Politicians on the Take, Elected by Voters on the Take...

@ParaTed2k (22980)
Sheboygan, Wisconsin
August 26, 2008 2:01am CST
We talk a lot about how vile it is for a politician to be in it only for their own gain. Well, when I ask Democrats what the role of government is, they almost always talk about money and why the government should be handing them more. So, if you base your vote on what the candidate promises in monetary gain for yourself, how are you any less crooked than the politician on the take? Last Congressional campaign season, Pelosi promised that she would end earmarks if she was elected. Most of the Representatives and Senators who get re-elected succeed because of how much money they are able to "bring home" in the way of pork. Again, if that is why we are voting for them, we are just allowing them to buy us off. So if money is why you vote for someone, then you should quit complaining about corruption, you're part of it.
2 people like this
3 responses
@gewcew23 (8010)
• United States
26 Aug 08
Well it does take two to tango ParaTed. Anyone who elects based on who will bring home the bacon the most should have their voter card revoked. A republic ceases to be when the voters realize that they can elected representatives to take more money from one group and give it to themselves. Currently there are states that are termed as plus states and those that are minus states. A plus state is a state that receives more spending back than the state paid. A minus state is a state that receives less spending back than the state paid for. So in the USA we have taxpayers living in one state paying for another states project, and probably a project that they will never see or use. I do not want my Representative to be a man that brings home the bacon, I want a representative that spend my money for what it was intend for then give me back what is left in the form of a tax cut.
1 person likes this
@xfahctor (14126)
• Lancaster, New Hampshire
26 Aug 08
Good one. It's a double edged thing. Setators are suposed to be serving the interests of their states in congress, but it can go to far. I guess it's natural to anyone who understands their function to expect them to do so but then those who aren't seem to go too far. A state may NEED a set of bridges fixed. A state DOES NOT need a woodstock museum built on the federal dollar.
1 person likes this
@clrumfelt (5452)
• United States
26 Aug 08
Two timeless quotes that lend credence to your position: In general, the art of government consists of taking as much money as possible from one party of the citizens to give to the other. -Voltaire (1764) The government is like a baby's alimentary canal, with a happy appetite at one end and no responsibility at the other. -Ronald Reagan I'd say you're in good company.