See complete forecast
Copy and paste the link:
The chancellor's pay should be on a par with or above the pay of the athletic director. This should not even be a matter of contention in a serious institution that aspires to be a world-class university.
With that kind of salary.... I would only have to work about 3 months.... then take off for three years.... not lazy,,, just not greedy.... that would be my way sharing the wealth
Let's not confuse greed with achievement. Academics that reach the pinnacle that Dr. Gray-Little and others have achieved do so because of hard work. In any career, those that make the best decisions and work the hardest succeed and a compensated appropriately.
Guess that explains the success of George Bush II. :)
Achievement, hmmm. I always wondered about what goes on up there.
Can't we have a "lets wait and see how good she is" option?
Lot O' Money! I hope her performance justifies the investment.
It is excessive, why should a new hire receive 25% more than the one leaving when the one leaving was doing a good job and had been successful for many years?
Well said, 50 year. The new coaches cost more than the old ones and now, the new chancellor. How do we think somone who has invested so many years of hard work feel when they find out the new replacement makes 25% more. I know that isn't the point, but it is a good question: why do they pay someone new to a job more money?
And something is upside down when athletics make more money than academics. A classic case of the tail wagging the dog.
This poll is skewed! The answer (NO) has a double meaning and therefore the poll is meaningless.
No responders can mean 1) No, the salary is way to high, or 2) No the salary is too low.
So, how is the question supposed to be answered?
the amount each gave to charity doesn't prove anything.
I believe it shows that Bush/Cheney believed in giving back to others while the Dems just wanted to keep what they had for themselves and spend some more of yours. At least the conservatives believed in giving back while still spending yours haha.
The extra 25% is for the hyphen in her name. That makes her smarter than us garden variety dimwits.
I think it's about twice as much as she is worth.
tennesseerader (Anonymous) says…
"In 2007, the Bushes donated 23% of their income to charity. In 2008, the Obamas donated a mere 6 1/2%. Vice President Dick Cheney gave 75% to charity — $6 million — in a single year. Joe Biden only gave $369 a year average for 10 years (typical for a democrat)."
First of all, I don't believe any of that without a link from a reliable source. Second, even if it is true, the Bushes and Cheneys are MILLIONAIRES! They donate more to charity because they have A LOT more money and they need to get tax deductions because they hate to pay their fair share of taxes.
Conservatives.....they never miss a chance to prove how ignorant they really are.
Here's the tax schedule from 2007:
Anything over about $358k is in the same bracket. Assuming GWB made $1 million he'd have to give away about $643k (or 64.3% of his income) to receive a 2% tax deduction. Or he could pay $350k in taxes (35%) and have more than had he given it away in charity. I don't believe the tax deduction is a viable argument. Generosity seems more likely.
Granted, the Obamas don't make as much as GWB. The argument still holds that GWB does more with his money rather than tell you how yours is going to be spent.
She makes more than the President of the United States?! No wonder college is so expensive!
Commenting has been disabled for this item.