Rand Paul's platform within his speech / 15 points worth debating

[Statistikhengst]

12:32 "Quit spending money we don't have" (fiscal restraint)

We don't have any money in fact being $18 trillion in the red. So argueing for restraint is kinda redundant. Pay off the debt then you can talk about financial restraint. Time for restraint was 18 trillion dollars ago.

12:35 "We limit the President to two-terms, it's about time we limit the terms of Congress" - for congressional term-limits.

Agree.

12:35 He mentions his "read the bills" Act.

Not practical or even possible when bills can be a thousand pages long


He's for a flat tax as well I'm also in agreement with if 15%. Just because the wealthiest make more than the poorest doesn't mean they should be taxed more than the poorest.

Doesn't that kind of tell you bills shouldn't be thousands of pages long to begin with?

There is often - but not always - very good reason for this and I think that would be a great topic for a stand-alone thread. What do you think? Could this be really good discussion material for all of us, totally irrespective of personal ideology?

 

[Statistikhengst]

I want to again say that I am really impressed by the level of discussion and some serious debate on this thread, coming from both Conservatives and Liberals, but especially from Conservatives, many of whom have really gone the extra mile to read the entire OP and go through all 15 "platform points" that I enumerated.

I must admit to a small error in the OP in my own small analysis. Rand Paul did indeed invoke the name of "God" twice, but I missed the first 45 seconds or so of his speech the first time around and so I didn't catch the first one right away. And the second one was literally at the very end and it apparently flew right by me. So, I apologize for the unintended error. But the point still remains that Paul tends to invoke G-d far less than some other Conservatives are likely to do. This does not make him any less religious at all, in my view, but his way of broaching issues once again shows his Libertarian bent. Again, sorry for the error, it was definitely not intended.

More later...