r/FluentInFinance 5d ago

Seems like a simple solution to me Geopolitics

Post image
41.0k Upvotes

1.4k comments sorted by

View all comments

1

u/Ramble_On_79 5d ago

5-year minimum prison sentence for elected officials convicted of insider trading. Elected officials shouldn't be paid at all. Build an apartment building for them to use when Congress is in session, and that's all they get.

1

u/SagansCandle 5d ago

The problem is that it's really hard to prove and very expensive to litigate. We need policy changes that limit what they can do.

1

u/rcfox 5d ago

Elected officials shouldn't be paid at all.

That would mean only rich people could afford to hold office. You'd lose people like AOC.

1

u/Ramble_On_79 5d ago

She's a Marxist and an attention whore. Not a great example.

1

u/greg19735 5d ago

Elected officials shouldn't be paid at all. Build an apartment building for them to use when Congress is in session, and that's all they get.

This is a terrible idea. They should be paid well.

if you don't pay them, you're making it so that the only people that can afford to run for office are already rich. You're not going to get an AOC into office.

When an important job isn't paid, they'll find ways to monetize their job outside of official channels (ie corruption). SAme reason why sports refs should be well paid. less likely to take a bribe.

1

u/Ramble_On_79 5d ago

AOC? I'm sure the founding fathers had her mind when they wrote the constitution. A marxist with nothing between her ears. She would have an OF if she wasn't in Congress.

1

u/greg19735 5d ago

oh lmao i didn't realize you were like that. You want only rich people in congress.

1

u/Ramble_On_79 5d ago

I want financiallly responsible and successful people with good management experience. Maybe not a Marxist whose only professional experience is bartending.

1

u/greg19735 5d ago

I mean it doesn't even matter.

not paying congress well means that only independently wealthy people can afford the job. Which is a bad thing.

1

u/jamescookenotthatone 5d ago

Or people who have backers who pay all their bills.

1

u/Ramble_On_79 5d ago

I disagree. All they would need to do is pay for their own transportation and food, and if they can't do that, they shouldn't be in office anyway. Congress was never intended to be a full-time job. This was even discussed by Madison. Rich people are already in politics, and if they aren't wealthy when they get there, they are when they leave. Bernie Sanders has three houses and a few LLCs.

1

u/jamescookenotthatone 5d ago

Just transport alone could easily run into the hundreds of thousands of dollars a year based on how much Congress people have to fly from their home state to the capital. That's not including all the out of country travel for diplomatic or trade purposes.

1

u/Ramble_On_79 5d ago

Exactly. It would force Congress to meet once or twice a year, and you wouldn't need full-time staffers or any of the bloat. The government should never be a profession.

1

u/greg19735 5d ago

Congress was never intended to be a full-time job

but it is now.

This was even discussed by Madison.

Madison died almost 200 years ago. When he left office in 1809 the country had 17 states. Things change.

Rich people are already in politics, and if they aren't wealthy when they get there, they are when they leave.

Yeah, let's make it so it doesn't stay that way. and you do that by allowing people from all parts of life to afford it doing the job.

1

u/Ramble_On_79 5d ago

I disagree. Most governance should be done at the local and state levels. The federal governments role should be very small (national defense, currency, diplomatic relations, etc.). The original model would work now as well as 200 years ago. We don't need federal laws for everything. It's redundant and creates conflict.