A Nationalized Kansas?

Kansas enacted right wing policies - yet the many other states that enacted right wing policies have had strong economic growth, where Kansas is the exception. It's been hurt by a myriad of economic woes that have nothing to do with state government policies - why ignore the peculiarities of the Kansas economy that set it back? Why ignore the many states flourishing under right wing policies?

Just go ahead and look at a list of states ranked by gdp growth - you'll notice that the states topping the list are largely red states.

 

Maybe it's because the success of the blue states creating a tax revenue base that carries through to the federal government, are supporting the red states; http://www.salon.com/2014/09/20/10_red_states_that_mooch_off_the_federal_government_partner/?

https://www.theatlantic.com/busines...tates-are-givers-and-which-are-takers/361668/

 

Your "leftist" boogie men aside, what works works, and what doesn't doesn't.

The conservative electorate of Kansas allowed Sammy and the legislative enablers he brought with him to conduct his unique Red State Model "experiment" upon the state. Result: soaring deficits, lowered bond ratings, the imposition, out of desperation, of huge, regressive taxes to cover the appalling shortfalls thereby created, and a conspicuous absence of the businesses and jobs it was promised to attract - even with all those pampered businesses being given a free ride as ordinary Kansans were forced to bear the burden.

The verdict of Kansans that have listened to all the excuses: They have twice voted Brownback the worst governor in the nation.

Pretending that the stolidly conservative people of Kansas have suddenly been transformed into your "leftists" is laughable. They are just victims who are expressing a non-partisan reaction to what has been done to them.



.

 

Economic growth is ties to current and recent economic policies - gdp/capita, or the size of a tax base, are due to factors from long prior far more than they are to recent policies.

 

Kansas is unique in presenting itself as the model, the "experiment" in "Red" statism.

If folks want to get into the disparities among states in quality of life, income, education, health, longevity, etc., it can be quite revealing, of course, but Sammy's "experiment" and it's empirical results serve as a valuable demonstration of the draconian imposition of ideological dogma.

As a pragmatist, I think that someone hyping a "Blue State Model" experiment would be foolish as well. Responsible governance demands the freedom to defer to ineluctable realities in common sensical ways, not be hidebound by what is 'pc' according to someone's theoretical fancy.

 

Reaganomics and the failure of tax cuts going to the wealthy for the last forty years with stagnant wages has ties to the recent failures of these red states I just pointed out to you, with my map. Also, the vulture chart proves because of tax cuts going to the wealthy that the middle class has not been a beneficiary of that economic growth;https://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/recent-business/the-vulture-chart

 

Sure! Blue states don't carry around magic bullets for certain.Size, geography, location, demographics, resources, etc. all play into one state creating or not creating its own success story. There is however a pattern that does seem to stick like duck tape, which always seems to drag some states down over others, regardless of their own dynamics. And those are big tax cuts to the wealthy, which failed states such as Kansas and Louisiana are famous for. Just saying!

 

We're not talking about Reaganomics, we're not talking about the wealth gap. The link you provided previously has a map on which states draw the most federal funding - which, once again, has nothing to do with present policies. If NY state was in 2018 sweeped by Republicans, taking over the legislature and the Governorship, that map wouldn't change one iota, because federal payments are about current financial standing - making your point a red herring.

 

haha, whut? now "leftists" are "boogie men"? You can't seriously be suggesting that "leftists" don't exist?

Once again, as I have stated, 9/10 of the top gdp growth states are "stolidly conservative" states, completely controlled by the GOP.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_economic_growth_rate

When you rank states by state debt per capita, deep red states make up 7/10 on the list.
http://www.thestatesproject.org/state-debt/

Once again, as I have pointed out, your narrative on the "red state model" requires ignoring the many red states that clearly are doing well by every reasonable measure of current policy, and depends on relying on an irrational focus on Kansas, despite the plethora of other red states doing better, and requires completely ignoring the specific causes of Kansas's budget woes, which have far more to do with the underlying economy of Kansas than with budget policies.

lol, you're now suggesting that I'm saying Kansans are leftists? Where do you get these kinds of straw men?

 

Troianii gets it.

 

so red state "tax cut" policies "drag some states down over others", yet those red states (with red state policies) coincidentally make 9/10 of the top gdp growth (rate) states, and 7/10 of the states with the lowest state debt per capita...

"Just saying!"

 

If Sammy's highly-touted "Red State Model" had not been such a stinker, Kansans would be singing his praises and other states adopting the "Model."

As it is, with conservative Kansans disgusted with what he did to their state, and the Republican-run legislature eager to undo his damage, his "experiment" is still a valuable lesson for any ideologue who might have been tempted to try it.

 

Once again, if it were a result of red state policies, we wouldn't see red states topping the charts for economic growth and having the lowest state debt as a percent of gdp.

 

http://247wallst.com/special-report...he-fastest-and-slowest-growing-economies-2/3/ Most of these states are blue or purple. Of course, Texas with all its oil, is what carries it over as a top growing economy. No surprises there, and it is leaning purple.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/gene...om-worst-to-first/ar-BBloGmm#image=BBlmPKr|51
As you can see, states like Texas and North Dakota do very well because of oil resources, which can easily hide its tax policies under the radar of those resources. Hence, the point I made earlier. These states simply make up the average because of resources. If those resources were not there, your average would be drastically cut.

 

Sure we would. Kansas doesn't have the resources like North Dakota and Texas, which filters any lost tax revenue it might incur because of those same Republican policies.

 

Two points. One: you seem to have missed the jist of my actual original point, and two: the data generally doesn't reflect what you are suggesting.

POINT ONE
As I stated,

What I was pointing out there was that analyzing policies simply by gdp growth without considering other factors that have nothing to do with tweaking the tax code, then Natty's point breaks down. You seem to agree but want to disagree - as you pointed out that much of the growth in Texas and the Dakotas comes from fossil fuel extraction. But do you really think that California, for example, isn't benefiting from anything that is separate from it's "blue state" policies? What about Silicon Valley? Surely the existence of Silicon Valley isn't a result of Governor Brown's policies, right? Yet if Silicon Valley was its own state, it would have the highest gdp/capita of any state in the U.S.

Similarly, the budget woes of Kansas are really due to issues beyond Brownback's policy changes. Basically all areas of its economy are struggling, including the fossil fuels (contrary to what you suggested, Kansas has significant fossil fuels, but the drop in fossil fuel prices a few years ago actually has hurt the economies of KS and TX.

POINT TWO

The link you provided only covers 2015 - and if nothing else, it shows that red vs. blue state policies aren't controlling, because it's pretty evenly split between blue and red. Yes, states like TX benefit from fossil fuels, but so what? CA benefits from Silicon Valley (tech), Hollywood (entertainment), some of the best wineries in the world, none of which were in any way resultant of blue-state policies. This, again, goes to my point about falsely attributing economic growth to blue or red state policies, when factors beyond state government control play a larger influence on economic growth.

But if we were to use economic growth independet of such factors (that means not discounting Texan oil and not discounting Hollywood, Silicon Valley, Cali wineries, etc...), then the 2015 data you used shows it to be pretty even between red and blue states, suggesting that one kind of policy isn't better than the other. But then the 2013 data I pulled showed that 9/10 of the top growth states were red states, with no blue states making the list.



But these are one year snapshots - so I think a four year running average, like the 2010-2013 data from the link I pulled, might be better. And in that, we see 8/10 of the top growth states are red states.



So again, if you want to measure red v. blue state policies by gdp growth of red v. blue states, then the evidence runs contrary to what the OP seems to want to suggest.

Edit: note, I'm open to looking at other years and other data, but I grabbed the data I have because it seemed good data and easily accessible (no need to click back and forth, it had a table of all 50 states which you could sort yourself) and broad (4yrs). If you have better data from a running average over a relevant period, then I'm open to looking at that instead. But I do think the 4yr running average is the best data set anyone's put forth here.

 

Only one state presented itself as an ideological model for other to follow. The vaunted "Red State Model" failed miserably.

Of course, states differ in quality of life, personal wealth, level of education attained, health, longevity, economic growth, dependence on federal assistance, marital stability, etc., etc., etc., but Kansas is unique as the self-proclaimed ideological paradigm, and any looking to it with ideas of following its lead now have their warning - thanks to Sammy.

 

Again, you just confirmed what I have already been telling you, except you aren't paying attention. Each state has its own dynamic situation. Your measure in GDP growth is essentially irrelevant based on those various dynamics of each state. What stands out are those states that are not these special states with all the bells and whistles that other states benefit from. Take the poor performers of Mississippi, West Virginia, and Alabama and they take a GDP hit because there isn't much there to draw from. They are not able to hide bad tax policy while other Red states do well to cover it up due to great natural resources, that up their average. The GDP is not a good indicator of failed tax policy as a whole.

 

Thanks! That's what I have been trying to tell him, but it doesn't seem to be sinking in.

 

It's the usual, tired attempt at diversion and/or obfuscation with the requisite indictment of those ubiquitous, nebulous "liberals!"

Sammy proclaimed he would contrive the "Red State Model" by his "experiment" in Kansas.

The verdict is in, Kansans think Sammy stinks, and no state in the nation is showing signs of wishing to emulate the "Red State Model."

 

In the meantime, the cheerleaders for that economic model pivot to unrelated sources to perpetuate a fantasy ideology, so as to show it in a different light,

 

Brownback called it that. So what, is he individually infallible? I've clearly demonstrated that your criticism of red state policies falls flat, and all you've got is that Brownback called his policies the "red state model"? That's it?

again, you seem to be agreeing with me - but wanting to disagree. You're happy to use KS as an example of red state "policies" not working [despite the fact that KS's budget woes are primarily due to economic woes entirely separate from "red state" policies], you're happy to tout Cali and Oregon as examples of blue states 'working', but you choose to ignore the red states that are 'working', and have chosen to deliberately ignore that 8/10 top gdp growth states over a four year period, because 2/8 of them have benefited from oil production - w/o any attempt whatsoever at figuring how much of their gdp growth was due to oil production. And, of course, no considerationwhatsoever of the economic factors in OR/CA that independent of blue state policy led to economic growth.

And, of course, you've given no explanation for the other 6/10 red states that top the list of best gdp growth, states that didn't have oil production. And, of course, you cite a tiny handful of red states that have had weak economic growth - completely ignoring the fact that most of the top 10 weakest growth states are blue, including the state with the weakest growth.

 

At least now, thanks to Sammy, his "model" serves as a "real world" warning that can and should be evoked whenever rabid ideologues attempt to push their failed dogma as a panacea.

 

Kansas was, uniquely, proclaimed as "the" Red State Model experiment, and we have the results as well as the verdict of the Kansans that elected Sammy.

Please cite my specific criticism of "red state policies" that you are referring to.

Despite your pretense, states do not opt for either "red" policies or "blue" policies (with the self-proclaimed exception of Kansas, of course.)

The "experiment" that established the "model" is not about to be emulated by anyone with a grasp of the demonstrated, empirical consequences: Kansas.

 

Lol! You know, I think you are onto something there; http://thenet24h.com/3584410/kansas...-republicans-vote-reverse-disastrous-tax-cuts?