<p>It wasn't just at Santa Monica College, bro: same tuition for all of them (they all changed at the same time too).</p>
<p>I wish Westley Ran in the last term :-(</p>
<p>If Angelides becomes governor it will be lowered to $11. UC tuition will be lowered significantly as well!</p>
<p>Vote DEMOCRATIC.</p>
<p>... and let our all-powerful teacher's union turn this state into France or Germany? Hell no. California is dictated by the teacher's union; so ironic. The Governator's propositions last year were some of the best (except for the Nurses proposition) for the fiscal future of this state. Only if Arnold had been against it! </p>
<p>Most poli sci majors will tell u that all this partisanship and extreme right wing and left wing groups are cause of gerrymandering (which he tryied to fix).</p>
<p>Try to get to reality: California is an extremely liberal state.</p>
<p>Voters utterly rejected the propositions; they were useless, waste of money.</p>
<p>
Didn't take you for one of "those" liberals - being liberal for the sake of being liberal, gabe. LoL. I myself am also a bit leftish, but I'm a traditional California Republican (socially liberal, fiscally responsible! :p) The reality of the situation is that California is a case-in-point example of two ills of the modern American political system.</p>
<p>(1) Propositions, which date back to the progressive era when people thought an "enlightened constituency" to reverse decisions made by "Big Rail Companies," which dominated the state in its early history. Special Interests have made a mockery of this and now an overwhelming share of the budget is already decided by "laws" californians have passed. The reason why Arnold was so liked (and hated by the left) is that he was thought to have the name-recognition and people power to pull off reforms by going directly to the people through propositions (where the real power in this state now stands and which he wanted to change). Check out the leftish Economist and what it had to say about California. </p>
<p>(2) Gerrymandering. While you say California is extremeley liberal, and I agree, look at Republicans and traditional "California Republicans," this process has created districts that are extremely uncompetitive and tends to cause extreme forms of partisanship, voter apathy, and pretty much a non-functioning representative government. Rather than all the power being in the center, the state is dominated by special interest groups (big business is one, california teacher's union is another and far more powerful example)</p>
<p>*California would not be as liberal (and some districts as conservative) had the proposition for designing districts by retired judges had passed (a very noble cause championed by a very unpopular man at the time). *</p>
<p>Political scientists, economists, and (some) college students (the "enlightened constituency" with both leftist and conservative leanings tend to agree that these two issues make California largely ungovernable and on a road to bankruptcy. It is amazing that California is so well endowed with natural and human resources that we live in such prosperity despite the huge mistakes made by the state government. As for the future, I hope we still have the resources. </p>
<p> [quote] Voters utterly rejected the propositions; they were useless, waste of money.
What was a waste of money? Which proposition? And how? If anything, it was rejected because of Arnold's bluster and the "special" election; voters were annoyed at Arnold.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I myself am also a bit leftish, but I'm a traditional California Republican (socially liberal, fiscally responsible! )
[/quote]
</p>
<p>So that means you're a voter without a party? ;)</p>
<p>Exactly!!! I hate the fact that traditional California Republicans are becoming marginalized and extinct whereas the extreme far right dominate the agenda. </p>
<p>The fact that Issues such as partial-birth abortion could determine a president is ridiculous.</p>
<p>Too bad for you that the Libertarian Party is a joke</p>
<p>Sucks to be a Republican with 1940s ideals. Hahah</p>
<p>lol. We're not dead and a perfect example would be none other than Arnold himself (although his name as a powerful force to create change has been largely discredited). A lot of very conservative Republicans distrust his views and never liked his election.</p>
<p>Don't forget, I'm referring to California Republicans not Republicans on the national level.</p>
<p>Back to the debate over schools I think something was over looked.... how many IVY league professors teach at their local CC'S... I know all of us Cali C'C'Rs can atest to the large amount of UC and CSU professors we have at our CC's.</p>
<p>ya good point ijflexi.....</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
Without a doubt, California has one the highest per capita incomes (lol, although I'm not gonna dig through a bunch of pages looking for it), but I remember reading that it was higher than most states (excluding the super mineral rich, but less populated states like Alaska)... But, one reason why land is so expensive here (even though we got a lot more of it).
[/QUOTE]
</p>
<p>It certainly isn't the highest that's for sure...if you're going to sit here and say that it's more expensive to live in CA and salaries are higher, etc... as compared to NYC... you're out of your freakin mind...you have no clue how expensive real estate is in NYC and the surrounding areas...(long island, north jersey, etc)</p>
<p>Scom yes. 30 to 40 year old unrennovated houses in the metropolitan area cost well over $200k. Meanwhile beautiful, newly built houses I've seen in Arizona cost around the mid 100ks. It's amazing.</p>
<p>did a quick google on "most expensive city"</p>
<p>worldwide...</p>
<p>nyc 13th in the world...</p>
<p>The Americas
New York remains the most expensive city in North America, at 13th position in the rankings (score 100). Other costly cities include Los Angeles ranked 44 (86.7), San Francisco in 50th place (84.9) and Chicago in 52nd position (84.6). Washington DC takes 78th place (77.4). Winston Salem is the cheapest US city surveyed, ranked 119th (66.6). Many of the US cities surveyed have fallen in the rankings due to the weakening of the dollar against the Euro, Canadian dollar and Asian Pacific currencies, commented Ms Sepede.</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
Scom yes. 30 to 40 year old unrennovated houses in the metropolitan area cost well over $200k. Meanwhile beautiful, newly built houses I've seen in Arizona cost around the mid 100ks. It's amazing.
[/QUOTE]
</p>
<p>200k? the house i live in is modest in size...i'm located in central jersey...about 40 mins. outside of nyc... the house is 30 years old and worth well over 500k...property lines are about 20 feet wide by about 50 feet deep...</p>
<p>
[quote]
It certainly isn't the highest that's for sure...if you're going to sit here and say that it's more expensive to live in CA and salaries are higher, etc... as compared to NYC... you're out of your freakin mind...you have no clue how expensive real estate is in NYC and the surrounding areas...(long island, north jersey, etc)
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Try me. 2000 sq. feet will cost you upwards of $750K in the San Fernando Valley. And that's not even in the nicest parts. According to the NYTimes, the average home in Long Island is $300,000 to $400,000.</p>
<p>Sources:</p>
<p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Fernando_Valley%5B/url%5D">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Fernando_Valley</a>
<a href="http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E07E4D71138F933A15752C0A9649C8B63%5B/url%5D">http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E07E4D71138F933A15752C0A9649C8B63</a></p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
Try me. 2000 sq. feet will cost you upwards of $750K in the San Fernando Valley. And that's not even in the nicest parts. According to the NYTimes, the average home in Long Island is $300,000 to $400,000.</p>
<p>Sources:</p>
<p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Fernando_Valley%5B/url%5D">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Fernando_Valley</a>
<a href="http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpa...2C0A9649C8B%5B/url%5D">http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpa...2C0A9649C8B</a> 63 </p>
<p>
[/QUOTE]
</p>
<p>read the above post...</p>
<p>game over.</p>
<p>Wow. Way to not even bother trying to argue using decent statistical analysis. </p>
<p>Bravo, champ.</p>