Comments on: Obama on Cable Chatter: “I’m Looking At You, Jindal”

By: nonplussed

nonplussed — Tue, 24 Feb 2009 15:21:56 +0000

New mouse, too many buttons for me. I have no idea how I pasted that “you” in there.

By: nonplussed

nonplussed — Tue, 24 Feb 2009 15:19:52 +0000

It appears that our own Governor Goodhair aka Rick Perry, another guy with his eye cast toward bigger & better things, may also screw the unemployed in Texas.

Ain’t nobody more Conservative than the Governor of Great State of Texas & you can take that to the bank! How many you bad guys have those three executed so far this year?

By: BP07

BP07 — Tue, 24 Feb 2009 12:18:21 +0000

Vermont Gov.Jim Douglas looks distinctly uncomfortable standing alongside Jindal. Soon the Republicans may notice that Jim is going against their “stars” on the stimulus issue ?Maybe Rush Limbaugh should bark at him and get him back in the fold .

By: Larue

Larue — Tue, 24 Feb 2009 02:51:22 +0000

Unfortunatley we in CA might well be stuck with having SciFi running in 2010. Talk about no options . . . . .

By: hackworth

hackworth — Tue, 24 Feb 2009 02:29:09 +0000

IMHO, I don’t see Cantor as a contender for the Rethug ticket. IMHO, the ones that are grooming themselves are Palin, JEB!, Crist, Jindall, maybe P. Bush.

Yes, I believe they are crazy enough to run more Bushes. I hope people are not stupid enough to vote for more Bushes, but that is only a hope.

By: foothillsmike

foothillsmike — Tue, 24 Feb 2009 02:20:55 +0000

In the face of massive budget shortfalls in LA there have been very significant budget cuts for Medicare and medicade. Jindal to LA if you are not paying taxes F* you.

By: RevBev

RevBev — Tue, 24 Feb 2009 02:09:01 +0000

Or, how much more can LA be hurt?

By: marymccurnin

marymccurnin — Tue, 24 Feb 2009 02:05:16 +0000

How much more can Jindal hurt La.?

By: Primrose

Primrose — Tue, 24 Feb 2009 01:57:48 +0000

The three republicans (Jindal, Barbour, and Sanford) have said they will not take the extra Unemployment money — not the rest of the package being offered.

All have said that by taking the money it would force them to raise rates of businesses because it is a permanent change in the way unemployment is factored. In response to the Obama plan and his rejection of that money, Sanford has raised the rate by $25.00 per week, but that’s all he’s prepared to do, claiming that the unemployment insurance fund is broke.

But, I read another analysis that said the changes do not have to be permanent. The money can be taken and then in three years, the governors can simply change the law back to what it was — but I’m not sure this is true.

Has anyone read the bill closely enough to know if they are “stuck” if they take the federal money, and must somehow continue to pay out (even after federal funds are gone) at the new level??

By: klynn

klynn — Tue, 24 Feb 2009 01:47:37 +0000

That was great!