|
Finally, education, not unions, becomes...
On Jul 25, 10:59*pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
wrote in message ... On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 20:50:01 -0400, bpuharic wrote: On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 20:46:15 -0400, wrote: On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 19:18:07 -0400, bpuharic wrote: and how many jobs have been lost nationwide in non union companies? answer: about 10 million. The other 15 million must have been union jobs since there are no unions in the US... and you're sayin 25M americans are unemployed? right now there are about 15M unemployed. prior to the bush depression there were about 5 million The only reason unemployment was that low was because of the housing boom where anyone with a rusty hammer could get a job building houses. Unemployment is roughly what it was in 2001-2002 after the recession Bush inherited from Clinton when the dot com bubble burst. (the blame for these things seem to be able to go back a year and a half now don't they?) so your right wing bull**** is just another fabrication You seem to be able to pull numbers out of your ass with impunity like "100 million middle class workers". Why can't I? I am including all the people who's union jobs the union couldn't save so now they are working at the 7-11. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/08/washington/08tax.html D'Plume, you're January-2007 article is an invalid response and is irrelevant to the subject. |
Finally, education, not unions, becomes...
"TopBassDog" wrote in message ... On Jul 25, 10:59 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message ... On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 20:50:01 -0400, bpuharic wrote: On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 20:46:15 -0400, wrote: On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 19:18:07 -0400, bpuharic wrote: and how many jobs have been lost nationwide in non union companies? answer: about 10 million. The other 15 million must have been union jobs since there are no unions in the US... and you're sayin 25M americans are unemployed? right now there are about 15M unemployed. prior to the bush depression there were about 5 million The only reason unemployment was that low was because of the housing boom where anyone with a rusty hammer could get a job building houses. Unemployment is roughly what it was in 2001-2002 after the recession Bush inherited from Clinton when the dot com bubble burst. (the blame for these things seem to be able to go back a year and a half now don't they?) so your right wing bull**** is just another fabrication You seem to be able to pull numbers out of your ass with impunity like "100 million middle class workers". Why can't I? I am including all the people who's union jobs the union couldn't save so now they are working at the 7-11. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/08/washington/08tax.html D'Plume, you're January-2007 article is an invalid response and is irrelevant to the subject. Actually, it's quite relevant, except for a moron like you. |
Finally, education, not unions, becomes...
wrote in message ... On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 20:56:15 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: Unemployment is roughly what it was in 2001-2002 after the recession Bush inherited from Clinton when the dot com bubble burst. (the blame for these things seem to be able to go back a year and a half now don't they?) More nonsense... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_2000s_recession Clinton has a surplus going and GWB crapped all over it. You, like BP seem to think there was no effect from a 55% drop in the NASDAQ.(2000) I suppose you do know Clinton's surplus was just a CBO projection based on 1999 revenues, not anything that ever really happened. The debt never dropped. Oh and did you hear about the planes crashing into the buildings? That may have deepened the recession a tad. Oh and did you hear about Bush being warned, specifically, about the planes crashing into the buildings and about how he said, ok, you've covered your ass? Did you hear about the actual facts of Clinton's surplus? I bet not. here they a http://www.factcheck.org/askfactchec...federal. html I'm nothing like BP, but anyone who equates the stock market to the general health of the economy isn't looking at the bigger picture. |
Finally, education, not unions, becomes...
On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 10:44:25 -0600, Canuck57 wrote:
On 25/07/2010 8:00 AM, John H wrote: ...the priority in the DC school system. http://tinyurl.com/2g5jg6z Liberals better be careful. Start educating folks and the Dems will start losing power. As long as it is done statistically and fairly, removing the politicis out of it -- could be good and revolutionary. Teachers should be ranked. But if not statistically and impartially as possible, justifies why a union needs to dig in. For example if a teacher with ghetto students is rated against say against a teacher middle class without adjustments, this would be wholely unfair. In the ghetto, children go home and worry about srvival and education does not mater. In middle class the child goes ome and does homework and parents talk up education futures...teh stock of quality students may vary to demogrphics. You could get the opposite effect. If you solely rate a teacher on most improved, you might drain the middle class shool teachers of value to the ghetto where the largest improvements can be had. This would not be good as you trash a sucessful school for the needs of a failing one. When both need to have the bars raised. One thing not discussed in the article, are admin staff like principles and superintendants also rated this way? Teaching is a team excercise, as a teacher is often powerless to correct issues by themselves. Does the principle back up the teacher when the teacher tells irate parents to send their child to school fed and not high from their parents dope smoke? One could easily get a situation where the teacher wants to just kick out the lowest performaers. Which might not be wholely bad, as often they do disturb the class. But what do you do with slow learners that disturb he class? But at least they are looking at it. While I didn't grow up in DC, I have noticed with the children we have had (since graduated) that math, science and reading were not as good as it was when I grew up. And getting a better educational system will go a long way to fixing many of todays issues. Even makes for better voters if they can read and think for themselves. I agree with what you say, and can't answer the questions about what else is being done. I've not seen, in my experience, the unions do much of anything to help the educational process for the kids. So, when I see the unions up in arms over the firing of teachers, my first thoughts don't go for the unions. The radio said the union was going to contest the firing for 80-some of the teachers fired. That tells me that there must be no contest with the other 160 or so. -- John H |
Finally, education, not unions, becomes...
On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 12:03:16 -0700, C. Mor Butts wrote:
On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 11:39:52 -0300, "YukonBound" wrote: "John H" wrote in message . .. ...the priority in the DC school system. http://tinyurl.com/2g5jg6z Liberals better be careful. Start educating folks and the Dems will start losing power. -- John H Too bad they weren't a bit more selective when you were substituting! John Herring, stupid ass. Guess what loser? Michelle Rhee is a Democrat. Guess what loser? She's marrying a black man who's mayor of Sacramento and a former NBA player, Kevin Johnson. Frosts the space formerly occupied by your balls, eh? Her political party doesn't upset me. From what I've seen she's a Democrat who wants children educated. Nothing wrong with that. What should, in your opinion, frost my balls? -- John H |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:22 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com