“In a country well governed, poverty is something to be ashamed of. In a country badly governed, wealth is something to be ashamed of." ~Confucius
Rand Paul continues with his sadistic libertarian streak. Of course, we know he will; he can't help himself. (Or rather, he could, if he'd look at the facts, take a step back, and ask himself one simple question: "What would Jesus cut?")
I think, though, that he's reached a new low, going after elderly people who don't have enough money to feed themselves.
From The Notion:
Sen. Paul, however, explicitly rejected this logic. “It’s curious that only in Washington can you spend $2 billion and claim that you’re saving money,” he said. “The idea or notion that spending money in Washington somehow is saving money really flies past most of the taxpayers.” Instead, Paul touted the “nobility of private charity” as opposed to government-funded “transfer programs.” He suggested privatizing Meals on Wheels and other government assistance for hungry seniors.
Jeez Louise, what a twit. When the "nobility of private charity" can't cover all the people who need help, that's what the government is for, you clown. That's also why this little program called Social Security was created in the first place--to reduce the poverty of elderly people.
I dunno, maybe Rand thinks he's never going to get old.
Al Franken did have the last word, however.
Nevertheless, Paul—who’s home state of Kentucky is ranked 20th in the nation in senior citizen food insecurity, with over 5 percent of seniors there facing hunger—pressed on. Addressing Greenlee, he asked: “If we are saving money with the two billion we spend, perhaps we should give you 20 billion. Is there a limit? How much money should we give you in order to save money? If we spend federal money to save money, where is the limit? I think we could reach a point of absurdity.”
Sen. Al Franken turned on his microphone and offered a quick reply: “I think you just did.”
For the win!
huh? He isnt even funny, and never was, this remark "I think you just did" is , what, random....obtuse....MEANINGLESS and any substantive way, while the analysis by testing absurdity was making points strictly per rules of logic, and avoiding any fallacy, the response passes for intelligent discourse?
Franken's comment was quite meaningful (and hilarious) to those of us who understood Rand Paul had just made a complete ass of himself.
In the context of pointing out Senatorial absurdities, the response was very intelligent.
Post a Comment