User avatar
casinterest
Posts: 8800
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 5:30 am

Re: Jon Stewart slams congress

Wed Jun 12, 2019 11:01 pm

MikeDrop wrote:
Dutchy wrote:
MikeDrop wrote:
So now if I choose to ignore a partisan hack who has been bashing my party and beliefs for the last what, 15 years,


So Mike, you ignore anyone whom you perceive to criticize your party? Man o man, that attitude is kind of scary.

I didn’t say that. I would expect many here to ignore anything Sean Hannity says if he were to testify in Congress on any issue. This is what happens when an entertainer becomes a partisan mouthpiece, he/she may gain a following, but they lose all credibility with the half of the people they are bashing.

No serious lawmaker would put Hannity on the stand about border security and expect support from the Democrats.

Mike Drop


How is Stewart a Partisan Mouthpiece? Hannity's show is all about being an ignorant dishonorable hack. While Stewart was able to pick on all sides equally.
Where ever you go, there you are.
 
User avatar
Aaron747
Posts: 9315
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 2:07 am

Re: Jon Stewart slams congress

Wed Jun 12, 2019 11:12 pm

MikeDrop wrote:
Dutchy wrote:
MikeDrop wrote:
So now if I choose to ignore a partisan hack who has been bashing my party and beliefs for the last what, 15 years,


So Mike, you ignore anyone whom you perceive to criticize your party? Man o man, that attitude is kind of scary.

I didn’t say that. I would expect many here to ignore anything Sean Hannity says if he were to testify in Congress on any issue. This is what happens when an entertainer becomes a partisan mouthpiece, he/she may gain a following, but they lose all credibility with the half of the people they are bashing.

No serious lawmaker would put Hannity on the stand about border security and expect support from the Democrats.

Mike Drop


The 9/11 first responders are guys on both left and right - but they all call Stewart their ‘brother’ for 10+ years of advocacy for them. What does it say about you that you ignore a. their embrace of him and b. their financial/physical ruin because Congress can’t get off its ass to help them? Folks on the right are becoming the same brand of whiny snowflake as SJWs on college campuses, I swear.
If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
 
Airstud
Posts: 4625
Joined: Wed Nov 29, 2000 11:57 am

Re: Jon Stewart slams congress

Wed Jun 12, 2019 11:47 pm

MikeDrop wrote:
He built his career on bashing Republicans daily.


On The Daily Show I think he equally bashed Democrats.
Pancakes are delicious.
 
MikeDrop
Posts: 499
Joined: Sat Apr 21, 2018 6:21 pm

Re: Jon Stewart slams congress

Thu Jun 13, 2019 12:53 am

Aaron747 wrote:
MikeDrop wrote:
Dutchy wrote:

So Mike, you ignore anyone whom you perceive to criticize your party? Man o man, that attitude is kind of scary.

I didn’t say that. I would expect many here to ignore anything Sean Hannity says if he were to testify in Congress on any issue. This is what happens when an entertainer becomes a partisan mouthpiece, he/she may gain a following, but they lose all credibility with the half of the people they are bashing.

No serious lawmaker would put Hannity on the stand about border security and expect support from the Democrats.

Mike Drop


The 9/11 first responders are guys on both left and right - but they all call Stewart their ‘brother’ for 10+ years of advocacy for them. What does it say about you that you ignore a. their embrace of him and b. their financial/physical ruin because Congress can’t get off its ass to help them? Folks on the right are becoming the same brand of whiny snowflake as SJWs on college campuses, I swear.


It doesn’t say anything about me except that you are describing something I’ve never heard about - Jon Stewart doing anything useful for anyone. The first time I heard of any connection between him and some 9/11 group was an angry news article claiming that Republicans bad because they didn’t attend his testimony.

Like I said, if you take a person who has alienated half of the population and have him represent something you value you will get zilch from that group of people.

And you can stuff the fake outrage - the last 3 years of left wing abuse that has been dumped on anything and anyone on the right in this country has created this situation.

You can reap what you’ve sowed. Mitch McConnel needs to stall any bill from the Democrats in the house until they get serious about the many problems that meet to be addressed - like border security.

Mike Drop
 
User avatar
Super80Fan
Posts: 1510
Joined: Thu Jul 06, 2017 4:14 am

Re: Jon Stewart slams congress

Thu Jun 13, 2019 12:59 am

Jon Stewart might personally be left of center, but he is not a partisan hack like most "comedians" today. He fights for what he thinks is right and in this case I can't believe people would disagree with him.

During the Barry Soetoro administration he definitely criticized some of their actions/things, along with Colbert.
RIP McDonnell Douglas
 
User avatar
einsteinboricua
Posts: 7374
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 4:11 pm

Re: Jon Stewart slams congress

Thu Jun 13, 2019 1:27 am

MikeDrop wrote:
Mitch McConnel needs to stall any bill from the Democrats in the house until they get serious about the many problems that meet to be addressed - like border security.

Translation: I want gridlock in Congress until Democrats pass what Republicans want them to pass. Who cares if they were elected to take control of the House?
"You haven't seen a tree until you've seen its shadow from the sky."
 
User avatar
Super80Fan
Posts: 1510
Joined: Thu Jul 06, 2017 4:14 am

Re: Jon Stewart slams congress

Thu Jun 13, 2019 2:11 am

einsteinboricua wrote:
MikeDrop wrote:
Mitch McConnel needs to stall any bill from the Democrats in the house until they get serious about the many problems that meet to be addressed - like border security.

Translation: I want gridlock in Congress until Democrats pass what Republicans want them to pass. Who cares if they were elected to take control of the House?


In this case, I would hope Senate passes this bill as something like this shouldn't be political for any reason. This is also what happens when you have one party in control of the House and another with the Senate. It benefits the country to have one party in control of both, whichever they may be.
RIP McDonnell Douglas
 
MaverickM11
Posts: 17388
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2000 1:59 pm

Re: Jon Stewart slams congress

Thu Jun 13, 2019 2:21 am

einsteinboricua wrote:
MikeDrop wrote:
Mitch McConnel needs to stall any bill from the Democrats in the house until they get serious about the many problems that meet to be addressed - like border security.

Translation: I want gridlock in Congress until Democrats pass what Republicans want them to pass. Who cares if they were elected to take control of the House?

I don't know why y'all bother arguing with him. It's clear that he'd rather 9/11 heroes eat dirt than suffer an imaginary slight, despite practically decades of evidence to the contrary. Sounds like someone else we know :roll:
E pur si muove -Galileo
 
User avatar
Aaron747
Posts: 9315
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 2:07 am

Re: Jon Stewart slams congress

Thu Jun 13, 2019 3:08 am

MaverickM11 wrote:
einsteinboricua wrote:
MikeDrop wrote:
Mitch McConnel needs to stall any bill from the Democrats in the house until they get serious about the many problems that meet to be addressed - like border security.

Translation: I want gridlock in Congress until Democrats pass what Republicans want them to pass. Who cares if they were elected to take control of the House?

I don't know why y'all bother arguing with him. It's clear that he'd rather 9/11 heroes eat dirt than suffer an imaginary slight, despite practically decades of evidence to the contrary. Sounds like someone else we know :roll:


Peas in a pod dude - it’s staggering to watch the mental gymnastics required
If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
 
seb146
Posts: 20195
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

Re: Jon Stewart slams congress

Thu Jun 13, 2019 4:24 am

MikeDrop wrote:
Aaron747 wrote:
MikeDrop wrote:
I didn’t say that. I would expect many here to ignore anything Sean Hannity says if he were to testify in Congress on any issue. This is what happens when an entertainer becomes a partisan mouthpiece, he/she may gain a following, but they lose all credibility with the half of the people they are bashing.

No serious lawmaker would put Hannity on the stand about border security and expect support from the Democrats.

Mike Drop


The 9/11 first responders are guys on both left and right - but they all call Stewart their ‘brother’ for 10+ years of advocacy for them. What does it say about you that you ignore a. their embrace of him and b. their financial/physical ruin because Congress can’t get off its ass to help them? Folks on the right are becoming the same brand of whiny snowflake as SJWs on college campuses, I swear.


It doesn’t say anything about me except that you are describing something I’ve never heard about - Jon Stewart doing anything useful for anyone.


Standing up for 9/11 First Responders is not useful. You just said it right there.
You bet I'm pumped!!! I just had a green tea!!!
 
SL1200MK2
Posts: 58
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 11:00 pm

Re: Jon Stewart slams congress

Thu Jun 13, 2019 4:51 am

MikeDrop wrote:
Dutchy wrote:
MikeDrop wrote:
So now if I choose to ignore a partisan hack who has been bashing my party and beliefs for the last what, 15 years,


So Mike, you ignore anyone whom you perceive to criticize your party? Man o man, that attitude is kind of scary.

I didn’t say that. I would expect many here to ignore anything Sean Hannity says if he were to testify in Congress on any issue. This is what happens when an entertainer becomes a partisan mouthpiece, he/she may gain a following, but they lose all credibility with the half of the people they are bashing.

No serious lawmaker would put Hannity on the stand about border security and expect support from the Democrats.

Mike Drop


I don’t know about that, actually. If, for instance, Sean Hannity was involved with a cause for quite a while, seemed to be well-versed in the subject, and presented it, I think I’d at least give it a listen. I suppose my feelings don’t get particularly hurt by political opposition.
 
speedbird52
Posts: 758
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2016 5:30 am

Re: Jon Stewart slams congress

Thu Jun 13, 2019 5:15 am

MikeDrop wrote:
910A wrote:
MikeDrop wrote:
Perhaps, but it’s pretty predictable that if he is testifying few Republicans will show up. Why would they? The organizers knew this and are playing it for maximum effect. The Democrats are using the victims of 911 for political gain. Shameful, yet not surprising.

Mike Drop


Oh please..as a retired first responder we sometimes had to go into hell to do our jobs and that's what the community expected. In this case the scare shitless first responders in this case, who had no idea what they were facing in terms of hazards, should have their medical bills paid for life. It's called workers compensation. The Republican Congressman Johnson from Louisiana insulted the entire first responder community with his comment "we have other priorities and other emergencies to deal with".

Thank you for making my point. You have turned this into a partisan issue in order to build support for your political agenda.

And, why would I believe anything you say on an Internet forum? It’s as if the liberals in this country expect us to forget the last three years of abuse by the left. All you did by bringing up this jerk (Stewart) is remind us that you did it for eight years from 2000 to 2008 and then gave a pass to Obama for eight years. Spare us your crocodile tears.

Mike Drop

Mike: *Constantly smears a political party and political ideology in a way designed to be inflamatory*
Actual first responder: *Makes legitimate criticism of one member of a political party Mike likes*
Mike:

Image
 
speedbird52
Posts: 758
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2016 5:30 am

Re: Jon Stewart slams congress

Thu Jun 13, 2019 5:18 am

I like Jon Stewart even though I don't agree with everything he says. Watching his interviews on Fox News is hilarious, and for the most part it looks like everyone is having a good time. His speech was one of the most powerful I had seen in a long time. I am wary of people using my emotions for a political gain, but anyone could see that Jon was being genuine with his speech. You could tell that this is something he cares about deeply. Also, no where in his speech did he mention anything negative about any specific party, just to put that conversation to rest...
 
LMP737
Posts: 5902
Joined: Wed May 08, 2002 4:06 pm

Re: Jon Stewart slams congress

Thu Jun 13, 2019 6:01 pm

MikeDrop wrote:

I got that impression by you're reaction to this thread which was "John Stewart is liberal shill". Which tells me you could give hoot about them.

Say that a Republican lead congress decided that a particular subject was important to the nation and wanted to bring in someone to testify about it in order to rally support from the entire nation. Then they decide to have Rush Limbaugh be the expert that they bring in. Any self respecting democrat would assume that this was not a serious attempt at a bipartisan solution that would actually make a difference.[/quote]


Rush Limbaugh wasn't up there now was he? Probably because he couldn't be bothered with helping them.

And don't put him in the same category as Rush Limbaugh. When was the last time Rush Limbaugh had a democrat on his show and had a civil conversation with him/her? John Stewart has had Republicans on his show and has perfectly civil conversations with them. Hell, he had Donald Rumsfeld on and IMHO was WAY TOO civil with him. Should have gone after him with both barrels.

MikeDrop wrote:
Jon Stewart is divisive and toxic and no serious person would consider having him speak if they wanted to solve a problem in today’s political environment.


Unanimous vote the next day.
Never take financial advice from co-workers.
 
Magog
Posts: 850
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2019 11:54 am

Re: Jon Stewart slams congress

Thu Jun 13, 2019 7:10 pm

MaverickM11 wrote:
I don't know why y'all bother arguing with him. It's clear that he'd rather 9/11 heroes eat dirt than suffer an imaginary slight,

My false dichotomy sensor is pinging like crazy.
 
N757ST
Posts: 703
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2002 6:00 am

Re: Jon Stewart slams congress

Sat Jun 15, 2019 6:49 pm

I didn’t always, or often for that matter agree with everything Jon Stewart said while on the daily show, but I did find him entertaining and his show and reaction after 9/11 perfectly summed up the options of an entire nation. He’s 100% in the right here. Shame on congress.
 
jetwet1
Posts: 2856
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2007 4:42 am

Re: Jon Stewart slams congress

Wed Jul 17, 2019 11:30 pm

And today, Rand Paul (R) KY blocked the fast tracking of the bill due to concerns on the affect it would have on the deficit...

He had no problem voting for tax cuts that have increased the deficit, but lets not fund the healthcare for first responders.....
 
User avatar
casinterest
Posts: 8800
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 5:30 am

Re: Jon Stewart slams congress

Thu Jul 18, 2019 3:41 am

jetwet1 wrote:
And today, Rand Paul (R) KY blocked the fast tracking of the bill due to concerns on the affect it would have on the deficit...

He had no problem voting for tax cuts that have increased the deficit, but lets not fund the healthcare for first responders.....


Rand Paul is just trying to remind everyone that there is more than one idiot from KY in the Senate.
Where ever you go, there you are.
 
LMP737
Posts: 5902
Joined: Wed May 08, 2002 4:06 pm

Re: Jon Stewart slams congress

Thu Jul 18, 2019 2:58 pm

jetwet1 wrote:
And today, Rand Paul (R) KY blocked the fast tracking of the bill due to concerns on the affect it would have on the deficit...

He had no problem voting for tax cuts that have increased the deficit, but lets not fund the healthcare for first responders.....


He's a sanctimonious fraud just like his dad.
Never take financial advice from co-workers.
 
flyguy89
Posts: 2551
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 6:43 pm

Re: Jon Stewart slams congress

Fri Jul 19, 2019 6:27 am

LMP737 wrote:
jetwet1 wrote:
And today, Rand Paul (R) KY blocked the fast tracking of the bill due to concerns on the affect it would have on the deficit...

He had no problem voting for tax cuts that have increased the deficit, but lets not fund the healthcare for first responders.....


He's a sanctimonious fraud just like his dad.

Meh, I like Rand Paul. He's always been an expenditure hawk and one of the few Republicans willing to stand up to Trump. He has consistently been for lower taxes and lower spending. If the 9/11 fund is indeed important (and it is, and Rand Paul is in favor of funding it), surely it should not be difficult for Congress to find the relative pennies from elsewhere in the federal budget to fund it.
 
MaverickM11
Posts: 17388
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2000 1:59 pm

Re: Jon Stewart slams congress

Fri Jul 19, 2019 6:58 am

flyguy89 wrote:
LMP737 wrote:
jetwet1 wrote:
And today, Rand Paul (R) KY blocked the fast tracking of the bill due to concerns on the affect it would have on the deficit...

He had no problem voting for tax cuts that have increased the deficit, but lets not fund the healthcare for first responders.....


He's a sanctimonious fraud just like his dad.

Meh, I like Rand Paul. He's always been an expenditure hawk and one of the few Republicans willing to stand up to Trump. He has consistently been for lower taxes and lower spending. If the 9/11 fund is indeed important (and it is, and Rand Paul is in favor of funding it), surely it should not be difficult for Congress to find the relative pennies from elsewhere in the federal budget to fund it.

When has he actually been an expenditure hawk? He's as much a hawk as fellow deficit pigeon Paul Ryan, whose career Trump chewed up, spat out, and took a steaming dump on--deservedly so.

flyguy89 wrote:
If the 9/11 fund is indeed important (and it is, and Rand Paul is in favor of funding it), surely it should not be difficult for Congress to find the relative pennies from elsewhere in the federal budget to fund it.

Fine, but why draw the line at the 9/11 fund, and not funding things like the tax give away, or the military spending increase, or literally anything else?
E pur si muove -Galileo
 
flyguy89
Posts: 2551
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 6:43 pm

Re: Jon Stewart slams congress

Fri Jul 19, 2019 7:51 am

MaverickM11 wrote:
flyguy89 wrote:
LMP737 wrote:

He's a sanctimonious fraud just like his dad.

Meh, I like Rand Paul. He's always been an expenditure hawk and one of the few Republicans willing to stand up to Trump. He has consistently been for lower taxes and lower spending. If the 9/11 fund is indeed important (and it is, and Rand Paul is in favor of funding it), surely it should not be difficult for Congress to find the relative pennies from elsewhere in the federal budget to fund it.

When has he actually been an expenditure hawk?

Since ever really.

MaverickM11 wrote:
flyguy89 wrote:
If the 9/11 fund is indeed important (and it is, and Rand Paul is in favor of funding it), surely it should not be difficult for Congress to find the relative pennies from elsewhere in the federal budget to fund it.

Fine, but why draw the line at the 9/11 fund, and not funding things like the tax give away, or the military spending increase, or literally anything else?

He hasn't drawn the line there, that's the rub of it. He's been pretty consistent in his support over the years of legislation to balance the budget, end the wars, audit the Pentagon, etc. Think what you will of the tax cuts, but tax cuts and government spending are not one in the same and, while the rest of the Republican party has seemingly joined the Democrats in abandoning any pretense of fiscal sanity, he's been of the few Republicans to continue seeking reductions in spending and waste...or at the very least a plan to pay for new spending. And now ironically those in Congress who have lambasted him for voting in favor of putting the bill through the standard appropriations process, ostensibly due to its emergency nature, have now pushed the vote to next week, despite the fact that it easily has the votes on both sides of the aisle (Paul included) to be passed immediately.
 
User avatar
einsteinboricua
Posts: 7374
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 4:11 pm

Re: Jon Stewart slams congress

Fri Jul 19, 2019 1:29 pm

flyguy89 wrote:
If the 9/11 fund is indeed important (and it is, and Rand Paul is in favor of funding it), surely it should not be difficult for Congress to find the relative pennies from elsewhere in the federal budget to fund it.

I call BS on this. Why is it that disaster spending and this special fund need to be reallocated from elsewhere in the budget but bigger spending tags like defense and tax cuts don't? Rand Paul might have some credibility if he had voted No on the Trump tax cuts (the money to cover the shortfall in revenue was NOT offset from anywhere in the budget and he never actually spoke about the debt and deficit), but as usual, he's all talk and no action. He bent over when the time came.
"You haven't seen a tree until you've seen its shadow from the sky."
 
User avatar
einsteinboricua
Posts: 7374
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 4:11 pm

Re: Jon Stewart slams congress

Fri Jul 19, 2019 1:39 pm

flyguy89 wrote:
but tax cuts and government spending are not one in the same

Please tell us more how they're not one AND the same. Because if you're SO concerned about debt, you don't cut revenue.

When your household has a mortgage, car loan, student loan, and credit card debt, you don't ask for a pay cut at work. You reassess spending habits and reallocate funds to higher priority items. If you reduce income, you only make the situation worse, so while tax cuts and spending are not one AND the same, they certainly are related.

And before someone goes ahead and says "well, I don't want to give any more money in taxes", whether you like it or not we ALL have a share of this debt because we all benefit from it one way or another: education, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Defense, consular services when we're abroad, interstates, air traffic control, weather forecasts... I would revert the Trump tax cuts for the upper class (households making at least $250,000/yr) and enact sequestration once again. Keep the checks in place until the debt reaches below $10T and only break the caps during recessions.
"You haven't seen a tree until you've seen its shadow from the sky."
 
seb146
Posts: 20195
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

Re: Jon Stewart slams congress

Fri Jul 19, 2019 5:11 pm

flyguy89 wrote:
MaverickM11 wrote:
flyguy89 wrote:
If the 9/11 fund is indeed important (and it is, and Rand Paul is in favor of funding it), surely it should not be difficult for Congress to find the relative pennies from elsewhere in the federal budget to fund it.

Fine, but why draw the line at the 9/11 fund, and not funding things like the tax give away, or the military spending increase, or literally anything else?

He hasn't drawn the line there, that's the rub of it. He's been pretty consistent in his support over the years of legislation to balance the budget, end the wars, audit the Pentagon, etc. Think what you will of the tax cuts, but tax cuts and government spending are not one in the same and, while the rest of the Republican party has seemingly joined the Democrats in abandoning any pretense of fiscal sanity, he's been of the few Republicans to continue seeking reductions in spending and waste...or at the very least a plan to pay for new spending. And now ironically those in Congress who have lambasted him for voting in favor of putting the bill through the standard appropriations process, ostensibly due to its emergency nature, have now pushed the vote to next week, despite the fact that it easily has the votes on both sides of the aisle (Paul included) to be passed immediately.


That's all well and good but you still have not answered the question about the 9/11 fund. If Rand Paul is so concerned with the budget and out of control spending and he knows we can cut pork out from things like defense, why did he not say anything before? Why hold the first responders hostage so he can get his way? Why does one man get to decide the fate of thousands?
You bet I'm pumped!!! I just had a green tea!!!
 
flyguy89
Posts: 2551
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 6:43 pm

Re: Jon Stewart slams congress

Fri Jul 19, 2019 7:33 pm

einsteinboricua wrote:
flyguy89 wrote:
If the 9/11 fund is indeed important (and it is, and Rand Paul is in favor of funding it), surely it should not be difficult for Congress to find the relative pennies from elsewhere in the federal budget to fund it.

I call BS on this. Why is it that disaster spending and this special fund need to be reallocated from elsewhere in the budget but bigger spending tags like defense and tax cuts don't? Rand Paul might have some credibility if he had voted No on the Trump tax cuts (the money to cover the shortfall in revenue was NOT offset from anywhere in the budget and he never actually spoke about the debt and deficit), but as usual, he's all talk and no action. He bent over when the time came.

Again, he has been pretty consistent in supporting legislation to have the Pentagon audited, endless wars drawn to a close and line-by-line identify and eliminate wasteful defense spending and overseas bases...a lot farther than even many Democrats are willing to go to reign in defense. And just to be clear, there has been no revenue shortfall with the tax cuts, rather the government is just not taking in as much more than it otherwise would have (and even that's debatable given our tax code). The government took in more tax revenue in 2018 than 2017 and will likewise take in more in 2019 than 2018. Everyone knows the primary debt driver is (and for the foreseeable future always will be) government spending.

einsteinboricua wrote:
flyguy89 wrote:
but tax cuts and government spending are not one in the same

Please tell us more how they're not one AND the same. Because if you're SO concerned about debt, you don't cut revenue.

Because they're not if you're decently familiar with a balance sheet. Both affect the bottom line but are fundamentally different...as in one actually requires an outlay in expenditure and the other concerns income. If one is so concerned about debt, one can also opt to cut revenue AND cut spending, i.e. the route Paul has always been for. You can disagree with that approach to the debt, but at least he's one of the few politicians on either side being real about it.

einsteinboricua wrote:
I would revert the Trump tax cuts for the upper class (households making at least $250,000/yr) and enact sequestration once again. Keep the checks in place until the debt reaches below $10T and only break the caps during recessions.

I don't disagree, sequestration was good, but even that only shrunk the deficit and didn't even come close to eliminating it. Depending on your political persuasion one of only two things are going to have to happen: Cut taxes and cut spending or raise taxes and cut spending. But again, hardly anyone on either side of the aisle is even making a nod to fiscal reality anymore.
 
flyguy89
Posts: 2551
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 6:43 pm

Re: Jon Stewart slams congress

Fri Jul 19, 2019 8:12 pm

seb146 wrote:
flyguy89 wrote:
MaverickM11 wrote:
Fine, but why draw the line at the 9/11 fund, and not funding things like the tax give away, or the military spending increase, or literally anything else?

He hasn't drawn the line there, that's the rub of it. He's been pretty consistent in his support over the years of legislation to balance the budget, end the wars, audit the Pentagon, etc. Think what you will of the tax cuts, but tax cuts and government spending are not one in the same and, while the rest of the Republican party has seemingly joined the Democrats in abandoning any pretense of fiscal sanity, he's been of the few Republicans to continue seeking reductions in spending and waste...or at the very least a plan to pay for new spending. And now ironically those in Congress who have lambasted him for voting in favor of putting the bill through the standard appropriations process, ostensibly due to its emergency nature, have now pushed the vote to next week, despite the fact that it easily has the votes on both sides of the aisle (Paul included) to be passed immediately.


That's all well and good but you still have not answered the question about the 9/11 fund. If Rand Paul is so concerned with the budget and out of control spending and he knows we can cut pork out from things like defense, why did he not say anything before? Why hold the first responders hostage so he can get his way? Why does one man get to decide the fate of thousands?

Pretty sure I have. He HAS said it before, repeatedly. Whether it's defense, disaster relief, the border wall, or other expenditures. If it's important enough, Congress needs to do it's job and fund spending appropriately. Nothing about this is new, nor is the backlash warranted...especially since, again, the votes were there (including Paul's) to pass the 9/11 funding legislation this week given the urgency decried by Paul's critics. Why table it for next week if it's such an outrageous crisis for something that will so easily pass on a bipartisan basis?
 
User avatar
casinterest
Posts: 8800
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 5:30 am

Re: Jon Stewart slams congress

Fri Jul 19, 2019 8:30 pm

flyguy89 wrote:
seb146 wrote:
flyguy89 wrote:
He hasn't drawn the line there, that's the rub of it. He's been pretty consistent in his support over the years of legislation to balance the budget, end the wars, audit the Pentagon, etc. Think what you will of the tax cuts, but tax cuts and government spending are not one in the same and, while the rest of the Republican party has seemingly joined the Democrats in abandoning any pretense of fiscal sanity, he's been of the few Republicans to continue seeking reductions in spending and waste...or at the very least a plan to pay for new spending. And now ironically those in Congress who have lambasted him for voting in favor of putting the bill through the standard appropriations process, ostensibly due to its emergency nature, have now pushed the vote to next week, despite the fact that it easily has the votes on both sides of the aisle (Paul included) to be passed immediately.


That's all well and good but you still have not answered the question about the 9/11 fund. If Rand Paul is so concerned with the budget and out of control spending and he knows we can cut pork out from things like defense, why did he not say anything before? Why hold the first responders hostage so he can get his way? Why does one man get to decide the fate of thousands?

Pretty sure I have. He HAS said it before, repeatedly. Whether it's defense, disaster relief, the border wall, or other expenditures. If it's important enough, Congress needs to do it's job and fund spending appropriately. Nothing about this is new, nor is the backlash warranted...especially since, again, the votes were there (including Paul's) to pass the 9/11 funding legislation this week given the urgency decried by Paul's critics. Why table it for next week if it's such an outrageous crisis for something that will so easily pass on a bipartisan basis?


Sorry but Paul is an opportunistic liar. He voted for the tax cuts to destroy the nation's balance sheet. He can vote for a fraction of it to give healthcare to it's greatest defenders.
Where ever you go, there you are.
 
User avatar
einsteinboricua
Posts: 7374
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 4:11 pm

Re: Jon Stewart slams congress

Fri Jul 19, 2019 8:42 pm

flyguy89 wrote:
And just to be clear, there has been no revenue shortfall with the tax cuts, rather the government is just not taking in as much more than it otherwise would have (and even that's debatable given our tax code).

It is not raining. Rather, there's just water droplets falling down from the clouds.

flyguy89 wrote:
one can also opt to cut revenue AND cut spending, i.e. the route Paul has always been for.

And how does that help the bottom line? If you spend $125 but receive $100, you don't cut both by $50; then you'll spend $75 but still receive $50...you'll still have a negative cash flow.

flyguy89 wrote:
You can disagree with that approach to the debt, but at least he's one of the few politicians on either side being real about it.
Real fake you mean. No point in filibustering or making grand speeches that don't match up to the final vote.

flyguy89 wrote:
Cut taxes and cut spending or raise taxes and cut spending.

Your math is definitely failing you. Cut taxes and cutting spending will not budge the situation (and depending on how deep the cuts are, they'll be worse). How does cutting revenue AND spending help generate positive cash flow?

The latter option is the most effective way to address debt: increase revenue while decreasing spending. All the surplus immediately spills over to paying down debt. Of course it's suicide depending on how its enacted. Tax increases at the top level and corporations while enacting sequestration should generate surplus revenue that could be redirected towards debt.
"You haven't seen a tree until you've seen its shadow from the sky."
 
flyguy89
Posts: 2551
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 6:43 pm

Re: Jon Stewart slams congress

Fri Jul 19, 2019 9:21 pm

casinterest wrote:
flyguy89 wrote:
seb146 wrote:

That's all well and good but you still have not answered the question about the 9/11 fund. If Rand Paul is so concerned with the budget and out of control spending and he knows we can cut pork out from things like defense, why did he not say anything before? Why hold the first responders hostage so he can get his way? Why does one man get to decide the fate of thousands?

Pretty sure I have. He HAS said it before, repeatedly. Whether it's defense, disaster relief, the border wall, or other expenditures. If it's important enough, Congress needs to do it's job and fund spending appropriately. Nothing about this is new, nor is the backlash warranted...especially since, again, the votes were there (including Paul's) to pass the 9/11 funding legislation this week given the urgency decried by Paul's critics. Why table it for next week if it's such an outrageous crisis for something that will so easily pass on a bipartisan basis?


Sorry but Paul is an opportunistic liar. He voted for the tax cuts to destroy the nation's balance sheet. He can vote for a fraction of it to give healthcare to it's greatest defenders.

Show the lie. And he has stated that he will vote in favor of the 9/11 legislation.
 
User avatar
casinterest
Posts: 8800
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 5:30 am

Re: Jon Stewart slams congress

Fri Jul 19, 2019 9:23 pm

flyguy89 wrote:
casinterest wrote:
flyguy89 wrote:
Pretty sure I have. He HAS said it before, repeatedly. Whether it's defense, disaster relief, the border wall, or other expenditures. If it's important enough, Congress needs to do it's job and fund spending appropriately. Nothing about this is new, nor is the backlash warranted...especially since, again, the votes were there (including Paul's) to pass the 9/11 funding legislation this week given the urgency decried by Paul's critics. Why table it for next week if it's such an outrageous crisis for something that will so easily pass on a bipartisan basis?


Sorry but Paul is an opportunistic liar. He voted for the tax cuts to destroy the nation's balance sheet. He can vote for a fraction of it to give healthcare to it's greatest defenders.

Show the lie. And he has stated that he will vote in favor of the 9/11 legislation.


Because if he was ever interested in real deficit spending he wouldn't wait until a bill was out to 'tag' a cheap delay amendment to it.
Where ever you go, there you are.
 
flyguy89
Posts: 2551
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 6:43 pm

Re: Jon Stewart slams congress

Fri Jul 19, 2019 11:46 pm

einsteinboricua wrote:
flyguy89 wrote:
And just to be clear, there has been no revenue shortfall with the tax cuts, rather the government is just not taking in as much more than it otherwise would have (and even that's debatable given our tax code).

It is not raining. Rather, there's just water droplets falling down from the clouds.

If you walk by a dime on the street and don't pick it up, you didn't just spend 10 cents. Now, I don't disagree that the tax cuts should have been packaged with spending cuts, but I don't consider it some indictment of Paul, who's record clearly demonstrates a consistent commitment to lower taxes and govt. spending/waste, as a hypocrite. While the rest of the Republicans have abandoned fiscal reality in now completely ignoring the spending side of the equation, he's doggedly continued to try and address lowering expenditures.

einsteinboricua wrote:
flyguy89 wrote:
one can also opt to cut revenue AND cut spending, i.e. the route Paul has always been for.

And how does that help the bottom line? If you spend $125 but receive $100, you don't cut both by $50; then you'll spend $75 but still receive $50...you'll still have a negative cash flow.

It's the least economically harmful option...a growth-friendly tax structure while pulling back spending by more than any potential loss in revenue. Though this one won't always be an option if the debt can is kicked down the road far enough.


einsteinboricua wrote:
flyguy89 wrote:
Cut taxes and cut spending or raise taxes and cut spending.

Your math is definitely failing you. Cut taxes and cutting spending will not budge the situation (and depending on how deep the cuts are, they'll be worse). How does cutting revenue AND spending help generate positive cash flow?

See above. Cut spending by more than any potential revenue shortfall and facilitate a growth-friendly tax structure. Although I did neglect a third option which would be to keep tax rates where they are and do something like a net cut to government spending or chain the rate of growth in government spending to be a fraction of the tax revenue growth.

einsteinboricua wrote:
The latter option is the most effective way to address debt: increase revenue while decreasing spending. All the surplus immediately spills over to paying down debt. Of course it's suicide depending on how its enacted. Tax increases at the top level and corporations while enacting sequestration should generate surplus revenue that could be redirected towards debt.

You said it yourself here. There's more downside to this approach...lower government spending plus an increased tax burden makes for a much tougher economic environment...although there will come a tipping point (maybe we're already there) where tax increases and spending cuts will be the only option.
 
flyguy89
Posts: 2551
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 6:43 pm

Re: Jon Stewart slams congress

Fri Jul 19, 2019 11:53 pm

casinterest wrote:
flyguy89 wrote:
casinterest wrote:

Sorry but Paul is an opportunistic liar. He voted for the tax cuts to destroy the nation's balance sheet. He can vote for a fraction of it to give healthcare to it's greatest defenders.

Show the lie. And he has stated that he will vote in favor of the 9/11 legislation.


Because if he was ever interested in real deficit spending he wouldn't wait until a bill was out to 'tag' a cheap delay amendment to it.

What other option was there? The motion was put forward and you either vote for or against it, that's how the government works. And I'll say again, the bill could have passed this week with Paul's vote, yet the same people decrying him have pushed it off until next week.
 
LMP737
Posts: 5902
Joined: Wed May 08, 2002 4:06 pm

Re: Jon Stewart slams congress

Sat Jul 20, 2019 1:40 am

flyguy89 wrote:
Meh, I like Rand Paul. He's always been an expenditure hawk and one of the few Republicans willing to stand up to Trump. He has consistently been for lower taxes and lower spending. If the 9/11 fund is indeed important (and it is, and Rand Paul is in favor of funding it), surely it should not be difficult for Congress to find the relative pennies from elsewhere in the federal budget to fund it.


He can find a lot of money over at the DOD that was probably going to get flushed down the toilet anyway. Or he can go to Mitch McConnell and get him to divert earmarks meant for Kentucky. Or maybe reverse some of the tax cuts. None of which will happen.
Never take financial advice from co-workers.
 
User avatar
casinterest
Posts: 8800
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 5:30 am

Re: Jon Stewart slams congress

Sat Jul 20, 2019 7:37 pm

flyguy89 wrote:
casinterest wrote:
flyguy89 wrote:
Show the lie. And he has stated that he will vote in favor of the 9/11 legislation.


Because if he was ever interested in real deficit spending he wouldn't wait until a bill was out to 'tag' a cheap delay amendment to it.

What other option was there? The motion was put forward and you either vote for or against it, that's how the government works. And I'll say again, the bill could have passed this week with Paul's vote, yet the same people decrying him have pushed it off until next week.


The Bill couldn't have passed this week without Paul's vote. It was a single bill with no earmarks or riders. Rand Paul halted it so he could have a vote on an amendment. IE Grandstanding. For something Congress has stalled for years.
Where ever you go, there you are.
 
User avatar
einsteinboricua
Posts: 7374
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 4:11 pm

Re: Jon Stewart slams congress

Sun Jul 21, 2019 1:18 am

flyguy89 wrote:
If you walk by a dime on the street and don't pick it up, you didn't just spend 10 cents.

True, but if you're looking for any form of income, those 10 cents are a lost opportunity cost, and sometimes, all you need is 10 cents to achieve something. Instead all you're left with is the question of what you could have been able to achieve had you picked up those 10 cents. It's income you could have collected, but decided to forgo. When the final numbers come in, they don't account in any form (not a loss, but not a gain either).

flyguy89 wrote:
Now, I don't disagree that the tax cuts should have been packaged with spending cuts, but I don't consider it some indictment of Paul, who's record clearly demonstrates a consistent commitment to lower taxes and govt. spending/waste, as a hypocrite. While the rest of the Republicans have abandoned fiscal reality in now completely ignoring the spending side of the equation, he's doggedly continued to try and address lowering expenditures.
Again, Rand Paul's record only shows that he's all bark and no bite. Had he defected from the tax cuts vote, Republicans still had one more vote to play with (Doug Jones had not been sworn in so Luther Strange still provided the 52nd vote). In the end, though, he choked and bowed to the will of the party.

flyguy89 wrote:
It's the least economically harmful option...a growth-friendly tax structure while pulling back spending by more than any potential loss in revenue. Though this one won't always be an option if the debt can is kicked down the road far enough.

It still doesn't address the fact that you have negative cash flow. It may be growing slower, but it's growing nonetheless. I bring the example of the paycheck: what you think is "least economically harmful" is having a lot of debt and bad spending habits, but cutting your paycheck and still keeping spending barely changed. Still have more money going out than in (well, now you have WAY less), and the elephant in the room still hasn't been addressed (the debt).

flyguy89 wrote:
You said it yourself here. There's more downside to this approach...lower government spending plus an increased tax burden makes for a much tougher economic environment...although there will come a tipping point (maybe we're already there) where tax increases and spending cuts will be the only option.
If debt is SUCH a high priority like Rand Paul makes it sound like, this is the only alternative, especially if drops in the bucket like the 9/11 Fund are so large that they'll worsen the debt far more than tax cuts or defense spending.
"You haven't seen a tree until you've seen its shadow from the sky."
 
seb146
Posts: 20195
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

Re: Jon Stewart slams congress

Sun Jul 21, 2019 3:01 am

flyguy89 wrote:
You said it yourself here. There's more downside to this approach...lower government spending plus an increased tax burden makes for a much tougher economic environment...although there will come a tipping point (maybe we're already there) where tax increases and spending cuts will be the only option.


How? Increase taxes, decrease pork. Same as any budget. Yes, it hurts in the short term but, in the long term, it is great. If you want your household budget to balance, you do not cut back on hours at work and spend more, right?
You bet I'm pumped!!! I just had a green tea!!!
 
User avatar
einsteinboricua
Posts: 7374
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 4:11 pm

Re: Jon Stewart slams congress

Wed Jul 24, 2019 5:40 pm

flyguy89 wrote:
If the 9/11 fund is indeed important (and it is, and Rand Paul is in favor of funding it), surely it should not be difficult for Congress to find the relative pennies from elsewhere in the federal budget to fund it.

Well, this didn't age well.

Paul voted against the fund, along with UT's Lee.
"You haven't seen a tree until you've seen its shadow from the sky."
 
flyguy89
Posts: 2551
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 6:43 pm

Re: Jon Stewart slams congress

Fri Jul 26, 2019 8:11 am

LMP737 wrote:
flyguy89 wrote:
Meh, I like Rand Paul. He's always been an expenditure hawk and one of the few Republicans willing to stand up to Trump. He has consistently been for lower taxes and lower spending. If the 9/11 fund is indeed important (and it is, and Rand Paul is in favor of funding it), surely it should not be difficult for Congress to find the relative pennies from elsewhere in the federal budget to fund it.


He can find a lot of money over at the DOD that was probably going to get flushed down the toilet anyway.

Indeed. He's long pushed initiatives to target waste and spending in the defense budget.

casinterest wrote:
flyguy89 wrote:
casinterest wrote:

Because if he was ever interested in real deficit spending he wouldn't wait until a bill was out to 'tag' a cheap delay amendment to it.

What other option was there? The motion was put forward and you either vote for or against it, that's how the government works. And I'll say again, the bill could have passed this week with Paul's vote, yet the same people decrying him have pushed it off until next week.


The Bill couldn't have passed this week without Paul's vote. It was a single bill with no earmarks or riders. Rand Paul halted it so he could have a vote on an amendment. IE Grandstanding. For something Congress has stalled for years.

To responsibly fund and prioritize spending to cover the outlays of the bill? By all means let's get more of that grandstanding.

einsteinboricua wrote:
flyguy89 wrote:
If you walk by a dime on the street and don't pick it up, you didn't just spend 10 cents.

True, but if you're looking for any form of income, those 10 cents are a lost opportunity cost, and sometimes, all you need is 10 cents to achieve something. Instead all you're left with is the question of what you could have been able to achieve had you picked up those 10 cents. It's income you could have collected, but decided to forgo. When the final numbers come in, they don't account in any form (not a loss, but not a gain either).

Ah but that 10 cents isn't yours, and you in fact need FAR more than 10 cents to achieve what you need. You need to cut your expenses.

einsteinboricua wrote:
flyguy89 wrote:
Now, I don't disagree that the tax cuts should have been packaged with spending cuts, but I don't consider it some indictment of Paul, who's record clearly demonstrates a consistent commitment to lower taxes and govt. spending/waste, as a hypocrite. While the rest of the Republicans have abandoned fiscal reality in now completely ignoring the spending side of the equation, he's doggedly continued to try and address lowering expenditures.
Again, Rand Paul's record only shows that he's all bark and no bite. Had he defected from the tax cuts vote, Republicans still had one more vote to play with (Doug Jones had not been sworn in so Luther Strange still provided the 52nd vote). In the end, though, he choked and bowed to the will of the party.

I really don't see how that's true. I don't think he's 100% perfect, but his record in fact shows that he's been willing to stick his neck out and "bite" in standing up to Trump from the border wall to war with Iran, moves that require real gumption when the state your representing is one like Kentucky.

einsteinboricua wrote:
flyguy89 wrote:
It's the least economically harmful option...a growth-friendly tax structure while pulling back spending by more than any potential loss in revenue. Though this one won't always be an option if the debt can is kicked down the road far enough.

It still doesn't address the fact that you have negative cash flow. It may be growing slower, but it's growing nonetheless. I bring the example of the paycheck: what you think is "least economically harmful" is having a lot of debt and bad spending habits, but cutting your paycheck and still keeping spending barely changed. Still have more money going out than in (well, now you have WAY less), and the elephant in the room still hasn't been addressed (the debt).

Not if you're cutting your expenses to below your income. You pay off debt and keep taxes growth-friendly to keep the economy humming along and growing which ultimately increases your revenue opportunity.

einsteinboricua wrote:
flyguy89 wrote:
You said it yourself here. There's more downside to this approach...lower government spending plus an increased tax burden makes for a much tougher economic environment...although there will come a tipping point (maybe we're already there) where tax increases and spending cuts will be the only option.
If debt is SUCH a high priority like Rand Paul makes it sound like

I don't know how you could argue it isn't at this point.

einsteinboricua wrote:
this is the only alternative

As we've discussed, no, that's not the only potential alternative.

einsteinboricua wrote:
especially if drops in the bucket like the 9/11 Fund are so large that they'll worsen the debt far more than tax cuts or defense spending.

Once again, his wanting the 9/11 fund properly funded is no extraordinary stance for him. He's made pretty clear ALL spending (including defense) should be on the table and responsibly prioritized.

seb146 wrote:
flyguy89 wrote:
You said it yourself here. There's more downside to this approach...lower government spending plus an increased tax burden makes for a much tougher economic environment...although there will come a tipping point (maybe we're already there) where tax increases and spending cuts will be the only option.


How? Increase taxes, decrease pork. Same as any budget. Yes, it hurts in the short term but, in the long term, it is great. If you want your household budget to balance, you do not cut back on hours at work and spend more, right?

Why go that route if you can still balance your budget without taking more money that isn't yours?

einsteinboricua wrote:
flyguy89 wrote:
If the 9/11 fund is indeed important (and it is, and Rand Paul is in favor of funding it), surely it should not be difficult for Congress to find the relative pennies from elsewhere in the federal budget to fund it.

Well, this didn't age well.

Paul voted against the fund, along with UT's Lee.

Aged fine actually. Paul is in favor of funding spending for the 9/11 fund. The bill that passed is unfunded and relying on more borrowed money. You're telling me there isn't money Congress could have scraped together from all the fat in the federal budget to fund the relatively paltry amount to cover this outlay?
 
User avatar
casinterest
Posts: 8800
Joined: Sat Feb 12, 2005 5:30 am

Re: Jon Stewart slams congress

Fri Jul 26, 2019 12:57 pm

flyguy89 wrote:

casinterest wrote:
flyguy89 wrote:
What other option was there? The motion was put forward and you either vote for or against it, that's how the government works. And I'll say again, the bill could have passed this week with Paul's vote, yet the same people decrying him have pushed it off until next week.


The Bill couldn't have passed this week without Paul's vote. It was a single bill with no earmarks or riders. Rand Paul halted it so he could have a vote on an amendment. IE Grandstanding. For something Congress has stalled for years.

To responsibly fund and prioritize spending to cover the outlays of the bill? By all means let's get more of that grandstanding.




No,
He grandstands when it is not warranted. He voted to add over a Trillion to the debt with the tax cut act. Where was he then? He is not consistent in his grandstanding, which is what makes it grandstanding instead of principled leadership.

And where is he now that Trump has put farmers on welfare?
Where ever you go, there you are.
 
seb146
Posts: 20195
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

Re: Jon Stewart slams congress

Fri Jul 26, 2019 4:44 pm

flyguy89 wrote:
seb146 wrote:
flyguy89 wrote:
You said it yourself here. There's more downside to this approach...lower government spending plus an increased tax burden makes for a much tougher economic environment...although there will come a tipping point (maybe we're already there) where tax increases and spending cuts will be the only option.


How? Increase taxes, decrease pork. Same as any budget. Yes, it hurts in the short term but, in the long term, it is great. If you want your household budget to balance, you do not cut back on hours at work and spend more, right?

Why go that route if you can still balance your budget without taking more money that isn't yours?


Let's say you make $500 per week before taxes. If you were given that entire $500 every week with no taxes taken out, you would be able to fund fire, police, fill potholes, build schools, repair bridges, pay for health inspectors so people don't get sick and die when they buy food, pay for inspectors so buildings don't collapse in a strong breeze, and so forth?

This is the problem I have with the right crying about "we must take what's ours". They do not think it through. Sure, it would be great to get that extra but I would rather have that extra taken from me and know I have first responders if I need them and bridges that are sturdy and all that.

Not only that, how are Republicans going to pay for all the wars they want if we have no tax revenue?
You bet I'm pumped!!! I just had a green tea!!!

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: aerlingus747, Pyrex, tu204 and 22 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos