Home » Economy, Politics

MSNBC: Rand Paul = U.S. Default

9 November 2010 6 Comments

This video clip is about as ridiculous as it gets.  The gentleman on MSNBC – moments after Rand Paul got elected – decides to paint a picture of doomsday if Rand Paul gets in the way of extending the debt ceiling.  It’s almost laughable how dramatic he gets in the following clip.

Unfortunately, a lot of people (not as many as other networks) watch this and buy into this crap.  Like a perpetual increase in the debt ceiling is a good thing?  We’d rather focus on Rand Paul’s convictions about getting debt out of control instead of having a conversation about how might we avoid not having to increase the debt ceiling.

This is amazing.  The video is below:

So, these guys would rather have someone not concerned about the country’s debt?

No wonder the MSNBC ratings have gone to hell.


  • TaJ said:

    The debt ceiling raise won't come up probably until March, so the newly elected crop of Republicans will have an opportunity to put their money where their mouths are with regards to cutting defense and entitlement spending before then – the reasons the debt is getting blown out to begin with.

    Why waste a lot of energy getting worked up about theoretical politics and words when in a few months we'll be able to waste a lot of energy getting worked up about actions (or lack thereof)? 🙂

  • 20smoney said:

    Republicans won't touch defense/entitlements between now and March. sigh.

    At least we'll enjoy some fireworks between Ron Paul and Bernanke 🙂

  • TaJ said:

    Yeah, it should be pretty entertaining to see Paul go after Bernanke. Paul has always hated the Fed and QE2 must be having an effect on him much like telling a paranoid that you really *have* been out to get him all these years.

    And I'm certainly looking forward to what Bernanke comes up with when he's asked about his monetization of the federal debt.

  • Dave said:

    Rand Paul is committed to reducing the deficit by cutting taxes and getting rid of earmarks as long as Kentucky's aren't touched.

    I don't think Olbermann's reaction is *that* far off base here. If the only change is that we don't raise the debt ceiling, we hit disaster much, much faster than if we keep piling on the debt. Rand Paul seems like he *may* be more willing than others to touch entitlements and defense – which are flat out necessary if we're going to balance the budget without raising taxes – but there is zero chance of there being enough votes to actually get that done. Still, it does seem unlikely that he could get enough votes to sustain a filibuster if he chose to try it (and hopefully he can see how disastrous it would be in the first place).

  • TaJ said:

    I dunno, the Pauls are big on physical gold, aren't they? If so I'm not sure they would see tanking the paper monetary system as a disaster.

    The biggest risk when it comes to blocking the debt ceiling extension is not the filibuster. It's simply refusing to allow it to pass via voice vote. Doing this would force everyone to actually record a vote. Voice votes have been used in the past on the debt ceiling to basically allow everyone to get it done without having to go on the record.

    Assuming my research is correct – and with the arcane rules in Congress, who can be sure? – voice votes are a suspension of the normal rules and thus happen via unanimous consent. If someone objects, then it's not unanimous consent and you can't suspend the normal rules – ie, ONE VOTE is sufficient to gum up the works.

  • cmm said:

    I have a special tie to Ron and Rand–he's the doctor who delivered me!