PDA

View Full Version : DeMint Not Supporting Tax Deal



angelatc
12-08-2010, 03:15 AM
Uh oh - don't start spending those extra unemployment checks quite yet. Not only are the Democrats rebelling, at least one conservative senator isn't afraid to buck party leadership and point out that this bill does nothing to reduce the deficit.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/dailycaller/20101208/pl_dailycaller/demintcomesoutagainsttaxdealsaysgopmustdobettertha nthis
akforme
12-08-2010, 04:19 AM
He lost every ounce of respect I had for him over the food safety bill. He sold out liberty for a 150K.
TheTyke
12-08-2010, 09:03 PM
He lost every ounce of respect I had for him over the food safety bill. He sold out liberty for a 150K.

Wait, what? He supported that??
aclove
12-08-2010, 09:05 PM
No, he didn't. DeMint voted against S. 510.

Here's the roll-call vote:
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=s2010-257
FrankRep
12-08-2010, 09:07 PM
He lost every ounce of respect I had for him over the food safety bill. He sold out liberty for a 150K.
False.
akforme
12-08-2010, 09:54 PM
No, he didn't. DeMint voted against S. 510.

Here's the roll-call vote:
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=s2010-257

Oops, my mistake, I could have sworn I saw were he had voted. I wonder what the hell I was looking at now.
qh4dotcom
12-08-2010, 10:02 PM
I think Demint should vote for it if it cannot be improved and then either him or Rand should filibuster raising the debt ceiling. That way Americans get tax cuts and Congress is forced to cut spending
durden0
12-08-2010, 10:20 PM
It seems Rand is breaking ranks with his father and saying he is leaning towards not supporting this bill.
lx43
12-08-2010, 10:21 PM
Rand said in a recent CNN interview he would be inclined to vote No on this tax compromise.
FrankRep
12-08-2010, 10:24 PM
It seems Rand is breaking ranks with his father and saying he is leaning towards not supporting this bill.
This bill is a Catch-22.
TCE
12-08-2010, 10:32 PM
This bill is a Catch-22.

It's unconstitutional with the unemployment benefits thrown in. I can't see Ron supporting it.
FrankRep
12-08-2010, 10:34 PM
It's unconstitutional with the unemployment benefits thrown in. I can't see Ron supporting it.
Voting NO will cause a Tax Increase on people.
cswake
12-08-2010, 10:35 PM
Paul has said multiple times that he will vote to fund unconstitutional programs as long as the bill as a whole will shrink the size of government.
cswake
12-08-2010, 10:36 PM
Voting NO will cause a Tax Increase on people.

AND you don't know if the Democrats will obstruct next year once the tax hikes are in place...
TCE
12-08-2010, 10:37 PM
Voting NO will cause a Tax Increase on people.

I'm sure if the bill is read, it is full of unconstitutional language. You and I both know it isn't a 2-page piece of legislation. He should vote no.
TC95
12-08-2010, 10:54 PM
It's unconstitutional with the unemployment benefits thrown in. I can't see Ron supporting it.

He said tonight on Freedom Watch that he's most likely gonna vote for it cuz he would see it as raising taxes otherwise. Start watching about 4 minutes into the video through 6 min 35 sec.

YouTube - Freedom Watch Part 1 - The Fed Will Have To Fight Ron Paul Now 12/8/2010 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2-0p208x36Y)
Fox McCloud
12-08-2010, 11:07 PM
it's a tough vote, and I'd definitely have to think about it myself, for a long time, if I was in Ron's shoes; it's a darned if you do, darned if you don't bill, sadly. If it didn't have the unemployment extension on it, it'd be a no-brainer, but the extension makes it murky.

Now, if they cut somewhere else in the budget equal to the amount of how much the extended unemployment benefits total cost for the next 13 months would equal...well, then I might be inclined to say "ok, it's spending neutral" and vote for it.
Brett85
12-08-2010, 11:22 PM
it's a tough vote, and I'd definitely have to think about it myself, for a long time, if I was in Ron's shoes; it's a darned if you do, darned if you don't bill, sadly. If it didn't have the unemployment extension on it, it'd be a no-brainer, but the extension makes it murky.

Now, if they cut somewhere else in the budget equal to the amount of how much the extended unemployment benefits total cost for the next 13 months would equal...well, then I might be inclined to say "ok, it's spending neutral" and vote for it.

Even then it wouldn't be "spending neutral" because the payroll tax cut isn't paid for either.
angelatc
12-09-2010, 12:19 AM
Voting NO will cause a Tax Increase on people.

But voting Yes means extending welfare. Taxation is constitutional, welfare isn't.
sailingaway
12-09-2010, 12:21 AM
Rand said he leaned against it (if he could vote) because it raises the estate tax and doesn't make tax cuts permanent and doesn't pay for the unemployment extension. But he sounded like he saw arguments on both sides.
GunnyFreedom
12-09-2010, 12:25 AM
It seems Rand is breaking ranks with his father and saying he is leaning towards not supporting this bill.

The bill Rand will be voting on is not the same as the one Ron voted on. It was changed after that vote to add in a bunch of dirty deals. I doubt Ron would have voted for it in the form it left the House.

And yes, I know it is supposed to be impossible for a bill to leave the House in a different form from what was voted on, but welcome to Pelosi's Congress after all. :rolleyes: