chron.com — But although the libertarian-leaning Republican from Lake Jackson cast a vote against the massive spending measure, his fingerprints were on some of the earmarks that helped inflate its cost. Paul played a role in obtaining 22 earmarks worth $96.1 million.
Mar 2, 2009 View in Crawl 4
jfreemanMar 2, 2009
Tim Russert tried to slander him in the same way on Meet the Press. Think of it this way: Ron Paul's constituents send loads of money to Washington to be looted by the entire country. It is not immoral to try and get as much of *their own* money back as possible.
jsffiveMar 2, 2009
Actually, each earmark should be weighed on it's own merits. AUTOMATICALLY assuming an earmark is for a "pet project" would be irresponsible. However, if ALL federal funding were earmarked, you would have a better idea of EXACTLY how the money is spent, as opposed to the Executive branch having a blank check to do whatever they want.
nalen33Mar 3, 2009
I notice you didn't answer the question. No s**t, we all have to pay taxes. The issue is whether or not we want to have some ability to determine where and how those tax dollars get spent. If it comes down to spending my money on a bridge in Alaska or a highway reconstruction project in my home state, what do you think I am going to choose?I have no idea how you jumped to the conclusion that I don't think paying taxes are necessary, but my delicate sensibilities tell me that you don't understand the process of earmarks and how they work. The money needs to be spent, as it's already been allocated in the budget, and the earmarks are my elected representative's way of bringing some of our hard earned tax dollars back to the community, not wherever the executive branch deems it prudent.I'd much rather have the person elected by my community as our representative appropriating the funds to us than whatever lobbyist is in Obama, Reid, Pelosi or whoever else's ear at that particular time.
emmeronMar 4, 2009
Hortnon, I was actually with you on some of your arguments up to here. One of the things I do disagree with Paul on is his abortion stance. That said:"How is it a right if there's no law enforcing it?"That's so ... ignorant to our system, to our basic assumptions. Let me say this clearly and plainly:The government does not GIVE rights. It only TAKES them. We have rights, as many as we are willing to defend from governments. That is the stance of the "founding fathers," and one I believe in very much. The only place it's clearly enforced is the Constitution (notably the 10th Amendment). But it needs no such enforcement -- indeed, Jefferson was loathe to see it penned, he was afraid people would get the idea that the Bill of Rights was a complete list somehow. Adams insisted on it, the Federalist he was...but I digress. My point, most simply, is that you have it all ass-backwards. Even though I agree with your objections to Paul -- that's the main reason he and the Libertarian party didn't work well together. That and a finance issue... but that's besides the point.So please, re-educate yourself about what a right is. That question you last asked is more offensive to me than half of what Obama does or Bush did -- it's the kind of thinking that lets these assh**es do what they do.
reneegedeMar 4, 2009
Some folks 'pork' is another man's 'beef'. It ain't how much they're spending, but what they're spending it ON. The money's spent either way. My how the terminology does change depending on who's spending it and what for.
Closed AccountMar 4, 2009
Nope, just as with the military donations where you couldn't find or cite any more accurate source after falsely claiming what I said was inaccurate, you're CONSISTENTLY unable to deal with my points, so once again I'm right and have to admit it for you. If the point is racism, your politicians' racist drugwar's on the f**kin' table, like it or not, and it's NOT a change of the subject, just a part of the subject you obviously can't deal with. Deal with it, or STFU.
jccdentonApr 27, 2009
Your ignorance is astounding.
v3rtex7740May 7, 2009
I check back, 9 people have dugg me down. Holy cow. Irrefutable logic strikes a nerve with a lot of people I suppose.
jb1111Jun 8, 2009
Ron Paul. like all, "Representatives" has to take some of the budgeted money to work on needed projects (rather than have it spent at the Federal level). Something very similar happens at my work: If we do not use the money budgeted for training/improvement by the end of the year, it is LOST - gone forever. I think RP does not like this system and would like it to end. In the mean time, he has to play ball like the rest and, "Represent" his tax payers - don't they deserve something for all the taxes they pay? Fortunately, Dr. Paul, has Campaign for Liberty and other great efforts to spread his message. Check it out.JB