IMO, Dems tend to be the more 'efficiency driven' party; whether it was the 'Truman commission in WWII' to search for (and punish) waste and profiteering (compare that to the spending and treatment of contractors in the current military conflicts), or the relatively small governments at the height of 'liberals' JFK and LBJ (government blew up under Nixon and Reagan), or the commission led by Al Gore to cut the government's staff (hardest hit was the military; many others as well though), I see the democrats' 'big spending' in areas of helping the public and solving problems, not in 'government waste'. "Government Waste" has become little but a political hot potatoe used for trying to persuade voters (usually of something bad for them.)
Reagan had the 'Grace Commission', but we know how much government shrunk under him.
The thing is, no one in politics likes 'government waste' for things like new carpets and painting annually. Not necessarily because they care so much about the taxpayer money, but because the money, which is limited, can be used for purposes the politicians would prefer it be used for, whether it's big corporate subsidies or healthcare. If you vote for a party because they tell you they're against 'government waste', you are pretty much throwing away your vote and being manipulated.
And you have to ask why they're giving you the nonsense line about government waste instead of talking about their actual policies.
Aimster, I'm not going to criticize you for the self-interested approach you are taking, because to do so is the same flaw as bommunism makes, trying to get something good by ignoring human nature. It's better to acknowledge that people largely make their decisions like you are doing there than to tell you not to and just make you sorry you asked. It's not that there isn't room for criticism, but rather just that I see it as of little point.
But you should consider the larger picture, is it worth a little short-term benefit if the price is further driving our nation down so that our nation's freedoms and such are threatened?
Here's how I see it working: on the one hand, you really can't get people not to vote for selfish short-term interest. The thing on the other hand, though, that limits the corruption is that other people have their own selfish desires, and as long as democracy has a place, any group is subject to others, the majority, voting for themselves too. So if 1% of the population are in Aimster's situation and they vote selfishly, that's not a majority vote.
That's how parties basically get elected, by persuading 51% that it's in their selfish interest.
The thing is, there's only so much money to go around, so only people get the 'direct benefit' financially; others need to be paid off in other currency, such as a 'good cause'.
The more the politicians can make people vote for them for things that don't cost money - such as social conservative agendas or 'change' - the more money they have for others.
Aimster, the Republicans may be better on average for you in terms of cutting government workers - but how good are they for you in other areas? Is it worth voting for their torture of people? Is it worth their further corruprting our democracy with the increase in concentration of wealth and power? Will you sleep better at night voting for what's right?
I think your post is a great example of how hard it is to get rid of 'corruption'. If you post that, how much trouble will multi-billion dollae conglomorates with big defense contracts go to? Are they going to give up their billions rather than to push for policies of war that make them the big bucks?
I think a good way to look at government corruption is as a group of people who want to take taxpayer money and need some 'cover' to do so. If they can convince the public that the leaders are so wrapped in the flag and wonderful that they shouldn't be examined much (think Reagan for his following), they can get away with almost anything and just hand out the money. For most, they need 'cover'. It might be bg corporate farm subsidies under the cover of the family farm, it might be war under the cover of 'defending freedom and defeating evil', it might be a drug company payoff under the cover of a Medicare drug bill, it might be big bucks to private schools by closing public schools under the cover of 'accountability for schools'.
On this, every political party with power is guilty to some degree (those who have no power have the luxury of the high road and condemning it).
If you want to get rid of corruption in government, start with how you would ask Aimster to vote against his own situation, other than 'but but but that's selfish'.
Facebook
Twitter