Arnold on the rise!

Quote from waggie945:

If you ask any parent why they are here on this planet called Earth, it is because they want to see their children prosper and have an opportunity to grow and learn and have a better life than they did. That is an undisputed fact with any parent that I know.

Given that, I fail to see the point of some of you that are standing so "steadfast" by Gov. Schwarzenegger's latest budget cuts to the UC, which I might add has in fact had an educational mandate to give each and every qualified California high school student a UC education, since 1960.

While I do not see the billions of dollars that the Enron's and Dynegy's soaked us for several years ago coming back anytime soon . . . I would believe that a good place to raise revenue would be to start taxing Indian Casino and Gambling centers. Right now, they have a free ride in this state as opposed to New Jersey and Connecticut which take 25% of the revenues from Indian casinos.
More...

I agree with the comment about parenting. We moved to Ventura county because of the schools. While they are not the absolute best (the test scores on the state testing average in the 800's in my area), it is the best area we could afford and far better than where I grew up.

The state has a mandate to have a balanced budget. Period. I think the governor has done the best job possible under the circumstances to spread the pain evenly and he has tried to spread a little of the pain now and carry forward a little pain in the future to cushion the blow to all the different interests.

Again, considering the Indian casinos taxation issue (which I also agree with you needs to be opened NOW) cannot carry the whole load of the shortfall, what else can be done exactly??
 
Quote from Turok:

And I'll throw you for another loop soon enough with something from the left. I'm a mix and match sort of guy that defies labels.

JB
More...

I doubt it. I'm just happy to see you a personal responsibility type of guy and you don't look to the government to solve your problems like others on this thread (Waggie).
 
For some of you that are rather "new" to California or those of you like Maverick that don't even live here and yet have all of the issues figured-out, the FACT of the matter is that the UC educational system has been a hallmark of this great State for decades.

Tthe 1960 Master Plan for higher education has been around for over 4 decades. The committment of the State of California to a non-tuition policy for California residents is nothing new. It's been around for over 40 years.
 
Quote from waggie945:

For some of you that are rather "new" to California or those of you like Maverick that don't even live here and yet have all of the issues figured-out, the FACT of the matter is that the UC educational system has been a hallmark of this great State for decades.

Tthe 1960 Master Plan for higher education has been around for over 4 decades. The committment of the State of California to a non-tuition policy for California residents is nothing new. It's been around for over 40 years.
More...

Wonderful.

There is no money for everyone that wants to go because of prior govt mismanagement.

What do we do now???
 
Quote from waggie945:

For some of you that are rather "new" to California or those of you like Maverick that don't even live here and yet have all of the issues figured-out, the FACT of the matter is that the UC educational system has been a hallmark of this great State for decades.

Tthe 1960 Master Plan for higher education has been around for over 4 decades. The commitment of the State of California to a non-tuition policy for California residents is nothing new. It's been around for over 40 years.
More...

The 1960 Master Plan sounds like a big government program to me. Kind of like FDR and his Great Society?

When are people going to learn, the government cannot be the answer. They can help, they can subsidize, but they cannot be the answer. You have to solve your own problems.

Look, free healthcare, free education, free this, free that sure it sounds great on paper but somebody has to pay for it. And worse yet, what happens when people become dependent on it and it's taken away during an economic crisis. Then you have people like Waggie crying foul. Ever try to take away drugs from an addict? You'll know what I mean. It's better not to get people hooked to begin with. Nothing but problems.
 
Not to change the subject, but I find it interesting that you actually believe that the current Bush Administration has shown itself to be an arbiter of "fiscal-restraint". You also go on to say that there is not a shred of evidence to prove otherwise. Now that's pretty funny!

Under the Bush Administration, we have seen three straight years of double-digit increases in federal spending.
I guess that comes as a total SURPRISE to you!

Tad DeHaven, a budget researcher at the libertarian Cato Institute, has published his version of the numbers. He found a 6.8 percent increase in the same categories in 2002, an 8.3 percent increase last fiscal year, and a 6.3 percent increase this year -- more than double Bush's 2004 number.

The president's figures "amount to a spin job," DeHaven wrote on the website of the conservative National Review. "Many people who support the president's tax cuts and his conduct of the war can no longer stomach his expansion of big government via big spending."

Congressional Republicans say they will hold overall discretionary spending this year to a 3 percent increase, with military spending rising 1.2 percent. Brian M. Riedl, an analyst at the Heritage Foundation, put the spending increase this year at triple the GOP's number, or 9 percent.

Actual spending, however, shows little sign of abatement. Outlays rose by 13.2 percent in fiscal 2002, 15.2 percent in 2003, and 8.9 percent in 2004 -- an average growth rate of 12.4 percent.
 
Isn't it amazing how Maverick continues to talk about a subject that he has no freaking knowledge of?

He hears about a "1960 Master Plan" and he concludes that it must be some sort of big federal government spending program, without actually having any knowledge whatsoever about what the plan mandates.

Typical Mav.
For him, everything is so cut and dried.
Every issue comes down to "conservatives vs liberals" and the conservatives are the ones that are the best with our pocketbooks. If that is in fact the case, then the Bush Administration sure is breaking Mav's neat little stereotype, BIG TIME!!!

I wonder how he rationalizes this.
Please tell us Mav.
 
Quote from waggie945:

Isn't it amazing how Maverick continues to talk about a subject that he has no freaking knowledge of?

He hears about a "1960 Master Plan" and he concludes that it must be some sort of big federal government spending program, without actually having any knowledge whatsoever about what the plan mandates.

Typical Mav.
For him, everything is so cut and dried.
Every issue comes down to "conservatives vs liberals" and the conservatives are the ones that are the best with our pocketbooks. If that is in fact the case, then the Bush Administration sure is breaking Mav's neat little stereotype, BIG TIME!!!

I wonder how he rationalizes this.
Please tell us Mav.
More...

Waggie is it even possible for you to write one post without bringing Bush into it? I mean I was absolutely certain that there was no way you could bring Bush into a thread about State sponsored education program in CA, yet amazingly you find a way to do it. Unreal man. You sure have some talent! LOL. There has to be a name for somebody that can do that. I'll try to think of it. Why don't you just answer everyone's questions instead of attacking Bush. I don't think Turok or oewaypockets brought Bush into the mix so why don't you answer their questions. Instead of asking me questions about Bush. LOL.
 
Wags:
>Not to change the subject, but I find it interesting that
>you actually believe that the current Bush Administration
>has shown itself to be an arbiter of "fiscal-restraint". You
>also go on to say that there is not a shred of evidence to
>prove otherwise. Now that's pretty funny!

I believe none of the above. Just more words you are trying to put in my mouth.

Actually, it's you who it pretty funny. You are so caught up in your position that you don't even read what people write.

You wrote:
>So when you talk about fiscal responsibility, I
>guess you are saying that you are quite happy
>with the fiscal restraint that George Bush
>has shown us in the past couple of years?

The sole point of your above loaded statement is to intimate that I agree with the fiscal policies of George Bush.

So I responded:
>Wag's, it just makes you look STUPID to intimate something
>that you can't find a shred of evidence to support. I'll move
>on and pretend you didn't throw that asinine dart.

Get it?

JB
 
Wags:
>The 1960 Master Plan for higher education
>has been around for over 4 decades.

No shit? I had no idea it had been around that long. I've only been here for the last 25 so I guess I can be forgiven for not knowing that.

JB
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top