• 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

Fenton said:
Its working great and has worked great for years in Texas
Click to expand...

It's not working out great in Texas. This year alone, Texas lost about 100,000 oil jobs because the state is so heavily reliant on fossil fuels, when the price per barrel drops -as it has- revenue expectations drop off too. So what might have been true in 2014 when they were doing the 15-16 budget isn't true today. So all the assumptions that TX made about revenues two years ago were based on a higher price-per-barrel. Because the price never got as high as TX was projecting, their budget forecast is off. Which is why the state is facing a looming deficit for next year.
 
JC Callender said:
Kansas has 4.4% unemployment and Brownback's the liberals poster child for failed conservative economics. :lol:
Click to expand...

Kansas may have low unemployment, but income growth in Kansas is the worst in the nation and Kansas' GDP growth has trailed the national average 4 of the last 5 years. So the jobs Kansas has to offer are low-paying jobs.


Meanwhile, Democrat controlled inner cities across the nation continue to have insane crime and unemployment numbers that make Kansas look like heaven on earth.
Click to expand...

Poverty is just as high -if not higher- in rural red counties. The county with the largest percentage of welfare recipients is 98% white and in Kentucky. Furthermore, nearly every single red state is a taker state that takes more than they contribute to the Treasury. Red states keep their tax rates artificially low by raiding the welfare block grants. End that gravy train and the red states will all have to raise taxes.
 
joG said:
Private universities are more often better than public ones than not
Click to expand...

You can't make this claim. Private Universities, unlike Public Schools, get to pick and choose who they accept. So they can pad their success by limiting who they take. Public Schools accept all students (for the most part).
 
thinkagain said:
Hope and Change turned out to be status quo and more of the same.
Click to expand...

Well, Conservatives had determined from day one that they were going to do nothing to support the President or recover the country. So we could have had more hope and change, if not for the stinking underbelly that produced the teabags and Trump.
 
KLATTU said:
Supply side is based on plain common sense-that lower taxes enable private sector growth and highter taxes inhibit it *ALL ELSE EQUAL*
Click to expand...

But that isn't common sense. Lower taxes do not enable growth. What enables growth is demand. You don't increase demand by giving the people at the top a tax cut. You increase demand by increasing the amount of disposable income for consumers. Since consumer spending makes up 70% of our economy, putting money in the hands of people who will spend it means raising wages.

We cut taxes during Bush and the result was a skyrocketing of household debt. So the theory that cutting taxes results in growth is erroneous since we have empirical data showing it doesn't.
 
KLATTU said:
Both The carter and Clnton recesions were followed by Tax cuts ( not ALL supply side ) which were followed by economic. I am not claiming causation, but you certainly can't rule out some causation.
Click to expand...

First of all, no. Carter suffered from Stagflation which is different than a Recession. The cure for stagflation isn't cutting taxes. The cure for stagflation is lowering interest rates and increasing spending, which is precisely what the Federal Reserve and Congress did in 1982-3. Reagan's tax cuts hurt the economy, plunging the nation into a recession by the summer of 1981, and taking unemployment up to a record high of 10.8% by the end of 1982, which was the first year of Reagan's tax cuts.

The Clinton Recession didn't even happen during Clinton. It started in March 2001 and continued until November. Even with 9/11 and the recession, GDP growth was still positive for 2001. Furthermore, the cause of the 2001 recession was the dotcom bubble, and the dotcom bubble was caused by 1997 tax cuts. So once again, we see Conservative economic policy not producing the promises made of it. Conservatives cut taxes, recessions usually follow, and Democrats have to clean up the mess.

You seem to imply that big government spending IS the magic bullet for a depressed economy. That is welcome news for all the all depressed economies around the world!!
It's really ahrd to use the 2009 US economy as an example because we used a heavy does of both low taxes AND big government spending.
Click to expand...

And the US' recovery was better than every other First World Nation. In Europe, they were doing the opposite of what we were doing here. Where we were increasing spending, they were cutting it back (and doing so on a faulty, erroneous, deliberately dishonest premise). That's why our recovery was faster and better than all of theirs across the board.
 
jpn said:
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.
Click to expand...
First of all, I will take the "greed" of wanting to keep what is rightfully your own over the covetous liberal version that lusts for the property of others to satisfy their own demands. But that is a different topic. As for Kansas, yes it seems rather silly to slash taxes without equal cuts in state spending. Allowing people to keep more of what is rightly their own is the easy part. Separating people from their reliance upon the property of others is what is virtually impossible.
 
joG said:
1) An ancient tradition

2) formed in a period at a different level of technology is ofttimes a poor one when technologies progress and should be changed.

3) That is, what modernity is about.

4) That is, what has happened to higher, probably most other education and pensions for that matter.

5) And no, you are wrong. Education is not a public good. And though it is true that there are external effects, to education, that is no excuse for producing it inefficiently. That wastes tax money and expensive resources. And that is, what you are advocating.
Click to expand...

1) A couple of centuries isn't ancient.

2) You would need to back that up. Not that you can.

3) A key tenet of modernity is the importance of education. It was part of the birth of the Modern in the 1800s.

4) That doesn't make sense.

5) You can't have a modern economy without a robust education system. Efficiency is not the only metric here, or the most important metric. This is about you not wanting to pay taxes, and what you are really saying is devil take the hindmost.
 
Fletch said:
First of all, I will take the "greed" of wanting to keep what is rightfully your own over the covetous liberal version that lusts for the property of others to satisfy their own demands.
Click to expand...

When people are "allowed to keep more of what they earn", household debt skyrockets just as it did during Reagan, Bush the Elder, and Bush the Dumber. The wealthy do not spend their tax cuts in the economy like you promise they would. We know this because Moody's tells us.

So you know that, but try to make this some kind of philosophical, rhetorical, or hypothetical argument. And that's hard for you to do since you're not that wise or clever a person.


As for Kansas, yes it seems rather silly to slash taxes without equal cuts in state spending.
Click to expand...

Brownback and the Conservatives promised the tax cuts "would be a shot of adrenaline" and "pay for themselves". I'm no scientist, but even I know that adrenaline starts working right away. Here we are, almost 5 years later, and the adrenaline still hasn't kicked in. Why is that? The answer is obvious; the policy is a crock.
 
Incisor said:
Well, Conservatives had determined from day one that they were going to do nothing to support the President or recover the country. So we could have had more hope and change, if not for the stinking underbelly that produced the teabags and Trump.
Click to expand...

See post 32 for my response por favor . Thanks
 
Incisor said:
When people are "allowed to keep more of what they earn", household debt skyrockets just as it did during Reagan, Bush the Elder, and Bush the Dumber.
Click to expand...
That is just stupid.
The wealthy do not spend their tax cuts in the economy like you promise they would. We know this because Moody's tells us.
Click to expand...
I don't care how the wealthy spend their money.

So you know that, but try to make this some kind of philosophical, rhetorical, or hypothetical argument. And that's hard for you to do since you're not that wise or clever a person.
Click to expand...
Wow. You move directly to a personal insult. That tells me you have no intelligent counter to what I said. Since I wasn't addressing you, how about you let someone else respond rather than butt in and say something stupid.
 
Fletch said:
That is just stupid. I don't care how the wealthy spend their money
Click to expand...

Well you should, since the entire premise of trickle-down economics relies on the wealthy actually, you know, trickling down. If they're not going to spend the money they get from the tax cut, how exactly is the trickle-down supposed to work?


You move directly to a personal insult.
Click to expand...

If the shoe fits...nothing I say is untrue. I only speak in facts.
 
KLATTU said:
I was really responding to the first part of your sentence-that supply side side only looks good when the economy is growing anyway.

But let's take a look at the rest.

"they' have no answers during recessions. Hmmmmmm. Well I wouldn't agree with that . Both The carter and Clnton recesions were followed by Tax cuts ( not ALL supply side ) which were followed by economic. I am not claiming causation, but you certainly can't rule out some causation.

You seem to imply that big government spending IS the magic bullet for a depressed economy. That is welcome news for all the all depressed economies around the world!!
It's really ahrd to use the 2009 US economy as an example because we used a heavy does of both low taxes AND big government spending.
Click to expand...

Followed by economic what?

Reagan deficit-spent like a drunken sailor. Bush spent like crazy on a war. And in 2009, we didn't spend nearly enough on demand, because Republicans wanted to see Obama fail, even if it meant the country didn't recover as fast as it could have. That, plus a bunch of idiots thought that you could increase lending just by lowering interest rates - another supply side argument that didn't work.

You cannot make a case for supply side policies increasing demand in a down economy. Period. Cutting taxes on companies does nothing to increase demand.
 
Incisor said:
It's not working out great in Texas. This year alone, Texas lost about 100,000 oil jobs because the state is so heavily reliant on fossil fuels, when the price per barrel drops -as it has- revenue expectations drop off too. So what might have been true in 2014 when they were doing the 15-16 budget isn't true today. So all the assumptions that TX made about revenues two years ago were based on a higher price-per-barrel. Because the price never got as high as TX was projecting, their budget forecast is off. Which is why the state is facing a looming deficit for next year.
Click to expand...

Your'e showing your ignorance again.....

Texas has a highly diversified economy which means our economy and our SURPLUS keeps growing even when Oil prices crash.
Texas Today 2015: Diversified Texas Economy Still in Growth Mode - Area Development

Even when Oil and gas was booming it was only roughly 10% of Texas's total GDP

Did Toyota move its headquarters here from Cali because of our Oil and gas sector ???? Nope

No only failed Socialist states like Venezuela are STUPID enough to build their economy around a volitile commodity

Oh, and that little dog thats following you around liking every post ? You can litterally write " Fenton, your'e a big meanie " and he'll like it

He has no idea what he's talking about either
 
Last edited:
JohnfrmClevelan said:
F And in 2009, we didn't spend nearly enough on demand, because Republicans wanted to see Obama fail, even if it meant the country didn't recover as fast as it could have. d.
Click to expand...

Oh come on John, you know that's hyperbole.

First off, many Republicans don't believ that big government spending is a good cure. You would at least admit that.,no? SO why would they do something that they don't belive worked?

It's akin to a supply sider asking for MORE tax cuts because the first round didn't produce the desired results. You wouldn't go along with that,would you?

The Obama Adminstration promised certain results with the ARRA and these results weren't produced. Now I know a true believer would conclude we didn't spend ENOUGH, but I think it's a defensible position that MORE isn't prudent. Money does not grow on trees.
 
KLATTU said:
First off, many Republicans don't believ that big government spending is a good cure. You would at least admit that.,no? SO why would they do something that they don't belive worked?

It's akin to a supply sider asking for MORE tax cuts because the first round didn't produce the desired results. You wouldn't go along with that,would you?
Click to expand...

They enacted such policy during the Reagan and Bush administrations. Fiscal expenditure is a policy on acceptable for Republican administrations.

The Obama Adminstration promised certain results with the ARRA and these results weren't produced. Now I know a true believer would conclude we didn't spend ENOUGH, but I think it's a defensible position that MORE isn't prudent. Money does not grow on trees.
Click to expand...

The Obama economic team, along with a plethora of other politicians from across the isle, totally underestimated the severity of the great recession. To such a degree that, their stimulus package didn't bridge the investment shortfall left by the private sector.
 
Incisor said:
First of all, no. Carter suffered from Stagflation which is different than a Recession. The cure for stagflation isn't cutting taxes. d.
Click to expand...

You're just cherry picking. You can see where the economy was going when Reagan and GW Bush took over.US-GDP-with-recessions.jpg
 
Incisor said:
First s.



And the US' recovery was better than every other First World Nation..
Click to expand...
...and why was that? we were in low tax, supply side mode AND big government spending mode. Which did the trick?

And before you answer-consider that the bench mark you are using is faulty. How does the current recovery compare with other USA recoveries? Not very good, I'm sure you know.
 
Kushinator said:
They enacted such policy during the Reagan and Bush administrations. Fiscal expenditure is a policy on acceptable for Republican administrations.



The Obama economic team, along with a plethora of other politicians from across the isle, totally underestimated the severity of the great recession. To such a degree that, their stimulus package didn't bridge the investment shortfall left by the private sector.
Click to expand...




Fiscal stimulus doesn't work, claims Harvard economics professor Robert Barro - Telegraph
 
Incisor said:
Well you should, since the entire premise of trickle-down economics relies on the wealthy actually, you know, trickling down. If they're not going to spend the money they get from the tax cut, how exactly is the trickle-down supposed to work?




If the shoe fits...nothing I say is untrue. I only speak in facts.
Click to expand...

You've not posted any facts.
 
JohnfrmClevelan said:
Followed by economic what?

Reagan deficit-spent like a drunken sailor. Bush spent like crazy on a war. And in 2009, we didn't spend nearly enough on demand, because Republicans wanted to see Obama fail, even if it meant the country didn't recover as fast as it could have.
Click to expand...
What are you talking about? Obama got everything he asked for. The recovery had almost nothing to do with Obamas silly stimulus. If you are so eager to give someone credit, give it to Bernanke. Lauding praise on Obama is just hackery.
That, plus a bunch of idiots thought that you could increase lending just by lowering interest rates - another supply side argument that didn't work.
Click to expand...
What 'idiots' are those? And interest rates are just as low today as they were 8 years ago. Are you saying there has been no lending?

You cannot make a case for supply side policies increasing demand in a down economy. Period. Cutting taxes on companies does nothing to increase demand.
Click to expand...
On companies, that is probably true, but on individuals it is not. You cut taxes on business in the hope that they spend the savings on expansion and R&D.
 
Kushinator said:
Mises.org, the pillar of right-wing economic thought, is being described as providing a left wing narrative and talking point.

****ing hilarious!
Click to expand...

Uhm, yeah, except that he linked to heritage . org, not mises. Mises is not "the pillar of right-wing economic thought", it is a distinctly Libertarian leaning site. :roll:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom