sanctuary?!?

[Glitch]

Originally Posted by Moose Whisperer

Of that, there is no disagreement. However, I would ask then what really is the difference? Either the masses directly vote themeselves a free ride, or elect pandering politicians who do it for them (as we see today). It would seem to me that once the entitlement mentality gains the numerical majority, the end result is the same in either case.

The difference is one is by design (direct democracy), and they other is a criminal or unethical act (bribery, pandering, etc.). Direct democracy will always result in an impoverished nation, it is only a question of how long before that happens, not a question of "if."

Politicians are suppose to represent their constituents, but also understand the consequences of meeting their needs, weighing them both, then deciding on the best course of action. Placating the needs of constituents may get them reelected, but it does not always produce good government policy.

You may be right about reaching a tipping point once the entitlement mentality gains the numerical majority. I truly hope that is not the case, because if it is, then the US is doomed and there is no way it can be fixed short of a insurrection/revolution.

[Floyd_Davidson]

Originally Posted by Glitch

Politicians are suppose to represent their constituents, but also understand the consequences of meeting their needs, weighing them both, then deciding on the best course of action. Placating the needs of constituents may get them reelected, but it does not always produce good government policy.

Translation:
It's horrible when our government approaches the "of the People, by the People, and for the People" concept rather than following the whimsy of right wing ideology... even when that has proven (for example witness the current state of the Union after the past 8 years of GW Bush) to be the road to failure.

It is, however, true that placating right wing constituent's quest for ideology is not likely to ever produce good government.