Jump to content
What's the probability for determining if someone would harm another person? What happens when the patient has one drink? One drug? Or two prescription drugs?
So one quack says there's a 90% probability, and another quack says 60%, which quack is correct? And then what?
And if it's a government quack versus a private quack, which one is the best quack? The governent quack gets hired and gets raises for completely different reasons than the private quack. And the quack who goes into private practice gets raises for different reasons than the government quack.
What makes a doctor in the first place? A bunch of panel members that don't know what they're doing or are doing it for reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with them making sure a Doctor is a Doctor and not a quack? Or is it as simple as saying all doctors are great and care only about one thing and that's doing the best job they can crap? Or is it having a bunch of acronyms following your last name?
Doctors are as different as the patients they treat.
It's obvious that the country should have maintain strong families, good parenting and I'm not talking about government parenting, I'm talking about parents being parents. No doubt there were issues 50 years ago, but we should have continued building strong families, with spirituality, not this religion or that religion, but an individual's personal relationship with their God.
We blew it and it's as simple as that, we can't go back 50 years and try and build on the great foundation we had. Like I said we had issues, but we should have kept the foundation of strong families and made improvements, instead we gravitated towards the government solving the problems.
The government doesn't care one little bit about any one particular human being.
Thank God I'm an old man, I sincerely empathize for the grave situation young Americans are in, even if they haven't realized it yet. And it's not just me, 67% of you think, poll after poll, that the country is heading in the wrong direction.
Here are two graphs, one shows income growth and the other shows job growth.
The charts are not generated by the left or right, or by Rebuplicans or Democrats. They are generated by the Federal Reserve Data Center in St. Louis.
Look at the period 1985-2000 and compare it to the period 2000-2015.
You can judge for yourself.
What I see is that since 2000 job growth is stagnant at best and income growth is actually declining.
At some point even the main stream media, politicians, universities, and economists, will sense the difference between real economic growth that results in solid quality job growth and solid income growth for the middle-class.
And the pseudo economic growth occurring now because of the financial engineering by the Federal Reserve that inflates asset prices, that in turn, only increases the economic divide between the superrich and middle-class even more than it already is.
One thing that no one talks about on this subject is what you will lose in benefits in retirement. Most Americans who save and invest do it as part of retirement planning.
Right now almost everything is being "means tested," that is, if you save and invest for retirement, you not only will be hit with taxes when you start to withdraw the money, but your benefits such as Social Security, Medicare, and pensions most likely will be cut.
Someone who saves and invests their whole life may not be any better off than someone who didn't.
In 2020 I would have been 65. I figured if I would have continued to save and invest and retired in 2020 I would just get hit with more taxes, more fees, more co-pays, more insurance premiums, and less government benefits like Social Security and Medicare.
Already my health insurance cost have doubled in just the last few years because government is putting more of the costs on those who have the means.
I said screw that and retired at 54. I figured I would spend the time enjoying life, taking care of myself. I would spend all my savings, which should last until I'm in my Seventies.
If I am still around I'll let the government take care of me. I know the government isn't going to ask me why I'm broke.
Government is rewarding irresponsibility and punishing savers and investors. It's not sustainable over the long term.
I was amazed when I looked for data on the Internet regarding total compensation for teachers compared to private equivalents how little information is available. It's like someone doesn't want to know the truth even on the Internet.
I can even give a local example. In the d140 annual report 2009-2010, page 5 there is a chart that takes up half a page that says "district financial resources." All the annual reports since the 2009-2010 has excluded this chart.
And I can see why, expenditures per pupil in 2009-10 report was $9,930.82. So for a family with two children, taxpayers need to come up with $20,000 each and every year for thirteen years. Since the average household income it WW is just over $40k, that seems a little high.
Furthermore the 2009-2010 report included a chart on WASL wrap-up on page 7. The chart doesn't exist in the 2013-2014 annual report.
So when it comes to cost per student and WASL wrap-up d140 believes these two charts aren't pertinent anymore.
It's easy to understand why.
Note: since information is not available even on the Internet is why I'm trying to learn as much about the subject on this string as I can. I don't know much on the subject, so I appreciate having the opportunity to learn what I can. I know the information presented is hard to find and time consuming.
PearlY said, "much lower paid positions in private schools." Is the total compensation for private school teachers less than public? If so, why? Why aren't the private school teachers getting better pay? Is it because they don't have a powerful union supporting them?
I would like to ask a question to PearlY and fatherof5 since you both seem to know a lot about teachers.
A good way to tell if someone is over or under paid is to look at how long it takes to fill a position and how many applicants would there be.
Specifically, if a teacher retired in school district 140 would the district have a hard time filling the position?
If the district had a hard time filling the position maybe the total compensation paid to teachers isn't that great. However, if school district 140 had a lot of qualified applicants just waiting to be hired that would say that total compensation was too high.
Do either of you know what's the wait time to be hired as a teacher in school district 140?
Are there a lot of teachers who work for the private schools that would rather work for school district 140? Or are there a lot of teachers who work for school district 140 that would rather work for a private school?
Thanks, I'm really curious.
If you are white, black or Hispanic you have seen your net worth decline under Obama. And on a percentage basis it has declined the most for Hispanics. And this is regardless of someone's political orientation.
The obvious thing with the "Obama Recovery" is that if you make money with your money you're much better off, if you make money with your labor, you're not much better off.
The main reason is because of the monetary policies of the Federal Reserve and not someone's political orientation.
The politicians have borrowed $9 trillion just since 2008, I'll let the readers decide: did you get your piece of it? Most likely there are as many Democrats as Republicans who would answer, "yes" because someone's answer is more dependent on how you make a living (with your labor or with your money) than it does with your political orientation.
Obama is simply a puppet for the superrich just like most politicians, left and right.
fatherof5, you said, "After seven years of a pay freeze and a reduction in their benefits package, teachers and other state employees do deserve improved compensation to help them catch up to inflation."
There are other employees in the private sector who haven't had raises and who don't have pensions, belong to a union (in fact most unions represent government workers), two weeks off for Christmas, some even work on Christmas, who you don't include in your statement.
Are you someone who pretends to care about people in general or are you someone who actually just really cares about those who work for the government?
If you sincerely care about the disadvantaged, why single out government workers when it comes to "who" deserves a raise?
In today's world I would highly recommend working for the government.
When it comes to a job what's really important is the pay, benefits, security, and yes, personal preferences.
Here are a couple of charts that graphically show the Bernanke/Yellen so-called employment recovery since the end of the Great Recession.
You can judge for yourself.
Click on the chart to expand it.
Note: The Federal Reserve plays a huge part with employment, it is one of two of their mandates, the other being inflation. And currently the Federal Reserve's monetary policies are driving up assets prices more than creating good jobs, which is the main reason for the wealth gap expanding between the superrich and the middle-class.
The city manager, I believe makes $143,000 a year. Nurses aids taking care of the elderly make under $20,000. Balanced?
Last login: Friday, January 23, 2015
2015 Best Of The Best Winners
The latest wine and dine news.
The Valley's people, wine & food.
Find your way around the Valley.
Contents of this site are © Copyright 2015 Union-Bulletin, 112 S. First Ave., Walla Walla, WA 99362/509-525-3300. All rights reserved.