Ron Paul has voted against every single Congressional pay raise

WASHINGTON, DC - Following through with his perfect record of having never voted for a congressional pay raise, US Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) on Thursday once again voted against an increase in the salary of Members of Congress.

"I have never and will never vote to increase Congress' pay; it's shameful that Congress seems to think that they should be raising their own pay at the same time the American people see their taxes increasing, federal spending going up, and the national debt getting larger," said Rep. Paul. "Many Members of Congress say they spend so much time in D.C. that they need more money. I say that not only does Congress not need a pay raise, we need to return to the Constitution, limit what the federal government has its fingers in, cut the time Congress spends in session, and cut the pay congressmen receive."

It is sad, said Paul, that at the same time Congress is attempting to increase its own pay, it has been examining ways to reduce the benefits paid to veterans and senior citizens.

Not only has Rep. Paul refused to ever vote for a congressional pay raise, but he is also one of the few representatives to turn down the lucrative pension Congress gives itself.

"Between the ability to increase pay at their whim and the juicy pension package they give themselves, it is no wonder so few Members of Congress ever leave their office and return to the private sector," said Rep. Paul. "How many Americans can, without thought, grant themselves a pay raise? How many Americans can take part in a pension which pays out the huge sums the congressional pension does? None, because Congress can simply increase taxes to pay the bill. Even the wealthiest of business owners have to answer to the bottom-line profitability of their company; Congress has no such accountability."

http://www.house.gov/paul/press/press98/pr071798.htm

Ron Paul is the only Congressman to vote against every single Congressional pay raise. Want to get paid to sit on your duff, get special privileges, and talk big but do nothing? Join the US congress. Don't you just love do-nothing congressmen who give themselves raises and a pat on the back for basically being a waste of space?


Plus a good article on our "honorable" congress:

"Just before the Senate voted to kill the controversial comprehensive immigration bill, House members on the other side of the Capitol voted 244-181 to kill legislation that would have stopped a cost-of-living adjustment for members of Congress from taking effect when the new fiscal year begins October 1. The 2.7 percent increase amounts to $4,400 for each member.

Ken Boehm of the National Legal and Policy Center (NLPC) says this action illustrates just how much of a disconnect Congress has from the American people it is suppose to serve.

"Their approval rating is 14 percent," Boehm points out. "That means that 86 percent of the American public thinks they're doing a pretty crummy job. If they were doing an absolutely sterling job -- and everybody knew it -- and working long hours and doing productive stuff and not getting caught stealing and so forth, then you might be able to make an argument about it. But that's hardly the case when their approval rating is [so low]."

The NLPC spokesman says members of Congress have perks ordinary Americans can only dream about. "We have full-time, professional politicians who get re-elected time after time after time -- because re-election rate is in the high 90s," he notes. "And part of that is because of all the perks of office. You get free postage and free travel, free this and free that."

Boehm says in reality, members of Congress really have a "cushy job" in many ways."

In the words of Patrick Kennedy: "I have never worked a *bleeping* day in my life."

 

I could see myself voting for Paul were it not for his foreign policy views. I wish he ran on the Republican ticket (so he could have a chance) in '88, '92 or '96 but today in the age of Islamic terrorism I would not be able to vote for Paul in good faith.

 

The "age of Islamic terrorism" is a direct result of our foreign policy. Change it, and you limit the threat of terrorist attacks against the U.S.

Many in the military understand this and are supporting Ron Paul:

Antiwar Ron Paul Rakes in Military Donations?

Quarterly Reports Indicate Paul Raised More From Military Than Other Republicans

07/16/2007 4:24 PM ET
Gabriel Buoys/AFP/Getty

Simi Valley, UNITED STATES: Arizona Senator John McCain (L), Rep. Ron Paul of Texas and Former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani (R) participate in the first GOP Candidates's debate of the 2008 Presidential Race, at the Reagan Presidential Library in Simi

Congressman Ron Paul has defined his Republican presidential candidacy with a staunchly critical stance on the Iraq war, saying during the June 5 debate in New Hampshire, for example, that it was a "mistake to go and a mistake to stay."

Paul has often reiterated his views that US security has been worsened by its military presence in Iraq, and that Bush's pre-emptive war doctrine represented one of his administration's greatest moral failings.

One might think such criticism of the war and the Commander-in-Chief's leadership would make Paul a pariah to the military community, however, the latest figures indicate the antiwar Republican is receiving more donations from employees of the US military than any other Republican candidate.

The Presidential campaigns just released their quarterly campaign finance reports, leaving much of the mainstream media remarking on Paul's surge in online donations from his healthy Internet following, though the $2.3 million he raised still has him trailing far behind the front runners.

But a closer look at the reports reveals a less obvious but more remarkable development--the antiwar Republican received nearly 50% of the money donated by employees of the US military.

The site that crunched the numbers on the quarterly reports did not count donations coming from the US Marine Corps, which adds $1600 to the total of $15,825 total they report McCain raised from employees of the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Veterans Administration. That failure slightly alters the conclusions they draw on the totals, since Paul received no money from Marines. Even so, the overall percentages indicate that the underdog candidate, whose overall fund raising cache is dwarfed by the leading pack of candidates, has appealed to segments of the military community.

http://www.iraqslogger.com/index.php/post/3609

 

I don't agree with this. I believe Islamic terrorism is driven by their religion much more than any foreign policy and they explicitly say as much. What foreign policy was driving the Barbary pirates in 1786? According to Paul's logic, they only attack us when we we're over.

So? I am also in the military and I don't support Paul.

 

I don't think that Paul would neglect our foreign policy to the point that it would put us in danger. I'm actually a little torn on the subject to be honest. I'm not too sure if I really agree with him on foreign policy, but seeing as how he cares as much as he does for the actual people of this country, not a pervasive element in todays politicians, I can not imagine that he would cut back on our "foreign interests" to the point of putting us in danger. I don't think that he is an isolationist as much as he is an anti-interventionalist. And to be quite frank, I don't see how our current "leaders" are doing much to keep us safe as it is. They can yammer on and on about keeping us safe, but untill they close the border and start taking steps to ensure our financial safety, I think it is worth the risk to see what Paul can do.

 

The system won't be perfect. Perfection or utopia aren't options. But it will reduce the vast majority of terrorist attacks.

Well, the Barbary pirates certainly weren't any threat to invade America. They were only a threat to our ships that had crossed the ocean and gone into foreign waters.

The point is - there are a lot of military people who get his foreign policy and who support him.

 

What kind of argument is this? I expose the flaw in your argument and you say "well, it won't be perfect".

And what makes you think that it will reduce terrorist attacks? The terrorists themselves say that it's not our foreign policy that drives them, and in fact, as Osama said during Clinton's time, America's lack of an aggressive stance against the terrorists allows him to portray America as a "paper tiger" that helps him recruit new terrorists.

Historically, this country has a much worse record in Central and South America than in the Middle East? Why aren't Columbians or Mexicans or Cubans driving airliners into our buildings? The answer, is because their religion doesn't tell them to. I don't really buy into Paul's "blowback" theory because it's not rooted in history.

That's irrelevant. The fact is that the evidence supports the notion that it's not our "foreign policy" that drives the Islamists. It's their religion.

 

I would be a whole lot more impressed with Paul's record if his vote had been the deciding vote. In Congress, they know in advance how everyone is going to vote. Its easy to be against something on principle when you know it isn't going to matter.

But, I like Paul. There is basically one thing that would keep me from voting for him. He is from TEXAS. I will not vote for a Texan. I am sick of Texans. I want all Texans to go back to Texas. Bush, Cheney, Rove, Gonzales, all of them, go back to Texas. I don't want any more.

 

All I'm saying is, there's no policy that can guarantee the U.S. will never be attacked again. But there are certainly policies that will reduce that risk.

And you apparently refuse to acknowledge the points Bin Laden stated on the fatwa. I'll repost the following because you never answered it on the other thread:

It's never too late to change a bad policy. I'm not saying, and have never said, that we shouldn't have a strong military. We should have a strong national defense. What I'm saying is that the military should only be used defensively and our foreign policy should be noninterventionism, the original U.S. foreign policy:

"The United States goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is a well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own. If the United States took up all foreign affairs, it would become entangled in all the wars of interest and intrigue, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom. She might become the dictatress of the world. She would be no longer the ruler of her own soul." -President John Quincy Adams

The threats and dangers that most Neocons fantasize about are all the result of the actions of the U.S. overseas.

Al qaeda declared jihad because:
(1) the U.S. supplies weapons to and gives military aid to the Zionists in Israel
(2) the U.S. keeps military bases on ground in Saudi Arabia that they consider sacred
(3) and that the sanctions in Iraq (and now the occupation) are hurting the Iraqi people

Keep on doing these things, and you'll make yourself a terrorist target. Get out of their territory and stay out of their business, and they'll forget about you and would probably be open to a dialog.

They don't hate us for our "wealth" and "freedom." That's just sheer propaganda. THAT'S what you have to be gullible to believe at this point (not that I'm saying you do believe Bush's "argument" about that point - just that the general public believes it).

But there is no true threat. There is no true threat because we are the cause of much of the bad blood - the CIA's overthrow of a democratically elected leader in Iran in the fifties was a spark to much of this. The CIA's own declassified documents, which you can see in the documentary "Why We Fight" specifically stated that the U.S. should expect "blowback" from that action. "Blowback" meaning violent, life-threatening actions. Obviously the CIA feared that the Arabs would think retaliatory action was justified. The CIA has created many enemies for us:

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4068.htm

Certainly, our initiation of force in the region on the behalf of British Petroleum was not justified. Certainly our initiation of force against any nation that isn't directly attacking us or declaring war against us isn't justified. Certainly, America has committed many atrocities which were not justified. They're all detailed here:

Why do they hate us -

http://www.chaostan.com/whydotheyhateus.html

As far as protecting our "rights" and "freedom" go, Bush has done nothing but restrict our rights and slowly take away more of our freedoms.

There's a reason the Founding Fathers warned us about domestic enemies of the Constitution - and Bush is definitely a domestic enemy of the original intent of the Constitution:

"If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy." - James Madison

"Of all the enemies to public liberty, war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debt and taxes and armies are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied; and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force, of the people...
[There is also an] inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of war, and....degeneracy of manners and morals....No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare." -- James Madison

...Continual warfare as in the neverending "war on terror"... hello, anybody awake out there in America?

Now, why I say an invasion of the U.S. won't happen if we declare neutrality:

First, if we remove the cause of the fatwa against the U.S., the terrorists will have no reason to invade our territory if we're not in their territory and not interfering in their region. So there should be no reason for them to waste time attacking a neutral people. After all, they're not attacking anyone in Switzerland, Sweden or New Zealand, now are they?

Secondly, even if they did try to invade and occupy us after we left, they would fail miserably. For one thing, they couldn't afford it. We're practically the richest country in the world, yet look what it's costing us to invade and occupy the tiny country of Iraq - and we're FAILING. And add to this that private Americans are far more heavily armed that Iraqis were. Our insurgency would be devastating to any invader. They can certainly try to attack me, but I'm well-trained in the use of firearms, so I doubt they'll get close enough to try.

And last but not least, no nation state wants a war with us. Why? The simple reason is that we have enough nuclear weapons to nuke every square inch of every country on earth. We are not helpless and we are not defenseless. No one could ever successfully invade and occupy the U.S. No other country's economy could stand the strain, let alone the bombardment that would follow.

Then why aren't all Muslims suicide bombers? That's the flaw in your argument. Why is this religion only influencing a small sect of people within a billion + Muslims to be violent?

 

Because the CIA has said in their official reports that the U.S. should expect blowback - meaning violent retaliation - for meddling in the region.

This is what interventionism brings:

"In 1953, Iran had a democratic government. This is a very jarring thing for us to realize now because we are not used to seeing the word "Iran" and the word "democracy" in the same sentence. The fact is, however, that Iran was developing a long, rocky but democratic path in the early 1950s. For reasons which my book explains in great detail, the United States decided, in the summer of 1953, to go in and overthrow that democratic government. The result of that coup was that the Shah was placed back on his throne. He ruled for 25 years in an increasingly brutal and repressive fashion. His tyranny resulted in an explosion of revolution in 1979 the event that we call the Islamic revolution. That brought to power a group of fanatically anti-Western clerics who turned Iran into a center for anti-Americanism and, in particular, anti-American terrorism.

The Islamic regime in Iran also inspired religious fanatics in many other countries, including those who went on to form the Taliban in Afghanistan and give refuge to terrorists who went on to attack the United States. The anger against the United States that flooded out of Iran following the 1979 revolution has its roots in the American role in crushing Iranian democracy in 1953. Therefore, I think it’s not an exaggeration to say that you can draw a line from the American sponsorship of the 1953 coup in Iran, through the Shah’s repressive regime, to the Islamic revolution of 1979 and the spread of militant religious fundamentalism that produced waves of anti-Western terrorism."

From: http://www.buzzflash.com/interviews/03/07/29_kinzer.html

 

We have been throwing our weight around in the ME for decades. We would have to leave the entire region, and wait maybe thirty years, to convince them we had stopped doing so. And they are probably going to keep commiting terrorist acts until they are convinced we will leave them alone. Then, if they keep commiting such act, we will know it is for some other reason.

You see the problem with this. We are not going to stand by idly and allow ourselves to be attacked without retaliation. And if we retaliate...... We have created a vicious circle.

 

Right, like fighting back,

We are currently engaged in a defensive war. Let me ask you, do you support the war in A-stan?

Well what are the Islamists reasons for attacking us before these things occured? That's the flaw in your argument. To put the blame back on the U.S. for their jihad is to say that any time they attack us, it's in response to something we did first and this "blowback" theory is not supported by history.

You're using your false logic again. They have attacked us before unprovoked and will continue to attempt to do so. They will always go after the most powerful non-Muslim countries and try to establish Sharia law because that's what their holy book and Prophet instruct them to do.

Do you think people who are willing to blow their infants up in order to kill a few civilians are reasonable enough to weigh their odds of sustaining an invasion on the American homeland? Most of them don't even care if they're successful or not. As long as they achieve their martyrdom and 72 virgins, then all is well.

Again, you're assuming that they actually think about these things. And secondly, these Islamic fascists are not restrained to one country or even one region and they hide behind human shields, mosques, civilian cities, etc. So where would we nuke?

Because they do not adhere strictly to the religion's tenets. But more importantly, you cannot forget that even if the irreconcilable wing of Islam is only a "small sect" -- it's still anywhere between 39 and 51 million people.

 

im starting to see the propoganda for what it is here

 

Which is what Roker? Try saying something meaningful every once in a while.

 

not possible with the likes of you