Well the only thing that matters is that banking is not free. That is the real key. Money is what allows us to make associations and with out free money it does not matter which big businesses get bailed out and which do not. You are essentially a slave to the government which protects the private Federal Reserve.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Well the only thing that matters is that banking is not free. That is the real key. Money is what allows us to make associations and with out free money it does not matter which big businesses get bailed out and which do not. You are essentially a slave to the government which protects the private Federal Reserve.[/quote]
Oh stop it…just stop it.
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
[quote]Big Banana wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
This is absolutely the most hysterical stuff I have ever read about Ron Paul.
He is a political opportunist. Hahahahahaha! He’s the least politically ambitious person in Congress, you nitwit.
I agree some of his “old guard supporters” are shady, especially since they do not even know what the “old guard” ideal is.[/quote]
Running for President is the MOST ambitious!!!
He is lining his pockets with contributions. Find out how much he took in and how much he spent.
He votes for pork in committee and against it for show. He is phony.
[/quote]
Examples?[/quote]
Shit, go look up his record. He has been doing it forever. He brings home the bacon to his district and claims he is against pork.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Well the only thing that matters is that banking is not free. That is the real key. Money is what allows us to make associations and with out free money it does not matter which big businesses get bailed out and which do not. You are essentially a slave to the government which protects the private Federal Reserve.[/quote]
Oh stop it…just stop it.[/quote]
Never.
http://freestudents.blogspot.com/2007/07/ron-pauls-personal-pork-projects.html
Ron Paul’s personal pork projects.
Guaranteed 100% pork. The media has noted, though many libertarians have ignored, that the allegedly â??libertarianâ?? Republican, Ron Paul, has been bringing home the bacon to his district, just like every other vote-seeking politician. The PR hype is that Paul is different. Judge for yourself.
Paul says he only votes for spending authorized by the US Constitution. But when it comes to using his Congressional position, to request pork for projects in his own district, apparently anything goes. Whether the spending is Constitutionally legitimate, or no,t Paul brings home the bacon.
According to the Houston Chronicle, Paul:
...leads the Houston-area delegation in the number of earmarks, or special funding requests, that he is seeking for his district. He is trying to nab public money for 65 projects, such as marketing wild shrimp and renovating the old movie theater in Edna that closed in 1977 â?? neither of which is envisioned in the Constitution as an essential government function.
Paulâ??s arguments for using pork barrel projects in his own district is that, â??if they take it, we should ask for it back.â?? Of course, on that basis, there is little spending which is not justified.
Paul also argued that these special earmarks, used by Congressman to increase their own popularity at home, donâ??t add anything to the budget. The funding is already in the budget he says and the budget is not increased to compensate for them. But spending $400 million on pork, as Paul requested, still means the $400 million is spent. And, under the current budget, if it is spent, it contributes to the deficit that will, no doubt, mean higher future taxes. While agencies try to spend their full budget so they can request more the next year. There is some slim chance that funding allocated will not be spent. Earmarking makes sure the funds are spent.
Even if one were to buy Paulâ??s argument, shouldnâ??t the earmarks, at the very least, correspond with Constitutionally permitted spending? Does Paul’s dubious claim that the â??peopleâ?? are really spending the money, as opposed to politicians, mean the spending need not be constitutionally justified?
Certainly, the special interest groups that put in requests for such spending are not â??the peopleâ??. And the idea that this removes spending authority from politicians is absurd. It means that the special interests have to go to a Congressman, with begging bowl in hand, asking for the handouts. Since the individual politicians is the gateway for such funding it expands his ability to buy votes with taxpayer funds.
Here is a list of some of the pork that Paul has applied for. It is apparent that much of this has nothing to do with programs permitted, or mandated, by the Constitution. You figure out what clause of the Constitution enumerates the spending in question. Iâ??m not an expert on the workings of Congress but reading through the funding requests I am under the impression that Paul was seeking multiple funding for some of these projects. I donâ??t know if this is cumulative, but that is the impression I got. Either way asking for it once is bad enough.
-
$25,000 for the Brazoria County Sheriff to establish a â??Childrenâ??s Identification and Location Database.â??
-
$8 million for the marketing of wild American shrimp.
-
$2.3 million for shrimp fishing research.
-
$3 million to â??secure the acquisition of the McGinnes tract, protecting its critical natural resources and helping consolidate refuge inholdings.â??
-
$5 million to expand the cancer center at Brazosport Hospital.
-
$200,000 for the Matagorda Episcopal Health Outreach Program to fund a â??National Health Service Corp Scholar.â??
-
$4.5 million to study the effects of the health risks of vanadium.
-
$3 million to test imported shrimp for antibiotics. (Does anyone think there is a big shrimp industry in Paulâ??s district?)
-
$10 million to repair the Galveston railways causeway bridge.
-
$1.18 million for â??Personalized Medicine in Asthmaâ??
-
$100,000 for a â??data-driven automated system for nursing students on the Texas Gulf Coast.â??
-
$257,000 to â??prepare graduates from the doctoral program at the University of Texas Medical Branch School of Nursing to assume faculty roles in schools for nursing with a deficient number of doctoral level faculty.â??
-
$1.4 million to buy buses for the Golden Crescent Regional Commission.
-
$2 million to buy buses for Galveston.
-
$5 million for highway spending.
-
$2 million to replace facilities for Galveston bus service.
-
$3 million to replace facilities for the Golden Crescent Regional bus facility.
-
$2 million to repair the Galveston trolley.
-
$2.14 million to renovate the Edna Theater.
-
$13 million for I-69 highway project.
-
$30 million the Texas Maritime Academy to refurbish a ship.
-
$4.5 million to maintain Cedar Bayou. Plus another $9 million
-
$15 million for â??construction at GIWW Matagorda Bay.â?? Plus another $5.8 million
-
$100,000 to maintain Chocolate Bayou.
-
$2.5 million to maintain Double Bayou.
I donâ??t really know much about the shrimp industry, but it is big in Texas, and it has been demanding that the federal government act to restrict imports in one way or another. One press release, by Paulâ??s office, states that the Congressman â??joined several of his House colleagues urging action by the Commerce Department to protect the troubled domestic shrimp industry.â?? Paul said US companies â??have been devastated by cheap imported shrimpâ?? and he wants to end foreign aid to any nation that subsidizes shrimp. His â??Shrimp Importation Fairness Actâ?? was â??to help level the playing field between the foreign and domestic shrimp industries.â??
While I understand the anger of US shrimp companies over foreign competition (I wouldnâ??t mind being the only blog on the block) it is strange to condemn other countries for allegedly subsidizing their shrimp industries while putting in requests to subsidize the US shrimp industry. Iâ??m opposed to government-to-government aid regardless of who receives it. Targeting the aid of only those nations, that have successful shrimp industries of their own, sounds more like back door protectionism, while the $13 million in earmarks to US shrimp producers sounds like front door pork.
Paul seems to be playing on both sides of the fence. He puts in the requests for the pork which becomes part of the budget. Then he votes against the appropriations bill. He knows that the vast majority of these spending bills will pass regardless of what he does. He can brag to shrimpers about the millions in subsidies which he earmarked for them, but he can also claim to have voted against the subsidies he guaranteed. It is one way to be all things to all people.
[quote]Big Banana wrote:
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
[quote]Big Banana wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
This is absolutely the most hysterical stuff I have ever read about Ron Paul.
He is a political opportunist. Hahahahahaha! He’s the least politically ambitious person in Congress, you nitwit.
I agree some of his “old guard supporters” are shady, especially since they do not even know what the “old guard” ideal is.[/quote]
Running for President is the MOST ambitious!!!
He is lining his pockets with contributions. Find out how much he took in and how much he spent.
He votes for pork in committee and against it for show. He is phony.
[/quote]
Examples?[/quote]
Shit, go look up his record. He has been doing it forever. He brings home the bacon to his district and claims he is against pork.[/quote]
It is Congress’ job to spend the money and not the Executive’s. He returns his constituents taxes which is what the true nature of earmarks should be. He is against the idea the the government should be allowed to spend the people’s money.
So what?
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]Big Banana wrote:
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
[quote]Big Banana wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
This is absolutely the most hysterical stuff I have ever read about Ron Paul.
He is a political opportunist. Hahahahahaha! He’s the least politically ambitious person in Congress, you nitwit.
I agree some of his “old guard supporters” are shady, especially since they do not even know what the “old guard” ideal is.[/quote]
Running for President is the MOST ambitious!!!
He is lining his pockets with contributions. Find out how much he took in and how much he spent.
He votes for pork in committee and against it for show. He is phony.
[/quote]
Examples?[/quote]
Shit, go look up his record. He has been doing it forever. He brings home the bacon to his district and claims he is against pork.[/quote]
It is Congress’ job to spend the money and not the Executive’s. He returns his constituents taxes which is what the true nature of earmarks should be. He is against the idea the the government should be allowed to spend the people’s money.
So what?[/quote]
So what? He wastes money on things the Federal government has no role doing and you say “so what”??
The man is a phony, he does not practice what he preaches.
[quote]Big Banana wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]Big Banana wrote:
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
[quote]Big Banana wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
This is absolutely the most hysterical stuff I have ever read about Ron Paul.
He is a political opportunist. Hahahahahaha! He’s the least politically ambitious person in Congress, you nitwit.
I agree some of his “old guard supporters” are shady, especially since they do not even know what the “old guard” ideal is.[/quote]
Running for President is the MOST ambitious!!!
He is lining his pockets with contributions. Find out how much he took in and how much he spent.
He votes for pork in committee and against it for show. He is phony.
[/quote]
Examples?[/quote]
Shit, go look up his record. He has been doing it forever. He brings home the bacon to his district and claims he is against pork.[/quote]
It is Congress’ job to spend the money and not the Executive’s. He returns his constituents taxes which is what the true nature of earmarks should be. He is against the idea the the government should be allowed to spend the people’s money.
So what?[/quote]
So what? He wastes money on things the Federal government has no role doing and you say “so what”??
The man is a phony, he does not practice what he preaches. [/quote]
No. He returns the money back to the people in his district, you dolt. The federal government has no role in spending his constituent’s money.
edited
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]Big Banana wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]Big Banana wrote:
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
[quote]Big Banana wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
This is absolutely the most hysterical stuff I have ever read about Ron Paul.
He is a political opportunist. Hahahahahaha! He’s the least politically ambitious person in Congress, you nitwit.
I agree some of his “old guard supporters” are shady, especially since they do not even know what the “old guard” ideal is.[/quote]
Running for President is the MOST ambitious!!!
He is lining his pockets with contributions. Find out how much he took in and how much he spent.
He votes for pork in committee and against it for show. He is phony.
[/quote]
Examples?[/quote]
Shit, go look up his record. He has been doing it forever. He brings home the bacon to his district and claims he is against pork.[/quote]
It is Congress’ job to spend the money and not the Executive’s. He returns his constituents taxes which is what the true nature of earmarks should be. He is against the idea the the government should be allowed to spend the people’s money.
So what?[/quote]
So what? He wastes money on things the Federal government has no role doing and you say “so what”??
The man is a phony, he does not practice what he preaches. [/quote]
No. He returns the money back to the people in his district, you dolt. The federal government has no role in spending his constituent’s money.
edited[/quote]
Either you are intellectually dishonest or a complete fool.
Possibly both.
I wouldn’t mind hearing from some rational people regarding Paul’s hypocrisy.
I would also like to hear from Orion on this. I think he is bright enough to know it is wrong.
[quote]Big Banana wrote:
Either you are intellectually dishonest or a complete fool.
Possibly both.
I wouldn’t mind hearing from some rational people regarding Paul’s hypocrisy.
I would also like to hear from Orion on this. I think he is bright enough to know it is wrong.[/quote]
As far as I remember he votes against earmarks but then fights to get as much of the money that will be spent anyway to his district.
I would not call that hypocrisy.
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Big Banana wrote:
Either you are intellectually dishonest or a complete fool.
Possibly both.
I wouldn’t mind hearing from some rational people regarding Paul’s hypocrisy.
I would also like to hear from Orion on this. I think he is bright enough to know it is wrong.[/quote]
As far as I remember he votes against earmarks but then fights to get as much of the money that will be spent anyway to his district.
I would not call that hypocrisy.[/quote]
He does far more than that.
He gets more than average.
He spends it on things that are not constitutional.
He votes for it in committee and then against on the House vote.
Basically he does what the other crooks do but he pretends he doesn’t.
[quote]Big Banana wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Big Banana wrote:
Either you are intellectually dishonest or a complete fool.
Possibly both.
I wouldn’t mind hearing from some rational people regarding Paul’s hypocrisy.
I would also like to hear from Orion on this. I think he is bright enough to know it is wrong.[/quote]
As far as I remember he votes against earmarks but then fights to get as much of the money that will be spent anyway to his district.
I would not call that hypocrisy.[/quote]
He does far more than that.
He gets more than average.
He spends it on things that are not constitutional.
He votes for it in committee and then against on the House vote.
Basically he does what the other crooks do but he pretends he doesn’t.
[/quote]
And again:
He votes against them, but if they happen anyway he makes sure that his district gets its share.
He has been very open about this and explained repeatedly why he does it the way he does.
I also agree with him on this. I milk the system for every dime I can, because if you take my money you can be sure that I try to get it back by any means possible.
Now I would prefer to keep it in the first place, but if that is not an option I am not going to ruin myself striving for ideological purity.
You get your hands dirty if you play on a dirty field but that does not make you a dirty player.
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Big Banana wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Big Banana wrote:
Either you are intellectually dishonest or a complete fool.
Possibly both.
I wouldn’t mind hearing from some rational people regarding Paul’s hypocrisy.
I would also like to hear from Orion on this. I think he is bright enough to know it is wrong.[/quote]
As far as I remember he votes against earmarks but then fights to get as much of the money that will be spent anyway to his district.
I would not call that hypocrisy.[/quote]
He does far more than that.
He gets more than average.
He spends it on things that are not constitutional.
He votes for it in committee and then against on the House vote.
Basically he does what the other crooks do but he pretends he doesn’t.
[/quote]
And again:
He votes against them, but if they happen anyway he makes sure that his district gets its share.
He has been very open about this and explained repeatedly why he does it the way he does.
I also agree with him on this. I milk the system for every dime I can, because if you take my money you can be sure that I try to get it back by any means possible.
Now I would prefer to keep it in the first place, but if that is not an option I am not going to ruin myself striving for ideological purity.
You get your hands dirty if you play on a dirty field but that does not make you a dirty player.
[/quote]
That is not what happens at all. It is a shame you refuse to address reality.
The man is not a libertarian, not a constitutionalist although he plays one on TV.
Any other libertarian leaning folks have a problem with Ron Paul or am I the only one?
[quote]Big Banana wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Big Banana wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Big Banana wrote:
Either you are intellectually dishonest or a complete fool.
Possibly both.
I wouldn’t mind hearing from some rational people regarding Paul’s hypocrisy.
I would also like to hear from Orion on this. I think he is bright enough to know it is wrong.[/quote]
As far as I remember he votes against earmarks but then fights to get as much of the money that will be spent anyway to his district.
I would not call that hypocrisy.[/quote]
He does far more than that.
He gets more than average.
He spends it on things that are not constitutional.
He votes for it in committee and then against on the House vote.
Basically he does what the other crooks do but he pretends he doesn’t.
[/quote]
And again:
He votes against them, but if they happen anyway he makes sure that his district gets its share.
He has been very open about this and explained repeatedly why he does it the way he does.
I also agree with him on this. I milk the system for every dime I can, because if you take my money you can be sure that I try to get it back by any means possible.
Now I would prefer to keep it in the first place, but if that is not an option I am not going to ruin myself striving for ideological purity.
You get your hands dirty if you play on a dirty field but that does not make you a dirty player.
[/quote]
That is not what happens at all. It is a shame you refuse to address reality.
The man is not a libertarian, not a constitutionalist although he plays one on TV.
Any other libertarian leaning folks have a problem with Ron Paul or am I the only one?[/quote]
Nice double talk from Paul.
He earmarks money for unconstitutional spending and then tries to bullshit about it.
Phony.
[quote]Big Banana wrote:
Nice double talk from Paul.
He earmarks money for unconstitutional spending and then tries to bullshit about it.
Phony. [/quote]
So, the system being as it is, what would you suggest he should do?
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Big Banana wrote:
Nice double talk from Paul.
He earmarks money for unconstitutional spending and then tries to bullshit about it.
Phony. [/quote]
So, the system being as it is, what would you suggest he should do?
[/quote]
Not use earmarks for unconstitutional spending.
It really isn’t double talk and he is correct most people do not understand how the budgeting process works. Earmarks occur AFTER the budget is passed. So the money is going to get spent regardless of earmarks. Earmarks simply determine where. He votes against the budget, but then once/if the budget passes he fights for his district to get some of that budget.
Effectively he is saying if his constituents are going to be forced to pay property and income taxes against their will the least they can do is get some of that money back in government services. But make no mistake, his voting record clearly shows he is against these budgets and these taxes happening in the first place. For him not to take any of these earmarks would be doubly injurious to his constituents: they would be taxed for services but then be forced to forgo them by their representative.
Earmark spending is hideously mis-characterized in this country and is an easy scapegoat for politicians to use to avoid addressing the fundamental issues of government spending in general. Rather than reform the tax code, lower taxes or simply cut the budget, they can claim “well if we could just get rid of those earmarks everything would be working just fine”. Which is a gross mis-characterization of the facts and does nothing but mislead the public on where the real issues lay.
[quote]Big Banana wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Big Banana wrote:
Nice double talk from Paul.
He earmarks money for unconstitutional spending and then tries to bullshit about it.
Phony. [/quote]
So, the system being as it is, what would you suggest he should do?
[/quote]
Not use earmarks for unconstitutional spending.[/quote]
Well that would mean no earmarks at all.
Which would be fine with him, but as long as there are earmarks he makes sure his disctrict gets their cut.
Where is the problem?