• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should america allow only the extremely wealthy to run for public office?

bongsaway

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 16, 2019
Messages
47,811
Reaction score
36,814
Location
Flori-duh
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
Should america allow only the extremely wealthy to run for public office?

One hundred million dollars or more qualifies you to run for office, all others need not apply. These folks got wealthy somehow, working hard, two jobs, babysitting at night, mowing lawns during the day etc. Or they are extremely smart and had a good idea which made them millions. If we get rid of all the riff-raff and only allow the wealthy to run it would make america even greater. We can count on them to be honest, they don't need more money. Will make decisions based in fact and not emotion since they are under no fiscal constraints to cloud their judgement. And finally we love to idolize the rich in america, so why not let them rule over us and protect us? If we the riff-raff treat them nicely enough they will in turn trickle down on us.
 
Should america allow only the extremely wealthy to run for public office?

One hundred million dollars or more qualifies you to run for office, all others need not apply. These folks got wealthy somehow, working hard, two jobs, babysitting at night, mowing lawns during the day etc. Or they are extremely smart and had a good idea which made them millions. If we get rid of all the riff-raff and only allow the wealthy to run it would make america even greater. We can count on them to be honest, they don't need more money. Will make decisions based in fact and not emotion since they are under no fiscal constraints to cloud their judgement. And finally we love to idolize the rich in america, so why not let them rule over us and protect us? If we the riff-raff treat them nicely enough they will in turn trickle down on us.

I cannot tell whether your remarks are sardonically offered or whether you'd have us consider them seriously. My short answer is "no."
  • Red:
    • Great wealth and high intellect are not inextricably linked.
    • One good idea can yield great wealth/income.
    • There is no guarantee that one who capitalizes one great idea will ever again have another great idea, to say nothing of his/her having a plethora of them, which, frankly, is what one needs in judges, policy makers and legislators.
  • Blue:
    • Whether one is or isn't "riff-raff" depends on the quality of one's character, not on the extent of one's wealth or income.
  • Pink:
    • What on Earth makes that be so?
  • Green:
    • That's true.
  • Tan:
    • One's financial position does not make one more or less likely to disabuse oneself of emotionally driven decision making. One's will to be thus disabused is what does.
  • Teal:
    • Fiscal constraints can cloud as well as enlighten one's judgment. It is the quality of one's judgment that matters, not the nature or extent of the fiscal constraint(s) one faces (or has faced).
 
Should america allow only the extremely wealthy to run for public office?

One hundred million dollars or more qualifies you to run for office, all others need not apply. These folks got wealthy somehow, working hard, two jobs, babysitting at night, mowing lawns during the day etc. Or they are extremely smart and had a good idea which made them millions. If we get rid of all the riff-raff and only allow the wealthy to run it would make america even greater. We can count on them to be honest, they don't need more money. Will make decisions based in fact and not emotion since they are under no fiscal constraints to cloud their judgement. And finally we love to idolize the rich in america, so why not let them rule over us and protect us? If we the riff-raff treat them nicely enough they will in turn trickle down on us.

If a barrista can run for Congress and get elected, it doesn't matter how much money the candidate has or how smart the candidate is.

What matters is how much money will people give the candidate...and what the candidate has to give in return.

btw, neither the poor candidate, the rich donor...nor any of the other Party Elites...give a rat's ass about you.
 
I cannot tell whether your remarks are sardonically offered or whether you'd have us consider them seriously. My short answer is "no."
  • Red:
    • Great wealth and high intellect are not inextricably linked.
    • One good idea can yield great wealth/income.
    • There is no guarantee that one who capitalizes one great idea will ever again have another great idea, to say nothing of his/her having a plethora of them, which, frankly, is what one needs in judges, policy makers and legislators.
  • Blue:
    • Whether one is or isn't "riff-raff" depends on the quality of one's character, not on the extent of one's wealth or income.
  • Pink:
    • What on Earth makes that be so?
  • Green:
    • That's true.
  • Tan:
    • One's financial position does not make one more or less likely to disabuse oneself of emotionally driven decision making. One's will to be thus disabused is what does.
  • Teal:
    • Fiscal constraints can cloud as well as enlighten one's judgment. It is the quality of one's judgment that matters, not the nature or extent of the fiscal constraint(s) one faces (or has faced).

Twelve dreams of Dr. Sardonicus. Really enjoy your answers for the most part. Dare I say they're, colorful? I post some questions for no other reason than to try to get people to think in the manner they're not used to thinking, mostly it fails.

Being naturally sarcastic is one of my many character flaws.
 
If a barrista can run for Congress and get elected, it doesn't matter how much money the candidate has or how smart the candidate is.

What matters is how much money will people give the candidate...and what the candidate has to give in return.

btw, neither the poor candidate, the rich donor...nor any of the other Party Elites...give a rat's ass about you.

I suppose anything is possible. I've even seen a picture of a coffee boy sitting in a meeting with the president and several other high up officials in the president's circle. Let's hear it for the coffee people of the world, or as the commercial puts it...a beverage distribution manager.
 
Should america allow only the extremely wealthy to run for public office?

One hundred million dollars or more qualifies you to run for office, all others need not apply. These folks got wealthy somehow, working hard, two jobs, babysitting at night, mowing lawns during the day etc. Or they are extremely smart and had a good idea which made them millions. If we get rid of all the riff-raff and only allow the wealthy to run it would make america even greater. We can count on them to be honest, they don't need more money. Will make decisions based in fact and not emotion since they are under no fiscal constraints to cloud their judgement. And finally we love to idolize the rich in america, so why not let them rule over us and protect us? If we the riff-raff treat them nicely enough they will in turn trickle down on us.

I think only TAX PAYERS should be allowed to vote. People who DO NOT PAY TAXES/RECEIVE MORE IN BENEFITS than they PAY, should not be allowed to vote money out of everyone else's pockets.
 
Should america allow only the extremely wealthy to run for public office?

One hundred million dollars or more qualifies you to run for office, all others need not apply. These folks got wealthy somehow, working hard, two jobs, babysitting at night, mowing lawns during the day etc. Or they are extremely smart and had a good idea which made them millions. If we get rid of all the riff-raff and only allow the wealthy to run it would make america even greater. We can count on them to be honest, they don't need more money. Will make decisions based in fact and not emotion since they are under no fiscal constraints to cloud their judgement. And finally we love to idolize the rich in america, so why not let them rule over us and protect us? If we the riff-raff treat them nicely enough they will in turn trickle down on us.

Good Americans should not stand for the stupid American demonization of the rich as though the rich are some sort of evil class of outcasts to be discriminated against with hateful jealous envious animosity.
 
I suppose anything is possible. I've even seen a picture of a coffee boy sitting in a meeting with the president and several other high up officials in the president's circle. Let's hear it for the coffee people of the world, or as the commercial puts it...a beverage distribution manager.

You know...if you are going to employ snark, at least make it relevant. You started talking about elected officials and, somehow, connected that with people at meetings.

Do you ever wonder why people disregard what you say? That's why.
 
Should america allow only the extremely wealthy to run for public office?

One hundred million dollars or more qualifies you to run for office, all others need not apply. These folks got wealthy somehow, working hard, two jobs, babysitting at night, mowing lawns during the day etc. Or they are extremely smart and had a good idea which made them millions. If we get rid of all the riff-raff and only allow the wealthy to run it would make america even greater. We can count on them to be honest, they don't need more money. Will make decisions based in fact and not emotion since they are under no fiscal constraints to cloud their judgement. And finally we love to idolize the rich in america, so why not let them rule over us and protect us? If we the riff-raff treat them nicely enough they will in turn trickle down on us.

Absolutely not. Hell to the no. No.
 
You know...if you are going to employ snark, at least make it relevant. You started talking about elected officials and, somehow, connected that with people at meetings.

Do you ever wonder why people disregard what you say? That's why.

It is relevant. We have a supposed billionaire sitting in the white house, another who has announced his candidacy and another considering running, again. So yes, it is snarky, I don't care for the idea of the one percent ruling america, which I believe is Putin's real dream an oligarchy running the world with him at the top.
 
Should america allow only the extremely wealthy to run for public office?

One hundred million dollars or more qualifies you to run for office, all others need not apply. These folks got wealthy somehow, working hard, two jobs, babysitting at night, mowing lawns during the day etc. Or they are extremely smart and had a good idea which made them millions. If we get rid of all the riff-raff and only allow the wealthy to run it would make america even greater. We can count on them to be honest, they don't need more money. Will make decisions based in fact and not emotion since they are under no fiscal constraints to cloud their judgement. And finally we love to idolize the rich in america, so why not let them rule over us and protect us? If we the riff-raff treat them nicely enough they will in turn trickle down on us.

FEDERAL - STATE - LOCAL - Government Funded Campaign Financing will fix the problem, with the add in that one has to have and show no less than 5 yrs of public services, and Understand National and International Politics and the Economic of National Municipalities. They must understand the Declaration of Independence and the Principles the Constitution is based within of how a Democratic Society Functions with a Republic System of Representative Governance. We must create FEDERAL - STATE - LOCAL "Vetting Groups" in which any and all Lobbyist Must Submit Their Proposals before it goes to any FEDERAL - STATE - LOCAL congressional body for vote.

The voice has to be given "to the people"!!!! Just like the Supreme Court decides which cases it will hear, "only after group review".... then we should use the same principles when we are to allow "lobbyist backed and promoted proposals" to be determined if it is to go before any FEDERAL - STATE - LOCAL voting body.

If we do this, "we take "the big money players" out of the game of buying away the voice of the people" !!! We have "Data Systems" today which never existed before, which can be used to "publicly post these proposals", and the public voice can weigh in, on what is to be voted upon, either they agree or disagree with the "Vetting Group"... which will determine what goes forth... for vote by elected Representatives of the people's voice.

We need not be subjected to the our voices being "usurped" by big money interest which generally comes at the deficit unto the people. There is no need for use to live in a system that is prompted to be "rushed" by who has the most money.

Everyone has a Cell Phone with Data Access.... and we can develop a secure system, by pin and second tier verification that access the platform to cast our vote, we are tracked anyway, why not use it in a way that benefits us and bring the voice of the nation into the hands of the people.

We need not continue acting like its the 1800's when most could not read, and many had no idea of how to access data and information, and we had no means for mass access to be provided to the public on Policies and Programs that impact our lives.

We should get ready "now"... because better systems are coming, because the younger generation know how to use the systems, access data and they are more and more demanding a voice in what affects their lives.

When we rule out the power of lobbyist, we also help stamp out corruption and we also change the trajectory of elected office, where it is no longer a "get rich game" of sell policy and promote self interest for the sake of a payday.

We must demand "INTEGRITY" within our system of Governance and how Representative Governance Functions.
 
FEDERAL - STATE - LOCAL - Government Funded Campaign Financing will fix the problem, with the add in that one has to have and show no less than 5 yrs of public services, and Understand National and International Politics and the Economic of National Municipalities. They must understand the Declaration of Independence and the Principles the Constitution is based within of how a Democratic Society Functions with a Republic System of Representative Governance. We must create FEDERAL - STATE - LOCAL "Vetting Groups" in which any and all Lobbyist Must Submit Their Proposals before it goes to any FEDERAL - STATE - LOCAL congressional body for vote.

The voice has to be given "to the people"!!!! Just like the Supreme Court decides which cases it will hear, "only after group review".... then we should use the same principles when we are to allow "lobbyist backed and promoted proposals" to be determined if it is to go before any FEDERAL - STATE - LOCAL voting body.

If we do this, "we take "the big money players" out of the game of buying away the voice of the people" !!! We have "Data Systems" today which never existed before, which can be used to "publicly post these proposals", and the public voice can weigh in, on what is to be voted upon, either they agree or disagree with the "Vetting Group"... which will determine what goes forth... for vote by elected Representatives of the people's voice.

We need not be subjected to the our voices being "usurped" by big money interest which generally comes at the deficit unto the people. There is no need for use to live in a system that is prompted to be "rushed" by who has the most money.

Everyone has a Cell Phone with Data Access.... and we can develop a secure system, by pin and second tier verification that access the platform to cast our vote, we are tracked anyway, why not use it in a way that benefits us and bring the voice of the nation into the hands of the people.

We need not continue acting like its the 1800's when most could not read, and many had no idea of how to access data and information, and we had no means for mass access to be provided to the public on Policies and Programs that impact our lives.

We should get ready "now"... because better systems are coming, because the younger generation know how to use the systems, access data and they are more and more demanding a voice in what affects their lives.

When we rule out the power of lobbyist, we also help stamp out corruption and we also change the trajectory of elected office, where it is no longer a "get rich game" of sell policy and promote self interest for the sake of a payday.

We must demand "INTEGRITY" within our system of Governance and how Representative Governance Functions.

One day it might happen but no time in the near future that I see. I hope the younger generations with today's tech and future tech can figure out a way to make that happen. Truly have a government that represents the majority's wishes for their term in office. Money and power corrupt so if we can remove many of the people controlling the money and power where they only have one vote like the rest of us, I'm all for it.
 
It is relevant. We have a supposed billionaire sitting in the white house, another who has announced his candidacy and another considering running, again. So yes, it is snarky, I don't care for the idea of the one percent ruling america, which I believe is Putin's real dream an oligarchy running the world with him at the top.

So...now you are walking away from your "coffee boy at a meeting" snark?

Okay.
 
Twelve dreams of Dr. Sardonicus. Really enjoy your answers for the most part. Dare I say they're, colorful? I post some questions for no other reason than to try to get people to think in the manner they're not used to thinking, mostly it fails.

Being naturally sarcastic is one of my many character flaws.

Red:
LOL....

image.jpg


Blue:
Thank you.
 
Good Americans should not stand for the stupid American demonization of the rich as though the rich are some sort of evil class of outcasts to be discriminated against with hateful jealous envious animosity.

Requiring the rich to pay the same tax rate that their secretaries pay is not demonizing them.

"...So instead, we checked Buffett's statement that the "mega-rich" pay about 15 percent in taxes, while the middle class "fall into the 15 percent and 25 percent income tax brackets, and then are hit with heavy payroll taxes to boot." We rated the statement True..."


Good Americans should not stand for the stupid American demonization of the poor as though the poor are some sort of evil class of outcasts to be discriminated against with hateful racism and animosity...
 
Requiring the rich to pay the same tax rate that their secretaries pay is not demonizing them.

"...So instead, we checked Buffett's statement that the "mega-rich" pay about 15 percent in taxes, while the middle class "fall into the 15 percent and 25 percent income tax brackets, and then are hit with heavy payroll taxes to boot." We rated the statement True..."


Good Americans should not stand for the stupid American demonization of the poor as though the poor are some sort of evil class of outcasts to be discriminated against with hateful racism and animosity...

Current tax laws are not overly greedy when it comes to taxing money in savings, trust and foundation accounts. To highlight a point, the Clinton Foundation may provide a clue as to why Congress does not take more money away from wealthy foundations.
 
American election finances should be capped as they do in many European nations.
 
Good Americans should not stand for the stupid American demonization of the rich as though the rich are some sort of evil class of outcasts to be discriminated against with hateful jealous envious animosity.

Which verse of the Mammon Bible did that come from??

All I know is Psalm 10 has a lot to say.
 
Current tax laws are not overly greedy when it comes to taxing money in savings, trust and foundation accounts. To highlight a point, the Clinton Foundation may provide a clue as to why Congress does not take more money away from wealthy foundations.

Believing that a secretary should pay the same tax rate as the mega-rich is one of the major differences between Dems and Repubs.

Liberals may have more generous hearts, but you have a point. Generally speaking, the higher someone climbs the income pyramid, the more they're opposed to taxes, regardless of which party they're in...
 
Which verse of the Mammon Bible did that come from??

All I know is Psalm 10 has a lot to say.

Psalm 10 is instructional. 'The wicked leftist democrat prosecutor in his pride doth persecute the poor Trump associate with ungodly abnormal brutal assault weapon-brandishing swarms of goose-stepping jack-booted storm troopers in front of hired camera crews to strike fear in the hearts of any other cowered enemy of the brutal democrat state who dares tell the truth about the corruption taking place in the wicked democrat oligarchy.'
 
Requiring the rich to pay the same tax rate that their secretaries pay is not demonizing them.

"...So instead, we checked Buffett's statement that the "mega-rich" pay about 15 percent in taxes, while the middle class "fall into the 15 percent and 25 percent income tax brackets, and then are hit with heavy payroll taxes to boot." We rated the statement True..."


Good Americans should not stand for the stupid American demonization of the poor as though the poor are some sort of evil class of outcasts to be discriminated against with hateful racism and animosity...

Yeah but...they don't create jobs and beside it's ok to not care about the 47%, it's much more important to protect the one percent.
 
Psalm 10 is instructional. 'The wicked leftist democrat prosecutor in his pride doth persecute the poor Trump associate with ungodly abnormal brutal assault weapon-brandishing swarms of goose-stepping jack-booted storm troopers in front of hired camera crews to strike fear in the hearts of any other cowered enemy of the brutal democrat state who dares tell the truth about the corruption taking place in the wicked democrat oligarchy.'

You do just love using your religion as a weapon against others. Personally I find it repulsive.
 
Believing that a secretary should pay the same tax rate as the mega-rich is one of the major differences between Dems and Repubs.

Liberals may have more generous hearts, but you have a point. Generally speaking, the higher someone climbs the income pyramid, the more they're opposed to taxes, regardless of which party they're in...

I think most ignorant democrat supporters are not aware of the progressive tax rates already in place from decades of bipartisan legislation establishing proper progressive taxation imposed fairly on All Americans.
 
Back
Top Bottom