New Posts
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

Another blue state on the verge of bankruptcy!

Raoul_Luke

I feel a bit lightheaded. Maybe you should drive.
As dim as you are, you certainly know that that "chart" does not break down migration patterns into demographic sectors, which is what we're talking about. And again, educated smart young folks tend to move to Blue states if they move at all, especially the cream of the crop. That's where the money is.
Demographics doesn't factor into it. If the jobs the graying baby boomers are vacating weren't following them to the South and West (except California) then the populations would be at least remaining stable. They aren't - the population is shifting away from the Blue states and cities...
 

Craig

Senator
Supporting Member
We must first produce, in order to consume. If we put that cart before that horse, we're simply borrowing from future demand in order to give the (temporary) appearance of economic growth. Which, of course, is why the failures of serial (Keynesian) wealth redistribution, which not only de-emphasizes production, but rather serves to actively discourage it, to revive the economy to its former glory, must always be explained away as "inadequate" effort, rather than simply wrong headed. Don't worry, it's "settled economics" so the Keynesian economic beatings will continue until the economy's morale improves.
Trickle down. If we make it, they will buy it. Yawn. Sometimes, in the case of the pet rock, yes. In many other cases, such as the Dvorak SSK keyboard, not so much.

Again...my contention is the negative effects of wage inequality are marginalizing the poor. Their inability to engage and partake more fully in the economy do not help the economy. You immediately, and absurdly, take that as me and/or leftists saying all should earn the same. Why you leap to this always bogus concept is a mystery, as no one has ever stated that a MickeyD's worker should be paid the exact same as a heart surgeon. No...never. The idea is...minimum wage affords a modicum of consumer activity beyond the bare necessities, not that it affords a 500K house in Mt. Lebanon.

As soon as I see such a comparison, I know the debate is no longer serious in any way.
 

Emily

NSDAP Kanzler
If we want to get good public employees, we have to pay for them.
Of course we do. You're being very good in this thread at stating the obvious while avoiding the issue.
We have to pay them. We do not have to pay them lifetime benefits that private-sector employees, who pay for them, cannot get or even approach. We especially don't have to pay lifetime benefits when we don't have the money to pay for them. Billions in unfunded pension liabilities in multiple states are not required for good public servants and are not sustainable.

"Welfare" is a tiny fraction of the budget which, by and large, goes to keep people from starving in the streets.
I specifically said "able-bodied." No one is saying anything about not helping the truly needy.
Tiny fractions add up. "Watch your pennies and the dollars will take care of themselves."
Welfare is not a tiny fraction of state budgets, and states are the topic of this thread.

If you're serious about opposing wasteful spending, focus on our countless forms of corporate welfare and the incredibly bloated military.
Agree completely that these are big problems. However, this thread concerns matters at the state level. Military-spending is federal. Corporate welfare is dolled out partly at the state level in the form of bribes, mostly at the federal level .
We need to deal with all forms of wasteful and inappropriate spending.
 

Craig

Senator
Supporting Member
Budget woes are problematic for many states. Kansas cut taxes...and is a disaster. Nebraska is going the same route...and in Oklahoma, schools are suffering so much, the school week is being cut to 4 days.

Budget cuts have forced many Oklahoma schools to shorten to a four-day week

...But funding for classrooms has been shrinking for years in this deep-red state as lawmakers have cut taxes, slicing away hundreds of millions of dollars in annual revenue in what some Oklahomans consider a cautionary tale about the real-life consequences of the small-government approach favored by Republican majorities in Washington and statehouses nationwide.

School districts staring down deep budget holes have turned to shorter weeks in desperation as a way to save a little bit of money and persuade increasingly hard-to-find teachers to take some of the nation's lowest-paying jobs.

Of 513 school districts in Oklahoma, 96 have lopped Fridays or Mondays off their schedules - nearly triple the number in 2015 and four times as many as in 2013. An additional 44 are considering cutting instructional days by moving to a four-day week in the fall or by shortening the school year, the Oklahoma State School Boards Association found in a survey last month.

"I don't think it's right. I think our kids are losing out on education," said Sandy Robertson, a grandmother of four in Newcastle, a fast-growing rural community set amid wheat and soybean fields south of Oklahoma City. "They're trying to cram a five-day week into a four-day week."

Oklahoma is not the only state where more students are getting three-day weekends, a concept that dates to the 1930s. The number is climbing slowly across broad swaths of the rural big-sky West, driven by a combination of austere budgets, fuel-guzzling bus rides and teacher shortages that have turned four-day weeks into an important recruiting tool.

The four-day week is a "contagion," said Paul Hill, a research professor at the University of Washington at Bothell who has studied the phenomenon in Idaho and who worries that the consequences of the shift - particularly for poor kids - are unknown...

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation-world/national/article153098019.html
 

Raoul_Luke

I feel a bit lightheaded. Maybe you should drive.
Trickle down. If we make it, they will buy it. Yawn. Sometimes, in the case of the pet rock, yes. In many other cases, such as the Dvorak SSK keyboard, not so much.

Again...my contention is the negative effects of wage inequality are marginalizing the poor. Their inability to engage and partake more fully in the economy do not help the economy. You immediately, and absurdly, take that as me and/or leftists saying all should earn the same. Why you leap to this always bogus concept is a mystery, as no one has ever stated that a MickeyD's worker should be paid the exact same as a heart surgeon. No...never. The idea is...minimum wage affords a modicum of consumer activity beyond the bare necessities, not that it affords a 500K house in Mt. Lebanon.

As soon as I see such a comparison, I know the debate is no longer serious in any way.
That's not "trickle down" - which, lets face it, is the belief that giving rich people more money will make us all better off, and which is as foolish as the notion that giving more money to the poor will make us all better off.

It's Say's Law. To illustrate, in its most simple format, take a barter economy. You can't trade unless you have produced something to offer in exchange for your "demand" for the (excess) production of your neighbor. Money is simply a store of value that frees us from the need to find someone who has what we "demand" who "demands" what we have. Creating money (or redistributing it) doesn't create more supply, producing more is the only thing that creates more supply, which then enables more demand. The focus on "aggregate demand" as the driving force of an economy turns this intrinsic market centrality on its head. And then we wonder why it doesn't work out as planned.
 

Craig

Senator
Supporting Member
That's not "trickle down" - which, lets face it, is the belief that giving rich people more money will make us all better off, and which is as foolish as the notion that giving more money to the poor will make us all better off.

It's Say's Law. To illustrate, in its most simple format, take a barter economy. You can't trade unless you have produced something to offer in exchange for your "demand" for the (excess) production of your neighbor. Money is simply a store of value that frees us from the need to find someone who has what we "demand" who "demands" what we have. Creating money (or redistributing it) doesn't create more supply, producing more is the only thing that creates more supply, which then enables more demand. The focus on "aggregate demand" as the driving force of an economy turns this intrinsic market centrality on its head. And then we wonder why it doesn't work out as planned.
Make it...and they will buy it is a beginning point for the wealthy, the industrialists, to make profit. The idea is...they will make profit...the business will flourish and grow, providing jobs and a burgeoning economy. Problem is, the demand has to be sufficient...and the consumer has to be able to, as you note, trade. If they have no money, they cannot trade.

If supply made demand, why wasn't the Edsel successful? Or New Coke? Or any of the other many failed products, produced...with no demand.

Giving? No...paying them a higher wage, the one thing I've argued throughout.
 
D

Deleted member 21794

Guest
Budget woes are problematic for many states. Kansas cut taxes...and is a disaster. Nebraska is going the same route...and in Oklahoma, schools are suffering so much, the school week is being cut to 4 days.

Budget cuts have forced many Oklahoma schools to shorten to a four-day week

...But funding for classrooms has been shrinking for years in this deep-red state as lawmakers have cut taxes, slicing away hundreds of millions of dollars in annual revenue in what some Oklahomans consider a cautionary tale about the real-life consequences of the small-government approach favored by Republican majorities in Washington and statehouses nationwide.

School districts staring down deep budget holes have turned to shorter weeks in desperation as a way to save a little bit of money and persuade increasingly hard-to-find teachers to take some of the nation's lowest-paying jobs.

Of 513 school districts in Oklahoma, 96 have lopped Fridays or Mondays off their schedules - nearly triple the number in 2015 and four times as many as in 2013. An additional 44 are considering cutting instructional days by moving to a four-day week in the fall or by shortening the school year, the Oklahoma State School Boards Association found in a survey last month.

"I don't think it's right. I think our kids are losing out on education," said Sandy Robertson, a grandmother of four in Newcastle, a fast-growing rural community set amid wheat and soybean fields south of Oklahoma City. "They're trying to cram a five-day week into a four-day week."

Oklahoma is not the only state where more students are getting three-day weekends, a concept that dates to the 1930s. The number is climbing slowly across broad swaths of the rural big-sky West, driven by a combination of austere budgets, fuel-guzzling bus rides and teacher shortages that have turned four-day weeks into an important recruiting tool.

The four-day week is a "contagion," said Paul Hill, a research professor at the University of Washington at Bothell who has studied the phenomenon in Idaho and who worries that the consequences of the shift - particularly for poor kids - are unknown...

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation-world/national/article153098019.html
Wow, you mean governments may have to squeeze and make tough decisions to make the necessary happen with limited dollars available?

The horror they should have to do what we citizens have been doing for decades if not centuries!

My god you people are a joke.
 
D

Deleted member 21794

Guest
What could possibly be the wisdom behind accumulating such crushing debt?

Unless... aaaaahhhhh... I just realized: CT figures the US government and its taxpayers will bail them out. Of course! They'll live high on the hog until such time when the rest of America (including your despised RED states) will fork over their hard earned money to pay off their debts.

Yep. That's the only explanation for this. It's like Greece and the EU. Gold Digger/Sugar daddy.
Yep... "too big to fail", blah blah blah. And of course, it will all be Rebublicans' fault these jurisdictions dominated by liberalism fail.
 
D

Deleted member 21794

Guest
Make it...and they will buy it is a beginning point for the wealthy, the industrialists, to make profit. The idea is...they will make profit...the business will flourish and grow, providing jobs and a burgeoning economy. Problem is, the demand has to be sufficient...and the consumer has to be able to, as you note, trade. If they have no money, they cannot trade.

If supply made demand, why wasn't the Edsel successful? Or New Coke? Or any of the other many failed products, produced...with no demand.

Giving? No...paying them a higher wage, the one thing I've argued throughout.
So start a company and start paying these awesome wages you keep whining other people should pay.
 

Raoul_Luke

I feel a bit lightheaded. Maybe you should drive.
Make it...and they will buy it is a beginning point for the wealthy, the industrialists, to make profit. The idea is...they will make profit...the business will flourish and grow, providing jobs and a burgeoning economy. Problem is, the demand has to be sufficient...and the consumer has to be able to, as you note, trade. If they have no money, they cannot trade.

If supply made demand, why wasn't the Edsel successful? Or New Coke? Or any of the other many failed products, produced...with no demand.

Giving? No...paying them a higher wage, the one thing I've argued throughout.
You are mischaracterizing the concept. The Edsels (and new coke) sold - just at cut rate prices. You can't just make anything and expect it to sell for whatever you wish it to. But let me turn it around on you - if making Edsels (or new coke, or anything else) was guaranteed to be economically successful, then Keynesian fiscal policy, where you pay some people to dig holes and others to follow them and fill them back in again, would succeed. And that is precisely the flaw in efforts to "manage" demand with an eye to "fixing" the economy. The government ends up keeping all the Edsels and new cokes on the market, and the markets never have an opportunity to clear out the failures.

Now, back to the concept of supply (production) driving demand. It is simply impossible to create the ability to fund demand by government fiat. No matter how much the Keynesians "wish" it were so, without increasing production, borrowing and spending, or taking money from one person and giving it to another, doesn't actually produce a sustainable economic benefit. It's just the appearance of economic growth (what is seen) which is offset by other economic activity that doesn't occur (what is not seen):

http://www.econlib.org/library/Bastiat/basEss1.html

It's just pulling up buckets of water from one end of the pool and dumping it into the other end, while pointing to the stream coming out of the bucket and calling it "filling" the pool.

I don't expect to convince you of any of this, because, as with all lefties, real economic advancement isn't the least bit of interest to you. Only the wealth redistribution (what is seen) aspect of Keynesian aggregate demand management holds any appeal for you. But, there I go again, pointing out the Marxism inherent in the progressives' economic agenda.
 

justoffal

Senator
Fear not. CT is full of wealthy people. It would be helpful to them if the Blue states did not have to subsidize the Red states, but such is life in the USA.
As usual you threw the dart out the window instead of at the Target. Ct's federal tax burden is no more or less per dollar earned than any other state.

The real numbers problem is in the pension obligations to the state based civil service pacts. By law the pension fund must be paid before all other expenses and at this point it's becoming a critical imbalance between those paying in and those taking out.

See Detroit city pensions for more detailed points on the outcomes of Marxism.
 

Raoul_Luke

I feel a bit lightheaded. Maybe you should drive.
As usual you threw the dart out the window instead of at the Target. Ct's federal tax burden is no more or less per dollar earned than any other state.

The real numbers problem is in the pension obligations to the state based civil service pacts. By law the pension fund must be paid before all other expenses and at this point it's becoming a critical imbalance between those paying in and those taking out.

See Detroit city pensions for more detailed points on the outcomes of Marxism.
And speaking of the federal tax burden, if the Republicans succeed in their effort to eliminate the federal income tax deduction for state and local taxes, the exodus of productive citizens from the "blue" states will accelerate sharply.
 

Craig

Senator
Supporting Member
You are mischaracterizing the concept. The Edsels (and new coke) sold - just at cut rate prices. You can't just make anything and expect it to sell for whatever you wish it to. But let me turn it around on you - if making Edsels (or new coke, or anything else) was guaranteed to be economically successful, then Keynesian fiscal policy, where you pay some people to dig holes and others to follow them and fill them back in again, would succeed. And that is precisely the flaw in efforts to "manage" demand with an eye to "fixing" the economy. The government ends up keeping all the Edsels and new cokes on the market, and the markets never have an opportunity to clear out the failures.

Now, back to the concept of supply (production) driving demand. It is simply impossible to create the ability to fund demand by government fiat. No matter how much the Keynesians "wish" it were so, without increasing production, borrowing and spending, or taking money from one person and giving it to another, doesn't actually produce a sustainable economic benefit. It's just the appearance of economic growth (what is seen) which is offset by other economic activity that doesn't occur (what is not seen):

http://www.econlib.org/library/Bastiat/basEss1.html

It's just pulling up buckets of water from one end of the pool and dumping it into the other end, while pointing to the stream coming out of the bucket and calling it "filling" the pool.

I don't expect to convince you of any of this, because, as with all lefties, real economic advancement isn't the least bit of interest to you. Only the wealth redistribution (what is seen) aspect of Keynesian aggregate demand management holds any appeal for you. But, there I go again, pointing out the Marxism inherent in the progressives' economic agenda.
I will point out, once again, with no personal insult...if one has no money, i.e. buying power...one cannot engage in trade. With no money, one cannot start a business. You never address that idea.

To me...the idea that you present is that yes...making Edsels is in itself a productive aspect of supply...and therefore, spurs demand. By itself. Yet, as we all know, one can find excess supply all over the place and failing demand for that supply. Clothing can be bought in the clearance rack, books...Hell...the entire business model of TJ MAXX is to buy recent, but discounted items, due to original lack of demand...and supply these items to the less fortunate at discount prices...(and still...there is too much supply) who don't have the money to buy first hand retail...or, the wise who understand how much the stores are actually overcharging for merchandise, in the grand old capitalistic get what you can attitude.

No one said do not increase production. I'm saying...again...increase wages so everyone can have some frickin pie.
 

Raoul_Luke

I feel a bit lightheaded. Maybe you should drive.
I will point out, once again, with no personal insult...if one has no money, i.e. buying power...one cannot engage in trade. With no money, one cannot start a business. You never address that idea.

To me...the idea that you present is that yes...making Edsels is in itself a productive aspect of supply...and therefore, spurs demand. By itself. Yet, as we all know, one can find excess supply all over the place and failing demand for that supply. Clothing can be bought in the clearance rack, books...Hell...the entire business model of TJ MAXX is to buy recent, but discounted items, due to original lack of demand...and supply these items to the less fortunate at discount prices...(and still...there is too much supply) who don't have the money to buy first hand retail...or, the wise who understand how much the stores are actually overcharging for merchandise, in the grand old capitalistic get what you can attitude.

No one said do not increase production. I'm saying...again...increase wages so everyone can have some frickin pie.
Precisely! Which is why there simply must be production before consumption can take place. You gain "buying power" by earning money through productive effort. Even in the case of the welfare mom, she can only consume after SOMEONE earns the wealth that the progressives redistribute to her. Simply taxing someone (or printing money) and giving it to her will appear to increase trade, but it comes at a reduced level of economic activity elsewhere in the economy. If the government is keeping the Edsels rolling off the assembly line (through "stimulus") then there is a new, more sustainably dynamic company not being started somewhere else. This is why the new normal is 1.5% GDP growth.
 

Craig

Senator
Supporting Member
Precisely! Which is why there simply must be production before consumption can take place. You gain "buying power" by earning money through productive effort. Even in the case of the welfare mom, she can only consume after SOMEONE earns the wealth that the progressives redistribute to her. Simply taxing someone (or printing money) and giving it to her will appear to increase trade, but it comes at a reduced level of economic activity elsewhere in the economy. If the government is keeping the Edsels rolling off the assembly line (through "stimulus") then there is a new, more sustainably dynamic company not being started somewhere else. This is why the new normal is 1.5% GDP growth.
So goes the theory...

You gain "buying power" by earning money through productive effort.
And that was, via such productive work, a redistribution of wealth. Ford took some of his wealth to make cars, some to build a factory...and some to pay his employees.

One used to gain buying power through productive work. One does not anymore. I mean...some do, but not in the same way one did when the US was a manufacturing powerhouse and those jobs were plentiful. And union so a decent wage was available. You used to be able to get a small apartment from a starter factory job. Not a mansion...not the same money as a heart surgeon, or any other well paid non paper pushing job...but a small apartment, maybe even a little rowhouse. Not today...not even close.

Simply not taxing because the wealthy don't like taxes is a pretty terrible excuse. What was the growth rate when the highest tax rates were in place? More than 1.5%?
 

justoffal

Senator
So goes the theory...



And that was, via such productive work, a redistribution of wealth. Ford took some of his wealth to make cars, some to build a factory...and some to pay his employees.

One used to gain buying power through productive work. One does not anymore. I mean...some do, but not in the same way one did when the US was a manufacturing powerhouse and those jobs were plentiful. And union so a decent wage was available. You used to be able to get a small apartment from a starter factory job. Not a mansion...not the same money as a heart surgeon, or any other well paid non paper pushing job...but a small apartment, maybe even a little rowhouse. Not today...not even close.

Simply not taxing because the wealthy don't like taxes is a pretty terrible excuse. What was the growth rate when the highest tax rates were in place? More than 1.5%?

And that was, via such productive work, a redistribution of wealth. Ford took some of his wealth to make cars, some to build a factory...and some to pay his employees


Quibble....

I think you're talking about two very different base components to an economic cycle. Ford started with nothing ....and accrued wealth by leaping into hitherto unkown productivity based on epic demand.

The bankers who financed his efforts did so with a combination of
Real money ( ie investable assets from bank customers ) and federal reserve paper assets ( after 1913) that had nothing but a future inferred value of real human effort though not yet expended.

There are no cases of levitation by shoe string lift here...everything is directly traceable to human effort. After all the only real currency in the final analysis is the man/hour.

Jo
 

Craig

Senator
Supporting Member
And that was, via such productive work, a redistribution of wealth. Ford took some of his wealth to make cars, some to build a factory...and some to pay his employees

Quibble....

I think you're talking about two very different base components to an economic cycle. Ford started with nothing ....and accrued wealth by leaping into hitherto unkown productivity based on epic demand.

The bankers who financed his efforts did so with a combination of
Real money ( ie investable assets from bank customers ) and federal reserve paper assets ( after 1913) that had nothing but a future inferred value of real human effort though not yet expended.

There are no cases of levitation by shoe string lift here...everything is directly traceable to human effort. After all the only real currency in the final analysis is the man/hour.

Jo
I'm really talking about just one thing. Paying people for their human effort so they can afford a tad more than the bare necessities. Bread and circus...not just bread.
 

Raoul_Luke

I feel a bit lightheaded. Maybe you should drive.
So goes the theory...



And that was, via such productive work, a redistribution of wealth. Ford took some of his wealth to make cars, some to build a factory...and some to pay his employees.

One used to gain buying power through productive work. One does not anymore. I mean...some do, but not in the same way one did when the US was a manufacturing powerhouse and those jobs were plentiful. And union so a decent wage was available. You used to be able to get a small apartment from a starter factory job. Not a mansion...not the same money as a heart surgeon, or any other well paid non paper pushing job...but a small apartment, maybe even a little rowhouse. Not today...not even close.

Simply not taxing because the wealthy don't like taxes is a pretty terrible excuse. What was the growth rate when the highest tax rates were in place? More than 1.5%?
That "theory" makes a lot more sense than the one that suggests our economic success depends on government interventions. The very idea goes against all economic logic.

And, yes, unequal earnings "redistribute" wealth. But based primarily on economic contribution, not bureaucratic bumbling. The idea that this is economically inefficient is absurd.

And yes again, our money used to go further. That isn't up for debate. But the fact is that you can trace the deviation between income and cost of living to one precise quintessentially Keynesian event, Nixon's abrogating Bretton Woods:

https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-XAWxXh7YsZc/VrJV32dKUNI/AAAAAAAAIQY/46vs-KrCyZU/s1600/median-income.png

"We are all Keynesians now…"

Nobody paid those high marginal rates. I remember a free for all where business owners (and managers) ran much of their personal spending through the businesses they owned (ran).
 
Last edited:
Top