It goes from bad to worse for Sam Brownback's Kansas

Jackson_Fusion said:

Woot said:

Jackson_Fusion said:

PVW said:

Not really interested in JF's or the OP's feelings on Rachel Maddow, but the actual substance of the article is interesting (personally, I'm a bit skeptical of cable news in general, so I'd probably have linked directly to the KC Star newspaper article instead, but to each their own).

What is pretty unavoidably clear is that Brownback's tax experiment has done a number on the Kansas state budget. I'd expect that will have pretty negative long term implications, especially as education is one of the areas most severely impacted.

What's interesting to me with this particular report is its focus on employment. Job creation is clearly far, far below what Brownback was projecting - I don't think even JF is denying that - but unemployment rate is actually looking pretty good.  I don't know why that is, and it would be interesting to hear someone with insight on this. Job growth is anemic, the state budget is in shambles, and yet so far the unemployment rate doesn't seem that affected - not necessarily what I would have expected. Are Kansans just leaving the state rather than staying around and being unemployed? Someone upthread mentioned the participation rate - is this changing, and is that a factor? Kansas is a big agricultural state, and I believe employment data is broken down between farm and non-farm jobs - maybe this is at play? 

I really have no idea. Of course, in terms of answering the question "has Brownback's experiment been a success," this is all beside the point. It's been a pretty clear failure thus far, however academically interesting the mystery of its unemployment rate may be.

Payrolls quoted are all non- farm.

Education spending has gone up under Brownback.

Not particularly interested in defending Kansas's government. Just tiring seeing the goofbag factually challenged declarations of partisan horror.

Exactly.  Like quoting Kansas unemployment rates and then debunking the value of unemployment statistics.   

Who did that? 

You did   

Woot said:

Jackson_Fusion said:

Woot said:

Jackson_Fusion said:

PVW said:

Not really interested in JF's or the OP's feelings on Rachel Maddow, but the actual substance of the article is interesting (personally, I'm a bit skeptical of cable news in general, so I'd probably have linked directly to the KC Star newspaper article instead, but to each their own).

What is pretty unavoidably clear is that Brownback's tax experiment has done a number on the Kansas state budget. I'd expect that will have pretty negative long term implications, especially as education is one of the areas most severely impacted.

What's interesting to me with this particular report is its focus on employment. Job creation is clearly far, far below what Brownback was projecting - I don't think even JF is denying that - but unemployment rate is actually looking pretty good.  I don't know why that is, and it would be interesting to hear someone with insight on this. Job growth is anemic, the state budget is in shambles, and yet so far the unemployment rate doesn't seem that affected - not necessarily what I would have expected. Are Kansans just leaving the state rather than staying around and being unemployed? Someone upthread mentioned the participation rate - is this changing, and is that a factor? Kansas is a big agricultural state, and I believe employment data is broken down between farm and non-farm jobs - maybe this is at play? 

I really have no idea. Of course, in terms of answering the question "has Brownback's experiment been a success," this is all beside the point. It's been a pretty clear failure thus far, however academically interesting the mystery of its unemployment rate may be.

Payrolls quoted are all non- farm.

Education spending has gone up under Brownback.

Not particularly interested in defending Kansas's government. Just tiring seeing the goofbag factually challenged declarations of partisan horror.

Exactly.  Like quoting Kansas unemployment rates and then debunking the value of unemployment statistics.   

Who did that? 

You did   

Oh Woot....

YOU brought up that the numbers are contested. I responded to you the manner in which they are contested, as you know if you have even a passing interest in the issue and are still fogging a mirror. That's the participation rate.

Read what I wrote about the view that BLS unemployment data is irrelevant due to the participation rate. I don't wholly agree and said so. 

There are elements that are entirely out of the control of the executive and there are elements that are not. It's not fair to hang it entirely on Obama.

So YOU brought up that the numbers are contested. 

I said the method by which they are contested don't describe entirely the relationship. 

Your conclusion? I debunked my own touted statistic.

You are a piece of work, amigo!

I am not your amigo.   To be clear, you noted lower unemployment in Kansas.   I noted unemployment overall, which is a statistic that Obama haters like to debunk.  I understand the limitations in the statistics.  

You agreed with the debunking.  I was merely pointing out your inconsistency.  Amigo.  

Woot said:

I am not your amigo.   To be clear, you noted lower unemployment in Kansas.   I noted unemployment overall, which is a statistic that Obama haters like to debunk.  I understand the limitations in the statistics.  

You agreed with the debunking.  I was merely pointing out your inconsistency.  Amigo.  

Point out where I "agreed with the debunking". Be specific and precise!

Acknowledging that 1) the participation rate, which you brought up, exists as a statistic people track on planet earth and 2) detailing why its use to lay the whole thing at the feet of the executive or even government generally is missing at least part of the picture, if not most of it, doesn't count as "debunking".

Gotta ask-Are there 2 Woots? 

You brought up a statistic used to "debunk" another statistic and then immediately took issue with me for discussing the stat you just brought up. 

Reducing, you mentioned something and then instantly took yourself to task for doing so.

Then you said you're not my amigo at the start of your last post, and then signed off THAT SAME POST with amigo!

A mystery! At least I'm friends with one of you.

I'm not so sure. Nobody has ever seen the two of them together.