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.
I know, who needs roads, teachers, police, fireman, and schools?
There's be plenty of money if the government only stuck to those things. But they have to make loans to pet projects, reward lazy and corrupt employees with luxury getaways disguised as "workshops" and fund study after useless study.
There's be plenty of money if the government only stuck to those things. But they have to make loans to pet projects, reward lazy and corrupt employees with luxury getaways disguised as "workshops" and fund study after useless study.
So maybe....just MAYBE thats what people should focus on? Hmmm?
According to the US Bureau of Labor Statistics, Kansas unemployment has fallen from 7.5% down to 4.8%. That doesn't sound so horrible to me. Looks like someone (LA Tumes) had a conclusion and made up some words to try to sell that conclusion without a basis.
Let's be honest, Kansas doesn't have much going for it outside of some wheat fields, anything they can do to drum up a few jobs, they gotta do.
Who'd ever thought that you'd need basic services or that blindly cutting taxes would just benefit the billionaires much more than the average middle class family?
Reality and policy outcomes are thoroughly irrelevant to conservatives,
Are you sure you don't want to increase education spending by at least $3 TRILLION?
Quote:
Originally Posted by LauraC
I'm not getting why the LA Times is running a story on Kansas.
Because Austerity is very real. Austerity comes in two flavors: voluntary, where spending is cut but investments are left in tact, and that is done to avoid the other flavor which forced Austerity.
Because Liberals believe in taxing and spending, and will seize on any opportunity -- even invent opportunities -- to propagandize.
And because Liberals in California are afraid of tax cuts...they think they can keep spending and the rest of the US is going to bail them out like Detroit or Chrysler or GMC.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Opin_Yunated
I know, who needs roads, teachers, police, fireman, and schools?
Your reasoning contains the straw man fallacy whenever you attribute an easily refuted position to your opponent, one that the opponent wouldn’t endorse, and then proceed to attack the easily refuted position (the straw man) believing you have undermined the opponent’s actual position. If the misrepresentation is on purpose, then the straw man fallacy is caused by lying.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Opin_Yunated
Conservatives will continue to push tax cuts until there is no economy left.
Governments require taxes.....economies do not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by greywar
I always love quotes like this, it shows how wrong you are.
So says you who you and you still don't understand Inflation; you actually believe the $60 TRILLION in wealth is real; you don't know which government web-site to use in order to actually learn something in attempt to keep from being wrong all the time, and you still don't know or understand the difference between Earned Income, Unearned Income, Assets and Wealth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by greywar
Taxes pay for essential services....
Um, those are called Opportunity Costs.
Since you don't understand public policy or tax policy, naturally you cannot see the economic error resulting from government providing services, instead of coordinating services.
Providing services costs significantly more than coordinating services. That creates a drag and you pay for that eventually. That's why so many municipalities, counties and States are in financial straits.
Yes, you need roads built and maintained, but you don't need city employees building or maintaining them. Those services can be coordinated, instead of provided.
Free-thinkers understand.
Quote:
Originally Posted by greywar
Tax cuts can devastate an economy if they cause the government to stop spending on vital things that the businesses need. whether its a military to defend them, or a interstate rail or highway system at the federal level, or education, road maintenance, and more at a state level.
That's a Straw Man...we just wouldn't feel right if you didn't give us a fallacy or two or ten.
Just as you still don't understand Inflation, you do not know how to differentiate between Spending and Investing....they are not the same thing....governments can cut spending with no consequences.
Since you're not capable of Critical Thinking, naturally it never occurred to you that allowing the government to dictate the placement of highways has also dictated urban growth patterns in the US.
Seeing how the Interstate System was designed for military movement, and seeing how that became obsolete in 1965, there is no reason for the federal government to be involved with highways.
Quote:
Originally Posted by greywar
Tax cuts that reduce the education of your workforce will also damage an economy-it just takes time.
Inputs/Outputs.....something else you don't understand.
Money has little effect on education. Whether you spend $80 per student or $8 Million, the end result is always the same.
When you were spending $0.25 on education, you were getting $1 back. Now you're spending $20,000 but your still only getting $1.
Quote:
Originally Posted by greywar
Kansas had the same belief Mircea here did, that all tax cuts are good.
Wow, how sad you have to lie and make things up. I've never said that. You'll never find a post where I've suggested anything like that.
In fact, one of my long-standing criticism of "Libertarians" is their failure to recognize the difference between Opportunity Costs and Ivory Tower Hallucinations.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
Undeveloped property is of lesser value. In order to make your property more valuable, you must develop the property.
This is where the Laws of Economics come into play, in the form of Opportunity Costs.
There is no way for you to develop your property, unless you pay property taxes.
In order to be of any future value, your property must have security. You can hire an unarmed security guard at minimum wage to provide security 168 hours per week....$63,336 annually.
Um, that is the Wage Cost. The Labor cost is higher....you know, FICA, HI, SUTA, FUTA, worker's comp, vacation, holiday pay, Obamacare.....etc etc etc, so the total cost would be closer to $100,000 annually.
Are you paying $100,000 annually in property taxes?
Because, if you're not, then you are saving money.
Those services related to property values are best paid by property taxes.
Economically...
Mircea
That's way beyond your understanding, but perhaps if someone reads it to you and draws pictures you'll understand.
If you put a little hot sauce on your crow, it will taste better (so they tell me).
Quote:
Originally Posted by greywar
And that if they did them, businesses would relocate there, and income would soar. They really should know better. Instead they're having massive tax revenue shortfalls as their theory about tax income ran right into reality. Now they're scrambling to blame anyone they can but themselves, and to claim they need MORE tax cuts, because gosh darnit give them enough time and this will work!
But you don't know that, and no one has provided any evidence to support your claim (since we already you will repeatedly refuse to pony up any evidence).
What was the plan?
What was the Kansas Secretary of Commerce doing?
How many freaking times have I said that geology, geography, topography, hydrology, climate, demographics etc etc etc impact economics?
Did anyone bother to do a survey or study to determine what barriers keep businesses out of Kansas?
If taxes had not been cut, would revenue levels still remain the same?
That's the main flaw in the argument with the Obama Tax Cuts. If Bush does not cut taxes, then tax revenues decline and you enter recession sooner and it lasts longer.
There are many factors at play, and tax cuts aren't always the culprit.
You're going to have to do better than that....
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?
The Tea Party took a budget surplus and turned it into a $338 million dollar deficit. Proving that Dick Cheney was right...deficits dont matter. Can you imagine if a black Democrat governor had done that in Kansas?? I cant imagine to tell you the truth. You would be talking about lynchings and that would be mild.
Are you sure you don't want to increase education spending by at least $3 TRILLION?
Because Austerity is very real. Austerity comes in two flavors: voluntary, where spending is cut but investments are left in tact, and that is done to avoid the other flavor which forced Austerity.
Because Liberals believe in taxing and spending, and will seize on any opportunity -- even invent opportunities -- to propagandize.
And because Liberals in California are afraid of tax cuts...they think they can keep spending and the rest of the US is going to bail them out like Detroit or Chrysler or GMC.
Your reasoning contains the straw man fallacy whenever you attribute an easily refuted position to your opponent, one that the opponent wouldn’t endorse, and then proceed to attack the easily refuted position (the straw man) believing you have undermined the opponent’s actual position. If the misrepresentation is on purpose, then the straw man fallacy is caused by lying.
Love this, first you do multiple fallacies.....then accuse me of one. In fact...one that you just did. Beautiful. And pathetic.
Quote:
Governments require taxes.....economies do not.
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?
Quote:
So says you who you and you still don't understand Inflation; you actually believe the $60 TRILLION in wealth is real; you don't know which government web-site to use in order to actually learn something in attempt to keep from being wrong all the time, and you still don't know or understand the difference between Earned Income, Unearned Income, Assets and Wealth.
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.
Quote:
Um, those are called Opportunity Costs.
Since you don't understand public policy or tax policy, naturally you cannot see the economic error resulting from government providing services, instead of coordinating services.
There are some things that a government can do more efficiently for an economy then businesses. Health care would be an excellent example. 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.
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.
Quote:
Providing services costs significantly more than coordinating services. That creates a drag and you pay for that eventually. That's why so many municipalities, counties and States are in financial straits.
Yes, you need roads built and maintained, but you don't need city employees building or maintaining them. Those services can be coordinated, instead of provided.
One way or another you pay for them. Toll roads are a great example.
Quote:
Free-thinkers understand.
Realists understand reality.
Quote:
That's a Straw Man...we just wouldn't feel right if you didn't give us a fallacy or two or ten.
So sayeth Mircea the fallacy king.
Quote:
Just as you still don't understand Inflation, you do not know how to differentiate between Spending and Investing....they are not the same thing....governments can cut spending with no consequences.
So define what you consider to be spending.
Quote:
Since you're not capable of Critical Thinking, naturally it never occurred to you that allowing the government to dictate the placement of highways has also dictated urban growth patterns in the US.
Yes to some degree thats true. So? Business would as well.
Quote:
Seeing how the Interstate System was designed for military movement, and seeing how that became obsolete in 1965, there is no reason for the federal government to be involved with highways.
Hmmmm......except now its being used increasingly for interstate transport of goods. And the freedom of movement of goods is a federal concern.
Quote:
Inputs/Outputs.....something else you don't understand.
Sure if you say so. derp derp.
Quote:
Money has little effect on education. Whether you spend $80 per student or $8 Million, the end result is always the same.
When you were spending $0.25 on education, you were getting $1 back. Now you're spending $20,000 but your still only getting $1.
Someone got a $.25 education. LOL. No to be fair I agree in some ways. once a certain level of spending is reached it pretty much levels off. Your numbers are of course wildly inaccurate. But theres just enough truth to it that people might take you seriously. A mistake of course. Once you drop below a certain level your education will suck bad. but above a certain level and it wont change anything much.
Quote:
Wow, how sad you have to lie and make things up. I've never said that. You'll never find a post where I've suggested anything like that.
In fact, one of my long-standing criticism of "Libertarians" is their failure to recognize the difference between Opportunity Costs and Ivory Tower Hallucinations.
Actually......I'm going to apologize. me saying that was uncalled for.
But I of course don't expect any apologies from you for your constant non stop lies about me, where you make up (over and over) that I don't understand the differences between some very basic economic concepts.
Quote:
That's way beyond your understanding, but perhaps if someone reads it to you and draws pictures you'll understand.
Might I suggest a reading of a book called economix. Its a nicely illustrated comic book that explains basic economics (and gets a few things wrong AND has a huge leftist bent that does not do its readers any favors-but still maybe the illustrations will help you.)
Quote:
If you put a little hot sauce on your crow, it will taste better (so they tell me).
You would know.
Quote:
But you don't know that, and no one has provided any evidence to support your claim (since we already you will repeatedly refuse to pony up any evidence).
What was the plan?
What was the Kansas Secretary of Commerce doing?
How many freaking times have I said that geology, geography, topography, hydrology, climate, demographics etc etc etc impact economics?
Did anyone bother to do a survey or study to determine what barriers keep businesses out of Kansas?
If taxes had not been cut, would revenue levels still remain the same?
That's the main flaw in the argument with the Obama Tax Cuts. If Bush does not cut taxes, then tax revenues decline and you enter recession sooner and it lasts longer.
There are many factors at play, and tax cuts aren't always the culprit.
You're going to have to do better than that....
Mircea
Lots of questions. why dont you answer them since you seem to have all of the answers? LOL.
Seriously Mircea I'm not going to make a thesis presentation for you. Im here to discuss stuff, not write a college paper.
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.
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.
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.
