Wisconsin Giving Tax Surplus to the People!

[Bombur]

so because other states will have surpluses, it is not news wisconsin, which had a major deficit, has a surplus? that is pretty dumb logic, especially since libs claimed walker would ruin wisconsin.

A lot of states had deficits and now have a surplus.

Trying to act like Wisconsin is some sort of special snowflake due to Walker is just political spin the relies on the reader being ignorant.

People that understand state finances know that state revenue and state expenses have a lot more to do with national trends in income and Medicaid. There are other factors of course but this thread is a fine example of the ignorant masses being fooled once again.

no one is claiming it is a special snow flake except butt hurt dems like you who thought walker would fail.

i mean seriously, you can be proud of other states, but you must knock down wisconsin because of the political party he belongs. that is being ignorant.

Obviously you didn't read the thread.

I would never say he would fail in the short term like this.

I only hope the best for Wisconsin and all the States in our Union.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

No it is not just a fluke (chance occurrence or luck). It is a national trend with little to no correlation to anything Walker has done let alone causation.

Oh, I see..... So, I guess the previous admin's massive deficits were just part of a larger, national trend as well?

the rain in spain falls mainly on the plain.

Somebody's meds are wearing off....

 

[bendog]

your's never worked, honey.

Seriously, Walker created neither the deficits nor the surplus. And, he's just another pol. He may be nationally electable, though.

 

[Bombur]

Yeah, yeah, yeah... Walker took over a budget boondoggle, made some structural changes and now the state is running a surplus and it is all a fluke.

Got it.

No it is not just a fluke (chance occurrence or luck). It is a national trend with little to no correlation to anything Walker has done let alone causation.

Oh, I see..... So, I guess the previous admin's massive deficits were just part of a larger, national trend as well?

States that relied on the income tax as a major revenue source all saw large deficits as the recession hit. Failure to plan for this eventuality was the fault of previous administrations but given the widespread failures seen across the states it is pretty hard to blame individual parties or politicians.

Non-partisan experts will tell you that the income tax is volatile and will become more volatile as income inequality continues to grow. They will also tell you that Medicaid is counter cyclical. What this means is that as revenue goes down in a recession expenses go up.

States are also faced with underfunded liabilities and unsustainable growth with regards to employee compensation. When revenue is growing at say 5% it may seem like you can afford 5% increases in wages and other compensation but eventually revenue will decrease while it will be hard to keep compensation flat.

State finances are fairly straightforward but politics and outdated balanced budget laws makes it very difficult for states to address the problems effectively.

 

[bendog]

No it is not just a fluke (chance occurrence or luck). It is a national trend with little to no correlation to anything Walker has done let alone causation.

Oh, I see..... So, I guess the previous admin's massive deficits were just part of a larger, national trend as well?

States that relied on the income tax as a major revenue source all saw large deficits as the recession hit. Failure to plan for this eventuality was the fault of previous administrations but given the widespread failures seen across the states it is pretty hard to blame individual parties or politicians.

Non-partisan experts will tell you that the income tax is volatile and will become more volatile as income inequality continues to grow. They will also tell you that Medicaid is counter cyclical. What this means is that as revenue goes down in a recession expenses go up.

States are also faced with underfunded liabilities and unsustainable growth with regards to employee compensation. When revenue is growing at say 5% it may seem like you can afford 5% increases in wages and other compensation but eventually revenue will decrease while it will be hard to keep compensation flat.

State finances are fairly straightforward but politics and outdated balanced budget laws makes it very difficult for states to address the problems effectively.

And, the unfunded liabilites are what Walker should be getting major credit for. Not this surplus bs.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Though to be fair, it's probably somewhat cherry picking to also evaluate the economy under Obama independently as well. I see the economic times and policies of the Bush administration very much connected to the recession that ended his Presidency, and our plight since then.

I always felt very uneasy with Bush's economic approach. I said back then that Bush's approach would artificially inflate the economy and that it would eventually collaps and lead to a painful and prolonged recovery. What I didn't understand back then was that the circumstances of those times were just as much fated as now. The recession was bound to happen, and the effect it would have on business would be to force the business world to adapt and learn how to accomplish more with less resources, less labor.

And that is the real problem that people on neither side really like to talk about. Our economy has been fundamentally changed. Companies aren't going to hire more people, because the new economy supplies without the extra labor. Now, the irony is that once upon a time, the number of jobs available relative to our population would have probably been considered a labor shortage. Back when our economy was structured on single income families. Nowadays, the economy is structured on two income households. Liberals complain that wages for the middle class have been going down for decades, well no wonder! The more women that entered the workforce, the lower wages have gotten. Businesses offer lower wages because people have settled for lower and lower wages for decades. Because for most of that time, the second income was alway extra. It wasn't money that was needed in order to pay bills and necessities.

Now, we're in the situation where business has managed to maximize output with fewer labor hours, but the majority of Americans are dependent on a two income household in order to simply make ends meet. We are going to have hard times ahead for many years still.

I agree, Obama is not to blame, however neither is Bush, policies and choices made over the 80 years have put us where we are at today.

I blame Bush but he had help. And I blame Obama for letting the crooks get away.

Blame Bush for starting the fire, blame Obama for adding fuel to it.

 

[LoneLaugher]

I agree, Obama is not to blame, however neither is Bush, policies and choices made over the 80 years have put us where we are at today.

I blame Bush but he had help. And I blame Obama for letting the crooks get away.

Blame Bush for starting the fire, blame Obama for adding fuel to it.

der de der der der

How about one of your 2000 word grade school essays discussing how you blame Bush?

 

[rdean]

Notice how right wingers don't even question where the surplus came from?

If you cut a billion from education, it's remarkable how easy it is to end up with a billion dollar surplus.

Course, you end up with a failed southern state. Perhaps it's Republicans doing what they do best. Keeping people ignorant while they ruin the economy.

That's because we've paid attention to the articles which describe perfectly where the surplus was coming from. Including the information on how it's unexpected because of job growth being significantly higher than expected.

See that's what happens when conservatives are in charge. The government gets out of things, people have jobs, and everyone gets more money back because there are more people working.

Minimum wage jobs actually cost the country more. Because those people need health care and food stamps.

 

[NYcarbineer]

so because other states will have surpluses, it is not news wisconsin, which had a major deficit, has a surplus? that is pretty dumb logic, especially since libs claimed walker would ruin wisconsin.

Jerry Brown has a surplus in California.

thanks for sharing. now stop being butt hurt and whining over wisconsin.

I'm not whining. I'm happy to have proved these people are lying.

 

[eflatminor]

Minimum wage jobs actually cost the country more. Because those people need health care and food stamps.

You are free to start your own business and pay your employees more than your competition...as much as you like in fact.

Good luck.

 

[Yurt]

Jerry Brown has a surplus in California.

thanks for sharing. now stop being butt hurt and whining over wisconsin.

I'm not whining. I'm happy to have proved these people are lying.

what are they lying about? you're sitting here bashing wisconsin for having a surplus. get over it.

 

[NYcarbineer]

so because other states will have surpluses, it is not news wisconsin, which had a major deficit, has a surplus? that is pretty dumb logic, especially since libs claimed walker would ruin wisconsin.

A lot of states had deficits and now have a surplus.

Trying to act like Wisconsin is some sort of special snowflake due to Walker is just political spin the relies on the reader being ignorant.

People that understand state finances know that state revenue and state expenses have a lot more to do with national trends in income and Medicaid. There are other factors of course but this thread is a fine example of the ignorant masses being fooled once again.

Yeah, yeah, yeah... Walker took over a budget boondoggle, made some structural changes and now the state is running a surplus and it is all a fluke.

Got it.

Wisconsin's recovery is nothing more than part of the nation's recovery.

And as you and the rest of the inmates are quick to remind us...

...Obama owns the economy now.

Therefore he owns the Wisconsin economy. Your praise for Walker is being heaped on the guy who is not the owner.

 

[Yurt]

A lot of states had deficits and now have a surplus.

Trying to act like Wisconsin is some sort of special snowflake due to Walker is just political spin the relies on the reader being ignorant.

People that understand state finances know that state revenue and state expenses have a lot more to do with national trends in income and Medicaid. There are other factors of course but this thread is a fine example of the ignorant masses being fooled once again.

Yeah, yeah, yeah... Walker took over a budget boondoggle, made some structural changes and now the state is running a surplus and it is all a fluke.

Got it.

Wisconsin's recovery is nothing more than part of the nation's recovery.

And as you and the rest of the inmates are quick to remind us...

...Obama owns the economy now.

Therefore he owns the Wisconsin economy. Your praise for Walker is being heaped on the guy who is not the owner.

wow...just wow.

now obama is not only president, but he governs individual states.



is there nothing you will not heap praise on obama for and not give credit to a republican for? my good lord, walker gets no credit, but obama gets the credit for wisconsin's surplus.

 

[NYcarbineer]

thanks for sharing. now stop being butt hurt and whining over wisconsin.

I'm not whining. I'm happy to have proved these people are lying.

what are they lying about? you're sitting here bashing wisconsin for having a surplus. get over it.

They are lying to claim that Walker did anything extraordinary that can be shown by cause and effect to have uniquely and without the influence of any other factors improved Wisconsin's economy.

And as I just pointed out, remember, Obama owns this economy.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Yeah, yeah, yeah... Walker took over a budget boondoggle, made some structural changes and now the state is running a surplus and it is all a fluke.

Got it.

Wisconsin's recovery is nothing more than part of the nation's recovery.

And as you and the rest of the inmates are quick to remind us...

...Obama owns the economy now.

Therefore he owns the Wisconsin economy. Your praise for Walker is being heaped on the guy who is not the owner.

wow...just wow.

now obama is not only president, but he governs individual states.



is there nothing you will not heap praise on obama for and not give credit to a republican for? my good lord, walker gets no credit, but obama gets the credit for wisconsin's surplus.

Are you saying that anyone on this board who has blamed Obama for things that haven't gone well in this economy are full of shit?

They are hopeless ignorant imbeciles who didn't know that governors are the ones who own the economy?

 

[Yurt]

Wisconsin's recovery is nothing more than part of the nation's recovery.

And as you and the rest of the inmates are quick to remind us...

...Obama owns the economy now.

Therefore he owns the Wisconsin economy. Your praise for Walker is being heaped on the guy who is not the owner.

wow...just wow.

now obama is not only president, but he governs individual states.



is there nothing you will not heap praise on obama for and not give credit to a republican for? my good lord, walker gets no credit, but obama gets the credit for wisconsin's surplus.

Are you saying that anyone on this board who has blamed Obama for things that haven't gone well in this economy are full of shit?

They are hopeless ignorant imbeciles who didn't know that governors are the ones who own the economy?

there is a difference between a state economy and the national economy.

when you learn the difference, get back to me. to not give walker any credit and instead give it to obama is the height of partisan hackery, it even beats out some of TM's greater moments of insanity.

as if walker has no control over the state's economy. as if he didn't implement new policies. nope...it was all obama, obama controls every state economy in the nation.

 

[bendog]

wow...just wow.

now obama is not only president, but he governs individual states.



is there nothing you will not heap praise on obama for and not give credit to a republican for? my good lord, walker gets no credit, but obama gets the credit for wisconsin's surplus.

Are you saying that anyone on this board who has blamed Obama for things that haven't gone well in this economy are full of shit?

They are hopeless ignorant imbeciles who didn't know that governors are the ones who own the economy?

there is a difference between a state economy and the national economy.

when you learn the difference, get back to me. to not give walker any credit and instead give it to obama is the height of partisan hackery, it even beats out some of TM's greater moments of insanity.

as if walker has no control over the state's economy. as if he didn't implement new policies. nope...it was all obama, obama controls every state economy in the nation.

imo, it's actually more because of the Bernanke. Walker did act on unfunded liabilities, to his credit, but that has little to do with 2014.

 

[Papageorgio]

Though to be fair, it's probably somewhat cherry picking to also evaluate the economy under Obama independently as well. I see the economic times and policies of the Bush administration very much connected to the recession that ended his Presidency, and our plight since then.

I always felt very uneasy with Bush's economic approach. I said back then that Bush's approach would artificially inflate the economy and that it would eventually collaps and lead to a painful and prolonged recovery. What I didn't understand back then was that the circumstances of those times were just as much fated as now. The recession was bound to happen, and the effect it would have on business would be to force the business world to adapt and learn how to accomplish more with less resources, less labor.

And that is the real problem that people on neither side really like to talk about. Our economy has been fundamentally changed. Companies aren't going to hire more people, because the new economy supplies without the extra labor. Now, the irony is that once upon a time, the number of jobs available relative to our population would have probably been considered a labor shortage. Back when our economy was structured on single income families. Nowadays, the economy is structured on two income households. Liberals complain that wages for the middle class have been going down for decades, well no wonder! The more women that entered the workforce, the lower wages have gotten. Businesses offer lower wages because people have settled for lower and lower wages for decades. Because for most of that time, the second income was alway extra. It wasn't money that was needed in order to pay bills and necessities.

Now, we're in the situation where business has managed to maximize output with fewer labor hours, but the majority of Americans are dependent on a two income household in order to simply make ends meet. We are going to have hard times ahead for many years still.

I agree, Obama is not to blame, however neither is Bush, policies and choices made over the 80 years have put us where we are at today.

I blame Bush but he had help. And I blame Obama for letting the crooks get away.

Figures.

 

[Papageorgio]

wow...just wow.

now obama is not only president, but he governs individual states.



is there nothing you will not heap praise on obama for and not give credit to a republican for? my good lord, walker gets no credit, but obama gets the credit for wisconsin's surplus.

Are you saying that anyone on this board who has blamed Obama for things that haven't gone well in this economy are full of shit?

They are hopeless ignorant imbeciles who didn't know that governors are the ones who own the economy?

there is a difference between a state economy and the national economy.

when you learn the difference, get back to me. to not give walker any credit and instead give it to obama is the height of partisan hackery, it even beats out some of TM's greater moments of insanity.

as if walker has no control over the state's economy. as if he didn't implement new policies. nope...it was all obama, obama controls every state economy in the nation.

That is true unless the economy is going bad, then that falls squarely on everyone but Obama.

 

[Bombur]

Obama doesn't have that much control over the national economy.

Some economists actually try and calculate how much impact the decisions the state government has on the state economy and it is probably somewhere around 4 cents per every dollar of change.