- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
2
Posted on 12/20/17 at 1:15 pm to SleauxPlay
quote:
Everybody, ShortyRob wants you to know that he is super smart.
Honestly, I think of myself as of decent intellect and willing to apply it. Nothing amazing. In fact, I know people who are definitively smarter than me who, for whatever reason, find no reason whatsoever to learn anything in any area beyond what they're already good at. Sad
I think the vast majority of people I know.......and the vast majority of you on this board..........are completely capable of analyzing data yourselves and developing conclusions.
Just exceedingly few people actually DO this.
So, I'm not smarter. I'm more willing to become engaged beyond finding someone who I already agree with and regurgitating shite I don't even understand.
You should try this. It's a refreshing thing to be able to hold an entire conversation without ever having to say, "but, 70% of so and so say......."
This post was edited on 12/20/17 at 1:21 pm
Posted on 12/20/17 at 1:16 pm to SleauxPlay
Why did we're have high growth under Reagan and JFK/LBJ, both of whom practiced trickle down?
This post was edited on 12/20/17 at 1:24 pm
Posted on 12/20/17 at 1:26 pm to BBONDS25
quote:
No it isn't. You claimed Kansas cut spending "a lot". The data proved that false. You try to use inflation as your out. Great. Show your work. What was inflation during those years...apply it to the spending and now quantify what "cut spending by a lot" means
Like already said, I’m not gonna sit here and have a semantics discussion about what constitutes “a lot.” Even though that is your game of choice any time you engage people.
If you think the cuts Brownback made were not substantial, that’s fine, but that isn’t actually an argument for anything. Let alone the inference 90 seemed to make earlier that the problem with growth and revenue forecasts was a lack of sufficient spending cuts. Which again, is not the premise on which the OP’s question and Brownback and his trickle down economists made. But if he wants to make that argument, he needs to substantiate it more.
Posted on 12/20/17 at 1:26 pm to SleauxPlay
quote:
Nah, it wasn’t.
It was a thread about why a specific approach to tax policy, in a specific state, worked or did not work
To the OP yes your premise is faulty. You are asking about Kansas austerity. When the hell did Kansas practice austerity in their budget? "Austerity" assumes spending cuts..."reducing public expenditure". There was no Kansas austerity looking at the numbers provided in this thread.
Posted on 12/20/17 at 1:29 pm to ShortyRob
quote:
Honestly, I think of myself as of decent intellect and willing to apply it. Nothing amazing. In fact, I know people who are definitively smarter than me who, for whatever reason, find no reason whatsoever to learn anything in any area beyond what they're already good at. Sad
I think the vast majority of people I know.......and the vast majority of you on this board..........are completely capable of analyzing data yourselves and developing conclusions.
Just exceedingly few people actually DO this.
So, I'm not smarter. I'm more willing to become engaged beyond finding someone who I already agree with and regurgitating shite I don't even understand.
You should try this. It's a refreshing thing to be able to hold an entire conversation without ever having to say, "but, 70% of so and so say......."
Not sure why you spent the time typing all of that out, but cool.
You dive-bombed into a thread without providing a single data point to bolster your position. If you think other states have cut taxes with great results, spell it out. Make the argument. Tell me why you think the policies didn't work in Kansas.
In the future, ask fewer rhetorical questions, as it's a really tired strategy.
The great irony is that you claim other people don't try to "learn anything in any area beyond what they're already good at," yet you've completely shat upon a thread seeking to do just that.
Bravo?
Posted on 12/20/17 at 1:31 pm to bonhoeffer45
Reductions in the planned rate of interest are not "cuts". "Cuts" are when spending actually goes down.
Kansas did not "cut" anything. In fact, the few cuts they did make were struck down by their state supreme court as unconstitutional.
Kansas cut taxes right before oil prices and agricultural commodities prices collapsed. When the state's economy is based on exporting resources that suddenly become worth less than 1/3 of what they were before, it doesn't matter how much one cuts taxes by. The economy, and tax receipts, are going to suffer.
Kansas is not the rule and more than Louisiana is.
Economics is not some simple directly proportional relationship between government spending, tax rates, GDP growth, and tax receipts. There are so many external prices that no single policy will truly produce the desired outcome every time. They are just a series of levers that can push in one direction or another. They are just some of the few levers that governmental bodies actually have control over.
However, sound taxation, regulatory, and fiscal policy can get the most production and revenues possible out of a bad economic situation, and help to ensure that those bad economic times are as brief and mild as possible.
Kansas did not "cut" anything. In fact, the few cuts they did make were struck down by their state supreme court as unconstitutional.
Kansas cut taxes right before oil prices and agricultural commodities prices collapsed. When the state's economy is based on exporting resources that suddenly become worth less than 1/3 of what they were before, it doesn't matter how much one cuts taxes by. The economy, and tax receipts, are going to suffer.
Kansas is not the rule and more than Louisiana is.
Economics is not some simple directly proportional relationship between government spending, tax rates, GDP growth, and tax receipts. There are so many external prices that no single policy will truly produce the desired outcome every time. They are just a series of levers that can push in one direction or another. They are just some of the few levers that governmental bodies actually have control over.
However, sound taxation, regulatory, and fiscal policy can get the most production and revenues possible out of a bad economic situation, and help to ensure that those bad economic times are as brief and mild as possible.
This post was edited on 12/20/17 at 1:37 pm
Posted on 12/20/17 at 1:31 pm to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
Why did we're have high growth under Reagan and JFK/LBJ, both of whom practiced trickle down?
Why didn't Kansas have high growth under Brownback, who practiced trickle down? You know, since that was the point of the thread and all.
Posted on 12/20/17 at 1:35 pm to ShortyRob
quote:
think the vast majority of people I know.......and the vast majority of you on this board..........are completely capable of analyzing data yourselves and developing conclusions.
I think the OP is just seeking validation of his beliefs.
Tax cuts and "trickle down" can work if they're done right and other factors are controlled
Posted on 12/20/17 at 1:35 pm to ShortyRob
quote:
The liberals who saw the tax cuts for the horrible policy they were still kept the money.
If only they'd used their extra $$ to help the people they felt would be harmed.
Alas. That didn't happen.
That sounds like palava.
You'll have a hard time substantiating any of that. You could start by explaining how you know it was liberals who kept the money from the cuts. And if you get past that, how you know it was liberals who didn't spend the tax cut money to help people.
Posted on 12/20/17 at 1:36 pm to SleauxPlay
Because the value of their primary exports (oil, gas, corn, and wheat) all decreased in value by 2/3 due to external factors. Since their tax receipts are heavily dependent on the prices of these commodities, their receipts plummeted. They likely would have plummeted FAR WORSE without the tax cuts. The same is true for unemployment.
Posted on 12/20/17 at 1:38 pm to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
I think the OP is just seeking validation of his beliefs.
Tax cuts and "trickle down" can work if they're done right and other factors are controlled
You have no idea what my beliefs are, but feel free to give it a shot. It's not as though spelling it out will make any difference, but I'm a fiscal conservative/social liberal who basically hasn't seen a candidate worth voting for (on either side) in about 2 decades.
I'm trapped in the political purgatory of having to stomach voting for a fiscal conservative with hillbilly-tier social beliefs, or a laissez-faire social liberal who I wouldn't trust to run a gas station.
In conclusion, frick American politics.
Posted on 12/20/17 at 1:40 pm to kingbob
quote:
Because the value of their primary exports (oil, gas, corn, and wheat) all decreased in value by 2/3 due to external factors. Since their tax receipts are heavily dependent on the prices of these commodities, their receipts plummeted. They likely would have plummeted FAR WORSE without the tax cuts. The same is true for unemployment.
Thank you for providing a thoughtful response. Possibly the first I've seen in this thread.
Posted on 12/20/17 at 1:46 pm to ShortyRob
quote:
EVERY fricking day, liberals claim to care about helping people more than the rest of us.
Then, you give them a chunk of change in their pockets and, do we see them employ that in accordance with their words?
Well, turns out, the answer is nope.
Do you just pull this stuff out of the air?
This kind of unfounded generalization makes you look half-baked.
This post was edited on 12/20/17 at 1:47 pm
Posted on 12/20/17 at 1:49 pm to SleauxPlay
quote:
Why didn't Kansas have high growth under Brownback, who practiced trickle down? You know, since that was the point of the thread and all.
Probably because Kansas eliminated taxes on pass through entities and tried to eliminate personal income tax. It was a shock to the economy.
Personal income increased greatly however, faster than most of the country.
quote:
In the end, the Kansas tax cuts may account for a net revenue deviation of about $78 million – or 1.5% of Kansas’s total revenue collections, projected to be $5,986,481,000 this past year. Anything below a deviation of 2% is something most states that have not enacted major tax reform experience on an annual basis. As to worries of a future shortfall and lost revenues, most responsible legislators in Kansas will tell you that there needs to be some spending restraint in the state and it is their intention to enact said restraint, avoiding any further revenue woes.
LINK
LINK
Kansas did experience business growth.
This post was edited on 12/20/17 at 1:54 pm
Posted on 12/20/17 at 1:49 pm to SleauxPlay
quote:
Thank you for providing a thoughtful response. Possibly the first I've seen in this thread.
You're welcome. Louisiana had a similar problem under Jindal with oil prices going from nearly $120/barrel to around $30/ barrel practically overnight. This triggered massive layoffs in the oil and gas industry, one of the largest employers. Soybean and cotton prices also took a hit. To add insult to injury, outgoing governor Blanco had approved pay raises for state employees based on a "surplus" caused by one time Katrina money. That permanent spending increase based on one-time money ensured the state would face a deficit as soon as the FEMA faucet was turned off. Once the bottom dropped out of the oil market, the budget was completely f&%ked.
Posted on 12/20/17 at 1:51 pm to SleauxPlay
Because the KS Supreme Court overturned his education budget cuts to balance the budget.
And the tax cuts probably weren’t really needed. The Laffer Curve is a curve. Not a straight line.
And the tax cuts probably weren’t really needed. The Laffer Curve is a curve. Not a straight line.
Posted on 12/20/17 at 1:52 pm to SleauxPlay
quote:
I’ve no major bone to pick with the tax bill, although I think it is a complete swamp lobby bonanza
Oh maybe you do have a bone
Posted on 12/20/17 at 1:54 pm to Mulat
quote:
Oh maybe you do have a bone
As I've already pointed out, twice, virtually anything that gets done in DC is a swamp lobby bonanza, hence why it is not a "major" bone, or remotely a surprise to me.
Posted on 12/20/17 at 1:56 pm to the808bass
The ideas that the Kansas cuts were a disaster is a fallacy.
However they could have been more incremental
However they could have been more incremental
Page 5 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News