Rand Paul blocks unanimous consent of 9/11 bill

[DaShuckster]

Holy Hypocrisy, Batman! Rand Paul blocked unanimous consent of the bill to fund 9/11 responders' health bills for the foreseeable future because -- get this -- we need to figure out how to pay for it first!!! So after Trump racks up a TRILLION DOLLAR DEFICIT, we're suddenly going to get all fiscal-conservative on the backs of our heroic 9/11 first responders.

There are times, like this one, that you can't help but utter "WTF?"

 

[Crazyhole]

Holy Hypocrisy, Batman! Rand Paul blocked unanimous consent of the bill to fund 9/11 responders' health bills for the foreseeable future because -- get this -- we need to figure out how to pay for it first!!! So after Trump racks up a TRILLION DOLLAR DEFICIT, we're suddenly going to get all fiscal-conservative on the backs of our heroic 9/11 first responders.

There are times, like this one, that you can't help but utter "WTF?"

He wants to fund it by cutting spending somewhere else. That isn't hypocrisy. You are on record saying that you are in favor of cutting spending. What's the problem?

 

[Crazyhole]

Which spending bills has he voted for prior to this one? Not very many, I know that.

 

[UCFWayne]

Which spending bills has he voted for prior to this one? Not very many, I know that.

hes been pretty consistent on not wanting to spend more money. outrage that he doesnt support another bill to increase spending!!!!11

 

[DaShuckster]

He wants to fund it by cutting spending somewhere else. That isn't hypocrisy. You are on record saying that you are in favor of cutting spending. What's the problem?

LOL Yeah, Rand Paul has suddenly 'got Federal Budget deficit fever' now that we're talking about funding our heroic 9/11 first responders who've contracted cancer and other health problems as a direct result of their selfless efforts that day.

You know where I stand on the deficit, so YES, I would happily applaud real efforts to balance our budget. But this stunt is just a grandstand play by someone who, given his constituents, isn't going to pay politically for it.

Ol' Rand had no problem increasing the debt to give the top 1% a tax break--but 9/11 responders? It's FU!

 

[Crazyhole]

LOL Yeah, Rand Paul has suddenly 'got Federal Budget deficit fever' now that we're talking about funding our heroic 9/11 first responders who've contracted cancer and other health problems as a direct result of their selfless efforts that day.

You know where I stand on the deficit, so YES, I would happily applaud real efforts to balance our budget. But this stunt is just a grandstand play by someone who, given his constituents, isn't going to pay politically for it.

Ol' Rand had no problem increasing the debt to give the top 1% a tax break--but 9/11 responders? It's FU!

This is ridiculous even for a political discussion. He just wants verification on how to pay for it and you're acting like he is evil incarnate. You want fiscal responsibility in DC but when someone asks for it you attack them.

 

[DaShuckster]

This is ridiculous even for a political discussion. He just wants verification on how to pay for it and you're acting like he is evil incarnate.

The Trump tax cut bill increased our Federal deficit by a Trillion dollars.

How did "Senator Fiscal Responsibility" vote on that bill?

 

[Crazyhole]

The Trump tax cut bill increased our Federal deficit by a Trillion dollars.

How did "Senator Fiscal Responsibility" vote on that bill?

Well, first off, the tax cut didn't increase the deficit BY a trillion dollars. But yes, he voted for a tax cut because he has always been in favor of tax cuts and cutting spending and has voted accordingly. He's one of the few people in DC who stands by his principles and you are attacking him for that.

 

[DaShuckster]

Well, first off, the tax cut didn't increase the deficit BY a trillion dollars. But yes, he voted for a tax cut because he has always been in favor of tax cuts and cutting spending and has voted accordingly. He's one of the few people in DC who stands by his principles and you are attacking him for that.

What programs did Rand Paul identify for cutting in order to pay for Trump's tax cut?

 

[Crazyhole]

What programs did Rand Paul identify for cutting in order to pay for Trump's tax cut?

Ah. Changing the subject. If you would like, I can link to many budget proposals that Rand has put forth if that helps. Suddenly now it isn't about 9/11 funding, it's about a tax cut.

 

[UCFKnight85]

Guys, tax cuts killed these first responders.

 

[DaShuckster]

Ah. Changing the subject.

I'm just pointing out Rand Paul is a hypocrite.

 

[ucfversusbcs]

The Trump tax cut bill increased our Federal deficit by a Trillion dollars.

How did "Senator Fiscal Responsibility" vote on that bill?

Crazy and the responses...struggling to keep a straight face.

 

[Crazyhole]

I'm just pointing out Rand Paul is a hypocrite.

How? When has he ever voted for a new spending bill that wasn't paid for? Are you sure you know what the word hypocrite means? Because it kind of seems like when a person claims they want to cut government spending and then gets mad that someone stops more government spending............well, you know.

 

[DaShuckster]

How? When has he ever voted for a new spending bill that wasn't paid for? Are you sure you know what the word hypocrite means? Because it kind of seems like when a person claims they want to cut government spending and then gets mad that someone stops more government spending............well, you know.

I don't recall Paul getting on the Senate floor and announcing he wanted to see where the money to pay for the tax cut was coming from before voting yes.

Gee, did I miss it?

 

[UCFWayne]

I don't recall Paul getting on the Senate floor and announcing he wanted to see where the money to pay for the tax cut was coming from before voting yes.

Gee, did I miss it?

you dont understand how taxes work do you? the tax cut simply means less comes out of peoples pay check. the gov doesnt just cut a check back to people. again they take less money from your paycheck.

i italicized the last part hoping it would help you understand more.

 

[Crazyhole]

I don't recall Paul getting on the Senate floor and announcing he wanted to see where the money to pay for the tax cut was coming from before voting yes.

Gee, did I miss it?

The money to "pay for the tax cut". This statement is borderline obscene.

When your wife retired, did you ask her how she was going to pay for her reduction in income? No, you probably asked how you were going to pay for your bills moving forward and that involves not spending as much.

 

[DaShuckster]

The money to "pay for the tax cut". This statement is borderline obscene.

We're 22 trillion dollars in debt but in our infinite wisdom, our Congress approved a tax...cut??!?!!?!?

That's not borderline obscene, that's full-fledged obscene--along with greedy and stupid.

 

[Crazyhole]

We're 22 trillion dollars in debt but in our infinite wisdom, our Congress approved a tax...cut??!?!!?!?

That's not borderline obscene, that's full-fledged obscene--along with greedy and stupid.

A "tax cut" does not equal a "revenue cut", as is evidenced by the fact that tax revenue is still increasing after the tax cut.

Do you really want to cut government spending? Because that's exactly what Rand Paul has been trying to accomplish for the better part of a decade. Or is this just a partisan deal where you want to cut the spending that the democrat party likes while increasing spending 10fold on other things?

 

[UCFWayne]

A "tax cut" does not equal a "revenue cut", as is evidenced by the fact that tax revenue is still increasing after the tax cut.

Do you really want to cut government spending? Because that's exactly what Rand Paul has been trying to accomplish for the better part of a decade. Or is this just a partisan deal where you want to cut the spending that the democrat party likes while increasing spending 10fold on other things?

he truly has no understanding of the irs, tax cuts, and tax revenue. the sad part is he thinks he does.

 

[ucfversusbcs]

I don't recall Paul getting on the Senate floor and announcing he wanted to see where the money to pay for the tax cut was coming from before voting yes.

Gee, did I miss it?

You must have read this article.

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/20...l-are-blocking-the-9-11-first-responders-bill

Lee and Paul were both "all in" and "proud" to vote for the trillion dollar GOP Tax Scam in 2017. Neither of them demanded any offset for those tax cuts, or any of the others they've voted for over the years.

Millionaires and billionaires and corporations will never have to beg Rand Paul or Mike Lee for a tax break. But they will demand the surviving 9/11 heroes grovel before them every few years in the name of fiscal responsibility.

 

[ucfversusbcs]

Apparently libertarians don't want to be bothered by any intervention.....whether its on foreign or domestic land.

 

[DaShuckster]

A "tax cut" does not equal a "revenue cut", as is evidenced by the fact that tax revenue is still increasing after the tax cut.

So you're telling us that since revenue still increased, the tax cut was 'no big deal', huh?

 

[UCFKnight85]

You must have read this article.

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/20...l-are-blocking-the-9-11-first-responders-bill

Lee and Paul were both "all in" and "proud" to vote for the trillion dollar GOP Tax Scam in 2017. Neither of them demanded any offset for those tax cuts, or any of the others they've voted for over the years.

Millionaires and billionaires and corporations will never have to beg Rand Paul or Mike Lee for a tax break. But they will demand the surviving 9/11 heroes grovel before them every few years in the name of fiscal responsibility.

lol look at this clown linking us to DailyKos!

These people cry their fuking eyes out if a Fox News article is linked, yet here they are linking us to the biggest far left hate site on the web.

Bravo!

 

[ucfversusbcs]

lol look at this clown linking us to DailyKos!

These people cry their fuking eyes out if a Fox News article is linked, yet here they are linking us to the biggest far left hate site on the web.

Bravo!

Since its you calling it out, I think its you who hates the most. Thats how this works right?

 

[Crazyhole]

So you're telling us that since revenue still increased, the tax cut was 'no big deal', huh?

Yep. Why would anyone be opposed to something that keeps more money in the hands of the people who earn it and at the same time increase tax revenue? Would you prefer that people keep less money that they have earned?

 

[sk8knight]

Guys, tax cuts killed these first responders.

No, but you could make a very good argument that a certain set of spending reductions to produce a certain President's balanced budget did.

 

[DaShuckster]

Yep. Why would anyone be opposed to something that keeps more money in the hands of the people who earn it and at the same time increase tax revenue?

So you're saying keeping the same tax rates would have resulted in less revenue than what we got??!?!?

Wow, I never realized what fiscal geniuses those Republicans were!!!

 

[Crazyhole]

So you're saying keeping the same tax rates would have resulted in less revenue than what we got??!?!?

Wow, I never realized what fiscal geniuses those Republicans were!!!

Where did I say that? Or insinuate it? If you would like to have a discussion about how tax rates affect revenue or argue the merits of the Laffer curve we can do that, but this topic is about spending and whether or not Rand Paul is a hypocrite for voting against yet another spending bill.

 

[DaShuckster]

Where did I say that? Or insinuate it? … this topic is about spending and whether or not Rand Paul is a hypocrite for voting against yet another spending bill.

You said Rand Paul is all about lowering the deficit yet he voted for a tax bill that lowered the amount of revenue that we would take in. YES, the revenue we actually brought in increased, but not nearly as much as would have been the case.

The very notion that we're serious about deficit reductions when we deliberately place restrictions on our revenue is ridiculous.

 

[UCFWayne]

i dont personally like that rand voted no on this bill. i think this was one of the few times he shouldve voted for more spending. i think it really makes him look bad. that said, he has a long history of voting against spending. i dont know how you can argue otherwise.

i mean unless your and old man pissed off at all things conservative. maybe flush the sand out of your vag.

 

[UCFKnight85]

We cut individual taxes and revenues went up to record levels. Must be magic.

 

[ucfversusbcs]

We cut individual taxes and revenues went up to record levels. Must be magic.

White supremacy can't help themselves.

https://www.politifact.com/punditfa...-have-record-tax-haul-after-trump-tax-cuts-s/

Our ruling

Patriot News Alerts said, "U.S. government reports record tax haul after Trump tax cuts spur economic growth."

One notable category of tax receipts, individual income taxes, did rise in fiscal 2018, and total tax receipts rose by a smaller amount. But the closer you look, the less meaningful these statistics become.

In particular, the data doesn’t provide support for the idea that the Trump tax bill juiced tax collections. If you drill down further to periods when the new tax law was in effect, individual income tax receipts actually fell compared to 2017.

We rate the statement Mostly False.

 

[UCFKnight85]

White supremacy can't help themselves.

https://www.politifact.com/punditfa...-have-record-tax-haul-after-trump-tax-cuts-s/

Our ruling

Patriot News Alerts said, "U.S. government reports record tax haul after Trump tax cuts spur economic growth."

One notable category of tax receipts, individual income taxes, did rise in fiscal 2018, and total tax receipts rose by a smaller amount. But the closer you look, the less meaningful these statistics become.

In particular, the data doesn’t provide support for the idea that the Trump tax bill juiced tax collections. If you drill down further to periods when the new tax law was in effect, individual income tax receipts actually fell compared to 2017.

We rate the statement Mostly False.

lol you have to love PolitiFact. They came across a fact that they didn't like, such as revenues clearly grew in 2018, so they just twisted around the context to fit a narrative that they wanted to portray.

This organization has been called out before for hilariously partisan shit being paraded as "fact checking".

 

[DaShuckster]

We cut individual taxes and revenues went up to record levels.

Listen up, people! Given the wisdom of our WC Conservative Think Tank, you can cut the percentage of money you're putting into retirement and -- WHOLA! -- you'll magically see your retirement revenues going UP!!

Screw any side-by-side comparison with the higher set-aside percentage you used to invest 'cause the bottom line is that your revenue is increasing, baby!!! Whoo-hoo!!!

 

[ucfversusbcs]

lol you have to love PolitiFact. They came across a fact that they didn't like, such as revenues clearly grew in 2018, so they just twisted around the context to fit a narrative that they wanted to portray.

This organization has been called out before for hilariously partisan shit being paraded as "fact checking".

https://www.politifact.com/new-jers...l-group-claims-mitt-romney-dick-cheney-donal/

They got a pants on fire. I'd say you're the bias one for even thinking that.

"Q: What do these ‘Patriotic' Americans have in common? A: They are all Draft Dodgers."
— Liberals Are Cool on Sunday, March 17th, 2013 in an Internet meme

Liberal group claims Mitt Romney, Dick Cheney, Donald Trump, others are draft dodgers

 

[Crazyhole]

You said Rand Paul is all about lowering the deficit yet he voted for a tax bill that lowered the amount of revenue that we would take in. YES, the revenue we actually brought in increased, but not nearly as much as would have been the case.

The very notion that we're serious about deficit reductions when we deliberately place restrictions on our revenue is ridiculous.

Please cite where I said that. Rand is all about cutting spending, full stop. You have also said you are for cutting spending. Why is it unreasonable for him to suggest cutting spending elsewhere to fund this when by your own admission there are places that we can cut spending? You are being very hypocritical here.

 

[DaShuckster]

Please cite where I said that. Rand is all about cutting spending, full stop. You have also said you are for cutting spending. Why is it unreasonable for him to suggest cutting spending

Because it's typical Republican hypocritical bullshit.

When THEY want to spend our money, it's go for it, baby!!! Make America GREAT again!

When they are against it, it's where's the money coming from?

Pardon me if I find this tactic used on a 9/11 first responder health bill to be repugnant.

 

[UCFWayne]

Please cite where I said that. Rand is all about cutting spending, full stop. You have also said you are for cutting spending. Why is it unreasonable for him to suggest cutting spending elsewhere to fund this when by your own admission there are places that we can cut spending? You are being very hypocritical here.

the real question is, when is he not being very hypocritical?

 

[Crazyhole]

Because it's typical Republican hypocritical bullshit.

When THEY want to spend our money, it's go for it, baby!!! Make America GREAT again!

When they are against it, it's where's the money coming from?

Pardon me if I find this tactic used on a 9/11 first responder health bill to be repugnant.

You're dodging questions again. Do you think they can find a place to cut spending to fund this? If so, shouldn't they?