Ron Paul Promises to Cut Government Spending

Page 21. Edna Theatre.

Here's a picture of edna threatre:

It's not about the general welfare of his constituents. its about the general welfare. Here you are reading words into the constitution that are not there.

Seriously. Guerilla. Ask yourself. Did the founding fathers intend for federal money to go to Edna Theatre?

It simply is not there. To justify this, you have to pervert the words into what they are today and what has become of government spending. Which, supposedly, Ron Paul is against. Limited government. Federalism. Remember those things people pretend to support Ron Paul for?

 

That's not a dinner theatre. It's a ruin that they are seeking public funding to convert into a historical landmark.

I thought you were going to be serious?

 

Trying to desperately miss the point aren't we? This is (or at least was) a private building that is now getting federal funds; when its clearly a local project.

Every page of that pdf, that you supposedly looked at, are for local expenditures for the state (many for the district) of Ron Paul. He is voting for his constituency to get tax money from other tax payers to benefit his local area.

I know you are trying to defend this, but again, this flies in the face of federalism and state's rights. That Ron Paul supposedly supports. I'm sorry if you won't see it, but, again, its plainly obvious.

Ron Paul may as well be trying to fund a bridge to nowhere in Galveston. It's the same concept.

 

No, he's trying to keep his constituents from being ripped off. The federal government takes their money. If the federal government wants to spend it, it sould be spent in their district. And since he doesn't support most of these bills he simply votes against them.

The fact that this is so simple and that is being distorted, tells you afraid people are of Ron Paul.

 

They pass, Briant. His vote is irrelevant - and check his voting record; he has voted for budget passage inthe past. He's continuing the system by requesting his earmarks. It's hypocritical.

Let's take this further. According to Ron Paul, hate crimes are not federal responsibility. Edna's threatre is? A medical wing expansion is federal responsibility? Come on. Ya'll are being silly by not admitting the obvious.

Earmarks are the pork spending in every bill congress passes; it greases the wheels to get bad legistlation through.

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/bush-called-out-for-his-earmarks-2007-06-28.html

Earmarks waste money on bills and raise the amount of money government spends each cycle. Surely you are not for increased government spending, are you? Is Ron Paul?

If earmarks are so wonderful, gotta wonder why people try to hide them.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/06/29/senate.earmarks/

Your only good defense of this is "at least RP published his earmark requests. Most of his colleagues didn't"

That's the best, only, defense for this. From the champion of the constitution.

 

Congressmen are the duly elected officials of their constituents. Of course they are responsible for the welfare of their constituents.

Are you asking me if the founding fathers intended the government to maintain places of historical significance to the nation?

Not at all. You've actually exposed yourself as totally ignorant to the appropriations process.

In this post, you asked if it was his job to get earmarks for his constituency.
http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showpost.php?p=3610216&postcount=7
Of course not. But it is his job to submit earmarks on behalf of his constituency.

In this post, you said that all of his earmarks were pork
http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showpost.php?p=3610347&postcount=9

But in this post, you declined to respond to the FDA earmark
http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showpost.php?p=3610486&postcount=14

Again, you fail to understand that no federal money would be spent in any state without earmarks and appropriations. You couldn't source money to the Colorado CIA unless someone tabled an earmark for it. And yes, that money would be going to a federal agency operating in a state. EGAD! Federal money being spent in a state! How the hell do you think they sent money to rebuilding efforts in Louisiana?

Almost every single appropriation in the budget has been earmarked, and yet not every earmark becomes an appropriation.

What's really highlighted in this discussion is your complete and utter lack of knowledge on how appropriations work, which makes your attempts to smear Paul flawed. Open mouth, insert foot.

It doesn't appear that anything he is doing is illegal, immoral or unconstitutional, and on the contrary, he purposely votes against some of his own earmarks so that they should pass on their own merit. Because THAT is his job. He brings the requests of his constituents to Congress, and if he does not agree with the appropriation, votes against it, leaving the remaining members of Congress to determine if it is included or not.

Keep looking for a skeleton in his closet, but along the way, stop to learn a little bit about how our government functions, because someone who spends as much time as you in the political forum, posting blind as a bat, well honestly, it's embarrassing to us adults.

 

I cannot stress how much of a fool you are making of yourself.

Without earmarks, there would be no appropriations. No appropriations means the government wouldn't spend money it collects in taxes.

Get a clue.

 

And more foolishness, there is nothing unconstitutional about submitting an earmark.

It is the procedure for generating an appropriation.

 

No, the defense is, "He voted agains the bills; most of his colleagues didn't".

 

Try again, Briant. "At least he publishes his earmark requests. Most members of congress do not. While it's ashame that the champion of the constitution uses federal funds for private and local ventures, at least he is open about it"

Feel free to copy and paste.

But for now, keep trying guys. You all are becoming sad shadows of what you pretend to support. Limited government? Apparently not. Lowered government spending? Apparently not.

Here is Ron Paul, himself, on earmarks:

http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2007/tst061807.htm

Even Ron Paul realizes that earmarks are not in line with Constitutional functions. This is apparently not realized by posters in this thread

Hmm. Ron Paul railing against the very same earmarks he is using. Interesting.

I agree that someone is making a fool of himself here, but it is not I. It is someone who justifies actions when they pretend to support a candidate who supposedly stands against those same actions. Delicious, wonderful hypocrisy.

 

You haven't had enough, have you?

Show me where earmarks are unconstitutional? You can't. Because once again you are fabricating lies and posting them as fact.

Once again, you post selectively from a link and showcase your lack of understanding on the appropriations process. It's like a carnival of ignorance and you're the ringleader.

Where did I write that I support Ron Paul? More lies from you lorien? Haven't you totally destroyed any credibility you had by posting this thread and continuing to respond to it with total nonsense?

Get a clue, then come back and continue the discussion.

 

Let's see...he votes agains these bills, but says if you are going to steal our money, you'd better give some of it back. Why is that hard to understand

It's a bit funny that this is the best you can do.

 

Keep trying, it's okay. Paul's own words clearly show he's against earmarks but he wants them for his own community. It's hypocrisy at its finest. I'm sorry, again, if you cannot see that. Its a very simple admission and plainly obvious to everyone.

You do not understand what he's saying here, obviously. He's just saying that earmarks are taken away from other items towards pet projects. If the earmarks are removed, the funds would just be used elsewhere. This makes sense, because there isn't any responsibility.

So, what we get is bills for Iraq funding (or just about everything else that passes) full of other items:

Keep supporting this tactic of wasting federal money. I don't mind at all.

Please read the whole text in context, and you can see that he's against the earmarking process but also in favor it, when it supports his constituency.

Earmarking (pork) is done purely for the benefit of constituents, for their donors. Lobbyists want earmark spending, political donors want earmark spending. It's the cycle of prostitution up there that creates bad laws.

I'm happy that you are coming out in favor of earmarking though, the country needs more bridges to nowhere, more funding for dinner theatres in texas. Keep supporting bringing home the bacon.

Simple question Briant. Are you happy when your tax dollars go to pay for a bridge in some congressman's hometown to buy votes? Do you -really- think that this is the proper use of federal dollars?

Get off your RP hero worship and acknowledge the hypocrisy here.

Just one of many things I've brought up since you all started harping on this guy as the last/best hope for the republic. You remember those other things, that you couldn't defend either, don't you?

 

So now you are backtracking and saying it is not unconstitutional?

You've missed the point again, probably because you're so desperate to save your skin in this thread.

Paul has to submit earmarks his constituents request. Failure to do so would be a failure to perform his duties as a congress man. But if he thinks the earmark is inappropriate or unconstitutional, he votes against it.

Where is the conflict in integrity here?

Nope, you still have no clue about the appropriations process. Congress is the voice of the people when it comes to how money is spent from the treasury. Not all appropriations are pork, nor are all earmarks as you so ignorantly indicated earlier in this thread.

If members of congress could not submit earmarks, the appropriations would go to the bureaucracy. Which is exactly what Paul is against. Big government not reflecting the will of the people.

Your problem is, you're totally uninformed. You keep insisting that everything is pork, when in fact it is not. That's why you make ignorant comments about historical landmarks as pork dinner theatre, and the bridge to nowhere which was Alaskan and has absolutely nothing to do with Ron Paul.

Only an idiot would come out against earmarks. It means you want to see all of your IRS contributed tax dollars allocated by bureaucrats without the levels of oversight that currently exist. It means you don't want to follow the constitution, and it means that you lack a basic understanding of how the House of Representatives functions.

Keep posting, you're getting weaker with each rebuttal.

 

When did I say this? I cannot see anywhere in section 8 that says these things are funded. It's pretty amazing that the constitution is pretty specific as to what the government can create and fund (military, etal), but you have to read a series of words into this section to attempt to justify pork barrrel wealth transfers.

The constitution is based upon the principle that everyone is equal. by transferring the money of one group of people to another, you have made some people more equal than others. do you honestly think some projects are more worthy than federal dollars than others, or are you suggesting that every project is needing federal money?

You support this and its very enlightening that you do so. Curious do you support a just society where everyone is equal or an unjust one where some people get a little more benefits than others?

It's obvious to everyone else. Ron Paul does not support things like federal funding of stem cell research (saying its not the perogative of the federal government) but supports the funding for a dinner theatre in texas instead as if -that's- the pervue of the federal government? Someone is looking silly here, and it's not me.

I am? Where do I do that? I keep suggesting that funding local issues with federal dollars is pork. Maybe you keep missing that? Or don't care to grasp the difference. Which is it? I do not argue there is legitimate federal spending, but financing local projects and giving money to one group of people over another is not one. It's pretty simple, really.

 

You kept implying that Ron Paul was a failure against his own constitutional values for earmarking.

Section 8 clearly says that the Congress has the right to allocate funds from the treasury by passing it into law. Do you see where it explicitly forbids transfers from the federal treasury to the states?

No, no no. Now we have uncovered even more ignorance.

The Constitution does not work on the principle that everyone is equal. That's communism you are referencing.

The Constitution recognizes that we are all different, but should have equal access and opportunity. Huge fundamental difference.

Luckily, my thoughts on what projects need money aren't the deciding factor. Nor are yours, Ron Paul's or anyone elses. That's why we have a Congress of elected officials. They have to perform due diligence and vote in order to pass the budget into law. A Congress man could submit 1,000 earmarks a day and none of them could get funded.

Again, you're showing off your lack of understanding.

People aren't equal. A Jew and a Christian are not equal. Their beliefs are not equal (same), their lifestyles may not be equal (same) and their needs may not be the same. What is supposed to be equal under the constitution is that they will both have equal right to practice their religion, equal right to governmental representation and equal opportunities as legislated by law.

Which brings me back to your now 10 time modified argument. If a Jewish man, or a Coloradoan does not have the same service requirements as a Texan or a Buddhist, but they both have equal access, does that mean we deprive the one with a need or provide only half of their need to accommodate this communist vision you have of absolute equality?

The reason why people submit earmarks through their members of congress is so that their needs can be accommodated. Some may have more needs than others. Some may have graver needs than others. But the system is constructed so that everyone's needs get heard (equal access).

I shouldn't have to lecture you on democracy.

Ron Paul does not support funding for stem cell research because he believes in the free market. If there is demand, the market will fill it. If people want stem cell research, or it is lucrative to do so, the market will fund it themselves. He's against funding private enterprise with Government money.

I've already addressed your "dinner theatre" in that it is a historical landmark, not a for profit entity. Coincidentally, it is also a hazard due to the disrepair it has fallen into. It is a municipal matter that may require federal funding. That is up to the Congress and Appropriations committees to determine. Albeit on a much smaller scale, not totally unlike the Hurricane Katrina relief sent to Louisiana. Surely the devastation in New Orleans wasn't an immediate issue for people in Spokane Washington. But nonetheless, money was taken from the federal treasury, gathered across the board countrywide to assist in the needs of that specific region and it's inhabitants.

You said that all of Paul's earmarks were pork (post 9 of this thread). He has an FDA earmark in his release. The FDA is a federal agency.

He's requesting $25,000 in funding for a Child Identification and Location Database for a local Sherrif's department.

He's requesting funds for highway development/repair, refurbishment of buses in Galveston and Victoria etc.

On quick inspection, the majority of these earmarks are for various departments of transportation, state and municipal. Are you saying that those are all pork?

And we haven't even touched on which ones of these for the 2008 budget he will abstain or vote against.

So when you say,

Maybe you should read all 65 or so of the earmarks he submitted because right now, you are looking pretty foolish. Particularly with the juvenile dinner theatre remarks about a building that contains asbestos and has a collapsing roof.

 

Yes it does. but it does not say that those funds can be given to the states/cities/individual businesses - the entire section is very clear as to what the federal government should fund. You are making a foolish argument that since it doesn't say it, the constitution allows it. This is where the 10th amendment comes in. Powers not delegated to the US (the federal government), are reserved for the states. States rights. Federalism.

Keep supporting an unjust society, where some people are a little more equal than others.

Everyone is equal in the eyes of the law. that is what i'm referring to and you know it. you are being purposefully obtuse now. please try a little bit. trying to turn an anti-government spending argument into communism is just sad, and lazy. If you can't do better, please stop responding.

You operate under several false assumptions here. One, that the bills being passed are being read word for word. From the immigration bill, we know this is false - we know that the majority of congressman vote from bill summaries. Secondly, you assume that each congressman is not rubbing the back of another. You accept my pork and I'll accept yours. We know this happens. There is no "due diligence" as you say - or there wouldn't have been a bridge built to nowhere, would there?

We also know that earmarks are sometimes hidden until after committee so they cannot be challenged, unless the entire bill is brought down.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070603/D8PHA8LG0.html

Curious. If earmarks are so wonderful and so legitimate, why do congressman attempt to hide them from the voters? Surely a legitimate constitutional function should be out in the open, don't you think?

Let me, quickly, explain what you are promoting here. Let's say a congressman puts an earmark (thou holiest form of expenditure) saying that HHS will build one of his donors a 5,000 sqft house. As long as the bill passes, you think this is the legitimate function of government, right? This is what you are advocating.

Furthermore, you are advocating a permanent ruling class. Since we know congressman stuff bills with pork for their constituency, and use that pork to buy votes back home. It is the direct cause of the 95% re-elect rate we have each cycle. You think that this buying of votes is legitimate. And since most of the benefit of these projects just happen to be the donors of the congressmen, then you also support their actions as well.

And then, given that we know that the party in charge will make the most earmarks available to their party's home districts, you enable money being redirected to counties and people that voted the "proper" way each cycle. Isn't that nice?

This next part is clearly a lack of understanding of what I meant. I assume it's on purpose. You seem to think I am saying equality of outcome (communism) when I am saying that if you give this project money, you have to give all the projects money. Equal protection.

So the free market rules when it comes to stem cell research, but not the funding of bridges and dinner theatres? Awesome!

One could argue that disaster spending is not a function of the federal government either. Given that how badly the spending got bungled, they don't do it very well, either. Government that governs best, governs least - remember?

Anyways, they two are totally dis-similar, actually. If the theatre is in a state of disrepair, tear it down or let people who live in the community fund it - if the city/residents are unwilling to do so, clearly the building is not fit to remain standing. It's not rocket science and its pretty simple to understand. I like how you try to compare the misery of millions with a claptrap building though. That's pretty cute.

Yes, local expenditures are all pork. Cities/states collect taxes, they have a budget, they have local politicians. Thus, they are able to figure out for themselves what items to finance.

Federal government funds federal items. Not local items. This is the reason we have states - otherwise, we may as well be 1 big state. As the champion of the constitution, he should realize this.

If his pork is in the bill, his vote is irrelevant isnt it? It'll pass eventually, so his pork (which he wanted to get passed or he wouldn't have submitted the requests) would be in there. It's not difficult, again.

You keep saying I'm looking foolish - stop projecting. Why should the federal government care about 1 building in 1 city when there are probably millions of buildings in the same (or worse) situation. Is it the federal government's responsibility to fund every one of these projects?

 

The power to withdraw from the treasury is allocated to Congress. Period.

Rhetoric.

You are not making an anti-government spending argument. You're trying to create undermine someone's credibility through lies and misdirection.

Everyone has EQUAL access under the law. GET THIS.

Everyone doesn't get equal shares of everything. If they don't request it via access, or have need for it, they are under no obligation to have everything shared equally. That's your communist ideal of half a loaf of bread daily for every family, because if we send 5 loaves to Texas and none to Arkansas, that's somehow Pork. Asinine.

Are you saying that all appropriations are pork, yes or no?

Btw, the bridge to nowhere was never built.

Ron Paul agrees. Read your previous links. How many congress people supplied their earmarks on request, and wasn't Paul one of them? Wasn't he the one saying that earmark transparency was a step, but not the only one?

Sounds like you and Ron Paul agree on the issue. Except if you were a congress man, you wouldn't represent the interests of your constituency which probably means you wouldn't be doing your job, and would be unlikely to last more than a term.

Appropriations are earmarked, reviewed and possible allocated funds in the budget. That is the process I have been trying to inform you about.

Am I advocating our constitutional system for using funds from the federal treasury? Absolutely.

What you described is pork. Do you see any such pork in Ron's earmarks? The Dinner Theatre as you so childishly put it is not private domain. Who exactly is he greasing with the request for funding?

It's easy for you to sit there in ignorance and stupidity and continue to call earmarks pork, then say you didn't, then again try to prove again that they are. But they are not. The US is made up of states. Any federal money spent domestically gets spent in a state. Now you are saying this is unconstitutional? For the US government to spend from the federal treasury in this country?

That's irrelevant to our discussion. You're talking about misuse of federal funds, not earmarks. Earmarking is legitimate procedure to introduce funding topics to the appropriations process.

Off topic.

Again, you misunderstand our political system. All projects are not equal. But they have an equal right to be heard.

Again, you are advocating communism.

Are you capable of distinguishing between private and public enterprise? All of your responses in this thread indicate otherwise.

What if there are no funds to tear it down? Do we leave the hazard? I didn't compare the misery of millions, I merely pointed out that under your fascist ideals, the people of Louisiana would have been left without aid, and the area would be a condemned zone.

So funding the FDA is pork? The office is located in Texas, but it is a federal agency.

If there is insufficient funding to provide services at the state level, and the federal government collects the largest bulk of revenue, it should not be spent on increasing services for the general well being of the nation via the state and municipal level?

That's exactly what you are advocating. One uber communist state where everyone gets an equal share of project money, regardless if it applies to that state or not. Instead of routing funds where they are needed, you would rather everyone have a little (and if Russia was any example, very little) of everything than the very things they need.

Again, I am asking you to point out where the pork is in all of his earmarks as you indicated earlier. Make me a connection between highway repair and environmental protection of the bayous and his campaign trail and I will concede. There are 65 of them, so let's get some hard evidence that these people contribute to his campaign or guarantee his re-election and your case is made.

Anyone who has read this (or many of your other threads) all of the way through knows you try to dilute your original assertions that are frequently proven to be inaccurate and fabricated.

It's the federal government's job to assess the value of taking care of individual projects, and it is the job of the members of congress to earmark those projects so they can be reviewed.

You claimed all of Ron Paul's earmarks are pork. I would like you to explain to me how the Child Identification and Location Database is pork. I would like to know how FDA funding for food inspection is state pork.

If you can't answer those two, you are admitting you were wrong, or a liar. And that is all that matters this late into this discussion because I have proven pretty conclusively that you have communist ideals and no concept of how the House operates for "we the people".

 

If you are going to consistently misconstrue my posts and what I'm saying - why do you bother posting at all? Your whole post here is shrill and nonsensical (reread it yourself and ask yourself - am I proud of this post?). In this particular post you dug a hole, hit bottom and kept on digging. Why are you bothering, really?

Keep calling me a communist, a fascist, a liar or what else. It is not helping you at all.

You have? I'm saying that I want the free market to decide on what projects are built and funded and I want less government (particularly federal) involvement and I'm a communist? LOL. That is -really- pathetic.

Okay. If there is a need for the CHILD program, a privately owned (imagine the concept!) company could easily be created by an entrepeneur (and here I thought I was a communist!) to develop a system. Or a series of companies could be created and integrate their data (much like alarm companies do) and perform the same actions. This way, if I do not want to join the system, my tax dollars don't fund it. The people who actually (go figure!) use the system fund it by (again, strange concept!) using it. Stunning and shocking concept.

Unless you believe it is the job of the federal government to keep tabs on our children. Do you believe so?

It's another thread if you'd like to discuss whether the FDA is a legitimate function of government or not. But; let's assume - for sake of argument - that it is. Congress' job is to fund the FDA. Let the FDA take the funds given to it and use them as it wishes. I totally disagree with the concept that an individual congressman (or a series of them) can decide where the FDA spends their budget. Who knows better where the FDA should spend their money? The FDA or Ron Paul? Congressional oversight; not congressional dictates.

You are projecting again. You keep saying I, when clearly you mean yourself. Re-read your replies on this topic alone, and see how hysterical you've become and see what you are justifying. It is clearly obvious who is inaccurate and trying to fabricate things, and it is not I.

These are all local concerns that benefit his community. That makes the case right there. During an election cycle, Ron Paul could run a commercial "I got money to protect the bayou" "I got money to repair our roads" "I got money to fix Edna's theatre" - re-elect me and I'll work even harder to improve our community. I've made my case. Are you conceding? Good

Projecting again are we? I'm doing the exact opposite of advocating this. I'm saying if (read IF here) you fund one stupid local construction project, you have to justify funding them all. Don't you? You can't be selective and say I'll fund this and I'll fund that, but I won't fund that. If you that, you are making more people more equal under the law. Is that what you want to accomplish? People begging the federal government for dollars?

I've previously addressed this. Who knows better to use their own budget? The FDA or Ron Paul? Congress can fund the FDA and the FDA can decide how to use their funds. It is not Ron Paul's job to decide who and what gets the money. Oversight, not mandates.

If there is insufficient revenue at the state/local level, then its a state/local issue. They can raise taxes or raise money or find alternate funding sources. I do not believe cities and states should be running to mommy when they need more money. Local projects. Local money. Local people. Private enterprise. But, I'm such a communist!

And that's a problem. The federal government should be collecting the least part of the revenue, to fund interests of the entire country (national defense, et al). The states should be taxing on what their state needs. This system of going to the federal level on everything creates more problems than it solves. As we've seen for many years now.

Come on! This building is probably in the middle of a downtown area. The city could - at least - sell the land to a developer, who would decide what to do with it. Tear it down. Revamp it. Something. I'm such a communist for suggesting a privatized solution to the problem!

I'm a fascist, too! After Katrina hit. The first people in there were the Red Cross (private), donations (private), the salvation army (private). It was when the federal government and FEMA got involved (like always) that the money went haywire because of red tape and politicians wanting a piece of the pie for everything. I'm advocating a private (I'm such a communist) organization(s) to handle such matters. The pooling of private resources, is far more efficient than a federal government thousands of miles away. People helping people, companies helping people. I'm such a fascist!

I am. Are you? Roads are local concerns. Hospital wings are local concerns. Even if you believe those are to be funded by a given level of government; it is local government's job to fund those things. Momma government isn't the benefactor for every project under the sun. There are multiple levels of governments in this country - it is an amazing concept. Federalism.

I'm a communist, again! Equal right to be heard? So it is our Lords on Highs' job to decide what gets money and what doesn't? Please massa will you fund my project. I voted for you!

I'm such a communist for believing that private business should be funding things that private business should be funding. Probably a fascist too.

Earmarks -are- the misuse of federal funds. They are used to fund un-related projects to the primary bill. Such as adding a vegetable subsidy to the Iraq War bill. It's an earmark.

He's geasing his local community. He's getting himself a free commercial, free support in the community. I, Ron Paul, got the funds to rebuild this building. Re-elect me and I'll get more projects for our home town. How is this -not- greasing the wheels?

No, they are not. They are not reviewed; they are hidden. As I've said most congressman don't even read the bills they are voting on. They get summaries and vote the will of their party leaders. If they knew what was in the bills, why is Congress trying to hide earmarks until the final moments, until after its possible to get rid of them?

Transparency is one step. No doing it is another. If you agree they shouldn't be doing it, then you agree that earmarks are wrong. Do you agree that earmarks are wrong now?

Again. The constitution specifically outlines what congress can spend funds on. Let me know when you find the article that allows federal spending on local projects. When you find it, please let me know.