• 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!

Prediction: U.S. economy to look like Kansas in 4 years

JC Callender said:
Wow, we'll nationally go down to 4.3% unemployment like Kansas has now? Cool!
Click to expand...

I like statistics. How about we look at the full picture.

Laffer and Moore correctly state that Kansas’ unemployment rate was 6.8 percent when Brownback took office in January 2011. They later celebrate that the most recent unemployment rate for Kansas “is 3.9 percent – the 11th lowest in the nation.”

Now for the rest of the story. They left out the fact that Kansas is essentially in the same situation it was five years ago – when it had the country’s 12th lowest unemployment rate.

Kansas also was hardly alone in having a reduced unemployment rate since early 2011. The U.S. rate fell over the same period from 9.0 to 5.0 percent.

Proportionately, that was even a little better than Kansas’ decline. . . .
Click to expand...

So yeah...cute comment but you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.
 
CriticalThought said:
I like statistics. How about we look at the full picture.



So yeah...cute comment but you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I must be missing something. Your quote says that Kansas, with their 11th lowest unemployment rate, is in the same position as they were 5 years ago when they were 12th lowest. What's the point? Their unemployment rate is below the national average by half a point.
 
The idea that you can only have a bull economy or fair distribution is a false dichotomy. A tax plan which grants cuts to companies creating jobs or raising minimum wages will certainly do both. Put super high default taxes and allow corporations to donate or create jobs to deduct from taxes.
 
Critter7r said:
So what? How much was their income? If those 6,000 people only made $5M each, they were at a tax rate of 33%. I'd guess a couple thousand of them earn north of $50M, putting their effective tax rate down at 10% or less, right in line with the peasants of the state.


Sent from my SM-G360V using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

LOL

Interesting spin.

Applying even a modicum of rational thought to the issue would reveal that a state relying so heavily on .00015% of the population to provide 20% of the tax revenue to run the state is a foolish proposition.

As the article pointed out, these big incomes are the result of stock options and other one time actions that will not occur forever.

So what happens when that revenue dries up?

Got to love the fiscal approaches of the socialist progressive toddlers running California.
 
CriticalThought said:
I can't see any reason to defend California. The Kansas approach isn't any better.
Click to expand...

I understand. When looking at the reality of California, only the delusional can defend it.

The point is, California is a living example of Keynesian Economic theory in operation. In fairness, the Keynesian approach probably doesn't account for leaders also trying to do as much damage to the business community as possible.
 
CriticalThought said:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...aster-economic-growth/?utm_term=.d94ca7d8368c



More debt and more income for the wealthy and that is the best case scenario if the economy grows. Tax cuts for the wealthy worked so well for Brownback in Kansas. I like being outright lied to with the notion there is no "absolute cut" for the wealthy when your own sources say otherwise. But hey, increase income inequality further through tax policy that redistributes wealth to the top then complain the bottom 50% is not carrying their share of the tax burden and demand more tax cuts. Great strategy. Will Americans ever learn?
Click to expand...

Though, I also think that Trump's proposed policies are devastating, if they are actually pursued and have actually already begun to have negative fallout from the off the wall way the ideas are being presented, I do not know that you mentioned the main points of damage. They are in international trade and security and can together really destroy the basis of our wealth and power.
 
CriticalThought said:
Feel free. Texas simply uses higher sales tax and property taxes in lieu of an income tax and it has one of the most regressive tax rates in the country. Texas did well because of oil, not because of tax policy. Job growth has trailed behind population growth in EVERY other no income tax state. It doesn't work. This isn't even a partisan thing or a Trump thing, it is simple history and math. It just does not work. And yet you keep trying it.
Click to expand...

Lol.....Do they ? Im a native Texan, lived here my whole life, and property taxes are based on Home and land values which are low compared to States like California

Purchased my 5 bedroom home 10 years ago for roughly 250k and my House in Palo Alto would be a multi million dollar home.

As for Oil being the only reason our economy is succesful ? Even when our Oil and Gas sector was doing well it was only 10% of our States GDP

The Texas economy is a diverse economy and even with oil and gas bottoming out we're still growing in every other sector.

So try again, but I recommend you do a little homework before spouting off made up on the fly " facts " about Texas.
 
ocean515 said:
LOL

Interesting spin.

Applying even a modicum of rational thought to the issue would reveal that a state relying so heavily on .00015% of the population to provide 20% of the tax revenue to run the state is a foolish proposition.
Click to expand...

Applying a modicum of rational thought would show that the only alternative would be to enact a tax rate that requires the less-rich to pay a higher percentage of their income. Which would hurt the economy since it would reduce consumption.

As the article pointed out, these big incomes are the result of stock options and other one time actions that will not occur forever.

So what happens when that revenue dries up?
Click to expand...

The state would receive less revenue.

the right just can't stand the fact that California continues to do so well in spite of all their dire predictions.
 
Critter7r said:
Applying a modicum of rational thought would show that the only alternative would be to enact a tax rate that requires the less-rich to pay a higher percentage of their income. Which would hurt the economy since it would reduce consumption.



The state would receive less revenue.

the right just can't stand the fact that California continues to do so well in spite of all their dire predictions.
Click to expand...

Doing so well?

I would suggest it is realists who can't stand the fact the Progressives running the state are blind to the looming economic doom they have created in California.

Your suggestion proves this to be true.

When Progressive leadership running the place drive industry elsewhere, how will it be possible to keep the gold flowing into it's coffers?

It won't be.

Perhaps you should take 5 minutes and read the Forbes article I believe I posted earlier.

Forbes Welcome

Assuming that is too much an ask, here are three bullet points:

  • “It’s not a California miracle, but really should be called a Silicon Valley miracle,” says Chapman University forecaster Jim Doti. “The rest of the state really isn’t doing well.”
  • Overall California is home to a remarkable 77 of the country’s 297 most “economically challenged” cities, based on levels of poverty and employment, according to a recent study; altogether these cities have a population of more than 12 million.
  • Brown is already forecasting budget deficits as high as $4 billion by the time he leaves office in 2019. The Mercatus Center ranks California 44th out of the 50 states in terms of fiscal condition, 46th in long-run solvency and 47th in terms of cash needed to cover short-run liabilities.

Some remarkable accomplishments those on "the left" can be proud of. Taking down the 6th largest economy in the World takes quite the effort.
 
ocean515 said:
Doing so well?

I would suggest it is realists who can't stand the fact the Progressives running the state are blind to the looming economic doom they have created in California.
Click to expand...

Forecasting this looming economic doom has been all the rage ... for decades. Yet they're still plugging along.
 
Fenton said:
Lol.....Do they ? Im a native Texan, lived here my whole life, and property taxes are based on Home and land values which are low compared to States like California

Purchased my 5 bedroom home 10 years ago for roughly 250k and my House in Palo Alto would be a multi million dollar home.

As for Oil being the only reason our economy is succesful ? Even when our Oil and Gas sector was doing well it was only 10% of our States GDP

The Texas economy is a diverse economy and even with oil and gas bottoming out we're still growing in every other sector.

So try again, but I recommend you do a little homework before spouting off made up on the fly " facts " about Texas.
Click to expand...

I presented the facts. If you feel they are wrong then cite something that proves it. You are incorrect, and you may be quite surprised about the reality if you do a little research rather than relying on your personal assumptions. Feel free to prove me wrong.
 
ocean515 said:
Doing so well?

I would suggest it is realists who can't stand the fact the Progressives running the state are blind to the looming economic doom they have created in California.

Your suggestion proves this to be true.

When Progressive leadership running the place drive industry elsewhere, how will it be possible to keep the gold flowing into it's coffers?

It won't be.

Perhaps you should take 5 minutes and read the Forbes article I believe I posted earlier.

Forbes Welcome


Assuming that is too much an ask, here are three bullet points:

  • “It’s not a California miracle, but really should be called a Silicon Valley miracle,” says Chapman University forecaster Jim Doti. “The rest of the state really isn’t doing well.”
  • Overall California is home to a remarkable 77 of the country’s 297 most “economically challenged” cities, based on levels of poverty and employment, according to a recent study; altogether these cities have a population of more than 12 million.
  • Brown is already forecasting budget deficits as high as $4 billion by the time he leaves office in 2019. The Mercatus Center ranks California 44th out of the 50 states in terms of fiscal condition, 46th in long-run solvency and 47th in terms of cash needed to cover short-run liabilities.

Some remarkable accomplishments those on "the left" can be proud of. Taking down the 6th largest economy in the World takes quite the effort.
Click to expand...

It is funny that people keep citing California as if somehow bad policy on the left makes bad policy on the right magically okay. Nobody wants to address Kansas and the great Brownback experiment. There are other models rather than just California and Kansas.
 
ocean515 said:
I understand. When looking at the reality of California, only the delusional can defend it.

The point is, California is a living example of Keynesian Economic theory in operation. In fairness, the Keynesian approach probably doesn't account for leaders also trying to do as much damage to the business community as possible.
Click to expand...

And Kansas is an example of why Reaganomics (soon to be Trumponmics) is as equally bad, if not considerably worse.
 
If Kansas invested the opportunity for a major company to keep 700,000 in revenue from taxes in order to keep 52,000,000 in income in the state and avoid the state having to carry the burden for unemployment and other benefits to the tune of an addition 20-30 million +, then yeah...based on current actions to date I'd say the US is really on the fast track to becoming 'Kansas'.
 
CriticalThought said:
It is funny that people keep citing California as if somehow bad policy on the left makes bad policy on the right magically okay. Nobody wants to address Kansas and the great Brownback experiment. There are other models rather than just California and Kansas.
Click to expand...

True.

However, California has been, and continues to be, the grand progressive petri dish of social policy and economics. It's application has been stewing for decades, and in the last 17 years or so, placed on hyper drive.

So when arguments about which path/policy might prove the best move forward, the California experiment, and it's results, shouldn't be ignored.
 
ocean515 said:
True.

However, California has been, and continues to be, the grand progressive petri dish of social policy and economics. It's application has been stewing for decades, and in the last 17 years or so, placed on hyper drive.

So when arguments about which path/policy might prove the best move forward, the California experiment, and it's results, shouldn't be ignored.
Click to expand...

It is a red herring. How bad California is has absolutely nothing to do with how good Trump's plan is or what effect they will have on the US economy. If California is the petri dish of progressive policy then Kansas is the petri dish of Trump policy. Neither dish is looking particularly good, but the latter says a lot about what we can expect from the country's economy for the next 4 years.
 
The consequences of the Fed raising interest rates over the next several months will gradually have a significant impact on the economy, according to Moody's. It will basically be unavoidable, but expect the U.S. to have another recession during the next administration.
 
CriticalThought said:
It is a red herring. How bad California is has absolutely nothing to do with how good Trump's plan is or what effect they will have on the US economy. If California is the petri dish of progressive policy then Kansas is the petri dish of Trump policy. Neither dish is looking particularly good, but the latter says a lot about what we can expect from the country's economy for the next 4 years.
Click to expand...

LOL

And you write of Red Herring?
 
CriticalThought said:
I presented the facts. If you feel they are wrong then cite something that proves it. You are incorrect, and you may be quite surprised about the reality if you do a little research rather than relying on your personal assumptions. Feel free to prove me wrong.
Click to expand...

No you presented talking points, easily dismissed.

Here, a list of all States according to tax burdens from highest to lowest.
https://wallethub.com/edu/states-with-highest-lowest-tax-burden/20494/#main-findings

Texas is #41, Cali is #11. So no, you didn't present facts, you presented Bull ****
 
Sure but if Trump increases government spending, and reduces taxes, that's a win-win, right?
 
Fiddytree said:
The consequences of the Fed raising interest rates over the next several months will gradually have a significant impact on the economy, according to Moody's. It will basically be unavoidable, but expect the U.S. to have another recession during the next administration.
Click to expand...

Lol !! You mean the economy is going to get WORSE ?

Not possible. A economy that has to be propped up with 8 years of unprecedented FED Zero interest rates is a economy on life support

Right now Banks would rather sit on over 4 Trillion dollars in excess liquidity earning a whopping 0.5 % interest rather than risk it in a 8 year old Obama economy.

Corporations are doing the same, sitting on Trillions of dollars earning squat because the American economy is too much of a risk
. The FED bottomed out rates to push investor's out of fixed yield investment's in the hope they would take their principle and invest it the US economy

Noop, they just shifted it over to a equities market thats been propped up with FED QE for the last 8 years.

I get the Democrats are going to use every excuse to hammer Trump and his Tax policies but these people would rather things stay the same so ****'em
 
Fenton said:
Lol !! You mean the economy is going to get WORSE ?

Not possible. A economy that has to be propped up with 8 years of unprecedented FED Zero interest rates is a economy on life support

Right now Banks would rather sit on over 4 Trillion dollars in excess liquidity earning a whopping 0.5 % interest rather than risk it in a 8 year old Obama economy.

Corporations are doing the same, sitting on Trillions of dollars earning squat because the American economy is too much of a risk
. The FED bottomed out rates to push investor's out of fixed yield investment's in the hope they would take their principle and invest it the US economy

Noop, they just shifted it over to a equities market thats been propped up with FED QE for the last 8 years.

I get the Democrats are going to use every excuse to hammer Trump and his Tax policies but these people would rather things stay the same so ****'em
Click to expand...

Back last spring and summer my state was facing a budget crisis and in a recession; they called in folks from Moody's to help explain the shifting economy for the state and its interaction with the national economy in order to figure out where to shift priority in its budget (which is required to be balanced by the state constitution). The gent was quite clear: no matter who would win the election, the expected Fed rate raises would gradually be felt across the national economy, probably throwing us into a recession.
 
Last edited:
Mach said:
Sure but if Trump increases government spending, and reduces taxes, that's a win-win, right?
Click to expand...

Sure, or a lose-lose, depending on whether he picks the wealthy to be the winners or if he instead invests in the American public in general.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom