Is Ron Paul a hypocrite

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Salty, Jan 14, 2012.

  1. Salty

    Salty
    Expand Collapse
    20,000 Posts Club
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    22,093
    Likes Received:
    218
    Many have accused Paul of being a hypocrite. He votes against bills with excessive pork - yet in one example he "(quoting the Houston Chronicle) that “Paul played a role in obtaining 22 earmarks worth $96.1 million, which led the Houston congressional delegation, according to a Houston Chronicle analysis of more than 8,500 congressionally mandated projects inserted into the bill.”

    In 2011 he earmarked requests in excess of 390 million dollars.

    So is Ron "Boots" a hypocrite? YES or NO

    For the entire story click here
    Note: the article was written by Marc A. Thiessen
     
  2. Ruiz

    Ruiz
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2010
    Messages:
    2,021
    Likes Received:
    0
    If he were against earmarks, then he would be a hypocrite. Paul believes every dollar should be earmarked, not just a small portion.

    Thus, this is not hypocritical, but consistent.
     
  3. targus

    targus
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2008
    Messages:
    8,459
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hypocrite is probably not the right word.

    More like "politician".

    He loads up a bill with earmarks - so that he can tell his home state voters how hard he is working for them - and then votes against the bill - so that he can tell his die hard followers that he is following the Constitution.

    He is playing both sides of the fence.

    Like I said - "politician".
     
  4. saturneptune

    saturneptune
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    13,977
    Likes Received:
    0
    I have to agree with you in this case. It is like when a pay raise comes around for a vote. Congressmen vote on their own pay raise. The advice to them was to stay out of trouble with the voters was "vote no and take the dough." I fully realize Ron Paul is a politician. I like some of his ideas. I do not know about using the word hypocrite in this case, but is one is going to advocate running the country by the Constitution, then they should do so in all aspects.
     
  5. targus

    targus
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2008
    Messages:
    8,459
    Likes Received:
    0
    Maybe Ron Paul is a hypocrite after all...

    "Paul made over $157 million in earmark requests for FY 2011, one of only four House Republicans to request any earmarks. Additionally, he made over $398 million in earmark requests for FY 2010, again one of the leading Republican House members. These earmark requests include:


    •$8 million from federal taxpayers for Recreational Fishing Piers.
    •$2.5 million from taxpayers for "new benches, trash receptacles, bike racks, decorative street lighting."
    •$2.5 million from taxpayers to modify medians and sidewalks for an "Economically Disadvantaged" area.
    •$2.5 million from federal taxpayers for a "Revelation Missionary Baptist Community Outreach Center."
    •$38 million in multiple requests for literacy programs to "encourage parents to read aloud to their children."
    •$18 million from federal taxpayers for a Commuter Rail Preliminary Engineering Phase (light rail).
    •$4 million from federal taxpayers for the "Trails and Sidewalks Connectivity Initiative."
    •$11 million from federal taxpayers for a "Community-Based Job Training Program."
    •$2 million from federal taxpayers for a "Clean Energy" pilot project.
    •$5 million from federal taxpayers in order to build a parking garage.
    •$1.2 million for a "Low-income working families Day Care Program"
    •$4.5 million from federal taxpayers for a new Youth Fair facility."

    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-gop/2821103/posts

    I don't think that all of the above are constitutional responsibilities of the Federal Government.
     
  6. Havensdad

    Havensdad
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2007
    Messages:
    3,382
    Likes Received:
    0
    Guys, you really ought to understand what you are talking about before you post.

    EARMARKS are different than PORK.

    Pork is where you put MORE money into a bill to benefit your constituents (or lobbyists). Ron Paul has NEVER done this.

    EARMARKS, is where you take a bill, that has an already established dollar amount to it, and you designate what it is to be used for, INSTEAD of just passing it on to the mindless bureaucracy (Obama and the Executive branch) to spend how THEY wish.

    For example, lets say that Congress decides to pass a 5 billion dollar bill to beautify the United States shoreline. Paul stands against it, arguing that it is a bad use of tax payer money. He knows, for instance, that the Obama administration is going to use the money for some really goofy, bad stuff.

    So he fights against it, he votes against it, BUT, he ALSO puts what previsions he can in the bill to use the money in a positive way in his district... Maybe instead of letting the federal government take the money and use it up foolishly, he designates his part of it to rebuild the piers that were destroyed in the last hurricane, which Paul knows effects that areas tourism industry.

    So he has not spent one penny more than what was ALREADY going to be spent. He is just telling people where to spend the money, rather than Obama and his cronies spending the money.

    So no, I don't think he is a hypocrite, I think he is a smart constitutionalists, who is keeping every penny he can out of Obama's greedy little socialist hands!
     
  7. Havensdad

    Havensdad
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2007
    Messages:
    3,382
    Likes Received:
    0
    Earmarks are constitutional. Earmarks are just designating money in a bill, rather than writing the Executive Branch a blank check.

    Every, single penny that is spent should be earmarked!
     
  8. mandym

    mandym
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2011
    Messages:
    4,991
    Likes Received:
    0
    Let's not play so ignorant of facts. Earmarks are known to be Federal monies that politicians are bale to obtain for their district for county and state pet projects. Collecting money from the states for the purpose of furthering political careers and trying to control what states do is not constitutional.
     
  9. Havensdad

    Havensdad
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2007
    Messages:
    3,382
    Likes Received:
    0
    What? Wrong.

    http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/253159/eliminating-earmarks-phony-issue-james-m-inhofe


    Again, Earmarks are nothing more than designating money that is ALREADY BEING SPENT on something. "Earmarking" something, does not add a single penny to anything. It is actually a great tool, used by Paul and other conservatives, to reduce spending on heinous projects, where they could not get the bill vetoed!
     
  10. targus

    targus
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2008
    Messages:
    8,459
    Likes Received:
    0
    And if the earmark is to designate Feredal tax money for something that is not authorized to the Federal government by the Constitution?

    Hypocrite?
     
  11. mandym

    mandym
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2011
    Messages:
    4,991
    Likes Received:
    0
    No its not wrong.

    Fact: The money spent on earmarks comes from the taxes of the peop[le of the United states.

    Fact: The people of the United States live in the States of the US.

    Fact: Federal money being spent is confiscated from taxpayers who live in the States.

    Fact: The money that is being spent at the Federal level all comes from the states (ie taxpayers)

    Fact: Allotted an amount of money with no specific target is absurd and poor money handling and need not be spent.

    Fact: Searching for specifics after the money level is allotted does not excuse the level of spending.

    Fact: The Fed uses money collected from the states to control what states do.

    Fact: Politicians use earmarks to help get them elected.

    Fact: Politicians campaigns are subsidized by the tax payers through the earmarking process.

    What needs to happen is stop the spending. Period.
     
    #11 mandym, Jan 14, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 14, 2012
  12. Havensdad

    Havensdad
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2007
    Messages:
    3,382
    Likes Received:
    0
    What would that be? Fishing piers on Federal Waterways? Sidewalks in Federally funded parks? What exactly isn't "authorized"?
     
  13. billwald

    billwald
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2000
    Messages:
    11,414
    Likes Received:
    0
    >And if the earmark is to designate Feredal tax money for something that is not authorized to the Federal government by the Constitution?

    Who are you to say what is not "constitutional?" The Constitution gives this duty to the Supreme Court. It is unconstitutional to complain and probably treasonous under the new constitutional Home Security law.
     
  14. Havensdad

    Havensdad
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2007
    Messages:
    3,382
    Likes Received:
    0
    FACT: Earmarking does not spend a single penny of money

    FACT: Every penny of an earmark is already being spent

    FACT: Any penny that is not earmarked in a spending bill, gets to be distributed however the president (Obama) wishes..

    FACT: Any Spending that is done needs to be earmarked


    While I agree with your premise, I disagree with your conclusion. I would do exactly what Paul has done; vote AGAINST the bill, but have a back-up plan to redistribute as much of the money as possible, and keep it out of Obama's hands. This is not hypocritical; its good strategy.
     
  15. mandym

    mandym
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2011
    Messages:
    4,991
    Likes Received:
    0
    Fact: the money should not be available to begin with for earmark or anything else.

    Fact: The truth that any spending done should be earmarked has nothing to do with the current use of earmarks.


    Just because Obama will spend it somewhere else is not an excuse to continue the system that subsidizes political campaigns and is a political tool to control states.
     
  16. Havensdad

    Havensdad
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2007
    Messages:
    3,382
    Likes Received:
    0
    So, let me get this straight. When we fund our military, we should just pass a bill that says "500 billion for the military" and then let Obama spend it however he chooses?

    Or should you say, "45 billion for new fighter jets, 27 million for tanks, etc. etc."?

    From above: If the Federal government says "We are going to give FEMA money to distribute for the hurricane" it is wrong to keep them from spending that money on bureaucracy, and instead force them to actually repair what was destroyed?

    I am sorry, but your position makes no sense. If your wife wants to get an abortion, and you say no, but she is going to do it anyway, you are not compromising your principles to snatch the money for said procedure out of her hand...
     
  17. mandym

    mandym
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2011
    Messages:
    4,991
    Likes Received:
    0
    I never said that, I never implied that, with reasonable people without and agenda it should never have been taken that way.



    Because you do not want anyone do disagree with RP. The current use of earmarks for advancing political careers and for controlling states is wrong. !!!!!!!!**********As I have said, and let me be clear once again, the money should not be spent in the first place. !!!!!!!!!!!


    RP's method is quite liberal and only adds to the debt and unconstitutional federal spending.


    And in the future I will be glad to respond to any of your posts that are reasonable. But I will ignore further posts, such as this one, that works to twist what I said. I just do not want the argument that is unfruitful.
     
    #17 mandym, Jan 14, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 14, 2012
  18. Havensdad

    Havensdad
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2007
    Messages:
    3,382
    Likes Received:
    0
    This op was about earmarks. Eliminating earmarks would do exactly what I said. Saying that Paul has a bunch of earmarks, is consistent with his constitutional belief that every penny should be earmarked.

    HOWEVER: If you look at how many pork projects he has for his district, the answer is 0. And if you look, even at how many earmarks he put it to control how money was being spent in his district, the answer is far less than anyone else.

    Paul has never, as both Santorum and Gingrich have done, for instance, appropriated ADDITIONAL monies for pork projects in there districts...
     
  19. InTheLight

    InTheLight
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2010
    Messages:
    16,189
    Likes Received:
    611
    BTW, Ron Paul has been in Congress for years. What is his signature accomplishment? Has he ever authored or co-authored a bill? Has he ever gotten a bill he has authored passed?
     
  20. targus

    targus
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2008
    Messages:
    8,459
    Likes Received:
    0
    Did you read the list previously posted?

    •$2.5 million from taxpayers to modify medians and sidewalks for an "Economically Disadvantaged" area.

    •$2.5 million from federal taxpayers for a "Revelation Missionary Baptist Community Outreach Center."

    •$38 million in multiple requests for literacy programs to "encourage parents to read aloud to their children."

    •$2 million from federal taxpayers for a "Clean Energy" pilot project.

    •$1.2 million for a "Low-income working families Day Care Program"

    •$4.5 million from federal taxpayers for a new Youth Fair facility."

    These jump out as the least defendable to me.
     

Share This Page

Loading...