The Brownback Experiment

Jammer wrote:There are only 3 sure things in life, death, taxes and liberals lying.  The premise put forth by the lying liberal as one would suspect, is absolutely 100% - FALSE.

http://www.atr.org/kansas-tax-cuts-are-not-blame-revenue-woes

Now if the question was why does Kansas have a looming deficit, there are probably several contributing factors such as:

Bad data being used
Taxpayer behavior being changed due to Obama's influence
Possibly taking too large of incremental steps or poor implementation of a sound plan

However, there is zero evidence that the supply side economic policies and Brownback's overall strategy are flawed.  There are only lying liberals telling each other the same lie over and over again hoping that uniformed people will believe them.

Now if you want to argue a premise, why not argue the premise that the progressive liberal socialism plan of the democrat party has a 100% failure rate.  It has never created wealth nor built a country.  It has only been implemented by parasites on a host country and used to redistribute the wealth created by others until it is depleted.

Dr. Jones wrote:

Jammer wrote:There are only 3 sure things in life, death, taxes and liberals lying.  The premise put forth by the lying liberal as one would suspect, is absolutely 100% - FALSE.

http://www.atr.org/kansas-tax-cuts-are-not-blame-revenue-woes

Now if the question was why does Kansas have a looming deficit, there are probably several contributing factors such as:

Bad data being used
Taxpayer behavior being changed due to Obama's influence
Possibly taking too large of incremental steps or poor implementation of a sound plan

However, there is zero evidence that the supply side economic policies and Brownback's overall strategy are flawed.  There are only lying liberals telling each other the same lie over and over again hoping that uniformed people will believe them.

Now if you want to argue a premise, why not argue the premise that the progressive liberal socialism plan of the democrat party has a 100% failure rate.  It has never created wealth nor built a country.  It has only been implemented by parasites on a host country and used to redistribute the wealth created by others until it is depleted.

Sorry, I somehow missed your point on socialism having a 100% failure rate.  That is completely absurd.  China is completely socialist, and is the fastest rising superpower in the world.  I'm deciding if your being facetious or are just plain dumb.

Jammer wrote:It is virtually impossible to tell whether a progressive liberal is stupid or lying.  The reason is they usually say the same things.  The lies are so bad, they appear to be the words of a total idiot.

China used to be a completely socialist country with the exception of Hong Kong which was controlled by Great Britain.  Both Taiwan and Hong Kong thrived under capitalistic economies while China was essentially impoverished.

At that point, the Chinese began transforming their country.  However, it was the reverse of the fundamental transformation that the democrats are embarked on here.  They began implementing widespread elements of capitalism and as a result are on the verge of replacing the United States as the most powerful economy in the world.

See for yourself:
http://www.cato.org/policy-report/januaryfebruary-2013/how-china-became-capitalist

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/10/10/chinas-government-may-be-communist-but-its-people-embrace-capitalism/

http://money.cnn.com/2014/10/13/news/economy/capitalism-china-likes-more-than-us/

http://www.npr.org/blogs/parallels/2014/11/07/362284553/capitalism-is-making-china-richer-but-not-democratic

http://content.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2043235,00.html

The real question is whether the progressive liberal saying otherwise is so stupid they don't know this or they are just the typical liberal liar.  Regardless of which it is, they are EVIL.

Dr. Jones wrote:

Darth Cheney wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Darth Cheney wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Alleycat wrote:First of all Doc I would take anything Krugman says nothing more then horseshit. Secondly taxation should be fair everyone pays the same percentage. If you have been keeping up you might be reminded that high taxation of business has driven Walgreens, Burger King, Target and Amazon and several others across the border into Canada. Does it EVER enter the Liberal mind set that less spent trumps taxation. Less spent is a positive and taxation is a negative.

Anything to say in the disastrous experiment, or nah?

Look up Laffer curve.

Coming from someone who has enjoyed a lifetime of lower property tax obligations, I am surprised by your position.

One thing you will find about farmers is that they are not necessarily good businessmen.  They are too emotionally driven and don't always make good decisions especially when it comes to spending.  They are in a constant battle to on-up their neighbor, and they are entirely to eager to spend $100k to upgrade a perfectly good piece of equipment to get out of paying $15k in taxes.  This, along with the sheer volume of dollars they spend, is huge for the local economy.  I would say that any tax breaks given have a very good ROA, which comes back to my point about giving tax breaks to those who actually spend the money.

That being said I agree with you in a large respect on your comments.  I have a huge problem with out of state land owners taking those tax breaks elsewhere.  From that aspect I would agree that a more even tax rate would be better for SD.

We could start by making farmer's pay the same property tax rates as everyone else. Then the schools and road repairs might have adequate funding.  Don't worry, they will be as good at spending money as those benevolent farmers.  Maybe other property owners won't be forced to pay more to make up for the poor farmer.  Hypocrite, thy name is Dr. Jones.

Go ahead and get the ball rolling on the change in legislation.  As I said, in not in complete disagreeance.  I'm all ears.  I'm not seeing the hypocrisy in that...  Maybe you could point it out.

In the meantime why not get back on topic and comment on the trainwreck in Kansas.

BladeRunner wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Darth Cheney wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Darth Cheney wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Alleycat wrote:First of all Doc I would take anything Krugman says nothing more then horseshit. Secondly taxation should be fair everyone pays the same percentage. If you have been keeping up you might be reminded that high taxation of business has driven Walgreens, Burger King, Target and Amazon and several others across the border into Canada. Does it EVER enter the Liberal mind set that less spent trumps taxation. Less spent is a positive and taxation is a negative.

Anything to say in the disastrous experiment, or nah?

Look up Laffer curve.

Coming from someone who has enjoyed a lifetime of lower property tax obligations, I am surprised by your position.

One thing you will find about farmers is that they are not necessarily good businessmen.  They are too emotionally driven and don't always make good decisions especially when it comes to spending.  They are in a constant battle to on-up their neighbor, and they are entirely to eager to spend $100k to upgrade a perfectly good piece of equipment to get out of paying $15k in taxes.  This, along with the sheer volume of dollars they spend, is huge for the local economy.  I would say that any tax breaks given have a very good ROA, which comes back to my point about giving tax breaks to those who actually spend the money.

That being said I agree with you in a large respect on your comments.  I have a huge problem with out of state land owners taking those tax breaks elsewhere.  From that aspect I would agree that a more even tax rate would be better for SD.

We could start by making farmer's pay the same property tax rates as everyone else. Then the schools and road repairs might have adequate funding.  Don't worry, they will be as good at spending money as those benevolent farmers.  Maybe other property owners won't be forced to pay more to make up for the poor farmer.  Hypocrite, thy name is Dr. Jones.

Go ahead and get the ball rolling on the change in legislation.  As I said, in not in complete disagreeance.  I'm all ears.  I'm not seeing the hypocrisy in that...  Maybe you could point it out.

In the meantime why not get back on topic and comment on the trainwreck in Kansas.

BladeRunner wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Darth Cheney wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Darth Cheney wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Alleycat wrote:First of all Doc I would take anything Krugman says nothing more then horseshit. Secondly taxation should be fair everyone pays the same percentage. If you have been keeping up you might be reminded that high taxation of business has driven Walgreens, Burger King, Target and Amazon and several others across the border into Canada. Does it EVER enter the Liberal mind set that less spent trumps taxation. Less spent is a positive and taxation is a negative.

Anything to say in the disastrous experiment, or nah?

Look up Laffer curve.

Coming from someone who has enjoyed a lifetime of lower property tax obligations, I am surprised by your position.

One thing you will find about farmers is that they are not necessarily good businessmen.  They are too emotionally driven and don't always make good decisions especially when it comes to spending.  They are in a constant battle to on-up their neighbor, and they are entirely to eager to spend $100k to upgrade a perfectly good piece of equipment to get out of paying $15k in taxes.  This, along with the sheer volume of dollars they spend, is huge for the local economy.  I would say that any tax breaks given have a very good ROA, which comes back to my point about giving tax breaks to those who actually spend the money.

That being said I agree with you in a large respect on your comments.  I have a huge problem with out of state land owners taking those tax breaks elsewhere.  From that aspect I would agree that a more even tax rate would be better for SD.

We could start by making farmer's pay the same property tax rates as everyone else. Then the schools and road repairs might have adequate funding.  Don't worry, they will be as good at spending money as those benevolent farmers.  Maybe other property owners won't be forced to pay more to make up for the poor farmer.  Hypocrite, thy name is Dr. Jones.

Go ahead and get the ball rolling on the change in legislation.  As I said, in not in complete disagreeance.  I'm all ears.  I'm not seeing the hypocrisy in that...  Maybe you could point it out.

In the meantime why not get back on topic and comment on the trainwreck in Kansas.

Skeptical wrote:
The one thing about capitalism so many fail to realize is capitalism of and by itself will not seek a person or persons to bestow wealth on them while just sitting around.  That is why they maintain it isn't fair.

Whereas in reality capitalism will only work and help a person increase personal wealth if that person also works.

Jammer wrote:

Skeptical wrote:
The one thing about capitalism so many fail to realize is capitalism of and by itself will not seek a person or persons to bestow wealth on them while just sitting around.  That is why they maintain it isn't fair.

Whereas in reality capitalism will only work and help a person increase personal wealth if that person also works.

Capitalism is wonderful.  The most precious aspects of it are what drive wealth creation.  And one of the underlying principles that enables this wealth creation is the "freedom to fail".

However, the mere concept of failure is unacceptable to the slimy socialists.  They fight it every step of the way.  It is politically incorrect to fail students, so just pass them to the next grade level each year.  You must reward participation in Little League baseball and other youth events, because that is the only fair way.  Receiving a failing grade is hurtful, so let's not grade the students.  Failing at your job is mean spiritedness by the employer, so give those government employees lifetime jobs.  Getting a poor performance evaluation at work is vindictiveness by the employer or perhaps even racism, so don't require performance evaluations.  The list is endless of what these slimy progressive liberals have pushed into our system.

However, what these pea brained idiots don't realize is that when you eliminate the freedom to fail, you also remove the freedom to succeed.  That is why these slimy creatures are always looking for a handout.

Jammer wrote: However, what these pea brained idiots don't realize is that when you eliminate the freedom to fail, you also remove the freedom to succeed.  That is why these slimy creatures are always looking for a handout.

Jammer wrote:

NEVER BELIEVE A LYING LIBERAL

Useful idiots only have one source of information and that is the talking points they receive from their handlers.  Almost all of this comes from the George Soros funded news CREATION and history REVISION department.  Do not be surprised when their socialist sources put whatever SPIN on a subject that is required to sell their EVIL AGENDA.

I suggest never ever reading a thing these scumbags post as they are all misleading at the best and often just plain outright lies.  Go to reliable sources if you have an interest in learning what is happening.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rexsinquefield/2016/07/18/kansas-an-unsung-hero-for-economic-growth/#7c210b1f5992

Kansas is an interesting situation.  Liberals had made a mess there and it takes some time to clean things up.  And of course there are always dynamic things going on that complicates issues.  Kansas is primary a natural resources and agricultural state.  If you have paid attention to commodity prices for grains as well as natural resources over the past 2 years you would know that these prices have plummeted.  While this has created tremendous headwinds for Kansas, it has not dealt a death blow to the state that surely would have happened under repressive liberal control.  In fact, they have been doing moderately well considering the hand they were dealt.

If you want to see a state in freefall, checkout lovely Illinois.  Rumor has it that they will slip into bankruptcy soon.  How has the repressive liberal agenda worked there?  Suggest you spend some time at one of the rest areas on I-80, I-55 or I-57 heading out of state and talk to the people fleeing the state before it goes completely down the drain.

Jammer wrote:More data:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rexsinquefield/2016/05/10/with-income-tax-eliminated-85-million-flows-into-kansas/#55f4edac4b77

Unemployment numbers don't look too bad.  I bet Illinois wished they could switch places.

http://www.bls.gov/web/laus/laumstrk.htm

Dr. Jones wrote:

Jammer wrote:More data:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rexsinquefield/2016/05/10/with-income-tax-eliminated-85-million-flows-into-kansas/#55f4edac4b77

Unemployment numbers don't look too bad.  I bet Illinois wished they could switch places.

http://www.bls.gov/web/laus/laumstrk.htm

I'll throw the BS flag on that one.

#1.  A hard right site citing an even harder right site's "data"

#2.  You can't compare jobless rates in the Midwest to the rest of the country.  Differences in population density make them apples and oranges.

#3  Of course people from across the border are going to invest there, but what would they do if surrounding states followed suit?  The race to the bottom is a bumpy road, and you'll never get ahead giving away the farm.

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Jammer wrote:More data:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rexsinquefield/2016/05/10/with-income-tax-eliminated-85-million-flows-into-kansas/#55f4edac4b77

Unemployment numbers don't look too bad.  I bet Illinois wished they could switch places.

http://www.bls.gov/web/laus/laumstrk.htm

I'll throw the BS flag on that one.

#1.  A hard right site citing an even harder right site's "data"

#2.  You can't compare jobless rates in the Midwest to the rest of the country.  Differences in population density make them apples and oranges.

#3  Of course people from across the border are going to invest there, but what would they do if surrounding states followed suit?  The race to the bottom is a bumpy road, and you'll never get ahead giving away the farm.

WTF???

"#2.  You can't compare jobless rates in the Midwest to the rest of the country.  Differences in population density make them apples and oranges."

Population density has nothing to do with unemployment figures. Size of work force does.

Employed + Unemployed = Work Force. People not looking for work (retirees, children, Fcukstiks living in their parents basements, etc) don't figure into the workforce total. So the short of it is, yes you can compare jobless rates in the Midwest to the rest of the country and your premise of differences population density is totally illogical. No surprise considering the source.

Shortie's Ex wrote:The term used by many to describe Kansas ['Brownbackistan'] is merely a term of endearment, I'm certain.

Jammer wrote:

Shortie's Ex wrote:The term used by many to describe Kansas ['Brownbackistan'] is merely a term of endearment, I'm certain.

It is the Alinsky tactic used by communists to target, isolate and demean their opposition.  Governor Brownback while not perfect is a good man.  He has done a reasonably good job considering the hand he was dealt.  The socialist Sibelius left the state in disarray.  She and her repressive liberal policies was destroying Kansas.  They were and still are to some extent on a spending spree that is not sustainable.  If you want to hear deadbeats squeal when their handouts are cut, just go to Kansas.

Circumstances are interesting sometimes.  If oil was to go back to $80 or above and grain prices were to go back to their levels of just a few years ago, the state would be doing extremely well.  If you want to criticize somebody or some state, why don't you focus your attention on Illinois?  I would love an answer to that question.  Illinois and the city of Chicago are failures of historic proportions, yet you say nothing about them.  But let a conservative gain control of a state and not turn it around over night and you go crazy.  YOU ARE REALLY SICK PEOPLE.

Shortie's Ex wrote:... and thank you Obama for sub-$50/barrel oil prices and gasoline prices just a bit above $2/gallon.      

Jammer wrote:

Shortie's Ex wrote:... and thank you Obama for sub-$50/barrel oil prices and gasoline prices just a bit above $2/gallon.      

Obama had ZERO to do with it.  In fact it was in spite of him.  He and the repressive socialists want high oil prices to make renewables more competitive.  He did everything he could to cut back production of our natural resources, fortunately our good friends on PRIVATE land up in North Dakota foiled his attempts to reduce the supply.