yelmrog: orclover: I have always wondered if Drew pays these guys to shiat all over these threads or if they do it for free. I guess we will never know.

/remember kids, getting banned is like a badge of honor here.

Since it's typically the Mods who do the conservatard trolling, then yeah. I guess you could say that they are paid to threadshiat. Every once in a while, people will start getting fed up and the politics tab will slow down quite a bit. Some alts will get banned, people will start filtering back into the tab, and the cycle restarts. My most recent memory of this was the Phil Herup / Black Animal days.

I'm terribly sorry I ruined your lefty echo chamber with my pesky facts.

TheNewJesus: violetvolume: [lh3.googleusercontent.com image 250x204]


The pot pie on a stick looks awesome...

They are awesome, and pardon my ignorance but HOW U DO DAT

Hey Nii what about helium tanks, rubber hoses, and plastic bags. Are those easy to come by in Junction City?

CheapEngineer: tenpoundsofcheese

That all you got? Massive cuts to social services to pay for completely eliminating taxes for the rich are OK because the poor had their taxes cut by one half of one percent?

what? a cut from 3.5% to 3% means their taxes were cut by about a 14 percent.



This is one of the funniest statements I've seen all week.

\math fail
\\Kansas school edumacated?

I don't get it. Seems accurate to me.

Going from 3.5% to 3% represents reduction of 14.29%.

The_Sheriff_Is_A_Niiii: ut at the same time it's a "strawman" to point out, accurately, that many individual taxpayers get back more than they pay in.

It's a strawman because you're comparing apples to trees. You're argument amounts to this:

A report shows that kids in Kansas performed, overall, worse than kids in Connecticut on the same standardized test. Then you rejoin with, "But I live in Kansas and got a perfect score!" Doesn't. freaking. matter.

Kids in Kansas are still --wait for it -- worse in the aggregate.

You're really showing off that Kansas edumacation there, buddy.

The_Sheriff_Is_A_Niiii: yelmrog: orclover: I have always wondered if Drew pays these guys to shiat all over these threads or if they do it for free. I guess we will never know.

/remember kids, getting banned is like a badge of honor here.

Since it's typically the Mods who do the conservatard trolling, then yeah. I guess you could say that they are paid to threadshiat. Every once in a while, people will start getting fed up and the politics tab will slow down quite a bit. Some alts will get banned, people will start filtering back into the tab, and the cycle restarts. My most recent memory of this was the Phil Herup / Black Animal days.

I'm terribly sorry I ruined your lefty echo chamber with my pesky facts.

Aint gonna do it, nope, I have a will of iron...find your food elsewhere.
/is the pay good? Do you get insurance?

Salt Lick Steady: You're argument amounts to this:

Make that "your argument"; changed the sentence and didn't proofread.

Salt Lick Steady: The_Sheriff_Is_A_Niiii: ut at the same time it's a "strawman" to point out, accurately, that many individual taxpayers get back more than they pay in.

It's a strawman because you're comparing apples to trees. You're argument amounts to this:

A report shows that kids in Kansas performed, overall, worse than kids in Connecticut on the same standardized test. Then you rejoin with, "But I live in Kansas and got a perfect score!" Doesn't. freaking. matter.

Kids in Kansas are still --wait for it -- worse in the aggregate.

You're really showing off that Kansas edumacation there, buddy.

You can't use words like 'aggregate' in Kansas. They don't work there.

orclover: yelmrog: orclover: I have always wondered if Drew pays these guys to shiat all over these threads or if they do it for free. I guess we will never know.

/remember kids, getting banned is like a badge of honor here.

Since it's typically the Mods who do the conservatard trolling, then yeah. I guess you could say that they are paid to threadshiat. Every once in a while, people will start getting fed up and the politics tab will slow down quite a bit. Some alts will get banned, people will start filtering back into the tab, and the cycle restarts. My most recent memory of this was the Phil Herup / Black Animal days.

its days like this that make 4chan seem reasonable by comparison. Drew this is nothing to be proud of.

What do you care? It's not like you're paying for i--

Oh, I'm so, so sorry.

The_Sheriff_Is_A_Niiii: You and others claim Kansas got a free ride and are "welfare queens" because they received more than they paid in. I claim that certain taxpayers get a free ride because they receive more than they pay in. Aside from scale, how are the 2 different?

The difference is that you dismiss Kansas taking in just under 1.25 billion dollars more than they pay out every year as "a wash" while saying "those people" on EITC - or people like me who aren't - are getting a free ride.

The_Sheriff_Is_A_Niiii: atomic-age: casual disregard: This is great news for drug smugglers, meth labs, and pimps. The dramatically reduced police force and social services safety net will result in a haven for scum and villainy.


Or as I prefer to call it, Junction City.

Way to make yourself look stupid. Google that really fast and tell me what's located there.

I don't have to; I lived 25 miles away from that festering shiathole for a few years.

What's in JC that you're so proud of? Are you one of the day shift strippers the Foxy is always trying to hire?

AcneVulgaris: Salt Lick Steady: The_Sheriff_Is_A_Niiii: ut at the same time it's a "strawman" to point out, accurately, that many individual taxpayers get back more than they pay in.

It's a strawman because you're comparing apples to trees. You're argument amounts to this:

A report shows that kids in Kansas performed, overall, worse than kids in Connecticut on the same standardized test. Then you rejoin with, "But I live in Kansas and got a perfect score!" Doesn't. freaking. matter.

Kids in Kansas are still --wait for it -- worse in the aggregate.

You're really showing off that Kansas edumacation there, buddy.

You can't use words like 'aggregate' in Kansas. They don't work there.

Sure they can, they just shouldn't be surprised if the other person thinks they are talking about gravel...

The_Sheriff_Is_A_Niiii: yelmrog: orclover: I have always wondered if Drew pays these guys to shiat all over these threads or if they do it for free. I guess we will never know.

/remember kids, getting banned is like a badge of honor here.

Since it's typically the Mods who do the conservatard trolling, then yeah. I guess you could say that they are paid to threadshiat. Every once in a while, people will start getting fed up and the politics tab will slow down quite a bit. Some alts will get banned, people will start filtering back into the tab, and the cycle restarts. My most recent memory of this was the Phil Herup / Black Animal days.

I'm terribly sorry I ruined your lefty echo chamber with my pesky facts.

What lefty echo chamber? Fark isn't very left-wing at all, it's more libertarian than anything else. There are avowed conservatives and Republicans that get along just fine with their liberal / democrat counterparts. But anyone who has been here long enough can spot the right-wing troll schtick a mile away. You're wearing it like a badge.

Get a new act, bozo. Nobody's buying this one.

Salt Lick Steady: Seriously? I mean, really? DC residents pay the highest federal taxes per capita.

The reason DC receives so much federal money is because it's the freaking capital of the country. The federal government operates the courts, there are huge security costs, federal government is exempt from property taxes, and Congress has explicitly forbidden the imposition of certain taxes such as commuter tax.

Good god you're an idiot.

Looks like the point of my post passed you by, idiot.

Looking at per-dollar return on federal taxes is a pretty moronic way to determine whether a state is a "welfare queen" for the very reasons you espoused. Federal spending is not even per capita across the states. Some states have lots of federal institutions (DC, for example), some have very few in comparison to their population.

A more interesting analysis would be assistance spending from the federal level to states for things like Medicaid and Education, as examples. I would exclude spending related to the operation of the government, military, Medicare, and Social Security.

The_Sheriff_Is_A_Niiii: I'm terribly sorry I ruined your lefty echo chamber with my pesky facts.

All you've done is repeat conservative talking points. You've ignored the fact that the poor, who pay less in federal taxes, pay much more of a percentage of their income in other taxes. You've used ad hominem repeatedly. You're advocating a regressive system of taxation. You really don't have anything of value to contribute.

Unless you'd like to argue why a regressive system is superior to a progressive one. Care to?

Doc Daneeka: CheapEngineer: tenpoundsofcheese

That all you got? Massive cuts to social services to pay for completely eliminating taxes for the rich are OK because the poor had their taxes cut by one half of one percent?

what? a cut from 3.5% to 3% means their taxes were cut by about a 14 percent.



This is one of the funniest statements I've seen all week.

\math fail
\\Kansas school edumacated?

I don't get it. Seems accurate to me.

Going from 3.5% to 3% represents reduction of 14.29%.

I really was horrible at math when I was younger, but I got the same answer as well.

Salt Lick Steady: The_Sheriff_Is_A_Niiii: ut at the same time it's a "strawman" to point out, accurately, that many individual taxpayers get back more than they pay in.

It's a strawman because you're comparing apples to trees. You're argument amounts to this:

A report shows that kids in Kansas performed, overall, worse than kids in Connecticut on the same standardized test. Then you rejoin with, "But I live in Kansas and got a perfect score!" Doesn't. freaking. matter.

Kids in Kansas are still --wait for it -- worse in the aggregate.

You're really showing off that Kansas edumacation there, buddy.

Your analogy is like trying to jam a square peg into a round hole, it just doesn't fit. Once again, explain to me how a state receiving more in government money than it paid in makes it any more of a welfare queen than an individual who receives more than they pay in.

Emposter: looking at the miniscule change as a percentage OF the percentage they pay, which looks larger.

No. You still don't get it.

If a person's tax rate goes down from 3.5% to 3% that is not a decrease in their taxes of a half a percent.

If they earned $10,000 and had a tax bill of $350 but now they have a tax bill of $300. Do you still think their taxes went down by a half a percent? (hint: it did not).

CheapEngineer: tenpoundsofcheese

That all you got? Massive cuts to social services to pay for completely eliminating taxes for the rich are OK because the poor had their taxes cut by one half of one percent?

what? a cut from 3.5% to 3% means their taxes were cut by about a 14 percent.



This is one of the funniest statements I've seen all week.

\math fail
\\Kansas school edumacated?

please explain why.
difficulty: you need to show your math.

I'll wait.

yelmrog: The_Sheriff_Is_A_Niiii: yelmrog: orclover: I have always wondered if Drew pays these guys to shiat all over these threads or if they do it for free. I guess we will never know.

/remember kids, getting banned is like a badge of honor here.

Since it's typically the Mods who do the conservatard trolling, then yeah. I guess you could say that they are paid to threadshiat. Every once in a while, people will start getting fed up and the politics tab will slow down quite a bit. Some alts will get banned, people will start filtering back into the tab, and the cycle restarts. My most recent memory of this was the Phil Herup / Black Animal days.

I'm terribly sorry I ruined your lefty echo chamber with my pesky facts.

What lefty echo chamber? Fark isn't very left-wing at all, it's more libertarian than anything else. There are avowed conservatives and Republicans that get along just fine with their liberal / democrat counterparts. But anyone who has been here long enough can spot the right-wing troll schtick a mile away. You're wearing it like a badge.

Get a new act, bozo. Nobody's buying this one.

That seems like the M.O. of a lot of people around here. Simply label anyone who disagrees with them as a troll without making a single intelligent response and call it a day.

Whatever floats your boat pal.

You know how they did that whole nasty porn thing with the Santorum name? Can we do that with Brownback?

"I considered going all Santorum, but I decided to Brownback her instead"

Please?

slykens1: Looks like the point of my post passed you by, idiot.

Point taken, and apologies for jumping the gun and using ad hominem.

This data from 2005 puts Kansas at 30

Only includes childhood nutrition, TANF, food assistance, and WIC. No medicaid and general education included.

TheNewJesus: You know how they did that whole nasty porn thing with the Santorum name? Can we do that with Brownback?

"I considered going all Santorum, but I decided to Brownback her instead"

Please?

Mr. Atomic and I always called him Browncock or Bareback; pretty convinced he's closeted.

The_Sheriff_Is_A_Niiii: Once again, explain to me how a state receiving more in government money than it paid in makes it any more of a welfare queen than an individual who receives more than they pay in.

Because nobody is arguing that certain individuals receive more federal money than they pay in taxes. Nobody is arguing that point.

You really don't understand the concept of individual versus aggregate? Comparisons of populations as whole versus individuals?

Salt Lick Steady: The_Sheriff_Is_A_Niiii: Once again, explain to me how a state receiving more in government money than it paid in makes it any more of a welfare queen than an individual who receives more than they pay in.

Because nobody is arguing that certain individuals receive more federal money than they pay in taxes. Nobody is arguing that point.

You really don't understand the concept of individual versus aggregate? Comparisons of populations as whole versus individuals?

(The aggregate of Kansas is white. Those welfare queens are exclusively black.)

^GOP logic.

I know this is late in the thread, but there is a unremarked reason that this is going to fail very hard.

Kansas has been able to attract a lot of business because not only did they give tax incentives, but they had really awesome public schools and universities that the middle/upper middle class wanted. Cutting so much revenue is apparently going to be coming out of the schools. So while a young doctor looking for a place to build a practice might like the idea of no state taxes (saving maybe 4-10k a year), they are really NOT going to want to locate in a place that the school districts are in freefall. They really haven't thought their clever plan through. Kansas doesn't have a large number of students in private/parochial schools since the public schools have always done so well. I foresee a major shock from this.

Salt Lick Steady: The_Sheriff_Is_A_Niiii: I'm terribly sorry I ruined your lefty echo chamber with my pesky facts.

All you've done is repeat conservative talking points. You've ignored the fact that the poor, who pay less in federal taxes, pay much more of a percentage of their income in other taxes. You've used ad hominem repeatedly. You're advocating a regressive system of taxation. You really don't have anything of value to contribute.

Unless you'd like to argue why a regressive system is superior to a progressive one. Care to?

Slapping labels on something is a poor substitute for intelligent debate.

As for taxation, lets see here. The poor most likely have negative taxation on both federal and state taxes. The poor do pay sales tax (also being cut under the new KS tax law by the way ). The poor, most likely, do not own property or if they do it's not very valuable and thusly does not incur a huge tax liability.

Tell me again how the evil tax system is hurting them again?

tenpoundsofcheese: Emposter: looking at the miniscule change as a percentage OF the percentage they pay, which looks larger.

No. You still don't get it.

If a person's tax rate goes down from 3.5% to 3% that is not a decrease in their taxes of a half a percent.

If they earned $10,000 and had a tax bill of $350 but now they have a tax bill of $300. Do you still think their taxes went down by a half a percent? (hint: it did not).

I can't decide what makes this funnier. A) The fact that you think looking at it as a percent of a percent, which makes it look bigger , actually makes it bigger or even begins to make up for the huge inequities and cuts to social services, or B) the fact that you can't even figure out that you're restating exactly what I said in the post you quoted. (hint: 0.5% is 14% of 3.5%...a percent of a percent. Learn to read.)

Just think! In a generation or two, every child that comes out of the hugely underfunded Kansas educational system will be as dumb as you. Then they can go on to dead end jobs with no social safety net, happy and secure in the fact that the people whose floors they clean pay no income taxes.

The_Sheriff_Is_A_Niiii: That seems like the M.O. of a lot of people around here. Simply label anyone who disagrees with them as a troll without making a single intelligent response and call it a day.

As I said before, there are plenty of conservatives who leave comments here that don't get accused of trollery.

But for most of the people on this tab who have been around a while, if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, etc...

Seriously. Look up some of the old threads and you'll see what I'm talking about.

madgonad: I know this is late in the thread, but there is a unremarked reason that this is going to fail very hard.

Kansas has been able to attract a lot of business because not only did they give tax incentives, but they had really awesome public schools and universities that the middle/upper middle class wanted. Cutting so much revenue is apparently going to be coming out of the schools. So while a young doctor looking for a place to build a practice might like the idea of no state taxes (saving maybe 4-10k a year), they are really NOT going to want to locate in a place that the school districts are in freefall. They really haven't thought their clever plan through. Kansas doesn't have a large number of students in private/parochial schools since the public schools have always done so well. I foresee a major shock from this.

Dude are you high? ONE COUNTY (and I know the one you are thinking of) has "quality schools" and that is out of 105 counties. And that ONE COUNTY voted years ago to take on an additional tax burden to make up for cuts.

The other 104 counties, both urban and rural, have had a pretty big mess of lame education for some time. Why do you think Kansas is a red state?

Salt Lick Steady: The_Sheriff_Is_A_Niiii: Once again, explain to me how a state receiving more in government money than it paid in makes it any more of a welfare queen than an individual who receives more than they pay in.

Because nobody is arguing that certain individuals receive more federal money than they pay in taxes. Nobody is arguing that point.

You really don't understand the concept of individual versus aggregate? Comparisons of populations as whole versus individuals?

You really don't seem to understand that the idea is to point out just exactly how silly it is to label someone...........or some population........... a "welfare queen" or any other such thing when they are not.

The_Sheriff_Is_A_Niiii: As for taxation, lets see here. The poor most likely have negative taxation on both federal and state taxes. The poor do pay sales tax (also being cut under the new KS tax law by the way ). The poor, most likely, do not own property or if they do it's not very valuable and thusly does not incur a huge tax liability.

You have no sources and nothing to back up your claims. Do you really not understand the concept of a regressive system? (That's not a "label," that's the way it operates.)

Here, get some basic education on the matter

Done with you.

madgonad: I know this is late in the thread, but there is a unremarked reason that this is going to fail very hard.

Kansas has been able to attract a lot of business because not only did they give tax incentives, but they had really awesome public schools and universities that the middle/upper middle class wanted. Cutting so much revenue is apparently going to be coming out of the schools. So while a young doctor looking for a place to build a practice might like the idea of no state taxes (saving maybe 4-10k a year), they are really NOT going to want to locate in a place that the school districts are in freefall. They really haven't thought their clever plan through. Kansas doesn't have a large number of students in private/parochial schools since the public schools have always done so well. I foresee a major shock from this.

The only place in Kansas that has the political and financial clout to fight this is Johnson County, IMO. Other places that are proud of public education--Lawrence, Manhattan--are too politically and financially isolated. Their votes don't count, they are really diluted. Western Kansas won't care; there are very few people, especially of reproductive age, there. I can really see Johnson County making a huge stink. Manhattan and Lawrence will try, but they'll be shouted down. I know people in both cities who are furious, but furious doesn't get you shiat when no matter how much you try to turn out the vote, it always goes Republican.

I blame the Kansas Democratic Party for a lot of this. Sam Bareback might as well have run unopposed for all the supper the KDP gave to Tom Holland. I voted for him, and there were Holland signs on my block, but he received no support from the party. They sat on their hands and let Bareback take it, I suppose hoping he would not be that bad. He's been worse than anyone expected, even me, and I farking hate the guy and wouldn't trust him as far as I could pick him up and throw him.

What he wanted to do to the KNI is un-farking-conscionable.

The_Sheriff_Is_A_Niiii: You really don't seem to understand that the idea is to point out just exactly how silly it is to label someone...........or some population........... a "welfare queen" or any other such thing when they are not.

If your argument is that Kansas does not excessively use federal monies, it doesn't help to point out that certain individuals do excessively use federal monies. Get it now? Or are you still fixated on the "don't label me bro!" mantra?

I even provided a link above concerning federal welfare spending that you could use as bait.

Salt Lick Steady: The_Sheriff_Is_A_Niiii: As for taxation, lets see here. The poor most likely have negative taxation on both federal and state taxes. The poor do pay sales tax (also being cut under the new KS tax law by the way ). The poor, most likely, do not own property or if they do it's not very valuable and thusly does not incur a huge tax liability.

You have no sources and nothing to back up your claims. Do you really not understand the concept of a regressive system? (That's not a "label," that's the way it operates.)

Here, get some basic education on the matter

Done with you.

The label comment was meant for your assertion that everything I've said was simply "conservative talking points".

I know perfectly well what a regressive tax system is and how it works. Your argument doesn't hold water, however, since those in question pay little or nothing into the system at all in the first place.

The_Sheriff_Is_A_Niiii: Salt Lick Steady: The_Sheriff_Is_A_Niiii: As for taxation, lets see here. The poor most likely have negative taxation on both federal and state taxes. The poor do pay sales tax (also being cut under the new KS tax law by the way ). The poor, most likely, do not own property or if they do it's not very valuable and thusly does not incur a huge tax liability.

You have no sources and nothing to back up your claims. Do you really not understand the concept of a regressive system? (That's not a "label," that's the way it operates.)

Here, get some basic education on the matter

Done with you.

The label comment was meant for your assertion that everything I've said was simply "conservative talking points".

I know perfectly well what a regressive tax system is and how it works. Your argument doesn't hold water, however, since those in question pay little or nothing into the system at all in the first place.

So do you think that everyone who gets the EITC one year gets it forever?

Salt Lick Steady: Point taken, and apologies for jumping the gun and using ad hominem.

Apology accepted. :) We're all having fun here, right?

I'm probably on the "right" side of things being a fiscal conservative but the law as summarized is incredibly moronic. IMHO net income should be taxed progressively regardless of source.

It is important to note in this deabte, however, that in general most S-corporation owners will pay themselves some (perhaps a significant portion) of their income as wages because the federal government wants its sweet, sweet, FICA and Medicare money. If one were to pay themselves 100% of their income via S-corporation as a distribution they run the very real risk of the federal government reclassifying all of that income as wage and subjecting the taxpayer to back taxes and penalties.

The result of this is that not *all* income received through the S-corp will be exempt from taxes in Kansas, just the potential for a *lot* of it to be.

My tax guy advised me not to push 50/50 on wage/distributions and that 60/40 would be even safer. Considering I live in Pennsylvania this allocation only affects my local and federal FICA/Medicare taxes.

As to the link you provided, federal welfare spending per capita is interesting but isn't necessarily fair. The cost of care and living in New York is significantly higher than in Kansas or other midwestern states so it would follow that the per-capita expense would necessarily be higher even if the same percentage of residents were on assistance.

I'm not sure how to easily analyze the idea of which states are, in general, givers and takers, based on readily available data. It would be very easy to support any point of view just by picking slightly different variables.

atomic-age: The_Sheriff_Is_A_Niiii: Salt Lick Steady: The_Sheriff_Is_A_Niiii: As for taxation, lets see here. The poor most likely have negative taxation on both federal and state taxes. The poor do pay sales tax (also being cut under the new KS tax law by the way ). The poor, most likely, do not own property or if they do it's not very valuable and thusly does not incur a huge tax liability.

You have no sources and nothing to back up your claims. Do you really not understand the concept of a regressive system? (That's not a "label," that's the way it operates.)

Here, get some basic education on the matter

Done with you.

The label comment was meant for your assertion that everything I've said was simply "conservative talking points".

I know perfectly well what a regressive tax system is and how it works. Your argument doesn't hold water, however, since those in question pay little or nothing into the system at all in the first place.

So do you think that everyone who gets the EITC one year gets it forever?

If they no longer qualify for EITC then they're making more money and not so poor anymore are they? That makes your whole argument moot.

Niii do you have a walk in gunsafe?

Do you keep farm animals on the property as "pets" ???

TheNewJesus: Dude are you high? ONE COUNTY (and I know the one you are thinking of) has "quality schools" and that is out of 105 counties. And that ONE COUNTY voted years ago to take on an additional tax burden to make up for cuts.

That was tried and denied years ago. The state formula was fixed - effectively screwing Johnson county. The extra funding you are talking about was limited in what it could go toward. So athletics and extracurriculars could be continued, the class sizes have been growing and growing. The 'Local Budget Option' provides only so much flexibility. I think the local option is capped at 31% and it already costs a lot more per-student to educate in JoCo because salaries, maintenance, and transportation costs are higher due to the suburban standard of living. You can get a teacher in a rural community for $30k, you are unlikely to find the same in the wealthy suburb unless you pay $45k.

TheNewJesus: Niii do you have a walk in gunsafe?

Do you keep farm animals on the property as "pets" ???

More likely as brides.

yeah! Screw you Kansas! You should run your state like California or illinois. now THOSE are some states which have it going on financially...

madgonad: TheNewJesus: Dude are you high? ONE COUNTY (and I know the one you are thinking of) has "quality schools" and that is out of 105 counties. And that ONE COUNTY voted years ago to take on an additional tax burden to make up for cuts.

That was tried and denied years ago. The state formula was fixed - effectively screwing Johnson county. The extra funding you are talking about was limited in what it could go toward. So athletics and extracurriculars could be continued, the class sizes have been growing and growing. The 'Local Budget Option' provides only so much flexibility. I think the local option is capped at 31% and it already costs a lot more per-student to educate in JoCo because salaries, maintenance, and transportation costs are higher due to the suburban standard of living. You can get a teacher in a rural community for $30k, you are unlikely to find the same in the wealthy suburb unless you pay $45k.

Yea I haven't really been following, But I was educated in the state of Kansas and from first hand experience I can tell you it sucked. I slept in class and was on the honor roll. The class before mine called a meeting with school staff and basically told staff to their faces that they had failed and did not prepare the students for college. The reaction varied from nonexistent to slight head nods... Pathetic.

You know, they go away if you don't reply to them.

TheNewJesus: madgonad: TheNewJesus: Dude are you high? ONE COUNTY (and I know the one you are thinking of) has "quality schools" and that is out of 105 counties. And that ONE COUNTY voted years ago to take on an additional tax burden to make up for cuts.

That was tried and denied years ago. The state formula was fixed - effectively screwing Johnson county. The extra funding you are talking about was limited in what it could go toward. So athletics and extracurriculars could be continued, the class sizes have been growing and growing. The 'Local Budget Option' provides only so much flexibility. I think the local option is capped at 31% and it already costs a lot more per-student to educate in JoCo because salaries, maintenance, and transportation costs are higher due to the suburban standard of living. You can get a teacher in a rural community for $30k, you are unlikely to find the same in the wealthy suburb unless you pay $45k.

Yea I haven't really been following, But I was educated in the state of Kansas and from first hand experience I can tell you it sucked. I slept in class and was on the honor roll. The class before mine called a meeting with school staff and basically told staff to their faces that they had failed and did not prepare the students for college. The reaction varied from nonexistent to slight head nods... Pathetic.

I can sympathize. I was educated at a ghetto school in the south, and I emerged better prepared for college than the Kansas freshmen I encountered as a GTA.

That said, I think the average Kansas parent cares more about the schools than my classmates' parents did. Most of my classmates seem to have made something of themselves, either through the military or through college, despite the thoroughly shiatty school and their apathetic parents.

Fart_Machine: Kansas is just the lab rat for what the GOP wants to implement for the entire country.

And the gop just took Kansas and divided by Zero.

atomic-age: I blame the Kansas Democratic Party for a lot of this.

You have got to be kidding.

JoCo is mostly GOP. Remember, the growth of JoCo was originally based upon "right next to Kansas City, but no black people here so your kids will still be in all-white classrooms". Brown v Board was the engine behind the rapid growth of the communities/cities in Johnson county. Now that has changed a bit since the mid-90s, but that was reality for 30 years starting in the mid-60s.

slykens1: As to the link you provided, federal welfare spending per capita is interesting but isn't necessarily fair. The cost of care and living in New York is significantly higher than in Kansas or other midwestern states so it would follow that the per-capita expense would necessarily be higher even if the same percentage of residents were on assistance.

I'm not sure how to easily analyze the idea of which states are, in general, givers and takers, based on readily available data. It would be very easy to support any point of view just by picking slightly different variables.

Good point. I've been searching for an analysis of per capita costs versus federal welfare monies received and turned up short. But I have both sets of data and could whip it up I suppose. Having a hard time finding data on federal education monies per state though.