Writerbuckeye
Posts: 4,745
Jun 15, 2011 11:32pm
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?
S
stlouiedipalma
Posts: 1,797
Jun 15, 2011 11:45pm
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.
Writerbuckeye
Posts: 4,745
Jun 16, 2011 8:44am
Awww, sorry you got your feelings hurt. I'll try to do better next time.
Ty Webb
Posts: 2,798
Jun 16, 2011 9:45am
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
Writerbuckeye
Posts: 4,745
Jun 16, 2011 1:12pm
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.
O-Trap
Posts: 14,994
Jun 16, 2011 1:15pm
This thread needs a disclaimer.
Writerbuckeye
Posts: 4,745
Jun 16, 2011 1:37pm
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
Q
QuakerOats
Posts: 8,740
Jun 16, 2011 1:59pm
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!
Glory Days
Posts: 7,809
Jun 16, 2011 5:21pm
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
believer
Posts: 8,153
Jun 16, 2011 7:38pm
LMAO I think you mean 2 Billion but even so 8 billion or 6 billion it's still BILLIONS in the hole.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
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.
Writerbuckeye
Posts: 4,745
Jun 16, 2011 11:46pm
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.
F
Footwedge
Posts: 9,265
Jun 16, 2011 11:56pm
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.
Glory Days
Posts: 7,809
Jun 17, 2011 8:02am
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?
Q
QuakerOats
Posts: 8,740
Jun 17, 2011 8:51am
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.
Q
QuakerOats
Posts: 8,740
Jun 17, 2011 8:54am
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 .......
majorspark
Posts: 5,122
Jun 17, 2011 9:30am
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.Glory Days;805341 wrote:so you are ok with Kasich inflating the budget to get controversial bills passed?
Whether the predicted deficit is 8 billion or 6 billion would make little difference in selling any legislation. Think about it.
Writerbuckeye
Posts: 4,745
Jun 17, 2011 10:06am
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.
Writerbuckeye
Posts: 4,745
Jun 17, 2011 10:08am
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 .......
Writerbuckeye
Posts: 4,745
Jun 17, 2011 10:12am
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.
Glory Days
Posts: 7,809
Jun 17, 2011 5:35pm
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.
F
fan_from_texas
Posts: 2,693
Jun 20, 2011 11:38am
So are you arguing that we should continue to overspend because that's what we've done for a long time?Glory Days;805939 wrote:-when was the last time we spent only what we had?
They can quit and go elsewhere, which is, you know, how people in the private sector exercise their voice.-and taking away the voice of workers
"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?-only runaway to the private sector joes who arent happy about their benefits
derek bomar
Posts: 3,722
Jun 20, 2011 11:58am
Writerbuckeye;805464 wrote:
how much of that is due to the stimulus and obama spending?
derek bomar
Posts: 3,722
Jun 20, 2011 12:04pm
Writerbuckeye
Posts: 4,745
Jun 20, 2011 12:20pm
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?
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?
derek bomar
Posts: 3,722
Jun 20, 2011 12:52pm
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