Rand Paul gives the Tea Party response to the President's State of the Union

[Sunseeker]

That isn't what I meant. I mean you have to compromise and deal with people. I wasn't talking about lying and cheating.

So he has to cut deals with people who he doesn't represent, compromise and redact on his statements, go against the things his constituents value, yeah, that's called lying and cheating. And what's his big reason for doing it? He needs MORE POWER. Let me hammer that into your head for a few moments.

Rand Paul wants you to vote for him so he can GET MORE POWER. Why? Because he needs MORE POWER. Because why? Because he doesn't have enough POWER.

Yeah, I totally want to elect this guy.

[mvaliz]

I was asking because those that are rich that are actually decent people shouldn't be criticized for that Money. Get what I'm saying?

Like Bruce Wayne he's a virtuous man and he inherited a lot of money.

Bruce Wayne is also fictitious. ^_^

I hear what you're saying, and trust me - I know a lot of rich people who aren't "arrogant". Highly Opinionated, but not staunchly arrogant. :P

It's not Rich people that bother me - it's the grossly overpaid 1% threatening to fire people over healthcare instead of taking one less African Safari trip this year that I hate. :P

I almost called Money Gold. YEP WOW ON MY MIND.

Think we've ALL been there at one time! :P

[Deleted]

Also - do you really believe Rand Paul would achieve ANYTHING by not increasing the debt? Seriously? I've never met a Republican president from Regan onward who hasn't yet not increased massive MASSIVE debt!

It depends where the money goes. At the moment the U.S. is spending too much on the military and entitlement programs when the jobs market needs to be made much more competitive.

Also, someone has to actually pay off that debt. Somehow. Otherwise no one will lend to the U.S.

[Sunseeker]

It depends where the money goes. At the moment the U.S. is spending too much on the military and entitlement programs when the jobs market needs to be made much more competitive.

More competitive with whom exactly? Third world markets? Nations that use slave labor? Countries that tax their citizens into oblivion in order to use the money to subsidize their markets and make their artificially more competitive?

So...you're suggesting in order to be more competitive, we need to what? Reduce freedom(allow slavery)? Raise taxes? Start more handouts?

[obdigore]

More competitive with whom exactly? Third world markets? Nations that use slave labor? Countries that tax their citizens into oblivion in order to use the money to subsidize their markets and make their artificially more competitive?

So...you're suggesting in order to be more competitive, we need to what? Reduce freedom(allow slavery)? Raise taxes? Start more handouts?

Listen smrund, you can't just attack useless rhetoric like that. It isn't far. That useless rhetoric is the only reason that some people vote the way they do. Play FAIR. Vote no on equal rights. Slaves to Corporate America Forever! :P

Note: This joke was entirely in jest. If you take it seriously, I suggest you go get something to eat then take a nap, because you are far too wound up.

[Deleted]

More competitive with whom exactly? Third world markets? Nations that use slave labor? Countries that tax their citizens into oblivion in order to use the money to subsidize their markets and make their artificially more competitive?

So...you're suggesting in order to be more competitive, we need to what? Reduce freedom(allow slavery)? Raise taxes? Start more handouts?

If the U.S. gets serious about its debt then that sends the message that the market is more stable. That's number 1. If businesses are incentivized with lower taxes -- businesses that actually create jobs -- then we will see growth again.

Being competitive doesn't automatically mean lowering the minimum wage etc. But the truth of the matter is the U.S. needs to produce more.

Like I said, someone has to pay off that debt, and money has to come from somewhere, so you can keep delaying the inevitable or grow up now and get real.

[obdigore]

If the U.S. gets serious about its debt then that sends the message that the market is more stable. That's number 1. If businesses are incentivized with lower taxes -- businesses that actually create jobs -- then we will see growth again.

Being competitive doesn't automatically mean lowering the minimum wage etc. But the truth of the matter is the U.S. needs to produce more.

Like I said, someone has to pay off that debt, and money has to come from somewhere, so you can keep delaying the inevitable or grow up now and get real.

So you actually honestly believe that business just randomly hire more people if they are taxed less? Just for shits and giggles?

[Sam the Wiser]

It was an alright speech but as always others will see it differently.

[Deleted]

So you actually honestly believe that business just randomly hire more people if they are taxed less? Just for shits and giggles?

It depends on the business.

You can't live on borrowed money by paying it back with more borrowed money. That's like paying off a credit card with another credit card.

[obdigore]

It depends on the business.

So yes, you think there are businesses out there that, if they have taxes lowered, would just hire more people for shits and giggles, not because they need them because of an increased demand? Anyone actually thinking this happens just absolutely boggles my mind.

[Kanariya]

Huh, the Tea Party still exists?

[Elegiac]

It depends on the business.

You can't live on borrowed money by paying it back with more borrowed money. That's like paying off a credit card with another credit card.

No, it applies to all business; as in, no business will hire more people if they are taxed less. Increasing employment starts by increasing demand; i.e. liquidity amongst the consumer base.

[Deleted]

So yes, you think there are businesses out there that, if they have taxes lowered, would just hire more people for shits and giggles, not because they need them because of an increased demand? Anyone actually thinking this happens just absolutely boggles my mind.

They would hire people if it's profitable.

[Elegiac]

They would hire people if it's profitable.

Yes, i.e. when demand is increased.

[LilSaihah]

So yes, you think there are businesses out there that, if they have taxes lowered, would just hire more people for shits and giggles, not because they need them because of an increased demand? Anyone actually thinking this happens just absolutely boggles my mind.

If businesses had more money through less taxes, they'd be more willing to take risks, such as taking on extra staff and investing in ventures, which creates jobs.

[Elegiac]

If businesses had more money through less taxes, they'd be more willing to take risks, such as taking on extra staff and investing in ventures, which creates jobs.

Sorry, that supply-side tripe doesn't actually work in the real world. Extra profit tends to go in the pockets of the owners.

[Wells]

If businesses had more money through less taxes, they'd be more willing to take risks, such as taking on extra staff and investing in ventures, which creates jobs.

If a venture is profitable its profitable. Businesses don't expand without a demand to fill and lowering their tax rate doesn't create demand.

[stumpy]

If businesses had more money through less taxes, they'd be more willing to take risks, such as taking on extra staff and investing in ventures, which creates jobs.

Businesses are already posting record profits. If they still don't have enough money to create jobs and invest in ventures, the people calling the shots need to be reorganized out of existence.

[Deleted]

No, it applies to all business; as in, no business will hire more people if they are taxed less. Increasing employment starts by increasing demand; i.e. liquidity amongst the consumer base.

A stable market where profits can be made will attract investment especially if that market has skills a business needs.

It's up to the free market to decide what businesses can be profitable and what isn't, but the U.S. market just isn't ideal at the moment.

More money has to come in than is going out, and no amount of endless credit or Keynesian newspeak is going to change that.

[Sunseeker]

If the U.S. gets serious about its debt then that sends the message that the market is more stable. That's number 1. If businesses are incentivized with lower taxes -- businesses that actually create jobs -- then we will see growth again.

Strangely, businesses like to pass on costs...they don't like to pass on profits. I'm not sure why people keep suggesting that is we push business profits even higher, that they'll lower costs....to....lower their profits? That makes no sense at all.

Being competitive doesn't automatically mean lowering the minimum wage etc. But the truth of the matter is the U.S. needs to produce more.

And that can be changed by actually doing what everyone else in the world is already doing: PROTECTING OUR DAMN MARKETS. China does it by artificially lowering prices through high taxes on their people. Europe does it by dumping tariffs on anything that comes from outside of Europe. India does it by having some of the worst regulation in the world.

Like I said, someone has to pay off that debt, and money has to come from somewhere, so you can keep delaying the inevitable or grow up now and get real.

I perfer my solutions to come with...ya know...SOLUTIONS. Saying this like "be more competitive" or "pay off the debt" or "create jobs". Those are IDEAS, not SOLUTIONS. There is a difference, the difference being that IDEAS don't solve anything, if you need to solve something, you...oh I don't know...come up with SOLUTIONS.