Why is Ron Paul voting for Middle Class Tax Cuts Only?

[AuH20]

simply inexplicable. WTH is he doing? This sends the wrong message and is inconsistent with a free market philosophy.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/12/house-dems-pass-middle-income-only-tax-cut-bill.php?ref=fpa

[paulpwns]

shutup troll

he voted to extend tax cuts

god you are so short sighted and buying into the MSM bullcrap

[AuH20]

shutup troll

he voted to extend tax cuts

god you are so short sighted and buying into the MSM bullcrap

I'm no troll. I'm going to call him out when he's wrong.

[GunnyFreedom]

simply inexplicable. WTH is he doing? This sends the wrong message and is inconsistent with a free market philosophy.

[/URL][URL]http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/12/house-dems-pass-middle-income-only-tax-cut-bill.php?ref=fpa (http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/12/house-dems-pass-middle-income-only-tax-cut-bill.php?ref=fpa)

my guess: spin.

RP sees a bill come in front of him that lowers taxes, he votes yes. That's just what RP does. He will vote yes on the one for the very rich also.

it would be a violation of his principles to vote "no" on any tax cut whatsoever.

[LatinsforPaul]

He will vote YES for any TAX cuts, lower, middle, upper. He would love to get all three, but his thinking is better 2 out of 3 than none at all. S__t, if it was up to him there would be NO INCOME TAX!!

Easy to understand, right?

[AuH20]

my guess: spin.

RP sees a bill come in front of him that lowers taxes, he votes yes. That's just what RP does. He will vote yes on the one for the very rich also.

it would be a violation of his principles to vote "no" on any tax cut whatsoever.

But doesn't Ron deduce the fallout from this bill, namely the raising of taxes among the higher brackets. I wish he would address this fully.

[Lucille]

The better question is, why did all but three House Republicans vote against tax cuts for the middle class?

[aravoth]

simply inexplicable. WTH is he doing? This sends the wrong message and is inconsistent with a free market philosophy.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2...ll.php?ref=fpa

So you're syaing that all but 3 republicans voted in favor of higher taxes?

What a bunch of assholes!

[AuH20]

The better question is, why did all but three House Republicans vote against tax cuts for the middle class?

Because it's a ploy for republicans to abandon the upper brackets as well as small businesses, joint earners and individuals who bring in more per capita income on the coasts.

[FrankRep]

simply inexplicable. WTH is he doing? This sends the wrong message and is inconsistent with a free market philosophy.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/12/house-dems-pass-middle-income-only-tax-cut-bill.php?ref=fpa

Ron Paul is voting FOR extending Tax Cuts, but the bill only addresses the Middle Class. That's not Ron Paul's fault. Ron Paul will vote for any Tax Cut he can.

[hazek]

Ron Paul is voting FOR extending Tax Cuts, but the bill only addresses the Middle Class. That's not Ron Paul's fault. Ron Paul will vote for any Tax Cut he can.

You'd think this was easy to comprehend, right? :rolleyes:

[FrankRep]

You'd think this was easy to comprehend, right? :rolleyes:
The Problem: The Republicans wanted to block the vote because they wanted to get the Rich Tax Cuts in the bill too.

[AuH20]

The Problem: The Republicans wanted to block the vote because they wanted to get the Rich Tax Cuts in the bill too.

Exactly. And trust me. Over 200k annually in some situations and locales is not Rich. It's bullshit class warfare.

[GunnyFreedom]

Because it's a ploy for republicans to abandon the upper brackets as well as small businesses, joint earners and individuals who bring in more per capita income on the coasts.

you know good and well RP will vote for the upper brackets too. he's just incapable of voting in favor of a tax increase for anybody.

[LudwigVonMisoSoup]

you know good and well RP will vote for the upper brackets too. he's just incapable of voting in favor of a tax increase for anybody.

Correct. This is political posturing by the Democrats to play the class warfare card.

"Republicans only want tax cuts for the rich!"

[hazek]

Gunny I think their point is that the R's wanted to vote against it to extort a tax cut for the rich to be added to the bill.

I think that's only the R's vs D's charades and it doesn't really matter cause they already made up their mind not to extend the tax cuts for the rich.

[GunnyFreedom]

Gunny I think their point is that the R's wanted to vote against it to extort a tax cut for the rich to be added to the bill.

I think that's only the R's vs D's charades and it doesn't really matter cause they already made up their mind not to extend the tax cuts for the rich.

RP probably figured the bill wouldn't pass unsplit anyway. I totally understand RP's vote here. If he waited until the bill was in one piece, chances are it would not have passed. In any case, RP never met a tax cut he didn't like. I 100% 'get' this vote. The vote I do not get was the one where RP voted to reduce Charlie Rangel's censure to a reprimand. :confused:

[AuH20]

RP probably figured the bill wouldn't pass unsplit anyway. I totally understand RP's vote here. If he waited until the bill was in one piece, chances are it would not have passed. In any case, RP never met a tax cut he didn't like. I 100% 'get' this vote. The vote I do not get was the one where RP voted to reduce Charlie Rangel's censure to a reprimand. :confused:

The better message would have been abstention. These so-called middle class "tax cuts" were tainted by the termination of tax limitations for the upper brackets. Ron had to be aware of that this was all theater.

[GunnyFreedom]

The better message would have been abstention. These so-called middle class "tax cuts" were tainted by the termination of tax limitations for the upper brackets. Ron had to be aware of that this was all theater.

I don't disagree with that. Abstention would clearly have not changed the outcome, but then abstention here would probably have been seen as 'cowardly' according to his own moral code.

[ChaosControl]

I'd vote the same as he did.

[silentshout]

Good for him. He will vote for tax cuts for each group. Shame on the Republicans who didn't.

[silentshout]

The Problem: The Republicans wanted to block the vote because they wanted to get the Rich Tax Cuts in the bill too.

Well, they should make a separate bill for that. Everyone deserves a tax cut.

[axiomata]

He's not voting to change tax cuts to everyone to tax cuts to the middle class, he's voting the change tax cuts to nobody to tax cuts to the middle class since without this bill all the Bush tax cuts would sunset. When a bill comes around that has tax cuts for rich he will vote for that one also.

You are off base on this one.

[South Park Fan]

Why did RP vote for this? http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-4853

[QueenB4Liberty]

I understand why Ron did this, and I agree to whoever said shame on the other Republicans who voted against it, it would've been nice if they were for everyone, but we know that's unrealistic to hope for.

PS-what is going to happen with the capital gains tax?

[FrankRep]

Well, they should make a separate bill for that. Everyone deserves a tax cut.
I wish it was that easy and I wish the Democrats would support it.

[LisaNY]

Good for him. He will vote for tax cuts for each group. Shame on the Republicans who didn't.

I'm with you and others who see this as a tax cut for the middle class. I'm glad he did it, and very proud of him for it. As my husband and I make under 250k we certainly appreciate this vote from Dr. Paul. If our multi-millionaire bosses want to fire us over it than so be it. Ron did the right thing.

[cindy25]

the GOP house members are playing a game of chicken with Obama to see who blinks; RP doesn't play games

[sailingaway]

Ron Paul always votes for tax cuts. The leverage here is in the senate. The House can't stop anything. If it could he might work tactically, but in the end he is always going to vote for tax cuts.

[sailingaway]

I understand why Ron did this, and I agree to whoever said shame on the other Republicans who voted against it, it would've been nice if they were for everyone, but we know that's unrealistic to hope for.

PS-what is going to happen with the capital gains tax?

yeah the capital gains tax is a real worry to the stock market that there will be a huge sell off to avoid it.

[ord33]

If I was Ron Paul since the lower & middle class passed, I would introduce a bill now solely for keeping the tax cuts for the highest income bracket (assuming he is capable of introducing the bill - I don't know if he can introduce such a bill in the House?).

That would in effect show that he is for tax cuts for everyone. It would almost surely get shot down, but then people can't complain anymore. I don't see any harm in doing this and some benefit (although it wouldn't likely pass).

Also, I think Dr. Paul is on record of saying that he has never voted against a tax cut...a man of principle.

[itshappening]

But doesn't Ron deduce the fallout from this bill, namely the raising of taxes among the higher brackets. I wish he would address this fully.

Bush could have addressed this fully by making it permanent FROM THE START

The whole thing is a big con and lie, the Bush lovers can't explain this one and the GOP posturing is hilarious when you consider these morons made a temporary tax cut that they're now crying is going to expire

[itshappening]

If I was Ron Paul since the lower & middle class passed, I would introduce a bill now solely for keeping the tax cuts for the highest income bracket (assuming he is capable of introducing the bill - I don't know if he can introduce such a bill in the House?)

Also, I think Dr. Paul is on record of saying that he has never voted against a tax cut...a man of principle.

ths so called conservatives should have done this 4 years ago, the so called conservatives who are crying now should develop longer memories than a goldfish and scold those who didn't

[MichelleHeart]

From a political and practical standpoint (I know pragmatism doesn't incite much enthusiasm here, and I share that sentiment, but bear with me here), I can understand why Republicans would shoot down this bill.

OPTION A
Vote down bill, introduce new bill slashing taxes for all income tax brackets.
Likelihood of new bill passing: Fairly high.
Voters' perspective: The rich got their tax cuts, but I got mine, too.

OPTION B
Vote for bill, introduce new bill extending tax cuts for rich as well.
Likelihood of new bill passing: Slim.
Voters' perspective: Stupid politicians trying to give more money to billionaires! (Yes, yes, I know, this is how a lot of the ignorant masses react, despite the fact that tax cuts are not a handout. You're not "giving" people anything. You're just letting people keep more of what they earn. Tax cuts simply mean the government steals less. But a lot of people forget to think about it in that context, and are prone to jump on the populist bandwagon of villifying the productive just because they have more. Ahhh, the politics of envy.)

Unfortunately, there's another ingredient to the equation that many Republicans seem to have forgotten: If the bill passes, then what? Your record shows you voting for upper-income tax cuts while voting against middle-income tax cuts. Even if your original aim was, in the end, tax cuts for everyone, you end up making yourself look worse politically. It's understandable, though, if you take enough time to think about the practical implications of weighing Option A and Option B, then making a decision based on the realities of the situation.

This issue is much more complicated than people think.

[Ricky201]

Did everyone press there panic button today or something?

[RonPaulCult]

Oh the responses on the internets to this amuse me. Here is what I "learned" about Ron Paul today:


No, Ron Paul does stuff like this all the time.

He voted no on the wars.

He also always votes no on tax hikes, and always yes on tax cuts.

he will also vote yes on killing Pell Grants and voted during the Bush years to lower the scope of the Pell Grants so less people qualified.

he also will, if he could, vote to abolish the department of Education, but at the same time, vote yes on farm subsides, because he comes from a cotton farming part of Texas.

He votes against stuff like honoring Rosa Parks, because he believes that is a waste of government money, and voted against the health care bill, no matter what form it took because he believes the free market is right and if your arm gets cut off in a machining accident you can shop hospitals for the best price (especially across state lines, you see allowing competition across state lines will make health care affordable)

he is also a Creationist and does not believe in condom distribution in Africa.

The guy is an asshole through and through, don't be fooled.

[Vessol]

Why should the US government distribute condoms to Africa?

[Lucille]

The Craven Criminals on Capitol Hill don't get it. They politic, and businesses and jobs are dying because of them.

One of the biggest problems businesses have is the UNCERTAINTY this government is causing. None of us know what's going to come out of Washington next, and therefore, we can't plan. Raise taxes or don't, regulate or don't, but make a f'n decision already so we can move on! We're dying down here!

[Brett85]

Bush could have addressed this fully by making it permanent FROM THE START

The whole thing is a big con and lie, the Bush lovers can't explain this one and the GOP posturing is hilarious when you consider these morons made a temporary tax cut that they're now crying is going to expire

They made it temporary because that's the only way they could get it to pass. The Democrats wouldn't go along with a permanent tax cut.

[jmdrake]

They made it temporary because that's the only way they could get it to pass. The Democrats wouldn't go along with a permanent tax cut.

They should have paired the tax cuts with spending cuts including spending cuts in defense and foreign aid. Of course the republicans wouldn't have gone along with that.

[Lucille]

The American Spectator:

Did Ron Paul Vote for a Tax Increase? (http://spectator.org/blog/2010/12/03/did-ron-paul-vote-for-a-tax-in)


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.

Well, they voted against them, so I'm not sure how they're going to explain that to the middle class.

It's all politics anyway. CONgress makes me sick. It's never about what's good for the country. It's always about some "group."

“Men enslave themselves, forging the chains link by link, usually by demanding protection as a group. When business men ask for government credit, they surrender control of their business. When labor asks for enforced ‘collective bargaining’ it has yielded its own freedom. When racial groups are recognized in law, they can be discriminated against by law.”
--Isabel Paterson
.................................................. .................................

ETA: 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."

[Brett85]

They should have paired the tax cuts with spending cuts including spending cuts in defense and foreign aid. Of course the republicans wouldn't have gone along with that.

Neither would the Democrats. The Obama administration has drastically increased the amount of money that we spend on foreign aid.

[oyarde]

yeah the capital gains tax is a real worry to the stock market that there will be a huge sell off to avoid it.

yes

[tremendoustie]

my guess: spin.

RP sees a bill come in front of him that lowers taxes, he votes yes. That's just what RP does. He will vote yes on the one for the very rich also.

it would be a violation of his principles to vote "no" on any tax cut whatsoever.

Yep. I'd vote the same.

Consistent political principles > political strategizing