I still don't understand. I understand what you are saying, and your outrage, but I don't understand what the article is saying overall.

Are they saying they simply raised tuition from 9,000 to 11,000 a year? from $6,000 to $9,000 a year? a static $2000 tuition "fee?" limiting student aid to less than $2000 of total tuition?

Seriously. I don't get it.




regardless, if there's no finicial reasoning, like the school doesn't have enough money to operate as such, then a "skin in the game" should apply TO the altheletes, who may make millions and millions of dollars.

They added a $2,000 tax that goes to the state legislature, not the college or university for the mere privilege of attending.

Reasoning: AZ wants more money for it's government. Which is why this is so outrageous. They exempt a whole chunk of non-academic-related students, but then turn around and tell universities they can only give a very small set of scholarships for academics?

They are here to help us!

Yes, they are here to help us give them our money as fast as possible.

Where is this information? I did not read that in the article linked.

I found this article and the Senator's own comments have cleared up a few things for me:

http://politicsuncuffed.com/educatio...ome-arizonans/


Apparently all they are requiring is that these universities can no longer give out 100% free tutition subsities, only 80%. And that remainder of $2000 can still be paid in a form of a loan. They currently have a 48% rate of free rides.

So the tuition rate is still the same...

Wow Brainy, but that's even worse if you read the responses in the blog.

Go read the Representatives responses in the blog. That guy needs to be kicked out of their legislative body ASAP.

The guy doesn't even give a ---- that that law may be unconstitutional. Getting so ------- tired of politicians that think a constitution isn't even worth the paper it's printed on.

Why can Afghanis burn the US Flag but we can't burn Korans?

And why the EF should dolphins get human rights? That is contradictory in itself.

That article really was horrifically written and nearly unintelligible. :facepalm:

It does not seem to be an increased tax but rather a reduced subsidy. I'm not familiar enough with Arizona's state budget to speak intelligently on that subject, but many states are required to run relatively balanced budgets but - and this is particularly true for the "sand states" - the decreases in property taxes and other revenue has hit them particularly hard.

If the goal is to free up $18 million for the state schools to apply to their own budgets and, in turn, reduce state-level subsidies by $18 million in an effort to balance the state's budget... that may make sense to pursue. I can't really tell from my quick perusal.

Really, cause it made me feel better about it and now I think all the fear mongering is stupid. Especially given the fact that it will free up $18,000,000 out of the state's budget.

Or we could pull a Bob Dole and say increase taxes to make up the $18mil.

So, it only takes 18mill for you to not care about constitutional issues?

Damn. You are cheap bro. Ever consider a career in politics?

But seriously, 18mill, or even 18bill is not worth ignoring constitutional issues. That's (part of) how we got where we are right now, Brainy.

okay stretch armstrong.

Sure, no problem Wretch Armstrong.

But seriously, is 18mill on a budget all it takes to get you to ignore significant constitutional issues? AZ state law specifies this must be done in a ballot, not in legislation.

You also said that the state is charging an extra $2000 and taking it for themselves.

Yes, but that was based on the previous article which was incorrect. And you are dodging my question expertly, Wretch.

Dodge what, that you are suggesting that AZ is a democratic system, not republic?

If we educate everyone to be managers, who the ---- will be laborers? Down with educational subsidies.

i hope your quotes around the little ice age dont imply that you dont believe it happened

as far as i know there were two ice ages
one was prehistoric and the other was documented

and the article you linked to even said that it cant draw a conclusion on the little ice age

there was a theory in there about black death (those are the words from the article) and how that may have lead to less agriculture

it also said there was increased volcanic activity which is known to have a cooling effect on the earth
and i do know for sure that towards the end of the little ice age there was a massive volcanic explosion that killed many near instantly and extended the little ice age

you have debunked nothing with this

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1294417.html

And I thought Santorum couldn't sink any lower. ---- him.

You are okay with a state ignoring the constitution for budgetary reasons? Seriously, Brainy, my problem isn't the increase in tuition. It's politicians ignoring their ------- Constitution for political reasons, even if I think that Constitution has a batshit insane clause. It doesn't matter if I think the people who came up with it are complete and total whackjobs, it DOES matter that a politician isn't following their constitution and is doing everything he can to avoid following the proper procedure laid out if he wants to do that.

Fooger, I believe he posted in SUPPORT of climate change, not against it if you read his sources.

my concern is which people or charities i would like to help
how i would like to help
and why i would like to help

one thing is for sure
i dont want to help a charity that simply has a sign up sheet

i want to help a charity that helps people reach the point where they can stand on their own two feet

goodwill does job training
and they provide low cost items particularly clothing to people who can't hardly afford new clothes
its a nice charity if you ask me
i like goodwill