Ron Paul is the only Republican to vote to extend the tax cuts

[Anarchist420]

This is rather sad that there was only one person in the Party of Robert A Taft and Warren Harding who voted not to raise taxes on everyone.

Why did the RINOs vote to raise taxes on everyone?

If they were in power, they know damn good and well they'd be voting like Democrats, so that's why I won't consider voting for any RINOs ever again.

In related news, RINO Eric Cantor has already backtracked on Obamacare.

 

[Thump553]

You don't understand the political games the big boys are playing. Big surprise.

Paul voted for it to stand out as a gadfly and because he knew it was going to die. The rest of the GOP wants unfunded tax cuts for the wealthy as their top priority.

 

[QuantumPion]

You don't understand the political games the big boys are playing. Big surprise.

Paul voted for it to stand out as a gadfly and because he knew it was going to die. The rest of the GOP wants unfunded tax cuts for the wealthy as their top priority.

"unfunded tax cuts"? That's rich.

Spending has to be funded. Not raising taxes is not spending.

 

[CycloWizard]

"unfunded tax cuts"? That's rich.

Spending has to be funded. Not raising taxes is not spending.

Only from the perspective of the old paradigm in which your money belonged to you. In the new paradigm, the money is the government's, and they dish it out as they see fit, comrade.

 

[The-Noid]

Does he use the phrase "I have never voted for a tax increase?" This would be the only reason to help his cred...not like anyone in the house or senate votes without the thought they can use it for themselves later.

The tax cuts are deficit expansionary and without lots of inflation that erodes principal and raises borrowing costs later, the entire paradigm of huge borrowing disappears. To even be a going concern this country is going to need rampant inflation down the road, but don't worry we have a AAA rating...

Play the game...

 

[Thump553]

"unfunded tax cuts"? That's rich.

Spending has to be funded. Not raising taxes is not spending.

Disguise it in semantics any way you want. The action the national GOP demands-continued tax cuts for the wealthiest-WILL increase the deficit by $700 billion dollars. And the GOP has not made the slightest effort to offset this deficit increase by any corresponding spending cuts-despite demanding such actions for other bills, like the 9/11 responders comp bill, unemployment comp, etc.

I'm not an accountant, a politician or a socialist. I'm just a simple guy who sees bullshit and calls it bullshit. What we will end up with is an increasing deficit and increasing concentration of wealth-a classic lose/lose situation.

 

[her209]

Disguise it in semantics any way you want. The action the national GOP demands-continued tax cuts for the wealthiest-WILL increase the deficit by $700 billion dollars. And the GOP has not made the slightest effort to offset this deficit increase by any corresponding spending cuts-despite demanding such actions for other bills, like the 9/11 responders comp bill, unemployment comp, etc.

I'm not an accountant, a politician or a socialist. I'm just a simple guy who sees bullshit and calls it bullshit. What we will end up with is an increasing deficit and increasing concentration of wealth-a classic lose/lose situation.

Fail on two wars, pass Medicare Part D, pass No Child Left Behind, pass tax cuts. At least they didn't raise MY taxes.

 

[fskimospy]

"unfunded tax cuts"? That's rich.

Spending has to be funded. Not raising taxes is not spending.

And funding projections for the bills passed were based upon standing law, ie: these tax cuts expiring. When you vote to extend them, you in effect DEFUND all or portions of legislation that was previously funded. That's what's meant by 'unfunded'.

The Republicans have a long, long history of doing this. While I personally am not particularly worried about the deficit, lots of people on here claim to be. If you are, it's pretty clear that the Republicans are far worse for it than the Democrats. (the amount the debt has increased related to GDP has increased vastly more quickly with the GOP in power than with Democrats as a general rule)

 

[Slick5150]

I love how people call not extending a temporary tax cut (that didn't work in revitalizing the economy like was promised anyway) "raising taxes".

 

[fskimospy]

I love how people call not extending a temporary tax cut (that didn't work in revitalizing the economy like was promised anyway) "raising taxes".

It's worse than that. Frequently when politicians are hit with 'voting for higher taxes' that can mean that they voted to cut taxes, but voted for a smaller tax cut than someone else did. It's just a word game for an audience of stupid people.

 

[CycloWizard]

I love how people call not extending a temporary tax cut (that didn't work in revitalizing the economy like was promised anyway) "raising taxes".

It is raising taxes. We pay $x now. If an extension is not passed, we will pay $x+$y. Unless you fail at math, of course.

 

[jackstar7]

It is raising taxes. We pay $x now. If an extension is not passed, we will pay $x+$y. Unless you fail at math, of course.

You might be failing at the time-space continuum.

 

[Craig234]

It is raising taxes. We pay $x now. If an extension is not passed, we will pay $x+$y. Unless you fail at math, of course.

Actually, it's not, since you like the semantic game.

'Raising taxes' implies the Congress is taking action to 'raise taxaes'. But they're not. We don't say the Congress 'rose the sun' this morning even though it rose.

If the Congress does nothing, taxes rise. That's not Congress raising taxes, that's Congress doing nothing. The people who 'raised taxes' are those in 2001.

The 2001 Congress put into law that the cuts expire in 2010. They 'raised taxes' in 2011.

You can say this Congress did not take action to block the tax increase already in the law, but not that they 'raised taxes'.

That's the lie the earlier Republicans wanted you to fall for, since they lacked the votes to get them passes as permanent tax cuts.

It's simple - permanent tax cuts failed. That means the 2001 Republicans 'raised taxes in 2011' by putting into the law that they would rise in 2011.

You're trying to call doing nothing, leaving the 2001 hike in place, 'raising taxes'.

Your same wrong logic would say that if in 2001, they tried and failed to pass a bill lowering the top rate to 25%, that the Democrats now not lowering it to 25% is 'raising taxes' from the 25% rate that didn't pass to the current 35%, when in fact they 'did nothing' leaving 35% in place, as they are 'doing nothing' leaving the expiration of the lower rate passed ten years ago in place. When has the 2011 top rate ever been 35%? Never. So, the rate rises - but this Congress did not raise it.

 

[JS80]

A 10 year "tax cut" is not temporary. In order to get the shit passed the GOP had to negotiate with the leftists and call it "temporary." For all intents and purposes a tax cut that expires after a decade is the same as lower the tax rates then voting to raise it a decade later. Ultimately the same shit.

 

[dullard]

Ultimately the same shit.

In effect you are correct, but now dozens of republicans are on record of voting NO multiple times on a tax cut. That won't play well in the TV ads when the next election comes along. Politics still matter.

 

[manimal]

Ah the disingenuous nature of partisan politics. I say screw everyone and bring back the old rates Jan 1 and let em sit there for the whole year. Then offer a stimulus package where people under 50k get it back in a lump sum at Christmas time next year.

 

[CycloWizard]

Actually, it's not, since you like the semantic game.

'Raising taxes' implies the Congress is taking action to 'raise taxaes'. But they're not. We don't say the Congress 'rose the sun' this morning even though it rose.

If the Congress does nothing, taxes rise. That's not Congress raising taxes, that's Congress doing nothing. The people who 'raised taxes' are those in 2001.

The 2001 Congress put into law that the cuts expire in 2010. They 'raised taxes' in 2011.

You can say this Congress did not take action to block the tax increase already in the law, but not that they 'raised taxes'.

That's the lie the earlier Republicans wanted you to fall for, since they lacked the votes to get them passes as permanent tax cuts.

It's simple - permanent tax cuts failed. That means the 2001 Republicans 'raised taxes in 2011' by putting into the law that they would rise in 2011.

You're trying to call doing nothing, leaving the 2001 hike in place, 'raising taxes'.

Your same wrong logic would say that if in 2001, they tried and failed to pass a bill lowering the top rate to 25%, that the Democrats now not lowering it to 25% is 'raising taxes' from the 25% rate that didn't pass to the current 35%, when in fact they 'did nothing' leaving 35% in place, as they are 'doing nothing' leaving the expiration of the lower rate passed ten years ago in place. When has the 2011 top rate ever been 35%? Never. So, the rate rises - but this Congress did not raise it.

Here's reality: the present congress decides the tax code for next year, period. They shape it in every way, even if that way is by doing nothing (i.e. omission). They had an entire year to decide what that tax code would be. They therefore punted. Similarly, your blessed Democrats were just as culpable in maintaining the much-maligned "tax cuts for the rich" when they failed to repeal this bill prior to its deadline. If the ban on slavery had been formulated as a bill with an expiration date, then congress did nothing to renew it, wouldn't that be considered reinstituting slavery? I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that, prior to this post, you simply didn't understand the difference between omission and commission. In the future, now that you have been supplied exact definitions for both, I will make no such assumption and will be fully justified in assessing you with the full extent of your stupidity.

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

Disguise it in semantics any way you want. The action the national GOP demands-continued tax cuts for the wealthiest-WILL increase the deficit by $700 billion dollars. And the GOP has not made the slightest effort to offset this deficit increase by any corresponding spending cuts-despite demanding such actions for other bills, like the 9/11 responders comp bill, unemployment comp, etc.

I'm not an accountant, a politician or a socialist. I'm just a simple guy who sees bullshit and calls it bullshit. What we will end up with is an increasing deficit and increasing concentration of wealth-a classic lose/lose situation.

The only bullshit is people like you that think it's one parties fault. It's all politicians fault. One group wants to cut spending on entitelment programs that we can't afford, and keep existing tax cuts for the people that make jobs.
The other groups wants to increase entitelments and claim that unemployment creates jobs. You don't create jobs by giving people just enough money to survive t ospend it on food and shelter. That's money they would have spent had they still had a job.
You're not keeping people at the stores employed by doing this.
Instead of blindly handing out money, you need to mkae these recepients earn it. They want to make the infrastructure better in the US, use the money for "unemployment" and make people work at building roads, bridges, ect. Get something for the money instead of handing it out for nothing.