Why is the redistribution of wealth from the middle class and lower income people to the richest Americans, through "Supply Side Economics, okay but when you want to end the bush "temporary" tax cuts it is suddenly class warfare and Marxism?

other than the Fed and the Wars he has consistently voted with the GOP block he is just ANOTHER NO IN THE PARTY OF NO

Ron Paul would watch America burn as he dismantles the government. He would allow corporations to do whatever they want in a totally unregulated market with zero accountability. He would eliminate the federal agencies that help and protect Americans. He doesn’t care about the middle class. He doesn’t care about kids. And he certainly doesn’t care about the well being of the country. Electing Ron Paul to the Presidency would be one of the biggest mistakes in the history of American elections. You can bet that what he does as President will mirror his long career in the House of Representatives. Ron Paul is not the man Americans need to occupy the White House.

The Candidate Of ‘NO’: Legislation Ron Paul Has Voted Against
December 7, 2011
By Stephen D. Foster Jr.

Ron Paul is one of those politicians who says no for a living. As a representative of Texas, Paul has surprisingly voted against quite a few pieces of legislation that would shock many Americans. Paul has tried to sell himself as a defender of American liberty and freedom, but unfortunately, his decisions often go against what the people want and need and against all moral conscience. Considering the seriousness of the problems Americans face, you would think Ron Paul would say yes more often. But he has voted against so many bills that he was dubbed “Dr. No” by his congressional colleagues in 2007. Here are some of the many bills Ron Paul has voted against.

1. In July 2009, Paul voted NO on $192B in additional stimulus spending to be used for aiding the economy. Apparently Paul wanted the economy to fail.

2. In March 2009, Paul voted NO on modifying bankruptcy rules to avoid mortgage foreclosures. That’s right, Paul is completely fine with banks taking homes away from innocent people who were thrust into poverty by the banks in the first place.

3. In January 2009, Paul voted NO on an additional $825B for the economic recovery package. Paul apparently didn’t care about the failing economy and decided to sit on his hands.

4. In January 2009, Paul also voted NO on monitoring TARP funds to ensure more mortgage relief. Paul doesn’t give a damn about struggling homeowners.

5. In December 2008, Paul voted NO on the $15B bailout for GM and Chrysler. If Paul had his way, the American auto industry would no longer exist, and millions of Americans would be jobless.

6. In September 2008, Paul voted NO on a $60B stimulus package for jobs, infrastructure, and energy, demonstrating once again that Paul doesn’t care about America and the people.

7. In July 2009, Paul voted NO on letting shareholders vote on executive compensation. Apparently Paul has no problem assisting the greedy corporate bastards of Wall Street while ordinary Americans suffer. Paul voted the same way when a similar bill came up for a vote in 2007, just before those same executives crashed the economy with their greed.

8. In April 2009, Paul voted NO on enforcing against anti-gay hate crimes. Paul hates the LGBT community and civil rights. And apparently he supports hate crimes.

9. In May 2009, Paul voted NO on $40B for green public schools. Not only does this show Paul’s unwillingness to help rebuild American infrastructure, it demonstrates his disdain for energy efficiency that would help put his Koch pals out of business.

10. In June 2009, Paul voted NO on enforcing limits on CO2 global warming pollution. Paul must really love the Koch brothers, and pollution.

11. In September 2008, Paul voted NO on tax credits for renewable electricity, demonstrating again that Paul is the lackey of big oil and big coal.

12. In May 2008, Paul voted NO on tax incentives for energy production and conservation. Considering America has an energy crisis, you would think Paul would be all for saving energy but that wouldn’t help the Kochs’ profits very much.

13. In February 2008, Paul voted NO on tax incentives for renewable energy. Of course he voted against them. Helping his Koch buddies is more important to Paul than an energy independent America.

14. In May 2007, Paul voted NO on criminalizing oil cartels like OPEC. Of course he did. Texas politicians love Middle Eastern oil.

15. In January 2007, Paul voted NO on removing oil and gas exploration subsidies. This shows how biased Paul is when it comes to energy. He votes against tax incentives for renewable energy companies but refuses to take billions of taxpayer dollars away from big oil. The Kochs must be so proud.

16. In June 2006, Paul voted NO on keeping the moratorium on drilling for oil offshore. Just a couple years later, an offshore oil rig exploded in the Gulf, causing a massive spill that severely affected the economy of the Gulf coast. Once again, the Kochs must be so proud of their little Ronny.

17. In August 2001, Paul voted NO on prohibiting oil drilling & development in ANWR. Barry Goldwater would slap Paul for this vote. Goldwater cared about the environment, unlike Paul, who only strives to please his oil industry masters.

18. In June 2000, Paul voted NO on starting implementation of Kyoto Protocol, demonstrating just how much Paul hates the earth.

19. In June 2008, Paul voted NO on $9.7B for Amtrak improvements and operation through 2013. See, Paul really doesn’t care about infrastructure in America.

20. In June 2006, Paul voted NO on increasing Amtrak funding by adding $214M to $900M. Apparently Paul has never cared about infrastructure. If America were on fire he’d gleefully watch it burn from a White House window.

21. In June 2009, Paul voted NO on four weeks of paid parental leave for federal employees. So much for family values. Paul doesn’t even want to allow employees to spend time with their newborns.

22. In April 2003, Paul voted NO on establishing nationwide AMBER alert system for missing kids. Apparently missing kids are of no concern to Ron Paul. I can see the endorsements now. ‘Pedophiles for Ron Paul!’

23. In November 2007, Paul voted NO on $23B for waterway infrastructure. Who cares if America crumbles? Not Ron Paul.

24. In May 2007, Paul voted NO on requiring lobbyist disclosure of bundled donations. Paul is pro-lobbyist. Ever wonder how much they pay him to vote their way?

25. In April 2007, Paul voted NO on granting Washington DC an Electoral vote and a vote in Congress. Ron Paul is against fair representation. Who knew?

26. In April 2009, Paul voted NO on regulating tobacco as a drug. Now we know another lobby that pays Paul.

27. In January 2009, Paul voted NO on expanding the Children’s Health Insurance Program. So Paul doesn’t care if your child goes missing, and he doesn’t care if your child is sick or hurt either. Prick.

28. In July 2008, Paul voted NO on an overriding veto on expansion of Medicare. And he has the nerve to call himself a doctor. Without Medicare, seniors wouldn’t be able to afford health care.

29. In March 2008, Paul voted NO on giving mental health full equity with physical health. Seriously, Ron Paul is one sorry excuse for a doctor. Probably why he ran for Congress.

30. In January 2008, Paul voted NO on extending SCHIP to cover 6 million more kids. Once again, Paul shows how little he cares about children. He has no problem voting for bills that protect fetuses, but once they are born, Paul becomes a heartless monster. He voted similarly in 2007.

31. In March 2008, Paul voted NO on requiring FISA warrants for wiretaps in the US, but not abroad. In other words, Paul has no problem suspending the Constitution in America but is concerned about the rights of terrorists abroad.

32. In October 2008, Paul voted NO on extending unemployment benefits from 39 weeks to 59 weeks. Ron Paul obviously loves corporate executives and hates the unemployed even though those same corporate execs were the ones who fired the unemployed in the first place out of greed.

33. In March 2007, Paul voted NO on restricting employer interference in union organizing. In other words, Paul completely supports employer efforts to sabotage and break up unions.

34. In January 2007, Paul voted NO on increasing minimum wage to $7.25. So he is fine with corporate execs making billions off the backs of their employees, but he has a problem with the rest of us making a decent living.

35. In May 1999, Paul voted NO on strengthening the Social Security Lockbox. The man who preaches about government responsibility is against keeping politicians from taking money from the Social Security fund for other uses. In other words, he calls legal taxation ‘theft,’ but approves of real theft of retirement money from hard working Americans.

Ron Paul would watch America burn as he dismantles the government. He would allow corporations to do whatever they want in a totally unregulated market with zero accountability. He would eliminate the federal agencies that help and protect Americans. He doesn’t care about the middle class. He doesn’t care about kids. And he certainly doesn’t care about the well being of the country. Electing Ron Paul to the Presidency would be one of the biggest mistakes in the history of American elections. You can bet that what he does as President will mirror his long career in the House of Representatives. Ron Paul is not the man Americans need to occupy the White House.

Ron Paul cares a great deal about the well being of the country. And he's a man who recognizes that the government is NOT the solution to our problems. You're a tool who is doing nothing more than parroting the words of other people which you can't even understand. He votes no on stimulus packages and government regulations and minimum wage hikes! Oh no! Try this on for size...he votes no on things which increase the authority and power of the federal government, because that authority and power are not within the scope of powers that the Constitution allows the government to have. Wake the frak up.

Government spending does not fix the economy. In order for the government to spend anything, it has to take that money away from you and me and the PRODUCERS. Government produces nothing, and its spending therefore also does nothing to produce anything which adds to the value of the economy. The economy only GROWS when value is ADDED to it.

It is not the job of the government to give people things for free. Why the hell should someone get paid to take a month off to "spend time with the baby?" Responsible people who decide to have children and want to take that kind of time off have done this little thing called SAVING in order to be able to afford to do so. Infrastructure? Yeah, that's not a FEDERAL power, that is a STATE concern. Oh, and speaking of States....the District of Columbia is not a State. It doesn't get a seat in Congress or an Electoral vote because...it isn't a State! It was very specifically created to NOT be a State, in fact.

Unemployment benefits are already WAY above and beyond reasonable limits. If you need two fraking YEARS to find a job, then you're doing it WRONG. I don't really give a flying rat's ass if you can only find a job that pays half of what your last job paid. You take what you can fraking get. And if you have to readjust and downgrade your lifestyle because you can't afford to continue living the way you used to....too damn bad. Suck it up and do it. It's not the job of the federal government to spend taxpayer money on letting you sit around on your ass for 2 years being picky about what job you're willing to deign to take.

Don't even get me started on unions. Again, it's not the job or business of the federal government to interfere in the business of private businesses. If an employer doesn't want unions, they don't have to have unions. But I doubt your little socialist mind can grasp the concept of people being free to do business with whom they want without your meddling.

Ahh, minimum wage. Do you have any idea how much of a destructive influence on the economy and standard of living that monstrosity is? I doubt you do. Raising the minimum wage results in one thing, and only one thing: inflation. Minimum wage goes up, prices go up, and the purchasing power of all those people who just got a pay raise remains exactly the same. Only now, all of the people who formerly had been making more than minimum wage and who are still making the same per hour that they were before the minimum wage increase are having to pay the increased prices caused by the wage increase. So their purchasing power has become LESS than what it had been. The result is that no one's standard of living has improved, and a whole lot more people have had their standard of living reduced. This does not HELP people, it only puts MORE people into or closer to being in POVERTY. NO ONE who cares about the well being of people in this country votes for increasing minimum wage. Only politicians who care about buying poor people's votes increase the minimum wage....because they can count on idiots like you to not understand the actual economic effects of that increase, and only care about "ooohh, look, I have more money!"

Medicare...ahh yes, that wonderful program which is the only reason why seniors can afford medical care. Another absolute load of bullsh*t. You want to know what Medicare and Medicaid have done, from someone who actually works in the industry? I'll tell you. Medicare pays less than half of medical expenses and forces providers to write off the rest (and Medicaid pays even less then Medicare). I can right now print and personally hold in my hand a bill for a surgery where the doctor actually had to pay to do surgery on someone, because the amount that Medicare paid was less than the costs the doctor had to pay in order to perform said surgery. Was the doctor allowed to bill the patient for the remainder? Nope...Medicare required that the whole amount be written off. When is the last time that you paid your boss to work for him? Yeah, that's what I thought. When health care providers are being forced to eat losses like that, they have to make up the difference somewhere or else go out of business. They make up those differences by increasing what they charge. And they can't just increase what they charge to Medicare patients only....nope, they have to increase their rates for EVERYONE. THAT is what has inflated the cost of health care in this country to the point where it's all but unaffordable. Maybe if we'd had more Ron Paul's in office when this crap was originally being voted on we wouldn't be stuck in the mess we are today.

You very clearly have no idea what any of the things that Dr. Paul has voted no on actually mean. All you are capable of doing is seeing "Paul voted no on X....that means he doesn't want people to have X!" No, what that means is that he understands that it isn't the job of the federal government to provide you with X. If you want X, then YOU need to provide X for yourself. The government is not your godsdamned nanny...it is not there to take care of you. That's your job.