Governor Christie Responds to Rand Paul’s Ignorance, Exposes Huge Republican Lie About Spending

christie1Normally I don’t give much attention to squabbles within the Republican party, but the war of words between New Jersey Governor Chris Christie and Kentucky Senator Rand Paul has been fantastic.

And while I’m not a huge fan of Chris Christie (after all, he’s still a Republican who supports many of their ridiculous ideological beliefs) his calling out of Paul for blatant right-wing rhetoric has been great.

This all stems from Governor Christie calling Rand Paul’s style of libertarianism “dangerous,” and Senator Paul mocking the events following Hurricane Sandy by saying those who sought government aid following the storm had a “gimme, gimme, gimme–give me all my Sandy money now” mentality.  Paul’s comments basically targeted those who asked for money after their lives had been destroyed, and blamed them for excess spending.

Apparently to Paul, they are the type of people who have “bankrupted” this nation.  Real classy.

Well, Christie shot back at Paul’s despicable comments , and in doing so exposed a huge Republican myth about spending and taxes.

Christie said, “I find it interesting that Senator Paul is accusing us of having a “Gimme, gimme, gimme” attitude toward federal spending when in fact New Jersey is a donor state and we get 61 cents back on every dollar we send to Washington.  Interestingly, Kentucky gets $1.51 on every dollar they send to Washington.  So if Senator Paul wants to start looking at where he’s going to cut spending to afford defense, maybe he should start looking at the pork barrel spending he brings home to Kentucky.”

With that one comment, Christie has shown he supports a common liberal talking point often used against conservatives.

See, Republicans often talk about how great their economic ideologies are and how successful their tax system can be for our country—yet “red states” often take in much more money from the federal government than “blue states.”  That’s what Christie means when he refers to New Jersey as a “donor state.”  They give more than they take in, while Kentucky is essentially a “taker” state as it takes more from the federal government than it gives back.

Which is ironic considering many “red states” are often controlled by the politicians who claim that lower taxes, fewer regulations and conservative values will lead to economic prosperity.  Except—many red states are so poor they rely much more heavily on federal spending than “blue states,” which are controlled by what Republicans often refer to as the “out of control tax and spend liberal agenda.”

Governor Christie’s comments exposed this lie, and the kicker is—Rand Paul can’t dispute these numbers. In fact, all he could do in response was take a thinly veiled jab at Christie’s weight and whine about Christie picking a fight with him.

So in a war of words between two probable 2016 Republican Presidential candidates—Governor Chris Christie has clearly shown he can handle the likes of Rand Paul.

While Rand Paul has clearly shown, as he has in the past, that he’s more interested in making headlines than actually knowing facts.

Allen Clifton

Allen Clifton is a native Texan who now lives in the Austin area. He has a degree in Political Science from Sam Houston State University. Allen is a co-founder of Forward Progressives and creator of the popular Right Off A Cliff column and Facebook page. Be sure to follow Allen on Twitter and Facebook, and subscribe to his channel on YouTube as well.


Facebook comments

  • disqus_6AeSbMRBY2

    I still don’t like Chris Christie; but compared to Rand Paul, he’s a freakin’ voice of reason. But it’s always fun to watch Republicans eating their own…

    • Amen to that! 😀

    • Bronxgirl181

      I’ll get the popcorn! Lol… 😉

    • patchbran

      & if, christie’s eating, well…you know.

    • Donald Katterhenry

      kinda like the Dems going crazy with the sex scandals? They gave Clinton a pass but now it’s “Oh no we can’t have people like that in office”

      • Anonymous User

        People like who? What person are you specifically referring to?

      • disqus_6AeSbMRBY2

        If Clinton had engaged in that kind of stuff BEFORE he got into office, he would have had a much more difficult time getting elected. Weiner is currently running for Mayor; he already got into trouble for this kind of thing before, but he continues, even though every intelligent person in the world KNOWS that once it’s on the internet, it’s there forever. Speaks to a much larger degree of idiocy. Really, donald k., if you can’t look at the broader picture, maybe you’re better off not commenting at all. It may not be apples and oranges, but it least it’s oranges and tangerines.

      • chris love

        What in this world makes you think Clinton just all of a sudden began his sex-capades after he got in office?
        He just happened to get caught and it was a convenient time for the news media to use the Clinton/Lewinsky Show as a distraction from other newsworthy issues.
        I just love how you Dems and Repubs can excuse your own party’s reps when they do wrong, but cause a feeding frenzy when it’s someone else not in your clubs.
        Why can’t you look at the broader picture and realize it’s time to end the two party farce?

      • disqus_6AeSbMRBY2

        I didn’t say that; the public at large was only made aware of them AFTER he was already in office. Having said that, I believe (like most of the country) that Clinton was an outstanding president, but he was an awfully shitty husband. I’m most certainly not excusing Clinton for his actions, but it seems to suit your purposes to insinuate that I have; that’s YOUR problem, not mine. And from my perspective, the Dems are much more likely to call out one of their own, as the current situation with Weiner illustrates. Republicans just excuse, ignore, and obstruct when given indisputable evidence of misbehavior of their own. But you just wanted to argue a non-existent point, didn’t you? Again, your problem, not mine.

      • chris love

        go ahead…I’ll give you the last word, since you seem to need it….back to the real world!

      • Michael Cruise

        Take a break, champion of the world.

      • disqus_6AeSbMRBY2

        Wow – had no idea that voicing an opinion would inspire such snark. It’s my right, as much as it is anyones, is it not?

      • macacaiscaca

        they’re responding to Chris Love (and the other guy) – your points are well-taken

      • disqus_6AeSbMRBY2

        Thank you, macacaiscaca; my apologies to Michael Cruise and Patricia Stidham-Burns. Tried to delete my responses, but they came back as from Guest. Don’t know why; I will try to pay better attention from now on.

      • Patricia Stidham-Burns

        Says the ever so perfect human being….

      • disqus_6AeSbMRBY2

        Far from it; who pissed in your corn flakes this morning, sweetheart?

      • Michael Cruise

        You must be a conservative male. I’d recognize the dismissive sexist behavior anywhere.

      • disqus_6AeSbMRBY2

        Wrong on both counts; and my apologies. It’s been pointed out to me that your comments were being made to Chris Love, not to me, and I was prematurely reactionary. I tried to delete those comments, and they came back up as from Guest. My apologies again.

      • Michael Cruise

        I was responding to Guest, whomever that is.

      • Donald Katterhenry

        Actually he DID get caught before his first election, even before he was governor of Arkansas he was having an affair with Gennifer Flowers.

      • disqus_6AeSbMRBY2

        Again, I said the public at large. Just because he engaged in despicable behavior at any point in time in his early political career, doesn’t mean that the whole country was aware of it. I must have really pissed you off with nothing but my opinion, which I have a right to, as much as you have a right to yours. Who’da thunk lil ole me had such power.

      • do you not remember the Clintons doing an interview about some a couple of Arkansas women the Governor had flings with? using the officers assigned to the Governor’s detail to help him have his rendezvous? First time ever I did not vote for the democrat candidate.

      • Common Sense

        Clinton got a pass? REALLY? ……..REALLY? then what was all that impeachment business, ken Starr bs, and month after month of coverage? A pass? Really?

      • disqus_6AeSbMRBY2

        Indeed; your handle (Common Sense) is quite apt.

      • Michael Cruise

        Do you really want to open a discussion about politicians and sex scandals?

  • xnerd

    The bottom line, and much more important than any donor/leech concept, is the fact that it is the Bush tax cuts that have bankrupted this country.

    He claimed that they would be revenue neutral, they always claim that…
    They would only have been revenue neutral in a perfect world where companies created 100% of their new jobs in the US, and where they did not hide profits off shore.

    Most of this rhetoric is meaningless bickering.

    The sad part of all of it, is that the republican base wont even understand any of it.

    • JW

      Xnerd… You are delusional… Liberal spending out pacing the tax base by 2 to 1 is the culprit taking the U. S. into bankruptcy! Simply cut spending and balance the budget and the problem goes away. The idiots in Washington currently, many Republicans included, will continue to increase government spending the moment they get more tax revenue.

      Look at Detroit for example, are you suggesting that their poor management of budget and program funding and graft had nothing to do with their 18 billion dollar deficit? You moron… It is and will always be over spending that places any entity into deficit balance sheets and ultimately bankruptcy.

      • feralman

        Um, no. It’s the trickle down voodoo economics in conjunction with unpaid for wars that’s created the deficits we have now. Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II all had deficits. Clinton had a surplus, and Obama’s cut spending more than any republican in living memory. Taxes are still at historic lows, the stock market has recovered, but we still have high unemployment. You can have your opinion, but facts are facts. Tax cuts for the wealthy just don’t create jobs.

      • AcuteHedghog

        Well, the dipshit at least got /something/ right; overspending is a major cause for all our issues. He just was blaming the wrong people.

      • Dave

        Obama has spent less than all presidents since Eisenhower, republican voters are so uninformed and ignorant!

      • Matthew

        Fox News results at their finest!

      • TropicDave173

        Ah, the first, last and usual tactic of the right-wing trolls. If you can’t refute it, insult and sound-bite it. And where, supposedly, do we make these cuts? Anywhere but the military which were already funding at levels higher than the next 13 countries’ defense budgets combined? Or maybe we can cut food stamps instead of corporate subsidies? How about those ‘job creators’ getting off their asses and putting more people to work? THAT would increase the tax base…but hey, shareholders gotta have that new yacht, right? Want to see morons? Take a good look in the mirror, buddy.

      • TomCat84

        Love it…”many Republicans included”. Love it. Dude- not a damn thing would be done differently if it were Republicans in power.

      • Dave

        If republicans were in power we would be in a major depression and all our rights would be eliminated.

      • Larry Williams

        Jw you have to admit there is plenty of fat to be cut from the defense budget and reinvested into our falling bridges, crumbling highways and back into our education system because without education who is going to operate those fancy new defense systems or lead boots on the ground when all the old war dogs die. Right now our own tax system treats the middle class like a bunch of hoes and Republicans are wannabe pimps, slapping us around asking where is their money..When they know part of that money is suppose to be invested in the future of this country not the past failures. And can we please stop wasting millions of dollars and 10s of thousand man hours trying to repeal something that will never be repealed I think the cost to date so far is around a quarter of a billion dollars on 40 wasted repeal attempts.

      • Phil the observer

        The problem with that statement is that Republicans won’t even LOOK at a budget submitted by the White House..

      • Amy Moon River

        Or the jobs bill, which would have helped veterans as well.

      • Debi Biderman

        Republicans haven’t done anything in 6 years except whine and get in the way of any progress at all!! They have spent an inordinate amount of time trying to repeal “Obamacare” and outlaw abortion and otherwise impede ANY bills that promote the general well being of the less fortunate. But they are “for the people” just have not yet told us who “the people” are.

      • lesteraponte

        Your insistence on calling everyone else a moron reveals your own insecurities. Repeating everything you heard in Faux News as if it were based on fact does not make you smart.

      • Brett

        Anytime anyone says “Simply cut spending and balance the budget and the problem goes away” you know they’re full of crap without having to even read the rest. There is no “simple” solution, and anyone – liberal or conservative – trying to argue that it’s “simple” to fix the problem by either increasing taxes or cutting spending is only demonstrating that they don’t have even a shallow understanding of the problem, much less a deep understanding.

      • BillP

        No J-Dubya you are wrong! Liberal Spending? How about out of control defense budget, entering wars without voting in a tax to cover it, not to mention all the corporate welfare?

      • patchbran

        wow. talk about delusional. go get your mirror, post haste!

      • Reconnector

        JW you racist corn hole. You know you are lying. Balancing the budget does nothing about jobs you fffkkk !!! We don’t get anywhere until we fire every teathug in the Congress all of the sumbitches !!!! Trickle down doesn’t work. Borrowing is super cheap and we need Roads and Bridges, and Schools, Hospitals and for as many teathugs as possible to just pass on to the next life…you are traitors to this country and holding it hostage will keep you ffkkks out of the White House for ever skippy !!!

      • Debi Biderman

        Well the message is a bit strong but I must say I agree with it!!!

      • disqus_6AeSbMRBY2

        Spending under Obama is the lowest it been since Eisenhauer. Try getting your information from a source other than FOX “News” before you make yourself look ignorant again.

      • Michael Cruise

        Why is it that the states that pay far more than they take in from the federal government are blue, liberal states and those who receive far more than they pay in are red, conservative states? Conservative/Republican governance and economic policies cannot even make a red state self-sustaining. All of them require welfare subsidies each year just to exist at first world levels. If tomorrow we cut off Mississippi’s welfare subsidies and it no longer got back $2.02 for every $1.00 it pays to the federal government, the state would collapse in a year.

        And Detroit? It wasn’t the first U.S. city or municipality to file for bankruptcy. That distinction goes to Jefferson County of the red, conservative state of Alabama…home to Birmingham. Since 2010, nearly 2 dozen cities/counties/municipalities have filed for Chapter 9 bankruptcy. Of those, 80% are in red, conservative states. Of the 4 filed in the state of California, 3 are in Republican-governed cities and whose citizens overwhelmingly vote for Republicans.

        Detroit’s problem is Thomasville, NC’s problem, as well. When the tax loopholes and trade agreements were written to allow corporations to offshore the nation’s industrial base and to do so with financial incentives, it was inevitable that many American cities were going to face crushing times ahead. Detroit isn’t the first and it won’t be the last. If you don’t know that by now, you have no business weighing in on a subject that you are so ill-informed/uninformed about.

      • Shari D

        So stick THAT in your crack-pipe and smoke it, you total delusional moron.

      • Debi Biderman

        Nicely said!

      • taymie

        yeah! that too!

      • Michael Cruise

        And Detroit is from Michigan, one of the states paying far more each year than it receives back from the federal government. Michigan is subsidizing red, conservative states like Kentucky. Perhaps if it weren’t forced to do so, there would have been more taxes kept instate to help stave off Detroit’s problems. Instead, Kentucky and Mississippi and Tennessee and South Carolina and Alabama and Arkansas and Alaska and Arizona and Ohio and West Virginia and North Carolina and Louisiana and Oklahoma and Virginia and Idaho are taking a good percentage of the federal taxes paid by citizens in blue states…Michigan included. Perhaps if Michigan and other blue states weren’t forced to keep conservatives from living at third world levels then their own state’s economic health would be even better.

      • spruett15

        whoa….last I checked, Virginia is BLUE…AND is NOT a “taker” state. Please don’t lump us in with those RED states just because we have a shitty governor and statehouse. We plan to change that very soon!

      • Matthew

        Dude…we’re cutting spending and taxes simultaneously. what planet are you on?

      • xnerd

        PLEASE STFU you do NOT know what you are talking about.
        We have lost to date almost 6 trillion dollars in tax revenue due to pandering to a group of people that hardly even operate in the US.

        We give annually more in subsidies to profitable corporations than we do to the public welfare. Last year it was more then 50 billion dollars more!

        YOu are a the fucking delusional moron. How the FUCK are you supposed to lose almost a million tax payers AND NOT have deficit short falls!

        How in gods name do you operate a city the size of detroit AND NOT OVER SPEND when you have THAT BIG of a revenue lost?

        Do you just wake up one day and say.. HOLD EVERYTHING
        You simple minded assclowns would be hysterical if you were not such sad examples of rhetoric spewing ditto heads

      • Jay Brandt

        The facts are that the deficit under this administration is dropping at the fastest pace since WWII and job growth is stronger than anytime during Bush’s 2nd term when instead of gaining jobs every month we were losing them in the millions.

      • taymie

        I know other’s have said it, but I just want to jump in too.

        Obama has spent far less than any Republican President since Eisenhower.

        Detroits problem was, after they cut everything they could, they had no INCOME. Believe it or not the old axiom that one must have money to make money is actually TRUE.

        Look at it this way. In my home I have some things I don’t need: Tivo, Cable, High speed internet, a gym membership, and somethings I do need, rent, water payment, groceries.

        Now what I spend on things I need is far more than what I spend on things I don’t need. Following me so far? Good.

        Now in my home I spend $2000 a month on things I need (I wish!) and $300 a month on things I don’t need. For a total of $2300 in spending.

        Now if I earn $1500 from my job (ouch, just gave myself a big pay cut even for a teacher!)

        I can cut my $300 from my budget and I will still go broke in one month because I do not have enough money to pay for what I NEED or I wind up homeless, starving, or sick for lack of basic sanitation.

        The only way to actually fix the problem is to increase the income.

        I take another job that pays me $1,000 a month. Now mot only am i able to keep paying for what I need, I can also keep the things I want, AND have money for savings.

        Detriot tried to cut the spending from the things it didn’t need AND from the things it did need. What they needed to do was increase the income to cover the needs, and maybe the wants, but definitely the needs.

        I don’t have a problem with tax breaks for businesses. In fact I think they are the best idea out there. BUT we keep leaving out two key points from the tax breaks- the requirement that to earn the break one must hire people in the US to do work with the savings. If we say “Businesses that increase their domestic workforce by x% can claim a x% tax rebate” so if they double their domestic workforce, they can essentially pay NO taxes at all, and “Businesses that employ 80% of their workforce at a rate equivalent to 150% the local poverty level for a family of 4 can claim a big huge whopping tax break” so that companies that double their workforce and pay a living wage will MAKE money in the form of Corporate subsidies that actually MAKE SENSE. By doing this we tie the benefit to the desired outcome. That is the ONLY way trickle down will work- if companies are forced to reinvest in the company.

        Don’t know about everyone else but my problems with Walmart would disappear if they hired more people and paid them a living wage BEFORE they got that subsidy that meant they paid no taxes and got a refund.

      • Brent Slensker

        Detroit was destroyed by vulture capitalists like Rmoney.

    • flan59

      Actually, the Reagan tax cuts started the red ink…Bush just added a few nails to the coffin.

      • Rick Heath

        You are absolutely correct. When Reagan dropped the tax rate he dropped the amount of effective revenue this nation needed to prosper and fund the various programs. Worse yet by refusing to enforce the Steward Anti-trust Act of 1890 he permitted large corporations to monopolize the markets which drove family businesses and small businesses out. Since 1980 wages for the top 2% (the guys who rent the GOP) went up almost 380%… the rest of us have barely seen a budge to our take home pay. This is why we are all hurting financially, not “the nanny state” ,not Obama and not overspending. A quick Google search is all one needs to see that Reagan precipitated much of the current problem, and the Bush’s made it worse. In this retrospective light, Reagan was arguably the worst President in modern history.

      • pbfrank13

        FDR is easily the worst. Ramped up Hoover’s spending schemes, burning crops to ‘protect’ prices while people were starving. Dragging us into WW2, interning Americans, suspending due process, price/wage controls that gave us 3rd party health insurance coverage. granting special privilege and favoritism to people based on the group they belonged to, lowered the standard of living as an effect of war rationing and reallocating resources.

      • taymie

        and led us into one of the greatest periods of prosperity in modern American History. Shameful that.

        Almost forgot to add: enacted policies that nearly 100 years later kept the next bad economic collapse from mirroring the Great Depression.

      • pbfrank13

        AFTER the war ended and government slashed spending and taxes and the manufacturers of other industrialized nations were destroyed. You can see what you want to see, you can claim we were better off spending money we didn’t have through debt to fund wars and ignore the lowered standards of livings (you are aware of the rationing that went on of consumer goods right? rationed food, rationed electronics, new cars weren’t being produced or improved upon, oh and people were building weapons and munitions to kill people and out own people were being slaughtered and came back with PTSD).

        Stagflation, cost of living going up on everyone, spouses having to work to maintain the same standard of living where households prior to the debt financing of the war were making ends meet with only one parent working full time is hardly something to brag about of FDR’s legacy.

        Ignore the destruction and lowered standards all you want and cite GDP growing like it is a measure of anything objective at all. It is what government schools want its citizens to believe after all, we base our public education system on the Prussian Obedient Citizen model so it is no surprise there are so many people like you that worship the state and initiation of force and violence on otherwise peaceful people.

      • taymie

        I’m just wondering if you every actually learned anything in history class or if you didn’t even bother to go.

        1. FDR did not lead us into the Depression. Hoover was president when that started.

        2. Lower standards of living were a result of the Depression (again HOOVER)

        3. Rationing was about using every available resource for the war effort.

        4. The war was inevitable, any president that would allow Japan to bomb Pearl Harbor and NOT declare war on them should have been impeached.

        5. Women went to work in the factories because there were no men to work them- they were all off fighting the war. In fact once the men came back, the women stopped working and it was another 20 years before women were able to find work in male dominated industries on anything like a reasonable basis.

      • Common Sense

        Funny how you can turn history upside down. FDR saved capitalism from its own insane excesses. In 1932 large segments of the population were willing to abandon capitalism as an OBVIOUS failure and embrace Fascism, Socialism, or Communism. FDR gave people hope that the ruinous capitalism of the past would be modified to include the great majority of Americans. He set us on a course that enabled us to win WWII and then drown communism with a successful capitalism supported by the great majority of Americans…

      • pbfrank13

        Capitalism? Crony-corporatism. It’s kind of hard to claim capitalism failed when

        1) the government controlled and manipulates the money supply arbitrarily where as capitalists in a free society could exchange what they saw fit.

        2)The government was practicing mercantilism and protective tariffs that limited or out right banned voluntary exchange which is kind of a requirement for capitalism to work

        3), Your argumentum ad populum (appealing to the people) is fallacious. Hitler was widely supported and elected during a time when Germans felt hopeless and helpless and turned to authoritarianism. Just because a majority of people go alone with something doesn’t make it correct, moral, or just.

        The claim of capitalism failing, or market failure in general and thus requiring central planning and intervention from a government entity is a rediculous thing to claim if understand what capitalism is. Definition of capitalism via google “an economic and political system in which a country’s trade and
        industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the
        Tariffs =/= capitalism
        trade restrictions=/=capitalism
        monopoly on money supply via Federal Reserve =/= capitalism.

        I really can’t make it any more clear. You either are capitalist or you are not, there is no in-between or “mixed-economy” When someone says this, they are likely referring to the collusion that occurs between the state and corporations also known as crony-capitalism or corporatism which I am, if you haven’t already guessed, against.

      • Common Sense

        I made no ad populum argument. Seems you totally misunderstand logic. My statement was that Roosevelt restored many peoples’ faith in our government and economic system which is a simple FACT. Since when can facts become logical arguments? When you understand logic come back and argue with me… Your statement reminds me of Jamie Lee Curtis’ character telling Kevin Kline’s “The central message of Buddhism is not ‘Every man for himself.'” in “A Fish Called Wana.” Thx for the laugh

      • pbfrank13

        It is logically fallacious because the mere fact that a belief is
        widely-held is not necessarily a guarantee that the belief is correct.

        Stating something is a fact does not make it a fact. Burden of proof is on you to provide evidence of the claim that “My statement was that Roosevelt restored many peoples’ faith in our government and economic system” I’d argue its because we were involved in one the biggest wars ever and citizens didn’t want a regime change for the unknown, as psychologically people fear the unknown and are more comfortable with sticking with what they think they know. There are numerous studies that show this and is generally accepted as psychological fact.

        Your claim on the other hand appeals more to partisanship and cognitive dissonance. I point out the flaws in your logic, by actually using definitions and pointing out WHY you arguments are fallacious than try and dismiss mine without any supporting reasoning or evidence.

        I get it, no one likes changing their beliefs or admitting they are wrong. I, like you, believed what school told me about robber barons, capitalism being evil, etc…. but then when i went back to actually confirm and refresh my historical knowledge, from outside of the public school setting mind you, I realized that it is a very biased telling of history, likely because the entire education system is based on citizens being trained to be obedient and almost worship the state (Prussian Education System).

        I don’t care if I don’t change your mind, I don’t expect to. I expect you to deal with the cognitive dissonance you have with your beliefs and definitions and question what you think you know, always trying to find real truth.

      • just me

        and President Reagan tripled the debt.

    • Common Sense

      Well, as you can see from some replies the new right suddenly dislikes Bush for his truly over the top spending but are incapable of understanding that ANY budget has money in and money out columns. Understandable though, they somehow gotta have a gold coin in their hand to believe it’s money. So their inability to see how a tax cut with 90% going to 1% being a problem shouldn’t be a surprise.

      • pbfrank13

        Funny because the same can be said about the ant-war anti spying left who now support Obama, NSA, TSA, NDAA. Taxation is theft by the way. No one chooses to pay, they do it because of the threat of being thrown in a cage or asset seizure.

        The less money the government steals from production and wealth creation, the better.

      • taymie

        I’ve seen this argument a lot. Funny how you lot don’t ever seem to realize what is PRINTED on that rmoney: “Federal Reserve Note” and “United States of America”

        Your money you are so proud of only has value BECAUSE it is backed by the word of the US government that it is worth something. If the government no longer has power, they longer have the ability to back that money, and the voila! your money you worked so hard for is WORTHLESS. Better to keep paying the taxes than to eliminate the government that makes the money you pay taxes with valuable.

      • pbfrank13

        I don’t Ignore it, you don’t know the history of it. I happen to have a few silver certificates you know what it says at the bottom? “Five dollars paid to the bearer on demand” at the bottom The top of your Reserve Note says, “Federal Reserve Note” my silver certificate says at the top ” Silver certificate this certifies that there is on deposit in the treasury of the United States of America”

        Without getting too much into it, US currency used to be backed by something tangible, something that could not be counterfeited or created out of thin air. And you are right, our money now only has value because people think it does and choose to believe in it and have faith that it will be valuable in the future. Unfortunately that is not the historical case of any fiat currency. eventually it collapses under its own inflation as more people see it as a devaluing liability. Why do you think countries like Libya, Iraq, and Iran were trying to trade their oil for gold?

        Lastly, if it is so valuable, why do they fear competition in the market place of competing currencies? Why are their legal tender laws? Why did they arrest and convict up Bernard von Nothaus? Surely a small time guy making a currency out of real commodities was not really a threat to the US treasury with trillion dollar budgets.

        The government doesn’t “make” anything. It forces people to use its monopoly cartel controlled currency or face prosecution. The IRS even goes after people who barter and trade goods and services (for example a mechanic doing work for a dentist in exchange for the dentist doing work for the mechanic).

      • Common Sense

        Not so. I have plenty of “liberal” friends who are angry about Obama and drones, failure to prosecute the Wall Street thieves, continuation of the so-called Patriot Act, and his generally old Guard Republican administration (he’d fit wonderfully in the Rockefeller Republican camp). These disaffected voters are the very reason the GOP has a chance to hold their majority in the House and possible regain the Senate in 2014. Otherwise the paranoid, delusional, hate filled GOP of today wouldn’t have a chance.

    • Michael Cruise

      What Rand Paul did was attempt to defend the welfare his state receives by tying it to military bases in his state. Of course, that is an easily debunked conservative talking point and all one must do is point out the many donor states who also have military bases and, in most cases, have far more military bases and far larger military bases than does Kentucky or Mississippi or South Carolina or Alabama or Arkansas or Louisiana or Ohio or Arkansas or Tennessee or West Virginia.

      Case in point…three donor states with military bases (some of the largest and the most per state): California, Texas and Washington state. California receives back a mere 78 cents for every $1.00 sent to the federal government. Texas, the only red state not subsidized, receives back 97 cents for every $1.00 sent to the federal government. Washington state receives back 88 cents for every $1.00 sent to the federal government.

      Rand Paul’s problem (or one of many, I should say) is that he doesn’t know the facts and cannot make an informed, intellectual argument. His life in politics is limited to Kentucky, if he even survives the next election.

      • taymie

        Now think a little about that statement:

        If he knew facts, he wouldn’t be a Republican.

    • pbfrank13

      The fact is everyone’s money is taken by force via taxes and your congress person is given the duty to bring back some of your own money to pay for things in your district. Stop stealing money from everyone through compulsory taxation and let that money stay in the hands of the people that can spend it better and more wisely than the government. The system encourages pork and spending and not on efficiency or fairness.

      • Debi Biderman

        ya and who will pay for the things we share…like cops and fire depts. and roads and schools etc. Volunteerism taxation.??? what a joke. The whole point of this discussion moron is that the people who need stuff the most pay the least!! And the peoples who cold really afford to pay for this stuff…the ultra rich don’t pay taxes at all!!! They pay lawyers and accountants!!!

      • pbfrank13

        Home owners insurance, defense organizations, dispute resolution services. And yes, to some extent volunteering. People volunteer now for neighborhood watch, emergency services, etc..

        The point of taxation is to create a monopoly that has little incentive to provide a better good or service because taxation is force and you have ZERO options to withhold paying for terrible service.

        I’m tired of people acting like its the ‘super rich’s” fault that there are tax credits and loopholes. THEY are playing the game and can afford to buy the MONOPOLY on force and theft known as government. Don’t hate the player, hate the game. In other words, everyone can vaguely rail against loopholes and credits but when push comes to shove, you know damn well you want your own loopholes for energy or food, or some pet project for your district.

        I’ll give you an example, farm bills and subsidies are lobbied for to make farming more profitable, the idea was to encourage food production and keep prices down domestically, the problem is when the government forcibly taxes some companies more than others, it incentives lobbying. So we get SNAP sponsoring junk food, and corn syrup in everything which exacerbates the obesity problem ON TOP of the the countless quotas and trade laws that keep prices high on the consumer.

        GE donates millions to Charlie Rangle’s district and in return, GE gets its agenda passed by way of Rangle to pay less taxes than compeitors in their industries. THAT is the game being played and anyone in business is stupid not to want to get some kind of kick back because they know damn well that if they don’t a competitor will and out compete them for competitive advantage.

        If you let markets work, we will more equitably spread production and wealth, instead of insisting on privilege and favoritism to the highest bidder. Until you reduce the power and scope of the almighty government with the power to tax, bailout, and subsidize, we will not see any meaningful changes or gains.

      • pbfrank13

        Grow up with the ad hominems and speak like an adult.

        If you are not willing to rob your neighbor at gun point to pay for “police, fire, schools, etc..” Why do you believe it is okay to have a majority vote for a 3rd party we call government to rob your neighbor at gun point? You aren’t righteous, you are a coward sub-contracting your criminal beliefs to an entity that will entirely abuse the power and work against the best interests of the people it supposedly serves.

        If you think rich people don’t pay any taxes at all you are very misinformed. That is a blatant lie and you know it. EVEN the ones that do pay a less effective rate than the top bracket, even if they only pay 5% taxes on their total income, they are STILL paying millions more to support the criminal entity known as government that robs from everyone than you ever will in your lifetime. Sales, taxes, luxury taxes, surcharges on services, payroll taxes for the people they employee, and on and on.

  • Matthew Reece

    The people of each state should make do with what they have, and stop receiving or having to hand over stolen money.

    • be kind

      That works until a natural disaster strikes and homes and businesses are destroyed. Do you just tell those who’ve lost everything that it’s just “too bad for you”?

      • pbfrank13

        It’s call insurance and invest in home protections like many do in Disaster prone areas. Florida actually has functional storm shutters to protect their windows, in NJ they are more or less for show, despite our hurricane history. On the barrier islands some people even had their houses raised or on stilts. The reason more people don’t do it already is because the insurance is federally subsidized. This creates a moral hazard and socializing the losses while privatizing the gains in value.

      • guest

        Yea…except the private sector washed its hands of underwriting flood insurance. The potential losses were just too great. Hence, the fed stepped in to underwrite this risk, not because it wanted to drive out private insurance companies, but because the fed was the only one willing to step up to the plate.

      • pbfrank13

        What’s that tell you about the market and the function of prices? If insurance costs are too high to insure a coastal property, why on earth should the rest of the taxpayer base subsidize people who choose to live in high risk areas?

        This is blatant moral hazard and encourages building in flood prone areas.

      • Shalom

        Perhaps you would like to pay to help those who are born in those areas and have trouble getting good jobs move to a less flood-prone area, get good housing, finish their education, get good jobs, etc? The fact is a lot of people really would take you up on that, moving out of the area they grew up in. Being from NYC, I see plenty of people in the worse areas who would love to get the fuck out of their crime-riddled neighborhoods and find a nice place where they are at less risk of being stolen from, raped, mugged, beaten, stabbed or shot–but for financial reasons they are literally unable to do that. We can sit back and smile at the American Dream for free-market all we want, that people can become whatever they want to be here–but the fact is, it’s a fucking dream. The circumstances you are born into are much more restrictive than conservatives with no compassion like to admit.

        But if you’d like to help fund their moves to better areas, be my guest, I’m sure they’ll appreciate it.

        I know that what I am talking about here (moving from a bad neighborhood to a better neighborhood) might seem separate from what you’re referring to (moving from a flood- or disaster-prone area to one with less risk) but the concept really is similar. During Katrina, many people did not evacuate New Orleans not because they just chose to sit it out, but because they had no means to escape, illiteracy made it hard for them to find shelter, the language barrier prevented them from finding or taking public evacuation buses, or they had no money and nowhere else to stay. I see your point, but you fail to acknowledge a major factor in why people live in these areas. You say, Many do not choose to. They are born there and do not have the means to move elsewhere. You specifically point to “people who choose to live in high risk areas” which does not account for a good chunk of the people who actually inhabit these regions.

      • pbfrank13

        I could go on about how government also creates the problems ‘progressives’ think it can solve. Notice that Places like NYC and LA have the strictest rent control laws AND the highest rents. A person is restricted from, say renting out a room in their house or apartment because of laws limiting the rights of a property owner.

        The pitiful lack of quality education is run by the monopoly local government and parents have no say or have to hope to win a lottery to get their kids into a decent school in the areas stricken with poverty and destitute.

        And your ad hom on “conservatives” has no bearing, you automatically assume because we think government is inefficient and shouldn’t be in the businesses that cause the destitute in the first place, that conservatives/libertarians therefore don’t want people to be educated in the first place. That is the great non-sequitur proported by statists against libertarians like myself. We SEE the disaster of monopoly, especially government run monopolies, that despite more money and funding being thrown at education, it does not improve. Statists like to tell themselves that if only the government had more power and more oversight, then it could create a better situation when the economics of it shows the exact, unintended consequences.

        Thomas Sowell has pointed out these fallacies and unintended consequences, especially in education over and over again in his research.

      • mbj

        “Education” as a measuring stick of efficiency can not be proven because defining the purpose/role of education cannot be clearly defined. Educators are actually being asked to take on more and more “cultural” responsibilities WITHOUT resources. The reason more money doesn’t always work is that the money is being thrown in the direction of programs/curriculum that benefit multi-billion dollar book and test-writing companies… NOT the sociological foundations. Lobbyist direct school change more than trained educators do. One thing I will say in defense of the educational system (in which I have toiled for two decades), at least we are TRYING to educate ALL of our citizens…. Poverty within a student’s home is a bigger “money” issue. This is where the conversation on “fixing education” needs to begin.

      • pbfrank13

        Yet people insist that their must be a central authority on education like the DoE and NCLB. Although it wasn’t until relatively recently that people are realizing that standardized tests don’t really measure much of anything and encourage cheating and that NCLB is a disaster.

        person is more or less locked into a substandard school especially when they don’t have the means to move to another district. The school has little incentive to perform better or more efficiently since their “customers” are going to have to go their regardless. Have the tax money attached to the child and stop building useless classes and amenities for kids that don’t need or want it. Let the athletes pick the schools that cater to that waste, or have the kids/parents more concerned about tech and trade be able to attend a school elsewhere. Ultimately it should be up to the community to decide and innovate instead of allowing the Feds to tie everyone’s hands to some arbitrary standard.

    • Pixie Stix

      “Stolen money” is quite the laden term. Also quite inappropriate. Taxes are required for civiliazion – with civilization being defined as being bigger than the local group or community. FBI, CIA, FAA, customs department, water sharing, disaster relief (or do you honestly think that New Orleans should have gone it alone?), and a thousand and one other organizations and departments that perform functions that cannot be maintained at the state level. Despite the hideous amount of pork belly, our federal tax dollars do serve an actual function.

      • pbfrank13

        Wrong, everything the government claims monopoly privilege over has been and could be paid for voluntarily and with no threat of force or taxes. Dispute resolution Organizations (DROs) have long been privately funded and not nearly as abusive as law enforcement, at least until government starts handing out privileges.

        People built roads out of need long before government started claiming monopoly rights to them and installing gas taxes that aren’t even always used to pay for maintenance and are instead put into the general fund. It always interests me how people falsely attribute civilization existing solely because of government, when in reality governments have been responsible for destroying more civilizations and wealth and democide than any private company.

      • The Open Door

        Total hogwash. My god, how do you sleep at night?

      • Matthew Reece

        Argumentum ad lapidem is an admission of defeat and ignorance.

      • LisaLynn1961

        So you and your neighbors are gonna go out and build interstate highways, airports & bridges? This isn’t 1776.

      • pbfrank13

        They are already built. You act as though things with utility and market need would not otherwise be built if governments don’t subsidize them. Because roads and airports are so utterly complex right?

        Take a look and James J. Hill building great northern railroad, privately, efficiently, for a profit, without eminent domain. Compare that to the boondoggles of Union and Central Pacific that were often poorly laid, washed away in flood prone plains, meandered as to ‘earn more miles per track laid, and even laid up unusable mountain pitches.

      • Matthew Reece

        “Taxes are required for civilization”
        That is a positive claim, so the burden of proof is on you. Prove that a group of people with a monopoly on force must subjugate a population and steal from it in order to create civilization.

    • TomCat84

      What’s the point of having a federation of states if we dont help each other out once in awhile? Otherwise, we might as well be a hodgepodge of 50 independent republics

      • Matthew Reece

        That would be a step in the right direction, but the real answer is to eliminate statism rather than localizing it.

    • TomCat84

      The point being- Red State republicans need to understand where their bread is buttered

    • crabjack1

      There’s a reason it’s called the United States of America.

  • Pixie Stix

    How strange is it to realize that of all the Republicans, Christie, with his many flaws and foibles, is going to be the best GOP candidate for 2016?

    • Larry Williams

      I know right, I look at Christie and think there is hope for the GOP, never gonna vote for him and it’s a tiny bit of hope because he’s still to hard on unions and min wage oh and planned parenthood would be gone if he has his way but him and Jeb Bush seem to at least have a toe in reality…Wow I’m standing up for a Bush..They must be drinking Ice Tea in Hell today. Again neither of them will stand a chance against Hilary if she runs..They might be able to hold their own if Biden runs but not Hilary.

      • flan59

        Christ Christie closed state hospitals AND cut spending to community mental health programs. It is really hurting already taxed agencies and case workers. He does not care about the sickest among us.

      • Pixie Stix

        Stuff like THAT does not impact his ability to get the GOP nomination in ANY way.

    • Amy Moon River

      Christie’s only a moderate when it suits him. If Sandy had hit, say TX or FL, Christie wouldn’t have said a word in response to Rand.

      • Pixie Stix

        I don’t doubt you at all. Not even a little bit. Having said that, I still think he’s the best GOP candidate – which should tell you a lot about the Republican Party.

  • Karen Christie

    “While Rand Paul has clearly shown, as he has in the past, that he’s more interested in making headlines than actually knowing facts.” This actually makes him dangerous as Fox News will be plugging for him every chance they get.

  • debbie

    Thank you for stepping up tp the plate when no one else has

  • Mark Strange

    I don’t feel there is an apology needed to like Chris Christie. I really like the guy, I just don’t agree with him half the time. He is a voice of reason in the darkness that is the republican party right now. He’s the guy we need on our side, whenever we can get it.

    • pbfrank13

      He’s a neo-con war monger playing off 9/11 just as Giuliani did, claiming that anyone whom disagrees has amnesia to the events of 9/11. He’s the one forgetting the US involvement in sanctions, wars, coup d’etats and unyielding Israeli support that led up to 9/11. It wasn’t a random attack because we are all rich, free, and infidels, it was because of our meddling in foreign nation affairs.

      • Afi Keita James

        Now that’s the truth here.
        I Hope rand paul ethers that neocon’s ass.

    • Amy Moon River

      This wouldn’t be news if Sandy had done the damage to any state other than NJ. He only shows compassion when it affects him and his ability to keep his job.

  • Lisa B Hawkes

    But how else are Red States going to continue their race to the bottom by keeping wages so low and giving ridiculous tax cuts/incentives to business they are trying to steal from other states?

    • Michael Cruise

      Red states survive only because they are given welfare subsidies taken from taxes paid by citizens of blue states. Cut those subsidies and several of them are at third world status in under 5 years….a few in less than 2 years (see: Mississippi)

      • pbfrank13

        Are you suggesting welfare is keeping people in superior living standards? Go check out the Indian Reservations or at least their history and amount of welfare they receive, which is MUCH higher than the general population and are much worse off. They suffer higher poverty rates, lower living standards, healthcare access, education, etc..

      • Pixie Stix

        Yeah, I wonder how many times someone went to a reservation and, “Tell me, what do you NEED?”

      • pbfrank13

        So they know what they need more than some entity that decides to make decisions for others? This is truly groundbreaking, that local people know what they need more than a board of central planners divvying out loot. I’m glad a progressive is able to have that revelation (pardon my assumption, I assumed you are a progressive of sorts from posting on here).

  • Sunny Conditt Williams

    I’m pretty much independent, but you know, Gov. Christie makes sense!!! Rand Paul…..not so much!

  • josh80

    It’s pretty scary when Chris Christie is considered a moderate.

  • Stove

    Much of the spending in the Democratic bill was for projects unrelated to Sandy, such as $150 million for fisheries disasters that could go to Alaska as well as Gulf Coast and New England states. $2 million to repair museum roofs in Washington D.C. and $50 million in subsidies to plant trees on private property.

  • Stiles

    See, Republicans often talk about how great their economic ideologies
    are and how successful their tax system can be for our country—yet “red
    states” often take in much more money from the federal government than
    “blue states.” I would like to know where the author gets these facts from, I am not disputing them, but would like to research these facts myself, I have my doubts about these facts.

  • Ralf T. Dog

    I hope Rand Paul gets the nomination. He would be a much easier opponent in the general election than Christie

    • ClariNerd

      Eh, I think Santorum would be slightly easier.

    • Afi Keita James

      and rand paul can get this country back to the U.S. Constitution.

  • AlfredLehmberg

    I find Gov. Christie wholly revolting, but Sen. Paul, a whining hypocrite and fatuous twat, should be drowned at the bottom of a barrel of old catcher’s mitts and turned mayonnaise…

    • rbb

      A waste of old catcher’s mitts.

      • Pixie Stix

        But an excellent use of rancid mayonnaise.

  • pbfrank13

    The point and Amendment Paul Introduced would fund the Sandy relief
    by taking money out of foreign aid. Foreign aid that often falls into
    countries that don’t even like us very much and end up propping up
    rebels and dictators.

    And obviously when there is that kind of
    an emergency bill being debated, every congressman tries to get a piece
    of the pie by putting in their own pork so they can brag to their
    constituents, because of demagoguery, anyone trying to hold up this bill
    for waste will be seen as un-American, just like the people who didn’t
    support the ironically named PATRIOT ACT. There was plenty of waste and
    Christie knows it, much of the funds went to infrastructure projects,
    not to the people directly effected when they lost their homes. Not to
    mention the countless other states that somehow got “Sandy Relief Aid”
    that were no where near the disaster zones.

    I realize that this
    is a progressively biased cite and don’t expect to change any of the die
    hards reading this, all I am pointing out is that readers be aware of
    this bias ‘reporting’ being presented here.

  • Dezirae_S.

    Am I the only one who thinks the US needs to take a good hard look at the budgeting system from before WWII. The US was funding just about everyone after WWI. The government was doing something right then. Rand Paul can’t even say Jersey is the cause for government bankruptcy because in all honestly it is the governments lack of budgeting skills in the modern world that has hurt the US citizens. This country needs to look back in time and learn from it’s financial history and see what worked best. After all, history is there for a reason. Maybe that will solve the current problem everyone is conversing about. But hey, I’m just a 16 year old girl in high school. Why would the government listen to me? (Don’t answer that. It’s a rhetorical question.)

    • pbfrank13

      We have had some of the worst recessions and depressions since the creation of the central bank known as the Federal Reserve and de-linking the dollar from a commodity. If you look back at the statistics and history, we have had booms and busts prior to the Fed reserve and Income tax (also passed in 1913 and unconstitutional), but they didn’t last nearly as long nor were they nearly as severe. The New Deal, started under Hoover’s spending and FDR ramped up all of those programs and added his own as schemes to get the economy ‘pump-primed” which didn’t actually work. He burned food to artificially keep the price up for farmers while people were starving he also arbitrarily set wages and prices, completely ignoring the function prices and wage have in a market economy.

  • Dave

    Republicans the voice of reason! OTFLOL! Their all insane lunatics!

  • Richard Gozina

    Reality Check time.

    Bitch all you want about military spending but at least most of that money spent gets reinvested back into the us economy. Men and women in the armed forces are not out looking for jobs (of which there are few) and many would probably be forced to collect unemployment.

    Military Defense Spending goes predominately to US companies who employ US workers and develop technologies that ultimately benefit our everyday lives (GPS, Internet to name a few bigs ones)

    I am not saying that the wars we have fought for the last decade were necessary or useful….i think they were misguided campaigns that were impossible to win and killed and maimed thousands of US soldiers needlessly.

    We need a strong military….do we need to spend as much as we do? I would say probably not but I would rather the money be spent on soliders and on US companies developing technologies while employing US workers so at least the money stays in the our system than paying it out as part of a social program to maintain the status quo.

    • pbfrank13

      Except that wealth isn’t created making war supplies. Standard of living does not net increase when we blow limited resources and wealth on bombs and planes and military ‘jobs’ that could be better used on actually improving living standards here. Not even going to get into the broken window fallacy when we destroy foreign countries and rebuild them.

      • Richard Gozina

        Its not creating wealth. Its the money multiplier at work.

        US Defense contractors employ US workers in US factories with US supplies. Those workers buy houses, cars, shop at stores etc…spending their money in the local economies. The suppliers employ US workers etc

        Not saying its ideal by any stretch but would rather have that than paying social programs where there is no return on investment.

        Ideally, I would rather the money be used to pay down the US debt but you can only do that so much until it becomes counter productive.

      • Shalom

        Maybe not, but it does create more opportunity for jobs in the USA. With most manufacturers shipping jobs overseas, I’d say military manufacturing is one of the only areas where they have no plus side in exporting it. A lot of places we export to manufacture cheaply and are less-than-friendly with us in terms of politics (e.g. China)–therefore it really is best to keep war manufacturing local. Keep in mind, after the Great Depression, even FDR’s “New Deal” wasn’t enough to fully put the country back on its feet. The wartime economy created by WW2 was what accomplished that.

        I suppose a modern-day war economy is significantly different from that in the 30s-40s…but you get my drift.

    • LisaLynn1961

      So killing people or preparing to kill people is our jobs program?

  • Richard Gozina

    As for Chris Christie.

    I like the guy. He is not politically correct and says what needs to be said..damn the consequences.

    I watched him addressing teachers during one of his open forums and a woman was complaining that her salary as a teacher was too low for her to live in the lifestyle she wanted (not going to get into a debate about whether they should be higher..they are what they are)

    Christie’s response was “I understand completely. You should quit your job and do something else. There are 200 people who would gladly accept that salary to do the job you currently have”

    Again, not politically correct but dead on accurate!

    My biggest fear is that he is a cheeseburger away from a heart attack so he better pick a solid running mate because that person may become President sooner than we would like if he is elected.

    • Mark Robinson

      My biggest fear is that he EATS food that could feed THOUSANDS of poor and hungry children….. hell, he might even eat children too.

  • Mike Rodgers

    Paul claimed,in response to how much Kentucky “takes in” that it’s because of the military presence in the state and the federal money that supports the bases there is what skews the take vs. give amount. I, personally, have no idea, I’m just putting his comment out there.

  • Reconnector

    I love to see Iiots get their ass handed to them ! Regardless of the Spanker !! THE SPANKEE RANDY PAUL doesn’t appear to like that whipping he got maybe he will try and S T F U !!!!! BUT I doubt it…he’s gonna keep proving he is stupid by talking !!!

  • Nathan Buchanan

    I don’t like either of these two, but the more they squabble and argue the better. You can count on Christie’s words being used him against him when he tries to get elected.

  • ebmom123


  • John Saseen

    I could vote for Christie but I could never, never, never support or vote for Rand Paul. He is a despicable, self serving, and selfish man.

  • Shalom

    Seeing this, I hope Rand Paul is the Republican candidate for President. The election would be handed to the Democrats the moment he was chosen as Republican candidate. Christie, who is more in-touch with reality, would give us a bit more of a run for it.

  • Dave

    I do not see that either of these two blowhards supported his position with any facts or underlying data. One or both of them may be right, but I will not accept their unsupported assertions. I feel the same about all the charges, claims, and assertions made by the responding contributors to this discussion.

  • Shane Randy Lee Burlech

    I have to say… despite preferring Democrat presidents thus far, I think that if the Democrat presidential candidate is crap (which, past experience shows likley will not occur when compared to recent Repulican candidates)… I think I’d vote Governer Christie into office. Of course, this is providing that the democrat candidates are utter crap, or Hillary doesn’t run for office.

  • bourbonjohn

    Here we go again….

  • Amy Moon River

    Christie’s only a moderate when it suits him. If Sandy had hit, say TX or FL, Christie wouldn’t have said a word in response to Rand.

  • Common Sense

    Ain’t it amazin’ when Chris Christie is the voice of moderates in the Republican Party merely because he can use facts and figures honestly? And isn’t it amazin’ that we have Ayn Rand Paul and his coloring book ideology as a senator?

  • Robert Hatch

    As a Kentuckian, I must state up front Rand Paul is the wrong person to be in congress for KY. He only won due to the fact his opponent was that much worse. Still the problems in KY long predate Paul or even Mitch. Poor Education, Lost Mineral rights, near devilish behaviors by the coal industry, funneling of moneys away from counties that earned them into the larger cities of the state, this has occurred under both Democrat and Republican leadership. Our problems extend all the way to the Civil War (Being labeled “neutral” afforded us no reconstruction moneys despite the fact the state repelled an invasion from Tennessee among other contributions to the Union). My point is blaming the issues on being a “Red State” (A fairly new development as the state has long been a democrat stronghold) is a disservice to the unfortunate realities of KY that have existed since the 1800’s.

  • kerryberger

    I like this debate. It demonstrates how the Republican Party is beginning to implode. Between the so-called New Libertarian Tea Party Nazis and more mainstream Republicans there is no shared vision of the future and how to get their. It’s the same old tried and the true steps that have failed before that they repeat and repeat and repeat with even less success. It’s time to remove them all from office and replace the obstructionists with legislators and governors with integrity who are seriously concerned about this nation and not just lining their darn pockets with corporate lobby money.

  • Michael Cruise

    What Rand Paul did was attempt to defend the welfare his state receives by tying it to military bases in his state. Of course, that is an easily debunked conservative talking point and all one must do is point out the many donor states who also have military bases and, in most cases, have far more military bases and far larger military bases than does Kentucky or Mississippi or South Carolina or Alabama or Arkansas or Louisiana or Ohio or Arkansas or Tennessee or West Virginia.

    Case in point…three donor states with military bases (some of the largest and the most per state): California, Texas and Washington state. California receives back a mere 78 cents for every $1.00 sent to the federal government. Texas, the only red state not subsidized, receives back 97 cents for every $1.00 sent to the federal government. Washington state receives back 88 cents for every $1.00 sent to the federal government.

    Rand Paul’s problem (or one of many, I should say) is that he doesn’t know the facts and cannot make an informed, intellectual argument. His life in politics is limited to Kentucky, if he even survives the next election.

    • rbb

      Your writing and reasoning is excellent. I hope you have a blog somewhere.

      • rbb

        Sorry. *Are* excellent.

  • Vic20

    First, let me say that I can’t stand Paul and his phony, Christian-centric Libertarianism. But to be fair, he mentions his state’s military bases as the reason for the lopsided federal income. If the math actually accounts for these bases elevating their federal intake beyond a 1:1 ratio, then he’s at least being consistent*, as he has said he favors military spending over just about all other forms of spending.

    Of course, I can’t really see two bases accounting for a full 50% increase in that ratio. But I don’t have those facts handy.

    • Vic20

      *consistent – As opposed to, you know, his stance on drones.

    • Michael Cruise

      His math is wrong and I’ll demonstrate that by simply pointing out a few of the donor states that also have military bases and nuclear facilities which are more in number and larger than any in Kentucky.

      Washington state

      All three of those states pay far more than they receive back and all three have multiple military bases (some of the largest in the nation) and nuclear facilities.

      • Michael Cruise

        And all three of these donor states have major ports that are crucial to national and international commerce. Kentucky has zero.

    • Michael Cruise

      Contrast that with Mississippi which receives $2.02 back for every $1.00 paid to the federal government. Mississippi has 2 Air Force bases, 2 Naval bases and one Naval construction facility. It has one nuclear plant.

      Kentucky receives back $1.51 for every $1.00 paid to the federal government. Kentucky has 2 Army bases. That’s it. It has one nuclear processing plant and a small one at that.

  • Big Bird

    Christie is an illuminati tool. Screw that donut-boy. Rand Paul is a patriot fighting for freedom and liberty. I tip my hat to him, as well as his father.

    • Michael Cruise

      Oh good grief already.

      Moving along…

  • G_Bailey

    The author doesn’t seem consider the disparity or ratio of military personnel compared to general population in each state (and yes I know KY has 2 very large bases vs. NJ’s 9 bases). Nor does he look at the tax revenue generated, from each state compared to the number of residents in the population. There are a lot of other factors. As for the other money’s (outside of military costs and pay), how much of that money includes defense contractors, government agencies and the like that are based in both of these states?

    All of that aside, Rand Paul hasn’t lobbied for any pork to go to his state. He ran on the principle that D.C. was broke and he wasn’t going there to bring home pet projects.

    The real questions we should be asking is why on earth is the Fed sending back to the state $.61 or $1.51 of every dollar extracted in tax revenue from those states? Why aren’t citizens allowed to keep their hard earned money to pay for flood and hurricane insurance? Why should the state have to petition the Fed for money the Fed took from their residents?

    Yes, the Fed gov’t should be paying our military, but they shouldn’t be paying for handicap curb cuts, city street developments with “adequate lighting”, or solar power companies who can’t make it on their own. Municipal developments are the responsibility of the city and maybe the state, not the Fed gov’t. Uncle Sam is not responsible for propping up electric sports car companies, wind power that costs more than it can generate or regulation of what we should eat and drink. Nor should it be paying for residential homes in a MN flood plain, on a cliff in CA susceptible to mud slides and erosion, or on the beach in NJ. Common sense tells you that if you build in a known high risk zone, you better pony up with the insurance, not expect the hard working middle-class income earners to pay for your risky decisions.

    • Michael Cruise

      So this is also a typical conservative justification for the welfare their states receive…that blue states have larger populations and so generate more revenues. I cannot begin to pick about the stupidity of such an argument. Let me start by stating that what conservatives are doing when they make such justifications is making the case for socialism. They just don’t seem to be learned enough to understand as much. Follow that line of thinking and you realize that a state with a much greater population has far greater costs involved with running their state. Thus, a New Jersey or California or even Texas have greater need for the revenues their citizens pay via taxes than does a Mississippi. And just because blue states might have larger populations isn’t reason for taking their taxes and giving them to red, conservative states who choose low/no tax policies. Perhaps if Republican states had more realistic tax policies they wouldn’t require the welfare subsidies. What a racket to tout your low/no tax conservative fiscal winning policies whilst taking welfare subsidies from blue states that have more realistic tax policies to cover what you don’t collect in your own state. Quite a racket if you can pull it off…and apparently every red state but Texas pulls it off.

      Live within your own means. Isn’t that what conservatives screech about daily now? Well…then let’s force red, conservative states to do just that…to live within their own means and if they are incapable or unwilling to generate tax revenues, let them live at third world levels. Just stop taking my taxes out of my state. I do not agree to having to support their states.

    • Michael Cruise

      Kentucky isn’t having to petition the federal government for the money they’ve paid in taxes. They’re getting it all back 100% and then some. It is citizens in blue states that clearly need to ask that their taxes not be used to subsidize poorly run red states and, instead, have their taxes sent back to their states or put into a rainy day fund specifically for their state’s use in the future.

  • earl olson

    If the truth be known, I am sure that republicans account for the largest portion of welfare in the USA including corporate welfare which is out of control.

    • Michael Cruise

      They do and by huge margins. It’s not even close.

    • Shari Peterson

      Corporate welfare is huge. And it’s conducted by *both* democrats and republicans.

  • Redden Alt Mer

    Christie strikes me as the type of politician who would thrive in a political ecosystem not dominated by two major franchise-parties. He spends most of his time sounding like a Republican normally sounds, but every so often he breaks code and says straight up what’s on his mind. In our current system there’s no way I’d ever vote for him, but if we had 10 or more parties like some European nations and he could speak more freely, I have to think he’d be high on my list.

  • Paul

    I am and have always been a D, and follow the working man , the back bone of this country!
    I have to say I am Liking Chris Christy a lot,, his no Bull straight forwardness and He cares about people more than the Machine

    • Michael Cruise

      He’s anti-unions and he would abolish a minimum wage.

  • Afi Keita James

    Oh shut the fuck up, you fucking ass RINO, in fact christie, you a fucking ass guido RINO!

    Chris christie is a globalist like the rest of them scums.

  • David Tomasetti

    I’m a Liberal Progressive but feel I must keep you in check.When we stretch fact, we delve into the realm of the lying Right Wing Nutz. Your statement about Red States more heavily relying on Fed $ is a bit of a reach. ^NM of the Top ten “taker States are Red, and 4 are Blue. That’s close. And in fact, 3 of the top 5 Taker States are Blue (NM, DC…although not a State, And HI). When you look at the top 3 in Dollars received verses given, the 3 top Blue States get $7.42 back per $3 ($1 each), and the Top 3 Reds get $7.07 which is less. Stay on point and check your facts. Remember? WE USE FACTS.

  • Angela Long

    I think what we see is a moderate battling back … Conservative ideology has bankrupted most of the south. It’s hard to understand why they can’t see the proofs in each state and who controls each state – and the economic systems they adhere to being destructive to their economy. A lot going on to try and distract us … We need to keep our eye on the issues, not the sideshows. I do find it entertaining though watching a libertarian get served:P Though none will admit their messiah is a “looter.”

  • apothos

    regarding Clinton, 1st tell me HOW Whitewater became a SEX scandal, when that is NOT what they were looking into…….

  • Michael Mcardle

    I don’t agree with any of them. We had a bridge from NW Indiana connected to Chicago and a gambling boat offered the 30 million the state of IN had to pay but M. Daniels turned it down because we are blue. Enough of this childish BS. Get your azzes to work or your going to be fired and no pension. Hell Daniels just got a bonus to learn his job at Purdue.

  • tom terrific

    Dumb article.

  • Karey Cummins

    It’s more of the Republican “Starve the Beast” political strategy that began in the 1970s and grew when Reagan was elected. The purpose is to limit government spending in order to deprive the government of revenue. With less revenue due to tax cuts, the government has to reduce spending or incur more debt. They have always gone after social programs such as welfare, social security and medicare. And the public always balks at more debt or tax increases. Too many either don’t know or don’t care that these Republican goals have not worked in the past and they don’t work now.

  • shahrukh Qzi