Newt Gingrich

Sen. Tom Coburn: How Both Parties Bankrupted America

|

"Both parties have equally participated in abandoning the limited role of the federal government," says Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Oklahoma), whose new book, The Debt Bomb: A Bold Plan to Stop Washington from Bankrupting Our Economy, argues that Republicans and Democrats together have brought the U.S. to the brink of fiscal calamity.

First elected to the house in 1994 as part of the "Republican Revolution," Coburn is a staunch fiscal and social conservative, who's been outspokenly critical of members of his own party for compromising their principles out of political expedience. Coburn has publicly taken former House Speaker Newt Gingrich to task for lacking leadership and resolve during his battles with the Clinton White House to cut spending in the mid-90s.

Coburn, who's known in the senate as "Dr. No" for vetoing almost all new spending initiatives, says the federal budget is rife with "waste, fraud, and duplication." In 2006, Coburn co-sponsored legislation that created USASpending.gov, which makes publicly accessible a list of all recipients of government funds. In 2010, Coburn was instrumental in getting the Government Accountability Office to undertake researching and documenting wasteful government programs.

A supporter of a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage, Coburn was a co-author of the Partial-Birth Abortion Act of 2003, and he supported a 1996 law requiring that "V-chips" be placed in all television sets to allow parents to block programming deemed unsuitable. In 1997, Coburn criticized NBC for airing the Holocaust-film "Schindler's List" on the grounds that it included "vile language, full-frontal nudity and irresponsible sexual activity." NBC characterized Coburn's views as "frightening."

ReasonTV's Nick Gillespie sat down with Sen. Coburn to discuss wasteful spending, cutting entitlements, the need for free-market health care, and whether he's losing faith in the government's ability to enforce values.

Shot by Jim Epstein and Meredith Bragg, and edited by Epstein.

Go to Reason.tv for downloadable versions and subscribe to ReasonTV's YouTube Channel to receive notifications when new material goes live.

NEXT: Gene Healy on Obama's Descent into Self-Parody

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.

  1. A supporter of a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage, Coburn was a co-author of the Partial-Birth Abortion Act of 2003, and he supported a 1996 law requiring that “V-chips” be placed in all television sets to allow parents to block programming deemed unsuitable. In 1997, Coburn criticized NBC for airing the Holocaust-film “Schindler’s List” on the grounds that it included “vile language, full-frontal nudity and irresponsible sexual activity.” NBC characterized Coburn’s views as “frightening.”

    Now that TVs all have the V-chips I assume Coburn doesn’t mind if they show hardcore gay porn on the broadcast networks.

    1. I love the v-chip, because it is such a joke. Concerned trolls parents everywhere wanted them, then…nobody uses them.

      They complain it’s hard to figure out how to use and cumbersome to vett all the shows that are on TV now. So they were exposed for what they really wanted all along: not the ability to control what their children see, but the desire to lazily demand that programmers not offer anything that might offend them with no effort on their part.

      1. It is all a stupid debate anyway. With the internet who watches porn on cable TV anymore? Hell, with the rise of even higher speed internet and things like Hulu, who watches broadcast TV anymore. If there is a more irrelevant debate, I am hard pressed to think of it.

      2. A friend uses his v-chip only to block Fox and MSNBC, so he won’t tempted by them when channel surfing.

        1. And people said that there was no good that could come from this hardware!

        2. Now that is an objective viewer!

  2. and whether he’s losing faith in the government’s ability to enforce values.

    Can anybody who want to watch the video tell me what his answer to that is? I hope socons are starting to come around on that but I’m not holding my breath.

    1. Doesn’t matter because most libertarians will never meet them half way and will probably move further left if the SOCONS ever got to where they are.

      Libertarians hate SOCONS more than they hate liberals, more than they hate losing, really more than anything else. But they are still constantly puzzled why SOCONS won’t ever come around and see things their way.

      1. That’s horseshit and you know it. For one thing liberals are often just as big of moralist busybodies and for another most socons are not as fiscally conservative as Coburn.

        Plus, where is half way exactly?

        1. For one thing liberals are often just as big of moralist busybodies and for another most socons are not as fiscally conservative as Coburn.

          So you agree with me that libertarians hate SOCONS?

          and half way would be beltway libertarians not losing sleep at night about local laws passed by SOCONs in places the Libertarians would never live anyway.

          Federalism is the middle ground.

          1. and half way would be beltway libertarians not losing sleep at night about local laws passed by SOCONs in places the Libertarians would never live anyway

            So tell me, John, what places do you think that libertarians would never live? Do you think that everyone gets to choose where they were born, or where they are able to obtain gainful employment? How about people who for some reason or another are denied their rights due to SOCON moral busybodies? Fuck them, right? They shoulda not been born where they were born, or be financially able to move whenever and wherever they want!

            1. At the local level Libertarians and SOCONS ought to be at each other’s throats. But at the national level, there is no reason why respect for federalism shouldn’t produce a peace.

              I don’t expect libertarians to like what SOCONS do at the local level. But what I do expect them to do is not try to make a national issue out of it and use the courts and the federal government to cram their view down every state and localities throat.

              That is the compromise. And yeah, it requires Libertarians to actually embrace the idea of live and let live.

              1. A federal amendment banning gay marriage and a federal v-chip policy aren’t federalism. It’s not like there isn’t a battle to be fought at the Federal level as well.

                1. Yes Apatheist, the compromise goes both ways. The SOCONs need to lay off the federal coercion crack pipe as well.

                  1. And they aren’t about to do that John because they have seen what the progtards have been able to do. Oh, what wonderful machinery – I can’t wait til I get to drive it around.

                2. A federal amendment banning gay marriage and a federal v-chip policy aren’t federalism.

                  I don’t see where John ever said they were examples of Federalism. He said that socons meeting us halfway would be if they (socons) embraced federalism and so do we (libertarians).

                  IOW, if the state or local government where you live enacts a law you dislike, don’t go running to the federal government to make it all better (and that would go both ways, fo us and the socons). Either vote with your feet if you’re able, or work within the political system to get the laws where you live changed.

                  Of course, if the socons continue pushing for shit like ammendments banning gay marriage, then they’re not “meeting us halfway”. In which case fuck them right along with the progressive assholes we all love to hate.

              2. Why should someone who is being denied their rights by moral busybodies sit by and take it? Why should people nationally ignore their plight?

                The problem with your version of “live and let live” is it decidedly fucks over a a lot of people. I prefer my version, where “live and let live” means you don’t get to use government force to browbeat people who aren’t harming anyone into living how YOU want them to live.

                1. No Generic,

                  My version sets up a limited federal government and federal system the way it was intended to be. And the States and courts and laws and legislatures. Leave it to the states to run the kind of places they want to.

                  Don’t think for a moment that many Libertarians wouldn’t gladly use the courts or the feds to put their boot on every state and locality to make sure that their version of Utopia is enforced.

                  Ultimately, if New York wants to have gay marriage and Wisconsin wants to say no gay marriage and refuse to recognize New York’s marriage, that is Wisconsin’s business.

                  1. Ultimately, if New York wants to have gay marriage and Wisconsin wants to say no gay marriage and refuse to recognize New York’s marriage, that is Wisconsin’s business.

                    Do you want individual states to be able to set aside every legal contract and/or legal ruling from another state, or just this one?

                    Because if states can declare invalid contracts entered into in other states, I give it five minutes before the Vermont legislature passes a law saying that if you move to Vermont you no longer have to pay your out-of-state credit card bills.

              3. “embrace the idea of live and let live.” …. by embracing SOCONs telling people how to live at the local level? Logic fail.

                1. No Dylan, embrace live and let live by not worrying about what people in places where you don’t live choose to run their government.

                  1. The trouble with this halfway meeting is that it really isn’t, because where the action is for traditionalism is overwhelmingly at the state and especially local level already. And what’s the point of acceding to not making these things federal issues, if you’re going to fight them where you are anyway?

                  2. Oh, so we should just ignore Bloomberg and the examples of nanny-statism until it is being shoved down our throats. Great plan.

                    Face it John a SOCON is as objectionable as a progtard from a liberty perspective. They are just different sides of the same coin.

                    1. Oh, so we should just ignore Bloomberg and the examples of nanny-statism until it is being shoved down our throats.

                      If you don’t live in New York, yes. We sure as hell shouldn’t use federal power to stop him. If New Yorkers love Bloomburg and want to make their city into a nanny hell hole, that is their business.

                    2. If New Yorkers love Bloomburg and want to make their city into a nanny hell hole, that is their business.

                      I’d agree to that if the rule was that if the population of NY rises in violent revolution against their state and city governments, the federal armed forces won’t intervene.

                    3. I will agree that no one should go running to the feds to save them from Bloomberg. That doesn’t change that a SOCON is just as contemptible on a local level.

            2. Federalism is gay, because it allows interference with the principle of live and let live. If some higher government existed to cram true liberal individual freedom down the throats of state and local governments, that would be great. Fuck “SOCON” paternalist gayness.

          2. I do hate me some socons, even if I share particular views with them (just not how those views should be implemented). I would be willing to fight my local socons IF they would give up trying to shove stuff down our throats at the national level.

            Too bad that’s about as likely as the Democrats actually cutting spending once the Republicans cave (again) into raising taxes.

        2. most socons are not as fiscally conservative as Coburn

          Yeah, a lot of them are more fiscally conservative than Coburn.Paul, Amash, DeMint, Broun all come to mind in the congress.

          1. Greater than or equal to, whatever. Paul and Amash are pretty light on the social conservativeness and the other two focus on fiscal issues. Unless you are talking about abortion only which I don’t care about because I’m prolife and don’t see it as a socially conservative thing but a disagreement over whether a fetus is a person or not (not that many on both sides argue about a bunch of nonsense instead of discussing that specific question).

            1. Pro-life is THE Socon issue.
              Throw in stopping the Feds from forcing everyone to recognize gay marriage and pretty much all the issues are covered.

              Porn and school-led prayer are barely on the radar. Progressives have much more success in legislating away your liberty.

              1. You’ve fallen for a false front. So-cons (trads) think marginally, and so do so-libs, mostly. They concentrate on issues that are on the cutting edge, close to 50-50, at the moment. If they win or lose decisively on those, the ground will shift to something else.

                1. What have the Socons ever won?

      2. Libertarians hate SOCONS more than they hate liberals

        I don’t buy that, John. What I think a lot of folks hate about socons is their intellectual dishonesty. They raise a lot of sand about “limited govt” but are awfully quick to use it to enforce their view of things. At least with liberals, I’m clear that it is statism all the way.

      3. Doesn’t matter because most libertarians will never meet them half way and will probably move further left if the SOCONS ever got to where they are.

        We’ve got nowhere further to the left to go, without moving away from libertarianism again.

      4. I don’t hate SoCons, but I would like them a lot more if they recognized that they are asking for something very similar to what the Progressives are asking for (the power to dictate people’s day-to-day lives in the name of creating a shining city on a hill), and then learned to live and let live.

    2. His answer was “yes, it obviously hasn’t worked so far”. He’s obviously not comfortable saying it’s not the business of government to try it though.

  3. “Both parties have equally participated in abandoning the limited role of the federal government,” says Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Oklahoma)…and he supported a 1996 law requiring that “V-chips” be placed in all television sets to allow parents to block programming deemed unsuitable.

    Sigh.

    1. If the V-chip mandate had gotten the FCC out of the censorship business it would’ve been worth it.*

      *SLD

      1. I agree, but I think it sort-of has. That is, naughty material seems to be much less of a FCC concern these days. Whether that would’ve been the case without the V chip, I don’t know.

  4. “”Both parties have equally participated in abandoning the limited role of the federal government,” says Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Oklahoma)…”

    So can Gary Johnson count on your support in November, Senator?

    1. Who says Gary Johnson would actually cut government? I know he says he will. But he was only the governor of New Mexico. Last I looked it still had a pretty good sized state government and was hardly libertopia.

      1. Is this what you’re onto now? Johson didn’t singlehandedly turn New Mexico into libertopia, so vote for Romney because he’ll keep killing brown people?

        1. We gotta keep killing brown people.

          If we don’t then they’ll be using those IEDs to blow up taxis in NYC!

          It would be carnage! Dead bodies everywhere!

          Gotta keep killing those brown Mooslems!

          They’re brown!

          And Mooslem!

          1. If only this really were sarcasm. [Yes, coming from you it is, but as commentary it is more like red-blooded realism.]

        2. Where did I say vote for Romney? Maybe you shouldn’t vote for anyone. How do you know Johnson will do what he says? Because he is a politician?

          I am not saying don’t vote for Johnson. But I am saying spare me the idol worship. In the end he is a politician not a messiah.

          1. He’s a piss-poor politician at that.

            Doesn’t he know that the way to get votes is to promise people free shit?

          2. Sorry John, I got you and Tulpa confused.

        3. good goddamn…stop with the brown people bullshit. That Muslims are brown is a fact; if terror started in the Scandinavian countries, we’d be targeted blondes. As it is, we have a POTUS who’s killing brown people, and Americans, too, just for good measure.

          1. Last I looked we killed a hell of a lot more Germans in the 20th Century than anything else.

            1. followed by Japanese. That ‘brown people’ talking is just nuclear stupid.

              1. This is nuclear stupid. Hostile relations with Germany and Japan have not been an issue in the past 70 years. No one is going around clamoring for attacks on “Krauts” or “Japs” because the issue is completely irrelevant.

                On the other hand, in the 21st Century (you know – the one we actually live in), there is still plenty of hostility toward “brown people” (the SoCons I know like to call them “towelheads” or “sand niggers”). Hence, invasions of Middle Eastern countries. I can guarantee you that, in this century (the one we live in, for a second reminder), we’ve killed a shitload more brown people than we have Europeans.

          2. THIS.

            Who gives a shit what their skin color is. If you want to debate whether or not we should be killing them, fine. But falling back on that stupid “we’re killing brown people OMG RACIZMS!!!!!1!!!1!” meme just makes you look retarded.

            1. Perhaps the people who actually are killing brown people or profiling at airports, etc? Maybe they give a shit what their skin color is?

        4. If only Steve Smith were here, he’d heartily endorse browning killed people.

      2. Well, it’s all relative. Compared to Obama and Romney, I’d say an LP Johnson is very likely to be pretty aggressive in his actual cost-cutting and government power-slashing attempts. He might fail, but I’d be incredibly shocked if he didn’t try at all.

        If he somehow won, which is close to impossible, imagine the circumstances necessary to propel an LP candidate into the White House. The anti-government feeling required to do that would give him all the mandate he’d need.

        1. Congress would never send GJ a bill with radical spending cuts.

          Like Paul Ryan’s cuts they would all be 10 years out so they could milk DC for another decade.

          1. and if that is what Congress did, GJ would presumably veto such a bill, kinda like he did a whole lotta times in NM.

        2. Even if he won, Congress would eat him alive and events would force him to do things that would disappoint his supporters.

          Libertarians are not immune to partisan hero worship and Top Men fallacy.

          1. What would be interesting to see is whether a libertarian president would use the stupid power the presidency has acquired to try to undo the damage, or whether he’d stick to principle and only do what he legally (in the libertarian view) can.

            However, even within the legal limits of the presidency, there is a great deal he could do. The president has independent discretion on a whole host of matters, and has inherent powers as C-in-C, the ability to pardon, control over administrative agencies, etc.

            A truly libertarian president could do great harm to Leviathan, even with Congress opposing him. And don’t forget, if a libertarian gets elected, it would take a courageous Congress to go 100% against him.

            1. therein lies the conundrum facing a libertarian President. The Presidency is supposed to be a pretty limited office. The real power is in Congress. Bypassing Congress to enforce his libertarian policies would further strengthen the imperial Presidency and sow the seeds for whatever good he did later being undone.

              1. Libertarian president could veto the tar out of everything that hits his desk. Wouldn’t require much “imperial presidency”.

                1. sure he could. But that would do nothing to undo the laws already on the books. He could veto budgets he didn’t like. But if he did that long enough, Congress would just come to an agreement and override his veto. Then he would be left with virtually no power.

                  Changing things will take a lot more than a libertarian President.

                  1. I’m not so sure Congress would be all that hot to take responsibility in that manner. So much of federal law delegates the power to regulate to the executive precisely so Congress can evade responsibility for taking a stand.

                2. That’s what I was saying above. Even within the traditional powers, a libertarian president could muck up the works something terrible.

              2. Well, yes and no. Would revoking the host of executive orders and executive regulations be a “power grab”? It seems a bit strange to me to say that it would. Saying “I won’t exercise power you delegate to me” doesn’t seem to be exercising power. Of course that would amount to a tremendous act of reducing the size and scope of the federal government.

                1. I won’t exercise power you delegate to me” doesn’t seem to be exercising power. Of course that would amount to a tremendous act of reducing the size and scope of the federal government.

                  The political response is that you’d be doing the bidding of “your corporate buddies” by unhitching the cages and letting them run free.

                  Deregulashun!

            2. Given that administrative agencies are in the executive branch, he could do a whole crapload of damage to the regulatory state that Congress would be very hard-pressed to resist.

              Entire volumes of the Federal Register could be made to just . . . disappear. If Congress wants those regulations so damn bad, then it can just adopt them as laws with a veto-proof majority. Otherwise, gone.

              1. Given that the leap from enabling act to eleventy billion pages of regulations is almost certainly an invalid delegation of Congressional authority, a president could make all sorts of hay just refusing to do things without express Congressional approval–i.e., laws. Which, of course, he could veto.

              2. It isn’t that simple RC. Regulatory law doesn’t work that way. To repeal a regulation you have to follow the law and that takes a while. If a President just wiped them off the books, a court would put them back in very quickly.

                1. John,
                  what you typed sounds good on a computer screen. Maybe you can convince this administration to read it since it appears to have no issue with either imperial decrees or ignoring things it dislikes.

                2. I think you’re underestimating the power of the president over the administrative agencies. He controls who runs them, their budgets, etc. He also holds the entire power of the executive branch, constitutionally, so if he chooses in his discretion to label a regulation as unenforceable, that’s very arguably a political question that the Supreme Court would punt on. After all, Congress could clarify the issue by passing a law and overriding his veto.

                  1. He could stop enforcing them. But he would have a hard time taking them off the books immediately. And even then, it would be up to the Courts whether they would force him to enforce at least some of them. The federal government gets sued all of the time by interest groups who claim they are not properly enforcing litigation.

                    1. and where does suing the govt get you? It has more resources than anyone, more ability to bury you under paper than anyone, more ability to make your life hell than anyone. Suing the mob would be easier.

                  2. Regulations I mean.

                    1. I hope we get a real-life example to see what a libertarian president could do. In my best-case scenario, of course, the libertarian Congress and libertarian courts would be there, too.

                3. It isn’t that simple RC. Regulatory law doesn’t work that way. To repeal a regulation you have to follow the law and that takes a while. If a President just wiped them off the books, a court would put them back in very quickly.

                  It’s already happened. The Reagan admin. wanted to be more deregulatory than they eventually became, because they were rebuffed. They got the NHTSA to rescind the regul’n that’d been adopted a few yrs. earlier to require passive restraints in passenger cars, saying that seat belt laws and their enforcement had made them superfluous. Somebody sued, and a court ruled the change in regul’n by NHTSA had been arbitrary and capricious, and reinstated the rule.

                  See that? Even though they followed the correct form (wasn’t just an executive order) via the Admin. Procedures Act, and even though they gave a reason they thought was compatible with the enabling legisl’n (i.e., not just freedom — that doesn’t count — but the safety aim of Congress), the federal court said that reason wasn’t good enough, you did this politically based on ideology (i.e. libertarianism).

                  1. See, the trouble is that administrative procedures create a record of “good gov’t”, of “scientific public policy” that in turn creates a strong presumption of correctness, legally. Supposedly regul’ns had been enacted in good faith, the reasons as stated in the Fed. Reg. (similarly at the state level). Now a bureaucrat has to argue that they weren’t just bad for liberty, i.e. bad ideologically, but wrong on their own terms. I could see a libertarian att’y gen’l and sec’y of HHS trying to de-control some “substances of abuse”, and a court ruling that, no, they hadn’t presented evidence that their previous scheduling had been incorrect. In the case of something like mj, it’d be a slam dunk to at least reschedule into a much higher numbered schedule, but in the case of many other controlled substances I don’t think it’d be as easy.

                    Similarly, I don’t know how easy a libertarian FDA could be on approving the marketing of new drugs, devices, food additives, etc. before they’d be overruled in court as arbitrary and capricious.

                    1. It just takes the political will to get into a slugfest. The courts couldn’t really handle all of the lawsuits if a libertarian president started doing a lot of this, anyway.

              3. Entire volumes of the Federal Register could be made to just . . . disappear. If Congress wants those regulations so damn bad, then it can just adopt them as laws with a veto-proof majority. Otherwise, gone.

                This.

                1. You know, a libertarian president has one nuclear option: Total and complete declassification of everything and immediate publication thereof.

  5. Coburn voted for Simpson-Bowles so I have to give him a pat on the back even though he is a SoCon Aborto-Freak.

  6. A supporter of a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage, Coburn was a co-author of the Partial-Birth Abortion Act of 2003, and he supported a 1996 law requiring that “V-chips” be placed in all television sets to allow parents to block programming deemed unsuitable. In 1997, Coburn criticized NBC for airing the Holocaust-film “Schindler’s List” on the grounds that it included “vile language, full-frontal nudity and irresponsible sexual activity.” NBC characterized Coburn’s views as “frightening.”

    So he wants a leaner, more efficient surveillance state.

  7. Libertarians are not immune to partisan hero worship and Top Men fallacy.

    Alluding back to the Libertarian Dictatorship thread, I wonder how many libertarians would support giving Ron Paul or Gary Johnson temporary* dictatorial powers…

    *Yeah, yeah, I know. Once someone gets a taste of absolute power, they’ve always got one more thing to accomplish.

      1. (to allude to a previous thread)

  8. Coburn is a rare Republican. While most are both stupid and evil, he’s merely stupid.

    1. The other OK Senator, Inhofe, is the epitome of stupid and evil. Coburn is downright likable in comparison.

      1. They happen to be my senators, and Inhofe is a family friend. Total transactional oil whore. Coburn’s just a bumpkin Jesus freak but seems to have something in the way of a moral compass. Oklahoma is ripe for corrupt politicians though because lately it blindly votes straight R in every election at every level.

        1. Now I don’t feel so bad about having Feinstein and Boxer as my senators.

    2. Understanding math is a sure sign of someone being stupid. Thinking we can continue to spend trillions of dollars we don’t have indefinitely is the sign of real intelligence.

      Part of being stupid Tony is not knowing how stupid you are. And you really seem to have that part down pat.

      1. But Coburn thanks we can balance the budget via spending cuts alone.

        We can’t unless defense and SS/Medicare get whacked.

        1. Last I looked we took in something like 19% of the GNP in taxes. Medicare and SS don’t have to get whacked, they just have to get reformed. Those programs are not going to survive in their present form. Pretending we can just raise taxes to save them is idiotic.

          Face it you demonic little shit, the entire government model you believe in is going to end one way or another. We can either reform or turn into Greece and let the bond markets reform things for us.

          You need to start making peace with the idea that your entire ideology is dying and isn’t going to come back.

          1. My ideology? I don’t give a fuck about SS/Medicare and defense spending.

            I am just resigned to the fact they exist.

            I am a pro-drug, anti-war, free trade, social liberal.

            1. I am a pro-drug, anti-war, free trade, social liberal.

              yet all you do is shill for Obama and bitch at everyone here. Your self-assessment makes no sense when weighed against your slavish devotion to the party that, other than social liberalism (sometimes), disagrees with you entirely, at least based on how it acts under Obama.

        2. “But Coburn thanks we can balance the budget via spending cuts alone.

          We can’t unless defense and SS/Medicare get whacked.”

          That’s pretty much what he said. He said revenue is typically 18% of GDP no matter what the rates are, and everything is on the table.

        3. Those three things deserve to take the biggest hits.

      2. I don’t know whether Republicans understand math or not, but Grover Norquist has made it impossible for them to demonstrate it either way.

        1. 1) the personal attack
          2) Grover Norquist
          –can Tony complete the liberal hat trick?

          1. Tony is a progressive. I am a liberal. I am 100% pro-gun including no registration at all. Tony would object to that.

            Hell, I like Fast and Furious and want it nationwide (free trade for guns that is).

            I am also anti Affirmative Action and anti quota of any type.

            Progressives generally don’t like me.

            1. And we both overlap with libertarians on an array of issues… wonder if they are interested in forming political coalitions, or if they’re more interested in sitting in their treehouse with a “no libs allowed” sign nailed to the front.

              1. tony,
                not to speak for the whole bunch, but most here seem to be of a “govt is more often the problem than solution” mindset.

                When liberalism includes leaving adults alone to make their own adult decisions, well, then it wouldn’t be liberalism. Or progressivism. You see a far greater role for govt than the typical HandRer.

                1. Yes I do, but we’re all grownups here and in civilized countries things get accomplished with political coalitions. That means siding with people you don’t always agree with when you do agree. Assuming there were some political viability in libertarians and liberals teaming up on, say, the drug war, then libertarians are only shooting themselves in the foot by remaining purists who won’t cooperate with anyone who doesn’t share all their beliefs. You can be either a useful political force or you can be a silly little cult. Unfortunately it seems clear what most libertarians have chosen.

                  1. Assuming there were some political viability in libertarians and liberals teaming up on, say, the drug war, then libertarians are only shooting themselves in the foot by remaining purists who won’t cooperate with anyone who doesn’t share all their beliefs.

                    You have the foot-shooting exactly ass-backwards. The liberals/progressives who oppose the Drug War are all going to go out and vote for Obama, who supports it. If you want him to shift on it, you have to stop voting for him.

                    1. He is the only presidential contender who has even signaled that he’s thinking about a shift on drug war policy. Why on earth would I want to vote for Mitt Romney if I cared about the drug war?

                      (Third party candidates don’t count as options, of course.)

                    2. Well naturally a hardcore partisan hack such as yourself doesn’t think that third parties are options.

                      And Obama’s signal of a shift was to ramp up fucking with MMJ dispensaries and cracking down on even more people. Just like his signal on immigration has been to deport even more people than Bush did in all 8 years of his rein presidency.

                    3. My hackery has nothing to do with third parties being nonviable.

            2. if all those things about you are true, then you are in the wrong camp. Or, you are delusional in believing that the Dems will swing back toward you. They won’t; that party is gone. JFK would be a moderate Repub today. Virtually everything you claim to support puts you in this camp.

            3. Fuck off sock puppet. You don’t give a shit about any of those things. You just say you do so you can concern troll on other issues. Go find one gun thread you ever posted on.

              1. Fuck you asshole. Gun control is supported by only about 21% of the USA. There are millions of liberals who don’t want that shit.

                Tester, Webb, Gillibrand, and dozens of Dem Senators oppose gun control.

    3. per usual, when Tony has nothing of substance, it’s right to the ad homs. Nothing screams Congressional stupidity quite like noticing that hyper spending is tough to maintain.

  9. Comment heard after Sununu said Obama is not a real American, — “being a pot-smoker is a hell of a lot more American than hiding money offshore”.

    1. What about just being a tax cheat and not paying your taxes? You know the way 36 Obama aides do?

      http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/po…..ack-taxes/

      what about just being a straight out criminal and cheating on your taxes the way Geitner did? Is that unAmerican?

      1. Cheating on taxes is very American but not Presidential.

    2. like that effort to imply something with a quote on hiding money. It is Romney’s money; he can stick it in a Swiss bank, a mayo jar, or up his dog’s ass and none of those is anyone’s business.

      This fanaticism about where the rich guy keeps his dough is, or should be, embarrassing to anyone who thinks the office of POTUS deserves better. Maybe Valerie Jarrett can first explain her Bermudan line of credit, which sounds a lot more suspicious than an actual bank deposit.

      1. Yes, he can. And people can ask a candidate for President why he hides money offshore and has for at least a decade.

        Buffett has over $40 billion invested in the USA. Romney is hiding something.

        1. then prove it. Goddamn it, we are not in a country where you are presumed guilty. Romney is 60 plus; he did not become rich last Tuesday. He’s had millions for a long time and been in the public eye for a long time, too. If there was fire, it would have been detected by now. But that hasn’t happened, mostly because the only smoke is what the Obama camp is blowing.

          By the way, just how much does Mr Buffett’s company owe in back taxes? Last I checked, Mitt was up to date.

          1. It’s about a billion freaking dollars, when you factor in interest and penalties.

            1. Prove that and I will never post here again.

              Must be a respected REAL source (WSJ, Bloomeberg, FT, NYT).

              Quit reading wingnut.com.

              1. do your own research: Google “buffett back taxes owed” and you will find a few hits. Even HuffPo knows it.

                1. You don’t know the difference between “hits” and a reliable source?

                  Really, you listen to redneck AM radio for your “news”.

                  Pitiful.

                  You are so misinformed.

                  1. all the hits that are listed are tied to a variety of sources, each of whom links to other sources. Are you really that stupid or just that far in the tank?

                    1. Look, I give you, Mike M, and John chances all the time – prove me wrong and I QUIT POSTING forever on Hit and Run.

                      WSJ, Bloomberg, FT, NYT or any other real news source – link me and I quit forever!

                    2. And no Andrew BratBitch dot com. That fucker met his karma for being a full time liar.

                      REAL NEWS only.

                    3. From Berkshire’s own annual report:

                      http://www.berkshirehathaway.com/2010ar/2010ar.pdf

                      Go to page 54, second paragraph. They’re net unrecognized tax benefits are $1Billion. Their tax positions that should have been recognized, but hadn’t yet, were $774Million. That’s $774 Million that hadn’t been paid and another $230Million that could be owed in the future.

                    4. They are “unrecognized” because they are not due and in dispute in tax court.

                      Berkshire has won these disputes every time.

                    5. Unrecognized tax benefits means that Berkshire filed 2B in deductions but only thinks that 1B in deductions will result from negotiating with the IRS. That means they will eventually have to pay 1B plus interest.

                    6. See, where you screwed up war was you have to provide a shrike approved source or you obviously just got the information from Rush or Hannity.

          2. You understand that this is all politics right?

            If Mitt doesn’t have something to hide then he could release multiple years of returns. Unless he’s playing some uncharacteristic long game strategy, the only possible explanation of his actions is that his returns contain something far more damaging than not releasing them is.

            1. I don’t care how you want to frame it, Tony, it’s bullshit. The “if you have nothing to hide” meme does not work for me. If it did, I would be a lot more curious about Obama’s school records and transcripts, his association with Frank Marshall Davis, the amount of money that was funneled his way via knowing Bill Ayers, and who actually wrote his books. Obama’s own actions provide a good amount of answer on each of those fronts.

              Romney is not required to prove innocence. Were there wrongdoing, someone would have raised the flag by now, and that someone would not be some campaign staffer tossing out “felony” with the casualness of a lunch date recap.

              First time in his life, Obama has a record. And he refuses to campaign on it. That should give you far more pause than Romney’s earnings.

              1. Cuckoo…Cuckoo.

                It’s a pretty airtight deduction about Romney’s tax returns. I don’t give a shit on an ethical level; as I said, it’s all politics. He’s probably not done something illegal, but it’s pretty easy to deduce that he’s done something politically unseemly.

                Save your Bill Ayers conspiracy theories–you might as well just say “I’m ignorant trash, ignore everything I say.”

                1. take your own advice sparky. If Romney’s “probably not done something illegal,” kinda flies in hte face of your boy’s felony allegation, doesn’t it? And sorry, you cannot have it both ways when it comes to the past. If what Romney earned 20 years ago is material, then so is a lot of stuff about Obama.

                  By the way, facts are not conspiratorial. Davis was a mentor; Ayers did introduce Obama to Chicago political money; his transcripts remain under seal.

                  1. Buffet is his mentor now! The greatest capitalist in US history.

                    1. then perhaps he should 1) listen to him about economics, and 2) suggest that Warren try some intellectual honesty regarding tax rates.

                  2. But you just had to go there with the “who wrote his books” thing. You’re just trying to change the subject. Fine, subject Obama to all the scrutiny you want. So to be fair we’ll subject Romney to the same, how about?

                    1. nope..the “scrutiny” was started by your side, which refuses to campaign on its record. I understand that actually having one is new ground for Obama and for his dogwashers. Nice try at projection though.

            2. If Mitt doesn’t have something to hide then he could release multiple years of returns.

              And if Obama doesn’t have something to hide then he could release ….

          3. Berkshire owes nothing in back taxes. NetJets is in a dispute on ticket taxes – that is it.

            Romney IS hiding something. Is what he is hiding illegal? Who knows? Even Ron Paul says he should release tax returns from his Bain time.

            1. Go fuck yourself sock puppet. There literally isn’t a single talking point you don’t come in here and shit out.

              1. Says Ann Coulter’s poodle.

            2. Romney IS hiding something.

              then I suggest either you or Obama prove it. The only thing anyone is attempting to hide is talk of Obama’s record. The man finally has one and he’s running away from it at speeds that would make Usain Bolt envious.

              1. Obama’s record is on trial this year.

                What people DON’T care about? Frank Bill Marshall Ayers Wright and that stupid wingnut bullshit you and Hannity are obsessed with.

                1. Obama’s record is on trial this year.

                  Really? Then why is the defense investing so much effort in assassinating the character of the plaintiff? People don’t much care about veiled allegations, with no substance to back them up, about someone’s earnings.

                  Obama is not interested in defending his record. Mostly because it is indefensible.

                  1. How dare Obama try to win an election you clearly don’t want him to win!

                2. The sad thing is Obama was never fully vetted in the first place. If not for those “wingnuts” in the first place, we wouldn’t know anything about him as NYT and most of the MSM saw fit to hide or minimize anything unflattering to Obama. They did this all while saying, hey did you notice he’s black and what a great thing it would be to elect a black POTUS.

                  As it is now, the coverup at DOJ and 1600 Pennsylvania on the murder of a border patrol agent with guns shipped with the blessing of DOJ, the true unemployment picture vs. a meaningless 8.2% stat, the funneling of money to Obama’s capitalist cronies at Solyndra, etc. are barely causing any coverage with most of the MSM (aka house organs). I least with the ‘wingnuts’, the cover-up of this man’s failures won’t be complete.

                  Something no one cared about, but the MSM breathlessly shoved in our face? The “Valerie Plame” fake scandal. How about the ‘wingnuts’ on the left who seem not to care about an actual death of an agent (border) vs. some phony threat to some leftist hack and wife.

              2. Sales rolex replica, High-quality replica rolex watches,Top brand watches,all luxury watches for sale cheap and cheapest only $59 ,Buy cheap watches online at http://www.replicawatches007.com

              3. Sales rolex replica, High-quality replica rolex watches,Top brand watches,all luxury watches for sale cheap and cheapest only $59 ,Buy cheap watches online at http://www.replicawatches007.com

              4. Sales rolex replica, High-quality replica rolex watches,Top brand watches,all luxury watches for sale cheap and cheapest only $59 ,Buy cheap watches online at http://www.replicawatches007.com

        2. Question….how does one “hide” money when he/she declares it on his/her taxes? Who exactly is that person hiding the money from?

        3. It’s not fucking hidden if everyone knows about it and you report it to the IRS. Goddamn you are a fucking moron.

  10. About the interview: Bad answer on partial birth abortion and the Commerce Clause, but what are you gonna do. And Gillespie is trying to get Coburn to expand on his legislating morality versus distaste for expansive government. Complete cognitive dissonance. Bah.

    1. Might as well be Sen. Harvey Dent.

  11. Coburn is also a contributor to the problem of statist, paternalist, and socialist policy. Therefore, fuck him.

  12. I absolutely agree that both parties are now controlled by ideology that prevents a moderate, common sense, fiscally responsible, but social support solutions from becoming reality. Both parties and the public sector have a sense of entitlement that borders on just plan greed and what’s in it for them. The concept of “service” to the country is a pure hogwash.

  13. “Coburn, who’s known in the senate as “Dr. No” for vetoing almost all new spending initiatives”

    What is this Senatorial “veto” of which you speak?

  14. I am somewhat socially conservative, but nothing like ‘moral majority’. In any case, what I see is this:

    If we don’t get our debt, annual deficit and spending under control, then any debate on the proper ‘social role’ of government in our lives will be pointless. If our economy collapses, the federal WILL assert more control up to and including martial law. A debate on the wisdom or idiocy of the V-Chip and things of that nature will look small.

    Let’s first take what leaders in the conservative and libertarian movements have in common: alarm at the debt/deficit/entitlement system. These groups were able to come together to get rid of Carter in 1980 and usher in an era of relative financial sanity. So, let’s focus our energies on punishing those who refuse to act responsibly financially rather than sniping at each other.

  15. “whether he’s losing faith in the government’s ability to enforce values.”

    What a joke. Homosexuality is glorified. Yet the Founding Fathers executed homosexuals. This country is a joke.

  16. Sales rolex replica, High-quality replica rolex watches,Top brand watches,all luxury watches for sale cheap and cheapest only $59 ,Buy cheap watches online at http://www.replicawatches007.com

  17. Coburn voted for TARP. He’s as worthless as the rest of the moochers.

  18. thanks dude for wonderful posting. keep it up in the future as well.
    cheap supreme snapback
    snapbacks for cheap

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.