Democrats Hide Pet Projects From Voters

Discussion in 'Politics & Law' started by Truth-Bringer, Jun 6, 2007.

  1. Is this the change they promised??? LOL. Never believe Democrats or Republicans. All they can do is lie and cheat the voters.

    WASHINGTON - After promising unprecedented openness regarding Congress' pork barrel practices, House Democrats are moving in the opposite direction as they draw up spending bills for the upcoming budget year.

    Democrats are sidestepping rules approved their first day in power in January to clearly identify "earmarks" — lawmakers' requests for specific projects and contracts for their states — in documents that accompany spending bills.

    Rest of article continued here.
     

  2. pro2A

    pro2A Hell, It's about time!


    I have a strong feeling our nation is getting to the point where there will be a major political shift. Americans are getting tired of the bulls:censored:t. I give it another 15 years or so. There will be a dominant 3rd party fighting along side the Dems and Republicans. it'll keep both parties in check.
     
  3. ExpectantlyIronic

    ExpectantlyIronic e̳̳̺͕ͬ̓̑̂ͮͦͣ͒͒h̙ͦ̔͂?̅̂ ̾͗̑

    I think I speak for the majority of voters when I say that the degree of wasteful spending on earmarks is intolerable. Except, of course, for when such things benefit my state or district. I know that I would be very upset if my representatives managed to get nothing for Michigan or Kalamazoo County. Voters simply tend to think that everyone in Washington is a crook except the guy they voted for. What we need to do is elect a president who will use his/her veto power to force congress to be more fiscally responsible.
     
  4. Obviously you don't - as confirmed by the fact that people keep voting in the same big spending politicians. If the majority were truly knowledgeable enough to realize what's going on, then as pro2A stated, we'd have a third party elected in a landslide.
     
  5. Mr. Mustafa

    Mr. Mustafa Terrorist

    Typical. It reminds me of Pelosies huffing and puffing about "reaching across the isle" and promises of bipartisan politics, and full cooperation with the Republicans with the goal of rebuilding America, and blah blah blah. A week later they shot it all to hell. Fucking gip, we need a new government.
     
  6. pro2A

    pro2A Hell, It's about time!

    Hey we should get everyone on FC to start a new government...
     
  7. Mr. Mustafa

    Mr. Mustafa Terrorist

    Cool, I should get another gun for the revolution....
     
  8. ExpectantlyIronic

    ExpectantlyIronic e̳̳̺͕ͬ̓̑̂ͮͦͣ͒͒h̙ͦ̔͂?̅̂ ̾͗̑

    Truth-Bringer,

    That big spending politician they voted for is their guy. He's the dude who brings home the bacon. That was the point you seemed to have missed in my post. Voters simply like the fact that their guy is winning federal dollars for them. They just don't like the fact that all those other guys are winning dollars for their voters. It's like a modified "prisoners dilemma" game where if you cooperate, and the majority defects, you get nothing. Yet if you defect with the majority, you still get some points. Even if everyone were to get many more points if the majority cooperated, it would be difficult to convince most people to take that risk, given that the majority always seems to defect. Now the proper president will modify that game in such a way that nobody gets any points unless everyone chooses to cooperate (with his amazing veto powers). That's why it's best to vote for a congressman who will try to bring home the bacon, but a president who won't let that happen.

    Game theory is fun.
     
  9. Then that is stupidity. If you demand that your guy in Washington steal from other people via taxation to reallocate the money to you, while expecting all the other Congressmen to not do the same, then you're clearly stupid.
     
  10. ExpectantlyIronic

    ExpectantlyIronic e̳̳̺͕ͬ̓̑̂ͮͦͣ͒͒h̙ͦ̔͂?̅̂ ̾͗̑

    Truth-Bringer,

    Clearly nobody expects another state or districts voters to act any differently. That is exactly why it seems to be best to "defect" in one's own self-interest. The rules of the game, and the past history of choices made by voters, make it the rational descision. Nevertheless, it is quite clear if we adopt the viewpoint of a disinterested observer, that it would be ideal for everyone to cooperate. Some ethical thinkers would suggest that is then the ethical thing to do to cooperate, as it is impossible to make a proper ethical choice from the perspective of a self-serving individual. We have to observe how people interact in a group to best make such determinations.
     

Share This Page