Ron Paul Supporters:

Thick headed much? Ron Paul has never authored a spending bill, has never sponsored or cosponsored a spending bill, and has never voted in favor of a spending bill. But if a spending bill passes without his appropriating funds from it to benefit his constituency, then he hasn't served his constituency which has paid taxes that support the spending bill. Ron Paul earmarking a bill to benefit his constituency does not increase the bill's budget, the funds are already attached to the bill before Paul puts in his earmarks. So by earmarking the bills he is assuring that the money already attached to the bill is used to benefit his taxpayers rather than to wind up in the slush fund to become government waste if the bill should pass. It's really not that hard, it's kind of elementary. Read it slow. Not earmarking a bill is not going to make the bill cost less for the taxpayer, and isn't going to make the bill go away. The best he can do to try to make it go away is to campaign against it and vote "no" on it. Earmarking is the best he can do to keep it honest and get the money back for his tax paying constituents and keep it out of a slush fund.

 

He is Big Government.... right... Your video doesn't prove much either other than the fact they tried twisting it to appear he is what you claim him to be. Maybe you're just drunk on Ron Paul hate? Who knows. He made plenty of logical points as to why he does and he has done plenty to start a new wave of thinking geared towards Centralized Government.

 

Maybe you haven't seen his Plan to fix the budget in a year... Clearly you're drinking the koolaid of small fixes from Romney rather than looking for someone who has a Plan already designed to fix the entire situation.

 

This discussion about earmarks is the epitome of what we see from people who are against everything that Ron Paul is against and for everything Ron Paul is for, but can't make the connection because they don't understand Ron Paul and they don't understand how the government works.

 

what a joke, ron paul says he against government spending, yet he spends right along with other politicians

ron paul says he's for term limits, but he's been in office for decades

he's a crooked politician and you really have to be gullible to believe his propaganda

 

The rug has been pulled out from under you yet you keep trying? Give up your claims. His logical points completely destroy what you're trying to pull.

 

parroting ron paul's flimsy excuses doesn't pass for logic

 

No one even talked about earmarks until the 2008 election campaign. Why is it all the sudden earmarks are the fall guy? Earmarks neither increase nor decrease government spending. An earmark is an appropriation of funds; it's a congressman or a senator looking at a bill that is assigned a specific budget, and claiming a fraction of that budget to benefit a project in their district. That's it, it's that simple.

At this point (unless the bill is authored by the president), the executive branch is completely out of the loop. Congress gets the first say in how a bill's budget is spent by earmarking the bill. When a spending bill passes, the money left over in the budget that hasn't been appropriated with earmarks is left for the executive branch to determine how it is spent.

So where did this "war on earmarks" come from? It came from the executive branch, because if congress didn't have the power to appropriate funds from a spending bill, all that power would be wielded by the president. Where would you rather have that power be? In the congress where you have a representative from your home town, and can maybe put some of those tax dollars to work for you?

Earmarks was a slogan for the sheep in the 2008 elections, to distract them from all the real problems that Ron Paul was trying to draw attention to. Obviously it worked.

 

Flimsy excuses? Clearly your opinion is to hate Ron Paul vocally concerning a few issues while I can see underneath it all you probably dislike him more on his Economic and Foreign Policy. Keep pushing the same message that has already been torn to shreds.

 

have you seen 'freedom to fascism'? ron paul is in it supporting aaron russo's whacky claim that there's no income tax law

i first saw ron paul speak, in dallas, during the 1970's, he has a long and sordid history that you seem to be blind to

 

Change subject to avoid the discussion.

Also it's his opinion on the matter and I find the Income Tax to be quite similar to Medieval Serfdom when the Lords would take a portion of you work.

 

Ron Paul has never authored a spending bill, has never sponsored or cosponsored a spending bill, and has never voted in favor of a spending bill. But if a spending bill passes without his appropriating funds from it to benefit his constituency, then he hasn't served his constituency which has paid taxes that support the spending bill. Ron Paul earmarking a bill to benefit his constituency does not increase the bill's budget, the funds are already attached to the bill before Paul puts in his earmarks. So by earmarking the bills he is assuring that the money already attached to the bill is used to benefit his taxpayers rather than to wind up in the slush fund to become government waste if the bill should pass.

He is not for voluntary term limits. What good would voluntary term limits serve us? Only the honest politicians would live up to them, and then leave office, and what would we be left with? He has voted 16 times in favor of term limits.

You've given us no evidence to support this claim, all you've given us is rhetoric that you obviously don't understand. It would seem that your dislike of Ron Paul runs a lot deeper than the nonsense you're trying to sell here. But I have hard evidence that he is not crooked as you claim; he has consistently voted against every spending bill, he has consistently voted against every congressional raise, and he doesn't participate in the lucrative and unethical congressional pension program. If all you have is earmarks, then you have nothing, that bird's been shot down by common sense.

 

no, we're still discussing how ron paul is a nut case

did medieval lords have to be re-elected every four years?

take your blinders off and quit making excuses

 

.................

 

I'm going to give this one last shot, and then I'm just going to write you off as another lost sheep trolling Ron Paul.

Earmarks are congress's authority to appropriate funds from a spending bill to benefit the tax payers (where the funds come from) in their districts. The fact that you, a tax payer (assuming), would chastise your representatives for appropriating funds from a spending bill to benefit you makes you seem a lot...not smart.

Take, for example, the President's $450 billion Jobs Bill. There were no specifics given on how that money would be spent because no one took the time to appropriate (earmark) the $450 billion, because the bill had no support. It didn't even have a sponsor in congress, so it was a failure when it hit the floor. But had it been taken seriously and given a chance, your congressmen and senator (if they're doing their job to represent you) would have been hard at work earmarking that bill and getting some of your tax money back to you by putting it to work for you. If your congressmen and senator don't earmark spending bills to appropriate funds for their district, then you're not being represented in the spending bill and your tax dollars are benefiting other people like the one's living in Ron Paul's district.

By villainizing earmarks you are attacking congress's authority to represent you at a local level by appropriating funds from a spending bill, and giving that power to the president. If you truly believe that power should be in the hands of the president, and not at the congressional level, then it is pointless for us to continue on with any further discourse because we see things very differently and will never agree to anything.

 

you can keep making excuses for ron paul's spending, but it's pointless

 

I get it, I'm talking to a brick. I'm done.

 

Seriously? LMAO! You have no argument.

Paul proposed term-limit legislation multiple times. (look it up)

Ron Paul does not participate in the Congressional Pension Plan. (talk about principles)

You should support Ron Paul, because you are supporting a man that has 30+ years of documented honesty, integrity, and principle voting staring you in the face that offers zero doubt. We support the real deal not the status quo.

I hope you re-think your ideology dujac and join us. It feels great!

 

lying about his involvement with his newsletters is far from honest

if ron had been serious about term limits, he wouldn't have stayed in office for so long

 

Yeah like we said how does that fix the issue? So the scumbags stay in Office while having no oppossing voice in either House and it promotes absolutely no outside thought concerning the Centralized Economic Planning or the Imperialistic Foreign Policy the USA has adopted.

 

acting on term limit philosophy is different from just using it as propaganda

centralized economic planing, what a joke, the usa doesn't do that, your hyperbole is ridiculous

 

What would you call the Federal Reserve's manipulation of the money supply and interest rates? Or farm subsidies? Tax breaks for certain corporations/industries? Loan guarantees? Bailouts? Too big to fail? On the 'too big to fail' note, you're old enough to remember when Ma Bell was broken up into the 'Baby Bells' because it was 'too big'. What ever happened with that philosophy?

Yeah, it's ridiculous allright. The USA has NEVER engaged in central economic planning.

 

monetary management, not central planning

 

It is Centralized Planning.

Have you ever taken an Economics class?

 

i have an advanced degree in economics, so yes, i have

i've never seen anyone characterize what the federal reserve does as central planning, other than whacky political propagandists