Why is Gov Jindal on TV Reading A Script?

puremagic

Here's a thought, after unemployment runs out, these people will end up on welfare. A large portion of the tax paying public will be lost. These aren't your perceived faces of ACORN, NAACP or LAO. Yet, this is what Jindal and his like minded republicans are trying to sell to the people of their States and the Nation as a whole.

It's not an expansion of unemployment, it's an infusion of money to help the States to meet their 'existing' unemployment payments and their 'projected' shortfalls. In 2 to 3 years, the States, acting in concert with the Federal government should see steady private businesses hiring and people returning to work. Right now they're not, because the economy is still unstable and many States have projected shortfalls in their budgets. It wasn't just private companies laying off people, State jobs were cut.

When all these corporations were laying off workers, closing plants and making the States eat the cost for all the displaced workers, wtf didn't the governors and their chambers of commerce come up with a plan whereby these corporations would have to pay the States some form of restitution for projected lost State revenue after all the States give hugh tax break incentives to these businesses. Instead Jindal and the like, put the burden back on the people and are willing to continue to do so for personal gain.

Solat13

puremagic wrote:

Here's a thought, after unemployment runs out, these people will end up on welfare. A large portion of the tax paying public will be lost. These aren't your perceived faces of ACORN, NAACP or LAO. Yet, this is what Jindal and his like minded republicans are trying to sell to the people of their States and the Nation as a whole.

It's not an expansion of unemployment, it's an infusion of money to help the States to meet their 'existing' unemployment payments and their 'projected' shortfalls. In 2 to 3 years, the States, acting in concert with the Federal government should see steady private businesses hiring and people returning to work. Right now they're not, because the economy is still unstable and many States have projected shortfalls in their budgets. It wasn't just private companies laying off people, State jobs were cut.

When all these corporations were laying off workers, closing plants and making the States eat the cost for all the displaced workers, wtf didn't the governors and their chambers of commerce come up with a plan whereby these corporations would have to pay the States some form of restitution for projected lost State revenue after all the States give hugh tax break incentives to these businesses. Instead Jindal and the like, put the burden back on the people and are willing to continue to do so for personal gain.

But his state, Idaho, Alaska and about 4 or 5 other states still have a budget surplus. His point is why take the money and set up programs that will put his state in a deficit in a few years?

And not all of the governors who are against are looking for political gain. As far as I know, no one on the national scale knows who's Idaho's governor. I didn't until I just googled it. When they mention the governors who don't want the money, they mention Jindal, Palin, Sanford, the governor from Idaho. So it could be that they are trying to be fiscally responsible.

Just playing devil's advocate here.

KDH12

Solat13 wrote:

puremagic wrote:

Here's a thought, after unemployment runs out, these people will end up on welfare. A large portion of the tax paying public will be lost. These aren't your perceived faces of ACORN, NAACP or LAO. Yet, this is what Jindal and his like minded republicans are trying to sell to the people of their States and the Nation as a whole.

It's not an expansion of unemployment, it's an infusion of money to help the States to meet their 'existing' unemployment payments and their 'projected' shortfalls. In 2 to 3 years, the States, acting in concert with the Federal government should see steady private businesses hiring and people returning to work. Right now they're not, because the economy is still unstable and many States have projected shortfalls in their budgets. It wasn't just private companies laying off people, State jobs were cut.

When all these corporations were laying off workers, closing plants and making the States eat the cost for all the displaced workers, wtf didn't the governors and their chambers of commerce come up with a plan whereby these corporations would have to pay the States some form of restitution for projected lost State revenue after all the States give hugh tax break incentives to these businesses. Instead Jindal and the like, put the burden back on the people and are willing to continue to do so for personal gain.

But his state, Idaho, Alaska and about 4 or 5 other states still have a budget surplus. His point is why take the money and set up programs that will put his state in a deficit in a few years?

And not all of the governors who are against are looking for political gain. As far as I know, no one on the national scale knows who's Idaho's governor. I didn't until I just googled it. When they mention the governors who don't want the money, they mention Jindal, Palin, Sanford, the governor from Idaho. So it could be that they are trying to be fiscally responsible.

Just playing devil's advocate here.

Alaska might have a surplus but I would not use that state as a model for all other states, same with Idaho..... hardly representative of the other 48 states.

But I agree with what was said above, the Jindal puts it he will not take the money for unemployment but will take the rest...... :?

His argument is that it will cost his state more in the long run, so he is okay with the rest of the money because it will cost someone else and not his constituents :?

Whatever the reasons behind it, it does not make sense, and it ends up sounding the the typical Rep. sound bite... "it will lead to higher taxes and bigger government" :roll:

Commy

pretending to be conservative when the real conservative party is apparently the democrats. Republicans can't all of a sudden be conservative and pretend they were all along. it shows their hypocrisy.

Clinton gave Bush 2 a $300 billion surplus. Bush 2 turned that around and gave Obama a $1 trillion deficit. and Obama has announced he's going to balance the budget in 4 years.


neoliberalism has taken over the republican party...instead of typical liberalism, they're spending on those who have more, on the corporations they decide are worthy. and hundreds of billions of dollars spending, not insignificant. its been republican policy for over 30 years. they have no right to call themselves conservative.

WaveCameCrashin

Commy wrote:

pretending to be conservative when the real conservative party is apparently the democrats. Republicans can't all of a sudden be conservative and pretend they were all along. it shows their hypocrisy.

Clinton gave Bush 2 a $300 billion surplus. Bush 2 turned that around and gave Obama a $1 trillion deficit. and Obama has announced he's going to balance the budget in 4 years.


neoliberalism has taken over the republican party...instead of typical liberalism, they're spending on those who have more, on the corporations they decide are worthy. and hundreds of billions of dollars spending, not insignificant. its been republican policy for over 30 years. they have no right to call themselves conservative.

The real conservative party is apparetly the the democrats? :roll: Holy shit balls commy wtf are you smokin? :shock: