Yes, and you want to put an end to that. I'll put it in terms you can understand: trickle-down economics. barfo
I do? Thanks for telling me! So, you'd like the rich to get richer and the poor to get poorer? Because that's your argument. You want those--the vast majority of whom never attended college--to help pay the way for the smartest and best equipped for future success? I think those people can take some additional debt to pay for it themselves.
I'm for public university subsidization. if you get in, are in-state, you should be able to attend the better university at a lower cost. however, I don't think illegals should be even able to attend since they're here illegally. They should be forced to get student visas just like international students.
No, that's your argument. Neener neener. Yep. Progressively, of course - the vast majority (a vaster majority than your vast majority) of the money should come from those able to pay. Because, god knows, more debt is just what this country needs. barfo
My argument is that people pay for what they consume. Your argument is that people get subsidized to be able to more easily afford something they way. Don't forget, kids of billionaires are charged the same subsidized tuition that the kids of poor people are under your plan. I think kids of billionaires shouldn't be subsidized and those that can't afford to pay for school receive grants from the school's endowment and have access to student loans. When you make an investment, most of the time you have to take out debt to do it. Education should be no different. You think it's better that someone who didn't go to college pay for the person who does so they don't have as much debt? We disagree.
That's ok, because in my plan, the billionaires pay enough taxes to subsidize many many other kids. In your plan the billionaire pays only for his own kid. barfo
I do realize the OT forum is a fact free zone and El Presidente has never let facts get in the way of a political point or prejudice. But the role of the State Supreme Court is to decide if a given policy is or is not consistent with the State Constitution and existing law. The law as written clearly states that anyone who attends high school in California for at least 3 years is a state resident and entitled to in-state tuition if he/she is accepted at a state college/university. The law makes no exception based on citizenship, just residency. So the State Supreme Court did their job and applied the law.
Yeah, but they're illegals still so should get deported, as such. California schools, then are in fact, harboring fugitives and criminals and knowingly doing so.
interestingly enough: http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/admissions/how-to-apply/apply-online/index.html I wonder how many of the illegals lie on their UC applications with fake SSNs or misrepresent their country of citizenship. If they are citizens of Mexico, they should apply as an international student and get a student visa. But I guess the lesson in the state of california is "why do it through the proper channels when you can just lie about it". Exactly why this state is going in the shitter.
I'm pretty sure the billionaires pay plenty of taxes in either case. I believe in low taxes, not no taxes. Again, the issue is whether or not California should continue to subsidize the university educational system that directly benefits only a select few, people that are better equipped to take care of themselves.
Even if they are California residents, in the most bastardized sense of the word, they are still illegally here, therefore should not be given a spot or the tuition break for a legal resident. Just the fact that this is "ok" here is indicative of why California fails.
The fact these people are here is why California has been an economic powerhouse for a century. If it's not the Mexicans who pick our crops at low wages, it's the Chinese who built the railroads. And these Mexicans (they're NOT US citizens, nor should they particularly be) are going to be paying your social security.
Fine. Let them pick crops then. Migrant work force. In and out. If we were to have immigrants that come to California and enter the colleges, I'd much rather prefer it to be high skilled technology workers from Asian countries. Would do a helluva lot more economically versus some guy picking berries.
Those high skilled technology workers from Asian countries are likely to take our education back to their Asian countries than stay. Picking berries for below minimum wage is a form of paying a huge tax. The money from that tax goes to make our food cost less. For that as well as paying actual taxes, they deserve to receive the benefits that taxpayers receive.
When there were more H1Bs being handed out, that's when the tech boom happened in the early 2000s. After they slowed them down, the whole sector kind of slowed up too. The thing is that many of the smartest and brightest in India and other countries are stuck in a system where they are trained and educated to the top. Then they become lowly call center workers and tech support. Here they would be systems engineers, etc. As for the illegals picking berries being some sort of savings. Wrong again. go to any other country in the world, they don't have illegals working for less and the costs are still the same or similar. Its not like in Canada, the produce is 3x as much as it is here.
