U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Minnesota
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 07-12-2011, 02:36 AM
 
1,812 posts, read 1,407,724 times
Reputation: 746

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by southernsmoke View Post
I mean, I agree that keeping government services would prevent some political backlash, but it would prevent backlash against both the legislature and the governor. I find it odd that you think reaching consensus on some issues to minimize the negative consequences of the political gridlock is somehow undesirable and nothing more than a way for Republicans to avoid backlash. This is only true if people irrationally blame the Republicans for everything (which, sadly enough, they may). It is your attitude about this that makes me believe that Dayton vetoed those provisions for the sole purpose of inflicting pain on Minnesotans, hoping that they would naively blame the Republican legislature. I just find it incredible that you suggest it is "crooked and corrupt" to try to keep the vast majority of the state government running. I think just the opposite--Dayton is the one shutting down state functions and sending state workers home just to inflict pain and tick people off, trusting that the Strib can convince enough people to hate the Republicans for it.
I am not happy that Gov. Dayton shut it down. Despite your logic that anyone left of you is some crazy liberal fanatic who would obviously lick Dayton's shoes, I like to think of myself as slightly more pragmatic than that.

Dayton could have kept the lights on. It wouldn't have helped me too much, besides being able to stop at the rest stops (I've been doing quite a bit of traveling recently), but I know a lot of people are hurting because of the shutdown. And maybe Dayton should have kept the lights on. But my question - that you didn't answer - was would you be equally as harsh on the legislature if this was 2005? I can bet you would have been giving Pawlenty a lot less flak than Dayton if we were back a few years when he shut down the government.

One thing I'd like to see to is that none of the legislatures or the governor or anyone in government who isn't deemed essential (fire, police, etc.) should be getting a paycheck. If you play hardball and say you're not going to compromise (either side), then you have to be willing to have your pay cut. If we don't get services, you don't get pay.

22,000 state workers are out of jobs. I think we've glossed over this far too much. These are people. Regardless of how big you think government should be, these workers are honest, everyday people who need to feed their children, pay the mortgage, and generally live.

 
Old 07-12-2011, 04:57 AM
 
20,797 posts, read 32,938,229 times
Reputation: 9910
Quote:
Originally Posted by xandrex View Post
I am not happy that Gov. Dayton shut it down. Despite your logic that anyone left of you is some crazy liberal fanatic who would obviously lick Dayton's shoes, I like to think of myself as slightly more pragmatic than that.

Dayton could have kept the lights on. It wouldn't have helped me too much, besides being able to stop at the rest stops (I've been doing quite a bit of traveling recently), but I know a lot of people are hurting because of the shutdown. And maybe Dayton should have kept the lights on. But my question - that you didn't answer - was would you be equally as harsh on the legislature if this was 2005? I can bet you would have been giving Pawlenty a lot less flak than Dayton if we were back a few years when he shut down the government.

One thing I'd like to see to is that none of the legislatures or the governor or anyone in government who isn't deemed essential (fire, police, etc.) should be getting a paycheck. If you play hardball and say you're not going to compromise (either side), then you have to be willing to have your pay cut. If we don't get services, you don't get pay.

22,000 state workers are out of jobs. I think we've glossed over this far too much. These are people. Regardless of how big you think government should be, these workers are honest, everyday people who need to feed their children, pay the mortgage, and generally live.
Technically Dayton did not shut down the government, the constitution shut down the government because the legislature did not have a budget done by fiscal year end and you can't pay people/service, etc. if a budget is not in place--except for essential services. The MN Zoo, for example, was able to stay open because their budget does not have to go through appropriations like everything else in the state.
 
Old 07-12-2011, 04:58 AM
 
20,797 posts, read 32,938,229 times
Reputation: 9910
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shalako View Post
I dunno. Could be a good idea to leave it closed for awhile. Folks may find out they didn't really need it anyway and the economy could improve dramatically without the Government messing around with it.
Or the opposite-which IS happening-people realize just how much they DO depend on state services and stop whining about every dollar that is spent
 
Old 07-12-2011, 08:26 AM
 
440 posts, read 308,791 times
Reputation: 257
Quote:
Originally Posted by xandrex View Post
I am not happy that Gov. Dayton shut it down. Despite your logic that anyone left of you is some crazy liberal fanatic who would obviously lick Dayton's shoes, I like to think of myself as slightly more pragmatic than that.

Dayton could have kept the lights on. It wouldn't have helped me too much, besides being able to stop at the rest stops (I've been doing quite a bit of traveling recently), but I know a lot of people are hurting because of the shutdown. And maybe Dayton should have kept the lights on. But my question - that you didn't answer - was would you be equally as harsh on the legislature if this was 2005? I can bet you would have been giving Pawlenty a lot less flak than Dayton if we were back a few years when he shut down the government.

One thing I'd like to see to is that none of the legislatures or the governor or anyone in government who isn't deemed essential (fire, police, etc.) should be getting a paycheck. If you play hardball and say you're not going to compromise (either side), then you have to be willing to have your pay cut. If we don't get services, you don't get pay.

22,000 state workers are out of jobs. I think we've glossed over this far too much. These are people. Regardless of how big you think government should be, these workers are honest, everyday people who need to feed their children, pay the mortgage, and generally live.
OK. I appreciate the acknowledgement of what is actually going on.

If you are trying to blame Pawlenty equally for the 2005 shutdown, though, you are mistaken. Unlike Dayton, Pawlenty never vetoed any budget (partial or complete) that the legislature presented to him. In fact, at the eleventh hour, when a deal appeared close to getting done, the DFL Senate Majority Leader cut off negotiations in the Senate and precipitated the shutdown.

From Kare11 at the time: "The surprise decision by Senate Majority Leader Dean Johnson to adjourn the Senate a few hours before midnight, when a deal looked close, was roundly criticized the next day, even by some traditional Democratic allies. Johnson himself, while defending the maneuver, was expressing hope that it wouldn't slow the pace of further work. 'Yesterday was yesterday,' Johnson said. 'Today is today.' But Democrats could come to regret spurning Pawlenty's offer granting many of their demands -- he's not likely to go that far again, and can be expected to now renew his call for government reforms that many Democrats find distasteful."

http://www.kare11.com/news/news_arti...storyid=101709
 
Old 07-12-2011, 10:42 AM
 
Location: Minneapolis
1,426 posts, read 1,280,004 times
Reputation: 2161
I really hope the Independence Party puts together a full slate for the legistature next election. My politics are generally to the left of theirs but the current system isn't getting the job done. If they picked up enough seats to deny both the DFL and the Republicans a majority they could act as an honest broker and force both parties to govern through moderate coalitions.
 
Old 07-12-2011, 12:41 PM
 
1,812 posts, read 1,407,724 times
Reputation: 746
Quote:
Originally Posted by southernsmoke View Post
OK. I appreciate the acknowledgement of what is actually going on.

If you are trying to blame Pawlenty equally for the 2005 shutdown, though, you are mistaken. Unlike Dayton, Pawlenty never vetoed any budget (partial or complete) that the legislature presented to him. In fact, at the eleventh hour, when a deal appeared close to getting done, the DFL Senate Majority Leader cut off negotiations in the Senate and precipitated the shutdown.
I am not blaming Pawlenty for 2005...well, actually I am, but not him alone. I also blame Democrats for shutting down government. I think that adults should be able to come to a compromise and keep our government open. We aren't babies. Both sides need to stop stomping their feet and whining and get this done.

What I was asking was: it seems you've sided with the legislature this time and given Dayton lots of flak. In 2005, you blame the legislature, but seem to think the governor did no wrong. To me, that smells only of partisanship, pure and simple.
 
Old 07-12-2011, 12:44 PM
 
1,812 posts, read 1,407,724 times
Reputation: 746
Quote:
Originally Posted by golfgal View Post
Technically Dayton did not shut down the government, the constitution shut down the government because the legislature did not have a budget done by fiscal year end and you can't pay people/service, etc. if a budget is not in place--except for essential services. The MN Zoo, for example, was able to stay open because their budget does not have to go through appropriations like everything else in the state.
By this, I meant that he didn't sign the "lights on" provision. And technically, I believe there can be no spending as it all has to be appropriated by the legislature. It's just that judges have rightfully understood that in today's society, not paying the prison guards, fire, and police wouldn't be a good idea and is necessary.
 
Old 07-12-2011, 12:56 PM
 
2,608 posts, read 2,926,185 times
Reputation: 2024
Quote:
Originally Posted by rcsteiner View Post
Life is generally comprised of shades of gray, not black and white. The major political parties would have us believe otherwise.

I would rather be governed by someone who appreciate the nuances of reality, not just the list of political talking points they used to get elected.

Sorry. Compromise is part of effective leadership, at least IMO.
Compromise is one thing, but two wrongs making a compromise doesn't make a right. I'd much rather have someone stand up there with the right ideals and stick to what he believes and what the people voted him in for rather than compromise those beliefs with wrong ideals in order to "just get something done". That mentality is what has dug the state into the hole they're in today.

Quote:
Originally Posted by northstar22 View Post
I don't support deficit spending, but I also don't support gutting our education, parks, medical care and law enforcement budgets just so the rich can avoid paying their fair share. Besides, raising taxes on millionaires will help reduce the state's deficit.



Why is "socialism" a dirty word? What exactly is wrong with a certain degree of socialism? I think most Americans who throw around the word "socialism!" don't even know what it means.
I say socialism is wrong because it's a failed social policy. Russia collapsed on socialism, it's a philosophy that has been proven to be ineffective.

Secondly, because this nation is one built on LIBERTY. Socialism and Liberty are like oil and water. Socializing a nation means to strip liberties and rights from the people. It means to confiscate and steal from hard workers and give to those who didn't earn it.

I'm all for helping the community and giving what I can to help others, but it's Liberty that says I can do that voluntarily. Socialism uses force for involuntary redistribution of wealth. I should have the right to decide what to do with my hard earned money. Not a government bureaucracy.

Stealing from the rich to give to the poor is just that: theft by the government. If you take enough from the rich, you take away the incentive to expand and succeed. Incentive is what drives the labor of this nation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Haakon View Post
Politicians never can seem to compromise on a true middle ground, can they? Bipartisian to them is "you agree to my extreme far right piece of this legislation and I'll agree to your extreme far left piece of this legislation" and so no one except the politicians are happy.
Couldn't have said it any better. When you elect an official, you don't elect someone to "make deals" with other congressman, you elect them to stand up for the ideals and beliefs they represented in their campaign.
 
Old 07-12-2011, 02:01 PM
 
440 posts, read 308,791 times
Reputation: 257
Quote:
Originally Posted by xandrex View Post
I am not blaming Pawlenty for 2005...well, actually I am, but not him alone. I also blame Democrats for shutting down government. I think that adults should be able to come to a compromise and keep our government open. We aren't babies. Both sides need to stop stomping their feet and whining and get this done.

What I was asking was: it seems you've sided with the legislature this time and given Dayton lots of flak. In 2005, you blame the legislature, but seem to think the governor did no wrong. To me, that smells only of partisanship, pure and simple.
Well, I am just telling you what has happened. If the facts cast blame on the DFL, then so be it. Dayton had the opportunity (on his desk to sign) to avoid most of this shutdown by authorizing spending that everybody agrees on, and he decided to shut the state down instead. Pawlenty never had anything come to his desk to sign. Instead, the DFL Senate Majority Leader ended negotiations between the House and the Senate just when it appeared that a deal was on the horizon. You can cast blame on House Republicans if you want (although again it was the Senate DFL who ultimately decided to shut down the state rather than keep negotiating), but blaming Pawlenty for the legislature not agreeing on a budget is kind of a stretch.
 
Old 07-12-2011, 11:30 PM
 
Location: Victory Neighborhood Minneapolis
1,777 posts, read 3,571,975 times
Reputation: 1116
Quote:
Originally Posted by southernsmoke View Post
Well, I am just telling you what has happened. If the facts cast blame on the DFL, then so be it. Dayton had the opportunity (on his desk to sign) to avoid most of this shutdown by authorizing spending that everybody agrees on, and he decided to shut the state down instead. Pawlenty never had anything come to his desk to sign. Instead, the DFL Senate Majority Leader ended negotiations between the House and the Senate just when it appeared that a deal was on the horizon. You can cast blame on House Republicans if you want (although again it was the Senate DFL who ultimately decided to shut down the state rather than keep negotiating), but blaming Pawlenty for the legislature not agreeing on a budget is kind of a stretch.
First off, we didn't hear about the 'lights on' provision/proposal until the final hour (after it was clear a shutdown was going to happen), and you act like the Republicans have been acting very fair-minded/even-handed in the whole negotations process which is the furthest thing from the truth. Dayton continuously tried to compromise, and continued giving concessions to the Republican party, but they were much less concerned about actually passing a sustainable budget as they were about (a) not raising any taxes but instead shifting around burdens in a very unsustainable fashion (that would have resulted in extreme increases in local/property taxes), and (b) passing previously-vetoed lesiglation that had nothing to do with the budget but were Republican hotbutton issues. They clearly were not concerned in the least about passing a budget on time, and what the hell would the incentive be for Pawlenty to sign a 'lights on' proposal? We see how little a lack of urgency there is with one the most severe shutdown in state history, how much incentive to pass a budget would the Republicans have if the lights were on considering they seemingly have no concerns about the current shutdown itself?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread


Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2011 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $84,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Minnesota
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:44 PM.

2005-2014, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 - Top