Skip to content

Jon Stewart Explains the Difference Between Teachers and Wall Street CEOs

My hat’s off to the Daily Show. Pure genius.

How can the American people believe this crap coming from the mainstream media?



  1. Txjill wrote:

    How can people believe this crap?

    We don’t like things we don’t understand or don’t want to bother to understand. Someone can post that prayers and donations are needed to help a friend pay for their child’s cancer treatments, but ask them about healthcare reform and they are against it (and yet have virtually little factual information on it).

    So the fear-inducing, over-simplified message is the only political message that gets through. Repubs say: “Look at how big this bill is and how the Dems are pulling the wool over your eyes!!”, “the terrorist hate your freedoms…the gov’t wants to be in the dr. office with you…” and that is the only type of messages that resonates.

    Democrats, progressives and libs are a bit too nuanced for the average sports-watching, Fox “News” loving, American Idol citizen.

    Saturday, March 5, 2011 at 12:41 pm | Permalink
  2. OK. I used to be a Prof… in other words, a teacher. 3 months off? Hardly. I often worked 100 hour weeks during the school year(mid-terms, finals, the grading of papers the week before finals, end of term committees, etc), I never got those hours back as long summer vacations. No, there were expectations to do stuff for the school during those months and to improve my qualifications: committees, research, presentations all kept going right through the summer. I think the less I worked may have been a couple of 20 hour weeks in the summer, maybe. (And don’t talk about holidays: Thanksgiving? No time. Christmas week? MLA conference. Labor Day? Prepping the semester and doing all day faculty workshops.)

    Teachers are the same way: massive grading / committee / after school commitments during the year, with required teacher re-certification, expected school work during the summers. Oh, and don’t forget such chores as planning / reworking courses (got to love textbook changes, usually every couple of years whole courses had to be changed) that had to happen before a new school year.

    Teachers getting three months off? Hardly. Oh, the work during those months often happened at home or off-site, but since when is telecommuting considered not working? And often, those same teachers have to pick up summer jobs to make ends meet: $50k is generous, and is not what new teachers are likely to see.

    Teachers burn out for good reasons, and we’ve had the flight from the profession because the pay / benefits isn’t sufficient to encourage most people to be in that business. And benefits? Trust me, they’ve already been thinning those for the last decade or so. It makes me sick.

    Saturday, March 5, 2011 at 1:05 pm | Permalink
  3. Spike wrote:

    One gets the feeling that if the Fox News people aren’t careful they may end up with the education system they want. Comming Soon: American Education, What went Wrong. A Fox News Special. How the Democrats and Socialists dumbed down our Kids.
    Any chance you would let one of those Bimbo/Himbos take charge of your childrens education? Those commentators have the intellectual capacity of a house brick. How can morons like that be held accountable for what they say? How can I publically debate them on these points and show them up for what they are?

    Saturday, March 5, 2011 at 11:51 pm | Permalink
  4. PatriotSGT wrote:

    ALCON – I agree, with alot of whats said, including bashing on Beck, Hannity and some Oreilly. But they are just commentators, albeit irritating and fear mongoring ones, but thats it. The plain reason that we had a massive shift in power federally and at te state level is rlatively simple. No, its not because FOX said to do it. Americans liberal or conservative, republican or democrat are smarter then that. Do we really want to give FOX that much credit and that much power? Are we saying they pick our leaders? Speaking for myself I emphatically say hell no. Dems lost massively because the were fiscally irresponsible and ran up a debt in 3 years equal to Bush’s 8 years. But, they also did it while revenues were decreasing and every average American was tightening their belt. So the average voter said to themselves I’m smart enough to know that massive levels of debt are not good and I may not agree, but not a single democratic politician has talked about fiscal responsibility. It’s that simple.
    They laugh at the republicans cutting a measely 61 billion, saying thats not a real cut, then they fight tooth and nail to get those cuts back. They didn’t come up with any cut program themselves, they became the party of no. I agree 61 bill is nothing, pocket change when you consider the pain we’ll feel if we cut 1.5 trillion to balance the budget.
    Think about it, if we don’t eliminate our deficit spending, according to Obama our debt will be 23 trillion in 10 years. All our revenue will pay only the interest.

    My position has alwas been, I’m willing to ante up more, do away with all the Bush tax cuts. However, not 1 dime more, until congress shows me fiscal responsibility. The current dems will never cut meaningfully, so my only choice are republicans if I want a future for my children.

    Show me where I’m wrong, make me a believer.

    Sunday, March 6, 2011 at 1:15 pm | Permalink
  5. TENTHIRTYTWO wrote:

    Where you are wrong is that cutting spending during a recession is stupid. It is self-destructive to the economy.

    The American people voted R’s in and D’s out (not “massively” as you claim at all) because they are ignorant. They think, “if my house was in financial trouble, I’d start cutting my spending!” Unfortunately, a government is not a family, and there is exactly zero relation to an economy in recession/government spending and family financial trouble/family spending.

    Additionally, look at the hypocrisy of this: tons of the same people who are complaining about the deficit/debt are begging for tax cuts. Draw that same broken analogy to a household budget, and they are basically complaining about their debt while reducing their income. If someone were to seriously say that they were going to get out of debt by managing their spending but also by taking a pay cut, we’d consider them looney.

    You have to keep in mind talking points vs reality. Talking point: we are so much in debt due in part to this crushing recession we can no longer afford to pay people unemployment! Reality: unemployment is one of the biggest bang-for-the-bucks when it comes to stimulating the economy.

    If you actually think Republicans are concerned about the financial future of this country, you have bought into their lie hook line and sinker.

    Sunday, March 6, 2011 at 3:20 pm | Permalink
  6. Patricia wrote:

    Well said 1032!

    Sunday, March 6, 2011 at 6:15 pm | Permalink
  7. BTN wrote:

    I think that there *is* an analogous relationship between government spending and family spending – the fact that this isn’t acknowledged more often is part of the reson we have such a huge debt.

    Example 1
    Family is doing very well, both parents making good income. Luxury items are okay but no reason to accumulate debt -> govenrment should not (have) run deficits when the economy is doing well.

    Example 2:
    One parent looses income, family is doing okay, but struggling. Cut spending to essentials. No more going out for dinners; take bag lunches to work -> government should cut spending when times ae rough.

    Example 3:
    Both parents lose their jobs, savings are low (or non-existant. Cut spending down to essentials, no more cable TV or cell phones for the kids, etc. Putting food on the table and paying the rent/mortgage becomes the priority, even if that means unning up a credit card bill -> deficit spending is okay during a recession.

    The real issue isn’t how MUCH is spent, but WHAT it is spent on. Tax cuts for the rich is an exceedingly poor choice, as that money will not get spent in the economy.

    Clearly the number one priority for the Republicans (as stated by their Senate Minority leader) is to win the 2012 presidency, America be damned. Unfortunately, I’m not sure that the Democrats are that much better. They do let the little guy eat the crumbs after the fat cats have dined, but that’s about it.

    Monday, March 7, 2011 at 12:49 am | Permalink
  8. C.S.Strowbridge wrote:

    “Dems lost massively because the were fiscally irresponsible and ran up a debt in 3 years equal to Bush’s 8 years.”

    This is just a lie. Republicans broke the economy. Republicans bailed out the banks. Republicans refused to do anything to fix the economy. And Republicans are now blaming the Democrats for the mess they causes.

    It’s like setting fire to your house, and then blaming the other guy when he has to pay for the repairs.

    And people like you are stupid enough to believe it.

    “They didn’t come up with any cut program themselves…”

    Stupid or lying. I really can’t tell which it is anymore.

    The Democrats did come up with cuts. Hell, when Pelosi took over as speaker of the house, she and the Democrats massively cut back on earmarks. You know, those things Republicans pretend to hate when they are not in charge, but do constantly when they are in charge.

    Who fought tooth and nail to spend $3 billion on a second engine for an air superiority fighter THAT THE FUCKING AIR FORCE DOESN’T WANT? Oh that’s right, the Republicans.

    Monday, March 7, 2011 at 3:37 am | Permalink
  9. C.S.Strowbridge wrote:

    BTN: “Unfortunately, I’m not sure that the Democrats are that much better.”

    I can answer that for you, they are not.

    The Republicans are 99% wrong / evil, while the Democrats are 80% wrong / evil.

    What a choice, eh?

    Things would improve if you could get public financing of elections, but that would never pass as long as corporate whores are in power. And you won’t get rid of them till you get public financing of elections.

    Monday, March 7, 2011 at 3:40 am | Permalink
  10. TENTHIRTYTWO wrote:

    BTN: the analogy is faulty. Government spending can boost the economy and in turn increase government revenue. Family spending (aside from investments) will never boost the family income. What you are talking about, loosely, is Keynesian economic theory. That governments should spend in order to stimulate when the economy pulls back, and cut spending/save when the economy is roaring.

    The reasoning behind this is acceptance that actual economies are always operating on waves. Surges and pull backs. The goal of Keynesian policies is to reduce the height and effect of the peaks and valleys.

    I actually agree with this. However, your family analogy doesn’t make sense for the government because family budgets don’t generally operate on the same wave function. You wrote: “Family is doing very well, both parents making good income. Luxury items are okay but no reason to accumulate debt.” Do you think it is a good idea for the government to start buying Ferrari’s when times are good, so long as they don’t have to go into debt to purchase them? To start adding on extra rooms and pools onto government houses?

    Monday, March 7, 2011 at 6:22 am | Permalink
  11. Mad Hatter wrote:

    “Things would improve if you could get public financing of elections, but that would never pass as long as corporate whores are in power. And you won’t get rid of them till you get public financing of elections.” – CSS

    Sounds like the good old Catch-22….think I’ll move on to Switzerland.

    Monday, March 7, 2011 at 10:18 am | Permalink
  12. PatriotSGT wrote:

    1032 – I’m not saying I believe the republicans, they did not show any fiscal responsibility in the 8 Bush years. They did help Clinton be known as the president who balanced the budget and had a surplus.
    What I’m saying is our President in his own budget has estimated a 23 trillion dollar debt, and that supposes an end to the Bush tax cuts in 2 years. How much Keynesian economics should we try, before we try something different.
    There has never been a pure economic model like there has never been a pure socialist or communist model anyway.

    Its the perception of the American public thats driving the train. Debt that we may never be able to pay off, if/when our interest rates are raised, it will ruin us. Forget bailing out any states, they will have to default, which will end the unions anyway.

    I agree on your unemployment philosophy, I just think it should not be paid for with the credit card. We have to make some serious cuts to balance the budget, and then we need to raise some serious revenue to pay down the debt. We also need to stop printing money via quantitative easing and trying to devalue the dollar to reduce our debt. Thats just playing games and not actually doing anything.

    CSS – “This is just a lie.” I think your wrong on this one.
    “Republicans broke the economy.” I agree they rode the post 911 with absolutely no forethought.
    “Republicans bailed out the banks.” Your half right, Obama was actually consulted, along with McCain, by the Bush team and both of those candidates endorsed TARP. And as is often pointed out by IK, most or all the money was repaid and it actually made some money.
    “Republicans refused to do anything to fix the economy.” All republicans want to do is cut spending, I agree. All Democrats want to do is raise taxes, do you agree?
    There is still no compromise and won’t be until we get private money out of elections and enact some term limits.
    Pelosi, cut back on earmarks? What planet were you on. Do you remember in January Reid commenting on Obama when he proposed to cut earmarks “he should stay out of our business?” Come on, when Bush wanted his military spending packages they doubled and tripled under Pelosi to include all the pork. I applaud Obama’s stance that he’ll veto and pork filled bill. He said that when he was elected, then the first bill, the Stimulus, was stuffed with pork. Remember it went from 750 bill to 850 billion plus?

    Monday, March 7, 2011 at 1:51 pm | Permalink
  13. TENTHIRTYTWO wrote:

    You said the Republicans are the only choice if you want a future for your children…but you aren’t saying you believe them??? /mindboggle

    The closest we’ve come to Keynesian economics was during the Clinton years. The economy was roaring, yet we raised taxes and balanced the budget.

    If you want a non-Keynesian example, you can look at…practically any time when Republicans were in full control of the wheel.

    If you can look at that chart and seriously say that Democrats aren’t interested in controlling the debt & Republicans are fiscally responsible, you are so far beyond reason there is no hope for you.

    As I said in my first post in this thread, there are talking points and then there is reality. You make your own choice.

    Monday, March 7, 2011 at 6:48 pm | Permalink
  14. PatriotSGT wrote:

    As I said previously, the republicans under “W” from 2000-2006 blew it. I’m also saying the democrats under Pelosi from 2006-2010 blew it. The repubs and dems under CLinon were the last examples from either party that showed fiscal responsibilit. The current crop is not the same dems as I grew up with and the party that I and my parents joined. I agree, they used to be what you describe and what shows in your graph under the presidents from WWII until the end of the 90’s. Something happened to both groups post 911. They are out of control.

    We can blame everyone and argue until the cows come home, but at the end of the day we’ll still have to solve our debt, jobs and a host of other tough problems. I’m for raising taxes, on the rich, the upperclass, the middle class. But I want congress to show me fiscal responsibility first, then I’ll pay more.

    Monday, March 7, 2011 at 8:42 pm | Permalink
  15. BTN wrote:

    1032, “luxury spending” is ill-defined, so that’s my fault. Meat is considered a luxury in many countires. Also, I did say that luxuries are “okay” not “highly encouraged.” Living within your means is the key message I was trying to get across. I think it’s fiscally acceptable for multi-millionaires to buy Ferraris.

    I don’t think the goverenment should EVER spend money without some form of positive return (whether that be higway spe nding for more efficient travel or certain military spending for a stronger military, to a point). Just as buying a house, a car, or a television have different levels of utilty, all goverenment spending is not equal. I’m sure the Interstate Highway system has had a payback magnitudes greater than 100%. I’m equally sre that a lot of government spending will never break even.

    Taking on additional debt is not “good” or “bad” – it all depends on the purpose. This goes for deficit spending in a recession as well.

    Monday, March 7, 2011 at 10:13 pm | Permalink
  16. BTN wrote:

    PSGT “All republicans want to do is cut spending”

    Uh…no. All republicans want to do is cut “waste.” “Waste” meaning public pensions, health care, and anything else that predominantly benefits the Democratic base.

    Monday, March 7, 2011 at 10:20 pm | Permalink
  17. PatriotSGT wrote:

    I hear ya loud and clear BTN. If not for the democratic party we wouldd have no social safety net. I do like the balance of our system so that one side doesn’t go to far in one direction.

    Tuesday, March 8, 2011 at 7:41 am | Permalink
  18. BTN wrote:

    Right, and I also want to emphasize that Republicans love spending on stuff such as military programs that the military doesn’t want.

    I think if there was a page limit on bills that would help things a lot. Then they couldn’t make as many back room deals that pair good ideas with bad ones. We’d also see a lot more bills fail, but the ones that passed would likely be well-supported. There’s your smaller governemnt.

    Tuesday, March 8, 2011 at 11:15 pm | Permalink
  19. PatriotSGT wrote:

    I think the latest Mil Bill supported by both sides is a creative way for them to continue pork spending, since Obama has finally taken a firm stance against it.
    I agree, bills should be for the origianl purpose of the bill. Creat a separate bill for each non related funding request.

    Wednesday, March 9, 2011 at 9:15 am | Permalink