Posted On: Wednesday - May 25th 2022 1:15PM MST
In Topics: Liberty/Libertarianism US Feral Government The Neocons
... is what this country would need to really change anything for the better.
If you recall, last week Kentucky Senator Rand Paul stood up and blocked a bill to send $40,000,000,000* of American taxpayers money to the Ukraine to, what "make the world safe for democracy" or something, I hadn't heard the official reason. As I said to my wife at the time, he's just one guy, and the one guy can't actually block the whole juggernaut of Neocon madness.
I was too cynical to even look into exactly how this blockage, that Newsweek (image above) seems bent out of shape about, worked. I just knew that, yeah, that's a great gesture, but they will spend that 40 Billion bucks. Senator Paul's Libertarian Dad, Ron Paul, wrote his 2nd-to-latest column to explain - Why Did Rand Paul Delay Washington’s $40 Billion Ukraine Giveaway? (links to the column on The Unz Review, with comments)
Even I was surprised by the explanation, which tells us how corrupt the American Feral Gov't management has gotten. Senator Paul delayed the vote on the bill by adding on a proposed amendment to it. What was the problem? Did he propose that the money would have to be spent per the US Constitution? Did he insist on an actual Declaration of War for America's involvement in eastern Europe? Did he want to use a little bit, maybe a billion bucks, to teach the Constitution to ghetto dwellers in American inner cites? No, no, no, it wasn't anything like that. What resulted in this?
Schumer was furious with Paul, accusing him of “preventing swift passage of Ukraine aid because he wants to add at the last minute his own changes directly into the bill.”It must have been something pretty Libertarian-egregious! Dr. Paul tells us:
What was he trying to add to the bill? In his own words, “All I requested is an amendment to be included in the final bill that allows for the Inspector General to oversee how funds are spent."That's really something. Not only do these members of Congress want to be able to just up and spend $40 Billion of taxpayers money in these terrible and worsening economic times, but they don't want ANYONE to be able to check up on how they are spending it! That's apparently the egregious thing that has held up the bill. It's just too much to ask that there should be someone checking on where this money is going. That's a non-starter!
So, as I expected, it passed (NY Post article), after that week-long "hold-up".
The measure now goes to President Biden, who is expected to sign the bill.They're on a roll. Nobody's gonna fall for that "got to put in an amendment for oversight of the spending" trick again.
“I applaud the Congress for sending a clear bipartisan message to the world that the people of the United States stand together with the brave people of Ukraine as they defend their democracy and freedom,” Biden said in a statement following the vote. “The resources that I requested will allow us to send even more weapons and ammunition to Ukraine, replenish our own stockpile, and support U.S. troops stationed on NATO territory.”
Biden added that he would announce yet another security assistance package later Thursday “that will provide additional artillery, radars, and other equipment to Ukraine, which they are already using so effectively on the battlefield.
You wonder how many Americans who were glad to see the one man at least try to stop the Neocon juggernaut know that the bill passed a week later anyway. This Feral Gov't is a sick excuse for a government. Moar Rand Pauls! (I know, yeah, that's gonna happen.)
PS: I have been using 100 million as a number for actual taxpaying American families, just from rectal extraction, for various back-of-the-envelope estimations. I figured it had to be in the ballpark. From that NY Post article, I read:
Paul remained defiant prior to Thursday’s vote, tweeting: “If Congress really believed giving Ukraine $40B was in our national interest, they could easily pay for it by taxing every income taxpayer $500. My guess is they choose to borrow the $ bc Americans might just decide they need the $500 more to pay for gas.”That's 80 million "income taxpayers". I was pretty close. I'll start using Rand Paul's number.
* I hope the readers don't mind that I write out some of these financial figures like this. It sometimes gets the point across of how big the number actually is.
Comments:
Mr. Anon
Thursday - May 26th 2022 12:01AM MST
PS
I don't know what to think of Rand Paul. Clearly, he has observed his father's career and has drawn some lessons from it. Ron Paul is an honorable man, but he was - essentially - irrelevant. Part of his problem is that he is not a good extemporaneous speaker. Words gushed out of him and often collided with one another to make a kind of word salad. In fairness, he probably realized that he would never get much opportunity to be covered by the media, so he tried to cram as much as he could in the 30 seconds they'd let him speak.
His son, Rand Paul, is a much better public speaker. However, his opinions reflect those of his Dad, but are much moderated. I think he (Rand) realizes that his Dad was perceived as too "out-there", and so he resolved to play the game and never go too far in what he says. And it's worked; he has a broader reach than his Dad ever did. It helps that he's a Senator rather than a Representative; he's 1 out of 100 rather than 1 out of 435.
But Rand Paul is wet on immigration. Maybe this is also a calculated position, so that he can remain "viable" and retain some influence. But it's not what I'm looking for in a Senator. Rand Paul also seems to be down with a lot of the big-Pharma agenda. He was skeptical about the efficacy of vaccines, but still talked up the FDA-approved, Big-Pharma cash-cows like Remdesivir.
Is he just a decoy to defuse populist sentiment? Or is he politically savvy and just biding his time until he can seriously challenge the GAE? I don't know. I have my doubts though.
I don't know what to think of Rand Paul. Clearly, he has observed his father's career and has drawn some lessons from it. Ron Paul is an honorable man, but he was - essentially - irrelevant. Part of his problem is that he is not a good extemporaneous speaker. Words gushed out of him and often collided with one another to make a kind of word salad. In fairness, he probably realized that he would never get much opportunity to be covered by the media, so he tried to cram as much as he could in the 30 seconds they'd let him speak.
His son, Rand Paul, is a much better public speaker. However, his opinions reflect those of his Dad, but are much moderated. I think he (Rand) realizes that his Dad was perceived as too "out-there", and so he resolved to play the game and never go too far in what he says. And it's worked; he has a broader reach than his Dad ever did. It helps that he's a Senator rather than a Representative; he's 1 out of 100 rather than 1 out of 435.
But Rand Paul is wet on immigration. Maybe this is also a calculated position, so that he can remain "viable" and retain some influence. But it's not what I'm looking for in a Senator. Rand Paul also seems to be down with a lot of the big-Pharma agenda. He was skeptical about the efficacy of vaccines, but still talked up the FDA-approved, Big-Pharma cash-cows like Remdesivir.
Is he just a decoy to defuse populist sentiment? Or is he politically savvy and just biding his time until he can seriously challenge the GAE? I don't know. I have my doubts though.
MBlanc46
Wednesday - May 25th 2022 6:10PM MST
PS A tax revolt is just one form of noncompliance, although an obvious one, and one that really kicks them in the groin. But there are a lot of other forms of noncompliance, as there are a huge number of rules and regulations that we are supposed to follow. If people stop following the rules, the state will have to come after them. Civilized society relies on overwhelming voluntary compliance, because they can’t track down, prosecute, and incarcerate everyone. If we withdraw the compliance—not completely, of course, that’s too much to hope for, but a significant amount—the system breaks down trying to enforce it.
Moderator
Wednesday - May 25th 2022 5:33PM MST
PS: It's the withholding that makes it difficult for people to run a tax revolt, Mr. Blanc. I suppose you can think way ahead and bring your exemptions up to 10, then refuse to file. Most people don't think that far ahead.
There are just too many people who use the withholding as a savings plan and are all gung-ho for that refund as soon as they can in January.
For the self-employed this is more feasible. I would sure like to see something like this, though. If it's tens of million, nope, there's not much they can do. You support the few guys they want to make an example of by raising holy hell at the courthouse, etc.
There are just too many people who use the withholding as a savings plan and are all gung-ho for that refund as soon as they can in January.
For the self-employed this is more feasible. I would sure like to see something like this, though. If it's tens of million, nope, there's not much they can do. You support the few guys they want to make an example of by raising holy hell at the courthouse, etc.
MBlanc46
Wednesday - May 25th 2022 3:17PM MST
PS What we need are a few tens of millions of Americans to finally get fed up that their taxes aren not only not being used in their interests, but actually in opposition to their interests, then decide to stop paying their income tax. And then dare the IRS to come after them. And then dare the federal agents to come after them after the IRS has judged them delinquent. And by dare, I mean…. Well, I’ll leave it to you to fill in. There’s no political solution to our predicament. We can’t vote our way out of this. Only ——- resistance will ultimately have a chance.
Mr. Anon, that's my take on Rand Paul too. He really does want to fight for liberty like his Dad did, but he may figure he'll get farther by pretending to be a part of the system.
Ron Paul, at 80-years old, has finally realized (from my reading of one of his columns some months ago) that immigration is not just bad when/because it's illegal. We have been importing dozens of millions of people that would be the LAST folks to ever watch Dr. Paul's Liberty Report, subscribe to Reason magazine (their idiotic immigration stance notwithstanding) or talk about the US Constitution.
10 years back, Mr. Anon, during the GOP primary, I shook Ron Paul's hand and told him in front of all present "If you want to win [REDACTED], you need to talk about illegal immigration. I don't think I'm the smartest guy in the world, but I think back "imagine if he'd taken my advice right away. He'd have been the smarter, more capable, less egotistical Donald Trump, and 4 years earlier too."