California Vaping Ban
- Thread starter iVapeDIY
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
-
- Tags
- ban california vaping
- Status
You think?
You mean Brenda Fitzgerald, Trump's first director of CDC?
CDC director resigns after report on tobacco stock purchase
Zeller, Margaret Hamburg, many others--same old same old...
Big Tobacco, Big Pharma, and in fact most big companies donate to both parties fairly equally. It may not be exactly 50/50 but probably no more difference than 60/40. They essentially are hedging their bets by making sure both politicians in a race are in their pocket. I have zero doubt they will be donating to both Trump and whomever the Democratic candidate turns out to be for 2020.
So they are indeed ALL corrupt.
What candidate is the democratic candidate? It surely isn't the republican candidate or the democrat candidate. There are the democratic socialists. Is that the democratic candidates you speak of?
Last edited:
And all I can think about when Texas is mentioned: Austin.
It may depending on what the reasoning is. It’s possible the decision has nothing to do with health.
A post was made earlier about tobacco bonds owned by states which had something to do with the tobacco settlement back in the day (not sure how). Apparently the states doing the banning are also some of the largest holders of these bonds.
The numbers are in the hundreds of millions of dollars. I’m not sure how significant that is for a given state though. I don’t know how much money that is for a state, and how much of it they could even stand to lose. It might or might not be a significant amount of money for a given state.
Apparently these bonds retain their value based on how many smokers there are. The advent of e-cigarettes caused these bonds to lower in output much faster than anticipated and they are in danger of default. I do not know what this means. Likely someone does though. I would kind of like to.
I understand how money is made from them and if sales go the state funding through the bonds does as well. As for them defaulting I dunno, happy?
Not especially. Its more than nothing but less than what is needed. If the bonds are even particularly important (which as far as I can tell they may or may not be) is one.
What you seem to be saying is the bonds are the methodology by which the states collect what is effectively an additional tax on tobacco, and that it is therefore dependent on tobacco sales.
To what degree that actually happens and how much money is actually moving is one important bit. “Default” means something stops usually and bad things happen to someone. What it means and what those bad things are and who they happen to are all pertinent.
Any security (bond, stock, etc..) is to some degree a wager. Usually but not always a pretty safe one. Some are really unsafe. It seems the wager on tobacco sales decreasing at an expected rate was less safe than it appeared.
I’m curious about how much was bet, which way did they bet, and what are the effects of things not going as planned as they apparently are not.
Bond defaults are best to be avoided. Refinancing and paying for new bonds to cover old ones funded from general revenue or new excise or income taxes is pretty much the only option. To my knowledge, states can't get bankruptcy relief like cities can.
But avoided by whom? The answer seems to assume a greater knowledge of how these particular bonds work than I have. Iirc bond rules are very fluid and how they work can be highly dependent on the particular bond. You seem to imply that if the bonds default the states are going to be the ones that are SOL. Do the tobacco companies bear any liability in supporting these bonds? If the bonds default do the cigarette companies simply gain as they no longer have to share what remaining revenue there is with the states?
VanEck.com
When it comes to the TSSBs themselves, they have a more complex structure than typical municipal bonds. Because payments are pledged in perpetuity, if a tobacco bond defaults (i.e., fails to pay all interest and principal due), it doesn't necessarily mean that bondholders won't get paid, it just may be on a much longer payment schedule.2
When it comes to the TSSBs themselves, they have a more complex structure than typical municipal bonds. Because payments are pledged in perpetuity, if a tobacco bond defaults (i.e., fails to pay all interest and principal due), it doesn't necessarily mean that bondholders won't get paid, it just may be on a much longer payment schedule.2
this is not what I’ve been told about Texas. Of course my source was from someone who had to move to a town called Roma. Dusty wasteland, Massive endemic poverty, pervasive corruption and gang violence, almost non-existent education. There were pockets of beauty though. Generally surrounding the mansions of the very wealthy in a fairly narrow band. Sounded like a third world country.
New York is the same way. I live on the NY/PA border and 6-7 hours from NYC. Upstate NY barely exists to most people.
I'm just sitting here wondering how long it will take for Wolf to introduce an idiotic flavor ban in PA. Maybe a productive way to spend time would be educating state and local representatives on vaping nic since that's where the big push is coming from. They might be more responsive to harm reduction and less likely to have been propagandized. Especially if it's a rural area.
I read the article that was linked yesterday about the tobacco bonds. My eyes were crossed by the end of it and I still don't understand much. There were some bizarre numbers in there. Like States getting 300M up front and paying back 14B. And bondholders getting 1.8C on the dollar. One hedge fund running most of the bonds. Interest rates close to 10%. Bond buyers taking the fall instead of States if smoking rates dropped, but States having to refinance on even worse terms. Way beyond my ability to understand.
that is a question the democrats are so far successfully trying to avoid answering. It was a very successful strategy for the republicans in 2016. You perhaps remember what was referred to as the republican clown car? The guy that won the election did it because he entered at the last possible second and was therefore able to avoid answering a bunch of really pertinent questions about is behavior and character until it was too late. Some of them are still being asked.
My personal suspicion is that none of the “candidates” from either party currently “running” will even be on the ballot. They’re nothing but a picket line. That includes Trump. Everyone claiming to be running for the presidency in 2020 isn’t yet. They’re running for the candidacy of their party. Nothing actually gets determined until the party caucuses.
I think there’s a decent chance that Trump is the GOP’s Beast Rabban.
There’s a 1965 science fiction book called “Dune” where the main antagonist chooses to put a deliberately bad executive in power because while he will infuriate the people he can do horrible things to the advantage of the antagonist. Then later when anger is at its height he will replace him with a younger better looking one who will remove some, but not even most, and definitely not the most profitable of the nastiness the first executive installed and therefore be loved. The antagonist gets to put down horrible things but only pay for the results of them for a short time.
In this scenario Trump is beast rabban and whoever they put in the candidacy is “beautiful” Feyed Rutha. It’s the GOP that is always really in charge though, and it’s always their interests being advanced.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
