Posted on 10/09/2007 12:16:56 PM PDT by dirtboy
Where did I write that Paul said we should attack Saudi Arabia. Paul never said that, that I know of.
I am saying that. We should attack Saudi Arabia and not Iran. I am not going to address the rest of your post.
Unfortunately, this isn’t about you, or the taxpayers of Texas getting back the money they sent to Washington. It’s aobut Ron Paul, and you’re just collateral damage.
From the link below.
The Texas Transportation Department has lately warned of a budget crunch. Yet the highway-building agency raked in more federal funds than all but three other state agencies around the nation in the first three quarters of the 2006 fiscal year: $2.9 billion
In answer to the question So why all the effort to smear Ron Paul? you answered Because these people don’t want to make war on Saudi Arabia, the true state sponsor of terrorism and Wahabi poison, or even to find Osama Bin Laden. Instead they want to continue to endanger American military men and women and tax us into submission, only to endanger us with their short-sighted foreign policy blunders in Iraq.. I assumed you were presenting that as a reason so many freepers oppose Paul.
If you want to attack Saudi Arabia, Paul probably isn’t your candidate on that issue.
As to the rest, can’t blame you, sometimes the things that come out of Paul’s mouth are as potentially embarrassing to Republicans as the places he says them.
Wait. What about Alaska and Sen Ted ‘Bridges’ Stevens? Does Alaska come up only when somebody is deflecting attention from his own money-sucking State?
'Nuff Said. ;)
“Smear? Calling a candidate on his hypocrisy is a smear?”
No, calling someone on hypocrisy is not a smear. Have you called any other candidates on there hypocrisy?
I do all the time when I see it.
Texas is, IIRC, the second largest state in population. Of course it's going to have a large share of federal dollars spent here.
It's also disingenuous not to separate things out a bit. Bridges to nowhere are quite different than the purchase of fighter planes (Lockheed Ft. Worth) or Helicopters(Bell). Texas also has the largest (population) military base, Ft. Hood. Salaries and contracts for services add up to a pretty penny. Texas has lots of other military bases and posts as well. In part due to the generally good flying weather and just because it's also geographically the largest of the 48 contiguous states, and historically low population density. (Ft. Hood takes up most of one county, and parts of others.)
Because of it's large population, it naturally gets a large chunk of the "transfer" payments as well, from social security to AFDC and lots in between.
Not without an analyis of just what those federal dollars are for. If they are for purchase of goods and services to serve Constitutional federal programs, that's one thing, but's quite another if they are for bridges over the bayous, except perhaps interstate and defense hiway bridges. (For example, most everything that gets shipped overseas to/from Ft. Hood goes through ) Houston/Galveston.)
About the only Texas politicos who I see excessive projects named after are LBJ and Alberto Gonzales (In parts of San Antonio at least). But nothing like the plethora of "Robert Byrd" building/bridge/tunnel/auditorium and cow path you see in West Virginia. (We do have a George H.W. Bush tollway, while the highway named after LBJ is a *free* way).
The consistency, or any lack of it, between Mr. Paul’s positions is not in how much “federal benefits/grants/whatever” his district gets, but in whether or not he consistently votes for lower federal taxes and votes against reckless program excesses. He is not singularly responsible for the benefits that do accrue to his constituents for those excesses.
I do not know his voting record, and in that regard I do not know how he voted on appropriations bills or policy changes from which benefits to his constituents have accrued. If the authors know that, they did not say so.
I think it is very difficult for those politicians who oppose higher federal taxes to oppose their constituents receiving their proportionate share of federal programs paid for with the excess taxes imposed on their constituents. It is like saying: “Sorry, I could not keep your taxes down but don’t worry I made sure that none of that excess taken from you is coming back to you. I am you all applaud my principled stand.” It’s untenable.
The solution is 100% on the tax and social policy, pork policy side and needs an effort like the 1994-GOP congressional campaign - one to put the federal pot of gold myth to rest. Without such an effort, I don’t know what options a tax cutter like Paul can take, other than to oppose higher federal taxes as much as he can and support his constituents.
Uh, you don't want to go there. In terms of pork compared to Paul, your candidate is Robert Byrd.
There’s nothing hypocritical about what Paul is doing, just FReeper yukking it up with the usual ad-hominems and jokes.
Hardly. And what the pork is, is of import as well.
Some of Hunter’s pork was non-defense related, you know.
Not to defend Ron Paul (or any other representative) but that quote adequately describes the fraud being carried out by this "private watchdog group." Along with Medicare and Social security payments these are government operations which are not given to a state but to individuals or federal government agencies.
Some agency, probably this one, puts out a fraud like this every year and the MSM jumps right on it to misinform the people.
“I do all the time when I see it.”
You’re a better man than I am, I just take it as the natural condition of the political class. Please excuse my mis-spelling of “their”.
Dan
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.