Proposed 32% Inflation in UCLA Tuition Causes Near Riots

[Heracles 417]

** Also no such rubbish as in state or out of state.

This is something RJ said before. You simply cannot compare AUS to the US. AUS is comparable to a US state both in terms of population and economy.

What does allowing states to fund schools rather than federal government have to do with population? Zilch. The obvious difference is in the approach. Even if Aus had 500 million people, they would still use the same approach and it would still work better. Does it not say something that the majority of first world nations use the parliamentary system. Whereas second and third world nations use the presidential system (form of government).

[SMR 368]

What are they protesting exactly? The instate fees are quite reasonable. On par with what students pay here. Actually they are cheaper when you consider Cali is much more expensive to live in.

http://www.admissions.ucla.edu/prospect/budget.htm

If the Obama admin wants to do anything useful, they need to ban out-of-state fees. Just think how much it would enrich a students experience if they could go to any school, anywhere in the country, and pay the same reasonable fees.

If a states taxpayers fund a university, it is fair to expect those taxpayers to pay less to attend than someone else who hasn't contributed at all.

How many university students do you know that pay or have payed significant taxes? In-state tuition is another case of selective rage at free-loaders. In reality, the people paying most of the taxes and the people using the services don't have a high correlation. If you're going to make taxpayers support the education of the coming generation, why does it matter when that coming generation grew up.

If I had attended a college here, I would never have got an education. My challenge would have been how to date the three in the front without the other knowing about it.

I think the picture is a good illustration of what would have happened when they found out. That's not a pretty picture.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

How many university students do you know that pay or have payed significant taxes?

Their parents did.

[Heracles 417]

I think the picture is a good illustration of what would have happened when they found out. That's not a pretty picture.

The middle eastern one on the right is thinking 'I am going to chop Booyas ---- off when I see the infidel'.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

I think the picture is a good illustration of what would have happened when they found out. That's not a pretty picture.

The middle eastern one on the right is thinking 'I am going to chop Booyas ---- off when I see the infidel'.

yes, because everyone wants to get their hands on your balls.

[SMR 368]

** Also no such rubbish as in state or out of state.

This is something RJ said before. You simply cannot compare AUS to the US. AUS is comparable to a US state both in terms of population and economy.

What does allowing states to fund schools rather than federal government have to do with population? Zilch. The obvious difference is in the approach. Even if Aus had 500 million people, they would still use the same approach and it would still work better. Does it not say something that the majority of first world nations use the parliamentary system. Whereas second and third world nations use the presidential system (form of government).

You keep returning to this line about parliamentary vs. presidential but I haven't yet understood what you think the critical difference is. I realize there are differences, but since every government has differences, I'm interested to know what you think the defining difference is. Not trying to challenge you here necessarily, just want an explanation.

[Heracles 417]

yes, because everyone wants to get their hands on your balls.

Look at the guys in the background. Especially the Indian guy in the photo on the left.

[SMR 368]

How many university students do you know that pay or have payed significant taxes?

Their parents did.

That's a good line but it doesn't really make sense. If it was an issue of parents paying for their children's education, we could cut out the government middleman and the parents could just cut the check.

By in large, we have taxpayers paying for the education of unrelated individuals. It doesn't make much difference where they are from. I can definitely understand your point of view on this one.

[Heracles 417]

That's a good line but it doesn't really make sense. If it was an issue of parents paying for their children's education, we could cut out the government middleman and the parents could just cut the check.

By in large, we have taxpayers paying for the education of unrelated individuals. It doesn't make much difference where they are from. I can definitely understand your point of view on this one.

CA has a huge problem with illegal aliens. it's a fact they are not paying thousands in taxes each year to cover college costs, let alone every other service they heavily rely on.

Edited November 19, 2009 by Booyah!

[SMR 368]

That's a good line but it doesn't really make sense. If it was an issue of parents paying for their children's education, we could cut out the government middleman and the parents could just cut the check.

By in large, we have taxpayers paying for the education of unrelated individuals. It doesn't make much difference where they are from. I can definitely understand your point of view on this one.

CA has a huge problem with illegal aliens. it's a fact they are not paying thousands in taxes each year to cover college costs, let alone every other service they heavily rely on.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VmDZOWm1Hfk

Edited November 19, 2009 by SMR

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I like to call illegals, succubi. It's like gorgeous woman forcing us to have sex with her until we die of exhaustion.

[Heracles 417]

You keep returning to this line about parliamentary vs. presidential but I haven't yet understood what you think the critical difference is. I realize there are differences, but since every government has differences, I'm interested to know what you think the defining difference is. Not trying to challenge you here necessarily, just want an explanation.

The differences are in the efficiency of the government. If you also examine the top ten nations in the world for quality of life etc, they use the parliamentary system of government.

The biggest difference I can think of which comes to mind is that they do not have a winner takes all approach. Which means the opposition is still there to voice any concerns. They still have a leader present in the Parliament. Furthermore, the prime minister is not separated from the Senate. They get to give their opinion and hear that of others during any parliamentary session. Second of all, you cannot have a situation of senate being a different party to the prime minister; which avoids stalemates and standoffs. When the Conservatives are in office, they get to call the shots. When the left wing government is in office, they get to call the shots.

The other huge and I mean huge difference is that a senator must be appointed as minister (secretary) of XYZ. As such, the president’s cabinet is made up of ministers (senators) rather than any Joe Smoe that the president chooses. The Prime Minister still gets to choose these individuals but they must be senators elected by 'we the people'. This also means we know who they are and can hold them accountable. You will regularly see the 'Minister of education or employment' etc on TV and asked questions. Whereas, these guys over here only seem to respond to committees. Furthermore, I couldn't tell you who any of them are. Basically the Ministers (secretaries) are held accountable by the people. They also have the opposition ministers (secretary) to challenge them publicly regarding any decision.

To be honest, it’s quite an efficient fair and balanced system. In many ways, it has better checks and balances than does the presidential system. Just without the stalemates and standoffs which waste time and do nothing for the country.

Edited November 19, 2009 by Booyah!

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

I like to call illegals, succubi. It's like gorgeous woman forcing us to have sex with her until we die of exhaustion.

what a way to go.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I like to call illegals, succubi. It's like gorgeous woman forcing us to have sex with her until we die of exhaustion.

what a way to go.

It sure beats the GOP's end-of-life plan.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

I like to call illegals, succubi. It's like gorgeous woman forcing us to have sex with her until we die of exhaustion.

what a way to go.

It sure beats the GOP's end-of-life plan.

hell yes.