Politicians’ wealth - a problem many ignore unless it's on the other side.

[Anomalism]

Every election cycle we hear the same types of outrage. “Look at how rich their politicians have gotten while in office!”

This is a bipartisan problem if we're being honest. People on both sides of the aisle go into public service making a government salary that shouldn’t put them anywhere near multimillionaire status in such a short time, and yet their net worth has mysteriously multiplied.

A lot of it comes from influence, connections, insider knowledge, and the revolving door between government and big business. That door doesn’t swing right or left. It swings both ways, constantly.

People keep acting shocked when the other side does it, but they seem strangely comfortable when their own team plays the same game. Maybe it’s because admitting it’s universal means admitting the whole system is rigged for self-enrichment, and that’s harder to fix than just voting out “the bad ones.”

If we’re serious about stopping this, it’s going to take rules that apply to everyone, no matter their party, and consequences that actually hurt. Until then, it’s just going to keep happening, because why wouldn’t it?

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Term limits.

It's that simple

 

[martybegan]

Every election cycle we hear the same types of outrage. “Look at how rich their politicians have gotten while in office!”

This is a bipartisan problem if we're being honest. People on both sides of the aisle go into public service making a government salary that shouldn’t put them anywhere near multimillionaire status in such a short time, and yet their net worth has mysteriously multiplied.

A lot of it comes from influence, connections, insider knowledge, and the revolving door between government and big business. That door doesn’t swing right or left. It swings both ways, constantly.

People keep acting shocked when the other side does it, but they seem strangely comfortable when their own team plays the same game. Maybe it’s because admitting it’s universal means admitting the whole system is rigged for self-enrichment, and that’s harder to fix than just voting out “the bad ones.”

If we’re serious about stopping this, it’s going to take rules that apply to everyone, no matter their party, and consequences that actually hurt. Until then, it’s just going to keep happening, because why wouldn’t it?

We should pay congress critters and the President $5M a year and make them put all their assets from before in a Trust. Give them housing in DC and housing in their local State. Transport between the two. Give them a leased car in both places.

They get their assets back after they leave office. During their time in office no Stock deals, no investments, nothing.

 

[Anomalism]

Term limits.

It's that simple

That would certainly mitigate the problem. Would it solve it though?

 

[Votto]

That would certainly mitigate the problem. Would it solve it though?

The answer lies in why there is so much money at their finger tips to begin with.

It is because they have soooo much power!

Limit the power and the money stops flowing it like it does.

It really is that simple

States need to rise up and amend the Constitution to reclaim their rights and powers and take it away from the Swamp circus or it continues.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

That would certainly mitigate the problem. Would it solve it though?

It's a start. AOC was supposedly a broke joke when elected but now has supposedly millions?

 

[Anomalism]

It's a start. AOC was supposedly a broke joke when elected but now has supposedly millions?

Everybody wants security and to set their families up. Maybe it is too much to have those options available and expect people to not manipulate the system. We have to figure out a way to make it not possible to do those things I think.

I also think you would get a way better type of politician in an environment like that. People that care more about actually doing good for the nation. The greedy ones would go find something else to do.

 

[leftwinger]

Campaign contributions can be tens of millions. Where does this go? We heard Bernie stories as one example. Hiring his wife for $250K as media consultant. The truth for all of them is more likely millions laundered back to them. This is how an AOC gets her foot in the door.


Then they are beholden to big donor wishes.

 

[leftwinger]

Votto

Term limits.

It's that simple

Then IF you have a good decent honorable one, you lose them too.

 

[OldFlame]

We should pay congress critters and the President $5M a year and make them put all their assets from before in a Trust. Give them housing in DC and housing in their local State. Transport between the two. Give them a leased car in both places.

They get their assets back after they leave office. During their time in office no Stock deals, no investments, nothing.

I completely agree, everything they do should be completely transparent, an open book. They should have to publicly report any income, any capital gains, anything that generates wealth while they are in office. You would see a large decline in those interested in running for office.

 

[Meister]

Get rid of the lobbyists....they seem to have some very deep pockets.

 

[Meister]

Votto



Then IF you have a good decent honorable one, you lose them too.

At times you just have to go with the odds.

 

[wamose]

I can see Republicans, who have wealthy, giving constituents, being able to amass some wealth. But I can't see how Democrats can get any honest money out of their constituents who are mostly beggars, slackers, hustlers and greedy rich robber barons.

 

[Votto]

Votto



Then IF you have a good decent honorable one, you lose them too.

It's like the Lord of the Rings movie, you may be "good" coming in, but put on that ring of power and it changes you.

Again, limiting the power is the key

And sure, you will still have corruption but if you spread the power around to the states, you then are faced with the daunting task of buying off Congressmen from all 50 states that do not vote in unison instead of a the small group in the Swamp.

This is the way things were originally set up anyway.

 

[Anomalism]

Get rid of the lobbyists.

How?

 

[Votto]

How?

You don't.

What you do is spread the power to make their task exponentially harder.

This is why states need to reassume their roles as intended.

The Federal government had very limited powers at the beginning but now tell states what to do or they don't get their funding.

 

[Anomalism]

You don't.

What you do is spread the power to make their task exponentially harder.

This is why states need to reassume their roles as intended.

The Federal government had very limited powers at the beginning but now tell states what to do or they don't get their funding.

I agree with giving more power to the states. The problem will still exist to some extent though, no?

 

[Votto]

I agree with giving more power to the states. The problem will still exist to some extent though, no?

Unless you are going for the perfect government.

Leftists loons are out there selling just that.

 

[Anomalism]

Unless you are going for the perfect government.

Leftists loons are out there selling just that.

Just trying to be realistic. Perfection is impossible. We should do the best we can though, and be open about the limitations that remain.

 

[Votto]

Just trying to be realistic. Perfection is impossible. We should do the best we can though, and be open about the limitations that remain.

That's it!

Find the most reasonable and logical system that works, and we already saw it work. We just need to return to those precepts.