Rand Paul (R-KY) has blocked attempted extension of 9/11 Victim Compensation Fund

[GMDino]

NOTE: Rand Paul voted for a $1 trillion tax cut for corporations without any spending offsets https://t.co/F7HtMC4LTf

— Judd Legum (@JuddLegum) July 17, 2019

 

[Belsnickel]

[jj22]

And the women they claim is "Anti America" is the one trying to help these folks.

Yea you heard right. Trump supporters/defenders want to sell us that the lady who is trying to get the first responders some help is Anti American, and the man who is denying them the help is the ideal American.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/washington-secrets/rand-paul-omar-deserves-rebuke-over-trying-to-say-we-have-a-rotten-country?fbclid=IwAR1LxHYOev1MEalFPHiNPBUG5J-8K72xI-cSIVEGrKBz_W1xjz1P6aEpGqA

If Americans don't step up soon to fight this and quit making excuses for it, I'm not sure we'll recover in the next decade. It's gotten that bad.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

The real question, which wasn't addressed in the very informative OP, is why he did so?  Was there a poison pill attached to it he objected to?

[Belsnickel]

(07-17-2019, 06:16 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: The real question, which wasn't addressed in the very informative OP, is why he did so?  Was there a poison pill attached to it he objected to?

He is asking for an amendment to offset the costs.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(07-17-2019, 07:14 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: He is asking for an amendment to offset the costs.

Yeah, I just read an article on The Hill about it.

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/453519-rand-paul-blocks-senate-vote-on-9-11-victim-compensation-fund

I am aware this type of move is typical for him, but is the OP correct in asserting he's increased spending without offsetting cuts in the past?  Paul's not a stupid guy, he knows the optics on this one are bad.  If he's being inconsistent on that principle he's going to be rightly raked over the coals and he'd have to know that.

[Belsnickel]

(07-17-2019, 09:18 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Yeah, I just read an article on The Hill about it.

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/453519-rand-paul-blocks-senate-vote-on-9-11-victim-compensation-fund

I am aware this type of move is typical for him, but is the OP correct in asserting he's increased spending without offsetting cuts in the past?  Paul's not a stupid guy, he knows the optics on this one are bad.  If he's being inconsistent on that principle he's going to be rightly raked over the coals and he'd have to know that.

What the OP is pointing out is that Paul voted for the tax cuts, which significantly decreased revenue, without offsetting that decrease in revenue with a decrease in spending. The implication being that Paul is only concerned about the deficit/debt when it benefits him.

I don't see Paul's voting as a concern about the deficit, but more about just an overall decrease in the size of government. He dislikes any increase in spending because it increases the size of government, not because of the deficit. That is where a lot of folks tend to misjudge Paul.

[GMDino]

(07-18-2019, 08:41 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: What the OP is pointing out is that Paul voted for the tax cuts, which significantly decreased revenue, without offsetting that decrease in revenue with a decrease in spending. The implication being that Paul is only concerned about the deficit/debt when it benefits him.

I don't see Paul's voting as a concern about the deficit, but more about just an overall decrease in the size of government. He dislikes any increase in spending because it increases the size of government, not because of the deficit. That is where a lot of folks tend to misjudge Paul.

If he doesn't want government to "increase" what does he have against renewing a program that was already in existence?

You'd think an eye doctor (technically) would understand optics.

[CJD]

I think it makes sense that Paul voted for the tax cut. Libertarians believe in low taxes. I think it also makes sense that Paul would vote against a compensation fund for victims. Libertarians are against socialism which is when the government pays for something (I think that's the definition. Maybe we can get an expert to weigh in on that.)

Doesn't make him any less of an asshole. The way he framed it, as a way to reduce our debt, was disingenuous. He just wants the Government to sit there and do nothing for a living. Collect no taxes, pay nothing to anyone and let the market corrupt itself free from moderation of any kind. The reduction in debt that would theoretically occur is just a byproduct of the Government doing nothing.

It's such a bizarre ideology...

[GMDino]

(07-18-2019, 08:57 AM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: I think it makes sense that Paul voted for the tax cut. Libertarians believe in low taxes. I think it also makes sense that Paul would vote against a compensation fund for victims. Libertarians are against "socialism" which is when the government pays for something (I think that's the definition. Maybe we can get an expert to weigh in on that.)

Doesn't make him any less of an asshole. The way he framed it, as a way to reduce our debt, was disingenuous. He just wants the Government to sit there and do nothing for a living. Collect no taxes, pay nothing to anyone and let the market corrupt itself free from moderation of any kind. The reduction in debt that would theoretically occur is just a byproduct of the Government doing nothing.

It's such a bizarre ideology...

And he wants to get paid for it....

[GMDino]

There is never, ever a bottom.

Now begins the great multi-phase conservative media defense shield.

"He never said that."

"He said that but he meant something else."

"He did it to pwn the libs.

"Trump was at ground zero and personally rescued thousands." https://t.co/qBpeV9s4Ag

— Rick Wilson (@TheRickWilson) July 29, 2019

 

[BmorePat87]

(07-29-2019, 02:03 PM)GMDino Wrote:

There is never, ever a bottom.

Now begins the great multi-phase conservative media defense shield.

"He never said that."

"He said that but he meant something else."

"He did it to pwn the libs.

"Trump was at ground zero and personally rescued thousands." https://t.co/qBpeV9s4Ag

— Rick Wilson (@TheRickWilson) July 29, 2019

 

He has a troubled history regarding 9/11, but like everything that would instantly ruin a politician's career, it won't make a dent on his. 

He said he hired hundreds of people to help after 9/11 but there's no evidence of that. He bragged about his building now being the tallest in NY days after. He said there were Muslims cheering on rooftops but no accounts of that exists. 

[CJD]

(07-29-2019, 04:07 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: He has a troubled history regarding 9/11, but like everything that would instantly ruin a politician's career, it won't make a dent on his. 

He said he hired hundreds of people to help after 9/11 but there's no evidence of that. He bragged about his building now being the tallest in NY days after. He said there were Muslims cheering on rooftops but no accounts of that exists. 

I've always found that whole thing about Muslims cheering to be absolutely bizarre.

The implications of believing that are truly phenomenal. Like...in order for that to be the case, that means that those Muslims that were celebrating had to know that the people who attacked the World Trade Center were Islamic extremists. It certainly wasn't known immediately after the attack who did it. At least not to the common citizen.

This was in 2001, so there was barely any internet for people to connect all around the world so...how would the terrorists get the message out to all the regular Muslims in America that they were going to plan this attack?

And if they did find a way to alert all the Muslims, such that there could be celebrations on the roofs of buildings following the attack, how did the CIA not intercept that information and prevent the attack somehow?

And if those Muslims were celebrating, does that make them terrorists? Are there just a ton of terrorists that are just walking around America day in and day out who have not committed any acts of terrorism in the last 18 years? Or were these celebrating terrorists the parents of Rizwan Farook, Omar Mateen, maybe the Tsarnaev brothers? As the "best" case scenario of where all these terrorists disappeared to following 9/11?

The degree to which you have to stretch your own perception of reality in order to even conclude that this story is possible, let alone likely, is almost unfathomable.

[*bfine32*]

In other news I hear Trump signed a bill funding the compensation program through 2092
https://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2019/07/29/Trump-signs-extension-to-cover-911-fund-through-2092/4631564402254/

[GMDino]

(07-29-2019, 04:57 PM)bfine32 Wrote: In other news I hear Trump signed a bill funding the compensation program through 2092
https://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2019/07/29/Trump-signs-extension-to-cover-911-fund-through-2092/4631564402254/

Again, good for him for signing something that makes sense but that good people still had to fight to get passed that I don't think he ever mentioned before today.

At least he was able to make a photo op out of it for himself.

[*bfine32*]

(07-29-2019, 05:03 PM)GMDino Wrote: Again, good for him for signing something that makes sense but that good people still had to fight to get passed that I don't think he ever mentioned before today.

At least he was able to make a photo op out of it for himself.

Well we can all be glad they'll never have to fight for it again.