Gov Brownback cuts funding to education (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message


slvemike4u -> Gov Brownback cuts funding to education (2/12/2015 6:44:24 AM)

Kansas Gov.Brownback seeking to make ends meet after his disastrous tax cuts have led to huge budget shortfalls has decided that education should bear a large portion of the cost associated with his cuts.
Brownback has cut funding for public schools and higher education by a combined 44.5 million dollars.
Education officals across the state are outraged says the Times article.
Here is the link to the story....
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/12/us/politics/education-is-newest-target-of-kansas-budget-cuts.html?_r=0




bounty44 -> RE: Gov Brownback cuts funding to education (2/13/2015 4:30:19 AM)

"Mr. Brownback’s Democratic opponents and some moderate Republicans blame the state’s fickle budget situation on the deep income tax cuts that the governor has ushered into law in recent years."

since it's arguable that reducing income taxes always reduces revenue (or said another way, sometimes revenue increases when income taxes are reduced), what other reasons might exist for the states budget problems?

for instance, how much of the budget shortfall has to do with state worker's unaffordable pensions? I just read that the long term funding gap for this is ~10 billion. is that because revenue is low, or because government workers pension programs are unsustainable in the real world?

how much is due to the recession and is still part and parcel of what many other states are still facing?

I also just read that what was passed into law in Kansas wasn't actually brownback's proposal, but rather what the legislature gave him and the state ended up with.


alternatively, reducing income taxes generally accelerates growth (I don't know if it did in this case or not) and supposedly one of the principles of conservatism is smaller government and more individual liberty. is governor brownback necessarily wrong to have made a choice for that? shouldn't Kansas growth then be part of the conversation? a matter of competing ends so to speak. how much water can you continue to squeeze out of a rock? did Kansans feel like they were "taxed enough already" and welcomed/wanted the break?


that said, while I believe the state has a vested interest in educating youth, can we name anything that government does less expensive/more efficiently than the private sector? does a 44 million dollar shortfall really hurt kids' education? or does it rather force public schools to be a little more like their more successful, and less costly charter/religious/private school counterparts?




DesideriScuri -> RE: Gov Brownback cuts funding to education (2/13/2015 5:09:52 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44
"Mr. Brownback’s Democratic opponents and some moderate Republicans blame the state’s fickle budget situation on the deep income tax cuts that the governor has ushered into law in recent years."
since it's arguable that reducing income taxes always reduces revenue (or said another way, sometimes revenue increases when income taxes are reduced), what other reasons might exist for the states budget problems?
for instance, how much of the budget shortfall has to do with state worker's unaffordable pensions? I just read that the long term funding gap for this is ~10 billion. is that because revenue is low, or because government workers pension programs are unsustainable in the real world?
how much is due to the recession and is still part and parcel of what many other states are still facing?
I also just read that what was passed into law in Kansas wasn't actually brownback's proposal, but rather what the legislature gave him and the state ended up with.
alternatively, reducing income taxes generally accelerates growth (I don't know if it did in this case or not) and supposedly one of the principles of conservatism is smaller government and more individual liberty. is governor brownback necessarily wrong to have made a choice for that? shouldn't Kansas growth then be part of the conversation? a matter of competing ends so to speak. how much water can you continue to squeeze out of a rock? did Kansans feel like they were "taxed enough already" and welcomed/wanted the break?
that said, while I believe the state has a vested interest in educating youth, can we name anything that government does less expensive/more efficiently than the private sector? does a 44 million dollar shortfall really hurt kids' education? or does it rather force public schools to be a little more like their more successful, and less costly charter/religious/private school counterparts?


It was also mentioned in the article that the budget for education was $177M higher than it was last year. So, this "cut" amounts to a reduction in the increase, not really a cut.






Lucylastic -> RE: Gov Brownback cuts funding to education (2/13/2015 5:27:20 AM)



This from the LA times from last july
Sam Brownback, the Republican governor of Kansas, doesn't just believe in whistling past the graveyard--he's willing to stroll past it in full-throated song.

The graveyard is where the economy of Kansas has been buried since 2012, when Brownback and his Republican state legislature enacted a slew of deep tax cuts in a tea party-esque quest for economic "freedom."
Our new pro-growth tax policy will be like a shot of adrenaline into the heart of the Kansas economy. - Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback in 2012, promising an elusive bright future

"Our new pro-growth tax policy will be like a shot of adrenaline into the heart of the Kansas economy," he promised then. Brownback's tax consultant, the supply-side guru Art Laffer, promised Kansans that the cuts would pay for themselves in supercharged economic growth.

Instead, job growth in Kansas trails the nation. The state's rainy-day fund is dwindling to zero. Month after month, revenue comes in even lower than fiscal officials' most dire expectations.

In the rest of the country, school budgets are finally beginning to recover from the toll of the last recession; in Kansas, they're still falling. Healthcare, assistance for the poor, courts, and other state services are being eviscerated.
lRelated A fraud accusation like nothing you've seen before

Who's benefiting? The rich, including those proud offspring of Wichita, Kan.: the Koch brothers.

Despite all this, Brownback resorted to an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal a few weeks ago to declare that "the early results are impressive." Among other statistics he cited, "In the past year, a record number of small businesses — more than 15,000 — were formed."
The toll of tax-cutting in Kansas
Who reaped the biggest benefit of Brownback's tax-cutting? Not the middle class or the schools, according to the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities. (Center for Budget and Policy Priorities)

Yes, but as shown by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a Washington economic think tank, 16,000 disappeared. And many of those businesses that Brownback crowed about were surely created to take advantage of one of the tax-cut quirks Brownback enacted. This is the elimination of all taxes on partnerships, sole proprietorships, and LLCs that pass through their tax liabilities to their owners. That allows everyone from freelancers and petty contractors to huge partnerships to avoid any state income tax at all, as long as they're organized as a certain type of "small business."

Brownback's policy, and his claims about its outcome, define the term "ideological" -- the imposition of preconceived notions on a contradictory reality.

The record of Kansas since 2012 shows the folly of such draconian cuts in revenue. It's one thing to enact targeted cuts in tax rates during an economic upswing, when such a policy can add fuel to job generation. It's quite another to do so blindly during a slump, when cuts in state services undermine efforts at recovery.

Since Kansas enacted deep tax cuts in 2012, job growth in the state has badly lagged that of the U.S. overall -- including tax-raising California.

Brownback's tax policy came right out of the conservative playbook. His 2012 package cut the top two personal income tax rates from 6.45% (on income over $60,000) and 6.25% (on income between $30,000 and $60,000) to 4.9%. The rate on income under $30,000 was pared to 3% from 3.5%. Pass-through business income was made fully tax-exempt. The law increased the standard deduction, but also eliminated several tax credits that assisted the poor.

More tax changes were enacted last year. The top rate was cut to 3.9% in stages through 2018. But other cuts were reversed; much of a sales tax reduction was canceled, and the standard deduction was cut back, effectively raising taxes for the middle- and working-class.

In all, as the CBPP documents, the changes will cut the taxes of the wealthiest 1% of Kansans by 2.2%. The poorest 20% of Kansans will see their taxes rise by 1.3%.

The impact on overall state revenue has been devastating. Despite Laffer's prediction, the state ended fiscal 2014 with a shortfall of $338 million.

Brownback continues to promise his citizens that growth is just around the corner. But there's no evidence that the kinds of cuts he promoted have anything to do with genuine economic growth. Indeed, it's likely that preserving the quality of crucial state services is more important. That's a policy pursued in California under Gov. Jerry Brown, who successfully pushed to raise taxes after the recession; the state's job growth since then has left Kansas and the country as a whole in the dust.

"States considering deep tax cuts in hopes of sparking a surge of economic growth should look carefully at Kansas," the CBPP suggested in March. Yes, look carefully -- and run the other way.
http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-mh-kansas-a-smoking-ruin-20140709-column.html


This from a couple of days ago
Sam Brownback, the current Republican governor of Kansas, seems determined to repeat that tragedy as farce. As least, it would be farce if his policies weren't so destructive to the the health and welfare of the state's citizens.
This executive order was the only thing in Kansas protecting those people. - Doug Bonney, ACLU of Kansas

Brownback's latest stunt is to abolish state employees' protections against job discrimination based on sexual orientation. In an executive order Tuesday, Brownback reversed a 2007 order by his Democratic predecessor, Kathleen Sebelius, that had brought state anti-discrimination policies in line with most of corporate America and 31 other states.

The right-wing governor attempted to clothe his action in the mantle of good administrative procedure -- he said Sebelius should have acted through the legislature, rather than on her own -- but it more resembles the death rattle of public bigotry.

Brownback overturned an important anti-discrimination policy in the same week that Alabama Chief Justice Roy S. Moore defied a federal court order legalizing gay marriage in his state. These men are both on the wrong side of history, and they know it. Like King Canute trying to hold back the tide, they act in vain.

Of the two, Brownback appears to be the more cynical by far. He offers no explanation for why he needed to act on LGBT policy now, in the fifth year of his tenure as governor and following his narrow reelection victory in November. Sebelius issued her executive order eight years ago.

Brownback has a history of vindictive behavior -- remember his attempt in 2011 to intimidate and punish a high school senior for her disparaging tweet about him? To rescind out of the blue an anti-discrimination policy for Kansas citizens that has been in effect for nearly a decade is nothing short of vicious. Civil rights advocates are properly aghast.

"This executive order was the only thing in Kansas protecting those people," Doug Bonney, the ACLU of Kansas legal director, told my colleague Matt Pearce.

Possibly, Brownback is hoping to deflect attention from the disastrous condition of the Kansas state budget, which has been hollowed out by Brownback's extremely aggressive tax-cutting. Income tax receipts continue to fall below Brownback's rolling projections -- the latest estimates show them coming in 2% below forecast made just last November.

Since Kansas enacted deep tax cuts in 2012, job growth in the state has badly lagged that of the U.S. overall -- including tax-raising California.

Tax receipts for the first seven months of this fiscal year are lower by $355 million, or 11%, than they were at the same point in 2012. The consequences are dire for discretionary state programs, such as education and Medicaid, which face cuts of 30% in their budgets, according to local reports.

This wouldn't be necessary, of course, if the growth that Brownback and his advisors -- among them the notorious Arthur Laffer -- predicted would result magically from those tax cuts had come to pass.

It hasn't. As we reported last year, job growth in Brownback's Kansas lags its neighbors, the U.S. as a whole, and more fiscally intelligent states such as California. The Kansas City Star reported last month that the state's job growth had actually slowed since the 2013 enactment of Brownback's tax-cutting package, lagging that of 37 other states, including neighboring Missouri.

The economic suffering that Brownback's policies have imposed on Kansans is bad enough; to add to the pain by removing protections against workplace harassment over sexual orientation is a new low.
http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-mh-the-return-of-bleeding-kansas-20150211-column.html








cloudboy -> RE: Gov Brownback cuts funding to education (2/13/2015 6:29:37 AM)

You really have not been following the news at all, have you.

Both Kansas and Louisiana are in the midst of state budget disasters. Each state initiated ill-conceived, supply-side economic policies. Now, neither state can afford to fund it education system (after making drastic cuts already.)

Reagan tripled the national debt in the 80s, and KA and LA are following suit. Moody's is downgrading each state's credit rating as a result.

https://www.moodys.com/research/Moodys-downgrades-Kansas-issuer-rating-to-Aa2-from-Aa1-notched--PR_298383

http://theadvocate.com/news/11575017-123/moodys-to-decide-louisiana-credit

People who blindly believe in supply side economics make about as much sense as the anti-vaccination idiots. One group has budget and funding problems and the other has measles.




joether -> RE: Gov Brownback cuts funding to education (2/13/2015 6:38:30 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44
since it's arguable that reducing income taxes always reduces revenue (or said another way, sometimes revenue increases when income taxes are reduced), what other reasons might exist for the states budget problems?


You did take an economics course in college, right?

Reducing taxes, does reduce revenue coming in. The Republicans tried the concept back in 2000. That's how that big $440 billion surplus from 1999 become a $50 billion deficit. And each year after 2000, that deficit grew higher and higher; all of it being applied to the US debt (which was also growing). Yes, it was tried at the federal level...AND FAILED!

So let's try it at the state level; because it has to work, right?

Kansas is finding out that what didnt work at the federal level has no hope of working at the state level....EITHER...

Its not the only red state doing this, and finding out its a dumb idea to do, either!

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44
for instance, how much of the budget shortfall has to do with state worker's unaffordable pensions? I just read that the long term funding gap for this is ~10 billion. is that because revenue is low, or because government workers pension programs are unsustainable in the real world?


Should study up on what's been going on in that state. Yes, its an anti-Tea Party website (aka good for the rest of the nation). The facts and figures are pretty true. I did look a few of them up out of curiousity. Wish they would provide source material in the form of footnotes....

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44
how much is due to the recession and is still part and parcel of what many other states are still facing?


This would be the recession that was brought about by the 'engineering' skills of Republicans at the federal level? The ones that removed all sorts of regulations and rules in the name of 'making businesses profitable', right? The same philosophy that shows Capitalism has one fatal flaw: No mechanics to keep greed under control.

Either way you look at it, a Republican/Tea Party has created Kansas's huge list of problems. The only people that cant admit that reality are the Republican/Tea Party and those that support them.

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44
I also just read that what was passed into law in Kansas wasn't actually brownback's proposal, but rather what the legislature gave him and the state ended up with.


Got the source for the information?

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44
alternatively, reducing income taxes generally accelerates growth (I don't know if it did in this case or not) and supposedly one of the principles of conservatism is smaller government and more individual liberty. is governor brownback necessarily wrong to have made a choice for that? shouldn't Kansas growth then be part of the conversation? a matter of competing ends so to speak. how much water can you continue to squeeze out of a rock? did Kansans feel like they were "taxed enough already" and welcomed/wanted the break?


'Small Government'? Yeah, I've heard that one plenty of times. Even challenged the champions of 'small/limited government' on this forum to explain it all in complete terms. They dodged and evaded every which way. In the end, I found they were arguing for big government. All I had to do was remove the stuff that they felt was vital to them or the nation; and they caved. Because the whole budget is not about any one political group....BUT....all the persons within the nation. That conservatives have a hard time not being selfish all the time is their problem, not the nation's.

Taxes were reduced. At the federal level. Five sets of cuts from the GOP between 2000-2002. Three of them for everyone, and two for the 1%ers and corporations. And what happened? We had a deficit and debt. Both grew by leaps and sums each year former President George W. Bush was in office. Then the nation experienced a deep recession that almost became a economic depression. That was only stopped by the Democrats and President Obama. Its called the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. Most conservatives, deprived of a good liberal education called it 'the spending bill'. Yet, all the economists whom werent on the conservative pay tab agreed; creating an artificial demand for goods and services does reduce the effects of a recession and can stabilize industries in free fall towards a depression. Has been doing each time a recession hit, regardless of which party controlled Congress or the White House.

How about those states that give more in taxes get the same amount back? All the blue states with the exception of Hawaii will enjoy rich improvements. Many of those red states that take more federal dollars than they give; would see their economies go to shit within six months flat! I'm all for it, since it would...COMPLETELY....undermine the bullshit that is known as 'small/limited government'.


quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44
that said, while I believe the state has a vested interest in educating youth, can we name anything that government does less expensive/more efficiently than the private sector? does a 44 million dollar shortfall really hurt kids' education? or does it rather force public schools to be a little more like their more successful, and less costly charter/religious/private school counterparts?


Healthcare. The overhead for Medicare and Medicaid are both much lower than the private sector. That means more money goes towards the people, rather than the mechanisms for the program. How many upper management people in either organization make a million plus perks? Since that is the norm in the private sector for healthcare.

The success/failure of charter, religious, and private schools argument has one fatal flaw. That you do not know what it is, shows your lack of knowledge. Each of those organizations can pick and choose whom they allow into their schools. That means those with disabilities (physically, mental, and/or emotional) can be excluded; cant do that in the public systems. These organizations require a higher amount for the child to attend; so unless your wealthy....your kid....is going to the public school. And I find the ones that went to charter, religious, and private schools in college were really assholes. I got along easily with those that went to a public high school. Its a fair bet to say nothing has changed on that front.

Either you knew these concepts about charter/religious/private schools and your intellectually dishonest. Or you didnt, in which case your an idiot. Which is it?




slvemike4u -> RE: Gov Brownback cuts funding to education (2/13/2015 10:54:42 AM)

Let's see....posters with a left leaning tilt have submitted three well thought out responses to the thread.
Posters from the right side of the aisle decided to ignore mathematical realities and submitted two posts that amount to doubling down on the stupidity of Reaganomics supply side trickle down bullshit that has been PROVEN to not work.
No wonder the right is bereft of ideas...they are still trying to shoehorn failed policies from St. Ron's adminstration




DesideriScuri -> RE: Gov Brownback cuts funding to education (2/13/2015 11:56:42 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether
quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44
since it's arguable that reducing income taxes always reduces revenue (or said another way, sometimes revenue increases when income taxes are reduced), what other reasons might exist for the states budget problems?

You did take an economics course in college, right?
Reducing taxes, does reduce revenue coming in. The Republicans tried the concept back in 2000. That's how that big $440 billion surplus from 1999 become a $50 billion deficit. And each year after 2000, that deficit grew higher and higher; all of it being applied to the US debt (which was also growing). Yes, it was tried at the federal level...AND FAILED!


Except for the (apparently ignored) fact that tax revenues were higher under Bush than they were under Clinton. But, don't let those facts cloud your conclusion. [8|]




mnottertail -> RE: Gov Brownback cuts funding to education (2/13/2015 12:27:01 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether
quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44
since it's arguable that reducing income taxes always reduces revenue (or said another way, sometimes revenue increases when income taxes are reduced), what other reasons might exist for the states budget problems?

You did take an economics course in college, right?
Reducing taxes, does reduce revenue coming in. The Republicans tried the concept back in 2000. That's how that big $440 billion surplus from 1999 become a $50 billion deficit. And each year after 2000, that deficit grew higher and higher; all of it being applied to the US debt (which was also growing). Yes, it was tried at the federal level...AND FAILED!


Except for the (apparently ignored) fact that tax revenues were higher under Bush than they were under Clinton. But, don't let those facts cloud your conclusion. [8|]




And higher under Obama than either. So we have to be somewhat clouded in our conclusions to believe it was due to some W tax cut, which dropped us into some serious debt as well.


DS does not understand economics, he is innumerate.

Insofar as debt increasing at state levels, is more is being shed by the federal government and being taken over by states even as the innumerate rightwingers are cutting taxes in those states. And the red welfare states, having nothing in the way of taxes because of the welfare from the federal government talk 'conservatism' and 'libertarianism' and suck off whats left of the federal tit.




Musicmystery -> RE: Gov Brownback cuts funding to education (2/13/2015 12:34:31 PM)

However, jacking up structural deficit was probably...what's the word? Dumb.




joether -> RE: Gov Brownback cuts funding to education (2/13/2015 12:50:48 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether
quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44
since it's arguable that reducing income taxes always reduces revenue (or said another way, sometimes revenue increases when income taxes are reduced), what other reasons might exist for the states budget problems?

You did take an economics course in college, right?
Reducing taxes, does reduce revenue coming in. The Republicans tried the concept back in 2000. That's how that big $440 billion surplus from 1999 become a $50 billion deficit. And each year after 2000, that deficit grew higher and higher; all of it being applied to the US debt (which was also growing). Yes, it was tried at the federal level...AND FAILED!


Except for the (apparently ignored) fact that tax revenues were higher under Bush than they were under Clinton. But, don't let those facts cloud your conclusion. [8|]



Except for the fact that tax revenues were higher under Reagan than they were under Obama. So many conservatives bitch about the fun and wonderful economy under Reagan, but want the tax level currently under Obama. And it doesnt work. Under Reagan, the top two tiers were taxed in proportion to what they grossed, the same as any other term. This allowed the federal government to use programs into all industries and allow the middle class to flourish. With the taxes at current, there is no way the money market apparatus could operate. Money is not flowing as freely now as it did then. The reason we can observe quite easily. The rich gets staggeringly richer and everyone else gets fucked in the ass!

Its only facts if you minus the lame political agenda there, DS. Which you often have a hard time separating. I just stated that this nation experienced a better economy and system of economy under a Republican than a Democrate. How often do you see me siding with the Republicans these days?




mnottertail -> RE: Gov Brownback cuts funding to education (2/13/2015 12:53:55 PM)

In hindsight, all the times its been done since St. Wrinklemeat, by the innumerates, it would appear that dumb does not cover the sense of magnitude needed in necessary and sufficient conditions to elocute the texture and ruination of this ongoing disaster.




mnottertail -> RE: Gov Brownback cuts funding to education (2/13/2015 1:01:39 PM)

Revenue was not higher under Reagan than Obama, not ever.




joether -> RE: Gov Brownback cuts funding to education (2/13/2015 1:07:21 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
quote:

ORIGINAL: joether
quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44
since it's arguable that reducing income taxes always reduces revenue (or said another way, sometimes revenue increases when income taxes are reduced), what other reasons might exist for the states budget problems?

You did take an economics course in college, right?
Reducing taxes, does reduce revenue coming in. The Republicans tried the concept back in 2000. That's how that big $440 billion surplus from 1999 become a $50 billion deficit. And each year after 2000, that deficit grew higher and higher; all of it being applied to the US debt (which was also growing). Yes, it was tried at the federal level...AND FAILED!


Except for the (apparently ignored) fact that tax revenues were higher under Bush than they were under Clinton. But, don't let those facts cloud your conclusion. [8|]


That makes absolutely no logical sense, if your Bush is 'George W. Bush'. Could make sense if its 'George H. W. Bush'. But that you do not make this distinction shows a real lack of consideration of facts. There were...TWO...Bushes...in the White House.

Lets go with Bush Sr. vs Clinton:

This is the most logical argument you could make. That taxes were higher under Bush than Clinton. Not exactly true in some cases. In others, yes, it was true. What Clinton did was take the debt this nation had, and doubled it. But he paid off the first set of debts and took the interest on the second set which was much lower than the first. That's just smart financial decision making. Most financial advisers will help you with this at the individual level. What also played in Clinton's favor was a strong enconomy. That beaing the 'Dot Com' era and the beginning of the Internet. So while the taxes were slightly lower compared to the one term Bush (whom lost getting a second term because of sluggish economic problems), the massive economic boom was bring in more tax dollars.

Yes, if one collects taxes at a lower rate, it can equal and surprise the higher tax rate. That's basic macro economics one finds in college. So if time is equal, the rate to which the tax happens, must happen more often than the previous. That's mathematics.

Clinton vs Bush Jr:

To be fair, when the Dot Com era finally went bust, it was at the closing year of Clinton's 8th year in office. Bush Jr. inherited a shit economy. An it never really worked itself back to a full economy every single one of his years, the last two most especially. Republicans tried a number of gimmicks and bullshit to get the economy going again. They removed regulations and reduced taxes. Unfortunately the regulations they removed had problems that would erupt in the summer of 2006 and explode even more in 2007.

They thought on the concept 'starving the beast' with tax cuts. Unfortunately the second part of their 'scheme' failed to work due to one organization: the Democrats. When you cut taxes, that's revenue being cut as well. But if the budget is not altered to handle the new revenue, a deficit will form. The Republicans tried to redo the budget in 2000 to carve heffy sums of money from areas Democrats liked and very little from Republican areas. This lop-sided budget was destroyed time and again. The failure here was that Republicans should have gone in 'dollar for a dollar' on cuts. But they didnt want to do that. So the budget was number adjusted, and the deficit grew every single year Bush Jr. was in office. And how did we get away with that? A Reagan term: Deficit Spending. Worked against those Russians, right? Why couldn't it work for the 'War on Terror'?

You want to debate financial and economic matters at the federal level, DS? Get your facts straight....




joether -> RE: Gov Brownback cuts funding to education (2/13/2015 1:12:57 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail
Revenue was not higher under Reagan than Obama, not ever.


I didnt say revenue, I said taxes.

A gallon of milk in 2015 is more expensive then in 1992, right? Why is that? Your still buying the same amount of milk, same container, same shape, USDA approved.

The concept 'Money Market Appartus' is not known outside of economics circles. Its basically how the dollar travels through the various hands before (in theory) arriving back in the consumer's hands. When taxes were high, money could flow freely. Businesses had money coming in that made the clear argument to expand operations, which was money going out, to increase in the future, money coming in. That they had to employ people, and those people shopped around for good jobs, thus increasing their take home pay and the amount for disposable income. To which they would go to the malls and shops to buy more crap, and the process starts all over again.




mnottertail -> RE: Gov Brownback cuts funding to education (2/13/2015 1:17:09 PM)

Yeah, I understand, however in constant dollars. . . Taxes portion of revenue is still higher.

Let us not further confuse nominal tax RATES with actual taxes paid rates, or ketchup will be a vegetable and jellybeans will be a food group.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=200






joether -> RE: Gov Brownback cuts funding to education (2/13/2015 1:31:11 PM)

The end result is Democrats seem to know how to budget things better, given good or bad economic conditions. Wasn't it a Democrat in the White House who saved this nation' economy from going into an economic depression that would rival the one started in 1929? And who was against this individual from doing all this? The Republican/Tea Party!




mnottertail -> RE: Gov Brownback cuts funding to education (2/13/2015 1:35:20 PM)

Well, to be perfectly fair, democrats are tax and spend, and republicans borrow and spend, and libertarians and all them other clowns, bitch about spending while taking up great spans of the federal hog trough and insure copious amounts of pork for their corpulent bellies.

Then there are Ayn Randers, and they are just fucking stupid, altogether.




Moderator3 -> RE: Gov Brownback cuts funding to education (2/13/2015 2:03:31 PM)

Thank you for a good debate without extreme festiveness. [:)]




DesideriScuri -> RE: Gov Brownback cuts funding to education (2/13/2015 2:21:00 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
quote:

ORIGINAL: joether
quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44
since it's arguable that reducing income taxes always reduces revenue (or said another way, sometimes revenue increases when income taxes are reduced), what other reasons might exist for the states budget problems?

You did take an economics course in college, right?
Reducing taxes, does reduce revenue coming in. The Republicans tried the concept back in 2000. That's how that big $440 billion surplus from 1999 become a $50 billion deficit. And each year after 2000, that deficit grew higher and higher; all of it being applied to the US debt (which was also growing). Yes, it was tried at the federal level...AND FAILED!

Except for the (apparently ignored) fact that tax revenues were higher under Bush than they were under Clinton. But, don't let those facts cloud your conclusion. [8|]

Except for the fact that tax revenues were higher under Reagan than they were under Obama. So many conservatives bitch about the fun and wonderful economy under Reagan, but want the tax level currently under Obama. And it doesnt work. Under Reagan, the top two tiers were taxed in proportion to what they grossed, the same as any other term. This allowed the federal government to use programs into all industries and allow the middle class to flourish. With the taxes at current, there is no way the money market apparatus could operate. Money is not flowing as freely now as it did then. The reason we can observe quite easily. The rich gets staggeringly richer and everyone else gets fucked in the ass!
Its only facts if you minus the lame political agenda there, DS. Which you often have a hard time separating. I just stated that this nation experienced a better economy and system of economy under a Republican than a Democrate. How often do you see me siding with the Republicans these days?


We are experiencing near record (if not record, I haven't checked up on the budget data lately, but it was supposed to be a new record for revenues in 2013, I believe) tax revenues.

The error Bush made wasn't in cutting taxes. It was in expanding spending. Revenues reached record highs under Bush, and spending expanded even more. That's something I have a hard time reconciling when I think on President Bush.

But, again, don't let the facts cloud your conclusion.




Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875