I can believe he participates in the earmark system, but to say that only four house Republicans do so is absurd. I would be disturbed if Paul was a congressman from a state like West Virginia. Some states are "welfare queens" who receive substantially more from the government than they pay in taxes. This system is understandably controversial because it redistributes wealth and is plagued by corruption.

While other states are supporting the "welfare states," not all states are affected equally. Texas is one of the states that receives the least amount of money from the federal government compared to what they pay in taxes. So while earmarks are despicable, the fact that Paul represents a district in Texas makes it less so. In fact, the argument could be made that he is actually trying to recover some of the money paid in a system that unfairly burdens Texas.

That, and as imperfect as Paul may be, he's the most powerful person who stands for relaxing economic regulations, ending an expensive foreign policy, and restoring our civil liberties.

Ahh Kemp, ignored until you make a thread with the stuff you said I did not reply to, so "Talk to the hand"

Justinian Ron Paul thinks the border fence is to keep you from fleeing America.

Flint,

So? I can forgive a man's eccentricities if he undoes the damage to civil rights. The government increasingly no longer cares about due process or habeas corpus.

It's insane to believe the law should be followed. It's insane to believe our great grandchildren don't owe us stuff.

You're a socialist. Hahahahahahaha. Damn the constitution, damn the economic well-being of future generations; you want more stuff and you support anyone who'll promise it to you--at any cost.

"Ron Paul openly advocates real balanced budgets. He doesn't need to make some phony argument (red-herring) about earmarks, because it wouldn't matter if they were abolished overnight."

Ron Paul is a liar.  Every year he participates in the pork process, taking out a few hundred million for his district--and incidentally helping elbow aside people who REALLY challenge the leadership and are punished by losing their earmarks. 

This budget, with his special earmarks, is brought to a vote by the whole House.  HERE is where Paul openly advocates balanced budgets, boldly voting against the whole unbalanced budget!!
And then when it passes anyway!! He still gets paid!!!
Cause he made sure that was in it before he voted against it!!

IF Ron Paul made sure he didn't get his cut from this disastrous unconstitutional horrific bad nasty ugly UnAmerican budget, he'd be honorable.
IF Ron Paul made a serious effort to use 30 years of connections to bring down a spending bill, he'd be honorable.

What he is though is a hypocrite, a liar, as big a phony crook as any Chicago Democrat like Dan Rostenkowski, who went to federal prison for having a private warehouse full of govt-bought furniture and a nephew on the federal payroll for a no-show job, who got a pardon from a Democrat President.

Edit: The Yell, you compare him to Democrats involved in corruption. Again I ask, please give us an example of another Republican or independent who is more fiscally conservative. You keep ignoring this fact every time I bring it up: You can't. He's the most fiscally conservative member of the House. "

Horseshit.

First name out of the hat:  Tom Tancredo.

http://www.legistorm.com/earmarks/details/member/497/Rep_Tom_Tancredo.html

Fiscal Year(s) 2008-2010    Number    Cost
Solo Earmarks                          1    $475,000
With Other Members               19    $23,122,200
All Congressional                     20    $23,597,200

http://www.legistorm.com/earmarks/details/member/413/Rep_Ron_Paul.html

Solo Earmarks                          20    $17,309,750
With Other Members               25    $101,640,000
All Congressional                     45    $118,949,750

Well lookit that! If Tom Tancredo had just kept his damn mouth shut, we'd have saved $475,000.
If Ron Paul had kept his damn mouth shut, we'd have saved $17,309,750!

How about those go-along votes, $23 million versus $101 million? But what's $101 million? MIGHT AS WELL LET RON GRAB IT

"Pretending that Ron Paul has the power to influence budget votes at all, let alone to the point of getting them voted down, is just ignorant and silly."

OK let's keep the debate about Ron Paul, to those things where Ron Paul actually has the power to influence jack shit.

...

...Are you serious?

Earmarks are a tiny portion of the budget.

I've made the point that Ron Paul advocates much more significant cuts than the entirely of earmarks.

Referencing any number of Congressmen against earmarks who are NOT advocates of the cuts Paul is in support of is a bigger spender than Paul.

<The Point>

<Your Head>

It's over your head. Get it? You're not even responding to what I said. Please don't pretend to be a simpleton because the subject of "Your Republican Congressmen are all supporters of much larger deficits than Ron Paul" upsets you.

There's more to spending than earmarks. In fact, so much more that earmarks are a tiny portion of the budget. Ron Paul supports real cuts where the real problems are (Read: Many, many, many, many times more than the size of ALL earmarks). Most other Congressmen do not. This fact seems to escape you.

Additionally, even most Congressmen who have voiced support for a balanced-budget amendment aren't fighting very hard for it, seem to have forgotten about that important fight for political reasons, and never had the balls to be specific. I don't hate all of them as much as I hate the average member of Congress, but to pretend they've advocated nearly as much, nearly as clearly as Rep. Paul is laughable.

Edit: I didn't respond to the 17 million dollars because it's a meaningless equivocation. 1) I wipe my ass with 17 million dollars. Okay, maybe that's not a real point. Let's try again. 1) Giving that $17m to someone else wouldn't close the budget deficit one penny. 2) Ron Paul argues for cuts (as called for by the Constitution, which you might have heard of because it was, once, the Law in the USA) far, far, far greater than $17m. It's a moot point. $17,000,000 just isn't a significant number next to $1,000,000,000,000+.

You're incoherent.

You think $17 million is a significant portion of our debt. Again--His not taking it wouldn't keep it from being spent.

He's arguing against far, far, far, far larger unconstitutional programs which waste far, far, far, far more. He doesn't vote in support of these programs. He's open about raising awareness of them and the fact that they should be abolished.

You seem upset that he's a much, much, much more fiscally conservative Congressman than any other Republican.

Who else is arguing against unconstitutional programs like he is? Who else is arguing for cuts 1/10 as large? Who can he "collaborate" with, when all of his colleagues in Congress like the deficit the way it is?

What point do you think you're making here? You're not making any point, let alone doing it well.

The problem is that ignorant shmucks like you vote in representatives who support massive unconstitutional overreaches of Congress' and government's power. Who could he collaborate with to abolish unconstitutional programs? Amerikans have, by and large, been made into sheep. Almost no one else who supports radical changes/abolishment of massive social spending programs gets elected to Congress. There's virtually NO support among elected officials for what Libertarians/fiscal conservatives support--let alone enough for Paul to "collaborate" and get them changed/abolished--because people like you just vote for whoever the corrupt Republican machine puts in front of them.

It's not Paul's fault that you keep voting for Republicans who support unconstitutional, massive deficit programs.

You're a liar. .
Your only "argument" is to declare the facts don't matter.
It doesn't matter that Ron Paul wasted $17 million, it would have been wasted anyhow (guess he's kicking himself for not asking for $34 million) and anybody who wastes less is no hero cause it doesn't matter (guess they should all waste $17 million each). 
The fact that he would rather lose everytime (after feathering his nest) than slowly build a coalition to make change, doesn't matter.
No, none of that matters -- it's not Ron Paul's fault, it's the fault of the American people for not rallying to Ron Paul! Ron Paul for Congress in every district! Ron Paul for Senate!  THEN we can expect reform! But OH NO

Ron Calvert is the incumbent pig in my district.  Tell me who's Ron's man in my district? You blame me for voting in the corrupt dogs --WHO'S RON PAUL'S MAN in CA-23?  Tell me and I'll vote for him!

BTW you said "You're just mad because he doesn't support your bedroom police or war-mongering corporate orders."  I don't think you give a damn about fiscal issues either--I'm sure of it because you vote for Ron Paul, the one man in America who can be counted on to lose on his own every year of his life!

You're completely ignoring all of my points which involve amounts of money that actually matter.

Unless you can get over your desire for bedroom police and war-mongering for corporate and NWO interests, the Republicans are the best you've got. They may be corrupt big spenders who get our young men and women and foreign nationals killed for NWO corporate interests, but damnit at least they think government should be involved with marriage to protect us from becoming gay!

Or, if you want a real alternative, you could support Libertarians and Republicans, rare as they are, like Paul.

I've never voted for Ron Paul. This isn't personal to me. I just find it fascinating and bizarre that you're worried about Paul accepting a few million which would go elsewhere anyway, whereas you ignore the MASSIVE cuts (which the Constitution requires) he openly argues for.

Earmarks are a tiny portion of the budget. They're not the [vast majority of the] problem. I don't understand which part of this is hard for you to understand.

Ron Paul has been arguing for years against the real sources of deficits and debt in this country, which are coincidentally openly unconstitutional. I don't understand which part of this is hard for you to understand.

It's certainly legitimate to disagree with Paul, but to claim he's a big spender is just ignorant, stupid, and laughable. That has to be the result of willful ignorance because of some psychological reasons for hating the man, because he's very clearly the most fiscally conservative guy in the room. I'm not suggesting anyone has to like him, but to pretend he's a big spender who's adding to our debt is retarded.