Interesting concept. Up until the last senatorial election in Pennsylvania, we had an ultra conservative who didn't even live in the state as our senator (Santorum). Replaced him with a man whose children attend the neighborhood parochial school on his dime (part of the campaign literature) and not an exclusive school or an online charter school paid for by the state (Santorum is still in dutch with the state over collecting $$ for a PA online charter school when his kids never even lived in the district). Running joke was after he was out of office he would have to take his kids on vacation to PA and tell them 'this is where daddy used to be senator to' as they probably had never set eyes on the state.
AJ, I disagree with you that only military and/or veterans should vote. There are plenty of patriotic individuals, who, due to no fault of theirown, were unable to serve. So you would deny them their franchise?
2007-11-13 04:25:44
·
answer #1
·
answered by momatad 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
While cute, these types of things only make PR stories for those involved.
Here, once a year, the governor and a few state reps "attempt" to live off of food stamps for a week.
I just find it funny, and quite pointless, because these same people don't end the week in tears, decrying the system, and becoming driving forces of change.
It's just a stunt.
2007-11-12 17:07:12
·
answer #2
·
answered by powhound 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
Well first of all, all the numbers you have provided are not so useful because the cost of living differs greatly from one place to another… My advice to you is to write down all your expenses. When you receive the money, mark down everything you have spent money on… whether it's food, clothes, recreation, or anything else… Then see where you are spending unnecessary money, and find where you can save on some money. I remember a story of someone who was short of money when it came to paying his college fees. Someone gave him the advice I have just given you. Guess what? By cutting down on the coffee he bought every morning for $1, he was able to pay his tuition fees without being short of cash. From there, you can apply this to a household income. Of course, the needs of a family are much greater than the needs of a single person. Good luck.
2016-05-22 22:13:54
·
answer #3
·
answered by lessie 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
I think it is a very good idea. I know one hamburger chain in the UK requires senior executives to put in stints working in the front line at one of their outlets under the local supervisory staff to learn at first hand what makes the business survive. And it would be a good experience for politicians to see how real people live and how they have to cope with political and economic decisions taken without their input and over which they have no control.
2007-11-12 17:06:39
·
answer #4
·
answered by janniel 6
·
1⤊
0⤋
Interesting suggestion. I really think it would bring back the whole "for the people" part of politicians' jobs. But it'll never happen. Good idea, though.
Considering 80% of American is Middle class or lower in social standing, I dont think that the top 20% (upper middle, upper and elite class) citizens should represent the entire nation. We need more people who are from proverty striken areas and who remember their roots.
2007-11-12 17:30:06
·
answer #5
·
answered by Liiz 2
·
2⤊
0⤋
Good idea, Not sure i'd request that specifically, but to the heart of it, your saying that if you force those that represent us to see the world through our eye's...and live it, without any perks, Then maybe they might learn something, open their eye's or have a rude awakening.
Of course, you know that the secret service would court off the whole block and your life would get slowed down due to special road passes, ID checks, metal detectors, etc, etc, bureaucracy.
2007-11-12 17:03:29
·
answer #6
·
answered by Nightwind 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
No, but there is one presidential candidate that I immediately thought of -
“You know, I’m going to start thanking the woman who cleans the restroom in the building I work in. I’m going to start thinking of her as a human being” (From the book “The Case Against Hillary Clinton” by Peggy Noonan, p. 55)
2007-11-12 19:53:12
·
answer #7
·
answered by wider scope 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
No, like DC said, you would really deter good candidates. It would also give an even greater advantage to PACs through their lobbying activities.
I do support term limits that would include a time frame before a retired member congress can participate in lobbying activities of their own...This would never happen though.
2007-11-12 17:05:36
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
Only citizens should be allowed to vote or hold office. An to be a citizen you must have served your country through the military. All others are residents non voting .
2007-11-12 21:30:35
·
answer #9
·
answered by Mogollon Dude 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
I wouldn't require such a program, but the House tried something similar on a voluntary basis: living on food stamps for a week. Only four participated. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/15/AR2007051501957.html )
2007-11-12 17:08:08
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋