It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Ron Paul defends asking for special projects

page: 1
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 24 2007 @ 12:02 AM
link   

Ron Paul defends asking for special projects


www.msnbc.msn.com

The 10-term congressman and longshot candidate for the Republican presidential nomination added that although he has requested special projects known as earmarks, he ultimately ends up voting against them in the House. Paul is known in Congress as "Dr. No" for his votes against some types of government spending...

For his home state, however, Paul has sought money for water projects, a nursing program, to expand a hospital cancer center and to promote Texas shrimp.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Dec, 24 2007 @ 12:02 AM
link   
I find this to be rank hypocrisy. "I'll ask for this earmark, knowing that everyone will vote to pass the bill. Then I can vote against it and pretend to be consistent while my constituents benefit! Everybody wins!"

Very disappointing.

www.msnbc.msn.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Dec, 24 2007 @ 01:29 AM
link   
Yes, where are the Ron paul legions?

It does smack of either:

1) My constituents are too stupid to understand this and I get away with it.

or

2) Im basically like all the rest of the bloodsuckers in DC, I just vote no more.

WHich of these two guys do you want him to be?

Or are we going to blame this on the MSM AGAIN?


[edit on 12/24/07 by FredT]



posted on Dec, 24 2007 @ 03:27 AM
link   
He is a senator, not a president. Just because he believes the government should work differently, doesn't mean he can't represent his district to the best of his ability.



posted on Dec, 24 2007 @ 07:19 AM
link   
What a brilliant way to uphold your principles, AND get things you need for your constituents!! I think I'll vote for him. LOL

He never voted yes for an earmark.
His constituents pay taxes.
He knows it's going to pass anyway.
Some money comes back to his district.

The point is that The Federal government should not control so much of the local economy, by taking money from it, in the form of income taxes.

He votes against the whole idea that a local economy has to beg to get their money back..It should have never left in the first place.
It's a vote against THAT process.

Water projects, hospitals, a cancer center..
HOW DARE HE!!!







[edit on 24-12-2007 by spacedoubt]



posted on Dec, 24 2007 @ 08:52 AM
link   
reply to post by spacedoubt
 


But how is that at all consistent? He is saying that the federal government shouldn't be spending in all these areas. In fact, I think he would say that it is unconstitutional, and I agree with him for the most part. So instead of saying "Earmarks are unconstitutional, and I won't even participate in them and get my hands dirty," he asks for earmarks, and then knowing that they will pass regardless of what he does, he votes against them, and then maintains that he is in sync with the constitution? This is absolutely indefensible, and making excuses doesn't change that.



posted on Dec, 24 2007 @ 10:14 AM
link   
reply to post by captainplanet
 


But his entire platform is based on 1) an unyielding devotion to the Constitution even when it isn't popular and 2) a general philosophy that the federal government should not infringe on the states. How is doing this consistent with either of those two opinions?

Is he going to spend his entire term talking about grandiose ideas and then selling them out on the side for the favor of his constituents?

[edit on 12/24/2007 by Togetic]



posted on Dec, 24 2007 @ 03:09 PM
link   
If he wants to do his job, he has to work within this pre-established (and VERY SICK) system.

Where the States send huge amounts of money to the Federal Government.
Then beg congress to send some of it back. This is costly and stupid.

He found a way to "hold his nose" and make it work, without sacrificing his principles.


This just isn't an issue.
Got anything juicy?

www.ronpaul2008.com



posted on Dec, 24 2007 @ 11:32 PM
link   
reply to post by spacedoubt
 


With all due respect, I think that these are mere excuses. Shouldn't he be prepared to lose defending the right thing rather than gaming the system like he is? How is that at all respectable? If I know that someone is going to shoot someone, and I don't do anything about it, it doesn't make me less morally culpable to say later "well, I totally condemned what he was going to do."

If any other politician were doing this, the correct cry would be "hypocrite." How many politicians decry earmarks while filling bills with them? How long are we going to make excuses and justify the actions of people who want our votes but refuse to adhere to their principles? It's amazing to me that the exact thing that the electorate is criticized for--voting for people who, yeah, have principals, but they don't adhere to them all of the time but that's okay because we blindly accept what is being given to us--is okay when it is your candidate. This exact thing happens with Clinton supporters, Bush supporters, Obama supporters, Huckabee supporters, and tons of other people. And, true to form, the artful excuse-making happens here as well.

Seems this is no different than any other candidate's base.

[edit on 12/24/2007 by Togetic]



posted on Dec, 25 2007 @ 06:01 PM
link   
From where I stand it looks like that Ron Paul supporters are being taken for a ride. Aside from the hypercritical nature of Ron spending US federal tax dollars he is playing clever politics . By voting against the spending he requests he creates a voting record that looks like he supports his stances.

Really Ron looks like just another run of the mill politician .



posted on Dec, 26 2007 @ 04:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by captainplanet
He is a senator, not a president.


Last time I looked he was a representative



posted on Dec, 26 2007 @ 04:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by spacedoubt
What a brilliant way to uphold your principles, AND get things you need for your constituents!! I think I'll vote for him. LOL


How is he upholding his principals. Looks to me like he is getting in his earmarks and does not have to even vote for them Letting others do his dirtywork for him



He never voted yes for an earmark.
His constituents pay taxes.
He knows it's going to pass anyway.
Some money comes back to his district.


I actually have no problem with him putting in earmarks they all do it. The president need a line item veto to cull this crap. However, the fact that he puts them in then votes "no" for it, thus preserving his public image and lets the other reps do his dirty work for him.



Water projects, hospitals, a cancer center..
HOW DARE HE!!!


I have narry a care as to what the projects in question were nor are the relevant to the discussion at hand. The poject no doubt were all noble and improved the community he represents.

However, the pattern here is one of decit. Im going to put these in, vote "no" knowing they will pass by default. It seems that style has trumped substance






[edit on 24-12-2007 by spacedoubt]



posted on Dec, 26 2007 @ 04:49 PM
link   
It is very hard to uphold your political ideals when working in politics where they don’t exist. He is practical. He doesn’t like taxes, but they exist. He thinks people should keep their money and disperse it in a competitive market. What can you do to work towards that end in our current system? Propose earmarks to get people’s money back into the things they want, while still upholding the philosophy that they should not be necessary.



posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 09:48 AM
link   
reply to post by captainplanet
 


That reasoning is not sound at all. If I embrace value X, it is okay for me to disregard said value if the group in which I am working and trying to change fails to regard value X. I can use that logic to justify murder, torture, stealing, and a host of other clearly bad activities. Have some cajones, for the love of Pete.



posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 03:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Togetic
 


If he thought with his cajones he'd have been out of a job a long time ago for not getting anything done. It's not comparable to murder, stealing or torture. If I embrace value x but value y is the policy, I would have work with value y while trying to replace it with value x. If I disregarded the people who it was my job to represent, my job would cease to exist after not to long and there would be no one to stand for value x.



posted on Dec, 27 2007 @ 11:13 PM
link   
Then he can't say that he is 100% for the value when he is actively disregarding it for the sake of practicality. That's the essential difference here. He's doing something that he knows in his gut is wrong because it serves him politically? When Clinton, Bush, and all the others do that, what do you call it? Because they're all doing the same thing: claiming to be pure when we all know they're full of it.

[edit on 12/27/2007 by Togetic]



posted on May, 20 2009 @ 08:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Togetic
Then he can't say that he is 100% for the value when he is actively disregarding it for the sake of practicality. That's the essential difference here. He's doing something that he knows in his gut is wrong because it serves him politically? When Clinton, Bush, and all the others do that, what do you call it? Because they're all doing the same thing: claiming to be pure when we all know they're full of it.


I agree, if Ron is allowed to do that, paulies should allow the other politicians to do the same thing.

But it doesn't really matter, the republicans don't support him, and Ron doesn't want to go independent, hence he's going nowhere.



posted on May, 20 2009 @ 08:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Togetic
 


You are missing something that Mr. Hannity or anyone on fox news WON'T tell you.

The money is spent regardless. The amount is set beforehand for the total bill.

Whatever money isn't earmarked is still spent...except by the EXECUTIVE BRANCH. Would you rather have that money spent on a bridge in Iraq or sent to Israel or any other FOREIGN COUNTRY?!?

That's exactly what will happen.

People have railed against the earmarks thing before..and I used to as well...to i found out about this.

The money spent regardless....but at least this way you know where it's going.

He does it to get tax money back to his constituents....but he doesn't have to vote for it.

RP likes earmarks because tax money goes back to people....it's congressmen getting a chance to funnel money taken from the people and giving it back to them.

RP has never voted to raise taxes...and ALWAYS votes yes for tax cuts.

Read between the lines friend!


PS...look at the dow...379 that day and still below 7000!

[edit on 20-5-2009 by David9176]

[edit on 20-5-2009 by David9176]

[edit on 20-5-2009 by David9176]



posted on May, 20 2009 @ 09:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Togetic
Then he can't say that he is 100% for the value when he is actively disregarding it for the sake of practicality. That's the essential difference here. He's doing something that he knows in his gut is wrong because it serves him politically?

[edit on 12/27/2007 by Togetic]


So what you are saying is that he's a hypocrite because he won't screw his constituents to prove he's right?

The premise of this thread is that RP is a hypocrite because he says "Quit wasting money, but as long as you are going to waste it anyway, we might as well put it to some good use."

" For his home state,..., Paul has sought money for water projects, a nursing program, to expand a hospital cancer center and to promote Texas shrimp. "

Wow. That's a lot of terrible spending. water, cancer, nursing, shrimping (for his district that means jobs). Yep. He's a terrible person.

So, you think that since he's not 100% behind spend spend spend that he shouldn't attemp to take care of his constituents? He should just let the federal government keep taking from his districts federal taxes and never attempt to get anything back? That is ludicrous.

It's awful easy to paint a picture in black and white when you want to point out somebody elses flaws, but it doesn't actually accomplish anything.

RP opposes the constant spending that congress is addicted to because it is selling us down the river. That doesn't mean he has to deny his own district a return on their tax dollars to somehow prove his integrity to you.



posted on May, 20 2009 @ 09:42 PM
link   
I personally think that he has the responsibility to vote for projects in his state, just so they get a piece of the pie everyone else is. He doesn't believe in them, I see, but at least if his constituents are paying into the system, they ought to get something out of it, and he does represent their interests after all.

That's how I see it, at least.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join