I don't disagree with Sanders, and, despite such, Paul raises a good enough question--which Franken acts like an ass in response.

Sanders and Paul win here for their civility. Normally I respect Franken for his devoted work towards the common good, but this reminds me of "Dracula; Dead and Loving It" where the vampire has to have the last word.

In the private sector, you have to spend to make. Simple. In government, you have to spend to make. However, there is a limit.

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 'rand paul, libertarian, al franken, point of absurdity, reached' to 'rand paul, libertarian, al franken, bernie sanders, point of absurdity, reached' - edited by NetRunner

*money
*health

Adding video to channels (Health, Money) - requested by NetRunner.

"I think you just did..."

LOL! Pwnd.

Paul's stance is simple. Charity will solve all. The fact that charity is not currently solving all is due to ..... government?

Paul doesn't want any government spending on areas like this, or perhaps anything, so he sees it all as a waste. What he has to contribute to a debate like this other than simple nay saying is diddly squat.

His call of absurdity is only highlighted by his inability to recognise that the 2 billion suggested meets a certain threshold of minimal subsistence. He seems to have a disconnect between money as mere figures and money actually making a material difference to people that aren't himself.

In his defence, Sanders and Franken could have done more research and offered him figures concerning net savings to satisfy his concerns but it does appear that he has a blind disregard for such matters. I feel it is still best to present such information in the interests of thoroughness and providing a watertight argument.

The seniors not able to get to a store and back is a big deal - just that alone is an issue. I know one old man that told me he never bought milk because it weighed him down too much.

Taking care of seniors is huge. It defines us. Helping a senior so he can stay home is so important to me.

*controversy

Adding video to channels (Controversy) - requested by MrFisk.

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.

>> ^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.

>> ^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...

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.

I think you put the point on it, @xxovercastxx. Paul is not making his statements about "When does it reach the point of absurdity" from an honest place. He is scoring points with people who don't want the goverment to be in the business of supporting people who can't support themselves. Obviously they are there to question an expert on the topic, so a reasonable question would have been, "Why 2 billion? Why not 3? Why not 1?" And then let the person answer. But he's exaggerating the fiscal aspect to trigger conservative and libertarian fears of government spending run amok.

And let me make an even bigger point here to the libertarians. If charities could solve the problem, they would have. There would be no statistics about starving seniors for them to bring to a hearing. The government isn't creating this problem, it's trying to solve it. As opposed to hoping "somebody will take care of it, I'm sure."