• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

This Billionaire Governor Taxed the Rich and Increased the Minimum Wage -- Now, His State's Economy Is One of the Best in the Country

AthenaAwakened

Contributor
Joined
Sep 17, 2003
Messages
5,369
Location
Right behind you so ... BOO!
Basic Beliefs
non-theist, anarcho-socialist
Seems like Mom was right when she said when everybody shares, things go better.

The next time your right-wing family member or former high school classmate posts a status update or tweet about how taxing the rich or increasing workers' wages kills jobs and makes businesses leave the state, I want you to send them this article.

When he took office in January of 2011, Minnesota governor Mark Dayton inherited a $6.2 billion budget deficit and a 7 percent unemployment rate from his predecessor, Tim Pawlenty, the soon-forgotten Republican candidate for the presidency who called himself Minnesota's first true fiscally-conservative governor in modern history. Pawlenty prided himself on never raising state taxes -- the most he ever did to generate new revenue was increase the tax on cigarettes by 75 cents a pack. Between 2003 and late 2010, when Pawlenty was at the head of Minnesota's state government, he managed to add only 6,200 more jobs.

During his first four years in office, Gov. Dayton raised the state income tax from 7.85 to 9.85 percent on individuals earning over $150,000, and on couples earning over $250,000 when filing jointly -- a tax increase of $2.1 billion. He's also agreed to raise Minnesota's minimum wage to $9.50 an hour by 2018, and passed a state law guaranteeing equal pay for women. Republicans like state representative Mark Uglem warned against Gov. Dayton's tax increases, saying, "The job creators, the big corporations, the small corporations, they will leave. It's all dollars and sense to them." The conservative friend or family member you shared this article with would probably say the same if their governor tried something like this. But like Uglem, they would be proven wrong.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/carl-gibson/mark-dayton-minnesota-economy_b_6737786.html
 
I see Democrats are taking credit for the benefits the Trickle Down Economics are finally bringing us from the early 80s tax cut.
 
And to think he was probably worst Senator we ever had.


Naw. Andrew Volstead was only because of his ties to the Anti Saloon League.
 
and that tax hikes on the rich don't kill jobs and the economy

- - - Updated - - -

and that republicans don't actually care about deficits

- - - Updated - - -

and that MW increases don't kill jobs
 
Wow, way to go, Minnesota. While it's nice to see that Pawlenty's fiscal discipline is beginning to pay off, it is a bit sad when you consider how much better things would have been if Dayton hadn't been working so hard to undermine the State's successes.
 
So how does this compare to, say, Texas that basically went in the opposite direction?
 
Yet another example that Keynesianism is a crock.

Yeah forget about that stimulus and the millions we spend on basic research in this state.

I'm sorry, I thought the premise of this thread was that a higher minimum wage and tax increases which transformed a budget deficit into a surplus was what were making Minnesota's economy awesome.

Since the former is just about Keynesianially irrelevant (or in any macro economic sense) and the latter is about as anti-Keynesian a policy as you can imagine I thought this was a Keynes bashing thread.
 
Yeah forget about that stimulus and the millions we spend on basic research in this state.

I'm sorry, I thought the premise of this thread was that a higher minimum wage and tax increases which transformed a budget deficit into a surplus was what were making Minnesota's economy awesome.

Since the former is just about Keynesianially irrelevant (or in any macro economic sense) and the latter is about as anti-Keynesian a policy as you can imagine I thought this was a Keynes bashing thread.
As usual, you thought wrong.
 
So how does this compare to, say, Texas that basically went in the opposite direction?

Why stop at Texas? Also take a look at states like Kansas and Wisconsin. They are facing massive deficits and slow to non-existent job growth under Republican governance run amok.
 
What was the size of the stimulus? How much did government spending increase?

Big and a lot.

So as a committed Keynes defender did you also want to point out the OP is bunk because the tax increases that changed the deficit to a surplus didn't cause Minnesota to have a good economy and in fact it's assuredly worse than it would have been had they not happened?
 
Big and a lot.

So as a committed Keynes defender did you also want to point out the OP is bunk because the tax increases that changed the deficit to a surplus didn't cause Minnesota to have a good economy and in fact it's assuredly worse than it would have been had they not happened?

Trout.
 
Big and a lot.

So as a committed Keynes defender did you also want to point out the OP is bunk because the tax increases that changed the deficit to a surplus didn't cause Minnesota to have a good economy and in fact it's assuredly worse than it would have been had they not happened?
I hope you washed your hands after you pulled out this nonsense. First, even first graders can see that the OP does not claim the Dayton's policies caused Minnesota's economy to be "good". Second, you have not presented any factual evidence or theoretical reasons why the Minnesota economy would have been better without those policies.
 
Why stop at Texas? Also take a look at states like Kansas and Wisconsin. They are facing massive deficits and slow to non-existent job growth under Republican governance run amok.

Ouch, more Keynes bashing.

I realize that you are on a personal mission to use "Keynes" as frequently as possible in this thread, though I can't imagine why. You should, however, realize that I did not mention Keynes at all in my post, and the only thing I bashed was Republican government.

In other words, what the fuck are you on about?
 
Ouch, more Keynes bashing.

I realize that you are on a personal mission to use "Keynes" as frequently as possible in this thread, though I can't imagine why. You should, however, realize that I did not mention Keynes at all in my post, and the only thing I bashed was Republican government.

In other words, what the fuck are you on about?
Good question. Because it is obvious that dismal's "understanding" of Keynes and Keynesianism is unique.
 
Back
Top Bottom