All of Randal's answers from the Koch get together

JONATHAN KARL: Okay, but let's-- and Senator Paul, maybe you can pick up with what I asked was why voters would trust Republicans again, right? I mean, wage stagnation's been a fact for about 30 years in this country But, again, last time Republicans had the keys we had the greatest financial crisis since the '30s.

SENATOR RAND PAUL: All right, let's start with somewhere in the beginning of that question there was this statement that the president made which I find to be the most galling thing I've heard in a long time. Or in Texas we might say a big whopper, all right? He said that deficit's decreasing. Well, technically that's kind of true. But it makes you think he's somehow a fiscal conservative.

All right, he quadrupled the deficits for many years and now they're coming off a little bit of quadrupling.But he is said to add more debt than all 43 previous presidents combined. So I think having him the premise of the statement that he's doing anything good about deficits is wrong.

JONATHAN KARL: Oh no, no, no, but to be fair, I didn't say he was doing better by deficits.

SENATOR RAND PAUL: --but here's the thing is you wanna know is the economy getting better? I think it is getting a little better. I think there is some disparity, as Ted said, between high and low. But the reason I would say the economy's getting better is despite the president and despite the president's policies. One of the things that has led the resurgence is oil and gas boom. The oil and gas boom's being done on private land, not public land. We're not allowed to drill on public land. This president should take no credit for any kind of recovery we have.
 
JONATHAN KARL: So I don't know if you guys saw this but Mitt Romney's talking about running again. Talking to people about a potential candidacy.

SENATOR RAND PAUL: I'm kinda with Ann Romney on this one. No, no, no, (LAUGHTER) no, never.

JONATHAN KARL: No, no, no, to Mitt Romney running again?

SENATOR RAND PAUL: Yeah, but I think the-- seriously, what I would say-- and the reason is is that, once again, I agree with-- Marco on this, I think he's a good man, he's a generous man. He woulda made a great president. He woulda been much better than this president.

But to win the presidency you have the reach out and appeal to new constituencies. And I just don't think it's possible. And if he thinks, "Well, I'm just going to change a few themes and next time I'll reach out to more people," I think it's a little more visceral than that how you connect with people. And I don't think that's anybody's fault. I'm just not sure that that visceral connection is there with enough people-- to win a general election.
 
JONATHAN KARL: Well, let's get this, 'cause in talking about these three pillars what Romney is saying-- and he's talked about the gap, actually Senator Cruz, you alluded to it as well, the increasing gap between rich and poor in this country. And my question to you, beyond Romney, this is a much bigger issue than any one candidate is do you think that we have a problem in this country with the rising-- with the increasing gap between rich and poor and is it the job of government to try to lessen that gap?

SENATOR RAND PAUL: You know, the initial question also was about does government have a role in fixing income inequality. I think it's important to think about this because government does have a role in enhancing and enabling the general welfare. The general welfare is every equally. It's not really the sense of where the wealth should be distributed but that we should enhance the general welfare. There are problems with income inequality. Interestingly, worse in states led by Democrats, in cities led by Democrats and in countries led by Democrats. (LAUGHTER)

But the thing is is that one of the things you have to understand, if you're an ordinary person in our country and you're trying to save to get ahead you put your money in the bank and it gets zero.

You don't have the wherewithal to have enough money to buy stocks. You have to be a little bit above that to buy stock. The way to make money and the way money has done well in the last several years is in the stocks market. But why are the interest rates 0% in your bank account? Why don't you make any interest rates?

It's because of the Federal Reserve keeping interest rate low. Why do we keep it low? Because we have this massive debt that we've gotta pay off with new money, with cheap money. And so it's all intertwined. And it's-- income inequality is indirectly, if not directly, related to big government.
 
JONATHAN KARL: So, you know, Senator Santorum just yesterday, former Senator Santorum was at the forum in Iowa. He was talking about this issue. And he said, "For years the Republican message has been a rising tide lifts all boats which is fine unless your boat has a hole in it." And he was making a point that there is a role for government to help those at the bottom. Do you agree with that?

SENATOR RAND PAUL: You know, I think government has a role and a safety net but it needs to be transitory and it needs the be a step towards a job. The goal shouldn't be more welfare, the goal should be the job. In creating jobs though, I agree completely with Ted, government doesn't create jobs.

There's the productive sector and the non-productive sector. Government's the non-productive sector. We--government is inefficient and ineffectual at almost everything they do. In fact, I say it's not that government is stupid, although it's a debatable question.

SENATOR RAND PAUL: Government doesn't getting the right signal so we should minimize. We have to have government for certain things that the private world can't do. But we should minimize what government does, maximize the productive sector. And you'll get more jobs created.
 
JONATHAN KARL: Well, let me just two specifics here, 1) I think an easy one with the three of you-- the minimum wage. I think all three of you have come out against raising the minimum wage So my question is do you think there should be a federal minimum wage at all? Just simple yes or no answer.

SENATOR RAND PAUL: You know, I think what's important even more than whether we should have and what we should have or how much it should be is what is our attitude towards work? I'll give you an i-- an idea of, like, Michelle Obama, what she said about her kids. She wanted them to get minimum wage jobs so they could see how terrible it was to get a minimum wage job.

I see it completely the opposite I have two boys. One works delivering pizza, the other one works at a call center while going to school and they make minimum wage. And I'm proud of them. I'm proud of them when they go, "Dad, I've got money and I will pay for some things."

JONATHAN KARL: Right, so is-- but before I move on, would you give a yes or no if you think that we should have one?

SENATOR RAND PAUL: I could go into a long answer again if you'd like.

JONATHAN KARL: No, no, I just want a straight answer. I really don't want a long answer.

SENATOR RAND PAUL: No, here's the short answer--

JONATHAN KARL: But you could also say you don't wanna answer. That's fine too.

SENATOR RAND PAUL: --no, here's the short answer.

JONATHAN KARL: It's a free country.

SENATOR RAND PAUL: The minimum wage is only harmful when it's above the market wage. Okay, so when it's above the market wage it causes unemployment. The simple way to look at this is that if it's $7 an hour and labor can afford ten workers at $7 an hour, if you make it $14 they'll afford five workers. So you will have unemployment. The CBO says it would cost a half million jobs. So this is an economic argument. This is something that should be done in a rational way, not an emotional way.
 
JONATHAN KARL: Okay, so let me move on-- from a proposal the president has made to one that Paul Ryan has made. Paul Ryan had put out this plan as you all know to address the issue of poverty And what he has proposed is an expansion of the earned income tax credit financed by closing tax loopholes.And he has specifically mentioned-- closing, you know, ending tax benefits to the oil and gas industry. And using the revenue saved there, estates are $4 billion to $7 billion a year-- to pay for an expansion of the earned income tax credit.

So my question to you-- all of you-- is do you agree with that principle of expanding federal spending on anti-poverty programs but doing them-- Ryan would say--

SENATOR RAND PAUL: All right, I'll start on this one. When you look at the earned income tax credit, it has about a 25% fraud rate. We're looking at $20 billion to $30 billion. And this is from estimates from the GAO, from the government themselves.

If you wanna help people who are of lower wage income, working class folks, I think the better way, rather than giving something that's refundable is to give them a deducting against their social security tax so they're working and you get the deduction for work. I don't really like the refundable nature and also the fraud related with the earned income tax credit. So I would object to what Paul Ryan's doing and I would offer a deduction on the social security-- taxes.

JONATHAN KARL: And you'd been in favor of ending tax benefits to the oil and gas industry to pay for that?

SENATOR RAND PAUL: See, it's I don't-- can I object to the premise again?

JONATHAN KARL: --you want, but, I mean, answer the question.

SENATOR RAND PAUL: --well, some you might call it a benefit. And if I'm in the oil and gas industry I might call it a business expense. You see what I mean? So it depends on what we're talking about.

JONATHAN KARL: Okay, whatever you wanna call it, would you be in favor of ending it to pay for--

SENATOR RAND PAUL: Well, it's important to what we're talking about. There are a lot of business expenses. I'm for the opposite. I'm for 100% expensing in the first year of everything you spend on your business because then you spend more and you'd buy more and y-- your business would grow. So I'm not really-- a lotta people and Washington wanna cut out these loopholes and they wanna have revenue neutral tax reform. I tell people, "That's what we're for I'll go home." I wanna cut taxes.
 
JONATHAN KARL: Okay,let me-- I've heard all of you at various times rail against corporate welfare You're, I think it's safe to say, all against corporate welfare, right? But there was a vote in the Senate, we call it-- this happens every year, the tax extenders package where you-- I think all three of you-- correct me if I'm wrong-- voted-- in favor of this package that had tax breaks for rum producers, wing energy, Hollywood, NASCAR track builders, race horse owners.

SENATOR RAND PAUL: Yeah, and the other thing about it when you define a-- deduction or a credit as-- a corporate welfare you're sort of assuming that it was the government's money. I mean, this is earned by companies. And you may say it might be an unfair distribution of taxes. But really most of these companies are paying a lotta taxes. I don't think there are many companies that through the extenders are not paying any taxes.
SENATOR RAND PAUL: So here's my point is that if I were designing a tax code would I try to make it a better tax code and maybe not have some of this unevenness to it? Yes. But if you-- if I am faced with a vote to eliminate some deduction or a credit that raises taxes I think we pay plenty of taxes and I'm against raising.

JONATHAN KARL: --but you just a few minutes ago said that you were against revenue neutral tax reform. In other words, you are against the idea of eliminating these specific tax benefits, tax treatments, and in return using exactly the same amount of money saved to lower the rate.

SENATOR RAND PAUL: I think it'll do nothing to help the economy. I think to help the economy--

JONATHAN KARL: Well, it'll be more equitable. You don't have--

SENATOR RAND PAUL: --well, no, to help the economy you need-- it'd be-- most equitable is letting people keep their own money So you'd let them keep more of their money--

JONATHAN KARL: --well, this'll be the same amount of money but you-- but instead of having some industries--

SENATOR RAND PAUL: --right. And you so you wouldn't stim--

JONATHAN KARL: --that have better lobbyists--

SENATOR RAND PAUL: --you wouldn't stimulate anything 'cause the same amount of money's going to the non-productive sector which is in Washington. So revenue neutral means you shift the burden from the left half of the room to the right half of the room just doesn't excite me. I mean, if that's what people wanna go in Washington to do, they can do it. And I can go back to being a doctor. I'm just not interested--
 
JONATHAN KARL: --something tells me I'm gonna get a direct answer out of Senator Paul on this. Absolutely no tax increases?

SENATOR RAND PAUL: What I would say is sh-- the shortest and simplest and sweetest answer I can give you is if you raise taxes, they will spend it. So I don't want them to have more money. I want the productive sector to have more money and I want Washington to have less. We have a lot of taxation in this country Raise your hands if you're undertaxed. I think we're d-- I think we have plenty of taxes in this country. We need less taxes.
 
JONATHAN KARL: All right, let's-- we're-- we don't have much time left, let's get specific on Iran because you have an issue right before the Congress right now whether or not to slap new sanctions on Iran or to give the president some time to try to wrap up these negotiations, they get a deal on the nuclear program.

JONATHAN KARL: Well, the president also says that the minute you pass that the deal-- the-- the negotiations will collapse. Senator Paul, are you gonna support the sanctions bill?

SENATOR RAND PAUL: I think new sanctions now-- has two problems. And most of all impact-- all of our allies have said it may break apart the sanctions regime. We've had a coalition of many countries. And sanctions have worked. And I have supported sanctions because they've worked as a multi-lateral-- organization to exert pressure on Iran. I don't think unilateral sanctions will work. Germany, France, England have all said that they fear that that coalition breaks up. The other fear is that Iran backs away from the table and then we have two choices. They either get a nuclear weapon or we have a military option. I'm a big fan of trying to exert and-- try the diplo-- diplomatic option as long as we can.

If it fails I will vote to resume sanctions and I would vote to-- vote to actually have new sanctions. But if you do it in the middle of the negotiations you're ruining it. So many people on our side say, "Well, we don't want 535 generals, the president should be in charge of war." But now they're saying, "We want 535 negotiators, not the president." I don't trust the president. I don't believe or support him on almost anything he does. But at the same time, I do think diplomacy is better than war and we should give diplomacy a chance.
 
JONATHAN KARL: Not that you're biased or anything. Last question-- you're here at a forum of course-- the Koch brothers have sponsored and invited us all here. I've got a question for you at billionaires and politics, do you think that there is too much influence in our politics by super wealthy political donors on both sides? Again, this is a jump ball

SENATOR RAND PAUL: I would add one thing. I would say that special interests can have a bad influence on government. But the special interests that I'm concerned about are those who do business with government, get government contracts, take the government money and then try to get more contracts.

And I am for some limitations. I think there's a possibility of campaign finance reform that would include a contractual clause in government contracts to say that if I'm gonna give you $1 billion to do work for the government you will agree not to do certain things to lobby government for more money. So I think there is the ability to have some campaign finance reform. But I haven't met one person since I've been here or as I travel around the country who's coming up saying, "Oh I want a contract." They're sitting-- they wanna be left alone. So I don't fault anybody for that.
 
RabbitMan said:
Rand was off his game, sheesh
Click to expand...

Not really, he didn't say anything he hasn't said before. Is it the occasional stammering or syntax garble? His prepared speeches are read off of a teleprompter, and his interviews are not. Most of his interviews have cross-talk and occasional hiccups.
 
Some Highlights:

SENATOR RAND PAUL: The minimum wage is only harmful when it's above the market wage. Okay, so when it's above the market wage it causes unemployment. The simple way to look at this is that if it's $7 an hour and labor can afford ten workers at $7 an hour, if you make it $14 they'll afford five workers. So you will have unemployment. The CBO says it would cost a half million jobs. So this is an economic argument. This is something that should be done in a rational way, not an emotional way.

SENATOR RAND PAUL: You know, the initial question also was about does government have a role in fixing income inequality...There are problems with income inequality. Interestingly, worse in states led by Democrats, in cities led by Democrats and in countries led by Democrats...But the thing is is that one of the things you have to understand, if you're an ordinary person in our country and you're trying to save to get ahead you put your money in the bank and it gets zero...It's because of the Federal Reserve keeping interest rate low. Why do we keep it low? Because we have this massive debt that we've gotta pay off with new money, with cheap money. And so it's all intertwined. And it's-- income inequality is indirectly, if not directly, related to big government.

SENATOR RAND PAUL: There's the productive sector and the non-productive sector. Government's the non-productive sector. We--government is inefficient and ineffectual at almost everything they do.
 
Sola_Fide said:
From what else I've read, it seems like Rand was the only one up there who didn't kiss the Koch's ring.
Click to expand...

That's basically what I got from the entire thing. Rubio and Cruz might need it a little more than Rand that's why ;)
 
Feeding the Abscess said:
Not really, he didn't say anything he hasn't said before. Is it the occasional stammering or syntax garble? His prepared speeches are read off of a teleprompter, and his interviews are not. Most of his interviews have cross-talk and occasional hiccups.
Click to expand...

Rand is the best at playing the game just admit it. His interviews are flawless and there are no hiccups
 
r3volution 3.0 said:
Some Highlights:
Click to expand...

I liked this one, it is something his pops would point out:

SENATOR RAND PAUL: Yeah, and the other thing about it when you define a-- deduction or a credit as-- a corporate welfare you're sort of assuming that it was the government's money. I mean, this is earned by companies. And you may say it might be an unfair distribution of taxes. But really most of these companies are paying a lotta taxes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

jmdrake
Ghislaine Maxwell clears Trump, Clinton and all the other elites.
Replies
15
Views
426
Occam's Banana
Occam's Banana
PAF
The Wearables Trap: How the Government Plans to Monitor, Score, and Control You
Replies
4
Views
104
Working Poor
Working Poor
PAF
The Threats of AI Come from the State
Replies
7
Views
171
ClaytonB
ClaytonB
PAF
Harry Truman: Founding Father of the National Security State
Replies
0
Views
126
PAF
PAF
PAF
‘Culture’ Is the Weakest Argument for Immigration Controls
Replies
0
Views
19
PAF
PAF
Back
Top