Ron Paul Honored as "Taxpayers' Friend" for Tenth Consecutive Year

US House of Representatives -- Texas 14th District ^ | February 21, 2002 | US House Press Releases

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

Paul Honored as "Taxpayers' Friend" for Tenth Consecutive Year

www.house.gov/paul/
February 21, 2007

Washington, DC: Congressman Ron Paul has been recognized as a top advocate for taxpayers in the U.S. Congress for the tenth year in a row, earning the nonpartisan National Taxpayers Union’s annual award as a "Taxpayers’ Friend" for 2005. Only 30 of 435 members in the U.S. House of Representatives earned similar honors last year.

The annual NTU rating is based on critical congressional votes relating to federal tax, spending, and regulatory issues. Paul consistently ranks at or near the top of NTU’s scorecard in terms of his pro-taxpayer votes.

Overall, however, Congress is slipping when it comes to serving the least-represented special interest of all—American taxpayers.

"If every member of Congress voted like Representative Paul, Americans could enjoy much lower taxes and less waste in government," stated NTU President John Berthoud. "Overburdened taxpayers in Texas and across the nation owe Mr. Paul a debt of gratitude for his hard work on their behalf."

"While many Members of Congress talk about reducing the size of government, Representative Paul backed up those words with votes. This award proves that he is a consistent and effective ally in our battle to restore fiscal responsibility to Washington."

[jrooney]

Victory is a stable democratic governement in the middle east where its citizens can go vote for its choice of elected leaders. We have elected leaders in this country that would side with terrorists over or own government, so your argument carries no weight.

As a former marine and damn proud of it, Ron Paul will never get my vote. Never. As you saw on the other thread you posted the other day for Ron Paul, there are many freepers that feel that way, and many that would have voted for him before his no vote on the surge. He will neve make it to higher office.

[TheKidster]

Do you believe it constitutes a "victory" to leave in Power a Government of Iraq which harbors self-confessed, and even Convicted, Anti-American Terrorists in their Ruling Coalition? How is that a "victory"?

This is where my doubts come from. I was full force 100% for the invasion and extremely optimistic after the first election but when it became apparant that they didn't want a secular representative govt. over there I began to lose hope.

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

This is where my doubts come from. I was full force 100% for the invasion and extremely optimistic after the first election but when it became apparant that they didn't want a secular representative govt. over there I began to lose hope.

Saddam is dead.

Iraq has suffered a very serious object lesson in what happens if they piss us off.

But now... If the Iraqis had elected Osama bin Laden to Power, would that be acceptable -- because he was "elected demoractically"? NO. "Democracies" which elect Terrorists to Power, which knowingly and willfully harbor self-confessed and convicted terrorists, in their Ruling Majority Coalition no less, are not worthy of one more American dollar nor one more drop of American blood.

Time to pack up and let them kill eachother off.

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

Victory is a stable democratic governement in the middle east where its citizens can go vote for its choice of elected leaders. We have elected leaders in this country that would side with terrorists over or own government, so your argument carries no weight.

So if the Iraqis had elected Osama bin Laden to power, that would be alright with you, because he was "elected democratically"?

The Shi'ite terrorists running the Iraqi Government have been implicated in the deaths of 241 United States Marines in Beirut. They no longer deserve one more dollar nor one more drop of American blood spent in their support.

"Democracies" which elect Terrorists to power are not worthy of our continued support. Period. Everything else you say is just spin to try to excuse your support for the terrorist-dominated Government of Iraq.

[jrooney]

If we leave Iraq, AL Qaeda and Iran will take over there. Are you okay will a base of operations for Al Qaeda that had oil resources to pay for their attacks against our allies, our western interests, us and topple the other governments in the middle east, so they control all all the oil resources there? We would be forced to go back there in the future and fight a more formidable enemy with more financial resources. Have you thought of this? I doubt it. Your arguments are pathetic, just like your candidate. I hope he runs, so when he is beaten badly, you will see how little influence he and his followers have.

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

If we leave Iraq, AL Qaeda and Iran will take over there.

AL Dawa and SCIRI are Iranian-backed.

They're already running Iraq.

[jrooney]

Ron Paul has sided with the party of jackasses in the WOT, and the donks would like to see the NSA program of listening in on terrorists stopped, the kid glove handling of terrorists when interrogating them, giving terrorists access to our court system and rights under our consitution. That is what the donks want and Paul sided with them on his vote for the surge. I will never support the POS period. Everytime I am online and you do your little threads for Paul, I will post my points why he is not worthy.

[jrooney]

Some members yes, some no. Why do you think we are doing this surge? To eliminate assets of Iran, but that is not important to Paul or you. You all just want to hand Iraq over to them on a platter. Real Christian of you.

[cva66snipe]

That is where people like you get it wrong. He said no to Petraeus, the general that wanted the extra troops to assist our soldiers there. He said our troops do not need the reinforcements to win. I can't wait for the next vote to cut off funding for the war, Ron Paul will be right there to support it and eternally seal his defeat of ever seeking higher office

No I have it right. END TROOP STRENGHTS. Look them up. We are at a 1996 level of active duty and reserves. That means more deployments longer deployments and shorter time home. That has absolutely nothing to do with how many ground forces are in Iraq or elsewhere. We are in a critical shortage as its obvious from the rotations. That is of course unless you think Slick Willies 1996 numbers are just fine.

[Sam Hill]

"...And by failing to Vote on a Constitutional Declaration of War, (as Ron Paul demanded before any Troops be committed to Iraq) Congress has left our kidnapped Troops in Iraq without the protection of Prisoner of War status."

What laughable idiocy.

Read a book or something, would ya?

[chesty_puller]

Calling them cowards and traitors for differing is the mark of an imbecile.

Defending Paul is a sure sign of a fool. Our military asked for additional troops to help end this war. Ron Paul voted no. Sorry Buddy, but that is a traitor.

[jrooney]

That has nothing to do with Paul voting no on the surge. Petraeus wanted reinforcements to assist our soldiers there, and Paul said no. Screw him and anyone that supports that notion. You post here has nothing to do with what we were talking about. You should quit drinking. Put down the bottle, and sleep it off.

[damper99]

Would you like to be added to the Ron Paul ping list?

NO. He's right on a few things and wrong on many more.

[George W. Bush]

And I hate it! I'm fighting to keep the scales over my eyes but reality is steadily seeping in.

Join the crowd. I was really gung-ho. For me, it was when all those bazillion WMDs Colin Powell pointed out in photos at his U.N. address failed to materialize. Every last one of them. And with our satellites overhead, our recon planes and drones and our in-country special forces prior to the invasion. Even so, I've tried to be loyal to the war and to Bush. Except for an occasional cynical remark, I still am.

But it's hard to say Ron Paul was wrong. And his support for Afghanistan was generally right. It will be in Afghanistan or Pakistan that we are most likely to find and kill Osama and his top henchmen.

[George W. Bush]

Most republicans support the mission in Iraq and believe it was right to remove Saddam, therefore those that do not, such as Paul and yourself are in the minority of republicans.

Actually, the single largest reason why we lost our congressional majority was because of the ill-considered decision to remove Saddam on a tidal wave of public anger and fear over 9/11.

So this majority of Republicans you want to see repudiate Ron Paul and myself just managed to use that very policy to make themselves into the minority party.

You truly are a Prince Of Irony.

[George W. Bush]

Our military asked for additional troops to help end this war. Ron Paul voted no. Sorry Buddy, but that is a traitor.

Hmm...they'd been asking Rumsfeld for the same thing and he said no too, probably for different reasons. Even so, does that also make Secretary Rumsfeld a traitor?

As Ron Paul and many of us would tell you, treason is very specific and limited. Treason charges are the classic tools a tyrant will use to suppress dissent. This is why America has only one famous traitor, Benedict Arnold. It's not that we're so loyal, it's that our Founders protected us from those who would use such charges to suppress free speech for their own selfish and/or unconstitutional purposes.

[TheKidster]

The WMD thing didn't make much of a difference to me. I knew that if he did have them the UN posturing and our telegraphing our intentions for months gave him all the time he needed to ship them out of the country. I was much more interested in the idea of seeing a wave of representative government sweep thru the Mid East after Afghanistan and Iraq and hopefully Iran. When it became clear that the people don't want or can't fathom a secular representative govt. the despair began to set in. That was the real goal and it doesn't look like the people hunger for freedom as much as we thought.
Now it's a matter of a crusade against islamofacsism and keeping it at bay until we can ween ourselves off mid east oil, but we aren't really doing anything about that either. At this point I'd be happy if we just took the oil until they paid off the debt they owe us, by force if necessary since they really aren't our friends or won't be in 5 years anyhow.

[chesty_puller]

...they'd been asking Rumsfeld for the same thing

He was the SecDef and ran the war. You do understand that don't you? The present SecDef asked for more troops and Paul and all the other traitorous democrats said no. As a veteran of an unpopular war I'm a little touchy when it comes to backing the American warriors. Ron Paul turned his back on these troops and I will never forgive him.

[George W. Bush]

No, the Pentagon was asking for more troops all along. Rumsfeld always said no, we have enough. So, is he a traitor? Was Bush a traitor for following Rumsfeld's advice?

I'm not telling you to change your feelings about Paul. I'm just saying people fling around the word traitor until it becomes meaningless.

[jrooney]

Since you dislike GW so much why do you use his name as your moniker?