You sure about this link? I didn't see any mention of Jindal as the post title implied.

I agree there is much to learn from the past in the present. I also didn't understand why conservatives refused to participate in the ACA with their own plan or amendments. This set them up to fail. I know it took a lot for them to acknowledge a problem exists but then they relied too much on how the free market would solve it. A mandate increases business and jobs in the insurance and medical industries. It also increases competition for all the new assets (excuse me, clients). Instead, they focus only on the government over reach aspect. After the SCOTUS decision, they missed making a Individual Mandate Bill of Rights or some other campaign slogan and chose to go with the Repeal or Replace. The problem was that no one could find the "replace" part of the campaign platform. Had they made one, I'm thinking they would have won.

They still are except that it is no longer their top priority and is second fiddle to less government. I never understood, after first hearing of the individual mandate, how they didn't see it increasing business and jobs for the insurance and medical industry. In addition, small businesses get a tax break on top of a tax credit just as Romney had done. However, they prefer to ignore those features and focus on the fact that it is a government mandate. Can you imagine the job losses if they eliminated all the auto insurance, liability insurance, uninsured motorist insurance, personal injury protection insurance, workers compensation insurance, unemployment insurance, business liability insurance, physician liability insurance, mortgage insurance and business loan insurance mandates that have been in place for decades? It would also be very expensive if you opted to purchase it because unless it is required, there'd be a smaller pool of underwriters to compete for it.

Good one, especially if Senator Obama could debate President Obama. President Obama would tell Senator Obama that if he thought the debt was high now...

Definitely the best course of action for such a mess. Furthermore, I hope a republican President and Senate Speaker would act the same to any threat from a Democratic Speaker being controlled by a liberal faction. The United States of America shall never negotiate with reversing laws of the government by an act to shutdown the government of the United States of America. It shall always be done in accord with representatives v****g on the measures in the House, the Senate and signed into law by the President of the United States of America without any budget threats to the People of the United States of America.

It is a broken oath to the people and to God but it doesn’t appear to be treason. However, you raise a good point because it could be used for treason to usurp the Senate and White House if your demands are not met.

They say they'll do their job only in exchange for an action they can’t outright do legally because they don’t control the Senate or the Presidency. This amounts to breaking their oath to faithfully discharge the duties of the office.

The chief has the authority of executive order as President George Washington invoked the duty during the Whisky r*******n. The whisky tax was eventually legally revoked only after the opposition party made it a campaign platform and won popular control.

Despite the well intentioned action of the Tea Party, they are creating a bad precedent: control the House, anything is possible to control the entire government by conditional budgets. The Tea Party used to stand against special interests controlling the government but it is ironic that given the opportunity, they behave the same. They warn about c*******m, socialism and welfare state yet, they lost focus on basic liberty. It does not satisfy me that they promise to use it wisely.

Congressional Oath of Office:
I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God

It was a short essay about how the constitution was based on separating government powers into the executive, legislative and judicial branches. This is purposefully constructed to prevent any one faction's interests from controlling government. The competition for political power has always allowed the minority political power to grow into the majority by observing the needs of the people and campaigning on popular agendas. Laws are not changed by amendments to budget bills from minority factions rather, they're changed by representatives of the majority.

Nice "creative" writing.

The beauty of capitalism and competition is that insurance companies have sales and marketing departments that see these uninsured as opportunities to grow their business. I'm sure they will be pushing everything from a free tattoo, video game, baggy jeans and those energy drinks to get young uninsured signed up before their competitors.

I say beware of a new US system of government that erases separation of powers from the founders intentions if this shutdown ends the way folks are hoping. Despite the well intentioned action of the Tea Party, they are creating a bad precedent. From now on, as long as one faction can control the House, anything is possible to control the entire government. The Tea Party used to stand against special interests controlling the government but it is ironic that given the opportunity, they behave the same. They warn about c*******m, socialism and welfare state yet, they lost focus on basic liberty. It does not satisfy me that they promise to use it wisely.

Should we no longer expect the minority political power to criticize problems and make a new platform that the mainstream will embrace to give them the majority in the next e******ns? For example, the Tea Party could have grouped all the obamacare problems into an e******n platform, maybe even calling it, “Insurance Mandate Bill of Rights”. This is how the system has worked, born out of the constitutional separation of powers. For the purpose of constitutional purity now and in the future, you should root against them. Devaluing separation of powers architecture of the U.S. Constitution is not worth any special interest; the ends do not justify the means.

It is a shame they practice politics but aren't very savvy. It convinces me that without competition, quality suffers. I think the better gop congressmen are in districts where strategy is second nature due to the competition over v**ers from dems. There will be a lesson learned after this over, it will involve the tea party and experienced, moderate republicans.

I'm not so sure. They can underestimate the media that is bent against them anyway. Mainstream dislike obamacare, taxes and NSA but very few want to shut down over it. The shutdown drama took the focus off easy cherry picking of fubars that come with government running anything.

This was not a good strategy as it makes the tea party look like extremists in mainstreams eye and the libs they sought to ostracize are seen as righteous.

http://www.voanews.com/content/polls-show-republicans-blamed-for-government-shutdown/1761103.html

http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2013/10/01/306678.htm

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/analysis-republicans-opposite-stated-goals-070858734.html

The experienced colleagues warned the greenhorns about it but they took the gamble anyway.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/09/30/poll-just-one-in-four-approve-of-republicans-handling-of-government-shutdown-standoff/

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/09/30/government-shutdown-blame-republicans-polls/2897197/

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/30/us-usa-fiscal-poll-idUSBRE98T0J720130930

The tea party needs to consult with objective professional strategists before making big decisions. Presently, they need to end this ASAP before more damage is done and come up with something to take the attention off their repeal of obamacare. Otherwise, that’s what will be remembered by the mainstream with the media starting to focus on republicans signing up for obamacare:

http://www.onepoliticalplaza.com/t-6080-1.html

Just declare a principled victory and acquiesce for the patriotic sake of the country while creating a new bill as an anti-obamacare platform for next year (e.g. individual mandate bill of rights). Repealing obamacare never had a prayer of a chance similar to their slanted opinion of the Romney polls last year. It was more desperation than strategy and it shows. This is going to have a long lasting effect on them unless they figure a way out of this mess quickly. They believe a lot of gop v**ers failed to show last year – it can get worse. It is splitting the GOP:

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/10/ted-cruz-blasted-by-angry-gop-colleagues-government-shutdown-97753.html?ml=tb

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/10/government-shutdown-update-poll-97783.html

I don't particularly agree with any label. For instance, if you're in a group who call themselves followers of an ism, you immediately lose an ability to be an individual. There's no way to explain an individual's philosophy with a definition because it is based on perspectives from life experiences. These experience vary from one to another. A philosophy is best used to argue the categorization of an action or a lack of action. For example, there are many that follow the philosophy of Christianity, altruism but do not always act Christian, altruistic.

As far as altruism, (sacrificing your needs for the sake of another or others) many times it's not as simple as blindly following orders rather, it makes folks feel good. The good soldier takes an oath to serve and a good parent sacrifices their earnings for their children. For example, I noticed Ayn did not recognize the rational self-interest in making yourself feel special when taking an oath or satisfying feelings of security for your children.

It's fair to bring up these old debates and I think all the different "isms" makes the world go around. A lot of folks these days shy away from labels of these "isms". They were more popular in the past. I think its fair to say that most folks are not purists - the crux of objectivism. One of my disagreements with objectivism is that it does not recognized the rational self-interest of altruism. Another is that the inventor of objectivism failed to recognize the influence of subjectivism in creating the philosophy. Finally, objectivism employs pragmatism whenever it states a goal of using it's "t***hs" to destroy their enemy.