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

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

....bitches.

Fuckin'.....

BOOOM!!!!

Motherfuckers!!!

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

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.

I like Dr. Paul....except one big huge flaw.....

Dude went to fucking Baylor!!!


Fuck Baylor!

Sucks to BU, Baylor.

 

[grbb]

Remind me why we need bigger governments again? Looks like Donald is doing something right again and again.

I still don't like his idea of withdrawing from global trade and limiting immigration.

That being said, that may be justified by Chinese violating copyright law. Also limiting immigration is a "reasonably fair" way to reward Americans for producing a relatively better government than say, North Korea.

 

[mikegriffith1]

Look, Senator Paul could have made his point by holding up the vote for three or four hours to still leave just enough time to get the funding bill passed and signed so that federal workers and contractors could go to work this morning.

The all-or-nothing, purely ideological, reality-devoid replies from Paul's defenders show exactly why libertarians can't govern and can't win national elections. You guys refuse to acknowledge that the Republicans held spending to virtually zero growth, barely 1% growth, from 2013-2016 and that the McConnell-Schumer bill would give us one of the three smallest spending hikes for a two-year period in the last 40 years (and that's assuming a $400-billion spending hike over two years, whereas most sources put the amount at $300 billion, in which case the rate of increase would be around only 3.4% per year). No, it's all or nothing with you people.

I feel especially for the federal contractors who do low-paid jobs like cleaning and food preparation. Missing even a few hours of pay is a big deal to them and causes real pain. But, oh well, tough luck for them: Senator Paul had to make his point.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Got to love it when the "conservatives" whine and cry because they are not being allowed to add enough to the national debt.

 

[mikegriffith1]

Got to love it when the "conservatives" whine and cry because they are not being allowed to add enough to the national debt.

Now that's a truly juvenile reply that is to typical of unrealistic hardliners. Do I wish there were a zero increase in spending, if not some cuts? Certainly. But I'll ask you and your fellows again to tell me how you do that with 49 Democrats in the Senate and one or two RINOs in the Senate. How do you do that?

If you can't get 60 votes on a spending freeze, much less spending cuts, they will never happen in this Congress, not until there are more conservative Republicans in the Senate, and there won't be more Republicans in the Senate if they repeatedly shut down the government over spending. If anything, Paul's stunt has caused many people to view fiscal hawks in a very negative manner.

I'll say it again: McConnell did very well to get the deal that he got. It protects a slew of tax breaks. It holds the domestic spending hike well below the military spending hike. It includes $20 billion for infrastructure spending, which usually largely pays for itself over time. It also locks in spending for two years at a rate of increase of between around 3.7% to 4.7%, depending on whose figures you use. That's not the end of the world by any stretch. Reagan hiked spending by about 6.8% per year. Bush Jr. hiked spending by about 7.7% per year. So at least we're trending downward in spending-increase percentage.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Paul is correct though. Rs bashed O repeatedly over spending increases and here they are....doing it themselves.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Got to love it when the "conservatives" whine and cry because they are not being allowed to add enough to the national debt.

Now that's a truly juvenile reply that is to typical of unrealistic hardliners. Do I wish there were a zero increase in spending, if not some cuts? Certainly. But I'll ask you and your fellows again to tell me how you do that with 49 Democrats in the Senate and one or two RINOs in the Senate. How do you do that?

If you can't get 60 votes on a spending freeze, much less spending cuts, they will never happen in this Congress, not until there are more conservative Republicans in the Senate, and there won't be more Republicans in the Senate if they repeatedly shut down the government over spending. If anything, Paul's stunt has caused many people to view fiscal hawks in a very negative manner.

I'll say it again: McConnell did very well to get the deal that he got. It protects a slew of tax breaks. It holds the domestic spending hike well below the military spending hike. It includes $20 billion for infrastructure spending, which usually largely pays for itself over time. It also locks in spending for two years at a rate of increase of between around 3.7% to 4.7%, depending on whose figures you use. That's not the end of the world by any stretch. Reagan hiked spending by about 6.8% per year. Bush Jr. hiked spending by about 7.7% per year. So at least we're trending downward in spending-increase percentage.

The point you are missing is that the Repubs do not give a shit about debt or deficits, and have not since the days of Calvin Coolidge.

The only thing that matters when it comes to debt or deficits is who is sitting in the White House. For 8 years under Bush II we were told by Repubs that deficits don't matter, then for 8 years under Obama deficits were the end of the world, and now they do not matter again.

For 8 years under Bush II we were told by Dems that deficits were the end of the world, then for 8 years under Obama deficits did not matter, and now they are the end of the world again.

And we can play this same game going back to Reagan if you wanted to.

Bottom line is that neither party give a shit about debt or deficits, the only real difference is the argument over what to spend even more money on.

 

[NightFox]

This is why libertarians can't govern.

Libertarians can't "govern" because we don't want to "govern", we know what's best for ourselves not what's best for everyone else, that's up to each individual to decide, not to mention forcing peaceful people to do things against their will under threat of government initiated violence violates the non-aggression principle.

"People say being left alone isn't a governing principle, to which I say, yeah we know that's why we like it" -- Thomas E. Woods

 

[NightFox]

I like Dr. Paul....except one big huge flaw.....

Dude went to fucking Baylor!!!


Fuck Baylor!

Sucks to BU, Baylor.

Well in Rand's defense, he did end up dropping out of Baylor and going to Ron's alma mater Duke.

 

[TNHarley]

I think the OP would have a point if the republicans have tried to do something different. But they havent. Republicans love maxing out credit cards. Have for a while now.
That argument is based on NOTHING.

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

If you think about it.....

Mike Griffith argues that we should embrace & celebrate bank robbers that take less $$$ than the last bank robber to visit the bank.

Uh, it's still wrong.....

 

[NightFox]

I think the OP would have a point if the republicans have tried to do something different. But they havent. Republicans love maxing out credit cards. Have for a while now.
That argument is based on NOTHING.

The OP has no point, he's holding up Rand Paul as an example of "why libertarians can't govern", the problem is Rand Paul isn't a libertarian and doesn't self identify as one (he calls himself a "constitutional conservative"), just because he occasionally takes positions and mouths some platitudes that many libertarians agree with doesn't mean he represents our philosophy or values.

"Even a stopped clock is right twice a day." -- Marie von Ebner-Eschenbach

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

I think the OP would have a point if the republicans have tried to do something different. But they havent. Republicans love maxing out credit cards. Have for a while now.
That argument is based on NOTHING.

Republicans? Just Republicans? Maybe you should say "Washington".....

 

[TNHarley]

I think the OP would have a point if the republicans have tried to do something different. But they havent. Republicans love maxing out credit cards. Have for a while now.
That argument is based on NOTHING.

Republicans? Just Republicans? Maybe you should say "Washington".....

This is a bedwetting thread making the republicans look like victims. No, i will stick with republicans on this one.
BTW, of course its all of Washington.

 

[imawhosure]

Got to love it when the "conservatives" whine and cry because they are not being allowed to add enough to the national debt.

Now that's a truly juvenile reply that is to typical of unrealistic hardliners. Do I wish there were a zero increase in spending, if not some cuts? Certainly. But I'll ask you and your fellows again to tell me how you do that with 49 Democrats in the Senate and one or two RINOs in the Senate. How do you do that?

If you can't get 60 votes on a spending freeze, much less spending cuts, they will never happen in this Congress, not until there are more conservative Republicans in the Senate, and there won't be more Republicans in the Senate if they repeatedly shut down the government over spending. If anything, Paul's stunt has caused many people to view fiscal hawks in a very negative manner.

I'll say it again: McConnell did very well to get the deal that he got. It protects a slew of tax breaks. It holds the domestic spending hike well below the military spending hike. It includes $20 billion for infrastructure spending, which usually largely pays for itself over time. It also locks in spending for two years at a rate of increase of between around 3.7% to 4.7%, depending on whose figures you use. That's not the end of the world by any stretch. Reagan hiked spending by about 6.8% per year. Bush Jr. hiked spending by about 7.7% per year. So at least we're trending downward in spending-increase percentage.

Got to love it when the "conservatives" whine and cry because they are not being allowed to add enough to the national debt.

Now that's a truly juvenile reply that is to typical of unrealistic hardliners. Do I wish there were a zero increase in spending, if not some cuts? Certainly. But I'll ask you and your fellows again to tell me how you do that with 49 Democrats in the Senate and one or two RINOs in the Senate. How do you do that?

If you can't get 60 votes on a spending freeze, much less spending cuts, they will never happen in this Congress, not until there are more conservative Republicans in the Senate, and there won't be more Republicans in the Senate if they repeatedly shut down the government over spending. If anything, Paul's stunt has caused many people to view fiscal hawks in a very negative manner.

I'll say it again: McConnell did very well to get the deal that he got. It protects a slew of tax breaks. It holds the domestic spending hike well below the military spending hike. It includes $20 billion for infrastructure spending, which usually largely pays for itself over time. It also locks in spending for two years at a rate of increase of between around 3.7% to 4.7%, depending on whose figures you use. That's not the end of the world by any stretch. Reagan hiked spending by about 6.8% per year. Bush Jr. hiked spending by about 7.7% per year. So at least we're trending downward in spending-increase percentage.

The point you are missing is that the Repubs do not give a shit about debt or deficits, and have not since the days of Calvin Coolidge.

The only thing that matters when it comes to debt or deficits is who is sitting in the White House. For 8 years under Bush II we were told by Repubs that deficits don't matter, then for 8 years under Obama deficits were the end of the world, and now they do not matter again.

For 8 years under Bush II we were told by Dems that deficits were the end of the world, then for 8 years under Obama deficits did not matter, and now they are the end of the world again.

And we can play this same game going back to Reagan if you wanted to.

Bottom line is that neither party give a shit about debt or deficits, the only real difference is the argument over what to spend even more money on.

I have to go along with Mike on this one. I too would rather have a freeze, but unless you have the 60 votes, how are you going to do it?

Lets make a deal------------->

You Democrats on here find us 15 votes from your side for a freeze, and we will supply 45 from our side! That is more than fair.

I don't honestly know if we could muster 45, but I do know you couldn't muster 15, lol.

And so, if the Democrats are actually for this, we have to change the senate. We must all vote conservative or libertarian, not rino, or Democrat. I say, lets do it! Midterms are coming. Put your vote where your mouth is!

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Some of you people claiming libertarians can't govern need to read TNHarley's sig line, particularly this part:

My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government
- Thomas Jefferson

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Got to love it when the "conservatives" whine and cry because they are not being allowed to add enough to the national debt.

Now that's a truly juvenile reply that is to typical of unrealistic hardliners. Do I wish there were a zero increase in spending, if not some cuts? Certainly. But I'll ask you and your fellows again to tell me how you do that with 49 Democrats in the Senate and one or two RINOs in the Senate. How do you do that?

If you can't get 60 votes on a spending freeze, much less spending cuts, they will never happen in this Congress, not until there are more conservative Republicans in the Senate, and there won't be more Republicans in the Senate if they repeatedly shut down the government over spending. If anything, Paul's stunt has caused many people to view fiscal hawks in a very negative manner.

I'll say it again: McConnell did very well to get the deal that he got. It protects a slew of tax breaks. It holds the domestic spending hike well below the military spending hike. It includes $20 billion for infrastructure spending, which usually largely pays for itself over time. It also locks in spending for two years at a rate of increase of between around 3.7% to 4.7%, depending on whose figures you use. That's not the end of the world by any stretch. Reagan hiked spending by about 6.8% per year. Bush Jr. hiked spending by about 7.7% per year. So at least we're trending downward in spending-increase percentage.

Got to love it when the "conservatives" whine and cry because they are not being allowed to add enough to the national debt.

Now that's a truly juvenile reply that is to typical of unrealistic hardliners. Do I wish there were a zero increase in spending, if not some cuts? Certainly. But I'll ask you and your fellows again to tell me how you do that with 49 Democrats in the Senate and one or two RINOs in the Senate. How do you do that?

If you can't get 60 votes on a spending freeze, much less spending cuts, they will never happen in this Congress, not until there are more conservative Republicans in the Senate, and there won't be more Republicans in the Senate if they repeatedly shut down the government over spending. If anything, Paul's stunt has caused many people to view fiscal hawks in a very negative manner.

I'll say it again: McConnell did very well to get the deal that he got. It protects a slew of tax breaks. It holds the domestic spending hike well below the military spending hike. It includes $20 billion for infrastructure spending, which usually largely pays for itself over time. It also locks in spending for two years at a rate of increase of between around 3.7% to 4.7%, depending on whose figures you use. That's not the end of the world by any stretch. Reagan hiked spending by about 6.8% per year. Bush Jr. hiked spending by about 7.7% per year. So at least we're trending downward in spending-increase percentage.

The point you are missing is that the Repubs do not give a shit about debt or deficits, and have not since the days of Calvin Coolidge.

The only thing that matters when it comes to debt or deficits is who is sitting in the White House. For 8 years under Bush II we were told by Repubs that deficits don't matter, then for 8 years under Obama deficits were the end of the world, and now they do not matter again.

For 8 years under Bush II we were told by Dems that deficits were the end of the world, then for 8 years under Obama deficits did not matter, and now they are the end of the world again.

And we can play this same game going back to Reagan if you wanted to.

Bottom line is that neither party give a shit about debt or deficits, the only real difference is the argument over what to spend even more money on.

I have to go along with Mike on this one. I too would rather have a freeze, but unless you have the 60 votes, how are you going to do it?

Lets make a deal------------->

You Democrats on here find us 15 votes from your side for a freeze, and we will supply 45 from our side! That is more than fair.

I don't honestly know if we could muster 45, but I do know you couldn't muster 15, lol.

And so, if the Democrats are actually for this, we have to change the senate. We must all vote conservative or libertarian, not rino, or Democrat. I say, lets do it! Midterms are coming. Put your vote where your mouth is!

A thread from Mike...National Debt Under Trump vs. Other Modern Presidents

It is interesting that if one goes back 50 years (so modern political history) the party known as spenders has added a total of 156% to the debt, while the "conservative" party has added 422%.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

"That government is best which governs least, because its people discipline themselves."
-- attributed to Thomas Jefferson or deemed a Jeffersonian maxim by several 19th certury writers.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

You people seem very scared of libertarians. All it took was one libertarian to get elected and the MSM hits that guy harder than they hit Trump.