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.
Open the link or stop posting, you keep going on tangents that aren't relevant. The 250K was about taxes, not limiting their salary. Fox news was showing their hypocrisy by changing their tune to fit whatever issue they were for/against.
I opened the link a long time ago.. Its discussing salaries.. But when it comes to teachers in Wisconsin, the same pundits say they, as government employees, should expect to see cuts in their ample $50,000 a year salary plus benefits
Clips showed the same people on the network who agreed with the government limiting teachers' benefits also said that limiting the salaries of government bailed-out CEOs would be detrimental to the industry and "isn't a good way of attracting talent in the future."
Care to try again because it says EXACTLY what I said it did without even opening the link.. GOVERNMENT employees, PAID BY THE TAXPAYERS, vs salaries of CEOs, not paid by the taxpayers.. Stop prentending it doesnt say what I said on my very first posting here, before I opened the link... Yes, you liberals are that predictable.. I know what you are complaining about before I even open up the link..
Typical liberal conversation waaa, CEOs earn too much even though you arent paying them.. waaa, teachers arent paid enough, lets raise someone elses taxes to pay them more!!!
p.s. I find it beyond humorous that the Huffington Post "news" is on a comedian, discussing another news channel. Its like you guys cant report real news, you always have to report on other news channels reports non stop...
I opened the link a long time ago.. Its discussing salaries.. But when it comes to teachers in Wisconsin, the same pundits say they, as government employees, should expect to see cuts in their ample $50,000 a year salary plus benefits
Clips showed the same people on the network who agreed with the government limiting teachers' benefits also said that limiting the salaries of government bailed-out CEOs would be detrimental to the industry and "isn't a good way of attracting talent in the future."
Care to try again?
p.s. I find it beyond humorous that the Huffington Post "news" is on a comedian, discussing another news story.. Its like you guys cant make real news, you always have to report on other news channels..
"Stewart showed plenty of pundits saying that when it comes to taxing those who make $250,000 a year, you're taxing people who are "not rich" and even "close to poverty" if they have a family of four with kids in college. But when it comes to teachers in Wisconsin, the same pundits say they, as government employees, should expect to see cuts in their ample $50,000 a year salary plus benefits."
That's what I'm talking about, honestly you will argue about anything, what's up with that? You are predictable, you say you don't watch Fox news, but you are the FOX execs wet dream. You whine and complain about liberals conversation while spewing the typical conservative conversation in almost every post, that's hypocrisy. BTW I am not a "typical" liberal whatever that is, I agree with many consevative ideas. I'll read and appreciate thoughtful intelligent ideas form either side. We could pay teachers nothing and save lots of tax money, but I think they should have a fair salary for doing a difficult and important job.
"Stewart showed plenty of pundits saying that when it comes to taxing those who make $250,000 a year, you're taxing people who are "not rich" and even "close to poverty" if they have a family of four with kids in college. But when it comes to teachers in Wisconsin, the same pundits say they, as government employees, should expect to see cuts in their ample $50,000 a year salary plus benefits."
People making $250,000 a year are not rich..
And teachers should expect to see pay cuts if there is no public money to pay their salaries.. Where on gods earth do you think they get paid from? Their salaries go up in good years, they should go down in bad ones.
You dont think those who are self employed had their incomes drop in bad years, and up in good? Even CEO's have down years in bad economic years, and up years in good ones. Why are government employees any different?
Quote:
Originally Posted by detshen
That's what I'm talking about, honestly you will argue about anything, what's up with that? You are predictable.
Actually it was YOU that said the links didnt say what I said they did, when clearly they do.
And teachers should expect to see pay cuts if there is no public money to pay their salaries.. Where on gods earth do you think they get paid from? Their salaries go up in good years, they should go down in bad ones.
You dont think those who are self employed had their incomes drop in bad years, and up in good? Even CEO's have down years in bad economic years, and up years in good ones. Why are government employees any different?
Actually it was YOU that said the links didnt say what I said they did, when clearly they do.
Maybe not rich, but they sure aren't close to poverty, and that is more than the vast majority of the population earn.
How much does teacher's pay go up in good years? From what I understand they have a relatively stable pay. I am self employed, I accept my pay will vary, but I don't expect people with regular jobs whether govt. or otherwise to have a widely fluctuating salary, especially if they are only making 30K-80K. We need teachers, they have to be paid. We pay our politicians and they have great benefits, why aren't the politicians cutting themselves as much as possible?
I never said the links didn't say what you said, I was irritated with your tangent because my point was not about cutting CEO salaries, market, worth...but you had to argue that a salary isn't a salary, which is actually a valid way of looking at it, all those variables can certainly be factored into it, but they don't HAVE to be, I'm not saying you are wrong so please don't have a cow and go off on this, (I don't really understand why you are so obsessed with being right you would argue for pages and pages.) My point was about the clear hypocrisy shown by FOX news, the actual OP topic.
Maybe not rich, but they sure aren't close to poverty, and that is more than the vast majority of the population earn.
I agree. it wouldnt be close to poverty... I live very nicely on 1/10th of that..
Quote:
Originally Posted by detshen
How much does teacher's pay go up in good years? From what I understand they have a relatively stable pay.
A quick internet search shows that their pay has gone up rather well in recent years.. 25% in just 7 years Compass Measure - Teachers - Salary
Quote:
Originally Posted by detshen
I am self employed, I accept my pay will vary, but I don't expect people with regular jobs whether govt. or otherwise to have a widely fluctuating salary, especially if they are only making 30K-80K.
The public sector indeed sees a fluctuation of pay.. Waitresses for example, I'm sure hurt terribly in bad economies.. Self employed, and even those who have jobs, who see their pays go down during business negotations to keep factories open etc..
Quote:
Originally Posted by detshen
We need teachers, they have to be paid.
And so do CEO's (bringing the topic back to the thread)...
Quote:
Originally Posted by detshen
We pay our politicians and they have great benefits, why aren't the politicians cutting themselves as much as possible?
They have made budget cuts to their departments, but I'm all for cutting their salaries and reducing the numbers, on all levels of government. Its government employees, not just teachers..
Quote:
Originally Posted by detshen
I never said the links didn't say what you said, I was irritated with your tangent because my point was not about cutting CEO salaries, market, worth... My point was about the clear hypocrisy shown by FOX news, the actual OP topic.
The hypocracy is fake.. Again, you cant compare the two without looking just plain stupid.. and people who think the comparison is valid really needs to begin to think for themself and stop getting their news from a comedy channel.. comparing the salaries of teachers, and those of CEO's is like again comparing a janitor to a NBA basketball player and claiming they should be paid equal.. Thats just ridiculous..
The hypocracy is fake.. Again, you cant compare the two without looking just plain stupid.. and people who think the comparison is valid really needs to begin to think for themself and stop getting their news from a comedy channel.. comparing the salaries of teachers, and those of CEO's is like again comparing a janitor to a NBA basketball player and claiming they should be paid equal.. Thats just ridiculous..
You are just ridiculous, period! Pages and pages to support lies, refusing to see anyone else's points. You aren't here to have discussions, you are here to fight and I've had it with your petty nonsense.
I know what's next, a smack, a "witty" comment on liberals. Whatever. Have a good night.
You are just ridiculous, period! Pages and pages to support lies, refusing to see anyone else's points. You aren't here to have discussions, you are here to fight and I've had it with your petty nonsense.
I know what's next, a smack, a "witty" comment on liberals. Whatever. Have a good night.
You have a good night as well.. but nothing you do will make a comparison between a teacher and a CEO equal.. yes, thats stupid and beyond ridiculous, but liberals have never been worried about not looking silly...
You have a good night as well.. but nothing you do will make a comparison between a teacher and a CEO equal.. yes, thats stupid and beyond ridiculous, but liberals have never been worried about not looking silly...
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..
I made no such claims that we werent on the hook..
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?
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..
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..
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..
they were not factoring inventory.. They were offering WARRANTS, stocks, bonds etc.. You dont factor warrants, they arent even inventory..
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 (http://www.bilkent.edu.tr/%7Efaruk/fsEER05.pdf - broken link)
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.
Um. .yes.. it took years for AIG to sell off divisions for hundreds of millions of dollars..
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..
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..
Uh no it doesn't depend on how YOU look at it. YOU claimed that it was a loan and then YOU said it was a sale. Just that alone tells us that you have no idea what you're talking about. YOU were the one who made the point of initially saying that the FEDs were making loans and so the taxpayers didn't need to concern themselves with this arrangement, they would get their money back. But then it suddenly became sales of assets. Well you see you cant sell what you don't own. If the FEDS sold the assets then it means that business entities couldn't make payments of loans. Otherwise what need would the FEDs have of selling f collateral if those companies were making payments. So it seems that YOU painted yourself into a corner and you keep thinking if you slosh more paint it'll sort of hide the predicament you seem to be in.
Of course you have to ignore the point that the FED had to inject themselves into this "market" which didn't exist for the banks assets because if it did, they could have made the sales on their own. In fact the gov was the only entity buying this stuff which they in fact wouldn't tell the public just what it was that they were buying. Your claim of a profit is plain specious because no market existed without the FEDS. So unless you post what was paid for the assets and what was received for them, then your claim of profit is as specious as your "buddie's wife" making 75k in her second year teaching.
And it seems that you have no idea of what you posted re: Enron. Yes they were lying, just as many Wall Street houses lied to the buyers of their CDS/MBS of the efficacy of the investments. You really need to be much better informed of why this whole thing went down the toilet, directly because of the fact that stuff that WS was peddling was in fact junk. That was one of the reasons that the FED had to intervene in the market because WS had lied re; what they sold. In fact one of the WS houses took out insurance (swaps) which were pegged to the fact that the stuff they were selling was going to blow up. Of course they didn't bother to tell the buyers of what they were doing, because that would have probably put the kaboosh on the sale in the first place.
And if you're waiting for profits to arrive, that means that you're accruing expenses faster than you are income. Maybe in your world that can be booked as profit, because imaginary income can offset real losses. And you have an internet company as much as you have a buddy who has a wife who makes 75k in her second year of teaching. But for the sake of argument lets just pretend that your fictional company had ten years of expenses > income. Did you pay an income tax on income that you were hoping on getting in the by and by? Did you not list your expenses or did you claim an income based on what you believed would be coming any day? If so, then please post copies of your tax returns to show that you ran a business in that way.
And you can't really seem to help yourself can you. You finish off your canard by now saying that you were re-investing your profit in your company, while trying to claim that a company can wait on profits even if burning through cash. Man take this in a good way, that is just plain stupid. Sorry, but if you're claiming that you're making profits while waiting on profits, you honestly don't have a clue what you're talking about. I know I need to keep this civil, and I'm really trying to do that. But it is just straight up apparent that you honestly don't have a clue what you're posting.
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.
