But this is a verrrrrry touchy subject, so I'll just leave it at that.
I'm kind of waiting for the follow-up story about how the sponsor of the bill has financial ties to the ultrasound providers.
But this is a verrrrrry touchy subject, so I'll just leave it at that.
Our Governor has ties to nisurance companies and health clinics. Does that help?
I'm kind of waiting for the follow-up story about how the sponsor of the bill has financial ties to the ultrasound providers.
But this is a verrrrrry touchy subject, so I'll just leave it at that.
Our Governor has ties to nisurance companies and health clinics. Does that help?
LOL. Well, that's a known entity. I was expecting someone else with monetary gain to be made - I mean, he can't get all the backdoor deals, right? ;)
But I just thought of something. How heartbreaking will it be for the families (and WOMEN, thankyouverymuch) with a fetus with sever defects who have chosen, for their own survival or because of the non-viability of the child, to abort early rather than take it to term? People act like people think abortion is awesome and everyone should do it and it's great. That's just not true. Nobody* likes abortions. Guess what? They're already horrible experiences, with lots of thinking done and nothing done lightly. This just adds more pain and suffering to an already unfortunate choice. We get it, you want the woman to feel bad about it. To really really feel bad, bad enough that she'll stop what she's doing and bring a baby who A) may not live, B) may kill her, C) may be the result of **** or incest, or D) any other horrible things, to term. Thanks for that.
I also wonder if this will require those people who use fertilization methods to view ultrasounds of the fetuses that they have to "cull" for the survivability of the others?
*By nobody, I mean a vast majority of people, pro-choice and pro-life alike. It's just not a pleasant, happy-go-lucky experience. Those "women" that use abortion as "birth control" are a disgusting myth, or at least are outliers.
I'm kind of waiting for the follow-up story about how the sponsor of the bill has financial ties to the ultrasound providers.
But this is a verrrrrry touchy subject, so I'll just leave it at that.
Our Governor has ties to nisurance companies and health clinics. Does that help?
LOL. Well, that's a known entity. I was expecting someone else with monetary gain to be made - I mean, he can't get all the backdoor deals, right? ;)
But I just thought of something. How heartbreaking will it be for the families (and WOMEN, thankyouverymuch) with a fetus with sever defects who have chosen, for their own survival or because of the non-viability of the child, to abort early rather than take it to term? People act like people think abortion is awesome and everyone should do it and it's great. That's just not true. Nobody* likes abortions. Guess what? They're already horrible experiences, with lots of thinking done and nothing done lightly. This just adds more pain and suffering to an already unfortunate choice. We get it, you want the woman to feel bad about it. To really really feel bad, bad enough that she'll stop what she's doing and bring a baby who A) may not live, B) may kill her, C) may be the result of **** or incest, or D) any other horrible things, to term. Thanks for that.
I also wonder if this will require those people who use fertilization methods to view ultrasounds of the fetuses that they have to "cull" for the survivability of the others?
*By nobody, I mean a vast majority of people, pro-choice and pro-life alike. It's just not a pleasant, happy-go-lucky experience. Those "women" that use abortion as "birth control" are a disgusting myth, or at least are outliers.
Well said. Very well said.
*By nobody, I mean a vast majority of people, pro-choice and pro-life alike. It's just not a pleasant, happy-go-lucky experience. Those "women" that use abortion as "birth control" are a disgusting myth, or at least are outliers.
I always try to stay away from this issue because of the sensitive nature of it to begin with. I personally am pro-life, but understand the need for this particular medical procedure to be legal and available. If there are people that resort to it as regular birth control, so be it.
Adding extra steps to an already traumatic experience is a shameful way to slow down the process. 'nuff said.
LOL. Well, that's a known entity. I was expecting someone else with monetary gain to be made - I mean, he can't get all the backdoor deals, right? ;)
Give it some time. I'm sure half of the politicians have some vested interest in this. The other half is probably getting political "contributions" from companies that can benefit from it.
But I just thought of something. How heartbreaking will it be for the families (and WOMEN, thankyouverymuch) with a fetus with sever defects who have chosen, for their own survival or because of the non-viability of the child, to abort early rather than take it to term? People act like people think abortion is awesome and everyone should do it and it's great. That's just not true. Nobody* likes abortions. Guess what? They're already horrible experiences, with lots of thinking done and nothing done lightly. This just adds more pain and suffering to an already unfortunate choice. We get it, you want the woman to feel bad about it. To really really feel bad, bad enough that she'll stop what she's doing and bring a baby who A) may not live, B) may kill her, C) may be the result of **** or incest, or D) any other horrible things, to term. Thanks for that.
I'm not sure what you are talking about. Abortions are fun. I like seeing how many girls I can contaminate with my future parasites. After a month and a half we all get together. I bring a few wire coat hangers and we have a good old fashion abortion party in a dark alley somewhere. It's a good time for everyone.1
I also wonder if this will require those people who use fertilization methods to view ultrasounds of the fetuses that they have to "cull" for the survivability of the others?
If politicians can find a way to make money off of it, I'm guessing it'll be brought up soon.
____________________________________________________________________________________
1 I have to joke about it. If I don't I may just head up to Tallahassee and perform a few post-birth abortions.
I'm not sure what you are talking about. Abortions are fun. I like seeing how many girls I can contaminate with my future parasites. After a month and a half we all get together. I bring a few wire coat hangers and we have a good old fashion abortion party in a dark alley somewhere. It's a good time for everyone.1
____________________________________________________________________________________
1 I have to joke about it. If I don't I may just head up to Tallahassee and perform a few post-birth abortions.
I know, right? I have abortion parties all the time!! Go go abortion!
So the state government is paying for all these unnecessary and excessive ultrasounds, right?
Yes... Governor Rick Scott has decided that he will pay out of his own pocket because he is just such a nice guy.
*By nobody, I mean a vast majority of people, pro-choice and pro-life alike. It's just not a pleasant, happy-go-lucky experience. Those "women" that use abortion as "birth control" are a disgusting myth, or at least are outliers.
Outliers, yeah probably. A myth? Sadly no, I've met some of them.
The only times I've heard it happening are when women are being systematically abused by their boyfriends/husbands/etc. and aren't able to get regular birth control. In Canada it mostly happens in northern communities that are more isolated and where support for the abused women is in short supply (not to say it doesn't happen elsewhere, just that's where it happens most), and often is part of a whole host of other social ills.
For people who are actually in control of their own reproductive health and birth control, I can't imagine why they'd chose to do it that way.
That sounds terrible expensive, painful and inefficient... are these people masochistic or something?
No just irresponsible in the extreme. I suppose I should caveat with the statement by saying that I don't know of anyone that says "oh well I'll just get an abortion". These women go out and have lots of unprotected sex with no birth control (and I'm not talking about a one night slip up, I mean pretty much every time they have sex), then when they get pregnant they freak out, go get an abortion, cry about how terrible it was, but then they go back out and do the exact same thing all over again. So it's not a deliberate thought process of planning to use abortion as birth control (more like a lack of planning of any sort), but they don't take necessary precautions, and then when they get pregnant they don't want a baby so they resort to abortions.
But that's all besides the point.
It's so nice of the Governor to offer up state funds for this! Oh wait ...
However, if they do use state funds for it, it makes it easier to argue for making abortions illegal - if they were illegal, then they wouldn't have to fund the ultrasounds that they required before having an abortion ...
Ow, my head.
Go, Florida!
We really need term limits on these people. Two terms max, it doesn't matter what level.
Yep, a thousand time this^^^
EDIT: Just to be clear, we're talking about two terms per level, right? Not like two terms and then you can never serve in any capacity again? Cuz you know, it would be hard to have senators or presidents with any degree of experience at that point. It would be kind of like the Army, move up or move out.
The intent is good, but it's just not that simple.
It's complicated. With term limits, there's no incentive for politicians to keep the voters in mind - they're out of a job anyway at the end, so who cares? Take the money and run! It's actually more incentive for the politicians to line their pockets with as much cash from corportations as they can before leaving office.
The intent is good, but it's just not that simple.
There's still incentive if they want to move up to the next level.
You should stop giving them money. That should fix the issue with only being in it for the money.
Generally people do not expose themselves to the public eye (the loss of privacy, constant prying, risk of ridicule, damaged relations, constrat streams of insult and criticisim from around the world) for nothing.
You should stop giving them money. That should fix the issue with only being in it for the money.
Actually, that wouldn't solve anything. I don't mind people getting paid for their job, it's the money that they get from outside their job that's the problem.
You should stop giving them money. That should fix the issue with only being in it for the money.
Originally George Washington did not want to accept any money for being President for that very reason. He felt serving in political office should be a service, not a job. However, he decided to accept payment because otherwise it would prevent anyone other than those who were already wealthy from holding office.
You should stop giving them money. That should fix the issue with only being in it for the money.
Generally people do not expose themselves to the public eye (the loss of privacy, constant prying, risk of ridicule, damaged relations, constrat streams of insult and criticisim from around the world) for nothing.
Exactly.
Whether we agree with what these people are motivated to do... well that's why we vote, right?
If they're willing to put in the work for free, then at least they're motivated to do something other then raking in as much money as they can.
Whether we agree with what these people are motivated to do... well that's why we vote, right?
No.... we know that the people who would be motivated by legitimate money are out, and the people who cannot afford to spend that much time working for no money are out, and thoes who are otherwise able to make more money thourgh other illegitimate means are out. So that leaves us, what, people with underhanded schemes to abuse their position for financial gain, and people with powerfull unknown agendas and money. And they have even less competition, because the people who might be good and/or not terrible at it didn't bother, because there was no money.
If they're willing to put in the work for free, then at least they're motivated to do something other then raking in as much money as they can.
Whether we agree with what these people are motivated to do... well that's why we vote, right?
No.... we know that the people who would be motivated by legitimate money are out, and the people who cannot afford to spend that much time working for no money are out, and thoes who are otherwise able to make more money thourgh other illegitimate means are out. So that leaves us, what, people with underhanded schemes to abuse their position for financial gain, and people with powerfull unknown agendas and money. And they have even less competition, because the people who might be good and/or not terrible at it didn't bother, because there was no money.
Exactly. I can't blame people for wanting to be paid for their work - there's nothing wrong with that at all.
Unfortunately I do not trust politicians that are in it for the money. That's not how it should go, and imho a large part of the problem.
And if you remove the money, you get people who are in it for the Powerz and/or the Evulz. Not an improvement.
Edit: your position is basically "The fruit pickers keep stealing fruit!" "Fine, no more employee lunches!"
What you want is for them to stop eating (making money) when they shouldn't. Making it so that eating is never allowed is just going to make it worse.
Every pre-marital individual has to be offered the opportunity to see zir prospective parent-in-law naked to know what the future holds.
Every pre-marital individual has to be offered the opportunity to have a pleasant dinner with several attractive individuals who could totally be gotten with if not for the incipient marriage.
Every pre-marital individual is required to undergo counseling to make absolutely certain that zie is really, truly sure about this heterosexuality thing.
Marriages will be restricted to a very small handful of facilities, even as few as one per state. Not only will this necessitate unwieldy scheduling and travel times for the prospectively marital, but the required counseling session and its subsequent three-day waiting period will stretch the entire ordeal out into the better part of a week and possibly two round-trips, making the entire process discouragingly onerous.
...actually, that last one might not be such a bad idea. Anything that kills Vegas' 'lifelong mistake mills' can't be all bad. (Nah, seriously, I wouldn't wish that kind of dirty pool on anyone.)
If they're willing to put in the work for free, then at least they're motivated to do something other then raking in as much money as they can.
Whether we agree with what these people are motivated to do... well that's why we vote, right?
Paying them no money, or even little money isn't going to make them care more about passing useful bills. Down here we have elected county officials who get paid only $6000 + benefits. They are all independently well off, yet this has not stopped them from being greedy jerks (Read this).
Unfortunately I do not trust politicians that are in it for the money. That's not how it should go, and imho a large part of the problem.
And if you remove the money, you get people who are in it for the Powerz and/or the Evulz. Not an improvement.
Edit: your position is basically "The fruit pickers keep stealing fruit!" "Fine, no more employee lunches!"
What you want is for them to stop eating (making money) when they shouldn't. Making it so that eating is never allowed is just going to make it worse.
Meh. Fair enough. It seems like a hopeless situation whatever you try to do about it.
Meh. Fair enough. It seems like a hopeless situation whatever you try to do about it.
Seize the personal bank accounts for every political office and make them use accounts tied to the office for the duration of their term(s). When their term(s) are up, pay them an amount equal to the median income of their district for the total number of years in office out of the account for their particular seat. All leftover monies are then available for their successor. Execute anyone caught using any bank account not tied their seat during their term in office. The IRS would love to be able to hand down death sentences.
Meh. Fair enough. It seems like a hopeless situation whatever you try to do about it.
Seize the personal bank accounts for every political office and make them use accounts tied to the office for the duration of their term(s). When their term(s) are up, pay them an amount equal to the median income of their district for the total number of years in office out of the account for their particular seat. All leftover monies are then available for their successor. Execute anyone caught using any bank account not tied their seat during their term in office. The IRS would love to be able to hand down death sentences.
I think the leftover money should go to the budget/state.
I think the leftover money should go to the budget/state.
It does. The money spent by the politician in office comes from the state's budgetted money for it's representative, so the money never stops belonging to the state. A frugal politician could actually make money for his home state by saving the budgetted funds.
It's complicated. With term limits, there's no incentive for politicians to keep the voters in mind - they're out of a job anyway at the end, so who cares? Take the money and run! It's actually more incentive for the politicians to line their pockets with as much cash from corportations as they can before leaving office.
The intent is good, but it's just not that simple.
Which is why you also make it mandatory that they do not get to keep their excess 'campaign funds', and 'contributions'. It goes to PreEstablished Charity organizations, or into funding their home state.
But this is a verrrrrry touchy subject, so I'll just leave it at that.
I'm kind of waiting for the follow-up story about how the sponsor of the bill has financial ties to the ultrasound providers.
But this is a verrrrrry touchy subject, so I'll just leave it at that.
Our Governor has ties to nisurance companies and health clinics. Does that help?
I'm kind of waiting for the follow-up story about how the sponsor of the bill has financial ties to the ultrasound providers.
But this is a verrrrrry touchy subject, so I'll just leave it at that.
Our Governor has ties to nisurance companies and health clinics. Does that help?
LOL. Well, that's a known entity. I was expecting someone else with monetary gain to be made - I mean, he can't get all the backdoor deals, right? ;)
But I just thought of something. How heartbreaking will it be for the families (and WOMEN, thankyouverymuch) with a fetus with sever defects who have chosen, for their own survival or because of the non-viability of the child, to abort early rather than take it to term? People act like people think abortion is awesome and everyone should do it and it's great. That's just not true. Nobody* likes abortions. Guess what? They're already horrible experiences, with lots of thinking done and nothing done lightly. This just adds more pain and suffering to an already unfortunate choice. We get it, you want the woman to feel bad about it. To really really feel bad, bad enough that she'll stop what she's doing and bring a baby who A) may not live, B) may kill her, C) may be the result of **** or incest, or D) any other horrible things, to term. Thanks for that.
I also wonder if this will require those people who use fertilization methods to view ultrasounds of the fetuses that they have to "cull" for the survivability of the others?
*By nobody, I mean a vast majority of people, pro-choice and pro-life alike. It's just not a pleasant, happy-go-lucky experience. Those "women" that use abortion as "birth control" are a disgusting myth, or at least are outliers.
I'm kind of waiting for the follow-up story about how the sponsor of the bill has financial ties to the ultrasound providers.
But this is a verrrrrry touchy subject, so I'll just leave it at that.
Our Governor has ties to nisurance companies and health clinics. Does that help?
LOL. Well, that's a known entity. I was expecting someone else with monetary gain to be made - I mean, he can't get all the backdoor deals, right? ;)
But I just thought of something. How heartbreaking will it be for the families (and WOMEN, thankyouverymuch) with a fetus with sever defects who have chosen, for their own survival or because of the non-viability of the child, to abort early rather than take it to term? People act like people think abortion is awesome and everyone should do it and it's great. That's just not true. Nobody* likes abortions. Guess what? They're already horrible experiences, with lots of thinking done and nothing done lightly. This just adds more pain and suffering to an already unfortunate choice. We get it, you want the woman to feel bad about it. To really really feel bad, bad enough that she'll stop what she's doing and bring a baby who A) may not live, B) may kill her, C) may be the result of **** or incest, or D) any other horrible things, to term. Thanks for that.
I also wonder if this will require those people who use fertilization methods to view ultrasounds of the fetuses that they have to "cull" for the survivability of the others?
*By nobody, I mean a vast majority of people, pro-choice and pro-life alike. It's just not a pleasant, happy-go-lucky experience. Those "women" that use abortion as "birth control" are a disgusting myth, or at least are outliers.
Well said. Very well said.
*By nobody, I mean a vast majority of people, pro-choice and pro-life alike. It's just not a pleasant, happy-go-lucky experience. Those "women" that use abortion as "birth control" are a disgusting myth, or at least are outliers.
I always try to stay away from this issue because of the sensitive nature of it to begin with. I personally am pro-life, but understand the need for this particular medical procedure to be legal and available. If there are people that resort to it as regular birth control, so be it.
Adding extra steps to an already traumatic experience is a shameful way to slow down the process. 'nuff said.
LOL. Well, that's a known entity. I was expecting someone else with monetary gain to be made - I mean, he can't get all the backdoor deals, right? ;)
Give it some time. I'm sure half of the politicians have some vested interest in this. The other half is probably getting political "contributions" from companies that can benefit from it.
But I just thought of something. How heartbreaking will it be for the families (and WOMEN, thankyouverymuch) with a fetus with sever defects who have chosen, for their own survival or because of the non-viability of the child, to abort early rather than take it to term? People act like people think abortion is awesome and everyone should do it and it's great. That's just not true. Nobody* likes abortions. Guess what? They're already horrible experiences, with lots of thinking done and nothing done lightly. This just adds more pain and suffering to an already unfortunate choice. We get it, you want the woman to feel bad about it. To really really feel bad, bad enough that she'll stop what she's doing and bring a baby who A) may not live, B) may kill her, C) may be the result of **** or incest, or D) any other horrible things, to term. Thanks for that.
I'm not sure what you are talking about. Abortions are fun. I like seeing how many girls I can contaminate with my future parasites. After a month and a half we all get together. I bring a few wire coat hangers and we have a good old fashion abortion party in a dark alley somewhere. It's a good time for everyone.1
I also wonder if this will require those people who use fertilization methods to view ultrasounds of the fetuses that they have to "cull" for the survivability of the others?
If politicians can find a way to make money off of it, I'm guessing it'll be brought up soon.
____________________________________________________________________________________
1 I have to joke about it. If I don't I may just head up to Tallahassee and perform a few post-birth abortions.
I'm not sure what you are talking about. Abortions are fun. I like seeing how many girls I can contaminate with my future parasites. After a month and a half we all get together. I bring a few wire coat hangers and we have a good old fashion abortion party in a dark alley somewhere. It's a good time for everyone.1
____________________________________________________________________________________
1 I have to joke about it. If I don't I may just head up to Tallahassee and perform a few post-birth abortions.
I know, right? I have abortion parties all the time!! Go go abortion!
So the state government is paying for all these unnecessary and excessive ultrasounds, right?
Yes... Governor Rick Scott has decided that he will pay out of his own pocket because he is just such a nice guy.
*By nobody, I mean a vast majority of people, pro-choice and pro-life alike. It's just not a pleasant, happy-go-lucky experience. Those "women" that use abortion as "birth control" are a disgusting myth, or at least are outliers.
Outliers, yeah probably. A myth? Sadly no, I've met some of them.
The only times I've heard it happening are when women are being systematically abused by their boyfriends/husbands/etc. and aren't able to get regular birth control. In Canada it mostly happens in northern communities that are more isolated and where support for the abused women is in short supply (not to say it doesn't happen elsewhere, just that's where it happens most), and often is part of a whole host of other social ills.
For people who are actually in control of their own reproductive health and birth control, I can't imagine why they'd chose to do it that way.
That sounds terrible expensive, painful and inefficient... are these people masochistic or something?
No just irresponsible in the extreme. I suppose I should caveat with the statement by saying that I don't know of anyone that says "oh well I'll just get an abortion". These women go out and have lots of unprotected sex with no birth control (and I'm not talking about a one night slip up, I mean pretty much every time they have sex), then when they get pregnant they freak out, go get an abortion, cry about how terrible it was, but then they go back out and do the exact same thing all over again. So it's not a deliberate thought process of planning to use abortion as birth control (more like a lack of planning of any sort), but they don't take necessary precautions, and then when they get pregnant they don't want a baby so they resort to abortions.
But that's all besides the point.
It's so nice of the Governor to offer up state funds for this! Oh wait ...
However, if they do use state funds for it, it makes it easier to argue for making abortions illegal - if they were illegal, then they wouldn't have to fund the ultrasounds that they required before having an abortion ...
Ow, my head.
Go, Florida!
We really need term limits on these people. Two terms max, it doesn't matter what level.
Yep, a thousand time this^^^
EDIT: Just to be clear, we're talking about two terms per level, right? Not like two terms and then you can never serve in any capacity again? Cuz you know, it would be hard to have senators or presidents with any degree of experience at that point. It would be kind of like the Army, move up or move out.
The intent is good, but it's just not that simple.
It's complicated. With term limits, there's no incentive for politicians to keep the voters in mind - they're out of a job anyway at the end, so who cares? Take the money and run! It's actually more incentive for the politicians to line their pockets with as much cash from corportations as they can before leaving office.
The intent is good, but it's just not that simple.
There's still incentive if they want to move up to the next level.
You should stop giving them money. That should fix the issue with only being in it for the money.
Generally people do not expose themselves to the public eye (the loss of privacy, constant prying, risk of ridicule, damaged relations, constrat streams of insult and criticisim from around the world) for nothing.
You should stop giving them money. That should fix the issue with only being in it for the money.
Actually, that wouldn't solve anything. I don't mind people getting paid for their job, it's the money that they get from outside their job that's the problem.
You should stop giving them money. That should fix the issue with only being in it for the money.
Originally George Washington did not want to accept any money for being President for that very reason. He felt serving in political office should be a service, not a job. However, he decided to accept payment because otherwise it would prevent anyone other than those who were already wealthy from holding office.
You should stop giving them money. That should fix the issue with only being in it for the money.
Generally people do not expose themselves to the public eye (the loss of privacy, constant prying, risk of ridicule, damaged relations, constrat streams of insult and criticisim from around the world) for nothing.
Exactly.
Whether we agree with what these people are motivated to do... well that's why we vote, right?
If they're willing to put in the work for free, then at least they're motivated to do something other then raking in as much money as they can.
Whether we agree with what these people are motivated to do... well that's why we vote, right?
No.... we know that the people who would be motivated by legitimate money are out, and the people who cannot afford to spend that much time working for no money are out, and thoes who are otherwise able to make more money thourgh other illegitimate means are out. So that leaves us, what, people with underhanded schemes to abuse their position for financial gain, and people with powerfull unknown agendas and money. And they have even less competition, because the people who might be good and/or not terrible at it didn't bother, because there was no money.
If they're willing to put in the work for free, then at least they're motivated to do something other then raking in as much money as they can.
Whether we agree with what these people are motivated to do... well that's why we vote, right?
No.... we know that the people who would be motivated by legitimate money are out, and the people who cannot afford to spend that much time working for no money are out, and thoes who are otherwise able to make more money thourgh other illegitimate means are out. So that leaves us, what, people with underhanded schemes to abuse their position for financial gain, and people with powerfull unknown agendas and money. And they have even less competition, because the people who might be good and/or not terrible at it didn't bother, because there was no money.
Exactly. I can't blame people for wanting to be paid for their work - there's nothing wrong with that at all.
Unfortunately I do not trust politicians that are in it for the money. That's not how it should go, and imho a large part of the problem.
And if you remove the money, you get people who are in it for the Powerz and/or the Evulz. Not an improvement.
Edit: your position is basically "The fruit pickers keep stealing fruit!" "Fine, no more employee lunches!"
What you want is for them to stop eating (making money) when they shouldn't. Making it so that eating is never allowed is just going to make it worse.
Every pre-marital individual has to be offered the opportunity to see zir prospective parent-in-law naked to know what the future holds.
Every pre-marital individual has to be offered the opportunity to have a pleasant dinner with several attractive individuals who could totally be gotten with if not for the incipient marriage.
Every pre-marital individual is required to undergo counseling to make absolutely certain that zie is really, truly sure about this heterosexuality thing.
Marriages will be restricted to a very small handful of facilities, even as few as one per state. Not only will this necessitate unwieldy scheduling and travel times for the prospectively marital, but the required counseling session and its subsequent three-day waiting period will stretch the entire ordeal out into the better part of a week and possibly two round-trips, making the entire process discouragingly onerous.
...actually, that last one might not be such a bad idea. Anything that kills Vegas' 'lifelong mistake mills' can't be all bad. (Nah, seriously, I wouldn't wish that kind of dirty pool on anyone.)
If they're willing to put in the work for free, then at least they're motivated to do something other then raking in as much money as they can.
Whether we agree with what these people are motivated to do... well that's why we vote, right?
Paying them no money, or even little money isn't going to make them care more about passing useful bills. Down here we have elected county officials who get paid only $6000 + benefits. They are all independently well off, yet this has not stopped them from being greedy jerks (Read this).
Unfortunately I do not trust politicians that are in it for the money. That's not how it should go, and imho a large part of the problem.
And if you remove the money, you get people who are in it for the Powerz and/or the Evulz. Not an improvement.
Edit: your position is basically "The fruit pickers keep stealing fruit!" "Fine, no more employee lunches!"
What you want is for them to stop eating (making money) when they shouldn't. Making it so that eating is never allowed is just going to make it worse.
Meh. Fair enough. It seems like a hopeless situation whatever you try to do about it.
Meh. Fair enough. It seems like a hopeless situation whatever you try to do about it.
Seize the personal bank accounts for every political office and make them use accounts tied to the office for the duration of their term(s). When their term(s) are up, pay them an amount equal to the median income of their district for the total number of years in office out of the account for their particular seat. All leftover monies are then available for their successor. Execute anyone caught using any bank account not tied their seat during their term in office. The IRS would love to be able to hand down death sentences.
Meh. Fair enough. It seems like a hopeless situation whatever you try to do about it.
Seize the personal bank accounts for every political office and make them use accounts tied to the office for the duration of their term(s). When their term(s) are up, pay them an amount equal to the median income of their district for the total number of years in office out of the account for their particular seat. All leftover monies are then available for their successor. Execute anyone caught using any bank account not tied their seat during their term in office. The IRS would love to be able to hand down death sentences.
I think the leftover money should go to the budget/state.
I think the leftover money should go to the budget/state.
It does. The money spent by the politician in office comes from the state's budgetted money for it's representative, so the money never stops belonging to the state. A frugal politician could actually make money for his home state by saving the budgetted funds.
It's complicated. With term limits, there's no incentive for politicians to keep the voters in mind - they're out of a job anyway at the end, so who cares? Take the money and run! It's actually more incentive for the politicians to line their pockets with as much cash from corportations as they can before leaving office.
The intent is good, but it's just not that simple.
Which is why you also make it mandatory that they do not get to keep their excess 'campaign funds', and 'contributions'. It goes to PreEstablished Charity organizations, or into funding their home state.