Ron Paul's Bringing Home the Bacon

I am not sure why I am welcome to criticize only when I have read someone else's opinion on something. I think I am welcome to criticize whenever I want to since we live in a country where freedom of speech, including political dissent, is welcome. So your argument here seems off base.

Furthermore, and worse, you didn't even address the argument I actually made. If Ron Paul is against further government spending on earmarks, why did he ask for them?

That is equivalent to the "lesser of two evils" argument so many despise. The "lesser of two evils" says that someone will be elected so I might help the person who is closest to me, even though I disagree with them on issues. Here, Paul requested things is purportedly does not think should happen, and then voted against it, knowing he would get them anyway. It is like saying, "I think it is wrong for the federal government to pass out money, and I will complain about it, but since they are passing it out I will go ahead and take some."

If you are against earmarks and running up the debt (as Paul claims to be), then you don't help run up the debt by asking for earmarks. A man of principle says, "No, I do not believe in that, and I will neither request it or take it."

 

Riddle me this Pastor larry, how many megabucks was Ron Paul asking for?

 

It is not the province of government to take into account man's sinful condition except in those areas where one person violates another person's rights. It is not the government's business to protect a person from himself/herself nor to interfere in voluntary actions between consenting adults.

We do not live in a theocracy.

 

Um, is the amount really relevant? If earmarks are wrong, then they are wrong whether it is a $1000 or $1,000,000 or $100,000,000. What happened to standing for principle? If running up the budget with earmarks is wrong, then Paul should not have done it.

 

The story was mis-leading. Ron Paul is not called Dr. No for nothing. The author of the blog would want you to think that Ron Paul is out wasting the tax payers money. The way I see it he was working for his constituents by putting forth the request on their behalf. Whether or not these request had any merits was something he didn't judge on his own but he did give them a chance to be recognized and measured whether they did have merit.

 

If Ron Paul voted against these ear marks how did he accomplish wasting taxpayer money on them? I don't know why he went about making these request when he voted against them but if he voted them down then not a dime was wasted.

 

As a leader, he should have taken a stand against these earmarks as spending money we don't have. Furthermore, as a constitutionalist, he should have recognized that these earmarks (at least the ones I look at) are not provided for in teh constitution.

It seems to me that Ron Paul got caught with his hand in the cookie jar while voting against cookie jars.

 

And maybe thats why he voted against them, just not enough cookies to go around for everyone.
I don't see where is guilty of taking any megabucks.

 

So oppression of the weak at the expense of the strong does not violate the rights of a weak person? Unethical business practices, monopolies that restrict opportunity, and fraudulent packaging/marketing does not violate another's rights?

Just dealing with those issues creates most of the government we currently have.

So the whole, "promote the general welfare [the the Union]" should be stripped out of the Constitution? So the fight against dangerous drugs so be abandoned in order to create a new society where all drugs are legal? Did you ever read about the destruction that the opium dens caused colonial China? They tremendously weakened the fabric of the culture. And since we are the government, why don't we have the right to establish rules for our society that will help everyone have stable and prosperous lives?

You're preaching to the choir here. I'll note this comment if you ever suggest we need to show preference toward religious people.

 

I'm completely opposed to Social Security but I've chosen to keep my job and still pay into the system, as opposed to starving to death via permanent unemployment for the sake of principled protest against govt. retirement. In fact, the govt, through brute force, has created a world in which a libertarian may do two things: 1) participate in some big govt. programs or 2) cease to exist. Paul, like me, choses to live.

FWIW, bringing money back to a district is the most pragmatic way of lessening the economic impact of the redistribution of wealth as taxation without compensation is even more fiscally dismal than the current system. (Though it still isn't as good as repealing the income tax as hardly no one will every completely recover the cash extracted from him.) I doubt anyone, at least anyone who pariticipates in the civic process of voting, can morally indict Paul for trying to make the best out of a bad situation.

So, is Ron Paul hypocritical? No. The only way he would be hypocritical is if he voted for an unconstitutional money grab while pretending not to support it. After Paul's dogmatic libertarianism goes up in smoke and a budget is passed, no one can fault him for simply chosing to live in a world created by others any more than pious, hyper-fundies can be blamed for "supporting Hollywood" by watching Fox News.

 

So it's okay to take earmarks so long as you get them and no one else does? Isn't thist just excuse making for Ron Paul. My bet is that Ron Paul requested earmarks because he knew the budget would pass and he could get some money for his district, and he voted against the budget because he knew it would pass anyway. That way he could say he was against spending more money, but still spend more money.

 

Is it O.K. to take earmarks? Noooo and Ron Paul didn't.

This scenario about why you think Ron Paul did what he did may make sense to you Pastor Larry if you were in his shoes but I just don't see it that way.

 

I stated that it is the province of government to step in when "one person violates another person's rights".

No. But it must be considered within the context of Article I, Section 8.

 

Actually, I think he is hypocritical because he went for the money grab while pretending it is morally reprehensible to spend more money.

I understand the "straight betwixt two" that congressmen are in. No one is going to put their foot down on earmarks. The money is going to be passed out no matter how much you dislike it, and you might as well get some for your district. But that is where there is a lack of a principled stand, even with Ron Paul. The amount is not the issue. If he were truly against government spending, he would not request earmarks, IMO.

 

So he requested them but didn't take them? Help me understand this.

So how do you see it?

 

:tonofbricks: From a previous post #26. try not to forget again Pastor Larry.

Don't make me repeat myself. Don't make me repeat myself.

 

I didn't forget. And you didn't have to repeat yourself. That explanation didn't make sense the first time. You say that by requesting earmarks he was working for his consituents. That is exactly the same as what I said: My bet is that Ron Paul requested earmarks because he knew the budget would pass and he could get some money for his district. You say you don't see it my way, but then you seem to say the same thing about it that I say about it.

And then he voted against it so he could claim he is against bigger government spending. So he could get the money, while claiming to be against spending the money.

I don't see how what you said is any different than what I said. Perhaps there is a nuance you could explain to me.

And since Ron Paul claims to be a constitutionalist, where does the constitution approve of these earmarks he requested?

 

Well Larry we do see it entirely different but but your views are more narrow minded than mine.