jump to last post 1-11 of 11 discussions (18 posts)

What do you think of President Obama's action to take a 5% (20,000 for the year)

  1. hazeleyedbeauty profile image77
    hazeleyedbeautyposted 4 years ago

    What do you think of President Obama's action to take a 5% (20,000 for the year) pay cut?

    President Obama announced that he was going to take a pay cut in order to relate to the other government workers who are taking pay cuts. He chose to cut his pay 5% and put that money back into the treasury. 5% of his salery turns out to be 20,000. Honestly what is 20k going to do for the nation? Is he leading by example in hopes that others might follow?

  2. dahoglund profile image82
    dahoglundposted 4 years ago

    I believe President Kennedy took no salary at all. He could afford it, but so can Obama.

  3. brianrock profile image87
    brianrockposted 4 years ago

    It's good PR. Given the size of the cuts to the overall federal budget, the small amount being handed back by Obama and other officials is pretty inconsequential. It won't do anything significant to offset the cuts and prevent the furloughs to federal employees (you know, the regular working people who actually need those paychecks), but it'll play well in the media.

    It's also a good political maneuver. It puts the House Republicans - who pushed so hard for these cuts - in a tough spot. It really undermines your credibility as a deficit hawk when you cut other people's pay and then insist on not reducing your own. Lately, public opinion has been swinging towards Congress in their handling of the budget crisis, and this could push opinion back the other way (unless the whole House Republican caucus suddenly starts handing money back as well).

    At the end of the day, it's just a nice political two step to try and shift the balance of power in Washington. Gotta gear up for the next budget showdown and, eventually, the 2014 midterm elections.

  4. FatFreddysCat profile image99
    FatFreddysCatposted 4 years ago

    It's a nice gesture but aside from getting him some good press for a change, it won't amount to much in the long run.

  5. ib radmasters profile image61
    ib radmastersposted 4 years ago

    I think that it is an empty gesture.
    That is about $20,000 dollars
    With all of the freebies that he  gets as president, this is a joke.

  6. Superkev profile image85
    Superkevposted 4 years ago

    I'd be more impressed if he would quit vacationing, golfing and hitting the never-ending campaign trail and start actually trying to govern.

    A meaningless PR gesture at best.

  7. celafoe profile image57
    celafoeposted 4 years ago

    all for show.   he spends our money like water on multi million dollar vacations and does this?     But those that worship this evil fraud will think it great.

    1. pagesvoice profile image85
      pagesvoiceposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      True evilness is when an entire nation is lied to in order to engage in a fabricated war. Does a president wearing a flight jacket with a banner reading Mission Accomplished ring a bell or have we forgotten already?

    2. Superkev profile image85
      Superkevposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      How about "I will cut the deficit in half by the end of my first term"?

  8. billd01603 profile image86
    billd01603posted 4 years ago

    Not a bad idea, but as other people have said it's an empty PR gesture. I wondered why Mitt Romney did not say he wouldn't take a salary when he was running for Pres. It might have gotten a few more votes.

    1. celafoe profile image57
      celafoeposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      HE DID same as he did for the olympics,  he was never a viable candidate. too many dumb people stayed home rather than vote for him. and the odumbo stole it any way

    2. pagesvoice profile image85
      pagesvoiceposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Why is it dumb for people to not vote for someone who doesn't have a patriotic bone in their body?

    3. Superkev profile image85
      Superkevposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      @pagesvoice Mitt is a damn sight more patriotic than the commie we have now.

  9. pagesvoice profile image85
    pagesvoiceposted 4 years ago

    The sad truth is political pundits, journalists, TV personalities and mega money from billionaires have divided this country more than any real party differences. The masses get fired up into a mob mentality of hate and mistrust. President Obama could donate his entire paycheck and it still wouldn't be enough for his haters.

    If we want to really examine the fat and entitled folks in Washington we need look no further than the members of the House. The House has scheduled 239 days off for the 2013 work (cough, cough) schedule. On top of their lucrative salaries, they are afforded the Mercedes of perks and the Rolls Royce of Health Care. Additionally, they have 2 gyms that are sealed off from public scrutiny and no one even knows how much these cost. Then, it is these same politicians that look down their noses and decry the evils of our "entitlements." Talk about the height of hypocrisy.

    Mr. Obama's gesture to donate 5% of his salary, although real, is basically symbolic. It's a shame that some can't see the forest for the trees in realizing he is leading by example.

    1. Superkev profile image85
      Superkevposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      That assumes he knows how to be a leader. His past 4 years prove that to be false.

  10. profile image0
    ViolinByCourtneyposted 4 years ago

    First of all, he can't legally take a voluntary pay cut, as nobel as that sounds. That was already addressed during the election when Romney said he did not want to be paid at all if elected and ended up conceding that he would accept his pay but donate it. Congress controls all federal money and must actually choose not to pay the president. Second, he still makes more than 99% of Americans and all federal employees, so quite frankly a measly 5% is insulting. It is worth noting that Congress cannot take a pay cut, either. Ironically in order to prevent Congress from RAISING their own pay, it is unconstitutional for changes in Congressional pay to take effect within the same session in which they were passed. Since that is the only amendment (number 27) enacted by the states rather than Congress since the Bill of Rights, it represents the fact that voters have the ultimate say, and if Congress were to repeal it, they would all be committing political suicide.

    1. profile image0
      ViolinByCourtneyposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Now, the pay of Congress and the President can be changed by a grass-roots Constitutional Convention, but our nation is currently so divided that such a move would be dangerous and would undoubtedly result in a riot.

  11. Jason Matthews profile image92
    Jason Matthewsposted 4 years ago

    I agree with Superkev's response. There is a lot more at play than $20,000. I'd rather have the president make twice as much, but give a little more focus to his job. The presidency isn't supposed to be easy. This is part of the reason George Washington only served two terms. I understand the need for rest, vacations, and especially family time. However, when serving in this critical position, with the nation and world watching you, I think a president should do a little less pleasure traveling, golfing, and campaigning and spend more time collaborating with others to make America a better, stronger, country.