Comments on: Do Ron Paul’s Supporters Refuse to Admit His Faults When It Comes to Earmarks?

By: Jesse

Jesse — Sun, 22 Mar 2009 21:25:05 +0000

yeah, except, in that case, paul has been the most conservative. who has called for reduced spending more than paul has? who wants to cut cut cut? who has been talking about the disastrous policies of the federal reserve?

if you think that the federal bureaucracies would give up that money to pay off the debt, then you are mistaken. it is exactly the federal government that has incurred the debt.

By: inkslwc

inkslwc — Sun, 15 Mar 2009 02:21:00 +0000

The money would go to the federal government, who would then be able to use that money to pay off some of the debt we owe.

“Conservative” in the sense of less government spending.

By: Jesse

Jesse — Sun, 15 Mar 2009 01:14:33 +0000

you also said “his stance on earmarks is out of line with conservatism”

so what is the “conservative” stance?

By: Jesse

Jesse — Sun, 15 Mar 2009 01:13:05 +0000

i know you disagree, but i don’t see what your solution is.

you said:
“but I also think that earmarks are something that has to go as well.”

that’s why i asked what you would do?
“if you could, by the wave of your wand, get rid of earmarks what would happen?”

you said:
“it doesn’t have to be spent – it should be given back to the taxpayers by lowereing taxes.”

he can’t do that on his own and he tries to do that.

you also said, and jack refuted:
“if he wasn’t adding those earmarks, as much money would not be being spent.”

but then where does the money go?

so it begs the question. what do you do if not what ron paul does?

By: automotive floor jack

automotive floor jack — Sat, 14 Mar 2009 12:30:39 +0000

I have to say, that I could not agree with you in 100%, but it’s just my IMHO, which indeed could be very wrong.
p.s. You have an awesome template for your blog. Where did you find it?

By: inkslwc

inkslwc — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 07:51:02 +0000

I know that he makes his case. And I’ve said before, it’s a logical argument (as most of his arguments are), I just disagree with it.

By: Jesse

Jesse — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 04:00:00 +0000

inkslwc – if you could, by the wave of your wand, get rid of earmarks what would happen?

his argument is sound because it pertains to the laws as it is written. no?
he is doing exactly what he is supposed to do as a congressman.

the fact is that ron paul is the most fiscally responsible that i know of and this would be a great time to spread his reasoning instead of fighting him on it. he needs as many people in his corner as he can get right now.

one thing that people know about paul is that he stands for the rule of law and he will do his job to the best of his ability in that. obviously he is not perfect. who is? its the principle and fact of the matter thats important.

ron’s not being a hypocrite, he makes his case very well here.

By: inkslwc

inkslwc — Fri, 06 Mar 2009 02:36:39 +0000

Oh, you’re absolutely right in saying that earmarks are the small compared to other waste. I’d love to see cuts across the board (if I had my way, we wouldn’t have Medicaid, Social Security, Medicare, etc. – whatever happened to the days where people SAVED for retirement!), but I also think that earmarks are something that has to go as well.

While we disagree on the issue of earmarks, I’m glad that we can come to a consensus that the government wastes a huge amount of money in other places.

By: Jack

Jack — Fri, 06 Mar 2009 02:16:50 +0000

Spending ceiling is the additional descretionary funding built in to an appropreation bill. Waste equals 200% of the descr. fund on average while earmarks make up 3% of the total or 1.5% the waste. Where would you start to cut again? Waste is generaly 30% or more (In military spending it is sometimes as much as 500% of the total aloted.) of the bill. I would start there. Idealy we wouldn’t even have these expeditures to deal with but we have to work in the system we have. I still do not see Dr. Pauls position as hypocricy. It certainly does not rise to the level of say…. 700B given to failed banks so they can sustain their inordinate profits off of unrealistic interest or over inflated houseing prices.

And yes your right about how long earmarks have been around, as I am about how long they’ve been a “problem”. They were not a problem untill Keynsian economics and neo-conservitism made them such. And compared to waste they are ,as I said ,a non issue. (for me at least) But thank you for bringing it up. More discussion on this would be good.

By: inkslwc

inkslwc — Fri, 06 Mar 2009 01:14:33 +0000

No, earmarks have been around since the Civil War era, while the Neoconservative term was coined in the 1970s. Probably the earliest that you could even classify someone as a neoconservative would’ve been the early 1900s with the World Wars, but the term would be more applicable to the Wars in Korea, Vietnam, the Persian Gulf, Bosnia, etc….

But that’s all off topic.

And spending bills don’t have a “price tag” on them – they have a budget to adhere to, and each committee (and then subcommittee) is given a spending ceiling. Appropriations are then made in the committees and brought together to make the omnibus spending bill.

But a spending ceiling doesn’t mean that they have to spend up to the limit.

You can find more information on the appropriations process here: http://appropriations.house.gov/pdf/appfacts.pdf

But again, a spending ceiling is not the same as a price tag.