Why are the socialists pretending they've "lost" because there were no tax hikes?

The "spending cuts" barely amount to a paper cut.

As Rand Paul said:

“The President called for a “balanced approach.” But the American people are calling for a balanced budget. This deal does nothing to fix the overreaches of both parties over the past few years: Obamacare, TARP, trillion-dollar wars, runaway entitlement spending. They are all cemented into place with this deal, and their legacy will be trillions of dollars in new debt."

Every time The Kenyanesque Hawaiian was declared a naked emperor and enemy of free market capitalism, the left balked. Meanwhile Jugears and Co. have been overclocking the economic engine for three years with non-stop spending. This clown never wanted jobs growth, he wanted 'brakes' on the economy and America in general, they are his idealogical enemies.

taxocrats = traitors
RINOs = traitors

I think Rand Paul's problem, and many other peoples' problem, is that they pick a political philosophy and either take it to extremes or refuse to consider anything else.

I'm a moderate who leans a little toward libertarianism. I think it's important to constantly ask, "Is this something that the government should do?" or "Is this something that is best done by the government?" This is probably seen as "typical behavior" for a libertarian or conservative. The difference is sometimes I think the answer is yes.

Spending 2 billion up front may keep us from having to spend 5 billion on the back end. I don't think Paul is out of line for questioning that statement. I'd want to see the numbers that prove this out if I were on this committee. Where I think he gets ridiculous (as Franken correctly calls him on) is in suggesting that anyone has claimed this will scale perfectly to unlimited heights. He's constructed a strawman claim that spending more money always leads to more savings.

Let's say you have an office and you need to buy pens. You can buy pens for $0.50 a piece or $0.60 a piece, but the 60-cent pens last twice as long. Let's say 5 cases of 50-cent pens will last a year, so 5 cases of 60-cent pens lasts 2 years. You'll obviously see savings in year 2 because you won't have to buy pens at all that year. I don't think I'm saying anything that's not obvious.

But what Paul says essentially is, "Then why not buy 5000 cases of pens?"

If he was asking honestly and out of ignorance, well that would still be somewhat concerning, but it's more irritating to me that he's being snarky about it. There are lots of reasons not to buy 5000 cases of pens. Who knows if the office will even exist in 200 years, let alone still need pens?

So yes, I feel it was entirely appropriate for Franken to call his question absurd. But at the same time, I don't see it as bad that someone (Paul in this case) is getting in there and asking "are we sure this is a good idea?" I just wish he was more rational about it.

The other aggravation this video, and others like it, cause for me is the reaction they get which I might categorize as, "LOL! Libertarians/Conservatives are stupid! Vote Democrat!"

If this is the point you want to make, tell me why I should vote Democrat rather than why I shouldn't vote Republican. Voting for the idiots who will do the least damage is not all that appealing, no matter which party it is.

>> ^Lawdeedaw:

>> ^SDGundamX:
"I think you just did..."
LOL! Pwnd.

Really? I thought that beneath an eigth grader, let alone Franken. Guess he returned to SNL for one last showing.


To be honest Sanders was the most logical and valuable here. Rand Paul came out and did the same thing: "Don't spend the 2 billion, you'll save, DUH!", to extrapolate his "ass" like response and retort afterwards. Paul obviously had the information he needed in front of him as Franken asked her and she said that IT WAS outright wrong. Both of them know something, but that isn't a concern to him though.

Anyway...

Rand Paul being what he always is. A fucking idiot. Big Surprise? Not really. Big surprise is how he ever got to be a doctor and swear on the hippocratic oath.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'rand paul, libertarian, al franken, point of absurdity, reached' to 'rand paul, libertarian, al franken, bernie sanders, point of absurdity, reached' - edited by NetRunner

Tags for this video have been changed from 'rand, paul, libertarian, barney, franken, point, of, absurdity' to 'rand paul, libertarian, al franken, point of absurdity, reached' - edited by NetRunner

Tags for this video have been changed from 'TYT, MSNBC, Patriot Act, Hypocrisy, War On Terror, Rand Paul, Harry Reid' to 'TYT, MSNBC, Patriot Act, Hypocrisy, War On Terror, Rand Paul, Harry Reid, Cenk Uygur' - edited by xxovercastxx

>> ^Januari:

While he is completely correct in this video.... this is the same guy who said that health care as a right meant the police were going to show up in the middle of the night and kidnap him with the intention of forcing him to treat people.... it's all just such BS


Yes indeed. He is slave because healthcare is a right. It's nice to see him say something sane once in a while.

I don't always agree with Rand Paul. (Not as much as I do his dad anyways.) But on this issue he's great.

Boom. Yeah, not a big Rand Paul fan either. He wants to pass an amendment to the 14th Amendment that smells a lot like anti-immigration to me. He's better than most Republicans, but a turd covered in powder sugar is still shit.

Still, better than most. Sigh. Where's choice?

Thanks for the promote!

In reply to this comment by kulpims:
*promote common sense

[Wow, this sorta tumbled off topic but we'll see where it goes.]

      1.] Slavery bit

Declining profitability & the industrial revolution ended slavery.
Federal regulations were implemented later, mostly as political platforms.

If you're Britain, and the paid-workers of Brazil or Cuba can produce more sugarcane at lower prices compared to slave-workers.. which side of slavery would you support?

If you're an American plantation owner, how much money are you willing to waste rebuilding your business after every, rapidly increasing slave revolt?

If you're an American or European Labor Union supporter, are you going to buy sugar or textiles from companies that don't pay their workers?

[No, you might even start a petition to enact legislation.]

      2.] Regulation ≠ Improvement

You and @peggedbea seem to think I'm implying that oligarchs should be allowed off some magical leash called regulation.

What I should have articulated first, was the understanding that:
Regulation & incentive - sticks & carrots - work counter-intuitively, more often than not.

Think about it. Is it the people typing up the regulations or the management?
Is it the workers writing up the wage laws or the owners?

If you're a small business owner who you can't afford to pay your workers minimum wage, you're out of the game before you can even start.

Regulations are the Oligarchs best tool to maintain or expand their power.

Mostly because folks like you & Bea legitimize their authority thru your support of regulation as the best thing since sliced bread.

      Lastly

While I support truly free economic exchange, I also support single payer universal health care.

It's possible for them both to exist together at once.

The sooner more people are allowed into the market..
the sooner capitalist fundamentalist healthcare oligarchs will be overlooked because someone offers a better service.

[Again, are you gonna buy from the small, local owner whose minimum wage is slightly below your standards.

..Or the giant multinational conglomerate who uses Southeast Asian slave labor.]

These things tend to work themselves out.

Attempting to elicit obedience from the oligarch only causes problem for all of us you aren't powerful enough to game the system like they can.

Hence, why free economic exchange - yes even the darker side - is necessary for true liberty.



>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

http://videosift.com/video/Ber
nie-Sanders-slaps-down-Rand-Paul-Health-care-as-slavery?loadcomm=1#comment-1205705

http://videosift.com/video/Bernie-Sanders-slaps-down-Rand-Paul-Health-care-as-slavery?loadcomm=1#comment-1205705

It was the free market that allowed slavery in America. It was government regulation that ended slavery in America. Labor regulations such as the minimum wage, overtime, the 5 day work week, the 8 hour work day, child labor standards, workplace safety standards (among many other regulations) give working people more liberty, but it comes at the expense of management liberty. A completely free market would give management complete liberty, but would come at the cost of worker liberty.

It all depends on which side of this conflict you empathize with - people or money. Which side are you on?



>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:

Free economic exchange is absolutely essential to true liberty.
If you don't control the means to sustain yourself, how could you ever be free?
Imagine it's 1887 and a federal agent strolls up to your farmer right after it's been determined that pasteurization is "Better".
"What do you mean I can't sell raw cow's milk anymore? I have lots of customers and none of them have ever complained. I can't afford to pasteurization hundreds of gallons of milk."
Now think of the thousands of other similar scenarios where you're not allowed to make an income because someone else says you shouldn't.
>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

Free markets have nothing to do with free people.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Pass the peace pipe. >> ^ForgedReality:

I'm trippin out how the shape of that microphone is exactly matching the shape of the edge of his tie.. O.O