Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Someone with experience other than a teacher can qualify for the various steps (provided they meet certain requirements), but more often than not its prior teaching experience. My cousin has been a teacher for about 10 years (both in Queens and now here on LI)
We arent talking about more often than not, we are discussing my friend which you guys said couldnt possible be earning in the $70K range after only 2 years of teaching. The man is in his mid 30's, and again in his SECOND year of teaching. He used is experience as a professional lecturer for history to qualify for credits.
Was this your admission that some people can earn $70k's in their 2nd year of teaching?
Sorry but I'll take word of NYC's website about the activities of NYC over some anonymous poster online anyday. I know, shocking that people dont take your word for things when those who actually cut the check, say you are wrong about what they pay
They were called loans at the time because the corporations rebought their assets.. The fact that the public called them loans, but they were actually sales of assets just shows how little the public knew about the progress..
Because the treasury/fed sold off the assets at a time they could make a profit from them.. The companies couldnt have done it themself at the time it was needed, but many of them didnt even need the loans.. (GS for example).. They borrowed even though it wasnt needed because they could borrow at 3% and reloan out at 4%, and earn a 1% spread..(interest rates made up just to show the example).. but thats what they did.. It was easier and cheaper to borrow from the Treasury than to go to the public because the govt could sideline a lot of the standard filing requirements.
They couldnt get the interest rate offered by the feds..
Thats not how businesses operate.. Businesses fund DAY TO DAY to run their corporation.. They borrow enough today to last till tomorrow, tomorrow they reborrow, and then again, and again.. There is no need to run a profit short term, and this allows businesses to invest their cash flow.. Stupid yes, but thats how its done and its actually what caused the collapse because companies couldnt borrow overnight, there wasnt money available.. (not the tens of billions needed daily).. In addition, the corporations created assets that were sold.. Warrants for example, used heavily by GM, were created during the bk process..
They were always profitable, but profits take somtimes years to materalize.. If you own an office building, it might take 30 years to see a profit from it. it doesnt mean they arent generating cash, it just means that they need to wait for the payoff. Insurance companies needed to sell divisions for example.. It takes time to sell off a division, and while the sale is taking place you cant have them sit idle not generating cash flow.. You cant have customers fleeing, you cant have insurance claims go unpaid.. You just need the business to operate until they are sold off.. AIG had divisions they were selling for billions of dollars.. but had those divisons not paid their bills and claims, they would have been worthless.. Normally they would have borrowed day to day to pay claims, but day to day borrowing disappeared..
I'm not going to post the repayment schedules.. many of them were non existant.. again the TREASURY decided when to sell their warrants, stocks, bonds etc that they received.. THERE WAS NO SCHEDULE.. They still own GM warrants for example.. Is this beyond your capability of understanding? Compare it to your car.. when you buy your card do you have a schedule as to when you are going to sell it to pay off the loans? Or do you go day by day and when it makes sense to sell, you sell? Thats what they did.. there was no rush to sell because the assets were growing in value and many of the debts were being rebought back by the corporations that were "loaned", i.e. sold their assets..
It's hard to know where to start. Lets start with the fact that YOU called them loans and posted that the public wasn't on the hook because they would be getting their money back. Now you're claiming that in fact they weren't loans but sales. You can't even get your story straight. What you're describing are in fact not loans because you have to have value in order to borrow on the assets. The fact that the feds had to inject themselves in this process was due to the fact that no one else was willing to purchase these assets. The gov became the buyer of last resort BECAUSE these companies couldn't sell because no market existed for their inventory. And please stop with your analogy for the sale of assets as if these guys were factoring inventory to get operating capital. That isn't what was taking place, because this wasn't the way these companies operate on a daily basis. What they did was sell their assets to the Feds because they would be the only ones to have bought the devalued assets.
And it takes years for profits to materialize? That's rich, really that's amazing. I guess ENRON was really profitable its just that they weren't given enough time to realize a profit. If you don't have a profit, then it's called a loss. And if it takes years to make a profit then you're booking losses. I'll get to the rest of your stuff later.....
We arent talking about more often than not, we are discussing my friend which you guys said couldnt possible be earning in the $70K range after only 2 years of teaching. The man is in his mid 30's, and again in his SECOND year of teaching. He used is experience as a professional lecturer for history to qualify for credits.
Was this your admission that some people can earn $70k's in their 2nd year of teaching?
You should have perhaps said so in your earlier posts that this guy had quite a bit of other experience, but you didn't. So, yes its possible that someone in their 2nd year of teaching can make in the 70's, but only if they have a large amount of experience in the field related to what they are teaching. Some 2nd year teacher with little experience outside of teaching is going to get anywhere close.
Here I'll explain it as if I were talking to my young son. Fox News and the rest of us conservatives want the government to treat everyone equally. Taxing people more because they work harder and are therefore more well off is not equal treatment, to the contrary, It is punitive.
Following this line of thinking when it comes to public employee unions. The vast majority of us non-public union employees do not get the sweet benefits that are given to these people at our expense. The people in these public employee unions are receiving special treatment. See, no hypocrisy. In fact it's quite consistent.
Hey quite refreshing admission from a "conservative". Good on you.
Fox News by your admission has a conservative bias and opposes progressive forms of taxation which we have had in the Country for well over 200 years and is the basis of taxation policy in every single Western style Democracy.
If only other right wingers were as honest as you.
We could put you and Fox's radical vision to pay for Government up for a vote and see how popular you really are.
It indeed does say wages are in the $70K range. the fact that you cant read a chart isnt my fault.. judging from some of the posters here who cant read a basic chart, I'd say teachers might actually be overpaid...
It isn't my fault that YOU posted a claim that YOU can't back up. Again YOU posted that a friend's wife was making 75k in her second year of teaching, and then to back up YOUR claim, YOU then posted a pay schedule that shows no such thing. In fact it shows that no one makes that kind of money after two years of teaching.
Keep in mind that YOU were disparaging liberals because of their inability to think or read. And in order to prove that YOU made a claim which was false and then posted material which proves that its false. I think YOU owe liberals an apology....
You should have perhaps said so in your earlier posts that this guy had quite a bit of other experience, but you didn't. So, yes its possible that someone in their 2nd year of teaching can make in the 70's, but only if they have a large amount of experience in the field related to what they are teaching. Some 2nd year teacher with little experience outside of teaching is going to get anywhere close.
My money is on him not mention it because he made it up. I also remember him saying his friend had a masters and based on my experience, college professors need a doctorate unless they are grad assistants or in a community college setting. Grad assistants would not be given any credits upon entering a public school system.
Besides, History teachers are a dime a dozen and are not hard to find so it is highly doubtful that they (school district) would pay a 2nd year History teacher 75K when they could get two new teachers for that same amount.
but yeah, if his "friend" had 7.5 years college teaching experience he might start on that step in NYC.
It's hard to know where to start. Lets start with the fact that YOU called them loans
And? It depends on how you look at it, since the money was indeed LOANED to the companies, and the government got assets as collateral.. If the collateral went back to the businesses and the businesses paid the govt back, that would be a loan.. If the government sold the assets off to investors, then that would be a sale.. What difference does it make? There were at least 362 companies in question, they ALL had different arrangements, so while some call them a loan, others call them a sale, it makes no difference because the end result was a profit to the taxpayers..
Quote:
Originally Posted by loloroj
and posted that the public wasn't on the hook because they would be getting their money back.
I made no such claims that we werent on the hook..
Quote:
Originally Posted by loloroj
Now you're claiming that in fact they weren't loans but sales.
Many of them involved both, GM for example involved a loan originally, but these were then converted to a sale when GM was going bankrupt.. Again, what difference does it make?
Quote:
Originally Posted by loloroj
You can't even get your story straight.
My story is very straight, and the history of TARP is very public.. if you dont know this information why dont you do some research on it..
Quote:
Originally Posted by loloroj
What you're describing are in fact not loans because you have to have value in order to borrow on the assets.
There were LOTS of value.. What do you think was sold off or pledged as collateral? Often times it was stocks, bonds, warrants, ALL of which have value..
Quote:
Originally Posted by loloroj
The fact that the feds had to inject themselves in this process was due to the fact that no one else was willing to purchase these assets. The gov became the buyer of last resort BECAUSE these companies couldn't sell because no market existed for their inventory.
Not true.. there were LOTS of people willing to purchase their assets.. The government was just cheaper than most.. Buffet for example charges 10% for warrants, the government was somewhere around 3%.. Ford Motor company was in very similar situations as GM, Ford found investors, GM did as well.. I insured millions of shares of GM stock for investors.. There were LOTS of people willing to invest, just not at the price the government was.. But again, what does this have to do with the topic..
Quote:
Originally Posted by loloroj
And please stop with your analogy for the sale of assets as if these guys were factoring inventory to get operating capital.
they were not factoring inventory.. They were offering WARRANTS, stocks, bonds etc.. You dont factor warrants, they arent even inventory..
Quote:
Originally Posted by loloroj
That isn't what was taking place, because this wasn't the way these companies operate on a daily basis.
yes it was.. Have you never heard of the overnight borrowing rate?
here is a report from 2004 BEFORE the crisis which forcasted such a scenario
http://www.bilkent.edu.tr/~faruk/fsEER05.pdf (broken link)
Quote:
Originally Posted by loloroj
What they did was sell their assets to the Feds because they would be the only ones to have bought the devalued assets.
Again, there were LOTS of buyers lining up to buy them.. I got emails daily from groups putting together investors with hundreds of millions to acquire hard assets, and others that wanted investors to acquire warrants which were not devalued. In addition, bonds were through the roof in value, paying a huge premium.
Quote:
Originally Posted by loloroj
And it takes years for profits to materialize? That's rich, really that's amazing.
Um. .yes.. it took years for AIG to sell off divisions for hundreds of millions of dollars..
Quote:
Originally Posted by loloroj
I guess ENRON was really profitable its just that they weren't given enough time to realize a profit. .
ENRON has nothing to do with this, and the fact that you would bring them in shows you need to do some more research.. ENRON was LYING to their investors about their returns.. Thats very different then admitting you couldnt borrow to fund your day to day budgets..
Quote:
Originally Posted by loloroj
If you don't have a profit, then it's called a loss. And if it takes years to make a profit then you're booking losses. I'll get to the rest of your stuff later.....
Um.. not true.. again, do some research.. If you are waiting on profits to arrive, how do you pay the employees, how do you buy inventory to sell off (for the profits), how do you keep expanding your business, pay claims? Just because the business will make a profit next year, doesnt mean you have the money this year, nor does it mean you dont have a viable business.. My internet company took 10 years of losses before it generated a spendable profit.. That doesnt mean there wasnt profits, it was just that I re-invested 100% of the profits back into the business..
You should have perhaps said so in your earlier posts that this guy had quite a bit of other experience, but you didn't. So, yes its possible that someone in their 2nd year of teaching can make in the 70's, but only if they have a large amount of experience in the field related to what they are teaching. Some 2nd year teacher with little experience outside of teaching is going to get anywhere close.
I didnt mention his other experience because that wasnt the topic of the thread, nor did I expect so many people to display their ignorance of how teachers get paid. It was to show that some teachers are very well paid, and again, to compare their salary to a CEO is just plain ridiculous.. almost childish..
No discussion about how a janitor and a basketball player earns more, even though they are paid by the same organization? Shocking!!!
It isn't my fault that YOU posted a claim that YOU can't back up. Again YOU posted that a friend's wife was making 75k in her second year of teaching, and then to back up YOUR claim, YOU then posted a pay schedule that shows no such thing. In fact it shows that no one makes that kind of money after two years of teaching.
Keep in mind that YOU were disparaging liberals because of their inability to think or read. And in order to prove that YOU made a claim which was false and then posted material which proves that its false. I think YOU owe liberals an apology....
You said you are a teacher? I feel sorry for the future when we have teachers who cant read a basic chart that says.. 5 YR, and realize everything before that is LESS than 5 years..
I'm now through with you.. I've tosd you again for your personal attack again above.. I'm sure we'll see you next week..
I owe no liberal an apology who doesnt know how to read a generic chart and that doesnt understand that earnings BEFORE a 5 year period would be BEFORE 5 years.. I know how to count to 5.. its a shame we have teachers displaying they cant..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What do you think was sold off or pledged as collateral? Often times it was stocks, bonds, warrants, ALL of which have value..
