Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Contact Us | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS

Facts say sky isn't falling

June 19, 2013

To the editor: The sky is falling! The sky is falling! Chicken Little spreading the alarm. Taxes are going up! Taxes are going up! Representative Chris Swedzinski spreading the alarm....

« Back to Article

sort: oldest | newest




Jun-19-13 9:16 AM

You're right. Gas is less then 2.00 a gallon, My medical insurance price has dropped 75% in the last 5 years. My car insurance as dropped also. Food prices have also dropped.

6 Agrees | 27 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jun-19-13 9:58 AM

Rona, no one said that everything was hunky-dory. But the author of this letter did state three facts. Even the most partisan of right-wingers cannot ignore the FACT that there was no need for a special session this year, and that the budget was balanced. Your assertion that just because prices have gone up means that the sky IS falling is ridiculous. I didn't think the sky was falling just because I pay more for gas now than I did 20 years ago. The FACT is, as time goes by, many products are more expensive. It isn't a byproduct of legislation or which party is in power.

27 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jun-20-13 1:44 AM

How’s the state ObamaCare insurance exchange website doing? Up and running? Saving us all millions of dollars?

7 Agrees | 24 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jun-20-13 11:52 AM

Midwest1977, if the Republicans had control of all three branches of state government, as the Dems do now, the budget would have been balanced without a special session also. And taxes would not have been raised while doing so. There is a 100% chance that the economy in Minnesota will be affected negatively once all the legislation and taxes take effect from the most recent bills passed by the Dem-controlled state of Minn government.

It is a byproduct of legislation. You're ignorant about economics. Stick to commenting on gay marriage, emotional issues don't require facts.

6 Agrees | 12 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jun-20-13 4:59 PM

@liberal - First of all, I applaud your sarcastic username, as it is very obvious where your political convictions lie. Now, onto the content of your comment: No one is debating that the possibility exists of the GOP balancing the budget without needing a special session to do so if they were in control of all three branches of government. My statement was simply related to the facts that were stated in the original article. With regard to your assertion that I am ignorant when it comes to economics, I fail to see how my statement that things are more expensive than they were 20 years ago bears that out. Taxes go up based on legislation, yes, but BOTH parties have raised taxes in their own ways over the years, and as anyone who has taken Economics 101 will tell you, taxes are not the only factor that have any bearing on the cost of a product or service. I will not stoop to your level and call you ignorant, because I have no idea what your experience with economics is. CONT......

26 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jun-20-13 5:00 PM

CONT..... However, I have taken economics classes, and I do work in the finance industry, so I am well aware of the many different factors affecting the price of goods and services. And emotions come into play in many discussions, regardless of what you may think. Psychology 101 - more people get wound up when talking about money than almost anything else.

27 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jun-20-13 6:07 PM


Psychology 101 - more people get wound up when talking about POLITICS than almost anything else.

You decided to take a political stance. You may think I'm parsing your words but your comment has obvious overtones of partisanship towards the Dems. You're paying more for gas (twice as much) than you were 5 years ago, not 20. The correlation is directly related to Obama's tenure. Prices are up for almost everything, and it's directly related to high gas prices, which are directly related to the fact that Obama has said that energy costs must necessarily skyrocket in order to achieve "green" energy. It's also related to his EPA regulations. Take the big O out of the picture, and gas prices will immediately go down, as well as almost everything else. It's ALL political.


7 Agrees | 8 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jun-20-13 10:38 PM

In a "gimme, gimme" society, energy prices have "necessarily" skyrocketed along with everything else, White House scandals are largely ignored, farm bills designed to cut the waste that is food stamps are defeated, and buffoons like Obama are re-elected.

Obama and his clueless minions have always engaged in "sky is falling" politics. You only have to look at the myth of man-caused climate change to see that. Where the worth of the dollar on the world market is concerned, the sky is actually falling. Climate change? Not so much. The fact that Obama flips their relative importance is sinister as all get out.

7 Agrees | 26 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jun-21-13 7:57 AM

It is true that the GOP probably would have passed a balanced budget without the need for a special session if they had total control, but would they have done so without the cheap accounting tricks and borrowed money? Unlikely. Would they have done so without causing property taxes to go up? Unlikely. Would they have done so without diminishing the quality of life for all Minnesotans? Unlikely. Republicans are not big fans of facts, because facts don't support their fantasy world of trickle down prosperity or their head in the sand position on things like climate change. Funny how the GOP press agency, Fox News, didn't bother to report how insurance premiums in California went down as a result of the ACA.

27 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jun-21-13 1:50 PM

This is for all u "disagrees" out there.

In the late 30's, very few of the soon-to-be holocaust victims fled Nazi Germany. In fact, some supported Hitler. History shows you the horrible consequence of there sense of well being. Much like the liberals now blindly follow Obama.

So liberals, when the hard times now being experienced by Greece, or even worse, the historic economic collapse in the Weimar Republic pre-World War II, it will be you carrying firearms, murdering for food and fuel. You see, your handouts from China won't be available to Obama anymore once the dollar is worthless, thanks to your great leader.

6 Agrees | 28 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jun-21-13 5:51 PM

The sky has been falling for some time, and the last 5 years it has gotten even worse. Look at every thing you buy and compare pricing versus what it was 5 years ago. Now look at all - and I mean all - of the taxes you pay. everything has gone up significantly.

I guess if you like the free phone program going from $2 million a year to $2 billion, then you are happy.

8 Agrees | 26 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jun-26-13 1:55 PM

How do those three facts prove that Chris Swedzinski's concerns are unreasonable?

4 Agrees | 23 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jun-26-13 7:16 PM

Swedzinski wasn't elected for his brainpower, he played his occupation and religion to hook most voters. Meanwhile, nobody noticed property taxes going up during Pawlenty's administration? Why did the debt get worse with Bush as Prez? There is no "one category fits all" answer. My take is from Pawlenty's "This is gonna*****for most of you" vs. Dayton's "We want to make Minnesota a great state". What kind of leader do you want to follow?

24 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jun-26-13 9:49 PM

I'll take Pawlenty any day over Governor Goofy.

common - compare the debt for eight years of Bush with five years of Obama. Get your slide rule out so you can compute the compound annual growth rate.

How about those fun folks at the IRS? They are out of control.

2 Agrees | 23 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jun-27-13 3:58 PM

"..****pare the debt for eight years of Bush with five years of Obama."

Yes, lets compare. The debt grew under Bush because of the Republicans FAILURE to provide funding for tax cuts, NCLB education reform, TWO wars and Medicare Plan B while his "trickle down" economic policies tanked our economy. After five years under Obama, our economy is slowly recovering, we have ended one war and are winding down the second and education reform and Medicare Plan B are finally included in the budget. Meanwhile economists predict our debt will continue to shrink. You don't need a slide rule to measure the improvement. Dayton is proving that he too can create polices leading to sustainable economic growth necessary for job creation. The sky IS the Republicans make believe world.

22 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jun-27-13 4:24 PM

Provide funding for tax cuts?!? What a sick, twisted view of government's role in the citizen's lives.

3 Agrees | 20 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jun-27-13 4:35 PM

Can you explain to me why we need to raise the debt ceiling when debt is shrinking? In my make believe world that doesn't make sense.

2 Agrees | 19 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jun-27-13 5:13 PM

hartman - are you perhaps referring to Part D Medicare, the drug insurance option?

1 Agrees | 19 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jun-27-13 8:32 PM

****"Meanwhile economists predict our debt will continue to shrink." ****If any "economists" are actually saying that, they have the brains of a paper clip, our debt is growing, and is continuing to grow. obama has no plans to balance the budget, let alone lower the debt. Those are facts. Look them up. And when you come to these discussions, Hartman, please bring a brain.

2 Agrees | 20 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jun-27-13 9:45 PM

Ok, Hartman, there is a website called usdebtclock**** . It shows the national debt (obama's legacy) in real time. You just claimed the debt was, and will continue, to shrink. I checked the national debt when I started this at 8:35 PM It was $16,887,876,332,000. at 8:40 I will check it again and type it here. It was 16,887,880,032,000. In 5 minutes, the national debt went up 37 million dollars. Hartman, you said "you don't need a slide rule to measure the improvement" Your credibility has reached zero.

3 Agrees | 20 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jun-28-13 10:56 AM

You are correct rangeral, It was the Medicare Part D that was unfunded when first initiated. Thanks for politely pointing that out.

“Provide funding for tax cuts?” Merritt, when legislation is proposed that eliminates a source of revenue it must also include a strategy to decrease spending OR new source of revenue must be found. Not only did Bush fail to create a new revenue stream, he increased spending.

The quotes in my next post are for you westline. Take your argument up with the writers at Businessweek and The Wall Street Journal.

18 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jun-28-13 10:56 AM

"On May 14... the Congressional Budget Office announced that the budget deficit will shrink this fiscal year to $642 billion, or just 4 percent of gross domestic product. It’s the smallest deficit since 2008, and less than half 2009’s record $1.4 trillion shortfall. Since February, the CBO has cut $200 billion off its deficit projection for 2013 and $618 billion off its cumulative estimate for the next decade. Thanks to higher tax revenues and deep spending cuts, the deficit has been shrinking by about $42 billion a month for the past six months. The CBO projects that the deficit will fall to $342 billion by 2015, or only 2 percent of GDP." -Businessweek

“The Congressional Budget Office said Tuesday the federal deficit is expected to shrink to $642 billion in the fiscal year ending Sept. 30, narrowing from the agency's estimate of $845 billion three months ago and sharply lower than last year's $1.087 trillion shortfall.” –WSJ

21 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jun-28-13 3:40 PM

Words don’t mean anything anymore. When you “provide funding” that is an expense. If you say Bush did not provide funding for tax cuts, it assumes that a tax cut is an expense to government which it is not. It would be like MacDonald’s counting the money missed out on by putting the Big Mac on the $1 Menu an expense. It is not. The reason for the price discount is to increase sales, or spur the Big Mac economy if you will. Providing funding for tax cuts would mean that the money is the government’s in the first place. I believe the money belongs to the citizens of this country and taxes are payment for services they provide. The government is our customer. Next, there is a big difference between shrinking the debt and shrinking the deficit. But in make believe liberal land, we get to play with words. With base-line budgeting a 2.5% increase in spending equates to a cut and not losing as much money as we thought we were going to is shrinking the debt. It’s insanity.

3 Agrees | 21 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jun-28-13 5:05 PM

Ok, so Hartman said "debt" when he meant "deficit". It's not a federal offense. The point is that the budget deficit is shrinking. By 2016 it may even be gone. Keep in mind the last time we had a budget surplus was under Clinton. Once we have a surplus again we can start paying down the national debt, not just the interest. All that is required is that the voters (scratch that, I meant "courts") don't make the mistake they did in 2000 and turn the country over to a GOP idiot who promptly squanders the surplus on welfare for the wealthy.

20 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Jun-28-13 5:56 PM

Yes, let's go back to the Clinton years. All we would need to do is to have Al Gore re-invent something on the same scale as the internet and couple it with a housing boom and we're good to go. Take credit for the housing boom and blame Bush for it's convenient. But let's ignore how Ronald Reagan turned things around when he inherited a crisis or mention what Clinton inherited from Bush and Reagan. Idiot GOP Presidents and their unfunded tax cuts.

2 Agrees | 21 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 73 comments Show More Comments

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
Remember my email address.


I am looking for:
News, Blogs & Events Web