this is AMAZING. please watch the video......

Yes, the tea party is a bunch of evangelical, dumb, rednecks...........
and no, NPR is not biased........

I wonder if this will make front page headlines? Doubt it,

NPR ‘appalled’ by former exec’s comments - Yahoo! News (http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thecutline/20110308/ts_yblog_thecutline/npr-appalled-by-former-execs-comments)

Watch the video? You do realize the Veritas crew has proven themselves to have no ethics what so ever...right?

It sounds like he's mostly pandering to two people he's trying to get 5M dollars from. A lot like the fake call from Koch to the Gov. of Wisconsin.

Sure the guy is a lefty, but let's be honest here...he's being set up.

Ohhh, the Tea Party is "anti-intellectual". I present as evidence Rep. Michelle Bachmann. Case closed...

-spence

A lot like the fake call from Koch to the Gov. of Wisconsin.



-spence

except that the Gov in the fake call w/Koch didnt say anything wrong or compromise his position while this liberal fraud did exactly as you said - pandered to his audience, which is EXACTLY what NPR does, provides biased coverage to skew the news to their sponsors positions - lefty, intellectual snobs.
and its just a coincidence he left his job before this came out.
So spence, I guess you feel good that a news provider in this country is willing to take $$ from organizations which sponsor terrorism. Hurray!

except that the Gov in the fake call w/Koch didnt say anything wrong or compromise his position
Like planting troublemakers with the protesters?

while this liberal fraud did exactly as you said - pandered to his audience, which is EXACTLY what NPR does, provides biased coverage to skew the news to their sponsors positions - lefty, intellectual snobs.
What did they say that proves NPR biases their coverage?

and its just a coincidence he left his job before this came out.
I'm sure he knew it was going to be embarrassing for NPR.

So spence, I guess you feel good that a news provider in this country is willing to take $$ from organizations which sponsor terrorism. Hurray!
Now you're just getting suckered by the video.

Someone makes a joke about Jews and you can either just be polite or walk out. They fake investors did a great job of walking around the line but never going too far.

The bottom line is that this was a hit piece, not investigative journalism.

-spence

Like planting troublemakers with the protesters?
Which the Gov said he wouldnt do, very clearly. It was suggested and he said he wouldnt do it

Someone makes a joke about Jews and you can either just be polite or walk out. They fake investors did a great job of walking around the line but never going too far.

He shook his head in approval when the guy said the Js controlled the media.

The bottom line is that this was a hit piece, not investigative journalism.

It was a hit piece that hit its target, dead on. It clearly showed how a media exec DESPISED republicans and the tea party. They DESPISE people that do not agree with them. I dont think they thought it would go over 1/10th as well as it did. Its funny how easily things grow when planted in manure.

-spence

above

Which the Gov said he wouldnt do, very clearly. It was suggested and he said he wouldnt do it
Actually he said they had considered it but didn't think it was worth it.

He shook his head in approval when the guy said the Js controlled the media.
Oh come on. He's sitting there eating and listening...probably thinking to himself how he hopes the conversation will move on.

It was a hit piece that hit its target, dead on. It clearly showed how a media exec DESPISED republicans and the tea party. They DESPISE people that do not agree with them. I dont think they thought it would go over 1/10th as well as it did. Its funny how easily things grow when planted in manure.
That's your interpretation. It sure sounded to me that what the man despises is how the GOP has been hijacked by the lowest common denominator rhetoric of Palin, Beck and Bachmann...and that instead of thinking people are actually listening to them.

On that point I agree 100%.

He came off as an elite, sure, but a lot of what they actually said, especially when you read the full quotes (astonishingly not in your edited video) isn't that crazy at all.

I would have expected an executive to have handled themselves a little better considering they were acting in a professional capacity. But to say this hit job "hit it's target" is simply saying that Veritas produced a video that got your panties all in a bunch.

JIM, YOU WERE THE TARGET!!!!!!

-spence

Spence, you'd try to explain away stalin.

Ohhh, the Tea Party is "anti-intellectual". I present as evidence Rep. Michelle Bachmann. Case closed...

-spence

Is she the new Palin???
Chauvinism and the Democratic Party...setting women back 100 years.

RIJ and Spence,

You both argue in vain. They are all corrupt and tilted. Both sides are going so far to their side that they are touching each other. "Bosnia free radio" sold its soul years ago and Walker sold his during the election (now he's selling it for a few votes from the other side). Although she isn't that great, Bachmann isn't as bad as the potential from Delaware...thankfully she's back home studying about human brain implants into mice...

Bill

Spence, you'd try to explain away stalin.

:rotf2::rotf2::rotf2::rotf2::rotf2::rotf2::rotf2:

So true!

Spence, we love ya kid but he is soooooo right!

ahh spence......you may want to see this....

WASHINGTON – NPR president and CEO Vivian Schiller resigned Wednesday in the wake of comments by a fellow executive that angered conservatives and renewed calls to end federal funding for public broadcasting.

The chairman of NPR's board of directors announced that he has accepted Schiller's resignation, effective immediately. Schiller wouldn't say whether she offered to quit or was forced out.

On Tuesday, conservative activist James O'Keefe posted a hidden-camera video in which NPR executive Ron Schiller bashed the tea party movement as "racist" and "xenophobic" and said NPR would be better off without federal funding. Ron Schiller is not related to Vivian Schiller.

Hey, Spence. How's the knee doing? By the way, you never mentioned how you hurt it. Let me guess.... it was from putting your foot in your mouth too many times.

Yes, the tea party is a bunch of evangelical, dumb, rednecks...........
and no, NPR is not biased........




All news, news outlets and historians are biased. Impossible not to be based on the nature of the business.

As far as the other part, certainly not in all cases, but it isn't that far from the truth in many cases. I like alot of people with tea party leanings, but I also know, have come across, and listened to many who fit the above description. That is a big component of tea party.

[QUOTE=zimmy;842952]All news, news outlets and historians are biased. Impossible not to be based on the nature of the business.
QUOTE]

Yeah, but other news outlets are not publicly funded. It's BS that we HAVE to pay for a media outlet that is so overtly in bed with one political party.

Shouldn't the story be about how NPR's news is biased? RIJIMMY cited this video as proof.

Is it?

Perhaps the Mark's comments about a lack of thinking are more true that you want to admit.

-spence

[QUOTE=zimmy;842952]All news, news outlets and historians are biased. Impossible not to be based on the nature of the business.
QUOTE]

Yeah, but other news outlets are not publicly funded. It's BS that we HAVE to pay for a media outlet that is so overtly in bed with one political party.

I'll assume you know that only about 10% of NPR's budget is from CPB grants. Would you get rid of all grants for radio and television? I wouldn't really have much problem with that. It is funny that you say so overtly in bed with one political party. There have been several studies over the last decade that pretty much all indicated that NPR was about the least biased of all new outlets. So, is it really just that you don't think any radio or television should be eligible for government funded grants? I think that's reasonable. Npr has the largest audience, they would have no problem making up the difference in advertising.

[QUOTE=fishbones;842954]

I'll assume you know that only about 10% of NPR's budget is from CPB grants. Would you get rid of all grants for radio and television? I wouldn't really have much problem with that. It is funny that you say so overtly in bed with one political party. There have been several studies over the last decade that pretty much all indicated that NPR was about the least biased of all new outlets. So, is it really just that you don't think any radio or television should be eligible for government funded grants? I think that's reasonable. Npr has the largest audience, they would have no problem making up the difference in advertising.

Right, and 10% is more than I feel should be paid for by the public. My feeling is that if I like the programming, I can donate during a pledge drive, whether it's NPR, PBS or any other radio/tv station. As for it being the least bias, that doesn't mean it's still not bias. If you want to compare it to Premier or Air America, of course it's not going to be as bias, but that doesn't make it neutral or middle of the road by any stretch.

Shouldn't the story be about how NPR's news is biased? RIJIMMY cited this video as proof. Is it?

Perhaps the Mark's comments about a lack of thinking are more true that you want to admit.

-spence

It didn't seem that Jimmy was saying that NPR's "news" is biased, rather that there is a disparity or hypocrisy in claiming, for instance, that the Tea Party is racist or biased, not because of an expressed agenda, but because of a perception about the people in the party--"a bunch of Evangelical, dumb rednecks." So Jimmy's comparison, if I read it right, is not to the bias of NPR "news," but to the people who deliver it, the individuals who create and present NPR--that they are not bias free, which the video, in the case of the two NPR reps demonstrates.

This is similar to what you did above, claiming the Tea Party is "anti-intellectual" not by pointing to an "anti-intellectual" Tea Party expressed agenda, but by "present"ing Michelle Bachmann, "case closed. . ." Not sure why presenting her name closes any case--she certainly appeals to reason and intellect to arrive at a point of view. Just because you may disagree with her doesn't make you any more "intellectual" than her, nor her any less than you.

[QUOTE=zimmy;843045]
If you want to compare it to Premier or Air America, of course it's not going to be as bias, but that doesn't make it neutral or middle of the road by any stretch.

I think it was a comparison of all major news media in the US. NY times, washington post, fox, abc, nbc, cnn,msnbc, wall street journal, etc. I am guessing Premier or Air America were not in the study. Although, I never heard of 1 and didn't know 2 existed anymore so maybe they were included.

I think it would be fine to stop grants for radio and tv, but I would much prefer the end the handouts to oil, sugar, corporate hog farms, insurance co, etc. that are exponentially larger than what goes to public broadcasting or arts. That seems to be the difference between "libs" and conservatives. Conservatives seem to have no problem with billions of dollars going to huge corporate conglomerates, but if it goes to something they consider liberal, then they are up in arms. I would guess in most cases they just aren't aware of the amounts of money that go other places. How anyone who fishes can support the GOP who put out a budget that slashes funding for Chesapeake Bay cleanup, and specifically allows for direct water polluters to be exempt from regulation, but allows for billions in tax breaks for enormous corporate monopolies is unfathomable to me.

[QUOTE=fishbones;843054] How anyone who fishes can support the GOP who put out a budget that slashes funding for Chesapeake Bay cleanup, and specifically allows for direct water polluters to be exempt from regulation, but allows for billions in tax breaks for enormous corporate monopolies is unfathomable to me.

For the same reason that supporting people that tax and spend with reckless abandon - far more often than not having a (D) in front of the name, and destroying our country is bad.

You cannot be someone that would pull a master lever and side with one party in entirety. You need to research and vote your mind on a case by case basis at the local and national levels. I highly encourage you affiliate with the unaffiliated voters :tooth:

[QUOTE=zimmy;843116]

For the same reason that supporting people that tax and spend with reckless abandon - far more often than not having a (D) in front of the name, and destroying our country is bad.

You cannot be someone that would pull a master lever and side with one party in entirety. You need to research and vote your mind on a case by case basis at the local and national levels. I highly encourage you affiliate with the unaffiliated voters :tooth:

Just for the record, the quote you responded to wasn't from me. Somehow, Zimmy and my quotes got messed up.

And Zimmy, you might want to be a litle more careful when using statements like "Conservatives seem to have no problem" and "I would guess in most cases they aren't aware". It makes you seem like you don't believe that there are conservatives who are informed, which is wrong. Don't paint with such a broad brush, dude.

[QUOTE=JohnR;843122]

Just for the record, the quote you responded to wasn't from me. Somehow, Zimmy and my quotes got messed up.

And Zimmy, you might want to be a litle more careful when using statements like "Conservatives seem to have no problem" and "I would guess in most cases they aren't aware". It makes you seem like you don't believe that there are conservatives who are informed, which is wrong. Don't paint with such a broad brush, dude.

You are right, it should have said many conservatives seem to put more weight on the idea of taxes are bad, liberals spend too much. There is no way to have any of these conversations without generalizing, so let's not take offense when it happens.

Obviously, not all conservatives feel one particular way or are uninformed, just like all liberals aren't gun-hating, cross-dressing socialists. The problem is that the public mantra of the tea party and republic party is that the problem with the country is unions, funding for NPR, the EPA, the park service etc. Yet these same groups as an organization never stand up against the enormous amount of money that goes to Cargill, Monsanto, DuPont, Perdue, Exxon, etc. Why not? I think the answer is obvious.

[QUOTE=zimmy;843116]

For the same reason that supporting people that tax and spend with reckless abandon - far more often than not having a (D) in front of the name, and destroying our country is bad.

You cannot be someone that would pull a master lever and side with one party in entirety. You need to research and vote your mind on a case by case basis at the local and national levels. I highly encourage you affiliate with the unaffiliated voters :tooth:

See... what I think is destroying the country is the mentality of the tea party and conservative movement that manifests itself in the form of Omega protein and the Virginia congress. People on these sites bi'ch about Omega protein, the striper slaughter in NC etc. Yet, those behaviors are exactly what you get with that type of government. The big corporation comes first. They make huge amounts of money, put the politicians in office. The politicians make money off it. Their view is the government shouldn't hurt Omega's ability to make money on a renewable resource based on inconclusive science. The reason people here pay attention is that they are starting to realize it affects their striper catch.

The whole spending thing is a pretty suspect. A majority of economists would tell you that the government needed to spend money to prevent the recession from becoming worse than it is. The economy is certainly better than at the bottom. People are also upset because they are scared that the health bill is a bad idea, although again, a very small percent really can effectively evaluate or predict what it really means. There is plenty of analyses that indicate the health bill will save money and get millions of people health care in the process. Plenty of substantiated economic evidence that says the Bush tax rate on the upper incomes is hurting the entire economy.

[QUOTE=zimmy;843116]



You cannot be someone that would pull a master lever and side with one party in entirety. You need to research and vote your mind on a case by case basis at the local and national levels. I highly encourage you affiliate with the unaffiliated voters :tooth:

I agree and staying informed on all levels of govt. will require you to
to e mail or call your Representative with the issues that concern you.

It's all grey, there is no black or white.

[QUOTE=JohnR;843122]

See... what I think is destroying the country is the mentality of the tea party and conservative movement that manifests itself in the form of Omega protein and the Virginia congress. People on these sites bi'ch about Omega protein, the striper slaughter in NC etc. Yet, those behaviors are exactly what you get with that type of government. The big corporation comes first. They make huge amounts of money, put the politicians in office. The politicians make money off it. Their view is the government shouldn't hurt Omega's ability to make money on a renewable resource based on inconclusive science. The reason people here pay attention is that they are starting to realize it affects their striper catch.

The whole spending thing is a pretty suspect. A majority of economists would tell you that the government needed to spend money to prevent the recession from becoming worse than it is. The economy is certainly better than at the bottom. People are also upset because they are scared that the health bill is a bad idea, although again, a very small percent really can effectively evaluate or predict what it really means. There is plenty of analyses that indicate the health bill will save money and get millions of people health care in the process. Plenty of substantiated economic evidence that says the Bush tax rate on the upper incomes is hurting the entire economy.

this is a lay up - I'll leave him to you boys.....

Let's hear it Jimmy... so you are a fan of omega protein type government?

It makes you seem like you don't believe that there are conservatives who are informed, which is wrong. Don't paint with such a broad brush, dude.

Thats a valid point, but how many of the people, many of whom never listen to NPR are railing on them for taking public money, know they get ~10% of their budget from federal dollars?

the same thing happens when state tax payers get up in arms about state universities wasting tax payer money with some hire or action, but the % of the budget that comes from the gov't might be 10% or less....

staying informed is the only way to go.

for WRNI, best hours of the day is 0900-100 and after ~2200 or so; BBC world news...

[QUOTE=JohnR;843122]

See... what I think is destroying the country is the mentality of the tea party and conservative movement that manifests itself in the form of Omega protein and the Virginia congress. People on these sites bi'ch about Omega protein, the striper slaughter in NC etc. Yet, those behaviors are exactly what you get with that type of government. The big corporation comes first. They make huge amounts of money, put the politicians in office. The politicians make money off it. Their view is the government shouldn't hurt Omega's ability to make money on a renewable resource based on inconclusive science. The reason people here pay attention is that they are starting to realize it affects their striper catch.

The whole spending thing is a pretty suspect. A majority of economists would tell you that the government needed to spend money to prevent the recession from becoming worse than it is. The economy is certainly better than at the bottom. People are also upset because they are scared that the health bill is a bad idea, although again, a very small percent really can effectively evaluate or predict what it really means. There is plenty of analyses that indicate the health bill will save money and get millions of people health care in the process. Plenty of substantiated economic evidence that says the Bush tax rate on the upper incomes is hurting the entire economy.

this is getting good!...:lurk::rotf2:

Hey, I like what John said :)

....

staying informed is the only way to go.

...

I love you Bry.... but you voted for Linc Chaffee as the "best man to lead us forward"...now, unless you meant forward off a cliff or a bridge, you shouldn't make statements like that.....:)

Let's hear it Jimmy... so you are a fan of omega protein type government?

Zimmy,

I see it all the time, people state that the governement is a bunch of pawns for big business, its all corrupt, yet, we have TONS of laws and oversight which dont allow companies to dontate large sums of money to politicans. things are so freaking regulated AND you have both lib and conservatives looking to hang each other at a moments notice....so why no corruption lawsuits? Why no big watergate like scandals?

Why ? Cause its the age old fight against "the man". Victims (ie, liberals) view big business as evil. I guess they dont get it that its evil big business that heats their homes, that its evil big business that provides the coffee for their non-fat lattes and more impirtantly its evil big pharmaceutical companies that developed aids vaccines. I recently read an interesting item - all the celebrity aids events, the massive aids quilts and all the aids benefit marches didnt save the life of one aids patient........big, evil pharmceutical companies did. Imagine that?

Im tired of being raped for taxes, tired of being told I dont pay enough. You havent been out here (political forum) long and I've shared this info before - my wife came to this country dirt poor, english second language, lived in the MOST expensive city in America. Her Dad died a year after they got here. Her and her 2 brothers worked day jobs and put themselves through college. All 3 of them are extremely successful. Why? THEY WORKED! They're not WHITE! How come the MAN didnt slap them down? How come evil big business didnt take her life savings away? Hmm?
I think its the mentaility of teh tea party will save this country. But dont worry, libs are doing everything they can to paint it as racist and dumb. Keep taxing me more and more and yet the people who pay the most taxes no longer have a majority vote and of course the needy will vote to tax me more. You want this for your country??

I'll challenge you ZIMMY, lets divide the country. I'll take all the evil big business and all the tea party people. You take all the libs and the hollywood set. You'll have riots and starvation in a few weeks. I'll have a succesful, booming economy and will then hire your people to come work for me.

So then it is ok that huge loopholes and tax breaks to co. that pay their ceos 10's of millions a year, but if 1/2 a penny of your's goes to NPR that is bad.
I don't want big business getting breaks to heat my home. If people payed the true costs, they would turn their heat down and make their homes more efficient. I don't want MY tax dollars going so someone can afford the oil to keep their house at 70 degrees all winter all while the oil co. pulls in a few billion a quarter. I have no problem with assistance that goes to heat homes for the poor. I buy gas at $3.50 a gallon and drive vehicles that get 30 mpg. My tax dollars go to make fuel cheaper for people so the mom can drive her 2 kids around in a suburban @ 14mpg. Even though the family income is $500,000, she gets that same subsidized gas.

Again, all these issues are really complex.
Also, based on policies, Reagan would be a democrat today, not tea party. :)

So then it is ok that huge loopholes and tax breaks to co. that pay their ceos 10's of millions a year, but if 1/2 a penny of your's goes to NPR that is bad.
I don't want big business getting breaks to heat my home. If people payed the true costs, they would turn their heat down and make their homes more efficient. I don't want MY tax dollars going so someone can afford the oil to keep their house at 70 degrees all winter all while the oil co. pulls in a few billion a quarter. I have no problem with assistance that goes to heat homes for the poor. I buy gas at $3.50 a gallon and drive vehicles that get 30 mpg. My tax dollars go to make fuel cheaper for people so the mom can drive her 2 kids around in a suburban @ 14mpg. Even though the family income is $500,000, she gets that same subsidized gas.

Again, all these issues are really complex.
Also, based on policies, Reagan would be a democrat today, not tea party. :)

oh boy :confused:

[QUOTE=zimmy;843176]So then it is ok that huge loopholes and tax breaks to co. that pay their ceos 10's of millions a year, but if 1/2QUOTE]

whhhhaaaa - why are companies sending work overseas?
whhhhaaaa - why are they trying to shut down the unions?

obvioulsy you know that the US corporate tax is one of the highest in the world, right?

and you know those CEOs get paid to make their shareholders money, right? And you know that if they could get someone as good and experienced for less, they would, right? This is not closed door scheme, all public companies have open books and records, you can see their financial statements.
See, you're blaming "the man" the invisible huge corporate head screwing you. Funny no one, not one singe person complained about evil wall st when Ebay was selliing for $400 a share and we were in tthe middle of the tech boom? When everyones 401 K tripled? Hmm, but when the chips fall its the fat cat executives that caused it. The victim mentality.

I did not complain about being a victim. You complained about being a victim to taxes "Im tired of being raped for taxes, tired of being told I dont pay enough." I just pointed out where taxes actually go. The us corporate taxes are not evenly distributed. There are loopholes and subsidies everywhere. There are many examples that show that a large % of corporations in the 35% tax bracket actually pay between 5%-10%. Again it isn't straight forward that business is getting killed because the tax rate is 35%. It is a simplification of the reality of what they pay.

You are putting words in my mouth. I am not blaming "the man" for screwing me. I think are country is f'ing great and I have the best life in the world. It is the TEA PARTY that is crying the sky is falling. I am just pointing out the disconnect between the tax cry, where tax money goes, and where I see the bad parts of spending. I think the tax rate today is reasonable, although I believe the evidence that if the highest income tax rates were at levels before JWB, the deficit would be lower, which would stimulate confidence in the economy. I think the tax code should be simplified, but along with that the corporate loopholes have to go too. The way things are now, we are by far the best country in the world and have been for 400 years. I am not the one holding the signs on the corner complaining about the man.

The way things are now, we are by far the best country in the world and have been for 400 years.

:confused:

Thats a valid point, but how many of the people, many of whom never listen to NPR are railing on them for taking public money, know they get ~10% of their budget from federal dollars?

the same thing happens when state tax payers get up in arms about state universities wasting tax payer money with some hire or action, but the % of the budget that comes from the gov't might be 10% or less....

staying informed is the only way to go.

for WRNI, best hours of the day is 0900-100 and after ~2200 or so; BBC world news...

It's just my opinion, Bryan. I don't like any of my tax $'s paying for a radio or television station I don't listen to or watch. If I was a big fan of say NPR or PBS I would gladly donate during one of their pledge drives.

It's just my opinion, Bryan. I don't like any of my tax $'s paying for a radio or television station I don't listen to or watch. If I was a big fan of say NPR or PBS I would gladly donate during one of their pledge drives.

And thats a perfectly valid opinion.

I was asking how many of the people spititng rhetoric know the facts. thats all.

You'll see NPR continue on w/ less or no federal funding in the future.

This thread has gotten way off track..
Locally, what are the choices? WPRO? 920? leaning well right, or WRNI leaning left...
show me the unbaised news source, I'd like to listen to it.

And thats a perfectly valid opinion.

I was asking how many of the people spititng rhetoric know the facts. thats all.

You'll see NPR continue on w/ less or no federal funding in the future.

This thread has gotten way off track..
Locally, what are the choices? WPRO? 920? leaning well right, or WRNI leaning left...
show me the unbaised news source, I'd like to listen to it.


I thought the irony of all this was obvious but everyone is missing it. A NPR top exec spewing hatred to Americans (sorry tea party and repubs are americans like it or not) while meeting with a foreign entity that has terrorist ties. All the while under an umbrella that NPR is an unbiased news source. But fired Juan William for making a statemetn that every person with common sense agrees with. Oh well. They showed their true colors. Its funny the left only loves intellectuals when they agree with them. Lots of intellectuals at the WSJ too.
An NPR will soldier on with no fed funding but with much less credibility that will eventually erode their funding.
Bry - the unbiased news source? Listen to both sides, look around you and form your own opinion.

I've noticed that the non-anti-intellectuals really struggle with things like facts and reality....but they are pretty solid with the usual talking points:uhuh:

:confused:
What? You exclude everything prior to ratifying the constitution? Sure it's not the same independent government, but the foundations were still great.

no fed funding but with much less credibility that will eventually erode their funding.


Actually, maybe they will be like fox and be huge. Lack of credibility certainly seems to help there. Heck hannity and Crazy Glen even got there own shows there. Lack credibility and lack of bias haven't hurt them. Same with Rush.

I've noticed that the non-anti-intellectuals really struggle with things like facts and reality....but they are pretty solid with the usual talking points:uhuh:

Funny, I thought the exact same thing about the anti-intellectuals.

def-
An intellectual is a person who uses intelligence (thought and reason) and critical or analytical reasoning in either a professional or a personal capacity.

anti-intellectuals, then would be the antithesis.

An NPR will soldier on with no fed funding but with much less credibility that will eventually erode their funding.

So, it will become the fox news of the left :D


Bry - the unbiased news source? Listen to both sides, look around you and form your own opinion.

Thats what I try and do with everything, not just politics

Bry - the unbiased news source? Listen to both sides, look around you and form your own opinion.

Best advise of all, along with John's advise to pull the lever for the best person.

I like my opinions best :love:

Actually, maybe they will be like fox and be huge. Lack of credibility certainly seems to help there. Heck hannity and Crazy Glen even got there own shows there. Lack credibility and lack of bias haven't hurt them. Same with Rush.

what you are doing is mixing news with opinion. Those shows you reference are opinion shows. Just like Matthews and Oberman.
I would argue NPR, and I am a listener, has many opinion shows. They dont express an opinion directly, they only give one side of the story.

What? You exclude everything prior to ratifying the constitution? Sure it's not the same independent government, but the foundations were still great.

unbelieveable

Has anyone ever saw an editorial on Channel 4, 5 or 7 that wasn't way liberal left??????

Just asking...............

what you are doing is mixing news with opinion. Those shows you reference are opinion shows. Just like Matthews and Oberman.
I would argue NPR, and I am a listener, has many opinion shows. They dont express an opinion directly, they only give one side of the story.

I know the shows I referenced in the hannity comment are opinion shows, I was just saying that NPR losing 10% of it's budget if federal grants go away doesn't mean they can't be successful, as fox is with it's opinion shows. NPR and public radio have a huge majority of shows that are opinion shows. National Public Radio does not mean it is government radio, by any means. Although I think there are alot of people who believe that. The name may be NPR, but like thousands of other entities, they get government grants that help fund the programming. Really, Car Talk, Prairie Home, and wait, wait don't tell me are what I care about anyway. If I want news, I watch Colbert :rotf2:

If I want news, I watch Colbert :rotf2:

this much is obvious

this much is obvious

You too smart for satire? Please contradict on of my points in more than 4 words and I can respond. Posting "unbelieveable" (sic) to my statement that the country has been the greatest for 400 years, without backing up what your beef with that is does not allow for any discussion. Maybe it makes you feel smart? I got no problem with the country being the greatest since the settlement at Jamestown in 1607. That is when the country was forming. You want to be technical go ahead, but back yourself up.

You want to argue whether corporations actually pay 35% tax rate, go ahead but back it up.
Actually say something, then

You too smart for satire? Please contradict on of my points in more than 4 words and I can respond. Posting "unbelieveable" (sic) to my statement that the country has been the greatest for 400 years, without backing up what your beef with that is does not allow for any discussion. Maybe it makes you feel smart? I got no problem with the country being the greatest since the settlement at Jamestown in 1607. That is when the country was forming. You want to be technical go ahead, but back yourself up.

You want to argue whether corporations actually pay 35% tax rate, go ahead but back it up.
Actually say something, then

Jamestown was a British colony. As far as "great"they basically starved and barely made an existence. The 13 colonies would have never survived without the support of the British crown and British $.
Even the declaration of independence did not form our country, We were 13 independent colonies until the states ratified the US Constitution.

As far as tax rates, see attached. Realize this is only fed tax, not state and not employment tax. I bet that bumps the rate up to over 50%.

The Tax Foundation - Corporate Income Tax Rates Around the World (http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/1471.html)

Jamestown was a British colony. As far as "great"they basically starved and barely made an existence. The 13 colonies would have never survived without the support of the British crown and British $.
Even the declaration of independence did not form our country, We were 13 independent colonies until the states ratified the US Constitution.

As far as tax rates, see attached. Realize this is only fed tax, not state and not employment tax. I bet that bumps the rate up to over 50%.

The Tax Foundation - Corporate Income Tax Rates Around the World (http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/1471.html)

Then you don't believe that the principles that brought people here are the basis of our country and the roots of our country lead back to Jamestown, I can't argue with that. Technically, the country started when the constitution was ratified, yes. Alot of work and hardship lead up to that point. i think the hardship, sacrifices, and progress prior to the ratification of the constitution count.

The Tax Foundation - Corporate Income Tax Rates Around the World (http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/1471.html)

The website doesn't really add anything new to the conversation. It does not show actual percentage paid by a particular corporation after tax exemptions and deductions. For example, just because a person's federal tax rate is 28%, that doesn't mean they pay 28% straight up. That number is affected by child tax credits, mortgage deductions, college interest deductions etc. 28% is the starting point. Take 10 people and they all end up at a different %. For corportations 35% (39 in the data on the website) is the start. Many corporations have been found to pay as low as 5-10% for fed, not 35% even though they are in that bracket. That is why it isn't clear cut what the 35% (39) tax rate means in real numbers. That is why those websites are not really useful. Add state and local rates and it gets more confusing, especially since there are exemptions and deductions on every level.

Google 2.4% Rate Shows How $60 Billion Lost to Tax Loopholes - Bloomberg (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-10-21/google-2-4-rate-shows-how-60-billion-u-s-revenue-lost-to-tax-loopholes.html)

this gives a very basic overview of what is really happening.

Then you don't believe that the principles that brought people here are the basis of our country and the roots of our country lead back to Jamestown

what brought people here was $.
Furs, sugar, tobacco, slaves. Principles had nothing to do with it.You need to learn your history.

what brought people here was $.
Furs, sugar, tobacco, slaves. Principles had nothing to do with it.You need to learn your history.

Ok, discredit the origins of our country. You said it, not me. Also, your coverage of history is pretty narrow with that statement.

This is from your link. I believe the last sentence sums it up.

"The lesson? Statutory average tax rates often differ substantially from effective rates. Even within countries, companies commonly face widely disparate effective tax rates based on location, industry, income—and whether lawmakers view them as worthy of special preferences or deserving of penalties."

Ok, discredit the origins of our country. You said it, not me. Also, your coverage of history is pretty narrow with that statement.

This is from your link. I believe the last sentence sums it up.

"The lesson? Statutory average tax rates often differ substantially from effective rates. Even within countries, companies commonly face widely disparate effective tax rates based on location, industry, income—and whether lawmakers view them as worthy of special preferences or deserving of penalties."

ok genius, your time for "facts". you tell me what principles brought people to Jamestown. please educate me.

Your discrediting the history of this country by not knowing it! Strike another victory for public schools !(sorry i was private school kid)

The colony was sponsored by the Virginia Company of London, a group of investors who hoped to profit from the venture. Chartered in 1606 by King James I, the company also supported English national goals of counterbalancing the expansion of other European nations abroad, seeking a northwest passage to the Orient, and converting the Virginia Indians to the Anglican religion.


An guess what you know those Pilgrims searching for religious freedom that came to MA? Well.....
the Congregation obtained a land patent from the London Virginia Company, allowing them to settle at the mouth of the Hudson River. They then sought financing through the Merchant Adventurers, a group of businessmen who principally viewed the colony as a means of making a profit. Upon arriving in America, the Pilgrims began working to repay their debts.[7]

oh the horror! To think without big business you'd be scuffling around London town saying "can you spare a six pence govnah?"

Learn your history kid. No one spends a dime unless there is a dollar in return. You do know the revolutionary war was about taxes, dont you?

dude, it was the search for gold. The tobacco and fur trade came after they got here. You ignore the entire protestant movement, the pilgrims, the puritans, the quakers, the pennsylvania dutch who came here for freedom of religion. Yes people came because of the other resources, but Virginia co. came for gold.That is what I meant by your narrow focus. The pilgrims got sponsored, but they came here because of James

You too smart for satire? Please contradict on of my points in more than 4 words and I can respond. Actually say something, then

satire is what you call it?...you have yet to make an intelligent point, it's not me, or being too smart or not........it's you :uhuh:

this is from forbes in reference to the 2009 tax year

"HOUSTON -- As you work on your taxes this month, here's something to raise your hackles: Some of the world's biggest, most profitable corporations enjoy a far lower tax rate than you do--that is, if they pay taxes at all.

The most egregious example is General Electric ( GE - news - people ). Last year the conglomerate generated $10.3 billion in pretax income, but ended up owing nothing to Uncle Sam. In fact, it recorded a tax benefit of $1.1 billion.
Article Controls

Avoiding taxes is nothing new for General Electric. In 2008 its effective tax rate was 5.3%; in 2007 it was 15%. The marginal U.S. corporate rate is 35%. "

When people talk about corporations paying 35% or 39% tax rate, it isn't usually the truth.

satire is what you call it?...you have yet to make an intelligent point, it's not me, or being too smart or not........it's you :uhuh:

colbert is satire. That is what anyone would call it. Try to keep up :)

satire is what you call it?...you have yet to make an intelligent point, it's not me, or being too smart or not........it's you :uhuh:

I am waiting for you to say something of content. RIJimmy I could at least sit around and have a good discussion with since he actually makes points. You don't say anything? Oh yeah, except that Colbert isn't satire and I don't make intelligent points. At least I am making points. Tell what is wrong with my points on the tax rate for business? You don't like that I didn't say 224 years since we ratified the constitution. Ok, you are right. What came before that was not actually the United States. What about corporate taxes? What else you have to say.

You don't say anything? Oh yeah, except that Colbert isn't satire .

I said this when?...you constantly create your own narrative just making things up as you go along :uhuh: what's the point:confused:

Wow, this was fun playing catchup - now gotta go back to work.

BTW - who screwed up the quotes?

I am waiting for you to say something of content. RIJimmy I could at least sit around and have a good discussion with since he actually makes points. You don't say anything? Oh yeah, except that Colbert isn't satire and I don't make intelligent points. At least I am making points. Tell what is wrong with my points on the tax rate for business? You don't like that I didn't say 224 years since we ratified the constitution. Ok, you are right. What came before that was not actually the United States. What about corporate taxes? What else you have to say.

Corporate taxes have a lot of arguments that go both ways. One could argue the following points for the government giving corporations a tax break:
Increased corporate taxes could reduce corporate revenue to a point that stock performance would suffer, that would reduce capital gains taxes collected by the government.
Earnings would be reduced and corporations would then increase prices in which place the consumer would pay higher prices.
Corporations would cut costs in the form of jobs to offset the additional taxes they have to pay.

The list could go on and on. I'm not saying a company like GE shouldn’t be paying their fair share of taxes. I'm just saying there is a lot involved here. Much of it is way beyond my knowledge.

I guess fundamentally I think differently. To me the answer isn’t who can we tax or where can we find more tax money. My thoughts are, let’s cut all the waste and frivolous spending going on right now. Taxes are like a drug to our Government and when they need money, they look at increased taxes before anything else. They need to look in the mirror and cut the fat. Like I said, taxes to are like a drug and our government (or most parts of it) are addicted

Pesc. I am pretty much right in line with you on what you said. Only thing I want to add is that non-defense discretionary spending is under 500 billion. When party leaders say publicly they are going to cut 1trillion from the budget, but not cut military spending, they can't explain how to do that. Again, it is something that sounds good, but it isn't possible. they aren't going to cut 500 billion, as that is all non-defense discretionary spending and they certainly aren't going to be able to cut 1trillion from the budget. The deficit is going to grow and tax loopholes for big business are one thing that needs to be fixed. You make good points about how the taxes can affect other revenues, but from a true competitive free market standpoint, it is an uneven playing field that benefits certain companies and industries more than others. I believe the groups with true independent or libertarian leaning should want this problem fixed as much as they worry about some of the other stuff.

Pesc. I am pretty much right in line with you on what you said. Only thing I want to add is that non-defense discretionary spending is under 500 billion. When party leaders say publicly they are going to cut 1trillion from the budget, but not cut military spending, they can't explain how to do that. Again, it is something that sounds good, but it isn't possible. they aren't going to cut 500 billion, as that is all non-defense discretionary spending and they certainly aren't going to be able to cut 1trillion from the budget. The deficit is going to grow and tax loopholes for big business are one thing that needs to be fixed. You make good points about how the taxes can affect other revenues, but from a true competitive free market standpoint, it is an uneven playing field that benefits certain companies and industries more than others. I believe the groups with true independent or libertarian leaning should want this problem fixed as much as they worry about some of the other stuff.

Defense spending is expected to be cut between 5-10% per year for the next 5 years. The actual cuts will be deeper as many programs that were maturing to IOC have been cut or moved to the right. Major programs.

Not to mention these programs were "jobs programs" that many congressfolk are trying to keep.

As for the free market, how is the playing field level? China plays with their currency, the EU subsidizes Airbus and other programs. I could go on.

WE, the USA, have a spending problem and we have a buying problem. We spend more than we take in, and as consumers we buy too much from overseas.

Big business fighting for the bottom line ships jobs overseas. Big workers keep their pay and benefits at very high levels. Big population is addicted to government handouts. This is not sustainable. Something has to give.

One of my clients, good people, union shop. Awful lot of foreign cars in their parking lot. I'm driving my creaky old Ford.

we've had over 400 people cut from long term defense programs over the last 4 months, because of the budget not being funded.

I'm driving my creaky old Ford.

Unfortunately, Ford is now the Mexican, Malaysian, Vietnamese, Argentinian, English, Brazilian American Truck company. Want an American car these days, you have to buy a Honda. People buy stuff from china because it is cheap since they can pay their workers $100 a month. I know so many Walmart fans and Walmart has been the biggest proponent of the cheap and disposable chinese goods mentality. Same people complain about jobs going over seas. It is hard though, as it is almost impossible to avoid it. Most of the good US products were union made ... with the unions, the companies had trouble competing, without the unions the workers couldn't afford to purchase stuff. The reality probably has more to due to transportation. Once trade started occuring there was no going back. People weren't going to pay more for US made and workers weren't going to work for wages similar to what people in asia would. It definitely isn't simple.

. Most of the good US products were union made. Once trade started occuring there was no going back. People weren't going to pay more for US made and workers weren't going to work for wages similar to what people in asia would. It definitely isn't simple.

Americans have opted for foreign made products, in many cases, that are not only less expensive but in many cases just as good and the "good US union made products"

yes, "once trade started"(?? do you have a date for this also...dont say 400 years) Americans could no longer get those quality union made products, like the American cars of the 70's and 80's ...when has it ever been suggested that American workers need to or would need to work for the same wages that Asian workers do in order to be competitive?

"without the unions the workers couldn't afford to purchase stuff" really?, how is it then, that non-union workers "purchase stuff"?

"The reality probably has more to due to transportation" :confused:OK?

Unions and their political colleagues have created their own monsters, they have built armies of lazy dependents(much like the democrat party), have chased their own jobs out of this country through demands and support of suffocating regulation and members have been told all the while by their thugocracy that they are the best...and the brightest...when neither has been true...and for those reasons, the benefits that have been leveraged through thuggish means in many cases or through political graft are somehow both deserved and earned...when neither is true...Union dependents demand "a share" when times are good but conceed little or nothing when times demand otherwise....companies leave the US(and relocate from state to state) to escape burdensome regulation and taxation, union demands, to find more productive workers who may work for far less but may be living in huts and appreciate the opportunity to earn a wage rather than scouring for food for their next meal and in the end may take more pride in their work than the average union employee...



Conrad Black wrote a great article the other day describing it this way...

"In an era when the work force and the management, lenders and shareholders all have effectively the same interest — productivity and quality of work — organized labor has been sliced back to the least efficient, least necessary, least competent sector of the entire labor market: the public-service unions. This is the withered detritus of such great men as Samuel Gompers, George Meany, and Lane Kirkland.............the teachers’ unions that have propagated ignorance where education long prevailed; and the unindustrious anthills of paper-pushers and issuers of insulting and erroneous ukases on behalf of the agencies of the immense infestation of government riveted on America’s back. In identifying itself wholly with the ethos, work habits, and intellectual effervescence of this group, the Obama Democratic party has engaged in a romantic trek to its sources."

I'll give the union workers one thing...they sure have plenty of time to show up and protest and trash state capitols and threaten those that disagree with them...in that regard, they are quite efficient and productive..and probably undercompensated.:uhuh: you may want to differentiate between public sector and private sector unions but I'm not sure that they do ...you might even say that the public sector unions are doing great damage to the "Union Lable" currently

back to Jimmy's original point, NPR and the rest of the MSM are little more than a bull horn for the left in this country..ideaology trumps intellectual honesty for the activists that populate it, I flipped through the big three yesterday morning and it was the same at every stop..."journalist" seething at the unbelieveable and illegal actions of the Wisconsin Republicans....not a word about the drooling rabble screaming around the capitol...they are, afterall, the good guys and are justified in whatever they do, the evil Republicans however, they hate people and want you to die...it would be funny if it weren't so serious....the MSM simply repeats the story and spin that the left wants propogandized each day.....it's not liberal bias to liberals because they enthusiastically believe this crap:uhuh:

just compare the treatment and characterization in the media of the Tea Party protesters and the union thug rent-a-mobs...this NPR guy was just perpetuating the talking points

Scott,

Many of the protesters are students or "out of staters" sent in by the unions. I am not defending either side in this argument. I can, however, say that if you look at the current economic situation in southern states (North Carolina is a good example) the average worker makes squat. Why? Becuase there is no union group to set an eaxample for what is the baseline. Good or bad, the unions have helped out non-union workers by establishing baseline salaries. Do you really think hourly wages woudl be where they are without at least one union getting a contract that establishes the standard for what is fair? If so, you are kidding yourself. Without that corporate greed would take hold (as is the case with humanity). On the flip side, unions are filled with greed on the other side wanting more than their share in return for nothing.

As far as bias, Fox spins enough to the right to counteract the left spin. I prefer the BBC since Bosnia-free radio jumped off the fence in the 90's.

As far as bias, Fox spins enough to the right to counteract the left spin.

Many of the protesters are students or "out of staters" sent in by the unions.(rent-a-mob)

:rotf2: I get basic cable...don't get Fox News(except local) but do get NBC, ABC,CBS,PBS...please, as much as FOX is a demon and target for the left and admittedly leans right, it hardly counteracts the leftward spin of all of the others....never mind the one-sided subtleties and activism that Jimmy mentioned in outlets like NPR

Scott,

I can, however, say that if you look at the current economic situation in southern states (North Carolina is a good example) the average worker makes squat.

must be terrible there


N.C. population grew 18.5 percent, Census

By Barb Barrett and Matt Ehlers - Staff writers
WASHINGTON -- North Carolina's population grew 18.5 percent over the past decade, according to 2010 numbers released Tuesday by the U.S. Census Bureau.

The Old North State was home to 9,535,483 people on April 1, 2010. The state has seen tremendous growth during the past 20 years: in 1990, the population was about 6.6 million.

“It is no coincidence that the states gaining population the fastest over the last 10 years have lower tax rates and, consequently, stronger economies,” said McHenry, who is ranking member of the Subcommittee on Information Policy, Census and National Archives

dude, it was the search for gold. The tobacco and fur trade came after they got here. You ignore the entire protestant movement, the pilgrims, the puritans, the quakers, the pennsylvania dutch who came here for freedom of religion. Yes people came because of the other resources, but Virginia co. came for gold.That is what I meant by your narrow focus. The pilgrims got sponsored, but they came here because of James

my argument is over. If you think the "Pennsylvania Dutch" came for freedom of religion and this country is 400 yrs old, I give up.
I bet the Pennsylvania Dutch were stoked when they named the state after them........

my argument is over. If you think the "Pennsylvania Dutch" came for freedom of religion and this country is 400 yrs old, I give up.
I bet the Pennsylvania Dutch were stoked when they named the state after them........

I am pennsylvania dutch. It includes Moravians, mennonites, amish, brethern, lutherans (among lots of others). Most have connections to the reformed church. I know that my relatives came in 1702. It was certainly partially because of the farmland, but the divide between the anabaptists also gave them incentive to come here and set up communities where they were free to worship as they wished. My point wasn't that they only came here for religion or only came here for wealth. You made the statement that they all came here because of money. Harvard university turned 375 years old this year. Based on a literal measurement it was not part of this country, but I included the early years as part of how long this place we live has been great. Use it to discredit me if you want, but it would be better if you could discredit my facts about corporate tax rates and the like. So you are right, not all people came here for freedom. The constitution wasn't ratified 400 years ago. But I am also right there was alot of important history that shaped this country before ratifying the constitution and as a matter of fact, Virginia co. didn't come here for tobacco and furs as you stated. Corporations typically don't pay 35% (or the old rate, 39%, which you stated) so I guess I shouldn't bother discussing this with you either since your facts aren't so great.

But I am also right there was alot of important history that shaped this country before ratifying the constitution and as a matter of fact, Virginia co. didn't come here for tobacco and furs as you stated. .

You stated this country is 400 yrs old and based that on the Jamestownt settlement. You stated Jamestown was settled based on "principles". Jamestown was settled asan investment in the new world. I never once read that gold was a part of that. the purpose was to set up an outpost and explore opportunites. It was a race against the Spanish. Very soon after the settlement both fur and soon after tobacco became the profitable ventures.

there was no "pennsylvania" when the dutch came, thats why its funny you said the Pennslyvaia dutch settled here. Another history error of yours.

I never once said that there isnt an amazing history prior to the forming of our country, but the reality is our country wasnt formed until the constitution was ratified. Your just trying to explain your mistake. And it is interesting you say our country is 400 yrs old based on the first WHITE settlers coming here. Interesting to note that people where living here for over 10,000 yrs. People with an amazing history and culture. When the 101st airborned attached during D-day, they did not cut their hair like the puritans, they cut it like Mohawks.

my argument is over. If you think the "Pennsylvania Dutch" came for freedom of religion and this country is 400 yrs old, I give up.
I bet the Pennsylvania Dutch were stoked when they named the state after them........

I keep reading this and IT is unbelievable. You are saying you can't continue because none of the Pennsylvania Dutch came for religious freedom? You are factually wrong. I feel like I could show some of the people in this thread an orange and they would argue it is a banana. "...they were stoked after they named the state after them"? wtf? The groups that are considered the Pennsylvania dutch came from mostly Germany, Switzerland and Alsace. As a group they were called the dutch when they arrived and now they are called the PA dutch settled in south central PA. Where the h do you come up with that last line? Apparently I know my ancestral history a bit better than you.

How many times do I have to repeat that the constitution was not ratified 400years ago. I stated that I think this is the best place on Earth and has been for 400 years and all you and that scott guy can do is repeat that the country isn't 400 years old over and over? For awhile I thought you were able to have a conversation w/out the Scott type idiocy. Too bad it got to this point. I enjoy the relatively reasonable discussion to which many people have been able to reasonably contribute.

there was no "pennsylvania" when the dutch came, thats why its funny you said the Pennslyvaia dutch settled here. Another history error of yours.

.

THEY WEREN"T DUTCH! holy h... and I am the one who doesn't know what he is talking about....

When the 101st airborned attached during D-day, they did not cut their hair like the puritans, they cut it like Mohawks.

Thanks for the info... my grandfather was airborne in ww2

I keep reading this and IT is unbelievable. You are saying you can't continue because none of the Pennsylvania Dutch came for religious freedom? You are factually wrong. I feel like I could show some of the people in this thread an orange and they would argue it is a banana. "...they were stoked after they named the state after them"? wtf? The groups that are considered the Pennsylvania dutch came from mostly Germany, Switzerland and Alsace. As a group they were called the dutch when they arrived and now they are called the PA dutch settled in south central PA. Where the h do you come up with that last line? Apparently I know my ancestral history a bit better than you.

How many times do I have to repeat that the constitution was not ratified 400years ago. I stated that I think this is the best place on Earth and has been for 400 years and all you and that scott guy can do is repeat that the country isn't 400 years old over and over? For awhile I thought you were able to have a conversation w/out the Scott type idiocy. Too bad it got to this point. I enjoy the relatively reasonable discussion to which many people have been able to reasonably contribute.

when did I say no one came for religious freedom? Its the adjective "pennslyvania" I have a problem with. Sure many religious people came here.
you're really missing my point, which was meant to be humorous, however factual. Not one single person that settled here was called "pennsylvalia" dutch. get it? there was no pennslyvnia when they came here. they were just dutch.

THEY WEREN"T DUTCH! holy h... and I am the one who doesn't know what he is talking about....

they were dutch (or german or whatever), just not pennsyvania dutch. get it?
When they got on the boat to come here, they did not refer to themselves as "Pennsylvania".

what brought people here was $.
Furs, sugar, tobacco, slaves. Principles had nothing to do with it.You need to learn your history.

point 1

I am pennsylvania dutch. It includes Moravians, mennonites, amish, brethern, lutherans (among lots of others). .

moronvians? :)

Interesting to note that people where living here for over 10,000 yrs. People with an amazing history and culture.

And I bet from their point of view....the country went to hell in a hand-basket about 400 years ago. :hihi:

the pilgrims, the puritans, the quakers, the pennsylvania dutch who came here for freedom of religion.

You are right, it wasn't pennsylvania until the 1680's. The pennsylvania dutch came in the decades following that. you apparently thought the Dutch traders from Holland and the Pennsylvania Dutch are the same. Also, to be clear, the pilgrims originally weren't called pilgrims, the mohawks weren't called mohawks etc. etc. What is true is that many Americans came here for religious regions and you specifically stated it was for money.

Scott, am I right to assume you are a teenager? If so I will give you a pass and I am sorry if you have a dad on this site. No offense to them if I have been taking you for an adult.

Scott, am I right to assume you are a teenager?

yes, that's correct, I'm skipping school to enjoy this warped history lesson from an apparent lunatic hoping that it will lead somewhere...sometime, but I'm chuckling with each new post from you...please continue :uhuh:

North Carolina has a strong economy becasue they don't pay their workers squat. Where is the growth? The RTP (Research Traingle Park) area. in other parts of the state the situation is grave. Besides, is the 18.5% any different from any other oceanfront state? Additionally, how many of those people are government retirees moving there becasue their pensions are not taxed? As far as being terrible there, it is. Ask anyone in Caswell or Dare County. There are no jobs.

North Carolina has a strong economy becasue they don't pay their workers squat. .

that's pretty funny :uhuh:

Y What is true is that many Americans came here for religious regions and you specifically stated it was for money.

I stated JAMESTOWN was for $. Any you said it was for gold. No religious freedom was involved in the Jamestown settlement. None. the original settlers were ex-vets of the Irish wars. They came to kill and conquer.

Read your older posts!

read all of you posts again...yikes :rotf2:

BTW...RIJimmy is my dad...he's used to it...

yes, that's correct, I'm skipping school to enjoy this warped history lesson from an apparent lunatic hoping that it will lead somewhere...sometime, but I'm chuckling with each new post from you...please continue :uhuh:

I don't think RIJimmy is a lunatic, I think he just has some of the history confused. Stop calling him a lunatic :bshake:

I don't think RIJimmy is a lunatic, I think he just has some of the history confused. Stop calling him a lunatic :bshake:

your humor is as vacant as your reasoning:)

Scott,

I think he's a lunatic. I suspect he fishes with as much passion as he writes on this board. :)

NC is one of four states that does not tax federal retirements. Much of the growth in that state has been retirees moving there so they can experience reduced taxes. As far as wages, outside of RTP workers do not make much. Look at the jobs that are offered on Monster and compare the salaries.

Anyway, you focused on one minute point rather than discuss the value (if you can call it that) that unions bring to a region. Don't get me wrong. I am not defending them. Merely pointing out how the economy changes as a result of their actions, often to the good of the citizens who are not represented (also often to the detriment especially when the jobs go offshore as in textiles).

Also, as a 14th generation dutchman who can trace his lineage to the 1640's in the Hudson Valley (and who also grew up just a stone's throw from Lancaster County) if you want to know about the "Penn's Woods Germans" I'd be happy to discuss. I agree that the history lesson is at best amusing.

Scott,

Anyway, you focused on one minute point rather than discuss the value (if you can call it that) that unions bring to a region. Don't get me wrong. I am not defending them. Merely pointing out how the economy changes as a result of their actions, often to the good of the citizens who are not represented (also often to the detriment especially when the jobs go offshore as in textiles).



seems to me that the highly unionized regions are all buckling from their inability to pay current union wages and benefits and in addition have no way to pay the unfunded obligations that have been promised, that includes some private sector unions as well, you can say that it was politicians that allowed this in the public sector but they were working in conjunction with union bosses, a cozy symbiotic relationship that resulted in reelection and protected status....whatever positive that you'd like to attribut to unions in the form of baseline wages?...the net is a huge loss that we will be feeling for some time...these same unions have actively advocated as a block and provided enormous amounts of funding for politicians who have expanded many of the other massive entitlements that threaten our future..."often to the good of the citizens who are not represented" those not represented will be paying the maxed out union credit card and all that it has purchased for a very long time...

Scott,



Also, as a 14th generation dutchman who can trace his lineage to the 1640's in the Hudson Valley (and who also grew up just a stone's throw from Lancaster County) if you want to know about the "Penn's Woods Germans" I'd be happy to discuss. I agree that the history lesson is at best amusing.

I'm in, always up for learning history. :hihi:

Bluest states also most in debt, highly unionized and solidly Democrat (But that's all coincidental, right?)

By: Mark Tapscott 02/28/10 4:00 AM
Editorial Page Editor Follow Him @mtapscott

.Forbes magazine has completed a comprehensive look at "The Global Debt Bomb" and in the course of compiling the results found this very interesting tidbit:

"The five states in the worst financial condition--Illinois, New York, Connecticut, California and New Jersey--are all among the bluest of blue states. The five most fiscally fit states are more of a mix. Three--Utah, Nebraska and Texas--boast Republican majorities and two--New Hampshire and Virginia--skew Democratic."

But wait, it's actually more serious than that when you look at the 10 states in the worst financial condition, according to Forbes:

"Of the 10 states in the worst financial condition, eight are among a total of 23 defined by Gallup as "solidly Democratic," meaning the Democrats enjoy an advantage of 10 percentage points or greater in party affiliation. These states include the ones listed above as making up the bottom five, plus Massachusetts, Ohio and Wisconsin.

"Of the three other basement-dwellers, Kentucky is defined as "leaning Democratic" (a five- to 10-percentage-point Democratic advantage) and the remaining two--Louisiana and Mississippi--are termed politically "Competitive" (less than a five-percentage-point advantage for either party). Louisiana tilts slightly Democratic and Mississippi slightly Republican."

Forbes quotes an Illinois political science professor who explains why these rankings turn out as they do:

"Why do Democratic states appear to be struggling more than Republican ones? It comes down to stronger unions and a larger appetite for public programs, according to Kent Redfield, professor emeritus of political studies and public affairs at the University of Illinois' Center for State Policy and Leadership.

"'Unions in general have more influence in Democratic-controlled states,' he says. 'This isn't to say that unions are bad, but where they're strong you have bigger demands for social services and coalitions with construction companies, road builders and others that push up debt.'"

Read more at the Washington Examiner: Bluest states also most in debt, highly unionized and solidly Democrat (But that's all coincidental, right?) | Mark Tapscott | Beltway Confidential | Washington Examiner (http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/bluest-states-also-most-debt-highly-unionized-and-solidly-democrat-that039#ixzz1GJusXB29)

Scott,

I think he's a lunatic. .

are you not following Zimmy's posts? He puts in incorrect info, I correct him and he goes on off on a tangent. heres a quick recap

Zimmy stated:

our country's 400 yr history.
- makes no sense. plenty of evidence above

Jamestown was founded on "principles"
- nope, business venture. Zim as agreed after 20 posts.

The Pennsylvania Dutch came here for religious freedom
- nope, thats like saying the massachusetts indians. No one was in another country and called themselves that. If he said dutch, germans or whatever, then it would make sense.

Then you don't believe that the principles that brought people here are the basis of our country and the roots of our country lead back to Jamestown, I can't argue with that.

Compound sentence genius. Your private school ed. was a waste of money. The principles that brought people here are the basis of our country. The countries roots lead back to Jamestown. You can try to distort, but it don'w work.

Scott,

Read my entire post. I'm not trying ot defend unions. I'm merely stating how they have changed economies...both good and bad. I can't argue that they have gone overboard in many states and companies. I can argue that in the states where unions had strongholds (meaning contracts) the prevailing wage was higher--for good or bad. I say good or bad becasue sometimes having a higher wage is bad. An example is my state where they seem to not want any business base and to make that point they keep taxing us as if the last one just left.

The Pennsylvania Dutch came here for religious freedom
- nope, thats like saying the massachusetts indians.

I was gonna stay away, but the funniest friggin thing is the Massachusetts Indians were part of the Wampanoag tribe. There is absolutely nothing wrong with saying Massachusetts Indians :wall: This is certainly enlightening stuff :)

I was gonna stay away, but the funniest friggin thing is the . This is certainly enlightening stuff :)

nope....this was the funniest friggin thing and also the most absurd...

"Again, all these issues are really complex.
Also, based on policies, Reagan would be a democrat today, not tea party. "ZIMMY

don't stay away Zimmy, you and Jimmy have developed some real chemistry...

Scott,

Read my entire post. I'm not trying ot defend unions. I'm merely stating how they have changed economies...both good and bad. I can't argue that they have gone overboard in many states and companies. I can argue that in the states where unions had strongholds (meaning contracts) the prevailing wage was higher--for good or bad. I say good or bad becasue sometimes having a higher wage is bad. An example is my state where they seem to not want any business base and to make that point they keep taxing us as if the last one just left.

I did and I understand, I'm just not willing to grant unions in the modern era, credit for "lifting all boats"...they may have served a purpose long ago but the have worked in their own interest and in most cases to the detrement of those who are not in unions, they have chiseled out sections of the economy and used those entities, whether government or private business as their own hosts on which to feed, the union corporate structures are large bureaucratic machines that use the political system and thug tactics to increase revenue and membership while producing nothing more than preferential treatment for it's members and political donations for their tools in government....whatever positives this society and economy has derived from union actions are far outweighed by the massive debt that we now find hanging over our heads in order to accomodate and placate what is a relatively small segment of our society that whields tremendous influence ....which is obvious if you look at the various state capitols and the actual amount of $$$ that went from the stimulus directly to keep union members employed for the last two years

UNIONS THREATEN BUSINESS
By Charlie Sykes
Mar 10, 2011



March 10, 2011
Mr. Tom Ellis, President
Marshall & Ilsley Corporation
770 N. Water Street
Milwaukee, WI 53202
SENT VIA FASCIMILE AND REGULAR MAIL


Dear Mr. Ellis:
As you undoubtedly know, Governor Walker recently proposed a “budget
adjustment bill” to eviscerate public employees’ right to collectively bargain in
Wisconsin. ..

As you also know, Scott Walker did not campaign on this issue when he ran for
office. If he had, we are confident that you would not be listed among his largest
contributors. As such, we are contacting you now to request your support.

The undersigned groups would like your company to publicly oppose Governor
Walker’s efforts to virtually eliminate collective bargaining for public employees in
Wisconsin. While we appreciate that you may need some time to consider this
request, we ask for your response by March 17. In the event that you do not
respond to this request by that date, we will assume that you stand with
Governor Walker and against the teachers, nurses, police officers, fire fighters,
and other dedicated public employees who serve our communities.


In the event that you cannot support this effort to save collective bargaining,
please be advised that the undersigned will publicly and formally boycott the
goods and services provided by your company. However, if you join us, we will
do everything in our power to publicly celebrate your partnership in the fight to
preserve the right of public employees to be heard at the bargaining table.
Wisconsin’s public employee unions serve to protect and promote equality and
fairness in the workplace. We hope you will stand with us and publicly share that
ideal.

In the event you would like to discuss this matter further, please contact the
executive Director of the Wisconsin Professional Police Association, Jim Palmer,
at 608.273.3840.

Thank you in advance for your consideration. We look forward to hearing from
you soon.

James L. Palmer, Executive Director
Wisconsin Professional Police Association
Mahlon Mitchell,President
Professional Professional Fire Fighters
Jim Conway, President
International Association of Fire Fighters Local 311
John Matthews, Execuctive Director
Madison Teachers, Inc.
Keith Patt, Executive Director
Green Bay Education Association
Bob Richardson, President
Dane County Deputy Sheriffs Association
Dan Frei, Prersident
Madison Professional Police Officers Association

Police and Fire are excluded. Why would they sign on the letter? Where is the original with signatures to give some credibility to the letter?

I never said tehy "lifted the boat." I said they caused change. Not all unions are large evil McDonald type conglomerates that you portait. Many work closely with their management to find solutions to economic problems and even take concessions when times are tough. Its easy to put everyone in one basket so you can hate them. That seems to be the christian thing to do--then we can crucify the infidels or burn them at the stake.

Police and Fire are excluded. Why would they sign on the letter? Where is the original with signatures to give some credibility to the letter? you doubt this?

I never said tehy "lifted the boat." I said they caused change. Not all unions are large evil McDonald...who is evil McDonald? type conglomerates that you portait. Many work closely with their management to find solutions to economic problems and even take concessions when times are tough. :rotf2: Its easy to put everyone in one basket so you can hate them. hate? if you want to see hate just look at your union bretheren and their cohorts around the country That seems to be the christian thing to do--then we can crucify the infidels or burn them at the stake. huh?

I think you went a bit off the thracks there Bill :)

nope....this was the funniest friggin thing and also the most absurd...

"Again, all these issues are really complex.
Also, based on policies, Reagan would be a democrat today, not tea party. "ZIMMY

don't stay away Zimmy, you and Jimmy have developed some real chemistry...

hey DN, how many times did he raise taxes? What did he do with illegal immigrants? Department of veterans affairs? Then how about JHWB? Raised taxes. JWB- huge expansion. You really are not very competent with your arguments.

hey DN, how many times did he raise taxes? What did he do with illegal immigrants? Department of veterans affairs? Then how about JHWB? Raised taxes. JWB- huge expansion. You really are not very competent with your arguments.

Wow, this thread really took off. I need to travel less :smash:

Zimmy, I think you're missing the point about Reagan. His personal philosophy certainly wouldn't have allowed him to "call" himself a Democrat.

That being said, as you've noted Reagan's actual behavior was quite different from the image most people have. He had no problem raising taxes, running from a fight, increasing the size of government and our national debt, working deals with our enemies and on and on...

Oddly enough, Reagan seems to be the most significant figure aspiring Republican candidates want to emulate.

He did tell a great story and make us feel good though...

-spence

apparently Spence has at least one neighbor in bizarro world :uhuh:

JHWB...JWB...???

never mind..I Googled it..."Just Handshakes We're British"...still confused ......but OK...you are the smart one:alien:

Hooked on Phonics...

Scott,


NC is one of four states that does not tax federal retirements. Much of the growth in that state has been retirees moving there so they can experience reduced taxes.

businessfacilities.com 2010 state rankings

Economic Growth Potential
1. South Carolina
2. Tennessee
3. Virginia
4. North Carolina
5. Texas
6. Arizona

Best Business Climate
1. Texas
2. Virginia
3. Utah
4. South Carolina
5. Tennessee
6. North Carolina

Workforce Training Leaders
1. Louisiana
2. Georgia
3. New Mexico
4. Florida
5. North Carolina

probably as a result of all of those retirees moving there for tax reasons :) those southern states are a disaster

10/15/10 - North Carolina ranked 3rd by Forbes for Best States for Business

Gov. Bev Perdue on Oct. 14 announced Forbes magazine is ranking North Carolina as the 3rd Best State for Business in America. North Carolina improved from last year’s Forbes ranking of fifth. In addition, the Governor announced that recent statistics from the Federal Bureau of Labor and Statistics show North Carolina is the 3rd best state for declining unemployment and 4th in the nation for job creation.

In the Forbes rankings, North Carolina scored third in Business Costs and Regulatory Environment and ninth in Growth Prospect. Forbes scored the states on six measures including business cost, labor supply, regulatory environment, economic climate, growth prospect and quality of life.

let's see...North Carolina...or Michigan, RI...etc...?

Wow, this thread really took off. I need to travel less :smash:

Zimmy, I think you're missing the point about Reagan. His personal philosophy certainly wouldn't have allowed him to "call" himself a Democrat.

That being said, as you've noted Reagan's actual behavior was quite different from the image most people have. He had no problem raising taxes, running from a fight, increasing the size of government and our national debt, working deals with our enemies and on and on...

Oddly enough, Reagan seems to be the most significant figure aspiring Republican candidates want to emulate.

He did tell a great story and make us feel good though...

-spence

You are right. I specified that his policies would make him a democrat. But you are right, he wouldn't affiliate with the democratic party. Tea party would not like his policies, though. The new members of the Republic party would not like his policies. Way too liberal.

apparently Spence has at least one neighbor in bizarro world :uhuh:

JHWB...JWB...???

never mind..I Googled it..."Just Handshakes We're British"...still confused ......but OK...you are the smart one:alien:

that actually comes from a skit about the spanish channels. El Presidente Jorge Boooosh is apparently how their names were said.

that actually comes from a skit about the spanish channels. El Presidente Jorge Boooosh is apparently how their names were said.

sure....:screwy:

I think you went a bit off the thracks there Bill :)

First, If you read previous posts you can see that I am not pro or anti union. In many cases they are just as greedy as large corporations and the leaders who run them. I consider McD's a large greedy corporation. A corporation that supports leaders only to gain favors such as exemptions from health care. Given their options they would pay their employees garbage. You can't blame them. They are capitalists. The same way you can't blame people for wanting more wages and benefits. Each uses the tactics they feel will get them to that end. Look at the NFL and the "union" (if you can call it that). Both are positioning to gain maximum economic advantage regardless of what they bring to the table.

Secondly, you fail to address the point that not all unions are bad. Nowhere did I try and defend the union activists any more than I tried to defend the governor. My personal opinion is that both sides are so polarized it really does not matter what anyone thinks.

Third, you keep throwing stats on North Carolina that show it has business potential. Why would I argue that. If you allow businesses to run rampant over their employees and give them lots of tax breaks of course it will look as though it is a great place to go as a business. I didn't see a stat that showed it was a leader in job development (just potential).

Your turn to continue gathering the lions...:)

.

Third, you keep throwing stats on North Carolina that show it has business potential. I didn't see a stat that showed it was a leader in job development (just potential).

...:)

Federal Bureau of Labor and Statistics show North Carolina is the 3rd best state for declining unemployment and 4th in the nation for job creation...

this is getting boring....reading is fundamental

Yep, You aren't changing my opinion and I'm not changing yours. Time to move on... See ya..

Zimmy, I think you're missing the point about Reagan. His personal philosophy certainly wouldn't have allowed him to "call" himself a Democrat.



-spence


Spence wasn't Regan a Democrat and switched parties when he supported Barry Goldwater, "Mr. Conservative",
when he ran in the 60's?

sure....:screwy:

Jorge Bush - IBWiki (http://ib.frath.net/w/Jorge_Bush)

El Presidente de los Estados Unidos Jorge W. Bush Defends Immigration Policy

Yep, You aren't changing my opinion and I'm not changing yours. Time to move on... See ya..

that should tell you a lot about your "opinion", you simply make statements of opinion with no evidence to back it up beyond some anecdotal beliefs, so I provide facts that clearly disprove your opinion..... and you stand by your "opinion"...:confused:...is this some odd form of enlightenment where you ignore reality and forge ahead in delusion?

Jorge Bush - IBWiki (http://ib.frath.net/w/Jorge_Bush)

:screwy::screwy::screwy::screwy::screwy::screwy::s crewy:

I consider McD's a large greedy corporation. A corporation that supports leaders only to gain favors such as exemptions from health care. Given their options they would pay their employees garbage. You can't blame them. They are capitalists.

Secondly, you fail to address the point that not all unions are bad.

name a good one(union)...this is not a point that you are making but rather a vague generalized statement....how should I "address" it...."all unions are not good?"......I've pointed out that the damage being done far outweighs any benefit and good being done, you mentioned:

"the value that unions bring to a region. Don't get me wrong. I am not defending them. Merely pointing out how the economy changes as a result of their actions, often to the good of the citizens who are not represented "

can you point to something more specific? I know that as a result of the Wisconsin "action" millions of taxpayer dollars have had to be spent to clean up the mess, you might call that economic stimulus?...Obama would....but how have "citizens who are not represented" drawn benefit from union actions?. Last year, Oregon's unions spearheaded a successful battle to pass ballot measures 66 and 67, which collectively raised business and income taxes in the state by an estimated $727 million annually. Led by $2 million from the Oregon Education Association and $1.8 million from the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), unions contributed an estimated 75% of the nearly $7 million raised to promote the tax increases, according to the National Institute on Money in State Politics .


are all capitalists bad Bill?

btw...anecdotal story since you like that stuff, and this one is completely factual...my wife spent more than a month at the Ronald McDonald house in Prov. when our oldest was born prematurely...which happened to coincide with the nurese's strike at Women and Infants...while enjoying the benefits of a comfortable place to recover which was established by a greedy corporation in close proximity from which to travel back and forth to the hospital on foot at all hours of the night to take care of our child we simultaneously enjoyed having to wear special badges when entering and leaving the hospital which identified us, and her particularly as she was not always able to have an escort, to the strikers and supporting thugs surrounding the hospital, the badges were suppose to identify her as a patient so that she would not be harassed and attacked as she left the premesis and were not always acknowledged by the mob...the replacement nurses were subject to harassment, threats, violence and vandalism of their vehicles with every changing shift....I guess you can't blame them...they're unionists...right?

businessfacilities.com 2010 state rankings



let's see...North Carolina...or Michigan, RI...etc...?

funny thing, statistics. NC top tier in business climate, but when you look directly at how that translates for the citizens, bottom third or so in most categories

From US census bureau and NCstate website
Rank

Unemployment
41 NORTH CAROLINA 9.9%

Per Capita income
36 NORTH CAROLINA

Home ownership
32 North Carolina 69.4%

Graduation Rate
37 NC 71.4%

SAT rankings
Participation.
11 NC
Reading and Writing
41 NC
Math
35 NC

funny thing, statistics. NC top tier in business climate, but when you look directly at how that translates for the citizens, bottom third or so in most categories

From US census bureau and NCstate website
Rank

Unemployment
41 NORTH CAROLINA 9.9%

What does this number have to do with unions? Are you suggesting that unionization would raise the employment rate in Norh Carolina? Is 9.9 percent some dramatically high figure compared to the national average? In my great union State of Michigan 9.9 percent would look good.

Per Capita income
36 NORTH CAROLINA

Per Capita income is not necessarily an indicator of union success. A great deal of average income is boosted by non-union, greedy capitalist types and financial sector positions such as in New England. What may be more telling in the "translation" for citizens than Per Capita income is the cost of living. Of the 10 States with the lowest cost of living, 8 are right to work states.

Home ownership
32 North Carolina 69.4%

Percentage of home ownership in North Carolina is not far off from the middle. It beats the percentage in highly touted States such as New York, New Jersey, Illinois, and California. What is the connection between unionization and home ownership?

Graduation Rate
37 NC 71.4%

Again, this figure is not so far off from the middle, and, again, what does unionization have to do with it? So, if everybody joined a union, the graduation rate would rise? Should we start demanding everbody get a degree of some sort so they can get a union job?

SAT rankings
Participation.
11 NC
Reading and Writing
41 NC
Math
35 NC

Again, what's this got to do with unions?

Again, what's this got to do with unions?

maybe Zimmy's statistics indicate that the government schools and unionized teachers are doing and have been doing a crappy job in preparing North Carolina's children to participate in it's growing economy?

this is where it began, I don't know how we ended up at SAT scores...

Chesapeak Bill "I can, however, say that if you look at the current economic situation in southern states (North Carolina is a good example) the average worker makes squat. Why? Becuase there is no union group to set an eaxample for what is the baseline. Good or bad, the unions have helped out non-union workers by establishing baseline salaries. Do you really think hourly wages woudl be where they are without at least one union getting a contract that establishes the standard for what is fair? If so, you are kidding yourself. Without that corporate greed would take hold "

businessfacilities.com 2010 state rankings

Economic Growth Potential
1. South Carolina
2. Tennessee
3. Virginia
4. North Carolina
5. Texas
6. Arizona

Best Business Climate
1. Texas
2. Virginia
3. Utah
4. South Carolina
5. Tennessee
6. North Carolina

Workforce Training Leaders
1. Louisiana
2. Georgia
3. New Mexico
4. Florida
5. North Carolina

probably as a result of all of those retirees moving there for tax reasons :) those southern states are a disaster

10/15/10 - North Carolina ranked 3rd by Forbes for Best States for Business

Gov. Bev Perdue on Oct. 14 announced Forbes magazine is ranking North Carolina as the 3rd Best State for Business in America. North Carolina improved from last year’s Forbes ranking of fifth. In addition, the Governor announced that recent statistics from the Federal Bureau of Labor and Statistics show North Carolina is the 3rd best state for declining unemployment and 4th in the nation for job creation.

In the Forbes rankings, North Carolina scored third in Business Costs and Regulatory Environment and ninth in Growth Prospect. Forbes scored the states on six measures including business cost, labor supply, regulatory environment, economic climate, growth prospect and quality of life.

let's see...North Carolina...or Michigan, RI...etc...?

Again, what's this got to do with unions?

Scott pointed out that North Carolina has a great climate for business. He also pointed out earlier that NC has one of the lowest union presences. Based on those points, it is reasonable to point out the other statistics. It wasn't specifically union related, but maybe it applies. Hope that clears it up :)

maybe Zimmy's statistics indicate that the government schools and unionized teachers are doing and have been doing a crappy job in preparing North Carolina's children to participate in it's growing economy?


[/B]"

Huh... the other 40 states ahead of NC also have unionized government schools that are performing better. Maybe there are other factors, like uneducated parents with poor analytical skills??? Maybe the anti-intellectual part of some parents rubs off on the kids?

Oh yeah, SAT scores are included, because they give at least a small idea about education in NC, the state that you are raving about the business climate... which doesn't seem to equate to excellent economic indicators for the people in the state. Sure you could figure that out for yourself, though.

Scott pointed out that North Carolina has a great climate for business. He also pointed out earlier that NC has one of the lowest union presences no I didn't, I have no idea what the union presesnce is or is not in NC, . Based on those points, it is reasonable to point out the other statistics. Hope that clears it up :)

I pointed out that it is ranked well for business climate and as of 10/15/10 - North Carolina ranked 3rd by Forbes for Best States for Business

Gov. Bev Perdue on Oct. 14 announced Forbes magazine is ranking North Carolina as the 3rd Best State for Business in America. North Carolina improved from last year’s Forbes ranking of fifth. In addition, the Governor announced that recent statistics from the Federal Bureau of Labor and Statistics show North Carolina is the 3rd best state for declining unemployment and 4th in the nation for job creation.

the two in bold are not unrelated :uhuh:

Huh... the other 40 states ahead of NC also have unionized government schools that are performing better. Maybe there are other factors, like uneducated parents with poor analytical skills??? Maybe the anti-intellectual part of some parents rubs off on the kids?

sounds racist.....and depends on how you define "performing better"

America is spending more money on education while producing worse outcomes.
Veronique de Rugy from the March 2011 issue

In November the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) released its Program for International Student Assessment scores, measuring educational achievement in 65 countries. The results are depressingly familiar: While students in many developed nations have been learning more and more over time, American 15-year-olds are stuck in the middle of the pack in many fundamental areas, including reading and math. Yet the United States is near the top in education spending.

Using the OECD data, Figure 1 compares K–12 education expenditures per pupil in each of the world’s major industrial powers. With the exception of Switzerland, the U.S. spends the most in the world on education, an average of $91,700 per student in the nine years between the ages of 6 and 15. But the results do not correlate.



"anti-intellectual":rotf2::rotf2:

[QUOTE=scottw;844289]sounds racist.....and depends on how you define "performing better"

[/B]


racist? that's reaching. "performing better" is only related to sat scores, as it says in the post.


The question is why doesn't the great business climate translate to exceptional or even better than average economic standing for the people of NC, instead of the bottom 3rd of the states? I won't pretend to know the answer, but I bet you have one. What are the jobs that are being created?

racist? that's reaching. "performing better" is only related to sat scores, as it says in the post.


The question is why doesn't the great business climate translate to exceptional or even better than average economic standing for the people of NC, instead of the bottom 3rd of the states? I won't pretend to know the answer, but I bet you have one. What are the jobs that are being created?

It will probably take some time for the Southern States to close economic gaps with Northern States, although they have gained considerably on some of the once heavily industrial ones that are heading toward the crapper. And you're right, there are many complicated factors involved in the forming of "economic standing." The racial/slavery heritage and its culture still lingers in holding down average "indicators." The past drain of educated and talented Southerners to States that offered jobs that weren't traditionally to be found in the South is a factor as well. But that may be changing, and if business sees a growing opportunity to settle in lower tax, lesser unionized States, things may change more rapidly. North Carolina ranks in the upper third in percentage growth of per capita income for the period 1980-2009, and is in the upper half of States with lower cost of living index. So life is not as harsh as your indicators might imply. No doubt that old cultural attitudes may hold back SAT scores, but those can rise as more jobs are captured from the North and opportunities attract and promote a different "culture." As for education being a key to higher income, there is a correlation that may suffer from the diminishing returns of investing in it. The greater the percentage of educated, the less the economic importance of education. And the more disparity in the percentage of educated the greater is the importance of education. Washington DC had by far the greatest percentage of growth of per capita income between 1980-2009 than all of the States, yet it's school system is the most pathetic.

Interesting points Detbuch. One of my reasons for posting the statistics was specifically to show that using rankings as Scott did doesn't necessarily tell much of the real story. There are dozens of reasons NC falls where it does. I love the place and would love to live in most of the areas I have been to down there. I am curious to know how much of the DC per capita income actually stays in the DC school district. I know a bunch of people, including relatives who work in the city and live outside or even as far as Annapolis. Their kids definitely wouldn't go to the city schools, but the suburbs have very well respected public schools. I have said it many times in these pages and I think it is worth reiterating, trying to connect very complex problems just to unions or one political party is typically not only factual incorrect, but useless.

Oh man, this is a S$#t show I'm glad I've avoided.