McCain: Rich aides may work for $1 a year

All sounds very noble, until you consider that they are the very people tasked with making laws that affect business and trade. So, with that in mind, and some very lucky and timely stock purchases, they can make a lot more money compared to their salaries.

In fact, I remember a story maybe 2 or 3 years ago pointing out how well the stock portfolios of politicians perform compared to the ordinary man in the street. Not that I would ever suggest they get a nod or a wink at the right time, from a grateful corporate world....that would be crazy.

In fact, I remember a story maybe 2 or 3 years ago pointing out how well the stock portfolios of politicians perform compared to the ordinary man in the street. Not that I would ever suggest they get a nod or a wink at the right time, from a grateful corporate world....that would be crazy

Most politicians probably have financial advisors that keep their portfolios very divirsified. Most 'ordinary' people can't afford the top financial advisors, nor can they afford a highly diversified portfolio.

And for those of you asking if McCain would be willing to work for $1 a year, I think the answer would probably be yes.

My feeling is that many of you who are skeptical about this don't know the mindset of the type of people who would be willing to sacrifice their salary for the good of our country. I think a lot of it is a generational thing that many younger people of today can't relate to.

Jemison

$1 a year?
Maybe Obama's brother can now have a better job.

reply to post by Jemison


The point is not whether or not anybody is willing to work for a dollar a year. The point is... What's the point? It's not going to make a dent in the problem. There are ways to make dents, to fix the issue. This is not it. Yeah, he promises he's going to do something. Problem is, what he proposes won't fix the issue any more than paying these "rich aides" more would.

reply to post by Unit541

What's the point? It's not going to make a dent in the problem. There are ways to make dents, to fix the issue.

This combined with many other things that McCain has in mind, can and WILL make a 'dent'.

While he may have borrowed this idea from other people who have done it (such as Mitt Romney), it shows his creativity and with enough creativity, a very LARGE dent can be made.

I realize that there are people who will poo-poo any ideas that McCain has and will say 'it won't work', but you never know until you try.

When you find coins under the cushions in your sofa, it might not seem like it's enough to buy anything, but then when you add it to what you find in your car, your pant pockets, under the bed, etc. it can add up to be a significant amount.

Jemison

reply to post by Unit541

Originally posted by Unit541
The point is not whether or not anybody is willing to work for a dollar a year. The point is... What's the point?

Yes, you are right. It's not going to eliminate the deficit or balance the budget. But the symbolism of the gesture is worth billions in goodwill. The perception of working for the public good as opposed to the money could go a long way in soothing the image of Washington being filled with money grubbers.

The real pigs are the long-term congresscritters that benefit from the lobbyists, not a cabinet appointee who has a 1 - 4 year term. For example, the "Senator of the MNBA", Joe Biden, who sold out the public on bankruptcy laws and reaped hundreds of thousands from banks and lawyers (lobbyists).


[edit on 8-9-2008 by jsobecky]

I wonder if there really are that many intelligent people who are also enthusiastic. McCain seeks the rebirth an age of men like John Adams and George Washington, and all those men that ate and breathed their country. The fact is patriotic fervor and devotion to one's country isn't going to bring in the most qualified individuals. It's aspiration at its finest. Those people will be occupied with positions of greater wealth and fame. It's all in human nature. The mental and physical toll such a position should take on any individual, the responsibility of that job and the lack of monetary reward will quite honestly drive the most qualified and tacit individuals away from the office. I doubt there are that many disinterested Presidential Cabinet members at the moment, and if by this $1 salary scheme he is intending to bring in the brightest he is sadly mistaken. A social commune in the Cabinet is no worse an ideal than a social communal economy at large. He's seeking intellectuals and the fact is on the brink of modernity, both intellectuals and keeners make money. The age-old adage that the intellectual gives up all his livelihood to pursue truth and knowledge is really just that. It's redundant.


[edit on 8-9-2008 by cognoscente]

[edit on 8-9-2008 by cognoscente]

reply to post by Jemison


Key word here is MAY.

When they actually DO, that will be when hell freezes over.

Originally posted by jamie83

Originally posted by LLoyd45
reply to post by jamie83

 

Either one sounds like a workable plan. I can see your rationale behind paying them more to lessen their temptation to supplement their salaries.

I know a lot of people in the private sector who laugh at the idea of working in the government. They make more in a month than they could make in a year in D.C. But these people are 10x smarter than any of the politicians in D.C.

I guess that's why we're stuck with a government of mediocrity.

Today's society is driven by results, in the pursuit of rewards. Crux cupidity, if you will.

I personally believe this mediocrity is a result of this jump into modernity, which most individuals in the West are currently embracing. Intellectualism has been declining ever since the start of the twentieth century. I think it truly ended with the death of Nikola Tesla, who at his peak his obscenely long hours of work and creative energy was not channeled as a means for acquiring wealth, but to affect fundamental change to our world. People like John Adams and George Washington did not get recognized for their achievements in their life time, at least not to the level that someone from the twentieth century would have expected. Those two undertook in possibly the greatest intellectual thought of any men that came before them. They affected change. They died on their farmsteads working their own land. Well, Washington had slaves, but that was a difference of social pressures. Although nearer the far end of the Enlightenment period, the Bill of Rights especially was a herald for the triumph of intellectual thought over the pursuit of wealth and riches; that notion fell with the decline of the East as a major power (the empires of the Mesopotamia especially, ranging from the time of Babylon to the time of a united Arabia in 1000 AD... and only now again reemerging in the form of Dubai and the Saudi dynasty).

A lot of those men were sufficiently demented, especially in the social aspects of their lives. They did produce unparalleled work and they did it alone. They had done on their own accord far greater than any people of this century will achieve "individually". However, in this century we will see progress like no other. Because for the next hundred years the "average" man will be included in a sort of "communal" intellectualism. Where everyone is contributing and where men that would have been intimidated to share their work in an earlier age, are becoming leaders in their own right. Imagine if you will, this intrepid, though relatively uneducated man presenting his claims to The Royal Society in London. It would have been overwhelming, not to mention daunting to have stood in front of all those powerful individuals.

I'm certain this coming century will be of far greater progress than previous, but that sense of Enlightenment is definitely gone. We will see works produced of greater vision and creativity, and scale especially, though we will always be starved for authentic knowledge and truth in a ruthless, competitive and increasingly secular society.

[edit on 8-9-2008 by cognoscente]

[edit on 8-9-2008 by cognoscente]

reply to post by jsobecky


And McCain's going to do all this while maintaining the war, providing Israels standard of living, poking Iran with a stick, irritating the country who holds most of our debt, and making W's tax cuts permanent... McCain's promises are even more far-fetched than W's were 8 years ago.

There is not enough change in all the couches in the galaxy to fix these problems. What he proposes equates to me saying I can afford two more houses if I just don't add cheese to my burgers.

Maybe this post should go to the prophecies forum, but I'll say it anyway.

Neither McCain, or Obama will balance the budget, or even address the deficit. Neither one of them is good for this country, and this $1 salary concept is nothing more than a carnival gimmick that gets his supporters chanting "see, told you he'd fix everything".

reply to post by Unit541

this $1 salary concept is nothing more than a carnival gimmick that gets his supporters chanting "see, told you he'd fix everything".

Your overall perception of this election is depressing. It seems as if you are without any hope that ANY changes will be made by anyone. That's really quite sad and I hope that the person that is elected in November will prove you wrong.

I don't think that anyone posting has come anywhere close to even suggesting that McCain's $1 salary proposition means that we believe he'll 'fix everything'. I don't think it's possible for anyone to 'fix everything' but I do believe that in the next four years we can make great progress toward turning things around.

Jemison