Ron Paul Would Take Only a $39,000 if Elected President -- But Would Any of the Others Do Likewise?

page: 1
2

log in

join

posted on Nov, 15 2011 @ 04:21 PM
link   

Ron Paul Would Take Only $39,000 If Elected President !!!



This news is several weeks old.

However, I am a bit dismayed as to why Jesse Benton (Paul's campaign manager) would not have Dr Paul openly (and perhaps aggressively) highlight this astonishing fact during the debates.

What a startling and shocking challenge it would be if Ron inquired how many of his fellow GOP colleagues would be willing to do the same live on stage during a nationally televised debate?

What a delightful "tread water" moment that would be for all of the other candidates.

I can visualize the gaping mouths of his opponents as they struggle to come up with an immediate response.

If they answer "NO" they look like they are not REALLY as serious as Ron Paul is about cutting spending.

If they answer "YES" and were elected President they will be in a really tough position if they attempted to back peddle on the issue and would most likely be "committed" to only a $39K annual salary.

I personally believe that it's a decent idea...but how does one get through to the Paul campaign in order to present the idea to Mr. Benton?

Any suggestions,comments, thoughts or ideas?






edit on 11/15/2011 by dbates because: Caps Lock Title Edit.
edit on 15-11-2011 by lapi7 because: (no reason given)
edit on 15-11-2011 by lapi7 because: edit headline caps




posted on Nov, 15 2011 @ 04:22 PM
link   
I keep wishing he would find just SOME WAY to mention this during the debates...
That would REALLY get people talking.

He is also the only man to return some of his budget back to the gov't
edit on 15-11-2011 by CALGARIAN because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 15 2011 @ 04:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by CALGARIAN
I keep wishing he would find just SOME WAY to mention this during the debates...
That would REALLY get people talking.

He is also the only man to return some of his budget back to the gov't
edit on 15-11-2011 by CALGARIAN because: (no reason given)


Agreed.

I think that Ron's willingness to sacrifice his yearly salary to such a degree (not to mention that he is also refusing to take his Congressional government pension upon retirement) would be a MAJOR selling point in his campaign.



posted on Nov, 15 2011 @ 04:41 PM
link   
Because the moderators only give him 90 seconds to talk out of the hour.
Controlled content.

To answer the OP title question: I highly doubt it.



posted on Nov, 15 2011 @ 04:45 PM
link   
Despite, and in fact, the cause of what the MSM media has done to Dr. Paul, he still leads the "real" poles and in the hearts of so many of his countrymen. Ron Paul is the only hope the United States has.

And I don't know how others feel about this, but near past history causes me to fear that even if elected, he will be assassinated.



posted on Nov, 15 2011 @ 05:01 PM
link   
linda mcmahon offered to work for $1 if elected as a senator from CT

c'mon ron, don't be so greedy !!!!!



posted on Nov, 15 2011 @ 05:15 PM
link   
I'm a bit surprised that this is not seen as a high priority issue.



posted on Nov, 15 2011 @ 05:26 PM
link   
Ross Perot would have used his salary as President to help pay down the debt.

None of these politicians should be getting paid. The privilege of serving their country should be all they need. In fact, the whole "politician" thing should be done part-time while they keep their day jobs. No government pay, no government benefits, no secret service and armored vehicles. No parades and elite burials. No golden goose pensions.

Just the honor of having served.

Let's see a "politician" choose that.

You shouldnt be able to make a caree out of serving your country.



posted on Nov, 15 2011 @ 05:31 PM
link   
reply to post by lapi7
 


Timing man, timing. If he were to bring it up himself, it would sound totally gimmicky. If it comes up in context then it will mean way more.



posted on Nov, 16 2011 @ 06:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cuervo
reply to post by lapi7
 


Timing man, timing. If he were to bring it up himself, it would sound totally gimmicky. If it comes up in context then it will mean way more.


Good point.

This issue is a valid and powerful ally to the Paul campaign.

However, it must be strategically employed in order to inflict maximum damage or it may be seen as self aggrandizing and political posturing resulting in a reverse demoralizing effect.



posted on Nov, 16 2011 @ 11:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cuervo
reply to post by lapi7
 


Timing man, timing. If he were to bring it up himself, it would sound totally gimmicky. If it comes up in context then it will mean way more.


I agree.. but it appears US citizens like "gimmicks". No offence or anything.. but he needs to grand-stand a bit.





top topics
 
2

log in

join


Haters, Bigots, Partisan Trolls, Propaganda Hacks, Racists, and LOL-tards: Time To Move On.
read more: Community Announcement re: Decorum