PDA

View Full Version : Ron Paul



Jfor
12-03-2010, 09:42 AM
He does it again and shows how much he doesn't get what happened on Nov 2. He joined two other Republicans in the House yesterday in voting to allow the Bush Tax Cuts to continue for people making less than $200k a year while folks making more than $200k a year have their taxes increased. So go ahead and spin it Paulbots. He voted WITH the Democrats.

Madisonian
12-03-2010, 10:24 AM
He voted FOR extending the tax cuts.
While it would have been nice if the bill and extended all of them, but that was not the bill that was presented.
From what I have read of his record, Paul has never voted in favor of ANY tax hike and has never voted against ANY form of tax relief.

Now lets ask WHY there had to be a vote to extend the cuts in the first place.
When they cuts were originally put into place, the Republican party had the WH, the Senate and the House.
Why was there a sunset provision? Because they were afraid they could not get it through the Senate because of the Byrd Rule and they did not have the guts to fight it.

Jfor
12-03-2010, 10:41 AM
He voted FOR extending the tax cuts.
While it would have been nice if the bill and extended all of them, but that was not the bill that was presented.
From what I have read of his record, Paul has never voted in favor of ANY tax hike and has never voted against ANY form of tax relief.


Well, he just did vote for a tax increase. He and the others could have stuck with the party line to make permanent tax cuts for all, but they didn't. Now there will be NO chance for making permanent the Bush Tax cuts for anyone over $200k. You know, the job producers.

NJCardFan
12-03-2010, 10:52 AM
He voted FOR extending the tax cuts.
While it would have been nice if the bill and extended all of them, but that was not the bill that was presented.
From what I have read of his record, Paul has never voted in favor of ANY tax hike and has never voted against ANY form of tax relief.

Now lets ask WHY there had to be a vote to extend the cuts in the first place.
When they cuts were originally put into place, the Republican party had the WH, the Senate and the House.
Why was there a sunset provision? Because they were afraid they could not get it through the Senate because of the Byrd Rule and they did not have the guts to fight it.

For starters, the GOP didn't have the Senate. It actually ended up being 50-49-1 when Jeffords switched to Independent and caucused with the Democrats essentially giving the Dems a 51-50(with Cheney) edge. Also, in the House, the GOP only had a 12 seat majority. Hardly a super majority. So, they didn't have the votes to make the cuts permanent. At the time, this was the best they could do.

KhrushchevsShoe
12-03-2010, 02:43 PM
He voted FOR extending the tax cuts.
While it would have been nice if the bill and extended all of them, but that was not the bill that was presented.
From what I have read of his record, Paul has never voted in favor of ANY tax hike and has never voted against ANY form of tax relief.

Now lets ask WHY there had to be a vote to extend the cuts in the first place.
When they cuts were originally put into place, the Republican party had the WH, the Senate and the House.
Why was there a sunset provision? Because they were afraid they could not get it through the Senate because of the Byrd Rule and they did not have the guts to fight it.

To be fair Ron Paul doesn't vote in favor of much. It's part of his charm.

gator
12-03-2010, 03:14 PM
I hope everybody understands the vote from yesterday.

It was either to extend the tax cut extension for some or not at all.

Ron Paul chose to vote for the extension for the maximum number of people that was covered in the bill.

People that voted against it were voting not to extend the tax cuts to some people.

Ron Paul has been the most consistent member of Congress when it comes to taxes. He was calling to do away with the income tax 20 years ago.

Yesterday’s vote was just stupid politics as usual. Very few people that voted on either side had any real convictions on anything. At least Ron Paul has been consistent in voting for budgets and tax reductions.

Many of the Republicans that recently claim to have got religion when it comes to economics are the ones that grew the size of the annual government budget one trillion dollars a year and put us into debt about nine trillion dollars when they were in charge of the government. They have been almost as bad the Democrats.

There are no good guys here.

We are on the brink of disaster here and these stupid games in Congress mean they are not really focused on the hard work that is necessary to get this country back on track.

The deal on the tax cut was not in the vote yesterday. The resolution is in the backdoor deals that the Republican leadership cuts with Obama because at the end of the day he has to sign it.

The Republicans will compromise with Obama on one of his filthy Left Wing agenda items like illegal alien amnesty or letting the queers in the military and Obama will agree to extend the tax cuts.

Everything else is just smoke and mirrors.

lacarnut
12-03-2010, 03:16 PM
The real bill will come out of the Senate not the dog and pony show bill that came out of the House. Many Democratic Senators would not support the Pisslosi bill. Therefore, the House bill has Zero chance of being passed in the Senate. The Senate bill will extend tax cuts for everyone for a period of 2 years. If that does not happen this month, it will happen next month.

Teddy Kennedy
12-03-2010, 03:33 PM
The real bill will come out of the Senate not the dog and pony show bill that came out of the House. Many Democratic Senators would not support the Pisslosi bill. Therefore, the House bill has Zero chance of being passed in the Senate. The Senate bill will extend tax cuts for everyone for a period of 2 years. If that does not happen this month, it will happen next month.

Like Boehner said. It's all chicken crap.

PoliCon
12-03-2010, 04:10 PM
I look at it this way - if they keep fighting over this issue, it's less likely that they'll cram through cap and tax before the end of this session.

Molon Labe
12-03-2010, 04:17 PM
I hope everybody understands the vote from yesterday.

It was either to extend the tax cut extension for some or not at all.

So sad to see the OP doesn't get this. I guess if someone doesn't vote lock step with the Republican party on every issue that makes them a Democrat. :rolleyes:

malloc
12-03-2010, 04:17 PM
So go ahead and spin it Paulbots. He voted WITH the Democrats.

From your use of the phrase "Paulbots" I gather that you don't like the guy. Well, like him or hate him, this issue isn't one in which showcasing his shortcomings will be an easy battle. Anyone who knows Paul, no matter their opinion of the man's politics, will damn sure know that he'll vote his own platform and beliefs over party any day of the week, and he would vote for any bill that allows any American to pocket more of their own money. Even if this bill wasn't for all Americans, Paul hates taxes, so he saw an opportunity to return more of the public's money to it's rightful owners.


He does it again and shows how much he doesn't get what happened on Nov 2.

Ron Paul knows damn well what happened on November 2nd, especially considering that his movement, and his resulting PAC, Campaign for Liberty, was one of the many pieces of tender which grew into the bonfire known as "The Tea Party". With that in mind, I'm pretty sure he knows what's up. His movement and it's contribution to the Tea Party didn't arise from Paul capitulating along party lines, it came about precisely because Paul votes principal over party every time he votes.



He joined two other Republicans in the House yesterday in voting to allow the Bush Tax Cuts to continue for people making less than $200k a year while folks making more than $200k a year have their taxes increased.

If this bill would have been for cutting the taxes of any American who's last name starts with an 'X' Paul would have voted for it. Any tax cut is a win for Paul, regardless of what kind of politics his Party wants to play.

Do I agree with the Republican Party's strategy of using middle and lower class tax cuts as a chess piece to force through an across the board tax cut? Absolutely. Am I surprised that Ron Paul seized an opportunity to cut a tax, any tax? No, not at all.

Madisonian
12-03-2010, 05:02 PM
Well, he just did vote for a tax increase. He and the others could have stuck with the party line to make permanent tax cuts for all, but they didn't. Now there will be NO chance for making permanent the Bush Tax cuts for anyone over $200k. You know, the job producers.

Using that somewhat twisted logic, everyone that voted in any way voted for a tax increase since there was no bill presented to keep the tax cuts from expiring in their current form.

lacarnut
12-03-2010, 05:15 PM
Like Boehner said. It's all chicken crap.

Sure is chicken crap. I can not understand why anyone would get their bowels in an uproar one way or the other about this dog and pony show bill. What difference does it make. The bill is DOA when it is sent to the Senate. Anyone that believes that this bill will be passed in it's current form is an idiot. Ron Paul and the other two Repubs can go around flapping their wings like a retarded chicken if they want but the fact remains that the Senate will pass their own version. Case closed!

RobJohnson
12-03-2010, 08:33 PM
Will the President be around the sign the bill? :p

Articulate_Ape
12-03-2010, 09:57 PM
I am not going to even attempt to defend Ron Paul's vote on this issue because it mystifies me as well. Instead let me just say that it is pretty damned clear that we have a serious fiscal situation here in the US.

I think that raising taxes, and that is what this is (not a tax cut), would be a mistake right now. However, we are going to have to get very real here at some point. We missed the proactive window and are now in the reactive window, next will be the a locked window to a room with limited provisions.

I think we are at a place where we are like survivors in the lifeboat of a sunken ship. It doesn't matter how it sank anymore, what matters is how we survive to rebuild that ship. Everyone in that lifeboat is looking out at the open sea and then around at their fellow passengers and thinking, "Who will we eat first?"

Do we eat the best fed who, incidentally have the most strength to row the boat? The hungriest would say yes.

Likewise, the healthiest would say eat the weak so we can row farther.

Wisdom would suggest that the hearty give up their rations from the limited food stash on the boat to allow the weaker of their mates to share a time at the oars.

A shitty shitty parable to be sure, but we really have reached that "both solutions" point thanks to Obama & Co.'s abandon and Republican acquiescence in the past. My point is that, blame be damned, I think the vast majority of Americans want the fix more than the fixation of blame. It is going to mean a sacrifice at every level, class, party, or whatever to turn this shit around.

I must confess, I am not optimistic. The things that need to happen to avert, at the very least, the economic demise of our country are going to involve the sacrifice of sacred cows of all breeds and I honestly wonder if Americans today are up to that sort of pain in the way they were when they took on world wars.

I know that I am bloviating, but I would submit that we conservatives (not now, but at some point) need to address the notion of increased taxation, but tie any such increase to an equal decrease in federal spending. To whit, the Left throws around a number of about $700 billion that leaving the Bush tax cuts intact will "cost". Set aside their faulty bookkeeping for a moment and remember that they SPENT approximately that same astounding amount on a stimulus package that was about as successful as a Nader for President campaign.

At the end of the day, even IF we get our economy and jobs and all on the upward curve again, as conservatives we are going to have to face the fact that the bills accrued are going to have to be paid. I think that the math suggests that slashing the federal government to the bone, while a GREAT idea, is still not going to be enough to pay down the national debt, balanced budget or not, economic growth or not; and we need to pay down the debt.

I think that, even as tax-loathing conservatives, we are going to have to grapple with this. I would hope (even as I am losing hope) that we can have representatives in Congress and the White House that will have the nuts to do what we all know, even if only deep down, what needs to be done to get us to shore alive.

BadCat
12-03-2010, 10:07 PM
Why do they keep coming to us for money? How about they just quit spending so much, live within their means, and limit their means?

Dept. of Education is a failure - eliminate it.
What the hell does H.U.D. do? - eliminate it.
Privatize the U.S.G.S.
Limit the FCC to their original charter - allocating frequency bands.
Department of Energy - waste of time and money - eliminate it.
The EPA - ditto.

Basically I'd like to see the feds back to only what they are constitutionally mandated to do, and that's not a whole lot.

Articulate_Ape
12-03-2010, 10:18 PM
Why do they keep coming to us for money? How about they just quit spending so much, live within their means, and limit their means?

Dept. of Education is a failure - eliminate it.
What the hell does H.U.D. do? - eliminate it.
Privatize the U.S.G.S.
Limit the FCC to their original charter - allocating frequency bands.
Department of Energy - waste of time and money - eliminate it.
The EPA - ditto.

Basically I'd like to see the feds back to only what they are constitutionally mandated to do, and that's not a whole lot.


I totally agree with you, BadCat. All of that should come first. Unfortunately, unless my math fails me, we still have one HUGE national debt that has been rung up thanks to the all of the things you suggested having been in place for too long.

To quote a favorite Far Side cartoon: "First pants, then shoes." What you are suggesting represents the pants, but again, unless my math is wrong, we are still going to need to look at increased revenue (beyond that created by an economic recovery) dedicated to paying down the mortgage, so to speak.

If we get to that point, one would hope our crowd up on the hill would apply the same "sunset" clause to any tax increase as they have to tax cuts over the years.