Tea Party Favorite Rand Paul flips on Earmarks before he is even sworn in !

Originally posted by mishigas
The point is, maybereal, I don't remember you writing dozens of attack pieces on every single lie and broken promise committed by Obama or the Democrats.

But you sure are throwing the book at Rand Paul in this one overcooked, excessive, regurgitated thread.

Why is that? Don't you think you should spend as much time and energy criticizing Obama and the other Democrats, if only in the interest of fairness?

I would be more than happy to, but everytime I did the obligatory "search" to see if a thread had been posted on the topic...it had...AND THEN SOME.

But strangely as this Flip Floping of Rand Paul made it's way across the news outlets...silence on ATS...I checked for threads a few times over a period of a few hours...nothing

I am not one to post many threads........ but when the President farts..there is a thread within 30 seconds on ATS about how a demon escaped his butt and his Butt demon is scorching across the USA stealling everyones guns and converting people to Islam...And it will get 50 flags in the first 10 minutes.....

But A TPM hero flips on one of his core campaign pledges before he is even sworn in...silence on ATS...Utter fricken silence...I thought I was misusing the "Search" function...surely my politically aware compadres on ATS cared about this? Whatever side of the aisle they were on....right?

It warranted shining a light on the issue. Fairness demanded it. Rand Deserves the scrutiny and I will be happy if he flips back the other way when the first opportunity arises for him to "get sum" for Kentucky.

reply to post by GlennCanady


Get over yourself and get down off your high horse.

What a load of crap you posted. As several have already mentioned, he isn't even in office yet...and you're crowning him your Messiah....or the great Patriot (for whatever reason, you capitalized the word). You're no different than the ones who voted for Obama because they thought he would make everything all better. Turn off Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh and look at what you posted for a moment. You sound EXACTLY like the people you're criticising, only you're on the other side.

Rand Paul is Mitch McConnell junior. Deal with it.

EDIT: claiming he can't change "the corrupt system" by himself is like claiming it's okay for a pro-lifer who is against abortion in principle to have an abortion in practice- because everyone else does- is disingenuous and a pathetic attempt at justification.

Originally posted by wisintel
reply to post by maybereal11

 

The only thing in that whole convoluted statement in quotations was, "I will fight for the interests of Kentucky".... Of course he will... he is the Senator for Kentucky. All the other words in that paragraph are from the reporter.

Yep, everything else in that piece, outside of the quotations, could be made up. Until I see it on video, I'll believe that the reporter is putting words in his mouth.

Don't hate on the Paul's. It's blasphemy around these parts. I've said before I don't trust either one of the Paul's. Looks like I wasn't too far off the mark. Keep hero-worshiping them, maybe one day you'll get a watered down fed audit. I wouldn't count on it though.

If you ain't kissing the Rand and Ron's asses you are a traitor on ATS. I think people are so enamored with them they have allowed the wool to be pulled over their eyes.

Originally posted by Finalized

Yep, everything else in that piece, outside of the quotations, could be made up. Until I see it on video, I'll believe that the reporter is putting words in his mouth.

full quotes and video in the thread...

Currently earmarks are a very small percentage of the bloat that congress creates. This is merely a talking point for the lib.s to try trashing tea partiers and their agenda. However there are a few congressmen who take issue with them for philosophical reasons. It would be nice if Rand Paul was one of them, but there are bigger fish to fry.

Originally posted by maybereal11

Revealed: Rand Paul reverses on core campaign pledge before even taking office

www.rawstory.com...

this seems to be a recurring theme this day and age, surprised ? www.youtube.com...

reply to post by maybereal11


A complete version of what he said not taken out of context:

Huffington Post

AMANPOUR: And what about earmarks? Would you say no to earmarks?
PAUL: No -- no more earmarks.

AMANPOUR: No more? Not even in your state?

PAUL: No. No. But I do tell people within Kentucky is I say, look, I will argue within the committee process for things that are good for Kentucky that they want and also within the context of a balanced budget. Here's what happens. You go to the Transportation Committee and they say, "What do you want?" But it should be, "How much do we have?" No one asks, "How much do we have?" So we just spend it. And then, at the end of the day, if we don't have it, we either print it or borrow it. Those are bad things. There is no restraint, but that's why you need rules. In Kentucky, we have a balanced budget amendment. We have to balance our budget. So they have to be better legislators.

There is a huge difference in what he is actually talking about, and the manner his statements were portrayed.

When I first heard about the earmark issue a few years ago, I admit I did not understand how they work. For those who are angry about earmarks, watch this short video. I believe it will relieve your anger: And in the future you will notice how some politicians try to use the earmark issue towards their own political agenda--some try to use this issue to smear their opponents, knowing full well that most of us don't understand how earmarking works.

www.youtube.com...

Originally posted by SevenThunders
Currently earmarks are a very small percentage of the bloat that congress creates. This is merely a talking point for the lib.s to try trashing tea partiers and their agenda. However there are a few congressmen who take issue with them for philosophical reasons. It would be nice if Rand Paul was one of them, but there are bigger fish to fry

Ah, I see the same BS attitude that "liberal" Bush was supported with is returning VIA "there are bigger fish to fry" -- I do smell neocon or maybe it is just CON considering the frequency of this cop out???


The great lot of conservative America leads the way for global self hate and socio-masochism

I predict that fish is named Iran, investigate Obama relentlessly and pretend to fix the healthcare bill, while taking credit for the current pluses in it... anyone???

Excuse time Baby!

in ten years

"...But Rand was a Liberal"

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by maybereal11

 

A complete version of what he said not taken out of context:

Huffington Post

AMANPOUR: And what about earmarks? Would you say no to earmarks?
PAUL: No -- no more earmarks.

AMANPOUR: No more? Not even in your state?

PAUL: No. No. But I do tell people within Kentucky is I say, look, I will argue within the committee process for things that are good for Kentucky that they want and also within the context of a balanced budget. Here's what happens. You go to the Transportation Committee and they say, "What do you want?" But it should be, "How much do we have?" No one asks, "How much do we have?" So we just spend it. And then, at the end of the day, if we don't have it, we either print it or borrow it. Those are bad things. There is no restraint, but that's why you need rules. In Kentucky, we have a balanced budget amendment. We have to balance our budget. So they have to be better legislators.

There is a huge difference in what he is actually talking about, and the manner his statements were portrayed.

OK... you either take Federal money or you don't - its not like picking a snowball flavor combo in NOLA it's rather straight forward

OKAY Janky, Rand has NEVER voted yet.

Are you REALLY going to attempt to discredit him?

reply to post by Janky Red


Again their is a difference. The Manner in which earmarks are done are are as Rand Paul described. The money is doled out whether its there or not. If the money is not there, its borrowed. The intention behind earmarks is valid if used properly.

My personal opinion is we need to reduce spending across the board, get our House back in order, then see what we can do after that. Distorting what a person says to score a cheap political victory (all sides are guilty of this) serves no purpose other than the obvious.

Until we figure out that we are all in the same boat and must compromise, we are screwed.

I read the entire article, several times.
Not the article from rawstory, but the actual article from the Wall Street Journal's opinion page.

It seems the only words that Rand Paul actually said were

"I will advocate for Kentucky's interests"

The rest seems to have been added, firstly by the author of the opinion page submission.
Rawstory then takes the words written by Matthew Kaminsky (op-ed writer) and puts their interpretation of Kaminsky's words on their website.

From the article:

In a bigger shift from his campaign pledge to end earmarks, he tells me that they are a bad "symbol" of easy spending but that he will fight for Kentucky's share of earmarks and federal pork, as long as it's doled out transparently at the committee level and not parachuted in in the dead of night.

"I will advocate for Kentucky's interests," he says.

So you're not a crazy libertarian? "Not that crazy," he cracks.

Wall St. Journal op-ed

We have a new Congress and a new year upon us. I say we wipe the slate clean and give these newbies a chance to show what they can do before we start throwing them out of office. After all, we were told for two years to give Obama a chance, weren't we?

Well, maybe that wasn't such a good idea...

reply to post by Oaktree


Fwiw...

The WSJ is often described as being 2 newspapers in one...the news section and the opinion section.

The old adage about opinions still applies...

Apparently the newspaper misquoted Rand Paul

Mr. Paul: The earmarks are a really small percentage of the budget but I think they symbolize a lot of the waste and I think we shouldn’t do it. I tell people and told people throughout the primaries as well as the general election that I will advocate for Kentucky’s interests. There are money that will be spent in Kentucky. But I will advocate in the committee process. And I think that’s the way it should be done. Roads, highways, bridges, things that we need as far as infrastructure, let’s go through the committee process, find out, when was this bridge last repaired? How much of a problem is it? Are there fatalities on this road that’s not wide enough? Let’s use objective evidence to figure out, you know, where the money should be spent. But not put it on in the dead of night, have some clerk in your office stick it on because you’re powerful and you stick it on, and you attach your name to it.

www.prisonplanet.com...

Looks like someone should be getting sued.

here's a thread i started about it

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by SevenThunders
Currently earmarks are a very small percentage of the bloat that congress creates. This is merely a talking point for the lib.s to try trashing tea partiers and their agenda.

A talking point of “libs” to trash Rand Paul???

You seem woefully un-informed on the issue...I would ask people at least read the first 2 pages of this thread before commenting.

From Rand Paul’s website

Rand Paul has made a ban on wasteful earmark spending in Washington D.C. one of the key points of his campaign.

www.randpaul2010.com...

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by maybereal11

 

A complete version of what he said not taken out of context:

Huffington Post

AMANPOUR: And what about earmarks? Would you say no to earmarks?
PAUL: No -- no more earmarks.

AMANPOUR: No more? Not even in your state?

PAUL: No. No. But I do tell people within Kentucky is I say, look, I will argue within the committee process for things that are good for Kentucky that they want and also within the context of a balanced budget. Here's what happens. You go to the Transportation Committee and they say, "What do you want?" But it should be, "How much do we have?" No one asks, "How much do we have?" So we just spend it. And then, at the end of the day, if we don't have it, we either print it or borrow it. Those are bad things. There is no restraint, but that's why you need rules. In Kentucky, we have a balanced budget amendment. We have to balance our budget. So they have to be better legislators.

There is a huge difference in what he is actually talking about, and the manner his statements were portrayed.

No there isn't a huge difference. The WSJ reporter knows what he is talking about when he has said the same things as above three times now...ABC, CNN, WSJ...He is saying "I won't use earmarks, but what I will do is use earmarks"

See what I underlined above where Rand says he will ask for m,oney for Kentucky in the “Committee Process”? He said the same thing to the WSJ reporter…he would ask for the money in Appropriations and Committee, then research what earmarks are...I'll get you started with Wikipedia...

Earmarks can be found both in legislation (also called "Hard earmarks" or "Hardmarks") and in the text of Congressional committee reports (also called "Soft earmarks" or "Softmarks").

An earmark is an item that is inserted into a bill to direct funds to a specific project or recipient without any public hearing or review. One of the problems is that there is no transparency or accountability in the system. [10]

U.S. Congressional members can secure hundreds of millions of dollars of funding for a project without subjecting it to debate by their colleagues in the Congress, or to the scrutiny and oversight of the public.

Because earmarks are hard to identify, some members use them to secretly award their biggest campaign contributors or exchange them for bribes. The secrecy of the earmarking process invites unethical and corrupt behavior, where lobbyists and contractors and well-connected individuals give campaign contributions to legislators in return for federal funding.

Generally the more powerful members of the U.S. Congress get more earmarks.

Members of the Appropriations Committees in the House and Senate are in the best position to secure earmarks. They can insert them into spending bills during closed committee meetings, with no public scrutiny. Earmarks are also offered to members to entice them to vote for a bill they otherwise might not vote for.

Both from Wikipedia..
en.wikipedia.org...(politics)


By the way…The vast majority of Earmarks are obtained via Committee precisely in the way Rand Paul says he will ask for them.

People are starting to ask questions and say things that have been answered thoroughly in the thread so far. Please read the first few pages before claiming he was taken out of context…

There are multiple quotes of him saying just this…There is links to Video, His website etc.etc…all in the thread.