Videos: Ron Paul and Michelle on Congress’s phony AIG outrage and bogus bonus tax
posted at 7:20 pm on March 19, 2009 by Allahpundit
Two clips, the first from the House floor this morning and the second from Cavuto this afternoon but identical in theme. The greater outrage isn’t corporate malfeasors walking away with millions they didn’t earn but the feds dumping trillions that we’ll never see again into a bailout sinkhole and then burning AIG in effigy to keep the heat off themselves. With measures that are, lest we forget, at least arguably unconstitutional. Exit question: Will the boss join the rEVOLution?
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2
What happened to the Ron Paul people anyway?
I think maybe Obama out-brainwashed them.
Ortzinator on March 20, 2009 at 1:37 AM
I wasn’t aware we went somewhere.
Rangeley on March 20, 2009 at 1:50 AM
You’re assuming that happened. Anyone who has experience with outsourcing or newsletters can understand how Paul may never have known.
Considering all other factors… 1) Know one ever hearing or seeing him speak anything racist, 2) speaking out against racism as a form of collectivism instead of individualism, 3) specifically denouncing white supremacy as immoral, 4) praising MLK and Rosa Parks on the house floor, 5) offering to pay for part of Rosa Parks’ medal out of his own pocket, 6) naming a black man as one of two people he might pick to be his VP…
…I have to assume that the newsletters were a mistake that did not reflect his views, based on a preponderance of the evidence.
Jimmy Liberty on March 20, 2009 at 2:06 AM
We’re still here. Apparently I’ve been too busy spreading neo-nazi, truther propaganda to post here.
gyrmnix on March 20, 2009 at 3:21 AM
Did I really say “know one” when I meant “no one” while making a point? Yes, I did. Shoot.
Jimmy Liberty on March 20, 2009 at 4:05 AM
I thought there’d be more Jew-bashing and child-beating. Aren’t you supposed to send an e-mail to the Dean when you do a Ron Paul thread?
hawkdriver on March 20, 2009 at 6:11 AM
Damn It, AP! Stop with the myth-mongering already. These weren’t Performance Bonuses like we all used to hope for at Xmas, these ‘bonuses’ were part of their contracted pay. Stay for so long and do your job and we’ll give you X dollars. They stayed, they did and they legitimately earned it. We need to tell that pervert Bawney Fwank to go back to his Freddie Mae boyfriend and shut up!
GeneSmith on March 20, 2009 at 8:52 AM
If only Ron Paul would, once and for all, make a clean break with racists, holocaust denying, anti-semite groups! Do it Ron! Denounce them and recognize that Israel is one of the few real friends that we, the U.S., has left in the world. We don’t throw our friends under the bus Ron, just because they’re not popular in the world! If RP would do this, he could be a powerful leader for the Conservative Movement. And we need one right now. DD
Darvin Dowdy on March 20, 2009 at 9:07 AM
I’ll tell you what, getting ridiculed by people who were spouting the Phil Gramm line months ago about the economy doesn’t really mean much to me. Like when you people were getting picked on in high school, the bullies still ended off dumber and poorer than you in the end. There was no basis behind their supposed superiority. Being wrong on everything doesn’t really qualify you to be taken seriously.
Paul would talk about the Fed and it would be 1.1 seconds before you get a “joooos” ridicule by many here. He was right.
You go to foreign policy, the causes of 9/11 are out there. Bin Laden used religion and hatred of US Foreign Policy to get people to kill themselves. If we weren’t doling out foreign aid and propping up despots and puppets, threatening coups with anyone that dares to oppose global finance and multinational corporate interest in raw materials then we wouldn’t have 9/11s. I mean there was obviously no political motive for 9/11, when they struck Pentagon and the World Trade Centers there was obviously no symbolism there. Throw in the White House or the Capitol and you have the three prongs of what could be considered the military industrial complex, global finance/trade, military planning, and political leadership. Then you have organizations like the World Bank and IMF, whose goals are to increase debt of developing nations so they may be forced into being puppet states. Other people are aware of this stuff, just stick your heads back up your asses and believe that stuff like this doesn’t give wannabee power brokers like Bin Laden a great political dialogue to use against us and recruit. You may now go back to your previously planned talking points, spouting the boolean argument nonsense of Republican talking points or Democratic talking points.
Well actually I see a lot of you only go the nazi route now with your pathetic attempts, that’s so Clinton circa 1993.
LevStrauss on March 20, 2009 at 9:31 AM
You know I consider the BILLIONS in bailout dollars being used by GM to pay for Union pension funds to be bonuses handed out at taxpayer expense, but I guess there will be no outrage over that.
JeffinSac on March 20, 2009 at 9:35 AM
Speaking of Ron Paul, what happened to all the Truffers? Do they think Obama is now part of the cover-up?
blink on March 20, 2009 at 9:50 AM
fixed it for you.
Neoconservatives had their fun with the GOP for the last decade. Where did it get us? In the ditch. I’ve sat quietly at the state convention for years but no more. I’m pissed that the GOP has been destroyed and I’m not sitting quietly anymore.
popularpeoplesfront on March 20, 2009 at 10:38 AM
Bravo, Michelle. Well put.
Angry Dumbo on March 20, 2009 at 11:04 AM
Remember when conservatives didn’t engage in class warfare? Those were the days.
Vashta.Nerada on March 20, 2009 at 11:17 AM
Ron Paul is a crank of the first order. The only thing which separates him from Denis Koucinich is a (R) after his name. The one issue he speaks well on, money and economics/fiscal policy, he loses what little credibility he has due to his tortured earmark logic/support and spending.
RP himself may indeed not be racist, but he supports such things by being associated with those who spout that drivel. Perhaps he didn’t ‘write’ his patently racist and anti-semitic newsletters years ago. But he lent his name to them and failed to be a responsible steward. He has also had no problem associating, indeed, taking photos with racist, anti-semitic Stormfront folks. Maybe he didn’t know who they were, but he lends credence to their rants nonetheless.
He has consistantly associated with and has never denounced “Truthers” in any meaningful way. His association again lends credence to the conspiracists, though he may not overtly believe that crap himself. To his credit RP has said he doesn’t believe the government “did it”, but he has also said there should be more investifgations insinuating nefarious government action.
IMO opinion anyone who rails against government as he does, and rightly so, also loses a certain credibility by continuing to serve in that same government for decades on end. If you want to be part of something and try to change it, fine. Don’t wrap yourself or allow your ‘followers’ to wrap what you say in the Constitution when you actively participate in the nightmare which is today’s government. If you couldn’t fix it after a reasonable time, get out and work to change it from the outside.
Again, most of RP’s arguments ring hollow having been in the House for over 20 years (and running again) and nothing changes.
catmman on March 20, 2009 at 11:44 AM
While almost every other Republican was voting for the wasteful spending that destroyed their reputation as fiscally conservative, he was voting against it. That makes him a crank? Part of the problem?
He loses credibility by… trying to change things? I’m not even sure where you are coming from. His argument isn’t against the government existing, its against what it is currently doing, the violations of the Constitution it is participating. And has been participating for some time.
It seems to me your solution, for anyone who objects to the course politicians are taking, is to get out of the way and let them have their fun.
Rangeley on March 20, 2009 at 11:57 AM
The campaign for liberty.
saiga on March 20, 2009 at 11:57 AM
Further, do you realize how many people took their picture with Ron Paul? He didn’t perform background checks on everyone who walked up to him wanting a picture. The fact someone who is a white nationalist could get their picture with him means nothing. Oh, but I guess it must mean he’s a racist!
Did Romney denounce truthers? Did Thompson denounce truthers? I guess it only matters that Ron Paul didn’t “denounce” them, right? No matter that they all said they disagree with them, it’s only Republicans who you don’t like that must denounce them outright, am I right?
Rangeley on March 20, 2009 at 12:02 PM
Rangeley on March 20, 2009 at 11:57 AM
Yeah, here we go with the RP talking points. He votes against spending bills he loads with pork, knowing they will get passed. So he gets to rail against the “excessive spending” but gets the extra bucks in his districts pockets. those aren’t the acts of a principled man – they are the acts of a career Washington pol. And yes, this makes him part of the problem. Be a true man of principle, vote against the bills and also DONT TAKE ANY OF THE EARMARK MONEY!
He loses credibility by trying to change things, and then actively paticipating in the things he is trying to c”change” – earmarks for example. He also loses credibility by saying the government wasn’t past of 9/11, but then calling for more investigations into the government involvement into 9/11. One loses credibility by trying to play both sides of the coin.
For all the years he has been trying to change things – here we are – nothings changed, in fact it’s worse. So since things are the way they are, RP is either ineffective as a Representative, or he is indeed part of the problem.
Perhaps RP and many, many others need to leave and let’s try again.
catmman on March 20, 2009 at 12:07 PM
Rangeley on March 20, 2009 at 12:02 PM
Of course I know RP may not know who everyone who takes a photo with him is. After the photo came out however and those with him were identified – crickets. If you had taken a photo with people later identified as who they were, wouldn’t it at least be prudent to try to distance yourself? Maybe? He didn’t, so how do you or anyone else know he didn’t know who they were or what they represented? At best, it was bad judgement. One should expect better. Isn’t that one of the things RP supporters like you keep telling everyone?
I don’t care if anyone else denounced ‘Truthers’. I’m talking about RP. I said RP did come out saying the government wasn’t responsible for 9/11. I also pointed out the credibility gap of doing so, but then cavorting with Truthers and calling for additional investigations into 9/11.
catmman on March 20, 2009 at 12:15 PM
Earmarking money doesn’t add any money to the bill. It simply specifies where the money, already in the bill, will be going. He participates in the appropriations process because its their job to appropriate. If they don’t specify, the executive branch and Obama will get to put it wherever they want. While he has always been critical of the spending, and has always voted against the spending, he is not critical of the concept that congress is the one that appropriates spending, if it happens. You are confusing him for McCain, who would rail against earmarking – despite its 0 net effect on bills – while still actually voting for bills like TARP.
He wants more investigations into the governments handling into 9-11 because the previous have been too protective and uncritical of past actions, not because he believes there is a conspiracy. When the government investigates itself, they often do a poor job. And did.
And finally, I don’t see how denouncing racism can be seen as doing nothing. He didn’t choose to associate with those people, those people chose to associate with him – a non racist, campaigning on a platform obviously opposed to racism. Would you rather he tell them to give their support to someone who is a racist, with a racist agenda?
Rangeley on March 20, 2009 at 12:22 PM
I wasn’t aware that the legislative process for spending taxpayer money was called “earmarking”. “Earmarks”, also known as pork barrel spending, are not part of the Consitutional legislative process for spending money. An earmark is a spending measures inserted by members of Congress into bills that direct taxpayer dollars to their pet projects. Or as you put it, “It simply specifies where the money, already in the bill, will be going.” Which is the exact problem with earmarks. If the money is already in the bill, then why isn’t it already going to something specific? There is no debate on earmarks, earmarks aren’t voted on. Earmarks are like tacking on crappy amendments to non-spending leigislation – they are a process outside what it should be and end up turning what could be a good piece of legislation into a piece of crap.
Why do you insist on naming other people? McCain is a POS and most everyone on the right knows it. He was a poor candidate to say the least, is hardly conservative, and could barely be called a Republican IMO.
And your deflection about racist supporters is a poor one. I would rather that a principled man tell those who support him who have those ideas where to go with them and that indeed, their support isn’t wanted or needed. Simply put, if you don’t distance yourself from ‘kooks’, you lend credence to their kookiness.
catmman on March 20, 2009 at 1:32 PM
Not only that, the legislation affects all banks that accepted bailout funds, including the ones who never asked for help. The Fed strong-armed, i.e. forced, healthy banks, such as JP Morgan, into accepting funds to protect the weakest banks from standing out at the only recipients of TARP money.
Where are the great protectors of capitalism on this issue? Apparently, they’ve been confused by all the hysteria. I didn’t see many Republicans voting against this federal attack on the independence of companies to decide how their employees are compensated. Believe it or not, there are some units of JP Morgan and Wells Fargo that raked in massive profits over the last few years. Those employees deserve to be rewarded, not punished. Keeping the government out of compensation is the only answer. Not all banks are AIG or Citi.
bayam on March 20, 2009 at 1:46 PM
The process for directing money already put into a bill is called earmarking. When a bill states, for example, 500 million is to be given to recover from a hurricane, portions of this are then earmarked off to specific named projects, such as rebuilding a levee, rebuilding a bridge, etc.
I don’t believe I “insisted” on naming other people, considering I only named McCain, but the reason I brought him up is because he actually did what you are accusing Ron Paul of. Ron Paul has never objected to congresses authority to earmark spending bills – he has objected to the spending itself. Therefore, he has voted against the spending. But if the money is to be spent, congress is the proper branch of government to determine how it is spent – not the executive branch. Have some people criticized earmarking, only to vote for earmarked bills? Yes! Has Ron Paul? No. He has criticized the spending, voted against the spending, but recognizes that if it is going to happen, it is congresses job.
Finally, you would be supporting the white supremacist movement by telling people to donate their time and money to them. I would rather argue against what they stand for as he did, and argue that you should not support them.
Rangeley on March 20, 2009 at 2:14 PM
if this new tax stands it is the end of america ,america did not elect a president we have a bolshevik.read youre history book this is how vladimir started in 1917.read it and weep.by attacking the rich you attack all of us you just started with rich you will soon get to the rest of us.
wade underhile on March 20, 2009 at 2:49 PM
Ron Paul making sense. Who’da thunk it?
Jarhead68 on March 20, 2009 at 3:14 PM
Some folks just are feeling too much heat, and it’s not the weather.
Unfortunately some folks do not want a precedent that could take away their ability to make themselves a deity among men.
No, you’re only attacking those in question. They’re just threatening to act upon us all.
sethstorm on March 20, 2009 at 5:41 PM
First a budget is approved. Then the money is appropriated. Either the congress can appropriate the money via transparent earmarks, or the executive branch (Obama) can decide how to spend the money in secret.
You support the latter. You don’t think Obama’s going to waste the money?
All Paul does is allow people in his district to ask for their tax money back. He’s against taking their tax money in the first place, and spending it on waste… but if it’s gonna be spent on waste (and it is, earmark or not), at least allow the people in your district to ask for their money back.
Jimmy Liberty on March 20, 2009 at 6:24 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2