Since free college isn't free...what is wrong with actually paying it back?

[Slade3200]

Many feel that a better educated population supports the general welfare of the people. Are you objecting to our public school system in general or Bernies discussion of free tuition for college?

Article 1 SECTION 8
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

I assume you were asking me.

I'm objecting because congress has no enumerated power to allocate taxpayer funds to help improve our schools.

You cite clause 1 of Art I, section 8. This gives congress the power to collect taxes for certain purposes. It doesn't give congress the power to allocate taxpayer funds to help improve our schools.

So you feel that federal funding allocated to our public schools is unconstitutional?

Correct. Art I, section 8 confers no power to allocate taxpayer funds to help improve our schools.

If so, how then to you propose a poor state or community improve schools that have substandard conditions for the students?

In my own state, county, and town, I would advocate that the government discontinue operating schools and allow private citizens to teach people.

Who pays for the private citizens to teach, who pays for the books, transportation, facilities etc.?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Many feel that a better educated population supports the general welfare of the people. Are you objecting to our public school system in general or Bernies discussion of free tuition for college?

Article 1 SECTION 8
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

I assume you were asking me.

I'm objecting because congress has no enumerated power to allocate taxpayer funds to help improve our schools.

You cite clause 1 of Art I, section 8. This gives congress the power to collect taxes for certain purposes. It doesn't give congress the power to allocate taxpayer funds to help improve our schools.

So you feel that federal funding allocated to our public schools is unconstitutional? If so, how then to you propose a poor state or community improve schools that have substandard conditions for the students?

Outside of school lunch, do local schools receive much funding?

I don't know........half of my property taxes go to our schools. I (nor my tenants) have any kids in those schools, but we are forced to pay for them.

It's not a couple of bucks either, it's thousands every single year, and I'm just one property owner. However like most places, the schools always claim they need more no matter how much you give them.

 

[Londoner]

The OP asks a great question.

Subsidies to energy companies and aerospace industries are not free, but our government thinks it is a good investment.

Building roads and bridges and water delivery systems and the world's most advanced satellite system ... isn't free, but it is certainly arguable that these investments - paid for with our tax dollars - are beneficial.

Making education accessible to all isn't free, but it is arguable that a well-educated, well-trained workforce is extremely beneficial to commerce.

I'm not arguing for or against the concept of making education affordable or free to all; I'm asking the OP to realize that all advanced nations - including the mature capitalist ones like the USA - make investments into a whole variety of things that are not free but are considered wise investments.

FDR's New Deal, by giving Ronald Reagan's father and older brother work and assistance when the Reagan's were dirt poor, helped to save the Reagan family. This is partly why Reagan was a staunch supporter of FDR as a young man, and why he later campaigned for Truman.

FDR thought that helping downtrodden people was an investment in human capital - a way of ensuring that otherwise valuable people weren't crushed by poverty. We'd hate to miss out on the next president or great scientist. Meaning: I think saving the Reagan family was a good investment.

But the OP doesn't see it that way. His news sources have trained him to see all those born poor or crushed by an economic meltdown as lazy parasites. He wants education to go only to those born wealthy enough to afford it, but he doesn't realize that we provide more subsidies to the owners of capital than we will ever provide to those born poor. We should pity the OP because his news sources only tell half the story.

 

[Centinel]

Who pays for the private citizens to teach, who pays for the books, transportation, facilities etc.?

The people who want those services.

 

[Slade3200]

Many feel that a better educated population supports the general welfare of the people. Are you objecting to our public school system in general or Bernies discussion of free tuition for college?

Article 1 SECTION 8
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

I assume you were asking me.

I'm objecting because congress has no enumerated power to allocate taxpayer funds to help improve our schools.

You cite clause 1 of Art I, section 8. This gives congress the power to collect taxes for certain purposes. It doesn't give congress the power to allocate taxpayer funds to help improve our schools.

So you feel that federal funding allocated to our public schools is unconstitutional? If so, how then to you propose a poor state or community improve schools that have substandard conditions for the students?

How has that worked out so far?

How has what worked out? Federal funding? It's been great for some areas and grossly fallen short in others. I'm all for cutting out the red tape and allowing communities to have more control over education, however I see first hand how many resources many many schools are lacking... They need funding and support. Some communities are rich enough to step up and others are not. I don't see how cutting is going to help anything at all

 

[Slade3200]

Who pays for the private citizens to teach, who pays for the books, transportation, facilities etc.?

The people who want those services.

And those that don't or can't afford it... What happens to those children?

 

[Centinel]

Who pays for the private citizens to teach, who pays for the books, transportation, facilities etc.?

The people who want those services.

And those that don't or can't afford it... What happens to those children?

Can't afford what exactly?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Many feel that a better educated population supports the general welfare of the people. Are you objecting to our public school system in general or Bernies discussion of free tuition for college?

Article 1 SECTION 8
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

I assume you were asking me.

I'm objecting because congress has no enumerated power to allocate taxpayer funds to help improve our schools.

You cite clause 1 of Art I, section 8. This gives congress the power to collect taxes for certain purposes. It doesn't give congress the power to allocate taxpayer funds to help improve our schools.

So you feel that federal funding allocated to our public schools is unconstitutional?

Correct. Art I, section 8 confers no power to allocate taxpayer funds to help improve our schools.

If so, how then to you propose a poor state or community improve schools that have substandard conditions for the students?

In my own state, county, and town, I would advocate that the government discontinue operating schools and allow private citizens to teach people.

Who pays for the private citizens to teach, who pays for the books, transportation, facilities etc.?

That's always been one of my quirks.

Okay, we childless citizens are forced to pay for your kids education. Shouldn't the least contribution you make is to get them there?

No. Our taxes go to fund the busses, the bus drivers, gymnasiums, football fields, books, food, school libraries, field trips and so on.

 

[Slade3200]

Who pays for the private citizens to teach, who pays for the books, transportation, facilities etc.?

The people who want those services.

And those that don't or can't afford it... What happens to those children?

Can't afford what exactly?

To pay whatever needs to be paid to support the teachers, books, transportation, facilities, sports programs, etc etc etc.

 

[Slade3200]

Many feel that a better educated population supports the general welfare of the people. Are you objecting to our public school system in general or Bernies discussion of free tuition for college?

Article 1 SECTION 8
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

I assume you were asking me.

I'm objecting because congress has no enumerated power to allocate taxpayer funds to help improve our schools.

You cite clause 1 of Art I, section 8. This gives congress the power to collect taxes for certain purposes. It doesn't give congress the power to allocate taxpayer funds to help improve our schools.

So you feel that federal funding allocated to our public schools is unconstitutional?

Correct. Art I, section 8 confers no power to allocate taxpayer funds to help improve our schools.

If so, how then to you propose a poor state or community improve schools that have substandard conditions for the students?

In my own state, county, and town, I would advocate that the government discontinue operating schools and allow private citizens to teach people.

Who pays for the private citizens to teach, who pays for the books, transportation, facilities etc.?

That's always been one of my quirks.

Okay, we childless citizens are forced to pay for your kids education. Shouldn't the least contribution you make is to get them there?

No. Our taxes go to fund the busses, the bus drivers, gymnasiums, football fields, books, food, school libraries, field trips and so on.

Most people are perfectly ok with that. Otherwise none of those facilities would exist or if they did they would be piss poor... It's this institution that helps produce the next wave of our workforce, athletes, innovators, leaders etc. Whether you have children or not a strong educated population is in your best interest and in the best interest of our country... hence "the general welfare" part

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I assume you were asking me.

I'm objecting because congress has no enumerated power to allocate taxpayer funds to help improve our schools.

You cite clause 1 of Art I, section 8. This gives congress the power to collect taxes for certain purposes. It doesn't give congress the power to allocate taxpayer funds to help improve our schools.

So you feel that federal funding allocated to our public schools is unconstitutional?

Correct. Art I, section 8 confers no power to allocate taxpayer funds to help improve our schools.

If so, how then to you propose a poor state or community improve schools that have substandard conditions for the students?

In my own state, county, and town, I would advocate that the government discontinue operating schools and allow private citizens to teach people.

Who pays for the private citizens to teach, who pays for the books, transportation, facilities etc.?

That's always been one of my quirks.

Okay, we childless citizens are forced to pay for your kids education. Shouldn't the least contribution you make is to get them there?

No. Our taxes go to fund the busses, the bus drivers, gymnasiums, football fields, books, food, school libraries, field trips and so on.

Most people are perfectly ok with that. Otherwise none of those facilities would exist or if they did they would be piss poor... It's this institution that helps produce the next wave of our workforce, athletes, innovators, leaders etc. Whether you have children or not a strong educated population is in your best interest and in the best interest of our country... hence "the general welfare" part

No, most people are not okay with it which is why school levies across the country fail all the time. But even in areas where they don't, it's the majority (those with children in the schools) forcing the minority to pay for their kids education.

When you rob Peter to pay Paul, the Paul's of your society generally have no objection.

Where I live, the politicians managed to screw the citizens by passing a school levy that automatically increases without a vote. People are leaving for lower taxed suburbs and we have many vacant homes over it. We are one of the highest taxed suburbs in Cuyahoga County which is the county Cleveland is in. With these automatic property tax increases, they are allowed to waste all the money they desire, and voters no longer have any control over it.

If not for being a landlord, I would leave myself. I may in the future anyway because if I'm operating at a loss, then there is no sense of staying here.

 

[Slade3200]

So you feel that federal funding allocated to our public schools is unconstitutional?

Correct. Art I, section 8 confers no power to allocate taxpayer funds to help improve our schools.

If so, how then to you propose a poor state or community improve schools that have substandard conditions for the students?

In my own state, county, and town, I would advocate that the government discontinue operating schools and allow private citizens to teach people.

Who pays for the private citizens to teach, who pays for the books, transportation, facilities etc.?

That's always been one of my quirks.

Okay, we childless citizens are forced to pay for your kids education. Shouldn't the least contribution you make is to get them there?

No. Our taxes go to fund the busses, the bus drivers, gymnasiums, football fields, books, food, school libraries, field trips and so on.

Most people are perfectly ok with that. Otherwise none of those facilities would exist or if they did they would be piss poor... It's this institution that helps produce the next wave of our workforce, athletes, innovators, leaders etc. Whether you have children or not a strong educated population is in your best interest and in the best interest of our country... hence "the general welfare" part

No, most people are not okay with it which is why school levies across the country fail all the time. But even in areas where they don't, it's the majority (those with children in the schools) forcing the minority to pay for their kids education.

When you rob Peter to pay Paul, the Paul's of your society generally have no objection.

Where I live, the politicians managed to screw the citizens by passing a school levy that automatically increases without a vote. People are leaving for lower taxed suburbs and we have many vacant homes over it. We are one of the highest taxed suburbs in Cuyahoga County which is the county Cleveland is in. With these automatic property tax increases, they are allowed to waste all the money they desire, and voters no longer have any control over it.

If not for being a landlord, I would leave myself. I may in the future anyway because if I'm operating at a loss, then there is no sense of staying here.

Dude you just contradicted yourself... you said most people are not ok with it then follow to say that the majority (people with kids) force the minority... You are in the minority... We live in a democracy where the will of the majority usually rules. If you can't accept that then your gonna have a frustrating life.

Besides all that nonsense. If you really think about it, you would realize that the more educated our population is the better YOUR life will be, whether you have kids or not. Smarter people get better jobs and make more money, so you can charge more for rent and more can afford to pay that rent. They create better businesses and products, property values rise, quality of life rises... You seeing the picture...?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Correct. Art I, section 8 confers no power to allocate taxpayer funds to help improve our schools.

In my own state, county, and town, I would advocate that the government discontinue operating schools and allow private citizens to teach people.

Who pays for the private citizens to teach, who pays for the books, transportation, facilities etc.?

That's always been one of my quirks.

Okay, we childless citizens are forced to pay for your kids education. Shouldn't the least contribution you make is to get them there?

No. Our taxes go to fund the busses, the bus drivers, gymnasiums, football fields, books, food, school libraries, field trips and so on.

Most people are perfectly ok with that. Otherwise none of those facilities would exist or if they did they would be piss poor... It's this institution that helps produce the next wave of our workforce, athletes, innovators, leaders etc. Whether you have children or not a strong educated population is in your best interest and in the best interest of our country... hence "the general welfare" part

No, most people are not okay with it which is why school levies across the country fail all the time. But even in areas where they don't, it's the majority (those with children in the schools) forcing the minority to pay for their kids education.

When you rob Peter to pay Paul, the Paul's of your society generally have no objection.

Where I live, the politicians managed to screw the citizens by passing a school levy that automatically increases without a vote. People are leaving for lower taxed suburbs and we have many vacant homes over it. We are one of the highest taxed suburbs in Cuyahoga County which is the county Cleveland is in. With these automatic property tax increases, they are allowed to waste all the money they desire, and voters no longer have any control over it.

If not for being a landlord, I would leave myself. I may in the future anyway because if I'm operating at a loss, then there is no sense of staying here.

Dude you just contradicted yourself... you said most people are not ok with it then follow to say that the majority (people with kids) force the minority... You are in the minority... We live in a democracy where the will of the majority usually rules. If you can't accept that then your gonna have a frustrating life.

Besides all that nonsense. If you really think about it, you would realize that the more educated our population is the better YOUR life will be, whether you have kids or not. Smarter people get better jobs and make more money, so you can charge more for rent and more can afford to pay that rent. They create better businesses and products, property values rise, quality of life rises... You seeing the picture...?

No, I don't see the picture. Sure, better educated people is a good thing, but not when I have to pay for it. When I have to pay for it, it's a net loss because education of other people benefits me less than those who received that education.

Do you think it benefits my society when I go to work every morning and create wealth and pay taxes? Sure it does. But does that mean the public should pay my car payments for me? Maybe pay my car insurance for me as well?

Of course not. That would be silly. While my work does benefit my society, my society should not be liable for my expenses because they mostly benefit me.

 

[Slade3200]

Who pays for the private citizens to teach, who pays for the books, transportation, facilities etc.?

That's always been one of my quirks.

Okay, we childless citizens are forced to pay for your kids education. Shouldn't the least contribution you make is to get them there?

No. Our taxes go to fund the busses, the bus drivers, gymnasiums, football fields, books, food, school libraries, field trips and so on.

Most people are perfectly ok with that. Otherwise none of those facilities would exist or if they did they would be piss poor... It's this institution that helps produce the next wave of our workforce, athletes, innovators, leaders etc. Whether you have children or not a strong educated population is in your best interest and in the best interest of our country... hence "the general welfare" part

No, most people are not okay with it which is why school levies across the country fail all the time. But even in areas where they don't, it's the majority (those with children in the schools) forcing the minority to pay for their kids education.

When you rob Peter to pay Paul, the Paul's of your society generally have no objection.

Where I live, the politicians managed to screw the citizens by passing a school levy that automatically increases without a vote. People are leaving for lower taxed suburbs and we have many vacant homes over it. We are one of the highest taxed suburbs in Cuyahoga County which is the county Cleveland is in. With these automatic property tax increases, they are allowed to waste all the money they desire, and voters no longer have any control over it.

If not for being a landlord, I would leave myself. I may in the future anyway because if I'm operating at a loss, then there is no sense of staying here.

Dude you just contradicted yourself... you said most people are not ok with it then follow to say that the majority (people with kids) force the minority... You are in the minority... We live in a democracy where the will of the majority usually rules. If you can't accept that then your gonna have a frustrating life.

Besides all that nonsense. If you really think about it, you would realize that the more educated our population is the better YOUR life will be, whether you have kids or not. Smarter people get better jobs and make more money, so you can charge more for rent and more can afford to pay that rent. They create better businesses and products, property values rise, quality of life rises... You seeing the picture...?

No, I don't see the picture. Sure, better educated people is a good thing, but not when I have to pay for it. When I have to pay for it, it's a net loss because education of other people benefits me less than those who received that education.

Do you think it benefits my society when I go to work every morning and create wealth and pay taxes? Sure it does. But does that mean the public should pay my car payments for me? Maybe pay my car insurance for me as well?

Of course not. That would be silly. While my work does benefit my society, my society should not be liable for my expenses because they mostly benefit me.

This is why the term general welfare is used... A blind guy will never see the lights on the bay bridge but his tax dollars still went towards it, it's how it works. we vote and our elected officials decide how to tax and how to spend. I respect your pov as you are entitled to want to live a selfish kind of life. I completely disagree and am glad the majority is on my side enough to want to put energy and money into bettering our school systems. I hope we do more for it and think we will

 

[JoeB131]

You're so fucking scared you might have to do something yourself to help people that you'll agree to ANYTHING if the feds will just take the money and deal with it themselves.

Again. Our federal government's job is not to feed people That is the job of their families and their home communities and their churches. We are a free people, and our constitution gives our federal government LIMITED powers. Feed your fucking self. When the feds get out of the way, it's not that hard.

Uh, actually, if the Feds didn't subsidize the "Farm Lifestlye", we'd probably all starve. The laws of "Supply and Demand" wouldn't work with food, which is why the government has to subsidize both. So while you might fume when that welfare person uses her food stamp to buy a steak, keep in mind that the steak wouldn't be available if she didn't.

 

[JoeB131]

No, I don't see the picture. Sure, better educated people is a good thing, but not when I have to pay for it. When I have to pay for it, it's a net loss because education of other people benefits me less than those who received that education.

Guy, you probably get more out of the government than you are paying in, quit your whinging.

Do you think it benefits my society when I go to work every morning and create wealth and pay taxes? Sure it does. But does that mean the public should pay my car payments for me? Maybe pay my car insurance for me as well?

The public pays for that road you drive on, the infrastructure that keeps your business running. And yes, that means actually having educated people to make sure it all keeps running properly.

 

[Andylusion]

Many feel that a better educated population supports the general welfare of the people. Are you objecting to our public school system in general or Bernies discussion of free tuition for college?

Article 1 SECTION 8
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

I assume you were asking me.

I'm objecting because congress has no enumerated power to allocate taxpayer funds to help improve our schools.

You cite clause 1 of Art I, section 8. This gives congress the power to collect taxes for certain purposes. It doesn't give congress the power to allocate taxpayer funds to help improve our schools.

So you feel that federal funding allocated to our public schools is unconstitutional? If so, how then to you propose a poor state or community improve schools that have substandard conditions for the students?

Outside of school lunch, do local schools receive much funding?

I don't know........half of my property taxes go to our schools. I (nor my tenants) have any kids in those schools, but we are forced to pay for them.

It's not a couple of bucks either, it's thousands every single year, and I'm just one property owner. However like most places, the schools always claim they need more no matter how much you give them.

The answer is no, but.... yes.

At face value, you would assume that the answer is no. Out of a total of $200 Million dollars in revenue for my local school district, only $7 Million comes from Federal Grants. It would seem to show that Federal revenue is actually very small.

However, that would be intentionally misleading. In reality most of the state level grants are also actually Federal money.

Nearly 1/3rd of all state funds are from the Federal Government. This is how the Federal Government, dictates policy to the states. You better expand Medicaid in your state, or else we'll cut your Federal school grants.

Most of the State level "Grants-in-Aid" are actually Federal programs.

If you ever see your local schools doing really dumb programs that make no sense, like a special-education program that only has 3 students enrolled.... the reason they do this, is because if they have the program, then they can get the Federal grants, through the State government.

Extremely wasteful, but it's all about the money.

 

[Andylusion]

No, I don't see the picture. Sure, better educated people is a good thing, but not when I have to pay for it. When I have to pay for it, it's a net loss because education of other people benefits me less than those who received that education.

Guy, you probably get more out of the government than you are paying in, quit your whinging.

Do you think it benefits my society when I go to work every morning and create wealth and pay taxes? Sure it does. But does that mean the public should pay my car payments for me? Maybe pay my car insurance for me as well?

The public pays for that road you drive on, the infrastructure that keeps your business running. And yes, that means actually having educated people to make sure it all keeps running properly.

Yeah, and if we were motivated by greed and a lust for cash, then you would have a great point.

But we're not. I do not want to get more out of government, than I put in. I'm not spending my life, trying to figure out how I can screw over other tax payers for my benefit.

And quite frankly, if my taxes ONLY paid for the roads I drive on and the infrastructure that keeps my business going.... I would have no problem at all.

We could do all of that, and cut taxes across the country by 50%. The problem is, left-wingers do not just pay for roads and infrastructure. You guys blow the money on crap that helps no one anywhere, do anything. It's a complete and total waste.

We've seen where that ideology leads to. It's called "Greece".

 

[Centinel]

And those that don't or can't afford it... What happens to those children?

Those who can't afford those particular services will find alternate means by which to educate their children.

Have you ever heard the story of Frederick Douglass?

Have you ever heard of Khan Academy?

 

[Wilbur Right]

One reason the bills are higher is a change state lawmakers approved last year, eliminating a 12.5 percent discount on residential bills for new property taxes approved beginning in November 2013.


had a guy call me the other day complaining that his property tax bill went up although his home value went down. I told him it went up for two reasons. It went up because there was a new levy in his area and because of House Bill 920."

House Bill 920, enacted by Ohio lawmakers in 1976, was designed to prevent collections from many property taxes from automatically going up with inflation. But in the rare cases when property values decrease, the rates can go up.

Where I live, the politicians managed to screw the citizens by passing a school levy that automatically increases without a vote.

You really do well lying by omission.