Obama's Rhetoric is the Real Catastrophe

[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!

[KSUViolet06]

Originally Posted by deepimpact2

This would be all well and good if this really happened to be the case.

You and several others have negative reactions to EVERYTHING I say. And it is not because of what you accused me of doing.

You all may be very intelligent individuals, but I don't care for how you and some others think you are SUPERIOR in intellect to everyone else. You don't just respond that way to me. I have noticed it in your responses to others as well and I know all those other people don't have the same issues you accuse me of having. .

I think the bottom line is that you don't like the fact that your efforts at intimidation through mob mentality failed. Miserably. Yes, I have an opinion. Yes, my opinions are strong. I don't recall especially being adamant about being entitled to my opinion above all else, but I'm not going to necessarily back down if I feel I am right. You don't. Why should I?

And that brings me back to the entitlement issue. You and some others seem to feel that once you have spoken, that should change everyone's mind. We should all realize that compared to you we are blithering idiots and that your word is the gospel.

Where is OTW with the pic of the "Waaaaambulance?" You can't be serious. I fail to see where any of the above things you're saying have actually happened in this thread.

So people disagree with you? Ok, so what? If you haven't noticed, people disagree ALL THE TIME in the News forum. But none of us are making dissertations about our subconscious inferiority complexes.

Originally Posted by DrPhil

LOL

Why do so many posters have a cyber-chip on their shoulder?

LOL.

I need to come over to News and Politics more often.

[KSUViolet06]

Oh, I found it guys:

[deepimpact2]

Originally Posted by KSUViolet06

Where is OTW with the pic of the "Waaaaambulance?" You can't be serious. I fail to see where any of the above things you're saying have actually happened in this thread.

So people disagree with you? Ok, so what? If you haven't noticed, people disagree ALL THE TIME in the News forum. But none of us are making dissertations about our subconscious inferiority complexes.






LOL.

I need to come over to News and Politics more often.

No, these things have not happened in just this thread, but in many other threads.

With respect to your comment about disagreements... it's not about disagreeing. I don't think anyone on here has an issue with a simple disagreement on a particular point of view. It's a bigger issue than that.

[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.

[agzg]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

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.

I would imagine population size plays into it quite a bit, as well as the industries of those particular states (heavy industry/goods and services/etc.) but of course, that can be split up into counties as well.

[Munchkin03]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

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.

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.

This will probably surprise a ton of people, but I don't care too much about teaching evolution or creation in schools. I figure that's a pretty personal belief that people will teach their kids regardless of what's being taught in the schools. I remember in my HS biology classes, there were a group of 3-4 fundamentalist Christians who challenged the science texts. Most people come in with their ideas on this topic, and you can't really change their minds too much.

The states with the most military bases are Florida, California, and North Carolina--and they all break just about even with the tax thing. The whole thing seems to have less to do with population or even military involvement, and the general economic picture of the state. For example, the same states that always show up at the bottom of the lists for quality of life--Alabama, Mississippi, West Virginia, and New Mexico--also take a ton more than they give to the government.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by Munchkin03

This will probably surprise a ton of people, but I don't care too much about teaching evolution or creation in schools. I figure that's a pretty personal belief that people will teach their kids regardless of what's being taught in the schools. I remember in my HS biology classes, there were a group of 3-4 fundamentalist Christians who challenged the science texts. Most people come in with their ideas on this topic, and you can't really change their minds too much.

The states with the most military bases are Florida, California, and North Carolina--and they all break just about even with the tax thing. The whole thing seems to have less to do with population or even military involvement, and the general economic picture of the state. For example, the same states that always show up at the bottom of the lists for quality of life--Alabama, Mississippi, West Virginia, and New Mexico--also take a ton more than they give to the government.

I don't care much about the evolution-intelligent design-creationism stuff either. I think it's important kids get a good foundation in actual science and that's what should drive the state curriculum, but I think a certain fundamentalist segment oversells how much aggressive Godlessness is required for this. I grew up with a traditional evolution based curriculum, I guess, but we didn't get into the who or why; just the general overview of how. It wasn't incompatible with my belief in God.

I just think it's interesting who politically can get away with holding certain views and advocating them in office and who can't. Palin got painted with a pretty broad brush for advocating things there's little evidence she used her offices to press for. Jindal doesn't and it intrigues me. What accounts for that? Jindal projecting higher IQ generally? Maybe.

As far as revenue, and I still haven't looked at the links I confess, it would make sense that if you didn't have an economy that generated much money, you'd contribute less in taxes. Any money that you then took in from the federal government would look disproportionate.

But you'd also have a pretty low bar for keeping your generally crappy economy going so maybe you could claim you didn't need as much stimulus funding.

But I think it's more about positioning with the GOP than really exercising good fiscal judgment.

On the other hand, I have the impression, having not read the bill I can't say for sure, that it contains a ridiculous amount of funding for projects unrelated to present economic health. So one probably could turn down some of the pork.

[KSUViolet06]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

I don't care much about the evolution-intelligent design-creationism stuff either. I think it's important kids get a good foundation in actual science and that's what should drive the state curriculum, but I think a certain fundamentalist segment oversells how much aggressive Godlessness is required for this. I grew up with a traditional evolution based curriculum, I guess, but we didn't get into the who or why; just the general overview of how. I wasn't incompatible with my belief in God.

I agree with you, esp. on the "aggressive Godlessnes" point. I've been told that I am following "complete heresy" because of my opinions about God/science/evolution. I have to consider the source though.

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

I just think it's interesting who politically can get away with holding certain views and advocating them in office and who can't. Palin got painted with a pretty broad brush for advocating things there's little evidence she used her offices to press for. Jindal doesn't and it intrigues me. What accounts for that? Jindal projecting higher IQ generally? Maybe.

I think the intelligence thing has a lot to do with it. I also don't think the McCain camp did Palin any favors in the way they presented her from the start of the campaign. She got off on the wrong foot and wasn't able to recover. I think that image will fade with time (after all, there are lots of people who forget the Dukakis campaign, i.e. the worst-run campaign ever).