Ron Paul "Biggest Porker"

[MelissaWV]

Make of the video what you will, though the transcript is utter comic relief. I love those automatically generated ones.

I can't decide what my favorite line is:

Now now hockey team he's totally misunderstand this grandstanding.

If you build a military equipment you know I don't think he's pretty Lester

Make me you're being you're missing the whole point the principal beer market is our responsibility

http://www.foxnews.com/video-search/m/21973028/biggest_porker.htm

[The One]

Ron Paul is not the biggest porker....he's very thin. Dennis Hastert is the biggest porker, imho.

[TheConstitutionLives]

Here's my thing. I'm not sure if it does but his district should not receive earmark money that exceeds the amount of federal taxes his district has paid in. I think Paul would have more of an argument if he did something similar to the following.

Let's say he gets 50 different request from his district totaling $100 million. And his district paid only $80 million in federal taxes b/w January 1st and March 5th (or whatever date the spending bill is voted on) Since he does not discriminate on which earmarks to request and which to trash he should only ask for the percentage of each of the 50 requests which equal the $80 million paid. So, in this example, each of the 50 earmarks would have their respected amount requested cut by 20%.

This way each request still receives something without Paul appearing hypocritical and without his district receiving more than what they've already paid for. Plus, this method would be more in tune with his philosophy since people living outside his district would not be funding projects in his district.

This method can be tweaked a bit if needed. Let's say Paul believes the people of his district are federally taxed too heavily. And he believes a federal government that only functions within it's constitutional limits would only need to take in 10% of what they're currently paying. Take that 10% and cut it from the earmark total along with the 20% mentioned in my above example.

To summarize: Paul's district paid $80 million. And he believes only $10 million of the $80 million was the proper legal amount for which the federal government needed to function in this alotted time frame. His district's 50 requests total $100 million. Cutting 30% off of each request leaves the federal government with $10 million of the $80 million paid in and gives gives his district $70 million in earmarks.

I apologize if my math is off but hopefully everyone gets the idea.

[Athan]

TCL, he stated that he is doing his job of representing his district and that it is THEY who ask for the request not him.

[nobody's_hero]

Here's my thing. I'm not sure if it does but his district should not receive earmark money that exceeds the amount of federal taxes his district has paid in. I think Paul would have more of an argument if he did something similar to the following.

Let's say he gets 50 different request from his district totaling $100 million. And his district paid only $80 million in federal taxes b/w January 1st and March 5th (or whatever date the spending bill is voted on) Since he does not discriminate on which earmarks to request and which to trash he should only ask for the percentage of each of the 50 requests which equal the $80 million paid. So, in this example, each of the 50 earmarks would have their respected amount requested cut by 20%.

This way each request still receives something without Paul appearing hypocritical and without his district receiving more than what they've already paid for. Plus, this method would be more in tune with his philosophy since people living outside his district would not be funding projects in his district.

This method can be tweaked a bit if needed. Let's say Paul believes the people of his district are federally taxed too heavily. And he believes a federal government that only functions within it's constitutional limits would only need to take in 10% of what they're currently paying. Take that 10% and cut it from the earmark total along with the 20% mentioned in my above example.

To summarize: Paul's district paid $80 million. And he believes only $10 million of the $80 million was the proper legal amount for which the federal government needed to function in this alotted time frame. His district's 50 requests total $100 million. Cutting 30% off of each request leaves the federal government with $10 million of the $80 million paid in and gives gives his district $70 million in earmarks.

I apologize if my math is off but hopefully everyone gets the idea.

I get what you are saying. I might take it one step further and just send the [appropriate amount of] money back down the 'food chain.' Once the federal government has indicated specifically what the money has been earmarked for—like a Galveston seawall or a school drop-out program (WTF?)—it must be used for that purpose (someone correct me if I am wrong). However, just sending the money back to his district would allow the people and their local elected officials to decide on the best way to spend the money (or, if to even spend it at all). It would also put the accountability for that spending at the local level, of course—which, I believe is a good thing.

[VIDEODROME]

I hear what he does is earmark bills but then if the main bill is wasteful he votes against it. He is trying to come out ahead either way.

If a bill is wastefull he votes against it. But just incase it passes he earmarks it so that at least some tax money comes back to his district.

[sunghoko]

Make me you're being you're missing the whole point the principal beer market is our responsibility

http://www.foxnews.com/video-search/m/21973028/biggest_porker.htm

Hear, hear !

[Mesogen]

TCL, he stated that he is doing his job of representing his district and that it is THEY who ask for the request not him.

What if they asked him to vote for an unconstitutional bill?

[nobody's_hero]

What if they asked him to vote for an unconstitutional bill?

Exactly.

You vote for the best candidate whom you believe will uphold the Constitution of the United States and defend it from all enemies, foreign and domestic, to the best of his/her ability.

If folks in District 14 want the Federal Congress to have the power to build Galveston seawalls, then Ron Paul needs to inform them, perhaps, that they have a right to request that he propose an amendment to the Constitution of the United States. He can then submit that amendment proposal. He then votes according to how his constituents want, or, if he is so bold, he will oppose a federal-government-power-granting amendment and risk getting booted out of office.

[Zippyjuan]

If Ron Paul was to become president, would he veto every spending bill since he votes against all of them now?