Rand Paul

We've had it since the Civil War. What does that mean? Well, it means nothing. The other thing about trade deficits is think about the United States and Bangladesh. Do you think Bangladesh is ever going to be rich enough to buy as much stuff from us as we can buy from them? Rich people and rich countries have greater trade deficits.

We've had it since the Civil War. What does that mean? Well, it means nothing. The other thing about trade deficits is think about the United States and Bangladesh. Do you think Bangladesh is ever going to be rich enough to buy as much stuff from us as we can buy from them? Rich people and rich countries have greater trade deficits.

We've had it since the Civil War. What does that mean? Well, it means nothing. The other thing about trade deficits is think about the United States and Bangladesh. Do you think Bangladesh is ever going to be rich enough to buy as much stuff from us as we can buy from them? Rich people and rich countries have greater trade deficits.

So a major league baseball star that makes $25 million a year has a bigger trade deficit than your average teacher. with everybody because they buy a lot of stuff. They have so much money. So a trade deficit is just a meaningless accounting ledger domain. The second fallacy is that the middle class is being hollowed out. It's just frankly not true.

So a major league baseball star that makes $25 million a year has a bigger trade deficit than your average teacher. with everybody because they buy a lot of stuff. They have so much money. So a trade deficit is just a meaningless accounting ledger domain. The second fallacy is that the middle class is being hollowed out. It's just frankly not true.

So a major league baseball star that makes $25 million a year has a bigger trade deficit than your average teacher. with everybody because they buy a lot of stuff. They have so much money. So a trade deficit is just a meaningless accounting ledger domain. The second fallacy is that the middle class is being hollowed out. It's just frankly not true.

If you look at household income for the last 70 years, what you will find is that the lower income, below 50, and middle, 50 to 100, have gotten slightly smaller over time. But it's because they've all moved to the upper class. Over $100,000 in constant dollars has grown threefold while $50,000 to $100,000 is slightly smaller over 70 years. They migrated to the upper class.

If you look at household income for the last 70 years, what you will find is that the lower income, below 50, and middle, 50 to 100, have gotten slightly smaller over time. But it's because they've all moved to the upper class. Over $100,000 in constant dollars has grown threefold while $50,000 to $100,000 is slightly smaller over 70 years. They migrated to the upper class.

If you look at household income for the last 70 years, what you will find is that the lower income, below 50, and middle, 50 to 100, have gotten slightly smaller over time. But it's because they've all moved to the upper class. Over $100,000 in constant dollars has grown threefold while $50,000 to $100,000 is slightly smaller over 70 years. They migrated to the upper class.

They didn't go to the lower class.

They didn't go to the lower class.

They didn't go to the lower class.

A lot more than you would guess. Four voted with me to end the emergencies. And some of that's a constitutional question, whether or not Congress should vote to raise taxes or whether a president can raise taxes. And some of that's on tariffs. But if you went around my caucus, I mean, you'd find probably 15 to 20 who will still tell you, oh, we're free traders, we're free traders.

A lot more than you would guess. Four voted with me to end the emergencies. And some of that's a constitutional question, whether or not Congress should vote to raise taxes or whether a president can raise taxes. And some of that's on tariffs. But if you went around my caucus, I mean, you'd find probably 15 to 20 who will still tell you, oh, we're free traders, we're free traders.

A lot more than you would guess. Four voted with me to end the emergencies. And some of that's a constitutional question, whether or not Congress should vote to raise taxes or whether a president can raise taxes. And some of that's on tariffs. But if you went around my caucus, I mean, you'd find probably 15 to 20 who will still tell you, oh, we're free traders, we're free traders.

They fear going up against the president of their party. If this were President Biden doing it, probably over 50 would because a lot of them vote simply on partisanship and not on principle or not on economic calculation. But there still are a bunch of them from farm states. Look, the Farm Bureau is a very mainstream, solid organization. It's been around probably over 100 years.

They fear going up against the president of their party. If this were President Biden doing it, probably over 50 would because a lot of them vote simply on partisanship and not on principle or not on economic calculation. But there still are a bunch of them from farm states. Look, the Farm Bureau is a very mainstream, solid organization. It's been around probably over 100 years.

They fear going up against the president of their party. If this were President Biden doing it, probably over 50 would because a lot of them vote simply on partisanship and not on principle or not on economic calculation. But there still are a bunch of them from farm states. Look, the Farm Bureau is a very mainstream, solid organization. It's been around probably over 100 years.

They're a very significant force in my state, and it's part of their manual. They are for trade because 20 to 25 percent of their crops are sold overseas.

They're a very significant force in my state, and it's part of their manual. They are for trade because 20 to 25 percent of their crops are sold overseas.