24 Feb

Excerpts from Jindal’s GOP “counter” point to Obama speech tonight

                                       

Got this from an alert service, and passing it on to those of you who haven’t seen it yet.

Excerpts from Governor Bobby Jindal’s Republican Address

WASHINGTON –The Republican National Committee (RNC) released the following excerpts from the Republican address, entitled “Americans Can Do Anything,” that Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal will deliver immediately following President Barack Obama’s address to a joint session of Congress:

“As I grew up, my mom and dad taught me the values that attracted them to this country – and they instilled in me an immigrant’s wonder at the greatness of America. As a child, I remember going to the grocery store with my dad. Growing up in India, he had seen extreme poverty. And as we walked through the aisles, looking at the endless variety on the shelves, he would tell me: ‘Bobby, Americans can do anything.’ I still believe that to this day.



“Republicans are ready to work with the new President to provide those solutions. Here in my state of Louisiana, we don’t care what party you belong to if you have good ideas to make life better for our people. We need more of that attitude from both Democrats and Republicans in our nation’s capital. All of us want our economy to recover and our nation to prosper. So where we agree, Republicans must be the President’s strongest partners. And where we disagree, Republicans have a responsibility to be candid and offer better ideas for a path forward.

“The strength of America is not found in our government. It is found in the compassionate hearts and enterprising spirit of our citizens.

“To solve our current problems, Washington must lead. But the way to lead is not to raise taxes and put more money and power in hands of Washington politicians. The way to lead is by empowering you – the American people. Because we believe that Americans can do anything.

“Democratic leaders say their legislation will grow the economy. What it will do is grow the government, increase our taxes down the line, and saddle future generations with debt. Who among us would ask our children for a loan, so we could spend money we do not have, on things we do not need? That is precisely what the Democrats in Congress just did. It’s irresponsible. And it’s no way to strengthen our economy, create jobs, or build a prosperous future for our children.

“In recent years, these distinctions in philosophy became less clear – because our party got away from its principles. You elected Republicans to champion limited government, fiscal discipline, and personal responsibility. Instead, Republicans went along with earmarks and big government spending in Washington. Republicans lost your trust – and rightly so.

“A few weeks ago, the President warned that our nation is facing a crisis that he said ‘we may not be able to reverse.’ Our troubles are real, to be sure. But don’t let anyone tell you that we cannot recover – or that America’s best days are behind her.”

About MataHarley

Vietnam era Navy wife, indy/conservative, and an official California escapee now residing as a red speck in the sea of Oregon blue.
This entry was posted in Barack Obama, Bobby Jindal, Politics. Bookmark the permalink. Tuesday, February 24th, 2009 at 2:22 pm
| 39 views

29 Responses to Excerpts from Jindal’s GOP “counter” point to Obama speech tonight

  1. pdill says: 1

    Thanks for posting this Mata! Jindal nails what I believe with all my heart and soul. It’s not about party. It’s about American values; values so great and worth fighting for, that we do, together, as a country, even when it involves sacrifice!

    ReplyReply
  2. blast says: 2

    Mata, Gov Jindel’s response is no better than the “drivel” you accused Pres Obama of presenting tonight. I will wait to watch both speeches, and not just look to dis’ either one before they even utter a word.

    ReplyReply
  3. MataHarley says: 3

    Will concede that political drivel is bi-partisan, blast. But while you look to their words and speeches, I shall look to their actions. And as far as I can see, Jindal’s performance in LA beats the tar out Obama’s damaging reign in the WH. So frankly, I don’t give a damn about what he (either one) “says” tonight.

    ReplyReply
  4. Tom in CA says: 4

    Actually Blast,

    I think Gov Jindel’s drivel is much better than President ‘Crisis’. Plus, I really don’t need our President to scold me or tell me I need to work harder. Or to blame a former President for the mess we are in. Or to use race baiting to get a point across. Or to choose people for his Cabinet that cannot operate Turbotax. Or, … never mind, there is way too much to list. I am really tired of his BS and stupid smirking one month into his laughable Presidency.

    Tom in CA

    ReplyReply
  5. blast says: 5

    Mata” And as far as I can see, Jindal’s performance in LA beats the tar out Obama’s damaging reign in the WH.

    ummm… Jindal is Govonor of a state getting Billions in handouts for reconstruction etc.. and has been there since Jan 2007… Your criticism of the President is based upon a month. I don’t think Jindal’s problems as Governor come close to what Pres Obama has to overcome.

    ReplyReply
  6. MataHarley says: 6

    Jinda is the Governor of a state still racked with economic repercussions and destruction from Katrina. My judgment of him comes from how he addresses those “piddly” little issues, as I guess you view them.

    My criticism of Obama after a month comes as he is prepared to brag.. in his own lofty words tonight.. .of how he has “accomplished” more than any President in his first 30 days.

    Accomplishments that Chavez could be proud of.

    ReplyReply
  7. MataHarley says: 7

    Forgot to add, Jindal is refusing some of the $3.8 bil the state can take from the stimulus because it infringes on state’s rights. Another point in his favor…

    ReplyReply
  8. b1jetmech says: 8

    Another example of one politician working his way up on his own without MSM. Verses the “Manchurian Candidate” politician who was programed and artificially ascended to the WH.

    ReplyReply
  9. b1jetmech says: 9

    hey Blast,

    Obama isn’t overcoming anything just dismantling American Freedom through nationalizations of banks, healthcare and anything else those power hungry FatCat libs get their greedy paws on. Remember last week, Putin and Hu warned Obama about socializing the economy. You can learn a lot from a Commie…

    Then immediately taking office he’s picking away from our national Security with proposed cuts of our nuclear arsenal, missile defense and across the board cuts at the DoD. yet he has no problem ordering more troops into combat why he fly’s around with a FAT carbon footprint of Air Force 1 campaigning for more nationalization.

    ReplyReply
  10. Light Dawns says: 10

    Thank you, Mata! ’bout time States’ Rights made a comeback. The audacity of BO telling mayors
    how to do their jobs of spending $$$.

    ReplyReply
  11. Tom in CA says: 11

    Nice to see he has dyed his hair again. If he could just get rid of that annoying whistle at the end of his sentences, I might be able to listen to at least 2 – 3 minutes of his BS.

    ReplyReply
  12. blast says: 12

    b1jetmech: Obama isn’t overcoming anything just dismantling American Freedom through nationalizations of banks, healthcare and anything else those power hungry FatCat libs get their greedy paws on.

    You miss that so far to date your Mr Bush nationalized AIG, Fanny, Freddy and handed out hundreds of billions. So get off you high horse, so far Republicans have nationalized more than Obama… once he breaks Bushes record for nationalization and debt…. then bitch.

    ReplyReply
  13. alan walter says: 13

    Piyush Jindal, Exorcist. “Have crucifix, will travel”, reads the card of a man.

    ReplyReply
  14. @blast:

    so far Republicans have nationalized more than Obama…

    Wrong. As I pointed out in the “Who are the Big Spenders?” link, the majority of the spending was authorized by the Democrats and Obama. President Bush authorized $350 Billion of the TARP plan, but it was divided into two parts. President Bush then left it up to PEBHO if he wanted President Bush to authorize the other half. PEBHO asked him to do so. So the next $350 Billion goes to B.O. and the Democrats. Add that to their $1+ Trillion so far + their planned $400 Billion more and you’ve got President Bush with $350 Billion and B.O. and the Democrats with $1.75 Trillion.

    For the record, we fiscal conservatives were against President Bush and the Democrats’ TARP I and put full blame on them at the time. But intellectual honesty requires the Democrats and B.O. get the blame for the other $1.75 Trillion.

    ReplyReply
  15. Missy says: 15

    @alan walter:

    Pure bunk that the idiot loons have turned into their folklore. pdill debunked the exorcist nonsense a few days ago.

    ReplyReply
  16. Fit fit says: 16

    I feel so bad for Jindal, he’s one of the good ones. Ed Rollins put it best in describing his performance: “It was a good night for Sarah Palin”. Poor little fellla… He did do much better on the morning talk shows today. Last night he sounded like a museum automatonic. Maybe the GOP can get a Teddy Ruxpin to do the next rebuttal.

    ReplyReply
  17. John ryan says: 17

    Jindal did refuse some of that federal money. However he is going to spend 3.74 billion of the 3.8 billion.

    ReplyReply
  18. blast says: 18

    Blast: so far Republicans have nationalized more than Obama…

    Michael in MI: Wrong.

    Ok, please list some specifics.

    Bush & Co:

    Fannie Mae
    Freddie Mac
    AIG
    IndyMac

    (not to mention the “loans” in GM & Chrysler (loans which were more than their total MARKET CAP/value!) plus the coin spread liberally to places like Citi, BofA etc.

    Ok, now you name what Pres Obama has nationalized.

    ReplyReply
  19. ruaqtpi2 says: 19

    Jindal’s performance as a governor for two years easily outscores Obama’s “present” performance as a Senator.

    Jindal *must* spend the majority of the money or risk being viewed as insensitive to the needs of his constituents. Bush didn’t “do enough” for Louisiana, and look what they said about him.

    The republicans *never* said spending wasn’t necessary as part of a stimulus plan; they simply prefer a greater percentage of tax cuts than democrats do.

    Unfortunately, Obama talks in absolutes, and the hordes of mindless voters support him along with the thinking liberals who support the Democratic Party principles. To his credit, Obama is a good speaker. He also has support of the liberal media majority. Too many Americans are too lazy to check facts, and have been led to believe that everything in the mainstream media is true. Many other American citizens feel that they have no chance to change things in politics, so what’s the point in getting involved and working to find the truth? And of course, a significant portion of the population is content to sit around and live off the taxpayer’s dime.

    There’s no doubt that republicans have a tough battle ahead, not just for power, but for their principles as well. Honest reporting of successes and failures and of costs and benefits will be necessary in order to move the country forward. Government and media spin will continue to fool quite a lot of people, so both republicans and democrats are going to have to be diligent in order to separate the wheat from the chaff and keep each other honest.

    This might even be the time for a strong third-party spokesperson to make a plea for non-partisan politics (tri-partisan just sounds wrong!), particularly if Biden is wrong and the stimulus package does not seem to be “kick-starting” the economy. Now is probably also the best time for a third party leader to make a very public cry to hold Obama to his promises and not let him wriggle out of them with technicalities and double-speak.

    It’s times like these that make me regret all the fun of my mis-spent youth. Ain’t no way I’d pass any reasonable political party’s vetting process (not even for Obama’s administration, and that’s saying something!)

    Jeff V

    ReplyReply
  20. I see that Dudley has squeezed out another screed.

    Fannie and Freddie were ALREADY gov’t/public entities, GSEs. They’ve been that way since President Johnson.

    As I told you already, nothing changed regarding gov’t involvement in F&F.

    The gov’t put money into them to guarantee the investments because that is the way the whole thing was structured from the beginning. All investments into those entities were always backed by the Fed gov’t. Very similar to FDIC.

    Think of it as an insurance policy that the gov’t paid out on.

    ReplyReply
  21. blast says: 21

    Aye Chihuahua, I never said they were not federally charted organizations, but however they were PUBLICLY TRADED AND DID NOT HAVE A GOVERNMENT GUARANTEE like those organizations which have Federally backed securities. So before you shoot your mouth off know what the heck you are talking about.

    all investments into those entities were always backed by the Fed gov’t.

    WRONG!

    “In 1968, the government converted Fannie Mae into a private shareholder-owned corporation in order to remove its activity from the annual balance sheet of the federal budget. Consequently, Fannie Mae ceased to be the guarantor of government-issued mortgages”

    ReplyReply
  22. Let’s see.

    Who shall I believe?

    “blast”, the anonymous Internet forum poster or Vernon L. Smith, the 2002 Nobel Laureate in economics?

    I think I’ll choose Mr. Smith:

    “This august body has long forgotten that it set the stage for housing bubbles by creating those implicitly taxpayer-backed agencies, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, as housing lenders of last resort.”

    ReplyReply
  23. blast says: 23

    Aye, believe what you want, but Smith said “implicitly” and frankly that was the problem. People treated them as Federally backed securities YET THEY WERE NOT!

    Here is a little ditty from Wiki:

    From 1938 to 1968, the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) was the sole institution that bought mortgages from depository institutions, principally savings and loan associations, which encouraged more mortgage lending and effectively insured the value of mortgages by the US government. In 1968, Fannie Mae split into a private corporation and a publicly financed institution. The private corporation was still called Fannie Mae, and its charter continued to support the purchase of mortgages from savings and loan associations and other depository institutions, but without an explicit insurance policy that guaranteed the value of the mortgages. The publicly financed institution was named the Government National Mortgage Association (Ginnie Mae) and it explicitly guaranteed the repayments of securities backed by mortgages made to government employees or veterans (the mortgages themselves were also guaranteed by other government organizations). To provide competition for the newly private Fannie Mae and to further increase the availability of funds to finance mortgages and home ownership, Congress then established the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac) as a private corporation through the Emergency Home Finance Act of 1970. The charter of Freddie Mac was essentially the same as Fannie Mae’s newly private charter: to expand the secondary market for mortgages and mortgage backed securities by buying mortgages made by savings and loan associations and other depository institutions.

    ReplyReply
  24. You’re quoting Wiki?

    Really?

    Even you should know better than that.

    ReplyReply
  25. MataHarley says: 25

    I never said they were not federally charted organizations, but however they were PUBLICLY TRADED AND DID NOT HAVE A GOVERNMENT GUARANTEE like those organizations which have Federally backed securities.

    Not quite, blast. GSEs *do* carry implied backing of the U.S. Government, but they are not direct obligations (financed by tax dollars) of the U.S. Government. As GSE’s their securities will offer a yield premium over Treasuries…. or, as some see it, recipients of corporate welfare.

    Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae both remain operating GSEs. Fannie Mae since 1968, and Freddie since it’s inception (to prevent monopoly) in 1970. They get the benefits of exemption from taxation and oversight, as well as being able to generate profits for stockholders. A hybrid creation of private and government. However that “implied backing” is important to note, as it gave these entities power and benefits that private institutions did not enjoy… because of that government presence.

    What you may be confused about… since the invariably lame Wiki isn’t clear (which is why we all scoff. Might as well flip a coin to it’s accuracy!)… is their phrase: but without an explicit insurance policy that guaranteed the value of the mortgages. Note it then goes right into GNMA (Ginnie Mae). So I believe you are confusing government backing for a GSE with government insured loans.

    First of all there is a difference between government insured mortgages ( FHA) and government guaranteed loan (VA and Rural Housing Services). FHA has government insurance backing with the FHA mortgage insurance. VA and RHS loans have no mortgage insurance included as a pymt cost because they are guaranteed. Conventional loans have private mortgage insurers (like AIG).

    Fannie/Freddie includes both govt insured and privately insured loans in their portfolio. GNMA (Ginnie Mae) – the agency who insures/guarantees these loans – is not a public entity nor GSE.

    But I believe the point is that as GSEs, is the government “obligated” to rescue them? Because of their securities, and that all VA/FHA/RHS loans do end up in their portfolio? I’d say yes.

    ReplyReply
  26. blast says: 26

    Aye, actually it is common knowledge that Fannie and Freddie were not EXPLICITLY guaranteed, only Ginnie was, I just did not want to waste any more time trying to find details and Wiki was easy to find. The “implicit” guarantee you speak of is nowhere in the law or charter of either organization. Just like the implicit sense we have now that the government is not going to allow Citi, BofA, or any number of companies to collapse.

    ReplyReply
  27. blast says: 27

    Mata, I understand the difference between the guarantee of the VA, FHA etc loans. They are backed by the full faith and credit of the USA. The organization Ginnie is set up for those loans, Fannie and Freddie could buy any number of loans and yes, “implied” was quite a trick for them, however post 1968 they were not backed by the full faith and credit of the US… it was not guaranteed. The only reason the government does anything with them is the moral hazard crap we have been hearing about big banks, AIG etc.

    ReplyReply
  28. MataHarley says: 28

    blast, GNMA doesn’t buy any loans. They only insure/guarantee the government backed loans FHA/RHS/VA. Considering that the GSEs hold these loans, and that they are government backed since they get their GSE bennies, there is ample “moral hazard” legitimacy.

    While I am livid at Congressional handling of Fannie/Freddie, I am more on board with the govt bailout of them than private sector business.

    ReplyReply
  29. blast says: 29

    Mata, True, GNMA does not buy loans. They however are the only guarantor of MBS from the federal government. That is different from “implied”, which is not a guarantee. It is an assumption and not a legal commitment and there is a huge difference. Yes, that implied function worked to f- the American people pour more money into F&F, but I have yet to hear the government actually state they are guaranteeing all of F&F’s loans. :-)

    ReplyReply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>