California Law Banning State Travel Sets Dangerous Sports Precedent

[Tim Steelersfan]

This from the same guy that once argued that people without children shouldn't pay public school taxes. Go figure! Screwy liberal logic.

Let's get this straight, since you don't ever speak straight. You believe sports programs are invaluable? You believe that in state supported universities, sports programs should NOT be able to use revenue collected from tax payers (but the rest of the University operations should be able to?)? Yes or no to both questions.

 

[Tim Steelersfan]

I didn't say it justified the travel ban, that's you trying to change the subject again.

You would support an increase in your state taxes to better fund college sports team travel? ****** liberal! Research travel should be funded by research grants. ******* liberal! State taxes should subsidize state resident students tuition.

Ahhh, the smell of desperation.

I didn't say I would support an increase in state taxes to better fund sports team travel...did I? I said there is no reason to "not" use taxpayer dollars that come to the university to support all programs. You are the one who inserted yourself into this thread like a bad fart at a party and stated that sports teams should NOT travel on taxpayer dollars. This is your suggestion we are tearing apart for its stupidity.

Nice try on taking my comments again out of context.

Hell, do you think Alabama needs additional taxpayer dollars to support sports travel? The revenue generated from the football program alone supports it. Hell, the school needs that revenue.

I'd love to see a breakdown of how football revenue is used by these schools. I know at the high school level, our football program - a typical state championship contender (my son played in the State Championship game last year) - generates the majority of the schools' sports revenue. That revenue is used to fund girls soccer, lacrosse, co-ed volleyball and other sports that can't pay their own way. Some of the revenue is used for non-athletic endeavors too.

I wonder what would happen to the other sports programs and other academic programs if the school lost that $103Million/year. Cuz God knows it doesn't all go back to Nick Saban's program.

Do you believe research travel is only funded by research grants? This ought to be interesting.

 

[SanDiegoSteeler]

I live in CA. I know, really sucks. I'd like to know where the taxpayer money saved will go? Any ideas? lol.

 

[Troglodyte]

You believe sports programs are invaluable? You believe that in state supported universities, sports programs should NOT be able to use revenue collected from tax payers (but the rest of the University operations should be able to?)? Yes or no to both questions.

Hell no, they are NOT invaluable! (You do understand invaluabe means indispensable, right?) That's absurd as many universities operate without them. Many others have cut way back on them. Would you support an increase in state taxes so those universities could create sports programs?

Hell no, if an athletic program can't get by on its own revenue and booster support, the state tax payers should NOT be on the hook. Again, who is the liberal here?

I answered your questions now answer mine. Oh, and please do explain why everyone's state taxes should support college athletics, but only people with children should pay public school taxes.

 

[Superman]

so you're again saying that revenue raised by an athletic program should be confined and restricted to just that athletic program and not spread to other parts of the university or athletic department.

 

[Troglodyte]

so you're again saying that revenue raised by an athletic program should be confined and restricted to just that athletic program and not spread to other parts of the university or athletic department.

I already addressed this. A university should be able do whatever it wants with its OWN revenue. When it comes to subsidies from state taxes, those should go to its state resident students. What's so outrageous about that belief. Besides, most schools don't profit from their athletic programs so their isn't anything to "spread to other parts of the university".

I'm not so sure this story isn't complete bullshit to begin with and that Universities don't use state tax subsides to fund athletics. If anyone can find anything on it, I'd be interested to see it.

 

[Tim Steelersfan]

Hell no, they are NOT invaluable! (You do understand invaluabe means indispensable, right?) That's absurd as many universities operate without them. Many others have cut way back on them. Would you support an increase in state taxes so those universities could create sports programs?

Hell no, if an athletic program can't get by on its own revenue and booster support, the state tax payers should NOT be on the hook. Again, who is the liberal here?

I answered your questions now answer mine. Oh, and please do explain why everyone's state taxes should support college athletics, but only people with children should pay public school taxes.

Oh you're getting deep now. This is excellent.

Flog speak: The Texas men's basketball team should generate enough revenue to pay for uniforms, travel, and any/all expenses associated with the sport, including the building of it's basketball arena. NO money from state taxes should go to the men's basketball team. Which brings me to your next list of impressive thoughts on the matter...

I already addressed this. A university should be able do whatever it wants with its OWN revenue. When it comes to subsidies from state taxes, those should go to its state resident students. What's so outrageous about that belief. Besides, most schools don't profit from their athletic programs so their isn't anything to "spread to other parts of the university".

I'm not so sure this story isn't complete bullshit to begin with and that Universities don't use state tax subsides to fund athletics. If anyone can find anything on it, I'd be interested to see it.

So a Texas resident who plays football for the Longhorns CANNOT get any state tax money spent on him in any way whatsoever because he plays football, but a Texas resident student who plays clarinet in the Texas Longhorn Orchestra can leverage that money.

Holy **** you're up to your chin now. Please go on LMAO.

 

[Superman]

I already addressed this. A university should be able do whatever it wants with its OWN revenue. When it comes to subsidies from state taxes, those should go to its state resident students. What's so outrageous about that belief. Besides, most schools don't profit from their athletic programs so their isn't anything to "spread to other parts of the university".

I'm not so sure this story isn't complete bullshit to begin with and that Universities don't use state tax subsides to fund athletics. If anyone can find anything on it, I'd be interested to see it.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/college/2013/05/07/ncaa-finances-subsidies/2142443/

At a time of tight budgets throughout higher education, even the nation's few financially self-sufficient major-college athletics departments are continuing to receive subsidies in the form of student fees, school or state support, a USA TODAY Sports analysis finds.

Just 23 of 228 athletics departments at NCAA Division I public schools generated enough money on their own to cover their expenses in 2012. Of that group, 16 also received some type of subsidy — and 10 of those 16 athletics departments received more subsidy money in 2012 than they did in 2011.

The median subsidy increase for those 10 programs was a little more than $160,000. Relative to these programs' budgets, that's a small amount, but the increases were part of a huge rise in the subsidies provided for major-college sports programs as a whole. Subsidies for all of Division I athletics rose by nearly $200 million compared to what they were 2011. That is the greatest year-over-year dollar increase in the subsidy total since USA TODAY Sports began collecting finance information that schools annually report to the NCAA; the first year of those data covers the schools' 2004-05 fiscal year.

 

[Troglodyte]

So a Texas resident who plays football for the Longhorns CANNOT get any state tax money spent on him in any way whatsoever because he plays football, but a Texas resident student who plays clarinet in the Texas Longhorn Orchestra can leverage that money.

I answered your questions, answer mine and I'll respond. While you're at it, why don't you provide some facts about the amount of state tax funds spent on college athletics, I'm not so sure you're entire argument isn't pointless. I know universities charge student fees to support athletics and orchestra and charge admission, I'm not convinced they use state tax funds. I also know most college athletic programs don't have **** leftover to subsidize an orchestra, so that point is weak.

 

[Tim Steelersfan]

I answered your questions, answer mine and I'll respond. While you're at it, why don't you provide some facts about the amount of state tax funds spent on college athletics, I'm not so sure you're entire argument isn't pointless. I know universities charge student fees to support athletics and orchestra and charge admission, I'm not convinced they use state tax funds. I also know most college athletic programs don't have **** leftover to subsidize an orchestra, so that point is weak.

Supe just did.

So I must go on about this...it's....fascinating! "When it comes to subsidies from state taxes, those should go to its state resident students."

Where does a student from Wisconsin go when it is time for her to attend class at the University of Texas? Does she enter the same building the Texas resident students enter and attend class in that...state supported/funded-built hall? Is she not leveraging the hard earned taxpayer dollars of Texas residents when she benefits from the use of that facility? How do you keep her out and others in? State Drivers License checks at the door?

May she walk on the sidewalks that were partially built by taxpayer subsidies during construction of the new addition on campus? Or...how does she get to and from class?

(Note: please use "out of state tuition" as your defense. Please).

(PS...I'm off to board a plane and won't land until 6:45EST. Do however continue LOL)

 

[ark steel]

So, fuckfaces, you are forgetting that all money, first and foremost, belongs to the State. ANY money spent by anyone is, therefore, based upon the State's generosity in letting them do so.

Now, get your sorry cracka ***** to your next Klan meeting and don't forget to wash your sheets after you get them all bloodstained from running rampant through minority neighborhoods blasting away with your assault rifles shooting clip after clip at 150 magazines per second squared.

 

[Troglodyte]

Supe just did.

So I must go on about this...it's....fascinating! "When it comes to subsidies from state taxes, those should go to its state resident students."

Where does a student from Wisconsin go when it is time for her to attend class at the University of Texas? Does she enter the same building the Texas resident students enter and attend class in that...state supported/funded-built hall? Is she not leveraging the hard earned taxpayer dollars of Texas residents when she benefits from the use of that facility? How do you keep her out and others in? State Drivers License checks at the door?

May she walk on the sidewalks that were partially built by taxpayer subsidies during construction of the new addition on campus? Or...how does she get to and from class?

(Note: please use "out of state tuition" as your defense. Please).

(PS...I'm off to board a plane and won't land until 6:45EST. Do however continue LOL)

LOL! So you think it's the out of state student that is leveraging tax payer dollars? Wow! It's a wonder anyone stays in state to go to college! Go ahead with your roundabout logic on this one...

 

[Superman]

LOL! So you think it's the out of state student that is leveraging tax payer dollars? Wow! It's a wonder anyone stays in state to go to college! Go ahead with your roundabout logic on this one...

sounds as if you've come around to seeing that funding an athletic team's visit to a non-LGBTQFUCKALL state to play a game, and be paid millions to do so, is contingent upon that team's accomodations being paid for and provided by the school - which would then get repaid that money and likely more, which could then be utilized to pay professor salaries, utilities, maintenance on school grounds, etc, etc.

 

[1976steelers]

Sounds like the cali teams will miss out on the ncaa basketball tournament and all the money that comes with it. I wonder what the boosters think.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Steeler Nation mobile app

 

[Hines57]

Jerry Brown has ****** the state of California so hard. Damn shame what these libtards are doing to the state.

 

[SanDiegoSteeler]

Jerry Brown has ****** the state of California so hard. Damn shame what these libtards are doing to the state.

And we just keep bending over.

 

[Hines57]

And we just keep bending over.

I didn't vote for him. I want the south to secede from the wack job north.

 

[Tim Steelersfan]

LOL! So you think it's the out of state student that is leveraging tax payer dollars? Wow! It's a wonder anyone stays in state to go to college! Go ahead with your roundabout logic on this one...

Dear god lmao. I'm asking you to go on. You're the one with the colossally stupid idea that state taxes should be used only on resident students from said state. Thus my questions, how is it that out of state students get to use any facility that was constructed with state tax payer dollars? Just one of a thousand examples that you'll go awry on.

 

[Ron Burgundy]

Dear god lmao. I'm asking you to go on. You're the one with the colossally stupid idea that state taxes should be used only on resident students from said state. Thus my questions, how is it that out of state students get to use any facility that was constructed with state tax payer dollars? Just one of a thousand examples that you'll go awry on.

As far as I know, all state colleges charge out-of-state students more tuition than in-state students.

 

[Troglodyte]

Dear god lmao. I'm asking you to go on. You're the one with the colossally stupid idea that state taxes should be used only on resident students from said state. Thus my questions, how is it that out of state students get to use any facility that was constructed with state tax payer dollars? Just one of a thousand examples that you'll go awry on.

Why would you think the facilities were built exclusively with state tax payer dollars? Talk about stupid ideas.

 

[Tim Steelersfan]

Why would you think the facilities were built exclusively with state tax payer dollars? Talk about stupid ideas.

Jesus you daft SOB and thank you for making my point. Your quote:

"When it comes to subsidies from state taxes, those should go to its state resident students."

The facilities were not built exclusively with taxpayer dollars. In fact, I'd venture to say that at every University across the country, every school building was constructed with a blend of state tax dollars, donations, and funds raised by the University itself. So, every building, every sidewalk, every stadium at every State university has some taxpayer dollars in it.

You (above) said the tax dollars should be spent on state resident students only.

So again I ask you - how do you PREVENT state tax dollars going to or benefiting out of state students? If the sidewalk was partially built with taxpayer dollars, and an out of state student uses it....well, your dumb idea gets exposed eh?

Beautiful.

Please, keep coming back on this. And oh...elaborate more on why state university athletic programs shouldn't be able to use taxpayer dollars.

 

[Troglodyte]

So again I ask you - how do you PREVENT state tax dollars going to or benefiting out of state students? If the sidewalk was partially built with taxpayer dollars, and an out of state student uses it....well, your dumb idea gets exposed eh?

Prevent? No, you charge the out of state student more (or the in state student less, however you want to look at it) to use the same facilities. Dumb argument Tim.

 

[Steeltime]

Jerry Brown has ****** the state of California so hard. Damn shame what these libtards are doing to the state.

And we just keep bending over.

Teddy Kennedy, when he was not busy murdering passengers in his vehicle, was dedicated to ruining California with an influx of illegal aliens. That was the goal. The Dems knew that California was going to be a political powerhouse for the next 100 years, and knew that Republicans ran the state. They knew they were not going to win at the ballot box, and decided to simply change the population.

I have spent most of my life in California, both Northern and Southern. I have seen this great state go from one with incredible highways, tremendous public education, the best college system in the nation, and an incredible business-friendly environment to a welfare state with the most anti-business policies in the nation, the highest tax rates in the nation, failing public education, horrible and decrepit highways despite billions upon billions of dollars in gasoline taxes [that are stolen from highway maintenance and repairs and funneled to whatever idiotic cause pops up today], topped off with an embarrassing decline in the public universities.

It's great to be very, very wealthy in California; it's great to be poor in California; it sucks a goat's balls to be middle-class and in California. That is why the middle class is leaving in droves, and why I will soon join them.

 

[IndySteel]

From the mid 90's to around 2003 we had our west coast plant in Adelanto. Shut it down and moved everything back here because of ridiculous taxes and regulations. One time a few pounds of iron sulfate spilled outside while a truck was being unloaded. It's considered hazardous because of low pH, it's from acid tanks in steel mills. Just as a couple of our employees started to clean it up with a shovel and broom the sheriff drove by and checked it out. He said that we needed to call out a hazmat team to clean it up. It was less than a bucket full. Our plant manager told him no, because we could clean it up in two minutes. He got thrown in jail for the weekend.

 

[Tim Steelersfan]

As far as I know, all state colleges charge out-of-state students more tuition than in-state students.

Yep they do. This is the very reason for out of state tuition. We all get that, except...

Prevent? No, you charge the out of state student more (or the in state student less, however you want to look at it) to use the same facilities. Dumb argument Tim.

Let me remind you of your post, since you're too simple to figure this out. You state: ""When it comes to subsidies from state taxes, those should go to its state resident students.""

Translation: Taxpayer dollars should go to state residents of said school.

There's no misinterpreting that.

So I'm calling out YOUR ridiculous idea.

If the tax dollars go ONLY to students of the state (again this is YOUR proposal), then therefore those dollars must NOT go to out of state students.

Explain how taxpayer dollars can only go to in-state students and not to out of state students?

Since you're too stupid, or you're being obtuse, I'll answer for you. Your proposal, which all began with sports teams not being able to use taxpayer dollars, then morphed into you saying taxpayer dollars should go only to resident students - is both a) a stupid proposal, and b) impossible to make happen.

I gave examples.

- Buildings on campuses are built with a blend of taxpayer, alumni donated, and school generated dollars. If an out of state student attends classes in said building, that student is benefiting from state taxpayer dollars.
- Sidewalks on campuses are built with a blend of taxpayer, alumni donated, and school generated dollars. If an out of state student walks on those sidewalks, that student is benefiting from state taxpayer dollars.
- Stadiums on campuses are built with a blend of taxpayer, alumni donated, and school generated dollars. If an out of state student attends a game in the stadium, that student is benefiting from state taxpayer dollars.
- Libraries on campuses are built with a blend of taxpayer, alumni donated, and school generated dollars. If an out of state student studies in that library, that student is benefiting from state taxpayer dollars.

Your proposal - trying to limit taxpayer dollars to being spent only on in-state students - is impossible to achieve. It cannot be done. Out of state students will always experience some benefit of the taxpayer-funded buildings, staff, events, etc provided at a university.

Now, do you have any other brilliant ideas?