Obama Proposes 2 Years of Free Community College

[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.

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.

While I'm smarter than you'll ever imagine to be, it doesn't take a lot to know how bleeding hearts think. You're the kind that can come up with all sorts of redistribution programs and all sorts of excuses, when challenged, why you alone shouldn't 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.

I saw it. However, you and I both know that won't happen. There is so much redundancy in handouts now, it's ridiculous...

There's a line from Braveheart in which Wallace responds to a seemingly hopeless situation:
"Do you know what happens if we don't try? Nothing."

 

[Conservative65]

Are grades the only requirement?? There should be some sort of community service in exchange...such as committing to working in a certain industry/district to receive compensation. For example, I know that in certain instances, those with education degrees can have portions of their loans forgiven if they will teach in certain areas.

Some sources I've read say it involves "work" as part of it. If I'm one doing the paying, when should I expect them to come to the house and cut my grass? Shouldn't the work be done for those doing the paying?

 

[Conservative65]

5

"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...

There's a line from Braveheart in which Wallace responds to a seemingly hopeless situation:
"Do you know what happens if we don't try? Nothing."

We don't take a chance wasting more taxpayer money for what amounts to another pandering by Obama. The same argument was used with the war on poverty 50 years ago. Today, after trillions of dollars, we still have the roughly the same percentage in poverty as we did just before the "war" started despite the idea being one to lessen or alleviate 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.

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

Dayam. You are one angry dude but not nearly as smart as you like to believe. I too pay more in taxes than most which is why I would require this CC freebie to be paid for by those already at the gov't trough rather than you and me. Take a deep breath and consider an America with fewer HS dropouts and more college grads at no cost to you or me.

 

[Conservative65]

Just more pandering by the Marxist in chief. This proposal will go nowhere and he knows that. It's just a trap he's setting to beat the Republicans with because he knows they won't go along with it.

Could be, could be indeed from the political dynamic standpoint. Hey that's purty smart, you been ta school, boy?

Yes, very much puts the opposition between a rock and a hard place, because now they have to make the argument on why education is a bad thing.

No, they just have to argue why another entitlement we can't afford is a bad thing. We provide a taxpayer funded education for kids, but once you turn 18 and are a legal adult you're responsible for yourself. That includes furthering your education if that is what you desire. I have an Associate's, Bachelor's, and Master's Degree and I paid for it myself.

That's pretty much what I said -- either make the case for why education's a bad idea or crow "will never work". You can't jump ahead to "an entitlement we can't afford" before you even know what the funding plan is -- in this you give away your prejudice.

You're lucky to have had the circumstances where you could get all that. Now you have to make the case for why education should be the privilege of the well-to-do. Which is pretty much where we started anyway. Seems to me that's a large part of the point of making it a possibility for the general populace.

What you need to do is explain how not wanting to be forced to do for someone what their own parents won't do is the same thing as thinking education is a bad idea. I think education is wonderful. I think forcing me to pay for someone else's kid to go to college is not.

 

[SAYIT]

5

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...

There's a line from Braveheart in which Wallace responds to a seemingly hopeless situation:
"Do you know what happens if we don't try? Nothing."

We don't take a chance wasting more taxpayer money for what amounts to another pandering by Obama. The same argument was used with the war on poverty 50 years ago. Today, after trillions of dollars, we still have the roughly the same percentage in poverty as we did just before the "war" started despite the idea being one to lessen or alleviate it.

So you insist we just give up. Got it. No thanks.

 

[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.

Dayam. You are one angry dude but not nearly as smart as you like to believe. I too pay more in taxes than most which is why I would require this CC freebie to be paid for by those already at the gov't trough rather than you and me. Take a deep breath and consider an America with fewer HS dropouts and more college grads at no cost to you or me.

Keep believing that crap.

Unless you can prove it, making a claim that you pay more than most has no validity.

 

[Conservative65]

5

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...

There's a line from Braveheart in which Wallace responds to a seemingly hopeless situation:
"Do you know what happens if we don't try? Nothing."

We don't take a chance wasting more taxpayer money for what amounts to another pandering by Obama. The same argument was used with the war on poverty 50 years ago. Today, after trillions of dollars, we still have the roughly the same percentage in poverty as we did just before the "war" started despite the idea being one to lessen or alleviate it.

So you insist we just give up. Got it. No thanks.

I insist that if you think it's a good investment, voluntarily put your money there first and prove it. If you aren't willing to back up with your money first, no thanks when asking for mine. Got it.

 

[Flopper]

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.

Yeah, I paid for my 4 years of college too, all $4,000 of it in 1960. My granddaughter is in high school taking advanced placement classes and will be in the top 10% of her graduation class. She's considering not going to college because she's afraid she won't be able to handle a $100,000 college loan after she graduates.

The rising cost of college has made a college education unaffordable for many talented kids.

 

[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.

While I'm smarter than you'll ever imagine to be, it doesn't take a lot to know how bleeding hearts think. You're the kind that can come up with all sorts of redistribution programs and all sorts of excuses, when challenged, why you alone shouldn't fund it.

We all fund a lot of shit we don`t care for and I don`t see you being any smarter than an average teabagger. I`d like to have my money back for that failed search for wmd`s but we don`t always get our way do we? People who don`t fly don`t like paying for the FAA but they have to live with it. See how it works?

 

[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.

Yeah, I paid for my 4 years of college too, all $4,000 of it in 1960. My granddaughter is in high school taking advanced placement classes and will be in the top 10% of her graduation class. She's considering not going to college because she's afraid she won't be able to handle a $100,000 college loan after she graduates.

The rising cost of college has made a college education unaffordable for many talented kids.

Interesting that your granddaughter will have that much in loans. My daughter, who also takes AP classes and will go to college next year as a second semester freshman in her first semester, won't have that much debt. In fact, most of her tuition is paid by scholarships as a result of her academic success.

What those scholarships don't pay, I will as I consider that an investment. Perhaps you should do the same.

 

[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.

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.

While I'm smarter than you'll ever imagine to be, it doesn't take a lot to know how bleeding hearts think. You're the kind that can come up with all sorts of redistribution programs and all sorts of excuses, when challenged, why you alone shouldn't fund it.

We all fund a lot of shit we don`t care for and I don`t see you being any smarter than an average teabagger. I`d like to have my money back for that failed search for wmd`s but we don`t always get our way do we? People who don`t fly don`t like paying for the FAA but they have to live with it. See how it works?

When you can get the portion of the Constitution that say anything about the military removed, I'll give you back the money.

When you use the I don't like paying this argument, it proves you're a retard. I don't owe anyone else's kid a college education.

 

[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.

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

 

[Conservative65]

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.

If someone disagrees with a plan why should they come up with ideas to make it work?
If you want free colleges incorporate them into the bloated public school system.......we all know how helpful it is

Back up there -- if someone disagrees with an idea they need to have a basis for that disagreement. Something with a bit more meat on its bones than "will never work". You can't just walk around spitting "will never work" and never have to say why it "will never work". That's what I mean by wanking.

How about, it's too expensive and we're broke?
That really doesn't matter much to this generation though

Where are the figures to make that case? What's the funding for this idea?
oops -- it isn't articulated yet.

See what I mean? Naysaying before the plan is even constructed. Ergo -- wankers.

Wankers have never developed anything. They're the polar opposite of leaders and inventors. Rhetorical parasites.

Logic, son.....Logic.

If community college costs to attend now, it stands to reason that "free" community college (now attended by more students because of this plan) would cost more.

Also, how many of these students that will be working to "pay for it" will be working with a green card? I guess Obama's trying to plan ahead for the tidal wave of illegal children that just inundated our schools

You can best believe that the "work" being done won't be for those forced to fund it.

 

[Flopper]

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".

What has put the United States ahead of it's competitors is a highly trained workforce. Our labor costs are high compared to most countries, and our tax rates on businesses are high as are our profit margins. It's our highly skilled workforce that has given us the edge, an edge that we are loosing. The difference between the $1.70/hr Chinese worker and the $15.00/hr US worker is education and training. There is no better investment America can make than providing more and better advanced education.

 

[Conservative65]

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.

Yanno, I figured if I lived long enough you and I would agree on something. Now we need to make the hard decisions on what freebies to end so that we can instead invest those dollars in education.

If Congress and the President would work together, it wouldn't be hard at all. The goals of the two parties are to support an ideology and destroy the opposition. Anything good that comes out that will simply be coincidental.

I'm a bottom line sort of guy. If our fearless leaders manage to stumble upon some civic good, I'm for it.

So am I. The taxes that those of us funding college for someone else's kid is money we can't use for our own. The bottom line is that with more taxes, less goes to my kids. That's the only bottom line I'm concerned with.

 

[Conservative65]

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".

What has put the United States ahead of it's competitors is a highly trained workforce. Our labor costs are high compared to most countries, and our tax rates on businesses are high as are our profit margins. It's our highly skilled workforce that has given us the edge, an edge that we are loosing. The difference between the $1.70/hr Chinese worker and the $15.00/hr US worker is education and training. There is no better investment America can make than providing more and better advanced education.

And I'm doing that for MY children. I expect you to do the same for your granddaughter is you see it as such a good thing. I'm not asking any other parent to do for their kids that I don't do for mine.

 

[Conservative65]

Now that is actually American!

"It is better for the poorer classes to have the aid of the richer by a general tax on property, than that every parent should provide at his own expence for the education of his children, it is certain that every Class is interested in establishments which give to the human mind its highest improvements, and to every Country its truest and most durable celebrity."
-- James Madison; from letter to W.T. Barry (Aug. 4, 1822)

I can't imagine what sort of fascists could disagree...

The fascists would be those that support the government forcing everyone to pay for someone's college.

 

[2aguy]

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.

Hmmmmm....the education wing of the democrat party has control of your kids education from kindergarten to 12 th grade....and are turning out a 50% graduation rate in some inner cities.........and they want you to give them 2 more years to get that right.........really?