POTUS roasts Rand Paul over Big Beautiful Bill

[nikcers]

Anyone who doesn't understand why the bot is wrong can just look up Zippyjuan's posting history. Zippy might have programmed it.

I learned how the dollar works from watching Congressman Ron Paul debate Ben Bernanke the former federal reserve chairman.

The federal reserve works on a mandate from the Congress and reports to the Congress and the Congress works for the American people. They are our representatives.

 

[acptulsa]

I learned how the dollar works from watching Congressman Ron Paul debate Ben Bernanke

But the person who programmed you to believe Bernake was right was wrong.

 

[nikcers]

But the person who programmed you to believe Bernake was right was wrong.

I didn't believe Ben Bernanke is right.

Ron Paul didn't either. He discussed alternatives like the gold standard as one that would be more sustainable or competing currencies.

He also said that since it's not sustainable it will destroy itself.

Ben Bernanke said there is nothing stopping you from owning gold or investing your money into assets.

Whether or not it's sustainable is simply the only thing debatable. It has existed longer than anyone I know that is alive currently.

When I used to talk to my relatives that lived into their 100s that lived before the federal reserve they said it was better now than it was then.

That was certainly before the global trade war that happened after the 2008 housing market crash though in the 90s.

I remember what they told me and wrote about their personal experiences though. My family has lived in this country for a long time. I consider those types of sources better than any mainstream sources.

You can’t change the past, but you might learn something from it.

 

[TheTexan]

I learned how the dollar works from watching Congressman Ron Paul debate Ben Bernanke the former federal reserve chairman.

The federal reserve works on a mandate from the Congress and reports to the Congress and the Congress works for the American people. They are our representatives.

The Federal reserve works for the banks. It was created by and for the banks and the bankers, not the American people.

 

[nikcers]

The Federal reserve works for the banks. It was created by and for the banks and the bankers, not the American people.

Since the creation of the federal reserve the United States has become the biggest economy in the world.

Our system is democratic capitalism. It benefits the people when we have the geopolitical power to win wars and ensure conflicts never happen on our own soil. Capitalism is our growth engine and our banks are the gasoline of our economy.

 

[TheTexan]

Since the creation of the federal reserve the United States has become the biggest economy in the world.

The federal reserve doesn't provide any economic benefit as part of its intended design. It's intended design only helps the bankers and they get to pretend like they are "helping" while simultaneously getting rich off the money printer.

The only possible benefit I can see from the Fed is that, combined with a global imperial hegemony, we can force other countries into using our currency, and then use currency manipulation in a way that benefits us at their expense.

And yea, that's worked pretty good, but again, it's not the American people that benefit from that. The military industrial complex are the primary benefactors of that particular benefit.

And the costs of the fed? We have out of control spending, an out of control government, and all of this has contributed significantly to the erosion of our liberties and our overall wealth.

Whatever alleged benefits the Fed has provided, it hasn't been worth it.

Our system is democratic capitalism. It benefits the people when we have the geopolitical power to win wars and ensure conflicts never happen on our own soil. Capitalism is our growth engine and our banks are the gasoline of our economy.

Global imperial hegemony comes at a massive cost.

 

[nikcers]

The federal reserve doesn't provide any economic benefit

And the costs of the fed?



Global imperial hegemony comes at a massive cost.

The economic benefits are two fold.

We fund technologies that make our life better like information technologies, medicine, and military resources that help us win wars.

The mandate of the federal reserve is to create jobs and curb inflation.

These jobs allow us to "vote with our dollars" we fund the development of technologies like microchips that have benefitted the lives of billions.

Theoretically people like Bill Gates are supposed to reinvest those dollars he earns in our country not in Africa like he says he plans to. That's how it works most the time.

The cost of war isn't free but our system makes national defense cost a smaller percentage of our GDP than otherwise because our GDP is so large.

The cost of losing wars is even higher. Most of the time historically the loser of the war get massacred or enslaved.

Total warfare was the norm for thousands of years.

They rape your women kill the men and enslave the children. They do this for 1000 years.

We are lucky to live in this era.

So the ability to win wars and have a military that is powerful enough to deter wars ensures we have a future.

 

[spudea]

In 2017 they passed these same tax cuts without needing to bundle them with spending increases. If that's what Trump and supporters of the Big Steaming Pile of Feces want, why don't they just do that again?

You do realize there are Republicans that won't vote for a penny of spending cuts, so how do you get them on board, by making them look good with tax cuts. The bill contains 1.5 trillion in spending cuts compared to current policy projections, and there are many Republicans complaining that's too much. The reason it increases the deficit is because the tax cuts are far more substantial than the 1.5T in spending cuts. Rand Paul can complain there isn't enough spending cuts, but he doesn't have the votes for that and he has completely failed to influence the Republican party enough for higher cuts.

"On one hand, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act reduces outlays by more than $1.5 trillion against current baseline spending -- according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office's preliminary analysis, meeting reconciliation's target for between $1.5 to $2 trillion in spending reductions."

Trump's funding bill runs into Senate GOP fiscal hawks

Some Republican senators say they won’t support bill that increases the deficit.

abcnews.go.com

 

[Invisible Man]

You do realize there are Republicans that won't vote for a penny of spending cuts, so how do you get them on board, by making them look good with tax cuts.

You have it backwards. The point of this bill is to compel Republicans to vote for all the spending increases that are in this bill by making them vote for those increases in order to vote for these tax cuts (which, when combined with spending increases are just make believe tax cuts). The real goal of Trump and the party leaders is spending increases, not tax cuts. If their goal were tax cuts, they would just pass a clean tax cut bill like they did in 2017.

 

[Anti Globalist]

Just like with Massie, Trump can try all he wants to try and oust Rand out of his seat. He will fail spectacularly.

 

[spudea]

You have it backwards. The point of this bill is to compel Republicans to vote for all the spending increases that are in this bill by making them vote for those increases in order to vote for these tax cuts (which, when combined with spending increases are just make believe tax cuts). The real goal of Trump and the party leaders is spending increases, not tax cuts. If their goal were tax cuts, they would just pass a clean tax cut bill like they did in 2017.

I just showed you the bill reduces proposed spending by 1.5 trillion. There are Republican senators saying that's too much cutting. So you know what's going to happen? The Senate will compromise with the house and the spending cuts will evaporate entirely. Rand and Trump should be on the same side fighting these Republicans that refuse to cut a single penny. Instead, Rand is helping these Republicans and Democrats that don't want to see any spending cuts at all.

 

[nikcers]

I just showed you the bill reduces proposed spending by 1.5 trillion. There are Republican senators saying that's too much cutting. So you know what's going to happen? The Senate will compromise with the house and the spending cuts will evaporate entirely. Rand and Trump should be on the same side fighting these Republicans that refuse to cut a single penny. Instead, Rand is helping these Republicans and Democrats that don't want to see any spending cuts at all.

I especially like the argument people keep making that the problem is that it doesn't permanently reduce spending and that any future congress can spend more.

Of course they can that's the point of a democracy. If you lose your election because you impoverish 20 million people the democrats can just win the elections next time and spend 2 trillion more and then your 1.5 trillion cuts are vaporized.

 

[nikcers]

"Rand votes NO on everything, but never has any practical or constructive ideas. His ideas are actually crazy (losers!). The people of Kentucky can’t stand him. This is a BIG GROWTH BILL!"

https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/114619648032728687

 

[Invisible Man]

I just showed you the bill reduces proposed spending by 1.5 trillion. There are Republican senators saying that's too much cutting. So you know what's going to happen? The Senate will compromise with the house and the spending cuts will evaporate entirely. Rand and Trump should be on the same side fighting these Republicans that refuse to cut a single penny. Instead, Rand is helping these Republicans and Democrats that don't want to see any spending cuts at all.

Reduces proposed spending? Proposed spending? So this bill is a lower number than some other number that's completely made up. That's like when a store assigns something a high initial price just so they can knock a huge percent off it to get it down to the price they planned to sell if for all along and pretend they're saving their customers money.

The reason Rand and Trump aren't on the same page fighting Republicans who refuse to cut a single penny is because Trump is one of those Republicans who refuses to cut a single penny, and he will fight the ones like Rand, who want cuts.

ETA: Also, inspired by Nikcer's stupid comment, even playing along with the baseline budgeting propaganda that pretends to make cuts by comparing spending with a make believe projection, how much of this $1.5 trillion in projected spending cuts over the next 10 years takes effect immediately? Does any of it at all take effect immediately? Or does are all of the cuts postponed until they will appear in future budgets, that we are supposed to hope for on the basis of the nonsensical belief that some future Congress will have the cuts to make the cuts that this Congress didn't have the guts to make but promised the future Congress would?

 

[Invisible Man]

I especially like the argument people keep making that the problem is that it doesn't permanently reduce spending and that any future congress can spend more.

Of course they can that's the point of a democracy. If you lose your election because you impoverish 20 million people the democrats can just win the elections next time and spend 2 trillion more and then your 1.5 trillion cuts are vaporized.

It's not that it fails to make cuts in the long term. It's that the only cuts it even pretends to make are in the distant future, which will never happen. It's the fact that it fails to cut spending immediately that's the problem.

 

[TheTexan]

The reason Rand and Trump aren't on the same page fighting Republicans who refuse to cut a single penny is because Trump is one of those Republicans who refuses to cut a single penny, and he will fight the ones like Rand, who want cuts.

Trump is huge fiscal hawk, he said so himself

 

[nikcers]

It's not that it fails to make cuts in the long term. It's that the only cuts it even pretends to make are in the distant future, which will never happen. It's the fact that it fails to cut spending immediately that's the problem.

Your argument only works if you have a super majority and unlimited political capital.

The Republicans only have a slim majority and could easily lose the next election.

Massive cuts will just make the pendulum swing democrat next go around.

They will reverse the regulations cuts and tax cuts and export all of our economy to globalism welfare.

You lose the war to the globalists by trying to cut everything. If the democrats had gotten reelected we would be funding the modernization of developing countries instead of doubling our own electricity production and cutting taxes and regulations and winning the AI race.

That's what's called Pyrrhic victory.

The next ESG globalism summit under democrat rule would suck all of the growth from our economy.

Loading…

www.reuters.com

 

[Anti Federalist]

 

[Occam's Banana]

Trump is huge fiscal hawk, he said so himself

He's a yuuuuge fiscal hawk. The best fiscal hawk. The best.

I can't understand why some people don't recognize this. Must be TDS.

 

[nikcers]

He's a yuuuuge fiscal hawk. The best fiscal hawk. The best.

I can't understand why some people don't recognize this. Must be TDS.

Everyone always says Trump spent too much in his first term except it's revisionism.

Republicans couldn't keep their seats and Pelosi took over the power of the purse in the first term.

We are just a few months into his second term and people want to hand the congress back over to the democrats because they don't like to win elections.