That’s true. My statement was probably too broad of a generalization, and more true for non-white voters as a whole than for immigrants specifically. But immigrants and minorities have skewed heavily Democratic in the last two presidential elections, and all other things being equal, I don’t see any reason why Jindal would have any particular appeal for them (besides Indians, and even there the appeal might be limited).

I thought the entire concept of Jindal was to show that the republican party welcomed diversity and to take away a percentage of the minority vote away from Obama. I dont just mean Indian Americans or even Asian Americans…I meant Hispanics…since Jindal (being Catholic and brown) can appeal to them.

Snopes debunks the rest of your BS: http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthcertificate.asp

But hey, don’t let facts get in the way of good propaganda.

uff. That again? Hey, he’s in. Still, may as well get the facts straight then. The issue(s) is(are) Obama’s purported Kenyan birth, Indonesian passport, and lack of a birth certificate. People go to a lot of trouble to obey the born on American soil rule–ever heard of anchor babies. Other countries have rules about birth certificates–one poor kid in “Born in brothels” almost didn’t get to visit America and display her photos, because her mom couldn’t find her birth certificate. Muslim father/stepfather? Irrelevant. Constitutional recipe for America: take church and state, separate. On the up and up, this is an opportune time to introduce legislation waving the annoying requirements for authentic birth certficates for government jobs and passports. I do believe a trend has started and it’s only democratic that we all benefit. Getting a secret clearance, much less a top secret clearance, would be way less of a bitch.

i hope you are not right. there are certain elements of the GOP platform that are very appealing to the non-refugee type immigrant/minority community regardless of the social stratum they occupy.

If he is an anti, then he alienates pretty much any immigrant minority group.

Immigrants/minorities are unlikely to vote GOP anyway, even for Jindal.

i will give you a personal example. a month ago i offered a guy a part time position. he wanted me to put his homemaker wife on the payroll because he didnt want to lose out on the unemployment benefit which he would lose if he went above a certain $ per month. the guy is smart. i could see a future for him with us but once someone’s lips are champed around the government’s teats it’s hard to let go. it just rubbed me raw and i passed on him. this is a person’s example – but it works at every level of an organization. so i agree with you in principle. jindal’s justification is also something i agree with. there is no such thing as free money. the bailout will have to be paid back – so it makes sense. admittedly i first started listening to him because he is indian – but i am still listening because he talks well and he makes good sense.
to head back to abhi’s question – i dont think this is as much strategy as it is a principled stand. it’s his job to govern and he seems to be making good decisions. one can even call it a gamble, because he’s going against the tide. additionally, as the jokesters put it, it doesnt keep him from accepting the money … if it can be used elsewhere in infrastructure etc.

concentrating on capital gains policy is good IMO; but those kind of policy instruments (likely) do little for recently unemployed salaried blue-collar workers. intuitively, such people probably do not have opportunities for making huge capital gains in the first place, right?

from my personal experience allowing busineses to keep more money incentivizes them to hire more to create more wealth. offering salaried blue-collar workers money is good if it keeps the wolf from the door, but it doesnt create new jobs.

I agree with the idea of a one-time cushion as opposed to a monthly take home. good link on chetty.

also relevant here are raj chetty’s interesting findings on unemployment benefits:

One suggestive finding is that when unemployment insurance becomes more generous, not everybody lingers on benefits. The median job-loser in the US has $200 when he loses his job and is unlikely to be able to borrow much, but some people have plenty of money in the bank when they find themselves unemployed. Chetty found that those with savings do not take any longer to find a job when paid more generous benefits, while those with little in the kitty when they lose their jobs do. This suggests that those without their own cash reserves are using unemployment benefits to buy themselves time to find the right job

.

concentrating on capital gains policy is good IMO; but those kind of policy instruments (likely) do little for recently unemployed salaried blue-collar workers. intuitively, such people probably do not have opportunities for making huge capital gains in the first place, right? a case could be made for trickle-down gains or some kind of big multiplier effect on the economy from modifying capital gains policy, but only if you show me the money first

Thanks. Fixed.