What is your opinion on raising the salary to be more in line with what CEOs of Fortune 500 companies earn, say $1 million a year, to entice more qualified individuals to run for President?
2007-04-23 09:25:57 · 17 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
O Rielly- thanks for calling me an idiot. Very mature. I know $1 mil is low, I use that number because it shouldn't be TOO high for reasons other posters have stated (mainly greed).
BTW, potential candidates raise money through fundraisers, not necessarily use their own funds.
2007-04-23 09:38:31 · update #1
IF and WHEN we ever again get an ELECTED president, $400 K a year isn't bad since s/he will also get other expense allowances not counted in the $400 K and the right to live in a house that has an estimated value of over $100 million free, including a full domestic staff paid by you and I. And I want someone who doesn't think of it as a job just to "catapult the propaganda", but rather an adventure in service to the American people, as John Edwards has said. Hey that slogan was what they gave to join the Army at one time, right? Dumbya's acceptance of the $400K is another of his thefts. Down with Dictator Dumbya!!!
2007-04-23 09:45:41 · answer #1 · answered by rhino9joe 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
In order to have an office and a home in Washington and one's home state is very expensive. That is why only millionaires can really afford to run. Much of their office costs come out of that 400,000 a year. After expenses the President probably makes less than you or I do. That is another reason for a wealthy person and only a wealthy person running. How would we pay office expenses and how would someone pay their personal mortgage if they had to depend only on a meager salary of POTUS to do that? There is a lot to consider. Also I disagree that raising the President's salary would entice more qualified individuals to seek office. First the cost of running is in the millions which they would have to raise. Second most people who make less than 400,000 a year do not have the knowledge, connections or attitudes about work etc. that would be required to do the job.
2007-04-23 09:39:30 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I doubt it matters much. The past few Presidents have already been wealthy men. In fact, I think most recent Presidents have donated their salary to charity. The founding fathers established a salary for the presidency so that a poor person could become President.
Personally, I don't think raising the salary would "entice more qualified individuals" to run for President. It may, however, attract someone who wants to be President just to get rich.
2007-04-23 09:42:49 · answer #3 · answered by MoeTheBartender 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Unfortunatly the amount that the President gets paid has nothing to do with who wants the job. Look at how many tens of millions each canidate spends to get the job. They want the prestige, power, etc. not the pay.
I think that no matter how much you set the Presidents salary at the people who get the office will always be those who spend the most to make themselves appealing to voters, not the most qualified to hold the job.
-Just on voters opinion
2007-04-23 09:33:27 · answer #4 · answered by David C 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
When a person is running for president, I don't think the matter of salary comes in question. It has a lot to do with "duty" (ok, a bit), then power and prestige. Those who go for the job usually are well-off (or backed by $$) and then during their presidency and after they bever have to worry about money again.
2014-03-01 06:05:13 · answer #5 · answered by robert43041 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I do think it would be nice to be able to raise the salary to compensate people like our current president for all their hard work and stress under criticism, but if the salary was raised, then candidates may be driven money to run rather than the betterment of outr country and with all the scandal and corruption in this world, a corrupt president is NOT what America needs right now.
2007-04-23 09:32:28 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 3⤋
Yes, and another $400,000 non taxable personal expense account, and another $160,000 to his wife, just for being married to him. And while the twins were living at the white house they got $40,000 apiece. Lick my Willy signed that into law while he was in office. It was half that while he and Hillary were co-Presidents. That's another reason the liberal Democraps were so Peed off when a Republican got into the office.
_
2007-04-23 09:34:33 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I think for the amount of stress related to this job, it should be compensated much greatly than currently.
On the other hand, we probably don't want our country to be run like a corporation. But since it is already, why not?
2007-04-23 09:32:53 · answer #8 · answered by Mr. Beef Stroganoff 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I think that they should drop it to nothing.
How would offering more money entice more qualified people? It would only entice more greedy people.
By not paying them anything, it would open up the race to more qualified candidates who could not have afforded to run before.
2007-04-23 09:32:31 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
No, I don't think they should be paid at all unless they produce results. They are all rich anyway. The candidates will spend well in excess of 100 million dollars to get a job that pays 400,000 dollars a year. You tell me how that math makes any sense?
2007-04-23 09:31:28 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 3⤋