May 20, 2013 |
See complete forecast
Copy and paste the link:
I SUPPORT NOTHING THIS MAN DOES. HE IS A MAJOR DISGRACE TO OUR STATE.
I agree with CLARKKENT.He doesn't need my support, which is a good thing since he'll never get it. Isn't that what the right-wingnuts are for? Besides,he has Koch money.
The liberal island folks are heard from again. I think he is definitely on the right track and I support this 100%. In fact, I think we should be moving towards abolishing state income tax completely.
Steve Morris, President of the Senate, is an "island liberal"? Do your terms even have any definite meanings?
Who also tripled the national debt.
The Federal deficit went from 5 trillion to 9 trillion under Bush II and from 9 to 15 trillion under Obama. However, just looking at those numbers doesn't mean anything unless you look at WHY it occurred.
The Bush deficit was from war spending. The Obama deficit isn't because of spending, it's because of tax cuts and reduced revenues from one of the worst economies since the Great Depression.
Really, your comment makes me think of a school yard. "Well, if I'm a poopie head then you are too."
Lawrence is definitely an island. We have no idea what folks in the rest of the state think. Maybe, Lawrence is a conservative island.
You seem unaware of the fact that many Republicans view this as bad policy as well. "Countered Sen. Steve Morris, a more centrist Republican who is president of the Kansas Senate: "It is not good public policy." He also called the tax plan backed by the tea party "very reckless.""
Do try to understand the reality of a situation before making sweeping claims. That way you'll help yourself not make claims that have nothing to do with reality.
Your example only proves that there are people on both sides of the aisle who are wrong. It is always better for people to keep more of their own money.
I would like to hear more Republicans coming out against this tax cut. The Republican claim to be fiscally conservative should include keeping spending down and as a consequence having the luxury of cutting taxes. Brownie is just cutting taxes. I am not a Republican, but I would hope we can all join together in our opposition to Brownie's incredible stupidity. I'd like to hear from more conservatives that they view Brownie's faith based, radical cronyism and shoot first, lie when answering questions later approach to government as flawed. I have the impression that the vast majority of Kansans now view electing Brownback as a huge mistake and it's just a very vocal minority trying to prop up public opinion on his behalf. I hope I'm right, but we will not know unless more moderate Republicans start speaking out against his stupidity.
You have that Gotland, They talk a good talk about low income housing as an example and yet what they do is limit supply which raises prices. Pure Elitism. We are for increasing Taxes, yet ask if they pay more (which you can do) in taxes than is being asked, nope...
Keep in mind "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men." Too small a government, in the founders' view, is dangerous to individual liberty, since governments are instituted to secure our liberties.
I suspect you believe that private power has your best interest at heart far, far less than it really does.
It will soon be "Kansas, Land of Ugh" when your property taxes double. It will take a couple of years but it will happen. Regan called it trickle down economics, this will be the Brownback version which involves a dog peeing on your leg and it trickles down into your shoe.
". . . which involves a dog peeing on your leg and it trickles down into your shoe."
OK that is just laugh out loud funny, even if it is sad and true.
Do you even understand how small our governemnt in kansas is? Its tiny.... you can't just keep prunning the tree and expect it yeld bumper crops every year
The anti-tax extremists in the GOP are having their way.
They refuse to admit that taxes are necessary for a functioning society, and instead rely on libertarian ideology that it will all take care of itself if the government just gets out of the way.
The real answer is a balance, of course. But these people are extremists as they refuse to even acknowledge that government spending and taxation is a necessary part of society that allows for job creation and socioeconomic well being.
Were taxes completely eliminated? The premise of your argument is completely invalid.
No, but a lot of revenue has been eliminated. Jobs for teachers and other state employees will disappear with less funding; sure sounds like "job creation" to me. Ultimately, other taxes will have to be raised to account for the loss in revenue.
It's going to have to be made up from somewhere else, and I highly doubt that Brownback and his cronies are going to foot the bill.
I just don't understand how people feel they are listening to the news when they turn on to the daily PR programming of a corrupt billionaire.
Brownback is cutting services, destroying infrastructure just when our troops are coming home. He made no provision for the Kansas vets, while his pals in congress are also betraying the federal promises. I am sure he is going to fly the flag high, have his picture taken with wounded vets, all bling and no muscle. No shoulder to the wheel, he is actually putting billionaires pockets first.
Now let is talk education. His promise broken.
I think you accidentally posted on the wrong story. You meant to post on the story "Obama the puppet, Soros the puppeteer."
I assume that by lying about, or pretending you don't understand I was referring to Keith Rupert Murdoch. You try to ride on my dime. If you think that Soros has control of the media and is corrupt, try just stating that on your name. Or just lie, up to you, you are responsible for your voice. if you need to lie to make your argument, it speaks to your argument and your character.
Every so often it is good to test (again) the premise that the money does everyone a lot more good if it is left in the hands of the people who work for and earn it in the first place. It is good to test the idea that government spending can in fact be reduced without “the end of civilization” occurring, as one poster wrote. No one wants to see the poor suffer and die in the streets, and of course there will always be a portion of the population who simply cannot navigate the impenetrable mysteries of daily life without the benevolent hand of government there to guide them – got it – but it comes down to this:
Are the functions of the state that will now have to be reduced as a result of budget cuts more important to the population of Kansas right now than is taking less of what the productive, tax-paying segment of the population works for everyday? We shall see.
The good news is we don’t have to debate this question. What happens to the State’s economy in the next several months will provide the answer very clearly. Nothing cures the ills of poverty quite as well as a job does, and nothing improves tax revenues collected by the state treasury better than increased economic activity. If these things do not come to pass, then the statists and tax-and-spend liberals will have a field day pounding the governor’s ill-conceived tax cut idea, and rightfully so. In the meantime, we should wait and watch. If nothing else, the people paying the taxes are better off, so at least things have improved a little for a portion of the population – albeit a minority.
You know, tb, the thing that's wrong with your argument is that too many Kansans have already "waited and watched" for the results of the election of the current regime. The unfortunate thing is that things are not better in Kansas, but worse. We've endured educational and social cuts that endanger the quality of life for a great number of Kansans. We've seen social engineering from a burgeoning governmental structure that belies the "smaller government" lie fed to us during electioneering. We've lost face to the rest of the country (save, perhaps, Florida and Arizona) by emulationg the Texas model of economic ruination without the saving grace of tourism and big oil. We've lost some large manufacturing/tax producing businesses to go along with the cutting of jobs within the government.
At what point, tb, do we say we've "watched and waited" long enough? I laud your (unusual) call for moderation, but the time has come to stop waiting and start doing--doing things that make sense for the state and not just for the Kochs and their minions, bought and paid for.
middle - I'm a libertarian so my default setting is to shrink government and let the people who work for the money keep more of what is theirs, but like I said, no one wants to see folks dying in the streets, etc. On the other side of the coin are the folks who oppose these cuts. Their default setting is the state being an embarrassment and predictions of doom for the population. They tend to view government as something that should always be growing and expanding and any reduction in it should be opposed on principal alone.
Both groups need to get specific, or the whole topic is merely an ideology argument which is pointless.
The governor has provided examples of how he thinks the reduction in taxes is going to improve the Kansas economy and improve unemployment. More people working and tax revenues increasing as the economy grows is a good thing, but how good, specifically? At what cost to the Kansans who will undoubtedly have the service the state currently provides them reduced or eliminated? On balance, which is better? We need specifics. We need empirical data, not hyperbole and ideological dogma. Who exactly will be suffering? Ending or reducing exactly what state-provided service will be the cause of this suffering? Should the state be doing XYZ service in the first place? If so, are there alternatives? Could it be done better/faster/cheaper by the private sector, etc, etc.
Instead of engaging in the juvenile for or against tax cuts argument, I expect our elected officials to put forth quantifiable data and specify cause and effect.
The politicians need to list specific advantages of improving the economy and unemployment. List exactly how many new businesses / jobs are predicted to be created. What is the goal. List all the good things that are forecast to occur as a result of it.
Then list the specific disadvantages of the reduction in funding, listing every single program that will be affected, the loss in funding per program, the number of citizens affected by it, how they are affected, and the consequences for each. List all the bad things that are forecast to occur as a result of it.
As informed citizens, we can now we can make rational assessments of the relative value of the proposal. We have empirical benchmarks and milestones to measure the merit of things with, and we get away from mindless visceral adherence to political ideology as a basis for decision making.
“An informed citizenry is the only true repository of the public will." -- Thomas Jefferson
And some of us more than others.
Since you didn't source your data, I will. It does look like you took some liberties with the data.
Catholic Institutions File Multiple Lawsuits Challenging Contraceptive Coverage Rules
From the article: "May 22, 2012 — In 12 lawsuits filed in federal courts, 43 organizations -- including Roman Catholic dioceses, schools and other institutions -- on Monday challenged the federal contraceptive coverage rules that have been proposed as part of the health reform law (PL 111-148), the Washington Post reports (Boorstein, Washington Post, 5/20)."
When did "much of the folks" come to equal "various Catholic entities"?
So did Jesus.
Some of us who receive these so called "entitlements" are married, work full time and still cannot afford to put food on the table or insurance for our children.
Just because some people are on food stamps/medicaid, doesn't mean they're lazy...it just means that it's practically impossible to get to the next rung in this State.
And Brownback is just making it worse. His policies are creating a massive class gap, while his cronies are trying to convince you that the only people who receive these entitlements, don't deserve them anyhow.
Don't buy it.
The loonies are just p...d off because a Democrat governor didn't cut taxes. Anyway, kU and the community has plenty of rich democrats , they should be happy about tax cuts. Name a poor Democrat professor or legislator, or for that matter, look at the donor list of local democrats. Poor? Hardly not!
Jealous of Brownback' decsions? ? Most likely! Would francisco be willing to cut taxes? No. Would she be willing to partake of tax savings? yes, just like 3% loans back in the seventies?
The republican legacy which provided guidance to Sam Brownback:
1.Duped Again = ENTITLEMENT - TABOR is Coming by Grover Norquist and Koch Bros sells out state governments, public schools,SRS services etc etc to private industry = Grab Your Wallets!
Duped Again = ENTITLEMENT - Bailing out The Reagan/Bush Savings and Loan Heist aka home loan scandal sent the economy out the window costing taxpayers many many $$ trillions (Cost taxpayers $1.4 trillion), Plus millions of jobs, loss of retirement plans and loss of medical insurance.
Duped Again = ENTITLEMENT - Bailing out the Bush/Cheney Home Loan Wall Street Bank Fraud cost consumers $ trillions, millions of jobs, loss of retirement plans and loss of medical insurance. Exactly like the Reagan/Bush home loan scam. Déjà vu can we say. Yep seems to be a pattern.
Duped Again = ENTITLEMENT - Bush/Cheney implied many financial institutions were at risk instead of only 3? One of the biggest lies perpetrated to American citizens. Where did this money go? Why were some banks forced to take bail out money?
Tax cuts = the ENTITLEMENT program for the wealthy is still A Bad ENTITLEMENT Idea – Bush Tax Cuts aka The ENTITLEMENT program for the wealthy at the expense of the middle class = Duped One More Time.
Taxpayers Duped Again X $47 million tax dollars ....
Last year, Kansas used workers' withholding taxes to bribe AMC Entertainment with a $47 million payment to move its headquarters from downtown Kansas City, Missouri, to a KC suburb on the Kansas side, just 10 miles away. What a ripoff! Among the 2,700 corporations cashing in on such absurd diversions of state taxes from public need to private greed are Goldman Sachs, GE, Motorola, and Procter & Gamble.
Recently AMC was purchased by a Chinese business group who could move AMC to anywhere including China.
So where are those $47 million tax dollars? We want our tax dollars back from AMC!!!
This deal the state of Missouri noted was a bad deal for Kansas and I say it is a perfect example of GOP reckless spending of tax dollars.
Get those $47 million tax dollars back from AMC!
Big debt is nothing new to Sam Brownback.
In fact, by the time the second Bush left office, the national debt had grown to $12.1 trillion:
*RECKLESS ENTITLEMENT - Another 30% of the national debt had been created by the tax cuts for the wealthy under Presidents Reagan and George H.W. Bush.
•RECKLESS ENTITLEMENT - Fully 81% of the national debt was created by just these three Republican Presidents.
Expect tax increases in every community in the name of Sam Brownback. Yes he will own these tax increases.
Some will come hidden behind:
1. water rates
2. Water and sewer rates
3. increased cost at swimming
All of the above are taxes hidden behind the word "rate" or "user fee"
In addition taxpayers must cover the cost of all local and state
tax incentives aka tax dollar handouts. Yes we taxpayers are
constantly getting nickled/dimed by state and local politicans
who claim to be against tax increases. The lions share of City Commission
agenda items involve spending more tax dollars.
No, I'm not fond of corporate theocratic regimes.
Nothing anyone can say justifies republicans putting millions upon millions upon millions Out of Work. No republican president could repair what the GOP has done to the economy twice in 32 years.
Leaving Obama with zero to work = the reckless GOP!
Borrowing is fine... depending on how it is invested. Covering the cost of preferential tax cuts
is not a worthwhile expenditure .... in fact it's not an investment.
Turn on any of the television or radio gab shows and it won’t be long before you hear someone proclaim that government must live within its means just as families do and businesses must.
But the truth is neither families nor businesses balance their books in the sense of forgoing borrowing. And even if they did, to insist that government do the same would extinguish whatever remains of economic growth and job creation, not ignite them.
When a family takes out a car loan, a student loan, or a mortgage on a house, it’s spending money it doesn’t have.
Is borrowing the road to ruin? Not if the debt is affordable. That depends not just on the size of the debt relative to the income available to service that debt, but also on how the family spends the borrowed money. For instance, assuming the size of the debt is manageable, borrowing to pay for education is justified if the education improves the family’s earning potential and so helps provide the income necessary to service the debt.
The same holds true of businesses.
What’s needed is to reverse the austerity budgets favored by conservative politicians in the United States and Europe today. More government spending and tax cuts targeted at working people, beyond what President Obama has proposed in his recent jobs bill, will surely make the budget deficit yet larger and drive up government debt.
But that ratio of government debt to GDP, currently 62.1%, is still far below the 1946 record peak of 109% at the end of World War II, which was followed by the two of the strongest decades of economic growth in U.S. history.
It has happened before, and during even worse economic conditions than today’s stagnation. In a Pittsburgh campaign speech in October 1932, some three years into the Great Depression, presidential candidate Franklin Delano Roosevelt promised that he would slash federal expenditures by 25% and balance the federal budget.
But once in office, FDR reneged on his promise to balance the budget and initiated the New Deal. When he returned to Pittsburgh during his 1936 campaign for reelection, FDR declared, “to balance the budget in 1933, or 1934, or 1935 would be a crime against the American people.”
Without massive government spending and without the political will to brand balancing the government budget as a “crime against the American people,” today’s crisis will likely drag on for a decade as economic hardship mounts for more and more of us.
merrill, how do you explain the Mope's miserable record for the first two years of his administration when the Democrats controlled both houses of Congress? At some point, he's going to have start taking responsibility for what he does and what he fails to do.
Of course, he's gotten remarkably far on just having a nice smile and some mad teleprompter skills....
It's okay that merrill never reads any posts, no one reads his.
Merrill posts make more sense and are on topic. You on the other hand, post about emotions and pass personal remarks.
Which merrill are you talking about? It can't be the one on this award-winning website!
(from a source)
Snap, You just can't stand straight talk. Always the sidewinding trail, all emotion, no thought, Merrill's posts are on topic and of more interest than your conning personal remarks. They are boring.
Nice thing about this cut is it does not prevent a person from paying more if they want too. As for me, less taxes and smaller government is just fine.
Slimeback is running for vice-president. He has to something spectacular to get noticed. It will come at our expense as a spectacular failure. Ultimately, of course, the Koch-heads want to install him as mr potus.
Well, with zero state funds available (or is Brownie going to print money?), where is this going to leave the SLT?
Thank God for Governor Brownback! Common sense returns to Kansas government! Now that the queen of abortion has moved on to Maobama's cabinet we can have decent representation and responsible government again.
Jesus would be proud of you, for following his teachings so well.
Yes, I support the tax cuts. For those that don't, send in more money. Simple.
Between April 2003 and June 2004, $12 billion in U.S. currency—much of it belonging to the Iraqi people—was shipped from the Federal Reserve to Baghdad. $9 billion was lost? Sam what do you know?
Meanwhile and once again:
"What’s needed is to reverse the austerity budgets favored by conservative politicians in the United States and Europe today. More government spending and tax cuts targeted at working people.
It will surely make the budget deficit yet larger and drive up government debt. But that ratio of government debt to GDP, currently 62.1%, is still far below the 1946 record peak of 109% at the end of World War II, which was followed by the two of the strongest decades of economic growth in U.S. history.
It has happened before, and during even worse economic conditions than today’s stagnation. In a Pittsburgh campaign speech in October 1932, some three years into the Great Depression, presidential candidate Franklin Delano Roosevelt promised that he would slash federal expenditures by 25% and balance the federal budget. But once in office, FDR reneged on his promise to balance the budget and initiated the New Deal.
When he returned to Pittsburgh during his 1936 campaign for reelection, FDR declared, “to balance the budget in 1933, or 1934, or 1935 would be a crime against the American people.”
Without massive government spending and without the political will to brand balancing the government budget as a “crime against the American people,” today’s crisis will likely drag on for a decade as economic hardship mounts for more and more of us. "
Dollars and Sense ( a lot of common sense)
I didn't know that the Gov was involved with the Federal Reserve in 2003 and 2004! Or are you just using any flimsy excuse to drag in your boiler-plate copy/paste drivel?
(from a source)
The 47% are upset because they wonder where their free handouts are going to come from!
The study you are referencing has the largest portion of the 47% as senior citizens. Most have been paying taxes all their lives and are now at a point where the combination of their income (low) and the elderly tax benefits put them at $0 tax liability.
This article is also about state income tax. 47% of households not having any Federal tax liability has nothing to with it. Additionally, not having any Federal tax liability is no guarantee that one will not have any State tax liability. I'm sure you are aware that Kansas does not have the same deductions, exemptions and credits that the Federal government has.
I'm surprised that Brownback's Group for Internet Montoring Procedures (GIMP) hasn't Freeped this poll yet. Or maybe they have.
Don't mock the gimp! I use it all the time!
Why don't all of you get off your asses and start your own business and benefit?
Because it takes a particular type of personality and a certain amount of training to run a successful business, and not all types of people are that particular type, or have access to that training.
How about we stop believing that we can answer the questions of how life and society works or will be made better with absolutist statements that have only a nodding acquaintance with reality?
Is that particular personality trait a good work ethic?
I have a business. I'm going to save about $9,000 a year in Kansas taxes. I'm still opposed to this plan. First, because it's unfair and regressive. Second, because I know there are no free rides.
I fully expect to make most of that up in sales and property taxes. The people I feel sorry for are those on public assistance and people who earn wages in this state. They are going to see their wealth substantially diminished. But, if they won't get out in the streets with fists in the air over this I can't help them. So far I'm a bit surprised by the lack of a backlash.
Not if they dont own property.
Their rent will increase if the landlord is like most businesses... they pass those increased costs onto the consumer.
Bs. Market dictates rent, not taxes. I have rentals and lose money every month on some because mkt dictates rent and i eat the prop taxes.
Then you're not a good businessperson.
The "market" is composed of all of the landlords in town - if property taxes go up, then they will generally raise rents to cover that, and the "market" will have shifted upwards in price.
No businessperson wants to lose money, I would think.
If you can't make enough to cover your costs, then you should get out of that business, or at the very least, sell the properties that are money-losers.
Given that rents are pretty high in Lawrence, I struggle to understand how you could own property and not be able to meet your expenses.
I too will personally save in taxes but am against this plan. When will poor people figure out that regressive taxes place the burden upon them and vote these selfish people out of office?
Congrats on making $150k on your Ks corp.
Not only no but hell, no. He blows a lot Sam's Highway to disaster and higher taxes for the poor & middle class working men & women as well higher property and, most likely, sales tax.
If I hired a manager that made consistently bad decisions from the beginning I would consider him to be on probation. I would not let him talk me into taking all the cash out of the bank and betting it at the nearest casino.
That is what the state of Kansas has done with their new Governor. He is betting the farm and from where I sit, I would say we just lost the farm.
Commenting has been disabled for this item.
Find more businesses on Marketplace
Arts & Entertainment ·