-
SEQUESTER: The Horror!
March 1, 2013 | 4 comments
-
SOTU Preview: Human Props, Budget Fights, and Wedge Issues
February 12, 2013 | 0 comments
-
Hello, I Must Be Going
August 14, 2012 | 18 comments
-
Weekend Political Wrap-Up, Paul Ryan Edition
August 12, 2012 | 16 comments
-
Esquire Blogger Sees Paul Ryan, Shreds His Safety Net
August 11, 2012 | 13 comments
The Spectacle Blog
In addition to never voting for an unbalanced budget, Ron Paul often touts his record of never having voted for a tax increase. Some people are arguing that this streak ended yesterday when Paul, joined by Paul-influenced Republicans Jimmy Duncan and Walter Jones, voted for the House Democrats’ extension of the Bush tax cuts for the middle class.
But if you also favor retaining the tax cuts for upper-income taxpayers, are you supporting tax hikes if you vote first for the stand-alone middle-class tax cut bill? Especially when the Democratic majority leader publicly admits the partial tax cut has no chance of becoming law and all three Republicans voted for the original full tax cuts and say they favor their retention? Paul in particular has defended the tax cuts for the wealthy for some time:
I’m in favor of cutting everybody’s taxes - rich, poor, and otherwise. Whether a tax cut reduces a single mother’s payroll taxes by forty dollars a month, or allows a wealthy business owner to save millions in capital gains, the net effect is beneficial. Both either spend, save, or invest the extra dollars, which helps all of us infinitely more than if those dollars were sent to the black hole known as the federal Treasury. The single mother desperately needs those extra dollars, and that’s why we should reduce or eliminate her payroll taxes. As for the wealthy business owner and whether he “needs” the extra dollars, I’ll simply relate the old adage of the man who said “I’ve never had my paycheck signed by a poor man.”
The most problematic provision of the bill Paul and company voted for is Section 102, which explicitly excludes “high income individuals” from the tax cuts and defines who doesn’t qualify. Left alone, that would be a tax increase on those individuals come January. But the legislation also explicitly continues the tax cuts for everyone else. Could you argue with a straight face that the Republicans who voted against this bill don’t really favor the tax cuts for the middle class?
Unrelatedly, while Paul — wrongly, in my view — preferred a reprimand, he did ultimately vote to censure Charlie Rangel.
UPDATE: Ryan Ellis of the anti-tax increase Americans for Tax Reform comments below:
“In our opinion, Cong. Paul did not vote for a tax hike. The bill Congress voted on yesterday is a tax cut relative to 2011 law, which assumes everyone’s taxes go up. By preventing some people’s taxes from going up, this would score out as a tax cut.”
View all comments (59) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by W. James Antle, III
http://spectator.org/blog/2010/12/03/did-ron-paul-vote-for-a-tax-in
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Ailes: A Voice for the Silent Majority
- Consternated Conferences
- Eugenic Abortion 2.0
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
JTWilliams | 12.3.10 @ 3:24PM
Dr. Paul does take the context of the day into consideration at times. He would rather most people get the tax cut, than hang them out to dry for the rich- who continue to profit during this depression. Dr. Paul is more a populist than you know- check out my link to an interview, where he makes a very reasonable suggestion about how we should tackle the debt. It doesn't fit in an idealogical box, it just makes sense.
JimH| 12.5.10 @ 7:54AM
Paul interview on the Fed and other things:
http://www.bloomberg.com/video/64942500/
victor| 12.3.10 @ 3:45PM
How do you give people that do not pay income taxes a TAX CUT?
47% of those filing income taxes do not pay income taxes.
Those who earn less than the median income only account for 2.7% of the income tax revenues.
Everyone who pays income taxes should get an income tax rate reduction and therefore all of the income tax reductions should be extended.
PS at what income level does the "Middle Class" stop at?
What about the 65% of small business owners that earn more than $250,000 and file personal income taxes?
What are they? Chopped liver?
And they should be thrown to the wolves?
This is class warfare at is its most basest and you're defending it?
"He would rather most people get the tax cut, than hang them out to dry for the rich- who continue to profit during this depression."
No, but he voted to increase taxes on the merchant and contractor class and they are not the "Rich".
What about the 65% of small business owners that earn more than $250,000 and file personal income taxes?
And why Ron Paul is voting to shaft them with onerous taxes.
Are you saying that these small businessmen are not Middle Class?
Warrior | 12.3.10 @ 3:57PM
This was never about giving anyone a tax cut. This is about keeping the rates we have had for the last few years stay the same.
Wayne | 12.3.10 @ 4:40PM
Please Quit using that 250K figure. It is for a married couple, which puts it at 125K each.
victor| 12.4.10 @ 2:49PM
Wayne:
"Please Quit using that 250K figure."
Picky, picky, picky.
Obama and dems have always used the phrase: "Married couples" making that figure.
That could mean 2 people at 125k or one at 250k.
Making 125k is not too hard for motivated people.
Selling real estate or perhaps a plumbing contractor or even a dentist could make that figure.
The point is, why are you penalizing their success?
The other point was that small businesses pay personal and not corporate income taxes.
Why penalize them as well?
Darryl| 12.4.10 @ 5:37PM
The tax cuts for all up to 250k include people who make more than that amount; but only on the first 250k. This does not seem unfair for everyone to get a cut on their first 250k of income. Especially since these same upper income earners do not have to pay SS taxes above the 100k limit.
In that (the SS tax) instance they are receiving a tax break unavailable to lower income earners.
What about the 65% of small business owners that earn more than $250,000 and file personal income taxes?
And why Ron Paul is voting to shaft them with onerous taxes.
A three percent increase is hardly 'onerous, and merely returns us to the rate we had during the Clinton years. The economy created 23 million jobs under Clinton.
Then came Bush and tax cuts which, according to the Conservative gospel, always create jobs and increase revenue to the government.
They don't. And they didn't.
Reality check; the tax cuts for the wealthy will add $1 trillion to the debt. I thought you conservatives were against adding to the deficit.
victor| 12.5.10 @ 2:26AM
Darryl:
"A three percent increase is hardly 'onerous, and merely returns us to the rate we had during the Clinton years."
I can see why you are having such a hard time with this.
No bracket is going to increase by just 3%.
The 10% bracket is increasing by 50% going to 15%.
The 25% bracket is increasing by 12% going to 28%.
The 28% bracket is increasing by 10.7% going to 31%.
The 33% bracket is increasing by 9.1% going to 36%.
The 35% bracket is increasing by 13% going to 39.6%.
You are of course, confusing percentage points with percentages.
Of course meaning that this is how you were taught.
No one knows basic math anymore and you just proved it.
You still haven't addressed the question of why small business owners should be punished for their hard work.
This attitude towards small businessmen in that they can afford to pay so much more has always been with us.
Case in point: one of my favorite crime dramas is "In Cold Blood".
The murders were committed because the two murderers thought that a successful businessman would naturally keep large amounts of cash in his home.
That is why you believe that small businessmen can afford to pay any onerous tax that the government decides to levy upon them
Second case in point:
In New Jersey under the reign of King Jon I, he instituted a "millionaires" tax that went down to $500,000.
The end result being that 4000 individuals left the state taking 80 Billion dollars with them resulting in a large deficit, high unemployment and fewer businesses.
Government cannot create wealth, it can only confiscate and redistribute it.
GW cut taxes and the revenues increased from 2003 til 2007 when the Pelosi regime took over the House.
Lone Wolf| 12.5.10 @ 8:03PM
Hey Neocon, he wants to abolish The IRS. That right there is the ultimate tax cut. Where's your man, Congressman Boner and Newt "I want Carbon Taxes" Gingrich at with this?Answer: No where.
CalMark| 12.3.10 @ 3:52PM
Old saying: "If you have to work really hard to justify your conclusion, you probably have the wrong conclusion." In this case, substitute "definitely" for "probably."
Ron Paul voted for a tax increase for the people who invest, buy the big-ticket items, and (most important) create jobs. There's no way around it. Rationalizing his Paul's vote means giving Pelosi the same credit, too. Results are results, right?
Sorry, W. James--your hero let you down.
W. James Antle III | 12.3.10 @ 4:39PM
"Rationalizing Paul's vote means giving Pelosi the same credit, too. Results are results, right?"
But Pelosi isn't going to turn around and then also vote to retain the tax cuts for upper-income earners, as Paul says he will. That seems to me to be an awfully important distinction.
Wouldn't you say a Republican who voted against this bill and then voted against a bill extending all the tax cuts has a different position on taxes for the middle class than a Republican who voted against yesterday's bill but then voted for the full tax cuts?
Results are results, and taxes will go up across the board unless Congress cobbles together legislation to extend them.
Occam's Tool| 12.3.10 @ 9:52PM
The only reason that Paul had any use at all was because of domestic policy. On foreign policy, he votes with KUCINICH!
Now he's gone and screwed up taxes. Oh well. I look forward to beating his supporters with that come 2012.
Clint| 12.4.10 @ 3:54AM
Ronald Reagan:
"Ron Paul is one of the outstanding leaders fighting for a stronger national defense. As a former Air Force officer, he knows well the needs of our armed forces, and he always puts them first. We need to keep him fighting for our country."
victor| 12.4.10 @ 2:53PM
Clin(timmy):
""Ron Paul is one of the outstanding leaders fighting for a stronger national defense"
really??
Explain this willya:
The Frank-Paul Defense Tango:
http://www.house.gov/frank/doc.....letter.pdf
Clint| 12.4.10 @ 5:38PM
Former Air Force Officer Dr.Ron Paul Agrees With Ronald Reagan.
Ronald Reagan On Defense Waste:
" During my 1980 campaign, I called federal waste and fraud a national scandal. We knew we could never rebuild America's strength without first controlling the exploding cost of defense programs, and we're doing it. When we took office in 1981, costs had been escalating at an annual rate of 14 percent. Then we began our reforms. And in the last two years, cost increases have fallen to less than 1 percent. We've made huge savings. Each F-18 fighter costs nearly $4 million less today than in 1981. One of our air-to-air missiles costs barely half as much.
Getting control of the defense bureaucracy is no small task. Each year the Defense Department signs hundreds of thousands of contracts. So yes, a horror story will sometimes turn up despite our best efforts. That's why we appointed the first Inspector General in the history of the Defense Department. And virtually every case of fraud or abuse has been uncovered by our Defense Department, our Inspector General. Secretary Weinberger should be praised, not pilloried, for cleaning the skeletons out of the closet. As for those few who have cheated taxpayers or have swindled our Armed Forces with faulty equipment, they are thieves stealing from the arsenal of democracy, and they will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law."
victor| 12.5.10 @ 2:36AM
Clin(timmy*):
"Former Air Force Officer Dr.Ron Paul Agrees With Ronald Reagan."
Aaaand he has written how many bills to address this?
But then again, that's why he is in bed with Barney Frank and Maxine Waters, eh?
Clint| 12.5.10 @ 3:19AM
Former Air Force Officer Dr.Ron Paul is in bed with Ronald Reagan Israel Firster Agendist Victor-Margie.
Republican Texas Congressman Dr.Ron Paul:
"Many of us can agree on one thing, however. Our military spending in general has grown way out of control. This is largely because fiscal accountability in military budgeting is seen, by many, as weak on defense.
This is absolutely wrong and a dangerous way to think.
It is certainly possible for the military to waste money, or to spend money counterproductively, and indeed it has. But out of political correctness, the military has been getting blank checks from the administrations and Congress for far too long.
It is important to defend our soil, but let us defend our own soil instead of defending Europe's soil.
Our willingness to defend Europe enables their lavish social spending at our expense, while they criticize our model of capitalism. It is time they allocated the money for their own defense. The same goes for Korea, Japan and other countries like Egypt and Israel.
It is also important that while our troops are in combat, our soldiers have what they need to do the best they can, even if we disagree with why they are there. It is an embarrassment that some soldiers and families have had to buy body armor at their own expense when billions are awarded to politically well-connected defense contractors for weapon systems that don't work, are over-budget, past deadline. This is the kind of waste that needs to end. I firmly believe that there is enough waste in the military budget that we can both save money overall and at the same time be safer."
victor| 12.5.10 @ 11:11AM
Clin(timmy):
Still can't explain why Ron Paul stands up with democrats to slash the Defense Budget, eh?
The Frank-Paul Defense Tango:
http://www.house.gov/frank/doc.....letter.pdf
Clint| 12.5.10 @ 3:32AM
Duuuuuhhhh !
Ask Ronald Reagan Israel Firster Propaganda Agendist.
Air Force Veteran Officer Dr. Ron Paul spent more time in Our Military than Ronald Reagan, Maxine Walters and Barney Frank Combined.
Service:
United States Air Force
1962–1965
United States Air National Guard:
1965–1968
Republican Texas Congressman Dr.Ron Paul:
"Many of us can agree on one thing, however. Our military spending in general has grown way out of control. This is largely because fiscal accountability in military budgeting is seen, by many, as weak on defense.
This is absolutely wrong and a dangerous way to think.
It is certainly possible for the military to waste money, or to spend money counter-productively, and indeed it has. But out of political correctness, the military has been getting blank checks from the administrations and Congress for far too long.
It is important to defend our soil, but let us defend our own soil instead of defending Europe's soil.
Our willingness to defend Europe enables their lavish social spending at our expense, while they criticize our model of capitalism. It is time they allocated the money for their own defense. The same goes for Korea, Japan and other countries like Egypt and Israel.
It is also important that while our troops are in combat, our soldiers have what they need to do the best they can, even if we disagree with why they are there. It is an embarrassment that some soldiers and families have had to buy body armor at their own expense when billions are awarded to politically well-connected defense contractors for weapon systems that don't work, are over-budget, past deadline. This is the kind of waste that needs to end. I firmly believe that there is enough waste in the military budget that we can both save money overall and at the same time be safer."
GMartine| 12.3.10 @ 3:57PM
He didn't vote to increase taxes. He voted to extend tax cuts for the middle class. How is this voting for a tax increase? Just because the top tax bracket wasn't included doesn't mean that he voted to increase their taxes because that wasn't in the bill.
He is for lowering taxes as much as possible and if he would of voted against tax cuts for the middle class then he would have been voting for a tax increase.
Ryan Ellis | 12.3.10 @ 3:57PM
In our opinion, Cong. Paul did not vote for a tax hike.
The bill Congress voted on yesterday is a tax cut relative to 2011 law, which assumes everyone's taxes go up. By preventing some people's taxes from going up, this would score out as a tax cut.
M. Nolan| 12.3.10 @ 4:10PM
Ron Paul did not vote for any tax increase. The tax increase was voted in by the Republican majorities who refused to make them permanant when they were passed. GW & co. made yet another risky bet that did not pan out.
Ron Paul is on record as wanting to see all income taxes, for all people in the US at ZERO. Repukes are niggling over a percent or three, and protecting the status quo. Paul wants to see spending slashed, and the 'pubs are trying to save every cent to spend on their own brand of huge government. What do you want to bet that if the "tax cuts" were for the rich only ~ Ron Paul would have voted for them because he'll vote for any income tax cut? I imagine that the anti-Paul crowd would be harping on how heartless he was because he helped to "raise" taxes on the poor.
Give me a break. There isn't enough room to slide a shiv between the Democrat and Republican "plans" for America. They both want an America by and for Federal pencil-pushers and eggheads. The communists who run the Democrat and Republican parties have no room for Dr. Paul, or the Constitution.
Wayne | 12.3.10 @ 4:42PM
Technically you are correct, but by voting with the Democrats, he is accepting the OBAMA definition for rich, which also contains a marriage penalty. So however you slice it Paul now supports the marriage penalty.
M. Nolan| 12.3.10 @ 5:02PM
I'm not one for getting caught up in technicalities, the system is so screwed up these days it doesn't take a Godel to find some inconsistencies ~ Paul being "pro-marriage penalty" is a bit of a reach. I doubt that you will find any sort of quote from Paul supporting any Marriage penalty. Your assertion is little more than anti-Paul spin on the situation.
How about we start from the source documents, and then someone can explain where the Federal government has the power to call upon marital status when asserting it's ownership share of a citizens labor and/or assets.
How about we follow the Constitution and leave issues of marriage to the States. The feds don't have any lawful power to legislate marital issues, or discriminate between citizens based on marital status.
Wayne | 12.3.10 @ 7:47PM
By Voting for the bill which contained the marriage penalty he supported marriage penalty. Its not rocket science.
Anti-Paul? So you are saying he is somehow not to be criticized? I don't think so. We must question everybody.
Traditional Conservative| 12.3.10 @ 5:10PM
Ron Paul supports abolishing the IRS in it's entirety, so no he does not support a marriage penalty.
Wayne | 12.3.10 @ 7:49PM
I do to. He is also against the FairTax, and I am to. But this voted for the Democratic Bill with a very large marriage penalty. So it seems he is saying one thing, but doing another.
JKR| 12.5.10 @ 7:12AM
Uh, no, the overall impact EVEN WITH THAT INCLUDED is a tax cut. He voted for a tax cut. You have to ignore that he voted for a tax cut to pretend he voted for anything else than a tax cut.
Nelson| 12.6.10 @ 5:10PM
How is his stating during the 2008 debates that he'd vote for the FairTax if it came up for a vote construed as he is against the FairTax? He simply stated that he wasn't interested in cosponsoring the legislation as it didn't seek to reduce the amount of taxes collected.
victor| 12.4.10 @ 2:58PM
Wayne:
"So however you slice it Paul now supports the marriage penalty."
The Marriage Penalty,
The Child Care Penalty,
The Capital gains Penalty,
The Stock Dividend Penalty,
The Home Mortgage Penalty.
By voting for this bill, Paul has accepted the dem's notion that some people's taxes are more acceptable than others.
In other words,
All taxes are created equal,
but some are more equal than others.
Clint| 12.4.10 @ 5:51PM
DUUUUHHHHH !
More Israel FirsterNeoCon Serial Propaganda From Victor-Margie.
Dr.Ron Paul supports The Pence-DeMint Bill.
victor| 12.5.10 @ 2:45AM
Clin(timmy*):
"Ron Paul supports The Pence-DeMint Bill."
Supports it, eh thatsa nicea.
Why isn't he a co-sponsor, eh? Is that so he can stay off the record?
H.R. 6415:
Tax Relief Certainty Act
Sponsor:
Rep. Mike Pence [R-IN6]
Cosponsors:
Roscoe Bartlett [R-MD6]
Paul Broun [R-GA10]
Dan Burton [R-IN5]
John Campbell [R-CA48]
Jason Chaffetz [R-UT3]
Mike Coffman [R-CO6]
John Duncan [R-TN2]
Doug Lamborn [R-CO5]
Cynthia Lummis [R-WY]
Sue Myrick [R-NC9]
Joseph Pitts [R-PA16]
Bill Posey [R-FL15]
John Shimkus [R-IL19]
Marlin Stutzman [R-IN3]
Glenn Thompson [R-PA5]
Addison Wilson [R-SC2]
He seems to be MIA on this one, eh what?
Clint| 12.5.10 @ 11:53AM
Dr.Ron Paul is no more Missing In Action than John Boehner, Eric Cantor, Paul Ryan, and the rest of Republican Congressmen .
The Bill's just in Committee and you would try anything to slander and smear Dr. Ron Paul, because you're an Israel Firster Fanatic.
JKR| 12.3.10 @ 5:10PM
That is nonsense. He voted for a tax cut. He wants to END the income tax; he never gets the vote he WANTS on taxes. He votes for all the tax cuts unless something bad is linked with them.
This is beneath you. The House had no leverage. Any negotiations will be in the Senate where the Dems do NOT have a supermajority.
neo| 12.3.10 @ 7:25PM
By the logic given by this writer, all the democrets who voted for healthcare bill were against public option. How about the democrats who didn't bring the immigration reform bill in senet/house when they had supermejority? By this logic they are anti-immigrant.
Wayne | 12.3.10 @ 7:51PM
I think you mean anti-illegal immigrant.
Clint| 12.3.10 @ 9:45PM
"He was on Fox and Friends yesterday supporting abolishing the income tax outright but at the same time he acknowledges that he will vote for a tax cut whenever possible. He states we have a spending problem in D.C. and both sides love to play these games of cat and mouse."
victor| 12.4.10 @ 3:01PM
clin(timmy):
""He was on Fox and Friends yesterday supporting abolishing the income tax"
Where's his bill or bills to do that?
Clint| 12.4.10 @ 5:47PM
Duuuuhhh !
Do Your Homework, NeoCon Agendist Victor-Margie.
Dr. Ron Paul is supporting The Pence-DeMint Bill.
victor| 12.5.10 @ 2:46AM
Clin(timmy*):
"Ron Paul supports The Pence-DeMint Bill."
Supports it, eh thatsa nicea.
Why isn't he a co-sponsor, eh? Is that so he can stay off the record?
H.R. 6415:
Tax Relief Certainty Act
Sponsor:
Rep. Mike Pence [R-IN6]
Cosponsors:
Roscoe Bartlett [R-MD6]
Paul Broun [R-GA10]
Dan Burton [R-IN5]
John Campbell [R-CA48]
Jason Chaffetz [R-UT3]
Mike Coffman [R-CO6]
John Duncan [R-TN2]
Doug Lamborn [R-CO5]
Cynthia Lummis [R-WY]
Sue Myrick [R-NC9]
Joseph Pitts [R-PA16]
Bill Posey [R-FL15]
John Shimkus [R-IL19]
Marlin Stutzman [R-IN3]
Glenn Thompson [R-PA5]
Addison Wilson [R-SC2]
He seems to be MIA on this one, eh what?
JKR| 12.5.10 @ 7:17AM
He has multiple times proposed bills to abolish the income tax. Likely his wording is slightly different. He has no need to posture to get credibility as many others in the House do, because unlike them, he has been 100% consistent for more than 20 years in office. He doesn't have to play the latest game to make it 'look like' he is sincere. He actually is sincere, so he can just vote according to his usual pattern which has served him, and us, for decades.
Clint| 12.5.10 @ 11:44AM
Dr.Ron Paul is no more Missing In Action than John Boehner, Eric Cantor, Paul Ryan, and the rest of Republican Congressmen .
The Bill's just in Committee and you would try anything to slander and smear Dr. Ron Paul, because you're an Israel Firster Fanatic.
victor| 12.5.10 @ 4:20PM
clin(timmy*):
"Ron Paul is no more"
They don't vote with the enemy as RuPaul does:
Still can't explain why Ron Paul stands up with democrats to slash the Defense Budget, eh?
The Frank-Paul Defense FoxTrot:
http://www.house.gov/frank/doc.....letter.pdf
Paul-Martin Foss | 12.6.10 @ 12:50PM
H.J. Res. 48
http://www.thomas.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.J.RES.48:
Red Phillips | 12.3.10 @ 11:06PM
People who say Paul voted for a tax increase are just opportunistic Paul haters, or else completely unable to think beyond blind partisanship. Anyone who knows ANYTHING about the voting records of Ron Paul (and Jimmy Duncan for that matter) knows they are not for increasing taxes and to claim they are is disingenuous demagoguery.
What Paul, Duncan and Jones did was call the Democrats' bluff. I have long thought the Republicans should do more of this. The Dems put up a bill that was less than the Republicans wanted hoping (knowing) they would vote against it, so they could then say "Republican Congressman X voted against a tax cut for the middle class because he is a pawn of the rich, blah, blah, blah..." What if every Republican had voted for this bill? Then you take away the Dems talking point and still demand a continuation of all the tax cuts.
One could make an argument that it is in the strategic best interests of the Republicans to block vote against half the loaf while demanding the whole loaf, but that is a discussion of just that, strategy. But to say that Paul voted to raise taxes is absurd demagoguery and most of the people who are making that claim know it, or else aren't very bright.
victor| 12.4.10 @ 3:03PM
"Red":
"What Paul, Duncan and Jones did was call the Democrats' bluff."
When you call someone's bluff, you stand in front of them not next to them.
You don't give aid and comfort to the enemy.
Clint| 12.4.10 @ 5:58PM
Once Again Israel Firster Propagandist Victor-Margie, Dr. Ron Paul supports The Pence- DeMint Bill.
Apparently, you didn't get the memo.
Do Your Homework.
"A pair of prominent Republicans -- one from the Senate, the other from the House – on Thursday called for a permanent extension of tax cuts at all income levels, just as a vigorous floor debate was under way about Democratic legislation to extend tax relief for just the middle class.
"Sen. Jim DeMint and I are introducing legislation that will ensure that no American, small business owner or family farmer will see a tax increase on Jan. 1, 2011, 2012, 2013 and beyond," said Indiana Rep. Mike Pence.
DeMint and Pence introduced the bill before Thanksgiving, but started promoting it Thursday. They want an up-or-down vote on all the tax cuts at the same time, a permanent end to the estate tax and a fix for the alternative minimum tax. The duo told reporters that uncertainty about future tax rates is stifling economic recovery."
victor| 12.5.10 @ 2:47AM
Clin(timmy*):
"Ron Paul supports The Pence-DeMint Bill."
Supports it, eh thatsa nicea.
Why isn't he a co-sponsor, eh? Is that so he can stay off the record?
H.R. 6415:
Tax Relief Certainty Act
Sponsor:
Rep. Mike Pence [R-IN6]
Cosponsors:
Roscoe Bartlett [R-MD6]
Paul Broun [R-GA10]
Dan Burton [R-IN5]
John Campbell [R-CA48]
Jason Chaffetz [R-UT3]
Mike Coffman [R-CO6]
John Duncan [R-TN2]
Doug Lamborn [R-CO5]
Cynthia Lummis [R-WY]
Sue Myrick [R-NC9]
Joseph Pitts [R-PA16]
Bill Posey [R-FL15]
John Shimkus [R-IL19]
Marlin Stutzman [R-IN3]
Glenn Thompson [R-PA5]
Addison Wilson [R-SC2]
He seems to be MIA on this one, eh what?
Clint| 12.5.10 @ 11:47AM
ASKED & ANSWERED.
Dr.Ron Paul is no more Missing In Action than John Boehner, Eric Cantor, Paul Ryan, and the rest of Republican Congressmen .
The Bill's just in Committee and you would try anything to slander and smear Dr. Ron Paul, because you're an Israel Firster Fanatic.
Red Phillips | 12.5.10 @ 12:54PM
So victor, are you a demagogue or just stupid?
victor| 12.5.10 @ 4:21PM
Still can't explain why Ron Paul stands up with democrats to slash the Defense Budget, eh?
The Frank-Paul Defense FoxTrot:
http://www.house.gov/frank/doc.....letter.pdf
Red Phillips | 12.6.10 @ 9:30AM
We SHOULD "slash" the "defense" budget because we don't need to spend as much as we do and we're broke. The "defense" budget has nothing to do with the actual defense of this country and everything to do with our ability to continue our wrongheaded interventionist policies. It is easy to explain why Paul wants to cut the "defense" budget, because he is a real conservative and real conservatives support non-intervention. What is hard to explain is why so many so-called "conservatives" think a Jacobin foreign policy is conservative.
Bastiat| 12.4.10 @ 3:12AM
Dr. Paul often talks about incrementalism, and the gradual creep of bigger and bigger government. If he can at the very least start reverse incrementalism, or a gradual reduction of government, that is a start. Don't think for a second that Dr. Paul will not move to cut taxes for everyone.
Franklin Davis | 12.4.10 @ 12:33PM
Gentle People,
We have bigger fish to fry than arguing whether Ron Paul's vote for extending those Bush tax cuts that were offered in that particular bill signifies his support of higher tax rates for higher income earners. It does not. Period.
What ought to be put on the table for discussion - and a vote - is a 10% EQUAL TAX on everyone's income, poor or rich, without exception.
Call it a 'Fair Tax' if you wish; it is the only tax scheme that will result in EQUAL TREATMENT UNDER THE LAW. What we must realize is that our government's PROGRESSIVE INCOME TAX results in UNEQUAL TREATMENT and should be abolished. For those who want the entire Income Tax gone, this is a huge step in the right direction. For those who cannot imagine how a taxless society can function, it offers an end to the INJUSTICE of UNEQUAL TREATMENT under the law.
When the millions who now pay NO INCOME TAX have to shoulder their fair share of the tax burden along with the rest of Society, they WILL think twice about voting for government welfare programs they have heretofore never had to help pay for.
A 10% across the board income tax will spur such prosperity that the voters will eventually want it reduced to 8%, 6%, 5%, 4%, etc., and ALL of society will have learned how lowering taxes results in a better life for everyone.
But first we must put the 10% EQUALITY TAX on the table for discussion - AND discuss the logic of adopting a monetary policy of HONEST MONEY.
These TWO PILLARS of a new, more ethical Society will lead us away from the Socialist and Communist style solutions that are now being offered and implemented by the current administration. It will instead show us the much more desirable consequences of true political freedom and equal treatment under the law.
Mike| 12.4.10 @ 2:27PM
Everything has to be considered in the larger context.
Later, there will be a vote on (essentially) whether or not to repeal ALL of Obamacare, or to repeal 99% of Obamacare (leaving pre-existing condition and 26 year old "kid" mandates).
Politicians have to make calculations which remain consistent with their philosophy in the larger context.
The Dem plan apparently just went down in the Senate. Now, if we end up having EVERYONE's taxes go up, then I'd say Paul voted right... IF the right wins and ALL the rates are extended permanently, then Paul miscalculated and that vote will be proved wrong.
If we end up arguing the politics with independent, liberty and conservative minded people, we're in a much better position than having to argue with socialists.
I like Paul, but I *think* this is the time to STOP all compromising. We all know taxing the wealth producers suppresses wealth. So we should take the stand. I disagree with his vote, but I still think he's on my side.
StopTheBS| 12.4.10 @ 5:02PM
I thought I has stumbled into a clown convention...until I read the very sensible and intellectually accurate comments by M. Nolan and Red Phillips regarding the most loyal and consistent proponent of constitutionally limited government that has existed in ANY of our lifetimes. O f course I'm referring to the statesman among big government whores, Ron Paul.
You gotta love a forum of proud Republicans...proud of having destroyed the economy...proud of their abandonment of capitalism, sound currency, free markets...proud of unnecessary wars of aggression and occupation...proud of a long history of stimulus (FED-induced low interest rates) and subsidies...proud of how they torture human beings...proud of how they make it all legal, despite being totally unconstitutional...proud of how their recent 'contract with America' contains jack shit for real reform, spending cuts or any respectable course change TOWARD a constitutional federal government.
C. Wendt| 12.4.10 @ 8:59PM
Ron Paul did not vote for a tax increase; in fact, a "No" vote on this bill would have been far closer to supporting a tax increase than a "Yes." This bill, if and when it passed, was not going to inherently PRECLUDE the later extension of the top-tier tax-cuts; if it were, then the claim that he supported a tax increase would be valid, but as is, it is simply bunk.
Applying the same logic consistently, one would have to say that each and every time Dr. Paul has ever voted to extend any tax cut, he has *really* been voting for a tax increase, since said bill did not include extensions of all tax cuts he supports. Voting for extension of certain tax cuts DOES NOT equate to voting against the extension of others. Ron Paul has not voted for any tax increase, and if and when he is given the chance, he most certainly will vote for extension of the top-tier cuts, and indeed for any tax cuts he can get his hands on.
Brenda Ford| 7.26.11 @ 10:46AM
Ron Paul, We have contributed, combined, over 100 years to Social Security. How much have you contributed? We took care of husband's parents, my mom. Now we are retired, husband diagnosed stage 4 colon cancer since Dec. 2008, and you want to cut our Social Security Benefits and Medicare benefits, by making us pay more than we already do and have, so you can enjoy your lifestyle. You claim you don't want to raise taxes, but that is exactly what you are doing to the middle and lower class income Americans, taxing us, by taking away that which we have worked all our lives for - increasing our costs of living so the wealthy can continue as they are. I know all wealthy Americans are not greedy, or self-serving, but most Republicans of today show all the signs of becoming exactly that. You make me ashamed I ever voted for you when in your district. I voted for Reagan and worked with Nancy Reagan; Bill Brock and Pete Du Pont I had to privilege of spending some time with; Phil Simms of Idaho. All good Republicans. Voted For Bush, Sr., one round. Republicans have forgotten who made this country great, and it wasn't Republicans. It was and is the everyday working stiff who gets up and works and comes home to take care of his or her family. The banking crisis was Republican cronies getting by with raping the American public. Look what it has done to our economy, and to the world economy! Republicans got us into the wars in Iraq that have killed our young men and women and pilaged our budget. And you have the audacity to call those who are only asking the wealthy to do their part as frivilous with spending. We are cutting and sucking in the belts. You continue to grow fat. George, Jr. gave you all a nice tax break. And you want to go on, taking. And forcing those who cannot afford it to make up the difference so you and your friends with the money don't have to sacrifice getting their nails done. You truly make me ashamed, Ron Paul. I was not originally an Obama supporter. But as I see what Republicans of today are really about, I am forced to be an Obama supporter, because he is for the AMERICAN PEOPLE. Republicans of today, obviously are not.
Brandon Lytle| 4.30.12 @ 3:44AM
Brenda Ford - You really need to do your homework on a subject before you attempt to discuss it. If you had, you'd know that Ron Paul has talked about phasing out Social Security incrementally, making sure that those who have paid into Social Security receive it as they are supposed to, while giving those 25 years of age or younger the opportunity to opt out of SS entirely (which also presumably provides the option of opting in as well)... and if you honestly think that Paul is growing fat by serving corporate interests while Obama champions the poor and middle class, just take a look at their respective campaign contributors and think again. If anybody should be ashamed here, it is you.