colorado springs: fucked

[pimpdave]

notice how the mayor did not cut his salory! and what the f*ck???? how did they lose all there money? maybe they should be more fiscial responsibal.

i propose that the word i've bolded here become the name of a new superhero, who saves the day by eating the villain

I think it should be a super villain. I'm going to think on this for a bit.

[rockfist]

The whole way people perceive government is wrong. There is an assumption of competancy, where there should be an assumption of incompetancy. All government spending should be classified as waste and the burden should be on the government to explain why they need to take our money. The burden should not be on us to find waste within government to justify spending cuts.

[SultanOfSurreal]

The whole way people perceive government is wrong. There is an assumption of competancy, where there should be an assumption of incompetancy.

why

[Phatscotty]

government doesn't produce anything.

[rockfist]

The whole way people perceive government is wrong. There is an assumption of competancy, where there should be an assumption of incompetancy.

why

1) Things like $600 hammers, or $1,100 toilet seats come to mind.

2) The fact that the fucking idiotic government in my state rips up the same road to repave it every other year.

3) The rate of return the social security "trust fund" earns.

4) 2,600 pages of a byzantine health care bill, that no one left, right, or center seems to support all that much.

5) The parking meter lease debacle in Chicago.

6) The last two governors of Illinois.

7) The current and last President.

The fact that we can't figure out what to do with nuclear waste so we use tons of fossil fuels then piss and moan about it.

9) The fact that each and every Senator and Representative gets a pension equal to their salary in every year after they "retire" from office. And it vests in one year. In no other part of the workforce, public or private can you obtain a one year vesting period.

10) Because each and every taxpayer has to figure out a way to earn the money they pay to the government.

Government exists to serve the people. The people do not exist to serve the government.

[SultanOfSurreal]

a retarded list of apocryphal stories, references to incompetent individuals, and mostly untrue statistics, that in no way proves anything about the over-arching efficiency of "government"

wow interesting

[Snorri1234]

I love the idea you guys have of the government being some weird Batman villain who steals money so they can waste it.

[thegreekdog]

I love the idea you guys have of the government being some weird Batman villain who steals money so they can waste it.

It is a lovable idea.

[PLAYER57832]

.. and quite neatly deflects responsiblity from individuals ..both individual paying attention to whom they elect AND individuals/businesses stepping forward to pay the true costs of all the services they use.

[thegreekdog]

.. and quite neatly deflects responsiblity from individuals ..both individual paying attention to whom they elect AND individuals/businesses stepping forward to pay the true costs of all the services they use.

It does the exact opposite of deflecting responsibility from the individual. It puts the onus on the individual to improve his or her lot in life rather than on the government improving the individual's lot in life.

Speaking of... do you really think the people that use the most services pay the most taxes for those services?

[PLAYER57832]

Speaking of... do you really think the people that use the most services pay the most taxes for those services?

Definitely not, and that is the problem.

Most corporations pay only a bare fraction of the true cost of their benefits. Every employer who hires someone for less than it takes that person to live is expecting the government to subsidize that person, even if they are decrying those benefits all the way to the bank. Every stockholder that invests in a company and expects and immediate profit, regardless of the long term impacts to the company or society is similarly not paying their due.

THAT is the problem. So many people are so busy looking at today's balance sheet that they simply put off any costs for tommorrow. We, our kids are now beginning to pay for those lacks.

We pay in terms of pollution clean-up. We pay in terms of species and habitat losses (canaries, but also direct impacts in many cases). We pay in an overall decrease in quality of life for many, many people.

Our tax dollars have gone to support China. China is happy to take it, but if anyone thought they were going to return the favor ... you were dreaming Sadly, it is folks like I and my husband, and our kids, who will pay the highest price.

[thegreekdog]

I really did miss you Player.

Most corporations pay only a bare fraction of the true cost of their benefits.

I completely disagree. Companies (not just corporations) pay for a variety of things. Companies pay employee salaries, employee benefits, employee retirement, and employee healthcare. In some localities and states, the companies actually pay taxes on their employees' salaries. Companies pay state use taxes, state corporate income taxes, state corporate franchise taxes, secretary of state fees, federal income taxes, local business taxes, state and local real and personal property taxes, and state abandoned and unclaimed property taxes. Companies pay their own environmental clean up costs. Additionally, companies pay for the services they use and the property they purchase. The companies are certainly paying for more than their fair share.

Every employer who hires someone for less than it takes that person to live is expecting the government to subsidize that person, even if they are decrying those benefits all the way to the bank.

First, let's assume that it is true that employers do hire people for less than it takes the person to live on so that the government must subsidize that person. We're also assuming of course, that there are no charities and that people and entities other than the government don't actually give money to employees who need it (which, as we all know, is untrue). Let's assume all that is true (even though it's really not). The companies pay taxes, which subsidize the government's subsidization of the employee.

Every stockholder that invests in a company and expects and immediate profit, regardless of the long term impacts to the company or society is similarly not paying their due.

The stockholder is also paying taxes. And the stockholder used to be concerned with long term impacts as a negative long term impact would affect his or her future earnings. For example, in my extended family, we invest in public utilities for the most part because they are stable (for the most part); this is some indication that we understand the long term impacts of investments. That being said, it has become clear, at least to me, that the government will now bail us out if we do not take into account the long term impact of our investments.

So many people are so busy looking at today's balance sheet that they simply put off any costs for tommorrow. We, our kids are now beginning to pay for those lacks.

I'm not sure what costs you are referring to. In any event, the absolute worst, by leaps and bounds, with respect to putting off costs for the future is the federal government.

We pay in an overall decrease in quality of life for many, many people.

I actually agree with this. For the most part, our quality of life has decreased. I think this is due more to our various forms of entertainment, the lengthening of the workday, and the technology which has made the average worker available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

[Timminz]

This thread makes me glad my taxes are higher than theirs, and that they get spent (mostly) on useful things.

[PLAYER57832]

I really did miss you Player.

Most corporations pay only a bare fraction of the true cost of their benefits.

I completely disagree. Companies (not just corporations) pay for a variety of things. Companies pay employee salaries, employee benefits, employee retirement, and employee healthcare. In some localities and states, the companies actually pay taxes on their employees' salaries.

They pay salaries. But, whether those salaries add to our economy or make a further drag depends on how much they pay. Granted, GM probably paid its assembly line workers a bit much, which is one reason their cars were so expensive. However, Walmart, Dollar general -- virtually every retail store AND, now many production companies (far too many to name) as well as many service industries pay a large number of employees less than it take to rent a house, buy food, basic clothing and transportation, never mind medical care. Further, these companies are more and more deciding to just ship the factories overseas. That is not entirely negative and yes, I realize its complicated (many US employees are actually overpaid). BUT, the bottom line is that when Walmart keeps its costs low by improving efficiency of production, that's one thing. When they do so by having companies in China make products with less supervision, more pollution, etc. -- it is a short term benefit to the people who buy and the stockholders (etc.) but it is a very big long-term loss to us all. That Walmart (and other companies) is/are not forced to take responsibilty for this hurts us all.

Bottom line is as I said, if the pay is so low that the employees who are single or have just 1-2 children qualify for Medicaid and food stamps, then they are an overall drag on the economy, not a gain. In a few cases, this is justified -- hiring trainees, cons, etc. However, too many of those programs wind up being excuses to just pay low wages to regular employees.

Companies pay state use taxes, state corporate income taxes, state corporate franchise taxes, secretary of state fees, federal income taxes, local business taxes, state and local real and personal property taxes, and state abandoned and unclaimed property taxes. Companies pay their own environmental clean up costs. Additionally, companies pay for the services they use and the property they purchase. The companies are certainly paying for more than their fair share.

They pay taxes and get a list of deductions a mile long as well.

In truth, many really small businesses do pay more than they ought in taxes, but the bigger guys often do not.

A company needs to pay for the education of the next generation of employees (as the generation before paid for its employees), for the roads that bring the employees to work, the parks and other niceties that help ensure they get a good workforce. They need to pay not just for the direct and immediate cleanup of pollution they spew out, but also for the future clean up, because regulations only go into place AFTER a lot of damage is already done. And, is discovered long after the companies are gone. This cost is the one that really and truly goes through the roof and is almost never taken into serious consideration, except by the most avid environmentalists.

there is a lot more, but very few companies even begin to pay for those costs.

Every employer who hires someone for less than it takes that person to live is expecting the government to subsidize that person, even if they are decrying those benefits all the way to the bank.

First, let's assume that it is true that employers do hire people for less than it takes the person to live on so that the government must subsidize that person. We're also assuming of course, that there are no charities and that people and entities other than the government don't actually give money to employees who need it (which, as we all know, is untrue). Let's assume all that is true (even though it's really not). The companies pay taxes, which subsidize the government's subsidization of the employee.

I have a hard time believing you actually wrote that, greekdog.

To begin, presence of charities is simply irrelevant. The fundamental question is whether someone who works for a living deserves to be paid enough to have a decent house, food, clothing , transportation and medical care (not fancy, just the basics). Are you truly asserting that they do not?

As for the rest -- if you think its NOT true, then you have not looked into how much most people are paid. A family of 4 qualifies for reduced lunches in PA if they earn just over 39,000 a year. Below $21,00 (though it varies) and you qualify for heating assistance, food aid, etc, etc etc.

That means that most laborers, virtually all service personnel, the clerks and stockers in most stores -- all are being subsidized.

Claiming that Its Ok because these companies pay taxes is plain silly. They are not paying enough taxes to pay for those benefits. Further, even if they were, it would be far, far better for everyone if they simply paid the employees more. The company gets the tax break (they don't pay taxes if they are true employees, but contractors and such are not counted as employees and that pay is deducted differently), the employee PAYS more taxes instead of using taxes and the overall result is a net gain. Right now, every stockholder dividend that Walmart, etc pay out is really stolen from our taxes. Stolen from the wages of employees who ought to be paid better for working (and yes, I do know that many of those employees are stockholders and that payouts have decreased somewhat).

Charities have enough of a trouble taking care of people who cannot find work, who get hit by disasters or who have unusually difficult circumstances. Claiming that charities are supposed to pick up for ordinary hard-working employee pay is ridiculous. That is a employer's job, NOT the job of charities or the government. I thought you were in favor of responsibility?

Every stockholder that invests in a company and expects and immediate profit, regardless of the long term impacts to the company or society is similarly not paying their due.

The stockholder is also paying taxes. And the stockholder used to be concerned with long term impacts as a negative long term impact would affect his or her future earnings. For example, in my extended family, we invest in public utilities for the most part because they are stable (for the most part); this is some indication that we understand the long term impacts of investments. That being said, it has become clear, at least to me, that the government will now bail us out if we do not take into account the long term impact of our investments.

Again, both untrue and irrelevant. Stockholders only pay taxes if they actually sell their stocks and take a profit, rather than rolling them over.

But you are avoiding the primary point. Investing is fine. Profiting from investments is perfectly OK, as long as it is real profit. The problem of late is that too many executives have been looking ONLY at short-term stockholder payouts. Or, worse (in the case of AIG, etc) not even stockholder profits, but bonuses they can get. Bonuses and payouts that too often result from actions that are, in fact, not beneficial to the company in real, long term respects. Why should they? Who is going to invest in a stock that will only engender 1%, when they can get a 15% return (or much, much more) -- and if it means that the company will go under 5 or ten years down the line, so what? The stock will be sold by then! But, the employees, on the other hand, and society -- to all of us it makes a great deal of difference.

Ironically enough, your last sentence seems to agree with me, but I think you are so intent on disagreeing that you perhaps did not stop and think about what I was really saying.

Again, I am NOT in any way against profits. Its just that I am against the artificial padding that seems to have standard in recent years.

So many people are so busy looking at today's balance sheet that they simply put off any costs for tommorrow. We, our kids are now beginning to pay for those lacks.

I'm not sure what costs you are referring to. In any event, the absolute worst, by leaps and bounds, with respect to putting off costs for the future is the federal government.

I get into this more either further down or in another thread, but largely I refer to the idea that a company executive who comes in and shows a profit by simply closing down plants, moving them overseas is somehow a good thing, along with huge underestimated results of pollution, AND a general attitude of "we'll worry about that tommorrow" when it comes to using up certain limited resources, particularly oil.

We pay in an overall decrease in quality of life for many, many people.

I actually agree with this. For the most part, our quality of life has decreased. I think this is due more to our various forms of entertainment, the lengthening of the workday, and the technology which has made the average worker available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

When I was a kid, we could go walk on the beach, hike up in the woods, go fishing, etc. I know in PA things have actually gotten a bit better, but that does not really excuse continued damage.

My kids cannot avoid being exposed to lead (and believe me, I am pretty "anal" about it!). The air we breath is not as polluted as it was in years past here, but is still hardly toxin-free. Ironically enough, misguided so-called environmentalists have all but shut down reasonable logging here in the Allegheny. My son's education is nothing like what I got. He is learning less, though there is far more that he needs to know now.

more and more things that used to be free, that used to be why people were happy to work for low wages, because the trade-off of living next to the woods, etc balanced things out -- most of those options have been taken away and locked up by people who want to make more money.

I do have a garden, but I worry about the toxins the plants absorb. Many areas are far worse off.

On the plus side, we have vegetables and fruits from all over the world and the country, have video and internet, etc., etc. Medicine has improved beyond imagination. Yet, people's ability to even think and consider other opinions (in general -- you are most definitely an exception!) eroding.

A lot of that is not about taxes or economics.. at least on the surface. However, most of it is, somewhere down the line, very much created and impacted by economics.

[Snorri1234]

Man, I missed Player's huge posts.

[got tonkaed]

One thing not really mentioned by anyone arguing that by raising property taxes you will drive people out (which is something of a theoretical point at best and probably overlooks some city specific issues to colorado springs) is that they are making essentially the exact same argument against some of the cuts in the budget.

Obviously from the sounds of it there do have to be some difficult cuts made, but thats what happens when you get to the point that you cant run lights and things like that. Certainly we will have to live without replacement playgrounds for a time at least. But if we are so concerned about driving people away then why would people not be concerned about driving out people by decreasing some of those salaries? The point is no more or less theoretical than the point about property taxes and since you cant in any real way define the value of the homeowners vs the officials in the city, neither one has a whole lot of traction vs the other.

[PLAYER57832]

One thing not really mentioned by anyone arguing that by raising property taxes you will drive people out (which is something of a theoretical point at best and probably overlooks some city specific issues to colorado springs) is that they are making essentially the exact same argument against some of the cuts in the budget.

Obviously from the sounds of it there do have to be some difficult cuts made, but thats what happens when you get to the point that you cant run lights and things like that. Certainly we will have to live without replacement playgrounds for a time at least. But if we are so concerned about driving people away then why would people not be concerned about driving out people by decreasing some of those salaries? The point is no more or less theoretical than the point about property taxes and since you cant in any real way define the value of the homeowners vs the officials in the city, neither one has a whole lot of traction vs the other.

Exactly, that is the biggest issue. There is no direct link between those using the services and those paying.. or at least not enough of one. Therefore it is all too easy for people to say "I just don't want to pay..".

[thegreekdog]

Phew... that's a long one. I had to do a separate window on my second monitor.

Point 1 - Salaries and Costs

There is a tradeoff that you have acknowledged in your post, and, to be honest, I'm not sure what to think. You have a variety of industry sectors (service, retail/consumer, and manufacturing, for three) and the labor market is different for each. The service industry (for example, attorneys and accountants) generally pays professional-type salaries, but their employees work long hours and usually take significant less enjoyment out of life. Service jobs are also beginning to get shipped overseas where labor is cheaper. I'll get to cheap labor in a second. Similarly, manufacturing companies have to pay a rather large premium for labor. I have done calculations on this and an attorney makes far less per hour than a guy working on an assembly line. Whether that's justifiable or not is debatable and I don't want to get into it here, but suffice it to say companies would argue that unions have ruined effective and cheap labor in the United States. So, manufacturing jobs are going overseas. Then you have retail (Walmart). These jobs are generally staffed by the less educated; therefore, Walmart can afford to pay these people less.

Anyway, the trade off here is that, ostensibly, costs for these products and services are kept low because salaries are kept low. Therefore, someone who works at Walmart can afford to also shop at Walmart. That being typed, I do tend to agree with you that certain companies violate an unwritten compact (like Walmart). Therefore, I don't shop at those stores. With respect to labor going overseas, I do not blame companies for doing this because I see how salaries differ between India and the United States.

In any event, as I've said, the people that don't make enough working at Walmart are subsidized by the government through tax dollars paid by, among others, Walmart. In sum, I'm not certain what the problem is.

Taxes

I provided a long list of taxes. The only ones that I indicated that have deductions are income taxes. The rest don't have deductions. Second, bigger companies always pay significantly more in taxes than smaller companies. They pay so much more in taxes that they hire people like me to help them lower their taxes. Incidentally, when they hire people like me to help them lower their taxes, that provides jobs and helps the economy.

Taxes and Education

You have indicated that companies need to pay for the education of the next generation of employees. I agree. Many companies offer substantial scholarship and education packages. Further, because companies pay taxes, they pay for public education. Further, I understand the failure of public education (if we can call it a failure) is due to things other than money (for example, problems with parenting). So, I don't fault companies for the lack of quality education.

Fair Pay

People deserve to be paid what they are worth on the market. Nothing more, nothing less. A doctor is worth more than a bagger at a supermarket. It may suck, but it is what it is. If there were no taxes, companies would still pay less for certain employees than for others. That being typed, I do agree with what you've said before - that some people are overcompensated.

That being typed, I do not think anyone deserves to be paid to have a decent house. The other stuff (food, clothing, transportation, medical care) I do agree with. While there are many people who do not make enough to afford these things, charities do help with this (as does free college educations, job training, etc.). To the extent people cannot afford these things, the government does help... and we all know that companies and individuals pay taxes.

Stockholders

Stockholders make money in two ways - by selling their stock at a gain or by collecting a dividend. In both cases they are taxed. This is not debatable and everything else you typed is incorrect. Bonuses have nothing to do with holding stock. Bonuses have to do with being a company executive.

Executives

I agree with everything you've typed about executives. When this happens, the public should boycott this company's products. That's what I do. I try to educate others about this, but I cannot control where others use their money.

Quality of Life

Look, I spend an inordinate amount of time on CC. It's pretty much my favorite work escape. However, I come into work at 7 AM and I leave between 7 PM and 8 PM every day. I go home, eat dinner with my wife, talk for a little while, watch half an hour of television, read a book for half an hour, and then go to sleep around 10:30 or 11 PM. I usually work for 5 or 6 hours on Saturday or Sunday. Otherwise, I try to enjoy life. My wife and I go out. I might watch some TV, play videogames, visit with friends or family.

That being typed, my relatives in Greece live a lot fuller life than I do. They work 6 hours a day. They take long and relaxing vacations. Some of my relatives work from 6 AM to 12 PM and then take a siesta, cook dinner, and go out. They probably have a higher quality of life than I do, although I make a whole lot more money than they do. There are certain things in our society that are ingrained in us and are valued more than other things (work ethic, material possessions, as two examples). My wife and I discuss this constantly, the dichotomy between work and life. Right now, we're living to work so that some day we can work to live (or live to live, whatever). I think about this quality of life stuff a lot.

BEGIN RANT

All THAT being typed, I pay an exorbitant amount of money in taxes. It really is rather depressing. I don't have enough money to hire someone to help me lower my tax burden (or to not care about my tax burden). I don't make so little that I can take deductions available to the "middle class" and get a refund every year. So, I could do one of two things - I could try to make less or I could try to work harder so I can get to the point where I don't care about taxes. And I have chosen to do the second one. I have chosen to do the second one so that at some point in my life I can care more about things other than work; I don't do it because I want more money. So, everytime I hear or see something from some politician about the rich paying their fair share, I think about my tax burden and I get angry.

END RANT

[thegreekdog]

One thing not really mentioned by anyone arguing that by raising property taxes you will drive people out (which is something of a theoretical point at best and probably overlooks some city specific issues to colorado springs) is that they are making essentially the exact same argument against some of the cuts in the budget.

Obviously from the sounds of it there do have to be some difficult cuts made, but thats what happens when you get to the point that you cant run lights and things like that. Certainly we will have to live without replacement playgrounds for a time at least. But if we are so concerned about driving people away then why would people not be concerned about driving out people by decreasing some of those salaries? The point is no more or less theoretical than the point about property taxes and since you cant in any real way define the value of the homeowners vs the officials in the city, neither one has a whole lot of traction vs the other.

The city should raise property taxes, since property taxes are virtually identical throughout Colorado (based on my research) and would not result in businesses moving out (whereas I think not having trash pickup would make me start looking for another place to live). As I typed before, I suspect there are significant items in the Colorado Springs budget that could be cut without detriment to the majority of Colorado Springsians.

Also, from personal experience, I've found that the determination of where one lives begins with distance to work and/or extended family. Property taxes are certainly a consideration. For example, I pay higher property taxes here in New Jersey, but it's closer to my wife's office than if we lived in the suburbs of Phialdelphia; further, although property tax rates are generally lower in Pennsylvania, the houses cost more.

[MeDeFe]

Fair Pay

People deserve to be paid what they are worth on the market. Nothing more, nothing less. A doctor is worth more than a bagger at a supermarket. It may suck, but it is what it is. If there were no taxes, companies would still pay less for certain employees than for others. That being typed, I do agree with what you've said before - that some people are overcompensated.

That being typed, I do not think anyone deserves to be paid to have a decent house. The other stuff (food, clothing, transportation, medical care) I do agree with. While there are many people who do not make enough to afford these things, charities do help with this (as does free college educations, job training, etc.). To the extent people cannot afford these things, the government does help... and we all know that companies and individuals pay taxes.

How would you determine what someone is "worth on the market"? According to a recent study I took a look at (I might be able to find it again) any teacher or nurse creates more GDP than a CEO of a bank or investment company.

[thegreekdog]

Fair Pay

People deserve to be paid what they are worth on the market. Nothing more, nothing less. A doctor is worth more than a bagger at a supermarket. It may suck, but it is what it is. If there were no taxes, companies would still pay less for certain employees than for others. That being typed, I do agree with what you've said before - that some people are overcompensated.

That being typed, I do not think anyone deserves to be paid to have a decent house. The other stuff (food, clothing, transportation, medical care) I do agree with. While there are many people who do not make enough to afford these things, charities do help with this (as does free college educations, job training, etc.). To the extent people cannot afford these things, the government does help... and we all know that companies and individuals pay taxes.

How would you determine what someone is "worth on the market"? According to a recent study I took a look at (I might be able to find it again) any teacher or nurse creates more GDP than a CEO of a bank or investment company.

I would define "worth on the market," as how much a company is willing to pay for that person's services. Apparently, some banks are willing to pay a salary to a CEO that is completely out of whack to his or her potential value to the bank.

[Snorri1234]

Fair Pay

People deserve to be paid what they are worth on the market. Nothing more, nothing less. A doctor is worth more than a bagger at a supermarket. It may suck, but it is what it is. If there were no taxes, companies would still pay less for certain employees than for others. That being typed, I do agree with what you've said before - that some people are overcompensated.

That being typed, I do not think anyone deserves to be paid to have a decent house. The other stuff (food, clothing, transportation, medical care) I do agree with. While there are many people who do not make enough to afford these things, charities do help with this (as does free college educations, job training, etc.). To the extent people cannot afford these things, the government does help... and we all know that companies and individuals pay taxes.

How would you determine what someone is "worth on the market"? According to a recent study I took a look at (I might be able to find it again) any teacher or nurse creates more GDP than a CEO of a bank or investment company.

I would define "worth on the market," as how much a company is willing to pay for that person's services. Apparently, some banks are willing to pay a salary to a CEO that is completely out of whack to his or her potential value to the bank.

But what about if the "company" is the government? Teachers for example.

[thegreekdog]

I think it's the same with the government.

[Woodruff]

Fair Pay

People deserve to be paid what they are worth on the market. Nothing more, nothing less. A doctor is worth more than a bagger at a supermarket. It may suck, but it is what it is. If there were no taxes, companies would still pay less for certain employees than for others. That being typed, I do agree with what you've said before - that some people are overcompensated.

That being typed, I do not think anyone deserves to be paid to have a decent house. The other stuff (food, clothing, transportation, medical care) I do agree with. While there are many people who do not make enough to afford these things, charities do help with this (as does free college educations, job training, etc.). To the extent people cannot afford these things, the government does help... and we all know that companies and individuals pay taxes.

How would you determine what someone is "worth on the market"? According to a recent study I took a look at (I might be able to find it again) any teacher or nurse creates more GDP than a CEO of a bank or investment company.

I would define "worth on the market," as how much a company is willing to pay for that person's services. Apparently, some banks are willing to pay a salary to a CEO that is completely out of whack to his or her potential value to the bank.

But what about if the "company" is the government? Teachers for example.

Like anyone really gives a shit what happens to teachers.

[thegreekdog]

I hope you're kidding Woodruff. All I hear about is how teachers are underpaid. Don't get me started on that whole thing.