tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7984353172861963227.post2731837417253199640..comments2023-05-07T04:20:21.285-04:00Comments on No Straw Men: How Ron Paul Justifies EarmarksJonathan Rickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09199833589467123005noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7984353172861963227.post-82487935324129882682011-08-17T21:19:49.937-04:002011-08-17T21:19:49.937-04:00I think all of us need to do some research and fin...I think all of us need to do some research and find out just how earmarks work. In Paul's case it seems as though they are chess pieces.<br /><br />I am going to see if I can get a better understanding of this.Rollin Shultzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09901656025714883630noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7984353172861963227.post-3559399574770971072009-03-01T17:25:00.000-05:002009-03-01T17:25:00.000-05:00And why are earmarks so necessary for Congress to ...And why are earmarks so necessary for Congress to authorize anyhow? Why can't state congressmen authorize the spending? Are they too lame or stupid or just absent-minded to ask for it in their houses of government? <BR/><BR/>Or is it because state governments are so in debt that they have to rely on the fucking federal gov't?Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12955755755915265509noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7984353172861963227.post-91446831406152234792009-03-01T17:24:00.000-05:002009-03-01T17:24:00.000-05:00As far as I'm concerned, all earmarks are unconsti...As far as I'm concerned, all earmarks are unconstitutional. I mean, if Congress wants to limit exec. branch spending, they could easily do that, couldn't they? Just pass an amendment or two in the bill saying "You cannot spend the money on a, b, and c." It can't that fucking hard! Paul's justification seems baseless considering what I've just said.<BR/><BR/>Revenue sharing, grants in aid, and earmarks are all unconstitutional, far as I'm concerned. I'm pretty sure the Founders intended for FEDERAL money to be spent on FEDERAL projects, not state or local. States and localities can spend their own money on their own stuff.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12955755755915265509noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7984353172861963227.post-69244198355521420432009-03-01T17:19:00.000-05:002009-03-01T17:19:00.000-05:00I'm just curious (nothing against Paul), but how d...I'm just curious (nothing against Paul), but how does not putting earmarks into a bill not reduce spending? They say that if you don't put earmarks in, the exec. branch will spend the money, but how the hell does that work? I mean, if the stimulus bill didn't have nearly as many earmarks, it wouldn't be as big! <BR/><BR/>And where in the Constitution, Congressman Paul, does it say that FEDERAL revenues can be spent on state and local projects? Where does it say it's ok to use federal monies for things that only benefit particular states or individual districts? <BR/><BR/>I mean, if the money goes to the exec. branch agencies, you know it's only going to be spent on projects within the purview of that particular Cabinet agency, so it's a lot more limited than putting pork into a bill for any old silly project. Plus, it's more likely that a federal cabinet agency will spend the money on FEDERAL projects than Congressmen's earmarks will.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12955755755915265509noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7984353172861963227.post-36211984424615354092009-02-26T11:21:00.000-05:002009-02-26T11:21:00.000-05:00Anonymous said, Can't you loyal Paul backers just ...Anonymous said, <I>Can't you loyal Paul backers just debate this issue without claiming people are trying to attack him? </I> But Jonathan Rick <B><I>is</I></B> trying to smear Ron Paul. <BR/><BR/>Notice his motivation is not to support Ron Paul: he admits he is "<B><I>irked</I> by the parade of compliments gussied up as questions</B>" so he <B><I>zinged</I></B> the <B><I>Christian</I></B> constitutionalist about his paradoxical earmarking."<BR/><BR/>What is the difference between "zing" and "smear" or "attack?"<BR/><BR/>"Christian" in this context is an irrelevant <I>ad hominem</I> attack. <BR/><BR/>The message being sent is, "Don't bother taking Ron Paul's call for smaller government seriously. Even <B><I>he</I></B> can't live without big government. Get used to it. Give up the fight."<BR/><BR/>Clearly an attack on Ron Paul and his message.Kevin Craighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16928605106263140137noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7984353172861963227.post-83114277774156081902008-08-19T17:30:00.000-04:002008-08-19T17:30:00.000-04:00Here's what kills me about this.....Ron Paul is BY...Here's what kills me about this.....Ron Paul is BY FAR the least hypocritical of politicians. Yet because he submits requests to change the direction (NOT the level) or spending, people are trying to throw him in with all of the other politicians.<BR/><BR/>Earmarks are typically added to get a politician's support for a bill. That is clearly not the case here since Ron Paul votes against all of these bills. This is VERY different from how other politicians view this.<BR/><BR/>Whether you agree with Ron Paul's approach to earmarks or not you are being naive if you think that his approach is evidence of Ron Paul being no different from the other politicians on this issue.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7984353172861963227.post-11037821186521811402007-12-29T22:26:00.000-05:002007-12-29T22:26:00.000-05:00I have commented on the earmark "situation" on ano...I have commented on the earmark "situation" on another blog and almost all of the Ron Paul supporters claim that those who raise legitimate questions about their candidate are trying to "smear" him. Can't you loyal Paul backers just debate this issue without claiming people are trying to attack him? It seems to me, that as others have mentioned, that Ron Paul isn't this "Constitutional Messiah" that he is cracked up to be. Here in Mi., our lawmakers got a pay increase, even if they voted "no". So, a few of them voted against the raise, knowing full well that they would get it. They also pulled a "Ron Paul". They still went around on their moral high horses saying that voted against the bill, and they kept the extra cash. Seems very similar to me. I know I will be accused of "smearing" Rep. Paul., but oh well.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7984353172861963227.post-84709851352066102992007-12-22T05:37:00.000-05:002007-12-22T05:37:00.000-05:00You're quite right, although I think this shows th...You're quite right, although I think this shows that Ron Paul is much less of a dreamer than he appears. He's not an idiot and he knows how to play the game.<BR/><BR/>All the same, I almost wish he naively refused unconstitutional government money altogether.<BR/><BR/>Correct me if I'm mistaken, but his argument is something like a drug dealer saying, "The problem isn't that I sell drugs, it's that people want to buy them. Someone else is going sell them if I don't, so that's the problem, not what I'm doing." Our drug dealer probably even tells the people who buy from him drugs are bad, just like Paul is known for being against spending.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7984353172861963227.post-23110770543383325722007-10-29T11:50:00.000-04:002007-10-29T11:50:00.000-04:00I think this is nonsense. Ron Paul has done nothi...I think this is nonsense. Ron Paul has done nothing wrong, and you're unfairly smearing a good man with a good message , and I'll explain why.<BR/><BR/>The spending bills determine what kind of program the money will be spent on, so if they're passed, and they're for an unconstitutional program (like farm subsidies), then nothing Ron Paul does will effect or exasperate that. Requesting earmarks is not ADDING anything unconstitutional to the bill, it is simply determining exactly how that unconstitutional spending bill will be spent.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Here you have 3800 dead Americans in Iraq, a million dead Iraqis, four million Iraqi refugees, Iraq's infrastructure completely destroyed, a generation of Iraqi children that will grow up malnourished and without education, and what are you doing? Trying to smear Ron Paul on earmarks, despite the fact that unlike EVERY OTHER MEMBER OF CONGRESS, he has always voted against the earmarks that his constituents request.KineticReactionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02225737840018552204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7984353172861963227.post-79282666909489768042007-10-28T15:38:00.000-04:002007-10-28T15:38:00.000-04:00That too sidesteps the real question. Where does t...That too sidesteps the real question. Where does the Constitution authorize these earmarks?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7984353172861963227.post-75918666747745750282007-10-28T15:36:00.000-04:002007-10-28T15:36:00.000-04:00"Of course, this sidesteps the real question: Paul..."Of course, this sidesteps the real question: Paul claims to vote for nothing that the Constitution doesn't explicitly authorize. Where does the Constitution authorize $3 million to test imported shrimp for antibiotics, or $8 million for the marketing of wild American shrimp, or $2.3 million for shrimp fishing research, or $4.5 million to study the effects of the health risks of vanadium?"<BR/><BR/>Paul's claim is true. He does not vote for them. But if he knows the bill is going to be passed despite his voting against it, why not return some of the money to the people he represents?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com