the cost of doing anything
If your house were flooding would you burn it down? Of course not, yet that seems to be the exact nonsensical mindset of the current Democratic establishment. Instead of addressing the issues at hand, the Democratic Party enjoys redefining the problem then “solving” it in the most convoluted way possible.
Sure, burning the house down would dry up the water and resolve the immediate issue of the flood, however, at what cost? Imagine if you suggested not burning the house down and being labeled an obstructionist who enjoys the status quo of a flooded house.
Sometimes doing nothing is not ideal or even advisable (as is the case when your basement is filling up with water), however, sometimes the “solution” can be worse than the problem.
The Democrats would have us believe that doing anything is always preferential to doing nothing. It is true that inaction rarely leads to solutions, yet it is also true that inaction never leads to compounding the problem.
This desire of doing something for the sake of doing something frequently leads to a calamitous outcome, and almost always stems from fear and a lack of understanding. Bloodletting, mercury pills, the Salem witch trials, New Coke, the Jay Leno Show and even Hitler, all bungles of varying degree, yet all borne from a desire to act in the face of uncertainty.
So tell me, does tearing up the Constitution while seizing 1/6th of the economy, raising taxes in a recession, spending trillions of dollars that we simply don’t have, mandating by force the purchasing of insurance and forcefully changing the insurance of millions of those who are currently satisfied, all in the name of covering an additional 12% of the population for 10 years make sense, or are we about to burn our house down to fix the flood in the basement?
All I am saying is that sometimes doing nothing is better than doing anything.
