• 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 Tax Patches Fail as Tea-Party Experiment Riles Residents

Excon said:
Obviously they didn't cut it enough.
Do you really not know that?
Click to expand...
Wait so now you are admitting the did cut.. :lamo


Again. They need to cut spending.
Click to expand...
Or you know, just left the taxes in place............................
 
Eric7216 said:
Getting nailed or getting hailed?

Recently read an article in the Huffington Post about how socialist some of the policies of Republicans like Reagan and GWB were and how stupid Republican voters are for not seeing this and thinking that their idols were socialistic. And most of the commenters agreed. Of course, I looked at it differently-how in the world do Reagan and GWB get name called as extreme right wing fanatics when in reality they had some socialistic solutions.

So, yeah, you understand the issue. You bash Republicans no matter what and some Republicans bash Democrats no matter what. Simply because of the R or D. Politicians watch out for their special interest supporters.
Click to expand...

Well, at least we're finally getting tacit approval that the conservative movement has moved not to the right, but to crazytown. I'm not talking about you specifically, just conservatives in general.
 
reinoe said:
Well, at least we're finally getting tacit approval that the conservative movement has moved not to the right, but to crazytown. I'm not talking about you specifically, just conservatives in general.
Click to expand...
Well, it would illogical to leave a party simply because of the fellow travelers. I lean "right" generally because 1) I have greater faith in the invisible hand of the market than I do government, 2) I believe that smart people got us to where we are today-Plato, Hobbes, etc.-and perhaps we should think of Chesterton's Fence about why things are the way they are before we change them, 3) I am fiscally conservative, for myself and for my government, and 4)I believe that civil liberties are currently better defended by the "right".

And I am generally opposed to Democrats as they seem to be more statist and support government authority over individual rights and they have become more tribal, judging people by their social (race, gender, labor, wealth, religion, age, etc.) group membership rather than as individuals.

I will support whomever meets those qualities that I support. And ignore my fellow travelers. They are not me.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Are you seriously this ****ing dull?
"$62.6 Million is getting slashed from the Kansas Budget. When lawmakers left after a very contentious session, they cut about $350 Million."

WHEN YOU SLASH MONEY FROM YOUR BUDGET YOU ARE SLASHING SPENDING
Click to expand...

Perhaps you are confusing cuts in one area with overall, total budget changes. When the budget grew by $1.1 billion between 2013 and 2014 there were probably numerous cuts along with more growth in spending. That $62 million was simply one small piece.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Wait so now you are admitting the did cut.. :lamo



Or you know, just left the taxes in place............................
Click to expand...
Admitting?
Double d'oh!

iLOL

What exactly is it you do not understand about something they need to do now (They need to cut spending), versus what they did in the past that apparently wasn't enough?
 
Excon said:
What liberal idiots. They should have been cutting spending.
Click to expand...

Do you know what spending is per resident in Kansas? Spending per capita in Kansas is already low. It was low before Brownback took office. This is California or Massachusetts here in Kansas. We don't have a huge welfare state or a bunch of social spending. The bulk of the state's budget goes to education, public safety and infrastructure. There really isn't anything to cut.
 
Eric7216 said:
Well, Kathleen Sibelius was twice elected governor, first in 2002. Seems there is some "liberalism" there. (I hate calling statists "liberal" as they really are illiberal but that seems to be how the word is used now.)
And there was an 8.2% increase in spending between 2013 and 2014. Well above the 1.5% cost of living increase. (They increased spending $1.1 billion)
Kansas state budget and finances - Ballotpedia
Click to expand...

Sebelius ran and governed as a centrist. She won because her opponent was an extremist and thus was elected because she was considered the lesser of two evils at the time. Kansas is one of the reddest states in the nation.

Sebelius may have been behind the implementation of the ACA, but when she was governor of Kansas, she was no liberal.
 
Last edited:
Eric7216 said:
Perhaps you are confusing cuts in one area with overall, total budget changes. When the budget grew by $1.1 billion between 2013 and 2014 there were probably numerous cuts along with more growth in spending. That $62 million was simply one small piece.
Click to expand...

Per-capita government spending in Kansas is already among the lowest in the nation. Combined state and local spending per-capita in Kansas is $7,955. That is well below the average, and even below average for agricultural states. Moreover, the single largest expenditure in Kansas is education with public welfare spending among the lowest in the nation. There is nothing substantial to cut. Kansas is a state that until the last decade was largely ran by moderate Republicans. It was a well ran state until Brownback and the far right got the keys to the government and its been a fiscal disaster ever since.
 
and has earned Gov. Sam Brownback with an 18 Percent Approval Rating In Latest Poll far surpassing President Nixon's when force to resign because of his criminal activities.........
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
Per-capita government spending in Kansas is already among the lowest in the nation. Combined state and local spending per-capita in Kansas is $7,955. That is well below the average, and even below average for agricultural states. Moreover, the single largest expenditure in Kansas is education with public welfare spending among the lowest in the nation. There is nothing substantial to cut. Kansas is a state that until the last decade was largely ran by moderate Republicans. It was a well ran state until Brownback and the far right got the keys to the government and its been a fiscal disaster ever since.
Click to expand...

I find this stuff about Kansas interesting. Several years ago, perhaps 2012, I read Thomas Frank's What's the Matter with Kansas. Now the book was written in 2004 when Sebelius was Governor so I question your comment about things being good until Brownback as Frank ripped the state in 2004. But the book seemed anecdotal. Did my own research and found that Kansas, using the latest 2012 or so data, seemed rather well economically. The average income was $39,737 (25th out of 50), and the cost of living was 92.63 (average 100). Dividing average income by cost of living to get purchasing power Kansas ranks 5th, behind Wyoming, Virginia, Illinois, and Texas. Rather good. Looked at GINI for income inequality and Kansas at .445 was better (more equal) than the nation as a whole at .469. And better than 3 of the states that had higher purchasing income, Virginia, Illinois and Texas. Rather good. And I looked at state debt and, as you indicated, Kansas had low debt per capita at $2,276, below the average of $3,614.

I would not want to live in Kansas but it would seem that from an economic and equality standpoint Kansas does very well. Perhaps all those red state, religious right, policies put out by the government either help make the state so good economically or don't hurt the residents on the important issues. And I can't understand why Frank wrote that book. Or, perhaps, why Krugman, an economist, praised it.
 
joG said:
Any large and quick change is reckless and risks a bumpy ride. Just think of ACA.
Click to expand...

Brownback said in 2011 that his tax cuts would be "a shot of adrenaline". Since when does adrenaline take 4 years to work?
 
Eric7216 said:
I would not want to live in Kansas but it would seem that from an economic and equality standpoint Kansas does very well.
Click to expand...

GDP and job growth in Kansas since the Brownback Tax Cuts have been below the national average.
 
The Penguin said:
Brownback said in 2011 that his tax cuts would be "a shot of adrenaline". Since when does adrenaline take 4 years to work?
Click to expand...

Use a helicopter next time and Dollar bills of large denomination.
 
joG said:
Use a helicopter next time and Dollar bills of large denomination.
Click to expand...

Or maybe just admit that the ideology is full of crap to begin with.
 
The Penguin said:
Or maybe just admit that the ideology is full of crap to begin with.
Click to expand...

Ideology might certainly be a candidate. But what does that have to do with the price of this cheese?
 
Eric7216 said:
I find this stuff about Kansas interesting. Several years ago, perhaps 2012, I read Thomas Frank's What's the Matter with Kansas. Now the book was written in 2004 when Sebelius was Governor so I question your comment about things being good until Brownback as Frank ripped the state in 2004. But the book seemed anecdotal. Did my own research and found that Kansas, using the latest 2012 or so data, seemed rather well economically. The average income was $39,737 (25th out of 50), and the cost of living was 92.63 (average 100). Dividing average income by cost of living to get purchasing power Kansas ranks 5th, behind Wyoming, Virginia, Illinois, and Texas. Rather good. Looked at GINI for income inequality and Kansas at .445 was better (more equal) than the nation as a whole at .469. And better than 3 of the states that had higher purchasing income, Virginia, Illinois and Texas. Rather good. And I looked at state debt and, as you indicated, Kansas had low debt per capita at $2,276, below the average of $3,614.

I would not want to live in Kansas but it would seem that from an economic and equality standpoint Kansas does very well. Perhaps all those red state, religious right, policies put out by the government either help make the state so good economically or don't hurt the residents on the important issues. And I can't understand why Frank wrote that book. Or, perhaps, why Krugman, an economist, praised it.
Click to expand...

The state until Brownback was typically ran by moderate Republicans. There are basically 3 parties in the state, the Democrats, the Moderate Republicans, and the Conservative Republicans (the nutjobs). Until Brownback the moderates held the most power and the state benefited as a result. Its been a fiscal train-wreck ever since the far right took over.
 
joG said:
Ideology might certainly be a candidate. But what does that have to do with the price of this cheese?
Click to expand...

Well, the whole reason Brownback cut taxes was to create a deficit that he could use as an excuse to cut spending. It's the Conservative M.O. That's what they do...they manufacture deficits and debt as a means to attack the social spending they are ideologically opposed to, but could never legislate away without a reason. That reason is the deficit that came from cutting taxes, and that cutting operations causes government programs to fail, which is then used as an excuse to get rid of the program entirely.

Conservatives are plotters like that. They see no problem in deliberately causing deficits and debt so long as they can use those to advance their narrow, ideological goals. It's basically terrorism.
 
The Penguin said:
Well, the whole reason Brownback cut taxes was to create a deficit that he could use as an excuse to cut spending. It's the Conservative M.O. That's what they do...they manufacture deficits and debt as a means to attack the social spending they are ideologically opposed to, but could never legislate away without a reason. That reason is the deficit that came from cutting taxes, and that cutting operations causes government programs to fail, which is then used as an excuse to get rid of the program entirely.

Conservatives are plotters like that. They see no problem in deliberately causing deficits and debt so long as they can use those to advance their narrow, ideological goals. It's basically terrorism.
Click to expand...

Anyone that didn't make her living from social spending and knew her economics would certainly reduce the debt to maybe 50 or 55 percent of gdp.
 
joG said:
Anyone that didn't make her living from social spending and knew her economics would certainly reduce the debt to maybe 50 or 55 percent of gdp.
Click to expand...

I don't understand why you are consumed with reducing the debt. You do realize that debt reduction doesn't really help the economy or create jobs, right?
 
The Penguin said:
I don't understand why you are consumed with reducing the debt. You do realize that debt reduction doesn't really help the economy or create jobs, right?
Click to expand...

It is a question of time horizons, the amount of consumption by government and the level of supply of public goods, whether or not the lower level can be said to create jobs.

But in general the lower debt will probably be good for jobs and stabilization in recession and after external shocks and the like.
 
joG said:
It is a question of time horizons, the amount of consumption by government and the level of supply of public goods, whether or not the lower level can be said to create jobs.
Click to expand...

Cutting government spending cuts demand, which cuts jobs and revenue.


But in general the lower debt will probably be good for jobs and stabilization in recession and after external shocks and the like.
Click to expand...

Even though the exact opposite is actually the case. A recession is economic contraction. That means consumers pull back spending, which cuts demand, which cuts jobs. The more jobs that are cut, the lower demand gets. It becomes a cycle and its precisely the reason why you cannot cut your way out of a recession. Because eventually what happens is that everyone pulls back their spending at once, and the economy shrinks to nothing because no one is spending. So during recessions, while everyone cuts spending, government has to step in to make up the difference in the drop of demand. That's how you get out of recessions...government has to spend to create demand that is then supplied by the private sector.

This was the entire thing about the Rogoff/Reinhart "Growth in the Time of Debt" paper...the one that had all the "spreadsheet errors" and deliberate data omissions were corrected, what the data shows is that during recessions, the government should exceed 90% of GDP if it wants to achieve positive growth.
 
joG said:
It is a question of time horizons, the amount of consumption by government and the level of supply of public goods, whether or not the lower level can be said to create jobs.

But in general the lower debt will probably be good for jobs and stabilization in recession and after external shocks and the like.
Click to expand...
What the....?

What "time horizons" terrify you?

What's wrong with government consumption, when it's needed? It rarely crowds out the private sector, and government spending creates jobs. (If it isn't needed, and the economy is in good shape, that's another story.)

How is supplying public goods bad for the economy?
 
The Penguin said:
Cutting government spending cuts demand, which cuts jobs and revenue.




Even though the exact opposite is actually the case. A recession is economic contraction. That means consumers pull back spending, which cuts demand, which cuts jobs. The more jobs that are cut, the lower demand gets. It becomes a cycle and its precisely the reason why you cannot cut your way out of a recession. Because eventually what happens is that everyone pulls back their spending at once, and the economy shrinks to nothing because no one is spending. So during recessions, while everyone cuts spending, government has to step in to make up the difference in the drop of demand. That's how you get out of recessions...government has to spend to create demand that is then supplied by the private sector.

This was the entire thing about the Rogoff/Reinhart "Growth in the Time of Debt" paper...the one that had all the "spreadsheet errors" and deliberate data omissions were corrected, what the data shows is that during recessions, the government should exceed 90% of GDP if it wants to achieve positive growth.
Click to expand...

I know all the arguments you mention. They don't change anything though. Of course, it will reduce demand, when government reduces spending. But that is one variable in a multi factorial multi period model.
 
Visbek said:
What the....?

What "time horizons" terrify you?

What's wrong with government consumption, when it's needed? It rarely crowds out the private sector, and government spending creates jobs. (If it isn't needed, and the economy is in good shape, that's another story.)

How is supplying public goods bad for the economy?
Click to expand...

Terrify? Nobody is terrified.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom