
Gov. Tim Pawlenty (R-MN) had an interesting way of describing federal spending today, calling it "a Ponzi on the Potomac" that "cannot continue on this current course."
On Fox News earlier, Pawlenty criticized the administration for "making spending obligations based on hopes and wishes," saying that he instead proposed "a balanced budget requirement."
Pray, T-Paw, tell us why you proposed this requirement:
For all the reasons your earlier guest was suggesting. The federal government is running a Ponzi scheme. It's a Ponzi on the Potomac. They cannot continue on this current course.
Here's the clip:
Maritza
December 29, 2009 5:38 PM
Does anybody listen to Pawlenty?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ericf
December 29, 2009 6:20 PM in reply to Maritza
We do in Minnesota, with our eyes on the calendar that has a big mark on his last days in office.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ivy22
December 30, 2009 8:57 AM in reply to Maritza
He managed to get on Fox. Will anyone else want him their network. He is so yesterday.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
plembo
December 29, 2009 5:48 PM
Pawlenty is a Ponzi scheme.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Upink
December 29, 2009 6:40 PM
And this is the party that "lost" how many millions in Iraq!?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Upink
December 29, 2009 6:52 PM
And this is the party that "lost" how many millions in Iraq!?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
quickerevolver
December 29, 2009 6:55 PM
Yaaahhh for aliteration!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Silence
December 29, 2009 7:12 PM
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Signalman
December 29, 2009 7:35 PM in reply to Silence
And your point is?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Matt Jones
December 29, 2009 10:38 PM in reply to Signalman
Pointless troll is pointless. Although, in his defense, he's one of the few teabaggers that appear to have actually read a word of the Constitution.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Silence
December 30, 2009 8:51 AM in reply to Signalman
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&sid=a48c8UpUMxKQ
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Signalman
December 30, 2009 4:24 PM in reply to Silence
I already told you (two or three weeks ago) that I won't read any of your links until you either answer the question I asked you or else admit that you don't know the answer.
So stuff your link. Write your response out like a man. Or else admit that you don't know the answer, and we can get on with me taking you down again.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
kenga
December 30, 2009 12:06 PM in reply to Signalman
His point is that the phrase "establish justice" appears before "insure domestic tranquility", "provide for the common defense", "promote the general welfare", and "secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity".
He's trying to tell us that the exact wording of the Constitution pretty clearly indicates that the Founders were more concerned with, and ascribed more importance to, the rule of law, than with security or liberty.
He's clearly one of those due process fanatics ...
/ sarcasm
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Signalman
December 30, 2009 4:35 PM in reply to kenga
The only point he's got is the one on top of his head.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
MarinCat
December 29, 2009 8:22 PM
Republicans in the wildness chanting the tired old tropes (taxes-bla, gubment-bla, libruls-bla) hoping to get their hands back on the stick are failing.
They stand before the Nation entirely unrepentant- like an AA novitiate refusing to apologize- unwilling to explain what went wrong and what they have learned. The old conservative tropes remain the same but these dudes really f---ed up when they had their chance. Trust them to run the government again? No. A pop cycle stand. Maybe.
Right now their bona fides for competent governing is like Newt Gingrich's bona fides for marital fidelity. And if your daughter shows up with that clown asking to permission wouldn't you want to hear something more specific than the usual "cherish and obey".
And after that- after explaining what went wrong the last time and how they won't ran the car into the ditch again- they will still have to answer the basic Reagan-Tooth-Fairy Riddle; How to lower taxes, increase spending (esp military) and balance the budget. The Good Tooth Fairy Ron riddled that one in 1980 and I am still waiting for any good toothless Republican child to give the answer to it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dreampod
December 29, 2009 8:27 PM
And this merely illustrates that even a stopped clock is right twice a day.
Fundamentally his argument is sound, despite being applied selectively for political advantage. Deficit spending uses future revenues (later investors) to pay off immediate expenses (current investors) and is ultimately unsustainable. Eventually spending will need to be cut or revenues increased to avoid an interest based death spiral (one the US is already well into). Certainly there are valid reasons for deficit spending such as ameliorating the effects of a recession, however most administrations use it to achieve todays goals without paying the long term consequences and leaving the mess to be cleaned up by their successors.
The irony of Pawlenty complaining [i]now[/i] about governmental spending is that Obama is [b]only[/b] president since Reagen who has a legitimate reason for ongoing deficit spending. Had he made some commentary about the billions of dollars being wasted during the Bush administration he might not deserve the ridicule being heaped on him. However this is pure partisan bullshit.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
blkblt
December 29, 2009 9:28 PM
Doesn't "Ponzi scheme" perfectly describe Reaganomics? Cutting taxes and spending borrowed money with the belief that future revenues would increase to cover the difference seems like exactly what Governor Pawlenty is now complaining about.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
chimpale
December 29, 2009 9:30 PM
This from the governor who asked for bids on a huge road construction project in Minnesota with the stipulation that the contractor with the winning bid would have to finance its own work while waiting for payment from the state.
From the Mpls. Star Tribune: "Short of cash, the Minnesota Department of Transportation hoped to sell contractors on the cost-shifting scheme as a way to jump start construction before it had all the money.
"It planned to pay builders back as federal funds arrived.
"Bidders didn't bite."
Pawlenty. What a freakin' piece of work.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Chuck McCoy
December 29, 2009 10:46 PM in reply to chimpale
Hey Tim, care to listen to actual undeniable facts about government deficits under GOP administrations since 1981 and then respond with some DIRECT answers to those undeniable facts? No, I didn't think so.
One more thing Tim - if running for president doesn't work out, maybe you can become one of the Jaywalking All Stars on Jay Leno. Obviously you're very factually challenged.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Solomon Drek
December 29, 2009 10:43 PM
"The federal government is running a Ponzi scheme. It's a Ponzi on the Potomac."
Can't be worse than Wingnuts on Wall Street.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Silence
December 30, 2009 9:12 AM in reply to Solomon Drek
Read this.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&sid=a48c8UpUMxKQ
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Silence
December 30, 2009 9:43 AM in reply to Silence
*chirp*
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Silence
December 30, 2009 10:03 AM in reply to Silence
One trillion for the people, four trillion for Wall street.
Hey, you folks said that Obama was a people guy. I mentioned that Obama was a Wall street guy and you called me all kinds of horrible names.
Are you going to call me names now? Probably. That's what people who don't have a legitimate answer do.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Signalman
December 30, 2009 4:39 PM in reply to Silence
You should talk, Mr. Abandon-The-Thread-With-Alarming-Regularity.
If you were a Native American, your name would be Runs Away Like A Girl.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
USgreentech
December 30, 2009 6:13 AM
Out of the governorship bitch. Punk ass slut.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ivy22
December 30, 2009 8:55 AM
Minnesota will be so much better off when you take a right wing "think" tank job after you fail miserably as the next great thing in the GOP. You tore a page out of Palin's book: quit early and run away from your failures. You would be great at that parlor game, Catch Phrase. It will take years to undo the damage you have done to Minnesota.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?