Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: What’s the matter with Kansas?

Posted 2 years ago on March 16, 2012, 7:06 a.m. EST by factsrfun (6435) from Phoenix, AZ
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Kansas has a huge budget problem; they can’t even afford to arrest wife beaters.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2115403/Dark-Shadows-trailer-Johnny-Depp-joined-Helena-Bonham-Carter-Eva-Green-Chloe-Moretz-new-film.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

Yet they have a Republican governor, 94 R’s to 31 D’s in the house and 33 R’s to 7 D’s in the senate. Why do they have a budget problem shouldn’t all those GOPers get it perfect?

And why does a state of less than 3 million need 165 lawmakers? That does not sound like a small government to me. Some states with twice the people get by with half the government. Each of which receive about $60.000/year almost twice what they get in AZ. Seems like the best job in Kansas is to be a republican living off the taxpayers while criminals go free.

79 Comments

79 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 3 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

It is called a recession. Just about every state has a budget shortfall. Every state has to make cuts to balance their budget.

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=711

As for the number of lawmakers, when the state constitution was created Kansas wanted a higher ratio of representatives to citizens. There would have to be a change in the state constitution.

[-] -1 points by factsrfun (6435) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

We change our constitution all the time in AZ.

I would agree Bush left us in a mess, but still the GOP keep telling us they have the answers but it seems the more and longer control they have had in a state the worst things are, like healthcare, education, budgets, they don't get services or balanced budgets what's wrong with the GOP plan?

[-] 4 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

Since you think facts are fun lets look at the budget deficit for the past ten years.

  1. 2003 -377.6
  2. 2004 -412.7
  3. 2005 -318.3
  4. 2006 -248.2
  5. 2007 -160.7
  6. 2008 -458.6
  7. 2009 -1,412.7
  8. 2010 -1,293.5
  9. 2011 -1,645.1
  10. 2012 -1,101.2

Now what could have happened in 2009 that caused it to triple?

[-] 3 points by PandoraK (1678) 2 years ago

Adding in the cost of the Iraqi and Afghanistan conflicts (aka war). These did not appear in previous budgets which gave the appearance of not being an expense.

If a small company does it, it's called 'cooking the books'.

[-] 0 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

They costs included in the budget was $130 billion for continued military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan for Fiscal Year 2010.

The budget deficit for 2010 is 1,293.5 Billion or about ten times that amount.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (27542) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Have you heard of a thing called the bail-out? I hear money went flying all around the USA and the world due to some sort of toxic shock to the economy that many relate to wallstreet and bankers.

Huh.

Imagine that. War and a crumbling economy. Sheesh.

[-] 0 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

Yes, I think the bailouts sucked.

They got bailed out and we got sold out!

It is time to take back our government from both of these parties!

The take our money and give it to their friends.

[-] 1 points by PandoraK (1678) 2 years ago

Wow, instead of picking up the ball and running, just fall back on SOP. No wonder the country is in trouble.

[-] 2 points by hamalmang (722) from Lebanon, PA 2 years ago

TARP

[-] 1 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

TARP happened in 2008 and moneys were being paid back in 2009 and 2010.

[-] 2 points by hamalmang (722) from Lebanon, PA 2 years ago

At the end of 2008 and beginning of 2009 and not all of the money has been paid back. There's also the wars that the federal budget doesn't account for and the tax cuts. I'm no expert but I believe those three things made up a majority of the deficit and I do know that it was over a trillion when Bush was still in office.

[-] 0 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

I do not agree with the TARP loans because I do not believe we should have supported the folks who took such high risks, They never should have made those loans to people who had no way to pay them back. That is beside the point.

By March 2011 more than 99% of the TARP money was paid back WITH INTEREST.

The problem is Obama's stimulus spending because that spending was not loans but hand outs. Subsidies to auto makers, green energy, and many others connected to Washington. Many took the money. paid their bosses big bonuses, and then went bankrupt. Others just squandered the money and rather than create jobs here bought parts from China, India, Portugal.... It is called "Crapitalism" (Crony capitalism)

[-] 3 points by unimportant (716) 2 years ago

Why do you soil the honorable trade of farming with your ignorance?

[-] -1 points by po6059 (72) 2 years ago

more like money laundering ,.....the money came back to obama through "donations".

[-] 1 points by unimportant (716) 2 years ago

Why not look at everything instead of this myopic view of the facts that you see as serving you?

http://www.stupidhead.org/articles/000011.php From http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo5.htm

1978-2005 Democratic $15,379.00 9.9% 4.2% $78,184.00 12.6%
1978-2005 Republican $27,654.00 12.1% 36.4% $132,188.00 10.7%

Of course this does not include the last few years of Bush or the Obama spending. It is clear that the Fiscally Sound Republican Party are the big spenders.

How about unemployment??? When George W. took office the Unemployment rate was 3.8% and when he left office if was 7.2%. In that 8 years the US Population did grow so the number is staggering.

BTW, here is a quick tutorial on how we got to where we are now;

http://occupywallst.org/forum/for-those-that-blame-obama-for-our-current-economi/

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (27542) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Reporting of war cost. Cost incurred by the Bush administration. You think a military venture costs nothing?

[-] 0 points by po6059 (72) 2 years ago

obama " little barry soetoro" hussein obama was made president.

[-] -1 points by factsrfun (6435) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Thanks for proving my point, Clinton did a great job of keeping the GOP congress in check didn’t he?

[-] 4 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

democrats are great for sitting on their hands

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (6435) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

If only the GOP had sat on their hands, instead of screwing up the budget in 2001'

[-] 2 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

You have selective memory with a filtered view.

All the folks on the left went after Gingrich for taking a hard line on the budget and allowing the government to be closed for a week.

[-] -1 points by factsrfun (6435) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

So you are saying that Clinton didn't veto tax cuts passed by the GOP house?

Do you want me to prove that you are a liar, like slammer?

[-] 4 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

Oh, I thought you were talking about the spending cuts that were made that actually balanced the budget. That was what the big battle was about.

In his later years he vetoed a bill that congress passed to eliminate what was called the "marriage tax penalty"

He did however lower the capital gains tax which is what everyone seems to be talking about today.

We have a spending problem not a revenue problem. I think there is something wrong when the richest counties in the country are all surrounding Washington DC. I think there is something wrong when hundreds of million are given to companies connected to politicians. I think we need to give them less money not more.

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (6435) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

True there were lots of spending cuts in that 1993 bill that passed without a single Republican vote, proving that good things can happen if there are not too many Republicans around.

[-] 4 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

For someone who thinks facts are fun you sure like to ignore them.

The federal budget DEFICIT 1993 was $203,200,000,000.

Four years later when there were "republicans around" there was a SURPLUS of $69,300,000,000

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (6435) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

How stupid are you Joe, or do you just think everybody else is? Yes it took a little while to get things in order, these thing don’t happen over night. Just like a GOP supporter trying to take credit for something the GOP fought tooth and nail against. After losing the fight in 1993 and not one Republican stood up and did the right thing. Twenty years later you guys are still trying to take credit for it. How come none of the crap you said would happen, did? The GOP is just a pack of liars that’s all there is to it.

[-] 4 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

How typical, when your argument is failing start the name calling.

In the US, the House of representatives holds the purse strings. The democrats held power in the House for 50 of the last 60 years.

The democrats controlled the house from 1949-1994. The budget deficit increased every year since 1949. That is 44 years of democrats increasing deficits.

The republicans took over in 1994 and that is when the deficit started shrinking. It kept decreasing and even turned into a surplus 4 years later. The surplus continued to grow for 4 more years until the events of 9/11 brought us to war.

  1. 1993 -255.1
  2. 1994 -203.2
  3. 1995 -164.0
  4. 1996 -107.4
  5. 1997 -21.9
  6. 1998 69.3
  7. 1999 125.6
  8. 2000 236.2
  9. 2001 128.2

And then what happened when the democrats took over both the House, Senate, and Presidency? The largest deficits in the history of the US.

  1. 2008 -458.6
  2. 2009 -1,412.7
  3. 2010 -1,293.5
  4. 2011 -1,645.1

Facts are not stupid, they just are.

[-] 4 points by po6059 (72) 2 years ago

you gave them the facts,...........and THE facts don't support their fantasy " facts" and more importantly, their agenda. fatcsrfun is frothing over with indignation because you have challenged his "facts" (lies) successfully.

[-] 1 points by PopsMauler (182) from Chicago, IL 2 years ago

Why did you omit from 2002-2007? Can you also please cite your source?

If it's the cbpp.org site listed earlier, I have to call its validity into question. That is a conservative think tank, well known for statistical misrepresentations.

You wouldn't be cleverly trying to mislead people, not to mention adding to the polarization that already plagues political rhetoric?

In tyring to kick factsrfun while he's down, you've already started using the same tactic of being selective with statistics to suit your own position. That alone destroys your credibility, and a shame too becuase you started out so well.

[-] 1 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

When I post facts I always try to use site that is closest to the numbers.

In this case the data is from the site whitehouse.gov in the section Office of Management and Budget - Historical Tables

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals

I don't think the White House is currently run by a conservative think tank.

I did not include all 42 years of data. I was including the dramatic years however as you can see below, every year with Democrats in power there was a deficit.

The point I made is that the years with a surplus are when the republicans fought hard to keep spending down. While there was a deficit in 2003-2007 the deficit after 9/11 it is nowhere near the deficit in 2009-2011 when the democrats took over again. That deficit is 4 times higher than any point in history and about 10 times higher than the average.

  1. 1970 -2,842
  2. 1971 -23,033
  3. 1972 -23,373
  4. 1973 -14,908
  5. 1974 -6,135
  6. 1975 -53,242
  7. 1976 -73,732
  8. 1977 -53,659
  9. 1978 -59,185
  10. 1979 -40,726
  11. 1980 -73,830
  12. 1981 -78,968
  13. 1982 -127,977
  14. 1983 -207,802
  15. 1984 -185,367
  16. 1985 -212,308
  17. 1986 -221,227
  18. 1987 -149,730
  19. 1988 -155,178
  20. 1989 -152,639
  21. 1990 -221,036
  22. 1991 -269,238
  23. 1992 -290,321
  24. 1993 -255,051
  25. 1994 -203,186
  26. 1995 -163,952
  27. 1996 -107,431
  28. 1997 -21,884
  29. 1998 69,270
  30. 1999 125,610
  31. 2000 236,241
  32. 2001 128,236
  33. 2002 -157,758
  34. 2003 -377,585
  35. 2004 -412,727
  36. 2005 -318,346
  37. 2006 -248,181
  38. 2007 -160,701
  39. 2008 -458,553
  40. 2009 -1,412,688
  41. 2010 -1,293,489
  42. 2011 -1,299,595
[-] 1 points by PopsMauler (182) from Chicago, IL 2 years ago

Okay, fair enough rebuttal. I was concerend that your link near the start of page was where your numbers were being pulled.

At least as far the deficit goes, this is certainly good data. Thanks for sharing your source.

[-] 1 points by XenuLives (1645) from Charlotte, NC 2 years ago

This is hilarious... the data proves factsrfun's point:

Clinton in office, deficit turns into surplus:

1992 -290,321

1993 -255,051

1994 -203,186

1995 -163,952

1996 -107,431

1997 -21,884

1998 69,270

1999 125,610

2000 236,241

Bush in office, surplus into deficit:

2001 128,236

2002 -157,758

2003 -377,585

2004 -412,727

2005 -318,346

2006 -248,181

2007 -160,701

2008 -458,553

2008 - 2009: Recession hits as housing bubble burst...

Obama in office, deficit decreasing slightly despite Republican cock blocks and being in the middle of a recession:

2009 -1,412,688

2010 -1,293,489

2011 -1,299,595

The numbers speak for themselves.

[-] 1 points by PopsMauler (182) from Chicago, IL 2 years ago

Nice!!! That's hard to refute, well done.

[-] 1 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

The facts are:

The "Contract With America" was the name of the Republican plan for major cuts. The Democrats called it the "Contract ON America" because of all the cuts. I remember the budget battle very clearly.

The 1995 Clinton budget projected $200 billion annual budget deficits totaling $2.7 trillion over 10 years, confirmed by CBO. The House passed a budget bill providing for $1 trillion in spending cuts over the next 10 years. That was the battle and Gingrich won. As a result, the $200 billion annual federal deficits, which had prevailed for over 15 years, were transformed into record-breaking surpluses by 1998, peaking at $236 billion by 2000.

[-] 0 points by XenuLives (1645) from Charlotte, NC 2 years ago

It doesn't matter what happens in the Congressional houses unless there is a overwhelming majority from one party. The President ultimately has say over what budgets get passed since they have the power to veto... Compromises have to made or else nothing gets passed.

The fact is, Democratic president = lower deficit. Republican president = higher deficit. The numbers are right there in black and white. The reason why the deficit didn't decrease as much as it could have under Obama was because a bunch of conservatives wouldn't sit down and compromise on a budget, instead forcing our credit rating to drop from AAA to AA. And then they try to blame their incompetence on Obama because they can't agree on something as simple as a budget?

You better be glad that 180 million+ Americans have an IQ lower than 105, because if the population gets any smarter than the Republicans are history!

[-] -2 points by factsrfun (6435) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

and yet when the GOP have the house and the White House they do the worst of all,, From early 2000 till mid 2001 we didn't add anything to the ferderal debt because Clinton passed the 1993 bill without a single republican and vetoed all their efforts to bust the budget, I lived through it, I remember, and your lies won't change the truth.

[-] 3 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

LOL Bwahahahaha

That is the most illogical reasoning I have heard in a long time.

The democrats have congress for 44 YEARS creating DEFICITS all the way from 1949 until 1994. The republicans take the House and Senate and suddenly the deficit starts going down and becomes a surplus. You believe it is because of the democrats who no longer in power.

I lived through it too. I remember the "Contract With America" and the Republican cuts. The Democrats called it the "Contract ON America" because of all the cuts. I remember the budget battle very clearly.

The 1995 Clinton budget projected $200 billion annual budget deficits totaling $2.7 trillion over 10 years, confirmed by CBO. The House passed a budget bill providing for $1 trillion in spending cuts over the next 10 years. That was the battle and Gingrich won. As a result, the $200 billion annual federal deficits, which had prevailed for over 15 years, were transformed into record-breaking surpluses by 1998, peaking at $236 billion by 2000.

It's the same thing they did with Paul Ryan last year when he proposed a decrease in the rate of increase in spending. He did not propose drastic cuts just a decrease in the rate of increase in spending however they made commercials of him pushing grandma in a wheelchair over a cliff.

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (6435) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

So Bush'e plan must of made things even better in 2001, no wait that's when it all went to shit. OK Joe I will go and pull some of Clinton vetos for you not that it will matter, if you lived through this, all Monica all the time and still like the GOP you are beyond hope anyway.

[-] 0 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

No doubt.

Bush was a liberal progressive.

[-] 2 points by nobnot (529) from Kapaa, HI 2 years ago

Place has been crap ever since Dorothy and Toto left.

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (6435) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

I thought they made it back home, I'll have to throw on Dark Side of the Moon and watch it again.

[-] 1 points by freewriterguy (882) 2 years ago

id rather a family work out their own problem than get the government involved. For example, when the government took my exwifes kids into custody of foster care, and even though I hadnt seen them for 5 years, they still didnt let me see them and now its been 18 years. How the hell did the government serve me? I say those government workers will not be let into heaven because of this great injustice they did to me. Oh but they sure were steady at taking child support money out of my checks. They only wanted to enforce 1/2 of the contract. Fuck the dad, if he ever sees his kids, and then I find out my kids are now strippers, alchololics, drug users, and slicing their arms open trying to commit suicide.

It Sort of reminds me of the dark side of our society entitled Predatory lending: I went to a small claims court one day, and all I saw was, check into cash got issued a bench warrant against so and so, or check city got issued a bench warrant against so and so. Every single case was against the poor who mistakenly borrowed money probably to pay their government or landlord persecutor.

If war broke out in this country I would just laugh cause the people deserve the bed they are making for themselves.

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (6435) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

I wonder how many women in shelters would agree with you? Not many I think.

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by po6059 (72) 2 years ago

Thanks to walker, wisconsin is doing great,........so is texas under perry.

[-] 1 points by po6059 (72) 2 years ago

"wealth inequality",..........how marxist of you.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6435) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

hey I get it you like having a King, one guy owning everything it's easer for you to know who to suck up to

[-] -1 points by BlackSun (275) from Agua León, BC 2 years ago

No real differences between R and D.

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (6435) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Sure a President Gore would of drilled in Alaska just like Bush or does the environment not matter, does global warming not matter, or you want us to believe Gore and Bush would treat the problem the same way, yeah, it would be good for you and the 1% to believe that.

[-] -2 points by BlackSun (275) from Agua León, BC 2 years ago

What the fuck are you babbling about? Your ideology is in power. What the fuck does bush gore or whatever have to do with any of this? Can't you Marxist filth come up with any thing COHERENT?

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (6435) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

I understand you don't give a crap about anything, nothing new in that. You're right if you don't give a crap about anything, then to you there is no difference.

[-] -1 points by po6059 (72) 2 years ago

No, they cant

[-] -1 points by po6059 (72) 2 years ago

No, they can't. ows lives by agenda which has nothing to do with reality.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6435) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Must be nice for you and your clear love for the king.

[-] -1 points by toonces (-117) 2 years ago

You are right. The problem is big government and giving the government more power over the individual, not whether those that govern us are Republican or Democrat. More individual liberty and freedom is the answer, not giving the government more power to take property thru taxation and regulations.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6435) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Taxes aren't so bad, they make us human. You are right it doesn't matter what they call themselves, if they want my boss to be able to ask me if I'm having sex with anybody and then fire me if they don't like the answer, then I'm against them. Fortunately it is easy to spot them because they are all Republicans, l so as long as I never vote for a Republican I don't have to worry about voting for somebody that wants the state to force my doctor to stick stuff inside me.

[-] -1 points by po6059 (72) 2 years ago

taxes make you human? i gather you never took a class in biology.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6435) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

I have taken some sociology classes as well as biology.

You can go back to living in caves and call it human if you want to.

[-] 0 points by po6059 (72) 2 years ago

i reiterate,.. paying taxes is not what makes a human being.

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (6435) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

OK how about taxes make us civilized are you OK with that.

[-] 0 points by po6059 (72) 2 years ago

No. what makes human beings civilized is how they treat each other. taxes have nothing to do with behavior.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6435) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

So tell me how do you build a scoity without taxes?

[-] 0 points by po6059 (72) 2 years ago

i never said that there should never be any taxes, I SAID that taxes do not define what human being , you said that they do.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6435) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

And so who are you the laguage police, we both agree that taxes are needed for the socity we live in and to be what we consider to be "human" today what exactly is your point?

[-] 0 points by po6059 (72) 2 years ago

every time you speak , you trip . i NEVER agreed that taxes define a human being.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6435) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

So you tell me are you saying that no one should pay taxes? I

f there were no taxes there would no changes in socity that would make us seem less "human"? You still haven't said what ir is you are trying to say, you did agree that we "needed" taxes what do we need them for then, if not to make us more human,? How do you define human?

I think being human involes taking care of each other, without taxes we wouldn't be taking care of much at all.

Go ahead you tell me in your opinion what makes us human?

[-] -1 points by po6059 (72) 2 years ago

taxes do not define humanity. what make "us " humans oppossed to what? our DNA makes us human.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6435) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

so chimps are 99% human according to you interesting concept

[-] 0 points by po6059 (72) 2 years ago

they are part of our family tree,...........................a different branch. dna is not a concept, its a fact.

[-] -2 points by beautifulworld (19197) 2 years ago

Thanks for posting this. Good information. We're in big trouble as a society if things keep going this way.

P.S. Can't you fix the link in the OP?

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6435) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

I hate this keeps going up to top with bad link, if you repost I'll come over to stir the dust.

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (6435) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

I saw it as soon as I hit it, but I couldn't open the edit box for some reason it quit working on posts.

I had just sent the trailer to a buddy and it got left on page by mistake.

People who live in states ran by the GOP have to deal with bad services and big debt, at least the blue states get something for their debt.

[-] 0 points by beautifulworld (19197) 2 years ago

Too bad, but I guess it's kind of funny. Good you put link at top comment. I'll vote it up so it stays up there.

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (6435) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Thanks, feel free to take and re headline, you do good posts, I don't "own" it.

I love my ideas, so I set them all free.

Just thought of that, crony huh?

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (19197) 2 years ago

LOL! True. Share knowledge, always.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6435) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Made you smile, and you made me, think I'll go do some gardening now.