Amanpour and Company

>> AFTER THE RECENT PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE IN THE UNITED STATES, STILL UNDECIDED AMERICANS ARE WEIGHING WHO TO VOTE FOR.

AND WHILE OUR NEXT GUEST FAR PREFERS THE FORMER PRESIDENT TRUMP, SENATOR RAND PAUL STILL IS NOT READY TO GIVE HIM HIS ENDORSEMENT.

HE IS DRAINING WALTER ISAACSON TO EXPLAIN WHY.

>> THANK YOU SENATOR RAND PAUL.

WELCOME TO THE SHOW.

>> THANKS FOR HAVING ME.

>> THE DEBATE THIS WEEK, GIVE ME YOUR TAKE ON HOW EACH OF THE CANDIDATES DID AND WHAT STRUCK YOU.

>> YOU KNOW, I THINK CANDIDATES ARE LOOKING TO TRY TO INFLUENCE PEOPLE IN THE MIDDLE.

AND SO ABOUT 40, 45% OF PEOPLE IN THE U.S. ARE REPUBLICAN AND ABOUT 40, 45% ARE DEMOCRATS.

THERE IS ABOUT FIVE OR 10% UP FOR GRABS.

I ALWAYS LOOK AT A PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE AS HOW DO YOU DO WITH THOSE PEOPLE IN THE MIDDLE?

I THINK ONE COMMON ATTRIBUTE, NOT EVERYONE BUT A LOT OF PEOPLE IN THE MIDDLE DON'T LIKE CONTROVERSY.

THEY DON'T LIKE CONFLICT.

THE DINNER PARTY WHO SAY WE SHOULDN'T TALK ABOUT POLITICS OR RELIGION.

THEY DON'T REALLY LIKE TOO MUCH ENGAGEMENT.

I THINK THAT MAKES IT DIFFICULT FOR DONALD TRUMP.

BECAUSE HE IS AT LEAST BOMBASTIC AT TIMES.

AND IT IS HARDER FOR HIM TO ENGAGE THE INDEPENDENT VOTE.

THAT BEING SAID, THERE ARE A LOT OF PRACTICAL THINGS THAT AFFECT EVERYBODY.

THAT IS THINGS LIKE THE PRICE OF GROCERIES, THE PRICE OF GASOLINE.

IF YOU ARE AN AVERAGE AMERICAN CITIZEN, DO YOU HAVE ENOUGH MONEY TO AVOID-- AFFORD GAS?

I THINK THOSE ARE REAL THINGS WE ARE HAPPENING IN AMERICA THAT MANY IN THE MIDDLE CLASS ARE STRUGGLING BECAUSE THEY ARE LOSING THE VALUE OF THEIR PAYCHECK.

THEIR PAYCHECK IS NOT GOING AS FAR.

SO WITH INFLATION, THE AVERAGE WORKING FAMILY HAS LOST ABOUT $1000 OR TWO.

I DON'T KNOW IF HE DRILLED IN ON THAT ENOUGH TO BE EFFECTIVE.

I WOULD CALL THE DEBATE A DRAW.

>> ONE OF THE THINGS WE TALKED ABOUT IN THE BEGINNING IS AN ISSUE YOU TALK A LOT ABOUT, WHICH IS DEFICITS.

AND HE CITED THE WHARTON SCHOOL AND ALL OF ITS PROFESSORS, SAYING HE HAD THE GREATEST ECONOMIC PLAN.

THE WHARTON SCHOOL SAID HE WOULD HAVE HAD MORE THAN $5 TRILLION TO THE DEFICIT.

YOU EVEN MENTIONED THAT TRUMP WHILE PRESIDENT ADDED 8 TRILLION TO THE DEFICIT.

THAT HAS BEEN YOUR BIGGEST DISPUTE WITH HIM.

IS THAT WHY EVEN THOUGH YOU SAY YOU ARE IN FAVOR OF TRUMP, YOU HAVEN'T GIVEN A FULL ENDORSEMENT?

>> THE DISPUTE IS NOT JUST WITH DONALD TRUMP, THE DISPUTE IS ALSO WITH KAMALA HARRIS.

THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION ADDED 8 TRILLION IN DEBT, THE HERON-- HARRIS ADMINISTRATION WILL ADD ANOTHER 8 BILLION.

I THINK BOTH PARTIES ARE TERRIBLE AT SPENDING AND DEBT.

I HAVE BEEN PROPOSING WE SHOULD LOOK AT ALL SPENDING.

MOST PEOPLE SAY WE SHOULD NEVER TALK ABOUT ENTITLEMENT.

ENTITLEMENTS ARE TWO THIRDS OF I CONSIDER ANYBODY WHO TAKES ENTITLEMENT OFF THE TABLE FOR DISCUSSION TO BE A NONSERIOUS PERSON.

HARRIS HAS DEFINITELY TAKEN THAT OFF THE TABLE BUT SO HAS TRUMP.

BOTH OF THEM HAVE TAKEN TWO THIRDS OF SPENDING AND SAID WE ARE NOT GOING TO DO ANYTHING.

THEN THE REMAINING SPENDING, WHICH IS ABOUT $2 TRILLION.

MOST REPUBLICANS TAKE THE MILITARY OFF OF THE CONSIDERATION AS WELL.

AND MILITARY GETS AUTOMATICALLY INCREASED AS WELL.

YOU ARE LEFT WITH A TINY SLIVER OF GOVERNMENT.

MOST OF THAT IS GOVERNMENT THAT DEMOCRATS SUPPORT AS WELL.

SO THERE REALLY IS A CONSTITUENCY FOR ALL THE SPENDING BUT THERE SEEMS TO BE NOBODY OR VERY FEW OF US WORRIED ABOUT THE RAMIFICATIONS THAT ONE DAY AMERICA WILL MAY WAKE UP AND HAVE NOBODY SHOW UP TO BUY OUR BONDS.

EVEN NOW WITH THE SLIGHT TICK IN INTEREST, WE ARE PLAYING A LITTLE OVER 3% ON INTEREST.

THE INTEREST IS NOW BIGGER THAN THE MILITARY BUDGET.

AT OUR BUDGET.

SQUEEZING OUT OTHER SPENDING.

I THINK IT NEEDS TO BE DISCUSSED.

IT IS PART OF THE REASON I HAVE NOT ENTHUSIASTICALLY ENDORSED TRUMP, BUT I THINK HARRIS IS ACTUALLY WORSE ON SPENDING AND HAS SHOWN NO CONCERN FOR THE DEFICIT.

>> WHAT ABOUT THE TAX CUTS?

SHOULD THEY BE ALLOWED TO EXPIRE?

>> THE INTERESTING THING ABOUT TAX CUTS IS WE HAVE DEBATED THESE FROM THE TIME OF REAGAN.

PEOPLE STILL SAY WHEN REAGAN CUT TAX RATES BECAUSE THE DEFICIT TO GO UP IT WAS SPENDING.

REAGAN WAS NOT VERY GOOD WITH SPENDING AND NEITHER WERE REPUBLICANS OR DEMOCRATS BACK THEN.

REVENUE TYPICALLY GOES UP.

IF YOU LOOK AT THE 2017 TAX- CUT, THERE IS A SLIGHT DIP IN REVENUE BUT IF YOU LOOK IN CYCLES, WHAT YOU FIND IS IN EVERY CYCLE, TAX REVENUE HAS GONE UP SINCE THE TAX CUTS.

THE CUTTING TAX RATES, HAVING THE GOVERNMENT TAKE LESS OF YOUR CHECK EXPAND THE ECONOMY, YOU GET MORE GROWTH AND GET MORE TAX REVENUE.

I DON'T THINK LETTING THE TAX CUTS INSPIRE--EXPIRE WOULD DO GREAT THINGS TO THE DEFICIT.

>> YOU TALK ABOUT THE NEED TO REIGN IN ENTITLEMENT.

THAT ANYBODY WHO IS WILLING TO SAY LET'S FOCUS ON ENTITLEMENT IS BEING UNSERIOUS.

YOU, ANOTHER DOCTOR IN THE SENATOR BILL KENNEDY, LET'S LOOK AT WHAT WE CAN DO.

BUT LET ME GET SPECIFIC.

ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT SOCIAL SECURITY AND MEDICAID?

ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT RAISING THE AGE?

WHAT WOULD YOU DO?

>> THERE ARE 6 TRILLION WE SPEND, FOR TRILLION IS ENTITLEMENT.

MEDICARE, MEDICAID, SOCIAL SECURITY AND FOOD STAMPS OCCUPY ABOUT $4 TRILLION.

THEY ALL NEED TO BE REFORMED.

ONE OF THE BIG REFORMS IS RAISING THE AGE.

PEOPLE SAY, WHAT DO YOU WANT, YOU WANT TO PUNISH ALL PEOPLE WAIT LONGER?

NO, I ASPIRE TO BE AN OLD PERSON.

I AM ON MY WAY TO BEING THERE.

I WANTED TO BE THERE FOR ME.

THE ONLY WAY THERE IS ENOUGH MONEY IS TO GRADUALLY RAGE-- RAISE THE AGE.

WE ARE LIVING LONGER.

AND SOCIAL SECURITY WORK IN THE BEGINNING BECAUSE THE AGE CUTOFF WAS 65 AND THE AVERAGE LIFE EXPECTANCY WAS 65.

IT WORKED BECAUSE HALF THE PEOPLE DIED AND DIDN'T RECEIVE ANY.

IT WAS A VERY FISCALLY SOUND PROGRAM AND RAN IN SURPLUS FOR A LONG TIME.

NOW THAT WE ARE LIVING LONGER, IT HAS TO BE MOVED.

IN 1983, WE MOVED IT GRADUALLY TO 67.

IN MOST OF EUROPE, THEY HAVE ATTACHED THE AGE TO LONGEVITY AND IT DOESN'T GRADUALLY.

THAT IS WHAT WE NEED TO DO.

HOW FAST WE DO IT CAN BE DEBATED.

BUT THE AGE OF SOCIAL SECURITY AND MEDICARE HAS TO GRADUALLY GO UP.

WE HAVE TO FIGURE A WAY TO DISTRIBUTE OUR HEALTHCARE IN A MORE COMPETITIVE FASHION.

SO WE DON'T WASTE SO MUCH MONEY.

I AM NOT OPPOSED TO SOME OF THE THINGS THE DEMOCRATS DO.

I THINK THEY HAVE BEEN FOR COMPETITIVE PRICING FOR MEDICARE AND USING THE BULK PURCHASING TO BRING DOWN PRICES WITHOUT QUESTION.

I THINK WE SHOULD ALSO LOOK AT THE PEOPLE WHO ARE EVERGREEN THEIR PATENTS.

THEY TWEAK THE PATENT A LITTLE BIT AND THEY WANT ANOTHER FIVE YEARS.

THEY TWEAK IT AGAIN AND ONE ANOTHER FIVE YEARS.

THIS IDEA THAT PATENTS CAN GO ON 20 OR 25 YEARS IS SOMETHING THAT OUGHT TO BE STOPPED.

I HAVE BEEN HERE 12 YEARS, I HAVE INTRODUCED A BILL TO RAISE THE AGE, THERE HAS NEVER BEEN A VOTE ON THE FULL SENATE FLOOR ON ANY REFORM OF MEDICARE, MEDICAID OR SOCIAL SECURITY.

OTHER THAN TO EXPAND THEM.

REALLY WHAT WE HAVE TO DO IS CONTROL THE COST OF THEM SO THESE CAN REMAIN FOR THE NEXT GENERATION.

>> YOU SAID EARLIER THAT FORMER PRESIDENT TRUMP WAS AND AGGRESSIVE.

YOU THOUGHT IT DIDN'T SERVE HIM THAT WELL.

TO ME, ONE OF THE MAIN THINGS WAS TONE.

THERE WAS A SENSE OF ANGER AND RESENTMENT THAT TRUMP HAS PUSHED.

AND THAT VICE PRESIDENT HARRIS IS TRYING TO DO A FUTURE -LOOKING THING.

DO YOU THINK THAT TRUMP, TALKING ABOUT IMMIGRANTS EATING DOGS AND THE RESENTMENT AND SAYING THAT AT THE END OF THE DEBATE, THE COUNTRY IS IN GREAT DECLINE.

DO YOU AGREE WITH THAT STRATEGY?

>> I THINK THAT IN TRYING TO APPEAL TO PEOPLE IN THE MIDDLE, YOU HAVE TO TRY TO MEET THEM WHERE THEY ARE.

A LOT OF IT IS PERSONALITY AND THE WAY YOU PRESENT YOURSELF.

BUT I MEET PEOPLE EVERY DAY WHO WILL SAY WELL, I AM NOT A BIG FAN OF DONALD TRUMP'S DECORUM BUT I LOVE HIS POLICIES.

THAT IS WHAT I HEAR FROM REPUBLICANS WHO LEAN TOWARD VOTING FOR HIM.

THERE ARE MANY PEOPLE IN THAT EVEN IN THE INDEPENDENT CAMP THAT MIGHT NOT ALWAYS LIKE HIS PRESENTATION OR THE WAY HE PRESENTS HIMSELF, BUT ARE CONSERVATIVE IN THE SENSE THAT, FOR EXAMPLE, KAMALA HARRIS WANTS TO GIVE EVERYBODY $25,000 TO BUY A HOUSE.

THAT IS A RIDICULOUS ECONOMIC NOTION.

THERE IS NO MONEY TO GIVE THEM, WHERE IS SHE GOING TO GET IT?

IS SHE GOING TO PRINT THE MONEY?

MOST ECONOMISTS HAVE SAID THAT IS A BAD IDEA.

THE IDEA THAT YOU WOULD SET PRICE CAPS ON THING BEING SOLD THAT MAKE GOODS WITH CHARGING TOO MUCH OR PRICE GOUGING.

EVEN ON CNN, THE ECONOMIST CAME FORWARD AND SAID THEY OUGHT TO RETHINK THAT AND THINK ABOUT WHAT IS HAPPENING IN VENEZUELA.

I THINK TRUMP CAN WIN ON POLICIES.

BECAUSE I THINK HARRIS POLICIES ARE SO BAD.

IT IS STILL A CHALLENGE TO GET THE PEOPLE IN THE MIDDLE BECAUSE THERE IS A LONG HISTORY AND HE HAS TO CONVINCE THE PEOPLE IN THE MIDDLE THERE IS A SOFTER SIDE OR MAYBE A SIDE I AM NOT SAYING, I SUPPORT HIM MORE THAN HARRIS.

I THINK HIS POLICIES ARE 1 MILLION TIMES BETTER THAN HARRIS.

BUT TO GET THE PEOPLE IN THE MIDDLE, HE HAS MORE WORK TO DO.

>> YOU SAID YOU HAVEN'T ENDORSED HIM.

HAVE YOU TALKED TO HIM?

>> NOT IN A WHILE.

DURING HIS PRESIDENCY, I WAS PRETTY CLOSE AND TALKED FAIRLY FREQUENTLY WITH HIM.

AND I ASSUME THEY WILL NEED TO TALK TO ME ABOUT MY VOTE IF HE WERE PRESIDENT AGAIN.

AND I THINK THAT RELATIONSHIP WILL BEGIN AGAIN.

THERE HASN'T BEEN SO MUCH IN THE LAST YEAR BECAUSE I HAVEN'T BEEN INVOLVED WITH ENDORSING.

I HAVE SAID THAT THINGS LIKE THE DEBT ARE IMPORTANT TO ME.

THE LOCKDOWN I THINK WAS A MISTAKE.

AND I THINK THERE NEEDS TO BE A PROMISE THAT THERE WON'T BE A LOCKDOWN AGAIN.

AND I THINK WE NEED TO INVESTIGATE THE U.S. FUNDING OF THE LAB IN WUHAN AND MAKE SURE THAT DOESN'T HAPPEN AGAIN.

NOT ONLY JUST IN WUHAN, I AM CONCERNED WE ARE FUNDING RESEARCH TO CREATE SUPER VIRUSES, BASICALLY GAIN OF FUNCTION THAT DON'T EXIST IN NATURE.

WE ARE DOING THAT IN THE UNITED STATES AND I AM CONCERNED THAT AN ACCIDENT HERE COULD HAVE A DENTAL NOT OF 0.3% BUT 5% OF THE PUBLIC OR 10% OR EVEN 50%.

THERE ARE VIRUSES THAT COULD KILL 50% OF ALL-AMERICA.

THAT SHOULD BE MORE STRICTLY REGULATED AND I AM PUTTING FORWARD A BILL TO REGULATE GAIN OF FUNCTION.

I AM HOPING TO HAVE THIS WITHIN THE NEXT MONTH OR SO.

THIS WILL BE A BIG STEP FORWARD.

BUT I WANT ASSURANCES FROM DONALD TRUMP THAT HE WILL ASSIST AND BE SUPPORTIVE OF THIS TYPE OF LEGISLATION.

>> GOVERNMENT FUNDING COULD BE RUNNING OUT SOON.

THE SPEAKER MIKE JOHNSON HAS A JUGGLING ACT TO DO BUT EVENTUALLY THE SENATE WILL HAVE TO DEAL WITH IT.

DO YOU THINK THERE IS A WAY TO DO A CONTINUUM RESOLUTION OR IF IT CAME TO THE SENATE?

>> ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I PROMOTED FOR EVER WHICH WOULD MAKE THE SITUATION BETTER AND ALLOW FOR A CLEANER DEBATE IS LEGISLATION TO KEEP THE ESSENTIAL PART OF GOVERNMENT OPEN WHEN WE HAVE A DISPUTE.

WHAT HAPPINESS WE HAVE A LOT OF REVENUE, WE HAVE $4 TRILLION IN REVENUE.

THAT WOULD PAY FOR MOST OF BASIC GOVERNMENT.

WHY DON'T WE JUST AGREE TO NOT SHUT THE GOVERNMENT DOWN WHEN REVENUE IS COMING IN WELL WE HAVE A DISPUTE?

THE OTHER THING WE COULD DO IS TRY TO DIVIDE UP THE SPENDING.

INSTEAD OF HAVING ALL THE SPENDING ON ONE BILL, IF WE PASS THE BILL INDIVIDUALLY, OUR FOUNDING FATHERS AND THE HISTORY OF CONGRESS WAS YOU HAD 12 APPROPRIATION BILLS.

THEN IF YOU HAD A DISPUTE OVER ONE, LET'S SAY WITH THE IRS.

BILLION TO COLLECT MORE TAXES, REPUBLICANS THOUGHT THAT WOULD BE TOO AGGRESSIVE.

SO WE HAVE A DISPUTE OVER THAT.

IF WE HAD ONLY THAT ITEM TO DISPUTE AND MAYBE THE DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY OR WHATEVER SHUT DOWN, THEN WE COULD HAVE A DEBATE OVER IT.

BUT FROM A FISCAL POINT OF VIEW, WE HAVE THIS DISCUSSION, WE HAVE A DEBATE, SOMETIMES GOVERNMENT SHUTS DOWN.

BUT WE NEVER REDUCE THE COST OF SPENDING.

EVERYBODY FINALLY FOLDS AND SAYS WE DON'T WANT ANY BLAME FOR SHUTTING THE GOVERNMENT DOWN.

BUT ALSO KEEPING IT OPEN AND NOT REFORMING IT IS BAD ULTIMATELY FOR THE COUNTRY AND FUTURE OF THE COUNTRY TO RUN $2 TRILLION DEFICIT.

>> YOU HAVE BEEN GENERALLY CRITICAL OF AMERICA'S OVERINVOLVEMENT IN MILITARY ACTIONS AROUND THE WORLD.

LET'S START WITH ISRAEL AND GAZA.

ON OUR MILITARY AID TO ISRAEL GIVEN THE WAY IT HAS BEEN SINCE ALMOST A YEAR NOW?

>> I THINK ALL FOREIGN AID SHOULD HAVE CONDITIONS ON IT.

THROUGHOUT THE COLD WAR, WE GAVE BILLIONS OF DOLLARS TO ZIMBABWE.

HE WAS A TERRIBLE DICTATOR AND WE SHOULD HAVE PUT CONDITIONS ON IT.

UNCONDITIONAL AID IS A TERRIBLE IDEA.

THE ISSUE IN GAZA IS A DIFFICULT ONE.

I HAVE STAYED OUT OF DIRECTLY TELLING ISRAEL WHAT TO DO BECAUSE IT'S HARD.

THEY LOST 1200 PEOPLE AT A CONCERT, INNOCENT PEOPLE KILLED.

THEIR RESPONSE LARGELY HAS TO BE THERE OWN.

I WOULD SAY THAT WHEN I'VE BEEN TO ISRAEL, THERE IS MUCH MORE OF A PLURALITY OR DISCUSSION AND OPENNESS TO DIFFERENT POINT OF VIEWS.

IF YOU SAY SOMETHING HERE, YOU ARE OFTEN ACCUSED OF BEING ANTI- SEMITIC IF YOU DISAGREE WITH ANYTHING THE PARTY PUTS FORWARD.

BUT FRANKLY, THEY HAVE TO MAKE THE DECISION.

I DID NOT VOTE TO GIVE THEM ANOTHER $26 BILLION.

I HAVE VOTED IN THE PAST BUT THE 3 BILLION SHOULD GRADUALLY BE PHASED OUT.

NETANYAHU SAID IT WAS NOT TO BE PERMANENT AND IT WAS TO BE TEMPORARY AND PHASED OUT.

ISRAEL IS A VERY RICH NATION.

ONE WAY OF NOT TELLING THEM WHAT TO DO WOULD BE TO QUIT GIVING THEM THE MONEY, THEN WE WOULDN'T INTERFERE.

BUT IT ALSO WOULDN'T BE OUR MONEY.

THE SAME GOES FOR EVERYTHING ELSE.

IF WE WANT TO GIVE 100 BILLION- A-YEAR TO THE UKRAINE, UKRAINE IS SAYING THEY WANT 60 BILLION A YEAR FOR THE NEXT 10 YEARS.

THAT IS NOT COUNTING REBUILDING EVERYTHING.

SHOULD WE HAVE ANY SAY?

PEOPLE SAY THEY HAVE TO DECIDE WHEN THEY ARE DONE FIGHTING.

IF WE ARE FUNDING THE WHOLE WAR, SHOULDN'T WE HAVE SOME SAY?

AND THE ONE THING THAT IS TO BE DISCUSSED, THEY WILL NOT DISCUSS THIS, THE ONE THING YOU CAN GIVE TO RUSSIA IN EXCHANGE FOR PEACE IF THERE IS GOING TO BE ANY NEGOTIATION WOULD BE THE IDEA THAT UKRAINE WOULD BE A NEUTRAL COUNTRY.

THAT DOESN'T INVOLVE THEM GIVING UP TERRITORY.

PART OF THE DEAL COULD BE AND COULD HAVE BEEN RUSSIA RETREATS WITHIN ITS OWN BORDER IN EXCHANGE FOR UKRAINE AGREEING TO BE A NEUTRAL COUNTRY.

I DON'T KNOW IF THEY WOULD HAVE ACCEPTED THAT, BUT IT WAS NEVER OFFERED.

THE OPPOSITE IS OFFERED.

ALL OF THE EUROPEAN COUNTRIES AND NATO DEFENDERS ARE BEATING THEIR SHOE ON THE DESK THAT THEY ABSOLUTELY MUST AND WILL BE MEMBERS OF NATO.

THAT HAS BEEN THE BIGGEST COMPLAINT IS THAT THEY WOULD BE IN A MILITARY ALLIANCE ON THEIR BORDER FROM A FORMER PROVINCE OF THE SOVIET UNION.

THAT WAS OBJECTIONABLE TO THEM.

SAME GOES FOR GEORGIA ON THE BORDER, ONCE A FORMER SOVIET SATELLITE AS WELL.

I THINK WE HAVE TO LOOK AT THESE THINGS AND THERE NEEDS TO BE SOMEBODY TALKING ABOUT IT.

ONE OF THE MOST GALLING THINGS I HAVE SEEN IS McCONNELL AND SCHUMER AND OTHERS WHO COME FORWARD AND SAY I'M A WELL, WE ARE NOT GIVING THIS TO UKRAINE.

MOST OF THE MONEY IS GOING TO OUR DEFENSE CONTRACTORS.

I FIND THAT JUST DISGUSTING.

THE IDEA THAT 100,000 PEOPLE DIED IN UKRAINE AND YOU ARE JUSTIFYING IT BECAUSE IT ENRICHES ARMS MERCHANTS.

I FIND THAT ABSOLUTELY DESPICABLE AND DISTASTEFUL.

WAR SHOULD NOT BE SOMETHING THAT IS GLORIFIED BY PROFIT.

THERE IS GOING TO BE PROFIT, I AM A CAPITALIST BUT I AM NEVER FOR ADVOCATING FOR MORE WAR SIMPLY FOR THE PROFIT OF ARMS MERCHANTS.

>> SENATOR RAND PAUL, THANK YOU FOR JOINING US.