A few months back this site was awash in pro-libertarian sentiment, but since the Paul boys have been a big part of the successful “Attack on America’s Poor and Middle Act, Pt 1,” we’ve heard crickets about them.
Ron Paul (who voted for the original and totally crazy house bill) has criticized this act, because it didn’t hurt the poor enough:
According to the non-partisan CATO Institute, this bill merely commits Congress to spending less than it otherwise would
(yes, sure Ronny, CATO is non-partison)
Well, in fairness, he did criticize the “Super Congress”.
But, um… why?
The rich might get taxed a little bit:
This guarantees that Members will face tremendous pressure to vote for whatever comes out of this commission- even if it includes tax increases.
Sen. Paul and Rep. Paul were both signatories to the Cut, Cap and Balance Pledge on the debt ceiling. The debt ceiling pledge required its signatories to pressure lawmakers to cut federal spending, cap federal spending and pass a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution as preconditions to a “yes” vote on the debt ceiling.
So, the ‘libertarians’ want to amend the constitution? Nice.
Meanwhile, Rand has been babbling about
runaway entitlement spending
When exactly did the ever falling bit of money the richest country in the world spends on the same people whose money it actually is in the first place become “runaway” ?
Who exactly pays for Social Security anyway? You congress perps?
The rich people you want to ‘liberate’?
maximum wage base for social security tax is $106,800
Meaning that for every millionaire or billionaire, the max they pay is based on $106,800.
Workers pay either 6.2%, or 12.4% if self employed. For employers, this 6.2% is basically tax deductible, so in many cases, they don’t pay it either.