Libertarian Party Warns Tea Party

[sgreger1]

WASHINGTON - Looking toward the 9/12 Tea Party events in Washington, DC, Libertarian Party executive director Wes Benedict issued the following warning to Tea Partiers: "Republicans are trying to fool you again."

"There are two kinds of Tea Partiers," said Benedict. "One kind is so blinded by its hatred of Obama and Democrats that it cannot see fault with Republicans. It's the other kind the Libertarian Party is reaching out to."

Libertarian Party staff and volunteers will participate in the Washington, DC Tea Party events on September 12. They will distribute flyers pointing out how the Top 10 Disasters of the 2009-2010 Obama administration mirror the Top 10 Disasters of the 2001-2008 Bush administration.

Benedict continued, "Libertarians have much in common with Tea Party goals of reducing government spending and taxes. While many Tea Party supporters will admit that George W. Bush's administration grew government, Libertarians want to remind Tea Partiers about previous Republican administrations that loved big government."



"Republican Newt Gingrich and the Contract with America promised to eliminate the Departments of Education and Energy. Yet once Republicans took control of Congress, they failed even to reduce the spending on those departments."

"Republican President George Bush, Sr. remains famous for coining the phrase 'Read my lips, no new taxes,' and then raising taxes."

"Republican President Ronald Reagan grew federal government spending to the highest level it had reached since World War II. He also 'saved Social Security' by raising payroll taxes."

"Republican presidential candidate Bob Dole was a huge supporter of taxpayer subsidies for corn and ethanol."

"In 1971, Republican President Richard Nixon instituted wage and price controls. That made a group of free-market supporters so angry that they decided to form the Libertarian Party."

"Republicans seem to think we're idiots. For decades they have paid lip-service to shrinking government, while consistently doing the opposite in office."

"Our fear is that Tea Partiers might say 'This time it will be different.' No it won't. If you vote for Republicans this time, it will just reinforce the message that they can lie to you and grow government with impunity."

"Current Republicans are just as bad as past Republicans."

"This year, Libertarian Party co-founder David Nolan is running for U.S. Senate against Republican John McCain, who famously suspended his 2008 presidential campaign so he could rush back to Washington to bail out the banks."

"Republican leader John Boehner might end up as the next House Speaker, and he voted for George W. Bush's huge 2003 Medicare expansion."

"John Cornyn, Republican senator from Texas, and current chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, voted for the TARP bailouts."

"Ron Paul is probably the only Republican congressman willing to point out the huge cost of America's foreign wars and empire building. Other Republicans pretend that spending trillions on the military just doesn't count as big government."

"With Social Security, Medicare, and military spending making up the vast majority of federal spending, you can't cut significantly without cutting those. But Republicans refuse to touch them."

"Libertarians welcome the Tea Party movement's focus on the problem of government growth. However, we are concerned that Tea Partiers might fall for the Republicans' trickery."

"Republican leaders have brought up distractions like New York City mosques and gay marriage to distract voters from Republicans' big-government track record. We hope that Tea Partiers will see through the smoke and mirrors.

"While our nation is declining dangerously right now, a turnaround could be straightforward and simple with Libertarian steps like these: 1. Bring our troops home from Iraq and Afghanistan; 2. Stop rewarding failed companies with bailouts; 3. Cut taxes and spending and let the free market work."

"The Libertarian Party is fielding 168 candidates for U.S. House, and 20 candidates for U.S. Senate this year. Win or lose, a vote for a Libertarian sends a clear message for smaller government and more freedom. What message does a vote for John McCain send?"

For more information, or to arrange an interview, call LP Executive Director Wes Benedict at 202-333-0008 ext. 222.

The LP is America's third-largest political party, founded in 1971. The Libertarian Party stands for free markets and civil liberties. You can find more information on the Libertarian Party at our website.

[Joe234]

duh

[RobsanX]

All Republicans care about is $$$, and how to get more of it in their pocket. Just look at all the ads for Republican candidates claiming "he's a businessman!" as if that's some kind of high qualification for public service.

[sgreger1]

All Republicans care about is $$$, and how to get more of it in their pocket. Just look at all the ads for Republican candidates claiming "he's a businessman!" as if that's some kind of high qualification for public service.

RobasnX, I know your smarter than that. Everyone wants money, politicians, and Americans. Republicans tend to cater to the business crowd, so making note of extensive business experience is a great thing to have on your resume and a great campaign focus point. The problem right now is that there are not a lot of jobs, and Americans need jobs and money, as does the economy if it wishes to survive.

The democrats tend to focus more on social issues and social programs, which are very necessary but the polls right now are pretty clear on what Americans want: More jobs, mo money.

In CA, our republican candidate for governor (to replace the governator), is Meg Whitman. Meg Whitman was the millionaire CEO of Ebay. Personally I think she is just buying the campaign and is no better than her democrat opponent, but that's another story. A big focus of her campaign ad bombardment, especially on conservative talk radio, is focusing on the fact that she brought Ebay from a company of 13 employees to one who now employs thousands. In other words, she is saying she will create jobs. The number 1 thing on most American's minds.

The republicans are banking on winning via this strategy. They figure if they mention the fact that they are businessmen, people will say "Hey, this guy knows how to create jobs, this guy knows how how to balance a budget," etc etc. These are skills a community organized or a lawyer would know nothing about.

I think i's a solid strategy. I don't think they will bring any more jobs than anyone else, but looking at it strictly from a campaign point of view, it makes sense. The Republican voter base wants this country ran like a business. They want it to be profitable, employ a lot of people, and be successfull financially.

The tea parties started during Bush's last term as a response to the TARP bailouts which a lot of Americans were against, but didn't really hit off untill the first "tax day" tea party rally in April of 09 when Obama got elected. This group was then seen as an anti-Obama group as opposed to an anti-government waste and anti-tax group. Therefore, the republicans of course tried (successfully) to hijack it right off the bat, thinking they could use them to get votes, even though they know damn well that they have no intentions of shrinking government or lowering taxes for the average joe.

This is why the libertarian party is going to tea party rallies this year and handing out these fliers listing the above points, to get people to vote for a libertarian third party. Even if they don't win, it will be a powerfull message that Americans DO NOT WANT more of the same, and we should all know by now that more of the same is all we will get with either the democrats or the republicans.

[RobsanX]

People want jobs so they can pay their bills, and not lose their houses. That's a lot different than wanting "mo money."

Why does a successful business person who gains success by growing the size of their company think that shrinking the size of government will make it more successful?

The government is experiencing right now what it can do with less money. How many interstate bridges need to collapse, or neighborhood gas lines explode before we put an end to the cuts?

[lxskllr]

People want jobs so they can pay their bills, and not lose their houses. That's a lot different than wanting "mo money."

Why does a successful business person who gains success by growing the size of their company think that shrinking the size of government will make it more successful?

The government is experiencing right now what it can do with less money. How many interstate bridges need to collapse, or neighborhood gas lines explode before we put an end to the cuts?

There's many things that can be cut before they start cutting infrastructure support. I'd start with the Dept of Domestic Espionage. That should free up some cash. The military could use some trimming also. I'd start with cutting the bombers, as we extricate ourselves from being the world police. I'd also stop propping up Israel. Not only does that free up a boatload of cash, it might get the Muslim asshats off our backs. There's plenty of places money can be found before we start getting into the core infrastructure.

[sgreger1]

People want jobs so they can pay their bills, and not lose their houses. That's a lot different than wanting "mo money."

Why does a successful business person who gains success by growing the size of their company think that shrinking the size of government will make it more successful?

Are you being seriouse bro? Surely you understand that the government does not create wealth, it merely taxes it and then re-distributes it. The entire of government is 100% overhead. Growing your overhead has a negative effect on your bottom line. Additionally, growing government requires sucking up more money from businesses and individuals, again just adding more overhead, while taking away the ability of your revenue base to earn money.

In a company, growth means more money, in a government growth means more bureaucracy and overhead. When government grows, it does not generate more money. When a company grows, it does generate more money. Additionally, a company only grows if it is doing a good job and balancing it's budget, whereas a government grows even when it is flat broke, and refuses to ever cut back even if all 350 million stock-holders are losing money by the second. It's pretty simple.


And people want "mo money". Some want more money to pay for the essentials, but certainly once there is food on the table and a roof over your head, most Americans would like to have nice things, send their kids to good schools, drive a car or two etc. Do not fool yourself into thinking Americans are buddhist monks who have no desire for money or material things.


And what cuts have we made that have lead to bridges collapsing and gas lines exploding? The gas line that exploded last night near me had nothing to do with the government making too many cuts, it was lax safety procedures like always.

On what basis do you make the claim that "the government is experiencing right now what it can do with less money"? Do you propose that the government has been spending less money recently? Like, perse the 12.8 trillion it's spent in the last 19 months to rescue the economy? Right now, the government is growing and spending more and more, and things are jsut getting worse. This is because in order for government to grow, it must either take more from the people who write their paychecks (the private sector), or borrow more money (with intirest) from other countries.


Please explain to me how taking extensive, unpayable loans and destroying your revenue base to make yourself larger is somehow sustainable, or a better business practice for that matter? The world is dying to know Robansx.

[sgreger1]

There's many things that can be cut before they start cutting infrastructure support. I'd start with the Dept of Domestic Espionage. That should free up some cash. The military could use some trimming also. I'd start with cutting the bombers, as we extricate ourselves from being the world police. I'd also stop propping up Israel. Not only does that free up a boatload of cash, it might get the Muslim asshats off our backs. There's plenty of places money can be found before we start getting into the core infrastructure.

This is another great point, people always act like every dollar cut is surely coming from school lunches or bridges and the power grid. That's not how it works in any budget. You cut the fat off first.

Our biggest expenditures are social security, medicaid, and the military. Right now in this climate no one is going to go after SS or medicaid and be successfull, but the military one is easy. Like Lx pointed out, we could quit these prolonged wars, close down some of our unnecessary bases (there are hundreds around the world to choose from), and stop giving so much foriegn aid to everyone. Foreign aid at this point is like a bum giving me tripple what he makes each year. He is not in a position to be handing out money, because he is flat broke.

FACT: The bum on the street corner, wrapped up in newspaper and covered in urine and whiskey has a higher net worth than the United States of America does right now. He has no debt and some income, this puts him light years ahead of the US as far as fiscal responsibility, he lives within his means and doesn't owe nobody nothing. Think about that for a moment.

[raptor]

I'd also stop propping up Israel. Not only does that free up a boatload of cash, it might get the Muslim asshats off our backs.

As much as I 100% agree with you, anyone who questions sending-gun-money-to-Israel is going to be labeled as antisemitic. It would be nice to save 3 bil a year though.

[f. bandersnatch]

This thread topic brings to mind images of an awesome West Side Story style dancin singin brawl between a bunch of fat white dudes, pretending to whack each other with chains so as to decide who gets to tell everyone else what to do. Maria would be played by Glenn Beck, clearly.