If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(NBC News)   Washington State's privatization of liquor sales leads to surge in liquor sales...in Oregon   (nbcnews.com) divider line 235
    More: Obvious, Oregon, tri-cities, sales lead, Columbia River, Walla Walla, liquors  
•       •       •

11447 clicks; posted to Main » on 19 Jul 2012 at 5:10 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



235 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-07-19 11:44:33 AM
So basically Washington State imposed a stealth tax on liquor and liberals are now screaming with butthurt.
 
2012-07-19 11:45:08 AM

GAT_00: As opposed to your answer of the market magically fixes everything. How that is the case has never been explained to any degree of adequacy, but it doesn't stop you from claiming it's the solution to everything, does it?


You do realize this story exemplifies the market at work don't you?

(you don't)
 
2012-07-19 11:46:04 AM

Baloo Uriza: meat0918


bbbbbut, Oregon is a socialist paradise!!!!11ty
 
2012-07-19 11:46:10 AM

casey17: farkityfarker: What's sad is that Washington State already had almost the highest liquor prices in the country. (I think it was 3rd after AK and HI). This is why many people voted for the initiative. They thought it would lower the prices somewhat.

^^^^THIS^^^^

Also, it was supposed to increase the choice of brands & from what I can tell it's DECREASED them. Not to mention stores like Safeway & QFC never seem to have a full shelf. It is the exact opposite from what we were told it would be. However, I'm not going to waste the gas on a 3 hr. trip to Portland to save $5-$10 bucks. It sucks all the way around. :-(


This as well. The selection is limited to fifths and handles, so try finding what you want in pints. And minis? Forget it. I might excuse that the prices on what I used to buy is up a third, but I fail to see the real covenience. Safeway aint much better than the old state stores, atmosphere wise
 
2012-07-19 11:47:30 AM

Dancin_In_Anson: GAT_00: As opposed to your answer of the market magically fixes everything. How that is the case has never been explained to any degree of adequacy, but it doesn't stop you from claiming it's the solution to everything, does it?

You do realize this story exemplifies the market at work don't you?

(you don't)


The market corrects prices, but price correction does not necessarily mean lower prices.
 
2012-07-19 11:51:27 AM

beta_plus: So basically Washington State imposed a stealth tax on liquor and liberals are now screaming with butthurt.



As Liberal, I have no problem with it. The taxes were stated quite clearly in the initiative. I voted against it, knowing full well that those taxes would be imposed on top of the 50% markup the retailers were going to impose. I liked the State Stores. they weren't on every street corner like liquor stores are in California. And they were kept clean, well-stocked and they supported the State with revenue.

The State has the right to support itself with taxes. If you TeaBagger imbeciles want to live in a place where taxes are low, schools are nonexistent, roads are left unpaved, water is poisonous, corruption is the norm, and crime is rampant, move to Somalia. The TeaBaggers paradise.
 
2012-07-19 11:54:16 AM

meat0918: bbbbbut, Oregon is a socialist paradise!!!!11ty


I'd love to know when that was true. I know it wasn't before the Californian Invasion to Oregon, and it definitely isn't after...
 
2012-07-19 11:56:01 AM

Deathfrogg: If you TeaBagger imbeciles want to live in a place where taxes are low, schools are nonexistent, roads are left unpaved, water is poisonous, corruption is the norm, and crime is rampant, move to Somalia. The TeaBaggers paradise.



That argument is old and tired....it would be like me telling your to move to Cuba or North Korea.
 
2012-07-19 11:58:33 AM

The_Sponge: Deathfrogg: If you TeaBagger imbeciles want to live in a place where taxes are low, schools are nonexistent, roads are left unpaved, water is poisonous, corruption is the norm, and crime is rampant, move to Somalia. The TeaBaggers paradise.


That argument is old and tired....it would be like me telling your to move to Cuba or North Korea.


Liberals aren't welcome in those places, especially in North Korea. North Korea is a Conservative nation. Not liberal.
 
2012-07-19 12:08:36 PM
Seattle resident who voted for it and is glad it passed. It's not perfect legislation by any means. But the state monopolizing one kind of spirits sales is so far out of their mandate it makes my head hurt. I voted for the other alternative before and I'd have voted yes on any of them. Present me a better bill in the future and I'll vote for that one too.

Sorry about the guy whose liquor checkout guy lost his job. Me, I think everyone should get a state pension. But I don't have one, nor do most people. Until everyone does, liquor store checkout guys are not at the top of my list for lifetime pensions and state benefits. Very poor use of limited state resources.
 
2012-07-19 12:13:18 PM

beta_plus: So basically Washington State imposed a stealth tax on liquor and liberals are now screaming with butthurt.


I guess it was stealthy. If you can't read that is. I have no pity for people who voted for initiatives they didn't understand.
 
2012-07-19 12:15:51 PM

Deathfrogg: inner ted: GAT_00: Satanic_Hamster: The measure allows large retailers like grocery stores and Costco to sell liquor, but it also imposed an additional 10 percent distributor fee and 17 percent retail fee to replace money the state lost when it shut down its state-run liquor stores.

Screw you, state. Not even a liquor drinker but that's bull.

The money they were making to be used for public works programs had to be replaced. If the people in the state wanted booze to be cheaper, they should have left things as is.

Revenue doesn't magically reappear when you destroy a revenue stream after all, and that money was being used.

yes yes.... god freaking help it that any cuts in overspending be considered. no... that would be insane.

just tax more.

Alright, where would you cut?Link how bout you start with examples like this? ever think that the reason you and i are always bombarded with ads to 'save the poor schools & children' is because we are paying administrators salaries in the 6 figure range and have football coaches making that for retirement?
Schools, prisons? . Or maybe sell off our State lands to the timber companies and developers like Reagan did in California and then magically fail to charge them for the damage they do when feling the timber or building access roads. That land isn't going to slide by itself you know
ya, better to shutter every mill & have ghost towns & destroyed communities. even better is to just let the forests burn cause we don't even manage them at all as all the infrastructure (mills) are either closed or refitted to produce small young trees. no, we wouldn't want to prosper from our natural resources. better just let em burn. also: notice our neighbors to the north - Canada is a massive producer of forest products and are a great example as to how it can be done responsibly. the problems you are alluding to are far more prevalent in the southern hemisphere. yet even that timber gets labeled "fsc" and soccer moms around the country rejoice on their "reclaimed" (from some poor bastards house, while he was living in it.) deck.
Oooh, I have an idea, lets sell off our prisons i don't care for privatized prisons.

You privatize everything people that assume so much are insane, and terribly stupid.

ftfy

this is why people laugh at you silly libs: dare to ask for any fiscal responsibility and i'm automatically a Tea-hadist. strange.

anyhow.
 
2012-07-19 12:28:34 PM

Deathfrogg: Alright, where would you cut?


Marijuana prohibition. Cost to the state for enforcement, courts and prisons vastly exceeds the losses in liquor revenues.

You privatize everything people are insane, and terribly stupid.

You're right! But why should we stop there? The state had an iron-clad monopoly on liquor sales and it reaped the benefits. If you're willing to grant the state a monopoly on one type of retail good, why not another? How about a monopoly on auto sales? Or maybe food? We can keep going back to this well forever!

I'd like to hear your justification for why the state f*cking government can and should declare a legal monopoly for itself in the retail sector, going so far as to establish its own government stores and banning all sales elsewhere and telling the entirety of the state's private retailers they can just go suck it.
 
2012-07-19 12:28:53 PM

Sammichless: inner ted: GAT_00: Satanic_Hamster: The measure allows large retailers like grocery stores and Costco to sell liquor, but it also imposed an additional 10 percent distributor fee and 17 percent retail fee to replace money the state lost when it shut down its state-run liquor stores.

Screw you, state. Not even a liquor drinker but that's bull.

The money they were making to be used for public works programs had to be replaced. If the people in the state wanted booze to be cheaper, they should have left things as is.

Revenue doesn't magically reappear when you destroy a revenue stream after all, and that money was being used.

yes yes.... god freaking help it that any cuts in overspending be considered. no... that would be insane.

just tax more.

I agree..... tax me more! This place is coming apart, roads are falling apart, teenagers are dumber than ever, unemployed people are all over...... someone needs to fix this..... and the free market isn't bothering.


or we could cut out the waste in the government and pay for all that without raising taxes.

/i know, blows minds right?
 
2012-07-19 12:29:10 PM

JohnBigBootay: But the state monopolizing one kind of spirits sales is so far out of their mandate it makes my head hurt.


This right here. Someone in this thread gets it.
 
2012-07-19 12:29:58 PM

The_Sponge: Chameleon: The 10k foot requirement was thrown in as a money grab by Costco and Safeway,


No it wasn't. It was a concession because Costco supported the first privitization initiative, but that wasn't good enough for the soccer moms who were soooo concerned about liquor sales at gas stations.


Little bit of column A, little bit of column B. Do you think Costco was upset that smaller stores wouldn't be able to compete?
 
2012-07-19 12:31:43 PM

meat0918: The market corrects prices, but price correction does not necessarily mean lower prices.


People are going where the lower prices are, no?
 
2012-07-19 12:37:29 PM

inner ted: Sammichless: inner ted: GAT_00: Satanic_Hamster: The measure allows large retailers like grocery stores and Costco to sell liquor, but it also imposed an additional 10 percent distributor fee and 17 percent retail fee to replace money the state lost when it shut down its state-run liquor stores.

Screw you, state. Not even a liquor drinker but that's bull.

The money they were making to be used for public works programs had to be replaced. If the people in the state wanted booze to be cheaper, they should have left things as is.

Revenue doesn't magically reappear when you destroy a revenue stream after all, and that money was being used.

yes yes.... god freaking help it that any cuts in overspending be considered. no... that would be insane.

just tax more.

I agree..... tax me more! This place is coming apart, roads are falling apart, teenagers are dumber than ever, unemployed people are all over...... someone needs to fix this..... and the free market isn't bothering.

or we could cut out the waste in the government and pay for all that without raising taxes.

/i know, blows minds right?


You've got a perfectly good state down there to show us how it's done. We'll wait and watch 'bagger.
 
2012-07-19 12:37:53 PM
State-owned liquor stores is a dumb idea. Period. There are certain things government can and should do; retail is not one of those things.

I'd rather the taxes not be as high as they are currently. But the good news is that there are now four places selling liquor within walking distance from me and, prior to privatization, the nearest store was a five-to-ten minute drive. On top of that, the hours are more convenient and the service is typically better.

I voted for the law and I'm glad that I did.
 
2012-07-19 12:41:36 PM

Dancin_In_Anson: People are going where the lower prices are, no?


Speaking of going where lower prices are... I just visited some folks who will drive to hell and back to get to the gas station that's three cents a gallon cheaper. We tried to have a conversation about it but I wasn't getting through. Finally I went with, "It's nine miles away. You have a 15 gallon tank. 15x3 = 45 cents, right? Well _____________ is nine miles away - will you drive over there for no reason if I pay you 45 cents?
 
2012-07-19 12:43:43 PM

YakBoy42: Ebb & Flow Gin which is distilled less than 2 miles from my house and is the best gin I have ever tasted.


"Didja ever drink a juniper tree?"

-Euell Gibbons
 
2012-07-19 12:44:18 PM

The_Sponge: Deathfrogg: If you TeaBagger imbeciles want to live in a place where taxes are low, schools are nonexistent, roads are left unpaved, water is poisonous, corruption is the norm, and crime is rampant, move to Somalia. The TeaBaggers paradise.


That argument is old and tired....it would be like me telling your to move to Cuba or North Korea.


Well, the validation for that argument is dead and busted at this point. Even Ayn Rand didn't buy into Atlas Shrugged, and she wrote the damned thing.
 
2012-07-19 12:45:02 PM

Dancin_In_Anson: meat0918: The market corrects prices, but price correction does not necessarily mean lower prices.

People are going where the lower prices are, no?


Of course, but there is always more than price of product to consider.

You haven't forgotten about opportunity cost, have you?

Plus, not everyone lives near the border.

Although I am reminded of a little town back in Michigan where I grew up. They passed an ordinance that all but banned medical marijuana dispensaries within city limits. The dispensaries opened outside city limits instead. Here is the ordinance.
 
2012-07-19 12:46:07 PM

IntertubeUser: I'd rather the taxes not be as high as they are currently. But the good news is that there are now four places selling liquor within walking distance from me and, prior to privatization, the nearest store was a five-to-ten minute drive. On top of that, the hours are more convenient and the service is typically better.


A-freakin'-men. I don't really care what the suburbanites think about this. It certainly seems like a win win win for city dwellers. Now I can walk to several liquor outlets and I can buy it on the day and time and location of my choosing. The first couple of trips have actually been cheaper. Not that I give two squats about the money. If liquor expense is a substantial portion of your budget, well..., I don't know what to tell you. Drink wine or beer. Or perhaps consider some healthful lifestyle changes.
 
2012-07-19 12:53:58 PM
The market will eventually sort prices out. I've seen a mix of savings and gouging on the shelves. What I'm disappointed with is the absolute lack of selection. The top shelf stuff has completely gone away. I can get 98 different shiatty vodaks, but can't find Jamison 18, Red Breast, or Pimms anywhere.

I voted for it, and I'd do so again.
 
2012-07-19 12:58:32 PM

rohar: inner ted: Sammichless: inner ted: GAT_00: Satanic_Hamster: The measure allows large retailers like grocery stores and Costco to sell liquor, but it also imposed an additional 10 percent distributor fee and 17 percent retail fee to replace money the state lost when it shut down its state-run liquor stores.

Screw you, state. Not even a liquor drinker but that's bull.

The money they were making to be used for public works programs had to be replaced. If the people in the state wanted booze to be cheaper, they should have left things as is.

Revenue doesn't magically reappear when you destroy a revenue stream after all, and that money was being used.

yes yes.... god freaking help it that any cuts in overspending be considered. no... that would be insane.

just tax more.

I agree..... tax me more! This place is coming apart, roads are falling apart, teenagers are dumber than ever, unemployed people are all over...... someone needs to fix this..... and the free market isn't bothering.

or we could cut out the waste in the government and pay for all that without raising taxes.

/i know, blows minds right?

You've got a perfectly good state down there to show us how it's done. We'll wait and watch 'bagger.


since your reading comprehension seems a bit ... low, i'll just giggle at you.
 
2012-07-19 01:05:42 PM

Noah_Tall: Ummmmm.... Last week I picked up a bottle of Grey Goose for about $5 less than I'm used to paying in liquor stores. And the "HUGE" extra taxes and fees came to $3.

The old liquor stores are still in business only their prices are lower. AND (this is an important one) they are (a really important one) open on Sundays.


3 bucks? The bottle fee maybe. I'm not really opposed to the end of state run liquor stores. I am sad at the loss of choice, but my tastes are pretty run-of-the-mill anyway, and liquor is expensive enough no matter how you look at it that I'm not going to just regularly throw down on a bottle to see if I like it. However, booze now costs more here. The distillery wants the same amount of money. The state wants the same amount of money. The only difference is we've added a 3rd party that needs to be paid: the retailer. To my understanding, state taxes are 20.5% plus sales tax plus a bottle fee which is a tax that's based on volume-not price. It comes out to about $3.50 for a fifth. It's like they couldn't decide who to screw more-the people who went in for premium liquor once in a while (sales tax) or the people who bought 5 bottles of rotgut (Monarch) a week (bottle tax) so they nailed both.

/Liquor stores can remain open. The one here in small-town Eastern Washington is trying to make a go of it. They still can get stuff for you, although it's not cheaper than it was before the monopoly. I talked to the lady who runs it, though, and Safeway is running them out of business. She said they're running a fifth of the business they used to do and they'll be gone by the end of the year, if not the end of summer. I think the only ones that will survive will be the specialty ones that carry all the weird, premium stuff you people all seem to want. I predict 2 will survive in Seattle (that's all the demand will support), 1 more south (Tacoma or Olympia), and 1 in Spokane. Maybe one in Yakima since they're not convenient to anything.
 
2012-07-19 01:10:21 PM

sabreWulf07: Deathfrogg: Alright, where would you cut?

Marijuana prohibition. Cost to the state for enforcement, courts and prisons vastly exceeds the losses in liquor revenues.

I'll be the first person to agree with that, legalize it, regulate how it can be produced and sold, and tax it. But first you need to convince the Conservatives that the country isn't going to go Communist and turn into North Korea (where possession gets one the death penalty, incidentally) if it is legalized. The biggest and strongest influence on maintaining that prohibition comes directly out of the religious and racist Conservatives.

You privatize everything people are insane, and terribly stupid.

You're right! But why should we stop there? The state had an iron-clad monopoly on liquor sales and it reaped the benefits. If you're willing to grant the state a monopoly on one type of retail good, why not another? How about a monopoly on auto sales? Or maybe food? We can keep going back to this well forever!


Strawman arguments. It is obvious that your reading comprehension is seriously lacking. As I said before, the WSLCB was created as a compromise by the liberals, who were all for getting rid of the 18th Amendment and had opposed it from the beginning, to the Conservatives who wanted to continue the prohibition of alcohol at the Federal level. The marijuana laws were put in place to maintain that system of prohibition that could be imposed almost entirely on the minority population of Blacks and Latinos. This was specifically stated as the reason for them by Henry Anslinger, J. Edgar Hoover, Henry Ford and Adolph Coors, as well as Prescott Bush and Herbert Hoover. The Marijuana laws were put in place to give the States and the Federal Government a reason to convict, imprison and restrict access to Government by "undesirable" (meaning non-white) portions of the population without stirring up the angst of the white majority population. You are obviously ignoring the blatant racism of the Jim Crow period and the overall institutionalized hatred of non-whites in this country before the 1960's. The Conservatives would do anything to make them feel unwelcome, and to impose a form of martial law upon those populations without having the same effect on the white folks.

I'd like to hear your justification for why the state f*cking government can and should declare a legal monopoly for itself in the retail sector, going so far as to establish its own government stores and banning all sales elsewhere and telling the entirety of the state's private retailers they can just go suck it.


See above. I had no issue with the State running the liquor stores. I'm not an alcoholic. I support the Governments right to support itself through taxation, be it by direct taxation or maintaining that monopoly of what is considered by everyone involved with the medical field and the Justice System to be a highly dangerous substance that creates crime, violence, economic hardship and short, unhealthy lifetimes. Alcohol is a direct neurological toxin. It is a poison. The State has the right to restrict access to poisons, and regulate how they can be produced and sold. If that means maintaining a monopoly on that, so be it. The State has the absolute right to support itself as a Governing body. Without that, there is no regulation or restriction at all on the use of force or imposition of Will.

That is what the entire concept and purpose of Law is all about. Thats what Government is, by definition. There must be Order. If you don't like that Order, either move somewhere where there is no such Order, or work to change how that Order is defined. People have the absolute right to define and regulate social Order, especially in this Country.
 
2012-07-19 01:15:27 PM

inner ted: rohar: inner ted: Sammichless: inner ted: GAT_00: Satanic_Hamster: The measure allows large retailers like grocery stores and Costco to sell liquor, but it also imposed an additional 10 percent distributor fee and 17 percent retail fee to replace money the state lost when it shut down its state-run liquor stores.

Screw you, state. Not even a liquor drinker but that's bull.

The money they were making to be used for public works programs had to be replaced. If the people in the state wanted booze to be cheaper, they should have left things as is.

Revenue doesn't magically reappear when you destroy a revenue stream after all, and that money was being used.

yes yes.... god freaking help it that any cuts in overspending be considered. no... that would be insane.

just tax more.

I agree..... tax me more! This place is coming apart, roads are falling apart, teenagers are dumber than ever, unemployed people are all over...... someone needs to fix this..... and the free market isn't bothering.

or we could cut out the waste in the government and pay for all that without raising taxes.

/i know, blows minds right?

You've got a perfectly good state down there to show us how it's done. We'll wait and watch 'bagger.

since your reading comprehension seems a bit ... low, i'll just giggle at you.


I think I understood what you wrote just fine. What, specifically, would your criticism be?
 
rka
2012-07-19 01:20:39 PM

Deathfrogg: The Conservatives were the ones who pushed the 18th Amendment through


The 18th Amendment to the Constitution was not Conservatives.

It was progressive do-gooders coupled with an ever increasing woman's suffrage movement looking to flex it's muscle.

Most liquor/blue laws are not in place because of "conservatives" or the religious either. They are maintained because some business interest is protected by it. Find the business interest you'll find the largest supporter of the blue law.
 
2012-07-19 01:22:26 PM

Deathfrogg: The State has the right to restrict access to poisons, and regulate how they can be produced and sold. If that means maintaining a monopoly on that, so be it.


That's your entire legal justification in the land of the free and the home of the brave? "So be it"? Regulation is working fine. Proofs are printed right on the bottle. Quality controls are in place. Liquor licenses are still strictly controlled. Enforcement of ID checks is going strong. The WSLCB is still protecting you from pants-pissingly scary products like Four Loco by banning them.

I'm just unable to make the jump from all of that to ... oh, and we need a monopoly on sales as well. You wrote a huge wall of text that failed to address a simple question. It is obvious that your reading comprehension is seriously lacking. Try again: Why, specifically, does the state require a monopoly on sales on top of all the other regulatory mechanisms that are already in place? What value does the monopoly bring to the table, in and of itself, that must be preserved? Can you demonstrate that states where the government does not have a monopoly on sales suffer more liquor-associated societal ills, solely as a result of booze being available from private retail?
 
2012-07-19 01:24:40 PM

sabreWulf07: Deathfrogg: The State has the right to restrict access to poisons, and regulate how they can be produced and sold. If that means maintaining a monopoly on that, so be it.

That's your entire legal justification in the land of the free and the home of the brave? "So be it"? Regulation is working fine. Proofs are printed right on the bottle. Quality controls are in place. Liquor licenses are still strictly controlled. Enforcement of ID checks is going strong. The WSLCB is still protecting you from pants-pissingly scary products like Four Loco by banning them.

I'm just unable to make the jump from all of that to ... oh, and we need a monopoly on sales as well. You wrote a huge wall of text that failed to address a simple question. It is obvious that your reading comprehension is seriously lacking. Try again: Why, specifically, does the state require a monopoly on sales on top of all the other regulatory mechanisms that are already in place? What value does the monopoly bring to the table, in and of itself, that must be preserved? Can you demonstrate that states where the government does not have a monopoly on sales suffer more liquor-associated societal ills, solely as a result of booze being available from private retail?


You didn't read a single word I wrote, did you.
 
2012-07-19 01:32:04 PM

rohar: inner ted: rohar: inner ted: Sammichless: inner ted: GAT_00: Satanic_Hamster: The measure allows large retailers like grocery stores and Costco to sell liquor, but it also imposed an additional 10 percent distributor fee and 17 percent retail fee to replace money the state lost when it shut down its state-run liquor stores.

Screw you, state. Not even a liquor drinker but that's bull.

The money they were making to be used for public works programs had to be replaced. If the people in the state wanted booze to be cheaper, they should have left things as is.

Revenue doesn't magically reappear when you destroy a revenue stream after all, and that money was being used.

yes yes.... god freaking help it that any cuts in overspending be considered. no... that would be insane.

just tax more.

I agree..... tax me more! This place is coming apart, roads are falling apart, teenagers are dumber than ever, unemployed people are all over...... someone needs to fix this..... and the free market isn't bothering.

or we could cut out the waste in the government and pay for all that without raising taxes.

/i know, blows minds right?

You've got a perfectly good state down there to show us how it's done. We'll wait and watch 'bagger.

since your reading comprehension seems a bit ... low, i'll just giggle at you.

I think I understood what you wrote just fine. What, specifically, would your criticism be?


well, to your credit, it was in response to someone else up thread. so maybe you missed it. it was kind of long and shockingly, i'm actually busy at work - so just scroll up a bit - or even click on an earlier page.
 
2012-07-19 01:34:57 PM

inner ted: rohar: inner ted: rohar: inner ted: Sammichless: inner ted: GAT_00: Satanic_Hamster: The measure allows large retailers like grocery stores and Costco to sell liquor, but it also imposed an additional 10 percent distributor fee and 17 percent retail fee to replace money the state lost when it shut down its state-run liquor stores.

Screw you, state. Not even a liquor drinker but that's bull.

The money they were making to be used for public works programs had to be replaced. If the people in the state wanted booze to be cheaper, they should have left things as is.

Revenue doesn't magically reappear when you destroy a revenue stream after all, and that money was being used.

yes yes.... god freaking help it that any cuts in overspending be considered. no... that would be insane.

just tax more.

I agree..... tax me more! This place is coming apart, roads are falling apart, teenagers are dumber than ever, unemployed people are all over...... someone needs to fix this..... and the free market isn't bothering.

or we could cut out the waste in the government and pay for all that without raising taxes.

/i know, blows minds right?

You've got a perfectly good state down there to show us how it's done. We'll wait and watch 'bagger.

since your reading comprehension seems a bit ... low, i'll just giggle at you.

I think I understood what you wrote just fine. What, specifically, would your criticism be?

well, to your credit, it was in response to someone else up thread. so maybe you missed it. it was kind of long and shockingly, i'm actually busy at work - so just scroll up a bit - or even click on an earlier page.


Oh, thanks! We found the reading comprehension problem. You thought that when I typed 'bagger I meant something other than carpetbagger. You see, a big part of reading comprehension is having a vocabulary larger than a dime store parrot. Now, would you like to explain how what you're doing isn't carpetbagging?
 
2012-07-19 01:40:06 PM

meat0918: Dancin_In_Anson: meat0918: The market corrects prices, but price correction does not necessarily mean lower prices.

People are going where the lower prices are, no?

Of course, but there is always more than price of product to consider.

You haven't forgotten about opportunity cost, have you?

Plus, not everyone lives near the border.

Although I am reminded of a little town back in Michigan where I grew up. They passed an ordinance that all but banned medical marijuana dispensaries within city limits. The dispensaries opened outside city limits instead. Here is the ordinance.


The town of Bad Axe? That's hilarious.
 
2012-07-19 01:42:22 PM

Deathfrogg:
Here, educate yourself.

Here's one back at you by someone who actually took the time to study the issue in a scholarly manner

willing to form alliances with any and all constituencies that shared its sole goal: a constitutional amendment that would ban the manufacture, sale and transportation of alcohol. They united with Democrats and Republicans, Progressives, Populists, and suffragists, the Ku Klux Klan and the NAACP, the International Workers of the World, and many of America's most powerful industrialists including Henry Ford, John D. Rockefeller, Jr., and Andrew Carnegie - all of whom lent support to the ASL's increasingly effective campaign.link.

The conservatives had been trying to push sobriety on people for over 90 years by the time the 18th was passed, they only got traction when enough progressives (mostly women) got on board.
 
2012-07-19 01:45:30 PM
Hmm... so the distance from the tri-cities (Richland, Pasco, or Kennewick, WA) to Umatilla, OR is around 27 miles. Assuming WA residents have cars that get decent gas mileage, that's maybe 6 to 8 bucks per trip. Assuming they drive some kind of old hillbilly pickup truck, double that amount (at least).

Perhaps it's worthwhile if they get someone to do a liquor run, or have the capacity to haul several passengers. The question is, are they any good at math?
 
2012-07-19 01:47:33 PM

cyberspacedout: Hmm... so the distance from the tri-cities (Richland, Pasco, or Kennewick, WA) to Umatilla, OR is around 27 miles. Assuming WA residents have cars that get decent gas mileage, that's maybe 6 to 8 bucks per trip. Assuming they drive some kind of old hillbilly pickup truck, double that amount (at least).

Perhaps it's worthwhile if they get someone to do a liquor run, or have the capacity to haul several passengers. The question is, are they any good at math?


Won't matter. Shortly WSP is going to be busting people for bringing in booze from ID and WA just as they do with cigarettes now. Another revenue stream.
 
2012-07-19 01:53:44 PM

rohar: inner ted: rohar: inner ted: rohar: inner ted: Sammichless: inner ted: GAT_00: Satanic_Hamster: The measure allows large retailers like grocery stores and Costco to sell liquor, but it also imposed an additional 10 percent distributor fee and 17 percent retail fee to replace money the state lost when it shut down its state-run liquor stores.

Screw you, state. Not even a liquor drinker but that's bull.

The money they were making to be used for public works programs had to be replaced. If the people in the state wanted booze to be cheaper, they should have left things as is.

Revenue doesn't magically reappear when you destroy a revenue stream after all, and that money was being used.

yes yes.... god freaking help it that any cuts in overspending be considered. no... that would be insane.

just tax more.

I agree..... tax me more! This place is coming apart, roads are falling apart, teenagers are dumber than ever, unemployed people are all over...... someone needs to fix this..... and the free market isn't bothering.

or we could cut out the waste in the government and pay for all that without raising taxes.

/i know, blows minds right?

You've got a perfectly good state down there to show us how it's done. We'll wait and watch 'bagger.

since your reading comprehension seems a bit ... low, i'll just giggle at you.

I think I understood what you wrote just fine. What, specifically, would your criticism be?

well, to your credit, it was in response to someone else up thread. so maybe you missed it. it was kind of long and shockingly, i'm actually busy at work - so just scroll up a bit - or even click on an earlier page.

Oh, thanks! We found the reading comprehension problem. You thought that when I typed 'bagger I meant something other than carpetbagger. You see, a big part of reading comprehension is having a vocabulary larger than a dime store parrot. Now, would you like to explain how what you're doing isn't carpetbagging?


i get it - just a bored troll?

cause ya.. i see here on fark so often people using the word 'carpetbagging.' totally... and folks here never ever ever (constantly) use " 'bagger " as a reference to the Tea party.

but please do use this as some opportunity to exhibit your huge brain and astound us all with your wit. leave our mouths agape at the depth and breadth of your knowledge. we're on pins and needles.

/love how your poor use of slang equates to me having a slim vocabulary.
//and if by carpetbaggin you mean i'm new to this area, then you are just a dolt. and probably moved here from back east complete with your "i love oregon" sticker on the back of your subaru wagon. awesome.
 
2012-07-19 02:03:18 PM

inner ted: and if by carpetbaggin you mean i'm new to this area, then you are just a dolt. and probably moved here from back east complete with your "i love oregon" sticker on the back of your subaru wagon. awesome.


No, by carpetbagging, I mean comming from a generally republican position and trying to affect the politics of a democratic majoirty state you have no stake in. The same meaning it's had since the revolutionary war.

WA != OR.

Now, if you don't mind, your state isn't doing all that great either. We do things a little different than you. Maybe you go sort out your state, we'll watch and let you know what we think. In the interim, we'll continue to do the best we can for our population k?

/wow I can't believe you didn't see that coming
//it was in context and everything
 
2012-07-19 02:11:15 PM
WTF is wrong with you people? You seriously want the state to run your liquor stores?

My liquor store cleans up because of blue laws, but they have a sommelier and rack after rack of fine wine. And they're friendly.

Yeah, let's turn that into the farking DMV.
 
2012-07-19 02:15:01 PM

rohar: inner ted: and if by carpetbaggin you mean i'm new to this area, then you are just a dolt. and probably moved here from back east complete with your "i love oregon" sticker on the back of your subaru wagon. awesome.

No, by carpetbagging, I mean comming from a generally republican position and trying to affect the politics of a democratic majoirty state you have no stake in. The same meaning it's had since the revolutionary war.

WA != OR.

Now, if you don't mind, your state isn't doing all that great either. We do things a little different than you. Maybe you go sort out your state, we'll watch and let you know what we think. In the interim, we'll continue to do the best we can for our population k?

/wow I can't believe you didn't see that coming
//it was in context and everything


the idea that as a resident of oregon i have no stake in the happenings of washington is just ignorant. in fact, it's that kind of 'head up ass' thinking that keeps the bridges between portland & vancouver jammed for miles. instead of everyone paying their part to alleviate congestion by running the MAX train up there - no.. we get dipshiats like you thinking that vancouver is somehow independent of portland & shouldn't have to contribute.
newsflash: it's a suburb.

for you to assume that i come from a 'generally republican position' is laughable. but you do lots of assuming it seems. maybe most just don't bother calling you on it.

god help that we require any responsibility on part of our public sector.

& why do you have such a hard on over who's state is doing better? jesus. nobody else here is in such a pissing match. feeling inferior are you? like you have something to prove?
 
2012-07-19 02:16:12 PM
This is more of an idiot tax anyway.

The price of my fav rum is $1 more expensive than it was before. If I tried driving more than a few extra miles to buy it, the fuel cost negates the savings.
 
2012-07-19 02:17:02 PM

robodog:

The conservatives had been trying to push sobriety on people for over 90 years by the time the 18th was passed, they only got traction when enough progressives (mostly women) got on board.


And it was the Liberals who first recognized the problem with enforcement, the Mafia became so powerful in such a short period of time that they were directly influencing the enforcement of the law. Alcohol was nearly as available after the Volsted Act was passed as before the 18th Amendment was passed. Only it became the realm of violent criminals and created a huge burden on the Government that saw no real social benefit and created costs that could not be supported.

The first people to really start agitating for getting rid of Prohibition were the Veterans of WW1, who had seen how alcohol could be used in a reasonable manner while they were serving in France, they came back to the United States after fighting one of the bloodiest wars in history to a nation where the religious nutballs had entirely eliminated the availability of wine and beer except through a black market controlled by violent criminal organizations. The German immigrants and their offspring were the primary brewers of Beer in this country, and the brewing of Beer was touted as a form of supporting the Germans during WW1. Drinking beer was propagandized as supporting the Germans and therefore a form of treason.

After the Volstead Act was passed, people were not drinking good beer or fine wines, they were drinking an entirely unregulated market consisting of bathtub gin, sugar liquor and liquor made from wood chips. People were drinking Sterno and gasoline. People were burning their houses down trying to make their own liquor.

The good stuff from Canada and Cuba or wherever was terribly expensive and rather hard to find in any case. Using alcohol became a catspaw that facilitated blackmail by the same people that were selling it. Drink a glass of wine? If you were running for office or held a position of responsibility, that meant that you could be denounced and arrested. The cop on the beat who was already underpaid and left to their own devices as to how to make a decent living. That mayor of that big city or the Congressman that wanted his afternoon glass of Scotch. That working blue collar man that wanted to have a beer or three in the afternoon after work. Blackmail got to be normal and so common that nearly everyone had to be on the take to prevent it.

Or, you could just go along with the Mafia, and do what they say, and they'll let you keep your booze, keep you supplied, and nobody would have to know. People started agitating for Repeal almost from the first day after the Volstead Act was passed. It was the Conservatives who were the most vehemently opposed to legalization. It wasn't until the St. Valentines Day massacre happened that people really started to understand what the illegal market was all about. It was a totally unenforceable law, and the black market that resulted became a murderous, uncontrollable nightmare.
 
2012-07-19 02:19:48 PM

sno man: Lucky LaRue: So, basically, Washington had been subsidizing its liquor industry?

Pay attention, Red States... You may learn something here about free enterprise...

but showshulism?


Or maybe...hear me out lib...they didn't see the sticker shock tax until after this initiative went through, and said "fark THAT NOISE" and decided to go elsewhere. It's one thing if you think a fifth is 24 bucks...it's another if it's supposed to be 14 but then they add the rape.

Time and again it's been shown when taxes get too high, people will find another way not to have to pay it.

At least we're not paying for retail entry level with those tax dollars anymore.
 
2012-07-19 02:57:24 PM

Rent Party: The market will eventually sort prices out. I've seen a mix of savings and gouging on the shelves. What I'm disappointed with is the absolute lack of selection. The top shelf stuff has completely gone away. I can get 98 different shiatty vodaks, but can't find Jamison 18, Red Breast, or Pimms anywhere.

I voted for it, and I'd do so again.


I knew Washington's privatization of liquor law would hurt selection and that was the reason I voted against it. The fact that it also increased prices just further confirms my decision.

Here, I've only seen Redbreast for sale at Fred Meyer. It was going for about $58 for a 750 ml bottle (not counting taxes). That was about the same price it cost at the old state liquor stores but at least they sometimes had it on special for $42.

At least where I live, there are Idaho state liquor stores only ten miles away.
 
2012-07-19 03:01:12 PM

Chameleon: Do you think Costco was upset that smaller stores wouldn't be able to compete?



Not at all....but that still ignores the point that they tried to pass an initiative that opened up sales to everyone the first time around. If they wanted to crush "the little guy", they would have made that a part of their first initiative.

/So damn glad that my Costco stock is over $95.50 per share right now.
 
2012-07-19 03:20:00 PM

Surool: This is more of an idiot tax anyway.


That, and paying more to do the gas station's job for them. One nice thing about the Oregon side of the Portland Metro region: Mini serve costs less.
 
2012-07-19 03:32:09 PM

NDP2: Rent Party: The market will eventually sort prices out. I've seen a mix of savings and gouging on the shelves. What I'm disappointed with is the absolute lack of selection. The top shelf stuff has completely gone away. I can get 98 different shiatty vodaks, but can't find Jamison 18, Red Breast, or Pimms anywhere.

I voted for it, and I'd do so again.

I knew Washington's privatization of liquor law would hurt selection and that was the reason I voted against it. The fact that it also increased prices just further confirms my decision.

Here, I've only seen Redbreast for sale at Fred Meyer. It was going for about $58 for a 750 ml bottle (not counting taxes). That was about the same price it cost at the old state liquor stores but at least they sometimes had it on special for $42.


I think what we will eventually see is "Liquor Barn" type superstores, which should be good for selection and pricing, but that will take a while while the blue hairs that run this state get all upset thinking about the children.
 
2012-07-19 03:39:16 PM
Just got back from a trip to Oregon where I picked up hundreds of dollars of liquor for myself and friends. The savings was between 30-75% per bottle, and I also bought liquor that you can no longer find in many Washington stores.

1183 was a cash grab by Costco, plain and simple. What's sad is the people who voted for it are blaming the state taxes for the higher prices. You know, the taxes that were clearly written into the initiative that they voted for.

Thanks for driving up prices and gutting selection, assholes. The initiative process is why we can't have nice things in this state.
 
Displayed 50 of 235 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report