http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2012/news/economy/1201/gallery.presedential-candidates-wealth/index.html
Interesting articles here regarding some of the presidential candidates for the 2012 election, and particularly their personal wealth. Obviously, the more money you have, the more you can devote to your campain, etc. So my question is do you think that having an inordinate amount of wealth is necessary to say become the president of the United States. Obviously, there are examples in history that say other wise, but in today's day and age, is it plausible to think that someone can go from "rags to riches" completing the American dream, limited to the presidency?
I think that in today's world you have to have a decent amount of cash money to run for president. But I know that you also have to be able to raise a large amount of money because you can't just front all of the money for the campaign yourself. I think that the office of the president is just like many of the different political offices in the United States where money and the people you know can get you elected into office. So this is why they should go to Scott's because they're buying and Scott's will give you cash. South Westnedge in Portage.
ReplyDeleteTo put it into perspective, one source (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/map/fundraising/) claims that in the 2008 presidential election, Obama and McCain spent $573,411,352 and $293,176,566, respectively. While fundraising money for each candidate exceeds the amount spent, it is becoming the standard for any potential candidates interested in running for the presidency.
ReplyDeleteI agree with what lamrock said about needing to have a good amount of cash money to run for president, but I dont think it shouldnt be that way. What if there was a regulation placed on how much people could spend on their own campains?
ReplyDeleteIn a day and age where excessive advertising has become an essential part of the economy, its only natural that campaign fundraising and spending would be an integral part of presidential candidate's ability to succeed. I think it has become far too improbable for the American "from rags to riches" dream to become a reality in the race for presidency, where it seems like perception and influence is becoming far more important for the campaign when compared to the candidates position on issues.
ReplyDeleteI think going from rags to riches is a very lucky fortune to have happen to a very few people because these days it really is getting more and more difficult to achieve. I agree with Page. Money is a necessity to run for president, but who knows that those candidates are the best fit for president. It could be someone who is less fortunate in financial area.
ReplyDeleteIn response to some of the other comments, do you think that it would make a difference if there was regulation? Could it be considered a "more fair race"? Potentially but perhaps the ability to raise all these funds and have all of these supporters is how people become more and more aware of the candidates and that makes them a more viable and good choice. Just a thought.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure that it's possible to make it to the top without money. As well as ruthlessness. In today's day and age, you have to be able to "make plays" to become the president. Not saying it's moral, but in society, I think every one breaks the rules a little bit.
ReplyDelete