Archive for Sunday, May 13, 2012

Ignoring history

May 13, 2012


To the editor:

Our governor wants to slash taxes on the wealthy few saying they’ll create jobs. He’s ignoring the fact that George Bush did this on a national scale and it didn’t work. He wants to slash taxes on businesses, even though they’ll only create jobs when demand picks up.

I wish Brownback would let us taxpayers create jobs: for teachers, social workers, highway construction workers, park rangers, etc.


Liberty_One 6 years, 1 month ago

George Bush didn't cut taxes. He shifted the tax burden and raised overall taxes. Raising taxes kills the economy, as George Bush proved.

"I wish Brownback would let us taxpayers create jobs: for teachers, social workers, highway construction workers, park rangers, etc."

Throwing money away on things we don't need will not make the economy better. The economy is not about money but about goods and services. If the government hired every unemployed worker to dig ditches, we'd have a lot of ditches and no increase in the standard of living nor overall wealth. All that would happen would be that prices of other, scarce goods would increase thus effecting a transfer of wealth from those who produce things actually needed to those digging ditches.

uncleandyt 6 years, 1 month ago

The economy is about people. Thanks for talking us out of the looming ditch-digging plan. Let's make lists of things we might need. ...and What's all this fuss I keep hearing about the so-called "Bush tax cuts" that are due to expire, or something. I read somewhere that Bush didn't cut taxes. I've lost control of my beef.

Ken Lassman 6 years, 1 month ago

Teaching my kids, fighting fires, providing police protection, upholding laws of economic fairness, providing a judicial system, maintaining a transparent system of electing our public officials, maintaining sewage systems, public roads, environmental and manufacturing/safety standards, food and drug safety all make my list of goods and services that I will gladly pay my taxes for, as these are all of benefit to the entire society and not the few.

Ken Lassman 6 years, 1 month ago

au contraire, Liberty. It means that I believe that there is value teaching the rich kids next to the middle class kids, next to the poor kids. It gives every economic class more information on who works hard to make their living, who is coasting, and who really needs help much better than the gated community version of a "community."

It means that if we want a community based on relationships that are more than purely economic in nature, the public pitching in together to maintain these things is simply a much more effective way to accomplish that than the alternatives.

Ken Lassman 6 years, 1 month ago

Read a little more closely, Liberty. How does wealthy and poor shopping together at Walmart equate in any way with attending the same classes in the same school?

Ken Lassman 6 years, 1 month ago

OK, if you want to be blythe and make light of it all instead of engaging in a real discussion, fine with me. I'm content with my own conclusion as to why you choose to take that route, and I'm sure others can decide for themselves as well.

Ken Lassman 6 years, 1 month ago

If you think that poor and rich shopping at Walmart shows the superiority of private funding of education over public education, you are the simpleton in this conversation.

You have out-clevered yourself and fallen off the horse laughing at your own joke.

Rather pathetic, really.

jafs 6 years, 1 month ago

Because the rich tend to send their kids to expensive private schools that the poor can't afford.

Wal-Mart is cheap, so everybody can shop there.

jafs 6 years, 1 month ago

Poor people don't generally pay a lot of taxes, with our current system.

Of course, those on the right would change that, and impose a variety of taxes on them.

In what world would a poor person be able to afford to send their kids to expensive private schools?

Ken Lassman 6 years, 1 month ago

Yes, nobody but you can read your own mind. Now that I know what you are referring to, we can discuss it.

Public schools provide a much better opportunity for the rich and poor to sit in the same classroom than a private school provides, and if the rich send their kids to public schools, then everyone is more likely to receive the benefits of their participation, i.e. the taxes needed to support the public schools adequately are much more likely to be agreed upon than if the rich are siphoned off to a more exclusive private school so they lobby against school bond issues. Now that wasn't so hard, was it?

Ken Lassman 6 years, 1 month ago

Well, now that you've finally stopped dancing around and laid your cards on the table to say what point you are actually trying to make instead of just insulting me, it seems to me that your point is rather pedantic. You think that there is enough money being spent on primary and secondary education and that public schools are inferior.

That's interesting and all, but your opinion has no more weight than mine, which is exactly the opposite. Since you have proven to me with other topics that you have no real interest in talking specifics, I will rather safely conclude that you are not interested in pursuing this topic with an honest exporation of real information as you are too comfortable with your opinion to bother to look at real data and studies about the topic.

Sleep well, my friend.

Ken Lassman 6 years, 1 month ago

You call your opinion that public schools suck and that Kansas spends enough money on them specific? Both are huge generalizations: Kansas City, Missouri public schools are some of the worst in the country, while across the Kansas border, some of the best public schools in the country can be found. Both are public, and yet you paint both scenarios with the same broad brush.

Similarly, state funding of public schools are inadequate in some of those same good public schools and the districts are continually trying to find ways to spend more on their students, but are held back by funding equity issues that pit rural, suburban and urban districts against each other even tho the needs are so different that the funding equity issues are simply inadequate measures of what constitutes a good education in each setting. Once again, you paint with such a broad brush once you are pinned down to reveal what you are trying to get at with your statements that you do not inspire more in-depth discussions. Prove me wrong by actually showing an active interest in in-depth conversation without punishing all efforts to engage you, and you might be surprised at the possibility of two-way information sharing.

Ken Lassman 6 years, 1 month ago

Don't you see that you changed the subject when you brought up the Walmart example as a response to the need for rich and poor to grow up in the same classrooms? Rich and poor going shopping for cheap stuff at Walmart in no way is equivalent to spending your school day with fellow students who have a different socioeconomic reality than you have. When I pointed this out to you, you ignored the fact that you were the one who moved the football, not I, and it was you who decided not to return to the original topic, not I.

But I'm still waiting to continue the conversation; how 'bout it?

Ken Lassman 6 years, 1 month ago

Oh, well, Liberty One continues his pattern of disappearing when someone turns on the light. Why should that surprise me--it's becoming quite a pattern:

riverdrifter 6 years, 1 month ago

"Liberty_One is an anarcho-capitalist who is opposed to all government and who regards any and all taxation as the same as armed robbery. He imagines that eliminating government will result in freedom and prosperity for all. He actually has a lot more in common with Communist thought than you do; he just doesn't realize it."

Best description I've seen of liberty-whats-his-face yet. Thanks, voevoda!

Ragingbear 6 years, 1 month ago

Liberty One is a plant from the local GOP office and not an actual person. As for taxes, taxes are good. How else are our congressmen and senators supposed to get their gold swimming pools. It's not like they can "write" books for millions, or charge tens of thousands of dollars to speak at public colleges, or charge 6 figure fees to be a "consultant" for other companies or anything.

uncleandyt 6 years, 1 month ago

If well-connected fascists were ever to attempt to privatize things that are public, one simple strategy might be to buddy up with, and even become government officials. They could, theoretically, decrease funding to public schools, which might increase enrollment in "better", newer private schools. This could work. Think of all the money. We should stay quiet and give them the benefit of the ...squirrel. The Post Office is ripe for the picking. There's rumors on the internets that even the military could benefit if we could somehow swing it to let someone else do the cooking, the dishes, the laundry, the killin', the dyin'. I'm hungry, I'm stuffed. Tax the rich.

Armstrong 6 years, 1 month ago

Couldn't help but note those are all nonrevenue producing jobs. So we would benefit how ???

jafs 6 years, 1 month ago

Because all of those people, once employed, would spend money at a variety of business, thus circulating money in the economy.

Richard Heckler 6 years, 1 month ago

What a stinky republican agenda!

ALEC currently claims more than 250 corporations and special interest groups as private sector members. While the organization refuses to make a complete list of these private members available to the public, some known members include:

  • Wal-Mart
  • Exxon Mobil
  • the Corrections Corporation of America
  • AT&T
  • Pfizer Pharmaceuticals
  • Time Warner Cable
  • Comcast
  • Verizon
  • Phillip Morris International
  • Koch Industries
  • along with a host of right-wing think tanks and foundations.

Agenda: attack workers’ rights roll back environmental regulations privatize education funded with our tax dollars deregulate major industries * passing voter ID laws.

Kookamooka 6 years, 1 month ago

Brownback has been brainwashed. How does one reign in an out of control robot?

Dan Eyler 6 years, 1 month ago

Sorry I not interested in creating government jobs. I am in favor of creating small businesses and other private business jobs that put people to work. But if you have trouble reading between the tea leaves, Kansas is just about ready to put an end to more government jobs. We have cut government spending in Kansas over the past few years, eliminated many government jobs, reduced unemployment by at least 1 % and we now have a 600 million dollar surplus. This didn't happen because we increase government spending or government jobs. It works in my home as well. I cut spending reduced the amount the government taxed me and I have money in my bank account. Try it, because it really does work. You say you want more highway construction jobs, but we can't get roads built in Douglas County because it impacts the environment. Besides if we build new highways more people might buy cars and actually want to drive on those newly constructed highways but then you argue we are destroying the environment. We certainly don't need more government teachers. We need a new school system that relies on less government. Social workers? Now this is laughable. You go to KU for your masters degree in social work. When your done your 50 - 60 thousand in debt and you cant find a job making 13 bucks an hour. Then you complain that your in debt because of your student loan and you want the tax payer to pay it for you, Really? A degree is social working should be a 1 - 2 years at junior college with an emphases in common sense. We certainly need less social workers who were last years Bert Nash patients. I spend my fair share of time at the state parks, and a great deal of time hunting in Kansas, so from my first hand experience, I don't see a need for additional park rangers. Volunteer programs in state parks such as those who keep an eye on camp grounds and man the park entry works very well in most cases.

Armstrong 6 years, 1 month ago

Excellent post ksfaithful. Sad part is you are talking common sense, that seems to be in short supply for numerous posters.

Kate Rogge 6 years, 1 month ago

Less government teachers and a 'new system' that's just waiting in the wings for when Brownback and ALEC destroy public schools in Kansas. So transparent. Weaken agencies by eliminating budget and employees and then, when it is no longer possible to function, declare that private companies can do a better job for less. What horse manure. Supply-side Jesus economics.

yourworstnightmare 6 years, 1 month ago

For BB and other right wingers, this isn't about facts or reason or past results or anything having to do with reality.

This is about ideology. An economic religion that promises tax cuts as well as revenue growth.

GHWB said it best 35 years ago: voodoo economics.

usnsnp 6 years, 1 month ago

Dont know about government creating jobs, but just look at our highways and bridges. You do not see private companys saying that they will repair them, they are falling apart. Think of the next bridge that falls and the people that will be killed, who will get blamed, the government, but people say we can not affort to repair them because taxes may have to be raised. How much is your life worth, you could be on the next bridge that falls.

ThePilgrim 6 years, 1 month ago

It works pretty well for the Kansas Turnpike Authority, which is mostly paid for by tolls. It is actually a pleasure to travel on.

Mike Ford 6 years, 1 month ago

at the end of the day these clowns like brownback want to create fiefdoms. fiefdoms that don't respond to federal laws protecting minorities from the will of the fiefdoms. no civil rights fair housing acts....heck the law allowing bigot landlords to discriminate against lgbt people is a violation of the fair housing act and the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment....if you pull the liberty head in the sand denial ask Justin Theno what is was like to have kids call him gay and the F$g word for a couple of years until he quit school and later sued tonganoxie school district and was awarded $450,000 in damages for said treatment. I'm married and put up with the same treatment in McLouth 24 years ago for being a smart kid in a hickhole. The school funding part is even better......starve public schools until everyone gets vouchers and violates separation of church and state and becomes the classic churchlican fascists that kansas is sooo well known for. by the way I'm a grown minister's kid so I've seen the mess firsthand don't call me a religious bigot because I've seen the religious bigots at their worst. my late mother was a teacher who once' lost a job for being over educated in an lob situation where said hicks didn't want to pay her. If part of kansas wants to be raging nationally embarrassing dimwits the smart part of kansas must stand forcefully and say no.

Leslie Swearingen 6 years, 1 month ago

I wish there was some way out of this mess but right now the people of Kansas are being portrayed by the national and international press as dumb, mean, and bigoted. Now, I know that everyone in Kansas is not that way. But the loudest are and they are the ones who get the attention.

JackMcKee 6 years, 1 month ago

BB is going to destroy the state for his own political career and then ditch the state. We'll be forced figure out how to fix his train wreck, meanwhile he's going to move to Florida or Texas. Guaranteed.

Armstrong 6 years, 1 month ago

Gosh that would be like Obama is doing on a national level

tomatogrower 6 years, 1 month ago

Well, let's hope Brownback's stupid plan works. But if in one year, and there isn't lots, and lots of new businesses moving to Kansas, what kind of stupid spin will he put on that? And how many people will buy it?

jafs 6 years, 1 month ago

Nobody "gives" anybody a job.

Employers pay wages in exchange for labor.

Poor people provide labor for many businesses.

jafs 6 years, 1 month ago

Oh - that hurts my feelings.

All of my thoughts are original.

Have you noticed that some people continue to post the same things over and over again, even though others have corrected them?

tbaker 6 years, 1 month ago

Raising taxes reduces overall tax revenues, just like raising the minimum wage increases unemployment. These relationships are as predictable as the sunrise. If you want less of something, make it cost more. People like Ms. Childs proceed on the assumption that everything the state is currently spending money on is something utterly essential, which history and common sense tell us is false. She also assumes the size of the economic pie is constant. Instead of carping about protecting the size of the precious tax slice, she needs to focus on making the whole pie bigger. Again, history teaches that the best way to increase tax revenues is not by raising the tax rate, but by increasing the tax base. To do this, the state has to set favorable conditions for businesses to start and grow. Raising tax rates is NOT how to do this.

Government's natural tendency is to grow and become more expensive, so the idea of letting the people who work and earn the money in the first place keep more of what is theirs is antithetical to the committed liberal like Ms. Childs. I'm all in favor of helping the poor / needy people. I just do not accept the idea that taking money out of the economy and giving it to the state in the form of higher taxes is the most effective way to do it. Aside from the constitutionally mandated functions, there is absolutely nothing that the government can run better, cheaper, and more efficiently than the private sector. Everything the government takes over from the market degrades in quality and increases in price.

Our first order of business should be to stop the tedious whining about tax cuts driven by mindless political dogma, and start caring about exactly what kind of service the vulnerable people in our population we supposedly care so much about are actually getting for the tax money we spend on it. We need to ask if there is a better way to provide that service. We owe it to them, and the people who go to work every day.

jafs 6 years, 1 month ago

Source for the first claim? Even the Laffer curve predicts that raising rates will raise revenue up to a certain point, before it becomes counterproductive.

I wonder why the government can provide the constitutionally mandated functions better than the private sector, but nothing else?

Commenting has been disabled for this item.