Obama's Rhetoric is the Real Catastrophe

[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.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by KSUViolet06

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.

It's funny to see "complete heresy" thrown out there because I think of "heresy" as a term Catholics like to throw around and Catholics are cool with Darwin. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/com...cle5705331.ece

At least today, long after the theory is completely accepted scientifically.. .

[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).

[deepimpact2]

Originally Posted by KSigkid

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).

Was it how THEY presented her, or how she presented herself?

[agzg]

Originally Posted by deepimpact2

Was it how THEY presented her, or how she presented herself?

I think it's a mixture of both but the McCain campaign did hang her out to dry.

Ultimately, because they chose her as his running-mate, it was their responsibility to ensure that she was well prepared for every interview and that the toe the line as far as what to say and what not to say.

Obama's people even had trouble with Biden, but it didn't seem like they had as much trouble as McCain's people.

[deepimpact2]

Originally Posted by alphagamzetagam

I think it's a mixture of both but the McCain campaign did hang her out to dry.

Ultimately, because they chose her as his running-mate, it was their responsibility to ensure that she was well prepared for every interview and that the toe the line as far as what to say and what not to say.

Obama's people even had trouble with Biden, but it didn't seem like they had as much trouble as McCain's people.

Sometimes I get the feeling they prepped her but she ended up trying to do her own thing.

On what may be a random note, I actually felt sorry for Palin at times. Mind you I didn't care for her as a VP pick. What I didn't like about the way the McCain campaign handled her was that they never really meant for her to be a true partner. I think they wanted someone who was young and attractive and who would fade into the spotlight and not be in the way.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by alphagamzetagam

Obama's people even had trouble with Biden, but it didn't seem like they had as much trouble as McCain's people.

To get on my favorite horse, I'd chalk this up to the role the media played. Sure, Biden was old news or whatever KSigkid told me to explain it. But surely Cheney is too now, and I still read more about his nefarious schemes to get Libby a pardon than I do about Biden.

What's Joe been up to? Anyone know?

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by alphagamzetagam

I think it's a mixture of both but the McCain campaign did hang her out to dry.

Ultimately, because they chose her as his running-mate, it was their responsibility to ensure that she was well prepared for every interview and that the toe the line as far as what to say and what not to say.

Obama's people even had trouble with Biden, but it didn't seem like they had as much trouble as McCain's people.

Prior planning prevents poor performance

I said this awhile ago about Palin, there were waaaay too many variables for that to have been an effective strategy for success on an already shaky platform

Now if Jindal is to be the next up in line for runing for president, the GOP has 4 years to see what he is doing now for LA, as well as vet him to see if he will be able to do what McCain wasn't able to do.

Originally Posted by KSig RC

I think you're probably at least partially right, but it seems like there was at least a little more strategy involved. This view ("bringin' in the womens" as it were) was popular speculation at the time, but as inept as McCain's camp was in the "small-picture" stuff, I'd be shocked if they made this poor of a "big-picture" maneuver - it seems much more likely that Palin was intended to motivate the base with someone who could play both "attack dog" and "snake charmer" while McCain reached across the aisle for moderates. Sort of a "good cop/bad cop" thing, with the added bonus that the bad cop would be what most "common" American males would consider attractive. Remember: attractiveness matters.

It seems like this plan was not so much ill-conceived as ill-executed, since Palin went absolutely balls-to-the-wall beyond what I think McCain envisioned (and the Newsweek piece seems to back this up). She got off the leash, as far as what the McCain camp expected.

Again something else I stated a while back...don't forget PUMA.

I stated once before the was an "Oooh look at me, I got a girl" vibe from McCain when they brought in Palin and the way that it showed like the GOP didn't know her as well as they claimed that they did also was ANOTHER reason why the McCain camp faltered.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by KSigkid

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).

I'm not trying to revive a discussion on Palin, honestly, especially now when it's not particularly topical. I will just be interested in seeing how issues that were used against her are de-emphasized with other candidates in 2012. I really don't expect her to be in it. I'll open that thread in summer of 2012.

I'm not trying to say that anyone who wants to talk about Palin can't, of course. I'm just not that interested in going down that path today.

Jindal came to mind with his consideration of turning down some of the stimulus money, and it's hard not to see that as a national stage move. He intrigues me. I won't have any problem that I know of voting for him if he ends up the GOP candidate and yes I kind of expect to vote for the GOP candidate. But his popularity with people who will claim to want to break with the evangelicals or loosen up on social issues is interesting. I don't know if you or Munchkin are in that camp or not.