Do (American) Politicians deserve to keep their salaries for the rest of their lives?

[Punk Hazard]

Calm down mate, you don't need guns to fight. At least, not in the civilised world.

I agree. Atomics are much better.

 

[slimreaper]

Calm down mate, you don't need guns to fight. At least, not in the civilised world.

Riiight, good luck fighting off a tyrant without guns( Ie: how we did your ass)

 

[AShinyPlatypus]

I agree. Atomics are much better.

Maybe a little extreme...

 

[UltraPain]

I agree. Atomics are much better.

Riiight, good luck fighting off a tyrant without guns( Ie: how we did your ass)

Aggressive measures only lead to problems. Ever studied the different outcomes of Malcolm X vs MLK?

lol the military would simply stomp our asses into the dirt and then the government would find the fighting as a reinforcement to keep us under control.

You must be registered for see images

 

[AShinyPlatypus]

Riiight, good luck fighting off a tyrant without guns( Ie: how we did your ass)

Don't know if you're trolling or not, but whatever, I'm gonna respond to that. The politicians in the UK are not tyrants and the only guns they've got are in the hands of the army and the police. There is ABSOLUTELY no way that either of those groups would use their guns to put down mass protests and riots. Guns may as well not even exist in Britain, they are not used by anybody, excepts posh toffs who enjoy hunting birds and badgers or whatever they do.

 

[Punk Hazard]

Aggressive measures only lead to problems. Ever studied the different outcomes of Malcolm X vs MLK?

lol the military would simply stomp our asses into the dirt and then the government would find fighting as a reinforcement to keep us under control.

No, but I loved the East Coast-West Coast Hip Hop rivalry.

N***A I HIT EM UP!

 

[UltraPain]

No, but I loved the East Coast-West Coast Hip Hop rivalry.

N***A I HIT EM UP!

........................ :vincent:

 

[Punk Hazard]

........................ :vincent:

Get on yo knees, *****. Get on yo knees and pray.

 

[slimreaper]

Don't know if you're trolling or not, but whatever, I'm gonna respond to that. The politicians in the UK are not tyrants and the only guns they've got are in the hands of the army and the police. There is ABSOLUTELY no way that either of those groups would use their guns to put down mass protests and riots. Guns may as well not even exist in Britain, they are not used by anybody, excepts posh toffs who enjoy hunting birds and badgers or whatever they do.

blind faith in government, thats always good. Anytime the government decides, they can throw away everything you think you have, and the army and police you hide behind, will be your rulers. God forbid you read animal farm

 

[Kenotthib]

If your going to sellout surely it should be for something. Don't you agree?

 

[AShinyPlatypus]

blind faith in government, thats always good. Anytime the government decides, they can throw away everything you think you have, and the army and police you hide behind, will be your rulers. God forbid you read animal farm

You obviously didn't read some of my earlier posts. Nobody in Britain trusts the government. People would not allow MPs to do whatever the f**k they wanted, besides it probably wouldn't ever reach the stage of violence. Parliament is not united, there isn't even a majority at the moment. Hell even parties aren't particularly united. If someone in office wanted to do something that was obviously bad for the country, it would not happen. End of. What the hell goes on in your country that makes you feel your government can do whatever they want to their own people anyway? I'm curious now.

 

[bigred420]

You obviously didn't read some of my earlier posts. Nobody in Britain trusts the government. People would not allow MPs to do whatever the f**k they wanted, besides it probably wouldn't ever reach the stage of violence. Parliament is not united, there isn't even a majority at the moment. Hell even parties aren't particularly united. If someone in office wanted to do something that was obviously bad for the country, it would not happen. End of. What the hell goes on in your country that makes you feel your government can do whatever they want to their own people anyway? I'm curious now.

The goverment does what it wants in the US.clearly our politicians have been on the take for a long time getting richer off of corporation friendly bills and what nots. i dont think they deserve what there being paid now forget about after there political career .To m most politicians should be in jail for check fraud for how there handelingof the funds

 

[~Sky~]

I don't think so. Getting the job is one thing, being good at the job is another.

 

[YowYan]

That's usa for ye. A socialist emperialist nation claiming to be democrat. They're rapidly forming their farmville and try to spread it across the globe by acting as a savior.

 

[Jin Hayami]

Hell no. If they stay in for twenty years they deserve half.
This bullshit of being able to keep your salary even if you get voted out after one term needs to stop.

 

[Jin Hayami]

I mean it's not like anyone can just waltz in and say "Yooo, I wanna be in this politics shit!" The people in those positions are in their mid to late 40's and up, they've dedicated their lives and practically their entire existence in the career world for those positions, so in a way, they deserve it. Sure, some are corrupt as hell, but hey, it's understandable why they still get paid.

There have been 17 year old representatives...

 

[slimreaper]

Aggressive measures only lead to problems. Ever studied the different outcomes of Malcolm X vs MLK?

lol the military would simply stomp our asses into the dirt and then the government would find the fighting as a reinforcement to keep us under control.

You must be registered for see images

How did DR. kings outcome different? they were both shot and killed. As for long term achievements, Neither got anything that wasn't handed to them or their people

 

[Aim64C]

Don't know if you're trolling or not, but whatever, I'm gonna respond to that. The politicians in the UK are not tyrants and the only guns they've got are in the hands of the army and the police. There is ABSOLUTELY no way that either of those groups would use their guns to put down mass protests and riots. Guns may as well not even exist in Britain, they are not used by anybody, excepts posh toffs who enjoy hunting birds and badgers or whatever they do.

You aren't very familiar with European history, now are you?

Back to the original topic:

I think the issue of pay for politicians is a non-issue in regards to problems.

Most politicians are wealthy long before they enter office, and most will be wealthy long after they leave office. Politicians broker stock shares, non-monetary business deals, etc. It is sort of like how professional athletes will make a living giving endorsements or doing speeches after they have left the field.

While that seems to be an argument for reducing their pay - the original purpose of having such pay incentives was to stave off the influence of bribery and corruption. This was also done during the time when entrepreneurs and business owners would run and have to give up ownership of many of these things to do their duty to the office. You wanted to give some reason for those who are successful in the private sector to want to run for an office in the public sector at some point in time.

The problem is that the way the structure has evolved to support career politicians with a polarized party system set firmly into the system. This makes the entire system fundamentally corrupt. By expanding the power of government, it ensures businesses lobby politicians to shelter them from the expansion of regulations or for the persecution of smaller business competition.

Honestly, I think the most effective thing we could do would be to have a sort of 'points' system. Serving in a state legislative office counts for x number of points. Serving in a federal legislative office counts for y number of points. Candidates for any federal office could not run if they had more than a certain number of points.

This would be a form of term limits, but also heavily restrict career politicians. Presidential elections should not be a battle between senators and governors. It should be a battle between individuals of varied backgrounds and qualifications - people who served as CEOs of companies, an entrepreneur who built and sold several businesses that are still doing well, a lawyer who has consulted on many business dealings over the past few decades.

That would substantially weaken the power of political parties as political 'careers' could not be used by party leaders to elicit compliance within 'party lines.' Individuals like Boehner, Pelosi, Reed, McConnel - never allowed to happen. Obama, Bush, Clinton - Nope. No career politicians.

People should be allowed to run in, perhaps, a couple different offices - but that's it. Your qualifications for Senator, Represenative, and President need to extend outside the sphere of government.

That is the key difference I notice between local (even State) elections and National elections. Local, and even some state elections run off of someone's experience in the 'real world.' State Auditors are people who have been CPAs, treaty compliance inspectors with the military, fraud investigators/prosecutors, etc.

Completely different from how things work on the national level, which seems ridiculous considering the difference in scale of the position. But that is, in part, enforced by party control. Parties will not even put you up for nomination unless you've 'done your time' cranking in a Senate or Governor's seat.

 

[LED ZEPPELIN]

200 k a year?

lol rootschild family got virtually 500 trillion dollars