Ron Paul's legislative successes (or rather lack of successes)

reply to post by seachange


Do a quick review of my posts up there, I said that Paulites will be rabid confronted with his Congressional record.

I never called anyone in particular a Rabid Paulite.

Secondly, you realize you are suggesting that gridlock in the Halls of Government will somehow be a good thing?

What we need is more compromise, not less.

This mess we are in, this subterfuge, is a direct result of our polarity in this country.

Paul is not the antidote, but merely a larger wedge.

Perhaps Paul supporters should focus their efforts on finding real world solutions, which must include compromise, instead of attempting to bring the only system of governance we have to a grinding halt.

reply to post by Freenrgy2


Oh no...not the false "debt ceiling" debate.

The debt ceiling has been raised 74 times in the past 40 years...it is nothing new....it has happened many many times.

Ron Paul is a stubborn idealogue...his lack of ability to compromise shows just how much of an incompetent leader he would make.

People who don't compromise are dictators...not leaders.

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by seachange

 

In a congress where the author of bills is mostly the lawyers and lobbyists large corporations, simply looking at the number of laws passed by a specific person gives you a good sign of dishonesty and corruption.

Ron Paul may well have the most accomplished record in the history of the United States congress.

I LOVE THIS ARGUMENT.

Ron Paul's failure is a sign of his success.

Whats funny is your inability to understand that the non-passage of Ron Paul's proposals demonstrates how congress is a failure, not how Ron Paul is a failure.

If congress isn't going to pass something like:
"H.R. 1495: Gold Reserve Transparency Act of 2011"
www.govtrack.us...

The fact that bill was introduced gives strong credit to Ron Paul in his quest for the transparency that Obama hates. The introduction of that bill is a success of Ron Paul. The failure of that bill is the failure of the rest of congress who fails to support it. So, it isn't because Ron Paul fails. It is because congress fails. Do you understand that?

Guess some people can't see the problem at all.

Ron Paul is one among many sellouts - the vast majority of the politicians are corrupt, no wonder Ron Paul legislative success is low. If some of the things he suggests actually gets passed the United States wouldn't be in the mess it is in now.

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by Freenrgy2

 

Oh no...not the false "debt ceiling" debate.

The debt ceiling has been raised 74 times in the past 40 years...it is nothing new....it has happened many many times.

This my friends is why this person does not get it at all.

Hey, Obama is going to ask for another 1+ trillion increase in the debt ceiling. I am sure S&P is going to love that one, can we say another downgrade in the credit rating. So go ahead and keep on borrowing, keep on with the right left paradigm while people like Ron Paul think outside of the norm.....eventually your ability to borrow will be gone and where you will be.

reply to post by ChaseHall

Ok now your getting pretty arrogant, first off your main topic is an indicator of nothing it means absolutely nothing in the grand scheme of ones leadership capabilities and if you think it does you don't understand the legislative process like you claim.

Then please educate me.

Anyone who tries to do soemthing 464 times and fails 463 times in NOT effective at what they are trying to do. They would be considered a failure in ANY career. Would you hire someone who had on their resume that they have attempted to do their job 464 times and was only successful in completing that job ONE time??? Over the period of 14 years...he fullfilled his job ONE time. It is just another fact that shows his incompetence.


You are free to go start your own thread on other people's accomplishments...this thread is to look at the lack of Ron Paul's accomplishments in the past 14 years in congress.

reply to post by MidnightTide


If you have no support from either party, how will you 'pass' any legislation?

Presidents do not make legislation.

They sign bills that have been written by Congress into law.

That is all.

reply to post by seachange

Whats funny is your inability to understand that the non-passage of Ron Paul's proposals demonstrates how congress is a failure, not how Ron Paul is a failure.

Only if you worship Ron Paul and think he is right about everything he talks about.

Sorry...I don't live in that fantasy world...I live in the real world where if you have a good idea, and you are a good leader you can get people on board to pass your legislation.


No matter how hard you try...you won't be able to pull off the "Ron Paul's failures are a sign of his success" argument. It is just so laughable...it's almost sad.

The introduction of that bill is a success of Ron Paul. The failure of that bill is the failure of the rest of congress who fails to support it. So, it isn't because Ron Paul fails. It is because congress fails. Do you understand that?

Do you understand that people have different opinions on things???

Do you understand that Ron Paul isn't right by default and what he says isn't the word of God???

Maybe he didn't get his bills passed because they weren't good ideas...maybe they didn't get passed because he fails as a leader and can't get his peers to back him up on his legislation???


But I'm sure you are right...Ron Paul is the only one who is right...everyone else in the country is wrong, this is the gospel of Ron Paul

Originally posted by jimnuggits
reply to post by MidnightTide

 

If you have no support from either party, how will you 'pass' any legislation?

Presidents do not make legislation.

They sign bills that have been written by Congress into law.

That is all.

Then it is up to the American people to get off their butts and actually vote in people who CARE ABOUT THE PEOPLE. But go ahead and keep on doing the same old thing the US has been doing for decades, with the same results.....there is coming a time when you won't have the luxury anymore.

Perhaps it is time for the American people to get more involved in government. There is no compromise, the situation is dire and it is the time for some radical changes. Some of us have realized that you can not work in a system that is broken.

reply to post by MidnightTide

This my friends is why this person does not get it at all.

Hey, Obama is going to ask for another 1+ trillion increase in the debt ceiling. I am sure S&P is going to love that one, can we say another downgrade in the credit rating. So go ahead and keep on borrowing, keep on with the right left paradigm while people like Ron Paul think outside of the norm.....eventually your ability to borrow will be gone and where you will be.

You do know that one of S&P's big reason to downgrade our credit was due to people like Ron Paul refusing to raise the debt limit...right???

It was because there was the threat that the debt ceiling wouldn't be raised and we may default on some payments that caused the downgrade...not the fact that we did end up raising it and continued to make our payments.

But I guess you understand it better than I do...apparently our credit rating would of been fine if we didn't raise the debt limit and defaulted on our payments

reply to post by MidnightTide


The people who really care about Americans are busy being doctors, teachers and soldiers.

These clowns are ALL in it for themselves.

I think Congress should be like jury duty. You get a letter in the mail and serve one term. Period.

Just because Paul's rhetoric is appealing to you does not mean he will ever have the ability to effect these monumental changes.

Does putting the 50000 people who work in the Department of Education on the unemployment line seem like a good idea to you?

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by seachange

 

Whats funny is your inability to understand that the non-passage of Ron Paul's proposals demonstrates how congress is a failure, not how Ron Paul is a failure.

Only if you worship Ron Paul and think he is right about everything he talks about.

Ron Paul isn't right about everything. Just almost everything. Nice try though.

Sorry...I don't live in that fantasy world...I live in the real world where if you have a good idea, and you are a good leader you can get people on board to pass your legislation.


No matter how hard you try...you won't be able to pull off the "Ron Paul's failures are a sign of his success" argument. It is just so laughable...it's almost sad.

Ron Paul's voting record makes him a success. If you can't see that then try looking again. You're a corrupt piece of filth if you get people across the board to pass your legislation, generally speaking. The passage of the most recent repeal of the 4th amendment called a "defense act" proves this. Was that good leadership? No, it was fascism. Good leaders lead by example. Obama is a disgusting leader. A failure of historic proportions, and history will prove it when the US financially collapses in the next few years. Its attitudes like yours that are partly to blame, that leading people into disaster is good leadership. Better to be a good leader with five good followers than a bad leader with a million sheep followers.

Do you understand that Ron Paul isn't right by default and what he says isn't the word of God???

Free markets work, that is a proven fact. Sorry if you are fact-adverse.

Maybe he didn't get his bills passed because they weren't good ideas...maybe they didn't get passed because he fails as a leader and can't get his peers to back him up on his legislation???

Corrupt legislators don't pass good bills. Sorry if you can't understand that.

But I'm sure you are right...Ron Paul is the only one who is right...everyone else in the country is wrong, this is the gospel of Ron Paul

You're not sure enough. You need to go out and research the facts about the free marketplace and its effect on poverty, the middle class, etc. You don't have the facts if you are not in support of Ron Paul.

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by MidnightTide

 

This my friends is why this person does not get it at all.

Hey, Obama is going to ask for another 1+ trillion increase in the debt ceiling. I am sure S&P is going to love that one, can we say another downgrade in the credit rating. So go ahead and keep on borrowing, keep on with the right left paradigm while people like Ron Paul think outside of the norm.....eventually your ability to borrow will be gone and where you will be.

You do know that one of S&P's big reason to downgrade our credit was due to people like Ron Paul refusing to raise the debt limit...right???

It was because there was the threat that the debt ceiling wouldn't be raised and we may default on some payments that caused the downgrade...not the fact that we did end up raising it and continued to make our payments.

But I guess you understand it better than I do...apparently our credit rating would of been fine if we didn't raise the debt limit and defaulted on our payments

Yes, it is going to happen sooner or later. Your suggestion of status quo no longer works.

No more debt extensions, no more bailouts - ZIP, NONE. If the system breaks, then so be it. The writing is on the wall, do you think the world is going to allow the US to borrow to infinity? Eventually, the US will not even be able to afford the interest on the debt.

Do I realize what this is going to mean - I sure do, and I have be preparing for it.

Originally posted by jimnuggits
reply to post by MidnightTide

 

The people who really care about Americans are busy being doctors, teachers and soldiers.

These clowns are ALL in it for themselves.

I think Congress should be like jury duty. You get a letter in the mail and serve one term. Period.

Just because Paul's rhetoric is appealing to you does not mean he will ever have the ability to effect these monumental changes.

Does putting the 50000 people who work in the Department of Education on the unemployment line seem like a good idea to you?

Yes, perhaps Ron Paul won't be able to do a thing as president but many of us have had enough of settling for the lesser of two evils. I support Ron Paul because I feel he is right and what he wants is good for the United States, good for the world in my opinion. Just exactly how many good paying jobs has the government allowed to leave to go to a third world country? How many real jobs has the government created? Bigger governments are part of the problem.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


As stated yourself, it lies in the definition. Correct. You have shown us during this entire thread that you value machine expediency and 100% efficiency. Standards we all try in our own ways to adhere too.

But is that what you really want from a not so representative representative-democracy employee?? I mean our tax dollars pay for it; we should be able to have a word in these decisions.

And wouldn't we want a humane government that looks at the issues humanely and not mechanically?

I know I would, so if that qualifies me as having "Low Standards", as you state it. Guilty as charged.

I

Originally posted by jimnuggits
Perhaps a review of how our government actually operates would be a good exercise for those of you on the Ron Paul bandwagon.

Congress (which is where your beloved Paul is now) make the laws. They write and edit all the laws. They are responsible for every single piece of Legislation that gets enacted.

If he is sooo righteous and effective, why would he choose to remove himself from that Legislative body and make himself totally ineffective by moving to the Executive Branch, where he will not have any effect on the laws that get written?

The President merely gives the thumbs up or down, he does NOT set the agenda, nor write the laws.

If you were real supporters, you'd want him to stay where he is, since that is the only place that allows him to affect the rules.

If this confuses you, rent 'school house rocks.'

He would veto bills so that the dont become laws. What agenda would he need to set other than to follow the constitution and let the states have more power? Oh and he can set an agenda milatarily.

reply to post by seachange

Free markets work, that is a proven fact. Sorry if you are fact-adverse.

Have you ever read The Jungle by Upton Sinclair????

That is the ugliness of unregulated "free markets". Completely unregulated free markets have never worked...which is why every country have passed regulations to keep them in check. Complete open free markets allow for monopolies and collusion...which turn them into closed markets. Like it or not, markets need to be regulated...the only question that is left is by how much.

You don't have the facts if you are not in support of Ron Paul.

LOL...I love this about Ron Paul supporters...they are the only ones who's OPINION is right.

If you don't think like them...you are wrong.

Welcome to the cult of Ron Paul.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


Getting nothing accomplished will be much better for this country than pushing bad legislation.
Second line.

reply to post by juveous

He would veto bills so that the dont become laws. What agenda would he need to set other than to follow the constitution and let the states have more power? Oh and he can set an agenda milatarily.

And congress could override that veto.

The one thing that congressmen would be able to agree on is that they aren't going to let the executive branch kill their ideas...especially when the President doesn't have the support of either party.

Our government is set up this way specifically for this reason....if a dictator like person (like Ron Paul) becomes President...our CONSTITUTION gives us the ability to still function without him.

Okay... so I thought I'd go through some of them to see what I thought (I see people shouting at each other. What I don't see them doing is going to look up what things said. In debate class, they taught us to read carefully.

I didn't read all of them.

I didn't like H.R. 3735: To disapprove the use of bycatch reduction devices in the shrimp fishery -- I'm a tree hugger and I don't want other things caught and killed with my shrimp.

Amendment to the Constitution of the United States relative to abolishing personal income, estate, and gift taxes and prohibiting the United States Government from engaging in business in competition with its citizens. Why wasn't this a simple law rather than trying to change the constitution?

There's a boatload of bills to help and protect his home district. Uhm... yay?

Res. 211: Opposing increased Federal income taxes on variable annuities and other variable contracts -- okay, I can get behind that one.

H.R. 4549: For the relief of the family of H. W. Hawes -- this appears to be a land dispute matter dating to WWII. Why in the heck can't it be resolved in courts? Why should *Congress* resolve a property dispute in Galveston, TX? Not liking this.

I can, however, get behind this one - H.R. 1139: Tax Free Tips Act of 2011To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide that tips shall not be subject to income or employment taxes.

I like this one: H.R. 150: Senior Citizens Tax Elimination Act To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the inclusion in gross income of Social Security benefits. It seems to be orbiting the Ways and Means committee.

Freedom to Bank act: Mixed bag. Freedom to Bank Act - Terminates Federal penalty for withdrawing or transferring funds from any transaction account or any savings or time deposit. (okay) Declares that no creditor, depository institution, or credit union shall be required to provide periodic statements of account to a customer unless the customer has notified it of an election to receive such statements. (No. Absolutly not. I want them to send out bank statements even if I don't read them.)

Not crazy about "Seniors' Health Care" bill -- I *DO* want that affidavit requirement on private contracts with practitioners under Medicare. And I think that if you opt out of parts of the Medicare system, that you can't expect Medicare to be there for you.

H.R. 1891: To amend the Clean Air Act to prohibit liability for the effects of emissions, and emission...-- So a vote for "big business" (the major polluters) and against the environment. Don't like it.

H.R. 220: Identity Theft Prevention Act of 2011 -- that one's just all over the place. The summary is a mess, the bill is a mess, I wouldn't vote for it as it stands. Deserves a quick death.

H.R. 1547: Religious Freedom Restoration Act -denies Federal courts (including US territorial courts and DC) to rule in state (or territorial) "freedom of religion" cases. So "freedom of religion" can mean different things in California and in Texas. No. No thank you.

Sanctity of Life Act (life begins at conception.) No. Absolutly not. I think that women should be able to get abortions -- and if men don't like it, they should make wearing condoms fashionable.

Outrageous!! H.R. 2045: Freedom of Health Speech Act -- To amend the Federal Trade Commission Act concerning the burden of proof in false advertising cases involving dietary supplements and dietary ingredients. This man is a physician, yet he's going to tell the FDA that companies with fake cancer cures, fake diabetes cures, fake flu cures, are just expressing "freedom of speech?" Outrageous!)

H.R. 1146 -- "Get out of the UN Act". No thank you. With the UN we have leveraging power. Without it, the rest of the world could use the UN to gang up on us. Very short sighted.

Totally lost my vote here! H.R. 1099: Taxpayers' Freedom of Conscience Act of 2011 -- To prohibit any Federal official from expending any Federal funds for any population control or population planning program or any family planning activity. (I went to family planning clinics for my birth control pills when we were young and poor. Now this physician doesn't want poor women to have FREE birth control pills?)

He did have some bills that I liked, but there's a lot he proposed that were "Congress bowing down to help Galveston/Houston" or were anti-environment or anti-family planning. I realize this is in part the Republican platform, which is why I'm not voting for Republicans.

reply to post by MidnightTide


How many jobs has the government created? Millions.

Or do Police, Fire fighters, Health Department, Social workers, engineers, Teachers and Soldiers not count?

WHat is this 'smaller government' argument everyone keeps making?

This is a democracy, or is at least supposed to be.

Smaller Government just concentrates power into the hands of a very few.

What we need is a huge Government, one which every single citizen is a part of.

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by Freenrgy2

 

Oh no...not the false "debt ceiling" debate.

The debt ceiling has been raised 74 times in the past 40 years...it is nothing new....it has happened many many times.

Ron Paul is a stubborn idealogue...his lack of ability to compromise shows just how much of an incompetent leader he would make.

People who don't compromise are dictators...not leaders.

You're pretty loose with the dictator comment. So people who don't compromise their values or principles should be seen as dictators? In that case, Obama fits the bill nicely.

What about that budget that hasn't been passed yet. No gridlock there, right?

False 'debt ceiling" debate? Please explain. And I don't take sides on that. It is a problem no matter which party does it. You don't see this as an issue? Of course, you might not if you are of an entitlement mindset and expect the government to give you everything.