FTFA:

To fill in the hole they'd blown in the upcoming fiscal budget the DFL then proceeded to float every tax hike known to Garrison Keillor

The writer is an idiot. Keillor is liberal, but he's hardly on the fringe left. When Reagan died he started his show with a gospel song dedicated to the deceased. I just saw PHC live yesterday, and Keillor led everyone at the show into singing both The Star-Spangled Banner and America the Beautiful, and emphasized how much troops matter and veterans matter. I guess she just felt the need to mention the name of a person from Minnesota that would be less obscure to people than Tim Pawlenty.

Of course, I wouldn't be surprised at all if the governor's budget cuts screw over veterans in some fashion.

As long as the bridges stay up, I guess it's ok.

And I'm sure the cuts won't be politically motivated at all.

UNC_Samurai: And I'm sure the cuts won't be politically motivated at all.

spending cuts are the ONLY solution left.

I just wish that our governor would understand that logic.

Weaver95: spending cuts are the ONLY solution left.

I just wish that our governor would understand that logic.

I can make the statement "Attacking out own cities with nuclear weapons is the ONLY solution left" and it is as valid as your statement.

Sid_6.7: Weaver95: spending cuts are the ONLY solution left.

I just wish that our governor would understand that logic.

I can make the statement "Attacking out own cities with nuclear weapons is the ONLY solution left" and it is as valid as your statement.

if you don't have any money and jobs are scarce, how can you raise taxes and spend more money?

cut services. it's the ONLY solution left. If you cut services and everyone is pissed off about it, then you probably did it right.

Cutting spending in a recession is the absolute worst thing you can do. Good job.

GAT_00: Cutting spending in a recession is the absolute worst thing you can do. Good job.

wrong.

if your government has NO MONEY, then you have to cut spending. you HAVE to balance your budget. otherwise you implode.

it's a zero sum game.

Sid_6.7: Weaver95: spending cuts are the ONLY solution left.

I just wish that our governor would understand that logic.

I can make the statement "Attacking out own cities with nuclear weapons is the ONLY solution left" and it is as valid as your statement.

It's the only way to be sure.

Weaver95: wrong.

if your government has NO MONEY, then you have to cut spending. you HAVE to balance your budget. otherwise you implode.

it's a zero sum game.

Federal government tosses them a loan. Cutting spending will only make things worse. You can cut spending on the upswing, but you should never cut spending on the downswing unless you want to make the downswing worse.

GAT_00:
Federal government tosses them a loan.

Where are they going to get the money? Obama JUST SAID that the federal government is broke. AS IN - they have no money.

Cut. Spending.

there is no choice here. state governments have to live within their means, balance their budgets and just deal with the consequences.

Weaver95: wrong.

if your government has NO MONEY, then you have to cut spending. you HAVE to balance your budget. otherwise you implode.

it's a zero sum game.

You can give companies millions or billions of dollars in tax cuts, and if they anticipate no demand for their products, then they are not going to spend that money to create jobs.

If, on the other hand, we nuke our own cities, then we would create thousands of jobs, and vastly reduce unemployment and overpopulation.

If we're crazy enough to nuke ourselves, no one will screw with us internationally. They would know that we would not even hesitate to nuke them. We could cut trillions in defense spending over the next decade.

If we nuke the cities that have the highest median ages, we would remove trillions in liability from Social Security. The increased rates of cancer and other causes of premature death would further reduce the projected burden.

It also reduces our stockpile of nuclear weapons, helping us fulfill treaty obligations. We just have to make certain it is clear that we are not conducting testing when we use the weapons, and in fact are using them offensively against our own citizens as part of a relief program.

It's the ONLY way.

Odds that this "heroic" cuts in spending will hurt the people who actually need it the most, while not trimming an ounce of fat from the budget?

Anyone?

Unless this governor can actually trim fat while hurting the most vulnerable as LITTLE as possible, this is just a grandstanding ploy.

SilentStrider: Unless this governor can actually trim fat while hurting the most vulnerable as LITTLE as possible, this is just a grandstanding ploy.

He's going to mostly screw over four groups:

1. Teachers
2. Students
3. Veterans
4. The poor

Sid_6.7: SilentStrider: Unless this governor can actually trim fat while hurting the most vulnerable as LITTLE as possible, this is just a grandstanding ploy.

He's going to mostly screw over four groups:

1. Teachers
2. Students
3. Veterans
4. The poor

I didn't see any of that in the article.

Weaver95: I didn't see any of that in the article.

If it's a Republican making the cuts, then who else would it screw over?

He's going to cut things like regulatory agencies (hurting #4), health care (2, 3, and 4), education (all of the above), etc.

Sid_6.7: Weaver95: I didn't see any of that in the article.

If it's a Republican making the cuts, then who else would it screw over?

He's going to cut things like regulatory agencies (hurting #4), health care (2, 3, and 4), education (all of the above), etc.

And again, I saw nothing of that in the article.

TFA:

"Included were not just the usual increases in appropriations but gems like $1.2 million in grants for TV and film producers and $200,000 for a youth environmental education program."

So he cut out a LOT of extraneous spending, and it looks like he kept essential services operational. You can spend money on 'the poor' all you want, just make sure you balance your damn budget first. THAT is what this governor did and THAT is what we should all be supporting.

Or did you seriously want to suggest that going into massive and unpayable debt was some kind of virtue?

Weaver95: And again, I saw nothing of that in the article.

Oh please, it is the first spending that every fiscal conservative or Republican ever goes after. There are always better things, but it always comes down to unrestricted capitalism by cutting regulation and fark the poor.

GAT_00: Weaver95: And again, I saw nothing of that in the article.

Oh please, it is the first spending that every fiscal conservative or Republican ever goes after. There are always better things, but it always comes down to unrestricted capitalism by cutting regulation and fark the poor.

I didn't realize that TV stations were considered 'poor'.

Weaver95: I didn't realize that TV stations were considered 'poor'.

Woo, $1.2 million when they have a $4.6 billion shortfall. But since that tiny slice of that isn't something to cut regulation and fark the poor, then I guess the rest of it isn't. That's what your logic just said. That $1.2 million slice wouldn't even be visible on a pie chart, unless you've got a pie chart big enough that you can see 1/4600th of a slice.

GAT_00: Weaver95: I didn't realize that TV stations were considered 'poor'.

Woo, $1.2 million when they have a $4.6 billion shortfall. But since that tiny slice of that isn't something to cut regulation and fark the poor, then I guess the rest of it isn't. That's what your logic just said. That $1.2 million slice wouldn't even be visible on a pie chart, unless you've got a pie chart big enough that you can see 1/4600th of a slice.

That was merely ONE example of something that didn't need to be in the budget. And that is why spending is out of control. But you knew that already.

Again - NONE of what you are saying seems to be the case here. we NEED spending cuts to go with our tax cuts, balancing the budget is the only way to make sure our government survives to meet it's obligations. Read your own responses - at no point have you refuted that fact. even YOU know i'm right, you just don't want to admit it.

Weaver95: Read your own responses - at no point have you refuted that fact. even YOU know i'm right, you just don't want to admit it.

As I said further up the page, cutting spending during a recession is the absolute worst thing you can do. I don't want him to cut anything here except unnecessary programs that do nothing. I also know how fiscal conservatives think, and they think regulations and helping the poor are unnecessary programs. You've certainly demonstrated that time after time in your rants against poor people getting help.

GAT_00: Cutting spending in a recession is the absolute worst thing you can do. Good job.

Congratulations, you are an idiot.

Cutting Spending in a recession, and never running deficits or raising taxes... that is EXACTLY what the Japanese did in the 90s, and it nearly destroyed their country.

Stupid Lib_ertarians

Sid_6.7: Weaver95: I didn't see any of that in the article.

If it's a Republican making the cuts, then who else would it screw over?

He's going to cut things like regulatory agencies (hurting #4), health care (2, 3, and 4), education (all of the above), etc.

Just wanted to hop in here and suggest you suck at this Fark argument thing and give it up immediately if not sooner.

BTW, I am on your side.

But I agree with Weaver in this instance.

Arnold T Pants: Congratulations, you are an idiot.

Really? Because I was under the impression that the whole "recession" thing was the result of decreased spending. Huh.

Arnold T Pants: GAT_00: Cutting spending in a recession is the absolute worst thing you can do. Good job.

Congratulations, you are an idiot.

Let's come back to this issue in a year after we have time to really judge it.

Pawlenty will never be elected to a political office again.

Larry Mahnken: Arnold T Pants: Congratulations, you are an idiot.

Really? Because I was under the impression that the whole "recession" thing was the result of decreased spending. Huh.

how can you spend money that YOU DON'T HAVE IN THE FIRST PLACE!?

want to know how we got into a recession? there ya go. we spent more money than we took in, and couldn't make the interest payments on our loans.

Balance the damn budget. it's the ONLY way to break the cycle.

GAT_00: Cutting spending in a recession is the absolute worst thing you can do. Good job.

durrrrrrrrrr

just because Minnesota has to trim 3% to 4% from a $34 billion budge

Not cutting that much...

How the fark can you be against organ donation; haven't had a chance to RTFA yet.

TheBigBadCrystallineEntity: GAT_00: Cutting spending in a recession is the absolute worst thing you can do. Good job.

durrrrrrrrrr

The great thing is, we now get to test this out.

Remember Minnesota in 2 years when you argued for these spending cuts.

Weaver95: if you don't have any money and jobs are scarce, how can you raise taxes and spend more money?

cut services. it's the ONLY solution left. If you cut services and everyone is pissed off about it, then you probably did it right.

Are you saying no one in Minnesota has money right now?

Look. Let's say you're in the top 1% or 2%. Guess what? Taxation for you is currently less burdensome than at almost any point in the last 70 years. Really. Check the numbers. And tell me that a top-1%er isn't currently paying far less tax than he would have from, say, 1981-1987.

/ Don't say class warfare unless you want to see what *real* class warfare looks like.

Sid_6.7 [TotalFark] Quote 2009-05-24 02:29:09 PM
FTFA:

To fill in the hole they'd blown in the upcoming fiscal budget the DFL then proceeded to float every tax hike known to Garrison Keillor

The writer is an idiot. Keillor is liberal, but he's hardly on the fringe left.

the writer is correct....Liberals = High taxes......that's not a fringe view, that's the hallmark of a ( so-called ) mainstream liberal. NOW, it is true that liberalism itself is a fringe view as it relates to mainstream America but that's another story. Garrison Keillor is a liberal and therefore supports oppressively high taxes for a few and next to no taxes for the rest.

Period

I say we start sending a random member of congress to be imprisoned there every week until we figure it out.

Lawnchair: Are you saying no one in Minnesota has money right now?

No, i'm saying that NOBODY in this country can afford to ignore reality any more. hard times are here - we can't afford to bail out wall street, give grants to TV stations, arrange sweetheart deals for our campaign contributors AND keep unemployment solvent AND keep printing welfare checks AND universal health care AND a war on drugs AND a war on terror, etc, etc...

fun times are over. now we have to balance our budgets. decide what stays and what goes and it WILL hurt. nobody gets out of this mess intact.

My recommendation is that we keep unemployment services alive, since thats basically what's keeping us from having food riots and mass uprisings. Then I'd find ways to keep small businesses from going under, and nail our corporate friends feet to the floor so they can't pull jobs out of the states so easily. But no more grants to TV stations or vague 'youth developement' programs. when things get better, sure. But right now it ain't gonna happen.

Weaver95: My recommendation is that we keep unemployment services alive, since thats basically what's keeping us from having food riots and mass uprisings. Then I'd find ways to keep small businesses from going under, and nail our corporate friends feet to the floor so they can't pull jobs out of the states so easily. But no more grants to TV stations or vague 'youth developement' programs. when things get better, sure. But right now it ain't gonna happen.

Well we gotta keep funding PBS, I can't deal with another month of telethons

Arnold T Pants: Congratulations, you are an idiot.

TheBigBadCrystallineEntity: durrrrrrrrrr




Take note of 1937, Republican trolls. Cutting spending in a recession is a really bad idea.

From an article with actual facts.

[Pawlenty] said he would make the biggest cuts in publicly subsidized health care, welfare, social services, state aid to cities and counties and "probably a little bit in higher education."

A "significant" number of state employees will be laid off, he said. And he will veto "numerous" projects in the $300 million public works bill the Legislature passed Wednesday.

He said he would try to protect public schools from state aid cuts, but he indicated some school payments would be delayed.

/Stuff the Hero tag, tardmitter

Weaver95: Balance the damn budget. it's the ONLY way to break the cycle.

I agree. So does the DFL. That is why they were busy trying to find ways to "pay as you go". Pawlenty was actually asking for permission to borrow extensively to keep spending at current levels. The DFL wouldn't give him the authorization. This is an option neither side really wanted to employ. It isn't remotely as noble as this article is making it out to be. The increased taxes may not have been the best possible option, but that doesn't mean that cutting spending was what anyone wanted to do.

/DFL Precinct Chair

Weaver95: GAT_00:
Federal government tosses them a loan.

Where are they going to get the money? Obama JUST SAID that the federal government is broke. AS IN - they have no money.

Cut. Spending.

there is no choice here. state governments have to live within their means, balance their budgets and just deal with the consequences.

Raise. Taxes.

There is no choice here. State Citizens have to invest in needed services or they will deal with the consequences.

GAT_00: Take note of 1937, Republican trolls. Cutting spending in a recession is a really bad idea.

...because I, as a citizen of the United States, appreciate the fact that the government in 2008 alone paid 451 billion dollars in interest on the outstanding debt. Keep digging! It's the only way out!

Weaver95: how can you spend money that YOU DON'T HAVE IN THE FIRST PLACE!?

want to know how we got into a recession? there ya go. we spent more money than we took in, and couldn't make the interest payments on our loans.

Balance the damn budget. it's the ONLY way to break the cycle.

No, that just makes the cycle worse.

An economy naturally has several positive feedback loops built into it. For example, employment and consumer spending -- when people get laid off, spending goes down, and in response more people get laid off. This leads to instability in the economy, and creates a boom-and-bust cycle where minor fluctuations in employment or spending are amplified and become major swings in economic output.

Government is the only effective force that can oppose this cycle, but only if it is allowed to borrow and repay. If they operate on the same principle as industry, they only aid in the amplification effect. Rather, they need to oppose the boom-and-bust cycle, borrowing during a bust and repaying during a boom.

Further, government borrowing helps stabilize the economy by creating a low-risk investment option, the various treasury securities. Financial institutions invest greatly in treasuries, which are far more secure than other types of investment. Can you imagine how bad this financial crisis would have been if all that money had been invested in the stock market (or god forbid, more mortgage-backed securities)?

State and local governments own over half a trillion in government securities; pension funds own almost as much. Banks and insurance companies own another $250 billion, mutual funds another $700 billion, and other investors about $400 billion. That totals over $2.3 trillion in safe investments that are still making money for those who hold them. Imagine what would have happened had that money been elsewhere instead.

idsfa: [Pawlenty] said he would make the biggest cuts in publicly subsidized health care, welfare, social services, state aid to cities and counties and "probably a little bit in higher education."

Oh, fun! I hope I still have health insurance. I need my Minnesota Care. Things are pretty tight with it.

*can't be NC....can't be NC....can't be NC....*

YES!

Dear Minnesota,

Please loan us your governor.

Cordially,
California

detfrost1: How the fark can you be against organ donation; haven't had a chance to RTFA yet.
My cousin, who has a liver from a close friend who died in a car crash, would really like show subby some common-sense.

/You're dead, you aren't using them. Give what you will never need again.
//Organ donor.

Those of us who live up here, Weaver 95, know Pawlenty is targeting local schools, health care and services for the poor and indigent. And I bet a dollar a hot dish (with tater tots of course) that the schools and health care facilities that will really feel it are the ones that need the funding the most

This is all a game so Pawlenty can be a viable candidate in 2012, IF he gets re-elected in Minnesota. That's doubtful. He couldn't run against Klobuchar because she'd crush every GOP candidate up here, so he has to stay in the GOP race.

He's not as bad as Perry, Sanford, Barbour, Palin and the other GOP governor grandstanders, but he's close.

OgreMagi: Dear Minnesota,

Please loan us your governor.

Cordially,
California

Loan? You can have him, provided you take his Lt. Governor with him.

OgreMagi: Dear Minnesota,

Please loan us your governor.

Cordially,
California

Huh? Arnold is doing the same thing. You dipshiats blame the pols out there when the fault rests squarely on the voter's laps.