Posted on 06/04/2024 3:35:50 AM PDT by RandFan
Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) questioned former President Trump's commitment to slashing government spending in a heated exchange with top Trump ally Russell Vought during a recent closed-door meeting, Axios has learned.
Why it matters: Paul is among a dwindling number of Republicans who've refused to publicly back the former president as the party's 2024 nominee. And those in Trump's orbit are getting antsy.
"There's a growing sentiment in Trumpworld that Rand can't be trusted, and it's a great disappointment," Trump ally and consultant Alex Bruesewitz told Axios.
Driving the news: Paul grilled Vought on May 22 over the Trump administration's massive spending, comparing it to Democratic administrations, according to two sources familiar with what was said in the lunch.
Paul said Trump's team had "no credibility" on spending, one source said.
During the lunch, Vought urged Republicans to kick back this year's government funding fight to 2025 — in part to allow a potential future Trump administration to use the process to slash funding, as Axios reported.
(Excerpt) Read more at axios.com ...
>
Coupled with govt. firings and agency decommissioning, Paul will be on the Trump team. Incomes up, expenses down is a winning formula.
Trump does like to spend, and there are past and present urgencies that need money: military, deportations, non-discretionary spending i.e. social security.
>
One sentence later, blows their WHOLE premise w/ promotion of illegal govt spending ala ‘non-discretionary spending’ (the Ponzi schemes of SS/MediXYZ). Likely a ‘their ox getting gored’ scenario.
ZERO reason for ‘military spending’ & elimination of the welfare state & prosecutions for aid/abet+ == SELF-deportation (no $ spent there either)
*facepalm* Classic examples of “conservative” (keeping the status quo) ‘logic’
>
Rand comes from a state that has given us Mitch McConnell (#NeverTrump) and Thomas Massie (a DeSantis simp).
Why would we take anything he says seriously?
>
Your ad-hominem attacks != refutation of any points brought up.
Do you have a valid form of debate/counter??
I wouldn’t call a 1.2% cut in discretionary spending “bigly” (PDJT’s proposed FY 2018 budget {his 1st} very out of balance):
https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/omb/budget/fy2018/2018_blueprint.pdf
>
Cutting the living hell out of the federal government permanently (say 25% for starters) along with a balanced budget complete with debt retirement is the only way to save the nation beyond the current fiscal mess it is in.
>
A BBA merely == raising taxes, “’Cuz we GOTTA ‘balance’”. It does NOTHING to ensure govt ADHERES to the Constitutional limits of govt’s size/scope
>
Closing the border, no more wars, no ‘free’ aid to other countries, redistribution of wealth through the states etc. is little stuff compared to downsizing the feds.
>
Why not BOTH?!
>
Have no idea how all this could happen without ‘The Great Depression II.’
>
How’d T.G.D. do the last time? Let’s see: GROWTH of govt via works programs. Illegal gold confiscation. Illegal Fed. Reserve. Illegal Social Security Act. Illegal Banking Act. (Public) Labor\Unions...The New Deal (Socialism taking hold in the U.S.)
*facepalm*
>
>>Criticism shouldn’t be treated like betrayal
Seems to be a prerequisite.
>
Very fascist/cult-y
I’ll just leave this here:
So you figure that he had that kind of clout? Senate majority leader was McConnell and speaker of the house was Paul Ryan. So let's say he decided to veto the bloated bill (BTW, I believe that first budget also included the tax cuts he wanted) so the first thing that happens when he gets into office is that the MSM already is talking about the division between the executive branch and legislative branch, McConnell - if he loses the battle, which I doubt with Ryan in his corner, how likely is it he is going to get his nominees through the senate including judges?
So he vetos it and they have the votes to override it, or do you think that line in the sand he drew will make a difference? I'm sure you were also as critical when Reagan put though the tax cuts but still had to sign bloated budgets too. When you don't have the "vote in lock step" discipline that the demon party has, how much political capital should he expend fighting his own party?
And my senators are Rubio and Scott and house then was Bilarakis - a good guy (Now it is Anna Paulina-Luna (also good)).
I rarely attack other freepers but, yeah, grow up!
IF ALL THE COVID COSTS ARE REMOVED FROM THE CONVERSATION-—THEN HOW DOES TRUMP SPENDING MATCH UP???
“Rand is right to confront Trump and the R party on this issue.”
Confront Trump? Confront Trump!!! Are you people freaking insane? Is Trump the head of the Fed, printing up money like water flowing in a river?
Now, there is a trillion dollars added to the deficit every 100 days.
The idiot Paul needs to confront the ones who are destroying the eonomy and the dollar just now.
Trump should then have taken it to the people. Name names and explain the inside political corruption and maneuvering. Business as usual and Marquess of Queensbury DC rules must end.
wow, trash his entire 4 year agenda in the first 100 days and decide that was the hill he wanted to die on. He got a taste of how much the pubbies would support his agenda and what he could and couldn't get through, all the while not knowing what he was yet to face.
NOW, something like that could work d/t the mood the country is in with the amount of out-of-control spending and the uncontrolled regulations and inflation. I doubt he knew how much back-stabbing he'd get from his own party.
> Trump should then have taken it to the people. <
I must agree. As was correctly noted elsewhere, Trump (or any president) can’t do much when the majority of Congress is determined to continually spend, and spend recklessly.
No matter. The federal deficit is a really big deal. So Trump 2.0 must veto the first deficit spending bill, if for no other reason than to put a spotlight on the problem.
Congress might well override the veto. And the media will cry about how the veto will hurt hungry children. Again, no matter. The ship is sinking. At least send up a flare.
Trump was in political office for 4 years where Rand’s career political class has been spending for decades, hoax impeached him twice, and conspired with the Wuhan Flu Coup..
Obliterating the Deep State is now a mandate that Trump didn’t have in those 4 years.
And Congress may be hardest hit when the Obliterating starts..
He’s going to be running on another 60 billion for Ukraine before you know it...
“Paul said Trump’s team had “no credibility” on spending, one source said.”
Absolutely true.
Trump and his team have never been anything resembling budget hawks. It’s too politically unpopular.
Trump and his team have never been anything resembling budget hawks. It’s too politically unpopular.
Blame the voters, they love pork, lots and lots of pork.
Personally I’m sick of both Senators from Kentucky!!
We are being turned into Commies and all you can do is focus on this now. See what 4 more years of Taterhead is going to get for us.
I like Rand and but he isn’t going to be POTUS any time ever.
Go away.
The economic policy of the past Donald Trump administration included reducing federal taxes and increased federal spending, both of which significantly increased federal budget deficits and the national debt.
Fast forward: the House controls the nation's purse strings - not the Fed. In other words, the House has immense influence on deficit spending and control over the national debt. The R party, or should I say the uni-party, controls the House.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.