While the United States government was still fewer than ten years old, some members proposed that perhaps every person elected to public office should
have a private fortune of their own so as not to need a government paycheck and also to make them less likely to be bribed. Some people would say that
a fortune in the bank doesn't make a person less willing to sell themselves, but I would say that a poor man is much more easily swayed by a bribe
than a rich man.
On the other hand, some people believe that if a politician is privately wealthy then he is undoubtedly going to be completely out of touch with the
vast majority of his constituents, and thus be unable to properly represent them. These people would say that ideally a politician should not be more
wealthy than the people he represents in order to really understand the way the issues effect them.
So do you think a public servant should be independently wealthy or of the same socio economic standing as most of his constituents?
|
It would be better to have someone who experienced all classes indeed.
but greed can overcome people.
and it is also about loyalty.
the most politicians are loyal to the moneymakers, corporations and foreign lobbies and here's the most interesting, secret societies.... 
edit -spelling
[edit on 21-7-2008 by Grey Magic]
|
