Ron Paul: Bizarre Spending Habits

Unfortunately when Paul (who I like) questions these people about spending his questioning is pretty much disregarded. I suspect it's because everyone in Washington has become so used to him complaining about every single bit of spending that happens (not that it's a bad thing to complain about!). It's sort of like the boy who cried wolf...after awhile people stop listening.

 

His affection for earmarks probably doesn't help his cause much either.

 

Especially after tailing against them. His hypocrisy is stunning on that issue.

 

Actually, RP's problem isn't that others ignore him: It is that others behave, whether independant, or partisan..... with their herd mentality. He makes statements and asks questions which they wished they'd thought to say or ask..... or else makes such astonishingly profound statements which seem so incredible to those who haven't the understanding which he does, that they lack the will or the ability to back him up and demand that his questions be answered or speak up and add their agreement to his. They are willing to let him have the last word.... because they'd rather be silent with the majority than open their own mouth and find out how foolish they really are or become targets of others. They prefer to let him stand alone. Not that he is right all the time..... but even when he is and others know it, they prefer to let him stand alone and in the absence of their voice.... he is made ineffective in their agreement to stay silent.

Many of his collegues are likely also so compromised in one way or another, that they don't want their own hypocisies to be called out by dissenting collegues from both sides of the aisle.

 

If you vote for me to represent your interest, and you are part of a group that has an interest in a particular project coming to our district when Congress starts attaching candy to the laws it wants passed..... what do you expect me to do? Do you want me to put your request for candy in or did you vote for me to keep silent?

Because Congress will pass some legislation, and because some candy will be added to sweeten the deal, you will expect me to represent your interest and stick the request for some candy to come to our district no matter how conservative either you or I are generally. After all, if the law is passed and I didn't put our districts request for candy in, time and time again..... eventually you and other voters would drop me for your favorite projects because I was doing nothing to return some of the federal revenues drawn from our district back for you and the others who also participate passively to the passing out of candy to others across the country regardless of my voting.

The hypocrisy label is an unreasonable judgement, considering that in the example as given above, you or most in my district who voted for me, already know that I'm a person with principles founded on the constitution in which I believe the duties not delegated to the federal government are reserved for the state and its people to decide....... and budgety conservation.

Then how am I then called a hypocrite because I keep my bargain to represent your interest in the legislation....... even though I may vote opposing the legislation on grounds of principle to which both you and I are agreed..... and shouldn't pass .....if only others were bold enough to join me?

After all..... that is the correct order of my priority: In legislation to give you a voice and to represent you.... because of my duty to you in response to your vote for representation. But, when casting my vote, I am held to a higher allegiance which is self denial to both of us in the superiority of my oath to uphold the constitution in those matters of separation, and the conservation of resources for the use and prosperity of its people by their choice and not the control, use or abuse and indebtedness of the federal government upon its people.

 

Windcatcher - what you are saying is that Ron Paul is no different than the rest - other than in his words.

He is spending tax dollars on things not authorized by the Constitution so that he can be re-elected.

Just like the rest of them.

Here's a novel idea - why doesn't he earmark money to pay down the national debt so that our children and grandchildren won't be taxed into the poor house to pay the interest to China?

 

You are wrong.
#1) And you are putting words in my mouth which I did not say:

#2) If Congress is adding pork to a bill they want passed..... and I will not vote for the law and regulations on constitutional grounds.... but pork is being added to the bill which and if the bill passes without my vote, it means some districts will get added federal dollars but only if their representatives put it in the bill for them.... and I withhold adding the interest of the people of my district to the federal dole which will be given out if the legislation passes then I am rendered IMPOTENT and so YOU ARE RENDERED IMPOTENT in your representation.

As your representative, I can only do for my district those things which require the agreement of others to pass. I am not in a posistion to reduce your taxes, nor am I in a possistion to bring some of that revenue back home to work for the people in my district if I don't put your interest in some legislation package. But, if I am in a legislative body which, as a whole, is not concerned about budgets nor the constitutionality of law, nor does it care if it causes debts which affect my people the same as other citizens across the country without regard to who gets some of their revenue back: Then what do you want me to do?

#3) Just 'like the rest of them' maybe, and you've put me and yourself in a loose- loose situation if you don't let me have the leverage to use what power I do have to represent you. What power do I have? I can sponsor legislation (law). I can insert requests for projects which will benefit my district to bills the same as other representatives do. And I can vote up or down on legislation. I can also speak for my district, myself, and/or my countrymen as a whole to inform, educate, or proffer an opinion...... if recognized by the chair.

Now you tell me that I'm just like the rest. You might as well castrate everyone you vote for to represent you in congress..... or better..... don't participate at all if thats the best you can do. That even means either rethinking your attitude or holding your opinion if you have no solution to your no-win situation.

Go for it!

 

Ron Paul is no different than the others - he just rationalizes it for himself better.

How about another novel idea?

How about if he represents the people by changing the system by writing bills, getting co-sponsors, gaining support, and then getting the bills passed to change the system?

Right now all he is doing is grabbing as much as he can from the trough while complaining about all the other little piggies doing the same as he is.

 

Okay......
Have it your way:

You don't like Ron Paul and in your opinion he's exactly like the rest.

Name as many representatives as you can who you do like and who agree with your position, or do you know any who would come close to representing you?

Now tell me do you know enough who are in office who can make a majority or persuade a majority to vote with them on law and appropriations?
No?
Then how can you, as an individual help them get the support needed from others if you decide to take up the criticisms of the majority of people who buy into the mantras and complaints against those few who you were in agreement with....... simply because it seems they can get nothing done?

------------------------------------------------------------
FWIW, I don't know how Ron Paul explains his situation. But when I first heard this complaint against him during the Presidential campaign of 2008, I stopped and used my reasoning to figure this out for myself and the conclusion which I came to is that which I tried to explain by example. You see, it is often easy to present a surface fact so that it appears contridictory and hypocritical..... but it is more involved to look deeper and see what churns beneath which causes the dross to the surface. It is easy to complain and do the easy part of skimming the scum. But if your not interested in the processes which cause it to surface to begin with......... then you are in a poor posistion to purge the processes.

 

Other than earmarking money - what has he accomplished in his approximately twenty years in politics?

If he hasn't effectuated any change in the system in that amount of time - what makes you think that he ever will?

 

I asked you some questions and you haven't answered.
Show me yours first........


Or here's my hand.

 

What questions specifically?

Who do I like? None of them.

But the topic is Ron Paul.

So convert me - tell me of at least one accoplishment of his.

 

Convert you to who or what?

Either you're for the constitution or you're not.
Either you're for less government or you're not.
Either you'rer for limits on spending and budgets or you're not.
Either you're against globalization or you're not.
Your position on these things is not my problem.

If it happens that we are agreed on these issues then maybe, just maybe we can come to terms in supporting persons who support our views. If not then it doesn't matter on what point you pick apart a person who gives a voice to these issues. No wonder there are very few willing to champion these posistions...... because they'll have their bones picked by the likes of you before they're dead and the buzzards fly above.

The only problem I have with Ron Paul is that so many follow the man but have no idea of these basic areas which need to be restored. They follow RP as long as he's visible or running........ then, like Ken did, they fly everywhere when he disappears, because they didn't know what they were looking for.

Is RP perfect? No. I have issues with him, but least would be the one covered in this thread which for me is a no brainer, relative to the problems we need corrected. I don't see how malligning him wins points for the positions he and I both agree...... when we need more people in that corner.

But I'm not in his district: He has opponents and yet wins even though he could retire and not have to deal with politics. But his people keep electing him and he keeps his message visible because they do. What the people in his movement should be looking for are more and many more people with an understanding of the constitution, economics, separation of powers, individual/state/ and national sovereignty, etc. instead of just depending on Ron Paul, and spread the recognition and leadership. As long as he is the only one who gets their attention, they are missing both the opportunity and the necessity to build their own base of support and bring forth people who succeed to elected positions, who can also fight for a restoration of America.

The real hypocrisy is in a party keeping a 'conservative' title when it renouces repeatedly those who are conservative within its own ranks or breaks to endorse those who clearly are not.

 

Convert me into a supporter of Ron Paul.

And what does Ron Paul do to further those beliefs other than voting against spending that he benefits from if it passes anyway?

He has been in office for a lot of years.

What has he done other than talk?

I thought that only the libs considered good intentions without accomplishments to be a laudable trait.

 

Ron Paul's approval rating is around 84% in his district.

Apparently they feel very well represented there. That's what's really eating you isn't targus?

Either that or you got ahold of a sour grape when the Bush/Clinton/Obama international banker and corporation coalition let you down. :smilewinkgrin:

 

So you are suggesting that that bringing home the pork is representing ?

That surprises me coming from you !

What's gotten a hold of me is a sick sinking feeling that there is never going to be an end to the deficit spending.

Ron Paul says "limited government" over and over - while actually doing nothing tangilble to further it - and the so called "constitutionalists" on the board can't jump fast enough or high enough to defend his earmark spending.

It seems that all the constitutionalist principles go out the window in defending our next messiah, Ron Paul.

In what way is Ron Paul an agent for liimited government?

I can't help but notice that not one defender of Ron Paul has offered a single example of his accomplishments - other than earmark spending.

Where's the icon for vomiting ?

 

Quote targus:

So you are suggesting that that bringing home the pork is representing ?

That surprises me coming from you !

What's gotten a hold of me is a sick sinking feeling that there is never going to be an end to the deficit spending.

Ron Paul says "limited government" over and over - while actually doing nothing tangilble to further it - and the so called "constitutionalists" on the board can't jump fast enough or high enough to defend his earmark spending.

It seems that all the constitutionalist principles go out the window in defending our next messiah, Ron Paul.

In what way is Ron Paul an agent for liimited government?

I can't help but notice that not one defender of Ron Paul has offered a single example of his accomplishments - other than earmark spending.

Where's the icon for vomiting ?

 

The only accomplishement of Ron Paul - per your defense of him - is TALK.

The unthinking following of Ron Paul is no different than the unthinking following of Obama.

He talks and he talks about limited government - but all he has actually done is spend money on earmarks for things that are not authorized by the Constitution.

Get back to me when he puts our money where his mouth is.

It's been real. :wavey: