PDA

View Full Version : CBS News reprints article (basically "I dislike Paul's foreign policy and earmarks")




Knightskye
03-03-2010, 01:32 AM
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/02/22/opinion/main6231424.shtml


More and more average Americans are getting involved in the political process through the Tea Party Patriots and other movements. They are real people, with real lives and most have never been involved in the political process beyond voting. The more they learn about Ron Paul, the less he will appeal to him. His dovish stance on the war on terror and his support for earmarking (the gateway drug to huge spending) won’t wear well with newly inspired activists worried about federal spending and the debt. Either you are a fiscal conservative, or you’re not. Unfortunately, Ron Paul is not at the most basic level.

This, of course, coming from a "true Paulite" like Tucker Carlson, who voted for Ron Paul in 1988, when he ran as a Libertarian.

He says "dovish" like that's a bad thing.

DjLoTi
03-03-2010, 01:45 AM
You know what they say about opinions... ;)

Knightskye
03-04-2010, 02:11 AM
You know what they say about opinions... ;)

No, I don't. :D

em 1
03-04-2010, 02:36 AM
His dovish stance on the war on terror and his support for earmarking (the gateway drug to huge spending) won’t wear well with newly inspired activists worried about federal spending and the debt.

I recently read that Ron Paul votes no on the spending bills but when they inevitably pass, he has earmarks in to direct some of the money that is approved to be spent anyway. That way he can at least do something for his district, even though he wasn't able to defeat the spending bill like he would have liked in the first place.


As Paul notes in his answer, cutting the number of earmarks does not cut spending. An earmark is a congressional provision that directs federal agencies to spend funds already authorized on specific projects. If the funds aren’t earmarked, the agencies can spend the money any way they see fit. That is, the executive branch, rather than Congress, will determine how the taxpayer’s money is spent. This point cannot be stressed enough because even the writers at the Wall Street Journal do not understand it. After quoting a spokesman from Paul’s office reminding them that earmarks do not directly increase spending, the WSJ reports, "On the other hand, good libertarians should want to start cutting somewhere." Didn’t Paul’s office just point out that cutting earmarks does not cut spending?
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig7/phillips5.html

Bruno
03-04-2010, 08:00 AM
I recently read that Ron Paul votes no on the spending bills but when they inevitably pass, he has earmarks in to direct some of the money that is approved to be spent anyway. That way he can at least do something for his district, even though he wasn't able to defeat the spending bill like he would have liked in the first place.


http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig7/phillips5.html

Welcome to the Ron Paul Forums. :)

That is basically correct. It also helps keep the decision-making on how to spend the money out of the hands of bureaucrats.

em 1
03-08-2010, 01:49 AM
Welcome to the Ron Paul Forums. :)

That is basically correct. It also helps keep the decision-making on how to spend the money out of the hands of bureaucrats.


Thanks. Glad to be here. :D

Yes, even better, (keeping the decision-making out of the hands of the bureucrats)! With the negative connotation of the word earmark it automatically looks bad on the surface. But Ron Paul takes a negative and does the best he can with what is. And instead of asking Ron Paul why he votes no on the spending bill and has earmarks in, the worst is assumed or at least proclaimed by the media. It is too bad there are so many misleaders in the media. Seems instead of trying to make things clear they are working overtime to muddy things up. Sensationalism? Agenda? Both? Who knows...