Posted on 03/20/2009 6:12:12 AM PDT by all the best
Congressman Ron Paul on the righteous indignation over the AIG bonuses, when the real problem is the the trillions of dollars wasted by the Fed and Congress with the stupid bailouts.
(Excerpt) Read more at youtube.com ...
I don’t agree with him on everything but GO RON PAUL!
Any man who speaks the truth today is a target from these communist crums.
My contention in the primaries was that he was the true lesser of all the evils because he was a constitutionalist. Many bashed him because of his policies on foreign policy. I argued that his foreign policy would be less dangerous than Obamas and perhaps hillary’s, while his monetary and constitutional policies would definately be much better. Not too many agreed, and that is unfortunate. He could not have done more damage to our foreign policy than obama has, and he would have done better in spades with monetary policy. He would have been way way better with the constitution, and, the truth be told, he did stick to every word of the constitution when it came to his war/foreign policy..........
Rudy, Sarah, Mitt, Huck, George (hah!), Fred, Brownback, Hunter......?
A few have made the obligatory one-shot TV or roast chicken banquet appearance effusing in righteous indignation.....some not at all.....and then back into Rip Van Winkle mode.
Not one is breaking out of the pack in any noticeable way.
We are so screwed.
Leni
What was the total dollar amount on the good doctor’s earmarks in the budget bill?
I the government decided to give $5000(or whatever) to every man, woman and child I would strenuously oppose it. However once it was final I would see that my family and I got every last dime. It would be my responsibility. Are you telling me that you would allow your family to be taxed and getting nothing in return.
The good doctor opposed/opposes such fed spending and sees is as moral to see that his constituents recover some of their stolen goods. He voted against the spending just as I would the $5000 giveaway and then switched to recovery. He has explained this.
We are indeed, and we have done it to ourselves by electing these losers.
We need a FRESH FACE with a REAGAN voice. That’s what we need.
Or a target from anyone afraid of non-RINO GOP candidates.
“He voted against the spending just as I would the $5000 giveaway and then switched to recovery. He has explained this.”
ROTFL ... yeah, “explained”. Whatever. He inserts them into a bill that he knows will pass, then he votes against the bill. Hypocrite is what I call it.
Thanks Ron. That needed to be said.
I may not agree with him on everything all the time, but on this he is right on.
Who do you think is the ideal candidate for president?
“Who do you think is the ideal candidate for president?”
Of the current possibilities, none yet. A few have potential but don’t have the full package.
So because a candidate who put in earmarks in an effort to get some of his own money back in case a bill passed, but tried to stop the bill from passing and has a record of voting against the crazy spending going on in congress today, that candidate totally unacceptable?
Lots of luck finding your “perfect” candidate.
Has your wife found the perfect man yet? If she has, is she going to dump you?
“So because a candidate who put in earmarks in an effort to get some of his own money back in case a bill passed, but tried to stop the bill from passing and has a record of voting against the crazy spending going on in congress today, that candidate totally unacceptable?”
The word “hypocrite” means more to me than you apparently. For those believing Paul is the uber Constitutional guy, how many of those earmarks that Paul got are for items specifically permitted for the federal government in the Constitution?
Thus, the hypocrite tag...
“Apparently you would not be man enough to recover what the gov steals from your family. That old man has moer balls than you. There are not ENOUGH earmarks. Every cent in the budget should be earmarked.”
ROTFLMAO ... here’s a thought. SHRINKING government instead of milking the taxpayers — trying to buy their love with their own money.
What I don’t understand is if the government is going to monetize the debt, why make anyone pay taxes? Wouldn’t be the same thing if every year the government just printed enough money to cover the budget, say 2T/year? that is a about 20 % increase in the money supply per year.
Everyone goes off on these dumb tangential issues and arguing over whether a state should accept money thrust upon them (assuming of course that there are no strings attached) is one of those tangential issues.
The real issue is: How do we stop the spending. How do we prevent any and all earmarks? How do we get each and every appropriation examined and voted on by the congress?
Cure those problems and the question of earmarks is moot. They die from lack of life support.
The key to problem solving is to identify the real problem, not wasting times on the symptoms. The symptoms are not the disease, they are only pointers that one uses to find the disease.
Earmarks are pointers. The disease is the idea that wealth can be created by government.
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.