Posted on 09/01/2011 12:44:44 AM PDT by Absolutely Nobama
It’s his attitude towards this behavior the the problem.
Do you understand the reason why he puts in earmarks and then votes against the appropriations bills?
The last time I checked, public spending is not a “tax rebate.” The individual doesn’t benefit, only the “collective” allegedly does.
In the interview with Cavuto, Paul sounded like a Marxist.
Don’t get me wrong, sometimes Ron Paul says great things. (At one point, I was one of his supporters. Why else would I read a book by Thomas Woods ?) But he also says a lot of stupid things. It’s the stupid things, which greatly outnumber the good things.
Ron Paul has also voted for a tax hike.
“In addition to never voting for an unbalanced budget, Ron Paul often touts his record of never having voted for a tax increase. Some people are arguing that this streak ended yesterday when Paul, joined by Paul-influenced Republicans Jimmy Duncan and Walter Jones, voted for the House Democrats’ extension of the Bush tax cuts for the middle class.”
http://spectator.org/blog/2010/12/03/did-ron-paul-vote-for-a-tax-in
“In the space of 24 hours, Rep. Ron Paul (R., Texas) has voted for tax hikes, against censure for Charlie Rangel, and defended Julian Assange.”
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/254459/ron-pauls-idiem-mirabilisi-daniel-foster
I don't think he was being literal. It is a way for taxation to get back to the local district from where it came. His point was that it is better for spending to go back to the local districts than to stay in Washington.
“I don’t think he was being literal.”
I do, especially since he’s voted for tax hikes. Please check out the links I’ve posted on this thread.
Ron Paul has voted for tax increases? News to me. I’ll look at anything you have.
#23
I don't think the extension would count as voting for a tax increase. He's on the record supporting a repeal of the 16th Amendment. Semantics over what is and what's not a tax cut on the Bush extensions are just that.
He's one of the good guys on taxation, and to suggest otherwise is just stupid.
We’ll have to agree to disagree.
I just don't see how one can call Ron Paul a supporter of higher taxation.
He wants to eliminate the 16th Amendment and the IRS.
So if he gets back more pork for his state than the taxes that were extracted from it, he’s still just returning stolen money, or doing some stealing himself from some other state? Furthermore, was the money returned to the taxpayers from whom it was actually filched, or to some project that abstractly benefits “his state,” and therefore also indirectly the individual taxpayers who actually paid the taxes, even though they may never visit the museum or cross the bridge, or chill in the park. This sounds like a flimsy rationalization for keeping the racket going exactly as is.
I can't speak for his district, but the state of Texas as a whole only gets back 94% of what it puts in as far as taxation is concerned.
This sounds like a flimsy rationalization for keeping the racket going exactly as is.
I don't understand your issue, I truly don't. You seem to be saying that the money should stay in Washington, and that to be truly consistent, he can't just vote against the appropriations bills, he has to reserve no return of tax money to his district.
So is it better to have the money stay in Washington, or better for some of it to return to the district in some form. If Ron Paul had his way, there would be no income tax and no IRS, but he's working within the reality of the situation.
How about not send it there in such large gobs. The money doesn’t stay in Washington. It goes there because Washington needs it to support all the pet projects that each lawmaker brings home to his district or state, as well as gigantic entitlement programs, and a military that has been known in the past to spend hundreds of dollars on a hammer. Tax less. Spend less. Simple enough.
It requires a little discipline on the part of lawmakers. They bring pork to their district so that they can use it as a plus for their reelection campaigns. Many of them run unopposed. Those that do have a race to win are in office. Their opponents are not in a position to outspend them in the halls of Congress. So to win reelection, they can instead enact wise laws, support limitations on government spending, make lofty speeches.
Or they can appropriate pork based on the erroneous supposition that the money starts out in Washington and will stay there if they don’t bring home the bacon, and that’s the way the game is played, whether Texas is giving more than it’s getting or getting more than it’s giving.
“his reent appearance on iran TV is nothing short of incitement from a sitting US Congresman.”
Pardon my ignorance. I didn’t know he was doing that. That comes dangerously close to the Hanoi Jane line between free speech and treason.
I poked around looking at the issue, and it looks like Paul did appear on Al-Jazeera, but was only quoted by Iranian state TV after his debate appearance. I don’t like the idea of appearing on Al-Jazeera, but it’s not quite to the same degree as appearing on Iran’s state channel.
There is more. I have to search to refind the links. there have been several articles posted here on FR with links. One specifically dealt with Israel’s nukes and the poster was nearly hysterical over it.
I wonder how they identified themselves.
How is voting “for an extension of tax cuts” voting “for a tax increase”? It sounds like the opposite.
But I don't understand why you think Paul's district should be the only one that doesn't receive anything.
Tax less. Spend less. Simple enough.
I honestly can't think of one Congressman who has lived up to that principle more than Paul, regardless of whether or not he makes earmarks. The money has already been taxed. Whether or not Congresspeople send it back to their district will have no effect on the rates of taxation.
His non-interventionism is much too spiced with hippie pacifism for me, but I can't seem to sympathize with your point about earmarks. I completely understand why he puts them in there, and why votes against the appropriations bills that contain them.
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.