Millionaire Senators: Why is this such a big deal?

[JLGatsby]

Originally posted by: sandorski
BS.

It's NOT BS. Most people NEVER try. Most people don't do well in school. Most people don't go to college. Most have never read a book about finance of business. Most never learn how to invest or open a business. Most don't have any motivation to become wealthy at all.

Most people get home from work, do household chores, and sit on their butt watching primetime television and eating Stovetop Stuffer and you know it.

 

[JLGatsby]

Originally posted by: sandorski
Disagree. Most People will never be amongst the Wealthy. Government serves the People, you need a wide assortment of People representing all Classes, Races, Sexes in order to have good Representative Government.

I understand how you can think that, but the point behind my question is, if the "average person" knows nothing about the issues at hand, how can they be of any public service?

Most people have no knowledge of economics, foreign affairs, political structure. YOU KNOW THAT.

Anyone who thinks differently must have no real world experiences with the average person. Most people don't know and don't care about those issues. Find some public polls about how many people know who the Prime Ministers of the UK or Canada are. Or any other subject. The stupidity of the common person is baffling.

My theory is: Odds are, if you are intelligent enough to be a good politician and understand the important issues, you are probably intelligent enough to make a few million for yourself in the land of opportunity (there are always exceptions). I'm saying just for the majority.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: JLGatsby

Originally posted by: sandorski
Disagree. Most People will never be amongst the Wealthy. Government serves the People, you need a wide assortment of People representing all Classes, Races, Sexes in order to have good Representative Government.

I understand how you can think that, but the point behind my question is, if the "average person" knows nothing about the issues at hand, how can they be of any public service?

Most people have no knowledge of economics, foreign affairs, political structure. YOU KNOW THAT.

Anyone who thinks differently must have no real world experiences with the average person. Most people don't know and don't care about those issues. Find some public polls about how many people know who the Prime Ministers of the UK or Canada are. Or any other subject. The stupidity of the common person is baffling.

My theory is: Odds are, if you are intelligent enough to be a good politician and understand the important issues, you are probably intelligent enough to make a few million for yourself in the land of opportunity (there are always exceptions). I'm saying just for the majority.

The important issues are determined by those who are Elected. The average person doesn't know the issues, because they are not their issues. They are the issues of someone else.

 

[JLGatsby]

Originally posted by: sandorski
The important issues are determined by those who are Elected. The average person doesn't know the issues, because they are not their issues. They are the issues of someone else.

No, there are always important fixed issues, such as economics and foreign relations.

How can someone who does not understand economics, vote on/propose economic policy?

Would you let a doctor manage your investment portfolio?

Would you let a hedge fund manager perform brain surgery on you?

Would you let a garbage man manage a country's economic policy?

I don't think so.

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: JLGatsby
Jeff7, Of course everyone cannot become wealthy, even if it is easy. The simple reason is that most people are lazy and/or don't try or care.

"Happiness can be attained without vast amounts of wealth."

True, but happiness is relative. People can brainwash themselves to believe that there is no need to wealth and material possessions. Other people may just be intellectually too simple to need money for happiness. As Ayn Rand said, "money cannot serve the mind that cannot match it."

"Money brings power.
Power brings corruption.
I've seen it countless times before. "

Biggest lie ever. Lack of money with power brings corruption. Personal need/want is the ultimate source of motivation to do anything, including lying, cheating, or stealing (corruption). Since money is and buys FREEDOM (that is fact), money creates freedom from need/want, which eliminates the need for corruption. Because why would a billionaire need to steal $10k? They wouldn't.

The "money = corruption" corruption is a myth started by pop culture, which downplays and doesn't respect self made wealth.

The true motto should need "lack of contentedness + lack of morals = corruption." If a man has a lot of money, yet is still corrupt, he is a accidental byproduct of a capitalist system, which makes wealth accumulation easy and allows for even people who don't deserve wealth, to become wealthy (think movie stars or athletes), but those people are still in the minority of all wealthy people.

The majority of wealthy people are moral, that's how a capitalist system works. It rewards hard work and playing by the rules. The corrupt ones are in the minority and just a byproduct of an overly-abundant (but rightfully so) nation.

BS.

I have to agree here, this is more cultish pop atlas shrugged type stuff, not reality, everyone cannot be rich unless they win a lottery type odds /know someone or inherit.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: JLGatsby

Originally posted by: sandorski
The important issues are determined by those who are Elected. The average person doesn't know the issues, because they are not their issues. They are the issues of someone else.

No, there are always important fixed issues, such as economics and foreign relations.

How can someone who does not understand economics, vote on/propose economic policy?

Would you let a doctor manage your investment portfolio?

Would you let a hedge fund manager perform brain surgery on you?

Would you let a garbage man manage a country's economic policy?

I don't think so.

The Wealthy do not have a better grasp on those subjects. If that's what you're looking for, Elect an Economist or an ex-Diplomat. By and large Political Office is something that is learned on the Job.

 

[JLGatsby]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
I have to agree here, this is more cultish pop atlas shrugged type stuff, not reality, everyone cannot be rich unless they win a lottery type odds /know someone or inherit.

You've got to be joking? Look at pop culture. It constantly glorifies simplicity and the "common man" over educated and successful people. Simply for the fact that most people are simple and uneducated and that's how to sell TV shows, records, and movies.

I think it has also become cliche to glorify average people, uneducated people, and this constantly glorification has caused negative connotations with those who are educated and successful. It's a blind hatred for successful that has glorified simplicity.

 

[JLGatsby]

Originally posted by: sandorski
The Wealthy do not have a better grasp on those subjects. If that's what you're looking for, Elect an Economist or an ex-Diplomat. By and large Political Office is something that is learned on the Job.

Now let me ask you, are you trolling? Because that's the most retarded thing I've ever heard of. No offense, but I cannot even believe anyone would think what you just wrote.

Most wealthy people are educated, and most of them are in positions of power that require extensive amounts of intelligence, an often times, broad intelligence. And on top of that, most wealthy people thirst for knowledge, that's how they became to be so wealthy.

I'd love to see the type of magazines a wealthy person subscribes to compared to a working class person. Be honest with me, what do you think the results of such a survey would be? Look at the media kits of any business magazine and compare the demographics with a more blue collar oriented magazine (like a pickup truck accessory or some sort of car racing magazine). That would give an honest insight into what topics different kinds of people spend their time learning about.

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: JLGatsby

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
I have to agree here, this is more cultish pop atlas shrugged type stuff, not reality, everyone cannot be rich unless they win a lottery type odds /know someone or inherit.

You've got to be joking? Look at pop culture. It constantly glorifies simplicity and the "common man" over educated and successful people. Simply for the fact that most people are simple and uneducated and that's how to sell TV shows, records, and movies.

I think it has also become cliche to glorify average people, uneducated people, and this constantly glorification has caused negative connotations with those who are educated and successful. It's a blind hatred for successful that has glorified simplicity.

No, not everyone can and should be college educated, there will always be a place for working class folks, the types you consider "uneducated" and "simple", the problem with this world view you have is no society will work out if everyone is a CEO or middle management etc. there will always be a need for manual labor, firefighters, construction workers, farmers, factory workers etc. this is where ayn rand libertarian cult falls flat on its face. Her ideas of a society would starve, burn up, and die of diseases from filth.

Your whole problem here is the "success" part, it is based off of how much money one can generate instead of how much value ones labour has to the contribution to a society, and thus inherently flawed.

 

[JLGatsby]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
No, not everyone can and should be college educated, there will always be a place for working class folks, the types you consider "uneducated" and "simple", the problem with this world view you have is no society will work out if everyone is a CEO or middle management etc. there will always be a need for manual labor, firefighters, construction workers, farmers, factory workers etc.

I would never in a million years imply that they have no place in this world. It takes all sorts to make the world go around.

What I'm saying is the majority of them have no place in politics. Some of them do, and many blue collar people are intelligent enough to serve in politics. Money does not ALWAYS equal intelligence. But the truth is that the vast majority of them are not even close to having enough intelligence and knowledge to judge and analyze most issues important in government. They just plain do not have the education (formal or informal) to be able to understand the issues at hand.

What I'm tired of is the media making the Senate and other political entities look like some sort of "elitist millionaire's club," when the TRUTH is that I believe if you're intelligent enough to serve office, you're probably intelligent enough to make a few million dollars.

The money doesn't make the intelligence. The intelligence makes the money. And that intelligence and experience/knowledge a successful business career provides is almost required when it comes to national politics. I contend that knowledge equal success. So if you haven't acquired success, I am skeptical whether or not you have the knowledge.

I think many "common" people would serve well in local politics where the issues at hand are more "community" related and there isn't a vast understanding of complex issues required. But in national politics, vast amounts of knowledge and a "well traveled/read" life is necessary, which most common people do not have.

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: JLGatsby

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
No, not everyone can and should be college educated, there will always be a place for working class folks, the types you consider "uneducated" and "simple", the problem with this world view you have is no society will work out if everyone is a CEO or middle management etc. there will always be a need for manual labor, firefighters, construction workers, farmers, factory workers etc.

I would never in a million years imply that they have no place in this world. It takes all sorts to make the world go around.

What I'm saying is the majority of them have no place in politics. Some of them do, and many blue collar people are intelligent enough to serve in politics. Money does not ALWAYS equal intelligence. But the truth is that the vast majority of them are not even close to having enough intelligence and knowledge to judge and analyze most issues important in government. They just plain do not have the education (formal or informal) to be able to understand the issues at hand.

What I'm tired of is the media making the Senate and other political entities look like some sort of "elitist millionaire's club," when the TRUTH is that I believe if you're intelligent enough to serve office, you're probably intelligent enough to make a few million dollars.

The money doesn't make the intelligence. The intelligence makes the money. And that intelligence and experience/knowledge a successful business career provides is almost required when it comes to national politics.

I think many "common" people would serve well in local politics where the issues at hand are more "community" related and there isn't a vast understanding of complex issues required. But in national politics, vast amounts of knowledge and a "well traveled/read" life is necessary.

All classes of people should be well educated and informed, but by rewarding one class because of their position or status in the workforce you will always leave the "lower" classes out, thus you have the main problem of capitalism, there is no leveling force, all wealth and the good things that flow from it will rise to the top leaving common folk behind, (Money makes money regardless of actual value of the persons labor once they have enough money) this type of economy is doomed to eat itself as the lower classes will rise up to redistribute that wealth, always has been like that, always will.

As far as rich politicians, I think it should be a volunteer or short term position, not a lifelong career, it is only a matter of time before corruption sets in.

 

[fskimospy]

There is nothing wrong with elitism when it comes to politics. If there should ever be any place you want your intellectual betters to be, it should be in charge of your country.

That being said, Ayn Rand was a turd of the first degree. Anyone who really subscribes to her retarded bull$hit is wasting valuable brain cells. She condemned the welfare state for relying too heavily on the basic goodness of the common man. (and correctly so.) She then replaced it with complete reliance on the goodness of the ultra rich. That makes her a total, drooling idiot. Her ideas sound good until you realize that every time something similar has been implemented that horrible horrible disaster has ensued (ie. the robber barons).

That, and the plots of her books suck. I repeat: What a turd.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: JLGatsby
...
Regarding your comment about how money does not matter, I think it does. I'll tell you why. Many people go around saying "money doesn't matter to me," implying they do not care to be wealthy. I personally think that's BS, especially when it comes to politicians. Those people are just complete liars. EVERYONE wants to be wealthy, and once in power, the temptation to use that power to benefit oneself is often too much for someone without money to handle. Would a billionaire sell out for $100k? I doubt it. Would a guy with only $500k in the bank sell out for $100k? I think the possibility is much higher.
...

I think you misunderstood the point I was trying to make...you attempted to equate wealth with intelligence and an ability to make good leadership decisions, and I suggested you're missing the larger picture. I made no statement about "money doesn't matter to me" or implying that I don't care to be wealthy, I was simply suggesting that wealth or the lack of wealth is not a good characteristic for judging intelligence and "success".

But let's go with your take on this, that rich people make good politicians because they are harder to buy. While I suppose there is some merit to the idea that it takes more money to buy a rich dirtbag than a middle-class dirtbag, I think we're better off looking for people whom the generic balance sheet simply doesn't apply...the guy who has $50 or $50 million dollars and wouldn't be bought off either way. Your rich-man "poor"-man comparison tends to assume that both are whores, one is just a slightly higher priced whore than the other. Believe it or not, there ARE people who aren't in their profession just (or first and foremost) for the money. Sure, the money IS a part of it, but money isn't how everyone keeps score...people do take jobs for other reasons, and I'd rather have one of them running things that someone who just sets a slightly higher bar for selling his power and influence.

 

[myocardia]

Originally posted by: JLGatsby
Would a billionaire sell out for $100k? I doubt it. Would a guy with only $500k in the bank sell out for $100k? I think the possibility is much higher.

Please list for us all of the billionaires who've run for office. Since your entire argument is based on that premise, this entire thread is moot without it.

 

[JLGatsby]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
There is nothing wrong with elitism when it comes to politics. If there should ever be any place you want your intellectual betters to be, it should be in charge of your country.

:thumbsup: Finally, someone who thinks with their logic, not their jealousy.

But I have to say, :thumbsdown: on the Ayn Rand comments, she was a genius.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: JLGatsby

Originally posted by: BoberFett
it seems JLGatsby has nothing but spite for anybody who actually works for a living.

What's with all the flaming? I want to ask an honest question about people who you claim "actually work for a living." I assume you mean blue collar workers. If they're such hard workers, why didn't they work harder in school and go to college to get a better job?

Ever heard someone tell you "The hardest work of all is with your brain." That's the biggest truth you'll ever hear. Don't tell me a guy who turns wrenches 50 hours a week is a harder worker than a lawyer who slaves away in his office for 50+ hours a week in his office, that's simply not true. That implies it's harder to work on an assembly line than it is to perform surgery, or to defend someone in a courtroom. Does anyone really believe that's true? I don't think so.

I'm not purposely being arrogant or trolling, which some seem to believe. I am just defending those who do the REAL hard work. Why do they get no credit? Why do politicians banter to the "common working man" instead of someone who spent 10 years slaving away in college to become a doctor? Why does no one respect that person?

I just get sick of the lack of respect society's real hard workers get. Those who spend 8, 10 years in school, and perform surgery for a living, or those who have masted the legal system, or scientists who everyday try to cure diseases.

Doesn't that rant assume that "real hard work" is directly proportional to how much money you make? I realize that's the theory behind the Ayn Rand approach to the universe, but I don't really see it reflected in reality. Obviously the very broad trends tend to agree, but there are so many exceptions that it's really meaningless to equate monetary gain with "real hard work". The problem, as has been pointed out before, is that not everyone is just working towards making as much money as humanly possible. Take your scientists, a lot of them work in academia doing really great work that they often give away for free...they aren't starving, but they aren't making as much money as even an average lawyer at a mid-range firm. Now which one is the "real hard worker"?

 

[JLGatsby]

Originally posted by: myocardia
Please list for us all of the billionaires who've run for office. Since your entire argument is based on that premise, this entire thread is moot without it.

Well Ross Perot for president, but he lost. The mayor of New York (Michael Bloomberg) is worth $5 billion, I bet you couldn't bribe him for a liquor license or a garbage removal contract.

Ok, there may not have been many "billionaires" but there have been dozens and dozens of people worth at least $100 million. But you still get my point. You couldn't bribe a guy with $100 million, or even probably $10 million with $100k. For them, it's just not worth it. Many wealthy people in that stage in life are at the point where they are trying to give money away (philanthropy), why would they take a bribe if they have so much money they're giving it away?

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: JLGatsby

Originally posted by: sandorski
BS.

It's NOT BS. Most people NEVER try. Most people don't do well in school. Most people don't go to college. Most have never read a book about finance of business. Most never learn how to invest or open a business. Most don't have any motivation to become wealthy at all.

Most people get home from work, do household chores, and sit on their butt watching primetime television and eating Stovetop Stuffer and you know it.

Or they have goals other than making money.

Is it just me or does modern "libertarianism" bear a striking resemblance to modern feminism in its militant rejection of people who don't rebel in exactly the same way? Feminism is supposedly about choice, yet very few feminists seem to respect a woman who CHOOSES to stay home and raise kids. Same problem with a lot of the libertarians out there...you claim the whole movement is about economic and social freedom to do what you like with your life, to achieve what you set your mind to, but if you aren't trying to own a fleet of private yachts, the movement treats you like some kind of leper. I think you guys are missing the point in a big way...

 

[fskimospy]

Honestly, Ayn Rand was a really bad author. Her books are really... really terrible. (not just from her ideology, but from a literary standpoint)

I really think if you look at her ideology she exudes the same unfounded faith in rich people that many marxists place in poor people. It's equally wrong on both sides of the economic spectrum.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: JLGatsby

Originally posted by: myocardia
Please list for us all of the billionaires who've run for office. Since your entire argument is based on that premise, this entire thread is moot without it.

Well Ross Perot for president, but he lost. The mayor of New York (Michael Bloomberg) is worth $5 billion, I bet you couldn't bribe him for a liquor license or a garbage removal contract.

Ok, there may not have been many "billionaires" but there have been dozens and dozens of people worth at least $100 million. But you still get my point. You couldn't bribe a guy with $100 million, or even probably $10 million with $100k. For them, it's just not worth it. Many wealthy people in that stage in life are at the point where they are trying to give money away (philanthropy), why would they take a bribe if they have so much money they're giving it away?

You think lobbyists don't have more than $100k to throw around? If the politician is willing to take bribes in the first place, there are very few people with enough money they can't be bought...we're much better off getting honest people in there in the first place.

 

[JLGatsby]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
I made no statement about "money doesn't matter to me" or implying that I don't care to be wealthy, I was simply suggesting that wealth or the lack of wealth is not a good characteristic for judging intelligence and "success".

But let's go with your take on this, that rich people make good politicians because they are harder to buy. While I suppose there is some merit to the idea that it takes more money to buy a rich dirtbag than a middle-class dirtbag, I think we're better off looking for people whom the generic balance sheet simply doesn't apply...the guy who has $50 or $50 million dollars and wouldn't be bought off either way. Your rich-man "poor"-man comparison tends to assume that both are whores, one is just a slightly higher priced whore than the other. Believe it or not, there ARE people who aren't in their profession just (or first and foremost) for the money. Sure, the money IS a part of it, but money isn't how everyone keeps score...people do take jobs for other reasons, and I'd rather have one of them running things that someone who just sets a slightly higher bar for selling his power and influence.

Wealthy politicians are better for two reasons.

1. Harder to bribe. They do not need the money and are thus more likely to be bought off by PACs, special interests, and corporations.

2. I do believe that, for the most part, self made wealth does equal intelligence. But in my original few posts, I am not trying to say all politicians should be worth $100m+. I'm just against the glorification of those small time millionaires with 2 or 3 million.

You said, "but money isn't how everyone keeps score...people do take jobs for other reasons."

I agree, but I will say this, if you make at least $50k, and your wife also works, you should be able to retire in your early 60s a millionaire. What I'm saying is that, almost no matter what you do for a living, you have no excuse for not becoming a millionaire by age 60. I expect that from any intelligent person. But of course not everyone is intelligent, that's why not everyone retires a millionaire.

I'm against the glorification of the guy with $2 million in the bank. Now if 90% of Senators were worth $100m+, then I would agree, that's not right, we would need to mix it up with some small time millionaires , but the Senate or Congress is no "elitist club."

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: JLGatsby

Originally posted by: Rainsford
I made no statement about "money doesn't matter to me" or implying that I don't care to be wealthy, I was simply suggesting that wealth or the lack of wealth is not a good characteristic for judging intelligence and "success".

But let's go with your take on this, that rich people make good politicians because they are harder to buy. While I suppose there is some merit to the idea that it takes more money to buy a rich dirtbag than a middle-class dirtbag, I think we're better off looking for people whom the generic balance sheet simply doesn't apply...the guy who has $50 or $50 million dollars and wouldn't be bought off either way. Your rich-man "poor"-man comparison tends to assume that both are whores, one is just a slightly higher priced whore than the other. Believe it or not, there ARE people who aren't in their profession just (or first and foremost) for the money. Sure, the money IS a part of it, but money isn't how everyone keeps score...people do take jobs for other reasons, and I'd rather have one of them running things that someone who just sets a slightly higher bar for selling his power and influence.

Wealthy politicians are better for two reasons.

1. Harder to bribe. They do not need the money and are thus more likely to be bought off by PACs, special interests, and corporations.

2. I do believe that, for the most part, self made wealth does equal intelligence. But in my original few posts, I am not trying to say all politicians should be worth $100m+. I'm just against the glorification of those small time millionaires with 2 or 3 million.

You said, "but money isn't how everyone keeps score...people do take jobs for other reasons."

I agree, but I will say this, if you make at least $50k, and your wife also works, you should be able to retire in your early 60s a millionaire. What I'm saying is that, almost no matter what you do for a living, you have no excuse for not becoming a millionaire by age 60. I expect that from any intelligent person. But of course not everyone is intelligent, that's why not everyone retires a millionaire.

I'm against the glorification of the guy with $2 million in the bank. Now if 90% of Senators were worth $100m+, then I would agree, that's not right, we would need to mix it up with some small time millionaires , but the Senate or Congress is no "elitist club."

I'm not sure why you think a few million is small potatoes...at least relatively speaking. Most people do NOT retire with that much money, whether it's because they are stupid (as you seem to think) or whatever the reason, those that do are clearly "elite" by definition. Not that it's a bad thing, I don't think they are somehow unable to lead because of their wealth, but no matter how easy you seem to think it is, most people don't get there...so clearly having a few million puts you ahead of most of the population.

 

[Ferocious]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: JLGatsby
I consider myself a Libertarian (I'm very open and tolerant), not a Republican.

As long as you have money. Your tolerance ends where the bank account does.

Don't pay attention to this douchebag, as a libertarian myself I wouldn't give this guy the time of day. I can't tell if he's serious or simply a troll, either way he's a prick of the highest order.

Good point.

 

[JLGatsby]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
Doesn't that rant assume that "real hard work" is directly proportional to how much money you make? I realize that's the theory behind the Ayn Rand approach to the universe, but I don't really see it reflected in reality. Obviously the very broad trends tend to agree, but there are so many exceptions that it's really meaningless to equate monetary gain with "real hard work". The problem, as has been pointed out before, is that not everyone is just working towards making as much money as humanly possible. Take your scientists, a lot of them work in academia doing really great work that they often give away for free...they aren't starving, but they aren't making as much money as even an average lawyer at a mid-range firm. Now which one is the "real hard worker"?

That's basically what I'm saying, yes. Overall (there are exceptions), the harder you work, the more money you will make.

I understand that everyone is not working for money, but there are very very few jobs out there that require large amounts of intelligence, but offer very little pay, that simply doesn't happen in capitalism.

Regarding the scientist and the lawyer, yeah the lawyer makes more, and the scientist may be a bit more intelligent, but they both still rake it in. I've never met a scientist living in a trailer park. That's like comparing a Lexus to a Mercedes, they're both expensive, yeah the Mercedes may cost a bit more, although they both have the same features, but it's still really close.

 

[JLGatsby]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
I really think if you look at her ideology she exudes the same unfounded faith in rich people that many marxists place in poor people. It's equally wrong on both sides of the economic spectrum.

Here is a question I ask people.

If you had to choose between two people you've never met to babysit your kids, and the only thing you knew about them was their profession, and one was a doctor and one was a garbage man, which would you choose? Don't dance around the question, just answer it.