Skip to Content

Gerald Abrahamson

Minneapolis, MN
Commenter for
5 years 27 weeks

Recent Comments

Posted on 06/23/11 at 12:44 pm in response to Minnesota Senate makes the constitutional argument for shutting down pretty much everything

One word resolves the problem: Conservatorship

Who would be the conservatores: Amy Klobuchar and Al Franken.

Why these two individuals? The US Constitution.

Reasoning: Each serves as an elected individual chosen by ALL the eligible voters who chose to vote in two *different* elections in two *different* years (per the US Constitution). Thus, they reasonably *know*--and should best represent--the best interests of the citizens of the state.

THAT determination would...

Posted on 06/09/11 at 10:36 am in response to Cravaack's $1,000-a-month car among Congress' costliest

Let's do the math--not talk about theories.

22 mo x $1000/mo = $22k cost and you have NOTHING at the end except a bunch of invoices and cancelled checks. Dealer makes out like a bandit. Why don't they just BUY the car and own it--I'd pay pay $6k-$8k for a decent 2-year-old car with 35k miles on it (wouldn't YOU?).

39 mo x $367 = $14,313(standard lease agreement) and the total cost is 1/3 LESS than a 2-year lease AND the allowable mileage is the same (~36k) for the three years....

Posted on 06/03/11 at 11:57 am in response to Rep. John Kline worries new rules will hurt for-profit colleges

"No money" = "not qualified".

How many students are turned down for admission when they CAN pay--but don't meet admission requirements? What *are* admission requirements? Do they have any *other than* the ability to pay?

Posted on 05/03/11 at 03:22 pm in response to Constitutional prejudice: Why the Minnesota senators got it wrong on same-sex marriages

Marriage is a *societal/social* contract. Religion co-opted marriage millennia ago in order to try to control society.

If marriage is so sacred, *why* is divorce allowed to exist? Conservatives have a real hard time with that question. By definition, if marriage is "sacred" ("til death do us part"--LOL), then the right should be trying to ban divorce. They are *not* trying to do that--guess why? Because marriage is NOT sacred--it is a legal *convenience*.

Posted on 03/08/11 at 11:47 am in response to Here's an idea: State pays only if programs achieve results

Apply the same rules to politics. No politician gets paid until they have achieved what they claimed in their campaign promises. Problem fixed.

Posted on 02/04/11 at 03:28 pm in response to Spending cuts have GOP legislators worried -- about reaction in their own districts

Since conservatives "love" "pay based on performance", let's impose a state law tying *individual* legislator pay to how well the programs they vote for (and against) perform. THAT will tell us which ones vote "for" policies that are GOOD and those that do NOT. Experts are irrelevant--ONLY performance. Voting AGAINST a bill that passes anyway is fine--but if that new law FAILS to live up to its alleged benefits--it would penalize those who voted FOR that new law by reducing their pay. And...

Posted on 01/17/11 at 04:01 pm in response to The Vikings stadium puzzle: Can anyone put the pieces together?

Ballpark income per year from ticket and suite sales is solidly $20+million/year for the Vikings (and this guesstimate is probably a bit low--but you get the idea of the size of that SINGLE revenue source). Add in what the NFL distributes to the team(s) plus what is sold/licensed separately by teams--and the income stream is pretty significant. Then add in the revenue for a stadium that can be used year-round. Otherwise, most of the substantial *other* revenue-generators that help fund a...

Posted on 01/06/11 at 12:34 pm in response to Republicans read Constitution into Congressional Record: This could be an impressive political coup

*Because* they have read the US Constitution into the record, does that mean "We the People" now have the authority to act IMMEDIATELY when the bureaucrats VIOLATE that document? Would 25' of rope be enough? Have you found the tree yet?

Posted on 12/24/10 at 12:51 pm in response to What's Pawlenty's legacy? Some surprising answers

Paul: "I think Pawlenty did set up some kind of cross border internet purchase thing that allowed MN's on medicare or medicaid to buy meds in Canada."

Correct--but it was "killed off" by Medicare Part D. Purchases from Canada did NOT count. And there are (and will be) modifications made to consumer drug pricing so the cost of drugs goes down once you hit (or go past) the "donut hole".

Posted on 10/29/10 at 10:04 am in response to Election law nixes Highland Grill owner's 'I voted' meal deal

IMO, neither law is applicable. The federal law (as quoted) says "to make an expenditure". The restaurant is NOT making an expenditure--the patron is (the expenditure is buying the meal). The restaurant is allowing a discount to the patron ONLY if that person has a specific sticker. Thus, a person could vote and NOT get the discount (because they chose to NOT go to that particular place to eat). Or the patron COULD choose to vote (or NOT vote)--but then NOT have the sticker (for some reason...