ADVERTISEMENT

Rand Paul blocks unanimous consent of 9/11 bill

Crazyhole said:
You're dodging questions again. Do you think they can find a place to cut spending to fund this? If so, shouldn't they?
Click to expand...
You already know my opinion on this. Of course they should. But you also know that's not the way Washington operates.

This is simply Rand Paul Grandstanding at its finest.
 
DaShuckster said:
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?
Click to expand...

A tax cut is the gov't taking a smaller portion of what belongs to us Americans, I for one don't believe crooked politicians have rights to all the $$ they want. That has 0 to do with controlling spending. Unless you believe all $$ belongs to the Federal Gov't and we only have rights to whatever pittance they let us keep.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UCFWayne
goodknightfl said:
Unless you believe all $$ belongs to the Federal Gov't and we only have rights to whatever pittance they let us keep.
Click to expand...
Does our multi-trillion dollar deficit belong to us, our children and grandchildren? Or can we continue to just ignore it?
 
DaShuckster said:
You already know my opinion on this. Of course they should. But you also know that's not the way Washington operates.

This is simply Rand Paul Grandstanding at its finest.
Click to expand...
Oh please. He took a position that was highly unpopular. Yeah, typical grandstanding.

And no I actually don't know your opinion on the budget now. You've claimed that you want to cut spending but here you are attacking a guy for asking that a new spending bill be budget neutral, and after asking several times where you can indentify places to cut you go off on tax Cuts. Seriously, pick a lane. Either you want to cut spending or you don't. Which is it?
 
Crazyhole said:
Oh please. He took a position that was highly unpopular. Yeah, typical grandstanding.
Click to expand...
We're talking about him, right?

Balancing the budget and addressing the deficit is going to require a concerted effort on the part of the President and both sides of the aisle. We DO need to ask 'how are we going to pay for stuff?' But you know, I know, and Rand Paul knows that ZIPPO is going to be done now, other than stall the bill for a news cycle.

I predict we won't hear any real discussion again about the deficit until we have a Democrat President again in 2021. You can bet that when that happens, Congressional Republicans will suddenly get "Federal Budget reduction religion" again.
 
DaShuckster said:
We're talking about him, right?

Balancing the budget and addressing the deficit is going to require a concerted effort on the part of the President and both sides of the aisle. We DO need to ask 'how are we going to pay for stuff?' But you know, I know, and Rand Paul knows that ZIPPO is going to be done now, other than stall the bill for a news cycle.

I predict we won't hear any real discussion again about the deficit until we have a Democrat President again in 2021. You can bet that when that happens, Congressional Republicans will suddenly get "Federal Budget reduction religion" again.
Click to expand...

[roll]

You mean one of the DNC candidates all promising the spend ungodly sums of money in the spirit of Free Shit? The people pushing MFA that requires $4-5T in additional spending annually?

[roll]

Sure they’ll really be the people talking about deficits. LOL
 
  • Like
Reactions: UCFWayne
DaShuckster said:
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!!!
Click to expand...
You have to know why this analogy doesn’t fit. I mean, at your age, I’m sure that you had to take economics in high school. You have to know the differences between individual investment and a national economy.
 
DaShuckster said:
We're talking about him, right?

Balancing the budget and addressing the deficit is going to require a concerted effort on the part of the President and both sides of the aisle. We DO need to ask 'how are we going to pay for stuff?' But you know, I know, and Rand Paul knows that ZIPPO is going to be done now, other than stall the bill for a news cycle.

I predict we won't hear any real discussion again about the deficit until we have a Democrat President again in 2021. You can bet that when that happens, Congressional Republicans will suddenly get "Federal Budget reduction religion" again.
Click to expand...
Seriously, why can you not answer a question? All of your posts in this thread are ad hominem and you continually are changing the topic of conversation to fit your confirmation bias once again. You started this thread and it was directly pointed at Rand Paul. Now you are pivoting and laying the blame at all of Congress, the Senate, and the president. Its a total copout to exit the discussion.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ucfmikes
DaShuckster said:
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?"
Click to expand...
Scum of the earth....RAND PAUL
 
DaShuckster said:
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.
Click to expand...
that's the definition of replublican....HYPOCRITES
 
Cut spending:. Rand and Shuck agree

Non-intervention: Rand and Shuck agree

Criminal reform:. Rand and Shuck agree

NSA spying:. Rand and Shuck agree

Monetary policy:. Rand and Shuck agree

Military spending:. Rand and Shuck agree

Civil rights:. Rand and Shuck agree


Still trying to figure out why this thread was created and what makes one of them a hypocrite and the other one not.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ucfmikes and UCFWayne
Crazyhole said:
Cut spending:. Rand and Shuck agree

Non-intervention: Rand and Shuck agree

Criminal reform:. Rand and Shuck agree

NSA spying:. Rand and Shuck agree

Monetary policy:. Rand and Shuck agree

Military spending:. Rand and Shuck agree

Civil rights:. Rand and Shuck agree


Still trying to figure out why this thread was created and what makes one of them a hypocrite and the other one not.
Click to expand...
i dont believe shook actually agrees with rand on those. its clear shook is a blue hat wearing democrat.
 
Shuck says that he was a Reagan republican. That means he was in favor of tax cuts and Milton Friedman's free market policies.

I would think that Rand Paul is exactly what he wants people in Washington to be.
 
DaShuckster said:
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?"
Click to expand...
ANOTHER RETARDPLICAN PSYCHO
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT
Top Bottom
Back