I support ron paul 100% because I understand everything that he does and why he does it. I showed this video to a romney supporter trying to get him to understand and he just thought it was romney food. So frustrating. I felt like a special needs teacher among these people.
@GoSolar So should he ignore the money alloted for his district and let the the government spend it elsewhere? You forget that the money is going to be spent no matter what. Not using it would be, for lack of a better word, retarded.
The top comment hits the nail on the head: "It is sort of like saying 'I am shocked that I caught you filling out your income tax form', I thought that you opposed income tax."
@GoSolar not necessarily because the bill on the whole then becomes unbalanced and unpaid for from all the other amendments/earmarks from other congressmen.
@synanthony Sorry, that sounds like a load of BS. Dr. Paul doesn't vote for bills he has placed earmarks in so he can keep an ideologically clean voting record. He knows the bills will pass but he can stand up and say "Look at me I am against Federal spending!" It is the classic shill game.
He is against the bill and thinks it shouldn't get through - so he vetos it. For the case it passes regardless, he thinks the people in his district should get as much of their money back as all the other folks. The more money they have locally, the less has the fed. gov. - and local g. (while not perfect at all) is still superior to federal g. in Ron Pauls view.
@d4n4nable He thinks people should get federal money yet he votes against the people in his district getting federal money. How does this seem reasonable at all? He does this so he can grandstand while the people in his district get millions upon millions of taxpayer dollars.
@TheSWTORMMO He does exactly what I describe. He grandstands that he has never voted for an earmark. However, he has personally added millions upon millions of dollars, in earmarks, to bills. He is guided by ideology (why he NO votes) yet he must ask for Federal monies because he has people within his district, he represents, he feels are in need of roads, bridges, grants, etc...
@AtheistDaddy It's not "grandstanding," it's being principled, you should distinguish between the two immediately. And yes, he does ask for Federal money because they tax his district up the ass. Of COURSE he would ask for some of that money back so it could be spent in his state, not squandered at the federal level on endless wars and stimuli. Get with the program, you obviously haven't objectively thought about this at all.
@TheSWTORMMO Dr. Paul asks for Federal money by actually writing earmarks (which he opposes) into bills. He then votes against the same bills he wrote earmarks into. He then grandstands by promoting his NO record for voting for earmarks. This isn't principal this is nonsense.
He knows the money will come to his constituents, therefore, he is safely voting no. He receives millions upon millions of dollars, like other Congressmen/women but he's the guy with principal? Really? lol
@AtheistDaddy It appears that you have no idea how earmarking works, or Ron Paul's stance on earmarking. No point in having a discussion with you if that's the case.
@TheSWTORMMO Ignorance? It was your messiah who was quoted with the following. "...I think it's a theory — the theory of evolution. And I don't accept it, you know, as a theory." -- Ron Paul 2007
Ignorance seems to be your #1 trait in a candidate.
@AtheistDaddy What he chooses to accept involving evolution has absolutely no impact on his libertarian ideas. Again, your ignorance is astounding. Now you're just bringing up random shit that has nothing to do with the discussion - a sign of desperation.
@TheSWTORMMO You got me Star Wars, I'm desperate. Non-practicing Dr. Paul is a nut.
He personally writes earmarks into bills relying on other members of Congress to vote YAY so his constituents get money for federal projects. Then he votes NO and calls it principal. He is a con-man.
I wish he would get the GOP nod so these discussions could actually play out on a national level. He won't, sadly, so I have to continue discussing his lunacy with people that play MMO's...
@AtheistDaddy Blaming Paul for earmarks is a little like blaming a janitor for asking for the best mop money can buy to be paid for with the janitorial budget that's already been set aside in a corporations budget.
Getting that mop or not, the budgetary allocation is the same and it's up to management to decide whether or not the janitors are taking advantage of the system and wasting money that is needed elsewhere.
@AtheistDaddy So who would you rather have become king of the janitors? The guy who asks for the best mop in case he ends up with one but does everything he can to prevent the company from buying unneeded mops for anyone. Or, the guy with friends at the baby cranked mop company who's always coming up with new and shady ways to funnel more baby cranked mops into the budget while claiming to be a christian conservative?
@granolanutpunch Neither. The dilemma, pointed out in this video, is that Dr. Paul says one thing and does another. His self-righteous rhetoric is simply that, rhetoric. He is wrong on several fronts. However, this video talks about his earmarks strategy. This strategy I find to be dishonest. If you place requests on spending then vote against the bill yet know it will pass you are taking absolutely no risk.Paul can trumpet his record of NO while those who vote for him get paid.
@AtheistDaddy So I take it you're just never going to vote since there's never been a completely perfect politician to run for any office?
Someones going to get elected and while I would love for that person to be flawless, reality sets in at a certain point.
I'd rather see a man who's against the NDAA (Obama's unforgivable sin) TARP and other bailouts, and who has the balls to talk to the republicans about industrial hemp and cutting military spending.
@granolanutpunch Of course I vote. I only discuss earmarks here because that is the topic of this video. There are a myriad of reasons why I would not vote for Dr. Paul. His earmark chicanery among them.
I too am against the NDAA (and support military cuts) but a vote for Paul would be throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
@AtheistDaddy While not the best way to protest govt. spending, if the executive branch has already made the decision to throw $10 billion dollars of taxpayer cash into the air for congress to fight over, It's pretty hard to blame the guy for grabbing as much as he can for his district.
@granolanutpunch I may not have communicated my point well enough.
Dr. Paul does not merely receive Federal monies he asks (begs?) for it. His district has quadrupled it's federal money intake since 1999. He then (after asking for money by writing in specific earmarks to benefit those who vote for him) he votes against the bill and claims he doesn't support earmarks. The dilemma is his NO vote on bills he personally adds expenditures to when knowing they will pass.
@granolanutpunch I may not have communicated my point well enough.
Dr. Paul does not merely receive Federal monies he asks (begs?) for it. His district has quadrupled it's federal money intake since 1999. He then (after asking for money by writing in specific earmarks to benefit those who vote for him) he votes against the bill and claims he doesn't support earmarks. The dilemma is his NO vote on bills he personally adds expenditures to when knowing they will pass.
@AtheistDaddy It just amazes me whenever earmarks come up as an attack against ANY politician when total annual earmark expenditures are 4% of what we spend on the military each year.
Atheist, what don't you get? He is against the earmark process all together, but since he is in the minority and knows that the bill will get accepted anyways, he tries to get back as much of his districts money as possible! so voting for the bills=bad, bills will get passed anyways, earmark to get as much of our money back so people that earmark as a sport dont get it...I see no problem there.
Nobody in America knew about the Holocaust. The U.S. entered WWII when it was attacked at Pearl Harbor and Congress subsequently declared War, just as Paul advocates should be done according to the Constitution. If you want to draw comparisons with Hitler, you should look closely at our current leadership. They are democratically elected also, and invading foreign countries illegally and unconstitutionally, under the same pretenses that Hitler used when he invaded Poland.
I am working actively towards a Ron Paul defeat, and do not think he is a wise choice at this particular time in history, not with his naive approach to Islam.
Having said that, I never bring up the issue of earmarks against the Rongoloid because he is absolutely right in what he does.
He doesn't write or support the spending bill, and votes against it. But if it flies through his constituents benefit. That is smart and not against principle. I would do the same.
@BertWeidermeyer I appreciate your clear sight and honesty. In regards to his 'approach to Islam', can I assume that specifically you oppose his non-interventionist foreign policy? You seem like an intelligent man, so I'm curious, aren't you concerned that our current policy is fiscally irresponsible? Our country is on the verge of bankruptcy, which is a bigger threat to our security then all of our "enemies" combined.
I absolutely am concerned with runaway spending. A full throttled approach & a blank check for the Pentagon has to end.
Ron Paul is not that answer because he is full throttled in the opposite direction. He's said he wouldn't have intervened after learning of the holocaust. He said Iran can blockade the Strait of Hormuz, obtain a nuclear weapon and that Hamas is a democratically elected government so we should keep our noses out. Hitler was democratically elected too. Ron is nuts.
@BertWeidermeyer If we would actually drill our own oil reserves, like Ron Paul is in support of, Iran could blockade the Strait of Hormuz until they were blue in the face and it wouldn't affect us one bit.
@davidmesaanz And Schumer/Michigan voted FOR TARP/bailouts. Paul has voted against every one of these spending bills, even all of the ones with his earmarks. I think everyone is really missing the point here and getting hung up on an extremely unimportant issue. The spending bills just need to stop. It's ridiculous.
@davidmesaaz But you're missing the point entirely, which is an earmark doesn't appropriate additional funds. It directs the funds from a spending bill that would otherwise fall into the indiscriminate hands of a bureaucrat and whose use would be decided behind closed doors. If a spending bill is going to get passed, it makes sense for representatives to direct the money to their district. And besides, any spending bill Paul has earmarked he has voted against.
It takes a real dullard to be unable to see how returning money to YOUR DISTRICT in a spending bill is a bad thing. A real dullard. Especially when our spend-crazy Congress will likely pass the bill. It's so basic and makes perfect sense and if you think it's hypocritical, then I'm sorry but you're just not smart. Not at all.
@navsquid32 Chuck Schumer sent money home to his district when he voted for TARP and Michigan Congressional delegation sent money home when they voted for the auto bailout.. By the same logic Ron Paul can "send money home" to the shrimp industry which he does. this misses the larger question which is not whether or not he send money home what what does request money for? RP requests public dollars for private companies = earmarks. So don't lecture me on how smart you are.
Regardless of idiots feeble attempts to smear Ron Paul, they just can't do it. They keep trying, but......wait....what just happened...oh yeah, he's now surged to the #1 candidate in Iowa, arguably the most important caucus for the primaries where 2 out of 3 of the Iowa caucus winners went on to win the primaries. Ron Paul is the only chance America has to get out of the death spiral we're in right now and people know it and that is why he is winning in every poll. Ron Paul for President 2012.
Ron Paul you are a fucking liar. It's pretty easy to say that you "never voted for an earmark" when you load up bills you know are going to pass by an overwhelming and vote no just so you can say "I never voted for an earmark."
I know exactly how earmarks work. But RP cock smokes like you will sit and act like what he's doing totally fine and perfectly ok but when someone like Nancy Pelosi or Mike Rogers does it suddenly their the spawn of Satan. But unlike RP at least congressman Rogers and congresswoman Pelosi will stand behind their earmarks and not try to game the system by loading up bills they know are going to pass and vote against them so they can "I didn't support that."
If you're opposed to earmarks you don't stick them in the bill period. If you are going to stick them in and then vote against the bill you are a hypocrite. You don't fraudulently run around putting the pork in the bill and say you're against pork.
Ron Paul HATES taxes, but if his people are being taxed anyways, the least he can do is try and give them some money back. Besides earmarks do not increase spending, it just allocates it.
I honestly do understand his view. He tries to get money back to Texans instead of sending that money to other states and having it at the disposal of the Executive branch to give where they see fit. Complicated but I do see why he does it.
Man thats BS! the guy that put the link too this video is stupid. Basically Ron is showing how messed up the system is Ron Paul 2012 Yea Babe! Yea! he's got Mojo Babe! and my vote.
@Frances3654 "If the funds aren’t earmarked, the agencies can spend the money any way they see fit. That is, the executive branch, rather than Congress, will determine how the taxpayer’s money is spent. " This is why Dr. Paul earmarks, then turns around and votes against it (transparency). That deserves a thumbs up.
Glenn Beck told his half yesterday but didn't bother telling Ron's half of the story. This is what makes Glenn so dangerous. Half and partial truths.
"We can't spend money on anything not mentioned in the Constitution"....except for when I give Texas shrimpers a $100 million earmark....but that's different....they're my constituents....
IF THE PRESIDENT I VOTE AGAINST WINS, SHOULD I STOP COLLECTING ANY BENEFITS FROM THE GOVT. JUST BECAUSE I BELIEVE THEY ARE SPENDING MY TAX DOLLARS INAPPROPRIATELY?
AN EARMARK ASSURES THE TAXPAYER SOME MONEY BACK THAT ACCRUES AS BENEFITS, BETTER THAT THAN BAILOUTS,FORIEGN AID ETC.
Ohhh it gets better, that 80mil is just the top of the ice berg, this man has slipped in over 4 billion dollars worth of porkbarrel earmarks over the years, and at the same time, he's spoken out against porkbarrel spending.
What a hypocrite, you Ron Paul cultists need to stop treating politics like religion.
@Laughingblades And he votes against the bill. Who gives a shit? Every other candidate has done much worse than "requesting" an earmark...People are reaching so far to get dirt on this man. This earmark issue is laughable and a waste of time.
@toria555 So basically the guy was stuffing bills with pork then boasted about how he never voted for an earmark when he was sitting there putting earmarks in, and rather than be honest enough to admit how disingenuous that was of Ron Paul, you're going to sit there and ignore it, lower the bar, and rationalize it.
the budget has a set amount decided before any spending proposals are shown. earmarks do not increase the budget, they actually show where taxpayer money is going, and it is actually a duty of congressman to put in earmarks. he puts them in bills to represent his people, but votes against the bills because most bills are unconstitutional or cause overspending. if he didn't earmark, the money would go to the exec. branch, where it may be spent in his district.
@acarlisl I don't care about that, Ron Paul ran for re-election on the fact that he voted against spending for his own district that he put in the bills he voted against. Also that sunken ship and his shrimping buddies was clearly pork, it's no different from the special project earmarks governors of other districts slipped in, and he tried to smooth talk his way out of coming clean until Tim Russert pinned him down, he never denied that he was a porker, & he never denied the kickbacks
@toria555 He's never said he doesn't earmark. EVERY congressmen earmarks & they should. It's a way for the congressman to bring some of the hard earn tax dollars of their constituents back to thatdistrict. You really should look up earmarks they are not the terrible thing that everyone thinks they are, its already allocated money, if they were bad I'm sure his earmarkis would come up more. I wish my Congressman earmarked more, but the politicians in IL are some of the dumbest in the nation.
he snuck earmarks into bills he knew would pass and voted against them to preserve his voting record. It's a con. You Ron Paul supporters are stupid for defending this.
HE VOTED AGAINST SPENDING MONEY THROUGH A CERTAIN CHANNEL DOES NOT DISQUALIFY HIM TO CLAIM HIS SHARE FOR HIS PEOPLE FROM THAT CHANNEL, THATS HIS RIGHTFUL DUTY IF HE CANNOT CONTROL THE OUTCOME OF THE VOTE
@ashwadhwani Thanks for defending the hypocrisy of a man who swindled nearly 80,000,000 some of which was never accounted for and a third of which funded the outsourcing of jobs at the docks while another third went to overfishing shrim that weren't properly safety tested out of the Gulf BP recently flooded with oil :)
@Nikilwig Just watch his commercials for his re-election runs before it got exposed on live television by Tim Russert, and if other politicians aren't running on voting against their own pork, not they aren't doing the same thing. Ron Paul supporters seem to ignore the fact that Ron Paul ran on voting against the pork he stuffed in, and tried to weasel out of admitting to being a porker in the Tim Russert interview, he never denied being a porker after either he just justified earmarks
PEOPLE NEED TO SWITCH PARTIES 12 WEEKS IN ADVANCE OF THE PRIMARIES IN MOST STATES.
IF YOU DO NOT SWITCH IN TIME YOU CANNOT VOTE IN PRIMARY.
IF YOU ARE NOT REGISTERED REPUBLICAN YOU CANNOT VOTE IN PRIMARY.
IF RON PAUL DOES NOT WIN PRIMARY, NO GENERAL ELECTION ! REGISTER AS A REPUBLICAN. FIND OUT WHEN YOUR STATE HAS PRIMARIES. FIND OUT WHERE AND VOTE VOTE VOTE ! PLEASE !
WE NEED EVERY LAST VOTE ! Copy and paste this everywhere
JOIN REPUBLICAN 12 WEEKS IN ADVANCE OF THESE PRIMARY DATES
SO YOU ARE ELIGABLE TO VOTE FOR RON PAUL
Jan 10 NH. Jan 21 SC. Jan 31 FL. Feb 28 AZ, MI. Mar 6 GA, MA, OK, TN, TX, VT, VA. Mar 13 AL, MI. Mar 20 IL. Mar 24 LA. Apr 3 MD, Washington, D.C., WI. Apr 24 CN, DE, NY, PA, RI. May 8 IN, NC, WV. May 15 NB, OR. May 22 AR, KY. June 5 CA, MN, NJ, NM, SD. June 12 OH, UT.
One would think this video would have more views then a little over 8k... this is from 07... LOL this is the only thing so far I needed to look up - but he clarifies his position very well... quick and to the point. It's funny that people still attempt to knock the internet as a place to get news/info. It's amazing how backwards that is! I mean... would you rather eat or wait on someone else to feed you?
If we nationalize washing machines, they will be the first to come and scream "see, you libertarians cannot survive without governmet, you are using government washing mashines"
We are just playing by the rules, just like you told us, until we can get this mess fixed. Don't you want to fix the problems of the war and endless currency inflation?
Exactly, people are emphasizing the wrong things. We are responsible for trying to get our money back. I don't agree with non-libertarian Ayn Rand on everything, but she was somewhat of fan of austrian economics, I remember reading the same philosophy from her decades ago. This is consistent with our beliefs. She went as far as to say that the only people who can justify getting welfare are those opposed to the system. ;-) Paul remains consistent!
Ron Paul 2012! Ron Paul 2012! Ron Paul 2012! Ron Paul 2012! Ron Paul 2012! Ron Paul 2012! Ron Paul 2012! Ron Paul 2012! Ron Paul 2012! Ron Paul 2012! Ron Paul 2012! Ron Paul 2012!
He requests earmarks...$400 million in 2007 alone....then plays the good guy saying he does not vote for earmarks....con man politician and spineless supporting our allies.
After watching the video, I understand where Ron Paul was getting at back then. Since the money has been spent already, he had to ask for the earmarks and tax credits to assure that the already-spent money was heading toward his district. Had he refused them, all of that spent money would have been left at the hands of the President.
The money is going to be spent anyway-ALL of it. Either the executive branch gets to decide on what - or congress does. Ron Paul says congress should decide like the constitution says.
2) But he still believes that the amount of spending is too high and unconstitutional as well. So he simply votes against it, like he would any unconstitutional spending.
Let's put it another way. The air is polluted and we really should clean it up. Until then, would you stop breathing? This is our system.
@kangalanatolian Its a poor excuse and flimsy justification to say If I don't act badly and spend money the executive branch will... When caught acting badly he replies well I don't like it but everyone is doing it...
@urrejhipokritet He is a legislator and unlike the draft or public schools he is not required by law to participate on the earmarking process. He is not required by law to request public dollars for private businesses. Ron Paul is like a lot of other politicians who say one thing but act another way.
I think people are confused. He is elected by the people and for the people. It is his job to do as much as he can for his district. If congress is going to pass a massive spending bill he better be trying to get some of his voters tax money back to them.
He's fighting to keep Texas taxpayer money in Texas through a broken system. Earmarking keeps Texan taxpayer money from just going directly to the Executive Branch where they can decide where it will all be spent. He usually brings back a pretty good portion to be allocated to projects within the state rather than to our militaristic foreign intervention and federal umbrella programs.
LOL. that is a pretty good game Paul has going, fight to get earmarks for his district in bills that he know will pass without his vote so that he can safely vote no and tell his followers that he is against big gov spending. haha He can get his pork that way fighting to get it in and then blame others for it since he so sanctimoniously voted against a bill that he knew would pass without his vote.
@craigles1968 Your analogy doesn't fit. Not even close. If you can't do better than this, you really shouldn't even have formed an opinion on the subject.
Please work things out logically in your mind before you jump to conclusions. Being a free-thinking individual is far more fulfilling than being an ignorant chum.
@craigles1968 Did you even watch the clip? If his explanation doesn't make sense to you, then I don't know what to tell you. His constituents pay tax money. He does what he can to keep the money his constituents pay into the system by bringing it back into his district to be spent on local projects. He doesn't like the system, but like he says, it's similar to paying social security - we all know it's a bad system, but we still want our checks because we already paid into it.
@mrmailmandudebro for those of you Ron Paul zombies here is a list of his latest eramarks please explain how Vanadium Safety Readiness is giving back to the people of his district. The defense is ridiculous at face value but if you look at his earmarks it becomes a lie.
@mcb209 the list didn't appear because you tube won't let me link it. Sorry you had to google it. Obviously you found it and are aware that these research bucks are NOT going to TX and so Ron Paul's weak excuse for pork barreling fails. It's not even pork barrel for Texans which seems to be okay for Ron.
@jwmellott --Earmarks are complicated, but as I understand it money is set aside to spend. States vie for that money. If money isn't spent, then Obama gets to spend it any way he wishes. Dr. Paul is just trying to prevent him from getting a "blank check. I agree with Dr. Paul on that! Congress should spend money, not the President.
I get what he's saying and at least he answered it straight up and didn't try to dance around it. It's like saying you want the fair tax, but you still pay the income tax to be lawful.
Ron Paul doesnt believe we *SHOULDN'T* be spending that money in the first place (why he votes against the bill). But he is pragmatic enough to know that if the bill will be passed, he wants the money going back to the people, and he wants it specifically listed how this money is to be spent. But honestly earmarks dwarf the real spending issues, and this controversy just diverts attention from the important issues Ron Paul raises
Ron Paul doesnt believe we should be spending that money in the first place (why he votes against the bill). But he is pragmatic enough to know that if the bill will be passed, he wants the money going back to the people, and he wants it specifically listed how this money is to be spent. But honestly earmarks dwarf the real spending issues, and this controversy just diverts attention from the important issues Ron Paul raises
Basically he's saying that the purpose of requesting earmarks is to tie up money so it doesn't go the the President to be spent at his discretion. Instead it goes to things the people decide it should.
An earmark is a congressional provision that directs fed. agencies to spend funds ALREADY AUTHORIZED on specific projects. If the funds arent earmarked, the agencies can spend the money any way they see fit. That is, the executive branch, rather than Congress, will determine how the taxpayers money is spent.
It is ALREADY SPENT. RP is DIRECTING money that is ALREADY SPENT towards his own district.
And he votes against it, anyway, because he principally opposes federal spending in this manner.
Matt, I don't agree with Ron Paul on everything, but I certainly feel that he deserves more respect than all the other Republicans combined. He's the ONLY Republican deserving of my respect. He's the real deal, what you see is what you get. Call that crazy all you want, if it takes a crazy person to be able to be consistent in Government, than we need more crazy people in Washington.
"To vote against an earmark doesn't cut any spending."
Then why not put in an earmark for something helpful?
Why not, instead of asking for $26 million or so for the Washington, DC school system, which Paul did, and giving it back to to the people who paid those taxes?
You make a great point, and this is what paul does for his district. We have a representitive government in which we elect a representitive to that position for a districts wants, needs, agendas. Paul understands this but takes into account what the roll of the government should be. Earmarks are talked about but no on understands them. Paul says it right.
Earmarked money exists for every district. You take the money or it goes to executive to spend. Therefore, he brings the money to his district. He doesn't suggest additional spending.
There is nothing wrong with receiving money for roads and other constitutionally defined federal funding uses but he receives corporate welfare for his district. Money for the shrimp industry for restoring privately owned movie theaters.
Save the blimp! It needs your donation right now or it will be on the ground by the end of the day. This blimp has attracted a lot of attention, so let's keep it in the air! :)
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Wall Street Journal
Ron Paul's Earmarks
August 6, 2007
After reporters started asking questions, the Congressman disclosed his requests this year for about $400 million worth of federal funding for no fewer than 65 earmarks. They include such urgent national wartime priorities as an $8 million request for the marketing of wild American shrimp and $2.3 million to fund shrimp-fishing research
davidmesaaz: oh look you've actually already seen this video and still you continue with your useless blather. It's not just that you disagree with his position but you distort the facts and make it seem as if he votes for spending bills.
Distorts the facts? Ron Paul's intellectual gymnastics are pure orwellian double speak.
He says that attacks earmarks aren't bad then he says that he never votes for earmarks. If there is nothing wrong with them why doesn't he vote for them?
He requests for pork it gets in bill then he votes against it. Its a have your cake and eat it too type deal. Its a smart political deal he is working the system. He knows that most but not all congressmen have not problem voting for pork so he puts it in then votes against it. He knows how to work the system.
Look its not about getting money from the federal government. That is totally not the issue at stake. The issue at stake is how we distribute money. Earmarks are the worst way of doing it. Also its not how much money is "given back" Its what the money "given" for (its not given its our money to begin with)For some one who says they believe in "limited government" He cries about the corporate welfare then the corporations and industries such as the shrimp industry and he supports it.
it gets money back that that was taken from his district. If he does not, than Prez Bush gets to decide how that money is spent instead. which RP thinks is wrong, it should be up to congress (also, RP does not think Prez Bush is good w/money) He supports frwrding the requests district that funds the federal government has ALREADY taken from them and designated to be returned to his district.
Sort of how he will not deny ppl their S.S.check but he is ultimately against Social Security
That might be the worst answer Ron Paul's ever given. Earmarks are a despicable form of Washington corruption, basically stealing money to give to one's own district. That is why Barack Obama has introduced legislation to make earmarks 100% transparent: to expose the corruption of the congresspeople who use them.
The fact that Ron Paul can form a coherent sentence does not necessarily mean that he makes sense.
Ron Paul makes more sense than Obama. Barack has almost 300 bundlers gathering money for him. Just because they stand behind good bills doesn't make them honest. Ron Paul cuts waste, like the Department of Energy, the Department of Education, and the war in Iraq. It makes his earmarks (that he votes against) seem like a drop in the bucket.
In an ideal world, Paul says, there wouldn't be a federal income tax. But since there is, he says, he feels a responsibility to help his constituents recover some of the tax dollars the government has taken from them. "I don't want them [the government] to take it," he says, "but if they do take it, I'd just as soon help my constituents get it back." --if they paid taxes and didnt get anythign back, then they would basically be funding programs for other districts.
WELL has Barak Obama ever voted for an earmark..Its hard to talk about Barak Obama's record since he's only been in congress for a couple of years so you don't know where he would stand on those votes...But if a man like Barak Obama only voted a little bit more than half the time since voted into office doesn't add to his reasoning that he's not naive and strong on his positions when he's barely there to vote
I support ron paul 100% because I understand everything that he does and why he does it. I showed this video to a romney supporter trying to get him to understand and he just thought it was romney food. So frustrating. I felt like a special needs teacher among these people.
AbsoluteClarity880 1 month ago 5
His argument makes no sense. If he believes his request for an earmark is legitimate, then so too should be voting for the earmark.
GoSolar 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@GoSolar So should he ignore the money alloted for his district and let the the government spend it elsewhere? You forget that the money is going to be spent no matter what. Not using it would be, for lack of a better word, retarded.
The top comment hits the nail on the head: "It is sort of like saying 'I am shocked that I caught you filling out your income tax form', I thought that you opposed income tax."
87webdev 1 month ago
@GoSolar not necessarily because the bill on the whole then becomes unbalanced and unpaid for from all the other amendments/earmarks from other congressmen.
synanthony 1 month ago
@synanthony Sorry, that sounds like a load of BS. Dr. Paul doesn't vote for bills he has placed earmarks in so he can keep an ideologically clean voting record. He knows the bills will pass but he can stand up and say "Look at me I am against Federal spending!" It is the classic shill game.
AtheistDaddy 2 weeks ago
@AtheistDaddy
Whats wrong with this method?
He is against the bill and thinks it shouldn't get through - so he vetos it. For the case it passes regardless, he thinks the people in his district should get as much of their money back as all the other folks. The more money they have locally, the less has the fed. gov. - and local g. (while not perfect at all) is still superior to federal g. in Ron Pauls view.
Doesn't sound "like a load of BS" to me.
d4n4nable 2 weeks ago
@d4n4nable He thinks people should get federal money yet he votes against the people in his district getting federal money. How does this seem reasonable at all? He does this so he can grandstand while the people in his district get millions upon millions of taxpayer dollars.
AtheistDaddy 2 weeks ago
@AtheistDaddy You missed what he said. Listen to it again.
TheSWTORMMO 2 weeks ago
@TheSWTORMMO He does exactly what I describe. He grandstands that he has never voted for an earmark. However, he has personally added millions upon millions of dollars, in earmarks, to bills. He is guided by ideology (why he NO votes) yet he must ask for Federal monies because he has people within his district, he represents, he feels are in need of roads, bridges, grants, etc...
AtheistDaddy 2 weeks ago
@AtheistDaddy It's not "grandstanding," it's being principled, you should distinguish between the two immediately. And yes, he does ask for Federal money because they tax his district up the ass. Of COURSE he would ask for some of that money back so it could be spent in his state, not squandered at the federal level on endless wars and stimuli. Get with the program, you obviously haven't objectively thought about this at all.
TheSWTORMMO 2 weeks ago
@TheSWTORMMO Dr. Paul asks for Federal money by actually writing earmarks (which he opposes) into bills. He then votes against the same bills he wrote earmarks into. He then grandstands by promoting his NO record for voting for earmarks. This isn't principal this is nonsense.
He knows the money will come to his constituents, therefore, he is safely voting no. He receives millions upon millions of dollars, like other Congressmen/women but he's the guy with principal? Really? lol
AtheistDaddy 2 weeks ago
@AtheistDaddy It appears that you have no idea how earmarking works, or Ron Paul's stance on earmarking. No point in having a discussion with you if that's the case.
TheSWTORMMO 2 weeks ago
@TheSWTORMMO Right, If anyone criticizes Allah Ron Paul they must be ignorant of Freedom, Constitution, Liberty or all 3! Too funny.
No worries though he won't get the GOP nod anyway. You get to have Mitt or Santorum. Enjoy!
AtheistDaddy 2 weeks ago
@AtheistDaddy There you go with your ignorance again.
TheSWTORMMO 1 week ago
@TheSWTORMMO Ignorance? It was your messiah who was quoted with the following. "...I think it's a theory — the theory of evolution. And I don't accept it, you know, as a theory." -- Ron Paul 2007
Ignorance seems to be your #1 trait in a candidate.
AtheistDaddy 1 week ago
@AtheistDaddy What he chooses to accept involving evolution has absolutely no impact on his libertarian ideas. Again, your ignorance is astounding. Now you're just bringing up random shit that has nothing to do with the discussion - a sign of desperation.
TheSWTORMMO 1 week ago
@TheSWTORMMO You got me Star Wars, I'm desperate. Non-practicing Dr. Paul is a nut.
He personally writes earmarks into bills relying on other members of Congress to vote YAY so his constituents get money for federal projects. Then he votes NO and calls it principal. He is a con-man.
I wish he would get the GOP nod so these discussions could actually play out on a national level. He won't, sadly, so I have to continue discussing his lunacy with people that play MMO's...
AtheistDaddy 1 week ago
@AtheistDaddy You'll come around one day, it may take years, but you'll break through your ignorance.
TheSWTORMMO 1 week ago
@AtheistDaddy Blaming Paul for earmarks is a little like blaming a janitor for asking for the best mop money can buy to be paid for with the janitorial budget that's already been set aside in a corporations budget.
Getting that mop or not, the budgetary allocation is the same and it's up to management to decide whether or not the janitors are taking advantage of the system and wasting money that is needed elsewhere.
granolanutpunch 1 week ago
@granolanutpunch For your analogy to hold true we need more actions from said janitor.
1. The Janitor must claim mops (of any sort) are unconstitutional and cause the downfall of the company he works for.
2. The Janitor must personally write expenditures for mops into the companies budget.
3. He must then vote against the budget he helped write.
4. He must then go on TV/Web/Radio claiming a victory for liberty and point out he never voted for spending money on mops!
NO on mops!
AtheistDaddy 1 week ago
@AtheistDaddy So who would you rather have become king of the janitors? The guy who asks for the best mop in case he ends up with one but does everything he can to prevent the company from buying unneeded mops for anyone. Or, the guy with friends at the baby cranked mop company who's always coming up with new and shady ways to funnel more baby cranked mops into the budget while claiming to be a christian conservative?
granolanutpunch 1 week ago
@granolanutpunch Neither. The dilemma, pointed out in this video, is that Dr. Paul says one thing and does another. His self-righteous rhetoric is simply that, rhetoric. He is wrong on several fronts. However, this video talks about his earmarks strategy. This strategy I find to be dishonest. If you place requests on spending then vote against the bill yet know it will pass you are taking absolutely no risk.Paul can trumpet his record of NO while those who vote for him get paid.
AtheistDaddy 1 week ago
@AtheistDaddy So I take it you're just never going to vote since there's never been a completely perfect politician to run for any office?
Someones going to get elected and while I would love for that person to be flawless, reality sets in at a certain point.
I'd rather see a man who's against the NDAA (Obama's unforgivable sin) TARP and other bailouts, and who has the balls to talk to the republicans about industrial hemp and cutting military spending.
granolanutpunch 1 week ago
@granolanutpunch Of course I vote. I only discuss earmarks here because that is the topic of this video. There are a myriad of reasons why I would not vote for Dr. Paul. His earmark chicanery among them.
I too am against the NDAA (and support military cuts) but a vote for Paul would be throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
AtheistDaddy 1 week ago
@AtheistDaddy While not the best way to protest govt. spending, if the executive branch has already made the decision to throw $10 billion dollars of taxpayer cash into the air for congress to fight over, It's pretty hard to blame the guy for grabbing as much as he can for his district.
granolanutpunch 1 week ago
@granolanutpunch I may not have communicated my point well enough.
Dr. Paul does not merely receive Federal monies he asks (begs?) for it. His district has quadrupled it's federal money intake since 1999. He then (after asking for money by writing in specific earmarks to benefit those who vote for him) he votes against the bill and claims he doesn't support earmarks. The dilemma is his NO vote on bills he personally adds expenditures to when knowing they will pass.
AtheistDaddy 1 week ago
@granolanutpunch I may not have communicated my point well enough.
Dr. Paul does not merely receive Federal monies he asks (begs?) for it. His district has quadrupled it's federal money intake since 1999. He then (after asking for money by writing in specific earmarks to benefit those who vote for him) he votes against the bill and claims he doesn't support earmarks. The dilemma is his NO vote on bills he personally adds expenditures to when knowing they will pass.
AtheistDaddy 1 week ago
@AtheistDaddy It just amazes me whenever earmarks come up as an attack against ANY politician when total annual earmark expenditures are 4% of what we spend on the military each year.
granolanutpunch 1 week ago
@AtheistDaddy
Atheist, what don't you get? He is against the earmark process all together, but since he is in the minority and knows that the bill will get accepted anyways, he tries to get back as much of his districts money as possible! so voting for the bills=bad, bills will get passed anyways, earmark to get as much of our money back so people that earmark as a sport dont get it...I see no problem there.
blackjack6625 6 days ago
Nobody in America knew about the Holocaust. The U.S. entered WWII when it was attacked at Pearl Harbor and Congress subsequently declared War, just as Paul advocates should be done according to the Constitution. If you want to draw comparisons with Hitler, you should look closely at our current leadership. They are democratically elected also, and invading foreign countries illegally and unconstitutionally, under the same pretenses that Hitler used when he invaded Poland.
LT51 2 months ago
I am working actively towards a Ron Paul defeat, and do not think he is a wise choice at this particular time in history, not with his naive approach to Islam.
Having said that, I never bring up the issue of earmarks against the Rongoloid because he is absolutely right in what he does.
He doesn't write or support the spending bill, and votes against it. But if it flies through his constituents benefit. That is smart and not against principle. I would do the same.
BertWeidermeyer 2 months ago
@BertWeidermeyer I appreciate your clear sight and honesty. In regards to his 'approach to Islam', can I assume that specifically you oppose his non-interventionist foreign policy? You seem like an intelligent man, so I'm curious, aren't you concerned that our current policy is fiscally irresponsible? Our country is on the verge of bankruptcy, which is a bigger threat to our security then all of our "enemies" combined.
LT51 2 months ago
@LT51
I absolutely am concerned with runaway spending. A full throttled approach & a blank check for the Pentagon has to end.
Ron Paul is not that answer because he is full throttled in the opposite direction. He's said he wouldn't have intervened after learning of the holocaust. He said Iran can blockade the Strait of Hormuz, obtain a nuclear weapon and that Hamas is a democratically elected government so we should keep our noses out. Hitler was democratically elected too. Ron is nuts.
BertWeidermeyer 2 months ago
@BertWeidermeyer If we would actually drill our own oil reserves, like Ron Paul is in support of, Iran could blockade the Strait of Hormuz until they were blue in the face and it wouldn't affect us one bit.
DrNordo 1 month ago
@davidmesaanz And Schumer/Michigan voted FOR TARP/bailouts. Paul has voted against every one of these spending bills, even all of the ones with his earmarks. I think everyone is really missing the point here and getting hung up on an extremely unimportant issue. The spending bills just need to stop. It's ridiculous.
navsquid32 2 months ago
@davidmesaaz But you're missing the point entirely, which is an earmark doesn't appropriate additional funds. It directs the funds from a spending bill that would otherwise fall into the indiscriminate hands of a bureaucrat and whose use would be decided behind closed doors. If a spending bill is going to get passed, it makes sense for representatives to direct the money to their district. And besides, any spending bill Paul has earmarked he has voted against.
navsquid32 2 months ago
What a hypocritical lying sack of Paulitical excrement. And you freaks fall for this line of bs, piteous indeed.
malagaent 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Is that code for "do as I say, not as i do"?
JewsWillRuleTheWorld 2 months ago
It takes a real dullard to be unable to see how returning money to YOUR DISTRICT in a spending bill is a bad thing. A real dullard. Especially when our spend-crazy Congress will likely pass the bill. It's so basic and makes perfect sense and if you think it's hypocritical, then I'm sorry but you're just not smart. Not at all.
navsquid32 2 months ago
@navsquid32 Chuck Schumer sent money home to his district when he voted for TARP and Michigan Congressional delegation sent money home when they voted for the auto bailout.. By the same logic Ron Paul can "send money home" to the shrimp industry which he does. this misses the larger question which is not whether or not he send money home what what does request money for? RP requests public dollars for private companies = earmarks. So don't lecture me on how smart you are.
davidmesaaz 2 months ago
Regardless of idiots feeble attempts to smear Ron Paul, they just can't do it. They keep trying, but......wait....what just happened...oh yeah, he's now surged to the #1 candidate in Iowa, arguably the most important caucus for the primaries where 2 out of 3 of the Iowa caucus winners went on to win the primaries. Ron Paul is the only chance America has to get out of the death spiral we're in right now and people know it and that is why he is winning in every poll. Ron Paul for President 2012.
gaddiswfg 2 months ago
Ron Paul you are a fucking liar. It's pretty easy to say that you "never voted for an earmark" when you load up bills you know are going to pass by an overwhelming and vote no just so you can say "I never voted for an earmark."
sakonhagakure 2 months ago
@sakonhagakure
WOW, DUMBASS... You still dont realize how earmarks work!!!! Get a clue
drshlotzkin 2 months ago
@drshlotzkin
I know exactly how earmarks work. But RP cock smokes like you will sit and act like what he's doing totally fine and perfectly ok but when someone like Nancy Pelosi or Mike Rogers does it suddenly their the spawn of Satan. But unlike RP at least congressman Rogers and congresswoman Pelosi will stand behind their earmarks and not try to game the system by loading up bills they know are going to pass and vote against them so they can "I didn't support that."
sakonhagakure 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
If you're opposed to earmarks you don't stick them in the bill period. If you are going to stick them in and then vote against the bill you are a hypocrite. You don't fraudulently run around putting the pork in the bill and say you're against pork.
schope73 2 months ago
Comment removed
schope73 2 months ago
Ron Paul HATES taxes, but if his people are being taxed anyways, the least he can do is try and give them some money back. Besides earmarks do not increase spending, it just allocates it.
gregor5434 2 months ago 18
@gregor5434 doesn't mean that he ain't a hypo-crite!
androydnyc 2 months ago
Mud slinging hypocrite...
shawndunn1 2 months ago
I honestly do understand his view. He tries to get money back to Texans instead of sending that money to other states and having it at the disposal of the Executive branch to give where they see fit. Complicated but I do see why he does it.
mojoeshaw 2 months ago
The guy asking the question thought he had Ron so pegged... haha...
CerpinTaxt37 2 months ago
lots of double talk
shawndunn1 2 months ago
@shawndunn1
Double-talk?
HA...
You don't understand the system. So do yourself a favor and educate yourself.
rzrsk8rm 2 months ago 2
@rzrsk8rm O I understand the system, and I understand RP is a mud-slinging hypocrite.
shawndunn1 2 months ago
that is not an answer. You are a politician, that is what your constituents want. Be honest. It's OK!!! We understand
markjamesnelson 2 months ago
Man thats BS! the guy that put the link too this video is stupid. Basically Ron is showing how messed up the system is Ron Paul 2012 Yea Babe! Yea! he's got Mojo Babe! and my vote.
dhellbilly 2 months ago 3
Well, if "earmarks" are the worst anyone can say about Ron Paul, he's got my vote.
Neoamore 2 months ago 34
This has been flagged as spam show
If any other Congressman had said this, he would have been thumbed down to death.
Frances3654 3 months ago
If any other Congressman had said this, he would have been thumbed downed to death.
Frances3654 3 months ago
@Frances3654 "If the funds aren’t earmarked, the agencies can spend the money any way they see fit. That is, the executive branch, rather than Congress, will determine how the taxpayer’s money is spent. " This is why Dr. Paul earmarks, then turns around and votes against it (transparency). That deserves a thumbs up.
Glenn Beck told his half yesterday but didn't bother telling Ron's half of the story. This is what makes Glenn so dangerous. Half and partial truths.
EndTheFedRes 3 months ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
@EndTheFedRes
Is that code for "do as I say, not as i do?"
Frances3654 2 months ago
"We can't spend money on anything not mentioned in the Constitution"....except for when I give Texas shrimpers a $100 million earmark....but that's different....they're my constituents....
bronxbearbud 3 months ago
IF THE PRESIDENT I VOTE AGAINST WINS, SHOULD I STOP COLLECTING ANY BENEFITS FROM THE GOVT. JUST BECAUSE I BELIEVE THEY ARE SPENDING MY TAX DOLLARS INAPPROPRIATELY?
AN EARMARK ASSURES THE TAXPAYER SOME MONEY BACK THAT ACCRUES AS BENEFITS, BETTER THAT THAN BAILOUTS,FORIEGN AID ETC.
ashwadhwani 3 months ago
Ohhh it gets better, that 80mil is just the top of the ice berg, this man has slipped in over 4 billion dollars worth of porkbarrel earmarks over the years, and at the same time, he's spoken out against porkbarrel spending.
What a hypocrite, you Ron Paul cultists need to stop treating politics like religion.
Laughingblades 3 months ago
@Laughingblades And he votes against the bill. Who gives a shit? Every other candidate has done much worse than "requesting" an earmark...People are reaching so far to get dirt on this man. This earmark issue is laughable and a waste of time.
toria555 3 months ago
@toria555 So basically the guy was stuffing bills with pork then boasted about how he never voted for an earmark when he was sitting there putting earmarks in, and rather than be honest enough to admit how disingenuous that was of Ron Paul, you're going to sit there and ignore it, lower the bar, and rationalize it.
Laughingblades 3 months ago
@Laughingblades
the budget has a set amount decided before any spending proposals are shown. earmarks do not increase the budget, they actually show where taxpayer money is going, and it is actually a duty of congressman to put in earmarks. he puts them in bills to represent his people, but votes against the bills because most bills are unconstitutional or cause overspending. if he didn't earmark, the money would go to the exec. branch, where it may be spent in his district.
acarlisl 3 months ago
@acarlisl I don't care about that, Ron Paul ran for re-election on the fact that he voted against spending for his own district that he put in the bills he voted against. Also that sunken ship and his shrimping buddies was clearly pork, it's no different from the special project earmarks governors of other districts slipped in, and he tried to smooth talk his way out of coming clean until Tim Russert pinned him down, he never denied that he was a porker, & he never denied the kickbacks
Laughingblades 3 months ago
@toria555 He's never said he doesn't earmark. EVERY congressmen earmarks & they should. It's a way for the congressman to bring some of the hard earn tax dollars of their constituents back to thatdistrict. You really should look up earmarks they are not the terrible thing that everyone thinks they are, its already allocated money, if they were bad I'm sure his earmarkis would come up more. I wish my Congressman earmarked more, but the politicians in IL are some of the dumbest in the nation.
toria555 3 months ago
he snuck earmarks into bills he knew would pass and voted against them to preserve his voting record. It's a con. You Ron Paul supporters are stupid for defending this.
Laughingblades 3 months ago
@Laughingblades How many times are you gonna write the same stupid thing under the same video? Go troll somewhere else.
toria555 3 months ago
HE VOTED AGAINST SPENDING MONEY THROUGH A CERTAIN CHANNEL DOES NOT DISQUALIFY HIM TO CLAIM HIS SHARE FOR HIS PEOPLE FROM THAT CHANNEL, THATS HIS RIGHTFUL DUTY IF HE CANNOT CONTROL THE OUTCOME OF THE VOTE
WORLD WATCHES ON
♥ INDIA SUPPORTS RON PAUL ♥
ashwadhwani 3 months ago 2
@ashwadhwani I love how you pliable sheep defend his hypocrisy. You're like a cult.
Laughingblades 3 months ago
@Laughingblades NICE LOGIC, THANKS FOR CARING
ashwadhwani 3 months ago
@ashwadhwani Thanks for defending the hypocrisy of a man who swindled nearly 80,000,000 some of which was never accounted for and a third of which funded the outsourcing of jobs at the docks while another third went to overfishing shrim that weren't properly safety tested out of the Gulf BP recently flooded with oil :)
Laughingblades 3 months ago
@Laughingblades
Could you please cite some credible proof, I am interested in seeing it. Couldn't other politicians be doing the same thing?
Nikilwig 2 months ago
@Nikilwig Just watch his commercials for his re-election runs before it got exposed on live television by Tim Russert, and if other politicians aren't running on voting against their own pork, not they aren't doing the same thing. Ron Paul supporters seem to ignore the fact that Ron Paul ran on voting against the pork he stuffed in, and tried to weasel out of admitting to being a porker in the Tim Russert interview, he never denied being a porker after either he just justified earmarks
Laughingblades 2 months ago
WORLD WATCHES ON
♥ INDIA SUPPORTS RON PAUL ♥
ashwadhwani 3 months ago
wasteful like shrimping and restoring theaters tha have been closed for 30+ years?
marlenus1969 3 months ago
God bless Ron Paul.
User100606 3 months ago
t's not enough to say "Vote Ron Paul"
PEOPLE NEED TO SWITCH PARTIES 12 WEEKS IN ADVANCE OF THE PRIMARIES IN MOST STATES.
IF YOU DO NOT SWITCH IN TIME YOU CANNOT VOTE IN PRIMARY.
IF YOU ARE NOT REGISTERED REPUBLICAN YOU CANNOT VOTE IN PRIMARY.
IF RON PAUL DOES NOT WIN PRIMARY, NO GENERAL ELECTION ! REGISTER AS A REPUBLICAN. FIND OUT WHEN YOUR STATE HAS PRIMARIES. FIND OUT WHERE AND VOTE VOTE VOTE ! PLEASE !
WE NEED EVERY LAST VOTE ! Copy and paste this everywhere
3loniust 4 months ago
@3loniust Thank you for the reminder...!
RJ
RJSoftware2000 4 months ago
JOIN REPUBLICAN 12 WEEKS IN ADVANCE OF THESE PRIMARY DATES
SO YOU ARE ELIGABLE TO VOTE FOR RON PAUL
Jan 10 NH. Jan 21 SC. Jan 31 FL. Feb 28 AZ, MI. Mar 6 GA, MA, OK, TN, TX, VT, VA. Mar 13 AL, MI. Mar 20 IL. Mar 24 LA. Apr 3 MD, Washington, D.C., WI. Apr 24 CN, DE, NY, PA, RI. May 8 IN, NC, WV. May 15 NB, OR. May 22 AR, KY. June 5 CA, MN, NJ, NM, SD. June 12 OH, UT.
Remember subtract 12 weeks from these dates..!
AND VOTE RON PAUL..!
RJSoftware2000 4 months ago
@RJSoftware2000 Thank you.
User100606 3 months ago
The better question would have been to ask what is his definition of "earmark". That would have made his answer a lot more clear.
mrtomsr 4 months ago
One would think this video would have more views then a little over 8k... this is from 07... LOL this is the only thing so far I needed to look up - but he clarifies his position very well... quick and to the point. It's funny that people still attempt to knock the internet as a place to get news/info. It's amazing how backwards that is! I mean... would you rather eat or wait on someone else to feed you?
royltytube 4 months ago
@royltytube The internet is the freest source, both in terms of liberty and availability, of news in the WORLD.
There is nothing wrong with looking up these things on the internet and getting varied videos/articles with many different points of views.
In fact, I'll argue that it makes you MORE educated than sitting in front of your TV watching the news.
Watching opinionated news/MSM on TV doesn't make you any smarter.
Reading biased newspaper articles doesn't make you any smarter.
oknowiamdead 4 months ago
@upgrade01a nice
ftpwh33 4 months ago
Comment removed
shawn3975 5 months ago
Anyone want to invest in Government Levy Futures?
upgrade01a 6 months ago
I don't remember how I ever survived before, not having the Thousands Standing Around at the LAX and other airports!
upgrade01a 6 months ago
If we nationalize washing machines, they will be the first to come and scream "see, you libertarians cannot survive without governmet, you are using government washing mashines"
upgrade01a 6 months ago
Some people are fine, when they see libertarians "following the system" as long as it involves payment toward the government.
upgrade01a 6 months ago
It is sort of like saying "I am shocked that I caught you filling out your income tax form", I thought that you opposed income tax.
upgrade01a 6 months ago 37
We are just playing by the rules, just like you told us, until we can get this mess fixed. Don't you want to fix the problems of the war and endless currency inflation?
upgrade01a 6 months ago
Hey, we didn't start the fire. We have a right to water ourselves off.
upgrade01a 6 months ago
Exactly, people are emphasizing the wrong things. We are responsible for trying to get our money back. I don't agree with non-libertarian Ayn Rand on everything, but she was somewhat of fan of austrian economics, I remember reading the same philosophy from her decades ago. This is consistent with our beliefs. She went as far as to say that the only people who can justify getting welfare are those opposed to the system. ;-) Paul remains consistent!
upgrade01a 6 months ago
Ron Paul 2012! Ron Paul 2012! Ron Paul 2012! Ron Paul 2012! Ron Paul 2012! Ron Paul 2012! Ron Paul 2012! Ron Paul 2012! Ron Paul 2012! Ron Paul 2012! Ron Paul 2012! Ron Paul 2012!
migu9999 6 months ago
He requests earmarks...$400 million in 2007 alone....then plays the good guy saying he does not vote for earmarks....con man politician and spineless supporting our allies.
noimplant4me 7 months ago
After watching the video, I understand where Ron Paul was getting at back then. Since the money has been spent already, he had to ask for the earmarks and tax credits to assure that the already-spent money was heading toward his district. Had he refused them, all of that spent money would have been left at the hands of the President.
MultiPBW 7 months ago
1)
The money is going to be spent anyway-ALL of it. Either the executive branch gets to decide on what - or congress does. Ron Paul says congress should decide like the constitution says.
2) But he still believes that the amount of spending is too high and unconstitutional as well. So he simply votes against it, like he would any unconstitutional spending.
Let's put it another way. The air is polluted and we really should clean it up. Until then, would you stop breathing? This is our system.
kangalanatolian 8 months ago 2
@kangalanatolian Its a poor excuse and flimsy justification to say If I don't act badly and spend money the executive branch will... When caught acting badly he replies well I don't like it but everyone is doing it...
davidmesaaz 7 months ago
@davidmesaaz i think you are just really stupid and are missing the point, here are 3 other made-up examples.
1. I dislike the way public education is working, but I still attend school
2. I disagree with the war in Iraq, but I was already drafted there and therefore I will fight for the USA
3. I hate chocolate cake, but I will eat it because otherwise I will have to throw it in the trash
urrejhipokritet 5 months ago
@urrejhipokritet He is a legislator and unlike the draft or public schools he is not required by law to participate on the earmarking process. He is not required by law to request public dollars for private businesses. Ron Paul is like a lot of other politicians who say one thing but act another way.
davidmesaaz 3 months ago
@davidmesaaz Herp derp derp.
TheJrv2damac 3 months ago
@kangalanatolian sorry replied to wrong person, haha
urrejhipokritet 5 months ago
I think people are confused. He is elected by the people and for the people. It is his job to do as much as he can for his district. If congress is going to pass a massive spending bill he better be trying to get some of his voters tax money back to them.
pdawg691 8 months ago
He's fighting to keep Texas taxpayer money in Texas through a broken system. Earmarking keeps Texan taxpayer money from just going directly to the Executive Branch where they can decide where it will all be spent. He usually brings back a pretty good portion to be allocated to projects within the state rather than to our militaristic foreign intervention and federal umbrella programs.
randyman19 9 months ago 11
@randyman19 just don't call him principled.
androydnyc 2 months ago
LOL. that is a pretty good game Paul has going, fight to get earmarks for his district in bills that he know will pass without his vote so that he can safely vote no and tell his followers that he is against big gov spending. haha He can get his pork that way fighting to get it in and then blame others for it since he so sanctimoniously voted against a bill that he knew would pass without his vote.
barsense 9 months ago
He is like a beggar with a cup out who says "don't give me anything that's immoral" and then pockets the change.
craigles1968 10 months ago
@craigles1968 Your analogy doesn't fit. Not even close. If you can't do better than this, you really shouldn't even have formed an opinion on the subject.
Please work things out logically in your mind before you jump to conclusions. Being a free-thinking individual is far more fulfilling than being an ignorant chum.
mrmailmandudebro 7 months ago
@mrmailmandudebro
craigles1968 7 months ago
@craigles1968 Did you even watch the clip? If his explanation doesn't make sense to you, then I don't know what to tell you. His constituents pay tax money. He does what he can to keep the money his constituents pay into the system by bringing it back into his district to be spent on local projects. He doesn't like the system, but like he says, it's similar to paying social security - we all know it's a bad system, but we still want our checks because we already paid into it.
mrmailmandudebro 7 months ago
@mrmailmandudebro for those of you Ron Paul zombies here is a list of his latest eramarks please explain how Vanadium Safety Readiness is giving back to the people of his district. The defense is ridiculous at face value but if you look at his earmarks it becomes a lie.
craigles1968 6 months ago
@craigles1968 "Here is a list"
No list. Nice one.
mrmailmandudebro 6 months ago
@craigles1968 google "groundwater vanadium concentrations in texas" and that may provide some insight
mcb209 6 months ago
@mcb209 the list didn't appear because you tube won't let me link it. Sorry you had to google it. Obviously you found it and are aware that these research bucks are NOT going to TX and so Ron Paul's weak excuse for pork barreling fails. It's not even pork barrel for Texans which seems to be okay for Ron.
craigles1968 6 months ago
brilliant!!! I've never thought about it like that...
djmultimusic 1 year ago
what a hypocryte
jwmellott 1 year ago
@jwmellott I think the earmark situation went over your head, or perhaps a little bit to the side.
Philhelm 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@jwmellott --Earmarks are complicated, but as I understand it money is set aside to spend. States vie for that money. If money isn't spent, then Obama gets to spend it any way he wishes. Dr. Paul is just trying to prevent him from getting a "blank check. I agree with Dr. Paul on that! Congress should spend money, not the President.
vechorik 2 months ago
I get what he's saying and at least he answered it straight up and didn't try to dance around it. It's like saying you want the fair tax, but you still pay the income tax to be lawful.
KingMrTexan 2 years ago
Ron Paul 2012
melioped 2 years ago 2
gah I had it right my double negative lol
GoLuckyOops 3 years ago
Ron Paul doesnt believe we *SHOULDN'T* be spending that money in the first place (why he votes against the bill). But he is pragmatic enough to know that if the bill will be passed, he wants the money going back to the people, and he wants it specifically listed how this money is to be spent. But honestly earmarks dwarf the real spending issues, and this controversy just diverts attention from the important issues Ron Paul raises
GoLuckyOops 3 years ago
Ron Paul doesnt believe we should be spending that money in the first place (why he votes against the bill). But he is pragmatic enough to know that if the bill will be passed, he wants the money going back to the people, and he wants it specifically listed how this money is to be spent. But honestly earmarks dwarf the real spending issues, and this controversy just diverts attention from the important issues Ron Paul raises
GoLuckyOops 3 years ago 2
makes some sense
jprithvi 3 years ago
Basically he's saying that the purpose of requesting earmarks is to tie up money so it doesn't go the the President to be spent at his discretion. Instead it goes to things the people decide it should.
CountArtha 3 years ago 2
An earmark is a congressional provision that directs fed. agencies to spend funds ALREADY AUTHORIZED on specific projects. If the funds arent earmarked, the agencies can spend the money any way they see fit. That is, the executive branch, rather than Congress, will determine how the taxpayers money is spent.
It is ALREADY SPENT. RP is DIRECTING money that is ALREADY SPENT towards his own district.
And he votes against it, anyway, because he principally opposes federal spending in this manner.
mparker18311 3 years ago
Learn what earmarks are and how they work before you try to diss Ron Paul on this topic.
Shalafi3 3 years ago 8
This has been flagged as spam show
Ron Paul is an insane kook.
MattB22890 3 years ago
Matt, I don't agree with Ron Paul on everything, but I certainly feel that he deserves more respect than all the other Republicans combined. He's the ONLY Republican deserving of my respect. He's the real deal, what you see is what you get. Call that crazy all you want, if it takes a crazy person to be able to be consistent in Government, than we need more crazy people in Washington.
mparker18311 3 years ago 3
"To vote against an earmark doesn't cut any spending."
Then why not put in an earmark for something helpful?
Why not, instead of asking for $26 million or so for the Washington, DC school system, which Paul did, and giving it back to to the people who paid those taxes?
MooseOfReason 3 years ago
You make a great point, and this is what paul does for his district. We have a representitive government in which we elect a representitive to that position for a districts wants, needs, agendas. Paul understands this but takes into account what the roll of the government should be. Earmarks are talked about but no on understands them. Paul says it right.
Bigturns33 3 years ago 3
its his job to make the requests
he has to
but he votes against it
ron paul 08
zasabiibasaz 4 years ago 28
@zasabiibasaz if he didn't they'd tell his constituents that he's ripping them off. so he loses either way. That's why he should win.
sciencemunk 1 year ago
Comment removed
shawn3975 5 months ago
"...just like every other member of Congress."
Every other member VOTES FOR THE BILL. Ron votes against it.
MooseOfReason 4 years ago 43
@MooseOfReason thumb up
sciencemunk 1 year ago
Comment removed
shawn3975 5 months ago
Maybe Russert should have also gone after Paul for cashing his monthly Social Security check.
The money has been appropriated and ear-marked to be spent in his district. Attacking him for spending it is dumb.
Attack the people who vote for budget and the taxes to pay for the earmarks.
relhak 4 years ago 8
Earmarked money exists for every district. You take the money or it goes to executive to spend. Therefore, he brings the money to his district. He doesn't suggest additional spending.
tondeaf 4 years ago 12
There is nothing wrong with receiving money for roads and other constitutionally defined federal funding uses but he receives corporate welfare for his district. Money for the shrimp industry for restoring privately owned movie theaters.
davidmesaaz 4 years ago
Ron Paul did a great job for his district as a congressman. Thanks for the info Russert.
Ron Paul '08 Worst ever to Best ever. Good Morning.
sizzlepuss7 4 years ago 4
This has been flagged as spam show
Save the blimp! It needs your donation right now or it will be on the ground by the end of the day. This blimp has attracted a lot of attention, so let's keep it in the air! :)
ronpaulblimp dot com
PLEASE REPOST!
scottkicksyou 4 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Wall Street Journal
Ron Paul's Earmarks
August 6, 2007
After reporters started asking questions, the Congressman disclosed his requests this year for about $400 million worth of federal funding for no fewer than 65 earmarks. They include such urgent national wartime priorities as an $8 million request for the marketing of wild American shrimp and $2.3 million to fund shrimp-fishing research
davidmesaaz 4 years ago
davidmesaaz: oh look you've actually already seen this video and still you continue with your useless blather. It's not just that you disagree with his position but you distort the facts and make it seem as if he votes for spending bills.
brucevdk 4 years ago
Distorts the facts? Ron Paul's intellectual gymnastics are pure orwellian double speak.
He says that attacks earmarks aren't bad then he says that he never votes for earmarks. If there is nothing wrong with them why doesn't he vote for them?
davidmesaaz 4 years ago
I meant to say if there is not wrong with earmarks why does he vote against them?
davidmesaaz 4 years ago
Distort the facts?
He requests for pork it gets in bill then he votes against it. Its a have your cake and eat it too type deal. Its a smart political deal he is working the system. He knows that most but not all congressmen have not problem voting for pork so he puts it in then votes against it. He knows how to work the system.
davidmesaaz 4 years ago
Give it up dude.. Ron Paul is not for Paying Tax, but when it is Paid, he is for getting it BACK? what about that do you not understand?
sizzlepuss7 4 years ago 7
Look its not about getting money from the federal government. That is totally not the issue at stake. The issue at stake is how we distribute money. Earmarks are the worst way of doing it. Also its not how much money is "given back" Its what the money "given" for (its not given its our money to begin with)For some one who says they believe in "limited government" He cries about the corporate welfare then the corporations and industries such as the shrimp industry and he supports it.
davidmesaaz 4 years ago
it gets money back that that was taken from his district. If he does not, than Prez Bush gets to decide how that money is spent instead. which RP thinks is wrong, it should be up to congress (also, RP does not think Prez Bush is good w/money) He supports frwrding the requests district that funds the federal government has ALREADY taken from them and designated to be returned to his district.
Sort of how he will not deny ppl their S.S.check but he is ultimately against Social Security
KartChampion 3 years ago 2
What do you have against shrimp?
danbsc 4 years ago
I have nothing against shrimp its the pork that i despise and Ron Paul seems to love.
davidmesaaz 4 years ago
Did you know that Rupert Murdoch recently purchased the Wall Street Journal?
Wall Street Journal = Fox News
mutedmajority 4 years ago
What is your point? Hmm but when this was written the sale had not been finalized.
davidmesaaz 4 years ago
Bull - no sense at all in what was said.
ListenForTruth 4 years ago
But scharb i do agree with you that wasn't ron paul's best answer but he does advocates transparency in government
benjie2429 4 years ago
That might be the worst answer Ron Paul's ever given. Earmarks are a despicable form of Washington corruption, basically stealing money to give to one's own district. That is why Barack Obama has introduced legislation to make earmarks 100% transparent: to expose the corruption of the congresspeople who use them.
The fact that Ron Paul can form a coherent sentence does not necessarily mean that he makes sense.
scharb 4 years ago
Ron Paul makes more sense than Obama. Barack has almost 300 bundlers gathering money for him. Just because they stand behind good bills doesn't make them honest. Ron Paul cuts waste, like the Department of Energy, the Department of Education, and the war in Iraq. It makes his earmarks (that he votes against) seem like a drop in the bucket.
MooseOfReason 4 years ago
In an ideal world, Paul says, there wouldn't be a federal income tax. But since there is, he says, he feels a responsibility to help his constituents recover some of the tax dollars the government has taken from them. "I don't want them [the government] to take it," he says, "but if they do take it, I'd just as soon help my constituents get it back." --if they paid taxes and didnt get anythign back, then they would basically be funding programs for other districts.
jeffdb3 4 years ago 2
WELL has Barak Obama ever voted for an earmark..Its hard to talk about Barak Obama's record since he's only been in congress for a couple of years so you don't know where he would stand on those votes...But if a man like Barak Obama only voted a little bit more than half the time since voted into office doesn't add to his reasoning that he's not naive and strong on his positions when he's barely there to vote
benjie2429 4 years ago