Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(NPR)   Why we need a California tag: California schools districts taking loans that are "the equivalent of payday loans." One district now owes more than $1 billion on a loan of $100 million. Way to go, professional smart people   (npr.org) divider line 169
    More: Dumbass, Los Angeles Unified, National Intelligence Council, school districts, Bill Lockyer, loans, elementary schools, California State Treasurer  
•       •       •

8741 clicks; posted to Main » on 11 Dec 2012 at 1:21 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



169 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-12-10 08:48:19 PM  
One district now owes more than $1 on a loan of $100 million.

Such a deal! (They must be white).
 
2012-12-10 08:49:15 PM  
Way to go unprofessional dumb subby.
 
2012-12-10 08:52:12 PM  
LOL! As fails go, that's a good one, subby!
 
2012-12-10 08:52:32 PM  
Do they really need a 25 million dollar elementary school? Or do they just think they can pay 10% of what it costs and get free money from the government?

It seems like there should be another solution, but they probably legislated themselves into a corner by limiting class size, requiring so many square feet of football pitch per student, and other very nice, but not essential things.

Sucks to be them, sucks more to be the people who end up holding the bag when they municipality or school district goes Chapter 9.
 
2012-12-10 09:12:21 PM  
Lol public schooling
 
2012-12-10 09:18:32 PM  
It's California, they can just raise taxes to get that money back.
 
2012-12-10 11:27:36 PM  
I was going to blame some of this on assholes who don't have to worry about re-election by the time the bonds are due and get to live high on public adoration in the meantime. However, the guy they spoke to is a moron.
 
2012-12-11 12:19:18 AM  
Who are they borrowing this money from, anyway?


fiver5: It's California, they can just raise taxes to get that money back.


Not really. That's part of their problem. Tax increases have to go to the voters or be approved by a congressional supermajority (if I'm not mistaken). Though the Democrats do have one of those in CA now...
 
2012-12-11 12:26:57 AM  
"We'd be foolish not to take advantage of getting $25 million" when the district had to spend just $2.5 million to get it, Ramsey says. "The only way we could do it was with a [capital appreciation bond]."
...
Ramsey says it was a good deal, because his district is getting a brand-new $25 million school. "You'd take that any day," he says. "Why would you leave $25 million on the table? You would never leave $25 million on the table."


god i hate people sometimes.
 
2012-12-11 12:45:42 AM  
In the West Contra Costa Schools' case, that $2.5 million bond will cost the district a whopping $34 million to repay.
Who are they borrowing from? Loan Sharks?
 
2012-12-11 12:47:51 AM  

simplicimus: In the West Contra Costa Schools' case, that $2.5 million bond will cost the district a whopping $34 million to repay.
Who are they borrowing from? Loan Sharks?


charlesmobley.files.wordpress.com
 
2012-12-11 12:53:06 AM  

vygramul: simplicimus: In the West Contra Costa Schools' case, that $2.5 million bond will cost the district a whopping $34 million to repay.
Who are they borrowing from? Loan Sharks?

[charlesmobley.files.wordpress.com image 800x486]


Just wow.
 
2012-12-11 12:54:52 AM  

simplicimus: vygramul: simplicimus: In the West Contra Costa Schools' case, that $2.5 million bond will cost the district a whopping $34 million to repay.
Who are they borrowing from? Loan Sharks?

[charlesmobley.files.wordpress.com image 800x486]

Just wow.


Yeah - we get those ads here in VA. I never paid them much mind until I noticed the numbers in the fine print.
 
2012-12-11 01:05:50 AM  

vygramul: simplicimus: vygramul: simplicimus: In the West Contra Costa Schools' case, that $2.5 million bond will cost the district a whopping $34 million to repay.
Who are they borrowing from? Loan Sharks?

[charlesmobley.files.wordpress.com image 800x486]

Just wow.

Yeah - we get those ads here in VA. I never paid them much mind until I noticed the numbers in the fine print.


We get those ads here in TX as well. That's a lot of vig.
 
2012-12-11 01:26:23 AM  
Yay, democrat math!
 
2012-12-11 01:31:29 AM  
I think somebody failed middle school math.
 
2012-12-11 01:34:05 AM  
School Districts are not running low on money, they are running low on common sense.

They build multi-million dollar sports complexes and pay millions in copying charges for gods sake.

Our local school district is DEAD LAST in our state, yet it spends more money than every other district int he state but one, over $15,000 per student per year.

That means by the time they graduate we have spent $180,000 on their k-12 education. Its insane.

The School District defends its policy of social advancement, sending children on from 3rd grade who cannot read at grade level. They claim to graduate 85% of their students, but they only count the ones who make it to Senior Year. They actually lose 50% of the students between freshman and senior years. Of those 85%, only 5% are certified ready for higher education or work without remedial training. They graduated, but they cannot do basic algebra or write intelligent reports. (intelligible)

We tried to get a new school board elected this last election, first time in 20 years they have been challenged from the outside. In the last 20 years every single school board member has been either picked by our local democratic party or is a former member of the school administration. They have wasted three quarters of a billion dollars on results that decline every single year for the last 20.

The single worst place you can put your children around here is the public school system, but because there is a 50 million dollar budget and unlimited taxation authority, the Democrats simply will not let it go. They even managed to recall a special ballot for a retiring member after one of our candidates was the only person to file to run in the special election.

It had literally not happened in anyones memory, they assumed there would be an appointment by the state department of education like always. So when our guy was the only one there, they put pressure on the County Clerk to recall the ballot, then had the state education director say that the election couldn't be held because the resignation wasn't accepted for 21 days......one day longer than the filing deadline. They went so far to ignore the fact that the information they used to deny the election WASNT AVAILABLE UNTIL AFTER THE BALLOTS HAD BEEN PRINTED.

They literally sat there with straight faces and said that information after the fact justified the actions taken before the fact. Which is a good thing for them, otherwise what they did would be illegal under state law. But the Governor is a democrat so go figure there was no interest in an investigation into the matter.


Blame your local school board if your schools owe a billion dollars, but good luck getting rid of them.
 
2012-12-11 01:35:30 AM  
Credit is basically destroying this country's foundations...just wait till the real sh-t hits the fan...we haven't even begun.
 
2012-12-11 01:36:26 AM  
"So if we take out this loan, we can defer the payments for 20 years, at which point we'll be paying several thousand percent interest?"
"Yes."
"Well let's see, I retire in 10 years so... let's do it!"
"But what about when the loans come due and suddenly the district is out of money?"
"What part about me retiring in ten years didn't you get?"
 
2012-12-11 01:40:51 AM  

vygramul: simplicimus: vygramul: simplicimus: In the West Contra Costa Schools' case, that $2.5 million bond will cost the district a whopping $34 million to repay.
Who are they borrowing from? Loan Sharks?

[charlesmobley.files.wordpress.com image 800x486]

Just wow.

Yeah - we get those ads here in VA. I never paid them much mind until I noticed the numbers in the fine print.


I swear this is true: A illegal stole this guys identity and paid off half his debt. he was like "fark it I'll wait 4 more years before reporting it"
 
2012-12-11 01:42:19 AM  
Property taxes pay for public schools.
California is the second hardest hit state in the housing crash.
 
2012-12-11 01:43:52 AM  

drjekel_mrhyde: vygramul: simplicimus: vygramul: simplicimus: In the West Contra Costa Schools' case, that $2.5 million bond will cost the district a whopping $34 million to repay.
Who are they borrowing from? Loan Sharks?

[charlesmobley.files.wordpress.com image 800x486]

Just wow.

Yeah - we get those ads here in VA. I never paid them much mind until I noticed the numbers in the fine print.

I swear this is true: A illegal stole this guys identity and paid off half his debt. he was like "fark it I'll wait 4 more years before reporting it"


Did an illegal steal your n, ese?
 
2012-12-11 01:45:07 AM  
"We'd be foolish not to take advantage of getting $25 million" when the district had to spend just $2.5 million to get it, Ramsey says. "The only way we could do it was with a [capital appreciation bond]."

It would be foolish not to take advantage of getting $25 million when I had to spend just $2.5 million in advance for the wealth transfer fee, Moran says.

Am I the only one who thinks that deal sounds like a classic Nigerian scam? (I know I'm not.)
 
2012-12-11 01:46:28 AM  
images.bbgsite.com

California: Nope!
 
2012-12-11 01:46:52 AM  
FTFA: "In the West Contra Costa Schools' case, that $2.5 million bond will cost the district a whopping $34 million to repay.

Ramsey says it was a good deal, because his district is getting a brand-new $25 million school. "You'd take that any day," he says. "Why would you leave $25 million on the table? You would never leave $25 million on the table.""


Why would I leave $25 million on the table, Mr. Charles Ramsay?

I'd leave $25 million on the table if I had to pay $34 million to pick it up.

You are not "getting" a brand-new $25 million school. You are "PAYING $34 million to get a $25 million school".

There is no possible way that doing so makes sense, and you are an idiot for trying to pretend it does.
 
2012-12-11 01:48:38 AM  

archichris: School Districts are not running low on money, they are running low on common sense.

They build multi-million dollar sports complexes and pay millions in copying charges for gods sake.

Our local school district is DEAD LAST in our state, yet it spends more money than every other district int he state but one, over $15,000 per student per year.

That means by the time they graduate we have spent $180,000 on their k-12 education. Its insane.

The School District defends its policy of social advancement, sending children on from 3rd grade who cannot read at grade level. They claim to graduate 85% of their students, but they only count the ones who make it to Senior Year. They actually lose 50% of the students between freshman and senior years. Of those 85%, only 5% are certified ready for higher education or work without remedial training. They graduated, but they cannot do basic algebra or write intelligent reports. (intelligible)

We tried to get a new school board elected this last election, first time in 20 years they have been challenged from the outside. In the last 20 years every single school board member has been either picked by our local democratic party or is a former member of the school administration. They have wasted three quarters of a billion dollars on results that decline every single year for the last 20.

The single worst place you can put your children around here is the public school system, but because there is a 50 million dollar budget and unlimited taxation authority, the Democrats simply will not let it go. They even managed to recall a special ballot for a retiring member after one of our candidates was the only person to file to run in the special election.

It had literally not happened in anyones memory, they assumed there would be an appointment by the state department of education like always. So when our guy was the only one there, they put pressure on the County Clerk to recall the ballot, then had the state education director say that the election couldn't be held because the resignation wasn't accepted for 21 days......one day longer than the filing deadline. They went so far to ignore the fact that the information they used to deny the election WASNT AVAILABLE UNTIL AFTER THE BALLOTS HAD BEEN PRINTED.

They literally sat there with straight faces and said that information after the fact justified the actions taken before the fact. Which is a good thing for them, otherwise what they did would be illegal under state law. But the Governor is a democrat so go figure there was no interest in an investigation into the matter.


Blame your local school board if your schools owe a billion dollars, but good luck getting rid of them.


our schools are great. we live in a very mixed race and income urban setting but all our public schools are in the top %10 and budgeting is painless. YMMV.
 
2012-12-11 01:49:30 AM  
It could have been worse, in the TRILLIONS if they had have bought desks, chairs, and computers as well from

i30.photobucket.com
 
2012-12-11 01:50:19 AM  
FTHL :

Why we need a California tag:

California schools districts taking loans that are "the equivalent of payday loans." One district now owes more than $1 billion on a loan of $100 million.

Way to go.


professional smart people

HLOTY
 
2012-12-11 01:55:38 AM  

giftedmadness: Lol public schooling


If it was private schooling you'd be taking out payday loans for 16 years instead of the 4 for college we have right now.
 
2012-12-11 01:57:07 AM  
This seems more like internal corruption to me. Someone got a kick back to take out he loan. Besides, Western Sky is under investigation/indictment for usuary and fraud.
 
2012-12-11 02:00:37 AM  

bromah: This seems more like internal corruption to me. Someone got a kick back to take out he loan. Besides, Western Sky is under investigation/indictment for usuary and fraud.


Serious question:How can the US government act against a sovereign nation?
 
2012-12-11 02:00:56 AM  
Considering the asshole contingent in this state is holding on to prop13 (the one that totally farked how schools were supposed to be funded) like a fat kid to his last Twinkie, they may not have had any other choice.
When the landlord knocks at your door, you have two choices: get his money, or be homeless. And he doesn't care where or how you get his money, as long as you get it.
 
2012-12-11 02:02:15 AM  

simplicimus: bromah: This seems more like internal corruption to me. Someone got a kick back to take out he loan. Besides, Western Sky is under investigation/indictment for usuary and fraud.

Serious question:How can the US government act against a sovereign nation?


Fine print says he is an individual member of the Nation, that's HOW.
 
2012-12-11 02:02:41 AM  

rewind2846: Considering the asshole contingent in this state is holding on to prop13 (the one that totally farked how schools were supposed to be funded) like a fat kid to his last Twinkie, they may not have had any other choice.
When the landlord knocks at your door, you have two choices: get his money, or be homeless. And he doesn't care where or how you get his money, as long as you get it.


So, Fark you, pay me?
/Paulie
 
2012-12-11 02:09:24 AM  
PUSD... Yeah, my former school district.
 
2012-12-11 02:09:48 AM  

rewind2846: When the landlord knocks at your door, you have two choices: get his money, or be homeless. And he doesn't care where or how you get his money, as long as you get it.


Well, there are limits.

He doesnt want you cooking meth in the kitchen of his building in order to pay the rent.


Cook it off site, pay cash and dont ask for a CRP.
 
2012-12-11 02:12:01 AM  
Legs need breaking
 
2012-12-11 02:12:08 AM  
I could have sworn the Bay was "just East of San Francisco"
 
2012-12-11 02:15:24 AM  
Don't you people understand? When the government spends money it stimulates the economy. Just ask Krugman.
 
2012-12-11 02:25:39 AM  

rewind2846: Considering the asshole contingent in this state is holding on to prop13 (the one that totally farked how schools were supposed to be funded) like a fat kid to his last Twinkie, they may not have had any other choice.
When the landlord knocks at your door, you have two choices: get his money, or be homeless. And he doesn't care where or how you get his money, as long as you get it.


Prop 13 has jack shiat to do with the problems of California schools it's just a convenient excuse by politicians and idiots who don't understand how prop 13 works.
 
2012-12-11 02:28:14 AM  
another question? why is this even legal to do, on either level?

why do these loan products even exist at such usurious rates, and why are schoolboards allowed to make such terrible decisions? where's the oversight in either regard?
 
2012-12-11 02:29:22 AM  

thomps: "We'd be foolish not to take advantage of getting $25 million" when the district had to spend just $2.5 million to get it, Ramsey says. "The only way we could do it was with a [capital appreciation bond]."
...
Ramsey says it was a good deal, because his district is getting a brand-new $25 million school. "You'd take that any day," he says. "Why would you leave $25 million on the table? You would never leave $25 million on the table."

god i hate people sometimes.


$34 million to finance a $25 million school sounds pretty good to me.
 
2012-12-11 02:29:37 AM  
Back in the '90s, the state of Michigan banned capital appreciation bonds altogether. But Lockyer says California needn't go that far. He supports a series of reforms such as capping the payback of debt to four times the amount borrowed. 

WOW, such a sweetheart. So rather than the school districts having to pay back 10X the amount they borrowed the noble knight rides to the rescue and only will require them to pay back 4X.

LOL.
 
2012-12-11 02:29:39 AM  
Why wouldn't they? They're not the ones paying for it. If you can vote for other people to pay for stuff the answer is usually yes.

One key bit is that people consider themselves in 10 years to be 'other people'.
 
2012-12-11 02:32:21 AM  
I can't find the article now, but a study was done on new school construction in the Los Angeles area. The cost per sq ft for concrete tilt-up construction exceeded the cost per sq ft of some lavish casinos in Las Vegas. Your tax dollars at work.
 
2012-12-11 02:35:36 AM  

DrPainMD: Don't you people understand? When the government spends money it stimulates the economy. Just ask Krugman.


That's actually true. The problem here is that the government isn't actually spending money. It is taxing the poor and giving it to the rich (the bond holders). Only 100 million is actual spending. The other 900 million is simply a reverse wealth transfer.
 
2012-12-11 02:41:32 AM  
Looks like the Fark Politics pre-election sock puppets have moved over to the commenting section of NPR.com. Jesus.
 
2012-12-11 02:49:33 AM  
Seems like a plan. A small community agrees that due to fiscal crisis, they will bankrupt the town, and move when the inevitable default occurs. Aren't congressmen operating on that same plan right now, at a national level?
 
2012-12-11 02:50:00 AM  
In the West Contra Costa Schools' case, that $2.5 million bond will cost the district a whopping $34 million to repay.

'The School District Equivalent Of A Payday Loan'

Ramsey says it was a good deal, because his district is getting a brand-new $25 million school. "You'd take that any day," he says. "Why would you leave $25 million on the table? You would never leave $25 million on the table."


art1.server01.sheezyart.com

/There are no words
 
2012-12-11 02:55:12 AM  

feckingmorons: It seems like there should be another solution, but they probably legislated themselves into a corner by limiting class size, requiring so many square feet of football pitch per student, and other very nice, but not essential things.


The voters in 1978 passed Prop 13, which is pretty much the source of all this mess. Listening to my fellow Californians when this passed the consensus was if you limit the amount of money the government can raise then they'll spend the money they do have wisely. And if you've ever seen how poor people spend money, you'd be dissuaded of that notion pretty quick. Because poor people do exactly the sorts of things that the school districts in California do. Rob from the future to pay for the present.
 
2012-12-11 02:56:55 AM  
Something is rotten in Denmark.
 
2012-12-11 03:00:54 AM  
And people gave me shiat for voting against every bond issue in November.

Guess what? We have to pay that money back.
 
2012-12-11 03:01:06 AM  

gweilo8888: You are not "getting" a brand-new $25 million school. You are "PAYING $34 million to get a $25 million school".


It's even better than that, at least if I'm reading the article correctly.

The district needed $2.5 million to help secure a federally subsidized $25 million loan to build a badly needed elementary school. [...] In the West Contra Costa Schools' case, that $2.5 million bond will cost the district a whopping $34 million to repay.

They'll have to pay back the rest of that $25M loan, as well as $34M for the initial bond.
 
2012-12-11 03:03:13 AM  

gibbon1: feckingmorons: It seems like there should be another solution, but they probably legislated themselves into a corner by limiting class size, requiring so many square feet of football pitch per student, and other very nice, but not essential things.

The voters in 1978 passed Prop 13, which is pretty much the source of all this mess. Listening to my fellow Californians when this passed the consensus was if you limit the amount of money the government can raise then they'll spend the money they do have wisely. And if you've ever seen how poor people spend money, you'd be dissuaded of that notion pretty quick. Because poor people do exactly the sorts of things that the school districts in California do. Rob from the future to pay for the present.


That only works if you elect those who, you know, actually have discipline needed to stop pet projects. Prop 13 without fiscal discipline was prone to failure from the start. We Americans like nice things; we just don't want to pay for it
 
2012-12-11 03:06:48 AM  

Ivo Shandor: gweilo8888: You are not "getting" a brand-new $25 million school. You are "PAYING $34 million to get a $25 million school".

It's even better than that, at least if I'm reading the article correctly.

The district needed $2.5 million to help secure a federally subsidized $25 million loan to build a badly needed elementary school. [...] In the West Contra Costa Schools' case, that $2.5 million bond will cost the district a whopping $34 million to repay.

They'll have to pay back the rest of that $25M loan, as well as $34M for the initial bond.


That's how I read it too. No to mention the federal subsidized loan I would imagine has some interest in it itself also. They'll probably be paying over $70 million for the $25 million school. But hey it's free money...
 
2012-12-11 03:12:33 AM  

Ivo Shandor: gweilo8888: You are not "getting" a brand-new $25 million school. You are "PAYING $34 million to get a $25 million school".

It's even better than that, at least if I'm reading the article correctly.

The district needed $2.5 million to help secure a federally subsidized $25 million loan to build a badly needed elementary school. [...] In the West Contra Costa Schools' case, that $2.5 million bond will cost the district a whopping $34 million to repay.

They'll have to pay back the rest of that $25M loan, as well as $34M for the initial bond.


Hmm. I originally read it as $34 million total repayment, but your reading is probably right (assuming the journalist described it right, which is always questionable). It might still be a decent deal--financing can often be three times the purchase price, whereas this is more like 2.5--but it's not a really good deal. So never mind what I said above.
 
2012-12-11 03:14:11 AM  
Oh get farked. Arizona's far ahead of us in the "candidates for 'the other Florida'" race.
 
2012-12-11 03:20:44 AM  

cman: That only works if you elect those who, you know, actually have discipline needed to stop pet projects. Prop 13 without fiscal discipline was prone to failure from the start. We Americans like nice things; we just don't want to pay for it


Before Prop 13 if a school district needed more revenue, say to pay for a bond, or operating expenses they'd put a tax measure on the ballot and it required 50% of the voters to approve it. Maybe the voters would pass it, maybe they wouldn't. Either way the district has some control over revenue.

Then comes Prop 13. First off it gives the cranky pants brigade veto power over any tax measure. And froze assessed values to 1976 prices and limited any increase to well below inflation, except when the property changes hands. This applies to both residential housing and commercial property. The latter case it interesting, in California when people buy commercial property they usually buy the corporation that owns the property, thus the property never gets reassessed.

So due to inflation and prop 13 over time your effective tax bill declines due to inflation. $500 in 1978 is worth about $200 in 2012. $500 is the property tax bill my dad pays every six months. The neighbors with a bigger house next door pay $5000.

Oh and you inherit the tax break with the property. So if your parents bought a house in 1976, and they and you inherit it, then you keep the original 1976 era assessment. (I remember a comment about a mansion in SF worth $25 million, that has a tax assessment of $400k)
 
2012-12-11 03:21:14 AM  

fiver5: It's California, they can just raise taxes to get that money back.


TBH that's really what needs to be done.
Apparently, due to the way property taxes are calculated, there is a huge amount of land in California that are paying next to no property taxes at all compared to what the property itself is worth.


Phoenix_M: Prop 13 has jack shiat to do with the problems of California schools it's just a convenient excuse by politicians and idiots who don't understand how prop 13 works.


How do you figure? Just because the school funding isn't tied exclusively to property taxes doesn't mean that the schools wouldn't benefit from additional property tax revenue. Suggesting that having overcrowded schools and well below average per-pupil spending has nothing to do with education quality is kind of ridiculous IMO.
 
2012-12-11 03:27:14 AM  
Many of you who biatch about the stupidity of public schools seem to forget that the teachers are never in charge of education. It's always dumbasses YOU elect. I have never met a smart school board member. Ever.

If teachers were actually in charge, things might be a lot different.
 
2012-12-11 03:30:25 AM  

ecmoRandomNumbers: Many of you who biatch about the stupidity of public schools seem to forget that the teachers are never in charge of education. It's always dumbasses YOU elect. I have never met a smart school board member. Ever.

If teachers were actually in charge, things might be a lot different.


In theory, an interesting proposal. But thanks to NCLB, teachers are limited to teaching to the test.
 
2012-12-11 03:33:52 AM  
Imma be, imma be, imma imma imma be ...

files.dipdive.com
 
2012-12-11 03:45:13 AM  

simplicimus: ecmoRandomNumbers: Many of you who biatch about the stupidity of public schools seem to forget that the teachers are never in charge of education. It's always dumbasses YOU elect. I have never met a smart school board member. Ever.

If teachers were actually in charge, things might be a lot different.

In theory, an interesting proposal. But thanks to NCLB, teachers are limited to teaching to the test.


I know. It's why I work at Verizon instead of teaching now. Did that for 10 years. Education is screwed without a major overhaul. We will be developing nation status within a generation.
 
2012-12-11 03:53:08 AM  

ecmoRandomNumbers: simplicimus: ecmoRandomNumbers: Many of you who biatch about the stupidity of public schools seem to forget that the teachers are never in charge of education. It's always dumbasses YOU elect. I have never met a smart school board member. Ever.

If teachers were actually in charge, things might be a lot different.

In theory, an interesting proposal. But thanks to NCLB, teachers are limited to teaching to the test.

I know. It's why I work at Verizon instead of teaching now. Did that for 10 years. Education is screwed without a major overhaul. We will be developing nation status within a generation.


I didn't make it though my second semester of teachers ed. Classroom observation. In the 80's in NYC. Realized I didn't have the stomach for this. So, I bow to you for lasting 10 years.
 
2012-12-11 03:53:24 AM  

gibbon1: feckingmorons: It seems like there should be another solution, but they probably legislated themselves into a corner by limiting class size, requiring so many square feet of football pitch per student, and other very nice, but not essential things.

The voters in 1978 passed Prop 13, which is pretty much the source of all this mess. Listening to my fellow Californians when this passed the consensus was if you limit the amount of money the government can raise then they'll spend the money they do have wisely. And if you've ever seen how poor people spend money, you'd be dissuaded of that notion pretty quick. Because poor people do exactly the sorts of things that the school districts in California do. Rob from the future to pay for the present.


Prop 13 protects middle class/retired/poorer home owners or people who inherit property If not for prop 13 property taxes here would be in six digits.
 
2012-12-11 04:01:37 AM  
If you live in the affected area, become an involved citizen - smartvoter dot org provides contact information for your local school board representatives, including the ones quoted in the article.
 
2012-12-11 04:07:00 AM  

worlddan: DrPainMD: Don't you people understand? When the government spends money it stimulates the economy. Just ask Krugman.

That's actually true. The problem here is that the government isn't actually spending money. It is taxing the poor and giving it to the rich (the bond holders). Only 100 million is actual spending. The other 900 million is simply a reverse wealth transfer.


Actually, it's not true. That's the joke. Much of the money that the government spends has a negative effect on the economy. For example: that portion of law enforcement, courts and prisons that goes to keep young, able-bodied people in prison for drugs and other victimless crimes.
 
2012-12-11 04:09:06 AM  

vygramul: simplicimus: In the West Contra Costa Schools' case, that $2.5 million bond will cost the district a whopping $34 million to repay.
Who are they borrowing from? Loan Sharks?

[charlesmobley.files.wordpress.com image 800x486]


Yeah, but their spokes-lady is quite hawt
 
2012-12-11 04:14:25 AM  

Ivo Shandor: gweilo8888: You are not "getting" a brand-new $25 million school. You are "PAYING $34 million to get a $25 million school".

It's even better than that, at least if I'm reading the article correctly.

The district needed $2.5 million to help secure a federally subsidized $25 million loan to build a badly needed elementary school. [...] In the West Contra Costa Schools' case, that $2.5 million bond will cost the district a whopping $34 million to repay.

They'll have to pay back the rest of that $25M loan, as well as $34M for the initial bond.


Good point, I wasn't even paying attention to that.
 
2012-12-11 04:20:13 AM  
Is it wrong of me to want to be on the other side of this deal? Where can I get me some of these bonds?

Also, all politics are local. Everyone biatches about the federal government while their own neighbors are taking money out of your pockets. Get farking involved. Or whine to the federal government about it so they can get involved and fix it for you.
 
2012-12-11 04:33:22 AM  
Reminds me of what I saw in an interview with a retired FBI agent from years ago... He did a lot of work on organized crime. The reporter essentially said that the it just didn't seem like the old school organized crime was as big a deal these days and the FBI agent agreed.

"They figured out ways to make more money legally."
 
2012-12-11 04:51:52 AM  
Meanwhile, mortgage rates are near all-time lows.
 
2012-12-11 05:33:50 AM  

fusillade762: Who are they borrowing this money from, anyway?


fiver5: It's California, they can just raise taxes to get that money back.

Not really. That's part of their problem. Tax increases have to go to the voters or be approved by a congressional supermajority (if I'm not mistaken). Though the Democrats do have one of those in CA now...


HA, we vote high taxes on ourselves. The government knows it doesn't have to be accountable. Throw away a billion? Meh, we'll run an ad on the tv about how your child will end up as a drug using hooker if this "education spending bill" doesn't pass.
 
2012-12-11 05:46:41 AM  
California suffers from a lot if problems: the first of which: too much democracy.

The legislators cannot do their jobs, because supermajority rules are in place for tax purposes. Prop 13, while protecting homeowners from loosing their houses due to tax reassessments- unfortunately did not keep up inflation.

And worse: you get something on the ballot- the state has to do it: even if no funding comes forth.

Jerry Brown, did use the ballot to get a tax hike in when the legislators refused to do it.
 
2012-12-11 06:20:55 AM  

Darth_Lukecash: Jerry Brown, did use the ballot to get a tax hike in when the legislators refused to do it.

borg: Prop 13 protects middle class/retired/poorer home owners or people who inherit property If not for prop 13 property taxes here would be in six digits.

Yes and guess who it doesn't protect, poorer renters. Not to mention other states have programs that cap or postpone property tax increases on retired people, without a huge give away to corporation and the very wealthy. Both of whom are the actual beneficiaries of Prop 13.

Also, property tax tends to be around 2% per year, everywhere. So a six digit property tax bill implies a housing valuation of 5 million. Take Texas, the property tax rate in Texas is usually just over 2%, vs 1.25% in California. The other thing to remember is if you reduce property tax rates, that doesn't actually make housing more affordable because prices rise to compensate. So housing prices in California are probably 30% higher than they would be without Prop 13. And that also effects rents to.
 
2012-12-11 06:42:32 AM  

simplicimus: ecmoRandomNumbers: simplicimus: ecmoRandomNumbers: Many of you who biatch about the stupidity of public schools seem to forget that the teachers are never in charge of education. It's always dumbasses YOU elect. I have never met a smart school board member. Ever.

If teachers were actually in charge, things might be a lot different.

In theory, an interesting proposal. But thanks to NCLB, teachers are limited to teaching to the test.

I know. It's why I work at Verizon instead of teaching now. Did that for 10 years. Education is screwed without a major overhaul. We will be developing nation status within a generation.

I didn't make it though my second semester of teachers ed. Classroom observation. In the 80's in NYC. Realized I didn't have the stomach for this. So, I bow to you for lasting 10 years.


Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach. Those who can't teach?

/ j/k cheap shot
 
2012-12-11 07:02:04 AM  

fusillade762: fiver5: It's California, they can just raise taxes to get that money back.

Not really. That's part of their problem. Tax increases have to go to the voters or be approved by a congressional supermajority (if I'm not mistaken). Though the Democrats do have one of those in CA now...



one big problem is california retard liberal judges declared local communities deciding to spend more money on their communities is a violation of the equal protection clause, so even when communities want to raise local taxes to pay for their local school, they can't do it. so getting shiat don takes an act of state legislature (a supermajority as you said).
they got the liberal morons they asked for.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serrano_v._Priest
 
2012-12-11 07:13:42 AM  
Terrible, terrible article. Why aren't there any details of the terms of the bonds. They say the loan was incurred "a couple of years ago", but make no mention of when it will be due. No mention of what the interest rate or interest rate reset terms are.

How are we supposed to know how outraged to be? Boo NPR.
 
2012-12-11 07:20:15 AM  
www.philhendrieshow.com
"You think MY people got screwed over? It's payback time, motherfarkers."
 
2012-12-11 07:20:48 AM  
Better start organizing some bake sales
 
2012-12-11 07:45:13 AM  
Its the state,
Tell the lender to f off we are giving the original amount of money back with a 10 percent cap of interest. Get all the courts to agree. Watch the lenders cry about not being fair.

//watch no one win..
//its all for the kids
 
2012-12-11 07:51:26 AM  

ecmoRandomNumbers: simplicimus: ecmoRandomNumbers: Many of you who biatch about the stupidity of public schools seem to forget that the teachers are never in charge of education. It's always dumbasses YOU elect. I have never met a smart school board member. Ever.

If teachers were actually in charge, things might be a lot different.

In theory, an interesting proposal. But thanks to NCLB, teachers are limited to teaching to the test.

I know. It's why I work at Verizon instead of teaching now. Did that for 10 years. Education is screwed without a major overhaul. We will be developing nation status within a generation.


Same with my wife. The system is completely broken. And since we are all completely happy to keep electing the same band of do-nothings who promise to fix problems that are really our own responsibility to fix its not getting better anytime soon.
 
2012-12-11 07:51:34 AM  
I know everyone is coming down hard on the school boards wasting so much money, but you have to understand how easy it is when it's not their money being spent.
 
2012-12-11 07:59:00 AM  

Nhojwolfe: Its the state,
Tell the lender to f off we are giving the original amount of money back with a 10 percent cap of interest. Get all the courts to agree. Watch the lenders cry about not being fair.

//watch no one win..
//its all for the kids




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract_Clause
The Contract Clause appears in the United States Constitution, Article I, section 10, clause 1. It states:

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

The Contract Clause prohibits states from enacting any law that retroactively impairs contract rights. The Contract Clause applies only to state legislation, not court decisions.

The Framers of the Constitution added this clause in response to the fear that states would continue a practice that had been widespread under the Articles of Confederation-that of granting "private relief." Legislatures would pass bills relieving particular persons (predictably, influential persons) of their obligation to pay their debts. It was this phenomenon that also prompted the framers to make bankruptcy law the province of the federal government...

Modification of Government Contracts

In United States Trust Co. v. New Jersey 431 U.S. 1 (1977), the Supreme Court held that a higher level of scrutiny was needed for situations where laws modified the government's own contractual obligations. In this case, New Jersey had issued bonds to finance the World Trade Center and had contractually promised the bondholders that the collateral would not be used to finance money-losing rail operations. Later, New Jersey attempted to modify law to allow financing of railway operations, and the bondholders successfully sued to prevent this from happening.[21]
 
2012-12-11 08:04:03 AM  
Nhojwolfe

Its the state,
Tell the lender to f off we are giving the original amount of money back with a 10 percent cap of interest. Get all the courts to agree. Watch the lenders cry about not being fair.

//watch no one win..
//its all for the kids


And then you never have the ability to float another bond issue or secure any other debt. Its that simple.
 
2012-12-11 08:06:09 AM  
it was more of a Joke but I get your point. On the other hand when does the gov actually read
read the Constitution and this is a guy from a sovereign nation ,,:)

relcec: Nhojwolfe: Its the state,
Tell the lender to f off we are giving the original amount of money back with a 10 percent cap of interest. Get all the courts to agree. Watch the lenders cry about not being fair.

//watch no one win..
//its all for the kids



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract_Clause
The Contract Clause appears in the United States Constitution, Article I, section 10, clause 1. It states:

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

The Contract Clause prohibits states from enacting any law that retroactively impairs contract rights. The Contract Clause applies only to state legislation, not court decisions.

The Framers of the Constitution added this clause in response to the fear that states would continue a practice that had been widespread under the Articles of Confederation-that of granting "private relief." Legislatures would pass bills relieving particular persons (predictably, influential persons) of their obligation to pay their debts. It was this phenomenon that also prompted the framers to make bankruptcy law the province of the federal government...

Modification of Government Contracts

In United States Trust Co. v. New Jersey 431 U.S. 1 (1977), the Supreme Court held that a higher level of scrutiny was needed for situations where laws modified the government's own contractual obligations. In this case, New Jersey had issued bonds to finance the World Trade Center and had contractually promised the bondholders that the collateral would not be used to finance money-losing rail operations. Later, New Jersey attempted to modify law to allow financing of railway operations, and the bondholders successfully sued to prevent this from happening.[21]

 
2012-12-11 08:10:44 AM  

Buffalo77: Nhojwolfe

Its the state,
Tell the lender to f off we are giving the original amount of money back with a 10 percent cap of interest. Get all the courts to agree. Watch the lenders cry about not being fair.

//watch no one win..
//its all for the kids

And then you never have the ability to float another bond issue or secure any other debt. Its that simple.


So they would have to learn to live off what money they have?
 
2012-12-11 08:12:28 AM  

thomps: "We'd be foolish not to take advantage of getting $25 million" when the district had to spend just $2.5 million to get it, Ramsey says. "The only way we could do it was with a [capital appreciation bond]."
...
Ramsey says it was a good deal, because his district is getting a brand-new $25 million school. "You'd take that any day," he says. "Why would you leave $25 million on the table? You would never leave $25 million on the table."

god i hate people sometimes.


This is why I hate people who whine about owing money a lot of times, sure sometimes its due to circumstances out of their control but yes when its going to wind up costing more than the original loan was worth then you LEAVE the farking $25 million on the table!

That kind of government program logic is why we should cut funding other than raise our taxes to cover shiat like these idiots. They are not alone in spending money just to get another loan, its idiotic and wasteful.
 
2012-12-11 08:23:50 AM  
And people are fleeing California in droves.

It doesn't make sense, though. California is a liberal paradise. Massive entitlements and high taxes. Surely the private sector couldn't have the schools any better than those bureaucrats.
 
2012-12-11 08:30:38 AM  
White people problems.
 
2012-12-11 08:35:49 AM  

SlothB77: And people are fleeing California in droves.


My god, the population fell by a quarter of a percent. Droves, I tell you. DROVES!!! They're queuing up to FLEE!

For every hundred miles of California's borders with other states, one person crosses every hour, and DOESN'T COME BACK! Calamity!!!!

/Yes, the numbers are real
//California shares 1022.9 miles of border with other US states (http://www.econ.umn.edu/~holmes/data/BorderData.html)
///from your article, 100,000 more people left California in 2011 than moved there
////365 days in 2011; that's 274 people per day
//Or one person per hour, for every hundred miles of border
//The sky is not falling
 
2012-12-11 08:41:55 AM  

Father_Jack: another question? why is this even legal to do, on either level?

why do these loan products even exist at such usurious rates, and why are schoolboards allowed to make such terrible decisions?
where's the oversight in either regard?


F*ck poor people and f*ck education.

That's why payday loans with triple-digit APRs are legal, and why (public) school boards are allowed to make such mind-numbingly horrible financial decisions.
 
2012-12-11 08:43:08 AM  
Californians have been moving to NC in large numbers, for whatever reasons, in the past two decades. I work with a bunch of them and generally consider them to be good people. However, I've noticed this: you can tell how old they are by the gaps in their educations.

If someone is in their 50s, they got a pretty good education in the '50s and '60s but the educational system seemed to start falling apart after this. If they are in their 40s, they have some amazing gaps in their general knowledge, to the point that several of my Cali friends have told me things like "I never had any Civil War history until I got to college." If they are in their 30s, the gaps start to widen, with huge chunks missing in subjects like literature and history, and math was apparently only taught to the basic level. Kids in the 20s can hardly write a coherent sentence.

The weird thing is that their time doesn't seem to have been filled with feel-good nonsense or PC crap, it just seems to have been wasted. One particularly close friend, age 50, actually took a year of community college before she started college here on the east coast because she knew that she was hopelessly unprepared for an east coast school. She took basic English lit, American and European history, and math (geometry and calculus) in order to pass her entrance exams to a four-year school.

So at least you can say that Californians KNOW they are getting shafted by their school system. Of course, this is a skewed sample of opinion because these people chose to leave the state, and for all I know the folks who remained think things are just peachey. But, boy, do my friends feel like they got short-changed. Every single one of them has mentioned it to me at one time or another. Sadly, they all want to move back because they miss their families, the climate, the culture, etc, but not a one thinks they can get a job. And none of them want to raise their children there unless they can afford private school.
 
2012-12-11 08:45:33 AM  

Nhojwolfe: Its the state,
Tell the lender to f off we are giving the original amount of money back with a 10 percent cap of interest. Get all the courts to agree. Watch the lenders cry about not being fair.

//watch no one win..
//its all for the kids


Here's the problem, the school district entered into the contract willingly. The courts tend to back what is in writing, so the courts are actually more apt to back the lenders than the school district. Which is actually a good thing for two reasons. One, it should set an example as to why governing bodies shouldn't go to payday lender type places for loans. Instead, should do something smarter, like budget the money that they actually have. And second, if the courts did rule that contracts with governing bodies could become null and void or adjusted in the favor of the governing body, then any government contract becomes worthless. "Oh, that contract we gave your company to pay $100 million for you to do X. Well, you've done X, however, we got this precedent to not pay the contracts we willingly enter into, so instead of $100 million, here's a pack of Trident gum."
 
2012-12-11 08:47:00 AM  

SlothB77: And people are fleeing California in droves.

It doesn't make sense, though. California is a liberal paradise. Massive entitlements and high taxes. Surely the private sector couldn't have the schools any better than those bureaucrats.


always good for a chuckle:
Link
 
2012-12-11 08:49:49 AM  
No, the Dems who run California are right on this one.

None of this is real money. It just comes from the Eternal Endless Mountain of Taxes, which is eternal and endless, although granted it should be bigger, because otherwise white people are just going to buy stupid things. (Most likely shackles to oppress people with.)

Borrow another $100 million, I say. Who cares?
 
2012-12-11 08:54:13 AM  

gweilo8888: My god, the population fell by a quarter of a percent. Droves, I tell you. DROVES!!! They're queuing up to FLEE!


Just wait until the year-end 2013 numbers come out.

This is why the right is against raising taxes. It isn't that we want to pad the pockets of the top 2%. It is that when you raise taxes, spending always go up. And bureaucrats spend more irresponsibly. People aren't going to stay in California and watch more than half the money they work long, hard hours to earn get confiscated by the state only to be pissed away on these horrendous loans when they could live in another state and keep a much larger percentage of their money.
 
2012-12-11 08:55:55 AM  

SlothB77: This is why the right is against raising taxes. It isn't that we want to pad the pockets of the top 2%. It is that when you raise taxes, spending always go up. And bureaucrats spend more irresponsibly. People aren't going to stay in California and watch more than half the money they work long, hard hours to earn get confiscated by the state only to be pissed away on these horrendous loans when they could live in another state and keep a much larger percentage of their money.


You heard it here first, folks. Chicken Little Taxes has spoken.
 
2012-12-11 08:57:59 AM  
Can somebody calculate the APR of these bonds? Because it obviously isn't 10,000% or some of the other numbers people have bandied about. I think some folks are forgetting the time value of money and the advantages of zero coupon bonds, etc. If it's a 30-year issuance with no payments in the interim, one would have to calculate the projected value of $1 billion in today's dollars, and then calculate an APR from there? I don't know. Somebody from another thread calculated around 11%, which is high, but I don't know how accurate that is. I can't find a good calculator on google :(.
 
2012-12-11 08:59:14 AM  

aerojockey: Hmm. I originally read it as $34 million total repayment, but your reading is probably right (assuming the journalist described it right, which is always questionable). It might still be a decent deal--financing can often be three times the purchase price, whereas this is more like 2.5--but it's not a really good deal. So never mind what I said above.


what about 9 times the purchase price? Is that a decent deal?

Perhaps the best example of the CAB issue is suburban San Diego's Poway Unified School District, which borrowed a little more than $100 million. But "debt service will be almost $1 billion," Lockyer says. "So, over nine times amount of the borrowing. There are worse ones, but that's pretty bad."
 
2012-12-11 09:00:18 AM  

Brick-House: [Are You Smarter Than A Fifth Grader.jpg]

California: Nope!


Don't worry, we're lowering the quality fifth graders's education, so you will be smarter soon enough.
 
2012-12-11 09:02:03 AM  
Whoever told subby that school boards were composed of smart people? They are elected officials and, therefor, the antithesis off smart. An elected official can only be as good as his constituency can judge.
 
2012-12-11 09:03:46 AM  

gweilo8888: You heard it here first, folks. Chicken Little Taxes has spoken.


I don't want to go on a tangent, though i think this is closely related. This is a very recent example. And it is at the country level of granularity. 

and another example, at the state level of granularity. But surely it will be different for California.
 
2012-12-11 09:09:05 AM  

SlothB77: This is why the right is against raising taxes. It isn't that we want to pad the pockets of the top 2%. It is that when you raise taxes, spending always go up. And bureaucrats spend more irresponsibly.


This is what Conservatives actually believe.
 
2012-12-11 09:18:46 AM  

SlothB77: gweilo8888: You heard it here first, folks. Chicken Little Taxes has spoken.

I don't want to go on a tangent, though i think this is closely related. This is a very recent example. And it is at the country level of granularity. 

and another example, at the state level of granularity. But surely it will be different for California.


It's cute how you think I'm reading all this. What I'm actually hearing is HURRR DURRRR DURRRR I'M A GREEDY FARKWAD.
 
2012-12-11 09:21:16 AM  
This is why people should not vote for Obama and Democrats.

Same thing is happening with the country folks.
 
2012-12-11 09:31:07 AM  

natewill: Can somebody calculate the APR of these bonds? Because it obviously isn't 10,000% or some of the other numbers people have bandied about. I think some folks are forgetting the time value of money and the advantages of zero coupon bonds, etc. If it's a 30-year issuance with no payments in the interim, one would have to calculate the projected value of $1 billion in today's dollars, and then calculate an APR from there? I don't know. Somebody from another thread calculated around 11%, which is high, but I don't know how accurate that is. I can't find a good calculator on google :(.


But that doesn't make the arrangement a good deal, says California State Treasurer Bill Lockyer. "It's the school district equivalent of a payday loan or a balloon payment that you might obligate yourself for," Lockyer says. "So you don't pay for, maybe, 20 years - and suddenly you have a spike in interest rates that's extraordinary."


Lockyer says 20 years so,
2.5 (million initial loan) * x *x *x *x... all the way out to 20
= 34 million (only payment at 20 years out)

so yeah x is about 1.14, or 14% interest

so considering current interest rates, and that this is a government entity, and just how retarded it is a local school district is constitutionally forbidden by the state supreme court from raising taxes to apply to local schools in the first place, they are getting royally screwed and so is everyone who has the misfortune to be ruled by these retards.
 
2012-12-11 09:32:36 AM  
i know how to fix this. SUE THE SCHOOLS. Yay California!
 
2012-12-11 09:35:56 AM  

Phoenix_M:
Prop 13 has jack shiat to do with the problems of California schools it's just a convenient excuse by politicians and idiots who don't understand how prop 13 works.


I've been here 25 years. I know exactly how it works, because I've seen it in action.
Property taxes are usually how schools are funded, with supplemental money coming from the general fund.
In 1978 anti-tax republicans decided to scare the locals with a bullsh*t "keep grandma in her house" ad campaign to get prop 13 passed, but the real reason they wanted it was that the state legislature wanted school funds to be distributed more equitably among districts. The wealthy districts and cities were having none of that (look up Serrano vs. Priest), so they engineered this proposition.

Prop 13 works by limiting the annual real estate tax on property to 1% of it's assessed value. That "assessed value" can only go up 2% a year, regardless of the property's actual value. This means that if over 5 years the actual value of a house doubles (as happened during the last real estate madness), the assessed value would only increase 10% in that time.

The main exception (there are others) is if the property changes owners, and the new owner gets to pay the current rate. This could mean that the owners of two identical houses across the street from each other could pay hugely different tax rates simply because one has owned their house for 20 years, and the other bought theirs last month.

This also results in new developments paying humongous tax rates to make up for older neighborhoods where everyone stayed put, and businesses are covered by this as well - which I suspect was the plan all along. If a corporation finds a way other than direct sale (and they do) to transfer property to another corporation, the new corporation pays the old corporation's property tax rate.

All this means that instead of property taxes rising and falling as they should with demographics, housing prices and other factors, more money has to come from the general fund to make up for the shortfalls in the budget. This also has the effect of reducing local control of districts, because control comes from where the money comes. The schools became so underfunded that another proposition (prop 98) had to be passed in 1988 mandating that a certain percentage of the state budget be spent on schools just to keep them running.

That's how prop 13 works, asshole.
 
2012-12-11 09:37:41 AM  
No wonder they are bleeding tax paying population, soon the only ones left will be those on the dole and illegals with no one left to pay for all their shiat. So sad. Thank god they doubled down on solar, building useless bullet train, give illegals college tuition breaks, participate in the carbon credits scam, and are 26billion in debt.
 
2012-12-11 09:39:42 AM  

vygramul: simplicimus: In the West Contra Costa Schools' case, that $2.5 million bond will cost the district a whopping $34 million to repay.
Who are they borrowing from? Loan Sharks?

[charlesmobley.files.wordpress.com image 800x486]


There is some "social justice" I can support. It only seems fair to allow Native Americans to rip off stupid Americans.
 
2012-12-11 09:42:02 AM  

rewind2846: Phoenix_M:
Prop 13 has jack shiat to do with the problems of California schools it's just a convenient excuse by politicians and idiots who don't understand how prop 13 works.

I've been here 25 years. I know exactly how it works, because I've seen it in action.
Property taxes are usually how schools are funded, with supplemental money coming from the general fund.
In 1978 anti-tax republicans decided to scare the locals with a bullsh*t "keep grandma in her house" ad campaign to get prop 13 passed, but the real reason they wanted it was that the state legislature wanted school funds to be distributed more equitably among districts. The wealthy districts and cities were having none of that (look up Serrano vs. Priest), so they engineered this proposition.

Prop 13 works by limiting the annual real estate tax on property to 1% of it's assessed value. That "assessed value" can only go up 2% a year, regardless of the property's actual value. This means that if over 5 years the actual value of a house doubles (as happened during the last real estate madness), the assessed value would only increase 10% in that time.

The main exception (there are others) is if the property changes owners, and the new owner gets to pay the current rate. This could mean that the owners of two identical houses across the street from each other could pay hugely different tax rates simply because one has owned their house for 20 years, and the other bought theirs last month.

This also results in new developments paying humongous tax rates to make up for older neighborhoods where everyone stayed put, and businesses are covered by this as well - which I suspect was the plan all along. If a corporation finds a way other than direct sale (and they do) to transfer property to another corporation, the new corporation pays the old corporation's property tax rate.

All this means that instead of property taxes rising and falling as they should with demographics, housing prices and other factors, mor ...


And yet the dems have had total rule over the state for how long now? And yet they have done nothing about this horror you describe, why? They waste too much money on stupid shiat and elect stupid people who love to spend other peoples money and then take out loans in other peoples names and waste that too.... but yea, its all the gop from the 70s fault right? Please stay in Cali, you belong there.
 
2012-12-11 09:44:59 AM  
CA is over 300 billion underfunded in just their state pension program.

Democrats know finance.

Go Michigan!
 
2012-12-11 09:49:23 AM  

cman: And people gave me shiat for voting against every bond issue in November.

Guess what? We have to pay that money back.


Bonds are sometimes necessary. Can they be abused? Absolutely. That doesn't mean that there is never a time when a bond issue should be passed. For example: I live in a small town. Our main street is in ill repair and the sewer lines that run under it are crumbling. They applied for federal aid to get the street and the lines below it repaired, but were recently turned down. They may now have to float to a bond issue to get the work done. Yes, it's going to suck having to pay a little extra in taxes for the next 10 years, but it's not going to suck as much as shiating in the yard during a South Dakota winter after the sewer lines collapse.
 
2012-12-11 09:50:36 AM  

rewind2846: That's how prop 13 works, asshole.



and prop 13 was a direct result of the asinine decision in Serrano.
it ALL comes back to that stupid liberal decision that essentially said it was racist, in so many words, for local communities to spend money locally on their own schools.

and this stupid ruling is the same reason this school district needs to pay take out a payday loan from wall street sharks because it is prohibited from just increasing the local sales tax a tenth of a percent, or the property taxes a hundredth of percent. you wanted it equal regardless of actual money contributed, you voted in those insane judges that agreed, now its all equally shiat. congratulations.

Background
Proposition 13 drew its impetus from 1971 and 1976 California Supreme Court rulings in Serrano v. Priest,Serrano[›] that a property-tax based finance system for public schools was unconstitutional. The California Constitution required the legislature to provide a free public school system for each district, and the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution (which includes the Equal Protection Clause) required that all states provide to all citizens equal protection of the law. The court ruled that the amount of funding going to different districts was disproportionately favoring the wealthy. Previously, local property taxes went directly to the local school system, which minimized state government's involvement in the distribution of revenue.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_13_%281978%29

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serrano_v._Priest
 
2012-12-11 09:50:48 AM  

Thunderpipes: CA is over 300 billion underfunded in just their state pension program.

Democrats know finance.

Go Michigan!


Michigan would go but all the teachers are out sick protesting others right to work without union thugery
 
2012-12-11 10:00:57 AM  

Joe Blowme: And yet the dems have had total rule over the state for how long now? And yet they have done nothing about this horror you describe, why?


1. because a 2/3rds vote is needed to change this, and the republicans will not vote for the change. There is no such thing as "total rule", as evidenced by the us congress. Checks and balances are always in place... or didn't you pay attention in 3rd grade civics?

2. Because californians, through the proposition process, have voted for sh*t they weren't intending to pay for. They love to vote for shiny new things, but shiny new things require shiny new money. Sometimes direct democracy fails.
 
2012-12-11 10:02:43 AM  
Way to go, professional smart people

Um, these are education officials. If they were smart, they'd have a better job.

/former teacher
 
2012-12-11 10:21:11 AM  

rewind2846: Joe Blowme: And yet the dems have had total rule over the state for how long now? And yet they have done nothing about this horror you describe, why?

1. because a 2/3rds vote is needed to change this, and the republicans will not vote for the change. There is no such thing as "total rule", as evidenced by the us congress. Checks and balances are always in place... or didn't you pay attention in 3rd grade civics?

2. Because californians, through the proposition process, have voted for sh*t they weren't intending to pay for. They love to vote for shiny new things, but shiny new things require shiny new money. Sometimes direct democracy fails.


Wait,you said it was all teh GOPs fault... now you say its the voters fault. What is that saying.... hmmmm... About using caution when asking for things?

Unless you count the first 2 years of obamas first term in which dems controlled both houses and ramed through obama care, but what do i know, i didnt even take civics in 3rd grade.
 
2012-12-11 10:26:21 AM  
A local school district where I live was called out for this exact same thing and when the District Supervisor was interviewed on TV his answer in a nutshell was that by taking out this loan, they qualified and received an extra $15 million from the Feds. He never addressed the fact that they will have to pay back $25 for every $1 borrowed. My head assploded.
 
2012-12-11 10:33:52 AM  

ecmoRandomNumbers: Many of you who biatch about the stupidity of public schools seem to forget that the teachers are never in charge of education. It's always dumbasses YOU elect. I have never met a smart school board member. Ever.

If teachers were actually in charge, things might be a lot different.


I met one. She won because she successfully argued that it might be nice if the school board had at least ONE teacher on it.
 
2012-12-11 10:35:10 AM  

KyDave: vygramul: simplicimus: In the West Contra Costa Schools' case, that $2.5 million bond will cost the district a whopping $34 million to repay.
Who are they borrowing from? Loan Sharks?

[charlesmobley.files.wordpress.com image 800x486]

Yeah, but their spokes-lady is quite hawt


Concur.
 
2012-12-11 10:36:48 AM  

Snowflake Tubbybottom: simplicimus: ecmoRandomNumbers: simplicimus: ecmoRandomNumbers: Many of you who biatch about the stupidity of public schools seem to forget that the teachers are never in charge of education. It's always dumbasses YOU elect. I have never met a smart school board member. Ever.

If teachers were actually in charge, things might be a lot different.

In theory, an interesting proposal. But thanks to NCLB, teachers are limited to teaching to the test.

I know. It's why I work at Verizon instead of teaching now. Did that for 10 years. Education is screwed without a major overhaul. We will be developing nation status within a generation.

I didn't make it though my second semester of teachers ed. Classroom observation. In the 80's in NYC. Realized I didn't have the stomach for this. So, I bow to you for lasting 10 years.

Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach. Those who can't teach?

/ j/k cheap shot


Those who can't teach pass laws about teaching.

/nclb is horrible
 
2012-12-11 10:41:20 AM  

Psycoholic_Slag: A local school district where I live was called out for this exact same thing and when the District Supervisor was interviewed on TV his answer in a nutshell was that by taking out this loan, they qualified and received an extra $15 million from the Feds. He never addressed the fact that they will have to pay back $25 for every $1 borrowed. My head assploded.


An extra $15m loan or grant? It might make sense to borrow $1m now, to get an additional $15m grant now, then pay back $25m in 20 years. To get a $15m loan on top of the $25m would be stupid.

TFA is maddeningly short on these details.
 
2012-12-11 10:47:36 AM  
dang you liberal votin californians errr smart.... us dumb Texan's don't know nutin
 
2012-12-11 10:57:35 AM  
I would like to point out that getting a $27M elementary school for a total cost of $34M is actually a decent deal.. The school was obviously at their bonding authority limit so they had to use non-bond sources of funding - which cost more. This is a 20 year term and it appears that they are paying a tad bit over 10% which isn't surprising for a distressed district. They may also have legally been required to build this school due to enrollment, so if this is the only option it is the only option.

/on my school board
//chair the finance committee
 
2012-12-11 11:03:02 AM  

madgonad: due to enrollment,


How much of thoses are illegal immigrants but are ignored at the expense of actual citizens? Or do they have a dont ask dont tell system in place?
 
2012-12-11 11:08:21 AM  

giftedmadness: Lol public schooling

scrooling

It is, after all, pubic edurcation.
 
2012-12-11 11:33:13 AM  

vygramul: ecmoRandomNumbers: Many of you who biatch about the stupidity of public schools seem to forget that the teachers are never in charge of education. It's always dumbasses YOU elect. I have never met a smart school board member. Ever.

If teachers were actually in charge, things might be a lot different.

I met one. She won because she successfully argued that it might be nice if the school board had at least ONE teacher on it.


Teachers are the ones electing people. Teacher unions spend over $100,000,000 a year, every year, to keep democrats in power.
 
2012-12-11 11:38:16 AM  

archichris: School Districts are not running low on money, they are running low on common sense.

They build multi-million dollar sports complexes and pay millions in copying charges for gods sake.

Our local school district is DEAD LAST in our state, yet it spends more money than every other district int he state but one, over $15,000 per student per year.

That means by the time they graduate we have spent $180,000 on their k-12 education. Its insane.

The School District defends its policy of social advancement, sending children on from 3rd grade who cannot read at grade level. They claim to graduate 85% of their students, but they only count the ones who make it to Senior Year. They actually lose 50% of the students between freshman and senior years. Of those 85%, only 5% are certified ready for higher education or work without remedial training. They graduated, but they cannot do basic algebra or write intelligent reports. (intelligible)

We tried to get a new school board elected this last election, first time in 20 years they have been challenged from the outside. In the last 20 years every single school board member has been either picked by our local democratic party or is a former member of the school administration. They have wasted three quarters of a billion dollars on results that decline every single year for the last 20.

The single worst place you can put your children around here is the public school system, but because there is a 50 million dollar budget and unlimited taxation authority, the Democrats simply will not let it go. They even managed to recall a special ballot for a retiring member after one of our candidates was the only person to file to run in the special election.

It had literally not happened in anyones memory, they assumed there would be an appointment by the state department of education like always. So when our guy was the only one there, they put pressure on the County Clerk to recall the ballot, then had the state education director sa ...


Quite frankly I feel there's more corruption at the local level then at the national level because people don't pay attention to their local politics.

Toronto just threw out our mayor over a corruption issue that some people find a little dumb, I'd argue that we need to watch our local politicians like hawks and not be afraid to call them out on their bullshiat, no matter how small the turd.
 
2012-12-11 11:46:32 AM  

rewind2846: Joe Blowme: And yet the dems have had total rule over the state for how long now? And yet they have done nothing about this horror you describe, why?

1. because a 2/3rds vote is needed to change this, and the republicans will not vote for the change. There is no such thing as "total rule", as evidenced by the us congress. Checks and balances are always in place... or didn't you pay attention in 3rd grade civics?

2. Because californians, through the proposition process, have voted for sh*t they weren't intending to pay for. They love to vote for shiny new things, but shiny new things require shiny new money. Sometimes direct democracy fails.


California's Democratic now have a Supermajority and they promise not to abuse the power.. hahahah
 
2012-12-11 12:00:20 PM  
And there is no telling where any of the money went.

My daughter is in Poway schools; traditionally the best schools in California.

I have to pay for everything for her classroom except text books and those are going to be delivered electronically and charged (they're trying to figure that one out still) to me, too. If she lives far away from school (we just moved closer so no longer an issue for me, but for other, poorer kids) I would have to pay $500 for her to ride the school bus. There is no free ride here and I have no clue what they're doing with my taxes.

So where did all the money go?
 
2012-12-11 12:13:07 PM  
FTFA: Collectively, the districts have borrowed billions in loans that defer payments for years - leaving many districts owing far more than they borrowed.

The mystery of why is solved. It's a problem for a future school board, not today's school board.
 
2012-12-11 12:41:17 PM  

Sgygus: One district now owes more than $1 on a loan of $100 million.

Such a deal! (They must be white).


They are mostly white. Nearly 77% of the community is. The rest is mostly comprised of Hispanics and Asians.

I know you were trying to make a racially based joke. But yeah, face on you.
 
2012-12-11 12:48:39 PM  

WhoGAS: And there is no telling where any of the money went.

My daughter is in Poway schools; traditionally the best schools in California.

I have to pay for everything for her classroom except text books and those are going to be delivered electronically and charged (they're trying to figure that one out still) to me, too. If she lives far away from school (we just moved closer so no longer an issue for me, but for other, poorer kids) I would have to pay $500 for her to ride the school bus. There is no free ride here and I have no clue what they're doing with my taxes.

So where did all the money go?


To the school board president's father's brother's nephew's cousin's former roommate so he can have a do-nothing job with a pension.

/Don't blame teachers, blame all the "admins"
 
2012-12-11 12:54:40 PM  

jtown: "We'd be foolish not to take advantage of getting $25 million" when the district had to spend just $2.5 million to get it, Ramsey says. "The only way we could do it was with a [capital appreciation bond]."


So this guy spent $34 million to get $25 million for free, and he thinks that's a good deal? It's only good because he'll be dead before someone has to cough up $34 million. Or he'll be strung up soon after that $34 mil comes due.

There was a huge public outcry when Poway took out that $1 billion CAB. Had a public meeting that overflowed the room, everybody but the school board thought it was criminally stupid, and the board never once backed down.

/ toss em in jail
// until they pay off the loans themselves
 
2012-12-11 12:57:32 PM  
TFA: "The district needed $2.5 million to help secure a federally subsidized $25 million loan to build a badly needed elementary school...Ramsey says. "The only way we could do it was with a [capital appreciation bond]." Those bonds, known as CABs, are unlike typical bonds, where a school district is required to make immediate and regular payments. Instead, CABs allow districts to defer payments well into the future - by which time lots of interest has accrued. In the West Contra Costa Schools' case, that $2.5 million bond will cost the district a whopping $34 million to repay."


Yes - districts are allowed to defer payments, but nobody says they HAVE to. Sure -- get your hands on the $2.5M so you can secure that $25M loan...and then promptly pay the $2.5M back as soon as you have the cash in hand. You're left with a cheap $25M loan with which you can build a school. Yes, it's $25M instead of $27.5M (boo-hoo), but look! - no $34M balloon payment down the road. This doesn't seem very complicated...am I missing something?
 
2012-12-11 01:10:02 PM  

madgonad: I would like to point out that getting a $27M elementary school for a total cost of $34M is actually a decent deal.. The school was obviously at their bonding authority limit so they had to use non-bond sources of funding - which cost more. This is a 20 year term and it appears that they are paying a tad bit over 10% which isn't surprising for a distressed district. They may also have legally been required to build this school due to enrollment, so if this is the only option it is the only option.

/on my school board
//chair the finance committee


The 34 million payment is just on the 2.5 million loan. The 2.5 million then secured another 25 million dollar loan. Glad your not chair of our finance committee, because it's not that complicated.
 
2012-12-11 01:37:48 PM  
Many of you who biatch about the stupidity of public schools seem to forget that the teachers are never in charge of education. It's always dumbasses YOU elect. I have never met a smart school board member. Ever.

This
My nieces boyfriend got elected to the school board by visiting people in old folks homes.
 
2012-12-11 01:39:18 PM  

relcec: madgonad: I would like to point out that getting a $27M elementary school for a total cost of $34M is actually a decent deal.. The school was obviously at their bonding authority limit so they had to use non-bond sources of funding - which cost more. This is a 20 year term and it appears that they are paying a tad bit over 10% which isn't surprising for a distressed district. They may also have legally been required to build this school due to enrollment, so if this is the only option it is the only option.

/on my school board
//chair the finance committee

The 34 million payment is just on the 2.5 million loan. The 2.5 million then secured another 25 million dollar loan. Glad your not chair of our finance committee, because it's not that complicated.


Yeah - I was going to point out that the $27m school wasn't costing $34m but $59m plus the interest on the $25m.

/Helped someone run for school board in 2009, and was reading over the proposed cuts. It takes a brave, smart person to be on a school board during economic downturns as severe as that one, because I was almost fetal from the number of jobs they were going to have to cut
//The Stimulus bill saved most of those jobs
 
2012-12-11 01:51:24 PM  

gweilo8888: It's cute how you think I'm reading all this. What I'm actually hearing is HURRR DURRRR DURRRR I'M A GREEDY FARKWAD.


and then you'll say that republicans are the uninformed voters while wondering why raising taxes didn't work.
 
2012-12-11 01:59:05 PM  

Joe Blowme: And yet the dems have had total rule over the state for how long now?


Even Republican Arnold Schwarzenegger turned liberal once he got into office in California. Even the republicans in California are liberals. And at the city and county level, it doesn't get any bluer.
 
2012-12-11 02:07:43 PM  

vygramul: relcec: madgonad: I would like to point out that getting a $27M elementary school for a total cost of $34M is actually a decent deal.. The school was obviously at their bonding authority limit so they had to use non-bond sources of funding - which cost more. This is a 20 year term and it appears that they are paying a tad bit over 10% which isn't surprising for a distressed district. They may also have legally been required to build this school due to enrollment, so if this is the only option it is the only option.

/on my school board
//chair the finance committee

The 34 million payment is just on the 2.5 million loan. The 2.5 million then secured another 25 million dollar loan. Glad your not chair of our finance committee, because it's not that complicated.

Yeah - I was going to point out that the $27m school wasn't costing $34m but $59m plus the interest on the $25m.

/Helped someone run for school board in 2009, and was reading over the proposed cuts. It takes a brave, smart person to be on a school board during economic downturns as severe as that one, because I was almost fetal from the number of jobs they were going to have to cut
//The Stimulus bill saved most of those jobs


not sure why people don't raise taxes. in california that's illegal, but everywhere else, wtf is a couple hundreths of a percent on your property tax for a few years while the economy is in the shiatter. they were contemplating it here in austin I thought. think they got rid of some expected liability through attrition.
 
2012-12-11 02:18:09 PM  

SlothB77: Joe Blowme: And yet the dems have had total rule over the state for how long now?

Even Republican Arnold Schwarzenegger turned liberal once he got into office in California. Even the republicans in California are liberals. And at the city and county level, it doesn't get any bluer.


Know how I know you don't know anything about San Diego? San Diego is red (but apparently trending purple-it voted for Obama), and Poway is +9 Republican. It's a Republican haven in a Republican city in a blue state.

/San Diegan
 
2012-12-11 02:28:58 PM  
"The district needed $2.5 million to help secure a federally subsidized $25 million loan to build a badly needed elementary school."

"Why would you leave $25 million on the table? You would never leave $25 million on the table."

- Charles Ramsey, school board president, West Contra Costa School District

"In the West Contra Costa Schools' case, that $2.5 million bond will cost the district a whopping $34 million to repay."

That's why, you stupid f*ck. You spent $34 mil to get $25 mil. YOU ARE A F*CKING IDIOT.

I am in the wrong gotdamn business. I need to help fleece these idiots.
 
2012-12-11 02:30:35 PM  

Mike Chewbacca: SlothB77: Joe Blowme: And yet the dems have had total rule over the state for how long now?

Even Republican Arnold Schwarzenegger turned liberal once he got into office in California. Even the republicans in California are liberals. And at the city and county level, it doesn't get any bluer.

Know how I know you don't know anything about San Diego? San Diego is red (but apparently trending purple-it voted for Obama), and Poway is +9 Republican. It's a Republican haven in a Republican city in a blue state.

/San Diegan


not sure how many times you can be told this and still not f*cking get it, but school funding isn't a local issue in California because of people like yourself. how can you be so f*cking uninformed about your own god damn state? yet with balls big enough to come in here and call out someone else. you're the problem, kid.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_13_%281978%29
Proposition 13 drew its impetus from 1971 and 1976 California Supreme Court rulings in Serrano v. Priest,Serrano[›] that a property-tax based finance system for public schools was unconstitutional. The California Constitution required the legislature to provide a free public school system for each district, and the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution (which includes the Equal Protection Clause) required that all states provide to all citizens equal protection of the law. The court ruled that the amount of funding going to different districts was disproportionately favoring the wealthy. Previously, local property taxes went directly to the local school system, which minimized state government's involvement in the distribution of revenue. This system also allowed a wealthier district to fund its schools with a lesser tax rate than the rate a less affluent district would have to set to yield the same funding per pupil. The Court ruled that the state had to make the distribution of revenue more equitable. The state legislature responded by capping the rate of local revenue that a school district could receive and distributing excess amounts among the poorer districts. As a result property owners in affluent districts perceived that the benefits of the taxes they paid were no longer enjoyed exclusively by the local schools.
 
2012-12-11 02:35:23 PM  
you farktards don't even have a clue how your own state is funded apparently (otherwise you wouldn't be noting the political makeup of the local population when discussing funding individual district funding problems).
I live there 3 years and I pick this shiat up. you live in california forever and don't have the foggiest idea whats going but proceed to spread your misinformed beliefs on everyone else. for the life of me, I can't see why you f*cks could be having so many problems.
 
2012-12-11 02:50:44 PM  
Businesses call these bridge loans, and that might very well be what they got. They're raw deals unless you have the funds coming in next month to pay them off and more, which is why they're called "bridge" - they span a short funds gap with a high interest rate to cover the costs. The minute you roll over bridge loans is the minute you start on the one-way path to bankruptcy.

They're a freaking school district, why the fark wouldn't they sell to the bond market in what's still one of the lowest cost bond markets in history? Even still, can't they refinance to bonds and cut their future obligations, at least? The stupid, it burns.
 
2012-12-11 02:51:39 PM  

Free Radical: SlothB77: This is why the right is against raising taxes. It isn't that we want to pad the pockets of the top 2%. It is that when you raise taxes, spending always go up. And bureaucrats spend more irresponsibly.

This is what Conservatives actually believe.


75 Percent of Obama's Proposed Tax Hikes to Go Toward New Spending

wow, that burn is gonna be red a long time.
 
2012-12-11 03:04:03 PM  
Guys,

In case you didn't notice, CA is run by the Democratic party. Occasionally we get a Republican governer but everything from the cities to the counties on up to the State level is dominated by Democrats. This is a fact, diputing it will just let the rest of us know how stupid you really are.

Criticizing CA for its idiocy in spending (*cough* buying votes *cough*) is the same as criticizing the Democratic Party which is FARKING TABOO here on Fark. Please stop this.

Thanks,
Your Friend and Welfare Sponsor,
Wook
 
2012-12-11 03:35:16 PM  

SlothB77: Free Radical: SlothB77: This is why the right is against raising taxes. It isn't that we want to pad the pockets of the top 2%. It is that when you raise taxes, spending always go up. And bureaucrats spend more irresponsibly.

This is what Conservatives actually believe.

75 Percent of Obama's Proposed Tax Hikes to Go Toward New Spending

wow, that burn is gonna be red a long time.


Jim Sessions creates a pie chart and you automatically believe it?
 
2012-12-11 03:36:00 PM  

Wook: Guys,

In case you didn't notice, CA is run by the Democratic party. Occasionally we get a Republican governer but everything from the cities to the counties on up to the State level is dominated by Democrats. This is a fact, diputing it will just let the rest of us know how stupid you really are.

Criticizing CA for its idiocy in spending (*cough* buying votes *cough*) is the same as criticizing the Democratic Party which is FARKING TABOO here on Fark. Please stop this.

Thanks,
Your Friend and Welfare Sponsor,
Wook


Yes - because everyone who criticizes the Democratic Party gets banned.
 
2012-12-11 04:36:03 PM  

Wook: Guys,

In case you didn't notice, CA is run by the Democratic party. Occasionally we get a Republican governer but everything from the cities to the counties on up to the State level is dominated by Democrats. This is a fact, diputing it will just let the rest of us know how stupid you really are.

Criticizing CA for its idiocy in spending (*cough* buying votes *cough*) is the same as criticizing the Democratic Party which is FARKING TABOO here on Fark. Please stop this.

Thanks,
Your Friend and Welfare Sponsor,
Wook


Since 1953, California has had 4 Democratic governors and 5 Republicans. 22.8 years in office for the Democrats versus 36.4 years for the Republicans. Saint Reagan was governor of CA for 8 years, but I bet you conveniently forgot that.

From Wikipedia: "San Diego County has historically been thought of as a Republican stronghold. The Republican presidential nominee carried the county in every presidential election from 1948 through 2004, except in 1992 when Bill Clinton won a plurality. In 2008, Barack Obama became the first Democratic presidential candidate to win a majority of votes in San Diego County since World War II."

So you also have no idea what you're talking about.

/I miss home.
 
2012-12-11 05:19:45 PM  
The irony is, they probably spent that $100M on $100 thousand worth of stuff.
They don't care, it's not their money.
 
2012-12-11 06:39:30 PM  

Joe Blowme: And yet the dems have had total rule over the state for how long now? And yet they have done nothing about this horror you describe, why? They waste too much money on stupid shiat and elect stupid people who love to spend other peoples money and then take out loans in other peoples names and waste that too.... but yea, its all the gop from the 70s fault right? Please stay in Cali, you belong there.


Because you need a 2/3 majority to repeal it. And you'd need almost all the Democrats to vote for repeal. I have to give the backers it was a clever plan, grants some of the people a small tax break, and themselves a massive tax break, that effectively splits the electorate into those that would benefit from a repeal and those that would suffer, and then require a 2/3 super-majority to repeal. Brilliant.
 
2012-12-11 07:11:25 PM  

SlothB77: gweilo8888: It's cute how you think I'm reading all this. What I'm actually hearing is HURRR DURRRR DURRRR I'M A GREEDY FARKWAD.

and then you'll say that republicans are the uninformed voters while wondering why raising taxes didn't work.


HURRDY DURRDY DURR.
 
2012-12-11 07:32:17 PM  
The stupid is everywhere, submitter:

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-07-02/harrisburg-pennsylvania-b a nkruptcy-ban-to-be-extended

http://blog.al.com/birmingham-news-stories/2011/08/timeline_how_jeffe r son_countys.html
 
2012-12-11 07:36:01 PM  

Wook: Guys,

In case you didn't notice, CA is run by the Democratic party. Occasionally we get a Republican governer but everything from the cities to the counties on up to the State level is dominated by Democrats. This is a fact, diputing it will just let the rest of us know how stupid you really are.

Criticizing CA for its idiocy in spending (*cough* buying votes *cough*) is the same as criticizing the Democratic Party which is FARKING TABOO here on Fark. Please stop this.

Thanks,
Your Friend and Welfare Sponsor,
Wook


You the man. I see you have already taken hits for your view with one nimrod pointing out "But, but there were Republican Governors!!!" as if the Governors held power over the Democrats who have held a majority in the State Senate since 1956.

He has no idea what he is talking about.

He will not be missed.
 
2012-12-11 10:51:51 PM  

Mike Chewbacca: Wook: Guys,

In case you didn't notice, CA is run by the Democratic party. Occasionally we get a Republican governer but everything from the cities to the counties on up to the State level is dominated by Democrats. This is a fact, diputing it will just let the rest of us know how stupid you really are.

Criticizing CA for its idiocy in spending (*cough* buying votes *cough*) is the same as criticizing the Democratic Party which is FARKING TABOO here on Fark. Please stop this.

Thanks,
Your Friend and Welfare Sponsor,
Wook

Since 1953, California has had 4 Democratic governors and 5 Republicans. 22.8 years in office for the Democrats versus 36.4 years for the Republicans. Saint Reagan was governor of CA for 8 years, but I bet you conveniently forgot that.

From Wikipedia: "San Diego County has historically been thought of as a Republican stronghold. The Republican presidential nominee carried the county in every presidential election from 1948 through 2004, except in 1992 when Bill Clinton won a plurality. In 2008, Barack Obama became the first Democratic presidential candidate to win a majority of votes in San Diego County since World War II."

So you also have no idea what you're talking about.

/I miss home.


Jerry Brown the current governor of California has been Governor for 10 of those 22.8 years his father Pat was Governor for 8 of those 22.8 years. Gray Davis was the last 4.8 of those years.
 
2012-12-11 10:59:24 PM  

Psycoholic_Slag: Wook: Guys,

In case you didn't notice, CA is run by the Democratic party. Occasionally we get a Republican governer but everything from the cities to the counties on up to the State level is dominated by Democrats. This is a fact, diputing it will just let the rest of us know how stupid you really are.

Criticizing CA for its idiocy in spending (*cough* buying votes *cough*) is the same as criticizing the Democratic Party which is FARKING TABOO here on Fark. Please stop this.

Thanks,
Your Friend and Welfare Sponsor,
Wook

You the man. I see you have already taken hits for your view with one nimrod pointing out "But, but there were Republican Governors!!!" as if the Governors held power over the Democrats who have held a majority in the State Senate since 1956.

He has no idea what he is talking about.

He will not be missed.


Another one who didn't pay attention in third grade civics. Lemme break it down for you:

50 +1% is a simple majority.
Out of a group of 100 people, if 51 of them voted for something, that thing becomes what they want (rule, law, what to have for lunch etc).
If that group makes a rule that for something to pass a vote it needs at least 2/3rds (66 people) or 3/5ths (60 people) or any number higher than 51 to vote in the affirmative for it.
This means that there must be a combination of those in both the majority and the minority group for this thing to pass a vote. This is a very effective check (as in "checks and balances") on the power of the majority group, and makes sure the minority group has a say in how things are done. Even if the majority group had the number of people necessary to secure the vote in their favor, there is no guarantee that all in the majority group will vote in the affirmative, and the measure fails.

So the next time you say some dumb sh*t like "Democrats who have held a majority in the State Senate since 1956", remember exactly what a "majority" is when it comes to government and the law. It doesn't mean what you would like for it to mean.
 
2012-12-12 03:12:11 AM  

rewind2846: So the next time you say some dumb sh*t like "Democrats who have held a majority in the State Senate since 1956", remember exactly what a "majority" is when it comes to government and the law. It doesn't mean what you would like for it to mean.


Exactly. With a 2/3 requirement to pass a bill, the line that represents an actual majority is not 51% it 67%. The Democrats haven't had a super majority in California since the depression. One those things that bothers me about people elsewhere, they think 'California is Liberal' and then they 'know' by induction how things work in this state, really they have no idea.
 
2012-12-12 04:15:06 AM  

gibbon1: rewind2846: So the next time you say some dumb sh*t like "Democrats who have held a majority in the State Senate since 1956", remember exactly what a "majority" is when it comes to government and the law. It doesn't mean what you would like for it to mean.

Exactly. With a 2/3 requirement to pass a bill, the line that represents an actual majority is not 51% it 67%. The Democrats haven't had a super majority in California since the depression. One those things that bothers me about people elsewhere, they think 'California is Liberal' and then they 'know' by induction how things work in this state, really they have no idea.


Well they have a super majority now and trust me they're going to go wild and realllly fark things up & anyone who has ever taken a civics class should know we're a representative republic not a democracy it's not majority rules in the states.
 
2012-12-12 07:57:49 AM  
sed to live in contra costa, it's all part of the bay area and it's all completely farked.
Enjoy yer supermajority of idjits
ya idjits.

I moved 3000 miles to be out of that garbage state
cities and whole counties going bankrupt
hooray!
 
2012-12-12 07:58:47 AM  
not sed...USED
 
2012-12-12 10:31:28 AM  

rewind2846: Psycoholic_Slag: Wook: Guys,

In case you didn't notice, CA is run by the Democratic party. Occasionally we get a Republican governer but everything from the cities to the counties on up to the State level is dominated by Democrats. This is a fact, diputing it will just let the rest of us know how stupid you really are.

Criticizing CA for its idiocy in spending (*cough* buying votes *cough*) is the same as criticizing the Democratic Party which is FARKING TABOO here on Fark. Please stop this.

Thanks,
Your Friend and Welfare Sponsor,
Wook

You the man. I see you have already taken hits for your view with one nimrod pointing out "But, but there were Republican Governors!!!" as if the Governors held power over the Democrats who have held a majority in the State Senate since 1956.

He has no idea what he is talking about.

He will not be missed.

Another one who didn't pay attention in third grade civics. Lemme break it down for you:

50 +1% is a simple majority.
Out of a group of 100 people, if 51 of them voted for something, that thing becomes what they want (rule, law, what to have for lunch etc).
If that group makes a rule that for something to pass a vote it needs at least 2/3rds (66 people) or 3/5ths (60 people) or any number higher than 51 to vote in the affirmative for it.
This means that there must be a combination of those in both the majority and the minority group for this thing to pass a vote. This is a very effective check (as in "checks and balances") on the power of the majority group, and makes sure the minority group has a say in how things are done. Even if the majority group had the number of people necessary to secure the vote in their favor, there is no guarantee that all in the majority group will vote in the affirmative, and the measure fails.

So the next time you say some dumb sh*t like "Democrats who have held a majority in the State Senate since 1956", remember exactly what a "majority" is when it comes to government and the law. It doe ...


Yes I understand the difference between majority and super majority in the Senate. The Democrats currently hold a super majority.
The original post I was responding to was regarding the hate and backlash Fark dishes out to anyone who posts anything bad about the Democrats or liberals. I didn't intend to get into the details of 3rd grade civics.

FWIW, I'm socially liberal and fiscally conservative. I always vote third party and believe the arena of partisan politics is populated by fools.
 
2012-12-13 01:06:48 AM  

Psycoholic_Slag: The original post I was responding to was regarding the hate and backlash Fark dishes out to anyone who posts anything bad about the Democrats or liberals. I didn't intend to get into the details of 3rd grade civics.


Then lemme splain about the derision some people get when trying to insult or denigrate "liberals" or democrats.. The reasons why the people who get that flack are the very same reasons why some liberals who post derogatory things about republicans get the flack... what they post is, for lack of a better term, stupid.

There are plenty of conservatives who post their opinions about democrats and liberals here, and if you'll notice, the ones who do so with facts, logic and sense and not bullsh*t pulled from their ass and WND or other DERPsites are debated and sometimes even congratulated for their point of view. But what the 'tards blow in with KENYAN USRPER N0BAMA MOOSLIM WHHAARRRGARBBLL!, they deserve what they get.

It's just a matter of thinking before you post. If you have charts or graphs or links, get them from reputable sources. If they are government sources (like unemployment numbers), their correctness has nothing to do with who is sitting in the Oval Office, so don't use them to prop up your argument when the guy you like is in the Big Chair and to discredit others arguments when someone from the other party is warming the seat. Use them to explain your point of view in fully and in context, without omissions. Eschew conspiracy theories and other alarmist bullsh*t. Don't threadsh*t and run. In fact, if what you post is true and provable from more than once source that doesn't include a third-hand re-report from someone's blog no one can say sh*t about it anyway. It is what it is.

Take the Rachel Maddow show on MSNBC, for example. You might not like her liberal politics, but she will spend half the show explaining one chart she puts up, and has all the data to back up her assertions... names, dates, times, places, whatever, in exhausting detail. She and her staff do their homework and fact check sh*t to death. When she gets a fact, or a number, or a name or anything else wrong, she will correct that error herself - on the air - as soon as it is pointed out to her, and so do the other show hosts on that network. You will NEVER see this on FoxNews, ever.

In other words, don't be Fox News. "Some people say" is NEVER a good start to any statement which is designed to convince any thinking person that the point you're about to make is true.
 
2012-12-13 01:18:18 AM  

Phoenix_M:
Well they have a super majority now and trust me they're going to go wild and realllly fark things up & anyone who has ever taken a civics class should know we're a representative republic not a democracy it's not majority rules in the states.


Another fail.

See, democrats don't often vote in lockstep (or should I say goose-step) with the party leaders wishes, and so that "super majority" means exactly diddly-squat. There is no guarantee that all democrats will vote as a group in the affirmative for anything, including what to have for lunch. That is one of the hallmarks of being a democrat. Republicans on the other hand ask only "how high" when told to jump by the party elite, and more often than not vote almost as a bloc. This is why if the republicans had this type of numerical advantage in the california legislature, the democrats may as well stay home. There wouldn't be anything for them to do.

As I said before, "majority" doesn't mean what you would like for it to mean.
 
2012-12-13 05:47:43 AM  

rewind2846: Phoenix_M:
Well they have a super majority now and trust me they're going to go wild and realllly fark things up & anyone who has ever taken a civics class should know we're a representative republic not a democracy it's not majority rules in the states.

Another fail.

See, democrats don't often vote in lockstep (or should I say goose-step) with the party leaders wishes, and so that "super majority" means exactly diddly-squat. There is no guarantee that all democrats will vote as a group in the affirmative for anything, including what to have for lunch. That is one of the hallmarks of being a democrat. Republicans on the other hand ask only "how high" when told to jump by the party elite, and more often than not vote almost as a bloc. This is why if the republicans had this type of numerical advantage in the california legislature, the democrats may as well stay home. There wouldn't be anything for them to do.

As I said before, "majority" doesn't mean what you would like for it to mean.


Democrats in California now have a supermajority not just a majority so they can pass/repeal what they want and will. You're the one who doesn't seem to know what "majority vs supermajority" means.
 
2012-12-13 09:19:20 AM  

Phoenix_M:

As I said before, "majority" doesn't mean what you would like for it to mean.

Democrats in California now have a supermajority not just a majority so they can pass/repeal what they want and will. You're the one who doesn't seem to know what "majority vs supermajority" means.


I know exactly what it means. What you don't understand is (once again) that the democrats are much less likely to vote for the same thing at the same time as a group than republicans in the same situation, so the term "supermajority" has less impact than if the tables were reversed.

Numbers do not always equal votes.
 
Displayed 169 of 169 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report