Bobby Jindal, Socialist and Enemy of the Constitution

reply to post by projectvxn


I know I"m reading it now. This is crazy!!!

Originally posted by David9176
I don't care what the reasons are. This is a DISASTER. This hurts our fishing industry, our economy, oil prices, Louisiana, and not to mention...is absolutely TERRIBLE for our wildlife...which is our FOOD SUPPLY.

Because it's not just their problem. Government helped them do it! Everybody knows we have a bought and paid for government, and yet people always leave the government out of the blame when it really counts

They weren't required to implement the safeguards that other countries implement that could have avoided this accident.

You might be interested in watching this, if you live in Louisiana:

www.pbs.org...

You probably already know this stuff, but if not, it's definitely worth checking out..

In the ten years before our report, candidates for high court judgeships in states around the country raised $85 million dollars. In the decade since, the numbers have more than doubled to over $200 million dollars. In this extended excerpt, you'll see how money crept into judicial elections in three states — Pennsylvania, Louisiana and Texas — and you'll get a stark foreshadowing of what could come now that the Supreme Court has announced the sky's the limit.

This stretch of the Mississippi River between Baton Rouge and New Orleans is known as the "Chemical Corridor." Seven major oil refineries and hundreds of chemical and other industrial sites make this one of the most polluted places in the nation. Locals call it "Cancer Alley."

Governor Mike Foster, a wealthy businessman with a Cajun accent and a "good ol' boy" style, was elected in 1995 on a platform of attracting more industry to Louisiana. In this ad in "The Wall Street Journal," the governor proclaimed that Louisiana is "Bending over backwards" to attract new companies with promises of tax breaks and legal protection from lawsuits.

So because of Louisiana's oil industry, people living in certain areas are getting cancer left and right; they can't sue, because the chief justice of LAs supreme court was LEGALLY bought off by the businesses who are giving these people cancer.

Louisiana is currently a welfare state -- which receives more federal government spending than what it pays in to the federal government.

GOP-brand Conservatives don't hate welfare, they just hate welfare for anyone but the uber-rich, or the corporations that pay off government officials.

Originally posted by maybereal11
I just checked my pocket sized constitution and I can't find where the Federal government is given authority to intercede and help in instances like this.

Jindal is now officially a socialist and has pleaded with the Obama Administration to over-step the bounds of the constitution...

How is this a socialist action, at all? This is what every single governor does when their state has a disaster, all of them.

According to your logic every single federal aid in time of need to the states was illegal! This is an insane proposition, think of all the people that would be dead now if not for federal help.

Besides, check your constitution for the part where the federal government promotes general welfare, I'm pretty sure that covers this.

Originally posted by muzzleflash
This thread is a hoax.

Oil rig spills have nothing to do with socialism. Your claims make no sense.

Do you even know the definition of that word?

No wonder the Democrats don't take you guys seriously. You don't even bother to use dictionaries.

The OP is not a tea partier or conservative. His is a disinformation agent on the left - just look at his threads. He does this all the time, pretending to be on the right and making outrageous statements and claims. Your right though, this thread is a hoax. Just don't lump him with conservatives arguing against the policies of Obama.

Gotta love the hypocrisy of those people

Sure, it's easy to say you don't need/want something...until it's the single thing you need most. But sure, let's continue supporting those guys and their big business buddies.

Okay, first:

Socialism:

1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state

www.merriam-webster.com...

So, asking for government funds to prevent an oil spill from reaching the Louisiana coastline and help clean the water and preserve wildlife is like socialism... how... again???

I'm really not seeing it. The conclusion that Jindal asking for government assistance after a disaster strikes and not accepting stimulus money are completely separate things. The OP has gone way off the deep end this time.

Second:

1. Federal disaster funds don't need to be paid back do they? No. Do they require a state accepting them to change their laws in any way after the funds run out? No.

2. Did the stimulus money need to be paid back? No. Do they require a state accepting them to change their laws in any way after the funds run out? YES See below:

“The federal money in this bill will run out in less than three years for this benefit and our businesses would then be stuck paying the bill,” Jindal said. “We must be careful and thoughtful as we examine all the strings attached to the funding in this package. We cannot grow government in an unsustainable way.”

What strings? Check this out from the Washington Times:

He said accepting the money would have required a change in state law and, after federal money runs out in three years, would have led to a $12 million increase in taxes on his state's businesses to keep funding the benefit.

"Increasing taxes on our Louisiana businesses is certainly not a way to stimulate our economy. It would be the exact wrong thing we could do to encourage further growth and job creation,"

www.washingtontimes.com...

And this is also reinforced in an article from NPR:

The stimulus dollars don't have to be paid back, but they aren't exactly free, either. Expanding coverage means states would be paying out more in benefits long after the stimulus funds have run out. "At some point, the state will have to cover it through higher taxes," Hobbie said.

www.npr.org...

Sounds to me like Jindal was being pretty smart, looking out for the well-being of the people of Louisiana by looking three years ahead and not just in the here and now. Signing off on a contract without reading the fine print is a tactic used by states like California, and look how their state economy stands today.

Conclusion - the OP has an axe to grind with the Republican party and so does anyone else agreeing with the OP. This thread is a piss poor example of party bashing and doesn't even come close to making a valid point.


[edit on 30-4-2010 by sos37]

WOW...Apparently some folks took me seriously. The thread was not Serious nor a hoax but Political Satire…Apologies for anyone unfamiliar with my leanings who thought I might be serious.

It was meant to demonstrate the inane and often self contradictory nature of certain rhetoric.

Here let me illustrate with some responses here.

Originally posted by sos37

So, asking for government funds to prevent an oil spill from reaching the Louisiana coastline and help clean the water and preserve wildlife is like socialism... how... again???

It’s not…I was pointing out a rhetorical inconsistency amongst the conservative party and in particular Bobby Jindals public statements.

I’ll give you hint….notice how you suddenly use the term “Government funds” instead of “Tax payer dollars?”

Originally posted by sos37

I'm really not seeing it. The conclusion that Jindal asking for government assistance after a disaster strikes and not accepting stimulus money are completely separate things.

It's only "completely different things" if it is your position that our recent flirtation with economic collapse did not qualify as a “disaster”.

Originally posted by sos37

1. Federal disaster funds don't need to be paid back do they? No.

Again…”Federal Disaster funds”…Economic Recovery Funds?...Paid back?..Yes they do in national debt and tax payer dollars…right?

That mainstay of conservative rhetoric is suddenly no longer applicable?

Originally posted by sos37

Sounds to me like Jindal was being pretty smart, looking out for the well-being of the people of Louisiana by looking three years ahead and not just in the here and now. Signing off on a contract without reading the fine print is a tactic used by states like California, and look how their state economy stands today.

[edit on 30-4-2010 by sos37]

I have a hard time viewing Jindal as having any modicum of foresight seeing as he has been the largest proponent on off-shore drilling in Louisana voting several times to allow it, advocating on behalf of BP, even voting to subsidize them and signing off on every lease and contract that has come his way.

Originally posted by ProjectJimmy

Originally posted by maybereal11
I just checked my pocket sized constitution and I can't find where the Federal government is given authority to intercede and help in instances like this.

Jindal is now officially a socialist and has pleaded with the Obama Administration to over-step the bounds of the constitution...

How is this a socialist action, at all? This is what every single governor does when their state has a disaster, all of them.

Did the worst financial crisis in nearly a century qualify as a disaster?

Originally posted by ProjectJimmy
According to your logic every single federal aid in time of need to the states was illegal! This is an insane proposition, think of all the people that would be dead now if not for federal help.

Besides, check your constitution for the part where the federal government promotes general welfare, I'm pretty sure that covers this.

Hmm...General Welfare? Glad to hear someone bring that up.

Why wouldn't things like being able to afford healthcare coverage for your family or cancer treatments for your child qualify as "General Welfare"?

Originally posted by Blackmarketeer

Louisiana is currently a welfare state -- which receives more federal government spending than what it pays in to the federal government.

GOP-brand Conservatives don't hate welfare, they just hate welfare for anyone but the uber-rich, or the corporations that pay off government officials.

Yes. Despite Billions in profits, Bobby Jindal voted repeatedly to SUBSIDIZE them with taxpayer dollars.

When the oil spill happened BP asked for the Fed to pay for the clean-up. thank goodness Obama said no.

Originally posted by projectvxn
I'm no a fan of Jindal either but this is a poor way to make the other side of the argument look ludicrous. The constitutional issues with ANY piece of legislation stand on their own merit, and if found to be inconsistent with Constitutional tradition then it is bunk.

You need to learn what socialism is. You also need to learn that the constitution provides all the power needed to deal with emergencies like the oil spill at state and federal level.
These sort of things fall under the general welfare clause. You need to learn HOW to break down every bit of laguage in the Constitution, as nearly ever word and sentence is a legal clause.

AGREED!!

Here is the General Welfare clause in the Preamble to the Constitution..

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,[1] promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Now explain to me how this passage distinguishes between an Envirornmental crisis and Healthcare crisis?

Originally posted by projectvxn
reply to post by Kaytagg

 

That's not my point and you know it. Corporation get away with things because the government let's them...Until it blows up in their face.

Correct...Jindal and the oil spill being an excellent example...

Gov. Bobby Jindal

YES.... more drilling. (Feb 2009)
Voted NO on removing oil & gas exploration subsidies. (Jan 2007)
Voted NO on keeping moratorium on drilling for oil offshore. (Jun 2006)
Voted YES on scheduling permitting for new oil refinieries. (Jun 2006)
Voted YES on authorizing construction of new oil refineries. (Oct 2005)

www.ontheissues.org...



[edit on 3-5-2010 by maybereal11]

reply to post by maybereal11


There is no distinction. It isn't that Healthcare is not allowed in the Constitution, but how it is implemented. Forcing people to buy private products is not Constitutional at the Federal Level. The only thing the government has the authority to do is to remove the roadblocks to better facilitate commerce among the states

Originally posted by projectvxn
reply to post by maybereal11

 

There is no distinction. It isn't that Healthcare is not allowed in the Constitution, but how it is implemented. Forcing people to buy private products is not Constitutional at the Federal Level.

First off...I would have been a happy camper with the public option and NO mandate. It was the insurance industry and the GOP that demanded the mandate...before they opposed it.

That said, requiring folks to buy insurance (the mandate) is probably the most relevant constitutional challenge, but still constitutional IMO from everything I have read and I will be interested to see the courts rule on it.

Originally posted by projectvxn
The only thing the government has the authority to do is to remove the roadblocks to better facilitate commerce among the states

The Commerce Clause allows for the government to regulate commerce amongst the states as long as that activity has multi-state economic implications.

Proponents of the HCR bill feel entirely confident, as do I, that Healthcare and Insurance related economic activity qualifies under the commerce clause.

Edit to add: You stated: Forcing people to buy private products is not Constitutional.

To be accurate, and accuracy matters in a legal or constitutional debate...the bill forces people to buy insurance...not a "private product"...there is a "public option" at each state level available via the exchange. So no one is being forced to buy a private product.

also...thier are many exemptions to the requirement, including financial hardship, which don't get much airtime. no one that is hurting financially will be required to buy insurance. If they would like insurance despite thier financial hardship then they will recieve subsidies.

[edit on 3-5-2010 by maybereal11]

I've known Bobby Jindal for a few years now, and ya'll ought to be ashamed for call him a socialist. THis is the same man that refused the portion of the stimulus money to expand unemployment insurance in LA. The same man downsizing the LA govt. Louisiana has had the most corrupt government of any state in the country for the pas 50 years. He isn't part of that. LA is still devestated from Katrina. And some idiot rips Jindal for asking for help with a problem that is far to massive for any state to deal with? This will wreck half of the states economy, and you call him a socialist for asking for help? Just for using the national guard and 1900 federal emergency response personell?

And it's not just LA, its Alabama, Miss, Texas, Florida, Mexico, And it could potentially affect GA-VA. Seems like you could give 2 shytes about the people down here and that you can't even fathom how truly disastorous this is for us. And if you can fathom it, the OP just doesn't care.

reply to post by DrJay1975


Read the thread. Or the posts above yours on this page.


[edit on 3-5-2010 by maybereal11]

This is stupid on so many levels. Tell me constitution worshipers, do you drive on the socialist highways (public & interstate road systems etc.) or do you restrict yourselves to dirt roads and cow paths? If you use the public roads then you are a public roads socialist. When potholes form you don't patch them yourselves do you? No you expect the government to do it you socialist! Did you attend a public school (or ANY school for that matter ) or do your children attend the public schools? Well that makes you an education socialist.

Socialist!!

How about your utilities? Do you use municipal water, sewer, electric and/or gas? Well disconnect them you socialist! Is someone breaking into your house? Well don't call Metro you socialist! I could go on but it would be a waste of time since you socialists don't know ____.

Originally posted by Lilitu
This is stupid on so many levels. Tell me constitution worshipers, do you drive on the socialist highways (public & interstate road systems etc.) or do you restrict yourselves to dirt roads and cow paths? If you use the public roads then you are a public roads socialist. When potholes form you don't patch them yourselves do you? No you expect the government to do it you socialist! Did you attend a public school (or ANY school for that matter

) or do your children attend the public schools? Well that makes you an education socialist.

Socialist!!

How about your utilities? Do you use municipal water, sewer, electric and/or gas? Well disconnect them you socialist! Is someone breaking into your house? Well don't call Metro you socialist! I could go on but it would be a waste of time since you socialists don't know ____.

You only need to read your own post to find the definition of "stupid". That you don't know (or claim not to know) the difference between economic socialism and public works speaks volumes.

reply to post by maybereal11


For someone posting political satire, you sure are defending this topic like is was something serious.

First, learn the difference between a natural disaster and an economic disaster. Learn that we have no control over when a natural disaster will hit and that natural disaster don't tend to strike one economic class over another.

Second, in Jindal's case, there were clear strings attached to the stimulus package - as I said, laws that had to be changed that would negatively affect the state-wide economy, in Jindal's opinion. Do you have evidence to show us that Jindal refused economic stimulus help for any other reason than for what he said? If so, please present it.

And in trying to make a case for taxpayers paying back federal disaster money through taxes - haven't the American people been doing this all along? Since when have you heard of a tax increase specifically because too much federal aid was dispensed to disaster-ridden areas of the U.S.?

Anyone who's been around ATS long enough knows the OP is one of the more liberal left-wing party line posters.

As soon as I saw the thread, I noted the drastic sarcasm in the first entry and thought "let him/her have the jab". I almost couldn't tell if it was supposed to be serious or not.

Obviously, using a disaster of this magnitude for a political poke might be right there on the edge of distasteful, and probably could have used a little restraint before jumping on the opportunity.

I can see how this might just backfire on you a tad, and not only from the right. you're unzipping the IQ of your fellow back scratchers for the world to see.