Ron Paul just endorsed Ken Cuccinelli for Governor...

Your Virginia Tech Politics and Religion source
Forum rules
Be Civil. Go Hokies.
User avatar
Marine Hokie
Posts: 2124
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:50 pm
Location: Durham, NC

Re: Ron Paul just endorsed Ken Cuccinelli for Governor...

Post by Marine Hokie »

awesome guy wrote:
WADR, that's a lot of BS. A not so successful attempt at splitting hairs. Aka, politics.
Increases spending vs not increasing spending is splitting hairs?
A man is no less a slave because he is allowed to choose a new master once in a term of years.
User avatar
awesome guy
Posts: 54187
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 7:10 pm
Party: After 10
Location: Plastic Flotilla:Location Classified

Re: Ron Paul just endorsed Ken Cuccinelli for Governor...

Post by awesome guy »

Marine Hokie wrote:
awesome guy wrote:
WADR, that's a lot of BS. A not so successful attempt at splitting hairs. Aka, politics.
Increases spending vs not increasing spending is splitting hairs?
claiming earmarks don't increase spending is disingenuous, to be mild. They're the apitamy of pork. Or is the new libertarian view one that thinks the federal government should furnish trash cans and decorative street lighting?

http://news.yahoo.com/ron-pauls-hypocri ... 00440.html
Unvaccinated,. mask free, and still alive.
User avatar
Marine Hokie
Posts: 2124
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:50 pm
Location: Durham, NC

Re: Ron Paul just endorsed Ken Cuccinelli for Governor...

Post by Marine Hokie »

awesome guy wrote:
Marine Hokie wrote:
awesome guy wrote:
WADR, that's a lot of BS. A not so successful attempt at splitting hairs. Aka, politics.
Increases spending vs not increasing spending is splitting hairs?
claiming earmarks don't increase spending is disingenuous, to be mild. They're the apitamy of pork. Or is the new libertarian view one that thinks the federal government should furnish trash cans and decorative street lighting?

http://news.yahoo.com/ron-pauls-hypocri ... 00440.html
Earmarks allocate spending, they do not increase it. The alternative is for the president to have full control over how to spend the money. Again, these are appropriations bills on which he votes no and argues against. I feel like a broken record.

I disagree with Ron Paul on plenty, but you're wrong on this.
A man is no less a slave because he is allowed to choose a new master once in a term of years.
User avatar
awesome guy
Posts: 54187
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 7:10 pm
Party: After 10
Location: Plastic Flotilla:Location Classified

Re: Ron Paul just endorsed Ken Cuccinelli for Governor...

Post by awesome guy »

Marine Hokie wrote:
awesome guy wrote:
Marine Hokie wrote:
awesome guy wrote:
WADR, that's a lot of BS. A not so successful attempt at splitting hairs. Aka, politics.
Increases spending vs not increasing spending is splitting hairs?
claiming earmarks don't increase spending is disingenuous, to be mild. They're the apitamy of pork. Or is the new libertarian view one that thinks the federal government should furnish trash cans and decorative street lighting?

http://news.yahoo.com/ron-pauls-hypocri ... 00440.html
Earmarks allocate spending, they do not increase it. The alternative is for the president to have full control over how to spend the money. Again, these are appropriations bills on which he votes no and argues against. I feel like a broken record.

I disagree with Ron Paul on plenty, but you're wrong on this.
I'm right unless you've discovered a fantasy world where paying for street lighting in Ron Paul's district doesn't add cost. You know, if Paul didn't get the earmark then that money wouldn't be spent and our federal debt would be less.

You can say the converse many times, but it won't make it right. Adding spending increases cost. And his argument isn't technical as you're presenting. He's saying "they took the taxes from us and we want it back". Not the false story you're presenting of earmarks having no relation to spending. They're a driver of spending.
Unvaccinated,. mask free, and still alive.
User avatar
Marine Hokie
Posts: 2124
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:50 pm
Location: Durham, NC

Re: Ron Paul just endorsed Ken Cuccinelli for Governor...

Post by Marine Hokie »

awesome guy wrote: I'm right unless you've discovered a fantasy world where paying for street lighting in Ron Paul's district doesn't add cost. You know, if Paul didn't get the earmark then that money wouldn't be spent and our federal debt would be less.
Then you're wrong. I'm not sure if you're not reading my responses or what the problem is. Earmarks allocate funding that is already going to happen. If there's no earmark, the money is still spent, but the executive branch gets more discretion about what to do with it.

A $1,000,000 appropriations bill on whatever US government nonsense is going to be up for a vote. Ron Paul puts in an earmark for $10,000 of that $1,000,000 to be spent on streetlights in his district. He doesn't want the $1,000,000 to be spent, votes against it, and argues against it. If he doesn't earmark $10,000 of the $1,000,000 bill for streetlights, the full $1,000,000 will still be spent, but Obama gets to decide how. He isn't making a $1,000,000 bill into a $1,010,000 bill by adding streetlights. Would you rather congress vote on the allocation of US government spending, or have Obama decide?
awesome guy wrote: You can the converse many times, but it won't make it right. Adding spending increases cost. And his argument isn't technical as you're presenting. He's saying "they took the taxes from us and we want it back". Not the false story you're presenting of earmarks having no relation to cost. They're the definition of cost.
His argument is exactly what I'm saying, except he adds to it that this is his way of giving the money back to people. On that part I disagree with him, and feel there are better ways to give the money back, like direct deposit.

You're wrong. If you want things to not like Ron Paul about, or ways to criticize him on his consistency to the principles of liberty, I'll be happy to give you some. This is not one of them.
A man is no less a slave because he is allowed to choose a new master once in a term of years.
User avatar
awesome guy
Posts: 54187
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 7:10 pm
Party: After 10
Location: Plastic Flotilla:Location Classified

Re: Ron Paul just endorsed Ken Cuccinelli for Governor...

Post by awesome guy »

Marine Hokie wrote:
awesome guy wrote: I'm right unless you've discovered a fantasy world where paying for street lighting in Ron Paul's district doesn't add cost. You know, if Paul didn't get the earmark then that money wouldn't be spent and our federal debt would be less.
Then you're wrong. I'm not sure if you're not reading my responses or what the problem is. Earmarks allocate funding that is already going to happen. If there's no earmark, the money is still spent, but the executive branch gets more discretion about what to do with it.

A $1,000,000 appropriations bill on whatever US government nonsense is going to be up for a vote. Ron Paul puts in an earmark for $10,000 of that $1,000,000 to be spent on streetlights in his district. He doesn't want the $1,000,000 to be spent, votes against it, and argues against it. If he doesn't earmark $10,000 of the $1,000,000 bill for streetlights, the full $1,000,000 will still be spent, but Obama gets to decide how. He isn't making a $1,000,000 bill into a $1,010,000 bill by adding streetlights. Would you rather congress vote on the allocation of US government spending, or have Obama decide?
awesome guy wrote: You can the converse many times, but it won't make it right. Adding spending increases cost. And his argument isn't technical as you're presenting. He's saying "they took the taxes from us and we want it back". Not the false story you're presenting of earmarks having no relation to cost. They're the definition of cost.
His argument is exactly what I'm saying, except he adds to it that this is his way of giving the money back to people. On that part I disagree with him, and feel there are better ways to give the money back, like direct deposit.

You're wrong. If you want things to not like Ron Paul about, or ways to criticize him on his consistency to the principles of liberty, I'll be happy to give you some. This is not one of them.
I've read your response. The problem is things don't work the way you're explaining. IE, it's just not true that the executive branch will get what Ron Paul leaves behind. Your a smart guy and should be able to see what's wrong with what you're presenting. In your example, if Ron Paul doesn't add his earmark, then the appropriations bill be $990,000 and not $1,000,000. What you're describing is a cash grab machine.

And the picture item that this points to is there no such thing as an honest politician. Not even Ron Paul. It's their job to lie to us. That said, he doesn't seem corrupt or a trophy for lobbyist as many others are. And he's certainly a lot better than most, but he's also not the big spending crusader that many try to portray him as. That's where he has his cake and eats it too.


Image
Unvaccinated,. mask free, and still alive.
User avatar
Marine Hokie
Posts: 2124
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:50 pm
Location: Durham, NC

Re: Ron Paul just endorsed Ken Cuccinelli for Governor...

Post by Marine Hokie »

awesome guy wrote:
Marine Hokie wrote:
awesome guy wrote: I'm right unless you've discovered a fantasy world where paying for street lighting in Ron Paul's district doesn't add cost. You know, if Paul didn't get the earmark then that money wouldn't be spent and our federal debt would be less.
Then you're wrong. I'm not sure if you're not reading my responses or what the problem is. Earmarks allocate funding that is already going to happen. If there's no earmark, the money is still spent, but the executive branch gets more discretion about what to do with it.

A $1,000,000 appropriations bill on whatever US government nonsense is going to be up for a vote. Ron Paul puts in an earmark for $10,000 of that $1,000,000 to be spent on streetlights in his district. He doesn't want the $1,000,000 to be spent, votes against it, and argues against it. If he doesn't earmark $10,000 of the $1,000,000 bill for streetlights, the full $1,000,000 will still be spent, but Obama gets to decide how. He isn't making a $1,000,000 bill into a $1,010,000 bill by adding streetlights. Would you rather congress vote on the allocation of US government spending, or have Obama decide?
awesome guy wrote: You can the converse many times, but it won't make it right. Adding spending increases cost. And his argument isn't technical as you're presenting. He's saying "they took the taxes from us and we want it back". Not the false story you're presenting of earmarks having no relation to cost. They're the definition of cost.
His argument is exactly what I'm saying, except he adds to it that this is his way of giving the money back to people. On that part I disagree with him, and feel there are better ways to give the money back, like direct deposit.

You're wrong. If you want things to not like Ron Paul about, or ways to criticize him on his consistency to the principles of liberty, I'll be happy to give you some. This is not one of them.
I've read your response. The problem is things don't work the way you're explaining. IE, it's just not true that the executive branch will get what Ron Paul leaves behind. Your a smart guy and should be able to see what's wrong with what you're presenting. In your example, if Ron Paul doesn't add his earmark, then the appropriations bill be $990,000 and not $1,000,000. What you're describing is a cash grab machine.

And the picture item that this points to is there no such thing as an honest politician. Not even Ron Paul. It's their job to lie to us. That said, he doesn't seem corrupt or a trophy for lobbyist as many others are. And he's certainly a lot better than most, but he's also not the big spending crusader that many try to portray him as. That's where he has his cake and eats it too.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... ave-money/

His sources are on the right.
A man is no less a slave because he is allowed to choose a new master once in a term of years.
User avatar
awesome guy
Posts: 54187
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 7:10 pm
Party: After 10
Location: Plastic Flotilla:Location Classified

Re: Ron Paul just endorsed Ken Cuccinelli for Governor...

Post by awesome guy »

Marine Hokie wrote:
awesome guy wrote:
Marine Hokie wrote:
awesome guy wrote: I'm right unless you've discovered a fantasy world where paying for street lighting in Ron Paul's district doesn't add cost. You know, if Paul didn't get the earmark then that money wouldn't be spent and our federal debt would be less.
Then you're wrong. I'm not sure if you're not reading my responses or what the problem is. Earmarks allocate funding that is already going to happen. If there's no earmark, the money is still spent, but the executive branch gets more discretion about what to do with it.

A $1,000,000 appropriations bill on whatever US government nonsense is going to be up for a vote. Ron Paul puts in an earmark for $10,000 of that $1,000,000 to be spent on streetlights in his district. He doesn't want the $1,000,000 to be spent, votes against it, and argues against it. If he doesn't earmark $10,000 of the $1,000,000 bill for streetlights, the full $1,000,000 will still be spent, but Obama gets to decide how. He isn't making a $1,000,000 bill into a $1,010,000 bill by adding streetlights. Would you rather congress vote on the allocation of US government spending, or have Obama decide?
awesome guy wrote: You can the converse many times, but it won't make it right. Adding spending increases cost. And his argument isn't technical as you're presenting. He's saying "they took the taxes from us and we want it back". Not the false story you're presenting of earmarks having no relation to cost. They're the definition of cost.
His argument is exactly what I'm saying, except he adds to it that this is his way of giving the money back to people. On that part I disagree with him, and feel there are better ways to give the money back, like direct deposit.

You're wrong. If you want things to not like Ron Paul about, or ways to criticize him on his consistency to the principles of liberty, I'll be happy to give you some. This is not one of them.
I've read your response. The problem is things don't work the way you're explaining. IE, it's just not true that the executive branch will get what Ron Paul leaves behind. Your a smart guy and should be able to see what's wrong with what you're presenting. In your example, if Ron Paul doesn't add his earmark, then the appropriations bill be $990,000 and not $1,000,000. What you're describing is a cash grab machine.

And the picture item that this points to is there no such thing as an honest politician. Not even Ron Paul. It's their job to lie to us. That said, he doesn't seem corrupt or a trophy for lobbyist as many others are. And he's certainly a lot better than most, but he's also not the big spending crusader that many try to portray him as. That's where he has his cake and eats it too.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... ave-money/

His sources are on the right.
That's BS, the earmark money is added to the spending bill in the first place. When the spending appropriation is created, that's when the spending is requested for what will be an earmark. The earmark sends it to Ron Paul's district for trash cans. You guys are hiding behind an artifact of how congress works at a technical level. It matters not that it's not called an earmark till further in the bill, the funds for it are added up front in the appropriations process and Ron Paul is there adding his special interest spending like the rest of them.
Unvaccinated,. mask free, and still alive.
User avatar
awesome guy
Posts: 54187
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 7:10 pm
Party: After 10
Location: Plastic Flotilla:Location Classified

Re: Ron Paul just endorsed Ken Cuccinelli for Governor...

Post by awesome guy »

Marine Hokie wrote:
awesome guy wrote:
Marine Hokie wrote:
awesome guy wrote: I'm right unless you've discovered a fantasy world where paying for street lighting in Ron Paul's district doesn't add cost. You know, if Paul didn't get the earmark then that money wouldn't be spent and our federal debt would be less.
Then you're wrong. I'm not sure if you're not reading my responses or what the problem is. Earmarks allocate funding that is already going to happen. If there's no earmark, the money is still spent, but the executive branch gets more discretion about what to do with it.

A $1,000,000 appropriations bill on whatever US government nonsense is going to be up for a vote. Ron Paul puts in an earmark for $10,000 of that $1,000,000 to be spent on streetlights in his district. He doesn't want the $1,000,000 to be spent, votes against it, and argues against it. If he doesn't earmark $10,000 of the $1,000,000 bill for streetlights, the full $1,000,000 will still be spent, but Obama gets to decide how. He isn't making a $1,000,000 bill into a $1,010,000 bill by adding streetlights. Would you rather congress vote on the allocation of US government spending, or have Obama decide?
awesome guy wrote: You can the converse many times, but it won't make it right. Adding spending increases cost. And his argument isn't technical as you're presenting. He's saying "they took the taxes from us and we want it back". Not the false story you're presenting of earmarks having no relation to cost. They're the definition of cost.
His argument is exactly what I'm saying, except he adds to it that this is his way of giving the money back to people. On that part I disagree with him, and feel there are better ways to give the money back, like direct deposit.

You're wrong. If you want things to not like Ron Paul about, or ways to criticize him on his consistency to the principles of liberty, I'll be happy to give you some. This is not one of them.
I've read your response. The problem is things don't work the way you're explaining. IE, it's just not true that the executive branch will get what Ron Paul leaves behind. Your a smart guy and should be able to see what's wrong with what you're presenting. In your example, if Ron Paul doesn't add his earmark, then the appropriations bill be $990,000 and not $1,000,000. What you're describing is a cash grab machine.

And the picture item that this points to is there no such thing as an honest politician. Not even Ron Paul. It's their job to lie to us. That said, he doesn't seem corrupt or a trophy for lobbyist as many others are. And he's certainly a lot better than most, but he's also not the big spending crusader that many try to portray him as. That's where he has his cake and eats it too.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... ave-money/

His sources are on the right.
I'll say it another way, are you and Ron Paul saying there is an unstoppable attack of money coming from the government and if you guys aren't out there with your catchers mitts then Obama gets it? If so, Ron Paul is one of them launching the attack in the appropriations process. He's adding his trash can funds there too.

Lugar is being intentionally misleading because he's a politician too and knows the people hate all pork but that coming their way.
Unvaccinated,. mask free, and still alive.
User avatar
Marine Hokie
Posts: 2124
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:50 pm
Location: Durham, NC

Re: Ron Paul just endorsed Ken Cuccinelli for Governor...

Post by Marine Hokie »

That's an article from a non-partisan (though sometimes democratic leaning) website, quoting various experts from around the political spectrum, including constitutional conservatives, even some who are against earmarks, detailing why you're wrong. At this point I'm not sure what you'd have to be shown to be convinced that Ron Paul's earmarks didn't add to US government spending.
Even if you were right, which you aren't, it wouldn't matter, since Ron Paul voted against spending bills anyway. Before you say that doesn't count, since he knew that many of the bills would pass without his vote, please realize that's a silly argument. If he votes against a war, he doesn't give up the right to have a say in the war legislation. You can't then say that he supports the particular war.
awesome guy wrote:
Marine Hokie wrote:
awesome guy wrote:
Marine Hokie wrote:
awesome guy wrote: I'm right unless you've discovered a fantasy world where paying for street lighting in Ron Paul's district doesn't add cost. You know, if Paul didn't get the earmark then that money wouldn't be spent and our federal debt would be less.
Then you're wrong. I'm not sure if you're not reading my responses or what the problem is. Earmarks allocate funding that is already going to happen. If there's no earmark, the money is still spent, but the executive branch gets more discretion about what to do with it.

A $1,000,000 appropriations bill on whatever US government nonsense is going to be up for a vote. Ron Paul puts in an earmark for $10,000 of that $1,000,000 to be spent on streetlights in his district. He doesn't want the $1,000,000 to be spent, votes against it, and argues against it. If he doesn't earmark $10,000 of the $1,000,000 bill for streetlights, the full $1,000,000 will still be spent, but Obama gets to decide how. He isn't making a $1,000,000 bill into a $1,010,000 bill by adding streetlights. Would you rather congress vote on the allocation of US government spending, or have Obama decide?
awesome guy wrote: You can the converse many times, but it won't make it right. Adding spending increases cost. And his argument isn't technical as you're presenting. He's saying "they took the taxes from us and we want it back". Not the false story you're presenting of earmarks having no relation to cost. They're the definition of cost.
His argument is exactly what I'm saying, except he adds to it that this is his way of giving the money back to people. On that part I disagree with him, and feel there are better ways to give the money back, like direct deposit.

You're wrong. If you want things to not like Ron Paul about, or ways to criticize him on his consistency to the principles of liberty, I'll be happy to give you some. This is not one of them.
I've read your response. The problem is things don't work the way you're explaining. IE, it's just not true that the executive branch will get what Ron Paul leaves behind. Your a smart guy and should be able to see what's wrong with what you're presenting. In your example, if Ron Paul doesn't add his earmark, then the appropriations bill be $990,000 and not $1,000,000. What you're describing is a cash grab machine.

And the picture item that this points to is there no such thing as an honest politician. Not even Ron Paul. It's their job to lie to us. That said, he doesn't seem corrupt or a trophy for lobbyist as many others are. And he's certainly a lot better than most, but he's also not the big spending crusader that many try to portray him as. That's where he has his cake and eats it too.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... ave-money/

His sources are on the right.
That's BS, the earmark money is added to the spending bill in the first place. When the spending appropriation is created, that's when the spending is requested for what will be an earmark. The earmark sends it to Ron Paul's district for trash cans. You guys are hiding behind an artifact of how congress works at a technical level. It matters not that it's not called an earmark till further in the bill, the funds for it are added up front in the appropriations process and Ron Paul is there adding his special interest spending like the rest of them.
A man is no less a slave because he is allowed to choose a new master once in a term of years.
User avatar
awesome guy
Posts: 54187
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 7:10 pm
Party: After 10
Location: Plastic Flotilla:Location Classified

Re: Ron Paul just endorsed Ken Cuccinelli for Governor...

Post by awesome guy »

Marine Hokie wrote:That's an article from a non-partisan (though sometimes democratic leaning) website, quoting various experts from around the political spectrum, including constitutional conservatives, even some who are against earmarks, detailing why you're wrong. At this point I'm not sure what you'd have to be shown to be convinced that Ron Paul's earmarks didn't add to US government spending.
Even if you were right, which you aren't, it wouldn't matter, since Ron Paul voted against spending bills anyway. Before you say that doesn't count, since he knew that many of the bills would pass without his vote, please realize that's a silly argument. If he votes against a war, he doesn't give up the right to have a say in the war legislation. You can't then say that he supports the particular war.
That's just spin. It's like saying that you didn't pay for dinner since you really just charged it to a credit card, thus no one is "payed". And when you pay the credit card, that's when you're really paying the bill. It's a technically to obfuscate that you paid for dinner and one most people would consider a misrepresentation of the transaction.

Of course a democrat site wants to convince the public congress is helpless but to direct part of the money tsunami to their districts. :)

They're right that earmarks are petty cash in the federal budget, but if I don't increase the amount in petty cash then I'm still not increasing costs.

Riddle me this, who crafts appropriation bills? At what point does the author consider the amount of the appropriation?
Unvaccinated,. mask free, and still alive.
User avatar
Marine Hokie
Posts: 2124
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:50 pm
Location: Durham, NC

Re: Ron Paul just endorsed Ken Cuccinelli for Governor...

Post by Marine Hokie »

Yes, we're talking about money that has already been budgeted. You're missing the main argument against earmarks and just buying into the uninformed hit-piece propaganda. The primary opposition to earmarks is that it tends to serve special interests. In those cases, a politician will have a small handful of earmarks for a few favored special interests. Ron Paul had so many because he wasn't catering to special interests, he included darn near everything his constituents that he represents asked for, in an effort to give them back their money.
Again, this is money that is already budgeted for. If the congress doesn't specifically say where a department's money goes, the executive branch does.

awesome guy wrote:
Marine Hokie wrote:
awesome guy wrote:
Marine Hokie wrote:
awesome guy wrote: I'm right unless you've discovered a fantasy world where paying for street lighting in Ron Paul's district doesn't add cost. You know, if Paul didn't get the earmark then that money wouldn't be spent and our federal debt would be less.
Then you're wrong. I'm not sure if you're not reading my responses or what the problem is. Earmarks allocate funding that is already going to happen. If there's no earmark, the money is still spent, but the executive branch gets more discretion about what to do with it.

A $1,000,000 appropriations bill on whatever US government nonsense is going to be up for a vote. Ron Paul puts in an earmark for $10,000 of that $1,000,000 to be spent on streetlights in his district. He doesn't want the $1,000,000 to be spent, votes against it, and argues against it. If he doesn't earmark $10,000 of the $1,000,000 bill for streetlights, the full $1,000,000 will still be spent, but Obama gets to decide how. He isn't making a $1,000,000 bill into a $1,010,000 bill by adding streetlights. Would you rather congress vote on the allocation of US government spending, or have Obama decide?
awesome guy wrote: You can the converse many times, but it won't make it right. Adding spending increases cost. And his argument isn't technical as you're presenting. He's saying "they took the taxes from us and we want it back". Not the false story you're presenting of earmarks having no relation to cost. They're the definition of cost.
His argument is exactly what I'm saying, except he adds to it that this is his way of giving the money back to people. On that part I disagree with him, and feel there are better ways to give the money back, like direct deposit.

You're wrong. If you want things to not like Ron Paul about, or ways to criticize him on his consistency to the principles of liberty, I'll be happy to give you some. This is not one of them.
I've read your response. The problem is things don't work the way you're explaining. IE, it's just not true that the executive branch will get what Ron Paul leaves behind. Your a smart guy and should be able to see what's wrong with what you're presenting. In your example, if Ron Paul doesn't add his earmark, then the appropriations bill be $990,000 and not $1,000,000. What you're describing is a cash grab machine.

And the picture item that this points to is there no such thing as an honest politician. Not even Ron Paul. It's their job to lie to us. That said, he doesn't seem corrupt or a trophy for lobbyist as many others are. And he's certainly a lot better than most, but he's also not the big spending crusader that many try to portray him as. That's where he has his cake and eats it too.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... ave-money/

His sources are on the right.
I'll say it another way, are you and Ron Paul saying there is an unstoppable attack of money coming from the government and if you guys aren't out there with your catchers mitts then Obama gets it? If so, Ron Paul is one of them launching the attack in the appropriations process. He's adding his trash can funds there too.

Lugar is being intentionally misleading because he's a politician too and knows the people hate all pork but that coming their way.
A man is no less a slave because he is allowed to choose a new master once in a term of years.
User avatar
Marine Hokie
Posts: 2124
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:50 pm
Location: Durham, NC

Re: Ron Paul just endorsed Ken Cuccinelli for Governor...

Post by Marine Hokie »

So your position is that we're talking about a site that's a shill for the democratic party and yet was able to enlist the help republicans, libertarians, constitutional conservatives, and people who don't like earmarks to further their goal of unbridled democratic spending via earmarks?

awesome guy wrote:
Marine Hokie wrote:That's an article from a non-partisan (though sometimes democratic leaning) website, quoting various experts from around the political spectrum, including constitutional conservatives, even some who are against earmarks, detailing why you're wrong. At this point I'm not sure what you'd have to be shown to be convinced that Ron Paul's earmarks didn't add to US government spending.
Even if you were right, which you aren't, it wouldn't matter, since Ron Paul voted against spending bills anyway. Before you say that doesn't count, since he knew that many of the bills would pass without his vote, please realize that's a silly argument. If he votes against a war, he doesn't give up the right to have a say in the war legislation. You can't then say that he supports the particular war.
That's just spin. It's like saying that you didn't pay for dinner since you really just charged it to a credit card, thus no one is "payed". And when you pay the credit card, that's when you're really paying the bill. It's a technically to obfuscate that you paid for dinner and one most people would consider a misrepresentation of the transaction.

Of course a democrat site wants to convince the public congress is helpless but to direct part of the money tsunami to their districts. :)

They're right that earmarks are petty cash in the federal budget, but if I don't increase the amount in petty cash then I'm still not increasing costs.

Riddle me this, who crafts appropriation bills? At what point does the author consider the amount of the appropriation?
A man is no less a slave because he is allowed to choose a new master once in a term of years.
User avatar
awesome guy
Posts: 54187
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 7:10 pm
Party: After 10
Location: Plastic Flotilla:Location Classified

Re: Ron Paul just endorsed Ken Cuccinelli for Governor...

Post by awesome guy »

Marine Hokie wrote:Yes, we're talking about money that has already been budgeted. You're missing the main argument against earmarks and just buying into the uninformed hit-piece propaganda. The primary opposition to earmarks is that it tends to serve special interests. In those cases, a politician will have a small handful of earmarks for a few favored special interests. Ron Paul had so many because he wasn't catering to special interests, he included darn near everything his constituents that he represents asked for, in an effort to give them back their money.
Again, this is money that is already budgeted for. If the congress doesn't specifically say where a department's money goes, the executive branch does.

I think you're missing the crucial fact that congress creates the budget. That's when they're all debating what to included, Ron speaks up and mentions these new trash cans he's been eyeing and adds it into the budget, at the appropriations step. And what you're saying is that when the lump sum amount of an appropriations bill (that Paul helped construct) is earmarked, Paul isn't really increasing spending, he's just grabbing what is (he put) in there. See the game? He's "earmarking" what he put in, then voting against it. All the while claiming "no, I just grabbed this money that was already appropriated[by him]" and voted against it.
Unvaccinated,. mask free, and still alive.
User avatar
Marine Hokie
Posts: 2124
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:50 pm
Location: Durham, NC

Re: Ron Paul just endorsed Ken Cuccinelli for Governor...

Post by Marine Hokie »

Nope. The appropriations bills were hashed out by committee, then his earmarks directed the spending more precisely (granted to lots of random areas). Find me some examples of times he contacted the committees prior to them having determined the dollar amount asking them to spend more money than congress otherwise would have.

Take a step back, and think about what you're saying. You're accusing the one guy who consistently voted against the spending bills of spending a lot of money. He.didn't.want.the.money.to.be.spent.at.all.
awesome guy wrote:
Marine Hokie wrote:Yes, we're talking about money that has already been budgeted. You're missing the main argument against earmarks and just buying into the uninformed hit-piece propaganda. The primary opposition to earmarks is that it tends to serve special interests. In those cases, a politician will have a small handful of earmarks for a few favored special interests. Ron Paul had so many because he wasn't catering to special interests, he included darn near everything his constituents that he represents asked for, in an effort to give them back their money.
Again, this is money that is already budgeted for. If the congress doesn't specifically say where a department's money goes, the executive branch does.

I think you're missing the crucial fact that congress creates the budget. That's when they're all debating what to included, Ron speaks up and mentions these new trash cans he's been eyeing and adds it into the budget, at the appropriations step. And what you're saying is that when the lump sum amount of an appropriations bill (that Paul helped construct) is earmarked, Paul isn't really increasing spending, he's just grabbing what is (he put) in there. See the game? He's "earmarking" what he put in, then voting against it. All the while claiming "no, I just grabbed this money that was already appropriated[by him]" and voted against it.
A man is no less a slave because he is allowed to choose a new master once in a term of years.
User avatar
awesome guy
Posts: 54187
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 7:10 pm
Party: After 10
Location: Plastic Flotilla:Location Classified

Re: Ron Paul just endorsed Ken Cuccinelli for Governor...

Post by awesome guy »

Marine Hokie wrote:So your position is that we're talking about a site that's a shill for the democratic party and yet was able to enlist the help republicans, libertarians, constitutional conservatives, and people who don't like earmarks to further their goal of unbridled democratic spending via earmarks?

awesome guy wrote:
Marine Hokie wrote:That's an article from a non-partisan (though sometimes democratic leaning) website, quoting various experts from around the political spectrum, including constitutional conservatives, even some who are against earmarks, detailing why you're wrong. At this point I'm not sure what you'd have to be shown to be convinced that Ron Paul's earmarks didn't add to US government spending.
Even if you were right, which you aren't, it wouldn't matter, since Ron Paul voted against spending bills anyway. Before you say that doesn't count, since he knew that many of the bills would pass without his vote, please realize that's a silly argument. If he votes against a war, he doesn't give up the right to have a say in the war legislation. You can't then say that he supports the particular war.
That's just spin. It's like saying that you didn't pay for dinner since you really just charged it to a credit card, thus no one is "payed". And when you pay the credit card, that's when you're really paying the bill. It's a technically to obfuscate that you paid for dinner and one most people would consider a misrepresentation of the transaction.

Of course a democrat site wants to convince the public congress is helpless but to direct part of the money tsunami to their districts. :)

They're right that earmarks are petty cash in the federal budget, but if I don't increase the amount in petty cash then I'm still not increasing costs.

Riddle me this, who crafts appropriation bills? At what point does the author consider the amount of the appropriation?
I figured the smiley would indicate hyperbole in that comment.

No, I'm saying that they're presenting a world where congress is helpless but to spend money. But they're the ones that create the appropriations bill in the first place that is later earmarked. So it's a disingenuous argument.

Maybe they're getting lost in the technicality that lobbyist physically write the bill and they're just grabbing some for their districts in the legislation purchased? :lol: That's hyperbole again. But it isn't that far from the truth, there are cases of lobbyist literally writing bills or portions of them. Obamacare is an example of that.

Anyway, congress is ultimately responsible for it. And it's silly to believe creating appropriations and then earmarking your share doesn't affect spending. They're focusing on the term "earmark" while ignoring the appropriations bill they constructed in the first place.
Unvaccinated,. mask free, and still alive.
User avatar
awesome guy
Posts: 54187
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 7:10 pm
Party: After 10
Location: Plastic Flotilla:Location Classified

Re: Ron Paul just endorsed Ken Cuccinelli for Governor...

Post by awesome guy »

Marine Hokie wrote:Nope. The appropriations bills were hashed out by committee, then his earmarks directed the spending more precisely (granted to lots of random areas). Find me some examples of times he contacted the committees prior to them having determined the dollar amount asking them to spend more money than congress otherwise would have.

Take a step back, and think about what you're saying. You're accusing the one guy who consistently voted against the spending bills of spending a lot of money. He.didn't.want.the.money.to.be.spent.at.all.

Committees are where most of the work is through email, hallway conversations, etc. I doubt there's much in the public record about who asked specifically for what.

I am taking a step back and looking at the big picture, I ask you do the same. They guy who claims to be against spending just so happens to have a giant haul of it. That's not karma and him getting what he hates, that's him being a crafty politician. It's no accident. And I doubt there was public outcry for trash cans and lights in his district for example. The argument that he's getting a small amount while fighting the larger battle is valid. It's not valid to say that has no effect on spending. That's exactly what congress wants us to think so there isn't public outrage. Because just as that's how they bring bacon home to buy votes, that's also how they enrich themselves. I'm not sure how much Paul has done of this, but that's how the thousandaires entering congress become millionaires, by directing those earmarks to public works that personally benefit them. Like aesthetic lighting that just so happens to be in a shopping center owned by said congressman. Or highways through their property. That's how the ruling class gets rich. Of course they want us to think the spending is unavoidable, otherwise they're killing the golden goose. Earmarks are how they cheat us, even if it is chump change in the big picture. They're still taking us for chumps.
Unvaccinated,. mask free, and still alive.
User avatar
Marine Hokie
Posts: 2124
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:50 pm
Location: Durham, NC

Re: Ron Paul just endorsed Ken Cuccinelli for Governor...

Post by Marine Hokie »

So now your position has changed from a bill starts at $990,000, then Ron Paul adds his earmark for $10,000 earmark on top of that to Ron Paul sat on the appropriations committee for all spending bills having his earmarks, and created them at $1,000,000 in the first place, with the intent of later requesting earmarks from himself?
Some source links would be helpful to back up your claims, because I'm not aware of him having spent so much time on any congressional appropriations committee. They generally preferred to keep him off appropriations since he didn't want them to spend the money in the first place, but maybe I have it all wrong, since you're clearly the Ron Paul expert here.
awesome guy wrote:
Marine Hokie wrote:So your position is that we're talking about a site that's a shill for the democratic party and yet was able to enlist the help republicans, libertarians, constitutional conservatives, and people who don't like earmarks to further their goal of unbridled democratic spending via earmarks?

awesome guy wrote:
Marine Hokie wrote:That's an article from a non-partisan (though sometimes democratic leaning) website, quoting various experts from around the political spectrum, including constitutional conservatives, even some who are against earmarks, detailing why you're wrong. At this point I'm not sure what you'd have to be shown to be convinced that Ron Paul's earmarks didn't add to US government spending.
Even if you were right, which you aren't, it wouldn't matter, since Ron Paul voted against spending bills anyway. Before you say that doesn't count, since he knew that many of the bills would pass without his vote, please realize that's a silly argument. If he votes against a war, he doesn't give up the right to have a say in the war legislation. You can't then say that he supports the particular war.
That's just spin. It's like saying that you didn't pay for dinner since you really just charged it to a credit card, thus no one is "payed". And when you pay the credit card, that's when you're really paying the bill. It's a technically to obfuscate that you paid for dinner and one most people would consider a misrepresentation of the transaction.

Of course a democrat site wants to convince the public congress is helpless but to direct part of the money tsunami to their districts. :)

They're right that earmarks are petty cash in the federal budget, but if I don't increase the amount in petty cash then I'm still not increasing costs.

Riddle me this, who crafts appropriation bills? At what point does the author consider the amount of the appropriation?
I figured the smiley would indicate hyperbole in that comment.

No, I'm saying that they're presenting a world where congress is helpless but to spend money. But they're the ones that create the appropriations bill in the first place that is later earmarked. So it's a disingenuous argument.

Maybe they're getting lost in the technicality that lobbyist physically write the bill and they're just grabbing some for their districts in the legislation purchased? :lol: That's hyperbole again. But it isn't that far from the truth, there are cases of lobbyist literally writing bills or portions of them. Obamacare is an example of that.

Anyway, congress is ultimately responsible for it. And it's silly to believe creating appropriations and then earmarking your share doesn't affect spending. They're focusing on the term "earmark" while ignoring the appropriations bill they constructed in the first place.
A man is no less a slave because he is allowed to choose a new master once in a term of years.
User avatar
awesome guy
Posts: 54187
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 7:10 pm
Party: After 10
Location: Plastic Flotilla:Location Classified

Re: Ron Paul just endorsed Ken Cuccinelli for Governor...

Post by awesome guy »

Marine Hokie wrote:So now your position has changed from a bill starts at $990,000, then Ron Paul adds his earmark for $10,000 earmark on top of that to Ron Paul sat on the appropriations committee for all spending bills having his earmarks, and created them at $1,000,000 in the first place, with the intent of later requesting earmarks from himself?
Some source links would be helpful to back up your claims, because I'm not aware of him having spent so much time on any congressional appropriations committee. They generally preferred to keep him off appropriations since he didn't want them to spend the money in the first place, but maybe I have it all wrong, since you're clearly the Ron Paul expert here.
My position hasn't changed. Ron's 10k is put in at the appropriations step. Our spending is less without his slice.

I already explained that committee is when business is more hallway conversations and there wouldn't be much of a public record. But that's how the get an amount for the appropriations. Otherwise they're just throwing darts at the board to get a number.

I'm not a Ron Paul expert, but I'm also not a Paul Bearer either.
Unvaccinated,. mask free, and still alive.
User avatar
Marine Hokie
Posts: 2124
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:50 pm
Location: Durham, NC

Re: Ron Paul just endorsed Ken Cuccinelli for Governor...

Post by Marine Hokie »

awesome guy wrote: Committees are where most of the work is through email, hallway conversations, etc. I doubt there's much in the public record about who asked specifically for what.
They guy who claims to be against spending just so happens to have a giant haul of it. That's not karma and him getting what he hates, that's him being a crafty politician. It's no accident.
He fought for extra spending behind closed doors with committees he wasn't on, so you don't have any proof? Sure, it's fair to go ahead and assume that's what happened anyway.


awesome guy wrote:It's not valid to say that has no effect on spending. That's exactly what congress wants us to think so there isn't public outrage. Like aesthetic lighting that just so happens to be in a shopping center owned by said congressman. Or highways through their property. That's how the ruling class gets rich. Of course they want us to think the spending is unavoidable, otherwise they're killing the golden goose. Earmarks are how they cheat us, even if it is chump change in the big picture. They're still taking us for chumps.
You should get in touch with Politifact, Cato (constitutional conservatives and anti-Ron Paul), the Concord Coalition (fiscally conservative republicans), and the Taxpayers for Common Sense (runs anti-earmark campaigns). Apparently you know more about earmarks than each of them, or maybe they're just all really for big government spending.
awesome guy wrote:Because just as that's how they bring bacon home to buy votes, that's also how they enrich themselves. I'm not sure how much Paul has done of this, but that's how the thousandaires entering congress become millionaires, by directing those earmarks to public works that personally benefit them.
Feel free to look up Ron Paul's record on lobbyists. Unless you think the Texas trashcan lobby is running the show in DC.
A man is no less a slave because he is allowed to choose a new master once in a term of years.
User avatar
Marine Hokie
Posts: 2124
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:50 pm
Location: Durham, NC

Re: Ron Paul just endorsed Ken Cuccinelli for Governor...

Post by Marine Hokie »

So we've finally gotten around to you admitting you're just assuming things you can't prove? I guess you win then, since I can't prove a secret conversation between Ron Paul and the house appropriations committee in a hallway didn't happen.
awesome guy wrote: My position hasn't changed. Ron's 10k is put in at the appropriations step. Our spending is less without his slice.

I already explained that committee is when business is more hallway conversations and there wouldn't be much of a public record. But that's how the get an amount for the appropriations. Otherwise they're just throwing darts at the board to get a number.

I'm not a Ron Paul expert, but I'm also not a Paul Bearer either.
A man is no less a slave because he is allowed to choose a new master once in a term of years.
User avatar
awesome guy
Posts: 54187
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 7:10 pm
Party: After 10
Location: Plastic Flotilla:Location Classified

Re: Ron Paul just endorsed Ken Cuccinelli for Governor...

Post by awesome guy »

Marine Hokie wrote:So we've finally gotten around to you admitting you're just assuming things you can't prove? I guess you win then, since I can't prove a secret conversation between Ron Paul and the house appropriations committee in a hallway didn't happen.
awesome guy wrote: My position hasn't changed. Ron's 10k is put in at the appropriations step. Our spending is less without his slice.

I already explained that committee is when business is more hallway conversations and there wouldn't be much of a public record. But that's how the get an amount for the appropriations. Otherwise they're just throwing darts at the board to get a number.

I'm not a Ron Paul expert, but I'm also not a Paul Bearer either.
Around to admitting? I've stated that's the way business is done from the beginning. I also like the other post of inevitable spending is the fiscally conservative position and holding politicians accountable for their spending is a big government position.

I'm just going to agree to disagree at this point.
Unvaccinated,. mask free, and still alive.
User avatar
RiverguyVT
Posts: 30268
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:30 pm

Re: Ron Paul just endorsed Ken Cuccinelli for Governor...

Post by RiverguyVT »

epitome
So I put (the dead dog) on her doorstep!
Salute the Marines
Soon we'll have planes that fly 22000 mph
"#PedoPete" = Hunter's name for his dad.
User avatar
USN_Hokie
Posts: 30831
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:58 pm
Party: Draintheswamp

Re: Ron Paul just endorsed Ken Cuccinelli for Governor...

Post by USN_Hokie »

Marine Hokie wrote:So we've finally gotten around to you admitting you're just assuming things you can't prove? I guess you win then, since I can't prove a secret conversation between Ron Paul and the house appropriations committee in a hallway didn't happen.
awesome guy wrote: My position hasn't changed. Ron's 10k is put in at the appropriations step. Our spending is less without his slice.

I already explained that committee is when business is more hallway conversations and there wouldn't be much of a public record. But that's how the get an amount for the appropriations. Otherwise they're just throwing darts at the board to get a number.

I'm not a Ron Paul expert, but I'm also not a Paul Bearer either.

Stop you guys!

Image

:lol:
Post Reply