Newsweek: America the Ignorant

[Dave]

Originally Posted by goof2

I disagree. I think they get paid just fine, especially when you consider the perks they are able to take advantage of. Their salaries when in office are also nothing compared to what they can make once they leave government service.

In my opinion the largest barrier to attracting better people is the election process itself. It goes on seemingly forever, digs deeply in to areas many people are not really comfortable exposing to public scrutiny, requires the candidate to constantly beg for money, and the reward for success is doing it all over again soon after. Most sensible people would balk at most or all of that. The process sucks and seemingly so do most of the people who excel at it.

Like tweeking legislation to be favorable to companies you happen to own stock in.

[goof2]

This thread is a repost from a couple months ago. I typically wouldn't bother pointing it out but the originator was the same both times. The previous thread ended up discussing "the subject that shall not be named" in the News Desk. For those interested in the previous discussion check the link.

http://www.twowheelfix.com/showthread.php?t=16617

[Avatard]

Well, it would seem that I find the same things amusing on a consistent basis. I, sadly, don't portend to have the kind of short term memory that would even allow me to remember having previously posted this. Thanks for pointing it out.

[Homeslice]

Originally Posted by Dave

Like tweeking legislation to be favorable to companies you happen to own stock in.

Or awarding contracts to a firm you were CEO of only a couple years ago.

[Papa_Complex]

Originally Posted by Homeslice

Or awarding contracts to a firm you were CEO of only a couple years ago.

... and you likely still hold a substantial amount of stock in.

Originally Posted by goof2

I disagree. I think they get paid just fine, especially when you consider the perks they are able to take advantage of. Their salaries when in office are also nothing compared to what they can make once they leave government service.

In my opinion the largest barrier to attracting better people is the election process itself. It goes on seemingly forever, digs deeply in to areas many people are not really comfortable exposing to public scrutiny, requires the candidate to constantly beg for money, and the reward for success is doing it all over again soon after. Most sensible people would balk at most or all of that. The process sucks and seemingly so do most of the people who excel at it.

"... when they leave government service"? So they work towards that employment all the way through their government service, rather than doing the job that they are supposed to be performing for the American people?

What you're describing creates a situation in which people don't aspire to public service, but rather merely use it as a stepping stone to later success. Pay people in a manner commensurate to their skills. Limit the amounts that can be used for advertising, limiting the ability to "buy an election."

[goof2]

Originally Posted by Papa_Complex

... and you likely still hold a substantial amount of stock in.

I suspect Homeslice is specifically referring to Dick Cheney and Halliburton. Cheney divested himself of Halliburton after winning in 2000.

Originally Posted by Papa_Complex

"... when they leave government service"? So they work towards that employment all the way through their government service, rather than doing the job that they are supposed to be performing for the American people?

What you're describing creates a situation in which people don't aspire to public service, but rather merely use it as a stepping stone to later success. Pay people in a manner commensurate to their skills. Limit the amounts that can be used for advertising, limiting the ability to "buy an election."

Up the money all you want and I don't think it will make any difference. The fact remains that the job sucks terribly and most of the people attracted to the job are emotionally damaged. Make it a million a year and the power and prestige associated with the job will still serve as the primary attraction to the job.

Limiting money spent on advertising creates its own issues as that will most likely be ruled unconstitutional.

[tallywacker]

Wow this thread has been on topic for way too long.

[Papa_Complex]

Originally Posted by goof2

I suspect Homeslice is specifically referring to Dick Cheney and Halliburton. Cheney divested himself of Halliburton after winning in 2000.

And I was stating a broader generalization.

Up the money all you want and I don't think it will make any difference. The fact remains that the job sucks terribly and most of the people attracted to the job are emotionally damaged. Make it a million a year and the power and prestige associated with the job will still serve as the primary attraction to the job.

You mean that's currently what the job attracts. Wouldn't someone who is familiar with handling a large corporate entity be preferable to some Zagnut who sought out political power?

Limiting money spent on advertising creates its own issues as that will most likely be ruled unconstitutional.

I disagree. I believe that it would be more in keeping with the vision of the Founding Fathers, to help create a situation in which men of good conscience could seek office, rather than merely those who can afford to buy power.

[derf]

Originally Posted by tallywacker

Wow this thread has been on topic for way too long.

i Dissagree With Your Nazi View Point. she Should Be Facing The Other Direction.

[goof2]

Originally Posted by Papa_Complex

And I was stating a broader generalization.

Yep, just clarifying the disconnect between your statement and Homeslice's.

Originally Posted by Papa_Complex

You mean that's currently what the job attracts. Wouldn't someone who is familiar with handling a large corporate entity be preferable to some Zagnut who sought out political power?

Plenty of people familiar with running large entities seek political office. Mitt Romney, Steve Forbes, Ross Perot, Mike Bloomberg, and the previously mentioned Dick Cheney are some I can think of off the top of my head. The people who are familiar with that are also the least in need of and least likely to be motivated by increasing the money the position pays. The salary isn't what is keeping Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, or Ted Turner from entering politics.

Originally Posted by Papa_Complex

I disagree. I believe that it would be more in keeping with the vision of the Founding Fathers, to help create a situation in which men of good conscience could seek office, rather than merely those who can afford to buy power.

That is fine, but the courts have decided that money = speech. Unless that changes the vision of the Founding Fathers is effectively irrelevant. Small restrictions are possible, but a $2,400 limit on individual donations for example hasn't proven to make elections less expensive.