Parliamentary maneuver or thwarting the will of the people?

Nothing wrong with that. Or are you postulating that grad students who are guided by full professors can't do quality work or valid studies? Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

He is implying that it is not a peer reviewed & published study. Probably a cut above one of WTF's Google searches though.

He is implying that it is not a peer reviewed & published study. Probably a cut above one of WTF's Google searches though. Originally Posted by pjorourke

As I stated...it is a very difficult subject matter to find research on.

Care to find a peer reviewed study that back up your POV?

throwing ever more bucks into public education as it is now designed is a wasteful exercise...in many cases less is more...i saw a sign one of the wisconsin protestors held about protect our children. yeah..how about protect them from system collapse and a dark and dreary future instead of protect them by paying ever increasing benefits to you?

when someone calculates the per pupil cost of education in any given area or district i sincerely doubt they include any of the post-work costs of the retirees. somehow i imagine that gets lost.


There's never a recession if you work for the government. The counties with the highest per capita income aren't near New York City or Los Angeles, or any supposedly rich corporate area -- they're in the Washington, D.C., area -- a one-company town where the company is the government. The three counties with the highest incomes in the entire country are all suburbs of Washington. Eleven of the 25 counties with the highest incomes are near Washington.

somehow government unions think that protecting their insane work rules and benefits is the job of everyone else in the private sector while crying "protect the children" or crying out some other paean to themselves concerning "public service".

for years dems have had a good situation, paying government unions outrageously and providing work rules that create so many inefficiences the cost of which is incalculable and being funded and voted for in return. the only problem now is, we are out of money.

for years dems have had a good situation, paying government unions outrageously and providing work rules that create so many inefficiences the cost of which is incalculable and being funded and voted for in return. the only problem now is, we are out of money. Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

The same can be said of the banking system.

Only that government backed enterprise is somehow labeled capitalistic. I wonder why?

...Second, union dues withheld from paychecks can only be used in the collective bargaining process. Not for campaign contributions, not for bribes, not for some of the illegal activity you inferred...

Care to rethink that?
NEA *et.al. lines 8 through 14,

and here...

...and here.

... Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

. *Edit

Nothing wrong with that. Or are you postulating that grad students who are guided by full professors can't do quality work or valid studies? Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

I was a grad student who taught intro stats. That was 30 years ago. Some breakthrough stats work was actually done by grad students. This isn't one of them.

...Fox News as gospel. Originally Posted by WTF

The Fox News Derangement Syndrome. Don't think anyone but you is referring to Fox.

As I stated...it is a very difficult subject matter to find research on.

Care to find a peer reviewed study that back up your POV? Originally Posted by WTF

I don't think there is any scientific, peer reviewed study yet on the WISC issue yet.


In the real world today, Boehner promised no federal govt shut down.

In the real world today, Boehner promised no federal govt shut down. Originally Posted by gnadfly

Bummer!! If they don't get to the point where it gets shut down, they havent pushed hard enough to cut spending.

Bummer!! If they don't get to the point where it gets shut down, they havent pushed hard enough to cut spending. Originally Posted by pjorourke

But it would be way too dangerous politically. Might it benefit the Republicans? Perhaps, but in general Republicans have been blamed for government shutdowns; happened to Reagan, happened to Congress in 1995. Both parties are more concerned with maintaining power and in this case the party in Congress with the most to lose would be Republicans.

But it would be way too dangerous politically. Might it benefit the Republicans? Perhaps, but in general Republicans have been blamed for government shutdowns; happened to Reagan, happened to Congress in 1995. Both parties are more concerned with maintaining power and in this case the party in Congress with the most to lose would be Republicans. Originally Posted by discreetgent

Reps have one house - Dems have Senate & Presidency.

Reps have one house - Dems have Senate & Presidency. Originally Posted by pjorourke

Correct, but historically it has hurt Republicans more than Democrats. I read a good line today, to paraphrase: Democrats have the reputation for believing in big government so people are far less likely to believe that they want to shutdown the government, and the reverse is true for Republicans.

The difference this time is that they have made arrangement to keep the checks flowing. If that happens, how many will notice that the government is shut down?

The difference this time is that they have made arrangement to keep the checks flowing. If that happens, how many will notice that the government is shut down? Originally Posted by pjorourke

If they really manage that it would be the million dollar question. I am sceptical that the general population won't notice.

I doubt I would notice if the feds were closed. On a good day I don't have anything to do with the bastards.

Care to rethink that?
NEA *et.al. lines 8 through 14,

and here...

...and here. *Edit Originally Posted by DFW5Traveler

OK, your first and second links are identical. Pertinent paragraph there is:

This is no doubt related to $38 million dollars that the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Union has contributed to Democratic Party campaigns since 1990, with nearly $2.6 million being given during the 2008 election. Public sector unions as a whole have given around $160 million to Democratic candidates between 1990 and 2008, with donations of $6 million in 2008.

That paragraph does not say what you says it says. Show me in that paragraph where it says that union dues withheld from paychecks went to something other than paying for the collective bargaining process. What it does say is that unions contributed to the Democratic party/candidates (a perfectly legal act I might remind you). It does not say that came strictly from union dues withheld from paychecks. And the way the paragraph is written, one assumes evil intent in the support of Democratic Party/Candidates. I don't think it's any more evil or less evil than corporations supporting Republicans. Each side has the right to support who they want in an election.

That's the way in a democracy. Oh, I forgot, you are more interested in destroying it.

And the other article by Michelle Malkin? You call that fair and balanced?? I stopped reading her years ago because of her vicious hate based writing. She hates people based on their politics, and with her, it's personal. She hates based on your beliefs. It's as if she based her hate on your race. It's that much of an anathema. So she's not even close to being credible because she'll distort facts and lie to promote her position.

In the real world today, Boehner promised no federal govt shut down. Originally Posted by gnadfly

Bummer!! If they don't get to the point where it gets shut down, they havent pushed hard enough to cut spending. Originally Posted by pjorourke

I agree with PJ: Bummer. Last time, they blamed Newt. This time, I think they would blame John. I think the basic population understands spending bills come out of Congress, not the White House.