Rand Paul blocks 9/11 victim compensation bill

  • 66 results
  • 1
  • 2
Avatar image for nintendoboy16
#1 Posted by nintendoboy16 (36462 posts) -

The Hill

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 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." A spokesperson for Paul later told The Hill that Paul "is not blocking anything," adding that he is "simply seeking to pay for it."

"As with any bill, Senator Paul always believes it needs to be paid for. Senator Paul is simply offering an amendment, which other senators support, to pay for this legislation,” the spokesperson said in an emailed statement. 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 any 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 Aug. 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.

A scumbag. Just like his father. And here is Jon Stewart's response (and on Fox News too).

Avatar image for warmblur
#2 Posted by warmblur (2755 posts) -

Rand is a piece of shit.

Avatar image for heirren
#3 Posted by Heirren (2185 posts) -

John Stewart is hate.

Avatar image for Serraph105
#4 Posted by Serraph105 (33959 posts) -

@heirren said:

John Stewart is hate.

For standing up for 9-11 first respondent? What world do you live in where that's an act of hate?

Avatar image for foxhound_fox
#5 Posted by foxhound_fox (98011 posts) -

@warmblur said:

Rand is a piece of shit.

That's being unkind to pieces of shit.

Avatar image for heirren
#6 Posted by Heirren (2185 posts) -

@Serraph105:

I cant bare to watch people that bank on creating hate amongst people with different views. Bill Maher, too, and im not saying this exclusive to any party. Any of them.

Avatar image for PraetorianMan
#7 Posted by PraetorianMan (1973 posts) -

His neighbor should have tried harder.

Avatar image for Serraph105
#8 Posted by Serraph105 (33959 posts) -

@heirren said:

@Serraph105:

I cant bare to watch people that bank on creating hate amongst people with different views. Bill Maher, too, and im not saying this exclusive to any party. Any of them.

But what is hateful about standing up for 9-11 first responders?

Avatar image for Solaryellow
#9 Posted by Solaryellow (5085 posts) -

"As with any bill, Senator Paul always believes it needs to be paid for. Senator Paul is simply offering an amendment, which other senators support, to pay for this legislation,”

Why is that wrong?

Avatar image for heirren
#10 Posted by Heirren (2185 posts) -

@Serraph105:

Point is the guy makes a career off of creating hostility amongst people. Scum.

Avatar image for Serraph105
#11 Posted by Serraph105 (33959 posts) -

@heirren said:

@Serraph105:

Point is the guy makes a career off of creating hostility amongst people. Scum.

lol what's hostile about making sure 9-11 first responders get medical treatment for their heroism in the face of falling buildings and saving people's lives? And who is Stewart creating hostility among? Those who want to take care of heroes and those who don't want to spend minuscule amount of money to do so?

Avatar image for heirren
#12 Edited by Heirren (2185 posts) -

@Serraph105:

Where did i say this instance? I said thats what his career is banks off of.

Avatar image for Serraph105
#13 Posted by Serraph105 (33959 posts) -

@Solaryellow said:

"As with any bill, Senator Paul always believes it needs to be paid for. Senator Paul is simply offering an amendment, which other senators support, to pay for this legislation,”

Why is that wrong?

Because he only seems to feel that way when it suits him. As Jon mentioned, he voted for a tax bill that gave away over a trillion dollars in tax cuts while also increasing spending by over a trillion dollars and that didn't need to be properly paid for by anyone's stretch of imagination.

Avatar image for Serraph105
#14 Posted by Serraph105 (33959 posts) -

@heirren said:

@Serraph105:

Where did i say this instance? I said thats what his career is banks off of.

9-11 first responders is what the topic is about so I assumed you called him scum in part because of what is being discussed in this topic.

So in this case you actually support what Jon Stewart is advocating for? If so, why not say that?

Avatar image for Chutebox
#15 Posted by Chutebox (44696 posts) -

Blocking the bill is pretty terrible. His reasoning given the past two years is even worse.

Avatar image for Vaasman
#16 Edited by Vaasman (13800 posts) -
@heirren said:

@Serraph105:

I cant bare to watch people that bank on creating hateamongst people with different views. Bill Maher, too, and im not saying this exclusive to any party. Any of them.

You haven't commented once in the thread where Trump makes openly racist and/or hateful comments to members of congress for their different views.

Who are you trying to fool?

More to the point, Jon Stewart has been retired from regular entertainment appearances for years and doesn't make money by advocating for 9/11 compensation funds. Please explain to me what career of hate you are referring to in your posts.

Avatar image for burntbyhellfire
#17 Posted by burntbyhellfire (451 posts) -

a 70 year time frame? wtf?

Avatar image for heirren
#18 Posted by Heirren (2185 posts) -

@Vaasman:

Hes an extremist.

Avatar image for heathen75
#19 Posted by HEATHEN75 (773 posts) -

@heirren said:

@Vaasman:

Hes an extremist.

Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
#20 Posted by LJS9502_basic (166850 posts) -

And yet he is still going to get support. Americans are terrible at politics.

Avatar image for Nuck81
#21 Posted by Nuck81 (7705 posts) -

Rand Paul lives about an hour from me.

Another neighbor needs to shitmix him.

Avatar image for heirren
#22 Edited by Heirren (2185 posts) -

@heathen75:

I know!

Most people are blind.

Avatar image for watercrack445
#23 Edited by watercrack445 (1712 posts) -

Ha! Republicans are hypocrites. They say they support America but are not showing any kind of support to any 911 first responders.

Checkmate

Avatar image for Vaasman
#24 Edited by Vaasman (13800 posts) -

@heirren said:

@Vaasman:

Hes an extremist.

If all you've got in support of your hypocrisy and accusations is shitposting, then don't bother, thanks.

Avatar image for Solaryellow
#25 Posted by Solaryellow (5085 posts) -

@Serraph105 said:
@Solaryellow said:

"As with any bill, Senator Paul always believes it needs to be paid for. Senator Paul is simply offering an amendment, which other senators support, to pay for this legislation,”

Why is that wrong?

Because he only seems to feel that way when it suits him. As Jon mentioned, he voted for a tax bill that gave away over a trillion dollars in tax cuts while also increasing spending by over a trillion dollars and that didn't need to be properly paid for by anyone's stretch of imagination.

Allowing people to keep more of THEIR money is giving money away huh?

Your first sentence seems to sum up your opinion as well. Spending is good (even though our money situation is ass backwards) as long as it is something we like, right?

Regardless what Paul does/does not do, your opinion of him, etc.., is it wrong to find a way to pay for something rather than borrowing or creating more debt?

Avatar image for horgen
#26 Posted by Horgen (120868 posts) -

How much is projected to cost?

Avatar image for heirren
#27 Posted by Heirren (2185 posts) -

@Vaasman:

His career revolved around joking against one side, any chance he could. This can an influence on the youth as they look more to entertainment figures than people with something worthwhile to say.

His audience loves him, has a cult like following, and this cult like following, without really thinking for themselves, just take him at his all-knowing word. There are republican personalities that do the same thing. Im all for comedy but not when it cam create hostility amongst the younger crowd which doesnt know any better.

My point is hes in it for the money. Thats it.

Avatar image for burntbyhellfire
#28 Posted by burntbyhellfire (451 posts) -

@horgen said:

How much is projected to cost?

its supposed to be a cost thats supposed to continue for the next 70 years so thats nearly impossible to tell

rand isnt against the funding, and he didnt block it, he simply said they need to cut some of the expenses somewhere else actually fund it

Avatar image for horgen
#29 Posted by Horgen (120868 posts) -

@burntbyhellfire said:
@horgen said:

How much is projected to cost?

its supposed to be a cost thats supposed to continue for the next 70 years so thats nearly impossible to tell

rand isnt against the funding, and he didnt block it, he simply said they need to cut some of the expenses somewhere else actually fund it

Yet had no problem with a 1.5 trillion tax cut.

And I assume they want it going another 70 years because none of the first responder will be alive in 70 years.

Anyhow I have trouble finding out what the program has cost until now. Unless I miss it in the wikipedia article about it, it seems to have cost 10-15 billion $ so far. The yearly cost will probably go down as more and more of them die.

Avatar image for Vaasman
#30 Posted by Vaasman (13800 posts) -

@heirren: How is being a left leaning late show host all it takes to be "an extremist?" By that logic literally everyone on television is an extremist, no one is perfectly centered or unbiased and no matter what there will always be people who take any information you offer as an attack. Jon Stewart is far closer to rational and centered than, say, many MSNBC or CNN commentators, and was never during his run using anything other than critical or facetious commentary. That is not a "career off of creating hostility." Again I ask, do you have any valid support for your claims?

Additionally, since you seem to have outright ignored this point, I remind you that Jon Stewart has been retired from regular entertainment appearances for years and does not make money by advocating for 9/11 first responders.

And still no defense for your wild hypocrisy so I'll just assume you accept and admit to it.

Avatar image for burntbyhellfire
#31 Posted by burntbyhellfire (451 posts) -

there's no such thing as a 1.5 trillion tax cut, you cannot not take money from someone and claim you're giving it to them, that'd be like saying hey.. i didnt beat you up and take the $100 out of your wallet, so thats the same as me giving you money.. it doesnt work that way

also, i've shown before that the tax revenue brought in on a federal number has actually gone up, meaning those projections that the government would lose 1.5 trillion in lost taxes is debunked

and will it go down? because medical expenses tend to go up as people age

Avatar image for horgen
#32 Posted by Horgen (120868 posts) -

@burntbyhellfire said:

there's no such thing as a 1.5 trillion tax cut, you cannot not take money from someone and claim you're giving it to them, that'd be like saying hey.. i didnt beat you up and take the $100 out of your wallet, so thats the same as me giving you money.. it doesnt work that way

also, i've shown before that the tax revenue brought in on a federal number has actually gone up, meaning those projections that the government would lose 1.5 trillion in lost taxes is debunked

and will it go down? because medical expenses tend to go up as people age

They will go up for each individual, down in total as the group shrinks.

Taxes are the cost of living in our society.

Avatar image for Solaryellow
#33 Posted by Solaryellow (5085 posts) -

@burntbyhellfire said:
@horgen said:

How much is projected to cost?

its supposed to be a cost thats supposed to continue for the next 70 years so thats nearly impossible to tell

rand isnt against the funding, and he didnt block it, he simply said they need to cut some of the expenses somewhere else actually fund it

Read about the Johnstown flood tax in PA.

Avatar image for horgen
#34 Posted by Horgen (120868 posts) -

@Solaryellow said:

Read about the Johnstown flood tax in PA.

US can afford it.

Avatar image for vl4d_l3nin
#35 Posted by vl4d_l3nin (1914 posts) -

It's Rand Paul. He opposes any spending that isn't a tax expenditure, including all budget appropriations.

Avatar image for zaryia
#36 Posted by Zaryia (9428 posts) -
@heirren said:

John Stewart is hate.

This is bait.

Avatar image for zaryia
#37 Edited by Zaryia (9428 posts) -
@watercrack445 said:

Ha! Republicans are hypocrites. They say they support America but are not showing any kind of support to any 911 first responders.

Checkmate

Rand Paul should go back to his country if he hates America so much.

Avatar image for heirren
#38 Edited by Heirren (2185 posts) -

@Vaasman:

Pretty much everyone on tv is. People should realize that their opinions are largely grounded in money--their careers. I value any random persons opinion on the street over his, so long as they dont have a dollar in what they are saying.

Avatar image for Vaasman
#39 Edited by Vaasman (13800 posts) -

@heirren said:

@Vaasman:

Pretty much everyone on tv is. People should realize that their opinions are largely grounded in money--their careers. I value any random persons opinion on the street over his, so long as they dont have a dollar in what they are saying.

So if I said you sound like an irrational loon in this thread, you'd lend extraordinary value to that opinion because I have no monetary stake in telling you as much? Good to know.

Avatar image for heirren
#40 Posted by Heirren (2185 posts) -

@Vaasman:

Id say you are entitled to your opinion and kindly disagree. You yourself just said if i consider him an extremist then that more or less means everyone on tv is. That means you do find an issue with the media at large, and in the very least understand where im coming from. Hardly a raging lunatic.

Avatar image for Solaryellow
#41 Posted by Solaryellow (5085 posts) -

@horgen said:
@Solaryellow said:

Read about the Johnstown flood tax in PA.

US can afford it.

The flood tax or something else?

Avatar image for Vaasman
#42 Posted by Vaasman (13800 posts) -

@heirren said:

@Vaasman:

Id say you are entitled to your opinion and kindly disagree. You yourself just said if i consider him an extremist then that more or less means everyone on tv is. That means you do find an issue with the media at large, and in the very least understand where im coming from. Hardly a raging lunatic.

I didn't say raging, I said irrational. Regardless, your idea is utterly nonsensical and essentially you're saying that we should discredit everyone ever as extremists, no matter what topic. After all, people who write articles also make money, people who do radio shows make money, people who compile citation and aggregate make money. All while having invested stakes and biases in what is told to you. Scientists, they all make money to tell you what they are paid to. Nobody can argue from an informed position because people were paid to deliver that information to you.

And of course I reiterate, for the THIRD time, Jon Stewart is retired and will gain very little or no money from his current activism. So you're not just arguing irrationally, but disingenuously.

I'm not derailing further for this dreck. If you have something to say about how Rand Paul is a twat for stalling a vote that's virtually unanimous otherwise, on the grounds of funding despite previously approving a massive tax cut, then feel free to ping me. Otherwise I'll ignore it.

Avatar image for heirren
#43 Posted by Heirren (2185 posts) -

@Vaasman:

Agree to disagree, then. 🙂

Avatar image for r-gamer
#44 Posted by R-Gamer (408 posts) -

If hes just making sure it's paid for that's fine. But they should definitely support this.

Avatar image for horgen
#45 Posted by Horgen (120868 posts) -

@Solaryellow said:
@horgen said:
@Solaryellow said:

Read about the Johnstown flood tax in PA.

US can afford it.

The flood tax or something else?

Helping the first responders. Pocket change compared to money spent elsewhere.

Avatar image for nintendoboy16
#46 Posted by nintendoboy16 (36462 posts) -

@heirren: Jon Stewart made fun of Democrats.

Avatar image for heirren
#47 Posted by Heirren (2185 posts) -

@nintendoboy16:

Maybe i was a little harsh lol, even though theres a lot of truth in it if youve ever witnessed younger kids try to debate each other--its so odd seeing almost hate fueled discussions amongst the youth. Entertainment figures help fuel that. And, I have a thing with people that all they do is pick on others.. for example there was that instant where people were picking on Trumps kid....or even the amount of people almost ready burn him at the steak-------he has a kid, and a family. Im sure this isnt coming across right.

Avatar image for baelnergal
#48 Edited by BaelNergal (569 posts) -

Okay, I have a question: What happens if this passes, but there's no money budgeted to pay for it? I'm not seeing the benefit.

I'm not saying Rand Paul is right in blocking it like this. But if he is correct and the bill doesn't have any actual language to provide a budget for it, then I don't see how his opponents are right either.

It is possible for both sides of a debate to be wrong. And it happens frequently in American politics.

Avatar image for HoolaHoopMan
#49 Posted by HoolaHoopMan (10873 posts) -

@Serraph105 said:
@Solaryellow said:

"As with any bill, Senator Paul always believes it needs to be paid for. Senator Paul is simply offering an amendment, which other senators support, to pay for this legislation,”

Why is that wrong?

Because he only seems to feel that way when it suits him. As Jon mentioned, he voted for a tax bill that gave away over a trillion dollars in tax cuts while also increasing spending by over a trillion dollars and that didn't need to be properly paid for by anyone's stretch of imagination.

It's what conservatives call virtue signaling. Fiscal virtue signaling in this case.

Rand Paul doesn't give a shit about the debt/deficit. Exhibit 1: He voted for Trump's bullshit tax cuts which have doubled the deficit in under 2 years.

Avatar image for THUMPTABLE
#50 Posted by THUMPTABLE (2096 posts) -

@LJS9502_basic said:

And yet he is still going to get support. Americans are terrible at politics.

It appears to be very polarising.