Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 31 to 60 of 105

Thread: Sens. Mike Lee, Rand Paul are holding up 9/11 victims fund

  1. #31
    Rand did well w/ Cavuto interview



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #32
    "Hard to beat the emotional impact of saying something is “for the 9/11 victims and first responders”. May even beat “it’s for the children”.

    True. It's even harder when you fight for these people (911 first responders) & they die. I personally was involved with these folksback in 2010 & had to distance myself from their cause because a few sick people I met & liked.. died.. Couldn't handle that

    So. although Rand is correct in sticking to fiscal responsible principles.. this issue is tough.

    I don't like Jon Stewarts politics, but give him credit for taking up this worthy cause. (even if they have gone overboard with trying to ram it through without proper fiscal discussion)



  4. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  5. #33
    Quote Originally Posted by vita3 View Post
    "Hard to beat the emotional impact of saying something is “for the 9/11 victims and first responders”. May even beat “it’s for the children”.

    True. It's even harder when you fight for these people (911 first responders) & they die. I personally was involved with these folksback in 2010 & had to distance myself from their cause because a few sick people I met & liked.. died.. Couldn't handle that

    So. although Rand is correct in sticking to fiscal responsible principles.. this issue is tough.

    I don't like Jon Stewarts politics, but give him credit for taking up this worthy cause. (even if they have gone overboard with trying to ram it through without proper fiscal discussion)
    This is why there is no hope for this country. Everything is an emotional, "worthy cause". You name it, welfare for immigrants, welfare for old people, welfare for young people and single mothers and people in floods or hurricanes and on and on. If government doesn't pay for everything, people will be dying everywhere from disease, starvation, or killed by all those terrorists that surround us.

    Did it ever occur to people they could donate money? Instead they want government to pay for everything, because that money is considered to be free. As dumb and indoctrinated and emotional as the average person is, there is no hope. Even so-called liberty lovers make endless exceptions to their principles.

    It's just a question of time before everything implodes.

    We have totally forgotten the Constitution. Here's a good article explaining how it once guided our leaders:

    https://www.hoover.org/research/unco...ional-congress

    Even expenditures for the most charitable of purposes were routinely spurned as illegitimate. In 1794, James Madison wrote disapprovingly of a $15,000 appropriation for French refugees: "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."

    This view that Congress should follow the original intent of the Constitution was restated even more forcefully on the floor of the House of Representatives two years later by William Giles of Virginia, who condemned a relief measure for fire-victims. Giles insisted that it was not the purpose nor the right of Congress to "attend to what generosity and humanity require, but to what the Constitution and their duty require."

    In 1827, the famous Colonel Davy Crockett was elected to the House of Representatives. During his first term of office, a $10,000 relief bill for the widow of a naval officer was proposed. Colonel Crockett rose in stern opposition and gave the following eloquent rebuttal to the bill:

    “"We must not permit our respect for the dead or our sympathy for the living to lead us into an act of injustice to the balance of the living. I will not attempt to prove that Congress has no power to appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every member upon this floor knows it. We have the right as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right to appropriate a dollar of the public money."”

    After he sat down and a vote was taken, instead of unanimous approval as had been assumed, the measure failed with only a few votes in support of it. (Legend has it that Crockett, one of the poorest members of the House at that time, was the only one to contribute substantially to a private charitable fund for the widow.)

    In a famous incident in 1854, President Franklin Pierce was pilloried for vetoing an extremely popular bill intended to help the mentally ill. The act was championed by the renowned 19th-century social reformer Dorothea Dix. In the face of heavy criticism, Pierce countered: "I cannot find any authority in the Constitution for public charity." To approve such spending, argued Pierce, "would be contrary to the letter and the spirit of the Constitution and subversive to the whole theory upon which the Union of these States is founded."

    Grover Cleveland, the king of the veto, rejected hundreds of congressional spending bills during his two terms as President in the late 1800s, because, as he often wrote: "I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution."

    Were Jefferson, Madison, Crockett, Pierce, Cleveland, and the countless other lawmakers during that age merely hardhearted and uncaring penny pinchers, as the federalists often charged? Did they not have within them sympathy for fire victims? Or the mentally ill? Or widows? Or impoverished refugees?

    The answer is of course they were not uncharitable scrooges. They simply felt honorbound to uphold the Constitution. They perceived--we now know correctly--that once the genie was out of the bottle, it would be impossible to get it back in. Any unwarranted government interference, no matter how righteous or well-intended, would be, as Madison put it, "but the first link of a long chain of repetitions." Of course, we now know just how remarkably prescient Madison and his colleagues were.

  6. #34
    Fox had a panel discussion about Rand. Smears and lies again. @22:50

  7. #35
    Quote Originally Posted by tommyrp12 View Post
    Fox had a panel discussion about Rand. Smears and lies again. @22:50
    Such BS. First statement should have been in big capital letters "RAND PAUL WANTS A VOTE ON LEGISLATION" and that he absolutely was not "blocking" the bill. You know being a -- gasp-- Senator that votes on legislation.

    Not even a single person from Rand's side on the panel. Cavuto tried but he was stuck being moderator with no counterpoint. Also one -Rubin-- is a progressive activist. The other two while nominally Republican are a local politician the other attached to the Trump political campaign. In other words political hacks. Both of which have obvious incentives to not say or do anything unpopular.
    "The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack...that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation." "Attack Libya UPDATE 8/13: and Syria"

    "We can track down terrorists without trampling on our civil liberties.... the federal government will only issue warrants and execute searches because it needs to, not because it can." "Need to murder UPDATE 8/13: and track citizens" ~ Barack H. Obama

  8. #36
    Quote Originally Posted by Valli6 View Post
    They didn't increase spending. AND as Rand states "pay go" was in the tax bill when it passed - later they removed it against Rand Paul's objections.
    thanks for clearing that up.. although i watched the video yesterday and heard rand talk about that, it didnt register in my brain... so thank you once again.

  9. #37
    " simply asking for a vote on an amendment to offset the cost."

    If we closed Ft. Campbell, would that offset the cost Senator? Cut tobacco subsides?, coal subsidies? Privatize the TVA? Sheesh! I can think a lot of things which benefit the state of Kentucky from the federal government which gutless Rand doesn't have a problem spending money on which could be used to offset 9-11 first responder costs.

    I hear Rand's writing a new book. It's called "How to be an $#@! for Dummies" I'm sure holding up money for 9-11 First Responders will have its own chapter.

  10. #38
    Quote Originally Posted by Badger Paul View Post
    " simply asking for a vote on an amendment to offset the cost."

    If we closed Ft. Campbell, would that offset the cost Senator? Cut tobacco subsides?, coal subsidies? Privatize the TVA? Sheesh! I can think a lot of things which benefit the state of Kentucky from the federal government which gutless Rand doesn't have a problem spending money on which could be used to offset 9-11 first responder costs.

    I hear Rand's writing a new book. It's called "How to be an $#@! for Dummies" I'm sure holding up money for 9-11 First Responders will have its own chapter.
    Yep it's been Rand who has been holding this up for years and years.
    He's not the $#@! dummy here, you are.

  11. #39
    https://www.vcf.gov/

    Looks like they will be funded until 2020 regardless of what happens. They did make big cuts in some instances to compensate for a recent surge in claims.

  12. #40
    What level of tragedy is necessary to warrant perpetual payment from the taxpayer and if it was so popular, why can't they set up a private charity to oversee as much?

    I would interested in the bill if they garnished Cheney et al. but it is silly to think of the government as the righter of wrongs.

    Jon Stewart is also quite charitable.. with other people's money. How about he forego payment for his next circus and show Americans what it means to be charitable?
    “The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, but he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them.” --George Orwell

    Quote Originally Posted by AuH20 View Post
    In terms of a full spectrum candidate, Rand is leaps and bounds above Trump. I'm not disputing that.
    Who else in public life has called for a pre-emptive strike on North Korea?--Donald Trump



  13. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  14. #41
    Quote Originally Posted by Badger Paul View Post
    " simply asking for a vote on an amendment to offset the cost."

    If we closed Ft. Campbell, would that offset the cost Senator? Cut tobacco subsides?, coal subsidies? Privatize the TVA? Sheesh! I can think a lot of things which benefit the state of Kentucky from the federal government which gutless Rand doesn't have a problem spending money on which could be used to offset 9-11 first responder costs.

    I hear Rand's writing a new book. It's called "How to be an $#@! for Dummies" I'm sure holding up money for 9-11 First Responders will have its own chapter.
    Not one single sent has been held up. there is already 5billion already in the fund, enough to go into 2020 and beyond. This bill is for a 70yr fund with no budget and no cap on spending! If you support that $#@!, you are in the wrong place.

  15. #42
    Quote Originally Posted by Badger Paul View Post
    " simply asking for a vote on an amendment to offset the cost."

    If we closed Ft. Campbell, would that offset the cost Senator? Cut tobacco subsides?, coal subsidies? Privatize the TVA? Sheesh! I can think a lot of things which benefit the state of Kentucky from the federal government which gutless Rand doesn't have a problem spending money on which could be used to offset 9-11 first responder costs.

    I hear Rand's writing a new book. It's called "How to be an $#@! for Dummies" I'm sure holding up money for 9-11 First Responders will have its own chapter.
    I will take, "All of the above."

    Just curious, how much money have you personally donated to the first responders or are you just charitable with other people's money?

    And here's another blasphemy: they (first responders in general) know the risks involved with the job beforehand and make too much money to begin with.

    Probably already collecting pensions with perpetual insurance.... And no, that isn't necessarily directed towards the first responders of 9/11 but the piece(s) of $#@! who gun people down for trivialities and retire.

    Miss with the 110k salary plus, plus benefits and pension sob stories.
    “The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, but he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them.” --George Orwell

    Quote Originally Posted by AuH20 View Post
    In terms of a full spectrum candidate, Rand is leaps and bounds above Trump. I'm not disputing that.
    Who else in public life has called for a pre-emptive strike on North Korea?--Donald Trump

  16. #43
    I'm sure a lot of this has been stirred up by neocons upset that Rand wants in on Iran talks.
    Quote Originally Posted by timosman View Post
    This is getting silly.
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    It started silly.
    T.S. Elliot's The Hollow Men

  17. #44
    Quote Originally Posted by nobody's_hero View Post
    I'm sure a lot of this has been stirred up by neocons upset that Rand wants in on Iran talks.
    Exactly!

  18. #45
    "I will take, "All of the above."

    Wonderful! Too bad Rand won't.

    What's blasphemy to me is "What's mine is mine and what's yours is negotiable" hypocritical attitude of Republicans when it comes to spending. and unfortunately Rand has absorbed it. One cannot take seriously has call for a "debate" when he won't put his cards for his state on the table.

    Put it this way, if Rand if such a watchdog when it comes to gov't spending, why does all that aforementioned government spending list of such frivolous things even exist? Hmmm? Could it be the deal to keep the budget cutters away from Kentucky is a certain group of Congressmen from Bluegrass State look the other way when such appropriations are made?

    Didn't you hear Rush Limbaugh the other day? Nobody in the GOP really gives a damn about spending and deficit (and the Constitution for that matter) and that includes its politicians and its voters (and apparently talk show hosts like Limbaugh) It was always a smokescreen. So is Rand pretending now? Hmmm? And for 9-11 first responders? He's nuts!

  19. #46

  20. #47
    Quote Originally Posted by Badger Paul View Post
    Put it this way, if Rand if such a watchdog when it comes to gov't spending, why does all that aforementioned government spending list of such frivolous things even exist? Hmmm? Could it be the deal to keep the budget cutters away from Kentucky is a certain group of Congressmen from Bluegrass State look the other way when such appropriations are made?
    The Senate Majority Leader is the Senior Senator from KY. Randal has almost no pull by comparison, holding up these bills and forcing votes on good amendments he submits is about the extent of his powers.

  21. #48
    Quote Originally Posted by specsaregood View Post
    The Senate Majority Leader is the Senior Senator from KY. Randal has almost no pull by comparison, holding up these bills and forcing votes on good amendments he submits is about the extent of his powers.
    Haters gonna hate.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment



  22. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  23. #49
    Quote Originally Posted by Badger Paul View Post
    "I will take, "All of the above."

    Wonderful! Too bad Rand won't.
    Rand Paul is consistent.

    Your state pays 'X' in taxes and lobbying the federal government for representation with regards to those monies, or at the least that they are spent within the state they arguably came from is not the same as an additional spending bill where the entire country is going to perpetually pay first responders of a given area for a given tragedy.

    We can say what they did is heroic and we can say that gratitude ought be given due to their heroism.

    It is not the government's place to take money from some to give to another, no matter the cause.

    What makes the first responder's tragedy any less than the countless others who have passed in their heroic efforts?

    What's blasphemy to me is "What's mine is mine and what's yours is negotiable" hypocritical attitude of Republicans when it comes to spending. and unfortunately Rand has absorbed it. One cannot take seriously has call for a "debate" when he won't put his cards for his state on the table.
    Let's take Rand Paul off of the table.

    I pay taxes in my state.

    Should I not expect my senators to try and direct an equal amount of money back to my state, or me, God willing?

    Ought that be the way it is? No. But my money is already gone. The least they can do is try to fix the issues within the state or locality that is paying the taxes.

    Put it this way, if Rand if such a watchdog when it comes to gov't spending, why does all that aforementioned government spending list of such frivolous things even exist?
    Because they have too much money.

    Four trillion dollars is not something the mind recognizes.

    Rand Paul is trying to curtail spending.

    Hmmm? Could it be the deal to keep the budget cutters away from Kentucky is a certain group of Congressmen from Bluegrass State look the other way when such appropriations are made?
    I suppose.

    Underhanded insinuations can be made both ways as well.

    That is to say, what is your dog in this pony show.

    Do you see how easy that was?

    Didn't you hear Rush Limbaugh the other day?
    No, fortunately I did not.

    Nobody in the GOP really gives a damn about spending and deficit (and the Constitution for that matter) and that includes its politicians and its voters (and apparently talk show hosts like Limbaugh) It was always a smokescreen. So is Rand pretending now? Hmmm? And for 9-11 first responders? He's nuts!
    If you want to argue that he ought be calling ought trillion dollar plus deficits more aggressively and directly confront the president for as much... sure. I would somewhat be in agreement, depending.

    He is consistent on this. If they want to pay the first responders:

    1: Those so vocally disgusted by the lack of funds can get the ball rolling and donate or,

    2: Cut the money from somewhere else that is not as important

    But he is the $#@! for suggesting that maybe government lives within its means and quits burdening further generations with debt to finance welfare programs of today.

    I'll be honest: It seems pretty popular. Maybe if Jon Stewart got the ball rolling with a couple episode donation and promotional campaign we would be well on our way.

    Or if they didn't give as much money to Saudi Arabia (the ones where the majority of hijackers came from, who were protected, who barbarically rule and who were one of the causes of 9/11, maybe they could afford it (if anyone knew how much it would end up costing)?



    As an aside: What level of tragedy is required before forcefully taking from the taxpayer to compensate the victim(s)?

    They say 410 billion dollars was given to charity last year. I at first wonder how charitable one would be if their wages were not siphoned but that is besides the point. Of the 410 billion dollars, could we, as a society, not find a way to compensate the brave?

    And this ignores the fact that they were paid quite handsomely beforehand, and knew the risks of the job, and some claims have arguable circumstances (how do you prove one's cancer is from responding to ground zero)?

    Where is the bill to garnish Dick Cheney and where is Jon Stewart's charity?
    “The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, but he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them.” --George Orwell

    Quote Originally Posted by AuH20 View Post
    In terms of a full spectrum candidate, Rand is leaps and bounds above Trump. I'm not disputing that.
    Who else in public life has called for a pre-emptive strike on North Korea?--Donald Trump

  24. #50
    Quote Originally Posted by Badger Paul View Post
    "I will take, "All of the above."

    Wonderful! Too bad Rand won't.

    What's blasphemy to me is "What's mine is mine and what's yours is negotiable" hypocritical attitude of Republicans when it comes to spending. and unfortunately Rand has absorbed it. One cannot take seriously has call for a "debate" when he won't put his cards for his state on the table.

    Put it this way, if Rand if such a watchdog when it comes to gov't spending, why does all that aforementioned government spending list of such frivolous things even exist? Hmmm? Could it be the deal to keep the budget cutters away from Kentucky is a certain group of Congressmen from Bluegrass State look the other way when such appropriations are made?

    Didn't you hear Rush Limbaugh the other day? Nobody in the GOP really gives a damn about spending and deficit (and the Constitution for that matter) and that includes its politicians and its voters (and apparently talk show hosts like Limbaugh) It was always a smokescreen. So is Rand pretending now? Hmmm? And for 9-11 first responders? He's nuts!
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  25. #51
    Some background. The PAYGO provision discussed below. Rand was consistent in saying he requested spending cuts along with the tax cuts and opposed the waiver for the spending cuts.

    My opinion -- that others may disagree with -- is that it's okay (but not ideal) to vote for a tax cut without a spending cut.

    The spending bill immediately after the tax law changes was stripped of the PAYGO provision and this is how Rand Paul (and Mike Lee) voted:

    "Only eight of 51 Senate Republicans voted against waiving budgetary discipline for the spending bill, and only two of those, Kentucky’s Rand Paul and Utah’s Mike Lee, voted against the bill’s final passage. Likewise, only 16 Republicans voted against the spending bill in the House, and several of those voted no not because the bill cancelled automatic spending reductions, but because the bill didn’t spend enough on federal defense programs."

    https://thefederalist.com/2018/01/03...eral-spending/
    Last edited by Libertea Party; 07-22-2019 at 06:14 AM.
    "The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack...that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation." "Attack Libya UPDATE 8/13: and Syria"

    "We can track down terrorists without trampling on our civil liberties.... the federal government will only issue warrants and execute searches because it needs to, not because it can." "Need to murder UPDATE 8/13: and track citizens" ~ Barack H. Obama

  26. #52
    "It is not the government's place to take money from some to give to another, no matter the cause."

    Goody! Let's privatize the TVA because I shouldn't have to pay to subsidize the cheap power given to people in Kentucky.

    But that's not an argument you're going to hear Rand Paul make, ever.

    So if Rand figures it's in the nation's interest to pay for the TVA, why does he not think it in the interest of the nation to help out persons who aided their country in a time of national emergency? Hmmm?

    Again, hypocrisy! Typical of so many Republicans and so-called conservatives and libertarians. He sees no conflict taking what he sees as a benefit for his home state but to others elsewhere, to him its welfare! Sorry I'm not impressed with his logic that only Republican constituencies should benefit from Federal funding. To him, that makes spending okay!

  27. #53
    Quote Originally Posted by vita3 View Post
    So. although Rand is correct in sticking to fiscal responsible principles.. this issue is tough.
    There's nothing tough about it. Set up a voluntary charity. But that's probably redundant, because no doubt several already exist.

    And then if you feel like not enough of your money is being taken from you and redistributed to help 9/11 victims in whatever way, then just donate more.

    This requires zero government spending.

  28. #54
    It's an emotional issue, and I would put the blame on Jon—not Rand—for playing on it.

    Never in the history of the USA had so many firefighters died in one incident. The fund is a great way for people to feel like they're doing something for those firefighters and their families without actually personally doing something.

    Consider:

    84 firefighters died in 2018 alone in separate incidents. 27 so far in 2019. There's no federal fund for them. The volunteer fire department in the neighboring county south of mine had a volunteer on scene be struck by a metal coupling that came apart on a charged hose line. He died of a brain injury. No federal funding. What exactly makes 9/11 special? I know what the answer is, but then if I think about it, I don't. There's no reason, other than the emotional charges related to that one event.

    Did you know that one of the requirements for accepting aid from the fund is that you must agree not to sue the airline industries? That puts a damper on the charity part, when you consider that it's a form of removing liability. Did the gov't establish the fund to help the firefighters? Or protect the airlines?
    Last edited by nobody's_hero; 07-22-2019 at 12:16 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by timosman View Post
    This is getting silly.
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    It started silly.
    T.S. Elliot's The Hollow Men

  29. #55
    It's not just firefighters dying from. the toxins. It's police, NYC residents, many workers who handled debris or bodies in multiple sites away from WTC.

    The towers had asbestos sprayed all over & IMO were intentionally demolished..

    Not only did our GOV use 911 to invade & military bases occupy Afghanistan & Iraq..Bush admin changed air quality EPA numbers to "get everyone back to work"

    This GOV lie is well documented & proved.

    Lot going on here .. repeating " less GOV always & "charity should take care of it" seems trite to say the least to me.

  30. #56
    Quote Originally Posted by vita3 View Post
    Lot going on here .. repeating " less GOV always & "charity should take care of it" seems trite to say the least to me.
    But it's the correct answer, isn't it?

    If you're not donating enough, then by all means donate more. Why go to the government and complain that they're not using violence to force you to do what you're choosing not to do?



  31. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  32. #57
    But it's the correct answer, isn't it?

    NO. it's not. IMO

    Got to ask Are you a robot or human?

  33. #58
    Quote Originally Posted by vita3 View Post
    But it's the correct answer, isn't it?

    NO. it's not. IMO

    Got to ask Are you a robot or human?
    How much more do you believe you should donate to them? And whatever that number is, what's stopping you?

    If you think you should give them another $100, then why would you rather have the federal government threaten you with violence to make you give it $1,000 just so that a tenth of that would end up where you wanted to donate it on your own in the first place?

    Is the answer because you're really not worried about you not donating enough, but what you really want is to control other people's money and not your own?

    I don't answer personal questions here.
    Last edited by Superfluous Man; 07-22-2019 at 02:18 PM.

  34. #59
    Robot response with the donations. Trite

  35. #60
    Quote Originally Posted by vita3 View Post
    Robot response with the donations. Trite
    What's your response though? I've given you a bullet-proof argument and you seem to want to just dodge it.

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 7
    Last Post: 07-30-2017, 07:42 PM
  2. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-28-2017, 05:08 AM
  3. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-22-2015, 10:57 AM
  4. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 05-22-2015, 10:39 AM
  5. Replies: 12
    Last Post: 07-10-2014, 10:59 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •