PDA

View Full Version : Chicago Dems Want to Tax Bottled Water



red states rule
08-14-2007, 11:30 AM
When is enough enough folks? Now, tax happy liberals want you to pay more for your bottled water

With people paying anywhere 40% to 50% of their income in taxes - when will the people say enough?



http://cbs2chicago.com/topstories/local_story_226071318.html

Gaffer
08-14-2007, 11:51 AM
They would tax the air you breath if they could figure out a way to measure it.

red states rule
08-14-2007, 11:53 AM
They would tax the air you breath if they could figure out a way to measure it.

Give them time. When we breath we put out CO2 - and they will say we are harming the envirment and thus we have to pay for it

5stringJeff
08-14-2007, 12:32 PM
Who the hell needs to buy bottled water anyway? It's essentially a tax on stupidity.

red states rule
08-14-2007, 12:42 PM
Who the hell needs to buy bottled water anyway? It's essentially a tax on stupidity.

I buy a case every week at Wal Mart. It tastes much better then the tap water in my area

5stringJeff
08-14-2007, 12:48 PM
I buy a case every week at Wal Mart. It tastes much better then the tap water in my area

I'd suggest getting a Britta filter. It costs about $20, IIRC, and lasts a lot longer. Creates less waste, too.

red states rule
08-14-2007, 12:50 PM
I'd suggest getting a Britta filter. It costs about $20, IIRC, and lasts a lot longer. Creates less waste, too.

a case of 24 bottles runs me about $3. I find it easier then buying the Britta filter

Besides, why does the government have to pass ANOTHER tax on the folks?

Black Lance
08-14-2007, 01:30 PM
Because taxing healthy products like bottled water will increase the demand for socialized health care???

red states rule
08-14-2007, 01:31 PM
Because taxing healthy products like bottled water will increase the demand for socialized health care???

or piss off the people and cause unemployed politicans

darin
08-14-2007, 01:36 PM
Or other bad things... :(

red states rule
08-14-2007, 01:47 PM
Or other bad things... :(

nothing bad about tossing out tax happy politicans - regardless of political party

theHawk
08-14-2007, 01:53 PM
When is enough enough folks? Now, tax happy liberals want you to pay more for your bottled water

With people paying anywhere 40% to 50% of their income in taxes - when will the people say enough?



http://cbs2chicago.com/topstories/local_story_226071318.html


Good grief, whats next? Next thing you know they'll want to tax you for taking a dump.

red states rule
08-14-2007, 01:54 PM
Good grief, whats next? Next thing you know they'll want to tax you for taking a dump.


They will call it the excessive water usage surcharge

darin
08-14-2007, 02:03 PM
I call it - SOME special interest groups want more money.

red states rule
08-14-2007, 02:15 PM
I call it - SOME special interest groups want more money.

Name one special interest group that does NOT want more of our money?

darin
08-14-2007, 02:18 PM
The Amish.

red states rule
08-14-2007, 02:26 PM
The Amish.

They are a political group with lobbists on Capital Hill?

darin
08-14-2007, 02:27 PM
Sure they are - they just blend in with the artwork on the walls. :)

PostmodernProphet
08-14-2007, 07:38 PM
artwork on the walls

must be Grant Woods.....

http://www.blueroom.com/AMGOTHIC/gothic-small.jpg

red states rule
08-14-2007, 07:45 PM
They would tax the air you breath if they could figure out a way to measure it.

Al Gore wants to tax you for breathing by taxing CO2

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5MPWVJhD5Vo

red states rule
08-14-2007, 08:02 PM
Al Gore Tells Congress to Tax Pollution and CO2 to Solve Global Warming Crisis
By Noel Sheppard | March 21, 2007 - 14:55 ET
As most of you know, former Vice President and soon-to-be-Dr. Al Gore spoke in front of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce and the House Committee on Science and Technology Wednesday about the dangers of anthropogenic global warming

What you probably didn't know is that the global warmingest-in-chief actually recommended a tax on pollution to solve the problem.

I kid you not.

http://newsbusters.org/node/11563

stephanie
08-14-2007, 09:09 PM
Here's what makes me laugh(well not really, but)..

The enviormentialist asked us to conserve(water, fuel, lands)...
Then when people do.......they get this....

Cardenas noted that there’s a nearly $40 million shortfall in the city’s water and sewer funds, in part because of a decline in water usage.

Socialist liberal PROGRESSIVES.... are never satified..... they never saw a tax they didn't love...

I always said.........When they went after the smokers...and people didn't object to them raising taxes on that nasty habit....That you all who were all for it....
They would come after you NEXT......

ENJOY...it's only the beginning..:coffee:

red states rule
08-15-2007, 03:47 AM
Libs lecture us to conserve gas, but when the amount of gas tax revenue declines - they want to raise the gas tax or find another way to cover the shortfall

I guess it is part of being a liberal - never be happy or satisfied

actsnoblemartin
08-16-2007, 07:56 PM
what next, taxing condoms?


When is enough enough folks? Now, tax happy liberals want you to pay more for your bottled water

With people paying anywhere 40% to 50% of their income in taxes - when will the people say enough?



http://cbs2chicago.com/topstories/local_story_226071318.html

red states rule
08-17-2007, 04:45 AM
what next, taxing condoms?


Which brand? These may be tax free


China Names Condom for Bill Clinton

A Chinese company is honoring ex-president Bill Clinton by naming a new line of condoms after him - along with a companion line of condoms that will be named after his ex-girlfriend, Monica Lewinsky.

Reports Britain's Sky News: The Guangzhou Haokian Bio-science company has registered their names as trademarks for the contraceptives.

The condoms will display Chinese spellings: Kelitun and Laiwensiji.

A 12-pack of Clintons is expected to cost $5.00, with Lewinskys selling at a discounted price of just over $3.00.

The manufacturer's general manager, Liu Wenhua, told Sky News that naming his condoms for Clinton was perfectly legal, explaining that "trademarks of two foreign surnames and can't be seen as a violation of rights."

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/9/20/114721.shtml