|
stone cold posted:gently caress off, trumpet Lol, how is the deduction not a tax break? Edit: Pervis posted:The only reason the state deduction is going away is to tilt the flow of money even more so from blue states to red states, so they can gloat about how responsible they are (at our expense). If tilting the flow of money from blue states to red states really bothers you, you should be applauding the rest of the tax plan which will likely cut federal tax revenue by quite a bit. silence_kit fucked around with this message at 00:14 on Dec 3, 2017 |
#
?
Dec 3, 2017 00:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 15:00 |
|
|
Yeah getting rid of state deductions isn't necessarily a bad thing in a vacuum, but in this case it's part of a system of smoke and mirrors to make it look like the Republicans are cutting taxes for the poor and middle class while they're in fact raising taxes for pretty much everybody who isn't super rich or a gigantic corporation. The doubling of the standard federal deduction is supposed to cover the removal of state deductions and then some, but in practice that's only true if you both a) live and a low/no income tax state, and b) don't rely on the myriad of tax credits the Republican plan does away with (spoilers: most low income households rely extensively on tax credits!). So what you end up with is a system that looks like it should be saving you money even though it's explicitly designed to gently caress you unless you're rich, and when people start to complain the Republicans can shrug their shoulder and say "Well don't look at us we doubled your deductions! It must be those evil socialist states like California trying to squeeze your livelihood out of you with their high taxes!"
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2017 00:14
|
|
|
Sydin posted:Yeah getting rid of state deductions isn't necessarily a bad thing in a vacuum, but in this case it's part of a system of smoke and mirrors to make it look like the Republicans are cutting taxes for the poor and middle class while they're in fact raising taxes for pretty much everybody who isn't super rich or a gigantic corporation. I don't think that this is true. You can make the argument that defunding the government will in the long run impoverish the poor & middle class, which I think is probably true, but I don't think that poor & middle class people will pay more taxes under this plan. Most will get a modest tax cut. Obviously the greatest beneficiaries of the plan are the rich. Sydin posted:The doubling of the standard federal deduction is supposed to cover the removal of state deductions and then some, but in practice that's only true if you both a) live and a low/no income tax state, and b) don't rely on the myriad of tax credits the Republican plan does away with (spoilers: most low income households rely extensively on tax credits!). The plan gets rid of exemptions, but the child tax credit has been increased to offset that. Sorry, but you aren't poor, even in California, if you are itemizing deductions. silence_kit fucked around with this message at 00:24 on Dec 3, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2017 00:17
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:Your argument against getting rid of this tax break, for people who really don't need it, is that people don't like paying taxes? Really? Yes, you can use this reasoning all over. It's way easier for people who oppose "big government" to use it when we can't deduct our state taxes. This is not hard to reconcile at all. If the confusion was with my use of "us," I apologize; by "us," I meant John Q. Public, not "progressives."
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2017 00:22
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:I don't think that this is true. You can make the argument that defunding the government will in the long run impoverish the poor & middle class, which I think is probably true, but I don't think that poor & middle class people will pay more taxes under this plan. Most will get a modest tax cut. Obviously the greatest beneficiaries of the plan are the rich. In practice doubling the federal deduction while removing the state one would probably save everybody money, regardless of the state you lived in. For me, a healthy single-filer making close to six figures who doesn't really rely on anything outside the standard deductions, I will save money, yes. It's when you start crunching the removed deductions and tax credits that a lot of low/middle-income households could start to get squeezed. This article does a pretty decent job of running down what's in and out of the bill, and who benefits. silence_kit posted:The plan gets rid of exemptions, but the child tax credit has been increased to offset that. Sorry, but you aren't poor, even in California, if you are itemizing deductions. For most people it's a gain but it's being balanced by getting rid of the personal exemption. It's a gain if you've got kids, but as the article I linked above points out it could potentially lead to raising taxes on seniors and is the main reason the AARP has come out against the bill. Also this is an aside and doesn't really have anything to do with the discussion at hand, but loving  I didn't realize that under this plan private citizen rates expire in 2026, but the corporate tax cuts are permanent  Every time I think the Republicans can't get any more blatant about how much they only care about the rich, they one up themselves.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2017 00:38
|
|
|
CPColin posted:Yes, you can use this reasoning all over. It's way easier for people who oppose "big government" to use it when we can't deduct our state taxes. This is not hard to reconcile at all. If the confusion was with my use of "us," I apologize; by "us," I meant John Q. Public, not "progressives." If you really believe this, you would then be paradoxically obligated to oppose any sort of progressive policy on anything, because it would upset old conservative voters. It is pretty nonsensical. silence_kit fucked around with this message at 00:49 on Dec 3, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2017 00:43
|
|
|
Sydin posted:Also this is an aside and doesn't really have anything to do with the discussion at hand, but loving Yeah this is one of the real hilarious things they had to do to skirt it in under budget reconciliation. There were a couple dems presenting amendments that would make the private citizen rates permanent, but they were done with the intention of requiring the bill to have 60 votes instead of 51, as well as having the attack ads made stating that republicans voted against permanent middle class tax relief. Then the Rubio amendment failed, which would have lowered the corporate rate to 20.96% instead of 20% and used the extra wiggle room to expand EITC and child tax credits. It failed because Trump repeatedly stated that he would only sign a bill with a 20% rate, and then this morning he said that 22% would have been fine too. Whoops!
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2017 00:51
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:If you really believe this, you would then be paradoxically obligated to oppose any sort of progressive policy on anything, because it would upset old conservative voters. It is pretty nonsensical. I think you're intentionally taking the most nonsensical reading of what I'm saying. I oppose eliminating the deduction for state and local taxes because it'll make a certain sector of the political spectrum more likely to crow about overtaxation in general discussion and in opposition campaign advertising and, as a result, make it more difficult for the state government to fund programs.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2017 00:54
|
|
|
CPColin posted:I think you're intentionally taking the most nonsensical reading of what I'm saying. I oppose eliminating the deduction for state and local taxes because it'll make a certain sector of the political spectrum more likely to crow about overtaxation in general discussion and in opposition campaign advertising and, as a result, make it more difficult for the state government to fund programs. Sorry, I think that it's a bad argument. 'Oh no, we can't do X, it'll make old conservative voters mad. To avoid the inevitable backlash, it's better if we just keep & enact policies that they like!'
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2017 01:11
|
|
|
The whole SALT deductions thing and how it interacts with our state is pretty darn cool. I'll take slightly higher property taxes in exchange for the market pooping itself just a little. Thank you Republicans.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2017 01:16
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:Sorry, I think that it's a bad argument. 'Oh no, we can't do X, it'll make old conservative voters mad. To avoid the inevitable backlash, it's better if we just keep & enact policies that they like!' I'm pretty sure they don't like the SALT deduction and that's why they're trying to get rid of it. I don't want them to get rid of it and nudge open the door to conservative PAC's and media trotting out the phrase "Double Taxation" as a strategy to put pressure on legislators to avoid increasing funding of programs that need it or, worse, cutting spending. You see, I'm not worried about the conservative voters, since they're already entrenched in that position; I'm worried about the louder, anti-tax message influencing moderate voters and fooling them into distracting the state from what it's doing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2017 01:47
|
|
|
How is it a tax break to simply not get taxed twice?
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2017 22:00
|
|
|
Panfilo posted:How is it a tax break to simply not get taxed twice? What do you mean when you say that you are being taxed twice without having the state & local income tax deduction? Edit: I mean, you are getting taxed twice since you have to pay X% effective tax rate on your income to the federal government and Y% effective tax rate on your income to your state & local governments, and always will get taxed twice on your income unless your state and municipality don't have income taxes. Edit2: Also, clearly it is a tax break, since the deduction reduces income subject to the federal tax. This is the definition of a tax break. silence_kit fucked around with this message at 23:50 on Dec 3, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2017 22:19
|
|
|
Corporations are people my friend. That means that they should get taxed as people. You shouldn't be able to have it both ways.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2017 07:41
|
|
|
You know, I was just thinking how funny it is that The L.A. school board has allowed someone dumber than Trump to remain on the payroll.Babby's First Campaign Fraud posted:http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-lausd-ref-rodriguez-20170919-story.html You can put your own money into your campaign and reimburse yourself from your war chest. He did not do this. He wanted to astroturf a "grassroots swell".
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2017 09:05
|
|
|
So can someone with more knowledge on this subject than I please tell me the reason why California public schools are such a mess? This isn't some trap question, I'm genuinely curious as a person that has had his kids going to school both in another country and also in some pretty deep red states. I'm speaking specifically about the public school rankings compared nationwide. I'm looking for more than a one-sentence answers here, since my wife and I have been trying to wrap our heads around it and can't figure it out after almost a year here. Don't just say "Republican white people" or "poverty", because like I said, I've been in other places that has those things and not seen the dismal scores I'm seeing here. EDIT: Also, sorry if that last sentence comes off as kind of snotty, but those two things are basically what every Californian I've talked to in person has tried to use when I try and ask around. Anonymous Zebra fucked around with this message at 10:19 on Dec 4, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2017 10:16
|
|
|
Anonymous Zebra posted:So can someone with more knowledge on this subject than I please tell me the reason why California public schools are such a mess? This isn't some trap question, I'm genuinely curious as a person that has had his kids going to school both in another country and also in some pretty deep red states. I'm speaking specifically about the public school rankings compared nationwide. I'm looking for more than a one-sentence answers here, since my wife and I have been trying to wrap our heads around it and can't figure it out after almost a year here. Don't just say "Republican white people" or "poverty", because like I said, I've been in other places that has those things and not seen the dismal scores I'm seeing here. The 70s "taxpayers revolt" and subsequent budget crises account for a lot of it. School districts rely heavily on local property taxes and prop 13 has made that money much harder to come by. In theory, state and federal grants are supposed to make up the difference, but the state is frequently broke and often misallocates funds (the famous "unfunded mandates"). There are forty million people in California and most of us live nowhere near the rich coastal enclaves where all the money seems to go. We're also a fairly young population compared to many states with a high proportion of immigrant and ESL students and providing services to millions of kids from radically different backgrounds across hundreds of school districts would be an immense challenge even if things were going great for us. It doesn't help that our class sizes are large and pay for k-12 teachers isn't great, especially given cost of living, so people burn out and it's hard to retain talented teachers. The teachers unions have often done nothing but exacerbate this problem. CTA and the like tend to be dominated at the local level by old established teachers and their bargaining often reflects this. The pay scales tend to be heavily weighted toward senior teachers (and administration) leaving very little for substitutes, student teachers, new hires, and classified employees. Layoffs are based largely on seniority, so every time there's a budget crunch, it's the bright new talent that gets thrown under the bus while the old guard lurches toward retirement. Of course, it's hard to blame the careerists for wanting to protect their retirement plans after the poo poo they've been through.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2017 11:25
|
|
|
Anonymous Zebra posted:So can someone with more knowledge on this subject than I please tell me the reason why California public schools are such a mess? This isn't some trap question, I'm genuinely curious as a person that has had his kids going to school both in another country and also in some pretty deep red states. I'm speaking specifically about the public school rankings compared nationwide. I'm looking for more than a one-sentence answers here, since my wife and I have been trying to wrap our heads around it and can't figure it out after almost a year here. Don't just say "Republican white people" or "poverty", because like I said, I've been in other places that has those things and not seen the dismal scores I'm seeing here.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2017 14:31
|
|
|
Anonymous Zebra posted:So can someone with more knowledge on this subject than I please tell me the reason why California public schools are such a mess? At the elementary levels, this creates a Sisyphean struggle to get students to the level they should be at. Before the recession, schools could provide literacy coaches to help with this, to lessen the burden on the teacher. Those positions were cleared out and just now were being repopulated due to a mandate to provide additional instructional support. It's often the case that secondary instruction is blamed when there was gross negligence for 3/4 of the student's academic career. The Big Data approach to schooling, coupled with NCLB, also tied a lot of the school's funding to test metrics. Increasingly, this left little moneys for classes like shop, the arts, and other electives or 'soft knowledge' type of classes that would benefit students not particularly geared towards traditional classes. And while culturally people diminish the role of teachers, they're expected more and more to put in long hours, attend training for new educational models , and be counselor/college advisor/confidant to their kids. It takes a special kind of person to stick through that. Leadership at the administrator level can be fickle -- cue the story about Jaime Escalante's Calculus education pipeline almost being scuttled because a janitor was unhappy he was at the site early/late, and how it eventually was destroyed after a new principal came in and didn't want to spend time promoting the program. It's often the case where districts will assign/reassign administrators so as to reduce the chance they will become increasingly invested with the community. As a whole, districts tend to see teachers as replaceable (so a carefully crafted program of peers reinforcing learning through shared content can be shot down with a reassignment). Anecdotally, my alma mater had an amazing ESL program for newcomers, taking non-english speakers and making them proficient at a middle school level in 2 years. It was never replicated in the school district. It just quietly produced amazing results in one of the most overpopulated schools in the state and chugged along until the balance sheet showed it was too expensive to keep around. Recently, the growth of charter schools and the relative slowing of population have left some school districts with emptier schools, which means less money alotted -- funding is based in a per-pupil formula. I really can't stress how destructive the charter movement has been to public schools, but it's also a byproduct of a system that left the neediest areas underfunded. That's also due to a lack of support culturally and socially, though. Really, though, California has an incredibly diverse population and landscape, with a large number of student's that move often. It's hard to say the school's are terrible when you account for that diversity, though there's certainly room for imorovement.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2017 15:28
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/awolfeful/status/937133173342855169
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2017 16:50
|
|
|
Duckbox and FilthyImp, thank you for those answers. It doesn't really help me solve the problem of where the hell to send my girls to school, but that's that. It kind of blows my mind that I can look at districts through three distinct municipal or city areas, and find them all as being below average by both the state and national standards. I mean you would think a good school would be in there somewhere right?
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2017 18:05
|
|
|
Unfortunately, in the US it's pretty drat common for weaker schools to cluster, due to strong economic segregation (mostly due to NIMBY zoning, as far as I can tell).
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2017 18:12
|
|
|
Cicero posted:Unfortunately, in the US it's pretty drat common for weaker schools to cluster, due to strong economic segregation (mostly due to NIMBY zoning, as far as I can tell). Also when you have a case where you've got a school district with one or two really good schools in a well-off area and a bunch more poorer areas with less funding, the rich NIMBYs in the well-off area will try to split the district under the guise of "local control" so that they don't subsidize the schools in poor areas of their district.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2017 18:20
|
|
|
Anonymous Zebra posted:[ It doesn't really help me solve the problem of where the hell to send my girls to school, but that's that. My high school was one of the lower tier schools in the L.A. area, largely due to its proximity to a not-yet revitalized DTLA and the massive numbers of new immigrants in the surrounding neighborhoods. College prep was free, the AP program was robust, several staff members were contributors to the AP test questions, but we didn't receive personal attention for applications because the class was 600 people. I could have tried to get bussed out somewhere, but I received a great education (I just didnt get any of the cultural capital a more prestigious school would impart). I really can't stress how much transience is in parts of CA's educational system, because of gentrification pricing, community demographics, cultural influences, employment, etc. You might see a stat. stating the school has a 45% cohort grad rate, but it doesn't mention that It's calculated from the make-up of students present for the first 9th grade day of their career, or that 10% of the student body is composed of recent immigrants. You might have 98% of the senior class go on to college/grad, but that might not be what's counted. Likewise, poor testing could be a function of ESL learners -- the NCLB frameworl, for ecample, did t care if you just arrived a week ago from the Ukraine, because by God they were going to evaluate you against the standards of students in your age bracket. Instant Sunrise posted:Also when you have a case where you've got a school district with one or two really good schools in a well-off area and a bunch more poorer areas with less funding, the rich NIMBYs in the well-off area will try to split the district under the guise of "local control" so that they don't subsidize the schools in poor areas of their district. Mysteriously, Santa Monica, Beverly Hills, Glendale, Burbank and Palos Verdes are independent  (Inglewood and Compton are also exempt but there's good reason for that) FilthyImp fucked around with this message at 18:44 on Dec 4, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2017 18:36
|
|
|
Anonymous Zebra posted:Duckbox and FilthyImp, thank you for those answers. It doesn't really help me solve the problem of where the hell to send my girls to school, but that's that. It kind of blows my mind that I can look at districts through three distinct municipal or city areas, and find them all as being below average by both the state and national standards. I mean you would think a good school would be in there somewhere right? Send your kids to private or parochial school if you can possibly afford it. Yeah, you're contributing to the downward spiral in public schooling, but if you want what is best for your kids, it's that or move to one of the neighborhoods Instant Sunrise mentioned.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2017 18:49
|
|
|
Instant Sunrise posted:Also when you have a case where you've got a school district with one or two really good schools in a well-off area and a bunch more poorer areas with less funding, the rich NIMBYs in the well-off area will try to split the district under the guise of "local control" so that they don't subsidize the schools in poor areas of their district. Thanks for reminding me to check up on the Mt. Diablo school district situation: http://www.eastbaytimes.com/2017/08/30/contra-costa-ed-board-says-northgate-petition-doesnt-pass-muster/ Yay! Some Walnut Creek schadenfreude.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2017 19:49
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Send your kids to private or parochial school if you can possibly afford it. Yeah, you're contributing to the downward spiral in public schooling, but if you want what is best for your kids, it's that or move to one of the neighborhoods Instant Sunrise mentioned. I kind of doubt that private schools near public schools that suck are any better. There’s no reason for them to be; they get the air of seeming better just by being a private/parochial school (hence your opinion, right?) and they don’t actually have much to compete against. Heck, even in “good” areas most of the private/parochial schools are nothing special. The ones in the district I grew up in were significantly worse than our public schools in arts and college prep offerings. California is so big and diverse that it’s always been difficult to properly serve education. There’s been a push lately with LCAP funding to let districts decide what to spend money on so theoretically they can best serve their unique populations; in districts that are well-run, this has been great. In districts that aren’t, it just has exacerbated problems that already existed. But having the state make very specific allotments for very specific programs creates its own problems. It’s just not a fun time to get into education, even in California where teachers are better off than many other places in the country. Many teachers can’t afford to live in or near the district they teach in. Emphasis on STEM and standardized testing has (in my opinion) diminished the value of school as a place in the community at a time where at least at my school, kids seem to need someplace where they feel like they belong more than ever. We have teacher shortages in many subjects, and record lows of future teachers entering education programs. There is an implicit acceptance in anyone who signs up for a teaching program right now that you will work long hours for inadequate pay, and you will get blamed for anything that goes wrong. I’m not surprised people aren’t eager for sign up. School administration is a bit of a murky career path and I think that contributes too. Not many people dream of being a school principal (another job that really doesn’t pay much, has insanely long hours and gets blamed for just about anything). Having good school and district admin is so rare that we consider it a blessing when we have it. (For the record I like mine, but consider myself lucky.) Without good leadership at the top we all struggle to make things work.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2017 20:01
|
|
|
FMguru posted:Prop 13 It's this. It simply exacerbates the problems that funding schools via local property taxes creates. The schools in Beverly Hills, Manhattan Beach and Palos Verdes are great.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2017 20:10
|
|
|
Oh hey speaking of struggling schools, look what just popped up in my local news feed.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2017 20:31
|
|
|
Sydin posted:Oh hey speaking of struggling schools, look what just popped up in my local news feed. quote:Officials say closures may be necessary due to lowering enrollment. Officials have said that despite growing construction in the Bay Area, there has been limited housing growth for families with children in the South San Jose area.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2017 20:36
|
|
|
Cicero posted:Oh and look what the problem is The area directly to the west of the map they're showing is a sea of duplexes/triplexes, FWIW. The stretch of 85 heading down towards the 101 is also currently getting gentrified with luxury apartments like crazy, although I'm not sure that's exactly the "I have kids and am also going to put them in public school" crowd.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2017 21:03
|
|
|
Instead of land housing, we should invest in air housing via blimps, to allow people to fly over the inevitably polluted and heavy-metal laden land and blot out the sun. The effects of this are twofold: First: due to an increased albedo caused by the blimps, the Earth will cool, negating global warming. Second: by raising the altitude of our people, we raise their spirits. A rising tide lifts all boats, but a blimp will rise forever. Further, we won't have to deal with current regulations regarding land use. Cities don't yet have zoning rules for the sky, so we can have residential blimps in cheap industrial airspace. We can house workers directly above their workplaces, house students above schools, and house the rich above a bottomless pit. The possibilities are endless. Thank you and vote for me.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2017 21:15
|
|
|
Admiral Ray posted:Instead of land housing, we should invest in air housing via blimps, to allow people to fly over the inevitably polluted and heavy-metal laden land and blot out the sun. The effects of this are twofold: First: due to an increased albedo caused by the blimps, the Earth will cool, negating global warming. Second: by raising the altitude of our people, we raise their spirits. A rising tide lifts all boats, but a blimp will rise forever. Further, we won't have to deal with current regulations regarding land use. Cities don't yet have zoning rules for the sky, so we can have residential blimps in cheap industrial airspace. We can house workers directly above their workplaces, house students above schools, and house the rich above a bottomless pit. The possibilities are endless. What if the rich fall in the bottomless pit?? We won't be able to eat them!
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2017 23:29
|
|
|
The idea that private schools are by default better is a myth. Both my parents were educators, my wife is an educator, and all of them have met a continuous stream of private school kids entering public school who are as bad, or worse, educationally, than the public school kids. This is not universal, it's not a value judgement, it's that for-profit education sometimes finds it easier to keep the kid around and collect the money than tell the parents that their kid can't hack it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2017 01:16
|
|
|
Admiral Ray posted:Instead of land housing, we should invest in air housing via blimps, to allow people to fly over the inevitably polluted and heavy-metal laden land and blot out the sun. The effects of this are twofold: First: due to an increased albedo caused by the blimps, the Earth will cool, negating global warming. Second: by raising the altitude of our people, we raise their spirits. A rising tide lifts all boats, but a blimp will rise forever. Further, we won't have to deal with current regulations regarding land use. Cities don't yet have zoning rules for the sky, so we can have residential blimps in cheap industrial airspace. We can house workers directly above their workplaces, house students above schools, and house the rich above a bottomless pit. The possibilities are endless. Pretty sure this is basically the Jetsons. Which means traffic in California will still suck regardless of altitude.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2017 02:06
|
|
|
Admiral Ray posted:Instead of land housing, we should invest in air housing via blimps, to allow people to fly over the inevitably polluted and heavy-metal laden land and blot out the sun. The effects of this are twofold: First: due to an increased albedo caused by the blimps, the Earth will cool, negating global warming. Second: by raising the altitude of our people, we raise their spirits. A rising tide lifts all boats, but a blimp will rise forever. Further, we won't have to deal with current regulations regarding land use. Cities don't yet have zoning rules for the sky, so we can have residential blimps in cheap industrial airspace. We can house workers directly above their workplaces, house students above schools, and house the rich above a bottomless pit. The possibilities are endless. This is about on par with many of the candidate statements in the California voter guide.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2017 06:28
|
|
|
(crossposting) The Ventura fire (burning right now) has become a pretty major incident.  http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-school-fire-20171204-story.html http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-evacuation-ventura-county-fire-20171204-story.html quote:7,700 homes evacuated in Ventura as fire rages; traffic jams as residents flee quote:More than 150 structures destroyed, 27,000 people evacuated in raging Ventura wildfire  Thats about a 1/4 of the population of Ventura being evacuated. I blame the catholics. quote:The blaze started about 6:25 p.m. Monday in the foothills near Thomas Aquinas College in Santa Paula
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2017 16:07
|
|
|
Megaman's Jockstrap posted:The idea that private schools are by default better is a myth. Both my parents were educators, my wife is an educator, and all of them have met a continuous stream of private school kids entering public school who are as bad, or worse, educationally, than the public school kids. This is not universal, it's not a value judgement, it's that for-profit education sometimes finds it easier to keep the kid around and collect the money than tell the parents that their kid can't hack it. Anecdotal here. I went to private school in Tustin until my parents divorced and I ended up in Riverside. 4th grade was my first public school experience and I was behind as all gently caress and felt it all the way into college. It was a bit traumatizing how badly I was prepared by the private school.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2017 16:42
|
|
Have you seen my apex seals? I seem to have lost them.
|
The Valley around the 5/170 interchange is a giant smoke cloud this morning. I woke up and thought there was an electrical problem in my house because it smelled like smoke. Drove outside and it ws Silent Hill.Aeka 2.0 posted:It was a bit traumatizing how badly I was prepared by the private school.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2017 18:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 15:00 |
|
|
FRINGE posted:(crossposting) This is gonna be really bad. Feds aren't gonna help either which means a shitload of people will go without homes after this.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2017 18:42
|
|