The difference between California and Kansas proves liberal economics work

[Redfish]

Higher taxes make everything worse because it expands the size of the fucking piece of shit government…

Governments need to pay their bills.

This is called "fiscal responsibility".

They cannot borrow to pay for very long.

The reason I showed the CA tax rates compared with the KS tax rates was to demonstrate that the people in KS pay almost no tax -- yet their demands of their state government are quite high.

The problem is obvious -- KS needs to raise their rates.

wrong, governments need to spend less. its never a revenue problem, its always a spending problem with governments at all levels.

 

[Flash]

If you tax the hell out of people you can collect enough money to pay for the socialism bills. Of course the people don't have much money left over for the things they want and eventually the economy suffers but what the hey, greed is good, right?

That is called "disposable income" versus "taxation burden".

The reason I compared KS to CA was to show that KS is woefully UNDER-taxed.

They (in KS) pay almost NO taxes -- that's why their state deficit is 150%.

Paying few taxes is a good thing. That means the people have more money to spend on the things that they want instead of what is forced upon them by a corrupt government asshole elected by special interest groups.

KS is only under taxed when you look at what they spend their money on and how it is wasted.

The people in Kansas got tired of the high cost of bloated government and pushed back. More of America should do that.

We don't need near as much government as we are taxed for.

Government should consist of the bare necessities and not this monstrosity that exist in the US nowadays on the Federal, state and local level.

There are legitimate government functions. Police, courts, defense etc. Since there ain't no such thing as a free lunch if you are going to drive on roads you need to pay for the roads. A user fee in the form of a fuel tax is a good thing.

Welfare and the transfer of money from those that earned to those that didn't earn the money is a bad thing. Subsidies, bailouts and entitlements are bad things.

Education would cost a lot less if the schools concentrated on learning instead of being a social experiment and a welfare scheme for the Teacher's unions.

In the US about 40% of the GDP goes for the combined cost of government . The US spends more than the GDP of all but two other countries on the face of the earth for government and that is despicable.

 

[AntonToo]

Paying few taxes is a good thing. That means the people have more money to spend on the things that they want instead of what is forced upon them by a corrupt government asshole elected by special interest groups.

The proper recourse for bad spending is making it a political issue and voting out people that put the spending in place, and voting in people who are willing to cut that spending out.

The recourse SHOULD NOT be blowing holes in the budget and/or cutting good programs by voting people out just because they dare raise taxes required to pay for the bills government runs up.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

CA may have a budget surplus, but they have hundreds of billions in unfunded liabilities.

CA is effectively bankrupt.

 

[AntonToo]

CA may have a budget surplus, but they have hundreds of billions in unfunded liabilities.

CA is effectively bankrupt.

What "unfunded liabilities" do they have that Kansas does not?

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

CA may have a budget surplus, but they have hundreds of billions in unfunded liabilities.

CA is effectively bankrupt.

What "unfunded liabilities" do they have that Kansas does not?

Google "pensions".

 

[AntonToo]

CA may have a budget surplus, but they have hundreds of billions in unfunded liabilities.

CA is effectively bankrupt.

What "unfunded liabilities" do they have that Kansas does not?

Google "pensions".

Did you? What did you find out that prompts your assertion that fiscal position of California is worse than that of Kansas?

 

[Flash]

Paying few taxes is a good thing. That means the people have more money to spend on the things that they want instead of what is forced upon them by a corrupt government asshole elected by special interest groups.

The proper recourse for bad spending is making it a political issue and voting out people that put the spending in place, and voting in people who are willing to cut that spending out.

The recourse SHOULD NOT be blowing holes in the budget and/or cutting good programs by voting people out just because they dare raise taxes required to pay for the bills government runs up.

Sometimes democracy fails and the people have to act appropriately. Democracy can be just as oppressive as any other form of government.

Obama says he will ignore the will of the people through their elected representatives in Congress and governor by Royal Decree so what is the difference?

Elected officials are usually financed by special interest groups and may not represent the will of the people.

 

[AntonToo]

Sometimes democracy fails and the people have to act appropriately. Democracy can be just as oppressive as any other form of government.

Obama says he will ignore the will of the people through their elected representatives in Congress and governor by Royal Decree so what is the difference?

Elected officials are usually financed by special interest groups and may not represent the will of the people.

Now you are just incoherently ranting.

Elected officials may get special interest financing but they still get elected and replaced by the vote of the people.

Obama was elected, twice, with the majority vote in this country. He was elected to Executive office that is subject to horizontal checks and balances no matter what you think Obama said. Democracy is fine.

 

[skookerasbil]

Thread premise is hysterical..........this Billy guy has a corner on the market for STOOPIEST THREAD OF THE YEAR awards.

The whole world knows California is going to be the first state that has to get bailed out by the American people..............duh..............which will be a seminal moment for the history of this country!!

Despite budget claims, California is still broke and owes state workers $195 Billion

When they start raiding state pensions, you'll know the end is near!!!

 

[AntonToo]

The whole world knows California is going to be the first state that has to get bailed out by the American people

Yea? Because so far, with it's fancy tech, culture and entertainment industry juggernauts it's made for 6th biggest economy in the world and a huge contribution to the US of A.

So why is it you think America is going to have to bail California and when?

 

[Contumacious]

Once again, the Right-Wing doesn't know the difference between deficits and debt. Sad!

Once again , the left wing fascists do not know the difference between the people keeping more of their money in their pockets and the state's power to steal their money to balance the budget.

.

 

[Flash]

[Q

Now you are just incoherently ranting.

Elected officials may get special interest financing but they still get elected and replaced by the vote of the people.

Obama was elected, twice, with the majority vote in this country. He was elected to Executive office that is subject to horizontal checks and balances no matter what you think Obama said. Democracy is fine.

I am sorry but you are confused.

Obama got elected by a coalition of all the greedy assholes in this country expecting to get something for nothing.

Democracy sucks and is oppressive when 51% of the greedy assholes find out they can use the government to steal from the other 49%. We are at that point here in the US and the election of President Shit for Brains is a good example of the consequences of that greed. We are $10 trillion more dollars in debt, the Federal government is spending $4 trillion a year on crap and poverty is increasing, family income is decreasing, income disparity is increasing and we have more assholes on the government dole than anytime else in history.

It is despicable when some shithead welfare queen elects a corrupt politician to take my money by force to pay his bills, don't you agree?

Do you think just because you go to the polls and elect some dickhead to use the force of government to steal my money for your benefit then that is not thievery?

 

[AntonToo]

Obama got elected by a coalition of all the greedy assholes in this country expecting to get something for nothing.

I'm not expecting something for nothing, I simply agree with Obama's policy positions and find him to be an able leader. That's why I, and many like me, voted for him.

How do you explain that phenomenon?

 

[Flash]

Obama got elected by a coalition of all the greedy assholes in this country expecting to get something for nothing.

I'm not expecting something for nothing, I simply agree with Obama's policy positions and find him to be an able leader. That's why I, and many like me, voted for him.

How do you explain that phenomenon?

You can be in denial all you want but if you vote for some asshole like Obama that runs on a platform to take money away from the people that earned it and give it away to those that didn't earn it then you are voting for thievery and that is despicable. Why would you do that? What is wrong with you?

 

[AntonToo]

You can be in denial all you want but if you vote for some asshole like Obama that runs on a platform to take money away from the people that earned it and give it away to those that didn't earn it then you are voting for thievery and that is despicable. Why would you do that? What is wrong with you?

Except of course that was never his platform or policy...

 

[Flash]

You can be in denial all you want but if you vote for some asshole like Obama that runs on a platform to take money away from the people that earned it and give it away to those that didn't earn it then you are voting for thievery and that is despicable. Why would you do that? What is wrong with you?

Except of course that was never his platform or policy...

Bullshit!

He always ran on a socialistic platform. You must not have been paying attention or you are simply confused once again.

Obamacare is a great example of taking money from people that earn it and giving it away to the welfare queens. He raised taxes on the American people. He borrowed money from the Chinese and gave it away to his special interest groups with the stimulus package that was a failure. He raided the Treasury to payoff the greedy unions. He funded more welfare and entitlements.

Stealing money. Either you are too confused to understand it or you like the idea of government sponsored thievery. Probably both.

 

[AntonToo]

Bullshit!

He always ran on a socialistic platform. You must not have been paying attention or you are simply confused once again.

Obamacare is a great example of taking money from people that earn it and giving it away to the welfare queens. He raised taxes on the American people. He borrowed money from the Chinese and gave it away to his special interest groups with the stimulus package that was a failure. He raided the Treasury to payoff the greedy unions. He funded more welfare and entitlements.

Stealing money. Either you are too confused to understand it or you like the idea of government sponsored thievery. Probably both.

I'm not confused or misinformed. You are, since you post factually false statements.

Socialist platform has always been single-payer system, not mostly market based Obamacare reform that was blue printed by Heritage and Romney's (the guy you voted for to be president btw) reform in Massachusetts.

Stimulus package spending was half tax-cuts and half infrastructure/education and tech grants, plus making sure our auto-industry doesn't croak. According to economists it created millions of jobs during recessionary economy.

You seriously think McCain wouldn't be passing stimulus package of his own in 2009 if he got into office in the middle of Great Recession instead of Obama?

"raided treasure to pay off unions"? News to me, you have source for such claim?

And of course there were more welfare and entitlements benefits payed out - that's what happens when something like Great Recession hits, more people need help when economy stalls. If anything Obama's policy REDUCED those numbers by softening the recession through injection of liquidity and confidence into economy .

 

[Flash]

Bullshit!

He always ran on a socialistic platform. You must not have been paying attention or you are simply confused once again.

Obamacare is a great example of taking money from people that earn it and giving it away to the welfare queens. He raised taxes on the American people. He borrowed money from the Chinese and gave it away to his special interest groups with the stimulus package that was a failure. He raided the Treasury to payoff the greedy unions. He funded more welfare and entitlements.

Stealing money. Either you are too confused to understand it or you like the idea of government sponsored thievery. Probably both.

I'm not confused or misinformed. You are, since you post factually false statements.

Socialist platform has always been single-payer system, not mostly market based Obamacare reform that was blue printed by Heritage and Romney's (the guy you voted for to be president btw) reform in Massachusetts.

Stimulus package spending was half tax-cuts and half infrastructure/education and tech grants, plus making sure our auto-industry doesn't croak. According to economists it created millions of jobs during recessionary economy.

You seriously think McCain wouldn't be passing stimulus package of his own in 2009 if he got into office in the middle of Great Recession instead of Obama?

"raided treasure to pay off unions"? News to me, you have source for such claim?

And of course there were more welfare and entitlements benefits payed out - that's what happens when something like Great Recession hits, more people need help when economy stalls. If anything Obama's policy REDUCED those numbers by softening the recession through injection of liquidity and confidence into economy .

Didn't you hear about Obama taking $50 billion dollars of taxpayers' money to bail out greedy UAW jobs and pensions? Are you that misinformed?

It is not my responsibility to save somebody else's job. It is not my my responsibility to pay somebody else's bills.

If the fucking government forces me to do it than that is thievery. Do you understand that? I don't think so.

Anytime somebody doesn't pay their bills and somebody else is forced to caught up the money then that is thievery. It is true if it is healthcare or Obamaphones or Solyndra subsidies to executives that were campaign donors to Obama.

When Obama takes taxpayer's money and gives it to the commie states to cover big bloated union wages for government worker then that is stealing.

The government does not need to be in the business of taking money away from those that earn it and give it to the dickheads that didn't earn it. Welfare, bailouts, subsides and entitlements are all forms of government thievery.

You have a very difficult time understanding personal responsibility, don't you? That probably accounts for a good portion of your confusion.

 

[AntonToo]

Didn't you hear about Obama taking $50 billion dollars of taxpayers' money to bail out greedy UAW jobs and pensions? Are you that misinformed?

No I didn't, you have a supporting link for the claim?