The Maximum Wage

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
How about a maximum wage for educators/researchers at public institutions of higher learning? They receive federal funding and grants, yet tuition is going through the roof due in part to escalating salaries and entrenched/tenured professors.

Also, Obama should immediately cap the PER retirement scam since Oregon public schools receive federal funding yet can barely keep kids in school for the minimum amount of days due to budget issues.
 
PapaG said:
I think you are having a difficult time grasping that businesses received this money and not individuals.
Click to expand...

Huh? I thought you were saying that limiting salaries to bankers (individuals, that is) would cause harm.
I'm an individual, just like the bankers (except for not being a banker and not living in NYC). So why not give me money instead of them? I, after all, haven't run my business into the ground, so arguably I'm more deserving.

barfo
 
blazerboy30 said:
Wrong. I have a long history of millions of loans, and the most likely scenario to backup my position.
Click to expand...

Really? Millions of loans? That's a lot of loan documents to sign.
How many of those millions of loans were emergency loans from the government to banks? Not many, I'll bet.

You're making your guess in order to justify Obama's position.
Click to expand...

You are talking about something you have no knowledge of (my motivation).

barfo
 
barfo said:
Huh? I thought you were saying that limiting salaries to bankers (individuals, that is) would cause harm.
I'm an individual, just like the bankers (except for not being a banker and not living in NYC). So why not give me money instead of them? I, after all, haven't run my business into the ground, so arguably I'm more deserving.

barfo
Click to expand...

I'm really not following you on this one. It's not as if "bankers" are just taking a bite out of a governmental bail-out check.
 
mook said:
Doesn't make the taxpayers or their leaders right. It's just the way it is.
Click to expand...

But this is precisely what we are discussing. Whether this is right or wrong.

I've noticed that since Obama has been elected there has been a lot more of the "it's just the way it is" slogan as he makes questionable decisions.
 
BrianFromWA said:
No, there isn't. And until today, there wasn't legislation in place to ratify any maximum wage for money the government was loaning banking businesses.

Not a huge leap. Good try, though.

**EDIT: Sorry...hadn't read PapaG and maxiep's comments yet. Then again, maybe repetition is good**
Click to expand...

But these are unpresedented times . . . I'm glad if the gov't figures things are so bad the gov't needs to bail out private business to the tunes of hundreds of billions on dollars of taxpayer money, that we try something new and aggressive.

I perfer no bail out, but if they are going to do it, then yes be aggressive with it. The finacial institutions mishandling in this counrty just sent us into a tailspin we haven't seen since the great depression. We are talking hundreds of billions of dollars . . . difficult times (and this is the worst) call for drastic measures including the idea of bailing out private companies with gov't money and regulating those companies getting money.
 
it's_GO_time said:
But these are unpresedented times . . . I'm glad if the gov't figures things are so bad the gov't needs to bail out private business to the tunes of hundreds of billions on dollars of taxpayer money, that we try something new and aggressive.

I perfer no bail out, but if they are going to do it, then yes be aggressive with it. The finacial institutions mishandling in this counrty just sent us into a tailspin we haven't seen since the great depression. We are talking hundreds of billions of dollars . . . difficult times (and this is the worst) call for drastic measures including the idea of bailing out private companies with gov't money and regulating those companies getting money.
Click to expand...


The root of that goes back to Janet Reno's days as Attorney General and an embarrassing lack of oversight from people like Chris Dodd. Give John McCain credit for at least seeing the Fannie/Freddie meltdown years in advance and sponsoring legislation to fix it.
 
PapaG said:
The root of that goes back to Janet Reno's days as Attorney General and an embarrassing lack of oversight from people like Chris Dodd. Give John McCain credit for at least seeing the Fannie/Freddie meltdown years in advance and sponsoring legislation to fix it.
Click to expand...

I'll take your word for it in this thread . . . my point is we have reached a point in time that this country has never seen. So yes I would expect and hope for aggressive legislation.
 
barfo said:
Really? Millions of loans? That's a lot of loan documents to sign.
Click to expand...

Yes, millions. It is easy to sign millions of loans when millions of people are participating in the signing for their mortgages.

barfo said:
How many of those millions of loans were emergency loans from the government to banks? Not many, I'll bet.
Click to expand...

Uh, the government has been loaning to banks for many, many years. The government has been loaning to individuals for many, many years.

All of these loans are contracts that can not just be changed on a whim from the government. Have you ever seen the terms of a municipal bond owned by an individual changed during the life of the bond?


barfo said:
You are talking about something you have no knowledge of (my motivation).
barfo
Click to expand...

Agreed, I know nothing about your motivation to justify Obama's position. But I have watched you do it over and over on this board. ;)
 
blazerboy30 said:
barfo said:
Really? Millions of loans? That's a lot of loan documents to sign.
Click to expand...

Yes, millions. It is easy to sign millions of loans when millions of people are participating in the signing for their mortgages.
Click to expand...

Ah. I thought you said you personally had a history of millions of loans. I don't think other people's mortgages really do much to back up your position here.

Uh, the government has been loaning to banks for many, many years. The government has been loaning to individuals for many, many years.

All of these loans are contracts that can not just be changed on a whim from the government. Have you ever seen the terms of a municipal bond owned by an individual changed during the life of the bond?
Click to expand...

Relevance? The bailouts weren't municipal bonds.

Agreed, I know nothing about your motivation to justify Obama's position. But I have watched you do it over and over on this board. ;)
Click to expand...

But not in this thread, or about this subject.

barfo
 
it's_GO_time said:
Well that's why I voted for Obama . . . I trust his judgement.

And this is no time for gridlock. Rushed might make some feel uncomfortable, not me.
Click to expand...

Why is it no time for gridlock? Its not a matter of feeling uncomfortable, there is no rush to pass a bad "stimulus" bill that has very little "stimulus" to it. No questioning the provisions and spending for this program whatsoever, just trust Obama (who's judgement has been shown to be less than stellar in his recent apointees) and don't question the Messiah?
 
barfo said:
Ah. I thought you said you personally had a history of millions of loans. I don't think other people's mortgages really do much to back up your position here.
Click to expand...

You can think that, but you're wrong. There are legal rules which loans have to comply with. It doesn't matter if they are my loans or millions of other peoples.


barfo said:
Relevance? The bailouts weren't municipal bonds.
barfo
Click to expand...

Municipal bonds are an example of a loan between the government and another entity. It is an example of the government not being able to just change terms when they see fit. I could easily categorize these loans as "emergency" loans to the government. Can I change the T's and C's since it was an "emergency" loan?

If Obama doesn't feel that the government needs to comply with the terms and conditions of a loan, he isn't doing much to uphold his talking point of government accountability and transparency.
 
it's_GO_time said:
Well that's why I voted for Obama . . . I trust his judgement.

And this is no time for gridlock. Rushed might make some feel uncomfortable, not me.
Click to expand...

The legislation is rushed for sure, but the distribution of funds isn't rushed at all, as I have previously posted.
 
it's_GO_time said:
Well that's why I voted for Obama . . . I trust his judgement.

And this is no time for gridlock. Rushed might make some feel uncomfortable, not me.
Click to expand...

I completely see the need to rush $50million to the National Endowment for the Arts. You're right. Let's make sure we don't gridlock that pork spending.
 
AgentDrazenPetrovic said:
Why is it no time for gridlock? Its not a matter of feeling uncomfortable, there is no rush to pass a bad "stimulus" bill that has very little "stimulus" to it. No questioning the provisions and spending for this program whatsoever, just trust Obama (who's judgement has been shown to be less than stellar in his recent apointees) and don't question the Messiah?
Click to expand...

I don't want gridlock and party biases getting int he way of fixing this country. No reason to not pass a good stimulus bill fast . . . I know it is contrary to US politics, but I don't care, I want to something done . . . and yes I do have confidence Obama will make the right call for the country.
 
it's_GO_time said:
I don't want gridlock and party biases getting int he way of fixing this country. No reason to not pass a good stimulus bill fast . . . I know it is contrary to US politics, but I don't care, I want to something done . . . and yes I do have confidence Obama will make the right call for the country.
Click to expand...


If the bill is so good, why won't the Democrats vote on it and pass it? They don't need a single GOP vote to do so. :dunno:
 
it's_GO_time said:
I don't want gridlock and party biases getting int he way of fixing this country. No reason to not pass a good stimulus bill fast . . . I know it is contrary to US politics, but I don't care, I want to something done . . . and yes I do have confidence Obama will make the right call for the country.
Click to expand...

Who says its a good stimulus bill?

Obama?
 
blazerboy30 said:
I completely see the need to rush $50million to the National Endowment for the Arts. You're right. Let's make sure we don't gridlock that pork spending.
Click to expand...

I'm glad you see the need for it . . . personally I don't know, but 50 million iseems like a drop in the bucket and I hope it doesn't take months of new bills becauase of that.

Finally someone agrees we don't need gridlock right now.
 
it's_GO_time said:
I'm glad you see the need for it . . . personally I don't know, but 50 million iseems like a drop in the bucket and I hope it doesn't take months of new bills becauase of that.

Finally someone agrees we don't need gridlock right now.
Click to expand...

Yes, we should just ignore the entire system of checks and balances.
 
it's_GO_time said:
I'm glad you see the need for it . . . personally I don't know, but 50 million iseems like a drop in the bucket and I hope it doesn't take months of new bills becauase of that.

Finally someone agrees we don't need gridlock right now.
Click to expand...

And the best part is that there are lots more pieces of pork in there just like it. If $50million is just a drop in the bucket, don't worry, we'll get all the other pork push through with it. Lots of drops eventually adds up to the entire bucket.

I sincerely am baffled the blind following of Obama without any questioning. Especially from somebody that several months ago wasn't sure he would vote for Obama.
 
AgentDrazenPetrovic said:
Yes, we should just ignore the entire system of checks and balances.
Click to expand...

I wish I could find my post where all of the endowments and such are listed. Much of this monstrosity is simply a supplemental budget bill wrapped in a "Stimulus" package.
 
it's_GO_time said:
I'm playing your game. Who says it is a bad stimulus bill that has very little to do with stimulus.

You throw out someone position like it is fact . . . I can do that too.
Click to expand...

Is anybody going to answer my question. Why, if this bill is such a sure-fire success, don't the Democrats just pass the thing and put it on Obama's desk?
 
it's_GO_time said:
I'm playing your game. Who says it is a bad stimulus bill that has very little to do with stimulus.

You throw out someone position like it is fact . . . I can do that too.
Click to expand...

Sure. That's easy. The people who are paying for the stimulus bill don't support it. Only 37% of people do.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub...kage/support_for_stimulus_package_falls_to_37

Look, the republicans are fighting to add more tax incentives to the bill and to make it less about spending the money on Obama's government program and actually try to use the stimulus bill to stimulate the economy.

there was a link on here that showed how much of the program was being used for programs that would be considered "stimulus"
 
If you get federal student financial aid, it comes with strings. A person must attend an accredited college, take a certain number of units, maintain a given GPA. It's not free money and if you don't live up to the requirements you have to pay the money back to the government (my nephew got himself into exactly this situation and was facing jail time). Once you graduate, of course, you are no longer receiving the federal money so can take whatever job you want at whatever salary you can get.

If you get federal housing assistance there are also requirements you must meet. If you don't meet them you lose the aid.

If a company is doing great and wants to pay its top execs millions, that is their business, although CEO pay has gone from 7 times worker pay in 1980 to 344 times today and I don't think CEOs are 344 times better. But if a company is doing badly and wants federal (OUR) money, just like a student getting college paid for, just like a family getting their home subsidized, they need to play by the rules. A big problem with the bailout was no rules and no accountability so companies could take OUR money and use it to pay million dollar bonuses, pay for jaunts for top execs, pay for anti-union campaigns. It's about time they played on the same field as everyone else getting OUR money.
 
maxiep said:
And you don't see the parallel? "Take the Government's money and live by rules set up by a bureaucrat."
Click to expand...

No I don't, because one is regulations put in place to protect the people. Are you saying that you are not in favor of putting this legislation in place to cap the salary of executives that their companies are taking government assistance? So that some jack ass and his board of directors can legally just give all the assistance money to themselves without legal ramification? I can understand being opposed to the bail out, but the reality is it is being passed. To object to this, is just being stubborn.
 
crandc said:
If you get federal student financial aid, it comes with strings. A person must attend an accredited college, take a certain number of units, maintain a given GPA. It's not free money and if you don't live up to the requirements you have to pay the money back to the government (my nephew got himself into exactly this situation and was facing jail time). Once you graduate, of course, you are no longer receiving the federal money so can take whatever job you want at whatever salary you can get.

If you get federal housing assistance there are also requirements you must meet. If you don't meet them you lose the aid.

If a company is doing great and wants to pay its top execs millions, that is their business, although CEO pay has gone from 7 times worker pay in 1980 to 344 times today and I don't think CEOs are 344 times better. But if a company is doing badly and wants federal (OUR) money, just like a student getting college paid for, just like a family getting their home subsidized, they need to play by the rules. A big problem with the bailout was no rules and no accountability so companies could take OUR money and use it to pay million dollar bonuses, pay for jaunts for top execs, pay for anti-union campaigns. It's about time they played on the same field as everyone else getting OUR money.
Click to expand...


Perfect, and those conditions are known and available to you when you accept the money. The terms don't change after that other than perhaps interest on a student loan. So if the "rules" are so important at the time of the agreement, isn't it a bit unethical for the lender to then put additional restrictions on you, seemingly on a whim?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top