Are earmarks in the constitution?

http://ricochet.com/main-feed/Ron-Paul-s-Earmarks

http://www.americanindependent.com/160697/ron-paul-one-of-only-four-house-republicans-to-request-earmarks-for-2011-budget

>> ^quantumushroom:

There is no need for incivility. It's fair to call a national figure a dumbass--being in the spotlight invites criticism--but not other sifters. kofi is not out of line. If your facts hold water you don't need the insults.

>> ^BansheeX:
>> ^longde:
Ron Paul is a filthy fucking statist. Below are some of his relevant 2009 budget requests (still looking for his 2010 and 2011 earmark requests):

Subcommittee on Homeland Security:
• $8.8 million for FEMA for drainage at Cove Harbor in Aransas County
• $2.2 million for FEMA to reconfigure and stabilize Capano Causeway Pier
• $500,000 for FEMA for Aransas County drainage master plan
• $35 million for FEMA for drainage in Friendswood
• $10 million for FEMA for drainage project for Friendswood/Clear Creek
• $10 million for FEMA for drainage project for Friendswood/Clear Creek
• $5 million for FEMA to recycle household hazardous waste in Friendswood

You're a dumbass. RP has always voted against the appropriation. Earmarks are 1% of the budget...



WHAT?! Since when can't I call other sifters Dumbasses? Fuck them...everyone on here is a bastard and I hate them...AHHHH FUCK!

I know he votes against the appropriation. So? He KNOWS the appropriation will never fail, and he will get his funding requests despite his vote. The more principled stance would be to not request the earmarks in the first place. Or to not be a so-called libertarian masquerading as a federal fucking legislator (or is it the other way around?).

You're very in love with Mr. Paul if you can't see the rancid hypocrisy of him actively benefiting from something he vehemently condemns. (It runs in the family too, as his son hates medicaid but loved taking medicaid money from his patients).

And Mr. Paul is the one who says in this very video that spending on FEMA is harmful to the debt. I point out above, like you, that such spending is really miniscule.

There is no need for incivility. It's fair to call a national figure a dumbass--being in the spotlight invites criticism--but not other sifters. kofi is not out of line. If your facts hold water you don't need the insults.


>> ^BansheeX:

>> ^longde:
Ron Paul is a filthy fucking statist. Below are some of his relevant 2009 budget requests (still looking for his 2010 and 2011 earmark requests):

Subcommittee on Homeland Security:
• $8.8 million for FEMA for drainage at Cove Harbor in Aransas County
• $2.2 million for FEMA to reconfigure and stabilize Capano Causeway Pier
• $500,000 for FEMA for Aransas County drainage master plan
• $35 million for FEMA for drainage in Friendswood
• $10 million for FEMA for drainage project for Friendswood/Clear Creek
• $10 million for FEMA for drainage project for Friendswood/Clear Creek
• $5 million for FEMA to recycle household hazardous waste in Friendswood

You're a dumbass. RP has always voted against the appropriation. Earmarks are 1% of the budget...

>> ^longde:

Ron Paul is a filthy fucking statist. Below are some of his relevant 2009 budget requests (still looking for his 2010 and 2011 earmark requests):

Subcommittee on Homeland Security:
• $8.8 million for FEMA for drainage at Cove Harbor in Aransas County
• $2.2 million for FEMA to reconfigure and stabilize Capano Causeway Pier
• $500,000 for FEMA for Aransas County drainage master plan
• $35 million for FEMA for drainage in Friendswood
• $10 million for FEMA for drainage project for Friendswood/Clear Creek
• $10 million for FEMA for drainage project for Friendswood/Clear Creek
• $5 million for FEMA to recycle household hazardous waste in Friendswood


You're a dumbass. RP has always voted against the appropriation. Earmarks are 1% of the budget, that any funds get back to his district after they're taken means it doesn't go to the general fund to be spent on some bullshit embassy or something. It's like taking a tax credit despite being against the income tax: it's not hypocritical, it's salvaging what you can should you fail to stop appropriation. Oh, and earmarks actually tell you what the spending is for, whereas the Fed issues trillions in new money and doesn't have to tell you where it went. Maybe you should hang around smarter message boards so you don't fall for every half-brained argument you see.

Ron Paul is a filthy fucking statist. Below are some of his relevant 2009 budget requests (still looking for his 2010 and 2011 earmark requests):


Subcommittee on Homeland Security:

• $8.8 million for FEMA for drainage at Cove Harbor in Aransas County

• $2.2 million for FEMA to reconfigure and stabilize Capano Causeway Pier

• $500,000 for FEMA for Aransas County drainage master plan

• $35 million for FEMA for drainage in Friendswood

• $10 million for FEMA for drainage project for Friendswood/Clear Creek

• $10 million for FEMA for drainage project for Friendswood/Clear Creek

• $5 million for FEMA to recycle household hazardous waste in Friendswood

A Pyrrhic 'Victory'
By Thomas Sowell
8/10/2011

In Don Marquis' classic satirical book, "Archy and Mehitabel," Mehitabel the alley cat asks plaintively, "What have I done to deserve all these kittens?"

That seems to be the pained reaction of the Obama administration to the financial woes that led to the downgrading of America's credit rating, for the first time in history.

There are people who see no connection between what they have done and the consequences that follow. But Barack Obama is not likely to be one of them. He is a savvy politician who will undoubtedly be satisfied if enough voters fail to see a connection between what he has done and the consequences that followed.

To a remarkable extent, he has succeeded, with the help of his friends in the media and the Republicans' failure to articulate their case. Polls find more people blaming the Republicans for the financial crisis than are blaming the President.

Why was there a financial crisis in the first place? Because of runaway spending that sent the national debt up against the legal limit. But when all the big spending bills were being rushed through Congress, the Democrats had such an overwhelming majority in both houses of Congress that nothing the Republicans could do made the slightest difference.

Yet polls show that many people today are blaming the Republicans for the country's financial problems. But, by the time Republicans gained control of the House of Representatives, and thus became involved in negotiations over raising the national debt ceiling, the spending which caused that crisis in the first place had already been done -- and done by Democrats.

Had the Republicans gone along with President Obama's original request for a "clean" bill -- one simply raising the debt ceiling without any provisions about controlling federal spending -- would that have spared the country the embarrassment of having its government bonds downgraded by Standard & Poor's credit-rating agency?

To believe that would be to believe that it was the debt ceiling, rather than the runaway spending, that made Standard & Poor's think that we were no longer as good a credit risk for buyers of U.S. government bonds. In other words, to believe that is to believe that a Congressional blank check for continued record spending would have made Standard & Poor's think that we were a better credit risk.

If that is true, then why is Standard & Poor's still warning that it might have to downgrade America's credit rating yet again? Is that because of the national debt ceiling or because of the likelihood of continued runaway spending?

The national debt ceiling is just one of the many false assurances that the government gives the voting public. The national debt ceiling has never actually stopped the spending that causes the national debt to rise to the point where it is getting near that ceiling. The ceiling simply gets raised when that happens.

Just a week before the budget deal was made at the eleventh hour, it looked like the new Republican majority in the House of Representatives had scored a victory by getting the President and the Congressional Democrats to give up the idea of raising the tax rates -- and to cut spending instead. But now that the details are coming out, that "victory" looks very temporary, if not illusory.

The price of getting that deal has been having the Republicans agree to sitting on a special bipartisan Congressional committee that will either come to an agreement on spending cuts before Thanksgiving or have the budgets of both the Defense Department and Medicare cut drastically.

Since neither side can afford to be blamed for a disaster like that, this virtually guarantees that the Republicans will have to either go along with whatever new spending and taxing that the Democrats demand or risk losing the 2012 election by sharing the blame for another financial disaster.

In short, the Republicans have now been maneuvered into being held responsible for the spending orgy that Democrats alone had the votes to create. Republicans have been had -- and so has the country. The recent, short-lived budget deal turns out to be not even a Pyrrhic victory for the Republicans. It has the earmarks of a Pyrrhic defeat.

>> ^MarineGunrock:

Why are "handouts" like medicare called mandatory and things like national defense called discretionary?

Medicare and Social Security aren't "handouts", they're benefits you pay for all your life via payroll taxes explicitly earmarked for that purpose (look at your pay stub sometime if you don't believe me). The reason they're mandatory is because they're essentially debts owed to the American people, real people, not just bond-holders. That's actually why they're called "entitlements" -- people are entitled to receive them, because they've already paid for them!

Defense is "discretionary" because Congress gets to decide how much money to spend on it each year. It's not like Social Security or Medicare where people have been promised a fixed benefit in return for the taxes they've paid.

>> ^MarineGunrock:

Here's a fucking idea: stop spending more than we make. If the Dems would just agree to a balanced budget, the Republicans would raise the cieling.


Dems have been bending over backwards here, MG. They've even offered to break the promises made to seniors for Social Security and Medicare, and drastically cut all kinds of important programs. All Dems are saying is that there needs to be some additional revenues in the plan.

Most sane people agree that closing the deficit should include both spending cuts and tax increases, but not the Republicans. They've long since rejected a plan that would've been 83% cuts, and 17% revenue (mostly from closing loopholes), because they insist it be 100% cuts, and not a penny of revenue.

Not to mention, the debt we're facing now is essentially entirely created by Republcians. Look at this chart of the debt since 1950: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_Debt_Trend.svg

Notice that post WW2, both parties ran surpluses to pay down the debt accrued during the war. Then look at 1980, when Ronald Reagan took office. Debt explodes! Until Clinton comes into office, then the trend reverses. Then Bush reverses it back. Obama hasn't reversed the trend Bush started yet, but he also inherited the worst recession we've had since the Great Depression, and Republicans are pretty much refusing any proposal, even one highly skewed towards their policy preferences.

@marbles

-Yes, Ron Paul is naive when it comes to economics, by putting his faith in neo-liberal doctrinal scripture that has no evidence to support it, nor any basis in the reality of a modern economy. The fact that he believes capitalism to be the embodiment of liberty is the root of this naivety.

Privatization, deregulation, international 'free' trade agreements and austerity -all principles of neo-liberal thought- have caused the lion share of our current economic woes: massive income disparity, high unemployment, wage slavery, inflation, labor abuse, war profiteering, eroding of civil rights, the death of many a small business, massive corruption, environmental harm, etc. Think of all the major economic scandals of the last few decades - The Saving and Loan Scandal, The Foreclosure scandal, Enron, the oil spills, Katrina (the aftermath, not the weather event), etc. All of them are the result of deregulation. I know that government interference is a big boogey man to the capitalist libertarian set, but every single one of these scandals could have been prevented with proper regulation and/or proper oversight.

-Yes, I'm sorry to say it, but Ron Paul does play the game, and he is a part of the two party system.
Check out the damage control here: http://videosift.com/search?q=ron+paul+earmarks

-If you remember 4 years ago, people were saying the same things about Obama that you are saying about Ron Paul today - that he is the answer to all our problems - but then he moved into the White House and was forced to abandon or compromise nearly all of his promises. I warn you against political hero worship. No matter how much you like the guy, no matter how much grandfatherly charm he exudes, he is still a politician who must play by the rules of the broken system.

I could be wrong, and these comments will be here next year to rub in my face in the off chance that America is transformed into Galt Island.

As Sammy Hagar once said in his infinite wisdom, "Only time will tell if we can stand the test of time."

Also to Harper: Could you please earmark $1 billion for security when Vancouver's in the Stanley Cup finals? Thanks.

Well peeps, I'm not a fan of huge military spending either, but we live on a planet where, as nations go, America is the only moral force. We're the World Police whether we want to be or not. And that's on top of having the same legitimate interests--and therefore commitments-- around the world as other nations.

These other First World nations that barely step up with resources to solve international problems can go fk themselves, IMO.

The US should absolutley reduce the military presence in some theaters but not for the same reasons as the anti-war crowd. If you're going to fight a war, FIGHT IT. Level cities. Starve the enemy, cut his balls off. Otherwise, get out.

Unfortunately, because this world is insane: false morality, a refusal to accept collateral damage and timidity at the sight of blood has made us unable to properly kill, and the result is more good people than necessary get killed.

The money "saved" on wars belongs to the people, not government. The trillions for the wars do not belong to government schools or cowboy poets. They should never be returned to the federal trough for "local" politicians to hand out to buy votes, though that's what happens.

I agree with Obama that fiscally-speaking, earmarks are a drop in the bucket (especially with 60 BILLION being lost to Medicare waste, fraud and abuse every year). Yet I challenge anyone to look your unemployed neighbor in the eye and tell them why the cowboy poets are short on cash, or why a university needs a half-million dollar grant to study why men don't like wearing condoms<a rel="nofollow" href=" <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/06/19/nih-funds-study-men-dont-like-use-condoms/">http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/06/19/nih-funds-study-men-dont-like-use-condoms/"> (yes, that happened).

@blankfist I'm not sure why you're sticking up for Ayn Rand. I suspect it's because Ron Paul uses this same reasoning all the time.

Simplified Brad DeLong:

If your argument is that the government has the legitimate power to set its rules, but the rules it has set are less than optimal, you're not being hypocritical in following the suboptimal rules that are in place.

However, if your argument is that some higher moral absolute applies, and should be considered the guiding principles of all human behavior, regardless of whether your government's laws are congruent or not, then it stands to reason that you yourself will at least adhere to those principles, even when it wouldn't be in your own self-interest.

For example, if you think collecting taxes is actually a crime that is comparable to rape, then you shouldn't be collecting more money in Medicare payments than you paid into the system. To do so means you're requiring the government to rape people for your own personal gain. Collecting those benefits means that every penny of surplus you get leads to someone, somewhere, sometime being violently forced to pay that much more in taxes.

This also applies to getting earmarks for your district. To spend is to tax (so sayeth Milton Friedman), so if you bring home pork for your district, you're forcing other people somewhere to pay higher taxes to pay for your pork.

This is bullcrap. It's the same as saying Ron Paul shouldn't make earmarks for his county, because he's against them. It's his fucking job to do it.

Likewise it's Rand's job to stay alive as long as possible. She may have been against social security or medical aid, but she still payed her taxes and should still receive the benefits - as should anyone, in spite of whether they think it is right or not.

And I haven't even read any of her books or whatever so I'm not "just a Randian bitching".

maybe cute.
what isn't cute is that "those who watched Fox News almost daily were significantly more likely than those who never watched it" to believe things that are demonstrably untrue.

So much for "fair and balanced."


>> ^KnivesOut:

I just think its cute that Fox thinks its news.
Adorable.

Hypocritical to have 16 million in earmarks then say your against them. The republicans were voted in large numbers to stop spending. I hope people are taking note for next election.

Good post