Ron Paul apperance on Meet the Press and my partial analysis

[hsmith]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

Again, he's not getting it back to the tax payers...it's going to a select group of "shrimp researchers" and other corrupt people so he can buy votes

a real "return" would be to go something EVERYONE in the district benefitted from...DIRECTLY...a lower deficit...possibly a program for his district that would get money back in EVERYONE'S hands

but no, he voted not only for money for his district, but for other districts as well, see club for growth's website

he just buys and panders...nothing special about him...Ron Paul...John Murtha...same people although I believe Murtha is more socially conservative

Please tell me how he would get the money back to each of the people with his power as a Representative.

I'd love to hear how

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

I did not see Ron Paul's remarks about Pakistan featured today?

Ron Paul: Cut Off Pakistan Aid

Friday , December 28, 2007



ADVERTISEMENT
This is a rush transcript from "Your World with Neil Cavuto," December 27, 2007. This copy may not be in its final form and may be updated.

TERRY KEENAN, "YOUR WORLD" GUEST HOST: Well, cut off all aid to Pakistan, that's what my next guest says that we should do.

Joining me now is presidential candidate Ron Paul.

Congressman, welcome. Very nice to have you with us.

You know, you call this a grave policy failure, and you -- you have been talking about our policy towards Pakistan for — for a long time, been pretty prescient on it.

Explain.

REP. RON PAUL, R-TEXAS, PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Well, I think we should treat Pakistan a long time ago like we should treat all countries. We should mind our own business and stay out of supporting military dictators.

And that's what Musharraf is. He overthrew an elected government, and we reward him by supporting him. He becomes our puppet. We have sent him about $10 billion over the last eight years. And the candidate that represents democracy, Bhutto, comes in, and she gets killed.

And we're right in the middle of this. And we just sort of stir the pot. And now I'm scared to death that we're going to be marching in there and have another war. We have one in Iraq. We threaten Iran. We're in Afghanistan.

We can't afford to go in and now go into nation-building in Pakistan. I think it's a consequence of us getting involved too many places. And we can't afford it any longer. It's not in our own interest to do this.

KEENAN: It — it begs — it begs the question, though, now, what do we do? You see these scenes, these awful, violent street scenes. What do we do now?

PAUL: Well, I mean, they have to deal with it. It's their country. It's not our country. They have to deal with it. It's their political situation. We probably did way too much already. So, the sooner we do less, the better it is for them and for us.

But I don't think this is a justification to jeopardize American troops or — or tax the American people. It's a real mess. And I think that they have to sort it out. Countries should have the right of self-determination. When they have problems, they work it out. When they have violence, it's an utter tragedy.

But for us to be supporting military dictators, I think, is tragic. And now there's a call to drop our support for Musharraf, on-again, off-again. We used to support Usama bin Laden. Then we quit. Then we supported Saddam Hussein. Then we quit.

And we need to quit this on-again, off-again stuff. And, besides, we just don't have the money anymore to continue to do this. And it does not serve our interests.

KEENAN: Yet — yet, sometimes, you have to be support the better of two evils. Hasn't that been our policy to try to maintain some stability in this country with 60 nuclear warheads?

PAUL: I think that's the problem, always trying to support the lesser of two evils. And we don't have the jurisdiction to do it.

And I'm not sure you can sort out which one is the most evil or the least evil. I mean, here we are — right now, we have supported Turkey all these years, and Turkey now is using our weapons and our money to bomb north Iraq.

This has to quit. I mean, how long can we continue to do this? It just doesn't serve our interests at all.

KEENAN: As — as on most issues, you're the only one really speaking this line on the campaign trail.

How big an issue do you think the situation in Pakistan is going to be, not just, you know, next week in the caucuses, but ongoing in the campaign?

PAUL: Well, I think it's going to be big, but, hopefully, I can put it in context of foreign policy, rather than becoming a management situation.

A lot of people want to talk about Iraq because it's mismanaged, or, "I can manage it differently," rather than talking about strategic policy and what the policy of the United States ought to be. That's what we should be talking about, not just tinkering with foreign policy and tinkering with a war. We need to think more strategically.

KEENAN: You know, Congress did put — tab some conditions to the aid, the latest aid that we were going to send to Pakistan. Did you support that measure?

PAUL: To support? I wouldn't support aid to them, no.

KEENAN: Any aid whatsoever?

PAUL: Oh, no, because this is the whole thing, is, you know, you offer them the aid. You want them to do something. If they don't do it, then we threaten to take their aid away from it. Then, if they don't obey us, we start bombing them.

I just want to become much more neutral, talk to people and reason with people, rather than supporting certain dictators that elicit this — this kind of turmoil in these countries.

I mean, one of the — our support for Saudi Arabia over all these years is a thorn in the side of many of the Al Qaeda. That's the motivation.

KEENAN: Right.

PAUL: And the fact that we support this military dictator in Pakistan is an incentive for the Al Qaeda to organize.

KEENAN: All right, provocative as always. And we appreciate your insights on this tragic day.

Thanks for joining us, presidential candidate Ron — Ron Paul.

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by hsmith

Please tell me how he would get the money back to each of the people with his power as a Representative.

I'd love to hear how

Article I Section 7

Clause 1: All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.

He should propose a tax cut or the complete removal of the income tax

[hsmith]

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

he needs to further explain all his plans, right now one of his major parts of his platform is "Taxes on Tips"

I think he is not explaining himself because he will be less appealing when his does to many Americans. For instance, if he announced the end of Pell Grants most of his student/internet base would disappear. But that is the type of budget he is talking about.

People know about his desire to cut things such as Pell Grants, I Have seen it discussed. While it turns some off it doesn't turn everyone off.

You are placing an unfair demand on him, what other candidate has given complex plans of what they want to do? Not one. While I would like to see clarification, it would be nice if everyone clairified their positions.

[RockPusher]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

everyone on this board should hate Ron Paul because he put in billions of dollars and dozens of items of pork into Congress, and we all know how evil that is, right?

Pork = evil, no matter what


On his debate, everyone was saying he did so horrible, the debate certainly didn't make him look any better, but he dodged the bullets in a way I think would make his followers happy

Machine gunning statements at someone is not an interview. It is provocative of base emotion.

When a bill is submitted, it has a budget appropriated to it already. Putting an earmark in a bill does not decrease the spending, it merely directs the spending toward your own people. If he didn't put his earmarks in, then other politicians would use his share of earmarks.

This subject is not widely understood so such smears are somewhat effective. The issue is intentionally confused by some, misrepresented by ignorance of others. End result the public who does not understand the process is mislead.

You are not alone.

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by RockPusher

Machine gunning statements at someone is not an interview. It is provocative of base emotion.

When a bill is submitted, it has a budget appropriated to it already. Putting an earmark in a bill does not decrease the spending, it merely directs the spending toward your own people. If he didn't put his earmarks in, then other politicians would use his share of earmarks.

This subject is not widely understood so such smears are somewhat effective. The issue is intentionally confused by some, misrepresented by ignorance of others. End result the public who does not understand the process is mislead.

You are not alone.

I am not alone in what?

[RockPusher]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

I am not alone in what?

You are not alone in believing that setting earmarks in a bill somehow increases spending. Since the bill has money appropriated to it already, a congressman placing an earmark does not increase the money allocated to a bill.

So if congressman A submits a bill with 100 million in appropriations, congressman B's earmark is simply directing his share of the already allocated money.

Since congressman Paul does not appropriate money for the bill and does not vote for the bill, his earmark does not increase spending. It simply ensures that if the bill is past and money taken from the taxpayers is spent on the bill, some of that money will go to benefit his projects.

The theft is in the appropriation, not the earmarks.

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by RockPusher

You are not alone in believing that setting earmarks in a bill somehow increases spending. Since the bill has money appropriated to it already, a congressman placing an earmark does not increase the money allocated to a bill.

So if congressman A submits a bill with 100 million in appropriations, congressman B's earmark is simply directing his share of the already allocated money.

Since congressman Paul does not appropriate money for the bill and does not vote for the bill, his earmark does not increase spending. It simply ensures that if the bill is past and money taken from the taxpayers is spent on the bill, some of that money will go to benefit his projects.

The theft is in the appropriation, not the earmarks.

There is some point where it may seem irrelevant on certain actions, but Ron Paul has been involved on multiple levels, and they don't just go "Ok we're going to put in...$100 million, not one cent more or less, now you guys decide what you wanna do with it, any member who doesn't spend his share will have it given to another congressman"

Which is what you are implying, which is wrong

[Ardentfrost]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

There is some point where it may seem irrelevant on certain actions, but Ron Paul has been involved on multiple levels, and they don't just go "Ok we're going to put in...$100 million, not one cent more or less, now you guys decide what you wanna do with it, any member who doesn't spend his share will have it given to another congressman"

Which is what you are implying, which is wrong

Um, no, he's right. Earmarking takes money that has already been decided to be spent, and funnels it out into areas as decided by congressmen. Any money not earmaked goes to federal agencies (that's the budget the earmark money comes from). It's already been factored into the taxes, it just needs to be spent. It's bullshit, but that's what happens.

In RP's shoes, which is worse, money going to federal agencies/other areas of the nation, or money at least going back to the district he represents. Obviously he adds it in for his district, then, since he's against spending like that, he votes 'no' on the bill.

It'd be a LOT different if he were doing one of two things: 1. Voting in increase tax revenues in an appropriations committee, or 2. Allowing his vote for the bill to be bought with the earmark (or the converse, which is to allow other earmarks to be inserted to buy votes for a bill he wants). Since he does neither of those (as evident in him voting 'no'), he is not using the earmark to buy votes, and is simply trying to get some of the money stolen from his district back to it in some way he is able to (if he could just give a tax refund, I'm sure he'd do that).

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

Um, no, he's right. Earmarking takes money that has already been decided to be spent, and funnels it out into areas as decided by congressmen. Any money not earmaked goes to federal agencies (that's the budget the earmark money comes from). It's already been factored into the taxes, it just needs to be spent. It's bullshit, but that's what happens.

In RP's shoes, which is worse, money going to federal agencies/other areas of the nation, or money at least going back to the district he represents. Obviously he adds it in for his district, then, since he's against spending like that, he votes 'no' on the bill.

It'd be a LOT different if he were doing one of two things: 1. Voting in increase tax revenues in an appropriations committee, or 2. Allowing his vote for the bill to be bought with the earmark (or the converse, which is to allow other earmarks to be inserted to buy votes for a bill he wants). Since he does neither of those (as evident in him voting 'no'), he is not using the earmark to buy votes, and is simply trying to get some of the money stolen from his district back to it in some way he is able to (if he could just give a tax refund, I'm sure he'd do that).

This is assuming he had nothing to do with the original factoring, which is part of the earmarking process

If people didn't do earmarks, the budget requests would dramatically fall, they would not automatically go from one congressman to the next until someone gave in and put in an earmark

these high budget requests are made BECAUSE of people like Ron Paul, an agency knows it's going to need a certain amount of money because it has to set aside some to buy ron paul votes

[Ardentfrost]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

This is assuming he had nothing to do with the original factoring, which is part of the earmarking process

If people didn't do earmarks, the budget requests would dramatically fall, they would not automatically go from one congressman to the next until someone gave in and put in an earmark

these high budget requests are made BECAUSE of people like Ron Paul, an agency knows it's going to need a certain amount of money because it has to set aside some to buy ron paul votes

Set aside some to buy RP's 'no' votes? That doesn't even make sense.

You're just REALLY grasping straws here... it's ok. I'm sure it must be aggravating that there's a candidate out there that beats the pants of your favorite candidate (whoever that may be) in consistency and honesty.

[Ardentfrost]

Thorgrim, if you want something better to harp on, RP is skeptical of evolution.

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

Thorgrim, if you want something better to harp on, RP is skeptical of evolution.

I want RP to win though

[Ardentfrost]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

I want RP to win though

Sure you do, right up until the point he starts kicking Hilary's ass in the post-primary polls (I think your candidate of choice is Hilary, right? If not, just replace her name with whoever your fav candidate is).

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

Sure you do, right up until the point he starts kicking Hilary's ass in the post-primary polls (I think your candidate of choice is Hilary, right? If not, just replace her name with whoever your fav candidate is).

Better him than Rudy McRomneybee

If he actually appointed non-fascist judges, which I seriously doubt...I wouldn't mind him as president for 4 years, should be fun

[Ardentfrost]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

Better him than Rudy McRomneybee

If he actually appointed non-fascist judges, which I seriously doubt...I wouldn't mind him as president for 4 years, should be fun

So, HONESTLY, you want him to get the Republican nomination because then even if the Democrats lose at least someone will be in office you don't completely disagree with?

If that's so, that's awful big of you If you're just talking out your ass, then

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

So, HONESTLY, you want him to get the Republican nomination because then even if the Democrats lose at least someone will be in office you don't completely disagree with?

If that's so, that's awful big of you If you're just talking out your ass, then

liberalism has nothing to fear from Ron Paul, after all liberalism is all about change and advacement

Either RP's domestic policies would be a huge failure, or cause a huge backlash, and the Democrats would be even more progressive and powerful, or he'd be right on some things and America would be better off...

Either way, I've been fighting Sean Hannity clones my entire life, not people like Ron Paul, him winning hurts not only Democrats but Republicans, I'd take that

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

liberalism has nothing to fear from Ron Paul, after all liberalism is all about change and advacement

Either RP's domestic policies would be a huge failure, or cause a huge backlash, and the Democrats would be even more progressive and powerful, or he'd be right on some things and America would be better off...

Either way, I've been fighting Sean Hannity clones my entire life, not people like Ron Paul, him winning hurts not only Democrats but Republicans, I'd take that

It's a shame you're willing to sacrifice the betterment of the country and your own party to see the Republicans hurt. And I think you're again underestimating Ron Paul and the possibility of a rather large voter turnout. The polls don't take into consideration the turnout Paul is going to get from the American voters compared to any other candidate.