Interesting Ron Paul Factoid

[STAGE 2]

I saw this on another forum. I can't verify its authenticity.

Texas congressman and Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul — who is campaigning as a critic of congressional overspending — has revealed that he is requesting $400 million worth of earmarks this year.

The Wall Street Journal reports Paul's office says those requests include $8 million for the marketing of wild American shrimp and $2.3 million to pay for research into shrimp fishing.

A spokesman says, "Reducing earmarks does not reduce government spending, and it does not prohibit spending upon those things that are earmarked. What people who push earmark reform are doing is they are particularly misleading the public — and I have to presume it's not by accident."


Two questions. First, why in the world would Paul support earmarks. Second, why would Mr. Small Government support any legislation for research into shrimp fishing. If he's bent on getting rid of the CIA, why on earth would he support subsidizing a private industry with public funds.

 

[nate45]

Lie by misdirection

Maybe this will help clear it up for you.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/014476.html

 

[Fremmer]

Are earmarks constitutional? Does the Constitution provide for earmarks? If not, I don't understand why Paul would do something unconstitutional.

Just kiddin'.

Ron Paul is just like every other politician who wants his share of taxpayer money (pork). Maybe shrimp research is vital to our national defense.

At least Ron Paul seems to like shrimp; me too!

 

[Manedwolf]

Nate, lewrockwell, a koo-koo site, does not count as a viable source for information.

 

[Fremmer]

Did the Wall Street Journal report this? If so, anyone have a link to the article?

 

[nate45]

a koo-koo site

Oh right I forgot anything favorable to Ron Paul is kooky, whacko,tin foil hat wearing drivel and not worthy of consideration.

Whatever comes out of the mainstearm media (especially if favors your point of view) is all sane,truthful and aboveboard.

 

[nate45]

Did the Wall Street Journal report this? If so, anyone have a link to the article?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118636043871288806.html?mod=opinion_main_review_and_outlooks

And despite Manedwolf's assesment I think this explains the WSJ's motivation.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewr...es/014476.html

 

[Manedwolf]

nate, Lew Rockwell is perhaps best known for ripping on Abraham Lincoln and saying that America should have let the Germans have their way in WWII. As of now, he's wanting to give in to our enemies.

Whatever you want to say about him, he's a nutcase.

 

[Fremmer]

I'm not a WSJ subscriber. Can a subscriber post the full story (if it is legal, that is)?

 

[Pat H]

Whatever you want to say about him, he's a nutcase.

In your opinion, which is worth no more or less than mine.

My opinion is that Lewrockwell.com is one of the finest, most factual, web sites on the web.

A more intellectually inclined web site is the Ludwig von Mises Institute, which is dedicated to the Austrian School. Great economists such as Mises, Friedrich Hayek, Murray Rothbard, and Lew Rockwell are proponents of this school.

One of the tenants of the Austrian School is that war is very costly in both human and economic terns. That's the reason that Austrian economists had to flee the NAZI's, and why they're ridiculed out here. Ron Paul is an advocate of the Austrian School.

 

[buzz_knox]

What's the constitutional support for promoting shrimp? The Commerce Clause?

 

[Manedwolf]

One of the tenants of the Austrian School is that war is very costly in both human and economic terns. That's the reason that Austrian economists had to flee the NAZI's, and why they're ridiculed out here. Ron Paul is an advocate of the Austrian School.

Wow, that's the most backhanded Godwin I've ever seen. Subtle!

(BTW, rolling over and being conquered is costly, too.)

 

[nate45]

nate, Lew Rockwell is perhaps best known for ripping on Abraham Lincoln and saying that America should have let the Germans have their way in WWII. As of now, he's wanting to give in to our enemies.

You mean things like this:

Years before the war John C. Calhoun had said, "the question is, whether ours is a government resting on the sovereignty of the States, or on the unrestrained will of a majority." Lincoln’s win in the War To Prevent Southern Independence put that argument to bed, established the Republican party, and led us to the corporate Washington we have today, an unconstitutional club of business and government bureaucrats and lobbyists responsible to no one but themselves, with force, threats, and intimidation being the order of the day.

What exactly about that is untrue?

Lincoln needs ripping on.


As far as WW2 goes:

Americans generally pick Franklin Delano Roosevelt as one of the greatest U.S. Presidents.

Why?

People usually say it is because he presided over two crises in American history - the Great Depression and World War II.

I contend that the limousine liberal FDR not only presided over these events, but was responsible for: 1) decimating the U.S. economy through government intervention; and 2) lying to the American people about their so-called interests in World War II.

FDR's meddling wasn't confined to 1933-1945. After his death, the New Deal programs continued (and continue) to destroy wealth and prevent growth. Unfortunately, modern-day Democrats worship FDR's socialist programs and modern-day Republicans glorify the destructive statism of "the Good War."

Again what about that is untrue.

You love the big, elite, corprate controled state don't you and whatever BS their selling on any given day your buying it.

 

[Pat H]

Uh oh, Nate, now you've done it. You posted facts about the neocons second favorite president, the biggest 20th century fascist* America has ever had. You're going to give them apoplexy.

*Referrence: Three New Deals: Reflections on Roosevelt's America, Mussolini's Italy, and Hitler's Germany, 1933-1939

 

[Fremmer]

Buzz, as I understand the RP philosophy, the constitution must explicitly state that members of congress can request and obtain earmarks in order for the same to be constitutional.

I don't understand how RP's pork-earmarks jibe with that philosophy.

And I don't think that RP supporters do, either. Now they want to talk about some Austrian school. Let's avoid the whole Ron Paul and earmark issue, eh?

You love the big, elite, corprate controled state

And apparently Ron Paul does too, at least when it comes to promoting wild American shrimp. Those darned corporate shrimpers and their earmarks!

Surprise! Ron Paul is a congressional republican who, like all of the other congressional democrats and republicans, plays the system to obtain pork (funded by the American taxpayer) to be given to those corporations and/or entities that he deems worthy of receiving the pork.

I still think that Ron Paul is doing something unconstitutional. Perhaps he'll advocate amending the Constitution to include the words "earmark", "pork", and/or "corporate welfare."

 

[nate45]

Surprise! Ron Paul is a congressional republican who, like all of the other congressional democrats and republicans, plays the system to obtain pork (funded by the American taxpayer) to be given to those corporations and/or entities that he deems worthy of receiving the pork.

The charge is that Ron's office has requested various spending grants for his district, at the behest of constituents. The charge is apparently true.

In the same sense, if a constituent is not getting his food stamps, Ron's office--he is a Representative, after all--will try to help.

Neither of these things means that Ron Paul supports federal public works spending or food stamps (though he'd rather see such spending, if it must happen, take place in Texas or Iowa than Iraq or Afghanistan). He votes against all such spending bills, and--of course--has the best record on spending in modern Congressional history.-Lew Rockwell

 

[Fremmer]

Ron's office has requested various spending grants for his district, at the behest of constituents. The charge is apparently true.

"Ron's office" did no such thing. It was RON PAUL who earmarked the pork for the corporate fat cats in his district.

What provision of the United States Constitution provides that Ron Paul can do this?

Neither of these things means that Ron Paul supports federal public works spending

Sure it does. Ron Paul arranged for pork (public spending) for the benefit of wild shrimp producers, presumably in his own district. I'd like to know how Paul's pork will benefit our country, especially since it is not explicitly authorized by the United States Constitution. Please quote the part of the Constitution that explicitly authorizes pork-spending for wild shrimp raising corporations. If you can't, it seems to me that RP is knowingly participating in unconstitutional, big-government-spending legislation. Just like all of the other Republicans and Democrats.

 

[xnavy]

Now you have gone and done. There will be a huge meeting of RP supporters via Instant Messaging so they can come up with a spin on this. Seems their two favorite words Neo-con and Neo-conservative won't get them out of this argument.

 

[Mainah]

I've found that it's helpful to simply ignore any post once the term "neo-con" appears. Reading them is about as informative as watching a Michael Moore movie.

 

[Pat H]

What provision of the United States Constitution provides that Ron Paul can do this?

That would be Article One, section 7. All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other Bills.

Every bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a law, be presented to the President of the United States; if he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the objections at large on their journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the bill, it shall be sent, together with the objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a law. But in all such cases the votes of both Houses shall be determined by yeas and nays, and the names of the persons voting for and against the bill shall be entered on the journal of each House respectively. If any bill shall not be returned by the President within ten days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the same shall be a law, in like manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their adjournment prevent its return, in which case it shall not be a law.

Every order, resolution, or vote to which the concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the same shall take effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the rules and limitations prescribed in the case of a bill.