« Dick Cheney, The Cowardly Lion Of The GOP | Main | Obama to Receive Honorary Degree from Notre Dame After All »

First Tea Bagging, Coke Parties are Next

The Terrorist-loving Spicy Brown Mustard President and his Democratic pals in Congress are discussing funding Health Care in part through a 1/4 cent per ounce tax on soda. Stephen Colbert raises the red flag for the red nation of Americans who stand ready to just say no to prenatal checkups for poor women:

The Colbert ReportMon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
Stephen's Coke Party Protest
colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full EpisodesPolitical HumorGay Marriage

Do the right wing idiots realize how stupid they look with these positions they take? I hope not...


Note: Wizbang Blue is now closed and our authors have moved on. Paul Hooson can now be found at Wizbang Pop!. Please come see him there!

  • Currently 3.2/5
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Rating: 3.2/5 (5 votes cast)


Comments (23)

epador:

Which would you rather I hurl at you, a wet tea bag or a full can of Coke?

Bunker:

It's a good thing only the wealthiest of American's drink soda, otherwise this tax would really muck up Obama's pledge to cut taxes for the middle class.

GarandFan:

Hey Lee, how'd you like Pelosi's presser this morning? Could you tell when she was lying thru her teeth? It was easy...when her lips were moving.

Lee Ward:

Yes! I bet that poor pregnant women cited above is going to be sooo pissed that soda now costs 3 cents more per can -- and all she got out of it was free health care for her and her unborn child.

THANK YOU for raising this flag, because GOD knows that the right wing is SO concerned about unborn children, right Bunker?

And how on earth will the middle class be able to afford soda that costs 3 cents more? HOW?

it's a good thing America has the right wing to stand against 3 cents soda taxes that will help unborn children...

Hypocritical right wing jackasses run wild...

J.R.:

You're right lee, it's a good thing that once we set those taxes they never raise them either. I mean look at cigarettes, the government hasn't raised those taxes in over...what's that? Oh nevermind.

Steve:

I'm much too poor to buy a Mercedes Benz but I went ahead and bought one anyway. Can I count on the taxpayers to pay my mechanic bills and insurance? Afterall, how was I to know a Mercedes would cost so much. Who knew?

Steve:

Questions:
1) Once those poor mothers receive taxpayer money, will President Obama set a cap on how much they can spend on cell phones, cable TV, and cigarettes? Afterall, it would not be a responsible use of taxpayer money to enable those women to buy even a single pack of cigarettes.

2) As a taxpayer supporting that tiny tot, am I entitled to have him or her come to my house and mow my lawn for free once he or she is old enough to cross the street alone? Afterall, it would be good exercise for him or her ... and I want to protect my investment in his or her health and wellbeing. Win, win! Or perhaps he or she could save up the old allowance or collect cans to recycle and pay me back with interest over time - teaching him or her the value of hard work and the value of a dollar while I get my money back ... with interest! Again, win, win. Perhaps he or she would learn enough personal responsibility and a strong enough work ethic that he or she would not grow up to be like Mom, therefore eliminating the need for further taxes in the future. WIN, WIN, WIN!

DaveD:

Hmmmmmmmmmm, supporting prenatal checks for women from the party whose standard bearer has no problem with a baby born alive from a "botched" abortion being left to die without medical care. Congress should not be allowed to legislate irony like this.

Tim:

So why are poor women getting prenatal checks, anyway? Isn't the Democrat ideal that they abort their fetuses so they aren't born into the 'cycle of poverty'?

Lee Ward:

Feel free to engage in a discussion of the topic at hand, Tim and DaveD.

Continuously spouting your off-topic anti-abortion rhetoric will get you banned. Our comment threads are not here for your pleasure; for you to come along and take a piss on Democrats whenever the mood strikes you.

Go spray your nutcake anti-abortion wacko graffiti someplace else. First, last and only warning.

steve:

The nerve of the "Party of No" believing that women who can't afford support themselves shouldn't have children

Lee Ward:

Only well-to-do Americans can have children under the Republican plan?

Thanks for the advance notice. I always suspected that Republicans hated those Americans who aren't middle class or better -- this proves it. They shouldn't be allowed to have children?

You're a great American, Steve.

The government should help Americans who can't afford health care to get health care. That's the Democratic way.

GianiD:

Arent libbies sposed to be the ones who support dialogue, conversation, opposing views?

They keep sayin that, anyway!

epador:

Well, to discuss the topic at hand, I am no fan of tobacco or liquor taxes - the poor pay a disproportionate amount of these taxes. Adding soda, french fries and lets not forget Ranch Dressing and Mayonnaise to the tax burden is ludicrous.

If we need more taxes to pay for all these programs, then lets make the taxes simplified and across the board. 15% income tax on any and all earnings, with no deductions for all Americans and a VAT sales tax of, say 10-15% or so, for ANYTHING sold retail. Do away with all the other hidden taxes and fees, and the huge bureaucracy needed for them. That will take somewhere around 1/3 out everyone's income, and probably would pay for a reasonable liberal's budget (I know some might consider that an oxymoron, but I don't). No long forms to fill out, no fancy tax shelters, no excuses for tax cheats. If we can't run our country on that, then we're spending too much.

Lee Ward:

I'm in favor of simplifying taxation.

But how do property taxes fit into that equation? Why should renters who have no equity stake in the property they rent have to pay for the services that benefit the property owner?

And why shouldn't smokers bear the burden of the increased cost that tobacco has on the health care system?

Shouldn't drivers pay taxes to support roads? If I walk, should I have to pay for roads? A gasoline tax makes sense as far as roads are concerned.

I'm for simpler, and fair.

Steve:

Lee, you are the master of overgeneralization! MY comments PROVE that REPUBLICANS HATE anyone who isn't middle class or better?!

Liberals sure toss that word "Hate" around like it means nothing. I am simply one who believes that an individual should be financially in shape to make big life decisions like getting married or having children. And if you're not ready and it happens, YOU are responsible and YOU had better figure out how to make YOUR life work instead of mooching off somebody who has made responsible life decisions. Wait... I just now noticed how doggone HATEFUL that is! Whoa! I am pure evil.

By the way, thanks ... I AM a great American. Mostly in the old-fashioned sense... I don't get this new "spread the wealth around, the government's there to keep us all responsible for everyone else's bad decisions at the point of a gun" thing, but I hope I can adjust. Also, I am one of those many that polls indicate are no longer identifying themselves with the Republican party. I keep telling you, Lee, that I am not blindly partisan.

Lee Ward:

Lower- middle class and lower class citizens shouldn't be allowed to have children, according to you Steve.

In 10. above you wrote:

"The nerve of the "Party of No" believing that women who can't afford support themselves shouldn't have children"

Sounds like "no children unless you can afford it" to me...

What about children who are conceived by accident, Steve - are you suggesting they be aborted because the parents are poor?

THAT's a new twist on Republicanism...

No, rereading your later comment it's now apparent that a child born to poor parents should not be given government support.

Hate was too strong a word for you? how about "sick and twisted" for punishing a child born into this world, through now fault of their own, to poor parents?

ke_future:

given what you do to other people's commnets, you would definitely be the expert on "twisted", lee.

Tim:

What's off topic? Democrats are all for using tax dollars to suck fetuses out of the womb unless the mother decides its not a fetus but a baby, and then the Dems want us to pay for that, too. Funny how one item can be two different things, depending on the mood of one person at the time. I'd rather my taxes go to protecting our country instead of killing babies, but I guess we all have our priorities. You must have a conscience somewhere in there for the topic to sting you so much.

DaveD:

Banning me is your privilege of course.

However, in my comment you cannot assume I am against prenatal care for poor women.

Also relevant to your comment to me about being off topic are two statements from you on this thread:
1) "Hate was too strong a word for you? how about "sick and twisted" for punishing a child born into this world, through now fault of their own, to poor parents?"
2) "What about children who are conceived by accident, Steve - are you suggesting they be aborted because the parents are poor?"

So what is the topic? Prenatal care of the mother or postnatal care of the child? In your second statement it is clear one is indeed allowed to discuss abortion on this thread as long as it remains within your comfort level.


Steve:

First of all, Lee, number 10 was not me. I guess Steve's a common name.

Second, "What about children who are conceived by accident, Steve - are you suggesting they be aborted because the parents are poor?" Funny how in a liberal mind, abortion is the ONLY answer to an unwanted pregnancy. If you had a friend who was eager to adopt but found the process expensive, time consuming, and nearly impossible, perhaps it would occur to you that adoption is a much better option than abortion: The baby gets to live and a family gets to adopt! Win, win.

As you noticed on second reading, in reality I am not suggesting that the mother would have to choose either one. I thought I made it clear that if she went ahead with having the baby, she just had to be prepared to work her butt off and suffer a bit. I don't buy into the modern American mindset that all suffering should be avoided at all cost - especially not by having the government step in! It's called Freedom, and the freedom to succeed has to include the freedom to fail and the freedom to suffer. How does character develop when no suffering is allowed?

But nobody is allowed to question the absurd notion that A) it is the government's job to prevent all suffering or B) that it's even possible to do! I remember a couple of years back when a local man with a mental illness got a hold of a gun and killed a couple of innocent people. Nobody batted an eye when the local politician got on TV and asserted, "We're going to do everything in our power to make sure something like this NEVER HAPPENS AGAIN." Am I the only one who laughs out loud at a statement like that? This was one of those times I wished I was a reporter, so I could ask, "Sir, can you give me specifics on EXACTLY HOW the government will insure that never again in the history of this nation will I have to worry that a completely unpredictable entity such as an insane person will not have access anywhere in any way to a gun, knife, hammer, etc. which could be used to kill random people?"

Steve:

By the way, I VOLUNTARILY help children born to poor parents by VOLUNTARILY supporting the local Crisis Pregnancy Center (a non-profit run by evil, hypocritical Christians!). I guarantee that I give much more there than the government will get out of me with any soda tax - I don't drink a lot of sugar water. (And I guarantee that they'll use my money much more efficiently than the U.S. government ever has.) It's the principle of the thing: I don't like the government pointing a gun at my head to force me to pay for that child and I don't like Mom having the idea that government has the right to do it and she has the right to my money. But that's just me being "sick and twisted".

It seems to me the massive amounts of money the tobacco companies had to pay out through court cases was supposed to cover health care due to tobacco-related illnesses. As we have seen, the majority of that money went to lawyers, not health care providers. States have cut the numbers of people receiving Medicaid assistance, claiming their income was too high. This is a joke, at least in my case. I am on disability and living on less than 10,000 dollars a year, but am unable to get Medicaid. I have to pay property taxes, sales taxes and personal property taxes on our car. Higher sales taxes are not something I would be in favor of, even if it's only 3 cents a can. Who buys one can of pop at a time? Of course, this wouldn't apply to diet drinks, but would apply to Gatorade and orange juice? Ridiculous. I'm rambling here, but if they really want to institute higher taxes, it should be a national sales tax, flat rate across the board, and if there are any exceptions, let them be for fruits and vegetables which are too expensive for poor people already.


Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Advertisments

Categories

Archives

Technorati



Add to Technorati Favorites

Credits

Publisher: Kevin Aylward

Editors: Lee Ward, Larkin, Paul S Hooson, and Steve Crickmore

All original content copyright © 2007 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark. Wizbang Blue™ is a trademark of Wizbang®, LLC.

Powered by Movable Type 3.35

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.