Ron Paul's On the State of the Economy: "Be Prepared For The Worst"

[SnyderShrugged]

That about says everything anybody needs to know.

I think I just said that. But thanks for documenting what I said.

You chastised for him not disclosing earmarks before there was a requirement to disclose them.

You attempted to paint him as hiding something and failed miserably, just like you are miserably failing at coming up with a cogent point.

[Madison Redskin]

because the money is spent already and his district should get its share of the pie. It's his job.

So, apparently Ron Paul elevates the desire to get his district "its share of the pie" over his interpretation of the Constitution? In other words, Ron Paul thinks it's fine to fund unconstitutional programs as long as they help his constituents.

[SnyderShrugged]

So, apparently Ron Paul elevates the desire to get his district "its share of the pie" over his interpretation of the Constitution? In other words, Ron Paul thinks it's fine to fund unconstitutional programs as long as they help his constituents.

no idea where you would get that from, but whatever.

check how he voted on the appropriations (for the umpteenth time) therefore he thinks the exact opposite of what you claim.

please try to be semi-intelligent on this next time.

[JMS]

You chastised for him not disclosing earmarks before there was a requirement to disclose them.

You attempted to paint him as hiding something and failed miserably, just like you are miserably failing at coming up with a cogent point.

Follow the logic here.... Ron Paul has been in the House since 1976, on and off in total of 19 years. Ron Paul has consistantly railed against all government spending including earmarks.

In 2007 a new congress reacts largely to public concern with growing annonomous earmark spending and makes such spending semi public for the first time.....

WSJ then makes note that Ron Paul signed up for $400 million in pork for his district in 2007.

Ron Paul reacts defensively and incredibley tries to make the case that ear marks are all of the sudden not pork, that he didn't vote for the bills containing his earmarks, and that they weren't add on ear marks anyway, and thus didn't really represent government spending on his part..

Ron Paul also came out in 2009 and listed his pork for that year.

Ron Paul did not, and never has listed his pork comprehensively so the public can judge for themselves if what he claims is true.

[SnyderShrugged]

Follow the logic here.... Ron Paul has been in the House since 1976, on and off in total of 19 years. Ron Paul has consistantly railed against all government spending including earmarks.

In 2007 a new congress reacts largely to public concern with growing annonomous earmark spending and makes such spending semi public for the first time.....

WSJ then makes not that Ron Paul signed up for 400 million in pork for his district in 2007.

Ron Paul reacts defensively and incredibley tries to make the case that ear marks are not pork, that he didn't vote for the bills containing his earmarks, and that they weren't add on ear marks anyway, and thus didn't really represent government spending..

Ron Paul also came out in 2009 and listed his pork for that year.

Ron Paul did not, and never has listed his pork comprehensively so the public can judge for htemselves if what he claims is true.

no one listed their earmarks before 2006. It wasnt required. Once it was, RP was one of the first to disclose. No one has listed pre-2006 earmarks.

Earmarks are not pork in and of themselves (not sure why you wont accept this simple fact). The appropriations are pork, the earmarks just request where it is distributed.

[skinsfanjoe]

It seems as if no matter how many facts you hit them with, these PHD's, (Paul Hating D#$%s) will continue making the same weak tired ass arguments. I appreciate your efforts in defending the REAL Ron Paul SS.

[SnyderShrugged]

It seems as if no matter how many facts you hit them with, these PHD's, (Paul Hating D#$%s) will continue making the same weak tired ass arguments. I appreciate your efforts in defending the REAL Ron Paul SS.

That comment is greatly appreciated! Thank You!

[JMS]

no one listed their earmarks before 2006. It wasnt required. Once it was, RP was one of the first to disclose. No one has listed pre-2006 earmarks.

SS, it wasn't required for Ron Paul to ever list his earmarks. Congress listed them for him in 2007. That's how he got busted.

Ron Paul being one of 70 congressmen to list their earmarks in 2009 is likewise not very earth shaking. Because Congress is still listing them publically whether Ron Paul likes it or not.

My point is if Ron Paul now claims he has always been consistant with his speaches and actions, even though it doesn't look that way to any informed observer who doesn't chant when they burn RP incences. Why do you think RP hasn't released his comprehensive pork? Why do you think it's so honorable to release them only for years when Congress has already mandated and superseeded him in releasing his pork? 2007 and after.

Earmarks are not pork in and of themselves (not sure why you wont accept this simple fact).

Because you are wrong. Earmarks are classic pork. What is more pork worthy than tacking your special projects like ( Movie Theatre Renovation, Wild Shrimp Marketing, Wild Shrimp Study) onto bills largely annonomously for decades?

The appropriations are pork, the earmarks just request where it is distributed.

I perry your undocumented assertion with you favorate sources.. Pork Barrel projects are synomous with Ear Marks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pork_barrel

Pork-barrel projects, or earmarks, are added to the federal budget by members of the appropriation committees of United States Congress. This allows delivery of federal funds to the local district or state of the appropriation committee member, often accommodating major campaign contributors.

Likewise if you read your wiki source on Ear Marks you will note that on the bottom they say..... "also see Pork Barrel Spending".

So now in your book, all government spending is Pork except when a congressmen decides unilaterally to fund pet projects in his districts. Federal funding for remodeling a theatre in Pauls home district isn't pork, but the defense budget is? I think you got the inverse definition of pork barrel spending going.

Post 2007 Ron Paul agrees with you.

[SnyderShrugged]

SS, it wasn't required for Ron Paul to ever list his earmarks. Congress listed them for him in 2007. That's how he got busted.

He was never "busted", he disclosed them as required, justlike all other memnbers of congress. I dont understand how you can claim he was trying to hide anything at all.

Ron Paul being one of 70 congressmen to list their earmarks in 2009 is likewise not very earth shaking. Because Congress is still listing them publically whether Ron Paul likes it or not.

That isnt true, please refer to the same link I posted earlier and explain those who it has listed as "refused to disclose"

My point is if Ron Paul now claims he has always been consistant with his speaches and actions, even though it doesn't look that way to any informed observer who doesn't chant when they burn RP incences. Why do you think RP hasn't released his comprehensive pork?

No one has asked him to release items pre 2007. he isnt hiding anything, please stop the nonsense.

Why do you think it's so honorable to release them only for years when Congress has already mandated and superseeded him in releasing his pork?

who said anything about being "honorable"? You accused hoim wrongly and I corrected you.

Because you are wrong. Earmarks are classic pork. What is more pork worthy than tacking your special projects like ( Movie Theatre Renovation, Wild Shrimp Marketing, Wild Shrimp Study) onto bills largely annonomously for decades?

earmarks are absolutely not "pork" spending is pork not the allocation of said spending.

I perry your undocumented assertion with you favorate sources.. Pork Barrel projects are synomous with Ear Marks.

So now in your book, all government spending is Pork except when a congressmen decides unilaterally to fund pet projects in his districts. Federal funding for remodeling a theatre in Pauls home district isn't pork, but the defense budget is? I think you got the inverse definition of pork barrel spending going.

Post 2007 Ron Paul agrees with you.

it doesnt matter how many times you say it, it still doesnt change the one plain and simple fact that you refuse to acknowledge.

an earmark cant happen unless there is money appropriated. earmarks arent spending, appropriations are.

I have no idea why this is so difficult for you to understand.

[JMS]

He was never "busted", he disclosed them as required, justlike all other memnbers of congress. I dont understand how you can claim he was trying to hide anything at all.

These are basic facts here.

Ron Paul was never required to release his pork. Congress released the authors of all earmarks indepenent and prior to both Ron Paul's defense of earmarks, and his claims earmarks aren't pork barrel spending.

And yes, he certainly was caught with his hand in the cookie jar. He was featured in uncomplementary pieces on CBS News, NY Times and The Wall Street Journal. He got grilled on TV by Tim Russert on sunday mornings Meet the Press.

That isnt true, please refer to the same link I posted earlier and explain those who it has listed as "refused to disclose"

So which is it? Congress required them to disclose and the vast majority of 435 Congressmen refused. Does that make any sense to you? Or Congress released the authors of the pork itself, and 70 idiots including Paul postured by making a big show of releasing their own votes in parrellel to the Congressional releases? Which has the ring of truth?

No one has asked him to release items pre 2007. he isnt hiding anything, please stop the nonsense.

Actually he's literally hiding all his earmarks prior to 2007.

earmarks are absolutely not "pork" spending is pork not the allocation of said spending.

Wiki pedia equates them both when you look up earmarks it says also see pork barrel spending, and when you go to pork barrel spending it specifically identifies it as earmarks. I picture you holding your fingers in your ears and chanting,,, not pork not pork not pork... that's about how sophisticated your argument is.

an earmark cant happen unless there is money appropriated. earmarks arent spending, appropriations are

I again reffer you to the Office of Management and Budget Quote. Earmarks occure in Appropriation bills. The President asks for 100 million dollars, Congress allocates 110, and earmarks the 10 million to be spent in the guys district.

It's the definition of an add on earmark and is listed on the OMB website which I've already reffereced for you.

Earmarks are classic pork, and any source other than Ron Paul will tell you that.

[Madison Redskin]

no idea where you would get that from, but whatever.

check how he voted on the appropriations (for the umpteenth time) therefore he thinks the exact opposite of what you claim.

please try to be semi-intelligent on this next time.

Your responses remind me of that scene in Ferris Bueller's Day Off where Principal Rooney goes to Ferris' front door, rang the doorbell once, got an answer to one question, rang the doorbell again, and got the same answer to a totally different question. You are repeating Ron Paul's talking points, even though those talking points are totally non-responsive to the question presented.

Since you do not seem to understand my question, let me try to break it down for you:

(1) Ron Paul believes that the federal government should only administer those programs and take those actions that are specifically contemplated by the U.S. Constitution.

(2) Ron Paul votes against spending bills, but specifically requests earmarks for programs which benefit his district.

(3) The programs which receive funding via the earmarks requested by Ron Paul are not specifically contemplated by the U.S. Constitution. Therefore, according to Mr. Paul's construction of the U.S. Constitution and the limits of the federal government's authority (see #1), the earmarks are funding unconstitutional acts by the federal government.

(4) By requesting earmarks that fund unconstitutional acts by the federal government, Ron Paul demonstrates that he thinks it's okay to violate the U.S. Constitution if such unconstitutional acts benefit his district.

Now, if you disagree with anything I said above, please identify which paragraph you disagree with and why.

Also, I suggest you read the below passage from Ron Paul's website.

http://www.ronpaul.com/2009-03-10/ron-paul-slams-cavuto-on-earmarks/

Are you saying then, Congressman, that the monies that you appropriated, whether for the Gulf Intercoastal Waterway, the Texas City Channel, Wallisville Lake, the City of Bay City rehab center… that that’s money in the aggregate that you would have called waste?

It’s the kind I don’t vote for because I don’t believe the Federal Government should be doing it, but if they’re going to allot the money I have a responsibility to represent my people if they say, “Hey look, put in a highway for the district”. I put it in, I put in all their requests because I’m their representative.

[SnyderShrugged]

These are basic facts here.

Ron Paul was never required to release his pork. Congress released the authors of all earmarks indepenent and prior to both Ron Paul's defense of earmarks, and his claims earmarks aren't pork barrel spending.

And yes, he certainly was caught with his hand in the cookie jar. He was featured in uncomplementary pieces on CBS News, NY Times and The Wall Street Journal. He got grilled on TV by Tim Russert on sunday mornings Meet the Press.

LOL, you call him caught red handed as if he did something wrong. For the last freaking time...HE VOTED AGAINST THE SPENDING.

So which is it? Congress required them to disclose and the vast majority of 435 Congressmen refused. Does that make any sense to you? Or Congress released the authors of the pork itself, and 70 idiots including Paul postured by making a big show of releasing their own votes in parrellel to the Congressional releases? Which has the ring of truth?

I have no idea why the others have gotten away with refusing to disclose them, but its fact that an act requireing them to do so passed in early 2007. It certainly isnt posturing, he did as requested and supports full disclosure (regardless of what you say to the contrary) It's well documented.

Actually he's literally hiding all his earmarks prior to 2007.

No he isnt. To date, i think you are the only one who is asking for them. When someone more important asks, maybe he will, he certainly has nothing to hide. Just because you assert something doesnt make it accurate, no matter how passionate you try to appear.

Wiki pedia equates them both when you look up earmarks it says also see pork barrel spending, and when you go to pork barrel spending it specifically identifies it as earmarks. I picture you holding your fingers in your ears and chanting,,, not pork not pork not pork... that's about how sophisticated your argument is.

Yes wiki is a wonderful source of inaccurate info.

I again reffer you to the Office of Management and Budget Quote. Earmarks occure in Appropriation bills. The President asks for 100 million dollars, Congress allocates 110, and earmarks the 10 million to be spent in the guys district.

It's the definition of an add on earmark and is listed on the OMB website which I've already reffereced for you.

Earmarks are classic pork, and any source other than Ron Paul will tell you that.

Totally incorrect and it has been shown numerous time in this very thread, yet you chose to remain dumb on it.

[SnyderShrugged]

Your responses remind me of that scene in Ferris Bueller's Day Off where Principal Rooney goes to Ferris' front door, rang the doorbell once, got an answer to one question, rang the doorbell again, and got the same answer to a totally different question. You are repeating Ron Paul's talking points, even though those talking points are totally non-responsive to the question presented.

Since you do not seem to understand my question, let me try to break it down for you:

(1) Ron Paul believes that the federal government should only administer those programs and take those actions that are specifically contemplated by the U.S. Constitution.

Yes

(2) Ron Paul votes against spending bills, but specifically requests earmarks for programs which benefit his district.

Yes

(3) The programs which receive funding via the earmarks requested by Ron Paul are not specifically contemplated by the U.S. Constitution. Therefore, according to Mr. Paul's construction of the U.S. Constitution and the limits of the federal government's authority (see #1), the earmarks are funding unconstitutional acts by the federal government.

No

(4) By requesting earmarks that fund unconstitutional acts by the federal government, Ron Paul demonstrates that he thinks it's okay to violate the U.S. Constitution if such unconstitutional acts benefit his district.

No

Now, if you disagree with anything I said above, please identify which paragraph you disagree with and why.

all the No's, and I've already explained ad nausium in this thread why, noy going to waste my precious time suffering fools

Also, I suggest you read the below passage from Ron Paul's website.

http://www.ronpaul.com/2009-03-10/ron-paul-slams-cavuto-on-earmarks/

I've read that numerous times and even saw the interview when it happened. Did you have a point in referencing it by chance?

[PeterMP]

I've read that numerous times and even saw the interview when it happened. Did you have a point in referencing it by chance?

"(3) The programs which receive funding via the earmarks requested by Ron Paul are not specifically contemplated by the U.S. Constitution. Therefore, according to Mr. Paul's construction of the U.S. Constitution and the limits of the federal government's authority (see #1), the earmarks are funding unconstitutional acts by the federal government.

No"

Do you really believe that?

I mean you might argue that Paul believes if he didn't request the money to fund these particular unconstitutional acts that they'd fund other unconstitutional acts, but that isn't the samething.

[SnyderShrugged]

"(3) The programs which receive funding via the earmarks requested by Ron Paul are not specifically contemplated by the U.S. Constitution. Therefore, according to Mr. Paul's construction of the U.S. Constitution and the limits of the federal government's authority (see #1), the earmarks are funding unconstitutional acts by the federal government.

No"

Do you really believe that?

I mean you might argue that Paul believes if he didn't request the money to fund these particular unconstitutional acts that they'd fund other unconstitutional acts, but that isn't the samething.

simply, I would argue that he voted against the appropriations and the earmarks added no additional spending.

nothing more, nothing less

[SnyderShrugged]

You know, you guys can argue until you are blue in the face and try to paint him as a "pork barrell glutton", but honesty will reign and you all know his views and how he votes and why he votes the way he does.

I'm done explaining to those that really dont want an explanation only some form of validation for their inaccurate and ridiculous assertions.

[PeterMP]

simply, I would argue that he voted against the appropriations and the earmarks added no additional spending.

nothing more, nothing less

The statement had nothing to do w/ additional spending.

Is Ron Paul forcing the government through earmarks to fund specific activities that he considers an unconstitutional use of federal funds?

If not for his earmarks, it is possible those funds would have been used for something he considers unconstitutional, but his earmark ensures those funds will be spent in such a manner.

[Madison Redskin]

The statement had nothing to do w/ additional spending.

Is Ron Paul forcing the government through earmarks to fund specific activities that he considers an unconstitutional use of federal funds?

You are not going to get an answer. I tried asking him about this point several times. He either doesn't understand our question and so he responds with a nonresponsive answer, or he's refusing to answer the question presented because he does not like the answer.

[Madison Redskin]

I've read that numerous times and even saw the interview when it happened. Did you have a point in referencing it by chance?

He stated that the programs which received funding from the earmarks he requested were not the kinds of programs that the federal government should be involved with (under his interpretation of the Constitution). That's some pretty ironic ****.

[JMS]

"Earmarks are classic pork, and any source other than Ron Paul will tell you that."

Totally incorrect and it has been shown numerous time in this very thread, yet you chose to remain dumb on it.

You've not given one source on earmarks which didn't refference them as pork barrel spending. I've given you three including one you sited.

I would venture you can't find one source wich doesn't equate earmarks and Pork which isn't somehow associated or reffernces Ron Paul....

Wiki Earmarks tells you to see pork barrel spending.

Wiki Pork barrel spending identified it as earmarks.

When a Democrat does it, it's definitely Pork..

http://reason.com/blog/2009/09/04/john-murthas-pork-barrel-spend

John Murtha's Pork Barrel Spending: "Quite frankly, if he didn't do that, we wouldn't elect him"

You might wonder how the region ever had the air traffic demand to justify such a facility. It didn't. But it is located in the district of one of Congress's most unapologetic earmarkers: Democrat John Murtha.

I'm guessing they haven't talked to Ron Paul.

[Midnight Judges]

simply, I would argue that he voted against the appropriations and the earmarks added no additional spending.

That's false anyway. I realize Republicans like yourself believe in the free lunch theory but for everyone else:

When you increase scope, costs go up. This is not debatable.

This is a fundamental principle of contracts 101. Adding earmarks (projects) increases what the Government is doing. Each earmark adds another project, or a portion of a project. When an earmark only partially funds a project, guess who submits the completion of said project in their next FY budget? The big bad gubmint.

Federal agencies use baseline budgeting. They plan 3 years in advance. When congress increases their scope by adding projects, they hand agencies a reason to increase future budgets.

Of course earmarks represent an insignificant portion of spending overall, but to act as if earmarks are free is absurd. There is no free lunch.

[PeterMP]

That's false anyway. I realize Republicans like yourself believe in the free lunch theory but for everyone else:

When you increase scope, costs go up. This is not debatable.

This is a fundamental principle of contracts 101. Adding earmarks (projects) increases what the Government is doing. Each earmark adds another project, or a portion of a project. When an earmark only partially funds a project, guess who submits the completion of said project in their next FY budget? The big bad gubmint.

Federal agencies use baseline budgeting. They plan 3 years in advance. When congress increases their scope by adding projects, they hand agencies a reason to increase future budgets.

Of course earmarks represent an insignificant portion of spending overall, but to act as if earmarks are free is absurd. There is no free lunch.

And I will again point out that a reasonable test for this mechanism as a hypothesis that explains higher government spending is that there should be a correlation between earmarks and spending and this is observed at the level of the total government AND for many sub-sections there in.

This doesn't mean that all government spending increases are the result of earmarks and doesn't "prove" earmarks cause an increase in spending, it is a reasonable test AND would be considered to be good supporting evidence by anybody that is being reasonable.

[Midnight Judges]

And I will again point out that a reasonable test for this mechanism as a hypothesis that explains higher government spending is that there should be a correlation between earmarks and spending and this is observed at the level of the total government AND for many sub-sections there in.

This doesn't mean that all government spending increases are the result of earmarks and doesn't "prove" earmarks cause an increase in spending, it is a reasonable test AND would be considered to be good supporting evidence by anybody that is being reasonable.

It would probably be easier to detect any changes at the sub-agency level because earmarks represent such a miniscule portion of overall Government spending. 20-whatever billion/3.5 trillion = not much.

[PokerPacker]

That's false anyway. I realize Republicans like yourself believe in the free lunch theory but for everyone else:

You've been here long enough to know SS is not a republican. Please try not to libel other posters.