Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No he didn't. He voted to reduce spending and reduce taxes. That you refuse to see that and support those that do is telling. You're not fooling anyone. Your twisted partisanship is obvious. Your way has proven to be a failure. You promote debt and failure. Spend spend spend!
Again., Have you ever run a company? Apparently not. You do not unilaterally reduce revenue with out reducing expense. When in the history of Rand Paul's tenure did DC cut spending? Never!. And most of his tenure was with a GOP majority.
Both sides of the aisle can come together and get behind these guys.
This is where the power is. Doesn't matter if there is a "D" or an "R" behind their name. If a "D" got up and said these same things that Rand is saying (and now Mike Lee) I would absolutely be cheering them all the way. 100%.
THIS is what they are supposed to do. FIGHT for the people. Expose the waste! Expose the incompetence of our government.
Shine a light on the madness.
Expose the corruption.
And it is absolutely not posturing. Rand and a few others have been fighting this fight for years. They have been consistent and steadfast. Those who do not see this probably just have not been following a few of these guys very closely. I HAVE. For years. The problem is there is not ENOUGH of them in congress and senate. We the people keep voting in corruption over and over.
The tide is turning, albeit slowly. More and more people (from both sides) fed up with the status quo are starting to pay attention to those who speak common sense and speak the damn truth. We need to stop our petty quarreling and come together."We the People" is where the power lies.
Last edited by .sparrow.; 02-08-2018 at 08:41 PM..
Again., Have you ever run a company? Apparently not.
It's not about me or if I've run a company and you have no information one way or the other.
If you cannot discuss the merits of the issue stay in the shallow end with the children.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vacoder
You do not unilaterally reduce revenue with out reducing expense.
Which is what he votes to do. No matter what spin you try to put on it to say otherwise is absurd.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vacoder
When in the history of Rand Paul's tenure did DC cut spending? Never!.
Agreed
Quote:
Originally Posted by vacoder
And most of his tenure was with a GOP majority.
Agreed
Quote:
Originally Posted by vacoder
Posturing.
Standing up for your beliefs and not going along to get along. We've had enough go along to get along schlubs and they've been wrong each and everytime.
hahahaha you're exposed. You got you're idea from that fraud Angus LMAO
700 pages, take it or leave it.
Business as usual. You do not learn.
It's not about me or if I've run a company and you have no information one way or the other.
If you cannot discuss the merits of the issue stay in the shallow end with the children.
Which is what he votes to do. No matter what spin you try to put on it to say otherwise is absurd.
Agreed
Agreed
Standing up for your beliefs and not going along to get along. We've had enough go along to get along schlubs and they've been wrong each and everytime.
hahahaha you're exposed. You got you're idea from that fraud Angus LMAO
If he was standing up for his beliefs he would have tied tax cuts with budget cuts which many legislators on both sides of the aisle wanted to do.
That did not occur. What we have is the predicable cut in revenue and no cut in spending. It will end up in an increase in spending as usual. Bank on it.
If he was standing up for his beliefs he would have tied tax cuts with budget cuts which many legislators on both sides of the aisle wanted to do.
That wasn't on the table. He voted to lower taxes. That was what the vote was on. It was the correct move.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vacoder
That did not occur. What we have is the predicable cut in revenue and no cut in spending. It will end up in an increase in spending as usual. Bank on it.
Could be, However voting to lower spending by wanting to break up the 700 page take it or leave it monstrosity into seperate parts is the correct procedure. He wants to lower spending.
That wasn't on the table. He voted to lower taxes. It was the correct move.
Could be, However voting to lower spending by wanting to break up the 700 page take it or leave it monstrosity into seperate parts is the correct procedure. He wants to lower spending.
And he lost leverage by agreeing to tax cuts. Spending will go up. Bank on it.
Looks like the government will shut down again. But who will notice?
Unfortunately some will notice and be hurt by it -- unless they can resolve it within the next 48 hours...and it isn't just the military. Lots of families will be impacted.
Why can't they air all their grievances and come to some kind of compromise --
i mean the Republicans -- seeing as they are the reason we have a shut down.
That wasn't on the table. He voted to lower taxes. That was what the vote was on. It was the correct move.
Paul is smart enough to understand that the tax cuts he voted for also reduced the income that the Federal government will get from corporations, this year and forever (as the tax bill was written). He is correct to worry about spending, when the tax cuts are definitely going to reduce available monies to run the government.
Think of it this way: you "vote" to take a job that pays you less than your current job. It might have been the "Correct move." But you still have to pay the bills.
Rand Paul recognizes that. But unfortunately, other members of Congress seem to be ignoring it.
I hate the idea of another possible shut down, but I give kudos to Rand Paul tonight for seemingly being the only one in Congress to understand basic math.
He should have thought about it before voting for the tax bill, but better to be late to the party, than never.
That wasn't on the table. He voted to lower taxes. That was what the vote was on. It was the correct move.
Could be, However voting to lower spending by wanting to break up the 700 page take it or leave it monstrosity into seperate parts is the correct procedure. He wants to lower spending.
It is not a one stop buffet. He could have changed what was on the table. He ultimately voted to increase the deficit. No two ways about it.
He cannot say he voted for tax reductions while holding assurances of expense cuts. If so he would have said that. So he voted for tax cuts with zero expectations of expense cuts. This despite there NEVER being expense cuts in his DC tenure.
Political hack.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
