Azelma wrote:
You're aware that only the rich can be president in this current system, right?
Ignorant and false
Clinton
Obama
Carter
Nixon
LBJ
Many recent American presidents are not personally wealthy. Forbes, Perot and Quayle were personally wealthy but unable to leverage that wealth to buy the presidency.
The rich control the system as a whole - through campaign donations - but don't usually occupy the presidency. No successful presidential campaign in recent history has been self-funded.
Quote:
Also, let's be real - the President doesn't need a 400K/yr salary since major expenses like food, security, lodging and transportation are covered by tax dollars. The President also gets an untaxed expense account which he can use for other job-related items like clothing. I guess the only true expenses the President has to cover would be through leisure and personal expenses (like pre-presidential homes and property)... but I have a feeling a lot of companies and/or resorts would be very generous in discounts and gifts for leisure, at least.
It makes no difference either way. No one becomes prez for the salary. No prez laughs all the way to the bank when he cashes his check. It's a stunt plain and simple.
Cutting the salaries of the President and Congress won't make a dent in our budget problem.
Politicians work very hard on a day-to-day basis. They aren't fat cats. Reducing their pay won't give them a sense of urgency, because anyone who has chosen to serve their country as president or congressman has already decided to forfeit far greater financial gain, and because what is holding up the system isn't political laziness or indifference, it's logjam pure and simple.
In times and places where high-ranking government officials were not well paid, the result is always corruption. High salaries discourage corruption by insulating government officials from an immediate need for cash. And no, giving them that need won't compel them to solve national problems any more than it ever has in any time or place. It will only encourage them to satisfy it through taking bribes.
Quote:
He's been a huge proponent for lower spending (which would enable lower taxation and lower revenues) and his plan hopes to shave 1T from the annual budget by returning some of the Federal roles to the states.
EDIT:
There are two distinct groups of people in favor of "local government".
On the one hand, there are the willfully ignorant and entitled. These are the people who go moon-eyed at the mention of "local government" because they equate it with a free lunch.
They think that local government will give them all the perks of proactive government they've come to expect, without any of the responsibilities, such as taxation and having to respect the rights of people they don't like.
The funny thing is, these same people have no doubt been shown many pie charts of federal spending that demonstrate that, in fact, only a small percentage of their taxes actually goes towards "federal bureaucracies" - that the lion's share of federal spending is on entitlement programs and national defense.
But they go on believing in the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow - the "free lunch" of local government all the same. It's willful ignorance, plain and simple.
The other group in favor of local government (and ultimately pulling the strings) are the fat cats. These are the guys that are hostile to the federal government's role as a check on the rich and powerful.
"Local government", for them, really means a strategy of divide-and-conquer: devolve federal responsibility onto the states,while of course their businesses operate at the national and international level, so they can pit states against each other and bargain them down to the lowest possible standard of living for their citizens.
e.g., instead of federal taxes, they want states to all charge their own local tax rates, so they can force them to cut services to third-world levels and prop up budgets with loans; instead of federal environmental, health and safety regulations, they want states to bargain away the quality of life of their citizens; instead of federal enforcement of financial and civil rights laws, they want states to look the other way at any misdeed no matter how severe lest they piss off the company which can then just move to the state next door.
This is the real reason these people trumpet China as a triumph of the free market, despite the fact that it has one of the most inefficient, onerous, oppressive and corrupt governments in the world. Because for all the faults of the Chinese government, to these people, it has the singular virtue of tolerating any level of abuse and neglect of its people in the service of individual greed.
Both groups like to cite Leninist arguments about the free market and limited government and how those things solve all problems. The arguments are Leninist in that they are pure propaganda and run contrary to historical fact and common sense. They promise that belief in simple slogans like, "All Power To The Soviets" and "All Power To Local Government" - giving someone the keys to the city under the banner of ideology - will solve all their problems.
Good government and rule of law have ALWAYS been associated with governments that have the scope and field of authority to establish a level playing field. Anyone who has actually read about and understands history knows this. This is why these "local government" types never talk about the specifics of history but always refer to "history" in vague contemporary cliches.
Like the Communist utopia, the free market/"local government" utopia is an ideological chimera. And like Leninist propaganda, its appeal is solely to two groups of people: party insiders, and "useful fools" who think that blind adherence to Communist dogma will somehow get them a free lunch.
