Rand Paul is my hero.
(media.greatawakening.win)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (81)
sorted by:
Only when it suits him. In 2011, shortly after being elected, Paul proposed a budget which specified $542 billion in defense spending. In 2015, he called for a defense budget of $697 billion to use overseas. The "muh principles" excuse doesn't hold water. I agree, taxation is theft. If we ended welfare and all the taxpayer funded hand outs illegals are given we wouldn't need a border wall because the incentive to come here for most of them would be gone. However, Rand Paul is either a hypocrite or has changed his ways. Either way, my trust in him is rather short.
I have seen plenty of issues with Rand Paul, such as him endorsing Romney or the time he railed on the obviously fake January 6 "storming" of the capitol, but this example you have given does not seem particularly solid. I would like to hear an example of him voting for a spending bill that was clearly wrong from the ground up. In this case, it's not obvious what budget he should have called for. He could have gone with 542 billion again. But if he could have done that, then why not 500 billion or even 100 billion? So am not convinced.
However, I admit that I know absolutely nothing about this kind of stuff and for all I know 697 billion could be completely obviously unreasonable.
My point is he calls for hundreds of billions of dollars to be spent on our military overseas, but when asked to approve 1.73 billion for Trump's border wall he voted against it. People make excuses for him because he's the "libertarian" and he has "principals" about spending. I'm just pointing out his hypocrisy.
But I really don't think this example you have provided is clear-cut at all (as far as I can tell). I constantly hear people call him a fake but with all the opportunities he has had to do something definitively sold out, they are never able to point one out. With every single other senator this is incredibly easy.
I agree on your immigration point (remove incentive to come for gimmes) but, realistically, if we ended welfare funding cold-turkey, we would have favelas develop as in Brazil. Looting/theft would be a regular occurrence in the residential areas because people will do anything to feed themselves. Couldn't leave your family at home to go work for fear that they would be robbed while you are away. Not enough jobs out there to fully employ all on the dole right now. In my little county, 51% of the people are on some kind of govt assistance. We would come to blows, I feel certain.
Welfare needs reformed - I suggest that the US pay for everybody's first child, regardless of your income. Gives everybody a fair chance to have a family if they want, but doesn't reward multiple births just to grab additional checks for your family. If you know you aren't going to have an extra income for the next baby, you might spend your money on Birth control instead of having to start funding diapers, formula, etc. The disability system needs dramatically reformed as well. There are sedentary jobs that many of the disabled can perform to work around many physical disabilities. Another program that needs reformed is the investment incentives offered to foreign-citizens to come start up in the US. Loan to Grant programs, tax deferrals/waivers for their businesses, etc. If that's offered to some, it should be offered to all, incl US citizens.
He and his father have always been about less government.
You're probably right, but I'll take Rand Paul over most of the others.