Tuesday, July 5, 2016

Kansas has nowhere to go but up

I had saved this bit for July Fourth shenanigans, but Freepers were mostly quiet except for some carping about McCain. So here's one I've been saving for a special occasion.
A bit ago, I wondered what Freepers thought of Kansas, the laboratory of conservativism that seems to produce only stink bombs.

I suppose I shouldn't be surprised it doesn't come up much these days, despite the recent NY Times article (other than Brownback for veep threads!!) But there were echoes of this disaster in July 2014, before Brownback declared the problem was not enough doubling down. And there, Freepers hadn't yet realized this was beyond denial was best ignored.

Doctor 2Brains scoffs at August 2014 budget estimates - we've a surplus in July 2014!
I still see a surplus. What’s the problem? How can they not “pay their bills” and still have a surplus?
4rcane thinks the problem is that Brownback didn't cut spending:
whats actual tax revenue. the surplus information don’t prove or disprove tax cut is the cause of the bankruptcy. It could be overspending
Resolute Conservative agrees - Kansas's government is still too big!
Yeah, he forgot that when you cut taxes you have to trim the budget too. Cannot keep spending when your income goes down. Stupid.
Saying what the others are assuming, C. Edmund Wright realizes that maybe tax cuts...don't pay for themselves?
Wasn’t it Arthur Laffer who argued that increased economic growth due to tax cuts would deliver more revenue that would help cushion the impact of reduced revenue collection?

He said it would in certain circumstances, in certain amounts - that's why his theory on this is called "the Laffer Curve" - perhaps Kansas over shot, or perhaps there are other things to consider…..spending, etc...
Forgetting the dot-com crash, CommieCutter explains tax cuts totally caused the post-2001 economy to do super well, but then Bush spent it all on...something.
Wasn’t it Arthur Laffer who argued that increased economic growth due to tax cuts would deliver more revenue that would help cushion the impact of reduced revenue collection? 
Nationally that’s what happened in the early 2000s. The revenue increased with lower taxes. But they kept spending more while keeping it under 20% of GDP.
rottndog knows that any surplus just encourages bigger government!
So, the budget surplus is declining, but still there.....

Why exactly is that a bad thing...the more excess revenue, the more wasteful spending.

If the government is taking in more than it’s spending, it should not only cut taxes to trim the surplus for the next year, it should rebate the excess to prevent its’ waste.

And yes...merely voicing that point of view makes me an extremist.
DariusBane wants the state to invest the money. In stocks I guess, not education or infrastructure...
Why should any State run a surplus? If a State does run a surplus, invest the money and reinvest the gain. Save the money and interest proceeds for a downturn. Don’t spend the principle. That’s what real people do.
Lake Living enjoys using Detroit to lose perspective on anything bad elsewhere in America:
Don’t worry... we still have Detroit and Flint is “hotting up” according to latest headlines.
castlegreyskull explains that when the economy's bad, nothing matters, so might as well cut!
It did enjoy a downer economy. Either this article is just a disguised attack on a GOP governor. So they have a downer economy with high taxes, and a downer economy with low taxes, both with a surplus.
centurion316 is sure the jobs are coming to Kansas...any day now!
I hear a giant sucking sound in my spot on the border with Missouri. It’s the sound of small businesses leaving Missouri to locate in Kansas where they will pay property taxes, sales taxes and employ more Kansans. There must be a lag during this shift when income tax receipts will drop and other forms of tax revenue have not caught up. Kansas may also need to adjust their consumption taxes to get things back in balance.

Texas and Florida do not have income taxes. That seems to have had a positive effect on their growth rates. Democrats will do their best to discredit what Brownback is doing and he is taking a risk, but this can be a big plus long term.
DisorderOnBorder proves that calling conservative groups liberal didn't start with Trump:
Cheerleading from liberal groups like Amer for Tax Reform (pro Amnesty, pro Islamic Terrorist), CATO (Amnesty Liberal, Open Borders Liberal, One World Liberal), and Bill Kristol (all liberal)....doesn’t help the Conservative pedigree

Surprised Chamber of Communists hasn’t chimed in
liberal groups like CATO?!?!?!?!!!!

Jim Noble knows the real goal of tax cuts is anarchy!
Now there's been a dramatic decline in revenues

I've never understood the "cut taxes so the State gets bigger" argument.

The only reason to cut taxes is to shrink the State. If cutting taxes GROWS the State, I'm against it.
nascarnation is pretty sure Kansas has been liberal all along...
Kansas voted in Kathleen Kevorkian Sebelius as gov once upon a time, right?


  1. People actually want to go to Florida (and presumably Texas) because they have beaches, theme parks, and other vacation/travel reasons. That's why they can get along without an income tax - they have a tourist tax. Wouldn't expect anyone at FR to pick up on that nuance though

    1. And then there's California. Perhaps I'm biased because I grew up in southern California, home of Disneyland, beaches etc. Buy we had income taxes and sales tax.

      Anyway, call me out if I'm wrong, but isn't income tax a federal issue and not state?

      Last I was aware, a certain amendment (thus not state laws) made it mandatory to pay income taxes.

      And call me crazy but this post I'm responding to reads like Twinkie, but being themself. I feel like I'm going a little conspiracy theory just posting the idea, but am I the only one who thinks it reads like Twinks?

      I'm sure rebuttal this Twinkie, but whoever you are you seem pretty well informed. I'd give you props if you weren't trolling.

    2. Floridians pay the federal income tax like everyone else. However, there is no state income tax, like a handful of other states. (Nevada also comes to mind) Growing up and going to college in Florida I never paid a state income tax. Now that I live in Pennsylvania I do. Both states I've live in, Fl and Pa, have sales taxes.

      I'm also not Twinkie, preferring to scroll over that insufferable nonsense every time I see it.

    3. Fair enough. I've only loved in California, Colorado, and Arizona, all of which state income tax.

      I also now believe you're not Twinkie, for what it's worth. :) In my defense, the fact that you post under Anonymous makes it hard to suss out who is genuine and who is.

      So anywway, like I said, I believe you. Pinning someone on syntax is a tough endeavor.

    4. Loved. Lived. It's the same, right? At least according to autocorrect.


    There is only one true conservative: Francis E. Dec

  3. Oh the impotent rage! Btw donate to the freeperthon because the site is needed for....reasons....


    1. I was once a Florida advisor to the Clinton campaign, so I'm biased.

      With that said, this was a whole lot of nonsense.

      First off, we have to understand that since the creation of the CIA, the Sec. of State position is little more than ceremonial. It's basically where you put someone you want to keep busy and keep an eye on.

      Thousands of emails were combed over and only a handful had classified material.

      Of the classified material, all except one email (I think it was) had material that was classified 'after the fact.'

      Seriously, this is not a huge deal. The nuances surrounding the give and take between Clinton and investigators are what became the big deal because I'm fairly certain that even the strongest anti-Hillary Republicans out there realized that there wasn't really much there, there.

    2. I'm pretty sure the republicans knew early on that it wouldn't go anywhere but still had to put on a show to keep the base happy.

    3. It's one of three situations:

      A) she's a criminal mastermind who hasn't been caught in decades, though that's rather unlikely because anyone else in that situation would have been caught;

      B) Those investigating her are absolute bumbling idiots incapable of making charges stick;

      or C) Hillary has spent decades being vetted, attacked and picked apart and she's relatively clean.

      I'm thinking it's C.

    4. Freepers see A and a little B.

  4. Wait, lets run with this. If taxes when up to actual confiscation levels, 75% +, and for some reason the state shrunk Jim Noble would be in total favor of this? Doubt it.

    Haha centurion31 "There must be a lag". I thought the markets were all knowing and moved with utmost speed to get the best deals when possible. Also why adjust consumption taxes? I thought all taxes were evil and bad? Oh, right because that would hit "Those people" harder.

    And rottndog wants a rebate check from the government, more than he already gets from his income tax return or Social Security? He's right, he is an extremist socialist.

    So many good ones here today.

  5. http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/3446452/posts

    Lots of Civil War II and threatened ass kicking in this one, bwahahahah

    A preview of the morning after President Elect Clinton wins the election

    1. I wouldn't be surprised if T bone Texan was a plant, he's trying way too hard.

    2. I've never been in the "two wrongs make a right camp," but these whiners are really late to the party. Are they aware of how many emails the Bush administration "lost" or deleted? They act like the rule of law disappeared the moment their guy lost an election or two. And don't even get me started on Scalia golfing with guys who had cases pending before him.