|
fireworks_god
Sexy.Butt.McDanger



Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 24,855
Loc: Pandurn
Last seen: 1 year, 12 days
|
Questioning Of Ron Paul On Earmarks
#7794800 - 12/24/07 05:55 AM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Well, this was discussed here recently, and Ron Paul, of course, clearly explained why it is not a compromising act. First, I'd like to provide an analysis of Ron Paul's spot on Meet The Press, by Lew Rockwell, who explained the matter even better.
Quote:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewr...es/017971.html
This was an historic day. One man stood against a powerful TV newsman, his show and all its researchers, and triumphed. Watch it and here’s the transcript.
Tim Russert is known as an hard questioner, by establishment standards, but even when he is actually being tough—as with Rudy Giuliani—the guest gets some softballs, and plenty of time to answer the hardballs.
Ron Paul got no softballs, and little time, as Russert asked him question after question after questions, fed to him by his staff, with only a few moments for Ron. Yet he swatted the arrows away.
Originally, Russert had announced that Ron would be on for an hour. Then just before airtime, he said 16 minutes. Yet Ron was on for more than twice that, with no commercial breaks. Obviously the director knew hot television when he saw it. He also knew that this show marked a ratings-high for Meet the Press, at least in the Russert era.
There were many highlights. Here are a few: Russert’s pretend-incredulity at Ron’s opposition to empire. The US has been occupying Korea since Ron was in high school. But what about a North Korean invasion of South Korea? As Ron pointed out, the US has prevented a rapprochement between the two Koreas since, like all empires, it divides to rule.
But what if Iran invades Israel? What if Iran invades Mars, Ron responded. Iran is a poor country with no offensive military power; Israel is a rich country with hundreds of thermonuclear weapons and long-distance bombers and missiles. And yes, Ron wants to cut off all foreign aid to Israel, and the Arabs and everyone else—none of it is constitutional--and allow Israel and other countries to run their own affairs. Russert then denied that some elements of the Israeli government want the US to bomb Iran but Ron is right, of course.
Russert tried to accuse Ron of being a big spender(!) over the earmark question. But this is like accusing him of the same crime for getting a poor constituent food stamps. He does not vote for food stamps, but he is a representative.
Earmarks do not increase public-works spending, which he votes against. But they do allocate it—away from the executive dictatorship, and to the legislature, which is constitutional. More here.
I also liked Russert’s claim that Ron’s hope to amend the constitution to eliminate the abuse of birthright citizenship is unconstitutional. Amending the constitution, Ron explained, is constitutional!
Russert was astonished that Ron, like Barry Goldwater, opposes the 1964 civil rights act. It's a federal power grab that has nothing to do with equal rights, but is an attack on private property rights that had led to a day when the feds can tell a restaurant owner whether a man can smoke a cigar there or not.
And what about Lincoln and his war? It wasn’t necessary to kill 650,000 people to free the slaves, said Ron. We could have done it peacefully, like other countries, and kept the original republic of the founders, rather than replacing it with a centralized leviathan. Imagine Lincoln as a campaign issue?
Then there was Ron’s calm explanation of the US move towards fascism. Really, has there been as eloquent and courageous libertarian public figure in American or any other country's history? I don’t believe so.
Russert avoided the Fed and the dollar and the economic crisis, as well as Iraq--subjects the elites don't Ron raising. Still, Russert was not as vicious—despite all the misquotes and distortions and ancient non-history—and here’s why. It turns out his son, like the children of many of the elite, and far more of the middle and working classes—is a Ron Paul Revolutionary. Tim, you'd better start swimming or you'll sink like a stone.
The show was the best interview of Ron Paul I've ever seen, and it is likely his most prominent, focused spot in the mainstream media yet. I'd like to share them with everyone here, Merry Christmas!
--------------------
If I should die this very moment I wouldn't fear For I've never known completeness Like being here Wrapped in the warmth of you Loving every breath of you
|
herfenara
cross dressinghobo junkie


Registered: 03/28/07
Posts: 122
|
Re: Questioning Of Ron Paul On Earmarks [Re: fireworks_god]
#7794842 - 12/24/07 06:58 AM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
|
Phred
Fred's son


Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 18 days
|
Re: Questioning Of Ron Paul On Earmarks [Re: fireworks_god]
#7794870 - 12/24/07 07:39 AM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Lew Rockwell claims:
Quote:
But this is like accusing him of the same crime for getting a poor constituent food stamps. He does not vote for food stamps, but he is a representative.
Oh please, Lew. Do you think your readers are idiots? The analogy is not even close. Food stamps are an ongoing entitlement program set up decades ago, and open to anyone who meets the qualifications. The only thing Ronnie could do to "help" one of his constituents receive them is to fill in the application forms on his behalf. To put it another way, that constituent is going to get food stamps with or without Ron Paul.
Not so with earmarks. That new farm implements museum in Bugscuffle Bottoms is a direct result of Ron Paul siphoning federal taxpayer money to Bugscuffle Bottoms. If not for Ron Paul, that museum would not have been built, and the money would not have been spent.
Quote:
Earmarks do not increase public-works spending, which he votes against. But they do allocate it—away from the executive dictatorship, and to the legislature, which is constitutional.
This is just straight up bullshit. Of course earmarks increase spending. Rockwell has lost his mind here. It's not a question of "re-allocating" anything from one place in the budget to another, it's a case of reducing the total amount of the budget.
I used to enjoy reading the occasional Lew Rockwell piece. But in the last ten years or so he's become increasingly stupid. It's a shame.
Phred
--------------------
|
Luddite
I watch Fox News


Registered: 03/23/06
Posts: 2,946
|
Re: Questioning Of Ron Paul On Earmarks [Re: fireworks_god]
#7794883 - 12/24/07 07:54 AM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
|
fireworks_god
Sexy.Butt.McDanger



Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 24,855
Loc: Pandurn
Last seen: 1 year, 12 days
|
Re: Questioning Of Ron Paul On Earmarks [Re: Luddite]
#7795074 - 12/24/07 09:40 AM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Here's some more information on earmarks. I'd cite the source but it was just some dude posting at RonPaulforums.com, but I can link if anyone really wants it.
Quote:
Before earmarks are ever added, the bill has already passed the committee in Congress. Therefore, the money will be spent regardless. Earmarks are simply a way for a congressman to direct money already approved for spending to a specific project in their district. In Ron Paul's case, he submits virtually all of them providing they come from a community group or local industry group or local government entity who want to make sure that some money is allocated for a particular project.
If the money is not earmarked in committee, it all passes to the relevant agency under the control of the executive branch who then decides to spend it however they like, without any consideration for the priorities of the local communities.
Earmarking does not change the levels of money being spent. A bill with no earmarks costs the US taxpayer the exact same amount as a bill with 10,000 earmarks.
The Founders who wrote the Constitution used earmarks. The habit was far less corrupt then, mostly involving exactly how much to spend on the construction of bridges and roads that linked the early states on vital trade goods routes.
If the president does not want to spend money on something that the Congress wants to spend money on, then even if the Congress has passed such a provision in their omnibus bill, the president can direct the relevant agency to do something else with the money. They can pass a provision, say to improve paving on a road in Yellowstone National Forest, have it pass unanimously in committee and unanimously in the House and in the Senate and in the conference committee and the president and the Dept of Transportation could still ignore it and just allocate that year's DepTrans budget however they want. That is why we have to allow the custom of earmarks. So that Congress and especially the House's exclusive power of the purse remains with the people, not with the executive branch.
--------------------
If I should die this very moment I wouldn't fear For I've never known completeness Like being here Wrapped in the warmth of you Loving every breath of you
|
Phred
Fred's son


Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 18 days
|
Re: Questioning Of Ron Paul On Earmarks [Re: fireworks_god]
#7795120 - 12/24/07 09:55 AM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
The "some dude posting at RonPaulforums.com" is full of shit.
His claim is that (for example) if Congress determines the next six months of Pentagon operations will require $50 billion, and approve that $50 billion in committee, then the feeding frenzy in Congress begins and an additional $8 billion in pork is tacked on, that somehow the Pentagon will now only spend $42 billion, the pork consumes another $8 billion, and a total of $50 billion is spent. This of course is not what happens. The Pentagon spends their $50 billion (at least), the porkers spend their $8 billion (at least), and another eight billion (at least) is added to the federal deficit for the year.
Quote:
If the president does not want to spend money on something that the Congress wants to spend money on, then even if the Congress has passed such a provision in their omnibus bill, the president can direct the relevant agency to do something else with the money.
This is the one thing this fool gets correct. The president can -- by means of executive orders -- quash any (or all) pork projects. Bush has said in no uncertain terms that he intends to do this with the latest pork laden omnibus bill. Hopefully he will deliver on that promise.
Phred
--------------------
|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 7 months
|
Re: Questioning Of Ron Paul On Earmarks [Re: fireworks_god]
#7795367 - 12/24/07 11:51 AM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
I'm sure you and Lew were both quite impressed. I found it weaselly and hypocritical. And this is just stupid:
Quote:
But what if Iran invades Israel? What if Iran invades Mars, Ron responded. Iran is a poor country with no offensive military power;
The man is a fucking moron.
--------------------
|
OneMoreRobot3021



Registered: 06/06/03
Posts: 61,024
Loc: the sky
|
Re: Questioning Of Ron Paul On Earmarks [Re: fireworks_god]
#7795376 - 12/24/07 11:55 AM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
As a Ron Paul fan I actually came away from the Meet the Press appearance quite disappointed. He came across as somewhat weaselly and, I don't know - unprofessional? Anyway, I was less than impressed. And I woke up early on 5 hrs of sleep for that shit, too.
-------------------- Acid doesn't give you truths; it builds machines that push the envelope of perception. Whatever revelations came to me then have dissolved like skywriting. All I really know is that those few years saddled me with a faith in the redemptive potential of the imagination which, however flat, stale and unprofitable the world seems to me now, I cannot for the life of me shake. -Erik Davis
|
MushmanTheManic
Stranger


Registered: 04/21/05
Posts: 4,587
|
Re: Questioning Of Ron Paul On Earmarks [Re: zappaisgod]
#7796004 - 12/24/07 03:48 PM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
zappaisgod said: I'm sure you and Lew were both quite impressed. I found it weaselly and hypocritical. And this is just stupid:
Quote:
But what if Iran invades Israel? What if Iran invades Mars, Ron responded. Iran is a poor country with no offensive military power;
The man is a fucking moron.
Iran doesn't have an airforce capable of causing much damage the Israelis and I doubt they are going to march across Iraq and Syria to invade Israel.
C'mon, nobody is worried about Iran invading Israel. That is ridiculous.
|
johnm214



Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
|
|
Quote:
OneLessForeskin said: As a Ron Paul fan I actually came away from the Meet the Press appearance quite disappointed. He came across as somewhat weaselly and, I don't know - unprofessional? Anyway, I was less than impressed. And I woke up early on 5 hrs of sleep for that shit, too.
my thoughts exactly. He said it, but should have said it in more plain terms, that "I'm opposed to the funding of these projects, but I will ensure my district recieves as much as I can should the project be approved"
I don't see this as hypocritical to his mantra if he votes against the bill.
|
Phred
Fred's son


Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 18 days
|
Re: Questioning Of Ron Paul On Earmarks [Re: johnm214]
#7796151 - 12/24/07 04:40 PM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
He said it, but should have said it in more plain terms, that "I'm opposed to the funding of these projects, but I will ensure my district recieves as much as I can should the project be approved"
Do you not understand that "the project" under discussion is a project that Ron Paul inserted into the bill?
How hard is it to comprehend that if it weren't for Ron Paul, "the project" could never be approved, because it would never have appeared in the bill in the first place?
Quote:
I don't see this as hypocritical to his mantra if he votes against the bill.
It is the height of hypocrisy. He tries to play the helpless pawn, powerless to stop these projects from being approved -- "Well, folks, I did all I could. I voted against the bill that contained those darned projects, but the bill was passed anyway" -- when of course he could easily have prevented the projects from being approved by not inserting them into the bill in the first place! It's not Nancy Pelosi who's inserting pork projects that benefit Ron Paul's district, after all, it's Ron Paul.
No matter how you try to spin this crap, it is unspinnable. The simple fact is that the only way that money gets taken out of your pocket and your neighbor's pocket and spent on Ed and Lurlene Bickle in Ron Paul's district is because Ron Paul made the effort to ensure it would be. To pretend otherwise is not just dishonest, it is glaringly stupid. And if there's one thing that pisses people off, it's being treated as if they're stupid. I have no doubt one reason for Paul's lack of traction is that the average voter recognizes this sham for what it is, and feels offended that Paul seems to think the voters are too dumb to figure it out.
Phred
--------------------
|
Seuss
Error: divide byzero



Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 2 months, 20 days
|
Re: Questioning Of Ron Paul On Earmarks [Re: Phred]
#7796247 - 12/24/07 05:25 PM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Why do people find it so difficult to separate a persons moral values from the responsibilities of the office one holds? He did his job for those that voted for him and maintained his ideology as best he could. When he had to compromise between the two, he compromised for those who voted for him rather than for his own personal beliefs. Where is the problem?
-------------------- Just another spore in the wind.
|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 7 months
|
|
Quote:
MushmanTheManic said:
Quote:
zappaisgod said: I'm sure you and Lew were both quite impressed. I found it weaselly and hypocritical. And this is just stupid:
Quote:
But what if Iran invades Israel? What if Iran invades Mars, Ron responded. Iran is a poor country with no offensive military power;
The man is a fucking moron.
Iran doesn't have an airforce capable of causing much damage the Israelis and I doubt they are going to march across Iraq and Syria to invade Israel.
C'mon, nobody is worried about Iran invading Israel. That is ridiculous.
A glib, disingenuous answer, essentially that of a particularly snotty sophomore, to a serious issue indicates either a desire to avoid the question or an utterly moronic view of international politics. I think the latter. Regardless, it was a stupid snotty answer. He is a douche.
--------------------
|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 7 months
|
Re: Questioning Of Ron Paul On Earmarks [Re: Seuss]
#7796293 - 12/24/07 05:50 PM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
He didn't compromise. He whored out every principle he espouses for votes.
--------------------
|
Redstorm
Prince of Bugs




Registered: 10/08/02
Posts: 44,175
Last seen: 3 months, 10 days
|
Re: Questioning Of Ron Paul On Earmarks [Re: zappaisgod]
#7796345 - 12/24/07 06:21 PM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
zappaisgod said:
Quote:
MushmanTheManic said:
Quote:
zappaisgod said: I'm sure you and Lew were both quite impressed. I found it weaselly and hypocritical. And this is just stupid:
Quote:
But what if Iran invades Israel? What if Iran invades Mars, Ron responded. Iran is a poor country with no offensive military power;
The man is a fucking moron.
Iran doesn't have an airforce capable of causing much damage the Israelis and I doubt they are going to march across Iraq and Syria to invade Israel.
C'mon, nobody is worried about Iran invading Israel. That is ridiculous.
A glib, disingenuous answer, essentially that of a particularly snotty sophomore, to a serious issue indicates either a desire to avoid the question or an utterly moronic view of international politics. I think the latter. Regardless, it was a stupid snotty answer. He is a douche.
Regardless of how apparent it is that Paul is able to get under your skin, the fear-mongering regarding Iran is on the same level of insanity as that espoused by our dear Anna.
|
Purple Mushroom
The Purpled One



Registered: 12/13/07
Posts: 32
Loc: PA
Last seen: 16 years, 25 days
|
Re: Questioning Of Ron Paul On Earmarks [Re: zappaisgod]
#7796357 - 12/24/07 06:26 PM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
zappaisgod said: blah blah blah i love ron paul and support his principles, vote for ron paul!.
Huh?
-------------------- “All that we are is the result of what we have thought. If a man speaks or acts with an evil thought, pain follows him. If a man speaks or acts with a pure thought, happiness follows him, like a shadow that never leaves him” ~ buddah
|
MushmanTheManic
Stranger


Registered: 04/21/05
Posts: 4,587
|
Re: Questioning Of Ron Paul On Earmarks [Re: zappaisgod]
#7796359 - 12/24/07 06:27 PM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
zappaisgod said:
Quote:
MushmanTheManic said:
Quote:
zappaisgod said: I'm sure you and Lew were both quite impressed. I found it weaselly and hypocritical. And this is just stupid:
Quote:
But what if Iran invades Israel? What if Iran invades Mars, Ron responded. Iran is a poor country with no offensive military power;
The man is a fucking moron.
Iran doesn't have an airforce capable of causing much damage the Israelis and I doubt they are going to march across Iraq and Syria to invade Israel.
C'mon, nobody is worried about Iran invading Israel. That is ridiculous.
A glib, disingenuous answer, essentially that of a particularly snotty sophomore, to a serious issue indicates either a desire to avoid the question or an utterly moronic view of international politics. I think the latter. Regardless, it was a stupid snotty answer. He is a douche.
Well I certainly agree with that.
|
SlashOZ
:D



Registered: 10/20/06
Posts: 3,557
Loc: Following the water cycle
|
|
i like ron pauls answer when questioned about earmarks. its a fair response and he is still lightyears ahead of any of the dems. not to mention no war = less gov't spending. if he is tough on the borders and terrorism on the homefront we might end up saving our civil liberties, national reputation, tax money, and future.
-------------------- "Life sucks but in this really beautiful way" - Axl Rose "Life's a bitch and then you die that's why we get high cuz you never know when you're gonna go." - NAS "When people don't know what you're about they put you down and shut you out" - Black Sabbath "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind" - Gandhi "Look up at me I am God, look down on me and I am evil, look at me I am you." - Charles Manson. "Don't question my reality." - Me (as far as I know)
|
Phred
Fred's son


Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 18 days
|
Re: Questioning Of Ron Paul On Earmarks [Re: Seuss]
#7797553 - 12/25/07 06:59 AM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Seuss writes:
Quote:
Why do people find it so difficult to separate a persons moral values from the responsibilities of the office one holds? He did his job for those that voted for him and maintained his ideology as best he could. When he had to compromise between the two, he compromised for those who voted for him rather than for his own personal beliefs. Where is the problem?
The problem is Paul and his supporters holding up this transparently obvious Kabuki dance as some sort of superior moral stance compared to every other congressman who inserts earmarks. It is not just hypocritical, it is stupidly hypocritical, because it isn't fooling anyone other than hardcore Ronulans.
If Paul were upfront about it, and just admit that he fears he can't get re-elected on the strength of his positions alone -- that he also needs the votes of those cynical enough to vote only for those who can deliver pork -- it would be a different story. If he were to just tell his consituents something like,
"Pork is bad. I oppose it. But here's my dilemma, folks: if I don't give y'all some pork, I won't be re-elected. And if I'm not re-elected, I am in no position to do the good things I do in Congress. And the many good things I do in Congress outweigh the effects of the only bad thing I do in Congress, which is to toss some pork your way."
then this wouldn't be an issue. Seriously -- if he were to answer something like that whenever someone tries to question him about his earmarks, no one would be making any fuss about it. I certainly wouldn't.
But by going through this absurd charade of adding pork to bills (just like every other congress critter) and then voting against the bill with the pork -- all the while knowing that the bill has enough votes to pass even with his no vote -- then pointing at his "no" vote as some kind of principled stance, is just plain sleazy. It is the farthest thing from principled -- it is a shabby con game, and an incredibly transparent and clumsy one at that: one which insults the intelligence of voters.
Phred
--------------------
|
fireworks_god
Sexy.Butt.McDanger



Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 24,855
Loc: Pandurn
Last seen: 1 year, 12 days
|
Re: Questioning Of Ron Paul On Earmarks [Re: Phred]
#7797589 - 12/25/07 07:50 AM (16 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Budget/wm1757.cfm Eliminating earmarks would not reduce FY 2008 grant spending, but it would ensure that grants are distributed by merit rather than politics and would stifle the enormous appetite for federal largesse. Worthy projects should have no trouble securing funding based on merit; only the unworthy projects would lose funding.
Quote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earmarking In the United States legislative appropriations process, Congress has, within the powers granted under Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution, the ability to direct the appropriations of money drawn from the U.S. Treasury. This includes the power to earmark funds it appropriates to be spent on specific named projects. The earmarking process has become a regular part of the process of allocating funds within the Federal government.
Earmarking differs from the broader appropriations process, defined in the Constitution, in which Congress grants a yearly lump sum of money to a Federal agency. These monies are allocated by the agency according to its legal authority and internal budgeting process. With an earmark, Congress has given itself the ability to direct a specified amount of money from an agency's budget to be spent on a particular project, without the Members of Congress having to identify themselves or the project.
All the information I am finding thusfar is stating that earmarking does not increase spending, that the money is already established for spending by the federal government. If Congressmen do not earmark this money, then the respective federal agencies spend it regardless.
Now, Ron Paul stands for not taking the money from the people in the first place, which is why he votes agansit the bill. However, he feels sympathy for his constitutents, who have the federal government taking their money, so, unable to prevent it from happening, he at least tries to get it back if the rest of Congress does decide to vote the bill through. He's stated as much before this matter was ever raised on Meet The Press, so it isn't as though it is something he has been hiding.
His tax credit analogy seems pretty apt. Another analogy is, say you're with some dudes and you vote on whether or not you're going to order a pizza. Even if you vote agansit it, if everyone else votes to order the pizza, they'll be taking your money to spend on the pizza... so you might as well eat your slice when it shows up and not starve.
--------------------
If I should die this very moment I wouldn't fear For I've never known completeness Like being here Wrapped in the warmth of you Loving every breath of you
|
|