It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Republican Governor learns his tax cuts for the rich didn't work

page: 8
14
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 5 2015 @ 10:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: Greven

I'm talking about voting precincts, not entire states or even counties, and maybe not even entire cities.

How many unemployed live inside a Democrat voting precinct?


I don't know, why don't you find out for us?




posted on Jan, 5 2015 @ 10:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: Greven

I'm talking about voting precincts, not entire states or even counties, and maybe not even entire cities.

How many unemployed live inside a Democrat voting precinct?


I don't know, why don't you find out for us?


But I was the first one to ask the question.




posted on Jan, 6 2015 @ 10:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: Indigo5
And in all fairness, what of those percentages are people that live in Democrat voting pockets?

Boying ing ing



Looks like it's 50:50 Democrat:Republican, to me.
(Red) Mississippi 7.3
(Blue) California 7.2
(Red) Georgia 7.2
(Blue) Rhode Island 7.1
(Blue) Oregon 7.0
(Blueish purple?) Nevada 6.9
(Red) Arizona 6.8
(Red) Tenessee 6.8
(Blue) Michigan 6.7
(Red) South Carolina 6.7


Not sure why you altered the post? Both Nevada and Michigan's governors are indisputable, registered, proud, republicans? Why do you have them as Democrats? Both have also cut funding to education and other areas in trade for Corporate tax breaks.

R Mississippi 7.3
D California 7.2
R Georgia 7.2
D Rhode Island 7.1
D Oregon 7.0
R Nevada 6.9
R Arizona 6.8
R Tennessee 6.8
R Michigan 6.7
R South Carolina 6.7



posted on Jan, 6 2015 @ 10:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: Greven

I'm talking about voting precincts, not entire states or even counties, and maybe not even entire cities.

How many unemployed live inside a Democrat voting precinct?





This seems desperate and irrelevant?

We are discussing Governors and tax policy in those states...aka State wide tax rates and breaks for corporations and cuts to state-wide programs for education and infrastructure to fund those give aways...that is not done at the district level?



posted on Jan, 6 2015 @ 10:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: Indigo5
And in all fairness, what of those percentages are people that live in Democrat voting pockets?

Boying ing ing



Looks like it's 50:50 Democrat:Republican, to me.
(Red) Mississippi 7.3
(Blue) California 7.2
(Red) Georgia 7.2
(Blue) Rhode Island 7.1
(Blue) Oregon 7.0
(Blueish purple?) Nevada 6.9
(Red) Arizona 6.8
(Red) Tenessee 6.8
(Blue) Michigan 6.7
(Red) South Carolina 6.7


Not sure why you altered the post? Both Nevada and Michigan's governors are indisputable, registered, proud, republicans? Why do you have them as Democrats? Both have also cut funding to education and other areas in trade for Corporate tax breaks.

R Mississippi 7.3
D California 7.2
R Georgia 7.2
D Rhode Island 7.1
D Oregon 7.0
R Nevada 6.9
R Arizona 6.8
R Tennessee 6.8
R Michigan 6.7
R South Carolina 6.7


Do you have any data or facts on the funding "cuts"?

In my experience, when the media talks about funding "cuts" they usually refer to not cuts at all, but to increasing spending at a slower rate than initially proposed. Instead of increasing the budget by 4%, it might only be increase 3.5% and the media tries to demonize the politician being targeted by labeling the 3.5% increase a spending cut, which obviously it's not.



posted on Jan, 6 2015 @ 11:42 AM
link   
Not going to search the entire thread, but, I will leave this here.www.cnbc.com.... Maryland's tax on the wealthy did them wonders.



posted on Jan, 6 2015 @ 11:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: Jamie1

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: Indigo5
And in all fairness, what of those percentages are people that live in Democrat voting pockets?

Boying ing ing



Looks like it's 50:50 Democrat:Republican, to me.
(Red) Mississippi 7.3
(Blue) California 7.2
(Red) Georgia 7.2
(Blue) Rhode Island 7.1
(Blue) Oregon 7.0
(Blueish purple?) Nevada 6.9
(Red) Arizona 6.8
(Red) Tenessee 6.8
(Blue) Michigan 6.7
(Red) South Carolina 6.7


Not sure why you altered the post? Both Nevada and Michigan's governors are indisputable, registered, proud, republicans? Why do you have them as Democrats? Both have also cut funding to education and other areas in trade for Corporate tax breaks.

R Mississippi 7.3
D California 7.2
R Georgia 7.2
D Rhode Island 7.1
D Oregon 7.0
R Nevada 6.9
R Arizona 6.8
R Tennessee 6.8
R Michigan 6.7
R South Carolina 6.7


Do you have any data or facts on the funding "cuts"?

In my experience, when the media talks about funding "cuts" they usually refer to not cuts at all, but to increasing spending at a slower rate than initially proposed. Instead of increasing the budget by 4%, it might only be increase 3.5% and the media tries to demonize the politician being targeted by labeling the 3.5% increase a spending cut, which obviously it's not.


An expansive question that can be answered through your own research. That said, I cited Michigan and Nevada as the two that had been mysteriously changed in the post to (D) from (R) and said they cut education, so I will get you rolling with those two.

Nevada
Sandoval education cuts "by far the largest" ever in Nevada
www.reviewjournal.com...


Aguero pegged the overall cut at about 9 percent compared to the budget the Legislature approved in 2009, or $685 per pupil when all state and local sources are included.


Michigan
Rick Snyder's cuts to education is a complex picture and apparently the topic of much debate the past 6 months. Scanning fact-checks and articles...as best I can tell..Yes, he cut education funding...lower than 2009 levels, Yes, gave tax breaks to corporations, BUT those cuts were partially back-filled with Federal Aid from DC, so to claim that funding for education in Michigan has dropped in real dollars? No, it has moderately increased. Has funding from Michigan for education gone down? Yes, significantly, but back-filled with Stimulas money.

So..as best I can tell...he cut state funding to education, gave tax breaks to corporations, but back-filled that cut in funding to education with Federal stimulus dollars (which expires this year). An interesting accounting route to diverting federal stimulas funds marked for education to corporations. Also note by "per pupil" calculations, funding went down any which way you count it...per pupil funding is a different calculation that raw dollar amounts as it depends on student population numbers.

So...you can dig in any state you choose and take a look, but given that Republican governors have actually publicly bragged about cuts to education and tax breaks to corporations, I don't think it is a leap to assume they have been telling the truth about their own conservative policy and aims.



posted on Jan, 6 2015 @ 11:46 AM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5

Weird? that was the Las-Vegas Review Journal I linked to? With I had know that would eliminate the whole lengthy post?

I am not going to re-type the whole thing...ugh



posted on Jan, 6 2015 @ 11:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: Jamie1

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: Indigo5
And in all fairness, what of those percentages are people that live in Democrat voting pockets?

Boying ing ing



Looks like it's 50:50 Democrat:Republican, to me.
(Red) Mississippi 7.3
(Blue) California 7.2
(Red) Georgia 7.2
(Blue) Rhode Island 7.1
(Blue) Oregon 7.0
(Blueish purple?) Nevada 6.9
(Red) Arizona 6.8
(Red) Tenessee 6.8
(Blue) Michigan 6.7
(Red) South Carolina 6.7


Not sure why you altered the post? Both Nevada and Michigan's governors are indisputable, registered, proud, republicans? Why do you have them as Democrats? Both have also cut funding to education and other areas in trade for Corporate tax breaks.

R Mississippi 7.3
D California 7.2
R Georgia 7.2
D Rhode Island 7.1
D Oregon 7.0
R Nevada 6.9
R Arizona 6.8
R Tennessee 6.8
R Michigan 6.7
R South Carolina 6.7


Do you have any data or facts on the funding "cuts"?

In my experience, when the media talks about funding "cuts" they usually refer to not cuts at all, but to increasing spending at a slower rate than initially proposed. Instead of increasing the budget by 4%, it might only be increase 3.5% and the media tries to demonize the politician being targeted by labeling the 3.5% increase a spending cut, which obviously it's not.


Tried to respond above...Yes is the short answer...you can investigate on your own if you disagree.



posted on Jan, 6 2015 @ 11:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: Jamie1

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: Indigo5
And in all fairness, what of those percentages are people that live in Democrat voting pockets?

Boying ing ing



Looks like it's 50:50 Democrat:Republican, to me.
(Red) Mississippi 7.3
(Blue) California 7.2
(Red) Georgia 7.2
(Blue) Rhode Island 7.1
(Blue) Oregon 7.0
(Blueish purple?) Nevada 6.9
(Red) Arizona 6.8
(Red) Tenessee 6.8
(Blue) Michigan 6.7
(Red) South Carolina 6.7


Not sure why you altered the post? Both Nevada and Michigan's governors are indisputable, registered, proud, republicans? Why do you have them as Democrats? Both have also cut funding to education and other areas in trade for Corporate tax breaks.

R Mississippi 7.3
D California 7.2
R Georgia 7.2
D Rhode Island 7.1
D Oregon 7.0
R Nevada 6.9
R Arizona 6.8
R Tennessee 6.8
R Michigan 6.7
R South Carolina 6.7


Do you have any data or facts on the funding "cuts"?

In my experience, when the media talks about funding "cuts" they usually refer to not cuts at all, but to increasing spending at a slower rate than initially proposed. Instead of increasing the budget by 4%, it might only be increase 3.5% and the media tries to demonize the politician being targeted by labeling the 3.5% increase a spending cut, which obviously it's not.


Let me try it without the link..

An expansive question that can be answered through your own research. That said, I cited Michigan and Nevada as the two that had been mysteriously changed in the post to (D) from (R) and said they cut education, so I will get you rolling with those two.

Nevada
Sandoval education cuts "by far the largest" ever in Nevada
Link not permitted?


Aguero pegged the overall cut at about 9 percent compared to the budget the Legislature approved in 2009, or $685 per pupil when all state and local sources are included.


Michigan
Rick Snyder's cuts to education is a complex picture and apparently the topic of much debate the past 6 months. Scanning fact-checks and articles...as best I can tell..Yes, he cut education funding...lower than 2009 levels, Yes, gave tax breaks to corporations, BUT those cuts were partially back-filled with Federal Aid from DC, so to claim that funding for education in Michigan has dropped in real dollars? No, it has moderately increased. Has funding from Michigan for education gone down? Yes, significantly, but back-filled with Stimulas money.

So..as best I can tell...he cut state funding to education, gave tax breaks to corporations, but back-filled that cut in funding to education with Federal stimulus dollars (which expires this year). An interesting accounting route to diverting federal stimulas funds marked for education to corporations. Also note by "per pupil" calculations, funding went down any which way you count it...per pupil funding is a different calculation that raw dollar amounts as it depends on student population numbers.

So...you can dig in any state you choose and take a look, but given that Republican governors have actually publicly bragged about cuts to education and tax breaks to corporations, I don't think it is a leap to assume they have been telling the truth about their own conservative policy and aims.



posted on Jan, 6 2015 @ 11:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: Jamie1

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: Indigo5
And in all fairness, what of those percentages are people that live in Democrat voting pockets?

Boying ing ing



Looks like it's 50:50 Democrat:Republican, to me.
(Red) Mississippi 7.3
(Blue) California 7.2
(Red) Georgia 7.2
(Blue) Rhode Island 7.1
(Blue) Oregon 7.0
(Blueish purple?) Nevada 6.9
(Red) Arizona 6.8
(Red) Tenessee 6.8
(Blue) Michigan 6.7
(Red) South Carolina 6.7


Not sure why you altered the post? Both Nevada and Michigan's governors are indisputable, registered, proud, republicans? Why do you have them as Democrats? Both have also cut funding to education and other areas in trade for Corporate tax breaks.

R Mississippi 7.3
D California 7.2
R Georgia 7.2
D Rhode Island 7.1
D Oregon 7.0
R Nevada 6.9
R Arizona 6.8
R Tennessee 6.8
R Michigan 6.7
R South Carolina 6.7


Do you have any data or facts on the funding "cuts"?

In my experience, when the media talks about funding "cuts" they usually refer to not cuts at all, but to increasing spending at a slower rate than initially proposed. Instead of increasing the budget by 4%, it might only be increase 3.5% and the media tries to demonize the politician being targeted by labeling the 3.5% increase a spending cut, which obviously it's not.


Tried to respond above...Yes is the short answer...you can investigate on your own if you disagree.


How can I disagree with unsubstantiated claims?

There's nothing to disagree with.



posted on Jan, 6 2015 @ 12:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5
It appears that you can quote the restricted post to retrieve the text.



posted on Jan, 6 2015 @ 12:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
Not going to search the entire thread, but, I will leave this here.www.cnbc.com.... Maryland's tax on the wealthy did them wonders.


Bad data and conclusions by an anti-tax group.

That tax increase expired in 2010, and yet Maryland resident continue to leave...plus ..a more expansive and accurate Gallup Poll actually asked people why they wanted to leave Maryland..and it wasn't taxes..


Maryland's unhappy residents
Poll shows a lot of people are ready to leave the Free State, but contrary to what some politicians may say, it's not because of high taxes

articles.baltimoresun.com...
edit on 6-1-2015 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 6 2015 @ 12:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: Jamie1

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: Jamie1

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: Indigo5
And in all fairness, what of those percentages are people that live in Democrat voting pockets?

Boying ing ing



Looks like it's 50:50 Democrat:Republican, to me.
(Red) Mississippi 7.3
(Blue) California 7.2
(Red) Georgia 7.2
(Blue) Rhode Island 7.1
(Blue) Oregon 7.0
(Blueish purple?) Nevada 6.9
(Red) Arizona 6.8
(Red) Tenessee 6.8
(Blue) Michigan 6.7
(Red) South Carolina 6.7


Not sure why you altered the post? Both Nevada and Michigan's governors are indisputable, registered, proud, republicans? Why do you have them as Democrats? Both have also cut funding to education and other areas in trade for Corporate tax breaks.

R Mississippi 7.3
D California 7.2
R Georgia 7.2
D Rhode Island 7.1
D Oregon 7.0
R Nevada 6.9
R Arizona 6.8
R Tennessee 6.8
R Michigan 6.7
R South Carolina 6.7


Do you have any data or facts on the funding "cuts"?

In my experience, when the media talks about funding "cuts" they usually refer to not cuts at all, but to increasing spending at a slower rate than initially proposed. Instead of increasing the budget by 4%, it might only be increase 3.5% and the media tries to demonize the politician being targeted by labeling the 3.5% increase a spending cut, which obviously it's not.


Tried to respond above...Yes is the short answer...you can investigate on your own if you disagree.


How can I disagree with unsubstantiated claims?

There's nothing to disagree with.


See other post..

Be SPECIFIC in what you disagree with...lest you are demanding I summarize budgets in detail (cuts in real dollars vs. increase vs. asked for budgets vs. per pupil allocation) for all 10 states???



posted on Jan, 6 2015 @ 12:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5

Decreasing revenue and missed projections, is not "bad data".



posted on Jan, 6 2015 @ 02:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: Indigo5

Decreasing revenue and missed projections, is not "bad data".



Your link claimed that an increase on the tax rate for the wealthy in Maryland caused a population exodus.

This has been shown to be false. Yes folks are leaving Maryland, but not for tax reasons and not just the wealthy...and at a pace equal to before the tax increase and after the tax increase expired...Gallup ran specific polls on who was leaving, when and why...also census data...etc.so...

Now you are claiming your issue is with "Decreasing revenue and missed projections"?...Ok...explain what's up? I thought you were talking about Maryland increasing the tax rate on the wealthy?

What are you saying?

edit on 6-1-2015 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 6 2015 @ 04:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
Not going to search the entire thread, but, I will leave this here.www.cnbc.com.... Maryland's tax on the wealthy did them wonders.


geez...the wealthy moving to another state with lower income taxes.....I'm shocked, capt. obvious.....they have states compete against each other, just as they do with countries that have lower taxes.....the wealthy don't give a s**t where they live, because anywhere they go, they get the royal treatment. they do not care about sovereignty, the countries people, the political control...they care about their money, that's it....and yet we still have dumbasses here in America that want to give them a break in their taxes....don't you people realize you all work for them, you have no control over what they do, where they go, or what they can do with their money. they have been working on this for centuries, making sure no matter what the location, the governments will not force them to help the commoner, hard working or not. they are untouchable, get used to it....if you want more, you take it from the middle class and poor, no matter what country you are in, those people are the ones that are legally screwable.



posted on Jan, 6 2015 @ 04:52 PM
link   
This is so stupid. You are basically comparing the poorest side of the KCK metro and its job growth to the KCMO side which is also pretty poor and rapidly hemorrhaging jobs to the Kansas side of the metro. Do you know where those jobs are mostly going? To place like Overland Park, Lenexa, Olathe, etc. You know, the places they purposely left OUT in their comparison. And don't tell me I don't know what I'm talking about. I've lived in the KC Metro for the past 15 years.

I live on the KCMO side and work in Lenexa, KS. Cerner ... move to Kansas. Sporting KC ... moved to Kansas. There have been others.



posted on Jan, 6 2015 @ 08:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: SaturnFX
so, the rich folks didn't just pour the extra savings back into the economy but instead do as rich folks do, invest/save/nestegg it.

go figure.



Uh...investing IS putting money back into the economy. That is where public companies can get operating capital and everyone with a retirement account has investments.
actually, it is far more complex than that. First off, investment is typically on the top tier companies who are global. that cash rarely is dropped in the west as financial laws aren't thieving enough for them, so when a factory or line opens up for say, apple, it directly helps places like china, india, etc.

No

globalization, international markets, etc...the whole investors always helps out the country hasn't been true since like the 50s.



posted on Jan, 7 2015 @ 06:50 AM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5

You are right, tax the ever loving s# out of the rich. It will always make a state more money.



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join