A compilation of wisdom

[ConservativeDad]

I've always thought most of them sought public office to accumulate power, not wealth.

Christ.

What's the difference? The two are practically the same.

Why does anyone want power? Why does anyone want money?

Reduce compensation
Limit political contributions
Enact laws making 'under the table' deals difficult
Get country back

-SporK

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you here. On the plus side, if you can't tell the difference between them, there's little chance in you accumulating enough of either of them to become part of the problem.

 

[mdn2000]

The first steps in repairing the government is a massive scaling down of the compensations of elected officials. This would include both salaries and perks.

In accordance with the basic principals of capitalism, the best and the brightest should be the most compensated

Wrong, this is not a principal of Capitalism. It may be how Marxist define Capitalism, but in no way is it a principal of Capitalism.

Compensation, who gives a shit, raised or lowered will not make a difference, of course you cannot believe that Congress would vote to lower their salaries, that is naive.

A solution may come when California fails and the American public realizes that California needs a trillion dollars to pay for Illegal immigration, Green Energy, and a bureaucracy that is the largest in the nation.

You state the problem, you just fail to take it to its logical conclusion, the problem is money, taxes, fees, any sort of money collected by the government, is the problem.

The United States collects the largest amount of taxes on earth. That is the problem, our tax system is one of the most complicated in the world, that is the problem, Congress can vote to borrow money that is a problem. What we pay those who control the riches of the world could care less how much they make, they would do what they do for free to control money.

The also have power by creating bureaucracy, new departments, new government projects. Its a powerful feeling to create something, like the CIA, the Department of Homeland Security, The DEA, The FBI, etc. etc.

Congress does everything they do because they can raise or lower taxes, because they can borrow and tax to pay for it, because Federal departments, States, all can collect fees, borrow money, and raise taxes to pay for everything they have power beyond what anyone ever held in the past, to include our founding.

One tax that never changes, 10%, no borrowing money that gets paid in the future, the people of today will not be here tomorrow, year by year, never more than gets taken in gets spent. Limited to 10% of a dollar.

The House of Representatives should be expanded, it should also be like Jury duty, people picked from the public, who volunteer, and take a class on how the house of representatives operates. Senators and President, if they dont have the power to tax, that solves all other problems with corruption.

 

[DrSporK]

The first steps in repairing the government is a massive scaling down of the compensations of elected officials. This would include both salaries and perks.

In accordance with the basic principals of capitalism, the best and the brightest should be the most compensated

Wrong, this is not a principal of Capitalism. It may be how Marxist define Capitalism, but in no way is it a principal of Capitalism.

Compensation, who gives a shit, raised or lowered will not make a difference, of course you cannot believe that Congress would vote to lower their salaries, that is naive.

A solution may come when California fails and the American public realizes that California needs a trillion dollars to pay for Illegal immigration, Green Energy, and a bureaucracy that is the largest in the nation.

You state the problem, you just fail to take it to its logical conclusion, the problem is money, taxes, fees, any sort of money collected by the government, is the problem.

The United States collects the largest amount of taxes on earth. That is the problem, our tax system is one of the most complicated in the world, that is the problem, Congress can vote to borrow money that is a problem. What we pay those who control the riches of the world could care less how much they make, they would do what they do for free to control money.

The also have power by creating bureaucracy, new departments, new government projects. Its a powerful feeling to create something, like the CIA, the Department of Homeland Security, The DEA, The FBI, etc. etc.

Congress does everything they do because they can raise or lower taxes, because they can borrow and tax to pay for it, because Federal departments, States, all can collect fees, borrow money, and raise taxes to pay for everything they have power beyond what anyone ever held in the past, to include our founding.

One tax that never changes, 10%, no borrowing money that gets paid in the future, the people of today will not be here tomorrow, year by year, never more than gets taken in gets spent. Limited to 10% of a dollar.

The House of Representatives should be expanded, it should also be like Jury duty, people picked from the public, who volunteer, and take a class on how the house of representatives operates. Senators and President, if they dont have the power to tax, that solves all other problems with corruption.

No. Marxists think capitalism is fuedalism or serfdom or something of this nature. Capitalism measures demand and success by profit. If there is a demand for your service or good, you become a valuable commodity and in return well compensated.

The rest of your post you talk about the problems that result because of actions or inactions of the individuals in power in the current system. You mention nothing about steps on how to solve this problem. Instead, you present your opinion on a social issue that does nothing to combat the problem of beauracracy and corruption in its roots. Sure, maybe they wouldn't be able to overspend, which is great, but they'd still be able to spend foolishly or unjustly.

Instead of limiting the spending power of fools, why not commit to a system where fools are discouraged from seeking power.

As for a Jury system for the house? That is just laughable.

-SporK

 

[DrSporK]

I've always thought most of them sought public office to accumulate power, not wealth.

Christ.

What's the difference? The two are practically the same.

Why does anyone want power? Why does anyone want money?

Reduce compensation
Limit political contributions
Enact laws making 'under the table' deals difficult
Get country back

-SporK

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you here. On the plus side, if you can't tell the difference between them, there's little chance in you accumulating enough of either of them to become part of the problem.

Okay. I'll bite.

What is the end goal for power? How does it differ from money?

-SporK

 

[ConservativeDad]

Christ.

What's the difference? The two are practically the same.

Why does anyone want power? Why does anyone want money?

Reduce compensation
Limit political contributions
Enact laws making 'under the table' deals difficult
Get country back

-SporK

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you here. On the plus side, if you can't tell the difference between them, there's little chance in you accumulating enough of either of them to become part of the problem.

Okay. I'll bite.

What is the end goal for power? How does it differ from money?

-SporK

Power is an end unto itself. Simply put, power is the means to impose your will on others. Wealth often accompanies it, but is not the driving force, IMO. Barack Obama could have amassed much more wealth just putting his name on the front cover of books (although if he had not continued to succeed in politics, I doubt Bill Ayers would have continued to write them), but his driving force is to impose his vision of America on the American public, whether they want it or not.

Money can buy you a certain amount of power, but it is not the final arbiter. If it was, the governor of California would be Meg Whitman.

 

[DrSporK]

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you here. On the plus side, if you can't tell the difference between them, there's little chance in you accumulating enough of either of them to become part of the problem.

Okay. I'll bite.

What is the end goal for power? How does it differ from money?

-SporK

Power is an end unto itself. Simply put, power is the means to impose your will on others. Wealth often accompanies it, but is not the driving force, IMO. Barack Obama could have amassed much more wealth just putting his name on the front cover of books (although if he had not continued to succeed in politics, I doubt Bill Ayers would have continued to write them), but his driving force is to impose his vision of America on the American public, whether they want it or not.

Money can buy you a certain amount of power, but it is not the final arbiter. If it was, the governor of California would be Meg Whitman.

Imposing your will onto others can be done via both power and money. They are nearly interchangeable.

-theDr

 

[Baruch Menachem]

Meg Whitman had a ton of Cash. So did Carly Di Fiorina. Now they don't. Didn't get much power though.

Power is translatable into cash though. Just ask Charlie Rangle.

 

[DrSporK]

Meg Whitman had a ton of Cash. So did Carly Di Fiorina. Now they don't. Didn't get much power though.

Power is translatable into cash though. Just ask Charlie Rangle.

Precisely. Cash buys influence with the powerful and vice versa.


-SporK

 

[MaggieMae]

Below is a compilation of posts from my thread from the General Forum on how to improve our failing government. Read it and accept it:

The first steps in repairing the government is a massive scaling down of the compensations of elected officials. This would include both salaries and perks.

In accordance with the basic principals of capitalism, the best and the brightest should be the most compensated and it is that compensation that attracts them to stressful and difficult jobs. The same cannot be said about public service. Public service, aside from being highly attractive and rewarding, has the caveat of a popularity contest to coincide with the obtaining of particular position - mainly the important positions.

So, it is not enough to simply be the smartest, you must also be the most popular. What this does is alienate intelligent yet unpopular candidates for public office. Since a highly intelligent person would achieve a high level of compensation much faster through the private sector, where popularity plays a lesser role, than the amount of time one would have to spend to reach a level of popularity high enough to allow one to obtain public office of equivalent compensation.

Essentially the goal of any government job is to serve the publics best interest within a logical spectrum. This cannot be fulfilled as the vast compensation, power and prestige of such a position will tempt incumbents to maintain this position by skipping correct moral, ethical or logical decisions in lieu of those popular amongst the majority of their constituents.

What must be done is the transformation of public service. The positions must not attract those who are seeking to benefit financially through misuse of power. The compensation must be minimal, the positions must be unattractive.

So, where does this leave us? Will our senators and congressmen be complete morons who win a popularity contest yet have the same skill set as that of a post office clerk? Perhaps, such is not entirely the outcome.

Basic human nature dictates that human beings are primarily self serving which is absolutely correct when the decisions you undertake primarily influence the prosperity of your own interests. However, when you are compensated for undertaking decisions that have a direct effect on a greater public, your decisions must follow a 'greatest good for the most amount of people' theorem WITHIN a logically sound context.

This means that the elected official need pass a logic, ethics and morality test before being allowed to make decisions that would influence the masses. How do we accomplish this when human nature is self serving? Either increase the level of compensation to attract the most brilliant or decrease the level of compensation to attract the most successful.

Naturally, a high level of intelligence or success does not always equate to a logical, moral and ethical person. However, there is a far higher probability that one who is successful is also intelligent and thus at least logical. And while logic outweighs morailty and ethics, they are far more parellel than most believe. And of course the alternative is a dumber, less successful person who may or may not be logical, ethical and moral, etc etc.

Back to our test: Option 1 - the increase of compensation.

There is an intelligence pool from which we draw. The very best of this pool, if they choose to do so, end up widely successful and wealthy. To attract these individuals, compensation must be equal to millions of dollars that they would otherwise make in other, far more lucrative, fields. It is improbable that this level of compensation would be reached. Furthermore, with such a high level of compensation, it would increase the likely hood of corruption to obtain such a position from those who aren't wealthy but are smart.

Don't get me wrong. I am all for paying the maximum allowable compensation to anyone who does impecable work, however even if this was possible in a short term, it would not stand the test of time.

Option 2 - the lowering of compensation.

The lowering of compensation will serve to eliminate individuals who seek personal financial prosperity from holding public office as a first, and the serving of the public a second. Ideally only individuals who serve their own desire to be virtuous will hold office.

Where would the elected officials I speak of come from? Well, in theory the majority of them would come from those who are already wealthy enough to not be corrupt; or rather as corrupt as those who aren't [as ]wealthy. Since the monetary compensation level would be minimal, their reward would be the desire to feel 'good' about serving their country.

An example to illustrate my point: we are seeking people not like those who join the military because they have no other choice, but we are seeking those who join the military when they have everything solely to serve their country - like a Pat Tillman.

Of course some may argue that such a position may draw individuals, who, while intending to do good, are so absent minded and lacking of logic that they will wage destruction. Well, to this I answer as follows: It is up to the voter masses to decide who governs them and while I find the public masses to be fools, it is not solely up to me or anyone else to ultimately make such a decision. Though, inherently, if the decision were solely up to me we would be better of.

The fact that elective offices are already full of absent minded hypocrites is irrlevant. At the very least, consider that any imbecile elected into office would at least be working for nearly nothing.


So where do we stand now? The compensation level of our current offices are as such that they are high enough to attract competition from parties that are smart enough to get elected but are not smart enough or too corrupt to make logical or ethical choices within the description of their jobs. Essentially the median rating for the current personnel would be mediocrity to lower mediocrity.


If the compensation levels of elected officials continue to stay above the median national salary, and if legislatures are continued to allow to vote themselves increases in compensation this country will continue to decline.

Keep in mind this is not the end all, be all solution. This is simply blueprint from which a foundation can be created that will lift our government from the pit of corruption.



Salvation will be found within my words, for I am the truth.

-SporK

The compensation of public officials is but a drop in the bucket (as is earmark spending, actually). So there goes that theory.

The only thing I would like to see become a requirement for an elected member of Congress is a basic test of his/her knowledge of the Constitution and the modern applications thereof. After all, we require illegal aliens to pass such a test before they can be sworn in as US citizens, so why shouldn't those we elect to represent US citizens also know?

 

[MaggieMae]

I've always thought most of them sought public office to accumulate power, not wealth.

Christ.

What's the difference? The two are practically the same.

Why does anyone want power? Why does anyone want money?

Reduce compensation
Limit political contributions
Enact laws making 'under the table' deals difficult
Get country back

-SporK

You're on safer grounds with the other three. For starters, the very people who would vote on such a thing are those already in office, and of course they would never go for what you propose. Second, their actual salaries are NOT all that high compared to the private sector. Except for House and Senate leaders, whose salaries are slightly higher, each representative makes $174,000 annually. Of the 535 members of both houses, 237 are already millionnaires.

 

[MaggieMae]

The first steps in repairing the government is a massive scaling down of the compensations of elected officials. This would include both salaries and perks.

In accordance with the basic principals of capitalism, the best and the brightest should be the most compensated

Wrong, this is not a principal of Capitalism. It may be how Marxist define Capitalism, but in no way is it a principal of Capitalism.

Compensation, who gives a shit, raised or lowered will not make a difference, of course you cannot believe that Congress would vote to lower their salaries, that is naive.

A solution may come when California fails and the American public realizes that California needs a trillion dollars to pay for Illegal immigration, Green Energy, and a bureaucracy that is the largest in the nation.

You state the problem, you just fail to take it to its logical conclusion, the problem is money, taxes, fees, any sort of money collected by the government, is the problem.

The United States collects the largest amount of taxes on earth. That is the problem, our tax system is one of the most complicated in the world, that is the problem, Congress can vote to borrow money that is a problem. What we pay those who control the riches of the world could care less how much they make, they would do what they do for free to control money.

The also have power by creating bureaucracy, new departments, new government projects. Its a powerful feeling to create something, like the CIA, the Department of Homeland Security, The DEA, The FBI, etc. etc.

Congress does everything they do because they can raise or lower taxes, because they can borrow and tax to pay for it, because Federal departments, States, all can collect fees, borrow money, and raise taxes to pay for everything they have power beyond what anyone ever held in the past, to include our founding.

One tax that never changes, 10%, no borrowing money that gets paid in the future, the people of today will not be here tomorrow, year by year, never more than gets taken in gets spent. Limited to 10% of a dollar.

The House of Representatives should be expanded, it should also be like Jury duty, people picked from the public, who volunteer, and take a class on how the house of representatives operates. Senators and President, if they dont have the power to tax, that solves all other problems with corruption.

Good grief, you can't get 435 House members with some semblance of experience to agree on anything, and you want to expand that number with potentially a bunch of yahoos who don't know how to do anything except bitch and moan about the small stuff? I think not, thank you.

 

[hortysir]

I had a feeling that the title was misleading.
I was right

How is it misleading? I just gave you the blueprint on how to clean up this country.

-SporK

The "wisdom" part....

 

[MaggieMae]

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you here. On the plus side, if you can't tell the difference between them, there's little chance in you accumulating enough of either of them to become part of the problem.

Okay. I'll bite.

What is the end goal for power? How does it differ from money?

-SporK

Power is an end unto itself. Simply put, power is the means to impose your will on others. Wealth often accompanies it, but is not the driving force, IMO. Barack Obama could have amassed much more wealth just putting his name on the front cover of books (although if he had not continued to succeed in politics, I doubt Bill Ayers would have continued to write them), but his driving force is to impose his vision of America on the American public, whether they want it or not.

Money can buy you a certain amount of power, but it is not the final arbiter. If it was, the governor of California would be Meg Whitman.

Another whackadoodle weighs in...

 

[MaggieMae]

Meg Whitman had a ton of Cash. So did Carly Di Fiorina. Now they don't. Didn't get much power though.

Power is translatable into cash though. Just ask Charlie Rangle.

He just wasn't too adept at hiding it. Surely you don't think he's alone. The only way to control the power and the payoffs (money) is sincere (for lack of a stronger word) campaign finance reform. Unfortunately, now that means not just a redo, but overturning a USSC decision.

I've long maintained that House members should be giving longer terms than two years, simply because they actually only WORK for one year. The second year is spent talking to lobbyists and big doners in order to get reelected. I never understood the disparity betweeen the Senate term length (6 years) and the House (2 years). Why not four years for both? But, again, this would require a Constitutional Amendment.