Ron Paul and "Cutting Spending" Ha!

You are correct. He's a politician. He has a responsibility to his constituents. If their tax dollars are going to be spent no matter what his vote is, he has a responsibility to bring some of those tax dollars home.

 

I think this is truly a lame discussion. We have not had a candidate like Paul in the sense that he believes Congress should vote on every earmark, he puts earmarks in a bill, and they are voted on. What baffles me, to call that hypocritical is, at best, grasping at straws.

However, the other candidates are major flip-floppers and compromise on major portions of their platform and/or are not really conservative in most areas.

Seriously, if anyone thinks having congress vote on earmarks is bad... how in the world could you ever vote for Newt, Rick S., Rick P., or Mitt? If Ron has a speck in his eye, these men have a log in theirs.

 

That article tells me Texas taxpayer's money was returned to them after the hurricane in Galveston. Hardly controversial.

You can claim something is unconstitutional, then refuse to back it up ?

I am a fool for trying to talk to you.

 

I just parused that Mother Jones site. Don't think I'll be back.

 

Being returned to the taxpayers meaning the money earmarked is not added to the debt.

 

You said "There are loopholes where unspent funds could go to paying down the debt." Where are the loopholes that will take the money in these bills, that is not earmarked, and use it to pay down the debt? If they exist, I will be the first champion of using them.

 

It happens with defense spending, monies allocated being sent to "transfer funds". Trust me, if they truly wanted to they would find a way. We are even bypassing congress now when it becomes convenient.

 

So, what you are saying, is that you are unable to identify these loopholes that you claim exist?

 

You're the one who linked the article. Why are you asking me when it happened ?

And that's all you have provided. That and a link to a whacko leftist newsite.

Then what is the problem with it ?

 

You haven't described anything inconsistent with what his job is, you haven't proved federal spending has tripled, you gave no specific information at all, and cannot tell us if these funds were put in bills to secure his vote.

Do you really want to attack him as a spender, when you've got the others up there ?

 

Ron Paul is a tax & spender. LOL. Almost as funny as you citing Mother Jones as a newssource.

What silliness will the war-without-cease crowd come up with next, instead of dealing with what the man actually says ?

 

You clearly understand the issue based on this sentence. The funds were already in the bill. They were going to be spent one way or another. It didn't matter what Ron Paul did, the money would be spent. Should he not bring home the bacon to his constituents when the money is going to be spent no matter what?

You folks condemn Ron Paul for being an ideologue, yet when he does something practical, you condemn him for that as well.

 

You may call it "practical"...

I prefer to call it "unprincipled".

 

Let me know when you refuse to take tax credits that you don't agree with. :laugh:

 

Google transfer funds and do your own homework.

 

It's not my homework. You are the one that's come on here saying that they exist. The burden of proof is on you my friend .