Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[ChairmanPoo]

He has another job doing construction work already.

That's one of the things listed in the page about politician priviledges. They can carefreely add up their official salaries and pensions to other sources of income without conflicts of any sort.

[Pnx]

According to this, the pay of major American politicians is:

• Congress Members (Representatives and Senators): $174,000
• Senate and House Majority/Minority Leaders: $193,400
• Cabinet Members: $199,700
• Speaker of the House: $223,500
• Vice President: $230,700
• President: $400,000

It's easy to argue major politicians aren't very highly overpaid (with the possible exception of the president), and Washington DC is a very expensive place to live in. But it still seems a touch excessive to me.
State salaries vary a lot, some can be very high, but that mostly seems to be in big cities.

I can't really make any judgements about this.

[kaijyuu]

If we're concerned about "only rich people are politicians" well, the first thing that should be looked at is the cost of campaigning. Sure, if a poor person got in office they couldn't really survive without a pay check. However, they're not going to get into office in the first place because others have money to burn to get votes.

As for local politics, my father was a city council member for 12 years, and he's definitely in the working class, not middle or upper. The politician job was essentially part time for him; ~20 hours a week. It also didn't pay very well. I don't think politician paychecks are much of a concern there, provided it isn't a true full time position, so if it's pretty high, lowering it doesn't have many ramifications you wouldn't want.

[ChairmanPoo]

If we're concerned about "only rich people are politicians" well, the first thing that should be looked at is the cost of campaigning. Sure, if a poor person got in office they couldn't really survive without a pay check. However, they're not going to get into office in the first place because others have money to burn to get votes.

Or the influence.

As to local politics, I guess it varies. Most situations I've seen around here are rather different from whqt you describe. Even relatively meager towns have quite a bit of competition for offices if only to trade fvors and screw around with various permits..

[kaijyuu]

Haha, my father could talk for hours about "trading favors" and stuff (and believe me he does). That definitely exists. Getting elected here is more about how many people you know, not money though. Get enough people you know to vote and you'll probably win, since like no one votes.

Probably a lot different in bigger or closer knit towns. This one's pretty spread out, with 3 distinct sections and ~17000 people. Put in the time knocking on doors, talking in church, putting up signs and being friendly, and you'll win here. Nobody gets more than a few hundred votes anyway, since no one really cares.

[shadenight123]

Apart from that, in the renowned italian political system, we have 1) too many ministers. 2) too many "pack-carriers" (assistants of politicians who are paid like 2000 euros a month just to sit on the lap of the politician in question) 3)too many senate members. ( i mean, if a law is passed by the parliament, (miracle!) what need is there for other people to re-vote on it?! at this point, just merge the two of them and let it be) 4) too many political charges which are in the end irrelevant. 5)assenteism. i don't know about other states. but here in italy, only less than 10% of parliamentary members are in the parlament for more than 50% of a work year. yeah. some touch extreme low as to 2%. and that 2% is just when somebody wants to pass a law to reduce the salaries.
yeah, removing the salary might be bad if a poor guy wants to become a parlament member. Problem is, there are no longer poor guys who want to aspire. because, first off, you need to publicize yourself. Second, you need to fight off people who are already rich to begin with, and third, there is no longer that aspiration in the people.
Which is saddening, considering that politics are the only (unfortunately) thing italians seem to be good at...destroying it.
last count had a politic grab 11000 euros a month, already considering taxes and the rest.
Then he just need to stay in charge for just 2 years, 6 month, 11 days and a couple of hours. and guess what? he grabs a pension. and not a small one. a nice one. and then he can go on doing other jobs. nice uh?
not only that, they get even more money the longer they stay. and in the end it's all just taxes. taxes and taxes.
we have at the present 500 circa parliamentaries. and 300 senators (not considering senator-to-life) now, i don't know why there is a need for so many people. Wouldn't 11 parliamentaries and 3 senators be enough? and couldn't they just be randomly taken from the population whenever a law wishes to be done? it's not that difficult. It would be a "one day" chore. like jury duty. then off you go back to your life. it's utopistic, but there would certainly be less taxes to pay.

[Dsarker]

Imagine what happens when you get fourteen people who each decide that (for an extreme example) Hitler was right?

[Virex]

Imagine what happens when you get fourteen people who each decide that (for an extreme example) Hitler was right?

Ignoring that, how many people would know about the effect of trifluoroacetic acid emissions on the environment versus the economic impact of more stringent emission rules? How many randomly chosen senators would even know what trifluoroacetic acid is?

[Syreniac]

Imagine what happens when you get fourteen people who each decide that (for an extreme example) Hitler was right?

Ignoring that, how many people would know about the effect of trifluoroacetic acid emissions on the environment versus the economic impact of more stringent emission rules? How many randomly chosen senators would even know what trifluoroacetic acid is?

How many normal politicians do you think would know that?

[Virex]

I don't know about Italy, but over here each political party has it's own environmental bureau. Even if they don't know it personally they can rely on their party members to inform them (the spokespersons of the party bureaus have typically dealt with the same subject for over 10 years and if they can't get it figured out there is always the Central Bureau for the Statistics or the Netherlands Organization for Applied Scientific Research to turn to). If you're only politician for one day, you can't even get to know all your advisors, let alone delve into subject matter you don't know the least about.

[Dsarker]

If you want to get rid of corruption, you're also likely to get rid of proper understanding of the topic at hand. The most effective solution to corruption would be direct democracy. If I recall correctly, there was a recent experiment in one of the Scandinavian countries on direct democracy, and from what I remember, they were able to get up to about ten thousand people with current technology. Expand it further. At the very least, this is saying that you can have a politician immediately aware of how much of his electorate supports a particular response to an issue, so he can either make the decision according to what his electorate wants, or make a decision that goes against his electorate. If we publish the numbers for this, we can also force politicians to respond as to why they may have gone against their electorate.

Of course, you run into the problem of having people who know nothing about a subject being the ones who largely decide.

[shadenight123]

Of course, you run into the problem of having people who know nothing about a subject being the ones who largely decide.

"ignorance is bliss" is a famous saying.
you see, an ignorant is far more likely to inform himself about a topic, than one who thinks he knows what he's speaking about.

Imagine what happens when you get fourteen people who each decide that (for an extreme example) Hitler was right?

Ignoring that, how many people would know about the effect of trifluoroacetic acid emissions on the environment versus the economic impact of more stringent emission rules? How many randomly chosen senators would even know what trifluoroacetic acid is?

How many normal politicians do you think would know that?

in italy, politicians don't even know WHEN COLUMBUS discovered america.
so, no, that wouldn't be a problem at all. heck, it might even be an improvement.

and it would be extremely difficult to randomly grab more than 8 people who have the same view on a determinate subject. everyone thinks differently.
direct democracy would be nice, if it weren't for the problems that an electronically conceived system might create. first off: hackers. second off: identity stealing, i mean, there are people who still click on flashing banners happy to have won a prize, or who responds to president mubarak letters for milion transfer...

[Dsarker]

Now, here's something to get the Prog Rage flowing, and I'm posting it specifically because I know it will...


Joslin v New Zealand. UN concludes that the ICCPR shows that the right to marry only belongs between a man and a woman, or a woman and a man.

[G-Flex]

in italy, politicians don't even know WHEN COLUMBUS discovered america.

You know, it's possible that not every nation on Earth blindly idolizes him like the US does.

[Dsarker]

Who's Columbus, again? Isn't he that guy who sailed somewhere and did something? Wait, no, that's Majellan. Didn't he die doing it, too?