Posted on 09/01/2011 12:44:44 AM PDT by Absolutely Nobama
The money has already been taxed for fy 2010, and the budget was passed in 2009. In 2010, they wrote the budget for 2011, for which taxes will be collected in 2012. Until the tax money rolls in, it will be financed with bonds. In each of those budgets, there is pork, earmarks, whatever you want to call it, along with the larger scale thievery along those lines, all of which come to substantially more than 1% of any budget. Strict construction of the Constitution requires that Congress only enact laws and spend money for things that are necessary and proper for the exercise of its specifically enumerated powers. Paul doesn’t do that. Neither does any other Congressman. But Ron Paul claims to, and that’s a myth. I rest my case.
IF the earmarked miney was going back to his district as say, a tax rebate, that his district could use as they sa fit, that is one thing. But that isn’t how earmarks work. The money is designated for specific projects, many of which are vanity, most of which are a waste and a drain, even on the district when the earmarked money runs out. Remember the “Big Dig”? The “Bridge to Nowhere”? The study of pork rinds?
‘scuse the typos.
But he votes against the spending bills, so if every Congressman voted like him, there would be no earmarks. I rest my case.
Precisely. That's logical for anyone who wants to understand it. But you have to understand the motivation for those calling Ron Paul "a hypocrite" on this earmark issue.
Ron Paul has always been, not just a winner, but a formidable winner in his District. To try to make Ron Paul less electable, his political opponents -- both Democratic and Republican -- tried to smear and scare Ron Paul into not asking for earmarks for his District. It didn't work. He isn't an idiot. He didn't fall for it. He won reelection to the House in the last election with 70% of the vote.
Since he's been running for president, Ron Paul's detractors have taken up to using the same old propaganda they tried in his District. They understand it. They just want to recruit anyone who doesn't.
When the good doctor voted to raise taxes on the rich and sided with the Democrat Party on the Bush Tax cuts, he voted to raise taxes on the so-called rich.
It’s cheap and easy to vote against something you know will pass with or without you. I’d like to see a consistent effort by lawmakers to write an alternative bill without all the tricks. They only do this every once in a while to make a statement, like in 1994, or when President Ron kept the spending from growing faster than GNP for a while (”Cuts” in Washingspeak). Mean time the game goes on, as it has long before the Tea Party existed. If there were a regular annual rebuttal budget, one day there will be a President who will adopt it, who might get elected based on a promise to sign that and not the pork budget.
That is a lie. Paul voted for the Democrat bill to cut taxes on the middle class and he also voted for a related Republican bill to cut taxes for everyone. Paul always vote to cut taxes. Stop lying.
Americans for Tax Reform comments below:
“In our opinion, Cong. Paul did not vote for a tax hike. The bill Congress voted on yesterday is a tax cut relative to 2011 law, which assumes everyone’s taxes go up. By preventing some people’s taxes from going up, this would score out as a tax cut.”
Are you serious? Are the Paulbots on this page serious? They talk flippantly about nothing being wrong with earmarks, while holding up Paul as the beacon of economic Conservatism. They always use terms like “well, RP supports this, or RP said that”. They always send youtube videos to prove their points, even when his voting record is contrary to what he says. And, his happy supporters just drink in the kool-aid. Ok, so earmarks might be just 1% of the budget, but he says that he is just returning the money taken from the people of his district BACK to those people. Yet, he fails to mention that this earmark money comes from OTHER taxpayers like you and me. He is against waste, but votes for projects in his district ALL while saying he is doing this because he Constituents want him to do so. Then, he turns around and says it should be his job to appropriate money for his district, but claims to be a steadfast supporter of states right...so, why not leave this money to the STATE to decide? RP is stark raving mad and his supporters are worse.
BTW, as someone pointed out earlier, I am sick and tired of hearing the Paulbots say “and RP has never voted for a tax hike”. The problem is that he vote for TONS of earmarks (wasteful spending) KNOWING full well whether or not a bill will pass. This is nothing more than politics at its worst. Sure, he doesn’t vote for the bill in the end because he doesn’t have to...it makes him look fiscally responsible. In the meantime, he is up with Pelosi packing the bill, that he will later oppose, with TONS of earmarks. Hypocrisy.
“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
It is interesting that you won’t retract your lie.
Money that is not earmarked for anything is free money for Obama to dump into ACORN. Please stop shilling for Obama’s financial scams and Communist influence-peddling. Thanks.
Right, so because your cult leader is a hypocrite, you call me a Obama shill? You are definitely a Paulie. BTW, is it Constitutional for O to do this?
Very little O does is Constitutional. What you are advocating in real-world terms is that O have more cash to spread around to his crooked buddies. If that isn’t shilling for Obama; I don’t know what is.
So, it is better for me to have MY cash spread around to Ron Paul’s buddies?
What lie ? I’m not following....
Which buddies? Be specific.
Are you asking if it’s better to build a road in Texas than register dead Mexican Obama voters and buy Van Jones a summer house?
Are really you that easily confused, or just lying again?
Nope. I stand by what I wrote. I’ve researched it and provided links.
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.