How are tuition rates decide? Is there some type of formula that the state uses to be able to determine how much the tuition rate should go up? Or is it just a guess on how high it should be?
Whenever you hear about tuition going up again, you never hear or see how they are figuring out the rate of percentage of how it goes up. It does seem like they just say. “Ok it will go up 10% this time, and maybe 15% next time.”
How is tuition figured out in the first place. I know that I have seen it but I really don’t understand it. Do we need to take a class to help us to better understand how tuition works and how it goes up every year?
When tuition rates go up, who are the ones that are more affected by it? It is anyone who goes or works at the school. The reason is because when the rate goes up it means that students have to pay out more, and if students have to pay out more than they will not want to stay at the school or stay in school for that matter. With that happening, then teachers lose out on classes because there are no students to teach. This means that teachers could lose their jobs or have a big pay cut.
When you put all of this together, then you have people losing out on money because they cannot work.
So the question comes up again…how is tuition rates going up determined? I have never seen a formula that shows how to determine how much tuition rates should go up. Have you?
Thursday, April 10, 2008
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
No More Milk For You, Only One Glass A Day
Ok so I have to ask this one little question…how much money does the government think that we really have?
That is a question that I would really love to have answered because it seems that the government thinks that we just have money coming out of our butts? What do they think that we can just throw away our money? Doesn’t the government know that we are not making that much of a living that we can not spend about $1.50 to buy eggs, almost $5.00 for milk, and what is flour running this days? An arm and a leg? Or is that everything altogether? Doesn’t the government know that there are kids out there that really do like to have milk when they get home, or are going to bed? Or do they just like to see the little people, meanly middle class people, struggle just to make ends meat?
To me it just all seems that the government does not care at all that price are going up way to much and that there are some people that just can not make ends meat. All that the government cares about at times, at least that is what it seems to me, is how much money they can spend on the war. What about the kids, the future of our world? What about that? But wait, they are more than likely thinking, how many of those kids want to go into war for us?
I was reading an article in the Journal form March 19. The articles title says it all, “Feeling The Food Pinch” by Susan Stiger. What I read is something that I just could not believe. You have eggs going to by 37%, milk is up by 29%, and then you have flour going up to 6.5%. To me, those prices just to buy what you in are so crazy. I now see why so many people are stealing milk, eggs, and flour and even other things that they need to stay alive. What is even worst is when a mother has to tell their child that they can not have milk. That to me is so bound work that there is be someone going to jail for it. I know lets have the government go out and buy food and as little as having only $30.00. Do you think that they can do it? I don’t think that they can do it only because they don’t really know how hard it is for those who do not make any money at, or at least that is what it seems like, to make it in our world.
It seems that the government is just so happy to take our money that they just have to take our food and milk. What child should go without milk because it cost too much? I have never heard of a mother telling their child that they could have milk and they have to have only water. Or I have never heard a mother tell a child that they can have only one glass of milk a day. To me that just seem like the child did something so the mother is taking away a toy.
I really don't know what is worst. The government raising prices, or someone stealing food just to live? What do you think is worst?
I would have to go with the government!!!!
That is a question that I would really love to have answered because it seems that the government thinks that we just have money coming out of our butts? What do they think that we can just throw away our money? Doesn’t the government know that we are not making that much of a living that we can not spend about $1.50 to buy eggs, almost $5.00 for milk, and what is flour running this days? An arm and a leg? Or is that everything altogether? Doesn’t the government know that there are kids out there that really do like to have milk when they get home, or are going to bed? Or do they just like to see the little people, meanly middle class people, struggle just to make ends meat?
To me it just all seems that the government does not care at all that price are going up way to much and that there are some people that just can not make ends meat. All that the government cares about at times, at least that is what it seems to me, is how much money they can spend on the war. What about the kids, the future of our world? What about that? But wait, they are more than likely thinking, how many of those kids want to go into war for us?
I was reading an article in the Journal form March 19. The articles title says it all, “Feeling The Food Pinch” by Susan Stiger. What I read is something that I just could not believe. You have eggs going to by 37%, milk is up by 29%, and then you have flour going up to 6.5%. To me, those prices just to buy what you in are so crazy. I now see why so many people are stealing milk, eggs, and flour and even other things that they need to stay alive. What is even worst is when a mother has to tell their child that they can not have milk. That to me is so bound work that there is be someone going to jail for it. I know lets have the government go out and buy food and as little as having only $30.00. Do you think that they can do it? I don’t think that they can do it only because they don’t really know how hard it is for those who do not make any money at, or at least that is what it seems like, to make it in our world.
It seems that the government is just so happy to take our money that they just have to take our food and milk. What child should go without milk because it cost too much? I have never heard of a mother telling their child that they could have milk and they have to have only water. Or I have never heard a mother tell a child that they can have only one glass of milk a day. To me that just seem like the child did something so the mother is taking away a toy.
I really don't know what is worst. The government raising prices, or someone stealing food just to live? What do you think is worst?
I would have to go with the government!!!!
Thursday, March 20, 2008
Tax-Rebate...worth it or not??
So Bush is offering a tax rebate to give most tax filers anywhere from $600 to $1,200 to families and there is the possible that there could be more if you have kids and then they could get more money if they have more kids. But there is a problem with that because some people say that they have more kids then they do just to get more money when they file for their taxes.
But that is not of what I am going to talk about. I am going to be talking about what is the price of accepting the tax rebate? I know that last time that there was this tax rebate, there was a tax put on if you cashed in the check. What is the point of the tax rebate if they tax the tax rebate? That was just a lie, and now Bush says that this time there is not going to be a tax on the money that you get but yet how can you believe that.
When you have about 116 million families that are getting a check and lets say that they checks are worth $1,000 then to have to tax that. You have 116*$1,000= $116,000.00 then you have to tax that. When you tax that, and you have to pay back about $500 or more on the tax rebate that is to be a tax break.
Then you have 35 million workers that will also be getting a check, those check should be worth about $28 billion in total and how much of that tax rebate will the government make more off of the tax rebate because the government still taxes the rebate.
This how the government is going to break down the tax rebate refunds- individual paying income taxes should get up to $600, working couples should get about $1,2300, and if you have children then you will add additional $300 per child but that is all under the agreement. Then you have those workers that who make lat least $3,000 and they don’t pay any taxes then they will get about $300 in a tax rebate. When you add up all the totals of the rebate, it should come up to about $100 billion dollars, but wait businesses also will get a tax rebate that should total about $50 billion.
I just want to know where they are going to be getting this money from with paying for everything. I mean just paying for the war is costing a lot of money and it seems that all the money that goes into the government just go out to the war. It is almost as if there is no money for anything yet there is money to do a tax rebate that will mean more than likely that the people will have to pay it back in there next tax season.
“The rebates would phase out gradually for individuals whose income exceeds $75,000 and couples with incomes above $150,000, aides said. Individuals with incomes up to $87,000 and couples up to $174,000 would get partial rebates. The caps are higher for those with children.” This is what the AP reported in which the daily lobo posted it in the newspaper. What happens if someone does not meet these caps, then what do they get? Is it far to give only those that meet the cap the tax rebate or is it far to give EVERYONE the tax rebate? I go with giving everyone the tax rebate not just those that meet so cab because that is what they government says that needs to happen.
There are so many different things that are wrong with these tax rebate that I don’t know where to began but one thing is for sure, how much do we have to pay back for cashing this checks?
I go for not worth it!!
But that is not of what I am going to talk about. I am going to be talking about what is the price of accepting the tax rebate? I know that last time that there was this tax rebate, there was a tax put on if you cashed in the check. What is the point of the tax rebate if they tax the tax rebate? That was just a lie, and now Bush says that this time there is not going to be a tax on the money that you get but yet how can you believe that.
When you have about 116 million families that are getting a check and lets say that they checks are worth $1,000 then to have to tax that. You have 116*$1,000= $116,000.00 then you have to tax that. When you tax that, and you have to pay back about $500 or more on the tax rebate that is to be a tax break.
Then you have 35 million workers that will also be getting a check, those check should be worth about $28 billion in total and how much of that tax rebate will the government make more off of the tax rebate because the government still taxes the rebate.
This how the government is going to break down the tax rebate refunds- individual paying income taxes should get up to $600, working couples should get about $1,2300, and if you have children then you will add additional $300 per child but that is all under the agreement. Then you have those workers that who make lat least $3,000 and they don’t pay any taxes then they will get about $300 in a tax rebate. When you add up all the totals of the rebate, it should come up to about $100 billion dollars, but wait businesses also will get a tax rebate that should total about $50 billion.
I just want to know where they are going to be getting this money from with paying for everything. I mean just paying for the war is costing a lot of money and it seems that all the money that goes into the government just go out to the war. It is almost as if there is no money for anything yet there is money to do a tax rebate that will mean more than likely that the people will have to pay it back in there next tax season.
“The rebates would phase out gradually for individuals whose income exceeds $75,000 and couples with incomes above $150,000, aides said. Individuals with incomes up to $87,000 and couples up to $174,000 would get partial rebates. The caps are higher for those with children.” This is what the AP reported in which the daily lobo posted it in the newspaper. What happens if someone does not meet these caps, then what do they get? Is it far to give only those that meet the cap the tax rebate or is it far to give EVERYONE the tax rebate? I go with giving everyone the tax rebate not just those that meet so cab because that is what they government says that needs to happen.
There are so many different things that are wrong with these tax rebate that I don’t know where to began but one thing is for sure, how much do we have to pay back for cashing this checks?
I go for not worth it!!
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
“26% of Companies Planning to Hire.”
If a survey done by a Milwaukee-based global staffing company is correct on 26% of companies are going to hiring. Then why are there so many people who do not have jobs. They surveyed 14,000 companies on hiring workers. Out of the 14,000 companies, the survey showed that 9% will be decreasing, 60% will have no change, 5% don’t know of any changes as of right now. Then you have the 26% that are going to hire more people.
When reading the article in the Journal from March 11, 2008, the article says that there will be an increase on jobs then shows that 63,000 jobs were slashed in the last month. And yet 26% companies are planning to hire and you have so many that are losing their jobs.
So how can hobs increase when there are so many people losing their jobs on a daily base. There is also the question of how many of these companies that are going to hire, are hiring for more than one job? Another very interesting question that I would like to bring up, is how many of these companies that are going to be hiring within the next few are going to be letting go of their workers? I hear it all the time that a company is going to be hiring and then the next thing that you know, there are workers losing their jobs.
There are so many different factors here that are not be talking about or even thought of when this article was written. But the one thing that is very interesting is that there are is a good size percentage of companies that are going to hire but then at the same time, there are a lot of people that do not have a job or are being laid off.
When reading the article in the Journal from March 11, 2008, the article says that there will be an increase on jobs then shows that 63,000 jobs were slashed in the last month. And yet 26% companies are planning to hire and you have so many that are losing their jobs.
So how can hobs increase when there are so many people losing their jobs on a daily base. There is also the question of how many of these companies that are going to hire, are hiring for more than one job? Another very interesting question that I would like to bring up, is how many of these companies that are going to be hiring within the next few are going to be letting go of their workers? I hear it all the time that a company is going to be hiring and then the next thing that you know, there are workers losing their jobs.
There are so many different factors here that are not be talking about or even thought of when this article was written. But the one thing that is very interesting is that there are is a good size percentage of companies that are going to hire but then at the same time, there are a lot of people that do not have a job or are being laid off.
"Save Your Dough for Bread"
"Save Your Dough for Bread" by Betsy Blaney
$1.32-$1.03= $0.29 is how much wheat prices have gone up since February of 2006 thats in pounds from within the last month. In 1998, selling of wheat was only 85 cent a pound but now it cost just as much as buying a coke from the coke machine.
I was reading the Journal the other day, March 15, when I say the article about wheat prices going up and how much it effects everyone. But wheat bread is not the only price going up so is white bread. Usually a bushel of wheat would cost anywhere from $3 to $7 dollars but now almost cost $18 a bushel. That is a major jump.
But to make it worst on everyone food prices are also going up. The food prices have gone up from 2.5 to 4 percent, that’s 1.5 percent. But it could still go up to anywhere from 3.5 to 4.5 percent . That is a lot for someone who can not afford to pay food and if they can’t afford to buy food, that is when they start to steal the family and in most cases they are taking the food for the family that they have to feed.
So now this brings up the question how are families going to live if they can not afford food? That is the one question that is always asked when prices go up on food.
Wheat is in everything that we use and we need to live, so people have no choice but to buy, even if it does cost too much and they can not afford it. There are just some things that some people will go without just to be able to pay bread even if the cost goes up to being almost an arm a leg to buy it. There is one thing that people can not live without and that is food, so they will do whatever they have to do to have food.
$1.32-$1.03= $0.29 is how much wheat prices have gone up since February of 2006 thats in pounds from within the last month. In 1998, selling of wheat was only 85 cent a pound but now it cost just as much as buying a coke from the coke machine.
I was reading the Journal the other day, March 15, when I say the article about wheat prices going up and how much it effects everyone. But wheat bread is not the only price going up so is white bread. Usually a bushel of wheat would cost anywhere from $3 to $7 dollars but now almost cost $18 a bushel. That is a major jump.
But to make it worst on everyone food prices are also going up. The food prices have gone up from 2.5 to 4 percent, that’s 1.5 percent. But it could still go up to anywhere from 3.5 to 4.5 percent . That is a lot for someone who can not afford to pay food and if they can’t afford to buy food, that is when they start to steal the family and in most cases they are taking the food for the family that they have to feed.
So now this brings up the question how are families going to live if they can not afford food? That is the one question that is always asked when prices go up on food.
Wheat is in everything that we use and we need to live, so people have no choice but to buy, even if it does cost too much and they can not afford it. There are just some things that some people will go without just to be able to pay bread even if the cost goes up to being almost an arm a leg to buy it. There is one thing that people can not live without and that is food, so they will do whatever they have to do to have food.
Wednesday, March 5, 2008
Election's and Civil Rights
I just want to start by quoting Martin Luther King, Jr..."I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: “We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal.” I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slaveowners will be able to sit down together at a table of brotherhood. I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a desert state, sweltering with the heat of injustice and oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice. I have a dream that my four children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. I have a dream today." http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0874987.html.
Now on to what I want to see. I was listening to the radio this morning, 97.3, and they were saying something that just happened in Texas with a Civil Right's Attorney making a comment about Barack Obama and the election that just set me off and I am so mad about this because she is an attorney for civil right's and she makes a comment like she did.
She said that no Hispanic will ever vote for a black president. How wrong is she for saying that? I support Obama. She as went on to say that there is no way that there will ever be a black president or a black person in office because Hispanic doesn’t support blacks. No where did she ever state that this is just here opinion she stated that it is for all Hispanic which I just don't strongly disagree with her, I am very upset that she would say that all Hispanic think that way. But I think that what has me more mad is the fact that she is a civil right's attorney, and if anyone knows their history, civil right's were created at the time for African American. I really do not like that she would be saying that there could never be an African American but wait she said a black person in office. To me there is no difference to who the person is. If there is someone that is going to fix everything that the Bash's have done and is there to support the US as a whole no matter who they are, and then they work for me. But for someone that is a civil right's attorney and well known in Texas to make a comment like she did. I am sorry but I don't think that she should be an attorney for civil rights. Yes, I know that she has the right to say what she wants to say but when she puts all Hispanic in her thoughts, then that is wrong.
I want to know if what Martin Luther King, Jr., JFK, and Robert were fighting for that they lost their lives for everyone. When I was growing up I did not know that there was ever a fight for African Americans to be free until one day my teacher told us about MLK, Jr. and what he did for African Americans to be free and to have rights for all and freedom for everyone. That is when I learned that our history of treating everyone as an equal was not as it was when I was growing up. After I heard about MLK, Jr. I started to do research about him and the one speech that I will always remember is the one that I have quoted above and that is because all that he wanted was freedom for all and for there not to be a break between anyone. JFK and Robert supported what MLK was doing and they lost their lives for believing that all are created equal. So what did the die for if you have an attorney that says what she said about Obama? What is it that everyone is going back into time and going back to people not having rights?
I just want to know how some people can be so hateful and rude to others. We have three people that dead for believing that everyone is created as an equal so what did the die for when you have someone like her who says that there will never be a black president? If she could say something like that about an African American then Clinton should not be running because she is a woman. I just can't believe that we have come this far were people have rights and just to go back into time to when there were no rights for everyone!! There are so many things that are wrong with our country but when you have an attorney who is saying this...it just makes you think on what our country is really all about!!!! I am just so mad but at the same time disappointed that a civil right's attorney would say something like this and say that all Hispanic believe this.
Now on to what I want to see. I was listening to the radio this morning, 97.3, and they were saying something that just happened in Texas with a Civil Right's Attorney making a comment about Barack Obama and the election that just set me off and I am so mad about this because she is an attorney for civil right's and she makes a comment like she did.
She said that no Hispanic will ever vote for a black president. How wrong is she for saying that? I support Obama. She as went on to say that there is no way that there will ever be a black president or a black person in office because Hispanic doesn’t support blacks. No where did she ever state that this is just here opinion she stated that it is for all Hispanic which I just don't strongly disagree with her, I am very upset that she would say that all Hispanic think that way. But I think that what has me more mad is the fact that she is a civil right's attorney, and if anyone knows their history, civil right's were created at the time for African American. I really do not like that she would be saying that there could never be an African American but wait she said a black person in office. To me there is no difference to who the person is. If there is someone that is going to fix everything that the Bash's have done and is there to support the US as a whole no matter who they are, and then they work for me. But for someone that is a civil right's attorney and well known in Texas to make a comment like she did. I am sorry but I don't think that she should be an attorney for civil rights. Yes, I know that she has the right to say what she wants to say but when she puts all Hispanic in her thoughts, then that is wrong.
I want to know if what Martin Luther King, Jr., JFK, and Robert were fighting for that they lost their lives for everyone. When I was growing up I did not know that there was ever a fight for African Americans to be free until one day my teacher told us about MLK, Jr. and what he did for African Americans to be free and to have rights for all and freedom for everyone. That is when I learned that our history of treating everyone as an equal was not as it was when I was growing up. After I heard about MLK, Jr. I started to do research about him and the one speech that I will always remember is the one that I have quoted above and that is because all that he wanted was freedom for all and for there not to be a break between anyone. JFK and Robert supported what MLK was doing and they lost their lives for believing that all are created equal. So what did the die for if you have an attorney that says what she said about Obama? What is it that everyone is going back into time and going back to people not having rights?
I just want to know how some people can be so hateful and rude to others. We have three people that dead for believing that everyone is created as an equal so what did the die for when you have someone like her who says that there will never be a black president? If she could say something like that about an African American then Clinton should not be running because she is a woman. I just can't believe that we have come this far were people have rights and just to go back into time to when there were no rights for everyone!! There are so many things that are wrong with our country but when you have an attorney who is saying this...it just makes you think on what our country is really all about!!!! I am just so mad but at the same time disappointed that a civil right's attorney would say something like this and say that all Hispanic believe this.
Tuesday, February 5, 2008
Elections
On Feb. 5, 2008 there is going to be a lot of people who will either vote or will not vote. I will be voting today after work. As for those who choose not to vote, they are the ones that I find that will say something about who becomes president. As I was coming to school this morning, I was listening to the radio, and they were talking about how many people will vote and how many will not vote. The one thing that I found very interesting is that there are more youths that are voting than there has been in a long time. There has not been that many youths that have been voting in the past few years and now there are more and more youths that are voting. When you think about it...it is the youths that are the ones that are the future and the earlier they start to to vote, the more that they will learn.
I started to vote when I was 18. I did not want someone to say to me that I could not voice my opinion on someone who was voted into office because I did not sign up to vote. I want people to know what I was thinking when I was 18 and even today this day I want people to know what I am thinking and I will voice what I thinking. There is nothing wrong with someone saying what is on there mind and that is why I will say what is one my mind about someone who was elected into office if they are not or are the person that I voted for.
Having more and more youths vote, it is almost saying that they are not going to let someone rule their life anymore. That they are their own person and they want people to know who they are voting for and who they think so be in office. The youths are the future and there needs to be more people that need to vote. Everyone has the right to vote and if you vote, then you should have the right to say what you have to say about the person who is in office, and if you don't vote, what right to do you have to say something about who is in office. If you want your voice heard, then you need to vote!!
I started to vote when I was 18. I did not want someone to say to me that I could not voice my opinion on someone who was voted into office because I did not sign up to vote. I want people to know what I was thinking when I was 18 and even today this day I want people to know what I am thinking and I will voice what I thinking. There is nothing wrong with someone saying what is on there mind and that is why I will say what is one my mind about someone who was elected into office if they are not or are the person that I voted for.
Having more and more youths vote, it is almost saying that they are not going to let someone rule their life anymore. That they are their own person and they want people to know who they are voting for and who they think so be in office. The youths are the future and there needs to be more people that need to vote. Everyone has the right to vote and if you vote, then you should have the right to say what you have to say about the person who is in office, and if you don't vote, what right to do you have to say something about who is in office. If you want your voice heard, then you need to vote!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
