- This topic has 740 replies, 31 voices, and was last updated 13 years, 4 months ago by
sdrealtor.
-
AuthorPosts
-
January 8, 2011 at 3:34 PM #650480January 8, 2011 at 3:55 PM #649372
paramount
Participant1st Prop 13, then mortgage interest will be next after that.
Bottomline: Dismantling prop 13 will only serve to principally benefit gov’t workers and those on welfare.
Those are the groups that we who work in the private sector serve.
Instead of reducing or eliminating pensions and curtailing outlandish salaries for state and local gov’t workers and seeing that as the problem, Gov. Brown instead sees it as a revenue issue – even though we are already taxed at an incredibly high level!!!
Example: The City Manager of Temecula makes almost as much as the President of the United States!!
But instead they declare a state of emergency for the school system in California.
This is all being engineered by the gov’t worker unions in California. They are in complete control.
January 8, 2011 at 3:55 PM #649443Participant1st Prop 13, then mortgage interest will be next after that.
Bottomline: Dismantling prop 13 will only serve to principally benefit gov’t workers and those on welfare.
Those are the groups that we who work in the private sector serve.
Instead of reducing or eliminating pensions and curtailing outlandish salaries for state and local gov’t workers and seeing that as the problem, Gov. Brown instead sees it as a revenue issue – even though we are already taxed at an incredibly high level!!!
Example: The City Manager of Temecula makes almost as much as the President of the United States!!
But instead they declare a state of emergency for the school system in California.
This is all being engineered by the gov’t worker unions in California. They are in complete control.
January 8, 2011 at 3:55 PM #650029Participant1st Prop 13, then mortgage interest will be next after that.
Bottomline: Dismantling prop 13 will only serve to principally benefit gov’t workers and those on welfare.
Those are the groups that we who work in the private sector serve.
Instead of reducing or eliminating pensions and curtailing outlandish salaries for state and local gov’t workers and seeing that as the problem, Gov. Brown instead sees it as a revenue issue – even though we are already taxed at an incredibly high level!!!
Example: The City Manager of Temecula makes almost as much as the President of the United States!!
But instead they declare a state of emergency for the school system in California.
This is all being engineered by the gov’t worker unions in California. They are in complete control.
January 8, 2011 at 3:55 PM #650165Participant1st Prop 13, then mortgage interest will be next after that.
Bottomline: Dismantling prop 13 will only serve to principally benefit gov’t workers and those on welfare.
Those are the groups that we who work in the private sector serve.
Instead of reducing or eliminating pensions and curtailing outlandish salaries for state and local gov’t workers and seeing that as the problem, Gov. Brown instead sees it as a revenue issue – even though we are already taxed at an incredibly high level!!!
Example: The City Manager of Temecula makes almost as much as the President of the United States!!
But instead they declare a state of emergency for the school system in California.
This is all being engineered by the gov’t worker unions in California. They are in complete control.
January 8, 2011 at 3:55 PM #650490Participant1st Prop 13, then mortgage interest will be next after that.
Bottomline: Dismantling prop 13 will only serve to principally benefit gov’t workers and those on welfare.
Those are the groups that we who work in the private sector serve.
Instead of reducing or eliminating pensions and curtailing outlandish salaries for state and local gov’t workers and seeing that as the problem, Gov. Brown instead sees it as a revenue issue – even though we are already taxed at an incredibly high level!!!
Example: The City Manager of Temecula makes almost as much as the President of the United States!!
But instead they declare a state of emergency for the school system in California.
This is all being engineered by the gov’t worker unions in California. They are in complete control.
January 8, 2011 at 4:01 PM #649377bearishgurl
Participantparamount, lots and lots of “union” workers and retired “union” workers enjoy the protections/perks that Prop 13 provides for (both orig owners AND heirs).
Of course, I’m open to proof, but I don’t see the public employee unions behind the repeal of Prop 13 (and its progeny) either in its entirety, or piecemeal.
January 8, 2011 at 4:01 PM #649448Participantparamount, lots and lots of “union” workers and retired “union” workers enjoy the protections/perks that Prop 13 provides for (both orig owners AND heirs).
Of course, I’m open to proof, but I don’t see the public employee unions behind the repeal of Prop 13 (and its progeny) either in its entirety, or piecemeal.
January 8, 2011 at 4:01 PM #650034Participantparamount, lots and lots of “union” workers and retired “union” workers enjoy the protections/perks that Prop 13 provides for (both orig owners AND heirs).
Of course, I’m open to proof, but I don’t see the public employee unions behind the repeal of Prop 13 (and its progeny) either in its entirety, or piecemeal.
January 8, 2011 at 4:01 PM #650170Participantparamount, lots and lots of “union” workers and retired “union” workers enjoy the protections/perks that Prop 13 provides for (both orig owners AND heirs).
Of course, I’m open to proof, but I don’t see the public employee unions behind the repeal of Prop 13 (and its progeny) either in its entirety, or piecemeal.
January 8, 2011 at 4:01 PM #650495Participantparamount, lots and lots of “union” workers and retired “union” workers enjoy the protections/perks that Prop 13 provides for (both orig owners AND heirs).
Of course, I’m open to proof, but I don’t see the public employee unions behind the repeal of Prop 13 (and its progeny) either in its entirety, or piecemeal.
January 8, 2011 at 4:26 PM #649392CA renter
Participant[quote=no_such_reality][quote=Eugene][quote=SD Realtor]I think that it is very telling that those in power view the solution to be increasing tax revenue rather then decreasing spending.
Lets all be honest here, do we really think that increasing tax revenues to the state will benefit in the long run? Sure the increased revenues will help reduce the current state budget woes but will it cure the disease? Didn’t we JUST have a state income tax increase?[/quote]
Didn’t we also cut spending across the board at least three years in a row?
There’s not much room to reduce spending even further, unless you want to compete with Texas for the largest percentage of poor people without health insurance (cut Medi-Cal), with Mississippi for the lowest K-12 spending per pupil and lowest school test scores (cut K-12), or to dismantle/cripple/cut loose the best public university system in the country (cut UC subsidies).[/quote]
In 2007-2008, 68.3% of California Students graduated…
20.1% drop out, 11% are GED, 5th year seniors etc.
In counties like Los Angeles, the drop out rate is 34.9%
34.9% The problem is much deeper than funding.[/quote]
That “deeper problem” (illegal immigration) is one of the biggest reasons for our financial distress. But we’re not allowed to say that.
January 8, 2011 at 4:26 PM #649463Participant[quote=no_such_reality][quote=Eugene][quote=SD Realtor]I think that it is very telling that those in power view the solution to be increasing tax revenue rather then decreasing spending.
Lets all be honest here, do we really think that increasing tax revenues to the state will benefit in the long run? Sure the increased revenues will help reduce the current state budget woes but will it cure the disease? Didn’t we JUST have a state income tax increase?[/quote]
Didn’t we also cut spending across the board at least three years in a row?
There’s not much room to reduce spending even further, unless you want to compete with Texas for the largest percentage of poor people without health insurance (cut Medi-Cal), with Mississippi for the lowest K-12 spending per pupil and lowest school test scores (cut K-12), or to dismantle/cripple/cut loose the best public university system in the country (cut UC subsidies).[/quote]
In 2007-2008, 68.3% of California Students graduated…
20.1% drop out, 11% are GED, 5th year seniors etc.
In counties like Los Angeles, the drop out rate is 34.9%
34.9% The problem is much deeper than funding.[/quote]
That “deeper problem” (illegal immigration) is one of the biggest reasons for our financial distress. But we’re not allowed to say that.
January 8, 2011 at 4:26 PM #650049Participant[quote=no_such_reality][quote=Eugene][quote=SD Realtor]I think that it is very telling that those in power view the solution to be increasing tax revenue rather then decreasing spending.
Lets all be honest here, do we really think that increasing tax revenues to the state will benefit in the long run? Sure the increased revenues will help reduce the current state budget woes but will it cure the disease? Didn’t we JUST have a state income tax increase?[/quote]
Didn’t we also cut spending across the board at least three years in a row?
There’s not much room to reduce spending even further, unless you want to compete with Texas for the largest percentage of poor people without health insurance (cut Medi-Cal), with Mississippi for the lowest K-12 spending per pupil and lowest school test scores (cut K-12), or to dismantle/cripple/cut loose the best public university system in the country (cut UC subsidies).[/quote]
In 2007-2008, 68.3% of California Students graduated…
20.1% drop out, 11% are GED, 5th year seniors etc.
In counties like Los Angeles, the drop out rate is 34.9%
34.9% The problem is much deeper than funding.[/quote]
That “deeper problem” (illegal immigration) is one of the biggest reasons for our financial distress. But we’re not allowed to say that.
January 8, 2011 at 4:26 PM #650185Participant[quote=no_such_reality][quote=Eugene][quote=SD Realtor]I think that it is very telling that those in power view the solution to be increasing tax revenue rather then decreasing spending.
Lets all be honest here, do we really think that increasing tax revenues to the state will benefit in the long run? Sure the increased revenues will help reduce the current state budget woes but will it cure the disease? Didn’t we JUST have a state income tax increase?[/quote]
Didn’t we also cut spending across the board at least three years in a row?
There’s not much room to reduce spending even further, unless you want to compete with Texas for the largest percentage of poor people without health insurance (cut Medi-Cal), with Mississippi for the lowest K-12 spending per pupil and lowest school test scores (cut K-12), or to dismantle/cripple/cut loose the best public university system in the country (cut UC subsidies).[/quote]
In 2007-2008, 68.3% of California Students graduated…
20.1% drop out, 11% are GED, 5th year seniors etc.
In counties like Los Angeles, the drop out rate is 34.9%
34.9% The problem is much deeper than funding.[/quote]
That “deeper problem” (illegal immigration) is one of the biggest reasons for our financial distress. But we’re not allowed to say that.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.