Question for Dems and their supporters....

[Esmeralda]

If, by some chance, Sanders upset the Clinton's and win the nomination, will you vote for Bernie Sanders?

I said I would except if Kasich mysteriously win his nomination---Then I am happily undecided.

If he supports science and space exploration I'll vote for him. I like his free college and some of his economic ideas.

Yes, free. Nobody pays for it. Professors and teachers will teach for free, colleges will not pay their property tax or utilities, publishing companies will print out books for free.

Wrong dumb ass. Education is infrastructure as much as bridges and roads. A better educated population will bring more than enough income to pay for it's self.

I didn't know that. Since you know so much about this infrastructure, can you print out where in the US Constitution free college is at?

Free college can be constitutionally justified exactly the same way public schools were. Education is necessary to promote the "pursuit of happiness"

And a stronger country overall.

 

[BULLDOG]

I any case, The GOP should hold Congress so Sanders wackiness will be contained and he most likely will not have as much support from Democrat. None of that "Free shit" is getting through, Sorry to burst anyone bubble out there.

It isn't free but the idea of tax payer paid college is a good one. We should invest in education as that is the only way we will compete.

I agree. But you know, those evil Republicans are not about to charge the wealthy with all this free college stuff, so why don't we try something different this time? Why don't we tax only those who make between $20,000 and $120,000? I really like that idea.

Since you are a right winger, I'm not surprised that you would like that idea.

 

[Esmeralda]

I any case, The GOP should hold Congress so Sanders wackiness will be contained and he most likely will not have as much support from Democrat. None of that "Free shit" is getting through, Sorry to burst anyone bubble out there.

There is no better evidence of the need for better education than the mindless recitation of "free shit."

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I any case, The GOP should hold Congress so Sanders wackiness will be contained and he most likely will not have as much support from Democrat. None of that "Free shit" is getting through, Sorry to burst anyone bubble out there.

It isn't free but the idea of tax payer paid college is a good one. We should invest in education as that is the only way we will compete.

I agree. But you know, those evil Republicans are not about to charge the wealthy with all this free college stuff, so why don't we try something different this time? Why don't we tax only those who make between $20,000 and $120,000? I really like that idea.

Since you are a right winger, I'm not surprised that you would like that idea.

You mean you don't like my plan? Why? I mean, a good idea is a good idea.......no?

Oh, I get it now. You mean free college is a great idea when somebody else has to pay for it, but if you have to pay for it, not such a good idea anymore, now is it?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

If, by some chance, Sanders upset the Clinton's and win the nomination, will you vote for Bernie Sanders?

I said I would except if Kasich mysteriously win his nomination---Then I am happily undecided.

If he supports science and space exploration I'll vote for him. I like his free college and some of his economic ideas.

Yes, free. Nobody pays for it. Professors and teachers will teach for free, colleges will not pay their property tax or utilities, publishing companies will print out books for free.

Wrong dumb ass. Education is infrastructure as much as bridges and roads. A better educated population will bring more than enough income to pay for it's self.

I didn't know that. Since you know so much about this infrastructure, can you print out where in the US Constitution free college is at?

Free college can be constitutionally justified exactly the same way public schools were. Education is necessary to promote the "pursuit of happiness"

Oh, the pursuit of happiness now?

Well my pursuit of happiness is to get 40K a year without having to work for it; tax free of course. Does the Constitution guarantee that? Another pursuit of happiness I would like is a new car every four years. Think we can pull that off too?

Maybe we should get something straight here: the pursuit of happiness means government will not interfere with you trying to find happiness, it doesn't mean to fund your happiness.

 

[candycorn]

If, by some chance, Sanders upset the Clinton's and win the nomination, will you vote for Bernie Sanders?

I said I would except if Kasich mysteriously win his nomination---Then I am happily undecided.

If he supports science and space exploration I'll vote for him. I like his free college and some of his economic ideas.

Yes, free. Nobody pays for it. Professors and teachers will teach for free, colleges will not pay their property tax or utilities, publishing companies will print out books for free.

Wrong dumb ass. Education is infrastructure as much as bridges and roads. A better educated population will bring more than enough income to pay for it's self.

I didn't know that. Since you know so much about this infrastructure, can you print out where in the US Constitution free college is at?

General welfare clause upheld time and again by the SCOTUS.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that you're odds are very slim if you do not have a college level education and for most people that means a college degree. Promoting the general welfare is tantamount in many cases if not most, to promoting the education of the citizenry.

Additionally, more persons educated to a college level will undoubtedly benefit the nation.

 

[candycorn]

I any case, The GOP should hold Congress so Sanders wackiness will be contained and he most likely will not have as much support from Democrat. None of that "Free shit" is getting through, Sorry to burst anyone bubble out there.

It isn't free but the idea of tax payer paid college is a good one. We should invest in education as that is the only way we will compete.

You may get something down that line, but do not think that higher education will be free for everyone. That is too expensive and too easily to abuse.

Maybe tax breaks for furthering education/retraining or some way to ensure the top students get scholarships. Something that sits more in our atmosphere.

The best way to go about it is to use the Social Security example. You get 60 hours of college paid for you by the Government. And once you begin working, they take out the money over your payroll checks at a very low rate plus an attrition penalty of lets say 10%. Lets say for the sake of argument that 60 hours (2 years at a CC) costs 30,000 dollars. It doesn't but this is just an example. You go to school, learn a trade like welding, get out and start working. You'll get 52 or 26 paychecks a year pretty much or maybe 12 or 15 or whatever. Irregardless of the amount, the Feds take out the equivalent of 1/30th of the costs so $1,000 divided by 26 paychecks is about $40 a paycheck or 2-4 hours of work for a welder. If you're getting 52 paychecks, they take out $20 a check or 1-2 hours of work and so on and so fourth. And they repeat it the next year. So 26 paychecks taking out $40 is repayment of $1,040. $1000 for the loan and $40 for the attrition fee to pay for the inevitable WFC.

If you're not working, the payments are suspended until you start again. Payments will be removed from any income tax refund you were due.

Now if you used the $30,000 (again, just an example) to get the basics out of the way in a 4 year degree plan, you don't incur payments until you start working (after the next two years hopefully). If you study nothing but Dodge Ball and beer pong; and fail at your classes or pick an obscure profession that is well intended but has no economic offset when you graduate...you're still on the hook for the $30K. It is a loan after-all.

If you wish to pay 1/2 and get a loan for the other 1/2; thats of course do able. If you wish to forego the available monies...great. No harm; no foul.

Tax breaks and the like are great but having something that is student driven, portable, and above all else sustainable is the winning position.

 

[BULLDOG]

I any case, The GOP should hold Congress so Sanders wackiness will be contained and he most likely will not have as much support from Democrat. None of that "Free shit" is getting through, Sorry to burst anyone bubble out there.

It isn't free but the idea of tax payer paid college is a good one. We should invest in education as that is the only way we will compete.

I agree. But you know, those evil Republicans are not about to charge the wealthy with all this free college stuff, so why don't we try something different this time? Why don't we tax only those who make between $20,000 and $120,000? I really like that idea.

Since you are a right winger, I'm not surprised that you would like that idea.

You mean you don't like my plan? Why? I mean, a good idea is a good idea.......no?

Oh, I get it now. You mean free college is a great idea when somebody else has to pay for it, but if you have to pay for it, not such a good idea anymore, now is it?

You know that is not what I said.

 

[BULLDOG]

If he supports science and space exploration I'll vote for him. I like his free college and some of his economic ideas.

Yes, free. Nobody pays for it. Professors and teachers will teach for free, colleges will not pay their property tax or utilities, publishing companies will print out books for free.

Wrong dumb ass. Education is infrastructure as much as bridges and roads. A better educated population will bring more than enough income to pay for it's self.

I didn't know that. Since you know so much about this infrastructure, can you print out where in the US Constitution free college is at?

Free college can be constitutionally justified exactly the same way public schools were. Education is necessary to promote the "pursuit of happiness"

Oh, the pursuit of happiness now?

Well my pursuit of happiness is to get 40K a year without having to work for it; tax free of course. Does the Constitution guarantee that? Another pursuit of happiness I would like is a new car every four years. Think we can pull that off too?

Maybe we should get something straight here: the pursuit of happiness means government will not interfere with you trying to find happiness, it doesn't mean to fund your happiness.

Sounds like you need to get a lot of things strait. Your childish crap is just that. Childish crap.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Yes, free. Nobody pays for it. Professors and teachers will teach for free, colleges will not pay their property tax or utilities, publishing companies will print out books for free.

Wrong dumb ass. Education is infrastructure as much as bridges and roads. A better educated population will bring more than enough income to pay for it's self.

I didn't know that. Since you know so much about this infrastructure, can you print out where in the US Constitution free college is at?

Free college can be constitutionally justified exactly the same way public schools were. Education is necessary to promote the "pursuit of happiness"

Oh, the pursuit of happiness now?

Well my pursuit of happiness is to get 40K a year without having to work for it; tax free of course. Does the Constitution guarantee that? Another pursuit of happiness I would like is a new car every four years. Think we can pull that off too?

Maybe we should get something straight here: the pursuit of happiness means government will not interfere with you trying to find happiness, it doesn't mean to fund your happiness.

Sounds like you need to get a lot of things strait. Your childish crap is just that. Childish crap.

No, it's called truth. Words mean things.

 

[BULLDOG]

Wrong dumb ass. Education is infrastructure as much as bridges and roads. A better educated population will bring more than enough income to pay for it's self.

I didn't know that. Since you know so much about this infrastructure, can you print out where in the US Constitution free college is at?

Free college can be constitutionally justified exactly the same way public schools were. Education is necessary to promote the "pursuit of happiness"

Oh, the pursuit of happiness now?

Well my pursuit of happiness is to get 40K a year without having to work for it; tax free of course. Does the Constitution guarantee that? Another pursuit of happiness I would like is a new car every four years. Think we can pull that off too?

Maybe we should get something straight here: the pursuit of happiness means government will not interfere with you trying to find happiness, it doesn't mean to fund your happiness.

Sounds like you need to get a lot of things strait. Your childish crap is just that. Childish crap.

No, it's called truth. Words mean things.

Yes they do, but that doesn't mean that if you repeat them continuously,they will become true.

 

[Nosmo King]

If, by some chance, Sanders upset the Clinton's and win the nomination, will you vote for Bernie Sanders?

I said I would except if Kasich mysteriously win his nomination---Then I am happily undecided.

Yes.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

If, by some chance, Sanders upset the Clinton's and win the nomination, will you vote for Bernie Sanders?

I said I would except if Kasich mysteriously win his nomination---Then I am happily undecided.

If he supports science and space exploration I'll vote for him. I like his free college and some of his economic ideas.

Yes, free. Nobody pays for it. Professors and teachers will teach for free, colleges will not pay their property tax or utilities, publishing companies will print out books for free.

Wrong dumb ass. Education is infrastructure as much as bridges and roads. A better educated population will bring more than enough income to pay for it's self.

I didn't know that. Since you know so much about this infrastructure, can you print out where in the US Constitution free college is at?

General welfare clause upheld time and again by the SCOTUS.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that you're odds are very slim if you do not have a college level education and for most people that means a college degree. Promoting the general welfare is tantamount in many cases if not most, to promoting the education of the citizenry.

Additionally, more persons educated to a college level will undoubtedly benefit the nation.

Education is different from advanced education. Now if Bernie wants to try and take free college to the Supreme Court, I would anxiously await that day.

College is a personal investment, not a social investment. If you graduate college and take the right courses, you will make much more money than those that don't. The federal government should not be in charge of making personal investments and no, not covered in the general welfare either.

A house is an investment, but the government doesn't give you money for a house unless you are a veteran and it's included in your benefits. The stock market is an investment, but the government doesn't give you money to play the market. Real estate is an investment, but government doesn't give you money to flip houses.

In our US Constitution, you will find phrases like "promote the general welfare" and "provide the general welfare" but nowhere in our Constitution does it say fund the general welfare.

 

[candycorn]

If he supports science and space exploration I'll vote for him. I like his free college and some of his economic ideas.

Yes, free. Nobody pays for it. Professors and teachers will teach for free, colleges will not pay their property tax or utilities, publishing companies will print out books for free.

Wrong dumb ass. Education is infrastructure as much as bridges and roads. A better educated population will bring more than enough income to pay for it's self.

I didn't know that. Since you know so much about this infrastructure, can you print out where in the US Constitution free college is at?

General welfare clause upheld time and again by the SCOTUS.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that you're odds are very slim if you do not have a college level education and for most people that means a college degree. Promoting the general welfare is tantamount in many cases if not most, to promoting the education of the citizenry.

Additionally, more persons educated to a college level will undoubtedly benefit the nation.

Education is different from advanced education. Now if Bernie wants to try and take free college to the Supreme Court, I would anxiously await that day.

College is a personal investment, not a social investment. If you graduate college and take the right courses, you will make much more money than those that don't. The federal government should not be in charge of making personal investments and no, not covered in the general welfare either.

A house is an investment, but the government doesn't give you money for a house unless you are a veteran and it's included in your benefits. The stock market is an investment, but the government doesn't give you money to play the market. Real estate is an investment, but government doesn't give you money to flip houses.

In our US Constitution, you will find phrases like "promote the general welfare" and "provide the general welfare" but nowhere in our Constitution does it say fund the general welfare.

There are several things not mentioned in the constitution that we couldn't get by without today and they have had almost a universally positive effect on the nation. Everything from the Louisiana Purchase to the space program to FEMA to social security.

Setting up a largely self-sustaining college program based on SS is hardly new ground being broken.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Yes, free. Nobody pays for it. Professors and teachers will teach for free, colleges will not pay their property tax or utilities, publishing companies will print out books for free.

Wrong dumb ass. Education is infrastructure as much as bridges and roads. A better educated population will bring more than enough income to pay for it's self.

I didn't know that. Since you know so much about this infrastructure, can you print out where in the US Constitution free college is at?

General welfare clause upheld time and again by the SCOTUS.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that you're odds are very slim if you do not have a college level education and for most people that means a college degree. Promoting the general welfare is tantamount in many cases if not most, to promoting the education of the citizenry.

Additionally, more persons educated to a college level will undoubtedly benefit the nation.

Education is different from advanced education. Now if Bernie wants to try and take free college to the Supreme Court, I would anxiously await that day.

College is a personal investment, not a social investment. If you graduate college and take the right courses, you will make much more money than those that don't. The federal government should not be in charge of making personal investments and no, not covered in the general welfare either.

A house is an investment, but the government doesn't give you money for a house unless you are a veteran and it's included in your benefits. The stock market is an investment, but the government doesn't give you money to play the market. Real estate is an investment, but government doesn't give you money to flip houses.

In our US Constitution, you will find phrases like "promote the general welfare" and "provide the general welfare" but nowhere in our Constitution does it say fund the general welfare.

There are several things not mentioned in the constitution that we couldn't get by without today and they have had almost a universally positive effect on the nation. Everything from the Louisiana Purchase to the space program to FEMA to social security.

Setting up a largely self-sustaining college program based on SS is hardly new ground being broken.

Social security itself is supposed to benefit everybody that works and their family in half of the cases. That's much different than taking tax money from one and giving it to another whereas it only benefits a small portion of the people; especially when Democrats will always try to make the wealthy people pay for it. Nearly every working person pays into Social Security and yes, many get something back.

Or (as we've been doing so much the last several years) we could borrow more money from China and really make sure our children and grandchildren have no life.

I don't buy into this nonsense that having more kids go to college benefits us all. It doesn't benefit me one bit, my neighbors, or anybody in my family outside of those who might put their children through college. Why do liberals keep pushing to take personal responsibility from people and giving that responsibility to government instead? You want your kid to go to college, save up the money and send your kids to college. If you don't make that kind of money and you think your kids should not go through life without going to college, then don't have kids.

 

[candycorn]

Wrong dumb ass. Education is infrastructure as much as bridges and roads. A better educated population will bring more than enough income to pay for it's self.

I didn't know that. Since you know so much about this infrastructure, can you print out where in the US Constitution free college is at?

General welfare clause upheld time and again by the SCOTUS.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that you're odds are very slim if you do not have a college level education and for most people that means a college degree. Promoting the general welfare is tantamount in many cases if not most, to promoting the education of the citizenry.

Additionally, more persons educated to a college level will undoubtedly benefit the nation.

Education is different from advanced education. Now if Bernie wants to try and take free college to the Supreme Court, I would anxiously await that day.

College is a personal investment, not a social investment. If you graduate college and take the right courses, you will make much more money than those that don't. The federal government should not be in charge of making personal investments and no, not covered in the general welfare either.

A house is an investment, but the government doesn't give you money for a house unless you are a veteran and it's included in your benefits. The stock market is an investment, but the government doesn't give you money to play the market. Real estate is an investment, but government doesn't give you money to flip houses.

In our US Constitution, you will find phrases like "promote the general welfare" and "provide the general welfare" but nowhere in our Constitution does it say fund the general welfare.

There are several things not mentioned in the constitution that we couldn't get by without today and they have had almost a universally positive effect on the nation. Everything from the Louisiana Purchase to the space program to FEMA to social security.

Setting up a largely self-sustaining college program based on SS is hardly new ground being broken.

Social security itself is supposed to benefit everybody that works and their family in half of the cases. That's much different than taking tax money from one and giving it to another whereas it only benefits a small portion of the people; especially when Democrats will always try to make the wealthy people pay for it. Nearly every working person pays into Social Security and yes, many get something back.

Or (as we've been doing so much the last several years) we could borrow more money from China and really make sure our children and grandchildren have no life.

I don't buy into this nonsense that having more kids go to college benefits us all. It doesn't benefit me one bit, my neighbors, or anybody in my family outside of those who might put their children through college. Why do liberals keep pushing to take personal responsibility from people and giving that responsibility to government instead? You want your kid to go to college, save up the money and send your kids to college. If you don't make that kind of money and you think your kids should not go through life without going to college, then don't have kids.

You don't buy into it because as a conservative, you're either too nearsighted to understand the issue or too lazy to care.
Having an educated workforce increases the tax base, makes better voters/citizens, leads to more businesses being open which gives consumers more choices, leads to more patents and inventions, etc. It is the ultimate force multiplier.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I didn't know that. Since you know so much about this infrastructure, can you print out where in the US Constitution free college is at?

General welfare clause upheld time and again by the SCOTUS.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that you're odds are very slim if you do not have a college level education and for most people that means a college degree. Promoting the general welfare is tantamount in many cases if not most, to promoting the education of the citizenry.

Additionally, more persons educated to a college level will undoubtedly benefit the nation.

Education is different from advanced education. Now if Bernie wants to try and take free college to the Supreme Court, I would anxiously await that day.

College is a personal investment, not a social investment. If you graduate college and take the right courses, you will make much more money than those that don't. The federal government should not be in charge of making personal investments and no, not covered in the general welfare either.

A house is an investment, but the government doesn't give you money for a house unless you are a veteran and it's included in your benefits. The stock market is an investment, but the government doesn't give you money to play the market. Real estate is an investment, but government doesn't give you money to flip houses.

In our US Constitution, you will find phrases like "promote the general welfare" and "provide the general welfare" but nowhere in our Constitution does it say fund the general welfare.

There are several things not mentioned in the constitution that we couldn't get by without today and they have had almost a universally positive effect on the nation. Everything from the Louisiana Purchase to the space program to FEMA to social security.

Setting up a largely self-sustaining college program based on SS is hardly new ground being broken.

Social security itself is supposed to benefit everybody that works and their family in half of the cases. That's much different than taking tax money from one and giving it to another whereas it only benefits a small portion of the people; especially when Democrats will always try to make the wealthy people pay for it. Nearly every working person pays into Social Security and yes, many get something back.

Or (as we've been doing so much the last several years) we could borrow more money from China and really make sure our children and grandchildren have no life.

I don't buy into this nonsense that having more kids go to college benefits us all. It doesn't benefit me one bit, my neighbors, or anybody in my family outside of those who might put their children through college. Why do liberals keep pushing to take personal responsibility from people and giving that responsibility to government instead? You want your kid to go to college, save up the money and send your kids to college. If you don't make that kind of money and you think your kids should not go through life without going to college, then don't have kids.

You don't buy into it because as a conservative, you're either too nearsighted to understand the issue or too lazy to care.
Having an educated workforce increases the tax base, makes better voters/citizens, leads to more businesses being open which gives consumers more choices, leads to more patents and inventions, etc. It is the ultimate force multiplier.

Really? Well when I was in high school with a class size of perhaps 35 students, maybe seven of them went to college, and out of those, a few actually graduated. Today, over half of the class goes to college. We have more people in college than ever, and yet, what you claim more college educated people will produce hasn't materialized. If anything, it's gotten worse, so there goes your theory.

So in the liberal world, I'm supposed to wake up every morning, go to work, get taxed to send kids to college, and then when they become doctors or lawyers and I need their services, it will cost me a weeks paycheck or more.

Sorry, but I don't call that a benefit to society, I call that a personal benefit.

 

[Coyote]

If, by some chance, Sanders upset the Clinton's and win the nomination, will you vote for Bernie Sanders?

I said I would except if Kasich mysteriously win his nomination---Then I am happily undecided.

Yup. I like Bernie.

 

[candycorn]

General welfare clause upheld time and again by the SCOTUS.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that you're odds are very slim if you do not have a college level education and for most people that means a college degree. Promoting the general welfare is tantamount in many cases if not most, to promoting the education of the citizenry.

Additionally, more persons educated to a college level will undoubtedly benefit the nation.

Education is different from advanced education. Now if Bernie wants to try and take free college to the Supreme Court, I would anxiously await that day.

College is a personal investment, not a social investment. If you graduate college and take the right courses, you will make much more money than those that don't. The federal government should not be in charge of making personal investments and no, not covered in the general welfare either.

A house is an investment, but the government doesn't give you money for a house unless you are a veteran and it's included in your benefits. The stock market is an investment, but the government doesn't give you money to play the market. Real estate is an investment, but government doesn't give you money to flip houses.

In our US Constitution, you will find phrases like "promote the general welfare" and "provide the general welfare" but nowhere in our Constitution does it say fund the general welfare.

There are several things not mentioned in the constitution that we couldn't get by without today and they have had almost a universally positive effect on the nation. Everything from the Louisiana Purchase to the space program to FEMA to social security.

Setting up a largely self-sustaining college program based on SS is hardly new ground being broken.

Social security itself is supposed to benefit everybody that works and their family in half of the cases. That's much different than taking tax money from one and giving it to another whereas it only benefits a small portion of the people; especially when Democrats will always try to make the wealthy people pay for it. Nearly every working person pays into Social Security and yes, many get something back.

Or (as we've been doing so much the last several years) we could borrow more money from China and really make sure our children and grandchildren have no life.

I don't buy into this nonsense that having more kids go to college benefits us all. It doesn't benefit me one bit, my neighbors, or anybody in my family outside of those who might put their children through college. Why do liberals keep pushing to take personal responsibility from people and giving that responsibility to government instead? You want your kid to go to college, save up the money and send your kids to college. If you don't make that kind of money and you think your kids should not go through life without going to college, then don't have kids.

You don't buy into it because as a conservative, you're either too nearsighted to understand the issue or too lazy to care.
Having an educated workforce increases the tax base, makes better voters/citizens, leads to more businesses being open which gives consumers more choices, leads to more patents and inventions, etc. It is the ultimate force multiplier.

Really? Well when I was in high school with a class size of perhaps 35 students, maybe seven of them went to college, and out of those, a few actually graduated. Today, over half of the class goes to college. We have more people in college than ever, and yet, what you claim more college educated people will produce hasn't materialized. If anything, it's gotten worse, so there goes your theory.

Only to the stupid or the lazy.

Look at the top of the page. See the Twitter and Facebook links? See the banner ads? See the ads on the right side? See the ones at the bottom of the screen for various websites? Today you have access to more goods, more services, more variety, more (frankly) variations on a theme and not all of them good than ever before. This was caused by having a feverishly affluent workforce that has an entrepreneurial gene that was developed via education. If you were honest, you'd admit that the world when you graduated HS bears little resemblance in many ways to today's world. And this is just the economy you can see with your own eyeballs. There are countless developments in B2B goods and services that go unseen by the public.

So in the liberal world, I'm supposed to wake up every morning, go to work, get taxed to send kids to college, and then when they become doctors or lawyers and I need their services, it will cost me a weeks paycheck or more.

Sorry, but I don't call that a benefit to society, I call that a personal benefit.

Would you rather not have any doctors or lawyers?

Look, I'd rather have a plan like the one I suggested--to where you're fronted the money for college then you have it taken out of your paychecks as you work over your lifetime--than the ones being suggested by the Democratic candidates.

However, from a societal standpoint, having more persons with college education is superior to having fewer persons. The only persons who argue to the contrary are the stupid or the lazy.

Sorry.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Education is different from advanced education. Now if Bernie wants to try and take free college to the Supreme Court, I would anxiously await that day.

College is a personal investment, not a social investment. If you graduate college and take the right courses, you will make much more money than those that don't. The federal government should not be in charge of making personal investments and no, not covered in the general welfare either.

A house is an investment, but the government doesn't give you money for a house unless you are a veteran and it's included in your benefits. The stock market is an investment, but the government doesn't give you money to play the market. Real estate is an investment, but government doesn't give you money to flip houses.

In our US Constitution, you will find phrases like "promote the general welfare" and "provide the general welfare" but nowhere in our Constitution does it say fund the general welfare.

There are several things not mentioned in the constitution that we couldn't get by without today and they have had almost a universally positive effect on the nation. Everything from the Louisiana Purchase to the space program to FEMA to social security.

Setting up a largely self-sustaining college program based on SS is hardly new ground being broken.

Social security itself is supposed to benefit everybody that works and their family in half of the cases. That's much different than taking tax money from one and giving it to another whereas it only benefits a small portion of the people; especially when Democrats will always try to make the wealthy people pay for it. Nearly every working person pays into Social Security and yes, many get something back.

Or (as we've been doing so much the last several years) we could borrow more money from China and really make sure our children and grandchildren have no life.

I don't buy into this nonsense that having more kids go to college benefits us all. It doesn't benefit me one bit, my neighbors, or anybody in my family outside of those who might put their children through college. Why do liberals keep pushing to take personal responsibility from people and giving that responsibility to government instead? You want your kid to go to college, save up the money and send your kids to college. If you don't make that kind of money and you think your kids should not go through life without going to college, then don't have kids.

You don't buy into it because as a conservative, you're either too nearsighted to understand the issue or too lazy to care.
Having an educated workforce increases the tax base, makes better voters/citizens, leads to more businesses being open which gives consumers more choices, leads to more patents and inventions, etc. It is the ultimate force multiplier.

Really? Well when I was in high school with a class size of perhaps 35 students, maybe seven of them went to college, and out of those, a few actually graduated. Today, over half of the class goes to college. We have more people in college than ever, and yet, what you claim more college educated people will produce hasn't materialized. If anything, it's gotten worse, so there goes your theory.

Only to the stupid or the lazy.

Look at the top of the page. See the Twitter and Facebook links? See the banner ads? See the ads on the right side? See the ones at the bottom of the screen for various websites? Today you have access to more goods, more services, more variety, more (frankly) variations on a theme and not all of them good than ever before. This was caused by having a feverishly affluent workforce that has an entrepreneurial gene that was developed via education. If you were honest, you'd admit that the world when you graduated HS bears little resemblance in many ways to today's world. And this is just the economy you can see with your own eyeballs. There are countless developments in B2B goods and services that go unseen by the public.

So in the liberal world, I'm supposed to wake up every morning, go to work, get taxed to send kids to college, and then when they become doctors or lawyers and I need their services, it will cost me a weeks paycheck or more.

Sorry, but I don't call that a benefit to society, I call that a personal benefit.

Would you rather not have any doctors or lawyers?

Look, I'd rather have a plan like the one I suggested--to where you're fronted the money for college then you have it taken out of your paychecks as you work over your lifetime--than the ones being suggested by the Democratic candidates.

However, from a societal standpoint, having more persons with college education is superior to having fewer persons. The only persons who argue to the contrary are the stupid or the lazy.

Sorry.

You don't need government to produce college graduates. Again, we have more than ever, in fact, we have more people living with their parents than ever before due to the fact these graduates can't find jobs!

My niece is a college graduate. She's still waiting tables at a franchise restaurant. She's approaching the age of 30 and still lives with her father. She majored in biology hoping to secure a career in the medical field. She can't find a job for any money just to get her foot in the door, and my cousin is a research doctor who tried to get her in to her facility. She couldn't do it in spite of my niece having top grades in her classes.

Doctors and layers are not going away anytime soon because we don't have taxpayers funding their education. If that happens, then you might have a point. But advanced education is a personal investment that one has the option to make. Trying to say that it's a social advantage falls under the same category as government buying cars for people so they can get to work in the morning. It's ridiculous. It's not the taxpayers responsibility.

"I cannot undertake to lay my fingers on that article of the Constitution, that grants Congress the right, of expending on articles of benevolence, the money of their constituents."
James Madison, annals of Congress, 1794