|
Post by saskabronco on Oct 29, 2014 12:47:45 GMT -5
This is a statement/question aimed mainly at the more conservative minded people here, who believe in trickle-down economics and tax cuts for the wealthy and the corporations. I would also like to hear from anyone who lives in Kansas that would like to talk about this issue. Is anyone here following what is happening in Kansas? Republican Governor Sam Brownback, when he took office, preached about creating a Kansas Utopia. He drastically cut taxes to the wealthy and to the corporations in an effort to show the world how a state would thrive from the wonderful trickle-down economic theory. To break down the numbers, he cut top-earners tax rates from 6.45% to 4.9% and cut business taxes completely. The theory behind all of this is that they were going to make Kansas a haven for businesses, so many companies would move to Kansas, bringing with them more jobs and helping the state to flourish. How did that work? "Kansas’ job growth stagnated in 2012 and income growth fell. Far from a stimulus plan, Brownback’s tax cuts were a massive program of redistribution for the rich. According to a report from the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, the bottom 20 percent of Kansas taxpayers saw their tax burden increase by more than half a percent as a result of the Brownback plan, while the wealthiest Kansans saw their taxes decrease by 1 percent. [T]hese tax cuts were followed by harsh new welfare requirements (including drug tests and stricter work provisions), and tighter eligibility for food stamps. He rejected new federal funding for Medicaid (and privatized its functions, prompting an FBI investigation), slashed thousands of state jobs, and made large cuts to education funding." [ source] "[T]he state is now reporting a more than $300 million revenue shortfall. The poverty rate increased. The state’s economy expanded a total of 2.3 percent in inflation-adjusted terms over the past two years, half the rate of its four neighbors. And Kansas’s credit rating has been downgraded." [ source] So now, after this complete mess that Brownback has created in Kansas, in a state that is traditionally red, it has come to the point where "[L]arge numbers of Kansans, including more than 100 current and former GOP elected officials, have expressed alarm and are supporting the man trying to unseat Mr. Brownback, Paul Davis, the Democratic minority leader in the state’s House of Representatives. There have been particular expressions of anxiety about cuts to per-pupil expenditures in public schools, which have dropped more than 10 percent since 2008." [ source] Yes, at a time where the American political system is more partisan than ever before, where saving face for your party has been deemed far more important that doing anything to actually help the country, over 100 current and former GOP officials are backing a democrat to beat out their own party member, for the sake of the state. First of all, I see this as slightly refreshing, that some politicians are able to put aside their partisan loyalties in order to do something to help an economy that has literally been raped (definition: The wanton destruction or spoiling of a place [ source]) by Brownback, who is backed by the Koch Brothers... two of the wealthiest men in the country that basically own the GOP through political funding. It is nice to see some politicians acting for the good of the people rather than for the good of their party. One more thing to note: Some Republicans now are starting to go after Paul Davis, since Brownback is currently behind in the polls. The attacks go as follows: Paul Davis (42 years old) was at a strip club in 1998 (26 years old) when it was raided for drug charges... That's it. At 26 years old, Paul Davis was in a strip club when it was raided by police on suspected drug charges. Davis was briefly detained before it was determined that he had no connection to the drug charges so he was released. [ source] The Republican ads say things like, "We know his past, can we trust his future?" But my questions to conservatives (or anyone else really) out there are: 1) Before this real life example was tested, did you believe trickle-down economics works? 2) After seeing how massively this test failed, what are your thoughts on trickle-down economics? 3) Would you vote for Sam Brownback (R) or Paul Davis (D) in the upcoming elections, if you lived in Kansas? Why? 4) Is the smear campaign on Davis working on you? Does it make you not want to vote for him? 5) Do you vote based on party or individual? If you vote based on party, how far would things have to go before you voted for the opposing party? The intent for this is to stimulate actual discussion on this topic. If all you have to offer is a one line comment regarding your thoughts on government as a whole, I kindly ask that you just keep out of this discussion. This is not an attempt to censor anyone, but I put a lot of work into writing this and I would appreciate people putting at least a little bit of thought and work into their initial responses. So I would ask that anyone responding to this attempt to answer at least a few of the 5 questions that I list at the bottom of my post.
|
|
xdeadlyxmirage
NFL Starter
This Guy
Disrespecting narrative film since the 15th century.
Posts: 1,557
|
Post by xdeadlyxmirage on Oct 29, 2014 13:11:10 GMT -5
Welp, speaking as one of the most liberal persons here, did you get the idea for this from John Oliver's show (it does not matter, just curious)?
I do not know anything about Paul Davis but if he is your typical Democrat, I'd either vote third party or for no one.
|
|
|
Post by saskabronco on Oct 29, 2014 13:31:01 GMT -5
Welp, speaking as one of the most liberal persons here, did you get the idea for this from John Oliver's show (it does not matter, just curious)? I do not know anything about Paul Davis but if he is your typical Democrat, I'd either vote third party or for no one. Actually I heard it mentioned on Real Time with Bill Maher, but knowing now that John Oliver did a segment on this, I must go watch it... I love Last Week Tonight... it is my favourite new show right now. John is so awesome at taking one issue and going into so much detail with it, breaking it down piece by piece. I am not trying to sway your decision here at all, just to get more of an insight into what you're thinking, but would you ever vote for the lesser of two evils? I mean if you don't like both parties (which a lot of people don't, and for very good reasons) but you know that the Republican has already tried and miserably failed a policy; one which he publicly states that he intends to continue. One of the two men are going to win this election. Is it better to withhold your vote or vote for a third party with no chance of winning, or to cast your vote to the side that has a chance at bumping the current Governor from his seat? In Canada I face this issue every election year. Our system is different, where we only elect our local representatives and then based on which party has the most seats, the leader of that party is then the Prime Minister. I absolutely hate Steven Harper for many reasons: 1) Arranging for a robo-calling system that gave non-conservative voters [based on phone polls] false information regarding voting locations, leading to voters missing their opportunity to vote. 2) Federal money going missing and ending up in the bank accounts of cabinet members of the Conservative party 3) Muzzling the publication of scientific research that goes against the growth of big businesses (such as oil, mining, etc) 4) Large funding cuts to many of the environmental sciences. 5) etc... The problem is, the Conservative representative in my area is arguably the best candidate, followed by the Democrat then the Liberal. The Conservatives are in power right now and the Liberals are the only ones with a large enough base to bump them out. Do I vote Conservative to support my small area, which in turn supports the man that is doing terrible things and a horrible job of running our country? Do I vote Democrat, the next best option for my area, that would really serve no national purpose? Or do I vote Liberal, which is the national leadership I hope for and who has the best chance of knocking out the Conservatives; but which also puts the weakest MP in my area? I am tempted to vote Liberal, to put an end to Harper's reign, since we have no term limits here... But at the same time, the Liberal vote in Saskatchewan rarely wins because we have historically been torn between Conservatives and Democrats... Liberals tend to garner more support out east.
|
|
|
Post by 101mitch on Oct 29, 2014 15:41:26 GMT -5
JW.. why do you guys care? lol None of you are in KS
Side note - I would vote Brownback
|
|
|
Post by saskabronco on Oct 29, 2014 15:51:21 GMT -5
JW.. why do you guys care? lol None of you are in KS Side note - I would vote Brownback To me, this situation matters greatly, even though I'm not even in the USA, because it is representative of an entire mindset. So many people are pushing for this system of trickle-down economics where we give even more money to the incredibly wealthy with the assumption that they will then use that money to make the rest of our lives better. It rarely actually gets put into practice because most people aren't willing to put faith in a bunch of people who already hoard way too much money to begin with, and this example just shows what could happen if we all actually bought into that mind set. I know this does not mean that this would happen every time, but the thing that many economists predict will happen if we cut all corporate taxes and give more money to the wealthy is precisely what happened in Kansas. Do you live in Kansas? Either way, why would you vote Brownback? I am not condemning your decision, I am just curious what it is about Brownback that makes him more appealing than Davis? Is it because he is a Republican? Is it because you agree with his ideas on trickle-down economics and you think that given more time, they will start to work? Is it because of the strip club issue with Davis? I just want to learn more about people's mindsets regarding this entire issue. I understand that political issues like this can be very personal to some people, and I understand that many people do not wish to share their opinions or views on these topics. If you don't feel comfortable answering my questions, I fully respect that (this goes to anyone here, not just Mitch). I really appreciate people stating their opinions though, as the whole point of this is to generate discussion. Does the other person who said they would vote Brownback in the polls want to explain why they chose that option?
|
|
|
Post by 101mitch on Oct 29, 2014 15:54:29 GMT -5
JW.. why do you guys care? lol None of you are in KS Side note - I would vote Brownback To me, this situation matters greatly, even though I'm not even in the USA, because it is representative of an entire mindset. So many people are pushing for this system of trickle-down economics where we give even more money to the incredibly wealthy with the assumption that they will then use that money to make the rest of our lives better. It rarely actually gets put into practice because most people aren't willing to put faith in a bunch of people who already hoard way too much money to begin with, and this example just shows what could happen if we all actually bought into that mind set. I know this does not mean that this would happen every time, but the thing that many economists predict will happen if we cut all corporate taxes and give more money to the wealthy is precisely what happened in Kansas. Do you live in Kansas? Either way, why would you vote Brownback? I am not condemning your decision, I am just curious what it is about Brownback that makes him more appealing than Davis? Is it because he is a Republican? Is it because you agree with his ideas on trickle-down economics and you think that given more time, they will start to work? Is it because of the strip club issue with Davis? I just want to learn more about people's mindsets regarding this entire issue. I understand that political issues like this can be very personal to some people, and I understand that many people do not wish to share their opinions or views on these topics. If you don't feel comfortable answering my questions, I fully respect that (this goes to anyone here, not just Mitch). I really appreciate people stating their opinions though, as the whole point of this is to generate discussion. Does the other person who said they would vote Brownback in the polls want to explain why they chose that option? Yes, I live in Kansas. I am also not old enough to vote, so I don't know nearly enough to make a real decision. BUT what I do know, is that Brownback is pro-life, which is important to me. Also the trickle-down economics does sound like an interesting plan. The Davis strip club thing really doesn't mean much to me, and I hope people don't vote on that.
|
|
|
Post by saskabronco on Oct 29, 2014 15:55:20 GMT -5
I will just clarify that I am the one that voted on voting for Davis because at this point it is down to these two men. Any independents are irrelevant to the voting at this point, so the choice is either Brownback or Davis. Given what Brownback has already done to the state, I could not vote to keep him in power there. Also, given that the area is predominantly Republican, it will take a large movement to get him out of office. Davis stands for funding education and getting the money back to the middle/lower classes, two things that are in stark contrast to Brownback's plan.
|
|
|
Post by saskabronco on Oct 29, 2014 16:07:14 GMT -5
To me, this situation matters greatly, even though I'm not even in the USA, because it is representative of an entire mindset. So many people are pushing for this system of trickle-down economics where we give even more money to the incredibly wealthy with the assumption that they will then use that money to make the rest of our lives better. It rarely actually gets put into practice because most people aren't willing to put faith in a bunch of people who already hoard way too much money to begin with, and this example just shows what could happen if we all actually bought into that mind set. I know this does not mean that this would happen every time, but the thing that many economists predict will happen if we cut all corporate taxes and give more money to the wealthy is precisely what happened in Kansas. Do you live in Kansas? Either way, why would you vote Brownback? I am not condemning your decision, I am just curious what it is about Brownback that makes him more appealing than Davis? Is it because he is a Republican? Is it because you agree with his ideas on trickle-down economics and you think that given more time, they will start to work? Is it because of the strip club issue with Davis? I just want to learn more about people's mindsets regarding this entire issue. I understand that political issues like this can be very personal to some people, and I understand that many people do not wish to share their opinions or views on these topics. If you don't feel comfortable answering my questions, I fully respect that (this goes to anyone here, not just Mitch). I really appreciate people stating their opinions though, as the whole point of this is to generate discussion. Does the other person who said they would vote Brownback in the polls want to explain why they chose that option? Yes, I live in Kansas. I am also not old enough to vote, so I don't know nearly enough to make a real decision. BUT what I do know, is that Brownback is pro-life, which is important to me. Also the trickle-down economics does sound like an interesting plan. The Davis strip club thing really doesn't mean much to me, and I hope people don't vote on that. It's good that you are engaging in discussion that will help you get more educated on the issues so that you can make an educated decision when it's time for you to vote. I hope people chime in from both sides so that you can hear both sides of the argument, rather than just my biased opinion... Pro-life vs pro-choice is a whole different debate that I will not get into here and I am honestly on the fence about that one. As for trickle down economics, in my opinion, it does sound good in theory, but in reality it rarely works that way. There are some wealthy individuals, like Warren Buffet for instance, who put a lot of their money into social programs, charities, etc. But most people don't get rich by giving away their money, and most rich people tend to want to continue getting more rich, which is why so many companies constantly move their factories outside of North America, into third world countries where they can pay employees next to nothing and make more of a profit. They also take their money to Cayman Island bank accounts so they don't have to pay American taxes on their money. The argument made is that if we cut corporate taxes and lowered the minimum wage, those companies would come back here, but the trade off is that then the government isn't taking in enough money from the corporations to pay for public programs like education, transportation, etc. and people aren't getting paid enough money to be able to live comfortably. The government still needs to pay for education, and government gets money from taxes, so rather than taxing the corporations and the wealthy they tax the lower classes who already don't have enough money to live comfortably. Notice that it is the wealthy, upper class groups that all back that mentality, while the majority of the opposition comes from lower or middle class groups. Again, I am not telling you how you should vote, just giving you my opinion on these things, but I honestly do not understand how any lower or middle class citizen could side with that mentality. Scratch that, I do understand to some extent, because the upper class has started this myth that if we all by into their system, some day we will all be rich... and too many Americans have bought into that idea... the "American Dream"... but in order for someone to be rich, they require a much larger group to be poor. Rich/poor is all relative. We can't all be rich and buying into that system just guarantees that the gap will remain large.
|
|
xdeadlyxmirage
NFL Starter
This Guy
Disrespecting narrative film since the 15th century.
Posts: 1,557
|
Post by xdeadlyxmirage on Oct 29, 2014 16:52:11 GMT -5
I am extremely disillusioned with the government electoral process in the U.S. right now. I do not think there will be any substantive change for the positive until we shift away from 2 party system, and away from electing solely lawyers and career politicians (where are the artists -smart kind-, educators, authors -smart kind- and scientists -even though I do not see eye to eye with them-?). Therefor, I would rather spend my vote towards third parties and help move it a little more away from the 2 party system than do anything else with my vote.
On principal if a candidate is running unopposed I always vote against them (even if I like the candidate -very rare-). Also, my vote is not going to sway an election at all, so the realisticness of them winning does not matter to me. It is a lot more important what my vote conveys (which is very little if you vote for one of the main candidates).
|
|
|
Post by saskabronco on Oct 29, 2014 16:57:32 GMT -5
I am extremely disillusioned with the government electoral process in the U.S. right now. I do not think there will be any substantive change for the positive until we shift away from 2 party system, and away from electing solely lawyers and career politicians (where are the artists -smart kind-, educators, authors -smart kind- and scientists -even though I do not see eye to eye with them-?). Therefor, I would rather spend my vote towards third parties and help move it a little more away from the 2 party system than do anything else with my vote. On principal if a candidate is running unopposed I always vote against them (even if I like the candidate -very rare-). Also, my vote is not going to sway an election at all, so the realisticness of them winning does not matter to me. It is a lot more important what my vote conveys (which is very little if you vote for one of the main candidates). I definitely agree with you that the two party system is a joke and is causing US politics to behave more like a circus than a political system. I can sure respect your reluctance to send a vote to either side.
|
|