Did it actually happen?

[megaman89]

Because when it comes down to it, most people are dumber than a rusty nail and have no clue what is best for them.

Like using deodorant

[Xog]

do you just copy/paste everything you read on /b/

nice avatar faggot

a) didn't copy+paste that from 4chan and,

b) good job relating everything from the internet to 4chan, newfag

[Ephemeral]

That's exactly what politicians should be doing. Because when it comes down to it, most people are dumber than a rusty nail and have no clue what is best for them, let alone the country.

For instance, if we take Roy Jenkins from Britain, he was seen as an elitist, someone that didn't listen to the people. However he was responsible for reforming Britain, getting rid of laws against homosexuality, abortion and divorce and ended the death penalty. Much of the public and press hated that he did this, yet he did it because it was right for the country (yeah kthx, it's your worst nightmare and you can try and troll this post all you want, I won't respond).

Thing is, about 99% of the people fear change, they always think change is bad and they will always resist. But that is not always in the best interest of the country. I'm not saying politicians are always right and I'm not saying that during their campaign they should be saying: I'll lower taxes!! So they get voted in and then proceed to increase taxes x1000. But Obama has done exactly what he said he would do (well ok, as far as I understand the republicans still fucked the bill over, but still).

tl;dr: People are retarded and don't know what's best for them, this is where politicians come into play.

I understand the difference between democracy types and I understand implications of a republic democracy electing representatives, but I have several issues with the current implementation. For example, how does electing someone who is supposed to represent you wash with PACs and pork barrel legislation?
My opinion is that we elect representatives who we think will understand and listen to their constituents, go do their homework on a specific issue, and then come back to us present the unbiased discovery. In other words a big part of being a leader is in educating us selflessly.
Not being a leader involves allowing your discovery to come directly from whatever PAC has made contributions to you or your party, cutting back room deals with your cronies, and tacking on moronic programs to other legislation that directs monies into your district for the purpose of getting your lame lawyer ass reelected.

[paradise!]

your opinion is the obvious one. why wouldn't i elect a congressman who will earmark legislation? pork barreling gets the man re-elected for good reason too.

it's a business, you don't invest in a losing proposition for the 'good' of the nation.

a congressman an educator? u high? all my congressman does is rant about government takeover in our local paper.

youre an idealist, get out hippy

[Galleleo]

Politicians should do things that they honestly believe are best for the country, not because all their voters think so, and not because some big ass company gives him 5.000 dollars and says it's so.

Now they shouldn't lie to get elected and then do the complete opposite, but not doing something because a lot of people say it shouldn't be done is not a good excuse.

[Ephemeral]

Politicians should do things that they honestly believe are best for the country, not because all their voters think so, and not because some big ass company gives him 5.000 dollars and says it's so.

Now they shouldn't lie to get elected and then do the complete opposite, but not doing something because a lot of people say it shouldn't be done is not a good excuse.

Agreed, but this is the problem with a republic style democracy. People gravitate towards power and money. So why not move away from this style and more toward the Greek or “majority wins” and add in a one term limit for all politicians. The internet certainly provides the information technology required by the average person on the street to become better educated on the issues and by forcing the limit of political terms would remove the incentive for a person to serve just selfish reasons.

[Fit of Rage]

Like using deodorant

hi5 on that

[kthx]

Taxing the rich and subsidizing the poor so that everyone will become more equal.

And if you don't want to do that you can pay a tax to the government.

Sounds like Communism and sounds like a Bribe.

Someone tell me where communism has worked or ended well for the people living in those countries?

Anyways this bill will be shot down, it is unconstitutional to make someone who isn't engaging in commerce purchase anything from anyone. Also in the bill it excludes two religious groups from buying into it, Christian Scientists and Amish, which again according to the constitution is illegal because it provides certain religious groups escapes where it doesn't allow others which is against our right of freedom of religion.

[genocidal]

Taxing the rich and subsidizing the poor so that everyone will become more equal.

And if you don't want to do that you can pay a tax to the government.

Sounds like Communism and sounds like a Bribe.

Someone tell me where communism has worked or ended well for the people living in those countries?

Anyways this bill will be shot down, it is unconstitutional to make someone who isn't engaging in commerce purchase anything from anyone. Also in the bill it excludes two religious groups from buying into it, Christian Scientists and Amish, which again according to the constitution is illegal because it provides certain religious groups escapes where it doesn't allow others which is against our right of freedom of religion.

There's no reason to think this (relatively mild) health care bill will get struck down. Social security hasn't gotten struck down, nor has medicare or medicaid. Those not only force compliance, but in many cases force compliance to no personal benefit (not everyone is poor, not everyone makes it to old age). Health care is more of an interstate commerce issue than old age safety nets, especially since many HMOs operate in numerous states. It's really not an issue though because the Court has historically let the Congress do basically whatever they want under the auspices of the commerce clause and the elastic clause.*

As for the religious exemptions, the Amish one will go over just fine. The Amish already don't pay social security taxes as well as other tax code exemptions. The Christian Scientists one will be interesting, though, because I could see that becoming an issue. I don't even know how that got in there, but I'd imagine some silly group paid a bunch of money to have their names thrown in with the Amish. If it does become an issue and the Supreme Court finds it unconstitutional then that statute alone will likely be struck down - not the entire bill.

*US v. Lopez and US v. Morrison being notable recent exceptions, although neither of those dealt with commerce explicitly (guns in schools in one case and laws against violence against women in the other)

[paradise!]

Politicians should do things that they honestly believe are best for the country, not because all their voters think so

these aren't mutually exclusive

[Epinephrine]

LOL Joe Biden

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQeNikp1Rj8

[PH]

i thought this thread was going to be about full disclosure

turn on the history channel tonight

[Ganon-Knight]

health care reform is a big fuckin deal

[Xog]

text

[Infrared]

Hopefully they removed the 10% tax on indoor tanning!!!