Hypocrisy at its finest

[PaulS]

On Friday, a devastating swarm of tornadoes swept through Kentucky. The state’s leading figures appealed for federal aid, which was promptly granted — and rightly so. Helping people and communities in need is what nations are supposed to do.
Observers couldn’t help noticing, however, that some of the Kentucky politicians asking for aid — notably Senator Rand Paul — had in the past not only opposed aid for other disaster-struck states but sneered at their pleas. What should we make of this hypocrisy?
The truth is that it runs deeper than “aid for me but not for thee.” Remarkably, if you look at how the federal budget affects U.S. regions, there’s a consistent pattern in which conservative states that preach the importance of self-reliance are in fact heavily subsidized by liberal states, especially in the Northeast.
The Rockefeller Institute publishes regular estimates of states’ “federal balance of payments” — the difference between the amount the feds spend in a state and the amount they collect in taxes. In Virginia and Maryland a lot of federal spending consists of the salaries of government workers. Elsewhere, however, it’s mainly Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, plus some military spending. Here’s what the map of per capita balances of payments looked like in 2019:

Topping the list of net beneficiaries was, yes, Kentucky, where residents received an average of $14,000 more from Washington than they paid in taxes. To put this in perspective, Kentucky’s 2019 net inflow of federal funds — $63 billion — was roughly 30 percent of the state’s G.D.P. that year.
Economic geographers often interpret regional economies using the “base-multiplier model.” The idea is that what drives a local economy is its “export base,” the stuff it sells to other places; the income generated by that export sector in turn supports jobs in local services, from health care to restaurants. The economy of New York City, for example, is largely driven by the financial industry; the money earned there directly or indirectly supports most of the city’s other jobs.
So what is Kentucky’s export base? Not the traditional industries: In 2019, the state, which has more than four million residents, had fewer than 6,000 coal miners, while the distilling industry — which, to be fair, has been growing — employed only about 5,000 people. On the other hand, more than 250,000 Kentuckians worked in health care and social assistance — and who do you think paid for a lot of that? So, in a real sense, Kentucky’s economy lives on federal dollars.
And that’s OK! The main reason Kentucky is such a large net recipient of federal funds is that the state is relatively poor — it’s in a region that has to some extent been economically stranded as production and wealth concentrate in large, highly educated metropolitan areas. As a lower-income state, Kentucky receives the full benefit of federal programs like Medicare, but pays relatively little in income or payroll taxes, so it gets much more than it pays in. And that is actually how the social safety net is supposed to work. We want individuals who for whatever reason are hurting financially to receive support from the more fortunate, which necessarily implies large transfers from rich states like New Jersey to lower-income states like Kentucky.
What’s not OK is when states that are huge net beneficiaries of progressive taxation and the social safety net preen and posture about self-reliance and the evils of big government. It’s even worse when they assert some kind of moral superiority over the metropolitan areas that pay their bills.
I mean, it’s amazing that we’re still doing the thing where small towns and rural areas are held up as the “real America,” where politicians from, say, Montana are still lecturing urbanites that they need to get out of the big cities. Yes, it would probably be a good thing if more New Yorkers had a sense of what life is like in Montana. But how many Montanans have a good sense of what life is like in Queens — which happens to have twice Montana’s population?
Not that Queens is the real America — or at least no more than anywhere else in this nation. We should see ourselves as one nation. And it would be nice if people in places like Kentucky both accepted that and acknowledged how much they benefit from being part of a greater whole.

[Jim in CT]

Paul, please provide details of McConnell and Paul opposing aid to other states that suffered. Did they simply not care that people
we’re suffering? or was there something else going on?

data shows that conservatives aren’t any less generous or charitable than liberals. we’ve discussed that ten times. i know you don’t like it, but that doesn’t make it false.

and when looking at the amount of federal taxes that go to certain states, you can’t just compare dollars. not every state has massive military basses for example, and states that do, will get federal money that other states don’t get, and there’s nothing “hypocritical” about that. there’s 100 reasons why certain states might get tons of federal money and there’s nothing improper about those funds. there may be some of what you’re describing, but you can’t just look at total dollars spent by state, that’s misleading.

federal funds going to a red state, isn’t necessarily a violation of conservatism. conservatives aren’t opposed to big spending on military, border security, etc. it’s not all welfare to individuals.

showing federal funds that are specifically allocated to things like individual welfare, comparing that by state, would be interesting. need to know why there more money going to certain states.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Paul, please provide details of McConnell and Paul opposing aid to other states that suffered. Did they simply not care that people
we’re suffering? Seems to me that Paul didn't care based on his past commentsor was there something else going on?Look it up. Paul's comments are well known.
Don't know anything about McConnell

data shows that conservatives aren’t any less generous or charitable than liberals. we’ve discussed that ten times. i know you don’t like it, but that doesn’t make it false.Never said it was false. but every time I've told you that it includes charity to their church/private school so my donation to my church really doesn't benefit the community at large the same as a donation to say the American Red Cross.

and when looking at the amount of federal taxes that go to certain states, you can’t just compare dollars. not every state has massive military basses for example, and states that do, will get federal money that other states don’t get, and there’s nothing “hypocritical” about that. there’s 100 reasons why certain states might get tons of federal money and there’s nothing improper about those funds. there may be some of what you’re describing, but you can’t just look at total dollars spent by state, that’s misleading.

federal funds going to a red state, isn’t necessarily a violation of conservatism. conservatives aren’t opposed to big spending on military, border security, etc. it’s not all welfare to individuals.

showing federal funds that are specifically allocated to things like individual welfare, comparing that by state, would be interesting. need to know why there more money going to certain states.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Bottom line is that the states which receive more $ from the Fed are mostly R leaning and the states that send more to the Fed then they receive are mostly D leaning yet those states which gladly take the $ from the Fed. criticize the govern/taxes and the D donor states.

If a state doesn't want stimulus $, don't take it but it seems hypocritical to complain about it and then gladly take the $.

[PaulS]

WASHINGTON — At her annual budget address this month, Gov. Kristi Noem, Republican of South Dakota, blamed President Biden’s economic policies for rising prices, derided the “giant handout” of federal stimulus funds and suggested that she had considered refusing the money over ideological objections.

But like many Republican officials, Ms. Noem has found it hard to say no to her state’s share of the $1.9 trillion pandemic relief aid that Democrats passed along party lines in March.

Ms. Noem explained to fellow legislators how critical those federal funds were to South Dakota and outlined how she would use some of the nearly $1 billion slated for her state to invest in local water projects, make housing more affordable and build new day care centers. For those questioning her choice to take the money, Ms. Noem, who has opposed Covid restrictions including shutdowns and mask mandates, said any pandemic-relief funds she rejected would have just gone to other states.

“It would be spent somewhere other than South Dakota,” Ms. Noem said. “The debt would still be incurred by the country, and our people would still suffer the consequences of that spending.” No state has declined the relief money, and if any had it would go back to the Treasury Department, not to other states.

Republican leaders across the country have been engaged in a similarly awkward dance over the past few months as they accept — and often champion — money from the $350 billion bucket of state and local aid included in the stimulus bill, which passed Congress without a single Republican vote. In some states, like Ohio and Arizona, Republican governors are spending the funds while attempting to undercut the law that allowed the money to flow. Other governors are faulting Congress for not giving their state enough money.

And, like their counterparts in Congress, many Republicans have blasted Mr. Biden’s stimulus bill for fueling inflation, even as they take the funds, and criticized Democrats for pushing for additional government spending plans.

“I urge President Biden and Democrats in D.C. to turn off the spigot of out-of-control spending and get inflation under control,” said Gov. Greg Gianforte, Republican of Montana, whose state has used some of its $906 million in stimulus money to invest in nursing homes and return-to-work bonuses.

Gov. Ron DeSantis, Republican of Florida, complained last week that the federal formula for allocating money to states based on their jobless rate had essentially penalized Florida for not imposing lockdowns and allowing businesses to remain open during the pandemic.

“I think you’d have to acknowledge that we got the short end of the stick compared to these other states,” Mr. DeSantis said.


Florida, which was allotted a total of $8.8 billion, has so far received about $3.4 billion, which Mr. DeSantis said would go toward infrastructure, transportation and work force retention. The governor justified keeping the money by arguing that the federal government fueled economic disruption with shutdowns and vaccine and mask mandates that he opposed.

[Jim in CT]

if the feds are going to spend money, as a republican, i wouldn’t feel betrayed by a republican governor who secured some of that money for my state.

Once the federal government had decided to spend the money (which all of us, including Governor Noems constituents, pay for), why would she turn it down. How would that help her constituents?

Paul, every single lefty here bashed Trump’s tax cuts. How many of you threw that money in the toilet on principle? Answer - zero.

it’s an extremely stupid argument.

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by PaulS

If a state doesn't want stimulus $, don't take it but it seems hypocritical to complain about it and then gladly take the $.

like when democrats complain there's too much special interest money in politics and then take huge donations from special interests

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

if the feds are going to spend money, as a republican, i wouldn’t feel betrayed by a republican governor who secured some of that money for my state.

Once the federal government had decided to spend the money (which all of us, including Governor Noems constituents, pay for)althought the D leaning states pay more on a per capita basis. , why would she turn it down. How would that help her constituents? It it helped her constituents she should spend so much time bashing it.

Paul, every single lefty here bashed Trump’s tax cuts. How many of you threw that money in the toilet on principle? Answer - zero.

it’s an extremely stupid argument.

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Trump's taxes cuts caused my taxes to increase. SALT.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Trump's taxes cuts caused my taxes to increase. SALT.

I'm sure the money went to a good cause in Kansas or some other republican state full of poor idiots

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Trump's taxes cuts caused my taxes to increase. SALT.

ok.

would you expect everyone who criticized the tax cuts who got a tax cut, to keep that money, or refuse it?

is any democrats a hypocrite according to you, who kept that money?


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Trump's taxes cuts caused my taxes to increase. SALT.

the D states pay more because they’re wealthier. I thought democrats were all about the rich paying their fair share. Now you’re complaining that rich states pay more in federal income tax than poor states?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Trump's taxes cuts caused my taxes to increase. SALT.

you don’t get it.

saying the spending is a bad idea, and taking your share once the spending is approved, isn’t the same thing.

when a massive spending bill is being debated, it’s one thing to oppose it if you think it’s a bad idea. but once it’s approved, that means her residents are going to pay for it. so at that point, there’s no rational reason for her to refuse the money.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Not again

[Jim in CT]

Paul and Pete -

Apparently ( if the article is correct), when Paul voted against previous relief bills….he voted for the original
relief, but when congress voted to send additional ( subsequent) relief, he wanted that additional spending to be paid for.

not quite as simple as saying he didn’t want people to get aid.

https://www.bgdailynews.com/news/pau...e1b4b65ca.html
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

the D states pay more because they’re wealthier. I thought democrats were all about the rich paying their fair share. Now you’re complaining that rich states pay more in federal income tax than poor states?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Where do you see a complaint. I'm pointing out the hypocrisy of taking $ from states you call a #^&#^&#^&#^&hole.

Is it any different than a prostitute?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Where do you see a complaint. I'm pointing out the hypocrisy of taking $ from states you call a #^&#^&#^&#^&hole.

Is it any different than a prostitute?

how is what you’re pointing out, any different than a democrat who bashed the trump tax cut, but keeping that money. Looks identical to me.

no it’s nothing like going to a prostitute. when the federal government has passed a spending bill, a governor would be a moron to refuse that federal money, even if that governor was opposed to the spending bill. AT THAT POINT, it would be a disservice to the citizens of the state to refuse to take the money.

When i was in a teachers union, I spoke out against the benefits we received because i thought it was unfair to the taxpayers. doesn’t mean i should pay out of my pocket when i went to the doctor.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

how is what you’re pointing out, any different than a democrat who bashed the trump tax cut, but keeping that money. Looks identical to me.

no it’s nothing like going to a prostitute. when the federal government has passed a spending bill, a governor would be a moron to refuse that federal money, even if that governor was opposed to the spending bill. AT THAT POINT, it would be a disservice to the citizens of the state to refuse to take the money.

When i was in a teachers union, I spoke out against the benefits we received because i thought it was unfair to the taxpayers. doesn’t mean i should pay out of my pocket when i went to the doctor.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Again, where did I complain?

You don't see hypocrisy in Rand Paul voting against disaster funding and insulting those who need the $ and/or voting for it and then when his state has a disaster asking the fed for the same type of $ he criticized others for requesting?

Those states that depend on the richer states aught to say thank you occasionally. Even though the richer, more successful D states gladly do it, it would be nice to hear that the poorer, less successful R states appreciate it.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Not again

Yes Rand "they" are actually giving "their" $ bc higher government spending means higher taxes and the rich, successful states end up paying more in taxes while his poorer, less successful states gets much more from the Fed than they send to the Fed.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Those states that depend on the richer states aught to say thank you occasionally. Even though the richer, more successful D states gladly do it, it would be nice to hear that the poorer, less successful R states appreciate it.

Haaaaa….this is hilarious ….
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Again, where did I complain?

You don't see hypocrisy in Rand Paul voting against disaster funding and insulting those who need the $ and/or voting for it and then when his state has a disaster asking the fed for the same type of $ he criticized others for requesting?

Those states that depend on the richer states aught to say thank you occasionally. Even though the richer, more successful D states gladly do it, it would be nice to hear that the poorer, less successful R states appreciate it.

this thread was started as a complaint about republican hypocrisy.

it’s not strictly a state thing paul. rich people in poor red states, pay more federal taxes than poor people
in rich blue states.

why should a rich person in alabama say thank you to a poor person on CT?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

this thread was started as a complaint about republican hypocrisy.

it’s not strictly a state thing paul. rich people in poor red states, pay more federal taxes than poor people
in rich blue states.

why should a rich person in alabama say thank you to a poor person on CT?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I started a thread to show Rand Paul's hypocrisy. I haven't said that we shouldn't be paying more to those failed Republican states because I recognized if you want to live in a civilized country some pay more than others. So there's no complaints at all there about aid. I just think they should show a little class and be a little more appreciative. Of course a rich person in One State is going to pay more than a poor person in another state. Are you denying that if the richer successful Democratic states were able to get back all that extra money that they paid to the feds they would be better off? If every state received a dollar back for every dollar paid in tax that would benefit all those Rich Democratic states and hurt those failed Republican states.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[wdmso]

Classic conservatism of convenience . the mouth says one thing while the hands do the opposite..

Red state populations are mostly clueless . On who pay their bills and To lazy to even fact check the lies they are feed by their elected officials .

Republican policy

Just make it look like your owing the Libs
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

this thread was started as a complaint about republican hypocrisy.

it’s not strictly a state thing paul. rich people in poor red states, pay more federal taxes than poor people
in rich blue states.

why should a rich person in alabama say thank you to a poor person on CT?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Hey Jim, here's some ammunition re blue states or "rich states" subsidizing red states or "poor states", if you like. Just paste each, one at a time, into your search engine to get the article:

Behind the Misleading Statement That Blue States Subsidize Red States (townhall.com)

No, 'blue states' do not bail out 'red states' | TheHill

Solved: Why Poor States Are Red and Rich States Are Blue (forbes.com)

Do Red States Really Take the Most Welfare? - Dan Bongino


Are Red States Tax Takers And Blue States Tax Makers? (thefederalist.com)

[scottw]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Hey Jim, here's some ammunition

shhhhhh......paul is rolling through more of his morally superior false narratives...this is fun

and krugman is an idiot....

[scottw]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Red state populations are mostly clueless .

On who pay their bills and To lazy to even fact check the lies they are feed by their elected officials .
Just make it look like your owing the Libs


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

the gift that keeps on giving.....

[scottw]

Originally Posted by PaulS

I started a thread to show Rand Paul's hypocrisy.

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

but did you?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by scottw

but did you?

In the occasions he posted about, Sen Paul voted for the original relief. Then when congress debated additional relief later on, Sen Paul wanted it paid for, that’s all.

When it happened in KY, Paul voted voted for the original
relief, just as he had done before.

Now if congress debates additional relief later on, and Paul votes for it without demanding that it be laid for, that would be hypocritical.

This assumes that the article i posted, is accurate. if those are indeed the facts, there’s zero hypocrisy. We can debate whether or not it’s worth requiring that a second round of aid be paid for up front. But Paul so far has acted the same way with the KY relief, as he did for previous votes on disaster relief.

By definition, there no hypocrisy if he follows the same process each time.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[wdmso]

It’s funny conservatives yell and scream communism and socialism any time Dems pass a spending package ( because their voters want to own the libs and also take the money) then as Paul pointed out these loud mouths willingly taking the money they so aggressive lobbied and voted against . That’s only hypocritical to normal people for conservatives that’s business as usual

By definition, there no hypocrisy if he follows the same process each time

See above ^^^^

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by wdmso

It’s funny conservatives yell and scream communism and socialism any time Dems pass a spending package ( because their voters want to own the libs and also take the money) then as Paul pointed out these loud mouths willingly taking the money they so aggressive lobbied and voted against . That’s only hypocritical to normal people for conservatives that’s business as usual

By definition, there no hypocrisy if he follows the same process each time

See above ^^^^

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

you do realize that there are democrats in republican states and districts...somebody has to feed them

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

It’s funny conservatives yell and scream communism and socialism any time Dems pass a spending package ( because their voters want to own the libs and also take the money) then as Paul pointed out these loud mouths willingly taking the money they so aggressive lobbied and voted against . That’s only hypocritical to normal people for conservatives that’s business as usual

By definition, there no hypocrisy if he follows the same process each time

See above ^^^^

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

i thought the infastructure bull
was a smart win for the democrats
.

i forgot how honest and rational democrats are when republicans pass bills, like saying that the trump tax cut only helped the rich, when the standard deduction was doubled, the child tax credits were greatly expanded, and every single marginal tax rate was decreased.

i must have missed all the democrats who reirted hinestjy about that.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device