Senator Rand Paul sits down with Jon Stewart. (Daily show)

[Destino]

The thing I like most about this video is that two people with completely opposing views have a entirely polite discussion and never lose a friendly tone. These days you wouldn't even think this was possible. It's a very good interview that I recommend everyone interested in politics take the time to watch.

You can watch the video here:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/

or here

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2...on.php?ref=fpb

(ignore the text on that last link I just like it because all three sections are on one page and as a news site less likely to be blocked.)

[Goaldeje]

Hell of an interview. Very refreshing to see two growups act as such.

I think JS nailed it at the end when he said that we get so caught up in our side being "right" that we forget the correct answer is often somewhere in the middle.

[Stadium-Armory]

Good stuff, thanks for posting.

Paul makes some sense, especially the part about signals in the free market and interest rates. As does Stewart, who points out examples of good government. This is the type of dialog we need!

[DCsportsfan53]

It was a good interview and the discourse was refreshing. I will say, however, that Paul continually ducked Stewart's assertions about the value of gov't and the things they have done well for us. Paul didn't have much answer for it, really.

[skinsfan_1215]

Senator Jon Stewart has a nice ring to it... I don't think he'd ever go for it though.

[Bang]

I thought Stewart came off a bit disprespectful, not in that he was rude, but it seemed to me like he carried a bit of an air of superiority... and even thoug he may be opposed, the man is still a US senator. (I didn't think it got in the way,, just something I noticed)
He did do a good job of pointing out that not all government is bad.. and I didn't like that Paul seems to fit into this mindset tht the "government" is this big evil amorphous thing that corrupts everything it touches.
The notion that our air and water is cleaner BECAUSE of the restrictions and efforts that government made in the 70s seemed to not matter to him. I find that sort of backwards.

I do agree we need to make a lot of cuts, and we should always do everything we can to remove inefficiency and waste. But we need to make sure that things that DO work and DO good are kept, even if streamlined and made more efficient.

~Bang

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Paul is a smart guy, but I just can't buy into this ideology as much as he'd like. I thought he was very respectful, and I thought Stewart was too. So, that was great to see.

I thought Paul made some good points, and a lot of things all of us can agree on, but I thought he didn't have a good enough answer for the "value" of government. He seemed to ignore that government regulations did actually make our air and water cleaner... although he ultimately admitted it. It was nice to hear him talk about needing to "strike a balance" with regulations, but I don't have an answer as to why he thinks so many things need to be cut so drastically. Most of those things are striking a balance, just eliminating instead.

Also, he really didn't have a good answer on why taxes shouldn't be raised on the wealthiest. Ultimately, even his proposed budget isn't a balanced one. It'd be nice to see him propose those cuts and increase taxes to balance the budget, if that really is his top priority. When he starts talking about laffer curve stuff though, he loses my interest.

[PokerPacker]

To me it seemed like the mostly agreed but didn't realize it because they were discussing opposite ends. Jon Stuart was in favor of good regulation, and Rand Paul was against bad regulation.

[Hubbs]

Paul isn't particularly good in interviews, but I suppose that's to be expected since this is all still pretty new to him. As far as Stewart goes, while his show is my favorite on all of television and I'd kill to work for the guy, the one argument he made that tweaks me when anyone makes it is the suggestion that we should find the "bad" regulations and get rid of them. Aside from arcane laws like blowjobs still being illegal in Virginia, I'd absolutely love for someone to throw a list of "bad" regulations at me. I want to see the rule that begins with, "This is probably a bad idea." I want to see the stipulation that's intended to not accomplish anything whatsoever. I want to see the Inefficient and Redundant Policy Act.

Defending big government is always easier than going after it. The vast majority of government programs and regulations sound like good ideas, and it's easy to criticize any cuts as cruel. Want to raise the retirement age? You're sending Grandma into poverty. Reduce the defense budget? You want terrorists to nuke America. End the War on Drugs? You're obviously rooting for middle schoolers to develop heroin addictions.

But stuff like the above is easy. It's trying to determine the true value of things that don't provide such easy hyperbolic targets that's the real challenge. Do you honestly think that every item on the Department of Education budget is worthwhile? All of them? If not, be prepared to be told that you want to "kill investment in our future" or "take money away from needy children" if you dare suggest that your cut be made.

[DCsportsfan53]

I
I do agree we need to make a lot of cuts, and we should always do everything we can to remove inefficiency and waste. But we need to make sure that things that DO work and DO good are kept, even if streamlined and made more efficient.

~Bang

The one thing that got touched on that isn't EVER talked about on cable news is that if we cut all the discretionary spending, all the stuff that's getting tossed around right now, we still wouldn't have balanced budgets. No one wants to address or deal with the fact that the rich and corporations pay less in taxes than they ever had and we spend more on the military and defense than we ever have and that's where the real meat for cutting lies but somehow they're untouchable.

[Henry]

To me it seemed like the mostly agreed but didn't realize it because they were discussing opposite ends. Jon Stuart was in favor of good regulation, and Rand Paul was against bad regulation.

That's what I got out of it too.

It's very refreshing to see people discuss issues like adults for a change.

[DCsportsfan53]

Big Government on TrimSpa is something I'd love to see in my lifetime

No you wouldn't, you'd love to see them quit spending all the pennies they spend on the little **** that riles people up but you'd be up in arms if we stopped spending more than the rest of the world combined on the military. The economic realities of the modern world aren't what they were decades ago and we no longer have the economic capabilities to support a global military that's setup in countries everywhere and policing the oceans the world over. But carry on.

[Madison Redskin]

Big Government on TrimSpa is something I'd love to see in my lifetime

How would you feel about the government deciding to substantially trim pension benefits for members of the military? Many people in the armed services retire after 20 years and take a pretty decent pension, to go along with a decent salary working as a defense contractor.

I don't think we should trim those benefits, but I'm still interested to hear your opinion on the matter.

[luckydevil]

Rand could have done a better job, but solid interview none the less. As far as the tone goes, it doesn't really surprise me. It's been clear fo awhile that Stewart likes the Paul's

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Paul isn't particularly good in interviews, but I suppose that's to be expected since this is all still pretty new to him. As far as Stewart goes, while his show is my favorite on all of television and I'd kill to work for the guy, the one argument he made that tweaks me when anyone makes it is the suggestion that we should find the "bad" regulations and get rid of them. Aside from arcane laws like blowjobs still being illegal in Virginia, I'd absolutely love for someone to throw a list of "bad" regulations at me. I want to see the rule that begins with, "This is probably a bad idea." I want to see the stipulation that's intended to not accomplish anything whatsoever. I want to see the Inefficient and Redundant Policy Act.

Defending big government is always easier than going after it. The vast majority of government programs and regulations sound like good ideas, and it's easy to criticize any cuts as cruel. Want to raise the retirement age? You're sending Grandma into poverty. Reduce the defense budget? You want terrorists to nuke America. End the War on Drugs? You're obviously rooting for middle schoolers to develop heroin addictions.

But stuff like the above is easy. It's trying to determine the true value of things that don't provide such easy hyperbolic targets that's the real challenge. Do you honestly think that every item on the Department of Education budget is worthwhile? All of them? If not, be prepared to be told that you want to "kill investment in our future" or "take money away from needy children" if you dare suggest that your cut be made.

Can't agree with you on that point above. Its always easier to say the government is inefficient and wasteful than it is to defend it. :my2cents: