I didn't say only Ohio is having problems, the point is that trusting only people you know leads to a very self-selecting reality.
Case in point: if I used the same logic of who to believe and who not to believe, then clearly Bush stole the 2004 election, because there's no way in hell he should have gotten more than maybe 25% of the vote. Most everyone I knew was shocked he was elected for a second time. But you know what? There's a big country out there, and many different regional cultures, and a lot of those actually did support Bush. Enough to get him over 50% of the vote.
Or we could even use this current economic situation as an example: I never said it's not tough right now, just that most Americans generally support what the administration is trying to do here. Why believe polls when I can just use your logic: the people I know in my personal life and the people I work with have absolutely no interest in your tea parties, nor do they think the Obama administration is working to screw over the everyman while propping up the upper class. Maybe it has to do with knowing and working with people who understand the concept of one of the largest middle-class tax cuts in history, I don't know, but the point is I can use your same logic to disprove your point. Not because it's good logic, but because it's no logic at all.
You're right, you shouldn't inherently trust polls, but the good ones don't just give you the results, they tell you the sample details, the questions, and the time frame in which the poll was taken. Believe it or not, it is possible to figure out whether or not a poll is noteworthy, and some actually are!
Anyway, this is getting ridiculous because I actually agree that the economic crisis isn't being handled particularly well. I've already said earlier in this thread that Geithner was a poor pick, and now he's proving himself to be. That has nothing to do with the government not listening to me though. We don't live in a direct democracy, and the government isn't going to have a vote on every spending measure, as much as you may like it to.
---------- Post added at 01:59 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:57 PM ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Willravel
When I first started working for my previous employer, I was told that if I increased revenue, I'd share in that increase. Sure enough, come the first Christmas, was a shiny bonus. Sure, a lot of the increased profits were channeled into expansion and investing in more goods, but some of that found its way into my pocket and the pocket of several other higher ups. Government doesn't have this step. Clinton didn't get paid more in the mid 90s for balancing the budget. Bush didn't get paid less for running the budget into the ground and then some. The incentive with government is to serve the people whereas the incentive with business is lining one's pockets. This doesn't suggest that government isn't ever greedy, often business (or business-esque) interests do carve out a part of government in order to make money, but the intent of government isn't profitability, it's purely functionality.
|
I'm getting WAY off-topic here, but this brings up an interest thought: what if Bush DID get paid less for running the economy into the ground? Personal motivations are not always bad. After all, they always exist, so why not use them to our advantage? Just throwing a thought out there.