Posted on 05/29/2011 11:37:51 AM PDT by Christian_Capitalist
And then he brags about it.....what a con man he is.
I did, I was looking for the right spell, and I’m right on point.
You, now, explain the relationship of earmarks to spending.
Another Alex Jones, Paul, Kokesh 911 Truther bites the dust...damn shame lol.
First, you point out where I have invoked Hitler....then we'll continue our discussion.
Clarify what? You invited me to quote you. That was a quote you liked enough to have as the top of your profile here. I thought you would benefit from reading it again, and I thought anyone who happened across this thread would benefit from reading it too.
Alright, we’ll start over. What does my commenting on Rand Paul’s amusing, and perhaps regrettable, fashion when meeting Ronald Reagan have to do with someone being banned from the site?
I have to do my Sunday call to Mom, I’ll be back in a short while........
Take your time. I don’t need any hurried answer to my question. I hope she’s well.
You have the order wrong.
First, the money is spent.
Second, where the money goes is determined.
When the earmarks are going in, the money has already been spent. The amount of money being taken from his constituents
is not changed by an earmark.
The earmarks change where the money goes. If no earmarks, Obama gets to spend the money however he wants. If there is an earmark, it means that some of that money, instead of going to Obama to do whatever he wants with it, goes to a specific thing his constituent wanted instead of what Obama wants.
Very easy to understand.
2 steps.
1) Vote for spending - Yes or No?
(Ron Paul votes no)
After other people voted for spending, the money is spent, it’s gone from his consituents. Then step 2.
2) What does the money get spent on?
a) what Ron Paul’s constituents want?, or
b) what Obama wants?
Ron Paul puts in what his consistuents want. Because the money has already been spend, the earmarks have no effect on the total amount of money that is spent.
Do you understand this extremely easy process yet?
“Earmarks are spending, right? Or are they different from spending? “
An earmark is a specific funding for a group or organization or project that is not in the usual process or scrutiny of getting debated.
Politicians slip them in at times when they know they won’t be debated. They get out of committee and are overlooked in the broad debate of the Budget.
They are bullshit pork. Paul is famous for it, while he drones on about the Fed.
Read the words of the following link
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin’s_law
And you might realize where your understanding of Godwin’s Law is just a little bit off.
Actually, you are wrong.
The money is not spent. The money is appropriated.
You are also incorrect with you, “if not earmarks, Obama gets to spend whatever...”
Wrong. The House appropriates and can defund stuff from Obama if they wish.
Paul is just another politician.
But do Ron Paul’s earmarks (as opposed to some other kind) happen after the money is already spent?
And you didn’t answer the question?
Are earmark the same as, or different from, spending?
The answer is “different”, but let’s just see if you can figure that one out.
The money that is earmarked, is money that is gone. Ron Paul is getting it back. Whatever Ron Paul does with earmarks has no effect at all on the amount of spending, and only on whether Obama gets to spend that money or the various members of Congress should get a say in where the money goes.
Remember, Ron Paul did not vote to spend that money, and the earmarks come after the money is spent.
Uh huh, tell me where I'm wrong....where have I mentioned Hitler or Nazi's?
But you admit, I think, that the Spending part (the Appropriations part) is first, and separate, and Ron Paul never votes for the spending.
Earmarking is simply getting that money back.
He didn’t want that money spent. He didn’t vote for spending. The RINOs, like McCain, who won’t stop spending, but would like people to think that it’s not “Spending”, which McCain does and Ron Paul doesn’t, but “Earmarking”, which just specifies where already spent (or appropriated) money goes, are the ones talking about the irrelevant Earmarking instead of the important Spending.
Post 84.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.