2007-12-03 07:38:02 · 17 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Perks would include Air Force One, a chef, a free house to live in, maid service, etc. All the things most Americans don't have.
2007-12-03 07:43:26 · update #1
No future speaking engagements....
2007-12-03 07:48:38 · update #2
Works for the Bishops in the Morman Church. Of course they are assigned by higher ups, but he collects no salary. It is not meant to be a power for power or glory, but rather for helping and supporting people. The best Bishops are truly humble men.
2007-12-03 07:49:23 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes, most of them are wealthy already, so the money and the perks are very secondary. The president doesn't make much money in comparison to the private sector for a job that is 24-7 in the administrative field.
They'd run for the power and influence that they could use to make money on the side.
2007-12-03 08:18:03 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
One of the perks is controlling a country. You cant take away that perk because you aren't a president then...
2007-12-03 08:06:09 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
NO, having power and NO money to go along with it just AINT gonna happen in this country that is fueled by both, why do you think ALL of the modern presidents come from money and now they want the power to go with it.
2007-12-03 07:51:28 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Making this kind of rule would GUARANTEE that only the wealthy could run, although most of them are anyway. Being POTUS is a 24 hour a day job. Do you really want him doing dishes and making beds instead?
2007-12-03 07:51:16 · answer #5 · answered by mommanuke 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think we would only have truly qualified people trying for the position if it were volunteer. I myself would consider running if there were no benefits, just because people associate nonwealthy people running for president as an attempt to get rich quick.
2007-12-03 07:45:30 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Absolutely. Those who run for President usually do not need the money and could earn much more in private business. They do it for the power. After their term they can earn a lot in speaking engagements.
2007-12-03 07:41:33 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 1⤋
Yes. In fact, I think more people would. The philosophy behind paying the president a salary is to dissuade him or her from governing solely to benefit him or herself. With a salary, it is believed that the president could govern for the people without having to worry about his or her own well-being.
2007-12-03 07:41:37 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Ross Perot was willing. Said he'd only tak $1.00/yr if he'd have been elected. He made way more money in the private sector, and was willing to forgo the salary.
2007-12-03 07:47:39 · answer #9 · answered by steddy voter 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Would you want the person that took a job like that to run the country? In my opinion, the POTUS should be the highest paying job in the country. That way market forces will ensure we get the best candidates possible.
2007-12-03 07:41:44 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 3⤋