the GOP budget

[7437]

So Walker wasn't reelected?

He was, because the voters there apparently hate success.

 

[IGIT]

Yeah, and libs would NEVER do such things. :redface:

How many times have we heard "but, but, Bush did it too" about the POTUS that ran as the "anti-Bush"? Hear that stuff all the time.

hiya Gigantalor,

i'm not an expert on budget matters, but Mr. Obama did say that he'd lower the deficit, which has happened

 

[Jack V Savage]

also Jack if you remember back to the recall elections most of Walkers donations were funded from out of state donors. Plus the superpacs ( which I believe are fundamentally wrong for both parties in a democracy) were funded fro out of state money.

The Walker talking point was as follows "if the money is from out of state it wont effect Wisconsin policy, so there is no stake in the game." Well when you look deeper and you see how many Koch brothers businesses are set up in Wisconsin than you can see who the "out of state" money truly benefits.

also Jack youre a smart guy, you know campaign financing needs reforms and basically buys individuals elections by spreading misinformation. The tea party is and was the perfect example of just that.

I'm certainly not a fan of Walker or his policies, and I expect bad results from them in the future. As far as I'm aware, though, the state of Wisconsin isn't that bad.

 

[Ayin]

hiya Gigantalor,

i'm not an expert on budget matters, but Mr. Obama did say that he'd lower the deficit, which has happened

 

[IGIT]

I'm certainly not a fan of Walker or his policies, and I expect bad results from them in the future. As far as I'm aware, though, the state of Wisconsin isn't that bad.

hi Jack,

didn't Mr. Walker govern a state that used to run a budget surplus? the state is now on course to have a 2.2 billion dollar budget deficit, and as you noted, job growth has been sort of sluggish.

Wisconsin's k-12 education looks pretty terrific, though i wonder how that'll be affected in the long run when (and if) cuts are made to education.

- IGIT

 

[IGIT]

I'm no expert, but if an answere to this comes, I have a feeling it's going to come from another poster than the one you've quoted.

hello Ayin,

i was hoping that there would be a right leaning poster that could flesh out some of the hazier aspects of the GOP budget plan. like i said, i've found very little commentary on the matter from right leaning sites that i've read.

this piece in http://hotair.com/archives/2015/03/...boost-defense-cut-5-5-trillion-over-10-years/ claims that the GOP will both cut spending on food stamps and hand the entire matter in the form of a block grants back to the states. the individual states will then have to make up the difference themselves - the thing is, most of the states with the most people on food stamps are mostly Red states in the south.

those states (Mississippi, Louisiana, Kentucky, Tennessee, Alabama) are already feeding heavily at the Federal trough

 

[Jack V Savage]

hi Jack,

didn't Mr. Walker govern a state that used to run a budget surplus? the state is now on course to have a 2.2 billion dollar budget deficit, and as you noted, job growth has been sort of sluggish.

Wisconsin's k-12 education looks pretty terrific, though i wonder how that'll be affected in the long run when (and if) cuts are made to education.

- IGIT

I think that the trajectory of the state isn't great, but it started out as an above-average one so it's still looking OK. Again, if one wants to point out the effects of going all-in on the trickle-down idiocy, Kansas is a better example.

 

[Ayin]

how on earth will all of this work?

- IGIT

If there's something I've really learned on Sherdog from the War Room in this last year or two, it's that questions like this are best answered by vague attacks against Obama or finding some specific group to pin blame on (ie 'those Red states have huge problems with illegal immigration because of Obama's open borders policy, which is overtaxing their social systems, if a Republican was in office and stopped letting in Illegals we wouldn't have to give out as much money in handouts').

 

[ralphc1]

You give tax credits to companies who will supposedly hire more people who will pay more taxes. The problem is that the jobs created are low wage. The employees don't make much money so they get most or all of it back. Some even get tax credits. In other words, the tax credits given provide little or no return.

 

[IGIT]

I think that the trajectory of the state isn't great, but it started out as an above-average one so it's still looking OK. Again, if one wants to point out the effects of going all-in on the trickle-down idiocy, Kansas is a better example.

hello Jack,

Kansas is an odd state.

the wealthiest citizens in kansas pay 3.6% of their income in state & local taxes. the middle class in kansas pay 9.5%. that seems sort of weird, but Mr. Brownback was voted back into office, so thats how the folks in kansas like it.

seems unfair to me - though perhaps this is a long term plan by Mr. Brownback to lure wealthy folks to the state?

i dunno.

EDIT - Kansas is bizarre. last spring, Mr. Brownback signed a school finance bill that allows school districts to hire unlicensed teachers for science and math classes.

GOP supporters of the measure said that this will improve teacher quality.

http://www.kansas.com/news/politics-government/article1140755.html

- IGIT

 

[KONG-D'SNT-TAP]

Wisconsin is below the national average on WAGE and JOB growth.

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages report, which compared March 2013 to March 2014.

Remember when Walker ran he PROMISED 250,000 new jobs.. All the estimates say he was about 41% shy of his bloated figure.


[YT]Ho109sNsoCg[/YT]


Now mind you it wouldn't be the biggest deal if he didn't come up with the full 250,000 jobs but the major problem is this was the CRUX of his entire political platform.

As the video shows he loves to say, "GET GOVERNMENT OUT OF THE WAY." Well he did get government out of the way and gave huge tax cuts to the richest of the state. All the while cutting social programs for schools, old people, children.


So even with his major tax cuts he didn't even come close to meeting his BS numbers. Which he promised would happen because of how well trickle down works..


But Jack Savage is correct when he says Kansas is an even better example of failed supply side economics.

 

[Ayin]

hello Jack,

Kansas is an odd state.

the wealthiest citizens in kansas pay 3.6% of their income in state & local taxes. the middle class in kansas pay 9.5%. that seems sort of unfair, but Mr. Brownback was voted back into office, so thats how the folks in kansas like it.

seems unfair to me - though perhaps this is a long term plan by Mr. Brownback to lure wealthy folks to the state?

i dunno.

- IGIT

Here in Toronto, the city where I live, the areas which were most likely to support our then-Mayor were peopled by those who saw the least benefit from his policies. His campaign promises, which were centered around 'cutting the fat' out of the city were based on cuts to services that these people (the poorest and least educated and most likely to be unemployed) had the greatest reason to make use of, and his promises of tax cuts and savings had little to no chance of positively effecting them (as they were the least likely to owe tax money due to their low income levels and reimbursements). And yet still they turned out in droves to support, not policies that benefited them, but the idea that this person was on their side. They were more than happy to vote for him because they thought that they were voting for someone whose ideology and public character seemed to mirror theirs.

Basically, they were voting directly against their own interests. And they'd likely do it again. And considering our last mayor drew HEAVILY from US style politics in his choice of key-words and delivery, I have to imagine the same thing isn't rare in the US.

 

[Jack V Savage]

hello Jack,

Kansas is an odd state.

the wealthiest citizens in kansas pay 3.6% of their income in state & local taxes. the middle class in kansas pay 9.5%. that seems sort of weird, but Mr. Brownback was voted back into office, so thats how the folks in kansas like it.

All states have regressive taxation. That's one reason the right and dupes of right-wing propagandists like IDL like "decentralization" (though race is a bigger factor there). The degree to which Kansas' taxation is regressive is unusual, though.

EDIT - Kansas is bizarre. last spring, Mr. Brownback signed a school finance bill that allows school districts to hire unlicensed teachers for science and math classes.

GOP supporters of the measure said that this will improve teacher quality.

http://www.kansas.com/news/politics-government/article1140755.html

- IGIT

I would say flat stupid. I wonder if Brownback is a true believer or just doesn't care about the damage that shit does.

 

[D3thr0n3d K1ng]

Stick with the GOP if you want to see Murka descend into a Latin-American style Banana Republic.

 

[KONG-D'SNT-TAP]

Stick with the GOP if you want to see Murka descend into a Latin-American style Banana Republic.

we need to start criminally charging these bank heads and hedge fund managers and send them to jail..

 

[IGIT]

All states have regressive taxation. That's one reason the right and dupes of right-wing propagandists like IDL like "decentralization" (though race is a bigger factor there). The degree to which Kansas' taxation is regressive is unusual, though.

I would say flat stupid. I wonder if Brownback is a true believer or just doesn't care about the damage that shit does.

hi Jack,

i think the problem for Democrats, at least in Kansas, is that the economic argument just doesn't work; it has no appeal and doesn't resonate.

i was paging through Mr. Brownback's press clippings, and it occurred to me that somehow (i don't know Kansas, i've never been there) he manages to claim the moral high ground.

in terms of taxes, there's just a sentiment that taking money from others is just morally "wrong". even in terms of Federal taxes, Kansas isn't like its southern red state brethren. Kansas ranks 6th in taking the least money from the Federal trough.

Governor Brownback appeals to this mind set, so slashing taxes of the rich seems

 

[IGIT]

Here in Toronto, the city where I live, the areas which were most likely to support our then-Mayor were peopled by those who saw the least benefit from his policies. His campaign promises, which were centered around 'cutting the fat' out of the city were based on cuts to services that these people (the poorest and least educated and most likely to be unemployed) had the greatest reason to make use of, and his promises of tax cuts and savings had little to no chance of positively effecting them (as they were the least likely to owe tax money due to their low income levels and reimbursements). And yet still they turned out in droves to support, not policies that benefited them, but the idea that this person was on their side. They were more than happy to vote for him because they thought that they were voting for someone whose ideology and public character seemed to mirror theirs.

Basically, they were voting directly against their own interests. And they'd likely do it again. And considering our last mayor drew HEAVILY from US style politics in his choice of key-words and delivery, I have to imagine the same thing isn't rare in the US.

heya Ayin,

i don't know how the people of Toronto think

 

[KONG-D'SNT-TAP]

IGIT brings up a good point.

Stating facts and showing the data just doesn't change people's minds. Especially if they're voting for the reasons IGIT is theorizing.

 

[Ayin]

Exactly. People will vote against their own interests, and will refuse to either be educated about it ahead of time or accept the reality of it afterwards, as long as it's characterized as being right and good, us vs them, and local good-guy standing up to big bad government.

 

[ShoelessRye]

It's all about the eventual negotiation with the President - they come from a ridiculously far right position so when Obama says no dice, they'll remove some things and say "Okay we gave a bit not you give a bit - give up ACA funding".

What this budget does do is screw over the GOP Senators up in 2016 because either they pull the budget to the center and make it reasonable or they pass it as is and then have to defend it in 2016 campaigns - Portman, Toomey, Kirk, Johnson, Ayotte are all going to have top level challengers. Not to mention Rubio and Paul would have to defend voting for such a ridiculous budget should they make the Presidential GE.