some questions about Ron Paul

Didn't what happened to Michael Vick teach you anything about the use of such language?

I freely admit that I am biased. I don't attempt to hide who I am biased for or who I am biased against.

As the saying goes, those who stand in the middle of the road get run over.

 

Ron Paul on Earmarks

I post the following not to justify earmarks but to provide Ron Paul's position on earmarks since it seems to be an object of discussion in this thread.


Dr. Paul’s Writings › Earmark Victory May Be A Hollow One



by Ron Paul. June 18, 2007

Last week's big battle on the House floor over earmarks in the annual appropriations bills was won by Republicans, who succeeded in getting the Democratic leadership to agree to clearly identify each earmark in the future. While this is certainly a victory for more transparency and openness in the spending process, and as such should be applauded, I am concerned that this may not necessarily be a victory for those of us who want a smaller federal government.

Though much attention is focused on the notorious abuses of earmarking, and there are plenty of examples, in fact even if all earmarks were eliminated we would not necessarily save a single penny in the federal budget. Because earmarks are funded from spending levels that have been determined before a single earmark is agreed to, with or without earmarks the spending levels remain the same. Eliminating earmarks designated by Members of Congress would simply transfer the funding decision process to federal bureaucrats rather then elected representatives. In an already flawed system, earmarks can at least allow residents of Congressional districts to have a greater role in allocating federal funds - their tax dollars - than if the money is allocated behind locked doors by bureaucrats. So we can be critical of the abuses in the current system but we shouldn't lose sight of how some reforms may not actually make the system much better.

The real problem, and one that was unfortunately not addressed in last week's earmark dispute, is the size of the federal government and the amount of money we are spending in these appropriations bills. Even cutting a few thousand or even a million dollars from a multi-hundred billion dollar appropriation bill will not really shrink the size of government.

So there is a danger that small-government conservatives will look at this small victory for transparency and forget the much larger and more difficult battle of returning the United States government to spending levels more in line with its constitutional functions. Without taking a serious look at the actual total spending in these appropriations bills, we will miss the real threat to our economic security. Failed government agencies like FEMA will still get tens of billions of dollars to mismanage when the next disaster strikes. Corrupt foreign governments will still be lavishly funded with dollars taken from working Americans to prop up their regimes. The United Nations will still receive its generous annual tribute taken from the American taxpayer. Americans will still be forced to pay for elaborate military bases to protect borders overseas while our own borders remain porous and unguarded. These are the real issues we must address when we look at reforming our yearly spending extravaganza called the appropriations season.

So we need to focus on the longer term and more difficult task of reducing the total size of the federal budget and the federal government and to return government to its constitutional functions. We should not confuse this welcome victory for transparency in the earmarking process with a victory in our long-term goal of this reduction in government taxing and spending.

- www.ronpaul2008.com/articles/482/earmark-victory-may-be-a-hollow-one/

 

Actually, if Paul would lead the Congress to spend the money on tax rebates or debt paydown, we would better off. Or request an earmark to pay down the debt. So why doesn't he lead?

And if he becomes president, he will have no more power over this than he does now, it seems to me.

This is hardly more comforting. Defending a bad idea does not make it good, IMO.

 

Ron Paul has been a leader when it comes to reducing federal spending and reducing taxes.

It is unfair and biased to take one area such as earmarks and discount the other 99% of Ron Paul's record.

 

If that's leadership, then we can probably do without it, wouldn't you say? Ron Paul has been unable to get anyone to agree with him, it seems like. How is it leading when you are by yourself in something?

It's neither unfair nor biased. Paul wants us to believe he is a small government conservative who goes strictly by the constitution, but he believes in taking tax payer money to fund things that the constitution does not authorize. When asked for the constitutional justification for these earmarks, you have yet to provide anything.

Perhaps the bias is in not being able to recognize the problems that Paul brings. He seems like just another politician and you are offering nothing to refute that.

Ron Paul may be the best choice out there, but he does not seem to be substantively different than they are. On national security, he is like the Democrats. On social policy, he is like the conservative Republicans.

 

1) Actually, there are people who side with Ron Paul on various issues, but they are not a majority of the House of Representatives. So your allegation being "unable to get anyone to agree with him" is patently false. Perhaps you should do more due diligence research about Ron Paul before posting further about him.

2) If you don't see the difference between Ron Paul and "just another politician" then, frankly, you have no business lecturing anyone about being biased.

3) That's because when one is philosophically a libertarian we do not fit neatly into your two party paradigm.

 

Sounds familiar. :tonofbricks:

Democrats are decidedly unfriendly to oil companies, but that won't matter to a zeolot of misguided change.

 

I think that when Paul was running in the late '80s, I heard him say that Libertarians were not unrealistic about the massive difficulty of reversing the unconstitutional system that is in place; and he said that they realistically believed that they could reduce Federal spending by 30% over a four year term. That would mean that 70% would be business as usual, more or less.

We need to remember that a President is not a god or a dictator. He has certain powers enumerated by the Constitution. The rest of what he does is limited to influence. Paul cannot pull some harebrained stunt without getting all kinds of other elected officials to go along with it. Checks and balances, y'know.

Sure he's imperfect. I might not want him as dictator, but I think he'd help the country as President.

 

You have outlined perfectly why he would not be the agent for change that his supporters expect.

But Congress, in general , does not conduct foreign policy. This is the area in which Paul (with his isolationist agenda) would be a disaster.

Since even staunch Libertarians say he is unelectable, a vote for Ron Paul is the same as a vote for a liberal democrat.

 

1) Non-interventionism and opposition to foreign adventurism is not the same as isolationism.

2) That is quickly changing as the Huckabee boomlet dies down, Ron Paul surges in the polls(scientific or otherwise), and now that he has as much money to spend as or more than the rest of the candidates.

 

1) That crutch is broken.

2) Hope springs eternal. Paul's poll numbers, I believe, are driven by support of liberals hoping for a third party bid by Paul.

 

1) Whether you understand the difference between non-interventionism and isolationism is not my problem.

2) Why is that. I think that a Ron Paul candidacy as the Libertarian Party nominee would draw a large number of former Democratic votes because of the Iraq War issue if Hillary Clinton is the Democratic nominee. Also, I don't buy into the idea that Democrats will be voting for Ron Paul in the GOP primaries as long as there is a competitive race in the Democratic Party primaries.

However, your opposition to limited government policies is duly noted, carpro.

 

1) Whether or not I understand the difference is not in question. What is questionable is your understanding of the real life effects and eventual goals of Paul's foreign policy.

2) There is no doubt that many liberals are lending temporary support to Paul's candidacy. They will not vote for him in any election against any liberal democrat. Hillary included.

However, your persistence in attempting to aid in the election of a liberal democrat is duly noted, KenH.

 

Surely you are aware that wishing someone would "shut up" is as biased as anything KenH has written.

 

So,

1) KenH has the burden of proof that a war without burden of proof is a bad idea in "real life"?

2) Please provide one example of successful nation building. Ever. I mean one, just one, instance of a nation being constructed and sustained by virtue of bureaucratic mandate.

3) I'm compelled to remind you that bin Laden was our former ally in "real life." As was Saddam. Castro. Various other despots in Latin America. Soup-to-nuts warlords in Africa. Funny story, really: people will pretend to like you for welfare. Whooda thunk right, carpro?

 

I am not aware of a definition of "bias" that would include urging someone to acquire political advisors to tell them to quit talking when they are not making sense. Most would look at that as a statement in favor of a candidate. Perhaps you are different. But if you have such a definition of "bias," I would be interested in looking at it.

 

Unless I vote for a liberal Democrat your statement is patently false.

 

A lot less false than your statement it was in response to.

 

Carpro, I retract the statement that I wrote that you responded to.

 

(Bolding mine.) The above is a politcial bias, namely yours. Please don't lie and pretend you are not biased.