I cannot understand that this concept is so difficult to understand.
I'm guessing it's because your government works on a "who will outgive the other person" and you don't see a problem with that, since they're working towards what YOU believe to be the better way to get things done.
If it were that easy, MrC would be trumpeting Mr Kerry's surrender at this very moment, rather than the wailing and gnashing of teeth he undergoes on a daily basis. You have the power to effect change in your city the easiest, and every level of government added onto it only makes your ability to effect change harder and harder. You may be able to turn your entire state around to your way of thinking, at which point, you have to turn those cute wi'il representatives out into the cruel world of politics, where they are effective only if the general apathetic population makes their collective sighs known to enough people who might also agree with them. Then they have to decide with the rest of the electorate whether or not to continue what they're doing, keeping themselves in control of certain stashes of money and power, and whether or not the fight with "the other side" is better fought another day, and instead today they'll sell their principles out for some token show of capitulation on something that more than likely DOESN'T serve "the greater good".
You guys continue to throw up defense and public safety officials. No one ever seems willing to admit that if spending on such stupid things (like CONCRETE instead of asphalt for roads would cost more initially, save more in the long run, and require less taxation, or allow direction of the difference in those two options to be spent on hiring more policemen) were ever actually thought about, we COULD spend more money on "greater good" things. Of course, we're back to your scenario of the people who currently DON'T do these things being the ones in charge of the cash register
It's the waste. Period. The greed of politicians to bring money back from D.C. to their home state for projects that make little to no difference in "the greater good".
Why is it so difficult to understand the concept that spending a million dollars in one of our fine states to erect a monument to the fine Swedish people would better serve "the greater good" by hiring 1 more cop? Now, take this one stupid example, multiply it by 50, and then just TRY to get a handle on the stupidity of spending by those people you think are better suited to look out for "the greater good", even though by your own words they're individuals incapable of doing something good because they're greedy.
Folks like MrC, Grasshopper, Shmokes, Stingray, etc DID vote to remove the people they thought were doing a terrible job. So did I. Please tell us if it solved the problems I'm specifically addressing, not some ephemeral "police, health care, environment, blah blah blah". The ENTIRE government, BOTH sides of the aisle, need to realize they're spending OUR money so poorly. I can't believe you AREN'T incensed at some of the ways YOUR government pisses money away, since clearly if they DIDN'T, they'd be able to take care of MORE of the problems you want to try to cure in your society.
We're not talking about small amounts either. There's some third-world countries out there that would give your left arm for the amount governments like ours piss away yearly on things that do ABSOLUTELY NOTHING for "the greater good".
A return to the old west? Meh. Might actually work out better than what's currently being done. Jbox seems to have a better idea, but I can already see people griping about that concept because "we can't afford it, but they can". It's a personal responsibility thing with his concept. Who's the greedy person in his concept? The person who thought ahead, or the person who figured they'd piss money away because they didn't see the need to think about their future?
That may speak to excess more than greed though.
Home
Help
Search
Login
Register
Send this topic
Print
Topic: Greed - 20/20 (Read 12210 times)
