Point of original downturn?

BecMacFeegle wrote:Excuse my ignorance, but I don't really understand where the idea that non-fixed terms cause corruption comes from? With regards to the British system (I'm looking at you, Matthew ) I don't see how having fixed terms for MPs would solve problems. A party can be riddled with corruption regardless of the time individual members might spend in government. And then there's the civil service...do you propose fixed terms for those individuals too? (Lets be honest, the civil service runs Britain,not the politicians. Or haven't you watched Yes, Minister recently?

I'm genuinely not sure that politics could even function without some level of corruption.

I think it's the longer they stay in, the more corrupted they get. Did you know that most of our politicians are lawyers by trade? The longer they stay, the longer they get cozy with big business and special lobby groups. They're supposed to represent us, not business or special interest. Now days, it's how much money can they send back home to their district (we call it pork) and that's what keeps them in office.

Here's the idea I had...
The real problems occurred with the emancipation proclamation. For Abe Lincoln to do something that gave him political points is just wrong (and anybody that agrees with Abe's decision can discuss it with him as he leaves Fords Theater after watching our American Cousin. Although he may not be able to talk much due to being preoccupied with another issue)

Politicians doing things just to gain the favoritism of a group instead of the country (political points) is what caused this nation to sink.

BecMacFeegle wrote:Excuse my ignorance, but I don't really understand where the idea that non-fixed terms cause corruption comes from? With regards to the British system (I'm looking at you, Matthew ) I don't see how having fixed terms for MPs would solve problems. A party can be riddled with corruption regardless of the time individual members might spend in government. And then there's the civil service...do you propose fixed terms for those individuals too? (Lets be honest, the civil service runs Britain,not the politicians. Or haven't you watched Yes, Minister recently?

I'm genuinely not sure that politics could even function without some level of corruption.

As Tex says in a roundabout sort of way, the longer they have the job the more complacent and comfortable they become, the more likely they are to take liberties.

Aren't there already fixed terms for civil servants? Where I'm working, the civilian appointments of serving or former military have a time limited contract.

TexasBlue wrote:I think it's the longer they stay in, the more corrupted they get. Did you know that most of our politicians are lawyers by trade?

So are ours I think. Most of our MPs are Law or History graduates. Very few people who study politics actually goes into that trade, which makes me ask the question... what jobs do politics graduates go into? Civil Service? Journalism for broadsheet newspapers and politics magazines?

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:

TexasBlue wrote:I think it's the longer they stay in, the more corrupted they get. Did you know that most of our politicians are lawyers by trade?

So are ours I think. Most of our MPs are Law or History graduates. Very few people who study politics actually goes into that trade, which makes me ask the question... what jobs do politics graduates go into? Civil Service? Journalism for broadsheet newspapers and politics magazines?

Same in Germany. I think almost half of all politicians studied law, so that's by far the most well represented job field in politics.

Political Science graduates work at newspapers/agencies, as advisors, non-profit organisation, etc. My cousin studied political science and she was the foreign advisor to one of the top 2 candidates for Chancellor. He lost though so she doesn't have that job anymore.

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:As Tex says in a roundabout sort of way, the longer they have the job the more complacent and comfortable they become, the more likely they are to take liberties.

Aren't there already fixed terms for civil servants? Where I'm working, the civilian appointments of serving or former military have a time limited contract.

Civil servants here can work for quite a long time. Others have time limits, but most can work till they die if they want.

I don't like that either. These people have paid into the system as far as pensions go. They can retire and do so comfortably. Yet, some hold onto jobs well into their 70's. This prevents other people from joining that workforce.

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:which makes me ask the question... what jobs do politics graduates go into? Civil Service? Journalism for broadsheet newspapers and politics magazines?

Good question. Someone find an answer to that one.

One thing that pees me off about certain "politicans" nowadays is how they claim to be "for the people" and they bash the political "elitists". Okay in regards to the debate above, I actually agree with most of it. But when I hear politicans say they are "for the people" and against "elitists", more and more what I'm hearing is, "I'm for those with the same level of education (for the people) since we can't understand those others (elitists) say anyway". It seems that nowadays some politicians are actually against being (too) educated - and they use that as part of their "platform". Well, you can bet I have a problem with that. More and more I see the "common people" getting elected - and who basically have no experience (or education) whatsoever. IMO, they have no right to be in office. They're not smart enough - and some of their "ideas" show that. So I say again, given a choice between corrupt or stupid, I'll take corrupt any day.

Who's in office with stupid ideas? I mean, seriously now.

i_luv_miley wrote:One thing that pees me off about certain "politicans" nowadays is how they claim to be "for the people" and they bash the political "elitists". Okay in regards to the debate above, I actually agree with most of it. But when I hear politicans say they are "for the people" and against "elitists", more and more what I'm hearing is, "I'm for those with the same level of education (for the people) since we can't understand those others (elitists) say anyway". It seems that nowadays some politicians are actually against being (too) educated - and they use that as part of their "platform". Well, you can bet I have a problem with that. More and more I see the "common people" getting elected - and who basically have no experience (or education) whatsoever. IMO, they have no right to be in office. They're not smart enough - and some of their "ideas" show that. So I say again, given a choice between corrupt or stupid, I'll take corrupt any day.

I agree with that. The problem is that little to no politicians actually come from a background comparable to most of American citizens. Most of them grew up rich, went to a good University, and are still rich because of their families and money. That's why most politicians are WASPS... rich parents = rich kid most of the time. So it's laughable to say you represent the "average American" when you really have no idea what kind of life those "average" people live.

BubbleBliss wrote:

i_luv_miley wrote:One thing that pees me off about certain "politicans" nowadays is how they claim to be "for the people" and they bash the political "elitists". Okay in regards to the debate above, I actually agree with most of it. But when I hear politicans say they are "for the people" and against "elitists", more and more what I'm hearing is, "I'm for those with the same level of education (for the people) since we can't understand those others (elitists) say anyway". It seems that nowadays some politicians are actually against being (too) educated - and they use that as part of their "platform". Well, you can bet I have a problem with that. More and more I see the "common people" getting elected - and who basically have no experience (or education) whatsoever. IMO, they have no right to be in office. They're not smart enough - and some of their "ideas" show that. So I say again, given a choice between corrupt or stupid, I'll take corrupt any day.

I agree with that. The problem is that little to no politicians actually come from a background comparable to most of American citizens. Most of them grew up rich, went to a good University, and are still rich because of their families and money. That's why most politicians are WASPS... rich parents = rich kid most of the time. So it's laughable to say you represent the "average American" when you really have no idea what kind of life those "average" people live.

I was actually looking at it from just the opposite point-of-view. It seems that as of late, the "regular" people have been elected in favor of the more educated ones who have actually done something of service. Obviously my previous description was of a certain (former) governor of Alaska. I mean, if she can get elected to office then what does that say, not only about the system, but about the voters who put her there. And there are others as well... Of course I can only name the Republicans, but I'm sure there are some stupid Democrats in office as well. But Michelle Bachmann is another who just blows my mind with what she doesn't know. And while not in office (yet) Sharon Angle of Nevada also scares the hell out of me.

But those are exceptions, really. Most of the time, your election outcome is determined by how much money you spend which obviously leads to the fact that the rich will always come out over the "poor" in elections.

BubbleBliss wrote:
But those are exceptions, really. Most of the time, your election outcome is determined by how much money you spend which obviously leads to the fact that the rich will always come out over the "poor" in elections.

Nobody is "poor" in elections. All politicians are rich.

TexasBlue wrote:

BubbleBliss wrote:
But those are exceptions, really. Most of the time, your election outcome is determined by how much money you spend which obviously leads to the fact that the rich will always come out over the "poor" in elections.

Nobody is "poor" in elections. All politicians are rich.

My point exactly.

BubbleBliss wrote:
But those are exceptions, really. Most of the time, your election outcome is determined by how much money you spend which obviously leads to the fact that the rich will always come out over the "poor" in elections.

I actually don't buy that - not completely. Face recognition is obviously very important and obviously in this day, that takes money. But as Tex said (and you agreed), all politicians have money. Through fundraising, they will always have money... Okay, so the money being equal for both "sides" (i.e. those running in an election), what's left? The message (i.e. what they intend on doing if elected), that's what... And as I said above, more and more nowadays I see politicians with stupid messages (in the campaign) - and yet, some still win. That just blows me away. It's like some politicians think it's an asset not to be educated. And IMO, it's scary when the voters agree.

You've gotta consider how much of their personal wealth politicians pour into their election campaigns. You're right about 2 candidates being equally matched with spending and how it then boils down to ideas and ideologies, but that just means that those 2 candidates going head to head have outspent 3-4 other people by plenty of money. You can witness that pretty much every primary election. 4 candidates run for the Democratic position, 4 run for the Republican position and the 2 winners are ALWAYS the ones that you see most advertised. A teacher has no way of putting advertisements on TV, printing signs, distributing stickers, t-shirts, etc. whereas a lawyer does have that kind of money.