In case you thought the GOP was ascendant...

[derspiess]

Another good example: the fucking brilliant idea that we should cut taxes and continue to spend anyway because, you know, cutting taxes will eventually raise revenues because it worked (sorta...ok it didn't) once before!  We will just take it on faith everything is going to work out exactly as we planned it!

Come on guys can't you be a little more, oh I don't know, CONSERVATIVE in your political ideas.

I don't disagree with your sentiment here, but I think now you're just spouting everything you hate about Republicans.  I would say this is the opposite of a radical approach-- it's the path of least resistance in fact.

[Valmy]

but I think now you're just spouting everything you hate about Republicans.

No if I did that I would have to bring up their religious fundamentalist wing

I like the old school Republicans, the Bush I Republicans.  So colorless, so boring, but so RIGHT for America.

[Valmy]

Okay, some of those ideas come close to being as radical as HealthScare, but it's not so much a mainstream GOP thing. 

I think one of the big reasons I am not so nervous about the HealthScare thing is that I have confidence in the Bluedogs (and the handful of Republicans who would actually consider voting for it) to water it down until it is only a small reform rather than a big shake-up.  The Leftists seem really angry at how it has gone so I presume it must be going well but I have been trying to ignore political news until we get closer to the election next year.  Plenty of time to catch up when I need the info.

[DGuller]

I think it's a bit too simplistic to say that everything radical is wrong, and that incremental change is always preferable.  Sometimes half-measures are the worst option of all.  Not always, but sometimes.  Unfortunately, there is no easy way out of having to think through the issues, and decided based on facts whether incremental or radical change is needed.

[Valmy]

I think it's a bit too simplistic to say that everything radical is wrong, and that incremental change is always preferable.  Sometimes half-measures are the worst option of all.  Not always, but sometimes.  Unfortunately, there is no easy way out of having to think through the issues, and decided based on facts whether incremental or radical change is needed.

The only time radical change is needed is when the situation is desperate so you might as well roll the dice.  The United States, a great world power, should not be taking unnecessary risks and should always bet on sure things.  Everytime we try some great experimental whatever it almost always turns out badly.

That is my view and I think history both recent and ancient back up my view.

[Admiral Yi]

The only time radical change is needed is when the situation is desperate so you might as well roll the dice.  The United States, a great world power, should not be taking unnecessary risks and should always bet on sure things.  Everytime we try some great experimental whatever it almost always turns out badly.

That is my view and I think history both recent and ancient back up my view.

Radical doesn't mean unknown outcome, it means a significant departure from current practice.

[Valmy]

Radical doesn't mean unknown outcome, it means a significant departure from current practice.

Right it means an expected outcome due to theory...some crackpot theory...and then unintended consequences come up.

[Grallon]

...  Everytime we try some great experimental whatever it almost always turns out badly.

That is my view and I think history both recent and ancient back up my view.

You guys put people on the moon and you can't manage to offer basic healthcare coverage for all your citizens?! 



G.

[Admiral Yi]

Right it means an expected outcome due to theory...some crackpot theory...and then unintended consequences come up.

Uh, no.  The New Deal introduced a lot of radical measures, such as Social Security.  Giving money to old people so they have money is not based on a crackpot theory.

[derspiess]

Right it means an expected outcome due to theory...some crackpot theory...and then unintended consequences come up.

Occasionally, it leaves us better off than before.  If history were totally dominated by moderates, nothing would ever get done.

[Valmy]

You guys put people on the moon and you can't manage to offer basic healthcare coverage for all your citizens?! 

Putting people on the moon is based on science.  Trying to get the money to offer expensive services to over 300 million people is based on faith.

[Caliga]

You guys put people on the moon and you can't manage to offer basic healthcare coverage for all your citizens?! 

Putting people on the moon is a far, far simpler project.

[Valmy]

Occasionally, it leaves us better off than before.  If history were totally dominated by moderates, nothing would ever get done.

Nonsense.  Almost all real progress is incremental

[derspiess]

You guys put people on the moon and you can't manage to offer basic healthcare coverage for all your citizens?! 

You're supposed to say we're the richest nation on earth, not the moon thing

[Grallon]

Putting people on the moon is a far, far simpler project.

Of course it goes against the ingrained dominant ideology - not to mention it disturbs powerful interests who happens to be large contributors for the political circus. 




G.