Reason.tv: 3 Reasons This Election Didn't Change a Thing!

There's no question that the Republicans painted the map red during the 2010 midterm elections, picking up control of the House of Representatives, gaining share in the Senate, and picking up a good chunk of statehouses seemingly all over the place.

The Republicans won big due to huge voter displeasure with the state of the economy, President Obama's policies of the past two years, and (especially) the Democrat-controlled Congress. But does the shift in power matter? Here's three reasons the GOP wave won't change a goddamn thing:

1. We're still on the fast track to the poor house. When the GOP ran the show with George W. Bush, they spent like drunken sailors (apologies to drunken sailors). Things have only gotten worse since 2008 but the GOP's much-ballyhooed (at least by themselves) Pledge to America only pledges to spend the least bit less than the Dems.

Click on the image to get more details compiled by Mercatus Center analysts Veronique de Rugy (also a Reason columnist) and Jakina Debnam. The Pledge conspicuously exempted defense and entitlements from spending cuts, thereby taking more than 60 percent of outlays off the table and making it impossible to seriously cut spending. Triumphant GOP spokespeople sounded the same message on Election Day, generally refusing to offer up specifics about spending cuts.

2. Nobody's talking about foreign policy and ending the warfare state. In constant dollars, defense spending has basically doubled since 2000 and is projected to stay at levels hundreds of billions of dollars above what it was before the Cold War ended. Perhaps more important, neither President Obama nor his party's leadership has even begun a meaningful conversation about foreign policy. The same goes for the Republicans, who constantly exempt defense spending, one of the very largest annual items in the federal budget, from serious scrutiny, much less significant cuts. President Obama is following George W. Bush's painfully slow withdrawal plan from Iraq and has tripled down in Afghanistan without clarifying U.S. goals and leaving lots of wiggle room when it comes to supposed deadlines for leaving. The only folks more hellbent on maintaining an unexamined status quo than the president are the Republicans.

3. The only people worse than liberals on social issues are conservatives. President Obama and the Democrats spent more time hectoring Americans to eat our vegetables than they did repealing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," pushing immigration reform, or ending drug prohibition. But don't look for the new crew in D.C. or your state capitol to push social tolerance anytime soon. If anything - and despite all the limited-government rhetoric - they'll be even worse when it comes to expanding individual autonomy and increasing lifestyle choice.

The one up side to the midterms? Only that we don't have to worry about another election for two woefully short years.

"3 Reasons This Election Didn't Change a Thing!" is written and produced by Meredith Bragg and Nick Gillespie (who also hosts).

Go to Reason.tv for downloadable versions of our videos and subscribe to Reason.tv's YouTube channel to receive automatic notification when new material goes live.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Cheech and Chong||

    Hey man you didn't talk about drugs until the last segment. Get your priorities straight!

  • ||

    No legal marijuana in Calif.! Did you see Ben Quayle won? God bless America.

  • Realist||

    We are going to hear these fucking dopers crying about Prop. 19's defeat for ever. I am for the legalization of all drugs, because I think what you do to yourself is your business. Legalization of dope is so far down the list of IMPORTANT issues it doesn't matter. In fact I hope you losers overdose. As far as open borders....fuck you! That does effect me. If the dick heads on this board are indicative of libertarians you will never matter!

  • TheREALrealist||

    ARFARFARFARFARFARFARF!!!!

  • Realist||

    If you were real you would know to capitalize.

  • V||

    No Prop 19 and Steve Cooley, Bye Bye dispensaries!

  • ||

    Like.

  • Tman||

    So the three reasons libertarians are upset about this elections are:

    1.)Fiscal conservatism remains a pipe dream in terms of our entitlement and budgetary problems.

    2.) Americans still think we are at war.

    3.) Ignoring the fact that liberals are just as bad on social issues as conservatives?

    There's pessimism, but this is ridiculous.

    Stop pooping on the American people. We have our faults and fits and starts. But if you want people to believe in preserving the rights of the individual, you should be praising the accomplishments, not dwelling on the negatives.

  • Law Student||

    It is not pessimism, it is reality.

  • Tman||

    So it's reality that things aren't the way we might like them to be?

    Look Law Student, I'm not happy that social conservatives still prevent people from realizing that liberalism is a failed ideology. But to be upset because this isn't happening fast enough isn't a good enough reason to ignore the fact that libertarian ideals are now a part of the conversation thanks to things like the Tea Party and Obama's failures.

    You say half empty, I say the glass is too big to worry about, at least there's some booze left.

  • realist||

    Can't be much longer until we can put this Tea Party = Libertarian pipe dream to bed. . . . what a crock. That notion is about as sad as when I used to imagine Clinton was going to scale back the War on Drugs.

  • Tman||

    Can't be much longer until we can put this Tea Party = Libertarian pipe dream to bed.

    Yeah, what a tragedy that grass-root rallies are pushing books like Road to Serfdom in to the Amazon top ten. Seriously, let's take a big fat dump all over that.

    Makes sense.

    That notion is about as sad as when I used to imagine Clinton was going to scale back the War on Drugs.

    So after Filburn and Raich you are still stupid enough to believe that liberals care about individual liberty?

    It's not my fault that you aren't paying attention.

  • realist||

    Making old books popular is not what I look for in libertarians. (perhaps you thought I meant librarians?) I was thinking maybe libertarians meant something along the lines of "give a shit about liberty". Glen Beck promotes a lot of old books too, and I'll even give him credit for that, but it doesn't make him a friend of liberty.

    "used to" is past tense. . . and I described that view as "sad" . . . I was a fool back then, confusing my wishes for political reality, much as you are now, thinking Tea Party candidates give a shit about civil liberties. I haven't seen much that distinguishes the TP from republicans who talk big about cutting goverment except when it comes to actually, you know, cutting government. If entitlements and defense are off the table, excuse me while I call bullshit.

    Raich came down during the Bush administration, from a Supreme Court that can hardly be described as liberal. Filburn came down about when Hayek's book was topical. So why you think either even relates to my admission of Clinton-era naivete is beyond me.

  • Tman||

    I was thinking maybe libertarians meant something along the lines of "give a shit about liberty"

    Me too!

    Glen Beck promotes a lot of old books too, and I'll even give him credit for that, but it doesn't make him a friend of liberty.

    Wait, why not? He singlehandedly re-introduces one of the best defenses of personal liberty of all time in to the public domain, yet he's not a friend of liberty?

    I was a fool back then, confusing my wishes for political reality, much as you are now, thinking Tea Party candidates give a shit about civil liberties.

    I'll agree that I'm disappointed that they aren't as libertarian as I'd like them to be, but are any other parties even talking about it?

    I haven't seen much that distinguishes the TP from republicans who talk big about cutting goverment except when it comes to actually, you know, cutting government.

    This remains to be seen. The Tea Party hasn't had a "candidate" yet. But they sure as hell got some people fired.

    If entitlements and defense are off the table, excuse me while I call bullshit.

    I'm not sure they are, but no excuses needed. I agree.

    Raich came down during the Bush administration, from a Supreme Court that can hardly be described as liberal.

    How many liberal dissents in that decision?

    Filburn came down about when Hayek's book was topical.

    And so.........

    So why you think either even relates to my admission of Clinton-era naivete is beyond me.

    Yeah, I shouldn't assume your own personal timeline, I apologize, that was uncalled for.

    I'm just looking at the outcomes. Constitutionally, conservatives seem to lean more towards protecting personal liberty than liberals.

  • Psychic Octopus||

    TP current candidates (and now some of them elected), you are right - they are not too different from average Republicans.

    But we haven't seen if the grassroots will become a force for change instead of a one-election wonder. If they do, then the kind of reads they are reading might mean business is no longer as usual.

    But it's really too early to tell either way - both over-optimism that they mean a libertarian takeover of the GOP and over-pessimism that they mean the same GOP but giving libertarianism a bad name are still unfounded.

  • ||

    Indeed. An historic tidal wave of revolt against deficit spending and intrusive government has swept over the country. Entrenched incumbents are toppled in a revolt against business as usual in DC. It's the biggest victory for anti-statism since 1994, and Nick's reaction is a gripe about all the things that won't happen immediately.

    This would be a great time to dust off some voter-acceptable smaller-government proposals and jump in front of the parade. Stifle yourself about legal drugs and open borders and the other things that spook the average voter, and get to work at least stopping the growth of government. In-your-face ideological purism is not going to help.

  • Law Student||

    "It's the biggest victory for anti-statism since 1994"

    Lowest, benchmark, ever.

  • ||

    We have to take what we can get and make the best of it.

  • ||

    No Papaya, Libertarians will bitch. The wrong culture won. IT is all about the Kulture war for some people.

  • Mister Paleo||

    Damn straight John. You done telled them uppity city slickers before. We TRUE AMERICANS are the ones gittin-r-done!!1!

    We don't have time for any of that faggity-ass city stuff like readin' books that ain't the KJV of the Bible, or travelin' more than 25 miles from our hometowns, or meetin' people who look different than us.

    Now that we gots some real folks in Congress we can work on finishin' up in Iraq and Afganistan, bringin' JESUS back to our schools and closin' our borders. The real stuff.

    REMEMBER THE ALAMO!!!!!! YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE-HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW!!!!!

    P.S. Papaya sounds like one of them thar forgin fruits.

  • ||

    Forgin? I believe you meant "Furrrn"

  • Mister Paleo||

    Forgin? I believe you meant "Furrrn"

    Maybe that's the way you pronounce it down in Mexico, but I speak English the way our Lord Jesus did.

    REMEMBER THE ALAMO!!!!YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE-HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW!!!!!

  • Cytotoxicc||

    Way to prove John's point.

  • ||

    We don't need no war on no kultcha mon.

  • Fluffy||

    Hey, dude, I didn't bitch.

    I would have been even happier if O'Donnell had won, too. And Angle. And Miller.

    And those are three people on the other side of the Kultur war from me.

    I was actually kind of pissed to see Angle lose.

    I'm not bitching, I'm laughing. Let the dice fly high, motherfuckers.

  • ||

    Yes, John. The wrong culture won. The culture that supports economic planning, destruction of our civil liberties, destruction of our currency and military adventurism. Lesser of two evils, probably. Cause for optimism, maybe. Cause for celebration, no.

  • ||

    Yes, John. The wrong culture won. The culture that supports economic planning, destruction of our civil liberties, destruction of our currency and military adventurism. Lesser of two evils, probably. Cause for optimism, maybe. Cause for celebration, no.

  • ||

    ""Libertarians will bitch.""

    I think more people will claim libertarians will bitch than acutal number of libertarians bitching.

  • Jordan||

    What accomplishments should we be praising?

  • Tman||

    46% for Prop 19.

    Rand Paul.

    Rubio. (I mean seriously, Crist?)

    Gridlock.

    Nancy Pelosi no longer four steps away from the presidency.

    There are others.

  • Rudan||

    There's nothing about Rand Paul worthy of praise except his father. He's not a libertarian and practically sprinted into the arms of the Palin wing.

  • ||

    Capitalism+anti-war+anti-patRIOT act= better than most. I have been a little pissed off at Rand Paul, but I think he will vote more to the up than he campaigned.

    BTW, can we start using up for libertarian like left and right, per the Nolan Chart?

  • Expat to Be||

    +1 for the up idea

    I think we can, once things start looking up a little more.

  • DJ Drugs||

    Instead of more to the up, we could just say higher.

    And of course, some wag would pun his way to a joke on our anti-prohibitionist sensibilities.

  • Fluffy||

    There's nothing to praise about a guy who says it's time to means-test Medicare?

    In a campaign where he's ahead, has no reason to say it, no up-side to saying it - but he says it anyway?

    You gots to learn to enjoy the little things in life.

  • Mr Whipple||

    Rubio? He's a douchbag. He wouldn't debate Alex Snitker, the real Libertarian candidate.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FXh-JFF5XPg

  • ||

    Why should he have? Snitker was destined to lose. The best Snitker could have hoped for was peeling enough libertarian-leaning Reps and actual libertarians off Rubio to let Crist win.

    Why legitimise that? When a third party has enough influence to actually win--instead of being nothing more than a spoiler for one of the two major parties, that's when they should be taken seriously.

  • Mr Whipple||

    Yes, that's right, we need to limit people's choices. That always works.

  • ||

    Well considering Crist only got 30% of the vote, an lost by around 20%, I think it shows that Snitker could have entered the race as a legitimate candidate.

    However, hindsight is 20/20, so I understand Rubio's motives prior to the election. I voted for Snitker and played him up to everyone I know; and that's the most that I could do.

  • BakedPenguin||

    Same here; our circle of friends is limited, generic, we couldn't even get 1% for the guy.

    Sad, too, because as Libertarian candidates go, he was pretty good - well spoken, knew enough to stay "on the reservation", intelligent.

  • André||

    The only thing I cared about was Prop 19. I figure "new boss/old boss" for the politicians. I'm waiting to see how Rand Paul works out, but at least he's better than the shitstain he replaced.

  • ||

    Bunning had his bad history, but I loved what he did in his last year in office. He used the filibuster like it was meant to be used, halting legislation so that it can actually be debated. I hope Rand Paul at least keeps that aspect of the KY Senate seat going.

  • Lone Wookie||

    "Libertarians" will always find the cloud behind the silver lining.

  • doctor k||

    +10 Lone Wookie...You nailed it...

  • ||

    Nick, the positive aspect of the gridlock is that partisanship, which is such a disgusting tribal action in all ways, will at least cause the GOP to resist the administration. I don't give a shit if they're doing it out of principle or out of TEAM RED TEAM BLUE; as long as it gets done.

  • Wind Rider||

    Nick is correct. The only winners tonight were the Republocrats. This was not a repudiation of the burgeoning nanny state, nor was it anything more than a very minor course correction. By the looks of things, many of even the most egregious characters have been happily returned to their positions of access to the levers of power. Reid, Pelosi, Frank, Waxman, Dingel, Leahy - and the list goes on.

    Today's events are but a minor speed bump, if even that. The only thing I have confidence in is the ability of the existing political class to completely fuck up coming and going.

  • Wind Rider||

    And by fuck up, I mean even a decent gridlock. The ijits on Team Red now in control of the House will try their damndest to make the people who will never, ever vote for them "like" them, and bend over backwards to the point of sticking their heads up their own asses to try and "appear" moderate and accommodating. They've gotten what they wanted from their red meat base, a return to the chance to ride the little subway thing under the Capitol, and use the elevators and steps marked for members only use. Back to business as fucking usual, which, in their minds, is to "do something". And sitting in their offices and playing solitaire, probably the best fucking thing they could do, ain't on the list of "things" to do.

  • ||

    I had no expectations other than a speed bump. Gridlock was the best we could hope for--and at least we got that. Let the TEAM RED and TEAM BLUE shitheads get at loggerheads with each other, play their little political games, and hopefully just slow down this train (wreck).

    It's Prop 19 that really chaps my ass.

  • Wind Rider||

    Bofus on that one, bubba.

  • BakedPenguin||

    It's Prop 19 that really chaps my ass.

    Fuckin' A. We have to put up with all this stupidity from California. They finally manage to propose something right, and then they fuck it up.

    Where's Lex Luthor when you need him?

  • Realist||

    "It's Prop 19 that really chaps my ass." Yeah, being able to be a loser legally is so important!

  • BakedPenguin||

    No one's coming to arrest you, troll.

  • Jason||

    It's Prop 19 that really chaps my ass.

    There's always 2012. There's always more turnout for presidential elections and the progressives will turn out to reelect Obama so maybe there's a better chance then. Especially if the Republicans misplay their cards the next 2 years and make 2012 a Democratic year.

    So... anyone know how to get a proposition on the ballot in CA?

  • SIV||

    The only people worse than liberals on social issues are conservatives.

    cite?

  • Rudan||

    Prop 18 lost because of conservatives. Liberals voted for it by only a slim majority, so it's not that they're better on social issues as much as conservatives are worse.

  • ||

    What's Prop 18?

  • SIV||

    What those Cali stoners voted for instead of Prop 19.

  • Jason||

    Water bond: "Safe, Clean, and Reliable Drinking Water Supply Act of 2010"

    The vote on the bond has been postpone until 2012.

  • Sudden||

    And the Log Cabin Pubs and former Bush SOlicitor General are the ones working on repeal of don't ask don't tell.

  • Anonymous||

    What about delicious gridlock, Nick?

  • SIV||

    I'm totally disappointed with this election. No "wave" against statism is a bad sign. Other than gridlock, the only upside I can see is less chance for TARP II and state bailouts.

  • ||

    ""the only upside I can see is less chance for TARP II and state bailouts.""

    I wouldn't bet on it. TARP was somewhat bi-partisan. And now that many Rs took governorships, the federal Rs may throw them a bone.

  • Psychic Octopus||

    It was bipartisan with many R's that lost in 2008 and in the primaries this year. Of course it can still happen again. But maybe, just maybe, the mood has changed far enough to prevent that.

  • ||

    ""But maybe, just maybe, the mood has changed far enough to prevent that.""

    That would be nice.

  • qwerty||

    OMG, Reason's writers are unbelievable. Anyone who doesn't think this isn't a net plus for freedom is willingly blind. It's celebration time!

  • ||

    Conservatives are MUCH worse on social issues.

    This was well written and beautifully to the point.

    With any luck, the gridlock will be so bad the Bush tax cuts will expire and they will fail to roll back the Medicare pay cuts to doctors. That would be the best thing that could happen to reduce the deficit.

  • ||

    Oh hey look, stupid pessimism and more moronic anti-QE nonsense.

    The GOP isn't perfect, but they're a helluva lot better than the Democrats. With the Republicans you at least know they're not going to try to ban incandescent fucking lightbulbs. And the pending trade deals with SK, Columbia and Panama will finally get passed.

  • Fatty Bolger||

    With the Republicans you at least know they're not going to try to ban incandescent fucking lightbulbs

    I wish that was true. It isn't. Look it up.

  • Expat to Be||

    Yep, and they'll especially ban the fucking with incandescent light bulbs in the room.

  • Hate Potion Number Nine||

    "The only people worse than liberals on social issues are conservatives"

    YES!! Thank you Reason! Reasonoids please keep re-reading that statement. Remember: It's not the evil libruls that write laws monitoring how many sex toys you have or who you're sleeping with. Or pushing media censorship.

    BTW, My prediction is that for all his libertarian-sounding blather you will, in the months to come, hear a boatload of SoCon nuttery from the office of Rand Paul. Will you call it for what it is or just play the partisan deafness game like everyone else?

  • Tman||

    HPNN,

    I have a question:

    Legalizing weed is a social issue, right?

    We would probably both agree that the interstate commerce clause has been dangerously subverted to the point that the Federal government could technically regulate "quilting bees and potluck suppers". And this is the legal framework the federal government relies on in order to regulate "controlled substances", right?

    So which SCOTUS judges will vote to overturn these dangerous precedents like Fillburn and Raich?

    Conservatives or liberals?

  • Hate Potion Number Nine||

    We would agree. I think we would agree that either side would love to have these powers to ride their respective hobby-horses.

    I don't know the cases to which you are referring (hey, who am I? Sarah Palin or something?) but my read is that, right or left, they won't touch them simply because they've been "settled" already.

    In the broader sense this is about the perception of Government and it's role in the lives of it's citizens. Blue/Red is a sideshow. As long as most people believe that "someone should do something" and that they shouldn't have to pay for it or make an effort themselves then the Big Government problem will get worse. It should be obvious by now that this is a now-deeply rooted attitude regardless of politics.

  • Tman||

    I think we would agree that either side would love to have these powers to ride their respective hobby-horses.

    Yes, fuck TEAMREDBLUE equally. I don't believe a word from either of them

    I don't know the cases to which you are referring

    Most people aren't either. I wasn't either until I spent a couple years here and at other blogs.

    If you feel like it, I save you the trouble-
    Gonzales v. Raich

    Wickard v. Filburn

    It's worth understanding these cases in the context of federal power versus the rights of the individual. One could argue they are incredibly pivotal cases from a libertarian standpoint.

    As long as most people believe that "someone should do something" and that they shouldn't have to pay for it or make an effort themselves then the Big Government problem will get worse.

    Which side promotes this more, left or right?

    It should be obvious by now that this is a now-deeply rooted attitude regardless of politics.

    I disagree that it's equally rooted on either side.

  • Psychic Octopus||

    I would say both sides promote this. Just that they promote it for different things, which sometimes makes them oppose each other (which is usually good). And I will add that when the left does it, it often has measurable consequences (economy!) that allow anyone to call them on it more easily, while when the right does it, it is hard to measure and consequences tend to remain anecdotal (eg, gay marriage). I lean conservative myself, but I will not make the mistake of thinking a conservative candidate will always be better ipso facto; precisely because of that.

  • Expat to Be||

    If things continue at the trend, it'll still be Thomas opposing them, but either dissenting or concurring, however he sees fit at the time. It's much the way most of us here oppose Team RED/Blue/PURPLE, though folks often try to rationalize out the lesser of the evils, as many are writing in these comments especially following elections like yesterday's.

  • ||

    Yeah except the Liberal party isn't on the ballot, the Democrats are. The GOP spews a lot of awful social issue rhetoric, the Democrats simply say nothing. In legislative practice they're pretty damn similar. Republicans are ardently opposed to same sex marriage. Many democrats are mostly opposed to it, and even the "most liberal senator" Obama only supports civil unions. There are constitutional issues too. Anyone who even has abortion on his radar when he goes to the ballot box is a moron. It doesn't matter how much a candidate thinks abortion is murder, he can't do shit to stop it because of SC rulings. How many Democrats supported the PATRIOT act? A shitload of them.

    Social issues don't really matter that much in the current electoral climate. Economic issues certainly do. The GOP is far better on those issues.

  • Wind Rider||

    So, an argument over whether it's better to have our statists telling us what we can have for dinner, or what we can do in the bedroom afterwards. Fucking brilliant.

  • David||

    Welcome to American politics, buddy. Drink heavily.

  • ||

    "Many democrats are mostly opposed to it, and even the "most liberal senator" Obama only supports civil unions."

    As did his predecessor in the White House.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    YES!! Thank you Reason! Reasonoids please keep re-reading that statement. Remember: It's not the evil libruls that write laws monitoring how many sex toys you have...

    So the party that wants to control what you can put inside of you (double-sided dongs, alcohol, marijuana) is better than the party than wants to control what you can put inside of you (transfats, MSG, soda, alochol, marijuana)?

  • ||

    That weird sex-toy law, that was a state law, and I can't recall which state--but Dems are often at the reins in state legislatures.

    But on culture issues I am at a loss as to how anyone could think that the left is better than the right--

    The left is opposed to freedom of speech.
    The left is opposed to the freedom to practice religion.
    The left is opposed to the right to bear arms.
    The left is opposed to bodily integrity rights.

    And the list could go on and on--as I've said before. The Right, in pursuit of office, often panders to their statist socon wing--but they rarely act on the liberty limiting things the socons want. The Left also panders--to it's liberty-loving wing....and then quietly limits liberty while shouting about how what they're doing expands 'freedom' or 'equality'.

  • ||

    Even so, as a state law, it is still Constitutional. That's why we say, let the states decide. Just because it's a crappy decision, as was outlawing gay marriage, that doesn't mean it wasn't within state's rights to pass such laws.

    My problem is with the overcompassing federal laws and mandates, such as the War on Drugs, Don't Ask Don't Tell, the Patriot Act, Obamacare. Those are things that are 100% unconstitutional, and no one is doing a damned thing to stop them.

  • ||

    I was talking about the sex-toy ban law. Any laws that suspend freedom of speech or other rights guaranteed by the constitution are obvious no brainers and shouldn't be upheld.

  • SFC B||

    While DADT is a bad policy, it's not unconstitutional.

  • CJ||

    Remember: It's not the evil libruls that write laws ... pushing media censorship.

    You sure about that?

  • SIV||

    Kitty out turning tricks for Auld Lang Syne
    “Someone came and told us she was soliciting votes for the Democratic Party, and I went out and went over [to the middle school], and as soon as she saw me, she said, ‘I’m leaving,’” Peraino said.

    Bitch is hittin' the Sterno again

  • alan||

    The best aspect of not being partisan is that every two years there is a new strain of tears to be captured and consumed that are not your own.

  • ||

    Yes indeed, my friend. Yes indeed. Partisan chagrin is like a fine wine, to be savored with some aged provolone.

  • alan||

    Cheers -- one last round to quaff and I think I'll call it a night.

  • Jen||

    I prefer to eat mine with some fava beans and a nice Chianti.

  • Law Student||

    Indeed. The silver lining to another depressing election day is going to class tomorrow. Though I doubt it will be as enjoyable as my freshman year when Bush beat Kerry and my physics professor threw a fit in class the next day.

  • Rudan||

    Bush beats Kerry were great times. The tears were flooding the college halls.

  • Fuck!||

    BTW, did you know John Kerry served in Vietnam?

    You must mention that any time you bring up his name, its kind of like Muslims saying "PBUH" after mentioning Mohamed.

  • Xenocles||

    The worst think about being libertarian is that you add your own tears every cycle.

  • affenkopf||

    On CNN Eric Cantor was asked to name on specific program the Republicans were going to cut. He couldn't.

    Elections don't change anything.

  • Sidd Finch||

    Do I think the reps will significantly cut spending? No.

    But it's goddamn retarded to expect anyone of any ideology to go into details on election day.

  • Fatty Bolger||

    Especially when they know anything they pass has to get by a President and Senate controlled by the other party.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    My answer would have been "every one of them", but liberals won't accept that as a valid answer.

  • ||

    Cantor said "spending will be brought to 2008 levels" - which implies most of the budgets will likely be cut.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Won't happen. Nice idea, though.

  • ||

    The Leftie News Networks didn't like the wave so tried to ask hard ball questions of the Republicans. By all means, but on election night? It was hilarious watching the Republicans smirk while they said their talking points and the leg tinglers could only sputter and thunder. It was like they wanted a 'do over' on the election.

  • ||

    Dammit nick - beat me to the punch.

    http://www.peacefreedomprosperity.com/?p=3776

  • ||

    I hate these statements like - "were sooo no partisan" we will even lie, too "When the GOP ran the show with George W. Bush, they spent like drunken sailors (apologies to drunken sailors)." That is bull@S. The budget was balanced. Then we in NYC were attacked by jihadists. That does increase a budget. War does. 2004-2006 Bush and his Republican congess cut the budget by 50% and only came in a LITTLE short -- and, we were STILL at work in two continents!! Then, the demon crats were elected, controlling congress and will that little deficit has since snowballed to THIS!! Watch who you are calling "drunken sailors" mister!

  • ||

    You're fun. Stick around so we can beat you mercilessly.

  • ||

    The deficit went down from 04 to 07. And it wasn't even a half of billion let along well over a trillion. It basically went up by a factor of four between 06 and 10 when the Democrats controlled Congress.

    I know those facts don't fit your narative. But they are what they are.

  • ||

    ""The deficit went down from 04 to 07.""

    Yeah, what about Bush's first term?

    You are aware that 06 is between 04 and 07. And that that Congress can't enact a budget without the President approval. So Bush gets credit for what he signed between 06 and 08.

  • ||

    And yet you don't even swing.

  • Psychic Octopus||

    And were the culprits of the attacks killed?

    If not, war wasn't a success. Period. Spending and US casualties aside.

  • ||

    I hate these statements like - "were sooo no partisan" we will even lie, too "When the GOP ran the show with George W. Bush, they spent like drunken sailors (apologies to drunken sailors)." That is bull@S. The budget was balanced. Then we in NYC were attacked by jihadists. That does increase a budget. War does. 2004-2006 Bush and his Republican congess cut the budget by 50% and only came in a LITTLE short -- and, we were STILL at WAR on two continents!! Then, the demon crats were elected, controlling congress and will that little deficit has since snowballed to THIS!! Watch who you are calling "drunken sailors" mister!

  • ||

    Then we in NYC were attacked by jihadists. That does increase a budget.

    I heard it only cost them $50k.

  • Queef Pump||

    Bush & Repubs cut the budget by 50%?

    I gotta see some evidence to back that up

  • Fuck!||

    Its kind of like when the wife goes on a shopping spree and brags about saving $500.00.

    Husband: but you fucking spent $2000.00!

  • hmm||

    You need more white board presentations. The Goldsbee bashing on youtube is awesome and the format should be spread about all political stupidity. Plus the UPS one was kool.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=04y35I-r3Xw

    The kid is a lil' annoying. OMG KIDS POLITICS OMG!
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FLF2CaxcMcE

  • Tman||

    Ok, the 6 year old bit got me. Good stuff.

    "Mr. President, it's called capitalism."

    Win.

  • ||

    This is only the first step. The work of citizenship is never done. Stay engaged. Libertarians are never going to win everything they want, because we all have the right to our say about the kind of society we want to live in. So throwing brickbats at conservatives just makes you sound like spoiled stoners.

    Conservatives and Libertarians need each other if they don't want to live under runaway big government. When house is burning, you don't sniff at where the water's coming from.

    When you split the votes on the right, you empower the left. If that's what you want, go for it. I've already come to terms with seeing my country going down the tubes because of our own stupidity. This society never was about absolute freedom. It's about independence, and you can't be independent and waste your life on drugs, or eat your seed corn or be a libertine.

    I think this little tantrum just shows what's wrong with libertarianism. It's not Reason; it's Arrested Development.

  • Banjos Kick Ass!||

    If politics is our end goal, then we are doomed from the start. You cannot change anything by playing a rigged game. The only way to make the world more free is to win in the battle field of ideas, not at the ballot box. The only thing I am excited about is that libertarian ideas are finally being openly talked about in the mainstream. THAT has been the big win in the last couple of years. I hope Reason keeps throwing brickbrats at conservatives, maybe it will wake them the fuck up.

  • ||

    Yes, libertarian ideas are being talked about in the mainstream--the Tea Party, Glenn Beck, and conservatives brought them up. You all sat here and whined about how you weren't 'right-wing'.

    How many LP candidates won last night?

  • Expat to Be||

    Not "right-wing" at all. I think we've established now that we're "up-wing".

    JT--just trying to make your "up" idea happen, let's get this rolling people...

  • Mr. FIFY||

    No LP candidates won that I know of so far, Az, but in Missouri a couple of state rep candidates got into the 20%+ range, which ain't too shabby.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    It's about independence, and you can't be independent and waste your life on drugs, or eat your seed corn or be a libertine.

    [Citation needed]

  • ||

    Ok you are right it will not change a thing...

    Still watching Matthews, Olbermann and Maddow stew in a room hating the world, hating each other and hating themselves made it all worth it.

  • Tman||

    I was at a friends house earlier and someone changed it to the MSNBC clownshow post election.

    They looked and sounded like a pile of rabid ferrets. Good times.

  • hmm||

    We shall name it Hateful Turd Stew.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    I was soooo hoping Ed Schultz would flake out on-air and get himself fired for good. A self-Sanchezing, if it were.

  • ||

    Losing Feingold hurt - he was literally the only senator to vote against the Patriot Act. He may have been wrong on campaign finance but Citizens United pulled his teeth. I honestly believe we lost the last politician who cared about international law and the human rights of anyone outside the US.

  • Mr Whipple||

    He was only one of two Senators that claimed to have actually read The Patriot Act before voting on it. Imagine that.

  • ||

    It was a meaningless symboling vote to make people like you feel better. When it counted, Feigngold was not your friend. Don't be such a cheap date.

  • Lone Wookie||

    How soon they forget McCain-Feingold.

  • ||

    I clearly did remember McCain-Feingold - but the law was dead. On civil liberties issues, Feingold was one of the best in the senate.

  • ||

    The only vote against the P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act.

  • ||

    This. It would have been nice/interesting to see Feingold on the left and Rand Paul on the right.

    The addition of Mike Lee certainly helps, but I'm surprised he's not getting more play here. Maybe I missed something about him, but I thought he ran as a fiscal conservative. Maybe it's just that he's from Utah and likely a Mormon sympathizer.

  • Ramsey||

    Better than we got from the rest of the shitstains.

  • ||

    I had given other reasons myself about a week ago why the shift in power in Congress would change nothing, but these three reasons are also right on.

  • ||

    All the same, the results, Republican takeover of the House and Democrats barely holding on to the Senate, are pretty much what I predicted. If the GOP House screws up half as bad as the Democratic one the Libertarians just might have a chance come 2012.

  • Chad||

    I think you guys are using a bit of trickery here. The Republicans have pledged to extend the Bush tax cuts, which would blow a huge hole in our revenues. Yet your graph indicate Republican plans would have almost no impact on revenue. Either you are not counting these tax count extensions, or baking them into the baseline. I am not sure which.

    Frankly, I hope the Democrats force the Republicans to eat their own hypocrisy by holding an absolute pay-go rule in the Senate, and threatening a veto from Obama, if something violating pay-go sneaks through.

    Let's see the Republicans actually propose the kinds of spending cuts that would be necessary to extend these tax cuts. They would be dead in 2012 if they ever did.

  • Ebeneezer Scrooge||

    And we all know the Democrats never use even the smallest bits of trickery, ever, about anything, at any time, for any reason.

    And they never jam clearly unpopular legislation through congress, against the majority will. Nope-nuh-uh-not-a, Democrats ain't goin' there man, not in this lifetime.

  • Chad||

    What a pathetic reply. You can't justify your dishonesty by simply claiming that someone somewhere was vaguely dishonest in some unspecified way.

  • Spoonman.||

    This is your big mistake, Chad. He's not "justifying dishonesty" because we don't try to "justify" anything TEAM RED! does. We aren't Republicans. He's pointing out that what you're accusing the Rs of is also done by your team. That realization is why we're here, because we're sick of TEAM RED TEAM BLUE.

  • Chad||

    Well, I've been posting on this site for years and still don't realize that you're not Republicans.

    I'm retarded.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    And yet, here you are, Chad... justifying your party's dishonesty and trickery. Pot, kettle, et cetera.

    Of course, you had to lead with "tax hikes on the evil rich will fix every problem known to mankind" mantra. Not a surprise coming from a committed wealth-envyist.

  • Peanut Gallery||

    Whereas you gave us great concrete examples of the dishonesty of the officials elected a whole 10 hours ago.

    Also, no way they can extend the tax cuts w/o major dem support

  • Peanut Gallery||

    Whereas you gave us great concrete examples of the dishonesty of the officials elected a whole 10 hours ago.

    Also, no way they can extend the tax cuts w/o major dem support

  • Chad||

    Tax hikes are always good. No one deserves to have more than anyone else. Suck it up.

  • ||

    Even if they earn that other money through putting themselves through extra school, or working their ass off in a company, or innovating and receiving financial recognition for it? Your ignorance knows no bounds.

  • ||

    The Republicans have pledged to extend the Bush tax cuts, which would blow a huge hole in our revenues

    [citation needed]

  • DanD||

    Careful what you wish for. He'll bust out some Alternet links on yo ass!

  • Tony||

    Tax cuts magically pay for themselves

    [Citation needed]

  • Tman||

    It's not your farking money. Tax "cuts" are simply the government confiscating LESS.

    [no citation needed]

  • Tony||

    Irrelevant semantic bullshit.

  • Tman||

    How is it irrelevant? It isn't "semantics" either. You act as if the government deserves however much money they want from taxpayers, and any tax "cut" is a cost like repairing a bridge.

    THIS IS NOT THE WAY IT SUPPOSED TO WORK.

  • Tony||

    Well the way reality works is that cutting revenue means cutting revenue, and that if taxes exist at all, sometimes they have to go up. You want to distract from this reality with irrelevant semantic bullshit.

  • Tman||

    the way reality works is that cutting revenue means cutting revenue,

    The way MY reality works is that if they cut spending, revenue will ACTUALLY GO UP.

    There is a distinct pattern throughout American history: When tax
    rates are reduced, the economy's growth rate improves and living
    standards increase. Conversely, periods of higher tax rates are
    associated with sub par economic performance and stagnant tax
    revenues.

    http://www.heritage.org/resear.....-tax-rates

    You want to distract from this reality with irrelevant semantic bullshit.

    Nothing I have stated is either irrelevant to the discussion at hand nor involved in semantics.

    You just think that the government has the right to confiscate however much revenue they need to increase the size of government. I argue that if they lowered taxes and cut spending we woud be in much better financial shape, and I have the added benefit of mathematical evidence to prove my point. You have irrelevant semantic bullshit to prove yours.

  • Tony||

    Try citing a reliable source and not the fucking heritage foundation. Jesus. Cutting spending won't do a damn thing to improve the economy when the problem with the economy is there is not enough demand!

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Cut spending. No need to raise taxes.

    Oh, wait, that isn't complex enough. I forgot how bureaucratic-minded schmucks from Team Red/Team Blue like to fuck up the works by MAKING things more complex than necessary.

  • Tony||

    Cut spending on what?

    Bonus points for political viability instead of utopian wishful thinking.

  • Yup||

    "...or ending drug prohibition"
    yeah, so how did that work in California? If California doesn't want to stop it, why would the US put that as a top priority?

  • Ebeneezer Scrooge||

    Because dammit, libertarians want it so bad. It's that important to them.

  • Ebeneezer Scrooge||

    Meanwhile, Gillespie plays the "sell more papers whatever way you can" game. Taking outrageous positions is a well proven technique.

    Next month he and Matt will be telling us that things are getting better and better all the time.

  • Mr Whipple||

    There is some good news. NH Free State Project supporters won at least 10 seats in the NH House.

  • Mr Whipple||

    From FSP early mover Mike Ruff in Manchester:

    To all my friends and acquaintances who are struggling for Freedom elsewhere, and see little progress:

    As many of you may be aware, I have long since become disillusioned with the political process, and prefer to do my pro-Freedom activism in the social and economic realm. That being said, and while I encourage people to do the same, I don’t denigrate the efforts of those principled activists who remain in the political front of the battle–I have said for years that the correct strategy for winning this fight is to push on multiple fronts simultaneously. Our opponents are unskilled and incompetent (which is why they resort to Gooferment for their employment), and are severely unbalanced when attempting to focus on more than one line of attack.

    So, in a blatant attempt to get you folks to move here to the Shire and actually see some more immediate and tangible results from your efforts, I am announcing the tactical victory of our “in-the-system” political folks: Before yesterday, there were 4 FSP Movers who had been elected to the NH State Legislature. Today, there are at least 12. Add to this the as yet undetermined number of for the most or at least some part fellow travelers who were endorsed by the NH Liberty Alliance–something on the order of 100 – 130 folks who were elected or re-elected. Sadly, our one mover State Rep who ran as a Democrat was not re-elected…But he is being replaced by a mover who ran as a Republican!

    And, I can’t let the opportunity pass to issue official props and kudos (they’re official because they’re mine, and I said so, and I’ll take anyone in best 3 out of 5 who dares to say different) to the “outside-the-system” activists. We Agorists and similar folks have been steadily growing the free market economy here in The Shire, and succeeding in our economic and social activism. There are a number of new “Porcupine Clubs” which have been established around the state–and these are actual clubhouses and businesses, rather than just debate and discussion groups. There is at least one Porcupine Ice Cream maker (and their products are delicious, and reasonably-priced as well), and we have the beginnings of some Porcupine food suppliers (looks like eggs and some meats right now, but raw milk and other items are soon to come). I’ve been hearing that there may soon be a Porcupine-owned limited service restaurant/gaming cafe in Manchester. To get my personal plug in, I continue to provide Mediation and Education services to the Porcupine Community–and I hear rumors that up state there may be another individual providing some mediation services!

    Oh–and there’s a soon-to-be-major supplier of adult education services: The Informal University! These folks are finishing out their first session providing extremely-reasonably-priced education in a number of subjects–check out their website at: http://informalu.org/

    We’ve got a few “pirate” radio stations in operation, quite a number of regular podcasts, and of course, our own Nationally Syndicated Radio Show, Free Talk Live!

    So get here now! I’m serious–drop that crap you’re doing where you are, pack up your shit, and move to The Free State! At least come visit, meet some of your over 1,000 comrades in the fight for Liberty who’ve already moved and started not just fighting, but actually winning! Come hang out with folks where your arguments will not be whether or not the government is evil, but over how fast we should be shutting it down and how we will do it!

    Do it now!

    Don’t make excuses!

    Mike Ruff

  • Joan of Argghh!||

    The worst of our New Depression is still to come. Not having a clear majority in the Senate will be a bit of a plus in the 2012 elections. They won't be able to pin the blame on the new GOP entirely. But rest assured the MSM is already honing that narrative.

  • Fatty Bolger||

    They'll want to call the Republicans obstructionist. I doubt that is going to fly when the House is passing bill after bill for Obama & the Senate to shoot down.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    If/when Dems lose total control/majority of power, they'll be The Party of No - but then, it will be okay to BE The Party of No, because it's only okay when Democrats do things.

  • ¢||

    If anything - and despite all the limited-government rhetoric - they'll be even worse when it comes to expanding individual autonomy and increasing lifestyle choice.

    Bullshit. TEAM RED!'s social-control type legal desires are unconstitutional, at least as federal law—and regularly found to be so. TEAM BLUE! Puritans get everything they want, always. You just don't care, because...Whitey.

    And there's no anti-war party. And there never will be. Governments do not work that way (for long).

    The actual hopelessness-inspiring thing is that except for Paul, whose reputation for wacky ratfuckery is unjustified, the big-name media-hated wacky ratfucker candidates all lost. They're the only ones who were against The Way Things Are—imperfectly against, but against. Their wins would have been (imperfectly) good signs. Didn't happen.

    So we remain on course. For dooooooom.

  • ||

    I must disagree with Nick on his last point... the next election politicing cycle will begin in 3...2...1 now

  • West Texas||

    In a bit of liberty-related good news, red light cameras were voted out in Houston.

    That said, they're still up and running this morning - it's all over the news - while the city either a.) waits for the election to results to be certified or b.) goes to court, for, ummm, something

    It kind of sort of looks like the pols are going to use the excuse of, "well, there wasn't a compliance date in the ballot and language and you didn't vote on when we're supposed to take them down, so... we'll get back to you on it."

    Fucking weasels. They're going to make the courts force them to take them down and they'll keep mailing tickets (and hoping some suckers pay them) right up to the very end.

  • Mr Whipple||

    Was it binding? In my town there was a ballot question to move local elections to the same day as state and federal elections, but it was "non-binding".

    Bullshit.

  • Spoonman.||

    But that stupid "taxing roof area" proposition won. I'm so pissed about that. The ballot language was completely misleading.

  • Fatty Bolger||

    What's that? Is it like the English window tax?

  • Spoonman.||

    It is a proposition to tax the impermeable plan area of each property to provide a fund for unspecified road and drainage projects.

  • West Texas||

    I'll add that the more controversial part of this particular ballot measure was the mayor's promise to assess these "fees" (purposely not "taxes", mind you) on churches and schools, too.

    Me, if I were still a Houston resident, I'd just as soon not have a fancy millionaire football stadium and use that tax money to pay for this type of infrastructure, but the "MONEY IS FUNGIBLE GODDAMMIT" argument left the station many years ago.

  • Expat to Be||

    Off Topic: Are you THE Spoonman from the Soundgarden video?

  • Spoonman.||

    No, but that is the basis of my handle.

  • Alan Vanneman||

    At least Obama dares to eat a peach. Or is it an apple? Well, no matter. Anyway, I think Michelle gives good advice. In the years to come, you're going to need a vegetable garden if you want to eat regular. Start canning those peas!

  • D. Smith||

    Right. Why don't we all commit mass suicide right now. I don't even know why we voted. Does anyone know where the cyanide-laced kool-aide is? Mr Gillespie, quit huffing and puffing because your version of utopia doesn't exisist. The reason people voted the way they did last night is to *hopefully* undo some of what you mentioned. For pity's sake, give 'em at least a little while to prove you wrong. After that, you can move to that libertarian paradise of...of...well, I'm sure you'll think of somehwere.

  • NotLinky||

    "After that, you can move to that libertarian paradise of...of...well, I'm sure you'll think of somehwere."

    Life before FDR?

  • Fluffy||

    One good thing about our system of governance is that you don't really need a majority if you just want to smash the place up.

    You just need a critical mass of men.

    We're a little closer today than we were yesterday.

    The lonely voices in the Congress are a little less lonely now. They're almost [shhhhh! don't say it too loud] a caucus.

    And that creates a good opportunity for Congress to Fall Down Go Boom.

  • Nancy Pelosi||

    Are you mahrg-eee-izp?

  • ||

    Consider a counter factual. Suppose instead of what happened yesterday the Republicans had picked up ten seats in the House and lost a couple in the Senate, which by all rights they should have considering the number of Republicans up for re-election. Where would we be then?

    I will tell you. It would be back to hopey and changey. And all of the ponies the liberals didn't get in the last two years (cap and theft, card check and God know what else) they would get this spring.

    Two years ago Obama was going to be the liberal Reagan, another FDR. He was going to transform the country into a European socialist state. Libertarians and conservatives were going to be consigned to the dust bin of history. We were all socialists now. Remember?

    Last night put an end to all of that bullshit. The Joe P. Boyles of the world, of which there are millions, didn't get 1932. And they won't be getting any more ponies. Obama will spend the next two years defending the damage he did in the first two years or selling out and undoing some of that damage. But he won't be doing more damage. And he won't be transforming the country.

    An entire generation of Democratic freshman who came to power in 2006 and 2008 claiming to be "moderates" only to act as hard left stooges career's ended last night. The next group of Democrats who win in areas outside of hard left areas, and there will be new ones, will think long and hard before they tell their constituents to fuck off you will like this shit once it passes.

    No. The world didn't change much last night. But, it at least stopped changing for the worse. And we didn't get into the mess in one election. So we are not getting out of it in one election.

  • ||

    Nice post, John.

  • West Texas||

    The next group of Democrats who win in areas outside of hard left areas, and there will be new ones, will think long and hard before they tell their constituents to fuck off you will like this shit once it passes.

    Definitely this. They were elected based on the "man not the party" theory and apparently the constituents decided that if they were going to be forced to choose a party they would choose Red. You don't get far telling your constituents to fuck off.

    The only reason Team Red didn't get more in the Senate was that too many of the open seats were in hard blue states or were the red senators from purple states. Swap out Harry Reid for Ben Nelson, Vitter for Landrieu, Beglich for Murkowski, Harkin for Grassley... and it's a totally different story.

  • ||

    I disagree. That's part of it, as evidenced by the two seats from NY and the one from CA, but it was closer to 2/3 of the seats coming from incumbent Republican seats.

    I think the big win was that a Republican took Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio in the Senate. Would have been nice if more people voted NOTA (none of the above) in Nevada. I wish we had that option in Florida, although as I said before Snitker was a good choice just completely unknown.

  • Fatty Bolger||

    This is where I'd like to see Reason pick up the ball, instead of having a cry-fest on the sidelines once again. Yesterday's results stopped some very bad things from happening. It *may* have enabled some positives. While it might be realistic to think not, who cares? This House could possibly be more amenable to libertarian ideas than any we've seen in a looooong time. Maybe that's a better starting point than "wah wah it won't change a goddamn thing."

  • Fatty Bolger||

    This is where I'd like to see Reason pick up the ball, instead of having a cry-fest on the sidelines once again. Yesterday's results stopped some very bad things from happening. It *may* have enabled some positives. While it might be realistic to think not, who cares? This House could possibly be more amenable to libertarian ideas than any we've seen in a looooong time. Maybe that's a better starting point than "wah wah it won't change a goddamn thing."

  • ||

    Obama did exactly what FDR did, throw trainloads of money out, and got the same result . . . nada! Of course FDR didn't have a Great Depression to look back on.

  • ||

    The Democratic Party agenda was refutiated last night. But what does it mean for John Judis from the New Republic?

    What this election suggests to me is that the United States may have finally lost its ability to adapt politically to the systemic crises that it has periodically faced. The U.S emerged from the Civil War, the depression of the 1890s, World War I, and the Great Depression and World War II stronger than ever—with a more buoyant economy and greater international standing. A large part of the reason was the political system’s ability to provide the leadership the country needed. But what this election suggests to me is that this may no longer be the case.
  • ||

    Or maybe this is the case. And the country realizes that the leadership that dumbasses like John Judis support is a really bad idea. No. Couldn't be that. People like Judis are erudite. They went to the right school. Nothing they support could ever be wrong.

    Republicans didn't fully get it after 2008. But a few of them did. And the ones that didn't at least fucking tried. Democrats seem to be completely incapable of self reflection. Judis' column reads like a Republican in 2008 claiming "we would still be in power if we had just passed more earmarks and invaded Iran and Saudi Arabia like we wanted to". You can't fix a problem if you won't admit you have one.

  • Mr Whipple||

    Does that guy need a history lesson? It was the National Banking Act that caused all of the Panics. That, of course, led us to the Federal Reserve Act, which led to the FOMC, which led to perpetual monetary inflation, which led to the closing of the gold window and price controls, which led to Stagflation , etc, etc, etc. Each government intervention led to a future "failure of Capitalism".

  • Fuck!||

    “…From now on depressions will be scientifically created.”-Congressman Charles A. Lindbergh, Sr., 1913, on the Federal Reserve Act

  • Fatty Bolger||

    Oh no! We're ungovernable again! It looked like there was hope for a while after health care passed, and suddenly the country was quite governable. But now that the Democrats have been spanked, we're ungovernable again! How does this keep happening? Don't you people want to be governed?

    Blast from the (recent) past:

    America the Ungovernable"

  • CommentArrrr||

    Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

  • Fluffy||

    Rand Paul: "Fuck you guys, everything is on the table for cuts to balance the budget. And, yeah, I'm pretty much going to filibuster raising the debt limit."

    Nice morning-after speech.

    http://blogs.abcnews.com/georg.....udget.html

  • Spoonman.||

    That is encouraging. Filibustering raising the debt limit would be BADASS.

  • ||

    I would love nothing more than to see anyone effectively filibuster the next debt ceiling increase.

    But please educate me here... what would it actually achieve in real-world, practical terms?

    Would it actually prevent the Treasury from issuing new debt? And even if it did, couldn't the Treasury just resort to issuing its own currency (as was done in the past) to pay for expenditures?

  • West Texas||

    Would it actually prevent the Treasury from issuing new debt?

    Ultimately, yes.

    The practical effect of debt limit pertains to the annual federal budget and how big the deficit can be to fit within the total overall amount of authorized debt. So what they have always done is just plug the new desired deficit in and automatically and separately raise the debt ceiling by the same amount to allow it. If they can't raise the debt ceiling, then by definition there can't be a deficit and the budget has to be balanced (more or less).

    I won't presume to explain the actual legislative mechanism as to how it affects the budgeting process, and maybe my explanation might be a little simple, so someone else feel free to correct me.

  • ||

    I don't even know why we voted.

    What do you mean we, White Devil?

  • Spoonman.||

    I'm going to take a look at the butthurt on Fark. This might be dangerous. Fist of Etiquette gets my shit if I die.

  • Spoonman.||

    Oddly, there seems to be more denial than butthurt.

  • Democrats||

    But we're right! And they're wrong! Something must be wrong with the voters! They're too stupid to live!

  • West Texas||

    I made a post on the Facebook this morning about "biennial accountability to hopey-changey nonsense" and am now fielding all kinds responses from my lib friends about not gloating and "unnecessarily derisive" words.

    Sweet, sweet, tears, I say.

    And these friends of mine are really nice people, aside from being so fucking hopelessly naive... oops, there I go again.

  • West Texas||

    Oops, that was "accountability FOR"

    Makes a big difference.

  • ||

    Damn. Sometimes I wish I had more friends that were misguided. If anyone comments on my libertarian or fiscally conservative posts, they are usually in agreement or "liking" it.

    I have stupid friends; that's not the problem. I guess I just have very few friends that like to debate politics and just don't comment on said posts.

  • rho||

    Prop 19 going down in flames sucks, but it helps prove a maxim I've always believed:

    "Everybody hates stoners. Even stoners hate stoners."

    I call it The Axiom Of 'Dude!'.

  • Realist||

    The reason for that is stoners are always losers!

  • ||

    Tell that to the guy who holds more gold medals, world championships and world records than any other swimmer.

  • Realist||

    What a useless endeavor!

  • ||

    Unless your cruise ship goes down.

  • ||

    I'm more pissed off at Nevada than I am at California. They should know better.

    Of course, all the parasitic AARPers voted for Harry to make sure they never have to spend two bucks out of pocket for their own health care. That money is for ecotourism, not life support.

  • ||

    There's a lot of big talk from the Righties here about all the wonderful change that's gonna come. Okay, we'll see. Come January, the time for talk will be over and it will be time to start producing. If the Repubs don't produce will you brook criticism of them then? Or will it be time to roll out the old excuses?

    Fuck, admit it, you've already got all of the old excuses ready to go. You probably have them saved and ready to go in a spreadsheet.

  • Fatty Bolger||

    The biggest prediction of change is that there will be no more (hopey) change. That seems true enough and is a good thing. The rest is maybe, possibly, could be, however slim the odds.

  • ||

    True, it will be a good thing but temporary at best. This is the long-term game the Right and the Left play with us: when one side or the other gets into power, they don't undo the bad shit the other side did--they just pile their own bad shit on top of it.

    For instance, Obama & Co not only didn't even try to repeal the so-called Patriot Act, they even tried to strengthen it. That fucking abomination is set in concrete now; it's not going anywhere. It will get worse not better no matter who is elected.

  • ||

    If things are as bad as you say, you might as well end it all. If every thing we do is wrong, find someplace that does it right and go there. The rest of us are trying to make this place work.

  • Realist||

    "Fuck, admit it, you've already got all of the old excuses ready to go. You probably have them saved and ready to go in a spreadsheet." The one they love the most is Obama and the Democrats still control the Senate and White House and will just veto anything we try to do. I always say do it anyway and get it on the record that the dems were against it. Won't happen!

  • ||

    I bet it does. Politicians love to make votes that have no real world consequences. It is a lot easier to vote for something you know will never be enacted than it is to cast a vote that will effect something.

  • Tony||

    Which is why you consider the Dems heroes who voted for healthcare and energy reform, despite the fact that it cost a lot of them elections, right?

  • ||

    No I consider them dangerous idiot for enacting stupid policies. Stupid never really gets old for you does it Tony?

  • ||

    The Dems in safe seats weren't heroes. The ones that just got booted out, they were heroes. But only if you agree with the legislation. Otherwise they were either brave, supporting HCR because they really believed it, or were stupid, supported HCR because the believed the Dem leadership and the MSM that passing the bill would be good for them.

  • ||

    ""Which is why you consider the Dems heroes who voted for healthcare and energy reform,""

    Who are you talking to? Certainly not John since he wouldn't call any Dem a hero.

  • ||

    'Heroes' is the wrong word. Deaf is the correct word. Or, maybe, stupid as you defy your constituency, as 60% shout you are going the wrong way!! Local folks tend to remember slights.

  • West Texas||

    I think it does, too.

    There just might be enough sensible creatures from the Dem side to get majorities for a big amount of rollback, but Obama is about to get to nut-cutting time with his veto pen.

    My guess is that he doesn't triangulate (based on what went down with Obamacare in March) and that he ultimately doesn't get reelected because of it. Bill Clinton, he is not.

  • Fatty Bolger||

    Bill Clinton signed a welfare reform bill passed by a Republican Congress shortly before his re-election. I can't imagine Obama doing anything remotely similar.

  • ||

    ""The one they love the most is Obama and the Democrats still control the Senate and White House and will just veto anything we try to do. ""

    It's not in Obamas interest to do so. Presidents get the credit or scorn for bills they sign. If the Rs give him a bill that cuts spending and Obama signs it, he can say he helped cut spending. But that bill would have to get pass the Senate. That where it would probably fail.

  • Not PC||

    The number one reason nothing will change:

    They are all a pack of liars with one agenda - their pockets.

  • David||

    Correct.

    The carousel goes round and round, but the only people who win are the ones riding it.

  • ||

    How did you get reception on that TV without a converter box?

  • NotLinky||

    Black jacket power.

  • zeebs||

    The GOP took spending on defense off the table for budget cuts. Fine. But what about offense? Seems like that is the more expensive part of military spending anyhow.

  • Fuck!||

    they spent like drunken sailors (apologies to drunken sailors)

    WTF!

    HELLO!
    McFly!

    DRUNKEN SAILORS SPEND THEIR OWN FUCKING MONEY!

  • The government||

    Your money is really OUR money.

  • ||

    No sailor could possibly throw money away like those slugs!

  • ||

    The Republicans can only slow the train down. The White House and the Senate are still controlled by the enemies of the people.

  • Mr Whipple||

    So, the Republicans “won”. Does it really make any difference? Arguably, the two most principled members of Congress are Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich. They are on opposite sides of the aisle, but have come together to work on a few basic issues.

    1) Ending the wars (Peace)
    2) Auditing the Federal Reserve (Transparency in banking)
    3) Repealing the Patriot Act (Restoring civil liberties)

    These are three very basic issues which most Americans can agree on. But yet they are treated like ugly stepchildren by their respective parties, and portrayed as extremists or wackos by the news media. As a result, they have gained very little ground on these three very basic issues. So, I ask you again, does it really matter if Republicans or Democrats are elected?

  • ||

    Well damn. This is why I don't pay much attention to Reason, or 'Big-L' Libertarians in general anymore. The Libertarians have been around for how many years now? And how many registered Libertarians do you have in Congress, Hmm? Y'all have good ideas, but you've had about as much effect on the political climate in this country as your average ladies knitting society.

    And then along comes the TEA Party movement and in two years it makes the most sweeping changes to Congress that we've seen since WWII. People in DC are sitting up straight in their chairs and the prospective House Majority Leader is talking about things like, you know, limited government. Imagine that.

    Your response? 'Oh, they haven't changed a thing!' Guys, get a grip. The TEA Party movement has made more progress in two years than you have in 40. But we haven't legalized pot yet, and foreign policy and social issues aren't high on our list of concerns while the country is circling the fiscal drain, so we're abject failures.

    Okay, fine. Start your own political movement and get back to us with your criticisms when you've actually accomplished something, 'kay?

    Oh, wait....

  • ||

    Nick, we have gridlock. Until the nation is deprogrammed, that's as good as it gets. Embrace the gridlock, Nick. Embrace the gridlock.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    "Cutting spending won't do a damn thing to improve the economy when the problem with the economy is there is not enough demand!"

    Okay. So, you're saying if we spend more AND raise taxes... demand will go up?

  • coach outlet||

    ih[

  • ugg classic boots||

    fsuiio

  • asics shoes||

    fkil

  • mbt shoe||

    gk;'

  • LibertyBill||

    Maybe we wouldnt be complaining if we Libertarians havent seen this crap before. All thats changed is red statism is in vs blue statism.

  • LibertyBill||

    Maybe we wouldnt be complaining if we Libertarians havent seen this crap before. All thats changed is red statism is in vs blue statism.

  • www.myeshopol.com||

  • www.uggem.com||

  • www.bestebayshops.com||

    http://www.uggem.com
    http://www.buyspyder.com

  • ugg canada||

    ugg canada

  • nike shoes UK||

    is good

  • judysmith||

    I like your article, really interesting! My point is also very good, I hope you'll like Spyder Jackets Outlet , which is a very popular choice of hair straightener. Spyder Jackets Sale,

  • judyyun||

    I like your article, really interesting! My point is also very good, I hope you'll like Spyder Jackets Men, Spyder Jackets Women, these are some of the most comfortable and stylish garments on the market today.

  • T-Sport||

    T-SportWow, this list is great! There are so much things that I really need to learn how to do, but just not doing them

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement