reply to post by SaviorComplex
Easy to criticize when you have no vested interest here, no dog in the race if you will. I will humor you though for the sake of doing so.
A minor failure of understanding I believe is done hear on your part. Earmarks do NOT increase the amount of money being spent in a budget, they
request that certain designated portions of the already requested amount be “EARMARKED” toward certain projects and concepts.
PORK is added onto a bill to get additional funding for something often times unrelated to the bill. PORK is unconstitutional. Earmarks are not. So
your argument has a blinding fallacy in that you fail to understand what earmarks are in the first place. This is where you are mistaken.
By passing on the earmarks but voting against the bill, Paul is saying, “I disagree with this budget but if it passes I want to make sure my
district receives their fair portion.” He is only looking out for his constituency, which is not a negative, if anything it is a positive.
Absolutely nothing wrong with that. I hope that isnt the best slander that you could come up with because it is fairly weak.
Here are the reasons that I believe in Ron Paul's message:
* Limit big government in American citizens personal lives
* Give the authority to set their own course back to the state and the people
* Withdraw out troops from every foreign country and focus our money as well as our time and effort on fixing and improving our infrstructure
* Serious monetary reform, abolishment of the Fed as well as the IRS
* Butting out of the affairs of other foreign nations in which we have no authority over
* Reforming immigration policy on illegal entry and closing the American border for safety and economic reason, while fostering and encouraging LEGAL
entrance and citizenship
* Getting back to the basic values and principles of our constitution as it is intended to be implemented
* Reducing tax burdens and government imposed extortion of middle class American families
What is there NOT to agree with? I don't get it.