Posted on 03/20/2009 6:12:12 AM PDT by all the best
If you support Ron Paul you’re probably in a militia. At least that’s what the gubmint thinks.
You do realize don’t you that even if there were zero earmarks that federal spending would not go down even $0.01 . . . right?
Earmarks do not create new spending. Before the first earmark request has been submitted the spending level has already been set.
I think.
“Earmarks do not create new spending. Before the first earmark request has been submitted the spending level has already been set.”
Thanks for re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. Again, SHRINKING the size and power of government not playing sophomoric games - while pretending its some sort of noble effort - is the key.
Now explain to us how refusing an earmark shrinks the size of government spending when that spending is already set.
In essence, you have a pie that is already baked and on the table.
Earmarks are slices of the pie, which is only so big and can't get any bigger. It is already out of the oven.
So you refuse to eat any of the pie. That makes it smaller?
Please explain.
Oh, I get it. You let someone eat your slice, which if you could have forced yourself to take it would have fed your children (constituents).
Great move.
Ron Paul Ping!
I’ll just ask how many times does Ron Paul have to demonstrate he’s unelectable on a national level before the Paulie Girls give it up?
He’s a rank hypocrite, with a messiah complex in his own right. As his requests for earmarks demonstrate conclusively.
And I feel pretty much the same way towards Richard Shelby, Arlen Spector, and every other Republican that earmarked their way to infamy this year.
Ron Paul isn’t a ‘different’ kind of politician. He’s the same old same old, except he thinks being cranky is a virtue.
Regardless of whether Paul earmarks or not, the money has already been appropriated and it WILL be spent by someone. I’m on the fence about this because on one hand I feel he has a duty to his constituents to get this money since it’s almost assured that whatever bill we’re talking about will pass. On the other hand, I feel he should stick to his guns on constitutionalism and not submit requests for earmarks at all.
What I don’t understand is why his requests are ever even granted. He always votes against these bills (and everyone knows it) and so nobody has any incentive to put in his requests. Why give him $x million for such and such if he’s going to vote against the bill?
“Earmarks are slices of the pie, which is only so big and can’t get any bigger. “
So as long as you get your “fair share”, you’re happy with politicians who feed you the pie you paid for?
Yeah, that sounds about right for a Paul apologist.
In case you hadn't noticed, he regularly does this, and then votes "no" on the bills.
His reasoning goes thus: "Washington is taking so much of our money, that I think we should ask for some of it back."
So whether you agree with this or not, that is what has been happening.
if a bumper sticker gets me on a militia watch list...
would this make him a ‘militia leader’ in the eyes of the left?
“Thanks for re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. Again, SHRINKING the size and power of government not playing sophomoric games - while pretending its some sort of noble effort - is the key.”
If your goal is to actually lower government spending then earmarks should be the absolutely last thing you ought to be addressing.
But if your goal is something else then keep on keeping on.
Earmarks wouldn't matter a darn thing if more Congress Critters voted AGAINST the Bill.
Hey Ron,
It starts with you!
Quit asking for Earmarks and then maybe we will take you seriously!
Sincerely,
A Concerned Taxpayer.
...I too, disagree with Paul on some issues, but I agree with him on many. He is the most principled statesman we have. Bravo, Mr. Paul...
If conservatives are ever going to get back in the game, they must stop being anti everything and for something.
And for some candidate.
That does not mean for a McCain or Huckabee, but it means that you must pick someone who will really work to end the crazy spending, attacks on the Constitution, etc.
Now lets imagine that there was a bill in the congress today that would end the fiscal madness we are watching today and that the bill were constructed in such a manner that it would end all bailouts, all earmarks, all deficit spending except in time of war and that it would simultaneously bring back strict deference to the 10th Amendment.
what candidate in the present field would be guaranteed to vote for it? That candidate would have to be Ron Paul. Now in spite of the smart remark that I am a Paul girlie, an asinine comment, I did not vote for him because I was so scared of Obummer. I kept the upchuck down and voted for McCain only because Obummer poses the most dangerous threat to this country than any foreign government or any foreign army ever has or ever will. Nevertheless, the constant jabs at Paul illustrate that there is a group who is for nothing but against everything. Paul does have the problem that he is mot a mesmerizing speaker capable of mass hypnosis. That is one of the major reasons he will never be elected. Unfortunate.
That is what earmarks do. They decease the power of the executive branch (in this case, Obama) without raising spending. They're scapegoated by some grandstanders in Washington who pretend to hate big spending but vote for big spending bills (like McCain being anti-pork and voting for the bailout.)
Read this by Ron Paul.
Ron Paul: "To eliminate all earmarks would be to further consolidate power in the already dominant executive branch and not save a penny."
An "earmark" is nothing more than an identifier of where money-- already allocated by a bill -- is to go. Without earmarks, it reverts to a general fund without leaving any trace of where it is to be spent.
To say that you "hate earmarks" is to say, "No! I want to be ignorant about where you spend my money! Please keep me stupid about where my money is going! I am demanding that you take my money and keep me a blind idiot!" That is exactly what politicians want you to do to increase their power to do what they want with your money, but it is the worst possible leverage for demanding responsibility from them.
As for RP's earmarks in some bills, in Congress, Ron Paul was elected to represent HIS DISTRICT, not himself. And the people of his District contributed to those tax dollars being spent just like the rest of us, and they have as much right to see their money coming back to them as any of us do when that money gets spent.
Unlike most in Congress, Ron Paul realizes that he is working for his District and his people and it is THEIR MONEY, not his own, that is being spent. He knows that he has no right to use his position to grandstand at their expense.
How vain and narcissistic would Ron Paul be to "refuse all earmarks for his District" in an effort to keep himself "pristine and above reproach" at his District's expense?
Personally, I think that there are many here who understand the earmarks issue but simply want to use it on the uninformed to whip up an anti-RP sentiment. That may be "just politics", but that kind of thinking is what got us into this mess -- it's certainly not going to be what gets us out of it!
“That is what earmarks do. They decease the power of the executive branch (in this case, Obama) without raising spending. They’re scapegoated by some grandstanders in Washington who pretend to hate big spending but vote for big spending bills (like McCain being anti-pork and voting for the bailout.)”
ROTFL ... earmarks are the gateway drug to continuing the government spending addiction.
The way to shrink government is to cut taxes, and cut spending. Period.
I think Ron Paul would completely agree with that.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.