The U.S. Navy has seen its ship production drop to a 25-year low, falling behind Chinese production even as the service faces increasingly complex threats around the world.
There are student loans available to fund college or scholarships. The military also had the GI Bill. The National guard has the GI bill and variable program based on the state.
My whole point is cost shouldn’t be a barrier to education. Loans only serve as a bridge to affording something otherwise unaffordable, but they don’t address the root cause.
Which people do you consider “improper”? Are you saying only “proper” people should be educated? How do you make the distinction, and what is the benefit of having an uneducated portion of the population? Are you suggesting educated drug dealers are responsible for the general unaffordability of education?
This sounds racially coded. I think you just outed yourself.
That is how most countries that provide free education work. If you had read the article, you would see they end up with just as much debt as Americans.
Since education itself has no known negative side-effects, why limit access?
Cost. Even in countries where it is free, they end up in just as much debt as here.
Subsidizing the cost of public goods is absolutely within the government’s remit. Just because other countries do it one way doesn’t mean we have to either, and just because those citizens are also in debt doesn’t mean that withholding education makes it better.
You benefit from publicly funded programs and infrastructure because it is deemed a benefit for society. Likewise, education as well as healthcare can be provided for all Americans more affordably than it is now. None of your presented arguments are a barrier to that possibility.
Libraries do a pretty good job at being a social benefit that educates with the public funds they receive. Why not run all educational institutions similarly?
You forgot the part where you have to have money first.
There are student loans available to fund college or scholarships. The military also had the GI Bill. The National guard has the GI bill and variable program based on the state.
Many of those loans have interest attached, and can have a detrimental effect on credit score, and that’s if you even qualify.
Why should people put themselves into poverty to be educated when it benefits us as a country to have an educated population?
That’s not the answer you think it is. Clearly you’re just out of touch.
Hi Boba
Yes that is how a loan works. You have interesting attached to loans.
Everyone qualifies unless you fit certain disqualifying statuses such as drug dealing, didn’t register for the draft, etc.
Taking the improper people and trying to educate them wastes time and money. That is how we ended up in this situation.
Even in countries that offer “free” education, students earn just as much as Americans.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/02/upshot/an-international-final-four-which-country-handles-student-debt-best.html
My whole point is cost shouldn’t be a barrier to education. Loans only serve as a bridge to affording something otherwise unaffordable, but they don’t address the root cause.
Which people do you consider “improper”? Are you saying only “proper” people should be educated? How do you make the distinction, and what is the benefit of having an uneducated portion of the population? Are you suggesting educated drug dealers are responsible for the general unaffordability of education?
This sounds racially coded. I think you just outed yourself.
Test scores. That is how other countries do it that have cheap or free education. Only the best get to go. The other people just do trade school.
Hmmm, you’re still limiting the acquisition of knowledge to “proper” people.
It makes no sense for the ones who pass a test to be the ones deserving of more knowledge, rather than those who may need the education more.
Since education itself has no known negative side-effects, why limit access?
That is how most countries that provide free education work. If you had read the article, you would see they end up with just as much debt as Americans.
Cost. Even in countries where it is free, they end up in just as much debt as here.
There is no free lunch.
Subsidizing the cost of public goods is absolutely within the government’s remit. Just because other countries do it one way doesn’t mean we have to either, and just because those citizens are also in debt doesn’t mean that withholding education makes it better.
You benefit from publicly funded programs and infrastructure because it is deemed a benefit for society. Likewise, education as well as healthcare can be provided for all Americans more affordably than it is now. None of your presented arguments are a barrier to that possibility.
Libraries do a pretty good job at being a social benefit that educates with the public funds they receive. Why not run all educational institutions similarly?