Hows that Libertarian Love Thing Working Out?

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

.

Really, bucko?

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’?

No.

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.

9 comments

Skip to comment form

  1. the Paulites did vote against the debt bill–because they wished it was far, far worse.  

    • banger on August 8, 2011 at 4:23 am

    Paul opposes the imperial wars–if we cut them I think we’d be a little better off financially, don’t you think? We tend to forget the serious bloodshed we’re unleashing around the world because much of it is secret. I’ll take my chances with libertarians over the neo-cons in foreign policy and neo-liberals in economic affairs. At least libertarians will leave me alone and let me get together with others to try and solve some of the problems we are facing. Having said that I definitely oppose their agenda–just that the current authoritarians are worse for me at any rate. Real libertarians want to cut most expenditures including the huge amounts given out to the banks and large corporations that dwarf what meager amounts the poor get.

    There are two reasons for the malaise we are in: 1) an eruption, fueled by money but always just underneath the surface, of the class of people signified by an inability to perform any act of reasoning that is not strictly required for work and to do housework; and 2) progressives who have steadfastly refused to organize and create a strong power base (complaining and making phone calls to Congress is nothing) that makes it’s enemies tremble just a bit.

    With those two features in place the predators are having a field day and may, idiots that they are, kill the goose that lays those golden eggs they’ve been fattening on.  

    • mplo on August 8, 2011 at 2:45 pm

    He may oppose our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, etc., but he’s got a history of being anti-choice, homophobic, and racist, as well.

Comments have been disabled.