Moderators: Alan Millhone, rich beckwith
Ingo_Zachos wrote:I always thought that the salary of an elected body (parliament) or office (say president of the USA, Chancellor of Germany orBbritish PrimeMminister) should in some way be subject to the voter turnout of the last election.
Less voter turnout should result in lower salaries from the public hand, and only in case of an increased or at least a sufficient voter turnout, say 75 per cent (may be different in different counttries), it should be allowed to increase the salary.
So there should be a constitutional barrier of a given voter turnout, and only if it is above that, salaries may be increased, and only in case of a budget surplus.
A budget deficit should result at least in a freezing of the salaries of the respective elected office holders, until a surplus is made, as well as a low voter turnout.
Considerable low turnout or huge deficits should result in salary cuts.
But I guess this idea will never work, as those who decide on their salaries are always the politicians themselves.
Greetinx from rainy Dortmund,
Ingo Zachos
MostFamousDane wrote:...
The assumption here is that deficits is inherently bad which it obviously isn't. Great voter turnout isn't even necessarily a good thing in case you live in a real democracy (ie where corruption is illegal and where who you vote for matters) - it could just mean that people are happy with the way things are going.
I think that politicians that try to reduce deficits in recession times should be rolled in tar and feathers and
anybody with a degree in economics (or just a passing knowledge of the subject) should at any time be allowed to bitch slap said politicians
neilwenberg wrote:I will be happy to give my unbiased and uncontroversial opinion on any of the above topics
MostFamousDane wrote:The assumption here is that deficits is inherently bad which it obviously isn't. Great voter turnout isn't even necessarily a good thing in case you live in a real democracy (ie where corruption is illegal and where who you vote for matters) - it could just mean that people are happy with the way things are going.
Danny_Alvarez wrote:MostFamousDane wrote:The assumption here is that deficits is inherently bad which it obviously isn't. Great voter turnout isn't even necessarily a good thing in case you live in a real democracy (ie where corruption is illegal and where who you vote for matters) - it could just mean that people are happy with the way things are going.
Mister Thrane, I think people like you and I, who enjoy a relatively "higher" form of democracy than others; would have to admit that "real democracy" is in the eye of the beholder.
i might not be as dissapointed as you , but i still am dissapointed with the EURO results of last night.![]()
Regards
Danny Alvarez
George Hay wrote:Danny, you are so right about "individualitis." This is prevalent in many team sports! I'm not saying the Miami Heat are like that (well, not this year), but I am pulling for the Oklahoma Thunder in this year's NBA finals! Frank Deford in a recent weekly comentary on Public Radio stated that an aversion to tie games was uniquely American. Frank evidently missed the Public Radio broadcast of the BBC (in America) that discussed ties in Soccer Football. While a hard fought tie was appreciated, a gentlemen's agreement tie in a competitive situation was not!
--George Hay
neilwenberg wrote:People who molest kids should be shipped to Iran, the Iatolahs (idots) running the country know how to deal with everybody!! And of course molesters should be executed slolwly like over a roasting fire!
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest