• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is Gov. Jindal a hypocrite?

Hypocrit or not?


  • Total voters
    14

ALiberalModerate

Pragmatist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
32,333
Reaction score
22,557
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Ok, the following is an excerpt from Governor Jindal's speech:

"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 Louisiana, we took a different approach. Since I became governor, we cut more than 250 earmarks from our state budget. And to create jobs for our citizens, we cut taxes six times — including the largest income tax cut in the history of our state.
...

You can read the entire text of the speech here if you want: Full Text of Governor Bobby Jindal’s Response To President Obama’s Speech to Congress…

But basically, its standard small government conservatism. He is advocating for a very limited government, for tax cuts, against saddling future generations with debt, and so on.

So why is it that Gov. Jindal as a congressman and as governor has so many times went to Washington cup in hand for Federal taxpayer money for his state?

Jindal asks Congress for aid; local levees on the list

Kirsten B. Mitchell
NYT Regional Media Group

Published: Wednesday, September 24, 2008 at 3:00 p.m.
Last Modified: Wednesday, September 24, 2008 at 3:47 p.m.
WASHINGTON — Gov. Bobby Jindal returned to Capitol Hill on Tuesday to plead with former colleagues for millions of dollars in federal disaster aid for hurricane-wrecked Louisiana.

Jindal asks Congress for aid; local levees on the list | HoumaToday.com | The Courier | Houma, LA

Jindal bragged in his speech about cutting taxes in Louisiana and talked about the moral imperative to not saddle future generations with debt.

Sounds great huh. Well, he left something out. His gave his citizens a tax break while his state gets back a $1.78 in federal spending for every dollar its citizens pay for federal income taxes (and that does not even count Katrina money). The Tax Foundation - Federal Taxing and Spending Benefit Some States, Leave Others Paying Bill

So basically, it seems that Jindal would rather taxpayers in other states pay for his state's needs, and future generations from other states get saddled with the debt.

So, is he a hypocrite or not? Please explain your answer.
 
Last edited:
Ok, the following is an excerpt from Governor Jindal's speech:



You can read the entire text of the speech here if you want: Full Text of Governor Bobby Jindal’s Response To President Obama’s Speech to Congress…

But basically, its standard small government conservatism. He is advocating for a very limited government, for tax cuts, against saddling future generations with debt, and so on.

So why is it that Gov. Jindal as a congressman and as governor has so many times went to Washington cup in hand for Federal taxpayer money for his state?



Jindal asks Congress for aid; local levees on the list | HoumaToday.com | The Courier | Houma, LA

Jindal bragged in his speech about cutting taxes in Louisiana and talked about the moral imperative to not saddle future generations with debt.

Sounds great huh. Well, he left something out. His gave his citizens a tax break while his state gets back a $1.78 in federal spending for every dollar its citizens pay for federal income taxes (and that does not even count Katrina money). The Tax Foundation - Federal Taxing and Spending Benefit Some States, Leave Others Paying Bill

So basically, it seems that Jindal would rather taxpayers in other states pay for his state's needs, and future generations from other states get saddled with the debt.

So, is he a hypocrite or not? Please explain your answer.

Why does Jindal ask for Federal money? Because he can. He may be against a lot of it, but face it - If it's there, he'll go for it. So would I. That doesn't mean he can't argue against it. If just about everyone else is getting a piece of it, then why not Louisiana? It does not make Jindal a hypocrite.
 
yes, he is a hypocrite.
 
Ok, the following is an excerpt from Governor Jindal's speech:



You can read the entire text of the speech here if you want: Full Text of Governor Bobby Jindal’s Response To President Obama’s Speech to Congress…

But basically, its standard small government conservatism. He is advocating for a very limited government, for tax cuts, against saddling future generations with debt, and so on.

So why is it that Gov. Jindal as a congressman and as governor has so many times went to Washington cup in hand for Federal taxpayer money for his state?



Jindal asks Congress for aid; local levees on the list | HoumaToday.com | The Courier | Houma, LA

Jindal bragged in his speech about cutting taxes in Louisiana and talked about the moral imperative to not saddle future generations with debt.

Sounds great huh. Well, he left something out. His gave his citizens a tax break while his state gets back a $1.78 in federal spending for every dollar its citizens pay for federal income taxes (and that does not even count Katrina money). The Tax Foundation - Federal Taxing and Spending Benefit Some States, Leave Others Paying Bill

So basically, it seems that Jindal would rather taxpayers in other states pay for his state's needs, and future generations from other states get saddled with the debt.

So, is he a hypocrite or not? Please explain your answer.

Unless I missed something, the report doesn't specify that it excludes Katrina money. It makes perfect sense that several of the highest ranks are southern states who were most affected by the disaster.
 
Why does Jindal ask for Federal money? Because he can. He may be against a lot of it, but face it - If it's there, he'll go for it. So would I. That doesn't mean he can't argue against it. If just about everyone else is getting a piece of it, then why not Louisiana? It does not make Jindal a hypocrite.

Were you able to write that with a straight face?

Let's apply that defense to other situations:

Why does Larry Craig ask for solicit gay sex in bathrooms? Because he can. He may be against gay sex, but face it - If it's there, he'll go for it. So would I. That doesn't mean he can't argue against it. If just about everyone else he knows is getting gay sex in public bathrooms, then why not Larry Craig? It does not make Larry Craig a hypocrite.
 
Unless I missed something, the report doesn't specify that it excludes Katrina money. It makes perfect sense that several of the highest ranks are southern states who were most affected by the disaster.

Its the fiscal year before Katrina money started flowing.
 
So wait, he wasn't even governor yet?

No, he was a congressman representing LA bringing home that 1.78 of pork for every dollar paid in.

Thats the problem, his arguments are such a joke that even he can't live by them.
 
Carefully reading the text of Jindal's speech I find nothing that makes me believe he is a hypocrite.

"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?"

I think the rebuilding of a state devastated by something as major as a hurricane is needed. The state could have employed other methods of getting money like nationwide fundraising though, but that is no guarantee to get back enough money to recoup the costs and have enough left over to do the job it is meant to do.

If the money was there in the federal government to help then I say take it. This was an emergency which the state of Louisiana was not at fault and it required assistance. The aid was not needed due to the irresponsibility of a state government.
 
Not in the least. Correct me if I'm wrong but his speech didn't say the federal government should do nothing. That it has no roll in anything and should just be there to be a bump on a log.

Financial Assistance after a major natural disaster is something that the federal government is set up and made for. Indeed, I agree fully with him asking more money for his state for that, as I'd MUCH rather my tax dollars going to a function the federal government should most definitely be a part of (giving financial assistance to states after a major natural disaster) then going to a state like California or Seatle to fund studying of bear DNA or the affects on the spotted owl population or something else of that sort.

It does not make Bobby Jindal a hypocrite to work within the system. Has he said that all state governors should never ask for Federal money? Was that a principle he ran on? Did he run for governor by saying he'd do all he could for the people of Louisiana? If he did, then he'd be a liar if he didn't do this.

I work in the federal government and I'll happily tell you how budgets work here.

If a federal agency is approaching the end of the Fiscal Year and they have spent under their budget I'll tell you what doesn't happen. They don't go "Congress, our spending this year was a good 5% under our budget so next year we need you to reduce our budget by 5% to save the tax payers money."

No, instead, there is generally a mass spending spree where pet projects are invested in, luxury supplies are bought, and other frivilous things are done to reach the maximum of the budget. This then allows the agency to go to the government that next year and say "See, we need a HIGHER budget".

So we come to the current budget. As a governor, Jindal knows that that money is basically going to get spent one way or another once that budget is made. Its not being saved. Now, he can do one of two things. He can not request money for a legitimate purpose that the federal government was set up to help with thus having money not go to his constituents and instead likely going to funding something that is far less important on the scale of what the Federal Government is SUPPOSED to be providing....or....he can ask for that money, help the people of his state, and allow the federal government to do a job its actually meant to do.

No, Bobby Jindal is not a hypocrite.
 
Carefully reading the text of Jindal's speech I find nothing that makes me believe he is a hypocrite.

"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?"

I think the rebuilding of a state devastated by something as major as a hurricane is needed. The state could have employed other methods of getting money like nationwide fundraising though, but that is no guarantee to get back enough money to recoup the costs and have enough left over to do the job it is meant to do.

If the money was there in the federal government to help then I say take it. This was an emergency which the state of Louisiana was not at fault and it required assistance. The aid was not needed due to the irresponsibility of a state government.

So then why cut taxes for his states citizens when you are still going to Washington and pleading for more taxpayer money? It seems to me that a small government true conservative would want his own state to pay for their needs and only ask the federal government for additional money if his state when his citizens could not afford to pay for it themselves. Right?
 
He is a politician, so there is a strong chance that he is a hypocrite. Though on this specific case I can see why the hypocrisy exists. One may be against large government, but that money is going out and why not get your State some of the pie especially when it's been wrecked so thoroughly? It takes a strong strong man, stronger than most politicians (almost all politicians...even Obama) to be able to stand on principle alone. His State was suffering, he went after the money that was being thrown out. He may work towards eradicating the irresponsible handing out of money in the future (yeah right...I don't buy that, so maybe he's not a hypocrite, maybe he's just a liar. He is a politician after all).

Either or, I don't expect a lot of integrity and honesty out of government and our politicians, so it's nothing surprising.
 
Its the fiscal year before Katrina money started flowing.

So you're saying the federal government didn't send any aid until the next year??

Additional $51.8 billion OK'd for federal aid package

Hurricane Katrina has set the federal government on a spending spree. The total of $62 billion approved by Congress is already more than any amount spent on any previous domestic natural disaster. It's more than the budget for the Department of Homeland Security. And it will be spent within weeks.

Does the report ignore spending in September now?
 
He is a politician, so there is a strong chance that he is a hypocrite. Though on this specific case I can see why the hypocrisy exists. One may be against large government, but that money is going out and why not get your State some of the pie especially when it's been wrecked so thoroughly? It takes a strong strong man, stronger than most politicians (almost all politicians...even Obama) to be able to stand on principle alone. His State was suffering, he went after the money that was being thrown out. He may work towards eradicating the irresponsible handing out of money in the future (yeah right...I don't buy that, so maybe he's not a hypocrite, maybe he's just a liar. He is a politician after all).

Either or, I don't expect a lot of integrity and honesty out of government and our politicians, so it's nothing surprising.

So you see no hypocrisy in a small government conservative cutting his states taxes, all the while knowing his state gets far more in federal spending that it pays in, and pleading cup in hand for more federal tax dollars.

Either the guy is a hypocrite, or this is perfectly illustrative of just how impractical the conservatism that him and others like him preach is.
 
Show me where Jindal had said that states should never, ever accept federal aid, and I'll then agree that he is a hypocrite.
 
So you're saying the federal government didn't send any aid until the next year??

Additional $51.8 billion OK'd for federal aid package



Does the report ignore spending in September now?

The Federal Government Fiscal year ends in September.

Fiscal Year - Definition of the U.S. Government Fiscal Year - FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008

If you read your article, the spending went on to Fiscal 2006.

That 1.78 for ever dollar paid in that LA got in Fiscal 2005 was pork that Jindal and his fellow LA congressional delegation brought home to his state.
 
Show me where Jindal had said that states should never, ever accept federal aid, and I'll then agree that he is a hypocrite.

You do not see hypocrisy in cutting taxes for your citizens while the federal taxpayers in other states send you 1.78 for every dollar you pay in?
 
So then why cut taxes for his states citizens when you are still going to Washington and pleading for more taxpayer money? It seems to me that a small government true conservative would want his own state to pay for their needs and only ask the federal government for additional money if his state when his citizens could not afford to pay for it themselves. Right?

Except you seem to be either misinformed about small government conservatism or just being intentionally naive.

Very few conservatives that I know believe that small government = no government.

The Federal Government is there for a variety of reasons that a singular state can't do well but a group can. Military is one of them. National Disaster assistance is another.

The state struck by a National Disaster is ravaged, its economy turned upside down as are its people. While yes, I fault the city and state for not doing more BEFORE this and preparing to do things immedietely after, in the long run it falls more on the Federal level of things.

If a state is hit with a massive disaster such as this reducing taxes helps put money back in the hands of its ravaged citizens allowing them to get back on their feet and reinvest into the economy.

However, money is still needed to fix that economy. That is where the federal government comes in. That's one of the big purposes of the federal government and is something a Small Government conservative should not have much of an issue with a state seeking money for.

If he was asking money to study the DNA of Louisiana Crocodiles instead of using state money, I'd agree, hypocrite.

If he was asking for money to fund some state mueseum in New Orleans dedicated to the early people who lived there and made the port into what it is today, I'd agree, he's a hypocrite.

But he wasn't. He was asking money for disaster releif, something that the Federal Government should be there to help with even for a Small Government Conservative. You use that money to help rebuild the infastructure and get people on their feet, while also cutting the taxes in your state to spur that economy and put further money in their hands to get back on their feet after a tragic, horrendous, natural disaster.
 
You do not see hypocrisy in cutting taxes for your citizens while the federal taxpayers in other states send you 1.78 for every dollar you pay in?

Not at all, because this is a legitiamte needed service of the Federal Government and is exactly the type of thing our tax money should be going to.

It is FAR more in line with conservative thinking that the tax money we pay to the federal government goes to a state that is striken by a horrendous natural disaster so that they can rebuild, regroup, and re-energize their economy than it is for that tax money to go to a bunch of people that made ****ty choices and took out loans of more money than they could handle to buy houses they can't afford.

Your horrendous bastardize characterization of Conservatism and its stance on small government to make it seem like a No Government system is as idiotic as people saying a liberal philosophy is communism.
 
Except you seem to be either misinformed about small government conservatism or just being intentionally naive.

Very few conservatives that I know believe that small government = no government.

The Federal Government is there for a variety of reasons that a singular state can't do well but a group can. Military is one of them. National Disaster assistance is another.

The state struck by a National Disaster is ravaged, its economy turned upside down as are its people. While yes, I fault the city and state for not doing more BEFORE this and preparing to do things immedietely after, in the long run it falls more on the Federal level of things.

If a state is hit with a massive disaster such as this reducing taxes helps put money back in the hands of its ravaged citizens allowing them to get back on their feet and reinvest into the economy.

However, money is still needed to fix that economy. That is where the federal government comes in. That's one of the big purposes of the federal government and is something a Small Government conservative should not have much of an issue with a state seeking money for.

If he was asking money to study the DNA of Louisiana Crocodiles instead of using state money, I'd agree, hypocrite.

If he was asking for money to fund some state mueseum in New Orleans dedicated to the early people who lived there and made the port into what it is today, I'd agree, he's a hypocrite.

But he wasn't. He was asking money for disaster releif, something that the Federal Government should be there to help with even for a Small Government Conservative. You use that money to help rebuild the infastructure and get people on their feet, while also cutting the taxes in your state to spur that economy and put further money in their hands to get back on their feet after a tragic, horrendous, natural disaster.

So once again, you see nothing wrong with a governor cutting taxes for his own state's citizens all the while pleading for more federal money, and all the while knowing that his state has always paid in less to the federal government than it gets back in spending.

Is that conservatism? Does conservatism mean that states can cut taxes for their citizens while passing the buck to citizens in other states? Like I pointed out, he cut his state's income taxes knowing the his state gets 1.78 from the federal government for every dollar it pays in. He does not want his citizens to foot the bill for his states needs, he wants everyone else to.
 
So you see no hypocrisy in a small government conservative cutting his states taxes, all the while knowing his state gets far more in federal spending that it pays in, and pleading cup in hand for more federal tax dollars.

Either the guy is a hypocrite, or this is perfectly illustrative of just how impractical the conservatism that him and others like him preach is.

I didn't say that I see no hypocrisy. I believe I said "Though on this specific case I can see why the hypocrisy exists". In other words, I can understand the motivation behind it.
 
You do not see hypocrisy in cutting taxes for your citizens while the federal taxpayers in other states send you 1.78 for every dollar you pay in?

No. What is hypocrisy? you're making a leap in reasoning, an assumption, in order to label him.

You neglected to show me where he has said a state should never accept federal aid.
 
Last edited:
No. What is hypocrisy? you're making a leap in reasoning, an assumption, in order to label him.

Hypocrisy is defined as not acting or living according to the philosophy one espouses. If you brag about cutting taxes for your state, yet get far more in federal spending than your state pays in - yet, you also talk about pork in federal spending and you also promote yourself as a conservative - then unless getting more than you pay into the federal government, and then cutting your states taxes so that you are even more dependent on federal spending is a conservative ideal, then thats hypocrisy.

He is not taking the stance of: Hey we are trying as best we can to fund our states needs and are only asking the federal government for aid when we have to.

He is taking the stance of: Hey we cut taxes at a time when other states are funding our states needs. That is hypocrisy.
 
Last edited:
yes, he is a hypocrite.

His state's taxpayers pay Federal Income Taxes, so it would seem they deserve a piece of the pie regardless of what he believes personally.

Government has gotten way to large, so it's pretty hard not to have to take a fair share of the money for your state. Nothing wrong with bemoaning the consequences of all the spending cause one is not the direct result of his spending, but the government's spending, which he can't control.
 
Back
Top Bottom