Why does the Far LEft have no grasp of scale?

[☭proletarian☭]

Just because something works at a national level in a nation smaller than some of our states doesn't mean it will work at a national scale in a nation twice the size of the EU....


Just because something works great with 20,30, or 200k people, doesn't mean it will work with 300 million...


Tripling the national deficit is significantly more problematic than increasing it by less than 100%.

 

[rightwinger]

It doesn't prove it doesn't work either

There is no comparable model to the US. If you are talking healthcare, we know for a fact that our existing model costs too much and provides too little service

 

[Oldandtired]

It doesn't prove it doesn't work either

There is no comparable model to the US. If you are talking healthcare, we know for a fact that our existing model costs too much and provides too little service

So why not address rising healthcare costs?

 

[Lonestar_logic]

It doesn't prove it doesn't work either

There is no comparable model to the US. If you are talking healthcare, we know for a fact that our existing model costs too much and provides too little service

Sure it does. If universal healthcare doesn't work for a state, it's not going to work for the entire country That's just common sense, which is something you obviously lack.

 

[Nosmo King]

It doesn't prove it doesn't work either

There is no comparable model to the US. If you are talking healthcare, we know for a fact that our existing model costs too much and provides too little service

So why not address rising healthcare costs?

Gee! I wonder why the Republicans haven't thought of this before? I wonder why they sat on their collective hands and offered nothing but obstruction and "NO!" to the national debate? Could it be that they are firmly in the pockets of the insurance companies? Hmm....

 

[Oldandtired]

It doesn't prove it doesn't work either

There is no comparable model to the US. If you are talking healthcare, we know for a fact that our existing model costs too much and provides too little service

So why not address rising healthcare costs?

Gee! I wonder why the Republicans haven't thought of this before? I wonder why they sat on their collective hands and offered nothing but obstruction and "NO!" to the national debate? Could it be that they are firmly in the pockets of the insurance companies? Hmm....

Even Obama himself when approached by the GOP admitted that YES, the GOP ideas were presented to him....he simply disagreed with them.

Yet you still regurgitate that "party of no" crap.

Well, seeing as the GOP ideas were not even presented for debate, is seems the Dems are just as much the party of "no"....

People like you fall for the rhetoric...and when fact comes to the top, as happened last week when Obama admitted that they are NOT the party of no ideas...you still need to spew the crap.

Give it up. It makes you look silly.

 

[Oldandtired]

It doesn't prove it doesn't work either

There is no comparable model to the US. If you are talking healthcare, we know for a fact that our existing model costs too much and provides too little service

Sure it does. If universal healthcare doesn't work for a state, it's not going to work for the entire country That's just common sense, which is something you obviously lack.

Not to mention, of course, is this the economic climate and deficit and debt timing to try something that is expenmsive that there is no proof would work?

Basic logic says...try something if you wish, but try something that costs nothing....and if that does not work, then wait for a time of proseprity to try something else that costs more money.

Sort of what Obama said.....now is the time to NOT spend money on Vegas....like "gambling"......

 

[Murf76]

I don't know. But I suspect it's some kind of emotionalism. A few weeks back we saw Oprah in full-throttle rave about Denmark's collectivist system. But it's just not rational to believe that what's satisfactory to 9 million is going to work the same for 300+ million, particularly given that we're talking about is the most diverse nation on earth.

They don't think about what they'd have to give up in exchange for achieving their goals. They don't think about what America would look like without the protections afforded by the U.S. Constitution. They don't think about the fact that what they're insistent upon is "top-down" government, not the "bottom-up" federalist model we were provided by our founders... or what the effects upon our diverse culture would be.

The depredations upon federalism have already made our nation nearly unrecognizable from the original model.. and what we see is a system where the scale is so large that there's no room for mistakes. Say a State fucks something up... there are 49 others which haven't. But this one-size-fits-all method means we're ALL in the soup when something goes wrong.

This is going to piss a bunch of people off... but I truly believe that it's a small mind, an emotional nature, which craves uniformity. The left makes claim to the appreciation of diversity, but there's a world of difference between words and action. The insistence upon a cookie-cutter version of "diversity" doesn't do justice to federalism. It's NOT okay by them for California to do it one way and Texas to do it another. They don't see the value in REAL diversity. They don't see the risks we face when we put it asunder. Their version is an emotional response to social issues, an arbitrary designation of "fairness".

The use of the Commerce Clause as an all-purpose tool to manage our economy as a whole has left no room for human error. A butterfly can't flap it's wings. We see that clearly in the sub-prime meltdown and its effect on the credit crisis. Without macro-management from Congress, maybe only a handful of States might have stepped in that particular cow patty, preserving the economies of the rest.

The world is a chaotic place. And I think sometimes there's a natural human impulse which demands we attempt to bring order to it, but I also think that it's a base impulse which should be ignored for the sake of higher thinking. Let us not forget that Islamic Extemists also demand "uniformity".
Not that I'm saying leftists are in that particular blood-thirsty category... but the underlying emotional insecurity, the need to control the environment and everything within it, is pretty much the same.

What's worse, is that by seeking this totalitarian-type control, we lose what little control we have. Our votes are powerful at the local level, affording us a small amount of democratic power in ordering our local communities. But at the national level, our vote is so diluted as to be nearly worthless to us in our ability to affect our own microcosm.

 

[uscitizen]

Just because something works at a national level in a nation smaller than some of our states doesn't mean it will work at a national scale in a nation twice the size of the EU....


Just because something works great with 20,30, or 200k people, doesn't mean it will work with 300 million...


Tripling the national deficit is significantly more problematic than increasing it by less than 100%.

Apply the same principle to privatized schools.

Sorry for the minor detour, now back to your regularly scheduled program.

 

[Toro]

Just because something works at a national level in a nation smaller than some of our states doesn't mean it will work at a national scale in a nation twice the size of the EU....


Just because something works great with 20,30, or 200k people, doesn't mean it will work with 300 million...


Tripling the national deficit is significantly more problematic than increasing it by less than 100%.

The opposite is true as well.

Tripling the debt for the US is less problematic than it is for a nation that is smaller.

I'm not advocating that the US triple the debt. However, because the US is much larger, and because there is no viable alternative to the dollar, the US can shove more of its debt onto the world than any other country.

 

[Cold Fusion38]

Just because something works at a national level in a nation smaller than some of our states doesn't mean it will work at a national scale in a nation twice the size of the EU....


Just because something works great with 20,30, or 200k people, doesn't mean it will work with 300 million...


Tripling the national deficit is significantly more problematic than increasing it by less than 100%.

"Tripling the national deficit is significantly more problematic than increasing it by less than 100%."[/QUOTE]

Who has TRIPLED the deficit?

 

[Oldandtired]

I don't know. But I suspect it's some kind of emotionalism. A few weeks back we saw Oprah in full-throttle rave about Denmark's collectivist system. But it's just not rational to believe that what's satisfactory to 9 million is going to work the same for 300+ million, particularly given that we're talking about the most diverse nation on earth.

They don't think about what they'd have to give up in exchange for achieving their goals. They don't think about what America would look like without the protections afforded by the U.S. Constitution. They don't think about the fact that what they're insistent upon is "top-down" government, not the "bottom-up" federalist model we were provided by our founders... or what the effects upon our diverse culture would be.

The depredations upon federalism have already made our nation nearly unrecognizable from the original model.. and what we see is a system where the scale is so large that there's no room for mistakes. Say a State fucks something up... there are 49 others which haven't. But this one-size-fits-all method means we're ALL in the soup when something goes wrong.

This is going to piss a bunch of people off... but I truly believe that it's a small mind, an emotional nature, which craves uniformity. The left makes claim to the appreciation of diversity, but there's a world of difference between words and action. The insistence upon a cookie-cutter version of "diversity" doesn't do justice to federalism. It's NOT okay by them for California to do it one way and Texas to do it another. They don't see the value in REAL diversity. They don't see the risks we face when we put it asunder. Their version is an emotional response to social issues, an arbitrary designation of "fairness".

The use of the Commerce Clause as an all-purpose tool to manage our economy as a whole has left no room for human error. A butterfly can't flap it's wings. We see that clearly in the sub-prime meltdown and its effect on the credit crisis. Without macro-management from Congress, maybe only a handful of States might have stepped in that particular cow patty, preserving the economies of the rest.

The world is a chaotic place. And I think sometimes there's a natural human impulse which demands we attempt to bring order to it, but I also think that it's a base impulse which should be ignored for the sake of higher thinking. Let us not forget that Islamic Extemists also demand "uniformity".
Not that I'm saying leftists are in that particular blood-thirsty category... but the underlying emotional insecurity, the need to control the environment and everything within it, is pretty much the same.

What's worse, is that by seeking this totalitarian-type control, we lose what little control we have. Our votes are powerful at the local level, affording us a small amount of democratic power in ordering our local communities. But at the national level, our vote is so diluted as to be nearly worthless to us in our ability to affect our own microcosm.

Excellent.

All in all....one should always look at cost/benefit beofre implementation.
It is a basic business principle...and a basic life principle.

For example, I do not agree with the SCOTUS ruling of 2 weeks ago...but I accept it as it preserves the integrity of the constitution that allows me freedom of speech and freedom of choice.

I accept the bad in an effort to preserve the good.

Seems the left only approves what is convenient AT THE TIME...and that is a very dangerous philosophy.

It never would work in business...and it will not work in life.

 

[Cold Fusion38]

So why not address rising healthcare costs?

Gee! I wonder why the Republicans haven't thought of this before? I wonder why they sat on their collective hands and offered nothing but obstruction and "NO!" to the national debate? Could it be that they are firmly in the pockets of the insurance companies? Hmm....

Even Obama himself when approached by the GOP admitted that YES, the GOP ideas were presented to him....he simply disagreed with them.

Yet you still regurgitate that "party of no" crap.

Well, seeing as the GOP ideas were not even presented for debate, is seems the Dems are just as much the party of "no"....

People like you fall for the rhetoric...and when fact comes to the top, as happened last week when Obama admitted that they are NOT the party of no ideas...you still need to spew the crap.

Give it up. It makes you look silly.

Actually Obama pointed out SEVERAL Republican ideas that he AGREED with and made part of the healthcare bill in the Senate. I know you don't like to ADMIT those FACTS that don't fit your AGENDA but that doesn't mean they don't exist.

 

[Oldandtired]

Gee! I wonder why the Republicans haven't thought of this before? I wonder why they sat on their collective hands and offered nothing but obstruction and "NO!" to the national debate? Could it be that they are firmly in the pockets of the insurance companies? Hmm....

Even Obama himself when approached by the GOP admitted that YES, the GOP ideas were presented to him....he simply disagreed with them.

Yet you still regurgitate that "party of no" crap.

Well, seeing as the GOP ideas were not even presented for debate, is seems the Dems are just as much the party of "no"....

People like you fall for the rhetoric...and when fact comes to the top, as happened last week when Obama admitted that they are NOT the party of no ideas...you still need to spew the crap.

Give it up. It makes you look silly.

Actually Obama pointed out SEVERAL Republican ideas that he AGREED with and made part of the healthcare bill in the Senate. I know you don't like to ADMIT those FACTS that don't fit your AGENDA but that doesn't mean they don't exist.

Listen Hack....I was responding to someone who is still spewing the "party of no and the party of no ideas" crap.

Thanks for supporting my argument.

No go back to hacking.

 

[Murf76]

Excellent.

All in all....one should always look at cost/benefit beofre implementation.
It is a basic business principle...and a basic life principle.

For example, I do not agree with the SCOTUS ruling of 2 weeks ago...but I accept it as it preserves the integrity of the constitution that allows me freedom of speech and freedom of choice.

I accept the bad in an effort to preserve the good.

Seems the left only approves what is convenient AT THE TIME...and that is a very dangerous philosophy.

It never would work in business...and it will not work in life.

Yep. That ruling is going to make things NOISY. But, the tradeoff, as you say, is free speech. Better to require that we use our intellect to see if we agree with who's speaking to us... then to stuff a gag in anyone's mouth.

The upside of this ruling, IMO.. is that government officials can no longer demonize whole groups or industries without answering for it. Even better, corporations can no longer "pay to play" without their competitors ratting them out.

 

[Truthmatters]

So why not address rising healthcare costs?

Gee! I wonder why the Republicans haven't thought of this before? I wonder why they sat on their collective hands and offered nothing but obstruction and "NO!" to the national debate? Could it be that they are firmly in the pockets of the insurance companies? Hmm....

Even Obama himself when approached by the GOP admitted that YES, the GOP ideas were presented to him....he simply disagreed with them.And the CBO said their ideas would not fix the problems we face.

Yet you still regurgitate that "party of no" crap.Bad ideas that dont work is about the same as saying just no.

Well, seeing as the GOP ideas were not even presented for debate, is seems the Dems are just as much the party of "no"....Because they were determined to be next to worthless to solve the problems.

People like you fall for the rhetoric...and when fact comes to the top, as happened last week when Obama admitted that they are NOT the party of no ideas...you still need to spew the crap.Ok they are the party of bad ideas and no, is that better?

Give it up. It makes you look silly.

Get some ideas that are more than distractions and bullshit.

 

[Murf76]

Tripling the national deficit is significantly more problematic than increasing it by less than 100%.

Wouldn't it be nice if we could make Congress form up on the Capitol steps and, in unison, COUNT to a trillion before they were allowed to actually spend it?

 

[Oldandtired]

Gee! I wonder why the Republicans haven't thought of this before? I wonder why they sat on their collective hands and offered nothing but obstruction and "NO!" to the national debate? Could it be that they are firmly in the pockets of the insurance companies? Hmm....

Even Obama himself when approached by the GOP admitted that YES, the GOP ideas were presented to him....he simply disagreed with them.And the CBO said their ideas would not fix the problems we face.

Yet you still regurgitate that "party of no" crap.Bad ideas that dont work is about the same as saying just no.

Well, seeing as the GOP ideas were not even presented for debate, is seems the Dems are just as much the party of "no"....Because they were determined to be next to worthless to solve the problems.

People like you fall for the rhetoric...and when fact comes to the top, as happened last week when Obama admitted that they are NOT the party of no ideas...you still need to spew the crap.Ok they are the party of bad ideas and no, is that better?

Give it up. It makes you look silly.

Get some ideas that are more than distractions and bullshit.

So what you are saying is that ideas that you dont agree with is the same as no ideas at all?

Isnt that partisan?

 

[rdean]

2/3rds of bankruptcies is because of medical bills. Those people will now use "emergency rooms" as their primary source of health care even though the cost is ten times more.

Why are Republicans OK with that? Can someone please explain that to me.

 

[Cold Fusion38]

Even Obama himself when approached by the GOP admitted that YES, the GOP ideas were presented to him....he simply disagreed with them.

Yet you still regurgitate that "party of no" crap.

Well, seeing as the GOP ideas were not even presented for debate, is seems the Dems are just as much the party of "no"....

People like you fall for the rhetoric...and when fact comes to the top, as happened last week when Obama admitted that they are NOT the party of no ideas...you still need to spew the crap.

Give it up. It makes you look silly.

Actually Obama pointed out SEVERAL Republican ideas that he AGREED with and made part of the healthcare bill in the Senate. I know you don't like to ADMIT those FACTS that don't fit your AGENDA but that doesn't mean they don't exist.

Listen Hack....I was responding to someone who is still spewing the "party of no and the party of no ideas" crap.

Thanks for supporting my argument.

No go back to hacking.

Ah sorry DOUCHE but you were LYING and I, for one, will NOT allow LIES to go unanswered! SO FUCK OFF and go back to LYING as that is the ONLY debate tactic you are capable of utilizing.