16 thoughts on “Dayton Goes to Sherwood Forest = Nixon Goes To China?

  1. Newt says:

    With the exception of name recognition, the DFL slate is entirely undifferentiated in the eyes of the public.

  2. Joe Loveland says:

    Dayton has done well by picking one compelling issue — health care in his Senate win — and hammering it home to the exclusion of other issues. Other candidates tend to focus on several issues to appeal to several different voter blocks, or jump all over the place by reacting to other candidates.

    Message discipline is important, but so is stressing the right issue. Is taxing the rich the right issue for a 2010 Democratic primary? Well, 79% of American Democrats believe upper income people too little in taxes, while 7% think they pay too little. That looks like a darn good primary issue.

  3. Newt says:

    As pathetic as Emmer is, the GOP is licking its chops for any of the 3 blind DFL mice to emerge. It’s that weak a slate.

    1. Joe Loveland says:

      You may be right, but every election cycle you see that kind of pre-election conventional wisdom blown up. Republicans can’t wait to face the lightweight Obama or the apoplectic Franken, and Democrats can’t wait to face the gaffe-prone Bachman or the extremist Reagan. I’m sure folks were inking pamphlets in 1796 saying that the Democratic Republicans were licking their chops to face John Adams.

  4. Mary says:

    Pardon me but I have yet to be satistfied w/ any discussion of this issue – anywhere. Perhaps some one will pick this up – thanks

    as a rural resident, I have fallen into the “taxation w/o representation” (IMO)

    The legislature has decided to tax – at an exorbitant rate, rural vacant land. This is a new classification and is defined as non-ag, non forestry (But can be registered w/ a forestry plan)

    This land is idled ag land – lost out to Agri-biz, “unregistered” forest land, wetlands, hunting lands.. ect.

    since this land was an easy target for the legislature, I can see why they went after it, but really, on what basis? Do these lands create a burden on the governments (state county local)? Sure, they may be undeveloped and do not send a lot of revenue to the government but they create no bureaucratic burden either.

    They deliver “Ecological Services” for FREE.
    You can get a deduction if you run around and get with the (pick your) program.

    Anyway, this is a ridiculous “solution”
    Lands are for sale everywhere. Outdoor recreation will end and the hugely subsidized logging interests will benefit (Read Roads. ALL roads, from forest service roads, township to interstate)

    Our lands will be transferred to multinational control one way or another.

    1. Mike Kennedy says:

      Mary:

      What did George Harrison say in his wonderful song off the “Revolver” Beatles album?

      “Let me tell you how it will be. There’s one for you, nineteen for me, cause I’m the tax man. Yeah I’m the tax man. Should five percent appear to small, be thankful I don’t take it all, cause I’m the tax man. Yeah, I’m the tax man.

      If you drive a car, I’ll tax the street. If you try to sit, I’ll tax your seat. If you get too cold, I’ll tax the heat. If you take a walk, I’ll tax your feet……..”

      Well, you get the idea.

      I’m not totally opposed to taxes, by any stretch. But what on God’s green earth isn’t government already taxing or thinking about taxing. Could our Founding Fathers have imagined this?

      Now whole groups of busy bodies want to tax everything from sugary sodas to what they consider “junk food.”

      How about we tax people by every pound they are over their ideal body weight according to BMI tables. Could you imagine how much this could bring in to our national coffers given the nonstop growth of our waistlines.

      Maybe then we in America could avoid looking like we are going to conquer the world by ingesting it.

      1. Joe Loveland says:

        Poor us. Context from personal finance columnist/author Jane Bryant Quinn:

        For all the anger about taxes, you’d think that rates had never been so high. In fact, it’s the reverse. They’ve rarely been this low. The median income family of four, earning $75,594, will pay only 4.6 percent of its total income in federal income taxes, after taking exemptions, deductions and tax credits. Last year it was 3.5 percent.

        Those are the lowest rates since 1955, the first year that this data became available. In 1981, just before the Reagan tax cut, that same, middle-income family paid an average of 11.8 percent. You can find all the numbers here, courtesy of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

        The high-tax legend has become so powerful that most people don’t even know their taxes have been cut. In a recent New York Times/CBS poll, 24 percent of the people thought, wrongly, that President Obama raised taxes last year and 53 percent thought their taxes were the same. Only 12 percent answered, correctly, that their taxes had been cut.”

      2. Newt says:

        Good point Joe. I had forgotten that Obama cut taxes $14 a month. No doubt to be used as cover in his next campaign: “I cut taxes for every American.”

      3. Joe Loveland says:

        From the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities:

        Tax credits in the economic recovery package provide tax relief to most workers. The centerpiece of the tax relief is a new Making Work Pay Credit of up to $400 per worker. The credit phases in at the same rate as Social Security taxes and is available to all workers (except those claimed as another taxpayer’s dependent) earning up to $95,000 and married couples earning up to $190,000. In 2009, the credit would be reduced by the amount (if any) of the family’s Economic Recovery Payment, a one-time payment of $250 for recipients of Social Security, SSI, and certain other benefits.

        There are about 2 million beneficiaries in Minnesota.

  5. Newt says:

    Poor Mary. She thinks taxation exists for the purpose of service provision.

    Wake up sister!

    The DFL’s taxation policy is based on two principles: (1) That no group get ahead in life and (2) that any wealth category that isn’t represented by a special interest group is fair game.

    Mary, because you own unimproved land the DFL has its sights set on you.

    I suggest you liquidate your assets and get the hell out of here if you expect to see any of it again.

    1. Mike Kennedy says:

      Joe:

      I love how liberals scold conservatives when conservatives complain that nearly half of all Americans pay no federal income taxes. Oh, but what about payroll taxes? What about all the other taxes normal people pay. Then when conservatives complain about all taxes, liberals foam at the mouth in the rush to proclaim that federal income taxes have rarely been lower.

      Well, which is it? Poor us, indeed. My rant — via George Harrison — was about taxes in general. Then you cop out on the federal income tax.

      The point is, there aren’t many things we can buy, use or engage in (maybe sex) that isn’t taxed. Hey, there is another idea. Legalize prostitution and then tax all the John’s and hooker’s doing business. That plus the fatties could pay off the deficit.

  6. PM says:

    I think that a win by dayton in the primary would be Horner’s best shot at winning in November–the IP seems a lot more viable when both the DFL and the R’s nominate unelectable candidates.

    1. Joe Loveland says:

      I agree a Dayton primary win probably helps Horner most, but I don’t agree that either Emmer or Dayton are “unelectable.” Neither could get to 50%, but either could get into the 40s, which could be enough. The dynamics of a legitimate three-way races are awfully wacky.

      1. PM says:

        you are right, the chance of being elected in any particular race depends a great deal on the number and quality of opponents. Have you looked at the Illinois senate race? two candidates, either of whom would be unelectable except that they have the great good fortune to run against someone of the same caliber….

Comments are closed.