Proposed 32% Inflation in UCLA Tuition Causes Near Riots

[Heracles 417]

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

You can joke all you like but it does not change the reality of the actual fiscal costs associated with educating illegal aliens or their anchor babies.

That is what kills me about you guys. On one hand you beat on about minorities and the poor being treated unfairly. Aka we should give them more assistance. Then on the other hand you have no problem with really a limitless supply of illegal aliens entering the country and hogging the education system. You don't seem to get that this is not Star Trek. Every education system is bound by a x dollar budget. Therefore, when the same budget is forced to be used by another 1 million students, with little to no increase in tax, services will be cut.

If anyone has not got the memo I will send it to you, even from a socialist and compassionate perspective: Money does not grow on trees. Money is why places like the Philis are dirt poor. Places where you have a vast number of people but finite resources. Totally opposite, countries with small populations and numerous resources to share. AKA first world countries.

The choice is yours. You either accept the world's poor and end up a Phili or you restrict it and follow in the steps of Europe, Canada and Australia. You cannot have you cake and eat it.

Edited November 19, 2009 by Booyah!

[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.

You can joke all you like but it does not change the reality of the actual fiscal costs associated with educating illegal aliens or their anchor babies.

That is what kills me about you guys. On one hand you beat on about minorities and the poor being treated unfairly. Aka we should give them more assistance. Then on the other hand you have no problem with really a limitless supply of illegal aliens entering the country and hogging the education system. You don't seem to get that this is not Star Trek. Every education system is bound by a x dollar budget. Therefore, when the same budget is forced to be used by another 1 million students, with little to no increase in tax, services will be cut.

If anyone has not got the memo I will send it to you, even from a socialist and compassionate perspective: Money does not grow on trees. Money is why places like the Philis are dirt poor. Places where you have a vast number of people but finite resources. Totally opposite, countries with small populations and numerous resources to share. AKA first world countries.

The choice is yours. You either accept the world's poor and end up a Phili or you restrict it and follow in the steps of Europe, Canada and Australia. You cannot have you cake and eat it.

I think I've explained to you my position on this subject. It's economics....supply and demand. And those who live and work here are contributing to society just as anyone else, including taxes.

[Heracles 417]

I think I've explained to you my position on this subject. It's economics....supply and demand. And those who live and work here are contributing to society just as anyone else, including taxes.

What are they contributing? You think someone working at a US McDonalds is earning enough to pay thousand of dollars in tax? It is well documented that legal immigrants let alone illegal aliens in the US, that are not educated, heavily depend on welfare. Even if it was not. It does not take a rocket scientist to realize that someone earning $10 an hour does not contribute anything to federal or state states; which would be the majority of illegal aliens.

I can guarantee you right now that if I was to go to the local walmart, there would be a range of Hispanic ladies with two to four kids. How are they paying for these kids? With their husband's lawn mowing salary? Dude this is not Aus, where he would at least be on $50K. My wife's friend is a social worker for the country. She said a huge number of Hispanic students are on free lunch. Which means their folks do not earn enough to provide them with the $3 required for lunch. Yet you guys are going to sit here and be like, well they pay their tax.

[SMR 368]

I think I've explained to you my position on this subject. It's economics....supply and demand. And those who live and work here are contributing to society just as anyone else, including taxes.

What are they contributing? You think someone working at a US McDonalds is earning enough to pay thousand of dollars in tax? It is well documented that legal immigrants let alone illegal aliens in the US, that are not educated, heavily depend on welfare. Even if it was not. It does not take a rocket scientist to realize that someone earning $10 an hour does not contribute anything to federal or state states; which would be the majority of illegal aliens.

I can guarantee you right now that if I was to go to the local walmart, there would be a range of Hispanic ladies with two to four kids. How are they paying for these kids? With their husband's lawn mowing salary? Dude this is not Aus, where he would at least be on $50K. My wife's friend is a social worker for the country. She said a huge number of Hispanic students are on free lunch. Which means their folks do not earn enough to provide them with the $3 required for lunch. Yet you guys are going to sit here and be like, well they pay their tax.

I support immigration. I just think a necessary precursor to opening the borders is eliminating all entitlement programs. That is, I think we should let people come here. But we should also let them starve on the streets if they can't feed and shelter themselves. It's not that I'm uncompassionate. I give a significant portion of my income to charities every year. I just object to someone else (the government) deciding that I need to pay for someone else's services. That is what most taxes are.

[Heracles 417]

I support immigration. I just think a necessary precursor to opening the borders is eliminating all entitlement programs. That is, I think we should let people come here. But we should also let them starve on the streets if they can't feed and shelter themselves. It's not that I'm uncompassionate. I give a significant portion of my income to charities every year. I just object to someone else (the government) deciding that I need to pay for someone else's services. That is what most taxes are.

Contrary to popular belief, most countries are immigrant friendly. The difference between what some advocate here to every that of other first world country is the number of people allowed in. No first world country has an open border policy for anyone and everyone.

As I said earlier, the choice is simple. You either open the borders and become a Mexico and Philippines. Or you do the opposite and become an Australia an Canada. Some might think well, I am wealthy or a professional so it wouldn't affect me anyway. WRONG! It's the same deal in third world countries. There are very rich folk but the rest of the country is like #######. Therefore, it does impact their quality of life and so on.

No matter what way you look at it, there is no finical benefit in 2009 for the US to open their border and allow even more poor, unskilled and uneducated people to enter. During the 18 and 19 hundreds the US had manufacturing boom. Whereas, manufacturing is now gone.

Furthermore, certainly not when:

• Over 50 million Americans live in poverty - Figure is from 2006 and excludes 2009 crisis.
• Over 3.5 million Americans live on the street.
• Close to 20 million Americans are without work; with millions more underemployed or on minimum wage.

Edited November 19, 2009 by Booyah!

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

BY - the most reasonable solution is to allow employee sponsored work visas for low-wage earners, with a caveat that the employer has unsuccessfully tried to find U.S. citizens to fill the job(s). By doing so, the federal government could better track these workers which would help devise other solutions.

Once immigrants from our neighboring southern border understand how relatively easy it would be for them to work here legally, then they are less likely to go about it in an illegal way.

Also, stiff penalties to companies who then continue to hire illegals, and limit services for those who do not have legal documentation.

...........

How does that sound to you?

[SMR 368]

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.

I like the idea of more checks on ministers/secretaries. The problem I see with the parliamentary system here is that you end up with a sec of education (for example) with a constituency in one little area. So even if he should be helping education everywhere, I bet you can guess who will get the most education pandering. However, in America, actual cabinet members have to approved by the Senate so that isn't as big a problem as so called czars, who are appointed by the President alone, wield sometimes huge power and are accountable only to the President.

To be honest, I couldn't tell whether you thought that the parliamentary system was more winner-takes all or less. You started by stating that the opposition is still there to voice concerns because they have a leader in the senate (we have one too, it's called the Senate Minority leader). Then you proceeded to say that the parliamentary system gets stuff done because the Senate and PM have the same party. This would imply to me that it is more winner takes all.

I guess we don't have opposition ministers, but I don't see the point. I don't completely understand the system, but I don't understand why you need a person appointed to criticize the acting minister unless there is an actual power sharing arrangement. But it seems to me that that would be completely unwieldy. This system seems similar to what we have in senate and house committees.

Also, I couldn't tell whether you thought that the executive branch should be more or less directly responsible to the people. You seem to think that it's a good thing in terms of the ministers. However, in a parliamentary system, the PM is directly answerable only to the members of his party and to his constituents, which isn't the public at large.

The way I understand the parliamentary system is, it would be like sacking the president and giving the speaker of the house the presidential powers. The chairmen of various committees replace the cabinet. The ranking opposition party member on each committee is the "opposition minister." Beyond the fact that Pelosi would be worse than Obama, this would still be a terrible system in America. Get rid of Senate filibuster, and there would be no checks on the party in power. Unless you live in a certain part of a certain state or are a member of Congress, the head of state would have no accountability to you.

What am I missing? I realize I'm being a little difficult but that's only because I think you may have a point and I'd like to understand how you think the parliamentary system is better.

[Heracles 417]

BY - the most reasonable solution is to allow employee sponsored work visas for low-wage earners, with a caveat that the employer has unsuccessfully tried to find U.S. citizens to fill the job(s). By doing so, the federal government could better track these workers which would help devise other solutions.

Once immigrants from our neighboring southern border understand how relatively easy it would be for them to work here legally, then they are less likely to go about it in an illegal way.

Also, stiff penalties to companies who then continue to hire illegals, and limit services for those who do not have legal documentation.

...........

How does that sound to you?

It's a logical plan. I believe Canada and Aus have similar visas. In know Aus, just amendment their guest worker laws, in order to ensure they were not being exploited by employers. That is, they must pay them the going rate in Aus, rather than what the employees are 'apparently' willing to work for. I have said myself the entire Visa system here needs to be overhauled (modernized). It's ridiculous that only those with a college education can legitimately migrate here. Start using the points systems now used by numerous other nations.

When it comes to government services, this is what also needs to be fixed. People should be required to verify their residency before any government services are provided. You cannot expect CA to pay hundreds of millions of dollars for kids that are not supposed to even be here. It's morally unfair that Americans and those here legally have to go without, in-order to pay for those that are here illegally. Schools should be free to educate them, however, their parents should have to pay for it themselves. My county alone spends millions on hiring ESOL teachers, with numerous schools having 3 to 10 dedicated ESOL teachers. All while there is one teacher for a school dedicated towards assisting kids with special needs. Kids who cannot help themselves.

It makes my blood boil when I hear kids born in America and gone to American schools their entire life, cannot speak a world of English by the sixth grade. Reasoning for this is that 'we don't want to impose our culture of them'. #######.. As an ESOL student myself (both folks were immigrants), I don't even know how to respond to that because it is the dumbest thing I have ever heard in my entire life. Does anyone wonder why Hispanic kids have the lowest graduation rates for high school students? School is hard enough as it is. Now trying learning something without knowing the local language. The PC folk who think they are doing Hispanic kids a favor are actually hurting them and their future.

[SMR 368]

I support immigration. I just think a necessary precursor to opening the borders is eliminating all entitlement programs. That is, I think we should let people come here. But we should also let them starve on the streets if they can't feed and shelter themselves. It's not that I'm uncompassionate. I give a significant portion of my income to charities every year. I just object to someone else (the government) deciding that I need to pay for someone else's services. That is what most taxes are.

Contrary to popular belief, most countries are immigrant friendly. The difference between what some advocate here to every that of other first world country is the number of people allowed in. No first world country has an open border policy for anyone and everyone.

As I said earlier, the choice is simple. You either open the borders and become a Mexico and Philippines. Or you do the opposite and become an Australia an Canada. Some might think well, I am wealthy or a professional so it wouldn't affect me anyway. WRONG! It's the same deal in third world countries. There are very rich folk but the rest of the country is like #######. Therefore, it does impact their quality of life and so on.

No matter what way you look at it, there is no finical benefit in 2009 for the US to open their border and allow even more poor, unskilled and uneducated people to enter. During the 18 and 19 hundreds the US had manufacturing boom. Whereas, manufacturing is now gone.

Furthermore, certainly not when:

• Over 50 million Americans live in poverty - Figure is from 2006 and excludes 2009 crisis.
• Over 3.5 million Americans live on the street.
• Close to 20 million Americans are without work; with millions more underemployed or on minimum wage.

America wasn't founded on the idea of making people rich or on the idea of helping the poor. The goal isn't to eliminate poverty, employ everyone, or make the world a better place. America was founded on freedom.

[Heracles 417]

I like the idea of more checks on ministers/secretaries. The problem I see with the parliamentary system here is that you end up with a sec of education (for example) with a constituency in one little area. So even if he should be helping education everywhere, I bet you can guess who will get the most education pandering. However, in America, actual cabinet members have to approved by the Senate so that isn't as big a problem as so called czars, who are appointed by the President alone, wield sometimes huge power and are accountable only to the President.

To be honest, I couldn't tell whether you thought that the parliamentary system was more winner-takes all or less. You started by stating that the opposition is still there to voice concerns because they have a leader in the senate (we have one too, it's called the Senate Minority leader). Then you proceeded to say that the parliamentary system gets stuff done because the Senate and PM have the same party. This would imply to me that it is more winner takes all.

I guess we don't have opposition ministers, but I don't see the point. I don't completely understand the system, but I don't understand why you need a person appointed to criticize the acting minister unless there is an actual power sharing arrangement. But it seems to me that that would be completely unwieldy. This system seems similar to what we have in senate and house committees.

Also, I couldn't tell whether you thought that the executive branch should be more or less directly responsible to the people. You seem to think that it's a good thing in terms of the ministers. However, in a parliamentary system, the PM is directly answerable only to the members of his party and to his constituents, which isn't the public at large.

The way I understand the parliamentary system is, it would be like sacking the president and giving the speaker of the house the presidential powers. The chairmen of various committees replace the cabinet. The ranking opposition party member on each committee is the "opposition minister." Beyond the fact that Pelosi would be worse than Obama, this would still be a terrible system in America. Get rid of Senate filibuster, and there would be no checks on the party in power. Unless you live in a certain part of a certain state or are a member of Congress, the head of state would have no accountability to you.

What am I missing? I realize I'm being a little difficult but that's only because I think you may have a point and I'd like to understand how you think the parliamentary system is better.

I’ll start from scratch. Elections do not have a set date or time period and the party in office gets to decide the date; generally four years is the max. A leader is selected by the party prior to the election. Once an election is held, the winning party immediately takes office. They may not be sworn in until next year but the changeover of government is immediate. The opposition leader does not fade into oblivion; they are there to represent the opposing party’s point of view. The Whitehouse and senate are all in one place. There is not disconnect between the two.

The benefit of the system is that for the party to be elected into office, they must have the most votes. You cannot have a situation where the majority of the senate is one party while the prime mister is another. Sure they still need x senate votes to pass something, however, you will not have US style stalemates between leaders and the senate.

The reason for having an opposition minister is because they are there to critique any decisions made by the Secretary (minister) of XYZ. Over here, random repubs may take a shot. Random senators may propose xyz. So where does the buck stop? Much like in a corporation, you have various individuals accountable for a division. Therefore, the media or an individual can contact the Minister of Employment concerning this or that. The opposition Minister can openly state they disagree with this and that decision. The whole point of having these ministers is that the buck stops with someone elected into office. If people are dissatisfied with this minister, their local constituents will vote them out, meaning they are no longer eligible to be minister. A secretary of XYZ can leave tomorrow and it means nothing. Furthermore, anyone off the street can be hired as secretary of XYZ here. This lack of accountability is the problem here.

I look at it this way. I disagree with lefties here on a number of issues. Can you imagine I was the president and they were senators? Nothing would be done. If the people said we want boo to lead, under the Parliamentary system people would get that. I would be able to implement what I was elected to do. If my party only won by a narrow margin, I would have to work with the opposition to pass my ideas.

[Heracles 417]

America wasn't founded on the idea of making people rich or on the idea of helping the poor. The goal isn't to eliminate poverty, employ everyone, or make the world a better place. America was founded on freedom.

Maybe it's time to reevaluate your priorities. This attitude is reminiscent of someone on the Titanic insisting it was the best ship in the world, all while it was sinking and eventually sunk.

Does it not say something to you that the level of freedom you cherish so much, is not something any other first world country wants? People tend to copy and emulate good ideas. Surely there must be a reason why 95% of the world that does not live here, doesn't want US style freedom. I can guarantee you that if you went to any other forum abroad and said what do you think about the US's freedom, it would be the first thing people would criticize.

This attitude is reminiscent of GM and Ford, all while Toyota and Honda overtook them. Even VW is now beating them. The same thing will happen when China overtakes the US, yet you guys will still be beating on about Capitalism and freedom.

Edited November 19, 2009 by Booyah!

[Niels Bohr 72]

To think that I thought of going to UC Berkely for my Doctorate.

Edited November 19, 2009 by Niels Bohr

[Heracles 417]

To think that I thought of going to UC Berkely for my Doctorate.

You could have hooked up with some of those chickies.

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

In California illegal aliens get instate tuition rates. Legal residents that move to Cali don't until they have established residencey.

[Niels Bohr 72]

In Massachusetts, State Schools are funded by the Taxpayers. You are correct in that instate residents pay less than outside residents. Since UMASS is funded by the state, that means the campus police is also a State police.

But, those who earn a degree from the taxpayers finance tend to contribute more to the community that those who do not. The University of Massachusetts did a study that everytime the government gave 1% of the loans to students when the student graduate, they contribute 7% more to the community.