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.
Ron Paul's Fiscal Hypocrisy
Discussion in 'Political Debate & Discussion' started by carpro, Jan 22, 2012.
Page 3 of 4
-
InTheLight Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
There is no reaching him.
Ron Paul followers are like Obama's followers the last campaign season. -
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... -
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... -
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.
-
-
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. -
InTheLight Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
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. -
-
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. -
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. -
InTheLight Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
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. -
-
He can't write bills to change it? -
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?" -
Paul is a cynical hypocrite and one of the biggest earmark spenders in Texas and congress as a whole. -
Gen Ponch
didnt you know that Targus answers his own questions? -
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. -
-
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?
Page 3 of 4