After Hours

General discussion


What is a shame is that until the last 100 years or so the

By Deadly Ernest ·
Tags: Off Topic
majority of elected politicians were unpaid, or at the most reimbursed expenses, and we had a lot of laws passed that were very easy to read and understand, all made good sense, to the point, and were for the benefit for all the citizens. Now that we have highly paid politicians the majority of laws are over complex, very mixed up, usually benefit only a few (mostly companies), and rarely make sense.

Maybe we should go back to not paying the politicians!!

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

Highly paid?

by CharlieSpencer In reply to What is a shame is that u ...

US congressional salaries are around $175,000. Our president makes $400,000. That's a several times more than what I make, but less than what most of those officials were making before they ran for office or what their private investments are earning. Mitt Romney will definitely make less money if elected US president than he made in the private sector. Maybe Aussie officials make more in government than outside it, but not here.

Regardless, I strongly doubt older laws were any more for the benefit of all citizens than current ones. If you want to argue that earlier elected bodies were made up of a wider range of professions and trades than today's crop of nothing but lawyers, I agree. That's where the undecipherable language comes from. Laws are written by lawyers so they can only be understood by lawyers; it provides job security when they return to private practice. Laws and policies benefiting specific minorities are due to politicians paying back those who made campaign contributions. Any one who thinks large contributions aren't made with expectations of political consideration is either naive or stupid. How else do you explain donors who contribute to more than one candidate in the same race?

Related Discussions

Related Forums