Is Gov. Jindal a hypocrite?

SouthernDemocrat said:

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.

Click to expand...

No, I see nothing wrong with a governor cutting taxes for his own state's citizen all the while pleading for more federal money for something the federal government is meant to be there to help with.

He's not hypocritical nor against conservative values for asking for money from the federal government to do something that the federal government was set up in part to provide support for.

He's not a NO GOVERNMENT Conservative, he's a small government one. That generally means the belief that the government should not be all encompassing, and that the states should have greater rights, but that there SHOULD still be a Federal Government and that Federal Government is there to fill some important roles that function better from a unified federal stand point than a state stand point.

Military is one of these, interestate infastructure is one of these things, and disaster relief is ALSO one of these things.

Is that conservatism? Does conservatism mean that states can cut taxes for their citizens while passing the buck to citizens in other states?

Click to expand...

No, conservatism is trying to cut taxes at the state and federal level and reduce the budget by getting rid of wasteful things that are not meant to be or needed to be done at those levels. Part of those taxes we pay into the federal government is distributed back out to the states, not necessarily in an equal manner, to the states based on the duties of the federal government and the needs.

Your over generalization of Conservative ideology is like saying that liberalism means that states and the federal government will tax your money to give it to people that screw up, can't get a job, or don't want to work despite them paying a piddling amount, if any, of the taxes.

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.

Click to expand...

Yes, he followed conservative ideology in the state level...reducing taxes AND reducing state spending on friviolous things while ALSO following conservative ideology on reaching out to the federal government in assistance in regards to something that the federal government was made to actually assist with.

Marilyn Monroe said:

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.

Click to expand...

So, his state gets 1.78 for every dollar his state's citizens pay into the federal government. Is that a fair share?

SouthernDemocrat said:

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.

Click to expand...

This is true. If he is needing other states money, then he shouldn't be cutting his states taxes.

SouthernDemocrat said:

yet, you also talk about pork in federal spending and you also promote yourself as a conservative

Click to expand...

Federal Assistance for Disaster Relief isn't PORK. Pork is useless pet projects of the states paid for by the Federal Government that are out of the normal traditional pervue of the federal government (or generally additional pet projects that have nothing to do with a given bill but at are attached to it with an earmark in hope of forcing it throguh).

Federal Assistance for disaster relief is an actual job and purpose of the federal government and is something it is there specifically for states to ask for when its needed.

Zyphlin said:

No, I see nothing wrong with a governor cutting taxes for his own state's citizen all the while pleading for more federal money for something the federal government is meant to be there to help with.

He's not hypocritical nor against conservative values for asking for money from the federal government to do something that the federal government was set up in part to provide support for.

He's not a NO GOVERNMENT Conservative, he's a small government one. That generally means the belief that the government should not be all encompassing, and that the states should have greater rights, but that there SHOULD still be a Federal Government and that Federal Government is there to fill some important roles that function better from a unified federal stand point than a state stand point.

Military is one of these, interestate infastructure is one of these things, and disaster relief is ALSO one of these things.



No, conservatism is trying to cut taxes at the state and federal level and reduce the budget by getting rid of wasteful things that are not meant to be or needed to be done at those levels. Part of those taxes we pay into the federal government is distributed back out to the states, not necessarily in an equal manner, to the states based on the duties of the federal government and the needs.

Your over generalization of Conservative ideology is like saying that liberalism means that states and the federal government will tax your money to give it to people that screw up, can't get a job, or don't want to work despite them paying a piddling amount, if any, of the taxes.



Yes, he followed conservative ideology in the state level...reducing taxes AND reducing state spending on friviolous things while ALSO following conservative ideology on reaching out to the federal government in assistance in regards to something that the federal government was made to actually assist with.

Click to expand...

See, I thought conservative ideology as to the role of the federal government was that the federal government should provide aid to the states when the states are faced with a disaster that the state alone cannot address it. Therefore, one should not cut taxes in a state while asking for more federal money. Because then what your saying is that we don't care about trying to help ourselves at all, we just want money from everyone else.

SouthernDemocrat said:

So, his state gets 1.78 for every dollar his state's citizens pay into the federal government. Is that a fair share?

Click to expand...

We are not a socialist society where the government is meant to be figuring out what everyones "fair share" is.

If for some reason there was an issue to where air travel was driven up to such a costly price that it was almost mandatory for our economy that companies start delivering things over land, I would not be opposed to the Federal Government going into states in the middle of the country with less built up and upkept high way system and investing a large amount of money to increase it and create a major high way across the middle of the country so that trade could be made easier and for it to help our economy. I would not mind this despite it basically meaning those states would not be needing to spend their own money to make these highways despite the fact it WILL help them a bit by increasing their personal economy. I don't mind the fact that those states are likely, during that time, to be getting far more dollars per citizen than people in California or New York.

Why?

Because interstate infastructure is something the government SHOULD give assistance to the states to construct when its needed, because while it may be extra beneficial to those states it is in the interest of the entire country for the action to be done and its within the traditional purposes of the government.

Much the same, disaster relief is something the Federal Government is set up to help provide. On the state side of things, that relief is being done through reducing taxes thus providing money BACK into the hands of the citizens, allowing them to use that money to repair and rebuild and to also invest it into their state economy that helps to also revitalize it. Bobby Jindal can not make the federal government reduce the taxes of Louisianans to help with this recovery, so he requests money from the federal government for something the federal government was set up to help with so that it can also be used to get the people and the economy of his state back on their feet after a NATURAL disaster.

SouthernDemocrat said:

See, I thought conservative ideology as to the role of the federal government was that the federal government should provide aid to the states when the states are faced with a disaster that the state alone cannot address it. Therefore, one should not cut taxes in a state while asking for more federal money. Because then what your saying is that we don't care about trying to help ourselves at all, we just want money from everyone else.

Click to expand...

The state can not provide the aid it needs by itself. Honestly, you're coming at this from the very start with an answer in your mind and refusing to even open your eyes to anything else. You're coming to it with a stereotype in your head of what conservatism is based on your dislike of it as a liberal.

If Bobby Jindal raises taxes so that the state has more money to give aid back to its people, then that takes money out of his citizens hands. Those citizens then have less money to spend on repairing their houses, buying new cars or furniture, paying for funnerals, and just spending in general. That in turns damages the economy of Louisiana causing issues with businesses trying to rebuild and hire people, possibly leading to people being laid off. This damage in the economy causes the state to get less revenue in regards to taxes brought in from businesses and purchases, which reduces the amount of aid they get.

So yes, Bobby Jindal could've raised taxes and had more money for the state to provide aid to the people. However, it'd likely be a net push to a net loss because the money he's using to provide aid is the same money he just took away from his citizens. Its a possible net loss because now that money has to go through the beuracracy, which in and of itself costs money to run and operate, where as if the taxes are reduced there is no cost involved with getting that aid back to the people because its already there by not being taken from them in the first place

EITHER WAY, there is not enough there in that state for the state to recover on its own so either way they would need to ask for Federal Assistance...as they should.

Indeed, you've made the case backwards. Bobby Jindal would've been a HYPOCRITE if faced with this issue he raised taxes instead of lowering them, believing that the state government taking peoples money and then providing aid for them with that money how the state see's fit is the BETTER option than allowing the citizens to keep that money and use it for their own aid as they see fit.

Alex said:

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.

Click to expand...

Personally, I think if the kids are living and benefiting from the money then they should have no big whiny fest over paying it back. They are all profiting from it, so they shouldn't care.

I would love to ask my kids to pay for some of my loans cause they reaped the benfits of them, and never lifted a finger when they were growing up to help me or their dad with any household chores. I'd say most kids are extremely ungrateful so I don't feel sorry for them.

The only people who say they are things we don't need are people who are too cheap to pay for them, but when they'll need it it will be there, and they won't refuse to take it.

SouthernDemocrat said:

So, his state gets 1.78 for every dollar his state's citizens pay into the federal government. Is that a fair share?

Click to expand...

Is Louisiana a poor state? Seems like it must be. I'd say he probably needs to shut up.

His speech got on my nerves like the first 2 or 3 minutes. It was too preachy, and nobody is going for that long-winded preachy stuff anymore. All that talk about his Dad looking through the yellow-pages. Yeah I'll bet he did that. I did that, too, and it never got me a job.

He should have said one paragraph. It's too much spending, too much pork, and we don't have the money to pay for it. That would have been plenty. Nobody wants to listen to all the great endeavors of the parents, cause usually they aren't true, and everybody knows this. Usually you get lucky acquiring a job, or some relative knows somebody.

SouthernDemocrat said:

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.

Click to expand...

Nice red herring, but gay sex in mens' bathrooms is a criminal act.

danarhea said:

Nice red herring, but gay sex in mens' bathrooms is a criminal act.

Click to expand...

Haha, see I thought that true conservatives believed that taking more from others than you pay in yourself was stealing.

SouthernDemocrat said:

Haha, see I thought that true conservatives believed that taking more from others than you pay in yourself was stealing.

Click to expand...

It essentially is, but if it is offered or legally available, only a fool would turn it down. Doesn't mean you can't push to end it because, if it does end, then every state is still on a level playing field.

Zyphlin said:

The state can not provide the aid it needs by itself. Honestly, you're coming at this from the very start with an answer in your mind and refusing to even open your eyes to anything else. You're coming to it with a stereotype in your head of what conservatism is based on your dislike of it as a liberal.

If Bobby Jindal raises taxes so that the state has more money to give aid back to its people, then that takes money out of his citizens hands.

*****Snip*****

HYPOCRITE if faced with this issue he raised taxes instead of lowering them, believing that the state government taking peoples money and then providing aid for them with that money how the state see's fit is the BETTER option than allowing the citizens to keep that money and use it for their own aid as they see fit.

Click to expand...

Ok, first off, I did not argue that he should have raised taxes in his state. I said that so long as his state was taking in far more federal money than it citizens paid in, then bragging about cutting taxes in his state was hypocritical.

Secondly, it seems to me that your position is that its perfectly ok for the citizens of LA to get a tax cut and thus keep more of their money at the expense of taxpayers in other states. Spin this how you want, but thats a fact. Even most liberals would not see that at as an appropriate use to federal taxpayer money.

To argue that I am over simplifying conservatism is absurd. Conservatives have long argued against wealth transfers. That is a pillar of conservatism. This is exactly what Jindal engages in when he cuts his states taxes, then begs Washington for money.

SouthernDemocrat said:

Ok, first off, I did not argue that he should have raised taxes in his state. I said that so long as his state was taking in far more federal money than it citizens paid in, then bragging about cutting taxes in his state was hypocritical.

Secondly, it seems to me that your position is that its perfectly ok for the citizens of LA to get a tax cut and thus keep more of their money at the expense of taxpayers in other states. Spin this how you want, but thats a fact. Even most liberals would not see that at as an appropriate use to federal taxpayer money.

To argue that I am over simplifying conservatism is absurd. Conservatives have long argued against wealth transfers. That is a pillar of conservatism. This is exactly what Jindal engages in when he cuts his states taxes, then begs Washington for money.

Click to expand...

If every other state but a few are cutting taxes while lobbying for Federal money, I don't see the problem with Jindal doing it. He can push to end it, but with the money available, he should take it. As governor of Louisiana, he is responsible for his constituents before constituents in New York, but if New York wants to keep giving Louisiana money at their own expense, then New York has no reason to complain.

SouthernDemocrat said:

Secondly, it seems to me that your position is that its perfectly ok for the citizens of LA to get a tax cut and thus keep more of their money at the expense of taxpayers in other states. Spin this how you want, but thats a fact. Even most liberals would not see that at as an appropriate use to federal taxpayer money.

Click to expand...

You can try to dumb down my point and restate it however you want to make it fit your little world you're trying to magically create like a fairy tale here, doesn't mean its true.

Yes, its okay for a governor to give his citizens a tax cut while taking money from the federal government for services the federal government was established to give such money for.

No, the idiotic thing you're trying to say that I said that I never did said is not my stance, because there is this amazing thing that I guess you never heard of as Context. Your state taking money to finance inane studies and things that the Federal Government is not supposed to be there to help states do, bad. Your state taking money to finance rebuilding after a natural disaster when thats something the Federal Government is supposed to be there to help with, good.

But yeah, its pretty obvious an actual honest, reasonable, intelligent debate isn't what you were searching for.

danarhea said:

If every other state but a few are cutting taxes while lobbying for Federal money, I don't see the problem with Jindal doing it. He can push to end it, but with the money available, he should take it. As governor of Louisiana, he is responsible for his constituents before constituents in New York, but if New York wants to keep giving Louisiana money at their own expense, then New York has no reason to complain.

Click to expand...

You know its hypocrisy. Louisiana has been one of the biggest recipients of federal largess for decades. Jindal brought in pork when he was a congressman for his state, ensuring that his state always got in a lot more than it paid in. As governor, he has lobbied for more federal money while cutting his states taxes. What is hypocrisy if that isn't?

His state would be on the level of a third world nation if it were not for decades of wealth transfers from other states to his, and he participated in it. Does Ron Paul go cup in hand to Washington to beg for money for his state? I guess by yall's logic he could and would not be a hypocrite for doing so.

SouthernDemocrat said:

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?

Click to expand...

Was Jindal a governor or a state representative to the national government when he ask for assistance due to an emergency that was out of the state's control? He was a state representative so he had no power over state taxes. When he did become governor the money was already received and probably most spent, so it was then out of his hands also.

The citizens of Louisiana pay federal taxes as any other citizen in any state, so they are entitled to receive emergency aid as any other.

$1.78 : 1 sounds to me like he was doing a hellava job for his state.

Alex said:

Was Jindal a governor or a state representative to the national government when he ask for assistance due to an emergency that was out of the state's control? He was a state representative so he had no power over state taxes. When he did become governor the money was already received and probably most spent, so it was then out of his hands also.

The citizens of Louisiana pay federal taxes as any other citizen in any state, so they are entitled to receive emergency aid as any other.

Click to expand...

So its your position that there is nothing hypocritical at all for a governor to cut his citizens taxes, the same year he goes cup in hand to Washington to beg for more money, all the while his state getting 1.75 back from the federal government for every dollar it pays in?

You don't live there so its coming out of your pocket.

TOJ said:

$1.78 : 1 sounds to me like he was doing a hellava job for his state.

Click to expand...

Yes, quite the welfare queen indeed.

SouthernDemocrat said:

Yes, quite the welfare queen indeed.

Click to expand...

lol, you're a democrat! :mrgreen:

SouthernDemocrat said:

So its your position that there is nothing hypocritical at all for a governor to cut his citizens taxes, the same year he goes cup in hand to Washington to beg for more money, all the while his state getting 1.75 back from the federal government for every dollar it pays in?

Click to expand...

It is my position that he is not a hypocrite for receiving federal dollars in an emergency situation and then cutting taxes on state citizens for reasons already stated.

SouthernDemocrat said:

You don't live there so its coming out of your pocket.

Click to expand...

I am relieved to know that my federal taxes are going toward exactly what they are meant to do and are not being wasted in this case.

SouthernDemocrat said:

Yes, quite the welfare queen indeed.

Click to expand...

I don't think he set up the rules of the game. If the Feds are handing it out, he would be stupid not to take it.

Same with the various employment programs. You may not think they should exist, but if they do you are a fool to put your company at a competitive disadvantage by not participating.

Alex said:

It is my position that he is not a hypocrite for receiving federal dollars in an emergency situation and then cutting taxes on state citizens for reasons already stated.



I am relieved to know that my federal taxes are going toward exactly what they are meant to do and are not being wasted in this case.

Click to expand...

I guess I am ironically coming at this from the right of the supposed conservatives on here because its my position that federal disaster aid and aid to the states is to be used assist the states when the states and localities cannot afford to contend with a disaster or provide needed services on their own.

It is my position that federal aid should not be used to subsidize a tax cut for the citizens of a state. Because if that state can afford a tax cut, then they could have afforded to provide more of those needed services or disaster aid on their own. If a state wants to give its citizens a tax cut, then great, but that state should not cut their taxes when receiving far more money money from the federal government than they pay in, or the federal assistance should be reduced to what the state pays in. Otherwise, its blatant theft from other taxpayers in other states.

Lets say you are helping someone out through a hard time. Say they had their hours cut back from work and you were helping them out in the short term with their bills. How would you feel if while you were helping them out, they told their wife that she could go ahead and quite her job and become a stay at home mother. Most people would then rightly feel they were being taken advantage of, well thats exactly what Jindal is doing.

SouthernDemocrat said:

I guess I am ironically coming at this from the right of the supposed conservatives on here because its my position that federal disaster aid and aid to the states is to be used assist the states when the states and localities cannot afford to contend with a disaster or provide needed services on their own.

It is my position that federal aid should not be used to subsidize a tax cut for the citizens of a state. Because if that state can afford a tax cut, then they could have afforded to provide more of those needed services or disaster aid on their own. If a state wants to give its citizens a tax cut, then great, but that state should not cut their taxes when receiving far more money money from the federal government than they pay in, or the federal assistance should be reduced to what the state pays in. Otherwise, its blatant theft from other taxpayers in other states.

Lets say you are helping someone out through a hard time. Say they had their hours cut back from work and you were helping them out in the short term with their bills. How would you feel if while you were helping them out, they told their wife that she could go ahead and quite her job and become a stay at home mother. Most people would then rightly feel they were being taken advantage of, well thats exactly what Jindal is doing.

Click to expand...

Jindal did not cut taxes when the money was received. He received it as a state representative to the federal government. He had no power over taxes at that time.

I find it irrelevant that Louisiana received more money than they put in because it was an emergency that required more money then they put in. That is exactly what the money is for and it is not being wasted, regardless of how much was given.