What do you think politicians should do when their constituents want inconsistent things?

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: gingermeggs

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: gingermeggs

Originally posted by: Infohawk
"The average voter wants more government spending, less taxes, and a balanced budget." That's a joke I heard a political scientist tell. There's at least a grain of truth in that many voters seem to want contradictory things.

What do you think politicians should do in terms of policy? In terms of spin they say they want the same things, but at the end of the day what kind of policies should they push?

It's kind of like listening to girls talk about what they want in a man!

-strong, but emotionally compassionate,tender and caring!
funny, but responsible and ambitious!

What they should do is tell the truth and have priorities which ration and balance things to get the best overall outcome for the majority of the population!

Or even Lie and have the right Priorities. The Priorities are the most important part.

Lying leads to authoritarianism, whether its covert like the current USA capitalism or state communism like china.

Not necessarily, but I agree it's not the best choice. However, if the Public is going to punish Governments/Politicians for telling the Truth, then Lying becomes the only option to deal with serious issues. Politicians/Government is charged with the task of doing what's best for the Nation, that often conflicts with the wishes of the People. This is why Education is key, a stupid populace demands impossible things.

 

[b0mbrman]

Originally posted by: Infohawk
"The average voter wants more government spending, less taxes, and a balanced budget." That's a joke I heard a political scientist tell. There's at least a grain of truth in that many voters seem to want contradictory things.

What do you think politicians should do in terms of policy? In terms of spin they say they want the same things, but at the end of the day what kind of policies should they push?

In an ideal world, they would educate their constituents. They would make it very clear that foreign wars, missile defense, and entitlement programs for seniors seriously cost money (in real life), and if we want to keep them going, we have to make tough choices both within those programs and on the revenue side of government in the way of higher collections through higher taxes for everyone or more progressive taxes.

In a cynical world, politicians should get as powerful as possible through chairmanships and seniority so that they can deliver a disproportional amount of stuff (spending projects or tax breaks) to their district or state while cutting spending and increasing taxes overall.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: charrison


The only problem is nafta has easily been net positive for the US. And tariffs will cause just as many problems as they create. Notice tire prices are already rising. Consumers will pay more for tires to protect a few jobs, and that is going to be a net loss for this country. Much like steel tariffs from the previous admin.

I can't say with certainty that a move to isolationism would work to reverse economic conditions because it might very well take as long to get that going as it would to see benefits to the current wisdom. Nor do I think a change could alter the mind set of the majority of people. The folks who'd spearhead a change are now set to proceed in the current manner.
That being said, when enough of the poviders of goods and services to the poor realize it is only going to be the same they may seek to find a way to make it so they don't have such a burden. That takes job creation or a let em eat cake and if that happens it might be your cake they eat. The most important aspect, as I see it, is the standard of living that I saw is not what young folks see today. They don't really know that Dad works and Mom takes care of the house. They see Mom and Dad work and I hang out. That bit requires two jobs instead of one. Well can't do much about jobs cuz ya can't deflate the cost without the earnings going down so we is in a quandry... How did we get from the one to the other? Well, when I was in grad skule I carried mail for $3.59 per hour and a 3br house cost 13,000 and a brand new vw bug was 1875. Today the letter carrier makes what $19 per hour? That same house costs 325,000 and the Bug costs 25,000... I agree places the changes were not as dramatic and in others more so...

That sorta means that wages went up about 5 fold, the house 25 fold and the car about 13 fold. Some aspects of life went up a lot less and some a lot more... but wages creeped up. We lost the technological advantage and gained a labor disadvantage while disposable income latched onto the cheaper/equal goods for the most part. Our mfg base folded as a result and we moved to a Service economy.
I don't really think there is any hope of remedy unless there exists a true global economy on a flat earth playing field... Regardless, we'll never see Dad works and Mom takes care of the house IF folks want to live in a house. Too many people and not enough jobs now or in the next hundred years of so. Maybe if we limit people to (on average) 1 kid per couple we can decline the population until equilibrium sets in..

Edit: I know folks can dig up graphs and the like to depict what ever might be their argument but the fact remains... What once was is not today. My eyes see that graph pretty well..

 

[b0mbrman]

Originally posted by: Skitzer
"What do you think politicians should do in terms of policy? In terms of spin they say they want the same things, but at the end of the day what kind of policies should they push?"


Hey how about this concept ....... why don't they fulfill their campaign promises? Isn't that what the majority elected them to do in the first place?

Because voters wanted inconsistent things back then too

 

[Hacp]

Cut social security, cut medicare, cut federal workers, and cut the wars.

 

[b0mbrman]

Originally posted by: Hacp
Cut social security, cut medicare, cut federal workers, and cut the wars.

Tell your Congressman.

Then, if he listens, tell the Congressman that replaces him...

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Hacp
Cut social security, cut medicare, cut federal workers, and cut the wars.

Well... is Social Security not just like the stimulus checks that went out not too long ago? We could save a bundle there and maybe with a Cut Medicare too we could get them old geezers to simply vanish? Who'll pay the doctors, hospitals and pill makers for all that infrastructure when they don't need it... some will lose their jobs but it ok.. maybe they'll vanish? Guess we don't need any Federal, State or city workers, they don't produce much but they do spend alot, is that good? Perhaps if they had no job and no Welfare or Unemployment they'd just vanish. And the banks don't need tellers cuz not enough business but they'll vanish in time. All these bus drivers and bus makers and rapid transit folks we can now do without... get rid of it all... and hope they vanish! Cut Wars??? omg... and all the war product producers close down and, dang, you might lose your job or someone else will.. but it is ok.. they'll vanish too. But all them military folks out of work with guns... not good.. make sure they have work... displace those that have jobs left and hope they vanish too..
IF we can get them all to vanish we might just be able to pull off recovery! We could declare a debt holiday where no one owes anyone... poof the national debt is gone and we are happy little frogs. We could get back to the real American Dream of grow your own food and own farms just like in the old days... We'd not need schools or much of anything and abolish taxation.. no need for it.
But some wise butt will clammer... Manifest Destiny... we need to expand from Iowa to Nebraska and to Kansas and Dakota..

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: OCguy

Originally posted by: MotF Bane
Less taxes and less spending.

And since "less spending" means specific programs have been reduced or eliminated, please tell us what specific programs you want eliminated or cut. And be specific about the amounts of money involved.

I think people like you who make meaningless, vague statements such as, "less taxes and less spending" should be banned from this site. You have no concept of what in hell you're recommending. You don't know what programs you want cut. You have no idea how much money is involved. But you THINK you're actually saying something. You're not. You just like intellectually lazy platitudes that help keep you outraged at the status quo.

So, let's get to specifics: How much are you proposing to cut taxes? $100 billion? $200 billion? $500 billion? $1 trillion? And where is the spending reduced? Are you cutting defense spending by $200 billion? If so, where is the $200 billion military reduction coming from? Fewer troops? Fewer aircraft? Close the pentagon and half of all U.S. military bases?

Are you cutting Social Security by $100 billion? $200 billion? Or will that be Medicare? Come one, WHAT PROGRAMS ARE YOU CUTTING TO FUND THESE TAX CUTS???