|
To what extent do politicians "bribe" voters with economic policies?
|
View this Thread in Original format
| MrJiveBoJingles |
Do you think that this dynamic -- "I'll vote for whichever guy gives me the most money (welfare, social security) / takes the least of my money (tax breaks)" -- is a very prominent one in democratic politics?
Does it have a corrupting effect on the political process? |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
Of course it has a corrupting effect on the political process, but conversely and paradoxically it is also what democracy is all about. The people getting to choose how their taxes are spent. It's pretty unavoidable.
What's worse though is the US tendency to tack on bull amendments to bills that have nothing to do with the overall gist of that bill. That s me right off. |
|
|
| gehzumteufel |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
What's worse though is the US tendency to tack on bull amendments to bills that have nothing to do with the overall gist of that bill. That s me right off. |
I had a lengthy talk about this with moral when I was in toronto at the end of last year. Totally stupid. It creates what we have today. The sole reason we have things passing that really shouldn't. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by gehzumteufel
I had a lengthy talk about this with moral when I was in toronto at the end of last year. Totally stupid. It creates what we have today. The sole reason we have things passing that really shouldn't. |
Yeah, it just makes me so angry. A bill should pass on its merits. How can you judge a politician that voted for/against something when you have no idea what theyre really voting for or against?
Another reason why the westminster parliamentary system is better than that in the US (imo). The government in power can actually govern and pass laws without (often) having to buy or bribe other members of parliament. |
|
|
| gehzumteufel |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
Yeah, it just makes me so angry. A bill should pass on its merits. How can you judge a politician that voted for/against something when you have no idea what theyre really voting for or against?
Another reason why the westminster parliamentary system is better than that in the US (imo). The government in power can actually govern and pass laws without (often) having to buy or bribe other members of parliament. |
Well if we were to just ban that and "earmarks" we would be quite fine. Bills would pass properly, as they don't have extra attached to them at the last minute quietly. |
|
|
| Capitalizt |
To answer your question...Yes it is a prominent factor and YES it is definitely a corrupting factor. The fact that politicians have the power to grant special favors is a huge problem because it means they can be bought and paid for. I personally wouldn't consider broad tax reductions as form of vote buying...however when tax money is directly redistributed from one group to another, that most certainly is.
good subject here...but seriously wtf is up with all the political and video game topics being posted there instead of their respective forums?
PDD and the video game lounge need love too! ;) |
|
|
| gehzumteufel |
| quote: | Originally posted by Capitalizt
PDD and the video game lounge need love too! ;) |
They both suck ass. PDD is full of a bunch of jackoffs that argue for the sake of arguing, and the video game/computer nerd forum is ing dead. |
|
|
| Lebezniatnikov |
| For an example, look no further than the Gas Tax Holiday debate... do you honestly think anybody believes that is sound policy? "Tax breaks" garner votes, no matter how stupid or unwise they may be. |
|
|
| Arbiter |
I would say that this effect explains a considerable majority of "promised" economic policies -- however, since politicians frequently renege on campaign promises, it likely explains a comparatively small majority of actual economic policies.
But perhaps a bigger problem is the fact the short terms that executives and legislators typically face, combined with the fact that the most sound economic policies usually include making short-term sacrifices which will yield larger long-term gains. Unfortunately a politician's economic policy is usually judged by the economy only during his or her own term, but the best policies will not yield immediately evident benefits. Thus a politician who wishes to be perceived as having good economic policy has an incentive to pursue less than optimal policy. A corollary of this rule is also that politicians are often rewarded reputationally for policies that will cause long-term problems, such as paying for national expenses on credit rather than by raising the needed funds through taxation or other means. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Arbiter
I would say that this effect explains a considerable majority of "promised" economic policies -- however, since politicians frequently renege on campaign promises, it likely explains a comparatively small majority of actual economic policies.
But perhaps a bigger problem is the fact the short terms that executives and legislators typically face, combined with the fact that the most sound economic policies usually include making short-term sacrifices which will yield larger long-term gains. Unfortunately a politician's economic policy is usually judged by the economy only during his or her own term, but the best policies will not yield immediately evident benefits. Thus a politician who wishes to be perceived as having good economic policy has an incentive to pursue less than optimal policy. |
absolutely right. unfortunately that's the way it has to be. can you imagine longer terms? Our upper house members have 6 year terms as it is. if we lengthened our lower house to 4 years, the constitution forces us to make the upper house terms 8 years.
im sure everyone in the US right now knows exactly how long 8 years can feel :/ |
|
|
| Lilith |
| quote: | Originally posted by gehzumteufel
They both suck ass. PDD is full of a bunch of jackoffs that argue for the sake of arguing, and the video game/computer nerd forum is ing dead. |
That's not fair, you left out the middle class railing against something completely disassociated with them for the sake of having a cause to validate their mediocre lives... and the fact it's contents are 80% US current event, politics or ragging which no one outside the US cares about.... unless of course they're the diametric opposite of the US middle class living somewhere else that's justifying the mediocre existence with 'blame America' |
|
|
| gehzumteufel |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lilith
That's not fair, you left out the middle class railing against something completely disassociated with them for the sake of having a cause to validate their mediocre lives... and the fact it's contents are 80% US current event, politics or ragging which no one outside the US cares about.... unless of course they're the diametric opposite of the US middle class living somewhere else that's justifying the mediocre existence with 'blame America' |
hahahaha so true. |
|
|
|
|
