HawkShack.com

by **burrrton** » Sat Aug 29, 2015 3:48 pm

Thought since the "Donald Trump" thread went so well, someone might want to discuss Hillary Clinton and her issues.

If not, no big.

by **HawkDawg** » Sat Aug 29, 2015 4:54 pm

Wouldn't vote for her, nor would I vote for another Bush. It doesn't speak "change", the same old boys and girls club for private members only. Plus, her husband (who I voted for) signed China into the WTO - so I hold her guilty by association. The second the ink dried on that document our ports were flooded with goods. Well...I guess we did get "change"...it's what's left in our pockets. Biggest presidential mistake in American history.

by **burrrton** » Sun Aug 30, 2015 2:10 am

What's your objection to China joining the WTO- political or moral?

by **savvyman** » Sun Aug 30, 2015 9:35 am

She should be rejected by the American people for pretty much anything - I have already commented about this months ago - Page 4:

http://www.hawkshack.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1407&hilit=clinton&start=120

by **HawkDawg** » Sun Aug 30, 2015 10:36 am

burrrton wrote:What's your objection to China joining the WTO- political or moral?

Political, moral, economical, environmental...all of the above. Here, straight from the horses mouth:
http://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/feds/2014/201404/201404pap.pdf.
Just read the first paragraph of the intro - 18% of American manufacturing jobs were lost from 2001-2007....obviously prior to the great recession. They are on slate to surpass our GDP per capita within a couple of years. US factories are closing left and right.

Couple that with their human rights and poisoning of the planet, good ole' Bill & friends set the world up for complete disaster. Sure China lied to us, they're not holding up to their end of the deal. Sad to say but it's too late now.

Tack on the fact that China is the largest holder of U.S. debt. At the end of March, the Treasury Department announced that China owned $1.261 trillion worth of U.S. government securities. That's more than 20% of the U.S. total foreign debt.

Here is the moment that changed everything, it's like watching a suicide on camera. Check the smile at 0:18.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lYcz4CX0h7A

We instantly became THE world power in 1945, the day WW2 ended. We instantly forfeited that position in 2001, the day that document was signed. It was a good ride boys, hope everyone enjoyed it while it lasted. Thanks Bill, good call. The most irresponsible and destructive moment in presidential history.

by **kalibane** » Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:03 am

She has a huge trustworthiness problem. She's gone from hither, thither and yawn changing her message depending on who she's speaking to. It kind of starts and ends there for me. I have no clue what she really wants to do in the White House.

by **burrrton** » Mon Aug 31, 2015 9:25 am

She has a huge trustworthiness problem.

As someone who held a clearance for about 10 years, I'd say that's the understatement of the decade so far.

I have no clue what she really wants to do in the White House.

What, "INCOME INEQUALITIES" and "TEH FAIR SHAREZ" doesn't do it for you?

by **kalibane** » Mon Aug 31, 2015 9:58 am

LOL... Look I do believe there is an income inequality problem but again she only started talking about it once Bernie started rising in the polls. Consider that if minimum wage had risen with inflation since the 70's it would be $19.00 per hour now. But she has NO plan. It's an incredibly tricky and delicate issue to figure out how to shrink the earning gap but she's given it no real thought and given her history if she does come up with something it'll be some weak half measure.

You can't just give me some broad strokes lip service. Bernie's plan may not be good but at least he has put his own original thought into it because it's actually important to him. Pretty much the same issue I have with Trump. I already know what the problems are and outside of social issues everyone acknowledges the same problems regardless of which side of the aisle you're on. You want my vote let me hear a concrete policy proposal so I can determine if I like it or not.

by **burrrton** » Mon Aug 31, 2015 10:17 am

Consider that if minimum wage had risen with inflation since the 70's it would be $19.00 per hour now.

To this former small biz owner, that just shows why the minimum wage should not *ever* be tied to inflation. You think a burger flipper or UPS Store stamp seller is worth $19.00 per hour in 2015?

Look I do believe there is an income inequality problem but again she only started talking about it once Bernie started rising in the polls.

I realize that.

WRT "income inequality", though, the problem is that it, on its own, is not a problem. "Income inequality" can be due to a million different things (many of which are *good*), and worse, it's no indication 'the poor' are less well off (which they're not).

If there's a specific issue someone wants to address, do so and I might even join you, but simply hollering "LOOK THAT RICH GUY GOT A BIGGER RAISE THAN YOU!" is politics-of-envy verbal diarrhea.

by **kalibane** » Mon Aug 31, 2015 10:32 am

Granted, the actual "inequality" is not strictly the problem, the issue is mainly the fact that cost of living goes up steadily but wages stay stagnant. It just creates a nation of poor who then, you got it, get on public assistance. Is flipping a burger worth $19.00 an hour? Well we all know that answer.

Like I said no easy fix which is why just raising the minimum wage won't work but the ability to make a living has to be tied to inflation in some form or fashion. There is a problem when there are jobs that need to be done just for society to function (including some real professional jobs) but they don't provide enough for people to make enough of a living to retire on. Shouldn't work that way.

Just talking about it doesn't do anything about it though. So Next... for Hillary.

by **burrrton** » Mon Aug 31, 2015 10:58 am

There is a problem when there are jobs that need to be done just for society to function (including some real professional jobs) but they don't provide enough for people to make enough of a living to retire on. Shouldn't work that way.

Why shouldn't it work that way if that job has no shortage of people willing to do it?

A job being 'necessary' doesn't mean it's going to offer lavish pay (supply and demand and all that) and I see no reason why that's objectionable, nor do I see any reliable way to 'fix' it (unless you think managed economies are good and fair).

Minimum wage jobs are not intended to be paths to early retirement or avenues for comfortably raising a family of four. Some positions simply aren't worth that, so if you want to retire comfortably or have 2.5 kids and nice house in the burbs, you take them only if necessary and move up when you're able.

by **kalibane** » Mon Aug 31, 2015 11:49 am

I'm not talking about minimum wage jobs. I agree almost all of those jobs are meant to be filled by kids and have a high turnover rate.

I'm talking about regular jobs primarily unskilled but also some professional where you end up not technically below the poverty line but living paycheck to paycheck. And what happens especially if kids ever enter the picture is no money is able to be saved for retirement or not nearly enough. Pensions don't exist anymore and then when they reach retirement age we (the rest of society) end up paying for their government subsidies.

We have the same interest I think, in terms of easy the burden of society to prop up non-contributors, you're just looking it on the front end and I'm more concerned about the back end cost because my view is that as many things the back end cost is rarely worth the front end savings. For millions and millions of people they are stuck in dead end jobs and there simply is not a continuous escalation up the professional ladder. I don't think they need to be wealthy or even middle class. But I have no interest in paying for their health problems once they are no longer working.

And we can talk all day about what SHOULD be happening in terms of individual responsibility. But I don't see a lot of value in that because it's not realistic to think that people are going to live that way. I'm more interested in the most effective method to keep a healthy bottom line.

by **burrrton** » Mon Aug 31, 2015 12:32 pm

And what happens especially if kids ever enter the picture is no money is able to be saved for retirement or not nearly enough.

Yup- been there. That's why I only stayed there as long as my life choices allowed- once I decided I wanted nicer cars, bigger houses, children, and so on, I did what was necessary, just like virtually everyone else either does, or is capable of doing.

I'm more interested in the most effective method to keep a healthy bottom line.

Me, too- that's why I advocate policies that I feel will create jobs and keep the safety net solvent, and don't talk about forcing Kalibane Cash-and-Carry to pay their grocery baggers $19/hr as if I have any freaking idea what your business model would support.

I agree that we're basically on the same page, but 'RAISE THE WAGE' jacks labor costs while in all likelihood tightening the job market and not doing what it purports to do- you can't raise a family of 4 in Kirkland on $15/hr any more than you can on $8/hr. You have to gain skills and move on/up to do that, and that only gets harder if someone doubles(ish) the cost of hiring you.

IMHO and all that.

For millions and millions of people they are stuck in dead end jobs and there simply is not a continuous escalation up the professional ladder.

That's a victim attitude.

I've never met *anybody* who was actually stuck in their job. You may have to make some really tough choices (I started at an entry-level job at 31 yoa when I made a tough choice and changed careers), but very, very few are actually without any choices, and those few are hardly worth ham-handing our entire economy over.

[edit]

To be fair, there are people who can be left with few options due to 'self-inflicted wounds' and bad life choices, but again, see bolded above.

by **kalibane** » Mon Aug 31, 2015 1:13 pm

I do believe I said raising the minimum raise was not the answer in one of my previous posts. So no need to lay that on me.

But I'm sorry I think there is a problem when adjusted for years 30 years ago my same job/salary would have allowed me to support a family of four comfortably, home owner in a good neighborhood, retirement etc. without my wife working. Today I might be able to support a family of four on my salary on my own but we would be almost certainly renting (if we owned a home it would be much lower quality in a not so great neighborhood), and living a no frills existence with little ability to save money to retire on.

It has nothing to do with victim mentality it's just math. There are only so many MBA or equivalent level jobs in this country. Not everyone can make $80K a year or more even if we all had the qualifications to do so. Someone has to push those mops, empty those trash cans, sell those cars, teach those classes and drive those buses. You shouldn't have to live a Spartan exist just because your job that once paid you well enough to make a living doesn't have a salary that keeps pace with the economy. The way things are trending and have been trending for the last 40 years is a completely unsustainable model. If inflation keeps rising at the same rate and wages remain as stagnant has they have been in the next 40 some odd years you'll need to make ~150K each as a two income household just to maintain middle class status. That's not realistic.

by **burrrton** » Mon Aug 31, 2015 1:46 pm

Kal, you said wages should be tied to inflation- how is that not supporting a minimum wage (and raising it accordingly)? I wasn't trying to pull a fast one on you- I honestly thought you supported it (while admitting it's not the only thing required).

But I'm sorry I think there is a problem when adjusted for years 30 years ago my same job/salary would have allowed me to support a family of four comfortably, home owner in a good neighborhood, retirement etc. without my wife working.

The conditions 30 years ago have no relation to today's economic (and societal) conditions. There were a whole host of reasons we could get by on less 'back in the day'. That doesn't mean we should be able to do so today, and it certainly doesn't mean we should be taking drastic measures (of questionable value) to try to force it to happen.

Someone has to push those mops, empty those trash cans, sell those cars, teach those classes and drive those buses.

Yes- for the low-sill positions, kids, people who've not yet developed the skills for another position, etc. Pushing a mop doesn't go from being a $20K/year job to a $50K/yr position because you said so, and you can't force every position in the world to retain its value forever.

For teachers (and other positions some think "should" make more but don't), that's supply and demand. My current position was open with my employer for 18 months, but post a 1st-grade teaching position at 8am and you'll have 500 qualified applicants camping outside your office by lunch. It's valuable work, but it's easy as sht and there is *no* shortage of people willing and able to do it.

You shouldn't have to live a Spartan exist just because your job that once paid you well enough to make a living doesn't have a salary that keeps pace with the economy.

1. Says who?
2. What magic wand can you wave to 'fix' that that doesn't introduce a bunch of other problems?

by **RiverDog** » Tue Sep 01, 2015 12:38 pm

I don't trust her any further than I could spit, and that was before the current email scandal. I'm surprised that she hasn't tried to play the victim card by attributing her current troubles to another "vast right wing conspiracy". I wouldn't vote for her if my life depended on it.

by **burrrton** » Tue Sep 01, 2015 1:13 pm

I'm surprised that she hasn't tried to play the victim card by attributing her current troubles to another "vast right wing conspiracy".

She hasn't used those words, but periodically she floats the old "THIS IS JUST RIGHT WING POLITICS I EXPECT TO GET ATTACKED" trope (AKA The 'victim card') to see if it gets traction.

It hasn't, and won't. This is some pretty serious sht she did, and I think that's becoming obvious even to those for whom the discussion is a bit arcane.

by **RiverDog** » Wed Sep 02, 2015 1:42 am

burrrton wrote:She hasn't used those words ("vast right wing conspiracy"), but periodically she floats the old "THIS IS JUST RIGHT WING POLITICS I EXPECT TO GET ATTACKED" trope (AKA The 'victim card') to see if it gets traction.

It hasn't, and won't. This is some pretty serious sht she did, and I think that's becoming obvious even to those for whom the discussion is a bit arcane.

The email thing has to be Chinese water torture for the Clinton campaign. Every day, it seems like something else comes out that keeps the saga in the headlines. Not that it would make any difference in my opinion of her.

by **kalibane** » Wed Sep 02, 2015 5:42 am

1. Says who?
2. What magic wand can you wave to 'fix' that that doesn't introduce a bunch of other problems?

1. Pretty much anyone with sense. We've seen this before and it ended up with Teddy Roosevelt being known as the Trust Buster. It's just not good for the country or democracy.

2. I'm not suggesting I have the solution. That's why I said it's tricky and complicated. If I knew how to remedy the situation without artificially redistributing wealth I'd probably have a career in politics.

by **burrrton** » Wed Sep 02, 2015 6:35 am

1. Pretty much anyone with sense.

No offense, kal, but I'd say it's pretty much the opposite. Just because your job was meaningful/necessary/lucrative in 1970 or whatever does not mean it's going to remain that way for time eternal. Anyone who tells you otherwise is either lying to you or trying to buy your vote.

2. I'm not suggesting I have the solution. That's why I said it's tricky and complicated.

The question was kinda rhetorical- I know you don't have the solution. It would take a magic wand, and we don't have one of those.

by **burrrton** » Wed Sep 02, 2015 6:42 am

Do any of these yo-yos have an idea about international relations? Any of them have a better option than bomb Iran? Are there any better opinions than same sex marriage, abortion, or transgender rights? Any thoughts about the economy, for instance? Or dealing with the MIddle East? None of the Repubs have given any idea of a plan, so what are we supposed to support. "I'm a hot commodity, so I will lead the country" Give me a break.

Aaaaand no offense, ObS, but this simply demonstrates you're not paying attention to anyone or anything but Trump and caricatures of the rest.

There are some nuts running, but neither Repubs nor Dems have the monopoly on those, and there are a number of very good candidates running for the Rs (and FTR, there are Dems I could vote for given the right circumstances, too).

[edit]

I owe you more than snark. So briefly:

"International relations": this is a natural advantage for incumbents and previous office holders, but Fiorina has met with a huge number of world leaders, and I don't think Clinton's (or even Obama's) track record in this regard is what anyone could even call decent. Do you want to discuss Russia? How about Iraq? Israel? Syria? I could go on.

"Bombing Iran": name one candidate (besides Trump- I don't know or care what he's said) that says we should nix this deal and bomb Iran. The *best* anyone can say for this deal is it allows Iran to have the bomb in 10-15 years (most reasonable assumptions would be much less than that), and if you think that's the best we can do at this point, I'll tell you to go argue with Obama a few years ago, who said they had to dismantle the program "period" before he realized he had no "legacy issue" and started giving away the store to get something, anything, to point to.

"Same sex marriage": there are a range of opinions on this, but for the most part, I disagree with them on this, too (I have no problem with SSM). The horse is out of the barn on it, though- nobody is going to be able to change anything. I know it's more fun to keep demagoguing than to simply admit "we won", but it might be time to take this arrow out of our quiver.

"Abortion": I disagree with some, agree with others, but short of any nut saying all abortions should always be illegal, give me the positions on this you think are indefensible. I'm honestly interested.

"Transgender rights": er, what "rights" do you think "transgenders" either lack or that any of the Republicans are arguing to strip?

"Economy": they've given a LOT of thoughts about the economy. This just shows you don't care to find and/or hear them.

"Middle East": see "Economy".

" None of the Repubs have given any idea of a plan, so what are we supposed to support." <--Why don't you tell me what Clinton's position is on, say, Keystone XL. Or how about TPP? "I'LL FIX INCOME INEQUALITY" is no more a "plan" than "I'LL MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN".

by **kalibane** » Wed Sep 02, 2015 8:48 am

No offense, kal, but I'd say it's pretty much the opposite. Just because your job was meaningful/necessary/lucrative in 1970 or whatever does not mean it's going to remain that way for time eternal. Anyone who tells you otherwise is either lying to you or trying to buy your vote.

This statement is overly general. We are not talking about certain professions like manufacturing that have gone away due to technological development and now there are far fewer jobs than applicants. We are talking about wages in general across the spectrum of the United States. Professions that keep pace or exceed inflation are the exception not the rule and most of them are held by people in the upper 10% of the tax bracket.

Take Teachers. They are just as meaningful, just as necessary and there is a shortage of applicants (making the demand for them bigger than 1970). It's a job that in comparison to 1970, requires longer hours, more scrutiny, continuing education on their own dime and it is no longer worth the effort because salaries have not kept pace with the cost of living.

by **RiverDog** » Wed Sep 02, 2015 8:57 am

Old but Slow wrote:While I am not a big Hillary fan, I would vote for her if there is no better option. The republicans are not providing an option at this point. Do any of these yo-yos have an idea about international relations? Any of them have a better option than bomb Iran? Are there any better opinions than same sex marriage, abortion, or transgender rights? Any thoughts about the economy, for instance? Or dealing with the MIddle East? None of the Repubs have given any idea of a plan, so what are we supposed to support. "I'm a hot commodity, so I will lead the country" Give me a break.

I don't look to social issues, like gay rights, abortion, or going back a few decades, the Equal Rights Amendment, when determining who I'm going to vote for. The President doesn't have much impact on those issues anyway. Those issues are generally decided by the courts.

If presented with a choice of Hillary or Trump, I'd probably vote for the Libertarian candidate, which is where my heart is anyway but that I don't vote for as I don't like throwing my vote away. There are a couple of R candidates I could get behind, say Scott Walker of Wisconsin, but none of them are getting any traction. Jeb Bush, had it not been for the desire to break away from the past, might have been a decent candidate, but he's not electable, would be too easily tied to his brother's legacy. Outside of Trump, there's no one that can light the fire of a fiscal conservative, social moderate like I prefer to describe myself as being.

If a Republican is going to get elected, they are going to have to appeal to the conservative base in the GOP. Reagan did it, Bush 43 did it, Bush 41 won Reagan's 3rd term then couldn't appeal to it in '92, and neither Dole, McCain, or Romney could do it. Trump appears to be winning over a lot of conservatives, but he's too corrosive to appeal to the Reagan Democrats, soccer moms, and other middle of the roaders to win a national election.

by **kalibane** » Wed Sep 02, 2015 9:15 am

RiverDog wrote:
I don't look to social issues, like gay rights, abortion, or going back a few decades, the Equal Rights Amendment, when determining who I'm going to vote for. The President doesn't have much impact on those issues anyway. Those issues are generally decided by the courts.

President appoints Supreme Court Justices. When you're looking at a time when multiple Justices will be replaced in the near future I have no choice but to take that into consideration. Say for instance if you were a big gay rights supporter (or just gay)... Ginsburg is about to be out the door. If you helped to elect Scott Walker or Mike Huckabee you'd be really hurting yourself socially since the current split on gay rights is 5-4 in favor of them.

by **burrrton** » Wed Sep 02, 2015 9:22 am

They are just as meaningful, just as necessary and there is a shortage of applicants (making the demand for them bigger than 1970).

Nonsense. Go here and tell me how many full-time teaching positions (not administration/special-ed/therapists/etc) you can find in the state of Washington in anything but the most remote and/or 'urban' areas (which are the only places that struggle to get and keep teachers):

http://www.k12.wa.us/maps/ESDmap.aspx

I didn't spend a lot of time, but I only saw single positions here and there in places like Curlew, Rosalia, and so on.

Compare that to listed positions virtually anywhere for IT-related fields. There is nothing even *approaching* a shortage of applicants for K-12 ed in most areas.

And really, unless you think the law of "supply and demand" somehow suspends itself when we're talking about teaching, this should be self-evident to you- if there was a huge shortage of applicants, the positions would pay more. There isn't, however, so they don't.

It's a job that in comparison to 1970, requires longer hours, more scrutiny, continuing education on their own dime and it is no longer worth the effort because salaries have not kept pace with the cost of living.

Beyond supply and demand (which you seem to want to ignore), most of that is due to education spending going through the *roof* with no discernible increase in outcomes.

And again, I'm not sure who told you any job someone held in 1970 must remain the same with regard to hours, scrutiny, compensation, pre-requisites, and such half a century later, but they're wrong. There's no moral argument for it, and it has no basis in reality.

by **kalibane** » Wed Sep 02, 2015 10:03 am

Nonsense. Go here and tell me how many full-time teaching positions (not administration/special-ed/therapists/etc) you can find in the state of Washington in anything but the most remote and/or 'urban' areas (which are the only places that struggle to get and keep teachers):

Okay seriously you want me to go through that and look for teaching openings but only within the nice little demographic you've carved out that supports your position? And you just happen to disqualify urban areas which have the highest population concentration? That's where most students live and thus where most teachers are needed. The fact that better funded suburban school districts have fewer issues with hiring has zero relevance. Of course the pool of teachers is going to gravitate towards jobs that have better facilities and resources. You're "proof" is basically going a half a mile out into he Ocean and saying look at all this water I told you we're there is no such thing as low tide.

My wife is President of the Board at a charter school so I'm pretty familiar with the challenges of hiring and keeping qualified teachers. Her school isn't even in a bad place resource wise and they still struggle. And that's not to say anything about the many school districts where they are simply without qualified instructors for certain subjects for years at a time. Where people hired as short term subs wind up teaching a full year or more of a subject where they have no background because they can't fill the position. Where teachers have to provide their own materials out of pocket. If you walk out into the world and see that there isn't a teacher shortage, you aren't walking far enough out of your comfort zone.

by **burrrton** » Wed Sep 02, 2015 10:10 am

Okay seriously you want me to go through that and look for teaching openings but only within the nice little demographic you've carved out that supports your position? And you just happen to disqualify urban areas which have the highest population concentration? That's where most students live and thus where most teachers are needed.

Huh? If you want to claim there is some overall shortage of teaching applicants, you shouldn't have to run to those areas that have trouble getting applicants for *any* job, and you shouldn't have to run to non-teaching positions like counselors, principals, and Speech Pathologists.

Your objection to that says volumes.

My wife is President of the Board at a charter school so I'm pretty familiar with the challenges of hiring and keeping qualified teachers.

Then you can point to the deluge of open teaching positions.

If you walk out into the world and see that there isn't a teacher shortage, you aren't walking far enough out of your comfort zone.

With respect, I think it's more you who need to consider what 'comfort zone' you're in with the specific circumstances of your wife's job if you think there is an overall shortage of teaching applicants in this country.

by **kalibane** » Wed Sep 02, 2015 11:01 am

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/10/us/te ... ional.html

Across the country, districts are struggling with shortages of teachers, particularly in math, science and special education — a result of the layoffs of the recession years combined with an improving economy in which fewer people are training to be teachers.

http://www.oregonlive.com/education/ind ... o_fil.html

http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/new ... ing-spree/

http://magicvalley.com/news/local/schoo ... 64fd7.html

http://bismarcktribune.com/news/local/b ... 9cec0.html

http://www.theguardian.com/education/20 ... -shortfall

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/teacher-sho ... w-tactics/

http://www.journalnow.com/news/local/te ... 448db.html

So that took me 60-90 seconds. Articles from national sources and from local sources in Oregon, California, Oklahoma, North Carolina, North Dakota. Do I need to get something from all 50 states?

by **burrrton** » Wed Sep 02, 2015 11:30 am

Those are valid examples, Kal.

I'd point out that all seem to be related to ramping back up after hiring was frozen or downsized during the economic downturn, that there's a difference between being historically understaffed (from 1970 to now) and recovering from short-term cutbacks, but that might be splitting hairs.

Also, the number of open positions doesn't doesn't correspond to the media portrayal- go search for open, full-time teaching positions in San Diego, or Boise, or wherever. You can count them on one hand. Is "severe shortage" a relative term? Is ~99.5% staffed (San Diego's current level, per your link) considered 'understaffed'?

Either way, though, let's grant the point that we don't have enough teachers in many areas at the moment: why do you think they don't make more, why do you think they should, and what do you think we should do about it?

by **kalibane** » Wed Sep 02, 2015 12:23 pm

The hiring freeze is part of it but like they said in Math and Science we don't have Math and Science majors that are willing to teach for that scant salary, period. There are a lot of schools that can't have AP programs simply because they can't find a qualified applicant that can teach it.

In general though a ton of people that would otherwise teach just don't feel the salary for the job is worth the headache. I had a few really good friends who took teaching jobs out of college none of them stuck with it and one in particular stands out. She wanted to be a teacher. She was an excellent teacher (the kind every parent wants their kid to have, the kind who's kids come back 10 years later to say hello). Both her parents were teachers. Education was her thing. She taught at a private school (so good conditions) and after two years she just said screw it, was not worth the hassle. Pay was just too little for the effort the job takes even though she loved it. Very common narrative with young teachers.

I think they don't make more for a couple reasons. It's half budgetary and half just the climate of the country where in the corporate world a 3% raise is doing "great". The budgetary aspect, only one way to deal with that, and that's to get people to actually vote for school levies when they are on the ballot. But I find that a ton of people only vote for those levies when their kids are in the public schools and many of them start voting against them as soon as their kids graduate.

The rest falls back into what I said before. If I had the magic bullet I wouldn't be wasting time here talking about it. lol

by **RiverDog** » Thu Sep 03, 2015 9:49 am

kalibane wrote:President appoints Supreme Court Justices. When you're looking at a time when multiple Justices will be replaced in the near future I have no choice but to take that into consideration. Say for instance if you were a big gay rights supporter (or just gay)... Ginsburg is about to be out the door. If you helped to elect Scott Walker or Mike Huckabee you'd be really hurting yourself socially since the current split on gay rights is 5-4 in favor of them.

They don't have unquestioned authority on SCOTUS appointments, they have to be approved by the Senate. If, for example, Hillary Clinton appointed a judge that was blatantly pro abortion or anti 2nd Amendment, she'd never get them through the Senate even if the Dems had a small majority.

by **Seahawks4Ever** » Sat Sep 19, 2015 5:50 pm

Mrs. Clinton has a problem with integrity. Is she the only politician with this problem? No, of course not but she lies when she has no reason to lie and that speaks to her character, or lack of one. She lied about being shot at while visiting Bosnia during her husbands term, it never happened. There is absolutely no reason for her to have not used a government e-mail server when she was Sec. of St. yet she does it anyhow and has lied about it and tried to cover it up ever since. Like "they" say, the cover-up most times is worse than the initial "crime".

Benghazi, how and why do you leave a diplomatic team with little or no protection especially when the Ambassador was literally begging for more protection. That in my mind is criminal. Then she laughs about it when talking to the press. Americans died because she left them hung out to die and she laughs about it.

She and her husbands are crooks. It was never "proved" by the FBI and other investigative agencies but I have friends that were born in Arkansas. When their parents divorced they moved to Skyway, Wa. when their mother went to work for Boeing. I went to middle and high school with them, two brothers and their sister. The younger brother had to move back to Arkansas to live with his dad after their mother died of cancer, he was only 16. Anyway, none of the three gave a rats azz about politics even thpugfh occasionally I would try and engage them. So, years later after he has grown up and got married(with children) he came up from Arkansaa to visit family and he looked me up, by that time I too was married with children. So, there we are drinking some bruskies and smoking some ganja (mary jane) and we are watching the tube and channel surfing and Jay says stop! Stop! Go back! I flip back a couple of channels until we are watching the DNC nominating convention and some hick red neck I had never heard of before is delivering the "keynote address". This was the convention that nominated Mike Dukakis for POTUS. So, Jays says "see that guy?" I said "yeah, so what?" Jay said and I quote "he is going to be the next president". Now, like I said, he doesn't no ANYTHING about politics and doesn't care either so I told him, "you don't know what you are talking about, this guy is not even RUNNING for POTUS"!

That's when Jay said, "oh, I know, I am not talking about this year, but when Clinton DOES run he is going to win". What makes you say THAT?? That's when he tells me that this Clinton guy is his governor back home in Arkansas and that him and his wife are complete crooks and that they get away with all of their crimes. He said Bill and he wife will lie, cheat, and steal to get what they want. I laughed and told him that he still didn't know what he was talking about and that being the governor of Arkansas was different, a LOT different than running for POTUS and that he had NO CHANCE. Well, 4 years later I called him up and told him that he was right and that I was wrong. That's when he told me that not only would Bill be a two term POTUS but that his wife would be the first woman POTUS and that she was a bigger crook than her husband was because she was the "brains" of the outfit.

Anyway, everything Jay told me all of those years ago turned out to be true. I just do not trust her and I don't want her to be POTUS.

by **obiken** » Thu Oct 01, 2015 2:14 am

Hillary-- everyone is entitled to their opinion. I got friends and relatives that are all in for Hillary. Most of my friends despise Hillary. Here's mine. I will never vote for Hillary. However, I neither love nor hate her. NOTHING will change under Hillary. She is the Kobe Bryant of politics. Everybody admires Kobe as a player but no one likes Kobe. IMHO she cannot be a great President, but she cannot fail; she is as they say a winner. She will make the trains run on time, and she is a hard worker. She set the tone as the activist model of a First Lady. She was accused of being Carpetbagger but won 2 terms as Senator, from NY. She is NOT Bill. She doesn't like people, she under campaigns, but over performs at the ballot box. You can overestimate her and underestimate her. She is the Richard Nixon of the Democratic Party. She is a partisan with no vision, its whatever works for her, and gets the job done. She will have a lot of True believers working for her that think the rules don't apply to them, and the opposition has no rights as are not viable Americans. So yes, a Watergate is a real possibility. Her and Nixon are a lot alike. So that's my forensic accounting of Hillary R Clinton.

by **RiverDog** » Sat Oct 03, 2015 8:15 am

obiken wrote:Hillary-- everyone is entitled to their opinion. I got friends and relatives that are all in for Hillary. Most of my friends despise Hillary. Here's mine. I will never vote for Hillary. However, I neither love nor hate her. NOTHING will change under Hillary. She is the Kobe Bryant of politics. Everybody admires Kobe as a player but no one likes Kobe. IMHO she cannot be a great President, but she cannot fail; she is as they say a winner. She will make the trains run on time, and she is a hard worker. She set the tone as the activist model of a First Lady. She was accused of being Carpetbagger but won 2 terms as Senator, from NY. She is NOT Bill. She doesn't like people, she under campaigns, but over performs at the ballot box. You can overestimate her and underestimate her. She is the Richard Nixon of the Democratic Party. She is a partisan with no vision, its whatever works for her, and gets the job done. She will have a lot of True believers working for her that think the rules don't apply to them, and the opposition has no rights as are not viable Americans. So yes, a Watergate is a real possibility. Her and Nixon are a lot alike. So that's my forensic accounting of Hillary R Clinton.

I don't hate Hillary, either. But I do despise her. She's a snake, as this email controversy is bearing out. The woman has an active imagination, vast right wing conspiracy, implying that Bush 43 knew about 9/11 in advance of the attack, etc. I wouldn't trust her any further than I could spit. And you're right about the comparison to Richard Nixon.

My problem is that I only marginally like Trump over Hillary. It would be the worst two choices I've had for any political office since I started voting if those two square off in November 2016.

by **c_hawkbob** » Sat Oct 03, 2015 11:28 am

There is not a single circumstance under which, nor a single person in preference to whom, I would vote for Trump. It simply will not happen.

by **RiverDog** » Sat Oct 03, 2015 6:33 pm

c_hawkbob wrote:There is not a single circumstance under which, nor a single person in preference to whom, I would vote for Trump. It simply will not happen.

Me, too.

About 70% of the people I work with, including about 50% of my closest friends, were not born in this country. Trump is instilling an irrational fear into the minds of many. He is not connected to the real world.

Like I said earlier, these are the two worst choices I've ever witnessed for any office in my 43 years of voting eligibility.

by **burrrton** » Sat Oct 03, 2015 6:43 pm

RiverDog wrote:Like I said earlier, these are the two worst choices I've ever witnessed for any office in my 43 years of voting eligibility.

They're not the choices yet- I don't think Trump has a chance in hell of being the nominee (although that faith is shaken more every day), and I'm not convinced Hillary won't be indicted (as she should be) before she's nominated.

by **c_hawkbob** » Sat Oct 03, 2015 8:21 pm

RiverDog wrote:Me, too.

About 70% of the people I work with, including about 50% of my closest friends, were not born in this country. Trump is instilling an irrational fear into the minds of many. He is not connected to the real world.

Like I said earlier, these are the two worst choices I've ever witnessed for any office in my 43 years of voting eligibility.

I don't equate Trump and Hillary. I don't see her as qualified for the job and I'm not likely to vote for her, but I would not be embarrassed if she were to become the next president as I would be with Trump.

by **Hawktawk** » Sun Oct 04, 2015 10:56 am

I absolutely would vote for Trump over Hillary Klinton or Bernie Sanders. If Trump were the nominee I would vote for Omalley or Biden which would be the first time I ever voted Democratic in my life.

by **RiverDog** » Wed Oct 07, 2015 4:24 am

c_hawkbob wrote:I don't equate Trump and Hillary. I don't see her as qualified for the job and I'm not likely to vote for her, but I would not be embarrassed if she were to become the next president as I would be with Trump.

I disagree. Hillary is very well qualified, perhaps more qualified than any candidate in the running. She's been a co-president for 8 years, a US Senator for 8 years, and Secretary of State for 4 years. If that's not qualified, then I don't know what is.

But qualifications or lack thereof is not what bothers me. What bothers me is her personality. I trust her less than I would some random panhandler to tell the truth. Being President is as much about symbolism and idealism as it is about functionality. I do not want her representing my country. It's that simple.

One thing I will say about Trump that I can't say about Hillary is that it doesn't seem to me that Trump is the type of person to change his position as a result of polls and focus groups. Hillary is a weather vane, points in whatever direction the wind happens to be blowing. She voted for the war in Iraq, was for the Defense of Marriage Act. I'm not saying that I would ever vote for Trump, just that when it comes to honesty, he has it in spades over Hillary, who is nothing but a political hack that will change her position to whatever spot will garner her the most votes and that has no moral compass. Trump has come out and said that if he slips in the polls, he'll drop out. If Hillary slips in the polls, she'll simply re-invent herself.

HawkShack.com

Who is online