Here's Why Libertarians Can't Govern: Rand Paul Blocking Bipartisan Budget Deal and Forcing Shutdown

[mikegriffith1]

Here's a perfect example of why libertarians can't govern and can't win on a national scale: Senator Rand Paul is single-handedly blocking a bipartisan budget deal and appears poised to force a government shutdown because he doesn't like the bipartisan budget deal.

By the most expansive accounting, the budget deal will raise spending by about $400 billion over the next two years. That's an increase of just over 9% for two years, or about 4.6% per year, one of the three smallest increases for any two-year period in the last 40 years. But, no, that's not good enough for libertarian Rand Paul. Nor does he care that the budget deal increases defense spending more than it increases domestic spending and that it extends a number of tax breaks. Nope, not good enough.

He wants a chance to introduce amendments on the Senate floor to cut spending. Look, with 49 Democrats and one or two RINOs in the Senate, no such amendment has any chance. This is a waste of time and it's gonna cost thousands of federal contractors hundreds and even thousands of dollars.

This is why libertarians can't govern.

 

[TNHarley]

Here's a perfect example of why libertarians can't govern and can't win on a national scale: Senator Rand Paul is single-handedly blocking a bipartisan budget deal and appears poised to force a government shutdown because he doesn't like the bipartisan budget deal.

By the most expansive accounting, the budget deal will raise spending by about $400 billion over the next two years. That's an increase of just over 9% per year, one of the two smallest increases for any two-year period in the last 40 years. But, no, that's not good enough for libertarian Rand Paul. Nor does he care that the budget deal increases defense spending more than it increases domestic spending and that it extends a number of tax breaks. Nope, not good enough.

He wants a chance to introduce amendments on the Senate floor to cut spending. Look, with 49 Democrats and one or two RINOs in the Senate, no such amendment has any chance. This is a waste of time and it's gonna cost thousands of federal contractors hundreds and even thousands of dollars.

This is why libertarians can't govern.

So you are saying his problem is principles?
Lol
This is why political hacks cant govern.

 

[Moonglow]

So much for the idea of fiscal conservatism in the GOP...

 

[TNHarley]

So much for the idea of fiscal conservatism in the GOP...

Basically said they desperate af lol

 

[mikegriffith1]

So you are saying his problem is principles? Lol
This is why political hacks cant govern.

This is always the argument of unreasonable hardliners. Principles must be tempered with reality. The spending hike that McConnell got the Dems to agree to is one of the two lowest in the last 40 years, right around 4.7% per year. It might even be the lowest since Eisenhower, but I'd have to go check the numbers.

This stunt is going to cost tens of thousands of federal contractors hundreds and even thousands of dollars. Unlike federal employees, federal contractors do not get back pay after shutdowns.

 

[Tijn Von Ingersleben]

Here's a perfect example of why libertarians can't govern and can't win on a national scale: Senator Rand Paul is single-handedly blocking a bipartisan budget deal and appears poised to force a government shutdown because he doesn't like the bipartisan budget deal.

By the most expansive accounting, the budget deal will raise spending by about $400 billion over the next two years. That's an increase of just over 9% for two years, or about 4.6% per year, one of the two smallest increases for any two-year period in the last 40 years. But, no, that's not good enough for libertarian Rand Paul. Nor does he care that the budget deal increases defense spending more than it increases domestic spending and that it extends a number of tax breaks. Nope, not good enough.

He wants a chance to introduce amendments on the Senate floor to cut spending. Look, with 49 Democrats and one or two RINOs in the Senate, no such amendment has any chance. This is a waste of time and it's gonna cost thousands of federal contractors hundreds and even thousands of dollars.

This is why libertarians can't govern.

Since when was Rand Paul a Libertarian?

 

[hazlnut]

Here's a perfect example of why libertarians can't govern and can't win on a national scale: Senator Rand Paul is single-handedly blocking a bipartisan budget deal and appears poised to force a government shutdown because he doesn't like the bipartisan budget deal.

By the most expansive accounting, the budget deal will raise spending by about $400 billion over the next two years. That's an increase of just over 9% for two years, or about 4.6% per year, one of the two smallest increases for any two-year period in the last 40 years. But, no, that's not good enough for libertarian Rand Paul. Nor does he care that the budget deal increases defense spending more than it increases domestic spending and that it extends a number of tax breaks. Nope, not good enough.

He wants a chance to introduce amendments on the Senate floor to cut spending. Look, with 49 Democrats and one or two RINOs in the Senate, no such amendment has any chance. This is a waste of time and it's gonna cost thousands of federal contractors hundreds and even thousands of dollars.

This is why libertarians can't govern.

Dem and GOPs aren't great at it either.

Self-serving, power grabbing, tug-o-war.... Party over Country.

This country is broken beyond repair. The best we can do, fix little things and help people in our own community.

 

[mikegriffith1]

So much for the idea of fiscal conservatism in the GOP...

Get real. If the Republicans had a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, things would be much different. But, instead, they have to deal with 49 Democrats and one or two RINOs. McConnell did very well to limit the spending hike to just over 9% for a two-year period, or about 4.7% per year. That's either the lowest or the second-lowest spending hike in the last 40 years, if not going back to Eisenhower.

 

[Moonglow]

So much for the idea of fiscal conservatism in the GOP...

Get real. If the Republicans had a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, things would be much different. But, instead, they have to deal with 49 Democrats and one or two RINOs. McConnell did very well to limit the spending hike to just over 9% for a two-year period, or about 4.7% per year. That's either the lowest or the second-lowest spending hike in the last 40 years, if not going back to Eisenhower.

You must have missed the era of sequester during Oblama.....

 

[Vastator]

Here's a perfect example of why libertarians can't govern and can't win on a national scale: Senator Rand Paul is single-handedly blocking a bipartisan budget deal and appears poised to force a government shutdown because he doesn't like the bipartisan budget deal.

By the most expansive accounting, the budget deal will raise spending by about $400 billion over the next two years. That's an increase of just over 9% for two years, or about 4.6% per year, one of the two smallest increases for any two-year period in the last 40 years. But, no, that's not good enough for libertarian Rand Paul. Nor does he care that the budget deal increases defense spending more than it increases domestic spending and that it extends a number of tax breaks. Nope, not good enough.

He wants a chance to introduce amendments on the Senate floor to cut spending. Look, with 49 Democrats and one or two RINOs in the Senate, no such amendment has any chance. This is a waste of time and it's gonna cost thousands of federal contractors hundreds and even thousands of dollars.

This is why libertarians can't govern.

Only increases...? You see...? That's the problem. How about shocking us with a spending decrease...

 

[BradVesp]

That makes senses since Libertarians generally dislike government they wouldn't govern very well. That shouldn't stop them from having an important part in the voting process either at the public or congressional level.

 

[Aldo Raine]

Here's a perfect example of why libertarians can't govern and can't win on a national scale: Senator Rand Paul is single-handedly blocking a bipartisan budget deal and appears poised to force a government shutdown because he doesn't like the bipartisan budget deal.

By the most expansive accounting, the budget deal will raise spending by about $400 billion over the next two years. That's an increase of just over 9% per year, one of the two smallest increases for any two-year period in the last 40 years. But, no, that's not good enough for libertarian Rand Paul. Nor does he care that the budget deal increases defense spending more than it increases domestic spending and that it extends a number of tax breaks. Nope, not good enough.

He wants a chance to introduce amendments on the Senate floor to cut spending. Look, with 49 Democrats and one or two RINOs in the Senate, no such amendment has any chance. This is a waste of time and it's gonna cost thousands of federal contractors hundreds and even thousands of dollars.

This is why libertarians can't govern.

So you are saying his problem is principles?
Lol
This is why political hacks cant govern.

Ya I'm not a fan of Paul's but it seems his problem is more deficit spending. I do agree that at some point we have to get a handle on our spending and now may certainly be the time while the economy is doing well!

 

[mikegriffith1]

So much for the idea of fiscal conservatism in the GOP...

Get real. If the Republicans had a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, things would be much different. But, instead, they have to deal with 49 Democrats and one or two RINOs. McConnell did very well to limit the spending hike to just over 9% for a two-year period, or about 4.7% per year. That's either the lowest or the second-lowest spending hike in the last 40 years, if not going back to Eisenhower.

You must have missed the era of sequester during Oblama.....

Well, okay, that's true. Federal spending from 2013-2016:

2013: $3.45T
2014: $3.5T
2015: $3.7T
2016: $3.85T

So the McConnell-Schumer budget deal would be one of the three smallest spending hikes for a two-year period in the last 40 years. That's far better than the double-digit hikes that we saw for years under Carter, Reagan, Bush Sr., Bush Jr., and Obama before he cornered himself into sequestration.

 

[Flash]

Democrat promise bad government and always deliver bad government.

Republicans promise good government but usually produces the same fiscally irresponsible government as the Democrats.

This budget is a bloated budget that increases the cost of government and puts us further in debt. The same kind of budget you would expect we would have got had the filthy ass Democrats been in charge of Congress and the Presidency.

We saw when Bush and the Republicans controlled the government for six years that they are only marginally better than the Democrats.

It looks like this Congress is doing the same thing as the Bush Republican Congress. Forget that they suppose to be Conservatives and act like they are big spending Democrats.

There is no reason why we can't properly fund defense and the few other minimal necessary government functions and cut back on this disastrous welfare state and reduce the size of government.

God bless Paul for having the courage to stand up to fiscally irresponsibility.

 

[007]

So much for the idea of fiscal conservatism in the GOP...

Exactly...

... when the democrats are in power they spend like drunken sailors,

... when the republicans are in power they spend like drunken sailors.

They're all ass wipes.

And there's nothing "governing" about gross deficit spending and waste.

Rand Paul is right on block it.

 

[Moonglow]

So much for the idea of fiscal conservatism in the GOP...

Exactly...

... when the democrats are in power they spend like drunken sailors,

... when the republicans are in power they spend like drunken sailors.

They're all ass wipes.

And there's nothing "governing" about gross deficit spending and waste.

Rand Paul is right on block it.

I agree, there has to be someone willing to be responsible...

 

[mikegriffith1]

God bless Paul for having the courage to stand up to fiscally irresponsibility.

Tell that to the thousands of federal contractors who are gonna lose one or more days of pay, after having already lost one day's pay less than a month ago.

Paul knows this stunt has no chance of changing anything. It's just infuriating people on both sides of the fence.

When you have divided government, you do the best you can without pulling stupid, costly stunts like this.

Again, the budget deal that McConnell worked out is far better than most budget deals that we've seen over the last 40 years.

 

[007]

God bless Paul for having the courage to stand up to fiscally irresponsibility.

Tell that to the thousands of federal contractors who are gonna lose one or more days of pay, after having already lost one day's pay less than a month ago.

Paul knows this stunt has no chance of changing anything. It's just infuriating people on both sides of the fence.

When you have divided government, you do the best you can without pulling stupid, costly stunts like this.

Again, the budget deal that McConnell worked out is far better than most budget deals that we've seen over the last 40 years.

No one should ever be HAPPY about gross deficit spending.

You LIKE seeing the debt go up?

 

[mikegriffith1]

By limiting spending hikes to less than 5% per year, we stand a decent chance of making a huge dent in the deficit if the economy takes off like we have reason to think it will. Clinton allowed modest spending hikes and still balanced the budget because economic growth was strong enough that it made up for the modest spending hikes. Clinton held spending to its smallest increase since Ike and Kennedy.

OF COURSE, "no one should be happy" about operating in the red, but we don't have a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. So we have to do the best we can, and holding spending to a sub-10% increase over two years is not bad at all.

 

[007]

"BALANCED BUDGET"... yeah that sounds good, but you realise how long it's been since we saw anything like that?

I have no hopes we'll ever see that again. I don't think our government has any intention of ever paying down the debt, and the interest rate is killing us.

Trump better be careful or it'll crash on his watch. The one thing we can hope for IS the economy taking off, but then we'd need fiscal conservatives to actually PAY DOWN THE DEBT.

Do you really think that will ever happen?

I don't.