw. They didn't have the slightest effect on my decision. My reason was because I think that we should stop voting for sin taxes. If cancer research is a good thing then we should all pay for it. It is not right to dump the burden on smokers. Smoking is an addiction. I think we should have a little compassion on smokers. I think most want to quit. I don't think that a two pack a day person wants to spend $10 a day on an addiction. Like pot, we should not punish those who partake.

I also understand that it was the right versus the left in Wisconsin and the left lost. Well I believe some voted against the recall because they thought the recall was a bad idea and right or left had nothing to do with it.

These things are a bit more complicated that the conventional wisdom would have it.

[monmouth]

1. What bothers me is that 36% of union households voted for Walker. WTH??..n/t

[upaloopa]

7. I have some friends that fall into that category in a way. A couple of them are on federal

disability and they complain about big government.

I saw a show on Current TV about some union people who were out of work. They would watch one of the repug debates that took place a few months bag and agree that it shouldn't be the government's job to create jobs or pay unemployment even though they were on unemployment. One said that if there weren't any unemployment some church or other charity would take care of paying the unemployed something.

I think they have some misguided loyalty to a set of values that in the end hurts them economically. They speak the right wing talking points then reality hits them hard and the still stick to the talking points.

[pnwmom]

2. Raising the price on cigarettes, which a tax does, helps cut the number of future addicts.

The more expensive cigarettes are, the less likely young people are to get hooked.

[upaloopa]

3. Well I think most young people get hooked on cigarettes they didn't buy and they smoke because

it is a popular thing to do.

I really doubt they think "cigarettes cost to much so I won't smoke." I think that is like saying if you tell kids that sex causes babies they can't afford they won't have sex.

[sadbear]

5. Sex is free.

Cigs cost $5-$6. Gas costs $4. What do you think kids are going to do?

[upaloopa]

11. Kids will have sex if gas and cigs were free, you make no sense!

What is it here with the one line put downs? Is that what debate is here?

[sadbear]

12. When I was a teen, minimum wage was $5.15, gas was $1/gal., cigs were $2 a pack.

And sex was free.

Today, minimum wage is $7.25, gas is $4/gal, and cigs are $4-$5 a pack.

If a kid has to work more than half an hour to buy a gallon of gas, do you think they're going to work an entire hour for a single pack of cigarettes?

And with cigarette prices going up, people are giving away their cigarettes to kids less and less.

[slackmaster]

10. That's correct, but the kind of plan presented in Prop. 29 is not the only way to raise the price.

29 had too much gimmickry on the back end. I care about what happens to the MONEY that gets brought in by a tax increase.

Cigarette taxes are paid entirely by smokers, but that money becomes EVERYONE'S money once the state collects it. It's in our interests to make sure that every penny the state brings in is spent wisely.

[sadbear]

4. You voted to let corporations keep making obscene money by killing people.

Congratulations.

[slackmaster]

8. That's an appeal to emotion, and IMO shows that you didn't take the time to analyze the issue

I detest smoking. I've watched people waste away and die from its long-term effects.

I would love to see the price of cigarettes raised, because that is a proven way of reducing smoking.

Proposition 29 was deeply flawed. It would have created a new bureaucracy that would have consumed a chunk of the expected revenue, and NONE of the revenue would have gone to the state's General Fund where it could have been used to help fund things that are important to everyone, such as K-12 education.

Give me a better plan to raise cigarette taxes, and I will vote for it!

[sadbear]

13. It may be an appeal to emotion, but it's still true.

[slackmaster]

15. No, it's not true. You don't get it. I didn't vote in order to do anything to help corporations.

I voted to prevent mismanagement of a whole lot of money. Your accusation is bogus, and in effect it creates a personal attack against everyone who chose to vote No on 29.

[sadbear]

18. So you voted for the status quo?

Because you were worried what might happen to the money that's cut out of the tobacco corporations profits? You would rather the tobacco companies keep all their profits and spend it as they see fit?

[slackmaster]

19. No, I rejected the proposition because I read it and decided it was flawed

Give me a proposition without so many strings tied to the revenue, and I'll support it.

Better yet, give me a legislature that does its job.

[sadbear]

14. Everything I said is true.

Be careful in the future.

[slackmaster]

6. I also voted against Proposition 29, because I READ IT and DECIDED FOR MYSELF that it was flawed.

The ads and all the slick crap jammed into my mailbox every day had NO influence over my decision.

[Dokkie]

16. If you believe part of the reason

was due to a principled opposition to recalls the riddle me this Batman, why did the people of WI recall 3 republican state senators? Is it even possible that a majority of WI voter have turned against the Unions? Maybe just a little Union envy at play?

[Taverner]

17. I voted against it because taxing tobacco in CA might net them 10 cents

No one smokes here