No more obamacare

srfisher17

Active Member
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
http:///forum/post/3214178
You are explaining figures they are not talking about. Military spending does not fall into the same category. Otherwise Arizona and other states would have a much higher per capita figure.
Military pay may or may not; but military infrastructure certainly does.
 

darthtang aw

Active Member
Originally Posted by srfisher17
http:///forum/post/3214210
Military pay may or may not; but military infrastructure certainly does.

Yes, very true. And regardless...the budget is balanced/surplused for Alaska....The other top 4 states it is NOT.
Obviously money from the government has no affect on a states ability to balance their budget.
 

darthtang aw

Active Member
Alaska has a 6 billion dollar surplus. They recieve almost 9 billion in federal money.
New mexico receives a grand total of around 28 billion in federal money and currently has between a 400 million to 850 million dollar deficit...depending on who you talk to. Yet even with more money per capit, they still manage a deficit. Why? because they spend on stupid crap like a train that runs from albuquerque to Santa Fe ( a commutter) which can't break even in cost giving a 200 million dollar loss per year. But instead of cancelling the train...our wonderful liberal congress wants to cut police/fireman wages instead of cutting the bus stop shelters that will cost 10,000 dollars a piece each. I can build a huge 30 X 30 shed for 5 grand....why does a bus stop shelter have to cost 10,000 grand?
 

reefraff

Active Member
Originally Posted by Fishtaco
http:///forum/post/3214012
Except the fact that neither of you have addressed the amount of federal dollars that Alaska receives per capita. Sorry I mentioned Palin even, geez what was the last post about her 125 post? I want better for this country than Palin for the next president, she is just too zany for me and the media circus surrounding her reminds me of the great British tradition of royal watching.
Fishtaco
How much of Alaska's land is "owned" by the feds? You should look at a map of Federal land holdings in the united states some time. They control huge amounts of lands in the western states and nearly 70% of that in Alaska. The Feds make "payment in lieu taxes" skew the amount of federal dollars they get.
 

darthtang aw

Active Member
Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/3214338
Looks like Obama's still ticked over losing the Mass seat to a Republican. Now he's 'going rogue' and wanting to pick on banks some more. Even this is over the top for me.

http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com..._blg=1,1567925
Ok, lets just piss off everyone and make it impossible for the banks to pay back the loans....lol...if the banks don't payback the loans they are still under the government's thumb...Now do you see how socialist he truly is? He won't get his healthcare the way he wants it so now he wants to go after the banks again.
You didn't get mad at healthcare when he was talking about it because you wanted to see the outcome...but you are mad about this and it hasn't happened yet either...lol...you are funny.
 

bionicarm

Active Member
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
http:///forum/post/3214357
Ok, lets just piss off everyone and make it impossible for the banks to pay back the loans....lol...if the banks don't payback the loans they are still under the government's thumb...Now do you see how socialist he truly is? He won't get his healthcare the way he wants it so now he wants to go after the banks again.
You didn't get mad at healthcare when he was talking about it because you wanted to see the outcome...but you are mad about this and it hasn't happened yet either...lol...you are funny.
It had an indirect cause of something that did happen immediately - it tanked the stock market for the day. Him just making the statement caused an economic downturn. The outcome of healthcare is a completely different issue. It'll be tears before you'll see if the economy is affected by the healthcare reform, since they still haven't figured out whose going to for what, and how much anyone is really going to pay.
 

bionicarm

Active Member
Yet another reason State Govt. is no better than Federal. UT Austin just announced they are raising tuition rates another 4% next year, then increasing them another 4% the year after that. Wasn't too long ago that going to a Texas Tier 1 University was affordable for any Texas resident because state laws prohibited the universities from raising tuition rates more than a certain percentage. Tuition rates were regulated by the state. Then our great Governor Rick Perry and his cronies decided to pass a law allowing the degrgulation of tuition rates at all Tier 1 institutions. The year following that edict, UT Austin and Texas A&M raised their tution rates almost 20%, with no end in increases in sight. Isn't State Govt. great!
 

reefraff

Active Member
Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/3214787
Yet another reason State Govt. is no better than Federal. UT Austin just announced they are raising tuition rates another 4% next year, then increasing them another 4% the year after that. Wasn't too long ago that going to a Texas Tier 1 University was affordable for any Texas resident because state laws prohibited the universities from raising tuition rates more than a certain percentage. Tuition rates were regulated by the state. Then our great Governor Rick Perry and his cronies decided to pass a law allowing the degrgulation of tuition rates at all Tier 1 institutions. The year following that edict, UT Austin and Texas A&M raised their tution rates almost 20%, with no end in increases in sight. Isn't State Govt. great!
So as the costs rise who should make up the difference, some working class slob who had to get a job out of high school?
 

bionicarm

Active Member
Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3214795
So as the costs rise who should make up the difference, some working class slob who had to get a job out of high school?
The rising operational costs at the universities are not proportional to the percentage of increases they make in tution. UT Austin has been crying they have an economic shortfall, may have to cut pay or layoff professors, but then they give the UT football coach Mac Brown a raise and now pay the guy $5 million/year. The universities seemed to operate fine when the tuition rates were regulated. If they knew how to manage their money properly, and prioritize where it needs to be spent, there'd be no reason to raise tuition rates.
 

stdreb27

Active Member
Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/3214954
The rising operational costs at the universities are not proportional to the percentage of increases they make in tution. UT Austin has been crying they have an economic shortfall, may have to cut pay or layoff professors, but then they give the UT football coach Mac Brown a raise and now pay the guy $5 million/year. The universities seemed to operate fine when the tuition rates were regulated. If they knew how to manage their money properly, and prioritize where it needs to be spent, there'd be no reason to raise tuition rates.
Do you have any idea how much $$ Mac Brown brings into UT?
 

ironeagle2006

Active Member
Just for taking UT and LOSING to Alabama this year in the BCS Mac Brown brought to the UT over 15 MILLION for that game ALONE. NOt to mention the SHoe deal for the team the ticket sales the Jersey sales hell anything related to the football team. Most Big Div 1 schools make a Profit on their Football programs along with Mens Basketball. They are the teams that allow them to have all the OTHER SPORTS at the Universtiy.
 

bionicarm

Active Member
Originally Posted by ironeagle2006
http:///forum/post/3214985
Just for taking UT and LOSING to Alabama this year in the BCS Mac Brown brought to the UT over 15 MILLION for that game ALONE. NOt to mention the SHoe deal for the team the ticket sales the Jersey sales hell anything related to the football team. Most Big Div 1 schools make a Profit on their Football programs along with Mens Basketball. They are the teams that allow them to have all the OTHER SPORTS at the Universtiy.
Sure he brings a lot of money in for getting into the BCS Bowls. But a majority, if not all of that money goes directly to the UT Athletic Department. Do you think they actually 'spread the wealth'? If that were the case, then there'd be no reason for UT to raise tuition rates another 8% over the next two years.
 

darthtang aw

Active Member
Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/3215165
Sure he brings a lot of money in for getting into the BCS Bowls. But a majority, if not all of that money goes directly to the UT Athletic Department. Do you think they actually 'spread the wealth'? If that were the case, then there'd be no reason for UT to raise tuition rates another 8% over the next two years.
Most students dont pay the retail price for college.... they pay a discounted rate, thanks to financial aid packages, which have kept pace pretty well with tuition increases. When grants and other non-loan student aid are factored in, the net cost of college (what students and their parents actually paid to be educated) rose less than 5% for most students between the 1992-93 academic year and 1999-2000, according to the National Center for Education Statistics. The exception: students attending selective private colleges, who paid net costs that were 6.7% higher at the end of the 1990s than at the beginning.
Despite two decades of rising prices, 68% of full-time undergraduates attending four-year colleges still pay less than $8,000 in annual tuition and fees. The payoff: post-college incomes that are 60% higher than those of high school graduates and that, on average, mean $1 million more in lifetime income.
Colleges that want good rankings with U.S. News & World Reports annual college rankings and other college-rating programs shell out big bucks on ubiquitous high-speed Internet access, bigger and better dining facilities, new gyms and concert halls, apartments instead of dorms for students.
Half to two-thirds of the typical colleges budget goes to paying instructional salaries. So rising paychecks are indeed a factor in higher college costs. But few college profs are getting rich.
The median salary for a full-time college educator is $46,300, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The picture is brighter for those who have tenure: Full professors make an average $76,200, according to the American Association of University Professors.
The tenure system and the lack of mandatory retirement can make it tough to oust high-earning but less productive employees.
 

reefraff

Active Member
Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/3214954
The rising operational costs at the universities are not proportional to the percentage of increases they make in tution. UT Austin has been crying they have an economic shortfall, may have to cut pay or layoff professors, but then they give the UT football coach Mac Brown a raise and now pay the guy $5 million/year. The universities seemed to operate fine when the tuition rates were regulated. If they knew how to manage their money properly, and prioritize where it needs to be spent, there'd be no reason to raise tuition rates.

See streb's response, Even a decent football program pays for itself as well as the chick sports the law requires that you would have to pay people to watch.
 

bionicarm

Active Member
Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3215308
See streb's response, Even a decent football program pays for itself as well as the chick sports the law requires that you would have to pay people to watch.
Like I said, it pays for the athletic departments. That's less than 5% of the population at your average university.
 

bionicarm

Active Member
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
http:///forum/post/3215184
Most students dont pay the retail price for college.... they pay a discounted rate, thanks to financial aid packages, which have kept pace pretty well with tuition increases. When grants and other non-loan student aid are factored in, the net cost of college (what students and their parents actually paid to be educated) rose less than 5% for most students between the 1992-93 academic year and 1999-2000, according to the National Center for Education Statistics. The exception: students attending selective private colleges, who paid net costs that were 6.7% higher at the end of the 1990s than at the beginning.
Despite two decades of rising prices, 68% of full-time undergraduates attending four-year colleges still pay less than $8,000 in annual tuition and fees. The payoff: post-college incomes that are 60% higher than those of high school graduates and that, on average, mean $1 million more in lifetime income.
Colleges that want good rankings with U.S. News & World Reports annual college rankings and other college-rating programs shell out big bucks on ubiquitous high-speed Internet access, bigger and better dining facilities, new gyms and concert halls, apartments instead of dorms for students.
Half to two-thirds of the typical colleges budget goes to paying instructional salaries. So rising paychecks are indeed a factor in higher college costs. But few college profs are getting rich.
The median salary for a full-time college educator is $46,300, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The picture is brighter for those who have tenure: Full professors make an average $76,200, according to the American Association of University Professors.
The tenure system and the lack of mandatory retirement can make it tough to oust high-earning but less productive employees.
Discounted rate? There's no discounted rate at Texas State Universities. They have a Flat Rate Tuition where the only difference is whether you're a Texas resident or you're not. I found this article from a Dallas ABC affiliate that was written in 2007:
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcont...1968ebbf2.html
Texas deregulated the tuitions in 2003, and they've escalated every year since then. Grants and non-loan student aid only apply to underprivileged and low income families. Trust me, I couldn't apply for any of those types of loans with my income.
Key Point: Since Republicans took over Texas government five years ago, tuition has skyrocketed -- increasing by 68% across the UT system. Bottom line: Republicans are pricing families out of the opportunity of higher education.
When Republicans took control of the Texas Legislature in 2003, they did everything in their power to shrink government in order to ensure that Texas families were left to drown in the bathtub. Take, for example, tuition deregulation.
Prior to 2003, the state invested in higher education tuition and set a hard cap for universities. This created low tuition for Texas colleges and universities, allowing Texas families -- many of whom are middle and working class -- to still have opportunties for higher education.
However, the 78th Legislature chose to implement tuition deregulation, allowing Texas colleges and universities to jack up tuition without any measurable increase in the quality of education. I started school in the fall of 2002, and left UT-Austin in the spring of 2006, and I never once witnessed any measurable increase in the quality of my education. I did, however, notice an increase in tuition -- an increase that is hitting students and families hard.
UT Regents -- appointed by the failed Republican leadership we must desparately replace -- have decided to increase tuition and fees at the UT system schools once again. Here is a look at the increase in tuition in fees, from the fall of 2003 (the last year before tuition deregulation) and what families can expect to pay when they begin their college journey next fall:
Increase in Tuition and Fees in UT System
Fall ‘03 Fall ‘08 Increase
UT-Arlington $ 2,366 $ 4,071 72.06%
UT-Austin $ 2,721 $ 4,266 56.78%
UT-Brownsville $ 1,490 $ 2,736 83.62%
UT-Dallas $ 2,622 $ 4,705 79.44%
UT-El Paso $ 1,837 $ 3,034 65.16%
UT-Pan American $ 1,561 $ 2,612 67.33%
UT-Permian Basin $ 1,749 $ 2,714 55.17%
UT-San Antonio $ 2,222 $ 3,832 72.46%
UT-Tyler $ 1,795 $ 2,994 66.80%
UT SYSTEM AVG $ 2,040 $ 3,440 68.62%
 
Top