Archive Hosted by the AFL-CIO

Tuesday Talk: Compromise without caving?

December 04, 2012 By Joe Sheeran, Communications Director

For a decade, most conservative political candidates, in Minnesota and across the nation, have taken a “no-new-taxes” pledge. However, to avoid the fiscal cliff and start paying down the national debt, some pledge takers realize increased revenue needs to be part of a balanced solution. No matter how strongly a candidate feels about a particular policy, circumstances change. After all, even former-Governor Pawlenty now says revenue should be on the table.

What are reasonable policy pledges for candidates to make? When are circumstances appropriate to reverse or alter course on policy?  

Thanks for participating! Commenting on this conversation is now closed.


  • John Widen says:

    December 4, 2012 at 8:10 am

    The wage and wealth gap is the major social and political issue. Stop subsidizing the wealthy. Do away with the cap on Social Security. We’re about the only country that has one. Maintain deductions for things like home mortgages, but only for incomes less than $250,000. Raise the tax rate on interest, dividends, and capital gains, but exempt it for incomes less than $250,000. Or, pick another number. The idea is to allow those who earn less to feed, clothe, and shelter themselves without burdening society. Enact a small tax on security market trades. This would have the added benefit of curbing market manipulation. There are lots of good ideas.

  • W. D. (Bill) Hamm says:

    December 4, 2012 at 8:26 am

    The honest way to get the GOP to compromise is for the DFL to deal with the spending addiction on their side of the fence. First let’s end Minnesota’s “Prison Industrial Complex” and it’s Racist attacks on people of color. Minnesota rivals North Korea in the number of non violent people we are calling criminals. Support legalization of Cannabis, issue a blanket amnisty to at least those of color whom we have use this lie to prey uppon, and we save half a billion dollars a year. Collect taxes on all future sales of the weed and we bring in anouther roughly half a billion a year which basically ballances our budget. Return control and funding of our schools to the local level by disconnecting from Federal control. Then we need to limit the control public employee Unions now have and then we have shown the GOP that we are serious about fixing our own house first. I bet we could get some compromise on the smaller amount of revenue we would have to raise then.

  • Greg Kapphahn says:

    December 4, 2012 at 8:33 am

    Here’s an idea for a way that our “conservative” friends might “honor” their pledge without continuing to massively (and unjustifiably) enrich their wealthy friends while impoverishing the rest of us:

    use the year they FIRST took the “no new taxes” pledge as a baseline and give themselves the right to return to income tax rates AT THAT TIME while declaring that doing so does not violate their pledge.

  • Bernice Vetsch says:

    December 4, 2012 at 9:30 am

    I’m with John Widen on everything he says, but would add—- The only pledge any politician should make is his/her promise to uphold the constitutions of the US and the state.

    Those who have already taken the Grover Norquist anti-tax pledge should give it up as soon as they see it does not work (and therefore should have given it up years ago).

    Today’s pledge takers should educate themselves by looking at the results of self-imposed austerity imposed for the last several years by the Cameron government in England.  Every social program has been cut, with disastrous results, especially to the national health system. It is feared that his cuts to the arts will put its tradition of excellence in peril as only public (that is, private) schools will be able to afford arts education. 

    Cuts to public housing have led to many poor people having to move out of London because their low-wage jobs will no longer cover even their rent, never mind other expenses.  However, the small towns they are sent to have no jobs. 

    Cuts to public employment services for neighborhoods with large numbers of young people who can’t find jobs has meant increases in unemployment.  To “solve” that problem, the Cameron government opened private employment services (at public expense) that have found almost no jobs for anyone in the six months of its existence. 

    The Cameron scheme (the Big Society) was supposed to get rid of their deficit (which was modest) and to grow the economy by shrinking the public sector.  He and his administration are sticking to their guns, however, against all evidence proving the necessity of public investment in society. 

    I wish our media were covering the Cameron mess.  They’re not, but a great source is The Guardian of London(, especially the articles by Polly Toynbee going back several years. 

  • Mike Downing says:

    December 4, 2012 at 9:44 am

    Bill Hamm, you are my favorite Democrat on this blog not because we often agree but because you have 10X the economic knowledge than to others on this blog.

    Spending has been at 24% of GDP under President Obama yet the historical average has been 18-19% of GDP. The sooner we get spending back to the historical average the sooner we get our fiscal house in order.

  • W. D. (Bill) Hamm says:

    December 4, 2012 at 10:21 am

    Thank you Mike, we don’t always agree but we are usually aggreable because we understand that difference is what produces human intellectual growth. Your figures are good and here is anouther set that the Middle Crust hates. The middle class tax burden has actually decreased over the last couple decades while the lower 50% of our society has seen theirs increase steadily. Over the last 40+ years, my working class wage has stagnated while my middle class public employee fellow DFLers has steadily increased. Sadly blue collar labor hasn’t figured that out yet or they might quite kissin up to these middle class liars. I have said for a long time, the real battle isn’t between the middle class and the rich, it’s between the working poor and the manipulative middle class of our own party.

  • W. D. (Bill) Hamm says:

    December 4, 2012 at 10:29 am

    Joe, you continue, even under the table here, to push this imaginary mandate for higher taxes on the rich. Yet you try desperately to ignore the real mandate from the people for “Tax Reform”. Sadly the masses chose the Democrats as the ones they trusted the most to get this done. Equaly depressing is the way they are being ignored while the campaign rhetoric and middle class warfare continues. If we don’t get something done this time guess who inherits the farm.

  • Ron Leurquin says:

    December 4, 2012 at 11:30 am

    Funny how last weeks Tuesday Talk topic was tax reform and it ended up gettign sidetracked onto a discusion of taxing pull tabs.
    Now the topic is compromise without caving on a pledge taken by some of our electeds.  The pledge IMHO was a bad idea on the part of enyone that signed it becasue it conflicted with thier pledge to uphold the constitution and in some cases (many?) not work for thier constituents.
    We need higher taxes, tax reform, and spending cuts.  The right mix is the problem. 
    I like my morgage interest tax deduction, the PMI deduction, property tax deduction, no taxes on my emplyer health care, ability to deduct high helath care expenses, and likely a few other tax benefits/deductions I dont know the names of.  These benefit me in various ways.  I would be willing to give them up, but only under a few circumstances.
    One, my loss is the deficit reductions gain.  Not spent some other way or handed over to someone else.
    Two, it be done gradually so I can re-adjust my life style to deal with those changes.
    Three, that all of these tax benefits be given a fair hearing as to why they exist, if they should continue in some way form or shape, and to keep them if they make sence and get rid of them if they dont.  Look at the affects they have and what the desired affects are, do they match? If no, then make them match or get rid of them.
    Four, that we treat divident/interest/capitol gains income income like any other income; perhaps even tax it higher since you didnt actually work for it.

    Ive made comments about re-defining
    ‘income’ and having a flat tax, but that seems to scare people too much to talk about in depth, so will spare you all this week.

  • D Larson says:

    December 4, 2012 at 12:02 pm

    When will we learn from our great Leaders? President Kennedy said in his inaugural address, ask not what the country can do for you,but what you can do for your country. Now is not the time for our government to be doling out all this money for social programs. We the people need to help the needy get out of their financial problems.Teach them how to fish, not give them the fish.
    President Ronald Regan showed us by lowering taxes creates more revenue for the government not less. If the tax rates are less, there is more money to invest in businesses and the economy grows. And as the economy grows so does the money going into Washington.
    I feel the politicians are not out to fix the financial problem, they are out to pad their pockets.
    Have the house pass a bill to keep the lower rate of taxation and have the Senate and the President take the fall for raising taxes and falling off the financial cliff.

  • Mike Downing says:

    December 4, 2012 at 4:30 pm

    Bill Hamm: Very well said; I agree! it appears as though our education system needs to teach micro and macro economics in order for others to understand our economic, fiscal and monetary problems.

    I’m to the point where I’m in favor of going over the fiscal close in order for others to understand the effect of increasing taxes during a week and will grow the economy. Our President and U.S. Senate are ideologues poor knowledge of macroeconomics. Unfortunately we need to run the experiment in order to teach the harsh lesson to our politicians. Maybe they are capable of learning!

  • Bernice Vetsch says:

    December 4, 2012 at 4:38 pm

    Actually, Reagan and his advisors saw the error of their ways and, in his second term, raised taxes many times in order to raise the revenue without which government cannot do its job:  to provide for the common welfare, as our forefathers instructed us in the preamble to the Constitution.

    Today’s Republicans in Washington could learn from Reagan’s second-term example, but they mostly don’t seem to know about it.

  • TONY says:

    December 4, 2012 at 6:09 pm

    It’s nice to see Mike & Bill holding hands but Bill, I think Mike is using your hatred of unions(you know, the ones that got you the 40 hour week, paid vacations, pensions, overtime…the American Dream) to get you to agree to his 1% trickle-down, I’m better than you, politics. You did admit that the only members of the middle class that had anything at all like a raise(my son’s a school teacher and his salary has not changed for 2 years) were union members. Thanks for endorsement of organized labor. You should join. After all, Mike’s leaders like the fact that 97.3% of all the stock value increases since the stock crash has gone to the top 1% and they dont plan to share any with you. The working poor realized in the 1800’s that the only way they could get a salary increase was through an organized workforce. Listen to the wisdom of your parents & grandparents…

  • W. D. (Bill) Hamm says:

    December 4, 2012 at 10:10 pm

    Thanks for the opening Tony. Your dead wrong, I don’t hate the Blue Collar Unions who bleed and died to start the union movement, I hate the white collar public employee slime who think they now own the union movement. Not one gain you mention is in any way attributable to these “Johnny come lately’s” and liars. Your poor white collar, middle class son hasn’t had a raise in 2 years you say, my working class hasn’t seen a raise in 40 years, my heart bleeds for you, NOT. As for the value you lost in the stock crash, I lost nothing, didn’t hurt me a bit, had nothing to lose. The arrogance of the middle crust never ceases to amaze me.

  • Wayne Thorson says:

    December 4, 2012 at 10:39 pm

    I don’t see any problem at all.  Let the Bush tax run out and after that reduce the taxes on the low 98 per cent.  The Republicans can’t go against it because of their pledge.  It want solve the problem with the whole National debt but it is a start.  We are all going to tighten our belts to take care of this Bush Chaney deficit.  If the average Joe hasn’t learned any thing else they have learned when a Republican talks about reducing taxes he is not thinking of them.

  • Bernice Vetsch says:

    December 5, 2012 at 10:09 am

    That’s quite a load of hate.  Tell me, which white collar public employees would you like to reduce to minimum wage?

    The clerks who keep track of your property records, calculate the amount of property tax you will owe, and then make sure your account is credited when your check arrives?

    The teachers and counselors and coaches who shepherd children to adult success by making sure your kids and others can function in the world?

    The legislative aides at every level of government who help your representative respond to your needs and wishes?

    There are no “slime” in public employee unions.  There are only workers who earn every penny they are paid by working hard.  The real problem is that anti-union forces propagandize the public into believing that the people who work for us are overpaid instead of knowing that workers who are not in unions are underpaid and often mistreated by our largest corporations.

  • W. D. (Bill) Hamm says:

    December 5, 2012 at 10:23 am

    You have to stop living in the past Wayne, it IS now our problem, your man had 2 years with full control and only made matters worse. Realism is the first part of the fix as Bush doesn’t hold responsibility for the 750,000 new, fully insured, federal jobs created by Obama Care alone. Jobs that have no offset in the private sector. That spitefull, blaming, hatered of yours is part of the problem not the solution and rampant within the party loyal. Time for the DFL to look in the mirror at this example of what the public see’s and rejects.

  • W. D. (Bill) Hamm says:

    December 5, 2012 at 10:34 am

    Now that we have layed down both sides of the rhetoric Bernice, what we can be sure of is that the truth lay somewhere in between. I have watched the rise of the female dominated, white collar, Proffesionalists, calling themselves Unionists all my adult life. I remember when their mantra was “Freedom From Religion” a perversion of our constitution at the State Convention. I am far from the only Blue Collar fighter tired of these middle class elitists minorities who now think they own the show.

  • Mike Downing says:

    December 5, 2012 at 10:41 am

    Bill Hamm: Unfortunately Wayne, Bernice and others do not have a mirror for such a perception check. They have rose colored “utopian” glasses where they see nothing wrong with public unions, their underfunded pensions and their work rules.

    The vast majority of people never needed the crutch of a union. They are able to survive & thrive based on their results, their accomplishments and their productivity.

  • W. D. (Bill) Hamm says:

    December 5, 2012 at 10:53 am

    Bernice, for the record I do not stand for paying them any less than comperable workers in the private sector. Which by the way was very much the standard before so called Unionization as part of the grease that got the “Civil Rights Act” passed in 1964. As for Teachers, 4 of my Aunts were teachers in the pre union years when Minnesota became a recognized world leader in Education. Try to explain to me how the Unions have no culpability in the present BS state of education in Minnesota or it’s financial delema brought on by years of public employee Unions supporting Minnesota’s “Prison Industrial Complex”. Your elitists have repeatedly supported incarceration over education as Proffesor Angela Davis has clearly documented.

  • Jeff K. says:

    December 5, 2012 at 10:54 am

    D. Larson: Please share your source of information. Trickle down doesn’t work, never has. Why make such a claim?

  • Jeff K. says:

    December 5, 2012 at 11:10 am

    Bill: The truth doesn’t fall somewhere in the middle when the “facts” and “information” you’re using fall so far from reality.

  • Wayne Thorson says:

    December 5, 2012 at 11:47 am

    Bill,  It is obvious that you want to talk like a highly educated person.  I doubt if you know what you are talking about half of the time.  This country or any other country ever lowered taxes in the middle of a war.  This deficit started then and we are still paying for it.  Raise the taxes back and bring our troops home and we will start in the right direction.  Obama is doing his best against all those rebelious Republicans.  Now I am sure everyone understands what I just said.  If you are going to reply please write in a layman’s language that everybody understands.

  • W. D. (Bill) Hamm says:

    December 5, 2012 at 11:55 am

    Hello Jeff K., just how politically invoved have you been? I have attended the caucus process since 1976, that’s precinct, county, house and senate endorsements, 8th CD, and State whenever possible, where were you again? If your going to challenge alleged facts, a little identification goes a long way here. It’s hard to argue with inuendo.

  • Jeff K. says:

    December 5, 2012 at 12:45 pm

    Bill - your lengthy involvement in the political process is duly noted. Please elaborate on your 750,000 federal jobs estimate. The Congressional Budget office has reported no such estimates. What they have noted is an estimated 890,000 private sector jobs over the next 10 years due to the Affordable Care Act. You say there will be no offset. Please reconcile these claims. If you could also elaborate on the “present BS state of Education” that would be great too.
    “....not paying union workers any less…” What are you basing this on? Are you saying that one’s salary should be based solely on what another is making. Again, according to the CBO, union workers (as a whole) tend to have higher levels of education, typically more job experience, and hold more supervisory positions. The greater divide of late is due to the fact that unions have maintained some degree of defined benefits which are going by the wayside for private employees (which is terrible considering the piles of cash big business is sitting on right now).

  • W. D. (Bill) Hamm says:

    December 5, 2012 at 1:29 pm

    Hello Wayne, one of the fact checker pieces on the news put that 750,000 figure out during the election. As for 890,000 promised jobs over 10 years, that works out to 89,000 jobs a year or in real figures, not even a good month per year. Even more scary is the very real cost to consumers of that 850,000 new jobs in healthcare, how does that equate to reduced healthcare costs? Sounds like more bloat and more 7-10% yearly increases in healthcare costs to me. As for where the deficiet started, it started after 911 supported by Democrats down the line. Even worse has been the growth since Obama to include so called National Security growth, you know building big brother to save us from ourselves.

  • W. D. (Bill) Hamm says:

    December 5, 2012 at 1:38 pm

    I love that line Wayne “want to talk like an educated person”, I am an educated person with 5 years of documented vocational training beyond High School. I realize that is still considered uneducated by many of you holding a Masters degree or higher but I don’t much care about your minority elitist opinion the world does not belong to that kind of socialist thinking.

  • Jeff K. says:

    December 6, 2012 at 8:45 am

    Ok, so I think it’s safe to assume that your 750k number is, at best, quite biased, and, at worst, made up since you can’t produce the source. The job growth predicted by the CBO is in patient contact areas (hospitals, clinics, etc.). Given our aging population, that’s probably a good thing. And perhaps, if things work properly, there will be far fewer “peripheral” positions with their hands in the pot (i.e. insurance companies with multiple layers, lawyers, etc.). Honestly, if both sides would quit lobing these mass generalizations, created solely to polarize, and get down to the brass tacks (factual details) I think we’d find compromise isn’t far off. We’re too focused on the wildly absurd outlying scenarios when reality is far closer to the middle.

  • Mike Downing says:

    December 6, 2012 at 10:30 am

    Jeff K: Why are you so lazy not to “Google” the 700,000 job loss figure? It was from an Ernst & Young study!

    Here are some of the articles from a 10 second “Google” search on the topic:

    50.6% of voters don’t care about the 700,000 job loss since they voted for it.

  • Jeff K. says:

    December 6, 2012 at 11:16 am

    Mike: I’ll be less lazy and look things up when you get less lazy and READ. The contention posted earlier was that Obamacare would create 750,000 federal jobs (the conotation was that this is bad). Your “research” supports the position that jobs will be lost. Can we at least decide on the point we’re trying to make?
    PS: I did try to find a source to support the claim. Still looking ....

  • Wayne Thorson says:

    December 6, 2012 at 6:46 pm

    Bill, I worked 25 years at a packing house. That’s where I got my PHD. It’s called a pig house degree.

  • W. D. (Bill) Hamm says:

    December 6, 2012 at 11:02 pm

    Ok Wayne, than why do you defend those who have, and continue to, screw us at least as bad as the rich. We of the Blue Collar have never been served well by white collar elitists. The Mexican revolution, and the bolsheveck revolution are both clear examples of the middle class’s self serving disdaine for the needs of the poor masses. We are milked by all the liars.

  • Wayne Thorson says:

    December 7, 2012 at 4:56 pm

    Bill, again I have no idea what you are talking about.  You have obviously got me mixed up with what someone else said. I have continuously talked about letting the Bush tax run out.  Then after that go back and reduce the taxes on the 98 per cent.  The right can not vote no due to their policy to reduce taxes.  If nothing else it will show the average Joe that it isn’t them they care about but the top 2 per cent.

  • W. D. (Bill) Hamm says:

    December 7, 2012 at 5:30 pm

    The differance here Wayne is that I am of the 62% and will not include the other 36%, the Middle Class, in my demands because they do not include us in theirs. I will not fight for that 36% ever again until they relinquish to us our rightfull place in the power structure. That 36% while being at well over half Repubicans or independants, holds the majority of power in Minnesota’s DFL now and does nothing to help anyone but themselves. If you don’t believe me look at who’s kids are doing best in the system, theirs and the rich.

  • Wayne Thorson says:

    December 7, 2012 at 8:14 pm

    Bill,  Every body knows who the 2 per cent and the 98 per cent is. I have no idea who the 62 and the 36 per cent are. I have never heard of them and I’ll bet I’m not alone.  Please explain.

  • W. D. (Bill) Hamm says:

    December 9, 2012 at 11:17 pm

    It works like this Wayne, I am a 62%er meaning that I am in that lower crust group that is not rich or middle class. Now if the rich are the richest 2% who do you think the other 36% are? Yes your beloved middle class who are richer than us and sometimes hard to distinguish from the rich in the way they look down their noses at us.

  • Wayne Thorson says:

    December 10, 2012 at 9:12 am

    So when the Democrats speak of the 98 per cent they are talking about the 36 and the 62. 36 plus 62 equals 98.  It did when I went to school.  So they are including you.  I don’t hear what your compaint is.  When President Truman said the Democrats help those who can’t help themselves and the Republicans help those that don’t need help he was right. I would hope we are now on agreeable territory.

  • W. D. (Bill) Hamm says:

    December 10, 2012 at 10:50 am

    The problem is that yes they are claiming to support us in name only, the public employee middle class has been the fattest hog at the trough for many years helping themselves at our, (the 62%), expense. What part of that are you having so much trouble understanding here Wayne.

  • Wayne Thorson says:

    December 10, 2012 at 11:32 am

    Bill, I am part of Romney’s 47 per cent. I am on Social Security. That puts me in your 62 per cent.  These are both part of the 98 per cent. I still don’t see what it is you have to complain about.  I have never heard of a 62% picking on a 36%.  The 2% consists of everyone earning over $250,000 a year.  The 98% consists of everyone else. I don’t understand why you don’t stick up for the 98% when you are a part of it.

  • Bernice Vetsch says:

    December 10, 2012 at 11:36 am

    Hi Bill:  Please google “anti-union effort in the United States” for some history of the corporate war against unions that started in the 1980s.

    This war has largely succeeded in the private sector and has now shifted to public employee unions.  When you read or hear people talking about how good public employees have it compared to private sector workers, please know that corporations want you to be jealous of what public employees have (which is really not out of line) instead of angry that the private sector is not providing the same benefits.

    Please don’t continue believing their lies. 

    Many people died in order to gain worker safety, livable salaries, and protection from abusive employers.  Unions have made working conditions better for all workers, not just themselves.  Where union exist, they drive up local wages and encourage job training among those who want good union jobs and the wages that go with them.  All of society benefits.

  • tony says:

    December 10, 2012 at 1:02 pm

    Folks, Bill hates unions. Rush Limbaugh told him to. He feels that because he doesnt have a pension or some of the benefits that union members have bargained for, that nobody should. When your a labor hater, your fulfilling the wishes of the 2%. Now the fact that union members have superior training, that most public employees have college degrees w/most having masters & so deserving of a decent salary, that is lost on him. If he wants to get in the middleclass, join a union. The pine bend refinery in Rosemount is adding 500 new union jobs as it is expanding. And yes Bill, the benefits that government(thats you & me, remember “we the people”) gives you: good schools, safe roads, environmental protection, a social safety net, were fought for and are paid for by the middleclass & the working poor. Dont be a pawn of the 1%...

  • Wayne Thorson says:

    December 10, 2012 at 1:50 pm

    Tony,  Thanks for pointing out who and what Bill is all about.  I tried to comunicate with him but couldn’t.  Every thing I said was screwed up by him. Every point I made was turned around to sound like it was something different. With this knowledge I will conclude my conversation with him. Thanks again.

  • W. D. (Bill) Hamm says:

    December 10, 2012 at 1:53 pm

    Bernice, that corporate war that started in the 80’s was right after Reagan killed PATCO and their fellow public employee Unions did nothing. Again I will remind you that the white collar public employee Unions have never lost one drop of blood for the Union movement nor have these Johnny come lately’s done anything to help anyone but themselves. As for you Tony either read all the words and address the entire scope of the issue or talk to yourself, I tire of your taking my words out of context. As for you Wayne it’s the 36% ripping off the 62% at the power level in the DFL and the state legislature. We just lost one of the few 62%ers in the legislature when Tommy Rukavina retired, most of the rest are 36%ers. It’s hard to have a real conversation with someone who is intentionally walking old circles.

  • Mike Downing says:

    December 10, 2012 at 2:15 pm


    Can you correct Tony. Bill Hamm is good guy that doesn’t deserve one of Tony’s personal attacks. In fact, no one deserves Tony’s standard Alinsky type personal attacks.

  • W. D. (Bill) Hamm says:

    December 10, 2012 at 2:45 pm

    Tony your not funny, saying I hate unions is an absolute lie and you know it. I have made it very clear on many occasions what my Union stance is only to have you repeat this lie you can’t think of anything inteligent to say. The Unions I hate are the elitist white collar public employees who think that by virtue of their greater education level, they have an inherant right to rule the nest. Think again defender of the proggressive elite. As for Rush, again I reinterate that you give him more credence and credibility than I ever have.

  • TONY says:

    December 10, 2012 at 4:17 pm

    Mike & Bill, yes, I would love to talk about the issues. But Mike, I tire of your holier than thou attitude toward the middle class. Most work harder every day than you ever have & while they may not have the education you have, they have achieved a personal level of success to match yours. Bill, I admire many of the things you preach but your endless clammer about how the middleclass & the public unions are the reason for everything bad in this world IS strictly teabagger/Limbaugh talk. Neither of you have ever put a cogent argument back to what we say. It’s all about being an elitist scum or being to lazy to have achieved financial success & being a “taker” not a"maker”. Let’s all make an effort to have an intelligent discussion of the issues…

  • Mike Downing says:

    December 10, 2012 at 4:27 pm

    Tony, it’s time you walk your talk and stop your ad hominem attacks on individuals with viewpoints and life experiences different than yours.

  • tony says:

    December 10, 2012 at 4:50 pm

    Mike, I am ready if you are….

  • W. D. (Bill) Hamm says:

    December 10, 2012 at 5:10 pm

    Tony, unlike you I have been to far more DFL functions that I can begin to count. I do blame the Elitist White collar Unions for what is wrong with the DFL and Democrat parties via their greed and powermongering. I was there when the party was intentionally downsized by these liars. I was there to see the MN DFL go from an inclusive organization to the hatefull spitefull den of iniquity I see daily now. I remmember when blue collar, and farmers, and christians were the powerholders in the party not white collar athiests pushing their zealous beliefs into our school system. I lived through these changes you and yours keep trying to deny, and I won’t stop until the majority again rules an inclusive DFL.

  • Bernice Vetsch says:

    December 10, 2012 at 5:24 pm

    These repetitious off-topic threads seem to continue forever. 

    Should there perhaps be a time limit beyond which no more comments can be printed?

  • Rachel says:

    December 10, 2012 at 6:48 pm

    Thanks for all the enthusiastic participation this week. I encourage everyone to come join us tomorrow. Joe will be queuing up no-new-taxes, budgets and tax fairness.