« WHO’S IN, WHO’S OUT | Home | EARLY INDICATIONS ON GOP GUBERNATORIAL RACE »
SEIFERT OUT AS HOUSE MINORITY LEADER AT 11:00 A.M. #2
By Ryan Flynn | June 3, 2009
Representative Marty Seifert has just now officially announced that he will be resigning his post as House Minority Leader. Seifert is not resigning his seat in the Legislature.
Please continue to check back to Minnesota Democrats Exposed for continuous updates on the race for Governor.
Topics: Uncategorized | 102 Comments »
102 Responses to “SEIFERT OUT AS HOUSE MINORITY LEADER AT 11:00 A.M. #2”
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
June 3rd, 2009 at 11:34 am
I am a little bit surprised all the networks didn’t carry the press conference live. I mean, the leader of the second least influential caucus in the state decided to step down so as to find out he isn’t popular enough to even get endorsed by the state’s barely relevant minority party.
That there is compelling television.
June 3rd, 2009 at 11:45 am
Leroy, you jackass, the networks were all there!
ABC, CBS, CNN, FOX, MSNBC and NBC all had their cameras set up and rolling. And then Kelliher got in the way.
June 3rd, 2009 at 11:50 am
Hey, Mr.,
Considering the DFL got absoulutely nothing they wanted from session, isn’t it the DFL that’s barely relevant?
June 3rd, 2009 at 11:59 am
Mr., so if the repubs are the “second least influential caucus” – doesn’t that then make the DFL the first least influential caucus? You know Leroy – I think for once I have to agree with you.
The DFL did show this session that they had zero influence. They were unable to craft their own budget and had trouble saying the words “new taxes” as well.
June 3rd, 2009 at 12:02 pm
I was unaware that Seifert ran the entire republican caucus (whatever that may be). I thought he just ran the HOUSE republican caucus.
Oh wait, he does. Never mind.
June 3rd, 2009 at 12:17 pm
Hey Mr. Superiority,
You’ve posted a lot of lame-ass responses on here before. But your point about Seifert running the House Republican caucus has got to be the lamest. For someone who has such a high opinion of himself, you got trumped pretty good. Just as you did when I pointed out your hipocrisy about Pawlenty’s bonding proposal compared to how Obama has ran up a bigger deficit this year than in the first seven years of the Bush administration combined. If the DFL is so high and mighty as you claim, why didn’t they get a single thing they wanted out of this session?
June 3rd, 2009 at 12:42 pm
Chris, easy on Leroy-the-jackass. He’s a narcissist and can’t help himself.
In the real world, Pawlenty won on the budget issue and the DFL lost. In Leroy’s narcissistic world he will inevitably respond by twisting the facts around.
Outside of some intense psychological therapy, Leroy-the-jackass is destined for a life of sociopathic narcissism.
June 3rd, 2009 at 12:53 pm
Chris-
Since I am apparently so slow, please explain to me which statewide republican caucus Marty Seifert runs. I was convinced it was the House republican caucus, but maybe he does run some secretive statewide republican caucus. Details would help flesh out your theory about me “getting trumped”.
As for comparing Pawlenty to Obama, I said then, and I will say again, I think Obama has possibly overextended this nation with deficit spending. But the difference is, he is cleaning up a mess made by his republican predecessor. Pawlenty was trying to deficit spend to clean up HIS OWN mistakes.
And right around July 1, I think you will see that the DFL got exactly what they wanted out of this session. They tried to fix the budget through deeper cuts than the governor was offering and targeted tax hikes. The governor rejected the notion, forgetting that if he didn’t share the blame for the cuts, he would have to take it all himself. Yep. Democrats may not have gotten all the projects they wanted funded, but they did offer the governor just enough rope for with which to hang himself and his party.
June 3rd, 2009 at 1:12 pm
“In the real world, Pawlenty won on the budget issue and the DFL lost.”
I think the important issue is whether Minnesotans won or lost.
June 3rd, 2009 at 1:31 pm
Hey Mr.,
I have no idea what point you’re making or trying to make about a “statewide” caucus.
As for Obama “cleaning up the mess” of his predecessor, I’d note that since the stimulus bill was passed, we’ve shed over 500,000 jobs a month. Those hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars that were supposed to go into the economy and save it, have gone nowhere. Bush also wasn’t responsible for the car companies going bankrupt and he sure as hell wouldn’t have let the government and the unions own them.
As for your point about Pawlenty, I’d like to know what mistakes you think Pawlenty made with respect to the state’s budget. Since the DFL controls both chambers of the legislature and passed the previous budget and its increases in health and human services spending, LGA and the like, was Pawlenty’s mistake in not vetoing the last budget?
Hiram,
You’re right that the important issue is whether Minnesotans won or lost. The jury is still out on that. But Minnesotans most surely would have lost had the DFL’s various tax proposals (which included raising income taxes for all tax brackets and raising the sales tax to include clothes and shoes — not to mention all of the taxes on small business).
June 3rd, 2009 at 2:00 pm
To say that Bush was not responsible for the economic meltdown appears to suggest that in his first 100 days, Obama wrecked the economy.
Is that what you are suggesting? That the economy totally went into the tank in the first 100 days of his presidency?
And I like how you are arguing that more money to big business is now a bad thing. We can’t raise their taxes, because it will hurt the economy, but apparently GIVING them money also will cause them to hurt the economy. If corporate America can not be trusted with stimulus money, why the hell should we care what happens to their tax rates?
June 3rd, 2009 at 2:21 pm
Mr.,
It’s no more the role of government to hand out money to business (with strings attached including the outright ownership of private business) than it is to sock the hell out of them with high taxes. Do you not understand that it’s a really bad thing for the federal government to own General Motors and for bureaucrats to dictate to them what kind of cars they will make and when, where and how they will be sold?
What I am suggesting is that Obama’s policies of reckless spending and government ownership of assets has done nothing to help the economy and has actually made the economy worse. We were promised that for every billion dollars spent by the government, it would create between 28,000 and 42,000 jobs. Considering that the stimulus package cost $787 billion, it should have created
33,054,000 jobs. Instead, we’re losing 500,000+ jobs a month.
Don’t take my word for it, read Ben Bernanke’s comments today about how Obama’s deficits threaten the financial stability of our country.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=agmj05AcqWHo&refer=worldwide
June 3rd, 2009 at 2:39 pm
Chris..
With all due respect, you can’t be so stupid to attribute the 500,000+ jobs lost each month to the Obama Stimulus Bill.
As serious as the deficit problem is, would you please find a way to cut back on all the hyperbole?
By the way, the President has clearly stated that he has no interest in running the auto makers. Your suggestion that he does smacks of a Sean Hannity talking point.
June 3rd, 2009 at 2:46 pm
brome,
You’re an idiot. If the stimulus bill was supposed to create between 30,000 and 40,000 jobs for every billion spent, how can we still have a 500,000 a month job loss for the economy?
If Obama has no interest in running the automakers, what is he doing appointing the CEOs and making sure that the government has representatives on their boards of directors? You really are a sheep, brome.
June 3rd, 2009 at 3:01 pm
“You’re right that the important issue is whether Minnesotans won or lost. The jury is still out on that.”
I agree.
“But Minnesotans most surely would have lost had the DFL’s various tax proposals (which included raising income taxes for all tax brackets and raising the sales tax to include clothes and shoes — not to mention all of the taxes on small business).”
But Minnesotans will also lose when Gov. Pawlenty breaks the promises he made to local government, hospitals and nursing homes. Minnesotans will lose when they get the bill for the governor’s very expensive promise not to raise taxes. And of course, had they accepted the governor’s offer, to put the shortfall on the state’s credit card, they would have risked total disaster.
There are no good choices here, just an array of bad ones.
June 3rd, 2009 at 3:03 pm
Let’s be very clear. Gov. Pawlenty isn’t now and never has been opposed to raising revenue. He is opposed only to raising revenue in a form that can be called a tax.
June 3rd, 2009 at 4:01 pm
chris..
I am not an idiot.
The Stimulus Bill does not represent a magic wand that instantly send the jobless rate to zero. You suggestion that it should proves your lack of knowledge. My Dad would call you clueless.
The stimulus funds will be spent over an extended period of time. I think it’s funny that you think the stimulus money was poured down a drain, and actually made the jobless rate go up!
In the short run, President Obama understands the need to provide the necessary accountability on the governing boards. The taxpayers deserve to have representation, based on the fact that 60% of General Motors is now OWNED by the taxpayers.
In the long run, the President has clearly stated his desire to get the government out of the companies, so that they can stand on their own again.
There are no guarantee, but the President has taken the bold action so lacking in the previous administration.
Check back with me in 2 years, and we can discuss who was right.
June 3rd, 2009 at 5:46 pm
brome,
The Minnesota AFL-CIO claimed that for every billion dollars spent by government, it would create 42,000 jobs.
http://minnesotabuildingtrades.org/every-$1-billion-spent-rebuilding-infrastructure-creates-42,000-jobs-0
The Federal Stimulus bill spent $787 billion on projects to try to stimulate the economy. Using the logic of the Minnesota AFL-CIO, we should have created 33,054,000 jobs in just the stimulus package alone. The fact that we aren’t creating jobs and instead are losing them at a rate of 500,000+ per month shows that the stimulus bill is a failure.
With respect to Government Motors, it should NEVER have been owned by the taxpayers. GM should have gone bankrupt last fall when they asked for the first bailout. It’s not bold action that Obama’s taken, it’s the same socialist policies of Hugo Chavez. You know brome, Obama’s new pal Hugo Chavez was just lamenting the fact that he’s more conservative than Obama when it comes to the government takeover of the economy.
http://www.reuters.com/article/ObamaEconomy/idUSTRE5520GX20090603?feedType=RSS&feedName=ObamaEconomy&virtualBrandChannel=10441
You are really one of the most uninformed people I’ve ever seen, brome. Instead of kissing Al Franken’s ring, perhaps you should pick up a newspaper or listen to talk radio so you’d be somewhat informed.
June 3rd, 2009 at 5:55 pm
So now not only is Obama single handedly responsible for the state of the economy, but he is also on the hook for everything that organized labor says in their press releases.
Don’t look now, I think he may have just kidnapped the Lindberg baby.
June 3rd, 2009 at 6:14 pm
Mr.,
Obama should be responsible for everything that organized labor says considering (1) they bought and paid for his campaign and (2) he just gave them majority ownership of Chrysler. The 28,000 job figure was from CNN. If you deny the figures, I’m glad you’re saying that organized labor and CNN are liars.
June 3rd, 2009 at 6:44 pm
So, your theory is that the AFL-CIO was the sole donor of the $730,000,000 that Obama spent on his campaign?
That’s impressive. No wonder he gave them Chrysler. Too bad he also sold Chrysler to Fiat.
June 3rd, 2009 at 9:31 pm
$760.2 million to buy the White House.
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/expend.php?cycle=2008&cid=n00009638
June 3rd, 2009 at 9:50 pm
chris..
“The fact that we aren’t creating jobs and instead are losing them at a rate of 500,000+ per month shows that the stimulus bill is a failure.”
You are clueless. The job losses are not a result of the Stimulus Plan. Every reader here (GOP & DFL) except you knows that.
Check back in 2 years and let’s run the numbers again.
June 3rd, 2009 at 9:54 pm
“perhaps you should pick up a newspaper or listen to talk radio so you’d be somewhat informed.”
Oh Lordy! You think listening to talk radio is the way to become informed? What a clown.
Care to suggest the radio station too? LOL !!!
June 3rd, 2009 at 10:12 pm
Hey brome,
The fact that there are job losses after spending $787 billion and maxing out our nation’s credit card shows that the Stimulus bill FAILED. When the unions and CNN say that we create between 30,000 and 40,000 jobs for every billion spent, we should see an explosion of jobs when we spend $787 billion. The jobs aren’t there and, in fact, we’re still losing jobs. I’d like to see you try to explain how the stimulus bill is a great success.
Brome, I’m sorry but you’re the clown here. I’ve never seen someone who believes in so much know so little. As Archie Bunker used to say, “You are a meathead — dead from the neck up!” You really should watch Fox News and listen to talk radio. At least you’d be informed about the issues of the day and have some facts to back up your inane claims.
June 3rd, 2009 at 10:30 pm
Hey Mr.,
I guess unions don’t give to Democrats and they don’t give to Obama. Except that’s not what the unions say when you ask them. In an article on Real Clear Politics titled, “Big Labor’s Investment in Obama Pays Off” it talks about how the Service Employees International Union gave Obama $60.7 million.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/05/13/big_labors_investment_in_obama_pays_off_96469.html
The AFL-CIO had a $53 million campaign to help Obama.
http://www.financialweek.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080825/REG/860754/1036
As for the merger of Chrysler and Fiat, the UAW will own 68% of the new company through its health care trust, according to the new deal cleared by the Bankruptcy Judge.
http://www.examiner.com/x-2479-Chicago-Autos-Examiner~y2009m6d1-Industry-news-Chrysler-sale-to-Fiat-cleared-by-bankruptcy-judge
I guess you’re right that unions don’t have any sway with the Obama administration. LMAO!
June 3rd, 2009 at 10:47 pm
Chris, there you go using facts with numbers – two things liberals can’t comprehend. As soon as they use up all their fingers and toes – the numbers are just too big for them.
I’m really impressed by the way the Obama administration today posted a classified list of all our nuclear sites and stockpiles, with maps and inventory, for all our enemies to peruse on the internet.
Mr. will be up next to claim it was the Gov Printing office that did it, not Obama, but may I ask, ‘just where does the buck stop these days?’
June 4th, 2009 at 12:35 am
danbrome is the Andy Dick of MDE.
June 4th, 2009 at 2:01 am
So, if as you say, the AFL-CIO gave $52 million to Obama out of a total of $760 million raised(Thanks Joe), that works out to a little under seven percent of the total raised. And that seven percent stake makes them responsible for his actions.
Would this then mean that the Senate Repunlican Caucus in Minnesota, with its ten percent share in the Minnesota legislature, is fully to blame for the current budget mess?
June 4th, 2009 at 8:27 am
Hey Leroy,
Please explain how if Bush ruined the economy, Obama following failed Carter policies is going to fix anything.
So far we have spent billions of dollars with continued job loss and the white house mouthpieces saying the job loss will continue. How come Obama is getting a pass on this, and where are all of the “green” jobs he promised that will be replacing real jobs? I love how they are already offering these people their own bailout packages when the “green” jobs numbers show for every 4 green jobs created, 9 real jobs will be lost. This policy failed miserably in Spain, so please explain how it’s going to work here.
We will soon be experiencing hyper-inflation as Obama will need to continue to print money and stagflation is right around the corner. You cannot continue to just print money without having major inflation. You should go back and read about what happened from 1976-80 before you embarrass yourself with some dumbass answer. Oh, that’s right, you continually do this and don’t care that you make a fool of yourself.
Please Mr. Genius, please explain how Carter’s policies are supposed to work in 2009 when they failed miserably thirty years ago.
This ought to be good.
June 4th, 2009 at 8:54 am
“how Carter’s policies are supposed to work in 2009 when they failed miserably thirty years ago.”
The problem Carter faced was inflation, a hangover from the Vietnam War. His solution, or really his Fed chair’s solution was to raise interest rates, basically throwing the economy into a recession, but also draining inflation from the money supply. That’s not the problem Obama facing nor is it the remedy he proposing.
I would recommend Wessel’s column in this morning’s Wall Street Journal about the prospects of inflation.
June 4th, 2009 at 9:28 am
chris..
The vast majority of the Stimulus money has not been spent yet. The Obama Administration has repeatedly stated that results from the plan will not be measurable until late 2009 and into 2010.
Therefore, your conclusions are a classic rush to judgement, and frankly, laughable.
Check back in 2 years and let’s run the numbers again.
June 4th, 2009 at 9:43 am
Hiram..
Don’t forget the oil shocks from the Arab oil embargo launched in 1973-74, and the Iranian Revolution in 1979. President Carter really got screwed by relentless surges in oil prices.
June 4th, 2009 at 9:52 am
Liberal danbrome, If you take Hiram’s advice and read the Wessel column you’ll learn that fears of inflation could become a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Only an ignoran fool like you would trust Obama with the hundreds of billions of Stimulus and TARP money he has access to and is ready to redistribute.
June 4th, 2009 at 10:17 am
brome,
If you are using the excuse that Obama may not face the same situations as Carter did, and think that his plans may actually work, you should look historically at countries that print money excessively before trying to defend the idiotic policies this administration is following.
Look up Monetarism and MV=PT so that you understand what is going on before opening your mouth. I know that facts and history aren’t in the “liberal” vocabulary, but there is not one example where inflation did not occur when governments print money excessively.
Obama continues to make huge blunders with the economy, and screwed the taxpayers when he pumped billions into the auto makers, only to have them file chapter 11. He alo screwed the investors in GM out of billions of $. Who do you think is going to loan money out when this Socialist President nationalizes businesses and says FU to private investors? Nobody is going to lend money at any price with the fear they will lose it because of Barry and his irrational behavior.
Your are totally clueless when it comes to economics, and your statement about rush to judgement ignores historical facts.
Higher inflation, taxes, unemployment, interest rates are all results of the policies this clown is implementing and a lot of people that voted for this administration are beginning to understand he doesn’t have a clue.
Maybe that’s why you support him blindly, you don’t have a clue either.
June 4th, 2009 at 10:28 am
Hey Brome,
If the vast majority of the stimulus money hasn’t been spent yet, then why bother appropriating the money in the first place? If you recall (and I’m sure you don’t because you’re so uninfomred), Obama and the Democrats in Congress urged that the stimulus bill be passed right away and with no amendments and little debate. They didn’t even have time to read what was in the bill. So why did the incompetent Democrats in Congress and President Obama pass and sign a bill where the vast majority of the spending will not occur now when we have an economic crisis?
I’m glad you brought up the Iranian Revolution. The reason the Iranian Revolution happened was because Jimmy Carter threw the Shah under the bus. Carter told the Shah to flee Iran because the U.S. wasn’t going to protect him. Was the Shah perfect? Absolutely not. But under the Shah, women had the right to drive a car unchaperoned. Women had the right to be educated, to vote, to work in businesses with men, etc. Under the Shah, Jews lived peacefully side by side with Iranians. And under the Shah, Iran didn’t have nuclear ambitions and they weren’t threatening the United States.
June 4th, 2009 at 10:44 am
Dash..
re: Chris saying..
“The fact that there are job losses after spending $787 billion and maxing out our nation’s credit card shows that the Stimulus bill FAILED.”
If the money has not been spent, doesn’t his false statement represent a classic rush to judgement?
Oh by the way, there is no such thing as maxing out the nations credit card, not yet anyway.
June 4th, 2009 at 10:53 am
Brome,
You’re a stooge. As a liberal Democrat and an American citizen (I assume you’re a citizen anyway) you should be outraged that the Democrats rushed a $787 billion stimulus bill through Congress that doesn’t even spend the money when the economy needs the stimulus. Wasn’t that the reason the bill was passed right away in February with no amendments or debate? And, you know, members of Congress didn’t even have time to read what was in the bill because it needed to be passed so urgently.
Your acumen about monetary policy is just as impressive as your knowledge about the legislative process. Just yesterday Chairman Bernanke said that if Congress keeps borrowing money, it’s going to have long-term, serious, negative effects on our economy. I have news for you Brome, our nations credit card has already been maxed out.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=agmj05AcqWHo&refer=worldwide
June 4th, 2009 at 10:55 am
P.S. brome,
Even your President says that our nation is out of money. Read his sobering interview with C-SPAN where he says that we’re out of money now.
http://www.drudgereport.com/flashocs.htm
June 4th, 2009 at 11:06 am
Of course we are out of money.. we ran out decades ago when deficit spending became all the rage.
The President sticks with the facts. That’s one thing I really like about him.
June 4th, 2009 at 11:17 am
brome = meathead.
June 4th, 2009 at 12:43 pm
Dash-
What did Rush tell you Obama was doing that was identical to Carter?
Did Carter inherit a country whose financial sector was reeling as a result of non-existent business regulation by his predecessor creating an unsustainable period of robboer-barroning for a soulless class of corporate executives? When Carter took office, were successive waves of dramatic downturns in the housing and auto markets crashing on his shore? The correct answer is no. There are certainly some similarities, but contrary to what Rush thinks, the role America plays in the international economy is not something that can be dumbed down into a soundbite for dittoheads like you to parrot. If you want to compare apples to apples, it helps if you start with two apples.
Or are you just talking about inflation projections? Because, and correct me if I am wrong, aren’t we one of like three states where the governor pretends that inflation does not exist when it comes to budget projections?
If that is an acceptable plan for the guy who wants to be president, how are you going to argue that inflation is a problem for the guy who actually is?
June 4th, 2009 at 3:13 pm
Seifert resigned because he was going to be ousted because he is a poor leader. He would make an even worse statewide candidate. if he gets endorsed, we will get trounced in the next election.
June 4th, 2009 at 6:23 pm
Leroy,
Sorry, I don’t listen to Limbaugh that much. Check back on what happened when Carter implemented his $4 billion stimulus package. Inflation spiked dramatically along with interest rates and Barry’s plan dwarfs what Carter attempted. Seems fairly identical to me only on a much larger scale.
Stupid energy policies, govt. regulation, high debt, weak foreign policies, high taxes are all similarities between Obama and Carter, and the inflation is coming big time.
Carter had Conrail, and it took massive deregulation by congress to make it profitable. Until deregulation happened, Conrail was losing $1 million a day. Obama nationalizes GM and increases govt. regulation and expects good results? U.S. automakers are already at a disadvantage because of oppressive govt. regulation. See any similarites there Leroy?
Since you seem to think you are the smartest guy in the room, please give us some facts, not your opinions, on how Barry’s plans have a chance in hell of working. With a deficit that will be $10 trillion, it isn’t possible. Anxiously awaiting your explanation.
This should be good.
June 4th, 2009 at 10:20 pm
Paul: What are you talking about? The House GOP had great morale, especially at the end of session; unanimously upheld all vetoes, was the most effective and relevent caucus this year, raised a record amount of cash under Seifert and he was quoted more than any other lawmaker, in almost always positive. Where did you get this from?
June 4th, 2009 at 10:58 pm
Dash-
When Ronald Reagan took office after Carter, the jobless rate was at 7.5 percent. Care to guess where it was a year later? That’s right, 10.8 percent. Reagan also projected an uptick in GDP of 4 percent in his first year. In reality, it shrunk by 2 percent.
Does anyone consider Reagan to be a failure of a president because he didn’t turn the economy around overnight? No.
So, if you want to be a partisan, be a partisan. If you want to bra historian, be a historian. But don’t waste our time with a half-
assed effort to be both.
June 5th, 2009 at 5:59 am
Leroy,
That’s it?? That’s the response? You want to talk about a half-assed effort, you failed to answer any question so I’ll try and make it easier for you since you brought up Reagan.
Reagan’s 1981 Program For Economic Recovery had 4 major policy objectives:
1. Reduce the growth of government spending
2. Reduce marginal tax rates on income
3. Reduce regulation
4. Reduce inflation by controlling the growth
of the money supply
Although each of these objectives was acheived, some of the results would have been even greater had the Democrats not controlled congress. Reagan’s policies doubled the federal revenues from 1980 where is was approximately $517 billion to over $1 trillion by 1990. The economic boom lasted from 1982 to July 1990 without interrupted growth, and is the longest peacetime economic expansion in U.S. history. GDP increased an average of 3.5% from 1981-1989 under Reagan.
Barry is taking the exact opposite approach on each of the Reagan initiatives, so I’m asking you to explain how this is going to work, and have given you examples of how Obama is similar to Carter which is what you asked for. Even Clinton was smart to begin adopting conservative economic policies after Hillary almost screwed him with her health care plan. Obama should have taken notes during the Clinton second term.
So, since you support Barry’s policies, I’m asking you to explain how they are going to grow the economy, create jobs, curtail inflation, keep interest rates low, etc.
Since you have never lost a debate here, we are all waiting for some of your “brilliance” to offer up solutions to failed past policies you support.
So far, you offered up nothing.
June 5th, 2009 at 6:48 am
Leroy, your attempts at telling history are nothing but partisan revisionism.
Jimmy Carter made the misery index a focus of his campaign against Ford in 1976. That came back to bite him in the ass four years later.
The misery index went up every year Carter was in office. He inherited an M.I. of 13.5 and turned that into a M.I of 20.75 four years later.
In Reagan’s first year he lowered the M.I to 18% and when he left office, it was at 9.5%.
Obama is destined to be every bit the failure that Carter was.
June 5th, 2009 at 8:19 am
How is it that you can compare years or full terms to Obama’s first hundred and some odd days and expect to get similar comparisons?
Ronald Reagan didn’t sign his first bill until 71 days into his presidency. And do you know what that bill was about? Milk prices.
If three years from now the economy remains in the tank, and the defecit continues to climb, I will join your chorus of throw the bum out. But until we see how his policies work on the economic landscape he faces, I think it is sheer folly to try and compare his course to those others have taken in the past.
June 5th, 2009 at 9:24 am
Leroy Jenkins thinks President Reagan signed his first bill 2 days after he was shot. Possible? Maybe. Probable? Unlikely.
June 5th, 2009 at 9:32 am
Leroy,
Looks like you aren’t even going to try and answer the questions posed to you. Next time you want to inform us what a master debator you are, you should at least try to step up to the plate and take a swing.
Chili has been mispelling your nickname for all this time. It’s not jackass, it’s dumbass.
You lose, big time!
June 5th, 2009 at 9:38 am
Leroy, you jackass, getting back to your diagnosis of Mental illness, do you have and obsession with Jodie Foster?
June 5th, 2009 at 12:59 pm
PeteF-
He signed his first bill while still in the hospital. Not that you need to, but you can look it up.
Dash-
Here is a suggestion. If you want an answer, ask a question. You have several diatribes on this thread that are chock full of wild eyed conservatism, but none seem to contain any questions. And then you get all indignant when no one will answer your questions. If you would like to ask a question, ask one.
Ronald Reagan was right and Jimmy Carter was wrong is NOT a question.
June 5th, 2009 at 1:11 pm
Leroy-the-jackass says: “Ronald Reagan was right and Jimmy Carter was wrong is NOT a question”
Correct Leroy! It’s a fact!
June 5th, 2009 at 1:36 pm
Leroy, you jackass, it took Reagan only a few minutes to rescue the American hostages in Iran. Something that Jimmy Carter was unable to do for 444 days.
Reagan’s brave action led to a new career for Ted Koppel as the host of Nightline.
June 5th, 2009 at 3:54 pm
Leroy,
It was day 70 and had to do with dairy price supports, not “the price of milk”.
June 5th, 2009 at 4:59 pm
My most humble and sincere apologies. To mischaracterize a bill on dairy price supports as simply a bill on the price of milk was shortsighted and terribly wrong of me.
I obviously know that my words have likely hurt a great number of people, so I would like to take a moment to apologize. To the cheese makers who provide the middles of so many grilled cheese sandwiches every day, you have my deepest apologies. To the makers of dried milk, whose timeless flavor can be found in recipes copied from ancient cookbooks, your contribution to society deserves better than what I gave it today. To the makers of ice cream, I simply don’t know where to start. Like many Americans, lactose issues keeps me from enjoying your wares, but that is no excuse for my serious misstatement. My apologies are yours. To the makers of yogurt, your contributions to the dairy sector, especially in the form of advanced packaging methods are recognized and greatly appreciated. My condolences for any loss my words may have cost your industry. To Reagan historians who frequent this site, your faith in your own research abilities must have been shaken to the core +by this short lapse in the truth. Please accept my regrets for any problems my misstatement may have caused. To the doctors at Johns Hopkins, who saw the president sign the bill, I worry that my mistake may have caused you to begin questioning your ongoing competence to practice medicine. Please do not retire as a result of what I have written here. The world needs talented doctors. And to anyone else who, for a full seven hours and thirty five minutes, were under the impression that the bill was about milk prices rather than dairy support payments, please know that I have been humbled by this experience, and I intend to insure that I never make such a terrible mistake ever again. The confidence of the readers of this board, the state, and likely the entire world has been shaken by this mistake which was driven by a desire to respond with haste. I feel as if I have let the world down today, and so if you were in anyway impacted by my poor choice of words, please know that you have my most heartfelt and sincere apology.
June 5th, 2009 at 5:58 pm
Leroy,
Your inaccurate comments and smart ass responses give you zero credibility.
Not that you ever had any.
June 5th, 2009 at 8:38 pm
Leroy,
Dumbass fits your perfectly. Dumbass, Flounder, and Brome, the 3 liberal stooges.
You got your ass handed to you.
Dash 1 Leroy 0
June 5th, 2009 at 9:25 pm
Leroy, you dumbass, I asked pointed questions which you obviously will not answer. Please refer back to #47 and tell me what you do not understand about the questions and I will try to simplify even more so you can possibly understand.
I gave you 4 Reagan policies that Obama directly opposes, and asked how the Obama policies will grow the economy, create jobs, curtail inflation, and keep interest rates low when they are in direct contrast to the Reagan objectives. Reagan achieved all of these, and I am asking how policies directly opposed will work. Surely you understand the questions? Please provide the answers. I know you are not that bright, but how much more simple can I make this?
The questions have been asked repeatedly,and they aren’t that difficult. Surely someone who is as smart as you claim to be can provide us with some answers?
Please let me know what you don’t understand about the questions. I’ll be happy to explain for a 3rd time.
June 6th, 2009 at 6:45 am
Dash, what questions did you ask in post #47? You ask, “That’s it? That’s your response?”
And you refer to those as “pointed” questions. Zing! Those are indeed deep, probing questions. Look out Charlie Rose, here comes Dash!
June 6th, 2009 at 6:48 am
Pete, can you please share your crazy dictionary with us? The one that says that milk is not a dairy product, and the word “price” has nothing to do with the word “money.”
June 6th, 2009 at 9:10 am
AC,
I forgot you were here still, let me dumb it down for you.
“dairy price supports” does not equal the price of milk. The price of milk would not necessarily rise or fall because of this bill.
Please take a few minutes and review the bill then let me know where in the bill it addresses the price of milk. Then we can talk, until then I will ignore you on this topic.
BTW, That did not come from your “crazy dictionary”. It comes from common sense, something I’m pretty sure you don’t have AC.
June 6th, 2009 at 11:22 am
AC,
Leroy can look stupid all by himself, he really doesn’t need your help, but thanks for chiming in and looking clueless also.
June 6th, 2009 at 12:25 pm
O.k. You want me to explain to you the fallacy in the Reagan four point plan? Fine, here ya’ go…
1. Reduce the growth of government spending
While overall government spending ebbs and flows, one consistent marker that can be used to track the relative size of government and the administration’s priorities therein is the number of people employed BY government. In looking at the number of government employees over the past forty years, the number of employees has been on a steady decline. Only one president in those forty years has had multiple years of increases in government jobs. Care to wager guess? That’s right. It was Reagan. The number of government employees rose over the previous year’s total in 1983, 1984, 1985 and 1987. The only other administrations to see that happen each did it only once, Nixon/Ford in 1974 and Bush Jr. in 2003. So, on his first bullet point, Reagan was a massive failure.
SOURCE: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2008/sheets/hist17z5.xls
2. Reduce marginal tax rates on income
With the passage of the Kemp-Roth tax package of 1981, Ronald Reagan ushered in the era a credit card budgeting. One need only look at the impact that this bill had on the federal deficit to understand this basic fact. If the tax cuts had been successful and followed the republican myth that is the Laffer curve, one would assume that the increased tax revenues created by the increase in economic activity would offset the tax cuts. This did not occur, and you can see the budget deficits begin to skyrocket under president Reagan. Indeed, the budget deficit has always grown under republican presidencies and leveled off during democratic administrations. So, I guess strike two for Reagan’s plan.
SOURCE:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms
3. Reduce regulation
Even Alan Greenspan, who was appointed to the Fed by Reagan, has come out to publicly state that a decrease in regulation was a root cause of the current financial mess. One need look only so far as Wall Street to see what happens to our money when we allow banks and corporations to run fast and loose with the rules.
SOURCE:http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=ah5qh9Up4rIg
4. Reduce inflation by controlling the growth
of the money supply I will admit that under Reagan, the rate of inflation decreased from 12 percent when he took office to 4.5 percent when he left. But the move came at a major cost to the country. Unemployment rose in an almost direct proportion to the fall in inflation, as tight money had a similar effect that it is having currently on the economy with business not having the access to credit they need to maintain employment levels. Over the term of his entire presidency, Reagan had a 7.5 percent unemployment rate.
SOURCE: http://www.heritage.org/research/economy/wm675.cfm
So, as you so often like to do, I will provide the score:
Leroy: 4, Reagan/Dash: 0
June 6th, 2009 at 1:41 pm
Leroy, you dumbass, I didn’t ask for a critique of Reagan’s policies/programs, I asked how Obama’s plan, which is diametrically opposed to what Reagan did, is going to:
1. Grow the economy
2. Create jobs
3. Curtail inflation
4. Keep interest rates low
Why can’t you seem to understand simple questions? It shouldn’t be that difficult, even for you.
Reagan’s plans all worked and saved us from the Carter debaucle. You profess to support Obama’s socialist agenda and his $10 trillion deficit, so please tell us how this is economically going to work. It’s impossible to just print more money and devalue the country’s currency without inflation. It has never been done before in any country that has taken this approach. Why do you not explain how this isn’t going to happen?
Your attempt to cut and paste snippets totally ignores the fact that Democrats controlled the House and Senate during Reagan’s presidency and caused the government to grow.
If you don’t have the answers, just say so, nobody here can think any lower of you, it’s not possible.
June 6th, 2009 at 1:58 pm
Leroy-the-jackass is a liar.
Carter left office with a 7.1 percent unemployment rate. Reagan left office with a 5.5 percent unemployment rate.
Reagan: Reduced inflation by more tham 60%
Reagan: Lowered the unemployment rate by more that 20%
Reagan proved that there wasn’t an inherent trade off between unemployment and inflation. Economic text books were rewritten.
How can Leroy-the-Jackass say that “Unemployment rose in an almost direct proportion to the fall in inflation”, when both fell? Because he’s a lying jackass, that’s why.
And Leroy, you jackass – as far as the size of government:
“Even with the Reagan defense buildup, which helped win the Cold War, total federal spending declined to 21.2% of GDP in 1989 from 23.5% of GDP in 1983. That’s a real reduction of 10% in the size of government”
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123431484726570949.html
June 6th, 2009 at 3:18 pm
Dash-
I am pretty sure you answered your own question. You wanted to know how Obama’s plan, which as you say, is diametrically opposed to the Reagan plan is going to work. By showing how those four planks of the Reagan plan failed, by definition didn’t I show how Obama has learned from the past and will not be making the same mistakes?
If you intend to argue that Reagan’s four points were a success, well, then I guess we will have to just agree to disagree. While I have facts on my side, your fuzzy feelings for the Gipper apparently allow you to overlook the overwhelming evidence that his economic plans were a mixed bag at best.
And to argue that the democrats controlled congress is a double sided sword. If you blame them for everything that Reagan didn’t accomplish, then you also have to credit congress for everything he did accomplish. In the end of the day, the president has the power to veto, and any laws that went into effect under his watch were the direct result of his leadership.
Chile-
I agree. Unemployment was below the average for Reagan’s presidency when he left office. But if you demand that Obama fix all problems within the first 140 days of his term, and then cry when anyone doesn’t give Reagan his entire eight years to change something, well, you tend to sound a bit like a double standardist, wouldn’t you agree?
And if you want to cite numbers, cite numbers with credible resources to back them. No offense, but you don’t really inspire trust for the accuracy of the things you say on here. And no, I wouldn’t consider an opinion piece penned by a former Reagan administration staffer to be a credible resource.
June 6th, 2009 at 4:01 pm
It is obvious Leroy is unable to explain how Obama’s “plan” will resolve our current problems. If he could have he would have instead of trying to present opinions on President Reagan.
I agree that Obama would not be expected to solve all problems that have occurred since the Democrats took over Congress but I would think that Leroy could come up with at least ONE problem that Obama has fixed. This of course would be something that all of us would agree was a problem that needed to be resolved.
I wonder how Leroy will try to dance around this one…
June 6th, 2009 at 10:13 pm
Pete,
Pretty amazing, isn’t it? Dumbass supports policies that have failed miserably in the past, but can’t give any reasons as to why they will work now, and tries to offer revisionist history about Reagan.
At least brome was smart enough to get out of the debate immediatley. Leroy was just too stupid, made a complete fool of himself.
June 6th, 2009 at 11:15 pm
Leroy has never been able to back up what he posts. He posts the usual BS script from the DFL that is full of lies.
danbrome is just a troll who never contributes anything to the discussion. He has a man crush on me and can’t seem to let go, sad really…
June 7th, 2009 at 1:03 am
What new points would you like me to defend?
Saying defend Obama is rather broad. It would be like asking me to defend oxygen.
You claim I am working off of talking points, and yet everything I read from either of you is the same tired rhetoric that I read that is written by conservative pundits in the opinion pages of the Times, the Post or the WSJ weeks ago. All it proves to me is that you two are apparently far enough down the media stream, you only absorb the stuff that is eventually compiled for you by Fox News and/or Rush.
June 7th, 2009 at 9:56 am
Leroy,
Once again you fail to explain how Obama’s so called “plan” will:
1. Grow the economy
2. Create jobs
3. Curtail inflation
4. Keep interest rates low
Stop being a whimp and answer the question Leroy.
June 7th, 2009 at 10:25 am
Leroy, you jackass, Obama is not currently facing a inflation problem – Reagan was. Reagan also became Commander-in-Chief of a military that was gutted by the Carter administration. (Just as GWB became Command-in-Chief of a military that was gutted by the Carter administration
Obama’s attempt to create jobs is to the extent that he wants government employees. His involvement in the auto industry will lead to the closing of auto plants and dealerships this year, resulting the loss of hundreds of thousand of jobs. He will likely spend more that one hundred billion dollars this year on his plan to down size the U.S. auto industry.
Leroy, you jackass, you already no that the facts I presented are true or you wouldn’t have agreed to the fact that you are a liar. If, you want to prove me wrong Leroy, find your own links, you jackass.
Leroy notice in post #67, I provided this link
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123431484726570949.html
Notice that the link inludes article. Notice that the article is an opinion piece. Leroy, you jackass, you’re the one who threw a temper tantrum when Ryan recently referred to an op/ed piece as an article. Turns out that Ryan was correct, and once again you were wrong.
June 7th, 2009 at 10:43 am
President Obama inherited a terrible mess: a $1.3 trillion deficit, two wars, rising unemployment and unprecedented crises in our banking system. The Obama Administration has worked tirelessly to address our immediate problems of rising unemployment, falling home prices and limping credit markets, while taking a longer view in laying a strong foundation for future economic growth that benefits all Americans. We are fighting for economic recovery on all fronts.
President Obama signed legislation to jumpstart our economy, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, less than a month after his inauguration. The plan will save or create 3.5 million new jobs, make critical investments in our infrastructure and give 95 percent of working Americans a tax cut.
A new housing program has stabilized the market, preventing more foreclosures and helping millions more re-finance at historically low mortgage rates. The Administration is also moving forward with its plans to get credit flowing again to businesses and families, and to reform our regulatory system so we have a set of 21st century rules to match 21st century financial markets.
By making bold and wise investments in healthcare, energy and education, and restoring fiscal accountability to government spending, we will cut costs for American families and businesses, create good jobs that can’t be shipped overseas, give our children the education they need to be competitive in the global marketplace and leave our grandchildren a legacy they can be proud to inherit.
June 7th, 2009 at 2:31 pm
That has to be one of the lamest attempts ever on Dumbass’s part to cut and paste a response.
It is good comedy though!
June 7th, 2009 at 3:38 pm
When I write my own responses which totally annihilates the ideas that Fox News has provided you, you accuse me of cutting and pasting. So, I figured since you don’t seem to be bright enough to understand the difference, I would show you.
Bottom line. Obama was handed a country in near ruin and asked by the people to fix it. The change may take time, but the people of this country believed that the republicans had led us down the wrong path for far too long, and they said so with their votes.
I don’t know if Obama will be able to fix the seemingly irreparable harm that Bush caused. But when his first order of business is to reject the failed policies that got us where we are, I guess I have a reason to believe he may have a vision for getting us out of the ditch and back on the road to prosperity.
June 7th, 2009 at 3:40 pm
Leroy repeats DFL BS word for word as if it were the truth. So far Obama has taken major steps to turn this country into his own socialist empire and people like Leroy march in lock step with the fool.
Obama has taken the mess created by congress over the last 2+ years and made it even worse.
June 7th, 2009 at 4:10 pm
Really, “Pete”?
How about one example. ONE example of something I posted here being a word for word reproduction of any DFL writing you can find. Hell, I would even settle for an example of something I have written being vaguely similar to the DFL talking points.
(CLOSED CAPTION TO PETE) This is where you once again run and hide and pretend you didn’t make a claim that you are incapable of supporting. (/cc)
June 7th, 2009 at 4:33 pm
Leroy-you-jackass, every time you predict that cops will be layed off, or grandma is going to get kicked out the the nursing homes – it’s straight from the DFL talking points.
Leroy-the-jackass is a pathetic troll.
June 7th, 2009 at 5:55 pm
Leroy,
Whose professional career are you going to threaten this time if I disagree with you? Yes, even though you had the post removed it was captured and sent to the person you made the threat against.
Threatening someone like that is not a good thing Leroy, who knows what actions the person threatened may take…
June 7th, 2009 at 5:57 pm
Leroy,
Everything you post is a DFL talking point. I personally doubt if you have ever had an orginal thought of your own.
“This is where you once again run and hide and pretend you didn’t make a claim that you are incapable of supporting.”
You are obviously thinking of danbrome.
Leroy, stop being such a pussy.
June 8th, 2009 at 12:22 am
It may sound DFL to complain about less cops and more grandparents on the street, but to a lot of Minnesotans on both sides of the aisle, more crime and less help for grandma is a real concern.
I do find it kind of funny that republicans have apparently abandoned being tough on crime and helping the elderly from their playbook.
As for the PeteF stuff, there were no threats made that should concern anyone but the person posting as PeteF. Apparently the great Bush economy made you expendible at work and now you spend all day while you should be job hunting replying to me.
Sad. Truly sad.
June 8th, 2009 at 9:30 am
Leroy,
Huh? WTF have you been smoking? You really are out there in left field aren’t you.
Where does this girl get this stuff anyway?
June 8th, 2009 at 10:25 am
Pete-
I would think that an unemployed computer geek such as yourself would be pulling like crazy for the Obama economic recovery to be a success so that you can maybe someday get back to work.
A month into the job search, you have to be concerned that maybe you are in the wrong line of work. Too bad college has become so expensive under the Pawlenty watch. Now even if you wanted to get additional education, the option is all but gone, as college is becoming a fleeting dream for those who need it the most.
First the Bush economy knocks you out of work, and then the Pawlenty economy makes it next to impossible for you to get back in.
How many times is karma going to have to crack you in the skull before you recognize that the policies you have been supporting all your life are the very ones that are keeping you down?
When things are going well, it is easy to be a republican. When things go to hell, it is much easier to see the flaws in their dogma.
June 8th, 2009 at 5:41 pm
Leroy,
Why do you have it in for Fordyce?
Is it because he caught you trying to work your way into the local Republican party so that you could sabatoge the district and state convention? According to my sources you even did a little work on the Mike Bredeck campaign. Is that true?
Are you really a person named Lydia that works at the local dollar store?
June 8th, 2009 at 6:01 pm
Leroy,
You seem to have your facts wrong.
A. I am not an “unemployed computer geek”.
B. I am always conducting job searches. It would be foolish not to look for better opportunities.
C. I have not supported conservative policies all my life. You can thank Jimmy Carter for turning me against liberal policies and Ronald Reagan for leading me out of the darkness.
D. Now would be a wonderfull time to be unemployed. There is plenty of money available for education for people who have been displaced.
Leroy, you really do need to keep up with what is happening in the world today. I know someone who had their job eliminated in Montevideo and is receiving two years of schooling. And apparently when you are in school you are considered temporarily employed.
Frankly that would be nice, free training and an income while you are doing it. Maybe I should fire myself and take advantage of that – for once in my life get something back for all that I have contributed.
June 9th, 2009 at 12:22 am
I’m not Lydia, but you are getting closer.
I don’t have it in for you, Fordyce. I simply want you to proudly stand behind your lies and attacks on this site as you work rather unsucesdfully to get Republicans elected. Party brass and a number of potential candidates have been made aware of your actions on here, and as the election draws closer, your smears and lies WILL become a campaign issue for any candidate who chooses to hire you.
The bottom line is, a candidate is only as good as the people with whom he or she surrounds themself. And to that end, there is no room for you in the electoral process. I plan to personally see to that.
June 9th, 2009 at 9:27 am
Interesting. You are going to use my comments to smear someone else.
“Party brass and a number of potential candidates have been made aware of your actions on here”. so you are slandering someone based on a guess? I will pass that on, I am sure it can only help.
Once again you prove the DFL is the party of hate and personal destruction.
“I simply want you to proudly stand behind your lies and attacks on this site”. This from someone who posts as a character in a video game.
June 9th, 2009 at 9:40 am
One other thought.
You guys must really be afraid of that guy.
June 9th, 2009 at 11:02 pm
You sure seem to be terribly worried about how this is going to impact a guy you claim to not even know.
June 10th, 2009 at 8:38 am
Leroy,
Unlike you I care about other people and how what I do impact them. Unlike you who comfirmed that Lydia is a liberal plant.
Since you brought it up I have contacted Fordyce and passed on information to him. He is not surprised that people like you would be after him. He figures it is par for the course and would expect no less from the radical left.
Like I said you people must really be afraid of this dude. You are a coward without honor Leroy.
June 10th, 2009 at 11:59 am
No one is afraid of Elton Fordyce.
You are a creepy political operative who defames people on websites like this under assumed names that you believe provide you with cover.
All I am doing is ripping that cover back, and making your participation known. If you are truly proud of the things you have posted on here, then you should have no problem discussing the stack of comments I call Pete’s Greatest Hits which will be mailed anonymously to any candidate who appears to even be thinking of hiring and/or accepting a political contribution from you.
June 10th, 2009 at 12:57 pm
Leroy,
Your methods are well known in the area. You defame people through rumor campaigns and threaten people in your little town if they support anyone but the candidates you support. You act like you are a king but you are really just a greedy operative who does everything to line your own pocket.
You go ahead and mail my posts “anonymously”. Since I am not the person you say I am it will not matter. You claimed to have proof but you do not since it is impossible to prove something that is not true.
You will not post any so called proof that you claim to have because you know it would expose your true identity to everyone here.
You are what you claim I am, a creepy political operative who defames people on websites under an assumed name. I take pity on you, you have money and glory but you are still a worthless stooge manipulated by the left. You think you are in control but you are not, they control you and will push you aside the minute you do not dance to their tune.
You are nothing more than a Fascist attempting to silence me. It will not work.
June 10th, 2009 at 12:58 pm
That one was for AC, now you are not alone.
June 10th, 2009 at 1:24 pm
Trying out yet another new name are we Elton?
June 10th, 2009 at 5:54 pm
No Brian, Pete is going to have some fun. Want to dance?
June 10th, 2009 at 6:30 pm
Who is Brian?
June 10th, 2009 at 7:46 pm
Does it matter? As far as I am concerned your name is Brian. Anonymous mailings are a good idea. Signed mailings even better.
Since we are playing games with other peoples names I thought I would join in the fun. Maybe I will call you Rick. Or is it Doug. Maybe all three names. How much can it cost? Less than $50 for 100 pieces?
You want to dance? Lets dance.
June 10th, 2009 at 8:02 pm
You see Leroy/Brian/Doug/Rick for years conservatives have tried to play the game by the rules. That is changing. If we want to win elections we need to do what ever it takes to win. Times have changed. We need to be able lower ourselves to the level of your ilk to win, maybe lower. Once we win we can ensure that we do what is right for this country and retain freedom for the people. But first you friends need to be removed from power.
Defeating facists like you is the number one priority. Facism will not win. What ever it takes to defeat you and your ilk I will do.
I realize you will have trouble comprehending this but just think of it this way, I am willing to go as low as you or even lower to win.
2010 is going to be a great year for conservatives.
June 11th, 2009 at 8:39 am
Wow, it’s only June 11th and Pete’s monthly supply of medication has already run out.
What in the world are you talking about?
June 11th, 2009 at 9:08 am
AC, in regards to post #101…
I challenge you to go two weeks without a “I know you are, but what am I?†style post?
Yawn.