RP guilty of receipt of TARP funds?!?

[Pauls' Revere]

Can someone please confirm or deny this?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_upshot/20101018/pl_yblog_upshot/republican-lawmakers-who-shunned-stimulus-lobbied-for-funds-behind-the-scenes;_ylc=X3oDMTEwNTRsMnRuBF9TAzIwMjM4Mjc1MjQEZW 1haWxJZAMxMjg3NDQ4MDQz

Republican lawmakers who shunned stimulus lobbied for funds behind the scenes
By Liz Goodwin
Buzz up!17 votes Share
retweet
EmailPrint..By Liz Goodwin liz Goodwin – Mon Oct 18, 4:47 pm ET
Scores of Republican lawmakers--including tea party stars Reps. Michele Bachmann of Minnesota and Ron Paul of Texas--privately sought out funds from the government's $787 billion stimulus program even while publicly denouncing it as a failure. The Center for Public Integrity has a comprehensive report on scores of politicians whom the watchdog group says it caught in stimulus "hypocrisy."

:mad:

Say it aint so...

[Reason]

If it is true, I don't have a problem with it under the justification that as long as you vote against it and it passes anyway, why let everyone else take the $?

At least with Paul the money would likely be spent in an intelligent fashion...

[LudwigVonMisoSoup]

How is this any different from his stance on earmarks? Paul will position his district to receive funds but vote against the bill.

[rp08orbust]

This is just the same old earmarking issue coming up in different language ("lettermarking"). If Ron Paul's arguments in favor of earmking make sense to you, then so will his alleged "lettermarking", and conversely.

[Reason]

Here it is...

http://www.publicintegrity.org/project_assets/2010/10/stimulus_letters/texas/transpo/TX%20-%20McCaul%2C%20Olson%2C%20Paul.pdf

[DjLoTi]

Only 1 will end the war

[Fr3shjive]

Hypocrisy anybody?

I still think Ron Paul is the best politician out there but he is still lining up with the other politicians to get a piece of the government pie.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Hypocrisy anybody?

I still think Ron Paul is the best politician out there but he is still lining up with the other politicians to get a piece of the government pie.

What do you think politicians do? As great as Ron is, he is still subject to the corruption, and money-grubbing all politicians are. It is why solutions involving politicians is sort of like a running through a bee farm and expecting not to get stung. Shit ain't going to happen. He knows TARP is horrible, but he won't get "re-elected" if he refuses to take any of it for his district. Ah, love it. Still love Ron though. :D (I however, do not delude myself that even if we had 200 Ron Pauls much would change since it is State power that will corrupt anyone and everyone especially when you have grubby constituents back home wanting to loot their neighbor)

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

Hypocrisy anybody?

I don't see what it is.

YouTube - Ron Paul on Earmarks (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BWTyHbGcUQY&feature=related)

YouTube - Ron Paul Slams Cavuto on Earmarks - Fox News - 3-10-2009 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoD5Yk1imBk&feature=related)

YouTube - CNN says Ron Paul charged with earmarking for his district (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bbca34MS8LI&feature=related)

[devil21]

It's not TARP. TARP is the bank bailout.

[rp08orbust]

Regardless of whether we agree with Ron Paul's position on earmarking/"lettermarking", I think we can all agree that this thread's title is deceptive, i.e., that no one is accusing Ron Paul of receiving TARP funds.

[dean.engelhardt]

Hypocrisy anybody?

I still think Ron Paul is the best politician out there but he is still lining up with the other politicians to get a piece of the government pie.

He still has a duty to the people of his district. The people of his district have to pay their share of government spending. It's his duty to ensure they get as much of their own money back as possible.

RP is trying to correct the problem of too much government spending. We should not expect him to neglect his district because other members of congress decide to overspend.

[erowe1]

Can someone please confirm or deny this?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_upshot/20101018/pl_yblog_upshot/republican-lawmakers-who-shunned-stimulus-lobbied-for-funds-behind-the-scenes;_ylc=X3oDMTEwNTRsMnRuBF9TAzIwMjM4Mjc1MjQEZW 1haWxJZAMxMjg3NDQ4MDQz

Republican lawmakers who shunned stimulus lobbied for funds behind the scenes
By Liz Goodwin
Buzz up!17 votes Share
retweet
EmailPrint..By Liz Goodwin liz Goodwin – Mon Oct 18, 4:47 pm ET
Scores of Republican lawmakers--including tea party stars Reps. Michele Bachmann of Minnesota and Ron Paul of Texas--privately sought out funds from the government's $787 billion stimulus program even while publicly denouncing it as a failure. The Center for Public Integrity has a comprehensive report on scores of politicians whom the watchdog group says it caught in stimulus "hypocrisy."

:mad:

Say it aint so...

Why do you consider this bad?

Is Ron Paul supposed to sit idly by while his district is forced to pay for the stimulus, and let all that money go to other districts but not his?

The important thing is that he voted against it. But once it passed, he should do his part to make sure the taxes taken from his constituents get spent on things in his district rather than sent somewhere else. It's not like he can undo the passage of the stimulus just by refusing to have any of it spent there.

[erowe1]

Hypocrisy anybody?

I still think Ron Paul is the best politician out there but he is still lining up with the other politicians to get a piece of the government pie.

No. It's not hypocrisy.

[Original_Intent]

I am really tired of people who do not get this. Just like with earmarks - voting against them but then doing the best you can to get what you can for your district is not only NOT hypocritical - it is the most principled stand that could be taken.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

I am really tired of people who do not get this. Just like with earmarks - voting against them but then doing the best you can to get what you can for your district is not only NOT hypocritical - it is the most principled stand that could be taken.

It requires better explanation. What is needed is a flow chart visual explaining how money is spent by the federal government.

[TruckinMike]

If it is true, I don't have a problem with it under the justification that as long as you vote against it and it passes anyway, why let everyone else take the $?

At least with Paul the money would likely be spent in an intelligent fashion...

Thank you... Its the same 'ol song and dance from the scared "establishment" politicians. The detractors are trying to get at the heart of Freedom. They did this with the "Ear marks" as well. RP voted against the bills, but requested funds for his district.

No conflict of interest. Its just an attempt at turning lemons into lemonade.

TMike

EDIT: OOPS, it looks like ear marks have already been covered here.

[reduen]

If I remember correctly, there was at least one politician who tried to keep from recieving funds and he was made to take them anyway... Darned if you do darned if you don't...

[rp08orbust]

If I remember correctly, there was at least one politician who tried to keep from recieving funds and he was made to take them anyway... Darned if you do darned if you don't...

Mark Sanford. And I disagreed with him.

[Corto_Maltese]

To me it all seems like Ron saving money from being burned in a fire by giving them back to the people and at the same time voting to stop throwing the money at the fire in the first place.
That seems resonable to me.

[Original_Intent]

If anyone has ever seen the comic book about economics and it uses fish to illustrate money.

This is like the government demanding 10 fish per person and giving one back. And it seems some people think that in order to protest this based on principle, a person should refuse to take back the one fish.

[libertarian4321]

The stimulus was a bad idea, but once it's passed, it would be stupid for any Congressman to refuse to accept funds from it.

Taxpayer's in those districts PAY into the system, so they have a right to benefit from the system as well.

The idea is to PREVENT bad programs to begin with- but once they are in place, you can't expect those in congress to refuse any funding in their district.

[freshjiva]

Agreed. I don't think Ron is at fault here. What matters is what you have consistently argued for and voted on.

If the government decides to splurge billions on "stimulus", the least Ron can do is send some of it to the district he represents.

The most important thing, however, is your voting record. Politicians like McCain claim to be fiscal conservatives, but have voted for innumerable increases in spending on things not constitutional.

That is where Ron separates himself from the pack.

[AGRP]

Why would you not want your property that was stolen from you?

[2young2vote]

In other words, if he doesn't get the money, it is just going to go to the executive branch where it will be spent without any transparency. The money is already spent whether or not he takes some for his district and because it is earmarked, we at least know how it is being spent. Is this correct?

[erowe1]

In other words, if he doesn't get the money, it is just going to go to the executive branch where it will be spent without any transparency. The money is already spent whether or not he takes some for his district and because it is earmarked, we at least know how it is being spent. Is this correct?

Pretty much, except in this particular story it's not about earmarks, but about him sending a letter to some agency in the executive branch that allocates stimulus funds to request that some be spent on something. Your point is the same, though. The size of the stimulus is what it is. RP's doing this didn't make it any larger, and had he not done this it wouldn't have been any smaller. The only difference is whether the funds are spent one way versus some other way.

[tangent4ronpaul]

Paul always asks for earmarks and always votes against the bills with his own earmarks. The rational is that the Feds stole the nomey from his district, and this is a way he can bring some of it back to the district.

Also, these idiots that are campaigning on an anti-earmark platform don't seem to realize that not taking the earmarks just means the fed gvmt will just waste the money on something else. Unfortuantly, Rand seems to be in this camp - and I don't know why! - He should know better. Earmarks are also a drop in the bucket of overall spending, so the gesture is purely symbolic and totally worthless.

-t

[oyarde]

The real problem with earmarks is they should not be allowed . A bill should be restricted to one item .

[nobody's_hero]

Side question:

Are we really "getting some of our money back", or are we just getting money borrowed immorally on our posterity's behalf?

I tend to think that our tax dollars are as good as spent before they even reach D.C. Anything that comes back out of D.C. is either borrowed from China or printed out of thin air. So, "getting my money back" doesn't really help me sleep better at night.

[tangent4ronpaul]

The real problem with earmarks is they should not be allowed . A bill should be restricted to one item .

I slightly disagree. A bill should be restricted to one topic and amendments that are not about that one topic should not be allowed. A topic should be fairly narrow and specific - ie: change "allowed output form 100 to 10" in line X is OK, but say in a bill about dumping radioactive waste in the ocean, an amendment establishing and funding a research center to study gay wales should not be - even though they both have to do with the ocean.

-t

[oyarde]

I slightly disagree. A bill should be restricted to one topic and amendments that are not about that one topic should not be allowed. A topic should be fairly narrow and specific - ie: change "allowed output form 100 to 10" in line X is OK, but say in a bill about dumping radioactive waste in the ocean, an amendment establishing and funding a research center to study gay wales should not be - even though they both have to do with the ocean.

-t Yeah , screw the gay whales :D

[Pauls' Revere]

Regardless of whether we agree with Ron Paul's position on earmarking/"lettermarking", I think we can all agree that this thread's title is deceptive, i.e., that no one is accusing Ron Paul of receiving TARP funds.

Thanks for the correction. Oops,...

[Pauls' Revere]

Why do you consider this bad?

Is Ron Paul supposed to sit idly by while his district is forced to pay for the stimulus, and let all that money go to other districts but not his?

The important thing is that he voted against it. But once it passed, he should do his part to make sure the taxes taken from his constituents get spent on things in his district rather than sent somewhere else. It's not like he can undo the passage of the stimulus just by refusing to have any of it spent there.

It's counter to voting against it in the first place.

For example, A bunch of people decide wrongly to rape someone. You dont like the idea, but since most others decide to do it anyway you may as well join in.

To me it just seems a caving in to peer pressure.

[Original_Intent]

It's counter to voting against it in the first place.

For example, A bunch of people decide wrongly to rape someone. You dont like the idea, but since most others decide to do it anyway you may as well join in.

To me it just seems a caving in to peer pressure.

Wow, that is about the MOST idiotic analogy ever.

[Knightskye]

Mod, change the title. This is about the stimulus package, not TARP.

Also, the Center for Public Integrity pretends to be "non-partisan." They're so non-partisan, they teamed up with the Huffington Post.


Wow, that is about the MOST idiotic analogy ever.

QFT.

[Pauls' Revere]

Wow, that is about the MOST idiotic analogy ever.

I hate the idea of a stimulus it's wasteful and a burden on taxpayers, so I vote no.
However, since it passed i'm somehow justified to take the money anyway?

How is that principled when most Americans were against it?