• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Fiscal Conservatives: Do you support Santorum?

Amigo said:
It's funny how we conservatives, are the ones who have to go moderate, yet Liberals can go as far left as they want. It just goes to show that we are good, and the liberals are bad.
Click to expand...
Who can argue with logic like that?
 
Black_Zawisza said:
I don't understand why some fiscal conservatives want this guy in the White House when he seems to me nothing more than the second coming of Dubya. What am I missing here?

Santorum IS “big government conservative,” says Red State*|*American Vision News
Click to expand...


I cannot imagine anyone worse that Obama and that is the issue. We know Obama isn't a fiscal conservative so any one of the Republicans would be better IMO. Obama has added 4.6 trillion to the debt in 3 years with another 1.1 trillion projected for 2012 so he will add more debt in 4 years than any other President in history did in 8. That is the bottomline line and what people need to consider. Anyone that votes for Obama is very poorly informed or is like Obama promoting a far leftwing European style socialist economy. People better wake up.
 
sangha said:
If "conservative" means "asking for more spending in earmarks than any other member of congress"
Click to expand...
Minute-and-a-half justification of his position: Ron Paul on Earmarks - YouTube

One has to remember that earmarks only allocate money that's already going to be spent - they don't actually increase spending. Therefore, once the federal government has collected taxes from one's district for the purpose of wasteful and unconstitutional spending, it becomes one's duty as a representative to reacquire as much of that money as one can. To use Paul's analogy, I might oppose Social Security, but that doesn't mean I'm not going to demand my Social Security check when it comes time to collect. All I'm doing is just trying to get my money back.
 
Black_Zawisza said:
Minute-and-a-half justification of his position: Ron Paul on Earmarks - YouTube

One has to remember that earmarks only allocate money that's already going to be spent - they don't actually increase spending. Therefore, once the federal government has collected taxes from one's district for the purpose of wasteful and unconstitutional spending, it becomes one's duty as a representative to reacquire as much of that money as one can. To use Paul's analogy, I might oppose Social Security, but that doesn't mean I'm not going to demand my Social Security check when it comes time to collect. All I'm doing is just trying to get my money back.
Click to expand...

spending on earmarks doesn't increase spending!!! :cuckoo:
 
sangha said:
spending on earmarks doesn't increase spending!!! :cuckoo:
Click to expand...
You obviously don't know what the hell you're talking about. Here, I'll even Wiki it and bold the operative words for you.
Wikipedia: Earmark (politics) said:
In United States politics, an earmark is a legislative (especially congressional) provision that directs approved funds to be spent on specific projects, or that directs specific exemptions from taxes or mandated fees.
Click to expand...
Furthermore,
Wikipedia: Earmark (politics) said:
Scott Frisch and Sean Kelly point out that directing money to particular purposes is a core constitutional function of Congress. If Congress does not make a specific allocation, the task falls to the executive branch; there is no guarantee that the allocation made by executive agencies will be superior to Congress's.[10] Presidents and executive officials can use the allocation of spending to reward friends and punish enemies.[11] The process of earmarking has been substantially reformed since the beginning of the 110th Congress. Members of Congress must post all their requests on their websites and they must sign a certification letter (then put online) indicating that neither they nor their spouse has financial interest in the earmark request.[12] Many members have instituted an applications process that their constituents must undergo for earmark requests.[13] Finally, member-directed projects constitute less than 2 % of the federal budget.
Click to expand...

Feel free to continue wallowing in ignorance/intellectual dishonesty, though.
 
Last edited:
Black_Zawisza said:
You obviously don't know what the hell you're talking about. Here, I'll even Wiki it and bold the operative words for you.

Furthermore,


Feel free to continue wallowing in ignorance/intellectual dishonesty, though.
Click to expand...

He is right -- you are wrong. Earmarks are just a way to allocate money THAT HAS ALREADY BEEN APPROPRIATED. As your own quote points out, "If Congress does not make a specific allocation, the task falls to the executive branch...."
 
Black_Zawisza said:
You obviously don't know what the hell you're talking about. Here, I'll even Wiki it and bold the operative words for you.

Furthermore,


Feel free to continue wallowing in ignorance/intellectual dishonesty, though.
Click to expand...

Money is fungible. The more money that is diverted to earmarks; the more money that will have to be budgeted.

Ignoring the truth is intellectually dishonest. Pretending that spending money does not increase spending is nonsensical
 
AdamT said:
He is right -- you are wrong. Earmarks are just a way to allocate money THAT HAS ALREADY BEEN APPROPRIATED. As your own quote points out, "If Congress does not make a specific allocation, the task falls to the executive branch...."
Click to expand...
I don't understand how your post does not support my perspective. As you say, the government already has the money and it's going to be spent somehow. All an earmark does is say that x amount of money will be spent to fund program y, reassigning it from wherever else it might have gone. Therefore an earmark does not increase spending.

sangha said:
Money is fungible. The more money that is diverted to earmarks; the more money that will have to be budgeted.


Ignoring the truth is intellectually dishonest. Pretending that spending money does not increase spending is nonsensical
Click to expand...
Again, an earmark doesn't increase the size of the pie that will be consumed; it only causes a particular slice of it to be granted to person A instead of B, C, etc.
 
Last edited:
Black_Zawisza said:
I don't understand how your post does not support my perspective. As you say, the government already has the money and it's going to be spent somehow. All an earmark does is say that x amount of money will be spent to fund program y, reassigning it from wherever else it might have gone. Therefore an earmark does not increase spending.
Click to expand...

Because the amount they appropriated INCLUDES the money they plan to earmark
 
sangha said:
Because the amount they appropriated INCLUDES the money they plan to earmark
Click to expand...
Can you clarify how you're using appropriate here? Do you mean the taxation, or the allocation of the taxes?
 
Black_Zawisza said:
I don't understand how your post does not support my perspective. As you say, the government already has the money and it's going to be spent somehow. All an earmark does is say that x amount of money will be spent to fund program y, reassigning it from wherever else it might have gone. Therefore an earmark does not increase spending.
Click to expand...

My bad, I misread what you were saying. So yes, I agree ... at least in a technical sense. However, don't forget that the folks who establish the size of the pot are the same folks who are planning on taking money out of the pot. Maybe they are using a bigger pot in hopes that it will afford them a bigger portion?
 
sangha said:
Taxation is not appropriation. I used the term as it's used by congress
Click to expand...
Fair enough, I was just wondering because one use of appropriate is "to take to or for oneself; take possession of".

Anyway:

sangha said:
Because the amount they appropriated INCLUDES the money they plan to earmark
Click to expand...
I don't disagree with this. Here's an analogy to illustrate what I'm saying: let's say we'd all like some pie. People all over the country contribute ingredients to bake a bunch of pies, and once they're done, we give one pie to each department/agency. Each part of the executive branch then decides how it's going to consume the pie, unless Congress specifically earmarks a piece of that pie for John. In other words, the size of the budget is determined separately; once that's done, then parts of that budget are earmarked for particular projects.

Do you disagree?
 
AdamT said:
My bad, I misread what you were saying. So yes, I agree ... at least in a technical sense. However, don't forget that the folks who establish the size of the pot are the same folks who are planning on taking money out of the pot. Maybe they are using a bigger pot in hopes that it will afford them a bigger portion?
Click to expand...
Perhaps so, but the original point over which we are arguing is whether Paul's numerous earmarks disqualify him from being a fiscal conservative. If earmarking money doesn't actually increase the amount being spent overall, then earmarks aren't inherently not fiscally conservative. Paul clearly isn't pushing for a larger budget from which to earmark a larger supply of money, so it's a non-issue.
 
Black_Zawisza said:
Fair enough, I was just wondering because one use of appropriate is "to take to or for oneself; take possession of".

Anyway:


I don't disagree with this. Here's an analogy to illustrate what I'm saying: let's say we'd all like some pie. People all over the country contribute ingredients to bake a bunch of pies, and once they're done, we give one pie to each department/agency. Each part of the executive branch then decides how it's going to consume the pie, unless Congress specifically earmarks a piece of that pie for John. In other words, the size of the budget is determined separately; once that's done, then parts of that budget are earmarked for particular projects.

Do you disagree?
Click to expand...

Yes, I do. I don't think "the size of the budget is determined seperately". Those politicians have been doing this for years. They *know* that they're going to have to include some money for earmarks.
 
Black_Zawisza said:
Perhaps so, but the original point over which we are arguing is whether Paul's numerous earmarks disqualify him from being a fiscal conservative. If earmarking money doesn't actually increase the amount being spent overall, then earmarks aren't inherently not fiscally conservative. Paul clearly isn't pushing for a larger budget from which to earmark a larger supply of money, so it's a non-issue.
Click to expand...

It's hypocritical for RP to ask for earmarks because he has claimed (a) it hurts businesses to give them govt money, (b) he doesn't do that because it's against his principles (see (a)), and (c) it's OK when he does it because *then* it does NOT hurt businesses to give them govt money. When Paul does it, he's not giving them "government money"; When he does it, he's giving them "their money" (even though it's not *their* money....it's OUR money)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom