When CNN let the Yahoos submit questions via Youtube, and they allowed a snowman to ask a question, i came up with a question they would never allow the candidates to answer. but i would love to hear what you'd say. here's my question to the Presidential wannabes: Forget all the issues except money for the moment. they don't mean squat compared to money. Considering the housing headaches, the deficit, the bailing out of our banks by terrorists/saudis/anybody with a bucket of oil, considering the widening gap between working poor and filthy rich, Do you honestly believe anyone dumb enough to spend 100 million dollars on a job that only pays 300 plus grand a year is financially wise enough to lead us to a financial recovery? Should Anyone that stupid should be our leader? Would you hire a person to be your accountant if you knew he paid the manager at Burger King half a million dollars to be fry boy, making only 6.25 per hour? (I know there are perks to being president to take in consideration, but geez, i am being practical here.) think away!
OMG No political discussion. I don't think this is political, but the fact that you don't earn trillions being president (although you are kind of set up for life) means that the people shouldn't really be in it for the money. Which is a good thing.
This isn't political though. It's actually an interesting question. It would be like if a rancher fed a bull for a whole year, and when he butchers it, only eats the tail. This is more poking fun at any and all sides blowing huge amounts of money to get a poor paying job.
Well, let's think about this then. For one thing, the candidates are not necessarily spending the money, per se. People who want them to be President are. They wouldn't have all that campaign money to blow if they weren't running for President in the first place. Besides that, the ability to have that much influence over the direction the country takes for the next four years or more could easily be considered much more valuable than the money. There are countless numbers of people who blow unimaginable fortunes trying to influence the government. Groups of such people are often called "lobbies". The Presidency is worth far more than that.
That's the point i was aiming for. I was worried i'd get hosed for asking a political question when i am actually trying to understand the mentality behind such a thing. kinda like that quote that was used in "The Lost World" about the mountain climber..."why did you climb up there to die?" perspective. one other thing. there are pros and cons of the job, but to me the cons outweigh the pros. look at a pictures of presidents before taking office and then look at their pictures 4 years later. it ages them, it wears them down, they take abuse, criticism, they get hammied by 435 in one wing and 100 in the other of the house next door...to me the migraines alone wouldn't make up for the effort. good point about it not being their money, per se. still, the question remains, why all that money for that kind of return? "There are countless numbers of people who blow unimaginable fortunes trying to influence the government. Groups of such people are often called "lobbies". The Presidency is worth far more than that." touche`. as for the question: one of my closest friends is working on her Ph.D and as a game with her, (since she is now one of those Elitist snobs -her own words- of academia) we ask each other questions like this just keep the brain cells sparking. if this is indeed a no-no (and politics is ever so touchy) ya got my humble apologies and am first to agree with this topic getting deep sixed.
I don't know, I just find it sad that it seems $100+ million dollars must be spent to even have a shot at the presidency. That amount of money alone is just staggering to someone who makes nowhere near enough to even make that in a lifetime. The idea of being indebted to lobby groups isn't exactly all that appealing either because, I would tend to think, that would lead to "favors" being asked.
This skirt #4, but it's still open, so I'll bite. The analogies in this thread--the McDonald's fry boy and the cow's tail--aren't really accurate. The President is such a unique position that I'm not sure there even is an analogy that works. And I'm not an idealist or a fool about the most, if not all, presidential candidates. But some people are motivated by things besides money. That could be a bad thing--if they're after power--but it could be a good thing--if they're genuinely driven to make the world a better place.
I guess the presidency is just something i can't understand. There are other ways of changing the world and without so much being owed for getting the job. i look at Bill Gates and think that he has power, influence and other tools at his disposal that when he retires, he could throw it at problems and get things done without fighting separate factions. he can just say, my damn money, my damn tech, deal with it. i can understand running for congress/senate. that i can grasp b/c it is on a smaller scale and am able to see the obvious returns from it. i guess the only analogy to offer about the presidential thing might be is the man who butchered his bull and only got the tail, he also got to eat it at the VIP box at the Super Bowl with armed guards and VIPs from all other countries lined up to offer their 2 cents about which steak sauce to use. could still be wrong. Ya know, do you think Cobra Commander, Megatron, Skeletor ever thought about the f-ing headaches they would have when they finally won and ruled it all? somehow, i doubt it. lol
