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

[Andylusion]

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.

There are not many subsidies for energy companies, unless you are talking so-called "green-energy" companies, and there we've seen many times how it is not wise, nor beneficial to the country.

As for aerospace industries, the big boon time for that was in the 1970s and prior, where subsidies made air transportation a luxury for only the rich. It wasn't until the deregulation of the 1980s, that suddenly the average person could buy an air ticket.

The building of some roads and bridges can be justified, but I can also claim many examples where it was not, and did not bring any beneficial result. Building stuff when there is a reason to build it, is one thing. Building stuff because you live in a "Field of Dreams" world where the motto of "if you build it, they will come', is more myth than reality.

FDR's New Deal may have given people money to do nothing, and to those specific people, the New Deal may have been a life saver... but that ignores the fact that many of the economy ruining policies of the New Deal, is what caused those people to be out of work, and desperately poor to begin with.

You can thank me for mending your broken leg, as long as you don't realize I broke your leg to begin with.

See the problem with the logic of FDR helping the downtrodden, is that he didn't. FDR didn't help a single person... out of his own pocket. FDR helped 'the poor', by taking money out of the economy from other people. Those people who would have had money to hire someone, now didn't, because they paid FDRs high tax rates.

In the act of helping the poor, FDR created the poor. One specific example, was a push by government to prevent companies from lowering wages. During the previous down turns in the economy, wages dropped, allowing companies to hire many more people, because they cost less. However, since wages did not fall during the 1930s, due to government influence, the unemployed couldn't find work, and remained unemployed.

The point is.... the entire left-wing belief system is based on a myth. The myth is, someone else will pay the bill. But when the government pays the bill.... that's us. We're the government. The government gets money from us. Even if the government prints money, the increasing of the money supply causes inflation, which decreases the value of the money we have... which means they are still getting all their money from us, the public.

And there are consequences to this. Every dollar spent on giving people a free education, requires that a dollar plus overhead, must be taken from someplace else in the economy.

For example, people scream that wages have not kept up with productivity. Which is technically true, but that's because companies are spending more and more on taxes and benefits. If we saddle business with more taxes to pay for free education, where do you think companies are going to get that money? From lower wages to employees.

This is how it works.

Even if we pay for education from say, gambling and the lottery. Where do you think that money is going? Most student grants go to the more wealthy students. Most of the people who play the lottery are poor. In fact, evidence suggests that state lottery advertising is timed to fit with welfare and social security checks. ..... Why do you think that is?

I worked every day that I was in college. Didn't kill me. I don't think it's a bad idea.

In fact, those that work through college, do better than students who don't. That and those married, do better than those single.

 

[Andylusion]

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?

The Beautiful Tree: A Personal Journey Into How the World's Poorest People are Educating Themselves: James Tooley: 9781939709127: Amazon.com: Books

Read up. People in the poorest countries in the world, have pay-for-service Capitalist schools, where the poor can still have their children educated, and in nearly every example, the students of these impoverished poor capitalist schools, do better than the government funded public schools.

 

[Wilbur Right]

There are not many subsidies for energy companies, unless you are talking so-called "green-energy" companies,

Energy subsidies are measures that keep prices for consumers below market levels or for producers above market levels, or reduce costs for consumers and producers.[1] Energy subsidies may be direct cash transfers to producers, consumers, or related bodies, as well as indirect support mechanisms, such as tax exemptions and rebates, price controls, trade restrictions, and limits on market access. They may also include energy conservation subsidies.[2] The development of today's major modern energy industries have all relied on substantial subsidy support.

Fossil fuel subsidies reached $90 billion in the OECD and over $500 billion globally in 2011.[3] Global renewable energysubsidies reached $88 billion in 2011.[4] Taking into account the price difference offered to developing countries of the fossil fuels (in many developing countries, fossil fuels are sold below the regular price), then as of 2015 fossil fuels are subsidised with an estimated additional $550 billion.


Ask for your education money back. You was robbed.

So how many hundreds of billions of dollars would have to be given in subsidies before your pea brain realized you dont know what the fu k you are.talking about?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

There are not many subsidies for energy companies, unless you are talking so-called "green-energy" companies,

Energy subsidies are measures that keep prices for consumers below market levels or for producers above market levels, or reduce costs for consumers and producers.[1] Energy subsidies may be direct cash transfers to producers, consumers, or related bodies, as well as indirect support mechanisms, such as tax exemptions and rebates, price controls, trade restrictions, and limits on market access. They may also include energy conservation subsidies.[2] The development of today's major modern energy industries have all relied on substantial subsidy support.

Fossil fuel subsidies reached $90 billion in the OECD and over $500 billion globally in 2011.[3] Global renewable energysubsidies reached $88 billion in 2011.[4] Taking into account the price difference offered to developing countries of the fossil fuels (in many developing countries, fossil fuels are sold below the regular price), then as of 2015 fossil fuels are subsidised with an estimated additional $550 billion.


Ask for your education money back. You was robbed.

So how many hundreds of billions of dollars would have to be given in subsidies before your pea brain realized you dont know what the fu k you are.talking about?

Energy subsidies are measures that keep prices for consumers below market levels or for producers above market levels, or reduce costs for consumers and producers.

Which of these subsidies are given to the energy companies?
Before you answer, writing off a typical business expense is not a subsidy.

 

[OldLady]

why do the left wing regressives insist that college should be free...or rather, that the money for people's education should be extracted at gunpoint from other taxpayers....many of whom will not go to college?

Why don't they insist that those people attending college on the taxpayers expense, pay back the money they get......?

Why is that such a hard concept for bernie and hilary and the rest of the left wing regressives to get?

I think Hillary IS defending that concept.

 

[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?

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.

View attachment 72292

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.

View attachment 72293

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.

Agreed, much better decisions can be made about how to get and use education funds... There is a ton of waste in many governement programs. That's the discussion that we should be having... How to do it better, not these obsurd ideas of defunding

 

[Slade3200]

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".

This one was a swing and a miss... We aren't even close to Greece, that comparison ain't doing you any favors

 

[Slade3200]

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?

You have such faith that all parents are responsible caregivers willing to do whatever it takes to educate their children. While this may be true for some, there are plenty of parents out there that don't give a shit about that stuff and if they had it their way they would put their 7 year old to work or on the street so they can earn. It sounds like you live in a bubble with little understanding how it works in the poor inner cities. There are a lot of really shitty parents out there and their children deserve to have the same opportunities as ours

 

[Slade3200]

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.

There are not many subsidies for energy companies, unless you are talking so-called "green-energy" companies, and there we've seen many times how it is not wise, nor beneficial to the country.

As for aerospace industries, the big boon time for that was in the 1970s and prior, where subsidies made air transportation a luxury for only the rich. It wasn't until the deregulation of the 1980s, that suddenly the average person could buy an air ticket.

The building of some roads and bridges can be justified, but I can also claim many examples where it was not, and did not bring any beneficial result. Building stuff when there is a reason to build it, is one thing. Building stuff because you live in a "Field of Dreams" world where the motto of "if you build it, they will come', is more myth than reality.

FDR's New Deal may have given people money to do nothing, and to those specific people, the New Deal may have been a life saver... but that ignores the fact that many of the economy ruining policies of the New Deal, is what caused those people to be out of work, and desperately poor to begin with.

You can thank me for mending your broken leg, as long as you don't realize I broke your leg to begin with.

See the problem with the logic of FDR helping the downtrodden, is that he didn't. FDR didn't help a single person... out of his own pocket. FDR helped 'the poor', by taking money out of the economy from other people. Those people who would have had money to hire someone, now didn't, because they paid FDRs high tax rates.

In the act of helping the poor, FDR created the poor. One specific example, was a push by government to prevent companies from lowering wages. During the previous down turns in the economy, wages dropped, allowing companies to hire many more people, because they cost less. However, since wages did not fall during the 1930s, due to government influence, the unemployed couldn't find work, and remained unemployed.

The point is.... the entire left-wing belief system is based on a myth. The myth is, someone else will pay the bill. But when the government pays the bill.... that's us. We're the government. The government gets money from us. Even if the government prints money, the increasing of the money supply causes inflation, which decreases the value of the money we have... which means they are still getting all their money from us, the public.

And there are consequences to this. Every dollar spent on giving people a free education, requires that a dollar plus overhead, must be taken from someplace else in the economy.

For example, people scream that wages have not kept up with productivity. Which is technically true, but that's because companies are spending more and more on taxes and benefits. If we saddle business with more taxes to pay for free education, where do you think companies are going to get that money? From lower wages to employees.

This is how it works.

Even if we pay for education from say, gambling and the lottery. Where do you think that money is going? Most student grants go to the more wealthy students. Most of the people who play the lottery are poor. In fact, evidence suggests that state lottery advertising is timed to fit with welfare and social security checks. ..... Why do you think that is?

I worked every day that I was in college. Didn't kill me. I don't think it's a bad idea.

In fact, those that work through college, do better than students who don't. That and those married, do better than those single.

Too long man, try to keep it to a few points at a time... I think you are dead wrong about the new deal and FDR. He didn't create poor people... poor people were rampant, it was the Great Depression! FDR stimulated the economy and initiated a great recovery. Deficit spending adds to the economy increasing GDP far more than tax cuts. The dollar is still very strong, interest rates are low, so your inflation argument has been a non factor. We can have this discussion an another thread...

I can agree with you on the value of paying for education. Students that work through school and pay for it often get way more out of their education. Our welfare and grant programs need to have an element of accountability so recipients have some skin In The game. It also needs to be considered that unlike you, some kids need to work so they can support their families. Some have strung out parents and are responible for feeding their siblings. Add that on top of your school costs and you are leaving a very narrow path for those type of kids to get an education.

 

[2aguy]

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.

There are not many subsidies for energy companies, unless you are talking so-called "green-energy" companies, and there we've seen many times how it is not wise, nor beneficial to the country.

As for aerospace industries, the big boon time for that was in the 1970s and prior, where subsidies made air transportation a luxury for only the rich. It wasn't until the deregulation of the 1980s, that suddenly the average person could buy an air ticket.

The building of some roads and bridges can be justified, but I can also claim many examples where it was not, and did not bring any beneficial result. Building stuff when there is a reason to build it, is one thing. Building stuff because you live in a "Field of Dreams" world where the motto of "if you build it, they will come', is more myth than reality.

FDR's New Deal may have given people money to do nothing, and to those specific people, the New Deal may have been a life saver... but that ignores the fact that many of the economy ruining policies of the New Deal, is what caused those people to be out of work, and desperately poor to begin with.

You can thank me for mending your broken leg, as long as you don't realize I broke your leg to begin with.

See the problem with the logic of FDR helping the downtrodden, is that he didn't. FDR didn't help a single person... out of his own pocket. FDR helped 'the poor', by taking money out of the economy from other people. Those people who would have had money to hire someone, now didn't, because they paid FDRs high tax rates.

In the act of helping the poor, FDR created the poor. One specific example, was a push by government to prevent companies from lowering wages. During the previous down turns in the economy, wages dropped, allowing companies to hire many more people, because they cost less. However, since wages did not fall during the 1930s, due to government influence, the unemployed couldn't find work, and remained unemployed.

The point is.... the entire left-wing belief system is based on a myth. The myth is, someone else will pay the bill. But when the government pays the bill.... that's us. We're the government. The government gets money from us. Even if the government prints money, the increasing of the money supply causes inflation, which decreases the value of the money we have... which means they are still getting all their money from us, the public.

And there are consequences to this. Every dollar spent on giving people a free education, requires that a dollar plus overhead, must be taken from someplace else in the economy.

For example, people scream that wages have not kept up with productivity. Which is technically true, but that's because companies are spending more and more on taxes and benefits. If we saddle business with more taxes to pay for free education, where do you think companies are going to get that money? From lower wages to employees.

This is how it works.

Even if we pay for education from say, gambling and the lottery. Where do you think that money is going? Most student grants go to the more wealthy students. Most of the people who play the lottery are poor. In fact, evidence suggests that state lottery advertising is timed to fit with welfare and social security checks. ..... Why do you think that is?

I worked every day that I was in college. Didn't kill me. I don't think it's a bad idea.

In fact, those that work through college, do better than students who don't. That and those married, do better than those single.

Too long man, try to keep it to a few points at a time... I think you are dead wrong about the new deal and FDR. He didn't create poor people... poor people were rampant, it was the Great Depression! FDR stimulated the economy and initiated a great recovery. Deficit spending adds to the economy increasing GDP far more than tax cuts. The dollar is still very strong, interest rates are low, so your inflation argument has been a non factor. We can have this discussion an another thread...

I can agree with you on the value of paying for education. Students that work through school and pay for it often get way more out of their education. Our welfare and grant programs need to have an element of accountability so recipients have some skin In The game. It also needs to be considered that unlike you, some kids need to work so they can support their families. Some have strung out parents and are responible for feeding their siblings. Add that on top of your school costs and you are leaving a very narrow path for those type of kids to get an education.

FDR did not initate anything.....the depression got worse while he was in office....and it wasn't until the rest of the industrial capacity of the other Western natiosn were bombed to rubble that we came out of the depression....since our country was untouched by war....and millions of our population were not murdered by socialists.....

 

[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?

The Beautiful Tree: A Personal Journey Into How the World's Poorest People are Educating Themselves: James Tooley: 9781939709127: Amazon.com: Books

Read up. People in the poorest countries in the world, have pay-for-service Capitalist schools, where the poor can still have their children educated, and in nearly every example, the students of these impoverished poor capitalist schools, do better than the government funded public schools.

Are you talking about third world countries where missionaries visit to build schools and provide books? That's great and all but you are also talking about completely desperate third world people. Is that what you want to turn our cities into? Stretch our poor to that point of desperation? Which countries are written about in this book?

 

[Slade3200]

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.

There are not many subsidies for energy companies, unless you are talking so-called "green-energy" companies, and there we've seen many times how it is not wise, nor beneficial to the country.

As for aerospace industries, the big boon time for that was in the 1970s and prior, where subsidies made air transportation a luxury for only the rich. It wasn't until the deregulation of the 1980s, that suddenly the average person could buy an air ticket.

The building of some roads and bridges can be justified, but I can also claim many examples where it was not, and did not bring any beneficial result. Building stuff when there is a reason to build it, is one thing. Building stuff because you live in a "Field of Dreams" world where the motto of "if you build it, they will come', is more myth than reality.

FDR's New Deal may have given people money to do nothing, and to those specific people, the New Deal may have been a life saver... but that ignores the fact that many of the economy ruining policies of the New Deal, is what caused those people to be out of work, and desperately poor to begin with.

You can thank me for mending your broken leg, as long as you don't realize I broke your leg to begin with.

See the problem with the logic of FDR helping the downtrodden, is that he didn't. FDR didn't help a single person... out of his own pocket. FDR helped 'the poor', by taking money out of the economy from other people. Those people who would have had money to hire someone, now didn't, because they paid FDRs high tax rates.

In the act of helping the poor, FDR created the poor. One specific example, was a push by government to prevent companies from lowering wages. During the previous down turns in the economy, wages dropped, allowing companies to hire many more people, because they cost less. However, since wages did not fall during the 1930s, due to government influence, the unemployed couldn't find work, and remained unemployed.

The point is.... the entire left-wing belief system is based on a myth. The myth is, someone else will pay the bill. But when the government pays the bill.... that's us. We're the government. The government gets money from us. Even if the government prints money, the increasing of the money supply causes inflation, which decreases the value of the money we have... which means they are still getting all their money from us, the public.

And there are consequences to this. Every dollar spent on giving people a free education, requires that a dollar plus overhead, must be taken from someplace else in the economy.

For example, people scream that wages have not kept up with productivity. Which is technically true, but that's because companies are spending more and more on taxes and benefits. If we saddle business with more taxes to pay for free education, where do you think companies are going to get that money? From lower wages to employees.

This is how it works.

Even if we pay for education from say, gambling and the lottery. Where do you think that money is going? Most student grants go to the more wealthy students. Most of the people who play the lottery are poor. In fact, evidence suggests that state lottery advertising is timed to fit with welfare and social security checks. ..... Why do you think that is?

I worked every day that I was in college. Didn't kill me. I don't think it's a bad idea.

In fact, those that work through college, do better than students who don't. That and those married, do better than those single.

Too long man, try to keep it to a few points at a time... I think you are dead wrong about the new deal and FDR. He didn't create poor people... poor people were rampant, it was the Great Depression! FDR stimulated the economy and initiated a great recovery. Deficit spending adds to the economy increasing GDP far more than tax cuts. The dollar is still very strong, interest rates are low, so your inflation argument has been a non factor. We can have this discussion an another thread...

I can agree with you on the value of paying for education. Students that work through school and pay for it often get way more out of their education. Our welfare and grant programs need to have an element of accountability so recipients have some skin In The game. It also needs to be considered that unlike you, some kids need to work so they can support their families. Some have strung out parents and are responible for feeding their siblings. Add that on top of your school costs and you are leaving a very narrow path for those type of kids to get an education.

FDR did not initate anything.....the depression got worse while he was in office....and it wasn't until the rest of the industrial capacity of the other Western natiosn were bombed to rubble that we came out of the depression....since our country was untouched by war....and millions of our population were not murdered by socialists.....

Well I guess if you are a Republican you have to say that... But you should try and be more objective. It's ok to acknowledge victories from the other side... Neither side is ALL bad, but ALL of one side would likely be disastrous.

 

[2aguy]

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.

There are not many subsidies for energy companies, unless you are talking so-called "green-energy" companies, and there we've seen many times how it is not wise, nor beneficial to the country.

As for aerospace industries, the big boon time for that was in the 1970s and prior, where subsidies made air transportation a luxury for only the rich. It wasn't until the deregulation of the 1980s, that suddenly the average person could buy an air ticket.

The building of some roads and bridges can be justified, but I can also claim many examples where it was not, and did not bring any beneficial result. Building stuff when there is a reason to build it, is one thing. Building stuff because you live in a "Field of Dreams" world where the motto of "if you build it, they will come', is more myth than reality.

FDR's New Deal may have given people money to do nothing, and to those specific people, the New Deal may have been a life saver... but that ignores the fact that many of the economy ruining policies of the New Deal, is what caused those people to be out of work, and desperately poor to begin with.

You can thank me for mending your broken leg, as long as you don't realize I broke your leg to begin with.

See the problem with the logic of FDR helping the downtrodden, is that he didn't. FDR didn't help a single person... out of his own pocket. FDR helped 'the poor', by taking money out of the economy from other people. Those people who would have had money to hire someone, now didn't, because they paid FDRs high tax rates.

In the act of helping the poor, FDR created the poor. One specific example, was a push by government to prevent companies from lowering wages. During the previous down turns in the economy, wages dropped, allowing companies to hire many more people, because they cost less. However, since wages did not fall during the 1930s, due to government influence, the unemployed couldn't find work, and remained unemployed.

The point is.... the entire left-wing belief system is based on a myth. The myth is, someone else will pay the bill. But when the government pays the bill.... that's us. We're the government. The government gets money from us. Even if the government prints money, the increasing of the money supply causes inflation, which decreases the value of the money we have... which means they are still getting all their money from us, the public.

And there are consequences to this. Every dollar spent on giving people a free education, requires that a dollar plus overhead, must be taken from someplace else in the economy.

For example, people scream that wages have not kept up with productivity. Which is technically true, but that's because companies are spending more and more on taxes and benefits. If we saddle business with more taxes to pay for free education, where do you think companies are going to get that money? From lower wages to employees.

This is how it works.

Even if we pay for education from say, gambling and the lottery. Where do you think that money is going? Most student grants go to the more wealthy students. Most of the people who play the lottery are poor. In fact, evidence suggests that state lottery advertising is timed to fit with welfare and social security checks. ..... Why do you think that is?

I worked every day that I was in college. Didn't kill me. I don't think it's a bad idea.

In fact, those that work through college, do better than students who don't. That and those married, do better than those single.

Too long man, try to keep it to a few points at a time... I think you are dead wrong about the new deal and FDR. He didn't create poor people... poor people were rampant, it was the Great Depression! FDR stimulated the economy and initiated a great recovery. Deficit spending adds to the economy increasing GDP far more than tax cuts. The dollar is still very strong, interest rates are low, so your inflation argument has been a non factor. We can have this discussion an another thread...

I can agree with you on the value of paying for education. Students that work through school and pay for it often get way more out of their education. Our welfare and grant programs need to have an element of accountability so recipients have some skin In The game. It also needs to be considered that unlike you, some kids need to work so they can support their families. Some have strung out parents and are responible for feeding their siblings. Add that on top of your school costs and you are leaving a very narrow path for those type of kids to get an education.

FDR did not initate anything.....the depression got worse while he was in office....and it wasn't until the rest of the industrial capacity of the other Western natiosn were bombed to rubble that we came out of the depression....since our country was untouched by war....and millions of our population were not murdered by socialists.....

Well I guess if you are a Republican you have to say that... But you should try and be more objective. It's ok to acknowledge victories from the other side... Neither side is ALL bad, but ALL of one side would likely be disastrous.

No...the left wing regressives are all bad.......completely and utterly bad...they don't understand economics.....human nature...or anything that is helpful.....

 

[Slade3200]

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.

There are not many subsidies for energy companies, unless you are talking so-called "green-energy" companies, and there we've seen many times how it is not wise, nor beneficial to the country.

As for aerospace industries, the big boon time for that was in the 1970s and prior, where subsidies made air transportation a luxury for only the rich. It wasn't until the deregulation of the 1980s, that suddenly the average person could buy an air ticket.

The building of some roads and bridges can be justified, but I can also claim many examples where it was not, and did not bring any beneficial result. Building stuff when there is a reason to build it, is one thing. Building stuff because you live in a "Field of Dreams" world where the motto of "if you build it, they will come', is more myth than reality.

FDR's New Deal may have given people money to do nothing, and to those specific people, the New Deal may have been a life saver... but that ignores the fact that many of the economy ruining policies of the New Deal, is what caused those people to be out of work, and desperately poor to begin with.

You can thank me for mending your broken leg, as long as you don't realize I broke your leg to begin with.

See the problem with the logic of FDR helping the downtrodden, is that he didn't. FDR didn't help a single person... out of his own pocket. FDR helped 'the poor', by taking money out of the economy from other people. Those people who would have had money to hire someone, now didn't, because they paid FDRs high tax rates.

In the act of helping the poor, FDR created the poor. One specific example, was a push by government to prevent companies from lowering wages. During the previous down turns in the economy, wages dropped, allowing companies to hire many more people, because they cost less. However, since wages did not fall during the 1930s, due to government influence, the unemployed couldn't find work, and remained unemployed.

The point is.... the entire left-wing belief system is based on a myth. The myth is, someone else will pay the bill. But when the government pays the bill.... that's us. We're the government. The government gets money from us. Even if the government prints money, the increasing of the money supply causes inflation, which decreases the value of the money we have... which means they are still getting all their money from us, the public.

And there are consequences to this. Every dollar spent on giving people a free education, requires that a dollar plus overhead, must be taken from someplace else in the economy.

For example, people scream that wages have not kept up with productivity. Which is technically true, but that's because companies are spending more and more on taxes and benefits. If we saddle business with more taxes to pay for free education, where do you think companies are going to get that money? From lower wages to employees.

This is how it works.

Even if we pay for education from say, gambling and the lottery. Where do you think that money is going? Most student grants go to the more wealthy students. Most of the people who play the lottery are poor. In fact, evidence suggests that state lottery advertising is timed to fit with welfare and social security checks. ..... Why do you think that is?

I worked every day that I was in college. Didn't kill me. I don't think it's a bad idea.

In fact, those that work through college, do better than students who don't. That and those married, do better than those single.

Too long man, try to keep it to a few points at a time... I think you are dead wrong about the new deal and FDR. He didn't create poor people... poor people were rampant, it was the Great Depression! FDR stimulated the economy and initiated a great recovery. Deficit spending adds to the economy increasing GDP far more than tax cuts. The dollar is still very strong, interest rates are low, so your inflation argument has been a non factor. We can have this discussion an another thread...

I can agree with you on the value of paying for education. Students that work through school and pay for it often get way more out of their education. Our welfare and grant programs need to have an element of accountability so recipients have some skin In The game. It also needs to be considered that unlike you, some kids need to work so they can support their families. Some have strung out parents and are responible for feeding their siblings. Add that on top of your school costs and you are leaving a very narrow path for those type of kids to get an education.

FDR did not initate anything.....the depression got worse while he was in office....and it wasn't until the rest of the industrial capacity of the other Western natiosn were bombed to rubble that we came out of the depression....since our country was untouched by war....and millions of our population were not murdered by socialists.....

Well I guess if you are a Republican you have to say that... But you should try and be more objective. It's ok to acknowledge victories from the other side... Neither side is ALL bad, but ALL of one side would likely be disastrous.

No...the left wing regressives are all bad.......completely and utterly bad...they don't understand economics.....human nature...or anything that is helpful.....

Nice blanket statement... makes you sound like a complete unobjective idiot:
New Deal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Wilbur Right]

Energy subsidies may be direct cash transfers to producers, consumers, or related bodies, as well as indirect support mechanisms, such as tax exemptions and rebates, price controls, trade restrictions, and limits on market access. They may also include energy conservation subsidies.[2] The development of today's major modern energy industries have all relied on substantial subsidy support.

Which of these subsidies are given to the energy companies?

If you had kept reading todd, you would have read what subsidies to the energy companies consist of.

If you want to know which companies received what, look it up yourself.

 

[2aguy]

There are not many subsidies for energy companies, unless you are talking so-called "green-energy" companies, and there we've seen many times how it is not wise, nor beneficial to the country.

As for aerospace industries, the big boon time for that was in the 1970s and prior, where subsidies made air transportation a luxury for only the rich. It wasn't until the deregulation of the 1980s, that suddenly the average person could buy an air ticket.

The building of some roads and bridges can be justified, but I can also claim many examples where it was not, and did not bring any beneficial result. Building stuff when there is a reason to build it, is one thing. Building stuff because you live in a "Field of Dreams" world where the motto of "if you build it, they will come', is more myth than reality.

FDR's New Deal may have given people money to do nothing, and to those specific people, the New Deal may have been a life saver... but that ignores the fact that many of the economy ruining policies of the New Deal, is what caused those people to be out of work, and desperately poor to begin with.

You can thank me for mending your broken leg, as long as you don't realize I broke your leg to begin with.

See the problem with the logic of FDR helping the downtrodden, is that he didn't. FDR didn't help a single person... out of his own pocket. FDR helped 'the poor', by taking money out of the economy from other people. Those people who would have had money to hire someone, now didn't, because they paid FDRs high tax rates.

In the act of helping the poor, FDR created the poor. One specific example, was a push by government to prevent companies from lowering wages. During the previous down turns in the economy, wages dropped, allowing companies to hire many more people, because they cost less. However, since wages did not fall during the 1930s, due to government influence, the unemployed couldn't find work, and remained unemployed.

The point is.... the entire left-wing belief system is based on a myth. The myth is, someone else will pay the bill. But when the government pays the bill.... that's us. We're the government. The government gets money from us. Even if the government prints money, the increasing of the money supply causes inflation, which decreases the value of the money we have... which means they are still getting all their money from us, the public.

And there are consequences to this. Every dollar spent on giving people a free education, requires that a dollar plus overhead, must be taken from someplace else in the economy.

For example, people scream that wages have not kept up with productivity. Which is technically true, but that's because companies are spending more and more on taxes and benefits. If we saddle business with more taxes to pay for free education, where do you think companies are going to get that money? From lower wages to employees.

This is how it works.

Even if we pay for education from say, gambling and the lottery. Where do you think that money is going? Most student grants go to the more wealthy students. Most of the people who play the lottery are poor. In fact, evidence suggests that state lottery advertising is timed to fit with welfare and social security checks. ..... Why do you think that is?

I worked every day that I was in college. Didn't kill me. I don't think it's a bad idea.

In fact, those that work through college, do better than students who don't. That and those married, do better than those single.

Too long man, try to keep it to a few points at a time... I think you are dead wrong about the new deal and FDR. He didn't create poor people... poor people were rampant, it was the Great Depression! FDR stimulated the economy and initiated a great recovery. Deficit spending adds to the economy increasing GDP far more than tax cuts. The dollar is still very strong, interest rates are low, so your inflation argument has been a non factor. We can have this discussion an another thread...

I can agree with you on the value of paying for education. Students that work through school and pay for it often get way more out of their education. Our welfare and grant programs need to have an element of accountability so recipients have some skin In The game. It also needs to be considered that unlike you, some kids need to work so they can support their families. Some have strung out parents and are responible for feeding their siblings. Add that on top of your school costs and you are leaving a very narrow path for those type of kids to get an education.

FDR did not initate anything.....the depression got worse while he was in office....and it wasn't until the rest of the industrial capacity of the other Western natiosn were bombed to rubble that we came out of the depression....since our country was untouched by war....and millions of our population were not murdered by socialists.....

Well I guess if you are a Republican you have to say that... But you should try and be more objective. It's ok to acknowledge victories from the other side... Neither side is ALL bad, but ALL of one side would likely be disastrous.

No...the left wing regressives are all bad.......completely and utterly bad...they don't understand economics.....human nature...or anything that is helpful.....

Nice blanket statement... makes you sound like a complete unobjective idiot:
New Deal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Nope....I have been studying the left for over 20 years now........FDR screwed it up....with his tampering with the economy, intimidation of the Supreme Court and attacks on private business....he deepened the depression which should have ended in about 5 years..........and kept us in that depression till the end of the war when we still had our industry and our manpower......

There was a depression in the 1920s....just as bad.....and the Republican in office did nothing....and it ended in about 2 years.........

 

[Andylusion]

There are not many subsidies for energy companies, unless you are talking so-called "green-energy" companies,

Energy subsidies are measures that keep prices for consumers below market levels or for producers above market levels, or reduce costs for consumers and producers.[1] Energy subsidies may be direct cash transfers to producers, consumers, or related bodies, as well as indirect support mechanisms, such as tax exemptions and rebates, price controls, trade restrictions, and limits on market access. They may also include energy conservation subsidies.[2] The development of today's major modern energy industries have all relied on substantial subsidy support.

Fossil fuel subsidies reached $90 billion in the OECD and over $500 billion globally in 2011.[3] Global renewable energysubsidies reached $88 billion in 2011.[4] Taking into account the price difference offered to developing countries of the fossil fuels (in many developing countries, fossil fuels are sold below the regular price), then as of 2015 fossil fuels are subsidised with an estimated additional $550 billion.


Ask for your education money back. You was robbed.

So how many hundreds of billions of dollars would have to be given in subsidies before your pea brain realized you dont know what the fu k you are.talking about?

You are wrong. Now I don't know if the OECD is wrong, because around the world, there may be energy subsidies that I don't know about, but here in the US, you are not correct.

A subsidy, has a specific meaning. Not the long drawn out crap explanation above.

That is what subsidy is. It is a sum of money, taken from tax payers, and given in a check to another group. SUM OF MONEY.

Now, here is my challenge to you... If you claim the US government is subsidizing Oil, or Coal, or whatever.... prove it. You show me in the Federal Budget where they are given subsidies.

I can show where Green Energy is given subsidies. Ethanol is given money by the Federal Government, to keep the price at the pump, low enough to be competitive with regular gasoline.

Taxpayer Supports for Corn Ethanol in Federal Legislation | Taxpayers for Common Sense

And if anything, the Government has driven up the price of gasoline to the consumer, not subsidized it, because the government requires petrol providers to use Ethanol in their blends of gasoline, which is more expensive than alternatives. So gasoline is actually MORE expensive than it would be in the free market. Not less expensive.

State Laws On Ethanol In Gasoline: Only Seven States Require E10 Blend

 

[Slade3200]

Too long man, try to keep it to a few points at a time... I think you are dead wrong about the new deal and FDR. He didn't create poor people... poor people were rampant, it was the Great Depression! FDR stimulated the economy and initiated a great recovery. Deficit spending adds to the economy increasing GDP far more than tax cuts. The dollar is still very strong, interest rates are low, so your inflation argument has been a non factor. We can have this discussion an another thread...

I can agree with you on the value of paying for education. Students that work through school and pay for it often get way more out of their education. Our welfare and grant programs need to have an element of accountability so recipients have some skin In The game. It also needs to be considered that unlike you, some kids need to work so they can support their families. Some have strung out parents and are responible for feeding their siblings. Add that on top of your school costs and you are leaving a very narrow path for those type of kids to get an education.

FDR did not initate anything.....the depression got worse while he was in office....and it wasn't until the rest of the industrial capacity of the other Western natiosn were bombed to rubble that we came out of the depression....since our country was untouched by war....and millions of our population were not murdered by socialists.....

Well I guess if you are a Republican you have to say that... But you should try and be more objective. It's ok to acknowledge victories from the other side... Neither side is ALL bad, but ALL of one side would likely be disastrous.

No...the left wing regressives are all bad.......completely and utterly bad...they don't understand economics.....human nature...or anything that is helpful.....

Nice blanket statement... makes you sound like a complete unobjective idiot:
New Deal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Nope....I have been studying the left for over 20 years now........FDR screwed it up....with his tampering with the economy, intimidation of the Supreme Court and attacks on private business....he deepened the depression which should have ended in about 5 years..........and kept us in that depression till the end of the war when we still had our industry and our manpower......

There was a depression in the 1920s....just as bad.....and the Republican in office did nothing....and it ended in about 2 years.........

Come man, you're comparing the 1920s depression with the Great Depression? Get real.

 

[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.

View attachment 72292

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.

View attachment 72293

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.

Agreed, much better decisions can be made about how to get and use education funds... There is a ton of waste in many governement programs. That's the discussion that we should be having... How to do it better, not these obsurd ideas of defunding

Actually, I'm of the opinion, that de-funding is in fact the key to better education.

We have one of the most expensive public education systems on the planet. And yet we're like 23rd in science and math.

One of the reason that private schools routinely blow away all the far more well funded public schools, is specifically because they are not funded.

Why do car makers work to make their cars better than the other cars on the market? Because if they don't, we won't buy their product, and they'll go out of business. Nokia, Borders, Gateway. They had leading products and stores, now they are gone (or nearly gone).

The whole reason schools do not adapt and grow and evolve better teaching ability, even though they are have a higher level of funding than anywhere else in the world.... is because what risk is there to producing bad students? None. In fact there is more risk of kicking out problem students, and having the parents stage a protest.

There is more political danger, than economic danger. They are in no fear of losing their government union jobs.

I did a comparison, of three local schools. Columbus Public, Upper Arlington Public, and Columbus Academy.

Columbus is the worst school system in central Ohio. Upper Arlington was in recent years, considered the best school system in central Ohio. And Columbus Academy is a private school.

In academic scores, Columbus Academy was the top. Columbus public the bottom, and UA right in the middle.

But what is far more interesting, was how much money did the school systems spend per student. The most expensive when I checked, was Columbus, at $12,000 per student. UA was only 11,000 per student. However, the best performing, Columbus Academy, was only spending $7,000 per student.

Why? Because they had to compete. There isn't a secure endless stream of money flowing in. So they had to do more, with less. And they do.

You can see this elsewhere too. Posted about the schools in India, where private schools of impoverished students, out perform public schools funded by the government.

Same in Chile. Chile de-funded and privatized their school system, and their schools ended up being the best in Latin America.

Over and over.... dumping money on schools, has the opposite effect. Only when schools compete for funding through a market system, do the educational outcomes improve.

 

[Andylusion]

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?

The Beautiful Tree: A Personal Journey Into How the World's Poorest People are Educating Themselves: James Tooley: 9781939709127: Amazon.com: Books

Read up. People in the poorest countries in the world, have pay-for-service Capitalist schools, where the poor can still have their children educated, and in nearly every example, the students of these impoverished poor capitalist schools, do better than the government funded public schools.

Are you talking about third world countries where missionaries visit to build schools and provide books? That's great and all but you are also talking about completely desperate third world people. Is that what you want to turn our cities into? Stretch our poor to that point of desperation? Which countries are written about in this book?

No, these are completely privately funded. Parents pay the school to teach their students. It's not a missionary thing. Go read the book and learn something.