 |
| |
|
|
Sikander
|
 |
Boulder, Colorado, United Snakes of America
Jan 2000
time: 22:20
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Boris Godunov
How about Bill Clinton? Born poor and from Arkansas. Yet on his talents and intelligence he was able to become the President of the United States.
Sure, he's more of an exception than a rule, but he shows it is possible. Just don't expect it to be a Republican who does it. |
What about Richard Nixon? He lived in a shack while he attended Duke Law School because while he had a scholarship to pay for tuition, he had no money from his family for living expenses.
Gerald Ford's father was a paint salesman, which is hardly the sort of career a blue-blood dabbles in.
Eisenhower's family wasn't wealthy either. The only really wealthy Republican presidents since the second world war are in fact the Bush's pere and fils.
The Democrats in the period since the second world war have the middle class Harry Truman, the lower class Bill Clinton, along with the quite wealthy JFK and LBJ.
The claim that none but the rich have a chance to become president is completely bogus, and as bogus when applied to the Republicans as the Democrats. Class mobility is not only merely possible in the U.S., it is still common. Both of my parents were poor, growing up on farms far from cities or money. Both were the first in their families to attend college, and both were able to establish themselves comfortably in upper middle class careers, my father as a professor and my mother as a physician.
Of course wealth is an advantage. Obviously a disproportionate number of our presidents have come from some wealth, but it's not fair to make the claim that one's class disqualifies one from high office, and the proof lies in the fact that less than half of the presidents of the last 50+ years have come from the upper class.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Rogan Josh
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sikander
Of course wealth is an advantage. Obviously a disproportionate number of our presidents have come from some wealth, but it's not fair to make the claim that one's class disqualifies one from high office, and the proof lies in the fact that less than half of the presidents of the last 50+ years have come from the upper class. |
OK, so what is the proportion of 'working class' people in the US, and what is the proportion of US Presidents that have come from 'working class' backgrounds?
Maybe then you will see the point.
Anyway, even if a candidate does come from a working class background, they cannot realistically stand for President unless they have earned millions of dollars on the way. In fact they have to be obscenely wealthy. Now, I understand that Americans have a different view of 'good' and 'bad' from Europeans, but I don't think you are picking your Presidents from the most principled segment of society.
There are of course always exceptions, such as Carter, but your system almost guarantees that you elect an unprincipled sh*t-head.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sikander
|
|
Boulder, Colorado, United Snakes of America
Jan 2000
time: 22:20
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Rogan Josh
OK, so what is the proportion of 'working class' people in the US, and what is the proportion of US Presidents that have come from 'working class' backgrounds?
Maybe then you will see the point. |
If "the point" is that wealthy people serve in positions of power disproportionally, then I have not only already seen it, I have made it in the portion of my post which you quote. Can you read at a level that allows you to attend University?
quote:
Originally posted by Rogan Josh
Anyway, even if a candidate does come from a working class background, they cannot realistically stand for President unless they have earned millions of dollars on the way. In fact they have to be obscenely wealthy. Now, I understand that Americans have a different view of 'good' and 'bad' from Europeans, but I don't think you are picking your Presidents from the most principled segment of society.
There are of course always exceptions, such as Carter, but your system almost guarantees that you elect an unprincipled sh*t-head. |
Amusingly, the only president in the last 60 years or so who came from a lower or middle class background and who had attained the status of millionaire before he became president is Jimmy Carter. Of course none of them managed to become "obscenely wealthy", though perhaps you define that as anyone wealthier than yourself. Honestly, if you are going to opine about something that you don't know the first thing about, try to state opinions about things which are a matter of opinion rather than factual matters which can be refuted in a 30 second search on the internet.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Rogan Josh
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sikander
Amusingly, the only president in the last 60 years or so who came from a lower or middle class background and who had attained the status of millionaire before he became president is Jimmy Carter. Of course none of them managed to become "obscenely wealthy", though perhaps you define that as anyone wealthier than yourself. Honestly, if you are going to opine about something that you don't know the first thing about, try to state opinions about things which are a matter of opinion rather than factual matters which can be refuted in a 30 second search on the internet. |
Why bother with 30 second searches on the internet when you provide perfectly adequate supplies of self-contradiction in your own posts? For example, you have already stated that Clinton came from a 'poor' background, but he was most definitely a millionaire before he became President.
You can't have it both ways. Every recent US President has been a (multi) millionaire before becoming President. Either they have been born poor and risen to these riches (rather rare) or have been born into priviliged families (more common). You seem to be suggesting that they gain their wealth in some other way?
Any way you look at it, you have to be bloody rich to be allowed to be US President. Does this seem right to you?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Boris Godunov
|
 |
Portland, OR
Aug 2001
time: 00:20
|
|
Roland:
I'm pretty sure that, going by the average incomes of Germans, Schroder was much wealthier than the average German resident when he came to power.
The fact is, in order to be in a position to assume leadership in any Western democracy, you will just naturally have a good deal of money as compared to the majority of the population. Since you have to either have a load of political experience to ascend to party leadership, or enough money to finance an independent run, having money is just par for the course.
The only times when poor and lower-class folks come to power is, usually, revolutions. But even in the French Revolution, leadership positions were held by the wealthy bourgeousie like Robespierre and Danton, not peasants. The leaders of the American Revolution were wealthy planters themselves.
Hmm...I'm teetering dangerously close to a tangent of a tangent... 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Rogan Josh
|
|
So what lowest level of wealth that a US President has had on becoming President, in say the last 50 years.
I suspect it is still in the multi-millionaire bracket. This is most definitely not true for European countries.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:20.
Apolyton Time is 00:20. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
03-07-2002 07:20
Bingo.
Sikander, well put.
.
|