On Wednesday, April 29, 2015 at 3:40:54 PM UTC-4, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
On Wednesday, April 29, 2015 at 8:47:42 AM UTC-4, trader_4 wrote:
On Wednesday, April 29, 2015 at 5:41:57 AM UTC-4, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On Tue, 28 Apr 2015 13:46:25 -0700 (PDT), Cindy Hamilton
wrote:

On Friday, April 24, 2015 at 5:18:31 PM UTC-4, Stormin Mormon wrote:



Is there any evidence that funding causes better
education? I don't, but my gut sense is that the
kids in a one room school house on the prarie got
better learning than a highly funded school now
days. Especially since socialism and common core
are presently being taught.

So, you don't think this quote from the Common Core standards
is something a third-grader should know?

"Understand properties of multiplication and the relationship between multiplication and division."

What, precisely, do you think the Common Core standards are? Have
you looked at them?

Cindy Hamilton

Of course it makes sense, but it is not always the end result. The US
has the highest spending per pupil in the world, but or education
rakes between 10th and 15th depending on the subject. We don't get
much bang for our bucks. The solution in every school district seems
to be throw more money at the problem.

+1

And I don't understand how one sentence, apparently taken from
common core, proves anything at all.

Oh, you'd be even angrier if I posted the thing in its entirety.

I'm hopping mad about education, and I don't think it's entirely
about money. We had a lot of those fat black pencils, a lot of
"sit down and shut up", pretty large classes (I was born in 1957),
and we still got a decent education for not a ton of money. School
budgets weren't burdened with a lot of administrators, counselors,
"classroom assistants", and the like. We just had some woman riding
herd on 32 kids who knew they'd get the strap if the school had to
call their parents. We didn't have computers in the classroom, but
our cohort pretty much invented the PC revolution.


I see. And yet there was no common core, you didn't have the feds
telling the local school board what they had to teach. So, why again
is it suddenly necessary today? In fact, we've been going in exactly
the opposite direction for the last half century, with more big govt
involvement in the schools.


However, I don't have a problem with a common set of standards for
every student in the country.

Cindy Hamilton

I do. It's called state's rights. An example of where we are
today was just on the news. A school in Colorado sent a letter
to the parents of a girl because they sent her to school with
two oreo cookies as part of her lunch. The school wouldn't let
her eat them and sent a letter home scolding the parents. THAT
is what big govt gets you.

On Wednesday, April 29, 2015 at 4:46:46 PM UTC-4, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 4/29/2015 3:40 PM, Cindy Hamilton wrote:


I'm hopping mad about education, and I don't think it's entirely
about money. We had a lot of those fat black pencils, a lot of
"sit down and shut up", pretty large classes (I was born in 1957),
and we still got a decent education for not a ton of money. School
budgets weren't burdened with a lot of administrators, counselors,
"classroom assistants", and the like. We just had some woman riding
herd on 32 kids who knew they'd get the strap if the school had to
call their parents. We didn't have computers in the classroom, but
our cohort pretty much invented the PC revolution.

32 students? You had small classes. We had classes of 40 to 50
controlled by one nun. And we got a good education.


However, I don't have a problem with a common set of standards for
every student in the country.

Cindy Hamilton

Nor do I. There should be some minimum.

It's not the role of the *federal* govt to shove it's standards
on the states. And the problem isn't curriculum standards, it's
that the schools are failing to teach. It's like what's going on
in Baltimore and other inner cities. A half century of federal govt
programs, mandates and interference has only made problems 5X worse.

On 4/29/2015 11:46 AM, Oren wrote:
On Tue, 28 Apr 2015 13:46:25 -0700 (PDT), Cindy Hamilton
wrote:

What, precisely, do you think the Common Core standards are?

A federal take over of the education system to nationalize it.

Education of children is clearly a parent and state responsibility.

They got your health care, breathe down you neck, take your money -
claiming a new Utopia while telling you that you can't make it without
government carrying you for life on government teats.

Wait until they get your guns.


What use could people have for guns, in the modern
society? I mean, it's not like we need to hunt to
eat, any more. I mean, they are just for:

* Self defense, like in the Baltimore riots
* Hunting small or large game
* Wildlife predator control
* Deer population, shrub and tree protection
* Last defense against government gone bad
(Our US gov would never try to take guns away,
or require prior restraint on purchases, or
register or require background checks, or....)

I'll start to worry when the US gov starts to
register gun purchases, or do like the Soviets,
and declare veterans mentally incompetent, and
take thier guns away. Or if they start to demonize
certain types of guns, and try to separate out
certain types of gun owners as irrational, such
as portraying owners of military style semi auto
rifles as gun nuts with assault weapons. When this
starts to happen, I'll consider being concerned.

But, that will never happen, right?

-
..
Christopher A. Young
learn more about Jesus
.. www.lds.org
..
..

On 4/29/2015 3:33 PM, Cindy Hamilton wrote:

But to be afraid of educational standards is insane.

Cindy Hamilton


Imposing standards written in Washington DC
on Wisconsin farm kids is an example of federal
regulation gone insane.

-
..
Christopher A. Young
learn more about Jesus
.. www.lds.org
..
..

On 4/30/2015 4:20 AM, Senator Pocketstuffer wrote:
On 04/29/2015 10:02 PM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
On 4/29/2015 3:40 PM, Cindy Hamilton wrote:

However, I don't have a problem with a common set of standards for
every student in the country.

Cindy Hamilton


You want to force kids from Manhattan to learn
to milk a cow, and kids from Wisconsin to learn
how to jump subway turnstiles?


ROFLMAO! We'd have cow tipping and knockout games for extra credit?


Let me know when we get around to riot, loot,
burn. Occupy Wall Street should be national,
along with protesting abortion clinics. On the
way to the Walmart for cow tipping, we can stop
by the farm and blow up an outhouse. We'll visit
the local senior center for some knockout game,
and flag snatching and stomping. I want to see
the Youtubes of flag stomping, set to old German
polka music. OOM pah, pah. And for cultural
sensetivity, we'll learn to goose step, sieg HEIL
(right arm extended) and then Big Brother will
lead us in Two Minutes Hate.

-
..
Christopher A. Young
learn more about Jesus
.. www.lds.org
..
..

On 4/30/2015 7:22 AM, trader_4 wrote:
A school in Colorado sent a letter
to the parents of a girl because they sent her to school with
two oreo cookies as part of her lunch. The school wouldn't let
her eat them and sent a letter home scolding the parents. THAT
is what big govt gets you.


Worse, is the conditioning of the public. Years ago,
when I heard a report of this kind of thing, I could
not believe it in the USA. And then a year or so later,
I was offended by the role of and posture of govenment.
Now days I read this, and am irritatated that my time
is wasted by reading such stories. It's too much, too
often. And so, I tune it out rather than writing my
congressman and protesting. I'm being conditioned to
see this as normal.

-
..
Christopher A. Young
learn more about Jesus
.. www.lds.org
..
..

On 4/30/2015 7:25 AM, trader_4 wrote:
It's not the role of the *federal* govt to shove it's standards
on the states. And the problem isn't curriculum standards, it's
that the schools are failing to teach. It's like what's going on
in Baltimore and other inner cities. A half century of federal govt
programs, mandates and interference has only made problems 5X worse.


I wonder that the Fed is reducing the quality
of education, rather than improve.

-
..
Christopher A. Young
learn more about Jesus
.. www.lds.org
..
..

On Thursday, April 30, 2015 at 8:37:02 AM UTC-4, Stormin Mormon wrote:
On 4/30/2015 7:22 AM, trader_4 wrote:
A school in Colorado sent a letter
to the parents of a girl because they sent her to school with
two oreo cookies as part of her lunch. The school wouldn't let
her eat them and sent a letter home scolding the parents. THAT
is what big govt gets you.


Worse, is the conditioning of the public. Years ago,
when I heard a report of this kind of thing, I could
not believe it in the USA. And then a year or so later,
I was offended by the role of and posture of govenment.
Now days I read this, and am irritatated that my time
is wasted by reading such stories. It's too much, too
often. And so, I tune it out rather than writing my
congressman and protesting. I'm being conditioned to
see this as normal.

-
.
Christopher A. Young
learn more about Jesus
. www.lds.org
.
.

On another interesting topic, did you see the report today
in the Washington Post about the Baltimore incident? They
obtained a copy of a police report where another prisoner
that was in the van with Gray at the time tells his story.
He was separated from Gray by a metal partition, but says from
the sounds he heard, he thinks Gray was banging himself
around, trying to injure himself.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/...18e_story.html

I had thought of that possibility from the start. I've
seen it happen on Cops on TV, for example. Enraged prisoner
starts banging head against car windows, doors, etc. I
wouldn't be surprised that the police and prosecutors let
that leak out deliberately, because they know that's the
direction the investigation is leading and they think it's
better for it to come out a little at a time. We know
some excitable folks can't stand the truth.

On 4/30/2015 7:22 AM, trader_4 wrote:

However, I don't have a problem with a common set of standards for
every student in the country.

Cindy Hamilton

I do. It's called state's rights. An example of where we are
today was just on the news. A school in Colorado sent a letter
to the parents of a girl because they sent her to school with
two oreo cookies as part of her lunch. The school wouldn't let
her eat them and sent a letter home scolding the parents. THAT
is what big govt gets you.



Every student graduating high school should know that 8 x 8 =
60something. But they have no business telling a parent what to pack
for lunch. That is an intrusion.

On Thursday, April 30, 2015 at 9:03:09 AM UTC-4, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 4/30/2015 7:22 AM, trader_4 wrote:

However, I don't have a problem with a common set of standards for
every student in the country.

Cindy Hamilton

I do. It's called state's rights. An example of where we are
today was just on the news. A school in Colorado sent a letter
to the parents of a girl because they sent her to school with
two oreo cookies as part of her lunch. The school wouldn't let
her eat them and sent a letter home scolding the parents. THAT
is what big govt gets you.



Every student graduating high school should know that 8 x 8 =
60something. But they have no business telling a parent what to pack
for lunch. That is an intrusion.

And do you think that any state in the union, any local school
district, disagrees that every graduating school student "should"
know what 8 x 8 is? If the locals and the state can't properly
educate the students, why would you think the feds sticking their
nose in will? What's the fed govt's track record at "fixing" any
similar issues in the last 50 years? How many fed initiatives,
eg Headstart, have we had in education and all the while the
results are worse, not better? We didn't have a DOE at the federal
level until 1979. Now it has 5,000 employees and a $60bil budget,
Has education gotten better, or worse?

On Wed, 29 Apr 2015 20:32:43 GMT, (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

Oren writes:
On Wed, 29 Apr 2015 09:00:36 -0500, philo wrote:

Read the analysis

...back to property taxes.

_The Highest and Lowest Property Taxes by County_

By Melissa Allison Published April 24, 2015 Zillow

http://www.foxbusiness.com/personal-finance/2015/04/24/highest-and-lowest-property-taxes-by-county/?intcmp=HPBucket

https://tinyurl.com/lbr9vya


A useless article. Comparing rates would be much
more informative. All this does is point out where there
are higher house prices. Typical for fox, selective misinterpretation
of the facts. I mean, look at the house prices in westchester
county, vs. tunica ms. Of course the property taxes, which are
based on home value, are lower in mississippi; the homes are much
less expensive.

Predictable. Rant about Fox. The article was from Melissa Allison
writes about real estate transactions and trends for Zillow Blog.
Posted at Fox business.

She just pointed out 20 median high /low areas.
....back on the porch

On Thu, 30 Apr 2015 06:23:26 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

On Thursday, April 30, 2015 at 9:03:09 AM UTC-4, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 4/30/2015 7:22 AM, trader_4 wrote:

However, I don't have a problem with a common set of standards for
every student in the country.

Cindy Hamilton

I do. It's called state's rights. An example of where we are
today was just on the news. A school in Colorado sent a letter
to the parents of a girl because they sent her to school with
two oreo cookies as part of her lunch. The school wouldn't let
her eat them and sent a letter home scolding the parents. THAT
is what big govt gets you.



Every student graduating high school should know that 8 x 8 =
60something. But they have no business telling a parent what to pack
for lunch. That is an intrusion.

And do you think that any state in the union, any local school
district, disagrees that every graduating school student "should"
know what 8 x 8 is? If the locals and the state can't properly
educate the students, why would you think the feds sticking their
nose in will? What's the fed govt's track record at "fixing" any
similar issues in the last 50 years? How many fed initiatives,
eg Headstart, have we had in education and all the while the
results are worse, not better? We didn't have a DOE at the federal
level until 1979. Now it has 5,000 employees and a $60bil budget,
Has education gotten better, or worse?

I can count to 21 if I pull my pants down.

For convicts; count feet, odd number, add one divide by two.

Moving rocks from one pocket to another needs a person to count the
rocks for every prison seen.

On 4/30/2015 9:23 AM, trader_4 wrote:

Every student graduating high school should know that 8 x 8 =
60something. But they have no business telling a parent what to pack
for lunch. That is an intrusion.

And do you think that any state in the union, any local school
district, disagrees that every graduating school student "should"
know what 8 x 8 is? If the locals and the state can't properly
educate the students, why would you think the feds sticking their
nose in will? What's the fed govt's track record at "fixing" any
similar issues in the last 50 years? How many fed initiatives,
eg Headstart, have we had in education and all the while the
results are worse, not better? We didn't have a DOE at the federal
level until 1979. Now it has 5,000 employees and a $60bil budget,
Has education gotten better, or worse?


What "is" and what "should be" differ greatly. If proper basic
standards were set by the Feds, they could eliminate much of the state
and local bureaucracy. Government never replaces, they just add on.

Our school systems on every level with a few exceptions do a poor job.

On Thu, 30 Apr 2015 07:27:38 -0400, Stormin Mormon
wrote:

What use could people have for guns, in the modern
society?

.... use it as a hammer when you run out of bullets standing ankle deep

On Wednesday, April 29, 2015 at 10:01:42 PM UTC-4, Stormin Mormon wrote:
On 4/29/2015 3:40 PM, Cindy Hamilton wrote:

However, I don't have a problem with a common set of standards for
every student in the country.

Cindy Hamilton


You want to force kids from Manhattan to learn
to milk a cow, and kids from Wisconsin to learn
how to jump subway turnstiles?

I was not aware those subjects were taught in the public schools.

Cindy Hamilton

On Thursday, April 30, 2015 at 7:29:48 AM UTC-4, Stormin Mormon wrote:
On 4/29/2015 3:33 PM, Cindy Hamilton wrote:

But to be afraid of educational standards is insane.

Cindy Hamilton


Imposing standards written in Washington DC
on Wisconsin farm kids is an example of federal
regulation gone insane.

The standards were not written in Washington. The National
Governors' Association created a group to develop the standards.
Sounds like a state-level endeavor to me.

Why shouldn't Wisconsin farm kids have a basic grounding in
math and language skills? They'll need them to run the
family farm.

Cindy Hamilton

On 4/30/2015 9:13 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

Every student graduating high school should know that 8 x 8 =
60something. But they have no business telling a parent what to pack
for lunch. That is an intrusion.

How do you decide what's federal control, and
what's not?

-
..
Christopher A. Young
learn more about Jesus
.. www.lds.org
..
..

On 4/30/2015 3:03 PM, Oren wrote:
On Thu, 30 Apr 2015 07:27:38 -0400, Stormin Mormon
wrote:

What use could people have for guns, in the modern
society?

... use it as a hammer when you run out of bullets standing ankle deep


I'll just come to your place, okay?

-
..
Christopher A. Young
learn more about Jesus
.. www.lds.org
..
..

On 4/30/2015 4:33 PM, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
You want to force kids from Manhattan to learn
to milk a cow, and kids from Wisconsin to learn
how to jump subway turnstiles?

I was not aware those subjects were taught in the public schools.

Cindy Hamilton


They could be, if there was local control.

-
..
Christopher A. Young
learn more about Jesus
.. www.lds.org
..
..

On 4/30/2015 4:37 PM, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
The standards were not written in Washington. The National
Governors' Association created a group to develop the standards.
Sounds like a state-level endeavor to me.

Why shouldn't Wisconsin farm kids have a basic grounding in
math and language skills? They'll need them to run the
family farm.

Cindy Hamilton


Well, who needs DC, then? Wisconsin governor can
do for his or her own state.

I've not studied the matter, but I suspect the
association was heavily influinced by the DC
people.

-
..
Christopher A. Young
learn more about Jesus
.. www.lds.org
..
..

On 4/29/2015 11:46 AM, Oren wrote:
On Tue, 28 Apr 2015 13:46:25 -0700 (PDT), Cindy Hamilton
wrote:

What, precisely, do you think the Common Core standards are?

A federal take over of the education system to nationalize it.

Education of children is clearly a parent and state responsibility.

They got your health care, breathe down you neck, take your money -
claiming a new Utopia while telling you that you can't make it without
government carrying you for life on government teats.

Wait until they get your guns.

When the Fed has total control over child education,
they will be another step towards total control.

-
..
Christopher A. Young
learn more about Jesus
.. www.lds.org
..
..

"Oliver Douglas" wrote in message

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misery_...28economics%29

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misery_index_(economics)

That's nothing. When you strip away the myths, what remains tells a
different story that some would have us believe.

Reagan was not the man conservatives claim he was. This image of Reagan as a
conservative superhero is myth, created to unite the various factions of the
right behind a common leader. In reality, Reagan was no conservative
ideologue or flawless commander-in-chief. Reagan regularly strayed from
conservative dogma — he raised taxes eleven times as president while
tripling the deficit — and he often ended up on the wrong side of history,
like when he vetoed an Anti-Apartheid bill.
1. Reagan was a serial tax raiser. As governor of California, Reagan “signed
into law the largest tax increase in the history of any state up till then.”
Meanwhile, state spending nearly doubled. As president, Reagan “raised taxes
in seven of his eight years in office,” including four times in just two
years. As former GOP Senator Alan Simpson, who called Reagan “a dear
friend,” told NPR, “Ronald Reagan raised taxes 11 times in his
administration — I was there.” “Reagan was never afraid to raise taxes,”
said historian Douglas Brinkley, who edited Reagan’s memoir. Reagan the
anti-tax zealot is “false mythology,” Brinkley said.

2. Reagan nearly tripled the federal budget deficit. During the Reagan
years, the debt increased to nearly $3 trillion, “roughly three times as
much as the first 80 years of the century had done altogether.” Reagan
enacted a major tax cut his first year in office and government revenue
dropped off precipitously. Despite the conservative myth that tax cuts
somehow increase revenue, the government went deeper into debt and Reagan
had to raise taxes just a year after he enacted his tax cut. Despite ten
more tax hikes on everything from gasoline to corporate income, Reagan was
never able to get the deficit under control.

3. Unemployment soared after Reagan’s 1981 tax cuts. Unemployment jumped to
10.8 percent after Reagan enacted his much-touted tax cut, and it took years
for the rate to get back down to its previous level. Meanwhile, income
inequality exploded. Despite the myth that Reagan presided over an era of
unmatched economic boom for all Americans, Reagan disproportionately taxed
the poor and middle class, but the economic growth of the 1980’s did little
help them. “Since 1980, median household income has risen only 30 percent,
adjusted for inflation, while average incomes at the top have tripled or
quadrupled,” the New York Times’ David Leonhardt noted.

4. Reagan grew the size of the federal government tremendously. Reagan
promised “to move boldly, decisively, and quickly to control the runaway
growth of federal spending,” but federal spending “ballooned” under Reagan.
He bailed out Social Security in 1983 after attempting to privatize it, and
set up a progressive taxation system to keep it funded into the future. He
promised to cut government agencies like the Department of Energy and
Education but ended up adding one of the largest — the Department of
Veterans’ Affairs, which today has a budget of nearly $90 billion and close
to 300,000 employees. He also hiked defense spending by over $100 billion a
year to a level not seen since the height of the Vietnam war.

5. Reagan did little to fight a woman’s right to choose. As governor of
California in 1967, Reagan signed a bill to liberalize the state’s abortion
laws that “resulted in more than a million abortions.” When Reagan ran for
president, he advocated a constitutional amendment that would have
prohibited all abortions except when necessary to save the life of the
mother, but once in office, he “never seriously pursued” curbing choice.

6. Reagan was a “bellicose peacenik.” He wrote in his memoirs that “[m]y
dream…became a world free of nuclear weapons.” “This vision stemmed from the
president’s belief that the biblical account of Armageddon prophesied
nuclear war — and that apocalypse could be averted if everyone, especially
the Soviets, eliminated nuclear weapons,” the Washington Monthly noted. And
Reagan’s military buildup was meant to crush the Soviet Union, but “also to
put the United States in a stronger position from which to establish
effective arms control” for the the entire world — a vision acted out by
Reagan’s vice president, George H.W. Bush, when he became president.

7. Reagan gave amnesty to 3 million undocumented immigrants. Reagan signed
into law a bill that made any immigrant who had entered the country before
1982 eligible for amnesty. The bill was sold as a crackdown, but its tough
sanctions on employers who hired undocumented immigrants were removed before
final passage. The bill helped 3 million people and millions more family
members gain American residency. It has since become a source of major
embarrassment for conservatives.

8. Reagan illegally funneled weapons to Iran. Reagan and other senior U.S.
officials secretly sold arms to officials in Iran, which was subject to a an
arms embargo at the time, in exchange for American hostages. Some funds from
the illegal arms sales also went to fund anti-Communist rebels in
Nicaragua — something Congress had already prohibited the administration
from doing. When the deals went public, the Iran-Contra Affair, as it came
to be know, was an enormous political scandal that forced several senior
administration officials to resign.

9. Reagan vetoed a comprehensive anti-Apartheid act. which placed sanctions
on South Africa and cut off all American trade with the country. Reagan’s
veto was overridden by the Republican-controlled Senate. Reagan responded by
saying “I deeply regret that Congress has seen fit to override my veto,”
saying that the law “will not solve the serious problems that plague that
country.”

10. Reagan helped create the Taliban and Osama Bin Laden. Reagan fought a
proxy war with the Soviet Union by training, arming, equipping, and funding
Islamist mujahidin fighters in Afghanistan. Reagan funneled billions of
dollars, along with top-secret intelligence and sophisticated weaponry to
these fighters through the Pakistani intelligence service. The Talbian and
Osama Bin Laden — a prominent mujahidin commander — emerged from these
mujahidin groups Reagan helped create, and U.S. policy towards Pakistan
remains strained because of the intelligence services’ close relations to
these fighters. In fact, Reagan’s decision to continue the proxy war after
the Soviets were willing to retreat played a direct role in Bin Laden’s
ascendancy.

"philo" wrote in message
...

In plain language he was "fair".

You're a generous soul, Philo. There's been a remarkable attempt to rewrite
history by some people concerning Reagan. They credit him with things that
he had little to do with (the collapse of the Soviet Union was underway for
a long time before Reagan became President). The Second Industrial
revolution (the advent of personal computing) provided much of the recovery
that Reagan-worshippers wrongly attribute to RR.

1. Reagan cut taxes for the Rich, increased taxes on the Middle Class -
Ronald Reagan is loved by conservatives and was loved by big business
throughout his presidency and there's a reason for it. When Reagan came into
office in January of 1981, the top tax rate was 70%, but when he left office
in 1989 the top tax rate was down to only 28%. As Reagan gave the breaks to
all his rich friends, there was a lack of revenue coming into the federal
government. In order to bring money back into the government, Reagan was
forced to raise taxes eleven times throughout his time in office. One
example was when he signed into law the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility
Act of 1982. Reagan raised taxes seven of the eight years he was in office
and the tax increases were felt hardest by the lower and middle class.

2. Tripling the National Debt - As Reagan cut taxes for the wealthy, the
government was left with less money to spend. When Reagan came into office
the national debt was $900 billion, by the time he left the national debt
had tripled to $2.8 trillion.

3. Iran/Contra - In 1986, a group of Americans were being held hostage by a
terrorist group with ties to Iran. In an attempt to free the hostages,
Ronald Reagan secretly sold arms and money to Iran. Much of the money that
was received from the trade went to fund the Nicaragua Contra rebels who
were in a war with the Sandinista government of Nicaragua. When the scandal
broke in the Untied States it became the biggest story in the country,
Reagan tried to down play what happened, but never fully recovered.

4. Reagan funded Terrorists - The attacks on 9/11 by al-Qaeda and Osama Bin
Laden brought new attention to international terrorism. All of a sudden,
Americans coast to coast wore their American flag pins, ate their freedom
fries and couldn't wait to go to war with anyone who looked like a Muslim.
What Americans didn't realize was that the same group that attacked the
United States on 9/11 was funded by Ronald Reagan in the 1980s. Prepping for
a possible war with the Soviet Union, Ronald Reagan spent billions of
dollars funding the Islamist mujahidin Freedom Fighters in Afghanistan. With
billions of American dollars, weapons and training coming their way, the
Taliban and Osama Bin Laden took everything they were given and gave it back
to the United States over a decade later in the worst possible way
imaginable.

5. Unemployment issues - When Ronald Reagan came into office 1981,
unemployment was at 7.5%. After Reagan cut taxes for the wealthy, he began
raising taxes on the middle and lower class. Corporations started to ship
more jobs out of the United States while hiring cheap foreign labor in order
to make a bigger profit. While corporations made billions, Americans across
the country lost their jobs. As 1982 came to a close, unemployment was
nearly 11%. Unemployment began to drop as the years went on, but the jobs
that were created were low paying and barely helped people make ends meet.
The middle and lower class had their wages nearly frozen as the top earners
saw dramatic increases in salary.

6. Ignoring AIDS - By the time the 1980s came around, AIDS had become one of
the most frightening things to happen to the country in recent memory. No
one understood what AIDS and HIV really was and when people don't understand
something, they become scared of it. The fear of the unknown was sweeping
across the country and Americans needed a leader to speak out about this
horrible virus, that leader never came. Instead of grabbing the bull by the
horns and taking charge, Reagan kept quiet. Reagan couldn't say the words
AIDS or HIV until seven years into his presidency, a leader not so much.

7. Reagan gave amnesty to 3 million Undocumented Immigrants - In today's
GOP, the idea of any immigrant staying in the United States whether they are
legal or illegal isn't something that conservatives embrace. What might
shock them is that in 1982 Ronald Reagan gave nearly 3 million undocumented
workers amnesty. The biggest reason for undocumented workers coming to the
United States is because corporations hire them at a cheaper rate than they
would an American citizen. All the laws that would have cracked down on
companies who hire undocumented workers were, of course, removed from the
bill.

8. His attack on Unions and the Middle Class - The Republican war on unions
and the middle class has been heating up in states like Wisconsin and Ohio,
but it has been going on for a long time. Unions are formed to give a united
voice to the workers in an attempt to create fairness between the
corporations and their employees. On August 3rd, 1981, PATCO (Professional
Air Traffic Controllers Organization) went on strike in an effort to get
better pay and safer working conditions. Two days later, taking the side of
business, Ronald Reagan fired 11,345 workers for not returning to work.

9. Reagan raided the Social Security Trust fund - With Ronald Reagan cutting
taxes so drastically, the U.S government was beginning to starve. Reagan
added to the government and didn't make enough spending cuts to offset the
tax cuts, so the money needed to come from somewhere. Ronald Reagan knew
that his polices would create economic bubbles, unemployment would drop and
some jobs would be created, but in time the bubble would burst leaving the
economy in ruins. In order to counteract his own economic policies, Ronald
Reagan needed to find somewhere else to get revenue.

Listening to Alan Greenspan and other advisers, Ronald Reagan raided the
Social Security Trust Fund and replaced it with glorified IOU's. Ronald
Reagan raised the Social Security tax rate which did add to the revenue, but
because there is a cap on Social Security, currently no income over $113,700
is taxed for Social Security, the wealthy didn't feel the tax increase and
the pain was pushed to the middle and lower classes.

10. Endless worship and never-ending praise - Ronald Reagan left office in
January of 1989 and nearly 25 years later he is held up high by the modern
Republican party. As nearly three decades have gone by since Ronald Reagan
was in the White House, reality and history has faded with time.
Conservative figures like anti-tax Grover Norquist created the "Ronald
Reagan Legacy Project" with a goal of memorializing Reagan in all 50 states.
As stated in this article, Ronald Reagan did a lot to hurt the United
States, not just while he was in office, but in the years that have
followed. What's scary about today's current Republican party is that while
Reagan was one of the worst presidents this country has had to endure over
the last 100 years, he would be considered too moderate to be nominated by
today's conservative standards.

http://www.examiner.com/article/8-re...f-our-lifetime

"philo" wrote in message news:mhlk1p$j52

I would not want to go to a doctor who only had 2 years of school.

Sadly, that's the direction we're heading. Many doctors with good education
credentials are being replaced by nurse practitioners and physician's
assistants who just don't have the education required to replace doctors.

These NP/PAs are typically "sold" as doing things that it's too expensive
for doctors to do, but in my experience many clinics and doctor's groups use
them as much cheaper direct replacements for licensed MDs. The NP that my
doctors use didn't impress me at all. She told me things about the meds she
was prescribing that were just flat out wrong. Her understanding of my
medical issues was weak, to say the least, and I was about to file a
complaint with the medical board when they switched me back to an actual MD
who had at least 10 years' more experience and education.

--
Bobby G.

In article ,
"Robert Green" wrote:

ideologue or flawless commander-in-chief. Reagan regularly strayed from
conservative dogma — he raised taxes eleven times as president while
tripling the deficit — and he often ended up on the wrong side of history,
like when he vetoed an Anti-Apartheid bill.

He raised the deficit? How does the Pres (actually any Pres.) raise
the deficit when the Congress passes the budget and his ability to do
much about it is limited. Especially after the political blowback from
when he closed down the government.



2. Reagan nearly tripled the federal budget deficit. During the Reagan
years, the debt increased to nearly $3 trillion, “roughly three times as
much as the first 80 years of the century had done altogether.” Reagan
enacted a major tax cut his first year in office and government revenue
dropped off precipitously. Despite the conservative myth that tax cuts
somehow increase revenue, the government went deeper into debt and Reagan
had to raise taxes just a year after he enacted his tax cut. Despite ten
more tax hikes on everything from gasoline to corporate income, Reagan was
never able to get the deficit under control.

See above. If you look at more than the top number, you will note after
the first year, revenues were up to where they were previously and for
the next 3 years or so (until the inevitable equillibrium that economic
systems tend toward) the rate of increase in revenues was above what it
had been in the 3-4 years before. If you look at the scoring from the
CBO and Joint Committee on Taxation, tax receipts were almost double
what was expected from the get go.
Expenditures, on the other hand, accelerated as a percentage
increase year over year. A big contributor to the deficit controlled by
Congress.


4. Reagan grew the size of the federal government tremendously. Reagan
promised “to move boldly, decisively, and quickly to control the runaway
growth of federal spending,” but federal spending “ballooned” under Reagan.
He bailed out Social Security in 1983 after attempting to privatize it, and
set up a progressive taxation system to keep it funded into the future.
Hardly. The taxation system (approved by the Dem Congress) added
taxes but by law put them only in non-marketable government securities
with NO mechanism to pay them back. The myth of bailing out SS is one
that, in fairness, has been perpetrated across multiple generations of
Presidents and Congresses of both parties. We have something like a127
trillion unfunded liability in SS alone.


7. Reagan gave amnesty to 3 million undocumented immigrants. Reagan signed
into law a bill that made any immigrant who had entered the country before
1982 eligible for amnesty. The bill was sold as a crackdown, but its tough
sanctions on employers who hired undocumented immigrants were removed before
final passage. The bill helped 3 million people and millions more family
members gain American residency. It has since become a source of major
embarrassment for conservatives.

The deal was that we would then "close off the borders" and it was to
be a one time thing. It was part of a deal with the Congress (again
studiously ignored by all parties, all Congresses, and all Presidents).
Same deal during Bush with same outcome.
--
³Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive,
but what they conceal is vital.²
‹ Aaron Levenstein

In article ,
"Robert Green" wrote:

"philo" wrote in message news:mhlk1p$j52

I would not want to go to a doctor who only had 2 years of school.

Sadly, that's the direction we're heading. Many doctors with good education
credentials are being replaced by nurse practitioners and physician's
assistants who just don't have the education required to replace doctors.

These NP/PAs are typically "sold" as doing things that it's too expensive
for doctors to do, but in my experience many clinics and doctor's groups use
them as much cheaper direct replacements for licensed MDs. The NP that my
doctors use didn't impress me at all. She told me things about the meds she
was prescribing that were just flat out wrong. Her understanding of my
medical issues was weak, to say the least, and I was about to file a
complaint with the medical board when they switched me back to an actual MD
who had at least 10 years' more experience and education.

Depends on the setting there is a long line of studies (from at 2000
forward) showing no differences in outcomes between alternate providers
(NPs and PAs) in ambulatory settings. The same has held true for nurse
gas passers and midwives. The outcomes from hospitalist and critical
care isn't as robust.
And so your personal experiences (the classic n=1 study) is enough
to make policy on?
--
³Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive,
but what they conceal is vital.²
‹ Aaron Levenstein

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Robert Green" wrote:

"philo" wrote in message news:mhlk1p$j52

I would not want to go to a doctor who only had 2 years of school.

Sadly, that's the direction we're heading. Many doctors with good
education
credentials are being replaced by nurse practitioners and physician's
assistants who just don't have the education required to replace
doctors.

These NP/PAs are typically "sold" as doing things that it's too
expensive
for doctors to do, but in my experience many clinics and doctor's groups
use
them as much cheaper direct replacements for licensed MDs. The NP that
my
doctors use didn't impress me at all. She told me things about the meds
she
was prescribing that were just flat out wrong. Her understanding of my
medical issues was weak, to say the least, and I was about to file a
complaint with the medical board when they switched me back to an actual
MD
who had at least 10 years' more experience and education.

Depends on the setting . . .

(translation: if you cherry pick the data)

. . . there is a long line of studies (from at 2000
forward) showing no differences in outcomes between alternate providers
(NPs and PAs) in ambulatory settings. The same has held true for nurse
gas passers and midwives. The outcomes from hospitalist and critical
care isn't as robust.

Which is to say "their professionalism is at issue mostly when the stakes
are high." I'd agree.

And so your personal experiences (the classic n=1 study) is enough
to make policy on?

Jeez. When did I say or write anything even closely resembling my desire to
let my few personal experiences direct public policy?

--
Bobby G.

In article ,
"Robert Green" wrote:

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Robert Green" wrote:

"philo" wrote in message news:mhlk1p$j52

I would not want to go to a doctor who only had 2 years of school.

Sadly, that's the direction we're heading. Many doctors with good
education
credentials are being replaced by nurse practitioners and physician's
assistants who just don't have the education required to replace
doctors.

These NP/PAs are typically "sold" as doing things that it's too
expensive
for doctors to do, but in my experience many clinics and doctor's groups
use
them as much cheaper direct replacements for licensed MDs. The NP that
my
doctors use didn't impress me at all. She told me things about the meds
she
was prescribing that were just flat out wrong. Her understanding of my
medical issues was weak, to say the least, and I was about to file a
complaint with the medical board when they switched me back to an actual
MD
who had at least 10 years' more experience and education.

Depends on the setting . . .

(translation: if you cherry pick the data)

Not all , Oh Great purveyor of n=1 studies as gospel. Merely, as I went
on to note, they work in some specialties than others. Not really all
surprising.

. . . there is a long line of studies (from at 2000
forward) showing no differences in outcomes between alternate providers
(NPs and PAs) in ambulatory settings. The same has held true for nurse
gas passers and midwives. The outcomes from hospitalist and critical
care isn't as robust.

Which is to say "their professionalism is at issue mostly when the stakes
are high." I'd agree.
Of course that isn't at all what I said. Professionalism has
nothing to do with it. Some place require more intensive education than
others. This is reflected in the relatively longer residencies for docs
in surgery, etc. Although, now that you mention it, I probably should
have elaborated that they aren't as robust largely because NPs are newer
to the area and the long term research hasn't been done yet.



And so your personal experiences (the classic n=1 study) is enough
to make policy on?

Jeez. When did I say or write anything even closely resembling my desire to
let my few personal experiences direct public policy?

Get back with you in a minute on this. You snipped the part I was
responding to and I can't call the old ones up with this window open.
--
³Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive,
but what they conceal is vital.²
‹ Aaron Levenstein

On Tue, 26 May 2015 10:20:30 -0600, Tony Hwang
wrote:

Really our local technical institute is very popular for kids out of
high school. More than 90% gets hired in their trained field vs.
university grads. Blue color jobs are in more demand and it'll be
always. auto mechanics, plumbers, electricians, carpenters, etc.
will have life time career or they can run their own business.

I agree. Many miss that America needs Welders. High pay with training
and effort. Welders are in high demand.

In article ,
"Robert Green" wrote:

to make policy on?

Jeez. When did I say or write anything even closely resembling my desire to
let my few personal experiences direct public policy?

These NP/PAs are typically "sold" as doing things that it's too expensive
for doctors to do, but in**** my experience ****many clinics and
doctor's groups use
them as much cheaper direct replacements for licensed MDs. *** The NP
that my
doctors use didn't impress me at all. She told me things about the meds
she
was prescribing that were just flat out wrong. Her understanding of my
medical issues was weak, to say the least, and I was about to file a
complaint with the medical board when they switched me back to an actual
MD
who had at least 10 years' more experience and education.****

Nothing here about any actual research you had done into the thing, but
heck you are more than willing FROM YOUR EXPERIENCE to suggest that they
are only being used for their cheapness.
--
³Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive,
but what they conceal is vital.²
‹ Aaron Levenstein

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Robert Green" wrote:

to make policy on?

Jeez. When did I say or write anything even closely resembling my
desire to let my few personal experiences "direct public policy?" - a
pretty specific allegation

These NP/PAs are typically "sold" as doing things that it's too expensive
for doctors to do, but in**** my experience ****many clinics and
doctor's groups use
them as much cheaper direct replacements for licensed MDs. ***

OK - I am still waiting for the part where I want to "direct public policy."
I am not sure how you translate my relating my (and my wife's) experience
with nurse practitioners as my somehow wanting to "direct public policy." I
think that's a stretch at least as long as Rosemary Woods made with the
Nixon tapes. (-:

Or is there some issue with my being sad about it? I can't quite see "being
sad" about the shift away from MDs to PA/NPs as a desire to "direct public
policy." Is there any doubt that's the direction medical care in the US is
trending? More PAs and NP's? And that both groups are working very hard to
get greater autonomy and less oversight from doctors?

You'd probably be surprised to learn it's a trend I support in many ways but
it needs to be implemented properly and from what my wife and I have seen
and what we've read about it's often NOT implemented well and patients get
sub-standard care. YMMV.

You're also a nurse, which could color your thinking about nurse
practitioners a tad. I have no such dog is the hunt, only the experience
that my last NP was fighting way above her weight and it showed. As soon as
a doctor got on the case, the problem went away. I also had extensive
discussion with my GP/MD about NPs and he had some serious reservations,
too, about the delta in training and experience.

I've been told (but have not verified) that Medicare *requires* a licensed
MD to be on site at one clinic I visit even though most patient interactions
are with NP's who have narcotic prescribing authority in my state.

As for the studies showing NPs do just as well as MDs: "Physicians say this
study is hardly the last word on the debate. An article published in the
American Medical Association Journal of Ethics early this year said the jury
is still out on whether nurse practitioners are as effective as doctors -
and that previous studies on the topic, including the 2000 JAMA study, were
lacking or incomplete."

http://www.texastribune.org/2010/05/...tor-oversight/

As NPs strive for fewer restrictions and the ability to work independently,
who's to say the outcomes won't change drastically (for the worse) when the
doctor is not present to handle emergency cases? It's quite a contentious
subject in the medical field as I am sure you know. It will be interesting
to see how it shakes out since the need for GP's in the boonies is only
increasing and the supply falling way short of demand.

Still, I think it's a little "hopeful" to think NPs can hope to replace MDs,
even for general practice work. From the same article:

"even the most skilled advanced practice nurses receive just a fraction of
the medical training family practice doctors get - a maximum of 5,300 hours,
compared to doctors' 20,000 hours, according to an analysis by the American
Academy of Family Physicians. And they don't go through grueling residency
programs like doctors do, the physicians say, leaving them less prepared to
handle emergencies or unusual conditions."

Fifteen THOUSAND extra training hours has to mean something, and from what
I've seen, at least *some* NP's aren't up to the tasks they have been
assigned to.

--
Bobby G.

In article ,
"Robert Green" wrote:

You're also a nurse, which could color your thinking about nurse
practitioners a tad. I have no such dog is the hunt, only the experience
that my last NP was fighting way above her weight and it showed. As soon as
a doctor got on the case, the problem went away. I also had extensive
discussion with my GP/MD about NPs and he had some serious reservations,
too, about the delta in training and experience.

I haven't been a nurse for over 10 years now and since I have a lowly
AD degree in nursing it is no skin off my nose.


I've been told (but have not verified) that Medicare *requires* a licensed
MD to be on site at one clinic I visit even though most patient interactions
are with NP's who have narcotic prescribing authority in my state.
Not actually. Those are mostly state requirements and they vary widely
from having a doc to oversee to not.
Medicare pays NPs two ways. If they want to bill under the doc's
MCaid number at 100% of what a doc would get, then the doc has to be on
site (which makes sense). If they bill at the NP rate of 80% of the
docs rates then they don't have to be onsite.



As for the studies showing NPs do just as well as MDs: "Physicians say this
study is hardly the last word on the debate. An article published in the
American Medical Association Journal of Ethics early this year said the jury
is still out on whether nurse practitioners are as effective as doctors -
and that previous studies on the topic, including the 2000 JAMA study, were
lacking or incomplete."

And yet you call MY merely having the initials coloring my thinking?
Heck under that criteria, maybe you should be running in the other
direction screaming. (grin).


As NPs strive for fewer restrictions and the ability to work independently,
who's to say the outcomes won't change drastically (for the worse) when the
doctor is not present to handle emergency cases? It's quite a contentious
subject in the medical field as I am sure you know. It will be interesting
to see how it shakes out since the need for GP's in the boonies is only
increasing and the supply falling way short of demand.
Largely contentious on both sides beause of the money involved.
Also, it is contentious (and deservedly so as I pointed out) in some of
the more specialized areas such as ERs, ICUs, etc. We'll see how the
research works out. In those areas I think there will be a hierarchy
established of what patients/duties the NP can safely undertake.
Much to the chagrine of the NPs, docs call the field (PA and NPs)
physician extenders. I think that will be more of an apt description in
hospital than in the community.



Still, I think it's a little "hopeful" to think NPs can hope to replace MDs,
even for general practice work. From the same article:

"even the most skilled advanced practice nurses receive just a fraction of
the medical training family practice doctors get - a maximum of 5,300 hours,
compared to doctors' 20,000 hours, according to an analysis by the American
Academy of Family Physicians. And they don't go through grueling residency
programs like doctors do, the physicians say, leaving them less prepared to
handle emergencies or unusual conditions."

Which constitute a breathtakingly small percentage of the patient
population (especially in FP situations). As for grueling residencies,
there has been no differences in outcomes between newly minted docs (who
did their residency under an 80 hour week restriction) and docs with 10
years or more experience who did their residencies under the old
essentially unlimited hours experience. (Although to my mind, the most
interesting part was the seeming lack of difference I would expect just
because the older doc has 10 years of experience... but I digress.) You
know if it was any other endeavor, residency would be classified as
hazing.




Fifteen THOUSAND extra training hours has to mean something, and from what
I've seen, at least *some* NP's aren't up to the tasks they have been
assigned to.


Yeah and you haven't ever run into an incompetent doc anywhere.
--
³Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive,
but what they conceal is vital.²
‹ Aaron Levenstein

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message "Robert Green"
wrote:

stuff snipped

These NP/PAs are typically "sold" as doing things that it's too expensive
for doctors to do, but in**** my experience ****many clinics and
doctor's groups use them as much cheaper direct replacements for
licensed MDs. *** The NP that my doctors use didn't impress me at all.
She told me things about the meds she was prescribing that were just flat
out wrong. Her understanding of my medical issues was weak, to say
the least, and I was about to file a complaint with the medical board
when they switched me back to an actual MD who had at least 10 years'
more experience and education.****

Nothing here about any actual research you had done into the thing,

Since when is research required to express an opinion based on my personal
observations and interactions? That's what "in my experience" means.

Nurse Ullman, are you sure you're not all charged up because as a nurse, you
naturally respond on a more personal level than non-nurses to criticism of
your comrades, especially their competency?

you are more than willing FROM YOUR EXPERIENCE to suggest that
they are only being used for their cheapness.

"Only?" From what I actually wrote: "in my experience *MANY* clinics use
them as much cheaper direct replacements for licensed MDs."

If I had meant to say that's the *only* reason they are used, that's what I
would have written. We're talking about my experience in an urban setting
which is very different from the rural world. I know that NP/PAs are
filling a valuable need in rural areas where the free market model fails to
provide adequate general practice medicine. GP MDs couldn't make enough
money to set up rural practices and it was a serious problem, one that
NP/PAs are *poised* to address.

Until recently the jobs that NPs and PAs are doing could ONLY be done by
MDs. You'd have to really bend reality to deny the reason for the existence
of NP/PAs is primarily an economic one. That makes "cheapness" just a part
of the package and impossible to avoid when talking about NP and PAs.

Big clinics, especially urban and M/Care/Aid ones, are coming more and more
to depend on NP/PAs for a majority of staffing, having only one on-call MD
there to cover 100's of patients. At least based on what I've seen and
read. Citations to be compiled later today when I am at my desk. (-:

Historically NP/PAs were VERY restricted in their duties. Many had no or
very little prescribing authority. Many states require that they work under
close supervision of a sponsor doctor, etc. Doctors, as you can imagine,
are not very excited about a new class of cheaper workers taking the jobs
that they once had legally exclusive rights to.

The problem is that NP/PA rates are cheaper for a reason. They typically
have 1/4 of the training of an MD. In the case of my NP, far less. Worse,
still she appeared to have no certification of substance in her field.

I actually did quite a lot of research about NPs when preparing my
complaint. This was the first NP I've run into that wouldn't escalate my
concerns to an MD and who was just flat out wrong about a number of pretty
well-established medical facts. I am perfectly willing to believe this NO
was an exception, because I've worked with plenty of other NPs without
incident or concern.

I find a world of difference between a medical professional that admits they
don't know something and have to look it up and those that *think* they know
something, but what they know is wrong.

There are some fascinating cases on file that I came across while
researching NP's in pain clinics. One of the real dark sides of NPs is
their growing use to run pain pill mills. A nurse practitioner is hurt far
less by a suspension of their license (or more often their narcotic
prescribing authority) than an MD would be. I'll try to find some of those
cases since you're so interested in how I got to my opinions about NP/PAs.

--
Bobby G.

"Robert Green" writes:
"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message "Robert Green"
wrote:

stuff snipped

These NP/PAs are typically "sold" as doing things that it's too expensive
for doctors to do, but in**** my experience ****many clinics and
doctor's groups use them as much cheaper direct replacements for
licensed MDs. *** The NP that my doctors use didn't impress me at all.
She told me things about the meds she was prescribing that were just flat
out wrong. Her understanding of my medical issues was weak, to say
the least, and I was about to file a complaint with the medical board
when they switched me back to an actual MD who had at least 10 years'
more experience and education.****

Nothing here about any actual research you had done into the thing,

Since when is research required to express an opinion based on my personal
observations and interactions? That's what "in my experience" means.

Expressing an opinion, and drawing a conclusion are two different
things. You could have described your experience(s) with an NP
and nobody would complain. Applying those experiences to NP's a
a whole, well that's drawing a conclusion on a surfeit of fact.