Ty Webb;803876 wrote:So are you saying Bob Taft wasn't a friend of the tax payer

And I was referring to the bill itself.....not the website that Kasich wasted taxpayer money on

Got proof that taxpayer money was used for this website? Got a link?

You've got a lot of nerve asking for links. The last time I asked you for a link to qualify a lie you helped spread you ran away and hid like a little girl.

Awww, sorry you got your feelings hurt. I'll try to do better next time.

Writerbuckeye;804221 wrote:Got proof that taxpayer money was used for this website? Got a link?

Let's see writer....

It was created by the state and the Gov to talk about a hot button state issue....yea I'm sure Kasich paid for it himself

Get real....they created this website with tax payer money to push their own(bad) idea/agenda

Ty Webb;804365 wrote:Let's see writer....

It was created by the state and the Gov to talk about a hot button state issue....yea I'm sure Kasich paid for it himself

Get real....they created this website with tax payer money to push their own(bad) idea/agenda

That's not proof -- that's your opinion; which is worthless, by the way.

My guess: they created a committee and used donations to fund the site, and are probably accepting donations for both commercials to be aired, and to maintain the site, among other ways of getting information out.

This thread needs a disclaimer.

Ty Webb;804365 wrote:Let's see writer....

It was created by the state and the Gov to talk about a hot button state issue....yea I'm sure Kasich paid for it himself

Get real....they created this website with tax payer money to push their own(bad) idea/agenda

As I thought. You lose.

http://www.toledoblade.com/State/2011/05/31/Labor-law-s-defenders-gear-up-to-fight-repeal.html

Ty Webb;803876 wrote:So are you saying Bob Taft wasn't a friend of the tax payer

Bob Taft was a RINO.

John Kasich is a conservative, and not to afraid to govern like one; thank God!

QuakerOats;803290 wrote:Thank you. It is somewhat encouraging to know that at least a few states, Ohio included, are boldly attempting to bring fiscal sanity to their budgets and halt the raping of the taxpayer. It is long overdue.

except the deficit isnt as bad as everyone though, close to 2 million less.

http://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf/2011/05/ohios_8_billion_budget_hole_wa.html

Glory Days;804873 wrote:except the deficit isnt as bad as everyone though, close to 2 million less.

http://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf/2011/05/ohios_8_billion_budget_hole_wa.html

LMAO I think you mean 2 Billion but even so 8 billion or 6 billion it's still BILLIONS in the hole.

I always marvel at leftists economics. If a liberal wants to increase existing spending by $10 and a conservative says, "No, let's only spend $8 more" the liberal cries foul and claims the conservative cut the budget by $2.

Glory Days;804873 wrote:except the deficit isnt as bad as everyone though, close to 2 million less.

http://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf/2011/05/ohios_8_billion_budget_hole_wa.html

Seriously, this is your argument? Pa-the-tic. Six or eight billion, the best and "brightest" of the Democrats PUNTED when it came time to fix the budget. They didn't want the political heat, though, so they used scamulous funds to fill the holes, and just kicked the can down the road for another year.

Then the Republicans take all the power positions in the state, push through some really tough choices to balance the budget, and these same Dems start pissing and moaning about how they're being left out of the process.

The Dispatch even ran a story about it a few days ago...but very conveniently failed to mention WHY Dems never got a chance to put the budget the way they wanted -- they passed on it when they had the chance.

One of the authors, Joe Hallett, is a former Toledo Blade reporter who is about as liberal and partisan as Obama and makes no bones about it.

Writerbuckeye;805222 wrote:Seriously, this is your argument? Pa-the-tic. Six or eight billion, the best and "brightest" of the Democrats PUNTED when it came time to fix the budget. They didn't want the political heat, though, so they used scamulous funds to fill the holes, and just kicked the can down the road for another year.

Then the Republicans take all the power positions in the state, push through some really tough choices to balance the budget, and these same Dems start pissing and moaning about how they're being left out of the process.

The Dispatch even ran a story about it a few days ago...but very conveniently failed to mention WHY Dems never got a chance to put the budget the way they wanted -- they passed on it when they had the chance.

One of the authors, Joe Hallett, is a former Toledo Blade reporter who is about as liberal and partisan as Obama and makes no bones about it.

You do understand that the presidential annual budgets have been a lot higher under GOP reigns than Dems since 1980, right?

Writerbuckeye;805222 wrote:Seriously, this is your argument? Pa-the-tic. Six or eight billion, the best and "brightest" of the Democrats PUNTED when it came time to fix the budget. They didn't want the political heat, though, so they used scamulous funds to fill the holes, and just kicked the can down the road for another year.

Then the Republicans take all the power positions in the state, push through some really tough choices to balance the budget, and these same Dems start pissing and moaning about how they're being left out of the process.

The Dispatch even ran a story about it a few days ago...but very conveniently failed to mention WHY Dems never got a chance to put the budget the way they wanted -- they passed on it when they had the chance.

One of the authors, Joe Hallett, is a former Toledo Blade reporter who is about as liberal and partisan as Obama and makes no bones about it.

so you are ok with Kasich inflating the budget to get controversial bills passed?

Glory Days;805341 wrote:so you are ok with Kasich inflating the budget to get controversial bills passed?

What is so controversial about:

- only spending as much you have
- giving taxpayers a voice at the negotiating table
- halting runaway and unaffordable public sector benefit packages

Only in the warped mind of a liberal is any of that controversial.

Footwedge;805232 wrote:You do understand that the presidential annual budgets have been a lot higher under GOP reigns than Dems since 1980, right?

False. obama has piled on more debt than all the presidents combined from Washington through Reagan, and he is not finished yet. He is the greatest debt creator in the history of the world.

Change we can believe in .......

Glory Days;805341 wrote:so you are ok with Kasich inflating the budget to get controversial bills passed?

Kasich did not inflate the budget. LOL. Do you have any idea how impossible it is to predict future tax revenue? Its nothing more than an educated guess. That is why budget predictions are notoriously laughable. Especially those that extend beyond a year. The article you cited basically stated that Ohio was generating more actual tax revenue than predicted. Many times it is the other way around.

Whether the predicted deficit is 8 billion or 6 billion would make little difference in selling any legislation. Think about it.

Glory Days;805341 wrote:so you are ok with Kasich inflating the budget to get controversial bills passed?

You've obviously never worked in state government to make such a statement. As noted already, predicting tax revenue is an educated guess -- at best. It's very volatile.

I do think it's extremely telling, however, that out of all the stuff I posted -- your ONLY "defense" was a lame allegation that Kasich somehow inflated the budget to get some controversial legislation passed.

QuakerOats;805385 wrote:False. obama has piled on more debt than all the presidents combined from Washington through Reagan, and he is not finished yet. He is the greatest debt creator in the history of the world.

Change we can believe in .......

Of course, the CBO numbers, while still higher than Obama's projections, are also BASED on what Obama has provided. Therefore, it's generally believed that the debt will actually be even greater.

QuakerOats;805382 wrote:What is so controversial about:

- only spending as much you have
- giving taxpayers a voice at the negotiating table
- halting runaway and unaffordable public sector benefit packages

Only in the warped mind of a liberal is any of that controversial.

-when was the last time we spent only what we had?
-and taking away the voice of workers
-only runaway to the private sector joes who arent happy about their benefits

majorspark;805426 wrote:
Whether the predicted deficit is 8 billion or 6 billion would make little difference in selling any legislation. Think about it.

maybe the cuts wouldnt have to be as drastic etc and put less people out of work. it could make a difference.

Writerbuckeye;805463 wrote:
I do think it's extremely telling, however, that out of all the stuff I posted -- your ONLY "defense" was a lame allegation that Kasich somehow inflated the budget to get some controversial legislation passed.

my only defense? i have been posting on this thread for quite some time.

Glory Days;805939 wrote:-when was the last time we spent only what we had?

So are you arguing that we should continue to overspend because that's what we've done for a long time?

-and taking away the voice of workers

They can quit and go elsewhere, which is, you know, how people in the private sector exercise their voice.

-only runaway to the private sector joes who arent happy about their benefits

"Only"? You realize that people who aren't in the public sector by definition are comprised of literally everyone else? So you're admitting that your benefits are perceived as runaway by everyone else, and this is your argument that they're not runaway?

Writerbuckeye;805464 wrote:

how much of that is due to the stimulus and obama spending?

There we go again...it's all the fault of the Bush tax cuts.

How ridiculously stupid.

The people's money does NOT belong to the government. If the government decides to REDUCE the amount that it is taking from people, then it should, if needed, also REDUCE the amount of spending its doing.

This has always been, is now, and always and forever will be a SPENDING problem, not an income problem.

Government does not have a right to keep spending when its income goes down -- why do people act like it does?

Writerbuckeye;807456 wrote:There we go again...it's all the fault of the Bush tax cuts.

How ridiculously stupid.

The people's money does NOT belong to the government. If the government decides to REDUCE the amount that it is taking from people, then it should, if needed, also REDUCE the amount of spending its doing.

This has always been, is now, and always and forever will be a SPENDING problem, not an income problem.

Government does not have a right to keep spending when its income goes down -- why do people act like it does?

that's not the point i was making