Kansas and the Laffer Curve...

But 2014 is the probably the only year California isn't going to be running a deficit, and even the LA Times says its showing a surplus through the magic of funky accounting.

In 2014 Kansas had a budget deficit of .23% of state GDP (feel free to show your work).

In 2014 California had a budget deficit of ____ of state GDP (feel free to show your work).

Oh man. I'm really glad you brought California into this conversation (if you look back, you really were the first person to mention them, much less point them out as an example).

In 2011 Kansas elects Sam Brownback and in 2012 slashes taxes. Two years later the state government run is running historically large deficits, even while cutting services. Kansas's economic and job growth stalls, shifting to lower than the national average.

In 2011 California elects Jerry Brown and in 2012 has a massive tax hike. Two years later the state government run is running a budget surplus, even while adding services. California's economic and job growth kicks up, shifting to higher than the national average.

Seriously man, thanks for bringing California into the conversation, the comparison is quite elucidating!

Actually most of Kansas woes were under Kathleen Sebelius, the prior governor, who increased spending as a proportion of GDP. Now the state is trying to slash spending levels that got on par with California.

Looks like the Governor held on by the skin of his teeth.

The problems in Kansas are much larger as both a percentage of GDP and per capita. Not to mention California's budget has been balanced since 2012 and it has lead the nation in both job growth and wage growth since 2013 while places like Kansas have been a complete basket case.

Hell, Texas is a joke too slipping back into recession makin it clear it was only a commodity boom papering in over other wise terrible economy. Just low paying jobs mostly with in a dollar or two of minimum wage and cheap houses because land is cheap.

Well, people like them are a problem to our system. Before you go ranting, it is inherent on both sides that they take lots of money for their votes. We need to get money out of politics which is why I support wolf PAC. That would go a long way in stopping a lot of the bullshit on both sides.

I must stop you here. Obama has not said the economy is just peachy. He has said it is improving and he has recognized that many of the new jobs that have come in have been lower paying jobs. You probably should go to the source on this because someone has been lying to you. The rest of what you have said I agree with. American voters are some dumb fucks. They do not want to take responsibility for the spending so they believe every crook that comes along and tells them that they have a plan that somehow involves paying less and getting more. It is simply not true. Now there are places we can cut spending, but they are not willing to read through the fine points to establish that. They are not smart people, and therefor they cannot understand what is going on. That goes for both sides. They are a face or a character, not decent thinkers who could come up with a viable alternative. We have performers like michelle bachman. Really, that woman is just a fucking simpleton. She could not understand law, she is not capable. You have Charlie rangel who is just dumb as fuck, but he gets paid to vote. You have to respect the power these people hold, but without that most of them are just morons. My opinion of you is pretty low, but I would imagine you would have it more together than they do because they are really just talking heads. They don't directly face any real debate like this. That is a problem. You cannot stick a bunch of idiots in a room and have a good proposal come out. Maybe that is why we should have outside people write some laws, or be able to come up with some sort of budget. Perhaps these people should be voting on things presented to them and not making things up because they are fucking dolts. If your only purpose is to vote the way your constituents poll we do not need you writing up anything. You are just there to vote on something.

It is true, Kansas does not have that much of an economy compared to more populated states. That is part of the problem of revenue. However, we do need the farmland, and the people need to be taken care of. So yes there should be state income taxes, or some sort of revenue stream that works. Republicans made some big promises that were based in fantasy. Just lowering taxes does not mean business goes to where you are. There are other considerations which is why general ideas do not work. You have to understand Kansas is landlocked so there is an added cost to anything manufactured to get it exported. So why are you going to set up there and how can you offset that difficulty should be what they are thinking about. But like everyone else they pretty much elect a pretty boy who just wants to make a buck. Could you imagine what a mind like Bill Gates could bring to congress? He will never run because people would hate him, but his intelligence and his ability to drive people to accomplish things would be great in congress.

His tax policy is just the same old idea being jammed into a problem and they really do not care if it is fixed or not. They are not held accountable for their failings.

This is the third year of balanced budgets. If you want I can explain why state income swings wildly up and down but I doubt you care about facts just like you don't care or know the difference between what the deficit actually was vs an estimate.

Hint: Your number was the later IF nothing was done but the whole point of having quarterly estimates is to adjust spending in real time if projections don't pan out.

That is just a flat out lie. Stop it.

On the other hand, Mitch McConnell says the reason our economy is doing so well right now is because the GOP took over the Senate.

They work a quick miracle, those Senate Republicans. What has it been, a week and a half?

Especially given that the economy has been improving for the past two or three quarters.

Those quarters include the campaign and the election, so really it's as long as Republicans are in the public eye, the economy does well.

Yeah...the last one.

And it's over. Five years later the Republican led legislature just overturned Brownback's veto(supermajority!) of their two year budget that included a $1.2billion (over two years) tax hike.

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/06/...ur&_r=0&referer=https://t.co/ZmGrp4fFke?amp=1

My focus is to create a red-state model that allows the Republican ticket to say, ‘See, we’ve got a different way, and it works.'

Thank you Mr. Brownback for your noble experiment. People will in fact be pointing to Kansas when discussing economic models that work (and those that don't). Feel sorry for the people of Kansas that had to suffer the decreased economic growth, downgrading of credit, and collapse of the state infrastructure, but then again they elected you in the first place...

People who wish to believe in supply-side economics will handwave away what has happened in Kansas, just as they've always done.

I think people missed my humor here.

except Republicans in places like MS will continue to insist - as Brownback does - that it really would have worked if they had just seen it through.

We're on the same path as Kansas, just a year or two behind their curve.

This is why I call it faith-based economics. The market fundies KNOW the TRUTH so all facts and evidence be damned.

Geez, a guy who loves cinnamon at a cinnamon fest boasting about how awesome cinnamon is with some homemade cinnamon he thinks swell, surrounded by his cinnamon pals slapping him on back for any brand of cinnamon. Go figure.

Since taxes apparently are unconnected to economic growth--as proven in one rural backwater--we should pursue higher taxes as the path to prosperity, like they have in Connecticut.

https://www.google.com/amp/www.foxb...ate-may-be-tapped-out-on-taxing-rich.amp.html

So no comment on the topic of how trickle down utterly completely failed in Kansas so badly even Republicans had to admit their mistake and make a u-turn?

Typical.

I don't think anyone said they were completely unconnected to growth. Just that tax cuts for the top few percent and pass through corporations (which don't actually have any operations in the state beyond a P.O. Box) do not especially if they result in massive deficits and essential services getting slashed so badly it effects employment rates and reduces economic competitiveness.

Fail to maintain existing infrastructure? That hurts your economy. Fail to educate your people well enough? That hurts your economy especially in the future. Fire a bunch of police, teachers, fireman, and hospital workers? That hurts your economy especially in low density population states as well as putting your future at risk.

The net effect of all those negatives was greater than any marginal increase in total demand due to the wealthiest of the wealthy getting a bit more cash to slush into the NYC stock market or hide in the Caymen Islands. Oh, and let us not forget this experiment created a massive amount of debt for a rural state like Kansas with virtually nothing to show for it.

Why did the pussy demiurge leave again?

This reminds me of Mitt Romney claiming "wealthy people won't move to California because of taxes!" Then after he lost he bought a $50 million beach front estate in La Jolla because... Who wants to live in Dog Shit Flats, NoWheresville when you can live in mother fucking La Jolla where everything you want and can imagine high society wise is right there? You can either eat at a place with Michelin stars or you can eat at Bob's bait and burger shack.

Can it be any more obvious these guys don't believe their own horse shit? Just look what they do with their own money and time.

People at the bottom always like to hear that the reason they're on the bottom is because the game is rigged. That's why the Dems' bread & butter election strategy is class warfare. The rich are bad, they don't pay their "fair share." The 1% is keeping you down, they're the reason you live paycheck to paycheck and can't retire a millionaire at 40.

Trickle-down may very well be a bad economic philosophy. But social justice based wealth redistribution via escalating taxes that hinder businesses ability to grow and thrive is an equally bad philosophy.

You forgot to quote the person who said this so I'm a bit confused as to where it came from. I'll need more context in order to respond.

I honestly don't remember the details but I do remember reading his post and going "WTF?" I honestly would guess he had some serious stuff going on in his real life so maybe it was a good idea for him to focus on that for a while instead of an internet forum.

You can blame me. He didn't like that I posted this image.

Where you are going wrong is when you claim that someone pointing out the evidence that trickldown is bad economics which doesn't result in the growth its proponents claimed... That they are some how envious and engaging in class warfare. They are not, they are showing evidence that the economic theory of trickle down not only doesn't work but actually materially harms both people and the economy.

That is not envy or class warfare, that is the objective fact the evidence leads to.