On 2/4/2010 6:05 PM, somebody wrote:
> "Jim Henderson"<nos### [at] nospamcom>  wrote in message
>
>> But I think the real solution would be to return political positions to
>> being an unpaid (and cannot-accept-gifts under ANY ANY ANY circumstances)
>> positions.  Give them a studio apartment in DC and a stipend, but never
>> let them forget that they work for the *people*.  Take away the salaries,
>> the high-end health plans, and all of the benefits.  Make it truly a
>> public service that they fulfill.
>
> Don't you want the exact opposite? Pay them through the roof (I'm thinking
> in the millions) so they will be less tempted to take "gifts" (bribes) and
> much more to lose by doing so. Then send packs of hungry lawyers after them
> to uncover any wrongdoing.
>
You, you make them poor, it leads to corruption, not away from it. The 
#1 thing causing problems right now is that companies and private 
groups, and sometimes people, funnel large amounts into electing 
someone, then expect them to do what they want, usually by bribing them 
with more money to help with X pet project, or the next re-election. 
Needless to say, a recent supreme court decision is just going to make 
this stupid idiocy worse. The last thing you need is to make it a field 
that only crazies and the corrupt want to even try to get into, because 
it pays shit to work at it.

-- 
void main () {

     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

somebody wrote:
> Don't you want the exact opposite? Pay them through the roof (I'm thinking
> in the millions) so they will be less tempted to take "gifts" (bribes) and

Oh yes. Because we all know that really, really rich and well-rewarded 
people never do evil things to get even more money.  NOT!  :-)

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Forget "focus follows mouse." When do
   I get "focus follows gaze"?

Post a reply to this message

"Darren New" <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote in message
news:4b6bb03b$1@news.povray.org...
> somebody wrote:
> > Don't you want the exact opposite? Pay them through the roof (I'm
thinking
> > in the millions) so they will be less tempted to take "gifts" (bribes)
and

> Oh yes. Because we all know that really, really rich and well-rewarded
> people never do evil things to get even more money.  NOT!  :-)

Of course not, hence the "pack of hungry lawyers". However, IME, poor and
badly-rewarded people are so readily corrupted and manipulated (as they have
much more to gain and much less to lose) that I wouldn't trust any important
and powerful job to them.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> somebody wrote:
>> Don't you want the exact opposite? Pay them through the roof (I'm 
>> thinking
>> in the millions) so they will be less tempted to take "gifts" (bribes) 
>> and
> 
> Oh yes. Because we all know that really, really rich and well-rewarded 
> people never do evil things to get even more money.  NOT!  :-)
> 

So cynical for one so young :-P

-- 

Best Regards,
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 04 Feb 2010 18:05:04 -0700, somebody wrote:

> Don't you want the exact opposite?

Nope, because if you do the opposite, then they make a career out of it.  
Politics *shouldn't* be a career, it should be a term of service to the 
public.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 05 Feb 2010 02:11:02 -0700, somebody wrote:

> Of course not, hence the "pack of hungry lawyers".

You can do that without paying the politicians anything above a living 
stipend.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 04 Feb 2010 20:44:13 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:

> You, you make them poor, it leads to corruption, not away from it. 

You remove the incentive for them to make a career out of it, and get the 
people who *want* to do a real *public service*.  If there's no money in 
it, you keep the money out of it (you have to monitor contributions, 
bribes, and the like - but you take the money that's being paid to the 
congresscritters right now and hire people to monitor that - you'd still 
end up with leftovers).

You're assuming that if you remove the money from it, the same people 
would participate.  I don't think they would because those people are 
largely driven by a profit motive.

> The
> #1 thing causing problems right now is that companies and private
> groups, and sometimes people, funnel large amounts into electing
> someone, then expect them to do what they want, usually by bribing them
> with more money to help with X pet project, or the next re-election.

Yeah, so you watch for that activity like a hawk, and if someone is 
receiving bribes, you prosecute them and throw their asses in jail - both 
the person bribing the official and the official who accepted the bribe.

> Needless to say, a recent supreme court decision is just going to make
> this stupid idiocy worse. 

I agree with this.  One of the worst supreme court decisions in all time.

> The last thing you need is to make it a field
> that only crazies and the corrupt want to even try to get into, because
> it pays shit to work at it.

Only crazies and the corrupt want to get into it now, for the most part.  
Look at Michelle Bachmann or watch *any* of the house or senate debates 
on TV where they pull out a stupid chart on an easel.  You have to be 
crazy to say some of the things that are said on the house floor.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Thu, 04 Feb 2010 18:05:04 -0700, somebody wrote:
> 
>> Don't you want the exact opposite?
> 
> Nope, because if you do the opposite, then they make a career out of it.  
> Politics *shouldn't* be a career, it should be a term of service to the 
> public.
> 

Remind me again Jim, what part of Cloud-Cuckoo-Land do you live in? :-P

-- 

Best Regards,
	Stephen

Post a reply to this message

"Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote in message
news:4b6e194b$1@news.povray.org...
> On Fri, 05 Feb 2010 02:11:02 -0700, somebody wrote:

> > Of course not, hence the "pack of hungry lawyers".

> You can do that without paying the politicians anything above a living
> stipend.

Sure but you'd then only attract losers or fanatics, or more likely both.
Unless you live in dreamland. In that case, why pay any professional above
minimum wage? Make doctors work for a can of soup. I am sure that would
ensure brightest people providing the best health care.

Post a reply to this message

"Jim Henderson" <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote in message
news:4b6e1aa9$1@news.povray.org...
> On Thu, 04 Feb 2010 20:44:13 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>
> > You, you make them poor, it leads to corruption, not away from it.
>
> You remove the incentive for them to make a career out of it, and get the
> people who *want* to do a real *public service*.

What makes you think *I* want people that are so useless and naive that they
cannot do anything else with their lives than politics as public service for
free?

> You're assuming that if you remove the money from it, the same people
> would participate.

No. You are assuming *better* people would participate if you pay them less.
I'm afraid that doesn't quite work like that. If it did, it would mean we
have built the modern society entirely bass ackwards.

> I don't think they would because those people are
> largely driven by a profit motive.

I definitely want people driven by the profit motive. I wouldn't trust
anyone that's *not* driven by the profit motive, as it would likely mean
they are either not smart enough or have a darker motive. It's a matter of
regulating *where* that profit comes from. You want to make sure that the
profit does not come under the table.

If I can legitimately make $1M a year, why would I take a $10K bribe? I
don't need it, and it's absolutely not worth risking getting caught and
losing the $1M pay. But if I make $10K a year, that same $10K bribe starts
to look much more appetizing.

Post a reply to this message