Ron Paul votes against economic stimulus package

Jan 30, 2008 Full story: thehill.com 1,722

Paul stressed this week he is in favor of taxpayers getting some of their money back, but added that "temporary tax cuts and one-time rebates will not 'fix' the economy.... Sending out checks and cutting interest rates yet again is merely a shot in the arm when in actuality, the economy needs major surgery."

Full Story
First Prev
of 87
Next Last
Nclex

Oakland, CA

#1 Jan 30, 2008
Why?
VOTE NO FOR RON PAUL
Arindam

Doha, Qatar

#2 Jan 31, 2008
I'm not much into U.S. politics, but this fellow is basically correct as far as the economics goes:

A temporary tax cut and a one-off rebate are likely to be saved rather than spent: this is the case with all windfall gains in general. Even someone who wins a lottery will save rather than spend most of the money; it would be irrational to do otherwise.

During a recession (or in the approach to one), an economy needs a boost in spending. A one-off tax cut is unlikely to give it a very substantial boost for the reason given above.

Increasing public spending on infrastructure or increased welfare payments might - but most Americans would consider that 'socialism', so that's out of the question.

What's left? A boost in defence spending - military Keynesianism as usual.
Dagaroth

Somers, NY

#3 Jan 31, 2008
RTFA Nclex, he's right, with inflation well above the usual yearly raise, the money you bring home each year is LESS than the year before. Getting $600 back isnt going to fix that. Getting Big Company owned stooges out of lawmaking offices will.
sami

Mount Vernon, MO

#5 Jan 31, 2008
Arindam wrote:
I'm not much into U.S. politics, but this fellow is basically correct as far as the economics goes:
A temporary tax cut and a one-off rebate are likely to be saved rather than spent: this is the case with all windfall gains in general. Even someone who wins a lottery will save rather than spend most of the money; it would be irrational to do otherwise.
During a recession (or in the approach to one), an economy needs a boost in spending. A one-off tax cut is unlikely to give it a very substantial boost for the reason given above.
Increasing public spending on infrastructure or increased welfare payments might - but most Americans would consider that 'socialism', so that's out of the question.
What's left? A boost in defence spending - military Keynesianism as usual.
you're wrong! lottery winners are wll known for blowing it all and broke in a short period of time. I say thumbs down to paul.
Bill R

Ash Flat, AR

#6 Jan 31, 2008
Arindam wrote:
I'm not much into U.S. politics, but this fellow is basically correct as far as the economics goes:
A temporary tax cut and a one-off rebate are likely to be saved rather than spent: this is the case with all windfall gains in general. Even someone who wins a lottery will save rather than spend most of the money; it would be irrational to do otherwise.
During a recession (or in the approach to one), an economy needs a boost in spending. A one-off tax cut is unlikely to give it a very substantial boost for the reason given above.
Increasing public spending on infrastructure or increased welfare payments might - but most Americans would consider that 'socialism', so that's out of the question.
What's left? A boost in defence spending - military Keynesianism as usual.
I came across a couple of columns during the
past few days suggesting that the emphasis on
economic recovery be placed more on infrastructure
because it would create family wage jobs and
replace on a longer term those who have lost
skilled jobs to overseas manufacturing. Trouble
is, such a plan would become bogged down in
political pork for months before it could become
reality. Both parties seem committed to a
quick boost rather than sustained boost.

Another idea that would help would be to put a
cap on credit card interest rates, tying it to
the prime rate, in such a way that virtually
every American with a credit card debt would get
a "refund" every month for the duration of the
recession. That would take political courage
though, and there is a lack of that in Washington.
Joe

San Francisco, CA

#7 Jan 31, 2008
Hopefully after this recession really sets in this year people will WTFU and realize Paul's been right all along.
Arindam

Doha, Qatar

#9 Jan 31, 2008
sami wrote:
<quoted text>
lottery winners are wll known for blowing it all and broke in a short period of time.
That would imply that they are irrational,(and some no doubt are).

Are you implying that the average American is irrational?(Might explain a few things actually....)

Since: Oct 07

United States

#11 Jan 31, 2008
Ron Paul
votes against
borrowing more money
from
Communist
China
David

Irvington, NJ

#12 Jan 31, 2008
Nclex wrote:
Why?
VOTE NO FOR RON PAUL
You tell me how you propose to pay for tax cuts if the government is increasing spending then...

We spend more money keeping up troops in over 130 nations in the world and subsidize other nations military while taking out loans from Communist China.
-IDIOT ONES

New York, NY

#13 Jan 31, 2008
It ain't no charity, they will find ways to take it back, without you knowing!
leo from shanghai

United States

#14 Jan 31, 2008
the subprime gangster con men should be tracked down, all of their assets(cash, houses, cars, etc.) should be confiscated and used to stimulate the economy. VOTE FOR RON PAUL(3RD PARTY!).
Vince

Danville, CA

#15 Jan 31, 2008
Arindam wrote:
I'm not much into U.S. politics, but this fellow is basically correct as far as the economics goes:
A temporary tax cut and a one-off rebate are likely to be saved rather than spent: this is the case with all windfall gains in general. Even someone who wins a lottery will save rather than spend most of the money; it would be irrational to do otherwise.
During a recession (or in the approach to one), an economy needs a boost in spending. A one-off tax cut is unlikely to give it a very substantial boost for the reason given above.
Increasing public spending on infrastructure or increased welfare payments might - but most Americans would consider that 'socialism', so that's out of the question.
What's left? A boost in defence spending - military Keynesianism as usual.
Paul isn't a Keynesian though, and he's against socialism. He also claims to be for cutting taxes. I'm sorry, but Paul just shot himself in the foot here. A one time rebate is still better than zero rebates. This guy is a kook, and his reasoning for voting "no" is retarded and contradictory to his ideology. His campaign is dead anyway.
Vince

Danville, CA

#16 Jan 31, 2008
Joe wrote:
Hopefully after this recession really sets in this year people will WTFU and realize Paul's been right all along.
Right about what exactly?
Vince

Danville, CA

#17 Jan 31, 2008
Betsy Ross wrote:
Ron Paul
votes against
borrowing more money
from
Communist
China
I agree that we need to stop deficit spending. Government spending needs to be cut. However, we're in a recession, and the people should get a rebate. Why must it be either or?
Vince

Danville, CA

#18 Jan 31, 2008
David wrote:
<quoted text>
You tell me how you propose to pay for tax cuts if the government is increasing spending then...
We spend more money keeping up troops in over 130 nations in the world and subsidize other nations military while taking out loans from Communist China.
Well, the solution is to cut spending and get rid of all of that crap.
-IDIOT ONES

New York, NY

#19 Jan 31, 2008
leo from shanghai wrote:
the subprime gangster con men should be tracked down, all of their assets(cash, houses, cars, etc.) should be confiscated and used to stimulate the economy. VOTE FOR RON PAUL(3RD PARTY!).
Yea, all this time , he couldn't even fix subprime mortgage defaults that led to housing mess and caused world stock market instabilty! During his many terms in office RP could not even rally and legislate for change - at most an ineffective leader (bigoted!). He will chump change you for sure!

“...a river of conscience ...”

Since: Oct 07

Scotland

#20 Jan 31, 2008
Arindam wrote:
I'm not much into U.S. politics, but this fellow is basically correct as far as the economics goes:
A temporary tax cut and a one-off rebate are likely to be saved rather than spent: this is the case with all windfall gains in general. Even someone who wins a lottery will save rather than spend most of the money; it would be irrational to do otherwise.
During a recession (or in the approach to one), an economy needs a boost in spending. A one-off tax cut is unlikely to give it a very substantial boost for the reason given above.
Increasing public spending on infrastructure or increased welfare payments might - but most Americans would consider that 'socialism', so that's out of the question.
What's left? A boost in defence spending - military Keynesianism as usual.
Hee Hee! With that kind of logic you may be able to temp Bush Baby one last time!

“Tu ne cede malis”

Since: Dec 06

Lots of different places

#21 Jan 31, 2008
Vince wrote:
<quoted text>
Paul isn't a Keynesian though, and he's against socialism. He also claims to be for cutting taxes. I'm sorry, but Paul just shot himself in the foot here.
How would that be — according to yourself?

He's already outlined —not a few times— how cutting taxes, and getting rid of the federal income tax are very real possibilities, especially by getting rid the of huge (did I mention bloated?) bureaucracy of the Federal Government?
Vince wrote:
A one time rebate is still better than zero rebates.
So, you're a rebate junkie then?
The government collects >YOUR< money, and then give it back to you with no interest?
Try that with a bank sometime ...
Vince wrote:
This guy is a kook, and his reasoning for voting "no" is retarded and contradictory to his ideology.
So, let's see here: You don't have anything valid to put his campaign down with, so you resort to ad hominem, hoping that others of your ilk (read: not well-read) will agree just by seeing the disparaging terms you employ.

Did I get that correctly enough?

And in that matter of 'contradictory,' you'll please explain how that would be?
Vince wrote:
His campaign is dead anyway.
Oh, really? You'll please explain then, how it is that he doesn't have to ask for campaign funding? Rather it just seems to pour-in by the millions from people all over! I've already donated over U$600 myself, and I didn't have to be asked, cajoled, wheedled, begged, or otherwise induced to part with my hard-earned money.

What ~other~ candidate do you know of who can make that claim?

“Tu ne cede malis”

Since: Dec 06

Lots of different places

#22 Jan 31, 2008
Vince wrote:
<quoted text>
Right about what exactly?
How is Ron Paul right? Let me count the ways!

Do you even have an inkling of how the man has voted entirely constitutionally 100% of the time?

At least he =OBEYS= his oath of office, and >DOES NOT< vote for unconstitutional laws.

Can ~your~ favorite politician make the same claim? Or, do you really care?

“Tu ne cede malis”

Since: Dec 06

Lots of different places

#23 Jan 31, 2008
Vince wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree that we need to stop deficit spending. Government spending needs to be cut. However, we're in a recession, and the people should get a rebate. Why must it be either or?
Paraphrased from the above:

I agree that we need to stop abusing drugs. Drug usage needs to be cut. However, we're addicted, and the people should get a cheap high. Why must it be either or?

You either comprehend your problem, and resolve to do something about it, or you continue business as usual.

Sometimes, sacrifices have to be made.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 87
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Ron Paul Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 4 min Injudgement 168,546
Daddy issues: Are Ron Paul's hard-core stands a... 1 hr Cat74 29
Ron Paul on the Verge of Going Third Party? (Jan '08) Jan 21 Steve 29,299
Senator Rand Paul blasts Common Core education ... Jan 17 Lawrence Wolf 14
NC legislator going unaffiliated, wants to cauc... Jan 13 Sofaking clueless 9
Iowa Ames Straw Poll planned for August Jan 10 Your Ex 1
Ready, Ames, fire? Jan 10 Aria 1
More from around the web