MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Rand Paul Single-Handedly Tries to Stop Massive Spending Plan (Update: Congress Passes Budget Deal)

"What you are seeing is recklessness being passed off as bipartisanship," said Paul on the Senate floor.

CNN, photo by Eric BoehmCNN, photo by Eric BoehmUpdate: Congress passed the enormous spending bill early Friday morning after a brief government shutdown.

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) took to the Senate floor on Thursday evening to slam Republican and Democratic leaders in Congress for "spending us into oblivion." The firey speech was part of Paul's effort to postpone a budget vote until after midnight.

Paul stopped speaking shortly before 7:30 p.m. as the Senate entered a brief recess, but returned to continue speaking at 8 p.m. Meanwhile, the White House told executive branch agencies to prepare for a shutdown, according to Politico.

The three-week continuing resolution passed on January 18 will expire at midnight. Republican and Democratic leaders in the Senate were prepared to vote on a two-year budget that will annihiliate existing spending caps and increase the discretionary budget by about $400 billion, but Paul asked Senate GOP leaders for a chance to offer an amendment reinstating those spending caps. The nature of his speech on the Senate floor suggests that Paul's request was denied.

Paul slammed Republicans and Democrats for agreeing to a budget that independent analysts say will result in a $1 trillion deficit.

"A country cannot go on forever spending money this way," said Paul. "What you are seeing is recklessness being passed off as bipartisanship."

The budget deal would remove limits on military spending imposed by the 2013 sequester would be removed, allowing the Pentagon to receive an additional $80 billion this year and $85 billion next year. Other lids on the discretionary budget would be similarly lifted, allowing for billions of new spending on infrastructure, public health, and disaster aid.

Paul lashed his own party's leaders, saying that Repulicans "are the conservative party" only when Democrats are in power. "When Republicans are in power, there is no conservative party," he added.

A spokesman for Paul did not give a clear indication if Paul's speech was intended to run until, or past, the midnight deadline for passing the budget bill. It's possible we are seeing a sequel to Paul's 2013 filibuster against the re-appointment of John Brennan as CIA director. Paul said he was prepared to speak "until 3 in the morning," if it would force a debate on the federal budget.

As of this moment, Paul is still speaking on the Senate floor. Watch it here.

*This story has been updated.

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.

  • Eidde||

    He's like Cato the Younger without the slavery or the suicide...standing in defense of the Republic when the cowards have abandoned it.

  • Sevo||

    goobers named Hihn troll this site.

  • Sevo||

    THE IDIOT IS HERE!
    (yawn)

  • MarkLastname||

    Mike Hihn, the pro-government, pro-high-tax libertarian.

  • tlapp||

    Our government is getting more tax revenue than ever. This is 100% a spending problem.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Ok, that's a valid point Michael, but if not Rand Paul, who else is there in the Senate right now worth a shit? Seems like pretty slim pickings at the moment.

  • rudehost||

    That makes complete sense to me. "We need the money to pay the bills" is not justification for theft. A tax cut was returning stolen property. If a family is short on money you can simultaneously believe stealing is not a financial solution while also believing it's a bad idea to buy 2 new high end Tesla's on a 30k a year income. As a self professed libertarian I assume you would prefer drastic spending cuts while returning people's money to them. This is exactly Paul's position so I am unclear why you see this to be a problem. Or do you in fact prefer higher taxes and more spending?

  • rudehost||

    Logically speaking the decision to not steal from person A is not the same as stealing from person B. The debt in question is the result of spending. If someone is dumb enough to lend money to a government that defaults they are idiots not victims of theft. I realize you are very comfortable with the spending but are opposed to the theft ceasing. Why not just be honest and admit that?

  • ace_m82||

    Hihn simply cannot allow any good thing to be said of someone with the surname "Paul".

    It's almost like Hihn is STALKING them!!!1!!

  • rudehost||

    Kind of like being a libertarian who supports theft.

  • ace_m82||

    Theft is bad, full stop.

    If people are dumb enough to load government money when they can't pay it back, that's their fault.

    End government, end the problem.

  • Flinch||

    I disagree Michael. Anyone voting for a tax cut should by rights be cautious about spending [to preserve net gains], and that's not grandstanding. And the practice of baseline budgeting already has automatic increases set in stone - to the tune of double the rate of inflation. So what did GOP leadership smoke? I don't know, but a super increase means they are rushing to spend the extra revenues garnered from growth ahead of time, thereby snuffing any potential recovery. I expect that behavior from democrats, which tells us the progs have the policy ear of the imbeciles running their party back into the ditch Hastert style. Anyway, anyone in DC claiming to be a deficit hawk but won't touch spending under any circumstances is either an imbecile or a liar.

  • Hank Phillips||

    Let's be fair! Randal showed the world how independent and libertarian he is despite membership in God's Own Prohibitionist Party when he voted to confirm Beauregard Sessions as the Drug Czar's personal Golem and Executioner of Plant Leaf Abusers. How about some conservative appreciation, dammit!

  • tlapp||

    An Army of one trying to hold back the rest.

  • DajjaI||

    THANK YOU RAND PAUL. This is a horrible bill that will cause grief for generations to come. About time someone spoke up for the country's future. Most of this spending is completely unnecessary. Younger voters (who will be expected to pay for this) will appreciate you when the next election comes around. Also, thank you for not listening to the libertards who said, "Shutdowns are bad!" No they are good - they show we don't really need government (even if it's an expensive lesson to learn). People appreciate you even if they don't say it. Keep fighting the good fight - we will win this!

    Still Shillin' for Jill 2020 approves this message.

  • DesigNate||

    Huh, I guess the Democrats only care about trillion dollar deficits when cutting taxes are involved.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    And Republicans don't care about trillion dollar deficits (Rand Paul excepted).

  • DesigNate||

    Republicans are ridiculous, to be sure.

  • DesigNate||

    1.5TT / 10 years = 150BB

    400BB to 600BB increase NEXT YEAR > 150BB less revenue.

    I mean, they could have saved that 150BB just by reducing military spending, but the democrats are agreeing with increasing that spending over the next two years.

    Oh, and pointing out democrat hypocrisy has no bearing on republican hypocrisy.

  • Hank Phillips||

    Some of these kids went to government schools where math is regarded as divisive.
    "Et tu, Quoque?" also flies right past them because the cognoscenti and intelligentzia regard Shakespeare as elitist. But ignoring the simple darlings works for me every time. It's the one situation in which Ignorance is Bliss.

  • Eidde||

  • EscherEnigma||

    Looks like Rand is already done. Graham is talking now, and he's defending the budget.

  • EscherEnigma||

    Also, I can't see anyone sitting behind him. So it's possible he's talking to a mostly empty room.

  • Incomprehensible Bitching||

    I love watching CSPAN! It's what I talk about at parties!

  • CE||

    Should have kept talking to midnight.

  • Eidde||

    Well, that was quick, I was about to post this.

  • Eidde||

    If people start worrying about the deficit by, say, 2020, then if the Republicans are smart they'd nominate someone who isn't tainted by deficits.

    But this is the same party which had the chance to run on opposition to Obamacare, and nominated the one Republican who was most identified with a similar program...so I'm not very hopeful.

  • Eidde||

    I should have remembered to say debt not deficit, the deficit is just the tip of the iceberg.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Deficit is the key. If that can be controlled, truly, then over time the debt will be reduced by inflation and increased earning of the economy. We should probably be more aggressive about our debt, but if we can even reach revenue neutral then other things will eventually resolve.

  • Bubba Jones||

    Inflation increases the interest rates on the debt. So I don't think that will work.

  • MarkLastname||

    Only nominal interest rates; not real rates ifbthe inflation is anticipated (and 2% inflation is always antocioated). And only on new debt. In theory you could just inflate away all the debt in good time if you never intend to borrow again and didn't care about how it'd affect your citizens . In practice, since the government will never foreswear future borrowing, the point is that the future costs of steady, predictable inflation are already factored into the interest on currently issued bonds, so if we just stop increasing the size of the debt, steady, modest inflation that is taken for granted will gradually reduce the debt load, and therefore the cost of servicing the debt.

  • CE||

    And had the chance to run against TARP (McCain), but instead flew back to DC to vote for it.

  • Eidde||

    Sometimes it's hard to tell the difference between "statesmanship" and utter retardation.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    McCain is nothing. He's a warmonger and I can never get past that his supposedly principled stands always seems like just he's selling himself to the media.

  • Telcontar the Wanderer||

    his supposedly principled stands always seems like just he's selling himself to the media

    I imagine the same could be said about Abe Lincoln. It could also be said about Hitler, Mussolini, Nicolas Maduro, Rodrigo Duterte, etc., of course. But that's my point: grandstanding is what politicians do. Hell, what Paul is doing right now could be considered that (since "lone debt Cassandra" is how he markets himself to his constituents- the only people whose opinion materially matters to him). Criticize McCain for his policies, not the fact that he happens to be better than most of his peers at the universal political art-slash-obligation of self-promotion.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    He's clinging to power even with his declining health. He needs to retire.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    Oh, and fuck Rand Paul. He just voted for the tax bill that doubled the deficit and created the new trillion dollar deficit.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Plus he apparently totally wants to shut down the government.

  • Calidissident||

    As I posted about here, I was not fond of the tax bill's addition to the debt, but how on Earth did it double it? IIRC the per year increase was about $150 billion. We were already well above $500 billion before that.

  • Calidissident||

    *Obviously the numbers I'm talking about are regarding the deficit, not the total debt.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    WASHINGTON (Reuters) - As the U.S. Congress limps toward the likely passage next week of another stopgap spending bill to avert a government shutdown, a Washington think tank has estimated the federal budget deficit is on track to blow through $1 trillion in 2019.

    If it does, it would be the first time since 2012 the U.S. economy will have to support a deficit so large, highlighting a basic shift for the Republican Party, which has traditionally prided itself on fiscal conservatism.

    The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a Washington fiscal watchdog, said the red ink may rise in fiscal 2019 to $1.12 trillion. If current policies continue, it said, the deficit could top a record-setting $2 trillion by 2027.

    Last FY the deficit was just over $500 billion.

  • Eidde||

    The deficit wasn't this big since the Republicans last ran things, in 2012!

  • I am the 0.000000013%||

    That is a true statement, but only because the Republicans accidentally got sequestration passed.

  • DesigNate||

    That $1.12 Trillion includes the $150BB from the tax cuts you mendacious fuck.

    And your beloved Democrats could always offer up $150BB in cuts to ANY programs and then smear the Republicans even more as the big spending shitheels they are. Instead, they just agreed to spending more money they don't fucking have.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    The $150/B per year was the White House bullshit spin on the cost of the tax bill. They did it using something called "dynamic scoring" which is just pulling number out of their ass.

  • DarrenM||

    That's pretty much par for the course regardless of who's running things.

  • DesigNate||

    Even without dynamic scoring it didn't increase the deficit to 1.5TT per year, fucktard.

    And the Democrats are STILL supporting this budget so their fake claims of caring about the deficit ring as hollow as Republicans claims under Obama.

  • Sevo||

    "Left - Right = Zero"

    All ONE! All ONE!
    Thank you Dr. Bronner.

  • Incomprehensible Bitching||

    Fuck the austerity!

  • Calidissident||

    Wat?

    Your claim would only be true if the increase in the deficit was solely caused by the tax cuts, which you haven't shown at all.

    And regarding your claim below, the $1.5 trillion over 10 years was the number the CBO projected, and they don't use dynamic scoring. Even it is greater than that, it's nowhere near enough to cause a more than $500 billion increase in one year.

  • JFree||

    The deficit will increase by roughly 250 billion for every 1% increase in interest rates. So the Fed has actually been subsidizing the deficit to the tune of about 750 billion/year for the last decade or so. That is, in theory, one thing that has started being unwound. Though it will only continue until it causes a financial panic and homeowners insist that they need yet more time on the tit now that they are comfortable.

  • Hank Phillips||

    A conservative is a 19th-century Comstock Law bigot. Antiqueness has nothing to do with economics, and right-wing means only clinging to the Jesus-myth´s loincloth rather than Mohammed's hat or Marx's beard. The only reason "conservatives" quit worshipping socialism was that Russia's Bolshevik government admitted that it did not worship the Baby Jesus. Before that, William Jennings Bryan, Edward Bellamy, William Dean Howells and other such pietistic populists were frothing with excitement over an Altrurian dictatorship of Red Republicans.

  • ace_m82||

    You forget (or conveniently ignore) Abusus non tollit usum when it's against "them". You are a tribalist.

    Christians =/= Republicans, Thank God!

  • ace_m82||

    Attempt at ridicule. Ad Hominem attack.

    Typical Hihn.

    But God Bless you anyhow, Hihn!

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Socialism and the right are mutualy exclusive you raving idiot. Seriously Hank, which mental institution are you currently committed to?

  • CE||

    Yeah, the tax cut bill had a 10-year cap on new debt at 1.5 trillion, or 150 billion per year. chicken feed.

  • CE||

    I'm pretty sure you mean "fiery".

  • Eidde||

    I think I had a similar confusion...when I was like 9.

  • Unlabelable MJGreen||

    On the one hand, he voted for the tax cut without any kind of assurances of future spending cuts, so putting his foot down now because he's so worried about the deficit feels rather cheap.

    On the other hand, since there were no such assurances, this is exactly what he and other deficit-conscious legislators should be doing. So I hesitate to call these crocodile tears.

  • DarrenM||

    tax cut without any kind of assurances of future spending cuts

    Has this ever worked? We get the assurances, but never the spending cuts.

  • shortviking||

    Tax cuts are not spending.

  • Stormy Dragon||

    Storing fireworks in your family room isn't arson, but it does make it hard to complain later on when the house is on fire.

  • Incomprehensible Bitching||

    That is absolutely true!

  • shortviking||

    I know it's a painful fact, but the fact remains.

  • shortviking||

    Yes, by out of control spending. Not because of people rightfully keeping their own money.

  • ace_m82||

    I actually thought that was Hihn...

  • ace_m82||

    Nope, still can't tell the difference.

  • DesigNate||

    You think tax cuts equal spending and we're the goobers?

  • Sevo||

    "Left - Right = Zero"

    All ONE! All One! Thank you, Dr. Bronner.

  • Incomprehensible Bitching||

    This is why 101% reject the libertarian brand: they love taxes.

  • DarrenM||

    No, people don't love taxes. They love the spending. They have no problem with taxes as long as someone else pays them.

  • Sammi||

    Good thing you'll die of old age soon so it really doesn't matter to you anyway, Robert

  • Calidissident||

    Are you saying he should vote for the bill?

    I think it's fair to criticize Paul for the tax vote. I liked and disliked aspect of the tax plan so I get both sides, but I'm not going to say anyone criticizing him on that is out-of-bounds.

    But on this issue, it's not like he's advocating a shutdown for the sake of a shutdown - he's just not willing to vote for increasing spending by $400 billion in less than two years to avoid a shutdown.

  • Calidissident||

    I don't see how he would be causing a shutdown more than the people who came up with the shitty deal in the first place. You don't get to offer up a shit pile to avoid a crisis of your own making and then blame people who don't go along with it.

  • Sidd Finch v2.01||

    The left and right are exactly the same? Explain yourself.

  • Sidd Finch v2.01||

    Democrats want government out of your bedroom and into your wallet.
    Republicans want government out of your wallet and into your bedroom.

    How does (out of your bedroom and into your wallet) - (out of your wallet and into your bedroom) = 0?

    It seems to me (out of your bedroom and into your wallet) - (out of your wallet and into your bedroom) = 2(out of your bedroom) + 2 (into your wallet)

  • Sidd Finch v2.01||

    They have the same VALUE, whatever you think that is.

    Right. They have the same value but opposite directions. So how does subtracting one from the other equal zero rather than twice the value?

  • Sammi||

    Sid, bro, Robert does math like he does libertarianism.

  • Sammi||

    Yes, we know you're bad at math Robert.

  • Hank Phillips||

    See? Anything resembling arithmetic completely baffles Kleptocracy congregants. And explaining that the only difference between left-wing international socialists and right-wing national socialists is the latter's boy-crush on the Jesus myth only triggers denunciations that the other guys "aren't really" altruists. The pattern hasn't changed since 1932.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Your drivel grows tiresome.

  • Sammi||

    It's nice that Robert can be funny like that from time to time.

  • Sammi||

    ...

    Holy shit that's funny.

  • Troglodyte Rex||

    Yep. Made a TOTAL ass out of your math ignorance!

    Let's see here...

    |1 1 0 | --> | 1 1 0| --> | 1 1 0| --> |1 0 0|
    |1 -1 0| --> | 0 2 0| --> |0 1 0| --> |0 1 0|

    X = Y = 0.

    Leave math to math literates.

  • DesigNate||

    That's ducking glorious.

  • Tony||

    One tribe or the other gets to be in power, so there's no such thing as being disloyal equally, practically speaking. Certainly no use in it.

  • Tony||

    You have to be able to discern between two very unlike things, even if neither is your idea of perfect.

    In fact we'd all be better off if you tried.

  • MarkLastname||

    And has been pointed out to you time and time again, the more people willing to vote for their 'lesser evil' no matter how terrible it is, the worse it will get. Politicians will be as bad as they can get away with being, and you self-supposed pragmatic ultramontanists are the ones who give them license to do so.

    Bitch all you want about how dumb independent or undecided voters or non-voters are; they're the only thing pulling the parties in a centrifugal direction.

    Of course, if you're honest, you'll admit that you, being an extremist, resent that fact. Let's face it, you'd embrace Bernie Sanders' ideology if you thought it were politically viable.

  • Tony||

    People who express an ostentatious lack of loyalty to either party are ignored by both parties. This goes on left, right, and center, and it's commonly referred to virtue signalling--meant to contrast with the concept of actually accomplishing things.

    My loathing of Bernie Sanders and his cult comes from the same place. They want purity, demand purity, yet seem perfectly happy accepting no loaf instead of half a loaf.

    You can't have a democracy if you're not willing to compromise with other people. It's kind of how it works. And you'll forgive me if I don't think you should be in charge.

  • ace_m82||

    You can't have a democracy if you're not willing to compromise with other people

    I agree. That's why democracy is a terrible system, ripe for evil.

    The Soviets want to kill your entire family and take everything your family has. You want none of that.

    So you compromise, they kill only you, leave the rest of your family, and take half your stuff. Success, right?

    Well, no, then next year they want to kill the rest of your family and take everything they have. And the compromise (you see where this is going).

    So no, you cannot compromise your rights (the one right to do everything other than initiate force) away. So democracy doesn't work (see all relevant history).

  • ace_m82||

    That was your takeaway from that? So it's willful misrepresentation, then!

    If the Soviets were to be the majority, and were to want to kill your entire family and take everything your family has... (blah blah).

    But, we already know what you think about that, Hihn:

    http://reason.com/reasontv/201.....e-will-die

    Hihn thinks government only exists to protect the "right" to choose your ruler, no other rights:

    Me: Government isn't compatible with individual rights (unless there is 100% consent).
    Hihn: INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS MEANS 0.0001% CAN OVERRULE THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE.
    THAT'S DICTATOR RIGHTS, SLAVER. YOUR 'RIGHT' IS TO LEAVE.

    …INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY'ALLOWS THEM TO RESIGN ...FUCKING LEAVE

    Me: By 'liberty' you mean the liberty to leave when they take all you have, enslave you, and kill you?
    Hihn: BEFORE – UNLESS YOU'RE EVEN CRAZIER.

    Government is apparently voluntary as well:

    "Government - like Kiwanis, dumfuck -- is a VOLUNTARY ASSOCIATION.
    ITS MEMBERS AGREE, FREELY AND VOLUNTARILY -- TO JAIL THEMSELVES FOR REFUSING TO PAY THE DUES."

    http://reason.com/blog/2018/01.....nt_7100385

    "Don't like it? EMIGRATE."

    "See .. government DEFENDS rights."

    Regardless of your complete lack of morality:

    God Bless you, Hihn!

  • Tony||

    Okay, so you are actually saying that you deserve everything you want from society with no compromise with anyone you're sharing it with.

    I think absolute despotism might have an even worse track record.

  • Sammi||

    Makes perfect sense to Tony, when both sides tell you to eat shit, pick a pile and gobble away, and under no circumstances refuse to eat.

  • Hank Phillips||

    Quoth the International Socialist in an effort to deny the law-changing clout of libertarian spoiler votes. To a socialist, power--the rate at which the Political State can turn people into cadavers--is the only thing worth striving for, in fact, the only thing they can conceptually grasp as a value. (This sockpuppet, BTW, is the entity totally pissed off at Ayn Rand for pointing out that looters value death.)

  • DesigNate||

    Over 10 years, you pro-spending, pro-tax Bully.

    Oh, and reducing your revenue isn't spending, no matter how many times you assert otherwise. snear

    *Just defending from the fake libertarian bully who doesn't include all the information.

  • DarrenM||

    Republicans don't like spending money any more than Democrats do.

  • CatoTheChipper||

    But they all love to spend other people's money.

    They only differ in how they want to squander that money.

  • Moo Cow||

    Is this one of those things where McConnell let's him talk for a while then holds the vote anyway?

  • Aloysious||

    I wonder if anybody will listen.

  • ||

    Rand Paul is for lower taxes and less spending. When the opportunity arose reduce taxes he voted for it. When a bill was presented that would dramatically increase spending he opposed it.... pretty simple

  • Paloma||

    You can't really borrow for "free" tax cuts, since that money isn't really yours yet.

  • Tony||

    Just don't say he's for reducing the deficit.

  • Juice||

    Of course he is, just not by raising taxes.

  • shortviking||

    Spending increases debt. Reduced theft does not.

  • ace_m82||

    Thou Shalt not steal.

    God Bless you, Hihn!

  • shortviking||

    I vote against thieves like yourself, yes.

  • shortviking||

    Spending increases debt. Reduced theft literally does not.

  • MarkLastname||

    If someone wants to reduce taxes by X, and reduce spending by >X, they are for reducing the deficit. It's pretty straightforward.

  • Hank Phillips||

    Randal Paul is for sending men with guns to coerce and kill physicians who help pregnant women exercise individual rights. Those rights were enforced after the LP plank was copied by La Suprema Corte as the Roe v. Wade decision. It could be that Their Honors also read Robert Heinlein's "I Will Fear No Evil," seasoned as it was with judicial jargon, but the Libertarian plank is recognizably the lead paragraph in that decision. The Prohibition Party then shrieked they wanted a Constitutional Amendment forcing coathanger abortions as the only choice, and the Republican Partei copied that and have pasted it into their platforms ever since. The LP wrote the Supreme Court decision, and the Prohibition Party has written the Republican planks in a desperate effort to strip women of individual rights. That is the party Ron and Randal Paul support. Neither could be elected dog zoner in Canada.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Seriously, fuck off. Thread jackingt abortion obsessed asshole. I'll bet you think Kermit Gosnell was a martyr too.

  • Sidd Finch v2.01||

    I see the trillion dollar coin people are back to caring about the deficit.

  • Tony||

    Wha.. whatabout Democrats' hypocrisy for being deficit hawks when they don't even think deficits matter!

    Isn't that just as bad as Republicans borrowing trillions of dollars to give Christmas presents to multibillionaires and bomb Muslims! Nay, even worse, because they also shamefully believe in helping people, the most important thing government isn't supposed to do!

  • Tony||

    Rand Paul being for massively costly tax cuts for gazillionaires and against increases in spending for any other purpose makes him a shameless hypocrite of course. But that's only halfway to the ongoing decades-long hypocrisy of Republicans in general, who shut down the government, demand cuts to Social Security and Medicare, and are absolutely opposed any new spending by Democrats when Democrats are in power. And--get this--their excuse is the deficit they themselves ran up.

    Meanwhile Democrats aren't allowed to borrow for any reason--even during a recession to do useful and vital projects. Each disaster aid package comes with strings or is actually opposed by the likes of Rand Paul.

    This is what looting a country looks like. And you're all too fucking Team Red to notice.

  • Tony||

    Yes, Democrats are better at fiscal restraint. It's as plain as black numbers on a white ledger. They don't borrow for their social programs. Republicans and centrist Democrats won't let them. They only pass them when they reduce the deficit, like Obamacare, like environmental policy.

    False equivalence is one of the easier fallacies to understand, and employing it here can only serve to let the worse actor off the hook.

  • Sevo||

    Tony|2.9.18 @ 12:04AM|#
    "Yes, Democrats are better at fiscal restraint"

    Obviously, you do not post without lying, shit-pile.
    Fuck off and take that imbecile Hihn with you.

  • Tony||

    I think it's OK to borrow to deal with a global environmental crisis.

    This isn't even household budget horsepucky. They demand that Democrats treat government like a household with the best credit card in the world, except that not only can't they use it for some reason, they have to take a sledgehammer to the bathroom before they make any investments.

  • Tony||

    I said I think it's OK to borrow to deal with major crises. (I'd say it's criminal not to, especially at recent interest rates.) I also said that Democrats are hamstrung from doing so by lying deficit hypocrites of galactic magnitude.

    I'll grant you that they're more than happy to let Democrats vote for borrowing for tax cuts.

  • Sammi||

    Hi I'm Tony, I don't know what "only" means.

  • Sevo||

    Tony|2.9.18 @ 12:14AM|#
    "I think it's OK to borrow to deal with a global environmental crisis."

    That's the horseshit used to support the unproven claim of a "global environmental crisis" and the unproven claim that government action is the proper response.
    So, prove the first and then prove the second. With *evidence*, Tony.

  • Tony||

    Prove that you're semi-literate.

  • Sammi||

    You first, start with defining "only"

  • Tony||

    I'm not sure what point you're trying to rebut. Reagan did start out with an even deeper recession than Obama. So the difference is in the length of time to recovery.

    Reagan's government increased government spending per capita by 15% over a year, while Obama's government decreased it.

    What every liberal will say is that the stimulus wasn't big enough to meet the problem. It wasn't permitted to be. You've just restated my entire argument about the differences in what the parties can get away with.

  • Incomprehensible Bitching||

    But, let's think about this: why would someone make a false equivalency argument? They know it's a Fallacy, so that doesn't make any sense.

    Therefore, people don't make false equivalences, and the equivalence must be true. QED.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Tony, you have no sense of reality, and are more proof the only way to save Americs is to drive out the progressives.

  • Sevo||

    "Rand Paul being for massively costly tax cuts for gazillionaires"

    You slimy shit-pile, do you ever post without lying?

  • Tony||

    You're like a feral child whose only comfort is clinging to daddy Hannity's leg.

  • Sevo||

    Tony|2.9.18 @ 12:11AM|#
    "You're like a feral child whose only comfort is clinging to daddy Hannity's leg."

    You're not "like" a lying shitbag, you are one.
    I doubt I've actually ever heard Hannity, unless he happened to be on a TV where I was vistiting.
    You, you pathetic excuse for humanity, seem to listen to him regularly.
    Fuck off, shitbag.

  • Sammi||

    "Hannity's"

    Why is it always the same small handful of names with this guy? It's like his knowledge on this subject is as abjectly deficient as all the other subjects.

  • Tony||

    My knowledge on the subject of GOP propagandists and their talking points du jour is obviously greater than anyone here, not a one of whom has even heard of FOX News!

  • Sammi||

    It's as broad and wide as your knowledge on anything else.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    You have no knowledge Tony.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    "You're like a feral child whose only comfort is clinging to daddy Hannity's leg."

    Tony, you're a communist. You exist as part of the Marxist hive mind, yet you call someone out like this. Your hypocrisy knows no bounds. Another reason your life has no value and no one could ever love you. Anyone who has the misfortune to know you will be better off without you. So go drink your Drano.

  • DesigNate||

    You understand that money doesn't belong to the federal government, right? That like 95% of tax payers are seeing a reduction, not just those filthy one percenters? That the groups that pay the most taxes in a progressive tax system will see the largest gains from cuts?

  • shortviking||

    Tax cuts are not a thing to be "financed". It's letting people keep more of their own money.

  • SovereignMary||

    Michael Hines - You're the stupid vulgar one who truly has displayed your very disgusting limited vocabulary on social media for all to see.

  • MarkLastname||

    Still making shit up about the tax bill I see. Have you not noticed unemployment is at the lowest point in decades and wages are rising significantly for the first time in years?

    And stop your moronic partisan bitching about how the poor little Democrats don't get what they want: they got everything they could dream of out of this budget: tens of billions of dollars to be pissed away on "infrastructure spending" which will be doled out to friendly companies in their constituencies. Or subsidies for useless liberal arts degrees for thousands of people. They're getting all the pork they want and they're not even in power.

    It's real rich, though, after Obama's trillion dollar stimulus (that utterly failed to stimulate the economy) that you're just now discovering what looting the country looks like.

  • Sidd Finch v2.01||

    Tony, Jesus loves you.

  • Tony||

    I don't think I know any Jesuses. I have a secret crush??

  • Sidd Finch v2.01||

    Homosexualists have crushes? Learn something every day.

  • Sidd Finch v2.01||

    I'm Episcopalian. I barely know what the Bible is.

  • ace_m82||

    This just in, Hihn fails at sarcasm.

  • ace_m82||

    This just in, when you tell Hihn he fails at sarcasm, he still fails at sarcasm.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Tony is only turned on by the baby version of Jesus.

  • Sidd Finch v2.01||

    Tony, tell me all about Wakanda.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    T'Challa would surely put Tony to death.

  • Hank Phillips||

    Randal would make Anthony Comstock and the Prohibition Party proud. Indeed, the Prohis could probably score a few spoiler votes if the Senator were to re-register with that original 1976 coathanger abortion lobby. But the take-away in all this is that the God's Own Prohibitionist half of the Kleptocracy would before the world lick the blacking off of Hitler and Stalin's boots in exchange for more pelf, boodle and jobs for its ward-heelers and lobbyists with largesse. I am grateful for the Senator from Narcotic-Farm Kentucky for seeing to it that his colleagues' masks slipped so revealingly.

  • ace_m82||

    Indeed, the Prohis could probably score a few spoiler votes if the Senator were to re-register with that original 1976 coathanger abortion lobby.

    Yes, must make sure to make murder as easy as possible!

  • Tony||

    Fuck off woman slaver.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Tony, go drink your Drano.

  • ace_m82||

    So you think murder is a woman's right?

    (You didn't actually argue against the premise, so that's what I must conclude.)

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Hank, you're an idiot. Babbling piece of shit.

  • Árboles de la Barranca||

    Rand cast an anti-war vote a while back which triggered his progressive neighbor into brutally assaulting him in a sneak attack.

    I hope he keeps his guard up against his other easily-triggered-to-violence progressive neighbors.

  • Robert||

    "A country cannot go on forever spending money this way,"

  • strat||

    Sen. Paul made quite a few good points, and said things that really needed to be said, even if they fell on deaf ears.
    I did start to get a little uncomfortable when he invoked the spectre of William Proxmire and taught a little history lesson about the Golden Fleece awards.

    I'm the first to admit that probably 75% of what the USG does doesn't seem to be a part of its legal remit, but I also remember that ARPA initially tried to shut down the first (organically evolved) Internet mailing list circa 1975, because it seemed to be off-task and a waste of resources. To ARPA officials' credit, they relented, and we were all better for it (at least for a while).

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Ok. Let's all turn on Rand Paul. We have lots of better alternatives in congress, right?

  • SovereignMary||

    Kudos and high priase to Senator Rand Paul for his standing tall and firm against recklessly increasing the already horrific and unsustainable national U.S. Debt.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

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