Results 1 to 18 of 18

Thread: So Much for being against Government Spending

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Western, Kentucky, USA
    Posts
    308

    Post imported post

    WOAI-TVupdated 5:18 a.m. CT, Mon., March. 2, 2009

    WASHINGTON (AP) - Republican congressmen derided the massive $410 billion spending bill approved by the House of Representatives last week, but some like Houston-area Congressman Ron Paul contributed to its size. Paul, of Lake Jackson, managed to insert 22 earmarks worth $96.1 million into the bill, leading the Houston delegation, according to an analysis of more than 8,500 congressionally-mandated projects in the bill by the Houston Chronicle. The so-call "omnibus" bill passed the House on a 245-178 vote, with only 16 Republicans in support. It was chock-full of congressmen's pet projects for their districts. Second to Paul in the Houston delegation was Republican Congressman John Culberson, who tallied $63.6 million in earmarks. Democrats were not far behind, with Congressman Al Green and Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee adding $50.1 million and $37.6 million respectively. Messages left today by The Associated Press at the offices of Paul, Green and Jackson Lee seeking comment were not immediately returned. Only one Houston-area congressman - Republican Michael McCaul, of Austin - was earmark-free in the House bill. Copyright 2009 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
    And, Paul votes against it just to be able to say he was against Gov,t. spending while his constituants get the ear mark he added to the bill.

    Quote Originally Posted by Open Carry.org Member View Post
    I really disgree with this one! That means that we can have any yahoo running around with a gun with out the proper training. This really scares the hell out of me. Just my two-cents!
    Quote Originally Posted by KansasMustang View Post
    Joe Schmedlap out there with a loaded weapon thinking he's going to deter crime and he's not even trained to fire his weapon safely just kinda makes my hair on the back of my neck stand up.

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    55

    Post imported post

    proof?

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Southwest, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    291

    Post imported post

    I'm curious, what part of "This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed" is not understandable?

    Carry on.

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    jmlefler wrote:
    I'm curious, what part of "This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed" is not understandable?

    Carry on.
    Same as "shall not be infringed". Over and out.

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    , Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,715

    Post imported post

    jmlefler wrote:
    I'm curious, what part of "This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed" is not understandable?

    Carry on.


    LOL I was going to point that out.





  6. #6
    Founder's Club Member Tess's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Alexandria, Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    3,765

    Post imported post

    jmlefler wrote:
    I'm curious, what part of "This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed" is not understandable?

    Carry on.
    Edited to remove comment that was more personal than it should have been.



    Carry On
    Laws alone can not secure freedom of expression; in order that every man present his views without penalty there must be spirit of tolerance in the entire population. -Albert Einstein

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Phoenix, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    460

    Post imported post

    And, Paul votes against it just to be able to say he was against Gov,t. spending while his constituants get the ear mark he added to the bill.
    I'd consider agreeing with that statement if you could show where Dr. Paul voted for ANY government spending bill...ever.

  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    , Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,715

    Post imported post

    ^The fact that he included it is why it was ironic and deserving of mention.

    Slayer of Paper wrote:
    And, Paul votes against it just to be able to say he was against Gov,t. spending while his constituants get the ear mark he added to the bill.
    I'd consider agreeing with that statement if you could show where Dr. Paul voted for ANY government spending bill...ever.


    The point was, he managed to have his cake and eat it too. He got the spending he wanted because he knew the billwould pass. He then went ahead and voted against it so that people like you could say, "well he's never voted for any spending bill, ever!" If he was truly against wasteful spending he wouldn't have added the pork in the first place.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    , , USA
    Posts
    460

    Post imported post

    I hear Ron Paul is slated to be on Cavuto's show tonight. We should all tune in for the explanation.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    South Louisiana, ,
    Posts
    108

    Post imported post

    Cutting the number of earmarks does not cut spending !!! So if Ron Paul's constituents don't get them someone else's constituents will !!!


    AGAIN, Ron Paul has a responsibility to return to his constituents the money they pay in taxes in the form of government services. This is all he is doing. If Paul doesn't return something to them his constituents still pay taxes and that money will be spent elsewhere.


    Ron Paul in a heartbeat would rather let his constituents keep their money and never have these huge spending bills, but since they were voted into office, they deserve it just as much as anyone else.


    If you don't understand than maybe you are just being willfully ignorant! Research what an earmark is.

    A small analogy if you will: You represent a few members of an orginization who pay monetary due$. In a quarterly meeting you have to vote whether or not the dues will be spent, additionally if they are to be spent you need to make sure YOUR MEMBERS reap the benefits of money THEY put forth in dues.So in essence you put forth earmarks to ensure if a vote to spend the dues passes, the members you represent see some benefit from their dues rather than their dues going to the benefit of others.Sure one couldvote "NO" with "no earmarks" and let the other members buy a Whirpool and Suana for their facility, with their money...but why would you ever do that



    http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig7/phillips5.html
    http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/co.../cr041008h.htm
    http://www.dailypaul.com/node/1135



  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Lake Charles Area, Louisiana, USA
    Posts
    1,723

    Post imported post

    the wheeelman wrote:
    Cutting the number of earmarks does not cut spending !!! So if Ron Paul's constituents don't get them someone else's constituents will !!!


    AGAIN, Ron Paul has a responsibility to return to his constituents the money they pay in taxes in the form of government services. This is all he is doing. If Paul doesn't return something to them his constituents still pay taxes and that money will be spent elsewhere.


    Ron Paul in a heartbeat would rather let his constituents keep their money and never have these huge spending bills, but since they were voted into office, they deserve it just as much as anyone else.


    If you don't understand than maybe you are just being willfully ignorant! Research what an earmark is.

    A small analogy if you will: You represent a few members of an orginization who pay monetary due$. In a quarterly meeting you have to vote whether or not the dues will be spent, additionally if they are to be spent you need to make sure YOUR MEMBERS reap the benefits of money THEY put forth in dues.So in essence you put forth earmarks to ensure if a vote to spend the dues passes, the members you represent see some benefit from their dues rather than their dues going to the benefit of others.Sure one couldvote "NO" with "no earmarks" and let the other members buy a Whirpool and Suana for their facility, with their money...but why would you ever do that



    http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig7/phillips5.html
    http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/co.../cr041008h.htm
    http://www.dailypaul.com/node/1135

    Perfectly Explained. Glad someone else knows what an earmark is, let alone Ron Pauls true motives. His website also explained this back in the presidential race.

    He'd always rather take the cash and give it back to the people one way or another, than give to some other moron who won't, or will use it for some executive hunting trip!



  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , South Carolina, USA
    Posts
    2,247

    Post imported post

    I have no problem with Ron Paul or any other Rep or Sen getting what ever they can get for their constituents. That is part of their job. As a fellow said about one local Sen when asked why they kept sending that crook back to the capital. He said, " You know he is a crook, I know he is a crook, everybody knows he is a crook, but he is our crook". But don't come around me trying to braf that he has never voted for a spending bill. If so he either isn't doing his job or trying to piss on my leg and tell me it's raining.

    The question isn't that he put in the earmarks but that someone it trying to say that he fought against them. If he put them in there knowing it was going to pass then why try to fool the public by voting against it.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    South Louisiana, ,
    Posts
    108

    Post imported post

    PT111 wrote:
    I have no problem with Ron Paul or any other Rep or Sen getting what ever they can get for their constituents. That is part of their job. As a fellow said about one local Sen when asked why they kept sending that crook back to the capital. He said, " You know he is a crook, I know he is a crook, everybody knows he is a crook, but he is our crook". But don't come around me trying to braf that he has never voted for a spending bill. If so he either isn't doing his job or trying to piss on my leg and tell me it's raining.

    The question isn't that he put in the earmarks but that someone it trying to say that he fought against them. If he put them in there knowing it was going to pass then why try to fool the public by voting against it.
    You are STILL missing the point. He is not trying to fool the public, and you clearly haven't read any of Ron Paul's statements regarding why he puts in earmarks all while voting against *the entire spending package. It goes back to my analogy. Why let other politicians/districts get there way with the PEOPLE's money you represent! You justdon't do that.Whatis more noble, to let others spend your people's money frivalously...or to vote against the spending in general but in case you are out voted you getto put it to something worthy in your district.

    I believe it is irresponsible to let other's do what they will with money that was put forth by the people. Would you be so noble to put money in a pot and just because to spend it would be wrong, let other have their way with your money because you got out voted.

    *edit - changed from "them"

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Hickory, NC, ,
    Posts
    1,025

    Post imported post

    Ok so TX is second in the nation in total dollar amount of earmarks in this omnibus bill. But they are 40th in per capita spending at $15.21 per person. Does that make a difference for anyone? Alaska was 1st in per capita at $209.71 per person. Kind of shed a different light on things I think. Here he is in his own words about earmarks.

    http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/co.../cr041008h.htm

    And the ominbus info here.

    http://www.taxpayer.net/search_by_ca...p;type=Project

    Look for database.

    According to one of the NC reps, they do not insert the earmark. They submit them to committee and the committee selects them. I'm sure that can be tweaked and cheated too. I do think Ron Paul is one of the few up there that thinks the market can work without a huge Gov to subsidize and manage it. That is what I like about him. Anyone else think this was intintionally pointed out to make Rep'slook bad? The media seems to be good at that lately.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    302

    Post imported post

    It's already been well explained but I have to chime in.

    Earmarks do not equal spending. The crusade against earmarks is a red herring calculated to make certain conservative impostor politicians look good. They still get your money.

    Don't be fooled by the smokescreen.

    If my money has already been stolen and spent, you can be darn sure I hope my reps get as much back to me as they can. It's a pretty simple equation, folks.

    Ron Paul is the strongest supporter of conservative principles and liberty, including gun rights, and the greatest man of integrity Washington DC has seen in a LONG time. He's truly the Thomas Jefferson of our day. Why people on a freedom-oriented board like this would do anything other than support him and his cause wholeheartedly is complete insanity.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Richmond, VA, ,
    Posts
    74

    Post imported post

    t3rmin wrote:
    Earmarks do not equal spending. The crusade against earmarks is a red herring calculated to make certain conservative impostor politicians look good. They still get your money.
    Right on!

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    South Louisiana, ,
    Posts
    108

    Post imported post

    t3rmin wrote:
    Ron Paul is the strongest supporter of conservative principles and liberty, including gun rights, and the greatest man of integrity Washington DC has seen in a LONG time. He's truly the Thomas Jefferson of our day. Why people on a freedom-oriented board like this would do anything other than support him and his cause wholeheartedly is complete insanity.
    Again...Right ON!!!!

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Superstition Mountain, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    424

    Post imported post

    the wheeelman wrote:
    Cutting the number of earmarks does not cut spending !!! So if Ron Paul's constituents don't get them someone else's constituents will !!!


    AGAIN, Ron Paul has a responsibility to return to his constituents the money they pay in taxes in the form of government services. This is all he is doing. If Paul doesn't return something to them his constituents still pay taxes and that money will be spent elsewhere.


    Ron Paul in a heartbeat would rather let his constituents keep their money and never have these huge spending bills, but since they were voted into office, they deserve it just as much as anyone else.


    If you don't understand than maybe you are just being willfully ignorant! Research what an earmark is.
    Funny, that doesn't stop our Arizona senators from refusing to add earmarks. I guess principle only goes so far...


    (Note that I have not reviewed the current pork spending bill to see if they have stuck to their guns. I can only hope that they have.)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •