[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fw2kZwRjwlM&feature=youtu.be]
Yep, that’s my congresswoman. A longtime republican district in Kansas elected a lesbian, Native American, former MMA fighter to Congress.
The republican incumbent, Kevin Yoder, didn’t take her seriously at first and thought he had the election wrapped up. He drastically underestimated how much suburban women hate Trump and she ended up running away with it. Wasn’t even close.
OMG…she’s awesome! I did not know about her until now.
Here is the thing that scares me though… my _instinct i_s to want to back her politically even though I know nothing about her politics. It’s like this woman represents everything that is wrong and right about politics. She is great because she is proof of the ability of minorities and/ or non traditional candidates to gain leadership. On the other hand she also may be the result of one of the greatest challenges to successful democracy: basing a vote on whether you love or hate the person (meanwhile ignoring their politics).
There is hope for your state after all 
It’s interesting to know about Kansas suburban women. Because apparently New York State suburban women are very much pro Trump
That’s pretty cool, but Kansas still owes us for the giant poop sandwich that is Kris Kobach.
How did you get down voted so much?
Well, we elected a democrat governor over him, so there’s that. First time I’ve ever voted for a dem governor. That’s how much everyone hates Brownback/Kobach.
It is necessary to judge people on character. Assuming you like people with positive qualities (honesty, kindness, intelligence, empathy, charisma) and dislike people with negative qualities (dishonesty, meanness, stupidity, apathy, dullness), it adds a lot to the evaluation. When hiring somebody, if they come in and tell me they can increase revenues 50% in a week it doesn’t really mean a lot if I believe them to be a lying, conniving idiot and the background check shows felony assault and animal cruelty charges.
I agree that character and “liking” a person are not everything. You need to consider the person and their ideas in conjunction.
For those unfamiliar:
- In 2012, Kansas Governor Sam Brownback sought to boost the economy by sharply cutting income taxes across the board.
- Under his plan, the tax rate on pass-through business income fell to 0. The idea was to boost investment, raise employment, and jump-start the economy.
- This type of supply-side trickle-down theory has been proposed by Ronald Reagan, George Bush, and many others.
- The program in Kansas served as a lab test for how supply side tax cuts may work at the federal level. In Kansas, however, these tax cuts proved unsuccessful.
- The Kansas economy did not grow faster than neighboring states, the country itself, or even Kansas’ own growth in previous years.
- The experiment with tax policy was such a failure that a Republican controlled legislature not only voted to raise taxes, but did so over the veto of the governor.
- Rather than Democrats overturning the tax measure, this was a case of Republicans in power looking at the effects of the tax cut on the economy and making the decision that it was, overall, a bad idea.
- The experiment in Kansas has important implications for federal tax reform, the first being not to expect tax cuts to boost the economy much, if at all.
- Second, a lowered business income tax can be manipulated. While Kansas cut the tax rate on pass-through income to 0 in hopes of promoting economic activity, the growth simply didn’t happen. In reality, many people in Kansas re-characterized income from labor into business-form in order to take advantage of the 0 percent tax rate.
- At the federal level, Republicans often express intent to reduce the corporate and business income tax rates. The lesson from Kansas is that, while this might induce some increase in economic activity, it certainly will induce a massive increase of tax sheltering.
- There are other, more general, takeaways from the tax cut experiment. When Kansas cut taxes, its bond rating went down, and it had to cut central services such as education and infrastructure. After seeing this, a majority of Kansans decided they would not prefer to keep the tax cuts.
- Therefore, another implication is that tax reform is not just about taxes, rather what taxes pay for. Taxes and spending are linked.
- The tax reform discussion should include what it is that citizens are getting from the taxes they pay.
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/unpacked/2017/07/11/the-kansas-tax-cut-experiment/
has nothing to do with the fact that this is 2018 and that kansas is a shithole.
Not at the state level. Brain Wash is exactly right. The tax cuts (which I’m normally all for) where horribly implemented and nearly caused all the public school to shut down. Seriously, the schools almost didn’t open last year. People weren’t too pleased about that.
Out of curiosity, what’s the difference between horribly implemented and properly implemented tax cuts? I’m under the impression that this is a natural consequence of any tax cut. Revenue goes down, services get cut, and the GOP is happy. That the almost shut down of schools, and reduction in services was the goal, not a unintended consequence.
i mean just because you do a tax cut doesnt mean services have to cut services, you can just run a deficit and borrow. anyways my opinion is that its unfair that a person who owns a corporation is double taxed when it comes to dividends. its baby back bullshit. but with that said, i dont like how capital gains are not taxed until sold. anyways imo, these taxes should strictly affect the person who owns it directly, kind of like a wealth tax.
anyways repubs should figure a way to cut services that ultimately help the poor (old people and sickly people)
and the dems should figure a way to increase taxes that ultimately affect the rich (the top 10%)
ask not what your country can do for you! but what you can do for your country!
You think stopping public education, essentially overnight, is what Brownback wanted? Not at all.
As to the first part of your comment, there are a million different ways to lower taxes and all create different results/consequences. We could talk about lowering/eliminating corporate taxation, sales tax, income tax, property tax, estate tax, and so on. We could discuss moving to a flat or fair tax. We could look at tax credits. The list goes on and on. Some of the above examples would directly benefit individuals and others would benefit corporations with the hope of lowering the cost of goods and helping individuals in the long run.
What Brownback did was basically the worst way to cut taxes. It only benefited a small group of people while having an outsized negative impact on pretty much everyone.
Now, if you want to talk about the other side of the coin and what to do about public services, that’s an entirely different conversation.
I can only looks at what the playbook is. The Bush Tax Cuts, the Trump Tax Cuts all massively disproportionately benefit the elite. While alternatives do exist, they’re politically impossible and only serve to cloud the discussion on tax cuts. Whenever i see tax cuts done, it’s almost always with the intent to cut services. Such as the current admin: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-10-16/mcconnell-blames-entitlements-not-gop-for-rising-deficits
I guess my question is: What is the goal of the tax cuts in Kansas or at the national level? The tax cuts do not go into the economy and reduce goods, they go into buybacks. They do not help the long-run growth of the economy.
I like to think it was John Galt 
the reason why tax cuts are popular for repubs is cuz they argue that government is not the solution. its the problem. what they meant with that quote is that businesses are more efficient than government in allocating resources for growth, hence government should be small, and businesses should be big.
anyways a business will reward productive employees in theory, the government on the other hand will give money to the poor and needy. which really is more efficient?
the main issue with business as more efficient imo is that business owners who die prolly leave it to their retarded kids who dont know how to run shit. so in a way inheritance is also a form of welfare, just for really successful people to a smal amount of people. thats why estate tax needed to be more punishing with lower limits.
Who’s he?
Aside from your last paragraph, I agree with you. That’s twice in one week. Time to pack it up and go to happy hour.
Search your feelings. You know it to be true.