Ron Paul is the fucking man

[Javier]

...at getting the most money he can for his district.  Damn, even the "rebellious" ones play the game.  He can't be 100% in favor of his ideals, or else his ass is voted out of Congress.  That's politics. 

[Pacific Standard]

Yeah I read about that major props, plus catch him in the new Sacha Baron Cohen film "Bruno", coming soon.

[Javier]

Yeah I read about that major props, plus catch him in the new Sacha Baron Cohen film "Bruno", coming soon.

Damn, it seems that every week I read about some people getting tricked by Sacha Baron Cohen for his new film lol.  They always realize too late who it is. 

[you gon always be my latin queen bitch]

on ron paul and his campaign
he spent alotta chips on his fund for real
especially out west/killa kali
up n down the state
some crazy shit

[virtuoso]

The response is...

Earmarks Don’t Add Up

by Ron Paul

Earmarks seem to be the hot topic this week, and as a fiscal conservative I am dismayed so many people deliberately distort the earmarking process and grandstand to make political points. It is an easy thing to do with earmarks. It takes a little more time and patience to grasp the reality of what earmarks really are.

To be sure, if earmarks were the driving force behind explosive government spending as some have been led to believe, that would be a good reason for all the fuss. The misconception seems to be that members of Congress put together a bunch of requests for project funding, add them all together and come up with a budget. The truth is, it is not done that way. The total level of spending is determined by the Congressional leadership and the appropriators before any Member has a chance to offer any amendments. Members’ requests are simply recommendations to allocate parts of that spending for certain items in that members’ district or state. If funds are not designated, they revert to non-designated spending controlled by bureaucrats in the executive branch. In other words, when a designation request makes it into the budget, it subtracts funds out of what is available to the executive branch and bureaucrats in various departments, and targets it for projects that the people and their representatives request in their districts. If a congressman does not submit funding requests for his district the money is simply spent elsewhere. To eliminate all earmarks would be to further consolidate power in the already dominant executive branch and not save a penny.

Furthermore, designating how money is spent provides a level of transparency and accountability over taxpayer dollars that we don’t have with general funds. I argue that all spending should be decided by Congress so that we at least know where the money goes. This has been a major problem with TARP funding. The public and Congress are now trying to find out where all that money went.

The real issue is that the overall budget is too big, by far, which is why I always vote against it. But attacking the 1% that was earmarked solves nothing. The whole issue is a distraction from the real problems we face, which are that the Federal Government will absorb over 1/3 of our country’s GDP this year and taxpayers are forced to fork over more than half their income to fund government at all levels. On top of that, the national debt is $11 trillion, which is $36,000 per citizen. The recent increases in bailouts, government spending and money creation is going to hobble our economy for decades. We must curb the government’s appetite severely if this country is ever to thrive again. The noise over “earmarks” is a red herring and a distraction from the real issue of uncommitted spending.

It is time to attack the entirety of government spending. We especially need a full account of the activities of the Federal Reserve that spends and creates trillions of dollars with no meaningful oversight. This is a huge problem that needs immediate attention.

[the ghost]

 On top of that, the national debt is $11 trillion, which is $36,000 per citizen.

Man, that's not even workers.  That's just peoples.  We are gonna be in for a lot of pain in the next decade.

[Javier]

The response is...

Earmarks Don’t Add Up

by Ron Paul

Earmarks seem to be the hot topic this week, and as a fiscal conservative I am dismayed so many people deliberately distort the earmarking process and grandstand to make political points. It is an easy thing to do with earmarks. It takes a little more time and patience to grasp the reality of what earmarks really are.

To be sure, if earmarks were the driving force behind explosive government spending as some have been led to believe, that would be a good reason for all the fuss. The misconception seems to be that members of Congress put together a bunch of requests for project funding, add them all together and come up with a budget. The truth is, it is not done that way. The total level of spending is determined by the Congressional leadership and the appropriators before any Member has a chance to offer any amendments. Members’ requests are simply recommendations to allocate parts of that spending for certain items in that members’ district or state. If funds are not designated, they revert to non-designated spending controlled by bureaucrats in the executive branch. In other words, when a designation request makes it into the budget, it subtracts funds out of what is available to the executive branch and bureaucrats in various departments, and targets it for projects that the people and their representatives request in their districts. If a congressman does not submit funding requests for his district the money is simply spent elsewhere. To eliminate all earmarks would be to further consolidate power in the already dominant executive branch and not save a penny.

Furthermore, designating how money is spent provides a level of transparency and accountability over taxpayer dollars that we don’t have with general funds. I argue that all spending should be decided by Congress so that we at least know where the money goes. This has been a major problem with TARP funding. The public and Congress are now trying to find out where all that money went.

The real issue is that the overall budget is too big, by far, which is why I always vote against it. But attacking the 1% that was earmarked solves nothing. The whole issue is a distraction from the real problems we face, which are that the Federal Government will absorb over 1/3 of our country’s GDP this year and taxpayers are forced to fork over more than half their income to fund government at all levels. On top of that, the national debt is $11 trillion, which is $36,000 per citizen. The recent increases in bailouts, government spending and money creation is going to hobble our economy for decades. We must curb the government’s appetite severely if this country is ever to thrive again. The noise over “earmarks” is a red herring and a distraction from the real issue of uncommitted spending.

It is time to attack the entirety of government spending. We especially need a full account of the activities of the Federal Reserve that spends and creates trillions of dollars with no meaningful oversight. This is a huge problem that needs immediate attention.

That's one of his platforms though, to be against any form of unnecessary  spending.  You can't just excuse it just because the rest of it is on a larger scale.  IMO, I don't really care about earmarks but you can't talk all the shit you want about spending then gladly accept money.  He could easily reject the money base on his principle, but why doesn't he do it?  Because he knows his ass would get voted out quick in the next election for someone who will.  This is basic Congress Politics 101.

[jeromechickenbone]

Gosh this debate is really tired.  He votes against them.  When he is outvoted,  x amount of dollars are going to be spent regardless if he takes it for his own district or not.  If he passes on the funds, they would be allocated to other districts. 

Well guess what?  Paul's #1 duty is to his constituents, and because the earmarks will be spent in other districts, it is abosolutely his duty to then try and improve his district.  So he would be doing a disservice to his district and constituents if he passed on millions of free dollars to pump life into the local economy.

But he still votes them down.  If everybody voted like Ron Paul, there would be NO EARMARKS.  But they don't.

[M Dogg™]

Gosh this debate is really tired.  He votes against them.  When he is outvoted,  x amount of dollars are going to be spent regardless if he takes it for his own district or not.  If he passes on the funds, they would be allocated to other districts. 

Well guess what?  Paul's #1 duty is to his constituents, and because the earmarks will be spent in other districts, it is abosolutely his duty to then try and improve his district.  So he would be doing a disservice to his district and constituents if he passed on millions of free dollars to pump life into the local economy.

But he still votes them down.  If everybody voted like Ron Paul, there would be NO EARMARKS.  But they don't.

That's all political though. Get money for your district, KNOWING it's going to get passed anyway, so you can vote against it and then say I'm conservative. Ron Paul has been in the congress for 32 YEARS!!! You don't think he knows the game. Come on, his been in the congress longer than you've been alive. Think about it. His just another pol.

[Javier]

He's just like any other politician that votes against something but gladly accepts it.  I just find it funny that most Ron Paul supporters get on other politicians for the same thing.  Earmarks get dissed when they are not in your district, but if your Congressman gets them for you're happy.  I will add this though, if a politician can't even get his own district to follow their ideology then how does he expect it to really hit nationwide.  Gavin Newsom is doing it in San Francisco, him and his "crazy" liberal ideas are being successful.