Analysis: For House Republicans, conf...

Analysis: For House Republicans, confrontation is safer than compromise

There are 113 comments on the Yahoo! story from Oct 1, 2013, titled Analysis: For House Republicans, confrontation is safer than compromise. In it, Yahoo! reports that:

For most Republicans in the House of Representatives, the only greater peril than shutting down the federal government would have been fighting to keep it open.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Yahoo!.

“Moderately yours....”

Since: Aug 12

Buffalo, NY

#92 Oct 6, 2013
Teaman wrote:
<quoted text>
You might want to replace the East India Tea Co. with any of the health insurer's names. The colonists had no problem with local taxation. I don't think our founders with their limited government ideals would approve of a public being forced to purchase health insurance or taxed tea from the East India Tea Co. The IRS and other bureaucracies don't sound representative to me.
Oh, those tea partiers wore silly little American indian clothing with war paint.
There was one bit of clumsy wording...the founding fathers did not have the option of paying taxes to a centralized gov't that they were represented in. If the George had allowed representation in the Empires gov't would there have been a lessening of tension that could have held off the Revolution. Likewise if the king had offered the founding fathers the equivalent of being in 'commonwealth', with a strong central colonial gov't would they have accepted it.
Don't forget the time lag between the seeds of the revolution being sewn and the constitutions ratification.
After only a few years they had begun to evolve out of the ultra - small gov't articles of confederation, an evolution which as you know has advanced throughout the life of the Republic.
the question is would the founding fathers accepted the evolution of the Republic, the evidence is not clear that they pictured a static gov't stuck in the point in time which it was written.

“Yeah, but...”

Since: Sep 11

MILKY WAY

#93 Oct 6, 2013
Buffalo Bull wrote:
<quoted text>
There were no taxes other than local, to your colony and to England there was no central colonial gov't to contribute taxes to. thus it isn't easy to tell how they would have responded. In addition they were not all of the same mind on near anything.
Franklin was more metropolitan than his counterparts, and snickered at their religiosity
Abolitionists made deals with slave holders
Hamilton was vocal in his support for a stronger cental gov't and his views on banking were desidedly modern.
Sorry i just can't let you walk off with my founding fathers unopposed.
As far as the war paint...big deal they wore wigs too.
Ahhhhh....
But with all those differences, there was a certain respect of opposing viewpoints. There was a desire (necessity?) to accommodate the valid minority opinion.
fingiswold

Newark, OH

#94 Oct 6, 2013
Teaman wrote:
<quoted text>
They didn't whine about paying legitimate taxes!? And, you call me stupid.
Try reading the rest of the sentence or, if you can't, get a literate person to read it FOR you.

Idiot.

“Moderately yours....”

Since: Aug 12

Buffalo, NY

#95 Oct 6, 2013
SirPrize wrote:
<quoted text>
Ahhhhh....
But with all those differences, there was a certain respect of opposing viewpoints. There was a desire (necessity?) to accommodate the valid minority opinion.
Necessity, the ability to compromise and to include validly expressed opposing view points was key.
Taking English history was vital preview to subsequent american history. The population of the American colonies was made up from the losings sides of the various religious based civil wars in England. For New England puritans to accept Southern colonists who considered themselves to be protestants, and the middle colonies hosted Quakers a more radical puritanism, was an act of supreme compromise. they had after all spent the last generation prosecuting each other in England.
So you to your question, with the caveat that the opposition has to understand once defeated on a single issue they do not raise that defeat up into a reason for unproductive obstruction. If any of the many various faction that had made up the newly birthed United States had decided that they would obstruct all business in order to get their (minority) point of view in to law, the country may not have survived that obstruction.

“Yeah, but...”

Since: Sep 11

MILKY WAY

#96 Oct 6, 2013
Buffalo Bull wrote:
<quoted text>
Necessity, the ability to compromise and to include validly expressed opposing view points was key.
Taking English history was vital preview to subsequent american history. The population of the American colonies was made up from the losings sides of the various religious based civil wars in England. For New England puritans to accept Southern colonists who considered themselves to be protestants, and the middle colonies hosted Quakers a more radical puritanism, was an act of supreme compromise. they had after all spent the last generation prosecuting each other in England.
So you to your question, with the caveat that the opposition has to understand once defeated on a single issue they do not raise that defeat up into a reason for unproductive obstruction. If any of the many various faction that had made up the newly birthed United States had decided that they would obstruct all business in order to get their (minority) point of view in to law, the country may not have survived that obstruction.
Nice twist.
But you forget that the colonies were the minority. They insisted on representation in their Government and nothing more of any consequence. If the Government does not represent the people, it is invalid. It is, by definition, a tyranny.

“Moderately yours....”

Since: Aug 12

Buffalo, NY

#97 Oct 7, 2013
SirPrize wrote:
<quoted text>
Nice twist.
But you forget that the colonies were the minority. They insisted on representation in their Government and nothing more of any consequence. If the Government does not represent the people, it is invalid. It is, by definition, a tyranny.
What you seem to convieniently forget over and over is , we over here inthe middle and those guys on the left are also the people...The results of two consecutive presidential elections prove we the people is comprosed of a few less of you people then of the rest of the country.
It is vital for the majority to follow rules, it is just as vital for the minority to not let there disappointment at being rejected by the people, to fester and cause them to become unproductive.
The correct way to take ACA off the books is to attempt to do it by standard legislative means. Submit bills pass them send them to the Senate. Your side has become reckless because you are attempting to re-write the usual and accepted rules in order to accomplish a goal.
A member of the House or the Senate is oblidged to serve NOT ONLY their constitutients but MORE IMPORTANTLY to serve and protect the United States. If a congressmans constituients wish that the United States do something ileagle or severely counter productive it is the duty of that congressman to go against the people who voted him in. And then face the consequences back home.
These people were hiired to make decisions not to pander or serve with no thought.
As far as the "twist" the new born country was not a stable entity and a serious bout of obstruction could have killed it., you may wish to scoff, but you only have your sights on this single issue and you heave lost sight of the rest of the picture.
Last time out this 'shutdown' tactic cost us a credit rating downgrade, caused by congressional tactics, that cost us the money, which may have made this discussion mute. Except for the fact that the radicals would have simply found some other reason to do what they seem to do best, if not only, shut down the gov't

“Moderately yours....”

Since: Aug 12

Buffalo, NY

#98 Oct 7, 2013
SirPrize wrote:
<quoted text>
Nice twist.
But you forget that the colonies were the minority. They insisted on representation in their Government and nothing more of any consequence. If the Government does not represent the people, it is invalid. It is, by definition, a tyranny.
Your guys have NO representation?
If that were true we wouldn't be having this discussion

Since: Jan 11

Mount Holly, NJ

#99 Oct 7, 2013
fingiswold wrote:
<quoted text>
Try reading the rest of the sentence or, if you can't, get a literate person to read it FOR you.
Idiot.
I did read it. There's no negotiations with the new set of elected representatives. The new set are the result of the old set.

Since: Jan 11

Mount Holly, NJ

#100 Oct 7, 2013
Buffalo Bull wrote:
<quoted text>
There was one bit of clumsy wording...the founding fathers did not have the option of paying taxes to a centralized gov't that they were represented in. If the George had allowed representation in the Empires gov't would there have been a lessening of tension that could have held off the Revolution. Likewise if the king had offered the founding fathers the equivalent of being in 'commonwealth', with a strong central colonial gov't would they have accepted it.
Don't forget the time lag between the seeds of the revolution being sewn and the constitutions ratification.
After only a few years they had begun to evolve out of the ultra - small gov't articles of confederation, an evolution which as you know has advanced throughout the life of the Republic.
the question is would the founding fathers accepted the evolution of the Republic, the evidence is not clear that they pictured a static gov't stuck in the point in time which it was written.
The ability to amend the constitution indicates the founders accepted the evolution of the republic. I don't see anywhere that they accepted government force or imposition. The constitution is full of what the government can't do to you.

There were other issues beyond representation in parliament. One example would be goods were required to be purchased from Britain, regardless of where they were produced. These goods were taxed in Britain making them expensive to the colonists and were often junk. Goods produced in the colonies were required to be sold to Britain at unfairly low prices for resale by Britain. There were a number of other issues.

You were right about Hamilton. He did believe in a strong government. I believe he also believed the aristocracy should rule the country. It's a good thing Burr shot him, eh?

P.S. The remark about the American Indian garb was to the other poster who made a remark about wearing silly tea bags. Sorry. I personally think the tri corner hat should go.:-)

“Moderately yours....”

Since: Aug 12

Buffalo, NY

#102 Oct 8, 2013
Teaman wrote:
<quoted text>
The ability to amend the constitution indicates the founders accepted the evolution of the republic. I don't see anywhere that they accepted government force or imposition. The constitution is full of what the government can't do to you.
There were other issues beyond representation in parliament. One example would be goods were required to be purchased from Britain, regardless of where they were produced. These goods were taxed in Britain making them expensive to the colonists and were often junk. Goods produced in the colonies were required to be sold to Britain at unfairly low prices for resale by Britain. There were a number of other issues.
You were right about Hamilton. He did believe in a strong government. I believe he also believed the aristocracy should rule the country. It's a good thing Burr shot him, eh?
P.S. The remark about the American Indian garb was to the other poster who made a remark about wearing silly tea bags. Sorry. I personally think the tri corner hat should go.:-)
The part about cohesion as a gov't force is implicit. If paying taxes were purely voluntary..who would pay? If obeying criminal law we voluntary there could be no prison because you would not have the legal basis to convict someone. The fact is and you know it gov't is a question of cohesion. Don't forget how the founding fathers treated the first anti-tax rebels...the whiskey rebellion.
Hamilton was not alone in believing in a limited democracy, they all did. Explain why voting was limited to White , male landowners, who were literate and could pay a poll tax?

“Moderately yours....”

Since: Aug 12

Buffalo, NY

#103 Oct 8, 2013
TYPO

the spelling was off an it was mis corrected...cohesion is coercion ...
very sorry about that typo...

Since: Jan 11

Mount Holly, NJ

#104 Oct 8, 2013
Buffalo Bull wrote:
<quoted text>
The part about cohesion as a gov't force is implicit. If paying taxes were purely voluntary..who would pay? If obeying criminal law we voluntary there could be no prison because you would not have the legal basis to convict someone. The fact is and you know it gov't is a question of cohesion. Don't forget how the founding fathers treated the first anti-tax rebels...the whiskey rebellion.
Hamilton was not alone in believing in a limited democracy, they all did. Explain why voting was limited to White , male landowners, who were literate and could pay a poll tax?
Taxes are an enumerated power of congress in the constitution. The reason for the tax is the question. As Justice Scalia said, the federal government is not supposed to be a government that has all powers, it's supposed to be a government of limited powers, when addressing Obamacare testimony. If the government can do this, what else can it do? There is a proper balance of power between the national government, the states and the people. As I said before, there is no problem with these social endeavors at the state level. They are fluid and changeable at the state level and, moreover, innovative.

Criminal law is a different area from social engineering. Even criminals are protected by the 4th, 5th, and 6th amendments.

I'm glad you used the term [limited] democracy. This is what a constitutional republic is. I don't believe any of the founders believed in a democracy. I think it was ol' Ben Franklin who described a democracy as two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. It is a dictatorship of the majority.

Voting was variable among the states. Women could vote in NJ at the time. I don't know how they lost it. Generally, property owners had skin in the game. People couldn't vote the treasury dry with self interests. Nothing prevented women from holding office, and they did. I believe it was Wyoming that permitted women to vote when it entered the union.

“Moderately yours....”

Since: Aug 12

Buffalo, NY

#105 Oct 8, 2013
Teaman wrote:
<quoted text>
Taxes are an enumerated power of congress in the constitution. The reason for the tax is the question. As Justice Scalia said, the federal government is not supposed to be a government that has all powers, it's supposed to be a government of limited powers, when addressing Obamacare testimony. If the government can do this, what else can it do? There is a proper balance of power between the national government, the states and the people. As I said before, there is no problem with these social endeavors at the state level. They are fluid and changeable at the state level and, moreover, innovative.
Criminal law is a different area from social engineering. Even criminals are protected by the 4th, 5th, and 6th amendments.
I'm glad you used the term [limited] democracy. This is what a constitutional republic is. I don't believe any of the founders believed in a democracy. I think it was ol' Ben Franklin who described a democracy as two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. It is a dictatorship of the majority.
Voting was variable among the states. Women could vote in NJ at the time. I don't know how they lost it. Generally, property owners had skin in the game. People couldn't vote the treasury dry with self interests. Nothing prevented women from holding office, and they did. I believe it was Wyoming that permitted women to vote when it entered the union.
Wyoming's entering the union was far removed time wise from the point being made about the founding fathers. But we seem to agree that the founding fathers did not launch a perfect gov't, but on they hoped contained mechanisms that can allow it to improve. Their desire to see the project improved seems clear, so you tread on rather thin ice if you refer to the founding fathers alone. Precedent and common sense should fill in the rest of what is possible.
The legitimate place of gov't has changed with time and the elasticity of various interpretations. Not only are criminals covered by the 4th, 5th and 6th amendments, supposedly we are all. and the understanding of the meanings of those amendments has changed significantly for all of us not just criminal suspects.( Obama's real black eye is not ACA it is NSA)
So POTUS rules the mandate to be a tax, and thus is our current understanding.
And as you know no one (should) escapes taxes.
Your states rights argument has very limited scope. Issues that are regional or local should be decided locally. Having the federal gov't dictate what the City of Buffalo does in setting up sanitation would be absurd.
or in setting the hours of the counties libraries.
But health care is a national issue and therefor a national solution is accepted as a reasonable approach.
fingiswold

Newark, OH

#106 Oct 8, 2013
Teaman wrote:
<quoted text>
I did read it. There's no negotiations with the new set of elected representatives. The new set are the result of the old set.
You need a new set of neurons. The old ones quit firing, alas.
Silicon Mike

Pleasanton, CA

#107 Oct 8, 2013
The GOP is about to implode and I'm enjoying every bible thumping minute of it!!!!!!

Since: Jan 11

Mount Holly, NJ

#108 Oct 9, 2013
Buffalo Bull wrote:
<quoted text>
Wyoming's entering the union was far removed time wise from the point being made about the founding fathers. But we seem to agree that the founding fathers did not launch a perfect gov't, but on they hoped contained mechanisms that can allow it to improve. Their desire to see the project improved seems clear, so you tread on rather thin ice if you refer to the founding fathers alone. Precedent and common sense should fill in the rest of what is possible.
The legitimate place of gov't has changed with time and the elasticity of various interpretations. Not only are criminals covered by the 4th, 5th and 6th amendments, supposedly we are all. and the understanding of the meanings of those amendments has changed significantly for all of us not just criminal suspects.( Obama's real black eye is not ACA it is NSA)
So POTUS rules the mandate to be a tax, and thus is our current understanding.
And as you know no one (should) escapes taxes.
Your states rights argument has very limited scope. Issues that are regional or local should be decided locally. Having the federal gov't dictate what the City of Buffalo does in setting up sanitation would be absurd.
or in setting the hours of the counties libraries.
But health care is a national issue and therefor a national solution is accepted as a reasonable approach.
The founders didn't create a perfect government, I agree. They did allow the government to be fluid, but I don't think they wanted all of the power to migrate to one place thereby diminishing the power of the individual and that individual's sovereignty.

Yes, we're all protected by the 4th, 5th, and 6th amendments, but you brought up criminal law with coercion. Even criminal law protects us from government coercion.

I do agree one of Obama's black eyes is the NSA.:-) I would also include the IRS and they're going to enforce Obamacare.

Healthcare may or may not be a national problem, but there are better ways of addressing it rather than a dictatorial, authoritarian approach. I don't like the use of the term, states rights. No state has the right to infringe on civil rights, but the two governments have a different purpose. The federal government should offer states incentives to craft there own healthcare plans or other methods along the same lines. The states are better equipped to handle the fraud and so on. The nation is simply too large and diverse for a single government to administer healthcare. Switzerland, with a population about the same as NYC has one of the better plans in Europe.

I am curious. How do you feel about Colorado's people voting itself marijuana legalization while it is still federally illegal? Or, California creating sanctuary cities breaking federal immigration laws?
Silicon Mike

Pleasanton, CA

#109 Oct 9, 2013
Teaman wrote:
<quoted text>The founders didn't create a perfect government, I agree. They did allow the government to be fluid, but I don't think they wanted all of the power to migrate to one place thereby diminishing the power of the individual and that individual's sovereignty.

Yes, we're all protected by the 4th, 5th, and 6th amendments, but you brought up criminal law with coercion. Even criminal law protects us from government coercion.

I do agree one of Obama's black eyes is the NSA.:-) I would also include the IRS and they're going to enforce Obamacare.

Healthcare may or may not be a national problem, but there are better ways of addressing it rather than a dictatorial, authoritarian approach. I don't like the use of the term, states rights. No state has the right to infringe on civil rights, but the two governments have a different purpose. The federal government should offer states incentives to craft there own healthcare plans or other methods along the same lines. The states are better equipped to handle the fraud and so on. The nation is simply too large and diverse for a single government to administer healthcare. Switzerland, with a population about the same as NYC has one of the better plans in Europe.

I am curious. How do you feel about Colorado's people voting itself marijuana legalization while it is still federally illegal? Or, California creating sanctuary cities breaking federal immigration laws?
You are soooooo stagnant. Better ways to provide healthcare? Really??? It hasn't occurred since the country was created, UNTIL NOW. Quit being a nay sayer and give it a chance. Oh but you won't because you are touting the idiotic Tea Party line that is destroying this country. Mean spirited Tea Party drivel. That's all you can spout. When the party implodes, the rest of us will be laughing all the way to the doctor's office. Oh, by the way, disabled vets DO NOT back your trash talk. All they want is decent health care for "defending" their country.

“Moderately yours....”

Since: Aug 12

Buffalo, NY

#110 Oct 9, 2013
Teaman wrote:
<quoted text>
The founders didn't create a perfect government, I agree. They did allow the government to be fluid, but I don't think they wanted all of the power to migrate to one place thereby diminishing the power of the individual and that individual's sovereignty.
Yes, we're all protected by the 4th, 5th, and 6th amendments, but you brought up criminal law with coercion. Even criminal law protects us from government coercion.
I do agree one of Obama's black eyes is the NSA.:-) I would also include the IRS and they're going to enforce Obamacare.
Healthcare may or may not be a national problem, but there are better ways of addressing it rather than a dictatorial, authoritarian approach. I don't like the use of the term, states rights. No state has the right to infringe on civil rights, but the two governments have a different purpose. The federal government should offer states incentives to craft there own healthcare plans or other methods along the same lines. The states are better equipped to handle the fraud and so on. The nation is simply too large and diverse for a single government to administer healthcare. Switzerland, with a population about the same as NYC has one of the better plans in Europe.
I am curious. How do you feel about Colorado's people voting itself marijuana legalization while it is still federally illegal? Or, California creating sanctuary cities breaking federal immigration laws?
I will take the softballs first
The states rights position that I am applying in reference to your point of view isn't a race relations thing as much as administrative. We haven't mentioned race much, and with a black President. So I wold have no ground to stand on.
The enforcement of drug offenses that had not involved interstate transportation or the prosecution of a 'king pin' seemed to be a state affair by consensus. New York decriminalized from Texan prison sentences to a $50 fine for less than one ounce. The legalization for medical use should be a slam dunk. But allowing legalization follows on an established path. It should be treated like alcohol, a valid states rights\ local tradition and customs issue.
I disagree that our country's size or diversity render a delivery of a service impossible. Social security works fine,(as long as we don't raid the fund). The exchanges can be set up and run by states giving the some latitude as how to assemble and package the product. Perhaps the autonomy of the states could be further enhanced.
Making participation compulsory
First the larger the pool... i think you agree that the size of the pool helps to determine costs.
Second is the free loader factor. It stuns me that with every other gov't program the free loader is a leper...here...
Some sort of Manchin rule could become attached. However anyone who opts out would be putting any and all assets up as potential collateral.

“Moderately yours....”

Since: Aug 12

Buffalo, NY

#111 Oct 9, 2013
BTW the refuges for illegals is probably symbolic in that they would be there anyway but immigration is a national issue so ...

Since: Jan 11

Mount Holly, NJ

#112 Oct 9, 2013
Silicon Mike wrote:
<quoted text>
You are soooooo stagnant. Better ways to provide healthcare? Really??? It hasn't occurred since the country was created, UNTIL NOW. Quit being a nay sayer and give it a chance. Oh but you won't because you are touting the idiotic Tea Party line that is destroying this country. Mean spirited Tea Party drivel. That's all you can spout. When the party implodes, the rest of us will be laughing all the way to the doctor's office. Oh, by the way, disabled vets DO NOT back your trash talk. All they want is decent health care for "defending" their country.
I am a nay sayer to a single, mundane, anarchic, authoritative way of doing things by a central power thereby stifling innovative, futuristic ways of doing things that 50 laboratories of design would provide. You are stuck in the early 20th century.

So, you're admitting the government run VA hospitals don't work very well?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Tea Party Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Tea Partiers Are Right: Jeb Is a RINO (Dec '14) Jul 20 Power of Equanimity 12
News The Sarah Palin Channel doing so bad it's now g... Jul 7 Miss Id 1
News The Idiot Thug Running Maine Jul 6 longtail 1
News Ted Cruz: 'Voters Would Be Astonished' To Know ... Jul '15 Shinichiro Takizawa 58
News Samuel L. Jackson echoes Morgan Freeman, says T... (Oct '11) Jul '15 Southern White man 38
News Bristol Palin: Breaking abstinence pledge again... Jun '15 Miss Id 1
News Cantor's fall still haunts lawmakers Jun '15 wild child 1
More from around the web