What is your level of optimism concerning the future of the United States of America?

ocean515 said:

Well, I'm waiting for yours. So there you go.

Got to love the Progressive approach though. $35 billion in new school construction over the last 8 years, among the highest paid teachers in the United States, a 40% of state budget Constitutional mandate for school spending, massive unfunded teacher pension liabilities, etc, and none of that is considered education related, and in fact, the Progs claim California is 49th in spending.

Only the insane would buy any part of that.

Interesting how when I ask what your sources indicate, you dodge the question. Just more from the script.

I'm certainly not interested in waisting any more effort here.

Thanks for the lesson I admit I was too slow to learn.

Click to expand...

rabbitcaebannog said:

I gave you two conservative sources which you dud not like. I gave you a source that was privately funded that you didn't like because it didn't support your theory. I'm not going to provide you a source to support your theory. That is your job. Have you ever considered the reason that those other expenditures that have effected your state has hit it harder because your state didn't pay it forward in good times. Not really just CA, many states failed to do this during the good times. However, with that said, prop 13 on top of not paying it forward during the good times stripped funds from education because the very purpose of prop 13 was to cut school spending which was hard to do with a growing population through the 1980's. Just because it's projected to slow in the near future doesn't address years of in influx of students and school spending with less revenue coming in so they relied on other sources like bonds and the high of the stock market that have crippled them with debt.

Click to expand...

ocean515 said:

Just because you claim your sources were conservative, doesn't make them so. That's a fail. EdSource is funded by known Progressive groups. Failure again.

I don't have a theory, I have facts.

You refuse to back up anything without using your preferred sources. I posted links directly to the State of California

Years of influx? I've already posted links that show the k-12 population is flat, has been for years, and is projected to remain so for years.

You've done nothing to prove anything besides your dependance on sources designed to spread the memes.

If that works for you, so be it.

But then you post the purpose of Prop 13 was to cut school spending?

It's probably not a good idea to engage in a debate you're proving you know very very little about.

Click to expand...

rabbitcaebannog said:

It most definitely was along with other government spending AND three sources I gave you were not conservative enough for you to read or believe. Let's see- I gave you Bruce Bartlett and Benjamin Zycher, a visiting scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, and I suppose they are too progressive for your liking:roll: Both are conservative whether you agree with them are not! Then I gave a neutral source Bloomberg. Who said basically what the other two said-
"California voters approved Proposition 13 to rein in property taxes that had doubled in 10 years. More than three decades later, that rebellion has mortgaged the state’s future, saddling it with the nation’s highest debt and lowest credit rating". California Diminished by Tax Revolt of 1978 Shows How U.S. Invites Decline - Bloomberg

You just don't like it so your only defense is to attack the source as too progressive:roll:

Also, CA school population did grow over the years when prop was in effect.

Click to expand...

ocean515 said:

Oh, I'm quite the student of political history, especially the political history of California. As it is, the issue is Progressivism, and the dominating position this philosophy has taken in the Democrat agenda.

As to who is more left, I think the actions taken Democrats in power over recent years to establish the ruling of citizens by unanswerable Regulatory Agencies firmly establishes todays Democrats as rather extreme leftists.

As far a California is concerned, the reporting of the economics here, as created by the liberal/progressives in control, should be considered a crime of omission. The surplus being reported only exists because the Progressives decided not to pay back the billions they borrowed from things like the Highway Fund, to balance previous budgets. This doesn't begin to include the deferred payments in the amounts of billions to meet minimum funding standards for public employee pay and benefits.

Then there is the train to nowhere the Unions are forcing Progressives to continue pushing, against the will of the people who were lied to, and which is projected to cost the state billions of dollars every year to subsidize.

No, California is indeed the petrie dish, and the stench can't be hidden, despite the delusion of those who desperately defend the carnage.

Click to expand...

ocean515 said:

Sorry, but the facts trump the opinions.

Bloombergs drivil is well known. Please don't try to sell it as anything but the Progressive BS that it is.

The facts behind California's finances are very well known.

For example:

David Crane: California's Pension Fiasco and the Great Nondisclosure of 1999 - WSJ.com

Click to expand...

rabbitcaebannog said:

Lol, so now you're going to attack Bloomberg? I also gave you a source from a scholar from the highly conservative American Enterprise. Is that not conservative enough? It has nothing to do with the source. You just don't want to acknowledge the fact that Prop 13 hurt your state. Truth hurts.

Click to expand...

ocean515 said:

Yes, Bloomberg's article is BS.

Why don't you try to actually prove a position, rather than spend days defending three links whose premise has been destroyed?

As a parting shot, here's another truth that illustrates what progressives have created in California.

Is California the welfare capital? | UTSanDiego.com

Anyway, you're welcome to the last word.

Click to expand...

rabbitcaebannog said:

It most definitely was along with other government spending AND three sources I gave you were not conservative enough for you to read or believe. Let's see- I gave you Bruce Bartlett and Benjamin Zycher, a visiting scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, and I suppose they are too progressive for your liking:roll: Both are conservative whether you agree with them are not! Then I gave a neutral source Bloomberg. Who said basically what the other two said-
"California voters approved Proposition 13 to rein in property taxes that had doubled in 10 years. More than three decades later, that rebellion has mortgaged the state’s future, saddling it with the nation’s highest debt and lowest credit rating". California Diminished by Tax Revolt of 1978 Shows How U.S. Invites Decline - Bloomberg

You just don't like it so your only defense is to attack the source as too progressive:roll:

Also, CA school population did grow over the years when prop was in effect.

Click to expand...

Grant said:

In effect, it demonstrates that Californians couldn't live within their means.

Click to expand...

rabbitcaebannog said:

Sure. If you are going to starve government of funds, then cut services immediately. That means services to schools, the elderly, emergency, health etc....most of the other expenditures came from fees. Perhaps, if folks had to pay a $600.00 fee to have their children ride a school bus to school for a family with say three children. Then include fees for school books, technology, specials etc....they would see it's not for free and spreading the cost makes logical sense. Not having those costs paid simply means no services. PERIOD

Click to expand...

Grant said:

If these 'services' are unaffordable, and the government can't live within its means, perhaps other solutions should be looked at.

Click to expand...

rabbitcaebannog said:

Let me guess....cutting services? How about no public transportation to and from school?

Click to expand...

Grant said:

In effect, it demonstrates that Californians couldn't live within their means.

Click to expand...

Cephus said:

Fine by me. Locally, there are no free bus rides. They offer busses and it costs about $500 a year for a student to ride the bus for the year. Can't pay, find some other way to get your kid to school.

Click to expand...

rabbitcaebannog said:

Should I be surprised? At a town meeting, people had a choice to pay what amounted to every child being able to get and to and from school and would cost the average tax payer less than one cup of coffee a week. Instead, they rather have families with children pay up to $800.00 for that service. People have grown way to self centered.

Click to expand...

Cephus said:

The people who think that the world owes them freebies? Absolutely they've grown too self-centered. Whatever happened to personal responsibility? Oh yeah, that's a bad word for liberal-types.

Click to expand...

rabbitcaebannog said:

That's garbage. The irony is someone paid it forward for their children to ride a school bus. It's this generation that's priorities are so f@cked up that a cup of coffee each week is more important.

Click to expand...

Cephus said:

Who "paid it forward"? Certainly not the parents, who are personally responsible for their children. So who is it that supposedly agreed to pay for the transportation of other people's children?

Click to expand...

rabbitcaebannog said:

Everyone pays it forward.

Click to expand...

Cephus said:

Not necessarily. Certainly everyone pays into the common pool of tax money, but each person can make their views known what they wish the pool of tax money used for and the largest number of people can vote into office a representative who will use it for what they wish it used for. So again, who is it that specifically agreed to use tax money for other people's children's transportation, or is this just something *YOU* want and you think everyone should agree with you?

Click to expand...

rabbitcaebannog said:

Let me guess....cutting services? How about no public transportation to and from school?

Click to expand...

upsideguy said:

.

BTW...the economy in California is doing ok,,,,

California economic recovery leads nation - San Francisco Business Times

Click to expand...

Grant said:

Using volunteers as drivers? Sure, car pools can be looked at. There are probably many other areas as well if you put more thought into it.

Click to expand...

rabbitcaebannog said:

Yes, I want it because someone paid for me to ride a school bus. As a teacher, that same thing should be done for my students. It is a hardship for most middle class people to pay over $10,000 dollars for their child to ride a bus because (what amounts to a cheap cup of coffee) $2.50 is too much to ask to pay it forward. That kind of mentality will take this country down.

Click to expand...