Why California Sucks Ass!!!

[smoothmoniker]

Originally Posted by BigV

There have been some spectacular failures of successful ballot initiatives. Prop 13 comes to mind. The unintended consequences of that well intentioned measure were devastating to the public schools. There were other tax funded organizations that suffered greatly.

The alternative to to Prop 13 is to force people to move out of homes they've lived in their entire lives when an insane real estate bubble shoots the price of their home up by 100% in 5 years.

When my dad retired, his home was worth 1.1 million. It's a modest 3 bedroom track home in a very hot real estate market. Without prop 13, my dad would have had to come up with $11,000 a year to stay in his home. If he couldn't make that payment on his retirement pension, he would have been forced to sell his home.

The alternative to prop 13 is to leave long-term homeowners hostage to the inflated prices jacked up by speculators and foolish buyers.

[SteveDallas]

Originally Posted by BigV

The deal is that the system is dysfunctional, if not broken.

I'll stipulate your points. (Notice I never suggested it was a good system.) But my original comment was about a post that suggested that the gummint does people's thinking for them, and I don't see that out of what you describe,

[BigV]

SD: You're right. Radar's point that teh gummint does all the thinking in California is incorrect.

Your point that there is a *very* active political culture in California is also right. Many, many good things have come from California, things that started as political ideas, brought to life by laws. Not all of them were invented there, but once adopted there, they blossomed.

sm: Prop 13 was conceived and passed because there *was* a real problem with rising tax bills. I don't contest that. My point was that it was an oversimple solution that caused as many problems as it solved. It was effective. But, because it was put together by amateurs, it was poorly made.

There is a reason we have professionals of all stripes, and this is a good example of why we should have professional lawmakers.

[lookout123]

/devil's/ When I was new in the car biz and people would ask for a "senior salesperson" I would laugh with them and say I understood. Why would they want to deal with me and my amateurish, semi-transparent negotiating techniques when they could have a real professional; someone so experienced and versed in the trade they could assfuck them from three states away without the customer being any the wiser.

having a pro taking care of you is really only beneficial if you can trust them to really be on your side. how many "professional lawmakers" have you met that fit that description? /advocate/

[BigV]

Yes, you are correct. It is a matter of trust. My Dad imparted this wisdom to me, early and often, "Consider the source, son." It is so true. While we're dogging politicians, I'm reminded of the immortal words of

Originally Posted by Lazarus Long

Democracy is based on the assumption that a million men are wiser than one man. How's that again? I missed something.

Autocracy is based on the assumption that one man is wiser than a million men. Let's play that over again, too. Who decides?

You're a pro, can you do a better job at what you do than some duffer? Probably. *and* you could probably do a better job at disguising your malfeasance, hypothetically assuming you committed any. Same here. Same at the capitol. But the chances that something good will come from the efforts of an amateur (or a million amateurs) compared to a pro, for something as complex as legislation are slim.

What we share here is the unspoken disgust at unethical behavior, coming from a salesman or a legislator or whomever. That chaps my ass same as you. But it's not because they're professionals.

[BigV]

don't mean to dodge your question about how many lawmakers have I met...

Practically none. But it is *possible* to make an informed judgment of the trustworthiness of a politician based on their words and actions. But that takes much effort, and considerable application of my Dad's wise words, "Consider the source, son."

[Radar]

Originally Posted by BigV

There have been some spectacular failures of successful ballot initiatives. Prop 13 comes to mind. The unintended consequences of that well intentioned measure were devastating to the public schools. There were other tax funded organizations that suffered greatly.

Prop 13 didn't harm public schools, making them PUBLIC is what wrecked them. Allowing the government, especially the federal government to be involved in the funding, planning, building, testing, or designing curriculum of our schools is a nightmare.

I have to admit I was pretty angry after the last vote. We had a proposition (Prop 98) on the ballot to eliminate eminent domain for private use. It would have prevented politicians and wealthy developers from stealing someones home, rentals, business, or place of worship simply because something else would provide more tax dollars. It would have protected real property from people.

The developers, and the league of California cities, and counties, etc. created another proposition to sink the first one. They made a proposition that offered no protection at all and paid millions and millions of dollars to scare the crap out of old people and socialists by claiming Prop 98 would end rent control. Prop 98 didn't end rent control for anyone that was already renting under it....even though it should.

The scumbags got their way and the idiots of the state voted down the only protection they could get from having their property stolen from them, or their friends, neighbors, and relatives.

[BigV]

Originally Posted by Radar

snip--
I have to admit I was pretty angry after the last vote. We had a proposition (Prop 98) on the ballot to eliminate eminent domain for private use. It would have prevented politicians and wealthy developers from stealing someones home, rentals, business, or place of worship simply because something else would provide more tax dollars. It would have protected real property from people.

The developers, and the league of California cities, and counties, etc. created another proposition to sink the first one. They made a proposition that offered no protection at all and paid millions and millions of dollars to scare the crap out of old people and socialists by claiming Prop 98 would end rent control. Prop 98 didn't end rent control for anyone that was already renting under it....even though it should.

The scumbags got their way and the idiots of the state voted down the only protection they could get from having their property stolen from them, or their friends, neighbors, and relatives.

Thank you for providing further evidence for my point.

[BigV]

Originally Posted by Radar

Prop 13 didn't harm public schools, making them PUBLIC is what wrecked them. Allowing the government, especially the federal government to be involved in the funding, planning, building, testing, or designing curriculum of our schools is a nightmare.
--snip

You forgot to pack your eloquence for this trip out to the interwebz. I understand what you're saying, but, in addition to being fundamentally wrong, you misleadingly conflate the big bad Feds with what it takes to make a school system succeed. I'm just sayin.

[Radar]

I'm not fundamentally wrong. Public schools are an utter failure. All schools should be private schools. Public schools teach kids to rely on the government for everything. It's these kind of people who grow up thinking if you're against government funded schools, it means you're against kids getting a decent education or you don't want an education to be available to everyone.

What it takes to make a school system succeed are good teachers who engage kids and keep their attention. It takes an environment that kids enjoy and where kids don't fear getting shot or beaten by gang members. It takes a flexible curriculum and it takes parental involvement in the process.

When government pays for any part of this, they want to control all of it. Government is like King Midas, except instead of gold, everything it touches turns to shit.

I care too much about the education of our kids to allow government to screw it up in the same way it screws everything else up.

[BigV]

Calm. Down.

Public schools are not an utter failure. There is a place for private schools, but that place is not "No public schools". Public education is a crucial part of the foundation of our national capital, our civic infrastructure. We could no more have only private schools than we could have only private roads, or only a private military. Your hyper-allergic reaction to all things governmental is causing an overreaction here.

What it takes to make a school system succeed are good teachers who engage kids and keep their attention. It takes an environment that kids enjoy and where kids don't fear getting shot or beaten by gang members. It takes a flexible curriculum and it takes parental involvement in the process.

Right! And this in no way precludes the idea of a public school system.

You don't want *your* kid to go to public school, fine. But that does not give you license to burn down the whole public education system.

[grumble]..teach kids to rely on government for everything... what a maroon[/mumble]

[glatt]

Did you go to a public school, Radar?

[Radar]

Originally Posted by BigV

Calm. Down.

Public schools are not an utter failure. There is a place for private schools, but that place is not "No public schools". Public education is a crucial part of the foundation of our national capital, our civic infrastructure. We could no more have only private schools than we could have only private roads, or only a private military. Your hyper-allergic reaction to all things governmental is causing an overreaction here.
Right! And this in no way precludes the idea of a public school system.

You don't want *your* kid to go to public school, fine. But that does not give you license to burn down the whole public education system.

[grumble]..teach kids to rely on government for everything... what a maroon[/mumble]

We could have all private roads. If we did, they'd probably be in better shape. Public schools actually are a complete failure. Government funded education is neither crucial, nor important.

If you want *YOUR* kid to go to a second rate, public school, fine. Just don't expect me to pay for it through taxes or any other way. Only those who send their kids to those schools should have to pay for them. People without kids should not be forced to pay for them, and neither should people who choose to educate their children at home, or in private schools.

It's not a matter of my right to burn down public education, it's a matter of whether or not you have the right to force others to pay to educate YOUR kids, or whether any government has such authority. Certainly the federal government has no such powers so all federal money for education should be eliminated.

Since all governments may only have the powers that the people grant to it, they may only have powers that people have without a government. If there's no government at all, you don't have a right to take what I earn to pay for the education of your kids. This means you can't grant this power to government, and neither can a million of you or a billion of you.

[BigV]

y'know... I don't expect you to pay for it. Just go away to anarchy-land, where there is no pesky government.

**until then**, I expect you to do as I do, and that is obey the laws, including those laws that require you to pay taxes that support our public schools, and our roads and our military, among other things.

I don't care if you like it or not. I don't care if you complain about it or not.

Your conversational style chafes me. I disagree with most of what you've posted in this conversation. Your "logic" is faulty. You assert and then build on those assertions. But you build on sand.

I'm not gonna argue with you since our positions on the initial conditions aren't even close. We're not close enough to learn anything from each other.

I do appreciate your civil tone, thank you.

[lookout123]

shhh. he's a constitutional scholar.