Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Saturday, August 09, 2014

Standard & Poor's Ratings cut the credit score for Kansas to AA from AA+ on Wednesday in another blow to the deep income tax cuts championed by Republican Gov. Sam Brownback, who is struggling to keep his post in the upcoming election. In a report explaining the downgrade, S&P said the Kansas budget is not structurally balanced and described a fiscal situation with very little breathing room. Another rating agency, Moody's Investors Service, downgraded the state's credit score to Aa2 in April. It raised similar concerns about the lack of spending cuts, citing a sluggish economy and the state's use of one-time measures to balance its budget.

Advertisement

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Menu

Advertisement

Subscriptions

Author Info

AMERICANUNITY

 

Advertisement

MORE STORIES

 

Advertisement

More

The agency also has a negative outlook for the state based on more tax cuts scheduled for future years, which it said could further damage the state's finances. It said the state expects receipts to fall by $682.3 million through the end of fiscal 2019 because of the cuts.

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

This is 'trickle down economics'. Something trickles down alright, but it isn't budgetary health.

Same case is true regarding our national budget. All the Bush tax cuts/spending spree did was create historically large deficits. Facts are, this began with the first drop of 'trickle down' during the Reagan era when we amassed our first trillion dollar national debt vs the roughly $250 Billion in national debt on a trajectory to be $0 when Carter left office.

#1 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2014-08-08 08:19 PM | Reply | Flag:

BTW, if it weren't for Kansas' rainy day fund, they'd have already defaulted on their debt.

Remember when we were running surpluses the last two years of Clinton's term, then Bush came along and said "it's your money!" and started slashing taxes for the top tier, and at the same time the GOP were voting for one budget busting scheme after another?

None of them 'paid for' as they insist everything be today. At the same time they slash food stamp and school lunch programs, refuse to extend unemployment benefits, etc etc while proposing another $300 Billion in tax cuts that wouldn't help the middle class .. unpaid for, of course. Luckily for our budgetary health, those tax cuts didn't make it.

#2 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2014-08-08 08:25 PM | Reply | Flag:

www.huffingtonpost.com

What's the Matter With (Tax Cuts) in Kansas?

In fact, as my CBPP colleagues point out in this detailed analysis of this destructive movement: "In 2012, Governor Sam Brownback hired ALEC's Arthur Laffer to design and help sell a tax plan for Kansas. A version of Brownback and Laffer's proposal became law."

#3 | Posted by LarryMohr at 2014-08-08 08:35 PM | Reply | Flag:

Ha, ha.

#4 | Posted by oldwhiskeysour at 2014-08-08 10:34 PM | Reply | Flag:

This is the most important story do the freakin century and it's barely covered. RW policy doe not work. Give it up.

#5 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2014-08-09 01:47 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 2

You guys don't get it. Deficits don't matter if there's a republican in charge. If Brownback were a democrat then it would be a different story.

#6 | Posted by squinch at 2014-08-09 12:48 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

Given the amount of DR rw outrage when whozits cut America's credit rating, I'm shocked that they haven't responded here yet.

Shocked, I tell you.

#7 | Posted by northguy3 at 2014-08-09 10:56 PM | Reply | Flag:

We're so screwed here in Kansas. It's no wonder the folks outside of Kansas ask Kansans if they have indoor plumbing.

#8 | Posted by LarryMohr at 2014-08-09 11:03 PM | Reply | Flag:

And this is why the Nazis revolted against the international banking cartels; leading to ww2.

#9 | Posted by Shawn at 2014-08-09 11:56 PM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1

#9

Apologizing for Nazi's "revolt"??

#10 | Posted by Corky at 2014-08-09 11:59 PM | Reply | Flag:

This is the most important story do the freakin century and it's barely covered. RW policy doe not work. Give it up.

#5 | POSTED BY BRUCEBANNER

The Big, Long, 30-Year Conservative Lie

#11 | Posted by tonyroma at 2014-08-10 08:41 AM | Reply | Flag:

You only have to read the comments on that article to see that facts don't make any difference to them. They believe what they believe, and that's it. They'll never be convinced otherwise. When our side becomes as motivated as their side, we'll win because there are more of us, but they know they're in a war and they'll do anything to win. We haven't gotten to that point, yet.

#12 | Posted by WhoDaMan at 2014-08-10 09:19 AM | Reply | Flag:

Funny how when the teahadist temper tantrum caused the US's credit rating to get downgraded it was all Obama's fault according to the right wing moonbats.

Now when this happens it is crickets from the right.

No stones it appears. They love holding onto their failed economic theories like their teddy bears in the night.

#13 | Posted by 726 at 2014-08-10 10:09 AM | Reply | Flag:

It's because they act on belief rather than fact. When you act on fact, your actions change when the facts change. When you act on belief, you ignore facts that don't fit your beliefs.

#14 | Posted by WhoDaMan at 2014-08-10 12:37 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

cutting taxes normally raises income to the state. But they also need to cut spending.

#15 | Posted by tmaster at 2014-08-10 01:57 PM | Reply | Flag:

cutting taxes normally raises income to the state.

Really? Then why the "also need to cut spending?"

#16 | Posted by YAV at 2014-08-10 03:22 PM | Reply | Flag:

But what is being cut is all investment in the future (education, infrastructure, environment). There's a cost to that, too. Excess accumulation of wealth eventually harms everyone. I'm sure you can find plenty of "founding fathers" quotes to that effect, too. In a game of Monopoly there is eventually only one winner and everybody else is a loser.

#17 | Posted by WhoDaMan at 2014-08-10 03:27 PM | Reply | Flag:

cutting taxes normally raises income to the state.
#15 | Posted by tmaster

"Citation needed"

#18 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-08-10 04:08 PM | Reply | Flag:

cutting taxes normally raises income to the state.

---------

This is more propaganda idiocy.

The truth being that ending the drug war would be beneficial to the populace, not to the master class. i.e. when trade is restrained(see the one of the main functions of the stock market), it is designed to raise the price in favor of the mafia don.

The fact that the mafia don himself is an owners club that restrains trade is purposefully hidden from you sheeple. i.e. ending regulation doesn't make "free market" or some other such bs, but removes controls on the dons behavior with the intent to #$%^ you up the #$^hole harder.

Real 'free trade' would be to end the corporate person, abolish copy write laws, and the fascist patent system, allow people to grow whatever plants and sell them as they choose, etc. What the don wants is a different control scheme to keep you #$%ants in line. (see also the FCCs attempt to control the internet., either choice leads to slavery by design).

#19 | Posted by Shawn at 2014-08-10 05:10 PM | Reply | Flag:

Great link Tony. Thx.

#20 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2014-08-10 05:21 PM | Reply | Flag:

"A rising tide lifts all boats…but a lifeboat carrying a few, surrounded by many treading water, risks capsizing."

This from Standard & Poor's? Reagan must be spinning in his grave.

Excellent catch, TONYROMA!

#21 | Posted by DCTexan at 2014-08-11 02:28 AM | Reply | Flag:

Did't the Obama tax cuts Save the Economy?

#22 | Posted by shirtsbyeric at 2014-08-11 09:40 AM | Reply | Flag:

Who cares? It's just a state. Our whole country was downgraded b/c of Obama.

#23 | Posted by Dalton at 2014-08-11 10:52 AM | Reply | Flag:

Who cares? It's just a state. Our whole country was downgraded b/c of Obama.

#23 | Posted by Dalton

Man, that makes you look like an idiot. EVERYONE with a lick of intellectual honesty knows it was the republican congress who got us downgraded by refusing to pay for spending THEY THEMSELVES HAD APPROVED.

They were holding our credit rating hostage in order to repeal obamacare. They lost. Well, we all lost. But our credit rating got lowered just so they could make an ideological point with their base of morons.

It only happened a couple years ago. Is your memory really that short?

#24 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2014-08-11 01:42 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

"On April 18, 2011, U.S.-based rating agency S&P issued a "negative" outlook on the U.S.'s "AAA" (highest quality) sovereign-debt rating for the first time since the rating agency began in 1860, indicating there was a one-in-three chance of an outright reduction in the rating over the next two years. S&P considered the government budget deficit of more than 11 percent of gross domestic product (GDP), and net government debt rising to about 80 percent or more of GDP by 2013, to be high relative to other "AAA" countries.["

#25 | Posted by Dalton at 2014-08-11 01:51 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Both Democratic and Republican politicians criticized S&P's decision, as well as placing blame with the other party. Few blamed themselves despite bi-partisan Congressional responsibility for passing budget deficits from 2002 onward[15] and significant deficits for the 2012–2021 periods in U.S. President Barack Obama's 2012 federal budget.[16]"

Notice where it talks about significant deficits for the 2012 to 2021 periouds in Barack Obama's budget?

#26 | Posted by Dalton at 2014-08-11 01:52 PM | Reply | Flag:

Speak where you are wrong on the blame is that Obama promised if republicans would allow the top earners taxes to go up he would negotiate on spending. Then he created the sequestor as proof that he would keep his word when the time came. Then when it was time for him to keep his end of the bargain Obama lied and refused to do any spending cuts.

#27 | Posted by Dalton at 2014-08-11 01:55 PM | Reply | Flag:

Speak where you are wrong on the blame is that Obama promised if republicans would allow the top earners taxes to go up he would negotiate on spending. Then he created the sequestor as proof that he would keep his word when the time came. Then when it was time for him to keep his end of the bargain Obama lied and refused to do any spending cuts.

#27 | Posted by Dalton

The debt ceiling is SOLELY in the hands of the congress. The president can't raise it. The congress' refusal to do so is what got us downgraded. That's all there is to it. The credit agencies saw how insane congress is and downgraded us as a response, realizing that as long as these morons were in congress, lenders couldn't count on it to act responsibly.

#28 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2014-08-11 02:05 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

Yeah. It is a shell game. There is no difference between the parties.

#29 | Posted by Shawn at 2014-08-11 02:19 PM | Reply | Flag:

Yeah. It is a shell game. There is no difference between the parties.

#29 | Posted by Shawn

Yawn. Tell me how many coal plant restrictions president romney wouldve enacted.

#30 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2014-08-11 02:27 PM | Reply | Flag:

The debt ceiling is SOLELY in the hands of the congress. The president can't raise it. The congress' refusal to do so is what got us downgraded. That's all there is to it. The credit agencies saw how insane congress is and downgraded us as a response, realizing that as long as these morons were in congress, lenders couldn't count on it to act responsibly.

#28 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2014-08-11 02:05 PM | Reply | Flag:

I'm not going to argue with you when I've posted clips from Wiki from the groups that did the downgrades. They said it was partly due to disfunction and Obama's projected deficits from his budget. Obama designed sequestration to show congress he was serious about spending cuts and then failed to negotiate any. It's a fact of history.

#31 | Posted by Dalton at 2014-08-11 02:39 PM | Reply | Flag:

"At 2:30 p.m., [White House Budget director Jack] Lew and [White House legislative affairs director Rob] Nabors went to the Senate to meet with [Senator Majority Leader Harry] Reid and his chief of staff, David Krone.

"We have an idea for a trigger," Lew said.

"What's the idea," Reid asked skeptically.

"Sequestration."

Reid bent down and put his head between his knees, almost as if he was going to throw up or was having a heart attack. He sat back up and looked at the ceiling. "A couple of weeks ago," he said, "my staff said to me that there is one more possible" enforcement mechanism: sequestration. He said he told them, "Get the hell out of here. That's insane. The White House surely will come up with a plan that will save the day. And you come to me with sequestration?"

"Well, it could work, Lew and Nabors explained."

It's direct quotes from the Washington Post.

#32 | Posted by Dalton at 2014-08-11 02:47 PM | Reply | Flag:

Obama designed sequestration to show congress he was serious about spending cuts and then failed to negotiate any. It's a fact of history.

#31 | Posted by Dalton

Obama gave congress a 9:1 ratio of spending cuts to tax increases and congress responded by saying they'd rather downgrade our credit than have the richest people pay a cent more in taxes. That's a fact of history.

#33 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2014-08-11 02:48 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

"No one disputes the fact that no one wanted sequestration, or that ultimately a bipartisan vote in Congress led to passage of the Budget Control Act. But the president categorically said that sequestration was "something that Congress has proposed."

Woodward's detailed account of meetings during the crisis, clearly based on interviews with key participants and contemporaneous notes, make it clear that sequestration was a proposal advanced and promoted by the White House.

In sum: Gene Sperling brought up the idea of a sequester, while Jack Lew sold Harry Reid on the idea and then decided to use the Gramm-Hollings-Rudman language (which he knew from his days of working for Tip O'Neill) as a template for sequester. The proposal was so unusual for Republicans that staffers had to work through the night to understand it."

#34 | Posted by Dalton at 2014-08-11 02:56 PM | Reply | Flag:

That's when Obama said he would negotiate. They had already allowed for some tax increases in return for spending. Which clearly Obama lied about and refused to do. It's all layed out right here on this page. Now you're just trying to move the goal post from spending cuts to more tax increases. It's dishonest.

#35 | Posted by Dalton at 2014-08-11 02:58 PM | Reply | Flag:

What this really shows is Obama wants everything his way or no way at all. Then he flat out lied in the debates claiming sequester was a republican idea. It's shameful.

#36 | Posted by Dalton at 2014-08-11 02:59 PM | Reply | Flag:

Oddly, Lew in Tampa on Thursday, publicly asserted the opposite: "There was an insistence on the part of Republicans in Congress for there to be some automatic trigger…. [It] was very much rooted in the Republican congressional insistence that there be an automatic measure at the end."

This prompted Woodward to go over his notes and interviews once again, to make sure he had gotten it right.

"After reviewing all the interviews and the extensive material I have on this issue, it looks like President Obama told a whopper," Woodward said. "Based on what Jack Lew said in Florida today, I have asked the White House to correct the record."

We had been wavering between Three and Four Pinocchios. But in light's of Lew's decision to doubledown on Obama's claim, we agree it's a whopper.

Four Pinocchios

It's a whopper!

#37 | Posted by Dalton at 2014-08-11 03:03 PM | Reply | Flag:

Now you're just trying to move the goal post from spending cuts to more tax increases. It's dishonest.

#35 | Posted by Dalton

The goal post is the debt ceiling. Which congress controls. You're the one moving it to "what obama promised to who and when". Congress couldve avoided downgrading our credit if they wanted to. Obama COULDN'T because it's not in his hands. To put the blame ANYWHERE but congress is pathetic.

#38 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2014-08-11 03:05 PM | Reply | Flag:

You're the one moving it to "what obama promised to who and when". Congress couldve avoided downgrading our credit if they wanted to. Obama COULDN'T because it's not in his hands. To put the blame ANYWHERE but congress is pathetic.

#38 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2014-08-11 03:05 PM | Reply | Flag:

Who's idea was the sequester? He agreed to cut spending for some tax increases which he got. Then he backed out of the negotiations.

#39 | Posted by Dalton at 2014-08-11 04:01 PM | Reply | Flag:

Speak, I'll ask one question. What did Obama offer up for his side in the negotiations? What was he willing to give up to get a deal? Honest question. Have a great evening nice chatting with you.

#40 | Posted by Dalton at 2014-08-11 04:53 PM | Reply | Flag:

Speak, I'll ask one question. What did Obama offer up for his side in the negotiations? What was he willing to give up to get a deal? Honest question. Have a great evening nice chatting with you.

#40 | Posted by Dalton

I already told you. It was actually 10:1 spending cuts to tax increases that he offered and the GOP rejected.

www.forbes.com

You can talk sequester all you want, but the bottom line is the congress, and ONLY the congress, could raise the debt limit and save our credit rating. And they alone are the reason we lost billions and got downgraded.

#41 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2014-08-11 05:18 PM | Reply | Flag:

You can talk sequester all you want, but the bottom line is the congress, and ONLY the congress, could raise the debt limit and save our credit rating. And they alone are the reason we lost billions and got downgraded.

There is no earthly reason for the average conservative to be so incredibly ignorant of the factual politics of the very recent past. I see so many false perceptions and misinformation spouted as gospel that I just disengage because I don't have the patience nor the time to re-educate these imbeciles who find it impossible to remember what was said yesterday much less way back when in 2011. Heaven forbid.

The Tea Party poisoned any hopes of negotiation on a budget and the debt limit is about paying for the bills already passed by Congress mainly, along with what will be passed in the present and near future. It doesn't tacitly limit the executive from spending, it makes it impossible for the government to support its fiscal responsibilities entailed through repaying what was borrowed by the sale of government-backed debt instruments. The worst part is educated representatives should know these truths but they continue to foam at the mouth as though all the previous debt compiled by Congresses past somehow is the chief responsibility of the sitting President and the total is his responsibility as well even as the annual deficits have continued to fall every single year since 2009.

#42 | Posted by tonyroma at 2014-08-11 05:49 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

even as the annual deficits have continued to fall every single year since 2009.

Well, give a drunken sailor a $1.2 trillion deficit as the starting point and even he could lower it from there.

The Tea Party poisoned any hopes of negotiation on a budget

Actually, according to Bob Woodward and some others in the media, the only reason the Ryan-Murray compromise went through was because Obama was not involved in any way with the negotiations.

Obama is every bit as beholden to his radical base as the Republicans are to theirs. He may have done more to poison the well than the Tea Party wing of the GOP.

#43 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-08-11 06:10 PM | Reply | Flag:

it makes it impossible for the government to support its fiscal responsibilities entailed through repaying what was borrowed by the sale of government-backed debt instruments.

It doesn't make it 'impossible'. It just means that prioritization must occur. IRS officials may not get their bonuses, etc.

#44 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-08-11 06:12 PM | Reply | Flag:

Obama is every bit as beholden to his radical base as the Republicans are to theirs. He may have done more to poison the well than the Tea Party wing of the GOP.

#43 | Posted by JeffJ

A JOKE.

Obama doesn't give a crap about the extreme left. No one does. They are almost completely ignored in washington. You can't be far left and get elected in a privately-funded campaign system. Raising campaign cash FORCES you to sell out to big money and that means selling out liberal ideas.

In contrast, the extreme right has total control of their party.

#45 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2014-08-11 06:43 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

It's no wonder the folks outside of Kansas ask Kansans if they have indoor plumbing.
#8 | Posted by LarryMohr

Give the Rs a few more years running things and you won't have indoor plumbing any more.

#46 | Posted by SomebodyElse at 2014-08-11 09:25 PM | Reply | Flag:

Give the Rs a few more years running things and you won't have indoor plumbing any more.

Posted by SomebodyElse at 2014-08-11 09:25 PM | Reply

Now I'm worried. Chamber pots aren't very ummmmmm easy to use.

#47 | Posted by LarryMohr at 2014-08-11 09:28 PM | Reply | Flag:

Advertisement

Post a comment

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2014 World Readable

 

Advertisement

Drudge Retort