I ask my DFLer friends why they plan on voting for Mark Dayton.
“Because Tom Emmer is an angry extremist white man!”
“Because Target is anti-gay!”
“Because Emmer will cut the budget”…
…and so on.
But none of those responses answers my question; why are you voting for Mark Dayton?
Open thread for liberal commenters: Why are you voting for Mark Dayton? Actual reasons, please.
Mitch;
Thanks for the morning chuckle.
I doubt that you will get any honest input, because you have probably rendered our resident lefties thoughtless.
Another question; Why did we vote for McCain and or Norm Coleman?
I did with the knowledge that they were flawed candidates. But in my view less flawed than their opponents.
I think that is also what the leftists will be voting for. But just like McCain and Coleman I don’t think it is a winning formula when the winds of HOPEY CHANGE are against you.
Also ask them why the prefer Betty “Angry Teabaggers” McCallum over each of the Republican opponents she has faced over the past 3 or so elections.
jp, why the heck did you vote for McCain?
Colman at least had a shot at winning… if only our state had uniform rules for the recount…
My pleasure. Why I plan on voting for Dayton:
1. Making taxes progressive again
2. Experience with economic development
3. A solution to the deficit.
http://mnpublius.com/post/936797007/why-mark-dayton-will-make-a-great-governor
Pingback: Tweets that mention Shot in the Dark » Blog Archive » But…Why? -- Topsy.com
“2. Experience with economic development”
You mean like when Dayton started with nothing. Created a business. Worked 70 hours a week for the first 10 years. 55 hours a week after that. Paid property tax, sales and use tax, many employment taxes, licenses, school special assessments. Employs dozens of people at good wages.
Or are you talking about the people in South Dakota who manage his trust fund? Or the economic development that will occur in North and South Dakota if he is elected?
“1. Making taxes progressive again”
Taxes are progressive, if you count all of them.
Um, Jeff, how exactly does taxing high earners more make economic development more likely? And exactly what has Dayton done with economic development? It’s not like he’s ever really worked an honest day in his life.
Plus, in today’s economy, taxing high earners is not necessarily a solution to a deficit, especially if you’re planning on putting that revenue into mis-informed “economic development” money sinks like Block E, the MOA, and such.
Because if Jesse Ventura can’t break Minnesota, then we’re not in danger from Dayton.
At the stroke of a pen, Dayton can move much of Minnesota’s state based health programs into the Federal Medicaid program. Pawlenty and Emmer’s refusal to do so costs MN $1 million dollars a day in extra Federal revenue. Since MN already only gets about 75 cents on every buck we pay in, I want a Gov who will get our fair share.
It figures that Rosie would take his talking points from one of the liberal propaganda machines. God forbid that he would actually have an original thought, but then, most lefties don’t.
RickDFL buys into a government shell game. Anyone surprised?
One thing Dayton does know about economic development: it takes supercomputers!
“our fair share.”
Fair share of what, specifically, DickyDFL?
Fair share of federal Medicaid money, so the Legislature can have 300-odd-million to waste on other crap.
Why are you voting for Mark Dayton? Actual reasons, please.
Because he makes them look sane by comparison.
Actual reasons, please.
Because Floyd Olson is unavailable.
“Fair share of federal Medicaid money”
Mitch, stop it!
There is NO such thing as “federal money”. It is always “taxpayer money”.
Similar to the Liberal Fascists when they claim “tax handouts” for the “rich”.
Now tax handouts for the “poor” and “middle class” is an entirely different matter.
C’mon guys. Jeff answered a question posed. His answer is open for debate (unlike RatioRinkyDinkDFL’s which can only be ridiculed). Be nice.
What’s funny is that Jeff asks for “Progressive” taxation, and then RickDFL complains that a rich state like Minnesota doesn’t get all of its federal tax money back.
Mr D…funny. But at least Floyd Olson knew why he loved Stalin. I think Mr Trust Fund is really just clueless.
There is NO such thing as “federal money”. It is always “taxpayer money”.
That’s kinda my point.
“Why are you voting for Mark Dayton?”
Typical Dem replay: Because Emmer is poopy!!
At the stroke of a pen, Dayton can move much of Minnesota’s state based health programs into the Federal Medicaid program.
Not really. The “extra money” that the federal government is offering the State for early expansion of Medicaid eligibility (a) requires that the State taxpayers first pay more for the State’s portion of Medicaid and (b) the extra money is only for a few years, after which State taxpayers pay even more. So with a “stroke of the pen,” a Governor Dayton would increase the costs of Minnesota’ state based health programs to Minnesota taxpayers both in the near and long-term.
Jeff R- ” To make taxes progressive again.” Again? The top 10% of income earners pay 57% of all income taxes in Mn. (while earning 42% of the income). The bottom 20% of wage earners pay almost zero income tax. (Minnesota Dept. Of Revenue). What’s not “progressive”?
What’s not “progressive”?
Property and sales taxes. That was an easy one.
Just to be clear, DiscordianStooj: you, and perhaps Jeff Rosenberg and Dayton as well, want progressive property and sales taxes?
It could be argued that property and sales taxes are progressive anyway: you don’t pay the same tax when you buy/own one “unit”, one “thing”, one house, or one parcel of land. You pay according to its value, which you had to afford. *shrug*
Progressive sales tax?
Me: How much is that bacon-burger combo?
Kid behind counter: Depends, let me see your W-2s?
All of this issue about which tax is regressive and which is progressive is completely washed aside by the enormous progressiveness of the federal personal income tax.
To me this election is a referendum on supply side economics. The Laffer curve is a myth. The trickle down theory is bad for us and always has been. One has only to read The Education of David Stockman to hear why it was a failure in his own words.
I don’t know if Dayton’s policies will work. But our economy has a better chance with him than with Emmer, who would simply stall progress for another six years. If you really want to understand the election from a liberal point of view feel free to drop me an email. I love to chat.
Mr. Stoog- “Property and sales taxes. That was an easy one.” Well, if you can get Dayton to campaign for “progressive” property and sales taxes, I’ll be out there helping you every day. Then he’ll lose by 10-15 points instead 2-3. Would you and he be that stupid? Don’t worry, I already know the answer.
And of course you know Jeff R. was talking about income taxes, which he can’t seem to counter-debate.
To me this election is a referendum on supply side economics. The Laffer curve is a myth.
That’s the left’s chanting point. It’s true – if you select your stats carefully enough.
The trickle down theory is bad for us and always has been.
Irrelevant; “trickle down” is a cypher than means what the beholder wants it to mean. The Austrian School and Hayek, however, are good for us and always will be.
One has only to read The Education of David Stockman to hear why it was a failure in his own words.
He was wrong.
I don’t know if Dayton’s policies will work. But our economy has a better chance with him than with Emmer, who would simply stall progress for another six years.
“Progress?”
Nice amorphous meaningless concept. I’ll pass, thanks.
If you really want to understand the election from a liberal point of view feel free to drop me an email.
Thanks, but I understand it better than most liberals do. It’s why I reject it.
I love to chat.
The comment section never sleeps.
Wow Mitch, you not only claim to know more about liberalism than liberals, but you claim to know more about economics than David Stockman and presumably more about taxes than Alan Greenspan (who recently said that higher taxes would be better than the economy).
I suspected that when you were asking for “serious replies only” I figured you were being rhetorical, but I gave you the benefit of the doubt. Instead of a discussion from you (which you used to be good at) I get another cheerleading routine.
That’s right,AB: I must shut up, pay my taxes and do as my betters tell me.
Stockman went Keynesian 20 years ago, and is hardly a wellspring of knowledge even now. His analysis is riddled with factual problems. The only reason he’s trotted out today is because he is (or was, for a time) a conservative economist who’s gone off the reservation.
And like all libs, you seem to have taken the bait re Greenspan – who called, yes, for higher taxes – and lower spending. That’s the part libs – especially condo pinks like Dayton – never ever get.
As to that last Graf, AB? I have a point of view, I hold it for good reasons (after having fought against it early on!), and I defend it fiercely and articulately. One major political party in this state hates it when people do that.
“which you used to be good at”? Yeah, that’s Flash’s line. WTF ever.
Oh, yeah…
you not only claim to know more about liberalism than liberals
I do.
I know most of the left’s positions better than they do, and in fact can probably make more articulate argument for those positions than most of them can – before turning and destroying them.
I used to be a liberal. I left it. That is the ultimate knowledge of liberalism.
(To which someone will say “oh yeah? I used to be a WINGNUT TEABAGGER, and I became teh progeresieve”. Which is a plea of diminished capacity, really).
Mitch, the neo-con.
Once a person truly understands teh progeresieve liberalism they will logically reject it. (or exploit it for $$$ and power)
Mitch, the neo-con
Er, Krod? WTF are you talking about?