When It Comes To Spending, Rand Paul Is a RINO

[Sensei]

No, I am not attacking Paul. Quite the contrary, I am complimenting him. It seems that today’s Republican Party is not nearly concerned with spending and deficits as it was just 2 years ago. Gee, I wonder why...:rolleyes:

As the Senate Republicans struggles to pass a 2-year spending plan that will balloon our deficits to peak-Obama levels, a single Republican has taken a stand against the bullshit. That Republican is not Ted Cruz, Mike Lee, or Ben Sasse. Nope, it is Rand-fucking-Paul. Bad Jheri curl and all, the guy is the only Republican in the Senate with the balls to call bullshit on what this party has become.

I suppose that Rand needs to decide if he is going to remain a Republican out of political expediency now that the party has divorced itself from all of its fiscally conservative principles. If so, I suspect that he will need to get comfortable literally being a Republican-In-Name-Only as I do not see the party ever going back to conservative principles.

[PNWTO]

Twitter: (https://twitter.com/ABCPolitics/status/961738413928951809?&=7)


Sen. Rand Paul on the new senate spending bill: "If you were against President Obama's deficits, and now you're for the Republican deficits, isn't that the very definition of hypocrisy?"

I like that he isn't afraid to point out some of hilarious double standards but he did vote for the tax "cuts" so he should have seen this coming. This may just be him reminding people he isn't part of the club. Here's a good write up regrading Paul's present actions. (https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/02/the-us-government-may-shut-down-and-reopen-while-you-sleep/552893/)

[Eastex]

He’s far enough in the club to get shot at while playing softball and assaulted by his neighbor. The “love trumps hate” crowd sure does have a funny way of expressing their disagreement. https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20180209/cb0f2f1f07d338aab90f07225f57f886.jpg


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Guerrero]

He just likes to vote "no" on everything. That way he never has to take responsibility for anything that passes, while claiming to be "anti-establishment."

[blues]

Bad hair and neighbor issues aside, he's one of the few that makes any sense at least part of the time.

I think Mo Brooks of AL also stated that he would not support the bill for fiscal reasons.

[Sensei]

He just likes to vote "no" on everything. That way he never has to take responsibility for anything that passes, while claiming to be "anti-establishment."

He voted for the tax cut and each of the watered down ACA repeals. He also supported McConnell in a heated primary against a Tea Party Conservative.

That tax cut vote was a bit problematic for Rand in the sense that it increased the deficit. He (and I) would have preferred an immediate cut in the corporate rate and a phased-in personal rate cut that was tied to cuts in spending.

Regardless, the fact that entitlement reform is off the Republican platform is the ultimate betrayal. We hit an inflection point in terms of our fiscal discipline at around the 2012 election. That was our last best chance to right this ship. The re-election of Obama made it exponentially harder to recover, and Trump’s infatuation with debt has sealed the deal. In about 15 years the service on our debt will dominate our budget and we will not be able to fund the 2 other largest items (SS/Medicare and defense). At that time all the options will suck a giant donkey dick (think Greece but with 400,000 million guns). The math is simple but unavoidable.

[Irelander]

Rand's father Ron Paul was the ultimate Dr. No and an awesome conservative. Rand is a little less conservative than his father but still gets my approval for moral and fiscal priorities. I'm pro Paul. I agree that he is not in step with his party and that is a good thing.

[critter]

Rand's father Ron Paul was the ultimate Dr. No and an awesome conservative. Rand is a little less conservative than his father but still gets my approval for moral and fiscal priorities. I'm pro Paul. I agree that he is not in step with his party and that is a good thing.

Definitely a good thing.

During the primaries, I took one of those online "Who do you match up with?" tests (for what they're worth, probably little). I was dead center on the LR graph and well into Libertarian (nothing trumps individual liberty with the tiniest government and fewest rules/regulations feasibly possible). Rand was the highest match at over 70%. I probably would have matched even higher with Ron.

Obviously, with tax cuts must come the necessary bureaucratic/employee cuts, spending cuts, program cuts (supported by both Paul's). We have the former, with an apparent increase in spending. Yeah, that's gonna work out well. I agree with Sensei that there probably should have been more of a phasing down with individual taxes. Government spending is still at ridiculous levels.

[Sherman A. House DDS]

He’s far enough in the club to get shot at while playing softball and assaulted by his neighbor. The “love trumps hate” crowd sure does have a funny way of expressing their disagreement. https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20180209/cb0f2f1f07d338aab90f07225f57f886.jpg


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Don’t hate on the man because he’s got naturally curly hair! Happens to the best of us (before mine fell out).

If he’s pissing off that bellowing walrus Bette Midler, he’s living life right.


civiliandefender.com

[blues]

It's like Rand Paul said, (and anyone with a pair of eyes and ears can tell you), whichever party was the one that ranted and raved about fiscal irresponsibility, spending and debt while they were out of power, completely forgets their prior admonitions and lip service to fiscal responsibility once they get their hands on the reins.

The only difference between these two sides is skin deep. Yeah, certain folks like us that have skin in the game on a particular issue might choose one over the other...otherwise, with very few exceptions, they are all slimy creatures of the same ilk.

[critter]

It's like Rand Paul said, (and anyone with a pair of eyes and ears can tell you), whichever party was the one that ranted and raved about fiscal irresponsibility, spending and debt while they were out of power, completely forgets their prior admonitions and lip service to fiscal responsibility once they get their hands on the reins.

The only difference between these two sides is skin deep. Yeah, certain folks like us that have skin in the game on a particular issue might choose one over the other...otherwise, with very few exceptions, they are all slimy creatures of the same ilk.

Hear Here! I think there's a secret prerequisite test involved, with a couple of outliers given waivers and allowed in - just to throw us off.

[AMC]

It is the purpose of the Democrat Party at this point in history to establish a socialist revolution. It is the purpose of the Republican Party to pretend that they oppose this. All else is theatre.

[blues]

It is the purpose of the Democrat Party at this point in history to establish a socialist revolution. It is the purpose of the Republican Party to pretend that they oppose this. All else is theatre.

I just hope we won't have to eat beets.

[Kyle Reese]

I just hope we won't have to eat beets.Why? They're a super food! [emoji16]

Sent from my VS995 using Tapatalk

[blues]

Why? They're a super food! [emoji16]

Sent from my VS995 using Tapatalk

https://cdn-s3.si.com/s3fs-public/styles/marquee_large_2x/public/%5Bcurrent-date%3Acustom%3AY%5D/%5Bcurrent-date%3Acustom%3Am%5D/%5Bcurrent-date%3Acustom%3Ad%5D/best-crying-jordan-memes.jpg?itok=MyfYprCo

[Mjolnir]

In about 15 years the service on our debt will dominate our budget and we will not be able to fund the 2 other largest items (SS/Medicare and Defense). At that time all the options will suck a giant donkey dick (think Greece but with 400,000 million guns). The math is simple but unavoidable.

I think of this all the time. If there is an economic collapse it could come to this damned near immediately.

Now every thinking person is aware of why the government wants us all disarmed.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[AMC]

I just hope we won't have to eat beets.

My wife is preparing me for the inevitable by putting them in the juicer with everything else.

[JodyH]

There's an old saying "If the bank loans you $10k, they own you. If the bank loans you $10M, you own the bank."
As long as we have nukes and the baddest military on the planet, our debt doesn't matter because nobody can "collect" without mutually assured destruction (either militarily, economically or both).
Every major economy in the world depends on maintaining the status quo, even if a superpower "defaults" on their debt it'll never be known outside of a few people.

[Hambo]

There's an old saying "If the bank loans you $10k, they own you. If the bank loans you $10M, you own the bank."
As long as we have nukes and the baddest military on the planet, our debt doesn't matter because nobody can "collect" without mutually assured destruction (either militarily, economically or both).
Every major economy in the world depends on maintaining the status quo, even if a superpower "defaults" on their debt it'll never be known outside of a few people.

You don't even need a military for MAD, just sell them your mortgage debt.

[NEPAKevin]

Why? They're a super food! [emoji16]

Sent from my VS995 using Tapatalk



http://danaloeschradio.com/assets/images/beet-ad.jpg

[Sensei]

There's an old saying "If the bank loans you $10k, they own you. If the bank loans you $10M, you own the bank."
As long as we have nukes and the baddest military on the planet, our debt doesn't matter because nobody can "collect" without mutually assured destruction (either militarily, economically or both).
Every major economy in the world depends on maintaining the status quo, even if a superpower "defaults" on their debt it'll never be known outside of a few people.

There is a small problem in your analysis. Most of our debt is owed to ourselves, not to foreign entities. In addition, our military is already deteriorating and will help us about as much as the Soviet military helped the communist regime in 1991 when it went bankrupt. The threat is not a Chinese invasion, but civil unrest when a loaf of bread cost $100...

[Guerrero]

I may have been hasty in my assessment:

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/456274/rand-paul-speech-debt-crisis-right

[blues]

I may have been hasty in my assessment:

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/456274/rand-paul-speech-debt-crisis-right


Yep. Rand Paul is still a politician but he's come a long way, imho.

There was a time when I wanted to knock that possum off his head. Now, even though I know he is a politician, with all the baggage that implies, I find him someone worthy of at least listening to. As the writer said, he knew it might not make a difference but at least he held feet to the fire and people are talking about it. (And he got a little pork into the bill as well.)

We could use more elected official who had more than just a passing relationship with the truth, even if we won't always agree.

[OlongJohnson]

The threat is not a Chinese invasion, but civil unrest when a loaf of bread cost $100...

What worries me is the Chinese applying the tactic that Jefferson outlined as a strategy to get the land away from the indians.

Back to Republicans:

Bush did the same damn thing. Except that time, he inherited an actual surplus and blew it all to hell on purpose, right out of the gate. Before the tech crash drew back tax revenue, before 9/11 led to a lot of spending. The bailouts that conservatives alternately criticize Obama for, or if they are credited for the recovery we've had, such as it is, point out that they were really a Bush plan, were indeed really a Bush plan.

Before Reagan, we had stagflation, but we didn't have an out-of-control debt balloon.

[SunTzu]

I like Rand as well as Massie and Amash.

[critter]

What worries me is the Chinese applying the tactic that Jefferson outlined as a strategy to get the land away from the indians.

Back to Republicans:

Bush did the same damn thing. Except that time, he inherited an actual surplus and blew it all to hell on purpose, right out of the gate. Before the tech crash drew back tax revenue, before 9/11 led to a lot of spending. The bailouts that conservatives alternately criticize Obama for, or if they are credited for the recovery we've had, such as it is, point out that they were really a Bush plan, were indeed really a Bush plan.

Before Reagan, we had stagflation, but we didn't have an out-of-control debt balloon.

No disagreement here.

There's is a difference between owing a trillion $1 gold coins vs a trillion bits on a computer, or a trillion pieces of paper - especially if your particular bits and paper is required for the world to do business. With the latter, a growing economy can absorb some or even all (so the quite simplified theory goes) of the debt and continue functioning indefinitely as long as everyone plays along. I make no claim of understanding all the economic games that are played with magic money. I do know they play a lot of them.