0 votes

Dr. Ron Paul and Earmarks




Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

This is a dumb video and is

This is a dumb video and is being pushed by Lew Rockwell. Rand Paul is the one who is right about earmarks. Almost all giant spending bills, including military spending bills, do not have enough votes to pass. Only when powerful congresspeople and other key legislators plop in their pet earmarks and then vote for the bill do these bills pass. In other words, almost all spending in its current corrupt form is accounted for by earmarks.

Ron Paul, of course, always votes against bills that have earmarks, so he is not part of the problem. The utter stupidity being pushed by Lew Rockwell on this issue shocks me. Rockwell is deliberately trying to undermine the good work of Rand Paul.

Thomas Jefferson 1796, 1800, 1804; James Madison 1808, 1812; Ron Paul 1988, 2008, 2012; Rand Paul 2016.

More earmarks!!

If I were Dr Paul, I would try for an earmark of $1,000 for every single constituent back in his district. The money is going to be spent...may as well try to get back some of the money that was stolen to begin with.

"Designated Spending " (aka: "Earmarks") state specific purpose.

In politics, designated spending (aka: "Earmark"), funds go to specific purpose. Else, funds are general.

Farmers marked animals by cutting distinctive marks into ears. It is a simple form of branding. "Earmark" became common in England about 1600.

Figurative "Earmark" term came into politics near 1900. It didn't change results. It just new meaning to an age old term. It tied specific purpose to specific funding.

If the purpose is not important to state, the funds are not important to spend.

Don't state? Don't spend.

Disclaimer: Mark Twain (1835-1910-To be continued) is unlicensed. His river pilot's license went delinquent in 1862. Caution advised. Daily Paul

Great Find.. Thank You Sunny !

bump it up !

great find Sunny

Thanks!

LL on Twitter: http://twitter.com/LibertyPoet
sometimes LL can suck & sometimes LL rocks!
http://www.dailypaul.com/203008/south-carolina-battle-of-cow...
Love won! Deliverance from Tyranny is on the way! Col. 2:13-15

Bug...I believe that anyone

Bug...I believe that anyone can go on that xtranormal website and make their own videos there.

“Liberty means responsibility. That is why most men dread it.” -George Bernard Shaw

I don't understand

why Rand Paul made a big deal of this, seems to go against his dad and the term limits thing as well? There are so many issues and he picks these, I don't understand?
He is writing a book and hasn't cast a vote yet. The more into this stuff I get the more confused I am.

Prepare & Share the Message of Freedom through Positive-Peaceful-Activism.

If nothing else don't be fooled into thinking he wrote a book

These people make me sick how stupid they think people are and people make me sick for often living up to it. Do YOU have time to write a book? I don't and I'm not running for Senate. Of course, we all know how easy it is to knock out a quick book while you travel and work. I could be wrong, but I'm not.
I'm not being mean or anything, I just think it's important to point out the little ways they fool people--even those with "sacred" last names.

Rand and Ron agree on term limits

The earmarks issue does set up a bit of conflict between Ron and Rand, which is unfortunate. However, both Ron and Rand have always supported term limits. That is no basis for disagreement.

See: http://www.dailypaul.com/node/57228

and

http://www.dailypaul.com/node/73196

-pb

Thank you for the clarification

We all appreciated it. :)

"Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the office of a thoroughly nasty business concern." ~~C.S. Lewis
Love won! Deliverance from Tyranny is on the way! Col. 2:13-15

Ron should reconsider stance on earmarks

As a supporter and contributor to Ron Paul's various campaigns since the 1980s, his stance on earmarks has always been my greatest disagreement and disappointment.

Yes, I understand his argument for the process. However, even if the process of earmarking is legit, that does not make every individual earmark legit. As a Congressman, it is his responsibility not to approve unconstitutional spending via earmark. Yes, I know he votes against the final bill. But the final bill passes anyway and his unconstitutional earmarks are attached. (For some specifics, see the link below.)

Like everyone here, I am aggravated by faux fiscal conservatives who point to their opposition to earmarks (1-2% of budget) as proof they are 'serious' about cutting spending. But their hypocrisy on the issue is no justification for us to be hypocritical.

I am suggesting that Ron shold only approve earmarks he would vote for if they were a standalone bill.

See: http://www.rlc.org/2008/08/20/dr-no-says-yes-to-earmarks/

I know it's tough for left brainers and people younger then 8...

but here it is in a nutshell, so even a 5 year old can understand.

Ron wants the federal government to stop taking money away from the states, and then giving it back to them.

Earmarks are 1% of the federal budget, and that 1% represents a portion of the money that the federal government steals from the good people of Texas, California, Florida, and so on.

Ron is against earmarks as long as they change the laws and never sieze that 1% in the first place.

They do that and he won't have to earmark it to get it returned to it's rightful owners.

Comprende?

Earmarks are wonderful. I'd rather the money that the federal government steals from me and my family BE BURNED OR BUILDING A BRIDGE TO NO WHERE IN ALASKA, then for it to not be earmarked and to be kept in the fed's coffers, increasing their power and viability, making it even more difficult for me and my liberty cohorts to challenge them.

Getting rid of earmarks, but keeping the money siphon going is just feeding the beast.

Rand is on board with this too.

It's just that the order is flexible.

1. Get rid of earmarks.

2. Balance budget amendment.

or

1. Balance budget amendment.

2. Get rid of earmarks.

Do you see how how this game is played?

Either way this is played, we're not feeding the beast as much.

This entire thread is just a misunderstanding by a number of people. People just need to get educated and then teach others.

duplicate

dupe

bump

what software are these guys using for all these new cartoons?

'Cause there's a monster on the loose