PDA

View Full Version : Ron Paul supported Energy Subsidies?




rideurlightning
10-19-2011, 09:48 PM
Maybe someone could break this down for me? If so, I'm quite disappointed.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/rick-perry-ron-paul-have-mixed-record-on-energy-subsidies/2011/10/19/gIQA457kyL_story.html

Edit: After careful reading, it mentioned that this was an earmark I believe (which I would be okay with). Anyone wanna clarify?

muzzled dogg
10-19-2011, 09:54 PM
from spokesman response it sounds like one of these earmarks

JoshS
10-19-2011, 09:55 PM
ron no!

rideurlightning
10-19-2011, 09:58 PM
He has used earmarks in the past, which he has a good argument for that I agree with.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BWTyHbGcUQY

So if that be the case, then forget I complained. But this is also important to bring up, because Ron may have to defend this position to the brainwashed Tea-O-Cons, which will not be an easy task.

sailingaway
10-19-2011, 10:00 PM
No of course not. Once they were PASSED and SOMEONE was going to get the loan guarantees at taxpayer expense, he worked for his contituents. He votes against it, but if they are passed, he represents his constituents to get back what he can, given they have to pay for them, too.

mstrmac1
10-19-2011, 10:01 PM
This is Lame... It was already appropriated money. He just tried to get it for his constituents after he voted against it. They are totally reaching on this one!

sailingaway
10-19-2011, 10:01 PM
He has used earmarks in the past, which he has a good argument for that I agree with.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BWTyHbGcUQY

So if that be the case, then forget I complained. But this is also important to bring up, because Ron may have to defend this position to the brainwashed Tea-O-Cons, which will not be an easy task.

He didn't use earmarks. That is similar but not the same. This is once a bill is already passed and administrators were doling out favors behind closed doors (which is what he tries to stop with earmarks) He weighed in to get his constituents some of what was going to be given to someone.

rideurlightning
10-19-2011, 10:03 PM
He didn't use earmarks. That is similar but not the same. This is once a bill is already passed and administrators were doling out favors behind closed doors (which is what he tries to stop with earmarks) He weighed in to get his constituents some of what was going to be given to someone.

Thanks for the clarification.

letsgoron
10-19-2011, 10:16 PM
Maybe someone could break this down for me? If so, I'm quite disappointed.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/rick-perry-ron-paul-have-mixed-record-on-energy-subsidies/2011/10/19/gIQA457kyL_story.html

Edit: After careful reading, it mentioned that this was an earmark I believe (which I would be okay with). Anyone wanna clarify?

I think I've read Ron explain these types of votes before. If I remember correctly, his reasoning is that once this money is set aside, if he doesn't try to vote for spending for his constituents based on his principles, the money will be spent somewhere else regardless. If he refuses federal funding (which he opposes in principle), the money doesn't go back to the taxpayers, it will only be spent on some other project somewhere else.

Hands-down, Ron Paul is the best candidate out there, but don't think he walks on water because he probably doesn't. Being in politics as long as he has, it wouldn't be unfathomable to believe there are some flaws in his voting record.

NeoconTea
10-19-2011, 10:17 PM
Thats not even a flaw in his voting record. The funds were already set aside, and he wanted them to be spent in Texas. That's what you should do if you're a representative from Texas.

Epic
10-19-2011, 10:51 PM
If he didn't get those funds, then somebody else would have.

The article said he voted against the program.