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

[Brain357]

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.

So he is suggesting we do what a country deeply in debt should do. And that is bad?

 

[Brain357]

“The reason I’m here tonight is to put people on the spot,” Mr. Paul said. “I want people to feel uncomfortable. I want them to have to answer people at home who said, ‘How come you were against President Obama’s deficits and then how come you’re for Republican deficits?’”

That sounds about right to me. Republicans have been claiming to be fiscally responsible.

 

[TNHarley]

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.

Low standards..

 

[debbiedowner]

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.

For once I agree with you, wtf it's very rare there is a bipartisan agreement and now he holds it up.

 

[mikegriffith1]

So he is suggesting we do what a country deeply in debt should do. And that is bad?

Oh, please. Let's get real and grow up, shall we? Shutting down the government so you can give a long speech about federal waste is a senseless, costly stunt that's gonna cost tens of thousands of federal contractors chunks of their paychecks that they won't get back. This stunt will also enable the Dems to blame the Republicans for a truly needless shutdown.

The REALITY is that we do not have a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate and that we have one or two RINOs in the Senate as well. Given that REALITY, McConnell did very well to get a two-year budget deal that holds spending to one of the three smallest increases for a two-year period in the last 40 years.

 

[Brain357]

So he is suggesting we do what a country deeply in debt should do. And that is bad?

Oh, please. Let's get real and grow up, shall we? Shutting down the government so you can give a long speech about federal waste is a senseless, costly stunt that's gonna cost tens of thousands of federal contractors chunks of their paychecks that they won't get back. This stunt will also enable the Dems to blame the Republicans for a truly needless shutdown.

The REALITY is that we do not have a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate and that we have one or two RINOs in the Senate as well. Given that REALITY, McConnell did very well to get a two-year budget deal that holds spending to one of the three smallest increases for a two-year period in the last 40 years.

Deeply in debt and they are increasing spending. You certainly are not fiscally responsible. The economy is doing well, now is the time to pay down debt, not add to it.

 

[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% 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.

For once I agree with you, wtf it's very rare there is a bipartisan agreement and now he holds it up.

Being bipartisan doesnt mean it was good. Do you support internment camps or unjustified wars?

 

[Brain357]

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.

For once I agree with you, wtf it's very rare there is a bipartisan agreement and now he holds it up.

Being bipartisan doesnt mean it was good. Do you support internment camps or unjustified wars?

It should be a bipartisan deal where they are fighting for smaller cuts in spending, not the most increased spending.

 

[mikegriffith1]

Being bipartisan doesnt mean it was good.

So what's your alternative? Humm? What's your rational, realistic alternative given that we have 49 Dems in the Senate and one or two RINOs in the Senate who will vote against even the most modest of spending cuts? Tell me.

And the liberals in this thread are being their usual dishonest selves by cheering Paul for pointing out GOP "hypocrisy" on spending when the Republicans would be cutting spending if the Democrats would not filibuster every attempt at spending cuts and/or if the Republicans had 60 reliable votes to break any filibuster. Dems are the ones driving up the spending, and Repubs are just trying to keep the spending hikes as small as possible.

 

[Brain357]

Being bipartisan doesnt mean it was good.

So what's your alternative? Humm? What's your rational, realistic alternative given that we have 49 Dems in the Senate and one or two RINOs in the Senate who will vote against even the most modest of spending cuts? Tell me.

And the liberals in this thread are being their usual dishonest selves by cheering Paul for pointing out GOP "hypocrisy" on spending when the Republicans would be cutting spending if the Democrats would not filibuster every attempt at spending cuts and/or if the Republicans had 60 reliable votes to break any filibuster. Dems are the ones driving up the spending, and Repubs are just trying to keep the spending hikes as small as possible.

There could be 80 Republicans and they wouldn't be cutting spending. It would just mean more military spending. What world do you live in?

 

[Flash]

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.

So he suppose to be a chcickenshit and give into big government? That is how countries get fucked up.

 

[Flash]

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.

Clinton transferred money and continued with big spending. It was a gigantic shell game, even involving stealing from the Social Security trust fund.. Even so at the end of his eight years the cumulative debt rose.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

No more pay or campaign funding for Congress if we overspend. Constitutional amendment. Do it now.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

The GOP is a worthless, dog-shit party full of big-spending asswipes.

Dr. Paul is the ONLY Pub worth half a shit.

We need about 75 libertarians in the senate.

Everyone vote LP from now on, regardless of outcome!!! Fuck the duopoly!

 

[ScienceRocks]

If liberterians had their way America would be one of the poorest and most backwards nations on earth. I am dead serious.

It would be a complete cluster fuck.

 

[ScienceRocks]

I'd vote for a anti-male feminist **** before I'd ever vote liberterianism...

That is how bad it is.

 

[mikegriffith1]

There could be 80 Republicans and they wouldn't be cutting spending. It would just mean more military spending. What world do you live in?

This is wing-nut nonsense. The Republican-led sequester held federal spending to virtually zero growth from 2013 through 2016. Federal spending from 2013-2016:

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

Spending rose by only $400 billion over three years, an increase of barely 1%, and the military saw its projected spending hikes reduced to almost zero. That spending restraint, which Obama fought tooth and nail, was the main reason that the deficit dropped so substantially during those years.

And, in response to some replies by Senator Paul's defenders, I would say that Senator Paul could have made his point and still left enough time for the CR to get passed and signed to avoid a shutdown. But, instead, he chose to force the Senate to miss the funding deadline and thus to force a shutdown.

Is Senator Paul going to reimburse the tens of thousands of federal contractors for lost pay if the government can't reopen by tomorrow morning? How about those contractors who were supposed to work a graveyard shift tonight but who are now unable to go to work because Senator Paul forced a shutdown? I'd like to get him in a room with the wives and children of the contractors who will lose pay because of his foolish stunt. I just hope that the CR can get passed and signed in time for the government to open by 8:00 or 9:00 AM at the latest.

 

[PredFan]

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

That's never been a part of the GOP, that's why the Tea Party rose out of it.

 

[PredFan]

I am a Fiscal Conservative and I agree with Rand Paul. You can say shit about him all you want to but what Congress is doing IS NOT GOVERNING. At least not governing in a responsible manner. Rand Paul is attempting to govern in a responsible manner.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]