If You're a Liberal, It's OK to be a Jerk

Well, what a shock that union leaders aren't denouncing such ugly "tactics." I guess as long as they push forward the union agenda, it's ok to play with such ugly cards.

Wow, and comparing Mr. Walker to Muammar al-Qaddafi... that's ugly.

This from the left only a few months after Pres. Obama spoke about a new tone after Mrs. Giffords was shot.

Prophat: go figure!!

And holding up a sign at the US Capital comparing health care to a death camps sucks too.

All of the Hitler comparisons are stupid, no matter what side they are on. Stripping Unions of collective bargaining rights is something that Hitler did, but the comparison stops there. Walker is not out to kill millions in gas chambers. Neither was health care reform.

Hopefully this Fox affiliate is being fair and balanced in their coverage and not just showing the stupid signs, but showing the majority of signs that do not make ugly comparisons. That is what they should focus on, fair and balanced, honest reporting, not sensationalism..

Hopefully this Fox affiliate is being fair and balanced in their coverage and not just showing the stupid signs, but showing the majority of signs that do not make ugly comparisons. That is what they should focus on, not the utter nonsense of Hitler comparisons.

You mean just like the MSM did at Tea Party events?! LMAO

Well, the Qaddafi comparison is a bit much. Qaddafi is obviously a total nutcase. I would like to know about those Nazi comparisons and cross hair signs. Were these like the ones the teapartiers were carrying with Obama's picture or the kind Rush and his buddies used on air?

Oh wait, I see this comes from Fox News and not an affiliate. Never mind on that fair and balanced thing I said.

You mean just like the MSM did at Tea Party events?! LMAO

Every single time this Nazi @!$%# comes up, I cringe. It is bull@!$%# no matter which side does it. Pure bull@!$%# and neither side is free of guilt here, neither. Get that right at least.

You mean just like the MSM did at Tea Party events?! LMAO

Fox is part of the MSM. Just wanted to make sure you understand that.

Perhaps when one of these no-name protesters becomes a huge name in politics like Sarah Palin or Rush Limbaugh, this would be a valid point.

How many dumbass nutjob conservatives do you think you can find out on the street on any given day? Do they represent the entire Republican party? Of course not. Yet some idiots with a Hitler sign somehow define the Democratic party? Give me a break.

To no one's surprise, rightists are trying to redefine "civil" as "never criticizing conservatives". LOL.

Oh wait, I see this comes from Fox News and not an affiliate. Never mind on that fair and balanced thing I said.

It showed all that was there, btco. Even in a large panned shot, you could see quite a few nasty signs. You didn't have to go searching for them.

Hypocrisy is officially dead.

After three frigging years of the most vile rhetoric of my lifetime against a president and his family (I been around awhile) some FOX News sycophant writes an article about what??? Wait....wait for it...bingo!!! Her complaients about stupid people with stupid signs.

I just you'd be able to direct us to your articles denouncing the Tea Party signs. You know, the ones with the bone through his nose. The people showing up at rallies with stuffed monkeys and the like.

I was also surprised (not really) to see the author claiming the crowd was "union organizers and liberal activists".

This "fact" would, I'm sure, come as a surprise to the law enforcement and fire fighter personnel who have joined in supporting the protesters. Yes, I'm sure there's some union organizers there, but mostly it's just regular folks, scared that their ability to st at a table and negociate their benefit plans will be taken away, tryin' to take care of their families.

The danger here is not a few dumb ass signs, but the Right trying to dehumanize regular tax paying citizens for expressing their 1st amendment rights.

Time to re-read the constitution GOPers

How many dumbass nutjob conservatives do you think you can find out on the street on any given day? Do they represent the entire Republican party? Of course not. Yet some idiots with a Hitler sign somehow define the Democratic party? Give me a break.

You guys get all upset over this; when it is exactly what liberals did with the Tea Party and their protests.

A couple of liberals holding a Hitler sign doesn't define the Democratic party, it defines the liberals holding the signs, the same it defines Republicans doing the same.

My wife bought me a @!$%# which I wear around my conservative friends.

My parents said I could be anything, so I became an @!$%#

We are all being forced to relive through the 60's again via the Koch Bros...

I was also surprised (not really) to see the author claiming the crowd was "union organizers and liberal activists".

This "fact" would, I'm sure, come as a surprise to the law enforcement and fire fighter personnel who have joined in supporting the protesters. Yes, I'm sure there's some union organizers there, but mostly it's just regular folks,scared that their ability to st at a table and negociate their benefit plans will be taken away, tryin' to take care of their families.

So you are surprised (not really) that the author claimed the crown was "union organizers and liberal activitists", yet you admit that there are union organizers and "regular folks" there.

Hmm...

Here are a couple of facts for you, the state is broke and teachers get pretty incredible/expensive benefit plans. Now whether you are willing to admit that or not is another story.

The danger here is not a few dumb ass signs, but the Right trying to dehumanize regular tax paying citizens for expressing their 1st amendment rights.

Dehumanize? Seriously? Now you're just making stuff up. Nobody is dehumanizing the protesters. Disagreeing and dehumanizing are two radically different things Jimster.

Did you feel the same way when the media covered the Tea Party protests? Or were they all just "dumbass nutjob conservatives" as you so eloquently put it?

The converse of pretty much everything you said is also true Jimster. Where were all the articles denouncing the signs of Pres. Bush, VP Cheney, Condi Rice, Sarah Palin, John McCain, Michael Steele, etc?

BOTH SIDES ARE GUILTY OF THIS BEHAVIOR JIMSTER.

After three frigging years of the most vile rhetoric of my lifetime against a president and his family (I been around awhile

So have I, and I seem to recall at least this much animosity toward both Bushes, Clinton, Reagan, Carter, and LBJ. (I won't put Nixon in the same league since he did, after all, resign in disgrace.)

...inside the normally immaculate Capitol two weeks ago....

Interesting choice of words. Especially as police have noted that the protesters clean up after themselves. By mentioning it's usually "immaculate", the implication is that the protesters are messy though there's no direct accusation.

Then again innuendo over facts is SOP at Fox, from what I've seen.

Seriously? That's you're complaint? Pretty irrelevant, really. Besides, you can't have all those people in there without getting it dirty.

Here are a couple of facts for you, the state is broke and teachers get pretty incredible/expensive benefit plans.

It the state is so bad off why did Walker approve the $140M in future tax breaks coming to businesses.

What kind of thinking does it take to conclude we should force middle income families to take a 6%-11% pay cut while thinking that raising taxes on the rich on earnings above a certain dollar amount by 3% is bad?

If You're a Liberal, It's OK to be a Jerk

And if you're a 'Conservative', it's OK to be a Hypocrite, and to hate women, minorities and the middle class while not actually 'conserving' a damn thing.

There, subjective opinion countered by subjective opinion.

And this isn't a personal attack unless calling all 'liberals' jerks is also a personal attack, right?

Seriously? That's you're complaint?

Just the first thing I noticed. Also, it's a point I'd not seen commented on; I try not to post too many "Me too" replies.

Besides, you can't have all those people in there without getting it dirty.

And by it being dirty, then you can extrapolate a whole other slew of adjectives. Careless. Insensitive. Irresponsible.

It doesn't take much to damn people by innuendo and association.

If it's such an insignificant detail, why put it in? Why mention the building is "normally immaculate" except to frame a picture of what these protesters are "really" like?

The place hasn't been cleaned in two freaking weeks. Yeah, I bet it's gonna be a bit dirty after having thousands of people in and out.

I don't see that it's something that should be an issue.

I take that back - 'conservatives' are clearly trying to conserve the power and wealth they and their masters have acquired. How very noble of them.

Why mention the building is "normally immaculate" except to frame a picture of what these protesters are "really" like?

Oh I don't know...maybe to frame a picture of what the building is "really" like?

It the state is so bad off why did Walker approve the $140M in future tax breaks coming to businesses.

He approved tax incentives to businesses relocating factories or facilities into Wisconsin. These are companies that don't currently reside in Wisconsin, not existing companies.

What kind of thinking does it take to conclude we should force middle income families to take a 6%-11% pay cut

Of which 5.8% of it would come back to them in the form of retirement funds, with interest, and matching funds of at least the same amount, if not more.

I take that back - 'conservatives' are clearly trying to conserve the power and wealth they and their masters have acquired. How very noble of them.

Take out "they and", and you'll have it right:).

Hypocrisy is officially dead.

After three frigging years of the most vile rhetoric of my lifetime against a president and his family (I been around awhile) some FOX News sycophant writes an article about what??? Wait....wait for it...bingo!!! Her complaients about stupid people with stupid signs.

This is rich. Funny how memories can play tricks on us. Funny how it's only been the past 3 years that you have heard the most vile rhetoric. Where were you when GWB was being compared to a chimpanzee and various faciial expressions superimposed next to chimps? Where were you when the movie on the assassination of President Bush was released??

Hypocrisy is alive and well my friend and living on the Newsvine in February 2011.

He approved tax incentives to businesses relocating factories or facilities into Wisconsin. These are companies that don't currently reside in Wisconsin, not existing companies.

Exactly right. I didn't know if I should respond or leave jedipunk alone in his world of half-truths.

Oh I don't know...maybe to frame a picture of what the building is "really" like?

Yes, I'm sure that in the middle of an article calling liberals jerks and hypocrites that the reporter felt it was a great accent to the story to compliment the architecture.

No... wait... that makes no sense at all.

It's a hit piece, an extended ad homenim attack. The Hitler references make me no happier when directed at conservatives as they have when directed at liberals. But it's much easier to assume that liberals are collectively hyperbolic crybabies than to consider that the majority of the protests have been peaceful and on point.

And in case you're wondering, no, I did not think that every tea partier was a bigot or a doofus. The one's who were bringing the Hitler signs were not exactly the most shining examples of wholesome conservatism in America, but I'm sure most of the Tea Party has it's heart in the right place. And the same is true with these protesters, I'm also sure.

Whats new?

He approved tax incentives to businesses relocating factories or facilities into Wisconsin. These are companies that don't currently reside in Wisconsin, not existing companies.

Does it matter? He is giving away money. This incentive sounds kind of like a stimulus package. I though the GOP disliked stimulus or does calling it "incentive" really change what it is that much.

Of which 5.8% of it would come back to them in the form of retirement funds, with interest, and matching funds of at least the same amount, if not more.

Hardly matters when people are striving to support themselves as it is.

Regardless, I fail to see how taking away collective bargaining rights of the union will change this picture. Public sector jobs, regardless of unions, always includes better healthcare plans. It is one of the reasons folks with bachelors and masters degrees are ok with meager teaching salaries.

Now we are telling these college educated folks that they would be better off if they had not gone to college and instead went to work for GE or something. No wonder we have a shortage of teachers in the country. What other job can you get where when you succeed people complain you make too much and then bitch that no one wants the job.

Finally, the unions (if I am not mistaken) agreed with the proposals except for the part about collective bargaining. This is about union busting not closing a gap in the deficit.

If You're a Liberal, It's OK to be a Jerk

I find that the title is offensive...for those in Wisconsin carrying signs that call for the death of Gov. Walker....

http://www.ktrh.com/pages/michaelberry.html

I am sure they find the title offensive too.

He approved tax incentives to businesses relocating factories or facilities into Wisconsin. These are companies that don't currently reside in Wisconsin, not existing companies.

Does it matter? He is giving away money. This incentive sounds kind of like a stimulus package. I though the GOP disliked stimulus or does calling it "incentive" really change what it is that much.

Let's see...a company that does not currently reside in Wisconsin is looking for somewhere to relocate, or perhaps expand. Wisconsin is offering a 2-year "tax holiday" for new businesses moving in. The company comes in, provides jobs which will provide income tax revenues, as well as increased sales tax revenues (since more people will have money to spend), and in two years, they will begin to receive taxes from the business itself.

How, exactly, is that "giving money away"? Seems to me it's bringing new revenue to the state, without actually costing the state any additional outlay.

I find it absolutely hilarious that they are bitching about a measily $140 million compared to the billions and perhaps trillions health care is going to cost this country.

Of which 5.8% of it would come back to them in the form of retirement funds, with interest, and matching funds of at least the same amount, if not more.

Hardly matters when people are striving to support themselves as it is.

Would you rather see them lose their jobs or receive IOU's instead of paychecks? The rest of us in the private sector have seen stagnant wages and huge increases in our insurance premiums, not to mention the job loss suffered by many, including myself and my husband.

Regardless, I fail to see how taking away collective bargaining rights of the union will change this picture. Public sector jobs, regardless of unions, always includes better healthcare plans. It is one of the reasons folks with bachelors and masters degrees are ok with meager teaching salaries.

$45K a year isn't meager to many of us. It's actually fairly average for a 4-year liberal arts degree. Expecting public sector employees to contribute to their benefits and retirement, as well as accept that their pay cannot realistically exceed that of the private sector for those with similar education, isn't unreasonable, IMO.

Now we are telling these college educated folks that they would be better off if they had not gone to college and instead went to work for GE or something. No wonder we have a shortage of teachers in the country. What other job can you get where when you succeed people complain you make too much and then bitch that no one wants the job.

What other job can you get where you work 10 months of the year and get paid for 12? BTW, who is complaining that teachers' salaries are too high? We're complaining that their pension funds and medical benefits are adding to the burden on our municipalities in a time where revenues are way down.

How, exactly, is that "giving money away"?

Unless you're contending that the tax holiday is keeping them from having to pay taxes in twinkies and cupcakes, I think the answer on this is pretty easy to see.

The loss of tax revenue is money that they would be getting otherwise, all other things being equal. By setting up such incentives, the state is giving a monetary benefit to new businesses; it's just in the form of tax breaks rather than cash upfront. But either way, it's money.

Hey wasn't it Sarah Palin who used crosshairs, and Glenn Beck who claimed that the only thing that was going to stop resistence to the GOP anniliation of individual and civil rights was to "shoot them in the head"? I guess those you call liberals (many former moderate Republicans like myself), get kind of testy when the fascists who have taken over the GOP continue to attack our rights as citizens. All I see from the hypocrites who "lead" the GOP is their endless sex scandals (I could name 8 or 10 off the top of my head), while trying to impose the equivalent of Sharia Law on the rest of us. Attacks on the right of workers to fairplay in the workplace, attacks on the right of women to make decisions about their own reproduction, attacks on the environmental standards that keep our air and water safe from industry pollution - the new GOP is always looking to punish someone, always seeking to overturn years of enlightenment, always trying to steal from citizens. Thinking people don't want to give up their rights as citizens to right wingers and their corportate puppetmasters.

#1.17

Why would your wife buy you @!$%#?

Interesting how the left loves to bring up the Kock brothers as hijacking democracy but when Soros does it they consider it "grassroots"

Fact is, I have become numb to anything the left or the right says about one another, it is just a vile game of one upmanship.

As for those lefties that are on here saying that it is wrong for either side to have these violent rhetoric signs, why cant you just condemn the ones that are carrying them RIGHT NOW! You were able to condemn the right when they were doing it, you did not say it was wrong for both sides, you said that the RIGHT were prepetuating the violent rhetoric. Now that he left is doing it suddenly it is wrong for both sides.

You sure can condemn the right for something when they do it but when the left does it all you can do is say it is "wrong for anyone". You lefties just cant come to say your side was wrong can you? You just cant call them out specifically when it is them can you?

The headline of this seed is on the dot.

I don't know how often I have read here on Vine how awful the Tea Party is with their "offensive and vulgar signs and shoutings" - and yet the Liberal wing are behaving even worse, when the "cause" is up their alley.

If one standard is good, then a double standard is supposedly twice as good.

Now, fortunately American voters don't have to worry about what college-student-style-hick-ups liberals are continuously belching, as they will never be other than cows the Democrats milk votes from, whenever convenient - and then of course leave them without any influence whatsoever.

Just look at Obama. He kicked the libs in the butt the day after he got elected, because they have no place in real politics.

Anyway - to hold a sign calling someone a nazi because he is utilizing his right as an elected official in a democratic society to determine a political path within the available majority is very telling about who in reality do not support our Constitutional Republic, but instead prefer a totalitarian state where the liberal elite is always "right", and the rest of us just have "to learn" to cope with it. Shame on them.

Does it matter? He is giving away money.

Giving away money? No money is leaving the coffers and going somewhere else. He is not giving away money.

If you don't have something, and you don't get something, are you really giving away anything?

The loss of tax revenue is money that they would be getting otherwise, all other things being equal.

How would they be 'getting' this money, if a company doesn't relocate to Wisconsin?

What other job can you get where you work 10 months of the year and get paid for 12?

Mosts teacher I know supplement their classes with their own incomes and take home a lot of work to grade throughout the week and on weekends. Over the summer they make lesson plans.

Or continue their education as required in most states to maintain current competency levels. But hey, let's not let that cloud a good talking point for our, "I hate unions!", brethren.

What other job can you get where you work 10 months of the year and get paid for 12?

This is a common misconception. Teachers actually get paid for the 10 months they work. If a teacher wants, they can have their entire salary doled out during those 10 months, resulting in a higher bi-weekly paycheck. This isn't common, but some teachers opt to do it if they have summer jobs that pay well enough.

Most teachers choose to defer their payment through the entire year. That means a lower paycheck, but not needing to find a summer job. Some teachers choose to work summer school, but teaching itself makes for long hours, so a lot of teachers choose to rest during the time off. And like jedi pointed out, many make their lesson plans. My wife spent several of her summers recently pursuing a Masters Degree, because her district requires it.

Anyway, the point is that they work 10 months, and get paid for 10 months worth of work. Many just choose to spread that payment over 12 months, leading to the misconception.

Anyway, the point is that they work 10 months, and get paid for 10 months worth of work. Many just choose to spread that payment over 12 months, leading to the misconception.

And MY point is that if a teacher makes $45K for 10 months' work, that's not bad pay, considering, as some pointed out, they can work in the summer if they choose. Regardless of whether they choose to be paid during the school year only, or over 12 months, they are still making $45K a year.

Regardless of whether they choose to be paid during the school year only, or over 12 months, they are still making $45K a year.

And you think that's excessive for what they do? For the cost of living in their area? Why is that number offensive to you? That sounds like a living wage to me, not a king's ransom.

And you think that's excessive for what they do? For the cost of living in their area? Why is that number offensive to you? That sounds like a living wage to me, not a king's ransom.

At what point, anywhere, in any of my posts, did I say that $45k is excessive? In fact, I've stated repeatedly that it's a fair wage for the amount of schooling required (in most cases) and for the amount of hours they put in.

And you think that's excessive for what they do? For the cost of living in their area? Why is that number offensive to you? That sounds like a living wage to me, not a king's ransom.

It is a living wage. Their benefits and pensions amount to a king's ransom.

Regardless of whether they choose to be paid during the school year only, or over 12 months, they are still making $45K a year.

As compared to 60-80K for the same level of schooling and with similar hours in the private sector. Do you honestly think someone with a Masters degree in the private sector only averages 45K per year? With unpaid overtime and several attendance-required events that can take until 8 or 9 PM?

It is a living wage. Their benefits and pensions amount to a king's ransom.

Cite some data.

In fact, I've stated repeatedly that it's a fair wage for the amount of schooling required (in most cases) and for the amount of hours they put in.

True enough; I may have misunderstood your use of bold type. But you've also pointed out you don't think paying for their benefits is excessive, which means you're under the impression that such an expense shouldn't be a burden on someone making that salary.

You might not think the monetary compensation is excessive, but you are arguing that the benefits of the job (which they would have to pay for out of that monetary compensation) are excessive. You're still stating that you think they're getting too much, just that the money itself is a good number. They aren't getting away with anything by having insurance on top of a living wage.

Do you honestly think someone with a Masters degree in the private sector only averages 45K per year? With unpaid overtime and several attendance-required events that can take until 8 or 9 PM?

I agree completely.

Many teachers also due sporting events, chaperon, and manage clubs...all for free. And someone else already mentioned the expense of furthering education.

They aren't just teachers and we pay them like some person with a meaningless degree. We should pay them at worst like person who has authority over roughly 30 people at any one time and at best like a person handling our most precious commodity.

We can also complain about the bad teachers but I will tell you this, if educators made good money we would have the ability to cherry pick among educators and only have good ones. Now, we have to take what we can get because so few wants to be teachers.

Many teachers also due sporting events, chaperon, and manage clubs...all for free.

Any teachers that are also coaches get paid to be a coach above their salary, at least here in Wisconsin. They also get paid for club 'management' etc. as well.

That is good news to read. I wonder how wide spread that is. I was aware coaches were paid (at least where I am from) but I am not sure about clubs and the teachers that did after school tutoring did so on their own time.

Any teachers that are also coaches get paid to be a coach above their salary, at least here in Wisconsin.

There's a difference between coaching a sporting event and being required to attend. My mother, a high school teacher, is sports illiterate, but she and all the teachers at her school have to attend a set number of unpaid sporting events for safety reasons.

My guess is that it's because its included in the contract or employment agreement. So yes, they are getting paid.

If that's the case, Prophat, it means they're getting paid the same amount that you called a "living wage" for more hours of work than anyone here has been arguing. Still sound like fair compensation?

When you only work 9.5-10 months a year, it's still fair.

And besides, she obviously agreed to it when she signed her contract.

And besides, she obviously agreed to it when she signed her contract.

They also agree to their benefits when they sign their contract.

So bottom line: Are teachers overcompensated for their duties or not (incl. benefits)? What do you base your opinion on?

One day. No answer. That's about what I expected.

What about the "padded room" professors?

Is this calling our forefathers "jerks"?

Liberalism, philosophy or movement that has as its aim the development of individual freedom.

http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/liberalism

Let's paint a toothbrush stash on Obama because fnc said he was a socialist...hehehe Both sides needs to grow up or die from within

That was "classic" liberalism...not to be confused with "progressive" liberalism.

What about the "padded room" professors?

I wasn't familiar with term so I went and looked it up. The article I found described what you're talking about as teachers who are being kept in a holding pattern while a committee can decide if they've done something to get them fired. The reasons one might end up there range from minor infractions to serious allegations to vindictive principals.

The article I found also pointed out some states send teachers home without pay instead; presumably those teachers belong to a union, so I'm not imagining it's a union problem. If a teacher isn't fit to do their job, obviously they're overpaid; the dame is true in any profession. But while "padded room teachers" has a nice, buzzwordy feel to it, it is the exception rather than the rule.

I know of no system where money changes hands where you won't find waste. That means fix the system not dispose of it.

So, now I'll ask: Do you think teachers in general are overpaid, or just the ones who suck at it? Because the discussion to date hasn't been about quality. It's been about numbers.

In NY where there IS a teachers union, some of those padded room teachers have been there for a number of years, still being paid.

In NY where there IS a teachers union, some of those padded room teachers have been there for a number of years, still being paid.

That's nice. And it's immaterial to the question I asked.

Is there anyone here that is willing to say outright that teachers, as a profession, are overcompensated? And if you say yes, what is the basis of your opinion.

So far it seems to be "No, but I'll pull up this interesting deflection to show I have not been duped into arguing for an indefensible right wing talking point."

Which apparently means that you are suggesting that they are under-compensated? How so? What would be the basis of your opinion?

Which apparently means that you are suggesting that they are under-compensated?

I'm implying nothing. I'm responding to people who have insisted, in this thread, that they feel that some aspect of the teacher's compensation package is excessive or they want them to pay in more. But no one will come out and say they think that teachers are paid too much.

I don't know the economy of Wisconsin. I don't know how their salaries compare to other jobs that require the same amount of education. I don't know the low and the high that produce that average. In short, I'm making no positive assertion because I don't have the data to make such a claim.

But people feel comfortable making the claim their benefits package is too big and do so without bringing one shred of evidence. The only thing I'm asking is for them, if the actually feel that way, to state it outright and to back it up. No one has done that so far.

I don't know the economy of Wisconsin. I don't know how their salaries compare to other jobs that require the same amount of education. I don't know the low and the high that produce that average. In short, I'm making no positive assertion because I don't have the data to make such a claim.

Let me help ... Statistical Information Center - School Staff and Salary Data.
Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction.

According to the 2010 teachers "Average Salary by Group" ... the average salary is $49,093 average "fring" (benefits) is $25,750, the average number of years worked is 13. The Highest paid teacher in the state is $116,066. Can't tell on the "lowest" because it seems they included part time teachers, as it is listed as $234 and that can't be a full time teacher, it also states the average salary for that district as $18,983 with a high of $78,478 so I'd be a bit suspect on the average salary thing as well, it may be skewed by using part time salaries. Source.

But your argument comes down to defending the compensation..without knowing whether it is excessive or not....

My argument is asking others to back there assertion. I'm not making another assertion myself. By making that assertion, they took up the burden of proof. I'm doing nothing but asking them to come through with it, which does not include the burden of proof.

No, your argument comes down to suggesting that teachers "deserve" what they are getting regardless of results. People are not happy with the results....nor do they have the money to keep teachers in the style to which they have become accustomed....

No, your argument comes down to suggesting that teachers "deserve" what they are getting regardless of results.

No it's not. Your desire for it to be so that you can refute it in the fashion you're comfortable with doesn't make it so.

But I went and did some research. Here's what I got and what conclusion I came to as a result:

I found one website that showed a Mechanical Engineer or someone with a bachelors in Computer Science has a higher average salary in their field than a teacher; in fact it suggests that people with Bachelor's degrees have a higher average salary than teachers, a field that requires a Masters. This website quotes figures that match the ranges being discussed, but points out the entry level salary is about $30,000; the salaries people are finding outrageous are those of teachers with experience.

Given that, and that the average income for a 4 person family in Wisconsin is in the $78k range, yes I will say that I think that 45-50k a year plus benefits sounds like a reasonable salary for a Masters level educated professional in Wisconsin. Especially one that has the demands that a teaching does.

Now, are you willing to say that it's too much and if so, what are you basing that on? Or are you just going to insist that I'm suggesting more than I am or just attack the sources of my information (which might weaken my argument if you do well, but does nothing to strengthen yours)?

1. Not all teaching postions need a Master's.

2. You might agree....not all of the cost of education is in teacher's salaries.

3. Positions that produce income almost always are paid more highly then those that don't.

4. Maybe entry level salaries should be increased and future increases be decreased.

5. What many are upset over is not the salary of today...but the 40 years of benefits after retirement. How can one defend a system that pays out more after retirement then during one's working years?

6. Income for a family is different then income for an individual.

7. The money is not there.

I found one website that showed a Mechanical Engineer or someone with a bachelors in Computer Science has a higher average salary in their field than a teacher; in fact it suggests that people with Bachelor's degrees have a higher average salary than teachers, a field that requires a Masters.

That is comparing apples to car batteries. Engineering degrees and Education degrees are two seperate things and can't be compared.

Wisconsin requires a Bachelors degree to become a teacher. You also need to be licensed in the state.

If you want to compare degrees, compare teacher in the public sector vs teachers in the private sector. Then see who's being paid more.

I will address your question above, for one specific school district in Wisconsin. Milwaukee Public Schools.

First a bit of background. MPS had an annual budget in the 2009-2010 school year of approximately 1.3 billion dollars. Of that approximatly 44% went to teacher salary and benefits. MPS is extremely top heavy and that needs to be addressed. MPS has a graduation rate of approximately 48%, which means 48% of those who start school (Kindergarten) in MPS graduate from High School. MPS receives over $16,000 per student.

Now on to Teacher compensation. The average salary for an MPS teacher is $56,500. The average benefits package for an MPS teacher is $43,505 for a total compensation package of $100,005.

In this instance, I would say a benefits package that is 77% of their salary is severely out of whack. The average benefits package for the private sector is roughly 30% of salary.

Not all teaching postions need a Master's.

Fair enough, though do you know the difference between non-Masters and Master's level teachers in Wis?

You might agree....not all of the cost of education is in teacher's salaries.

No doubt. But I'm just talking about salaries at the moment.

Positions that produce income almost always are paid more highly then those that don't.

I don't think you want "income", but "revenue". And don't tell me teaching doesn't produce revenue.

Maybe entry level salaries should be increased and future increases be decreased.

Maybe, but then again maybe not.

What many are upset over is not the salary of today...but the 40 years of benefits after retirement. How can one defend a system that pays out more after retirement then during one's working years?

Depends on how the money is garnered. If I get retirement after 20 years and I happen to live to 100, should people be mad if I'm still receiving my pension?

Income for a family is different then income for an individual.

Yep. And as that puts the average of the two wage earners at around 39K, it doesn't bother me that one of those might be 45-50K.

The money is not there.

And the teachers would be willing to pay more into their pensions and insurance. The Governor won't agree unless they give up collective bargaining rights. Which means this is less about the money than advertised.

That is comparing apples to car batteries. Engineering degrees and Education degrees are two seperate things and can't be compared.

If they are both master's degrees, yes they can.

Wisconsin requires a Bachelors degree to become a teacher. You also need to be licensed in the state.

Good to know. Any idea how many Wis. teachers have a BA vs. an MA?

For the MPS stats and the comparison of percentages, may I have the sources you were using? I'd like to look at them before I respond.

For the MPS stats and the comparison of percentages, may I have the sources you were using?

Main Source

Alternate Source #1

Graduation Rate 2008

Any idea how many Wis. teachers have a BA vs. an MA?

52% have a Masters according to this link.

If you want to compare degrees, compare teacher in the public sector vs teachers in the private sector. Then see who's being paid more.

Think I might have made this point above...if not...just wanted to emphasize it.

Fair enough, though do you know the difference between non-Masters and Master's level teachers in Wis?

Salary?,,,,,lol

You might agree....not all of the cost of education is in teacher's salaries.

No doubt. But I'm just talking about salaries at the moment.

Then you're being a bit disingenuous.

Positions that produce income almost always are paid more highly then those that don't.

I don't think you want "income", but "revenue". And don't tell me teaching doesn't produce revenue.

Ok, I won't. Should I also not tell you that the sun is hot?

Maybe entry level salaries should be increased and future increases be decreased.

Maybe, but then again maybe not.

Depends on the aim...which so far you haven't addressed.

What many are upset over is not the salary of today...but the 40 years of benefits after retirement. How can one defend a system that pays out more after retirement then during one's working years?

Depends on how the money is garnered. If I get retirement after 20 years and I happen to live to 100, should people be mad if I'm still receiving my pension?

Might want to take that into account when addressing the subject. Seems you missed my question and decided to answer it with a question of your own...hmm.

Income for a family is different then income for an individual.

Yep. And as that puts the average of the two wage earners at around 39K, it doesn't bother me that one of those might be 45-50K.

Average....or mean?

The money is not there.

And the teachers would be willing to pay more into their pensions and insurance. The Governor won't agree unless they give up collective bargaining rights. Which means this is less about the money than advertised.

Now....only because of mean 'ol Walker....who's to say, as the union obviously hopes, that a new Governor wouldn't buckle under the pressure....better to change the system now...why kick the can down the road?

That is comparing apples to car batteries. Engineering degrees and Education degrees are two seperate things and can't be compared.

If they are both master's degrees, yes they can.

According to you....it may surprise you to know that different degrees are worth different amounts in the real world.

Re: MJV

Per factcheck.org, while they confirm your information for MPS, they emphasize that Milwaukee isn't representative of the rest of Wisconsin:

As of fiscal year 2010, none of the school districts in Wisconsin had an average teacher salary of $100,000 (as our reader asked) or even $89,000 (the amount Paul said the average teacher in Wisconsin "is making.")

The graduation rate, as stated in your source, is a bit low. It's also very much affected by rural vs. urban; economics of the families involved may play as much or more of a factor in those rates than the abilities of teachers.

Concerning the percentages of the benefits package, the site the main article references is here and states that the average workers benefits comprise around 30% of their total compensation, not that their benefits are 30% of their salary. So if someone is making $80k a year in total compensation, that would come out to close to $54K in salary and $24K if they were in the middle of that range (closer to 50% of their salary).

So teachers have a much better than average ratio of salary vs. benefits, but considering that the national averages take into account people who get nothing but social security taxes taken out (which factors into the benefits packages mentioned) I'm not convinced it's outrageous compared to private sector jobs.

I'll also reiterate that the teachers have stated they'd be willing to pay a higher portion of their benefits.

I thank you for actually attempting to bring some numbers to the table. I will ask you: Do you think teachers, as a profession, are overcompensated.

Socrates1:

Salary?

I apologize; I was asking for a percentage. I apparently wasn't clear. Though I do imagine those with the higher degree get at least a better initial salary.

Then you're being a bit disingenuous.

...Depends on the aim...which so far you haven't addressed.

I have brought one question to the table: Are teachers over compensated and why do you think they are, if you do? The fact you wish to broaden the discussion to costs as a whole is not my problem or my concern.

As for the aim of the discussions, it would seem that it is how best to use the taxpayers money.

Should I also not tell you that the sun is hot?

You can, if you can explain how people gain employment (and thus bring money into a state) with 0 education. Also, you might want to consider the fact that one reason people move to an area is better schools for their children. Teachers don't make widgets, but they prepare others to do their jobs and be better people; that sounds like they play a part in generating revenue.

Or are you under the impression that teachers are superfluous?

Might want to take that into account when addressing the subject

Might want to not set up straw men.

Average....or mean?

My further apologies. I did misuse the term.

...who's to say, as the union obviously hopes, that a new Governor wouldn't buckle under the pressure....

Whose to say, down the road, that they won't have just cause to use collective bargaining? Who is to say that this sort of tactic won't be used to try to damage other unions and endanger the collective bargaining rights of other workers?

Unions aren't the enemy. And Gov. Walker says this about money. If the money can be made good, why then continue to try to strip rights?

According to you....it may surprise you to know that different degrees are worth different amounts in the real world.

It may surprise you that worth is not solely determined in economic value.

I'm very familiar with the real world, thanks.

So are you going to answer my question or continue to dance about it? Do you think teacher's are overcompensated? What do you base that on?

Do you think teachers, as a profession, are overcompensated.

I don't have a enough data to formulate a proper answer.

Total Compensation (Salary and Benefits) on average in the state of Wisconsin is 49,093 + 25,750 or $74,843 for teachers. (Using 2010 Wisconsin DPI spreadsheet for the above numbers (sourced elsewhere in this article in one of my posts)).

I think that is actually a pretty fair number, but it could be skewed by introducing part time workers into the "average" listed in the spreadsheet. I base this on certain entries in the spreadsheet where the low pay is $234, the high pay is $78k plus and the average is 18k ...

Fair enough response. Thanks again.

I apologize; I was asking for a percentage. I apparently wasn't clear. Though I do imagine those with the higher degree get at least a better initial salary.

Then you're being a bit disingenuous.

Benefits are certainly part of the entire compensation package.

...Depends on the aim...which so far you haven't addressed.

Pertaining to changing when and where the money should be spent.

I have brought one question to the table: Are teachers over compensated and why do you think they are, if you do? The fact you wish to broaden the discussion to costs as a whole is not my problem or my concern.

To the second part...not really...just a statement to ensure that it wasn't. To the first part...I don't see how a retirement program that lasts longer then the work time is sustainable..so I would have to suggest that teachers are over compensated.

You can, if you can explain how people gain employment (and thus bring money into a state) with 0 education

Not if you understand the difference between the back room and the front....Teachers represent the back room and thus are an expense, you can argue all you want about the value of the back room...and even whether it's "fair"...doesn't change the truth of my statement...those who generate revenue are generally paid better then those who don't.

Or are you under the impression that teachers are superfluous?

No...but then providing false choices is an oft used tactic.

Might want to take that into account when addressing the subject

Might want to not set up straw men.

lol....I guess you don't include ceo bonuses in any discussion you might have regarding compensation....or signing bonuses for athletes......disingenuous.

Whose to say, down the road, that they won't have just cause to use collective bargaining? Who is to say that this sort of tactic won't be used to try to damage other unions and endanger the collective bargaining rights of other workers?

Ahh...now we begin the move towards blurring the line between public and private...seems to me that public employees, as the taxpayers the left asserts them to be, have ample opportunity at the ballot box to vote in their own best interests.....and they do.

It may surprise you that worth is not solely determined in economic value.

Economic Worth is not determined by economic value? Interesting, and yet it seems to be the basis of your argument.

So are you going to answer my question or continue to dance about it? Do you think teacher's are overcompensated? What do you base that on?

I believe I already did...but...concerning public school teachers...which you may, or may not, be attempting to equate with private school teacher...

1. Comparing the salaries of the two.....yes

2. Comparing the results....yes.

3. Considering the various benefits....yes.

4. Considering the waste of money in the educational system....yes.

5. Considering the indirect benefits....yes.

6. Considering the available money...yes.

7. Considering some of the subject matter...yes.

8. Considering the quality of some of the teachers....yes.

9. Considering the method of compensation rewards longevity, not merit, yes.

10. Enough for you?

Benefits are certainly part of the entire compensation package.

A percentage of teachers with Masters vs. Bachelors, not a percentage of their salary.

To the first part...I don't see how a retirement program that lasts longer then the work time is sustainable..

To get a pension, people pay X into an account which then produces interest and the pensioners are paid from the interest. So in theory, as long as the market does okay, sustainability shouldn't be an issue.

Not if you understand the difference between the back room and the front....

I understand perspective. You are taking a short view. I am taking the long view. The fact you aren't seeing the connection between education and revenue generation is disconcerting, but doesn't change the relationship.

No...but then providing false choices is an oft used tactic.

I was asking because I didn't understand your perspective. Now that we've set the bounds between "non-superfluous" and "revenue generating", it's easier for me to try to understand where you see the role of educators.

lol....I guess you don't include ceo bonuses in any discussion you might have regarding compensation....or signing bonuses for athletes......disingenuous.

I don't include those at all. I haven't discussed them at all in relation to this topic.

...seems to me that public employees, as the taxpayers the left asserts them to be, have ample opportunity at the ballot box to vote in their own best interests.....and they do.

And they also have at their disposal collective bargaining rights. One is not a substitute for the other.

I believe I already did....

Not directly before this comment.

As to your reasons, would you politely produce the comparative salaries, results (based upon teacher's ability and nothing else), what you consider a just benefits package (keeping in mind the current benefits package is average to a little above average), why waste in the educational system elsewhere equates to a necessity for lower teacher's benefits, what indirect benefits you're talking about, what "subject matter" you're talking about and perhaps something other than your word to back your point?

So in theory, as long as the market does okay, sustainability shouldn't be an issue.

And when the theory is shown to be false....who pays?

understand perspective. You are taking a short view.

"I" am neither taking the long or the short view. "I" am simply stating a fact which you then choose to turn into a semantic discussion as well as to suggest that "I' am taking a position. Stating a reality is not taking a position.

I was asking because I didn't understand your perspective. Now that we've set the bounds between "non-superfluous" and "revenue generating", it's easier for me to try to understand where you see the role of educators.

I seriously doubt it....and can't wait to see how you add 2 + 2 and suggest that the number I come up with is 5. It is a common liberal tactic.

I don't include those at all. I haven't discussed them at all in relation to this topic.

Clarifying...you do not include the compensation I mention in their "compensation package".

And they also have at their disposal collective bargaining rights. One is not a substitute for the other.

but it does suggest that they have alternative ways of making their voices heard...something you insinuated would be lost with any loss of collective bargaining rights....but then again....I thought salaries was the topic.

As to your reasons,

I believe I met your request.....You asked for someone to take the position I did and to provide the reasons.....I did both.

And when the theory is shown to be false....who pays?

Has the theory been shown to be false? Can you show some numbers that support that?

Stating a reality is not taking a position.

And your argument is that educators do not generate revenue, despite the fact that what the do 1) allows people to do their jobs and 2) attracts taxpayers.

I guess we'll have to disagree.

It is a common liberal tactic.

And suggesting something reasonable is a $_Political_Party_I_Don't_Like_Type_Trick is a common debate tactic as well. I'm not trying to convince you that my intentions are pure, nor do I need to do so to continue in this debate. I'm explaining myself for the sake of clarity, not to impress you.

Clarifying...you do not include the compensation I mention in their "compensation package".

As I'm talking about neither CEO's or sports stars, I really don't understand what this has to do with the conversation.

but it does suggest that they have alternative ways of making their voices heard...something you insinuated would be lost with any loss of collective bargaining rights....but then again....I thought salaries was the topic.

Tell me, who else do you feel should leave their salaries up to public vote? Collective bargaining exists for a reason. It's a defense and allows a profession to have a voice. Voting for a candidate that is sympathetic to a profession isn't an equal substitute for it.

I believe I met your request.....

And all you provided was your impression of numbers and facts that have not been presented. If I counter with "And I think they're salaries are fine based upon the average salary for their education level" and similar statements, it's of exactly equal validity because at that point we're still just stating opinions, not presenting facts that might actually suggest one or the other's perspective is more correct.

I was asking you to back up your opinion and you did so with basically another set of opinions. I was asking you to present what data you were forming those secondary opinions around to further the debate (Check the exchange with MJV; you'll note that's what we did and it went much less snarky than our discussion).

But if that's the best you got, so be it, I suppose.

This is getting long. I'll respond to one more comment and then let this one go. After that, I'm sure we'll see each other in other threads.

I think this will have to about do it.

Has the theory been shown to be false? Can you show some numbers that support that?

And this is one of the reasons why....this will have to about do it.....regardless of whether I wish to argue to point of whether the theory has been shown to be false.....did you note the conditional? "When"? Your argument will, of course, then be "when" presupposes it will be...which ignores the real question...so I'll move on.

And your argument is that educators do not generate revenue, despite the fact that what the do 1) allows people to do their jobs and 2) attracts taxpayers.

Apparently you never took an econ. course...or delved into it on your own....I'm not in the mood to argue definitions which are part of economics 101.

As I'm talking about neither CEO's or sports stars, I really don't understand what this has to do with the conversation.

Obviously.

Tell me, who else do you feel should leave their salaries up to public vote?

Through their representatives? Anyone who works for the public.

I was asking you to back up your opinion and you did so with basically another set of opinions

No, you were attempting to suggest that no one would have the actual audacity to take you up on your challange and state that teachers were over-compensated.......sorry...I did.

Your only other criteria was to give the reasons...which I also did.

This is getting long. I'll respond to one more comment and then let this one go. After that, I'm sure we'll see each other in other threads.

Funny...we both arrived at the same conclusion....something we finally agreed on. tada.

...did you note the conditional? "When"?

If "when" is not "now" then it's an irrelevant question.

Your only other criteria was to give the reasons...which I also did.

Yep. And they were all weak and not presented as having anything to do with actual numbers. Just your impression of those numbers, if you've ever actually seen them.

Take care.

Or continue their education as required in most states to maintain current competency levels. But hey, let's not let that cloud a good talking point for our, "I hate unions!", brethren.

People in every other profession have to do the same thing, even though we do NOT get our summers off. Grow up. People are angry, and we are no longer your slaves. We don't have to take it any more. We have homeschool, cyberschool, and private school.