Democrats propose free college tuition and debt forgiveness!

SomeCents said:

Maybe instead of considering adding on another two (or four!) years of "free" school, why not rethink what we're doing with the 13 years we already send our kids to "free" school? We already spend well over a 100K per student (that's using a general figure for our area of $10K/yr*). Are we really getting our monies worth? And if not, why the hell not? If the K-12 education system can't keep up with the times, why do trust them to teach our kids in the first place?

/rant over

*Sources: www.governing.com, Our State's DOE 2016 Annual Report on Spending

Click to expand...

My state, last time I saw an assessment more than 5 years ago was over $13k per student annually. It's amazing how much money these schools can burn through.

Fletch said:

Its not stupid at all. Its a matter or priorities. And the priority of the left is gaining power. You only want to help privileged college students because they can vote. Pay off their student loans and you have bought their votes forever. Handicapped children cant vote and many may not make it to voting age anyway, so you dont care. Let them panhandle

Click to expand...

First of all the idea that supporting issue X means I or anyone else, therefore, opposes or doesn't care about issue Y is sad, pathetic, even for satire or trolling. You should be embarrassed at that weak effort. BE BEST!

Second, how have Democrats abandoned the children? We just had a debate when many candidates supported MFA. How is that evidence of abandoning children with disabilities, or adults with disabilities, since everyone is covered without regard to pre-existing conditions, there are no lifetime spending limits, no exclusions for pre-existing conditions. Bernies plan would try to do that with no copays etc.

Before that, the ACA expanded insurance for everyone including the children, who if they're not on expanded Medicaid can get insurance to pay for treatments for their disabled children through the heavily subsidized ACA plans if they're not insured at work. The RESULT of the ACA was insurance coverage for children in Tennessee hit decades highs, no thanks to the GOP. The alternative to MFA on the Democratic side is to expand the ACA subsidies and make insurance more affordable to more people in the middle class. That also reaches down to the children because parents get the insurance, not the children, and a family plan covers everyone in the family including the disabled children, once again without regard to pre-existing conditions, no spending caps, etc.

JasperL said:

First of all the idea that supporting issue X means I or anyone else, therefore, opposes or doesn't care about issue Y is sad, pathetic, even for satire or trolling. You should be embarrassed at that weak effort. BE BEST!

Second, how have Democrats abandoned the children? We just had a debate when many candidates supported MFA. How is that evidence of abandoning children with disabilities, or adults with disabilities, since everyone is covered without regard to pre-existing conditions, there are no lifetime spending limits, no exclusions for pre-existing conditions. Bernies plan would try to do that with no copays etc.

Before that, the ACA expanded insurance for everyone including the children, who if they're not on expanded Medicaid can get insurance to pay for treatments for their disabled children through the heavily subsidized ACA plans if they're not insured at work. The RESULT of the ACA was insurance coverage for children in Tennessee hit decades highs, no thanks to the GOP. The alternative to MFA on the Democratic side is to expand the ACA subsidies and make insurance more affordable to more people in the middle class. That also reaches down to the children because parents get the insurance, not the children, and a family plan covers everyone in the family including the disabled children, once again without regard to pre-existing conditions, no spending caps, etc.

Click to expand...

If Obamacare covered these kids, why are they begging for money at charity hospitals? And Bernies plan is about the state takeover of medicine, not helping people. Anyone with the slightest understanding of socialism, wouldnt support socialism. Since he does support it, its because his goal is enhancing state power, not altruism. Plus, none of these Medicare for all phonies are honest about the costs. But my point from the outset was simple: Before you libs crack open a new entitlement program, get the ones youve already got running working right. Make sure the needs of those who cant take care of themselves are met BEFORE you start buying votes with your next left wing scam. You know, your argument for an ever expanding government might have some credibility if you would at least demand accountability and efficiency out of what you have already created. The state does nothing right and all you want to do is expand the power of the state. That doesnt make much sense.

Fletch said:

If Obamacare covered these kids, why are they begging for money at charity hospitals? And Bernies plan is about the state takeover of medicine, not helping people. Anyone with the slightest understanding of socialism, wouldnt support socialism. Since he does support it, its because his goal is enhancing state power, not altruism.

Click to expand...

MFA isn't properly described as "socialism" because the state doesn't provide the services, that's done by private providers. The state is the payer. But even if you want to include MFA in that definition, the VAST majority of the country, including virtually all elected Republicans as well as Democrats, local, state and federal, supports "socialism" through things like the VA, Medicare, SS, Medicaid, the military, public roads, ports and much more. So it's not whether the country supports socialism, it does, across the board except for the trivial and meaningless number of actual libertarians, but how much and in what parts of the economy.

So attributing bad, made up motives to people is just a dumb argument because it would apply to Trump, nearly all the elected Republicans, and the vast majority of the American people.

Plus, none of these Medicare for all phonies are honest about the costs. But my point from the outset was simple: Before you libs crack open a new entitlement program, get the ones youve already got running working right. Make sure the needs of those who cant take care of themselves are met BEFORE you start buying votes with your next left wing scam. You know, your argument for an ever expanding government might have some credibility if you would at least demand accountability and efficiency out of what you have already created. The state does nothing right and all you want to do is expand the power of the state. That doesnt make much sense.

Click to expand...

And your point from the outset has been trolling, red herrings, and butwhataboutisms - pick your logical fallacy. It can be used every time any person of any party proposes any change in policy about anything. Why are we debating the future of the F-22 program, when the GOP hasn't fixed the border yet? FIX THAT FIRST!!! Why are we discussing tax policy when the GOP hasn't replaced ACA??!! I arbitrarily demand that until the GOP address anything, they FIRST must totally address all the issues with my arbitrarily determined priority, healthcare, including providing sufficient access for the CHILDREN!!! And until they do we must not discuss the merits of any other policy question!!!@!

Of course that's an idiotic position, but it's also what you're demanding versus even spending a single post talking about the merits of funding education post K-12.

JasperL said:

MFA isn't properly described as "socialism" because the state doesn't provide the services, that's done by private providers. The state is the payer. But even if you want to include MFA in that definition, the VAST majority of the country, including virtually all elected Republicans as well as Democrats, local, state and federal, supports "socialism" through things like the VA, Medicare, SS, Medicaid, the military, public roads, ports and much more. So it's not whether the country supports socialism, it does, across the board except for the trivial and meaningless number of actual libertarians, but how much and in what parts of the economy.

So attributing bad, made up motives to people is just a dumb argument because it would apply to Trump, nearly all the elected Republicans, and the vast majority of the American people.



And your point from the outset has been trolling, red herrings, and butwhataboutisms - pick your logical fallacy. It can be used every time any person of any party proposes any change in policy about anything. Why are we debating the future of the F-22 program, when the GOP hasn't fixed the border yet? FIX THAT FIRST!!! Why are we discussing tax policy when the GOP hasn't replaced ACA??!! I arbitrarily demand that until the GOP address anything, they FIRST must totally address all the issues with my arbitrarily determined priority, healthcare, including providing sufficient access for the CHILDREN!!! And until they do we must not discuss the merits of any other policy question!!!@!

Of course that's an idiotic position, but it's also what you're demanding versus even spending a single post talking about the merits of funding education post K-12.

Click to expand...

Its not an idiotic position at all. You want to create an new entitlement for privileged kids while handicapped kids are left begging. Thats a fact. That you dont want to face that fact is your issue, not mine. It a simple proposition that should have universal agreement: No paying off the college loans for the privileged until the needs of the handicapped at met. Only a heartless liberal could disagree with that. You need to get your priorities in order.

Fletch said:

Its not an idiotic position at all. You want to create an new entitlement for privileged kids while handicapped kids are left begging. Thats a fact.

Click to expand...

It's not a fact. You're pulling this "fact" from your rear end, based on nothing but baseless partisan hackery, have offered no evidence in support of this "fact."

That you dont want to face that fact is your issue, not mine. It a simple proposition that should have universal agreement: No paying off the college loans for the privileged until the needs of the handicapped at met. Only a heartless liberal could disagree with that. You need to get your priorities in order.

Click to expand...

Fine, then I demand that we rescind the TCJA tax cuts until the needs of the handicapped are met. I also demand that we not buy any other new fighter jets until their needs are met, stop production on any navy vessels, and mothball all other military hardware acquisitions until their needs are met. We should not build another mile of the Trump Wall until the children's needs are met. Further, any discussion of any of those issues is illegitimate until we first completely address the needs of those handicapped children. Those are simple propositions that should have universal agreement. If you favor action on any program but handicapped children, you do not care about handicapped children. Q.E.D.

In fact, when you participate in any thread NOT about addressing the handicapped children, you are violating that principle so I hope you keep that in mind. ONLY ONE ISSUE MATTERS, and only that issue can be discussed at this time and it's handicapped children. Please abide by your own rule. I'm sure you will.

americanwoman said:

Did you mean "dumbass"? :lamo

Anyways, all you have is to call some people morons, you don't bring any better or worse solutions to the table. Oh, and there you go with the insults again - trying to get on Jesus' naughty list are we?

Click to expand...

I think that between dummas, and exiting instead of exciting, education would have been very important.

marke said:

Does the prospect of growing the government and spending trillions of hard-earned taxpayer dollars on overpaid college employees excite you? If so, you must be a beneficiary of government largesse. You should know that such wasteful squandering of precious tax dollars is going to lead to the ruin of the American economy. That is why good economists are "sounding the alarm" against such dangerous foolishness for anyone who will listen.

Click to expand...

Interesting to see the lowly liberal/Demo stoop lower and lower each week. This "forgiveness" isn't going to happen rest assure.

How exiting! The new wave of democrat morons running for president have proposed bankrupting the American economy by stupidly abolishing student loan debts and paying excessively high priced college tuition for everyone. What a boon for democrat college administrators and officials. I see huge bonuses and higher salaries and benefits for everyone in the education business, thanks to democrats.

I also see the massive increase of fiscal stupidity exposed in these new dummass ideas being promoted by the new wave of moronic democrat politicians.

Click to expand...

Incredible isn't it ?
They have to be kidding. No American voter or anyone would buy this idea and yes, it's dumb. if this is one of many nonsense platforms the lowly liberal/Demo is running on,they might as well get set for a landslide defeat of the century.

PTF said:

Incredible isn't it ?
They have to be kidding. No American voter or anyone would buy this idea and yes, it's dumb. if this is one of many nonsense platforms the lowly liberal/Demo is running on,they might as well get set for a landslide defeat of the century.

Click to expand...

Sadly, too many Americans will buy into the stupid idea because, as democrat insiders know, too many Americans will believe just about any lie the propagandist leftist news media preaches.

marke said:

Sadly, too many Americans will buy into the stupid idea because, as democrat insiders know, too many Americans will believe just about any lie the propagandist leftist news media preaches.

Click to expand...

When surveyed, to my best knowledge, even people left of the center say they distrust the media. It certainly is true among conservatives, moderate conservatives, and moderate liberals. Moreover, we also know that you need to go to the left to find people who receive biased news. Moderates and conservatives tend to pay attention to both more conservative-leaning and more liberal-leaning outlets. In essence, most people do something that is a good sanity check: for example, you can read both the New York Times and the Daily Wire, or watch both Fox News and MSNBC. What they have in common is likely to be true. So, I don't think your story about the media indoctrinating the American public is correct.

Yes, left-leaning media outlets lie about their political views by introducing political commentary in news segments, but my suspicion is that the vast majority of people understand it's colored by the political views of the reporters and editors. It's probably because people see the political narrative in news outlets that claim to be neutral that they don't trust them.


Polls also show radicals within the Democratic party are well known, but generally disliked. The four women in the Squad are exactly like that. Everyone knows who is Ocasio-Cortez. If I recall correctly, a poll in July showed she was the most well recognized Democrat, but she had an approval rating in the low 20's. A more recent poll shows the average American voter is closer to Trump than every single Democratic candidate, Bidden being the closest among them. We also know that the average American might welcome reforms on background checks for weapons, but that almost no one supports confiscations and bans of the sort O'Rourke proposed recently.

Democrats seem to be engaged in trying to outflank each other to the left at every opportunity and policies are only going to sound more authoritarian and, well, crazy as time goes by if they keep it up. Recently, a woman from South America made a commercial about Ocasio-Cortez and AOC called her a white supremacist on tweeter. Do you realize how surreal this is? I mean, a minority white supremacist is literally a Dave Chapelle skit. You cannot parody the far left because it is its own parody. When you get Bill Maher, a huge Obama supporter, someone who donated money to the Clinton campaign and someone who clearly has Trump derangement syndrome, come out TWICE to call Democrats crazy nutjobs, there must be something wrong. We even have a Democratic candidate on record saying conservatives are nicer and that liberals are mean liars.

My guess is that Trump did not win in 2016 so much as Clinton lost. Many former Obama voters defected to Trump, just as many primary Sanders supporters defected to Trump. Do you think those people are about to swap back to Democrats? I also have some anecdotal evidence that life-long Democrats plan to vote a straight Red ticket in 2020 to teach them a lesson. Enough with the children whining.

americanwoman said:

That's an interesting idea.

Another issue to address is what they spend on sports. Now I love college sports, don't get me wrong, but many colleges spend an awful lot on athletics that could be going to education.

Click to expand...

Some colleges, like the University of Texas (UT), make a good deal of money from their sports programs and that revenue helps to fund general education expenses. UT now offers free tuition to Texas resident students who come from households making $65K/year or less and give some tuition assistance (on a sliding scale) to those from households making up to $125K/year.

Fletch said:

How about no free college for anyone until kids like those at Shriners Hospital no longer have to beg for funds.

Click to expand...

The difference is that is a private organization. Nobody is forced to give them money.

It also primarily works in only a single field, burns. It is only in recent years that they expanded to other services, like spinal cord injuries and orthopedics.

However, the fact that they are able to provide these services at 22 hospitals in the US, Canada and Mexico entirely through donations and without taxpayer funding says a lot.

TheEconomist said:

When surveyed, to my best knowledge, even people left of the center say they distrust the media. It certainly is true among conservatives, moderate conservatives, and moderate liberals. Moreover, we also know that you need to go to the left to find people who receive biased news. Moderates and conservatives tend to pay attention to both more conservative-leaning and more liberal-leaning outlets. In essence, most people do something that is a good sanity check: for example, you can read both the New York Times and the Daily Wire, or watch both Fox News and MSNBC. What they have in common is likely to be true. So, I don't think your story about the media indoctrinating the American public is correct.

Click to expand...

For me, the quickest way for me to distrust a news report or source is the amount of "hype" built into the article.

If the report is all about people screaming and yelling, and saying how those on the other side are racists-bigots-idiots-uneducated, then that is the fastest way for me to turn against not only the information presented, but the agency that feels that such nonsense is "news". I do not want commentary, I am able to make up my own mind, based on being given accurate and unbiased information.

And the information can be biased, but I also want fair time given to reasonable and articulate people who can express the opposing view.

This is where today we have amazingly little. I am a Moderate, and Conservative much more by personal inclination that by politics. Even if I feel strongly about something, I believe a "Conservative" measured approach should be taken instead of simply rushing blindly in and hoping some disaster does not result.

And in my current view, the far-left has quite frankly gone insane the last few years. They attack anybody who is opposed to them, lashing out and going after them, even if they agree on 85% of a platform, the other 15% is enough to see them attacked and vilified. And it actually reminds me much of how the party behaved when it came to things like Segregation and Communism in the 1940's and 1950's. This time they are simply screaming from the other side.

Now do I have a problem giving free college to those who are of low income? Not at all! So long as they have a GPA high enough to show they will actually finish what they started, and they get a degree that has an application in the general job market once they graduate. Something like Engineering, English (applications in a great many things other than teaching), or even computer sciences.

Not degrees in things like Gender Studies, Race Relations, Basket Weaving, and other such nonsense. Real hard STEM areas, or those that have a very broad range of applications. English can be used in things like journalism, publishing, corporate policies and writing manuals. Math can extend to other things like accounting, doing statistics, and even computers.

And for most of this, we already have Community Colleges. Nothing says that we have to pay for a 4 year degree at UCLA or California State Berkley when Pierce College or College of the Canyons can do it also.

And extend it not only to college, but technical schools. Automotive mechanics, HVAC, Construction, Plumbing, Electricians, Secretarial, all of that as well.

Myself, I am one of those that will always revolt against "something for nothing". I believe in the old saying, "you get what you pay for". Plus, why should the children of parents worth $150 million get free college? Such a benefit should only be to those who need it most, and have shown they have the intelligence and drive to be able to actually finish it. Not the kid that dropped out of High School, or the one that barely passed with a D+. Give them 1 year of tech school, they might actually finish that.

Oozlefinch said:

For me, the quickest way for me to distrust a news report or source is the amount of "hype" built into the article. If the report is all about people screaming and yelling, and saying how those on the other side are racists-bigots-idiots-uneducated, then that is the fastest way for me to turn against not only the information presented but the agency that feels that such nonsense is "news". I do not want commentary, I am able to make up my own mind, based on being given accurate and unbiased information.

Click to expand...

There certainly is a problem when political commentary is presented as mere observations, even if I doubt it is possible to not have your own view color even slightly the information you present. At the same time, they are really not subtle about it.

Oozlefinch said:

And the information can be biased, but I also want fair time given to reasonable and articulate people who can express the opposing view. This is where today we have amazingly little.

Click to expand...

Nowadays, it seems only conservatives are willing to do it. I recall when Dennis Prager hosted a far-left activist on his show who protested a speech Prager was going to give at his university later. The guy was accusing him of racism, sexism and even of being an apologist for marital rape. It says a lot about the moral character of Prager that he not only had a conversation with someone who was dragging his name in the mud but that he never once insulted him and never even raised his voice against him. I have also seen Ben Shapiro, Glenn Beck and people on Fox News have polite conversations with people on the left. There are some exceptions on the left like Bill Maher who invites conservatives on his show and Tim Pool (youtube) who organized an event to debate politics with people from all across the political spectrum. Yet, the rule is you cannot talk over disagreements on the left.

Oozlefinch said:

And in my current view, the far-left has quite frankly gone insane the last few years. They attack anybody who is opposed to them, lashing out and going after them, even if they agree on 85% of a platform, the other 15% is enough to see them attacked and vilified. And it actually reminds me much of how the party behaved when it came to things like Segregation and Communism in the 1940's and 1950's. This time they are simply screaming from the other side.

Click to expand...

Ted Cruz brought up an idiom from lawyers once: If you have the facts on your side, pound the facts. If you have the law on your side, pound the law. If you have nothing on your side, pound the table.

Truer words have seldom been spoken. If the far left knew its ideas were good, they would jump on the occasion to ridicule conservatives on national television. We know they lost the debate because they pound the table.

Oozlefinch said:

Now, do I have a problem giving free college to those who are of low income? Not at all! So long as they have a GPA high enough to show they will actually finish what they started, and they get a degree that has an application in the general job market once they graduate. Something like Engineering, English (applications in a great many things other than teaching), or even computer sciences.

Not degrees in things like Gender Studies, Race Relations, Basket Weaving, and other such nonsense. Real hard STEM areas, or those that have a very broad range of applications. English can be used in things like journalism, publishing, corporate policies, and writing manuals. Math can extend to other things like accounting, doing statistics, and even computers.

And for most of this, we already have Community Colleges. Nothing says that we have to pay for a 4-year degree at UCLA or California State Berkley when Pierce College or College of the Canyons can do it also.

Click to expand...

If you're going to get the public involved in funding college studies, there does not seem to be a way around the comment you made with regards to what is being studied. If you let people pick among all degrees, you require the general population to finance activities that are unlikely to benefit them and that will most certainly not help poor people pull themselves out of poverty. It is inconvenient to account for your point because it requires public officials to get in the business of judging what is a "justifiable" degree. On the other hand, as I stated above, you can't just dig into the pockets of other people without good reasons.

And, of course, there are cheaper options than attending a prestigious university for 4 years. Strategizing about how to study for a degree is probably not the first thing high school seniors hear about, on the other hand.

TheEconomist said:

If you're going to get the public involved in funding college studies, there does not seem to be a way around the comment you made with regards to what is being studied. If you let people pick among all degrees, you require the general population to finance activities that are unlikely to benefit them and that will most certainly not help poor people pull themselves out of poverty. It is inconvenient to account for your point because it requires public officials to get in the business of judging what is a "justifiable" degree. On the other hand, as I stated above, you can't just dig into the pockets of other people without good reasons.

Click to expand...

The idea is to help provide more individuals in STEM degrees, which all admit is a problem in this country. And they are taking Government money. They take it, or do it on their own if they wand a degree in the specifics of Medieval armor.

Or they can take it and spend a similar amount in a trade school. I actually think that is the best route for 90% of those who scream that they need education. But if you want the people of the country to pay for it, then you have to follow rules in regards to the degree or training you get. And if you care so damned much about having a degree in Sexual Politics or the history of blender design, then feel free to get one. Either pay for it yourself, or after you get a degree in Mechanical Engineering spend your own damned money to add on a second degree (adding a second degree when you already have one in another similar field is a minor task).

The idea is to help people get employment, not to make them or others feel good with how "woke" they are.

marke said:

How exiting! The new wave of democrat morons running for president have proposed bankrupting the American economy by stupidly abolishing student loan debts and paying excessively high priced college tuition for everyone. What a boon for democrat college administrators and officials. I see huge bonuses and higher salaries and benefits for everyone in the education business, thanks to democrats.

I also see the massive increase of fiscal stupidity exposed in these new dummass ideas being promoted by the new wave of moronic democrat politicians.

Student loan experts sound alarm on 'trillion-dollar blackhole'

Click to expand...

I just had a thought pertaining to this.

I think they want to absolve themselves from guilt. They are the ones who pushed and pushed and pushed our young into going in such deep debt, and have been called on it from time to time.

Oozlefinch said:

The idea is to help people get employment, not to make them or others feel good with how "woke" they are.

Click to expand...

Not according to the liberals.

Everyone gets a gold star.

Lord of Planar said:

I just had a thought pertaining to this.

I think they want to absolve themselves from guilt. They are the ones who pushed and pushed and pushed our young into going in such deep debt, and have been called on it from time to time.

Click to expand...

It is a system pushed by academia to promote themselves.

The average pay in the US of a college professor is $72-232k per year. That is higher than the average pay of a non-profit CEO ($103-172k). The annual budget of just UCLA is in excess of $7.5 billion, and employs 7,388 people. Tuition is from $34-62k per year for students.

This entire system is nothing but a way for the tenured staff to make more and more money. This is why their computer sciences departments were so far behind for decades. Even in the early 1990's when I looked into getting a CS degree I backed off, they were still teaching mainframes! Keypunch cards, old school UNIX along with FORTRAN and COBOL. Languages and systems that were on the way out (and would be gone by 1999) was being taught, because that was all the faculty knew. They were fossils from the 1960's, but had to protect their tenure.

If it was up to me, I would gut the system and rebuild it on a system that works, like what tech schools have to do. Prove that a certain percentage of your students get a job in their field, or loose funding and validation.

Lord of Planar said:

I just had a thought pertaining to this.

I think they want to absolve themselves from guilt. They are the ones who pushed and pushed and pushed our young into going in such deep debt, and have been called on it from time to time.

Click to expand...

Democrats propose free stuff at American taxpayer expense knowing Americans who want that free stuff will be encouraged to vote for them, no matter the cost to their fellow Americans and the health of the economy.

marke said:

Democrats propose free stuff at American taxpayer expense knowing Americans who want that free stuff will be encouraged to vote for them, no matter the cost to their fellow Americans and the health of the economy.

Click to expand...

Yep.

They buy the people's vote with the people's money, and those voting yes to this are ignorant to the dangers of such.

Oozlefinch said:

It is a system pushed by academia to promote themselves.

The average pay in the US of a college professor is $72-232k per year. That is higher than the average pay of a non-profit CEO ($103-172k). The annual budget of just UCLA is in excess of $7.5 billion, and employs 7,388 people. Tuition is from $34-62k per year for students.

Click to expand...

And to put that in a bit more perspective, if UCLA was a country, their annual budget would exceed the GDP of over 50 countries.

The US Government already pumps in hundreds of billions of dollars already to colleges and universities. Grant programs, scholarships, GI Bill, student loans, as well as funding for an almost endless number of research programs. And yet they still want more money.

People complain about how corporations steal money from the government. Yet at least they actually make things in exchange for that money. Colleges quite often just happily take the money, then build themselves more and more high priced buildings dedicated to Paleo-Indian agricultural systems, largely paid for by others.

And I am not even going to start into the college sports programs. Just the football programs alone bring in over $1 billion a year. And there for sure is some questionable accounting going on there. For the 2017-2018 school year claims it brought in $130,960,560 from their sports programs. Which interestingly enough is the exact amount to the dollar of what it claims their sports related expenses were.

Yea, and Sesame Street is also run by a "Non-Profit", and raked in over $34 million in licensing agreements last year. On top of the donations (public and private) that regularly come in at well over $100 million per year. And the licensing to just run the show, $25 million a year from HBO, $4 million from PBS. For a show that only makes 35 episodes a year, the vast majority of the content was made and paid for decades ago.

I'd like for a conservative, any conservative, to explain why it used to be almost free to attend college/university 40-50 years ago and now people have to be TENS of thousand in debt just to get a decent education. Debt which, thanks to conservatives and corporate democrats, cannot be jettisoned even through bankruptcy. Explain to me how THAT system is better than the system from several decades ago.

Ready, Set, Go.

Dans La Lune said:

I'd like for a conservative, any conservative, to explain why it used to be almost free to attend college/university 40-50 years ago and now people have to be TENS of thousand in debt just to get a decent education. Debt which, thanks to conservatives and corporate democrats, cannot be jettisoned even through bankruptcy. Explain to me how THAT system is better than the system from several decades ago.

Ready, Set, Go.

Click to expand...

The Department of Education was formed in 1979. Not the complete answer, and I won't pretend to have the answers.... assuming your statement is true, I would say it's is because of government interference. Like most of our curtailed liberties.

And the left continues to want more and more government interference in our lives.