Who would you rather see running the country? (Reagan, Simpson, leader)

[LM1]

A) Self-made people with a great deal of earned wealth and fundamental financial understanding.

B) People who come from a long line of financial success and have inherited their money.

C) People who are not financially successful, thus have a great deal of understanding of the sufferings people "like them" must endure and promise to raise taxes to "make things right" or "equal"

D) I don't believe ones financial position in life is important when it comes time to elect a leader. A wealthy person will be just as fair and insightful an economic leader as someone with little money.

[HighPlainsDrifter73]

I don't like any of the choices, but 'C' would come the closest. Let's forget the raising taxes part. They're high enough already. I want to see a tax cut, but with corresponding less spending to offset it.

[TKramar]

I don't think our nation should have a "leader". That's why checks and balances were instituted to begin with.

[skyegirl]

I voted "A" because I think it says something about a person that can come from humble beginnings and build something of an empire on their own. I was assuming "humble" beginnings since it was not inherited, but even middle class would do!

[TnHilltopper]

LM1, I have to say that while I understand what you are driving at, it is hard to qualify any given traits or tendencies as reason to choose a leader, other than in the most broad of manners.

Jimmy Carter, quite possibly one of the most intelligent, compassionate, and moral men to sit as President in modern times yet he was a lousy leader. By the same notion, Ronald Reagan, a medicore at best kind of fella, yet ended up a strong leader. I guess the best way of finding out a persons leadership qualities is to see how they preform while leading.

If I had to pick one I guess D, as my other personal qualifiers for choosing a leader would include a fair amount of intelligence, eloquence, articulate, rational, of strong moral fortitude and character. (yes I'm dreaming) So I would hope that the "other" reasons why I would pick one candidate over another would preclude the financial aspects and hopefully turn out a well rounded person overall.

Although it would be nice if the DC-NY clan spent a little time out on Mainstreet instead of Wallstreet to better understand the gravity of our times.

[HsvMike]

I would go with "D" because wealth should not have a standing on how successful a president will be.

Kramar does have a point about checks and balances, while the president is the leader, he can only go as far as the Senate and House will allow, because of the checks and balances.

I think there is way too much emphasis on a good or bad president. You have to look at the government as a whole during the presidents term. Did they work together? Did the House and Senate kill any bill just to prove a point because of party politics?

Sorry I got off topic but a poor man can be just as good, if not better than a rich man as president.

[fishmonger]

D, it shouldn't matter.

[Mooseketeer]

I would like to see the right person elected whether they have money or not. Financial position should have nothing to do with being elected and I don't believe intelligence and integrity come with your bank balance.

If the right person is immensely wealthy then so be it, if he/she is a pauper same thing.

[Tricky D]

I like President Schwarzenegger in The Simpsons movie

I was elected to *lead* not to *read*.
President Schwarzenegger.

So I'll choose option A.
The key here is to be a *self-made* person.
Whether one is financially successful is irrelevant to me.

[GregW]

I would prefer someone with a lower middle class background that has learned to inspire people to be better than they thought they could be.

I despise people that inherited positions just because they picked the right famlies to be born into.