Ron Paul: Obama's 'goal' is economic collapse

Discussion in 'Politics' started by poncho, Jun 28, 2009.

  1. poncho

    poncho
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    The authors of this article seem to have misquoted Ron Paul a little bit but what Dr. Paul actually said is worth the read, imho.

    Ron Paul, the popular Republican Congressman from Texas, is ripping into the president and Congress for what he sees as their “goal” with round after round of stimulus: complete economic collapse.

    “From their spending habits, an economic collapse seems to be the goal of Congress and this administration,” he said in his June 22, 2009, weekly address.

    He added that Democrats who voted for the president’s war funding request, which gave an additional $106 billion to military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq — among other, unrelated items — were actually voting in favor of the wars, not just authorization of the president’s agenda.

    < snip >

    The president’s insistence on including an additional $108 billion in asset exchange with the International Monetary Fund is merely “buying global oppression,” he said.

    Paul added that, “this [bill sent] $660 million to Gaza, $555 million to Israel, $310 million to Egypt, $300 million to Jordan and $420 million to Mexico; and some $889 million will be sent to the United Nations for so-called peace keeping missions.”

    In other words, the latest U.S. war funding was an “International bailout,” he said.

    SOURCE...

    I have to ask (already knowing the answer I'm likely to get) do we blame this all on ineptness and stupidity like we have most everything else that government messes up or is Mr. Obama and congress actually working to destroy what's left of our economy?

    Note, I already know our congress critters aren't all that smart but how in the world can they do everything wrong all the time? I mean even a total idiot can make the right choice once in awhile. Unless of course . . . Zbigniew Brzezinski (Obama's current foreign policy advisor) was speaking the truth when he uttered the words in my signature line.

    What do you suppose the chances of that are?
     
    #1 poncho, Jun 28, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 28, 2009
  2. Crabtownboy

    Crabtownboy
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2008
    Messages:
    16,659
    Likes Received:
    158
    Ron Paul's Earmarks

    I do not find much credibility in his statements seeing as this comes from a man who adds so many earmarks of his own.


     
    #2 Crabtownboy, Jun 29, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 29, 2009
  3. Mexdeaf

    Mexdeaf
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2005
    Messages:
    7,051
    Likes Received:
    0
    "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. His earmarks included repair projects to the Galveston Seawall damaged by Hurricane Ike and the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway."

    There's a big difference between spending for that purpose and the obviously wasteful spending of many.

    The only way to stop ALL of it would be to cut the Federal government's powers/control back to what they are supposed to be and let the states manage their needs (i.e. stop sending the money to D.C. and take care of themselves) as it is supposed to work.

    But that's too simple a solution.
     
  4. Crabtownboy

    Crabtownboy
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2008
    Messages:
    16,659
    Likes Received:
    158
    Perhaps the meaning of my reply was too subtle.

    I did not say the projects were or were not needed. I did say it impacts a person's credibility to campaign on cutting government spending and then turn around and add almost 100 million to a spending package. Didn't Ron Paul campaign saying there should be no earmarks. If he felt those projects were needed I feel he should have introduced a separate bill requesting funds for those projects, not attach riders that can slide under the radar all too often.

    Frankly, I believe earmarks should be against the law ... not allowed at all.
     
  5. donnA

    donnA
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2000
    Messages:
    23,354
    Likes Received:
    0
    Theres a difference in wasteful spending and needed spending. It doesn't hurt anyone's credibility when it's needed spending. What hurts credibilty is wasted spending on junk money shouldn't have been spent on, causing more debt they you can possibly ever pay for.
     
  6. Magnetic Poles

    Magnetic Poles
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2005
    Messages:
    10,407
    Likes Received:
    0
    I suspect that "legitimate spending" is in the eye of the recipient.
     
  7. donnA

    donnA
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2000
    Messages:
    23,354
    Likes Received:
    0
    like this...
    we watched new orleans flooded and people dead becasue of weakened sea wall, and you think these repairs might not be legitimate?
     
  8. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,386
    Likes Received:
    790
    Ron Paul's view is the earmarks are the only way for the tax payers to get the money back that was taken unconstitutionally.
     
  9. Crabtownboy

    Crabtownboy
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2008
    Messages:
    16,659
    Likes Received:
    158
    One person't legimate spending is anothers wasteful spending. But, again, you also miss the point. You do not strongly campaign against an idea, and then strongly push that idea ... not if you are honets.

    As I said, if it was so needed why not introduce a new bill instead of hiding it the hundreds of pages of another bill?

    RevM said:
    How much of that 96 million would be returned to you? Rather liberal idea in your reply Rev.



    All earmarks should be illegal. To me earmarks are unconstitutional.
     
    #9 Crabtownboy, Jun 29, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 29, 2009
  10. Mexdeaf

    Mexdeaf
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2005
    Messages:
    7,051
    Likes Received:
    0
    I almost agree with you here. Unfortunately, until someone comes to their senses (or a few states leave the Union), this is the only way to get our "stolen money" back.
     
  11. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,386
    Likes Received:
    790

    You have a clear reading comprehension problem. Try these folks they may do you some good.
     
  12. Crabtownboy

    Crabtownboy
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2008
    Messages:
    16,659
    Likes Received:
    158
    As is your habit your replies are off topic and meaningless. Try thinking about the topic as presented in the OP and responding rationally.
     
  13. Magnetic Poles

    Magnetic Poles
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2005
    Messages:
    10,407
    Likes Received:
    0
    Never said that. Reread my comment and quit trying to read more into it than is there.

    Also, it was NOT a seawall that flooded N.O. It was breaches in levees. The Galveston Seawall is a tall wall built along the beach to protect against storm surges from the Gulf. The levees hold back water that would flood New Orleans since part of it is below sea level. Very different structures. Galveston is ten feet above sea level The seawall is not open on two sides. It has land behind it, and Seawall Blvd. and the city itself is above the wall, not behind it.
     
  14. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,386
    Likes Received:
    790
    You should drop debate tactics and respond with honesty and integrity. Your reply could not be more off base off topic and incorrect. You really need to go back and reread it setting aside your hatred. Don't make me embarrass you by having to explain it to you.
     
  15. donnA

    donnA
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2000
    Messages:
    23,354
    Likes Received:
    0
    so apparently all the talk about the needed repair that went unrepaired that resulted in the flooding were menaingless and unfounded?
    and these repairs are not needed.
     
  16. Crabtownboy

    Crabtownboy
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2008
    Messages:
    16,659
    Likes Received:
    158
    Says he who almost never responds to the topic at hand.

    So, what are your feelings about earmarks?

    What are your feelings about a person who campaigns against earmarks, but is the leading person adding earmarks to a bill?

     
  17. Bro. Curtis

    Bro. Curtis
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/curtis.gif>

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2001
    Messages:
    20,264
    Likes Received:
    4
    That's weird. The other day you were telling us the Republicans didn't support the troops when they voted against a bill loaded with earmarks.

    Consistency eludes you, CTB.
     
  18. Bro. Curtis

    Bro. Curtis
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/curtis.gif>

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2001
    Messages:
    20,264
    Likes Received:
    4
    Don't confuse people with facts.
     
  19. OldRegular

    OldRegular
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2004
    Messages:
    22,678
    Likes Received:
    53
    Heh poncho, I told you that months ago. Where has Paul been?
     
  20. Bro. Curtis

    Bro. Curtis
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/curtis.gif>

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2001
    Messages:
    20,264
    Likes Received:
    4
    The O/P is not about earmarks, so your admonishment is moot.
     

Share This Page

Loading...