Video: Conversation with Sen. Rand Paul

soundoff (5 Responses)

1. ChampaignChris
   

   Good for Rand Paul.. everyone wants him & the Tea Party to compromise, but you could argue that compromise is why the United States is in a financial mess to begin with. Compromise is why we're 14 trillion in the hole. Compromise is why we're adding another 2+ trillion to that – a debt few politicians refuse to take seriously. Rand Paul said some principles are worth standing for, and Paul Begala found it ridiculous that Paul compared it to 19th century politicians fighting for principles during the era of slavery. This analogy is more applicable the more you think how enslaved the US will become with each trillion we add to the debt. The borrower is always slave to the lender. If America keeps raising the debt limit, don't you think we'll eventually go the way of Greece, Ireland & others who are in danger of losing their sovereignty? What's to say America won't need an IMF bailout just like them? Sure, an American default now would be gut-wrenching, but it will be much less painful than waiting several years & several trillion dollars down the road. America needs to cut expenses, just like any household or business in trouble would. Unfortunately, this includes entitlement cuts, and no one wants to talk about that. As a result, this once great nation is going the way of the Roman empire, and few people are educated enough or motivated enough to do anything about it. God help us.

   August 2, 2011 at 10:59 am |
2. James
   

   Question? The Republicans... including the Tea Party, haven't taken responsibility for driving the country into a ditch during the previous Bush administration. What makes you believe that they have any concerns about the country when they are in the passenger seat? If, under Democrat's watch the country defaults, goes into the ditch while companies like General Electric take jobs overseas with reduced taxes funds from America, they will blame Democrats for policies that THEY required. By the way, media, being a business, is fostering the Republican dangerous lack of responsibility.

   August 2, 2011 at 10:27 am |
3. Dan
   

   Anderson,

   I find it odd that Senator Rand Paul looks like he just spent a week on his yacht.

   August 2, 2011 at 9:10 am |
4. Chang
   

   In reference to his comment on coming from the private sector and in his mind, "if you spend more each year, add more debt each year, you're not fixing the problem...." Anderson, I think you allowed him to get away with his talking points here: coming from the private sector, he should also know that in order to keep a company afloat, not cut into the red, one must procure revenue. you allowed his scurvy glib run loose, dodging the sole premise why he will vote "no." To compare ourselves to (much less!?!) emerging societies, where people are shot at or shooting at each other for freedom of speech: we will be heading in that direction with the Neo-Libertarian-Tea Party-Right Winged Christian Fundamentalist's agenda. There will be more people in poverty if you let them lead America, and increased slow deaths due to impoverished conditions and starvation: there will be blood on their hands, which they will wash clean, while the rest of corporate America broadcasts it as a weekend special edition storyline.

   August 2, 2011 at 5:52 am |
5. AgentForest
   

   "Some people argue that by adding more than $2 trillion in debt to our country that that threatens our country more than the temporary inconvenience of not raising the debt ceiling."

   ...Fail. We ALREADY added over $2 trillion to the debt. THAT part is NOT in debate here. What's in debate is raising the debt ceiling, which is the legal cap on spending. As it sits NOW, our debt ceiling isn't high enough to pay for our ALREADY EXISTING DEBT. If we don't raise the debt ceiling, $2 trillion of our current budget sits growing dust while the $2 trillion worth of programs and policies we put in place (having assumed we'd have that money) are shut down, laying off workers and damaging the value of the US dollar. It is a political and moral imperative (that means necessity) that the debt ceiling be raised.

   Here's a metaphor: You take out a loan from the bank to renovate your house. The money will be in your account in one month. You have all the contractors called and they begin work. You get the bill from the first couple contractors, with several more still working or scheduled to show up in the near future, when the bank tells you the money is in your account, but they froze the account. They aren't going to give you the loan until you pay the contractors less (despite the bill already being written up), give your kid less allowance, buy less gas, and buy powdered milk instead of regular milk. They won't agree to give you the loan to pay for what you already are obligated to pay for until you cave to their random budget cutting demands that are irrelevant to the task at hand, and would only hurt your standard of living. Sure the cuts would save you money, but right now we just need to make sure these contractors are paid or they are out of a job (job loss), I'm out the money I already spent on them (further in debt), I lose my reputation among the contractors and they won't work with me again (decrease to the value of the US dollar), and my house is half taken apart and waiting to be fixed (government stand-still/shut-down). Why the hell would you EVER deny someone the right to use money that you already agreed to let them spend (past government spending is what needs paid for with the raised debt ceiling, not new spending)... over "condensed milk"???

   August 2, 2011 at 12:24 am |