Disgusted with kasich administration - Part III

• QuakerOats

  Bigdogg;1430445 wrote:Already answered, lack of leadership. Kasich can't even lead is own party. It's been hijacked by the radical Tea Party.

  
  
  You know the nation is in serious jeopardy when regular Americans who defend the Constitution and advocate for fiscal sanity are labeled "radical".
  
  Simply incredible.
• gut

  QuakerOats;1431964 wrote:You know the nation is in serious jeopardy when regular Americans who defend the Constitution and advocate for fiscal sanity are labeled "radical".
  
  Simply incredible.

  
  
  If you oppose gubmit spending then you must hate prosperity.
• HitsRus

  

  BoatShoes;1431939 wrote:Dude, I would like to see Kasich go for a multitude of reasons but this critique is absurd. It is the same critique levied at Obama. The Green lantern Theory of leadership does not exist in real life. If only Kasich and Obama had "Leadership" they could corral the loons. What a joke. Kasich deserves at least some credit for putting out a budget with the obvious no-brainer that is the medicaid expansion. The fact that Ohio Republicans doing their part in the battle against "teh man in th3 wh1teH0use" don't fall in line with the obvious no-brainer doesn't fall on Kasich.
  
  And no, they likely aren't going to be voted out.
  
  The biggest critique that goes on Kasich, (and Sam Brownback and Jerry Brown and all governor's for that matter) is that they balance their budgets relying on the federal budget deficit to pick up the slack and claim to be paragons of fiscal virtue as if they were operating in a vacuum.

  I agree a lot with whatyou are saying...with the exception of "Kasich must go", and critizing governors for balancing their budget on the money Washington doles out. It is an income stream, andafter all...it IS the state's money...it just passes thru Washington first. I don't know if it is still true, but Ohio used to be a big net 'exporter' of tax dollars, that is more tax dollars would be taken out of the state than returned by the federal government.
  That said, unlike state senators and representatives, I don't think any governor can afford, politically or fiscally to stand on principle when it comes to money from the federal dole.
• Abe Vigoda

  

  HitsRus;1432246 wrote:I agree a lot with whatyou are saying...with the exception of "Kasich must go", and critizing governors for balancing their budget on the money Washington doles out. It is an income stream, andafter all...it IS the state's money...it just passes thru Washington first. I don't know if it is still true, but Ohio used to be a big net 'exporter' of tax dollars, that is more tax dollars would be taken out of the state than returned by the federal government.
  That said, unlike state senators and representatives, I don't think any governor can afford, politically or fiscally to stand on principle when it comes to money from the federal dole.

  Ohio is still a donor state. We pay in more in federal taxes than we receive back. It's crazy to even think about turning down federal money on principal. One of the first things Reagan did in California as Governor is go after more Federal dollars.
• gut

  Abe Vigoda;1432813 wrote:Ohio is still a donor state. We pay in more in federal taxes than we receive back.

  This probably warrants its own thread. Why, for example, should CA attract poverty because of overly generous handouts they can't pay for, and so the federal govt seizes more money from OH taxpayers to give to CA?
• believer

  

  gut;1432872 wrote:This probably warrants its own thread. Why, for example, should CA attract poverty because of overly generous handouts they can't pay for, and so the federal govt seizes more money from OH taxpayers to give to CA?

  Because CA has more liberals in Congress than Ohio.
• Bigdogg

  For those who still think Kasich is a fiscal conservative, take a look at the record.
  
  Strickland First Budget (Actual) : 54.81 Billion
  Strickland Second Budget (Actual) : 50.75 Billion
  Kasich First Budget (Actual) : 54.05 Billion
  Kasich Second Budget (Allocated) : 61.52 Billion
  
  
• QuakerOats

  Thank you. Two budgets after Strickland's first budget, Kasich had a lower budget. Then, after Kasich was able to get Ohio moving again (finally), after Strickland and now obama nearly ran it into the ground, we have more revenues to work with, despite lower tax rates. Once again proving that low tax rates and a business friendly environment always lead to growth and more revenues to the treasury.
  
  
  How many times are we going to go over the same thing? We've been doing this for years now.
• Bigdogg

  QuakerOats;1435627 wrote:Thank you. Two budgets after Strickland's first budget, Kasich had a lower budget. Then, after Kasich was able to get Ohio moving again (finally), after Strickland and now obama nearly ran it into the ground, we have more revenues to work with, despite lower tax rates. Once again proving that low tax rates and a business friendly environment always lead to growth and more revenues to the treasury.
  
  
  How many times are we going to go over the same thing? We've been doing this for years now.

  Math must not be your strong point. Kasich's budget totals for his four years 115.57 billion. Strickland's four year total 105.56 billion. Kasich is 10 billion ahead. You are too funny.
• jmog

  Bigdogg;1435680 wrote:Math must not be your strong point. Kasich's budget totals for his four years 115.57 billion. Strickland's four year total 105.56 billion. Kasich is 10 billion ahead. You are too funny.

  So the budgets grew by about 2.3% per year, which is less than typical inflation, and are actually balanced now...I fail to see the problem?
  
  According to the Keynesians/liberals out there, only allowing growth of 2.3% per year is DRACONIAN CUTS!%&^&@!
• BoatShoes

  Bigdogg;1435680 wrote:Math must not be your strong point. Kasich's budget totals for his four years 115.57 billion. Strickland's four year total 105.56 billion. Kasich is 10 billion ahead. You are too funny.

  This is silly. You are evaluating a growing economy and a concurrently growing budget in nominal terms instead of real terms. This is the same silliness that republicans use to evaluate Obama's budgets in a growing economy.
  
  Why are you trying to judge a Republican based upon this flawed methodology?
• believer

  

  jmog;1435689 wrote:So the budgets grew by about 2.3% per year, which is less than typical inflation, and are actually balanced now...I fail to see the problem?
  
  According to the Keynesians/liberals out there, only allowing growth of 2.3% per year is DRACONIAN CUTS!%&^&@!

  this
• gut

  BoatShoes;1435715 wrote:This is silly. You are evaluating a growing economy and a concurrently growing budget in nominal terms instead of real terms. This is the same silliness that republicans use to evaluate Obama's budgets in a growing economy.

  Right on cue, just ignore that spending increases have outpaced GDP growth by a factor of 2-3X.
  
  Keynesians will make absolutely no connection between record spending, record deficits and a historically weak recovery. They claim not to believe deficit spending is sustainable, but they are nowhere to be found calling for surpluses in good economic times.
• BoatShoes

  gut;1435770 wrote:Right on cue, just ignore that spending increases have outpaced GDP growth by a factor of 2-3X.
  
  Keynesians will make absolutely no connection between record spending, record deficits and a historically weak recovery. They claim not to believe deficit spending is sustainable, but they are nowhere to be found calling for surpluses in good economic times.

  When are you going to make the connection between the size of the deficit and what's going with the current account deficit and the private desire to save? A "record deficit" makes no difference if it's offset by private desire to save/debt deflation and huge current account deficits.
  
  And don't say "Keynesians are no where to be found calling for surpluses" during good economic times when it was guys like Larry Summers and Brad Delong on board with the Surpluses at the end of the 90's in the Clinton Administration and complaining when the next administration put in placed policies that caused structural deficits (i.e. Medicare Part D and the Bush Tax Cuts) and not merely counter-cyclical fiscal policy.
  
  And your buddy Manhattan Buckeye acknowledges this a lot by pointing out that "Krugman is arguing the opposite of what he argued during the Bush Years when he complained about Bush's deficits".
  
  So, you're wrong. Mainstream Keynesians were opposed to the squandering of the Clinton surplus with policies that were not simply counter-cyclical deficit spending.
  
  On the contrary, it is the folks like Paul Ryan who cared not a word about deficit spending during the Bush years despite their arguments that deficits are always bad. Back in those days he argued against "green-eye-shade thinking" and that we were going to pay down our debt too fast if we didn't cut taxes and run deficits, etc.
• gut

  Repubs are also to blame for the continuing deficits, but don't try to pretend that politics doesn't factor in with Krugman and some of his ilk when criticizing the Bush deficits while making EXTRAORDINARY justifications bordering on retarded (like your deficits don't matter/offset by saving moronicism) for $1T+ deficits now. Obama and Reid calling the deficits unpatriotic, and then when the Tea Party puts its foot down Reid calls them "financial terrorists".
• BoatShoes

  gut;1435776 wrote:Repubs are also to blame for the continuing deficits, but don't try to pretend that politics doesn't factor in with Krugman and some of his ilk when criticizing the Bush deficits while making EXTRAORDINARY justifications bordering on retarded (like your deficits don't matter/offset by saving moronicism) for $1T+ deficits now. Obama and Reid calling the deficits unpatriotic, and then when the Tea Party puts its foot down Reid calls them "financial terrorists".

  Obama and Reid are just deficit hawks of the tax raising flavor. If they weren't they would've, for example, passed Medicare for All (which actually would've controlled spending and deficits in the long haul but they couldn't get past their 10 year - $1 trillion to the deficit window...but alas).
  
  You can call it moronocism but the evidence supports my position. Payroll tax hike that will take $170 billion out of peoples pockets by the end of the year and spending cuts that will take $85 billion out of people's pockets and GDP does not end up higher than the projected 3.2%a but lower...
  
  We know have certainty about tax rates and the deficit continues to shrink. Yet, firms continue not to hire and gdp contracts lower than expected as the budget deficit shrinks.
  
  The solution is still the same...Either Huge deficit financed Tax Cuts or Large Amounts of Deficit Financed Direct Spending until there is sufficient improvement to justify raising interest rates. At that point, the spending and/or tax cuts can be rolled back.
• believer

  

  gut;1435776 wrote:Repubs are also to blame for the continuing deficits, but don't try to pretend that politics doesn't factor in with Krugman and some of his ilk when criticizing the Bush deficits while making EXTRAORDINARY justifications bordering on retarded (like your deficits don't matter/offset by saving moronicism) for $1T+ deficits now. Obama and Reid calling the deficits unpatriotic, and then when the Tea Party puts its foot down Reid calls them "financial terrorists".

  And the lapdog media sings the praises.
• Bigdogg

  BoatShoes;1435715 wrote:This is silly. You are evaluating a growing economy and a concurrently growing budget in nominal terms instead of real terms. This is the same silliness that republicans use to evaluate Obama's budgets in a growing economy.
  
  Why are you trying to judge a Republican based upon this flawed methodology?

  Boat,
  You must be one of those people who talk because they like hearing themself. No wonder you get under everyone's skin on here with your know it all attutude. I stated that Kasich ran his campain on being a fiscal consertive. His actions are far from it. That's it, period.
  
  jmog,
  Love it when you people give kasich credit for balancing the state budget. Shows how much you don't now about the state budget.
• jmog

  Bigdogg;1436056 wrote:Boat,
  You must be one of those people who talk because they like hearing themself. No wonder you get under everyone's skin on here with your know it all attutude. I stated that Kasich ran his campain on being a fiscal consertive. His actions are far from it. That's it, period.
  
  jmog,
  Love it when you people give kasich credit for balancing the state budget. Shows how much you don't now about the state budget.

  Your comments, especially the graphs, show what you don't know about math and inflation. See, two can play that game.
• BoatShoes

  Bigdogg;1436056 wrote:Boat,
  You must be one of those people who talk because they like hearing themself. No wonder you get under everyone's skin on here with your know it all attutude. I stated that Kasich ran his campain on being a fiscal consertive. His actions are far from it. That's it, period.

  I appreciate the kind words but your critique just simply doesn't make sense. In real terms, Kasich has fired massive amounts of public employees and cut state government spending as a percentage of GSP and necessarily causing the rise in the federal budget deficit. He's a "fiscal conservative" but fiscal conservatism..i.e. cutting budgets in a depressed economy and firing public employees is idiocy!
  
  If the federal government budgeted the way Ohio Republicans have we would be in a crippling depression. The critique is that he is a fraud because we have the Federal Government and its AD stabilizers and interventions like the Auto-Bailout stabilizing demand in Ohio while he undermines those efforts and claims victory/prudence.
  
  
  
  Look at all of those people that have been fired! The fact that Ohio Unemployment Insurance Expenditures rise doesn't mean he's not full bore into fiscal conservatism!
  
  The critique is that he is a phony and that he is indeed part of the conservative movement that doesn't understand what we should be doing...federally or at the state level...and is undermining the national recovery by thinking it's a good idea to fire people and put them on unemployment insurance and food stamps until they apply for SSDI and then complains about it.
  
  If you think Ed Fitzgerald has any chance of winning by arguing that Kasich isn't a true "Fiscal Conservative" you're kidding yourself.
  
  "Us democrats are better at recovery killing austerity guY5!!" :rolleyes:
• QuakerOats

  Bigdogg;1436056 wrote:Boat,
  I stated that Kasich ran his campain on being a fiscal consertive. His actions are far from it. That's it, period.
  

  
  Ludicrous. He was among the first, and few, conservative leaders who has actually walked the walk by going after the incredible largesse in public sector employment costs. [See SB5 as Exhibit 1.] Fiscal conservatism is all about exposing the out-of-control spending of government entities, and the massive amounts of inefficiency built into government bureaucracy. He has been tackling these issues from day 1, and he has been setting a great example for Ohio municipalities to do the same. Government is the most inefficient allocator of resources, as most of us know, so the less resources given to government, the better off we will all be. Kudos to Kasich for having the balls to do the right thing, the long-term results will be demonstrably positive!
• Bigdogg

  BoatShoes;1436101 wrote:I appreciate the kind words but your critique just simply doesn't make sense. In real terms, Kasich has fired massive amounts of public employees and cut state government spending as a percentage of GSP and necessarily causing the rise in the federal budget deficit. He's a "fiscal conservative" but fiscal conservatism..i.e. cutting budgets in a depressed economy and firing public employees is idiocy!
  
  If the federal government budgeted the way Ohio Republicans have we would be in a crippling depression. The critique is that he is a fraud because we have the Federal Government and its AD stabilizers and interventions like the Auto-Bailout stabilizing demand in Ohio while he undermines those efforts and claims victory/prudence.
  
  
  
  Look at all of those people that have been fired! The fact that Ohio Unemployment Insurance Expenditures rise doesn't mean he's not full bore into fiscal conservatism!
  
  The critique is that he is a phony and that he is indeed part of the conservative movement that doesn't understand what we should be doing...federally or at the state level...and is undermining the national recovery by thinking it's a good idea to fire people and put them on unemployment insurance and food stamps until they apply for SSDI and then complains about it.
  
  If you think Ed Fitzgerald has any chance of winning by arguing that Kasich isn't a true "Fiscal Conservative" you're kidding yourself.
  
  "Us democrats are better at recovery killing austerity guY5!!" :rolleyes:

  Fitzgerald has the same chance of winning as Kasich did against Strickland if the state economy tanks again.
  
  Kasich is a sneaking snake who is so full of bull dung it's funny. Did anyone happen to see the Dayton Paper's report on Robs Ohio? interesting stuff.
  

  But JobsOhio, the private economic development nonprofit Kasich created in 2011 to replace the Department of Development, is staffed mostly by former ODOD employees and other ex-government workers. Nearly all of those workers also received large raises to leave the public sector, a Dayton Daily News analysis found.In all, 19 of JobsOhio’s 22 full-time employees are former state workers, including seven people who worked for ODOD in 2010 or earlier. All but two of the 22 received raises of at least 15 percent above their state salaries.

  http://www.mydaytondailynews.com/news/news/state-regional/jobsohio-staff-given-hefty-raises/nXYJG/?icmp=daytondaily_internallink_textlink_apr2013_daytondailystubtomydaytondaily_launch
• jmog

  BoatShoes;1436101 wrote:I appreciate the kind words but your critique just simply doesn't make sense. In real terms, Kasich has fired massive amounts of public employees and cut state government spending as a percentage of GSP and necessarily causing the rise in the federal budget deficit. He's a "fiscal conservative" but fiscal conservatism..i.e. cutting budgets in a depressed economy and firing public employees is idiocy!
  
  If the federal government budgeted the way Ohio Republicans have we would be in a crippling depression. The critique is that he is a fraud because we have the Federal Government and its AD stabilizers and interventions like the Auto-Bailout stabilizing demand in Ohio while he undermines those efforts and claims victory/prudence.
  
  
  
  Look at all of those people that have been fired! The fact that Ohio Unemployment Insurance Expenditures rise doesn't mean he's not full bore into fiscal conservatism!
  
  The critique is that he is a phony and that he is indeed part of the conservative movement that doesn't understand what we should be doing...federally or at the state level...and is undermining the national recovery by thinking it's a good idea to fire people and put them on unemployment insurance and food stamps until they apply for SSDI and then complains about it.
  
  If you think Ed Fitzgerald has any chance of winning by arguing that Kasich isn't a true "Fiscal Conservative" you're kidding yourself.
  
  "Us democrats are better at recovery killing austerity guY5!!" :rolleyes:

  So laying off 5-6% of the work force (actual numbers from your graph) is idiocy? You do realize that most private companies reduced staff by 5-10% in that same time frame right?
• BoatShoes

  Bigdogg;1436128 wrote:Fitzgerald has the same chance of winning as Kasich did against Strickland if the state economy tanks again.

  Look, Fitzgerald is a good guy and actually seems to be a pretty solid administrator in my opinion and I hope he wins. However, I certainly will have little faith in his ability to do so if he's going to try to make the argument you made in his campaign...
• BoatShoes

  jmog;1436137 wrote:So laying off 5-6% of the work force (actual numbers from your graph) is idiocy? You do realize that most private companies reduced staff by 5-10% in that same time frame right?

  Are you really going with this? Do you not know my position on this by now? The economy is not a morality play. You don't fire public employee's out of some desire to make them experience the same moral consequences or pain as private sector employees. It only deepens the consequences of private sector slumps. The boom, not the bust is the time to fire public employees and reduce staff. State governments deserve some leeway because they are budgetarily constrained (but the Feds should be their to support them and obviously we don't have that).
  
  The idea that "Private Sector does X" therefore "Government Must do X" is wrong. So, because the private sector takes money out of the economy by firing people...we should take even more money out of the economy by firing opublic employees and also pay them not to work to when we put them on unemployment insurance; ensuring that even less economic activity occurs and that unemployment rises???