Obama Proposes 2 Years of Free Community College

[Pepkay]

They already have that in Missouri, the A+ scholarship funded through lottery sales.

 

[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.

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?

And they call it an investment.

 

[Pogo]

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

Yet the original development did translate into "forcing taxpayers" to pay for 1-12.

See the difference?

Me neither.

 

[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!

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.

.... and?

 

[Pogo]

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.

Randbots... SMH

 

[Agit8r]

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.

So the Father of our Constitution is a fascist now? That's fucking amazing

 

[Pogo]

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.

Apparently those degrees didn't involve English. That doesn't even state a complete thought.
However it's enough of one to demonstrate my point of education and despised lower classes. Specifically the phrase "morons like you'.

 

[SAYIT]

5
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.

Prove it?
For a guy who claims to have multiple degrees your comprehension skills are, at best, suspect. I clearly stated this "seems like a good idea and is worth a try" but only if we redirect funds from existing gov't freebies. Nowhere do I state this is guaranteed be successful. You insist we shouldn't even try to raise the education level of more Americans. What the hell are you afraid of?

 

[Boatswain2PA]

Yet the original development did translate into "forcing taxpayers" to pay for 1-12.

See the difference?

Me neither.

So where does it stop? Does everyone get a free BS? How about a Masters? Doctorate? Post Doctorate?

The "free" (to consumer) system we have for primary education is collapsing because it is no virtually worthless. This is just another example of how enticing liberal ideology ("But it's for the chiiiiiiillllddddrrrreeeeeeeeeennnnn") is, but also how devastating it is.

 

[Pogo]

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.

Once again, confirming what I predicted at the outset: sitting on one's rear posting "will never work". An attitude that has in the entirety of history produced the sum total of absolute zero.

Including within this thread.

 

[Pogo]

Yet the original development did translate into "forcing taxpayers" to pay for 1-12.

See the difference?

Me neither.

So where does it stop? Does everyone get a free BS? How about a Masters? Doctorate? Post Doctorate?

The "free" (to consumer) system we have for primary education is collapsing because it is no virtually worthless. This is just another example of how enticing liberal ideology ("But it's for the chiiiiiiillllddddrrrreeeeeeeeeennnnn") is, but also how devastating it is.

Right, because an educated culture is "devastating".

 

[2aguy]

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

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.

Apparently those degrees didn't involve English. That doesn't even state a complete thought.
However it's enough of one to demonstrate my point of education and despised lower classes. Specifically the phrase "morons like you'.

I want everyone to be educated...the government has shown it can't achieve this so the libs solution.....give them 2 more years......

 

[SAYIT]

... Now we need to make the hard decisions on what freebies to end so that we can instead invest those dollars in education.

...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.

As already stated repeatedly in this thread, I do not agree to higher taxes to fund Obama's idea (see bold above).

 

[Conservative65]

... Now we need to make the hard decisions on what freebies to end so that we can instead invest those dollars in education.

...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.

As already stated repeatedly in this thread, I do not agree to higher taxes to fund Obama's idea (see bold above).

As I've already stated, that's what we'll get. I've seen it too many times when certain freebies are made mention to reduce. Those that support this tuition thing are already raising hell about food stamp funding going down.

 

[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. 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.

Once again, confirming what I predicted at the outset: sitting on one's rear posting "will never work". An attitude that has in the entirety of history produced the sum total of absolute zero.

Including within this thread.

Basing something on past experience isn't the attitude of it won't work. We've tried a war on poverty for 50 years in an effort to reduce and eliminate it. The same concept that we tried with it is being suggested here just on a different topic. The attitude that it will work this time is the typical bleeding heart mentality. I'm not the smartest person in the world but I know that trying to push a rope won't work and don't have to see it fail but once to know that continuing to try it will produce the same result.

 

[Pogo]

Soooo predictable...

will never work
will never work
will never work
will never work

 

[Conservative65]

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.

Prove it?
For a guy who claims to have multiple degrees your comprehension skills are, at best, suspect. I clearly stated this "seems like a good idea and is worth a try" but only if we redirect funds from existing gov't freebies. Nowhere do I state this is guaranteed be successful. You insist we shouldn't even try to raise the education level of more Americans. What the hell are you afraid of?

I got that you said we should try it but only if the funds comes from somewhere else. Apparently you can't understand what you read when I've said that you clearly don't get it that redirecting from other plans won't happen. Since that won't happen, as history has proven, suggesting we do something in a manner that won't is a waste of time.

I don't insist we shouldn't try to raise the education level of more Americans. I insist that those who think it's a good idea prove it by using their own damn money instead of tax money even if it is redirected from some other plan. That's what you don't get.

 

[Conservative65]

Soooo predictable...

will never work
will never work
will never work
will never work

SOOOO predictable. It will work this time is what you base your support on.

 

[AmericanFirst]

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?

Those wars cost a lot less than what the idiot obutthurt has spent of our money.

 

[Conservative65]

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

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.

Apparently those degrees didn't involve English. That doesn't even state a complete thought.
However it's enough of one to demonstrate my point of education and despised lower classes. Specifically the phrase "morons like you'.

Left out the phrase "me and other taxpayers" after "so morons like you can come to"