• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Rand Paul blocks vote on bill to aid 9/11 first responders

JANFU

JANFU

Land by the Gulf Stream
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Dec 27, 2014
Messages
59,355
Reaction score
38,900
Location
Best Coast Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Rand Paul blocks vote on bill to aid 9/11 first responders - CBS News

Sen. Rand Paul blocked a vote to permanently reauthorize the 9/11 Victims Compensation Fund, which provides financial assistance for first responders suffering from 9/11-related medical issues. Paul prevented the Senate from voting to approve the bill through unanimous consent because of its cost.

"It has long been my feeling that we need to address our massive debt in the country," Paul, a Republican from Kentucky, said on the Senate floor. "And therefore any new spending ... should be offset by cutting spending that's less valuable. We need to at the very least have this debate."
Click to expand...

He never thought that when he voted for the Tax cuts that caused the deficit to explode.

Link to where he voted yes

Now Republicans are concerned over the deficit, yet again

How Every Senator Voted on the Tax Bill - The New York Times
 
People bitch when they spend money and when they don't!

I think he should have supported the bill. Actually the bill can be brought up for a normal vote of the full Senate.

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand of New York, who introduced the measure for unanimous consent Wednesday, said that she was "deeply disappointed" by Paul's actions. Under Senate rules, any one senator can propose that a bill be considered for unanimous consent, but one senator can also block it. The bill can still be brought to the floor for debate and a full vote.
 
Where is that neighbor of his when he is needed?!

:mrgreen:
 
Carleen said:
I wouldn’t put it past McConnell to have something to do with Paul’s vote. McConnell bowed to pressure for this vote but he certainly did not defend it.
Click to expand...

Paul switched to a rabid Trump supporter some time ago, that said, could be you are correct
If Trump had supported it publicly, Paul would have in all probability voted yes. Just what I think now
 
JANFU said:
Rand Paul blocks vote on bill to aid 9/11 first responders - CBS News



He never thought that when he voted for the Tax cuts that caused the deficit to explode.

Link to where he voted yes

Now Republicans are concerned over the deficit, yet again

How Every Senator Voted on the Tax Bill - The New York Times
Click to expand...

Of all the things to block. And to do it because of deficits, which that miserable bastard voted to increase to over 1 trillion yearly in a good economy.

May he burn in hell.
 
Common Sense 1 said:
People bitch when they spend money and when they don't!

I think he should have supported the bill. Actually the bill can be brought up for a normal vote of the full Senate.

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand of New York, who introduced the measure for unanimous consent Wednesday, said that she was "deeply disappointed" by Paul's actions. Under Senate rules, any one senator can propose that a bill be considered for unanimous consent, but one senator can also block it. The bill can still be brought to the floor for debate and a full vote.
Click to expand...

Because every dollar spent is identical even though said dollars are spent on extremely different things?

:doh
 
JANFU said:
Paul switched to a rabid Trump supporter some time ago, that said, could be you are correct
If Trump had supported it publicly, Paul would have in all probability voted yes. Just what I think now
Click to expand...

Rand Paul has been pretty consistent when it comes to offsetting new spending by cutting old spending. I think he could have let it slide in this case. Not the time to stand on your soapbox.
 
Mr Person said:
Because every dollar spent is identical even though said dollars are spent on extremely different things?

:doh
Click to expand...

The bill can now be brought up for a normal vote? It failed unanimous consent!
 
Common Sense 1 said:
The bill can now be brought up for a normal vote? It failed unanimous consent!
Click to expand...

Completely irrelevant to my point: recipients of spending are not fungible.

Your generic line "People bitch when they spend money and when they don't!" completely and deliberately ignores the fact that people "bitch" when they spend money on things said people don't like or when they don't spend money on something said people like. It's not some kind of special hypocrisy to value some kinds of spending and not other kinds of spending.
 
Mr Person said:
Completely irrelevant to my point: recipients of spending are not fungible.

Your generic line "People bitch when they spend money and when they don't!" completely and deliberately ignores the fact that people "bitch" when they spend money on things said people don't like or when they don't spend money on something said people like. It's not some kind of special hypocrisy to value some kinds of spending and not other kinds of spending.
Click to expand...

Fine....

The bill will be brought for a normal vote and pass! Our 9/11 first responders deserve that.
 
Chaddelamancha said:
Rand Paul has been pretty consistent when it comes to offsetting new spending by cutting old spending. I think he could have let it slide in this case. Not the time to stand on your soapbox.
Click to expand...

And when it came to the tax bill he voted yes. That single act sent his consistency out the door
 
apdst said:
Tax cuts don't raise a deficite. Y'all need to look up the word deficite and stop pushing that erroneous claim.
Click to expand...

I've read economists who say that a tax cut is functionally equivalent to new government spending, and certainly new government spending can create\worsen a deficit.

Certainly it makes sense in my layperson's mind that reducing your income isn't going to help you pay the bills.

So help me understand what we're missing.
 
Chaddelamancha said:
Rand Paul has been pretty consistent when it comes to offsetting new spending by cutting old spending. I think he could have let it slide in this case. Not the time to stand on your soapbox.
Click to expand...

That sounds highly hypocritical. I can think of many things that could be cut instead, such as reversing the vast increase in spending for the military for one.
 
Ah, the deficit hawks. Suggest another round of tax cuts for the wealthy and corporate america and see how he votes.
 
JANFU said:
Rand Paul blocks vote on bill to aid 9/11 first responders - CBS News



He never thought that when he voted for the Tax cuts that caused the deficit to explode.

Link to where he voted yes

Now Republicans are concerned over the deficit, yet again

How Every Senator Voted on the Tax Bill - The New York Times
Click to expand...

I don't agree with Rand Paul not voting for the 911 bill but I understand his stance on how to pay for this, a sum of over 70 billion over 7 decades. At some point we have to balance spending with revenue.
 
WillyPete said:
I've read economists who say that a tax cut is functionally equivalent to new government spending, and certainly new government spending can create\worsen a deficit.

Certainly it makes sense in my layperson's mind that reducing your income isn't going to help you pay the bills.

So help me understand what we're missing.
Click to expand...

Those economists are full of ****. They need to go get their money back from whatever college they got their degree from.

Not only that, there's no way the tax cut effected this year's deficit, since the revenue collected under the new law won't be collected until next year.
 
RAMOSS said:
That sounds highly hypocritical. I can think of many things that could be cut instead, such as reversing the vast increase in spending for the military for one.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree, but I think that there is a time and a place for this argument and it is my belief that this isn't one of them.
 
Chaddelamancha said:
I don't disagree, but I think that there is a time and a place for this argument and it is my belief that this isn't one of them.
Click to expand...

And, I disagree. If we can't take care of the people who sacrificed their health and well being in the service to others, we are bankrupt morally.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom