<p>I think that an acceptable solution would be if UCSC/M/R increased selectivity based on merit and reduced incoming classes in order to raise the UG student body quality and the ability to preform research. Good luck with this happening though because of the 12.5% rule. Too bad California public education pre-UC/CSU is one of the worst in the nation. We are forced by law to accept the best of the worst and the perpetual slide continues. I have encountered an alarming amount of students who are barely literate. Coming from a private high school, I was shocked they were able to graduate, let alone place in the “top” 12.5% of their class.</p>
<p>How does them being more selective solve the budget crisis? Having smarter students doesn’t somehow generate money. Research costs money. </p>
<p>LAUSD is easily the worst public school system ever. Once again, this has only reinforced my political beliefs related to illegal immigration. LOL@those who want illegal immigrants to get financial aid for higher education.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>A very typical republican way of thinking. No one’s gonna work less or produce less due to the tax raise in this economy. Everyone’s looking for work nowadays, more time, and only demand to produce more. With a $1.7 trillion deficit, our tax is no where near high enough. Tax the high-end, they are the least impacted due to the recession, because they are still making money. And we are talking about balancing the budget. Expenditure isn’t the only part of the equation.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>There would be no budget crisis in education system if there wasn’t a budget crisis in the state as a whole. UC is a public education system. The financial condition of the state directly mirrors that of the UC/CSU/CC system. </p>
<p>Problem with Arnie is that his plan of cutting financial aid is coupled with INCREASED tuition fee, not just for the UC, but for all public higher education system in the state. Moreover, California spends as much on the prison system as on higher education. That’s outrageous–but the voters keep passing initiatives without funding sources, like 3-strikes laws, that tie up more and more of the state’s budget. All this means that raising revenues–i.e., taxes and fees, has to be part of the budget solution. Illegal Immigration is also part of the problem. costing the economy over $10 billion each year.</p>
<p>Nice cherry picking. I actually said I would be ok with some tax raises if its used to create jobs and build infrastructure, not support entitlement programs. Nor did I say the rich would be less productive and work less. Weak attempt at putting words in my mouth. </p>
<p>HOWEVER, the more money people keep, the more money they spend. It is an economic cycle. Many economic theories support that money kept/spent by citizens is far more economically stimulating than that by government.</p>
<p>This all goes without saying that I think it’s pathetic that people always turn to the successful and force their hand to feed your lack of responsibility. As if the top 5% paying 55% of the taxes in this country isn’t enough, you still demand more so you don’t have to work to pay off your choice of higher education.</p>
<p>Yes if are deficit is $1.7 trillion it must be cause taxes aren’t high enough. Because we all know if we spent nothing, we still would run a deficit due to taxes not being high enough…</p>
<p>Yes clearly if the state is fiscally successful, it will have the money to make up for a deficit in the UC system, but it would be more logical to make the UC system EFFICIENT. So what if the plan is to cut aid AND raise fees? You think people will stop going? The UC system turns down applicants by the boatload every year (especially UCLA and UCB), there are thousands of people who will gladly take out a loan and pay to attend a top university. If cutting aid and raising fees is what is needed to actually keep the schools open and maintain quality, I am all for it. This coming from someone who is actually paying for his own UCLA fees without financial aid or parental assistance.</p>
<p>I actually value the education I will get, and know it’s a great investment. I have no problem spending the money I saved from working, and if need be taking out a loan.</p>
<p>Won’t get an argument from me on the prison system or illegal immigration. If it was up to me, I would totally make the justice system more fiscally punishing (larger fines) than physically (putting them in prison). At least for petty offenses. </p>
<p>Illegal immigration costs us boatloads. It would be impossible to even calculate. Not just what we spend on services (namely emergency rooms and other medical care), but crime, care for their children, schooling for their children, and the negative effects that has on our school system as a whole. I am too lazy to find the article now, but there was a report about how the rise in children from illegal immigrants has tanked the overall English speaking capabilities of students in LAUSD because they have to slow the whole class down to make up for those kids who know zero english. And since their parents don’t speak english, they rarely ever develop the skills to speak at their grade level.</p>
<p>Raise taxes in a recession? Basic economics says bad idea. </p>
<p>Problem is, we have programs that were started years ago during the “good days” when we actually had money. Our stupid legislature saw money on the table and immediately created programs to make their constituents happy. Our programs > our revenue. Increasing taxes (we already pay very high taxes in California) is not going to solve the problem. </p>
<p>The only way to work out a budget in California and in the U.S. is to reform some of these expensive government programs. </p>
<p>Obama says that we can raise taxes on the private businesses because they have the least to lose. Problem is, according to economics, these private businesses will stop investing and putting money into the system if they have less money.</p>
<p>It would be a good idea if we tied Cal Grants to not only low income but performance as well. This means doing away with the entitlement Cal Grant, and only having a Competitive Cal Grant. How about along the lines of having to maintain at least a 3.3-3.4 GPA? This way it’ll make college students more competitive.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m talking about taxing the high-ends. Tax increase on very wealthy people to fund the expenditures. Ultimately, it puts more money in the hand of the middle class which means more consumer spending which benefits everyone including the wealthy because their businesses do better. Trickle down economics doesn’t work. But the prosperity of the 50’s and 60’s shows that a more prosperous middle class helps everyone. Rich people save, and they invest. Poor people spend. </p>
<p>Spending is the major factor in measuring consumer confidence, and consumer confidence increases expectation in future economic condition, thus stimulating investment domestically, rate of return increase, dollar becomes powerful, international investors throwing in capital into America, etc. Of course, I can’t say this is the ultimate truth because there are economists who believe in other theories. That’s why there’s a saying that the only people who are worse than weatherman in predicting the future are the economists.</p>
<p>Not all economists think alike. There’s a reason why there are so many different theories in economics. Economists like Nobel Prize winner Paul Krugman support Obama’s plan. So does billionaire Warren Buffet.</p>
<p>“The problem with the state is they only think about raising taxes and never think about cutting entitlement programs. Thanks to our Democrat run legislature.”</p>
<p>Hahahahaha! Noob.</p>
<p>“Problem is, we have programs that were started years ago during the “good days” when we actually had money. Our stupid legislature saw money on the table and immediately created programs to make their constituents happy. Our programs > our revenue. Increasing taxes (we already pay very high taxes in California) is not going to solve the problem.”</p>
<p>No, No, No. Simply wrong. Higher taxes led to the good times of huge surplus. Then the republicans cut taxes (mostly the 1994 property tax reform) without cutting programs. If you want to know the route of California’s budget problems just check out 1994-2004. It is a classic example of how you shouldnt cut taxes just because things are going great. This pains me to say but…Grey Davis was right. WOW that just taste bad but theres no getting around it. He told us that if we didnt raise taxes this would happen and we all got ****ed off (myself included) and kicked him out. THen we elected Arnold who did just what we wanted: cut taxes…now look where we are.</p>
<p>Yes, I am a noob.</p>
<p>As you said, they cut taxes WITHOUT cutting programs. It goes both ways. Republicans want to always cut taxes, democrats always want to give away more entitlements.</p>
<p>Yes but there has NEVER been a time when republicans have cut both taxes and the programs to pay for those tax cuts. EVER.</p>
<p>I doubt that, but I am too lazy to research it. Republicans love to cut spending, its part of their platform. Usually they are unable to do both because there is too much opposition. It’s far easier for democrats to play class warfare and target the rich for higher taxes, than it is for the republicans to cut entitlements.</p>
<p>Gray Davis was a smart guy who got recalled on the back of Issa’s millions. The recall did nothing but cost the state more money and gave us the cigar smoking idiot we currently have. If only more people voted for Gary Coleman or Mary Carey.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Excellent idea! Can we send you to Sacramento, IAskQuestions? I see you’re at Berkeley, not too far away … :)</p>
<p>You do realize that republicans play “class warfare” too right? They try to pin high and middle class Americans against the “freeloader” who just wants the government to give them a free ride. This is clearly never the true issue and both parties know it. Now I have done the research on a national level and it has never been done. Even at times when republicans had both the house, senate, and presidency. And it’s not really their fault. The truth is that it is easy to say lets cut these entitlements and free handouts to gain public support but if you actually look into both California, and the US’s budget you will find that it is just not that simple. Most of these programs are very neccessary. I would encourage you to actually look into the budget (which is public) and start cutting out what you would cut to make up for the billions of dollars we have lost and continue to loose because of tax cuts. You just might realize that the tax cuts are what need to go.</p>
<p>Oh, I do agree. They play class warfare, but nothing compared to dems. Republicans are WAAAY to scared to talk about freeloaders. Its more socially acceptable to blame the “fat cats” for the problems, and expect them to pay more (despite paying the vast majority of taxes as is). </p>
<p>I have looked at the budgets in the past, but I disagree that most of these programs are very necessary. I think they could be tailored FAR more efficiently, and many are too giving. I don’t think I suggested cutting taxes now. As I said before, you could make an argument for raising taxes slightly on the very rich in this time for infrastructure purposes (which create jobs and will pay back more via efficiency in the future). I would never support raising taxes so that students don’t have to take loans.</p>
<p>I just don’t see why the ONLY option is raising taxes? Why is cutting back entitlements never an option? Taxes are astronomical as it is, as are the entitlements. Where do we stop? 55% on the rich and $5000/monthly welfare? I think the “norm” has been set so high it can’t go much higher. As I said before, the rich already pay the VAST majority of taxes in this country. Democrats look at the rich as pinatas. Oh, we want to give illegal immigrants benefits so we can get their children to vote for us, let’s just tax the rich more cause its fair. </p>
<p>While we have deviated off the main points from before, I still stand by the fact it is far more logical, physically responsible, and fair to cut financial aid at the UC level rather than closing the lower tier schools.</p>
<p>Hijynx, please run for office. I adore you.</p>
<p>Please run for office so that we can have another ■■■■■■ in office.</p>
<p>Sorry, I can’t compete with Newsom, Villaraigosa, Pelosi, or Boxer. They have a monopoly on retardation.</p>