Travis Pahl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in part: >> 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. Then how do they differ from the politicians you seem to think should vote their conscience (i.e., whatever they think is right), in the knowledge that it's not their own money? >> >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. I'm not running for anything right now. The times I did run, if I thought I could elected it would be for the purpose of doing good, which as I've said is what they'll almost all say. >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, Then I guess that's POTUS, VPOTUS, or a governor. > 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? It depends whether s/he's focused on the short run or the long run. One may have to do less-good things in the short run to achieve better in the long run. However, the 4-year executive position is going to present much more opportunity to do good in the short run than is the 2-year legislative opportunity. The legislator has to deal with all the OTHER legislators. It may be more important to build coalitions for the future than to stand out as a loner in the short run. >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. The trouble with your analysis is in thinking of a single thing, a single choice, as THE right thing. These things have to be analyzed in the context of the actual choices and their actual effects. Practically speaking, there never is a single "right thing". Do you watch the TV show "Survivor"? That's a good lesson in politics. The stakes are real and large. See how they attempt to form coalitions, make & break promises, etc. 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
