Press "Enter" to skip to content

LP: Defund Obamacare and …

20130928-225353.jpgThe Libertarian Party issued a press release calling for Congress to defund Obamacare and for a permanent slowdown in government spending.

The LP explains, effectively, that the so-called “shutdown” currently being discussed is really just a “slowdown”, reducing federal spending by only about 27%.

Relating it fairly well to regular people, the LP asks:

Every American should ask himself one question: Is my family better off with a government slowdown that cuts federal spending by 27 percent? Or is my family better off with another trillion dollars in federal government debt?

Read the full release for more.

12 Comments

  1. Thomas L. Knapp September 30, 2013

    Apparently you failed to notice that you got it wrong and are now too proud to admit it.

    No problem.

  2. George Phillies September 29, 2013

    Apparently you failed to notice the context of “act”. ” The Constitution specifies how war should be declared, namely Congress should act, exactly as it was proceeding to do. Contrary to the press release, the Constitution says nothing about why Congress should act. ” “act” here refers to declaring war.

  3. Thomas L. Knapp September 29, 2013

    @7,

    “It would not occur to me to read either of those as a complete list of allowed reasons for declaring war.”

    You didn’t say “the Constitution does not include a complete list of allowed reasons for declaring war.”

    You said “the Constitution says nothing about why Congress should act.”

  4. George Phillies September 29, 2013

    @6 Your critique has been a hairowing experience. You give us anothair line of possible hairgumentation.

  5. George Phillies September 29, 2013

    Notre that one of the objectives of some supporters of the War of 1812 was “invade and conquer Canada”. While the merits of the objective were disputed, I do not recall assertions — some founding fathers were still around at this point — that wars of aggression and annexation were unConstitutional.

  6. George Phillies September 29, 2013

    @5 It would not occur to me to read either of those as a complete list of allowed reasons for declaring war. Indeed, the separate listing of the insurrections and invasions activities might suggest that these are things that may be done, separate from the declaration of war power.

  7. From Der Sidelines September 29, 2013

    Neale needs a haircut.

    Phillies needs to quit splitting hairs.

    Knapp need to grow some hair.

    I’m outta hair…

  8. Thomas L. Knapp September 29, 2013

    “The Constitution specifies how war should be declared, namely Congress should act, exactly as it was proceeding to do. Contrary to the press release, the Constitution says nothing about why Congress should act.”

    Actually it does. Do the phrases “provide for the common defense” and “suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions” ring any bells?

  9. George Phillies September 29, 2013

    Here are the press release titles since the start of July:

    I see three defund Obamacare, one Restore the Fourth, one opposition to Syria.

    Restore the Fourth could have been a continuing effort that would have brought in support. Blocking the ACA by collapsing the Federal government is not even popular with ACA opponents.

    The argument against war with Syria “”There is no Constitutional justification for America to unilaterally use force in Syria,” Neale said.

    “Syria is not threatening our country,” he added. “We have no national interest in intervening there. There are no reasons for the U.S. to support either the Assad dictatorship or the opposition warlords.””

    is, by the way, Constitutionally illiterate. The Constitution specifies how war should be declared, namely Congress should act, exactly as it was proceeding to do. Contrary to the press release, the Constitution says nothing about why Congress should act.

    Did the review committee actually read that Syria release? The general objective of the platform — selling our issues to the American people — could be said to be inconsistent with advertising that we do not know what we are talking about.

    The Press Releases from LP.org:

    Libertarian Party calls for permanent government spending slowdown, defunding Obamacare

    There is no impending government shutdown — only a government slowdown. The threat of a “shutdown” is designed to scare voters while avoiding scrutiny of reckless government overspending.
    Sep 2013
    Libertarian Party to incumbents: Defund Obamacare now — or risk voter backlash in 2014

    The Libertarian Party calls on members of the U.S. House and Senate to defund Obamacare now.
    Aug 2013
    Libertarian Party opposes U.S. intervention in Syria
    Aug 2013
    Are drone strikes in Yemen convincing its civilians that the U.S. government is the most dangerous terrorist?
    Aug 2013
    Libertarian Party calls for restoring the Fourth Amendment
    Jul 2013
    Republicans refuse to end Obamacare now
    “Delaying Obamacare is simply a stay of execution for struggling small businesses and health care consumers in America,” said Carla Howell, director for the Libertarian Party. “Defund and repeal it now.”

  10. George Phillies September 29, 2013

    Yes but which 27%? The Federal Government does things that, you might propose, should be privatized, or that are private except for handwaving. For example, it supplies electrical power to significant parts of the United States. Shutting that down next week would lead to
    negative outcomes, there not being time to legislate, e.g., ‘the power coop is now off-budget’.

    Also, this perpetual whining about the ACA rather than unpopular NSA spying and unpopular war with Syria (these being wedge issues with us one one side and BOTH party leaderships on the other) reinforces the wrong message, the message that we are a group of Republican stooges.

    In addition, the claim that we would cut spending by a trillion dollars, and this would simply move us from 600 billion in deficit to 400 billion in surplus, seems to ignore all of the secondary economic effects.

  11. Michael H. Wilson September 29, 2013

    The devil is in the details and I don’t see any details.

Comments are closed.