That's unfair, I wouldn't say only the rich can run for President, but instead, that someone is going to end up rich before they run for president... due to the nature of celebrity in the country and our political system.

Barak Obama is actually a PERFECT example.  Him and Michelle were doing pretty good for themselves, but I'm not sure you'd call them super wealthy or anything.  Obama didn't start getting rich himself until 2004, when he made the Keynote speech which fueled speculations that he would run for President.

All his big time wealth came from his books... about his life.  Which people only wanted because they thought he was going to run for president.

So really, who isn't going to be rich by the time they run for president?

Only someone not smart enough to sign a biography deal.

and only the rich ones.  Which, while there are actually a lot of poorer people who get elected to congress.

Well them and people who love kickbacks and bribery and now have a new reason for it.

Well, and people like Harry Reid who specifically write legislation to greatly inflate the value of their investments.

Well i guess my point is... pretty much nobody joins congress for the good pay... as there are tons of better ways to make money using congress.

How about limit amount of money that can be spent on campaigns?  So much money is wasted in USA just to get elected.  Also, I believe campaign and prescription drug ads should be banned from advertising.  All the money wasted in USA on campaigns could be used to feed and house the homeless, rebuild our crumbling infrastructure, provide healthcare to all, etc...  We literally waste billions if not trillions on campaign funding that usually results in shitty politicians that do nothing for the country.

1) But do they really?  They're president now.  What could those corps do if their poltician suddenly just turned on them.  Nothing.  In a binary system, the corporations have to bet on the least shitty option just like everybody else.  I think people overstimate the pull of big intrest money because of this.  Instead it just so happens big intrest money goes to people who already believe them, not people who get bought off.

2)  I'd think that sorta depends on the president.  Carter seemed really down to earth for example.  Clinton spent time in government, but he seemed like he understood the common man.  Additionally, sometimes standing in the middle of a problem isn't the most effective way to look at it.  Sometimes a rational "overhead" view makes more sense.

3) fair enough, but that's more on the candidates themselves, if you had candidates with better priorities... they get to pick what they are breifed on.

4) That one I agree with.

5)  Eh, I think they know the value of good data.  They just can't discern what good data is.   It's why statistics should replace classes like geometry.  (When was the last time you calculated the radius of a circle or how much stuff would fit in an isosoles triangle.).

Almost couldn't disagree more with this point. It wouldn't really change a thing. Tons of people love power and glory. Also even if you are a president and you don't get paid well, you can always find other ways to get money using your power as a president (favours etc).

Well obviously the second step would be to equate corruption in a publicly elected position, to treason, and slap a death sentence on it as such. A nation is its people, so betraying the people is the same as betraying the nation.

I can't say either way with certainty, but if I'm basing it off the patterns I've seen in my life, definitely not. :(

Not under this system unfortunately. Things must change, but it won't under this lot. Money talks here and is control of the game. I think this problem is the same in most of the world. Democratic or Dictator.

this time it's on the congrees and republicans.

Clinton is probably the best president we've had in recent times.