U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Texas > San Antonio
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 01-24-2011, 01:03 AM
 
6,999 posts, read 10,237,008 times
Reputation: 5381

Advertisements

That sort of sounds like Rick Perry.

Perry touts higher-education opportunities at college fair - San Antonio Express-News
Rick Perry on Education
Office of the Governor - Rick Perry
Gov. Perry on the Environment and Natural Resources | Texans for Rick Perry
Rick Perry on Environment
Environment and Natural Resources | Texans for Rick Perry
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-24-2011, 01:18 PM
 
Location: New Braunfels, TX
6,257 posts, read 8,986,685 times
Reputation: 6342
Quote:
Originally Posted by meisha210 View Post
Funding should also keep up with growth which is part of the problem. You can't give schools the same budget every year when you have an increasing student population. The taxes would have mostly kept up with growth if the tax swap wasn't done in 2006.
I tend to disagree, because I look at the various building costs across the different SA districts. Some of them keep their building costs quite low per square foot, while others seem to think that there's no limit. At some point, there has to be consideration as to cost/benefit.


Quote:
Originally Posted by meisha210 View Post
This should be a one-time shortfall that can be remedied with a one-time solution since the issue is the national economy according to Perry. Afterward, economic growth should continue which will boost tax revenue.
While I'd tend to be okay w/spending up to 50% of the "rainy-day" fund, I'd not want to spend any more than that - because if things don't recover as quickly as we want, we may need some next year, as well. And ANY increase in taxes/fees WILL remain, no matter how much they promise they're temporary.


Quote:
Originally Posted by meisha210 View Post
Yes; if more people graduated high school, maybe even got some post-secondary education, and Texas had better paying jobs; more people could afford to provide lunch for their children. Considering that the unemployment rate is above normal, many people who were earning a decent amount of money are now out of work; no fault of their own.
Excuse me? How about "If more folks would be fiscally responsible enough to not have more children than they can afford, they'd have the money for their lunches." Considering that the meal programs have continued to expand - good economies or bad - it's pretty obvious that more people are coming to rely on the government to raise their kids. From birth on, we subsidize folks time and again.....and it doesn't ever stop for many of them.

I raised 4 kids, and while there were many times that things were tighter than I can to remember, I ALWAYS made sure they had something for lunch. Yeah, a lot of times it was "uncool" bagged lunches, but they had something nutritious and appropriate to eat.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-24-2011, 06:55 PM
 
Location: San Antonio
2,216 posts, read 3,983,112 times
Reputation: 1179
Meisha,
great aricle from collin county. We are going to have bigger problems than just education however when these other cuts happen among prison/medicaid/elderly/mental health etc.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-24-2011, 09:15 PM
 
796 posts, read 1,616,439 times
Reputation: 369
Quote:
Originally Posted by LVKim8 View Post
Bad idea. I've lived in communities with the large, monolith districts (Clark County, NV, and Dade county, FL). It only leads to a large, almost impenetrable district where change is difficult to make when needed. Mediocrity rises, the top gets heavy (administration), and originality goes out the window. Perhaps this doesn't happen in all large districts, but I'd be surprised.

I'm happy in my small district (Boerne)!
I lived in Dade County, FL as well and I agree....plus the difference between "good" schools and "bad" schools there are HUGE!!!!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-24-2011, 10:18 PM
 
6,999 posts, read 10,237,008 times
Reputation: 5381
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasRedneck View Post
I tend to disagree, because I look at the various building costs across the different SA districts. Some of them keep their building costs quite low per square foot, while others seem to think that there's no limit. At some point, there has to be consideration as to cost/benefit.




While I'd tend to be okay w/spending up to 50% of the "rainy-day" fund, I'd not want to spend any more than that - because if things don't recover as quickly as we want, we may need some next year, as well. And ANY increase in taxes/fees WILL remain, no matter how much they promise they're temporary.




Excuse me? How about "If more folks would be fiscally responsible enough to not have more children than they can afford, they'd have the money for their lunches." Considering that the meal programs have continued to expand - good economies or bad - it's pretty obvious that more people are coming to rely on the government to raise their kids. From birth on, we subsidize folks time and again.....and it doesn't ever stop for many of them.

I raised 4 kids, and while there were many times that things were tighter than I can to remember, I ALWAYS made sure they had something for lunch. Yeah, a lot of times it was "uncool" bagged lunches, but they had something nutritious and appropriate to eat.
That is why I am for changing the funding system for education. I think all of the funding should come directly from the state and every district should make do with the same amount of money per student. Alamo Heights has a high spending index and it doesn't have one exemplary school; the whole district was only "academically acceptable" not too long ago.

I disagree that providing free/reduced lunches is even much of a cost burden. The program is meant for those living near or below the poverty line. If the poverty rate in San Antonio is around 18%, then why are 65% of the students in Bexar County receiving free or reduced lunches? Many people lie on the forms because there is no income verification.

Children Receiving Free/Reduced Price Lunch - Texas - KIDS COUNT Data Center
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-25-2011, 08:12 PM
 
Location: Mid South Central TX
3,183 posts, read 7,413,739 times
Reputation: 2188
While I don't dispute the data in that article, I do question Culbertson County, with 168% of students on free or reduced lunch...


And, I wish they would enact an income verification system...I see way too many FR students whose parents clearly exaggerated on the application.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-25-2011, 09:00 PM
 
6,999 posts, read 10,237,008 times
Reputation: 5381
LOL. I didn't notice that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-26-2011, 11:57 PM
 
3,669 posts, read 5,898,364 times
Reputation: 1788
Did you actually read all these? The ones on the environment, the fourth and fifth links specifically, only tell that Rick Perry opposes the federal government telling the state what to do, that in fact Rick Perry's ideas on protecting the environment are weaker than what the EPA would like so that it does not hinder business as usual in Texas.

In other words Perry puts profits over protection.

This is the exact opposite of Brown so in that instance they do not sound alike at all. Brown is in favor of, "enacting environmental regulations even if they are stricter than federal law." Stricter, not weaker, as in Perry's case.

And lol @ someone actually griping about free and reduced lunches.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-27-2011, 12:55 AM
 
6,999 posts, read 10,237,008 times
Reputation: 5381
But those links also say that Texas is a national leader in reducing emissions, advancing renewable resources, and known pollutants which means that Texas was already taking steps beyond that of other states. The fourth link just basically says that Texas' 16 year old program has worked better than EPA's standards nationally. Texas managed to reduce emissions by 22% while the amount was only 8% nationally. The fifth link says that Perry has taken the National Governors Association position on granting the states more autonomy over cleaning up hazardous waste sites since the Superfund bill has been tied up in litigation, the states aren't getting the tools or funding to clean up the sites, and that the sites haven't been cleaned up fast enough. Perry also supports the reauthorization of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act and protecting endangered species

Quote:
Renewable Energy. Texas has installed more wind power than any other state, and more than all but four other countries. We are also a leader in solar, biofuel, clean coal and nuclear efforts. Texas continues to foster new, clean energy technology by using market incentives and stable regulation, not costly mandates and taxes.
The Texas Emissions Reduction Plan. In lieu of sweeping federal mandates, Gov. Perry authorized an incentive-driven Texas Emissions Reduction Plan, which has reduced ozone levels in Texas cities by 22 percent since its adoption.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-27-2011, 02:38 AM
 
3,669 posts, read 5,898,364 times
Reputation: 1788
Quote:
Originally Posted by meisha210 View Post
The fourth link just basically says that Texas' 16 year old program has worked better than EPA's standards nationally. Texas managed to reduce emissions by 22% while the amount was only 8% nationally.
The 22% reduction in ozone is a comment by Kathleen Hartnett White, who is part of the Texas Public Policy Foundation, again they are a private conservative group that is not part of any official Texas state government agency, and that comment was also taken from an article in the National Review, conservative news and commentary.

Spoiler
In the following article I found, Perry's spokesperson, Katherine Cesinger, also claimed a 22% reduction in the ozone, it was in defense of the Texas Flexible Permitting Program, the same one the EPA has deemed unsuitable.

In reaction Texas is suing the EPA and claiming that Congress never authorized the EPA to regulate greenhouse gasses. In other words Texas, under Perry, is fighting the EPA, not exceeding their standards in this matter of a claimed 22% reduction in ozone. Of course without the proper research some could very well believe Perry and company.

Quote:
"The EPAs misguided plan paints a huge target on the backs of Texas agriculture and energy producers by implementing unnecessary, burdensome mandates on our state's energy sector, threatening hundreds of thousands of Texas jobs and imposing increased living costs on Texas families," Cesinger said.
Perry, other critics say EPA permit takeover may cost Texas jobs | Chronicle | Chron.com - Houston Chronicle

Below is the link to the full article where Kathleen Hartnett White also repeats the 22% reduction figure. It also goes on to claim that the EPA is anti-prosperity, that their new rules threaten the economy, etc...

The EPA


Quote:
Originally Posted by meisha210 View Post
The fifth link says that Perry has taken the National Governors Association position on granting the states more autonomy over cleaning up hazardous waste sites since the Superfund bill has been tied up in litigation, the states aren't getting the tools or funding to clean up the sites, and that the sites haven't been cleaned up fast enough. Perry also supports the reauthorization of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act and protecting endangered species
More autonomy means doing it in a weaker way than the federal government has mandated.

The litigation has been lawyers fighting the Superfund bill. If the sites have not been cleaned up fast enough it is because companies refuse to pay for the damage they caused.

Perry supporting the Federal Water Pollution Control Act? That is the reauthorization of the 1972 Clean Water Act? Would that not weaken current laws to go back to 1972 standards?

Spoiler
The following two quotes are from the fifth link you provided:

Quote:
States should have the flexibility to develop plans for attaining federally approved water quality standards in impaired waters - in consultation with local government officials and stakeholders
This is Perry supporting "flexibility" for states to develop their own plans, that is those that are weaker than federal plans, and these plans Perry would rather have would be decided by "local government and stakeholders"...

Quote:
The Western Governors believe the Clean Water Act should be amended to protect a remediating agency from becoming legally responsible for any continuing discharges from the abandoned mine site after completion of a cleanup project
In other words if a company "cleans up a site" and it still is discharging pollutants, which means it was not really clean, Perry wishes for the company to be off the hook, to not fully clean up a site, just to "clean it up" by their definition.

Rick Perry on Environment


It would be rather lengthy to keep going point for point but Perry is for a weaker environment than what EPA regulations call for. If anyone is actually reading those links and coming away with believing that Perry is somehow doing more than the EPA mandates then they are not truly understanding them.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2016 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Texas > San Antonio
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:31 PM.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top