sort by best latest
If my country was into mass genocide, I am pretty sure I could find another country with disagreements that I would rather face.
Do you really want someone who can't manage their own finances to manage a nation's? I know a lot of people get mad that the wealthy have more power in government, but it kind of makes sense to me.
Sheepsquatch: You have a valid point. Many of the wealthy politicians in the US inherited their money or married into it. Some are self made. They have an edge when it comes to campaigning & have a hard time identifying with the middle class &
just because a person isn't wealthy, you think that means they can't manage their own money, surely you jest. some people priorities aren't about money.
If the person didn't have money or see any value in it, then they probably shouldn't be in charge of a nation's finances. Most decisions in government involve spending or generating money.
I'd have to agree with the concept that not having money doesn't automatically mean you can't manage it.Indeed, sometimes higher skills needed to manage lack of funds
Think rich folk can lead if in touch w/ average folks. Non-rich can also lead well
if it was just about finances, that would be great but how about morals, laws to protect the poor, health care etc. the government does a lot more then finance
A person in a position of power should be both competent and moral. Having one of these characteristics does not necessitate or exclude the other. Given the choice of two candidates, same morals, I would choose the one who has proven themselves.
Great points!!! Voted up