On Thu, 2 Dec 2004 19:01:24 EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Travis Pahl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in part: > > >> "I voted for X to restrain gov't spending. I didn't want the whole > goddamn > >> gov't shut down! So now I'm voting for Y, who won't pull that stunt." > > >Translation: I got more than I asked for so next time I am going to > >ask for the opposite of what I truly want. > > You completely mischarcterize the situation. They want X amount of > spending rather than 1.1 times X. However, given a choice between 1.1 > times X and 0.1 times X, they'll take 1.1 times X.
I think your number representations are pretty far off. > >1/4 of it is that power currupts. The other 3/4 can be accounted for > >the fact that power attracts the currupt. > > Then don't complain. If it's a law of nature, then obviously there's > nothing you can do about it, and you're a fool to even bring it up. That is what many believed up until the late 18th century. In the late 18th century some guys on the east coast came up with a system that would limit government and its power. It worked pretty well and would work again if people would stop believing the lies that Republicans keep spewing out. > >So then they have none of the responsibility of representing people > >that have specifically chosent them to reduce spending as real > >representatives do. They also were in a hypothetical world where > >income was not really coming from anyone. They could increase > >spending and no one complains. Of course you end up with big budgets > >if you have none of the pressures that real ones have to keep budgets > >small. > > They were trying to play it as realistically as possible. They could > increase spending, and the complaint would come from their own sense of its > being too much. Or too little, or too whatever. Yeah, but their own sense of it being too much is not realistic when there is A) no real money at hand, B) they have no voters fake or otherwise to consider when increasing spending. > >In your opinion, what is the point of getting elected to office? > > There could be different motivations for different people. It presents all > sorts of attractions: I asked for you opinion on what the point of getting elected to office is. That does not mean give a list of what other people might think, but what YOU think the point is. > a job > a chance to collect bribes > a chance to feel important > fame > doing good > padding a resume > nobless (or family, or friends) oblige > influence for friends > > However, if you ask them, they'll practically all say, "doing good" in some > form or other. Well this will work good enough. Now what exactly is 'doing good'? Well obviously that depends from person to person, right. But let me ask you this... if a person defines doing good as 'limiting government' and they have an oppurtunity to limit government even if it costs him his job 4 years from now, should he do what he thinks is good/right? Or should he do what he beleives is wrong/bad so that he can get elected again? Obviously if you answer wrong/bad so he can get elected again, then I have to ask the original question again, what is the point of getting elected. My point is, why do the wrong thing now in the hopes that you can do the right thing later when you can much easier just do the right thing now? Any rational person would do the right thing inititially and be done with it. So these republicans in congress and the white house that you keep making excuses for either are A) not rational or B) getting elected for some other reason than to do what is right, or C) lying to you about what they think is right. So my final question is... regardless of whether they are A B or C, why in the world would you vote for and support these type of people? Travis > >> Then you were suckered. > > >So you are still denying that the vote has real world implications? > > THAT vote? (Raising the debt ceiling.) Yes. > > >> What would a vote of "no" actually do? Everybody would > >> honor Treasury checks as if the account weren't overdrawn. In effect, > >> they'd be borrowing from their creditors. > > >Why do you beleive that banks would dispence money to people with > >checks from the Treasury when they got no money from the treasury to > >do so? > > Because they're an excellent risk to cover the overdrafts! > > In Your Sly Tribe, > > > Robert in the Bronx > _______________________________________________ > Libnw mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > List info and subscriber options: http://immosys.com/mailman/listinfo/libnw > Archives: http://immosys.com/mailman//pipermail/libnw > _______________________________________________ Libnw mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] List info and subscriber options: http://immosys.com/mailman/listinfo/libnw Archives: http://immosys.com/mailman//pipermail/libnw
