Wrestlin' in Wisconsin

@cicerone imposter,

Hopefully you now understand why the pro union people can not use the "what about the poor teachers" approach as he tried to do to argue for preserving union rights. That argument will be cut to shreds instantly, using factual numbers with dollar signs in front of them, it only serves to provoke us taxpayers. Teachers need to take their haircut, sit down, and shut up.

Edit: The give backs need to be mostly taken off the top and not the bottom...the top paid teachers in WI are over $70K pay for 9 months work, they need to take the highest percentage hit. What the current WI plan would do to those at the bottom of the pay scale is not right, as they would take the highest percentage hit to the take home pay, and they don't make a lot to start with.

2 Replies

@hawkeye10,

Hey Hawk - what hit have YOU taken? Why this sudden zeal for cutting the salaries of teachers?

I don't find 70k to be too high a pay for a senior level teacher. Not at all. Considering the extravagant amounts that others in our society earn, that is actually quite modest.

Our society has not stood up to the forces of greed and oligarchy, and because of this, the average wage of the non-represented worker has suffered. But rather than try and address the actual problem - the imbalance in wage and wealth between the middle and upper classes - you wish to simply tear down those who have protected their way of life. Why do you want to do this? Is it jealously? Or are you just, I dunno, sort of a dick?

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Quote:

I don't find 70k to be too high a pay for a senior level teacher. Not at all. Considering the extravagant amounts that others in our society earn, that is actually quite modest

that pay is based upon longevity and advanced degrees, both of which have not been shown to improve educational results. That is $70 K plus about another $20 K in benefits for 39 weeks of work for $2,300 a week to the taxpayers. Ya, that is too much they can give about $12K of that back. If they can find a better gig then more power to them, but they are not worth what they are currently getting in the job that they are currently doing.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

hawkeye10 wrote:

Quote:
I don't find 70k to be too high a pay for a senior level teacher. Not at all. Considering the extravagant amounts that others in our society earn, that is actually quite modest
that pay is based upon longevity and advanced degrees, both of which have not been shown to improve educational results. That is $70 K plus about another $20 K in benefits for 39 weeks of work for $2,300 a week to the taxpayers. Ya, that is too much they can give about $12K of that back. If they can find a better gig then more power to them, but they are not worth what they are currently getting in the job that they are currently doing.

But, nobody cares what your opinion of 'too much' is. And attitudes like yours are why teachers NEED unions. Because you're just kind of a dick about stuff like this, and want to cut because you'd rather do that then address the actual issue.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Quote:

y Hawk - what hit have YOU taken? Why this sudden zeal for cutting the salaries of teachers?

It is only a matter of time before military pensions get their haircut....our time is coming..We already had one take away in 1987, as now pensions do not get cola applied till the age of 65, then they get bumped to what they would have gotten had cola been applied. It takes at least 10% out of the value of the package lifetime, as most people go about 20 years without the adjustment.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

hawkeye10 wrote:

Quote:
y Hawk - what hit have YOU taken? Why this sudden zeal for cutting the salaries of teachers?

It is only a matter of time before military pensions get their haircut....our time is coming..We already had one take away in 1987, as now pensions do not get cola applied till the age of 65, then they get bumped to what they would have gotten had cola been applied. It takes at least 10% out of the value of the package lifetime, as most people go about 20 years without the adjustment.

I don't think that you should get a pension at all. After all, times are tough, and you need to take a haircut like everyone else, right? So, let's just go ahead and take away your slice of the pie. Agreed?

After all, why should I or any other taxpayer pay you to sit around doing nothing? Where's the value in that?

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Quote:

rather do that then address the actual issue.

THE ISSUE is too much money goes out and not enough comes in, anything that works on either side of the equation addresses the issue. Cutting teacher pay and making them pay a higher share of their benefits addresses the issue. If the studies are right that CB adds 6% to the cost of government labor then removing CB addresses the issue.

It does not address it the way you want it addressed. It is too bad that you apparently can not tell the difference between working on a problem and applying the solutions that you want to see applied.

0 Replies

@hawkeye10,

hawk, You can't just compare wages and benefits; it has to do with many things including cost/benefit to society vs all other occupations. There are huge disparities between states on how much funding schools receive per student. Not all teachers earn $70k. It's true of almost all professions in the US; all doctors do not earn $250,000/year.

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Quote:

After all, why should I or any other taxpayer pay you to sit around doing nothing? Where's the value in that

Pensions are deferred income from the employment, they are not pay to do nothing. Given your lack of understanding of this core component of the government worker compensation situation you should consider attempting an extensive education program in the matter before you comment further.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

hawkeye10 wrote:

Quote:
After all, why should I or any other taxpayer pay you to sit around doing nothing? Where's the value in that
Pensions are deferred income from the employment, they are not pay to do nothing. Given your lack of understanding of this core component of the government worker compensation situation you should consider attempting an extensive education program in the matter before you comment further.

I understand it perfectly, jackass. But you are TOTALLY on board with cutting pensions for teachers, who have deferred their income into the pension funds in WI; why aren't you on board for doing the same for yourself?

I think the answer is pretty evident: you want to cut others' promised monies but never suggest a cut for yourself. It's always sacrifice for others these days, amongst those who advocate cuts or say that things are 'too expensive.' Never any self-sacrifice.

What have YOU sacrificed, Hawk? Where's YOUR part of the shared struggle? As far as I can tell, it doesn't exist.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

Funding for schools have been low compared to other developed countries.

Only because we choose to spend so much on operating prisons and courts. We only have so much money to go around, and the till is empty. If you want to talk about massive dismantling of the "justice" system so that we can invest in education like other countries do I'll be right there with you.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

hawkeye10 wrote:

Quote:
Funding for schools have been low compared to other developed countries.
Only because we choose to spend so much on operating prisons and courts. We only have so much money to go around, and the till is empty. If you want to talk about massive dismantling of the "justice" system so that we can invest in education like other countries do I'll be right there with you.

So, let's talk about that. Let's talk about fixing the economic incentives that drive ever-increasing amounts of money to the very, very rich. Why not focus on that, on structural issues, rather than take pitchforks to the people who we need to keep educating our kids in order to stay competitive?

The problem is that those are difficult discussions that impact the powerful and wealthy, who use their power and wealth to keep anything from changing. Much easier to attack the weak. Not very honorable tho.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Quote:

What have YOU sacrificed, Hawk? Where's YOUR part of the shared struggle? As far as I can tell, it doesn't exist.

Are you having some problem with basic comprehension today? We cant all sit in the barber chair at the same time for our haircut, the state workers and teachers are in the chair now, the military vets will get their turn. You would only have a valid point if vets were refusing their turn. Which they will not, military vets tend to be far more patriotic and willing to sacrifice than most Americans, which many have already proved by dying or getting wounded while serving America, and all have shown by being away from their families for extensive periods of time.

2 Replies

@hawkeye10,

Why are you bringing the military into this discussion? Why not "all other jobs?"

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

hawkeye10 wrote:

Quote:
What have YOU sacrificed, Hawk? Where's YOUR part of the shared struggle? As far as I can tell, it doesn't exist.

Are you having some problem with basic comprehension today? We cant all sit in the barber chair at the same time for our haircut, the state workers and teachers are in the chair now, the military vets will get their turn. You would only have a valid point if vets were refusing their turn.

Nah; why don't you go first? I mean, if you're so big on sacrifice and sharing it, step up. Suggest that your own pension and salary and lifestyle be cut first. I mean, you do want to be taken seriously on this issue. Right?

Teachers are at least as important to our country as retired soldiers. In fact, I'd say that they are more important.

Quote:

Which they will not, military vets tend to be far more patriotic and willing to sacrifice than most Americans, which many have already proved by dying or getting wounded while serving America, and all have shown by being away from their families for extensive periods of time.

Oh, I see. You see yourself as more deserving than others. Why is that not surprising?

You didn't answer the question about why you are willing to cut pensions of the teachers, after admitting that they were in fact deferred pay that they agreed to and that was promised to them by their employer.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Quote:

Nah; why don't you go first? I mean, if you're so big on sacrifice and sharing it, step up. Suggest that your own pension and salary and lifestyle be cut first. I mean, you do want to be taken seriously on this issue. Right?

We have, with the change in the pension in 87, and being at war for the last ten years, as I have already pointed out. Again with your failure to comprehend.

Quote:

You didn't answer the question about why you are willing to cut pensions of the teachers, after admitting that they were in fact deferred pay that they agreed to and that was promised to them by their employer.

No American will get all that we have been promised, as there is no where near enough money to go around. The promises will be broken. Man Up.

2 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

Why are you bringing the military into this discussion? Why not "all other jobs?"

Cyclo did it, not me. He knows full well that my wife has been the primary breadwinner for my family, so when he talks about the sacrifice in pension being spread around he is talking about military pensions. When he talks about sacrifice for America I have been doing that for 24 years being a spouse of a military member, I dont take kindly to his sniveling and lack of appreciation for what military families go through for him.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

hawkeye10 wrote:

Quote:

Nah; why don't you go first? I mean, if you're so big on sacrifice and sharing it, step up. Suggest that your own pension and salary and lifestyle be cut first. I mean, you do want to be taken seriously on this issue. Right?

We have, with the change in the pension in 87, and being at war for the last ten years, as I have already pointed out. Again with your failure to comprehend.

That was almost 25 years ago now, Hawkeye. Ancient history. Time for you to step up again and take cuts, immediately. After all, you're not really providing any real service at the moment, so cutting your pension is an excellent way to save money in this environment, wouldn't you agree?

Quote:

Quote:
You didn't answer the question about why you are willing to cut pensions of the teachers, after admitting that they were in fact deferred pay that they agreed to and that was promised to them by their employer.

No American will get all that we have been promised, as there is no where near enough money to go around. The promises will be broken. Man Up.

Oh, so your answer is 'I don't give a **** that I got caught out in an inconsistency.' You support cuts for others, but not yourself. Gotcha. Pretty cowardly, Hawkeye.

Where's your shared sacrifice? Not even counting the pension thing; what are you CURRENTLY doing to help out in tough times? What have you sacrificed? And not 25 years ago, I mean, c'mon. Get serious.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@hawkeye10,

hawkeye10 wrote:

Quote:
Why are you bringing the military into this discussion? Why not "all other jobs?"
Cyclo did it, not me. He knows full well that my wife has been the primary breadwinner for my family

I don't know **** about your situation, Hawk, but that doesn't surprise me at all.

Quote:

so when he talks about the sacrifice in pension being spread around he is talking about military pensions. When he talks about sacrifice for America I have been doing that for 24 years being a spouse of a military member, I dont take kindly to his sniveling and lack of appreciation for what military families go through for him.

I don't like your lack of appreciation for others. It's not so fun when the callous attitude gets turned around against you, is it? But that's what you CONSTANTLY do to others here. I'm only advocating for you exactly what you advocate for others. And you don't like it one bit!

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@hawkeye10,

Quote:

No American will get all that we have been promised, as there is no where near enough money to go around. The promises will be broken. Man Up.

Nonsense Hawkeye if we would tax the upper two percents so they ONLY have 25 percents of the total wealth instead of 50 percents we could fund all those promises without breaking a sweat.

Poor Rush would only get to keep 25 millions of his fifty millions a year income for broadcasting hate and Charlie Sheen would need to cut down on his porn stars/hookers and billionaires Koch brothers would face the choice of downsizing their private yachts or reducing the money they are throwing toward their attacks on the unions.

We would however once more be in line with others first world countries and in line with the wealth distribution of the 1960s.

2 Replies

Wrestlin' in Wisconsin

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know