In the NYT op ed section yesterday, Gail Collins criticizes Republican actions opposing Democratic legislation but not proposing legislation of their own. It is not the illustrations that she used to make her point that are the focus of this discussion, but the concept of opposing legislation without offering a specific alternative. Most especially when it could compromise necessary legislation. The op ed piece: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/28/opinion/gail-collins-and-now-homeland-insecurity.html?_r=0
Whether accurate or not, the GOP has often been criticized for opposing while not offering an alternative to legislation re health care reform, immigration reform, and other controversial issues. (And yes, the Democrats have also been labeled 'the party of no' as well.)
To this kind of criticism, one of Thomas Sowell's most famous lines asks:
"No matter how disastrously some policy has turned out, anyone who criticizes it can expect to hear: 'But what would you replace it with?' When you put out a fire, what do you replace it with?"
The point of course is whether bad legislation is better than no legislation at all.
As an example only: The GOP has tried to force defunding of what they consider a disastrous immigration policy by tying that defunding to the Homeland Security funding bill that they support. Some say this is the only way to force President Obama to back off a disastrous immigration policy--it is putting out the fire. Others say that this is dirty pool and unfair and partisan tactics at their worst most especially when the GOP has not offered its own immigration reform legislation.
Rules for this discussion:
1. No ad hominem re members participating. Address the member's post and make no comment on the character or motive or intent etc. of the member himself or herself.
2. No ad hominem re Republicans or Democrats or any other political party or ideology. Criticism of specific policies they promote that relate to the topic is fair game, but do not comment on the character, motive, or intent etc. of the political parties themselves.
3. Please address the topic as much as is reasonably possible rather than debate the pros and cons of various policy and legislation used as illustration.
4. If you don't like Gail Collins or Thomas Sowell or the content of what they write, I don't care and we won't be discussing them. They or any other personalities are not the issue here. The opposing concepts they offer is.
THE QUESTION(S) TO BE DISCUSSED:
Is it reasonable to require elected government officials to have an alternative to a policy or legislation that they oppose before they oppose it?
Or is a bad policy in itself sufficient reason to oppose it?
And is it fair to tie opposing legislation to necessary legislation in order to force the other side to accept both?
Whether accurate or not, the GOP has often been criticized for opposing while not offering an alternative to legislation re health care reform, immigration reform, and other controversial issues. (And yes, the Democrats have also been labeled 'the party of no' as well.)
To this kind of criticism, one of Thomas Sowell's most famous lines asks:
"No matter how disastrously some policy has turned out, anyone who criticizes it can expect to hear: 'But what would you replace it with?' When you put out a fire, what do you replace it with?"
The point of course is whether bad legislation is better than no legislation at all.
As an example only: The GOP has tried to force defunding of what they consider a disastrous immigration policy by tying that defunding to the Homeland Security funding bill that they support. Some say this is the only way to force President Obama to back off a disastrous immigration policy--it is putting out the fire. Others say that this is dirty pool and unfair and partisan tactics at their worst most especially when the GOP has not offered its own immigration reform legislation.
Rules for this discussion:
1. No ad hominem re members participating. Address the member's post and make no comment on the character or motive or intent etc. of the member himself or herself.
2. No ad hominem re Republicans or Democrats or any other political party or ideology. Criticism of specific policies they promote that relate to the topic is fair game, but do not comment on the character, motive, or intent etc. of the political parties themselves.
3. Please address the topic as much as is reasonably possible rather than debate the pros and cons of various policy and legislation used as illustration.
4. If you don't like Gail Collins or Thomas Sowell or the content of what they write, I don't care and we won't be discussing them. They or any other personalities are not the issue here. The opposing concepts they offer is.
THE QUESTION(S) TO BE DISCUSSED:
Is it reasonable to require elected government officials to have an alternative to a policy or legislation that they oppose before they oppose it?
Or is a bad policy in itself sufficient reason to oppose it?
And is it fair to tie opposing legislation to necessary legislation in order to force the other side to accept both?