Communist Organization

[Ramo]

We're talking about being able to live a comfortable life without an income for at least two and probably many more years. $100k is obviously not that.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Average wealth is something like 5 millon dollars.



And you don't see a problem at all?

Not at all. If anything, it should be higher

[Ramo]

Average wealth is something like 5 millon dollars.



And you don't see a problem at all?

Obviously it's problematic. Why do you want that number to be even bigger?

And the more interesting number would be the median wealth.

[Ben Kenobi]

Not at all. If anything, it should be higher

Hush you. I'm having fun here.

[Ben Kenobi]

Obviously it's problematic.

Ok, then you see my point.

That's all I was getting at.

The system has some problems right now, I don't see why things would get worse when you take money out of the equation, since obviously the current batch isn't hurting.

As for corruption, again, if they have the money I don't see why the current salary would deter them since it's obviously not doing the job.

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
I've not seen a congressman who isn't already independently wealthy, and substantially so.

Public office is already restricted to those who have the money to campaign and to reach out to the people.

Even if this is true, which I would dispute, it certainly hasn't been true for most of this nation's history, and there's no reason it shouldn't be true in the future, especially given that this discussion is about a hypothetical government. This line of reasoning is totally without merit.

I think it would be better if the salary was done away with and that way those with a financial incentive would be less likely to serve.

Another failure. Do you really think people run for public office because of the paycheck it gives out? This fails to make sense given your claim that all the politicians now are independently wealthy. If this is true, why would they be interested at all in a paycheck that is far lower than many high-level managerial or law positions in the private sector they could achieve? Your first flawed argument contradicts your second flawed argument, but unfortunately two self-negating wrongs don't make a right.

[Ramo]

Ok, then you see my point.

That's all I was getting at.

The system has some problems right now, I don't see why things would get worse when you take money out of the equation, since obviously the current batch isn't hurting.

As for corruption, again, if they have the money I don't see why the current salary would deter them since it's obviously not doing the job.

Way to completely ignore everything I've written.

[Kontiki]

at $100k in assets being "independently wealthy".

[Ben Kenobi]

Another failure. Do you really think people run for public office because of the paycheck it gives out?

Good question.

No, I don't which is why I am saying they should get nothing at all.

This fails to make sense given your claim that all the politicians now are independently wealthy.

The vast majority are. There are some exceptions. I just did a cursory look through the ones who were worst off, and found that they are actually pretty wealthy.

Are you seriously telling me that someone like Biden is really going to be in the hole?

If this is true, why would they be interested at all in a paycheck that is far lower than many high-level managerial or law positions in the private sector they could achieve?

Good question. If they aren't motivated by the money and the compensation is already inadequate, in your words, why don't we dispense with the compensation.

I'm curious to see where the evidence is that making a position volunteer will automatically increase corruption, given that corruption is already very, very high.

I see no evidence that making the positions without pay would lead to an increase in corruption, given that compensation is already inadequate.

Honestly I think the corruption has nothing to do with the compensation, but more to do with the character of the individual congressman. So therefore, the pay should be irrelevant to corruption levels. You could double it and corruption would not go down.

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
No, I don't which is why I am saying they should get nothing at all.

What?

I think it would be better if the salary was done away with and that way those with a financial incentive would be less likely to serve.

So you're saying in quote 2 that the salary is a "financial incentive" for public office and must therefore be abolished, and in quote 1 you're saying that you don't think people run for office because of the salary, and thus it should be abolished because it's superfluous. You can't have it both ways, Ben.

If you don't think the paycheck induces people to run for public office, then by wanting the job to be unpaid you are deliberately stating that you want the job to be taken only by the independently wealthy. You want to preclude all people who require some kind of compensation, forever, from attaining public office. Your perfect world is a plutocracy, because anybody who isn't a plutocrat is impoverished by public service.

Are you seriously telling me that someone like Biden is really going to be in the hole?

No. Where did you get that idea?

Good question. If they aren't motivated by the money and the compensation is already inadequate, in your words, why don't we dispense with the compensation.

Uh, because we want to encourage people to run who aren't independently wealthy?

I had lunch with Jimmy Carter a few months ago, along with a few other staff members (I worked for the guy last year). Somebody asked him what he felt the difference was between politics now and when he was running for president. He replied that the difference was money - he ran for president with what would now be considered a shoestring budget. There was no possible way, he said, that anybody running now with the resources he had then could ever achieve high public office.

You may not like Jimmy Carter, but it is true that we are making it harder and harder for the non-independently wealthy to gain high office because of the ridiculously high bar of spending needed today. Why on earth would you want to make it impossible altogether by removing the paycheck from the office?

If you accept the current situation as a given and don't believe that money can or should be removed from the political process, fine, but if so then I have honestly no idea what you're doing in this thread. If you do think that money should play less of a role and we should reform the system such that other qualified people will be able to achieve office regardless of their personal means, then your position is counterproductive and illogical. Either way I'm not sure what you're still doing here.

I'm curious to see where the evidence is that making a position volunteer will automatically increase corruption, given that corruption is already very, very high.

It's self-evident. People generally take bribes because they want more money. Those who are well compensated will be more able to resist the temptation. And corruption is not "very, very high" compared to many other countries - indeed, not even compared to this country during many other times in its history.

Honestly I think the corruption has nothing to do with the compensation, but more to do with the character of the individual congressman.

But the system can't control for character, can it? So we leave character up to the voters and control for what we can.

[Ben Kenobi]

If you don't think the paycheck induces people to run for public office, then by wanting the job to be unpaid you are deliberately stating that you want the job to be taken only by the independently wealthy.

No, I am saying that you must have the financial means to take the job as well as the desire to perform a service to your country.

I honestly don't believe it takes someone being indepedently wealthy to serve 2 years in congress, so I'm going to call out that bull**** claim right there. I didn't set the bar at 100k because I was considering the independently wealthy, I was looking at people would could be reasonably asked to do this job for two years without bankruptcy.

You want to preclude all people who require some kind of compensation, forever, from attaining public office.

Yes sir.

Your perfect world is a plutocracy, because anybody who isn't a plutocrat is impoverished by public service.

Ahh, well that's a false assumption. There are a great many of people who volunteer, and give their time, and they tend to be less concerned about money. You see because their time is less valuable they are inclined to give it up for other things.

No. Where did you get that idea?

That's what Zkribbler's statistics say. Biden is officially in the hole. He has negative net worth if you can believe that.

Uh, because we want to encourage people to run who aren't independently wealthy?

We already have that, and the current system doesn't seem to be motivating them at all. Plus as you said the job is not well paid.

I would rather make it a volunteer job which will encourage those who are willing to give more of their time. Maybe a wife of a congressman will work for two years, and maybe a man will save up for a run so that he can serve his country.

There are many, many ways to make it happen if you are determined enough to do so.

I can't believe this idea is encountering so much resistance. Wilson would have supported an idea like this, so would have Bryan and the other Progressives.

I had lunch with Jimmy Carter a few months ago, along with a few other staff members (I worked for the guy last year). Somebody asked him what he felt the difference was between politics now and when he was running for president. He replied that the difference was money - he ran for president with what would now be considered a shoestring budget. There was no possible way, he said, that anybody running now with the resources he had then could ever achieve high public office.

Interesting. No, I don't like the man for what he did while he was president. I think he was one of the worst presidents, as he was ill-suited for the job. However, that certainly does not deprive him of insight into certain matters. Just being wrong on other things doesn't mean that Carter is wrong about this.

You may not like Jimmy Carter, but it is true that we are making it harder and harder for the non-independently wealthy to gain high office because of the ridiculously high bar of spending needed today. Why on earth would you want to make it impossible altogether by removing the paycheck from the office?

Well you should have asked Carter what he would have thought about doing so. I see it as an overall piece of electoral reform. I'd like to see more teachers and those of moderate means running for the presidency. Back in Coolidge's day, there was no campaign. The candidate, if he desired to, could hold speeches on his front lawn. The Bull Moose would go around and stump speeches.

Yet, we do not see a surfeit of leadership in those days. I think the campaign is too long, is too involved. Congressmen are forced to be professionals concerned more about getting elected then what they do when they get there.

I think there is a real possibility for grassroots political campaigns in this day and age, and I think Thompson very nearly did it himself, using the tools of the modern age.

Why pay 6 million dollars for TV ads, when you can set up a Youtube video and reach a larger audience in the same amount of time? Why pay for expensive polling, when you can accomplish the same thing through other means?

If you accept the current situation as a given

I don't! I would like to see the system revert more to what it used to be in the past.

If you do think that money should play less of a role and we should reform the system such that other qualified people will be able to achieve office regardless of their personal means,

Yes, and I do not believe that these type of people would be seriously motivated by the money. I do not think they would be deterred by a volunteer position.

But the system can't control for character, can it? So we leave character up to the voters and control for what we can.

I'm a populist. I believe that the more connected a candidate is with the people of America, the less likely he will be suspect and the more likely we will attract men of high character.

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
No, I am saying that you must have the financial means to take the job as well as the desire to perform a service to your country.

Why on earth would you want to have any financial requirements for seeking public office? Why isn't desire sufficient? Isn't that like restricting voting to those with property - a means to reduce the franchise in favor of those who already have the most?

I honestly don't believe it takes someone being indepedently wealthy to serve 2 years in congress, so I'm going to call out that bull**** claim right there.

That's great, but it's not my bull**** claim. I do think that if you made the job a volunteer one, virtually nobody who was not independently wealthy would take the hit.

Public service is a job, like any other job. People should be - and if they are not independently wealthy, need to be - compensated for their labor. Why the jobs of politicians should be any different is not something you have adequately explained.

Ahh, well that's a false assumption. There are a great many of people who volunteer, and give their time, and they tend to be less concerned about money.

Yes, they volunteer part of their time. What on earth are you thinking? This isn't serving meals at a homeless shelter or giving your weekends to staff a crisis hotline. It's a full time job - in fact, it's far more than full time if you're doing it right. Even the Peace Corps gives you some compensation.

It's not a false assumption - it's an objectively true statement. Anyone who is spending all their time and receiving no money for it is being progressively impoverished. I'm worked as a full time, unpaid volunteer and I can tell you that it's ultimately not tenable unless you're loaded. I could do that for a few months, and then I had no money left.

That's what Zkribbler's statistics say. Biden is officially in the hole. He has negative net worth if you can believe that.

Great. Why is this relevant?

We already have that, and the current system doesn't seem to be motivating them at all. Plus as you said the job is not well paid.

Working class people aren't motivated to do it because they don't have the resources necessary to run a successful campaign. It's not about motivation, it's about resources.

I can't believe this idea is encountering so much resistance. Wilson would have supported an idea like this, so would have Bryan and the other Progressives.

It's a terrible idea with absolutely no merit, and the fact that Wilson may or may not have supported doesn't change that one bit.

Well you should have asked Carter what he would have thought about doing so.

To be honest, if you had asked me yesterday if anyone believed it would be a good idea to make public service volunteer only I would have thought the very idea ridiculous. I couldn't have asked Carter because I had no idea up to now that such an outrageous proposal could be seriously entertained. My mistake, I guess. I asked him about Iran instead.

I see it as an overall piece of electoral reform. I'd like to see more teachers and those of moderate means running for the presidency.

How in the world would we accomplish this by not paying anyone for their time? You're deliberately shooting yourself in the foot.

I think there is a real possibility for grassroots political campaigns in this day and age, and I think Thompson very nearly did it himself, using the tools of the modern age.

Thompson? Are you kidding me? I thought we were talking about the "real possibility" of people of moderate means gaining office. In what way is the example of Thompson instructive here?

I don't! I would like to see the system revert more to what it used to be in the past.

Then your idea directly opposes your stated goal. The only thing you would accomplish by making public service unpaid is to dissuade those of little means from seeking it. The system now relies heavily on how much money a candidate has. Removing the pay from the position would only exacerbate that situation.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Cyclotron
Another failure. Do you really think people run for public office because of the paycheck it gives out? This fails to make sense given your claim that all the politicians now are independently wealthy. If this is true, why would they be interested at all in a paycheck that is far lower than many high-level managerial or law positions in the private sector they could achieve?

QFT. A Congressman or Senator can make an order of magnitude more money out of office.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


The system right now, has very high barriers, high pay for congressmen and senators, and on top of that we have high corruption.

The United States, surprising as this may seem to you, is not a dan of corruption, at least compared to the general situation worldwide.

Second, given the type of job they do, the salaries of Congresspeople in the US are not "very high."

Obviously what is there is not working out at all. I don't see how making it clear that the congressmen are there to serve the people is a bad thing, and to remind them of that by not cutting them a cheque would be a good thing.

A poor person getting elected would be such a story. I'm only seeing about 3 congressmen out of some 525 who are under 100k net worth. There are a few that are slightly over, and many, many more who are much weathier.

I think if one got elected who was in dire financial straights that we would be able to gage this on a case by case basis.

I fail to see the problem with Congressional payscales. The problem is NOT in what Congresspeople geat paid, but in the election system which is tilted towards moneyed interests. If as you claim most congresspeople come from wealthy backgrounds, then clearly the problem is how much money it takes to ever BECOME a congressperson, which had nothing to do with how much congresspeople get paid by the state, but has everything to do with the fact that they must find private funds to finance their campaigns.

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by GePap
The United States, surprising as this may seem to you, is not a dan of corruption, at least compared to the general situation worldwide.

Indeed. Transparency International's Corruption Perceptions Index for 2007 rated the US as #20 (out of 179), between France and Belgium. I'm uncertain on what basis Ben claims we have "high corruption."