The image or the bureaucracy?
I see the image, however, as a standalone conveyance, I don't understand what that image shows me which would indicate a "No" vote.
*sigh* I hate having to be heavy-handed with points and having you criticize me when I'm not. I expect my readership to be able to take data and draw conclusions without me having to write a 2500 word essay about them.
I would have hoped that one look at trying to follow the flow of the diagram would immediately show how convoluted HR 3200 is and how much waste is in this idea.
This requires an understanding of economics. It also assumes that the reader is in favor of smaller, more efficient government.
The chart also shows how the consumer doesn't have a choice. Instead, the consumer is subjugated to Washington (D.C.)'s demands.
I understood all this with one glimpse and assumed it was just as obvious to anyone else. I don't see how anyone could take this chart and argue in favor of HR 3200.
I'm going to apologize now for not being able to draw my own conclusion from that chart.
However, if you can't explain it in less than 2500 words, you don't understand it either.
The bill is 1018 pages long. I offer up one image to concisely explain my point, and you don't get it.
Lookit, I have a target audience. They keep up with the conversation. I've concluded that while you're my ideal reader, you are not, however, my target audience and therein lies the battle between emotion and intellect.
So...you don't understand the flowchart either. Got it. Thanks anyway. I'll stick with the commentary I've heard on the bill itself, and imagine that's what the flowchart says.
We had a high-level boss come down once and he asked if there were any issues we were having - there was only one - our laptops were too underpowered to load the client software required to support our client, i.e. the only reason we were there. His response? "You should see mine, its like a boat anchor! *lol* *lol*" Guess what - that response didn't help us. Neither did yours. In fact, it was about as useful as John Conyers in that video you posted. "Read it? Why would I, *lol* *lol*"
Yet you argue here that the bill isn't worth reading yourself. I printed it out and I'm reading it, not just listening to commentary on the bill. I'm validating/invalidating commentary as I read. That's my perspective. What's yours?
My question was: "Can you explain that flowchart in under 2500 words?"
Your verbose answer boiled down to: "No."
Can you explain it? More to the point, can you defend it?
I cannot. Which is why I asked you to explain the picture. I'm not the one who posted it. You did.
Can you explain it? Obviously you cannot.
Perhaps you posted it because you thought it was pretty. If so, that's fine - just say so.
Oh, you've explained volumes. I agree my point has been made. Have a good day, sir.
The only point you've made is that you're clueless on the issue and you find more merit in attacking me than you do examining life-altering legislation on the floor of the House.
No sir, I simply asked you to explain the flowchart. To date, you have failed to do so. Nothing you say, or anything you accuse me of eclipses that fact. Come to think of it, nothing I say will eclipse that fact either.
I'm sorry you feel this was an attack. All I asked was for you to explain the flowchart.
It has never been my intention to explain the flowchart because I don't support what the flowchart represents. This is the point of my post.
How can you disagree with something you cannot explain?
How can you continue to defend something you can't explain?
I never said I did. I asked if you could explain the flowchart to me. How that turned into me defending it, God alone knows.
Because instead of agreeing with me when I illuminated what the chart's meaning is, you in turn continued to argue that I didn't understand the chart and hence was a fool for arguing against it, which, by definition meant that you supported the chart despite your lack of ability to explain it.
You shined a light on it? Your words sound hollow to me.