YouTube: Ron Paul Slams Cavuto on Earmarks 3-10-2009

[donkefant]

YouTube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoD5Yk1imBk

Digg It:
http://digg.com/politics/Ron_Paul_Slams_Cavuto_on_Earmarks_3_10_2009

 

[ihsv]

The problem is that most people don't understand the concept of earmarking funds.

 

[jclay2]

I hate Cavuto and all of these other brainless conservatives who don't know what the crap they are talking about. Like he said, the money is already appropriated to be spent and if it isn't spent by congressional districts it goes off to the federal government. Then Paul mentioned the fact that he votes against the appropriations to start with and that earmarks are 1% of the budget. Please Cavuto, you are a sad and pathetic reporter if you can even be called that. Wow, Paul earmarks 73 millions. Lets focus on the hypocrisy of Paul while Obama puts the taxpayers into debt 2 trillion dollars, 40,000 times Paul's 73 million. aaaaaaaaaaa

 

[sluggo]

Cavuto is not there to clear the issue up, he is there to muddy it even further.

 

[krazy kaju]

Ron Paul could have done a better job explaining.

 

[anaconda]

Did Cavuto just turn on us?

 

[pcosmar]

Did Cavuto just turn on us?

No, He has been against "us" all along. He is FOR big Govt.

 

[hugolp]

Ron Paul could have done a better job explaining.

Yes, I agree. It was not his best intervention. He just have to say that the money is going to be spent anyways. The earmark just redirects to where the money is going to be spendt.

Hugo

 

[HRD53]

I understand Paul's logic here. I have absolutely no issue with what he is doing...

And Cavuto gave him plenty of time to explain himself, but i agree he could have done a better job...

 

[LibertyEagle]

Ron has had to explain this enough times that he should have honed his explanation better by now.

 

[bander87]

I'm somewhat new to this idea of earmarks, but how does Ron not know how earmarks are brought about? Does anybody know? I mean, Ron has been in congress for quite a long time.

 

[Spirit of '76]

That was terrible.

In fact, I'd say that interview has the potential to undo much of the bridge-building we've done with the mainstream "conservative" movement since the election.

 

[krazy kaju]

Yes, I agree. It was not his best intervention. He just have to say that the money is going to be spent anyways. The earmark just redirects to where the money is going to be spendt.

Hugo

Exactly. He prefers that the money that is taken in taxes from his district was going to be spent by the federal government if he didn't appropriate some for his district. Simple and powerful government.

 

[jclay2]

That was terrible.

In fact, I'd say that interview has the potential to undo much of the bridge-building we've done with the mainstream "conservative" movement since the election.

If only the mainstream "conservative" movement used their heads. Paul was exactly right when he said people like McCain just use this to grandstand. I honestly don't think Ron did that bad of a job explaining himself. I don't know a ton about the earmark issue, but his explanation seemed to make a lot of sense. Also, more than once he said it was not the best way to spend the money and that appropriations (spending) are bad.

 

[dannno]

I'm somewhat new to this idea of earmarks, but how does Ron not know how earmarks are brought about? Does anybody know? I mean, Ron has been in congress for quite a long time.

He knows exactly how they work.

Let's say $XXX,XXX,XXX in the budget is allotted for infrastructure. That number never changes. If representatives don't claim the funds for their districts, then the Executive branch gets to spend it. So a rep from one district says, "I need $X,XXX,XXX for my district to help re-build after the hurricane" and congress either approves it or does not. It doesn't change the amount spent on infrastructure. The fact is that Ron Paul does not increase the budget or spending, on top of that he votes against the spending in the first place. The problem is that people don't listen, I mean, he could explain it better, but why should he have to say anything more than that?

The real problem is that people are unfamiliar with Ron Paul and how principled he is.

 

[krazy kaju]

+1

dannno has it spot on.

 

[Spirit of '76]

If only the mainstream "conservative" movement used their heads.

That would certainly help, but most of them have bought into the earmarks=pork=big government red herring for so long that they're certainly not going to have their minds changed by Ron stammering that he doesn't know how earmarks make it into bills with a big byline that reads "Biggest Porker" underneath him.

If I were Rachel, I'd be in damage control mode right now.

 

[bander87]

He knows exactly how they work.

Let's say $XXX,XXX,XXX in the budget is allotted for infrastructure. That number never changes. If representatives don't claim the funds for their districts, then the Executive branch gets to spend it. So a rep from one district says, "I need $X,XXX,XXX for my district to help re-build after the hurricane" and congress either approves it or does not. It doesn't change the amount spent on infrastructure. The fact is that Ron Paul does not increase the budget or spending, on top of that he votes against the spending in the first place. The problem is that people don't listen, I mean, he could explain it better, but why should he have to say anything more than that?

The real problem is that people are unfamiliar with Ron Paul and how principled he is.

That clears it up a lot. Ron Paul should have said that the money was ALREADY allotted. But when Cavuto asks "Who proposes the highway, the school, or the bridge? How does that even get in there?" and Ron replies "I have no idea", what was up with that?

 

[tremendoustie]

The money's already allocated to be spent anyway. It's preferable to send it back to the people than to waste it in the executive.

Ron needs to get better at explaining this, it's really quite simple.

 

[Trigonx]

The silver lining i think in this would be: seeing Ron Paul that adamant about his position would make people look into why. That is when they will understand how earmarks work, and not the picture of earmarks the media has painted. Everyone(ok most) who knows of Ron Paul understands and generally accept his position on earmarks, but people who have little to no idea who he is have been shown some truth of what earmarks really are.

Not too bad of an interview IMO