News: "Kansas tax collections nearly $54M below expectations in February; universities face millions in cuts" (violation, personal)

[Mathguy]

Originally Posted by GraniteStater

Yes, I understand that point. However, the lower employment levels with respect to total state employment in the energy sector in Kansas does not qualify it has an "energy patch" state compared to Oklahoma, Wyoming, North Dakota, Alaska, etc.

Again, not the point.

The point about Oklahoma was in response to someone believing that only one other state had a budget issue and that they could therefore draw a conclusion on causation.

Since MANY other states have budget issues, with Oklahoma just presented as an example it opens up the case that yes, outside economic forces, cyclical business, poor planning or overestimated growth and much much more could also be factors.

So, I never claimed that KS had the same excuse as Oklahoma but pointed out that yes....more than 2 states have issues. Does each state have the same issues? No. But then again I wasn't the one making that claim in the first place.

I guess you think Illinois is an energy patch state too?

[SyraBrian]

Originally Posted by Mathguy

Just remember, when it goes negative by 1.7million some month to show it as a percentage rather than total dollars because 1.7 million makes the number seem material and 0.1% or so just makes people shrug.

1.7 Million is 0.1% of 1.7 billion dollars. I'm guessing if the Kansas state government took in that much money monthly, it wouldn't have a budget problem.

[Mathguy]

Originally Posted by SyraBrian

1.7 Million is 0.1% of 1.7 billion dollars. I'm guessing if the Kansas state government took in that much money monthly, it wouldn't have a budget problem.

"or so"

For an individual month, being off by 0.1% or 1% or -0.5% type numbers are pretty minor and since I don't have the specific March estimate in front of me I threw out a number and added the caveat "or so". If you happen to have the March number and want to give us the exact percentage then wonderful but are you familiar with the words "materially different"?

Now if you are an engineer building a bridge or launching a rocket then that's catastrophic....but for financial forecasting....not really.

However sweetie, when making financial estimates into an uncertain future that can be impacted by a large variety of forces it's "roughly" meaningless. When you do your first one sometime you'll perhaps understand but for now we greatly appreciate your continued input with regards to a process you clearly have no experience with and all you can add is sniping.

[phxone]

Originally Posted by Mathguy

Again, not the point.

The point about Oklahoma was in response to someone believing that only one other state had a budget issue and that they could therefore draw a conclusion on causation.

Since MANY other states have budget issues, with Oklahoma just presented as an example it opens up the case that yes, outside economic forces, cyclical business, poor planning or overestimated growth and much much more could also be factors.

So, I never claimed that KS had the same excuse as Oklahoma but pointed out that yes....more than 2 states have issues. Does each state have the same issues? No. But then again I wasn't the one making that claim in the first place.

I guess you think Illinois is an energy patch state too?

Do you work for the Brownback administration? It seems like you lurk on these forums just waiting to pounce on any poster that is critical of Kansas and you specifically target anyone that posts anything negative regarding Brownback and his policies.

[Mathguy]

Originally Posted by phxone

Do you work for the Brownback administration? It seems like you lurk on these forums just waiting to pounce on any poster that is critical of Kansas and you specifically target anyone that posts anything negative regarding Brownback and his policies.

1) Um, I must be targeting myself as I'm made many disparaging remarks about Brownback and his failed policies. I've never voted for him and was not happy he was re-elected.

2) We have a number of far-left nutjobs that like to come into this forum and make claims like KS is so broke that they're having to sell sex toys to make their budget work. Specific to this thread it wasn't long ago when the Brownback admin was running budget surpluses but it was claimed to be meaningless.

So, stick to the facts and don't puke up partisan drivel about the state collapsing utterly and you won't have to worry about me upsetting them people rebuttals.

[phxone]

Originally Posted by Mathguy

1) Um, I must be targeting myself as I'm made many disparaging remarks about Brownback and his failed policies. I've never voted for him and was not happy he was re-elected.

2) We have a number of far-left nutjobs that like to come into this forum and make claims like KS is so broke that they're having to sell sex toys to make their budget work. Specific to this thread it wasn't long ago when the Brownback admin was running budget surpluses but it was claimed to be meaningless.

So, stick to the facts and don't puke up partisan drivel about the state collapsing utterly and you won't have to worry about me upsetting them people rebuttals.

I noticed that you didn't actually answer my question. Are you employed by the Brownback administration? Do you consider yourself a far right nutjob?

[SyraBrian]

Originally Posted by Mathguy

"or so"

For an individual month, being off by 0.1% or 1% or -0.5% type numbers are pretty minor and since I don't have the specific March estimate in front of me I threw out a number and added the caveat "or so". If you happen to have the March number and want to give us the exact percentage then wonderful but are you familiar with the words "materially different"?

Now if you are an engineer building a bridge or launching a rocket then that's catastrophic....but for financial forecasting....not really.

However sweetie, when making financial estimates into an uncertain future that can be impacted by a large variety of forces it's "roughly" meaningless. When you do your first one sometime you'll perhaps understand but for now we greatly appreciate your continued input with regards to a process you clearly have no experience with and all you can add is sniping.

You're the math buff. You should be more exacting.

[Mathguy]

Originally Posted by phxone

I noticed that you didn't actually answer my question. Are you employed by the Brownback administration? Do you consider yourself a far right nutjob?

I thought it was a rhetorical question considering speculating about stuff like that can be a TOS violation.

Tell you what, you tell me your educational background and profession first and I will answer your question.

[Mathguy]

Originally Posted by SyraBrian

You're the math buff. You should be more exacting.

Being exacting for things that aren't exact is actually a rookie mistake when communicating with business leaders and so forth (this means people other than business leaders, just so you don't come back and complain that it can apply to people other than business leaders ).

Expressing fine detail without adding words like about, roughly, approximately and so forth implies an accuracy that is not reality.

If you work in forecasting for example, which is a wiser statement?

"Growth will be 3.024%"

or

"Growth will be approximately 3%"

If you work as an engineer which is the better statement?

The part needs to be 1.0250 meters long

or

The part needs to be about 1 meter long

Hope this helps.

P.S. If you read up above I specifically note that a possible cause of the budget shortfall could be the Brownback administration pressuring for better forecast numbers. We don't know for sure but it's possible and since we are dealing with politicians it's not wild speculation either. Just pointing it out because it seems like as long as I say things bad about Brownback or that he might be monkeying with the numbers you guys fail to notice it.

[phxone]

Originally Posted by Mathguy

I thought it was a rhetorical question considering speculating about stuff like that can be a TOS violation.

Tell you what, you tell me your educational background and profession first and I will answer your question.

I think your evasiveness tells me all I need to know. I will just ignore your partisan BS from now on. And just so you know the constant personal attacks and insults, which are pretty much all you contribute to this forum are a violation of the TOS. You ruin the Kansas forum with your attempts to turn it into your own personal right wing playground.