Senate vote 100-0

[Brett85]

We almost always vote for the lesser of two evils. Rand does promote the cause of liberty, even though he has a horrible foreign policy.

A horrible foreign policy? Are you serious? Rand has authored bills to end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, he opposes all foreign aid, supports closing down some of our foreign military bases, and supports withdrawing from international organizations. How in the world is that a "horrible" foreign policy?

 

[ZanZibar]

he's voting for things that are literally going to kill a bunch of children.

Does this bill do anything other than prohibiting business with the Iranian central bank?

 

[ZanZibar]

Except that these sanctions are essentially an economic blockade. The sanctions apply to foreign banks and companies as well. We're banning the world from doing business with Iran except on exempt items.

Has Iran declared them to be an act of war? And are these sanctions stopping anyone other than US firms from doing business with the Iranian central bank?

 

[kylejack]

A horrible foreign policy? Are you serious? Rand has authored bills to end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, he opposes all foreign aid, supports closing down some of our foreign military bases, and supports withdrawing from international organizations. How in the world is that a "horrible" foreign policy?

Because supporting policies that have the potential to kill hundreds of thousands of children is horrible foreign policy. Even if it's better than neocons.

 

[Brett85]

Rand opposed the payroll tax cut, but was willing to compromise with the President in return for the pipeline deal. Rand whined that the payroll tax cut didn't create jobs. I, on the other hand, see cutting payroll taxes as a good thing in their own right.

I imagine Rand wanted the payroll tax cut to be paid for. He doesn't want to add to the deficit.

 

[Number19]

Has Iran declared them to be an act of war? And are these sanctions stopping anyone other than US firms from doing business with the Iranian central bank?

Yes. We are barring all banks from doing business with Iran. China will probably refuse. India may refuse. The question then becomes how will the U.S. respond to those who refuse to go along.

PS China is Iran's biggest customer. India is tied with Japan as second largest customer. Japan will go along with the U.S.

 

[Brett85]

Because supporting policies that have the potential to kill hundreds of thousands of children is horrible foreign policy. Even if it's better than neocons.

I don't support this bill, but this isn't the same as the food sanctions that we put in place in Iraq that killed thousands of Iraqis. This bill simply sanctions their central bank. It's a bad bill, but nothing like you're describing.

 

[Number19]

I don't support this bill, but this isn't the same as the food sanctions that we put in place in Iraq that killed thousands of Iraqis. This bill simply sanctions their central bank. It's a bad bill, but nothing like you're describing.

If payment for food imports by Iran is conducted by international banking transactions, then yes, food imports will be affected.

 

[kylejack]

I imagine Rand wanted the payroll tax cut to be paid for. He doesn't want to add to the deficit.

Right, while Ron Paul never votes for a tax increase, even when it will decrease the deficit.

 

[Pericles]

Sanctions against Iran and flying drones over their nation is an act of war.

It seems they want to get this war started as soon as possible before Ron Paul has a chance to win.

Was the boycott of British goods started in October of 1767 by colonists, an act of war?

 

[Pisces]

If you watch the uncut CNN interview with Gloria Borger, Ron Paul said he would probably vote against the payroll tax cut if it is paired with extending unemployment benefits.

 

[kylejack]

A boycott is free individuals choosing not to buy something. A sanction is a government prohibiting people from buying something. In this case, the US government is trying to ban the entire world from doing business with Iran.

 

[kylejack]

If you watch the uncut CNN interview with Gloria Borger, Ron Paul said he would probably vote against the payroll tax cut if it is paired with extending unemployment benefits.

Right, because it's unconstitutional spending.

 

[sailingaway]

Rand voted to sanction Iran?! Typical Rand. I never liked this guy.

We don't know what happened.

 

[sailingaway]

If you watch the uncut CNN interview with Gloria Borger, Ron Paul said he would probably vote against the payroll tax cut if it is paired with extending unemployment benefits.

Actually, her question was whether he was in favor of extending unemployment. I don't think she specifically said in the context of the payroll tax. And he said he wasn't in favor of extending unemployment but reversing the economy so there were jobs to be had.

 

[kylejack]

We don't know what happened.

A vote was held and all Senators voted for it earlier this month.

 

[Pisces]

Yeah but the point is he said he would probably vote against the payroll tax cut in this case. It's a little simplistic to say that someone should always vote for every tax cut when Congress very rarely proposes clean, one issue only bills. I think he also was forced to vote against his own Fed audit because it was attached to Dodd-Frank. (I may be wrong on that but that's what I remember.)

 

[Pisces]

Actually, her question was whether he was in favor of extending unemployment. I don't think she specifically said in the context of the payroll tax. And he said he wasn't in favor of extending unemployment but reversing the economy so there were jobs to be had.

No, it was about the payroll tax cut. It's at the beginning of the interview. He then went on to talk about how he has to do a calculation of whether the tax cut outweighs the added spending. I'm not saying he said anything wrong. I'm just cautioning against oversimplifying things.

 

[Pericles]

Iraq sanctions, which included the same supposed exemption for food and medical supplies:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_sanctions#Estimates_of_deaths_due_to_sanctions

This was a 100-0 vote to kill potentially hundreds of thousands of children.

Those figures don't make any sense. First, you can't get a yearly figure, if we had that there might be something to work from. For example, if we take the 1.5 million figure, over ten years, that would indicate 15% of the children in Iraq died each year due to sanctions, while the population of the country as a whole, was increasing by over 500,000 per year....

 

[nbhadja]

The globalist central bankers took over by pretending to be capitalists and infiltrating everything. Maybe Rand Paul is trying to take the government overby pretending to be a neocon or similar to that.