He represents someone who wont take away Americas second largest pacifier.
Posted on 04/14/2010 7:55:12 AM PDT by SeattleBruce
Which shows one how much trouble Obama is in if he only leads Paul by one percentage point.
So why is he still taking huge earmarks and adding even more to our deficits then?
He represents someone who wont take away Americas second largest pacifier.
Apparently you don't know how the federal budget process works, so let me explain...
A federal budget proposal is put up for vote, is passed by congress (Dr. Paul votes against it because of the unconstitutional spending in it), and then is signed into law by the prez.
Almost all of the funds in the budget are allocated to specific programs - defense, entitlements, etc.
A tiny percentage of the budget is not allocated to a specific use - this is where earmark funding comes from.
Keep in mind that the "earmark" money is already budgeted, is already stolen from the taxpayer, or borrowed from the chinese, and is going to be spent.
Then what happens is, some of the taxpayers in Ron Paul's district, who elected him to represent them, come to him with funding (earmark) requests. He passes these requests on to a congressional committee - some of the requests are approved, and his constituents then get back a tiny fraction of the taxes they paid.
What would you have him do different?
You are kidding right?
That's like saying someone will commit burglary anyways, so you might as well be the one to do it and benefit from it. If all congressmen stopped voting for earmarks, there will be no earmarks. Period!
So tell me something, even when Republicans take the the majority in November, and the GOP swear to stop all earmarks(which they have already apart from clowns like Ron Paul and a few others), Ron Paul is still going to continue demanding earmarks is he?
Here’s something something someone posted in another Paul thread that sets out his statements on various issues:
http://www.ontheissues.org/Ron_Paul.htm#Social_Security
Nice sleight of hand you got going there.
That poll you just quoted was from CNN, while this Ron Paul poll is from Rasmussen.
This is the same CNN that had the Democrats ahead in the generic congressional poll by 4%, even while Rasmussen has the GOP ahead by NINE points in the generic congressional polls.
Ron Paul has no chance. NONE
EXACTLY.
All you have to do is GOOGLE or YOUTUBE: Ron Paul/ Morton Downey Jr. Show to see video that would(should have already) destroy any chance this clown has for national office.
No, and I see that you, like everyone else I've asked, are not going to answer a simple question... What Would You Do Different?
That's like saying someone will commit burglary anyways, so you might as well be the one to do it and benefit from it
Wrong! - If someone (gov't) steals $100 from you & then gives you $1 back, did you just steal $1?
So tell me something, even when Republicans take the the majority in November, and the GOP swear to stop all earmarks(which they have already apart from clowns like Ron Paul and a few others), Ron Paul is still going to continue demanding earmarks is he?
For the sake of his tax-paying constituents,who elected him to represent them, I hope so.
Either way, of course, federal spending will not decline by 1 cent.
And like I tried to explain, he doesn't demand, authorize, approve or steal anything, he just takes a funding request from one person & passes it off to someone else.
For the last time, What Would You Do Different?
Freepers need to unite behind Paul, he’s our best shot.
Do not be afraid.
If Paul were elected we could have the constitutional rebirth of our nation. We could save it.
If you are not a blind Paul hater, please do yourself a favor and go outside of FR for some honest info about Paul. You may like him - you may not, but please think for yourself and do not let the name callers on our beloved FR make your decision for you.
Thanks.
Everyone - please do google it.
I love that video.
You Paulite zombies just crack me up.
Nobody is stealing any money from anyone until CONGRESS VOTES FOR IT. Congress controls the purse strings. It's up to congressmen like Paul to to vote against earmarks by enough numbers, and stop is.
Get it?
“For the sake of his tax-paying constituents,who elected him to represent them, I hope so”
There is no difference between Ron Paul and Nancy Pelosi or "King of Prok" John Murtha then is there?
“Either way, of course, federal spending will not decline by 1 cent”
Federal spending will decline when congressmen develop the intestinal fortitude to vote against increased spending. With people like Paul sitting in the congress that will obviously never happen.
Hey, why doesn't Paul go to New Jersey, and take a lesson in what real fiscal responsibility is like from Governor Christie, who is busy cutting spending even as we speak, despite the Democrats being in the majority in the state congress, and despite a massive fightback from the entrenched unions? I don't see him making stupid excuses to squander tax payer dollars like Ron Paul is.
“For the last time, What Would You Do Different?”
I just told you.
Read up. Heck, even a RINO like John McCain, who is a heck of a lot more powerful than Ron Paul, has managed to refrain from taking pork all these years, but not Ron Paul. He will greedily grab the pork with both hands, then turn round and whine about federal deficits. What a joke!
Earmark Reform
Congressman Ron Paul
U.S. House of Representatives
April 10, 2008
Madame Speaker, abuses of the earmark process by members of both parties demonstrate the need for reform. However earmarks are hardly the most serious problem facing this country. In fact, many, if not most of the problems with earmarks can be fixed by taking simple steps to bring greater transparency to the appropriations process. While I support reforms designed to shine greater sunlight on the process by which members seek earmarks, I fear that some of my colleagues have forgotten that the abuses of the earmarking process are a symptom of the problems with Washington, not the cause. The root of the problem is an out-of-control federal budget. I am also concerned that some reforms proposed by critics of earmarking undermine the separation of powers by eroding the constitutional role Congress plays in determining how federal funds are spent.
Contrary to popular belief, adding earmarks to a bill does not increase federal spending by even one penny. Spending levels for the appropriation bills are set before Congress adds a single earmark to a bill. The question of whether or not the way the money is spent is determined by earmarks or by another means does not effect the total amount of spending.
Since reforming, limiting, or even eliminating earmarks does nothing to reduce federal spending, I have regarded the battle over earmarks as a distraction from the real issue– the need to reduce the size of government. Recently, opponents of earmarks have embraced an approach to earmark reform that undermines the constitutional separation of powers by encouraging the president to issue an executive order authorizing federal agencies to disregard congressional earmarks placed in committee reports.
Since the president’s executive order would not reduce federal spending, the practical result of such an executive order would be to transfer power over the determination of how federal funds are spent from Congress to unelected federal bureaucrats. Since most earmarks are generated by requests from our constituents, including local elected officials, such as mayors, this executive order has the practical effect of limiting taxpayers’ ability to influence the ways the federal government spends tax dollars.
Madame Speaker, the drafters of the Constitution gave Congress the powers of the purse because the drafters feared that allowing the branch of government charged with executing the laws to also write the federal budget would concentrate too much power in one branch of government. The founders correctly viewed the separation of law-making and law-enforcement powers as a vital safeguard of liberty. Whenever the president blatantly disregards orders from Congress as to how federal funds should be spent, he is undermining the constitutional separation of powers.
Congress has already all but ceded its authority to declare war to the executive branch. Now we are giving away our power of the purse. Madame Speaker, the logical conclusion of the arguments that it is somehow illegitimate for members of Congress to control the distribution of federal funds in their district is that Congress should only meet one week a year to appropriate a lump sum to be given to the president for him to allocate to the federal government as he sees fit.
Madame Speaker, all members should support efforts to bring greater transparency to the earmarking process. However, we must not allow earmarking reform to distract us from what should be our main priority–restricting federal spending by returning the government to its constitutional limitations. I also urge my colleagues not to allow the current hysteria over earmarks to justify further erosion of our constitutional authority to control the federal budget.
Just out of curiosity, what gov’t teat are you sucking from?
You and your 9/11 truther Ron Paul comrades, belong in straitjackets.
That is what the congress is there for isn’t it?
Congress can vote down any earmarks they don’t want.
Heck, even the president can do a line item veto of earmarks and pork if he wants to (he doesn't). All it takes is the political will to do it. Nothing is cast in stone, not even social security or medicare. We are long last the stage where people just come up and say "but, but we can’t touch this spending”. Everything is on the table.
Ron Paul is part of the problem.
I finished my tour with the Marines 26 years ago... that was my last gov't job. Private sector engineering every day since then.
Unless you consider supporting you tax-eating parasites to be "working for the gov't"
The money is already appropriated isn’t it?
If the congress doesn’t approve any earmarks the money goes to the president to spend as he sees fit doesn’t it?
The president could say that he finds none of the earmarks worthwhile - and do whatever he wants with the money I guess.
Giving it back to the people would be nice.
Ron Paul gives back whatever part of his congressional budget that he does not use anually - around 100,000 dollars I think.
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.