Is Ron Paul a hypocrite?

Ron Paul is famous for being the lone vote opposing various federal programs and earmarks on constitutional grounds. He also opposes this kind of spending on limited government grounds.  So now we get this gem telling us how Dr. No cant resist in the temptation himself. The idea that Ron Paul is a purist is blatantly false. He has given up all moral authority when talking about these issues on the campaign trail. 

Advertisements

20 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

20 responses to “Is Ron Paul a hypocrite?

  1. DevRonin

    It would be interesting to see which way he voted on the funding reported in the Houston Chronicle. Let me say that again because he is famous for requisitioning funds for his district and then turning right around and voting “NO” on the same request he made on behalf of his constituents. He was good friends with President Reagan but voted no on a bill to honor the President and the First Lady because he felt that congress had no authority to use taxpayer dollars for that purpose. Instead he asked his fellow House members to match his donation of $100 dollars to pay for the tribute. He voted “NO”. The bill passed and no one ponied up their own cash.

  2. i posted a link about this on my blog, and have had no end of pauliacs that think i’m nuts. The Citizens Against Government Waste site lists all of his earmark attempts…that 65 number is accurate, but thats just in last quarter.

  3. JL

    the money has already been confiscated from the people through taxation. Ron Paul realizes that the only appropriate thing for him to do is to try to channel the money back to the people in in his district in a responsible way. ideally he opposes this type of socialist redistribution. if someone stole money from your family and you had the opportunity to claim some of the stolen money to return to your family, would you take it, or would you not accept it on the grounds that it is stolen money?

  4. well, we could do a whole semester on ethics with that one comment. However, to make it simple. Ron Paul claims the government should have a strictly federal roll. If he believes that he should never attempt to authorize so much as a single dime for anything that is not de facto and du jour, federal.

  5. He is doling out earmarks to reimburse the taxes his constituents paid? What a terrible excuse.

  6. that is a horrible excuse. the federal taxes his constituents pay is for federal use. If he would like to lower their taxes he should reduce federal spending, Instead, he sits there and pontificates while he digs around in my pocket to fix texas

  7. JL

    how is that a poor excuse? you never answered my analogous question.

    as Ron Paul mentioned in this column, “earmarks are funded from spending levels that have been determined before a single earmark is agreed to, with or without earmarks the spending levels remain the same. Eliminating earmarks designated by Members of Congress would simply transfer the funding decision process to federal bureaucrats rather then elected representatives. In an already flawed system, earmarks can at least allow residents of Congressional districts to have a greater role in allocating federal funds – their tax dollars – than if the money is allocated behind locked doors by bureaucrats.”

    as long as the federal government is going to be taking our money, i’d rather have my local congressman decide how the funds are allocated than the federal government. unlike the otehr candidates, Dr. Paul is the only one who is sincerely fighting to end that kind of taxation and spending altogether. he’s not a hypocrite; he’s trying to make the best of within a corrupt and failed system, while trying to repair it at the same time. I commend him for this.

  8. the way to fix a system is to stand on ethical ground, and show that others do not. Were he requesting earmarks for interstate highways in his district I would agree with you. What he is douing is bringing home the pork to buy the votes. That’s how it is done, and that’s what he is doing. It’s part of what makes incumbancy so difficult to defeat. That’s ok with you. Fine. But call a pig a pig.

  9. JL

    Also keep in mind, it is the duty of a congressman to represent his district, which he does through earmark requests that reflect the desires of his constituency. When it comes time to vote for the budget, including these expenditures, Dr. Paul votes against the unconstitutional legislation. There is no conflict of interest. There is no hypocrisy. Ron Paul may not be perfect, but he is BY FAR the most consistent and honest candidate. And for a supporter of a socialist neocon like romney to even question his integrity on this issue blows my mind.

  10. I dont know how many times I have to tell you. Im not supporting Romney, thats the owner of this blog. If we buy any of your excuses for Paul’s pork than we can no longer criticize pork. Doesn’t it suck when you find out someones not all you dreamed them up to be.

  11. JL

    “I dont know how many times I have to tell you. I’m not supporting Romney, thats the owner of this blog.”

    once aught to do it, thanks.

    “Paul’s pork”

    apparently you haven’t read any of the comments above. I can’t believe I’m having THIS debate about Ron Paul. most people complain that he’s a nut because of just the opposite sentiment, yet somehow you manage to be fooled into believing that he is a proponent of excess government spending. this is absurd. look at his voting record. that’s where you will find his position on government spending; not his earmarks. do your research before you criticize someone.

  12. josh4viceprez

    “apparently you haven’t read any of the comments above.” Who are you talking to? If you read my post you would know that I have done my homework on Paul and understand his ideology.

    The reason we are having this debate about Ron Paul is because my point of view is one that favors small government and I pointed out why Paul is a hypocrite on this. I will gladly cede the point that Paul is not a proponent of excess Government spending by and large. His pork will not expand government by any significant proportion. But how is this different than GOP leadership’s porkbarrel spending? It is still a lot but a small, small fraction of the budget. My opposition to pork is because I believe money should be spent only if it is absolutley neccesary. Any taxes are buy definition forcibly taken from people, therefore should be spend wisely. It is insulting and offensive to do otherwise. Ron Paul is a proponent of small government and limited government but not when it comes to his precious pork.

    Your attack on me “not doing research” is just plain bizarre.

  13. Hey JL…look up NAFTA Super Highway…then come tell me ron stands above the crowd…

  14. i think he’s talking to me josh. The problem is I did my research. I’m not nearly as concerned about government spending, as I am about special interest spending and earmarks. The government is going to spend, and in fact we need them to. My issue is with ron paul saying he doesn’t do earmarks when he does. I also take issue with his flipflop on the NAFTA superhighway, also part of his earmarks…if you’re interested the links are on my blog

  15. josh4viceprez

    got ya

  16. JL

    This is amazing. Ron Paul is the only one the speaks out against the NAFTA Super Highway. In fact he has been called a conspiracy theorist for even suggesting that such a plan exists.

    Ron Paul NEVER claimed he does not use earmarks. The earmarks are not the problem. The legislation is…the actual federal spending, which he always votes against, on the basis of constitutionality.

    Dr. Paul is the only candidate who is for reigning in government spending. If you think any of the other candidates are going to be anywhere near as responsible with tax dollars as him, you have been mistaken. I don’t mean to attack anyone, I just don’t think these criticisms are well founded. It seems like you have some ulterior motive. are you against his anti-war position? I don’t get it.

  17. nope. I’ve been against the war from day one. I am against him voting to spend taxpayer money on offshore oil exploration. I am against him requesting funds to extend I-69 which is going to be the NAFTA superhighway. I am against him hiding behind the constitution when it suits him on issues, and then voting against abortion, even though it is the law of the land. Mostly I’m against a Neo-Con disguised as a libertarian being elected president. any questions?

  18. JL

    can you show me the bill where he voted for offshore oil exploration spending?

  19. i could, but you already sent me the link. well spoken arguments by the way JL thanks for coming by.

  20. well, now the debate is back.

    the fact is that ron paul is making the case quite pointedly. he know how the system works and he is clever to play the game the way he does. he plays the game by doing exactly what his responsibility as a congressman is. that’s the point.

    so if you want to get elected to congress and then do nothing, good luck.

    you’re better off where you are and paul is doing a stellar job AS A CONGRESSMAN, not as a protester or anarchic activist.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s