California’s economic situation!

Cypress said:
I am sure it is all mere coincidence snf that California's stunning fiscal and economic comeback had nothing to do with Jerry Brown being elected and the Democratic super majorities in the legislature.
Click to expand...

Can you point to legislation passed that you feel changed the direction of the state that Dems couldn't pass under Arnold?
 
Legion said:
What makes a district "bad"?
Click to expand...

Low test scores, low graduation rates, low literacy rates, low funding.


Legion said:
I didn't think you could articulate a reasonable response, and I was correct.
Click to expand...

Back up...you're the one who said "good ones" first. You didn't define what you meant by "good ones". Nice try, but you don't get to run away from this by playing obtuse.



Legion said:
Really? How have such incentives worked in the past?
Who would be responsible for bearing the additional costs involved?
What if teachers don't want to move to a "bad" district?
Click to expand...

Ummm....the incentives worked in the past when we had better schools. Teacher pay was better. Teacher benefits were better. The cost should be borne by the wealthy and corporations who we were promised would trickle down with 40 years of tax cuts, and never did.

If teachers don't want to move to a bad district, you up the incentives and make them an offer they cannot refuse.
 
cawacko said:
Can you point to legislation passed that you feel changed the direction of the state that Dems couldn't pass under Arnold?
Click to expand...

everything Jerry and the democratic house did


we recovered after the republicans all decided leave cali
 
callinectes said:
I'm a teacher in Florida. I contribute 3% of my check toward my retirement. Comes to about $110 a month. The starting salary for our district is about $43,000 not including benefits. About $52,000 for the LA school district, also not including benefits. Both before taxes.Now after federal, state and local taxes, that LA teacher has to live on the economy. Possibly not much of a difference, except the FRS(Florida Retirement System)is fully funded at the moment. The union bitches about the 3%, and they are constantly on the state's case about not "bargaining in good faith"(which is code for "we can't wring more money out of these guys because of reality"). Another thing the state gets slammed for is something common to all states, I believe. It's the tired old "we're not investing enough in our children's education!", which is also code for "we're not paying the teachers enough", because our schools are packed with "Smart Classroom Technology" and carts of new laptop computers. Freakin' place looks like the bridge of the Starship Enterprise. The bottom line is, the government at every level MUST start dealing with fiscal realities, especially involving benefits, pensions and entitlements
Click to expand...

The pension "issues" came because Investment Funds lied to pension managers during the 2000's, and then when the market crashed, the Investment Funds got to recoup their losses, but not the pension funds. The pension funds were based on lies from Investment Funds. So why should teachers and public workers bear the consequence of bad faith actions by the Investment Funds. Why shouldn't punitive measures be taken against the Investment Funds that created these problems?
 
cawacko said:
It's not that simple. You haven't touched the zoning laws or ninbyism. Do you think that will all change if prop 13 goes away? Look what just happened to scott wieners bill. Would you have supported it?
Click to expand...

From where do you think the zoning laws come, dude? They come from the environment created by Prop 13. Getting rid of Prop 13 would solve the affordable housing problems in CA, as well as generate more revenue to hire and pay teachers, and fund pensions.

What I don't understand is why you want to preserve a system you know is corrupt? It seems like it's just a case of you being a contrarian.
 
cawacko said:
They still controlled everything.
Click to expand...

But they didn't have the super-majority with which they could steamroll over the Conservatives. Once they did, the state's fortunes turned around. It's almost like Republicans purposefully screw up government so they can point to it and say it's failed as an institution.

Why anyone would vote for the party that doesn't want to govern is beyond me.
 
cawacko said:
So why is inequality considered a bad thing if it leads to a higher standard of living?
Click to expand...

Inequality doesn't lead to a higher standard of living. CA has a higher standard of living. Someone in poverty in CA is middle class in ID.
 
LV426 said:
From where do you think the zoning laws come, dude? They come from the environment created by Prop 13. Getting rid of Prop 13 would solve the affordable housing problems in CA, as well as generate more revenue to hire and pay teachers, and fund pensions.

What I don't understand is why you want to preserve a system you know is corrupt? It seems like it's just a case of you being a contrarian.
Click to expand...

Holy sh*t! You really don't understand how this works. Prop 13 is about capping property taxes. Zoning laws exists decades before Prop 13 was ever created. You're sitting here agreeing with TTQ64 that I'm a racist and everything is racist and you have zero clue that racist zoning laws have been in existence for one hundred years in Cali. And many of those same zoning laws are still in effect today to justify keeping communities SFR and to not build.

My recommendation is to go but a history book and learn this. It's a sad history but it's still relevant to today.
 
LV426 said:
Inequality doesn't lead to a higher standard of living. CA has a higher standard of living. Someone in poverty in CA is middle class in ID.
Click to expand...

False. The supplemental poverty measure takes that all into account and we have the highest poverty rate in the country.
 
LV426 said:
But they didn't have the super-majority with which they could steamroll over the Conservatives. Once they did, the state's fortunes turned around. It's almost like Republicans purposefully screw up government so they can point to it and say it's failed as an institution.

Why anyone would vote for the party that doesn't want to govern is beyond me.
Click to expand...




I have been saying for a long time


voting in republicans is like choosing the one kid on the block that is constantly saying how much they hate kids


to be your babysitter


they scream about how government doesn't work and prove it by getting elected and making sure it fails
 
LV426 said:
But they didn't have the super-majority with which they could steamroll over the Conservatives. Once they did, the state's fortunes turned around. It's almost like Republicans purposefully screw up government so they can point to it and say it's failed as an institution.

Why anyone would vote for the party that doesn't want to govern is beyond me.
Click to expand...

Same question I asked Cypress. Why legislation was passed under Brown that changed the state's fortunes that couldn't get passed under Arnold.
 
LV426 said:
So? They should pay more since they own more of the wealth than 50%.
Click to expand...

This is funny. Yesterday you agreed with TTQ64 that it was a racist right wing lie that the top 1% of the state pay so much and now you're agreeing that they do? This is the problem with trolling, no principles and you forget what you say.

And another example that you have no clue how the state operates our problem is we rely so heavily on the top 1% that we get crushed in downturns.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top