Bobby jindal president ?????

[MathGeek]

Originally Posted by Smalls

But I hope he doesn't even make it that far. The guy raided every Dedicated Fund he could, and allowed the state budget to slip into this piss-poor state that it is now. Is he solely responsible? No. But he didn't do much to help it either.

This seems to me to be the result of reluctance to raise taxes.

The reality of LA politics is you need a few years of piss-poor budgets to shrink the size of government to a level that will sustain lower taxes in the long run.

The idea that one needs to "reduce the size of government" to "pay for" tax cuts is inherently liberal thinking.

Jindal has taken the approach of reducing taxes to more reasonable levels and then forcing the government to shrink to match the available funds. It's turned out to be unpopular with many, but it is in line with conservative principles.

I'm no fan of raiding dedicated funds either, and would list these actions as my least favorite things Jindal has done. But I would raid our family's dedicated new car fund if a child was sick and we needed to cover medical bills.

No candidate is perfect. I'm interested in hearing what Jindal, Walker, Huckabee, Perry, and Carson have to say in the next five months as the process plays out.

[Smalls]

Originally Posted by MathGeek

This seems to me to be the result of reluctance to raise taxes.

The reality of LA politics is you need a few years of piss-poor budgets to shrink the size of government to a level that will sustain lower taxes in the long run.

The idea that one needs to "reduce the size of government" to "pay for" tax cuts is inherently liberal thinking.

Jindal has taken the approach of reducing taxes to more reasonable levels and then forcing the government to shrink to match the available funds. It's turned out to be unpopular with many, but it is in line with conservative principles.

I'm no fan of raiding dedicated funds either, and would list these actions as my least favorite things Jindal has done. But I would raid our family's dedicated new car fund if a child was sick and we needed to cover medical bills.

No candidate is perfect. I'm interested in hearing what Jindal, Walker, Huckabee, Perry, and Carson have to say in the next five months as the process plays out.

Say what?!?!?!?

Did you just contradict yourself, or am I not reading this right?

In the first statement, you say reducing the size of the government pays for tax cuts, and this is a liberal concept; then you follow this with "Jindal has reduced taxes and forced the government to shrink" and called it a Conservative Idea.

I fail to see how either is different. So a liberal suggesting that the government should shrink to pay for tax cuts is different from a conservative suggesting that reducing tax cuts forces the government to shrink? I don't see the difference. It all results in the same thing: smaller government and lower taxes.

I've never heard any liberal suggest that the government needs to be smaller. Hell, they think it needs to support everyone that can't support themselves. I work with one, I would know. I hear it all the time.

Why did he have to raid the dedicated funds in the first place? What happened to that "surplus" that existed when he came into office?

I'm just not a fan of Jindal anymore. He's a puppet. Show him the hot topic and he will jump on it. He doesn't think for himself (then again, most of this country doesn't).

[MathGeek]

Originally Posted by Smalls

Say what?!?!?!?

Did you just contradict yourself, or am I not reading this right?

In the first statement, you say reducing the size of the government pays for tax cuts, and this is a liberal concept; then you follow this with "Jindal has reduced taxes and forced the government to shrink" and called it a Conservative Idea.

I fail to see how either is different. So a liberal suggesting that the government should shrink to pay for tax cuts is different from a conservative suggesting that reducing tax cuts forces the government to shrink? I don't see the difference. It all results in the same thing: smaller government and lower taxes.

It's the difference between reading the menu left to right (looking at the entrees first) and reading the menu right to left (looking at the prices first).

I encourage my wife to read the menu left to right (without regard for cost) when I take her to dinner, because we don't get to go out much, we earn a good living, and the money we're spending is our own.

But in government, every tax dollar that gets spent gets taken from a hard working citizen under threat of imprisonment. This FACT necessitates that those governing should read the menu right to left.

Elected officials should first consider how much in tax dollars it is reasonable to take from their citizens at the barrel of a gun.

Then they should decide how to most reasonably spend those tax dollars to provide the best government to their citizens.

Reading the menu left to right is inherently different: First liberals decide how much government they need. Then they calculate how much to take from hard working citizens (at the barrel of a gun) to pay for it. This approach inevitably leads to bigger government and higher taxes.

Money gets taken from hard working citizens at the barrel of a gun to pay for every government program. Jindal recognizes this and worked hard to cut taxes knowing that limited cash would provide more leverage for the hard work of actually shrinking government (or at least growing it more slowly). Yes, there was pain and disagreement. But without this approach, we'd have a much bigger, more expensive, and more intrusive LA state government than we have now.

[DaPointIsDaBomb]

Anybody that shoots coots is alright in my book

[Smalls]

Originally Posted by MathGeek

It's the difference between reading the menu left to right (looking at the entrees first) and reading the menu right to left (looking at the prices first).

I encourage my wife to read the menu left to right (without regard for cost) when I take her to dinner, because we don't get to go out much, we earn a good living, and the money we're spending is our own.

But in government, every tax dollar that gets spent gets taken from a hard working citizen under threat of imprisonment. This FACT necessitates that those governing should read the menu right to left.

Elected officials should first consider how much in tax dollars it is reasonable to take from their citizens at the barrel of a gun.

Then they should decide how to most reasonably spend those tax dollars to provide the best government to their citizens.

Reading the menu left to right is inherently different: First liberals decide how much government they need. Then they calculate how much to take from hard working citizens (at the barrel of a gun) to pay for it. This approach inevitably leads to bigger government and higher taxes.

Money gets taken from hard working citizens at the barrel of a gun to pay for every government program. Jindal recognizes this and worked hard to cut taxes knowing that limited cash would provide more leverage for the hard work of actually shrinking government (or at least growing it more slowly). Yes, there was pain and disagreement. But without this approach, we'd have a much bigger, more expensive, and more intrusive LA state government than we have now.

You can understand my confusion in your first post, though, correct? This is much clearer than what you originally said. I mean, the fact of the matter is, no liberal will ever utter "reduce" and "government" in the same sentence, unless its "the government reduced my welfare benefits".

That's not to say all liberals are on welfare, but you get my point.

I understand that Jindal had to reduce the government by means of reducing taxes, but why do you keep ignoring my other comments about Jindal being a "Yes Man" and bowing to public opinion at every chance he gets? Hell, even Obama doesn't do that; I can at least respect him for that, if nothing else.

You've made it a point to state all the things you think Jindal has done well, but have failed to address anything that I've stated against him. How anyone can believe that his actions as of late are in anyone's interest but his own is beyond me. Look no further than his moves to veto the vote on his security spending and the cost of living raise for Louisiana government retirees. I think its bull that our state is footing the bill for his security detail when he is not even doing work for the state, and as far as I'm concerned, most trips out of the state by the Governor are not state-related, and should not be paid for by the state. I understand that the State Police is tasked with protecting the Governor, but if it isn't for State business, it should not come out of the State Police's budget.

So how is that "reducing the size of the government" when you're spending more of the state's money on your own damn travel?

[southern151]

Originally Posted by Smalls

You've made it a point to state all the things you think Jindal has done well, but have failed to address anything that I've stated against him. How anyone can believe that his actions as of late are in anyone's interest but his own is beyond me.

He's a politician, like any other.

[Smalls]

Originally Posted by southern151

He's a politician, like any other.

Correct. I'm just shining a light on something that has not been pointed out. His actions as of late, which so many outside of Louisiana point to as reasons to support him are just actions to get people to support him. It appears to be working for him, so hey, good for him. But man, he ain't foolin me. He's just riding the hot topics right now.

[MathGeek]

Originally Posted by Smalls

I understand that Jindal had to reduce the government by means of reducing taxes, but why do you keep ignoring my other comments about Jindal being a "Yes Man" and bowing to public opinion at every chance he gets?

It is much easier to judge whether a politician's actions agree with my conservative principles than to judge a politician's motives. Man looks at the outward appearance, only God can see the heart. Did he change his view on Common Core because he had an honest change of heart, or because he saw a political opportunity? I won't pretend to know, but I think the result was better policy, and I like that result.

I try to consistently judge actions rather than motives.

Originally Posted by Smalls

You've made it a point to state all the things you think Jindal has done well, but have failed to address anything that I've stated against him. How anyone can believe that his actions as of late are in anyone's interest but his own is beyond me.

First, I agreed with you that robbing the trust funds was a bad move.

Second, I've explained why I prefer not to speculate regarding motives.

Third, I think the executive order regarding religious freedom is in the interests of people of faith throughout Louisiana, especially people of faith who have an objection of conscience regarding participation in homosexual weddings. It hasn't gotten much press, but since the Constitutional amendment in 2012, Jindal has taken a number of additional steps to protect RKBA, including a new law in 2015 to make it much harder for local governments to leverage zoning restrictions to limit hunting and shooting on private property.

Originally Posted by Smalls

Look no further than his moves to veto the vote on his security spending and the cost of living raise for Louisiana government retirees. I think its bull that our state is footing the bill for his security detail when he is not even doing work for the state, and as far as I'm concerned, most trips out of the state by the Governor are not state-related, and should not be paid for by the state. I understand that the State Police is tasked with protecting the Governor, but if it isn't for State business, it should not come out of the State Police's budget.

So how is that "reducing the size of the government" when you're spending more of the state's money on your own damn travel?

This seems to me a lot like the Republican criticism of all of Obama's travel and security expenses, which I disagree with. Right or wrong, Obama has many more pressing decisions and important policy issues to face than his personal travel expenses. So does Jindal. I don't think Jindal has struck a good balance between his presidential aspirations and his service to Louisiana as governor, but to me this is a minor issue.

I'm more eager to hear the candidates ideas on federal policy than I am to debate the details of their security expenses.

Ultimately, I believe that a true conservative president will benefit Louisiana and our citizens in much greater proportion than the negatives that have been mentioned in Jindal's years as governor. Jindal's efforts to that end may be better spent than closer focus on Louisiana's present issues. This is the nature of a federal government bloated and out of control. The jobs of governor and president are not 40 hr a week type of deals. I am sure both Jindal and Obama have spent much more than that giving attention to governing. I won't begrudge either their travel. One need not take a vow of poverty to serve as governor or president.