All the GDP numbers are in this report.  Page 75.  Both US and Ohio numbers side by side.

 

http://development.ohio.gov/files/research/E1001.pdf

 

By my calculation...

 

Year National GDP Growth Rate Ohio GDP Growth Rate

2003                 2.8%                   1.6%

2004                 3.8%                   2.1%

2005                 3.3%                        1.3%

2006                 2.7%                   0.1%

2007                 1.8%                 -0.8%

2008                -0.3%                 -1.6%

2009                -2.8%                 -5.2%

2010                 2.5%                   2.5%

2011                 1.6%                   2.5%

2012                  2.3%                   3.0%

2013                 2.2%                   1.7%

 

Why don't you do it?  I've never claimed that the State's economy was roaring along with Strickland in office.  I didn't even like Strickland.  All I was saying, and you still have yet to find anything to refute it, is that if you are going to claim that Ohio's economy is improving, then you must also agree that the nation's economy is improving.  That's as simple as saying the sky is blue and water is wet.  Agreed?  No amount of cheerleading and cherry-picking stats can lead you to any other conclusion.

Because if I do it, it'll just be questioned.  Besides, it would be nice for once seeing a Dem. support their party or their candidate with something positive about their candidate rather than just say how bad the other candidate is..

Besides, it would be nice for once seeing a Dem. support their party or their candidate with something positive about their candidate rather than just say how bad the other candidate is..

 

You can't be serious.  You say this as the Republicans have been running against Obama in every election for the last four years.  The trend this election season is to call your opponent an "Obama Democrat".  What exactly is the substantive issue or piece of legislation they are touting on the campaign trail this season?

^^Why would I do that?  First, I am not a "Dem"..... I'm a Freedomistismitarian (Big "F" that is.... and you only disagree with me because you hate freedom).  Second, I've already stated more than once that I plan to vote for Kasich.

 

As shocking as it might seem to some people...... I, for one, vote on merit, not party line.  Kasich has done nothing to lose the job and Fitzgerald does not excite me at all.

 

Regardless, how are you going to compare the two?  One took over when the State was already in a recession and then had to finish out his term during the worst economic period in the country, which hit Ohio particularly hard, since the Great Depression.  The other essentially took over the reins when the state AND the nation were both on the road to recovery.  Totally different circumstances.  Not comparable at all.

^^Why would I do that?  First, I am not a "Dem"..... I'm a Freedomistismitarian (Big "F" that is.... and you only disagree with me because you hate freedom).  Second, I've already stated more than once that I plan to vote for Kasich.

 

As shocking as it might seem to some people...... I, for one, vote on merit, not party line.  Kasich has done nothing to lose the job and Fitzgerald does not excite me at all.

 

Regardless, how are you going to compare the two?  One took over when the State was already in a recession and then had to finish out his term during the worst economic period in the country, which hit Ohio particularly hard, since the Great Depression.  The other essentially took over the reins when the state AND the nation were both on the road to recovery.  Totally different circumstances.  Not comparable at all.

Well I'm an Independent, as in Independent thinker.  I supported Fitz for CC, but don't think he would be a better option than Kasich for Gov., it's just that simple.

I supported Fitz for CC, but don't think he would be a better option than Kasich for Gov., it's just that simple.

 

agreed.  It was a disappointment to see him bail on the Cuyahoga Exec position after barely a term, so much left to be accomplished there.  He has zero traction against Kasich.  If he had stayed at County Exec another term, the governor race could be wide open, especially if Kasich decides to run for prez in 2016.  At this point, what does Fitz do after he loses the Governor race? 

At this point, what does Fitz do after he loses the Governor race? 

 

Good question. Guy seems like a career politician. I'm not sure he's ever held a private sector job.

According to the Law of Reagan, if you're a politician serving in an executive role, you get credit for a strong economy even if it happens several years after you've left office. Therefore at the moment I think it's wonderful that Ohio is benefitting from the Strickland Recovery despite Kasich's best efforts to balance budgets on the backs of the little guy.

At this point, what does Fitz do after he loses the Governor race? 

 

Good question. Guy seems like a career politician. I'm not sure he's ever held a private sector job.

 

There's an empty hole someplace that perhaps he could consider crawling back into.

At this point, what does Fitz do after he loses the Governor race? 

 

Good question. Guy seems like a career politician. I'm not sure he's ever held a private sector job.

 

With who he knows and what he knows, it won't be a problem getting a job.  Especially as a former FBI agent.

 

The latest rumor is that he was with Grehan in Ireland a month before the parking lot incident.  The source on that one is pretty reliable, and no Kasich fan.

At this point, what does Fitz do after he loses the Governor race? 

 

Good question. Guy seems like a career politician. I'm not sure he's ever held a private sector job.

 

With who he knows and what he knows, it won't be a problem getting a job.  Especially as a former FBI agent.

 

The latest rumor is that he was with Grehan in Ireland a month before the parking lot incident.  The source on that one is pretty reliable, and no Kasich fan.

 

No I agree he'll have no problem finding a job, just curious where he'll end up.  In a federal office somewhere?  Not likely in a state office if Kasich wins.  Would he come back as some administrative role at Cuyahoga County?

^My guess would be a Safety Director in some City.

 

Well I'm an Independent, as in Independent thinker.

 

I sure hope so.  You are a sentient being not hooked up to a permanent mind-control device, correct? 

 

Do we have any members on this forum who are not independent thinkers?  Anyone?  Bueller?

John Huntsman would like to welcome Kasich to his rare breed of GOP presidential hopefuls, homo unelectable

 

"That's not gonna happen," Kasich reportedly told the AP when asked about a repeal of Obamacare, something many GOP candidates for president and Congress favor.

 

"The opposition to it was really either political or ideological," Kasich added, again, as the AP cast it, presumably talking about Obamacare as a whole. "I don't think that holds water against real flesh and blood, and real improvements in people's lives."

 

http://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf/2014/10/gov_john_kasich_still_wants_to.html

 

Well.... at least we know he is not going to bail on us in 2 years.

At this point, what does Fitz do after he loses the Governor race? 

 

Good question. Guy seems like a career politician. I'm not sure he's ever held a private sector job.

 

With who he knows and what he knows, it won't be a problem getting a job.  Especially as a former FBI agent.

 

The latest rumor is that he was with Grehan in Ireland a month before the parking lot incident.  The source on that one is pretty reliable, and no Kasich fan.

 

No I agree he'll have no problem finding a job, just curious where he'll end up.  In a federal office somewhere?  Not likely in a state office if Kasich wins.  Would he come back as some administrative role at Cuyahoga County?

 

Probably some sort of lobbyist, or "security consultant".  There's some question over why he left the FBI, but he was a special agent with all the training....

^My guess would be a Safety Director in some City.

 

I think you're right, I saw Ed last night at the bar.

^My guess would be a Safety Director in some City.

 

I think you're right, I saw Ed last night at the bar.

 

LOL!  Ness was never a numbered Public Official.

^he most certainly would've been if he lived in these times.

John Huntsman would like to welcome Kasich to his rare breed of GOP presidential hopefuls, homo unelectable

 

"That's not gonna happen," Kasich reportedly told the AP when asked about a repeal of Obamacare, something many GOP candidates for president and Congress favor.

 

"The opposition to it was really either political or ideological," Kasich added, again, as the AP cast it, presumably talking about Obamacare as a whole. "I don't think that holds water against real flesh and blood, and real improvements in people's lives."

 

http://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf/2014/10/gov_john_kasich_still_wants_to.html:

 

Well.... at least we know he is not going to bail on us in 2 years.

 

Not so fast there.  Kasich's changed his mind about about repealing Obamacare.  Or not, if you believe his explanation.

 

From http://wonkette.com/564025/gov-kasich-will-still-murder-your-obamacare-ohio-except-for-all-the-parts-of-it:  "He still thinks that Obamacare can and should be repealed.  Instead, what he really REALLY meant was that Medicaid expansion, which in his mind is somehow not part of Obamacare, shouldn’t be repealed:  “I have favored expanding Medicaid, but I don’t really see expanding Medicaid as really connected to Obamacare,” Kasich told Politico."

 

"This is a rather interesting position, seeing as how Medicaid expansion originated with that bill called the “Affordable Care Act.”  It’s especially puzzling, given that 20 states have refused to expand Medicaid because they say it’s part of something that they have stubbornly been calling “Obamacare.” "

Too late.  Damage done.  He will serve a full term. 

 

That said, I would be very interested in a specific answer (not dumbed down talking points and meaningless platitudes) to what he would replace it with.  Most of the more pragmatic opponents of the law, as I assume Kasich is, would tell you (with a gun to the head) that they are in favor of most every material part of the law....... Medicaid expansion, protection for people with pre-existing conditions, raising the age for which young adults can be covered under their parents insurance, and even some form of an individual mandate to guarantee the 'makers' are not paying for the 'takers'

Too late.  Damage done.  He will serve a full term. 

 

That said, I would be very interested in a specific answer (not dumbed down talking points and meaningless platitudes) to what he would replace it with.  Most of the more pragmatic opponents of the law, as I assume Kasich is, would tell you (with a gun to the head) that they are in favor of most every material part of the law....... Medicaid expansion, protection for people with pre-existing conditions, raising the age for which young adults can be covered under their parents insurance, and even some form of an individual mandate to guarantee the 'makers' are not paying for the 'takers'

 

It's moments like these when I feel the need to ask you if you still really believe that this guy isn't a partisan hack?

Too late.  Damage done.  He will serve a full term. 

 

That said, I would be very interested in a specific answer (not dumbed down talking points and meaningless platitudes) to what he would replace it with.  Most of the more pragmatic opponents of the law, as I assume Kasich is, would tell you (with a gun to the head) that they are in favor of most every material part of the law....... Medicaid expansion, protection for people with pre-existing conditions, raising the age for which young adults can be covered under their parents insurance, and even some form of an individual mandate to guarantee the 'makers' are not paying for the 'takers'

 

I don't necessarily want to make this just an ACA discussion, since there's a lot more to Kasich's candidacy than the Medicaid expansion, but I really don't think you'd find a whole lot of "pragmatic opponents" of the law still endorsing the individual mandate.  And those who understand the nature of the insurance industry aren't all too keen on the preexisting conditions coverage, either; if anything, those saying that they oppose the law but support the preexisting conditions coverage mandate are the partisan hacks, trying to profit off of both the unpopularity of the law and the current popularity of the provisions within it that are most unworkable over the long term.

^^Yes.  I really do believe that he is not a partisan hack.

 

^I guess we will just have to wait for those "common sense reforms" to be spelled out...... and wait...... and wait...... and wait.  It shouldn't take longer than another 50 or so years.

 

The bottom line message to me, as taken from the panic attack the Kasich campaign had when the AP story came out, is that you can forget about pragmatism and common-sense when it comes to health care reform.  How long has it been and we still can't have an 'adult conversation' on the topic due to all the vitriol and fear-mongering?  The pre-existing condition coverage was the big one..... the issue which we desperately needed reform.  That isn't going away.  No one is that heartless now that those people have coverage.  The individual mandate was, simply put, a 'necessary evil' (for lack of a better term) included to allow the private insurance market to survive.  Kasich understands that, I'm sure.  He can't admit it, but he understands it.  If those who hate the ACA don't like the conservative model and would prefer to go with a more liberal reform, I'm sure the other side would not fight them.

Excerpt from the Rolling Stone article posted here - http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,18785.3360.html

 

Brownback hardly stands alone among the class of Republican governors who managed to get themselves elected four years ago as part of the anti-Obama Tea Party wave by peddling musty supply-side fallacies. In Ohio, Gov. John Kasich – whose press releases claim he's wrought an "Ohio Miracle" – has presided over a shrinking economy, this past July being the 21st consecutive month in which the state's job growth has lagged behind the national average.

^ Rolling Stone appears to have declared war on the Tea Party.

^ I rarely, if ever, post articles from HuffPost, MSNBC, etc....... but Rolling Stone has been cited numerous times by the more conservative leaning members of our forum (at least when it puts out an article they agree with).  There are a ton of articles out there (outside of the Tea Party vacuum / echo chamber) citing Kansas as a miserably failed Tea Party economics experiment.  I chose to post the Rolling Stone one because I thought it wouldn't be attacked due to the source.  I guess I was wrong.  No way 'round that dag'gone laimstreem libral media shtick.

 

Re Kansas.... this is what happens when you try to institute Texas economic policy without the abundance of natural resources to balance out the revenue shortfall.  Take careful note of that, Ohio.  I think Kasich understands even if our radical, rural district controlled General Assembly does not.

^ I rarely, if ever, post articles from HuffPost, MSNBC, etc....... but Rolling Stone has been cited numerous times by the more conservative leaning members of our forum (at least when it puts out an article they agree with).  There are a ton of articles out there (outside of the Tea Party vacuum / echo chamber) citing Kansas as a miserably failed Tea Party economics experiment.  I chose to post the Rolling Stone one because I thought it wouldn't be attacked due to the source.  I guess I was wrong.  No way 'round that dag'gone laimstreem libral media shtick.

 

Re Kansas.... this is what happens when you try to institute Texas economic policy without the abundance of natural resources to balance out the revenue shortfall.  Take careful note of that, Ohio.  I think Kasich understands even if our radical, rural district controlled General Assembly does not.

It's always been liberal, even when P.J. O'Rourke was a columnist he was considered the "token conservative".

^ I rarely, if ever, post articles from HuffPost, MSNBC, etc....... but Rolling Stone has been cited numerous times by the more conservative leaning members of our forum (at least when it puts out an article they agree with).

 

I'm not sure which other Rolling Stone articles you're thinking about.  When Rolling Stone has gone into political articles, it's almost always been pretty hard to the left, and often rather condescending about it, too.  Matt Taibbi, the most recognized name on their political stories for the past several years (though he left the magazine earlier this year) is a pretty out-there liberal, even if he's a better writer than most.  The only time I can remember a Rolling Stone article that got some general conservative approval, it was on an issue that is a coalition-splitter for both parties: the financial industry.  RS' piece on Goldman Sachs therefore got some conservative thumbs up, but also plenty of liberal thumbs-up as well (as well as plenty of thumbs-down from both sides), because it was on an issue that never had much of a partisan divide.  On any issue where the parties are split, RS takes either the line that the Democrats are right or the line that the Democrats aren't liberal enough.

Why bother to address the merits when you can dismiss the contention based solely on the source?

 

How about Politico?  http://www.politico.com/story/2014/07/kansas-2014-election-sam-brownback-108952_Page2.html

 

The Hill? http://thehill.com/policy/finance/218449-norquist-defends-tax-cuts-despite-brownback-woes

 

Wall Street Journal?  http://online.wsj.com/articles/sam-brownbacks-tax-cut-push-puts-kansas-out-on-its-own-1402448126

I wasn't even necessarily attacking the argument; my problem was with your characterization of Rolling Stone itself, so in this case, it really was about the source--because you, too, were saying something directly about the source.

 

In terms of Brownback's actual record in Kansas, there's a lot going on in Kansas and its status as a deep-red state is actually somewhat recent and may have been somewhat overblown; it certainly has a powerful populist streak (even though its most infamous residents are the Koch brothers), but both conservative and liberal populism have both found receptive ears there in the past.  Kansas may well be a warning about conservative policies--but if you believe that a state's economic fortunes really are so tied to its political management, then Rhode Island is an even starker warning about liberal policies, as is Michigan (even though the current governor is Republican, the state is still basically blue).

I wasn't even necessarily attacking the argument; my problem was with your characterization of Rolling Stone itself, so in this case, it really was about the source--because you, too, were saying something directly about the source.

 

I only said anything in response to the implication that the source was waging a "War" on the Tea Party.

 

 

In terms of Brownback's actual record in Kansas, there's a lot going on in Kansas and its status as a deep-red state is actually somewhat recent and may have been somewhat overblown; it certainly has a powerful populist streak (even though its most infamous residents are the Koch brothers), but both conservative and liberal populism have both found receptive ears there in the past.  Kansas may well be a warning about conservative policies--but if you believe that a state's economic fortunes really are so tied to its political management, then Rhode Island is an even starker warning about liberal policies, as is Michigan (even though the current governor is Republican, the state is still basically blue).

 

I don't think it is a warning about 'conservative policies'...... I think it is a warning about extremist Tea Party policies, sans the effects of global changes which particularly impacted a state like Michigan.  There is a big difference in my mind between conservative policies and Tea Party policies.  The former, in theory, would never follow an extremist approach and make dramatic shifts in policy in such a short time.

 

I know Kansas had some major players in the abolitionist movement.  What other liberal populism ideas were you thinking of?

I know Kansas had some major players in the abolitionist movement.  What other liberal populism ideas were you thinking of?

 

William Jennings Bryan had a massive following in Kansas--agricultural populism against the Gilded Age Republican financial elite.

^Well.... 'The Gilded Age Republican financial elite' back in the 19th Century is probably something akin to the 'Limousine liberals' of present times, no?  Certainly, the Republican Party of the late 19th Century can't really be compared in any respect with today's Republican Party.  Who (were) dey?  Dey were the dang Yanks!

^^Yes.  I really do believe that he is not a partisan hack.

 

^I guess we will just have to wait for those "common sense reforms" to be spelled out...... and wait...... and wait...... and wait.  It shouldn't take longer than another 50 or so years.

 

The bottom line message to me, as taken from the panic attack the Kasich campaign had when the AP story came out, is that you can forget about pragmatism and common-sense when it comes to health care reform.  How long has it been and we still can't have an 'adult conversation' on the topic due to all the vitriol and fear-mongering?  The pre-existing condition coverage was the big one..... the issue which we desperately needed reform.  That isn't going away.  No one is that heartless now that those people have coverage.  The individual mandate was, simply put, a 'necessary evil' (for lack of a better term) included to allow the private insurance market to survive.  Kasich understands that, I'm sure.  He can't admit it, but he understands it.  If those who hate the ACA don't like the conservative model and would prefer to go with a more liberal reform, I'm sure the other side would not fight them.

 

Here's the problem. If Kasich is already behaving like this on an issue that he has previously taken a moderate position, it's scary to think about to what other lengths he will go over the next few years to try to prove that he is a legitimate conservative to the extremists that overwhelmingly dominate the voting base in the Republican presidential primaries. Ohio is too purple to end up becoming a conservative extremist policy laboratory.

I have that same concern, but I don't think it is going much beyond rhetoric with Kasich. He's a lot smarter and a lot less extreme compared to Brownback

I chose to post the Rolling Stone one because I thought it wouldn't be attacked due to the source.  I guess I was wrong.  No way 'round that dag'gone laimstreem libral media shtick.

 

 

Attacked?

^ Rolling Stone appears to have declared war on the Tea Party.

 

I wonder what WWII veterans think of this term "war on" being bandied about so freely.

Here's the problem. If Kasich is already behaving like this on an issue that he has previously taken a moderate position, it's scary to think about to what other lengths he will go over the next few years to try to prove that he is a legitimate conservative to the extremists that overwhelmingly dominate the voting base in the Republican presidential primaries. Ohio is too purple to end up becoming a conservative extremist policy laboratory.

If it depends upon winning the right-wing extremists sitting in the Republican Party's drivers seat, Kasich has zero chance of winning the presidential nomination. Even here in Ohio, very few of the Tea Partiers are actually happy with him, even if they hold their noses and will vote for him anyway. They don't believe that he is one of them, and he isn't. He's a solid moderate-right Wall Street corporatist more than anything else.

 

He lacks anything remotely resembling the acting skills necessary to pull off wearing the far-right Tea Party mask, and if he does try, it will backfire on him badly, both locally and nationally.

 

 

^ Rolling Stone appears to have declared war on the Tea Party.

 

I wonder what WWII veterans think of this term "war on" being bandied about so freely.

 

Well they could have seance and ask Nixon, Reagan and Lyndon Johnson.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_Poverty

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_Drugs

How much was spent on those as compared to paying the Rolling Stone writer $5 a word?

The topic is not Rolling Stone. The topic is the Gubernatorial election, please.

If it depends upon winning the right-wing extremists sitting in the Republican Party's drivers seat, Kasich has zero chance of winning the presidential nomination. Even here in Ohio, very few of the Tea Partiers are actually happy with him, even if they hold their noses and will vote for him anyway. They don't believe that he is one of them, and he isn't. He's a solid moderate-right Wall Street corporatist more than anything else.

 

He lacks anything remotely resembling the acting skills necessary to pull off wearing the far-right Tea Party mask, and if he does try, it will backfire on him badly, both locally and nationally.

 

While this is definitely true, it doesn't mean that he won't try to enact a few high-profile, extremist conservative ideas to try to prove his bona fides to Republican primary voters. It wouldn't be the first time someone like Kasich has taken such action to try to play to a primary base. We here in Ohio could be stuck with bad policy for years after Kasich has left office because he was trying to prove something.

I learned a lot about Ed Fitzgerald just now.

 

 

Watch John Kasich pretend Ed Fitzgerald isn't next to him in the room. And completely avoid answering a question during the Cleveland Plain Dealer's interview of the candidates. The question is basically, "why is it good public policy to place a gag rule on rape crisis councilors from discussing abortion?" His response: I'm pro life. Despite repeated attempts to get him to answer the question, he simply dodges it.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o6b06HebYj4

I wish more voters cared about Kasich's record or the fact that he is a rude boor.

^I agree, but Fitzgerald lost this election.  He was just a bad candidate from the beginning and couldn't get the support needed to pose a real threat to Kasich.  Kasich also did a good job changing his image after the SB5 fiasco.  He fought his own party on a number of issues and made himself look like the reasonable one in the room (compared to the state Republicans).  He's a seasoned politician and he did what he needed to do to put himself in a position to win.

I agree. I completely agree. They could have run a mentally deficient ape and with decent talking points, beaten Kasich. But they got less than that.

^Doubt that.  Kasich would be a formidable opponent in a mid-term election for just about anyone they put up.  Keep in mind that the turnout in mid-terms is much higher for conservative leaning demographics (white, older, more suburban and rural).  What Ohio Dems should be pushing for is either 6 year terms (which would cause every other election to fall on the Presidential year) or for the gubernatorial election to be moved to Presidential election years, when Ohio is a 'bluer' shade of purple typically.

Moot, unfortunately. But you may be right.

And you will always have a very hard time getting a liberal from NEO elected to statewide office.  Better off with an Ohio River or central Ohio liberal.  Too much animosity from the rest of the state, particularly the conservative factions, for good reasons in part.

Agreed on that point, as well.