<p>if I cared about my universities (already tarnished) image I wouldn’t be posting on here at all. :D</p>
<p>Bad image…ROFL. </p>
<p>Some of you need a psych eval with the nutty stuff you post.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Fine, but only 27% of people have a college degree, should we ignore this “fringe” group as well?</p>
<p>
No, level of education and political party aren’t really comparable in the context of my quote. I was talking about a small minority blocking the will of the much larger majority</p>
<p>27% people having college degrees while 73% not does not really compare. In the case of how educated someone/some group is, it is generally a good idea to listen to the educated, as they are more likely to know what they are talking about. </p>
<p>On the other hand, when you are talking about a political dichotomy within fiscal policy, without taking a partisan stance, there is no actual right and wrong; there are just two or more different views (as economics is an entirely human made system). When the people have overwhelmingly thrown their support on one side, it is generally a good idea to allow that overwhelming majority to rule, instead of having laws that prevent such.</p>
<p>^^ I was addressing how you wanted to increase taxes to help subsidize college education. Seems kind of like special interests if you ask me.</p>
<p>Yes, I do understand the concept of spillover benefits so subsidizing college education does make economic sense. Although, according to you there are no right an wrong answers in economics so why should the uneducated agree to go along with this?</p>
<p>I would have to agree with anon5524485 on Prop 13. The super-right wing Republicans of California are, indeed, holding back the general will of the greater percent and populace of the state. The Republican minority is effectively impeding funding for education. </p>
<p>I am in favor of raising taxes on oil companies to alleviate this issue. Also, I think it would be best to have a 50%+1 representation (as Prop 13 contends), instead of 2/3 budget/tax law. Through true majority representation of California, this would be best. People think of taxes and see themselves losing money. However, the money that you’ll be paying for school (and already are) will be even more significant and severe if this doesn’t change. On top of this, Prop 13 targets the oil companies, as LeftitstHominist has persistently stated.</p>
<p>Essentially, it comes down to whether or not the individual cares about the education standards in California. This is a subjective stance, but I feel that the educational standards and quality of education in California are truly unacceptable. The budget cuts issue is one that does affect all of us, whether acknowledged or not, and it’s important to overcome this as a state for prosperity and also for the improvement of general, affordable education.</p>
<p>^you are slightly off, Prop 13 was passed in 1970-something and established the 2/3rd budget rule. Prof. Lakoff’s California Democracy Act initiative is an initiative that is gathering signatures to get on to the ballot, which attempts to repeal the 2/3rds budget law that Prop 13 enforced. Prop 13 also contained necessary property tax reform, no one is intending to change that part of prop 13. If you want to sign it, go here
<a href=“http://salsa.wiredforchange.com/o/6110/content.jsp?key=3402[/url]”>http://salsa.wiredforchange.com/o/6110/content.jsp?key=3402</a></p>
<p>Ahh I see. My mistake. I am gunning for the same policy to be implemented, I guess I just wasn’t as clear on the reform aspect. I hadn’t read up on it or heard anything for a while. Thank you for the clarification, and I’m definitely signing.</p>