Ask Trump something 24 times...

[TopSecretBoiler]

You think a 1.5% increase in spending is "a spending problem?" What's the national average spending increase? Why are so many other states able to have larger spending increases without budget-breaking shortfalls in revenue? Why are neighboring states or demographically similar states like Minnesota, a much more liberal state with higher taxes and higher state spending doing so much better economically?

RTFA. New revenue estimates released last month show that Kansas tax revenue increased 1.5% in 2015 and is expected to be 2.6% higher than that in 2016.
...
For example, Kansas relies heavily on the production of oil and gas. In January 2016, crude-oil production was down 21.8% over last year’s production figures. Weaknesses in agriculture, due to continually low crop prices and precipitously falling cattle prices, had major effects on the rural Kansas economy. These downturns create ripple effects throughout the entire state economy, regardless of tax rate. Interestingly, when these hard-hit sectors are taken out of the equation, the remainder of the private sector workforce in Kansas outperformed its neighboring states of Missouri, Nebraska and Oklahoma.
At present, Kanas holds a nearly $85 million cumulative advantage in income gains from the Show-Me State. This is a serious reversal of fortune: between 1995 and 2009, more than $263 million left Kansas for Missouri.

They've shut down schools early because of lack of funding. School funding has been cut by 20% form 08 levels. Cuts have been made to libraries, public health programs, the courts, parks, and other social services. The poor saw a tax rise while everyone else saw a tax cut. TANF dropped 41 percent when nationally it only fell 12 percent, so welfare benefits are seeing a strong decline as well. Job growth is abysmal. Personal income growth is below the national average.

Nice try. Typical liberal whine. THEY CUT THE SCHOOLS!!! OMG SACRED COW.
in the 14 years preceding Governor Sam Brownback’s tax reform, private sector jobs grew by just 2.3% total (or .02% per year), for that entire time span. That’s just 62.5% of the average growth for states with an income tax, and a paltry 15.4% of the average growth of states that do not levy an income tax. The picture gets brighter after the Brownback tax reform. Over the last three years alone, private sector employment increased by 4.0%.

Tax revenues are down 9% in Kansas, while in the median state they are up 2%. Why is that? "A Spending problem" doesn't explain that remotely.

Lie. New revenue estimates released last month show that Kansas tax revenue increased 1.5% in 2015 and is expected to be 2.6% higher than that in 2016.

Voodoo? Don't need it. You refuse to actually read and understand any article that doesn't support your wing nut stance. The article nailed it. You are the standard definition of "being willfully disingenuous (at worst) or have an incomplete understanding (at best)."

 

[New Pal Boiler]

You think a 1.5% increase in spending is "a spending problem?" What's the national average spending increase? Why are so many other states able to have larger spending increases without budget-breaking shortfalls in revenue? Why are neighboring states or demographically similar states like Minnesota, a much more liberal state with higher taxes and higher state spending doing so much better economically?

They've shut down schools early because of lack of funding. School funding has been cut by 20% form 08 levels. Cuts have been made to libraries, public health programs, the courts, parks, and other social services. The poor saw a tax rise while everyone else saw a tax cut. TANF dropped 41 percent when nationally it only fell 12 percent, so welfare benefits are seeing a strong decline as well. Job growth is abysmal. Personal income growth is below the national average.

Even if there were a "spending" problem, why didn't the massive tax cuts to the rich and businesses spur investment and jobs? There are ZERO business taxes in Kansas now. Why aren't businesses flocking there to open up jobs? Why isn't that money "trickling down" to the lower classes?

Tax revenues are down 9% in Kansas, while in the median state they are up 2%. Why is that? "A Spending problem" doesn't explain that remotely.

If you want to reduce a deficit, you don't cut the money coming in. You cut your spending and either raise taxes or keep taxes as they were. That would in fact cut a deficit. It's pretty basic. But idiots on the right think tax cuts magically bring in more revenue, and time and time again we see that isn't true. Nevertheless we see massive tax cuts plus massive reductions in government spending does absolutely nothing because government is never nearly as big or as easily cut as the folks on the right pretend.

It's time for voodoo economics to die.

Wow, reading just isn't your forte is it? Try again...

 

[qazplm]

RTFA. New revenue estimates released last month show that Kansas tax revenue increased 1.5% in 2015 and is expected to be 2.6% higher than that in 2016.
...
For example, Kansas relies heavily on the production of oil and gas. In January 2016, crude-oil production was down 21.8% over last year’s production figures. Weaknesses in agriculture, due to continually low crop prices and precipitously falling cattle prices, had major effects on the rural Kansas economy. These downturns create ripple effects throughout the entire state economy, regardless of tax rate. Interestingly, when these hard-hit sectors are taken out of the equation, the remainder of the private sector workforce in Kansas outperformed its neighboring states of Missouri, Nebraska and Oklahoma.
At present, Kanas holds a nearly $85 million cumulative advantage in income gains from the Show-Me State. This is a serious reversal of fortune: between 1995 and 2009, more than $263 million left Kansas for Missouri.


Nice try. Typical liberal whine. THEY CUT THE SCHOOLS!!! OMG SACRED COW.
in the 14 years preceding Governor Sam Brownback’s tax reform, private sector jobs grew by just 2.3% total (or .02% per year), for that entire time span. That’s just 62.5% of the average growth for states with an income tax, and a paltry 15.4% of the average growth of states that do not levy an income tax. The picture gets brighter after the Brownback tax reform. Over the last three years alone, private sector employment increased by 4.0%.

Lie. New revenue estimates released last month show that Kansas tax revenue increased 1.5% in 2015 and is expected to be 2.6% higher than that in 2016.

Voodoo? Don't need it. You refuse to actually read and understand any article that doesn't support your wing nut stance. The article nailed it. You are the standard definition of "being willfully disingenuous (at worst) or have an incomplete understanding (at best)."

1. State spending increases EVERYWHERE. The average rate of state spending increase in 2015 was over 4%. http://www.governing.com/topics/finance/gov-nasbo-state-budget-outlook-2016.html
So touting 1.5% or 2.6% as some runaway spending is idiocy. It's BELOW average.

2. If your income from other areas is significantly down, then maybe you don't massively cut taxes as well if you want to reduce your deficit? So citing that there were other areas of problematic income does what for the argument that massive tax cuts were smart exactly do you think? But let's look at oil and gas revenue.

http://cjonline.com/news/2015-10-01/kansas-revenue-fell-32-million-below-estimates-september
"In September, [oil and gas] revenue totaled $523.8 million, about $13.2 million more than collected in September 2014, yet still below estimates."

3. I have to laugh, let's take out all of our "hard-hit" sectors, and then compare our best sectors and we are doing really well! Again, if your "hard-hit" sectors are such a large part of your economy, MAYBE you hold off on the massive tax cuts. That you think these arguments are favorable to you is laughable.

4. From the April 2015 Kansas Jobs report...the official state of Kansas numbers:
http://r.search.yahoo.com/_ylt=AwrB...ease.pdf/RK=0/RS=.4nwPsfEVNBAe5Ap5qtyUBt3fWw-

"Seasonally adjusted figures show Kansas gained 11,300 private sector jobs since last year, or 1 percent." So no, not 4 percent.

5. http://www.deptofnumbers.com/employment/kansas/
In the last year, Kansas has LOST 600 jobs. Why? Lower taxes and lower business taxes and lower regulations are supposed to increase tax revenues and increase jobs.

6. http://www.kansascity.com/news/politics-government/article81189047.html
Revenue Secretary Nick Jordan blamed this on slow growth in the state’s major industries.

“Large company layoffs and struggles in the aviation, oil and agricultural industries point to an overall sluggish economy which contributed to lower-than-expected revenue receipts,” Jordan said in a statement. “This is a trend reflected throughout the region.”

Scott Drenkard, director of state projects for the Washington-based Tax Foundation, a think tank that studies tax policy, disputed that explanation. He pointed to the state’s income tax exemption for owners of LLCs and some other businesses, which he said had encouraged tax avoidance

“I’m not getting calls from other states in the region about how large their revenue projections have missed the mark again. This is a problem unique to Kansas,” he said. “It is not nearly as much a story in other places, and that’s because, for the most part, revenue projections are on point or they’re off by a little bit, such that it’s manageable and does not throw the budget into peril.”


This is a unique KANSAS problem. And it's unique because no other state has gone nearly this extreme in their tax policy

 

[Bruce1]

You think a 1.5% increase in spending is "a spending problem?" What's the national average spending increase? Why are so many other states able to have larger spending increases without budget-breaking shortfalls in revenue? Why are neighboring states or demographically similar states like Minnesota, a much more liberal state with higher taxes and higher state spending doing so much better economically?

They've shut down schools early because of lack of funding. School funding has been cut by 20% form 08 levels. Cuts have been made to libraries, public health programs, the courts, parks, and other social services. The poor saw a tax rise while everyone else saw a tax cut. TANF dropped 41 percent when nationally it only fell 12 percent, so welfare benefits are seeing a strong decline as well. Job growth is abysmal. Personal income growth is below the national average.

Even if there were a "spending" problem, why didn't the massive tax cuts to the rich and businesses spur investment and jobs? There are ZERO business taxes in Kansas now. Why aren't businesses flocking there to open up jobs? Why isn't that money "trickling down" to the lower classes?

Tax revenues are down 9% in Kansas, while in the median state they are up 2%. Why is that? "A Spending problem" doesn't explain that remotely.

If you want to reduce a deficit, you don't cut the money coming in. You cut your spending and either raise taxes or keep taxes as they were. That would in fact cut a deficit. It's pretty basic. But idiots on the right think tax cuts magically bring in more revenue, and time and time again we see that isn't true. Nevertheless we see massive tax cuts plus massive reductions in government spending does absolutely nothing because government is never nearly as big or as easily cut as the folks on the right pretend.

It's time for voodoo economics to die.

Apparently you didn't take the time to read the link to the latest Forbes article that SD linked in his post. I suggest you read it. I think there might be a time fram difference in the reports. Everyone knows that tax cuts don't provide immediate results. There was also a huge drop in oil production in 15' that really muddied the waters.

We should all be willing to look at bothe sides of issues rather than looking for data to support our desired result.

 

[TopSecretBoiler]

1. State spending increases EVERYWHERE. The average rate of state spending increase in 2015 was over 4%. http://www.governing.com/topics/finance/gov-nasbo-state-budget-outlook-2016.html
So touting 1.5% or 2.6% as some runaway spending is idiocy. It's BELOW average.

2. If your income from other areas is significantly down, then maybe you don't massively cut taxes as well if you want to reduce your deficit? So citing that there were other areas of problematic income does what for the argument that massive tax cuts were smart exactly do you think? But let's look at oil and gas revenue.

http://cjonline.com/news/2015-10-01/kansas-revenue-fell-32-million-below-estimates-september
"In September, [oil and gas] revenue totaled $523.8 million, about $13.2 million more than collected in September 2014, yet still below estimates."

3. I have to laugh, let's take out all of our "hard-hit" sectors, and then compare our best sectors and we are doing really well! Again, if your "hard-hit" sectors are such a large part of your economy, MAYBE you hold off on the massive tax cuts. That you think these arguments are favorable to you is laughable.

4. From the April 2015 Kansas Jobs report...the official state of Kansas numbers:
http://r.search.yahoo.com/_ylt=AwrBT9RkjFVXT9gAe.FXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTExaXAwcWVoBGNvbG8DYmYxBHBvcwMzBHZ0aWQDVUlDMl8xBHNlYwNzcg--/RV=2/RE=1465253093/RO=10/RU=https://klic.dol.ks.gov/admin/gsipub/htmlarea/uploads/LR%20Apr2015%20Release.pdf/RK=0/RS=.4nwPsfEVNBAe5Ap5qtyUBt3fWw-

"Seasonally adjusted figures show Kansas gained 11,300 private sector jobs since last year, or 1 percent." So no, not 4 percent.

5. http://www.deptofnumbers.com/employment/kansas/
In the last year, Kansas has LOST 600 jobs. Why? Lower taxes and lower business taxes and lower regulations are supposed to increase tax revenues and increase jobs.

6. http://www.kansascity.com/news/politics-government/article81189047.html
Revenue Secretary Nick Jordan blamed this on slow growth in the state’s major industries.

“Large company layoffs and struggles in the aviation, oil and agricultural industries point to an overall sluggish economy which contributed to lower-than-expected revenue receipts,” Jordan said in a statement. “This is a trend reflected throughout the region.”

Scott Drenkard, director of state projects for the Washington-based Tax Foundation, a think tank that studies tax policy, disputed that explanation. He pointed to the state’s income tax exemption for owners of LLCs and some other businesses, which he said had encouraged tax avoidance

“I’m not getting calls from other states in the region about how large their revenue projections have missed the mark again. This is a problem unique to Kansas,” he said. “It is not nearly as much a story in other places, and that’s because, for the most part, revenue projections are on point or they’re off by a little bit, such that it’s manageable and does not throw the budget into peril.”


This is a unique KANSAS problem. And it's unique because no other state has gone nearly this extreme in their tax policy

1. I don't even know what to say
2. Cutting taxes is a long term effort. If your cash cow loses 50% value in a year you're going to feel the pain regardless of the tax rate. It will come back up. Then what will you say? omg they made a lot of money?
3. ok...I'm just saying they are pretty competitive and when gas prices return to a normal level, kansas will look pretty rosy in comparison to the states you think are doing so much better.
4. ok. fine.
5. and 6. Scott Drenkard is nobody. If he were, he'd have a real job. I'm sure he predicted oil losing 50% in 2015.
The unemployment rate in Kansas sits at 3.8%. Over the year APR 2015 to APR 2016, the labor force expanded by 15,778 persons, with an increase of 21,664 in employment and a decrease of 5,886 in unemployment. Sorry. Kansas doesn't support your analogy. It's just not doing that poorly.

 

[qazplm]

1. I don't even know what to say
2. Cutting taxes is a long term effort. If your cash cow loses 50% value in a year you're going to feel the pain regardless of the tax rate. It will come back up. Then what will you say? omg they made a lot of money?
3. ok...I'm just saying they are pretty competitive and when gas prices return to a normal level, kansas will look pretty rosy in comparison to the states you think are doing so much better.
4. ok. fine.
5. and 6. Scott Drenkard is nobody. If he were, he'd have a real job. I'm sure he predicted oil losing 50% in 2015.
The unemployment rate in Kansas sits at 3.8%. Over the year APR 2015 to APR 2016, the labor force expanded by 15,778 persons, with an increase of 21,664 in employment and a decrease of 5,886 in unemployment. Sorry. Kansas doesn't support your analogy. It's just not doing that poorly.

1. Here, let me help you...saying 2.6% spending is runaway spending when the national average among states is over 4% is pretty silly, and I shouldn't have said it.
2. Ah, the old, ya just gotta wait for it argument. OK, how long? How long can one expect to wait before the huge economic boom from cutting taxes goes into effect? Surely there's an estimate right? At one point might one legitimately be able to say in your eyes, ok this isn't working? 5 years? 10 years? How long?
3. First of all, Kansas isn't the only oil producing state. If that were the problem, Kansas wouldn't be the unique flower it is. The problem is that no other state has done the extreme tax cuts that Kansas has.
4. The whole point of cutting business taxes is that it's supposed to spur job growth, pretty much immediately. We are now several years in, and no real job growth. Saying "ok, fine" is not really an answer.
5. No answer for this one apparently. Lost private sector jobs in the last year.
6. Drenkard isn't "predicting" anything in that article, he's pointing out a fact, that no other state is in quite the situation that Kansas has because no other state has done "the experiment" (the Gov's own words) that Kansas has. This was the laboratory to prove that the Laffer Curve worked. He literally had Laffer advising him.

Kansas is not doing that poorly?! LMAO, ok if you think Kansas is doing alright then that should be a lesson right there for lurkers trying to decide if massive tax cuts is the right way to go. Because even a situation like Kansas won't be enough for folks in favor of it to reconsider.

 

[TopSecretBoiler]

1. Here, let me help you...saying 2.6% spending is runaway spending when the national average among states is over 4% is pretty silly, and I shouldn't have said it.
2. Ah, the old, ya just gotta wait for it argument. OK, how long? How long can one expect to wait before the huge economic boom from cutting taxes goes into effect? Surely there's an estimate right? At one point might one legitimately be able to say in your eyes, ok this isn't working? 5 years? 10 years? How long?
3. First of all, Kansas isn't the only oil producing state. If that were the problem, Kansas wouldn't be the unique flower it is. The problem is that no other state has done the extreme tax cuts that Kansas has.
4. The whole point of cutting business taxes is that it's supposed to spur job growth, pretty much immediately. We are now several years in, and no real job growth. Saying "ok, fine" is not really an answer.
5. No answer for this one apparently. Lost private sector jobs in the last year.
6. Drenkard isn't "predicting" anything in that article, he's pointing out a fact, that no other state is in quite the situation that Kansas has because no other state has done "the experiment" (the Gov's own words) that Kansas has. This was the laboratory to prove that the Laffer Curve worked. He literally had Laffer advising him.

Kansas is not doing that poorly?! LMAO, ok if you think Kansas is doing alright then that should be a lesson right there for lurkers trying to decide if massive tax cuts is the right way to go. Because even a situation like Kansas won't be enough for folks in favor of it to reconsider.

1. I can't be the only one cracking up at this...
2. Oil will probably be back up to something normal by the end of 2016. They will be fine. And it IS working even with an oil crash. If you read TFA you would know this...I'm not repeating myself. It's in TFA.
3. Kansas is a top ten oil producing state and other than that it's heavily agriculture. So it may not be unique but it's not as diversified.
4. Then how do you explain the exemplary unemployment numbers? LOL you have nothing here.
5. You are ****ing cherry picking your stats. I'm not getting into the difference between employment numbers but unemployment is based on CPS not CES, so just stop. You know it, I know it, anyone with half a brain knows it. The jobs data is much better than that. I already posted the year over year data in my last post. They have a lot of added jobs, are bringing more people into the workforce, and lowering unemployment. But that's bad right!???! spin spin spin spin
6. They aren't in a "situation". California is in a "situation" with yearly deficits in the 10's of billions and unemployment over the national average. Kansas is fine. The "situation" is all media driven because a conservative cut education spending.

 

[New Pal Boiler]

[QUOTE="TopSecretBoiler, post: 1025295, member: 5728"]1. I can't be the only one cracking up at this...
2. Oil will probably be back up to something normal by the end of 2016. They will be fine. And it IS working even with an oil crash. If you read TFA you would know this...I'm not repeating myself. It's in TFA.
3. Kansas is a top ten oil producing state and other than that it's heavily agriculture. So it may not be unique but it's not as diversified.
4. Then how do you explain the exemplary unemployment numbers? LOL you have nothing here.
5. You are ****ing cherry picking your stats. I'm not getting into the difference between employment numbers but unemployment is based on CPS not CES, so just stop. You know it, I know it, anyone with half a brain knows it. The jobs data is much better than that. I already posted the year over year data in my last post. They have a lot of added jobs, are bringing more people into the workforce, and lowering unemployment. But that's bad right!???! spin spin spin spin
6. They aren't in a "situation". California is in a "situation" with yearly deficits in the 10's of billions and unemployment over the national average. Kansas is fine. The "situation" is all media driven because a conservative cut education spending.[/QUOTE]
No you're not the only one. I wouldn't waste anymore time putting water into his leaky bucket...apparently reading is just not his thing.

 

[Bruce1]

Enjoy voting for Donald. Be proud.

Enjoy voting for HRC?

As Americans we have no hope with these candidates.

 

[IlluminatiEXPOSETHEMNOW1]

Obama DOUBLED the national debt of all previous presidents COMBINED. The Democratic party DOUBLED the national debt which now sits at 20 trillion. Hillary Clinton's husband practically handed the world all US technology and set the policy to fully deindustrialize the United States. He gave North Korea missile technology. She put the State Department completely on the internet so that US government officials could be held hostage by foreign governments through blackmail under her thumb, in addition to tipping them the information they needed to facilitate the arming of ISIS off the books so that the West could be terrorized around the world by savage people out of barbarian times that Obama cucks to as he licks the Saudi princes foot like a pathetic slob cucking to the princes feet as the Saudi prince slaps his stupid looking face red cheek styled. She sold out the United States while her rapist husband put a plutonium derived nuclear power plant (2 of them) in North Korea. Now North Korea has a satellite that sits right above the US each day potentially ready to detonate an electromagnetic radiation attack in the US at any moment. North Korea has the power to put America in the stone age because of this witch faced killer woman and her cuck rapist husband. Trump couldn't do worse if he tried. Because you can't try harder to destroy the country than an actual traitor. Hillary Clinton is a witch faced filthy traitor.

 

[qazplm]

1. I can't be the only one cracking up at this...
2. Oil will probably be back up to something normal by the end of 2016. They will be fine. And it IS working even with an oil crash. If you read TFA you would know this...I'm not repeating myself. It's in TFA.
3. Kansas is a top ten oil producing state and other than that it's heavily agriculture. So it may not be unique but it's not as diversified.
4. Then how do you explain the exemplary unemployment numbers? LOL you have nothing here.
5. You are ****ing cherry picking your stats. I'm not getting into the difference between employment numbers but unemployment is based on CPS not CES, so just stop. You know it, I know it, anyone with half a brain knows it. The jobs data is much better than that. I already posted the year over year data in my last post. They have a lot of added jobs, are bringing more people into the workforce, and lowering unemployment. But that's bad right!???! spin spin spin spin
6. They aren't in a "situation". California is in a "situation" with yearly deficits in the 10's of billions and unemployment over the national average. Kansas is fine. The "situation" is all media driven because a conservative cut education spending.

So you are "cracking up" that a smaller than average increase of less than 3% is not "runaway spending?" You think a 1-2% annual increase is runaway spending? Yeah, you are right, that is hilarious.

You can decide that oil is the problem, except that all of the other top ten oil states aren't suffering through remotely what Kansas is, neither are the big agricultural states, because NONE of them instituted the extreme reforms and tax cuts that Kansas did. That's why it's "an experiment." in the Gov's own words.

Exemplary unemployment numbers? The national UE is less than 5%. We are at more or less full employment nationwide. The very fact that you HAVE full employment in Kansas AND a serious tax revenue deficit should tell you something.

LOL I went straight to Kansas' official websites for my numbers. They are not growing jobs. They have not "added a lot of jobs."

California? lmao. http://finance.yahoo.com/news/calif...vbG8DYmYxBHBvcwMxBHZ0aWQDQjE5MTBfMQRzZWMDc2M-

Cali created more jobs than Texas and FL COMBINED. Their economy is growing faster than the US or any western nation actually. In spite of those high taxes and regulations and minimum wage folks like you keep arguing hurt businesses and jobs.

You have to enter a fact-reversed zone with some of you folks lol

 

[lbodel]

And you may actually get an answer!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-attack-was-racist-then-followed-up-23-times/

Definitely have some of Trump's best students on here.....know how to deflect.

 

[Purdue97]

Wait, you think there was no economic collapse because a few of our big banks were posting profits shortly after? So because big banks are making money, are economy is fine and dandy? This is amazing logic.

Do not argue like qaz, it fails. Never once did I say the economy was or is fine and dandy.

 

[New Pal Boiler]

So you are "cracking up" that a smaller than average increase of less than 3% is not "runaway spending?" You think a 1-2% annual increase is runaway spending? Yeah, you are right, that is hilarious.

You can decide that oil is the problem, except that all of the other top ten oil states aren't suffering through remotely what Kansas is, neither are the big agricultural states, because NONE of them instituted the extreme reforms and tax cuts that Kansas did. That's why it's "an experiment." in the Gov's own words.

Exemplary unemployment numbers? The national UE is less than 5%. We are at more or less full employment nationwide. The very fact that you HAVE full employment in Kansas AND a serious tax revenue deficit should tell you something.

LOL I went straight to Kansas' official websites for my numbers. They are not growing jobs. They have not "added a lot of jobs."

California? lmao. http://finance.yahoo.com/news/calif...vbG8DYmYxBHBvcwMxBHZ0aWQDQjE5MTBfMQRzZWMDc2M-

Cali created more jobs than Texas and FL COMBINED. Their economy is growing faster than the US or any western nation actually. In spite of those high taxes and regulations and minimum wage folks like you keep arguing hurt businesses and jobs.

You have to enter a fact-reversed zone with some of you folks lol

Wow. You STILL don't get it.

 

[TopSecretBoiler]

So you are "cracking up" that a smaller than average increase of less than 3% is not "runaway spending?" You think a 1-2% annual increase is runaway spending? Yeah, you are right, that is hilarious.

You can decide that oil is the problem, except that all of the other top ten oil states aren't suffering through remotely what Kansas is, neither are the big agricultural states, because NONE of them instituted the extreme reforms and tax cuts that Kansas did. That's why it's "an experiment." in the Gov's own words.

Exemplary unemployment numbers? The national UE is less than 5%. We are at more or less full employment nationwide. The very fact that you HAVE full employment in Kansas AND a serious tax revenue deficit should tell you something.

LOL I went straight to Kansas' official websites for my numbers. They are not growing jobs. They have not "added a lot of jobs."

California? lmao. http://finance.yahoo.com/news/calif...vbG8DYmYxBHBvcwMxBHZ0aWQDQjE5MTBfMQRzZWMDc2M-

Cali created more jobs than Texas and FL COMBINED. Their economy is growing faster than the US or any western nation actually. In spite of those high taxes and regulations and minimum wage folks like you keep arguing hurt businesses and jobs.

You have to enter a fact-reversed zone with some of you folks lol

Cali unemployment 6%
Kansas unemployment 3.8%
Cali state debt 6.49% of gdp
Kansas state debt 4.49% of gdp

33% of the nation’s welfare recipients are Californians – even though California has just 12% of the nation’s population. California taxes a 42 percent larger share of state income than does Texas, California’s restrictive energy policies discourage oil extraction, even though it has the largest proven shale oil reserves in the nation; while its industrial electrical rates are 88 percent higher than in Texas.. California's poverty rate is near or at the top. The myth of rich California. You have nothing. I'm done.

 

[qazplm]

Cali unemployment 6%
Kansas unemployment 3.8%
Cali state debt 6.49% of gdp
Kansas state debt 4.49% of gdp

33% of the nation’s welfare recipients are Californians – even though California has just 12% of the nation’s population. California taxes a 42 percent larger share of state income than does Texas, California’s restrictive energy policies discourage oil extraction, even though it has the largest proven shale oil reserves in the nation; while its industrial electrical rates are 88 percent higher than in Texas.. California's poverty rate is near or at the top. The myth of rich California. You have nothing. I'm done.

I see you know how to cherry pick too huh? State debt? Our national debt is around 80% of GDP, so having a state debt in the single digits of GDP ain't the bad thing you want it to be. The problem for Kansas isn't "debt." The problem for Kansas is that it's facing a revenue shortage and in order to balance it's budget is requiring more and more extraordinary maneuvers that they are running out of.

Meanwhile the Cali 2015 fiscal year saw a 5.4 billion budget surplus. It's businesses are booming, wages are rising. UE rate was 5.3% in April, not 6...which was within .3 at the time of the national rate. http://www.deptofnumbers.com/unemployment/california/

Cali's official poverty rate is 1 percentage point above the national rate. Sorry, 1.1 percentage points actually. It is not at the top, New Mexico is at the top. There is an alternative measurement that purports to put Cali at the top, above DC even, which should make anyone who knows the two areas pretty skeptical of such a measurement.

 

[qazplm]

Wow. You STILL don't get it.

You know the difference between you and TSBoiler...at least he tries to put out something. It's ridiculous and gibberish, but he tries. You cat call from the cheap seats like that cartoon with the little dog that bounced around Spike and kept parroting him. That's my new visualization for you.

 

[New Pal Boiler]

You know the difference between you and TSBoiler...at least he tries to put out something. It's ridiculous and gibberish, but he tries. You cat call from the cheap seats like that cartoon with the little dog that bounced around Spike and kept parroting him. That's my new visualization for you.

I'm not going to waste my time going back and forth with someone who obviously lacks either the intent, or capacity, to read and comprehend an opposing argument.

Or someone who is such a liberal drone that they believe we've had a strong economic recovery under Obama.

 

[gr8indoorsman]

California? lmao. http://finance.yahoo.com/news/calif...vbG8DYmYxBHBvcwMxBHZ0aWQDQjE5MTBfMQRzZWMDc2M-

Cali created more jobs than Texas and FL COMBINED. Their economy is growing faster than the US or any western nation actually. In spite of those high taxes and regulations and minimum wage folks like you keep arguing hurt businesses and jobs.

CA is ranked 34th in the country in unemployment rate at 5.4% (Avg is now below 5%, FL is 4.8%, TX 4.2%). Like all other things in this volatile state, our gross job recovery rate has been faster than the rest of the country, but a big part of that is that our unemployment also went much higher (and remains much higher in some counties) during the 2008-9 recession than the rest of the country, peaking at 12.4% in 2010 when the rest of the country was floating around 9.5%. Coupled with the fact that our population is the largest in the country, it really makes your gross job creation statistic misleading and mostly meaningless. Rates are far more important, and CA's rate is slightly faster than the national average, just like the median home price recovered faster here than other places after falling faster and farther here than most other places.

This remains the largest agricultural state in the country, and yet most of the laws and regulations hurt farmers disproportionately, particularly environmental restrictions. It'd be great to see what would really happen to the state economy with all of the people and resources out here if we could get the government out of the way. The taxes in this state are already overly burdensome and remain the primary reason people leave the state.

And no one in "Cali" calls it "Cali".

 

[Bruce1]

CA is ranked 34th in the country in unemployment rate at 5.4% (Avg is now below 5%, FL is 4.8%, TX 4.2%). Like all other things in this volatile state, our gross job recovery rate has been faster than the rest of the country, but a big part of that is that our unemployment also went much higher (and remains much higher in some counties) during the 2008-9 recession than the rest of the country, peaking at 12.4% in 2010 when the rest of the country was floating around 9.5%. Coupled with the fact that our population is the largest in the country, it really makes your gross job creation statistic misleading and mostly meaningless. Rates are far more important, and CA's rate is slightly faster than the national average, just like the median home price recovered faster here than other places after falling faster and farther here than most other places.

This remains the largest agricultural state in the country, and yet most of the laws and regulations hurt farmers disproportionately, particularly environmental restrictions. It'd be great to see what would really happen to the state economy with all of the people and resources out here if we could get the government out of the way. The taxes in this state are already overly burdensome and remain the primary reason people leave the state.

And no one in "Cali" calls it "Cali".

It seems to me that another I'm portent factor in all of this discussion is and has been for decades the fact that the climate in Ca. allows for year round farming, attracts millions of people no companies, etc. you also need to look at the cost of living there compared to other states as it is horrendous. Finally with all of the numbers being thrown around there has been no talk of the budget deficit in California. While improving some it is still a boat anchor on the economy.

An underlying fact to discuss is who do we want to spend our money? Fed Gov? State Gov? Local Gov? Our country is approaching $20 trillion in debt with no end in sight yet,some on here think it is fine for the Gov to keep taking more.

 

[gr8indoorsman]

the cost of living there compared to other states as it is horrendous. Finally with all of the numbers being thrown around there has been no talk of the budget deficit in California. While improving some it is still a boat anchor on the economy.

Cost of living on the coast is silly. Inland? It's not bad (well, outside of the state taxes).

Why do you think the deficit is a boat anchor? Or did you mean debt? In any event, how do you think either the budget deficit or overall debt is a "boat anchor"? You do recognize that a state government is not the same as your household, right?

 

[TopSecretBoiler]

Cost of living on the coast is silly. Inland? It's not bad (well, outside of the state taxes).

Why do you think the deficit is a boat anchor? Or did you mean debt? In any event, how do you think either the budget deficit or overall debt is a "boat anchor"? You do recognize that a state government is not the same as your household, right?

I believe he is referencing the total debt, in particular the 400B in unfunded liabilities, aka the "wall of debt".

 

[gr8indoorsman]

I believe he is referencing the total debt, in particular the 400B in unfunded liabilities, aka the "wall of debt".

That's what I think too, but you lose credibility when you can't discern the difference between "budget deficit" and "debt". In any event, as I said, government does not equal personal finance. You can't easily sell personal debt to the public (unless you use lending tree, that is!).

 

[New Pal Boiler]

That's what I think too, but you lose credibility when you can't discern the difference between "budget deficit" and "debt". In any event, as I said, government does not equal personal finance. You can't easily sell personal debt to the public (unless you use lending tree, that is!).

When interest payments on the debt start to exceed 10% of your budget, I would say that's a problem. Not that CA is in that situation necessarily.

 

[kescwi]

When interest payments on the debt start to exceed 10% of your budget, I would say that's a problem. Not that CA is in that situation necessarily.

However you see your personal dollars, electronically and/or physically, each number behind that $ is debt. That is all the dollar is, debt. When a debt is paid off or "written off" $'s are destroyed, so while your personal debt, just like government debt, created $'s when borrowed, you age, pay them off and leave the system, if not for SS/Medicare, governments, however, should always be in deficit to help insure there are enough $'s in the system to pay the interest on the $'s all borrowing creates. You see, while you create dollars when you borrow, you don't create the dollars needed to pay the interest.

A simple explanation no doubt, but we live in a fiat currency world and it is nothing more than a Ponzi, you must have more borrowing going on, more creation than destruction, for the economy to grow. That's why housing became a bubble after dotcom/IPO/stocks and QE/education after housing and I would bet we head back to even larger government deficits financing a boom in defense spending and maybe a little infrastructure and social welfare just to keep the can moving down the street. Rinse repeat... I guess complaints re government debt are simply relative to which party is in power.

 

[TopSecretBoiler]

However you see your personal dollars, electronically and/or physically, each number behind that $ is debt. That is all the dollar is, debt. When a debt is paid off or "written off" $'s are destroyed, so while your personal debt, just like government debt, created $'s when borrowed, you age, pay them off and leave the system, if not for SS/Medicare, governments, however, should always be in deficit to help insure there are enough $'s in the system to pay the interest on the $'s all borrowing creates. You see, while you create dollars when you borrow, you don't create the dollars needed to pay the interest.

A simple explanation no doubt, but we live in a fiat currency world and it is nothing more than a Ponzi, you must have more borrowing going on, more creation than destruction, for the economy to grow. That's why housing became a bubble after dotcom/IPO/stocks and QE/education after housing and I would bet we head back to even larger government deficits financing a boom in defense spending and maybe a little infrastructure and social welfare just to keep the can moving down the street. Rinse repeat... I guess complaints re government debt are simply relative to which party is in power.

no...just no. debt has nothing to do with fiat currency except that currency is a common and convenient way of measuring debt. Participating in the banking system or any loan for that matter does no create or destroy money. That's just completely wrong. Fiat currency in and of itself is not a Ponzi scheme. You could make an argument that certain government programs are Ponzi schemes (eg Social Security). If the money supply is not managed properly it can change currency value with respect to goods (inflation/deflation), but that is not a problem that is specific to fiat currency. When the federal government prints money, that is not added to the debt. If they issue bonds, then it is. However I'll let you figure out why a country may wish to issue bonds rather than just print the money and what the good/bad consequences of that are. That can be your homework. But the lending/borrowing system is a zero sum game. There is no creation or deletion, only transfer, which is why you should avoid the debt side of the system as much as possible. It is rigged to transfer your wealth to the bank, and whether "you" is a person, company, state, country is immaterial, the game is the same. Now you have a point about debt fueled growth, but it's so intertwined with the rest of that rant it's hard to pull out. The main problem is how "growth" is defined and calculated in the modern economy and the perception that only a "growing" economy is successful. Purely financial transactions are not included in the GDP! Why is this a problem? If purely financial transactions were included in the GDP, the effect of bond issuing would have a negative impact on it because they are financial liabilities. Since the money is eventually entered into the financial system primarily as loans to corporations/consumers when the corporations/consumers actually spend it, it LOOKS like growth (this is the answer to your homework ) because the countering T table entry is never made in the GDP calculation. That's why I laugh and laugh about this supposed "economic recovery" that has been fueled by relentless QE (aka bond issuing). This has other side effects, like not including the poor in the economic recovery. If you're not financially stable enough to participate in the banking or investment industries you will be left behind by these strategies. We've seen this in action as the gap between the rich and poor has significantly increased over the last few years.

 

[gr8indoorsman]

When interest payments on the debt start to exceed 10% of your budget, I would say that's a problem. Not that CA is in that situation necessarily.

For a state, I'd agree with that moreso than for a government entity that can print the world's currency. That said, recall that there are several differences between your house and a government: you can't increase revenue by simply stating you wish to do so, whereas a government can; you can't sell large chunks of debt to the public at an interest rate that you more or less get to set yourself; in the case of the federal government, you don't get to print money out of thin air...

While I generally agree that deficit spending and running up billions/trillions in debt is unnerving and potentially problematic, I think that the folks running around posting FB memes about the government's debt and how it doesn't make any sense to run the government differently than you run your household would be better served posting something to the effect of "I DON'T UNDERSTAND ANYTHING ABOUT GOVERNMENT ECONOMICS" and moving on with their day...

 

[kescwi]

no...just no. debt has nothing to do with fiat currency except that currency is a common and convenient way of measuring debt. Participating in the banking system or any loan for that matter does no create or destroy money. That's just completely wrong. Fiat currency in and of itself is not a Ponzi scheme. You could make an argument that certain government programs are Ponzi schemes (eg Social Security). If the money supply is not managed properly it can change currency value with respect to goods (inflation/deflation), but that is not a problem that is specific to fiat currency. When the federal government prints money, that is not added to the debt. If they issue bonds, then it is. However I'll let you figure out why a country may wish to issue bonds rather than just print the money and what the good/bad consequences of that are. That can be your homework. But the lending/borrowing system is a zero sum game. There is no creation or deletion, only transfer, which is why you should avoid the debt side of the system as much as possible. It is rigged to transfer your wealth to the bank, and whether "you" is a person, company, state, country is immaterial, the game is the same. Now you have a point about debt fueled growth, but it's so intertwined with the rest of that rant it's hard to pull out. The main problem is how "growth" is defined and calculated in the modern economy and the perception that only a "growing" economy is successful. Purely financial transactions are not included in the GDP! Why is this a problem? If purely financial transactions were included in the GDP, the effect of bond issuing would have a negative impact on it because they are financial liabilities. Since the money is eventually entered into the financial system primarily as loans to corporations/consumers when the corporations/consumers actually spend it, it LOOKS like growth (this is the answer to your homework ) because the countering T table entry is never made in the GDP calculation. That's why I laugh and laugh about this supposed "economic recovery" that has been fueled by relentless QE (aka bond issuing). This has other side effects, like not including the poor in the economic recovery. If you're not financially stable enough to participate in the banking or investment industries you will be left behind by these strategies. We've seen this is action as the gap between the rich and poor has significantly increased over the last few years.

What, I could only read the first few lines and figured everything else would be equally wrong.

The Treasury issues bonds, debt, it does not print money. The Fed buys those bonds, which creates money, and they act as the reserve, banks then use fractional reserve lending to create more money. So bonds are bought, money is created to buy those bonds, they act a reserve and when you take out a loan if the reserve requirement is 10%, the initial money created out of thin air, then 90% of the principle is more money created out of thin air. When you have mass foreclosures like we just went through you get a liquidity crisis because "money" is being destroyed, it just happens faster that way than as loans are paid off.

See that loan is just a ledger entry, with a fiat there absolutely nothing of value backing it, so yes it is a Ponzi.

 

[TopSecretBoiler]

What, I could only read the first few lines and figured everything else would be equally wrong.

The Treasury issues bonds, debt, it does not print money. The Fed buys those bonds, which creates money, and they act as the reserve, banks then use fractional reserve lending to create more money. So bonds are bought, money is created to buy those bonds, they act a reserve and when you take out a loan if the reserve requirement is 10%, the initial money created out of thin air, then 90% of the principle is more money created out of thin air. When you have mass foreclosures like we just went through you get a liquidity crisis because "money" is being destroyed, it just happens faster that way than as loans are paid off.

See that loan is just a ledger entry, with a fiat there absolutely nothing of value backing it, so yes it is a Ponzi.

no a Ponzi scheme is investment fraud that pays returns to its original investors based on new investors instead of legitimate market gains, often in many layers. quite similar to a pyramid scheme. It has nothing to do with fiat currency at all and can be accomplished with any currency. Fiat currency issues are almost always related to speculative markets.

The federal government has 2 primary ways to increase the money supply. Print it or issue bonds. There are other ways but I would consider them more in the murky waters of currency manipulation. I just went over why a country would want to issue bonds. It is political, it makes the GDP look good. However, increasing the money supply is NOT a Ponzi scheme, it is inflationary.

 

[kescwi]

no a Ponzi scheme is investment fraud that pays returns to its original investors based on new investors instead of legitimate market gains, often in many layers. quite similar to a pyramid scheme. It has nothing to do with fiat currency at all and can be accomplished with any currency. Fiat currency issues are almost always related to speculative markets.

The federal government has 2 primary ways to increase the money supply. Print it or issue bonds. There are other ways but I would consider them more in the murky waters of currency manipulation. I just went over why a country would want to issue bonds. It is political, it makes the GDP look good. However, increasing the money supply is NOT a Ponzi scheme, it is inflationary.

The federal government does NOT print money, repeated after me, THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT DOES NOT PRINT MONEY!!!

A Ponzi requires more and more money coming in in the form of new "investors" to replace the money paid out, with interest, to old "investors." Or monetary system needs more money created to pay off old money loaned, plus interest. And a fiat currency is kind of a fraud, you take out a loan on a house, you put a down payment on it and pay down the loan, create equity from what could be considered your personal wealth. Then one day get sick can't make your mortgage payment and the bank forecloses and takes possession, including your equity, but they never put up anything of any value, they simply created a ledger entry and printed the money out of thin air.

 

[New Pal Boiler]

However you see your personal dollars, electronically and/or physically, each number behind that $ is debt. That is all the dollar is, debt. When a debt is paid off or "written off" $'s are destroyed, so while your personal debt, just like government debt, created $'s when borrowed, you age, pay them off and leave the system, if not for SS/Medicare, governments, however, should always be in deficit to help insure there are enough $'s in the system to pay the interest on the $'s all borrowing creates. You see, while you create dollars when you borrow, you don't create the dollars needed to pay the interest.

A simple explanation no doubt, but we live in a fiat currency world and it is nothing more than a Ponzi, you must have more borrowing going on, more creation than destruction, for the economy to grow. That's why housing became a bubble after dotcom/IPO/stocks and QE/education after housing and I would bet we head back to even larger government deficits financing a boom in defense spending and maybe a little infrastructure and social welfare just to keep the can moving down the street. Rinse repeat... I guess complaints re government debt are simply relative to which party is in power.

Wait. Back in 2008, Obama said that our $9 trillion national debt was "generational theft". I guess he must've been lying, or doesn't know what the hell he is talking about. Or both.

 

[kescwi]

Wait. Back in 2008, Obama said that our $9 trillion national debt was "generational theft". I guess he must've been lying, or doesn't know what the hell he is talking about. Or both.

And Cheney said "deficits don't matter." Does he know what he's talking about? Like most things truth probably lay somewhere near the middle of those two extremes.

 

[TopSecretBoiler]

The federal government does NOT print money, repeated after me, THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT DOES NOT PRINT MONEY!!!

A Ponzi requires more and more money coming in in the form of new "investors" to replace the money paid out, with interest, to old "investors." Or monetary system needs more money created to pay off old money loaned, plus interest. And a fiat currency is kind of a fraud, you take out a loan on a house, you put a down payment on it and pay down the loan, create equity from what could be considered your personal wealth. Then one day get sick can't make your mortgage payment and the bank forecloses and takes possession, including your equity, but they never put up anything of any value, they simply created a ledger entry and printed the money out of thin air.

Let me ask you something and I want you to think about it. Where does a private bank, whose yearly profit is around 20-30B, get the money buy 40-50B worth of shit securities every year? EDIT my bad it's actually monthly. They buy 40B monthly.
“Where does the Fed get the money to buy [assets],” Congressman Keith Rothfus asked the Chairman. “Do you create the reserves,” he queried in a follow up, receiving a simple “yes” from Bernanke. And finally, the money shot: are you printing money? “Not literally,” the Fed Chairman surprisingly responded.

 

[kescwi]

Let me ask you something and I want you to think about it. Where does a private bank, whose yearly profit is around 20-30B, get the money buy 40-50B worth of shit securities every year?
“Where does the Fed get the money to buy [assets],” Congressman Keith Rothfus asked the Chairman. “Do you create the reserves,” he queried in a follow up, receiving a simple “yes” from Bernanke. And finally, the money shot: are you printing money? “Not literally,” the Fed Chairman surprisingly responded.

Think about what? Was Bernanke sitting at the copy machine in his office printing up $40/50 billion dollar bills and handing them to representatives from the banks they bought the worthless assets from?

He admits he creates the reserves, created the money, but are we now discussing who put ink to paper? Because that really doesn't matter.

 

[TopSecretBoiler]

well it is important. The institution that bought them also sets the monetary policy for the country. It's not like Joe's Credit Union bought them. The point is, the money isn't destroyed.

 

[lbodel]

Do not argue like qaz, it fails. Never once did I say the economy was or is fine and dandy.

Well everything you've said downplays what happened in 2008....