Posted on 08/25/2007 1:05:11 PM PDT by BGHater
Don’t know where you are, but here it is being sold off at the same time they’re claiming eminent domain and grabbing other property. For example, when transportation changes have occurred, the argument went “we don’t need that r-o-w anymore, since we have the new route that will take all the traffic. Then they can sell it off to developers. Then, they find that the new transportation net is inadequate...
Rep. Paul is right that politicians like to have their ribbon-cuttings. About 15 years ago, I had my class do an analysis of building a dam versus installing a groundwater well field. Overwhelmingly, the well field was the better option. My question to the class: So...which of the following options do you think will be chosen? My punchline? “The Dam” Although they didn’t believe me at the time, it turned out I was right. A dam is a better ribbon-cutting ceremony than a well field.
The Gov’t never gives up real property anymore. They don’t sell it. The days of giving row to private railroads is gone. They might exchange it with another gov’t entity if it is a park. They don’t even give out homesteads anymore. It is near impossible to find even mining claims patented out anymore. Leases, maybe. An exception is the Governor’s jet airplane just sold for $2.1 million, but that is not real estate.
#1— Rep. Paul did not “blame the USA for 9-11.” If discussion of causes is the same as “assigning blame” in your book, then you must look at a lot of society with a “blame the victim” stance. The perpetrator is to blame, regardless of motivating factors, and I am sure that Rep. Paul believes the same. But that doesn’t mean I leave the keys in my ignition with the doors unlocked.
#2— Rep. Paul has a great deal of support for the troops, and the troops support him. Note that he had more military contributions than any other candidate. The highest support I see personally for Ron Paul is amongst technical folks (no wonder the Internet support is high) and military folks.
Interstate system is Federal, and as such, I believe that it is one of the few closest ties to the interstate commerce clause. (Ugh, it pains me.)
I think that Rep. Paul would agree with you that the Constitution does not suggest restoration of a theater or subsidize American shrimpers...and that's why he votes against the funding. But if the funding gets authorized against his vote, why should it not go to projects in his district, too. (And it does seem that his support for projects is mainly for those Federal ones outside his district. That's hardly a typical congresscritter.)
I honestly hope you see the difference between trying to grab pork ... and trying to cut pork (voting against it) but taking a slice and voting to apply it as best as possible when it's already been approved against your vote.
"Because earmarks are funded from spending levels that have been determined before a single earmark is agreed to, with or without earmarks the spending levels remain the same. Eliminating earmarks designated by Members of Congress would simply transfer the funding decision process to federal bureaucrats rather then elected representatives. In an already flawed system, earmarks can at least allow residents of Congressional districts to have a greater role in allocating federal funds - their tax dollars - than if the money is allocated behind locked doors by bureaucrats. So we can be critical of the abuses in the current system but we shouldn't lose sight of how some reforms may not actually make the system much better."In other words, cure the patient...don't just Band-Aid the problem and leave it the same. And from the little research I've done, it does seem that Rep. Paul's "earmark" supports are generally for projects that are Federal in nature.
Yes he did and he Definitly does not support our toops.
Citation?
troops sorry
I’ve heard Dr. Paul say he was against spending tax dollars on government actvities unless they are “expressly authorized by the Constitution.”
Point out the section of the Constitution dealing with building, operating, and maintaining highways. I’ve got a copy in front of me and don’t see anything on transportation or highways. Please enlighten us on where to find this function as designated by the constitution.
That’s because you don’t have a leg to stand on. You’re a liberal, supporting big government and trying to justify it.
With regard to Article, Section 8 are you referring to the clause “To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes” or maybe “To establish post offices and post roads.”
Neither seems to support the rape of the populace to support spending hundreds of billions of dollars on the interstate highway system.
If Dr. Paul believes the same as you, why should I support him. Is he just another politician who feels he can twist the Constitution to support federal involvement and spending on any activity he wishes.
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.