S/he is a pathetic lout; no question about it.

India is not a signatory of the UN non-proliferation treaty, so their is no irrational concern. Proliferation does not just mean spreading to other countries, it means increasing their own capacity without over site and outside the rules of the UN treaty.

USINPAC actively lobbied for passage of the US-India Nuclear Cooperation Promotion Act of 2006.

“USINPAC has worked tirelessly since the agreement was announced last July to secure support in both the House and Senate for the civil nuclear agreement.”

How does a nuclear agreement with India serve the interests of Indian-Americans?

This is a ridiculous distinction. By making no exception to the statement it is in fact importing itself “at all costs.” It’s saying if its cheaper overseas, don’t do it here. In response to you, I said there are plenty of people who would make those exceptions. That’s hardly a non sequitor.

What do you want me to say, $52.23? I’ve told you what the priorities need to be, fund them. The alternative is the GOP charter schools solution which, as Minnesota is proving, is failing academically.

It doesn’t. It also doesn’t say “at all costs” as you import.

You just make it up as you go along, don’t you?

What amount of money is enough?

Where does the statement make the *SOME* distinction you import? The problem with the statement is its overbreadth. You asked for an economist that would disagree, I said economists would contest that “cheaper” is sufficient for it to “make sense” to support off-shoring. Your defense actually is my argument.

Salaries are low because districts have budgets. If you need X teachers, and your budget is Y, the salaries are set. You can’t complain about quality of teachers and not be willing to compete with the market place to get that quality.

“The city of Minneapolis spends over $15,000 per student per year. This is between $4000 and $6000 more per student per year than the state average. Yet, Minneapolis graduates fewer than half of its students.”

Yes, because Minneapolis has: (1) higher labor costs; (2) higher land/maintenance costs; (3) more diverse socio-economic issues to deal with and (3) needs to spend on things like security that out-state or more rural districts don’t have to. It’s silly to compare the per student costs of an urban school district with those of a rural district and then say “AH HA, look, there’s no correlation between funding and achievement” This is basic statistics.

Nothing about this: “When a good or service is produced more cheaply abroad, it makes more sense to import it than to make or provide it domestically” says “at all costs.

Moreover: “a race to the bottom in terms of environmental protections, labor rights, and U.S. economic health.” is non sequitor to the issue of whether or not importing some goods and services created more cheaply elsewhere has value.

You’re a blooming idiot, PD.

Interesting. The jobs are union scale, so exempt from most forces of the labor market. Also, if they are low, it is because there is a glut of qualified teachers, not a scarcity. If there were fewer, pay would increase… this is observed keenly in the market for math and science teachers… special rules allow those teachers to be paid more.

The city of Minneapolis spends over $15,000 per student per year. This is between $4000 and $6000 more per student per year than the state average. Yet, Minneapolis graduates fewer than half of its students.

The district spends millions on unqualified superintendents and administrators, refuses to close un-used facilities, and refuses to be accountable to the parents, the taxpayers or the needs of students.

How much money is enough?

Yes, and I actually know what it means unlike you. That there are economists that would say “importing cheapest at all costs is bad” is directly responsive to the statement that we should always import it if we can get its cheaper overseas.

Investing in schools (money) is precisely what needs to happen. Teacher salaries need to be more attractive to create competition for the jobs, crumbling infrastructures need improvement, investment needs to be made into new curriculum and technology, and funding needs to be increased to actually support schools that are failing in standardized testing.

Can you say non sequitor?

It’s actually the president’s defense of off-shoring jobs within his 2003 Economic Report of the President. That said, there are plenty of economists that would dispute the value of a race to the bottom in terms of environmental protections, labor rights, and U.S. economic health. Do I think all out-sourcing is bad? No. But, you can’t tell me the GOP is always putting U.S. workers ahead of foreign workers. They don’t.

Just say uncle.

They’re adequately supported. They’re inadequately performing, largely because education and learning are not the emphasis of where money and time are spent in public schools.

“It’s typically democrats that seek to improve that situation and are opposed to issuing unfunded mandates to test the fact that the underfunded schools are failing.”

Funny, because nearly all of the unfunded mandates were written by Democrats — including NCLB, which was authored by Ted Kennedy. Throwing more money at it won’t fix education. Democrats oppose every meaningful proposal for improving any situation in public schools.

You’re a joke PD.

Hey grammar wiz.. that would be UNITED STATES Nuclear Proliferation, not INDIAN nuclear proliferation.

The irrational concern is people’s belief India would proliferate the technology… that would be the INDIAN nuclear proliferation. USINPAC obviously doesn’t support that, and its fear mongering to import that on that group.

That seems to profess the value of imports, not outsourcing. And seriously, can you find a single economist to dispute that quote?

There’s also nothing xenophobic about that.

Bottom line is — who gives a shit about unions — the issue is jobs and workers. Or do you seriously believe that the only jobs worth an elected official’s time are those jobs that are unionized?

Does the Bush administration count?
“When a good or service is produced more cheaply abroad, it makes more sense to import it than to make or provide it domestically”

“Interesting point… particularly since public education is abjectly failing to prepare our kids for these fields.”

Your point? I’ll agree public schools are not adequately supported to meet the needs of the future. It’s typically democrats that seek to improve that situation and are opposed to issuing unfunded mandates to test the fact that the underfunded schools are failing.

You said (and I quote): “The post is xenophobic in that it clearly shows a unwarranted fear of foreign influence and immigration. Case in point, that it supports Indian proliferation.”

You clearly put “indian proliferation” into the context of immigration, and further never returned to nuclear. If anyone misread (or failed to read) anything, it is you, imbecile. .

Second of all, proliferation doesn’t mean that India would ship nuclear parts. It means that some are concerned, reasonably, about proliferation of nuclear technology to India (and Pakistan, and Iran, etc.) — and USINPAC has very clear mission objectives to advance the proliferation of nuclear technology TO India…

There’s nothing xenophobic about expressing concern about that.

Seriously, why don’t you accept the fact that you’re drooling stupid.

Those are their stated goals.

It was xenophobic because it ascribed an irrational and false policy position to a PAC that represents an immigration population for the purpose of flaming fear of that PAC. How about accepting the fact that you just misinterpreted the statement?

It was very clear you were not talking about nuclear proliferation.

Name one Republican who ever said that.

“The economy needs more high tech workers, why the hell not let them in?”

Interesting point… particularly since public education is abjectly failing to prepare our kids for these fields.

“who cares what I think”

Also VERY VERY well said.

Yes, because what I was talking about was Indian’s multiplying themselves everywhere. Idiot. Clearly I was talking about an unwarranted claim that USINPAC supports allowing India to ship nuclear crap everywhere.

Why the hell do you vote Republican then? It’s republicans that trumpet the value of out-sourcing. Honestly, I PERSONALLY am more interested in looking out for the value to the U.S. economy whether or not that hurts a particular U.S. worker balanced against a desire for there not to be a race to the bottom in terms of subsidies, labor regulations, and environmental protections. The economy needs more high tech workers, why the hell not let them in? Then again, I’m not running for Congress so who cares what I think.

LMAO!!!! You gotta read, you dummy. The bullet point said “Indian NUCLEAR proliferation.”

Holy Jeebus, you are one very dumb dem.

You’ve got to be kidding me. What I’m showing is Madia’s hypocrisy in his claim to not taking corporate PAC money when he takes money from a PAC that clearly represents the corporate interests of a foreign country.

I would hope a US congressman would support American workers over the workers from his country of origin. Wouldn’t you? To admit that you actually expect the opposite is bizarre.

But go ahead and play the race card, if that’s all you got.

If you take this stance, you have to also take the stance that Paulsen has allowed himself to be “bought” by Big Oil, Big Insurance, and Big Financials.

Madia has to live with the fact he took money from an Indian-American lobby group. That at least provides some indication of what support he’s willing to take. Paulsen also has to live with who he takes money from and he needs to defend whether Big Oil’s interests, for example, are aligned with the interests of CD3. If you think they are, then he’s your guy.

The relevance to this discussion, however, I think is limited to how (if he does) Paulsen could end up with more money. Likely answer: he’s willing to take it from more groups.

How did we arrive at what _I_ support? I’m saying the guy is Indian-American. Not a shock he MIGHT support some Indian-American issues. If he’s Iranian-American, he might support some Iranian-American issues. You know what you’re getting. If you can’t support someone who’s Indian, or Iranian, or whatever, then that’s your call.

He wasn’t spending campaign money to do either. My statement was mainly directed at COH issues. Madia was in the midst of an endorsement battle that required spending money. It would be fairly shocking if he comes out anywhere near Paulsen’s COH.

If there is a disparity in fund-raising itself, then I think you have to ask why. And, one answer is that he’s not taking a lot of corproate PAC money.

And Master of None: It’s Xenophobic because Plymouth Dem was proven wrong once again and had no more made up facts to spread. It’s like you’ve never met a liberal before!

That point aside, I’m struggling to see how opening US markets to indian IT professionals is a threat to unions–IT workers are hardly heavily unionized, those that are within CWA whose industries aren’t heavily theatened by software geeks in India writing code.

I also don’t see how H-1B visas are anti-union. These aren’t particularly heavily unionized positions.

Now, that said, to the extent USINPAC differs with unions, fine, Madia has to live with it. The guy is Indian-American, it’s not shocking he’s going to support some Indian-American issues. You know what you are getting.

But, if you are going to complain about that contradiction, Paulsen needs to live with how his support by Big Oil, Big Banks, and Big Insurance may not align with the interests of consumers. You don’t get it both ways. I’d be more comfortable explaining away USINPac o VoteVets than I would trying to explain away why I’m taking money from Exxon/Mobile.

… that goodness he isn’t Iranian then. If so, PlymouthDem would support the urge to support elimination of security protocols for travelers from Iran and to support Iranian nuclear proliferation.

MON has a great point. How can a guy who says he’s “for workers” allow himself to be bought by a group who wishes to further outsource American jobs.

Xenophobic? What in my post is xenophobic?

Clearly I don’t think that since it’s clear that corporations agree with Paulsen’s views. It’s not a corporate PAC if it’s not a CORPORATION.

Nor have I taken a position on whether corporate PAC money is necessarily bad. I’ve only said that it almost certainly will result in Paulsen out-raising Madia. When you are willing to take money from anyone, you naturally will have more money flow to you than if you decide you don’t want to accept money from certain groups–especially when those groups are Big Oil, Insurance companies, and Financial institutions.

It is, however. distinct to take money from political party PACs vs. corporate PACs. As for USINPAC, your xenophobic response aside, it’s not exactly shocking he would take money from them considering he himself is Indian American.

Opening US markets to Indian IT companies.
Eliminating the cap on H-1B Visas.
Indian nuclear proliferation.

You’re right, it’s not a corporate PAC, it’s a foreign government PAC

the BS just keeps oozing out….

Based on Q1 numbers, the difference between the candidates was fairly stark:
$146,500 for Paulsen
$21,750 for Madia

I suspect that gap will be significant since Madia had indicated he was not going to seek corporate PAC dollars.

All of Madia’s PAC money (at least based on is Q1 numbers) came from the likes of VoteVets, USINPAC, or DNC party PACs etc., as compared to say, the Hotel and Lodging industry, mutual funds, construction firms, energy firms, oil companies, insurance companies, and banks that largely make up Paulsen’s PAC money.

I think the difference is noteworthy.

Excuse me?

http://www.usinpac.com/ia_ashwin.asp#Quote

That said, I highly doubt he’s going to have Sarvi numbers, but, I wouldn’t exactly be shocked if he doesn’t come in shy, if not well shy of Paulsen. Madia was still in the midst of an endorsement battle at the beginning of the quarter whereas Paulsen was sitting back collecting traditional republican PAC money with no need to really be spending anything.

I’m also guessing Madia’s campaign may have found it more difficult raising cash shying away from PAC money since individual contributors may find Q2 to be a bit early to be dumping money into a general election campaign.

That of course isn’t to take anything away from Paulsen. It was a good quarter for him and he’s shown that he can tap into the traditional GOP money bags. But, I think the real test comes when people start polling the race and how the money flows in response to both those polls and people beginning to feel like the general is finally on the horizon.

It’s also worth pointing out that this discussion may not amount to much. Paulsen certainly didn’t blow the doors off the fundraising train. Madia is almost certainly going to be within striking distance whatever he does, and, he ran his endorsement race wildly less funded than Bonoff.

I guess we’ll see when he announces.

A good two-fer!

Good Job Erik!

I suspect that within a month, we’ll see a headline that reads: “Obama embraces flip flops on myriad of issues”