Ron Paul requested $400 million in earmarks in 2007, $10 million for shrimp

[Alonzo]

Texas congressman and Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul — who is campaigning as a critic of congressional overspending — has revealed that he is requesting $400 million worth of earmarks this year.

The Wall Street Journal reports Paul's office says those requests include $8 million for the marketing of wild American shrimp and $2.3 million to pay for research into shrimp fishing.

A spokesman says, "Reducing earmarks does not reduce government spending, and it does not prohibit spending upon those things that are earmarked. What people who push earmark reform are doing is they are particularly misleading the public — and I have to presume it's not by accident."


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,292334,00.html

Here's a link to all 65 earmarks he requested:

http://i.cnn.net/cnn/interactive/allpolitics/0706/popup.congress.earmarks/pdfs/tx.14.paul.pdf

[4Reaganomics]

I thought this guy was different. I thought he wasn't politics as usual.

"Research into shrimp fishing"

I guess that is fighting for America's constitution?

[Osborn F. Enready]

How else would state appropriate funding if not for earmarks?

[Elrathin]

How else would state appropriate funding if not for earmarks?

So you are for earmarks then?

[Drocket]

So you are for earmarks then?

Only when the most holy Ron Paul, the only pure and untainted Congressman, uses them. All the other earmarks are evil.

[Troubadour]

The test of whether one is for earmarks is whether one supports a rule change banning them. Maybe Ron Paul does, and maybe he doesn't - I don't care. Personally, I say he's a hypocrite for claiming to support the Constitution while remaining a member of the Republican Party (which might as well be the Nazi Party, as far as the US Constitution is concerned). But the notion that someone is a hypocrite for engaging in what is a political necessity unless and until it's banned for everyone is simply unfair and ridiculous.

[Pookie]

What's up with the research into shrimp fishing?
Sounds more like something PETA would do.
Purrs,
Pookie

[Truth_and_Power]

As long as they're not researching iraqi shrimp fishing.. maybe it is actually good for this country. I wouldn't know.

[micfranklin]

Shouldn't shrimp research be something the Fish and Wildlife Service does?

And why is this being brought up like 7 months after it was first put out?

[Alonzo]

Shouldn't shrimp research be something the Fish and Wildlife Service does?

And why is this being brought up like 7 months after it was first put out?

I found it when discussing Paul in another thread. Since some people still insist he's running, and it was never posted, I figured why not? Not like people seem to know about it.

[Osborn F. Enready]

Elrathin said:
So you are for earmarks then?

I didn't say that. I am saying I understand the position Paul is in, as he has to SERVE his constituents, and if his constituents DEMAND some of their share of the TAX INCOME that is taken from TEXANS JUST LIKE ANY OTHER STATE, he has to oblige their intrests since he is their representative.

Do you people know what an earmark is, and where the FUNDS COME FROM?

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Earmarks

While many lawmakers, including Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), have proclaimed that earmarking has been common since the founding of America, recent research has indicated otherwise.

The idea of directing federal money to specific local projects originally came from Rep. John Calhoun (D-S.C.) when he proposed the Bonus Bill of 1817 to construct highways linking the East and South of the United States to its Western frontier. At the time, these projects were referred to as "internal improvements." Calhoun wanted to use the earnings bonus from the Second Bank of the United States specifically for this program, arguing that the General Welfare and Post Roads clauses of the US Constitution called for it. President James Madison vetoed the bill as unconstitutional. He explained his reasoning in the following message:

Such a view of the Constitution would have the effect of giving to Congress a general power of legislation instead of the defined and limited one hitherto understood to belong to them, the terms 'common defense and general welfare' embracing every object and act within the purview of a legislative trust.

Taxpayers for Common Sense, an independent watchdog organization, has argued that widespread earmarking is a relatively new phenomenon in American politics. The organization cites the evolution of earmarks since the 1970s. The 1970 Defense Appropriations Bill had a dozen earmarks; the 1980 bill had 62; and by 2005, the defense bill included 2,671. Among the earmarks in the 2005 bill was money to eradicate brown tree snakes in Guam. [2]

Similar increases are seen in the history of the Transportation Appropriations Bill. When President Dwight Eisenhower proposed the first national highway bill in the 1950s, there were two projects singled out for specific funding. In August 2005, when Congress passed a six year, $286.4 billion Transportation Bill, there were 6,371 earmarks, ranging from $200,000 for a deer avoidance system in Weedsport, New York to $3 million for dust control mitigation on Arkansas’ rural roads. [3]

In all, there were roughly 15,000 congressional earmarks in 2005 at a total cost of $47 billion.

[edit]The earmarking process today
On paper, earmarks are intended to go through a public process. Lawmakers recognize needs which exist in their respective states or districts, and submit a written request to the appropriate congressional subcommittee asking for the panel’s support. In reality, however, earmarks are often not judged on their merit. Rather, earmarks are typically handed out as favors in exchange for votes on key pieces of legislation by party leaders and appropriations chairmen.

In addition, earmarks are rarely considered by the entire U.S. House of Representatives or U.S. Senate during the construction of a bill. Rather, they are often added during the conference phase, which is when House and Senate leaders meet to iron-out the differences in their respective pieces of legislation on a particular issue. Following the conference, both houses must approve the legislation again, but if a member wishes to oppose a particular earmark, he/she must vote against the entire bill in order to do so. Given that most earmarks are inserted into massive pieces of legislation which fund the federal government, members of Congress are often reluctant to oppose them simply over an earmark. In addition, through the process of logrolling, members often agree to support a bill with another’s earmark in exchange for the same treatment. The result is bills with hundreds, if not thousands, of specifically-directed funding projects. Thomas A. Schatz, president of Citizens Against Government Waste, said that 98 percent of earmarks to appropriations bills in 2005 were added in the conference phase.

When passed legislation reaches the president’s desk, a similar problem arises. Not wishing to stall the budgetary process or risk a public relations backlash for rejecting a bill for transportation or defense appropriations, presidents are often forced to sign bills loaded with earmarks. Many presidents, including Bill Clinton and George W. Bush have advocated a line-item veto, whereby the president is able to veto specific spending projects in appropriations bills without vetoing the entire bill. While Congress has historically opposed this expansion of executive power, it did grant it in 1996 with the Line Item Veto Act of 1996. The line-item veto was used 11 times to strike 82 items from the federal budget by Clinton. In February 1998, however, a federal district judge ruled that the law was in violation of the US Constitution. This ruling was affirmed in June 1998 by the U.S. Supreme Court in the case Clinton v. City of New York.

[edit]Perceived unfairness
Many individuals and groups consider earmarks to be inherently unfair. Rather than directing funds to the most-deserving projects, many believe the ability of an earmark to make it onto a bill depends on the seniority and power of the member advocating it. One commonly cited example is West Virginia. The state often comes out near the top of all states for earmarked higher-education funds. In 2000, Wheeling Jesuit University received $7 million for the Robert C. Byrd National Technology Transfer Center. Another $2 million was awarded to the school's Erma Ora Byrd Center for Educational Enterprises. Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.) was then (and remains) the U.S. senator with the longest seniority (serving since 1959). In addition, many credited the power of Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) to an earmark which directed $223 million to the building of a bridge in Alaska from the remote town of Ketchikan (population 8,900) to the more remote island of Gravina (population 50). Critics dubbed this project the "Bridge to Nowhere." [4]

If the INTENT of the earmarks falls under the CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATIONS of Congress, than there is nothing wrong with earmarks, however, it should be obvious that today, little if ANY earmarks (or legislation for that matter) falls under Constitutional Limitations or auspice of ENUMERATED taxing authority.

[Alonzo]

Osborn, that's like saying "I know it's stolen money that they're offering, but since it's already stolen, I can accept it as payment for these goods that I'm legally selling".

[Osborn F. Enready]

Alonzo, the people of Texas Ron Paul represents, are ALSO BEING STOLEN FROM.... they have as much legitimate claim as ANY OTHER STATES REPS to those funds.

Do you disagree?

Its the same reason that I, who argue constantly against social welfare programs, will use them if necessary, since they have been built on MY STOLEN MONEY ANYWAY!

Depriving Pauls people of their share of their stolen income, is simply ignorant.....

[4Reaganomics]

by claiming that everyone else's representatives do it fund and helf their constituents so it is okay for Paul to do it too you are only further contributing to the problem

[Alonzo]

Alonzo, the people of Texas Ron Paul represents, are ALSO BEING STOLEN FROM.... they have as much legitimate claim as ANY OTHER STATES REPS to those funds.

Do you disagree?

Its the same reason that I, who argue constantly against social welfare programs, will use them if necessary, since they have been built on MY STOLEN MONEY ANYWAY!

Depriving Pauls people of their share of their stolen income, is simply ignorant.....

So is the amount of money paid by his constituents greater than, or equal to, the amount of money they receive back? If not, every cent over is stolen money.

As for yourself, didn't you say you managed to avoid paying most taxes? Though that may have been another libertarian.

[4Reaganomics]

I'm sure attaching shrimp research to actual important bills is just what our framers had in mind

[Osborn F. Enready]

Alonzo said:
So is the amount of money paid by his constituents greater than, or equal to, the amount of money they receive back?

Good question.... I don't know.

Alonzo said:
If not, every cent over is stolen money.

I would surely agree.

Alonzo said:
As for yourself, didn't you say you managed to avoid paying most taxes? Though that may have been another libertarian.

Since 2004, I have avoided paying taxes, and have been a anti-tax activist.
I still have accrued funds in S.S., and I have been taxed in my employment since I was 16 years old and started working in 1988.

So far, since then, I have used NO government aid other than 1 CLAIM of unemployment for 3 months, back in 1992 or 1993.

I haven't been employed officially since 2003 for any length of time, and currently work as a voluntary home care provider for my father, and my pay is room and board, food and water.

[Osborn F. Enready]

REgan said:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm sure attaching shrimp research to actual important bills is just what our framers had in mind

Whats you point?

Are you saying I support earmarks? I obviously don't, if you have been reading.

I said a states representatives have RIGHT to claim back the STOLEN funds from their citizens through earmarks, if they are so charged by their constituents, from the general fund.

I am anti-earmark, for any reason THAT IS NOT CONSTITUTIONALLY SOUND.... is that clear enough for you Regan?

[Elrathin]

Osborne it seems though you excuse Ron Paul doing it simply because other people do it to. Is that right?

[4Reaganomics]

That is exatly what I said and took at as El

[Alonzo]

Since 2004, I have avoided paying taxes, and have been a anti-tax activist.

Do you drive?

I live in Massachusetts, we're one of the rich states that pay more to the government than we get. My dollar may be in that road you drive on to and from home. You're not paying, yet you use it. Why?

[Truth_and_Power]

That is exatly what I said and took at as El

I think what ron paul wants to do is stop the earmarks and stop the taxes that fund them. Not taking earmarks and still losing the taxes that fund them would be a lose/lose situation for ron paul's constitutents. He chooses to make his position clear on the grand-scale issue while still operating within the system that exists in order to try to take care of his contituents. Does that make it clear?

[Truth_and_Power]

Do you drive?

I live in Massachusetts, we're one of the rich states that pay more to the government than we get. My dollar may be in that road you drive on to and from home. You're not paying, yet you use it. Why?

Every state pays plenty to take care of the roads and state troopers, these kinds of arguments are hogwash. This is like when citizens try to cut the funds to local government and they say the first thing they will have to cut will be fire and police. The great majority of federal funds are spent on things like war and debt which many of us find to be STUPID expenditures.

[Alonzo]

Every state pays plenty to take care of the roads and state troopers, these kinds of arguments are hogwash. The great majority of federal funds are spent on things like war and debt which many of us find to be STUPID expenditures.

That's why the federal government funds certain roads, right? Look into the drinking age and why it's 21 in every state, it's largely due to federal funding of roads.

But, either way, you're arguing that it's only theft if it's in large amounts? I think tomorrows shopping experience will be my most interesting one yet!

[Truth_and_Power]

That's why the federal government funds certain roads, right? Look into the drinking age and why it's 21 in every state, it's largely due to federal funding of roads.

But, either way, you're arguing that it's only theft if it's in large amounts? I think tomorrows shopping experience will be my most interesting one yet!

I'm sorry, none of what you just said made any sense to me. I have no problem with individual states setting drinking ages they find to be appropriate, and I see no value in the federal government using tax dollars taken from those states as extortion money to affect their policies.

When you are shopping tomorrow, instead of buying things that you want, I suggest you give your income to a local charity and then swing by there and pick up some things you need. That way you can emulate the system you approve of so much on a personal level.

[Alonzo]

I'm sorry, none of what you just said made any sense to me. I have no problem with individual states setting drinking ages they find to be appropriate, and I see no value in the federal government using tax dollars taken from those states as extortion money to affect their policies.

The federal government won't give states federal funding for roads if they have a lower drinking age. Meaning your assertion that states have plenty of money for those things isn't true, otherwise the threat wouldn't work. I believe Mississippi actually refused to do so for a few years, but the effect on roads was too great and they gave in.

When you are shopping tomorrow, instead of buying things that you want, I suggest you give your income to a local charity and then swing by there and pick up some things you need. That way you can emulate the system you approve of so much on a personal level.

And that helps anyone how?

[Truth_and_Power]

The federal government won't give states federal funding for roads if they have a lower drinking age. Meaning your assertion that states have plenty of money for those things isn't true, otherwise the threat wouldn't work. I believe Mississippi actually refused to do so for a few years, but the effect on roads was too great and they gave in.


Okay I'm going to abandon the second discussion in our posts because I don't see any need for it. As for the above, let me see if I can outline it for you. I'll use fake numbers, but the assumptions should hold.

Mississippi sends the federal government (or its citizens do) 1 billion dollars a year. The federal government in turn spends 100 million dollars a year on roads for mississippi and 900 million dollars a year on wars, debt interest, etc, etc, etc. So when you say mississippi is not paying its fair share and aren't they glad they have massachusetts to pay for their roads, I protest. Most of the national budget is spent on bullshit that should never happen and mississippi generates plenty of tax revenue to pay for necessary roads. I will, however, thank massachusetts for paying for more than their fair share of the iraq war, and enabling the U.S. to borrow ever more money each year. Thanks Boston!

Ideally that money would go to mississippi and they could tax & spend as they deem fit, and they could let whichever citizens drink and smoke whatever they deem fit rather than having the federal government take the money and use it as extortion dollars to dictate policy to the states.

[Alonzo]

Okay I'm going to abandon the second discussion in our posts because I don't see any need for it. As for the above, let me see if I can outline it for you. I'll use fake numbers, but the assumptions should hold.

Mississippi sends the federal government (or its citizens do) 1 billion dollars a year. The federal government in turn spends 100 million dollars a year on roads for mississippi and 900 million dollars a year on wars, debt interest, etc, etc, etc. So when you say mississippi is not paying its fair share and aren't they glad they have massachusetts to pay for their roads, I protest. Most of the national budget is spent on bullshit that should never happen and mississippi generates plenty of tax revenue to pay for necessary roads. I will, however, thank massachusetts for paying for more than their fair share of the iraq war, and enabling the U.S. to borrow ever more money each year. Thanks Boston!

Ideally that money would go to mississippi and they could tax & spend as they deem fit, and they could let whichever citizens drink and smoke whatever they deem fit rather than having the federal government take the money and use it as extortion dollars to dictate policy to the states.

Your argument overlooks one obvious thing, that if it was state run then the states would have the debt, defense spending etc. that the government now has.

[Osborn F. Enready]

Elrathin said:
Osborne it seems though you excuse Ron Paul doing it simply because other people do it to. Is that right?

I suppose some could perceive what I am saying that way, but that is not my feelings nor my intent, and it is a LEAP of faith, not of logic or quoteable, provability.

I clearly stated I am anti-earmark, if said earmark doesn't fit within the Constitutional bounds of the CONSTITUTIONALLY described and limited REASONS for taxation.

The fact is, the people of Texas are unconstitutionally taxed just like the rest of us, to some degree in other states, with few exceptions (New Hampshire, and a few others).

The people of Texas, much like the people of any state, would have a VESTED INTREST in keeping the bulk of their STOLEN TAX DOLLARS in their own state, to better their state.

How can I fault them for expecting their ELECTED REPRESENTATIVE for doing that?
How can I fault the elected representative for doing what his constituents demand?

I can't, except to say if it isn't constitutional, I don't support it.

I CAN HOWEVER, fault the WHOLE OF THE BI-PARTISAN GOVERNMENT, for allowing it to get this out of hand REGARDING unconstitutional forms of taxation, and reasons for taxation, which is WHAT I DO.

Clearly, so everyone can read it.. I will state this with clear conscience.......

I FAULT RON PAUL, for being a part of the corrupt system..... I also fault all those who request earmarks based on anything that doesn't fit Constitutional reasoning in application to the reason of the request for the earmark..... Ron Paul may fit that criticism due to his earmarks, but in every other aspect of his career, he has argued against that system, against the concept of taxation for earmarks, and against the CLAIMED RIGHT of government to tax for such purposes, while proposing means and methods to STOP IT! For that, Ron Paul, unlike the bulk of the rest of the R&D bi-partisan monopoly, has earned my respect.

Don't make the mistake of thinking I agree with everything Paul does, or feels, I don't.
I will say with clarity however, Ron Paul is by FAR the LEAST evil of all of those who stepped forth from EITHER PARTY for the Executive Seat bid, so if it were truly a matter of voting for the least evil (which it isn't), people should have obviously supported him.

Most people only use the lesser of two evils concept to excuse their IGNORANCE of the system, and of the candidates, and the issues.

Regan said:
That is exatly what I said and took at as El.

Why? Where have I expressly said its ok for Paul, but not ok for anyone else? Please quote me if you think I have given that clear of a "signal" to "assume" such.


Alonzo said:
Do you drive?

I don't own a car, I have a license and insurance.
I drive to perform the duties of my job, using my fathers (employers) car.

Alonzo said:
I live in Massachusetts, we're one of the rich states that pay more to the government than we get. My dollar may be in that road you drive on to and from home. You're not paying, yet you use it. Why?

A), Ohio didn't ask for your states funds.
B), I have a right to travel.
C), I don't drive outside the duties of my job.
D), I meet all the legal requirements to drive.
E), How the state funds the roads I drive on has very little input from me, in fact, only one vote.
F), Your state, my state, and every state has robbed enough from me in my lifetime already to remove any guilt I would have about using roads funded by whatever means.
G), I can't ride a horse, this is not a horse friendly area regarding laws and regulations to keep a horse in the suburbs where my father lives.

I could go on, and on, and on, if you like? Mainly however, I didn't vote to support my roads with any states money other than my own, so I bear NO responsibility here.

You got a problem with that, take it up with YOUR state that is doling out YOUR funds.

T&P said:
I think what ron paul wants to do is stop the earmarks and stop the taxes that fund them. Not taking earmarks and still losing the taxes that fund them would be a lose/lose situation for ron paul's constitutents.

Thank you for clearly spelling out for some, what I thought was an obvious no-brainer. ;)

[Alonzo]

A), Ohio didn't ask for your states funds.
B), I have a right to travel.
C), I don't drive outside the duties of my job.
D), I meet all the legal requirements to drive.
E), How the state funds the roads I drive on has very little input from me, in fact, only one vote.
F), Your state, my state, and every state has robbed enough from me in my lifetime already to remove any guilt I would have about using roads funded by whatever means.
G), I can't ride a horse, this is not a horse friendly area regarding laws and regulations to keep a horse in the suburbs where my father lives.

I could go on, and on, and on, if you like? Mainly however, I didn't vote to support my roads with any states money other than my own, so I bear NO responsibility here.

You got a problem with that, take it up with YOUR state that is doling out YOUR funds.


None of this changes the fact that you're using roads and not paying for them.

[Osborn F. Enready]

Alonzo said:
None of this changes the fact that you're using roads and not paying for them.

I paid for them for years, from 1988 to 2004.

MEANWHILE, I am promised security I don't get, I am promised individual rights PROTECTION I don't get, I am promised NATIONAL SECURITY I don't get, I am promised a republican form of governement I don't get.......... (the list is very long....)

Excuse me while my shame is evaporated in the obvious corruption in the system.......

And again, I didn't vote for your socialist state to fund this crap state of Ohio.....in fact, I encourage you to fight it.

[Alonzo]

I paid for them for years, from 1988 to 2004.

MEANWHILE, I am promised security I don't get, I am promised individual rights PROTECTION I don't get, I am promised NATIONAL SECURITY I don't get, I am promised a republican form of governement I don't get.......... (the list is very long....)

Excuse me while my shame is evaporated in the obvious corruption in the system.......

And again, I didn't vote for your socialist state to fund this crap state of Ohio.....in fact, I encourage you to fight it.

All the things you don't get are debatable. What's not debatable is that you're stealing money for roads that you don't pay for. That's all I'm saying. As long as you're ok with that then there's no issue.

[Osborn F. Enready]

Alonzo said:
All the things you don't get are debatable. What's not debatable is that you're stealing money for roads that you don't pay for. That's all I'm saying. As long as you're ok with that then there's no issue.

Your clearly in denial here Al, and grasping at anything to make a point.

I didn't have ANYTHING to do with YOUR STATE funding other states roads, therefore, I bear no burden.

Every use of tax dollars that isn't constitutional is technically stolen money...... you would have to live in a box to avoid interacting with some level of government theft.

I am fine with your state funding my roads, if they choose to do so, and their people don't mind. If they mind, that is their problem, and they have the power to stop it should they get off their dead asses and do it.

I assure you, I stand up and argue against any legislation I KNOW OF that OHIO deals with regarding sending OUR MONEY out of state, especially to more socialist states like Mass....

[Truth_and_Power]

None of this changes the fact that you're using roads and not paying for them.

I thought hardcore liberals like yourself were all for people using things they didn't pay for.

[Osborn F. Enready]

He is T&P, he just wants me to say I have some sort of guilt association here, when I clearly don't, nor should I.

If Mass. wants to build and pay for my roads in Ohio, I will let them.

I didn't however have ANYTHING to do with it happening, which is what Alonzo seems to think I should be taking some stand against.....due to my personal outlooks.

I just hope he doesn't expect me to support Ohios fund being used in Mass., because I would fight that every step of the way. ;)

[Alonzo]

I didn't however have ANYTHING to do with it happening, which is what Alonzo seems to think I should be taking some stand against.....due to my personal outlooks.

You should not want to participate or take advantage of that theft. You seem to have no qualms about using it.

[Truth_and_Power]

You should not want to participate or take advantage of that theft. You seem to have no qualms about using it.

And if you are against air pollution you should cease breathing until you can get standards raised. Yep, we're done here.

[4Reaganomics]

You can't simply defend your actions by saying "everyone else is going it".

His shrimp research expedition further contributes to the national debt, a debt us small government guys claim to despise. To say Paul is legitimate in his actions on this one because other representatives engage in this behavior is invalid.

[Truth_and_Power]

You can't simply defend your actions by saying "everyone else is going it".

His shrimp research expedition further contributes to the national debt, a debt us small government guys claim to despise. To say Paul is legitimate in his actions on this one because other representatives engage in this behavior is invalid.

To say this money would be saved and used to pay down the debt if not spent on shrimp research is also invalid. This money would have been spent anyway, in another state. If you will read my previous post you will see a fine explanation of paul's actions.

[4Reaganomics]

If I didn't buy the stolen car parts someone else would have, so I guess it is alright

[Truth_and_Power]

If I didn't buy the stolen car parts someone else would have, so I guess it is alright

I'm not even sure where you're coming from, pretty sure you're pro-car theives anyway.

[Elrathin]

If Clinton hadn't voted for going to war in Iraq, her vote would not have stopped us from going. So does that mean she was right?

For those that make excuses for what Ron Paul does simply because someone else would have done it, that is incorrect and IRRC the same mindset that Ron Paul was against. Yet it is shown he does it as well. What does that really say about his message?

[4Reaganomics]

The claim that someone else would have used the money is weak.

When in Rome, don't simply follow the Romans, do what you believe in.

[Truth_and_Power]

The claim that someone else would have used the money is weak.

Oh really? Since it is so weak, I'm sure you'll have no problem countering this claim. I look forward to you evading this request.

[Truth_and_Power]

If Clinton hadn't voted for going to war in Iraq, her vote would not have stopped us from going. So does that mean she was right?


I don't believe anyone who authorized the Iraq war was right.

Here is an interesting article: http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474977330948&grpId=3659174697244816&nav=Groupspace


Contrary to popular belief, adding earmarks to a bill does not increase federal spending by even one penny. Spending levels for the appropriation bills are set before Congress adds a single earmark to a bill. The question of whether or not the way the money is spent is determined by earmarks or by another means does not effect the total amount of spending.

Since reforming, limiting, or even eliminating earmarks does nothing to reduce federal spending, I have regarded the battle over earmarks as a distraction from the real issue-- the need to reduce the size of government. Recently, opponents of earmarks have embraced an approach to earmark reform that undermines the constitutional separation of powers by encouraging the president to issue an executive order authorizing federal agencies to disregard congressional earmarks placed in committee reports.

[4Reaganomics]

The claim that "his behavior is excusable" because someone else would use the money is weak

sorry for the lack of clarification

[Truth_and_Power]

The claim that "his behavior is excusable" because someone else would use the money is weak

sorry for the lack of clarification

So you refuse to vote for anyone who has made an earmark?

[Elrathin]

I don't believe anyone who authorized the Iraq war was right.

But yet, Ron Paul is being excused for his actions by some of his supporters simply for using the excuse "Everyone else is doing it".

[Alonzo]

So you refuse to vote for anyone who has made an earmark?

I think this is about asking for consistency, both from Paul and his like minded supporters.

[Truth_and_Power]

But yet, Ron Paul is being excused for his actions by some of his supporters simply for using the excuse "Everyone else is doing it".

Clearly that is not the reason I gave for being O.K. with it, nor is it the one that Ron Paul gave in the article he wrote, which I posted.

[Truth_and_Power]

I think this is about asking for consistency, both from Paul and his like minded supporters.

Hillarious..

[Alonzo]

Hillarious..

I'm end results oriented, and I'm consistent with that. That's not something that can be said for Paul and many of his fans.

[Truth_and_Power]

I'm end results oriented, and I'm consistent with that. That's not something that can be said for Paul and many of his fans.

And yet you are 100% focused on paul's means to an end here. Perhaps you should be consistent in your criticisms and outline where hillary's positions have differed.

[Elrathin]

Clearly that is not the reason I gave for being O.K. with it, nor is it the one that Ron Paul gave in the article he wrote, which I posted.

So if the reason of "Everyone else is doing it and it would be spent anyway" isn't the reason, what is?

[Alonzo]

And yet you are 100% focused on paul's means to an end here. Perhaps you should be consistent in your criticisms and outline where hillary's positions have differed.

No, because Paul is more concerned about duty, justice and those things. I'm more concerned with ends, and he's far more concerned with the means. That's even more true for some of his followers.

[apdst]

What's up with the research into shrimp fishing?

It's a multimillion dollar industry that employs a buncha people.

[Osborn F. Enready]

ITs sad when this is the best you have to criticize Ron Paul.......yet people harp on it...

To compare Paul to any of the other three running, he looks GOLDEN.

[Truth_and_Power]

And yet you are 100% focused on paul's means to an end here. Perhaps you should be consistent in your criticisms and outline where hillary's positions have differed.

The only thing you are consistent in is your undying support of hillary and your constant criticism of anyone who challenges her on any level.

[Mia]

So if the reason of "Everyone else is doing it and it would be spent anyway" isn't the reason, what is?

I will repost since you missed it the first time:

Contrary to popular belief, adding earmarks to a bill does not increase federal spending by even one penny. Spending levels for the appropriation bills are set before Congress adds a single earmark to a bill. The question of whether or not the way the money is spent is determined by earmarks or by another means does not effect the total amount of spending.

Since reforming, limiting, or even eliminating earmarks does nothing to reduce federal spending, I have regarded the battle over earmarks as a distraction from the real issue-- the need to reduce the size of government. Recently, opponents of earmarks have embraced an approach to earmark reform that undermines the constitutional separation of powers by encouraging the president to issue an executive order authorizing federal agencies to disregard congressional earmarks placed in committee reports.

[bishop]

great case of the pot calling the kettle black... anyone seen what hillary has requested in earmarks? nope - because she won't make that information public. secretive, just like bush.

and i do not support the earmarks he's requesting, although he is in the right to request them. at the end of the day, his long voting record trumps this individual request, because his record is solid proof of his rhetoric matching his record. he did not vote for the creation of a new and useless federal department (HHS) and he did not give bush the power to embark on a war of choice. but, hillary DID.

[Alonzo]

Bishop, has hillary railed against government spending, across the board, like Paul?

[bishop]

no, hillary's been the exact opposite in that regard.

only problem with this line you're pushing is that paul's voting record is clearly against government spending. this request does not translate into a vote for increased government spending.

[4Reaganomics]

This thread has still amazed me in the way that libertarians refuse to admit when one of their own does something they do not agree with.

It is always, well everyone else includes earmarks, everyone else does it for their state so he must do it for his, etc.

Why do they have to defend everything he does as if he is this omnipotent god?

When Bush had a horrendous policy on immigration I spoke loud and clear against it, but when Paul does something against libertarian principles it is "eh, everyone else does it"

I don't get it

[bishop]

even more amazing when hypocrite republicans vote for big-government candidates...

check post #80... sure is a stretch to assert that i'm trying to "defend everything he does as if he is this omnipotent god"...

[4Reaganomics]

not you specifically, but in general it is as if Ron Paul seems larger than life to his supporters and his faults are often written off and embraced as "regular congressman behavior"

Supporting someone is much different than supporting everything they stand for. I can support a candidate as a republican who pushes for a bigger government than the party has tradtionally supported if I feel that he is the candidate whom I agree with most on principles that is actually electable.

If I see two candidates as electable and support the candidate I identify the most with, then I am rationally choosing who I want to be CIC who actually has a possibility.

I will stand up when I think the individual that I support is wrong and criticize them when it is necessary.

It is not realistic for me to expect a candidate every four years who agrees with everything that I support.

I'm not going to say that there is no Ronald Reagan running, so I am not voting at all or i am writing in someone who has about as much chance at becoming CIC as Alan Keyes at this point.


By the way, how about that run that ticker CSX is on. Up around 30% since you claimed it was a bad buy at 54.

[Osborn F. Enready]

bishop said:
even more amazing when hypocrite republicans vote for big-government candidates...

check post #80... sure is a stretch to assert that i'm trying to "defend everything he does as if he is this omnipotent god"...


Exactly.....

This is one small tic in Pauls armor.

Compared to any other candidate in the running, he has the least working against him, but he tells the people the truth they don't want to hear, which obviously did work against him.

He is far from Godlike, and I don't agree with him on all of his issues, but COMPARITIVELY, he is far and away the one with the firmest grasp on how to fix the VERY real problems facing us, and the only one honest enough to tell you the truth that hurts most so bad they can't come to grips with it, if they fathom it at all.

[4Reaganomics]

I agree with him on most items besides National defense. I would have voted for him if he had won the nomination for president. I would have considered him in the primary process if thing weren't already spoken before my state.

[Mia]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,292334,00.html

Here's a link to all 65 earmarks he requested:

http://i.cnn.net/cnn/interactive/allpolitics/0706/popup.congress.earmarks/pdfs/tx.14.paul.pdf

Why is this in 'defeated candidates?' You agreed not to do that unless he drops out or McCain gets the actual nomination!

[Alonzo]

I never said anything to that effect. A while ago I said some people still say Paul is running and that the Paul people would have my head if I put him in the defeated category. But I don't think there's any question about his status.

He's defeated as far as I'm concerned. He's lost the republican nomination and he's not getting the libertarian one. But since you're the second person to say this (the other in a pm) I made a thread where I'll let DF members decide:

http://democracyforums.com/showthread.php?t=13825

[Mia]

It's you sandbox, put him where you want.

I'm not one of the ones that thinks RP can pull off some type of coup. I'm in it for the longer-term goals.

I only argued against this for the sake of accuracy. But in the big scheme of things, it's not remotely important where this site places his section.