From the "No ****"dept. - Schwarzenegger declares fiscal crisis

[pseudobrit]

link (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=7&u=/ap/20031218/ap_on_re_us/california_budget_11)

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger declared California in a fiscal crisis Thursday and invoked emergency powers so he could impose $150 million in spending cuts without the Legislature's approval.

"I had to do this," Schwarzenegger said at a news conference announcing the move.

The cuts, expected to come from social service programs, free up money for city and county governments that have lost more than $300 million since the governor voided an unpopular tripling of the state's car tax.

Whoopsy.

[mactastic]

Who would have thought California's budget problem was more complicated than a sound bite made it seem? I thought Da Governator was going to come in and clean up Sacramento! Guess that kind of tidy resolution only happens in the movies....

[mactastic]

Among the cuts announced so far are a .5-percent drop in support for the University of California and California State University systems,

Great, so my car tax goes down and my school fees go up. But hey, Arnold can say he cut taxes, and that's all that counts these days.

[mactastic]

Can you imagine what republicans would have said if Davis had pulled something like this?:D

[Frohickey]

If Davis pulled something like what?

GOP has been trying to get spending cut, and they are the only ones putting the brakes on for higher taxes in California.

Taxes are high in California, and you have had businesses leave California because of that. Not to mention, all the regulations imposed on businesses by California, its a wonder that Apple is still in California.

I remember during the rolling blackouts. No one was sure if their experiments was gonna run overnight, and they would need to start it back up. Made for slow work.

[mactastic]

No, businesses leave California because of the high cost of living here. California actually ranks 19th in overall tax burden. (http://www.thedesertsun.com/news/stories2003/state/20030901022152.shtml). Doesn't matter how many times you claim that taxes here are out of the ordinary, it doesn't make it true!;)

[IJ Reilly]

Businesses make locational decisions based on much more then taxes, but that doesn't stop business and their lobbyists from pushing that story. Just another special interest trying to get what they want.

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by mactastic
No, businesses leave California because of the high cost of living here. California actually ranks 19th in overall tax burden. (http://www.thedesertsun.com/news/stories2003/state/20030901022152.shtml). Doesn't matter how many times you claim that taxes here are out of the ordinary, it doesn't make it true!;)

You say its 19th... I say its 4th (http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxfreedomday.html).
Or if you exclude federal taxes, its 8th (http://www.taxfoundation.org/statelocal03.html).

[IJ Reilly]

Originally posted by Frohickey
You say its 19th... I say its 4th (http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxfreedomday.html).
Or if you exclude federal taxes, its 8th (http://www.taxfoundation.org/statelocal03.html).

Why would anybody include Federal taxes in these figures? Does the state have any control whatsoever over the collection of Federal taxes? Why are fees excluded?

[vwcruisn]

being a california resident, i didnt want to pay the high car tax anymore than the next guy. but i realized it was something that had to be done and paid the fees without complaining. now arnold steps in and it looks like i am going to get a refund check. i should be happy right? being a poor college student, i REALLY couldnt afford this increase, but I managed to do so. If i could do it, anyone can. So now i get a refund check.. but at what cost to my state? Important programs are getting cut, college students are getting screwed, the poor are getting poorer and the rich are getting richer. What else is new. It was a sad day (and embarassing day i might add) when the governor of my state, that I elected, was recalled for bogus reasons, and a nazi (ok, nazis son) was put into place. Wake up people... get a clue and think before you act. Is that so much to ask?

[mactastic]

Originally posted by vwcruisn
being a california resident, i didnt want to pay the high car tax anymore than the next guy. but i realized it was something that had to be done and paid the fees without complaining. now arnold steps in and it looks like i am going to get a refund check. i should be happy right? being a poor college student, i REALLY couldnt afford this increase, but I managed to do so. If i could do it, anyone can. So now i get a refund check.. but at what cost to my state? Important programs are getting cut, college students are getting screwed, the poor are getting poorer and the rich are getting richer. What else is new. It was a sad day (and embarassing day i might add) when the governor of my state, that I elected, was recalled for bogus reasons, and a nazi (ok, nazis son) was put into place. Wake up people... get a clue and think before you act. Is that so much to ask?

If you are a CSU or UC student, hang on to that refund check, you will need it to pay the increased fees at school.

[mactastic]

Originally posted by Frohickey
You say its 19th... I say its 4th (http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxfreedomday.html).
Or if you exclude federal taxes, its 8th (http://www.taxfoundation.org/statelocal03.html).

You have to include fees though. Many states hide lower taxation rates through the use of higher fees. Or do you not see paying for a building permit to be a tax on your home building?

[IJ Reilly]

Originally posted by mactastic
You have to include fees though. Many states hide lower taxation rates through the use of higher fees. Or do you not see paying for a building permit to be a tax on your home building?

The so-called "car tax" is in reality the "vehicle license fee." So if it didn't count as taxation in the first place, maybe cutting it didn't lower California's tax burden after all. I didn't realize it, but taxation is an existential subject, because reality is nothing more then a matter of the words we use to describe it. I tell you, I learn something new around here nearly every day.

[vwcruisn]

Originally posted by mactastic
If you are a CSU or UC student, hang on to that refund check, you will need it to pay the increased fees at school.

thats awesome... didnt shwarzaneger specifically say he would NOT touch education under any circumstances? Way to start off arnie.. keep up the good work.

To everyone that voted for him... thanks a lot!

[g5man]

I don't understand you guys at all. In other threads you cry and cry about how bad the national deficit is under Bush. Arnold starts cutting some programs in order to pay for vital services and the only solution you can come up with is higher taxes. So basically what I am reading is that deficits are wrong and the only way to deal with them is not to cut spending but increase taxes.

And you wonder why the GOP is getting more recruits every day.

[Taft]

Originally posted by g5man
And you wonder why the GOP is getting more recruits every day.

Ok, ok! We get it!! You think that the GOP is going to win the next set of elections in a landslide. You think the GOP is gaining members in droves and the Dems. are losing members even faster.

Its like you are engaging in your own little propoganda campaign.

Step 1: Find all the news favorable to the GOP and post the bits ad nauseam.
Step 2: Ignore all news unfavorable to the GOP.
Step 3: Find stupidity in the Democratic party and say "this is why the party is going down the crapper."
Step 4: Insert offhand remarks into all posts reiterating how your position is correct.


This apparent strategy of yours is quite insideous. A person who only looked to you as a source of information would get a very skewed perspective of the world. I liken the technique to Ann Coulter's. They are both disgusting.

Taft

[g5man]

taft,

Why don't you reply to the other part of my post. Just ignore the part that gets to you, since emotion gets into the way.

Do you favor that Arnold increase taxes? I can answer the for you and simply say yes you do.

[Taft]

Originally posted by g5man
I don't understand you guys at all. In other threads you cry and cry about how bad the national deficit is under Bush. Arnold starts cutting some programs in order to pay for vital services and the only solution you can come up with is higher taxes. So basically what I am reading is that deficits are wrong and the only way to deal with them is not to cut spending but increase taxes.

Please define "vital services." Where does education stand next to your "vital services?"

I may be wasting my time trying to argue a nuanced point with you (I hope that reinforces your opinion of liberals as elitest snobs :rolleyes: ), but it isn't a binary decision. It doesn't have to be: cut services or raise taxes.

California was ground zero for the dot com bubble bursting. Its economy was hit hard by the events of the last 5 years. This contributed to the state's financial problems. Therefore rebuilding business in the state might lead to long-term benefits to the state's finances. This is but one example of an area that can be explored to acheive long term benefits.

Cuts in services (esp. education) may actually have a long-term negative effect on the state economy. It isn't clear cut that they will, but I share others concerns that the cuts are being made in the wrong area and that the idea of cutting taxes is even further off the mark.

Taft

[Taft]

Originally posted by g5man
taft,

Why don't you reply to the other part of my post. Just ignore the part that gets to you, since emotion gets into the way.

Do you favor that Arnold increase taxes? I can answer the for you and simply say yes you do.

I did reply to you. [see above]

The reason I responded to that particular remark in your post is that the remark is designed to mislead and incite emotion. It has nothing to do with the topic at hand and only furthers your own twisted agenda.

Given the nature of this topic (ie. cutting services targetting the poor), I could pepper my posts with offhanded remarks about conservatives lack of compassion, their overwhelming greed and desire to help big business, how if they aren't careful they will lose the next election big time, etc., etc., etc. But I don't. Why? Because its offtopic. Because its disingenuous. Because its a stereotype. Because its propoganda without basis in statistics or fact.

I take issue with your tactics. I cannot pass up the opportunity to comment on them.

Taft

[g5man]

You have much more time than I and you type much faster.

I take it that education is close to your heart and there is nothing wrong with that. I do believe in education for it is the only way for someone to get ahead as far as I am concerned. Just because Arnold makes some small cuts does not mean the system will fall apart or that all conservative don't care about education.

It is hard to argue this issue, but from what I read in the paper this morning the cuts he made are minor and in areas that are not necessarily vital.

Personally I would rather have a policeman available instead of some obscure program in a department at some university getting the funds to do research in order to give some intern or graduate assistant a job for the summer.

[g5man]

Originally posted by Taft


Step 1: Find all the news favorable to the GOP and post the bits ad nauseam.
Step 2: Ignore all news unfavorable to the GOP.
Step 3: Find stupidity in the Democratic party and say "this is why the party is going down the crapper."
Step 4: Insert offhand remarks into all posts reiterating how your position is correct.




Step 1, I don't have to look for it since I see it in the news everyday.

Step 2 I can not ignore bad news since I see it in the news everyday. You guys make sure I read it 2 times.

Step 3, I never said the Democratic party is stupid. I just pointed out that their message and method is not helping them.

Step 4, I do need to stop doing that. I am sorry.:)

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by vwcruisn
being a california resident, i didnt want to pay the high car tax anymore than the next guy. but i realized it was something that had to be done and paid the fees without complaining. now arnold steps in and it looks like i am going to get a refund check. i should be happy right? being a poor college student, i REALLY couldnt afford this increase, but I managed to do so. If i could do it, anyone can. So now i get a refund check.. but at what cost to my state? Important programs are getting cut, college students are getting screwed, the poor are getting poorer and the rich are getting richer. What else is new. It was a sad day (and embarassing day i might add) when the governor of my state, that I elected, was recalled for bogus reasons, and a nazi (ok, nazis son) was put into place. Wake up people... get a clue and think before you act. Is that so much to ask?

If you don't want your car tax refund, I'll take it. ;)

Why don't you apply your car tax refund to your college fee increase and call it a day?

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by IJ Reilly
The so-called "car tax" is in reality the "vehicle license fee." So if it didn't count as taxation in the first place, maybe cutting it didn't lower California's tax burden after all. I didn't realize it, but taxation is an existential subject, because reality is nothing more then a matter of the words we use to describe it. I tell you, I learn something new around here nearly every day.

I think we are mincing words here.

The Vehicle License Fee (VLF) is considered a property tax on cars. You can actually use the VLF portion of your car registration fee in your Form 1040 and deduct it. It might be called a Vehicle License Fee, but its a car tax, or a property tax on cars.

Tax increases require a supermajority in the California Legislature.

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by g5man
I don't understand you guys at all. In other threads you cry and cry about how bad the national deficit is under Bush. Arnold starts cutting some programs in order to pay for vital services and the only solution you can come up with is higher taxes. So basically what I am reading is that deficits are wrong and the only way to deal with them is not to cut spending but increase taxes.

And you wonder why the GOP is getting more recruits every day.

Haven't you been paying attention?

Republicans have never met a tax cut they did not like.
Democrats have never met a spending increase they did not like.

Dunno, but I like tax cuts, and I like spending cuts. Thats my money the government is taking for their spending. I know of better ways to spend my money than they do.

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by Taft
California was ground zero for the dot com bubble bursting. Its economy was hit hard by the events of the last 5 years. This contributed to the state's financial problems. Therefore rebuilding business in the state might lead to long-term benefits to the state's finances. This is but one example of an area that can be explored to acheive long term benefits.

Taft [/B]

Actually, you state the facts but did not supply the numbers.

The problem in California has been diagnosed as a 28% increase in revenue (during the dot com bubble), and a 36% increase in spending. Even if the dot com bubble did not burst, the 36% increase in spending would have caught up with us.

With the dot com bust, its magnified even more.

[Rower_CPU]

Originally posted by Frohickey
If you don't want your car tax refund, I'll take it. ;)

Why don't you apply your car tax refund to your college fee increase and call it a day?

Because the tuition fee increase is likely to be larger than the savings from the VLF reduction.

edit: On my campus they are already discussing what is going to take place over the next fiscal year. The situation doesn't look great.

From what I've heard, it comes down to releasing lecturers and cutting classes, or raising student fees...again. Either way, you've got less education for your tuition.

[IJ Reilly]

Originally posted by Frohickey
I think we are mincing words here.

What do you mean "we," kemosabe? I'm not the one trying to make a distinction without a difference.

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by IJ Reilly
What do you mean "we," kemosabe? I'm not the one trying to make a distinction without a difference.

You are the one calling the VLF a fee because that is what it is being called, as opposed to what it really is.

[IJ Reilly]

Originally posted by Frohickey
You are the one calling the VLF a fee because that is what it is being called, as opposed to what it really is.

Man, are you ever missing the point! I don't care what it's called, we pay it just the same. This issue only came up because you were arguing that it somehow makes sense to exclude "fees" in a calculation the total tax burden. I asked you to explain the logic behind this, but you didn't respond.

[mactastic]

Originally posted by Frohickey
If you don't want your car tax refund, I'll take it. ;)

Why don't you apply your car tax refund to your college fee increase and call it a day?

Because it's disingenuous to call it a "tax cut" and claim that political spotlight while at the same time your actions cause other "taxes" to rise. Would you be happy if we said "Take your Bush tax cut and use it to pay for national health care and call it a day."? How are my taxes going down if that's what happens?

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by mactastic
Because it's disingenuous to call it a "tax cut" and claim that political spotlight while at the same time your actions cause other "taxes" to rise. Would you be happy if we said "Take your Bush tax cut and use it to pay for national health care and call it a day."? How are my taxes going down if that's what happens?

It's worse than that though. It's more like "take your Bush 'tax cut' and use it to pay for the increased cost of food, heating and housing."

The states have had to hit back with fees to cover the shortfalls caused by the Bush tax cuts. Otherwise they'd be covered by the national tax base.

Now that Arnold has undone one of those fees, the individual departments have lost their state level funding. Otherwise they'd be covered by the statewide tax base.

Now those departments are having to impose fees at an individual level in order to remain in operation.

It's a classic case of passing the buck.

No one wants to charge you (make you pay tax) and be unpopular, but ultimately someone will charge you because we need to have a functioning government.

[Cogar]

Originally posted by Frohickey
Haven't you been paying attention?

Republicans have never met a tax cut they did not like.
Democrats have never met a spending increase they did not like.

Dunno, but I like tax cuts, and I like spending cuts. Thats my money the government is taking for their spending. I know of better ways to spend my money than they do.
Agreed. The government has a very bad track record when it comes to spending our money efficiently.

Originally posted by Frohickey
Actually, you state the facts but did not supply the numbers.

The problem in California has been diagnosed as a 28% increase in revenue (during the dot com bubble), and a 36% increase in spending. Even if the dot com bubble did not burst, the 36% increase in spending would have caught up with us.

With the dot com bust, its magnified even more.
True. Increased revenue will not solve any problem resulting from a lack of discipline.

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by mactastic
Because it's disingenuous to call it a "tax cut" and claim that political spotlight while at the same time your actions cause other "taxes" to rise. Would you be happy if we said "Take your Bush tax cut and use it to pay for national health care and call it a day."? How are my taxes going down if that's what happens?

Why should my Bush tax cut pay for national health care? My Bush tax cut can pay for MY health care. The rest of the nation can use their Bush tax cut to pay for THEIR health care.

Now, you are going to tell me what those people that did not get a Bush tax cut use to pay for THEIR health care. If they didn't get a Bush tax cut, they must have either already paid for their health care, or they chose to not spend it on health care.

[IJ Reilly]

Yeah, let 'em eat cake!

[mactastic]

Originally posted by Frohickey
Why should my Bush tax cut pay for national health care? My Bush tax cut can pay for MY health care. The rest of the nation can use their Bush tax cut to pay for THEIR health care.

Now, you are going to tell me what those people that did not get a Bush tax cut use to pay for THEIR health care. If they didn't get a Bush tax cut, they must have either already paid for their health care, or they chose to not spend it on health care.

You missed my point. You are obviously unhappy about the prospect of paying in to the health care pot, but you tell the college student to pay his VLF cut in to the college education pot and like it.

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by pseudobrit
Now that Arnold has undone one of those fees, the individual departments have lost their state level funding. Otherwise they'd be covered by the statewide tax base.

Now those departments are having to impose fees at an individual level in order to remain in operation.

It's a classic case of passing the buck.

No one wants to charge you (make you pay tax) and be unpopular, but ultimately someone will charge you because we need to have a functioning government.

VLF is called a fee, but its still a property tax, as evidenced by the fact that it can be used to offset your federal income tax burden. So, its called a fee, but it really is a property tax.

As to imposing fees at an individual level to remain in operation, sounds like its a good thing since the ones that use a particular service would be the one paying a fee in order to use that service.

[IJ Reilly]

Originally posted by Frohickey
VLF is called a fee, but its still a property tax, as evidenced by the fact that it can be used to offset your federal income tax burden. So, its called a fee, but it really is a property tax.

As to imposing fees at an individual level to remain in operation, sounds like its a good thing since the ones that use a particular service would be the one paying a fee in order to use that service.

You continue to insist on making a pointless distinction between a tax and a fee. This distinction makes no difference to anyone but an accountant.

[mactastic]

It's the only way his "Kalifornia is the 4th most taxed state in the nation" arguement makes any sense, so I can see why he's trying to bail out that sinking ship. Does it matter what it's called when the government is collecting your money?

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by IJ Reilly
You continue to insist on making a pointless distinction between a tax and a fee. This distinction makes no difference to anyone but an accountant.

I'm not the one making the distinction. I consider any additional expense that comes out of my wallet as a bad thing. You are the one saying that the car tax is not a bad thing because its a fee.

I'm the one saying that the car tax is a bad thing. Especially if its not used for improving road conditions, or making more reliable, cheaper and more convenient transportation.

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by mactastic
You missed my point. You are obviously unhappy about the prospect of paying in to the health care pot, but you tell the college student to pay his VLF cut in to the college education pot and like it.

College student is the one that benefits when they pay into the college education pot.

Why don't you just be happy that you got a car tax cut, like everyone else did?

Oh, I get it. You were already getting a freebie from the college education pot, and now that you are expected to put some more into the college education pot that you take from, you all of a sudden think that you are being picked on, when what it really is, is that you were getting a free ride from the ones not going to college and paying the car tax, and now you are not getting as free of a ride as before.

[mactastic]

Originally posted by Frohickey
College student is the one that benefits when they pay into the college education pot.

Why don't you just be happy that you got a car tax cut, like everyone else did?

And health care reciepient is the one that benefits when they pay into the health care pot. What difference do you see?

I'll be happy when a tax is cut and my overall burden goes down. Arnold cut the VLF, and my college tuition rises by MORE than the VLF tax cut and I'm supposed to be happy? How is it fair to ask me to pay more at school so you get a break on your VLF?

[IJ Reilly]

Originally posted by mactastic
It's the only way his "Kalifornia is the 4th most taxed state in the nation" arguement makes any sense, so I can see why he's trying to bail out that sinking ship. Does it matter what it's called when the government is collecting your money?

It doesn't really, which is my point, and I think it's been made sufficiently for me to drop it.

[mactastic]

Originally posted by Frohickey
Oh, I get it. You were already getting a freebie from the college education pot, and now that you are expected to put some more into the college education pot that you take from, you all of a sudden think that you are being picked on, when what it really is, is that you were getting a free ride from the ones not going to college and paying the car tax, and now you are not getting as free of a ride as before.

Lol, and you get a "freebie" from the transportation pot every time you drive to the store (or do you take roads that you built yourself everywhere), and now that you are expected to pay more into the VLF kitty (which was mandated by the same law that lowered the fee during the boom times) you are feeling picked on. Cry me a river why don't ya.

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by mactastic
And health care reciepient is the one that benefits when they pay into the health care pot. What difference do you see?

I'll be happy when a tax is cut and my overall burden goes down. Arnold cut the VLF, and my college tuition rises by MORE than the VLF tax cut and I'm supposed to be happy? How is it fair to ask me to pay more at school so you get a break on your VLF?

Maybe, now, you are closer to paying the actual costs of your college tuition.

[mactastic]

Originally posted by Frohickey
Maybe, now, you are closer to paying the actual costs of your college tuition.

And you are farther away from paying the actual cost of driving around.

[mactastic]

If you are into talking about the actual cost of things, we could talk about how much we pay for gasoline, versus how much it costs without government subsidies and include the damage to our atmosphere that we can attribute to the burning of it in our cars. It comes out over $5/gallon though.....

Or how much a plastic 2 liter bottle of soda costs including disposal and decomposition time. It's more than the $1.29 the soda cost.

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by mactastic
And you are farther away from paying the actual cost of driving around.

Ah... we are back to the same environmentalist line about costs of gasoline and environmental damage and all of that stuff.

Nice to see that environmentalist propaganda is not lost on you. Would be a waste of money if it didn't, because of all the millions of dollars collected by the environmentalist lawyers (causes) that do not ever end up improving animal habitats and open spaces, but just enriching the lawyers (http://www.sacbee.com/static/archive/news/projects/environment/20010424.html).

[mactastic]

Originally posted by Frohickey
Ah... we are back to the same environmentalist line about costs of gasoline and environmental damage and all of that stuff.

Nice to see that environmentalist propaganda is not lost on you. Would be a waste of money if it didn't, because of all the millions of dollars collected by the environmentalist lawyers (causes) that do not ever end up improving animal habitats and open spaces, but just enriching the lawyers (http://www.sacbee.com/static/archive/news/projects/environment/20010424.html).

So let's see if I got this right... because some greedy lawyers exploited the justice system, we shouldn't care about the world we live in. That's the best you got? That's not even a logical argument!

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by mactastic
So let's see if I got this right... because some greedy lawyers exploited the justice system, we shouldn't care about the world we live in. That's the best you got? That's not even a logical argument!

Naw. But if the money that has changed hands already were used in environmental protection, we should be in the Garden of Eden already.

[mactastic]

Originally posted by Frohickey
Naw. But if the money that has changed hands already were used in environmental protection, we should be in the Garden of Eden already.

Lol, and if the money that's changed hands because of greedy polititians were used to make this country better we'd be living in Blisstonia, well known for it's high levels of bliss. But should we just shrug our shoulders and say "oh lets ignore the government, the polititians just screw us" or should we try and fix it?

[vwcruisn]

well not only that, but i specifically remember (correct me if im wrong), arnold stating in his campaign that he would NOT touch education, and NOT raise taxes. Well he sure as hell didnt raise any taxes... but he actually CUT them. This then caused him to have to TOUCH education. Now wheter you think the poor college students trying to better themselves should take the hit from this or not, its still an outright lie on shwarzeneggers part. Does the word "recall" mean anything to anyone? ;)

[IJ Reilly]

Originally posted by vwcruisn
Does the word "recall" mean anything to anyone?

Totally.

[Frohickey]

IIRC, Arnold promised to cut the car tax. He did not promise not to raise taxes, which is the promise that Tom McClintock made, as well as cutting the car tax.

Also, Bustamecha promised to raise taxes, remember his 'Tough Love for California' slogan?

[mactastic]

He also promised not to touch education funding.

[Neserk]

Taxes are high in California, and you have had businesses leave California because of that.

You are kidding... I just filled out my income tax... I'm getting 100% back... I was shocked... I know I don't make a lot but I didn't think I made that *little.*

Arnold is the biggest joke next to Bush, imo. I can't understand how people go duped into voting for someone w/o a plan. He is finding out that it isn't so easy to fix a budget after Bush has destroyed the country's economy. It won't get fixed until Bush gets outted and we get a real President in office. Bush is shameful. I'm surprised Republicans haven't all changed their affiliation to something else, anything but "Republican."

[Neserk]

Originally posted by vwcruisn
being a california resident, i didnt want to pay the high car tax anymore than the next guy.


me either... nor could I afford it... this is the only thing I'm thankful for. IMO they should tax cars according to gas mileage... those who buy big expensive gas guzzlers pay large taxes... those who buy cars that are fuel efficient pay less.



when the governor of my state, that I elected, was recalled for bogus reasons, and a nazi (ok, nazis son) was put into place. Wake up people... get a clue and think before you act. Is that so much to ask?

it appears to be. Recalls should *only* be allowed when an elected official acts in bad faith. This is will back fire on Republicans.

[Neserk]

Originally posted by g5man

Do you favor that Arnold increase taxes? I can answer the for you and simply say yes you do. [/B]

I favor getting rid of Bush. CA wouldn't have a problem if it wasn't for him!

[Neserk]

Originally posted by Rower_CPU
Because the tuition fee increase is likely to be larger than the savings from the VLF reduction.

edit: On my campus they are already discussing what is going to take place over the next fiscal year. The situation doesn't look great.

From what I've heard, it comes down to releasing lecturers and cutting classes, or raising student fees...again. Either way, you've got less education for your tuition.

I wanted to apply to a teacher credentialing program at a state univeristy but they cut applications. So I'm going to a private school that will cost me about $15,000 to attend and complete my credential. YIKES!

[Neserk]

Originally posted by Frohickey
Why should my Bush tax cut pay for national health care? My Bush tax cut can pay for MY health care. The rest of the nation can use their Bush tax cut to pay for THEIR health care.

Now, you are going to tell me what those people that did not get a Bush tax cut use to pay for THEIR health care. If they didn't get a Bush tax cut, they must have either already paid for their health care, or they chose to not spend it on health care.

I don't have health care. I can't get private health care that isn't part of a group plan. I can't get a permanent job until I get my teaching credential. So when I went to the ER and can't pay the bill you get stuck with it. Think about that ;)

[Neserk]

Originally posted by mactastic
And you are farther away from paying the actual cost of driving around.

wow... that is more true than anyone realizes... *thinks of the environment*

[Neserk]

Originally posted by Frohickey ]College student is the one that benefits when they pay into the college education pot.


Society benefits. Education is the only way out of poverty aside from the occasional entertainment contract. The more educated our members become the more we all benefit. Education is an investment as are our children.

[Neserk]

Originally posted by IJ Reilly
Totally.

Recall would be nice... of course it would cost us even more... lets get rid of Bush then Arnold...

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by Neserk
I wanted to apply to a teacher credentialing program at a state univeristy but they cut applications. So I'm going to a private school that will cost me about $15,000 to attend and complete my credential. YIKES!

Things are worth more when you pay for them. :p

[Neserk]

Originally posted by Frohickey
Things are worth more when you pay for them. :p

If I end up with a job, yes. If I continue to get looked over because I have a Master's degree then I'm not quite sure how I'm going to pay it back!

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by Neserk
If I end up with a job, yes. If I continue to get looked over because I have a Master's degree then I'm not quite sure how I'm going to pay it back!

Not all Masters degrees are worth the paper its printed on.

In fact, not all Bachelors degrees are worth the same either.

Just face it. You are not immune to the forces of the market, and the education and job market work the same. You invest your money in your education, but you have to do your research as well if there would be a buyer for investment. If you undertake a field of study where there is no demand, or an overabundance of supply, then the price you can charge is hampered by that.

The educational system in the 40s/50s was able to create and sustain the demand for technical sophistication for our race to the Moon as well as the other emerging technologies of the period. So, why do we now need smaller class sizes now, as opposed to when the baby boom generation was attending school?

Could it be that after years of trying to get higher and higher teacher recruitment that the only way to get these teachers employed would be for smaller class sizes. Forget that higher teacher recruitment means that supply just increased, while demand has been decreasing, meaning lower prices paid for teachers, or slower growth of salaries.

[mactastic]

Originally posted by Frohickey
Could it be that after years of trying to get higher and higher teacher recruitment that the only way to get these teachers employed would be for smaller class sizes. Forget that higher teacher recruitment means that supply just increased, while demand has been decreasing, meaning lower prices paid for teachers, or slower growth of salaries.

Maybe the need for more teachers is because there are more students now than there were 20 years ago. Maybe it's really hard to have 180 students every day. Maybe learning suffers when classes are above 35 students. Maybe teachers AREN'T paid what they are worth to the future of our society.
U.S. Department of Education

Office of Educational Research and Improvement

NATIONAL CENTER FOR EDUCATION STATISTICS

The Impact of the Baby Boom Echo on U.S. Public School Enrollments

September 1997

The children of the Baby Boom generation have set off a population explosion in the nation’s public schools. This dramatic enrollment growth, known as the Baby Boom echo, began in the nation’s elementary schools in 1984, and elementary enrollment has increased annually since then. At the secondary level, annual enrollment increases began in 1991 and are expected to continue through the year 2007. Combined public and private high school enrollment is expected to reach 16.4 million by the year 2007, a 13 percent increase from 1997.

National Enrollment Trends

After reaching a peak of 51.3 million students in the fall of 1971, total enrollment in elementary and secondary public and private schools in the United States declined annually through the 1984–85 school year. The current enrollment upturn began in fall 1985 and is expected to continue through the year 2006. Total enrollment in elementary and secondary public and private schools is projected to reach 52.2 million in the 1997 school year, the highest in U.S. history.

By the year 2006, total enrollment is expected to swell to 54.4 million (enrollment in the year 2007 is projected to decline slightly, to 54.3 million). However, enrollment growth in the next 10 years is not projected to be as fast as the 1987–97 rate. Whereas high school enrollment is expected to increase steadily from fall 1997 to fall 2007, elementary enrollment over that time period is expected to rise slightly and then return to 1997 levels.

The primary reason for the timing and rate of the enrollment increase is the rising number of annual births since 1977, which is referred to as the Baby Boom echo. Other key reasons include: a higher birth rate among Hispanics and other minorities; increases inimmigration, particularly in point-of-entry cities such as New York, Los Angeles and Miami; a greater number of children enrolled in pre-K and kindergarten; and a larger share of young people remaining in high school to receive their diplomas. Since 1984, these factors have combined to produce large enrollment increases in some of the fastest-growing areas of the country.

How Will the Schools Keep Up?

The number of classroom teachers is expected to increase from 3.1 million in fall 1997 to 3.3 million by the fall of 2007. Overall, total yearly current expenditures for public elementary and secondary schools are projected to increase 22 percent from 1996–97 to 2006– 07, from $257 billion to $314 billion (1994–95 dollars)

And as for paying for things.... where did you go to school again?

[Neserk]

Originally posted by Frohickey
Not all Masters degrees are worth the paper its printed on.

In fact, not all Bachelors degrees are worth the same either.


not quite sure how that applies...



Could it be that after years of trying to get higher and higher teacher recruitment that the only way to get these teachers employed would be for smaller class sizes.

Smaller class size is a must. Vetern teachers who worked the 30/1 ratio in the primary grades say they didn't teach, the did crowd control. I am in favor of a 15/1 (k-3) ratio in the primary grades and a 20/1 ratio in the secondary (4-6). Anything less is short changing the students.

Currently the average teacher lasts 5 years before she burns out. The turnover is high. The market is there the problem is that because I have a Masters they have to pay me at the top of scale. They can't do that because the budget doesn't allow for it. 3 years ago it was not an issue.

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by Neserk
not quite sure how that applies...

Smaller class size is a must. Vetern teachers who worked the 30/1 ratio in the primary grades say they didn't teach, the did crowd control. I am in favor of a 15/1 (k-3) ratio in the primary grades and a 20/1 ratio in the secondary (4-6). Anything less is short changing the students.

Currently the average teacher lasts 5 years before she burns out. The turnover is high. The market is there the problem is that because I have a Masters they have to pay me at the top of scale. They can't do that because the budget doesn't allow for it. 3 years ago it was not an issue.

Dunno. I remember my junior high and high school classes. Teacher had various people doing roll call for the classes too, and I remember that its usually in the mid to high 30s for the roll call.

Crowd control is only necessary if the students are not in school prepared to learn and are disruptive or not developmentally equipped to handle the coursework. When I was at junior high and high school, the big fear was having the teacher send us to see the vice principal. The vice principal was the ex-Marine GI, the ex-SWAT police, that would do unspeakable horrors if you were sent to his office for disciplinary measures.

Somehow, going through all of these 30+ courses, I did fine.

[mactastic]

Originally posted by Frohickey
Somehow, going through all of these 30+ courses, I did fine.

Sure YOU did. But how about the poor teacher who had 5 or 6 classes of 30 plus students each day? Have you ever sat down to correct 180 essays? Figure a 10 minute average for a decent level of evaluation and feedback to each student. That's 30 hours of work outside class each time you hand out an assignment like that!

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by mactastic
Sure YOU did. But how about the poor teacher who had 5 or 6 classes of 30 plus students each day? Have you ever sat down to correct 180 essays? Figure a 10 minute average for a decent level of evaluation and feedback to each student. That's 30 hours of work outside class each time you hand out an assignment like that!

180 essays? Sounds like the teacher is overworked, and there should be another teacher teaching another 6 classes, so they can share the load.

Or a third teacher, with 3 teachers teaching 2 classes each at 3 different levels. Not each level would have essays at the same time of the semester, and it could be staggered.

All I'm saying is that the mantra of smaller class sizes has not been the magic bullet that lead to higher student achievement and test scores. If it were, then the US should be at the top of the heap with regards to grade school/high school level achievement in the world.

US class sizes vs other countries (http://nces.ed.gov/pubs/eiip/eiipid21.html)

Seems that what is needed here is a better parent-teacher understanding. The teacher is expected to evaluate and instruct the student. The student is expected to learn and be tested for the material. The parent is expected to make sure the home environment is conducive to learning and to make sure the student behaves in school.

I think that what is lacking is the final aspect. Parenting skills where the 13-17yo rugrat is hauled off for daycare, err high school and are out partying or playing video games after school and on weekends instead of doing homework, that is the problem.

How did we get here? A tax system that makes it necessary for both parents to work in order to maintain a decent standard of living, in order to support the smaller class sizes and the welfare benefits of the single crack moms that spurt out babies to feed into the school system. How do we end the cycle in the country where its anathema for someone to criticize parenting skills?

[zimv20]

Originally posted by Frohickey

How did we get here? A tax system that makes it necessary for both parents to work in order to maintain a decent standard of living, in order to support the smaller class sizes and the welfare benefits of the single crack moms that spurt out babies to feed into the school system.

if your assessment were correct, the social democracies of europe should have terrible test scores, and they don't.

i suggest the problems we're seeing are manifestations of the classic class struggles, compounded by rampant consumerism in an effort to maintain a high lifestyle (i.e. DVD players and nice cars) everyone in the US believes they must maintain.

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by zimv20
if your assessment were correct, the social democracies of europe should have terrible test scores, and they don't.


If my assessment were correct, Europe should have terrible test scores because their class sizes are larger than the US class sizes.

[zimv20]

i'm thinking that large class sizes don't necessarily cause bad education, but that the US' constant struggle to reduce class sizes is a solution to a different problem -- that of a culture that produces kids who don't learn.

is the solution to lower class sizes, fix the culture, or both?

[Frohickey]

I would say, fix parenting skills.

Small class sizes is just another word for full employment and artificially deflate the salaries of teachers scheme.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by Frohickey
I would say, fix parenting skills.


short of invasive, constitution-bending legislation, i don't know how to do that. i think improving education has the best shot, over the long run.


Small class sizes is just another word for full employment and artificially deflate the salaries of teachers scheme.

there are few things i feel more passionately about funding than education. this is an area where i don't mind over-funding it, and right now it's under-funded.

i think it's a mistake to assume that any waste found in education is a symptom of overfunding, and the solution is to decrease funding.

keeping class sizes large will only hurt this country. i assume you're not opposed to measures improving real education, but differ only on the methods to achieve it?

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by zimv20
short of invasive, constitution-bending legislation, i don't know how to do that. i think improving education has the best shot, over the long run.

keeping class sizes large will only hurt this country. i assume you're not opposed to measures improving real education, but differ only on the methods to achieve it?

Well, there are Home Ec and Woodshop courses in high school. There is also Sex Ed, but couldn't there be Parenting Ed courses as well? It could be as simple as roleplaying parents to detail household budget analysis skills.

Improving education, how do you do that when you need to turn teachers into parent-substitutes as well with ill-behaved students?

Privatizing education, where parents have to spend money to send their children to school would be a way to ensure that parents make sure they get their money's worth. You are less likely to waste things when you are paying for it, than if its given to you for free.

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by Frohickey
Privatizing education, where parents have to spend money to send their children to school would be a way to ensure that parents make sure they get their money's worth. You are less likely to waste things when you are paying for it, than if its given to you for free.

So you make the kids pay for it? Or send the parents to the school?

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by pseudobrit
So you make the kids pay for it? Or send the parents to the school?

...

Kids go to the school. Parents pay for the school. Parents can attend classes to see how their kids are doing, and there is always open house/school where parents get to talk to the teachers after classes.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by Frohickey

Kids go to the school. Parents pay for the school.

i cannot support any program that may result in kids not being able to attend due to cost issues. for the disadvantaged, an education may be their only way out.

(i'm talking about public schools, of course)

[Neserk]

For anyone who thinks you can actually *teach* 30-5 years olds with one adult I bet you'll last 5 minutes in a Kindergarten classroom before you start to pull your hair out!

[Neserk]

Originally posted by Frohickey
Things are worth more when you pay for them. :p

I just realized what you meant here. I was going to pay for my courses through the district. Less expensive both because I'd be working at the same time *and* because they were just less expenisve.

[Neserk]

Originally posted by Frohickey


Crowd control is only necessary if the students are not in school prepared to learn and are disruptive or not developmentally equipped to handle the coursework.

We are talking apples and oranges. I'm talking about k-6th grade. Not 7-12th.

And you nailed part of the problem. The curriculm for *Kindergarten* is pretty intense. Most of the kids I see are *not* ready for the curriculm which means it is *that* much harder to hold their attention with it.

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by zimv20
i cannot support any program that may result in kids not being able to attend due to cost issues. for the disadvantaged, an education may be their only way out.

(i'm talking about public schools, of course)

Education vouchers, baby.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by Frohickey
Education vouchers, baby.

link (http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=7660)


Do Vouchers Work?

A 2002 study conducted by the U.S. General Accounting Office, which examined privately funded voucher programs, found no significant achievement gains for students using vouchers versus students in public schools.1

Similarly, in 2001, the U.S. General Accounting Office reported that state evaluations found little or no difference between the academic achievement of voucher students and public school students in Cleveland and Milwaukee—the two urban school systems with publicly funded voucher programs. 2

A report by Indiana University researchers in 2001 compared groups of voucher students and public school students over a two-year period. Over these two years, the report revealed that public school students showed average learning gains that were greater in language, reading and math than voucher students.3

Pro-voucher groups have referred to a three-year study led by Harvard University professor Paul E. Peterson as proof that vouchers improve student learning. Yet, in the Peterson study, reading scores actually declined for all groups of Hispanic voucher students in New York City, except for those in 7th grade. Education Week reported that the data “raise as many questions as they answer” about students who receive vouchers.4 Even Peterson and a co-author concluded that there is “no overall private school impact” on the test scores of voucher students.5

Supporters claim that vouchers create “competition” that improves the performance of public schools, but there is no solid evidence to back up this view. In 2001, public schools in Los Angeles, Baltimore, Dallas, Portland, Minneapolis, San Diego, Birmingham and Seattle reported higher test scores in both reading and math in every grade they tested. And they accomplished this without the so-called competition of vouchers, as neither these cities nor their states have publicly funded voucher programs.6

[pseudobrit]

Private schools aren't easy or cheaper to run. Why don't you look and see what happened to Philadelphia's school system in the instances where the state handed them over to a for-profit school company.

The company ran into trouble, sold the books and equipment, and floated a plan to have elementary kids doing secretarial paperwork to reduce staff and costs. And you paid taxes for it.

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by pseudobrit
Private schools aren't easy or cheaper to run. Why don't you look and see what happened to Philadelphia's school system in the instances where the state handed them over to a for-profit school company.

The company ran into trouble, sold the books and equipment, and floated a plan to have elementary kids doing secretarial paperwork to reduce staff and costs. And you paid taxes for it.

Private schools have competition from other private schools. Kids and their parents could take them out of that failing private school and move them to the better one. Can't do that with public school, no can you?

If Apple shafts me in my computer deal, I could always go to Dell.

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by Frohickey
Private schools have competition from other private schools. Kids and their parents could take them out of that failing private school and move them to the better one. Can't do that with public school, no can you?

You sure can take your child out of a public school that's not working for your child and put them into a private school or another public school.

And this ought to make you happy, Mr. Free Market Capitialist -- you get to pay for it out of your own wallet! :p

[mactastic]

But don't forget to tithe your 10% to the church affiliated with said private school if you *really* want to pay all the costs. And don't ask for vouchers if it really does feel better to pay for things you get. That's just stealing from my wallet.

[mactastic]

Link (http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-010904budget_lat,1,5308403.story?coll=la-home-headlines)
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger today unveiled a budget plan that slashes funding for local government and transportation, hikes college fees and reduces health benefits for low-income Californians.
Those who saw the proposed budget before its release today said it includes at least $1 billion of the kind of borrowing that Schwarzenegger criticized when he was elected and that a Sacramento judge declared illegal last year. Schwarzenegger's proposal would involve taking property tax money from local governments and using it to pay some of the state's obligation to schools. City and county officials say they are still suffering from the last time the state made such a shift, during a budget crisis in the early 1990s. That move was supposed to be temporary, but the money was never restored.

Officials familiar with the spending plan said it includes about $11 billion in cuts, borrowing and accounting maneuvers that delay the payment of various state expenses.

Many of the cuts are one-time only, and thus would do nothing to solve the structural imbalance between what the state spends and what it receives in revenue.
For in-state undergraduate students in the Cal State and UC systems, the governor's budget keeps a promise he made in his Tuesday State of the State address to limit their tuition increase to 10%.

Community college students and graduate students at UC and Cal State, meanwhile, are in for major fee hikes. At community colleges, fees would go up from $18 per credit to $26 under the proposed budget. Graduate students would see fee increases of as much as 40%.

Government assistance to low-income Californians would also be reduced under the plan, which proposes capping enrollment in major health care programs.

Also targeted for major cuts are transportation projects. The governor is proposing taking roughly $1 billion in gasoline tax money that is supposed to be earmarked for transportation under voter-approved Proposition 42. That money would instead go to balancing the budget.

Transportation officials have said that would lead them to put off significant road building and repair projects, as well as alternative transportation initiatives.

The governor also is asking the federal government for at least $40 million to defray the $65-million cost of fighting this fall's Southern California wildfires. And he will seek to impose new fees on timber interests seeking approval of logging plans. The California Conservation Corps would suffer a cut of nearly $13 million, about 14% of its budget.
Just as former Gov. Gray Davis did, Schwarzenegger is seeking help from Indian casinos in balancing the budget. He is proposing renegotiating gambling compacts to generate $500 million for the state. Tribes have expressed little interest in doing that.
Yay! No new taxes. Of course there are new fees however....

[Rower_CPU]

The fee increases to higher ed students are horrible when you add them to the increases already in place this last year. They've essentially doubled for grad students in 2 years. Ugh.

[mactastic]

Yeah, geez I wonder when those new grad student fees will take effect. My wife will still has this quarter, Spring quarter, and Fall quarter to go to get her masters. That's gonna hurt us quite a bit. And to top off the constant fee increases, CalPoly students voted to charge themselves (their parents I mean ;) ) an additional $200 a quarter about 3 years ago when things were economically speaking much brighter looking because the class offerings were so poor, and the equipment in the labs was so outdated. Sure will be nice to get us both out of school finally.

[Frohickey]

10% for undergrad.
40% for grad school.

This might just turn grad school courses into course of studies that have monetary rewards, such as pre-med, engineering, sciences, etc.

[mactastic]

Originally posted by Frohickey
This might just turn grad school courses into course of studies that have monetary rewards, such as pre-med, engineering, sciences, etc.

I think you are right. Of course I'm sure we disagree whether this is a good thing or not....

[zimv20]

Originally posted by Frohickey

This might just turn grad school courses into course of studies that have monetary rewards, such as pre-med, engineering, sciences, etc.

yeah, **** culture, humanities and classical education. who needs it?