Obama Proposes 2 Years of Free Community College

[Pogo]

Obama President Proposes 2 Free Years of Community College

President Barack Obama announced a proposal Thursday to provide two years of free community-college tuition to American students who maintain good grades.

He also said that this plan will save at least 3.800$ per year, it means that student should continue working, because this plan will not give them: food, clothing and house! What for this circus? I don't know!

Don't worry about it. It would require legislation and we all know that the Republican controlled Congress is not about to provide free education for anyone.

Maybe that's because, unlike you, they realize it isn't free.

If you want to provide a free education to another person's kid, write a check and fund it with your money. MY money goes to MY kids. Let the other kid's parents pay for theirs. Before you call me selfish, keep in mind that I am not asking those other parents to do anything I'm not already doing myself for my kids.

That's actually the way it was done -- before the Industrial Revolution. Now we insist everybody go to school. And we pay to make that happen. We all do, whether we have kids or not. And we do that because the complexity of our culture demands it.

All we're talking about in the big picture here is a matter of degree in what we're already doing.

You seem to be talking about grades 1 - 12. I'm talking about Obozo's proposal for what amounts to grades 13 and 14 with community college.

Essentially, yes. After the developments of the Industrial Revolution we invented those grades 1-12; they didn't exist before that. We've developed a bit more since then; do the math.

Someone paying for their own college is the way it was done when I went for all three degrees. I received one in 1987, one in 1996, and one in 2012. Not once did it cross my mind for the taxpayers to be forced to fund any of them.

Because there was no such option. How many of your peers never got that chance?
Aye, there's the rub.

Once again, the taxpayer are already "forced to fund" 1-12. By picking an arbitrary stop point you're making a distinction without a difference.

We developed to a point where we agreed 1-12 was necessary for citizen survival, so we did that. Now we've developed more. Why put on the brakes? Kids don't ask to be born into this -- either give them the tools to cope with it, or don't give 'em anything. If you don't want taxpayers forced to fund education, fine -- cut off the school requirement altogether. See where that leads.

 

[Conservative65]

Obama President Proposes 2 Free Years of Community College

President Barack Obama announced a proposal Thursday to provide two years of free community-college tuition to American students who maintain good grades.

He also said that this plan will save at least 3.800$ per year, it means that student should continue working, because this plan will not give them: food, clothing and house! What for this circus? I don't know!

Don't worry about it. It would require legislation and we all know that the Republican controlled Congress is not about to provide free education for anyone.

Maybe that's because, unlike you, they realize it isn't free.

If you want to provide a free education to another person's kid, write a check and fund it with your money. MY money goes to MY kids. Let the other kid's parents pay for theirs. Before you call me selfish, keep in mind that I am not asking those other parents to do anything I'm not already doing myself for my kids.

That's actualy the way it was done -- before the Industrial Revolution. Now we insist everybody go to school. And we pay to make that happen. We all do, whether we have kids or not. And we do that because the complexity of our culture demands it.

All we're talking about in the big picture here is a matter of degree in what we're already doing.

You seem to be talking about grades 1 - 12. I'm talking about Obozo's proposal for what amounts to grades 13 and 14 with community college.

Someone paying for their own college is the way it was done when I went for all three degrees. I received one in 1987, one in 1996, and one in 2012. Not once did it cross my mind for the taxpayers to be forced to fund any of them.

 

[hortysir]

...Govt should mandate 50% reduction of tuition at all govt run colleges problem solved no new money to seek

Why do you hate children

I was getting that in before Rdean

 

[Conservative65]

Obama President Proposes 2 Free Years of Community College

President Barack Obama announced a proposal Thursday to provide two years of free community-college tuition to American students who maintain good grades.

He also said that this plan will save at least 3.800$ per year, it means that student should continue working, because this plan will not give them: food, clothing and house! What for this circus? I don't know!

Don't worry about it. It would require legislation and we all know that the Republican controlled Congress is not about to provide free education for anyone.

Maybe that's because, unlike you, they realize it isn't free.

If you want to provide a free education to another person's kid, write a check and fund it with your money. MY money goes to MY kids. Let the other kid's parents pay for theirs. Before you call me selfish, keep in mind that I am not asking those other parents to do anything I'm not already doing myself for my kids.

That's actually the way it was done -- before the Industrial Revolution. Now we insist everybody go to school. And we pay to make that happen. We all do, whether we have kids or not. And we do that because the complexity of our culture demands it.

All we're talking about in the big picture here is a matter of degree in what we're already doing.

You seem to be talking about grades 1 - 12. I'm talking about Obozo's proposal for what amounts to grades 13 and 14 with community college.

Essentially, yes. After the developments of the Industrial Revolution we invented those grades 1-12; they didn't exist before that. We've developed a bit more since then; do the math.

Someone paying for their own college is the way it was done when I went for all three degrees. I received one in 1987, one in 1996, and one in 2012. Not once did it cross my mind for the taxpayers to be forced to fund any of them.

Because there was no such option. How many of your peers never got that chance?
Aye, there's the rub.

Once again, the taxpayer are already "forced to fund" 1-12. By picking an arbitrary stop point you're making a distinction without a difference.

We developed to a point where we agreed 1-12 was necessary for citizen survival, so we did that. Now we've developed more. Why put on the brakes? Kids don't ask to be born into this -- either give them the tools to cope with it, or don't give 'em anything. If you don't want taxpayers forced to fund education, fine -- cut off the school requirement altogether. See where that leads.

That further development doesn't translate into forcing one person to pay for another person's college. I didn't need the option even if it had been available. All three degrees costs me les than $2500 out of pocket. The first one was entirely funded by academic and athletic scho

Obama President Proposes 2 Free Years of Community College

President Barack Obama announced a proposal Thursday to provide two years of free community-college tuition to American students who maintain good grades.

He also said that this plan will save at least 3.800$ per year, it means that student should continue working, because this plan will not give them: food, clothing and house! What for this circus? I don't know!

So he will give extra funding to the golden apples, who would pass and get a job anyway. While the rest that community colleges are meant to be there for have to pack their bags, as the government attempts to make them as elitist as Harvard.

What this means is that community colleges will accept only students that get the government hand out for 'good grades' or those that can pay upfront.

Once again 'good intentions' of government is destroying American education, just like common core. Thanks Obama, for keeping the poor and struggling students out of education.

Community colleges generally have no academic requirements for admission other than graduation from high school and in some states even that is not required.

What happens when those that really don't want to go to college but go because they really don't want to go to work quit? That would make it a bad investment.

 

[Conservative65]

Evil, just evil. Edumacatin' Murkins? We don't want that goin' on. Next thing you know peoples will be makin' dem intelligent arguments and shit. Larnin' reason an' logic, maybe even... science.

Nope, we likes our sheeples dumbed down 'n' stoopid. Give 'em books an' dey gets all uppity. Starts readin' them Constitutionals. I tell ya the old church had it right when they make it illegal to read the Holy Babble. Infermation's a dangerous game, leave it to duh experts. We wunt da common peoples in line and iggerant. When you know too much, you crow too much.

Obama President Proposes 2 Free Years of Community College

President Barack Obama announced a proposal Thursday to provide two years of free community-college tuition to American students who maintain good grades.

He also said that this plan will save at least 3.800$ per year, it means that student should continue working, because this plan will not give them: food, clothing and house! What for this circus? I don't know!

And who is going to pay for their free education? Another obutthurtcare type program, take from the haves to give free stuff away. What an idiot.

Pay for their education for a couple years or have them collect welfare for the next 50 years or so? Even the dumbest teabagger should get this one right.

That statement assumes that if someone doesn't go to college the only other outcome is to be on social welfare. Even the dumbest bleeding heart Liberal can't believe that.

 

[boedicca]

More Obama vote buying. But here's the catch: States will be on the hook for 20%, and given how they are buried under the ObamaCare tsunami, I doubt they will be eager to take on yet another unfunded liability.

 

[Conservative65]

Obama President Proposes 2 Free Years of Community College

President Barack Obama announced a proposal Thursday to provide two years of free community-college tuition to American students who maintain good grades.

He also said that this plan will save at least 3.800$ per year, it means that student should continue working, because this plan will not give them: food, clothing and house! What for this circus? I don't know!

It is not free....we willl pay for this and then community colleges will suck as bad as public education at the grade school and high school level......and the cost of Community college will go up as well....since the government is paying for it........right?

It will be nothingn more than 13th and 14th grade.

 

[Conservative65]

You're right, it does put the opposition between a rock and a hard place, but only because #1: The "opposition" (ie: Republican party) doesn't have anyone who can concisely and clearly explain their position, and #2: the media spins every message so far to the left.

Nobody is arguing "education is a bad thing." Just like nobody is arguing that food, housing, cell phones, transportation, etc (ad nauseum) are "bad things". However when some of us have to provide all of these things for other people, and those people get them for "free", it devalues those things.

Look at the areas that have "free housing". Do you want to live next door?

Once again....

Making food, housing, cellphones, transportation etc available to the masses doesn't directly benefit the community as a whole, i.e. they don't produce a more productive citizen. That's why this comparison is still apples and oranges.

Look at it this way: a society handing out free stuff that benefits nobody but the recipient is just handing out free stuff. A society investing in educating its own is investing in itself.

Food, housing, communications, and transportation certainly does benefit the community as a whole, and investment in these things is indeed a good thing, just like investing in education.

However "investing" in these things should NOT mean giving them to people for FREE. That isn't good investing, because (once again....) it devalues the very thing we are invest in.

I'll ask you again. Do you want to live next door to the "free housing" areas??

And I'll answer again -- it hasn't changed:

​

See post 85 -- you continue to try to equate the material with the conceptual. If somebody gives you a free car, free house, free food etc, it requires no work on your part. That's why they're not comparable. Education is participatory. Not to mention that unlike cars, houses and food, it doesn't wear out or burn up -- it's forever.

In one sense it's kind of absurd for a culture to require as much education as possible for its citizen to develop his or her potential, and then turn around and demand he/she pay for it. That wasn't the child's choice. If the culture demands some level of sophistication, then the onus is on that same culture to provide it. Also known as the concept of "level playing field".

If you don't provide it, then all you're doing is creating and perpetuating a striated social class system. And the more sophistication you require and make beyond the reach of the lower caste, the wider that gap grows.

You are making a critical mistake in your assumption.
You are assuming that high school graduates are leaving high school with the education base to be able to move on/up towards more challenging tasks successfully. The American education system is not providing this essential component. High school 'graduates' who are functionally illiterate are not going to succeed in any tangible way in a serious college environment.
Which high school 'graduates' with limited literacy skills are not going to want to spend a couple of years learning some more 'nothing' b/c they know there are no "good paying jobs" waiting for them after leaving high school?
In the college there are easy chairs and couches to relax on instead of that hard plastic desk after all.
Lot's of 'bonking' and drinking and getting shit faced.
About 80% of NY state high school graduates are functionally illiterate. And NY sstatespends more money in high schools than any state in the country.
80 of New York High School Grads Can 8217 t Read Despite Being No. 1 in School Spending FrontPage Magazine
BOBO needs to get his Socialist head out of his ass and spend the money starting in pre-schools hiring teachers who are actually educated.......not a bunch of union organized 'Affirmative Action' OJ jurors who don't know if a fucking duck is a fucking bird!

You're not making a case for why a concept doesn't work here. You're cherrypicking biased samples.

"I had a Volvo that continually broke down. Therefore all Volvos continually break down".

To follow your logic then we should just do away with education altogether because it "will never work". Let's go back to agrarianism and put those kids out into the fields as soon as they can walk.

Those that argue in favor aren't making a case. They say it's an investment that will allow those goingn to make more so they won't have to live on welfare. That's saying "the only two options are to go to college or live off the taxpayers".

 

[Conservative65]

Listen ... I'm as fiscally conservative as anyone here and I'm not suggesting we fund a new gov't giveaway but rather that we redirect funds from other gov't mistakes to pay for this. No new dollars for funding and no new taxes but maybe, just maybe, some valuable new income taxpayers to help lighten my load. It seems more like an investment than a shiny new gov't trough.

"Investment" is exactly what it is. With an investment you get, or reasonably expect to get, something back; with a giveaway (free food, whatever), you don't. You teach the man to fish, and the man gives you fish back later, plus he feeds himself, making free food unnecessary.

Not that complex really.

On what do you base your claim that a reasonable expectation of return will happen? It's one thing to say it will, it's another to be able to back it up.

You can teach a man to fish and the man feeds himself. However, that doesn't mean that you provide him everything it takes to fish with another person's money. If it's an investment, shoulnd't those part of that investment have a financial role in it? If it's not good enough to expect those benefitting from it to have a part in, why should the rest of us see it as a good thing.

 

[jasonnfree]

Don't worry about it. It would require legislation and we all know that the Republican controlled Congress is not about to provide free education for anyone.

Maybe that's because, unlike you, they realize it isn't free.

If you want to provide a free education to another person's kid, write a check and fund it with your money. MY money goes to MY kids. Let the other kid's parents pay for theirs. Before you call me selfish, keep in mind that I am not asking those other parents to do anything I'm not already doing myself for my kids.

That's actually the way it was done -- before the Industrial Revolution. Now we insist everybody go to school. And we pay to make that happen. We all do, whether we have kids or not. And we do that because the complexity of our culture demands it.

All we're talking about in the big picture here is a matter of degree in what we're already doing.

You seem to be talking about grades 1 - 12. I'm talking about Obozo's proposal for what amounts to grades 13 and 14 with community college.

Essentially, yes. After the developments of the Industrial Revolution we invented those grades 1-12; they didn't exist before that. We've developed a bit more since then; do the math.

Someone paying for their own college is the way it was done when I went for all three degrees. I received one in 1987, one in 1996, and one in 2012. Not once did it cross my mind for the taxpayers to be forced to fund any of them.

Because there was no such option. How many of your peers never got that chance?
Aye, there's the rub.

Once again, the taxpayer are already "forced to fund" 1-12. By picking an arbitrary stop point you're making a distinction without a difference.

We developed to a point where we agreed 1-12 was necessary for citizen survival, so we did that. Now we've developed more. Why put on the brakes? Kids don't ask to be born into this -- either give them the tools to cope with it, or don't give 'em anything. If you don't want taxpayers forced to fund education, fine -- cut off the school requirement altogether. See where that leads.

That further development doesn't translate into forcing one person to pay for another person's college. I didn't need the option even if it had been available. All three degrees costs me les than $2500 out of pocket. The first one was entirely funded by academic and athletic scho

Obama President Proposes 2 Free Years of Community College

President Barack Obama announced a proposal Thursday to provide two years of free community-college tuition to American students who maintain good grades.

He also said that this plan will save at least 3.800$ per year, it means that student should continue working, because this plan will not give them: food, clothing and house! What for this circus? I don't know!

So he will give extra funding to the golden apples, who would pass and get a job anyway. While the rest that community colleges are meant to be there for have to pack their bags, as the government attempts to make them as elitist as Harvard.

What this means is that community colleges will accept only students that get the government hand out for 'good grades' or those that can pay upfront.

Once again 'good intentions' of government is destroying American education, just like common core. Thanks Obama, for keeping the poor and struggling students out of education.

Community colleges generally have no academic requirements for admission other than graduation from high school and in some states even that is not required.

What happens when those that really don't want to go to college but go because they really don't want to go to work quit? That would make it a bad investment.

All those degrees and you spend your time on this forum repeating republican philosophy you hear on talk radio?
on talk radio. Sure

 

[Flopper]

And how many of the high school kids who were 'streamed' in order to get them the fuck out of the high school will gladly spend the next two years learning as much as they did in high school which was sweet fuck all. And who's going to pay the LIB/Socialist/Union (cough) professors? The fucking 'Takers' or the Makers?
"I hear you're going off to college for two years tuition free soon. What are you going to study?"
"I don't know. Do you have to study something? [Is their] courses on how to get rich?"

As I understand the proposal students must have a good grade point average in high schools and maintain a 2.5 GPA in community college and be at least a half time student.

 

[Conservative65]

Listen ... I'm as fiscally conservative as anyone here and I'm not suggesting we fund a new gov't giveaway but rather that we redirect funds from other gov't mistakes to pay for this. No new dollars for funding and no new taxes but maybe, just maybe, some valuable new income taxpayers to help lighten my load. It seems more like an investment than a shiny new gov't trough.

"Investment" is exactly what it is. With an investment you get, or reasonably expect to get, something back; with a giveaway (free food, whatever), you don't. You teach the man to fish, and the man gives you fish back later, plus he feeds himself, making free food unnecessary.

Not that complex really.

I understand that some people, for a variety of reasons, reject out-of-hand anything Obama proposes. I prefer to look beyond the messenger and instead judge the message. This seems like a win-win for America and I'd like to see wide bipartisan support for it provided the funding is redirected from existing gov't giveaways.
BTW, none of my kids will benefit directly from this.

I tend to reject out of hand what he proposes because it seems that the things he wants involve wealth distribution of some sort.

What I'd like to see is those who think one person deserves another person's money voluntarily do what they want to force the rest of us to do and leave the government out of it. If it's such a good investment, prove it.

 

[Conservative65]

And how many of the high school kids who were 'streamed' in order to get them the fuck out of the high school will gladly spend the next two years learning as much as they did in high school which was sweet fuck all. And who's going to pay the LIB/Socialist/Union (cough) professors? The fucking 'Takers' or the Makers?
"I hear you're going off to college for two years tuition free soon. What are you going to study?"
"I don't know. Do you have to study something? [Is their] courses on how to get rich?"

As I understand the proposal students must have a good grade point average in high schools and maintain a 2.5 GPA in community college and be at least a half time student.

2.5 is a C average. I want a better return on my investment especially if I'm forced to fund it.

 

[SAYIT]

5

Listen ... I'm as fiscally conservative as anyone here and I'm not suggesting we fund a new gov't giveaway but rather that we redirect funds from other gov't mistakes to pay for this. No new dollars for funding and no new taxes but maybe, just maybe, some valuable new income taxpayers to help lighten my load. It seems more like an investment than a shiny new gov't trough.

"Investment" is exactly what it is. With an investment you get, or reasonably expect to get, something back; with a giveaway (free food, whatever), you don't. You teach the man to fish, and the man gives you fish back later, plus he feeds himself, making free food unnecessary.

Not that complex really.

I understand that some people, for a variety of reasons, reject out-of-hand anything Obama proposes. I prefer to look beyond the messenger and instead judge the message. This seems like a win-win for America and I'd like to see wide bipartisan support for it provided the funding is redirected from existing gov't giveaways.
BTW, none of my kids will benefit directly from this.

I tend to reject out of hand what he proposes because it seems that the things he wants involve wealth distribution of some sort.

What I'd like to see is those who think one person deserves another person's money voluntarily do what they want to force the rest of us to do and leave the government out of it. If it's such a good investment, prove it.

You will note I specify the funding must be redirected from EXISTING gov't giveaways, meaning some already sucking at the gov't tit will get less. I don't care why you or anyone else has a kneejerk response to Obama's proposal. The bottom line remains this seems a good idea and is worth a try.

 

[Conservative65]

Maybe that's because, unlike you, they realize it isn't free.

If you want to provide a free education to another person's kid, write a check and fund it with your money. MY money goes to MY kids. Let the other kid's parents pay for theirs. Before you call me selfish, keep in mind that I am not asking those other parents to do anything I'm not already doing myself for my kids.

That's actually the way it was done -- before the Industrial Revolution. Now we insist everybody go to school. And we pay to make that happen. We all do, whether we have kids or not. And we do that because the complexity of our culture demands it.

All we're talking about in the big picture here is a matter of degree in what we're already doing.

You seem to be talking about grades 1 - 12. I'm talking about Obozo's proposal for what amounts to grades 13 and 14 with community college.

Essentially, yes. After the developments of the Industrial Revolution we invented those grades 1-12; they didn't exist before that. We've developed a bit more since then; do the math.

Someone paying for their own college is the way it was done when I went for all three degrees. I received one in 1987, one in 1996, and one in 2012. Not once did it cross my mind for the taxpayers to be forced to fund any of them.

Because there was no such option. How many of your peers never got that chance?
Aye, there's the rub.

Once again, the taxpayer are already "forced to fund" 1-12. By picking an arbitrary stop point you're making a distinction without a difference.

We developed to a point where we agreed 1-12 was necessary for citizen survival, so we did that. Now we've developed more. Why put on the brakes? Kids don't ask to be born into this -- either give them the tools to cope with it, or don't give 'em anything. If you don't want taxpayers forced to fund education, fine -- cut off the school requirement altogether. See where that leads.

That further development doesn't translate into forcing one person to pay for another person's college. I didn't need the option even if it had been available. All three degrees costs me les than $2500 out of pocket. The first one was entirely funded by academic and athletic scho

Obama President Proposes 2 Free Years of Community College

President Barack Obama announced a proposal Thursday to provide two years of free community-college tuition to American students who maintain good grades.

He also said that this plan will save at least 3.800$ per year, it means that student should continue working, because this plan will not give them: food, clothing and house! What for this circus? I don't know!

So he will give extra funding to the golden apples, who would pass and get a job anyway. While the rest that community colleges are meant to be there for have to pack their bags, as the government attempts to make them as elitist as Harvard.

What this means is that community colleges will accept only students that get the government hand out for 'good grades' or those that can pay upfront.

Once again 'good intentions' of government is destroying American education, just like common core. Thanks Obama, for keeping the poor and struggling students out of education.

Community colleges generally have no academic requirements for admission other than graduation from high school and in some states even that is not required.

What happens when those that really don't want to go to college but go because they really don't want to go to work quit? That would make it a bad investment.

All those degrees and you spend your time on this forum repeating republican philosophy you hear on talk radio?
on talk radio. Sure

Sorry you can't do what I've done. All those degrees allow me to make what I make so morons like you can come to when some freeloader wants someone else to pay for it.

 

[SAYIT]

And how many of the high school kids who were 'streamed' in order to get them the fuck out of the high school will gladly spend the next two years learning as much as they did in high school which was sweet fuck all. And who's going to pay the LIB/Socialist/Union (cough) professors? The fucking 'Takers' or the Makers?
"I hear you're going off to college for two years tuition free soon. What are you going to study?"
"I don't know. Do you have to study something? [Is their] courses on how to get rich?"

As I understand the proposal students must have a good grade point average in high schools and maintain a 2.5 GPA in community college and be at least a half time student.

2.5 is a C average. I want a better return on my investment especially if I'm forced to fund it.

Could you explain exactly who is asking you to pay for this? I haven't heard a whisper about funding and it would have to come from a Repub Congress.

 

[Conservative65]

5

Listen ... I'm as fiscally conservative as anyone here and I'm not suggesting we fund a new gov't giveaway but rather that we redirect funds from other gov't mistakes to pay for this. No new dollars for funding and no new taxes but maybe, just maybe, some valuable new income taxpayers to help lighten my load. It seems more like an investment than a shiny new gov't trough.

"Investment" is exactly what it is. With an investment you get, or reasonably expect to get, something back; with a giveaway (free food, whatever), you don't. You teach the man to fish, and the man gives you fish back later, plus he feeds himself, making free food unnecessary.

Not that complex really.

I understand that some people, for a variety of reasons, reject out-of-hand anything Obama proposes. I prefer to look beyond the messenger and instead judge the message. This seems like a win-win for America and I'd like to see wide bipartisan support for it provided the funding is redirected from existing gov't giveaways.
BTW, none of my kids will benefit directly from this.

I tend to reject out of hand what he proposes because it seems that the things he wants involve wealth distribution of some sort.

What I'd like to see is those who think one person deserves another person's money voluntarily do what they want to force the rest of us to do and leave the government out of it. If it's such a good investment, prove it.

You will note I specify the funding must be redirected from EXISTING gov't giveaways, meaning some already sucking at the gov't tit will get less. I don't care why you or anyone else has a kneejerk response to Obama's proposal. The bottom line remains this seems a good idea and is worth a try.

I saw it. However, you and I both know that won't happen. There is so much redundancy in handouts now, it's ridiculous. For example, many people on food stamps have kids that also qualify for free breakfast and lunch. If someone eats 3 meal/day, that's 1095 meals/year. When food stamps are calculated, it takes into account family size inclduing those that qualify for the other meals at school. That means during the school year, that child is getting the equivalent of 5 meals/day funded by taxpayers. I'm not opposed to people eating but I am opposed to redundancy. I've suggested reforming that to only be accused of wanting kids to starve by those on the left.

 

[Conservative65]

And how many of the high school kids who were 'streamed' in order to get them the fuck out of the high school will gladly spend the next two years learning as much as they did in high school which was sweet fuck all. And who's going to pay the LIB/Socialist/Union (cough) professors? The fucking 'Takers' or the Makers?
"I hear you're going off to college for two years tuition free soon. What are you going to study?"
"I don't know. Do you have to study something? [Is their] courses on how to get rich?"

As I understand the proposal students must have a good grade point average in high schools and maintain a 2.5 GPA in community college and be at least a half time student.

2.5 is a C average. I want a better return on my investment especially if I'm forced to fund it.

Could you explain exactly who is asking you to pay for this? I haven't heard a whisper about funding and it would have to come from a Repub Congress.

It will be funded by taxes and I'm a taxpayer that pays those particular taxes.

 

[August West]

Evil, just evil. Edumacatin' Murkins? We don't want that goin' on. Next thing you know peoples will be makin' dem intelligent arguments and shit. Larnin' reason an' logic, maybe even... science.

Nope, we likes our sheeples dumbed down 'n' stoopid. Give 'em books an' dey gets all uppity. Starts readin' them Constitutionals. I tell ya the old church had it right when they make it illegal to read the Holy Babble. Infermation's a dangerous game, leave it to duh experts. We wunt da common peoples in line and iggerant. When you know too much, you crow too much.

Obama President Proposes 2 Free Years of Community College

President Barack Obama announced a proposal Thursday to provide two years of free community-college tuition to American students who maintain good grades.

He also said that this plan will save at least 3.800$ per year, it means that student should continue working, because this plan will not give them: food, clothing and house! What for this circus? I don't know!

And who is going to pay for their free education? Another obutthurtcare type program, take from the haves to give free stuff away. What an idiot.

Pay for their education for a couple years or have them collect welfare for the next 50 years or so? Even the dumbest teabagger should get this one right.

That statement assumes that if someone doesn't go to college the only other outcome is to be on social welfare. Even the dumbest bleeding heart Liberal can't believe that.

Sorry, but I`m not making the claim that everyone who doesn`t go to college ends up on welfare. Even the dumbest wingnut should be able to understand my point. You`re not nearly smart enough to know what bleeding hearts think. You need a heart and an IQ above room temperature to know how "bleeding hearts" think.

 

[Conservative65]

Obama President Proposes 2 Free Years of Community College

President Barack Obama announced a proposal Thursday to provide two years of free community-college tuition to American students who maintain good grades.

He also said that this plan will save at least 3.800$ per year, it means that student should continue working, because this plan will not give them: food, clothing and house! What for this circus? I don't know!

It is not free....we willl pay for this and then community colleges will suck as bad as public education at the grade school and high school level......and the cost of Community college will go up as well....since the government is paying for it........right?

This ^^ is exactly what I predicted ---- rhetorical wankers with nothing constructive to add except to crow "will never work", carrying with them no basis at all.

If you're not imaginative enough to come up with a way it will work, then you're part of what's keeping it from happening. Naysayers have never accomplished anything but naysaying.

So saying we can either fund college or pay for people on welfare for the next 50 years is substance?