I'm proud of this true, American patriot, Rand Paul, for his honesty and his fine intellect. The son of Ron Paul, currently running for president 2012, has the political savvy and know-how like his father to actually do what all others promises to do and has not.
Rand Paul is a true Constitutional Republican for all of America. Still, there will be those elements within society, decidedly left-leaning, who will call foul on smaller govt. But I say, it is time that the U.S. govt. be reined in.
This women is attempting to get him to be descriptive enough about what he wants out of the government and she knows that if he fully says it that the talking media heads are going to spin it out of context, just like the 5 lies they have already spread about his character in the primaries. "5 major lies about Rand Paul" go google it. Look at what his father has done, the apple does not fall far from the tree.
1.Cut Taxes domestically, Ex: 1960 JFK cut taxes across the board within 2 Brackets 1. Being 50% tax cut and 2. Being a 30% tax cut... by 1961 the federal govt. saw a 50% increase in tax receipts.
2.Freeze Spending, Ex: The reason Reagan's tax cuts did not work is because he didn't cut and or freeze spending.
3.Production, EX: We need productivity not services and consumption to run an economy, and we gave away our production under Clinfont's NAFTA; now we feel it.
WELL DONE RAND!!! The pushy B*$%^ tries to get you to make snap answers but you answer only what you are confident about and effectively push her back on the rest, all the while remaining polite and professional. She tried to get you to sound like a tea party whacko, like a Sarah Palin, and you showed her that there are some real pros in the movement. That was just awesome on every front.
Yes you can both reduce taxes AND reduce the deficit (by stimulating the economy and then taking in more revenue in taxes, even at a lower rate). Learn from history. High taxes hurt the economy and at some point begin to cause lower tax revenue from a poor/sluggish economy. But that only works if you also cut spending, which the Federal Government has refused to do: both Democrats & Republicans. We have a poor economy now despite being still in the Bush ear tax cuts due to excess spending.
this lady's annoying. He's answering the questions. "What will you cut?", his answer: "Everything! I just don't know exactly what".
And then she talks over him: "Hey, in missouri, 70% of the people don't want fed health c"... "BLAH - Across the board". He made a valid point: "States exist for a reason, and you're talking as though they don't!"
"Every economist who got us into this mess disagrees with you, Rand. Why won't you listen to them?" ... Rand: "umm..."
@Bolgernow: The entire deficit is a result of interest charged by the private bank called the FED who is able to legally counterfeit money! WTF?? Why should we pay taxes to these rich bastards?
@Bolgernow (cont'd): To put it another way, the government ceasing to take the money of citizens is not Government Spending, it is Private sector SAVING. You decide who you would rather decide how best to effectively spend the money - Wealthy investors looking to get a good return on their money or Government who wants a good return at the polls. If you choose the former you are a capitalist; the latter a socialist. Period.
@Bolgernow: You are wrong. In business, Profits = Revenues - Costs. In the public sector, Budget Surplus = Tax Collections - Government Spending. Therefore reducing Tax Collections DOES NOT equal Increased Government Spending, although it will cut into the Budget. However, to maintain a positive or balanced budget you MUST CUT SPENDING. Period.
@jjonesut no, TAX CUTS ARE SPENDING IN ANY BUDGET ACCORDING TO ANY RATIONAL ECONOMIST. $ THAT IS ALREADY MARKED IN BUDGETS, WHEN NOT COLLECTED IS CALLED "SPENDING". Mental understanding & compliance on this issue isn't required, since I can not convince an insane man the world is round, when insist, scream, & lie that it's "Flat!!!". Good luck!
Rand Paul, not even a week after being elected has already shown he is not going to do what he said he would. When asked about earmarks today he stated "I will advocate for Kentucky's interests".
Proof he will side with Republicans who ran on "small government" "less spending" "lower taxes" and "no more earmarks" who are NOW saying they are not going to do away with earmarks causing taxes and spending to stay the SAME.
America is full of idiots who got fooled AGAIN by Republican lies.
@rdrakken You are repeating a partisan 'talking point' by repeating an incomplete quote which was taken from this vary interview. That quote fragement isn't even a complete sentence. In this interview here, he clearly outlines the distinction of funding that goes through commitee and earmarks. You have been spun. Listen at 7:08 and you will find the fragment you are repeating.
@SlammoFandango No. This interview came a day AFTER he was quoted as saying it, yes it was an incomplete quote, I never said it was a COMPLETE quote and only a FOOL would go and post the entire article on Youtube.
Rand Paul was asked about tryin to completely remove earmarks after several Republicans who were elected after saying they would remove them are now saying they will not. He stated no such thing about still fighting to remove them only that he wanted money for Kentuckys interests.
@rdrakken I'm not asking you to post a transcript, although ABC prov ides one for this interview, just quote your source of your quote. For instance, I know 'Salon' posted a misleading article the next day using this interview as a source and claimed that Paul had changed his position from Sunday to Monday. Name your source, rdakken, name your source. You've been spun...This interview itself is the source for the people who have spun you.
@SlammoFandango who the hell thinks Salon is a source for political topics?!?
Thats like thinking Rolling Stone is a great source for science...
As for your typical pompous bullshit acting as if nothing exists outside your knowledge other than spin. Try Mathew Kaminski of the Wall Street Journal, a rag owned by News Corp, a CONSERVATIVE company as ONE example of Ran Pauls traitorous new views being spoken of by his own side.
You have been spun into thinking he can do no wrong.
Your own prejudicial assumptions seem to follow the same flawed logic in regards to me by your desire to pigeon hole me as ‘Conservative’ or ‘Republican’ or blind follower of some messianic leader because I simply point out that editorial positions regarding his statements, which if they were news and not editorials, could not be supported by facts. I would view the twisting of statements made by another interviewee holding different political affiliations with the same jaundiced eye.
@rdrakken It's pretty simple: Any editorial comments outside this interview are just that - outside this interview. In this interview, the subject clearly states his opinion on the matter which others seem to feel free to subjectively insert prejudicial presumptions despite the clarifications the man makes right here. This is a real-time video by ABC News - Any editorial by any other entity, regardless of its perceived stature or affiliation is irrelevant and should be logically discredited.
@SlammoFandango its pretty simple: im going to take a stance and accuse people who disagree with me of not knowing what they are talking about and claim to know everything and demand sources. Then, when I get that source I am going to claim that only this source is valid if I cannot think of a way to refute it.
People like you, blind followers, are the reason this nation is in the shape it is in. Paul will do as much as his sheep will let him get away with.
@rdrakken Your institutionalized years obviously were utterly void of any teachings of the Trivium (the classical definitions of grammar, logic, and rhetoric) or any of the other of the seven concepts of a classical liberal arts education which would have by now otherwise freed your mind from the left/right paradigm. Your time served has left you with the impression that any autodidactic pursuits which could compensate for such a deficiency are unneeded.
@SlammoFandango please. Dont talk about someone else being insitutionalized when you act as if the politican you are following is above doing wrong.
Just because Paul got elected by claiming to be different it doesnt make him immune. He proved he was a two faced liar again today when confronted about medicare payouts and not wanting to lower the doctors percentage after being pointed out that it was because 80% of his earnings as a doctor came from it -CONT-
@rdrakken I am not willing to follow you on a tangent entirely unrelated to this thread because any matters of how a Doctor might receive remuneration from elective surgery has no connection to my comments regarding misleading and biased editorial publications using partial quotations in order to deceive the public as the otherwise clearly stated intent of an elected US Senator. Nor will I be baited by epithets such as ’Slave’ in doing so.
@SlammoFandango BTW, proof of a lack of ability to defend your beliefs is that you are unwilling to connect proof of character if it is not 100% about the main topic while at the same time speaking of the persons character in whole.
You are 100% institutionalized into your political rhetoric because you refuse to admit the slighest wrong of the person you are backing. I on the other hand can slam a person I vote for because I know no one is perfect or can represent me 100% of the time.
@SlammoFandango And like a typical politican he tried to cover his trackts stating that doctors that provide services for medicare patients do not make a lot of money and when he was ASKED how much he made he tried to turn on the interviewer and asked him if he should talk about his past instead of ANSWERING the question he knew would trap him.
Sadly for this LIAR, his sallary was compared to other non-medicare doctors and he made MORE!
He is a two faced liar like all politicians, slave.
@rdrakken If I am at all a ‘Follower’ it is simply due to my being pleased that he defeated an establishment Republican whose hypocrisy, lack of individual ideas, and penchant for actual political corruption might otherwise only have been matched by that of Jack Conway who showed his true colors to the people of Kentucky.
@rdrakken Simply pointing out that the man has been misquoted by other publications does not form any logical basis to showing that I hold any emotional vestment toward thinking the man is above wrong doing but merely points out that others have done wrong and that any conclusions stemming from fraudulent information a reader (maybe you) might form from such tainted information should be logically, and free from emotion, discredited.
@SlammoFandango You sure do backtrack and pretend you werent talking about things a lot...are you a politician in training? You must be planning on running on the Tea Party ticket in the future if you think Rand Paul has "individual" ideas that somehow do not conform to what the group is trying to make people think they stand for.
The very idea of a placing yourself into a political GROUP proves lack of individualism, but group mentality. the Tea Party is the Republican party.
@rdrakken I have not said anything about what has transpired thus far other than to say the man has been editorialized with partial remarks quoted out of context in other publications apart from this interview and my statements by no means can be seen to imply that I am under some belief that the man is above wrongdoing.
@SlammoFandango Actually, your stating that he has been taken out of context in editorials as a defense against what I am saying, what he stated in another interview is a stance that says you believe he is above reproach.
I did not speak of an editorial, you keep talking about one. I keep bringing up another interview.
So post again about how he has been taken out of context...as if anyone hasnt been. You are not defending yourself worth a damn and come off rather foolish for doing so.
@rdrakken Matthew Kaminski of the WSJ interviewed him and wrote in his op ed that he thought Paul ‘appeared to soften his stance’ yet still in the interview Paul made the distinction between what is transparent in the committee process and what is hidden in earmarks as two separate things. Later, Republicans Cantor, Boener, McConnel, and Blunt (establishment GOP all) made statements that Paul would change his position - Paul still has not.
@SlammoFandango He ran on "NO MORE" not "I dont want there to be any but as long as there is I will take the money".
That is going from "I want smaller government but as long as its big, im going to go along with it".
The very fact that you are defending this proves you are a SLAVE to political rhetoric, you are NO different than a Neo-Con, a Liberal, a Communist or any other label you can apply to someone else because they all do the SAME THING.
@rdrakken If he fails to achieve his stated goals, then you’re right - He’s just like the rest of them. Me, I prefer to be a ‘glass half-full’ kind of guy. If he succeeds in convincing the rest of the Republicans that he has a mandate to force other Republicans to do things like cut the defense budget when they otherwise never would - That’s positive. I see that as potentially more effective than the same request coming from the left.
@SlammoFandango financial crisis. The biggest scammer in history is in prison now and they are raiding firms RIGHT NOW for insider trading. every single state is blocking foreclosures and investigating every single bank for robo-signing. for a full year Obama was trying to block banks that received money from paying large sums to imployees (which im sure you were part of the chorus crying communism).
You are playing both sides against the government. No matter what they do, they are wrong.
The ‘Most Sweeping Financial Reform in History’ was not passed last year…not even close. That happened in 1999 and 2000 in a Republican Congress along with BC’s signature. They did away with Glass-Steagal and the separations of services between Brokerage, Banking, and Insurance services and then with the Mercantile Modernization Act of 2000, financial instruments could be traded as though they were commodities = derivatives.
@rdrakken 1. Advocating for limiting the size and scope of government does not automatically imply a desire for lawlessness and anarchy that would result from the elimination of essential protections and services.
2. We agree except the laws are still unfairly rigged.
3. Over 1000 went to jail - patsies all - none politically connected…expect similar results this time.
@SlammoFandango 1. all comes down to what it is your are trying to limit and the implications that will come from that limit that too few bother to think about.
2. and they always have been.
3. everyone that goes to jail is a patsy no matter the crime or their connections. an what does that have to do with trying to make out what is happening now is worse than during the S&L crisis, you did not defend your previous comment.
@SlammoFandango 4. You stated that the exponential expansion of the money supply is causing the value of the dollar to drop. I pointed out that the dollar has not had any real value since the gold standard was removed.
its not hard to figure out and has been one of the biggest talking points of just about every single Libertarian and Constitutionalist for decades...because its true. The dollar has no value, its our goods that have value...unlike every other nation that uses Gold.
Not only did we remove that ONLY thing that actually adds value to a currency, we allowed our GOODS to drop in quality so much that it is going to be a hard recoverey.
Case in point, Automobiles. It was our largest export and our biggest industry for almost 6 decades. However a constant drop in quality dug is into a deep hole. Sure Ford has made a huge turn around...but we may never recover market share.
@rdrakken This is a problem that can be found in almost every single sector of business. Add in the INSANE amount of greed, the massive ignorance of the people, the inability to speak to one another about REAL issues, the media's change to a format of controversy over information...we are falling apart.
And not one single person that was elected on any side is speaking about the fundamental issues this nation has...only typical scare tactics about things that wont save this nation.
@SlammoFandango Hey how about that first session eh? Only 746 earmark requests made by people elected by the Tea Party and when you add in all other Republican requested earmarks it was only just over 30% HIGHER than what Democrats requested.
So hows that hopey changy thing working for ya eh? wink wink.
@rdrakken Yeah, I've seen some of the initial reports of Republicans requesting upwards of a Billion in earmarks. It seems like the current talking point is to refer to Republicans requesting earmarks as the 'Tea Party Caucus'...The strange thing is no such thing as the TP Caucus and I don't see Paul's name listed with those Republicans requesting earmarks...could it be a typo...or could he actually be doing what he said he would?
@SlammoFandango Nope. No one is being confused for a Republican. The non tea party republicans have their own list and the list is not complete. You will see a full list by the end of last week, Rand Paul will be on it, he is not on the current list because they dont have his total yet.
The group providing the "pig book" is one of the main backers of the tea party movement and they have no reason to try to make those they helped to elect look worse than they do on their own.
@rdrakken Okay, I'll wait for "pig book's" complete compilation, but in the meantime my assumption is that the information, though not reported in committee of course, would still be availabe to anyone who was looking and since Paul has stuck his neck out, someone other than 'pig book' would have already taken a chop at it by now if spending associated with him could be classified as an 'earmark'.
@SlammoFandango it is available...how do you think they got it? They are not politicans on the inside, they are a watchdog group and one you should be very familiar with if you are even remotely close to being a legit Tea Partier.
I know them because I used to be a Tea Partier back when it was under Ron Paul...you know, when they actually had Libertarian ideas that were not tied down to what corporations actually want...like they are now.
@SlammoFandango and as for your S&L BULLSHIT comments. Almost the entire bailout was money that WOULD NEVER COME BACK. Unlike the current bailouts which are NOT give-aways, they are LOANS...loans that have almost been payed back already WITH INTEREST.
So far, the bailouts today is going to cost less than 30 billion total IF a few banks cannot repay,because most have already given the money back with interest. Something they are not talking about on the news because it doesnt fit their agenda
@rdrakken Well, gee. I suppose if you don't consider the exponential expansion of the overall money supply, your statement would actually pencil out. I suppose you believe the Fed can still at this point keep control of the purchase power of the dollar so when the bail out dollar amounts are returned they will still represent the same value?
@rdrakken The fiasco still hasn’t been rectified and the truth is, they can investigate wrong doing but nobody’s doing time because much of what used to be illegal from the ’30s till 2000 still isn’t. Goldman get's fined for what sounds like a ton of money when you read it in the paper but in truth amounts to less than a days worth of ill-gotten gain. Nobody at the top of Goldman is going to jail...Hold your breath on that one.
@rdrakken The passing time may very well reveal that Rand Paul is just as full of lies and just as willing to accept corruption as any of the other 99. It may be that he will accept earmarks in exchange for voting in favor of legislation that is or is not in the best interest of the overall good of the people. It may turn out that earmarks will become motivation enough for voting in favor of such legislation without actually reading that legislation. Time will tell.
@rdrakken Simply opposing the establishment Republican Party’s agenda by supporting the Democratic Party’s agenda is a practice which has proven its ineffectiveness time over and about as logical as continuing to accept Obama’s escalation of defense spending and expansion of unconstitutional wars into additional countries while bailing out banks on the backs of the middle class as excusable just because Bush started it.
@SlammoFandango as for your bailing out banks comment, Reagan and Bush Sr did it. They bailed out MORE banks and spent MORE money in terms of GDP for a much SMALLER issue. Many Presidents did it. The last time the governement did NOT bail out banks during a crisis we went into the great depression.
But thats ok because then you could have complained about the government doing NOTHING and not caring about the people at all...there will always be a reason for you to complain.
@rdrakken I acknowledge your point regarding the S&L crisis of the 1980’s - It’s a good one. Not meaning to argue, there were some notable distinctions: The majority of that bailout funding went to depositors and investors who were swindled and not corporate entities free from accountability. Many criminals went to jail. No one involved in this recent scam is even being personally investigated for wrong doing.
You have taken the last step in being an extremist. Enjoy doing exactly what every other political supporter has done. Make excuses for those you follow and contiune to spread lies to try to make your stances seem supportable. The very fact you tried to support the S&L bailouts with bullshit proves you are a slave to your rheotric. There are almost 2000 companies/firms being investigated by the FBI in direct connection to the -CONT-
@rdrakken Marginalizing this guy only makes the establishment GOP stronger. If you think that’s a good thing then we’ll just have to agree to disagree because I’ll never agree with the current policies of the modern GOP. Progressives seem to have missed the source of the original attacks on the Tea Party and had the progressives not jumped on the Anti-Tea Party band wagon that helped the GOP co-opt much of the TP, there might be a few more true TP in congress, more Dems and less GOP.
@SlammoFandango as for your "marginalizing Paul makes the GOP stronger" comment.
I see, so I shouldnt call out Paul to keep his promises because doing it would strengthen the GOP...holy shit you are a fucking slave.
The entire Tea Party movement is a joke, it IS the Republican party. If you wanted REAL change it would be its own movement working from the GROUND up, not from the TOP down. A building failing apart requires the FOUNDATION to be improved first, not the roof.
@rdrakken On the contrary - Calling him out to keep his promises is exactly what needs to be done. The cynical viewpoint that he has no mandate to change the direction the GOP is the last thing anyone who opposes the GOP’s current platform should want. I simply fail to understand the glee from the left when they state he will be corrupted by the likes of Eric Cantor, John Boener, Mitch McConnel, or Roy Blunt - Why would the left want another GOP team player?
@workmagic19891 I hear you. We're in agreement about cutting "expenditures", however the logic flaw by Paul & Tea Party folks here is that Tax Cuts are somehow NOT an "expenditure". They are. It's not debatable. They cost big $. The Bush Tax Cuts for the top 3% have cost us $6.9 trillion since they've been in place...
@workmagic1989 yes, but along with those expenditures is SPENDING. TAX CUTS FOR THE TOP 3% IS SPENDING AN INSANE AMOUNT OF MONEY IN BILLIONS THAT IS NOT PAID FOR. If you do not understand this, PLEASE seek economic budgeting help...
@Bolgernow raising taxes is not addressing spending, at all. Government seeks to perpetuate its power, department by department and has forever. It needs to be smaller. Raising taxes would only make that worse. Spending needs to be cut.
@workmagic1989 a "tax cut" is something that must be "paid for" in any budget. The $ taxes will generate is now gone. It's called "SPENDING". You are spending $ you have not collected yet by giving it back. That $ was accounted for. It's budgeting 101. If Tax Cuts generate jobs, where are they? Bush cuts have been in place since 2001. Didn't help with jobs at all. The top 3% KEPT their $
@Bolgernow You are merely going in circles with semantics and fallacies. This would explain why you are confused to the point that you actually think that letting people keep what they earn is spending.
@madhatter0110 no I'm not. Anyone reading this understands you either A) Are ignorant of what "tax cuts" do to a budget deficit, or B) Lying to confuse idiots. Either way, it's not my problem. That's between you & accepting reality...
@Bolgernow Anyone reading this understands that it is impossible to spend money you haven't stolen yet or they are duped into the quagmire of semantics you wallow in. I will continue to accept objectivity over the smoke and mirror show you and other socialists believe.
@Bolgernow I don't like the idea of cutting taxes without comparatively greater cuts in spending, but you make it sound like the government already owns everyone's property and whatever they don't tax is simply a gift they so generously bestow upon it's chattel.
That being said, if increases in government spending create jobs, where are they now, we've had government increase spending since after the second world war, and the only ones to benefit were the political class.
Wow! Textbook interview by Rand Paul. This man is probably the best politician I've seen in a long time. Kept his composure, expressed his intelligence and understanding of the issues. Didn't let the reporter bully him into giving answers he wasn't prepared to give yet. To me it looks like he will do well in the years to come.
Very good interview; fair, balanced; direct and I think Mr. Paul answered the questions straightforward and directly. I really don't understand all the noise being made about our financial situation. We are broke and we cannot continue to simply raise taxes to make up for irresponsible spending and grow the economy. Everybody is going to have to get less from the Federal Government and people are going to have to help people more.
Rand Paul turned into a politician faster than anyone I've ever seen. The math is simple. We can either shut down the Empire or raise taxes to pay for it.
@DanielDamascusKimery He is dancing around the questions IMO. I would have hope he'd want to cut biggest military in the history of the world in half at least considering we are a broke empire or means test SS and medicare or close corporate loop holes that let them out source jobs and profits or stop welfare and begin a public works programs. Do something! But nope. Dancing the poitical dance is all Rand is doing.
@337noname Why because he isn't giving exact numbers on the cuts he is going to make? He isn't even in office yet so give him a break. We won. You lost. Get over it!
@DanielDamascusKimery I think she was asking where the cuts would come from not for exact numbers. For someone who will be a Senator and ran as an outsider, I'd hope he have some new ideas and not do same old DC dance.
No sure what "we won and you lost" means? Are you commmenting on behave Rand Paul voters? I don't vote in Kentucky so I've not sure what it is you think I lost?
@337noname What you lost a Democratic vote on the Senate Floor. I for one like having a Senator that's reserved with what he says rather than one like your god "Obama" that promised us the Sun, the Moon, and the Stars then goes back on everything he said once he gets in power.
@337noname He did okay. I agree with you, cutting the military by closing bases in Germany and Japan, and elsewhere is priority number one. What a damned waste of our money! Like Japan and Germany can't pay for their own defense. He'll just tell the generals they need to cut things 20% each year and let them make the detailed decisions of what needs to go.
Rand: "1st I'd try to pass an amendment to the constitution to enforce "Pay as you go". Then I would look at both Liberals ideas of "cutting Military spending", & Republican ideas of "Cutting Domestic spending". He wasn't specific because when you DO get specific, lobbyists $ will pour in, justify the spending, & keep it the EXACT same. When he votes to EXTEND the Bush tax cuts, which is SPENDING, you have to live with electing him Kentucky...
@Bolgernow Extending the Bush tax cuts is not spending. How do you go from taking less money from the people by reducing taxes to spending? Reducing tax revenue is not spending.
@madhatter0110 tax cuts directly add to our deficit. That is called spending. Anyone in basic budgeting understands this. Any adult understands this. Even Republican Eric Cantor understands this when he said, "If you have less revenues coming into the federal government, & more expenditures, what does that add up to? Certainly you're gonna dig the deficit hole deeper"
@Bolgernow tax cuts only "contribute to the deficit" when spending remains the same or increases. If you lost your job you wouldn't say you are spending $50,000 more a year you would say you are earning $50,000 less. Your logic here is incredibly flawed and even those with a minimal understanding of logic would see the fallacy in your argument.
@madhatter0110 that makes no sense. You are either A) Ignorant of what tax cuts do to a budget deficit, or B) Lying to confuse idiots. Either way, it's not my problem. It's a battle with you & reality that I have no skin in. Good luck!
@Bolgernow I make no sense? Your argument is filled with fallacies and just like Keynesian economics makes no sense. Receiving less in revenue is not the equivalent to spending unless the shortfall is borrowed or monetized. Just as a person cannot eliminate their Visa debt by using their MasterCard, neither can the US borrow, inflate, and expand government to create prosperity.
@madhatter0110 partisan lies based on your personal views, rather factual economic realities. Keynesian economics is extremely sound. In fact FDR was elected president a record setting 4 times using Keynesian. The very wealthy don't like it, b/c they're taxed to create a strong middle class. They prefer class warfare from the top down, like you wish. Your "credit card" analogy doesn't apply here. We're talking "tax cuts". Tax cuts must be paid for in a budget. If not, it's SPENDING
@Bolgernow Partisan lies? Every empire and nation throughout history has fallen not because of a foreign adversary but due to the collapse of its currency--e.g. Zimbabwe. The expansion of government and spending by FDR and others have created an unsustainable debt for generations to come. Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it and those who think Keynesian economics works are ignoring facts, history, statistics, and are gullible enough to believe less revenue is spending.
@madhatter0110 NO. The entire middle class was created by FDR & Keynesian Economics. FDR was elected president a record setting 4 times using Keynesian. Our economy & society were never stronger, closer, or better off financially since that time. What you are calling for is class warfare from the Top down. Bring it buddy!
@Bolgernow Tax cuts for everybody is not class warfare but rather treating everyone equally. The only reason FDR got elected as many times as he did was that the people were duped into the notion that the government could provide everything for everybody forever. The only problem with socialism is that eventually the bureaucrats run out of other people's money.
@jfn1103 reality & economic facts disagree with your irrational premise. You are a Ron Paul Libertarian from your channel. Good luck with that. I'm not in a mood to discuss reality itself with you since you start from a historically dishonest false fallacy premise. Stay classy!
@Bolgernow Keynesian economics CAUSED the Great Depression. Look at the timeline. Compare that to the even greater depression in the early 1920s where people were allowed to fail. Guess what happened...the Roaring Twenties.
FDR didn't get us out of the Great Depression by using Keynesian economics. We got out of the depression the only way possible--increasing production. This happened because of World War II.
@StuffButter NO. The entire middle class was created by FDR & Keynesian Economics. FDR was elected president a record setting 4 times using Keynesian. Our economy & society were never stronger, closer, or better off financially since that time. What you are calling for is class warfare from the Top down. What jobs did the Bush tax cuts of giving the top 3% more $ get us? None. WWII did help us because we produced more than we consumed. Remember rubber shortages? You know no history. Sad...
@Bolgernow Ideally a tax cut increases a budget deficit. However, such was not the case when JFK gave the rich a tax cut from 90% to 70% and when Reagan cut it from 70% to 28%. The Laffer Curve is alive and well, until we get a Congress that will cut taxes to the level where there is NO increase in revenue.
@StuffButter "ideally"? No, factually. Tax cuts for the top 3% add budget deficit. If you are against government spending, or deficit spending, you are against these cuts. The capital gains cut I would leave in place since almost EVERYONE has a 401k nowadays. Besides, JFK & Reagan didn't have today's post depression/deepest recession in US history to deal with...
@Bolgernow If there was NO Federal Income Tax, then there would have been no need for a 23 trillion dollar stimulus of spending because 1) people could have afforded their mortgages , 2) unemployment wouldn't be nearly as high as it is now (20% by some estimates).
@funtala and IF my shit was made of $, I'd be a rich man. That is the most INSANE claim I've ever heard. Their INCOME TAX has nothing to do with the HOUSE VALUE that went underwater. They owe MORE than the house is worth. That difference is NOT made up in INCOME TAX. Hey, the Bush Tax Cuts for top 3% has been in place since 2001 & cost us $6.9 trillion. Where are the JOBS? Your economic "Supply Side"/"Laffer Curve" BS views have always failed. Again, & again, & again. Nope *Buzz*
@Bolgernow The only reason the HOUSE VALUE mattered is because the banks had FORECLOSED on their mortgage because the FEDERAL INCOME TAX took 1/3 of their money.
@funtala no, incorrect. The reason they were foreclosed upon is because an home apraiser said their house is worth $425,000. The bank agreed & lent them $. The market went bust. Now their house that they have a mortgage for $400,000 for thinking they could resell at anytime with such value is only worth $250,000. They lost $175,000 in equity in one month. Giving them back their income taxes will not fix this gap or massive economic reality. It's clear you don't know what you're talking about
@Bolgernow Any loss in equity would only have been realized if they were trying to sell their house. However, most people were foreclosed upon, for defaulting on their mortgage payments. Besides, two people making 60k, having 40k extra a year due to no IRS, would provide ample funds to pay the mortgage. Besides, even if what you were saying was true, 40k would return the equity lost in only 4.375 years.
@funtala excellent Ayn Rand, you've solved everything. Don't worry about the Post Office, roads, bridges, FBI, CIA, BOE, DOD, DHS, IRS, FDA, DOA, ACF, USDA, ATF, Census Bureau, DISA, DOC, DOE, DOJ, DOL, & virtually thousands of other government agencies that operate on tax payer $. I mean fuck THOSE guys right? We don't need any of that stuff...that we need, use, & enjoy DAILY. Annoy someone else with your childish insane utopia. I have a job...
@Bolgernow You included the IRS in the things that we'd not have money to pay for if we eliminated the IRS. The government operated fine before the income tax was instituted. Income taxes only account for less than half of the current income of the government. So, we'd only have to cut less than half of the expenditures. Most of the expenditures are wasteful; example: foreign occupations of over 140 countries, and wars of aggression. Get rid of the wars and we are halfway there to no IRS.
@Bolgernow Hey dumbass, the tax cuts of 2001/2003 gave the largest percentage cut to the lowest income bracket. Since you silly libtards like to talk in percentages all the time.
@StuffButter how does one raise taxes on the people making less than the poverty level $20,000? What you said make no logical sense. One group earns insane amounts of $, the other doesn't even earn enough to live day-to-day. Name calling, cute. Facts don't pick sides, they just are...
@funtala you forgot to mention that people wouldn't be competing with government for loans: the government steals your money, then uses it to big up prices on things, and we're left here with less money bidding with a monster that has no checkbook.
@Bolgernow tax cuts are not spending. in order to think such a foolish thing you would have to accept that every penny we make belongs to the government. thus, by the government cutting taxes and letting us keep more of our own earnings they are "spending." However, our income is not the government's property and therefore tax cuts should never be thought of as spending, ever.
@nappyhairderic this is like a child screaming "The world is flat!!!" as they sail around on it. TAX CUTS ARE SPENDING IN ANY BUDGET ACCORDING TO ANY RATIONAL ECONOMIST. Mental understanding & compliance on this issue isn't required. If it were, almost every theory & fact in Science wouldn't exist due to stupid people...
@Bolgernow You seem to be confusing spending and deficits. Sure they're related as more spending tends to lead to higher deficits but spending is not synonymous with deficit. I follow many Austrian economists and, in my opinion, none of them would (or should) say tax cuts are spending. Like I said before, the only way this would be true is if the government owned every penny of your income and thus they would be "spending" money giving it back to you. Thankfully this isn't the case.
@nappyhairderic no, you follow Ayn Rand wishing class warfare from the top down. It never works, never has, & has been responsible for the Great Depression, Black Monday, & Bush's Economic Depression Recession. Consult economic History if you are confused. Good day...
@Bolgernow what a dumb ass thing to say. Cutting taxes AND spending (like he said, you even quoted him as saying) is what's known as reducing government. It's NOT spending, because you're CUTTING SPENDING...
... see how that works? english exists and the words have meaning? ...yeah...
@evangrogers what you typed is gibberish. It makes no sense indended to confuse. It'd be like me saying "Spending & cutting taxes are hyper deflator triggers that lower government as a whole. It's not spending, it's Gurtersthal. See how that works?". You must understand what words mean. I'm not posting anymore to give this clip hits. You are trolls with little grasp on budgeting & do not understand that Tax Cuts are Budget Spending. If you can't pay for it, like Bush's cuts, now you add deficit
If you spend less money, then you spend less money.
If you steal less money (tax less), then you steal less money.
... so... stealing less money... is... stealing less money.
Rand is saying, undeniably - you even wrote it yourself, you idiotic troll - that he wants to cut spending across the board. This means, via a dictionary, that he wants to spend less money and cut spending.
If you still can't figure this out, then... sorry you weren't born smart.
@evangrogers ah yes, if I don't agree with you insane theory, you use "Shut up" Fascism. Anything economically factual? No. Plenty of insults? Yep. Stay Classy!
@evangrogers oh, & when Paul votes FOR extending the Bush Tax Cuts, that's known as SPENDING, unless they don't pay for it, then they're adding to the DEFICIT. Either way it goes directly against what the Tea Party stands for...
@Bolgernow I don't know how "let's spend less money, and also collect less money" is at all, in anyway, at odds with the Tea Party's message of "reduced government"...
@evangrogers SPENDING HAPPENS IF YOU PAY FOR "TAX CUTS", IT IS CALLED "DEFICIT SPENDING" IF YOU DON'T & PUT IN ON THE GOVERNMENT CREDIT CARD. YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND THIS. NOT MY PROBLEM. YOUR PROBLEM LIES WITH REALITY ITSELF. GOOD LUCK!
@evangrogers ah yes, if you cut spending "more" somehow Tax Cuts suddenly aren't "Spending $" or "Adding deficit". Holy shit, that's like saying, "Shooting some is murder, but if we cut shootings, no one will ever get murdered, you twit". I think you may be insane...
Rand Paul is saying "cut taxes and spending". And you're saying that this means that he's trying to increase spending. Then you claim that Tea Party people are against spending, and thus he is anti-tea party.
Then I retort with "he's cutting spending more than he's cutting taxes -- or at least that's what he's saying".
Then you retort with "cutting taxes means more spending".
... and I'll let the others on the forum decide who makes sense.
@evangrogers you just said Rand Paul is saying "cut taxes & spending". That's like saying "Fly in the air while on the ground", "she's kinda pregnant", or "Military Intelligence". It's a direct paradox. They diametrically oppose each other. TAX CUTS ARE EITHER "SPENDING" OR "DEFICIT" IF YOU DON'T PAY FOR THEM. ONE CAN NOT CLAIM TO BE "AGAINST SPENDING" BUT FOR "TAX CUTS". NO NO NO NO NO NO, DID I MENTION NO? But you're trying. Again, this is a battle between you & reality. I got no skin in it
@Bolgernow No, you're an idiot. If you spend less money than you make, you gain money in general. See how that works? profits?
I'm simply amazed you can't understand this basic idea. If you cut spending by $1 mill., but decrease tax revenue by $750,000, then spending has decreased.
I already know you're going to disagree with me and call me an idiot, but I don't care, because if you can't understand this simple principle - which Rand has said in the vid -- then you're a flaming idiot.
@evangrogers I understand your point, but what fantasy world do you live in where you can cut all government spending below the rate of all tax collection revenue? The CBO understands that figure is impossible even if you cut 65% of all government programs which now means we have massive infrastructure issues in need. The thing you don't grasp is even in your example, YOU ARE STILL SPENDING! If one is "AGAINST SPENDING", they should be AGAINST TAX CUTS. See how that works?
@FlGHTFORLlBERTY how do you expect to PAY for said TAX CUTS? With wishes, hopes, & magic beans. Anyone in budgeting knows Tax Cuts must be paid for, that is called SPENDING. If they are not paid for, you're increased your debt. Go away troll...
@Bolgernow You have a sad understanding of how this all works. But please, insult me more, it helps your argument and makes other readers respect you.
@FlGHTFORLlBERTY you did not answer my question. You avoided it, then insulted my intelligence on the subject matter. What you did is called "Projection" where you place your own characteristics on me. I'm not posting any longer. Troll someone else
@Bolgernow I didn't avoid anything. I ignored it because it was a trivial joke and waste of time, much like this response. I shall take your advice and go "troll" someone worth talking with.
@FlGHTFORLlBERTY because you can not answer the question. HOW do you expect to PAY for said TAX CUTS? With wishes, hopes, & magic beans? If not YOU ARE ADDING TO THE DEFICIT! It's not debatable, it's fact. But oh how you'll still try...
@Bolgernow For your persistent effort I will humor you, even though I've already read others explain this to you.
Consider you owe me $10. Now, I say, "Hey, you know what? I'm gonna be nice and let you just pay me $5." What I did was not the same as spending $5. Sure, I'm out $5 that could have been mine, but I did NOT spend. It's not a black and white issue.
Try to open your mind and hear others, instead of immediately dismiss. As opinionated as you seem, you don't have all the answers.
@FlGHTFORLlBERTY I read everything, & thank you for you answer. Your analogy makes little accurate sense to what we're specifically talking about here. If you own me $10, & I say "Hey, you know what? I gonna be nice & let you only pay me $4", but at the same time I already owed my sister $6, now my sister is out SIX BUCKS that now went to YOU. Where does HER $ come from?
@Bolgernow Oh, and I won't be responding again. Thought I'd say that now or I'd feel obligated to return and respond (should you respond) in order to formally end my participation in this one-sided discussion.
I say just get tough on fraud and waste. There is 80 billion in medicare fraud. Eliminate that and you've made your cuts. There are no-bid contracts in the military, get tough on that. Set up a system that holds bureaucrats personally responsible for waste - dock their pay if they waste money. Why didn't the stimulus work? Because government spending is wasteful, we've all seen it. Put it in the pockets of small businesses that know how to manage money.
@jeffmonc2 SURE JEFF, BUT LETS NOT FORGET THE FRAUD THAT IS OBAMA-BUSH WALLSTREET BAILOUTS, AND THE FEDERAL RESERVE (BERNANKE) ROBBING AMERICA TO SAVE GOLDMANSACHS/BankOF AMERICA
All of the talk about passing debt to children and grandchildren, totally ignoring the environmental reality that were using resources that will be in short supply for said offspring. Finance is partly, if not wholly, based on natural resources. Ignorance from even an intelligent person like Rand.
Any discussion of cutting the debt is a joke as long as you have a Federal Reserve system. The system requires new debt, and was unsustainable from its inception. It is only a matter of time before it all falls down. I would like to save the country, but it is done. There is no saving a ship with a gaping hole built in bottom of it. My advice is to prepare for the fall. Let the blind follow the blind, and become self-sufficient before you run out of preparation time.
Excellent interview! intelleigent and unwaivering.Christine IS a tough interviewer and Rand never let her get the best of him. Also Senator Paul shows statemanship with courtesy, much like his Dad.
@pam883r Rand Paul is NOTHING like his father. Ron Paul has served the public for a span of 30+ years and stuck to his guns the whole way through. Rand Paul has waffled several times before even setting foot in office.
We already see how Paul's relationship with McConnell is going to work. He'll take part in the symbolic crusade against spending and government waste while he lets Mitch McConnell take care of the dirty work and bring pork back to Kentucky. He won't "personally" take part in ear mark travesties (Mitch will handle that), but he's not going to push for laws to ban them either. You're no daisy, Rand -- you're no daisy at all.
@MrTouchShriek that might or might not be a political maneuver, but with the total fail whether you had been a status quote democrat or establishment republican with a bankrupting country in front of you, this is all you are capable of focusing on. with the likes of you voting, no wonder we are approaching third world where perhaps our voting base's intellectual capacity truly belongs. grats.
@spyletu Did you just say "status quote" and then insult someone's intellectual capacity? Yeah, I'd say the bigger problem is that we have imbeciles like you RESIDING in the country, not to mention among the ranks of its voting zombies.
If you don't see the fact that Rand Paul is going to be indistinguishable from the establishment GOP within a year or two, you're a blind fool. The walk back always starts small, but soon cascades; it's a natural progression among those without principle.
@MrTouchShriek Any dollars not earmarked throughout congressional districts end up being given to the executive branch. To add earmarks to the budget by itself is not the problem--it is that if earmarks are not added that the money will still be spent anyway. To attack earmarks and not the executive branch ability to spend any money not allocated is to behave like a dog who barks at the stick instead of the person who threw it.
read "The Canadian Century, Moving Out of America's Shadow". Canada CUT govt spending by 9% over 2 years, CUT Federal employment by 14% over 2 years, and turned their economy from third world to world beater. I'm glad Rand seems willing to cut both warfare and welfare, BUT the size of the cuts are merely annoying paper cuts when we need radical surgery
I'm proud of this true, American patriot, Rand Paul, for his honesty and his fine intellect. The son of Ron Paul, currently running for president 2012, has the political savvy and know-how like his father to actually do what all others promises to do and has not.
sherri99516 6 months ago
Rand Paul is a true Constitutional Republican for all of America. Still, there will be those elements within society, decidedly left-leaning, who will call foul on smaller govt. But I say, it is time that the U.S. govt. be reined in.
whiff1962 1 year ago
This women is attempting to get him to be descriptive enough about what he wants out of the government and she knows that if he fully says it that the talking media heads are going to spin it out of context, just like the 5 lies they have already spread about his character in the primaries. "5 major lies about Rand Paul" go google it. Look at what his father has done, the apple does not fall far from the tree.
RON PAUL 2012 PRESIDENT!
ahiraman14640 1 year ago
Cutting govt. Deficit 101:
1.Cut Taxes domestically, Ex: 1960 JFK cut taxes across the board within 2 Brackets 1. Being 50% tax cut and 2. Being a 30% tax cut... by 1961 the federal govt. saw a 50% increase in tax receipts.
2.Freeze Spending, Ex: The reason Reagan's tax cuts did not work is because he didn't cut and or freeze spending.
3.Production, EX: We need productivity not services and consumption to run an economy, and we gave away our production under Clinfont's NAFTA; now we feel it.
ahiraman14640 1 year ago
Talk about interrupting cow, that chic was trying so hard to try and goad him into a compromising response
republicunderground 1 year ago
All Taxation is Theft... Cut all spending.
chopperdavez 1 year ago
All Taxation is Theft...
chopperdavez 1 year ago
Comment removed
chopperdavez 1 year ago
WELL DONE RAND!!! The pushy B*$%^ tries to get you to make snap answers but you answer only what you are confident about and effectively push her back on the rest, all the while remaining polite and professional. She tried to get you to sound like a tea party whacko, like a Sarah Palin, and you showed her that there are some real pros in the movement. That was just awesome on every front.
DIYDaveT 1 year ago
Yes you can both reduce taxes AND reduce the deficit (by stimulating the economy and then taking in more revenue in taxes, even at a lower rate). Learn from history. High taxes hurt the economy and at some point begin to cause lower tax revenue from a poor/sluggish economy. But that only works if you also cut spending, which the Federal Government has refused to do: both Democrats & Republicans. We have a poor economy now despite being still in the Bush ear tax cuts due to excess spending.
Ethercruiser 1 year ago
this lady's annoying. He's answering the questions. "What will you cut?", his answer: "Everything! I just don't know exactly what".
And then she talks over him: "Hey, in missouri, 70% of the people don't want fed health c"... "BLAH - Across the board". He made a valid point: "States exist for a reason, and you're talking as though they don't!"
"Every economist who got us into this mess disagrees with you, Rand. Why won't you listen to them?" ... Rand: "umm..."
evangrogers 1 year ago
@Bolgernow: The entire deficit is a result of interest charged by the private bank called the FED who is able to legally counterfeit money! WTF?? Why should we pay taxes to these rich bastards?
wildbill562 1 year ago
@Bolgernow (cont'd): To put it another way, the government ceasing to take the money of citizens is not Government Spending, it is Private sector SAVING. You decide who you would rather decide how best to effectively spend the money - Wealthy investors looking to get a good return on their money or Government who wants a good return at the polls. If you choose the former you are a capitalist; the latter a socialist. Period.
jjonesut 1 year ago
@Bolgernow: You are wrong. In business, Profits = Revenues - Costs. In the public sector, Budget Surplus = Tax Collections - Government Spending. Therefore reducing Tax Collections DOES NOT equal Increased Government Spending, although it will cut into the Budget. However, to maintain a positive or balanced budget you MUST CUT SPENDING. Period.
jjonesut 1 year ago
@jjonesut no, TAX CUTS ARE SPENDING IN ANY BUDGET ACCORDING TO ANY RATIONAL ECONOMIST. $ THAT IS ALREADY MARKED IN BUDGETS, WHEN NOT COLLECTED IS CALLED "SPENDING". Mental understanding & compliance on this issue isn't required, since I can not convince an insane man the world is round, when insist, scream, & lie that it's "Flat!!!". Good luck!
Bolgernow 1 year ago 24
@jjonesut Yeah, I'm shocked at these idiots: "If you steal less money from people, then we have to spend more money!!"
... umm... what? no... If we spend less money, then we spend less money. If we steal more money then we steal more money...
English exists, and words mean things.
evangrogers 1 year ago
Rand Paul, not even a week after being elected has already shown he is not going to do what he said he would. When asked about earmarks today he stated "I will advocate for Kentucky's interests".
Proof he will side with Republicans who ran on "small government" "less spending" "lower taxes" and "no more earmarks" who are NOW saying they are not going to do away with earmarks causing taxes and spending to stay the SAME.
America is full of idiots who got fooled AGAIN by Republican lies.
rdrakken 1 year ago
@rdrakken You are repeating a partisan 'talking point' by repeating an incomplete quote which was taken from this vary interview. That quote fragement isn't even a complete sentence. In this interview here, he clearly outlines the distinction of funding that goes through commitee and earmarks. You have been spun. Listen at 7:08 and you will find the fragment you are repeating.
SlammoFandango 1 year ago
@SlammoFandango No. This interview came a day AFTER he was quoted as saying it, yes it was an incomplete quote, I never said it was a COMPLETE quote and only a FOOL would go and post the entire article on Youtube.
Rand Paul was asked about tryin to completely remove earmarks after several Republicans who were elected after saying they would remove them are now saying they will not. He stated no such thing about still fighting to remove them only that he wanted money for Kentuckys interests.
rdrakken 1 year ago
@rdrakken I'm not asking you to post a transcript, although ABC prov ides one for this interview, just quote your source of your quote. For instance, I know 'Salon' posted a misleading article the next day using this interview as a source and claimed that Paul had changed his position from Sunday to Monday. Name your source, rdakken, name your source. You've been spun...This interview itself is the source for the people who have spun you.
SlammoFandango 1 year ago
@SlammoFandango who the hell thinks Salon is a source for political topics?!?
Thats like thinking Rolling Stone is a great source for science...
As for your typical pompous bullshit acting as if nothing exists outside your knowledge other than spin. Try Mathew Kaminski of the Wall Street Journal, a rag owned by News Corp, a CONSERVATIVE company as ONE example of Ran Pauls traitorous new views being spoken of by his own side.
You have been spun into thinking he can do no wrong.
rdrakken 1 year ago
Your own prejudicial assumptions seem to follow the same flawed logic in regards to me by your desire to pigeon hole me as ‘Conservative’ or ‘Republican’ or blind follower of some messianic leader because I simply point out that editorial positions regarding his statements, which if they were news and not editorials, could not be supported by facts. I would view the twisting of statements made by another interviewee holding different political affiliations with the same jaundiced eye.
SlammoFandango 1 year ago
@rdrakken It's pretty simple: Any editorial comments outside this interview are just that - outside this interview. In this interview, the subject clearly states his opinion on the matter which others seem to feel free to subjectively insert prejudicial presumptions despite the clarifications the man makes right here. This is a real-time video by ABC News - Any editorial by any other entity, regardless of its perceived stature or affiliation is irrelevant and should be logically discredited.
SlammoFandango 1 year ago
@SlammoFandango its pretty simple: im going to take a stance and accuse people who disagree with me of not knowing what they are talking about and claim to know everything and demand sources. Then, when I get that source I am going to claim that only this source is valid if I cannot think of a way to refute it.
People like you, blind followers, are the reason this nation is in the shape it is in. Paul will do as much as his sheep will let him get away with.
rdrakken 1 year ago
@rdrakken Your institutionalized years obviously were utterly void of any teachings of the Trivium (the classical definitions of grammar, logic, and rhetoric) or any of the other of the seven concepts of a classical liberal arts education which would have by now otherwise freed your mind from the left/right paradigm. Your time served has left you with the impression that any autodidactic pursuits which could compensate for such a deficiency are unneeded.
SlammoFandango 1 year ago
@SlammoFandango please. Dont talk about someone else being insitutionalized when you act as if the politican you are following is above doing wrong.
Just because Paul got elected by claiming to be different it doesnt make him immune. He proved he was a two faced liar again today when confronted about medicare payouts and not wanting to lower the doctors percentage after being pointed out that it was because 80% of his earnings as a doctor came from it -CONT-
rdrakken 1 year ago
@rdrakken I am not willing to follow you on a tangent entirely unrelated to this thread because any matters of how a Doctor might receive remuneration from elective surgery has no connection to my comments regarding misleading and biased editorial publications using partial quotations in order to deceive the public as the otherwise clearly stated intent of an elected US Senator. Nor will I be baited by epithets such as ’Slave’ in doing so.
SlammoFandango 1 year ago
@SlammoFandango BTW, proof of a lack of ability to defend your beliefs is that you are unwilling to connect proof of character if it is not 100% about the main topic while at the same time speaking of the persons character in whole.
You are 100% institutionalized into your political rhetoric because you refuse to admit the slighest wrong of the person you are backing. I on the other hand can slam a person I vote for because I know no one is perfect or can represent me 100% of the time.
rdrakken 1 year ago
@SlammoFandango And like a typical politican he tried to cover his trackts stating that doctors that provide services for medicare patients do not make a lot of money and when he was ASKED how much he made he tried to turn on the interviewer and asked him if he should talk about his past instead of ANSWERING the question he knew would trap him.
Sadly for this LIAR, his sallary was compared to other non-medicare doctors and he made MORE!
He is a two faced liar like all politicians, slave.
rdrakken 1 year ago
@rdrakken If I am at all a ‘Follower’ it is simply due to my being pleased that he defeated an establishment Republican whose hypocrisy, lack of individual ideas, and penchant for actual political corruption might otherwise only have been matched by that of Jack Conway who showed his true colors to the people of Kentucky.
SlammoFandango 1 year ago
@rdrakken Simply pointing out that the man has been misquoted by other publications does not form any logical basis to showing that I hold any emotional vestment toward thinking the man is above wrong doing but merely points out that others have done wrong and that any conclusions stemming from fraudulent information a reader (maybe you) might form from such tainted information should be logically, and free from emotion, discredited.
SlammoFandango 1 year ago
@SlammoFandango You sure do backtrack and pretend you werent talking about things a lot...are you a politician in training? You must be planning on running on the Tea Party ticket in the future if you think Rand Paul has "individual" ideas that somehow do not conform to what the group is trying to make people think they stand for.
The very idea of a placing yourself into a political GROUP proves lack of individualism, but group mentality. the Tea Party is the Republican party.
rdrakken 1 year ago
@rdrakken I have not said anything about what has transpired thus far other than to say the man has been editorialized with partial remarks quoted out of context in other publications apart from this interview and my statements by no means can be seen to imply that I am under some belief that the man is above wrongdoing.
SlammoFandango 1 year ago
@SlammoFandango Actually, your stating that he has been taken out of context in editorials as a defense against what I am saying, what he stated in another interview is a stance that says you believe he is above reproach.
I did not speak of an editorial, you keep talking about one. I keep bringing up another interview.
So post again about how he has been taken out of context...as if anyone hasnt been. You are not defending yourself worth a damn and come off rather foolish for doing so.
rdrakken 1 year ago
@rdrakken Matthew Kaminski of the WSJ interviewed him and wrote in his op ed that he thought Paul ‘appeared to soften his stance’ yet still in the interview Paul made the distinction between what is transparent in the committee process and what is hidden in earmarks as two separate things. Later, Republicans Cantor, Boener, McConnel, and Blunt (establishment GOP all) made statements that Paul would change his position - Paul still has not.
SlammoFandango 1 year ago
@SlammoFandango He ran on "NO MORE" not "I dont want there to be any but as long as there is I will take the money".
That is going from "I want smaller government but as long as its big, im going to go along with it".
The very fact that you are defending this proves you are a SLAVE to political rhetoric, you are NO different than a Neo-Con, a Liberal, a Communist or any other label you can apply to someone else because they all do the SAME THING.
rdrakken 1 year ago
@rdrakken If he fails to achieve his stated goals, then you’re right - He’s just like the rest of them. Me, I prefer to be a ‘glass half-full’ kind of guy. If he succeeds in convincing the rest of the Republicans that he has a mandate to force other Republicans to do things like cut the defense budget when they otherwise never would - That’s positive. I see that as potentially more effective than the same request coming from the left.
SlammoFandango 1 year ago
@SlammoFandango financial crisis. The biggest scammer in history is in prison now and they are raiding firms RIGHT NOW for insider trading. every single state is blocking foreclosures and investigating every single bank for robo-signing. for a full year Obama was trying to block banks that received money from paying large sums to imployees (which im sure you were part of the chorus crying communism).
You are playing both sides against the government. No matter what they do, they are wrong.
rdrakken 1 year ago
@rdrakken
The ‘Most Sweeping Financial Reform in History’ was not passed last year…not even close. That happened in 1999 and 2000 in a Republican Congress along with BC’s signature. They did away with Glass-Steagal and the separations of services between Brokerage, Banking, and Insurance services and then with the Mercantile Modernization Act of 2000, financial instruments could be traded as though they were commodities = derivatives.
SlammoFandango 1 year ago
@SlammoFandango 1. doing away with regulation is not reform. regulation is reform because it changes the rules
2. I agree about Goldman, the same should apply to Citi and HBSC because they were also heavy into what caused the crisis.
3. There are people in prison and more on trail, now go back and name a single person that served a day in jail for the S&L crisis.
4. The dollar hasnt meant a thing since it was removed from the gold standard so the value hasnt actually dropped since...
rdrakken 1 year ago
@rdrakken 1. Advocating for limiting the size and scope of government does not automatically imply a desire for lawlessness and anarchy that would result from the elimination of essential protections and services.
2. We agree except the laws are still unfairly rigged.
3. Over 1000 went to jail - patsies all - none politically connected…expect similar results this time.
4. I have no idea what you mean by that at all…
SlammoFandango 1 year ago
@SlammoFandango 1. all comes down to what it is your are trying to limit and the implications that will come from that limit that too few bother to think about.
2. and they always have been.
3. everyone that goes to jail is a patsy no matter the crime or their connections. an what does that have to do with trying to make out what is happening now is worse than during the S&L crisis, you did not defend your previous comment.
rdrakken 1 year ago
@SlammoFandango 4. You stated that the exponential expansion of the money supply is causing the value of the dollar to drop. I pointed out that the dollar has not had any real value since the gold standard was removed.
its not hard to figure out and has been one of the biggest talking points of just about every single Libertarian and Constitutionalist for decades...because its true. The dollar has no value, its our goods that have value...unlike every other nation that uses Gold.
rdrakken 1 year ago
@SlammoFandango THAT is the biggest failure of the USofA.
Not only did we remove that ONLY thing that actually adds value to a currency, we allowed our GOODS to drop in quality so much that it is going to be a hard recoverey.
Case in point, Automobiles. It was our largest export and our biggest industry for almost 6 decades. However a constant drop in quality dug is into a deep hole. Sure Ford has made a huge turn around...but we may never recover market share.
rdrakken 1 year ago
@rdrakken This is a problem that can be found in almost every single sector of business. Add in the INSANE amount of greed, the massive ignorance of the people, the inability to speak to one another about REAL issues, the media's change to a format of controversy over information...we are falling apart.
And not one single person that was elected on any side is speaking about the fundamental issues this nation has...only typical scare tactics about things that wont save this nation.
rdrakken 1 year ago
@SlammoFandango Hey how about that first session eh? Only 746 earmark requests made by people elected by the Tea Party and when you add in all other Republican requested earmarks it was only just over 30% HIGHER than what Democrats requested.
So hows that hopey changy thing working for ya eh? wink wink.
Make sure you vote for Palin in 2012...
rdrakken 1 year ago
@rdrakken Yeah, I've seen some of the initial reports of Republicans requesting upwards of a Billion in earmarks. It seems like the current talking point is to refer to Republicans requesting earmarks as the 'Tea Party Caucus'...The strange thing is no such thing as the TP Caucus and I don't see Paul's name listed with those Republicans requesting earmarks...could it be a typo...or could he actually be doing what he said he would?
SlammoFandango 1 year ago
@SlammoFandango Nope. No one is being confused for a Republican. The non tea party republicans have their own list and the list is not complete. You will see a full list by the end of last week, Rand Paul will be on it, he is not on the current list because they dont have his total yet.
The group providing the "pig book" is one of the main backers of the tea party movement and they have no reason to try to make those they helped to elect look worse than they do on their own.
rdrakken 1 year ago
@rdrakken Okay, I'll wait for "pig book's" complete compilation, but in the meantime my assumption is that the information, though not reported in committee of course, would still be availabe to anyone who was looking and since Paul has stuck his neck out, someone other than 'pig book' would have already taken a chop at it by now if spending associated with him could be classified as an 'earmark'.
SlammoFandango 1 year ago
@SlammoFandango it is available...how do you think they got it? They are not politicans on the inside, they are a watchdog group and one you should be very familiar with if you are even remotely close to being a legit Tea Partier.
I know them because I used to be a Tea Partier back when it was under Ron Paul...you know, when they actually had Libertarian ideas that were not tied down to what corporations actually want...like they are now.
rdrakken 1 year ago
@SlammoFandango and as for your S&L BULLSHIT comments. Almost the entire bailout was money that WOULD NEVER COME BACK. Unlike the current bailouts which are NOT give-aways, they are LOANS...loans that have almost been payed back already WITH INTEREST.
So far, the bailouts today is going to cost less than 30 billion total IF a few banks cannot repay,because most have already given the money back with interest. Something they are not talking about on the news because it doesnt fit their agenda
rdrakken 1 year ago
@rdrakken Well, gee. I suppose if you don't consider the exponential expansion of the overall money supply, your statement would actually pencil out. I suppose you believe the Fed can still at this point keep control of the purchase power of the dollar so when the bail out dollar amounts are returned they will still represent the same value?
SlammoFandango 1 year ago
@rdrakken The fiasco still hasn’t been rectified and the truth is, they can investigate wrong doing but nobody’s doing time because much of what used to be illegal from the ’30s till 2000 still isn’t. Goldman get's fined for what sounds like a ton of money when you read it in the paper but in truth amounts to less than a days worth of ill-gotten gain. Nobody at the top of Goldman is going to jail...Hold your breath on that one.
SlammoFandango 1 year ago
@rdrakken The passing time may very well reveal that Rand Paul is just as full of lies and just as willing to accept corruption as any of the other 99. It may be that he will accept earmarks in exchange for voting in favor of legislation that is or is not in the best interest of the overall good of the people. It may turn out that earmarks will become motivation enough for voting in favor of such legislation without actually reading that legislation. Time will tell.
SlammoFandango 1 year ago
@rdrakken Simply opposing the establishment Republican Party’s agenda by supporting the Democratic Party’s agenda is a practice which has proven its ineffectiveness time over and about as logical as continuing to accept Obama’s escalation of defense spending and expansion of unconstitutional wars into additional countries while bailing out banks on the backs of the middle class as excusable just because Bush started it.
SlammoFandango 1 year ago
@SlammoFandango as for your bailing out banks comment, Reagan and Bush Sr did it. They bailed out MORE banks and spent MORE money in terms of GDP for a much SMALLER issue. Many Presidents did it. The last time the governement did NOT bail out banks during a crisis we went into the great depression.
But thats ok because then you could have complained about the government doing NOTHING and not caring about the people at all...there will always be a reason for you to complain.
rdrakken 1 year ago
@rdrakken I acknowledge your point regarding the S&L crisis of the 1980’s - It’s a good one. Not meaning to argue, there were some notable distinctions: The majority of that bailout funding went to depositors and investors who were swindled and not corporate entities free from accountability. Many criminals went to jail. No one involved in this recent scam is even being personally investigated for wrong doing.
SlammoFandango 1 year ago
@SlammoFandango did you really just call me "left"...
You have taken the last step in being an extremist. Enjoy doing exactly what every other political supporter has done. Make excuses for those you follow and contiune to spread lies to try to make your stances seem supportable. The very fact you tried to support the S&L bailouts with bullshit proves you are a slave to your rheotric. There are almost 2000 companies/firms being investigated by the FBI in direct connection to the -CONT-
rdrakken 1 year ago
@rdrakken Marginalizing this guy only makes the establishment GOP stronger. If you think that’s a good thing then we’ll just have to agree to disagree because I’ll never agree with the current policies of the modern GOP. Progressives seem to have missed the source of the original attacks on the Tea Party and had the progressives not jumped on the Anti-Tea Party band wagon that helped the GOP co-opt much of the TP, there might be a few more true TP in congress, more Dems and less GOP.
SlammoFandango 1 year ago
@SlammoFandango as for your "marginalizing Paul makes the GOP stronger" comment.
I see, so I shouldnt call out Paul to keep his promises because doing it would strengthen the GOP...holy shit you are a fucking slave.
The entire Tea Party movement is a joke, it IS the Republican party. If you wanted REAL change it would be its own movement working from the GROUND up, not from the TOP down. A building failing apart requires the FOUNDATION to be improved first, not the roof.
rdrakken 1 year ago
@rdrakken On the contrary - Calling him out to keep his promises is exactly what needs to be done. The cynical viewpoint that he has no mandate to change the direction the GOP is the last thing anyone who opposes the GOP’s current platform should want. I simply fail to understand the glee from the left when they state he will be corrupted by the likes of Eric Cantor, John Boener, Mitch McConnel, or Roy Blunt - Why would the left want another GOP team player?
SlammoFandango 1 year ago
@workmagic19891 I hear you. We're in agreement about cutting "expenditures", however the logic flaw by Paul & Tea Party folks here is that Tax Cuts are somehow NOT an "expenditure". They are. It's not debatable. They cost big $. The Bush Tax Cuts for the top 3% have cost us $6.9 trillion since they've been in place...
Bolgernow 1 year ago 22
This bitch went to Bilderberg last year, so i wont believe anything she is spewing.
jwka2001 1 year ago
@workmagic1989 yes, but along with those expenditures is SPENDING. TAX CUTS FOR THE TOP 3% IS SPENDING AN INSANE AMOUNT OF MONEY IN BILLIONS THAT IS NOT PAID FOR. If you do not understand this, PLEASE seek economic budgeting help...
Bolgernow 1 year ago 21
@Bolgernow raising taxes is not addressing spending, at all. Government seeks to perpetuate its power, department by department and has forever. It needs to be smaller. Raising taxes would only make that worse. Spending needs to be cut.
spinnikerca 1 year ago
@workmagic1989 a "tax cut" is something that must be "paid for" in any budget. The $ taxes will generate is now gone. It's called "SPENDING". You are spending $ you have not collected yet by giving it back. That $ was accounted for. It's budgeting 101. If Tax Cuts generate jobs, where are they? Bush cuts have been in place since 2001. Didn't help with jobs at all. The top 3% KEPT their $
Bolgernow 1 year ago 23
@Bolgernow You are merely going in circles with semantics and fallacies. This would explain why you are confused to the point that you actually think that letting people keep what they earn is spending.
madhatter0110 1 year ago
@madhatter0110 no I'm not. Anyone reading this understands you either A) Are ignorant of what "tax cuts" do to a budget deficit, or B) Lying to confuse idiots. Either way, it's not my problem. That's between you & accepting reality...
Bolgernow 1 year ago 14
@Bolgernow Anyone reading this understands that it is impossible to spend money you haven't stolen yet or they are duped into the quagmire of semantics you wallow in. I will continue to accept objectivity over the smoke and mirror show you and other socialists believe.
madhatter0110 1 year ago
@Bolgernow I don't like the idea of cutting taxes without comparatively greater cuts in spending, but you make it sound like the government already owns everyone's property and whatever they don't tax is simply a gift they so generously bestow upon it's chattel.
That being said, if increases in government spending create jobs, where are they now, we've had government increase spending since after the second world war, and the only ones to benefit were the political class.
Worldslargestipod 1 year ago
God that lady is a bitch. Its one of those bitches you recognize by just looking at lol
Unknow022 1 year ago
Wow! Textbook interview by Rand Paul. This man is probably the best politician I've seen in a long time. Kept his composure, expressed his intelligence and understanding of the issues. Didn't let the reporter bully him into giving answers he wasn't prepared to give yet. To me it looks like he will do well in the years to come.
OutlawTomFantastic 1 year ago
Very good interview; fair, balanced; direct and I think Mr. Paul answered the questions straightforward and directly. I really don't understand all the noise being made about our financial situation. We are broke and we cannot continue to simply raise taxes to make up for irresponsible spending and grow the economy. Everybody is going to have to get less from the Federal Government and people are going to have to help people more.
blairbradley 1 year ago
@blairbradley Dr.Paul
DanielDamascusKimery 1 year ago 5
Rand Paul turned into a politician faster than anyone I've ever seen. The math is simple. We can either shut down the Empire or raise taxes to pay for it.
337noname 1 year ago
@337noname He is more than a Politician. He is a Statesman!
DanielDamascusKimery 1 year ago 6
@DanielDamascusKimery He is dancing around the questions IMO. I would have hope he'd want to cut biggest military in the history of the world in half at least considering we are a broke empire or means test SS and medicare or close corporate loop holes that let them out source jobs and profits or stop welfare and begin a public works programs. Do something! But nope. Dancing the poitical dance is all Rand is doing.
337noname 1 year ago
@337noname Why because he isn't giving exact numbers on the cuts he is going to make? He isn't even in office yet so give him a break. We won. You lost. Get over it!
DanielDamascusKimery 1 year ago
@DanielDamascusKimery I think she was asking where the cuts would come from not for exact numbers. For someone who will be a Senator and ran as an outsider, I'd hope he have some new ideas and not do same old DC dance.
No sure what "we won and you lost" means? Are you commmenting on behave Rand Paul voters? I don't vote in Kentucky so I've not sure what it is you think I lost?
337noname 1 year ago
@337noname What you lost a Democratic vote on the Senate Floor. I for one like having a Senator that's reserved with what he says rather than one like your god "Obama" that promised us the Sun, the Moon, and the Stars then goes back on everything he said once he gets in power.
DanielDamascusKimery 1 year ago
@DanielDamascusKimery Your assumptions are very silly so I'm moving on. l8r
337noname 1 year ago
@337noname He did okay. I agree with you, cutting the military by closing bases in Germany and Japan, and elsewhere is priority number one. What a damned waste of our money! Like Japan and Germany can't pay for their own defense. He'll just tell the generals they need to cut things 20% each year and let them make the detailed decisions of what needs to go.
OutlawTomFantastic 1 year ago
he is just like his father.. dumb and doesn't understand anything of importance
FinestIntensity 1 year ago
@FinestIntensity Your statement is dumb
tlaz54321 1 year ago
The Afghans do more - don't make me laugh!!
chissiez1 1 year ago
"What spending specifically will you cut?"
Rand: "1st I'd try to pass an amendment to the constitution to enforce "Pay as you go". Then I would look at both Liberals ideas of "cutting Military spending", & Republican ideas of "Cutting Domestic spending". He wasn't specific because when you DO get specific, lobbyists $ will pour in, justify the spending, & keep it the EXACT same. When he votes to EXTEND the Bush tax cuts, which is SPENDING, you have to live with electing him Kentucky...
Bolgernow 1 year ago 25
@Bolgernow Extending the Bush tax cuts is not spending. How do you go from taking less money from the people by reducing taxes to spending? Reducing tax revenue is not spending.
madhatter0110 1 year ago
@madhatter0110 tax cuts directly add to our deficit. That is called spending. Anyone in basic budgeting understands this. Any adult understands this. Even Republican Eric Cantor understands this when he said, "If you have less revenues coming into the federal government, & more expenditures, what does that add up to? Certainly you're gonna dig the deficit hole deeper"
Bolgernow 1 year ago 22
@Bolgernow tax cuts only "contribute to the deficit" when spending remains the same or increases. If you lost your job you wouldn't say you are spending $50,000 more a year you would say you are earning $50,000 less. Your logic here is incredibly flawed and even those with a minimal understanding of logic would see the fallacy in your argument.
madhatter0110 1 year ago
@madhatter0110 that makes no sense. You are either A) Ignorant of what tax cuts do to a budget deficit, or B) Lying to confuse idiots. Either way, it's not my problem. It's a battle with you & reality that I have no skin in. Good luck!
Bolgernow 1 year ago 25
@Bolgernow I make no sense? Your argument is filled with fallacies and just like Keynesian economics makes no sense. Receiving less in revenue is not the equivalent to spending unless the shortfall is borrowed or monetized. Just as a person cannot eliminate their Visa debt by using their MasterCard, neither can the US borrow, inflate, and expand government to create prosperity.
madhatter0110 1 year ago
@madhatter0110 partisan lies based on your personal views, rather factual economic realities. Keynesian economics is extremely sound. In fact FDR was elected president a record setting 4 times using Keynesian. The very wealthy don't like it, b/c they're taxed to create a strong middle class. They prefer class warfare from the top down, like you wish. Your "credit card" analogy doesn't apply here. We're talking "tax cuts". Tax cuts must be paid for in a budget. If not, it's SPENDING
Bolgernow 1 year ago 21
@Bolgernow Partisan lies? Every empire and nation throughout history has fallen not because of a foreign adversary but due to the collapse of its currency--e.g. Zimbabwe. The expansion of government and spending by FDR and others have created an unsustainable debt for generations to come. Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it and those who think Keynesian economics works are ignoring facts, history, statistics, and are gullible enough to believe less revenue is spending.
madhatter0110 1 year ago
@madhatter0110 NO. The entire middle class was created by FDR & Keynesian Economics. FDR was elected president a record setting 4 times using Keynesian. Our economy & society were never stronger, closer, or better off financially since that time. What you are calling for is class warfare from the Top down. Bring it buddy!
Bolgernow 1 year ago 14
@Bolgernow Tax cuts for everybody is not class warfare but rather treating everyone equally. The only reason FDR got elected as many times as he did was that the people were duped into the notion that the government could provide everything for everybody forever. The only problem with socialism is that eventually the bureaucrats run out of other people's money.
madhatter0110 1 year ago
@Bolgernow i really hope that you are not advocating that FDR and keynes did ANY good...
jfn1103 5 months ago
@jfn1103 reality & economic facts disagree with your irrational premise. You are a Ron Paul Libertarian from your channel. Good luck with that. I'm not in a mood to discuss reality itself with you since you start from a historically dishonest false fallacy premise. Stay classy!
Bolgernow 5 months ago
@Bolgernow Keynesian economics CAUSED the Great Depression. Look at the timeline. Compare that to the even greater depression in the early 1920s where people were allowed to fail. Guess what happened...the Roaring Twenties.
FDR didn't get us out of the Great Depression by using Keynesian economics. We got out of the depression the only way possible--increasing production. This happened because of World War II.
StuffButter 1 year ago
@StuffButter NO. The entire middle class was created by FDR & Keynesian Economics. FDR was elected president a record setting 4 times using Keynesian. Our economy & society were never stronger, closer, or better off financially since that time. What you are calling for is class warfare from the Top down. What jobs did the Bush tax cuts of giving the top 3% more $ get us? None. WWII did help us because we produced more than we consumed. Remember rubber shortages? You know no history. Sad...
Bolgernow 1 year ago
@Bolgernow Ideally a tax cut increases a budget deficit. However, such was not the case when JFK gave the rich a tax cut from 90% to 70% and when Reagan cut it from 70% to 28%. The Laffer Curve is alive and well, until we get a Congress that will cut taxes to the level where there is NO increase in revenue.
StuffButter 1 year ago
@StuffButter "ideally"? No, factually. Tax cuts for the top 3% add budget deficit. If you are against government spending, or deficit spending, you are against these cuts. The capital gains cut I would leave in place since almost EVERYONE has a 401k nowadays. Besides, JFK & Reagan didn't have today's post depression/deepest recession in US history to deal with...
Bolgernow 1 year ago 4
@Bolgernow If there was NO Federal Income Tax, then there would have been no need for a 23 trillion dollar stimulus of spending because 1) people could have afforded their mortgages , 2) unemployment wouldn't be nearly as high as it is now (20% by some estimates).
funtala 1 year ago
@funtala and IF my shit was made of $, I'd be a rich man. That is the most INSANE claim I've ever heard. Their INCOME TAX has nothing to do with the HOUSE VALUE that went underwater. They owe MORE than the house is worth. That difference is NOT made up in INCOME TAX. Hey, the Bush Tax Cuts for top 3% has been in place since 2001 & cost us $6.9 trillion. Where are the JOBS? Your economic "Supply Side"/"Laffer Curve" BS views have always failed. Again, & again, & again. Nope *Buzz*
Bolgernow 1 year ago 21
@Bolgernow The only reason the HOUSE VALUE mattered is because the banks had FORECLOSED on their mortgage because the FEDERAL INCOME TAX took 1/3 of their money.
funtala 1 year ago
@funtala no, incorrect. The reason they were foreclosed upon is because an home apraiser said their house is worth $425,000. The bank agreed & lent them $. The market went bust. Now their house that they have a mortgage for $400,000 for thinking they could resell at anytime with such value is only worth $250,000. They lost $175,000 in equity in one month. Giving them back their income taxes will not fix this gap or massive economic reality. It's clear you don't know what you're talking about
Bolgernow 1 year ago 17
@Bolgernow Any loss in equity would only have been realized if they were trying to sell their house. However, most people were foreclosed upon, for defaulting on their mortgage payments. Besides, two people making 60k, having 40k extra a year due to no IRS, would provide ample funds to pay the mortgage. Besides, even if what you were saying was true, 40k would return the equity lost in only 4.375 years.
funtala 1 year ago
@funtala excellent Ayn Rand, you've solved everything. Don't worry about the Post Office, roads, bridges, FBI, CIA, BOE, DOD, DHS, IRS, FDA, DOA, ACF, USDA, ATF, Census Bureau, DISA, DOC, DOE, DOJ, DOL, & virtually thousands of other government agencies that operate on tax payer $. I mean fuck THOSE guys right? We don't need any of that stuff...that we need, use, & enjoy DAILY. Annoy someone else with your childish insane utopia. I have a job...
Bolgernow 1 year ago 15
@Bolgernow You included the IRS in the things that we'd not have money to pay for if we eliminated the IRS. The government operated fine before the income tax was instituted. Income taxes only account for less than half of the current income of the government. So, we'd only have to cut less than half of the expenditures. Most of the expenditures are wasteful; example: foreign occupations of over 140 countries, and wars of aggression. Get rid of the wars and we are halfway there to no IRS.
funtala 1 year ago
@Bolgernow Hey dumbass, the tax cuts of 2001/2003 gave the largest percentage cut to the lowest income bracket. Since you silly libtards like to talk in percentages all the time.
StuffButter 1 year ago
@StuffButter how does one raise taxes on the people making less than the poverty level $20,000? What you said make no logical sense. One group earns insane amounts of $, the other doesn't even earn enough to live day-to-day. Name calling, cute. Facts don't pick sides, they just are...
Bolgernow 1 year ago 3
@funtala you forgot to mention that people wouldn't be competing with government for loans: the government steals your money, then uses it to big up prices on things, and we're left here with less money bidding with a monster that has no checkbook.
evangrogers 1 year ago
@Bolgernow tax cuts are not spending. in order to think such a foolish thing you would have to accept that every penny we make belongs to the government. thus, by the government cutting taxes and letting us keep more of our own earnings they are "spending." However, our income is not the government's property and therefore tax cuts should never be thought of as spending, ever.
nappyhairderic 1 year ago
@nappyhairderic this is like a child screaming "The world is flat!!!" as they sail around on it. TAX CUTS ARE SPENDING IN ANY BUDGET ACCORDING TO ANY RATIONAL ECONOMIST. Mental understanding & compliance on this issue isn't required. If it were, almost every theory & fact in Science wouldn't exist due to stupid people...
Bolgernow 1 year ago 14
@Bolgernow You seem to be confusing spending and deficits. Sure they're related as more spending tends to lead to higher deficits but spending is not synonymous with deficit. I follow many Austrian economists and, in my opinion, none of them would (or should) say tax cuts are spending. Like I said before, the only way this would be true is if the government owned every penny of your income and thus they would be "spending" money giving it back to you. Thankfully this isn't the case.
nappyhairderic 1 year ago
@nappyhairderic no, you follow Ayn Rand wishing class warfare from the top down. It never works, never has, & has been responsible for the Great Depression, Black Monday, & Bush's Economic Depression Recession. Consult economic History if you are confused. Good day...
Bolgernow 1 year ago 12
@Bolgernow what a dumb ass thing to say. Cutting taxes AND spending (like he said, you even quoted him as saying) is what's known as reducing government. It's NOT spending, because you're CUTTING SPENDING...
... see how that works? english exists and the words have meaning? ...yeah...
evangrogers 1 year ago
@evangrogers what you typed is gibberish. It makes no sense indended to confuse. It'd be like me saying "Spending & cutting taxes are hyper deflator triggers that lower government as a whole. It's not spending, it's Gurtersthal. See how that works?". You must understand what words mean. I'm not posting anymore to give this clip hits. You are trolls with little grasp on budgeting & do not understand that Tax Cuts are Budget Spending. If you can't pay for it, like Bush's cuts, now you add deficit
Bolgernow 1 year ago 9
@Bolgernow No, shut up.
If you spend less money, then you spend less money.
If you steal less money (tax less), then you steal less money.
... so... stealing less money... is... stealing less money.
Rand is saying, undeniably - you even wrote it yourself, you idiotic troll - that he wants to cut spending across the board. This means, via a dictionary, that he wants to spend less money and cut spending.
If you still can't figure this out, then... sorry you weren't born smart.
evangrogers 1 year ago
@evangrogers ah yes, if I don't agree with you insane theory, you use "Shut up" Fascism. Anything economically factual? No. Plenty of insults? Yep. Stay Classy!
Bolgernow 1 year ago 9
@Bolgernow what part of "adding means adding, and subtracting means subtracting" are you incapable of understanding?
evangrogers 1 year ago
@evangrogers oh, & when Paul votes FOR extending the Bush Tax Cuts, that's known as SPENDING, unless they don't pay for it, then they're adding to the DEFICIT. Either way it goes directly against what the Tea Party stands for...
Bolgernow 1 year ago 10
@Bolgernow I don't know how "let's spend less money, and also collect less money" is at all, in anyway, at odds with the Tea Party's message of "reduced government"...
... I mean... really
evangrogers 1 year ago
@evangrogers SPENDING HAPPENS IF YOU PAY FOR "TAX CUTS", IT IS CALLED "DEFICIT SPENDING" IF YOU DON'T & PUT IN ON THE GOVERNMENT CREDIT CARD. YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND THIS. NOT MY PROBLEM. YOUR PROBLEM LIES WITH REALITY ITSELF. GOOD LUCK!
Bolgernow 1 year ago 7
@Bolgernow BUT NOT IF YOU CUT SPENDING MORE, YOU TWIT!
evangrogers 1 year ago
@evangrogers ah yes, if you cut spending "more" somehow Tax Cuts suddenly aren't "Spending $" or "Adding deficit". Holy shit, that's like saying, "Shooting some is murder, but if we cut shootings, no one will ever get murdered, you twit". I think you may be insane...
Bolgernow 1 year ago 3
@Bolgernow So let me post my point one last time.
Rand Paul is saying "cut taxes and spending". And you're saying that this means that he's trying to increase spending. Then you claim that Tea Party people are against spending, and thus he is anti-tea party.
Then I retort with "he's cutting spending more than he's cutting taxes -- or at least that's what he's saying".
Then you retort with "cutting taxes means more spending".
... and I'll let the others on the forum decide who makes sense.
evangrogers 1 year ago
@evangrogers you just said Rand Paul is saying "cut taxes & spending". That's like saying "Fly in the air while on the ground", "she's kinda pregnant", or "Military Intelligence". It's a direct paradox. They diametrically oppose each other. TAX CUTS ARE EITHER "SPENDING" OR "DEFICIT" IF YOU DON'T PAY FOR THEM. ONE CAN NOT CLAIM TO BE "AGAINST SPENDING" BUT FOR "TAX CUTS". NO NO NO NO NO NO, DID I MENTION NO? But you're trying. Again, this is a battle between you & reality. I got no skin in it
Bolgernow 1 year ago 2
@Bolgernow No, you're an idiot. If you spend less money than you make, you gain money in general. See how that works? profits?
I'm simply amazed you can't understand this basic idea. If you cut spending by $1 mill., but decrease tax revenue by $750,000, then spending has decreased.
I already know you're going to disagree with me and call me an idiot, but I don't care, because if you can't understand this simple principle - which Rand has said in the vid -- then you're a flaming idiot.
evangrogers 1 year ago
@evangrogers I understand your point, but what fantasy world do you live in where you can cut all government spending below the rate of all tax collection revenue? The CBO understands that figure is impossible even if you cut 65% of all government programs which now means we have massive infrastructure issues in need. The thing you don't grasp is even in your example, YOU ARE STILL SPENDING! If one is "AGAINST SPENDING", they should be AGAINST TAX CUTS. See how that works?
Bolgernow 1 year ago 2
@Bolgernow Duh. You have to cut the federal expenditures big time.
leafwatch 1 year ago
@Bolgernow Sorry buddy. Lower taxes != Spending. Nice try though.
FlGHTFORLlBERTY 1 year ago
@FlGHTFORLlBERTY how do you expect to PAY for said TAX CUTS? With wishes, hopes, & magic beans. Anyone in budgeting knows Tax Cuts must be paid for, that is called SPENDING. If they are not paid for, you're increased your debt. Go away troll...
Bolgernow 1 year ago 6
@Bolgernow You have a sad understanding of how this all works. But please, insult me more, it helps your argument and makes other readers respect you.
FlGHTFORLlBERTY 1 year ago
@FlGHTFORLlBERTY you did not answer my question. You avoided it, then insulted my intelligence on the subject matter. What you did is called "Projection" where you place your own characteristics on me. I'm not posting any longer. Troll someone else
Bolgernow 1 year ago 5
@Bolgernow I didn't avoid anything. I ignored it because it was a trivial joke and waste of time, much like this response. I shall take your advice and go "troll" someone worth talking with.
FlGHTFORLlBERTY 1 year ago
@FlGHTFORLlBERTY because you can not answer the question. HOW do you expect to PAY for said TAX CUTS? With wishes, hopes, & magic beans? If not YOU ARE ADDING TO THE DEFICIT! It's not debatable, it's fact. But oh how you'll still try...
Bolgernow 1 year ago 2
@Bolgernow For your persistent effort I will humor you, even though I've already read others explain this to you.
Consider you owe me $10. Now, I say, "Hey, you know what? I'm gonna be nice and let you just pay me $5." What I did was not the same as spending $5. Sure, I'm out $5 that could have been mine, but I did NOT spend. It's not a black and white issue.
Try to open your mind and hear others, instead of immediately dismiss. As opinionated as you seem, you don't have all the answers.
FlGHTFORLlBERTY 1 year ago
@FlGHTFORLlBERTY I read everything, & thank you for you answer. Your analogy makes little accurate sense to what we're specifically talking about here. If you own me $10, & I say "Hey, you know what? I gonna be nice & let you only pay me $4", but at the same time I already owed my sister $6, now my sister is out SIX BUCKS that now went to YOU. Where does HER $ come from?
Bolgernow 1 year ago 4
@Bolgernow Oh, and I won't be responding again. Thought I'd say that now or I'd feel obligated to return and respond (should you respond) in order to formally end my participation in this one-sided discussion.
Cheers.
FlGHTFORLlBERTY 1 year ago
I say just get tough on fraud and waste. There is 80 billion in medicare fraud. Eliminate that and you've made your cuts. There are no-bid contracts in the military, get tough on that. Set up a system that holds bureaucrats personally responsible for waste - dock their pay if they waste money. Why didn't the stimulus work? Because government spending is wasteful, we've all seen it. Put it in the pockets of small businesses that know how to manage money.
jeffmonc2 1 year ago
@jeffmonc2 SURE JEFF, BUT LETS NOT FORGET THE FRAUD THAT IS OBAMA-BUSH WALLSTREET BAILOUTS, AND THE FEDERAL RESERVE (BERNANKE) ROBBING AMERICA TO SAVE GOLDMANSACHS/BankOF AMERICA
infotechsailor 1 year ago
Does ABC think that Amanpour is intelligent because she speaks with an accent? She's an idiot.
Paul was great here though...she kept trying to interrupt him and not let him finish a sentence, but he was very calm and cool.
She got owned. But her days at ABC are numbered anyway.
bd001217 1 year ago
"Yes it is a revenue problem".
lol, you can never make more than you can spend. It's almost always a spending problem, whether with government or with individuals.
Considering our government makes far more money than any other country in the world, I think it's a spending problem.
chifylube 1 year ago
Rand actually really held his own here, despite the fact she continuously tried to put him on the spot. Rand owned.
treysparker 1 year ago
All of the talk about passing debt to children and grandchildren, totally ignoring the environmental reality that were using resources that will be in short supply for said offspring. Finance is partly, if not wholly, based on natural resources. Ignorance from even an intelligent person like Rand.
tarfpir 1 year ago
Any discussion of cutting the debt is a joke as long as you have a Federal Reserve system. The system requires new debt, and was unsustainable from its inception. It is only a matter of time before it all falls down. I would like to save the country, but it is done. There is no saving a ship with a gaping hole built in bottom of it. My advice is to prepare for the fall. Let the blind follow the blind, and become self-sufficient before you run out of preparation time.
StephinRazin 1 year ago
Excellent interview! intelleigent and unwaivering.Christine IS a tough interviewer and Rand never let her get the best of him. Also Senator Paul shows statemanship with courtesy, much like his Dad.
pam883r 1 year ago 2
@pam883r Rand Paul is NOTHING like his father. Ron Paul has served the public for a span of 30+ years and stuck to his guns the whole way through. Rand Paul has waffled several times before even setting foot in office.
MrTouchShriek 1 year ago
@MrTouchShriek
What the hell are you talking about? He's never "waffled".
treysparker 1 year ago
@MrTouchShriek fuck you!
jccdenton 1 year ago
We already see how Paul's relationship with McConnell is going to work. He'll take part in the symbolic crusade against spending and government waste while he lets Mitch McConnell take care of the dirty work and bring pork back to Kentucky. He won't "personally" take part in ear mark travesties (Mitch will handle that), but he's not going to push for laws to ban them either. You're no daisy, Rand -- you're no daisy at all.
MrTouchShriek 1 year ago 5
@MrTouchShriek that might or might not be a political maneuver, but with the total fail whether you had been a status quote democrat or establishment republican with a bankrupting country in front of you, this is all you are capable of focusing on. with the likes of you voting, no wonder we are approaching third world where perhaps our voting base's intellectual capacity truly belongs. grats.
spyletu 1 year ago
@spyletu Did you just say "status quote" and then insult someone's intellectual capacity? Yeah, I'd say the bigger problem is that we have imbeciles like you RESIDING in the country, not to mention among the ranks of its voting zombies.
If you don't see the fact that Rand Paul is going to be indistinguishable from the establishment GOP within a year or two, you're a blind fool. The walk back always starts small, but soon cascades; it's a natural progression among those without principle.
MrTouchShriek 1 year ago
@MrTouchShriek Any dollars not earmarked throughout congressional districts end up being given to the executive branch. To add earmarks to the budget by itself is not the problem--it is that if earmarks are not added that the money will still be spent anyway. To attack earmarks and not the executive branch ability to spend any money not allocated is to behave like a dog who barks at the stick instead of the person who threw it.
madhatter0110 1 year ago
On Ear marks...
Flip flop.
Flip flop.
Flip flop.
MrTouchShriek 1 year ago 5
Oh good, a 10% cut on federal employee salaries. Thats a good start.
shizont 1 year ago
read "The Canadian Century, Moving Out of America's Shadow". Canada CUT govt spending by 9% over 2 years, CUT Federal employment by 14% over 2 years, and turned their economy from third world to world beater. I'm glad Rand seems willing to cut both warfare and welfare, BUT the size of the cuts are merely annoying paper cuts when we need radical surgery
shizont 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
When this guy will understand that we live in the real world and not in OZ. Another example of Tea Party bullshit
MrFreedomdemocracy