I just spit up my coffee you have a POTUS who has taken us to the highest debt level in history and you come up with this?Too funny!!
Walker Continues His Assault on the UW System
- Thread starter cigaretteman
- Start date
Damn....that is your answer to EVERYTHING. How much would you like your taxes raised for this if you lived in Wisconsin? 10%? 15%?
If Wisconsin had a dime for every time a Demorcrat on HROT said that Republicans don't care about 'our crumbling infrastructure' they wouldn't need to borrow a cent. So Walker wants to address infrastructure and NOW libs are worried about borrowing and spending? LMAO!
Which is why it's so astonishing that the GOP is even worse. At least the Dems want to raise the taxes to pay the bills. The GOP wants to run up the bill just as much, but never wants to take responsibility for them by ponying up the money to pay the bills.
How can you possibly defend behavior that's blatantly WORSE than what Obama and the Dems do?
Or do you have some explanation why borrowing - and therefore running up the debt even more than Dems would do - is better than raising the revenues to pay the bills?
Seriously, the GOP has become the party of borrow and spend. Explain to us how that's better than being the party of tax and spend.
Same answer I always give: we should raise the revenues to pay the bills.
You're giving the same response our cons always give: you aren't responsible enough to want to pay the bills.
The idea that conservatives are the fiscally responsible party is a huge lie.
It pretty simple.
Just think of one aspect. Fixed asset liability that is associated with one of these campuses. Then multiply that times 26.
If you can get your head wrapped around that, then start adding in depreciation, operating expenses, variable labor, fixed labor, tax burden etc. Then again multiply that all by 26.
That figure would just be the tip of the iceberg.
I know your fiduciary competence and experience has been exposed as limited, but even you have to understand that burden.
The gas tax hasn't increased here in 11 years, but Walker wants to borrow because he knows that someone on the campaign trail will then be able to use some “tax hike” rhetoric against him. It's a pretty self serving move in my eyes. The legislators from his own party that I've spoken with at the capitol say they want nothing to do with that kind of borrowing, so it will be interesting to see if the Cons will override him on this.
I'm not seeing your point here. Maintaining 26 campuses must cost more than 3 big picture. Now WI has about double Iowa's population, so a few more seems reasonable, but not 20+ more. Personally I see no reason why Iowa needs more than one university. If Iowa went to 60k students and we sold off the other campuses, everything would be better IMO. Of course thats a biased opinion.
It's a lot of schools and yes, there are some duplications for sure, but the 13 white dots such as Baraboo/Sauk County and Waukesha are two-year schools.Is it really any wonder why a state the size of Wisconsin can't afford this?
Where did I ever say don't pay the bills?
Just once I'd like to hear you say, 'gee, maybe we shouldn't spend so much. Maybe we should tighten the purse strings a little.'
I agree. Iowa should get rid of engineering. No argument from me. ISU shouldn't have any liberal arts. Iowa should close up Weeg and UNI should do all education. In fact, the 3 distinct entities should be folded into one SUI System with one Chancellor.
To oversimplify, what are the pros and cons of having 1 campus with 100 profs or 2 campuses with 50 profs each?
Simply saying there are a lot of campuses doesn't prove that such an arrangement is bad or wasteful or, really, anything at all. Except that there are a lot of campuses.
If the object is to make it easy for state residents to get a college education, is that better served by a single mega-university or by lots of local ones? Wouldn't a nice distribution of campuses make it easier and probably cheaper for people to take advantage of those educational resources? More could live at home. More could take classes part time while holding down a job in their community. And so on.
Simply posting a map doesn't make a rational argument that the current arrangement is either good or bad. But he posted it as though it proves the current arrangement is bad.
It's also interesting that - yet again - we have liberals arguing for decentralization and local control, while the cons are proving themselves to love consolidation of power and authority.
Well my main motivation is to stop diluting sports resources, so I'm not being completely rational in my desire to destroy ISU. But I would think a similar argument might apply to other resources. Having all the programs and professors on one campus means a student would better be able to find the program and mentor they needed. There would be more cooperation and bigger programs doing more than just the basics. College students shouldn't live at home anyway, so I see that as an advantage. Having a small state like Iowa punch way above its weight with a mega university pulling in the best from around the world would seem advantageous over the status quo on an academic and economic development side that would also just happen to mean we got all the D1 talent for our sports.
That's an argument for the other side. But that's probably already addressed. Profs could teach classes at satellite campuses from time to time. Kids could transfer among campuses when they get to the level when prof choice matters a lot. There's nothing wrong with having some campuses be excellent in a few things but just basic in others.
Even your objections seem to suggest that there's an optimal arrangement that includes multiple campuses, not just 1.
I agree that kids generally get more out of college if they leave home. But for some, making that necessary can mean not being able to go to college.
I suspect there are ways to quantify some of this.
Requiring transferring is a barrier. Putting everything under one roof eliminates a barrier and makes experimentation during your undergrad time more likely. Online education would solve for locals who need to stay on the farm better IMO. Frankly a lot of those first year lecture classes should be recorded and offered online too.
Why would that be a barrier?
I agree about more online classes. But if you value the college experience, doesn't that reduce it even more?
There is no doubt that there are advantages to having one really great university in the overall layout. But why ONLY that one? Why not one and some smaller campuses? Why not 2 and some smaller campuses?
Why have large areas of a state with no readily-accessible university?
Resources, we can't have everything. If we keep the current system of 3 good state universities, thats a barrier to having one world class powerhouse. Online for lectures doesn't hurt the college experience IMO. The only part of the academic experience I valued were the interactive parts. Finally distance is a barrier. If I decide I want to be X and that program requires that i move to a new campus, that's harder than simply registering for those classes at my current campus. That seems pretty obvious.
One other point, much of what you want could be taken care of with the community college system. I'm only talking about the 4 year state university system.
Last edited:
I can tell you that the big increase in cost of education is not caused by the teachers per se. Its the levels of administration. In the 1960's Virgil Hancher actually ran the UI with the Deans and Dept Chairs. Now, you have a whole tier of Vice Presidents and a President who is basically a glorified fund raiser. Doug True ran a lot of the actual business of the University. Also, each department has an administrator. The Department Chairs really don't do a whole lot of actual administration. So, take that 3X in Iowa and you have a really inefficient system.
That is a HUGE Con.
Talking about just Profs, is only taking in ~ 10% of the expenses. And only variable expenses at that.
The concept of cutting a single solitary penny out of spending never, ever registers in some peoples' minds.
Money = power, and less government money = less government power. Walker is taking away power from them. They don't want a reasonably efficient, lean and trim machine.
This is always what amuses me about dems....in the end, they are just as greedy as those they accuse. A guy like Walker to them...he's their biggest type of enemy they have.
Money = power, and less government money = less government power. Walker is taking away power from them. They don't want a reasonably efficient, lean and trim machine.
This is where you're wrong. No one is against an efficient, lean and trim government. Waste, fraud and abuse should be diligently sought out and eliminated, and ways to make it more efficient should always be investigated. Government should only be as big as is required to meet the needs that the people require of it. Outdated and unneeded programs should be eliminated. On the other hand, cutting spending should never be a priority as an end in itself, nor should cutting the size of the government. Unfortunately, nearly every program, no matter how outdated or unneeded benefits the state or district of a senator or representative, making it very difficult to get rid of.
This is where you're wrong. No one is against an efficient, lean and trim government. Waste, fraud and abuse should be diligently sought out and eliminated, and ways to make it more efficient should always be investigated. Government should only be as big as is required to meet the needs that the people require of it. Outdated and unneeded programs should be eliminated. On the other hand, cutting spending should never be a priority as an end in itself, nor should cutting the size of the government. Unfortunately, nearly every program, no matter how outdated or unneeded benefits the state or district of a senator or representative, making it very difficult to get rid of.
I agree the Republicans are not fiscally responsible.
Unfortunately, in life you don't get to pick between the perfect and the imperfect. You get to pick between the imperfect and the even more imperfect.
Your comment about both parties wanting to run up the bill just as much, however, is at odds with the subject of the thread, which is that a Republican governor doesn't want to run up the bills as much as the Democrats.
