• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Kansas Conservative Economics So Bad They're Hiding the Stats

jpn

Retired Navy Commander
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 3, 2014
Messages
15,590
Reaction score
16,509
Location
Pacific NW
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Kansas Ends Bad Economic News by Not Reporting It

Republican Governor Sam Brownback of Kansas. Brownback, despite promising to measure the results of a “real life experiment” in cutting taxes, has decided to cancel a quarterly report on the status of the state’s economy.

Although Brownback’s spokeswoman said “a lot of people were confused by the report,” no one has been fooled. The problem was that the reports didn’t match the governor’s predictions for the state’s soon-to-be-booming economy. Local news media, including the Topeka Capital-Journal and the Kansas City Star, flagged the abandonment of the reports as evidence not only of policy failure, but as an attempt to hide that fact from the public.

A quick refresher: In 2010, Brownback, a U.S. senator, ran for governor on an economic platform created by the American Legislative Exchange Council, a conservative group that specializes in promoting draft legislation. He promised to slash taxes on business owners and lower personal income tax rates, unleashing an economic renaissance in Kansas.

In May 2012, he signed the bill into law. It initially lowered the top personal tax rate to 4.9 percent (it’s now 4.6 percent) from 6.45 percent, but most importantly, it eliminated income tax on profits for owners of limited liability companies, subchapter S corporations and sole proprietorships.

Give Brownback credit for passing the exact legislation he had promised.

The results, however, haven’t been very encouraging. Indeed, since the tax cuts were passed, almost nothing has gone as promised in Kansas. Revenue plunged and the state resorted to pulling money out of its rainy-day fund to plug the holes. A number of critical services, including for road maintenance and schools, were cut. The business climate has been poor, and the economy has lagged behind neighboring states as well as the rest of the country.

The conservative Republican promise is always that we're just a few massive tax cuts away from economic nirvana. Don't fall for it. It's just their greed talking.

Why hasn’t this worked out? As we have discussed before, the failure of the Kansas tax cuts to do what was promised is a simple combination of state budget math and human psychology.

The math is simple: Tax cuts tend to reduce revenue, in Kansas’ case much more than expected. To change people’s behavior requires more substantial incentives than changing things by a few percentage points. The reduced revenue led to spending cuts that lowered quality of life. In response, rising numbers of people and companies have left the state.

**Kansas’ gross state product fell behind the six-state region and the nation for the third straight year. (Kansas’ gross state product grew at a faster rate when compared to the region and the nation in three of the five years before Brownback took office in 2011).
**Private industry wages in Kansas grew at a slower pace last year than they did in the region and the U.S. -- as they did during the past five years.
**The number of private business establishments in Kansas trailed both the region and the nation for the last year, again continuing a five-year trend.
 
Reporter: "Governor, what are the results of your economic plan?"

Brownback: "I'm not telling." (sticks tongue out)
 
Cutting taxes sounds like it should work, but it rarely goes beyond that. Here in WV they have been cutting taxes for about six years now and every year they have had to defund multiple state programs just to patch the deficit they created. This last year they had to blow a large chunk of emergency funds and take an axe to higher learning in a huge way just to survive. A couple months after this latest patch the state had historic flooding and our politicians had to beg the government to come bail us out. Personal responsibility my ass. This fantasy of a low tax utopia is absolutely ridiculous.
 
Cutting taxes sounds like it should work, but it rarely goes beyond that. Here in WV they have been cutting taxes for about six years now and every year they have had to defund multiple state programs just to patch the deficit they created. This last year they had to blow a large chunk of emergency funds and take an axe to higher learning in a huge way just to survive. A couple months after this latest patch the state had historic flooding and our politicians had to beg the government to come bail us out. Personal responsibility my ass. This fantasy of a low tax utopia is absolutely ridiculous.

We're going through some of the same things here in Arizona.
 
Kansas Ends Bad Economic News by Not Reporting It



The conservative Republican promise is always that we're just a few massive tax cuts away from economic nirvana. Don't fall for it. It's just their greed talking.

The "Trickle Down" Reaganomics model is a failed model. All that happened is wealth inequality went through the roof. The rising tide, rather than floating all boats, rose the yachts of the rich and sunk the dingy's of the middle class.
 
Cutting taxes sounds like it should work, but it rarely goes beyond that. Here in WV they have been cutting taxes for about six years now and every year they have had to defund multiple state programs just to patch the deficit they created. This last year they had to blow a large chunk of emergency funds and take an axe to higher learning in a huge way just to survive. A couple months after this latest patch the state had historic flooding and our politicians had to beg the government to come bail us out. Personal responsibility my ass. This fantasy of a low tax utopia is absolutely ridiculous.

It sounds like the government is not handling the cut sensibly. You cannot just cut off funds. You have to change the way things are done. If you cut funds to the university, you get poor education. If on the other hand you sell the university, you get better education.
 
It sounds like the government is not handling the cut sensibly. You cannot just cut off funds. You have to change the way things are done. If you cut funds to the university, you get poor education. If on the other hand you sell the university, you get better education.

Good schools cost a lot of money. This is the first time I've heard of someone wanting to privatise a public university. That's one way to kill it, I guess.
 
Pence was a Koch puppet. You can see it in the way he reacted, all that flip flopping.

Kansas dug itself into a deep hole, and no one knows when, or even if, they'll ever dig themselves out. It's a textbook case on what neo-Birchers like the Kochs want, and an even better example of what you should not do, unless you want your state to commit suicide.
 
The "Trickle Down" Reaganomics model is a failed model. All that happened is wealth inequality went through the roof. The rising tide, rather than floating all boats, rose the yachts of the rich and sunk the dingy's of the middle class.

Its working great and has worked great for years in Texas

( Yay Texas !! )

Trickle down is a partisan mischaracterization of Supply Side economics which most Liberals haven't the faintest idea of how it creates jobs and improves market based economies.
 
Its working great and has worked great for years in Texas

( Yay Texas !! )

Trickle down is a partisan mischaracterization of Supply Side economics which most Liberals haven't the faintest idea of how it creates jobs and improves market based economies.

I agree that "trickle down" is a bit pejorative but it is not that much of a mischaracterization.

Supply Side economics did not create jobs nor improve the economy. Where are you getting this from ?

Reagan was fiscal clown who stimulated the economy through deficit spending.

The result has been unprecedented government debt. Reagan has tripled the Gross Federal Debt, from $900 billion to $2.7 trillion. Ford and Carter in their combined terms could only double it. It took 31 years to accomplish the first postwar debt tripling, yet Reagan did it in eight.

https://mises.org/library/sad-legacy-ronald-reagan-0

Had Obama Tripled the debt (which was 12 Trillion after the last Bush Fiscal Year) it would be at 36 Trillion right now. (Not that Obama is a pillar fiscal restraint but compared to Reagan he I a miser)

Reagan's lowering of barriers to trade (while a good idea in theory if done properly) caused the outsourcing of the US manufacturing which lost a large number of good paying Jobs but did nothing to lower the cost of goods. (You are still paying over 100 dollars for a pair of Nike Shoes made with slave labor).

Texas ? What that fact that there was an oil boom and Texas is an oil economy have to do with anything Reagan did ?

I am not left nor liberal but, your claim that the left does not have smart economists is coming from as much ignorance as you claim that Reagan had something to do with the economic oil boom in Texas.
 
I agree that "trickle down" is a bit pejorative but it is not that much of a mischaracterization.

Supply Side economics did not create jobs nor improve the economy. Where are you getting this from ?

Supply side stimulates new economic growth by incentivizing new private sector investment and that includes lowering taxes among other things. It's fundamental Conservative economic principles like this that has grown and sustained the Texas economy for decades....

9000 Businesses leave California, many for Texas....
California lost 9,000 business HQs and expansions, mostly to Texas, seven-year study says - Dallas Business Journal

For example, Texas offered Toyota a 40 million dollar tax break to move their headquarters from California to Texas so they could spend 300 million constructing their new headquarters and employing Texans. It's called a investment and it's paid off for Texas, not so much for California

So tax cuts dont pay for themselves ?? " Think again ", Texas has a mulit billion dollar rainy day fund ( Surplus ) and California has the Nations highest level of unfunded liabilities and also has the Nations highest poverty rate when cost of living is taken into consideration.


Reagan was fiscal clown who stimulated the economy through deficit spending.

That is a highly partisan and purposefully simplistic analysis of Reagan's economic policy. Here, educate yourself instead of relying on Left wing narratives and talking points.

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2001/03/the-real-reagan-economic-record

Had Obama Tripled the debt (which was 12 Trillion after the last Bush Fiscal Year) it would be at 36 Trillion right now. (Not that Obama is a pillar fiscal restraint but compared to Reagan he I a miser) .

Wrong AGAIN. Attributing all of FY2009 to Bush is highly dishonest, especially when you consider he signed only 3 out of the 12 spending appropriations bills contained in FY2009 and Obama signed the rest. Bush actually threatened to VETO all of Nancy Pelosi's massive new spending in FY2009

Reagan's lowering of barriers to trade (while a good idea in theory if done properly) caused the outsourcing of the US manufacturing which lost a large number of good paying Jobs but did nothing to lower the cost of goods. (You are still paying over 100 dollars for a pair of Nike Shoes made with slave labor).

:roll:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Free_Trade_Agreement

Texas ? What that fact that there was an oil boom and Texas is an oil economy have to do with anything Reagan did ?

Oil Boom ??? Lol !!! When Oil was at its peak, ( Its not now and hasn't been for a while but magically the Texas economy is still alive and growing as is our budget Surplus ) oil and gas accounted for 10 % of Texas GDP. Silicon Valley and all of California's tech companies was roughly 10% of that States total GDP.

Texas's economy is highly diverse and we've seen growth in every sector since and prior to 2008 and thats because we apply Conservative economic principles that people like you claim dont work. The same principles Reagan used to incentivize new private investment in our National economy

I am not left nor liberal but, your claim that the left does not have smart economists is coming from as much ignorance as you claim that Reagan had something to do with the economic oil boom in Texas.

No but your highly misinformed and are using a lot of the same vacuous talking points that the Left has relied on for years to unsuccessfully malign Supply Side economics. If your'e not a Lib then why are yourself to be influenced by whats essentially base partisan propaganda ??

And no, I've never been impressed with Liberal economist. They continue to preach the wonders of stimulus when its failed miserably almost every time its been tried.

Japan tried to borrow and spend their way to economic prosperity in the 90's. They blew through ten separate stimulus initiatives totaling 100 trillion yen over 10 years and they spent heavily on " infrastructure ". It's referred to as their " lost decade " for a damn good reason. Again, educate yoruslef instead of relying on hack left wing narratives....

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2012/03/japans-national-budget-time-to-give-up-on-keynesianism
 
Supply side stimulates new economic growth by incentivizing new private sector investment and that includes lowering taxes among other things ....

It DOES!! But there are limits to how much private sector investment can be spurred in the absence of new demand.

There is no benefit in increased investment if demand doesn't increase because of it. Investing for the sake of investing doesn't yield profit if there is no increase in demand caused by that investment. And an investment doesn't automatically mean there will be an increase in demand.
 
That is a highly partisan and purposefully simplistic analysis of Reagan's economic policy. Here, educate yourself instead of relying on Left wing narratives and talking points.

Mises.org, the pillar of right-wing economic thought, is being described as providing a left wing narrative and talking point.

****ing hilarious!
 
Kansas has 4.4% unemployment and Brownback's the liberals poster child for failed conservative economics. :lol:

Meanwhile, Democrat controlled inner cities across the nation continue to have insane crime and unemployment numbers that make Kansas look like heaven on earth.
 
It DOES!! But there are limits to how much private sector investment can be spurred in the absence of new demand.

There is no benefit in increased investment if demand doesn't increase because of it. Investing for the sake of investing doesn't yield profit if there is no increase in demand caused by that investment. And an investment doesn't automatically mean there will be an increase in demand.

In other words, supply-side economics only looks like it works when the economy is growing anyway. But they have no answers during recessions.
 
Supply side stimulates new economic growth by incentivizing new private sector investment and that includes lowering taxes among other things. It's fundamental Conservative economic principles like this that has grown and sustained the Texas economy for decades....

9000 Businesses leave California, many for Texas....
California lost 9,000 business HQs and expansions, mostly to Texas, seven-year study says - Dallas Business Journal

For example, Texas offered Toyota a 40 million dollar tax break to move their headquarters from California to Texas so they could spend 300 million constructing their new headquarters and employing Texans. It's called a investment and it's paid off for Texas, not so much for California

So tax cuts dont pay for themselves ?? " Think again ", Texas has a mulit billion dollar rainy day fund ( Surplus ) and California has the Nations highest level of unfunded liabilities and also has the Nations highest poverty rate when cost of living is taken into consideration.




That is a highly partisan and purposefully simplistic analysis of Reagan's economic policy. Here, educate yourself instead of relying on Left wing narratives and talking points.


Your post is painful. Seriously. In case you were unaware (because it certainly seems so) Reagan had nothing to do with businesses moving HQ's from California to Texas in the 7 years 2008-2015.

What on the planet earth are you talking about ? If Reagan had something to do with this do you not think these HQ's would have moved during the 1980's ... or at minimum the 90's ?


Then you post an article from "Heritage.org" - real non objective group you found there but ok .. lets not demonize the messenger until we have vetted the message (like what you do).

The title of the article is:
The Real Reagan Economic Record: Responsible and Successful Fiscal Policy

Did you not read my last post ? ... What part of Tripled the Federal Debt from 900 Billion to 2.7 Trillion did you not understand ?
The result has been unprecedented government debt. Reagan has tripled the Gross Federal Debt, from $900 billion to $2.7 trillion. Ford and Carter in their combined terms could only double it. It took 31 years to accomplish the first postwar debt tripling, yet Reagan did it in eight.

How is this "Responsible" Fiscal Policy ?? Had Reagan inherited huge deficits (like Obama did - 1.4 Trillion to be exact) we might be able to cut him some slack but, he didn't. It was Reagan who created these deficits. He spent money like a princess with a credit card.

The rest of your post is equally nonsensical. You blubber on about economists who you have never read and you clearly do not have much of an understanding of what "Fiscal Responsibility" is.

I am a constitution loving Fiscal Conservative (Conservative as in old style Republican prior to the religious right taking over the party as decried by Goldwater).

I was watching as Reagan ran up massive deficits ... followed by Bush Sr. maintaining those massive deficits to a point where things go so bad that we were forced to take action. This action happened under Clinton but, was a bipartisan effort as everyone knew that if we did not take action the ship would soon sink.

This Reagan idolization train that folks have jumped on is based on created fantasy and forgetting the past.
 
Wrong AGAIN. Attributing all of FY2009 to Bush is highly dishonest, especially when you consider he signed only 3 out of the 12 spending appropriations bills contained in FY2009 and Obama signed the rest. ]

It is you who is either dishonest or ignorant of how Budgets work.

Lets go through the 2009 Budget.

The Bush 2009 Budget (the one Bush proposed) was for 3.1 Trillion in spending on 2.7 Trillion in revenue.
A 400 Billion dollar deficit was then baked into the cake. Most of this spending is through continuing resolutions. It is not like the DOD's budget is apportioned to them on a monthly basis (or any other Gov't department).

By the time the new president walks into office ... that money has already been spent.

Don’t Blame Obama for Bush’s 2009 Deficit
Don't Blame Obama for Bush's 2009 Deficit | Cato @ Liberty

Note the source "Cato.org" Hardly a bastion of liberal thought. It is a hard right leaning institution.

The 2009 *fiscal year began October 1, 2008, nearly four months before Obama took office. The budget for the entire fiscal year was largely set in place while Bush was in the White House

So there is 400 Billion of the 1.4 Trillion dollar deficit for 2009. Where does the other Trillion dollars come from ?

Since you clearly have not done the math yourself I will answer this question for you.

Expected revenue for 2009 was 2.7 Trillion. Actual revenue (due to the Bush Crash) came in at 2.1 Trillion. (this accounts for 600 Billion).

The other 400 Billion was for TARP (Bush) roughly 250 billion and the 150 Billion left was Obama - Mostly stimulus spending related to the Bush Crash.
 
It sounds like the government is not handling the cut sensibly. You cannot just cut off funds. You have to change the way things are done. If you cut funds to the university, you get poor education. If on the other hand you sell the university, you get better education.

Better education for who? Certainly not the middle class.
 
Its working great and has worked great for years in Texas

( Yay Texas !! )

Trickle down is a partisan mischaracterization of Supply Side economics which most Liberals haven't the faintest idea of how it creates jobs and improves market based economies.

We don't understand why you keeping beating a dead horse, supply side has been a disaster for the middle class and without them economic growth will continue to stagnate.
Texas has been using oil to grow its economy, digging money out of the ground is not the same as supply side. Things are not so rosy now that oil prices have tumbled. Local debt is now second only to NY State.

Crashing oil prices decimate Texas boomtowns

texas.jpg
 
Last edited:
Mises.org, the pillar of right-wing economic thought, is being described as providing a left wing narrative and talking point.

****ing hilarious!

No kidding. Check out my post #18 My source is the Cato Institute - not exactly a bastion of left wing economic thought (it is a right wing think tank)

Not that one even needs a source as the calculation for the 2009 deficit is mostly basic math.
 
Good schools cost a lot of money. This is the first time I've heard of someone wanting to privatise a public university. That's one way to kill it, I guess.

Private universities are more often better than public ones than not
 
Better education for who? Certainly not the middle class.

If you are good, you get a stipendium.
If you are not borrow the money.
If the cost is not worth it to you, it isn't worth it to me. So why should my secretary be forced to pay?
 
Private universities are more often better than public ones than not

Depends, there are great publics and crap privates.

The problem is I don't see a way to turn a state U private. It takes time to build a donor base, they wouldn't have it.
 
If you are good, you get a stipendium.
If you are not borrow the money.
If the cost is not worth it to you, it isn't worth it to me. So why should my secretary be forced to pay?

Forced to pay what? Taxes? Most likely she doesn't make enough to pay taxes. If she does her taxes won't go up to pay for College.
 
Back
Top Bottom