Joe Millionaire or Average Joe For President.

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by MacNut, Apr 22, 2008.

  1. MacNut macrumors Core

    MacNut

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Location:
    CT
    #1
    Who would you rather have run the country, a millionaire or a middle class hard working person. Washington is run by millionaires and all they believe in is more money for themselves. We have 3 candidates that are all worth millions running for president. Congress is full of rich bastards. Would we be better off if some factory worker that knew how to spend money wisely that worked for the common man was running the country? Would you want someone like that as president? Or do you want the person that has more money then they can count who is just president for a fashion statement in charge. Your thoughts.
     
  2. tMac85 macrumors 65816

    tMac85

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2007
    Location:
    in a great place
    #2
    either the middle class person...or someone right in the middle. not a millionair, but someone who came from middle class and worked up to a very comfortable state. i think if someone came from nothing to something, that makes them. if that makes any sense
     
  3. iJohnHenry macrumors P6

    iJohnHenry

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2008
    Location:
    On tenterhooks
    #3
    Yes, let's go back to the $1 a year honorarium, and watch the lawyers leave in droves. :(
     
  4. PlaceofDis macrumors Core

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2004
    #4
    money is the only thing involved in politics?

    there's a lot more involved, and you know this. can't simplify it down to just a money issue
     
  5. MacNut thread starter macrumors Core

    MacNut

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Location:
    CT
    #5
    But how many average people could run the country. It can't be just a rich mans sport. Politicians have gotten out of touch with what the people want. Get the blue collar working man in there and you would see changes.
     
  6. iJohnHenry macrumors P6

    iJohnHenry

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2008
    Location:
    On tenterhooks
    #6
    Yes, power is also a corrupting force.

    But if you engender solid self-made business people to step up, you might actually get some people without an agenda.
     
  7. PlaceofDis macrumors Core

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2004
    #7
    i'm not against alternatives to the current situation, just against looking at them in such a narrowly defined perspective when its a multifaceted problem that can't be tackled in any one way.

    yes power corrupts, and likely would/will corrupt those who move up through the current system as it is regardless of background due to exposure and the time needed to establish ones-self, which in and of itself is another issue.

    everyone has bias, its impossible to leave behind.
     
  8. iJohnHenry macrumors P6

    iJohnHenry

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2008
    Location:
    On tenterhooks
    #8
    We agree on that.

    The current system would chew them up, and spit them out.

    Happens now and then up here too, with a good person going "against the grain".

    In this area, I look to the beaurocrats that run things, much like the ****** portrayed on Yes, Minister and Yes, Prime Minister.
     
  9. furcalchick macrumors 68020

    furcalchick

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2006
    Location:
    South Florida
    #9
    in an ideal world, the government would be more representative of the social and economic classes in the country, with a bunch of average joes and a few millionaire joes (but it wouldn't be forced representation) with everyone having an equal chance to win a seat in washington. i would say the biggest problem with the government today is it's close to the hip relationships with big lobby groups. that combined with rich politicians, many of them wanting to be ceo's of these lobby companies, create a total mess for the government. the rich politicians work for the corporations for the politicians benefit so them and their friends can make more money at the expense of average joe.

    the way it is now, republicans and democrats is like choosing between chocolate chip ice cream and cookies and cream ice cream. both parties right now see to be about big lobbies and the such, and only really differ on the types of lobbies they support. and the way the system is set up now, with few exceptions, only millionaires can actually be in real federal power with campaigns costing so much money, making the lobby bond a much bigger factor. this is where we get corporate welfare. i think if we were to kick out the lobbies and make running for office more accessible for the average joe, who is more likely to know what joe citizen wants than the millionaires who are more likely to be hanging out with their rich friends, i think we would start to see real change.
     
  10. thechidz macrumors 68000

    thechidz

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2007
    Location:
    New York City
    #10
    why do you think politicians ever cared about what people want? you think this is a democracy???
     
  11. Thomas Veil macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    OBJECTIVE reality
    #11
    Hey, if the millionaires have anything to say about it -- and they do -- they're gonna make sure you have to be rich to run.

    Way to go, Scaley. I haven't seen such a naked defense of one-sidedness since Rush Limbaugh blustered about the "unfairness" of the Equal Time provision. :mad:
     
  12. fridgeymonster3 macrumors 6502

    fridgeymonster3

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2008
    Location:
    Philadelphia
    #12
    I personally would want the most educated of the two people to run the country, especially the one that had a better background in these categories: politics (both domestic and foreign), the law, some knowledge of economics, and the ability to properly appoint knowledgeable people to government positions (there are over a thousand such positions). I would not care whether the person was rich or not; however, there is a reason that politicians are wealthy.

    A substantial portion of politicians have advanced professional degrees or come from wealthy families, such as Hillary (Yale Law) and Obama (Harvard Law); whereas, the average middle class person does not have an advanced degree and, obviously, doesn't come from a wealthy family since they wouldn't be middle class then. Advanced degrees matter because they significantly increase your earning potential. The 2000 census showed that for Americans, assuming working full-time between the ages of 25-64, with a high school diploma had the lifetime earning capacity of $1.2 million, college diploma $2.1 million lifetime earning capacity, a Master's degree holder had the lifetime earning capacity of $2.5, and Americans with a professional degree (i.e. JD or M.D.) had the lifetime earning capacity of $4.4 million. Now, if you are talking your run of the mill, average middle-class American, a NYT article I read would put their education level as a high school graduate. Therefore, the earning potential of Clinton or Obama is at least $3.2 million more than that middle-class average joe. What is staggering is the fact that the $4.4 million is the average for a professional degree; however, in the case of Clinton and Obama, neither is average because they went to the two premier law schools, where Obama was the editor of the Harvard Law Review, which is on of, if not the most, most prestigious law reviews in the country. So, of course politicians with higher degrees will be rich; however, if they obtained the education on their own and came from a middle class background than they still have middle-class roots. Of course, those roots may have become blurred with wealth, but I would rather have a candidate like Obama, who was not from a rich family but is rich now, as the president than someone whose daddy has money, power, and influence.
     
  13. MacNut thread starter macrumors Core

    MacNut

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Location:
    CT
    #13
    But does the rich man get out of touch, no matter what his childhood was money changes a person.
     
  14. hulugu macrumors 68000

    hulugu

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Location:
    the faraway towns
    #14
    There are two problems with our current politicians and it can't be narrowed down to personal wealth. First, the requirements of our current system create a professional politician. Someone will move from city-council to state congress or from secretary to governor without having worked in a separate career.
    I'm not sure what the solution is.

    The second problem is the wealth, whether personal or bartered for later favors, that office requires. I'm not sure what the solution is here, either.
     
  15. NAG macrumors 68030

    NAG

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2003
    Location:
    /usr/local/apps/nag
    #15
    It's one of those jobs where if the person wants it they're pretty much suspect.
     
  16. CalBoy macrumors 604

    CalBoy

    Joined:
    May 21, 2007
    #16
    One might say that being in any position of power can lead one to be out of touch.

    There isn't anything inherently bad about wealth that would prevent someone from being a good leader/legislator.

    In fact, many of our current senators and representatives are self-made in the sense that they came from ordinary middle-class backgrounds and were driven to go to school and become more.

    You might say that you want these very people in power because they aren't idle and are very intelligent. It's a common misconception that Congress makes bad choices in regards to obvious laws. Most points of contention are over very divissive issues that even the best and brightest can't answer.

    In the end if you believe that your representative is doing a bad job, don't vote for them. Unfortunately, most Americans happen to like their personal representative and also despise Congress. There's nothing new about that; it's been happening for many years and is the product of a system which rewards a legislator for looking after his constituents.

    Back on the topic of wealth though, do you imagine that a middle-class person would be capable of running a country or writing the law?

    There's a reason why most politicians are fairly well educated: those skills are needed for the job.
     
  17. solvs macrumors 603

    solvs

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    LaLaLand, CA
    #17
    A working class person couldn't afford to run.
     
  18. MacNut thread starter macrumors Core

    MacNut

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Location:
    CT
    #18
    And there in lies the problem.
     
  19. Antares macrumors 68000

    Antares

    #19
    That makes me think of the firemen commercial thats been running on tv lately. Have you guys seen it?

    Essentially, it's a bunch of firemen in a government chamber passing laws that makes sense without the pandering and all the BS that typically goes on. Oddly enough, I don't remember what the commercial was for other than the message: Things would just "get done" and actually accomplished if there wasn't all the typical government bureaucracy.

    Indeed. It abhors me how much money is spent on elections. Total up how much was/will be spent by all the major candidates for the US Presidential campaign. We're talking close to half a billion US dollars for the campaign. That ludicrous. That money could be better spent helping people and the country. Average Joe wouldn't even be able to get his name out there compared to what wealthy front-runners are able to pay.
     
  20. MacNut thread starter macrumors Core

    MacNut

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Location:
    CT
  21. atszyman macrumors 68020

    atszyman

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2003
    Location:
    The Dallas 'burbs
    #21
    I maintain that the people best suited to run the country are also the ones who don't want the job, so right off the bat we're at a disadvantage.

    I think every politician should be forced to spend at least 5 years living on $150,000/year salary supporting their family (assuming wife and kids), cut it down to $80,000 if they are single. That is a well above average salary and if they can't seem to make ends meet on that, then how can we expect them to understand the problems of those who make less than that and manage to make ends meet?

    At least if they had to deal with the woes of an upper-middle/low-rich lifestyle for a few years maybe they might have a clue.

    Maybe open up the same program to starting celebrities and teach them how to save a little bit of money. There is no way anyone who makes $25 million in one year should ever file for bankruptcy, that one year should be more than enough to live comfortably for the rest of your life.
     
  22. solvs macrumors 603

    solvs

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2002
    Location:
    LaLaLand, CA
    #22
    Didn't say it was right. In ancient times, leadership was given not taken, and in some societies, you simply had your turn. Like jury duty. Don't know if we'd want to do that, but there should be a better way than there is. On the other hand, at least none of the people running were born millionaires, so that's something.
     
  23. Don't panic macrumors 603

    Don't panic

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2004
    Location:
    having a drink at Milliways
    #23
    that would guarantee that only the very rich would be represented in government.

    how many average guys do you know that can support a family on $1/year salary? me neither.

    now, if you were to provide, say, $ 200,000/year, but with all other assets frozen we might be getting somewhere.


    As for the original question, could we get Joe Smart, for a change?
     
  24. davidwarren macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2007
  25. atszyman macrumors 68020

    atszyman

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2003
    Location:
    The Dallas 'burbs
    #25
    It would also guarantee that only the power hungry would work in politics. The salaries for elected offices could well be exceeded in the private sector by most of the elected officials. They look great to us but think of how much lawyers can make if they are any good, and compare that to your typical elected official's salary.
     

Share This Page