DC Tom Posted February 25, 2010 Share Posted February 25, 2010 Also, since we are talking about constituents and their wishes, why are the Democrats still pushing forward with their version of health care reform, when the vast majority of their electorate are against it? hmmmm Sometimes you have to represent the interest of the people even if it goes against their interests. It's called "leadership". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted February 25, 2010 Share Posted February 25, 2010 I guess it's a matter of principle. If they're against it, one would ASSUME it's on behalf of their constituents. They are THERE to represent the will of the people that voted for them, right? Hence, their constituents would not WANT to take the money, right? So, the elected official should stand by the principle for which he stood (at his constituents' wishes) and not take it. But if the constituents actually WANTED the money...then in voting no these folks are NOT representing their constituents but are guilty of partisan politics. Which is it? Yes, because the constituents and those reps realise that the "free federal money" game is a loser means that once the money has been added to the national debt those same reps should double (triple, whatever) their losses and make sure that while their constituents will get saddled with the additional debt they won't receive any of the benefits of that debt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted February 25, 2010 Share Posted February 25, 2010 Yes, because the constituents and those reps realise that the "free federal money" game is a loser means that once the money has been added to the national debt those same reps should double (triple, whatever) their losses and make sure that while their constituents will get saddled with the additional debt they won't receive any of the benefits of that debt. Look who you're explaining that to. In Debbie's world, idealism is a one-way street. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted February 25, 2010 Share Posted February 25, 2010 It's a straw man argument.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted February 26, 2010 Share Posted February 26, 2010 Look who you're explaining that to. In Debbie's world, idealism is a one-way street. Nah, she's very open-minded. Unfortunately, most of it seems to have spilled out that opening. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted February 26, 2010 Share Posted February 26, 2010 I guess it's a matter of principle. If they're against it, one would ASSUME it's on behalf of their constituents. They are THERE to represent the will of the people that voted for them, right? Hence, their constituents would not WANT to take the money, right? So, the elected official should stand by the principle for which he stood (at his constituents' wishes) and not take it. But if the constituents actually WANTED the money...then in voting no these folks are NOT representing their constituents but are guilty of partisan politics. Which is it? Money doesn't grow on trees. Maybe their constituents were smart enough to know better than to waste another trillion dollars that we don't have. But if the moron majority are going to force it to happen, that behavior isn't going to be rewarded by letting the morons have it all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts