Have the democrats shifted left?

[krazen1211]

Yep. Check out education spending and the number of teachers in 1960, 1970, 1980, 1990, 2000, and 2008.


Each decade more and more and more of the private sector is bitten off and gifted to the unions to gift back to the Democratic party, because the Democratic party politicos spew nonsense about how we need student:teacher ratios to decline significantly from where they were 10 years prior.

[krazen1211]

Yep. Check out education spending and the number of teachers in 1960, 1970, 1980, 1990, 2000, and 2008.


Each decade more and more and more of the private sector is bitten off and gifted to the unions to gift back to the Democratic party, because the Democratic party politicos spew nonsense about how we need student:teacher ratios to decline significantly from where they were 10 years prior.

Seriously? You're basing a theory of Democratic leftward swing on education spending? And you're calling the student:teacher ratio nonsense? And do you even pay attention to where more spending comes from these days (hint: it's not unions)?

Seriously, you just made a bunch of bull up.

It is of course no coincidence that the nation somehow grew by roughly 600,000 teachers between 1970 and 1995 while the student population declined!

[krazen1211]

Yep. Check out education spending and the number of teachers in 1960, 1970, 1980, 1990, 2000, and 2008.


Each decade more and more and more of the private sector is bitten off and gifted to the unions to gift back to the Democratic party, because the Democratic party politicos spew nonsense about how we need student:teacher ratios to decline significantly from where they were 10 years prior.

Are you in fact aware that political issues other than this one and whatever populist claptrap du jour may catch your attention exist at all?

Well, the Democrats have also succeeded in growing government health care spending at far faster rates than inflation, population growth, GDP growth, or whatever metric you choose.

Here in New Jersey the Democrats succeeded in doubling state government spending and state debt between 1999 and 2008. They didn't just go left; they fell off the map.


Indeed, here is one of my favorite charts. It is truly amazing how much compensation the teachers unions managed to acquire in a short 17 years!

http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d10/tables/dt10_188.asp?referrer=list

[krazen1211]

Krazen, even without the effects of teacher unions, one should expect that teacher salaries would rise faster than average salaries.  Females have a far wider choice of professions these days than they once did.  Hence the supply of potential teachers is down.  You might wish to return to the days of the 1950s when teaching was one of the few professions an educated woman could aspire to, but it ain't gonna happen.

Well, that is a funny theory, I suppose, but given that the supply of teachers declined between 1970 and 1995, one wonders what sort of Spartan madness led to the hiring of 600,000 excess teachers rather than merely maintaining the existing stock of teachers.

Of course, the voters no longer tolerate the bolded. Mathematics also does not tolerate the bolded as the states no longer have the money to pay such astronomical compensation. If the salary of an individual teacher is going to continue to go up the quantity of teachers will finally begin to decline slowly back to 1990 levels.

[krazen1211]

Yep. Check out education spending and the number of teachers in 1960, 1970, 1980, 1990, 2000, and 2008.


Each decade more and more and more of the private sector is bitten off and gifted to the unions to gift back to the Democratic party, because the Democratic party politicos spew nonsense about how we need student:teacher ratios to decline significantly from where they were 10 years prior.

Are you in fact aware that political issues other than this one and whatever populist claptrap du jour may catch your attention exist at all?

Well, the Democrats have also succeeded in growing government health care spending at far faster rates than inflation, population growth, GDP growth, or whatever metric you choose.

Here in New Jersey the Democrats succeeded in doubling state government spending and state debt between 1999 and 2008. They didn't just go left; they fell off the map.


Indeed, here is one of my favorite charts. It is truly amazing how much compensation the teachers unions managed to acquire in a short 17 years!

http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d10/tables/dt10_188.asp?referrer=list

No the Republicans in NJ did have the Governors Mansion from 1999-2001 (well 1994-2001) before the Dems took it over from 2002-2009. The Dem Legislature has worked well with Christie  though since he took over as Governor in 2010.

Well, it is certainly true that Christie Whitman is a vile and horrid ex governor, yes. But the fastest rate of government spending growth occurred under McGreevey.

[krazen1211]

Yep. Check out education spending and the number of teachers in 1960, 1970, 1980, 1990, 2000, and 2008.


Each decade more and more and more of the private sector is bitten off and gifted to the unions to gift back to the Democratic party, because the Democratic party politicos spew nonsense about how we need student:teacher ratios to decline significantly from where they were 10 years prior.

Are you in fact aware that political issues other than this one and whatever populist claptrap du jour may catch your attention exist at all?

Well, the Democrats have also succeeded in growing government health care spending at far faster rates than inflation, population growth, GDP growth, or whatever metric you choose.

Here in New Jersey the Democrats succeeded in doubling state government spending and state debt between 1999 and 2008. They didn't just go left; they fell off the map.


Indeed, here is one of my favorite charts. It is truly amazing how much compensation the teachers unions managed to acquire in a short 17 years!

http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d10/tables/dt10_188.asp?referrer=list

No the Republicans in NJ did have the Governors Mansion from 1999-2001 (well 1994-2001) before the Dems took it over from 2002-2009. The Dem Legislature has worked well with Christie  though since he took over as Governor in 2010.

Well, it is certainly true that Christie Whitman is a vile and horrid ex governor, yes. But the fastest rate of government spending growth occurred under McGreevey.

I don't know about vile and horrid. She did have a good first term but her second term wasn't as good as her first. She did make a couple mistakes like the tax cut and going into the pension fund to balance the budget in 1997 I think? The rate of spending that went on under McGreevey I thought continued under Corzine?

Basically, yep.

Whitman and DiFrancesco and the NJ Republicans spearheaded legislation in 2001 to artificially boost public sector pensions in a desperate attempt to cling to the legislature. It didn't work as they lost the legislature anyway. That artificial pension boost was rolled back by Chris Christie.

McGreevey boosted spending by so much that he had to use borrowing to fund operating expenses, and of course raided state transportation and unemployment funds. That was ruled illegal by the New Jersey Supreme Court, but since the NJSC is a hack destructive organization, they let him do it anyway.

Corzine didn't actually do quite so bad; in 2006 and 2007 he continued to increase spending but he was kind of screwed by McGreevey. He wasn't willing to fight the NJEA, so he stuck it hard to the private sector taxpayers instead.

[krazen1211]

Yep. Check out education spending and the number of teachers in 1960, 1970, 1980, 1990, 2000, and 2008.


Each decade more and more and more of the private sector is bitten off and gifted to the unions to gift back to the Democratic party, because the Democratic party politicos spew nonsense about how we need student:teacher ratios to decline significantly from where they were 10 years prior.

Seriously? You're basing a theory of Democratic leftward swing on education spending? And you're calling the student:teacher ratio nonsense? And do you even pay attention to where more spending comes from these days (hint: it's not unions)?

Seriously, you just made a bunch of bull up.

It is of course no coincidence that the nation somehow grew by roughly 600,000 teachers between 1970 and 1995 while the student population declined!

I didn't make anything up; you've been the one talking about how the student: teacher ratio is nonsense. How is it nonsense?

And do you deny that corporations spend more on politics (both sides) than unions do these days?

Either way, I can't understand how you're inferring a complete left-ward swing based on those too factors, one of which is completely false.

You misunderstand: The student teacher ratio isn't nonsense. It's a number.

What is nonsense is the idea that we have to keep decreasing it for no reason at all other than to payoff some union profiteers. Merely maintaining historical student:teacher ratios present in, say, 1990, would allow the nation to finally shed hundreds of thousands of unnecessary teachers who take valuable tax revenue.

[krazen1211]

Here are some amazing facts:

http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d10/tables/dt10_068.asp


Student enrollment in 1970: 45,894,000
Student enrollment in 1995: 44,840,000


Teachers employed in 1970: 2,059,000
Teachers employed in 1995: 2,598,000



It's barely conceivable how 25 years of technological advancement can lead to such a massive, rampant decline in labor productivity. Of course in the private sector this would not be tolerated.