Californis State University workers will be spared temporary pa...

If Gov. Schwarzenegger has so mismanaged the state's budget that he must slash the wages of the state's workers, why aren't Californians calling for a recall vote? They did it for his predecessor for less. Why is Arnie immune from equal treatment?

We need to recall about 90% of politicians. Read about the proposal brought forth by Nancy Pelosi. She wants taxes on profits from 401k retirement plans to help support the 12 million illegal immigrants so they can have a etter life in this country. Bet the liberal Democraps didn't think about communism before they voted her in. Or did they?

Dana Garrett wrote:

If Gov. Schwarzenegger has so mismanaged the state's budget that he must slash the wages of the state's workers, why aren't Californians calling for a recall vote? They did it for his predecessor for less. Why is Arnie immune from equal treatment?

READ THE STORY AGAIN AND AGAIN ****.

Wait, you can read, you just don't understand that this is about them not having a budget passed, not about not having enough money in the bank right? Is that it? Or are you just another stupid knee-jerk ****?

They are a major part of the nuclear /biological weapons program, plus money laundering for banks- of course the "gov." will give them a pass- he wears the SS ring and belt buckle for a reason.

yeah, and Berg wants to put in a law to "preserve" the parks forever while cutting education, health, and public safety. nice.

All the Gov can do is tell the idjits in the congress to get to work. The dumbocrats are busy worrying about transfat and credit/debit card charges. The congress critters need to break out the budget and start cutting programs. Then they can lower taxes and try to lure business back to CA. Did you read that Toyota was going to build the prius in the Bay Area? Did you read that this week they moved the planned factory to Mississippi? Did you read why? They looked at the promised tax increases and the regulatory hassles.

The tribulations of the socialized education system. How about this? Instead of taxes, taxes and more taxes how about doubling the meager tuition these students pay? It's a pittance compared to the UC system or a private university and still would't compare even if doubled.

domino 21 wrote:

All the Gov can do is tell the idjits in the congress to get to work. The dumbocrats are busy worrying about transfat and credit/debit card charges. The congress critters need to break out the budget and start cutting programs. Then they can lower taxes and try to lure business back to CA. Did you read that Toyota was going to build the prius in the Bay Area? Did you read that this week they moved the planned factory to Mississippi? Did you read why? They looked at the promised tax increases and the regulatory hassles.

Well maybe you need to study up because the State of California doesn't have a congress but an Assembly and Senate. So shut up.

Yep, it is too important to not continue those certain areas of manipulating younger minds through higher public education. Afterall, next stop - inequitable taxes based on labor.

Kudos to those honest educators though.

Jeffrey Lytle
McKinleyville - 5th District

The Ar-Qaida Eye wrote:

The tribulations of the socialized education system. How about this? Instead of taxes, taxes and more taxes how about doubling the meager tuition these students pay? It's a pittance compared to the UC system or a private university and still would't compare even if doubled.

That's because it's *NOT* the UC system or a private university.
Financial aid is not available to everyone, and the kind of jobs that students can get and still be able to go to school full-time barely pay for expenses.
If you double the tuition, you will keep a number of students from being able to get a decent education, further contributing to the academic decline of this country, which in turn makes us less competitive globally.
Milking more money out of students is not the solution.

another realist wrote:

<quoted text>
That's because it's *NOT* the UC system or a private university.
Financial aid is not available to everyone, and the kind of jobs that students can get and still be able to go to school full-time barely pay for expenses.
If you double the tuition, you will keep a number of students from being able to get a decent education, further contributing to the academic decline of this country, which in turn makes us less competitive globally.
Milking more money out of students is not the solution.

Especially since many students work in career fields different than the education they paid for which yielded a specific degree, right? So in essence, job training will always be perpetual. This fact dilutes the notion that higher public education is necessary for any career.

Jeffrey Lytle
McKinleyville - 5th District

Jeffrey Lytle wrote:

<quoted text>Especially since many students work in career fields different than the education they paid for which yielded a specific degree, right? So in essence, job training will always be perpetual. This fact dilutes the notion that higher public education is necessary for any career.
Jeffrey Lytle
McKinleyville - 5th District

It's true that higher public education is not necessary the have a career. There are careers available in the service industry that do not require an education. Likewise, a number of construction jobs, jobs in factories, and other jobs requiring trained physical activity do not require an education, and can be taught through on-the-job training or an apprenticeship program.

However, you will not get a job as a doctor, scientist, researcher, engineer, architect, social worker, computer analyst, etc. etc. without an advanced education. Good luck finding a career that starts at $50k+ annually without a college degree (even if it isn't in your field -- many jobs require a bachelor's degree or higher, without restriction on what it was a degree in).

Is the argument here that such jobs should only be available to the children of rich people who can afford the higher tuition? Does limiting ourselves that way really make us more competetive as a nation in the global market?

another realist wrote:

<quoted text>
It's true that higher public education is not necessary the have a career. There are careers available in the service industry that do not require an education. Likewise, a number of construction jobs, jobs in factories, and other jobs requiring trained physical activity do not require an education, and can be taught through on-the-job training or an apprenticeship program.
However, you will not get a job as a doctor, scientist, researcher, engineer, architect, social worker, computer analyst, etc. etc. without an advanced education. Good luck finding a career that starts at $50k+ annually without a college degree (even if it isn't in your field -- many jobs require a bachelor's degree or higher, without restriction on what it was a degree in).
Is the argument here that such jobs should only be available to the children of rich people who can afford the higher tuition? Does limiting ourselves that way really make us more competetive as a nation in the global market?

Yes and no.

In your second paragraph, this is assuming the free market system, capitalism and government jurisdictions control 100% of people's interests, actions and desires. This is unrealistic. Further, self education yielded the greatest minds and discoveries the world has ever known. Any Scientologist or Doctor should admit that; or, they are in denial due to the staged reality that to be "successful", you must go through the public social system set up by those not so good influences associated with unbalanced greed for control.

Life is nothing but options, is it not? Further, everyone has different desires for their life, right? Yes, good education can only help in the battle of survival of the fittest - no opposition here. However, a society growing more hungry and impoverished exponentially negates any personal accolades that education provides those members of society in monetary terms. Afterall, for true capitalism to exist, interests fuel money, not the other way around, right?

Jeffrey Lytle
McKinleyville - 5th District

Yermom, I'm sorry, I went to school in CA where political studies of the state were not covered. The point is the same. The losers in Sac are to blame for no budget. And they refuse to face the problem. And the people of CA will continue to elect these idiots.

another realist wrote:

<quoted text>


Milking more money out of students is not the solution.

And milking more tax dollars is the solution?

Jeffrey Lytle wrote:

<quoted text>Yes and no.
In your second paragraph, this is assuming the free market system, capitalism and government jurisdictions control 100% of people's interests, actions and desires. This is unrealistic. Further, self education yielded the greatest minds and discoveries the world has ever known. Any Scientologist or Doctor should admit that; or, they are in denial due to the staged reality that to be "successful", you must go through the public social system set up by those not so good influences associated with unbalanced greed for control.
Life is nothing but options, is it not? Further, everyone has different desires for their life, right? Yes, good education can only help in the battle of survival of the fittest - no opposition here. However, a society growing more hungry and impoverished exponentially negates any personal accolades that education provides those members of society in monetary terms. Afterall, for true capitalism to exist, interests fuel money, not the other way around, right?
Jeffrey Lytle
McKinleyville - 5th District

Actually my second paragraph assumes that you are a resident in the state of California, as this is a discussion about the state's economics.

I assume you meant "Scientist" not "Scientologist"? Because the latter has nothing to do with higher education...

Yes, a century or two ago, some great discoveries were made by people who laid the groundwork for modern science. By building on their discoveries, we have gone on to make even greater discoveries, and advance our technology dramatically. We are no longer the society that Edison lived in where people would flock to see a few lightbulbs on display. And where do we learn what the generations before us discovered, so that we do not have to start at the beginning each time, but can indeed build on previous discoveries? In the University.

The majority of people who are going to be instrumental in advancing our economy in the global market will have been educated in our systems of higher learning.

If someone's ambition (their "choices" of where they want their life to go) is in a field that does not require higher education, fine. We need people in many different fields, and not all do require extensive education. However, for those who want to enter a field that requires an education, pricing that education so that it is only available to those who can afford it is a kind of social darwinism that I do not think our state or nation, in the long run, can afford.

self-educated doctor. That sounds a little scary. Also explains the local mindset of a few vocal activists who call themselves watershed experts with no science degree.

A.R.,

So, in your second paragraph, are you implying California is set-up as a socialistic economy subordinate to total State control through agencies set up for public education purposes which dangle entry point wages in front of future graduates as a means to justify and attract enrollment in order to keep the higher education system afloat, but not a capitalistic economy where people's interests and desires will take them where they want to go regardless of who the "good" educator could be?

Truely, businesses and taxpayers are leaving the state - both higher education attendees and non-attendees. So, higher public education is helping California when the "educated" seem to be moving away because of the poor employment/job environment opportunites? Again, assuming a free market system, capitalism and government jurisdictions control 100% of people's interests, actions and desires. It does not. Public higher education is not 100% necessary to get some of the jobs you cited. Public higher education does provide a nice economic funding source through debt piling though.

Many people get jobs as apprentices and stick long term. Many people are self-employed and spend their own money and time on research. The computer and yes, still the library, are great tools and sources of education. The dictionary is a source too. So, is "good" education only that which is taught by the public service system? It seems as if this discussion should really be about finances and the future ability of the public education system to recruit replacement parts for it's machine. One major obstacle for success is that there are many students who grow-up (mature) after college and their ideologies change or are altered. This has a compounding affect on a system that prepares for an influx of students to represent certain job sectors/types in the future.

As far as spelling, I meant "scientologist" to spice things up for those who like to fondle their degrees that don't necessarily translate to their long term, real-life occupation in California. Funny you ask.

Overall, I would agree with the Social Darwinism thought on fees and expenses which subsidize the system and put in debt the student with financial burdens for which only years in that occupation will reconcile. However, again in response, my subtle point is that higher education is not the end all, be all. Yes, many job types require less "mind training" than other job types. If a person wants to discover the possibilities within the field of quantum physics, then as much "GOOD" education as possible would be wise. Yet, good education is not solely limited to education by others, as I have already explained; especially when enough others maintain personal and group ideologies which spurn them to back away from their reponsibilities to TEACH UNBIASED MATERIAL. Fortunately, not all educators are this way; but, again, enough are.

Jeffrey Lytle
McKinleyville - 5th District

Jeffrey Lytle wrote:

A.R.,
So, in your second paragraph, are you implying California is set-up as a socialistic economy subordinate to total State control through agencies set up for public education purposes which dangle entry point wages in front of future graduates as a means to justify and attract enrollment in order to keep the higher education system afloat, but not a capitalistic economy where people's interests and desires will take them where they want to go regardless of who the "good" educator could be?
Truely, businesses and taxpayers are leaving the state - both higher education attendees and non-attendees. So, higher public education is helping California when the "educated" seem to be moving away because of the poor employment/job environment opportunites? Again, assuming a free market system, capitalism and government jurisdictions control 100% of people's interests, actions and desires. It does not. Public higher education is not 100% necessary to get some of the jobs you cited. Public higher education does provide a nice economic funding source through debt piling though.
Many people get jobs as apprentices and stick long term. Many people are self-employed and spend their own money and time on research. The computer and yes, still the library, are great tools and sources of education. The dictionary is a source too. So, is "good" education only that which is taught by the public service system? It seems as if this discussion should really be about finances and the future ability of the public education system to recruit replacement parts for it's machine. One major obstacle for success is that there are many students who grow-up (mature) after college and their ideologies change or are altered. This has a compounding affect on a system that prepares for an influx of students to represent certain job sectors/types in the future.
As far as spelling, I meant "scientologist" to spice things up for those who like to fondle their degrees that don't necessarily translate to their long term, real-life occupation in California. Funny you ask.
Overall, I would agree with the Social Darwinism thought on fees and expenses which subsidize the system and put in debt the student with financial burdens for which only years in that occupation will reconcile. However, again in response, my subtle point is that higher education is not the end all, be all. Yes, many job types require less "mind training" than other job types. If a person wants to discover the possibilities within the field of quantum physics, then as much "GOOD" education as possible would be wise. Yet, good education is not solely limited to education by others, as I have already explained; especially when enough others maintain personal and group ideologies which spurn them to back away from their reponsibilities to TEACH UNBIASED MATERIAL. Fortunately, not all educators are this way; but, again, enough are.
Jeffrey Lytle
McKinleyville - 5th District

*sigh* No, Jeff, I was saying no such thing. Stop trying to set me up for your usual straw man arguments.

You are so far off the basis of my statements by now that I really feel no desire to try to steer you back to what I was really saying. You would probably only go off on another of your rambling tirades and once again entirely miss my point.

another realist wrote:

<quoted text>
*sigh* No, Jeff, I was saying no such thing. Stop trying to set me up for your usual straw man arguments.
You are so far off the basis of my statements by now that I really feel no desire to try to steer you back to what I was really saying. You would probably only go off on another of your rambling tirades and once again entirely miss my point.

Hmmmm, you said what you said in your own words after twisting my words which you were intentionally, with malice, steering in a different direction for other readers to misinterpret. I was asking for some clarity regarding a suggestive comment you made, to be clear. If you can't handle an appropriate conversation, then your less than amicable easy way out tactic (name calling) shall suffice the reality of uneasing truth.

Jeffrey Lytle
McKinleyville - 5th District