By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
JWeinCom on 17 November 2016
Edit Thread
WagnerPaiva said:
JWeinCom said:

I clicked on one of your links at random.  Here is what it said.

Last year, then-Republican presidential frontrunner Donald Drumpf declared he would forego a presidential salary if elected.

"I won't take even one dollar. I'm totally giving up my salary if I become president," Drumpf said in a video posted to his Twitter account.

Most recently the president-elect told "60 Minutes" that he would take a $1 salary because the law required him to.

According to Title 3 of the US Code, the US President "shall earn" a salary of  $400,000, along with a $50,000 annual expense account, a $100,000 nontaxable travel account, and $19,000 for entertainment.

Like most employees, the president receives benefits in addition to a salary. Unlike most employees, though, these benefits include free transportation in the presidential limousine, Marine One, and Air Force One and free housing in the White House.

Another bonus: At the end of their terms, presidents are still on government payroll, which includes an annual pension of about $200,000, healthcare, paid official travel, and an office.

Of course, if Drumpf really doesn't want the $400,000 a year, he could always donate it to charity like his predecessors John F. Kennedy and Herbert Hoover did.

But, as even the first president, George Washington, learned the hard way, you can't completely forgo a salary if you're the leader of the free world.

Washington earned $25,000 a year when he came into office in 1789. That may not sound like much, but to put Washington's compensation into perspective, $25,000 in 1913 — the oldest year the inflation calculator accounts for — is equivalent to about $600,000 today.

As Time recently reported, Washington didn't want to take a salary either.

"I must decline as inapplicable to myself, any share in the personal emoluments, which may be indispensably included in a permanent provision for the Executive Department;" he said during his inaugural address, "and must accordingly pray that the pecuniary estimates for the Station in which I am placed, may, during my continuance in it, be limited to such actual expenditures as the public good may be thought to require."

But the lawmakers at the time wouldn't hear of it, saying that the constitution required Washington to receive compensation, as not taking a salary would open the president up to bribery and corruption.

Between 1789 and today, there have been five pay raises for US presidents, the most recent one coming in 2001, when Congress doubled the presidential salary from $200,000 to $400,000.

That salary alone is nearly enough to put the president in the top 1% of earners.

 

That's the full text of it.  Please explain to me what part of this shows that they are trying to make Drumpf sound evil.

You know it man, you just want to outsmart me to fell awesome, cause you know you can win over any argument I present.

But being smart does not mean you are right or that you are at truth´s side.

If Hillary did it, refused a salary, and surely she has almost half of Drumpf is worth in that foundation of hers, EVERYONE would praise it, say it is a awesome nice thing to do.

Why?

Because it is a awesome very nice thing to do, these people got into the ceiling of having money, they do not need public servant salaries.

But even this report you showed us, what does it do? I goes on and on over precedents, legal implications, I even saw one that talked about how Drumpf was after taxes refounds, as it was possible somehow that 400K would make any difference to a 2,5 billion net worth.

So, my point is, Drumpf will get no praise for doing nice things, in fact, he will get criticism even for the "non-issue" things he does.

Your point in fact is "WagnerPaiva is too dumb and is not even proficient enough in english to be able to expose my line of argument and I will roll with it cause I can".

But the fact remains: The MSM is bullying the guy over nothing, over and over again. For the same stuff Hillary would be praised for.


I have not insulted your intelligence, I have not claimed I am smarter, and I have not criticized your english.  So please stop trying to frame this like I'm somehow attacking you.  I did not insult you, and claiming I did is a dishonest way to get out of answering a very simple question.  Also a strawman argument and an ad-hominem attack rolled into one.

You provided a link that you said explained how the media is trying to make Drumpf sound evil.  I'm asking you to explain how it does that.  I'm not being particularly clever or tricky.  If asking you to explain why you chose this source is enough to "win over" your argument, then your argument isn't very good, and you probably shouldn't be making it.

So, once more.  Can you show me an example of mainstream media sources "bullying" Trump or claiming he is evil for not taking the salary?  If you can't, then you are knowingly spreading bullshit.