Obama Proposes 2 Years of Free Community College

[rdean]

The latter.

So, he's robbing some Americans at gun point, to buy the votes of other Americans?

Actually, when Republicans gave the student loan program to banks, the banks were getting 6 billion a year in free money selling risk free loans. You ask, "Why are they risk free"? Because the government would guarantee payment of any defaults. Banks shared no risk.

So take that 6 billion a year and instead of giving it to the banks, use it to make Jr. College free. How is that not a great idea?

 

[Flopper]

A 2.5 in a community college is on the same level as having someone spell their name correctly.

You can get a 2.5 GPA just by breathing in your classes.

So, what about all those who finished college and paid for it on their own? Yeah, let's punish those who did what they needed to do to eek out a meager existence in the middle class by making their degree worthless so Jamal can go to school for African studies or some tranny go to school for gender studies. Let's just extend high school by two years so the lefties have little longer to indoctrinate people. Oh, and let's reward pieces of shit who didn't go to school to make themselves valuable employees by just giving them already near-worthless degrees.

That doesn't make sense. Just because in the past young people had to suffer because of a mountain of college loan debt or give up college is no reason we should continue doing the same thing. There may be good reasons not to implement this proposal but that's not one of them.

Because someone else's parent is doing for their kid what my wife and I have saved to do for ours doesn't mean we should pay more taxes on behalf of that other person's kid.

Yours is an argument I've heard a thousand times. Why should I pay taxes to educate someone else kid and the answer is always the same. Everyone benefits by a better educated population. America is better able to compete with other countries if we have a better trained workforce. Better education means better jobs, less reliance on government, less crime, and more knowledgeable voters.

I believe better educated people help, too. I'm willing to do it for mine and ask other parents to do no more than I do. My parents are in their 70s and damn sure aren't the ones to be paying for this.

More knowledgable voter? I know what that means with this pandering.

A hundred years ago, only 1 in 5 teenagers were in high school. This was at the beginning of the high school movement where thousands of high schools were built and hundreds of thousands of teachers were hired. A battle raged in communities across the country. The complaints were the same as yours today. Why should I pay to educate someone else's kid? We can't afford it. A hundred years later, it was obviously the country made the right decision.

We pay wages today 5 and 10 times what developing nations like China pay. If we want to maintain that wage differential, if want to see jobs coming back to the US, then we have got to make ourselves more competitive and that begins with better educated workers with better jobs skill. Establishing 2 years of college as the minimum educational standard in the US is the right thing to do.

 

[Conservative65]

When it comes to paying for college, it is about ME and MY children. I'M the one that has saved the money for MY children. That money should go to MY children not someone else's child.

You seem to forget that I'm not asking any of them to do anything other than what I'm willing to do myself. Those expecting the the government to do this for their kids aren't thinking about anyone but themselves unless you're willing to tell me they give a damn where the money comes from as long as they get it.

You just confirmed our point. "I got mine, fuck the resta yez".

The point I've confirmed is that I while I got mine, I don't expect anything more of others than I do myself. When I'm meeting my responsibility as a parent and I see others demanding I meet it for their kids because they won't, you have part of it right. It isn't I got mine, it's fuck the rest of you that want me to do for you what you won't do for your own kids.

You have a problem with me wanting to use MY money for MY kids yet you don't have one demanding I be forced to do what another parent isn't for their own kids. I don't owe them a college education.

You're still stuck in the same blind spot.
Such an idea is not for the benefit of "your" kids, "my" kids, "his", "her" or "their" kids. It's for the benefit of the greater whole, the country, the culture, the society, choose your term. Just as the fire department isn't there to protect "your" property or "mine". You keep trying to personalize the Commons into the Personal Possession as if it's some kind of trinket that must be "owned" by one entity or another, that's your blind spot.

This just in: not everything in life is material, and not everything is quantifiable as "X amount of money".

This proposal isn't for the benefit of my kids. My kids will be going to a real college not the 13th and 14th grade like community college.

Your blind spot is that you have already determined that it will benefit the greater whole without one damn bit of proof to back it up.

Yuh huh.
Then why do we publicly fund 1-12?

Matter o' fact why do we require education at all if there's no benefit to the Commons?

For that matter why does the concept of education even exist? To benefit Numero Uno if Numero Uno can afford it?

See what I mean? You still don't get it.

Let me explain it to you using the Constitution. The 10th Amendment states that all powers not delegated to the federal government nor prohibited to the States, are reserved to the States. Delegated means expressed or in simple terms, written. Prohibited means you can't do it. Reserved means that the body granted that type of power can, but it not required to, make laws related to it. Reserved does not mean that if the body given that type of power chooses not to do anything related to the federal government, by default, gets it.

Knowing that, let's answer your question of why do we publicly fund 1 - 12? There is no simple answer. ALL you need to realize and acknowledge is that the authority to pass any laws related to education belongs to the States not the federal government regardless of level of education. There is absolutely no express, delegated, or written authority for the federal government to do anything related to education. Therefore, according to the Constitution, the authority, under RESERVED powers, falls to the States as to whether or not they choose to do it. All 50 have chosen to do it with nothing in one State having to do with anything in another State unless the STATES agree between themselves. For example, my State of SC has certain requirements in order to be a certified teacher. The requirements of GA, our next door neighbor, aren't exactly the same although many similarities exist. I had a friend that moved from SC to GA to teach and she was informed that GA would accept her teaching certificate from SC with one requirement she had to meet. She has to take a special education class because GA, under the reserved powers to regulate what the federal government has no authority to regulate, thinks its teachers should have that class.

Back to your question. Since the authority to regulate education falls to the States through RESERVED powers, there's that word again, if a State chooses to fund its educational system with taxes provided by those within the State, they have that authority unless in doing it, the laws created to do it violate the U.S. Constitution. Since State's have the concurrent power to tax related to things intrastate, it doesn't violate the Constitution. That's why we fund things through the 12th grade.

Many supporters of this use California as an example of a State that funded college then blame Reagan for doing away with it. If only those within California funded college through their taxes, California, under RESERVED powers, can do that as level of education is irrelevant. However, what California can't do is place taxes on others States to fund it as that is against the Constitution. I don't agree with that but I don't live in California.

There are federal guidelines such as those under No Child Left Behind that many States adopted. Do you think those States had to adopt those guideline because the federal government established them?

The same concept can be applied to healthcare. Many Obamacare supporters say Romney put something similar in place in Massachusetts so why don't Republicans support it nationwide. Same explanation. Healthcare isn't a delegated power, therefore, if a State chooses to do something like was done in Massachusetts and it involves only that State, they have that power. What they can't do is tax other States to fund it.

Got it?

 

[Conservative65]

The latter.

So, he's robbing some Americans at gun point, to buy the votes of other Americans?

Actually, when Republicans gave the student loan program to banks, the banks were getting 6 billion a year in free money selling risk free loans. You ask, "Why are they risk free"? Because the government would guarantee payment of any defaults. Banks shared no risk.

So take that 6 billion a year and instead of giving it to the banks, use it to make Jr. College free. How is that not a great idea?

How many times do you dumbasses have to be told it's not free? It's not a good idea because MY money has no place being forced to fund college for someone else's kid.

What about those of us that have kids that will actually go to a college on a level above what amounts to the 13th and 14th grades? Don't take that as thinking I support taxpayers funding anyone's college. Take it as questioning the motivation behind it being community colleges. I question it because, in general, students that go there tend to be those that have a greater propensity of voting Democrat.

 

[Ame®icano]

The latter.

So, he's robbing some Americans at gun point, to buy the votes of other Americans?

Actually, when Republicans gave the student loan program to banks, the banks were getting 6 billion a year in free money selling risk free loans. You ask, "Why are they risk free"? Because the government would guarantee payment of any defaults. Banks shared no risk.

So take that 6 billion a year and instead of giving it to the banks, use it to make Jr. College free. How is that not a great idea?

Apples and oranges. Bank loans had to be repaid. What commies is proposing it doesn't.

 

[Conservative65]

You can get a 2.5 GPA just by breathing in your classes.

So, what about all those who finished college and paid for it on their own? Yeah, let's punish those who did what they needed to do to eek out a meager existence in the middle class by making their degree worthless so Jamal can go to school for African studies or some tranny go to school for gender studies. Let's just extend high school by two years so the lefties have little longer to indoctrinate people. Oh, and let's reward pieces of shit who didn't go to school to make themselves valuable employees by just giving them already near-worthless degrees.

That doesn't make sense. Just because in the past young people had to suffer because of a mountain of college loan debt or give up college is no reason we should continue doing the same thing. There may be good reasons not to implement this proposal but that's not one of them.

Because someone else's parent is doing for their kid what my wife and I have saved to do for ours doesn't mean we should pay more taxes on behalf of that other person's kid.

Yours is an argument I've heard a thousand times. Why should I pay taxes to educate someone else kid and the answer is always the same. Everyone benefits by a better educated population. America is better able to compete with other countries if we have a better trained workforce. Better education means better jobs, less reliance on government, less crime, and more knowledgeable voters.

I believe better educated people help, too. I'm willing to do it for mine and ask other parents to do no more than I do. My parents are in their 70s and damn sure aren't the ones to be paying for this.

More knowledgable voter? I know what that means with this pandering.

A hundred years ago, only 1 in 5 teenagers were in high school. This was at the beginning of the high school movement where thousands of high schools were built and hundreds of thousands of teachers were hired. A battle raged in communities across the country. The complaints were the same as yours today. Why should I pay to educate someone else's kid? We can't afford it. A hundred years later, it was obviously the country made the right decision.

We pay wages today 5 and 10 times what developing nations like China pay. If we want to maintain that wage differential, if want to see jobs coming back to the US, then we have got to make ourselves more competitive and that begins with better educated workers with better jobs skill. Establishing 2 years of college as the minimum educational standard in the US is the right thing to do.

It isn't about affording it. It's about forcing one person to fund another person's college.

It seems all that black son of a bitch has to do is mention some redistribution program and you ass lickers fight it out to see which one is going to stick your head up his ass first.

We have people graduating today that can't read on a 8th grade level. Go into any convenient store where the register doesn't display how much change is needed and see how flustered the one working their gets when trying to do it without a calculator. Not a very good argument for forcing people to fund even a higher level of education when the one we fund now isn't getting the job done.

The right thing to do is for the parents to pay for their kids college and quit expecting others to do it for them.

 

[Conservative65]

The latter.

So, he's robbing some Americans at gun point, to buy the votes of other Americans?

Actually, when Republicans gave the student loan program to banks, the banks were getting 6 billion a year in free money selling risk free loans. You ask, "Why are they risk free"? Because the government would guarantee payment of any defaults. Banks shared no risk.

So take that 6 billion a year and instead of giving it to the banks, use it to make Jr. College free. How is that not a great idea?

Apples and oranges. Bank loans had to be repaid. What commies is proposing it doesn't.

I agree. However, the supporters claim that those receiving it will have to "earn" it. I've asked, without getting an answer, when are those doing the "work" to "earn" it going to be at my house to cut my grass. It's only logical to expect the ones doing the work to do it for those doing the paying.

 

[AmericanFirst]

The latter.

So, he's robbing some Americans at gun point, to buy the votes of other Americans?

Actually, when Republicans gave the student loan program to banks, the banks were getting 6 billion a year in free money selling risk free loans. You ask, "Why are they risk free"? Because the government would guarantee payment of any defaults. Banks shared no risk.

So take that 6 billion a year and instead of giving it to the banks, use it to make Jr. College free. How is that not a great idea?

None of it is a great idea. Idiot.

 

[Stephanie]

Well get ready, here comes next weeks vision of his. and you wonder why there are no jobs under his regime

SNIP;
Obama to push for mandatory paid leave



By Lydia Wheeler - 01/14/15 05:28 PM EST


The White House will announce a major push Thursday to require paid leave for American workers.

In a blog post on LinkedIn Wednesday, Valerie Jarrett, a senior advisor to the President, said Obama will sign a memorandum to ensure federal employees have access to at least six weeks of paid sick leave when a new child arrives.

The president will also call on Congress to offer six weeks of paid administrative leave.
“We can't say we stand for family values when so many women in this country have to jeopardize their financial security just to take a few weeks off of work after giving birth,” Jarrett said in the release.

all of it here:
Obama to push for mandatory paid leave TheHill

 

[2aguy]

That doesn't make sense. Just because in the past young people had to suffer because of a mountain of college loan debt or give up college is no reason we should continue doing the same thing. There may be good reasons not to implement this proposal but that's not one of them.

Because someone else's parent is doing for their kid what my wife and I have saved to do for ours doesn't mean we should pay more taxes on behalf of that other person's kid.

Yours is an argument I've heard a thousand times. Why should I pay taxes to educate someone else kid and the answer is always the same. Everyone benefits by a better educated population. America is better able to compete with other countries if we have a better trained workforce. Better education means better jobs, less reliance on government, less crime, and more knowledgeable voters.

I believe better educated people help, too. I'm willing to do it for mine and ask other parents to do no more than I do. My parents are in their 70s and damn sure aren't the ones to be paying for this.

More knowledgable voter? I know what that means with this pandering.

A hundred years ago, only 1 in 5 teenagers were in high school. This was at the beginning of the high school movement where thousands of high schools were built and hundreds of thousands of teachers were hired. A battle raged in communities across the country. The complaints were the same as yours today. Why should I pay to educate someone else's kid? We can't afford it. A hundred years later, it was obviously the country made the right decision.

We pay wages today 5 and 10 times what developing nations like China pay. If we want to maintain that wage differential, if want to see jobs coming back to the US, then we have got to make ourselves more competitive and that begins with better educated workers with better jobs skill. Establishing 2 years of college as the minimum educational standard in the US is the right thing to do.

It isn't about affording it. It's about forcing one person to fund another person's college.

It seems all that black son of a bitch has to do is mention some redistribution program and you ass lickers fight it out to see which one is going to stick your head up his ass first.

We have people graduating today that can't read on a 8th grade level. Go into any convenient store where the register doesn't display how much change is needed and see how flustered the one working their gets when trying to do it without a calculator. Not a very good argument for forcing people to fund even a higher level of education when the one we fund now isn't getting the job done.

The right thing to do is for the parents to pay for their kids college and quit expecting others to do it for them.

Taking money from someone to give to someone else is called stealing....no matter how pretty you make it sound....

 

[Flopper]

You just confirmed our point. "I got mine, fuck the resta yez".

The point I've confirmed is that I while I got mine, I don't expect anything more of others than I do myself. When I'm meeting my responsibility as a parent and I see others demanding I meet it for their kids because they won't, you have part of it right. It isn't I got mine, it's fuck the rest of you that want me to do for you what you won't do for your own kids.

You have a problem with me wanting to use MY money for MY kids yet you don't have one demanding I be forced to do what another parent isn't for their own kids. I don't owe them a college education.

You're still stuck in the same blind spot.
Such an idea is not for the benefit of "your" kids, "my" kids, "his", "her" or "their" kids. It's for the benefit of the greater whole, the country, the culture, the society, choose your term. Just as the fire department isn't there to protect "your" property or "mine". You keep trying to personalize the Commons into the Personal Possession as if it's some kind of trinket that must be "owned" by one entity or another, that's your blind spot.

This just in: not everything in life is material, and not everything is quantifiable as "X amount of money".

This proposal isn't for the benefit of my kids. My kids will be going to a real college not the 13th and 14th grade like community college.

Your blind spot is that you have already determined that it will benefit the greater whole without one damn bit of proof to back it up.

Yuh huh.
Then why do we publicly fund 1-12?

Matter o' fact why do we require education at all if there's no benefit to the Commons?

For that matter why does the concept of education even exist? To benefit Numero Uno if Numero Uno can afford it?

See what I mean? You still don't get it.

Let me explain it to you using the Constitution. The 10th Amendment states that all powers not delegated to the federal government nor prohibited to the States, are reserved to the States. Delegated means expressed or in simple terms, written. Prohibited means you can't do it. Reserved means that the body granted that type of power can, but it not required to, make laws related to it. Reserved does not mean that if the body given that type of power chooses not to do anything related to the federal government, by default, gets it.

Knowing that, let's answer your question of why do we publicly fund 1 - 12? There is no simple answer. ALL you need to realize and acknowledge is that the authority to pass any laws related to education belongs to the States not the federal government regardless of level of education. There is absolutely no express, delegated, or written authority for the federal government to do anything related to education. Therefore, according to the Constitution, the authority, under RESERVED powers, falls to the States as to whether or not they choose to do it. All 50 have chosen to do it with nothing in one State having to do with anything in another State unless the STATES agree between themselves. For example, my State of SC has certain requirements in order to be a certified teacher. The requirements of GA, our next door neighbor, aren't exactly the same although many similarities exist. I had a friend that moved from SC to GA to teach and she was informed that GA would accept her teaching certificate from SC with one requirement she had to meet. She has to take a special education class because GA, under the reserved powers to regulate what the federal government has no authority to regulate, thinks its teachers should have that class.

Back to your question. Since the authority to regulate education falls to the States through RESERVED powers, there's that word again, if a State chooses to fund its educational system with taxes provided by those within the State, they have that authority unless in doing it, the laws created to do it violate the U.S. Constitution. Since State's have the concurrent power to tax related to things intrastate, it doesn't violate the Constitution. That's why we fund things through the 12th grade.

Many supporters of this use California as an example of a State that funded college then blame Reagan for doing away with it. If only those within California funded college through their taxes, California, under RESERVED powers, can do that as level of education is irrelevant. However, what California can't do is place taxes on others States to fund it as that is against the Constitution. I don't agree with that but I don't live in California.

There are federal guidelines such as those under No Child Left Behind that many States adopted. Do you think those States had to adopt those guideline because the federal government established them?

The same concept can be applied to healthcare. Many Obamacare supporters say Romney put something similar in place in Massachusetts so why don't Republicans support it nationwide. Same explanation. Healthcare isn't a delegated power, therefore, if a State chooses to do something like was done in Massachusetts and it involves only that State, they have that power. What they can't do is tax other States to fund it.

Got it?

The constitution says nothing about education but the fact is the federal government has had it's hand in education since the beginning. Federal involvement began more than 225 years ago, even before George Washington was president, when Congress passed two laws -- the Land Ordinance of 1785 and the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 -- to create and maintain public schools in the expanding United States.

The national government also encouraged the establishment of state institutions of higher education. During the Civil War, Congress passed the Morrill Act, resulting in the University of Illinois, the University of California, and 74 other institutions. Signed by Abraham Lincoln, this Act used the same land grant policy for higher education as was used for public schools. Since then the federal government has passed many educational bills and has been a partner with states to insure quality education throughout the country..

The question is why haven't the states challenge the federal government's involvement in education before the Supreme Court? I can think of a few reasons. No state government really wants to see the federal government step out education, regardless of the rhetoric from the right. Many of the functions the Dept of Education now does would be duplicated by every state. Federal funding would disappear and the federal government could not provide any funds for education even during economic crisis which would result in an increase in state and local taxes increase. Then there's national goals and leadership. There's not a single developed country that does not have national leadership, funding, and goal setting in education. In fact, countries that are blowing us out of the water in education all have stronger federal control over local education than the US does. Lastly, if the issue should ever find it's way to the Supreme Court, you can bet they are not going to reverse two hundred years of history by stopping federal involvement in education.

 

[candycorn]

When it comes to paying for college, it is about ME and MY children. I'M the one that has saved the money for MY children. That money should go to MY children not someone else's child.

You seem to forget that I'm not asking any of them to do anything other than what I'm willing to do myself. Those expecting the the government to do this for their kids aren't thinking about anyone but themselves unless you're willing to tell me they give a damn where the money comes from as long as they get it.

You just confirmed our point. "I got mine, fuck the resta yez".

The point I've confirmed is that I while I got mine, I don't expect anything more of others than I do myself. When I'm meeting my responsibility as a parent and I see others demanding I meet it for their kids because they won't, you have part of it right. It isn't I got mine, it's fuck the rest of you that want me to do for you what you won't do for your own kids.

You have a problem with me wanting to use MY money for MY kids yet you don't have one demanding I be forced to do what another parent isn't for their own kids. I don't owe them a college education.

You're still stuck in the same blind spot.
Such an idea is not for the benefit of "your" kids, "my" kids, "his", "her" or "their" kids. It's for the benefit of the greater whole, the country, the culture, the society, choose your term. Just as the fire department isn't there to protect "your" property or "mine". You keep trying to personalize the Commons into the Personal Possession as if it's some kind of trinket that must be "owned" by one entity or another, that's your blind spot.

This just in: not everything in life is material, and not everything is quantifiable as "X amount of money".

This proposal isn't for the benefit of my kids. My kids will be going to a real college not the 13th and 14th grade like community college.

Your blind spot is that you have already determined that it will benefit the greater whole without one damn bit of proof to back it up.

Yuh huh.
Then why do we publicly fund 1-12?

Matter o' fact why do we require education at all if there's no benefit to the Commons?

For that matter why does the concept of education even exist? To benefit Numero Uno if Numero Uno can afford it?

See what I mean? You still don't get it.

All of us are warmed by the fires started by others.

Do yourself a favor folks...Take 25% out of what your parents earned during their lives, 25% out of what you've earned and add it up. This would generously represent the federal income taxes your parents and yourself paid. Few of us pay $0.25 on the dollar--most of us are closer to $0.17 on the dollar.

Then look at the federal highway system and consider the building and upkeep for any ten mile stretch of that. Yours and your parents taxes may have covered 10 miles of that. Perhaps as much as 20 miles. Basically the distance from one side of Houston to another or Dallas to Fort Worth. If you've traveled further on highways than that; you're a "free-loading son of a bitch". And this doesn't even count other things such as the FBI, Army, Navy, FDA inspectors, FAA regulators, etc... that the government has provided to you at the expense of some one else.

I admire you guys and your hilarious individualism and the thought that you've done everything only because of your gumption to do it. It's cute. Everyone born in the US was born on second base. Do yourself and the rest of us a favor...don't walk around saying that you've hit a double. You sound like an idiot.

 

[Flopper]

That doesn't make sense. Just because in the past young people had to suffer because of a mountain of college loan debt or give up college is no reason we should continue doing the same thing. There may be good reasons not to implement this proposal but that's not one of them.

Because someone else's parent is doing for their kid what my wife and I have saved to do for ours doesn't mean we should pay more taxes on behalf of that other person's kid.

Yours is an argument I've heard a thousand times. Why should I pay taxes to educate someone else kid and the answer is always the same. Everyone benefits by a better educated population. America is better able to compete with other countries if we have a better trained workforce. Better education means better jobs, less reliance on government, less crime, and more knowledgeable voters.

I believe better educated people help, too. I'm willing to do it for mine and ask other parents to do no more than I do. My parents are in their 70s and damn sure aren't the ones to be paying for this.

More knowledgable voter? I know what that means with this pandering.

A hundred years ago, only 1 in 5 teenagers were in high school. This was at the beginning of the high school movement where thousands of high schools were built and hundreds of thousands of teachers were hired. A battle raged in communities across the country. The complaints were the same as yours today. Why should I pay to educate someone else's kid? We can't afford it. A hundred years later, it was obviously the country made the right decision.

We pay wages today 5 and 10 times what developing nations like China pay. If we want to maintain that wage differential, if want to see jobs coming back to the US, then we have got to make ourselves more competitive and that begins with better educated workers with better jobs skill. Establishing 2 years of college as the minimum educational standard in the US is the right thing to do.

It isn't about affording it. It's about forcing one person to fund another person's college.

It seems all that black son of a bitch has to do is mention some redistribution program and you ass lickers fight it out to see which one is going to stick your head up his ass first.

We have people graduating today that can't read on a 8th grade level. Go into any convenient store where the register doesn't display how much change is needed and see how flustered the one working their gets when trying to do it without a calculator. Not a very good argument for forcing people to fund even a higher level of education when the one we fund now isn't getting the job done.

The right thing to do is for the parents to pay for their kids college and quit expecting others to do it for them.

I agree all parents should pay for their kids college education. It's the right thing to do but there are many parents that simple can't or won't provide for their kids education. Not helping the kids because their parents can't or won't help is not the right thing to do. Better educated workers benefits everyone, including you.

.

 

[thereisnospoon]

You just confirmed our point. "I got mine, fuck the resta yez".

The point I've confirmed is that I while I got mine, I don't expect anything more of others than I do myself. When I'm meeting my responsibility as a parent and I see others demanding I meet it for their kids because they won't, you have part of it right. It isn't I got mine, it's fuck the rest of you that want me to do for you what you won't do for your own kids.

You have a problem with me wanting to use MY money for MY kids yet you don't have one demanding I be forced to do what another parent isn't for their own kids. I don't owe them a college education.

You're still stuck in the same blind spot.
Such an idea is not for the benefit of "your" kids, "my" kids, "his", "her" or "their" kids. It's for the benefit of the greater whole, the country, the culture, the society, choose your term. Just as the fire department isn't there to protect "your" property or "mine". You keep trying to personalize the Commons into the Personal Possession as if it's some kind of trinket that must be "owned" by one entity or another, that's your blind spot.

This just in: not everything in life is material, and not everything is quantifiable as "X amount of money".

This proposal isn't for the benefit of my kids. My kids will be going to a real college not the 13th and 14th grade like community college.

Your blind spot is that you have already determined that it will benefit the greater whole without one damn bit of proof to back it up.

Yuh huh.
Then why do we publicly fund 1-12?

Matter o' fact why do we require education at all if there's no benefit to the Commons?

For that matter why does the concept of education even exist? To benefit Numero Uno if Numero Uno can afford it?

See what I mean? You still don't get it.

All of us are warmed by the fires started by others.

Do yourself a favor folks...Take 25% out of what your parents earned during their lives, 25% out of what you've earned and add it up. This would generously represent the federal income taxes your parents and yourself paid. Few of us pay $0.25 on the dollar--most of us are closer to $0.17 on the dollar.

Then look at the federal highway system and consider the building and upkeep for any ten mile stretch of that. Yours and your parents taxes may have covered 10 miles of that. Perhaps as much as 20 miles. Basically the distance from one side of Houston to another or Dallas to Fort Worth. If you've traveled further on highways than that; you're a "free-loading son of a bitch". And this doesn't even count other things such as the FBI, Army, Navy, FDA inspectors, FAA regulators, etc... that the government has provided to you at the expense of some one else.

I admire you guys and your hilarious individualism and the thought that you've done everything only because of your gumption to do it. It's cute. Everyone born in the US was born on second base. Do yourself and the rest of us a favor...don't walk around saying that you've hit a double. You sound like an idiot.

No...You look like an idiot for writing this tripe

 

[rdean]

You just confirmed our point. "I got mine, fuck the resta yez".

The point I've confirmed is that I while I got mine, I don't expect anything more of others than I do myself. When I'm meeting my responsibility as a parent and I see others demanding I meet it for their kids because they won't, you have part of it right. It isn't I got mine, it's fuck the rest of you that want me to do for you what you won't do for your own kids.

You have a problem with me wanting to use MY money for MY kids yet you don't have one demanding I be forced to do what another parent isn't for their own kids. I don't owe them a college education.

You're still stuck in the same blind spot.
Such an idea is not for the benefit of "your" kids, "my" kids, "his", "her" or "their" kids. It's for the benefit of the greater whole, the country, the culture, the society, choose your term. Just as the fire department isn't there to protect "your" property or "mine". You keep trying to personalize the Commons into the Personal Possession as if it's some kind of trinket that must be "owned" by one entity or another, that's your blind spot.

This just in: not everything in life is material, and not everything is quantifiable as "X amount of money".

This proposal isn't for the benefit of my kids. My kids will be going to a real college not the 13th and 14th grade like community college.

Your blind spot is that you have already determined that it will benefit the greater whole without one damn bit of proof to back it up.

Yuh huh.
Then why do we publicly fund 1-12?

Matter o' fact why do we require education at all if there's no benefit to the Commons?

For that matter why does the concept of education even exist? To benefit Numero Uno if Numero Uno can afford it?

See what I mean? You still don't get it.

Let me explain it to you using the Constitution. The 10th Amendment states that all powers not delegated to the federal government nor prohibited to the States, are reserved to the States. Delegated means expressed or in simple terms, written. Prohibited means you can't do it. Reserved means that the body granted that type of power can, but it not required to, make laws related to it. Reserved does not mean that if the body given that type of power chooses not to do anything related to the federal government, by default, gets it.

Knowing that, let's answer your question of why do we publicly fund 1 - 12? There is no simple answer. ALL you need to realize and acknowledge is that the authority to pass any laws related to education belongs to the States not the federal government regardless of level of education. There is absolutely no express, delegated, or written authority for the federal government to do anything related to education. Therefore, according to the Constitution, the authority, under RESERVED powers, falls to the States as to whether or not they choose to do it. All 50 have chosen to do it with nothing in one State having to do with anything in another State unless the STATES agree between themselves. For example, my State of SC has certain requirements in order to be a certified teacher. The requirements of GA, our next door neighbor, aren't exactly the same although many similarities exist. I had a friend that moved from SC to GA to teach and she was informed that GA would accept her teaching certificate from SC with one requirement she had to meet. She has to take a special education class because GA, under the reserved powers to regulate what the federal government has no authority to regulate, thinks its teachers should have that class.

Back to your question. Since the authority to regulate education falls to the States through RESERVED powers, there's that word again, if a State chooses to fund its educational system with taxes provided by those within the State, they have that authority unless in doing it, the laws created to do it violate the U.S. Constitution. Since State's have the concurrent power to tax related to things intrastate, it doesn't violate the Constitution. That's why we fund things through the 12th grade.

Many supporters of this use California as an example of a State that funded college then blame Reagan for doing away with it. If only those within California funded college through their taxes, California, under RESERVED powers, can do that as level of education is irrelevant. However, what California can't do is place taxes on others States to fund it as that is against the Constitution. I don't agree with that but I don't live in California.

There are federal guidelines such as those under No Child Left Behind that many States adopted. Do you think those States had to adopt those guideline because the federal government established them?

The same concept can be applied to healthcare. Many Obamacare supporters say Romney put something similar in place in Massachusetts so why don't Republicans support it nationwide. Same explanation. Healthcare isn't a delegated power, therefore, if a State chooses to do something like was done in Massachusetts and it involves only that State, they have that power. What they can't do is tax other States to fund it.

Got it?

The whole "state's rights" is such a crock of shit. Everyone knows why Republicans are ALWAYS screaming "state's rights". They want to discriminate against gays or blacks or some other minority. Or they want to pollute and not be told to stop. They just want to do something unethical or immoral and claim it's their right. No one is fooled.

 

[rdean]

The latter.

So, he's robbing some Americans at gun point, to buy the votes of other Americans?

Actually, when Republicans gave the student loan program to banks, the banks were getting 6 billion a year in free money selling risk free loans. You ask, "Why are they risk free"? Because the government would guarantee payment of any defaults. Banks shared no risk.

So take that 6 billion a year and instead of giving it to the banks, use it to make Jr. College free. How is that not a great idea?

Apples and oranges. Bank loans had to be repaid. What commies is proposing it doesn't.

Bank loans had to be repaid? Oh, yea? And if they weren't, then who picked up the loan Sherlock. Think carefully before answering. Figure out what "no risk" means.

 

[rdean]

Because someone else's parent is doing for their kid what my wife and I have saved to do for ours doesn't mean we should pay more taxes on behalf of that other person's kid.

Yours is an argument I've heard a thousand times. Why should I pay taxes to educate someone else kid and the answer is always the same. Everyone benefits by a better educated population. America is better able to compete with other countries if we have a better trained workforce. Better education means better jobs, less reliance on government, less crime, and more knowledgeable voters.

I believe better educated people help, too. I'm willing to do it for mine and ask other parents to do no more than I do. My parents are in their 70s and damn sure aren't the ones to be paying for this.

More knowledgable voter? I know what that means with this pandering.

A hundred years ago, only 1 in 5 teenagers were in high school. This was at the beginning of the high school movement where thousands of high schools were built and hundreds of thousands of teachers were hired. A battle raged in communities across the country. The complaints were the same as yours today. Why should I pay to educate someone else's kid? We can't afford it. A hundred years later, it was obviously the country made the right decision.

We pay wages today 5 and 10 times what developing nations like China pay. If we want to maintain that wage differential, if want to see jobs coming back to the US, then we have got to make ourselves more competitive and that begins with better educated workers with better jobs skill. Establishing 2 years of college as the minimum educational standard in the US is the right thing to do.

It isn't about affording it. It's about forcing one person to fund another person's college.

It seems all that black son of a bitch has to do is mention some redistribution program and you ass lickers fight it out to see which one is going to stick your head up his ass first.

We have people graduating today that can't read on a 8th grade level. Go into any convenient store where the register doesn't display how much change is needed and see how flustered the one working their gets when trying to do it without a calculator. Not a very good argument for forcing people to fund even a higher level of education when the one we fund now isn't getting the job done.

The right thing to do is for the parents to pay for their kids college and quit expecting others to do it for them.

I agree all parents should pay for their kids college education. It's the right thing to do but there are many parents that simple can't or won't provide for their kids education. Not helping the kids because their parents can't or won't help is not the right thing to do. Better educated workers benefits everyone, including you.

.

You said: Better educated workers benefits everyone, including you.

Not in the utterly made up and fantastic world of the "Every man for himself" right wing.

 

[Ame®icano]

The latter.

So, he's robbing some Americans at gun point, to buy the votes of other Americans?

Actually, when Republicans gave the student loan program to banks, the banks were getting 6 billion a year in free money selling risk free loans. You ask, "Why are they risk free"? Because the government would guarantee payment of any defaults. Banks shared no risk.

So take that 6 billion a year and instead of giving it to the banks, use it to make Jr. College free. How is that not a great idea?

Apples and oranges. Bank loans had to be repaid. What commies is proposing it doesn't.

Bank loans had to be repaid? Oh, yea? And if they weren't, then who picked up the loan Sherlock. Think carefully before answering. Figure out what "no risk" means.

If they were not repaid. That's a big IF.

The same guarantees are given to banks for home loans. What happens if those are not repaid?

 

[2aguy]

Ann Coulter takes on this stupid idea....

As Long as Obama Brought Up the Cost of College... - Ann Coulter - Page 1

The cost of a college education has increased by more than 1,000 percent only since 1978. Nothing else has gone up that much -- not health care, consumer goods or home prices. The explosion in college tuition bears no relation to anything happening in the economy.

Would anyone argue that colleges are providing a better education today than in 1978? I promise you: People coming out of college in the '50s knew more than any recent Yale graduate -- unless we're only counting knowledge of sexual practices once considered verboten.

The fact that 80 percent of Weathermen -- the violent '60s radicals -- are full college professors tells you all you need to know about the state of higher education today.

 

[Esmeralda]

Ann Coulter takes on this stupid idea....

As Long as Obama Brought Up the Cost of College... - Ann Coulter - Page 1

The cost of a college education has increased by more than 1,000 percent only since 1978. Nothing else has gone up that much -- not health care, consumer goods or home prices. The explosion in college tuition bears no relation to anything happening in the economy.

Would anyone argue that colleges are providing a better education today than in 1978? I promise you: People coming out of college in the '50s knew more than any recent Yale graduate -- unless we're only counting knowledge of sexual practices once considered verboten.

The fact that 80 percent of Weathermen -- the violent '60s radicals -- are full college professors tells you all you need to know about the state of higher education today.

Yes, American colleges and universities are just shit. That is why students from all over the world want to study in them, because our higher education is just garbage. Uh huh.