IL: Rasmussen: Quinn leading

[Mr. Illini]

The only thing better than seeing Rauner going down in flames is reading the out-of-state Republican whining on here.

Quinn isn't going to win this; Rauner is going to lose this. It's not a "mistake" or a "blunder" by the people of Illinois. They know what they want, and it isn't lower taxes on the rich, a lower minimum wage, gutted school funding, attacks on collective bargaining, or attacks on social programs.

They, myself included, will take the status quo over that nonsense.

The only reason he was leading at all was protest.

[Mr. Illini]

The only thing better than seeing Rauner going down in flames is reading the out-of-state Republican whining on here.

Quinn isn't going to win this; Rauner is going to lose this. It's not a "mistake" or a "blunder" by the people of Illinois. They know what they want, and it isn't lower taxes on the rich, a lower minimum wage, gutted school funding, attacks on collective bargaining, or attacks on social programs.

They, myself included, will take the status quo over that nonsense.

The only reason he was leading at all was protest.

Thank you oh gracious voice of Illinois

They've spoken loudly through their voting for the last several decades. I'm just pointing out no one should really give a s**t about how bad someone from Oklahoma or New Mexico or anywhere else feels for what the people of Illinois have done to themselves.

[Mr. Illini]

Quinn isn't going to win this; Rauner is going to lose this. It's not a "mistake" or a "blunder" by the people of Illinois. They know what they want, and it isn't lower taxes on the rich, a lower minimum wage, gutted school funding, attacks on collective bargaining, or attacks on social programs.

So if protecting education funding, unions, and social programs are so important, why would they vote for Quinn??

And to stick it to the rich, you support raising taxes on everyone during bad economic times?

I don't really know what you're talking about. Quinn has been very strongly in support of education and social program funding. He signed pension reform that was far more moderate than what Rauner favors.

And no, I support extending the tax increase on everyone and adding the 3% surcharge to millionaires that has been proposed. Our taxes here in Illinois, despite RNC's narrative, are actually below what surrounding states charge, especially on the wealthy, as we have no progressive income tax.

[Mr. Illini]

Quinn isn't going to win this; Rauner is going to lose this. It's not a "mistake" or a "blunder" by the people of Illinois. They know what they want, and it isn't lower taxes on the rich, a lower minimum wage, gutted school funding, attacks on collective bargaining, or attacks on social programs.

So if protecting education funding, unions, and social programs are so important, why would they vote for Quinn??

And to stick it to the rich, you support raising taxes on everyone during bad economic times?

I don't really know what you're talking about. Quinn has been very strongly in support of education and social program funding. He signed pension reform that was far more moderate than what Rauner favors.

You do know that Quinn cut education spending by $600 million and child welfare spending by $85 million, right? And that he's closed 57 state facilities, including halfway houses, mental health centers, and disability centers? And that he wants to take inmates from partially-empty prisons and send them to already-overcrowded ones (instead of vice-versa?)? And that he approved budgets (such as the 2012 & 2013 budgets) that cut spending for infrastructure and environmental projects to cover the budget deficits? Rauner wants to increase education spending by $6 billion over the next few years, and restore spending on infrastructure and environmental programs.

And the pension reform being "moderate" is the problem. The liability was $83 billion in 2011 and is now $100 billion. It keeps growing and growing. The 2011 hike was specifically meant to take care of it, but it didn't. Though I don't like what Walker or Kasich did to unions, this is one case where the public sector unions are going to have to take some cuts. All Rauner really has proposed was letting workers keep what they've earned and moving everyone else to 401(k)s.

And either way, Quinn froze pay for low-level workers while higher-ups kept taking their big salaries, not to mention the patronage thing going on right now. Quinn may say he supports education/social programs and Rauner is an evil rich dude, but Quinn actually has a record that the D avatars on here would blast a Republican for actually doing. Even the unions give Quinn crap for freezing their salaries and making tiny cuts to the pensions.

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.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Empty rhetoric is empty. All we would be doing is bringing up the tax burden to about what is typical for the Midwest in order to close to budget gap. Bringing up the flat rate and surcharging the rich's rate would make for a fairer and more soluble system.

[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?

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.

[Mr. Illini]

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.

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:

Absolutely. Also elitist.

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.