The Chief wrote:

truchas wrote:Average them out and the govt. employees are rich compared to the private sector. And whose paying them? You and I. They're stealing from us. Socialism is corrupt.

NOT!

Here's the Top Ten CEO's for 2008:

Bruce Wasserstein $133,708,650
Eugene M. Isenberg $116,652,816
Aubrey K. McClendon $112,464,517
Lawrence J. Ellison $84,598,700
Richard C. Adkerson $77,085,387
Bob R. Simpson $53,482,631
Robert A. Iger $51,229,341
John R. Charman $46,770,492
Mario J. Gabelli $45,927,900
Jose Maria Alapont Ph.D. $43,878,871
(That's MILLIONS BTW)

Here's the top 100 list:

http://www.aflcio.org/corporatewatch/pa ... top100.cfm

Post up the top 100 Gov't Employee Salary.

Let's see who is ripping who off.

By the way bright boy Wasserstien made a profit that year of 630 million dollars for the companies stock holders, He also gave 25 Million that year to Harvard Law School from his own funds.

He took risks and he was not playing with tax payers money. That is the difference

Wasserstien died this year. Leaving a great deal of his 2.3 Billion dollars to help others.

Mike Zastoupil wrote:

The Chief wrote:

truchas wrote:Average them out and the govt. employees are rich compared to the private sector. And whose paying them? You and I. They're stealing from us. Socialism is corrupt.

NOT!

Here's the Top Ten CEO's for 2008:

Bruce Wasserstein $133,708,650
Eugene M. Isenberg $116,652,816
Aubrey K. McClendon $112,464,517
Lawrence J. Ellison $84,598,700
Richard C. Adkerson $77,085,387
Bob R. Simpson $53,482,631
Robert A. Iger $51,229,341
John R. Charman $46,770,492
Mario J. Gabelli $45,927,900
Jose Maria Alapont Ph.D. $43,878,871
(That's MILLIONS BTW)

Here's the top 100 list:

http://www.aflcio.org/corporatewatch/pa ... top100.cfm

Post up the top 100 Gov't Employee Salary.

Let's see who is ripping who off.

By the way bright boy Wasserstien made a profit that year of 630 million dollars for the companies stock holders, He also gave 25 Million that year to Harvard Law School from his own funds.

He took risks and he was not playing with tax payers money. That is the difference

Wasserstien died this year. Leaving a great deal of his 2.3 Billion dollars to help others.

OK... so now his sits at the right hand of God.

My Bad.

Who gives a shit. He gives his money to a Law School. BFD!

What risks did he take?

Why didn't he leave his money to the folks that made it for him?

Site what others he gave his money to... more Law Schools?

GTFO you Capitalistic greed monger...

Money doesn't make a Man.

truchas wrote:Do you think his employees lived in tents? And yea, he did take some risks along the way. Do you think his money was easy? And you're sarcastic about him giving money to charity? Give me a break... You probably watch Oprah every day.

Big Money Law School's AREN't charity.

Site some worthy COMMUNITY charities that he gave his money to..

Also,

HOW THE HELL IS CITIBANK and the rest of them BIG MONEY BANKS able to pay back their share of the stimulus money so quickly?

This time last year, they were all beyond broke.

I'll tell ya how.

Exuberant % RATE INCREASES out the ass paid by the consumer.

That's how.

Another great form of this great Capitalistic way of life.

Rip your clients/consumers off one way or another to make that buck.

His is just another example that ya can't take it with ya when ya die.

MONEY DOESN'T MAKE YA A MAN!

I doubt very much that Wasserstein had a single callous on his hands. An Investment Banker. Made his money off the money of others. Amazing how he died at such a young age of 61.

This guy is broke (monetarily) & has been for most of his life. And is still climbing his ass off and is going strong at the ripe age of 86.


He to me is far richer a man than gents the likes of Wasserstein ever could be.

butitsadryheat wrote:BofA paid back their money I think yesterday. They did it by not loaning it out. Even with historically low rates, they aren't loaning money out.

As for your list Chief, I noticed it was from AFL/CIO. Any luck in finding a listing of what their National Officers made in the same period of time?

Agreed.

The Chief wrote:MONEY DOESN'T MAKE YA A MAN!

Whining about the money other people earn while pretending to disdain it yourself doesn't make you a man either.

This whole discussion is kind of interresting. The article that was cited was about government employees who make over $100,000. A lot of the guys here are engineers; I wonder how many engineers make over $100,000. We seem to have a doctor or two here; I wonder how many doctors make over $100,000 (easy- all of them). We used to have a banker - do bankers make over $100,000? Sounds to me like we got a lot of people bitching about things they got no business bitching about.

Today on French TV2 we saw a really disgusting capitalist bastard owning a large luxury restaurant in Paris. They showed a pie chart off his gross intake and what it went to, 45% to salaries, some 30 percent to raw materials, 20% in VAT (value added tax), some two percent in insurances, and less than 3% to himself.

OK, the restaurant had a large gross intake, so his 3 percent is still money. But actually are his three percent really enough to make a whole political movement (socialism) out of? I he did all his work for free, there would be enough to raise the salaries by 6.7 percent! Big Deal! Is that supposed to be what he is "robbing the workers" of? They are happy to be employed which they might not be without him. And I have seen similar figures from other large firms.

The Chief wrote:

truchas wrote:

mconnell wrote:

The Chief wrote:Let's compare them to the CEO's of the top ten major private sectors annual salaries and their bonuses.

Those CEO's annual salaries, from the top ten Private Sector Corps, make more annually, than all these gov employees combined.

All this while the folks that do the labor that make all the bucks for them CEO's, get paid shit.

Now that makes tons of sense.

The CEO's make exactly what they are worth, as determined by the market and the company owners.

Excellent post. If the people that invested in these companies (voluntarily I might add) didn't like the salaries, they'd pull their money out. Unfortunately, we cannot pull out our money from the poorly run and greedy government.

Oh my, and the folks that do all the hard work that makes the bucks that pays the CEO's 7+ figure salary, have absolutely NO say in this.

This all while they get paid less than 1% of the CEO's salary.

Makes a bunch of sense... YUP!

The CEO's make millions of dollars because they can run a company and make it successful. It takes a hell of a lot to run a large company. Those "folks that do all the hard work" are far from the ones that "make the bucks." A factory worker does not make a company successful. Proper management does. The impact of a floor worker probably contributes a hell of a lot less than 1% to the company's bottom line as compared to the CEO. They get paid less than 1% of the CEO because their importance to the company is less than 1% of the CEO. More valuable people get paid more.

So, yes. It does make sense.

So the lesson here is that if you aren't always bat-shit-crazy, you're held to a higher standard?

Fowweasle DAMMIT fowweezer made some nice, sensible posts last week. he apparently has been making an ass out of himself over the weekend. he sure as hell wouldn't be strung up right now if he always made an ass out of himself.

just sayin'

Ejnar Fjerdingstad wrote:Today on French TV2 we saw a really disgusting capitalist bastard owning a large luxury restaurant in Paris. They showed a pie chart off his gross intake and what it went to, 45% to salaries, some 30 percent to raw materials, 20% in VAT (value added tax), some two percent in insurances, and less than 3% to himself.

OK, the restaurant had a large gross intake, so his 3 percent is still money. But actually are his three percent really enough to make a whole political movement (socialism) out of? I he did all his work for free, there would be enough to raise the salaries by 6.7 percent! Big Deal! Is that supposed to be what he is "robbing the workers" of? They are happy to be employed which they might not be without him. And I have seen similar figures from other large firms.

Is the restaurant example really indicative of the birth of socialism? Did Lenin not say "let them have eateries"?

The private sector fucking us over???

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/local ... 69767.html

I am pretty sure that all those under achieving assholes in public service are doing a pretty good job on their own!

MikeTX wrote:no bonuses where i work. would never even fathom getting one. i would guess that bonuses to public sector employees are always approved by some governing body. blame your elected officials.

Guess what buddy the DC budget is approved by the Senate. Thanks again Harry!

erykmynn wrote:

Ejnar Fjerdingstad wrote:Today on French TV2 we saw a really disgusting capitalist bastard owning a large luxury restaurant in Paris. They showed a pie chart off his gross intake and what it went to, 45% to salaries, some 30 percent to raw materials, 20% in VAT (value added tax), some two percent in insurances, and less than 3% to himself.

OK, the restaurant had a large gross intake, so his 3 percent is still money. But actually are his three percent really enough to make a whole political movement (socialism) out of? I he did all his work for free, there would be enough to raise the salaries by 6.7 percent! Big Deal! Is that supposed to be what he is "robbing the workers" of? They are happy to be employed which they might not be without him. And I have seen similar figures from other large firms.

Is the restaurant example really indicative of the birth of socialism? Did Lenin not say "let them have eateries"?

Why didn't he then? The state run restaurants in the Soviet Union were by all accounts horrible.

Ejnar Fjerdingstad wrote:

erykmynn wrote:

Ejnar Fjerdingstad wrote:Today on French TV2 we saw a really disgusting capitalist bastard owning a large luxury restaurant in Paris. They showed a pie chart off his gross intake and what it went to, 45% to salaries, some 30 percent to raw materials, 20% in VAT (value added tax), some two percent in insurances, and less than 3% to himself.

OK, the restaurant had a large gross intake, so his 3 percent is still money. But actually are his three percent really enough to make a whole political movement (socialism) out of? I he did all his work for free, there would be enough to raise the salaries by 6.7 percent! Big Deal! Is that supposed to be what he is "robbing the workers" of? They are happy to be employed which they might not be without him. And I have seen similar figures from other large firms.

Is the restaurant example really indicative of the birth of socialism? Did Lenin not say "let them have eateries"?

Why didn't he then? The state run restaurants in the Soviet Union were by all accounts horrible.

Well I've assumed that it is one of the things allowed, to some extent, during the "new economic policy", no?

fowweezer wrote:

truchas wrote:

fowweezer wrote:Here's a preemptive for you Truchas, since I can only assume your response will warrant it.

No foangryweasel, you cannot suck my dick.

Oh ouch. You can't get any at home, so you have to proposition male strangers on the internet? Sad.

Hey Truchas, it's ok to feel those feelings. You obviously have m4m oral sex on the mind lately. I wouldn't worry about fowweezer making a pass at you, or anyone else here for that matter. There's other forums you can go to for that, and there's always craigslist.