U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 07-14-2014, 06:24 PM
 
7,846 posts, read 5,258,689 times
Reputation: 4025

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by greywar View Post
Kansas is hurting itself by going into a deficit and killing their rainy day fund at a time when they should be increasing it. Deficit spending for a state when the economy is recovering will not do them any favors long term. They just had their rating lowered because of their mismanagement. This isnt a right or left thing, this is people who understand money saying "this doesnt look good".

Their education cuts WILL hurt long term, while helping them short term. You talk about investments, well thats an investment.....and they're taking a short term view to a long term issue.
That's because conservative lawmakers are so backwards they think education is something that can be cut with no longer term consequences!

I'm happy I live in a blue state. Unfortunately, we give most of our tax dollars to red states.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-14-2014, 06:34 PM
 
Location: Laurentia
5,595 posts, read 6,336,605 times
Reputation: 2385
Predictably, no one has responded to the arguments and examples I used, but then again it's so much fun to dispense talking points to the other side .

Quote:
Originally Posted by casimpso View Post
Thank you. The Third World is full of countries where government "gets out of the way," there is little-to-no regulation, and it's every man for himself. They should all move there.

Unfortunately, they would live in compounds with high walls, armed guards patrolling 24/7, and need to employ security/bodyguards to drive them everywhere they need to go.
The poorest third world countries have the lowest level of economic freedom in the world - "government getting out of the way" is a slogan against the government force violating economic freedom, which happens in these countries in addition to the even larger threat of non-government force. Economic freedom should be protected, and in developed countries the biggest threat to economic freedom is government force. People conducting business peaceably and consensually should be as protected from government as they are currently from criminals; both are needed for economic freedom, and one can do both quite easily.

If forcibly intervening in the economy in violation of economic freedom made us into the First World, how come the countries with the most violations of economic freedom are the poorest? Also, how did Singapore come to be a First World country if that was the case, given that they intervene less in the economy than any Third World country?

Quote:
Originally Posted by greywar View Post
Hmmmm......except now its being used increasingly for interstate transport of goods. And the freedom of movement of goods is a federal concern.
Federal funding is not required for that, as is amply demonstrated by the thousands of roads funded entirely by state and local money which cross state lines with zero restrictions on interstate transport. All that is required is for state governments to uphold their constitutional obligation to leave travelers alone, which is what they always have done with or without federal funding or control; to suggest that highways that are not federally funded would be awash with border checkpoints is nothing short of ludicrous. Even the Schengen countries in Europe don't have border checkpoints with each other, and they're separate countries under no legal obligation to allow people to cross.

Quote:
Kansas is hurting itself by going into a deficit and killing their rainy day fund at a time when they should be increasing it. Deficit spending for a state when the economy is recovering will not do them any favors long term. They just had their rating lowered because of their mismanagement. This isnt a right or left thing, this is people who understand money saying "this doesnt look good".
Exactly - their problem is mismanagement, not tax cuts - if they cut spending enough to offset the tax cuts and then some, then if anything their credit rating would have been raised. Any entity where spending is less than revenues over a long period of time is in a good financial position, no matter what the amount of the revenues or spending is.

Quote:
Originally Posted by chuckmann View Post
We are 8th worldwide . Where is Texas?
Assuming you're referring to California being the world's eighth largest economy, you also have a larger population than Texas, and as India proves, prosperity does not extend itself with the bulk of the body. GDP per capita is a much better measure of prosperity than GDP, and as of 2012 Texas's GDP per capita is at $46498, having overtaken California which stood at $46029. Texas's GDP and GDP per capita has consistently grown faster than California's, and the gap should widen in the years ahead. Furthermore, due to the differences in the cost of living index, at purchasing power parity Texas's GDP per capita is significantly greater than California's.

Ranked by nominal GDP per capita (which are the source figures) using the World Bank list (the most recent available based on actual data), both California and Texas would rank 8th, in between Saudi Arabia and the Emirates.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-14-2014, 06:42 PM
 
1,696 posts, read 1,457,289 times
Reputation: 1445
Brownback wants to run for President...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-14-2014, 06:54 PM
 
26,302 posts, read 12,734,122 times
Reputation: 12538
Quote:
Originally Posted by Patricius Maximus View Post
Federal funding is not required for that, as is amply demonstrated by the thousands of roads funded entirely by state and local money which cross state lines with zero restrictions on interstate transport. All that is required is for state governments to uphold their constitutional obligation to leave travelers alone, which is what they always have done with or without federal funding or control; to suggest that highways that are not federally funded would be awash with border checkpoints is nothing short of ludicrous. Even the Schengen countries in Europe don't have border checkpoints with each other, and they're separate countries under no legal obligation to allow people to cross.
Within our political system, federal management of interstate roads makes sense. While you can argue against it, the reality is that if Kansas say, stopped maintaining the eastern roads because they only had traffic going west, our interstate system would fail to function.

Quote:
Exactly - their problem is mismanagement, not tax cuts - if they cut spending enough to offset the tax cuts and then some, then if anything their credit rating would have been raised. Any entity where spending is less than revenues over a long period of time is in a good financial position, no matter what the amount of the revenues or spending is.
Tax cuts in excess of your spending IS mismanagement. And they cant find more "fat" as it were to trim. Now they're looking at lopping off some healthy things.

This is why I always think looking at cutting spending is appropriate, not the taxation. Pay your bills. As Kansas will discover when their rainy day fund hits 0, things get tough. And as people start realizing just how they can manipulate the taxation now that the new laws are in effect, I would expect tax income to continue to decline.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-14-2014, 07:36 PM
 
33,046 posts, read 21,904,442 times
Reputation: 8962
Quote:
Originally Posted by greywar View Post
Total employable people in 2009: 1,503,311. 1,409,745 of which were employed.
labor force today? 1,499,761. 1,427,872 of which are employed.

Hmmmm
So theres actually less employable people today. but only by 4K. Thats not too bad. The good news is 18,000 more people employed! But thats not fair either. in jan of 2009 (the date I picked to compare) there were 264,000 government employees, compared to 255,700 today, giving Kansas a increase of 9000 additional private sector.

so really 27,000 more private sector jobs.

The only negative I see is the declining number of employable people. And thats outweighed by the added private sector jobs in my opinion.

Sooo 27K additional jobs. someone suggested they are blowing Missouri away, lets take a look. Hmmmm Missouri beats them by absolute numbers, but I think as a % Kansas is doing better.

Now does this mean Kansas is doing well? Short term, it appears so. but long term? I don't know. will the increased business run away as the schools get worse? probably not. But its hard to say for sure. Why the decrease in employable people? BTW I see that in Missouri as well. Most likely retirements I imagine.

Anyways. I don't think Kansas growth will survive their inability to bring in tax revenue. Lets see what happens when their rainy day fund hits 0 shall we?

??? Why are these people becoming unemployable?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-14-2014, 09:52 PM
 
Location: Ohio
19,618 posts, read 14,114,005 times
Reputation: 15767
Quote:
Originally Posted by greywar View Post
Love this, first you do multiple fallacies.....
Like what?

Quote:
Originally Posted by greywar View Post
As soon as you stop living in a country whose government doesn't affect the economy and vice versa, you get back to me OK?
Just because every other State is dysfunctional, the US is not obligated to follow suit.

The goal is for government at all levels to interfere as little as possible.

Quote:
Originally Posted by greywar View Post
This repeated ad hominem attack is pathetic. At what point do your repeated lies about me become personal attacks? I've explained these differences to you before, I have no interest in repeating that explanation for you.
You've never explained, and never provided a link, in spite of my asking.

And here we go....

Quote:
Originally Posted by greywar View Post
Sooo...immediately after a minimum wage hike we should see increased inflation.
*checks inflation numbers for correlation*

Uhmmm guess what mr "I'm not wrong"?
you're wrong.
You just proved to the entire world you neither understand Inflation nor Economics.

Are you ever going to prove the $60 TRILLION exists? Or are you going to continue to....

Avoiding the Question

The fallacy of avoiding the question is a type of fallacy of avoiding the issue that occurs when the issue is how to answer some question. The fallacy occurs when someone’s answer doesn’t really respond to the question asked.

You don't even know where to look....how sad is that?

What, you gonna put on tights and fly around the US doling out the $60 TRILLION in Wealth so there can be "Income Equality" (snicker) and people will like you and you'll feel good?

You can't even answer a simple question:

Explain to us why Rajiv in India would pay $32 for something Made in America when he can buy the same thing „Fabricat in Romania" for $7?

Think you can do that?

Why can't you do that? It's easy to explain. Retarded kids understand it.

I have to go to the VA Wednesday morning. I'll be on the bus with the retarded kids going to work at Goodwill Industries. Want me to have them explain it you? I can do video and post it on Useless Tube.

If you don't like being chided for willful ignorance, then either provide a link or answer the questions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by greywar View Post
There are some things that a government can do more efficiently for an economy then businesses.
There is nothing government can do more efficiently. You have conflated power and authority with efficiency.

Quote:
Originally Posted by greywar View Post
Health care would be an excellent example.
An excellent example of how government destroyed healthcare in collusion with the American Hospital Association.

You can't borrow against your health insurance?

Why not?

At one time in history when you still had Free Market health insurance you could....until this law was enacted at the behest of the American Hospital Association....

"Premiums paid by an employer on policies of group life insurance without cash surrender value covering the lives of his employees, or on policies of group health or accident insurance...do not constitute salary if such premiums are deductible by the employer under Section 23(a) of the IRS Code."

Source: Public Law 83-591, August 16, 1954; Internal Revenue Code of 1954, Section 106. For more information see the 1986 Internal Revenue Code.


How can the American Hospital Association's Blue Cross health insurance company compete against real Free Market insurance?

It couldn't.

If you could pay a fixed premium for 10 years, never pay again, be covered until the day you died, and whatever you didn't use on healthcare, you could leave to your children, would you do it?

Or would you rather pay every month for your entire life and have nothing to leave to your children?

See what a hypocrite you are?

You rail against Income/Wealth Inequality (snicker) and then at every opportunity, you deny people the ability to build wealth.

Some poor Black guy working for $12/hour trying to save his family...his employer could pay the premium on $1.5 Million in catastrophic/life insurance as a benefit.

His family uses $230,000 and then when he dies, he leaves $1.27 Million in wealth to his children.

I want that man to do that for him and his family.....you want him and his family to remain enslaved for generations.

Who's the racist?

Quote:
Originally Posted by greywar View Post
Here in the US we have the most expensive, and least efficient healthcare in the developed world. And one ran increasingly by business. Whereas worldwide running them via the government has better results at a FAR cheaper cost.

"In the past 20 years, our overriding philosophy has been that the health system cannot spend more than its income." -- Franz Knieps German Minister of Health (2009)

Virtual budgets are also set up at the regional levels; these ensure that all participants in the system—including the health insurance funds and providers— know from the beginning of the year onward how much money can be spent. -- Franz Knieps German Minister of Health (2009)

Source: How Germany is reining in health care costs An interview with Franz Knieps


Since you're still learning English, do you need someone to translate that for you?

In addition to being unable to distinguish between Earned and Unearned Income, Assets, Wealth, the various types of Inflation, ---oh and the types of healthcare systems.....we can add another to the list...

.....spending and costing are not the same.

Your rent costs $750 per month, but you only spend $500....what happens?

There are negative consequences.

In healthcare, this is what happens when government spends less than what healthcare really costs....

Lung cancer treatment waiting times and tumour growth.

Therefore, 21% of potentially curable patients became incurable on the waiting list. This study demonstrates that, even for the select minority of patients who have specialist referral and are deemed suitable for potentially curative treatment, the outcome is prejudiced by waiting times that allow tumour progression.

US National Library of Medicine National Institutes of Health


Mortality on the waiting list for coronary artery bypass grafting: incidence and risk factors

BACKGROUND: Insufficient capacity for coronary artery bypass grafting results in waiting times before operation, prioritization of patients and, ultimately, death on the waiting list. We aimed to calculate waiting list mortality and to identify risk factors for death on the waiting list.


That's Britain and Sweden who both operate national healthcare systems.

When you spend less than what health care really truly actually costs....you get waiting lists and people die.

Oh, and these Canadians died because the Canadian government spent less.


The risks of waiting for cardiac catheterization: a prospective study

However, only 37% of the procedures overall were completed within the requested waiting time.
Interpretation:
Patients awaiting cardiac catheterization may experience major adverse events, such as death,...

The risks of waiting for cardiac catheterization: a prospective study




Quote:
Originally Posted by greywar View Post
The same pattern can be shown in utilities. Providing services in some VERY specific areas-most often those where natural monopolies occur is where the government does well. Do I need to explain natural monopolies to you? I suspect not.
Co-ops work just fine.


Quote:
Originally Posted by greywar View Post
So define what you consider to be spending.
Cool....something else you can't differentiate.

Quote:
Originally Posted by greywar View Post
Yes to some degree thats true. So? Business would as well.
There's a difference between government dictating and the Free Market choosing.

Something else you can't differentiate.

Notice development patterns lately? The Laws of Economics always win.

Quote:
Originally Posted by greywar View Post
Hmmmm......except now its being used increasingly for interstate transport of goods. And the freedom of movement of goods is a federal concern.
No, it is not. You don't understand the Interstate Commerce Clause.....suffice to say that when finish reading the committee note, journals and diaries, you'll see it's an Act of Last Resort.

Quote:
Originally Posted by greywar View Post
Sure if you say so. derp derp.

Someone got a $.25 education. LOL.
Well, thanks for proving you don't understand inputs/outputs.

That was part of the joke I made at the beginning...

Are you sure you don't want to increase education spending by at least $3 TRILLION?


Quote:
Originally Posted by greywar View Post
Your numbers are of course wildly inaccurate. But theres just enough truth to it that people might take you seriously.
The numbers are for illustration....intelligent people understand that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by greywar View Post
Once you drop below a certain level your education will suck bad.
There's no evidence of that.

In Burkina Faso, the "teacher" had one semester of college. She came round 2 1/2 days each week. The "school" -- a very large lean-to -- had no running water and no electricity, yet those kids could read write and speak 3 or more languages and knew more about math and science than US kids of the same who sit in their plush desks with carpeted floor and central heat/air watching cable and playing with their iPhones. I even taught them some physics.

The teacher was paid in food, a place to sleep, and usually some gifts from villagers.

And she didn't have no union.

I so love to watch people from Senegal and Ghana get off the boat and take American jobs.

Quote:
Originally Posted by greywar View Post
Lots of questions. why dont you answer them since you seem to have all of the answers? LOL
I don't know the answers....that's why I'm asking questions.

Maybe one day you'll be smart enough to do the same...


Mircea
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-14-2014, 11:05 PM
 
9,057 posts, read 5,583,547 times
Reputation: 3820
Quote:
Originally Posted by TreeBeard View Post
Apparently, you only have a limited knowledge on how government works nor how important good and fiscally sound government is. There is nothing that I can write or anyone can write for that matter to convince someone who believes that taxes are evil otherwise.
Fiscally sound government? Are you on CRACK? Apparently, you don't know the difference between reality an this absurd fantasy world you're living in. 17 Trillion in the red is not the definition of "fiscally sound".

Quote:
Originally Posted by TreeBeard View Post
However, in the simplest of terms, government needs revenue to pay for its military, infrastructure and expenses. In order to prosper businesses need good infrastructure, roads ,bridges, etc. In order to raise revenue for infrastructure, the government has what is called a taxing power. Businesses use infrastructure to grow.
Ah ha! That's your problem .... you've been obotomized (lobotomized, via Obama liberal ideological vomit)... "you didn't build that". Good grief!!!

The federal government has failed miserably in the three primary duties it has been granted the authority to do ... 1) National defense, which includes protecting the border integrity of the nation from invasion by either foreign armed forces, or tens of millions of unarmed invaders. 2) regulate foreign commerce ... 3) coin money, and regulate the value thereof. These things, the federal government has refused to do. I suppose they just got too busy worrying about gay marriage, what size coke you should be allowed with your cheese burger, andthe other THOUSANDS of things it has no authority to interfere in.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TreeBeard View Post
Yhes taxes are a cost of doing business. I grew up in a tradition that a fiscally sound government is better than a broke government. I know this concept is anathema to a group of people today who call themselves conservatives. However, let's see how prosperous businesses are when the government is bankrupt.
1) No, taxes are an imposed burden on business. The "costs" of doing business is material, labor and administration/management.

2) you have been indoctrinated ... you've yet to grow up!

3) The government AREADY IS BANKRUPT. And it seems the goal is to bankrupt all of us, since the federal debt could not be eliminated even if the tax rate was 100%.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-14-2014, 11:23 PM
 
9,057 posts, read 5,583,547 times
Reputation: 3820
Quote:
Originally Posted by casimpso View Post
Thank you. The Third World is full of countries where government "gets out of the way," there is little-to-no regulation, and it's every man for himself. They should all move there.

Unfortunately, they would live in compounds with high walls, armed guards patrolling 24/7, and need to employ security/bodyguards to drive them everywhere they need to go.
How is it that you cannot add 2+2 and realize the answer is 4?

We are now experiencing unprecedented debt ... a never greater gap between the rich and the poor ... a dollar that has never been worth less, and a federal government that has never been close to being as big ...and waste full as it is today?

The reality is, the wealth and greatness of America was achieved under "conservative" policies. Liberal leftist tax and spend has led us to this economic disaster we are now living with.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-14-2014, 11:35 PM
 
2,672 posts, read 2,276,529 times
Reputation: 1035
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyNTexas View Post
How is it that you cannot add 2+2 and realize the answer is 4?

We are now experiencing unprecedented debt ... a never greater gap between the rich and the poor ... a dollar that has never been worth less, and a federal government that has never been close to being as big ...and waste full as it is today?

The reality is, the wealth and greatness of America was achieved under "conservative" policies. Liberal leftist tax and spend has led us to this economic disaster we are now living with.
Before Brownback took over Kansas had a budget surplus. Now Kansas has a $338 million dollar Tea Party style deficit. Kind of reminds me of the Bush tax cuts and the increased military-va-homeland security spending. Somebody pays for it and someone is on the receiving end. Most Tea Party types seem to be on the receiving end of the tax cuts or spending.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-15-2014, 12:21 AM
 
Location: Unperson Everyman Land
30,358 posts, read 19,986,992 times
Reputation: 8304
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea View Post
I'm not seeing anything except for a lot of prejudicial language and unsupported conclusions.

Emotions are not facts....


Mircea



Here's a fact...the unemployment rate in Kansas is 4.8%.

That makes it 13 out of 51 and a great place to find a job.

Unemployment Rates for States


And while other states have fared far worse, Kansas median family income is only down 9.4% from the 2003 peak.

Median Household Income by State: A Sobering Look at the Data


Maybe we should all take notes from Wyoming, Oklahoma, North Dakota and Nebraska.


As for California and Rhode Island, it doesn't seem their high tax rates have been of much benefit to their economies.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/states...JmMQR2dGlkAw--
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. | Please obey Forum Rules | Terms of Use and Privacy Policy

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top