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.
The bolded is absolutely not the case, this is the Tea Party/Grover Nordquist congressmen that will not raise taxes. This began under Reagan where taxes were the enemy, no one can agree on significant spending cuts so we just borrow.
We just had 9 consecutive years of economic expansion yet we are increasing the deficit, that doesn't bode well for a balanced budget or debt reduction. Simpson-Bowles was a good agreement with shared pain but of course it was ignored by both parties.
I have respect for Rand Paul but not on this tax cut bill, there was absolutely no reason for this bill at this time. He could have sent a message on fiscal restraint but he took the easy way out.
Because Angus said, right?
The easy way out? What does that mean.
Congress knew going into the spending bill that the lowered taxes would bring in less revenue. That's a fact and no matter how you try to twist that statement, what I said stands. Congress choose to increase the debt by not lowering spending. No if ands or buts on that. Their only chance and they blew it. The lowered taxes was already in the bag, the spending wasn't. Period.
Rand Paul stood by his word. He went with what works. Lower spending, cut taxes. smaller Federal government. They cut taxes first which was absolutely the right thing to do. Then the big government freaks on both sides screwed up by not cutting spending. Looking at it any other other way is disingenuous.
Because Angus said, right?
The easy way out? What does that mean.
Congress knew going into the spending bill that the lowered taxes would bring in less revenue. That's a fact and no matter how you try to twist that statement, what I said stands. Congress choose to increase the debt by not lowering spending. No if ands or buts on that. Their only chance and they blew it. The lowered taxes was already in the bag, the spending wasn't. Period.
Rand Paul stood by his word. He went with what works. Lower spending, cut taxes. smaller Federal government. They cut taxes first which was absolutely the right thing to do. Then the big government freaks on both sides screwed up by not cutting spending. Looking at it any other other way is disingenuous.
Rand could have voted against this ill advised tax cut, there wasn't a need at this time for this action. If he voted it down there would have been hell to pay from his party. He just voted to increase the deficit he claims is a problem.
Cutting taxes doesn't take a lot of courage, cutting taxes first was what Reagan did. Every congressman and constituent loves a tax cut, spending cuts are hard work and at this point non-existent.
The 60 day budget increased defense spending, we are headed in the wrong direction.
Rand could have voted against this ill advised tax cut, there wasn't a need at this time for this action.
It wasn't ill advised. There is a need for a Federal income tax cut.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goodnight
If he voted it down there would have been hell to pay from his party.
It's about policy. Weak minded people put party over policy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goodnight
He just voted to increase the deficit he claims is a problem.
No he didn't. That's just your absurd twisted agenda repeating something an imbecile named Angus said.
One more time in hopes you'll get it. The tax bill was voted on first. After that passed the next vote was on spending. Anyone who voted for increased spending knowing full well that taxes will bring in less revenue AND they were concerned about the deficit and the debt is an idiot. They should have voted against the 700 page increased spending bill that not many read.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goodnight
Cutting taxes doesn't take a lot of courage, cutting taxes first was what Reagan did. Every congressman and constituent loves a tax cut, spending cuts are hard work and at this point non-existent.
Reagan ended up raising taxes. Spending cuts are not hard and you have no proof. Quit making things up. You are being silly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goodnight
The 60 day budget increased defense spending, we are headed in the wrong direction.
Maybe you mean military spending which is different than defense spending
Rand Paul - In fact, per budget rules, the tax bill I voted on and supported was required to be paid for, and Congress had a year to figure out how. Ninety-one senators, including all Democrats, later voted against my effort to keep it that way.
Sen. Paul: Congress Is Full of Hypocrites. I Took a Stand
Can Rand save us from the hypocritical spenders on the republican side? Tax cuts were great, now we need spending cuts that should of followed immediately after. Instead we're talking about spending more money
Can Rand save us from the hypocritical spenders on the republican side? Tax cuts were great, now we need spending cuts that should of followed immediately after. Instead we're talking about spending more money
Congress always does the easy work and postpones anything difficult or unpopular or painful.
They are effectively the same because the deficit is financed by debt.
It's like saying there is a big difference between my checking acct and my savings acct. Both are money I have (or owe, in the case of debt and deficit)...
The Facts are clear, tho. Paul voted FOR the Trump tax cuts. THAT VOTE INCREASES BOTH THE DEFICIT AND THE DEBT. Where else would the money come from??
A Tax Cut means less money flowing into the treasury. Less money flowing into the treasury means a larger deficit (in general - and definitely now) and therefore additions to the National debt. Some will argue "but spending cuts matter"....well, not in this case because Trump and the GOP are set to spend more than ever. Now they say they will start paying down the debt "in a few decades". This is what Rand Paul voted for.
Now - we should know the difference in that one is specified in terms of a years time (in general, again) and the other just keeps getting bigger.
In any case, one could say that Rand Paul is only 80% as bad as Trump on these matters. But he is certainly no fiscal conservative or he would have (like many others did) voted against it.
If his actions backed up his rhetoric it would be nice.
Good lord, as a taxpayer I'm not getting my money's worth out of our educational industry.
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.
