• 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!

Kasich Says Washington Is Obsolete

Jack Hays said:
He solved a practical problem within the bounds of the available system. The only thing "moronic" would have been needlessly injuring citizens to make an ideological point.
Click to expand...

Then why did he not tax and spend at the state level to prevent that "needless injury"? That is exactly what he wants you to believe that he is for.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Then why did he not tax and spend at the state level to prevent that "needless injury"? That is exactly what he wants you to believe that he is for.
Click to expand...

First the federal burden must be lightened to create the space for that. First things first.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Then why did he not tax and spend at the state level to prevent that "needless injury"? That is exactly what he wants you to believe that he is for.
Click to expand...

Just guessing, but Kasich might say that Ohioans have dutifully sent their tax dollars to DC and Medicaid expansion brings some of those dollars back home.:shrug:
 
Jack Hays said:
First the federal burden must be lightened to create the space for that. First things first.
Click to expand...

There is no way that will happen when it would cause "needless injury". ;)

That is exactly what will be used (as an argument) to prevent the first thing from ever being allowed to happen.

Education is not even a constitutional federal government power yet we now have a cabinet level federal education department providing about 10% of the total K-12 funding. That did not happen because we lacked state government education systems - it happened because the states accepted federal bribes in the form of "financial aid". If that "aid" was stopped then states would be forced to raise state taxes - no governor would ever do that.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
There is no way that will happen when it would cause "needless injury". ;)

That is exactly what will be used (as an argument) to prevent the first thing from ever being allowed to happen.

Education is not even a constitutional federal government power yet we now have a cabinet level federal education department providing about 10% of the total K-12 funding. That did not happen because we lacked state government education systems - it happened because the states accepted federal bribes in the form of "financial aid". If that "aid" was stopped then states would be forced to raise state taxes - no governor would ever do that.
Click to expand...

I believe you will see Kasich addressed those concerns.
 
radioman said:
Just guessing, but Kasich might say that Ohioans have dutifully sent their tax dollars to DC and Medicaid expansion brings some of those dollars back home.:shrug:
Click to expand...

Of course, he would say that. What he will not say is that Ohio Medicaid expansion added to the federal deficit and the national debt. You cannot lower federal taxes and keep on spending as much or more. Nearly every republicant candidate will say that they will cut federal spending and lower federal taxes without adding to the deficit or national debt - name one that actually did so. ;)
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Of course, he would say that. What he will not say is that Ohio Medicaid expansion added to the federal deficit and the national debt. You cannot lower federal taxes and keep on spending as much or more. Nearly every republicant candidate will say that they will cut federal spending and lower federal taxes without adding to the deficit or national debt - name one that actually did so. ;)
Click to expand...
I agree with all you have said here.
 
Jack Hays said:
I believe you will see Kasich addressed those concerns.
Click to expand...

As I said before, he wants to keep the taxes (costs) federal but let the states have more control. That is simply fluff. We will still end up with "interstates" in Hawaii. mass transut pork in the big cities and folks in rural areas (that must drive more) footing the bill.

He panned the federal gas tax in particular, saying he would return almost all of it to state coffers. He said he would limit the U.S. Department of Transportation’s role nearly entirely to providing research support to states.
Click to expand...

Over 100 programs run by the Department of Education, meanwhile, would be packaged into four state grants, transferring control over education to the state and local levels, according to his plan.
Click to expand...

John Kasich Calls for Gutting Federal Transportation, Education Departments - ABC News
 
Jack Hays said:
I think it sounds like good government.
Click to expand...

Good government is not paying a federal tax for a state or local service. Good government is doing and funding things at the lowest level of government possible.

If state A wants to have "free" college then State A must fund it. If state A wants to have "free" medical care for some folks then state A must fund it. If I (In Texas) am paying taxes for roads in Hawaii, or a subway DC then I (through my elected representatives) should have a say in how those funds are spent.

Separating taxation from representation is not good government.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
I object to the moronic hypocrisy in denouncing federal spending increases and then helping to ensure that they occur. As to your (bolded above) nonsense that is exactly what Kaisich says that he is against - DC taking tax money that could otherwise be used differently. The state is then free to let the people keep it (fat chance) or to tax it away from them and spend it "more wisely" at the state level. Kaisich says he wants less federal spending and more state/local government control yet slops at the federal trough in order to get those Ohio votes.
Click to expand...

We felt that he had made the best decision for our State at the time, and since he was our Governor, we expected him to do the best he could to benefit the people of our State.

To go a bit broader, though, he did benefit all the people in this Country in 1997 during President Clinton's term as POTUS. While serving as Chairman and Chief Architect in the US House of Representatives on budget matters, he and his committee gave this Country its first balanced budget since 1969 -The Balanced Budget Act of 1997. They turned a multibillion dollar deficit into a multi-billion dollar surplus, and he is justifiably proud of that, as he should be! He did the same thing for Ohio when he became Governor, turning a budget deficit that he inherited into a budget surplus, and for the fourth year in a row has given Ohio a balanced budget, and a significant budget surplus. How many States can say the same, while also remembering they too took federal money to pay for expanded Medicaid. We're proud of our Governor!
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Good government is not paying a federal tax for a state or local service. Good government is doing and funding things at the lowest level of government possible.

If state A wants to have "free" college then State A must fund it. If state A wants to have "free" medical care for some folks then state A must fund it. If I (In Texas) am paying taxes for roads in Hawaii, or a subway DC then I (through my elected representatives) should have a say in how those funds are spent.

Separating taxation from representation is not good government.
Click to expand...

I believe that is Kasich's intended direction.
 
Jack Hays said:
I believe that is Kasich's intended direction.
Click to expand...

In post #34 the link shows what Kasich intends - federal taxation (and spending) being kept. Kasich intends to use some, as yet unknown, formula to "return control to the states". The simple way to do exactly that is to abolish those federal taxes, programs and personnel thus letting each state decide whether to create and fund better replacement programs or even to let folks keep more of what they earn.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
I object to the moronic hypocrisy in denouncing federal spending increases and then helping to ensure that they occur. As to your (bolded above) nonsense that is exactly what Kaisich says that he is against - DC taking tax money that could otherwise be used differently. The state is then free to let the people keep it (fat chance) or to tax it away from them and spend it "more wisely" at the state level. Kaisich says he wants less federal spending and more state/local government control yet slops at the federal trough in order to get those Ohio votes.
Click to expand...

Kasich has a rather strange argument when it comes to Obamacare. Medicaid expansion is the most government-centric part of the law and Kasich against the Republican legislators shoved through accepting the carrot on the stick from the feds for the expansion. Now for him to say that Obamacare is bad because it’s a top-down, government-dictated program and simultaneously argue that the Medicaid expansion is terrific is just a nonsensical position to hold.

Hey I live in Ohio. I know the writing is on the wall that my taxes are going to increase because Kasich took the fed money to expand Medicaid. As any thinking mind knows "free" money isn't free and as soon as it runs out Ohioans will see their taxes go up immensely to cover the increase of 500,000 now on Medicaid thanks to the expansion Kasich agreed to.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
In post #34 the link shows what Kasich intends - federal taxation (and spending) being kept. Kasich intends to use some, as yet unknown, formula to "return control to the states". The simple way to do exactly that is to abolish those federal taxes, programs and personnel thus letting each state decide whether to create and fund better replacement programs or even to let folks keep more of what they earn.
Click to expand...

The "return control to the states" phase would be, I think, an interim step.
 
vesper said:
Kasich has a rather strange argument when it comes to Obamacare. Medicaid expansion is the most government-centric part of the law and Kasich against the Republican legislators shoved through accepting the carrot on the stick from the feds for the expansion. Now for him to say that Obamacare is bad because it’s a top-down, government-dictated program and simultaneously argue that the Medicaid expansion is terrific is just a nonsensical position to hold.

Hey I live in Ohio. I know the writing is on the wall that my taxes are going to increase because Kasich took the fed money to expand Medicaid. As any thinking mind knows "free" money isn't free and as soon as it runs out Ohioans will see their taxes go up immensely to cover the increase of 500,000 now on Medicaid thanks to the expansion Kasich agreed to.
Click to expand...

Kasich will likely be gone before Ohio has to go from paying 5% to 10% of that added Medicaid cost. What few stop to think about is that most of that extra "free" money is spent in Ohio which means that it is taxed by Ohio.

If the federal government offers to give your state $95 for every $5 that you spend on Medicaid expansion that is a deal that many would (and did) take. Even making the deal worse in 2020, getting only $90 for every $10 that you spend, is still a fairly sweet deal.
 
Jack Hays said:
The "return control to the states" phase would be, I think, an interim step.
Click to expand...

That (bolded above) assertion being based on what? You like the guy so he must be planning on doing even more wonderful things eventually. ;)
 
vesper said:
Kasich has a rather strange argument when it comes to Obamacare. Medicaid expansion is the most government-centric part of the law and Kasich against the Republican legislators shoved through accepting the carrot on the stick from the feds for the expansion. Now for him to say that Obamacare is bad because it’s a top-down, government-dictated program and simultaneously argue that the Medicaid expansion is terrific is just a nonsensical position to hold.

Hey I live in Ohio. I know the writing is on the wall that my taxes are going to increase because Kasich took the fed money to expand Medicaid. As any thinking mind knows "free" money isn't free and as soon as it runs out Ohioans will see their taxes go up immensely to cover the increase of 500,000 now on Medicaid thanks to the expansion Kasich agreed to.
Click to expand...

Good morning, Vesper. :2wave:

Well at least we have had a few years of not being taxed for Medicaid expansion, for which I am thankful! :mrgreen: The poor had no more choice of what DC decided to do on Medicaid expansion than anyone else, and the money that was provided by DC was to help them by way of helping the States pay for it. The administration made it clear that the aid being given to the States had an end date and was not going to continue forever. Perhaps a better solution will present itself before long, because the poor aren't going to be any more able to help themselves than they ever were in the past. Very poorly thought out law, IMO, requiring too many revisions so far because it's got problems that should have been anticipated in the beginning.

If I understand things correctly, the money that Kasich and other Governors took was not a loan that had to be paid back, but was a short-term aid to help States take care of their poor. From what I've read, the States that didn't take the money are having budget problems in trying to pay for it, and are sharply reducing aid to the poor. Maybe the budget surplus our State has been able to stockpile in the meantime will be used for Medicaid assistance in the future, I don't know, but if we end up having our taxes raised to pay for it, what else is new? We have a biblical responsibility to help the less fortunate in our society when we can. I don't like paying more taxes than anyone else does, but what's the alternative? Perhaps if we had more decent paying jobs so more people could help themselves?. . . . I don't see that happening either. :sigh:
 
Jack Hays said:
We should have as many as we need.
Click to expand...


Cop out answer Jack.

Any other poster, yeah, but that's not up to your standard.

The poster is making the point there are too many, more than you need. For instance, Guantanamo Bay in Cuba does what besides piss off the local populace? I suggest he is right and a look at what is necessary to meet a defined threat is long overdue.
 
polgara said:
Good morning, Vesper. :2wave:

Well at least we have had a few years of not being taxed for Medicaid expansion, for which I am thankful! :mrgreen: The poor had no more choice of what DC decided to do on Medicaid expansion than anyone else, and the money that was provided by DC was to help them by way of helping the States pay for it. The administration made it clear that the aid being given to the States had an end date and was not going to continue forever. Perhaps a better solution will present itself before long, because the poor aren't going to be any more able to help themselves than they ever were in the past. Very poorly thought out law, IMO, requiring too many revisions so far because it's got problems that should have been anticipated in the beginning.

If I understand things correctly, the money that Kasich and other Governors took was not a loan that had to be paid back, but was a short-term aid to help States take care of their poor. From what I've read, the States that didn't take the money are having budget problems in trying to pay for it, and are sharply reducing aid to the poor. Maybe the budget surplus our State has been able to stockpile in the meantime will be used for Medicaid assistance in the future, I don't know, but if we end up having our taxes raised to pay for it, what else is new? We have a biblical responsibility to help the less fortunate in our society when we can. I don't like paying more taxes than anyone else does, but what's the alternative? Perhaps if we had more decent paying jobs so more people could help themselves?. . . . I don't see that happening either. :sigh:
Click to expand...

Remember when Kasich said taking the Medicaid expansion is what Reagan would do? Well Republicans took issue with that and found Kasich's thinking very wrong.

In the course of his ongoing crusade for Medicaid expansion, Ohio governor John Kasich has suggested that Ronald Reagan, Saint Peter, and God Himself all would support his plan to accept Obamacare’s Medicaid expansion.

While we do not have special insight into the mind of the Almighty or His divine agents, we do know something about Ronald Reagan. Expanding a failing, big-government program that reduces flexibility for the states and traps generations of Americans in dependency is not consistent with the kind of conservative solutions that Reagan sought during his terms as governor of California and president of the United States.
Click to expand...
Kasich Is Wrong about Reagan
 
Jack Hays said:
Here's my candidate, John Kasich, in his own words. What do you think?

Washington is obsolete

 Ceding power to the states makes sense.
John Kasich OCT 15

The biggest problem with America’s economy is called Washington. The anemic growth we have today isn’t because the federal government failed to do enough but because it succeeded in doing too much.
Take the so-called stimulus package designed to pull us out of the Great Recession. Its gift was underwhelming growth, stratospheric deficits and an $18 trillion debt. If our long, slow recovery stalls or turns south, is more government “help” the answer? No. It would deepen our problem, further balloon Washington and leave less economic oxygen available for Americans and businesses.
If we want to get serious about economic growth, we need less government and more “us.” We need to take our money, power and influence from Washington and bring it back to the states and communities where we live. That is the federalism the Founding Fathers intended for us, and in the first 100 days of my administration, I will seek votes in Congress to restore it. . . .
Click to expand...

I thought Bush was your candidate.
 
Hard Truth said:
There are two big reasons why we need large and strong federal and state governments.


One is that the federal government has been consistently better on human rights issues. Local governments can be misdirected by the local's prejudices, feuds and rivalries more easily than big government. That is why we have a history of Congress and the courts eliminating local laws intended to illegitimately help or hurt one group or another.


The other reasons is that we need to regulate and enforce the law to control large, powerful and wealthy institutions that can threaten our freedom and well being. These interests can including international corporations, big religion, unions, political parties, interest groups, and even extremely wealthy individuals. There is no way a small government or even a state can effectively protect individuals from the bad behavior of the powerful.
Click to expand...

Those "large, powerful and wealthy institutions that can threaten our freedom and well being", have only gotten more powerful as government has grown. Not sure how more of the same is going to improve the situation. Care to explain?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom