Ron Paul Promises to Cut Government Spending

I'm starting to like this guy! Pork Spending is a huge problem in congress and really needs to be addressed. Ron Paul is the guy to look into that problem. The last hope. The best hope.

http://www.antiwar.com/paul/?articleid=10727

http://www.house.gov/paul/press/press2005/pr062905.htm

Ron Paul. Standing against Pork Spending.

Or is he? (pdf link)

Ron Paul. The last hope? The best hope? For the Republic. Take the red pill (yummy, tastes like pork!). Save the republic. Ron Paul.

Surely the champion of the constitution and his supporters cannot support this.

Ron Paul. Bringin' home the bacon.

 

That's a lot of pork! A lot! I only read through the first third. Looks like he used a template {insert pork recipient} {insert pork address} {insert generic pork use}

But, he does support "troofers" so that's all that really matters.

Suddenly I'm craving a BLT.

 

Before Ron Paul even started his exploratory committee I was telling people about him and how if he ran it would be the best thing for this country. Now that he is running I am thrilled. He does have a chance and I am sick to death of people saying well I'd support him but he doesn't have a chance. Change your attitude! Ron Paul can win!

 

I can't get the PDF to work. Acrobat Reader 8.1

 

http://www.wfaa.com/sharedcontent/d...ronpaul_27tex.ART.State.Edition1.43bdd5f.html

It comes off a little different when you actually read the story

 

I got the PDF to work! yay!

After reading through all 60+ pages, I'd hope our esteemed colleagues, Lorien and GTech point out exactly where the pork is in these earmarks.

I'm basically seeing a lot of earmarks for his constituency, which is how the system works. He does after all represent the people who vote for him.

 

Remind me, where in the constitution his job is to get "earmarks for his constituency" ? Surely the Defender of the Constitution. The last hope for humanity. The defender of small government isn't granting the government more power than the constitution allows, is he?

I thought he was different. I thought you all were different. Defending the constitution, are we?

 

So now he's an unconstitutional congressman for representing funding for his constituency through legal means?

Point out the pork, and we'll see which of those he voted for when the final spending was determined. Without it, you really don't have a case.

 

Legal and "in the constitution" are two different things. No one else has supporters parading themselves online as the defenders of the constitution" as the man who supports limited government as outlined in it.

earmarks going directly back to his constituency are not the intent of the founders. they are designed to buy votes - and it works quite well. Many congressman make the case to re-elect them on the fact they can get "projects" while a new congressman might not be able to.

All of those projects are pork. You can check his voting record on spending bills. He has voted for the final budget on more than a few occasions, thus he supports the pork spending.

I am not blaming him for doing it; they all do. I am just pointing out that he's not the champion of the consitution like everyone claims. His shit stinks, just like everyone else's up there.

 

He votes agains the bills he feels are unconstitutional, but tries to make sure that if it passes anyway his district won't get ripped off. And that makes him like all the others

 

his job, again, as a representative is not to make sure his district gets a piece of the pork pie. tell me, where in the constitution, does it say that washington should be funding a hospital extension in galveston texas? that is a function of private institution or at least the state of texas.

there isn't a debate here, briant. all you are required to say is "yep, ron paul is just like the other house members - looking out for his district through pork projects"

nothing more, nothing less. doesn't make him evil. just makes him like everyone else. which, probably, is bad enough.

 

Funding for cancer research is pork? Funding for food inspection by the FDA is pork?

Care to list some specific examples?

 

You posted less than half the story and I posted the rest. I think it's quite clear what he was doing and why.

 

As I said to Briant, there is no argument here. All you have to say is "yep, ron paul is just like the other house members - looking out for his district through pork projects"

Yes. cancer research is pork, by his strict definition of the power of government. that is not something government should be involved in. Funding research (which is done by private enterprise) is a form of corporate welfare.

Page 5. Cancer Center Expansion. Which article says government should fund this?

Or the Texas Clipper reconfiguration project? Which article says this is a government function?

He is requesting federal funds for local road projects too. All of these are in his district. They are designed to get him votes. It's pretty cut and dry, really.

As the defender of the constitution, he should be speaking against this; not enabling it, shouldn't he?

 

As do I. Too bad he's violating his libertarian, limited government roots here.

I understand your hero worship may not let you see the reality here. That's okay. It's quite obvious.

 

Section 1 Article 8.

Any other questions?

 

And which line there supports the funding of a hospital in texas? or a dinner theatre in galveston?

 

Any other questions?

 

What you are, essentially arguing is that washington is supposed to fund every project undertaken by the states. You realize this right? This is anti-state rights, which Paul supposedly supports. This is far more onerous than a simple "I'm looking out for my community" pork barrel stance.

Under your concept, you should really rethink why states exist at all. If government, under this section is supposed to fund everything under the sun, at the whim of an elected official.

I really think you need to re-read the 10th amendment here. And read up a little in section 8, the part specifically about promoting the general welfare.

This does not apply to dinner theatres in galveston or installing new hospital wings to a hospital in texas. Please be serious here.

 

And so the dance begins...

Not at all. I simply posted the article, section and other details from the Constitution which you requested.

Originally, the Constitution was designed to limit the powers of federal government and increase the powers of state government. This was to be contrary to the British parliamentary system. Unfortunately, that system has been subverted. Just a side note.

I think you fail to understand what appropriations from the treasury are. They are law, passed by Congress, the duly elected officials of the people. One elected official cannot force or pass law in Congress independent of the other congressmen.

The 10th amendment is irrelevant in this discussion. The Constitution clearly empowers Congress to appropriate funds from the Federal Treasury, as long as it is passed into law. Earmarking is how Congressmen table items for appropriation. One could argue that a Congressman who submits no earmarks, is not representing the general welfare of his constituents.

It does if Congress passes it as law. But that's not the issue anyway. I didn't see an earmark for dinner theatre or new hospital wings in the PDF document. Could you please point out those earmarks for me? They are one to a page, so the page number will suffice.

That is, if you are prepared to be serious.