Will you vote for this indian running for US president 2016?

Louisiana’s Governor Bobby Jindal 44, an Indian-American is running for US presidentship on 2016.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/25/us/politics/bobby-jindal-announces-bid-for-president.html?_r=0

Will he make a good US prez and will you vote for him? =P

The SAVE fiasco is enough for me to not vote for him.

Nope, I wouldn't vote for him nor for Jeb Bush for that matter, we already had more than enough with one retard as president we don't need another.

What is this SAVE fiasco?

At first it's confusing as heck until you realize what a joke it is.

"It would assess a fee of about $1,500 per higher education student and raise about $350 million total, but only on paper. Students wouldn’t have to pay anything because of an offsetting tax credit for the $1,500. Nor would universities receive any new money.

However, the SAVE fund would create a tax credit for the $350 million that Jindal could use to offset $350 million of the new revenue that legislators are proposing to raise."

No I won't, but that decision has nothing to do with his being an Indian-American. I just can't bring myself to vote for either a Democratic or a Republican candidate. I'd probably have voted for Bernie Sanders if he'd run as an independent, but since he's running as a Democratic candidate, even he is off-limits for me.

Would that there were a Putin-approved, Kremlin-installed puppet that I could vote for.

I don't agree with his views so no.

Him being Indian is irrelevant but in the grand scheme of things, he's hardly electable because of that. The presidential ticket (especially the GOP) is hardly diverse.

Not likely.

I'll consider a candidate that is NOT a republican or democrat, IS for complete legalization of marijuana, is for the complete removal of the federal reserve including total tax reform.

This sock puppet is likely none of that.

Not even going to vote, don't see the point of it.

Wait, that doesn't make any sense?

If you run for president I'll vote for you.

Would I vote for an American with Indian ancestry for president? Yes if I agreed with his policies.

But I don't think this is the candidate.

I have absolutely nothing against the Indian people...I work with a lot of them in my line of work...but I find Jindal's politics to be distasteful.

I don't think you fully realize the negative implications of the removal of the central bank. The Fed's actions largely saved us from a full-on depression.

That went swiftly over my head.

I think i'll run for presidentship of OT , but i'll likely lose the title to you 'again' HeHe

I don't know anything about him.

Not a chance of me voting for Bobby Jindal. Or most of the Republican candidates. Or most of the Democratic candidates

No, Jindal is a typical Republican and we have plenty of them already running. His says nothing special and shows no real inspirational qualities.

He's generic as generic comes just like Bush, Christie, and Rubio.

The problem with the Republican party is the fact they have radicalized these past 20 years to the point that there is absolutely no such thing as a moderate republican anymore... On the democrat side the only one I support is Bernie Sanders, and he is a independent running as a democrat.

What's people views on Hillary Clinton?I'm curious to know,as I am Canadian.

No, he's a radical religious fundamentalist, an immediate disqualifier for me.

@HoolaHoopMan - Including you here rather than responding twice

I'll try to explain this Jindal SAVE plan as best I can. Jindal signed Norquists anti-tax pledge which states that he would/will "oppose and veto any and all efforts to increase taxes." The loophole allowed in the pledge is that revenues could be raised without violating the pledge if they were counterbalanced by revenue cuts elsewhere.

Thus, Jindal devised a plan in which a fee would be levied on higher education (which would raise $350 million). At the same time, a tax credit would be created for students paying the fee (which would "pay back" the same $350 million). No money would actually change hands here - the students would never pay the fee because the tax credit would be "reimbursed" immediately.

He did this because the new "fee" doesn't count as a tax increase according to the Norquist pledge (fees don't count as taxes under the pledge). However, the tax credit counts as a tax cut! Under this scenario, Jindal has just created a "tax cut" of $350 million dollars and can now raise taxes by the amount of $350 million without breaking the pledge.

Which he has now done.

Yeah... I still don't get it :(

I think I understand the gist of it now. I don't understand what a tax credit is, but I get what he's doing: he signed a pledge not to raise taxes based on which fees don't count as so. He devised a plan where he levies a fee on higher education that the students won't incur since the tax credit his plan creates offsets that fee.

But what I don't understand is the endgame of this financial ruse. He levies $350 million in fees and then pays them back in tax credit. Is it possible that the money he levies is state money while the tax credit is federal money? That would explain this seemingly futile financial gambit.

You're thinking too hard - think like a politician :P

Their is no endgame other than to raise taxes without breaking the pledge. This is all 100% state money. Remember that between the "fee" and the "credit" no money changes hands. In terms of financials, it might as well not exist. The sole reason for them to exist is that one counts as lowering taxes while the other doesn't count as raising taxes.

I hate applying concepts like these to household situations, but it might help more than it hurts in this case. It would be like you renting out your spare bedroom to someone for $100 a month plus utilities and telling the tenant that you would never raise the rate. Then, a month later, raising the rate to $150 dollars, charging a $50 "utility bill processing fee", and giving him a $50 credit towards his utility bills.

Now the man pays $150 plus utilities each month, but you kindly explain to him that you didn't raise his rate because $50 credit for utility bills offsets the $50 rise in base rates and the $50 fee doesn't count towards the rate - it's simply a new fee levied.

I like prosperity, so no, I w and I think the rights, wants, and needs of the people outweigh the desires of the wealthy and big business, so I will not be voting for this clown, or any other Republican. Republicans are a complete disaster.

Sounds like mail-in rebates.

Charge every student $1,500 for *something*.

Generate $350 million by doing it.

Offer a $1,500 tax credit, hoping that x number of people just won't file for this particular tax credit on next year's tax return, which a certain number of people certainly won't.

Pay out for those who filed for the credit, but keep the rest.

Typical Republican golden shower economics...

@samusbeliskner: Keep thinking and voting that way and you will end up with nothing. Wait you are probably sucking on the government teat.

Why is that? Republican states are poorer, have worse education systems, lead the nation in violent crime and gun violence, and are the largest recipients of food stamps, medicaid, and welfare. On the other hand, Democratic states are the wealthiest, have better education systems, have less violent crime and less gun violence, and are wealthier.

Republican economy policies, gun policy, and education policies are all complete failures.

Don't believe it? Okay. Do a few simple web searches to see for yourself. Try things like:

"Republicans vs Democrats on the economy"

"Red states most dependent on government"

"States with the most gun violence"

"Poorest U.S. states"

I'll wait here until you come back and tell me how it's all some wild "leeeebural conspiracy", or something...

There isn't one Republican candidate that is worth a vote. Some are flawed, some are idiots, and some are celebrities trying to make a profit.

**** no

lol, i just read an article about that.

Funny stuff

He's Indian.

I'm sorry, but that makes no sense to me and I'll continue annoyingly soliciting you for explanation as I'm starting to get obsessed about figuring this out; apologies in advanced.

I still don't understand what Jindal gains by levying a fee that he offsets in tax credit. To refer to the household situation you adduced, what's the point of raising the rent by $50 if I'm going to offer my tenant an equal amount of money in the form of credit? To me, the situation sounds like it evens out at the end. The explanation @samusbeliskner gave does away with that evening-out outcome.

Haha, that's OK. It took me two days to fully understand this as well.

In the household analogy, the point of raising the rent $50 while offering a $50 credit AND charging a $50 "utility bill processing fee" is that I can charge him more while claiming I didn't raise his rates. If that sounds ridiculous to you then you're in good company. There's really nothing more to figure out on that front - it's a shell game allowing him to raise taxes while claiming he didn't.

With all due respect to samusbeliskner, his explanation is wrong. It's not like mail in rebates, no one has to due anything to get the credit, and the credit is, in fact, applied at the price time the "fee" is incurred, which is why money for either never exchanges hands.

Maybe we're hung up on the "point" of the shell game? On the point of raising taxes while claiming that you didn't? The pledge Jindal signed is created by an extremely powerful lobbyist, and nearly all national Republican politicians sign the thing. If they sign the pledge and break it, they are hammered in political ads by the group and typically see a significant drop in large-donor funding. Given the importance of never raising taxes to the GOP base and the reliance of politicians on large donors, that's a poison pill for a Republican attempting to run for president which Jindal was preparing to do at the time.

I feel we're starting to get somewhere so don't bash your head against the wall just yet. I now can say that I fully understand the ploy: it's nothing but a shell game to circumvent the pledge Jindal signed.

More importantly however, I agree that we're (rightfully) hung up on the point of the shell game. I still don't understand what Jindal gains at the end of the day. A potential Republican candidate wouldn't want to break the pledge or be accused of raising taxes for that wouldn't fare well with his constituents, or his donors. But why is he going to all this trouble? It sounds that he collects money that he offers right back without the money even changing hands. What gives? Am I looking at this from the wrong side? Is it possible that the tax credit he offers in lieu of the levied fee isn't actual money expended for the purpose? Or is it possible that a tertium quid is the party that incurs the financial burden of this ruse?

Money doesn't grow on trees. If Jindal is gaining something from this shell game then there's a surplus that he pockets. This is what I'm hung up on, the origin of that surplus.

@indzman: meh, i don't like that guy

When I think of Indian I think of a man of jewelry and gold, and someone that will shill his way out for profit. At least that's the vibe I get a lot in America.

Jindal doesn't get any money out of it, he gets a shot at the presidency.

He can't run for the presidency if his state is insolvent, and he can't run for the president if he breaks the pledge by raising taxes.

But his state was 1.6 billion dollars under water without much else he could cut politically. He had to raise more revenue.

Thus, the ploy above. The math looks something like this:

Tax Increase - Tax Credit + New Fee = New Revenue (and a balanced budget)

or

$350 million - $350 million + $350 million = $350 million in new revenue (and a balanced budget)

If that looks like a tax increase of $350 million to you, you'd be be right wrong because the + $350 million in new fees don't count as tax increases under the new pledge. That's a fee and not a tax increase. Why this doesn't count as a tax increase according to the pledge remains unstated, but it's likely for the same reason that the group responsible for the pledge is OK with the push to transfer current income tax revenue to consumption taxes.

Regardless, Jindal has been allowed to have his cake and eat it too. He has raised "taxes" in reality without raising "taxes" according to lobbyists. Now he can claim that he has a perfect record on tax increases because he never raised them, he never broke the pledge, and he won't get hammered by the lobbyists during his presidential run.

i'm joining the republican party to vote for trump in the primary

I'm not sure whether to cheer you on or weep in despair.

join me in support

trump is the president the us needs right now, but not the one it deserves

I now hear you loud and clear. To have a shot at the presidency, Jindal needs to balance his state's budget without alienating his constituents or donors by breaking the pledge. He came up with a shell game through which he raises taxes by $350 million that he offsets by an equal amount in tax credit. This seemingly even-out scenario does yield him revenues in the form of "processing fees" or something along those lines. This way he balances the budget, remains politically true to the pledge and remains entitled to a tax-increase clean record.

It took me that long to understand this ploy because I thought there were only two variables in the equation: the tax increase and the tax credit; I thought the fee and the tax increase are one and the same. Thanks for putting up with my annoying persistence.

I never bother learning about presidential wannabees until most of them have been culled down from 13 to 3 or 4. After that I get interested, generally around February.

But if you're asking if I would vote for someone or not vote for someone based purely on their ethnicity - then no. I generally decide based on what they have done and might do.

Talk about getting owned lol.