WeAreTheKey

I cannot really express my frustration at this. It is immense. For all the talk and all the showy acts that Obama did in his first days of office, the promise of more "transparent" government, the closing of secret prisons, the shutting of Guantanamo etc.... they appear to have just been superficial nods towards the 'change' folks while leaving the bulk, the real meat of anti-terror philosophy fully intact, and possibly even expanded.
Alex Jones has a film coming out March 15th called The Obama Deception, and at this point it is looking less and less promising that the machinery of US govt will actually change for the better and start to make the world a better place than it has been for the last 8 years....


WASHINGTON - Even as it pulls back from harsh interrogations and other sharply debated aspects of George W. Bush ’s “war on terrorism,” the Obama administration is quietly signaling continued support for other major elements of its predecessor’s approach to fighting Al Qaeda .

In little-noticed confirmation testimony recently, Obama nominees endorsed continuing the C.I.A. ’s program of transferring prisoners to other countries without legal rights, and indefinitely detaining terrorism suspects without trials even if they were arrested far from a war zone.

The administration has also embraced the Bush legal team’s arguments that a lawsuit by former C.I.A. detainees should be shut down based on the “state secrets” doctrine. It has also left the door open to resuming military commission trials.

And earlier this month, after a British court cited pressure by the United States in declining to release information about the alleged torture of a detainee in American custody, the Obama administration issued a statement thanking the British government “for its continued commitment to protect sensitive national security information.”

These and other signs suggest that the administration’s changes may turn out to be less sweeping than many had hoped or feared — prompting growing worry among civil liberties groups and a sense of vindication among supporters of Bush-era policies.

In an interview, the White House counsel, Gregory B. Craig , asserted that the administration was not embracing Mr. Bush’s approach to the world. But Mr. Craig also said President Obama intended to avoid any “shoot from the hip” and “bumper sticker slogans” approaches to deciding what to do with the counterterrorism policies he inherited.

(Get a load of this typical political jibberish bull#$!@ of an "explanation" that as usual, says nothing)

“We are charting a new way forward, taking into account both the security of the American people and the need to obey the rule of law,” Mr. Craig said. “That is a message we would give to the civil liberties people as well as to the Bush people.”

A.k.a.: nothings changing, lower your expectations immediately.
If Obama contines to screw with hopes for a more positive world, he'd better be prepared for some fisticuffs!

Super wonderful!
Despite Obama's repeated, forceful statements about the Bush Administration, it's secrecy, its violations of law, its unethical practices in just about everything it did.... well, when it comes to the "lost" e-mails from Bush's Administration that could very well bring forth into the light just what was actually going on during the last 8 years.....Obama quietly wants those questions to go away. wtF, Obama?!



Obama administration backs Bush, tries to kill ‘lost’ White House emails lawsuit

RAW STORY
Monday, Feb 23, 2009

Missing email includes day Cheney’s office told to preserve emails in CIA leak case
WASHINGTON — Welcome to change.

The Obama administration, siding with former President George W. Bush, is trying to kill a lawsuit that seeks to recover what could be millions of missing White House e-mails in a stunning reversal of Obama’s rhetoric about Bush secrecy on the campaign trail.

Two advocacy groups suing the Executive Office of the President, including one of the groups that helped derail former House Speaker Tom DeLay, say that large amounts of White House e-mail documenting Bush’s eight years in office may still be missing, and that the government must undertake an extensive recovery effort. They expressed disappointment that Obama’s Justice Department is continuing the Bush administration’s bid to get the lawsuits dismissed.

During its first term, the Bush White House failed to install electronic record-keeping for e-mail when it switched to a new system, allegedly resulting in millions of messages that could not be found.

The Bush White House “discovered the problem” in 2005 and rejected a proposed solution.

The exact number of missing e-mails is unknown, but several days on which e-mails were not archived covered key dates in a Justice Department inquiry into the roles of Vice President Dick Cheney and his aides in leaking the identity of covert CIA agent Valerie Plame Wilson.

Ironically, Cheney’s office is missing emails from the very day President Bush told reporters he’d “take care of” whatever staff member had actually leaked the CIA agent’s name.

“If there is a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is,” Bush said Sept. 30, 2003. “And if the person has violated the law, the person will be taken care of.”

No e-mails were archived on the very day the probe was announced and White House officials were ordered to maintain anything that could become evidence in the investigation that ended the conviction of I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, Cheney’s former chief of staff, on perjury and obstruction of justice charges.

Emails are missing from at least some of 473 days of Bush’s presidency.

It makes you wonder if, once someone is elected President, the "super elite" take them into some back room of the White House and "explain" to them how "things really work". Obama, in his first year, is going to end up shedding off all the reasons and people that got him elected. Sad Sad Sad.

Gee it sure does seem that way, doesn't it? In like, say....almost everything the gov't has done over the last....I dunno......
50 years?


No, but seriously....
You hit the nail on the head.

<ummm>

anyways in response to this fiasco.. what i was originally going to say was:


wow.

So much for the "hope" and "change" that the PEOPLE voted for. Its kinda feeling like the same format of how they rallied people around for fighing the war(s) and patriotism.. just toss the words at the people and as long as you act like the face is the one calling the shots... you can do anything under the noses of the people. Granted i realize this is cynical and we are only so far into the presidency.. but all this bs.. makes me feel as though we are duped by the Shadow-arcy again..
(
though as time goes on i wonder how much it really is a shadow.. it is more transparent than ever.. the stringmaster.. now that is in the shadows..)

OKAY, so I dont know what is going on but in that "<umm>" statement there was a whole paragraph that apparently has been deleted, in the process of my post being posted.. and there keeps being a redirection whenever i was attempting to post this response from our forum to a social networking site for blacks.. which happend when i started writing hope and change on my last post.. i dont know if it is a glitch or an inteneded new ad strategy on behalf of the hositing site.. am I the only one experiencing this?

Last week, I did get bootted to another site once, but it was while typing, and not when I was actually trying to submit the post. And it kicked me to Match.com or something.

But I would say that the ads that show up here are definitely geared toward the recent content in the threads. Right now the ad at the top of the page reads: Do you regret voting for Obama? Sodahead.com Discuss it

There is no way that is a coincidence. Shady stuff.

They run algorithm-based software which scans websites for keywords, phrases and names, then routes the 'appropriate' advertisements to the site. It's happeneing all over the web, and is glaringly apparent, here, and on sites like Myspace/Facebook.

Anyway - In Obama's Adress To Congress the other night (State of the Union), he laid the groundwork for his upcoming budget proposal, which will apparently include......wait for it.........
Another $750 BILLION For The Banks!!!

That's right.....ANOTHER $750 Billion. Even though the FIRST $750 Billion disappeared into a black void of nothingness and did ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to help fix our economy. It got siphoned off into mystery accounts of already rich people to do god-knows-what with. And it helped no one.
But hey - what's another $750 Billion in this day and age? Just fire up the printing presses! Or rather, make a few keystrokes in the right computer -POOF!- there's the money right there!

AND....
In typical PrisonPlanet style, here's a rather cynical but apparently realistic assessment of Obama's continuing war efforts and how the 'change' when it comes to war/defense was actually just a hoax...

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Thursday, February 26, 2009

Barack Obama’s election promise to bring “change” to Washington and reverse the juggernaut of the Bush war machine has proven to be nothing more than a cruel hoax, emphasized by his recent actions on Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq and his latest demand for a total of around $800 billion in war funds and subsidiary costs just to cover the rest of 2009.

“According to the US defense officials, Obama needs USD 75.5 billion for 2009 to cover the cost of the additional troops deployed in to Afghanistan this year and an another USD 130 billion for the rest of fiscal 2009,” reports Press TV.

An additional $534 billion is required for the Defense Department, added to another figure of $65.9 billion that has already been approved by Congress, bringing the total figure to over $805 billion dollars.

The demand to refill the war coffers arrives in the same month as Obama’s announcement to send at least 17,000, and eventually perhaps as many as 30,000, extra troops to Afghanistan - over seven years after the U.S. invaded in 2001.

Obama has also recently beefed the U.S. military role in Pakistan beyond that pursued by the Bush administration and “expanded the covert war run by the Central Intelligence Agency inside Pakistan,” according to the New York TImes, with an increase in missile attacks by drone aircraft.

All this within just one month of Obama’s inauguration on the back of an election campaign won on the basis of changing the warmongering policies of the Bush administration!

Meanwhile, despite public pronouncements by Obama that a plan to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq is in progress, the details of the agreement actually establish a permanent presence of a sizable occupying force in perpetuity.

Despite his pre-election promises it’s interesting to note that the new WhiteHouse.gov website, in the “foreign policy” section, contains nothing whatsoever about Obama’s plans for Iraq. That’s probably because he will simply be following the exact same course undertaken by the Bush administration in publicly stating an intention for withdrawal while privately ensuring that tens of thousands of U.S. troops will remain in Iraq in perpetuity for the reason they were sent there in the first place - to safeguard a U.S. geopolitical foothold in the middle east and maintain control over whatever puppet government is installed.

As Chris Floyd points out in his article today, “The hypocrisy – the literally murderous hypocrisy – of claiming that this plan “leaves Iraq to its people and responsibly ends this war,” as Obama asserted in his State of the Union speech, is sickening. It does no such thing, and he knows it.”

In reality, after the “withdrawal” of U.S. troops in 19 months, “Mr. Obama plans to leave behind a “residual force” of tens of thousands of troops to continue training Iraqi security forces, hunt down foreign terrorist cells and guard American institutions,” reported the New York Times.

A senior military officer spelled it out more plainly to the Los Angeles TImes, “‘When President Obama said we were going to get out within 16 months, some people heard, ‘get out,’ and everyone’s gone. But that is not going to happen,’ the officer said.”

“By implementing his war continuation plan, Obama will complete the work of Bush and his militarist clique,” writes Floyd, and in doing so send, “an apparently endless stream of American troops to die — and, in even greater numbers, to kill — in a criminal action that has helped bankrupt our own country while sending waves of violent instability and extremism around the world. It will further enfilth a cesspool of corruption and war profiteering that has already reached staggering, world-historical proportions.”

The ultimate course for Iraq is something closer to what Obama’s presidential rival John McCain conceded - that U.S. troops will remain in the country for 100 years and probably beyond, long after Barack Obama leaves the White House and long after his empty mantra of “change” washes away like a footprint in the sand.




So what time does the revolution start? I'll meet you there.

Seriously the fact that all that cash is going to BACK into the fucking BLACK HOLE that started all of this mess in the first place fills me with the deepest set of frustrated rage. The fact that things are going to "change" but not for the better, like as if we rubbed the lamp but didnt ask specifically enough, so this bull shit is what we get.


I hope people are furious, and not lulled into deperate hope or blinded apathy.. I hope this is the final straw and we stop having to look to the big daddy government to live our lives and actually just shed the bondage illusion of cash and just try and LIVE.. I know I know i am too idealistic, that living with out the structure and grind of daily american life.. well things would go to shit.. right? Well if so whatever, it is supposedly going to shit as it is now, so whats the harm in throwing away the flawed blueprints and starting over, no more millitary bases, and stations on other countries, no more world dominating blanket of control, no more bullshit stockmarket,finance exstravaganza of panic and fluctuation, no more bailouts.. fuck it.. I am done..

I wish it could be as simple as saying I am done.. but the great thing is this system is set up to not allow one to resign from it... you have to play by the rules, you cannot escape it.. that my friends, isnt freedom.. its bondage.. and YES i know I am ranting, but frankly i had alot riding on the back of this horse, and its looking like it has broke its leg just out side of the cage... I feel serious dissapointment.. and it is only february.. we still have a HUGE amount of time ahead of us, and i cant help but feel that the deck was stacked....


sorry for the nonsensica frustration.. I am feeling a little tense today.

For those of us that truly wanted change, Obama was always just a faint hope and who we had to settle for as second best choice. The man we really wanted was successfully portrayed as a looney by the media and lost out in the Republican primaries. Obama, at least to me, was who I had to settle for and the hopes were not high. The man has always been extremely "liberal" or "progressive", or whatever lame term you want to apply to the fact that he is pro-government control. He wants the people to rely on the government. The age of entitlements, which has been on the way for some time, is being ushered to the forefront.

I'm a bit confused by the term 'entitlements'. With all that's going on right now, the huge changes that are taking place with the monumental shift of money towards the banks and gov't.... which no one, liberals included, wanted.... What does it have to do with 'entitlement'?
Obama has been very disappointing so far, but I can't agree that he "wants us to rely on government". He has been highly promoting individual determination, public service etc.... and not really relying on government, as though we (someone?) are 'entitled' to something....
I don't know, maybe I'm misunderstanding the phrase as you use it, but with the economy in the $#itter, the world in a deep level of destabilization, and uncertainty rampant everywhere, who is talking anything about entitlement??

Do you mean like Welfare or something?!

Anyway, I would have been happy with Ron Paul, who as you say, was mocked into oblivion, and also Dennis Kucinich, who was a good candidate and was mocked into oblivion. Funny how NOW Mr. Paul is a guest on shows now that he won't be president.... and treated with respect, but he never was before while they made him out to be a wacky, kooky moron.

Okay, let me tell you my view of our brewing "entitlement" culture:

1. If you run a failing financial business, the government now has trillions of dollars earmarked for you = Entitlement

2. If you lose your job, don't worry, the government is spending billions of dollars to "create" a job for you = Entitlement

3. And if you are a "minority", you get first dibs = Entitlement

4. If you don't make much money and jumped into an ARM mortgage that you can't possibly afford (aka YOU'RE AN IDIOT), the government just earmarked 250 billion for you = Entitlement

5. You can't afford college, don't worry, the government will give you money (especially minorities) = Entitlement

6. 25, no job and you live in your mother's basement? Don't worry, the government and the people who do work will pay for your health coverage = Entitlement


Now, I do like some of the things that Obama is trying to do, but he is spending SO much money on cash-entitlement programs that it makes my head spin.

I see...
I get where you're coming from there. I think some of it may be more like this though, (at least from their perspective)

As far as the failed financial institutions, they (supposedly) doing it because withouth them, the whole financial system would fail, therefore it's a desperate act of necessity, not entitlement.

All of the people with lost jobs at no fault of their own are a severe drag on the economy, sucking up unemployment instead of contributing taxes etc.... it is in the nation's interest to get these people working again, a matter of necessity, not entitlement.

Minorities getting dibs is due to the very true and real prevalence of racism in the minds of many many individuals. Without giving them dibs in certain circumstances, they would be ignored and overlooked by a lot of people who are frankly, racist @$$holes.

The fools who got in over their heads all collectively brought the housing market to a crashing halt, and so it's not the individuals being bailed out for their sake individually, but so that the housing sector will have some life breathed back into it as a whole, so that home values might begin to rise once again, people can again gain equity, and not be forced out of their homes and into unemployment or public housing...which would inevitably cost us MORE.

With the economy destroyed, paying for college is harder than ever, and the gov't has always offered grants etc. for college anyway, they're just going to increase their assistance so that families can continue to send their kids to school. Besides, the incresed college assistance comes with the caveat of 2 years of public service, either community service, joining the peace corps etc.... so you have to work for it, aka - not an entitlement.

Whether or not an individual has a job and pays taxes, Health Care is a right that no one should be denied. It is common human decency to take care of our fellow citizens who are unable to take care of themselves for whatever reason. Even if I knew a lazy slob living in a basement and he came down with terminal liver cancer, I would hope that the society as a whole would be willing to pay for surgery collectively, and not leave him to die just because he's a dumbass. Unfortunately....it costs $$$.

So - a bit of Devil's Advocate, I know... I'm an ass like that. Some of it I believe, some not so much (bailing the bankers).... but either way, I guess I don't see an overarching 'entitlement' situation, but HEY - I could be wrong. I don't know... just throwin it back your way.

Oh, I like devil's advocate. I do it all the time. Taking opposing viewpoints is what makes us think and challenge our positions. It's all good and fun.

The healthcare issue I'm not really opposed to, even though it seemed like it due to the "mother's basement" comment. I had fun with that because that is always the anti-universal HC argument. Sometimes it's a druggie rather than just a general basement dweller.

And with increased government college aid I'm sort of in the middle. It depends on how far they go with it. I have no problem with the gov't helping out intelligent, motivated people that want to learn and succeed, but happen to come from a low income family. But, not every dumba$$ should go to college. State schools are already filled with too many airheads that have no true higher level thinking. Chemeketa, and even the lower level classes at WOU, are filled with people that can't put a coherent sentence together (verbal or written) to save their lives. And we want more of them in college? Some people need to build the buildings, plumb the pipes, wire the electricity, and stock the warehouses. If the gov't wants to set up some programs to help with their vocational or apprentice training, then great! No need to spend government funds to send them to college.

Failing financial institutions......let 'em fail. New institutions would pop right back up to take their place. I don't buy the President's assertions of "necessity". I think our government needs to look "necessity" up in the dictionary. Corporations making money on faulty mortgage loans is NOT a necessity.

Job creation to improve the country's infrastructure.....Okay, I'll give him that one

Moving up in the employment line due only to your race = RACISM
This is one of my biggest pet peaves. I vehemently detest Affirmative Action initiatives. It is government sanctioned racism (to fight...racism). Of course there are racist employers out there, both black, white, and other. But you don't counter it with racist legislation. The most qualified person that applies for a job should get it, PERIOD. Race should not be a factor in any way. Guaranteeing "X" number of "minorities" at your place of business does NOTHING to fight prejudices and bigotry, but only exacerbates the problem, by guaranteeing that race is a factor in employment. So, Obama adding in minority employment quotas into his "stimulus" package is an equal rights travesty, IMO. Minority groups really should be outraged by Affirmative Action (and some are), but many aren't simply because they like their job ENTITLEMENT.

If someone signs a contract, then they should honor it. Unless these idiots that took out outrageous mortgages can prove that they were "duped" in some way by their lenders, then they should be on the hook for the agreement that they signed. Now, if their lender is willing to refinance their mortgage, like many are, then great! But the government should NOT be giving these people money. My wife and I have paid for every loan and credit that we have every taken out. We've bought things that we wanted, which we couldn't otherwise have afforded, and the lender's have made some money. And we understand the consequences of possibly losing our house if one or both of us lose our jobs. There is always somewhat of a risk. But we have been 100% responsible thus far. I know some of the people foreclosing have also been responsible, and have just hit some hard times, but the people that are truly the cause of this crap are irresponsible morons, and they should not receive a frickin' dime of taxpayer money. Those irresponsible people, and the irresponsible government that is "entitling" (?) them, can kiss my arse.

Freedom from financial failures, guaranteed college education, and idiot protection are NOT guaranteed human rights granted in the Constitution's Bill of Rights. I'm getting tired of the government's "greater good" legislation, which is all just about spending money that we don't have and giving to people that don't deserve it.

Alright, it looks like we mostly agree
Although the college issue, I must say that I don't see the fact that there are morons in college as meaning that there shouldn't be morons in college. If they are unmotivated, unintelligent, or can't put a sentence together, then they will not succeed, they'll fail out of college and not graduate, and they'll end up with one of the professions you mentioned (plumber, janitor etc).
But should they not be even given theopportunity to get a 'higher education'? Many people are irresponsible or 'idiotic' in their High School years, and don't mature until the college era. I think they should be given the chance to prove themselves and rise to their potential. They wouldn't haveto go. But if they desire to.....why should anyone tell them 'no'?
If they fail it's their own fault, but since college is largely seen as 'necessary' to get a good job, which can pave the way for a secure and stable life for decades to come, why should they be denied it because of stupididty in High School, when people are notoriously stupid and irresponsible?!
I say, give everyone a chance, if we're gonna call a degree "necessary" for a good life, then everyone ought to have the right to attempt one, then let their fate be theirs to claim; success or failure.

I completely agree with your view on irresponsible home owners getting 'bailed out' of their own idiocy. BUT, like I said before, the gov't isn't doing it out of pity, or to give 'em another shot at success, but because the problem is so widespread, that it's dragging everything else down with it, and so causing much worse problems. So it's like "You're an idiot. We're going to help you. Not because we WANT to but because we HAVE to, otherwise all you fools are going to keep the housing market bogged down for god knows how long, and we can't afford this mess to drag on and on." It's not fair to responsible people, but there's been a lot of crap hung on the hook of 'necessity' lately....ugghh it is disgusting, I know.

I agree that everyone who wants to go to college should have the opportunity. The thing is.........they already do! Anybody can go to college. Community colleges accept anybody and everybody that registers. NOBODY is turned away. Then, if you complete a two-year AA transfer degree, you will be accepted into any in-state 4-year university.

And there is already tons of student loans, grants, and scholarships for people that want to go. My wife and I worked part-time and took out student loans while living in a decent two bedroom apartment during our last two years of college. My Dad worked full-time with two kids and child-support payments in a tiny apartment while in school. ANYBODY in this country can already go to college if they really want to!!! The government, during a deep recession, doesn't need to be throwing money at something that doesn't need it.

And I disagree with the idea that college degrees are "necessary" for good employment or good pay. There are tons of very good, well paying blue-collar jobs that pay much better than many "degree" careers. Go learn to operate heavy machinery. Those people make bank.

I understand the government's "they're dragging us all down" argument, but I don't buy it. I tend to agree with Ron Paul's assessment that we can't try and prop up false housing prices. It just makes the problem worse and longer lasting. IMO, the market needs to essentially reset itself to "natural" market pricing.

"Then, if you complete a two-year AA transfer degree, you will be accepted into any in-state 4-year university."

That may be so, but those 4-year universities cost a crapload of money, which is precisely what people don't have right now, especially since getting a degree doesn't even guarantee a good-paying job, which is needed to eventually pay BACK those huge "necessary" loans... And if you want to go to an even better school, it'll cost waaaay more.
I agree that most everyone can get into college, and I was suggesting that everyone ought to be able to, regardless of their seeming idiocy or lack of apparent motivation.
I also agree that college is not in fact, "necessary". It's just that a large slice of the populace seems to think so. It's the "standard" for successful life in the eyes of most people.
My main beef is with the costs associated with college. They may not be 'free', but why in god's name are so many colleges like $20,000 a year?! Or MORE?! Multiply that by every single student, and these colleges have to be making millions and millions of dollars every year. There's no way the costs associated with professor salaries and supplies etc., are THAT much. It just reeks of profiteering at the expense of public good. Just like our insidious health-care system.
By making the costs actually reasonable, that alone would make them more accessible by more people, then we wouldn't need the gov't to step in with cash from the printing presses.

As far as the housing, I also agree, I could care less about house prices falling. So be it. Just like the banks; let them fail, who freaking cares. We've survived for thousands of years just fine.... we'll survive their failure for sure.

Just came across this article, which highlights the exact situation we're facing. Remember, this isn't just about "society in general" when it comes to college's availablitity and accessability, but rather the situation we're facing right now economically, which is why these college funds are so desperately needed. Even if they come from Big Bro Government.


MSN
When Deneece Huftalin looks out from her office, she sees signs that would be encouraging in normal economic times.

“There’s more parked cars in the parking lot,” said Huftalin, the vice president for student services at Salt Lake Community College in Salt Lake City, Utah. “There’s more lines in our advising office.”

The school’s enrollment hit 23,252 this term, up by 12.5 percent in just a year, mirroring gains at every other institution in the Utah community college system. But the boom isn’t necessarily good news, officials said: The state’s community colleges, like similar institutions across the country, have been swamped with more applications than they know what to do with.

Almost 1,200 community colleges serve more than 10 million students across the country, according to the American Association of Community Colleges, and they are at the uneasy intersection of two trend lines as the economic recession enters its 15th month.

Tough times are fueling eagerness among workers who have lost their jobs to upgrade their skills and résumés. At the same time, the recession is forcing traditional four-year colleges and universities to cut enrollments and sharply raise tuition, freezing out many would-be students who are themselves feeling the pinch of the recession.

That has the less-expensive community colleges struggling to absorb the load at a time when their own budgets are being hacked.

The economy “definitely hurts,” Huftalin said. Students are “feeling the pain in terms of the budget cuts and increased enrollments.”

‘A lot of people ... have been shut out’
The situation is similarly difficult for many other community colleges across the country: Demand for their classes is at a record high, rising by an average of 10 percent over the past year, the community college association said, but the funding isn’t there to meet it.

Community colleges are supposed to be open access — accepting all comers — but the association said that tens of thousands of students have been turned away and that hundreds of thousands more will likely shut out in the future.

There you have it.

Yeah, it's definitely tough times. I guess even Community Colleges only have so much space to stuff students into before they have to draw a line. However, the government's answer of throwing money at people is the incorrect answer, IMO. I agree with your assessment that college tuition is too high, so the correct answer should be to pass laws that lower tuitions for State 4-year colleges. Private schools are, well, private institutions, so they can charge whatever the hell they want, but the government sets the tuition prices for the State schools (U of O, OSU, WOU, SOU, EOU, etc), so there is your answer for the vast majority of college students.