If Big Gov't Works Why Is California Cutting Spending?

[StupidNation]

You're sentence structure sure proves your point. If we only had spent $2,000 more per student in your school, maybe you would have written this.

 

If we had more money, think about how much more education our children would receive.

 

I guess you just proved you are from Stupid Nation.

 

People like you equate more money to better education. That relationship is not true. D.C. schools spend more per student than most other communities and they are failing miserably. As a side point, the 1,500 students in the D.C. school voucher program are doing very well. But since those schools are private and not beholden to the teachers union, they are stopping the program after these students are finished.

 

So you tell me who has the best interest in providing these students a good and safe education?

 

Champ, my statement was sarcasm. While I agree with you on every point, maybe you failed to realize the point of this thread was to show that more money doesn't equal results, and in fact does more damage than good especially when people privately can do better than any gov't collective system; and while individuals may fail to do some of the things not as well in certain circumstances, I would prefer my freedom over taxation and take the consequences but retain my freedoms.

 

I'm 100% for vouchers, and I'm 100% against all public education. If individuals want a school, let them pay for it and find benefactors just like private schools. I used to work in a private school where 70% of the kids didn't pay through donations of money and time. I don't believe one can make private property become public property through property taxes, and throw people off the land no matter how good the cause. One cannot do evil in the hopes good comes from it, and property taxes are implicitly a revocation of private property.

[ExiledInIllinois]

I would prefer my freedom over taxation and take the consequences but retain my freedoms.

 

You say that taking into consideration what the year 2009 has to offer. Most of the reasonable cost of amenities that our nation's citizens enjoy, even for the most rural and isolated parts of this country, were born and sown off the back of the industrial north. Now that everybody is up to par, your kind want to stop paying taxes all together. Figures.

[John Adams]

Champ, my statement was sarcasm. While I agree with you on every point, maybe you failed to realize the point of this thread was to show that more money doesn't equal results, and in fact does more damage than good especially when people privately can do better than any gov't collective system; and while individuals may fail to do some of the things not as well in certain circumstances, I would prefer my freedom over taxation and take the consequences but retain my freedoms.

 

I'm 100% for vouchers, and I'm 100% against all public education. If individuals want a school, let them pay for it and find benefactors just like private schools. I used to work in a private school where 70% of the kids didn't pay through donations of money and time. I don't believe one can make private property become public property through property taxes, and throw people off the land no matter how good the cause. One cannot do evil in the hopes good comes from it, and property taxes are implicitly a revocation of private property.

 

Never post again and you might go out on a high note.

[ExiledInIllinois]

Never post again and you might go out on a high note.

 

I will take the low note... Oh, wait... I am already there.

 

 

Anyway... What have we here? Stupid is as stupid does... Farmer Jones and farmer Smith from the 19th century.

 

[StupidNation]

You say that taking into consideration what the year 2009 has to offer. Most of the reasonable cost of amenities that our nation's citizens enjoy, even for the most rural and isolated parts of this country, were born and sown off the back of the industrial north. Now that everybody is up to par, your kind want to stop paying taxes all together. Figures.

 

1st Learn to read: never said paying taxes altogether, but property taxes specifically. Most of our country did not have a property tax until they forced everyone to pay for schooling

 

2nd Most of the people who came here came for freedom, not gov't control no matter where they lived

 

3rd Everyone up to par is subjective and univocal based on economics. Up to par to me is freedom in any circumstance, not because of what I receive monetarily, or the benefits the gov't gives me. They call such ideas principles, something difficult for you to understand.

 

Never post again and you might go out on a high note.

 

This according to the idiot who thinks gov't slavery is the high note I should strive to. Congrats!

[KD in CA]

Lay off about 70 % of the bureaucrats in Sacramento.

 

Every budget in the nation would balance if all we did was fire every useless government employee. The unemployment would sort itself out in a year or two.

[ExiledInIllinois]

Every budget in the nation would balance if all we did was fire every useless government employee. The unemployment would sort itself out in a year or two.

 

USELESS is the word!

 

 

Say that again... Too many "Chiefs." Not enough "Indians." You see it everywhere... People don't won't to do the ACTUAL work... They want to boss people around.

 

Now to toot my own horn:

 

I just helped the economy with a couple 100 k of commodity make it to market in the last 20 minutes... Now consider this place was only built for 6 million back in 1960 and only bare bones has gone into it (basic maint. and overhead)... Seems like a great return on those tax dollars...

[RLflutie7]

Remittances are largely a red herring. It is the expansion of state services.

 

It is a simple fact that the poor consume more in state spending than they pay - and that is the way we intend it. Somebody gets more than they put in, and we don't want it to be the rich.

 

California's encouragement of illegal immigration (at the state level) has artifically expanded the ranks of the poor. This means an expansion in social services (more schools, clinics, welfare and aid, etc) and a worsening of the net flow of tax dollars.

 

 

California's encouragement of illegal immigration (low wages) has articically expanded the ranks of the poor (low wages). This means an expansion in social services (more schools, clinics, welfare and aid, etc) and a worsening of the net flow of tax dollars.

 

And that's why you can't build an economy based on low wages because you end of with the expansion in social services. It's not government's fault. It's the fault of business and corporations. And it's also why the death of labor unions has been a terrible thing.

[finknottle]

California's encouragement of illegal immigration (low wages) has articically expanded the ranks of the poor (low wages). This means an expansion in social services (more schools, clinics, welfare and aid, etc) and a worsening of the net flow of tax dollars.

 

And that's why you can't build an economy based on low wages because you end of with the expansion in social services. It's not government's fault. It's the fault of business and corporations. And it's also why the death of labor unions has been a terrible thing.

 

And how would stronger unions prevent this? Assuming you are not suggesting that unions will prevent the illegal immigrants from entering this country, you still have the same problem: an influx of additional poor. An expansion of social services. A net loss of tax dollars. All increased unionization would do is make it harder for illegal immigrants to find work, making the net loss that much greater.

[RLflutie7]

And how would stronger unions prevent this? Assuming you are not suggesting that unions will prevent the illegal immigrants from entering this country, you still have the same problem: an influx of additional poor. An expansion of social services. A net loss of tax dollars. All increased unionization would do is make it harder for illegal immigrants to find work, making the net loss that much greater.

 

 

An increase in unionization would make it harder for illegal immigrants to find work.

 

That's right and if the illegal immigrants couldn't find work they wouldn't come here. A strong union bass would make it harder, if not impossible for illegal immigrants to find work. Or it'd be a lot less.

 

 

You have a "Plantation Owner's" view point. Last I checked "the War of Northern Aggression" was was by the North.

[finknottle]

An increase in unionization would make it harder for illegal immigrants to find work.

 

That's right and if the illegal immigrants couldn't find work they wouldn't come here. A strong union bass would make it harder, if not impossible for illegal immigrants to find work. Or it'd be a lot less.

 

Poor prospects for work would diminish the influx, but it is unclear how much - that factor is offset by the availability of free social services. That's why New York and California are considered 'Welfare Magnets.' They offer more than other states, and there are no residency requirements (neither time nor citizenship). So if you are an illegal immigrant who makes it that far, you can immediately cash in if you have friends to help you navigate the system. For many of the immigrants, living on welfare in NYC is a better lifestyle than what what their home villages offer - chances are there is no work there either.

 

http://www.boogieonline.com/revolution/com...e/new_york.html

Here's an old piece on the NY benefits. It's from a questionable source, but I remember the figures being generally accepted back in the 90's. At the time the outrage is what spawned the movement towards residency requirements (you had to be a resident for a year; blocked by the Supreme Court) and then Clinton's welfare reform (which required that you get a job after a few years; it was just repealed by the current congress).

[RLflutie7]

Poor prospects for work would diminish the influx, but it is unclear how much - that factor is offset by the availability of free social services. That's why New York and California are considered 'Welfare Magnets.' They offer more than other states, and there are no residency requirements (neither time nor citizenship). So if you are an illegal immigrant who makes it that far, you can immediately cash in if you have friends to help you navigate the system. For many of the immigrants, living on welfare in NYC is a better lifestyle than what what their home villages offer - chances are there is no work there either.

 

http://www.boogieonline.com/revolution/com...e/new_york.html

Here's an old piece on the NY benefits. It's from a questionable source, but I remember the figures being generally accepted back in the 90's. At the time the outrage is what spawned the movement towards residency requirements (you had to be a resident for a year; blocked by the Supreme Court) and then Clinton's welfare reform (which required that you get a job after a few years; it was just repealed by the current congress).

 

 

 

A very interesting article and it is true the benefits are way too generous. We shouldn't be letting these people in and after they come in they should be deported.

 

It's a complex problem with no real solution, because like it or not, you have to have these kind of programs. I just don't like illegal immigrants getting the benefits.

 

It would be nice if the media would stop portraying them as victims. They are "low wage" victims but they are not "lifestyle" victims.

[Adam]

I'm just really curious because for the life of me I cannot see how all the fans of socialism, who see more government as a solution, cannot see that the states that are currently more in tune with socialism are failing faster. Strangely enough what is their solution? Cut the budget, spend less, and let the private sector bring money back to the state.

 

How could this not be obvious that the states with the biggest budgets per capita are the same states failing?

 

Honestly, I would be open to reading how big gov't works in a big liberal utopia. I just cannot see how it survives.

Spending on societal concerns, spending on military. Both parties are for big government and both are about keeping money with the rich.