Ron Paul apperance on Meet the Press and my partial analysis - Page 2

JaJae · 12-24-2007, 04:30 PM

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

If so that makes sense. IF it passes, return some of his district's tax money back to them (and the amount he added in there sounds really small too). Then vote against it because he obviously doesn't WANT the gov't to spend.

Seems very different than using pork to buy a vote, which is what usually happens.

But the gov't is spending it...

Thorgrim · 12-24-2007, 04:34 PM

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

If so that makes sense. IF it passes, return some of his district's tax money back to them (and the amount he added in there sounds really small too). Then vote against it because he obviously doesn't WANT the gov't to spend.

Seems very different than using pork to buy a vote, which is what usually happens.

I don't see any difference, at all...

He pro-actively put in pork that he knew would pass...what do we call that? On this board: Corrupt

JaJae · 12-24-2007, 04:35 PM

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

Even the most libertarian and reform minded politician in the country is an evil-pork spender...

Absolutely pathetic. It doesn't make him evil. Get off that.

Thorgrim · 12-24-2007, 04:36 PM

Originally Posted by JaJae

Absolutely pathetic. It doesn't make him evil. Get off that.

Pork isn't a wrong, an evil? It's a good thing?

ballz2wallz · 12-24-2007, 05:23 PM

Behold, the master of a thread derailment!

Whether one might or might not consider pork spending "evil" or not is hardly the issue of this thread. In the end, Ron Paul doesn't really know what he's talking about.

Thorgrim · 12-24-2007, 06:08 PM

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

Behold, the master of a thread derailment!

Whether one might or might not consider pork spending "evil" or not is hardly the issue of this thread. In the end, Ron Paul doesn't really know what he's talking about.

Ron Paul was on the Meet the Press talking about how terrible pork spending is...

Looking up at the title of the thread it's "Ron Paul on Meet the Press"

hsmith · 12-24-2007, 06:24 PM

I guess the real question is, is it acceptable for the people to be taxed, but the tax money not be returned to them?

I think it would be justified criticism if they are getting taxed $1,000,000 but get a return of $2,000,000 (example). But if they are getting taxed $1,000,000 but get back $1,000,000 is that wrong?

hsmith · 12-24-2007, 06:43 PM

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

1 trillion - hundreds of billions = deficit

He is using the "hundreds of billions" from our foriegn policy as a single example of how to save money. Cutting elsewhere would add up to save over the trillion dollars. $500bil on foreign spending savings along coupled with $500bil domestically would save the trillion.

Ok, you admit that idea won't balance the budget with your tax cuts, so what are your other plans? Keep on bringing up Iraq because it is relatively unpopular but it is still going to leave 'hundreds of billions' that will need to be cut to balance the budget.

Possibly his plan to cut the other agencies which he has talking about before? He has made mention in past debates of his "crazy" plans to cut much of the federal agencies. I would assume that would translate into tax savings

You would think that if this is a key piece of your platform you would have a general idea. Any acceptable answer would include over half a million. But hey continue with your talking points that are all sizzle and no steak.

i would think he would know the 520k number

that's quite a statement to make you would think he 'probably' would have a quote to back it up

it is quite well known how influential AIPAC is. agree with their policy or not. But yes, a quote would help.

So we would have to weather just a couple of terrorist attacks that we won't be able to respond to, not that big of a deal.

Thats a pretty big assumption, that we would be attacked if we would pull out. We have the same chance being there as far as i am concerned, we are probably more at risk.

Besides the fact that you are 'probably' pulling that number out of your ass, it only took 19 to terrorize our country

It has been all over talk radio the number of people in Iraq now thanks to the war. Come on, we know they aren't joining and fighting in Iraq because they are bored, they don't want us to be there. Us in the middle east is a great rallying point.

helluva of a spinning job, but lets review what you said.

1. one of the first things you said after 9/11 was that big bad evil government was coming. You try to spin it first by saying that it was a disgruntled employee that was cited but later you admit to saying it. And then you spew some more talking points that your disclipines will jerk off too. However, do we really want an executive to react to an act of war by first warning that government will become too large? I do not, I want an executive that will keep this country safe when we are attacked.

Um, he was responding to how the present gov't of this country was going to react. He was spot on, was he not? Look at how big our gov't now is. Look at what rights have been washed away with such things as the patriot act. he wasn't wrong. It has nothing to do with how he would react to an attack, it was his (justified) response to how our gov't would react. I would rather have a president that wasn't OMG LETS BOMB THE A-RABS. I want one that will evaluate everything. Who won't risk our rights to fend off people trying to take our rights.

besides being a flip-flop, if they are unconstitutional why would you support those agencies now?

again no concrete plans, just a lot of talking points.

oh please, you can't expect the man to lay out a plan in a minute

so we can't put people on the street but we have to balance the budget. Where is all this money going to come from during this transition?

You mean it isn't possible to make cuts in the size of gov't and cut the income tax?

please. if you are a conservative you would trust this can be easily done.

what a fucking hypocrite, spews Constitution this, Consitution that but then inserts 8 million fucking dollars for a shrimp fisherman. This is everything he is supposed to be against but he is part of the system. It isn't a tax credit, he created it. Ron Paul inserted into the bill but to appear as a fiscal conservative he then votes no for it, so he cherry picks bills that will not need his vote to pass. That way he can have it both ways and its complete bullshit.

as i said above, if he is getting more money back then his people are paying, i see an issue with that. if he is returning tax money to them i don't see an issue with it. that would be hypocritical of him.

hsmith · 12-24-2007, 07:34 PM

He does need to refine several of his talking points though, where else to reduce the size of the gov't (specifics with specific $$$'s). He really needs to define what has been increased in the last 10 years where to cut the size. I think that would create a better "image" of what he wants to slash.

there are several other things that irk me about his talking points.

hsmith · 12-24-2007, 08:00 PM

He did make Russert look like an assbag with is "constitutional" question though.

how is proposing to amend the constitution to refine an amendment "out of the founders intent"

kinggovernor · 12-25-2007, 03:12 AM

Originally Posted by motivez

The reasons his positions have changed is because he's no better than Hillary - a huge panderer who'll change positions as often as the wind in order to appease whatever constituency he needs to..

You're the one who brought up another candidate, not me. I'm just responding to your statement by saying I find it incredibly ironic that you'd criticize Paul for something McCain is far worse on.

As far as principle, like I said in my original post, I don't think what he's done is out of line with his beliefs, and I think his tax credit analogy is pretty spot on.. They pay federal taxes, why should he not work to get them their money back if it HAS to be spent on federal programs?

then he should vote yes for the bill then. But he doesn't, so he can maintain the "Dr. No" name. He is trying to have it both ways, appeasing to his local district while pandering to the American public in general.

Is he for or against his district getting this earmarks? He proposes them to get them into the bill and then votes against the bill, I am a little confused.

Why let it go to another area of the country or be used in some project he doesn't approve of?

He's stated as far back as the early 80's that it makes more sense to spend domestically than abroad.. this is just a microcosm of that view really, instead of talking about the American taxpayer subsidizing foreign governments, and thinking that if we have to spend all that money, at least spend it on Americans.. he's talking about the people in his district who pay taxes, but instead of subsidizing stuff in other states and elsewhere, it makes more sense to spend their money on stuff in their district if it has to be spent by the federal government.

I'm hardly a 'Paulite' who thinks he's the second coming of Jesus, but I think your reasoning here is a little off base and you're giving 1 candidate the benefit of the doubt when he doesn't deserve it, and not giving it to someone who does.

I am giving no one the benefit of the doubt, I really thought about supporting Dr. Paul, but I cannot.

Ardentfrost · 12-26-2007, 12:09 AM

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

then he should vote yes for the bill then. But he doesn't, so he can maintain the "Dr. No" name. He is trying to have it both ways, appeasing to his local district while pandering to the American public in general.

Is he for or against his district getting this earmarks? He proposes them to get them into the bill and then votes against the bill, I am a little confused.

Seems pretty straight forward to me. He doesn't want gov't to spend the money that way. If they are, he wants his district to get their money back.

I guess you're just ok with other candidates hypocrisies but not his that you perceive (and I don't), that's cool man. To each his own.

Thorgrim · 12-26-2007, 12:41 AM

What do we call it when we send in our individual tax dollars, and it goes towards "district plans" that have absolutely no bearing on my personal desires and do not matter to my business at all?

If I manage an international internet business from my district, why would I possibly care if some pork came some way to other people in my district...all I need is a wal-mart (which will never close) and an interstate (which will never close) I give jack and shit about some new pork Ron Paul has put in his bill...it's MORE taxes from me to others that I don't benefit from...

Many people of a certain poltical persuasion would have a word title for that: Authoritarian Communism

Ardentfrost · 12-26-2007, 02:07 AM

I agree. It's bullshit any money went to any one district. Glad he voted no on that bill.

Thorgrim · 12-26-2007, 06:08 AM

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

I agree. It's bullshit any money went to any one district. Glad he voted no on that bill.

He put in pork so there'd be more federal spending = more deficit

There are a great many people who, if they lived in his district, would rather not have a deficit than see some pork project come through

hmm...pork to get votes...or less of a deficit

Ron Paul picked pork to buy votes

Ron Paul inserted those behind the scenes pork projects so that the people of his district saw more of their tax dollars going to pork

I don't think one of them signed anything on their tax forms saying "more deficit, more pork please!"

Like I said, you live in his district, and Ron Paul comes in and decides what to do with your money...a lot of people call that communism

hsmith · 12-26-2007, 10:57 AM

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

He put in pork so there'd be more federal spending = more deficit

There are a great many people who, if they lived in his district, would rather not have a deficit than see some pork project come through

hmm...pork to get votes...or less of a deficit

Ron Paul picked pork to buy votes

Ron Paul inserted those behind the scenes pork projects so that the people of his district saw more of their tax dollars going to pork

I don't think one of them signed anything on their tax forms saying "more deficit, more pork please!"

Like I said, you live in his district, and Ron Paul comes in and decides what to do with your money...a lot of people call that communism

While I don't agree with pork at all, would it be better if he got none of the money taken from the district and got it returned in some manner?

Thorgrim · 12-26-2007, 11:12 AM

Originally Posted by hsmith

While I don't agree with pork at all, would it be better if he got none of the money taken from the district and got it returned in some manner?

To many, yes...less federal spending = less deficit

You may think Ron Paul's pork spending for "shrimp research" was just the most amazing idea ever, but I think it's a waste of money and garbage and I'm sure many in his district agree

But what do we get, Ron Paul putting in $400,000,000 for this year alone so a select few in his district can ride the pork wave...if you add up his years...he could have saved us billions of dollars we are not paying in interest on our federal deficit

bheld · 12-26-2007, 11:52 AM

Originally Posted by hsmith

I guess the real question is, is it acceptable for the people to be taxed, but the tax money not be returned to them?

I think it would be justified criticism if they are getting taxed $1,000,000 but get a return of $2,000,000 (example). But if they are getting taxed $1,000,000 but get back $1,000,000 is that wrong?

That's not returning the money. This isn't a refund, it's wasteful spending.

bheld · 12-26-2007, 11:53 AM

Originally Posted by hsmith

While I don't agree with pork at all, would it be better if he got none of the money taken from the district and got it returned in some manner?

If you're running on principles, yes. If not, what makes Ron Paul different than any other candidate?

bheld · 12-26-2007, 11:56 AM

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

Seems pretty straight forward to me. He doesn't want gov't to spend the money that way. If they are, he wants his district to get their money back.

I guess you're just ok with other candidates hypocrisies but not his that you perceive (and I don't), that's cool man. To each his own.

What does that make him? He's a prostitute. He hates slumming around and will call out all the other hookers but if it's going to get him some money he'll put up with it if that's the way things are.

Ron Paul is the hooker that ends up dead in somebody trunk.