We Need More Earmarks!

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fq_5H1XKVww"]YouTube - Ron Paul "We Need More Earmarks!"[/ame]

Is Ron Paul the only god damned person in Washington who knows what the hell is going on? Is Ron Paul the only god damned person in Washington who knows what his job is? Is Ron Paul the only god damned person who ever makes a lick of sense when he talks and the only god damned person who lets his intellect dictate his stance instead of his emotions?

I'm no partisan and I hold no allegiance to any party or political movement, but GOD DAMNIT! every time Ron Paul talks he makes sense to me. There isn't an ounce of pretension or insincerity in his voice and he's the only person who has the guts to speak his mind without polishing it or running it through a filter. The man cares - ACTUALLY CARES - about the American people and the integrity of our government. It isn't some elaborate facade he puts on in order to garner votes. He's the genuine article and it's about time people start thinking critically about who we put in office and why.

I dunno. I guess I'm just fed up, and he's the only politician I don't want to punch in the face every time I see him.

I don't buy it. Even if it's "only" 1% of the federal budget (still billions of dollars) that we're wasting, Congress shouldn't keep inserting it into unrelated bills. If the money was truly worth spending, it would have its own separate bill.

Now, I do agree that spending bills need to avoid the influence of the executive branch, but that should apply to all spending outside of that which the President has constitutional control over, not just earmarks.

I also agree with what he said about the Fed.

I don't agree with him on every thing he says, but Ron Paul is one of the very few honest Congressmen in DC. He has a real appreciation of the original intent of the Constitution, and a RARE desire to actually govern by it.

Like Ethereal said, he's one of the few I don't want to punch in the mouth everytime I see him. I voted for him in the primaries, despite disagreeing with much of his foreign policy, because I so desperately want to see the Constitution be the law of the land again.

G.

Bill writeup says we can spend $100 but the allocated expenses are at $80 for the bill itself.

That leaves $20 to "play with".

With earmarks:
$4 for highway [senator X]
$2 for some bull**** chicken mating rituals [Representative Y]
$10 for bridge to nowhere [Senator K]
$4 for extra incentives programs [Multiple states, multiple congressfolks]

We know who to point at.

No earmarks:
Vote as is - $20 gets to be decided by the President. It is still congress fault for spending it. We will still bitch about congress spending too much. Meanwhile the Prez gets a free ride and the bridge might still happen, but we would never know who/how/why it was spent.

The best solution is to not have additional funds to "play with" but that won't happen. This is one of the reasons I could never vote for McCain he is a sleazy politician and prefers it when things are under the table and not visible to the American people.

Dav said:

I don't buy it. Even if it's "only" 1% of the federal budget (still billions of dollars) that we're wasting, Congress shouldn't keep inserting it into unrelated bills. If the money was truly worth spending, it would have its own separate bill

Click to expand...

I'm not sure what your point is. If the money isn't earmarked it gets spent anyway. At least with earmarks there's some form of accountability. If a member of Congress doesn't like wasteful spending then they should vote against the actual bill, not just demonize earmarks after the fact because its politically expedient.

If the government is going to spend money frivolously like our past stimulus bills having the earmark is better than not. However, the earmarks often inflate the cost of the bill and in many cases the spending is irrelevant to the bill itself. Just look at the earmarks thrown into the defense bills under Murtha. Few have anything to do with national defense. The earmark allows money we've allocated for one cause to be diverted to a Congressman looking to bring home the bacon to their districts for re-election. This is a growing problem in our country. Someone from California shouldn't be paying for a town fountain in Nowheresville, Alabama through a Defense bill. The system is completely corrupt and control needs to be restored. We have party leaders like Murtha using earmarks as blackmail. Pelosi has a habit of throwing in specific spending for people's home districts to get them to vote for bills they weren't initially going to vote for. The whole earmarking process needs to be revamped and spending in this country needs to become more ethical and controlled. As it stands now the system is broken due to all the corruption.

I agree, of course, with cutting waste....who does not ??
Who knows exactly what waste is ?
What I disagree with is the quality of language....any fool can swear... and use dirty words..
and this politically correct excessive use of the word "person"....

And this Ron Paul character ? Just another tight-fisted wealthy Republican ?

vauge said:

The best solution is to not have additional funds to "play with" but that won't happen. This is one of the reasons I could never vote for McCain he is a sleazy politician and prefers it when things are under the table and not visible to the American people.

Click to expand...

Yet McCain is adamently opposed to earmarks. His record of opposition by not using earmarks for Arizona proves it with more than just words. Other members of congress may give lip service to the ideal McCain practices but that is all. This includes Obama.

Ethereal said:

I'm not sure what your point is. If the money isn't earmarked it gets spent anyway. At least with earmarks there's some form of accountability. If a member of Congress doesn't like wasteful spending then they should vote against the actual bill, not just demonize earmarks after the fact because its politically expedient.

Click to expand...

That is not the point, that money shouldn't be spent at all.

Dav said:

That is not the point, that money shouldn't be spent at all.

Click to expand...

Yes, Dr. Paul said as much. Do you understand what the argument is about?