Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky) made a fool out of himself during a nationally televised public hearing when he asked Hillary Clinton about a covert CIA operation that was actually non-existent:
“It’s been in news reports that ships have been leaving from Libya and that they may have weapons and what I’d like to know is the annex that was close by, were they involved with procuring, buying, selling, obtaining weapons and were any of these weapons being transferred to other countries, any countries, Turkey included?”
Watch:
Clinton clearly doesn’t know what the hell Paul is talking about, nor should she know, since Paul’s “news reports” are also non-existent. He actually got the information from the website of conspiracy theorist/right wing whackaloon, Alex Jones, who published the ‘story’ yesterday morning. Tell me again why anyone would vote for this idiot?
During a discussion with economist Paul Krugman on ABC’s “This Week”, Tea Party Wingnut, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky) made the erroneous claim that government has grown under President Obama:
“[….] the size of growth of government is enormous under President Obama.”
In fact, the size of government has decreased under President Obama, as you can see by this chart comparing government employment under George W. Bush and President Obama.
Adding…….as you probably know, the spike in 2010 was due to the census.
Sen. Stupid err….Rand Paul (R-Ky), doesn’t think that the opinion of the Supreme Court makes something constitutional….or not:
“Just because a couple people on the Supreme Court declare something to be ‘constitutional’ does not make it so. The whole thing remains unconstitutional. While the court may have erroneously come to the conclusion that the law is allowable, it certainly does nothing to make this mandate or government takeover of our health care right.”
Interesting. Then perhaps we should revisit Bush v. Gore. Or Citizens United. Oh that it were so….
As Ashby notes, the Supreme Court is indeed the ultimate authority on the constitutionality or lack thereof, of a thing:
Actually, that’s exactly what it means. For all intents and purposes, when the Supreme Court declares something constitutional, it will remain as such until the Supreme Court declares otherwise or the constitution is amended.
In a discussion on the disgraceful travesty of hunger amongst senior citizens, American senior citizens, Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT), and Senator Al Franken (D-MN) stood up. Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) did not.
Now, you may think “so what? This was entirely predictable.” But despite that, this video perfectly illustrates a major philosophical difference between Republicans and most other people. And that difference is that Republicans, as was illustrated so well in this discussion, simply do not care.
Republicans are for and by the wealthy, and have no qualms about throwing our most vulnerable citizens under the proverbial bus.Rand Paul might just as well have said "let them eat cake", because that is precisely what he meant.
Watch:
TRANSCRIPT (transcribed by myself)
SEN. BERNIE SANDERS (I-VT): Making sure that seniors have the nutrition that they need is not only the right and moral thing to do, it is the financially smart thing to do.
It is estimated today that 5 million seniors face the threat of hunger, 3 million seniors are at risk of hunger, and 1 million seniors go hungry because they can not afford to buy food.
But in some cases it's not just money. In some cases it's the transportation to get to the store. In some cases it's the ability to think through when you're 85 or 90 and alone what kind of food you need and how you purchase it. Persistent hunger and malnutrition leads to multiple chronic diseases, resulting in extended hospital stays and premature nursing home placements. There's some studies out there that are quite sure about significant percentage of seniors today who are in nursing homes who need not be in that expensive care if they had good nutrition and somebody visiting them on a regular basis. That seems to me to be pretty dumb.
SEN. AL FRANKEN (D-MN):Make no mistake, Rand (Sen. Rand Paul), The Older Americans Act saves money. It allows seniors to stay in their homes who wouldn't otherwise be able to stay in their homes.
SEN. RAND PAUL (R-KY):It's curious that, uh, only in Washington can you spend 2 biliion dollars and claim that you're saving money. Here's a thought. Perhaps the 2 billian dollars we spend on OAA if we subsumed that in to another program and didn't spend it, that might be saving money.
SEN. BERNIE SANDERS (I-VT): Senator Paul has suggested that only in Washington can people actually believe that spending money actually saves money. I think that is the kind of philosophy which results in us spending almost twice as much on healthcare as any other country on earth. Because we have millions and millions of Americans who can't get to a doctor on time, some of them die, some of them become very, very ill. They end up in the emergency room, they end up in a hospital at great cost rather than making sure they have access to a doctor. Maybe it's the same reason why we have more people in jail than any other country on earth including China, tied to the fact that we have the highest poverty rate among children than any other major country on earth. So the point is, and I think we have a bit of a difference here, I believe, and I think Senator Franken has spoken to the fact that prevention, keeping people healthy, taking care of their needs at home, does actually save money. And that if you deny those resources, you leave a senior citizen at home today alone, isolated, confused about medicine, not getting the nutrition they need, you know what happens to that person? That person collapses. That person ends up in an emergency room. That person ends up in a nursing home at much greater cost to the system.
SEN. AL FRANKEN: Here's my very precise question. Does the Older Americans Act save taxpayers money by allowing seniors to stay in their homes as opposed to going to nursing homes?
MS. GREENLEE, Assistant Secretary, Administration on Aging: Yes Senator.
SEN. AL FRANKEN: Thank you.
SEN. RAND PAUL: Um, I appreciate the great and very, um, I think collegial discussion, And we do have different opinions, you know, some of us believe more in the ability of government to cure problems, and some of us believe more in the ability of private charity to cure these problems. I guess what I still find curious is though that if we are saving money with the 2 billion dollars we spend, perhaps we should give you 20 billion. Is there a limit? Where would we get to? How much money should we give you in order to save money so if we spend federal money to save money, where is the limit? I think we could reach a point of absurdity. Thank you.
SEN. AL FRANKEN:I think you just did (reach a point of absurdity).
SEN. BERNIE SANDERS: Uh, I would suggest, Senator Paul, when you have seniors in this country who are dealing with food insecurity, who are not getting the nutrition that they need, my guess is that the government is wasting substantial sums of money by not taking care of those seniors, who will end up in emergency rooms, in hospitals, uh, and in nursing homes, so, you asked that question, my answer is I don't want to see one senior in this country go hungry. It's the morally right thing to do, and from a fiscally conservative point of view, saving government money, in my view it is the right thing to do.
Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) blathering as to how if you support universal health care, you wish to enslave health care workers, you believe in slavery. Seriously.
With regard to the idea of whether you have a right to health care, you have realize what that implies. It’s not an abstraction. I’m a physician. That means you have a right to come to my house and conscript me. It means you believe in slavery. It means that you’re going to enslave not only me, but the janitor at my hospital, the person who cleans my office, the assistants who work in my office, the nurses.
Basically, once you imply a belief in a right to someone’s services — do you have a right to plumbing? Do you have a right to water? Do you have right to food? — you’re basically saying you believe in slavery.
I’m a physician in your community and you say you have a right to health care. You have a right to beat down my door with the police, escort me away and force me to take care of you? That’s ultimately what the right to free health care would be.
Last night, at the Congressional Correspondents Dinner, Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) made fun of Newt Gingrich for his flip flops on Libya, along with his many wives, and then he got in a dig at Fox News. Amazing or just punked by a writer?
I was happy to see that Newt Gingrich has staked out a position on the war, a position, or two, or maybe three. I don’t know. I think he has more war positions than he’s had wives. [...]
There’s a big debate over there. Fox News can’t decide, what do they love more, bombing the Middle East or bashing the president? It’s like I was over there and there was an anchor going, they were pleading, can’t we do both? Can’t we bomb the Middle East and bash the president at the same time? How are we going to make this work?
Watch it:
One has to wonder if he wrote his own material, or got punked by a Lib speechwriter.
Yesterday, Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) appeared on Fox Business Network to continue this war on labor rights, using his time on the station to attack unions and claim their pay and benefits are too high. At one point during the interview, the senator began attacking “government unions,” saying they are “going to have to” contribute to their pensions and health care plans, just like Paul has to as a senator, and that Kentuckians back home don’t have any sympathy for government union workers because they pay for their retirements:
PAUL: Federal employees have almost double the compensation that private employees have. [...] Maybe these government unions are going to have to contribute to their pension, maybe they’re going to have to pay something for their health care, like I’m having to pay, so when I hear regular taxpayers in Kentucky they don’t have a lot of sympathy because they’re paying high insurance premiums and they have to pay for their own retirements.
Less than a week after his election, Kentucky's Senator-elect Rand Paul already appears to be making a rapid departure away from one of his campaign promises: an earmark ban that stood as an conservative cornerstone, a position Paul touted to indicate he was serious about tackling the reckless spending practices of Washington.
Here's what Paul told the Wall Street Journal over the weekend:
In a bigger shift from his campaign pledge to end earmarks, he tells me that they are a bad "symbol" of easy spending but that he will fight for Kentucky's share of earmarks and federal pork, as long as it's doled out transparently at the committee level and not parachuted in in the dead of night. "I will advocate for Kentucky's interests," he says.
Such statements would have seemed impossible back in March. Here's Paul's clear-cut pledge to tackle the "corrupting" carve-outs of federal money:
Rand Paul has made a ban on wasteful earmark spending in Washington D.C. one of the key points of his campaign. He has supported Sen. Jim DeMint's vocal support for an earmark ban and he supports news that House Democrats are even coming around on the idea of a partial ban.
I think it’s safe to say that we’re going to be seeing a lot of flip-flopping from the Tea Party Republicans as reality hits home over the next two years.
Newly ordained Kentucky TeaPublican Senator, Rand Paul on Medicare during a 1998 appearance on the public affairs program, Kentucky Tonight. Paul criticized the government for not allowing the market to decide the amount of reimbursement doctors should receive from Medicare. He also said that the market should decide health care prices.
The fundamental reason why Medicare is failing is why the Soviet Union failed -- socialism doesn't work. You have ... no price fluctuation.
Of course, the opthomologist had/has no dog in this fight.
And helllooo, if the government allowed the market to decide on the amount of reimbursement to doctors, wouldn't that mean more government spending? Why, yes, I believe it would.
Last night in Kentucky, Rand Paul talked to Wolf Blitzer [video below]about the Bush tax cuts and why he wants to shield the ultra-wealthy and the mega corporations. Think Progress:
Speaking to CNN’s Wolf Blitzer, Paul announced his intention to do anything it takes to shield the privileged rich and corporate America. Asked if he would end the $830 billion, unpaid-for Bush tax cuts to the rich and return tax rates for the wealthiest bracket to Clinton-era levels, Paul snapped and said such a move would cause a “second great depression” and declared that “anybody who proposes such a policy really is, I think, unfit to be making decisions.”
Paul then clarified his delusional worldview by telling Blitzer that “there are no rich” and “there are no poor.” In Paul’s mind, even taxing yachts would somehow punish the working poor in Kentucky. “We all either work for rich people or we sell stuff to rich people,” concluded Rand:
PAUL:I would say that they must be in favor of a second American depression, because if you raise taxes to that consequence, that’s what will happen in this country. Raising taxes in the midst of a recession would be a disaster for our economy. And anybody who proposes such a policy really is, I think, unfit to be making decisions.
BLITZER: What if they just raised taxes on the richest, those making more than 250,000 dollars a year?
PAUL:Well, the thing is, we’re all interconnected. There are no rich. There are no middle class. There are no poor. We all are interconnected in the economy. You remember a few years ago, when they tried to tax the yachts, that didn’t work. You know who lost their jobs? The people making the boats, the guys making 50,000 and 60,000 dollars a year lost their jobs. We all either work for rich people or we sell stuff to rich people. So just punishing rich people is as bad for the economy as punishing anyone. Let’s not punish anyone. Let’s keep taxes low and let’s cut spending.
Rand Paul would not only like to abolish the Department of Education, but he does not want your kids thinking that "two mommies" in a family is acceptable or normal. Quote from the Kentucky Senate debate on Thursday, Oct. 15, 2010.
I would rather the local schools decide things. I don’t like the idea of somebody in Washington deciding that Susie has two mommies is an appropriate family situation and should be taught to my kindergardener at school. That’s what happens when we let things get to a federal level. I think I would rather have local school boards, teachers, parents, people in Paduka deciding about your schools and not have it in Washington.
Medicare is socialized medicine! People are afraid of that because they’ll say “ohhh, you’re against Medicare.” No, I’ll say “We have to do something different. We can’t just eliminate Medicare, but we have to get more to a market-based system.”
It’s counter-intuitive to a lot of people, but you have to pay for things if you want prices to come down. So you really need higher deductibles. And the real answer to Medicare would be a $2,000 deductible, but try selling that one in an election.
With regard to the idea of whether you have a right to health care, you have realize what that implies. It’s not an abstraction. I’m a physician. That means you have a right to come to my house and conscript me. It means you believe in slavery. It means that you’re going to enslave not only me, but the janitor at my hospital, the person who cleans my office, the assistants who work in my office, the nurses.
Recent Comments