Jindal: Compare And Contrast

h/t Instapundit. Actually this is a Jindal follow on from last night and he's much better.

I don't have a dog in any 2012 fight. But it seems to be Palin is due some props, too. What we witnessed last night was how difficult it can be for a sitting governor to take to the national stage in a single event.

Palin aced her intro, Jindal flopped for whatever reason. And I don't think it means much in either case as regards 2012.

But since we're giving deserved props, we may as well cover the bases.

Comments

[john]

I had to laugh at the people declaring that his potential presidential run in 2012/2016 was now a failure.

I mean dear God, can we at least wait until the primaries start to make any statements regarding the fate of a politicians campaign.

[mark l.]

throwing a wet blanket on ANY president after a congressional address is difficult, and thankless.
it will be forgotten soon.

not jindal's best performance, but how does one respond concretely to absoulute vagueness?

[Anon]

Clinton bombed in his first big national speech as well....I like Jindal and think he's the kind of smart politician who can revive the GOP, he will have to get better at these types of speeches, though.

You guys need to forget about Sarah Palin as anything but a Senator from Alaska for the time being. If the GOP runs her in 2012 you can absolutely forget about it.

[mark l.]

I'm with anon...

the conservative argument is easy, if you understand it. (Palin is a nice person, probably strong on accounting, but not exactly visionary.)

govt makes a %(usually 19/20) off of GDP.

if you try and take a larger %, your GDP slows. If you take less of a %, your gdp grows faster, and you wind up with ridiculously more money in the 'long' term.

ex.
10 trillion dollars, growing under a heavier tax load(say...24% of GDP) will grow at best, 2%.
In eight years, your gdp is 11.735 trillion, your tax revenue is 2.87 trillion.
In twenty years, your gdp is 14.92 trillion, your tax revenue is 3.58 trillion.

3% growth, under 19% taxation?
In eight years, your gdp is 12.71 trillion, your tax revenue is 2.415 trillion.
In 20 years, at 3% growth you wind up with a 18.22 trillion gdp, still only a measely 3.46 trillion.

The lib argument looks good, if you are planning to run a country in 20 year increments, but considering that the preamble suggests a commitment to our posterity, let's look at 50 and 100 years...

50 years:
24% taxes, 2% growth.
27 trillion gdp, 6.52 trillion in revenue.
19% tax, 3% growth.
44 trillion gdp, 8.5 trillion in revenue.

100 years:
2% growth, 24% tax rate
74 trillion, 17.7 trillion.

3% growth, 19% tax rate.
200 trillion, 38 trillion in tax revenue.

I concede short 'damage' from tax cuts, but considering the results have a built in expiration-a point where the limiting of business growth in favor of govt revenue will result in a long term loss, the lib argument is the ultimate in short sighted governance.

under the 2%, 3% scenarios
the 19% govt revenue will catch up to the 24% govt in 23.3333 years.

but in 100 years,
the 19% govt will produce TWICE the revenue of the 24% govt.
the gdp of the 19% govt will be 2.7 times the size of the 24% govt.

[templar knight]

Say what you want. I live in Texas, and saw Jindal's on the job performance during the last hurricane, and I was impressed. Both by his grasp of the facts and his ability to process information. I don't think he is comfortable on the stage he was on last night, but he will get better at it as time goes on.

Right now, he is the most competant Republican out there, and I have to agree with anon on this one, Palin needs to run for the Alaskan Senate, not the Presidency.

[13yankeebravo]

Just something for people to think about, from 1960 we have elected 2 Senators to the presidenticy- Kennedy, Obama. 3 vice presidents, Johnson, Nixon, GHW Bush, and elected 4 Governors, Carter, Reagan, Clinton, and GW Bush. Odds favor that a governor will be the next president, which one I don't know, but I will bet that time will tell.

[mark l.]

I tend to think that it will not come down to a matter of who is nominated...
obama still controls his own fate. He still has a few years for incredible luck or inevitable diaster.

The dems may not want to be too hasty in repealing that 2 term limit thing for presidents...

if things keep heading the way the dems are steering, W could get his old house back.

(even if they don't change the term limits, papa bush still has another term due.)

[mark l.]

anybody got strong feelings, one way or the other, on DeMint?

he appears to be the 'tip of the spear'.

[seekeronos]

Here's hoping Ron Paul is still around in 2012. I'd much rather see him with some credible support.

Of course, pigs will take to the sky when that happens as well....

[BreakRoomLive]

A hilarious moment from some hot GOP on GOP action:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i0CMgcCOoG8