Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

"Anarchy in the House" by Geoffrey Kabaservice

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • "Anarchy in the House" by Geoffrey Kabaservice

    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/29/op...f=opinion&_r=0
    Excellent editorial, very good read. IMO this is a must read for every Republican.

    The most important paragraph of the editorial:
    Once again, the battle is between Republicans who want to govern and those who don’t. The radicals have no realistic alternative solutions of their own. Even to contemplate the negotiations and compromises such policies entail would sully their ideological purity.
    Governing requires compromise and moderation. In a federal system like the US nobody, no politician is going to get 100% of what they want. This is why the zero compromise, 100% or bust Tea Party is completely ineffective at governing. They don't want to govern, they just want to protest.

  • #2
    Singling out Republicans in the face of a Marxist-Socialist Democratic president robs his article of all credibility.
    Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
      Singling out Republicans in the face of a Marxist-Socialist Democratic president robs his article of all credibility.
      What "Marxist-Socialist" president? President Obama is not a Marxist or a socialist ... he's just an idiot. Liberal does not = Marxism. The closest we have to socialists are people like Warren, de Blasio, and Sanders ... all of whom are much more liberal than Obama. The Democratic Party is still largely center-left ...

      Comment


      • #4
        Starting off quoting Marx isn't exactly a good way to appear objective. Then, giving a long exposition about Goldwater and Goldwater Republicans and trying to make them the relevant example today just crumbles this article into irrelevance.
        Adding to that is the complete absence of any attempt to pin some of government's current impasse in Congress on the Democrats.

        Absolutely worthless article.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
          Singling out Republicans in the face of a Marxist-Socialist Democratic president robs his article of all credibility.
          The gap between the wealthy and the poor widening equals Marxist Socialism?

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Paddybhoy View Post
            The gap between the wealthy and the poor widening equals Marxist Socialism?
            It historically is an unintended result of it, but that's an issue for another thread.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by ChrisF1987 View Post
              What "Marxist-Socialist" president? President Obama is not a Marxist or a socialist ... he's just an idiot. Liberal does not = Marxism. The closest we have to socialists are people like Warren, de Blasio, and Sanders ... all of whom are much more liberal than Obama. The Democratic Party is still largely center-left ...
              Distribution of wealth and an overwhelming governmental presence and control in all aspects of life are the hallmarks of socialism.

              As for Marxism, you might consider reading what Obama has published about himself and his beliefs.

              Meanwhile, the author has no credibility due to his narrow focus on Republicans and his obvious ignorance of just which party has been running the nation for the last seven years. Terms like "liberal" and "progressive" are totally meaningless since they are literally redefined daily to fit whichever viewpoint someone is espousing.
              Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by ChrisF1987 View Post
                http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/29/op...f=opinion&_r=0
                Excellent editorial, very good read. IMO this is a must read for every Republican.

                The most important paragraph of the editorial:

                Governing requires compromise and moderation. In a federal system like the US nobody, no politician is going to get 100% of what they want. This is why the zero compromise, 100% or bust Tea Party is completely ineffective at governing. They don't want to govern, they just want to protest.
                The quote/"most important paragraph of the editorial" shown underscores this author is a bit clueless about what is going on in the GOP.

                It's not a case of want to govern versus not, its more reflected in the concept "that which governs least, governs best". Continued high Deficits and growing National Debt are not sustainable economic courses, nor beneficial to economic growth and progress. Bloated guv'mint agencies when not being ineffectual to their tasks tend to also be a drain on economic prosperity, "the public welfare", as well as funding sinkholes.

                His "radical" "zealots" are seeking to turn back towards the principles of Founding and the Constitution by reducing the size and cost of Fed guv'mint. The new faction of the GOP is seeking fiscal moderation via fiscal reductions, hence more responsible and response to their constituents, while pursuing classic Conservative values.

                By not factoring in the constant effort of the Democrats to expand guv'mint size and public(citizen owed)/Nation Debt, strongly resisting any real and needed cuts, he is neglecting the political polarity that encouraged counter-balance by the so-called "extreme Right-Wing" of the GOP.

                Besides that, he lost credibility in my eyes when lumping Carson in as " ... preposterous presidential candidates dominate the polls ..." ~ Trump and Carson being near neck-n-neck at this time. Carson is 100 times over in achievement, skills, integrity, and leadership of the current POTUS.

                One benefit of the time wasted reading this article is here's another pundit to skip in the future. Useless, phoney quacker.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Well, it is the NY Times, who is pretty much a shill for the Democrat Party these days. I'd kind of expect any op ed I read in it to be Leftist and Democrat friendly.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
                    Well, it is the NY Times, who is pretty much a shill for the Democrat Party these days. I'd kind of expect any op ed I read in it to be Leftist and Democrat friendly.
                    Yeah, there is that and I was trying to give it fair, objective consideration. The ole' G2 adage that even a "dodgy" source might have useful substance. In this case, clearly fitted the expectations you mention.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      You all are missing the point. Is Republicanism a force for Anarchy? The article, if you read all the way to end, sums it up in the last two paragraphs.
                      It’s true that sometimes no legislation is better than bad legislation. But the United States faces real problems, including stagnant wages, family instability, infrastructure collapse and long-term indebtedness. If Republicans can’t advance their own solutions, they’ll have to deal with what Democrats — or harsh realities — impose on them. Paralysis is not a plan.

                      The rebranding of Republicanism as a force for anarchy has spilled into the presidential contest and threatens the general election chances of the eventual nominee. The Republican establishment, and the party’s governing majority, have the power to quell this insurgency, whether by abandoning the so-called Hastert rule, which requires a majority of the majority to approve of legislation before it can come up for a vote, or by mounting primary challenges of their own. It’s too late for Mr. Boehner to face down the radicals, but his successor will have to if the Republican Party is to have a meaningful future.
                      http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/29/op...=fb-share&_r=2

                      I ran across this article on a centrist conservative site this morning. The point of the article is not about Maxism and Socialism vs. Facism or Capitalism but is a radical Republican Party preventing any effective governing?

                      Every time we ride on patched and repatched roads or very plainly deteriorating bridges ask your-self that question. Or when you run across articles that say that American wages and purchasing power have not improved for decades, ask yourself that question. And then ask your-self just what is effective government. Is it doing nothing, or trying to force a particular minority viewpoint on a majority through intimidation, and obvious skullduggery? Or is it working together to craft sensible solutions to problems within the country as a whole?

                      Even the Republicans are turning against the “within the Beltway” politicians and trying to nominate the un-politician, which indicates to me that the Republicans are getting frustrated with inaction on the part of their party in Congress. A government shutdown is not what the citizenry want for any purpose. Even FOX news recognizes that a new government shutdown, an anarchic solution, would be a disaster.

                      http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/...-disaster.html
                      Homo homini lupus

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Jannie View Post
                        You all are missing the point. Is Republicanism a force for Anarchy? The article, if you read all the way to end, sums it up in the last two paragraphs.

                        http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/29/op...=fb-share&_r=2

                        I ran across this article on a centrist conservative site this morning. The point of the article is not about Maxism and Socialism vs. Facism or Capitalism but is a radical Republican Party preventing any effective governing?

                        Every time we ride on patched and repatched roads or very plainly deteriorating bridges ask your-self that question. Or when you run across articles that say that American wages and purchasing power have not improved for decades, ask yourself that question. And then ask your-self just what is effective government. Is it doing nothing, or trying to force a particular minority viewpoint on a majority through intimidation, and obvious skullduggery? Or is it working together to craft sensible solutions to problems within the country as a whole?

                        Even the Republicans are turning against the “within the Beltway” politicians and trying to nominate the un-politician, which indicates to me that the Republicans are getting frustrated with inaction on the part of their party in Congress. A government shutdown is not what the citizenry want for any purpose. Even FOX news recognizes that a new government shutdown, an anarchic solution, would be a disaster.

                        http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/...-disaster.html

                        I did read it all the way and it is those last two paragraphs that illustrate how clueless the author is, or that he's engaging in misrepresentation~disinformation.

                        There is no denying our Nation has many challenges ahead of it, but just "throwing money at them" which is really more debt piled upon debt is not a real solution, but the only one we seem to get from POTUS and the Democrats, whom obstruct governing anytime there is resistance to cutting guv'mint expenses, stopping Deficit, and trying to make more cost-effective solutions.

                        As mentioned by others here, the GOP, of any faction/flavor, isn't operating in a vacuum and it's the track record of the DNP in driving up National Debt for little real gains over the past decades that is causing GOP internal diversity. The "ole boys" of the Beltway GOP are inclined to keep playing the scratch my back I scratch yours of "compromise" while bankrupting the country, and the "radical zealots" as the author calls them are saying 'hold up, we're too far in debt already and can't go in for more, time to reign in the spending and tighten belts.'

                        Do you see, or is anyone, addressing the non-diverse, ideological gridlock of the Democrats. They have the crony-socialist lite sHillery or the flaming Socialist Bernie, which amount mostly to a yellow apple versus a red apple.

                        http://www.usdebtclock.org/

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Jannie View Post
                          You all are missing the point. Is Republicanism a force for Anarchy? The article, if you read all the way to end, sums it up in the last two paragraphs.


                          It’s true that sometimes no legislation is better than bad legislation. But the United States faces real problems, including stagnant wages, family instability, infrastructure collapse and long-term indebtedness. If Republicans can’t advance their own solutions, they’ll have to deal with what Democrats — or harsh realities — impose on them. Paralysis is not a plan.

                          The rebranding of Republicanism as a force for anarchy has spilled into the presidential contest and threatens the general election chances of the eventual nominee. The Republican establishment, and the party’s governing majority, have the power to quell this insurgency, whether by abandoning the so-called Hastert rule, which requires a majority of the majority to approve of legislation before it can come up for a vote, or by mounting primary challenges of their own. It’s too late for Mr. Boehner to face down the radicals, but his successor will have to if the Republican Party is to have a meaningful future.



                          http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/29/op...=fb-share&_r=2

                          I ran across this article on a centrist conservative site this morning. The point of the article is not about Maxism and Socialism vs. Facism or Capitalism but is a radical Republican Party preventing any effective governing?

                          Every time we ride on patched and repatched roads or very plainly deteriorating bridges ask your-self that question. Or when you run across articles that say that American wages and purchasing power have not improved for decades, ask yourself that question. And then ask your-self just what is effective government. Is it doing nothing, or trying to force a particular minority viewpoint on a majority through intimidation, and obvious skullduggery? Or is it working together to craft sensible solutions to problems within the country as a whole?

                          Even the Republicans are turning against the “within the Beltway” politicians and trying to nominate the un-politician, which indicates to me that the Republicans are getting frustrated with inaction on the part of their party in Congress. A government shutdown is not what the citizenry want for any purpose. Even FOX news recognizes that a new government shutdown, an anarchic solution, would be a disaster.

                          http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/...-disaster.html
                          Yes, let's look. The first paragraph is a logical fallacy. It begs the question. You know, "Do you still beat your wife?" Same thing here. The author proposes that the only alternative to the Republicans proposing more government and more legislation on their own is doing it with Democrats or leaving it to Democrats.


                          He uses another popular logical fallacy the Left likes: The Post Hoc Appeal to Consequences.

                          But the United States faces real problems, including stagnant wages, family instability, infrastructure collapse and long-term indebtedness
                          Other than indebtedness of the government, not individual or state indebtedness, Congress can do little to really change that. Stagnant wages? Since when does the US government determine wages across the board? Other than the minimum wage, a canard at best for the general wage situation, the government doesn't set wages.
                          Family instability? Want a list of the social ills that primarily Democrats have pushed on society causing that?
                          Infrastructure collapse? Where is this happening? We hear dire warnings about this but one also has to realize that the vast majority of infrastructure in the US is not controlled in any way, shape, or form by the federal government. Most of it is in state, county, and city hands, or even that of individual citizens.
                          So, his call to action by Congress is nothing but a red herring argument using logical fallacies to bolster it.

                          Republicanism is being rebranded as "anarchy" by the Progressive Left because they (the Left) want more government. Anything that is against that or tries to reduce government is not only antithema to them, it is seen as destructive. Hence the "anarchy" call of dire consequences if government programs are cut.
                          Yet, every time bloated government programs are cut, particularly generous social welfare state ones, the economy and people's lives improve. If there is any proof to idea that more government is the solution to society's problems, which when you come right down to it is what is being proposed as the solution by this author, then there would be proof of that from history. But, we have seen nothing but failure from more government, particularly heavy handed Big Government. Greece? Detroit? Venezuela? Zimbabwe? the USSR?
                          Let the author or his proponents show where Big Government has been a general solution to a society's problems. History is replete with examples it is not.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            In the meantime, the Export-Import bank inaction is actually driving business out of the country.

                            http://www.wsj.com/articles/general-...ure-1442322192

                            Also how do you propose to do road and bridge repairs and rebuilds? Either tax and spend or let the private sector do it and charge tolls to users, any other way to do it? Do we let the government run prisons or do we let private business build and run prisons? Do we let the government run the Public Schools or do we let private business run schools as charter schools? What is this except crony capitalism by farming out government contracts, generally within states? Every time we let private business into what was formerly government run enterprises we add another level for graft and corruption and the private run enterprises begin to get more expensive.

                            I am not interested in all of the ideological bull crap. I want things to run effectively and efficiently, and every time someone wants to argue about established laws and interpretations of laws and want to hold up the budget because of someone not agreeing with those established laws, then I lose patience. If you cannot change the laws, then go along with them, don't hold up the government because you are in a pout because you did not get your way.

                            No matter what you say--currently the Democrats are, at least, making an effort to govern with some efficiency. They may be doing workarounds, but I certainly don't see the Republicans even trying to do workarounds, They just want to stop everything, which is anarchy.
                            Homo homini lupus

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Jannie View Post
                              In the meantime, the Export-Import bank inaction is actually driving business out of the country.

                              http://www.wsj.com/articles/general-...ure-1442322192
                              Also how do you propose to do road and bridge repairs and rebuilds? Either tax and spend or let the private sector do it and charge tolls to users, any other way to do it? Do we let the government run prisons or do we let private business build and run prisons? Do we let the government run the Public Schools or do we let private business run schools as charter schools? What is this except crony capitalism by farming out government contracts, generally within states? Every time we let private business into what was formerly government run enterprises we add another level for graft and corruption and the private run enterprises begin to get more expensive.
                              Most roads and bridges are a state, county, or city issue. The federal government only really has responsibility for the Interstate highway system. So, how does the Congress of the United States deal with a problem that isn't theirs to deal with? Expand government more? Maybe tax more and then give the states, counties, and cities the money to do the repairs? That's what this boils down to. Incompetence by lower levels of government won't get fixed by more government at the federal level.
                              For example, the City of Tucson in Arizona (something I know about) spent most of their transportation budget on building a trolley system in their downtown area. It runs unused for the most part but was ungodly expensive. The city's streets are in poor shape as there is no money for repairs. They want the state and feds to give them more money to fix their streets.
                              Well, if the idiots running that city, who are a bunch of Progressives didn't waste their money on a trolley system they'd have money to fix the $^@! streets! The problem is, they don't like people using cars. They want people to bicycle, use public transit, and the like. People don't do it and the government can't force them to... at least not yet...

                              On education, there is no real reason that it has to be government run at all. Charter and private schools would work as well or better than public education. The Democrats would scream holly hell at that idea as it reduces government and would cripple the teacher's unions, major supporters of their party.
                              Big Government is into Statist (aka Crony) Capitalism. That is another argument against Big Government. Actually, by getting government out of a business or industry we remove a layer of cronyism and corruption rather than add one.
                              When government gets involved in an industry the costs go up, not down. The clearest current example of this is health care. There is one sector of the health care industry where prices are falling, and falling rather substantially. It is the only one definitely not covered by Obamacare, nor by most health insurance, and not faced with heavy handed government regulation. That sector is cosmetic surgery.
                              That's right, the market influences the price of cosmetic surgery without overt government influence and prices are falling because demand is up and the availability of providers is increasing.

                              I am not interested in all of the ideological bull crap. I want things to run effectively and efficiently, and every time someone wants to argue about established laws and interpretations of laws and want to hold up the budget because of someone not agreeing with those established laws, then I lose patience. If you cannot change the laws, then go along with them, don't hold up the government because you are in a pout because you did not get your way.
                              Then for the most part, you should railing against government and having the government running things.
                              As for holding the budget up, although both parties do this, it is usually the Democrats wanting more money and supporting Statist Capitalism that are the cause. At the moment the Democrats want to give Planned Parenthood, a privately owned corporation a half billion dollars to subsidize their operations. Why does a private corporation providing family counselling services (and abortion services but not on government funds) need to be subsidized by the federal government?
                              That makes less sense than giving money to PBS or funding public arts programs. This is a private corporation. Let them charge for service like any other company and succeed or fail on their own. Let's not prop them up with a huge government subsidy.

                              No matter what you say--currently the Democrats are, at least, making an effort to govern with some efficiency. They may be doing workarounds, but I certainly don't see the Republicans even trying to do workarounds, They just want to stop everything, which is anarchy.
                              No, they're not. They're just working to expand government, increase spending, and not concerned in the least if what they are doing is efficient or economy friendly. I'd prefer a degree of anarchy to having a bloated Statist Capitalist Social Welfare state like say Greece, Italy, or Portugal has and the resulting failed economy, economic stagnation, and lack of opportunity for individuals.

                              That is what the Democrats are serving up and it's only going to screw you and me down the road. Government is rarely the answer to a problem.

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X