Governor Kasich

• Writerbuckeye

  

  BoatShoes;722304 wrote:Even if this were true. Cannot you not see that Bigdogg's posts with regard to Gov. Kasich read exactly like yours with regard to President Obama? In your next post you refer to Gov. Strickland as a pussy. How is that different? You act like you're above slurs when it seems to be your expertise.

  
  Not really. Doggie and his ilk like to label people (see the use of the term Tea Bagger, the Bush-Hitler references so common when he was in office; the quick jump to associate anyone on the right with Nazism). Some of this comes, I think, from the left's use of Alinsky's rules as a strategy to demean your opponent publicly to take away his credibility.
  
  As for my calling Strickland a pussy -- it was in reference to his lack of will to address the budget deficit when it first showed up, and using federal dollars to simply extend the crisis and put off having to deal with it. Perhaps political coward would have been a better choice of words.
• fish82

  

  BoatShoes;722304 wrote:Even if this were true. Cannot you not see that Bigdogg's posts with regard to Gov. Kasich read exactly like yours with regard to President Obama? In your next post you refer to Gov. Strickland as a pussy. How is that different? You act like you're above slurs when it seems to be your expertise.

  Because Strickland acted like a pussy, at least from a political perspective. I agree it's a harsh term, but its accuracy is not in dispute.
• QuakerOats

  majorspark;721374 wrote:Do you seriously believe that Kasich is a dictator? If so can you provide evidence supporting your claim?

  
  I wish he was a dictator; we could get all the problems solved in 3 months, and then move on.
• Bigdogg

  BoatShoes;722304 wrote:Even if this were true. Cannot you not see that Bigdogg's posts with regard to Gov. Kasich read exactly like yours with regard to President Obama? In your next post you refer to Gov. Strickland as a pussy. How is that different? You act like you're above slurs when it seems to be your expertise.

  
  No worries Boat, I enjoy pulling their chain. They are entitled to their convictions, and I will continue to speak what I believe to be true also. Unlike them, I don't care what political party one belongs to. I will continue to call a spade a spade. I truly believe that Kasich's policies will destroy Ohio for years to come. I will do my part everyday to get him and his far right wing clowns in Columbus hell bent in destroying the middle class out of power as soon as possible.
• Writerbuckeye

  

  Bigdogg;722665 wrote:No worries Boat, I enjoy pulling their chain. They are entitled to their convictions, and I will continue to speak what I believe to be true also. Unlike them, I don't care what political party one belongs to. I will continue to call a spade a spade. I truly believe that Kasich's policies will destroy Ohio for years to come. I will do my part everyday to get him and his far right wing clowns in Columbus hell bent in destroying the middle class out of power as soon as possible.

  
  Your last sentence is so laughable and absurd.
  
  Why would Republicans want to destroy the source of the people most likely to vote Republican? Look at how household incomes have shifted over the last 100 years and it's been upward...always upward. Lots of folks who were previously considered middle class moved into what YOU and folks like you call "wealthy" but are, in fact, simply upwardly mobile middle class.
  
  They are the very core of people likely to vote Republican as they realize Democrats use the politics of class warfare to try and guilt them into voting for more entitlements and other programs that require more and more tax dollars.
  
  It is those who lean to the liberal side that would benefit most politically from the destruction of the middle class, since those who have less are more dependent on government tend to vote exclusively for Democrats.
• stlouiedipalma

  Writerbuckeye;722811 wrote:Your last sentence is so laughable and absurd.
  
  Why would Republicans want to destroy the source of the people most likely to vote Republican? Look at how household incomes have shifted over the last 100 years and it's been upward...always upward. Lots of folks who were previously considered middle class moved into what YOU and folks like you call "wealthy" but are, in fact, simply upwardly mobile middle class.
  
  They are the very core of people likely to vote Republican as they realize Democrats use the politics of class warfare to try and guilt them into voting for more entitlements and other programs that require more and more tax dollars.
  
  It is those who lean to the liberal side that would benefit most politically from the destruction of the middle class, since those who have less are more dependent on government tend to vote exclusively for Democrats.

  
  
  http://www.cleveland.com/datacentral/index.ssf/2010/09/ohios_poverty_uninsured_rates.html
• Writerbuckeye

  

  stlouiedipalma;722837 wrote:http://www.cleveland.com/datacentral/index.ssf/2010/09/ohios_poverty_uninsured_rates.html

  
  Two years do not counter my statement that OVER THE LAST 100 YEARS incomes have shifted UPWARD. There are going to be ups and downs in the economy, and groups are going to shift back and forth. Also, what is deemed poverty now is laughable compared to what poverty was even 50 years ago. Most people considered to live at poverty level these days have cars, cable TV, Internet, computers and a whole host of other amenities that folks in REAL poverty elsewhere in the world do not have access to.
  
  We throw the terms "poor" and "poverty" around a bit cavalierly, in my opinion, these days.
• stlouiedipalma

  I see your point, but I just wanted to throw some numbers out there to illustrate what's been going on lately. Looking at my income history, I cannot imagine what it must be like to live at what is considered the poverty level. Today's poverty level wasn't such a bad income even 30 years ago, but of course the cost of living has gone up since then.
  
  A number of my younger friends feel that a year without a pay raise or a bonus is an outrage. I can only shake my head with disbelief when I hear that kind of talk.
• CenterBHSFan

  

  stlouiedipalma;722915 wrote:A number of my younger friends feel that a year without a pay raise or a bonus is an outrage. I can only shake my head with disbelief when I hear that kind of talk.

  Are they in public unions?
• BoatShoes

  fish82;722499 wrote:Because Strickland acted like a pussy, at least from a political perspective. I agree it's a harsh term, but its accuracy is not in dispute.

  An Ohio liberal might just as easily argue that Kasich is acting like a tyrant or whatever. It's the same damn bullshit.
• Ty Webb

  

  LJ;721563 wrote:Whaddya mean "you people"
  
  

  
  Well played sir
• Ty Webb

  

  Dems calling Kasich a dictator is as stupid as Repubs calling Obama a radical Muslim
• Belly35

  

  Ty Webb;724289 wrote:Dems calling Kasich a dictator is as stupid as Repubs calling Obama a radical Muslim

  
  Community organizer radical muslim
• FALLSGUY

  CenterBHSFan;722969 wrote:Are they in public unions?

  
  Thats until they don't get pay raises for 2 years and have to pay more for hospitaliztion,pension etc. Your 'younger friends' as I have found are the first ones to complain in the work place when they don't get what they feel they deserve!
• BoatShoes

  Writerbuckeye;722811 wrote:Your last sentence is so laughable and absurd.
  
  Why would Republicans want to destroy the source of the people most likely to vote Republican? Look at how household incomes have shifted over the last 100 years and it's been upward...always upward. Lots of folks who were previously considered middle class moved into what YOU and folks like you call "wealthy" but are, in fact, simply upwardly mobile middle class.
  
  They are the very core of people likely to vote Republican as they realize Democrats use the politics of class warfare to try and guilt them into voting for more entitlements and other programs that require more and more tax dollars.
  
  It is those who lean to the liberal side that would benefit most politically from the destruction of the middle class, since those who have less are more dependent on government tend to vote exclusively for Democrats.

  
  It has been nearly flat for the last 30 years. Yet, they have a hire tax rate than GE (which isn't saying much as most middle income earners are effectively under a consumption tax) who once again for FY 2010 paid zero in domestic taxes again. Bada bing! That arrives to a massively burdensome effective tax rate of 3.17% from 2002-2010? How can we ever keep businesses in the U.S. with such draconian tax rates! (Apologies for hijacking the thread but bouncing off Writer's statement as to why the republican party is the party of the middle class! 'Merica! Fuck Yah!)
• Ty Webb

  

  Belly35;724292 wrote:Community organizer radical muslim

  
  Thank you for proving my point belly
  
  People like you and whoever called Kasich a dictator are what's wrong with our country and political system
• FALLSGUY

  Ty Webb;724289 wrote:Dems calling Kasich a dictator is as stupid as Repubs calling Obama a radical Muslim

  
  Except that Kasich wants to be able to take his ball and go home if he doesn't get what he wants. Oh, is that the other end of the spectrum?
• Writerbuckeye

  

  Taxing companies beyond a certain point is nothing more than taxing consumers -- because that tax will always, always, always get passed on. And if it's too burdensome and can't be passed on, then the company has other choices, like laying people off, not creating new jobs, or in the worst case, simply closing down.
  
  It amazes me that so-called intelligent people can't see this.
  
  And it's the CORPORATE TAX RATES that are too high...much higher than most countries. More incentive to move or establish operations overseas.
  
  Back on your point: if you truly want there to be more wealth created in this country that can be used to create more and better jobs -- stop demonizing the rich. Like it or not, the health of our economy depends on the well to do investing money to create more jobs. When government programs do nothing but tax at higher rates and "go after" those who are prosperous, it has been shown the prosperous simply move their money elsewhere (overseas, into tax shelters here) and all of us lose out...but especially those at the lower end of the scale.
  
  Also, if you truly want to help raise income levels on lower end jobs: stop the flow of cheap, illegal labor into this country. If there is an abundance of cheap labor around to do jobs, Americans are going to use them. That's a fact of human nature. If we'd tighten the borders and get rid of the excess of cheap labor, a lot of these jobs would begin paying more, because there would be a short supply of labor to fill them. Market pressures would force salaries to come up.
  
  The one thing we do know that doesn't work is creating more government entitlement programs that try to redistribute what already exists. Creating more debt won't solve our problem and will only make the economy worse for everyone -- and those at the lower end will suffer the most.
• BoatShoes

  Writerbuckeye;724381 wrote:Taxing companies beyond a certain point is nothing more than taxing consumers -- because that tax will always, always, always get passed on. And if it's too burdensome and can't be passed on, then the company has other choices, like laying people off, not creating new jobs, or in the worst case, simply closing down.
  
  It amazes me that so-called intelligent people can't see this.
  
  And it's the CORPORATE TAX RATES that are too high...much higher than most countries. More incentive to move or establish operations overseas.
  
  Back on your point: if you truly want there to be more wealth created in this country that can be used to create more and better jobs -- stop demonizing the rich. Like it or not, the health of our economy depends on the well to do investing money to create more jobs. When government programs do nothing but tax at higher rates and "go after" those who are prosperous, it has been shown the prosperous simply move their money elsewhere (overseas, into tax shelters here) and all of us lose out...but especially those at the lower end of the scale.
  
  Also, if you truly want to help raise income levels on lower end jobs: stop the flow of cheap, illegal labor into this country. If there is an abundance of cheap labor around to do jobs, Americans are going to use them. That's a fact of human nature. If we'd tighten the borders and get rid of the excess of cheap labor, a lot of these jobs would begin paying more, because there would be a short supply of labor to fill them. Market pressures would force salaries to come up.
  
  The one thing we do know that doesn't work is creating more government entitlement programs that try to redistribute what already exists. Creating more debt won't solve our problem and will only make the economy worse for everyone -- and those at the lower end will suffer the most.

  
  LOL. You're like a record player. All of this is true for your A Priori I know but it doesn't stand up to empirical scrutiny. You should've seen your boys O'Reilly, Stossel and Dobbs whining about how little taxes GE paid tonight. I guess they're just slothful socialists after all. Oh well.
• Con_Alma

  BoatShoes;724596 wrote:....You should've seen your boys O'Reilly, Stossel and Dobbs... I guess they're just slothful socialists after all. Oh well.

  Remember that. We will come back to that on a different issue in the future.
• Writerbuckeye

  

  BoatShoes;724596 wrote:LOL. You're like a record player. All of this is true for your A Priori I know but it doesn't stand up to empirical scrutiny. You should've seen your boys O'Reilly, Stossel and Dobbs whining about how little taxes GE paid tonight. I guess they're just slothful socialists after all. Oh well.

  
  No, they're called populists. Look it up.
• Bigdogg

  Looks like the numbers released to the schools districts a couple of days by Kasick's office of disinformation don't add up yet again. I swear he thinks he is till on FOX and thinks people are too stupid to figure out the truth. Really, I think we have way too many schools now but I got to scratch my head on stuff like this. Going to be interesting to see how the voters react to yet again more school levy's.
  

  Numbers released Thursday by Kasich's budget staff showing proposed K-12 funding for local schools didn't include the funds schools receive through reimbursements that have protected districts from the elimination of the tangible personal-property tax, or TPP.
  
  The administration's figures also didn't include the loss of $454 million in federal stimulus money that schools used this year for basic operations. The Dispatch included stimulus funds in its calculations and reported yesterday that more than 590 of Ohio's 612 school districts will see cuts in basic operational funding next year if Kasich's two-year budget is enacted.

  "Obviously, what they released the other day wasn't the full story, and the facts do eventually come out," Butland said. "School officials are trying to put their budgets together, and it's just shameful that the Kasich administration would withhold these numbers."

  And the response from the office of disinformation:
  

  Rob Nichols rejected Butland's claims that the administration withheld data from the public. Nichols would not confirm or deny the authenticity of the figures posted online by Innovation Ohio.
  "It's not our job to proofread what a partisan, liberal group chooses to post on its website," Nichols said.

  We shall see who is telling the truth.
• Writerbuckeye

  

  Why wouldn't they know they're not getting stimulus dollars, for goodness sake. That sham ended and wasn't renewed (thankfully). And every article I saw on local districts had them ALL preparing for cuts. None of this is a surprise or a ruse in any way, shape or form.
  
  Keep reaching, though. I'm sure your pathological hatred of Kasich needs an outlet -- laughable as this stuff mostly is.
• Bigdogg

  Writerbuckeye;725418 wrote:Why wouldn't they know they're not getting stimulus dollars, for goodness sake. That sham ended and wasn't renewed (thankfully). And every article I saw on local districts had them ALL preparing for cuts. None of this is a surprise or a ruse in any way, shape or form.
  
  Keep reaching, though. I'm sure your pathological hatred of Kasich needs an outlet -- laughable as this stuff mostly is.

  
  I am sure all of the superintendents and treasures were fully aware that the stimulus dollars were one time only. I am also positive that the lost revenue from the tangible personal-property tax reimbursement was a complete surprise to everyone. It's a major source of income.
  
  Of course you don't want to discuss that the whole purpose of the stimulus dollars the schools all received was so the state would have money to cover all it's obligations given the 30% loss of tax revenue during the height of the recession.
  
  To state that the numbers put out to the media by Kasich's administration was not a "ruse in any way, shape or form" is so laughable it would be sad if not coming from your mouth. Even the Dispatch didn't fall for that one.
• QuakerOats

  The tangible personal property tax was replaced by the CAT tax .... lower rate, but MUCH broader base.
  
  Try again ...............