Ron Paul's legislative successes (or rather lack of successes), page 1

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 20 times

Topic started on 27-12-2011 @ 12:16 AM by OutKast Searcher

It's obvious there is a big Ron Paul band wagon going on here at ATS. We have seen all the Ron Paul die hards that support everything he does and we have also seen some of his questionable past racist newsletters and questionable stances on race related legislation.

But for this thread...let's just see what Ron Paul has been able to accomplish in his long long career as a Representative. I think the best judge of how successful someone is going to be at getting their agenda through as President is to look at their previous legislative successes.

First let's see just how long Ron Paul has been in congress for his latest stint. Currently Ron Paul is serving his 8th term as a Representative from Texas, a total of 14 years.

In total, he has sponsored 464 bills

105th Congress - 32 Bills Sponsored by Ron Paul
106th Congress - 51 Bills Sponsored by Ron Paul
107th Congress - 64 Bills Sponsored by Ron Paul
108th Congress - 68 Bills Sponsored by Ron Paul
109th Congress - 71 Bills Sponsored by Ron Paul
110th Congress - 70 Bills Sponsored by Ron Paul
111th Congress - 61 Bills Sponsored by Ron Paul
112th Congress - 47 Bills Sponsored by Ron Paul

Now to see how successful he was with all these bill he sponsored and introduced. Let's look at how many bills he has sponsored have been passed and enacted into law.

105th Congress - 0 Bills Passed by Ron Paul
106th Congress - 0 Bills Passed by Ron Paul
107th Congress - 0 Bills Passed by Ron Paul
108th Congress - 0 Bills Passed by Ron Paul
109th Congress - 0 Bills Passed by Ron Paul
110th Congress - 0 Bills Passed by Ron Paul
111th Congress - 1 Bill Passed by Ron Paul
112th Congress - 0 Bills Passed by Ron Paul

WOW....1 bill that Ron Paul has sponsored has passed in 14 years. We are talking about a success rate of 0.22%...yes LESS THAN ONE QUARTER OF A PERCENT.

But hey...I bet that one bill that he got passed was a REALLY good bill....right? Let's take a look.

www.govtrack.us...

To authorize the Administrator of General Services to convey a parcel of real property in Galveston, Texas, to the Galveston Historical Foundation.

Or not

Ron Paul's ONE success in Congress is that he got some land given to a historical society in his home district.

To me, this speaks volumes about Ron Paul, his ideas, and his ability to be a successful President. If he can't even get ONE piece of relevant and important legislation passed in 14 years...how would he be able to be successful as President???

My question to Ron Paul supporters:
1) Did you know he was so unsuccessful in his Congressional career?
2) Are you happy with his success in Congress?
3) Do you think he could get anything done as President if he can only get one irrelevant bill passed in his 14 year career as a Representative?

My question to those who don't support Ron Paul:
Are you suprised to see how wildly unsuccessful he was in his 14 year career and yet still has die hard support from people??? I know I was.

reply posted on 27-12-2011 @ 12:18 AM by Vitchilo

That's because the majority of the other people in congress are sellouts.

Ron Paul is there to rock the boat, and give rights and freedom to the American people, all the others are there to give money to their banking masters.

Pretty simple.

My question to Ron Paul supporters:
1) Did you know he was so unsuccessful in his Congressional career?
2) Are you happy with his success in Congress?
3) Do you think he could get anything done as President if he can only get one irrelevant bill passed in his 14 year career as a Representative?

1. Yes. And it doesn't matter if you pass stuff or not, it only matters WHAT you are trying to pass.
2. Yes, he's told the TRUTH to these SOB time and time again and voted for the constitution time and time again, and that is success.
3. As president, he cannot get bills passed... but he sure as hell can stop any crap the sellout congress tries to pass.

The less government does, the better. And just alone with executive orders along with a competent attorney general, he can do a lot of stuff.

Even if in his 4 years he would just bring the troops home, end the war on drugs and release the non-violent drug offender, cut Homeland Security department, and block any bailout of the banks and kick Bernanke out, that would still be a thousand times better than Obama or Bush.

edit on 27-12-2011 by Vitchilo because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 27-12-2011 @ 12:24 AM by jazzguy

reply posted on 27-12-2011 @ 12:31 AM by OutKast Searcher

reply to post by Vitchilo

The less government does, the better. And just alone with executive orders along with a competent attorney general, he can do a lot of stuff.

So you want him to just introduce gridlock...and you think that will "fix our country"???

And it also seems like you want him to circumvent the legislative process as much as he can...so much for the Constitution huh???

You do know that Congress doesn't need the President to pass bills right? The only thing I see if Ron Paul would be President is that we would see a record amount of veto override votes.

reply posted on 27-12-2011 @ 12:38 AM by randomname

i'm sure if he sponsored 400+ bills authorizing tax cuts to the wealthy, 0% tax rate for corporations, increase in health care premiums, throwing the sick on the street, closing homeless shelters, 40 years mandatory min. for small time drug possession, shutting down welfare, cutting medicaid by 99% and increasing defence spending by 1000% he would have a 100% pass rate and would be hailed as the greatest republican ever.

if mitt romney read this post, he would be drooling on his computer.

edit on 27-12-2011 by randomname because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 27-12-2011 @ 12:41 AM by krossfyter

so the people really shouldnt vote for who they feel is best person for the presidency but rather they should vote for who is going to be popular enough with the congress so they can have bills passed they dont give a crap about or are against? mind bogglin! thats democrazy!

edit on 27-12-2011 by krossfyter because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 27-12-2011 @ 12:41 AM by eLPresidente

reply posted on 27-12-2011 @ 12:42 AM by godfather420

Now actually take a look at those bills and what they represent rather than a statistical figure.

You're pretty much saying that because there are more stupid low-life sellouts that people should just side with them. A million people can believe in a stupid thing, it is still a stupid thing. That works both ways and oh well I guess we will have to let the voters decide.

But this smear campaign is getting funny in such a sad way.

reply posted on 27-12-2011 @ 12:47 AM by OutKast Searcher

Originally posted by krossfyter
so the people really shouldnt vote for who they feel is best person for the presidency but rather they should vote for who is going to be popular enough with the congress so they can have bills passed they dont give a crap about or are against?

No, you can vote for whoever you want.

I just thought people should be getting some FACTS about who they are voting for.

If by some chance he would be elected President, I wouldn't want you and many others to be dissapointed because he can't do anything as President.

Personally...I would vote for someone who I agree with AND who I think could get his/her ideas pushed through into law.

reply posted on 27-12-2011 @ 12:54 AM by TupacShakur

reply to post by OutKast Searcher

Next, you should compare the Constitutionality of the legislation sponsored by Ron Paul compared with every other Congressman, and see how they stack up.

Tell me, who do you plan to vote for? You obviously are not a fan of Ron Paul, so who do you support? Obama? Romney? Gingrich? Bachmann? Santorum? Perry? With any of those clowns, you're either voting for somebody who's engaged in corruption or borderline retardation/insanity.

It doesn't matter if the rest of Congress doesn't understand the Constitution or have the slightest idea about what the purpose of it is-- he does.

reply posted on 27-12-2011 @ 12:55 AM by Vitchilo

reply to post by OutKast Searcher

So you want him to just introduce gridlock...and you think that will "fix our country"???

Well at least it won't sink deeper into the hole. And you say gridlock is ``bad``... why do you think there's 3 branches of government?

And it also seems like you want him to circumvent the legislative process as much as he can...so much for the Constitution huh???

Under the constitution, he can do a lot of things legally with executive orders. Like ending wars. Bringing back the troops. End the war on drugs. Release prisoners. Block bills.

You do know that Congress doesn't need the President to pass bills right?

Ya, but if they need 2/3 of the house/senate vote every time, it's gonna take them a lot of time and effort to pass crappy bills and the American people will see right through them since Ron Paul will be able to go on national TV and expose what these bills REALLY SAY.

edit on 27-12-2011 by Vitchilo because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 27-12-2011 @ 12:59 AM by krossfyter

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher

No, you can vote for whoever you want.

I just thought people should be getting some FACTS about who they are voting for.

If by some chance he would be elected President, I wouldn't want you and many others to be dissapointed because he can't do anything as President.

Personally...I would vote for someone who I agree with AND who I think could get his/her ideas pushed through into law.

I cannot in good conscience vote for a person that is for the corportocracy and against the people just because I believe they will pass bills I am against.

I will vote for someone who is against the corportocracy and for the people and trust that he will deliver. If he doesnt because of gridlock its because our country/congress doesn't work for middle american and thus our country deserves what its gotten itself into... that is something that doesnt work.

what has OBAMA or BUSH done with however many bills they past? Got us into this mess.

We havent tried a real republican/llibertarian the likes of Ron Paul... someone who is again for the people and against the corportocracy.

so what are you comparing it to? you have nothing.

can't knock it till you try it.

edit on 27-12-2011 by krossfyter because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 27-12-2011 @ 01:02 AM by OutKast Searcher

reply to post by eLPresidente

I see you are just dodging the entire content of the thread.

This is not a thread about what Outkast Searcher supports, this is not a thread about Obama...this is a thread about Ron Paul's "career" in Congress. Although, if this was any other job...he would have been fired a long time ago for being so horrible at his job.

So ether answer the questions in the OP or just keep dodging...you dodging the FACTS speaks more than anything.

reply posted on 27-12-2011 @ 01:06 AM by eLPresidente

reply to post by OutKast Searcher

How well did he do his job as a representative is the statement you made in your OP.

Well we can't possibly know that.....unless.....we ask his constituents, right?

Oh wait....

THEY ELECTED HIM TWELVE TIMES

reply posted on 27-12-2011 @ 01:09 AM by OutKast Searcher

So far I have seen a lot of dodging and attempts to derail this thread.

There shouldn't need to be a reminder about what the topic of the thread is on the very first page...but it appears there is a need.

This thread is about Ron Paul and the legislation he has sponsored and passed (or failed to pass) in the past 14 years in Congress.

This thread is not about what OutKast Searcher supports or does not support. This thread is not about Obama or Bush.

I understand that you Ron Paul supporters don't want to talk about his complete failure as a congressman...but those are the facts...he has failed as a congressman.

You can ignore it all you want and try to dodge and derail...but these are the FACTS...no opinion...no spin...just the cold hard facts. Ron Paul has failed to pass any significant legislation.

reply posted on 27-12-2011 @ 01:14 AM by TupacShakur

reply to post by OutKast Searcher

They don't call him Dr. No for nothing. While your "successful" congressmen were getting legislation passed, he was voting no on all of that unconstitutional garbage, by far more than any other congressman, hence the nickname. The man is a Constitutionalist, one of the few remaining ones in our government. The people around him either don't understand the Constitution or don't respect it.

Idiotic congressmen don't support his legislation.....that sucks. They all take the same oath to uphold the Constitution, but he's clearly one of the few that takes it seriously. The people support him though. Him being consistently re-elected reflects that, as does his increasing support in the face of constant media propaganda which attempts to make him look bad.

Like I said, compare the Constitutionality of his legislation versus any other elected official. There will not be a single person who comes close to his Constitutional perfection. He's a true congressman who I am proud to support, regardless of whether the other elected officials do.

Hell most of them probably don't understand what he's talking about when he gets into subjects like our monetary policy and personal liberties. But when it comes to unconstitutional things like the Patriot Act, the rest of Congress will be there to vote for it simply because it has the word "patriot" in it. Those are the kinds of people in government right now. That's like saying a bunch of special-ed kids don't like Albert Einstein's theory of relativity. Maybe if Einstein made some macaroni pictures instead, he'd be more popular with that crowd.

PS: Obama is a banker puppet who elected 11 Goldman Sachs employees to his Administration after condemning Wall Street greed during his campaign. You've got to be incredibly ignorant to support him.

edit on 27-12-2011 by TupacShakur because:

reply posted on 27-12-2011 @ 01:15 AM by OutKast Searcher

reply to post by eLPresidente

You are right...they keep electing him...do you know why???

Maybe it is because Ron Paul, despite his rhetoric, loads bills up with PORK and EARMARKS for his OWN DISTRICT.

www.americanindependent.com...

Ron Paul one of only four House Republicans to request earmarks for 2011 budget
...
U.S. Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) was one of only four House Republicans to break rank from the party and request earmarks despite a Republican Conference earmark moratorium. Paul sent 41 earmark requests totaling $157,093,544 for the 2011 Fiscal Year.
...
For Fiscal Year 2010, Paul requested 54 total earmarks, adding up to $398,460,640 in pork that the former presidential candidate sought to bring home to his district.
...
From 2008-2010, the average Texas congressman brought back $74 million in earmarks, according to an analysis of data from the Center for Responsive Politics and Taxpayers for Common Sense, as the Texas Independent previously reported. In those three years, Paul sponsored/co-sponsored 45 successful earmarks totaling nearly $120 million. That was the sixth-greatest total among U.S. House members from Texas.

Hmmm...sounds odd for someone who talks about corruption and over spending.

Yes, his district elects him...because he goes against his own supposed stances and loads up bills with pork to bring home money to his district.

reply posted on 27-12-2011 @ 01:16 AM by krossfyter

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
So far I have seen a lot of dodging and attempts to derail this thread.

There shouldn't need to be a reminder about what the topic of the thread is on the very first page...but it appears there is a need.

This thread is about Ron Paul and the legislation he has sponsored and passed (or failed to pass) in the past 14 years in Congress.

This thread is not about what OutKast Searcher supports or does not support. This thread is not about Obama or Bush.

I understand that you Ron Paul supporters don't want to talk about his complete failure as a congressman...but those are the facts...he has failed as a congressman.

You can ignore it all you want and try to dodge and derail...but these are the FACTS...no opinion...no spin...just the cold hard facts. Ron Paul has failed to pass any significant legislation.

how was i dodging or derailing? i responded to your post head on and told you what i thought.
i used bush and obama as an example of someone who you probably believe to be good at passing bills in congress etc. to point out the inevitable fact that elicits the phrase "how has that worked out" ?

edit on 27-12-2011 by krossfyter because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 27-12-2011 @ 01:17 AM by eLPresidente

reply to post by OutKast Searcher

What? the premise of this thread is if Ron Paul did his job as a congressman or failed.

Let's look at the duties of a congressman

How about abide by his oath of office?

How about represent his constituents?

How about serve and protect the people?

How about introduce and try to pass meaningful legislation that benefits the people?

Is it his fault that his sellout co-workers already had their decisions financially made for them?

Outkast,

how many congressman can you say without a doubt never voted to raise taxes?

How many congressman can you say without a doubt never voted against the Constitution?

How many congressman can you say without a doubt refused their congressional pension?

How many congressman can you say without a doubt never voted to raise his own salary?

How many congressman can you say without a doubt never voted for bailouts?

How many congressman can you say without a doubt returned unused congressional monies back to the U.S. Treasury?

You're being directly challenged and you don't like it. I get that...but too bad.

edit on 27-12-2011 by eLPresidente because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 27-12-2011 @ 01:18 AM by eLPresidente

reply to post by OutKast Searcher

derailing your own thread after requesting other members not to. ooooookkkkkkkkkkk

Don't get mad because you started a thread trying to make Ron Paul look bad and failed.