IL: Rasmussen: Quinn leading
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
May 30, 2024, 04:34:23 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2014 Gubernatorial Election Polls
  IL: Rasmussen: Quinn leading
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 [3]
Author Topic: IL: Rasmussen: Quinn leading  (Read 5055 times)
Free Bird
TheHawk
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,917
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.84, S: -5.48

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #50 on: October 01, 2014, 08:46:01 PM »

If Illinois is so stupid to elect Quinn again, I have no sympathy for them. In other hyper partisan states (think Tennessee, Kansas, Massachusetts), they at least try the other party's way of doing things when a governor/governor candidate from their preferred party sucks. In Illinois, there are a majority of single issue voters who vote for only the D next to the name, provided the last name of the candidate isn't Giannoulias.
Logged
Clarko95 📚💰📈
Clarko95
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,616
Sweden


Political Matrix
E: -5.61, S: -1.96

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #51 on: October 01, 2014, 09:46:38 PM »

How big of a budget gap do you want Illinois to have? Quinn's cuts were modest proposals to reduce the deficits we are running. Then you also oppose the tax increase? Where is all this money coming from? Rauner's pleas to increase spending are pure ploys for votes from Democrats. His education funding would be misallocated in favor of alternatives to public education and coupled with his conservative tax policies would wreak havoc on the budget.

Spending is a huge part of the problem here. It's increased 25.6% since 2009, while inflation over those 5 years totaled 9.1% for comparison. Yes, Illinois' tax codes are outdated and need to be reformed, and the Great Recession took a huge bite out of tax revenue, but you can't ignore the spending side of this. The 2015 budget passed by the legislature keeps increasing spending even though the tax hikes haven't been made permanent yet. If Quinn gets re-elected again, I wouldn't be surprised if an inverse "starve the beast" policy emerges: increase spending constantly to justify higher taxes.

And if we're talking education spending and other states, Indiana devotes far more of its budget to elementary, secondary, and higher education than Illinois does. Not all charter schools are crappy, for profit hellholes like the ones you hear about in the news, and not all public schools are sacred untouchable things that just need more money thrown at them to succeed. Education reform is a complex, case-by-case slog and Quinn has even endorsed charter schools, opening several himself.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Of course it sounds empty to someone who identifies themselves as a young, rich, white, liberal elitist. Do you have a job? Do you and your family depend heavily on said job? If not, you probably don't know the burden of taxes while struggling economically. Surcharging is a piss-poor way to make the system progressive. Illinois FairTax would be a much better way by introducing steeper brackets while relieving the working class of a lot of their burden, the middle and upper class of some of their burden, while increasing the tax burden of those making more than $150K (so not just millionaires, it encompasses more people).

And what numbers are you using for for other states' tax burdens? The most common ranking of Illinois is 5th highest in the nation, with only large coastal states leading it.
Logged
Mr. Illini
liberty142
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,856
United States


Political Matrix
E: -4.26, S: -3.30

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #52 on: October 02, 2014, 11:52:48 AM »
« Edited: October 02, 2014, 11:55:32 AM by Mr. Illini »

How big of a budget gap do you want Illinois to have? Quinn's cuts were modest proposals to reduce the deficits we are running. Then you also oppose the tax increase? Where is all this money coming from? Rauner's pleas to increase spending are pure ploys for votes from Democrats. His education funding would be misallocated in favor of alternatives to public education and coupled with his conservative tax policies would wreak havoc on the budget.

Spending is a huge part of the problem here. It's increased 25.6% since 2009, while inflation over those 5 years totaled 9.1% for comparison. Yes, Illinois' tax codes are outdated and need to be reformed, and the Great Recession took a huge bite out of tax revenue, but you can't ignore the spending side of this. The 2015 budget passed by the legislature keeps increasing spending even though the tax hikes haven't been made permanent yet. If Quinn gets re-elected again, I wouldn't be surprised if an inverse "starve the beast" policy emerges: increase spending constantly to justify higher taxes.

You're the one arguing for higher spending. You said Rauner would increase education and environmental spending. Where's the money? Quinn has implemented a dual approach - cutting where necessary and looking to realistically increase taxes. Rauner wants to do the opposite - hike spending but cut taxes. Who would be worse for the deficit?

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Of course it sounds empty to someone who identifies themselves as a young, rich, white, liberal elitist. Do you have a job? Do you and your family depend heavily on said job? If not, you probably don't know the burden of taxes while struggling economically. Surcharging is a piss-poor way to make the system progressive. Illinois FairTax would be a much better way by introducing steeper brackets while relieving the working class of a lot of their burden, the middle and upper class of some of their burden, while increasing the tax burden of those making more than $150K (so not just millionaires, it encompasses more people).

And what numbers are you using for for other states' tax burdens? The most common ranking of Illinois is 5th highest in the nation, with only large coastal states leading it.

Lol already diving into personal attacks? Nice. Yes, I have a job and so do both of my parents. In fact, I also live in Illinois, so these policies will impact me and my family, unlike yourself. As much as I want the progressive system passed, it is not near the support that it needs because of rich, north shore DLCers. The surcharge would effectively increase state revenue by requiring a simple 8% from the pockets of millionaires (while the rest pay 5%). Compare that to 9% top bracket in Iowa, 7.75% top bracket in Wisconsin, 8% top bracket in Minnesota, and 6% in Missouri and Kentucky. The only nearby state that isn't comparable is yours.

Meanwhile an expiration of the tax hike coupled with no surcharge would put us back to a flat rate of 3%, even below Indiana. That is not adequate and it would wreak havoc on the budget.
Logged
Clarko95 📚💰📈
Clarko95
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,616
Sweden


Political Matrix
E: -5.61, S: -1.96

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #53 on: October 02, 2014, 01:45:57 PM »

You're the one arguing for higher spending. You said Rauner would increase education and environmental spending. Where's the money? Quinn has implemented a dual approach - cutting where necessary and looking to realistically increase taxes. Rauner wants to do the opposite - hike spending but cut taxes. Who would be worse for the deficit?

Rauner wants to control the growth of spending, by cutting the amount that goes into the pension fund and what is spent on general government costs. Illinois is noted for its highly complex and overlapping local government districts (partially funded by the state) and high levels of corruption and waste, so there is a lot of room to make some cuts in those areas and consolidate services to make up for the comparatively smaller increases in spending on environmental and education spending. Rauner wants to slow the growth of spending and let the tax revenue side catch up via economic recovery.

I'll agree that Rauner still has to be specific, and I do have some reservations about him, but Quinn has shown himself to not care about effective spending cuts (he's still in favor of the Illiana Tollway, for example) and would rather tax his way out of it. Neither Rauner nor Quinn will be able to balance the budget quickly, but the difference is that Rauner is morel likely slow the growth of spending in relation to taxes, while Quinn has proven himself to cut badly needed funds to pile spending into more wasteful and corrupt programs, and just raise taxes over and over again.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

That wasn't a personal attack; I was asking you about your perspective, if you've actually know economic hardship, or how it has become more difficult to be middle class and seeing more of your money go to taxes while your income stagnates. You need to consider the effects of the tax increase on everyone.  You openly identified yourself as one:
Again, the average tax burden in Illinois is 5th highest in the nation. To improve Illinois' economy, you don't suck up more consumer spending with taxes, the majority of which comes from people who are middle-income. Raise the top bracket as high as you want, I don't care, but hitting consumer spending derived from the middle class in a consumer-driven economy is a terrible idea. The millionaires surcharge would only affect ~700K households, while a more broad, progressive income tax would extend it to near 1.5 million households who could also afford it, thus raising more money from a broader base. And Rauner wants to adjust the state tax code to adjust to the fact that Illinois' manufacturing base has declined since the 1970s, and the sales tax is high but narrow. If the tax increase sunsets, it will actually sunset to 3.75%, which would be higher than Indiana's 3.4%.
Logged
Mr. Illini
liberty142
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,856
United States


Political Matrix
E: -4.26, S: -3.30

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #54 on: October 02, 2014, 02:32:30 PM »

You're the one arguing for higher spending. You said Rauner would increase education and environmental spending. Where's the money? Quinn has implemented a dual approach - cutting where necessary and looking to realistically increase taxes. Rauner wants to do the opposite - hike spending but cut taxes. Who would be worse for the deficit?

Rauner wants to control the growth of spending, by cutting the amount that goes into the pension fund and what is spent on general government costs. Illinois is noted for its highly complex and overlapping local government districts (partially funded by the state) and high levels of corruption and waste, so there is a lot of room to make some cuts in those areas and consolidate services to make up for the comparatively smaller increases in spending on environmental and education spending. Rauner wants to slow the growth of spending and let the tax revenue side catch up via economic recovery.

More empty rhetoric. Wouldn't we all like to cut "waste," but where is it? I haven't heard specifics beyond that buzzword. "General government costs," what does that mean? And our public workers deserve the reluctant and moderate cuts that have been implemented by the governor, not a war on public workers like the one waged one state north.

I'll agree that Rauner still has to be specific, and I do have some reservations about him, but Quinn has shown himself to not care about effective spending cuts (he's still in favor of the Illiana Tollway, for example) and would rather tax his way out of it. Neither Rauner nor Quinn will be able to balance the budget quickly, but the difference is that Rauner is morel likely slow the growth of spending in relation to taxes, while Quinn has proven himself to cut badly needed funds to pile spending into more wasteful and corrupt programs, and just raise taxes over and over again.

Not true, it is clearly Rauner who has been dishonest about the deficit issue. His plan to roll the income back all the way to 3% is forecast to cost the state $5-8 billion. Economists agree that economic growth would not come close to closing that gap. Putting that into perspective, the state's debt currently sits at $4 billion.

When Quinn took over it was $10 billion, but nah, he just doesn't care.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

That wasn't a personal attack; I was asking you about your perspective, if you've actually know economic hardship, or how it has become more difficult to be middle class and seeing more of your money go to taxes while your income stagnates. You need to consider the effects of the tax increase on everyone.  You openly identified yourself as one:
Again, the average tax burden in Illinois is 5th highest in the nation. To improve Illinois' economy, you don't suck up more consumer spending with taxes, the majority of which comes from people who are middle-income. Raise the top bracket as high as you want, I don't care, but hitting consumer spending derived from the middle class in a consumer-driven economy is a terrible idea. The millionaires surcharge would only affect ~700K households, while a more broad, progressive income tax would extend it to near 1.5 million households who could also afford it, thus raising more money from a broader base. And Rauner wants to adjust the state tax code to adjust to the fact that Illinois' manufacturing base has declined since the 1970s, and the sales tax is high but narrow. If the tax increase sunsets, it will actually sunset to 3.75%, which would be higher than Indiana's 3.4%.

You keep calling the extension an increase, but it is simply making the rate permanent. There is no increase. Meanwhile, I call for a surcharge on millionaires, who in Rauner's plan would be paying the same percentage as the average family. You continue to paint Quinn's plan as anti-middle class, but he is simply recognizing the economic reality by asking the middle class to continue to pay the same rate and the rich to pay more. Bruce is the one who wants the flat tax, remember.
Logged
Maxwell
mah519
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,459
Germany


Political Matrix
E: -6.45, S: -6.96

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #55 on: October 02, 2014, 02:40:13 PM »

Is it too late for Republicans to force Rauner to withdraw and to put Kirk Dillard on the ballot instead?
Logged
Clarko95 📚💰📈
Clarko95
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,616
Sweden


Political Matrix
E: -5.61, S: -1.96

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #56 on: October 02, 2014, 08:40:33 PM »
« Edited: October 02, 2014, 10:06:09 PM by Clarko95 »

More empty rhetoric. Wouldn't we all like to cut "waste," but where is it? I haven't heard specifics beyond that buzzword. "General government costs," what does that mean? And our public workers deserve the reluctant and moderate cuts that have been implemented by the governor, not a war on public workers like the one waged one state north.

So is "empty rhetoric" your go-to for every criticism of government spending?

How about the report published by Illinois Policy that found $354 million in blatant, completely unjustifiable special interest money? If you whip out your handy dandy calculator, you'll notice that adds up to more than half of the $600 million in education cuts. For example, $3.5 million was allocated to Decatur for things such as buying and renovating a gift shop and funding for a private office building, the Board of Higher Education spent $2.3 million on 23 teachers in its "Grow Your Own Teacher" program and only 17 when on to actually teach in high-need schools; Illinois has borrowed over $650 million from its special funds to cover its main budget, but borrowing from those funds will cost insane amounts of money to pay back over the future. More than $870 million of the education fund was given out without the need-based criteria usually used. $124 million was given to wealthy school districts that didn't need it. $2 billion in state Medicaid spending could be eliminated via EMRs and other efficiency measures, and $800 million could be saved by asking former state employees to contribute to their healthcare plans. Switching new pensioners to 401(k)s would save an additional $2 billion. Quinn's anti-violence campaign paid two people several million to "advise" on how to reduce crime, yet one of them ended up murdering the other. $2.1 million went directly to the husband of Cook County Circuit Court Clerk Dorothy Brown. On state payrolls, janitors, plumbers, admin assistants, and even barbers are paid twice the amount in salaries the average private sector person earns. Ending automatic pay raises other than inflation adjustments and instituting reasonable merit bonuses, reducing very-high paid employees (like >$100K) salaries, and eliminating excess employees through consolidation would save $300 million. Changing and capping retiree benefits by coordinating local pensions and the salaries they give their employees would save a combined $1.1 billion.

Dude, you live in Illinois. Turn on the news and almost daily there are reports of wasteful spending and new corruption charges. Do a basic Google search or something. Read a newspaper. This list goes on and on. If you don't see the waste, it's probably because you don't want to see it.

I just listed $8.1 billion in wasteful spending and potential reforms, most of them nit-picky. You can come up with billions more by going deeper, I'm sure. Like the federal budget, Illinois' budget would not be that hard to balance if we actually wanted it to be balanced.

And Rauner's not going to have a GOP legislature to go Scott Walker on unions. That's political reality. He will check the legislature, which will in turn, check him. If he really is hard-right, just turn vote in more Democrats in 2016 and turn him out in 2018. The Governor is not a dictator.
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
With proper cuts, that gap can be closed when combined with the slowly recovering national and state economy. And do you mean the deficit is $4 billion? Because the Comptroller lists the state debt as $127 billion and the pension obligation is $99.6 billion (I think the $99.6 is part of the $127, but I'm not entirely sure)

The 2011 tax increase raised over $30 billion in the last 4 years (average of $7.5 billion/year), but he was only able to close the deficit by $6 billion? Major red flag that spending is also a problem. Ohio went from an $8 billion deficit to $1.5 billion surplus in the same time frame, so no, Quinn really doesn't care. His backing of more white elephant projects just proves it more. The next time another crisis comes along, he'll say we have to raise taxes, again, and break his promises, again, just like he has repeatedly over the past 5 years.
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
The increase was in 2011. I never called the extension itself the increase? But for a family making $50,000 per year, the 5% rate will cost them a total of $2,500 in additional taxes as opposed to the 3% rate. Rauner will not roll it back entirely to 3% in one year, but has proposed letting the sunset occur and gradually rolling the 3.75% back to 3%. If he goes by 0.25% per year starting in 2016, said family would see a total tax cut of $750 as compared to a permanent 3.75% rate.

How is raising taxes on everyone still a good idea when you can implement a more progressive structure that raises money from households making more than $150,000/year and not put such a heavy burden on everyone below? The steeper progressive tax rates would raise more money than just a millionaires surcharge by broadening the tax base.  
Logged
Panda Express
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,578


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #57 on: October 02, 2014, 08:43:40 PM »

More empty rhetoric. Wouldn't we all like to cut "waste," but where is it? I haven't heard specifics beyond that buzzword. "General government costs," what does that mean? And our public workers deserve the reluctant and moderate cuts that have been implemented by the governor, not a war on public workers like the one waged one state north.

So is "empty rhetoric" your go-to for every criticism of government spending?

How about the report published by Illinois Policy that found $354 million in blatant, completely unjustifiable special interest money? If you whip out your handy dandy calculator, you'll notice that adds up to more than half of the $600 million in education cuts. For example, $3.5 million was allocated to Decatur for things such as buying and renovating a gift shop and funding for a private office building, the Board of Higher Education spent $2.3 million on 23 teachers in its "Grow Your Own Teacher" program and only 17 when on to actually teach in high-need schools; Illinois has borrowed over $650 million from its special funds to cover its main budget, but borrowing from those funds will cost insane amounts of money to pay back over the future. More than $870 million of the education fund was given out without the need-based criteria usually used. $124 million was given to wealthy school districts that didn't need it. $2 billion in state Medicaid spending could be eliminated via EMRs and other efficiency measures, and $800 million could be saved by asking former state employees to contribute to their healthcare plans. Switching new pensioners to 401(k)s would save an additional $2 billion. Quinn's anti-violence campaign paid two people several million to "advise" on how to reduce crime, yet one of them ended up murdering the other. $2.1 million went directly to the husband of Cook County Circuit Court Clerk Dorothy Brown. On state payrolls, janitors, plumbers, admin assistants, and even barbers are paid twice the amount in salaries the average private sector person earns. Ending automatic pay raises other than inflation adjustments and instituting reasonable merit bonuses, reducing very-high paid employees (like >$100K) salaries, and eliminating excess employees through consolidation would save $300 million. Changing and capping retiree benefits by coordinating local pensions and the salaries they give their employees would save a combined $1.1 billion.

Dude, you live in Illinois. Turn on the news and almost daily there are reports of wasteful spending and new corruption charges. Do a basic Google search or something. Read a newspaper. This list goes on and on. If you don't see the waste, it's probably because you don't want to see it.

I just listed $8.1 billion in wasteful spending and potential reforms, most of them nit-picky. You can come up with billions more by going deeper, I'm sure. Like the federal budget, Illinois' budget would not be that hard to balance if we actually wanted it to be balanced.

And Rauner's not going to have a GOP legislature to go Scott Walker on unions. That's political reality. He will check the legislature, which will in turn, check him. If he really is hard-right, just turn vote in more Democrats in 2016 and turn him out in 2018. The Governor is not a dictator.
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
With proper cuts, that gap can be closed when combined with the slowly recovering national and state economy. And do you mean the deficit is $4 billion? Because the Comptroller lists the state debt as $127 billion and the pension obligation is $99.6 billion (I think the $99.6 is part of the $127, but I'm not entirely sure)

The 2011 tax increase raised over $30 billion in the last 4 years (average of $7.5 billion/year), but he was only able to close the deficit by $6 billion? Major red flag that spending is also a problem.
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
The increase was in 2011. I never called the extension itself the increase? But for a family making $50,000 per year, the 5% rate will cost them a total of $2,500 in taxes as opposed to the 3% rate. Rauner will not roll it back entirely to 3% in one year, but has proposed letting the sunset occur and gradually rolling the 3.75% back to 3%. If he goes by 0.25% per year starting in 2016, said family would see a total tax cut of $750 as compared to a permanent 3.75% rate.

How is raising taxes on everyone still a good idea when you can implement a more progressive structure that raises money from households making more than $150,000/year and not put such a heavy burden on everyone below? The steeper progressive tax rates would raise more money than just a millionaires surcharge by broadening the tax base. 

Aren't you in high school? You don't actually care about tax extensions, tax breaks, tax cuts or "wasteful spending".
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.231 seconds with 11 queries.