Senator Sanders introduces bill to make public college free

[Flopper]

The same argument over and over. Why force people to pay for others college education, healthcare, public housing, food stamps, public education, etc.... The answer as always, is it benefits the nation to have a more educated workforce, healthier population, people living in buildings instead of the gutters, children in school instead prostitution and stealing on the streets.

Really? Because we still do have those things going on in this country.

Would't it benefit society if I went to work every day to create tax money? So why don't the taxpayers buy me a new car every three years? Wouldn't it benefit my society if my home looked up kept? Then why doesn't government buy me flowers for my front yard every year? Wouldn't it benefit society if we were safe in our homes? Then why doesn't government buy us guns and home alarm systems? Wouldn't it benefit society to have people fit and trim? Then why doesn't government give us all a built-in swimming pool?

There are a lot of things that benefit society, but that doesn't mean taxpayers should pay for it.

Yes, these bad things are going on now but that does not mean it won't get a lot worse if families are left without food, shelter, and healthcare.

It seems like I've read a hundred of your posts that all say the same thing get a job. You simply fail to realize that most people on welfare have a job. It just pays so little they can't live off of it. You also prefer to ignore the fact that 6 million families on welfare are headed by a single mom, most with very limited job skills and almost no chance to increase their income. Then there is the 30% of those on welfare that are mentally or physically disabled.

However, I have to agree with you. If government assistance were cut off some would find work or add a second job but most would not because no one is going to hire them. They are in ever sense of the word redundant in the job market.

From what I've seen I would say most of them would take action to improve their lot in life.

It's like what happened in Maine with food stamps. The state set up very minimal requirements for those without dependents to stay on food stamps. The results? Most of them dropped out of the program. Seems they were not that hungry in the first place.

You people on the left have to give your fellow Americans more credit than that. I remember what happened in the 90's after welfare reform was passed. Between the time the law passed and it went into full gear, all we read about was the death and destruction that would take place; robberies galore, murder out of control, people killing each other in the streets because of hunger. Never happened. In fact, just the opposite results took place.

So I'm going to go through your little list and point out the cause:

People are working and not making enough money so they use welfare. Okay, how many of them are working over 50 hours a week? If you have those stats, I'd love to see them. Because us non-welfare workers work those kinds of hours or more, and that's why we're not on welfare.

6 million families are single-parent households. Okay, who's fault is that? Who is it that gave those people the idea that they can start a family and have as many kids as they want, and there won't be anything to worry about?

They have very little job skills or ability to increase their income. So what you're telling me is that these people with no skills went out and had children. How did they expect to support those children if even they knew they had no sellable skills or ability to increase their income?

30% of people on welfare are physically or mentally incapable of working. I find that hard to believe, but I'll take a look at any reliable links you might have for that.

Do you consider the US Census reliable? I ask because many on the right consider it false news.
Census: 30 percent on welfare disabled

Many on the right? I haven't met or read of one yet that said the US Consensus is fake news.

So now that we have the figures from the US Census, we can reasonably assume that since 30% have mental or physical disabilities, that 70% do not. I think we can both draw that conclusion.

And I can believe 30%. After all, I know a couple of people in that 30%.

One is a neighbor of mine. He can't work because he's a drunk. I've lived here over 30 years, and have not once seen him hold down a full-time job. Basically, his old mother supports him.

Sure, he has worked before; took a construction job for a week or so here, maybe another one there, but only worked enough hours to buy booze for the month and he'd walk off the job. Finally, he managed to get a job where he supposedly hurt himself, and now he doesn't even take those jobs because he's collecting disability.

You'd never know it though. A couple of times when he's actually sober because he ran out of booze money, he cuts the grass, pulls weeds, always nailing something on that garage of his since he hangs out in the garage to keep away from his mother. But yes, he's in that 30%.

Just the other day I learned that an ex-tenant of mine joined the disability club. A current tenant of mine hangs out with the guy. He has some breathing disorder, but nothing that would prevent him from working. But he applied and got accepted to collect disability.

Statistics are fine if they tell the entire story, but in many cases, they don't. They just lead you to believe something that's actually not.

You have to look the whole picture, 30% disabled, 28% signal moms, 90% of the funds go to the elderly, disabled, or working households, and 70% fall in the category low or unskilled labor. It's very unlikely that these people will find enough work to be self sufficient now or in the future.

 

[Old Rocks]

Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren join forces to make college free

As ANY sane country would want and MANY in Europe HAVE done. Its idiotic to PUNISH people to want to be educated....in due time...it will happen.

And heathcare!

Yep. Its what divides me from the conservatives here. I am a Racial Socialist. I believe healthcare and education should be rights not products you have to be rich to get or go into debt to get.

That doesn't work for this country.

Really? Since it has never been tried, how can you say that. China educates it's ambitious students for free, as does South Korea. And both graduate more engineers than does the US. A technical institute in Bejing is now higher rated than MIT. China is getting more patents than is the US at present. We either catch up, or we cease to be the leader in technology.

As for Healthcare, we pay more for less per capita than any other nation on Earth.

 

[Old Rocks]

Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren join forces to make college free

As ANY sane country would want and MANY in Europe HAVE done. Its idiotic to PUNISH people to want to be educated....in due time...it will happen.

Anybody has the ability to get an advanced education, it's just that you have to pay for it.

We are a country of 20 trillion in debt. I would love to see a lot of "free" things, but my country cannot afford it.

Education is an investment in the future of our nation. Neanderthals like you don't believe in it, because you are unable to discuss anything with a well educated individual. You wish for everyone to be as ignorant as you are, to the detriment of this nation.

What we cannot afford is the military-industrial complex that President Eisenhower warned us about.

 

[Flopper]

Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren join forces to make college free

As ANY sane country would want and MANY in Europe HAVE done. Its idiotic to PUNISH people to want to be educated....in due time...it will happen.

Anybody has the ability to get an advanced education, it's just that you have to pay for it.

We are a country of 20 trillion in debt. I would love to see a lot of "free" things, but my country cannot afford it.

Education is an investment in the future of our nation. Neanderthals like you don't believe in it, because you are unable to discuss anything with a well educated individual. You wish for everyone to be as ignorant as you are, to the detriment of this nation.

What we cannot afford is the military-industrial complex that President Eisenhower warned us about.

If education is an investment in the future of the nation then we need leadership from top not the bottom. As a nation we can not hope to reach national goals when student funding varies from a high of $19,000 a student in one school district to a low of $6,000 in another.

Curriculum should be standardized so when students go from elementary to middle school or high school to college regardless of the location of those schools, they need the tools to succeed and that does not happen today with school curriculum created at the district level.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren join forces to make college free

As ANY sane country would want and MANY in Europe HAVE done. Its idiotic to PUNISH people to want to be educated....in due time...it will happen.

Anybody has the ability to get an advanced education, it's just that you have to pay for it.

We are a country of 20 trillion in debt. I would love to see a lot of "free" things, but my country cannot afford it.

Education is an investment in the future of our nation. Neanderthals like you don't believe in it, because you are unable to discuss anything with a well educated individual. You wish for everyone to be as ignorant as you are, to the detriment of this nation.

What we cannot afford is the military-industrial complex that President Eisenhower warned us about.

No, we can't afford sending everybody to college is what we can't afford.

You cradle-to-gravers will be the end of this country yet. Yes, I believe education is an investment--a personal investment. For you little Socialists, let me explain what an investment is: An investment is when you take YOUR OWN MONEY, and put that money someplace that generates the return of that money plus a profit.

People with college degrees not only earn more, but have a lower unemployment rate than blue collar workers. That's what an investment is supposed to do.

Of course left up to you, you would have taxpayers pay for college, and then when a taxpayer needs a lawyer for something, he's going to get charged $300.00 an hour or more.

We taxpayers paid for your little ass when your mother put you in daycare. We paid for your primary eduction. We provided the buildings, the teachers, and even the transportation. Now you want taxpayers to continue to take care of you until the age of 30 or so?

At some point the government has to put the bra back on and have you feed yourself. We can't take care of you the rest of your life for crying out loud.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Really? Because we still do have those things going on in this country.

Would't it benefit society if I went to work every day to create tax money? So why don't the taxpayers buy me a new car every three years? Wouldn't it benefit my society if my home looked up kept? Then why doesn't government buy me flowers for my front yard every year? Wouldn't it benefit society if we were safe in our homes? Then why doesn't government buy us guns and home alarm systems? Wouldn't it benefit society to have people fit and trim? Then why doesn't government give us all a built-in swimming pool?

There are a lot of things that benefit society, but that doesn't mean taxpayers should pay for it.

Yes, these bad things are going on now but that does not mean it won't get a lot worse if families are left without food, shelter, and healthcare.

It seems like I've read a hundred of your posts that all say the same thing get a job. You simply fail to realize that most people on welfare have a job. It just pays so little they can't live off of it. You also prefer to ignore the fact that 6 million families on welfare are headed by a single mom, most with very limited job skills and almost no chance to increase their income. Then there is the 30% of those on welfare that are mentally or physically disabled.

However, I have to agree with you. If government assistance were cut off some would find work or add a second job but most would not because no one is going to hire them. They are in ever sense of the word redundant in the job market.

From what I've seen I would say most of them would take action to improve their lot in life.

It's like what happened in Maine with food stamps. The state set up very minimal requirements for those without dependents to stay on food stamps. The results? Most of them dropped out of the program. Seems they were not that hungry in the first place.

You people on the left have to give your fellow Americans more credit than that. I remember what happened in the 90's after welfare reform was passed. Between the time the law passed and it went into full gear, all we read about was the death and destruction that would take place; robberies galore, murder out of control, people killing each other in the streets because of hunger. Never happened. In fact, just the opposite results took place.

So I'm going to go through your little list and point out the cause:

People are working and not making enough money so they use welfare. Okay, how many of them are working over 50 hours a week? If you have those stats, I'd love to see them. Because us non-welfare workers work those kinds of hours or more, and that's why we're not on welfare.

6 million families are single-parent households. Okay, who's fault is that? Who is it that gave those people the idea that they can start a family and have as many kids as they want, and there won't be anything to worry about?

They have very little job skills or ability to increase their income. So what you're telling me is that these people with no skills went out and had children. How did they expect to support those children if even they knew they had no sellable skills or ability to increase their income?

30% of people on welfare are physically or mentally incapable of working. I find that hard to believe, but I'll take a look at any reliable links you might have for that.

Do you consider the US Census reliable? I ask because many on the right consider it false news.
Census: 30 percent on welfare disabled

Many on the right? I haven't met or read of one yet that said the US Consensus is fake news.

So now that we have the figures from the US Census, we can reasonably assume that since 30% have mental or physical disabilities, that 70% do not. I think we can both draw that conclusion.

And I can believe 30%. After all, I know a couple of people in that 30%.

One is a neighbor of mine. He can't work because he's a drunk. I've lived here over 30 years, and have not once seen him hold down a full-time job. Basically, his old mother supports him.

Sure, he has worked before; took a construction job for a week or so here, maybe another one there, but only worked enough hours to buy booze for the month and he'd walk off the job. Finally, he managed to get a job where he supposedly hurt himself, and now he doesn't even take those jobs because he's collecting disability.

You'd never know it though. A couple of times when he's actually sober because he ran out of booze money, he cuts the grass, pulls weeds, always nailing something on that garage of his since he hangs out in the garage to keep away from his mother. But yes, he's in that 30%.

Just the other day I learned that an ex-tenant of mine joined the disability club. A current tenant of mine hangs out with the guy. He has some breathing disorder, but nothing that would prevent him from working. But he applied and got accepted to collect disability.

Statistics are fine if they tell the entire story, but in many cases, they don't. They just lead you to believe something that's actually not.

You have to look the whole picture, 30% disabled, 28% signal moms, 90% of the funds go to the elderly, disabled, or working households, and 70% fall in the category low or unskilled labor. It's very unlikely that these people will find enough work to be self sufficient now or in the future.

Which is why these people have to learn a trade of some sort to make better money. As for the elderly, they already have their own social programs specifically for them.

The left in this country has been on a campaign to promote irresponsibility. The more irresponsible one is, the more likely they will become a government dependent. The more government dependents we create, the more likely Democrat voters are created.