Saban Wants A Lottery

[merkuree 0]

I hate the off season...

[mowegl 4]

I think you're right on ranger. Not having enough money isnt an excuse for not being able to make it into college. There are so many opportunities for scholarships not based on merit but on need. AWK point is that lower income kids are going to tend to make worse grades. Whereas higher income kids (which arent spending as much on the lottery) will make higher grades and get a much higher percentage of the scholarships. (Rich get richer..poor get poorer)

personally i've always been all for the lottery. if someone is against it, don't play. it's like when you see something on TV you don't like. if i go blow some money in Biloxi or a couple of scratch-offs on FL, that's my business. if i can't afford to do it, then i shouldn't do it. at some point you have to be an adult. look what the lottery has done for Florida's school system.

yeah its your business until the rest of us have to pay to take care of you.

[RunInRed 16,487]

If you want proof that an education lottery works all you have to do is look eEast. This whole tax on the poor crap is nothing more than evangical right wing grandstanding.

The only thing I want to make sure is that if we enacted a lottery it is setup right. The funds have to be earmarked for educaiton scholarships and additional funding (GA has done this well). However, some states use a lottery as a substitute way to fund education and then they redirect the monies that were once used for education to fund other government pork. This is wrong.

[AUChizad 0]

Yeah, because our lottery system is so great, obviously we're the ones doing it right while everyone else is backwards.

The idea that the rich get richer the poor get poorer because of a system similar to the Hope Scholarship is pure ignorance, plain and simple.

Take an average kid that makes a 3.4 GPA at Hoover High School. What do you think that kid makes at a poorer school like Sidney Linear? Can you honestly sit here and tell me his GPA would be lower because of the poorer school system? That's just incorrect, plain and simple. If anything the standards will be lower at a lower classed school system, so the whole sob story about the rich get richer while the poor get poorer is flat out, black and white wrong.

The alternative is the poor having to pay a MANDATORY TAX to benefit the educational system. THAT is taxing the poor. Under the Hope Scholarship system it is an optional choice. If you're one of these poor disenfranchised poor people you speak of, you can either A) spend $100 on a mandatory tax that has a 0% chance of benefitting you directly, B ) Spend $100 gambling on a dog race or in another state that benefits only the bookies/casino owners/other states' education system or C) Spend $100 on lotto tickets that could potentially win some money for you while simultaneously benefiting our paltry school system.

Under the CURRENT SYSTEM in Alabama a kid can go to college with a 2.5 GPA, but daddy had enough money to send him to college only to fail out immediately. Meanwhile the kid that busted his ass at Sidney Linear made a 4.0, but his parents could not financially support sending him to college. Guess what? The rich get goes to college (and gets richer) while the smarter poorer kid get's poorer (because he cannot further his education and subsequently works at McDonald's as a long term career). However, under the Hope Scholarship, the playing field is leveled and anyone with the drive to make a 3.5 GPA can go to college regardless of social status, while the dumbasses that get in on daddy's dime are SOL.

How exactly does that system leech of the rich to benefit the poor?

[AWK 0]

Yeah, because our lottery system is so great, obviously we're the ones doing it right while everyone else is backwards.

The idea that the rich get richer the poor get poorer because of a system similar to the Hope Scholarship is pure ignorance, plain and simple.

Take an average kid that makes a 3.4 GPA at Hoover High School. What do you think that kid makes at a poorer school like Sidney Linear? Can you honestly sit here and tell me his GPA would be lower because of the poorer school system? That's just incorrect, plain and simple. If anything the standards will be lower at a lower classed school system, so the whole sob story about the rich get richer while the poor get poorer is flat out, black and white wrong.

The alternative is the poor having to pay a MANDATORY TAX to benefit the educational system. THAT is taxing the poor. Under the Hope Scholarship system it is an optional choice. If you're one of these poor disenfranchised poor people you speak of, you can either A) spend $100 on a mandatory tax that has a 0% chance of benefitting you directly, B ) Spend $100 gambling on a dog race or in another state that benefits only the bookies/casino owners/other states' education system or C) Spend $100 on lotto tickets that could potentially win some money for you while simultaneously benefiting our paltry school system.

Under the CURRENT SYSTEM in Alabama a kid can go to college with a 2.5 GPA, but daddy had enough money to send him to college only to fail out immediately. Meanwhile the kid that busted his ass at Sidney Linear made a 4.0, but his parents could not financially support sending him to college. Guess what? The rich get goes to college (and gets richer) while the smarter poorer kid get's poorer (because he cannot further his education and subsequently works at McDonald's as a long term career). However, under the Hope Scholarship, the playing field is leveled and anyone with the drive to make a 3.5 GPA can go to college regardless of social status, while the dumbasses that get in on daddy's dime are SOL.

How exactly does that system leech of the rich to benefit the poor?

You are wrong.

Your system works on a fair system, which doesnt exist. So try to formulate a fair system where the rich get as much as the poor.

[AWK 0]

Where it doesn't exist, or much like life you fan ride this system. Social Security, bank on that wincrimson.

[quietfan 233]

1) I can't see how anything that is 100% voluntary can be called a "tax" on anyone. "Exploitation of the stupid or gullible" perhaps, but hey, large segments of our consumer-based economy are based on that principle already--just watch almost any ad on TV.

2) Since the money is all voluntary donations, who cares whether the rich have equal opportunity to use it? Those who don't like the way it's distributed don't have to donate.

3) I still don't see how Saban thinks this can have any effect on athletics--but he is Slick Nick, so maybe he's already figured out an "angle" on how to use it for such without getting caught.

[Ranger12 46]

If you want proof that an education lottery works all you have to do is look eEast. This whole tax on the poor crap is nothing more than evangical right wing grandstanding.

The only thing I want to make sure is that if we enacted a lottery it is setup right. The funds have to be earmarked for educaiton scholarships and additional funding (GA has done this well). However, some states use a lottery as a substitute way to fund education and then they redirect the monies that were once used for education to fund other government pork. This is wrong.

Evangelical grandstanding?

I know quite a few people that do not even go too church that are against the lottery. Their reasons were because they did not trust the state government to run a lottery the write way. The people of this state have seen so much political corruption from both parties, that is why the majority of them will not trust the state with handling all the money that comes in from a lottery.

As AWK pointed out, unfortunately the poorer kids tend to not make good enough grades to get into college, while richer kids that should be able to afford college on their own get the scholarships created from the lottery. But then again, like I said, for any poor kid that had the motivation to overcome the difficulties of a crappy education, there are already tons of ways in place for them to go to school without them paying anything out of pocket, thus a lottery is not needed.

So, in that case, when the pro-lottery crowd says it is needed for the poor to go to school, isn't that a baseless statement since that opportunity already exists for the poor?

Also, lets get real here for a second and quit kidding ourselves. When people are buying lottery tickets, they are not thinking about contributing to education. They are thinking about hitting the big one, no matter how astronomical the odds are. If that would be their main reason for buying lottery tickets, what is their real reason for voting "yes" on a lottery?

[runswithscissors 33]

personally i've always been all for the lottery. if someone is against it, don't play. it's like when you see something on TV you don't like. if i go blow some money in Biloxi or a couple of scratch-offs on FL, that's my business. if i can't afford to do it, then i shouldn't do it. at some point you have to be an adult. look what the lottery has done for Florida's school system.

yeah its your business until the rest of us have to pay to take care of you.

i guess wal-mart, target, and the majority of retailers should be shut down then, because they have tons of crap that people buy that they don't need and probably can't afford. but i guess we should make the decision for them, since its their business unless we have to pay to take care of them.

[runswithscissors 33]

If you want proof that an education lottery works all you have to do is look eEast. This whole tax on the poor crap is nothing more than evangical right wing grandstanding.

The only thing I want to make sure is that if we enacted a lottery it is setup right. The funds have to be earmarked for educaiton scholarships and additional funding (GA has done this well). However, some states use a lottery as a substitute way to fund education and then they redirect the monies that were once used for education to fund other government pork. This is wrong.

Evangelical grandstanding?

I know quite a few people that do not even go too church that are against the lottery. Their reasons were because they did not trust the state government to run a lottery the write way. The people of this state have seen so much political corruption from both parties, that is why the majority of them will not trust the state with handling all the money that comes in from a lottery.

As AWK pointed out, unfortunately the poorer kids tend to not make good enough grades to get into college, while richer kids that should be able to afford college on their own get the scholarships created from the lottery. But then again, like I said, for any poor kid that had the motivation to overcome the difficulties of a crappy education, there are already tons of ways in place for them to go to school without them paying anything out of pocket, thus a lottery is not needed.

So, in that case, when the pro-lottery crowd says it is needed for the poor to go to school, isn't that a baseless statement since that opportunity already exists for the poor?

Also, lets get real here for a second and quit kidding ourselves. When people are buying lottery tickets, they are not thinking about contributing to education. They are thinking about hitting the big one, no matter how astronomical the odds are. If that would be their main reason for buying lottery tickets, what is their real reason for voting "yes" on a lottery?

i think most people argue pro-lottery for the K-12 kids, since that seems to be who it mainly benefits. and you're right, no, people don't buy lottery tickets thinking about education. but look at alcohol and tobacco, it's taxed to death. that's because they know people buy lots of it, so its easy money. same thing with the lottery. lots of people will buy it, and its easy money to the education system.

[keoson7 28]

All the money from the proposed Lottery Sillyman um Siegelman pushed, was either for Pre-K or College. If it had included K-12 funding it "might" have passed.

[otterinbham 0]

I don't gamble. I don't enjoy it. I work too hard for my money. On my one trip to Las Vegas on business, I put $1 in a video poker machine and parleyed it to $16. Then I lost $15 of that, leaving with my original dollar.

That being said, what I find ironic here is that some of the very voices who usually squeal the most on these forums about keeping the government out of our personal lives turn around and oppose an entirely voluntary lottery.

This entire business about a lottery exploiting the poor is paternalistic crap. If you take that argument to its logical extension, then people should be required to show a W2 before they buy beer or cigarettes.

Poor people also spend far more time watching television every day than people with higher incomes. Should we restrict their television time, too? Limit their cable purchases? "Sorry, Ma'am. No HBO for you!"

Poor people also tend to buy more features on their mobile phone and home telephones. Maybe they should be means-tested for those purchases, too. Heck, while we're at it, why not restrict their ability to buy $150 sneakers? After all, Keds cost much less than Nikes.

And, please don't adopt the tired argument that the state will eventually have to care for these people because they gambled their way into poverty. This argument is insidious. Because if you start restricting what people can or can't do based on the possibility that the government will eventually have to care for them, then you open the door to a lot of other prohibitions, too.

After all, heart disease and cancer costs Medicare and Medicaid immense amounts of money every year. Yet the two diseases are, to a large degree, lifestyle-driven. So, using your argument, the government should be able to tell you what to eat and how much to exercise. After all, in Orwell's 1984, Winston Smith began every day with calisthenics. Who could possibly argue that was bad for him?

In short, you either stand for individual freedom or you don't. And if somebody wants to blow $5-$10 bucks a week on scratch-off cards, that's his business. Not yours. And not the state legislature.

[TitanTiger 20,510]

Poor people are the most desperate and vulnerable to schemes like this that have little chance of winning anything significant. They tend to be less educated plus tend to feel less hope of changing their lot in life. To prey on that just seems like it should be something that would weigh on your conscience, especially as so many of us conservatives bewail the lack of work ethic and industriousness that plagues these communities.

Study after study shows that the poor disproportionately fund these things. Yes it's voluntary but just because something can be made lawful doesn't automatically make it a beneficial thing to do, all things considered.

I don't like the idea, but if it were inevitable, I'd rather it fund local K-12 schools getting the necessary repairs, equipment, raising teacher pay and so on...starting with the schools in the poorest communities and working its way out rather than disproportionately giving college schollies to middle to upper class kids on the backs of the poor.

[runswithscissors 33]

I don't like the idea, but if it were inevitable, I'd rather it fund local K-12 schools getting the necessary repairs, equipment, raising teacher pay and so on...starting with the schools in the poorest communities and working its way out rather than disproportionately giving college schollies to middle to upper class kids on the backs of the poor.

bingo!

[WarTiger 3,917]

If you want proof that an education lottery works all you have to do is look eEast. This whole tax on the poor crap is nothing more than evangical right wing grandstanding.

The only thing I want to make sure is that if we enacted a lottery it is setup right. The funds have to be earmarked for educaiton scholarships and additional funding (GA has done this well). However, some states use a lottery as a substitute way to fund education and then they redirect the monies that were once used for education to fund other government pork. This is wrong.

Exactly right. If you want proof that an "education" lottery DOESN'T work, look south to Florida. The officials duped all the voters in the state into voting in favor of a lottery saying it would "supplement" the fund already set up for education. However, very quickly after getting the lottery passed, the government pulled all those funds for education that were there BEFORE the lottery, and put them somewhere else in the state, likely in to some politicians pocket. Florida is a HUGE example of how NOT to allow a lottery to be set up. Because of this, schools all over the state are suffering. Poor facilities, less qualified teachers, cause the good ones will go where they can get paid better for there work.

[AUChizad 0]

The fact is the lottery's still legal in every bordering states.

Dog racing's still legal in Alabama. What's stopping the poor from gambling there?

Poor people can still gamble online.

Poor people can still play their home poker games.

Poor people can still drive to Bilouxi or Philadelphia.

It's like the overbearing parent that tells their kid they will disown them if they listen to rock music or watch an R-rated movie.

All of your neighbors' have no problem with these things, so guess what? Your kid's going to go over there every day and watch porn and listen to GG Allin.

They're going to do it more simply because they're being told they can't.

Only in this situation, they're benefiting the neighbors financially while we suffer.

[ECEstudentUA 9]

I think a lottery in Alabama is a great idea. It will only help the university system in Alabama. The only drawback is that it will be much harder to get into UA, Auburn, or UAB. If Alabama started a Hope scholarship program, all of the state schools will get really over populated.

[TitanTiger 20,510]

The fact is the lottery's still legal in every bordering states.

Dog racing's still legal in Alabama. What's stopping the poor from gambling there?

The drive to a border state or to a dog track? The lottery would be ubiquitous...every gas station and grocery store in town will sell tickets.

Poor people can still gamble online.

Poor people usually don't have high speed internet connections and or computers. And even then, they usually don't have credit cards. This is really not a prevalent thing in the poor community.

Poor people can still play their home poker games.

Given that all their friends are poor and the winnings not that high, I don't think they're going to do this to any damaging extent.

Poor people can still drive to Bilouxi or Philadelphia.

See above regarding dog tracks and border states.

It's like the overbearing parent that tells their kid they will disown them if they listen to rock music or watch an R-rated movie.

All of your neighbors' have no problem with these things, so guess what? Your kid's going to go over there every day and watch porn and listen to GG Allin.

They're going to do it more simply because they're being told they can't.

Actually it's not like that. But even if I granted you your analogy, that still doesn't mean you become an enabler by just letting anything go based on what your neighbors do.

Only in this situation, they're benefiting the neighbors financially while we suffer.

Yeah, there are only bad consequences for not doing it. None for showing restraint. Riiiight.

[Ranger12 46]

I just don't understand why it is so hard for others to understand that it is the poor that buy most of the lottery tickets. If you are well off financially, why would you buy a lot of lottery tickets?

Like Titan said, the last proposed Alabama lottery did not benefit K-12, which was the biggest reason I did not vote for it. Also, I did not trust the guy who was proposing it and look where he is at now and for the reason he is there. Hmmm....

Otter, you are right, it is a voluntary lottery, which is why I voluntarily voted against it.

Take alcohol for instance, it is voluntary to consume, but when a wet/dry vote comes up in a city, those that do not partake of alcohol or have moral values that are against it...should they just sit back and not oppose it because they do not participate in drinking adult beverages? Heck no. They have a stake in that community also and just because they do not buy the product does not mean they should let it into the community. They are against it because they think that having it where they live can cause problems that will affect them. Same goes for the lottery in the state. I may not buy lottery tickets, but I do have fears on how it will affect the state I live in, such as it usually being one of the first steps into legalizing other forms of gambling throughout the state. I live right here close to the Tennessee River, and I really don't want to see it full of riverboat casinos.

[otterinbham 0]

Take alcohol for instance, it is voluntary to consume, but when a wet/dry vote comes up in a city, those that do not partake of alcohol or have moral values that are against it...should they just sit back and not oppose it because they do not participate in drinking adult beverages? Heck no.

Sorry. Your analogy simply does not hold. You could make a legitimate case against voting against alcohol sales in a county. After all, when a person drinks too much, the consequences can be immediate and deadly to himself and to others. Even though I don't believe in prohibition per se, alcohol can be regarded as an immediate menace to the safety of the community, and the citizenry has a right to limit access.

However, you simply cannot make that case about the lottery, even if the occasional poor person blows $100 a month on tickets. In fact, demographic studies show that, while participation among poor and blue collar households is somewhat higher, it is by no means a game that preys exclusively on the poor or the poorly-educated. To wit:

• In Texas, 57 percent of those spending $205 a year or more have at least some college education.

• In Pennsylvania, 39 percent of the "heavy" players have some college education.

• In Minnesota, more than half of regular players had some post-high school education, and 28 percent had college degrees.

• In Wisconsin, 41 percent reported at least some college education.

• In Oregon, 87 percent had at least a high school education, while 56 percent had at least some college education

• In Kansas, 92 percent are high school graduates; 48 percent have at least some college.

And the list goes on.

What's really at work here is that the anti-lottery bluenoses want state control of how people live their lives and spend their discretionary income, even when the heaviest of spenders constitutes no threat to the community at large–All because you disapprove of the activity. Well, let me put it this way. People are going to blow their money, no matter what. It might be $500 workout machines that collect dust in the garage, daily trips to Starbucksw, or a house that's entirely too large for their budget. Regardless of what a foolish person decides to spend his or her money on, it is simply not the business of the state, or you for that matter.

[TigerOne 1,152]

the real reason you guys want the lottery is because saban said he did.

go ahead and admit it, he is ruler of all the known universe!!

He is giddy with this power he has over the masses.

[TitanTiger 20,510]

However, you simply cannot make that case about the lottery, even if the occasional poor person blows $100 a month on tickets. In fact, demographic studies show that, while participation among poor and blue collar households is somewhat higher, it is by no means a game that preys exclusively on the poor or the poorly-educated. To wit:

• In Texas, 57 percent of those spending $205 a year or more have at least some college education.

To poor people, $15-20 a month is a lot of money. But besides that, the question isn't how many people spend $200, $500 or even $1000 a year. It's how much of the money the lottery brings in is coming from people who are poor, uneducated and desperate and how much is going out to the children of people who are anything but.

• In Pennsylvania, 39 percent of the "heavy" players have some college education.

Meaning, 61% of heavy players have no college education whatsoever. And that doesn't even get into how many of the 39% got more than a semester of college under their belts.

• In Minnesota, more than half of regular players had some post-high school education, and 28 percent had college degrees.

Again, it's about the money spent overall.

• In Wisconsin, 41 percent reported at least some college education.

And 59% have never darkened the door.

• In Oregon, 87 percent had at least a high school education, while 56 percent had at least some college education

A notable exception, though it still doesn't address actual money.

• In Kansas, 92 percent are high school graduates; 48 percent have at least some college.

Similar arguments agove.

And the list goes on.

Such as this study from North Carolina that shows that counties with high rates of poverty and high unemployment generate the highest amounts of lottery tickets sold.

http://carolinajournal.com/exclusives/disp...ve.html?id=3973

Or this one in Illinois:

Predominantly African American or Latino, low-income Chicago communities have generated the highest lottery sales in the state, shows an analysis of Illinois Lottery records since 1997 by The Chicago Reporter. In addition, residents in these communities spent a higher portion of their incomes on the lottery than people in more affluent areas. And despite the state’s recent economic downturn, lottery spending has increased, the Reporter found.

the South Side’s 60619 ZIP code area, lottery players spent more than $23 million on lottery tickets in fiscal year 2002, more than any other ZIP code in the state, according to lottery sales records. The 60619 area includes parts of the predominantly black neighborhoods of Chatham, Avalon Park, Burnside and Calumet Heights.

Brown was among those buying tickets in the 60628 ZIP code area, which lies directly south of 60619 and ranked second among all ZIP code areas with nearly $21 million in lottery ticket sales during the past fiscal year. It includes parts of the mostly-black Pullman, Riverdale, Roseland and West Pullman communities.

http://www.chicagoreporter.com/2002/10-200...tto1/lotto1.htm

In Lexington, Kentucky, 79 percent of the money spent on lottery tickets in 1997 was spent in zip codes where the residents’ per capita income was below the $20,274 county average.

I could go on as well.

What's really at work here is that the anti-lottery bluenoses want state control of how people live their lives and spend their discretionary income, even when the heaviest of spenders constitutes no threat to the community at large–All because you disapprove of the activity.

See, this is where you take a false leap of logic. I don't see anything intrinsically wrong with buying a lottery ticket, blowing a little money on the slots or your weekly poker game. Unfortunately however, the reality of how these things play out is exactly what we described it as: a massive transfer of money from those who can least afford it to those who can, including the enrichment of those who operate the lottery for the state. And it does hurt the community because it only adds another massive weight to the already heavy weight that keeps poor people poor and poverty is a drag on the community.

It's funny. We as conservatives chide liberals over the lack of a work ethic and willingness to do the hard work it takes for a poor person to get themselves out of the cycle of generational poverty and welfare dependency. Then we go and advocate for something that will only entice them to continue living in a dream world where one doesn't need to do the smart and necessary things to improve their lot. Then we top it off by profiting off of their stupidity and desperation by sending our middle and upper class kids to college with the money they provided.

Well, let me put it this way. People are going to blow their money, no matter what. It might be $500 workout machines that collect dust in the garage, daily trips to Starbucksw, or a house that's entirely too large for their budget. Regardless of what a foolish person decides to spend his or her money on, it is simply not the business of the state, or you for that matter.

I'm not a libertarian so this argument doesn't wash with me. I favor seat belt laws, I'm against legalized prostitution, don't believe we should legalize hard drugs and am against assisted suicide. Label me however you want but I don't make such decisions lightly or because I get off on controlling people. I take the long view of what's healthy for the society I live in and vote accordingly.

[AUslug 1]

I'm all for a lotto that helps K-12 schools in this state cause right now they aren't doing too hot as a whole. It just amazes me just thinking about the millions of dollars this state has lost over the years since the surrounding states have set up gambling. So what if poor people spend their money on lotto tickets, it is their money. How would you like it if people started telling you how to spend your money? Last time I checked Auburn plays a lot of games on tv so people don't have to spend money on tickets, food,gas and hotels when you can seem the games at home. Imagine if the lotto were to help K-12 schools in poor areas and kids make the grades to go to college and after a couple of generations the poor areas might improve. But that could never happen in this state, you have got the church telling people how they should live theirl lives even if it is people hundreds of miles away. I agree with some, I don't trust the states politicos to set it up right, too many will be looking at the lotto as a way to make their pockets fatter.

[SKCAUB 0]

The lottery is a bad idea, in terms of funnelling money into scholarships. College is not for everyone. Therefore, people who do not need/want to go to college will get a chance to waste taxpayers money so that universities can be an adult babysitter for a few years until they dropout. Also, all it is doing is taking from the poor and giving to the rich. The majority of people who gamble on a weekly basis are in the lower income bracket. I promise you their kids are not the ones who will be maintaining the B average to get a scholarship. Therefore, The majority of Mountain Brook High School will be able to go to school for free, while people in Tallassee who fund the lottery will be left out. Rich getting richer. If they want to do a lottery let the earnings fund tax, social security, and budget problems

PS> Don't believe me? Ask Southlink what the lottery has done to UGA over the past few years.

"Welllllllll. The world needs ditch diggers too."

Thanks, Ted. That hat looks good on you though.

[aumd03 2]

Intuitively, the rich get richer thing makes sense. First of all, the rich play a lottery called the stock market, which has much better returns than the state lottery. What do the poor play it for? To strike it rich? Do the rich play it? No because they are already rich, and they probably got that way because they had the brains to realize they weren't going to get rich playing the lottery. In case you think making stupid people rich is a good thing, maybe you don't follow the headlines. Last year, a west virginia winner shot someone in a local bar, and a Kentucky winner's entire family managed to die in the course of a year due to drug overdoses.

As for other states, their educations system was better than ours before the lottery came into play.

Don't think the Hope scholarship is as rosy as it may appear. It's a socialist thing, so it must by definition, have quotas. If you come from an affluent area and want to go to UGA tough luck, cause only so many people from your area can go to UGA. Auburn has reaped the benefit because many good students from the better Atlanta suburbs come to Auburn because they can't get into UGA not because they don't have the grades, but because of the quota system. However, some B- student from Warner Robbins gets to go so he can flunk out in a year. UGA was having issues with SACS when the Hope scholarships began because such a large percentage of the freshman class never made it to their sophmore years. I never followed to see what happened. I'm with Awk, that an investment in a year of college for a kid thats gonna blow it off, is stupid. If they had a contract where you paid back the money if you were to flunk out, I would be more ok with it.

As for the Tennessee lottery, I live very close to the state line. A convienence store on the state line quit selling lottery tickets a short time ago. The reason? The owner said other customers were going across to Alabama because they didn't want to deal with all the people that hung out in the parking lot asking for spare change and trying to bum enough money to get a dollar and buy the next lottery ticket.

Oh, what the hell, lets just do it. We already fund everything else on the backs of those that can least afford it through sin taxes on alcohol and cigarettes. I know the same people I hear of taking bus rides to Biloxi are the same people that complain that Medicare part D doesn't pay for enough of their drugs and how difficult it is to get by on a fixed income. You are right, its not the poor that fund it. They don't have enough money to send all these kids to college. It ultimately comes out of the pockets of the rich. But I would rather pay for my own kids to go to college, than all the kids in the state, plus pay for all those that spent what money they did have to support themselves,