|
| Page 1, 2, 3, 4 |
Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) Found to Have Received More Funds from Financial Sector than Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA)
|
White Hat
User ID: 525020
11/2/2009 2:38 PM | | Re: Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) Found to Have Received More Funds from Financial Sector than Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) | Quote |
Op... curious here...
What were his (RP's) contributions used for?
(and why doesn't your reference mention this?) |
|
White Hat
User ID: 525020
11/2/2009 2:48 PM | | Re: Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) Found to Have Received More Funds from Financial Sector than Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) | Quote |
I guess all that campaign money was well-spent in getting Dr. Paul re-elected. He certainly knows how to bring home the bacon for his constituency.
Ron Paul sponsored or co-sponsored 23 earmarks totalling $80,775,750 in fiscal year 2009 ranking 33rd out of 435 representatives.
[ link to www.opensecrets.org]
Barney Frank sponsored or co-sponsored 22 earmarks totalling $17,045,500 in fiscal year 2009 ranking 278th out of 435 representatives.
[ link to www.opensecrets.org]
Oh... and:
One of the questions asked of Dr. Ron Paul after his speech to the Robert Taft Club came from a guy I met at an Institute for Humane Studies (IHS) conference the previous summer. At that event, he was apoplectic after Randy Barnett’s talk, in which the supposed Rothbardian outlined his justification of the state. We’ll never be accepted by average Americans if we don’t tailor our message and moderate our demands, my fellow IHS alum argued. I talked to him later in the week and he explained to me that while he was sympathetic to the free market, he considered himself a libertarian chiefly because he was a consistent social liberal who despised the restrictive social atmosphere that conservatives advocate. A beltway libertarian if there ever was one!
"Congressman, I have tremendous respect for you," the IHS alum averred, "but I was shocked to read in a Reason Magazine profile that you actually stuff earmarks into appropriation bills just like every other member of Congress and I thought you were different, sir, ah, you of course vote against the bill, but I was curious how you could justify stuffing earmarks just like every other member of Congress". Dr. Paul’s response is clear and convincing, but I’d like to go into more depth here. The issue is complicated and while earmark critics have some reasonable points, Dr. Paul’s earmarking is ultimately not at odds with his philosophy.
As Paul notes in his answer, cutting the number of earmarks does not cut spending. An earmark is a congressional provision that directs federal agencies to spend funds already authorized on specific projects. 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 point cannot be stressed enough because even the writers at the Wall Street Journal do not understand it. After quoting a spokesman from Paul’s office reminding them that earmarks do not directly increase spending, the WSJ reports, "On the other hand, good libertarians should want to start cutting somewhere." Didn’t Paul’s office just point out that cutting earmarks does not cut spending? Some argue that earmarks can indirectly increase spending by encouraging corruption – this problem will be dealt with below – but in this passage the WSJ seems to imply that adding earmarks directly increases spending. After writing that good libertarians should start cutting somewhere, they continue:
The problem with earmarking is that each year the habit grows by leaps and bounds so that it now represents real money. It is also a gateway to political corruption – a la Duke Cunningham, and other Congressmen currently under investigation for trading favors for earmarks. [Emphasis added]
By writing "it is also," the writers imply that in addition to increasing spending, earmarks encourage corruption rather than the more coherent argument that earmarks increase spending by encouraging corruption.
Ramesh Ponnuru has more sense on this issue than most other mainstream movement conservatives. He recognizes that earmarks make up less than two percent of the federal budget and that fiscal conservatives should be spending more time and energy on more important spending programs. His response to Senator Jim DeMint’s criticisms of the earmarking process, however, is less than convincing. "The game," DeMint complained, "encouraged everyone to be asking for money and everyone to be voting for bills that were bigger than the budget that had been voted for earlier." Ponnuru counters that, "It is certainly true, as DeMint says, that earmarks can buy support for government-expanding bills. But they can buy support for government-shrinking bills, too [like NAFTA]." First, the hundreds of pages of legislation that created NAFTA did not shrink the size of government. Second, while it is conceivable that earmarks could be used to buy support for a government-shrinking bill, given the nature of government, the number of government-expanding bills is going to far outstrip the number of government-shrinking bills. On net, therefore, the quid pro quo of earmark trading is likely to increase government spending. Yet considering that Dr. Paul always votes "no" on the appropriations bills he requests earmarks for – as his critics concede – he is not involved in this negative aspect of the earmarking process. No amount of earmarks promised to him will convince him to vote "yes" on the bill. They are – as he says – projects meant to return some of his constituents’ money that was stolen from them by the federal government, within the context of the current system. The excerpt of the Congressional Quarterly article that Tim Russert referenced (see 6:50) on the Meet the Press interview that reads, "There isn’t much that Rep. Ron Paul thinks the federal government should do…Apparently, though earmarks [that benefit his district] are okay," leaves the impression that Paul would support increasing the federal budget by $400 million just to benefit his district. He would not. He supports forwarding the requests of his constituents that $400 million of funds that the federal government has already taken from them and designated for spending be returned to their district.
Given that Paul isn’t involved in the trading of earmarks for "yes" votes, his requests for earmarks must be judged on the other pros and cons of the practice. Earmarks can lead to ridiculously inefficient projects like the infamous "Bridge to Nowhere" because, critics contend, earmarked funds do not go through a merit-based selection process as they would if granted to an executive agency. It’s not surprising that President Bush is a leading advocate of this argument. Ultimately this argument is part of a fruitless crusade to make government more efficient. But that is impossible. There is no way government can allocate resources rationally, no matter what part of it has the authority to dispense funds. The absence of market prices and the profit-and-loss mechanism makes it impossible for governments to accurately compare the value of inputs with outputs. No matter how many forms an executive agency makes you fill out to receive a grant, government cannot accurately measure merit. The phony free market Wall Street crowd’s dream of cutting spending and streamlining government by empowering a unitary executive is both hopeless and fraught with danger. What if, for example, the WSJ gets its way and the president is given the line item veto? Couldn’t the president, as Dr. Paul points out, threaten to cut funding from a recalcitrant congressman’s district if he didn’t support the president’s proposed legislation?
Senator Tom Coburn claims that "the Porkbusters represent what is arguably the only grassroots movement since 1994 to gain traction and build momentum on the core American principle of limited government" [Emphasis in original]. I’ve lived in DC for almost four years now and I’ve been involved with the beltway conservative/libertarian crowd since the beginning. I was working on the earmark issue before it became national news. The enthusiasm for the "Porkbusters" coalition in no way approaches the popularity and dedication of the Ron Paul Revolution, a movement dedicated to the wholesale dismantling of large swaths of the federal government. Barry Goldwater was right. Moderation isn’t all it’s cracked up to be. True free market supporters should stop bickering over the way less than two percent of the budget is allocated and start focusing on scraping whole departments, gutting the military industrial complex, and privatizing entitlements.
(just sayin, OP)
NICE TRY, THOUGH!! |
|
White Hat
User ID: 525020
11/2/2009 2:56 PM | | Re: Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) Found to Have Received More Funds from Financial Sector than Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) | Quote |
OP - Your contempt for RP is interesting... you really do need to do your homework (start with American history)...
What I find interesting is that, unless you live in east Texas within Dr. Paul's district, what threat are his ideals to you?
He didn't win the republican primary (although by the polls, he won every single debate – go figure?)
Since you are evidently against Ron Paul’s ideals and conservative values, I’m curious why you feel the need to stir up dust (I would call it “fluff” – because there is no basis for any slight you’ve posted about the man in this thread which is legitimate)?
Assuming you are a socialist, and you have a great socialist idealist leader now, and with no threat by Dr. Paul… why feel the need to slight him in any way (especially with naive speculations concerning his motives)?
What could your M/O be? I wonder? (not really) |
|
TLS
User ID: 747125
11/2/2009 2:58 PM | | Re: Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) Found to Have Received More Funds from Financial Sector than Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) | Quote |
And the COINTELPRO attacks begin ... this is early for you guys. The early bird gets the hearts and minds eh?
Listen Ron Paul Is going to be running for president again and these type of baseless accusations are going to increase dramatically.
They are trained to act like us in speech and terminology.
You have to ask yourself who attacks the champion of freedom, the most ardent constitutionalist in the congress? Is it our side asking questions because they are bored? or is it the other side posing questions to defuse support for his next presidential run?
Lets use our brains here guys. |
|
Blue/White Hat
User ID: 525020
11/2/2009 3:38 PM | | Re: Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) Found to Have Received More Funds from Financial Sector than Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) | Quote |
This doesn't surprise me at all...
RP is such a duche!!
Lets see... he:
1. Says he wants to get rid of the Federal Reserve...
(who would print our money? - duh!)
2. Says he would withdraw all troops from Iraq & Afghan immediately...
(So that we can get attacked by Al-Quada AGAIN?? What if they don't use planes next time??)
3. Says we should get rid of the federal tax – and the IRS!...
(who would pay to fix the roads? Or pay for all the gov agencies that efficiently protect us from lead toys and such? – besides, what is 30% of our overall Labor??)
4. Says we should defend the border??? Wuh?
(#1- How would our nation grow without immigrants? #2 – If someone is going to sneak a dirty bomb/nuke in… they probably already have! #3 – Where would democrats get our votes!? #4 – I love tacos!!)
5. Says we should allow states to retain their own sovereignty over their citizens – let states create laws rather than the big Gov…
(DOUBLE – DUH!! – Why do we have a 14th amendment… hello?! If you are going to apply for an SS card… you are then a US citizen… not a national of your state – you will pay taxes! So that those of us on welfare can get by… hello?)
6. He’s really old.
Hey Look everyone! A real live Zombie!!!
1) US Treasury, not private banks!
2) All based on lies!
3) Fed roads are paid for with an existing gas tax. Other agencies are funded with similar tax structures.
4) How many illegal immigrants have already crossed into the USA in the past 10 years alone. How's that NAFTA thing working out for you?
5) That's pretty much how this country works, yet all individual states agreed to the US Constitution for every citizen of each state within the union. It's called a republic.
6) So is your logic! Quoting: Anonymous Coward 772524
Once again... (see previous poster that said the same)- that post was meant to be sarcastic (never works on this site for some reason) |
|
White Hat
User ID: 525020
11/2/2009 3:53 PM | | Re: Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) Found to Have Received More Funds from Financial Sector than Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) | Quote |
Or does correlation always mean causation to you?
well, certainly "always" to all those ignorant, uneducated Republicans who support Ron Paul, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Cunter, and their hate first, america last ideologies. Quoting: ??? 808109
funny thing about this is that there are two words that you will never hear out of Rush's mouth consecutively... they are Ron & Paul (not once)
You are lumping colors together... Dr. P doesn't subscribe to pandering idealists... his beliefs are simple, and easy to read and don't need a following, or a lobbyist.
Half of you bashing him think that he is a Republican, he's not... he's a constitutionalist/libertarian... conservative for sure, but not part of the hijacked Red party... he ran under that ticket because 3rd party didn't have a chance, and he thought he could restore common sense to the so-called conservatives - Repubs!
what a waiste to try and educate the unfortunate... I do feel sad for you all, Ron Paul is a stand-up dude, I've met him, talked to him... and he didn't even use a tele-prompter! (like a wizard or something... wow, dude!) |
|
White Hat
User ID: 525020
11/2/2009 4:13 PM | | Re: Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) Found to Have Received More Funds from Financial Sector than Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) | Quote |
And the COINTELPRO attacks begin ... this is early for you guys. The early bird gets the hearts and minds eh?
Listen Ron Paul Is going to be running for president again and these type of baseless accusations are going to increase dramatically.
They are trained to act like us in speech and terminology.
You have to ask yourself who attacks the champion of freedom, the most ardent constitutionalist in the congress? Is it our side asking questions because they are bored? or is it the other side posing questions to defuse support for his next presidential run?
Lets use our brains here guys. Quoting: TLS 747125
There it is... right there...
Dude, I should be glad you are defending the old man... the problem is that you belong to some 'side' and everyone else must too.
Divide and conquer, much?
Always a side with you people with sides. Whether I agree on 4 of 5 points you make, why would one jump in a box with anyone who has a side.
Here's the deal, politicians choose sides... defend to the death that SIDE good or bad.
Ron Paul ran with a side to PROVE A POINT (he said so)... He wouldn't bend-over for that SIDE... HE HASN'T!!!
That's is what's wrong with this thread, You poke at someone because you have labeled them or your limited perspective requires that the are in a box with others.
He votes HIS & HIS constituents’ conscious... not a party line vote... a rare service for any person that is representing others!!
Further, his values have no party. If they did... it would be a party that died right after the signing of our Constitution!!
So by saying that you are on the side of Congressman Paul, you are saying that you are on the side of the (original)Constitution... Otherwise you're confused... because I don't see many standing with Paul's values who aren't lumping, dividing, mis-representing or mearly retards standing juxed (like the OP)... you are not on his "SIDE" by being a Republican, Libertarian, Conservative, etc...
Because he is none of these things.
He is a man, who believes in limited government and understands the principals that forged this nation out of a tyrannical rule... and he wants you to understand this society so we don't have to be dragged down by old, adverse ideals like those of OP's who like to group people (be on the side of the groupers/dividers)
His kind used to be called "Free Men"
And there are others...
"Too dangerous to live... Too rare to kill" |
|
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 809041
11/2/2009 9:01 PM | | Re: Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) Found to Have Received More Funds from Financial Sector than Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) | Quote |
I no longer support Ron Paul, he wants to steal people's Social Security and Medicare. F@ck him!
+1
CLAPPA
 for ol Ron |
|
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 812346
11/6/2009 11:37 PM | | Re: Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) Found to Have Received More Funds from Financial Sector than Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) | Quote |
This thread is a desperate psyop to stop the FED AUDIT.
Do you think people are stupid.
BARNEY FRANK FUCKS LITTLE BOYS....
[ link to www.washingtonpost.com]
Now stop bumping up this thread or I am going to spread Barney Franks indiscretions ALL OVER THE NET.
Got it shithead?
I WILL DESTROY HIM.
Hear that libs? This thread is now CENSORED! Fuck your liberal "free speech". HAIL RON
+20 |
|
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 789708
11/6/2009 11:39 PM | | Re: Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) Found to Have Received More Funds from Financial Sector than Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) | Quote |
I'll take Paul over Frank anyday.
And I'm pro-choice.
And Pro-Gun Control.
Go figure.   
 |
|
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 813103
11/7/2009 10:34 PM | | Re: Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) Found to Have Received More Funds from Financial Sector than Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) | Quote |
Given the recent evidence that Ron Paul is reptillian, has he ever provided his birth certificate to prove he is even human? |
|
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 816090
11/11/2009 4:12 PM | | Re: Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) Found to Have Received More Funds from Financial Sector than Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) | Quote |
Given the recent evidence that Ron Paul is reptillian, has he ever provided his birth certificate to prove he is even human? Quoting: Anonymous Coward 813103
WE DONT CARE IF HE IS AS LONG AS HE AGAIN OBAMA |
|
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 523714
11/11/2009 4:32 PM | | Re: Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) Found to Have Received More Funds from Financial Sector than Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) | Quote |
Some of us in the financial sector have a view that market regulation of interest rates (the correct conclusion for end the fed), would be beneficial in more accurately portraying information on capital availability and thus constrain corporate spending to more efficient deployments; thus increasing the chances of job booms and lessening the risk of a failing business with continuing layoffs.
I would not rush to the conclusion that the fact of financial support alone indicates malaligned interests; but it is certainly possible. |
|
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 818058
11/14/2009 3:32 AM | | Re: Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) Found to Have Received More Funds from Financial Sector than Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) | Quote |
Because this thread was threatened with censorship...
PIN DIS SHIT!!! |
|
One
User ID: 817747
11/15/2009 2:47 AM | | Re: Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) Found to Have Received More Funds from Financial Sector than Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) | Quote |
Yea but barney Frank has sucked more cock than Ron Paul so their even |
|
One
User ID: 817747
11/15/2009 2:47 AM | | Re: Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) Found to Have Received More Funds from Financial Sector than Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) | Quote |
Yea but barney Frank has sucked more cock than Ron Paul so their even |
|
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 821077
11/17/2009 8:31 PM | | Re: Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) Found to Have Received More Funds from Financial Sector than Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) | Quote |
Tell this Paul to stay away from my bank savings and social security |
|
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 821978
11/19/2009 12:24 AM | | Re: Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) Found to Have Received More Funds from Financial Sector than Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) | Quote |
I no longer support Ron Paul, he wants to steal people's Social Security and Medicare. F@ck him! Quoting: Anonymous Coward 803305
 |
|
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 714246
11/21/2009 2:49 AM | | Re: Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) Found to Have Received More Funds from Financial Sector than Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) | Quote |
I no longer support Ron Paul, he wants to steal people's Social Security and Medicare. F@ck him!
|
|
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 823904
11/21/2009 12:25 PM | | Re: Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) Found to Have Received More Funds from Financial Sector than Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) | Quote |
I no longer support Ron Paul, he wants to steal people's Social Security and Medicare. F@ck him!
+1
CLAPPA
for ol Ron
 |
|
| Page 1, 2, 3, 4 |
|
