gary johnson 2012! john huntsman 2016! LOL! I want gary johnson to be president, hes not crazy like every other republican running (excluding huntsman, and paul)

 

Jack I'm curious, what is/was cut in education funding?

 

Moderators that drag their knuckles along the ground don't last long anyway or they end up moderating a forum that has it latest post dated 8 years ago.

Big stick make a sound like: Wacka, wacka wacka...

 

I think Boeing was only ~ 200 when it was announced, don't know if it went from since then. If they could get the labor board to stop harassing them for building expansion in right to work states, they might be able to turn a profit, and owe some taxes ( once the TIF is up ).
Miller not too sure if the closed up shop in WI ( same for the Coors side of it ). They are right across the river from Union Station down town, think it is a 12 story building ( and I cannot say if it is all them or not, have not been in there yet ).

A lot of jobs were imported to IL ( Chicago specifically ) so this could be part of the run up in the chart in the URL above, prior to the tax 66% income tax for individuals, and 40% increase for businesses.
So while the triggered event could be caused by the taxes, the magnitude of the peak was caused by importing of jobs prior ?

The other item to look at, if you are looking for a reason to question the content, is the chart shows the number of people dropped from payrolls. The chart is not an unemployment chart. There is mention of unemployment rates going to 9.5, but this hardly compares to MI's unemployment rates, and the chart that is used to compare to MI in another article.


This could be a case of SMB exiting the state if they can. A lot of SMB are in the northern IL area, and with ~ 45 min commute can relocate just across the line into WI, and still cover the IL accounts they have very easily. Same for SMB by Rockford, IL.

So the chart might be correct, that the tax rate triggered 2 things, unemployment and exiting from the state.



AZ might have been decent and not locked in the property tax valuation floor on houses, but a lot of the blue counties in NE IL did.
IL is a rolling average on the last 3 years for the value, to get to the amount that the taxes are calculated on.
Cook County's logic for setting the floor on values was so they did not have to raise the rate.
Now 2 years later they want to raise the rate.
I want to say it was the 2005-2006-2007 averages that the floor is locked in at, could be 2006-2007-2008, which is what the 2009 prop taxes were based on.
The county is collecting taxes at the high, or 1 year off the high for property value, and still cannot make the budget work.

 

Obviously the MSM did not point this out.

Quinn had to increase the state taxes for individuals and businesses, and still had to cut services. He said these are trying times, and we all need to pull together...

Few months later, read the bill that was introduced when WI was going through the hide in IL mess, and see where the money was going.
The tax increases and service cutting are not addressing the under funded state union employee pension, which is set to go insolvent in 2018 ( 2019 ? ), which means 5 years after that it is out of money. That is still being ignored.

I seem to recall the IL atty General's dad being attached to this some how.
Another shining example of IL politics, after she was elected Atty general, there were some claims of campaign contribution irregularities, and the call for an investigation.
Not only does she not remove herself from investigating her dad, she comes out and says there is not enough evidence to warrant an investigation. Strange how that works ?

At least Ryan selling CDLs for campaign contributions kept the state running with the money it had.

EDIT :

Went and found it. The bill was actually trying to reverse the IL constitution.
It is already unconstitutional to change benefits for any state union employee ( state, Local or Teachers ).
Sorry about getting it backwards, the bill was to try to change what is existing.. My mistake, confused which direction this was in FEB.

The politicians' ( including Gov Quinn ) quotes, lead one to infer that they would love to help reduce these costs, but they cannot...

 

Re-structure debt?

 

It's been going on since sometime in the 70s, I believe. The answer is not a simple one, so I'm going to have to direct you to a few sources. This one, printed by the Arizona Republic is pretty easy to digest: http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepu...dgets0412.html In particular, notice where Arizona ranks relative to the other States and DC: Never higher than 48th. Of course, SOMEONE has to be last, but no one really wants to finish there, do they?

This next source is pretty dense, it comes out of a study by Arizona State University: http://www.asu.edu/budgetcuts/docume...cal_Record.pdf Skim through the first few pages, and you get the same story as reported in the Republic.

This next one is very clear, and pretty short: http://ktar.com/?nid=6&sid=1310265 Now, according to the Census Bureau, we're 49th. Looks like we're winning the "race to the bottom"! :o

There are many other sources for this information, and, using a Google search for "Arizona funding for education", I did not find a single source, in the first page of hits, saying anything contrary to what I've printed here.

- Jack

 

Thanks Jack for those sources. What I gleaned out of them was the first and last ones said that while less money was being spent on education, more money was not the cure for the Az. educational system.

The second one (and yes it was very long) seemed more like a term paper that was determined to make the point that the Az. Government wasn't living up to it's constitutional requirements. This article had ALOT of fuzzy math in it by making compairisons to things that were not compairable.

What I got from the second article was that the methods of compairison were not very accurate, which was stated in the article in several places. However the author plowed ahead in using the "inaccurate measurements" to prove his point.

Another thing that was in the second piece was a few brief mentions of ESL (english as a second language) which has a huge effect on the stats presented, but seemed to be brushed over. Az. does have it's fair share of "Deep Southerners" as does Calif, and their impact on the system is very often poo pooed.

Thanks again for putting that stuff up. My curiosity is that when I see phrases like "cuts in education" I often wonder what exactaly is meant by that. If it's overall dollars or specific programs.

One other observation is that rather than mesuring Az's education system against it self, which would be a better way of looking at it, I got the feeling that it was more like keeping up with the Jonses on the money end of things.

Jim

 

As many of us have pointed out, statistics can certainly be skewed to support almost any position.

I can only say anecdotally, that the qualifications of entering Arizona resident freshmen at the University seemed to decline over the 20 years I was there. These were not all minority kids either. A very great many were forced to take remedial math courses at the community college before they could even start at the UofA, and some scored so low in testing they weren't even eligible for remedial math. A similar situation occurred with freshman English, although it wasn't quite as bad.

- Jack

 

Do any of you repubs like John Huntsman? He has good credentials, like cutting taxes being awarded for running one of the best states in america, how about winning re-election by 78%? what about his foreign relations experience! he has tons! whats wrong with him, please tell me.

 

I don't mean it to be an insult, but if a person that has leanings toward the Democrat side thinks he has "good credentials", that pretty much answers the question a lot have of him, 'Is he a moderate masquerading as a conservative ?'

He has been working in the Obama administration as ambassador to China, very low profile, add to this, the 111th congress, the Senate confirmed him without issue ( the current majority that is a PITA to do anything with Republicans ). As for foreign relations experience, not exactly tons, it is a very narrow focus, and not what is needed today.

Utah is not a high profile state, so anything he did that was considered good in Utah was not news worthy.

no clue what he really would do, or wants to do. His message gets lost in the MSM, with them trying to make Bachmann look stupid all the time.

Don't know how he could get any attention, he is just an extra on the set for the 2012 republican candidate list as it stands today.

 

First off, Bachmann is stupid, we all know that

Second, I like him because he isn't trying to run on social issues and hes more relaxed on his views of social issues. Sorry but its the economy right now and only a small ammount of social issues will sway people to vote for one rather then the other.

Third, who cares if he was confirmed as ambassador with no no votes? Does it matter? Maybe it matters to alot of republicans because they dont want to admit that its also hard to work with the tea party in the house. (I'm not trying to make excuses about the Senate, they are very lazy and they could have defeted any bill they wanted to, so I dont see why they didn't put repubs on the record?!)

Fourth, China is a country we don't have much of a fair trading agreement with so why couldn't someone like Huntsman make the case for both sides to come out with a fair trading agreement with China? He is HUGE over in China!

Fifth, I completely agree with you, Utah is boring, but nonetheless, its a form of government that excelled under his leadership, he gave a 400 billion dollar tax cut and he still managed to run a surplus.

In addition, the current front runners are jokes, i.e. Perry, Romney, and Bachmann. Bachmann, well we all know she cant win, Romney has the best chance in the general BUT he is just not as exciting as Perry. Perry has the best chance to win the nomination because he is socially conservative and he is Governer of Texas, a state that is kicking every other state in the face when it comes to jobs. I guess a good ammount of the jobs are minimum wage, which is still better then nothing, I bet teen un-employment is low, but education wise and health wise it isnt that great down there!

Just why I think Huntsman would make a better president then obama. Campaign Obama is the best thing ever, but President Obama has been a letdown, so he either needs to get punched by Rahm, or have a realization that he is being soft on important issues, which would lead to a more robust debate among differing parties.

 

Can I get an amen?

 

Over the last 15 years or so the Republican party took a huge step to the left. That is the reason the Tea Party came about. Under Obama and the 111th the government took a huge step to the left. There is still a huge population that is conservative and the Republican party has not served that population. It started in earnest with President Bush, who spent like a drunken sailor. You can complain about the "far right" Tea Party, but if you look at their positions they are very much into the Constitution and being fiscally sound. Both items have served this country well in the past and since not following those two major items is not working out well, they want to get back to following those items.

Many in the Tea Party are getting more and more angry because the injustice being done to the portion of the population that is working the dream and obtaining the American dream. Many are getting tired of hearing the "rich" have to help the poor because "there isn't any opportunity" in this country for the poor. That line is BS and many in the Tea Party don't believe it. If it were true, Marco Rubio wouldn't be where he is. I would not enjoy the lifestyle I have if there were no opportunity. Mark Zuckerburg wouldn't enjoy the life he has. This is a success story that has many many recipients. All one has to do is work their butts off, and constantly work to better their life and good things will result. Generally the middle class is getting tired of supporting the people who are not putting forth any effort to improve their position. The people not working to improve their lives are dragging the country down and there is a huge population in the government willing to help as much as they can.

 

In your opinion maybe, but then again you lead towards being a democrat, so any candidate that cannot be critiqued on merits is verbally slammed on silly items like using a different correctly pronounced version of a word.

He is not running on them, but that does not mean he won't target them. You posted it yourself, Obama campaigned for one thing, and did something else.

No Votes ??? Try unanimous, as in All the democrats on the committee voted for him. That does not happened, more so with the 111th congress on a republican anything. Something is up here.

Good idea, **** them off by wanting to change the trade agreement. Why do you think they keep loaning us money, to keep buying stuff they make.
How much more fair do you think it can get ? They keep the Yuan close to the dollar for a reason. Change the trade agreement, and watch what happens next t-bill auction. That rate is going to climb without China diving in ( and once the rate is up, they will jump on the money ). The US Treas cannot keep buying t-bills, where do you think that money comes from ?

Utah has next to nothing in terms of social programs, the welfare spending in Utah was $ 1.5 B. Education was $ 7.7 B. Do you think he could get a well managed country rating when he has to deal with the rapid increasing social programs enacted at the federal level. He has never had to deal with this.
Population of 2.8 Million total in the state, that is ~ 35% of the population of Chicago or ~ 17% the population of NYC. I would bet the guy could not run the city of Chicago or New York , let alone the country.


Again in your opinion. You thought the campaign for Obama was a great thing, I saw it as utter trash. Next to nothing on the economic front, all social programs. What an ego maniac, the DNC pushed him right up there.

The media has trained you to hate the tea-party movement groups and the candidates they support.
Why is this ? Details and not the trash that John Kerry and the likes spout off about.

The voters that make up the tea party movement realize the country has a spending issue, not a revenue issue.
Democrats cannot stand someone is shining a light on the issue in DC as a whole.

Taxation without representation is what happened before, would you have been against it at that time also ?

Huntsman got a $ 400M reduction in taxes over a $ 23B spending, wow big move there what is that 1.8% ?
Don't kid yourself about that "surplus", it was the same "surplus" that Clinton claimed. Utah still spends $ 500M of their budget towards interest.

He is a moderate that is trying to run on the republican ticket, all he needs is 1 half step to the left and he would be an independent, 1 full step and he would be a democrat.

I know it is a bad thing, but I hope Obama gets reelected.
The next POTUS is in for it, when the mess that the 111th congress and Obama made comes around.
Once it hits the fan in 2014, there is going to be an even bigger spending issue with the federal govt.
I don't care how many times Obama says it, the country is not a AAA investment. Keep saying it, pressure the other rating houses to not change ( gee, isn't this against what Dodd-Frank passed as law ? )
Dodd - Frank made sure the rating companies got their feet held to the fire for mis representation of investments, now that is coming back to roost.
sorry slightly off topic, just free flowing though. Feel free to ignore that ( like you need my permission )