Bobby Jindal refuses Obama’s payout for Louisiana

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
The governors who refuse to take it should also refuse to pay into it.

Let the fed force them to pay. Let the states resist. Let all this BS come crumbling down as it should have long ago.

*begin sarcasm*
Yeah man - lets have another one of them there civil wars ya'll seem tuh luv so mucch.
*end sarcasm*


Heaven forbid the Government help out needy people.
Hell no, right?

They should help out rich people only.

End of story...?

[edit on 24-2-2009 by Fremd]

reply to post by Fremd


"Government" (especially federal) shouldnt be "helping" anybody.

There wouldnt be another war if the fed just let the states be. To maintain this federal totalitarianism it cant allow that. It will have to use brute force to beat them into submission just as it did under Lincoln.

The fed collecting from the states is no different than it collecting from you. A gun to your head 24/7. Pay up or else. Extortion. There is no other word for it.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
There are several Governors who are planning to make this grandstanding move. I say great. That means more for the rest of the states.

Not to mention its only a "stunt". The Gov's can refuse the stimulus money all they want... but its not up to them to accept/decline the funds...

Its up to the Legislative bodies of each respective state. Thats the "stunt".

There's no way the states in question will not accept the money... so the gov's decide to make a deal about refusing the funds... even though the legistlators will still accept it...

Ever notice.. the gov's that have publically stated they are going to refuse the funds, are the same gov's we speculate will run for president on 2012?

They're banking alot of political capital that this stimulus won't work...

even if it does, we'll hear about why it didn't in the 2012 presidential race.

reply to post by thisguyrighthere


Then perhaps i'm confused.

If Government does not exist to help out in times of crisis and need

what exactly is the purpose of Government?

Sounds loverly... but just wait to those people whose unemployment insurance runs out and they start living on the streets.

I suppose these Republican idiots haven't considered that have they? After all the unemployed are only peons.

reply to post by Fremd


From the Constitution the federal government is charged with protecting the states from foreign and domestic threats as well as ensuring none of the rights in the Bill O' are messed with. Everything else the fed does is unconstitutional.

I suppose you could stretch the definition of "threat" to include economic collapse but when the bulk of those troubles were caused by government you would have set the fed upon the task of dismantling itself as the threat.

This assumption that government is here to coddle you and provide for you is a grand load of crap and it largely responsible for government acting in the role that has led to this economic situation. It allows for mob rule by the lowest common denominator and harsh as this sounds they only know whats best for them and create a situation where votes are literally bought. A wealthy man may spend millions toward a politicians campaign but that wealthy man will still only het one vote. An entire ghetto gets a heated bus stop it cannot afford and the politicians that made that possible get a few hundred votes. This, consequently, is why cities and other areas with a high population density are destined to crumble.

edit to add quote:

A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until a majority of voters discover that they can vote themselves largess out of the public treasury. — Alexander Tyler (in his 1770 book, Cycle of Democracy)

[edit on 24-2-2009 by thisguyrighthere]

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
reply to post by Fremd

 

edit to add quote:

A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until a majority of voters discover that they can vote themselves largess out of the public treasury. — Alexander Tyler (in his 1770 book, Cycle of Democracy)

Except we're a republic, not a democracy.

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
I suppose you could stretch the definition of "threat" to include economic collapse but when the bulk of those troubles were caused by government you would have set the fed upon the task of dismantling itself as the threat.

Not much of a stretch in my mind. If people are out of work and out of their homes, it doesn't much matter if it was a hurricane, a terrorist attack or an economic collapse that caused it, it's an emergency and the people need help. The government contributed to it, but they are not the sole cause. To NOT do something about this would be like celebrating a birthday while the people of NOLA were dying.

This assumption that government is here to coddle you and provide for you is a grand load of crap

I couldn't agree more, but that's not the assumption being made.

[edit on 24-2-2009 by Benevolent Heretic]

reply to post by grover


We've had people living in tents and FEMA trailers since Katrina. Seems only now people want to care about how the people of Louisiana will live. Bah, spare me your conveniently fits your agenda concern.

From:

Saying that it could lead to a tax increase on state businesses, Gov. Bobby Jindal announced Friday that the state plans to reject as much as $98 million in federal unemployment assistance in the economic stimulus package.

Jindal, who has emerged as a leading Republican critic of the $787 billion spending and tax-cut bill signed into law this week by President Barack Obama, said the state would accept federal dollars for transportation projects and would not quarrel with a $25-per-week increase in unemployment benefits.

Both of those items are financed entirely with federal dollars and require the state only to accept the money. The part that Jindal rejected would require permanent changes in state law that the governor said makes it unacceptable.

At issue are two pots of federal money that states can access only if they agree to change their laws to make it easier for unemployed workers to qualify for benefits. To access the first pot of money, worth $32.8 million over 27 months, Louisiana would have to offer benefits to workers who have held jobs for as little as three months before becoming unemployed. Workers now have to hold a job for at least a year before they are eligible to collect unemployment.

The Louisiana Workforce Commission, which administers the state's unemployment insurance system, estimates that an additional 4,000 former workers would become eligible for benefits under that change.

A second pot of money, valued at $65.6 million, would be available to Louisiana only if it agreed to other, larger expansions of benefits. For example, the state could extend benefits to part-time workers or change the law so that people could collect unemployment if they voluntarily left their job for "compelling" family reasons.

As the Jindal administration interprets the law, Louisiana would be required to keep providing the expanded benefits even after the federal stimulus dollars run out at the end of 2010. That, in turn, would lead to higher costs on businesses, whose taxes finance the state's unemployment compensation fund.

According to the Workforce Commission, the expanded benefits would cost Louisiana companies $12 million a year after the federal money ends. The businesses, in turn, would pass those costs on to their workers.

"I don't think it's good policy to take temporary federal dollars to create a permanent state spending obligation, " Jindal said.

Louisiana's 5.5 percent unemployment rate in December was well below the national rate of 7.6 percent. The state was one of only three that added jobs in December, along with Florida and Vermont.

The Louisiana Association of Business and Industry said in a news release that the benefit expansion contained in the federal law could have grave unintended consequences.

"Employers, who are the exclusive funding source for unemployment benefits, and unemployed workers, who are the benefit recipients, cannot afford this, " said Jim Patterson, head of LABI's employee relations council.

So other than refusing to allow the Federal Government to cause a permanent change in state law, how is he hurting anyone? He is NOT refusing to allow people who only work for 3 months to collect UE nor is he refusing to allow people who QUIT their jobs to collect UE.

What he is refusing is to change the state laws that will cause these costs to be passed on to businesses in 3 yrs.

Maybe Jindal and the other Governors refusing to do this UNDERSTAND that there is no guarantee that our economy will be able to support that kind of cost increase ($12 Million) in doing business in just 3 years.

reply to post by nj2day


I know we're a republic but when nearly every politician is playing the "milk the cow to buy votes" game what's the difference?

reply to post by thisguyrighthere


Well, they are still passing laws that they couldn't get passed if it were voted on by the general public...

reply to post by redhatty


You may want to look at something that criticizes Jindal's position instead of just listening to him... You know, just to get both sides of the story. Of course Jindal is going to make it sound like he's doing the smart thing for good reason. It's very convenient for him to say that about the law.

Jindal detractors, including Louisiana Democrat U.S. Sen. Mary Landrieu, said Monday the acceptance would not result in tax increases because the state Legislature has the power to retract any laws passed pertaining to the money.

Landrieu pointed to a U.S. House Ways and Means committee report released late Monday in which a bipartisan group of 18 governors determined that states must have in place or enact laws to implement federal requirements. But state legislatures could revisit and change those laws without any penalties, she said.

Source

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


Oh I know we are still stuck with Mary Landrieu, but this will be her last term. Even the Louisiana population has realized that she is not working in our favor, only her own.

Any politician in a predominantly Catholic state that would push HARD to repeal the Mexico City policy is committing political suicide.

As we Louisianans fight to remove the corrupt people from our state politics, Landrieu remains the boil on our arse.

But heh, you obviously didn't know that when you used her as a rebuttal

CREW investigation
More on Landrieu

reply to post by redhatty


Are you suggesting that what she said isn't true? It doesn't matter to me who said it, what matters is the truth of the statement.

My point is that Jindal is stating that taxes will increase as a result of taking this money, when he knows no such thing. Unless he can read the future. He's just using scary tax increases as an excuse to grandstand.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Are you suggesting that what she said isn't true? It doesn't matter to me who said it, what matters is the truth of the statement.

Can't say - I can't find the report she cites, can you?

My point is that Jindal is stating that taxes will increase as a result of taking this money, when he knows no such thing. Unless he can read the future. He's just using scary tax increases as an excuse to grandstand.

but your own quote above PROVES that the laws MUST be changed

U.S. House Ways and Means committee report released late Monday in which a bipartisan group of 18 governors determined that states must have in place or enact laws to implement federal requirements.

Of course, can't find a copy of that report...

The laws in question are tax laws on unemployment insurance. This has been confirmed by Louisiana Workforce Commission, as I cited above.

As far as laws being revisited - exactly how often does that really happen? Seriously, There are websites devoted to dumb laws that have never been revisited.

A tax law being repealed by a state??? When??? Where???

Edit to add: Regarding revisiting the laws...

But Jindal said his analysis never reached political terms. He could not get past the requirements that Louisiana change its laws in order to accept $32.8 million of the money. He argues that when the federal money dries up in three years, Louisiana would have to pick up the costs once paid by the federal government. That would mean increased taxes for employers.

Jindal said the state could not change the law back after the federal funds ran out. “A sunset provision would not have been compliant with the stimulus legislation,” Jindal said. “The Congress wasn’t ambiguous. They provided these funds because they want the states to make the changes in their laws.”

source

[edit on 2/24/09 by redhatty]

I don't believe what Bobby Jindal says. I'd like to see something official.

The whole point is, his state was eligible for $3.8 Billion. And he made a huge deal about "refusing it", while accepting $3.7 Billion of it. That's grandstanding.

Source

Louisiana is due to get an estimated $3.8 billion in new spending from the stimulus law. When tax cuts and potential hurricane-related spending is added to that, its economic impact on the state could exceed $10 billion, according to House Speaker Jim Tucker, R-Algiers.

Source

A senior aide to Landrieu agreed that the state would have to change the law to take advantage of the windfall but said the change would not have to be permanent. Instead, the Legislature could write the new law with a "sunset provision" so it expires when the federal stimulus dollars run out.

Look, he's not obligated to take the money, but to make a big deal out of rejecting 2.5% of the money... as if that's a big brave move on his part to show he objects to the recovery package is a pretty chicken crap way to do it. If he objects to the package, let him reject it all. This man is a weenie in my book.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


I don't think "HE" made the big deal about so much as the media has made a big deal about it.

Jindal just had other agencies that would be helped and/or affected by it go over it and went with the recommendations presented to him.

Jindal has been very serious about Louisiana's best interests first as part of his platform, and this is just one move that put his money in his mouth so to speak.

No one ever said you have to believe him, but he is my governor and I deal with his decisions (and his office) often. So far I have no reason to doubt him.

Should he prove himself wrong, then I will be one of the first to call him on it.

Kinda sounds like your position on our President Doesn't it?

Edit to add: Mardi Gras interruptions LOL

I too would like to see something "official" like the report that Landrieu cites, but no one has a link to.


[edit on 2/24/09 by redhatty]

Tonight's speeches will hopefully be entertaining. That is, I'm sure the O-dawg will spew more of placating socialist vitriol but hopefully Jindal takes off his gloves.
I bet the Obamafacists are surprised there are people of color in the Republican party. Huh? But Obama is cool and Republicans ain't right? Wrong Obama sucks, most Dems suck, most GOPs suck.

reply to post by redhatty


Yes, it sounds like my position on Obama. And I understand your position.

Oh... the mention of Mardi Gras brings back memories... Some not suitable for this board. Let's just say I was young and wild. I brought home a lot of beads.

Anyway, if you run across that report, I'd be interested in seeing it. From what I have been reading, it sounds like Jindal might be right that the law would be permanent, but I'd like to know for sure just for my own knowledge.

Originally posted by sos37

Originally posted by mental modulator

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
All this while he's demanding capital gains tax cuts for rich people and bankers. I wonder how the 25,000 unemployed people in his state feel about this? :shk:

There are several Governors who are planning to make this grandstanding move. I say great. That means more for the rest of the states.

Well you have got to understand BH that the bankers are the ones who create jobs.

The rich create jobs... All the rest are just lazy...

Your sarcasm is lost in truth because what you say is actually correct. Do the poor create jobs? No. Because they have no means to start a business of their own.

Do the middle class create jobs? Only if they have jobs, themselves and a surplus of money.

Do the more wealthy create jobs? Yes, when they aren't forced to make cuts.

Yes and your motherly tone only provides half of the equation...

How do you think money is distributed? Through a couple hundred billionaires?

Do you figure they go out and buy 10,000 plasma screens at a time?

go and buy 50,000,000 cars a year?

I'm sure it is the mega rich who go and buy the hundreds of billions of gallons of milk a year!


Although it is silly to imagine Warren Buffet with a square mile of spoilt milk this is the image your logic provides.

The fact is 100,000,000 people who spend the majority of their money each month on bills, goods and services have far more impact on our economy, because the activity is larger on a exponential scale... The majority of this spending is necessity motivated, is daily, monthly and yearly.

I say if 20 poor folks can't spare a dollar - somewhere there will be a billionaire out a portion of that money.

The rich can't create jobs, or maintain jobs if the common folks are strapped for cash -
please refute this...??? ( refute this statement )

BY the way, if you believe in the free market so vehemently, why don't you go out and INVEST some money in the stock market to create some jobs?
and if your not willing too... how does your scheme work???