Thanks, Jason, for protecting Utah's right to impose socialism on its citizens.
States rights, yes - political consistency, not a chance.
What he means is he wants to control how much and how strong the alcohol Utahn's
can purchase, while making a killing off state tax on alcohol sales.Typical Republican Hyprocrisy. Nothing new.
Good Job, Regulate Achol and cigerattes and lower the food tax, and
healthcare I think people would like to be able to feed and take care of their
families.That would sure help to fund it.
Hey Abe,I am a socialist and what Chaffertz is trying to do is not
socialism. It's exactly the opposite. Please do not comment on things that you
have not gained an understanding of. Our state liquor stores are also not
socialist institutions. Although usually considered in nationalistic terms,
facism may be the closest description of our liquor laws. It's pretty neat how
leaders use the "socialist" word to scare us all, while simutaneously promoting
facism. Facism is what we need to fear.
Chaffetz is basically saying he is for more government.
Crit,Many socialists (not all, but most) call for centralized
government control of distribution of commodities - many also call for
government control of production, although that is not the case in regard to
Utah liquor. (Thank whoever - one can scarcely imagine how foul
Utah-government-made vodka might be.) Nonetheless, what Chaffetz is defending
fits one of the definitions of socialism, that of nationalizing distribution
channels for the purpose of regulating pricing and availability. Theoretically
that is for the purpose of "bettering society", but in practice it always
primarily benefits those in control.
Less access to alcoholic drinks and higher prices as with higher liquor taxes
curbs disease, deaths, and reduces drinking, and surprise improves circulatory
health. [Lancet March 2010] Liquor stores are socialistic as they are owned by
the government. When the government administers production and allocates
resources it is called socialism. A few of the "brightest and best plan from
the state capitol or Washington, D.C. A market economy is far superior. We do
however need some socialist or government run departments. This is one of them.
"I want to preserve states' rights to decide the appropriate regulation of
alcohol within their borders."I agree with Rep. Chaffetz
"When the government administers production and allocates resources it is called
socialism." This statement is totally incorrect. The correct statement would be,
When workers administer production, and control resources, it is socialism. Once
again, you're describing facism.
Rep. Chaffetz wants to retain alcohol profits for the benefit of state. He's
saying: the heck with free enterprise principles. I had thought
Rep. Chaffetz understood the value of preventing the state from such actions
that so clearly deny private enterprise the ability to compete in the
marketplace. Utah has unfair and absolute control over alcohol distribution and
profits. It seems I have misjudged Rep. Chaffetz' ability to
represent the conservative interests of "we the people".
This is why I do not trust Utah "Republicans".. these people spout off about
freedom but have a stranglehold on it's local citizens. These people act at the
highest level of hypocrisy.
I thought Republicans wanted the free market. Why should the government control
the distribution of a legal product? Why not have government control of other
industries? Next time you squawk about government rules on health care,
remember this hypocrisy. And I don't even drink.
the article say Chaffetz and three other house members introduced the bill. The
article doesn't say who the other three were, but since it does not name any
other Utah reps, we have to assume they are from other states. Nor does it say
which party the other three belong to. So attacking Chaffetz and "Utah
republicans" only based on the info in the article is a bit premature and shows
more bias toward the individual and the party than it does a thought-out
position on the issue.Chaffetz is not calling for a "centralized"
distribution system - that would be a nationalized system run by the feds. He
is calling for states to be allowed to continue regulating a legal but addictive
and potentially dangerous substance, maintaining authority granted under the
21st amendment. His action appears motivated by court decisions 39
of 50 states' attorneys general describe as contrary to the constitution. It
appears to me he is only trying bolster protections afforded the states by the