Do you think Sen. Amy Klobuchar is doing a good job?

Posted by OLD5 (anonymous) on April 13, 2009 at 10:07 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I never expected this vote to be different, but I think he is doing the best he can.

Posted by demo1960 (anonymous) on April 13, 2009 at 12:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Actually, I am a pretty liberal democrat and I think Pawenty is doing a pretty fair job with what he has to work with. At least he did not turn away the stimulus although he had good reasoning. MN gives more to the federal government than we get back. I also think he is trustworthy, which is an issue with many politicians. I would rather have a republican I trust than a democrat I don't trust.

Posted by NoDFL (anonymous) on April 13, 2009 at 12:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I like the fact he is willing to stand by what he says. No cuts for xyz. Also to win reelection in Minnesota (a strong liberal state) when the nation was moving to the far left shows he has done something right.

Posted by michie62 (anonymous) on April 14, 2009 at 6:44 a.m. (Suggest removal)

cuts to medical for the disabled, cuts in education. He also seems to spend a great deal of time campaigning on MSNBC and FOX News for his 2012 presidential campaign. Of course, he is talking about the senatorial race and other issues, but what great free advertising for him. He is just another slick political creep.

Posted by chrish (anonymous) on April 14, 2009 at 4:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)

All politicians self-promote - they are not just in this for the "good of the country" but for themselves like anyone else in his/her career.

I think Pawlenty is doing a good job overall. To me, he seems to want to do right by the state even if that means making some unpopular decisions. No one wants to cut programs such as education but unfortunately we are in a recession and you have no choice. He is trying to protect the MN taxpayer because as it is, we have fairly high taxes. No, I don't like seeing education funds cut but what else are you supposed to do? Cutting back is happening in nearly every industry and sadly, has to happen with state programs too.

Posted by NoDFL (anonymous) on April 14, 2009 at 9:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)

chrish,

I think Gov Pawlenty made a pledge not to cut K12 education and it is the DFL Sen and House who have said they will cut k12 ed by 3%. Again sometimes we are blinded by what we believe (Rep cut ed and DFL funds it).

What I think is maybe it is time to give up on the 2 party system. Maybe they are just a different shade of gray. I think I am tired of big government telling me what to do. Tired of living in one of the highest taxed states. I think both Dems and Rep have had it with paying the bills. I could be wrong but it is a scary time.

Posted by NoDFL (anonymous) on April 14, 2009 at 9:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The most significant changes to the Governor’s budget plan would increase K-12 education funding beyond the level proposed by Governor Pawlenty in January, restore funding for the University of Minnesota and the Minnesota State Colleges and Universities system, increase funding for higher education state grants, delay eligibility changes for parents on Medical Assistance or MinnesotaCare, reform the state’s General Assistance Medical Care program, put short-term offenders in state prisons, exempt unemployment insurance benefits from state taxes up to $2,400 per individual, and provide an addition $10 million for operation of state courts.

http://www.governor.state.mn.us/mediacen...

The Minnesota Senate, in a dramatic turnaround from recent budget years, voted Tuesday to slash K-12 education spending by $453 million, or slightly more than 3 percent of the budget over the next two years.

http://www.startribune.com/politics/stat...

Posted by NoDFL (anonymous) on April 14, 2009 at 9:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Also with tax day just hours away I thought I would post this.

Again, something interesting........

There are few topics as complex, frustrating, and as misunderstood as taxes. T. Davies, professor of accounting at the University of South Dakota, explains the impact of tax reduction through a remarkably understandable analogy that is both entertaining and informative.

"This is a very simple way to understand the tax laws," says Professor Davies. "Read on, as it does make you think!" Here's his analogy:

"Let's put tax cuts in terms everyone can understand. Suppose that every day, ten men go out for dinner. The bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

the first four men, the poorest, would pay nothing;
the fifth would pay $1;
the sixth would pay $3;
the seventh would pay $7;
the eighth pays $12;
the ninth would pay $18;
and the tenth man, the richest, would pay $59.
"That's what they decided to do. The ten men ate dinner in the restaurant every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement --- until one day, the owner threw them a curve (in tax language a tax cut).

Posted by NoDFL (anonymous) on April 14, 2009 at 9:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)

part 2

"'Since you are all such good customers,' he said, 'I am going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20. So now dinner for the ten only cost $80.00.

"The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still eat for free. But what about the other six--the paying customers? How could they divvy up the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?'

"The six men realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, Then the fifth man and the sixth man would end up being PAID to eat their meal. So the restaurant owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay:

as before, the first four men paid nothing;
now the fifth man also paid nothing;
the sixth man now paid $2;
the seventh paid $5;
the eighth man paid $9;
the ninth man paid $12;
leaving the tenth man with a bill of $52 instead of his earlier $59.
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to eat for free.

"But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings. 'I only got a dollar out of the $20 reduction,' declared the sixth man, but he, pointing to the tenth. 'But he got $7!'. 'Yeah, that's right,' exclaimed the fifth man, 'I only saved a dollar too; it's unfair that he got seven times more than me!'

'"That's true,' shouted the seventh man, 'why should he get $7 back when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!. 'Wait a minute,' yelled the first four men in unison, 'We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!'

"The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up. The next night he didn't show up for dinner, so the nine sat down and ate without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered, a little late what was very important. They were now Fifty-Two Dollars short of paying the bill. Imagine that!

And that, boys and girls, journalists, and college instructors, is how the tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up at the table anymore.

"Where would that leave the rest? Unfortunately, most taxing authorities anywhere cannot seem to grasp this rather straightforward logic."

Posted by alhsgrad90 (anonymous) on April 14, 2009 at 11:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)

NoDFL you state Pawlenty is going to increase funding for education but then he would have to go against his pledge of not raising taxes. It is because of his opposition to taxes we are in the mess we are in now.

Posted by alhsgrad90 (anonymous) on April 15, 2009 at 7:12 a.m. (Suggest removal)

How about this; the gov and all the other politicians take a pay cut, take away their per diem. Do the legislators really need to be paid 32,000 for 6 months of work. I feel not. In these tough times it is time for these people to make the same sacrifices as the rest of us.

Posted by newyankee (anonymous) on April 15, 2009 at 8:04 a.m. (Suggest removal)

“It is because of his opposition to taxes we are in the mess we are in now.”

Without putting the current economic situation in proper context that statement makes sense. The government needs more money. We don’t want to not educate children and we all want fire and police protection, right? Because of the governors opposition to tax increases the schools will have to “cut” and that is not a good thing. But what is baseline budgeting? Have we as Minnesotans ever cut real dollars when it comes to K-12 education? In 1980 the state budget was about $7.2 billion and today is about $34.6 billion. It seems to me that the problem lies with the people who have been in St Paul for far too many years and not the “current occupant” of the Governor’s Mansion.

Also, please do not fall for the “if you oppose high taxes and spending…you are anti-tax” rhetoric. That is not part of the Republican Party platform. Taxes have their proper place, and Republicans and Conservatives (there is a difference) believe that.

Posted by leftys2221 (anonymous) on April 15, 2009 at 8:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I think he is doing OK. The plan to work with Wisconsin is a good idea. I think the fact that he is going to cut human services by 7% across the board is really going to hurt our mentally ill and handicapped individuals. I work in that industry and we will end up paying for the cuts through the possibility of crime and medical emergencies for those folks.

Why is it that in general governments wait until something bad happens or the budget comes out (which has been bad lately) to do these cuts or propose new ways to solve this. If they would cut a less amount for a few years the shock wouldn't be so bad and it would be more effective.

Talking about the "current occupant" not having any blame in this as you mentioned yankee he is the CEO if the state and is where the blame stops. One more thing to you. I have driven through low tax states and boy are their roads nice. In Minnesota we call them minimum maintenance roads.

Posted by newyankee (anonymous) on April 15, 2009 at 8:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)

What I was attempting to point out is that the growth in government spending and the resulting tax increases on those who actually pay taxes has been an issue long before the current budget cycle. I did not intend to state that the “current occupant” is blameless in this matter. The people we elect are generally of the same mindset. I notice that few of the proposed solutions to “problems” involve allowing citizens to keep more of their money and decide where or how to spend it. If a little government involvement makes something expensive, more government will fix it?

If memory serves me, our last budget spent something along the line of 1% on our roads. So, I am not sure if there is a correlation between tax rates and road conditions.

Posted by leftys2221 (anonymous) on April 15, 2009 at 9:16 a.m. (Suggest removal)

When did anything I mentioned say at all something similar to "If a little government involvement makes something expensive, more government will fix it?"

95% of citizens are being allowed to keep more of their money. It is just the richest 5% that are receiving a tax increase.

Posted by michie62 (anonymous) on April 15, 2009 at 9:32 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Virgianian: Last week, Governor Tim Pawlenty was on The Rachel Maddow Show, I believe it was either Tuesday, April 7 or Wednesday, April 8, discussing the senatorial fiasco here in Minnesota. In previous weeks, he was on Hardball with Chris Matthews as well as during their afternoon news with either Contessa Brewer or David Schuster. On Monday, April 13, he was on with Ed Schultz at 5pm on The Ed Schultz Show on MSNBC. Yes I have facts to back up my statement. I would not write in otherwise.

Posted by leftys2221 (anonymous) on April 15, 2009 at 10:29 a.m. (Suggest removal)

So when the richest 5% get tax breaks and the other 95% pay more taxes it is not that?

I also think it is funny that when someone proves you wrong as michie62 did you attack the point that they brought up. There is no way that Fox has more liberal guests, do they have any? Perhaps a token one every once in awhile that Billo just screams at.

Also Virginian why do you imply that I am mentally slow? Is this just more of your name calling against people that do not share political views as you? Next you will use the old republic trick and tell me that I am un-American because I am not a conservative.

Posted by NoDFL (anonymous) on April 15, 2009 at 10:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Posted by alhsgrad90 (anonymous) on April 15, 2009 at 7:12 a.m. (Suggest removal)

How about this; the gov and all the other politicians take a pay cut, take away their per diem. Do the legislators really need to be paid 32,000 for 6 months of work. I feel not. In these tough times it is time for these people to make the same sacrifices as the rest of us.

I am all for this.

As for your other point. I feel as if I am taxed to death already. So there should be no more taxes. Time to cut like the rest of us. I was just pointing out that the Gov has always said he would not cut education and cops/fire. I support that. If you believe what you posted you should as well. Time for the state to cut.

Does anyone know who the biggest employer in Minnesota is?

I would bet it is State Government. I will check on that and the rest of you should as well.

Government wants us all to be on the public payroll that way we will keep them in power. Just my 2 cents.

Posted by NoDFL (anonymous) on April 15, 2009 at 10:44 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Posted by leftys2221 (anonymous) on April 15, 2009 at 10:29 a.m. (Suggest removal)

So when the richest 5% get tax breaks and the other 95% pay more taxes it is not that?

Do you really belive this? 60% of Americans pay no taxes. So where are you getting this 95% deal. Sounds like talking points to me. Just show me the facts.

Please reread the little story above so that you understand how the tax system works.

Posted by leftys2221 (anonymous) on April 15, 2009 at 10:46 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The University of Minnesota with ~25,000 employees

Posted by leftys2221 (anonymous) on April 15, 2009 at 11:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Do you really believe your story? To have those figures be at all real the rich ones would have to have hundreds of times more money then the poorer ones. The $1 change would effect the poor a lot more then the rich.

Posted by NoDFL (anonymous) on April 15, 2009 at 11:48 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Isn't the University part of the State? Maybe we should talk public Vs private. Public would win I think.

Posted by newyankee (anonymous) on April 15, 2009 at 11:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Leftys2221,
You did not say nor did I mean to imply you said "If a little government involvement makes something expensive, more government will fix it?" The type of people we elect and the system of how we spend money in this State make spending increases easy and cuts seem like the end of the world as we know it. That is, in my opinion, why we are now being told roughly $35 Billion is not enough. Now, those who actually pay taxes are going to be required to pay more.

Posted by leftys2221 (anonymous) on April 15, 2009 at 12:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)

That is a good point NoDFL but there are a lot more areas that are part of the state (as you mentioned the U of M, MN DOT...) then could be in the private sector. Clearly it is the largest then. I would think maybe a hospital or perhaps something like a utility or cable company would be the next highest. (Xcel or Charter perhaps)

NewYankee- I certainly agree with you that something needs to be changed in that process. I would like to see that if they are going to raise taxes (obviously no one wants to see that) that they would pay off the already over budget stuff.

My main point (as I have stated numerous times) is that no matter who gets the tax cuts someone still pays for them. The difference I feel is that when it is the rich that get them it is a great example of capitalism but when the middle class get them it is socialism. I pay my taxes on time and do not complain about them at all. I view it as a necessity. I am willing to pay to have nice things in my state and country.

Posted by NoDFL (anonymous) on April 15, 2009 at 1:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)

lefts2221,

Quote "My main point (as I have stated numerous times) is that no matter who gets the tax cuts someone still pays for them. The difference I feel is that when it is the rich that get them it is a great example of capitalism but when the middle class get them it is socialism."

I think this is a miss statement of fact. First tax cuts should go to the people who pay taxes. Thus Obama's 95% of people get a tax cut is untrue. When you don't pay taxes you should not get a check. Next if cuts are based on % paid (which is fair) then those who pay more get a bigger cut.

I posted before that taxes to pay for things like police/fire. These are excamples of things we all need but that not everyone is willing to pay for. Where I have a problem is taxes used for social issues. Taxes being rasied to pay for silly programs. Everyone can make a point one way or another so we will always be taxed. Funny had we just not changed the Constitution.

Posted by alwaysamazed (anonymous) on April 15, 2009 at 1:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Do any of you have jobs?

Posted by alhsgrad90 (anonymous) on April 15, 2009 at 1:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)

NoDFL I agree with but we both know it doesn't matter who is in control Rebulican or Democrats when it comes to their welfare they will not touch that. I do think the state gov't is the largest employer. I think it is time that we look at how can we raise money without taxes, we are the third highest taxed state in the union, maybe we should look at added toll to our roads. This idea I like because for two reasons, first it brings in money, second it brings jobs to people who do not have one. Another idea would be try to make some of these large companies like 3M or Imation brings jobs back to Minnesota. I am sure we can find some people that can do the same jobs as many of the Asians that do them now. Yet another way to save money would be to have the state prisoners clean the roads, that is right bring back the chain gangs, I think it is time for these prisoners to earn the $62,500 a year it cost to keep them in prison. Even better take away their free cable, internet, and send any medical bills they get to their families so they can be paid. It should be a prison not a country club.

So now everyone may either agree or disagree feel free.

Posted by Bullitt (anonymous) on April 15, 2009 at 1:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)

This has gotten off the subject.... Normally I would say "NO", but now that I-90 and 46 are slated to plated, I think "Yes" the governor is doing a terrific job. And I'm damn proud that the third of my income that disappears is going towards something that actually benefits me and my area. Got to look on the bright side Limbaugh's.

Posted by leftys2221 (anonymous) on April 15, 2009 at 1:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)

How about everyone pays the same percentage of their income as taxes?

Posted by Bullitt (anonymous) on April 15, 2009 at 2:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I agree that everyone pays the same. And the employed get to write off the miles and car they drive to work, as they are a necessary part of the job. Just like the self-employed. Fair is fair.

Posted by NoDFL (anonymous) on April 15, 2009 at 3:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I think both leftys2221 and alhsgrad90 would agree that this has become not a left or right issue but an issue about out of control government. I can take issue with some of what has been said but I agree with other parts. (sorry hate toll road idea) I like the flat tax idea everyone pays the same %. I think to bring back jobs you must cut government and taxes. Our rates are way to high. They are high on the worker and high on the people who create the jobs. I find it hard not to blame them all but the Gov has tried to hold the line. Just look to to tea parties. It is not about a poltical parties it is about too much government in our lives.

Posted by NoDFL (anonymous) on April 15, 2009 at 3:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Bullitt,

If you go to a flat tax than there would be no write offs. None. A very simple 15% off the top. No tax refunds no filing just done. No FICO. Oh what a wonderful world it would be......

Posted by alhsgrad90 (anonymous) on April 15, 2009 at 3:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)

NoDFL would toll roads be a good idea if those tolls were going to maintain the roads and any other road project and we could get rid of the gas tax? Just a question. How about this as another idea. Most people know that the movie Gran Torino was written by a Minnesotan and was set in Minnesota yet it was filmed in Detriot why is this because the state has the film companies pay a huge fee to film in the state. Here is the idea instead of having them pay the huge fee how about the state gets 1% of the gross profit of any movie filmed here. That would definetly help the state coffers. Also, NoDFL think about this the city of San Antoino placed a higher tax on tourism (hotel rooms, rental cars) and that paid for the Spurs new arena AT&T Center. Just think if Minnesota did that then we would not have these greedy team owners asking the taxpayers for money for their stadiums. Again feel free to agree or disagree.

Posted by NoDFL (anonymous) on April 15, 2009 at 4:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I could warm to toll roads if there was no gas tax. I think the gas tax is out of date anyway. The government wants us to drive smaller cars that get better gas milage. However the better they are on gas the less money the state gets in tax. Just you wait we will get taxed for the miles we drive and everyone who bought those small cars will get hosed.

alhsgrad90 if I could put forth this idea. People and business respond to incentives. Movies have left Cal because of taxes. The same goes here. We tax to much. The worker is being killed and so is the small business man or women. Cut the taxes cut the size of government and kill the nanny state. Would you not agree that there is to much government in our lives? We did try the tax on hotel rooms rental cars and resturants to pay for the dome. The government saw it as a slush fund and now it goes to mass transit and the like. The government just doesn't get it.

Am I wrong????

Posted by NoDFL (anonymous) on April 15, 2009 at 4:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)

By the way thanks for the open disscussion without the attacks.

Posted by leftys2221 (anonymous) on April 15, 2009 at 4:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The pro sport stadium is a different animal. I think the Twins ballpark is going to be the best thing for Hennipin (SP?) county. For example, when the Yankees come here to play and stay at a hotel for that series they pay towards the increased tax there. I believe they are also taxed for the games played here as far as income goes. In a few years when the stadium is paid off they will receive the benefits of this.

Wasn't Gran Torino set in Detroit, he was a retired Ford worker?

Posted by leftys2221 (anonymous) on April 15, 2009 at 4:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I am incorrect on the Gran Torino aspect of my post, good point alhsgrad.

Posted by NoDFL (anonymous) on April 15, 2009 at 4:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Those pro players get taxed at a huge rate in Cal. Just a mess. I think you are right time for a flat tax.

Posted by alhsgrad90 (anonymous) on April 15, 2009 at 5:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)

NoDFL I was a little to young to know how the built the dome and how it was paid for. I do live in Hennepin County I am glad to pay for the Twins because the dome was not for them. They had to pay rent to the Vikings and did not get alot from in house ads plus if they sold a suite a majority of the money went to the Vikings. Plus, everytime there is some sort of sporting event that happens in the state every player is taxed at the Minnesota tax rate. I think the gov't needs to look at how to raise money before they cut. Or rethink the what matters to the people of this state. NoDFL I also thank you for staying on point with your post and not getting personal. Thanks.

Posted by NoDFL (anonymous) on April 15, 2009 at 6:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)

alhsgrad90,

I would say cuts need to come first. Government is like a drunk. They will just keep drinking until it kills them. Take away the booze is the first step. Take away the funds and they will have to stop spending. At least at the state level. The fed has no reason to stop because they are not forced to balance their budget. Here is why taxing doesn't work. It deals with the new tobacco tax.

While a tobacco tax is a politically popular funding source, it has several significant shortcomings:
•A tobacco tax disproportionately burdens low-income Americans, lacks long-term stability, and ultimately results in significant shifting of health care costs onto others.
•With the number of smokers already declining, a tobacco tax would further reduce the number of smokers, thereby eroding the funding source.
•To produce the revenues that Congress needs to fund SCHIP expansion through such a tax would require 22.4 million new smokers by 2017.
http://www.heritage.org/research/healthc......

Also I think you would be shocked at how much you pay in taxes just to go out for drinks and a meal in Hennepin. Next time you are out ask for the break down. I doubt you will every be able to convince me taxes are to low but I am willing to listen.

Posted by 41057 (anonymous) on April 15, 2009 at 8:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)

What a great illustration of our tax system. Thank you NoDFL. I am going to send it to everyone I know.

Posted by NoDFL (anonymous) on April 15, 2009 at 9:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)

You know what makes me worry tonight as we post. The fact that Homeland Sec has said anyone who questions taxes, or the administration is a terrorist. We can not use the words terrorist to describe the real terrorist but we call Americans who have had enough big government terrorist.

The report, "Right-wing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment," said right-wing extremist groups may be using the recession and the election of the nation's first African-American president to recruit members.

Though the nine-page report said it had "no specific information that domestic right-wing terrorists are currently planning acts of violence," it said real-estate foreclosures, unemployment and tight credit "could create a fertile recruiting environment for right-wing extremists and even result in confrontations between such groups and government authorities similar to those in the past."

Michael Savage, another conservative commentator, also criticized the report.

"What does Big Sis say these right-wingers are concerned about?" he wrote on his Web site, referring to Napolitano.

"Illegal aliens, the increasing power of the federal government, gun grabs, abortion and the loss of U.S. national sovereignty. In other words, anyone who is worried about preserving our borders, language and culture is on Big Sis' watch list."

In her Wednesday statement, Napolitano said the agency is on "the lookout for criminal and terrorist activity but we do not -- nor will we ever -- monitor ideology or political beliefs."

She said she was briefed on the general topic, which "struck a nerve as someone personally involved in the Timothy McVeigh prosecution."

Napolitano said she intends to meet with American Legion National Commander David K. Rehbein, who sent her a letter Monday stating his concern about the report.

"Timothy McVeigh was only one of more than 42 million veterans who have worn this nation's uniform during wartime," he wrote. "To continue to use McVeigh as an example of the stereotypical 'disgruntled military veteran' is as unfair as using Osama bin Laden as the sole example of Islam."

He added, "I think it is important for all of us to remember that Americans are not the enemy. The terrorists are."

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/04/15/e...

Posted by NoDFL (anonymous) on April 15, 2009 at 9:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Here is what Napolitano says about the brave men and women who have defend our rights to speak up against big government.

WASHINGTON (AP) — Republicans on Wednesday said a Homeland Security Department intelligence assessment unfairly characterizes military veterans as right-wing extremists.

House Republican leader John Boehner described the report as offensive and called on the agency to apologize to veterans.

The agency's intelligence assessment, sent to law enforcement officials last week, warns that right-wing extremists could use the bad state of the U.S. economy and the election of the country's first black president to recruit members.

The assessment also said that returning military veterans who have difficulties assimilating back into their home communities could be susceptible to extremist recruiters or might engage in lone acts of violence.

Glen M. Gardner Jr., national commander of the Veterans of Foreign Wars, disputed claims that Homeland Security analysts were describing veterans as terror threats.

"The report should have been worded differently, but it made no blanket accusation that every soldier was capable of being a traitor like Benedict Arnold, or every veteran could be a lone wolf, homegrown terrorist like Timothy McVeigh," said Gardner, a Marine veteran from Round Rock, Texas. " It was just an assessment about possibilities that could take place."

Homeland Security says the assessments are part of a series published "to facilitate a greater understanding of the phenomenon of violent radicalization in the United States."

In September, the agency highlighted how right-wing extremists over the past five years have used the immigration debate as a recruiting tool.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/arti...

I guess we all better watch what we say. Scary times....

Posted by alhsgrad90 (anonymous) on April 15, 2009 at 9:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)

NoDFL I see your point about the tobacco tax, with the number of smokers going down maybe the gov't needs to legalize drugs so they can tax the hell out of that. I am more in favor of maintaining what you have and trying not to spend more especially if there is no money to spend. So there should never be an increase in any budgets if the revenue can not meet the increase. I have hardly seen the increase in the amount of sales tax here in Hennepin County for the Twins stadium because I could just cross the river and be in Anoka county to do my shopping but since I want to pay for the stadium I would rarely do that. But now with tax to provide clean water and air and the enviroment(the legacy act or whatever it is called). I have seen the sales tax rate go from 6% to 6.5% to 6.75% in the last year and half. Actually it jumped from 6.5 to 6.75 or 6.79 in the last year I think. What also needs to happen besides the flat tax is a national sales tax and elimnate the income tax then everyone would be paying and then you won't have to worry about any types of refunds or April 15th anymore. I would be more in favor of that than a flat tax. Another idea could be to start taxing clothes and food that you buy in a grocrey store. However, we would lose people that travel to Minnesota just because of that. Here is where the toll roads would help us out.

Posted by Truth (anonymous) on April 15, 2009 at 10:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same."

-- Ronald Reagan

I think Homeland would call Reagan a terrorist. We are so lost.

alhsgrad I think tax on booze is like 8% or higher plus the 6.7% sales tax. They hide them real well. I can not support taxing clothes and food (most food is now taxed anyway). A flat tax would be enough but if it is a natioanal sales tax then get rid of state sales tax. Wish it was an easy fix but it is not.

Also be careful I would hate it if some one called you a terrorist for talking about taxes or questioning the leader of this state.

Posted by michie62 (anonymous) on April 15, 2009 at 11:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Virginian: I also watch Fox News and Bill O'Reilly. Ed Schulz is a radio talk show host from Minnesota. I was raised by someone who read all sides of the issues and we also watched William F. Buckley on PBS in the late 70's, the show was called Firing Line. I also read National Review, The Progressive, Reader's Digest, Rolling Stone, The American Progressive. I read Huffington Post and The Drudge Report. I have found that labels such as conservative and liberal are of very little use. I also worked for many years with many severely disabled people, and from that experience, as well testifying to the legislature in 2003 about the needs of these people, who were the first cut in the 03 Pawlenty budget, I came to believe that medical care is the most important thing that we can't lose.
As for calling Rachel Maddow a clone of Keith Olberman, that is rather short sighted of you. Rachel is a Rhodes Scholar and a Phd. in Political Science. Also you are wrong when saying Olberman has never had a conservative on his program. He has had on conservative columnist Clarence Page from the Chicago Tribune and several times has had on Pat Buchanan, he has also had Cronyn on from Texas--who said the republicans would start World War III if Al Franken was elected. He is a conservative, but quite ignorant to refer to the republican protest of the election of Franken to such a heinous event as a world war.
Liberal or conservative does not mean much, I prefer for people to use their common sense on issues. And as for Pawlenty being the one to speak to the senatorial race, it is not his place to do so, with the exception of explaining why he will not sign the certification. That interview should have been done with the the Secretary of State, who would have also been able to discuss what the process was. Surely you can't be convinced that Pawlenty is not using some of this national press coverage to get himself known on a national level. Senator McCain continually brings him up--just a few weeks ago on Meet The Press, among other programs and publications. I tend to believe that each of has a responsibility for ourselves and for those around us. As I stated before labels are just the perception of others. Not in the least useful or scientific.

Posted by 123noname (anonymous) on April 16, 2009 at 8:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)

How soon do we lose our freedom- using the report from Homeland Security as his reasoning-a patrolman in Wisconsin pulled over a semi driver with a sign that said "Dont Tread On Me". Told the driver they are now instructed to look for this type of activity and investigate. Are you paying attention to each piece of the plan to take away our freedom

Posted by leftys2221 (anonymous) on April 16, 2009 at 8:37 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Hey remember that Bush started wire tapping everyone's phones and monitoring everyone's emails?

Posted by NoDFL (anonymous) on April 16, 2009 at 9:29 a.m. (Suggest removal)

leftys2221,

Are you sure it is everyones? I know we all sometimes generalize. Can you show the proof it was everyone? I thought it was under the justice department and they had to have court approval. I questionsed the formation of Homeland Security and felt we were giving up our freedom for security under the patriot act. This is not a right or left issue. I think it is freedom Vs big brother (or Big Sis). History repaets it's self and it is doing it again here and now. Those in power Right or Left want to keep their power. We are far from what the Founders thought America would be. I love that the tea parties had both left and right people there. It was not about taxes it was about the size and the over reach of the Government. It started with Bush and has be enhanced by Obama. I don't see much difference in them when it comes to small government and my freedom.

Posted by leftys2221 (anonymous) on April 16, 2009 at 12:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)

What are people are the far right called? Loons also Virginian?

Posted by NoDFL (anonymous) on April 16, 2009 at 2:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)

It's about hypocrisy — both parties claim to be the most ethical, but we get corruption and not one damn person in Washington to speak out against it.

It's about the media that gets into bed with one party and has moved so far left that it can't even begin to see we're not extremists, we're moms and dads who just want to have a Republic for our children; but they can't see it.

But I'm the extremist.

Bush and Obama spend or put us on the hook for $12.8 trillion, but I'm the extremist?

Cap and Trade without any plan on who pays the taxes or where the money goes, but I'm the extremist?

States are looking to apply retroactive taxes — that's like changing the rules in the middle of the game — but I'm the extremist?

Vilifying AIG executives, without any law being broken, just for accepting money they were owed, but I'm the extremist?

Bush and Obama have taken over and want to take over banks, car manufacturers and insurance companies, but I'm the extremist?

The politicians in the House and Senate stuff $20 billion in pork and earmarks into spending bills when we have to beg the Chinese to loan us that money, and I'm the extremist?

A Supreme Court justice and Harold Koh, who will help run the State Department, talk about trans-nationalism and by definition a diminished role for the Constitution, but I'm the extremist?

Politicians openly talk of the Fairness Doctrine — or its ugly twin, "localism" — and curtailing my free speech, but I'm the extremist?

Unions and big labor politicians want to take away the right to a secret ballot, but I'm the extremist?

I believe in the Constitution. I believe in the Founding Fathers. I believe in the American people. When did believing those things make someone — anyone — an extremist?

I'm not the extremist.

I learned something from a lawyer friend of mine who won lots of cases in front of judges and lawyers — I asked him how he won so many cases. He said it's easy: If the law supports my client's position I argue the law. If not, I argue the facts. If the facts don't support my client's position, I just attack the opposition.

They can't attack the message, so I guess they have to target the messenger.

http://www.glennbeck.com/content/article...

Posted by leftys2221 (anonymous) on April 16, 2009 at 3:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Glen Beck states his opinion and thinks that people need to accept it as fact.

Posted by leftys2221 (anonymous) on April 16, 2009 at 3:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)

When you just mention unions, where is the mention of big business? How large corporations hide revenue so they don't have to pay taxes on it.

Again why has "the media gotten into bed with one party and has moved so far left..." why is there not a mention of the people like Beck himself, Bill-o and Rush that are just as far to the right as some of the media is to the left?

There could also be mention how protesters yesterday protested wasteful spending (among other items) by wasting money on buying tea bags. Ironic.

Liberals are not the end all and be all problem as Beck would have you believe. It is people in both parties, both sides of the equations.

Posted by alhsgrad90 (anonymous) on April 16, 2009 at 3:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Truth I could be wrong but the sin tax, the tax that is on booze and tobacco is 10%, it may be higher now. But I think we would all agree that something needs to be not just at the state level but the national level as well.

Posted by NoDFL (anonymous) on April 16, 2009 at 3:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)

leftys2221

Did you even read the whole story? It seems like you didn't.

No where does he take a side.

This is what the tea parties are about:

It's about spending — too much spending, to be specific. The idea that a business is too big to fail is anti-American; we've always been for the underdog.

It's about putting my family — my children — under $12.8 trillion in debt; all it took was two presidents and six months.

It's about the idea that we're all socialists now.

It's about the idea that the government can force companies, banks and states to take money and the strings that are attached to it, that they didn't want.

It's about power — too much power going to federal government.

It's about corruption — too much corruption, in both parties.

It's about the rule of law — that no one is above the law: if you're here legally or illegally, it applies-never too rich or powerful.

It's about if you write the tax code you should pay your taxes.

It's about the Republic, not mob rule.

It's about the concept of free speech — we've been called insane, lunatics and worse, just for speaking out.

It's about the years of lies from both parties — a Republican Party that claims to be for small government but gives us Medicare Part D that's got $17 trillion in unfunded liabilities.

It's about hypocrisy — both parties claim to be the most ethical, but we get corruption and not one damn person in Washington to speak out against it.

http://www.glennbeck.com/content/article...

Posted by leftys2221 (anonymous) on April 16, 2009 at 4:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"It's about the media that gets into bed with one party and has moved so far left that it can't even begin to see we're not extremists, we're moms and dads who just want to have a Republic for our children; but they can't see it."

Posted by Truth (anonymous) on April 16, 2009 at 4:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)

alhsgrad90,

I know many in the resturant business up there and the 10% you talk about is on top of the 6.5% so the real figure is 16.5% on booze in bars and resturant. I am with you on a flat tax. (don't buy the fair tax) but first you have to cut the spending at the local level, state level, and the federal level.

NoDFL,

Your points should not be taken left or right but taken as Americans are tired and when your own government calls Vets a threat we need to stand up and say something. This is not about parties they have both let us down. It is unreal that 300,000 people both Dem and Rep took a stand against the government and now the government thinks they are extremist. Wonder what those in Homeland Sec would have said about Martain Luther King Jr? He would be an extremist and the media would be making fun of them. It is sad very sad.

Posted by NoDFL (anonymous) on April 16, 2009 at 4:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Here is an idea that is perfectly legal. It is time for the states to call a constitutional convention. The states have this right. We could pass an amendment that repeals the progressive tax system and put in a flat tax. Better yet we could force the federal government to live on a balance budget. I could get behind this. Any of the rest of you?

Posted by leftys2221 (anonymous) on April 16, 2009 at 4:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Now I see that Texas' governor says that Texas should secede.

Posted by NoDFL (anonymous) on April 16, 2009 at 5:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Posted by leftys2221 (anonymous) on April 16, 2009 at 4:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"It's about the media that gets into bed with one party and has moved so far left that it can't even begin to see we're not extremists, we're moms and dads who just want to have a Republic for our children; but they can't see it."

This is true. I believe the Media is in the tank for the administration. The media even did stories on this.

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/Story?id=...

The traditional media are playing a very, very dangerous game -- with their readers, with the Constitution and with their own fates.

The media have covered this presidential campaign with a bias and that ultimately could lead to its downfall.The sheer bias in the print and television coverage of this election campaign is not just bewildering, but appalling.

or this

The evidence of bias in favor of Barack Obama continues to pour in. In the last couple of weeks came studies from the Project for Excellence in Journalism and the Center for Media and Public Affairs (CMPA), neither of which is considered in any way to have conservative leanings. In the former study, they found that, based on coverage from 48 news outlets between the end of the two party’s conventions and the end of the debates, 57% of the stories on McCain were negative, while only 14% were considered positive, while for Obama, those figures were 29% negative and 36% positive.

Surveys show that, by a margin of seven to one, the public thinks that most journalists want Obama to win. Even Democrats, by a six-to-one margin, believe the same. They also saw the bias in favor of Obama during the Democratic primaries and caucuses. The liberal bias cannot be denied.

The CMPA reported their findings last week: “Based on a scientific content analysis of 979 election news stories with 33 hours 40 minutes airtime that appeared on the ABC, CBS, NBC, and FOX evening newscasts (the first half hour of Fox News Channel’s “Special Report”) from August 23 to October 24,” they determined that “On the broadcast network newscasts, evaluations of Barack Obama and Joe Biden have been over twice as favorable as evaluations of John McCain and Sarah Palin–65% positive versus 35% negative for the Democratic ticket compared to 31% positive versus 69% negative evaluations of the Republican ticket.”

http://www.aim.org/aim-column/media-are-...

Say what you want but it would not take anyone long to find the bias in the media.

Posted by NoDFL (anonymous) on April 16, 2009 at 5:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)

26 states have or are passing resolution about this. We may be very close to a lot of states and people going that way. This is why people are going to the streets. We are tired of big government in our lives. Change is needed.

Posted by alhsgrad90 (anonymous) on April 16, 2009 at 6:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Truth I think you are correct about the tax in restuarants. The sin tax on booze in Minnesota is just 10% with anything else added on it and is usually at your local liquor store but I could be wrong. I did not look at my reciept that last time I was in a liqour store but that would be good info to know. Thanks for a great open discussion.

NoDFL you and I seem to agree on many things but how is big government in your life. Is it just taxes or something else? I am just wondering. I would like to hear you view on this. Again I am not critizing just wondering. Because the only time big government was in my life is when my brother was in Afghanistan and they like to listen to what was being said.

Posted by NoDFL (anonymous) on April 16, 2009 at 6:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)

That is a good question alhsgrad90. Big government can mean many things to many people. I have for years been against silly rules. There has been a slow creep mostly with claims of protection for kids and the like. I don't smoke never have but state wide smoking bans are big brother (Big government) in my life. I Albert lea it is silly ordinances. I think like many things in life it all started off small and with commonsence. It is just one thing after another. Bush's and his bailout. Card check, 1 trillion in spending.

I think it is best to use the words of Jimmy Buffet.

You know I was talking to my friend desdemona the other day she
Runs this space station and bake shop down near boomtown. she told
Me that human beings are flawed individuals. the cosmic bakers
Took us out of the oven a little too early. and thats the
Reason were as crazy as we are and I believe it.

Take for example when you go to the movies these days, you know.
They try to sell you this jumbo drink, 8 extra ounces of watered
Down cherry coke for an extra 25 cents. I dont want it.
I dont want that much organziation in my life.
I dont want other people thinking for me.
I want my junior mints. where did the junior mints go in the
Movies. I dont want a 12 lb. nestles crunch for 25 dollars. i
Want junior mints.

We need more fruitcakes in this world and less bakers!
We need people that care! Im mad as hell! and I dont want to
Take it anymore!

Posted by alhsgrad90 (anonymous) on April 16, 2009 at 9:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)

NoDFL I go back and forth about the smoking ban. At times I like it because then I do not come home from a bar or club smelling like an ashtray. Then I feel that if there is smoking I have the choice not to go there but I also feel I have the right to go to these places and enjoy my meal or my time there without having someone else injecting with the poisons that come from second hand smoke. I grew up in a house where both of my parents smoked and I have a hard time go to either of their house because they still smoke. Good points I just wanted a little more info because I have seen that in many of your posts. Thanks. Hopefully solutions will come and not blame fingers.

Posted by NoDFL (anonymous) on April 16, 2009 at 10:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)

alhsgrad90,

I hope you enjoy this little story.

I recently asked my friend's little girl what she wanted to be when she grows up. She said she wanted to be President some day. Both of her parents, liberal Democrats, were standing there, so I asked her, 'If you were President what would be the first thing you would do? '

She replied, 'I'd give food and houses to all the homeless people.'

Her parents beamed.

'Wow...what a worthy goal', I told her. 'But you don't have to wait until you're President to do that. You can come over to my house and mow the lawn, pull weeds, and sweep my yard, and I'll pay you $50. Then I'll take you over to the grocery store where the homeless guy hangs out, and you can give him the $50 to use toward food and a new house.'

She thought that over for a few seconds, then she looked me straight in the eye and asked, 'Why doesn't the homeless guy come over and do the work, and you can just pay him the $50?'

I said, 'Welcome to the Republican Party'.

Her parents still aren't speaking to me.

Take care....

Posted by leftys2221 (anonymous) on April 17, 2009 at 8:14 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The homeless guy was already effected by the Republican party, that is why he was homeless. The CEO of his company probably needed another $1 million dollar raise to go with his other $25 million so they eliminated the homeless man's $25,000 position.

Posted by leftys2221 (anonymous) on April 17, 2009 at 9:01 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Also DFL interesting how AIM is a conservative site.

Posted by leftys2221 (anonymous) on April 17, 2009 at 9:05 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Very interesting how the people who disagreed with the last 8 years of giving in to big business and the very wealthy just kept working and trying to get by (mainly because you have no choice when you are living paycheck to paycheck) but after less then 100 hundred days of politics not conforming to the wealthy conservative base there is already all of this talk of seceding and holding tea parties.

Posted by NoDFL (anonymous) on April 17, 2009 at 9:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Question: Who is forcing you to live paycheck to paycheck? In a free market you make the choice. You place the value on your labor. You choose to buy the big TV or the house. No one is forced into debt. However under this new movement people both on the right or left are being forced to turn over more and more of their income to the government. Economic freedom has given way to economic security. There is a trade off if you want to be taken care of then it must come at a cost of your freedom. I want freedom no one including the government should be in my economic life. What has happen is we have taken away the moral imperative. People (business) are no longer responsible for the choices they make. We as society are being ask to bail them out. The people who have done the right things are now questioning why should I do what is right? The government will bail me out. Media has told them it is not their fault. Our country and our culture can not handle this much change.

Lastly history teaches many lessons and the one we are missing now is socialism has never work yet this administration thinks the cult of personality will trump history and basic economic theroy. It won't. It can't. I said it 6 month ago if we keep going down this path our country will ripe apart. It will make 1968 look like a trip to the fun park.

Posted by leftys2221 (anonymous) on April 17, 2009 at 12:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I was hoping someone was going to say that. About it being the individuals choice. To go get a different job. It is your fault if you don't make it. That is the dream of the republican belief. But there is reality.

Posted by leftys2221 (anonymous) on April 17, 2009 at 12:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Virginian, it happens every day. People say the CEO is on the front lines and held accountable but why then do decisions that he makes which cause the company to lose money result in others being fired, all the while he is making millions and millions of dollars? I know the board of directors are in charge of making this decision of his salary but more often then not they are a group of his friends who he probably gives kick backs to.

Posted by NoDFL (anonymous) on April 17, 2009 at 1:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Why is it someone's else fault? Why are you not the one to blame. I went to school, paid for it myself. I work hard have held 2 or 3 jobs at a time. I never asked anyone to save me from the big bad world. Your agruement is a cop-out. It comes from the differences between the risk taker and the worker. Many many hard working Americans get up everyday and work to provide. They don't ask you or I for anything but a chance to keep what they make. They play by the rules some even work 2 or 3 jobs like I did. You should not get what they work for. There is never a good agruement for taking from anyone who works and plays by the rules.

Posted by 123noname (anonymous) on April 17, 2009 at 2:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)

If you are not a CEO yourself-why not. I know many Presidents and CEO's and they are my friends. I worked for some of them as they started companies with a handful of people and ended up employing hundreds. Some of them went to the same high school I did, the same college and had parents who lived next to my parents. They had no financial advantages when they started-not from anyone-relatives, government-just made themselves what they are. Why am I not one-I did not want to take the risk of putting all of my time and my money on the line like they did-I had other goals. I was offered chances to buy into the companies and be part of the whole thing. So I made my own choice. I also worked my way through college to get a better job and income for me. I am not a multimillionaire, do not make 250000 a year or even a portion of it , but worked hard raised a family, paid for my home and put money away for the future. Now I have a government that thinks this should be taken away from me because for what reason again? Here is how they want it to work-have you looked at Cap and Tax-the plan states we are going to make profits and we are going to take them and give them to the poor and middle class who cant afford their energy bills anymore. Wait until you see you energy bill when this passed-try paying for it with your $13.00 a week that is a reduction in withholding, not tax reduction-you still pay it next April 15. Is that what you want from your government-just a small part of the plan to pile tax after tax on you and give the money to someone else and take complete control of your life. My friends who were CEO's provided great jobs and great livings for hundreds of people-they made a choice to become that and anyone can make that choice. If you did not make the effort to be more than what you are-so be it. I attended the tea party because I have no desire to give my money to anyone else unless I make that decision. I have been in the workforce for over 40 years and I will not give the things I have earned to someone who spent no time in furthering the advancement of our society-just sitting and complaining and waiting for someone to take care of problems of their own creation. They live in a country where they could have made other choices or at least at this time you still can-as long as we still have our freedom and liberty.

Posted by Truth (anonymous) on April 17, 2009 at 2:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)

well said 123noname....

Posted by 123noname (anonymous) on April 17, 2009 at 2:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Thanks Truth

Posted by cabinman (anonymous) on April 18, 2009 at 10:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I think saying that all people who receive assistance are lazy is an unfair statement.

Posted by gone (anonymous) on April 19, 2009 at 8:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Governor Pawlenty is only protecting K-12 education to get the cuts he wants elsewhere. He's playing the DFL. Next time around he'll go after education. Having said that, and having just done my taxes, I do not believe we can absorb more taxation.

I believe that Governor Pawlenty will not score highly on future reviews of his stewardship. Other than 'no taxes' I'm not sure what he has brought to the state. Even his legislative service was unremarkable. He will not be successful in any national races just as he was unsuccessful in the recent VP run so we can consider that either a positive or negative for MN taxpayers and citizens.

Posted by NoDFL (anonymous) on April 19, 2009 at 8:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The DFL has always ran on protecting education but now they are willing to throw education under the bus so that they can protect welfare. Minnesota's taxes are way to high and now both the house and Sen. want to rasie 2 billion in new revenues. They say they will do it by increaseing the sales tax and income tax on all Minnesotans. What ever happen to cutting spending? Again for the Gov to keep his job when every where the Dems were making gains was a big deal. I know times change quick so who knows? But something new needs to happen in Minnesota. Change the way schools get their money. Let's find a new way.

Posted by NoDFL (anonymous) on April 20, 2009 at 9:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Here is a new one. The government is now not letting banks repay the tax payer's money. Why because it is all about federal power. Minnesota should be careful or we will end up just like the banks. To much fun... Where are all you who said if you don't like the rules give the money back. I want to see how you can say this is right. The government should take the money back but it won't. Yep you can control the monster (big government)... towns people get your pitchforks and tourches it is time to go after the monster they can't control.

Posted by leftys2221 (anonymous) on April 20, 2009 at 4:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)

All opinions.

Posted by alhsgrad90 (anonymous) on April 20, 2009 at 7:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I guess the tribune forgot to erase all of the posts. what is up with all these question about who is doing a good job anyways?

Posted by trifid (anonymous) on April 20, 2009 at 8:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Questions like these stink and attract flies.