Oh but I didn't pick the 2. From the OP "(raise taxes on the rich, increase min wage)"
MN's liberal policies have nothing to do with it. Anything that's happened in the last 4+ years after the crisis are based upon everything that happened in the last 100 years.
A lot of these companies' executives are now talking about moving *OUT* of MN because of the large increases in taxes.
I don't care who picked the two, the OP and yourself apparently, not me.
Back to my confusion - My contention is that MN's "liberal policies" (originating from 4 years of Democratic control from the top down) have helped the state's economy. Your contention appears to be (please clarify) that MN's liberal policies did not help the state? And your reasoning is based on New York having 2 things in common?
Because if they worked for 5 million people they certainly would work with 20 million. Higher taxes and higher min wages are not the economic contributors you think they are.
While Wisconsin rejected the Medicaid expansion and refused to create a health care marketplace under the Affordable Care Act, Minnesota took the expansion and created a marketplace. The result? Minnesota currently has the lowest health insurance rates in the country, the number of uninsured Minnesotans fell 41% cutting the uninsured rate from 8.2% to 4.9%, and the state’s health care budget is sound. On the other hand, Wisconsin’s uninsured rate is double Minnesota’s, it’s health care budget has a deficit of $760 million, and thousands of lower income Wisconsinites lost their health insurance when Walker pushed them off Badgercare. In fact, by rejecting the Medicaid expansion, Wisconsin is paying $150 million more to cover 85,000 fewer Wisconsinites.
Gov. Scott Walker will have to plug a roughly $280 million budget shortfall by the end of June, and the state faces a two-year deficit that could be as large as $2 billion, based on new estimates released Friday by the nonpartisan Legislative Fiscal Bureau.
Maybe the policies do, maybe not. But they came into play about the same time things turned around. Funny that the worst of it occurred just before Pawlenty, a Republican, left office after 8 years.
But that "last 100 years" thing - if the last 100 years had everything to do with MN doing well today, did the last 100 years also have everything to do with things getting worse and worse under Pawlenty? Funny thing to attribute the recent turnaround to.
Fact or opinion? If fact, please give "A lot" of examples.
P.S. I'll bring up Medtronic for you, which will move its headquarters out of the country, to a desperate Ireland that'll do anything to boost its own economy. Please leave that for a federal, not MN, policies discussion some other time.
Source: http://www.startribune.com/blogs/277231662.html
I see nothing in that chart that shows anything special happening in Minn. The only conclusion I can draw from that is that Minn faired relatively well during the last recession. Keep in mind that although Minn isnt a major player in the shale boom, it did provide possibly one of the largest sources of personnel given its location relative to Bakken. Minneapolis is one of the largest cities located near the Bakken. Their residents no doubt received an outsized portion of the fracking boom income. Minn also provides crap-tons of fracking sand. If you factor out the effect of that unsustainable boom, things look even worse for Minn.
This is why Partisans are utterly fucking pathetic. You bring up "worse" performance from 03-2011. No fucking shit sherlock. In his tenure the US went through the *WORST* economic crisis in 80 fucking years. Are you a goddamn moron?
Yeah, I am sure he PERSONALLY went to GMAC RFC and told them to underwrite shit tons of crappy C&D loans out of Minny and then almost blow up GM with the writedowns to said portfolio (as well as Alt-A and subprime mortgages).
Have you ever looked at the unemployment rate of Minnesota compared to the country? Here, I'll help you.
https://www.google.com/publicdata/e...000000&ifdim=country&hl=en_US&dl=en&ind=false
That should bring you to the US vs Minnesota, which shows Minnesota is always better than the US overall. Through the crisis it was much better. Why? Because the fucking companies THAT HAVE ALWAYS BEEN HERE.
But hey, don't let your liberal bullshit get in the way. Companies leaving? I travel in interesting circles and many of them are tired of more taxes and the picture getting more bleak with idiots like Dayton (and you) pushing things. It can't continue forever.
Look at IL. That liberal utopian paradise of tax, spend, pension, debt. How many companies are leaving there? They are very lucky they are holding on to CAT and only that after huge subsidies.
People put way too much into D or R in front of the Govs name. Since we became a state our govs break down as 25 Republican, 11 Democrat\DFL, 3 Farm-Labor, 1 independent.
It is really amusing to watch the hacks believe we are a democrat run state because we lean left. Our republicans are very moderate. Pawlenty was probably more liberal than a % of democrats. Especially Ds that come from the south.
If we were to believe the hacks. This state should have crumbled under the weight of Republican leadership years ago. Not outpaced the country for decades!
... rant ...
People put way too much into D or R in front of the Govs name.
It is really amusing to watch the hacks believe we are a democrat run state because we lean left.
Certainly some of our Republican governors (particularly Arne Carlson) are fairly liberal, but I would not put Tim Pawlenty in that category. I would also observe that we have a considerable number of extremely conservative Republicans representing Minnesotans at both the state and federal level (e.g., Tom Emmer and Michele Bachmann) for quite some time.
Just think how great our budget would be if some fucking asshole Democrat didn't give a shit ton of our money away to Zygi Wilf.
In fairness the Republicans controlled both houses of the legislature when the stadium bill was passed, and legislators in both parties voted for it.
In fairness the Republicans controlled both houses of the legislature when the stadium bill was passed, and legislators in both parties voted for it.
In more fairness the house passed it with DFLers splitting 38\21 in favor while republicans voted 33-39 against. The senate broke down DFL 21-8 in favor to Republican 15-22 against.
Nope! The dems are just lucky!! When trickle down economics finally kicks in, repubs will be having the last laugh! You just wait and wait, and wait, and wait, and see!!
/s
All your post does is confirm that many Republicans voted in favor of the bill and it passed despite the fact that it never could have, had the Republican caucuses in the House and Senate opposed it. Blaming Democrats unilaterally for the decision is simple-minded and inaccurate. That is the kind of argument made only by ideologues and simpletons.
That he thinks they are? Can you quote the post where he made that claim?
While you back peddle please pick up the straw you've dropped
Well what do you think he means when he says "My contention is that MN's "liberal policies" (originating from 4 years of Democratic control from the top down) have helped the state's economy. "?
Liberal policies consist of more than just raising taxes and raising minimum wage, you'd know this if you didn't live in a bubble.
Link goes into the gore - by detailing how he raised taxes on the rich (D as well as minimum wage (D: x 2). And, it paid off!