Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I'm not trying to call anyone out here because I think those concerned about CEO pay have nothing but good intentions. However..
Peyton Manning - a guy who throws a leather football around for entertainment, 6 months out of the year - makes about $43 million annually. This is about 2,150 times more than the stadium worker earning $20,000/year, busting his ass up and down the stairs in the heat for minimum wage pay (and dealing with all the drunk idiots in between).
How come I’ve never heard the phrase, does “Peyton work 2,150 times harder than the hot dog guy”? Why are (some) people only upset when it is the CEO of a 900,000 employee company making that $15 million? If anything, I’d be much more ticked about the Peyton situation, given that he – again – only throws a football around for 6 months out of the year in front of a bunch of drunk people.
This thread is just an exploration into the idea of a potential double-standard here...
I was just wondering what the Broncos paid Manning for the 1st snap in the Super Bowl?
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fHvxhBO7mQ8]Seahawks score first in Super Bowl with bad Broncos snap - YouTube[/ame]
No...Two reasons. Janitorial work has no entertainment value.Peyton's "work" bring income to his boss, so why shouldn't he share in some of it. Can the toilet cleaner claim his work does the same thing?If someone would you that youd turn it down? Your e full of shit. You wouldnt think twice about it.
and who decides who deserves it? How is that quantified?
Of course I wouldn't turn it down. Did I give the impression that I would. But that doesn't change the fact that the system we've established doesn't put value on HARD work, just work that can make someone else richer. So to look down on the working poor who often work VERY, VERY hard simply because they are poor and to stereotype them as "moochers" or "lazy" isn't fair, because it isn't true.
Does the CEO generate more revenue for the team than the team does? You understand that the players are the team that people pay money to see, right? Not the CEO.It absolutely amazes me how liberals in America have no idea what drives salaries.
Folks, Peyton Manning isn't paid $45 million because he can throw a football. And he isn't paid $45 million because he's a "leader". And he isn't even paid $45 million because he helps them win.
Peyton Manning is paid $45 million because he generates revenue for the Denver Broncos. When Peyton Manning is under center, tickets sell out (both home and away). Jerseys sell. Hats sell. Parking sells. Concessions sell.
And that is why a CEO is paid millions while a janitor, teacher, or soldier is not. Because the last three generate no revenue. They are a cost. A necessary cost of course, but a cost nonetheless.
This is business 101 and yet liberals are drooling all over themselves stumped as to why Peyton Manning makes more than a teacher. Good grief is the left shockingly uneducated.
A hedge fund manager makes $37,000/hr.I'm not trying to call anyone out here because I think those concerned about CEO pay have nothing but good intentions. However..
Peyton Manning - a guy who throws a leather football around for entertainment, 6 months out of the year - makes about $43 million annually. This is about 2,150 times more than the stadium worker earning $20,000/year, busting his ass up and down the stairs in the heat for minimum wage pay (and dealing with all the drunk idiots in between).
How come Ive never heard the phrase, does Peyton work 2,150 times harder than the hot dog guy? Why are (some) people only upset when it is the CEO of a 900,000 employee company making that $15 million? If anything, Id be much more ticked about the Peyton situation, given that he again only throws a football around for 6 months out of the year in front of a bunch of drunk people.
This thread is just an exploration into the idea of a potential double-standard here...
What the hell does he do, that is worth that?
Watching liberals cry about what other people make is literally amazing to me. It's the ugliest kind of envy. And envy is a deadly sin in the bible.
People like Billy boy are freaking out because they are envious of the success of someone else. And that is just pathetic. Instead of admiring their success and working hard to duplicate (or surpass) it, they throw themselves on the floor and kick & scream about someone else's salary.
Truly pathetic....
Watching liberals cry about what other people make is literally amazing to me. It's the ugliest kind of envy. And envy is a deadly sin in the bible.
People like Billy boy are freaking out because they are envious of the success of someone else. And that is just pathetic. Instead of admiring their success and working hard to duplicate (or surpass) it, they throw themselves on the floor and kick & scream about someone else's salary.
Truly pathetic....
Listening to pretend conservatives cheerlead for the rich is truly pathetic.
The walmart ceo pays employees so little they collect welfare. This increases gov spending, yet you praise this guy? Praise him for increasing government and collecting corporate welfare? That's conservative? Meanwhile he makes millions and the Walton's billions.
Greed is also a deadly sin and most Conservative Christian Republican GOPbaggers don't seem to have any problem with the greed of the super-rich. It is easier to believe that Conservative Christians are envious of the wealthy class' greed and that's why you keep defending them. You want to be as rich as them someday, right? So you can get away with serious crimes, too, right? Look into what HSBC confessed to and then try to say that CEOs and upper management paid themselves what they are worth.Watching liberals cry about what other people make is literally amazing to me. It's the ugliest kind of envy. And envy is a deadly sin in the bible.
People like Billy boy are freaking out because they are envious of the success of someone else. And that is just pathetic. Instead of admiring their success and working hard to duplicate (or surpass) it, they throw themselves on the floor and kick & scream about someone else's salary.
Truly pathetic....
As for "CEOs are paid what they're worth" or whatever nonsense, have you ever heard of the LIBOR rate-fixing scandal? Were the CEOs who were fixing the global financial system for their own profit only paying themselves what they are worth? Or were they just greedy wealthy assholes doing whatever they want to get more money for themselves?
Backgrounder: Understanding the Libor Scandal - Council on Foreign Relations
If you do not actually support rich people's greed then you should be screaming mad about HSBC funding terrorism against our soldiers during war. Despite making so many millions of dollars per year, there isn't a single football player who can ever claim to be "too big to fail".
Thanks for the laugh. Seriously.
The GOP presidential candidate claimed that 47% of the country are dependent on government and you have the balls to make a statement like that? Pretty funny if you ask me.
Being woefully uninformed is nothing to take pride in asshat. I do realize that sometimes the truth hurts, but it's still the truth.
Mitt Romney says 47 percent of Americans pay no income tax | PolitiFact
"Our ruling
Romney said at the fundraising event that "47 percent of Americans pay no income tax."
He didnt specify federal income tax, and many states do levy their own income taxes. But since Romney was referring to a sector of the entire American population, we think its clear he was talking about federal taxes.
Research by the Tax Policy Center supports his claim. The think tank found that many Americans are so poor that they owe no taxes, and others qualify for enough breaks and exemptions to reduce their liability to nothing. Another report by the Joint Committee on Taxation from 2009 found an even larger share of Americans who owed nothing.
We rate Romneys statement True."
From your own link....
So he did say it, exactly as I said he did. In fact, you highlighted how much worse his statement was then just what I referred to."There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what," Romney said in the video. "All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That that's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what."
If you were trying to prove me right, you did a great job of it. Well done turnip. Now go crawl back in your hole.
Being woefully uninformed is nothing to take pride in asshat. I do realize that sometimes the truth hurts, but it's still the truth.
Mitt Romney says 47 percent of Americans pay no income tax | PolitiFact
"Our ruling
Romney said at the fundraising event that "47 percent of Americans pay no income tax."
He didnt specify federal income tax, and many states do levy their own income taxes. But since Romney was referring to a sector of the entire American population, we think its clear he was talking about federal taxes.
Research by the Tax Policy Center supports his claim. The think tank found that many Americans are so poor that they owe no taxes, and others qualify for enough breaks and exemptions to reduce their liability to nothing. Another report by the Joint Committee on Taxation from 2009 found an even larger share of Americans who owed nothing.
We rate Romneys statement True."
From your own link....
So he did say it, exactly as I said he did. In fact, you highlighted how much worse his statement was then just what I referred to."There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what," Romney said in the video. "All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That that's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what."
If you were trying to prove me right, you did a great job of it. Well done turnip. Now go crawl back in your hole.
I know you aren't too bright, so do follow along closely and let this seep in. That Romney said it isn't in question. You seem to think what he said is wrong or reprehensible. My link shows you that Politifact says his statement is indeed true. 47% of Americans pay no federal income tax. For any "benefits" provided by the federal government to these people, they are riding on someone else's dime. Perhaps pulling your head out of your ass would help you be more aware of what happens in the real world.
From your own link....
So he did say it, exactly as I said he did. In fact, you highlighted how much worse his statement was then just what I referred to.
If you were trying to prove me right, you did a great job of it. Well done turnip. Now go crawl back in your hole.
I know you aren't too bright, so do follow along closely and let this seep in. That Romney said it isn't in question. You seem to think what he said is wrong or reprehensible. My link shows you that Politifact says his statement is indeed true. 47% of Americans pay no federal income tax. For any "benefits" provided by the federal government to these people, they are riding on someone else's dime. Perhaps pulling your head out of your ass would help you be more aware of what happens in the real world.
Holy shit, I know you inbreds are slow. But you are really establishing a new low. My statement had nothing to do with if people paid taxes or not, it was around the idea that people like you and your hero Romney consider the working class poor to be "dependent on government". Politifact didn't confirm that those people were dependent on government but just that they didn't pay Federal income taxes. BIG DIFFERENCE.
But you are a EXACTLY the type of person I've been talking about in this entire thread who thinks that anyone who is poor is a moocher, even if they work hard and have a job. Once again if you weren't such an educated redneck you'd see that you once again proved the very point I've been making this entire thread.
I know you aren't too bright, so do follow along closely and let this seep in. That Romney said it isn't in question. You seem to think what he said is wrong or reprehensible. My link shows you that Politifact says his statement is indeed true. 47% of Americans pay no federal income tax. For any "benefits" provided by the federal government to these people, they are riding on someone else's dime. Perhaps pulling your head out of your ass would help you be more aware of what happens in the real world.
Holy shit, I know you inbreds are slow. But you are really establishing a new low. My statement had nothing to do with if people paid taxes or not, it was around the idea that people like you and your hero Romney consider the working class poor to be "dependent on government". Politifact didn't confirm that those people were dependent on government but just that they didn't pay Federal income taxes. BIG DIFFERENCE.
But you are a EXACTLY the type of person I've been talking about in this entire thread who thinks that anyone who is poor is a moocher, even if they work hard and have a job. Once again if you weren't such an educated redneck you'd see that you once again proved the very point I've been making this entire thread.
Do yourself a big favor and check for polyps while you have your head up your ass. If you go back and read my posts, you'll not find anywhere that I said poor people were moochers. What I said was not all poor people are lazy, but lazy people are typically poor. I'm sure you can understand the nuance of that statement. I'm sure that your pea brain can't put two and two together either. Everything the federal government does is paid for by taxpayers......regardless of whether you think the things they do are good or bad, agree with or disagree with. All Americans are recipients of those things. 53% of those recipients pay for the other 47%......making them dependent on the 53% They have no skin in the game. They get a free ride. It isn't their fault, the government set the tax code up that way. But regardless, they get something for nothing. That's a fact and if you disagree with it, you're as stoopid as I think you are. Tell you what, on your lunch break, go ask your 7th grade civics teacher to explain it to you.
This is what I am talking about, This is what you said, and This is what you were wrong about.I disagree that there is a line of thinking that says if you are poor, you are lazy.
This is the private sector at work. A football player makes 2,000 times more than a Navy SEAL. God Bless America, right?
People get pissed when a CEO makes that much, because CEO's often rule over a company selling a product we almost MUST buy, like food, gas, electricity, water, housing.
NFL players play a game that we can choose to watch, or buy a ticket to, or not.
It pisses me off when the CEO of a gas or electric company jacks up rates, just to turn bigger profits to shareholders, when gas and power are almost near-mandatory purchases by citizens.
Tickets to the Broncos game are not a near-mandatory purchase.
You can't realistically function in an American city without housing, gas, water, power. Hell, even some sort of communication, like a phone or internet, is required by most jobs, meaning that yet another CEO over a company can jack up rates to pay off shareholders, on a product that we are almost forced to buy to function in society.
Holy shit, I know you inbreds are slow. But you are really establishing a new low. My statement had nothing to do with if people paid taxes or not, it was around the idea that people like you and your hero Romney consider the working class poor to be "dependent on government". Politifact didn't confirm that those people were dependent on government but just that they didn't pay Federal income taxes. BIG DIFFERENCE.
But you are a EXACTLY the type of person I've been talking about in this entire thread who thinks that anyone who is poor is a moocher, even if they work hard and have a job. Once again if you weren't such an educated redneck you'd see that you once again proved the very point I've been making this entire thread.
Do yourself a big favor and check for polyps while you have your head up your ass. If you go back and read my posts, you'll not find anywhere that I said poor people were moochers. What I said was not all poor people are lazy, but lazy people are typically poor. I'm sure you can understand the nuance of that statement. I'm sure that your pea brain can't put two and two together either. Everything the federal government does is paid for by taxpayers......regardless of whether you think the things they do are good or bad, agree with or disagree with. All Americans are recipients of those things. 53% of those recipients pay for the other 47%......making them dependent on the 53% They have no skin in the game. They get a free ride. It isn't their fault, the government set the tax code up that way. But regardless, they get something for nothing. That's a fact and if you disagree with it, you're as stoopid as I think you are. Tell you what, on your lunch break, go ask your 7th grade civics teacher to explain it to you.
And the back pedaling has begun.
You felt the need to reply directly to me with the following statement:
This is what I am talking about, This is what you said, and This is what you were wrong about.I disagree that there is a line of thinking that says if you are poor, you are lazy.
I just proved that both you and your heros do in fact share this line of thinking. All the other bullshit you tried to throw in there to cloud the issue doesn't change the fact that people such as yourself and your leaders look at the poor as inherently lazy. And you in fact proved that very point for me....multiple times.
Lets not forget our soldiers, who put their lives on the line for little more than 20 grand a year. How does this not piss you off folks?
I'm not trying to call anyone out here because I think those concerned about CEO pay have nothing but good intentions. However..
Peyton Manning - a guy who throws a leather football around for entertainment, 6 months out of the year - makes about $43 million annually. This is about 2,150 times more than the stadium worker earning $20,000/year, busting his ass up and down the stairs in the heat for minimum wage pay (and dealing with all the drunk idiots in between).
How come I’ve never heard the phrase, does “Peyton work 2,150 times harder than the hot dog guy”? Why are (some) people only upset when it is the CEO of a 900,000 employee company making that $15 million? If anything, I’d be much more ticked about the Peyton situation, given that he – again – only throws a football around for 6 months out of the year in front of a bunch of drunk people.
This thread is just an exploration into the idea of a potential double-standard here...
There is no double standard...Manning generates enough revenue to support his income.
Should the hotdog seller generate the same revenue he could get paid the same as Manning.
Do yourself a big favor and check for polyps while you have your head up your ass. If you go back and read my posts, you'll not find anywhere that I said poor people were moochers. What I said was not all poor people are lazy, but lazy people are typically poor. I'm sure you can understand the nuance of that statement. I'm sure that your pea brain can't put two and two together either. Everything the federal government does is paid for by taxpayers......regardless of whether you think the things they do are good or bad, agree with or disagree with. All Americans are recipients of those things. 53% of those recipients pay for the other 47%......making them dependent on the 53% They have no skin in the game. They get a free ride. It isn't their fault, the government set the tax code up that way. But regardless, they get something for nothing. That's a fact and if you disagree with it, you're as stoopid as I think you are. Tell you what, on your lunch break, go ask your 7th grade civics teacher to explain it to you.
And the back pedaling has begun.
You felt the need to reply directly to me with the following statement:
This is what I am talking about, This is what you said, and This is what you were wrong about.I disagree that there is a line of thinking that says if you are poor, you are lazy.
I just proved that both you and your heros do in fact share this line of thinking. All the other bullshit you tried to throw in there to cloud the issue doesn't change the fact that people such as yourself and your leaders look at the poor as inherently lazy. And you in fact proved that very point for me....multiple times.
Does it physically hurt to be as stoopid as you are?
Watching liberals cry about what other people make is literally amazing to me. It's the ugliest kind of envy. And envy is a deadly sin in the bible.
People like Billy boy are freaking out because they are envious of the success of someone else. And that is just pathetic. Instead of admiring their success and working hard to duplicate (or surpass) it, they throw themselves on the floor and kick & scream about someone else's salary.
Truly pathetic....
Listening to pretend conservatives cheerlead for the rich is truly pathetic.
The walmart ceo pays employees so little they collect welfare. This increases gov spending, yet you praise this guy? Praise him for increasing government and collecting corporate welfare? That's conservative? Meanwhile he makes millions and the Walton's billions.
The Walton's own the majority of the company. On the other hand, they take ALL of the risk. If the company shows a shortfall in predicted revenue, the stock tanks. The majority owners of the company take the hit. It is THEIR money,.
The workers have no skin in the game. Now, if they were smart, they'd take advantage of the employee benefit that gives Walmart stock options. This way they would be invested in the company. Because Walmart is now the largest company on the planet, and retail sales continue to grow, the company stock continues to gain value.
Now you tell me where the problem lies.
