Anyone concerned that only millionaires can hold Office in the U.S.?

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,889
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Anyone concerned that only millionaires can hold Office in the U.S.?

Anyone???

When was the last non-millionaire to run for office?

Can someone show me where in the Constitution that says being rich is the primary requirement to run for office?

This race below is an example of one millioniare out to replace another.

If there wasn't a millionaire to step up to the plate Lieberman would still be unchallenged.

7-29-2006 Struggling Lieberman faces political abyss

Once, Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut seemed on the brink of the vice presidency, a principled moderate in a party that didn't always warm to them. Now, hewing to his support for the war in Iraq, he confronts a political abyss, abandoned by all groups but the poorer, older and less educated Democrats in his state.

"The last three times I voted for him, but I will never vote for him again," Cheryl Curtiss of West Hartford, Conn., said recently of Lieberman as she waited for primary challenger Ned Lamont to speak at a campaign fundraiser.

"The war is the big piece," said Curtiss, 52. "I don't think it can be minimized. All of our tax dollars are going there. It's killing Americans. It's killing Iraqis. We went there on lies."

Like other Democrats, Lieberman voted to authorize the war in Iraq. Unlike others, he got a nationally televised kiss on the cheek from President Bush after the 2005 State of the Union address.

Two years later, his support for the war guaranteed a challenge.

Several names circulated before the emergence of Lamont, a millionaire businessman whose political experience is limited to local office in Greenwich, Conn.

Lamont quickly signed up top campaign aides with long experience in statewide grass-roots politics and liberal alliances, and gradually began tapping into the anger that had built up.

"Finally, a senator who will stand up to George Bush," promises his campaign Web site.
 

Termagant

Senior member
Mar 10, 2006
765
0
0
The money is needed to send the candidate's name and message to voters in the form of mailbox fliers, signs on lawns, TV adds, paid consultants, rental for office space, donuts and coffee, etc. If a candidate was energizing enough all of this could be done by volunteers and donations. I guess we don't have that many energizing, charismatic candidates who are true leaders and attract followers and volunteers.

How's your presidential bid going?
 

Lurknomore

Golden Member
Jul 3, 2005
1,308
0
0
Weren't the founding fathers considered members of the plutocracy?
I'm sure they were many times richer than most non-bondsmen laborers of their days. I mean, the presidency will always remain exclusive to outsiders.
And don't forget Clinton- it's def. possible to win from humble beginnings if you have charisma, height, and a strong base in the South.

**so ends my P&N post for the year before dmcowen dissects my post**:D
 

NTB

Diamond Member
Mar 26, 2001
5,179
0
0
Originally posted by: 5150Joker
I think it's better having someone that's succeeded in life in some way to be in office than the average joe.

In this, I agree with you - but what about some dumdum that inherits his fortune and barely works a day in his life?

Nate
 

Termagant

Senior member
Mar 10, 2006
765
0
0
Originally posted by: NTB
Originally posted by: 5150Joker
I think it's better having someone that's succeeded in life in some way to be in office than the average joe.

In this, I agree with you - but what about some dumdum that inherits his fortune and barely works a day in his life?

Nate

Have we ever seriously had someone of below average intelligence as president? I mean under 100 IQ or an equivalent standard. And I am serious even regarding recent presidents.
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
In the US we bestow sainthood upon the rich and movie stars and rock stars and pro athletes. They are our princes, dukes, earls and barons.. they are the peerage that are exalted above all others. It is why folks drive luxury cars... it shows this nation that 'I'm almost a baron'.

Now out of that mix above - all of whom are rich - the only unnamed class are those who are business rich or inherited rich. There may be some other 'rich' but my point is that the business or inherited rich are thought to be leaders of superior capability. Some sports figures are too but they really do have to show it in some fashion to get elected to congress or the senate... Some war heroes get elected with out money .. Duke Cunningham and others.. but soon they too become rich... somehow.

The money to run for a 'seat' for the first time usually comes from the runners pocket and some from the modest donations they may get. But they all need staff and help .. lots of help..

When Jerry Brown ran for State Office he had name (Pat his dad) and money but it took enormous sums of money to fund his initial run - his dad's and the democratic party.

The real key is to do with the party. You gotta buy the seat if the apparatus is not in your corner or if they feel you are not going to win.. they devote $ to keeping seats first and then to the folks with the best shot on a national basis..

BUT.. after the first successful election you are home free... a winner.. rich or poor you now have the backing of the party..

Oh.. IMO
 

Stunt

Diamond Member
Jul 17, 2002
9,717
2
0
Originally posted by: 5150Joker
I think it's better having someone that's succeeded in life in some way to be in office than the average joe.
Agreed.
The average person is misinformed on the issues and steer the country in the wrong direction (ie. Dave).
 

Stunt

Diamond Member
Jul 17, 2002
9,717
2
0
In Canada the two recent Liberal Prime Ministers were very wealthy...Paul Martin is worth more than Bush and Cheney combined, Chretien is also very wealthy.

Our new Conservative Prime Minister (Harper) is not wealthy at all but is well educated and an excellent leader.
About Harper:
* Born in Toronto
* Received A+'s with several marks close to 100%
* Received Richview Collegiate Institute's highest graduating average
* Briefly went to University of Toronto
* Completed a Masters of Economics at University of Calgary
* Active member of the Young Liberals Club
* Trudeau's National Energy Program changed his political allegence
* Chief aide to James Hawkes (MP) in the Progressive Conservative party
* Critical of Mulroney's fiscal policies and left the party
* Credited with creating the Reform party platform
* Chief advisor and speech writer for Deborah Grey
* Core member of the Reform party: known as a staunch fiscal conservative, federalist and social moderate
* Initially supported and voted for the gun registry
* Left the Reform party and his seat because of concerns the Reform Party was being hijacked by social conservatives
* Became president of the National Citizen's Coalition: a libertarian-conservative group avocating privatization, tax cuts and government spending cuts
* Served as a political commentator for the CBC
* Was asked to lead the Progressive Conservative Party in 1998
* Oh...and he's a big fan of ice hockey :)
 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,515
0
0
Originally posted by: Termagant
Originally posted by: NTB
Originally posted by: 5150Joker
I think it's better having someone that's succeeded in life in some way to be in office than the average joe.

In this, I agree with you - but what about some dumdum that inherits his fortune and barely works a day in his life?

Nate

Have we ever seriously had someone of below average intelligence as president? I mean under 100 IQ or an equivalent standard. And I am serious even regarding recent presidents.

Unlike a lot of people, I don't think Bush is as stupid as he sounds...but I also think he'd be some mid-level manager if he wasn't born a Bush.
 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,515
0
0
Originally posted by: Stunt
Originally posted by: 5150Joker
I think it's better having someone that's succeeded in life in some way to be in office than the average joe.
Agreed.
The average person is misinformed on the issues and steer the country in the wrong direction (ie. Dave).

Maybe (probably) true, but being wealthy does not mean you are more informed on the issues or are a better candidate for leadership. I know, I know, the capitalist in you would like to believe that the rich are somehow "better", but it's just not true... They are often better or more successful at their particular area of focus, but like most people, they are very mediocre at things outside of their field. It is a rare person who has the combination of knowledge and the ability to learn needed to make a good leader for the country...and "being rich" is not even close to selective enough.

In any case, there are plenty of cases where being rich and being successful are not really the same thing, our current president being a good example. He was a pretty unremarkable businessman, and would be just another upper-middle class BMW driver if he wasn't a Bush. He is without a doubt a very average person who just happened to be born into a very unaverage family. That seems like the LAST person we would want as president.
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,562
9
81
Originally posted by: Stunt
Originally posted by: 5150Joker
I think it's better having someone that's succeeded in life in some way to be in office than the average joe.
Agreed.
The average person is misinformed on the issues and steer the country in the wrong direction (ie. Dave).
One can quickly become informed. It's less likely to quickly become honest.

I'd sooner vote for an honest uninformed person than an informed snake. Too bad it's only the latter that run for office anymore.
 
Aug 14, 2001
11,061
0
0
We need some homeless unsuccessful bums to run for office. Xenu forbid if an actually successful person runs for office!
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,889
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: Termagant
The money is needed to send the candidate's name and message to voters in the form of mailbox fliers, signs on lawns, TV adds, paid consultants, rental for office space, donuts and coffee, etc. If a candidate was energizing enough all of this could be done by volunteers and donations. I guess we don't have that many energizing, charismatic candidates who are true leaders and attract followers and volunteers.

How's your presidential bid going?

They said no where unless I come up with $10 million cash.
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,889
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: Stunt
Originally posted by: 5150Joker
I think it's better having someone that's succeeded in life in some way to be in office than the average joe.
Agreed.
The average person is misinformed on the issues and steer the country in the wrong direction (ie. Dave).

Steering the Country into oblivion via Iraq was properly informed???
 

Jeff7

Lifer
Jan 4, 2001
41,596
20
81
Originally posted by: Stunt
Originally posted by: 5150Joker
I think it's better having someone that's succeeded in life in some way to be in office than the average joe.
Agreed.
The average person is misinformed on the issues and steer the country in the wrong direction (ie. Dave).

Meanwhile the millionaires that got there by somewhat illicit methods (or those born into wealth) may be quite out of touch with the middle-class and what they deal with. Or even upper-middle class. I saw an article recently where someone is complaining that he's living paycheck-to-paycheck. He's making $77,000 a year for god's sake!!!!! WTF is he buying every week to warrant that? Household income here is probably less than $40K a year (my dad never tells me what he earns for some reason), and we have savings accounts. These rich folk should try working hard at some manual labor job making $10/hr or less, then learn what paycheck-to-paycheck really means. Learn what it's like when you can't afford to take a day off to see the doctor for an injury, simply because you cannot afford to lose the pay from that day.

I will say though, there are some rich people who did make it to where they are by genuine work and intelligence. There are some though who make it there by any means they see fit, ethical issues be damned.
 

catnap1972

Platinum Member
Aug 10, 2000
2,607
0
76
Originally posted by: NTB
Originally posted by: 5150Joker
I think it's better having someone that's succeeded in life in some way to be in office than the average joe.

In this, I agree with you

Another thing to think about--you get someone poor but "seems" honest into office. "Big Slick Oil Company" comes along and offers him $50 million dollars if he makes sure any proposals for alternative energy are fed right into the shredder. What will he do???

 

ECUHITMAN

Senior member
Jun 21, 2001
815
0
0
Originally posted by: catnap1972
Originally posted by: NTB
Originally posted by: 5150Joker
I think it's better having someone that's succeeded in life in some way to be in office than the average joe.

In this, I agree with you

Another thing to think about--you get someone poor but "seems" honest into office. "Big Slick Oil Company" comes along and offers him $50 million dollars if he makes sure any proposals for alternative energy are fed right into the shredder. What will he do???

Yeah because rich people never are swayed by special interests.

Success can be measured many different ways. Is the bar so high that to be successful you have to be a millionaire? If that is the case I am pretty sure that around 90-95% (maybe more) of the people in the US are therefore unsuccessful.

I hardly think that being rich = being better informed. There is nothing to back that up, there is no evidence so suggest that you have to be rich to be able to read a newspaper. Personally I think being informed means you have the ability to look not only at the bigger picture (i.e. the world) but also look at the little picture (i.e. your town). Most people would agree that the reason they do not like politics or politicians is they feel disconnected to their representative. If to be political you have to be informed, and to be informed you have to be rich, than why is it that most people would agree that most politicians have no idea what it is like to make $10/hr? Why is it most people agree that politicians are so disconnected to the general population that a majority of what our elected leaders work on is out flanking the other side on wedge issues (i.e. gay marriage, but THAT is something that is directly effecting the family that has a combined income of $30K a year).
 

Stunt

Diamond Member
Jul 17, 2002
9,717
2
0
Another side issue, but those who are struggling are liable to be biased and give more support to areas where they were immediately affected. A wealthy person can take themselves out of the equation and implement policies best for most people. For example the needs of a homeless person is different than someone who has to care for a handicapped person, or a father who has to support his daughter going to university.

The average person would endorse tax cuts and would invest heavily in bloated social programs. Not far off from Bush; but he's not the best example of a good President; that is brutally obvious. For the most part I am more accepting of a successful leader than someone who cannot stay on their feet. Don't get me wrong, there are rich morons out there but I specifically agreed with "someone that's succeeded in life"...free loaders and inheritance is not what I consider success in life.
 

Stunt

Diamond Member
Jul 17, 2002
9,717
2
0
Dennis Kucinich was extremely poor at one point; extremist leftists are not going to hold office. Michael Moore endorsement....:roll:
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,728
6,293
126
There really should be more of a slice of society in Office(s) than there is, but what can you do when all the Voters equate $$s with "Success".
 

GroundedSailor

Platinum Member
Feb 18, 2001
2,502
0
76
Poor and middle class generally tend to be more honest. The rich, as someone pointed out, are good at the one thing that made them rich. but the rich tend to me more comfortable with the offers of making more and bending the loopholes. The middle class and poor on the other hand are more used to being honest to keep their jobs. The extreme poor would have more incentive to get their hands on extra money without worrying about the ethics.

I'd be more comfortable with someone like Barak Obama who came from modest means to rise up using his own talents than a below average rich person born with connections like our current president.


 

zendari

Banned
May 27, 2005
6,558
0
0
Not suprising to see the lefties dump on Lieberman only a few years after they made him big bad VP. Party of tolerance indeed.
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
F**k Lieberman, there are plenty of folks who voted "nay" on HJ Res. 114 who would be a far better candidate. Now *that* was a defining moment -- to vote "no" against authorizing war on Iraq despite the intense jingoistic flag-waving going on in this country at the time. That took some (political) huevos grande.

EDIT: Senate voting record on Joint Resolution 114