Rand Paul blocks Senate from approving 9/11 victim compensation fund

  
Via:  john-russell  •  5 months ago  •  69 comments

Rand Paul blocks Senate from approving 9/11 victim compensation fund
Paul objected, pointing to the country's growing debt and arguing that any new spending should be offset by cuts to other spending.  "It has long been my feeling that we need to address our massive debt in the country," he said. "And therefore any new spending …  should be offset by cutting spending that's less valuable.

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T


Rand Paul blocks Senate from approving 9/11 victim compensation fund

Sen.  Rand Paul  (R-Ky.) on Wednesday blocked an attempt by Democrats to pass an extension of the September 11th Victim Compensation Fund. 

Sen.  Kirsten Gillibrand  (D-N.Y.) tried to win the Senate's consent to approve the House-passed bill, which would reauthorize funding until fiscal year 2090. The bill  cleared the House  in a 402-12 vote last week. 

 

But Paul objected, pointing to the country's growing debt and arguing that any new spending should be offset by cuts to other spending. 

 


"It has long been my feeling that we need to address our massive debt in the country," he said. "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."

 

He added that if the House bill was brought up for a vote in the Senate he is planning to offer an amendment "but until then I will object." 

 

Under Senate rules any one senator can try to get consent, which requires the sign off of the entire chamber, to pass a bill or resolution, but one senator can also block that request. 

 

Gillibrand, after Paul objected, said she was "deeply disappointed" in his decision, adding "enough of the political games." 

 

"I am deeply disappointed that my colleague has just objected to the desperately needed and urgent bill for our 9/11 first responders," she added. 

 


Despite the back-and-forth on the floor, the Senate is expected to pass the bill before leaving for their summer recess by August 2. 



 

Majority Leader  Mitch McConnell  (R-Ky.) fast-tracked the House bill to the Senate calendar this week, paving the way for him to tee it up for a vote. 

 

McConnell said after a meeting with 9/11 first responders that it was his plan to bring the bill up before the recess. 


“We want to try to deal with (the legislation) before the August recess,”  he said. 


Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
smarty_function_ntUser_is_admin: user_id parameter required
Find text within the comments Find 
 
JohnRussell
1  seeder  JohnRussell    5 months ago

We dont need to cut from some other program, tax New York's (and other states) billionaires to fund the 911 compensation fund.  

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.1  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @1    5 months ago

Right, don't stop spending!

 
 
 
JohnRussell
1.1.1  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1    5 months ago

The Trump deficit will hit one trillion this year, they say. 

Cuts should start with the military budget and corporate welfare. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.1.2  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.1    5 months ago
The Trump deficit will hit one trillion this year, they say. 

After Obama's $20 Trillion. Of course we heard no complaint from you back then.

Cuts should start with the military budget and corporate welfare

Cuts should start with domestic spending. That's the problem

 
 
 
JohnRussell
1.1.3  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.2    5 months ago

the national debt increased by roughly 9 trillion during obama's 8 years. Trump is on a pace to equal or better that. Hopefully he wont have 8 years though. 

 
 
 
livefreeordie
1.1.4  livefreeordie  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.1    5 months ago

This increasing deficit was already projected by the CBO in the last year of the OBAMA presidency

CBO Outlook 2016-2026

August 23, 2016

"An Update to the Budget and Economic Outlook: 2016 to 2026  

In fiscal year 2016, the federal budget deficit will increase in relation to economic output for the first time since 2009, CBO estimates. If current laws generally remained unchanged—an assumption underlying CBO’s baseline projections—deficits would continue to mount over the next 10 years, and debt held by the public would rise from its already high level.

CBO’s estimate of the deficit for 2016 has increased since the agency issued its previous estimates in March, primarily because revenues are now expected to be lower than earlier anticipated. In contrast, the cumulative deficit through 2026 is smaller in CBO’s current baseline projections than the shortfall projected in March, chiefly because the agency now projects lower interest rates and thus lower outlays for interest payments on federal debt. Nevertheless, by 2026, the deficit is projected to be considerably larger relative to gross domestic product (GDP) than its average over the past 50 years."

In CBO’s baseline projections, the budget deficit is generally on an upward trend over the next decade, reaching 4.6 percent of GDP in 2026. A slight decline in the deficit over the next two years is largely explained by the shift in the timing of payments from one fiscal year to another because certain scheduled payments fall on weekends. In later years, continued growth in spending—particularly for Social Security, Medicare, and net interest—would outstrip growth in revenues, resulting in larger deficits and increasing debt."

https://www.cbo.gov/publication/51908

 
 
 
JumpDrive
1.1.5  JumpDrive  replied to  livefreeordie @1.1.4    5 months ago

I pulled this graph from cbo.gov:

512

Notice over the past 30 years how we always run huge deficits under republicans, then, during the Clinton presidency we change more than 6 percentage points in the right direction. Then GWB gets in and we have an economic disaster. Then Obama comes in and we see another massive 6 percentage point change in the right direction. Of course, time to give the Republicans a chance, so we start to screw it up with Trump. Before you comment on the projections going forward from 2017, remember this statement by the CBO on budget deficits from their 2000 projection:

Extrapolating from current policies, CBO projects growing surpluses over the next decade. Depending on the path of discretionary spending, total surpluses could reach from 3 percent to 5 percent of GDP by 2010, and on-budget surpluses could range between 1 percent and 3 percent of GDP.

Not only didn't we see surpluses of +1% to +3% during GWB's administration, we saw a deficit of -10%!!! I don't place much faith in their projections, however, it's pretty easy to see the mess Republicans make of our budget. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.1.6  Tessylo  replied to  JumpDrive @1.1.5    5 months ago

Well you know deficits don't matter to the republicans until a Democrat is in charge.  

 
 
 
bccrane
1.1.7  bccrane  replied to  JumpDrive @1.1.5    5 months ago

Nice try, now who again is it that controls the gov'ts purse strings.  The president can submit budgets, but it is the House that finalizes a budget and pushes it through.  Note the years of huge deficits the House was controlled by the democrats.  The years of Clinton, Clinton kept submitting budgets that had deficits comparable to the ones before the House switched to Republican control, the republicans tossed Clintons budgets and submitted their own in which we ended up with surpluses.

As for the crash of 2008, again who was it that came up with the policy of forcing banks to give loans to people who couldn't afford to pay it back.

 
 
 
JumpDrive
1.1.8  JumpDrive  replied to  bccrane @1.1.7    5 months ago
The president can submit budgets, but it is the House that finalizes a budget and pushes it through. 

"...He [Clinton] raised taxes on higher income taxpayers early in his first term and cut defense spending and welfare, which contributed to a rise in revenue and decline in spending relative to the size of the economy. These factors helped bring the federal budget into surplus from fiscal years 1998–2001..."

As for the crash of 2008, again who was it that came up with the policy of forcing banks to give loans to people who couldn't afford to pay it back.

This is conservative BS. From 2901 of the CRA:

(1) assess the institution’s record of meeting the credit needs of its entire community, including low- and moderate-income neighborhoods, consistent with the safe and sound operation of such institution;

Banks giving loans to unqualified borrowers was simple greed. CMOs were incredibly sought-after by wealthy investors. Banks controlled the investment rating companies and consolidated garbage mortgages into CMOs which the they sold to investors. The banks could not have cared less whether the investment was sound, because it was someone else's problem after the sale. At a time when the SEC should have been actively looking at what was happening, the Bush administration told them to back off because the industry would police itself.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
1.2  Ozzwald  replied to  JohnRussell @1    5 months ago
We dont need to cut from some other program, tax New York's (and other states) billionaires to fund the 911 compensation fund.

Question is, did Paul vote for or against Trump's (unpaid for) tax cuts for the wealthy?

 
 
 
livefreeordie
1.2.1  livefreeordie  replied to  Ozzwald @1.2    5 months ago

Tax cuts are not expenditures so by definition you can’t “pay” for them.

We need massive cuts in domestic spending and more tax cuts 

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.2.2  Texan1211  replied to  livefreeordie @1.2.1    5 months ago
Tax cuts are not expenditures so by definition you can’t “pay” for them.

You can't expect some to understand that when they have been taught that budget increases are budget cuts.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
1.2.3  Ozzwald  replied to  livefreeordie @1.2.1    5 months ago
Tax cuts are not expenditures so by definition you can’t “pay” for them.

You made this claim in a previous comment string and were promptly smacked down.  Are you one of those that also believes tax cuts increase income?

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.2.4  Texan1211  replied to  Ozzwald @1.2.3    5 months ago
You made this claim in a previous comment string and were promptly smacked down. Are you one of those that also believes tax cuts increase income?

Why don't you prove tax cuts are expenditures by showing us where they appear in the budget?

 
 
 
MUVA
1.2.5  MUVA  replied to  Ozzwald @1.2.3    5 months ago

People keeping the money they earn doesn't cost the government a penny it's not their money to being with.

 
 
 
luther28
1.2.6  luther28  replied to  livefreeordie @1.2.1    5 months ago
"Tax cuts are not expenditures so by definition"
They would be considered to be a cost if they are unfunded.
If you have 1( existing revenue ) and subtract 2 ( funded combined with unfunded ), you will end up with a deficit.

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.2.7  Texan1211  replied to  luther28 @1.2.6    5 months ago

Tax cuts are NOT expenditures. No amount of left-wing math will make it so, either.

If they are expenditures, as CLAIMED, simply prove it by showing us ANYWHERE in the budget that expenditure is listed.

 
 
 
livefreeordie
1.2.8  livefreeordie  replied to  luther28 @1.2.6    5 months ago

How do you fund people keeping more of their own money. It’s NOT THE GOVERNMENT’S MONEY 

 
 
 
JumpDrive
1.2.9  JumpDrive  replied to  Texan1211 @1.2.7    5 months ago
Tax cuts are NOT expenditures. No amount of left-wing math will make it so, either. If they are expenditures, as CLAIMED, simply prove it by showing us ANYWHERE in the budget that expenditure is listed.
budg·et
/ˈbəjət/
  1. an estimate of income and expenditure for a set period of time.
When you make a personal budget, you include your incomes and expenditures. E.g. your wife's job & your job income. If you lose your job, then you must adjust the income part of your budget to reflect that. Likewise, if you decide to tell your employer that you want to be paid less, i.e. the equivalent of a tax cut, you need to include this stupidity in your budget. This analogy is exactly what the majority effect of a Republican tax cut is.
The Federal budget is not different. So, it's just semantics to say this isn't an expenditure. It's effect on the budget is exactly the same, especially in the case of Republican tax cuts which push the money to the already rich; pretty much guaranteeing that the money will not 'trickle down' in any meaningful amount. And, we will have to borrow money to cover the tax cut.
 
 
 
Dulay
1.2.10  Dulay  replied to  livefreeordie @1.2.1    5 months ago
Tax cuts are not expenditures so by definition you can’t “pay” for them. We need massive cuts in domestic spending and more tax cuts

Tax cuts are NOT exempt from the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act   and the lose in revenue triggers sequester mandates. 

An across the board sequester of those programs that aren't exempt DOES 'pay' for that lose in revenue. 

Trump has ALREADY signed an EO for the FY 2020 sequester. 

 
 
 
luther28
1.2.11  luther28  replied to  livefreeordie @1.2.8    5 months ago
How do you fund people keeping more of their own money

That thing called debt.

 
 
 
luther28
1.2.12  luther28  replied to  Texan1211 @1.2.7    5 months ago

JumpDrive nicely provided it.

 
 
 
luther28
1.2.13  luther28  replied to  JumpDrive @1.2.9    5 months ago

Thank you.

 
 
 
luther28
1.2.14  luther28  replied to  Dulay @1.2.10    5 months ago

Thank you.

 
 
 
JumpDrive
1.2.15  JumpDrive  replied to  Dulay @1.2.10    5 months ago

Here's a simpler way of explaining that tax cuts are expenditures:

The gov't has to borrow money to meet its expenses. Tax cuts result in more borrowing. That borrowed money incurs interest expenditures. If it's ever paid back, then more expenditures. livefreeordie is defining a tax cut as not an expenditure, but the direct result of tax cuts is expenditures, he's just obfuscating.

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.2.16  Texan1211  replied to  luther28 @1.2.12    5 months ago
JumpDrive nicely provided it.

So you think. 

I disagree.

Say a tax cut takes place.

Say government reduces spending.

Say the government has to borrow nothing.

Where is the expenditure of a tax cut?

 
 
 
Dulay
1.2.17  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @1.2.16    5 months ago
Say government reduces spending.

We're talking about a real life scenario here Tex. The Trump tax cut came without spending cuts. But you know that. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.2.18  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @1.2.17    5 months ago
We're talking about a real life scenario here Tex. The Trump tax cut came without spending cuts. But you know that.

See, there's the thing. You need to read the WHOLE thread so you will know at least what the topic is. Start with MY first post in the thread.

What posts 1.2.1 through 1.2.9 talk about is exactly what I was and AM talking about. Tax cuts are not expenditures.

 
 
 
Dulay
1.2.19  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @1.2.18    5 months ago
See, there's the thing. You need to read the WHOLE thread so you will know at least what the topic is.

The WHOLE thread that starts with this comment:

Question is, did Paul vote for or against Trump's (unpaid for) tax cuts for the wealthy?

See that Trump tax cut thingy Tex? 

Start with MY first post in the thread.

So you don't REALLY want to address the WHOLE thread.

jrSmiley_84_smiley_image.gif

Tax cuts are not expenditures.

Which is irrelevant since they DID increase both the debt AND the deficit and caused other programs to be cut to pay for them. 

I know that you'd like to control the parameters of the discussion but you'll need to come up with a more relevant posit to make that happen. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.2.20  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @1.2.19    5 months ago
The WHOLE thread that starts with this comment:

Very good.

See that Trump tax cut thingy Tex?

Yes I do.

So you don't REALLY want to address the WHOLE thread.

I do. Let me know when you want to start.

Which is irrelevant since they DID increase both the debt AND the deficit and caused other programs to be cut to pay for them.

That is precisely what someone who doesn't understand what was being discussed would say.

I know that you'd like to control the parameters of the discussion but you'll need to come up with a more relevant posit to make that happen.

Seems to me that what you think you know and what you do know are two very different things.

 
 
 
Dulay
1.2.21  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @1.2.20    5 months ago
I do. Let me know when you want to start.

I already have, hence my block quote of the FIRST comment in the thread.

That is precisely what someone who doesn't understand what was being discussed would say.

You admit that the FIRST comment in the thread has the Trump tax cut thingy therein.

Now would be a good time for you to make a cogent comment about the WHOLE seed since you insist that is what is being discussed. 

Seems to me that what you think you know and what you do know are two very different things.

Yet, as is your MO, you've failed to refute a word I've said though you HAVE managed to refute your own...

 
 
 
luther28
1.2.22  luther28  replied to  Texan1211 @1.2.16    5 months ago

"Say government reduces spending."

We could say that, but it has not therefore rendering it moot.

"Say the government has to borrow nothing".

We could say that as well, but they do, again moot.

Therefore the unfunded tax cut (along with the interest ) is supported by more borrowed money rendering it a cost.

Semantics.

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.2.23  Texan1211  replied to  luther28 @1.2.22    5 months ago

I see you will never understand that tax cuts are NOT expenditures.

That's cool for you, but I'll stay with the verifiable facts, thanks.

 
 
 
JumpDrive
1.2.24  JumpDrive  replied to  Texan1211 @1.2.23    5 months ago
I see you will never understand that tax cuts are NOT expenditures. That's cool for you, but I'll stay with the verifiable facts, thanks.

You're being pedantic. Tax cuts result in borrowing which at a minimum results in interest payment expenditures, and possibly principal payment expenditures later. If I punch my neighbor in the nose because I've had a bad day, that will not appear as a line item in Quicken, but the legal/medical/penal expenditures that action incurs will.

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.2.25  Texan1211  replied to  JumpDrive @1.2.24    5 months ago
Tax cuts result in borrowing which at a minimum results in interest payment expenditures, and possibly principal payment expenditures later.

I believe that you are smart enough to know that SPENDING is what creates debt, not tax cuts.

Cut spending, cut taxes.

 
 
 
JumpDrive
1.2.26  JumpDrive  replied to  Texan1211 @1.2.25    5 months ago
I believe that you are smart enough to know that SPENDING is what creates debt, not tax cuts.

Republicans said the the Trump tax cuts would cost $1.5T; the debt is currently increasing by about $160B/year because of the tax cut. The Trump tax cut is creating debt.

Republicans are borrowing money to give away. This is exactly the same process as using your credit card. Republicans hope to please their donors and pump up the economy. You might hope to please your spouse and pump up your standard of living. You could easily create a lot of personal debt by borrowing money and giving it away like Republicans. If you are already borrowing money, a tax cut is SPENDING by your own definition of creating debt.

Cut spending, ...

Different issue, but irrelevant. It's not what Republicans do. Look at the GWB administration. Two wars, two tax cuts, a new entitlement, but no spending cuts. Any spending cuts they do do are decorative relative to the expenditures.

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.2.27  Texan1211  replied to  JumpDrive @1.2.26    5 months ago

I have never claimed the GOP is fiscally conservative.

I wish they were.

But Democrats aren't either. 

We don't end up +$20 trillion in debt if anyone in charge was.

 
 
 
Ronin2
1.3  Ronin2  replied to  JohnRussell @1    5 months ago

Sure, and Congress will pass that when hell freezes over. Neither side wants to lose millions in campaign contributions.

You realize you are talking about career politicians right?

 
 
 
Tacos!
2  Tacos!    5 months ago

I think the will of most Americans is that 9/11 compensation is one area where we just aren't interested in being cheap or slow to help.

If you want to cut spending, that's great. Do it on any other day when we are not trying to help victims of terrorism.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
2.1  Vic Eldred  replied to  Tacos! @2    5 months ago
Do it on any other day when we are not trying to help victims of terrorism.

We know how easy that is!

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
3  Dismayed Patriot    5 months ago

This Republican Senator has no problem continuing to fund US Senator paychecks regardless of the mounting debt, but he draws the line at 9/11 victims? It even passed the house 402 to 12, you don't get a much more bipartisan mandate than that, but no, the libertarian Republican has to put a stop to taking care of those who risked life and limb when our nation was attacked. Sad.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
3.1  Vic Eldred  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @3    5 months ago
he draws the line at 9/11 victims?

He draws the line everywhere. He has been against deficit spending his entire career and so was his father. Liberals on the other hand don't care about the $22 Trillion debt. Let's be fair about where people stand.

 
 
 
Dulay
3.1.1  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1    5 months ago
He draws the line everywhere.

Actually, no he doesn't. He hasn't 'drawn the line' by objecting to any other spending bill this session. Paul objection causes the Senate to spend hours on a bill that should pass via voice vote. Paul is 'grandstanding' on the backs of first responders. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
3.1.2  Vic Eldred  replied to  Dulay @3.1.1    5 months ago
Actually, no he doesn't. He hasn't 'drawn the line' by objecting to any other spending bill this session.

Oh is "this session" the hidden qualifier?  Another one of your games!

It was Paul who objected to the Republican spending bill:

"Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) is on the Senate floor right now opposing the spending bill. You can watch his remarks live on C-SPAN or online  here ."

"Paul is denouncing the spending bill as “intellectual dishonesty” and hypocrisy from the Republicans, who were previously opposed to budget deficits under President Barack Obama but seem to have lost their ability to object now that they have power.

He acknowledged the need for disaster relief to help Texas, Florida, and Puerto Rico recover from last year’s hurricanes, but asked why the money couldn’t be shifted from somewhere else.

One of his major objections has to do with the ongoing failure to reduce our growing national debt, and he questioned the priorities of some spending items, including sending money to countries who haven’t been the best allies."

https://www.redstate.com/sarah-rumpf/2018/02/08/shutdown-deadline-looms-rand-paul-blocking-vote-spending-bill/



I rest my case.

 
 
 
Dulay
3.1.3  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1.2    5 months ago
Oh is "this session" the hidden qualifier?  Another one of your games!

Since you blockquote my comment that stated it CLEARLY, exactly how the fuck can you characterize it as a 'hidden qualifier' or a 'game' Vic? 

Are nuanced parameters too challenging?

Do you have a cogent explanation for your aversion for my use of a predicate in my comment? 

I rest my case.

Yet you stated: 

He draws the line everywhere.

Your 'case' citing ONE other time from 2 years ago fails miserably. 

 
 
 
luther28
3.1.4  luther28  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1    5 months ago

Rand Paul, Whose Tax-Cut Vote Added $1 Trillion to the Deficit, Tells ...


3 days ago -   Rand Paul   Whose   TaxCut Vote   Added 1 Trillion to the Deficit Tells 911 ... Obviously, Paul   was   able to overlook the fact that the legislation went ...
His pencil must have been broken drawing this line. He is as bad if not worse than the rest of them.
 
 
 
Vic Eldred
3.1.5  Vic Eldred  replied to  luther28 @3.1.4    5 months ago

Luther I hoped we wouldn't have to go through the reasoning behind the tax cut again, but ok, for democrats who only know spending:

The idea was that the tax cut would stimulate the economy to get more people working and thus paying taxes, which means more revenue. The problem was (as Arthur Laffer might argue) that the tax cut was probably not big enough. There was supposed to be something to offset any reduction in revenue and that was the idea of the "repeal & replacing" of Obamacare. That was why Speaker Ryan worked to make the ACA reform priority one, before passing the tax cut. The problem was that many Republican Reps & Senators were now representing districts and states that had constituents who had by this time received the benefits of Obamacare and there would be in the end a very narrow path to passing the ACA reforms. After wasting the all important first year of the Trump administration's political capitol it all came down to one vote. The one vote was cast as a "nay" by a Senator who put his hatred for the President above the well being of the nation.

Aside from failing to get the ACA reform done, the Tax Cut & Jobs Act of 2017 could have stimulated the extra revenue all by itself. Although it is estimated to add $1.5 Trillion to the national debt over the next decade, there is also the estimate of GDP increasing by 0.7% for the same period. That may have solved the issue, but there was one more problem facing the new administration - the depleted state the military was left in by Barak Obama. Another $1.3 Trillion would be needed to restore the military's strength.

Now that Iv'e given you a little of the history of the 115th Congress, you can now see the tough choices that had to be made. It could have all been a lot less costly and a lot easier if the Republicans had won it all back in 2008.

 
 
 
luther28
3.1.6  luther28  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1.5    5 months ago
"Luther I hoped we wouldn't have to go through the reasoning behind the tax cut again,"
The tax cuts were required for the corporations without a doubt ( don't know that the number needed to be what it was, but regardless), the rest of it was pure nonsense.
I have no problem getting rid of the ACA, but what is it going to be replaced with?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
3.1.7  Vic Eldred  replied to  luther28 @3.1.6    5 months ago

They helped bring corporations & capitol home promoting jobs & expansion if that's what you mean.  Any replacement would require draconian price controls on the medical & big Pharma sectors.

 
 
 
devangelical
4  devangelical    5 months ago

looks as though some dipshit kentucky teabag is late for another summer ass-kicking in his own backyard

 
 
 
Dean Moriarty
4.1  Dean Moriarty  replied to  devangelical @4    5 months ago

How so he isn’t even up for re-election until 2022? 

 
 
 
devangelical
4.1.1  devangelical  replied to  Dean Moriarty @4.1    5 months ago

maybe one of rand's other neighbors is a first responder

 
 
 
Dean Moriarty
4.1.2  Dean Moriarty  replied to  devangelical @4.1.1    5 months ago

Like the Bozo that had to pay him $580,000 in fines and got 30 days in the hole? 

 
 
 
devangelical
4.1.3  devangelical  replied to  Dean Moriarty @4.1.2    5 months ago

for beating the fuck out of some teabag wimp senator, that's a bargain.

 
 
 
livefreeordie
4.1.4  livefreeordie  replied to  devangelical @4.1.3    5 months ago

Advocating violence against a US Senator?  I believe you just engaged in a federal felony

Threatening government officials of the United States is a felony under federal law . Threatening the President of the United States is a felony under 18 U.S.C.   § 871 , punishable by up to 5 years of imprisonment, that is investigated by the United States Secret Service . Threatening other officials is a Class C or D felony, usually carrying maximum penalties of 5 or 10 years under 18 U.S.C.   § 875 , 18 U.S.C.   § 876 and other statutes, that is investigated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation .

 
 
 
Tessylo
4.1.5  Tessylo  replied to  livefreeordie @4.1.4    5 months ago

Well call the FBI then why don't you pastor?

 
 
 
Texan1211
4.1.6  Texan1211  replied to  livefreeordie @4.1.4    5 months ago

Aw, nobody takes these tough keyboard warriors seriously.

Not even the cops.

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
5  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh    5 months ago

There are victims of awful events all over this country. They get nothing for the tragedies they survived.

The fund should be privately funded with donations.

 
 
 
r.t..b...
5.1  r.t..b...  replied to  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh @5    5 months ago
There are victims of awful events all over this country.

Granted. Loss of life and property from hurricanes, tornadoes and flooding are an annual occurrence and are subject to Federal recovery funds...as it should be. Loss of life and property from a terrorist attack, on our native soil, must be. It is one of the rare instances where federal monies are spent wisely. I am rather surprised by your take on this.

 
 
 
Tessylo
5.1.1  Tessylo  replied to  r.t..b... @5.1    5 months ago

It seems if a libertarian states his ignorant selfish 'beliefs' some are all for it.  Shameful

 
 
 
†hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh
5.1.2  †hε pε⊕pレε'š ƒïšh  replied to  r.t..b... @5.1    5 months ago

97% of the victims and their families received 9 billion dollars. The pay out was 1.8 Million per family

The fund was reopened for first responders and the payouts were 500,000 to 8.6 million.

All payouts were tax free.

It's time to end the fund unless people want to donate.

Once again, we have victims all over from all types of tragedy and none of them received compensation anywhere near this.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
6  seeder  JohnRussell    5 months ago
On Wednesday’s edition of Fox News’ “Special Report,” comedian and activist Jon Stewart slammed Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) for blocking unanimous consent for a bill to support health care for 9/11 first responders. “Pardon me if I’m not impressed in any way by Rand Paul’s fiscal responsibility virtue signaling,” said Stewart to anchor Bret Baier, […]
 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
7  Paula Bartholomew    5 months ago

What Trump has cost us when he golfs could compensate a lot of of the victims for a very long time.

 
 
 
Raven Wing
7.1  Raven Wing  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @7    5 months ago

Very true. 

 
 
 
freepress
8  freepress    5 months ago

Tea Partier did what??!!! What about the deficit? What about the unpaid for corporate welfare handing out tax cuts to corporations and the wealthy?

Republicans failed us during the Bush years crying about the deficit, lying to get into wars with no plans or no way to pay for those wars, and an economic collapse.

Now Republicans set us up ONCE AGAIN for a colossal failure with Mnuchin already saying we are ready to run out of cash due to loss of tax revenue that they gave away, and the deficit is the HIGHEST IN HISTORY!!!

Republicans are a cash and carry theft ring.

 
 
 
Texan1211
8.1  Texan1211  replied to  freepress @8    5 months ago

You need to learn that tax cuts are NOT expenditures, and therefore do not qualify as an expenditure, since no money is going out.

 
 
 
Tessylo
9  Tessylo    5 months ago

They're a bunch of crooks, grifters, thugs, thieves.  

 
 
 
It Is ME
10  It Is ME    5 months ago

Rand Paul didn't "Block" anything.

https://reason.com/2019/07/18/rand-paul-was-right-to-delay-vote-on-funding-bill-for-9-11-first-responders/

" Despite Paul's objections, the permanent extension of the victim's fund will almost certainly pass

These condemnations skate over Paul's rather reasonable position that the Senate should actually debate the bill and consider fiscal offsets before approving nearly a century's worth of effectively unlimited spending.

Rep. Justin Amash (I–Mich.) made this same point last week when explaining why he voted against the victim fund's extension in the House

And while it's true that Paul voted for a deficit-increasing tax cut, he has also consistently introduced legislation to cut spending across the board. Just last month, the Senate rejected a budget plan authored by Paul that would have cut federal spending by $183 billion in the coming fiscal year. "

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online

JBB
Kavika
pat wilson


27 visitors