Sandra
Banned
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2007
- Messages
- 5,123
Richard Viguerie: Ron Paul 'Shocking and Disappointing;'
- Thread starter Rhys
- Start date
RSLudlum
Member
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2007
- Messages
- 6,582
The money in bills is already slated to be spent, earmarks are after the fact, they just determine where some of the money is going to go...Until the income tax is totally done away with, it's still redistribution of wealth but I'd rather have my rep. submit an earmark to bring the money back to my state where it was originally taken from, as long as the earmarks don't exceed the amount taken in taxes from that district for that year.....I'm not personally getting all my money back but at least it's closer to home. 
phree
Member
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2007
- Messages
- 810
The money in bills is already slated to be spent, earmarks are after the fact, they just determine where some of the money is going to go...Until the income tax is totally done away with, it's still redistribution of wealth but I'd rather have my rep. submit an earmark to bring the money back to my state where it was originally taken from, as long as the earmarks don't exceed the amount taken in taxes from that district for that year.....I'm not personally getting all my money back but at least it's closer to home.
Hell dood, do you really think we needed to hear that speech again? We get it. This thread isn't a debate about earmarks so let it go.
The question at hand is why did RP endorse an asshole.
what I know is Ron Paul knows Young personally and I'll go with that. If Ron Paul lets me down this will be the first time. Also, we don't know that Young did anything wrong. The federal government can investigate my ass... all the crimes in government and they chose this and now? I'm always suspicious of investigations just before elections. Also, maybe the other guy is a slacker or a johny come lately or maybe Young made a deal with Ron Paul to help with the Fed... who knows.
And I really don't think RP is getting money for FEMA but instead for FEMA to do things he wants done.
also... Ron Paul endorsing an asshole isn't as bad as those of you who are assholes.
Knightskye
Member
- Joined
- Oct 16, 2007
- Messages
- 7,249
What about the security cameras?
And the education money - FOR WASHINGTON, D.C. (which isn't in Texas, mind you)?
And the education money - FOR WASHINGTON, D.C. (which isn't in Texas, mind you)?
"I award you no points..." etc, etc.
RSLudlum
Member
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2007
- Messages
- 6,582
sooooooorrrrryyyyyyy, i didn't read the entire 13pages of posts here. I was just stating my perspective on the OP article...that is what the forum is for isn't it? Sorry if my view is held by others here that have already stated such...
as far as the "question at hand", obviously RP doesn't think he's as much as an asshole as you do. That's why RP endorsed him and not you.
easy actually. Congress is in charge of DC's school system because they're not in a state and they're not a city. Also, maybe the appartment complex needed security cameras. That would benefit all the residents of the area if, for say, crime was reduced because of it. I don't think it was government monitored cameras like in england.
qh4dotcom
Member
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2008
- Messages
- 5,931
Okay gang...let's change the subject now...let's talk about Iraq war instead of earmarks...Don Young voted for and supports the Iraq war...isn't that fact more than enough reason for RP to not endorse Don Young?
Anybody here think that it wasn't a mistake for RP to endorse a war mongerer?
Anybody here think that it wasn't a mistake for RP to endorse a war mongerer?
RSLudlum
Member
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2007
- Messages
- 6,582
constituent
Member
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2007
- Messages
- 13,724
i'm not living there atm, but coming from victoria i can 1) assure you that fox run apartments need some sort of security, but that 2) that it bugs the shit out of me to think the fed. gov't would have a hand in providing it/administering it, w/ever.
my hometown is a genuine one stoplight, they've even got a camera there.
also, i have to say that i agree w/ kylejack (though we've often been adversarial w/ one another) on the shrimping industry thing... the copano causeway too as rockport (really all of aransas county) has been completely overrun in my lifetime. i'd prefer the advancing hordes not be aided in furthering their destruction at my expense.
...anyway
Knightskye
Member
- Joined
- Oct 16, 2007
- Messages
- 7,249
If they're not a city, why do they have a mayor (a mayor who doesn't appreciate the 2nd Amendment)? Ron Paul doesn't want the federal government controlling D.C.'s school system. During a speech he made, I'm not sure where, he said they've had control of education there for 50 years, and it's gone downhill.
The landlord can take care of his tenants' security. He shouldn't need the legislative help of the one guy against a police state.
constituent
Member
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2007
- Messages
- 13,724
i think so, but whatcha gonna do? he and i disagree on this issue.
is it worth jumpin' up and down about?
not really.
pepperpete1
Member
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2008
- Messages
- 661
Ron Paul has left me confused on another issue. I can not figure out why he did not address the petitions served on him and all the other congressmen/women and senators for redress of grievences by We The People Foundation. Ron Paul publically said it is their constitutional right to do so back in 2001. I keep hoping we will get an answer from him when he talks at the Rally.
As far as earmarks, he explained about them on the Jay Leno show. It is money already appropriated for different programs, and if he did not request money for his own constituents he would not be doing the job he was elected to do.
FROM FOX NEWS:
Pet Projects
Texas congressman and Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul — who is campaigning as a critic of congressional overspending — has revealed that he is requesting $400 million worth of earmarks this year.
The Wall Street Journal reports Paul's office says those requests include $8 million for the marketing of wild American shrimp and $2.3 million to pay for research into shrimp fishing.
A spokesman says, "Reducing earmarks does not reduce government spending, and it does not prohibit spending upon those things that are earmarked. What people who push earmark reform are doing is they are particularly misleading the public — and I have to presume it's not by accident."
The Wild American Shrimp Marketing is located in 8 different states and is receiving funds from federal grants and grants from other sources also. They are also implementing an assessment fee from the producers to pay (.05 per pound ?) to help subsidize themselves.
I have to wonder how many jobs this industry provides.
As far as earmarks, he explained about them on the Jay Leno show. It is money already appropriated for different programs, and if he did not request money for his own constituents he would not be doing the job he was elected to do.
FROM FOX NEWS:
Pet Projects
Texas congressman and Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul — who is campaigning as a critic of congressional overspending — has revealed that he is requesting $400 million worth of earmarks this year.
The Wall Street Journal reports Paul's office says those requests include $8 million for the marketing of wild American shrimp and $2.3 million to pay for research into shrimp fishing.
A spokesman says, "Reducing earmarks does not reduce government spending, and it does not prohibit spending upon those things that are earmarked. What people who push earmark reform are doing is they are particularly misleading the public — and I have to presume it's not by accident."
The Wild American Shrimp Marketing is located in 8 different states and is receiving funds from federal grants and grants from other sources also. They are also implementing an assessment fee from the producers to pay (.05 per pound ?) to help subsidize themselves.
I have to wonder how many jobs this industry provides.
You know something else... Ron Paul was Texas District 14 Rep long before any of us gave a shit. We don't know why he endorsed Young except maybe he needed him. You all get your panties bunched by the dumbest shit... you're like media kittens. I think it's your fad to be into Ron Paul and feel it more than get it. I think you're more than likely going back to the democrat party by 2012 cause you'll find so much little shit to bitch about. That's how people become democrats... constant complaining about little things, and asking for Obama's to fix it all.
WoW! let's all bash him. God I am glad RP never won as it would have been hell with supporters like this. Since he is not perfect and wouldn't have been able to snap his fingers on jan 20 2009 and turn the country into a libertarian paradise you people would have turned on him like savage dogs.
The funny thing about all this fighting about earmarks is that everyone agrees that earmarks shouldn't exist. Thererfore, we support Ron Paul in voting against it.
He is the ONLY congressman that does so. Sometimes that is glossed over but it is the most important point.
However (if you want to ignore that), we also know that if the congressman don't create earmarks then the money will go to another branch of goverment. That means that quite aside from the argument of whether or not a congressman is required legally to spend earmarks, the federal goverment is legally required to set aside a certain amount of money to fund them. It's basically a use it or lose it clause and if it's not used, then the districts will have no control over getting back any of the money of what they put in. So, all things considered, it is better that districts get them, rather then to not get them.
We also know that the total of earmarks is less then the total of taxes that everyone pays in the district. It is impossible for a rebate check to for every single taxpayer that would refund the every single cent of money they paid. It probably would not even be practical to do the sort of rebate congress passed earlier this summer.
Therefore, the people that benifit will get a disproportionate benifit from what they pay because only a limited number will get anything. We agree this is unfair but still better then not having any of the districts needs taken care of. We also know that even though only certain groups are getting the money, the benifits will still trickle down to others in the area. Most times.
In conclusion, it's still better for there to be earmarks. Rather then none at all, as long as the money will be spent anyway.
The problem seems to be that some people believe their moral judgement to be superior then those of the people who are requesting/doling out earmarks. To say that this, that and the other thing are okay while anything that is a business (even though businesses pay taxes too) is not, is very arrogent. In fact, the idea that certain people posess some sort of superior judgement above the rest if us, is exactly why having goverments tax us excessively is so evil.
"I think that every single man woman and child should have health care," for instance. "I think there should be a fat tax so people stay thin," is another. The goverment needs to stop taxing us altogether (outside of core, constitutional services) and stop providing us with so many of their bribes, which is one of the main planks of our movement. Once you start spending outside of our constitutional boundries, then there will always be endless argument as to what is appropriate to use that spending for, as we can see here. It's a senseless sideshow.
So we look and decide, even though we know nothing about the individual curcumstances of the earmark. Even if we did understand we would still argue. One can say a post office is okay, on the other hand a shrimp company is not. Who are we to decide that a goverment controlled monopoly is a better recipiant then a competitive business? If anything, I trust the goverment less then a buisness. However, I certainly would not make such a moral judgement. I'm not even going to complain about the bridge to nowhere (unless there was some form of corruption that led to it, I really don't know how it happened).
Fact is, a congressman's constitutes make requests. A congressman should do his best to honor those requests for as whatever time earmarks are still around. That's his job, to help his constitutes. He's not looking how to help the country as a whole as the president might. He's just making sure his district is represented.
So, as long as there is no chicanery involved by either party. Trying to judge those decisions is usually just a losing game. There is no reason to not think that Ron Paul is doing anything but trying to help his district as much as he can.
It's easy to criticize and most men do. No one can look at these numbers at a glance and claim they have a full story. The important thing is the earmarks are voted against. All the rest is noise.
On topic, looks like Ron Paul didn't support the man so all this wailing can now stop. Yay.
He is the ONLY congressman that does so. Sometimes that is glossed over but it is the most important point.
However (if you want to ignore that), we also know that if the congressman don't create earmarks then the money will go to another branch of goverment. That means that quite aside from the argument of whether or not a congressman is required legally to spend earmarks, the federal goverment is legally required to set aside a certain amount of money to fund them. It's basically a use it or lose it clause and if it's not used, then the districts will have no control over getting back any of the money of what they put in. So, all things considered, it is better that districts get them, rather then to not get them.
We also know that the total of earmarks is less then the total of taxes that everyone pays in the district. It is impossible for a rebate check to for every single taxpayer that would refund the every single cent of money they paid. It probably would not even be practical to do the sort of rebate congress passed earlier this summer.
Therefore, the people that benifit will get a disproportionate benifit from what they pay because only a limited number will get anything. We agree this is unfair but still better then not having any of the districts needs taken care of. We also know that even though only certain groups are getting the money, the benifits will still trickle down to others in the area. Most times.
In conclusion, it's still better for there to be earmarks. Rather then none at all, as long as the money will be spent anyway.
The problem seems to be that some people believe their moral judgement to be superior then those of the people who are requesting/doling out earmarks. To say that this, that and the other thing are okay while anything that is a business (even though businesses pay taxes too) is not, is very arrogent. In fact, the idea that certain people posess some sort of superior judgement above the rest if us, is exactly why having goverments tax us excessively is so evil.
"I think that every single man woman and child should have health care," for instance. "I think there should be a fat tax so people stay thin," is another. The goverment needs to stop taxing us altogether (outside of core, constitutional services) and stop providing us with so many of their bribes, which is one of the main planks of our movement. Once you start spending outside of our constitutional boundries, then there will always be endless argument as to what is appropriate to use that spending for, as we can see here. It's a senseless sideshow.
So we look and decide, even though we know nothing about the individual curcumstances of the earmark. Even if we did understand we would still argue. One can say a post office is okay, on the other hand a shrimp company is not. Who are we to decide that a goverment controlled monopoly is a better recipiant then a competitive business? If anything, I trust the goverment less then a buisness. However, I certainly would not make such a moral judgement. I'm not even going to complain about the bridge to nowhere (unless there was some form of corruption that led to it, I really don't know how it happened).
Fact is, a congressman's constitutes make requests. A congressman should do his best to honor those requests for as whatever time earmarks are still around. That's his job, to help his constitutes. He's not looking how to help the country as a whole as the president might. He's just making sure his district is represented.
So, as long as there is no chicanery involved by either party. Trying to judge those decisions is usually just a losing game. There is no reason to not think that Ron Paul is doing anything but trying to help his district as much as he can.
It's easy to criticize and most men do. No one can look at these numbers at a glance and claim they have a full story. The important thing is the earmarks are voted against. All the rest is noise.
On topic, looks like Ron Paul didn't support the man so all this wailing can now stop. Yay.
Last edited:
qh4dotcom
Member
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2008
- Messages
- 5,931
The same as January when I first heard about the earmarks....it was shocking to hear something like that from a man that I believed so much....but I managed to get over it...took me a few days to jump back on the RP bandwagon
I guess the same will happen with this warmonger endorsement.
