PDA

View Full Version : Ron Paul's $400 Million Earmarks



LiberalNation
05-05-2008, 02:06 AM
So where's it upholding the constitution on and that spending millions of fed dollars promoting the shrimping industry.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,292334,00.html

Texas congressman and Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul — who is campaigning as a critic of congressional overspending — has revealed that he is requesting $400 million worth of earmarks this year.

The Wall Street Journal reports Paul's office says those requests include $8 million for the marketing of wild American shrimp and $2.3 million to pay for research into shrimp fishing.

A spokesman says, "Reducing earmarks does not reduce government spending, and it does not prohibit spending upon those things that are earmarked. What people who push earmark reform are doing is they are particularly misleading the public — and I have to presume it's not by accident."

avatar4321
05-05-2008, 06:42 AM
What the heck does it matter? He isnt in the Presidential race. He was never a likely candidate. and I know atleast I was was complaining about some of his unconsistutional actions earlier this year. Honestly, seeing this doesnt mean a thing to me.

LiberalNation
05-05-2008, 08:53 AM
Nope but how are the Paul fanatics gona spain this away. I thought he was supposed to be above politics as usual, yada, yada, yada.

avatar4321
05-05-2008, 11:56 AM
Nope but how are the Paul fanatics gona spain this away. I thought he was supposed to be above politics as usual, yada, yada, yada.

no one is above politics. Politics isnt a bad thing. Politics is just the dynamics of power. Everyone engages in politics, although most do so at a subconscious level. Government politics just is more complicated then our normal political games.

LOki
05-05-2008, 02:58 PM
Nope but how are the Paul fanatics gona spain this away. I thought he was supposed to be above politics as usual, yada, yada, yada.

The way it seems to have worked in the past is, he votes against the spending when it is proposed; but when the spending passes anyway, he makes sure his constituents get their money back.

Is this a different situation?