Ron Paul LOVES the Pork!

Representative Ron Paul has no problem blasting earmarks in Obama's new budget. But the Houston Chronicle found out that he led Texas representatives in earmarks in the very bill he voted against! Is it possible to be a biggest hypocrite?

Texas lawmakers rip budget, but seek millions

If Mr. Paul hates earmarks so much, perhaps he shouldn't be injecting them into these bills!

Well it is His job to make sure the people of Texas get back their HARD EARNED tax money... You know some people have the attitude that money grows on trees or You can't print Yourself into prosperity. I personally believe its better for Texans to get their tax dollars back then see it wasted in some tax funded abortion clinic or some war thats making the arms manufacturers a fortune.

Ron Paul is the tax payers best friend.
The tax dollars are going to be spent anyway, and his job is to return the federal tax dollars paid by his district to the district.
You have allot to learn about politics buddy. Go read a book before you go off half cocked on a subject you know nothing about. Especially when it concerns a person (Ron Paul) who has been a staple of leadership for the members of this forum.

Its Ron Pauls job to get some of the taxpayer dollars back if he didnt he wouldnt get elected. On the same note though then why vote against it knowing the bill is going to pass. If you want to get your taxpayer dollars back then vote for it instead of throwing your stuff in and then voting against it. I wrote in Ron Paul last year and if he runs again Im still voting for him but this is one area where I disagree with RP.

Originally posted by robwerden
You have allot to learn about politics buddy. Go read a book...

Rob, are you talking to me or to the Houston Chronicle? My only statement is that it smacks of hypocrisy if you say something like "I hate welfare" then go ahead and get your unemployment check and food stamps. I know that I certainly wouldn't if I felt that way so strongly about something.

Not really trying to make a political statement so much as a moral one. Maybe no one in the Republican party listens to the man because they know that he is disingenuous.

Aside from that, is there anyone who can constructively rebut the statements made by the article? In addition to books, news articles, and television, I also consider this site to be a great source of information and would love to learn more about opposing views.

Thanks for your time.

Deny Ignorance!

I strongly recommend you read the link below. Everyone thinks earmarks equate to wasteful spending. Not always the case.

There is a big difference between spending millions on projects that will put people to work versus projects to study the mating habits of whales, or similar ridiculous studies.

Link

Originally posted by BostonBill99
Deny Ignorance!

I strongly recommend you read the link below. Everyone thinks earmarks equate to wasteful spending. Not always the case.

There is a big difference between spending millions on projects that will put people to work versus projects to study the mating habits of whales, or similar ridiculous studies.

Link

This is correct and Ron Paul will even tell you its the congress job to appoint the money. The pork is a small fraction of what is the true reason for our massive debt. But once again though why vote against it. Why not vote for it and say hey Im just getting tax payer dollars back instead of doing the sleight of hand. As I stated I voted for RP and would again if he ran but this is a sleight of hand.

I think it's perfectly fine. I've heard Ron Paul state his position on this very matter before, and what he says - that he'll always vote against pork, but if there's going to be pork anyway, he doesn't want his district to miss out - seems very reasonable to me.

It may seems a little contradictory, but if that money is going to go to waste somewhere, it may as well be for your constituents.

repairing Galvestons seawall is not pork fat. Ask those 9th ward cats and i bet they will agree. its not like he was appropriating money to build A Ron Paul Museum or anything.

We should all be so lucky to have a congress person who actually looks out for his constituents. And you have to remember, as far as monetary policy goes, he actually has an idea of what he is talking about.

As far as not endorsing the bill goes, of course he is going to say no. its more of a symbolic gesture than anything else. should that mean he cant get any money? Well it aint his money in the first place, its the people he represents, and thats that.

reply to post by joe70353


You know very well that you posted this topic to get attention for an article that is ignorant and should be ignored. You started this topic to see how upset you could get everyone. So I gave you what you wanted.

Everyone calm down! There is an easy explaination to this - if you understand politics. First of all, the other posters are correct in pointing out that it is RP's RESPONSIBILITY to see to it that his constituents get a percentage of their tax dollars back in the form of federal investment in his district. Adding a project to a spending bill is normal procedure. Now as far as voting against it... simple, he probably saw that the bill was filled with REAL pork and did not want the bill to pass as a result. In the event that the bill failed, he would have submitted the request through alternative channels such as another spending bill or a request through appropriations. Since he believed, correctly, that the Democrats would pass the bill, he took a shortcut and got his request through.

Stop reading into something that doesn't exist!

Sorry if I offended you, Rob. I can assure you that my intention was not to get anyone angry. I had a legitimate question. I do not make a habit of posting messages to get people angry, and although I've been a member for 2 years, this is my first original thread.

I neither hate nor love Mr. Paul, I simply see him as irrelevant. See last year's primaries.

I simply wanted to know how someone who goes on television opposing something could turn around and take the money. It seemed like a horrible contradiction to me.

Thank you to all the others who posted explanations. I think I understand where you are all coming from about the ugly necessity of earmarks.

My last question to those who defend Mr. Paul's earmarks is "How is the problem going to go away if everyone takes part in receiving earmarks, or are we now saying that earmarks are not a problem at all?"

Originally posted by robwerden
reply to post by joe70353

 

You know very well that you posted this topic to get attention for an article that is ignorant and should be ignored. You started this topic to see how upset you could get everyone. So I gave you what you wanted.

Why should it be ignored and why is it ignorant? I think its a pretty good point actually. I personally would hold RP accountable if he was to be president just like I would Obama. Just because hes my guy doesnt mean we dont hold him accountable. The fact is and Republicans have a tendency to do this. They will fill up their stuff on bills and then vote against it when they know it will pass anyways. I think that is weak. Vote for it and tell people straight up hey its our job to appropriate the money and Im just getting people their money back the real debt is the funding of the (insert whatever here warfare state, welfare state, etc) But pork really is a small part of what our problem is as a nation and our spending. So I stand by my he should vote for it and stand up and say why just like he would if he voted against something like the bank bailouts or whatever....

I'd rather have that money earmarked for something that is involved with public safety, and the country's infrastructure, as opposed to going into some banker's renovated office. I honestly do not see what RP did that was so wrong. It looks like the guy knew that the money was going to be approved and spent, no matter what he did, so he insured that the people that he represents got something useful out of it.

It's not like he's having statues of himself built.

Originally posted by robwerden
You have allot to learn about politics buddy. Go read a book before you go off half cocked on a subject you know nothing about. Especially when it concerns a person (Ron Paul) who has been a staple of leadership for the members of this forum.

Whoa-that sounds like a very divisive and insulting way to contribute to this discussion. Also, do you think Ron Paul has been a "staple of leadership" for everyone on this forum....?

Originally posted by robwerden
You know very well that you posted this topic to get attention for an article that is ignorant and should be ignored. You started this topic to see how upset you could get everyone. So I gave you what you wanted.

Is that how we operate here on ATS to deny ignorance? We go to give people "what they deserve" when they ask to define something we might strongly believe in?

Good OP in my opinon. Obviously, there are members of this governmental system who would like to refuse funding from the stimulus to prove a point (while there are mayors and governors and members of congress who would gladly take it and so would their constituants!!). Ron Paul might not agree, but he is going to take the money. And I think he should; I'm not a huge Ron Paul gal though I think he is a very clever man and was greatly overlooked by the American Public in the last election. I think his constituants deserve it, and will benefit greatly because I'm sure Mr. Paul is smart enough to know what to do with it.

Why should it be ignored and why is it ignorant? I think its a pretty good point actually. I personally would hold RP accountable if he was to be president just like I would Obama. Just because hes my guy doesnt mean we dont hold him accountable. The fact is and Republicans have a tendency to do this. They will fill up their stuff on bills and then vote against it when they know it will pass anyways. I think that is weak. Vote for it and tell people straight up hey its our job to appropriate the money and Im just getting people their money back the real debt is the funding of the (insert whatever here warfare state, welfare state, etc) But pork really is a small part of what our problem is as a nation and our spending. So I stand by my he should vote for it and stand up and say why just like he would if he voted against something like the bank bailouts or whatever....

I think it is unfair to say that Republicans have a tendency to do this. After all a Democratic President and Vice President threw in their own earmarks in this new stimulous bill after the President said that he wouldn't tolerate that kind of thing.

He is against this bill, yet he throws in an earmark. Why would he do that?

Because he knows that this thing is going to pass and while he is against it he really can't do anything to stop it. So he throws in that earmark so that the citizens of his state might come out better in the deal. He votes against it because he really doesn't want it to pass. He made his point and his citizens gain something from it.

Originally posted by jd140


I think it is unfair to say that Republicans have a tendency to do this. After all a Democratic President and Vice President threw in their own earmarks in this new stimulous bill after the President said that he wouldn't tolerate that kind of thing.

He is against this bill, yet he throws in an earmark. Why would he do that?

Because he knows that this thing is going to pass and while he is against it he really can't do anything to stop it. So he throws in that earmark so that the citizens of his state might come out better in the deal. He votes against it because he really doesn't want it to pass. He made his point and his citizens gain something from it.

It is fair to say that. Its not right to add a bunch of crap to a bill then vote no then dog on the bill. I AGREE with RP this is taxpayer money it should go back to them. Ok then vote yes and stand on those principals. To me it is not right and the Republicans did this big time on this latest pork fest. They all vote no but they all put all sorts of pork on there because they knew the dems had enough votes and would pass it regardless. In fact some republicans went back to their states and bragged about all the pork they got for their area after voting no for the bill. That is not right in my opinion. Stand by what you do with both your vote and your actions.

reply to post by tjeffersonsghost



Care to show us who bragged?

Why should he vote yes on something that he doesn't agree with? He stuck something in there to help his citizens. He still doesn't like the bill so he stands his ground and votes no. He loses, but his citizens still win.

I don't really care for Ron Paul, I think he is crazy. I like how he fought a losing battle and still showed respect to his citizens to get them a little help in a bill he didn't like.

As far as I'm concerned Democrats do not have any room to talk. Your anti pork President throwing his own earmark in there closed down your arguments.

Originally posted by BostonBill99
Deny Ignorance!

I strongly recommend you read the link below. Everyone thinks earmarks equate to wasteful spending. Not always the case.

There is a big difference between spending millions on projects that will put people to work versus projects to study the mating habits of whales, or similar ridiculous studies.

Link

Well, actually studying the mating habits of whales employs

DIVERS
MARINE BIOLOGISTS
SHIPS
CREWS
MARINE OUTFITTERS
MARINE VIDEO/PHOTOGRAPHERS
PROFESSORS
COPY AND ARCHIVE ENTITIES

I'm just saying...

PORK is PORK

What you seem to be saying strangely enough is that you only support SOCIAL PORK (is that socialism???)






[edit on 2-3-2009 by mental modulator]

Originally posted by jd140
reply to post by tjeffersonsghost

 

Care to show us who bragged?

For you....sure

dccc.org...

enjoy....

crooksandliars.com...

theres another

[edit on 2-3-2009 by tjeffersonsghost]