Obama's Rhetoric is the Real Catastrophe

[agzg]

I guess back on topic before this became a discussion of race and the "you're stupid," "no you're stupid":

I would be surprised if there wasn't a little bit of fear mongering on the part of Obama and Democrats in Congress in regard to the economy for a couple of reasons.

1. Republicans harp on the national security issues. Democrats harp on economic issues. This is nothing new.
2. We (as Americans) showed that we responded to negative or scary language. It got Bush a second term, and it got us into Iraq, if you buy that argument (I don't buy it wholeheartedly).

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by alphagamzetagam

It got Bush a second term, and it got us into Iraq, if you buy that argument (I don't buy it wholeheartedly).

I would disagree with that argument, at least in part because I think a big boost to Bush's second term was the inability of the Democrats to field a viable candidate. Kerry was a complete disaster, and if the Democrats had found someone better I think it would have been a much closer and tougher race.

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by KSigkid

I would disagree with that argument, at least in part because I think a big boost to Bush's second term was the inability of the Democrats to field a viable candidate. Kerry was a complete disaster, and if the Democrats had found someone better I think it would have been a much closer and tougher race.

Agreed.

[agzg]

Originally Posted by KSigkid

I would disagree with that argument, at least in part because I think a big boost to Bush's second term was the inability of the Democrats to field a viable candidate. Kerry was a complete disaster, and if the Democrats had found someone better I think it would have been a much closer and tougher race.

True. I don't buy it either. But my point is that perception is what rules the day. Yeah, democrats knew that Kerry wasn't a super strong candidate. But they weren't going to open themselves wider to criticism about choosing a weak candidate unless they opened republicans up with the "They cried wolf" argument. It seems that perhaps some of Obama's speech writers, and maybe Obama himself, believes that the fear mongering was what really won Bush his second term. If it worked then, why wouldn't it now?

Plus I don't think members of Congress are particularly invulnerable to fear mongering, either.

[UGAalum94]

Other than fear of complete catastrophe, what would have motivated people to favor this kind of spending, especially all at once?

I think selling it as fending off catastrophe is the only effective sell for the majority of Americans.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

I think selling it as fending off catastrophe is the only effective sell for the majority of Americans.

Definitely and that's not just Americans. However, the socioeconomic breakdown of America and the undereducation of the working class is even more conducive to fear mongering.

Humans respond to extremes and fear. It is even worse when there is misinformation, withholding information, and a general refusal to inform yourself when you have access to the info.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by alphagamzetagam

But my point is that perception is what rules the day.

That's the message to get from every single page of this thread.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by KSigkid

I would disagree with that argument, at least in part because I think a big boost to Bush's second term was the inability of the Democrats to field a viable candidate. Kerry was a complete disaster, and if the Democrats had found someone better I think it would have been a much closer and tougher race.

It's interesting to think that this last time around they managed to find two more compelling, I think, than Kerry.

Are you still loving Jindal for the Republicans next time around? What do you think about his suggesting he might decline some of the money on behalf of Louisiana?

[Munchkin03]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

Are you still loving Jindal for the Republicans next time around? What do you think about his suggesting he might decline some of the money on behalf of Louisiana?

I know this was directed to KSigkid, but I'm going to answer too.

I like Bobby Jindal very much (and not because we went to the same college). I find it ironic, however, that the states threatening to reject the stimulus money are the states that rely the most on federal funding. South Carolina is virtually a welfare state. Louisiana relies on federal money during boom times, so I can't imagine how they would manage without stimulus money. I think the governors who are saying that they'll decline the money are short-sighted; most, maybe even Jindal, are looking more for gaining bona fides with the GOP elite than helping out their states.

Don't get me wrong, I hate the idea of that stimulus. But, I live in a state that doesn't rely on federal funding as much in the first place.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by Munchkin03

I know this was directed to KSigkid, but I'm going to answer too.

I like Bobby Jindal very much (and not because we went to the same college). I find it ironic, however, that the states threatening to reject the stimulus money are the states that rely the most on federal funding. South Carolina is virtually a welfare state. Louisiana relies on federal money during boom times, so I can't imagine how they would manage without stimulus money. I think the governors who are saying that they'll decline the money are short-sighted; most, maybe even Jindal, are looking more for gaining bona fides with the GOP elite than helping out their states.

Don't get me wrong, I hate the idea of that stimulus. But, I live in a state that doesn't rely on federal funding as much in the first place.

Where are you again? What should I google to look up the data?

I think much of the stimulus money goes beyond what a state might have generally gotten, so it might be easier to turn it down. But I think it's GOP grandstanding too.

I've got no personal problem with Jindal: I just continue to be perplexed by folks who claim big problems with Palin's religious beliefs and governance but are down with Jindal's. I'm not trying to start junk with you, please believe me, but it's odd to me.

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

It's interesting to think that this last time around they managed to find two more compelling, I think, than Kerry.

Are you still loving Jindal for the Republicans next time around? What do you think about his suggesting he might decline some of the money on behalf of Louisiana?

I'm not on Jindal for President bandwagon, only because I've been on the Romney for President bandwagon for a while. I like Jindal though quite a bit.

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

I've got no personal problem with Jindal: I just continue to be perplexed by folks who claim big problems with Palin's religious beliefs and governance but are down with Jindal's. I'm not trying to start junk with you, please believe me, but it's odd to me.

For me, there are a few reasons why I prefer Jindal to Palin, but one of the most basic is that I think Jindal's just smarter. For me, one of the big issues is that I want someone at that level to be incredibly smart. It's not the whole ball of wax (for example, Obama's incredibly smart but I don't agree with his policies), but it's part of the equation for me.

[Munchkin03]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

Where are you again? What should I google to look up the data?

I think much of the stimulus money goes beyond what a state might have generally gotten, so it might be easier to turn it down. But I think it's GOP grandstanding too.

I've got no personal problem with Jindal: I just continue to be perplexed by folks who claim big problems with Palin's religious beliefs and governance but are down with Jindal's. I'm not trying to start junk with you, please believe me, but it's odd to me.

Here you go! That might be a little slanted, and a little older than I'd like, but it's a good start.

http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_b...ates_feed.html

Here it is by state. In 2005, Louisiana took $1.78 in federal funding for every $1 in taxes paid.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/22685.html



I'm in New York, which takes 79 cents for every dollar it gives the federal goverment. I grew up in Florida, though, which breaks just about even each year.

I find Bobby Jindal to be considerably more qualified, educated, and intelligent than Mrs. Palin. Even though I don't agree with all of his political-personal viewpoints, I believe that he can govern efficiently. Not so much with Miss Wasilla.

[agzg]

Originally Posted by Munchkin03

http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_b...ates_feed.html

Here it is by state. In 2005, Louisiana took $1.78 in federal funding for every $1 in taxes paid.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/22685.html

These are great resources! Thanks!

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by KSigkid

I'm not on Jindal for President bandwagon, only because I've been on the Romney for President bandwagon for a while. I like Jindal though quite a bit.


For me, there are a few reasons why I prefer Jindal to Palin, but one of the most basic is that I think Jindal's just smarter. For me, one of the big issues is that I want someone at that level to be incredibly smart. It's not the whole ball of wax (for example, Obama's incredibly smart but I don't agree with his policies), but it's part of the equation for me.

Originally Posted by Munchkin03

I find Bobby Jindal to be considerably more qualified, educated, and intelligent than Mrs. Palin. Even though I don't agree with all of his political-personal viewpoints, I believe that he can govern efficiently. Not so much with Miss Wasilla.

Jindal is better educated certainly. Some of the right wing sites that are also strong pro-evolution would have you believe that he's done a lot to advance a Creationist agenda in science ed, for whatever that's worth.

Originally Posted by Munchkin03

Here you go! That might be a little slanted, and a little older than I'd like, but it's a good start.

http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_b...ates_feed.html

Here it is by state. In 2005, Louisiana took $1.78 in federal funding for every $1 in taxes paid.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/22685.html



I'm in New York, which takes 79 cents for every dollar it gives the federal goverment. I grew up in Florida, though, which breaks just about even each year.

I didn't doubt the overall take that some states get back far more than they pay in, but I was interested in exactly what was accounted for. South Caroline as a welfare state was kind of a new idea.

Sometimes, I think that the relatively small size of a state's tax base skews the numbers quite a bit.(Or large size in the case of New York, in the opposite direction.) I'd kind of assume that there's a baseline amount of federal funds you'd expect every state to get. There'd be more funds coming in if that state had more military bases and this could heavily tip a state with a relatively low population overall. I'm interested in trying to see where money goes and if it's high or low per capita compared to other states.