Politicians deserve to be rich

[Armistead]

Just reading a story on AOL about Gibb's leaving, pity his poor salary that put him in the top 8%. Some say he'll get big speaking fees, but sure looks like he's headed to be a lobbyist. Most that serve the President in non elected office go right to lobbying, after all their well connected..for many that is the plan, get connected, then go make the real money.

Compare that to politicians of old.

Harry Truman "traveled home from Washington unprotected by Secret Service agents ... He had come home without salary or pension. He had no income or support from the federal government other than his Army pension of $112.56 a month ... Truman had been forced to take out a loan at the National Bank in Washington in his last weeks as president to tide him over."

[the_tyrant]

WOW
I'm surprised that Truman wasn't rich after he stepped down

[Sailor Steve]

George Washington refused to take any salary. On the other hand he did send congress a pretty hefty bill for expenses.

[Castout]

Politicians don't deserve to be rich any more than any ordinary folks out there.

If the intention is to get rich then I must suggest NOT being a politician and head down to being an entrepreneur instead.

Usually those elected to office are more often than not already a well off people since campaigning and all really cost a lot and either you need your own money or are well connected and well connected people are usually already successful people(read well off) and there's nothing wrong with that if they wanted to serve in the public office for a change and to make a difference.

More often than not in developing countries(read third world, not matter what they claim otherwise), the political elites are acting no more than feudal lords which means they command excessive wealth wealth due to their position in government and mostly due to nepotism, cronyism and corruption(to the amount of many billions not to mention the state sovereign fund they control as a bargaining chip to exert influence and power). These people claim to govern a system of democracy while in fact it is no more than a dictatorship. Examples include Indonesian dictator Soeharto, Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, Singapore Lee dynasty, etc. This is especially true in Asia and Africa.

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

George Washington refused to take any salary. On the other hand he did send congress a pretty hefty bill for expenses.

That is one of my favourite Washington Presidency stories.

[Platapus]

I just can't see Gibbs getting all that many speaking engagements. He was a talking dog. He was told what to say, when to say it, and how to say it.

I always get a kick when reporters ask the Presidential Press Secretary to give their opinion/viewpoints. Press Secretaries are not allowed opinions and if there is a viewpoint to be told, they will be given it.

Quick poll: Who here would pay money to listen to Gibbs?

Not me, I would not listen to him for free.

[gimpy117]

to be honest...I think give them an average middle class wage, sure pay for travel...but make it illegal for lobbyists to give any gifts. Politics should be about the clout of your voice, not what you can give the politician in return for his bill.

Originally Posted by gimpy117

to be honest...I think give them an average middle class wage, sure pay for travel...but make it illegal for lobbyists to give any gifts. Politics should be about the clout of your voice, not what you can give the politician in return for his bill.

Yet you believe in free speech. Or is it only the free speech you agree with?

[Castout]

Originally Posted by gimpy117

to be honest...I think give them an average middle class wage, sure pay for travel...but make it illegal for lobbyists to give any gifts. Politics should be about the clout of your voice, not what you can give the politician in return for his bill.

Umm certainly for the size of responsibility and amount of stress involved they deserve a handsome wage. But some countries or country abuses this reasoning and pays their politicians and head of state with the salary of the combined European Union biggest head of states. They deserve above average salary that's for certain but the point is not to make them bloody rich but to take off their mind from providing their family and their future retirement and thus able to concentrate their mind on the job especially for the executive in power.

The truth is when people get greedy there's no reasonable amount they would deem enough. If they got a million they would want 50. If they already had 50 they would want 200. If they already had 200 they'd want a billion and if they had a billion they'd want 10! And so on. Greed knows no limit because it's an irrational attitude to money or wealth, an 'always poor' always wanting attitude to wealth or feeling not having enough all the time or excessive hoarding.

Wealth is also addictive because it's the currency of influence and influence is man's power in this world. And corrupt people only want more power hence the direct effect of wanting more money or hoarding excessive wealth.

[Armistead]

Originally Posted by The Third Man

Yet you believe in free speech. Or is it only the free speech you agree with?

What doe's lobbying have to do with free speech when we know it's not. If I give you a gift and expect you to do my will over the will of the people, that's not free speech. Lobbiest expect outcomes for the money they give, has nothing to do with speech.

[tater]

Originally Posted by Armistead

What doe's lobbying have to do with free speech when we know it's not. If I give you a gift and expect you to do my will over the will of the people, that's not free speech. Lobbiest expect outcomes for the money they give, has nothing to do with speech.

Everyone expects quid pro quo. A union pledging votes is no different than handing money out. Do as we say, or the votes go away. Donated money is spent to buy votes at large.

When you see people who start out modestly, and only become affluent AFTER they start a political career, that is a sign of something fishy, IMO, since it's not like they get paid all that much (Senators make only a couple hundred grand a year, which is not really a huge sum (stagehands in NYC make way more than that for basically unskilled labor) (average at Lincloln center is apparently nearly ~290 grand).

[gimpy117]

?but where do you draw the line between speech and bribery? im in a union tater. Sure they ask you to vote for this guy, but they don't hand you cash to do their bidding.

Lobbying in this nation is the next best thing. Giving gifts with the implied idea of having them do what you want. The only reason its not a bribe is because they aren't being officially being told to do things.

[Armistead]

Originally Posted by gimpy117

?but where do you draw the line between speech and bribery? im in a union tater. Sure they ask you to vote for this guy, but they don't hand you cash to do their bidding.

Lobbying in this nation is the next best thing. Giving gifts with the implied idea of having them do what you want. The only reason its not a bribe is because they aren't being officially being told to do things.

That's the obvious problem. Why it's not illegal, we all now know the ethics are violated. We all know so called campaign donations are bribes. Unions and Corporations don't hand out big money without expecting something in return. It's called "vote for sale". Congress has the ability to protect and make legal for themselves what they make illegal for the rest of us. If they had to abide by the laws they place on us they would all be under the jail.

[tater]

They don't hand you cash? They control your income. PO the leadership, and find you get passed over, etc.They have no way of knowing how you vote, but unionized workers have a an incentive to at least publicly toe the union line or face "unofficial" sanction.

Unions give billions to the democrats, and they do so because they expect to have their way. IF individuals had to donate, the dems would get somewhat less, AND the unions would not be in the position they are to literally dictate policy to the democrats. They can for the same reason texas exerts disproportionate influence on text books. Since the money comes in a huge pile. Sell the union leadership that you will do their bidding, collect a huge sum.

Frankly I don't have a problem with it as long as the rules are exactly the same for everyone, and it is transparent (same for everyone means that if "union" or "business" is even mentioned in a law it's clearly biased. One law for all contributions. A simple law that any one of us should be able to memorize and read back verbatim—more complicated than that means it's designed to hide stuff.

[gimpy117]

I'm in the UFCW and I've gotten promotions and wages. Besides Im voting age and the only "harassment" I get is a poster on a wall from time to time.

Furthermore, unions giving to a candidate is how it should work in america. A union is a PRIVATE CITIZEN FUNDED GROUP, not some corporate shill organization. Its much like the NRA or AARP giving to senators to ask that they make laws that favor the citizens that belong to that group.

there is a difference between the people supporting a candidate financially via a legitimate special interest group vs. a corporation giving money.