Subj : Re: About GWB To : Daemon From : Finnigann Date : Wed Oct 12 2005 01:30 am -=> Daemon wrote to Tracker1 <=- > Finnigann wrote: > >> And who approves budgetary spending? and who had a HUGE increase in > >> revenues, and chose to spent more still? oh yeah, that's right, > >> *CONGRESS* > > > > Wrong. When a president comes in with a land-slide as did Ronnie. No > > congress is gonna tell him no to anything. > > The point of congress is to "SERVE the people" ... not to live a life > of political posturing. > Da> Brings up an interesting point. Da> Over the last year, the fundamental "job" of a representative has Da> come into question locally/regionally, where there are those of us that Da> consider it the responsibility of the office-holder to be responsive to Da> the public's opinions, desires, and clearly overwhelming demands before Da> and DURING their service. Da> The counter (championed, for some reason, pretty exclusively by Da> Republicans for some reason) is "Not so. We were elected to do as we Da> see fit; to serve our function according to our own sense of priorities Da> and independent of even the most fervent and contrary public demand. Da> We campaigned on our own priorities and it is OUR priorities that we Da> will use to make decisions, not the people's." Da> So. Da> Put simply, does the direct responsibility of a politician (neutral Da> term, minus the automatic derision that tends to ride the definition) Da> to the public end upon election and take a back seat to blind trust in Da> the office-holder's personal values, or does that direct responsibility Da> carry THROUGH the term as a progressive mandate of the people? Da> I mean, are we voting for people to represent US or to represent Da> THEMSELVES during the course of a given term? Da> (See... The answer seems obvious to me, but I have a feeling there Da> might not be universal agreement on this and want to see what Da> fundamentals that breaks down to.) This is really a can of worms... To serve one must hold office. To hold office one must be elected. To be elected one must raise election funding. To raise election funding... here it gets murky. What do some politicians do to raise election funding... AND if they do get elected the cycle restarts shortly after the votes are tallied. I read one idea where campaigning was REALLY controled to limit the expenses. Another idea was that broadcasters MUST donate large enough blocks of time so that everyone can hear the candidates points of view. With all of the counter measures that follow. But those with deep pockets want freedom to spend whatever it takes to get their man in office. (and the benefits that follow). But what if no one was allowed to donate money? It would also be fair as no one would have a CASH advantage. Donated media resources could be used to inform the public of important issues. Debates could be used to show the differneces in the canadates style. If proper over site, lections could be a great thing and not as viewed today as something shoddy and backalley-ish. They could be structeured to give a level playing field to any and all serious candidates. (sorry Perot) Ok feed on that for a while... ÕÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍ ³ "We live in a society exquisitely ³ dependent on science and technology, ³ in which hardly anyone knows anything ³ about science and technology." ³ - Carl Sagan .... Are you sure it isn't time for a colorful metaphor? - Spock --- MultiMail/Win32 v0.46 þ Synchronet þ Bits-N-Bytes BBS Onehellofa BBS bnb.dtdns.net .