In the special little world of the left-leaning gimmickblogger, everything’s acceptable – but don’t complain about government!
Cuckling Stool is a leftyblog whose gimmick – a conversation between an dyspeptic, smug, anonymous blogger and his fictional, smarter, dog – has reached about 14:59, dips into the same meme every untalented leftyblogger has been overusing for the past year. Conservatives never write, opine, or climb on soapboxes; no, it’s always “whining”.
Dear God, deliver us from Mitch,
It’s called a “back” button, slapnuts.
the man who thinks that sackcloth and ashes are a fashion statement. Mitch the hot dryer vent of human beings, taking the crease out of your slacks and the curl out of you hair. Mitch, the man who sells a line of custom hair shirts. Mitch . . .
Mommy?
Mommy, is that really you?
We get the picture, Spot. Why the rant?
Because “Spot” learned got a book of handy similes at the Solstice celebration?
Poor Mitch put up a post today lamenting the problems of the core cities:
The inner cities have their issues. If you’re in Minnesota and reading this, you know about them; you’ve either fled them, are paying for them via your taxes, or are – like me – living among them.
Where does Mitch live, Spotty? The near north side of Minneapolis?
Actually, grasshopper, he lives near Hamline University in St. Paul. But Mitch is so put upon, so besieged by something called “local government aid” that he can’t stand it.
Er…so what?
Crime doesn’t stop at Thomas Avenue (and my house had the bullet holes in it, ten years ago, to prove it). And – not to knock the great contributions that efficiency-apartment-dwelling anonymous wackjobs from the Bloomington bring to our society, but those of us who actually live in and pay taxes to the cities we live in have the right to an opinion. At least until Hillary! bans it.
Wait a minute, Spot. I thought that LGA in effect took money from guys like you, Spot, and used it to provide services to core city residents like Mitch. Right?
Well, yes, that’s right.
Actually, that – like pretty much everything Stoop has ever tried to write – is wrong. LGA takes money from the parts of the state that “turn a profit”, and transfer it to the parts that live “beyond their means”.
And, being a Saint Paul property taxpayer, I am the city’s “means”.
Why is he complaining and not you, Spot?
An interesting point, grasshopper. Perhaps it is because Spot recognizes that the entire metropolitan area is a community.
Let me translate that from Platitude to English: two parts of that “Community” have spent three generations addicted to several decades of hare-brained social experimentation, spending every dime they could squeedge out of taxpayers – their own, like me, and everyone else via LGA – to reinforce failure. Some of our neighbors (and more who, like Spot’s fictional owner, live in airless studio apartments and wait for entitlement checks) are “happy to pay” for whatever their betters tell them. On the other hand, “get” the whole “dissent” thing.
Regardless, Mitch, Spot says that you should get out of the house more: clean your garage, shovel your walks, mow the grass; you need the exercise.
Big talk, from a guy who’d seem to live on a diet of flaked-off lead paint chips.
Worthless, played-out Bad dog.
“LGA takes money from the parts of the state that “turn a profit”, and transfer it to the parts that live “beyond their means”.”
You have officialy shown you have no friggin clue what you are talking about.
And Spot eats YOUR lunch on a daily basis and defines feminism to you sexism.
Mitch, is that you . . really . . . *knock*knock* . . . rescue this place before it is too late!!
You have officialy shown you have no friggin clue what you are talking about.
Ah. Well, that settles it, then.
And Spot eats YOUR lunch on a daily basis
DAMN! Foiled by simple negation again!
you have no friggin clue…Spot eats YOUR lunch… yadda yadda
Flash, I think I figured out the problem.
Somewhere, you got the idea that if you repeat something over and over and over again, it’s the same as evidence and/or a compelling argument.
Understandable, given the time you spend hanging around with Eva Young and all, but, sorry to say, not really true.
And the day “Spot” – or any leftyblogger south of maybe Chris Dykstra – can carry my gig bag to an argument with me, much less participate in it, I’ll let you know.
Bring a sleeping bag and a shaving kit.
“”Somewhere, you got the idea that if you repeat something over and over and over again, it’s the same as evidence and/or a compelling argument.””
I learned it from you. It is your primary Modus operandi (see Greatest Feminist ever, which I now realize means sexist. Once I got that joke it became funny and everything else fell into place). You think you have a monopoly on it, now.
“”And the day “Spot” – or any leftyblogger south of maybe Chris Dykstra – can carry my gig bag to an argument with me, much less participate in it, I’ll let you know. “”
It happens, daily, his latest post being a glaring example. You lost your touch over a year ago.
I think we have a teachable moment here on the Art of Argumentation. I will attempt to reframe this without taking sides. Please pay attention, Flash.
Mitch asserts:
LGA takes money from the parts of the state that “turn a profit”, and transfer it to the parts that live “beyond their means
Now, in order to properly argue this point, the response to it would have to be something factual backing it up. Instead, Flash responds:
You have officialy shown you have no friggin clue what you are talking about.
Which is not only a non-sequitur, but a conclusory ad hominem based on absolulutely nothing to do with the assertion it attempts to rebuke. A proper answer (though I will admit that the topic bores me stiff so I know little about it) should at least include some reference to LGA and why it’s not what Mitch proposes. This is why I think that anyone who says that their comment threads are for “thoughtful debate” are either kidding themselves or are liars, since this is pretty typical of what you see everywhere.
So please try again.
“So please try again.”
“LGA takes money from the parts of the state that “turn a profit”, and transfer it to the parts that live “beyond their means””
That could be true if only those within the tax base were using the ‘means’ As is Large Cities provide for others beyond their taxable boundaries,. It is only fair to presume that, through the assistance of the state or other political entities, that these costs should be subsidized with something like LGA. For some reason you guys think that only St. Paulites use St. Paul resources. Instead, you want to use St. Paul resources, but only think those who live in the city should have to pay for them. Which is why you clearly show you have no friggin clue what you are talking about.
There, better. I have the mistaken impression that the wonks on these sites know exactly what they are talking about and choose to spin doctor away the truth and reality. But I can revert to educational mode.
Teachable moment over. You lunch was good, mitch, but a little lighter on the mayo tomorrow.
Flash
LGA is a glaring example of why you cannot trust a Democrat with finances.
LGA was supposed to help outstate cities that lacked the tax bases necessary to maintain their infrastructure. Fast forward a couple of years and we find that the Democrat led twin cities have factored LGA into their base line budgets in order to shield their pie in the sky patronage programs from fiscal reality or restraint.
There are plenty of large first and second ring suburbs that recieve NO LGA, and yet somehow manage to keep their streets plowed and their cops paid.
Democrat hacks like Chris Coleman and RT Ryback couldn’t manage to reconcile the contents of a six year old’s piggy bank so it’s little wonder that they have made a complete mess of their respective city budgets…and people are getting fed up with it.
If you doubt that last statement, take a look at the fifteen pages of comments that accompanied the Pioneer Press interview with Coleman…ouch!
http://pod01.prospero.com/n/pfx/forum.aspx?msg=18381&nav=messages&webtag=kr-twincitiestm
Hey hey! Now we’re getting somewhere!
And once again, a non-activist poopblogger shall guide them.
What Swiftee said, for starters.
And then…:
That could be true if only those within the tax base were using the ‘means’
Right. And therein lies the biggest element of DFL culpability.
The DFL has, for several generations and four decades, now, used the inner cities – by accident and design – as “warehouses” for the poor. As I noted, part of it is accidental: the failure of the school system, the attraction of crime to the concentration of poverty, the incidental costs of welfare. Part of it is by design; focusing and concentrating welfare programs (“Subsidized poverty”), immigration programs and so on on the inner city. Either way, it’s DFL policies that have led to the concentration of low-to-non-taxpaying “means” in the city, and immense spending, far beyond the means of the city’s tax base, which the DFL has managed to hide with LGA. Until now. As Swiftee noted.
As is Large Cities provide for others beyond their taxable boundaries,. It is only fair to presume that, through the assistance of the state or other political entities, that these costs should be subsidized with something like LGA.
Provide for others? That is a hopelessly broad statement. Worse, it’s stated as a conclusion, rather than as a problem that needs to be solved. What do cities “provide”, specifically? The only examples I can think of is non-taxable state government property – which is yet another argument to shrink and decentralize government – and the DFL’s ongoing policy of using the inner city as a warehouse for poor people. In any case, it holds not a candle to the concentration of the poor in the city as a cause of the “imbalance” LGA purportedly is to correct.
For some reason you guys think that only St. Paulites use St. Paul resources. Instead, you want to use St. Paul resources, but only think those who live in the city should have to pay for them.
Too vague. Please get specific.
Which is why you clearly show you have no friggin clue what you are talking about.
And back to the ad-homina!
Well, we made it a couple of paragraphs, anyway. It’s a start!
to dispel some falsehoods being thrown around:
http://www.minnpost.com/community_voices/2007/12/11/325/ten_things_you_may_not_know_about_st_pauls_city_budget
to dispel some falsehoods
Or, alternately, introduce some of your (or Chris Coleman’s) own.
But that’s a post on its own.
Provide information from the City’s Finance Director and the claim is trying to introduce my (huh?) falsehoods….while Mitch seconded not-so-swift’s post, who by the way, provide a link to anonymous comments on the Press’s website to prove him correct.
“As is Large Cities provide for others beyond their taxable boundaries”
They should really stop doing so if they cannot afford to do so without LGA (read Welfare For Cities).
“It is only fair to presume that, through the assistance of the state or other political entities, that these costs should be subsidized with something like LGA”
Only fair? And you talk about a “friggin clue”.
LGA is a stupid idea, if only because it opens the budgetary feedback loop for anyone who “benefits” from it.
Here’s all you need to know about St. Paul’s budget:
Two successive mayors managed to balance it for 12 years without raising taxes. Streets were plowed, pot holes were filled, police and firemen got paid, the lights all worked.
Coleman?
8.6% increase his first year.
15% increase his second year.
And not a single, solitary thing to show for it other than some mighty happy campaign supporters.
Hmmm, i wonder why taxes had to be raised? Perhaps one of the reasons was in the link i provided.
“Before 2003, LGA was dependable and grew with inflation, helping keep the city’s tax levy low. Since 2003, LGA has been cut by 25 percent, costing us $108 million through the 2008 budget year.”
Apparently you want to have your cake and eat it too…complaining about LGA then complaining about rising taxes. You sound like a Democrat, complaining without offering any solutions.
LGA kept the levy low? LGA was never meant to offset taxes. The “A” stands for “AID” as in helping cities keep the lights on that didn’t have a tax base to start with.
Solution for St. Paul?
I could cut the budget by 1/3 tomorrow and no one, except for the special interests that are lined up waiting for their payback for supporting Coleman would notice anything other than a lower tax bill.
Instead of the prudent fiscal management that kept the city humming for 12 years the citizens are enjoying 23.6% increases in two years…and NOTHING to show for it.
The link you provided was a transcript of Coleman’s whiney excuses. The man is a disaster and is surrounded by a city council that is too stupid to even recognise it.
I’m sure that Randy Kelly is laughing his ass off these days!
Oh, BTW.
Those 15 pages of anonymous comments to Coleman’s woe is me interview? I’m betting that they’d answer to “pissed off voter”.
The difference between the Kelly budget and the Coleman one is that Kelly had State LGA to offset expenses, Coleman does not.
If the local GOP doesn’t want LGA, than accept the expense of an increased levy. If you don’t want that increase, than support the claim for retention of LGA. And if you want to try the old cut expenses, Kelly stripped to the bone what little there was, so you already got your way in that regard.
So please oh please don’t embarrass yourself in trying to claim a logical offset in refusing to allow for LGA AND expecting no fiscal offset in budgetary income.
Sheesh, now I am working on Mitch’s dinner.
Wait a second flash. Didn’t you just say:
“As is Large Cities provide for others beyond their taxable boundaries”
and I assume you mean to say that Saint Paul is one of these “Large Cities”, and that it does this providing “for others” thing.
Is that the definition of “stripped to the bone” these days?