SluSignGuy Posted August 31, 2007 Share Posted August 31, 2007 Alaska is the only state that pays its governor more money than its highest-paid coach. Of course, Alaska doesn’t have college football. In most states, the top-ranking official is paid significantly less. Here is a list of each state’s governor and his or her salary (GOV), the highest-paid coach from a state-funded school (HPC) and the highest-paid football coach (HPFC), if he’s not his state’s highest-paid coach overall. http://www.kansascity.com/177/story/244676.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brianstl Posted August 31, 2007 Share Posted August 31, 2007 Alaska is the only state that pays its governor more money than its highest-paid coach. Of course, Alaska doesn’t have college football. In most states, the top-ranking official is paid significantly less. Here is a list of each state’s governor and his or her salary (GOV), the highest-paid coach from a state-funded school (HPC) and the highest-paid football coach (HPFC), if he’s not his state’s highest-paid coach overall. http://www.kansascity.com/177/story/244676.html They all make more than the president. Big deal. I am not trying to be a smart ass, but really what do you think politicians should earn? Do you really think we would get any better politicians if the pay were higher? I believe not. What we would end up with is even more career politicians that are corrupted by the perks of power and privilege on both sides of the aisle. Politics is something you should enter looking upon it as a public service not as a career. The salary should be pretty irrelevant when you decide to run. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slufanskip Posted August 31, 2007 Share Posted August 31, 2007 All politicians get paid far more than there salary. How do you think we get such stupid laws passed. It doesn't even matter who you vote for, they are all following the money trail anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billiken_roy Posted August 31, 2007 Share Posted August 31, 2007 They all make more than the president. Big deal. I am not trying to be a smart ass, but really what do you think politicians should earn? Do you really think we would get any better politicians if the pay were higher? I believe not. What we would end up with is even more career politicians that are corrupted by the perks of power and privilege on both sides of the aisle. Politics is something you should enter looking upon it as a public service not as a career. The salary should be pretty irrelevant when you decide to run. i disagree brian. i believe if the pay was more competitive the best leaders who are now in charge of the biggest and best corporations instead of government would be more inclined to want to get involved in running our govt if the pay was comparable. why not pay salary plus bonuses. base that bonus on the economic health of the govt budget the leader is in charge of. watch pork barrel shrink if one's livelihood is involved. of course the naysayers will say, that the leader will only be interested in raising taxes and cutting programs. not necessarily. we as voters still have to be satisfied they are doing their jobs to better our society as well. and if they are only cutting and raising to pocket bonuses we vote em out. if you go to wikipedia entry on the president there is a chart that shows the evolution of the president's salary over history and a column that puts that salary in comparison to present day dollars. ironically in 1912 when we had three past presidents run for office, taft, roosevelt and wilson (and not slouch presidents by any means) the comparative salary then was the highest it was in history. guess when the salary was the worst? present day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brianstl Posted August 31, 2007 Share Posted August 31, 2007 i disagree brian. i believe if the pay was more competitive the best leaders who are now in charge of the biggest and best corporations instead of government would be more inclined to want to get involved in running our govt if the pay was comparable. why not pay salary plus bonuses. base that bonus on the economic health of the govt budget the leader is in charge of. watch pork barrel shrink if one's livelihood is involved. of course the naysayers will say, that the leader will only be interested in raising taxes and cutting programs. not necessarily. we as voters still have to be satisfied they are doing their jobs to better our society as well. and if they are only cutting and raising to pocket bonuses we vote em out. if you go to wikipedia entry on the president there is a chart that shows the evolution of the president's salary over history and a column that puts that salary in comparison to present day dollars. ironically in 1912 when we had three past presidents run for office, taft, roosevelt and wilson (and not slouch presidents by any means) the comparative salary then was the highest it was in history. guess when the salary was the worst? present day. Roy so you want CEOs that too often worry about short-term stock prices instead of long term issues running the country? That sounds like a fricking recipe for disaster. I am a supply side free market freak and even I think that is a terrible idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billiken_roy Posted August 31, 2007 Share Posted August 31, 2007 Roy so you want CEOs that too often worry about short-term stock prices instead of long term issues running the country? That sounds like a fricking recipe for disaster. I am a supply side free market freak and even I think that is a terrible idea. again, the ceo is worrying about what makes him the most money. so he is in that position because of his self income. all i am saying is if you want more qualified leaders (not all are the ceo's of enron) you need to pay them accordingly and the more qualified leaders and decision makers will be more inclined to be interested. i am not saying pay them $50 million a year. that corporate giant is still going to be running his corporation. but if you pay the govt leaders substantially more than what they are earning now, it will undoubtedly interest more of the private sector leaders into exploring politics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billiken Rich Posted August 31, 2007 Share Posted August 31, 2007 Roy so you want CEOs that too often worry about short-term stock prices instead of long term issues running the country? That sounds like a fricking recipe for disaster. I am a supply side free market freak and even I think that is a terrible idea. Ah Mr. "supply side free market freak?" Who exactly do the corporate CEOs answer to? Oh yeah...those pesky little shareholders who care about seeing a return on their investment........... I'm not saying I want Carl Ichan running the USofA but it would be nice to think that a higher wage would get us a higher quality individual in office. It's probably all a pipe dream though. Folks like "the Dukester" weren't accepting bribes to feed their starving children........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brianstl Posted August 31, 2007 Share Posted August 31, 2007 Ah Mr. "supply side free market freak?" Who exactly do the corporate CEOs answer to? Oh yeah...those pesky little shareholders who care about seeing a return on their investment...........Here is the problem with that statement, ever since the bubble market of the 90's that has not really been the case. More and more BOD are stacked with indaviduals that are far more intrested in the short-term price of the stock instead of it's long-term value. Most of the share-holders are really long-term investors and not short-term and thus they truley are not represented by the BOD. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
willie Posted August 31, 2007 Share Posted August 31, 2007 Speaking of Governors,How about our kid governor? He appoints Rick Sullivan to run our failing school district. Sullivan appears to be doing a great job. Blunt pulls his nomination claiming he doesn't have the support of the local state senators. It's enough to make you pull your hair out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheChosenOne Posted August 31, 2007 Share Posted August 31, 2007 I was under the impression that in the south the football coach is the governor. I was shocked to see that Nick Saban is not the governor of Alabama. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kshoe Posted August 31, 2007 Share Posted August 31, 2007 i disagree brian. i believe if the pay was more competitive the best leaders who are now in charge of the biggest and best corporations instead of government would be more inclined to want to get involved in running our govt if the pay was comparable. why not pay salary plus bonuses. base that bonus on the economic health of the govt budget the leader is in charge of. watch pork barrel shrink if one's livelihood is involved. of course the naysayers will say, that the leader will only be interested in raising taxes and cutting programs. not necessarily. we as voters still have to be satisfied they are doing their jobs to better our society as well. and if they are only cutting and raising to pocket bonuses we vote em out. if you go to wikipedia entry on the president there is a chart that shows the evolution of the president's salary over history and a column that puts that salary in comparison to present day dollars. ironically in 1912 when we had three past presidents run for office, taft, roosevelt and wilson (and not slouch presidents by any means) the comparative salary then was the highest it was in history. guess when the salary was the worst? present day. Roy, under your new system do you believe that your beloved current president would have entered this war that you fully supported knowing that it would cost a lot of federal money and thus hurt his pyacheck. Would he have given you that precious tax break knowing that the budget would no longer be balanced and he couldn't collect his bonus? I doubt it. As for your argument that the voters will just vote out the bad politicians, the fact that Bush was able to win re-election last election given his performance during his first four years based largely on a fear campaign against gays and immoral values tells me the voting public could easily be fooled time and time again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billiken Rich Posted August 31, 2007 Share Posted August 31, 2007 As for your argument that the voters will just vote out the bad politicians, the fact that Bush was able to win re-election last election given his performance during his first four years based largely on a fear campaign against gays and immoral values tells me the voting public could easily be fooled time and time again. You are talking through your hat, Mr. Shoe. Gore and Kerry are the reasons we have Bush. Run someone with a brain and competant staff (sorry Signguy) and you will win. Till then, complain all you want--we'll make more...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billiken_roy Posted August 31, 2007 Share Posted August 31, 2007 shoe, bush indeed is the argument for what i am saying. a bush runs because he doesnt need the salary is the perfect example of a political hack. that is what i want to get rid of. btw, bush's tax cut has resulted in more revenue imo. as to the cost of the war, again, the country has to balance those moves when they enter the voting booth. imo, security of our nation isnt the same as why are we funding multimillion dollar grants to decide if a red tailed tallywacker bird would be better served being relocated to oregon from washington or if we should double the size of a bridge to nowhere in alaska so 85 tourists a year can easily visit a glacier. those are the types of spending issues i want to see eliminated. and rich is correct, bush was voted in because in both cases the nation beleived he was the lesser of two evils. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kshoe Posted August 31, 2007 Share Posted August 31, 2007 shoe, bush indeed is the argument for what i am saying. a bush runs because he doesnt need the salary is the perfect example of a political hack. that is what i want to get rid of. btw, bush's tax cut has resulted in more revenue imo. as to the cost of the war, again, the country has to balance those moves when they enter the voting booth. imo, security of our nation isnt the same as why are we funding multimillion dollar grants to decide if a red tailed tallywacker bird would be better served being relocated to oregon from washington or if we should double the size of a bridge to nowhere in alaska so 85 tourists a year can easily visit a glacier. those are the types of spending issues i want to see eliminated. and rich is correct, bush was voted in because in both cases the nation beleived he was the lesser of two evils. That last sentence is truly funny given that Bush lost the national popular vote in the first election and in both elections would have lost if one state had voted differently. Good thing the "nation" believed he was the lesser. Going back to your original point. The idea that governments, which largely can't balance their budgets anyway, should pay MORE to politicians than they currently get and further incentivizing them to do things that are not in the best interest of the people long term but would be in the best interests of the politicians personal bank accounts is not my idea of a well thought out plan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cowboy Posted September 2, 2007 Share Posted September 2, 2007 i guess yesterday's result in the big house explains why izzo makes more than lloyd carr. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billiken Rich Posted September 3, 2007 Share Posted September 3, 2007 That last sentence is truly funny given that Bush lost the national popular vote in the first election and in both elections would have lost if one state had voted differently. Good thing the "nation" believed he was the lesser. C'mon Shoe. You and your ilk may want to do away with the electoral college this time, because it didn't provide an outcome you'd like. You can make snide comments and use horrificly funny terms like "president select" Bush. The sad fact is that the country, while nearly evenly divided, chose to ignore Bush's foibles and elect him twice. Are you really shocked that Gore and Kerry lost? Are you really sorry they lost? Really? I can't even imagine the horror of a Gore administration. Kerry is a patrician weasel but probably wouldn't have run the country into the ground. Both are still worse choices than Bush. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billiken_roy Posted September 3, 2007 Share Posted September 3, 2007 which was exactly my point of why maybe we should pay more or come up with a different way to pay that gives the potus an opportunity to make more. somehow the country needs to get better candidates. lifelong political hacks and rich guys that never worked a day in their lives isnt going to fix our problems. imo, giants of industry and private sector ceo's are likely much better candidates to run things than politicians who's whole intent to being potus is to please those that have got them where they are. that doesnt sound like serving the country. yet we keep electing politicians at all levels. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moytoy12 Posted September 3, 2007 Share Posted September 3, 2007 C'mon Shoe. You and your ilk may want to do away with the electoral college this time, because it didn't provide an outcome you'd like. You can make snide comments and use horrificly funny terms like "president select" Bush. The sad fact is that the country, while nearly evenly divided, chose to ignore Bush's foibles and elect him twice. Are you really shocked that Gore and Kerry lost? Are you really sorry they lost? Really? I can't even imagine the horror of a Gore administration. Kerry is a patrician weasel but probably wouldn't have run the country into the ground. Both are still worse choices than Bush. The Democratic party is the 2nd most responsible entity for Bush's election and re-election (w/Rove being the most responsible). Rich, you really think that Gore and Kerry would have been worse choices than Bush...wow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billiken Rich Posted September 3, 2007 Share Posted September 3, 2007 Rich, you really think that Gore and Kerry would have been worse choices than Bush...wow. If Bush starts barking like a dog and invades Iran, he'll still be better than Gore. Barring the barking and invasion, he's still better than Soloman Grundy Kerry......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moytoy12 Posted September 3, 2007 Share Posted September 3, 2007 If Bush starts barking like a dog and invades Iran, he'll still be better than Gore. Barring the barking and invasion, he's still better than Soloman Grundy Kerry......... Agree to disagree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevinfootes Posted September 3, 2007 Share Posted September 3, 2007 Alaska is the only state that pays its governor more money than its highest-paid coach. Of course, Alaska doesn’t have college football. In most states, the top-ranking official is paid significantly less. Here is a list of each state’s governor and his or her salary (GOV), the highest-paid coach from a state-funded school (HPC) and the highest-paid football coach (HPFC), if he’s not his state’s highest-paid coach overall. http://www.kansascity.com/177/story/244676.html Steve, it's a good thing you got rid of the offseason board a couple of years ago. BTW, is this really news? Politicians are typically wealthy on the way in. They accumulate more wealth through perks and power. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts