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 defending earmarks (video) Watch this..

page: 1
4

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 09:16 PM
link   
In this video he keeps getting interrupted...watch the second video as well. He explains how earmarks work and don't work in detail.



I understand what he is saying...and it's something that i didn't know about before...regarding to earmarks.

Anything that isn't earmarked has no transparency, and the money will be spent regardless if the money is earmarked or not...only the executive branch will decide where the money goes.

He sticking up for his constituents, putting in legislation for things they are asking for as he wants them to get as much of their tax money back...yet he votes against it because he believes it's wrong...but if they are going to do it anyway...he'll put them in.

I get what he is saying...although i think he should have came off a bit stronger.

Helped me understand earmarks a bit better as well. He makes some good points...

Thought I would add this video as well...this is RP speaking to the house about earmarks.

Ron Paul "We Need More Earmarks!"



[edit on 10-3-2009 by David9176]

[edit on 10-3-2009 by David9176]




posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 09:23 PM
link   
Yeah I saw this video on DailyPaul.com earlier this evening..

The thing about Ron Paul is that he expects everyone to know what he is talking about, he needs to maybe simplify things a bit..

Of course he knows pretty much what he is talking about.. but Cavuto keeps cutting him off mid sentence and it's annoying as hell



posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 09:24 PM
link   
added post to OP.


[edit on 10-3-2009 by David9176]



posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 09:26 PM
link   
reply to post by XTC_savedmyLife
 


Yeah, i watched him on Cavuto when it aired today. He kept cutting him off. I admit that I didn't know much about earmarks, this helped me understand it more.

In the second video he explains it a lot better.



posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 09:31 PM
link   
Ive read that people are complaining about the TALF or whatever the hell this 4 - Letter thing is called that there are over 8000 Earmarks..

This is a good thing correct? It allows how it is supposed to be spent, not just throwing money into the pockets of the well-to-do.



posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 09:37 PM
link   
reply to post by David9176
 


Learn something new everyday, thats what they say right?

I had no idea that the earmarks were just money that would be spent anyways. But if you guys really need to see how pathetic your country is, look at the media coverage of the whole 'earmark' fiasco and then remember "it is LESS than 1%!" [of the budget].



posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 09:39 PM
link   
reply to post by XTC_savedmyLife
 


True...and by what he is saying...any money that isn't spent on earmarks can go anywhere...with no transparency...either way it will be spent. I didn't know that.

I know some of the earmarks that have been talked about have been ridiculous..such as the pig odor deal, but some of them do go to good things..it's just impossible to go through 8000 of them.



posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 09:42 PM
link   
reply to post by king9072
 





I had no idea that the earmarks were just money that would be spent anyways. But if you guys really need to see how pathetic your country is, look at the media coverage of the whole 'earmark' fiasco and then remember "it is LESS than 1%!" [of the budget].


Yeah...it seems to be blown out of proportion..and at least we see where the money is going..even if some of it is ridiculous. That can't be said for much of the other government spending.

If the states still had power over the federal government earmarks wouldn't be necessary anyway.



posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 09:55 PM
link   
I did not know this.

Very glad you posted these videos. Let me get this straight..

An earmark is generally regarded as a bad thing because the money tends to go toward causes that no one universally agrees upon. Yet if the earmark is removed, the money is not removed from the budget, it simply gets passed on to the executive branch to spend as it sees fit without it being cataloged anywhere??

Well if this isn't a huge gaping hole in policy then I don't know what is. FLAGGED. This needs to be seen more. A great deal more.



posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 10:05 PM
link   
reply to post by danj3ris
 





Yet if the earmark is removed, the money is not removed from the budget, it simply gets passed on to the executive branch to spend as it sees fit without it being cataloged anywhere??


That seems to be what he is saying...and i had no idea it worked that way.

Crazy eh? Why is it always RP explaining these things?

I've been strongly against earmarks...but now...i don't know. I"m still against all the spending but what is it going to matter if the money will be spent anyway with no transparency?



posted on Mar, 10 2009 @ 11:47 PM
link   
Well, I'm not entirely sure that I agree with the whole earmarks thing still, but at least he is able to explain things so that it makes sense. I must say, though, I didn't know that all that money would still get spent, earmarked or not, but then again, why refrain from spending it just cause its not earmarked for anything



posted on Mar, 11 2009 @ 12:02 AM
link   
Ok so if they earmark every last dime in a package we will see where it goes. So what? It will still go to something that makes no sense what so ever. Everybody was yelling about the money going to some kind of rat in California. Didn't matter it still got spent.

This information is useless really. I only care about the money being spent. I don't care who is getting what and why. So lets say they take his advice and earmark everything. They are still spending money that we don't have to spend. The only differance is that we will know where it is going.



posted on Mar, 12 2009 @ 12:10 PM
link   
Yeah, basically congressmen just allocate parts of the budget to their district, and ensure that the constituents benefit. The pig odor thing might seem outlandish to us, but to people in Iowa it's probably one of their biggest concerns, so their congressmen (wanting to get re-elected) will make it a priority. Sometimes this leads to spending on incredibly asinine projects (look up the infamous Mohair earmarks for example 1a).

If we got rid of earmarks, then the budget would remain the same, but various government agencies would decide how it's being spent (this, by the way, would make it easier for the Executive branch to push whatever agenda it might have). It boils down the question of: who do you trust most with the money? Congress, or bureaucrats? I'd trust bureaucrats more, personally, but there's certainly a case to be made for congressmen.

It's okay that most of the general population doesn't know this (great find, BTW, David), but our Senators and Representatives really should have a firm handle on this. It's incredibly disturbing that Ron Paul had to go before House Representatives and explain how the process works (LMAO at him stating point blank that McCain doesn't understand the process and that he's grandstanding!).

Sometimes, I swear that Ron Paul is the only congressman with a brain.

Starred and flagged. With all the attention that earmarks are getting, I think that this should be permanently placed at the top of the Political Issues board.


[edit on 12-3-2009 by theWCH]



posted on Mar, 12 2009 @ 03:02 PM
link   
reply to post by theWCH
 





Sometimes, I swear that Ron Paul is the only congressman with a brain. Starred and flagged. With all the attention that earmarks are getting, I think that this should be permanently placed at the top of the Political Issues board.


I admit my ignorance...i didn't know how the earmark process worked. I'd rather see the transparency...although i'd rather not see the spending at all...as i've been strongly against it.

There is no accountability man. None. Much of the media is yelling about earmarks, yet it's only 1 percent of the bill that passed...and it's going to be spent regardless if that money is earmarked or not.

Why hasn't the media explained this?

WHY DOESN'T THE MEDIA DO ANYTHING!?!

It's almost impossible to trust anything anymore....and it's BS. We should be trusting our government and media to keep things in line...but they don't.

There is no one looking out for the citizens of this country anymore.....it's just us...and we are so divided and split in so many ways i wonder sometimes if it would even be possible for the citizens of this country to stand tall against the corruption that has infiltrated almost all levels of government and media.

Is anyone else tired?



posted on Mar, 12 2009 @ 03:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by David9176
Why hasn't the media explained this?

WHY DOESN'T THE MEDIA DO ANYTHING!?!

It's almost impossible to trust anything anymore....and it's BS. We should be trusting our government and media to keep things in line...but they don't.

There is no one looking out for the citizens of this country anymore.....it's just us...and we are so divided and split in so many ways i wonder sometimes if it would even be possible for the citizens of this country to stand tall against the corruption that has infiltrated almost all levels of government and media.

Is anyone else tired?


Well, this isn't such a crazy view here on ATS, but I'm goinng to put on my tinfoil hat for just a moment:

I've come to the unshakeable conclusion that our mainstream media is only a mouthpiece for the wealthy elite. With some notable (and increasingly rare) exceptions, they only spew the standard party line. A media that only regurgitates the party line is not a "free press." And like you said, we are divided in a lot of ways. I think that the media plays a major part in this, by leading us to such firm stances on divisive issues. A lot of the time, how you feel about political issues can be almost completely shaped by whether you are a CNN viewer or a FOX News viewer (my grandfather completely changed parties when he started watching CNN
)

I don't know if it's divide-and-conquer, or just some form of mind-control, but I've completely stopped watching or listening to the mainstream outlets (except for some occasional PBS or NPR, and some of the clips that are posted on this board). The internet is far more dependable, IMO. A lot of college profs have blogs that have become an especially good source of information.

Okay, taking off my tin-foil cap...

Yes, I'm tired too.


[edit on 12-3-2009 by theWCH]



posted on Mar, 12 2009 @ 03:19 PM
link   
If I understood Cavuto correctly I think he was saying something to the effect of "TARP shmarp......blah blah blah".


Peace



posted on Mar, 12 2009 @ 03:27 PM
link   
reply to post by theWCH
 





A lot of the time, how you feel about political issues can be almost completely shaped by whether you are a CNN viewer or a FOX News viewer (my grandfather completely changed parties when he started watching CNN )


You couldn't be more right. Most of the publics opinion is shaped from what news they watch on television. It's only when you start to look around that you will begin to see things differently.

I never cared for politics much....i followed the last election though...for the first time ever. It didn't take long to see that something wasn't right. I'm a just a regular guy. All i used to talk about was sports...i'm a cubs and bears fan btw.


It's all changed for me. I see it all differently...and i really wish i hadn't let myself dive into this stuff like i did.

Sometimes it's just too much....the worrying...the wondering.

I dunno...I can understand why people don't want to see it. It's tough to handle and a lot to take in...the stress sometimes can be a bit too much.

I've seen how corrupted the Bush administration was and i've seen how corrupt Obama's administration is....along with almost all of congress. It took me only a few months to come to this conclusion..and i realized it before the actual election day...so i didn't vote...because i knew it wouldn't matter.

It's just sad what is happening...all of it...it's just sad.



posted on Mar, 12 2009 @ 03:35 PM
link   
Extra info for the thread


"We are glad to further its mission of broadening the reach of top-notch
investigative journalism by airing Expose," said Bill Moyers. "This first
segment on earmarks should resonate in this election season when candidates
have been questioned about the practice."
The segment shows how a Seattle Times team led by reporter David Heath,
who -- after analyzing a database he created based on thousands of government
reports -- recognized a clear pattern. "Going though the names of the people
giving ... campaign donations and where they work, I noticed the companies
[were] ... getting earmarks," says Heath. "I knew at that point I had a
story."


www.reuters.com...



posted on Mar, 12 2009 @ 04:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by XTC_savedmyLife
Yeah I saw this video on DailyPaul.com earlier this evening..

The thing about Ron Paul is that he expects everyone to know what he is talking about, he needs to maybe simplify things a bit..

Of course he knows pretty much what he is talking about.. but Cavuto keeps cutting him off mid sentence and it's annoying as hell


That reporter is such a mouthpiece, attacking a man trying to explain what he is doing / done and when he asks a question doesn't let him answer.

I can't stand report wannabe's that do that.



new topics

top topics



 
4

log in

join