Author Topic: Bobby Jindal; the next Reagan?  (Read 11955 times)

trapperready

  • friend
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 220
Re: Bobby Jindal; the next Reagan?
« Reply #25 on: February 09, 2008, 08:50:54 PM »
Not much experience yet to be considered for a running mate, IMO. He's got a few years in congress and about a year as governor of LA. Sounds like it would be worth keeping an eye on him, but probably not for this cycle.

Scout26

  • I'm a leaf on the wind.
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 25,997
  • I spent a week in that town one night....
Re: Bobby Jindal; the next Reagan?
« Reply #26 on: February 10, 2008, 08:48:20 AM »
I remember when the Guvonator was elected and whole bunch of people were talking about amending the constitution so that he could run for president.


Don't hear much of that talk these days.



Keep an eye on Gov Jindal, sure.  If he stays true to his conservative beliefs and gains some experience, then yes, he could be.
Some days even my lucky rocketship underpants won't help.


Bring me my Broadsword and a clear understanding.
Get up to the roundhouse on the cliff-top standing.
Take women and children and bed them down.
Bless with a hard heart those that stand with me.
Bless the women and children who firm our hands.
Put our backs to the north wind.
Hold fast by the river.
Sweet memories to drive us on,
for the motherland.

Perd Hapley

  • Superstar of the Internet
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 61,392
  • My prepositions are on/in
Re: Bobby Jindal; the next Reagan?
« Reply #27 on: February 10, 2008, 09:27:36 AM »
Well, he ain't married to a Kennedy, at least.   smiley   And in case anyone's curious, he was born in Baton Rouge, so is eligible to run for President. 
"Doggies are angel babies!" -- my wife

ilbob

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,546
    • Bob's blog
Re: Bobby Jindal; the next Reagan?
« Reply #28 on: February 11, 2008, 06:34:52 AM »
americans are always looking for a solid, conservative leader that they can feel right about. if there is not one available, they tend to vote liberal.

I think Rush is right about at least one thing, the message is what is important. Tha package less so.

Smaller government (not small government), more personal liberty (not anarchy), and strong national defense are the things that resonate with a majority of Americans.

bob

Disclaimers: I am not a lawyer, cop, soldier, gunsmith, politician, plumber, electrician, or a professional practitioner of many of the other things I comment on in this forum.

MrRezister

  • I resist. It's what I do.
  • friend
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 373
  • Shank, shank, shank mommy's ankles!
Re: Bobby Jindal; the next Reagan?
« Reply #29 on: February 11, 2008, 06:37:45 AM »

Smaller government (not small government), more personal liberty (not anarchy), and strong national defense are the things that resonate with a majority of Americans.


Yes, as evidenced by the current crop of frontrunners.
He never brought you an unbalanced budget, which is a perennial joke. He never voted himself a wage increase and, to this day, gives back part of his salary every year. He has always voted to preserve the Constitution, cut government spending, lower healthcare costs, end the war on drugs, secure our borders with immigration reform and protect our civil liberties.

grampster

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 9,447
Re: Bobby Jindal; the next Reagan?
« Reply #30 on: February 11, 2008, 05:01:37 PM »
Fools.  I am the new Reagan.  cool
"Never wrestle with a pig.  You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it."  G.B. Shaw

Paddy

  • Guest
Re: Bobby Jindal; the next Reagan?
« Reply #31 on: February 11, 2008, 05:10:00 PM »
Reagan is only a hero to corporatists, exploiters, and rubes.  To the real producers of this nation (the middle class), he's a parasite.

seeker_two

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 12,922
  • In short, most intelligence is false.
Re: Bobby Jindal; the next Reagan?
« Reply #32 on: February 12, 2008, 01:23:55 AM »
Fools.  I am the new Reagan.  cool

No......Reagan was the new Grampster.....
Impressed yet befogged, they grasped at his vivid leading phrases, seeing only their surface meaning, and missing the deeper current of his thought.

MrRezister

  • I resist. It's what I do.
  • friend
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 373
  • Shank, shank, shank mommy's ankles!
Re: Bobby Jindal; the next Reagan?
« Reply #33 on: February 12, 2008, 04:15:27 AM »

No......Reagan was the new Grampster.....

HE SAYS THAT YOU ARE OLD!
Turn up your frickin' frackin' hearing aid.
He never brought you an unbalanced budget, which is a perennial joke. He never voted himself a wage increase and, to this day, gives back part of his salary every year. He has always voted to preserve the Constitution, cut government spending, lower healthcare costs, end the war on drugs, secure our borders with immigration reform and protect our civil liberties.

ilbob

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,546
    • Bob's blog
Re: Bobby Jindal; the next Reagan?
« Reply #34 on: February 12, 2008, 04:21:53 AM »
Reagan is only a hero to corporatists, exploiters, and rubes.  To the real producers of this nation (the middle class), he's a parasite.
interesting since reagan's tax cuts benefited the middle class pretty substantially, and he was the guy that came up with the earned income credit which was put in place to balance off the increases in fica tax.
bob

Disclaimers: I am not a lawyer, cop, soldier, gunsmith, politician, plumber, electrician, or a professional practitioner of many of the other things I comment on in this forum.

Scout26

  • I'm a leaf on the wind.
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 25,997
  • I spent a week in that town one night....
Re: Bobby Jindal; the next Reagan?
« Reply #35 on: February 12, 2008, 04:56:55 AM »
Quote from: Ilbob
he was the guy that came up with the earned income credit which was put in place to balance off the increases in fica tax
I thought it was Nixon (or during his adminstration) that the EIC was invented Huh?

Yep, and to make Fistful happy: here's my documentation/proof:

http://www.nber.org/digest/aug06/w11729.html
Quote
The EITC began in 1975 as a modest program aimed at offsetting the Social Security payroll tax for low-income families with children. The design of the credit was the result of a vigorous public debate around the disincentive effects of a Negative Income Tax (NIT) proposed by the Nixon Administration. The NIT would allow a transfer that is taxed away at a constant flat rate for all taxpayers. To offset the resulting disincentive effects, the EITC was made available only to workers; the maximum credit was earned, and the credit was phased out only after an untaxed region.

Reagan expanded it:

http://www.caseygrants.org/documents/reports/MCF_EITC_Paper.pdf
Quote
The Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) was originally enacted in 1975, in the wake of the failure of
President Nixons proposed Family Assistance Plan. Although it began as a temporary and limited
alternative to President Nixons proposal, the EITC has, in the years since, been made permanent
and been refined and expanded. In 1986, the EITC was a critical reason why President Reagan
could proclaim that the Tax Reform Act took millions of working poor off the income tax rolls, and
there were important further expansions in 1990 and 1993. Further, the EITC has been amended
several times to address noncompliance problems and to try to simplify the filing process, and the
IRS has undertaken programs of enhanced enforcement and expanded outreach to educate potentially
eligible taxpayers about the credit. In addition, since 1997, the EITC has been complemented
by a Child Tax credit that provides additional benefits to many families.

here's more documentation
http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/RL31768_20070315.pdf

Page CRS-20 (or 24 in your PDF viewer)
Quote
Appendix 1. Legislative History of the EITC
The idea that became the EITC first arose during congressional consideration
of President Nixons 1971 welfare reform proposal. Nixons proposal, the Family
Assistance Plan, would have helped working poor, two-parent families with children
by means of a federal minimum cash guarantee that would have replaced the
federal-state welfare program of Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC).

Work Bonus Plan (1972-1974 Proposals)
The EITC was patterned after a proposal, then known as a work bonus for the
working poor, recommended by the Senate Finance Committee in April 1972.
Though the idea originated as an alternative to the proposed Family Assistance
Program, the work bonus provision was advocated as a refund of Social Security
taxes paid by employers and employees on low annual earnings and was to have been
available only for wages subject to Social Security taxation.
The Senate approved the work bonus plan in 1972, 1973, and 1974, but the
House did not accept it until 1975.

Enactment of EITC in 1975
The Tax Reduction Act of 1975 (P.L. 94-12) included a provision that
established, in Section 32 of the Internal Revenue Code, a refundable credit to tax
filers with incomes below $8,000. This earned income credit was to equal 10% of
the first $4,000 of any earnings (including earnings not subject to Social Security
taxation) and thus could not exceed $400 per year. The credit was to be phased out,
at a rate of 10%, for adjusted gross income (AGI) above $8,000.
Some days even my lucky rocketship underpants won't help.


Bring me my Broadsword and a clear understanding.
Get up to the roundhouse on the cliff-top standing.
Take women and children and bed them down.
Bless with a hard heart those that stand with me.
Bless the women and children who firm our hands.
Put our backs to the north wind.
Hold fast by the river.
Sweet memories to drive us on,
for the motherland.

grampster

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 9,447
Re: Bobby Jindal; the next Reagan?
« Reply #36 on: February 12, 2008, 08:44:24 AM »
"There you go again...."   grin
"Never wrestle with a pig.  You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it."  G.B. Shaw

K Frame

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 44,232
  • I Am Inimical
Re: Bobby Jindal; the next Reagan?
« Reply #37 on: February 12, 2008, 09:33:05 AM »
Reagan is only a hero to corporatists, exploiters, and rubes.  To the real producers of this nation (the middle class), he's a parasite.

I don't know what particuarly psychotic segment of middle class that you inhabit, but Reagan did far more for the middle class in this country than any president since World War II.

I'm sure, though, that that particular segment of the middle class remembers the Carter years fondly as a "why can't we go back there" time of "prosperity, plenty, and wealth" (cheese lines anyone?)

Couple interesting facts...

Under Reagan, 20 million NEW jobs were created, the vast majority of them solidy middle-class jobs.

Middle class income was up 11% over 8 years, which I believe is the largest jump since the US came out of World War II.

In raw numbers, though, the middle class DID shrink under Reagan...

Not because economic times were so bad, but because incomes for a staggering number of individuals moved them from middle class to UPPER class.

Remember that the next time a liberal whines about how the middle class shrank (hell, the lower class shrank, as well, because people were earning money to pull themselves up to middle class). It's another liberal example of turning the truth into a lie.
Carbon Monoxide, sucking the life out of idiots, 'tards, and fools since man tamed fire.

Perd Hapley

  • Superstar of the Internet
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 61,392
  • My prepositions are on/in
Re: Bobby Jindal; the next Reagan?
« Reply #38 on: February 12, 2008, 11:38:45 AM »
Careful, Mike.  He might find your home address.   shocked
"Doggies are angel babies!" -- my wife

The Rabbi

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4,435
  • "Ahh, Jeez. Not this sh*t again!"
Re: Bobby Jindal; the next Reagan?
« Reply #39 on: February 12, 2008, 01:16:54 PM »
Reagan is only a hero to corporatists, exploiters, and rubes.  To the real producers of this nation (the middle class), he's a parasite.
interesting since reagan's tax cuts benefited the middle class pretty substantially, and he was the guy that came up with the earned income credit which was put in place to balance off the increases in fica tax.

I guess there were a lot of corporatists, exploiters and rubes back then because they elected the man twice in a landslide.
Fight state-sponsored Islamic terrorism: Bomb France now!

Vote Libertarian: It Not Like It Matters Anyway.

Paddy

  • Guest
Re: Bobby Jindal; the next Reagan?
« Reply #40 on: February 12, 2008, 02:32:50 PM »
Quote
I don't know what particuarly psychotic segment of middle class that you inhabit, but Reagan did far more for the middle class in this country than any president since World War II.

You must mean FDR, who was indeed a champion of the middle class.

That Reagan did anything for the middle class (except rip them off) is myth.  The truth is Reagan supported a number of tax increases. In 1982 alone, he signed into law not one but two major tax increases. The Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act (TEFRA) raised taxes by $37.5 billion per year and the Highway Revenue Act raised the gasoline tax by another $3.3 billion.

According to a recent Treasury Department study, TEFRA alone raised taxes by almost 1 percent of the gross domestic product, making it the largest peacetime tax increase in American history. An increase of similar magnitude today would raise more than $100 billion per year.

In 1983, Reagan signed legislation raising the Social Security tax rate. This is a tax increase that lives with us still, since it initiated automatic increases in the taxable wage base. As a consequence, those with moderately high earnings see their payroll taxes rise every single year.

In 1984, Reagan signed another big tax increase in the Deficit Reduction Act. This raised taxes by $18 billion per year or 0.4 percent of GDP. A similar-sized tax increase today would be about $44 billion.

The Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 raised taxes yet again. Even the Tax Reform Act of 1986, which was designed to be revenue-neutral, contained a net tax increase in its first 2 years. And the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987 raised taxes still more.

The year 1988 appears to be the only year of the Reagan presidency, other than the first, in which taxes were not raised legislatively. Of course, previous tax increases remained in effect. According to a table in the 1990 budget, the net effect of all these tax increases was to raise taxes by $164 billion in 1992, or 2.6 percent of GDP. This is equivalent to almost $300 billion in today's economy.

http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_bartlett/bartlett200310290853.asp

ilbob

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,546
    • Bob's blog
Re: Bobby Jindal; the next Reagan?
« Reply #41 on: February 13, 2008, 07:06:14 AM »
Quote
The year 1988 appears to be the only year of the Reagan presidency, other than the first, in which taxes were not raised legislatively.


need i mention who controlled congress while all this tax raising was going on?
bob

Disclaimers: I am not a lawyer, cop, soldier, gunsmith, politician, plumber, electrician, or a professional practitioner of many of the other things I comment on in this forum.

The Rabbi

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4,435
  • "Ahh, Jeez. Not this sh*t again!"
Re: Bobby Jindal; the next Reagan?
« Reply #42 on: February 13, 2008, 07:52:24 AM »
Quote
HOW DID THE REAGAN TAX CUTS AFFECT THE U.S. TREASURY?

Many critics of reducing taxes claim that the Reagan tax cuts drained the U.S. Treasury. The reality is that federal revenues increased significantly between 1980 and 1990:

    *

      Total federal revenues doubled from just over $517 billion in 1980 to more than $1 trillion in 1990. In constant inflation-adjusted dollars, this was a 28 percent increase in revenue.3
    *

      As a percentage of the gross domestic product (GDP), federal revenues declined only slightly from 18.9 percent in 1980 to 18 percent in 1990.4
    * Revenues from individual income taxes climbed from just over $244 billion in 1980 to nearly $467 billion in 1990.5 In inflation-adjusted dollars, this amounts to a 25 percent increase.
from here:
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/BG1414.cfm

It would take an act of willfull disbelief to make Reagan's presidency anything other than a whopping success for the average American.  Probably why, again, they voted for him in droves, twice.
Fight state-sponsored Islamic terrorism: Bomb France now!

Vote Libertarian: It Not Like It Matters Anyway.

K Frame

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 44,232
  • I Am Inimical
Re: Bobby Jindal; the next Reagan?
« Reply #43 on: February 13, 2008, 09:51:22 AM »
Ever take a look at what FDR did to middle class tax rates, Reilly?

But tax rates aren't the WHOLE story (not surprising that you're ignoring the whole story).

Middle class unemployment in the 1970s was dramatically higher than at any time since the Depression of the 1930s.

A large part of Reagan's economic legacy was the return to work of millions of Americans, at higher wages, and often with much better benefits.

Real income rose dramatically as a result as more Americans returned to work and wages continued to rise.

Buying power was further enhanced with the reduction of inflation and interest rates to near historic lows.

Any increase in taxes during the Reagan years were more than offset by the rise in real income, buying power, and simple employment for millions who prior to Reagan simply didn't have jobs.

What you're saying, then, is that an out-of-work American on either unemployment benefits or welfare was far better off than employed with benefits, then, right? Especially when inflation and interest rates are running double digits. Right?

The claims that Regan was somehow a disaster for the middle class in America are bandied about by those who lean left. But when pinned down and asked to provide concrete examples of just how life got worse for any class during the Reagan years, they can only resort to sweeping generalizations and sound-bite sentences that sound great, but when poked collapse under their own weight and lack of substance.

Carbon Monoxide, sucking the life out of idiots, 'tards, and fools since man tamed fire.

roo_ster

  • Kakistocracy--It's What's For Dinner.
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 21,225
  • Hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats
Re: Bobby Jindal; the next Reagan?
« Reply #44 on: February 13, 2008, 10:56:10 AM »
Quote
I don't know what particuarly psychotic segment of middle class that you inhabit, but Reagan did far more for the middle class in this country than any president since World War II.

You must mean FDR, who was indeed a champion of the middle class.

Bullhockey.  You mean FDR colluded with big corporations to set prices (NRA) and to jail middle-class shopkeepers who didn't follow them.
Regards,

roo_ster

“Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.”
----G.K. Chesterton

Paddy

  • Guest
Re: Bobby Jindal; the next Reagan?
« Reply #45 on: February 13, 2008, 07:54:01 PM »
Quote
Ever take a look at what FDR did to middle class tax rates, Reilly?

Yes.  During WWII, FDR passed a progressive income tax that barely touched the working and middle class but took up to 90 percent after a person earned what would be $2 million of today's dollars.  That tax rate remained high under FDR, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Nixon, Johnson, and Carter.  Our debt was relatively small, and progressive taxation kept money in the pockets most likely to spend it and stimulate consumer demand.

FDR's policies and the New Deal were directly responsible for the prosperity and expansion of the middle class in the 1950's and '60's. 

Quote
A large part of Reagan's economic legacy was the return to work of millions of Americans, at higher wages, and often with much better benefits.

A phony, unsustainable bubble created by record deficit defense spending on the Star Wars debacle. It was all over by the recession of 1990.


Quote
Real income rose dramatically as a result as more Americans returned to work and wages continued to rise.

"Are you better off than you were four years ago"?  That's how he got re-elected.  It didn't last beyond his second term.

Quote
Buying power was further enhanced with the reduction of inflation and interest rates to near historic lows.

Greenspan artificially induced reduced interest rates by printing more money so we could incur more debt.  That's hardly 'prosperity'.  The buying power of the middle class by 1990 was no more than it was in 1980.  However, the rich were twice as rich by 1990.   That's Reagan's 'legacy'.

Quote
Any increase in taxes during the Reagan years were more than offset by the rise in real income, buying power, and simple employment for millions who prior to Reagan simply didn't have jobs.

Do you mean the low wage jobs that were 'created' to replace the outsourced hi tech jobs?



The Rabbi

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4,435
  • "Ahh, Jeez. Not this sh*t again!"
Re: Bobby Jindal; the next Reagan?
« Reply #46 on: February 14, 2008, 02:54:53 AM »
Quote
Ever take a look at what FDR did to middle class tax rates, Reilly?

 

FDR's policies and the New Deal were directly responsible for the prosperity and expansion of the middle class in the 1950's and '60's. 


Boy this cracks me up!

I guess WW2 and the destruction of the industrial infrastructure of competing economies had nothing to do with those things.
Fight state-sponsored Islamic terrorism: Bomb France now!

Vote Libertarian: It Not Like It Matters Anyway.

K Frame

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 44,232
  • I Am Inimical
Re: Bobby Jindal; the next Reagan?
« Reply #47 on: February 14, 2008, 03:08:05 AM »
Oh please, Riley. That's a myth. But you did make me giggle.

Adolph Hitler was more responsible for the expansion of the American Middle Class than Franklin Roosevelt was by a long shot.

You obviously have no clue what happened in the late 1930s when Roosevelt and crowd started pulling the plug on many of the New Deal programs, the ones that were designed to "solve" the depression.

They pulled the plug on these programs because everything was telling them that the depression was ending and the economy could sputter back to life without them.

Problem was, Roosevelt's brain trust was absolutely, 100% wrong.

The secondary phase of the depression that started after about 1937 was far WORSE than the primary phase that started in 1929.

Roosevelt's policies didn't solve the depression. Granted, they propped up the economy so that it wouldn't continue to spiral out of control, but it was Adolph Hitler who solved the American economic crisis.

Reagan? His policies did it without a war.
Carbon Monoxide, sucking the life out of idiots, 'tards, and fools since man tamed fire.

seeker_two

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 12,922
  • In short, most intelligence is false.
Re: Bobby Jindal; the next Reagan?
« Reply #48 on: February 14, 2008, 07:43:16 AM »
The New Deal was economic life support that helped prevent a Communist movement in the US.....

WWII and the post-war economic expansion was what brought us out of the Great Depression.....
Impressed yet befogged, they grasped at his vivid leading phrases, seeing only their surface meaning, and missing the deeper current of his thought.

Tecumseh

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 729
Re: Bobby Jindal; the next Reagan?
« Reply #49 on: February 14, 2008, 08:19:42 AM »
americans are always looking for a solid, conservative leader that they can feel right about. if there is not one available, they tend to vote liberal.
  Keep thinking that.