• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Senator-Elect Rand Paul Now OK with Earmarks

Troubadour

Troubadour

Banned
Joined
Oct 12, 2010
Messages
464
Reaction score
181
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Via Daily Kos and Think Progress comes the news that Senator-Elect Rand Paul, who had run on a platform of banning earmarks, will seek to obtain them for Kentucky. A quote from the Wall Street Journal, introduced in the Think Progress article:

In a bigger shift from his campaign pledge to end earmarks, he tells me that they are a bad "symbol" of easy spending but that he will fight for Kentucky's share of earmarks and federal pork, as long as it's doled out transparently at the committee level and not parachuted in in the dead of night. "I will advocate for Kentucky's interests," he says.
Click to expand...
 
Troubadour said:
Via Daily Kos and Think Progress comes the news that Senator-Elect Rand Paul, who had run on a platform of banning earmarks, will seek to obtain them for Kentucky. A quote from the Wall Street Journal, introduced in the Think Progress article:
Click to expand...

And as I've said, time and time again, there's nothing wrong with this.

You fight to ban earmarks because that makes less money the government needs which means less money being spent and more going to the debt. That's beneficial to the people of Kentucky which he's supposed to be working for.

HOWEVER

If your fight fails, and that money is designated to go to the states in one way or another, then its your job to get as much of that again for your constituents you work for.

To give an analogy.

You are a father of a son on a baseball team where all the parents of the boys have put in money at the start of the year to pay for supplies, equipment, activities, etc. After a big a bunch of the dads want to take the kids out to Chuck-E-Cheese to have pizza and get $50 worth of tokens for all the kids to use. You suggest that the kids just enjoyed their baseball game, there was no reason to go to such an expensive place, how about you go to the local pizza place down the street and save that money for later in the year come banquet time.

However, despite your advocacy of restraint, the parents over vote you and off to Chuck-E-Cheese you go. Now the pizza is going to be bought, regardless if your son eats or not. The $50 in tokens is going to be bought, regardless if your son eats or not. While previously, when things weren't certain, it was in your sons best interest to fight for restraint with the money...NOW that the money is going to be spent regardless its in your sons best interest to eat and play with it as well.

If Rand Paul forgoes earmarks when the budget is allowing for them he's not doing anything good in regards to his principles. He's not saving money, he's not reducing the deficit, because that money's simply going to anotehr state. All he's doing is causing undue limitations on his state.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with what he's doing. You try to change the system, but until you change it you work to the best of your ability within a system.
 
Earmarks are about $20 billion a year, which is a drop in the bucket compared to the deficit. I don't like the "bad behavior is okay if its for my state mentality", but that more than balanced out by Paul's willingness to go after the real parts of the budget, including defense spending.
:
 
I heard his statements were "walked back" or taken out of conext.
Anyway, what I heard somewhere was that he would go through appropriations for money for his state. They wouldn't be earmarks stuck into bills.
Since, in my opinion, bribery for votes, is the problem, and not the money going to states for approved projects, I like this idea. I hope it's true.
 
Senator elect Paul is positioning himself in a rather clever position. He will join with a few others in Quixotic attacks upon bills and procedures so that he can tell the True Believers that he is carrying out his mandate and being true to his principles while knowing the whole time that the bill or procedure will pass. His comments yesterday on the debt ceiling are a perfect illustration.
 
Zyphlin said:
And as I've said, time and time again, there's nothing wrong with this.

You fight to ban earmarks because that makes less money the government needs which means less money being spent and more going to the debt. That's beneficial to the people of Kentucky which he's supposed to be working for.

HOWEVER

If your fight fails, and that money is designated to go to the states in one way or another, then its your job to get as much of that again for your constituents you work for.

To give an analogy.

You are a father of a son on a baseball team where all the parents of the boys have put in money at the start of the year to pay for supplies, equipment, activities, etc. After a big a bunch of the dads want to take the kids out to Chuck-E-Cheese to have pizza and get $50 worth of tokens for all the kids to use. You suggest that the kids just enjoyed their baseball game, there was no reason to go to such an expensive place, how about you go to the local pizza place down the street and save that money for later in the year come banquet time.

However, despite your advocacy of restraint, the parents over vote you and off to Chuck-E-Cheese you go. Now the pizza is going to be bought, regardless if your son eats or not. The $50 in tokens is going to be bought, regardless if your son eats or not. While previously, when things weren't certain, it was in your sons best interest to fight for restraint with the money...NOW that the money is going to be spent regardless its in your sons best interest to eat and play with it as well.

If Rand Paul forgoes earmarks when the budget is allowing for them he's not doing anything good in regards to his principles. He's not saving money, he's not reducing the deficit, because that money's simply going to anotehr state. All he's doing is causing undue limitations on his state.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with what he's doing. You try to change the system, but until you change it you work to the best of your ability within a system.
Click to expand...

A more coherent analogy would be a reverend who screams about making homosexuality illegal because it is a sin. However because nobody is paying attention to his crazy ass, the reverend decides he too should engage in some dick sucking of his own. I mean after all, it's okay to not follow what you're preaching if nobody else is listening. Make the system work for you. Who cares if you're being nothing more than a hypocrite as long as you get to point fingers yourself? Right?

Your diatribes are almost as dishonest as Paul himself.
 
Last edited:
from Zyphlin

There's absolutely nothing wrong with what he's doing. You try to change the system, but until you change it you work to the best of your ability within a system.
Click to expand...

I suspect we will hear this time and time again over the next two years when the Rand Pauls of this Congress have to explain why they cannot deliver on their ideological extremist agenda. We will hear it so often that it will become a mantra. And two years from now it will all be the fault of Barack Obama and the Democrats despite the Republicans gaining such wide control in the House. It will be very hard for them to actually step up to the plate and be accountable for an actual program and actual results. Its much easier to say NO and I suspect they only want to continue saying NO for the next two years.
 
Hatuey said:
A more coherent analogy would be a reverend who screams about making homosexuality illegal because it is a sin. However because nobody is paying attention to his crazy ass, the reverend decides he too should engage in some dick sucking of his own. I mean after all, it's okay to not follow what you're preaching if nobody else is listening. Make the system work for you. Who cares if you're being nothing more than a hypocrite as long as you get to point fingers yourself? Right?

Your diatribes are almost as dishonest as Paul himself.
Click to expand...

You're joking right. I do an analogy that is a scaled down example of what's going on and you complain that its not coherent and proceed to ramble on about a priest and dick sucking and morals and ethics and sins? And you're bitching about MY analogy?

You have someone whose job is to look out for the best interest of the people that's put their trust in him. That person thinks it'll be best for those that hold his trust if money is saved rather than used. However, once that money is set to be used no matter what, it is now in the best interest of his people to get as much of it as possible for them.

This applies to both the actual situation...of Paul pushing against earmark spending, and then once the spending is part of the budget attempting to get that spending...and for the analogy...where the dad is pushing against wasteful celebratory spending, and then once the coins and food are bought attempting to get his kid to partake. In both instances the individual is doing what is best financially for the people whose trust is given to him based on the reality of the situation.

In your worthless and incoherent analogy, you have someone proclaiming something should be illegal and engaging in it because its not illegal. There is no care there for the interest of those that put their trust in him...IE, you can not say to me that he's getting his dick sucked because he thinks its best for his congregation. There is no reaction to the changing realities...the situation regarding the legality of gay marriage and the ability for him to get his dick sucked has not magically changed between the time he preaches against it and the time that he is having it done to him.

Before you start throwing stones about incoherence and diatribe you should a) look up the damn word and b) not make your own post a candidate to be placed in Webster's next to the definitions of the words.


A senators job is to do what he believes will be best for his constituents. Paul believes that removing earmarks and the spending that goes along with it will help the country out fundamnetally, and as such will be of great benefit to his constitutents. However, once reality changes and money is appropriated and no matter how much Paul protests its going to get spent, then it is in the best interest of his constitutents to get the most of that money as is needed. In both situations he is doing his job as a senator, attempting to do what's best for his voters, based on the reality of the situation at hand.

But I'm sorry, I know dealing with reality won't let you get your worthless and meaningly strawman shots at religion and "gay preachers", but if you want to discuss the topic you might actually want to address...I don't know...the topic.
 
What he stated is that he will fight for Kentucky's interests. Heres a plain and simple truth. the PEOPLE of Kentucky will be taxed by the federal government. Certain portions of those federal taxes are routinely returned to the states. What Rand Paul said is simply that he will fight to ensure Kentucky recieves what it should.

Now...want to make it more simple? Gut the federal government, reduce the citizens federal tax burdens, and make the states responsible for their own pork and programs. Until you do that a state representative would be cutting their constituents throats by allowing them to be taxed and not see the state receive a fair allocation return. He didnt say he was gonna get his state some pork...he didnt say he was going to bo build them a bridge to nowhere...he said he was simply going to fight for Kentucky's interests. Presumably you can assume that means education and highway funding.

Now...IF he actually gets into congress and DOES introduce a bunch of pork legislation than by all means you would be right to be critical of him and I would join in that critique. Until he does...well...it wont matter...at least...not to myopic ideologues...
 
And so it begins.

The left has a new enemy. This enemy was against the Iraq war, the patriot act, and many other things they pretended to care about once upon a time.
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
Is it not dissappointing to see him back track on a policy so quickly?
Click to expand...

those that know his fathers positions knew this was exactly how it was going to work.

If he manages to win a few more terms, we can expect a similar complaint about his views on term limits.
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
Is it not dissappointing to see him back track on a policy so quickly?
Click to expand...

It'll be disappointing if he actually back tracks on policy. IE if he doens't attempt to get earmarks either removed or at least suspended. If he attempts to do that then he's not back tracking on a policy.
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
Is it not dissappointing to see him back track on a policy so quickly?
Click to expand...

He is not backtracking on policy. He stated simply that he will fight for Kentucky citizens. He didnt say he will go after pork...he will fight o ensure the citizens in Kentucky (that make no mistake WILL BE TAXED) get back that portion which they should. Look at the alternative...he DOESNT fight to get Kentucky's share of education and highway funds...does Kentucky get taxed any LESS? Of course not.

Perhaps liberal ideologues (with an obvious bent against anything associated with the term 'libertarian') would be better served to wait til he actually DOES something actionable (or is even sworn in) before they accuse him.
 
VanceMack said:
He is not backtracking on policy. He stated simply that he will fight for Kentucky citizens. He didnt say he will go after pork...he will fight o ensure the citizens in Kentucky (that make no mistake WILL BE TAXED) get back that portion which they should. Look at the alternative...he DOESNT fight to get Kentucky's share of education and highway funds...does Kentucky get taxed any LESS? Of course not.

Perhaps liberal ideologues (with an obvious bent against anything associated with the term 'libertarian') would be better served to wait til he actually DOES something actionable (or is even sworn in) before they accuse him.
Click to expand...

Does Kentucky get more in federal government money then it pays in taxes?
 
ARealConservative said:
those that know his fathers positions knew this was exactly how it was going to work.

If he manages to win a few more terms, we can expect a similar complaint about his views on term limits.
Click to expand...

I agree. the True Believers have already made allowances for it and will accept it without so much as a whimper because he is a fellow traveler. He knows the secret handshake and can do not wrong in their eyes.
 
haymarket said:
I agree. the True Believers have already made allowances for it and will accept it without so much as a whimper because he is a fellow traveler. He knows the secret handshake and can do not wrong in their eyes.
Click to expand...

yawn.

it's like arguing with Navy Prides alter ego.
 
So they turn on Paul when he deviates from orthodoxy?
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
Does Kentucky get more in federal government money then it pays in taxes?
Click to expand...

Good question. But then...what Kentucky has received prior to Rand Pauls election has no relevant bearing on the current discussion. An elected representative of the people of Kentucky has committed to fight for their interests. For shame!
 
:lamo Love the avalanche of rationalizations for hypocrisy.
 
There is nothing wrong with pork barrel spending as long as they are out in the open and debated. 'Earmarks' can be a different animal altogether, they can be hidden in other legislation.
 
Hypocrisy is a mindless ideologue who believes all of one party is evil, all within his party of choice is lily white, and an individual who has yet to be sworn in is guilty of future 'possible' offenses.
 
Hypocrisy is what is always has been: professing your belief in one thing and doing a quite different even opposite thing. It has little do to with parties exclusively.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom