|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,480
Hall of Famer
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,480 |
It's definitely worth wondering how much better the candidates would be - I think money might attract better candidates for Congress - but probably by the Senate/Presidency, you are getting good candidates anyway (who are generally more interested in power than money, or are already independently wealthy).
This is what I would like to have happen (can't happen in the US for a variety of legal reasons, but in my utopia).
Increase the salaries for congressmen, president, supreme court justices, and heads of major executive departments by 10-20x. Say $5M/year for the House, $10M/year for the senate, $50M/year for the presidency. Additionally, this pay continues for two years after you leave the office.
In exchange, while you are in these offices, you (or your spouse) can't own stocks or any businesses while in office. (For investment purposes you can own highly leveraged mutual funds which you can't control while you're in office). Anything else, you need to sell off before taking the oath. For two years after you leave office (while you are still being paid), you can work any number of governmental jobs (executive branch, advise a current office holder, etc.) -- but can't work or own business interests.
The pay is huge (comparable to what top level people should be making) - but the total cost for the US is still small (~$5 billion / year depending on how many people have two year positions, and what the pay for senior executive employees is). In exchange you avoid the conflict of interest that corrupts so many politicians (they are making a good deal of money, but they can't worry about how their vote will affect their stock portfolio).
Also, you get a number of very highly experienced former office holders (who maybe don't have political aspirations anymore) - but do have the know how to get good things done in Washington. The fact that their pay is fixed based on their previous employment means that they can work on whatever topic interests them most in the political process (whether that is transportation issues, or economic issues, or health care reform, or foreign relations with the middle east, etc.)
As a final, non-related change. I think the presidency should be a single 6-year term. Once you achieve the office you shouldn't have to worry about running for re-election instead of running the country.
~Lyuokdea
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,123
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,123 |
Quote:
As a final, non-related change. I think the presidency should be a single 6-year term. Once you achieve the office you shouldn't have to worry about running for re-election instead of running the country.
I don't have a problem with this idea at all.
One & done. Make things happen. Move on.
"too many notes, not enough music-"
#GMStong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
As a final, non-related change. I think the presidency should be a single 6-year term. Once you achieve the office you shouldn't have to worry about running for re-election instead of running the country.
I'll start with your last point... Amen to this. Six years is more than enough time to get done what you said you would get done, or at least push it as much as you can push it and if you still can't get it done, then give it up. No time in office spent campaigning. I would also add that the VP should not be permitted to run consecutively. If they want to be President, sit out 6 years and then run. Heck I might even be convinced that we should go back to the old style of having people run as individuals, winner is the President, second place is the VP...
As for your pay scale and inability to own stocks, etc... some interesting points and I'm always open to explore new options, give me some time and I'll try to shoot holes in it. 
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,991
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,991 |
Quote:
j/c
Someone correct me if I'm wrong. I was under the impression that presidents had to pay for their own vacations - aside from the cost of AF 1, and of course security. Also, anyone not on official business that travels with them had to/has to pay the equivalent of a first class ticket as well.
Now, like Michelle in Africa, or China - SHE may be their on "official" business, but her friends, etc have to pay their own way.
O in Hawaii - he has to travel on AF 1, no doubt......but the house he rents comes out of his pocket, right?
Or am I thinking wrong?
You're partially right. The second they make a political connection on the trip, it becomes official instead of a vacation, and we pay. The flotus can also make her trip official, and we pay. The 'guests' with them can be labeled advisers or staff, and we pay. Once again, if you read the above article, we are paying for LAVISH (just for you, PDR) vacations for this potus, and we shouldn't be. What has this guy really done to need a vacation? Is the constant campaigning getting to him?
![[Linked Image from s2.excoboard.com]](http://s2.excoboard.com/forums/25521/user/302752/484538.gif)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 18,204
~ Legend
|
|
~ Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 18,204 |
We should also do campaign reform that grants every official a set amount to do what they please with and they can't go over that amount or accept outside donors.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 919
All Pro
|
|
OP
All Pro
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 919 |
Political office isn't about salary, it is about ego and power.
GO BROWNS!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,662
Legend
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,662 |
Quote:
Who cares what the Constitution says. The people who wrote the Constitution didn't follow it. Not to mention the Constitution is extremely outdated.
This ranks right up there with your "Soldiers are murderers" comment.
Blue ostriches on crack float on milkshakes between the sidewalk titans of gurglefitz. --YTown
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,448
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,448 |
Quote:
Quote:
Who cares what the Constitution says. The people who wrote the Constitution didn't follow it. Not to mention the Constitution is extremely outdated.
This ranks right up there with your "Soldiers are murderers" comment.
Who the hell is this chump ?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 919
All Pro
|
|
OP
All Pro
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 919 |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Who cares what the Constitution says. The people who wrote the Constitution didn't follow it. Not to mention the Constitution is extremely outdated.
This ranks right up there with your "Soldiers are murderers" comment.
Who the hell is this chump ?
With that Constitution comment, I'd say a follower of Obama.
GO BROWNS!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,448
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 6,448 |
I would really , really like to know how old the poster is and just where did he attend school ( High school and College , if applicable ! ) .. I truly understand Political discourse on the Left and Right , but this person is way over the line ( opinion )
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 919
All Pro
|
|
OP
All Pro
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 919 |
Well CHSDAWG, what do you have to say?
GO BROWNS!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 18,204
~ Legend
|
|
~ Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 18,204 |
I don't remember saying that comment, so I'm not going to defend it. I didn't find any of my posts saying something like that, but I'm not going to dedicate more than one post to something I didn't say.
You're still not proving how the Constitution isn't outdated or how the Founding Fathers didn't break it.
I also voted for Jill Stein in 2012 and Cynthia McKinney in 2008.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 16,195
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 16,195 |
Let me help ya with that. Quote
#GMSTRONG
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,844
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,844 |
Quote:
Let me help ya with that.
Quote
CHS?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,085
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,085 |
Quote:
Let me help ya with that.
Quote
I forgot that I had responded to CHS... all I could say was WOW,. as in, how can anyone actually say that with a straight face.....again, WOW
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 919
All Pro
|
|
OP
All Pro
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 919 |
Quote:
Who cares what the Constitution says. The people who wrote the Constitution didn't follow it. Not to mention the Constitution is extremely outdated.
Also, that's not what I mean by spending power and you know it.
Page 2 of this thread
GO BROWNS!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 18,204
~ Legend
|
|
~ Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 18,204 |
Quote:
Let me help ya with that.
Quote
Oh, ok, so soldiers who kill people are murderers. I don't see a problem with that. I think we can all agree that people who kill people are killers.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 919
All Pro
|
|
OP
All Pro
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 919 |
Quote:
Quote:
Let me help ya with that.
Quote
Oh, ok, so soldiers who kill people are murderers. I don't see a problem with that. I think we can all agree that people who kill people are killers.
You are sounding like a combination of Eric Holder and Debbie Wasserman.
GO BROWNS!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 16,195
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 16,195 |
Nothing like doubling down on a deplorable comment!
#GMSTRONG
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 52,481
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 52,481 |
Quote:
Quote:
Let me help ya with that.
Quote
Oh, ok, so soldiers who kill people are murderers. I don't see a problem with that. I think we can all agree that people who kill people are killers.
wow.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
- Theodore Roosevelt
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 12,635
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 12,635 |
jc
This thread needs locked and or deleted immediately due to the direction it has taken...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,844
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,844 |
Quote:
Quote:
Let me help ya with that.
Quote
Oh, ok, so soldiers who kill people are murderers. I don't see a problem with that. I think we can all agree that people who kill people are killers.
https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3417/3577230926_ee3e324b4a.jpg
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 18,204
~ Legend
|
|
~ Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 18,204 |
Yep. No offense to you or any other soldier as I don't see killing/murdering as a bad thing when it comes to self-defense, which is your job. However, I don't agree with sending you guys (soldiers) to war in foreign countries to support corporation interest and not American interest (though at this point I'm not sure we have any politicians that know the difference between American interests and Corporate interests).
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 52,481
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 52,481 |
Quote:
Yep. No offense to you or any other soldier as I don't see killing/murdering as a bad thing when it comes to self-defense, which is your job. However, I don't agree with sending you guys (soldiers) to war in foreign countries to support corporation interest and not American interest (though at this point I'm not sure we have any politicians that know the difference between American interests and Corporate interests).
there's going to be a corporate interest in anything that involves War.
afghanistan wasn't a corporate war, yet we already know that Cheney's contracting company was all over it when the war started. it happens.
i'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt over some of the other posters. hopefully i'm right, but i don't think you actually think soldiers (in general) will go to hell for fighting in wars.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
- Theodore Roosevelt
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 13,699
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 13,699 |
Killing and murdering are two different things. Sometimes they happen at the same time, and sometimes they don't.
There is no level of sucking we haven't seen; in fact, I'm pretty sure we hold the patents on a few levels of sucking NOBODY had seen until the past few years.
-PrplPplEater
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 18,204
~ Legend
|
|
~ Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 18,204 |
Quote:
Quote:
Who cares what the Constitution says. The people who wrote the Constitution didn't follow it. Not to mention the Constitution is extremely outdated.
Also, that's not what I mean by spending power and you know it.
Page 2 of this thread
I'm not sure what you're trying to say. Also, I'm not against the ideas in the Constitution, as I think it should be used like the Magna Carta, English Bill of Rights, Mayflower Compact and what not. I think it's time that we got 21st Century rights, like internet freedom, internet neutrality, equal pay, no matter sex or race, and other rights.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 52,481
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 52,481 |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Who cares what the Constitution says. The people who wrote the Constitution didn't follow it. Not to mention the Constitution is extremely outdated.
Also, that's not what I mean by spending power and you know it.
Page 2 of this thread
I'm not sure what you're trying to say. Also, I'm not against the ideas in the Constitution, as I think it should be used like the Magna Carta, English Bill of Rights, Mayflower Compact and what not. I think it's time that we got 21st Century rights, like internet freedom, internet neutrality, equal pay, no matter sex or race, and other rights.
you mean like not having to mark you ethnicity on an application?
yea, i can get behind that. i personally think that was the most retarded thing in the name of PC i have ever experience. race should have ZERO to do with anything. we all bleed red.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
- Theodore Roosevelt
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,991
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,991 |
Quote:
You're still not proving how the Constitution isn't outdated or how the Founding Fathers didn't break it.
Personally, I don't think the Constitution is outdated. Would you care to provide examples on how you think it is outdated? Personally, I like my rights as they are spelled out in the Constitution, as they apply to present day too.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 18,204
~ Legend
|
|
~ Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 18,204 |
Quote:
Quote:
Yep. No offense to you or any other soldier as I don't see killing/murdering as a bad thing when it comes to self-defense, which is your job. However, I don't agree with sending you guys (soldiers) to war in foreign countries to support corporation interest and not American interest (though at this point I'm not sure we have any politicians that know the difference between American interests and Corporate interests).
there's going to be a corporate interest in anything that involves War.
afghanistan wasn't a corporate war, yet we already know that Cheney's contracting company was all over it when the war started. it happens.
i'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt over some of the other posters. hopefully i'm right, but i don't think you actually think soldiers (in general) will go to hell for fighting in wars.
No doubt. War is a great time for growth for most companies. However, when we go to wars for company growth as a primary motive is too far and I believe that to be the case in Iraq with Halliburton.
I also don't believe that soldiers are going to Hell because they served with the Armed Forces or that people who kill will go to hell. I think people who do good and have good intentions will go to Heaven and people who don't do good things and don't have good intentions will go to Hell.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 18,204
~ Legend
|
|
~ Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 18,204 |
I'd like to expand more rights to the people. I also have some problems with the philosophy that the Constitution imposes. I'd also like to get the rights guaranteed by the courts (miranda and so on) put onto paper. Two or three years ago Iceland started a project to rewrite their constitution and while it went nowhere, some of the ideas were interesting, but mainly I think we need to have a discussion about it. We, as people, get so caught up in history and culture that we lose sight of a better future, so opening a discussion about a re-write or a severe upgrade would be an idea we should try.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,887
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 3,887 |
Quote:
I'd like to expand more rights to the people. I also have some problems with the philosophy that the Constitution imposes. I'd also like to get the rights guaranteed by the courts (miranda and so on) put onto paper. Two or three years ago Iceland started a project to rewrite their constitution and while it went nowhere, some of the ideas were interesting, but mainly I think we need to have a discussion about it. We, as people, get so caught up in history and culture that we lose sight of a better future, so opening a discussion about a re-write or a severe upgrade would be an idea we should try.
The problem is who is going to rewrite it? Dems and Repubs have different agenda's and would never agree. It will never work. Leave it as it is and let the courts interpret based on today's meaning.
Things like net neutrality have no business in the constitution.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,991
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,991 |
You still said nothing about what is outdated. I like it as it is, as it states quite clearly what over government can't do to us. Right now, we need to fix a huge 4th amendment problem with the NSA filching what should be private. Granted, my statements on this site are not, but when they start snooping phone calls and emails, they are stepping over the line.
Once again, what do you think is outdated. I prefer it like it is, where it states what the government can't do to us. I don't need other silly rights granted from the government. You are missing out on history when you don't know original intent of the Constitution, like when you decided to type laughter at me the other day. The House was supposed to represent the people. The Senate was supposed to represent the states, which was taken away by the 17th amendment. The states lost a great deal of power for the idea of 'direct elections' of certain leaders. It was not meant to be that way. It's the same with the electoral college. If the president was elected by popular vote, no votes outside of cities on the east coast or west coast would matter. There was a good purpose in the original intent. Maybe you should study up on that before you try to change was has worked very well for the past 227 years.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 18,204
~ Legend
|
|
~ Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 18,204 |
We, as a group of people who want to better this country would. Granted the Republican and Democrats aren't the greatest at supporting human rights, but I think that if the people can organize it and support it, then politicians will need to support it. And you're right about Net Neutrality.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 18,204
~ Legend
|
|
~ Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 18,204 |
I think it was pretty obvious that one thing needs to be the red tape. There should be no reason in today's world there's no reason why revenue bills need to come from the House instead of the Senate. I also find the idea that we need an electoral college to make sure that votes matters hilarious considering we've only had two(?) times where the electoral college didn't select the candidate with the most votes.
If we want to talk to about Founding Father's intent, Thomas Jefferson said we should re-write it every 20 or so years.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,991
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,991 |
Quote:
I think it was pretty obvious that one thing needs to be the red tape. There should be no reason in today's world there's no reason why revenue bills need to come from the House instead of the Senate. I also find the idea that we need an electoral college to make sure that votes matters hilarious considering we've only had two(?) times where the electoral college didn't select the candidate with the most votes.
If we want to talk to about Founding Father's intent, Thomas Jefferson said we should re-write it every 20 or so years.
There is no red tape in the Constitution. That comes from government regulations. You know, the regulations that aren't voted on by our representatives. The House should always be the origin of appropriations bills, as they are re-elected every two years instead of six. It's easier to wash the scumbags out. I'm curious if you'd change your mind on that if the Senate is controlled by the republicans after the 2014 elections. By most votes, do you mean electoral votes or popular votes. Once again, if we allow popular vote, no votes outside of cities on the east and west coast will matter.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 18,204
~ Legend
|
|
~ Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 18,204 |
I also believe what other people are saying about a one term limit for the President being 6 years. I'd like to move the Senate back to four and put a 4 term limit on both the House and the Senate. I'm not sure if you get this, but I don't really care for the Democratic Party as it's pretty far right on the political spectrum for my taste. But would you be against those policies? Can you show me that votes only matter in cities on the East and West coast? Like any proof at all.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 742
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 742 |
I actually disagree on term limits. I think that takes away from the voters' Freedom of Choice.
If a majority wants term limits, just vote against the candidate that has served the number of terms you oppose. Done. No Law.
If a majority wants to re-elect a candidate, even for 50 years, I don't think we should have a law standing in the way.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 8,767
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 8,767 |
Then we definitely need voter ID, clean the dead folk out of the rolls and only up to date tax paying citizens vote.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,844
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,844 |
What you are missing is this: politicians love their jobs and benefits. Without term limits, we see these politicians doing whatever they can to get a vote. They don't care about us, they care about getting re elected. If getting re elected means taking a crap on the country - they don't care, they'll crap. It's all about the next election. And one way they do that is voting for money for their jurisdiction. But, no one else cares about it - cause it doesn't bring them a vote. So consequently, you get congress voting for spending "there", as long as you vote for spending "here".........
Look at the country - look at the debt - and tell me any of them (congress) cares about us. They care about one thing: getting re elected. Getting the vote. Period.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 18,204
~ Legend
|
|
~ Legend
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 18,204 |
We still only have a few cases of voter fraud found. Like it's honestly in the teens or lower per year. That said, if we want to do a voter ID thing then it should be the Government's job to pay for the ID and the ID's needed to attain an ID.
Also a poll tax in today's world is just laughable.
|
|
|
DawgTalkers.net
Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... Spring Break Obama Style
|
|
![[Linked Image from mypsn.eu.playstation.com]](http://mypsn.eu.playstation.com/psn/profile/Letherface.png)