Limbaugh: Rand Paul Joins the "Let Democrats Raise Taxes and Own It" Crowd

[RonPaulFanInGA]

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2012/12/07/rand_paul_joins_the_let_democrats_raise_taxes_and_ own_it_crowd

http://www.rushimg.com/cimages//media/1rushmontages/rushrandpaul/1028230-1-eng-GB/RushRandPaul.jpg

[TheTexan]

Never figured I'd say this, but Limbaugh is right

[Agorism]

Limbaugh is right about that statement.

Why would you give your word in order to let the Democrats vote on a tax hike bill.

[supermario21]

We're in a no-win situation really. The media is already striving to blame Republicans for going over the cliff if it happens. The heat needs to be turned on the centrist Dems who are up in 2014 (Warner, Pryor, and Hagan) and try to pass a Republican alternative with no tax increases. At the very least it gives us ammo to use in 2014.

[Agorism]

We're in a no-win situation really. The media is already striving to blame Republicans for going over the cliff if it happens. The heat needs to be turned on the centrist Dems who are up in 2014 (Warner, Pryor, and Hagan) and try to pass a Republican alternative with no tax increases. At the very least it gives us ammo to use in 2014.


http://blogs.westword.com/latestword/puma_image.jpg

[V3n]

Now Boehner is meeting one-on-one with Obama.

Given Boehner's record, the outcome is - the Democrats are going to get exactly what they want.

[itshappening]

the alternative is Republicans getting hammered because everyone's taxes go up due to the expiration on Jan 1st.

do Republicans really want everyone mad at them when they get a tax increase ?

Let the democrats pass the bill, it defuses what will be a GOP witch hunt if they all went up on Jan 1st, then in 18 months time Democrats can be hammered for voting for higher taxes and for the worsening economy.

[Agorism]

the alternative is Republicans getting hammered because everyone's taxes go up due to the expiration on Jan 1st.

do Republicans really want everyone mad at them when they get a tax increase ?

Let the democrats pass the bill, it defuses what will be a GOP witch hunt if they all went up on Jan 1st, then in 18 months time Democrats can be hammered for voting for higher taxes and for the worsening economy.

If he thinks that, then he should be voting for the Democrat bill.

If not then filibuster it.

[fr33]

If he thinks that, then he should be voting for the Democrat bill.

If not then filibuster it.If he filibusters he will be blamed for raising taxes just like he will for voting for the dem bill. Taxes are going to increase either way. It would be better to not give consent.

[Agorism]

If he filibusters he will be blamed for raising taxes just like he will for voting for the dem bill. Taxes are going to increase either way. It would be better to not give consent.

So is the bill raise revenue or does it not?

If it raises revenue so oppose it. If he filibustered then he could take credit for filibustering it.

[itshappening]

If he thinks that, then he should be voting for the Democrat bill.

If not then filibuster it.

No, he and other republican's shouldn't be voting for any bill. let the democrats vote for it and vote present or in the senate dont show up. let it pass with 100% democrat votes.

[itshappening]

So is the bill raise revenue or does it not?

If it raises revenue so oppose it. If he filibustered then he could take credit for filibustering it.

filibustering it means the Dems will need 60 votes in the senate, that's NOT what we want to do because then it fails and all rates go up on Jan 1st and GOPers get blamed by a mad as hell public.

we want it to pass 53-0 in the Senate, every Democrat voting yea and having it pass so they get the blame for voting for higher taxes and for worsening economy come the next election.

[KingNothing]

filibustering it means the Dems will need 60 votes in the senate, that's NOT what we want to do because then it fails and all rates go up on Jan 1st and GOPers get blamed by a mad as hell public.

we want it to pass 53-0 in the Senate, every Democrat voting yea and having it pass so they get the blame for voting for higher taxes and for worsening economy come the next election.


You just blew so many idiots away with this post. I'm sure they'll continue to argue with you, though.

[Kodaddy]

I'm for the GOP voting present... That way, they can't be accused of being obstructionist and they can't be accused of raising taxes... I can't wait to see how many Dems vote present.....
Question: if the vote is 49 yea, 51 present, does it pass?

[Tod]

the alternative is Republicans getting hammered because everyone's taxes go up due to the expiration on Jan 1st.

do Republicans really want everyone mad at them when they get a tax increase ?

Let the democrats pass the bill, it defuses what will be a GOP witch hunt if they all went up on Jan 1st, then in 18 months time Democrats can be hammered for voting for higher taxes and for the worsening economy.

Not very many people are happy with them now anyway. I know I'm not and I don't know anyone who is. What's to lose?

[CaptainAmerica]

Rand is playing a very risky game with his "career" by doing that. Not only does it disenfranchise hardcore GOP old timers, it disenfranchises anyone who takes seriously the threat of higher taxes...the nation and jobs are on the chopping block and Rand is saying let the democrats chop those jobs and lives up into nothing for the sake of white washing the GOP??????WTF are you thinking,thats a terrible strategy rand.

[thoughtomator]

Dems have the GOP trapped because the GOP is as wedded to war spending as the Dems are to entitlement spending, when the real budget decision to be made is both or neither.

[itshappening]

I'm for the GOP voting present... That way, they can't be accused of being obstructionist and they can't be accused of raising taxes... I can't wait to see how many Dems vote present.....
Question: if the vote is 49 yea, 51 present, does it pass?

in the senate there is no 'present', they just need 51 votes I think. GOP members can abstain by not voting.

[itshappening]

think of the ads in 2014 election if the economy is doing poorly: Democrat Senator voted to raise taxes. Democrat senator killed x thousand jobs in our state. Democrat senator can't be trusted.

[Brett85]

Rand is playing a very risky game with his "career" by doing that. Not only does it disenfranchise hardcore GOP old timers, it disenfranchises anyone who takes seriously the threat of higher taxes...the nation and jobs are on the chopping block and Rand is saying let the democrats chop those jobs and lives up into nothing for the sake of white washing the GOP??????WTF are you thinking,thats a terrible strategy rand.

Everyone doesn't seem to understand that taxes are going to go up no matter what. There's a 0% chance that taxes won't go up. If Congress does nothing, all of the Bush tax cuts will expire at the end of December.

[heavenlyboy34]

lol. People take this political sleight of hand so seriously. :D

[jj-]

Rand must not be getting much sleep to make such a stupid mistake. I am tempted to launch a petition to primary Rand and replace him with someone who will vote "NO!" instead of "present".

[Rudeman]

He will vote no, he said he just won't filibuster it and will allow the Dems to pass it with a simple majority. He said the House will need to vote present because the Republicans hold the majority.

Some of you are acting like the other option is no taxes will go up. The other option is everyone's taxes go up or the Republicans compromise to not raise it as much (and get blamed for it not being raised to the amount Obama wanted).

[jj-]

Taxes don't have to go up. Republicans have a majority in the House, morons. The debt ceiling doesn't have to go up for the same reason.

[Rudeman]

filibustering it means the Dems will need 60 votes in the senate, that's NOT what we want to do because then it fails and all rates go up on Jan 1st and GOPers get blamed by a mad as hell public.

we want it to pass 53-0 in the Senate, every Democrat voting yea and having it pass so they get the blame for voting for higher taxes and for worsening economy come the next election.

The Republicans will vote NO in the Senate, they'll need to vote present in the House because they hold the majority. What Rand said is he'll allow it to pass with a simple majority.

The pressure will be all on the Dems whether they can get all of them to agree to raising taxes (or at least a majority).

[Rudeman]

Taxes don't have to go up. Republicans have a majority in the House, morons. The debt ceiling doesn't have to go up for the same reason.

Um yes they do because Bush's tax cuts expire at the end of the year, which means taxes go up. There is nothing Republicans can do to prevent that. The House has already passed a bill to extend Bush's tax cuts, the Dems in the Senate won't support it.

[jj-]

How is voting present better than voting no?

[Rudeman]

How is voting present better than voting no?

Only the Republicans in the House will need to vote Present because Republicans hold the Majority. Rand said he'd allow the Senate to pass with a simple majority, he will still be voting No.

[fr33]

How is voting present better than voting no?

Whoever filibusters will be blamed for all tax increases from the expiration of the bush tax cuts.

[Rudeman]

Whoever filibusters will be blamed for all tax increases from the expiration of the bush tax cuts.

The Senate can vote No, Rand said he'd be willing to work with Reid to allow them to pass it with a simple majority. Only the House needs to vote present since Republicans hold the majority. Whether there are enough Democrats to support it will be on Reid/Obama. I believe the House has already passed an extension of all Bush Tax cuts which is all they can really do.

Really the question comes down to would you prefer that the Dems get all credit for the tax hikes or would you rather have some shitty compromise (where Republicans will get blamed for not letting the Dems do what they want). The only issue I see is that Obama may see this as an opportunity to raise the debt ceiling.

[jj-]

OH no, if I do the right thing I'll be blamed, I better do what's wrong!

[Brett85]

Taxes don't have to go up. Republicans have a majority in the House, morons. The debt ceiling doesn't have to go up for the same reason.

The Republicans don't have the majority in the Senate or the White House, so they can't get the Bush tax cuts extended. They expire at the end of December. The Democrats hold all the cards here.

[jj-]

The Republicans don't have the majority in the Senate or the White House, so they can't get the Bush tax cuts extended. They expire at the end of December. The Democrats hold all the cards here.

Except that the debt limit won't go up if the Republicans don't allow it. The Republicans have a winning hand here, an easy win, but most of them are just democrats with an R next to their name.

[supermario21]

Obama is not going to get the debt ceiling. I'd gladly approve the government defaulting. Then, as Ron would say, time to liquidate everything!

[Rudeman]

Obama would love nothing more than to have Republicans block this and allow Bush's tax cuts to expire on everyone. Then he can pretend to be the hero of the middle class and poor fighting against the evil Republicans who raised everyone's taxes.


Now the debt ceiling is a different issue, I wouldn't let Obama and the Dems include it in their tax hikes.

[jj-]

Now the debt ceiling is a different issue, I wouldn't let Obama and the Dems include it in their tax hikes.

It's not a different issue. They could say that they would let the ceiling go up one last time if the Dems do whatever the Republicans want in terms of taxes. And they would have no option but to accept.

Also, I wouldn't vote for raising the debt limit, but since the Republicans are so corrupt, they're corrupt enough to do what I mentioned above.

[Rudeman]

It's not a different issue. They could say that they would let the ceiling go up one last time if the Dems do whatever the Republicans want in terms of taxes. And they would have no option but to accept.

Also, I wouldn't vote for raising the debt limit, but since the Republicans are so corrupt, they're corrupt enough to do what I mentioned above.

It's different because the Republicans have leverage when it comes to the debt ceiling, but I agree with you that they'll give it up without a fight.

[QWDC]

I still can't believe the GOP fell for this trap, I suppose they figured they would have a republican president and it wouldn't matter.
I just don't see a way out of this, vote no taxes go up and everybody hates you, vote yes taxes go up and everybody hates you...abstaining might really be the "best" option in an inevitable tax situation.

On another note, I've see people speculating that not raising the debt ceiling wouldn't matter, and congress could spend pass it with no repercussions. Have any of you seen anything on the subject?

[supermario21]

It's different because the Republicans have leverage when it comes to the debt ceiling, but I agree with you that they'll give it up without a fight.

And if they start to cave, I bet Rand will be filibustering...and pissing off all the fake-cons.

[supermario21]

These fights within the party are good for us. This week alone our allies have been purged from the budget committee and now Justin Amash is a grassroots hero, and Rand filibustered a bill and Trent Lott and John McCain come out and advocate filibuster reform, helping the freaking DEMOCRATS!

[jj-]

And if they start to cave, I bet Rand will be filibustering...and pissing off all the fake-cons.

Rand is the one encouraging people to cave by voting present instead of no. He should be the one saying that the Republicans should refuse to raise the debt ceiling unless the Democrats accept to do whatever the Republicans want on taxes. He is staying criminally silent.

[Rudeman]

Rand is the one encouraging people to cave by voting present instead of no. He should be the one saying that the Republicans should refuse to raise the debt ceiling unless the Democrats accept to do whatever the Republicans want on taxes. He is staying criminally silent.

Maybe Rand would prefer to leverage the debt ceiling for spending cuts? Leveraging the debt ceiling for keeping the tax cuts is risky because time wouldn't be on his side, especially when people like Boehner can't wait to sell us down the river and raise taxes. You can always try emailing Rand and ask him why.

[seraphson]

filibustering it means the Dems will need 60 votes in the senate, that's NOT what we want to do because then it fails and all rates go up on Jan 1st and GOPers get blamed by a mad as hell public.

we want it to pass 53-0 in the Senate, every Democrat voting yea and having it pass so they get the blame for voting for higher taxes and for worsening economy come the next election.

This.

Having done many arguments on the interwebz a very popular fallback is "wah, well then, the Republicans always block his bills and get in the way blah blah blah".

Might as well let them have their cake and slap it right down their throat when the SHTF.

[Czolgosz]

Is Rand maybe taking the approach, "fuck it, let them crash into a wall." ?

[supermario21]

I'm talking about debt ceiling, not taxes. Rand will definitely not cave on debt.

[Michigan11]

These fights within the party are good for us. This week alone our allies have been purged from the budget committee and now Justin Amash is a grassroots hero, and Rand filibustered a bill and Trent Lott and John McCain come out and advocate filibuster reform, helping the freaking DEMOCRATS!

I see it exactly as you stated. This last week is really opening up alot of republican voters eyes. I'm getting email after email from them. There is a definite paradigmn shift underway.

[itshappening]

I see it exactly as you stated. This last week is really opening up alot of republican voters eyes. I'm getting email after email from them. There is a definite paradigmn shift underway.

Bentivolio needs to raise serious money because the GOP will try and primary him.

[Eric21ND]

filibustering it means the Dems will need 60 votes in the senate, that's NOT what we want to do because then it fails and all rates go up on Jan 1st and GOPers get blamed by a mad as hell public.

we want it to pass 53-0 in the Senate, every Democrat voting yea and having it pass so they get the blame for voting for higher taxes and for worsening economy come the next election.
This is an astute observation and absolutely right.

[juleswin]

You just blew so many idiots away with this post. I'm sure they'll continue to argue with you, though.

Sometimes, I read some of the stupid people's post on this site and it makes me wanna cry. Thank you very much for posting that, cos God knows if I had said something in anger, I would have gotten my account banned.

+rep

[juleswin]

filibustering it means the Dems will need 60 votes in the senate, that's NOT what we want to do because then it fails and all rates go up on Jan 1st and GOPers get blamed by a mad as hell public.

we want it to pass 53-0 in the Senate, every Democrat voting yea and having it pass so they get the blame for voting for higher taxes and for worsening economy come the next election.

Keep educating the masses. I cant imagine any sane person finding anything wrong with tyou just posted.
+rep

[anaconda]

Never figured I'd say this, but Limbaugh is right

I have to disagree. I think voting "present" would be a brilliant move and the Democrats absolutely will get the blame. I don't recall this happening before..does anybody have any history on "present" vote along party lines?

[compromise]

Voting present means you're not voting against a tax increase. If you're a Republican, you should be voting against a tax increase.

Rand is wrong and Limbaugh is right. Silly ideas like this and the 'Rand Paul immigration plan' hurt him in the long run.

[itshappening]

Voting present means you're not voting against a tax increase. If you're a Republican, you should be voting against a tax increase.

Rand is wrong and Limbaugh is right. Silly ideas like this and the 'Rand Paul immigration plan' hurt him in the long run.

The GOP will get the blame - and get hammered - on Jan 1st when all rates go up. This idea will stop the rates going up for almost everyone and therefore stopping the public being mad at the GOP while giving the GOP ammo in 2014 elections when the economy is doing even worse.

it's the best strategic move available.

If GOP votes against raising taxes as you suggest, Obama won't sign the bill and all rates go up. Obama then goes on prime time tv and says to the American people your taxes are going up $2.5k this year because of the GOP. This will hurt the GOP more in the long run and could cost them the House and Senate in 2014 while this plan will safeguard the House and possibly win the GOP the senate when every Democrat who votes for it is blamed for destroying x thousand jobs in their state.

Rand is right and Limbaugh is wrong. What does Limbaugh know about electoral politics anyway? It was his war he cheerleaded that got us into this mess. The last person the GOP want to listen to is Bush boy Limbaugh.

[supermario21]

Keep in mind only house members need to vote present. In the Senate, since we're in the minority we should just not filibuster and vote no.

[Brett85]

Rand is wrong and Limbaugh is right. Silly ideas like this and the 'Rand Paul immigration plan' hurt him in the long run.

Has it occurred to anyone that Rand may have just been joking or being sarcastic? I don't think this is as big of a deal as people are making it out to be.

[KingNothing]

I have to disagree. I think voting "present" would be a brilliant move and the Democrats absolutely will get the blame. I don't recall this happening before..does anybody have any history on "present" vote along party lines?

I've no idea. This is why having a man as shrewd as Rand on our side and in the Senate matters so much. Christ, I consider myself a smart man, and I never even considered doing what Rand has proposed. It is brilliant.

[KingNothing]

Keep in mind only house members need to vote present. In the Senate, since we're in the minority we should just not filibuster and vote no.

Correct. As has been said, a senate filibuster would force a 60-vote requirement which the Democrats could not get, which would inspire a stalemate until the new year when the Bush tax cuts expire, giving the Democrats what they want, AND the ability to paint Republicans as obstructionists who were willing to put tax cuts for the wealthy ahead of not raising taxes on the middle class. A filibuster would be political suicide. House members voting "present" while the Senate votes "no" allows Republicans to say "hey, it was those assholes who raised taxes and caused the economic downturn."

[anaconda]

House members voting "present" while the Senate votes "no" "

I believe I heard Rand say that he would vote "present" as a senator (not "nay").

[Rudeman]

I believe I heard Rand say that he would vote "present" as a senator (not "nay").

If you referring to the Kudlow interview, he said the House votes present, then Kudlow asked if he would also vote present and he said yes but they didn't need to in the Senate and that he'd allow Reid to pass it with a simple majority.

It sounded like he would vote no and not filibuster allowing a simple majority to pass it in the Senate.

[anaconda]

If you referring to the Kudlow interview, he said the House votes present, then Kudlow asked if he would also vote present and he said yes but they didn't need to in the Senate and that he'd allow Reid to pass it with a simple majority.

It sounded like he would vote no and not filibuster allowing a simple majority to pass it in the Senate.

But I thought the "present" vote concept was supposed to create the image that we handed Obama and the Dems exactly what they asked for. Otherwise, there's gonna be numerous leftist crying that the bill "did not go far enough" and it "was because of the Republicans." "If only we could have raised taxes more ,the economy would have recovered in grand fashion. It's the fault of the Republicans...the rich did not pay enough...Hillary 2016!," etc. etc...

[Rudeman]

But I thought the "present" vote concept was supposed to create the image that we handed Obama and the Dems exactly what they asked for. Otherwise, there's gonna be numerous leftist crying that the bill "did not go far enough" and it "was because of the Republicans." "If only we could have raised taxes more ,the economy would have recovered in grand fashion. It's the fault of the Republicans...the rich did not pay enough...Hillary 2016!," etc. etc...

The only reason to vote present in the House is because Republicans hold the majority. The Democrats hold enough votes in the Senate to pass with a simple majority, if they can't get the votes from their own party how is that the Republican's fault? Wait nvm everything is the Republicans fault, the Democrats will probably blame the Republicans for letting them vote for a tax increase.

[Bastiat's The Law]

Correct. As has been said, a senate filibuster would force a 60-vote requirement which the Democrats could not get, which would inspire a stalemate until the new year when the Bush tax cuts expire, giving the Democrats what they want, AND the ability to paint Republicans as obstructionists who were willing to put tax cuts for the wealthy ahead of not raising taxes on the middle class. A filibuster would be political suicide. House members voting "present" while the Senate votes "no" allows Republicans to say "hey, it was those assholes who raised taxes and caused the economic downturn."
Randcraft at its finest!