On Fri, 3 Dec 2004 15:42:11 EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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?
Real politicians are dealing with real money and are also dealing with voters that they know will be upset if they increase spending and thus take more wealth from the voters. > >> >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. So if the purpose is to do good, why would you not do that when given the chance? > >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. Sure. Or any other elected office. I just chose 4 because it is the most common term for executives and even quite a few representatives. But really you can chose any number and position if you want. > > 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. Given that others support can never be counted on because they may lose their elected position, or just no cooperate, nor is it for sure that you will be in office in the future, it always makes more sense to vote for good all the time, then to ever vote for bad. If republicans began doing this, They would have acheived far more than they have. In fact I would bet spending would be decreasing. > >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". Sure there is. it may be hard to determine sometimes, but that is clouding the issue. in most instances, there is a clear less government option that politicians are given. Republicans ruitenly ignore this option with a variety of excuses ranging from 'this was too important to leave out of the hands of government' to'I had to be a team player to build a coalition' to 'It was going to pass anyhow' to 'it is the democrats fault' to 'The democrata are worse' (which is not even technically an excuse but is used often anyhow) to 'I had to do it to get re-elected so that i can fix things then'. Yes occasionally there are other things to consider, but that is not the majority of the decisions they make and introducing it is just an attempt to cloud the issue. > 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. Yeah i have watched it. It is also a game. In electing politicians you should try to chose people that will not do such things since the stakes are different. They are not competing for a million dollar prize in the politicians 'game' they are playing with our lives and thus you want people that will realize the stakes are different and not behave like it was a silly game made for TV. Travis _______________________________________________ Libnw mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] List info and subscriber options: http://immosys.com/mailman/listinfo/libnw Archives: http://immosys.com/mailman//pipermail/libnw
