Author Topic: Kansas economic crisis  (Read 4020 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline soundgarden

  • Posts: 912
  • Gender: Male
Kansas economic crisis
« on: July 14, 2014, 08:43:55 AM »
A buddy from Kansas introduced me to this issue and now it has made national news (link below).  Essentially, the state began cutting taxes in 2012 for the top incomes up to 25%  and eliminated all state income taxes for LLC's and partnerships (!!!) which the governor argued would spark investments.  Now the state has lost 8% of its revunue and its compensating by cutting spending on education.  The crisis is only going to get worse as the full tax cuts are enacted over the next few years.  Conservatives are arguing the tax-cuts weren't big enough (!).

I see this as a perfect example disproving the trickle down idea.  Its becoming even more untrue in an ever increasing globalized world.  How much of the Koch Brothers income savings (a partnership, btw; see above) is returned to the people of Kansas.

Thoughts?

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/14/opinion/kansas-ruinous-tax-cuts.html

Offline Implode

  • Lord of the Squids
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 5432
  • Gender: Male
Re: Kansas economic crisis
« Reply #1 on: July 14, 2014, 10:07:05 AM »
I thought it was a proven thing that Reaganomics didn't really work. Is it still up for debate? (Actual question.)

Offline hefdaddy42

  • Whiskey Bent and Hell Bound
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 40263
  • Gender: Male
  • RIP Dad 1943-2010
Re: Kansas economic crisis
« Reply #2 on: July 14, 2014, 10:30:50 AM »
I thought it was a proven thing that Reaganomics didn't really work. Is it still up for debate? (Actual question.)
Yes.  But not by me.
Hef is right on all things. Except for when I disagree with him. In which case he's probably still right.

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 18872
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Kansas economic crisis
« Reply #3 on: July 14, 2014, 11:16:14 AM »
Last thing I'd want to do is defend trickle-down economics, but this Kansas we're talking about, after all. Probably not the best state for a case study in economics (or anything else for that matter). And with regards to being Kansas, what investments were they actually expecting? Boeing isn't going to pack up and relocate to Kansas because of the friendlier tax laws. In fact, they'd be far more interested in the education system that they're currently defunding.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline Chino

  • Be excellent to each other.
  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 19227
  • Gender: Male
Re: Kansas economic crisis
« Reply #4 on: July 14, 2014, 12:09:38 PM »
A buddy from Kansas introduced me to this issue and now it has made national news (link below).  Essentially, the state began cutting taxes in 2012 for the top incomes up to 25%  and eliminated all state income taxes for LLC's and partnerships (!!!) which the governor argued would spark investments.  Now the state has lost 8% of its revunue and its compensating by cutting spending on education.  The crisis is only going to get worse as the full tax cuts are enacted over the next few years. 


That translates to something along the lines of "The governor received substantial payments in the form campaign donations and other undocumented perks in exchange for giving executives extra cash that would have normally gone to the residents of Kansas"

Offline Scheavo

  • Posts: 5444
Re: Kansas economic crisis
« Reply #5 on: July 14, 2014, 01:16:44 PM »
Last thing I'd want to do is defend trickle-down economics, but this Kansas we're talking about, after all. Probably not the best state for a case study in economics (or anything else for that matter). And with regards to being Kansas, what investments were they actually expecting? Boeing isn't going to pack up and relocate to Kansas because of the friendlier tax laws. In fact, they'd be far more interested in the education system that they're currently defunding.

They could have a shitload of wind farms, but thats bigger than Kansas. Changing farming tactics could also promote green energy production. But thats an even bigger issue. And ones might require public involvement, not willy nilly greed.


Its something Repiblicans do constantly. Cut off funding through tax cuts, then call for cuts and point to problems caused by under funding as an argument for why programs don't work


Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 9491
  • Gender: Male
Re: Kansas economic crisis
« Reply #6 on: July 14, 2014, 02:03:00 PM »

Its something Repiblicans do constantly. Cut off funding through tax cuts, then call for cuts and point to problems caused by under funding as an argument for why programs don't work

As opposed to what Democrats do constantly?  Like throw tax dollars at non-existent problems, and at inefficient/ineffective solutions to existing problems, then hike taxes on all but the lowest 25% on the grounds that "fairness dictates that we all pay our fair share", then throw even more money at the failed solutions?    Yeah, I'll stick with the Republican method.  At least they are partially right (many of the program DON'T work). 

One cannot arbitrarily look at one state (and not a big one at all; Kansas is in the bottom 40%  of states in terms of economic size) in the middle of the program implementation and say emphatically "that program doesn't work!!!".   Whoever said "it's Kansas!" is right, even if the expression is less than kind to our friends in the mid-West.  ;)    At a minimum you have to look at how the corporate tax breaks are structured (do they lure business into the State?) and you have to look at what the region is doing to see how they compete with neighboring States before any real analysis can be done.

As for "trickle down economics", the term doesn't technically exist in economic theory; it has comes to mean the general idea of making the well off more well off on the theory that their well-being will "trickle down" to the poorer segments of society.   But then it becomes a semantics issue, since it depends on what are you measuring by?  If your measure is "number people under the poverty line", then no, reducing taxes on the wealthy does not make the poorest people any less poor.   But that shouldn't surprise anyone, because rarely are the poor in direct receipt of tax dollars as income.    But the idea is to find the ideal tax rate to optimize revenues; when the tax rate is higher than that which produces optimal tax revenues, reducing taxes on the wealthiest people will actually INCREASE tax revenues overall.  This in turn can be shown to indirectly benefit poorer classes (but this is technically "supply side economics", NOT the trickle down theory).  There are many examples of this happening.

Offline kirksnosehair

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 6679
  • Gender: Male
  • I'M CAPTAIN KIRK!!!!!!!!!!!
    • The ANABASIS
Re: Kansas economic crisis
« Reply #7 on: July 15, 2014, 07:37:21 AM »

I'll just leave this here.  I think it speaks for itself.

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 18872
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Kansas economic crisis
« Reply #8 on: July 15, 2014, 08:33:00 AM »

I'll just leave this here.  I think it speaks for itself.
That particular tax break actually helped out this company quite a bit last year on a capital purchase. That said, it really was just a handout. In terms of keeping money moving around, we probably did far more before adding that particular item. I don't see any great benefit to America with it; only to the owner.

More to the point, doing it just for the sake of doing it when they bitch and moan about every single unfunded measure that come before them really does make them look like the giant asses that they are. 
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 9491
  • Gender: Male
Re: Kansas economic crisis
« Reply #9 on: July 15, 2014, 08:43:38 AM »

I'll just leave this here.  I think it speaks for itself.
That particular tax break actually helped out this company quite a bit last year on a capital purchase. That said, it really was just a handout. In terms of keeping money moving around, we probably did far more before adding that particular item. I don't see any great benefit to America with it; only to the owner.

More to the point, doing it just for the sake of doing it when they bitch and moan about every single unfunded measure that come before them really does make them look like the giant asses that they are.

Well, even further, that doesn't speak at all to what we are talking about here.  That was JUST the House passing that temporary measure into being permanent, but doesn't say anything about a) what the Senate will do, and more importantly, b) how the resulting compromise will look.   Using that article to make a point on "trickle down economics" is like using the idiot on Pawn Stars who comes in with the picture of Wyatt Earp asking for $200,000 before Rick has even looked at it or had the Beard of Knowledge come in and confirm it's authenticity.   In other words, that is merely the opening salvo in what will be likely a protracted negotiation, under which this particular issue (depreciation) will be a minor point.

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 18872
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Kansas economic crisis
« Reply #10 on: July 15, 2014, 08:52:23 AM »
Agreed, but it is highlighting the interests and goals of a large segment of our elected representatives. I'd consider than article an example of why this country is broken down on the side of the road, smoking, spray painted and resting on cinder-blocks rather than an argument against Reaganomics (or whatever the current, appropriate term for it is).
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Online The King in Crimson

  • Stuck in a glass dome since 1914!
  • Posts: 3948
  • Gender: Male
  • Mr. Sandman, Give Me A Dream
Re: Kansas economic crisis
« Reply #11 on: July 15, 2014, 08:53:44 AM »

Its something Repiblicans do constantly. Cut off funding through tax cuts, then call for cuts and point to problems caused by under funding as an argument for why programs don't work

As opposed to what Democrats do constantly?  Like throw tax dollars at non-existent problems, and at inefficient/ineffective solutions to existing problems, then hike taxes on all but the lowest 25% on the grounds that "fairness dictates that we all pay our fair share", then throw even more money at the failed solutions?    Yeah, I'll stick with the Republican method.  At least they are partially right (many of the program DON'T work). 
Nah, both parties do that it's just that their pet programs differ. Republicans throw money at the military, corporations, and at programs that fix nonexistant problems, like voter fraud and people using their welfare checks to buy drugs. The republicans like to paint themselves as the fiscally responsible party, but all one needs to do is look at the Reagan and Bush administrations to see it's all just a facade. They have no problem spending money just as long as it ends up in the 'right' places.

As for Kansas, this is not an isolated incident of Tea Party policies being shown to be utterly worthlesd in practice. Wisconsin may not be in dire straights like Kansas, but Scott Walker did pretty much the same thing: cut taxes, complain about deficit, fuck unions and education. Wisconsin is generally worse off under Walker than it was before him.

Not that the Democrats are any better at this. I mean, I live in Illinois, the state is fucked but that's really more to do with utter incompetence and corruption rather than the outright shitty economic theories.

And if anyone wants to argue that tax cuts can be beneficial to the bottom line, you'll get no argument from me that SOME can be. The problem is that this is not the position that the Tea Party/Repubs generally argue from, it's that ALL are beneficial to the bottom line, which as we all know is just not true.

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 9491
  • Gender: Male
Re: Kansas economic crisis
« Reply #12 on: July 15, 2014, 09:39:37 AM »
Nah, both parties do that it's just that their pet programs differ. Republicans throw money at the military, corporations, and at programs that fix nonexistant problems, like voter fraud and people using their welfare checks to buy drugs. The republicans like to paint themselves as the fiscally responsible party, but all one needs to do is look at the Reagan and Bush administrations to see it's all just a facade. They have no problem spending money just as long as it ends up in the 'right' places.

As for Kansas, this is not an isolated incident of Tea Party policies being shown to be utterly worthlesd in practice. Wisconsin may not be in dire straights like Kansas, but Scott Walker did pretty much the same thing: cut taxes, complain about deficit, fuck unions and education. Wisconsin is generally worse off under Walker than it was before him.

Not that the Democrats are any better at this. I mean, I live in Illinois, the state is fucked but that's really more to do with utter incompetence and corruption rather than the outright shitty economic theories.

And if anyone wants to argue that tax cuts can be beneficial to the bottom line, you'll get no argument from me that SOME can be. The problem is that this is not the position that the Tea Party/Repubs generally argue from, it's that ALL are beneficial to the bottom line, which as we all know is just not true.

Well, not going to go off tangent and pick apart line by line, but I will make two points:

One, in ANY assessment of this, care must be taken to look at how the policies were put into place.  One problem that most non-economists don't realize is that you can't half-ass these programs.  Meaning, you can't pick tax cuts here, subsidies there and hope for it to work.   So "state by state" is a really bad way to analyze and critique economic policies (since by the very fact that people often work in one state and live in another, it is a skewed look). 

Two, probably a point for another thread, but don't confuse "Tea Party" with "Republican".  They are not the same, and FINALLY many in the party are starting to realize that the Tea Party are not helping.  The real powers in the party are doing everything they can to distance themselves from the TP, and you are seeing it in many of the recent mid-year elections.  The TP is a minority; they are LOUD, and their antics get headlines, but in terms of numbers, they are a minority.   I am nominally a "Republican", but I want nothing to do with the "Tea Party" and to call me one would be tantamount to some of the things Anthony said in that other thread.  :)

Offline hefdaddy42

  • Whiskey Bent and Hell Bound
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 40263
  • Gender: Male
  • RIP Dad 1943-2010
Re: Kansas economic crisis
« Reply #13 on: July 15, 2014, 09:57:29 AM »
I totally get not wanting to be associated with the Tea Baggers.
Hef is right on all things. Except for when I disagree with him. In which case he's probably still right.

Offline Scheavo

  • Posts: 5444
Re: Kansas economic crisis
« Reply #14 on: July 15, 2014, 12:23:52 PM »

Its something Repiblicans do constantly. Cut off funding through tax cuts, then call for cuts and point to problems caused by under funding as an argument for why programs don't work

As opposed to what Democrats do constantly?  Like throw tax dollars at non-existent problems, and at inefficient/ineffective solutions to existing problems, then hike taxes on all but the lowest 25% on the grounds that "fairness dictates that we all pay our fair share", then throw even more money at the failed solutions?    Yeah, I'll stick with the Republican method.  At least they are partially right (many of the program DON'T work). 

Are you pigeonholing me into being a Democrat? I frankly don't see how Democrats being corrupt and often wrong is an excuse for supporting Republicans. Why not as opposed to the best or right thing to do?

Quote
One cannot arbitrarily look at one state (and not a big one at all; Kansas is in the bottom 40%  of states in terms of economic size) in the middle of the program implementation and say emphatically "that program doesn't work!!!".   Whoever said "it's Kansas!" is right, even if the expression is less than kind to our friends in the mid-West.  ;)    At a minimum you have to look at how the corporate tax breaks are structured (do they lure business into the State?) and you have to look at what the region is doing to see how they compete with neighboring States before any real analysis can be done.

As for "trickle down economics", the term doesn't technically exist in economic theory; it has comes to mean the general idea of making the well off more well off on the theory that their well-being will "trickle down" to the poorer segments of society.   But then it becomes a semantics issue, since it depends on what are you measuring by?  If your measure is "number people under the poverty line", then no, reducing taxes on the wealthy does not make the poorest people any less poor.   But that shouldn't surprise anyone, because rarely are the poor in direct receipt of tax dollars as income.    But the idea is to find the ideal tax rate to optimize revenues; when the tax rate is higher than that which produces optimal tax revenues, reducing taxes on the wealthiest people will actually INCREASE tax revenues overall.  This in turn can be shown to indirectly benefit poorer classes (but this is technically "supply side economics", NOT the trickle down theory).  There are many examples of this happening.


The contention isn't that corporate tax codes don't need overhaul, its the theory that by doing so, the economy will flourish and bring in more revenue. By hoping this will happen, offsets arent made, and the causes future financial distress. Its purely bad governance. This is the Republican catch-all to all things economic, and it just doesn't add up to what we know about the economy, derived by looking at a great deal of examples throughout history.

And there are many examples of this not working as intended. Furthermore, there's a lot of examples where stimulating the economy through infrastructure and education leads to increase of tax revenues. As you said yourself, you have to look at the details.

Offline kirksnosehair

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 6679
  • Gender: Male
  • I'M CAPTAIN KIRK!!!!!!!!!!!
    • The ANABASIS
Re: Kansas economic crisis
« Reply #15 on: July 15, 2014, 02:47:20 PM »
I'd consider than article an example of why this country is broken down on the side of the road, smoking, spray painted and resting on cinder-blocks rather than an argument against Reaganomics (or whatever the current, appropriate term for it is).


 :tup   I don't bother arguing against Reaganomics any more often than I argue against the wetness of water  :lol




Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 9491
  • Gender: Male
Re: Kansas economic crisis
« Reply #16 on: July 16, 2014, 08:17:40 AM »

Are you pigeonholing me into being a Democrat? I frankly don't see how Democrats being corrupt and often wrong is an excuse for supporting Republicans. Why not as opposed to the best or right thing to do?

Nope, not at all.   My comment has nothing to do with you personally (for one, as I don't know anything about you).   My comment was, however, intended to show that any comment that starts out by trying to characterize an entire group of 55-odd million people is useless, even when talking about "party platforms".   The idea that all Republicans (or Democrats, or Christians, or Dream Theater fans) are that alike is ludicrous.   I am firmly Republican, not a moderate at all in some ways, yet I am pro-choice, couldn't give a shit whether gays marry or not, have worked for over 15 years to clean the environment.   Which I'm sure you understand.  But in any "two party system" there are always compromises.   And for me (and I am not alone in this) I (generally) vote Republican on the assumption that regardless of any "party platform" or "Tea Party Agenda", Roe v. Wade is not going anywhere anytime soon.   We have had some of the most conservative members of the Supreme Court in the history of the Court since RvW was decided in '73, and yet there have been no serious challenges to the basic premise of the case since it's initial decision.

 

Offline kirksnosehair

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 6679
  • Gender: Male
  • I'M CAPTAIN KIRK!!!!!!!!!!!
    • The ANABASIS
Re: Kansas economic crisis
« Reply #17 on: July 16, 2014, 08:26:31 AM »
I'm lost.  How did abortion enter into this topic?  :huh:

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 9491
  • Gender: Male
Re: Kansas economic crisis
« Reply #18 on: July 16, 2014, 08:28:39 AM »
I'm lost.  How did abortion enter into this topic?  :huh:

It was a ready example on the uselessness of trying to have meaningful dialogue using broad terms like "all Republicans..." or "all Democrats...".    I can easily change it to an economic example if that suits you better; I just thought that was more easily understood.

Offline kirksnosehair

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 6679
  • Gender: Male
  • I'M CAPTAIN KIRK!!!!!!!!!!!
    • The ANABASIS
Re: Kansas economic crisis
« Reply #19 on: July 16, 2014, 08:43:09 AM »
Oh, right.  Gotcha  :)

Online The King in Crimson

  • Stuck in a glass dome since 1914!
  • Posts: 3948
  • Gender: Male
  • Mr. Sandman, Give Me A Dream
Re: Kansas economic crisis
« Reply #20 on: July 16, 2014, 10:28:39 PM »
Well, not going to go off tangent and pick apart line by line, but I will make two points:

One, in ANY assessment of this, care must be taken to look at how the policies were put into place.  One problem that most non-economists don't realize is that you can't half-ass these programs.  Meaning, you can't pick tax cuts here, subsidies there and hope for it to work.   So "state by state" is a really bad way to analyze and critique economic policies (since by the very fact that people often work in one state and live in another, it is a skewed look). 
While I would agree that, in general, you must look at how the policies are being implemented and the details each case, one must remember that have had near thirty years of the Republican party pushing this policy. In that time, we've seen it enacted both at state and at national levels. The fact that we have not seen any real depreciation of inequality (in fact it's gotten worse), rising debt levels, and an economy that's just as turbulent as before leads me to believe that maybe trickle down economics is just not a very good policy.

As for the details of the cases, one can look at each instance where the policy was enacted and point out either flaws or failures and if it is true that the various instances do not, in fact, measure up to what the policy truly is, that makes me wonder about something. If the people advocating for this are either too dimwitted or too unwilling to properly implement this economic policy at either a state or national level, what does that say about the people advocating for the policy or even the policy itself? At some point, we should be able to critique the various implementations of this policy even f it's not a full 100% accurate depiction of what the policy is otherwise we get into No True Scotsman territory. Nobody wants that. I mean, can we not critique and analyze the failures of the Soviet Union and China even if they may not live up to the full ideals of Communism as Marx or Lenin or whomever intended? The failures inherent in enacting policy are often just as important as the policy itself as something can look really good on paper but totally not work once given life in the real world.

Besides which I'm not sure much more we can cut or defund things without going full on libertarian. If this was an in-depth discussion about the worth of each department, then I'd have less of a problem with it, but it's not. Too many people do not want to have the discussion at all.

Quote
Two, probably a point for another thread, but don't confuse "Tea Party" with "Republican".  They are not the same, and FINALLY many in the party are starting to realize that the Tea Party are not helping.  The real powers in the party are doing everything they can to distance themselves from the TP, and you are seeing it in many of the recent mid-year elections.  The TP is a minority; they are LOUD, and their antics get headlines, but in terms of numbers, they are a minority.   I am nominally a "Republican", but I want nothing to do with the "Tea Party" and to call me one would be tantamount to some of the things Anthony said in that other thread.  :)
I did not intend to lump you in with either of those. When I say The Republicans or The Democrats, I mean the political leaders of the party, those who promote legislation, and frame the arguments and not the dude on the street who grudgingly votes for his party of choice because of reasons A, B, and C even if he might not align fully with their beliefs. So I apologize for that, I should've been more clear.

As for the Tea Party, they may not be the same as the Republican Party but they're fairly interconnected at this point, much as while I might not be my arm, it is a part of me. The Tea Party is the diseased arm of the Republican Party, pumped full of drugs and given a hellish life of it's own. The Republican leadership only has itself to blame right now if they resent the Tea Party's influence. They were quick to adopt them, to let them direct the rhetoric, and shift the goals. I'd love nothing more to have a Republican Party that isn't beholden to the Tea Madness, but I just don't see it happening anytime soon. The Tea Party has some pretty big backers and they're loud as all hell even if they're a minority.

Offline Scheavo

  • Posts: 5444
Re: Kansas economic crisis
« Reply #21 on: July 17, 2014, 09:09:27 AM »

Are you pigeonholing me into being a Democrat? I frankly don't see how Democrats being corrupt and often wrong is an excuse for supporting Republicans. Why not as opposed to the best or right thing to do?

Nope, not at all.   My comment has nothing to do with you personally (for one, as I don't know anything about you).   My comment was, however, intended to show that any comment that starts out by trying to characterize an entire group of 55-odd million people is useless, even when talking about "party platforms".   The idea that all Republicans (or Democrats, or Christians, or Dream Theater fans) are that alike is ludicrous.   I am firmly Republican, not a moderate at all in some ways, yet I am pro-choice, couldn't give a shit whether gays marry or not, have worked for over 15 years to clean the environment.   Which I'm sure you understand.  But in any "two party system" there are always compromises.   And for me (and I am not alone in this) I (generally) vote Republican on the assumption that regardless of any "party platform" or "Tea Party Agenda", Roe v. Wade is not going anywhere anytime soon.   We have had some of the most conservative members of the Supreme Court in the history of the Court since RvW was decided in '73, and yet there have been no serious challenges to the basic premise of the case since it's initial decision.

I didn't generalize Republicans and say they're all alike, so you're dealing with a strawman. I was referring to a history of policies which did what I said. I dont get why you support a party system that is corrupt, and not a more polymorpheus  parliamentary system, given your arguments.

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 9491
  • Gender: Male
Re: Kansas economic crisis
« Reply #22 on: July 17, 2014, 05:53:36 PM »

Are you pigeonholing me into being a Democrat? I frankly don't see how Democrats being corrupt and often wrong is an excuse for supporting Republicans. Why not as opposed to the best or right thing to do?

Nope, not at all.   My comment has nothing to do with you personally (for one, as I don't know anything about you).   My comment was, however, intended to show that any comment that starts out by trying to characterize an entire group of 55-odd million people is useless, even when talking about "party platforms".   The idea that all Republicans (or Democrats, or Christians, or Dream Theater fans) are that alike is ludicrous.   I am firmly Republican, not a moderate at all in some ways, yet I am pro-choice, couldn't give a shit whether gays marry or not, have worked for over 15 years to clean the environment.   Which I'm sure you understand.  But in any "two party system" there are always compromises.   And for me (and I am not alone in this) I (generally) vote Republican on the assumption that regardless of any "party platform" or "Tea Party Agenda", Roe v. Wade is not going anywhere anytime soon.   We have had some of the most conservative members of the Supreme Court in the history of the Court since RvW was decided in '73, and yet there have been no serious challenges to the basic premise of the case since it's initial decision.

I didn't generalize Republicans and say they're all alike, so you're dealing with a strawman. I was referring to a history of policies which did what I said. I dont get why you support a party system that is corrupt, and not a more polymorpheus  parliamentary system, given your arguments.

How do you know I don't?   I would take that in a heartbeat, though the transition period would be, in my view, insurmountable (it would skew power in the short term to the point that I don't know if it would be recoverable).

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 9491
  • Gender: Male
Re: Kansas economic crisis
« Reply #23 on: July 17, 2014, 05:59:01 PM »
As for the Tea Party, they may not be the same as the Republican Party but they're fairly interconnected at this point, much as while I might not be my arm, it is a part of me. The Tea Party is the diseased arm of the Republican Party, pumped full of drugs and given a hellish life of it's own. The Republican leadership only has itself to blame right now if they resent the Tea Party's influence. They were quick to adopt them, to let them direct the rhetoric, and shift the goals. I'd love nothing more to have a Republican Party that isn't beholden to the Tea Madness, but I just don't see it happening anytime soon. The Tea Party has some pretty big backers and they're loud as all hell even if they're a minority.

Lot of great stuff in your post; ignoring it only because most of my reply would be "I agree", and what's the fun of that? :)

To the last point, you are technically correct, but two minor points: one, I think they felt obligated to accept them and did so under the assumption that they would repay the generosity.  They haven't.  And two, I don't think they are beholden in the sense of following them; I do think there is an element of "keep our friends close and our enemies closer".  The worst possible outcome for the mainstream Republican party would be for the Tea Partiers to get REALLY pissed off and peel off altogether.  I'm sure some would like that in theory (I LOVE the concept) but in execution it would be fatal.   It would be Clinton/Perot/Bush all over again, but platform wide, and not just in one election. 

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 18872
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Kansas economic crisis
« Reply #24 on: July 17, 2014, 07:15:22 PM »
But it started 40 years ago and has been a pox on the GOP for 10 or 15. There's always been a schism between your old school Republicans (ie, Stadler) and the cross-bearing right. It's kept the GOP from focusing and continues to do so. And now that the TP has gained some legitimacy, it's also shifting the entire political spectrum to the right dramatically, and moving once moderate Republicans into lunatic fringe territory. If the Republican party does manage to put itself together (and I'm not sure that's doable anymore), it's going to be a different party by a wide margin. Christ, we're already to the point where their patron St. Reagan would be absolutely terrified of serious GOP candidates. I can't even imagine how it'll look after a few more years of this.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 9491
  • Gender: Male
Re: Kansas economic crisis
« Reply #25 on: July 18, 2014, 12:16:39 PM »
The interesting thing to me is the general way human nature pervades politics, and how we as humans can sometimes not be able to get out of our own way.

The general theory of the TP is that by compromise, you show weakness, thereby weakening your position and suscepting yourself to "death by 1,000 cuts".   Shown time and time again to not be true, but there you go. 

What I find interesting is that the LEFT is falling victim to the same propensity and are doing the exact same thing!   Americans generally vote with their wallets, at least they have since the 1960's, and while we can quibble about the details, as a result we've been under mainly Republican (presidential) rule since that time (I consider Bill Clinton a fiscal moderate Republican).  I think if the Dems were really smart, instead of trotting out ever more left candidates to "counter" the extreme right, they would approach someone like Mitt Romney and basically say "listen: you have free reign economically to run the country as you see fit, provided you don't go too far off the reservation, but you've got to throw us a couple social bones, like gay marriage, or legalization of marijuana." In other words, BE BILL CLINTON without the baggage.   This would capture the moderates from the Republicans that don't want to associate with the TPartiers, and isolate the TPers on the fringe.   This is what Obama did in the election, but didn't do in execution.  He has subsequently alienated all those moderates and they WILL NOT make the same mistake twice. 

As extreme as some of the far right are, they're not maintaining their ground.  They are losing key elections, and so while they are still loud, it is mainly a dog who is all bark and no bite.  So next election, when the Republicans win (and they will win, you heard it here first) even though the  candidate will be a relative moderate, you're still going to have to deal with the TP, and there will always be a Sarah Palin to say "you couldn't have done it without us!". 

Offline KevShmev

  • EZBoard Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 25841
  • Gender: Male
Re: Kansas economic crisis
« Reply #26 on: July 18, 2014, 12:25:49 PM »
Palin (or someone like her) can say it all she wants, but she and the Tea Party hurt the GOP more than they help it. 

I believe the GOP will do well in the mid-terms this year, but they still have a huge hill to climb in getting the presidency back.  The way the states line up nowadays with the Electoral College, it is gonna get harder and harder for them to win it.  Do you really think a Republican will win the White House in 2016, Stadler?  I just don't see it.

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 18872
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Kansas economic crisis
« Reply #27 on: July 18, 2014, 12:39:14 PM »
Get used to hearing Madam President. The GOP has too much rebuilding to do and they haven't even seemed to recognize that yet. Moreover, outside of Christie, they don't seem to have anybody that's actually likeable to most Americans (and the bridge temper-tantrum doesn't help him a whole lot).
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline KevShmev

  • EZBoard Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 25841
  • Gender: Male
Re: Kansas economic crisis
« Reply #28 on: July 18, 2014, 12:48:04 PM »
Christie is their best bet, which is why hardcore liberals are already hammering him, just like hardcore conservatives are hammering Hillary already, but yeah, it's hard to envision him winning.  Granted, a lot can happen in two years, but the GOP does seem completely clueless and out of touch.  Every time John McCain talks now, I think, "Does anyone still take him seriously?"  And Palin calling for Obama to be impeached just shows what a total moron she is.  As poor a job as I think Obama has done, he hasn't done anything that warrants impeachment. 

Offline hefdaddy42

  • Whiskey Bent and Hell Bound
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 40263
  • Gender: Male
  • RIP Dad 1943-2010
Re: Kansas economic crisis
« Reply #29 on: July 18, 2014, 01:09:59 PM »
Every time John McCain talks now, I think, "Does anyone still take him seriously?"
The last thing I saw from him is that if the GOP doesn't do something about immigration now, that Hillary will win in a landslide.
Hef is right on all things. Except for when I disagree with him. In which case he's probably still right.

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 18872
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Kansas economic crisis
« Reply #30 on: July 18, 2014, 01:49:33 PM »
Every time John McCain talks now, I think, "Does anyone still take him seriously?"
The last thing I saw from him is that if the GOP doesn't do something about immigration now, that Hillary will win in a landslide.
Man, that's looking like a disaster for the GOP no matter how they approach it. Congress has contributed greatly to the problem and the stalemate. This prompts Obama to act via some executive authority which they will then have to object to for purely political purposes. At the end of the day the GOP is going to come out looking like the both cause of the problem and hurdle towards resolving it. I'm not saying this is entirely the case, but it's definitely how people will see this.

At this point I think McCain's probably too senile to recognize that. He used to have a pretty good political mind, but the last few years have made him a genuine laughing stock.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline kirksnosehair

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 6679
  • Gender: Male
  • I'M CAPTAIN KIRK!!!!!!!!!!!
    • The ANABASIS
Re: Kansas economic crisis
« Reply #31 on: July 21, 2014, 10:42:08 AM »
Every time John McCain talks now, I think, "Does anyone still take him seriously?"
The last thing I saw from him is that if the GOP doesn't do something about immigration now, that Hillary will win in a landslide.


It's easy to pile on McCain and a lot of my liberal friends seem to bash the guy anytime he's mentioned.  "Oh, he's an ancient windbag slowly going senile.."  etc.   


But the truth is, yeah, a lot of people take him seriously, and they should.  He still wields a pretty hefty amount of influence in the senate.  Sure, he's not as influential as he used to be, but he's still got serious juice.  Him, McConnell, Boehner, Reid, et al....the old guard.


Gotta say, I kind of agree that the GOP have shot themselves in the foot when it comes to the POTUS, but they've Gerrymandered themselves into an indefinite majority in the house. 

Offline hefdaddy42

  • Whiskey Bent and Hell Bound
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 40263
  • Gender: Male
  • RIP Dad 1943-2010
Re: Kansas economic crisis
« Reply #32 on: July 21, 2014, 11:53:13 AM »
I wasn't piling on him for saying that, just posting what he said.  He may be right about that.
Hef is right on all things. Except for when I disagree with him. In which case he's probably still right.

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 18872
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Kansas economic crisis
« Reply #33 on: July 21, 2014, 12:41:44 PM »
I'm piling on him. He's been making bad calls that he wouldn't have years ago while trying desperately to shift the blame elsewhere.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline hefdaddy42

  • Whiskey Bent and Hell Bound
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 40263
  • Gender: Male
  • RIP Dad 1943-2010
Re: Kansas economic crisis
« Reply #34 on: July 21, 2014, 02:05:01 PM »
Well, I"m not NOT piling on him, I just wasn't piling on him with that post.
Hef is right on all things. Except for when I disagree with him. In which case he's probably still right.