It's certainly possible, but there would be a few caveats.  It is not a steady stream and would depend totally on the amount of deaths in any given community, any given year.  So, I could believe that one year in one very well-to-do Village or Townshiip (e.g. Bentleyville), it accounted for a large chunk of the revenue.  80% would suprise me, though.

I thought I heard it for Waite Hill since they have no commercial sector. Ill do some research tomorrow though

I like that and the other bills they listed. Especially the second one

 

<b>Estate tax repeal among 18 bills Ohio House GOP introduces to advance agenda</b>

 

• Authorize Kasich, a Republican, to create JobsOhio, the private, nonprofit economic development corporation he will establish to replace the Ohio Department of Development.

• Establish tax credits for employers who hire unemployed people and for businesses that expand into vacant buildings.

• Prohibit late-term abortions. Rep. Lorraine Fende, a Democrat from Willowick, introduced the bill.

• Take pit bulls off the state's "vicious dog" list.

• Prohibit speeding tickets based on an officer's visual estimation of speed of a motor vehicle.

 

Outside of the whole killing the 3C deal, I am finding it hard to not like most of Kasich's ideas and policies.

I heard somewhere that we might get rid of the estate tax? Is this true?

 

 

Edit: Yes  http://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf/2011/01/estate_tax_repeal_among_18_bil.html

 

 

 

 

That's a shame.  As libertarian as I consider myself to be, I like the concept of estate tax.  Any time a huge chunk of money changes hands, it should be taxed quite a bit.  I think my opinion has something to do with individual responsibility... I think income tax should be a lot, lot lower, and things like estate tax and sales tax should be what they are, if not a bit higher to compensate. 

Why should I pay taxes on something that's going to be passed on to me?  Or why should my heirs pay taxes on things I bequeath to them?

 

Why shouldn't you? My question is why should I pay income tax, on money that I've worked very hard to earn?  If you receive a huge gift, under any circumstances (even a death), it should be taxed.  Passing money down and keeping it in the family does nothing for the economy, whereas my disposable income will be put back into the economy directly.  Taking tax dollars from income and not gifts is taking out of the wrong pot. 

 

I am not against income tax like you are, but I agree with your reasoning in that estate tax makes way more sense. Getting money you didn't work for should definitely be taxed!!! Very highly, IMO!

 

I disagree.  Besides, it's not always money you receive.

I want our society to be more meritocratic, not less. More Bill Gateses, less G.W. Bush inherit-the-throne types.

I want our society to be more meritocratic, not less. More Bill Gateses, less G.W. Bush inherit-the-throne types.

 

Hater!

I want our society to be more meritocratic, not less. More Bill Gateses, less G.W. Bush inherit-the-throne types.

 

I couldn't agree with that more.

 

Wealthy Republicans these days always say how they do things that are "good for business", whereas what they really are doing is pushing us towards an aristocracy and protecting their wealth by ensuring it remains "in the circle".

Philosophical issues aside, my biggest issue is that brunt of the burden of repealling the State Estate tax is going to fall on local budgets, not the state budget since something like 75% of the collected estate tax gets passed through to the local entities.

I want our society to be more meritocratic, not less. More Bill Gateses, less G.W. Bush inherit-the-throne types.

 

I couldn't agree with that more.

 

Wealthy Republicans these days always say how they do things that are "good for business", whereas what they really are doing is pushing us towards an aristocracy and protecting their wealth by ensuring it remains "in the circle".

 

How does the estate tax prevent that?

 

Trust me, the Bush's and Kennedy's of this world will get around these regulations as long as they exist.

How does the estate tax prevent that?

 

Trust me, the Bush's and Kennedy's of this world will get around these regulations as long as they exist.

 

It doesn't prevent it, but taxing it at a higher rate (diverting more of it to the public) than income seems appropriate.  Why should the government take more money earned through work than money "earned" through being born into wealth?  Besides, as long as there isn't a way around it (states that do not participate), it would be a boon to the economy.  You'd see more wealthy families pumping their money into the economy or donating it rather than hoarding it and making sure their kids' kids' kids never have to lift a finger to live in luxury.  And if they do decide to do that, good for them, but their children will be paying the tax on the money they receive, just like the rest of us do.

Philosophical issues aside, my biggest issue is that brunt of the burden of repealling the State Estate tax is going to fall on local budgets, not the state budget since something like 75% of the collected estate tax gets passed through to the local entities.

Thanks for the civics lesson.

The tax changes Kasich suggests are going to hurt local municipalities the most. The municipalities' response will be to increase the size and number of tax levies. Get ready for graveyard levies, road levies, library levies, park levies and levies that haven't even been thought up yet. They will provide more local control over spending but will bring us closer to direct democracy chaos.

Totally off topic on any policy discussion, but am I the only one that thinks Kasich looks like he could Dennis Kucinich's brother?

Ohio Governor Kasich On the Hot Seat

 

NPR News

 

http://www.npr.org/2011/01/26/133118406/ohios-gov-kasich-put-on-the-seat-belt

Totally off topic on any policy discussion, but am I the only one that thinks Kasich looks like he could Dennis Kucinich's brother?

No, look at them standing next to each other

Okay, the "death tax' issue annoys me.  It just always smacks of an issue where people think rich folks don't pay enough.  News flash.........the vast majority of estate taxes are already being paid by Joe Average.  The wealthy have, AND ALWAYS WILL, find ways to shield their assests and lessen their tax burden, regardless of what laws are enacted.  Joe Average typically doesn't understand the need or have the resources and knowledge to plan for it, and therefor, his estate gets depleted by a money grabbing government.  All estate taxes do is feed money to an institution that has already been paid the taxes owed to it.  It can and has created burdens for those left behind.

Most of the funds in an estate have already been taxed, as they are in the form of an employee sponsored investment account, insurance policies, or tied into the eventual sale of real property after death....this property would have been paid for with post tax dollars.  I believe that the deceased should pay any public debts, and any appropriate capital gain taxes imposed on investments at the time of death, but everything else should pass untaxed. Why should the government get anymore? The deceased has paid their share already, and even as a dead American, should have the right to ownership of what they have created in this world.  They and their family or whomever they deem should have the ability to receive these assest without further taxation.  I don't want to take care of someone through MY tax dollars when they could have already been taken care of by their own family, but are unable to because the state compromised their inheritance.  Just ask a parent of a child who cannot live independently how important this issue is.

Estate taxes lower our ability to compete economically at whatever government level they are imposed.

Estate taxes are punishment for working hard and planning for the future.

Estate taxes act as a deterent to achieve and plan, making us all more reliant on our government as a caretaker.

Estate taxes HURT AVERAGE FAMILIES THE MOST.

 

If you don't believe it, talk to some probate attorney's and some financial planners who have been around awhile.  They wont have any stories for you about the rich guy that really got taken to the cleaners and his estate had to fork over miilions.  But I promise you will hear countless stories of regular people who have an undue burden placed upon them by a tax system that takes away what has already been rightfully earned and taxed, and now wants to tax it again.

^ In Ohio, estates under $333,000 aren't taxed at all.  That's about as large a one time gift I think should be able to exchange hands, under any circumstances, without being taxed.  It's a sizable amount, and having no estate tax on large estates only encourages people to hold on to their money, rather than putting circulating it back into the economy.  I think most horror stories you mention are people that probably thought they were in for inheritance, but rather ended up with debts in the form of outstanding loans or mortgages.

 

This is the only tax you'll ever catch me defending at its current rate (if not one even higher).

Gay = AIDS? Stand Up Against Ignorance and Bigotry in Ohio

http://www.change.org/progressohio_org_inc/petitions/view/gay_aids_stand_up_against_ignorance_and_bigotry_in_ohio

 

 

Kasich alters order on work rights'Gender identity' not included in anti-discrimination policy

http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2011/01/22/kasich-alters-order-on-work-rights.html?sid=101

 

Good news.  Probably the way I would have wrote the anti discrimination policy in the first place if I was Governor.  I've always held the belief that the GLB movement needs to go ahead without the T.  It brings a rational argument about "choice" to the table that really throws the entire debate for a loop.  JMO and I realize there are many psychologists and other professionals that disagree with me.

Okay, the "death tax' issue annoys me. It just always smacks of an issue where people think rich folks don't pay enough. News flash.........the vast majority of estate taxes are already being paid by Joe Average. The wealthy have, AND ALWAYS WILL, find ways to shield their assests and lessen their tax burden, regardless of what laws are enacted. Joe Average typically doesn't understand the need or have the resources and knowledge to plan for it, and therefor, his estate gets depleted by a money grabbing government. All estate taxes do is feed money to an institution that has already been paid the taxes owed to it. It can and has created burdens for those left behind.

 

http://tax.ohio.gov/divisions/estate/index.stm

 

As Ram23 said, there are no taxes on an initial amount (which is actually $338,333).  Thus, I don't think the Average Joe is paying ANY estate tax.  (The median net worth of Americans 65 and over is $232,000 as of 2009.)  And even someone at DOUBLE the median net worth would only lose ($500,000 - $338,333)*.06 = $7,660 out of the estate to taxes (no federal estate taxes are paid on any estate worth less than $3.5 million), which equals about 1.5% of the estate.  I;m not quite sure how the children are "bearing the burden" of anything when they receive $466,000 in assets (without any work required to receive it) and in turn only owe the government 1.5% of that amount in taxes.  And considering the net value of the assets received is still $458,340, I would hardly say the estate has been "depleted".  Oh, and newsflash......if I work my ass off and make $500,000, I pay a hell of a lot more in taxes than the inheritors of said estate in my example.  So in short, your post was full of wild inaccuracies and misconceptions.

 

Also, you keep referring to double taxation.  However, you seem to ignore that money is always taxed once on the way in and once on the way out.  This is why the sales tax isn't higher.  Even proponents of the Fair Tax push for a sales tax MUCH higher than what we have now.  Our taxes are simply distributed between the "inward taxes" (income, capital gains, etc.) and "outward taxes" (sales tax, estate tax, etc.).  Just because I have paid income tax on money I have earned doesn't mean I am exempt from paying sales tax on that same money when I spend it.  The same should apply for gifted money or money left to other through an estate.  It needs to have the "outward tax" applied to it still.

Good news.  Probably the way I would have wrote the anti discrimination policy in the first place if I was Governor.  I've always held the belief that the GLB movement needs to go ahead without the T.  It brings a rational argument about "choice" to the table that really throws the entire debate for a loop.  JMO and I realize there are many psychologists and other professionals that disagree with me.

 

Agreed.

 

Okay, the "death tax' issue annoys me.  It just always smacks of an issue where people think rich folks don't pay enough.  News flash.........the vast majority of estate taxes are already being paid by Joe Average.  The wealthy have, AND ALWAYS WILL, find ways to shield their assests and lessen their tax burden, regardless of what laws are enacted.  Joe Average typically doesn't understand the need or have the resources and knowledge to plan for it, and therefor, his estate gets depleted by a money grabbing government.  All estate taxes do is feed money to an institution that has already been paid the taxes owed to it.  It can and has created burdens for those left behind.

 

http://tax.ohio.gov/divisions/estate/index.stm

 

As Ram23 said, there are no taxes on an initial amount (which is actually $338,333).  Thus, I don't think the Average Joe is paying ANY estate tax.  (The median net worth of Americans 65 and over is $232,000 as of 2009.)  And even someone at DOUBLE the median net worth would only lose ($500,000 - $338,333)*.06 = $7,660 out of the estate to taxes (no federal estate taxes are paid on any estate worth less than $3.5 million), which equals about 1.5% of the estate.  I;m not quite sure how the children are "bearing the burden" of anything when they receive $466,000 in assets (without any work required to receive it) and in turn only owe the government 1.5% of that amount in taxes.  And considering the net value of the assets received is still $458,340, I would hardly say the estate has been "depleted".  Oh, and newsflash......if I work my ass off and make $500,000, I pay a hell of a lot more in taxes than the inheritors of said estate in my example.  So in short, your post was full of wild inaccuracies and misconceptions.

 

Also, you keep referring to double taxation.  However, you seem to ignore that money is always taxed once on the way in and once on the way out.  This is why the sales tax isn't higher.  Even proponents of the Fair Tax push for a sales tax MUCH higher than what we have now.  Our taxes are simply distributed between the "inward taxes" (income, capital gains, etc.) and "outward taxes" (sales tax, estate tax, etc.).  Just because I have paid income tax on money I have earned doesn't mean I am exempt from paying sales tax on that same money when I spend it.  The same should apply for gifted money or money left to other through an estate.  It needs to have the "outward tax" applied to it still.

 

Agreed.

Totally off topic on any policy discussion, but am I the only one that thinks Kasich looks like he could Dennis Kucinich's brother?

We report, you decide!

 

Younger Kucinich vs. Younger Kasich

 

 

Older Kasich vs. Older Kucinich

 

 

As Ram23 said, there are no taxes on an initial amount (which is actually $338,333). Thus, I don't think the Average Joe is paying ANY estate tax. (The median net worth of Americans 65 and over is $232,000 as of 2009.) And even someone at DOUBLE the median net worth would only lose ($500,000 - $338,333)*.06 = $7,660 out of the estate to taxes (no federal estate taxes are paid on any estate worth less than $3.5 million), which equals about 1.5% of the estate. I;m not quite sure how the children are "bearing the burden" of anything when they receive $466,000 in assets (without any work required to receive it) and in turn only owe the government 1.5% of that amount in taxes.

Thanks for explaining that.

Totally off topic on any policy discussion, but am I the only one that thinks Kasich looks like he could Dennis Kucinich's brother?

We report, you decide!

 

Younger Kucinich vs. Younger Kasich

 

 

Older Kasich vs. Older Kucinich

 

 

Thanks Rider, for doing that for me!

Totally off topic on any policy discussion, but am I the only one that thinks Kasich looks like he could Dennis Kucinich's brother?

We report, you decide!

 

Younger Kucinich vs. Younger Kasich

  

 

Older Kasich vs. Older Kucinich

  

 

Thanks Rider, for doing that for me!

 

You're welcome CBC.  I've also noticed the strange similarity between Kasich and Kucinich.

But now for some serious Gov. Kasich news:

 

JobsOhio approved by panel in House

Friday, January 28, 2011 - 2:52 AM

By Jim Siegel, THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH

 

Gov. John Kasich's plan to privatize Ohio's economic development efforts cleared another legislative hurdle yesterday despite Democrats' concerns.  The House Finance Committee approved House Bill 1, which sets the framework to allow Kasich's team to transform much of the Ohio Department of Development into a private, nonprofit corporation called JobsOhio.

 

Democrats continued to question oversight of the new entity, which may hand out more than $1 billion a year in incentives but would be exempt from Ohio's current public-records and open-meetings laws.  The bill outlines a more-narrow form of transparency for the entity, backed by an independent annual audit, but Democrats and some watchdogs argued that it does not go far enough.

 

Republicans, including Mark Kvamme, a venture capitalist from California brought in by Kasich to put together JobsOhio, argued that releasing too much information would make businesses reluctant to work with the state.

 

MORE: http://www.dispatchpolitics.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2011/01/28/copy/jobsohio-approved-by-panel-in-house.html?adsec=politics&sid=101

Black Ohio lawmakers demand that Kasich name minorities to cabinet

Dump some current nominees if necessary, they urge

Thursday, January 27, 2011  12:46 PM

Updated: Thursday, January 27, 2011 04:17 PM

By Ann Sanner, Associated Press

 

COLUMBUS -- Black state lawmakers today demanded that Gov. John Kasich appoint minorities to his cabinet -- even if it means booting out some of his current picks. 

 

The appointees to the new Republican governor's cabinet so far are all white, a first for the state since 1962.

 

Kasich has said he's focused on putting together "the best possible team" without regard for race, gender, ethnicity or sexual orientation.  Today, the president of the Ohio Legislative Black Caucus implored Kasich to make better strides to diversify his cabinet.

 

MORE: http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2011/01/27/black-lawmakers-demand-kasich-appoint-minorities-cabinet.html?sid=101

If it is blatant that Kasich has passed up minorities with better qualifications than what he has, then it should be explored. But qualifications should preside over the color of one's skin.

Good news. Probably the way I would have wrote the anti discrimination policy in the first place if I was Governor. I've always held the belief that the GLB movement needs to go ahead without the T. It brings a rational argument about "choice" to the table that really throws the entire debate for a loop. JMO and I realize there are many psychologists and other professionals that disagree with me.

 

Agreed.

 

Okay, the "death tax' issue annoys me. It just always smacks of an issue where people think rich folks don't pay enough. News flash.........the vast majority of estate taxes are already being paid by Joe Average. The wealthy have, AND ALWAYS WILL, find ways to shield their assests and lessen their tax burden, regardless of what laws are enacted. Joe Average typically doesn't understand the need or have the resources and knowledge to plan for it, and therefor, his estate gets depleted by a money grabbing government. All estate taxes do is feed money to an institution that has already been paid the taxes owed to it. It can and has created burdens for those left behind.

 

http://tax.ohio.gov/divisions/estate/index.stm

 

As Ram23 said, there are no taxes on an initial amount (which is actually $338,333). Thus, I don't think the Average Joe is paying ANY estate tax. (The median net worth of Americans 65 and over is $232,000 as of 2009.) And even someone at DOUBLE the median net worth would only lose ($500,000 - $338,333)*.06 = $7,660 out of the estate to taxes (no federal estate taxes are paid on any estate worth less than $3.5 million), which equals about 1.5% of the estate. I;m not quite sure how the children are "bearing the burden" of anything when they receive $466,000 in assets (without any work required to receive it) and in turn only owe the government 1.5% of that amount in taxes. And considering the net value of the assets received is still $458,340, I would hardly say the estate has been "depleted". Oh, and newsflash......if I work my ass off and make $500,000, I pay a hell of a lot more in taxes than the inheritors of said estate in my example. So in short, your post was full of wild inaccuracies and misconceptions.

 

Also, you keep referring to double taxation. However, you seem to ignore that money is always taxed once on the way in and once on the way out. This is why the sales tax isn't higher. Even proponents of the Fair Tax push for a sales tax MUCH higher than what we have now. Our taxes are simply distributed between the "inward taxes" (income, capital gains, etc.) and "outward taxes" (sales tax, estate tax, etc.). Just because I have paid income tax on money I have earned doesn't mean I am exempt from paying sales tax on that same money when I spend it. The same should apply for gifted money or money left to other through an estate. It needs to have the "outward tax" applied to it still.

 

Agreed.

 

The average Joe has to pay more often than you would think. WHile the average Joe may not have liquid cash in the amount of $333K and above, many do have life insurance policies with payouts of $500k or even $1 million or more (which typically cost only a few hundred a year to maintain). These amounts would all be subject to the estate tax.

On another estate tax note, it if you look at it closer, the government has the potential to make much more money with no estate tax than with one. It is a shortsighted argument that many liberals miss because they think they are sticking it to the rich.

 

The reason being is that without the estate tax, the heirs get no step up in basis of their securities and assets. Down the line, these will eventually be sold, and probably for much more than they were worth at the time of death bringing in much more revenue than they would have with the estate tax. Of course the downside is that the asset could decrease in value, but no risk no reward right

The average Joe has to pay more often than you would think. WHile the average Joe may not have liquid cash in the amount of $333K and above, many do have life insurance policies with payouts of $500k or even $1 million or more (which typically cost only a few hundred a year to maintain). These amounts would all be subject to the estate tax.

 

The median I posted was NET WORTH, not "liquid assets".  Nice try, though.

From the state tax FAQ: http://tax.ohio.gov/faqs/Estate/estate.stm#11

 

11. Are life insurance proceeds taxable?

 

Insurance on the life of the decedent, payable to a beneficiary other than the estate, is not includible for Ohio estate tax purposes.

 

Insurance payable to the estate and insurance contracts, such as matured endowment or supplemental contract wherein the insurance or risk feature ceased prior to death, are includible for Ohio estate tax purposes

 

On another estate tax note, it if you look at it closer, the government has the potential to make much more money with no estate tax than with one. It is a shortsighted argument that many liberals miss because they think they are sticking it to the rich.

 

The reason being is that without the estate tax, the heirs get no step up in basis of their securities and assets. Down the line, these will eventually be sold, and probably for much more than they were worth at the time of death bringing in much more revenue than they would have with the estate tax. Of course the downside is that the asset could decrease in value, but no risk no reward right

 

You can guarantee that the step-up will survive any estate tax repeal.

 

What you and other conservatives fail to realize in all this is that liberals are trying to prevent the income gap from spiraling out of control (which it is).  That is only good for a very small portion of the country.  The rest of us will be left to fight for scraps.

The average Joe has to pay more often than you would think. WHile the average Joe may not have liquid cash in the amount of $333K and above, many do have life insurance policies with payouts of $500k or even $1 million or more (which typically cost only a few hundred a year to maintain). These amounts would all be subject to the estate tax.

 

The median I posted was NET WORTH, not "liquid assets". Nice try, though.

 

Unrealized life insurance proceeds are not part of net worth. They are part of the estate which are two different things. They do not get realized during hte life of the individual so therefore are not part of the net worth.

The reason being is that without the estate tax, the heirs get no step up in basis of their securities and assets. Down the line, these will eventually be sold, and probably for much more than they were worth at the time of death bringing in much more revenue than they would have with the estate tax. Of course the downside is that the asset could decrease in value, but no risk no reward right

 

I might be missing something, but it was my understanding that when an estate is settled you pay estate tax, but not capital gains.  When settling an estate you not only wouldn't be double paying taxes, but you wouldn't even be taxed once.

Yeah, I don't understand why Brutus is assuming the step-up would go away.

 

I'm not super familiar with life insurance policies, but I believe the contracts that are payable to the estate (and taxable) are essentially investment vehicles, not the vanilla policies meant to protect spouses and minors from premature loss of parental support.  I am open to correction if mistaken.

It depends on the type of policy. Term life policies work like car insurance and merely exist to protect spouses and minors from the fallout regarding death of the insured, while most other types fall under the category of permanent insurance which do have characteristics of an investment. Some invest part of the policy premiums into mutual funds, which obviously makes them investment vehicles that merely have higher fees to cover the cost of insurance but are still tax-advantaged.

Black Ohio lawmakers demand that Kasich name minorities to cabinet

Dump some current nominees if necessary, they urge

Thursday, January 27, 2011  12:46 PM

Updated: Thursday, January 27, 2011 04:17 PM

By Ann Sanner, Associated Press

 

COLUMBUS -- Black state lawmakers today demanded that Gov. John Kasich appoint minorities to his cabinet -- even if it means booting out some of his current picks. 

 

The appointees to the new Republican governor's cabinet so far are all white, a first for the state since 1962.

 

Kasich has said he's focused on putting together "the best possible team" without regard for race, gender, ethnicity or sexual orientation.  Today, the president of the Ohio Legislative Black Caucus implored Kasich to make better strides to diversify his cabinet.

 

MORE: http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2011/01/27/black-lawmakers-demand-kasich-appoint-minorities-cabinet.html?sid=101

Kasich getting some heat for his recent quote to state senator Nina Turner

 

http://www.politicsdaily.com/2011/01/29/ohio-democrats-say-gov-john-kasich-ignoring-blacks-in-cabinet-h/

 

In the wake of appointing his state’s first cabinet in nearly 50 years without any racial diversity, and for telling an African-American lawmaker challenging him on his cabinet picks, “I don’t need your people," Kasich issued a statement proclaiming February Black History Month, and announced the appointment of African-American staffer Lynn Stevens to be his Director of Minority Affairs.

 

But Lynn Stevens was ALREADY the Director of Minority Affairs and has been serving in this position for nearly a month.  Why this announcement now?  Hmmm

Did he really say, "'I don't need your people"?

Did he really say, "'I don't need your people"?

 

Yes.

 

His staff member claims he was referring to Democrats. 

Did he really say, "'I don't need your people"?

 

Well, I don't know the guy, but from what I've seen / heard/ read, I wouldn't be surprised if he said it, but meaining something completely different (i.e. people that you want me to hire, or people that you're cramming down my throat). He seems to have a bad habit of speaking before thinking through what it is he means.

 

Hey, reminds me of Bushie. Just a good 'ol boy. Never meanin' no harm. Beats all you ever saw, been in trouble with the law since the day they were born.

Speaking as a minority, I try not to be overly sensitive about things like this. Hopefully his words were just taken out of context, since the media has a tendency to manipulate the material in their possession.

Are white people concerned about this?

 

If the Governor was a man of color and said that, the KKK/Tea Party would outside the Govenors mansion asking for his head.

 

Why aren't more people - regardless of color, race, ethnicity, financial status, sexual orientation - questioning that statement and his cabinet posts?

Speaking as a minority, I try not to be overly sensitive about things like this. Hopefully his words were just taken out of context, since the media has a tendency to manipulate the material in their possession.

Fair enough.  It definitely could be an honest misunderstanding(which I think it is - I think he was referring to Democrats).  But you can see how it can be interpreted the complete opposite way by Nina Turner though in the context of his statement. 

She's pretty fired up.  Now the story is getting legs across the country on all the major media outlets...

No politician would say that if they thought about the possible implications. Even if they think it, deep down...which I don't expect Kasich does, as much as I don't like him.

 

Let the "KKK/Tea Party" be the overreacting idiots. I won't bite.

I stand against John Kasich, but I don't need Nina Turner, either.  She weakens our position.  Legitimate gripes about Kasich letting corporations run the state get conflated with Turner's black-militant-lite shtick.  She makes us reasonable left-wing folks look stupid.  She needs to go away.

Are white people concerned about this?

 

If the Governor was a man of color and said that, the KKK/Tea Party would outside the Govenors mansion asking for his head.

 

Why aren't more people - regardless of color, race, ethnicity, financial status, sexual orientation - questioning that statement and his cabinet posts?

 

Idk MTS, I think I would have to disagree. Not saying that would not happen, but we (black people) tend to get away with making a lot of brash racial statements. As soon as a white person makes a statement that has any kind of racist undertone, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpyton, and the NAACP posse come 'storming' out of the woods.

Im thinking there is no way he meant he doesn't need black people when he said that. I agree with the guys above.

 

I stand against John Kasich, but I don't need Nina Turner, either.  She weakens our position.  Legitimate gripes about Kasich letting corporations run the state get conflated with Turner's black-militant-lite shtick.  She makes us reasonable left-wing folks look stupid.  She needs to go away.

 

If you think that was black militant, then you dont know black militant.

 

Im thinking there is no way he meant he doesn't need black people when he said that. I agree with the guys above.

Based on what she said in that video, i think it's hard to say that with 100% certainty.

 

As a man of color, I too would have thought the same thing, based on who the state administration is being formed.

 

Are white people concerned about this?

 

If the Governor was a man of color and said that, the KKK/Tea Party would outside the Govenors mansion asking for his head.

 

Why aren't more people - regardless of color, race, ethnicity, financial status, sexual orientation - questioning that statement and his cabinet posts?

 

Idk MTS, I think I would have to disagree. Not saying that would not happen, but we (black people) tend to get away with making a lot of brash racial statements. As soon as a white person makes a statement that has any kind of racist undertone, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpyton, and the NAACP posse come 'storming' out of the woods.

 

I'm talking about citizens of OHIO, not the unofficial "national" spokespeople for Blacks.

Hence the "lite."  Black militants were fighting for something.  She's fighting for nothing except her own political career.  It's pathetic.