Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : The Residential Real Estate Crash Index -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Skeeter Bug who wrote (202935)	5/19/2009 3:49:15 AM
From: Elroy Jetson	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 306849

You're so deeply lost in the fantasy world promoted by Juan Peron and Ronald Reagan that you believe spending more than you take in is a permanent solution. It's not. The only way to reduce government spending is for the electorate to immediately feel the pain of their decisions. Do they want another war? A bank bail-out? Posh new transportation systems? Then they have to feel the pain of paying for them, right now. Many voters are like slugs, if they don't feel the electric shock they don't learn to avoid saying yes. Reagan and Peron used debt to give the voter anesthetic so they could carve off pieces of their flesh without the voter feeling it. That's not a solution of government spending. You need to readjust your thinking. .

To: Skeeter Bug who wrote (202935)	5/19/2009 11:07:40 AM
From: Jim McMannis	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 306849

It's all Reagans fault. He was governor of California. G Over what time frame did student spending go up 2x? 10 years? What about the last 7 years?

To: Skeeter Bug who wrote (202935)	5/19/2009 12:47:23 PM
From: Peter V	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 306849

for example, CA school enrolment is down over the last 10 years and they get 2x the money compared to 10 years ago. that's more than 2x spent per student. where does it go? How does your 2x stat explain that CA ranks 47th (out of 50) in per pupil spending? That's about $2400 below the national average of $9963 per student. cta.org I don't know the answer, but I think there is more to it than what you are saying.

To: Skeeter Bug who wrote (202935)	5/20/2009 12:56:13 AM
From: marcher	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 306849

oh, not again: "...CA school enrolment is down over the last 10 years and they get 2x the money compared to 10 years ago..." actually, enrollment is up (not down) from 5.9mil (1999-00) to 6.2mil (2007-08) and expenditures are up ~60% (not 100%) during the same period ($6,300/student to $10,200/student). your position would be more persuasive if your reasoning was better supported by facts. here's a entry into the data: ed-data.k12.ca.us ed-data.k12.ca.us here's an argument against your conservative position: californiaprogressreport.com cheers!