Still a No: Rand Paul says $5T debt increase in 'Big, Beautiful Bill' a deal-breaker

Fox news ^ | June 3 | Fox news

[butterdezillion]

I’m not a lawyer or politician either but I think the idea is that you increase the debt limit because the body that is supposed to say what the net effect of the bill on the debt is, is using a 1.5% economic growth figure when the actual growth we’re seeing ALREADY is more in the 4% category. So the govt bean counters are making it appear that the bill is much, much more expensive than it actually is and that has to be covered b the rise in the debt ceiling - EVEN THOUGH EVERYBODY KNOWS that the bill will not cause that much debt.

I think the other thing going on with this is that the bill in combination with the tariffs is to set up a much more sound INDUSTRIAL growth in the nation while at the same time securing the means to compete in a new AI-driven world and removing our dependence on other countries for anything critical to the nation’s function, such as electricity, fuel, medical supplies, computer-building supplies, etc. We’re not talking about spending money to launder to political allies and to subvert genuine Constitutional governance. We’re talking about an initial investment that will yield ever-increasing proportions of benefit to the nation’s health and security as well as ever-greater tax yields without raising the rate of taxes. The end result of all that would be a REDUCTION in the debt.

The way to get out of debt is some combination of spending less and earning more. I think the idea of this bill is to spend less on waste and fraud (while still having a bill that can be passed by greedy pigs at the trough) and spend more on INVESTMENT that will pay off big dividends in the future. What got us out of the Great Depression was the war machine for WWII. You have to spend money to make money, to put people to work and get things moving. Trump does not want to spend money on wars. He does want to spend it on defense such as a golden dome, so that wars are less likely and don’t have to be a black hole into which we sink our money. But he knows we have to spend money to make money. It’s what he’s done very successfully his whole life.

[Teacher317]

Then present something, Rand, that can get 51 votes in the senate and a majority in the house and pass. Let’s see it.

The exact same bill, without the ceiling being raised.

Done. Gee, that was difficult.

[GOPJ]

You're right. Rand's a one trick pony and that trick is getting old.

Trump’s economic choices work because they’re an integrated working system.

It’s like a young man coming up with a plan to save his family from debt caused by his wife's ex-husband and part of the plan is to get the car fixed - and his mother in law (who doesn’t understand anything beyond ‘stop spending) tells him NOT to fix the car. He explains the fix is needed so he and his wife can get to their jobs but the mother in law is like Rand - one trick pony - fixated on only one thing - cutting spending... Rand needs to come up with a plan if he doesn't want to support Trump. Let's see what he's got other than 'cut spending'.

[cymbeline]

“pay back the borrowed money by running printing presses.”

But that “printed money” is actually money that the government borrows, and must pay back with interest.

The only way this scheme can pay off is that the government will spend the money in ways that will produce growth exceeding the interest they’ll be paying. Maybe it will.

[TornadoAlley3]

No additional monies coming into the govt? What if GDP is >3%?

[Leaning Right]

> But that “printed money” is actually money that the government borrows, and must pay back with interest. <

Under today’s laws, yes. But why couldn’t they just change the rules?

Here’s what I mean. Let’s say I hold a discounted $100 Treasury note that has come due. I want my $100. Why couldn’t the Feds just print a $100 bill and send it to me. No need to borrow anything.

I get that everything is electronic now. So the rascals would have to do the electronic equivalent.

[GailA]

$21 trillion, found in 1990s. Not even, Elon found this much.

https://unbekoming.substack.com/p/the-great-poisoning-decoding-the

In the late 1990s, as Catherine Austin Fitts navigated the corridors of Washington’s financial elite, she uncovered a staggering $21 trillion in undocumentable adjustments missing from U.S. government accounts, a revelation that crystallized her understanding of a financial coup d’état. This systematic siphoning, detailed in her explosive interview with Danny Jones, as passionately endorsed by health freedom advocate Jason Christoff, exposed a “breakaway civilization” funded by mortgage fraud and black budgets, operating beyond democratic oversight. Fitts, a former Assistant Secretary of Housing, connects this theft to a 500-year-old central banking warfare model, where printed money, backed by military force, sustains global dominance—a system now faltering as BRICS nations challenge the dollar’s reign. Yet, as she argues in The Invisible Corral: How Central Banking Enables a Control Grid, this financial architecture is but one facet of a broader control grid, integrating digital IDs, cashless systems, and AI-driven social credit mechanisms to enforce compliance. Christoff, that I have also interviewed in Interview with Jason Christoff, lauds Fitts’ clarity, asserting her insights channel a “divine intelligence” that unveils both the mechanisms of control and pathways to resist them. Her critique, sharper here than in her discussion with Tucker Carlson, frames the Trump administration’s acceleration of this grid—through Real ID and stable coins under the Genius Act—as a betrayal of liberty, a point she delivers with unyielding precision despite Jones’ underprepared questions.

Parallel to this financial predation runs what Fitts terms the “Great Poisoning,” a deliberate assault on human health through vaccines, contaminated food, pharmaceuticals, and environmental spraying, as explored in The Poisoning. This slow-kill strategy, she contends, serves dual purposes: reducing life expectancy to ease government benefit burdens and generating profits for industries that poison and then treat the afflicted. Since the 1995 budget deal’s failure, U.S. life expectancy has plummeted, a divergence from other industrial nations that Fitts links to fiscal policy’s grim arithmetic—fewer retirees mean fewer payouts. Her analysis, uniquely tying biological harm to financial motives, resonates with the author’s prior reflections on systemic poisoning. Fitts’ reference to Joseph Farrell’s work, that I have also highlighted in Babylon’s Banksters and Financial Vipers of Venice, grounds this poisoning in historical context, tracing its roots to Venetian banking models and post-WWII Nazi integrations into global power structures. Farrell’s scholarship, which Fitts amplifies, reveals a breakaway civilization wielding advanced technology, funded by stolen trillions, that considers itself above humanity. Yet, as Fitts notes, their technological supremacy is a facade, vulnerable to collective withdrawal of consent.

This interplay of financial extraction, biological sabotage, and spiritual warfare forms the crux of Fitts’ paradigm-shifting narrative, which Christoff heralds as potentially “the most important interview” of our time. She posits a universe alive with intelligent plasma, inherently resistant to centralized control, as Robert Temple’s work suggests, and influenced by interdimensional forces—demonic intelligences driving anti-human policies versus divine ones empowering freedom. Her call to action, rooted in Farrell’s cultural preservation ethos, urges individuals to redirect money from criminal banks like JP Morgan Chase to local institutions, as detailed in her building wealth curriculum. “Freedom is an all-or-nothing thing,” she declares, a sentiment echoed in [Babylon’s Banksters], where Farrell underscores the power of collective righteousness. By weaving state-level constitutional resistance with personal economic choices, Fitts offers a blueprint for dismantling the control grid, inviting readers to question the legitimacy of institutions masquerading as protectors. This article, building on her interview, unravels these threads, exposing the mechanisms that enslave and the moral courage required to reclaim sovereignty.

This is a necessarily long article.

With thanks to Catherine Austin Fitts.

[Socon-Econ]

Are we going to get stuck with a massive, stagnation-inducing tax increase because of Paul’s concern about debt?

[cymbeline]

“Why couldn’t the Feds just print a $100 bill and send it to me. No need to borrow anything.”

Maybe that’s the way a ‘default’ would be implemented.