Bluegrassrivals

Who is/was the best Kentucky Governor of all time? Why?

LWC Wrote:Who is/was the best Kentucky Governor of all time? Why?

It would be much easier to nominate candidates for the worst Kentucky Governor of all time. Kentucky has had very few governors who I would even grade a "C," naming the best one is really difficult. I think I will pass. The tradition of corruption is just too strong. John Y. Brown was probably the best one that I remember (I never considered him a criminal) but surely there must have been a few better governors before him.

Hoot, I was thinking the same thing. I saw a presentation given about 4 months ago claiming that KY's government is what has caused KY to be so down in its history, when it could have been booming.

I nominate William Goebel. He served for four days before being assassinated. Unlike most of the others, he didn't have time to cause much harm to the Commonwealth. On the other hand, his history seems to indicate that, if given enough time, he would have fallen in with the rest of them.

On a more serious note, I nominate Simeon S. Willis who served from 1943 to 1947. His main campaign promise was to abolish the state income tax. His tenure was marred by the fact that his proposals were continually opposed by the Democrat controlled house and senate. Still, he served the Commonwealth with honor and distinction.
That alone separates him from nearly all of the rest of them.

Harry Rex Vonner Wrote:I nominate William Goebel. He served for four days before being assassinated. Unlike most of the others, he didn't have time to cause much harm to the Commonwealth. On the other hand, his history seems to indicate that, if given enough time, he would have fallen in with the rest of them.

:lmao: I agree with everything you've said. From what I've read about him, he would have fit right in with the rest of the bunch.

I don't know if she would be considered even close to the best, but I like a lot of the things Martha Lane Collins did for Kentucky.

TheRealVille Wrote:I don't know if she would be considered even close to the best, but I like a lot of the things Martha Lane Collins did for Kentucky.

I would say the thousands of people working at the Toyota factory in Georgetown would agree with you.

Westside Wrote:I would say the thousands of people working at the Toyota factory in Georgetown would agree with you.

That's the main thing I was talking about. I don't know how many people work there, or how much money it brings into the state, but it has to rank up there as one of the biggest things brought to KY.

TheRealVille Wrote:I don't know if she would be considered even close to the best, but I like a lot of the things Martha Lane Collins did for Kentucky.

It was a good thing for the state, but is it fair that every other business in Kentucky (especially the Mom & Pop variety) gets none of the incentives that they got?

Bob Seger Wrote:It was a good thing for the state, but is it fair that every other business in Kentucky (especially the Mom & Pop variety) gets none of the incentives that they got?

I'm sure the "mom and pops" get incentives, just not on the scale Toyota did. I would say, "dollar for dollar" the mom and pops probably do just as good percentage wise with tax breaks and small business incentives. Pure speculation on my part though, I don't own a small business.

TheRealVille Wrote:I'm sure the "mom and pops" get incentives, just not on the scale Toyota did. I would say, "dollar for dollar" the mom and pops probably do just as good percentage wise with tax breaks and small business incentives. Pure speculation on my part though, I don't own a small business.

lol...........You would probably not even be in the ballpark if that is your speculation. A big fat "zero" is what a mom and pop gets.

TheRealVille Wrote:I'm sure the "mom and pops" get incentives, just not on the scale Toyota did. I would say, "dollar for dollar" the mom and pops probably do just as good percentage wise with tax breaks and small business incentives. Pure speculation on my part though, I don't own a small business.

If you would say that, then you would be wrong. Kentucky bribed Toyota to locate in Georgetown by agreeing to give them bigger tax incentives than the other states that were in the running for the plant. Kentucky does not need to bribe "mom and pops" to come to Kentucky because they are already there. If it is good policy to attract businesses like Toyota to Kentucky by lightening their tax burden, would it not be good policy to lower all business taxes to attract new employers?

Westside Wrote:I would say the thousands of people working at the Toyota factory in Georgetown would agree with you.

I'd say that the Scott County athletic program, particularly the basketball program, would add a hardy "amen".

I heard a funny statement at the state tournament. It was said that the KHSAA was so mad at the recruiting antics of Scott County that they put Rose Hill on a two year probation.

Thanks Hoot and Bob for attempting to explain to RV how it works.

TheRealVille Wrote:I'm sure the "mom and pops" get incentives, just not on the scale Toyota did. I would say, "dollar for dollar" the mom and pops probably do just as good percentage wise with tax breaks and small business incentives. Pure speculation on my part though, I don't own a small business.

Horrible speculation that is way off base and no ownership of business explains why you are a Democrat.

What? We have a Governor? I though we did away with that.
I thought stupid Breshear was just for show.
BTW Dems, hows those casinos working out for you, one of the reasons you all voted for him.

Nunn

TheRealVille Wrote:I'm sure the "mom and pops" get incentives, just not on the scale Toyota did. I would say, "dollar for dollar" the mom and pops probably do just as good percentage wise with tax breaks and small business incentives. Pure speculation on my part though, I don't own a small business.

There are not many incentivies to start business in this state. In the mountains, we are so far behind. For an example, I need T-3 wiring because of the information that is sent in and out. I have to resouce this to a database in Northern Kentucky at pretty expensive rate. Whereas if I went down to Knoxville, the whole community already has the infrastructor. To give you an idea of cost it is about a $1500 difference a month between the two. I did choose to stay in Kentucky because I love this state, even though economically it made more sense to go to Tennessee.

Bolt Wrote:What? We have a Governor? I though we did away with that.
I thought stupid Breshear was just for show.
BTW Dems, hows those casinos working out for you, one of the reasons you all voted for him.

About as well as paying higher health premiums thanks to Fletcher.

Also, if you are against casinos, you have to be against the horse racing industry, bingo, and the Kentucky Lotto, right?

Deleted: Not worthy of my time.

tvtimeout Wrote:About as well as paying higher health premiums thanks to Fletcher.

Also, if you are against casinos, you have to be against the horse racing industry, bingo, and the Kentucky Lotto, right?

Please Explain?

tvtimeout Wrote:About as well as paying higher health premiums thanks to Fletcher.

Also, if you are against casinos, you have to be against the horse racing industry, bingo, and the Kentucky Lotto, right?

I am against all forms of gambling as long as the government exercises monopoly power over it. People should not be subject to criminal charges for gambling while the state government promotes it and profits from it.

If I want to gamble, then it should be none of the state's concern. I should not need a governor of state legislature restricting my choices on gambling. Gambling in Kentucky, in its present form, is truly a tax on stupidity.

Think about it - you were born with the right to gamble. No politician can give you that right, they can only return it to you by helping the government exit the gambling business entirely. It should be taxed just like any other business but it should not be licensed or otherwise governed by the state.

So, as a Libertarian, you have a problem with Fletcher transferring more of the cost of your medical care from taxpayers in general to you in particular, the taxpayer who is incurring the cost and you concede the state's right to restrict your freedom to gamble.

Are those positions consistent with the libertarian set of beliefs?

Isn't it part of the Republican party's thinking to give tax breaks to the rich so that they will invest more and hire more people, thus putting more money back into the economy?

TheRealVille Wrote:Isn't it part of the Republican party's thinking to give tax breaks to the rich so that they will invest more and hire more people, thus putting more money back into the economy?

No, that is Democrats' cynical rephrasing of the principle of the government allowing people to keep more of their money that they earned from their own sweat. In the case of businesses, that increases the profit incentive by making it possible for them to compete on a more even playing field with foreign competitors while paying competitive wages to their employers.

As the late, great Milton Friedman put it, the free lunch is a myth. When the government over taxes anybody, whether they are "rich" or not, then some human being pays because the government does not and cannot create wealth from thin air. By the same token, businesses pay no taxes, only people can pay taxes - shareholders, workers, and customers.

Hoot Gibson Wrote:I am against all forms of gambling as long as the government exercises monopoly power over it. People should not be subject to criminal charges for gambling while the state government promotes it and profits from it.

If I want to gamble, then it should be none of the state's concern. I should not need a governor of state legislature restricting my choices on gambling. Gambling in Kentucky, in its present form, is truly a tax on stupidity.

Think about it - you were born with the right to gamble. No politician can give you that right, they can only return it to you by helping the government exit the gambling business entirely. It should be taxed just like any other business but it should not be licensed or otherwise governed by the state.

So, as a Libertarian, you have a problem with Fletcher transferring more of the cost of your medical care from taxpayers in general to you in particular, the taxpayer who is incurring the cost and you concede the state's right to restrict your freedom to gamble.

Are those positions consistent with the libertarian set of beliefs?

I never conceded that it was the state's right to restrict your freedom to gamble. I just pointed out how hypicritical it was by some, that say boo to Casino's but take no stand on Kentucky Lotto, Horse Racing, and Bingo. This is a hypocracy that can not be explained by the right. The right always wants to throw up morality (or their definition on it) but when push comes to shove, they are just like the left.

I am no problem paying for my health insurance, as long as I get to CHOOSE! However, because Fletcher took a deal with Humana all state employees MUST go with them.

People will say they would have moved their headquarters out of Lousiville so his hands were tied. I do not like that arguement, because I believe that if they left, another company would have came in.

Fletcher now works for Humana... the same people he cut the deal with so they could get more money... is that right?

Now, the State of Kentucky is facing what other states are facing because we don't let a free market work, think about it, I get to choose my car insurance out of state, but I don't get to choose my health insurance? Why?

tvtimeout Wrote:I never conceded that it was the state's right to restrict your freedom to gamble. I just pointed out how hypicritical it was by some, that say boo to Casino's but take no stand on Kentucky Lotto, Horse Racing, and Bingo. This is a hypocracy that can not be explained by the right. The right always wants to throw up morality (or their definition on it) but when push comes to shove, they are just like the left.

I am no problem paying for my health insurance, as long as I get to CHOOSE! However, because Fletcher took a deal with Humana all state employees MUST go with them.

People will say they would have moved their headquarters out of Lousiville so his hands were tied. I do not like that arguement, because I believe that if they left, another company would have came in.

Fletcher now works for Humana... the same people he cut the deal with so they could get more money... is that right?

Now, the State of Kentucky is facing what other states are facing because we don't let a free market work, think about it, I get to choose my car insurance out of state, but I don't get to choose my health insurance? Why?

Can't you just say no to government provided health insurance and buy your own? Their is always a choice when it comes to taking government benefits and the strings that come with them.

Hoot Gibson Wrote:Can't you just say no to government provided health insurance and buy your own? Their is always a choice when it comes to taking government benefits and the strings that come with them.

Excellent Question, the answer is no, now I can go outside and buy additional coverage, I never understood why I haven't. Just like with Social Security. Just like I don't understand since I do have a second job and social security gets taken out of it, I will never get that benefit. Basically, I get messed over all the way around.

I still wish I could buy my health insurance out of state, that would make free market work. But, that is too much common sense for my fellow Republicans and Democrats.

tvtimeout Wrote:Excellent Question, the answer is no, now I can go outside and buy additional coverage, I never understood why I haven't. Just like with Social Security. Just like I don't understand since I do have a second job and social security gets taken out of it, I will never get that benefit. Basically, I get messed over all the way around.

I still wish I could buy my health insurance out of state, that would make free market work. But, that is too much common sense for my fellow Republicans and Democrats.

So you have the right to purchase your own non-subsidized health insurance plan but you prefer accepting a subsidized plan instead and that is Fletcher's fault?

I have worked as an independent contractor on a couple of occasions in my life and I learned that somebody pays for every benefit that we receive in life. I also decided that I would rather take the cash and spend it how I want to spend it instead of getting a "benefits package," which somebody else chooses but for which I pay indirectly. Unfortunately, this economy makes it tough for an independent contractor to stay busy.

Like you, I hate that I am paying for a horrible medical plan - but as a former collegue of mine often said, I have two choices. I can get mad and leave or I can get mad and stay. That is the choice that all of us have, no matter what any politician does.

BTW, allowing you to purchase health insurance across state boundaries is a cornerstone of the Republicans health care reform proposals. Democrats had a chance to make it happen but refused.

Hoot Gibson Wrote:No, that is Democrats' cynical rephrasing of the principle of the government allowing people to keep more of their money that they earned from their own sweat. In the case of businesses, that increases the profit incentive by making it possible for them to compete on a more even playing field with foreign competitors while paying competitive wages to their employers.

As the late, great Milton Friedman put it, the free lunch is a myth. When the government over taxes anybody, whether they are "rich" or not, then some human being pays because the government does not and cannot create wealth from thin air. By the same token, businesses pay no taxes, only people can pay taxes - shareholders, workers, and customers.

So you don't believe that businesses/rich should get extra tax breaks, so they can invest the money and employee more people? I could have sworn that I've heard you defend in that direction before.

TheRealVille Wrote:So you don't believe that businesses/rich should get extra tax breaks, so they can invest the money and employee more people? I could have sworn that I've heard you defend in that direction before.

I don't believe corporations should be taxed at all. Shareholders, employees, and customers already pay taxes on the goods and services produced by businesses.

My point, which is actually Friedman's point, is that businesses and corporations are simply people. When Obama, Reid, and Pelosi demonize corporations and clamor for higher tax rates on them, they are demonizing people. Corporations simply collect money from people and distribute it to other people.

I would like most of that money to stay in the private sector rather than being squandered on greedy politicians in Washington. In fact, I prefer seeing money go to local crooked politicians rather than Washington politicians because local crooks reinvest in their own communities.