1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Ron Paul's Fiscal Hypocrisy

Discussion in 'Political Debate & Discussion' started by carpro, Jan 22, 2012.

  1. InTheLight

    InTheLight Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2010
    Messages:
    24,988
    Likes Received:
    2,268
    Faith:
    Baptist


    The analogy stands. Like the smoker who wants to save money by quitting smoking, Ron Paul wants to save money by quitting spending taxpayer money. Yet when the opportunity presents itself to partake without actually being responsible for the spending, he imbibes.

    If you don't like my analogy Webdog's works.
     
  2. targus

    targus New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2008
    Messages:
    8,459
    Likes Received:
    0
    Havensdad drank the Ron Paul kool-aid.

    There is no reaching him.

    Ron Paul followers are like Obama's followers the last campaign season.
     
  3. Havensdad

    Havensdad New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2007
    Messages:
    3,382
    Likes Received:
    0
    The analogy does not stand. Paul is against spending ONLY because it goes against the principles of the Constitution by taking the tax payers money. He is fine with charity (which is what your analogy represents) to take care of those same things.

    Designating money that is already being spent on a specific thing, does not in any way go against Dr. Paul's stated belief that every penny spent should be earmarked. You apparently want him to go against one of his core principles...
     
  4. Havensdad

    Havensdad New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2007
    Messages:
    3,382
    Likes Received:
    0
    Right back at you. It's funny when someone comes along, of his own accord and reasoning, and backs a candidate, that he is "drinking the kool-aid" (whose kool-aid, exactly?), but when you, who parrot the big government establishment position shoved down our throat on a daily basis by the media refuse to consider the alternate position, there is no "kool-aid" involved...

    You can talk about drinking the kool-aid all you want, but if you bother to look in the mirror, you'll see a big red ring around your mouth...
     
  5. billwald

    billwald New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2000
    Messages:
    11,414
    Likes Received:
    2
    Ron Paul would say that building a bridge to no place or to some place should be the decision and the financial responsibility of the state who wants the bridge to be built, not the Feds.
     
  6. targus

    targus New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2008
    Messages:
    8,459
    Likes Received:
    0
    Exactly what "big government establishment position" is it that I am supposed to be "parroting"?
     
  7. saturneptune

    saturneptune New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    13,977
    Likes Received:
    2
    I sympathize with some of Ron Paul's broad ideas about the Consitution, domestic spending and keeping our nose out of wars that are not related to the vital interests of the United States. I do see two problems with his ideas. One, he is not electable, and two, if one wants to abolish the FED and go back to the gold standard, it should have been done decades ago. It is called we went beyond of point of no return on this issue long ago. With the debt in the trillions, there is not enough gold on earth in our hands to back up the totality of our currency. In my feeble attempt to save and plan for my family's future, I buy silver bullion, as I cannot afford gold. I do believe some type of precious metal has a place in any mix of investments.

    On the subject of pork barrels, earmarks, or appropriation bills, these are different names for tax dollars that belongs to we the people. Regardless of what catagory one puts it in, the fact remains, that leaders in power of both parties spend the money based on their own power and reelection, not serving the American people. Equal opportunity for thieves.
     
  8. InTheLight

    InTheLight Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2010
    Messages:
    24,988
    Likes Received:
    2,268
    Faith:
    Baptist
    The 16th Amendment is still in the Constitution:

    The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
     
  9. Salty

    Salty 20,000 Posts Club
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    38,982
    Likes Received:
    2,615
    Faith:
    Baptist
    and those same people believe the 16th was never passed legally. click here for Wikipedia
     
  10. poncho

    poncho Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    The supreme court has said that the 16th didn't give congress any new powers of taxation. Matters not if it was ratified or not.

    The Supreme Court decisions above all inform everyone that no new power of taxation was granted to the federal government by the 16th Amendment. These decisions all inform everyone that the federal government always had the power to tax income from the beginning.

    Since no new power of taxation was granted to the federal government by the 16th Amendment and the federal government was held to always have had the power to tax income, then the revenue that’s being derived by the federal government from an income tax must come from one of the regulated commerce jurisdictions granted to the federal government by the Constitution – therefore, this revenue must come from foreign commerce, interstate commerce, or Indian commerce. After all, generating income is a commercial activity.

    The Supreme Court ruled exactly that in Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189 (1920),where the Court stated the following: “The 16th Amendment must be construed in connection with the taxing clauses of the original Constitution and the effect attributed to them before the Amendment was adopted.”.

    By realizing that Mr. Frank Brushaber was a fiduciary for foreign investors in the Union Pacific Railroad, it becomes obvious that the revenue being derived by the federal government from the income tax must come from foreign commerce.

    SOURCE

    So the people who believe the 16th was never passed legally are barking up the wrong tree.
     
    #50 poncho, Jan 29, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 29, 2012
  11. AresMan

    AresMan Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2005
    Messages:
    1,717
    Likes Received:
    11
    Faith:
    Baptist
    So, when Paul believes that Social Security is unconstitutional, yet says that he would enact a transition process to phase it out rather than snip it off at once, he is being a hypocrite?

    No. Paul is simply trying to deal with the hand that he has been dealt by things that are already unconstitutional. If money has been allocated for spending, he tries to make sure that every penny is properly designated rather than spent at will by the executive branch and unelected bureaucracies. He votes against the spending bills because he would rather them not be allocating this money at all. However, if he cannot accomplish that, he wants the next best thing to be covered.

    He and his son Rand disagree with the way to deal with allocated funds. Rand believes that there should be no earmarks. Ron believes it's the duty of the Congress to designate every penny that will be spent. BOTH would be against the same spending from the beginning.
     
  12. InTheLight

    InTheLight Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2010
    Messages:
    24,988
    Likes Received:
    2,268
    Faith:
    Baptist
    You Ron Paul supporters are so rabid you are missing Targus' point.

    If Ron Paul earmarks money in his district that the federal government does not have the constitutional authority to spend it IS (double) hypocrisy.
     
  13. AresMan

    AresMan Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2005
    Messages:
    1,717
    Likes Received:
    11
    Faith:
    Baptist
    So, he should just sit back and let everyone else just allocate money unconstitutionally anyway for unelected bureaucracies to spend as they see fit?
     
  14. targus

    targus New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2008
    Messages:
    8,459
    Likes Received:
    0
    So his only choices are joining in or sitting back?

    He can't write bills to change it?
     
    #54 targus, Jan 30, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 30, 2012
  15. poncho

    poncho Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    You didn't answer the question.

    Here it is again.

    "So, he should just sit back and let everyone else just allocate money unconstitutionally anyway for unelected bureaucracies to spend as they see fit?"
     
  16. carpro

    carpro Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    25,823
    Likes Received:
    1,167
    Faith:
    Baptist
    The hypocrisy is in earmarking funds, then voting against them because he knows they will pass anyway.

    Paul is a cynical hypocrite and one of the biggest earmark spenders in Texas and congress as a whole.
     
  17. Salty

    Salty 20,000 Posts Club
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    38,982
    Likes Received:
    2,615
    Faith:
    Baptist

    Gen Ponch

    didnt you know that Targus answers his own questions?
     
  18. targus

    targus New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2008
    Messages:
    8,459
    Likes Received:
    0
    Actually, I did answer the question.

    No, he should not sit back and let everyone else just allocate money unconstitutionally anyway for unelected bureaucracies to spend as they see fit.

    Instead of Ron Paul just allocating money unconstitutionally anyway for Ron Paul to spend as Ron Paul sees fit - he should introduce bills to change the system or use his influence to convince others to vote against the unconstitutional spending.

    Get it? Instead of joining them in their unconstitutional endeavors he should fight it. Then he would be consistent with his words and not a hypocrite.
     
  19. Salty

    Salty 20,000 Posts Club
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    38,982
    Likes Received:
    2,615
    Faith:
    Baptist
    :thumbs: :thumbs: :thumbs:
     
  20. Havensdad

    Havensdad New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2007
    Messages:
    3,382
    Likes Received:
    0
    Again, look at his record. He HAS introduced such bills. No one will go along with it, cause it bites the hand that feeds them.

    Again, you did not answer the question. In the case of a given bill, Paul has the option of allowing executive bureaucrats in the Obama administration to have money to spend however they so desire, or he can earmark it, in accordance with his belief that all funds should be earmarked, and say what has to be done with the money. Which should he do?
     
Loading...