[poorgradstudent]

[quote=flu]Dont get me wrong. I know this isn’t an asian versus white thing at all… I just think the entire quota thing is bullshit for anyone of any race.[/quote]
Funny, I agree with you, but disagree with your conclusion. It’s not about race, it’s about money. If you are poor, you deserve extra consideration. A poor kid with a 2100 SAT is more impressive to me than a rich kid with a 2300 SAT. The system needs to exist to give our best and brightest a fair shake, regardless of their backgrounds. It’s one reason class rank is a nice way of measuring things, although, again, only one data point. A poor white kid deserves more consideration than Jay-Z’s child.

[poorgradstudent]

Interesting article. I’m a little confused by the stats about UC Berkeley; it sounds like foreign-born students are replacing ALL ethnicities, not just Asian Americans? But the implication is Cal may be the exception, not the rule?

As for the changes to reduce the number of students admitted based solely on grades and test scores, it’s probably a good change overall. I’m someone who did very well on the SAT, and I can say it’s only one data point and grossly over weighted. The SAT Subject tests are terrible and exist primarily to line the pockets of The College Board. There really is something to be said for “well rounded” college applicants.

If rich Chinese people want to subsidize our education system by paying sticker price for a UC education for their kids, more power to them. Clearly there is no political will to spend money to fully fund the UC system right now through taxpayer dollars, so that’s the solution.

[poorgradstudent]

Clearly the Smart Money is outweighing the Dumb Money. My understanding is average americans just aren’t that invested in Stocks these days, and those that are are mostly in large mutual funds.

[poorgradstudent]

Also, why is this OT? Isn’t this very much ON topic? 🙂

[poorgradstudent]

Unless I’m misreading this, it sounds like a Free Market solution to a problem. There may be some behind the scenes government pressure, but this is clearly a case of banks wanting to get some of these bad mortgages off their books without deflating the overall housing market too much.

If you believe the free market is always right and perfect, this seems logical, right?

[poorgradstudent]

[quote=sdrealtor]OK…now get ready for the resident lunatic to come in and warn about the evils of planned communities, homeowners associations and Mello Roos.[/quote]
I think everyone on this board should buy and encourage their friends to buy in planned communities with HOAs. That might help drive down the price of places I actually want to buy!

[poorgradstudent]

[quote=paramount]Yes, we can balance the budget with cuts. Cut pensions, benefits for public employees NOW. Break the stranglehold public employee unions have on this state. California public employees/unions have bankrupted California.

Start privatizing state/local gov’t jobs wherever possible.

“California is exceptional in many ways when it comes to taxing its residents. The state has the highest statewide sales tax in the country, currently 8.25%. It also has the highest tax on gas, charging 46.6 cents per gallon. “[/quote]
My understanding is in most cases cuts to pensions require consent from the Unions, as these are benefits that were guaranteed as part of previous contracts, contracts that are legally binding. My understanding is new employees don’t get the sweetheart deals those older workers get, so the long term easy cuts have already been made. As for cutting benefits, basic market forces tell you the state is just going to then have to raise salaries to keep talent. People who work for the state often choose to take lower salaries than they could make in the private sector in exchange for better benefits and job security.

I would like to see California “Break” the unions associated with prisons. California spends far too much on incarceration across the board, partially due to the failed “war” on drugs. Reducing prison population has huge long term benefits, but unfortunately it’s not a great short term fix.

Generally, when you privatize jobs that were once public, the public doesn’t save anything. Even if the private sector could come in and magically cut costs by 5% without a serious cut in service (an ambitious, but plausible scenario), that 5% savings is just going to line the pockets of shareholders. What you’re more likely going to see is an erosion of quality of service. The taxpayers will pay the same amount, lose control, and get nickeled and dimed by the private sector. Think about SDG&E and all the crap they constantly try to pull. That’s what happens when you privatize. Unions have their issues, but at least the public can fight with unions; corporations just bend the public over and have their way.

California does tax residents pretty high, but also provides an exceptional level of support services. If you’re young and middle-to-upper middle class and don’t have any elderly friends or relatives a lot of these support services may be invisible to you. But the fact is, California is one of the few states in the nation that actually does an ok job taking care of the poor. There are states with structural advantages which are able to provide similar services with lower tax rates, but seriously, thank God California isn’t Alabama, Mississippi or Florida.

[poorgradstudent]

Then again, we could just reform Prop 13. But sadly that’s political suicide, even if it makes a whole lot of rational sense.

[poorgradstudent]

Honestly, can’t we just decriminalize marijuana once and for all? Legailize it, tax it, and save boatloads of cash on prisons in the process.

I’m still torn on Brown’s specific proposal, although I agree that “We can’t balance this budget with cuts alone”. I think aspects of it reek of mediocre compromise, but I don’t hate it overall.

[poorgradstudent]

[quote=harvey]Nonsense. We have Simpson-Bowles and its derivatives. A plan based on sensible compromises developed by bipartisan committees that most independent analysts agreed would be effective toward reducing the national debt.

A plan that has been consistently rejected en masse by Republicans because of their fanatic loyalty to Grover Norquist.

Both parties are the same, huh?

http://economy.money.cnn.com/2012/03/28/the-return-of-simpson-bowles/

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303404704577307710169626858.html%5B/quote%5D
Reinstating Simpson-Bowles should be the most important issue this campaign. We need to ensure another financial meltdown of the kind that created this recession can’t happen again. Unfortunately, the majority of voters either can’t understand or don’t care enough to understand Simpson-Bowles, or are rich enough to personally benefit from a system that lets them gamble with taxpayer money.

[poorgradstudent]

[quote=Wah-Wah]look like somebody needs to learn how to use the camera.[/quote]
This is true of a lot of MLS listings I’ve seen online. I’ve seen plenty of properties with nothing but camera phone pictures.

[poorgradstudent]

We’re at the transition point in the US on Gay Marriage. Those under 40, and especially those under 30, are pretty supportive of it on a whole. Those over 50, and especially those over 60, are against it. It’s not that people’s opinions are changing, it’s just every funeral brings us one vote closer to catching up with the rest of the world.

Gay marriage is today’s Interracial marriage of the past. Like interracial marriage, there will be folks who are against it long after it becomes accepted by mainstream America.

[poorgradstudent]

I’m confused, considering your 70% down payment should make you a great bet. Because if you walk, they get to keep the house, and your 70%… the market would have to crash a LOT for that not to be a good bet.

[poorgradstudent]

Hopefully they audit him on his way out. He needed to renounce years ago to really save on his taxes, assuming he doesn’t try to cheat.

[poorgradstudent]

[quote=flu]Being gifted in you doesn’t mean shit. Being driven an passionate that matters makes a huge different. People that I knew that were gifted and breezed through HS and got into Harvard/MIT subsequently flunked out because they were lazy. People that weren’t the rock stars but worked for it did well and ended up working for Goldman (ok maybe, that’s not such a good thing 🙂
[/quote]
To keep hammering my sports analogies, being gifted is like being a top 5 draft pick. It’s no guarantee of superstardom: Ryan Leaf, anyone? But the odds of a student identified as “gifted” achieving more than their less gifted peers are certainly higher. Natural gifts are one part of the equation. “You can’t teach height”, but the NBA is littered with high draft pick big men who never panned out. Still, I hear that LeBron guy is pretty good.

[Author]

Posts