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

My question to Ron Paul supporters:

1) Did you know he was so unsuccessful in his Congressional career?

I knew that he was and is successful yes
Consistency is a win
Doing the right thing isn't always about winning, it's more about..... doing the right thing

2) Are you happy with his success in Congress?

Most consistent politician ever?
Why would someone be unhappy is what I would say

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?

Unfortunately getting things done as president is as easy as writing an executive bill
Ron Paul said the only thing he would do with executive bill is make a blanket one that abolishes all previous ones

A president can steer a country, we are seeing this right before our eyes
See his immaculate voting record makes people think it will be towards the right direction

You can't find a candidate, not even your favorite one, that can hold a candle to him

I just can't see Ron Paul getting any of his reforms passed without a fight from both sides of the aisle. The conservatives would cast him out like Lucifer was cast out of heaven and as for the liberals? Well, some are clearly hung up on the racist newsletter stuff.

I want a more realistic candidate. Unfortunately, no such thing exists.

Look at the Republican field. It's a total embarrassment. Paul's association with that party, as loose as some say it is, remains a poison pill that I just can't swallow. I don't really want another 4 years of Obama either.

Maybe I'll write in a ticket of Snagglepuss/Huckleberry Hound.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


No this is a thread for you to Cloud the debate with BS facts that have nothing to do with anything ,I dont care who wins because in the end Big Money wins ..Why though do you seek to destroy the one person i see runnin that attempts to stand up to Big Money >?

Originally posted by Indellkoffer

Originally posted by Freenrgy2

Originally posted by Indellkoffer
Totally lost my vote here! H.R. 1099: Taxpayers' Freedom of Conscience Act of 2011 -- To prohibit any Federal official from expending any Federal funds for any population control or population planning program or any family planning activity. (I went to family planning clinics for my birth control pills when we were young and poor. Now this physician doesn't want poor women to have FREE birth control pills?)

If case you don't know, Ron Paul is not an advocate of these measures being handled by the federal government. Where does it say in the Constitution that the federal government is to control the population?

This is, and should be a State matter.

(sigh) Been there. Done that.

What you're talking about is inequality in health care based on state standards. Yes, I remember the days when women couldn't get birth control pills in one area and had to drive a long way to get them from another area (or go to California, if you could afford it.)

If states have no standards of health care (I've lived through this) you have a lot of abuses in the system. And it's not "the goverment" controlling the poopulation -- it's women like me deciding "even if I'm poor, I don't want 10 kids -- I only want 2! And I want them 4 years apart!"

Nations with this kind of health care access for women have smaller populations, fewer poor people, and better economic opportunities for everyone. Nations which ban birth control typically have high populations, lots of poor, and (quite often) deaths of female children.

But... we both have the right to vote for things. I'm voting against him based in part on his policies. It's okay if you vote for him.

However, I lived through times when that WAS the standard and it was not pretty if you (like so many Americans today) were not in the middle class or upper class.

Despite the threatening overtones issued by most feminist organizations, I can't realistically see ANY state not allowing for family planning NOR abortions in the case of rape, incest or health of the mother.

I believe, as Paul does, that this is something that the federal government has no business being a part of.

Returning after finding a site that shows his voing on issues.

www.votesmart.org...

I find his "no votes" as troubling as his "nay" votes and "aye" votes. He abstains on a lot of things including the recent Temporary Payroll Tax Cut Extension. He voted "Nay" to a bill that would require public access to information on "what kind of bonuses and 'golden parachutes' are these bank/business executives getting" (H Amdt 849.)

He voted to repeal emission regulations for cement plants (dear gods, have you EVER seen what a town with a cement plant looks like????)

Voted no on the Budget control act of 2011 (why?)

Voted to repeal efficiency standards on lightbulbs

Voted no on Patriot Law (thank you. I agree there!)

Voted to repeal the public funding of health centers for schools (as a teacher, this does NOT sit well with me!)

He voted to NOT fund Public Radio (I'm an avid listener of NPR.)

He did vote to prohibit federal funds for NASCAR sponsorships (How in the name of the gods did THAT come up in Congress???)

Did not vote for bill helping those facing foreclosures (was he against it but not wanting to upset his political base or what?)

Said 'nay' to extension of unemployment benefits (which might not bother most, but those here struggling to find jobs might care that he said 'no' to the extension of your benefits.)

He also voted "nay" for protecting offshore drilling whistleblowers.

He looks like he's all over the place on these issues and is not voting on a lot of them (I wonder why -- honest question. Is he just not present or abstaining or what?)

And yes, I'll go look at the records of others. But with all the press about Ron Paul, I thought I would look him up. I don't find anything that I'd vote for given his stance on abortion, health care, and his environmental policies (and his support for issues that help big business -- but that's kind of a Republican thing.)

Originally posted by Freenrgy2
Despite the threatening overtones issued by most feminist organizations, I can't realistically see ANY state not allowing for family planning NOR abortions in the case of rape, incest or health of the mother.

They do, and they have.

In Wikipedia article on Huckabee -- well known case where girl was repeatedly raped by her stepfather and the clinic that did her abortion was denied funds. In Arkansas, abortions were only permitted if it saved the life of the mother (incest, rape didn't count.)

This has changed for many states, but in South Dakota the ONLY reason for an abortion is to save the life of the mother. States have variable policies that mean women sometimes have to travel to get the services they want or need.

I believe, as Paul does, that this is something that the federal government has no business being a part of.

Which is certainly fair on your part. No problem.

But if you had men's health care issues (let's say for erectile dysfunction) that were allowed in one state and not allowed in another state and were expensive so that only the wealthy or upper middle class could afford treatment -- you might feel differently about the US having many different standards of health care.

Please understand that women, who do suffer under this patchwork of "allowed and disallowed" (particularly those who have had friends who had difficulties because of the system) would rather have a uniform standard.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


I checked out your history of posts here, and they ALL seem to deal with bashing Ron Paul. Looks like youve got a grudge, or perhaps it is your deepest desire to see it out that Ron Paul doesn't pull through and win the majority of the votes, as the odds continue to go against you. He is gaining more and more support, and you aren't going to convince or lure people out of their decisions. Why not? Well, because even though Ron Paul may very well just be another puppet, those who are beginning to wake up have the ability to actually come to the simple conclusion that, while he isn't the last hope for this country as it seemingly continues to inch closer and closer to complete disaster, that Paul has the potential, and a HELL of a lot more potential than all of the other flukes running for candidacy, to get us back on track after the white hats succeed in casting the cabal off the throne of the world. Quit bashing on the guy, seeing is thats all you do here. At least dont make it so obvious, and you wouldnt be so suspicious. How about participating in other topics other than this? I mean, there are other forums out there for people like you. You havent gotten anywhere here, which is typical with those that share your intent.

Very successful !! We are talking about him EVERY DAY !!

I wanted to know (to be fair) how many of those "no response" votes were due to his being absent.

His record of "missed votes" is here at this link and shows some shockingly high (near 60%) absentee rates. His average is 12%

Newt tiptoes in at 8%,as you can see here

Obama was also had a high absentee rate while he was running for Congress -- of those three, Newt is the one who still focuses on Congressional issues while running for another office.
Obama's record goes out the window as the race heats up

Bachmann comes in at 12% -- same as Ron's

Santorum had the best track record of Showing Up For congress at 3% absentee rate

This isn't proving anything -- I just wanted to know why Paul had "no vote" on so many issues, and it seems the answer is that he wasn't in Washington (or if he was, he was doing something else.)

Originally posted by Indellkoffer
He voted to NOT fund Public Radio (I'm an avid listener of NPR.)

I'll just take this one quote from you. Why should public radio need government handouts? Have you ever heard of advertising? Look, if you have a radio station and you can't make ends meet, you need to change your programming or find a new business venture. You can't expect free money because you can't run a business.

In addition, this is a slippery slope. Lets say the radio station is government funded. Does that mean the programming is also governed? Whats next after that? Public radio and the internet are the last icon's of non biased media these days, lets keep the government out of them.

We don't need this monster government with its tenticles in all facets of our lives and that's how Ron Paul votes.

Originally posted by litterbaux
We don't need this monster government with its tenticles in all facets of our lives and that's how Ron Paul votes.

I agree! The government is too big and too intrusive into our private lives. But the answer isn't to slam it to the other extreme, which Ron Paul and his supporters seem to want. There is a middle ground that I prefer... a medium-sized government that serves the people instead of the corporations, and that is what we should be striving for, IMO.

As regards Paul's voting record, there are many reasons members of Congress might abstain. I looked into Obama's voting record and found that there are many reasons they do it. Political and otherwise.

The OP of this thread is propagating the agenda of the global elite by making it seem as if the only man who wants and defends AMERICAN CITIZENS freedom has accomplished nothing when in fact he's done far more than every other schmuck passing through congress. Isn't that correct? OutKast would rather have a yes man in Paul's place than a man who stands up and says NO. "NO, you aren't going to pass another article of legislation infringing on the rights of the people of this nation, not while I'm here and doing my damndest to stop you!" Says Ron Paul!
"YES I will be the man who speaks out against the established order of tyranny!"
YES I will awaken the minds and hearts and morale in Americans who've become apathetic and need their powers restored to them!"
Says Ron Paul the only man you say accomplished nothing, that you're afraid of because he's dangerously close to
becoming a contender in this ridiculous circus of a political facade. The veneer is in danger of being wiped away and the truth has surfaced to the public who've been told Paul is a kook since he doesn't look like your average Donkey or Elephant. Keep trying to paint over that truth my friend. The more you try the less you succeed.

Originally posted 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.

Ron Paul has clearly stated his position here - that appropriations are the duty of the Congress, and when money is appropriated Congress reserves the right to determine how to spend those funds. If the money is going to be spent, against Ron Paul's wishes, then he will exercise his right to determine, in part, where it goes. It's in the CONSTITUTION.

(I know I've given you a link before, but you probably didn't read it. Here's to first times!)
www.archives.gov...



When Congress appropriates money they also have the right to request where that money goes, as long as it's in line with the original appropriation.

So Ron Paul requests earmarks, then votes NO to the appropriation.

For someone who uses the word "FACT" so much you sure are good at misrepresenting them.

Originally posted by Freenrgy2

Originally posted by Indellkoffer
Totally lost my vote here! H.R. 1099: Taxpayers' Freedom of Conscience Act of 2011 -- To prohibit any Federal official from expending any Federal funds for any population control or population planning program or any family planning activity. (I went to family planning clinics for my birth control pills when we were young and poor. Now this physician doesn't want poor women to have FREE birth control pills?)

If case you don't know, Ron Paul is not an advocate of these measures being handled by the federal government. Where does it say in the Constitution that the federal government is to control the population?

This is, and should be a State matter.

Whenever you hear Ron Paul say, "It's a state matter"...that actually means he is against the current federal government law...but he can't say that he wants to overturn it because it will lose him a boatload of votes.

So he says, "well that's a state matter"...which means...."I'm not answering...but I'm going to do all I can to overturn the current laws".

Yes...Ron Paul is so honest.

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by Freenrgy2

 

Oh no...not the false "debt ceiling" debate.

The debt ceiling has been raised 74 times in the past 40 years...it is nothing new....it has happened many many times.

Ron Paul is a stubborn idealogue...his lack of ability to compromise shows just how much of an incompetent leader he would make.

People who don't compromise are dictators...not leaders.

Should a pastor or bishop compromise his values to lead his congregation? While a true leader will use diplomacy (something Ron Paul would choose over war for profit EVERY time), he will never compromise when it comes to his guiding principals.

I hope you can recognize the paradox here - you are asking us to admit "failure" where we see success. You're asking us to call a banana a grapefruit, and we see bananas, damnit!

To insinuate that a true leader is someone who's values change day to day is like opening a window to your soul. Thanks for letting us all have a peak - now we know why Obama still has supporters.

By your definition a person is not successful unless they compromise their values to align with the status-quo, even if they KNOW the decision is morally wrong. You are condemning Ron Paul for the exact reason we all love him - he's not afraid to go against EVERYONE else in Congress if that's what it takes to remain true to his principals. He is unfaltering, unwavering, and a true statesman.

And FYI, OKS - You CANNOT rebuke people for giving examples from Obama or Bush or whoever. We are talking about the most powerful position in the world, and building a character profile from our previous leaders for comparison will always be acceptable debate when discussing political candidates for any office. Your attempts to compartmentalize the argument in order the shield yourself are obvious and laughable. You can't poke a hole in a dam and expect only a little bit of water to leak through.

Originally posted by krossfyter
Indellkoffer he is for state rights. from what i gather so far from studying this is there will be a state where your belief system is respected and there will be another state where another belief system is respected.

under an obama or romney or newt presidency its one size fits all which doesnt work.

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

That's the last thing I want for the country...inconsistency.

Hey family...let's go on vacation...but let me check the laws of every state we are driving through...because something that is legal in our home state might get me the death penalty in a state we drive through....how fun.

This along with his pro-discrimination policy...and mapping out a road trip to see which gas stations will sell me gas based on my skin color, religion, sexual preference or hair style is going to become quite the hassel.

Individual states having wildly different laws...no thanks...I'd rather have all laws at the federal level.

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher

Originally posted by krossfyter
Indellkoffer he is for state rights. from what i gather so far from studying this is there will be a state where your belief system is respected and there will be another state where another belief system is respected.

under an obama or romney or newt presidency its one size fits all which doesnt work.

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

That's the last thing I want for the country...inconsistency.

Hey family...let's go on vacation...but let me check the laws of every state we are driving through...because something that is legal in our home state might get me the death penalty in a state we drive through....how fun.

This along with his pro-discrimination policy...and mapping out a road trip to see which gas stations will sell me gas based on my skin color, religion, sexual preference or hair style is going to become quite the hassel.

Individual states having wildly different laws...no thanks...I'd rather have all laws at the federal level.

Sensationalism, misrepresentation, flat out lies.

Hey, remember your OP? Where are those FACTS you were bragging about?

While ATS never ceases to amaze me, sometimes that is a bad thing

Paul says this, Paul says that.. BLAH!!!

Obama said a bunch of stuff too and look where we are

The OP has a very valid point

"They", including Paul, will say ANYTHING to get elected.. The ONLY intellectual thing to do is look at what they have done and Paul, a 35 year member of the establishment, has done SQUAT

I understand that most Paul supporters are young and impressionable and THANK GOODNESS they don't vote when it all comes down to it; but some of the Paul fanatics are who I would otherwise call reasonable...

Look at WHAT they have done like the OP states

SHEESH

Semper

Originally posted by semperfortis
While ATS never ceases to amaze me, sometimes that is a bad thing

Paul says this, Paul says that.. BLAH!!!

Obama said a bunch of stuff too and look where we are

The OP has a very valid point

"They", including Paul, will say ANYTHING to get elected.. The ONLY intellectual thing to do is look at what they have done and Paul, a 35 year member of the establishment, has done SQUAT

I understand that most Paul supporters are young and impressionable and THANK GOODNESS they don't vote when it all comes down to it; but some of the Paul fanatics are who I would otherwise call reasonable...

Look at WHAT they have done like the OP states

SHEESH

Semper

You've added nothing here at all but a rehash of what Outkast Searcher has said.

In response to your void, I will quote TupacShakur from page 1 - I think his insight has effectively made this thread meaningless, as it does not address his very valid question.

Originally posted 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.

Effectively what you people are arguing in this thread is that we should measure a Congressman's success based on how much legislation he was able to pass. Nowhere do you mention that the quality or goal of the legislation should be, only that it should exist and should have been passed. How much of the legislation sponsored by "successful" politicians was outright bad for this country? Should it still be counted?

Why the avoidance to investigate this line of conversation?

George Bush wasn't a very successful governor, or businessman, but he got elected on a platform much less honorable than Ron Paul's. Despite your attempts to compartmentalize the argument I think this is very relevant information.

Who cares what Ron Paul was able to pass as a Congressman - he will have much more power as president, and if he is unable to pass good legislation that will better this country he might be able to expose some corruption before his first term is over. At this point I'd elect a 15 year old highschool kid over all candidates but Ron Paul, if I agreed with and was confident about his intentions.

It's time to elect based on actions, not words. Ron Paul is the ONLY candidate who can back up his words with his actions. The fact that Congress shot him down again and again isn't a measure of Paul's success, or lack thereof, but a measure of exactly how corrupt our Congress has become.

Peace!