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.
If you are already running a deficit why make worse by reducing tax revenue
Because you need to lower spending. I find it telling that you avoid that like the plague.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goodnight
I doubt that you can find an economist that supports that solution. Tax cuts never ever cover lost revenue.
That's because you are uninformed or like to purposely make dishonest statements. Granted you may be refering to the economists that didn't see the biggest collapse since the Great Depression coming and that didn't see the dot com bubble coming either. Which is laughable since it was obvious early on that a bubble was in the making.
The Austrian economists know better. All one has to do is look at the mini depression of the early 1920s that was over in less than 2 years. We cut spending and taxes by 40 percent and in 2 years time UE went from 12 to under 4.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goodnight
The last place to cut is to basic education, they already had difficulty retaining teachers
First you cut where there is waste. To often we get the all encompassing statement "it's for the children". Forgetting at what cost.
In Kansas, student enrollment is up a modest 4.8% over the past ten years. Over the same time period, the number of classroom teachers has increased more rapidly, at 5.4%. A reasonable inference from those facts is that classroom sizes would be smaller or at least no larger. However, just the opposite is true. According to the latest data from the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) the average class size in a Kansas elementary school is 20.4, up from 19.2 a decade earlier, a 6.3% increase. The growth at the high school level is even more alarming. The typical secondary school class size is at 24.6 students, a 10.8% increase from the 22.2 students per classroom ten years prior.
Why this apparent incongruity? The explanation lies in the hiring of non-teachers. Since 2005, non-teacher employment has increased 10.2%.
Yet their UE is lower than the national average. Explain to me how UE has gone down over the last year, more people are in the state than last year, yet job growth is negative. Their UE rate dipped under 4% in April and has been under that mark, for the first time in years. So explain that to me please.
The population has gone up not down.
2013 2,892,821
2014 2,899,360
2015 2,906,721
2016 2,907,289
No ones fleeing, the population increase has proven that. So according to you all these elderly people are having children? The things that people come up with, lol.
It's pretty simple, out-migration of Kansas residents to other states leads to steady-state unemployment U-6 numbers, and more people are leaving the labor market- with labor force participation rates generally flat to declining year over year. That means a declining to stagnant labor market, which accounts for low population growth in percentage terms as well.
What I referred to regarding demographic imbalance is that many counties have a very high percentage of elderly residents, but still have an above average percentage of the population under age 18 compared to the national average. This is happening, but population growth in most counties in the state is declining at a fast rate due to out-migration again. So, lots of middle aged people, families, singles missing, lots of elderly, and poor (that have more children on average) stay behind. This causes the very distorted demographics there compared to the national average.
It's pretty simple, out-migration of Kansas residents to other states leads to steady-state unemployment U-6 numbers, and more people are leaving the labor market- with labor force participation rates generally flat to declining year over year. That means a declining to stagnant labor market, which accounts for low population growth in percentage terms as well.
What I referred to regarding demographic imbalance is that many counties have a very high percentage of elderly residents, but still have an above average percentage of the population under age 18 compared to the national average. This is happening, but population growth in most counties in the state is declining at a fast rate due to out-migration again. So, lots of middle aged people, families, singles missing, lots of elderly, and poor (that have more children on average) stay behind. This causes the very distorted demographics there compared to the national average.
2010-2016 by percentage of the population
People aged 18 and under declined 25.5 to 24.6
People aged 65 and older went up 13.2 to 15.0
LPR Kansas
2017 July 67.8
LPR America
2017 July 62.9
Declining population in counties is usually a result of rural moving to urban, not moving out of state.
2010-2016 by percentage of the population
People aged 18 and under declined 25.5 to 24.6
People aged 65 and older went up 13.2 to 15.0
LPR Kansas
2017 July 67.8
LPR America
2017 July 62.9
Declining population in counties is usually a result of rural moving to urban, not moving out of state.
Incorrect, the population for the entire state is not growing much at all, and that includes all counties combined. Out-migration is huge in numerical terms, otherwise the state would be posting higher population growth in percentage terms due to a high birth rate compared to the national average.
quickfacts.census.gov spells all this out quite clearly at the county level as well.
Brownback did an excellent job at collapsing the state economy, and all the numbers spell it out quite clearly.
Last edited by GraniteStater; 10-14-2017 at 11:25 AM..
Incorrect, the population for the entire state is not growing much at all, and that includes all counties combined.
I'm not incorrect, you are. From my earlier post when you said population had gone down I specifically showed proof population had gone up
here are the numbers again
The population has gone up not down.
2013 2,892,821
2014 2,899,360
2015 2,906,721
2016 2,907,289
Quote:
Originally Posted by GraniteStater
Out-migration is huge in numerical terms, otherwise the state would be posting higher population growth in percentage terms due to a high birth rate compared to the national average.
The population is growing but not as fast as the national average. People are migrating to the bigger cities.
Age Group 2013 2014 2015
20-24 119942 121390 123277
25-34 285833 288125 289272
35-44 271931 272251 272727
45-55 294908 291459 287970
55-59 130790 134445 137714
totals 1105417 1109684 1112975
45-55 has gone down while the other age groups have gone up and overall those age groups have gone up slightly, as has the state population. There is no mass exodus, There can't be when one looks at the numbers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GraniteStater
quickfacts.census.gov spells all this out quite clearly at the county level as well.
Brownback did an excellent job at collapsing the state economy, and all the numbers spell it out quite clearly.
The states economy has not collapsed. Far from it.The UE in Kansas has gone down and is lower than the national average.
Historical Real Median Family Income for Kansas
2015 $68,260 $69,401
2014 $65,986 $66,502
2013 $65,153 $66,109
2012 $64,548 $64,990
2011 $64,766 $65,285
2010 $65,888 $66,327
2009 $67,476 $67,379
2008 $69,756 $68,761
2009-2012 the highest Kansas was above the avg was $500
2012-2015 it was between $500 and $1140 above the national average
Incentivizing people to work helps. In Kansas, the amount of people receiving benefits was 75 percent lower around two years after its governor reinstated work requirements in 2013. According to the Kansas Department for Children and Families, that number fell from 25,913 Kansas adults in 2013 to 7,403 Kansas adults in 2015.
The problem, yet again, is too much government spending and government not living within their means. Government has never, ever been able to create jobs. They create debt. Less government means less government spending= more jobs. That's basic.
In no way does government spend we the peoples money better than how we the people spend it. We've seen first hand how government ruins the economy. The dot come bubble nad the housing bubble are both government created easy lending policies that hurt the economy. Why would anyone want more government is beyond me when the facts show proof what horrible failures they are.
Kansas did not live within their means. They spent more than they took in and that doesn't work in the long run. At best it kicks the can down the road. It's not about taxation, it's about spending and it always will be.
Last edited by Loveshiscountry; 10-14-2017 at 02:20 PM..
The problem, yet again, is too much government spending and government not living within their means. Government has never, ever been able to create jobs. They create debt. Less government means less government spending= more jobs. That's basic.
Government created plenty of jobs in the computer, internet, telecommunication, and nuclear power industries. Without government funding basic research in those areas during the Cold War, none of those good paying jobs would exist now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loveshiscountry
In no way does government spend we the peoples money better than how we the people spend it. We've seen first hand how government ruins the economy. The dot come bubble nad the housing bubble are both government created easy lending policies that hurt the economy. Why would anyone want more government is beyond me when the facts show proof what horrible failures they are.
Financial bubbles are caused be "we the people" freely engaging in asset speculation. I would agree that the Federal Reserve contibutes to bubbles by keeping interest rates too low, but Alan Greenspan was a Libertarian and a disciple of Ayn Rand like yourself. Maybe he thought that raising interest rates to reign in the "free market" was a form of heavy-handed Big Government intrusion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loveshiscountry
Kansas did not live within their means. They spent more than they took in and that doesn't work in the long run. At best it kicks the can down the road. It's not about taxation, it's about spending and it always will be.
"Deficits don't matter." -- Dick Cheney (R).
Note: The "R" stands for "Republican."
It's funny how conservatives are ok with government spending that enriches the weapons industry and other private interests. But for some reason, government spending is pure evil when it benefits the general public. Funny how that works.
Government created plenty of jobs in the computer, internet, telecommunication, and nuclear power industries. Without government funding basic research in those areas during the Cold War, none of those good paying jobs would exist now.
No they didn't. The private sector did. Government has reduced wages by bringing in H1Bs
btw Government isnt funding that, we the peoples money is funding that. That's what YOU miss. An endless supply of our money. Government is inefficient.
How well did government do with the Super Collider in Texas? Did that turn out bad because of the private sector? $2 billion spent and nothing was produced. Nothing. But hey GDP went up and that's all that matters. Never mind that if we the people spent that money ourselves something of value would have been produced.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freak80
Financial bubbles are caused be "we the people" freely engaging in asset speculation. I would agree that the Federal Reserve contibutes to bubbles by keeping interest rates too low, but Alan Greenspan was a Libertarian and a disciple of Ayn Rand like yourself. Maybe he thought that raising interest rates to reign in the "free market" was a form of heavy-handed Big Government intrusion.
Raising the interset rate? Maybe you're thinking of Volcker during the Reagan era?
lol Bubbles are caused by one thing and one thing only. Government bypassing the free market and creating artificial demand. In 1989 1 in 240 mortgages were 3 percent down or less in 2007 it was 80 in 240 because government lowered lending standards and forced it on the mortgage industry. If you don't like the word force, replace it with enticed. Either way the free market rarely made those loans.
LMAO Greenspans policies were in no way, shape, or form Libertarian WHEN HE BECAME THE HEAD OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE. Even he looks back and understands the mistakes made by big government.
Then he doubled down on stupid and inflated the money supply. "In the aftermath of the dot com crisis Greenspan cut interest rates to near-zero in the early 2000s, igniting the housing bubble, which neither he nor anyone else at the Fed was able to detect along the way. "
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freak80
"Deficits don't matter." -- Dick Cheney (R).
Note: The "R" stands for "Republican."
Dick Cheney (P) Note P stands for Progressive and that is where the failure is. Big government is a known failure. The progressive bailouts from both sides didn't work. It doesn't matter which side is doing it. Thinking the right which does have a few conservatives, means they are the conservative party is laughable. Granted some judge others on what they say, the informed judge people by their actions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freak80
It's funny how conservatives are ok with government spending that enriches the weapons industry and other private interests. But for some reason, government spending is pure evil when it benefits the general public. Funny how that works.
The progressive republican party is very bad but the smell from the democrats stink covers it up.
From the word conserve, use less of. It's disingenuous how you make things up about conservatives in order to deflect from the truth. Funny how that works.
Last edited by Loveshiscountry; 10-14-2017 at 03:19 PM..
And another thing. How many states can say their economy recovered when the nations economy as a whole hasn't recovered?
That isn't the case for Kansas, it never follows the national economy, and isn't in recovery at all. That is a result of Brownback's tax experiment that was an abject failure, and spending at local levels were not adjusted either. The state can't find new revenues when it ranks last in tourism and brings in hardly anything in gambling revenues.
That isn't the case for Kansas, it never follows the national economy,
That's not true at all. Their economy sure did collapse with every states economy back in 2007-08.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GraniteStater
and isn't in recovery at all.
Not many states have recovered. The jobs that came back are low paying.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GraniteStater
That is a result of Brownback's tax experiment that was an abject failure, and spending at local levels were not adjusted either. The state can't find new revenues when it ranks last in tourism and brings in hardly anything in gambling revenues.
It's about spending too much, it's not about revenue. Living within their means and not going into debt.
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.
The things that people come up with, lol.
