"There's no such thing as a free lunch" didn't become an adage by accident. One way or another, everything has to be paid for somehow by someone.

But what about the article?

it would not be "free". It would be paid for through taxes. I pay school taxes every year for grades K through 12 to educate our children, rightfully so. I should not be obligated to pay after that. We should be concentrated on single payer health insurance and keep the so called "free" college out of it.

which in their last audit couldn't find several TRILLIONS of dollars. I guess it just got lost.
I'd much rather have my tax dollars go to education young (and old) people in this country.

As to why Democratic Senators didn't point out that the Pentagon has never been seriously audited and all the missing money.
Why didn't they withhold their vote until those issues are addressed?

Not a coincidence.

But it is not free college. It is paid for through taxes. If I have to pay a higher tax I want it to be for health care for all.

It just that years of propaganda makes it seem like we can't do both. The republicans have been treating us like mushrooms for years. Shoveling shit at us and keeping us in the dark.

Now that we can compare notes with others in this country and in other countries due to the internet, we aren't in the dark anymore, but they are still trying to shovel shit at us and we aren't falling for it.

they are already going to do it here in New York State. There are some points to be aware of. If you live on campus you are responsible for room and board. After you are finished you have to stay in the state for as many years as you went to school. If you leave the state before that they will charge you. Not sure if books are included or if they have to be paid for.

If humanity survives (I'm not optimistic), this time of money economics will be regarded with abhorrence.

I don't know how a Star Trek economy would work exactly, whether it will evolve from some kind of universal basic income, or something similar, but people won't be wanting for healthy food, safe comfortable shelter, appropriate medical care, and positive relationships.

This thing we now call "economic productivity" is a direct measure of the damage we are doing to what's left of the earth's natural environment (which we got for "free" ) and our own human spirit.

Work ethics are destroying our world.

There's no such thing as a free lunch? Really? The problem with humans is that too many of them strut around like they own this planet, forever stomping on the faces human and non-human of those they regard inferior.

They don't own this planet. We're not taking care of this planet, or our own fellow humans and other sentient species, and that will be the end of us. This planet has seen many innovative species come and go. We're not the first species to experience exponential growth, shit all over everything, and then collapse into extinction, and we won't be the last.

In a million years we'll be nothing more than a peculiar layer of trash in the geologic record, and it will all be because we didn't respect the free lunch we were handed.

... and paying people to experiment with lifestyles that have very low environmental footprints.

Taxes should be both steeply progressive and proportional to environmental impacts.

Education generally has low environmental impacts. A fifty year old going back to college to study art possibly makes the world a better place. Most fossil fueled industry, and the high energy "consumer" economy it supports, does not.

...would pretty much be the epitome of how I would not want free college to be used in the US.

First, yes, you can say "I think science is art. It's all art." but that largely redefines the conventional meaning of "going back to school to study art". If my daughter told me "Dad, I've decided to change majors and study art", I would not think "Gee, I wonder if she means nuclear physics?"

But let's go to the jobs angle, which is interesting.

1. Let's assume that he does leave the workforce because of his arts degree. Are we assuming that he's leaving the workforce because he's now able to make a living as a self producing artist? Because that sounds a lot like winning the lottery. Very, very, very few art majors can support themselves. Are we not only signing up to give him free tuition, but also to support an early retirement? Wouldn't it make more sense just to give him early retirement and skip the cost of tuition?

2. Let's assume that he pursues an "art" degree in biochemistry. If he's going to discover a drug (we'll get back to this), then he probably needs to go to graduate school as well. Thankfully, we won't have to pay for that, since most graduate students in biochemistry can get a TA or RA position. Let's assume he really fast tracks his PhD and completes in 4 years. He now has a PhD in biochemistry at the age of 58, about ten years before retirement. He'll compete for jobs with 26 year olds who are 42 years from retirement. Age discrimination might not be "legal", but it's a reality. But hey, maybe he's lucky, and beats out my twenty-something kid for a biotech job (which seems to defeat the premise of your counter argument). During that 10 year period, maybe he will discover the drug that will save my life.

So now you ask if I would complain about the outcome of #2 which is "saving my life".

Of course not. But I'd like to point out how absurd that question is. Which of the following outcomes is statistically more likely if we send him back to school:

1. He will invent a life saving drug
2. He will get drunk and kill someone

So this would be like me asking you "Would you still want to send him back to school if he kills someone?" Of course you wouldn't. But my point is that we don't reason based on hypothetical unlikely outcomes. My line of argument that he might kill someone is just as absurd as yours, even if it's probably more likely to be true.

So yes, I'm going to complain that if we're going to give out free college tuition, it should not in any way shape or form be used to pay for 50 year olds to go to "art" school. It should be used to ensure that talented students can attend school without ending up with crippling debt. Arguing that we _should_ be paying tax dollars to send 50 years old to school is completely counter productive. It's practically feeding ammunition to people who don't think we should be paying for college tuition at all.

...and discovers a satisfying way of life that has a very low environmental footprint.

I'd argue that makes the world a better place. The same guy could be devising new ways to extract fossil fuels, or to exploit desperate laborers, or to extract money from minute perturbations of financial markets... all "work" that does not make the world a better place; all are activities which ought to be discouraged by government regulation.

Yes, it's "counter productive," and that's by design. That's the point. Economic Productivity as we now define it is a very bad thing. Work ethics become destructive.

We could start the transition to a humane society, a society having a low environmental footprint by aggressively shutting down industries with high environmental impacts (coal power plants, for example...), fully supporting the displaced workers indefinitely with universal basic incomes and free liberal arts or technical education. Yes, general education, not retraining for other destructive industries, including education for potential fifty year old artists.)

I'm not feeding "ammunition to people who don't think we should be paying for college tuition at all" because I have no power to implement my visions.

When things get ugly enough, people will seek new solutions, or they will keep slogging down the path we are on, which ultimately leads to the collapse of our 21st century world civilization. Our fossil fueled high energy industrial society is unsustainable.

That means getting up off your ass and going to look for it.

2. You had to gather it.

If it was kind enough to sit still or just hang there, you had to pick it, dig it up, knock it down, break it open... Etc.

3.You had to hunt it.

Which means you might have to chase it, or learn how to swim, or make a tool that helped you to kill it. But you sucked at making those tools, so you had to get Groag to make some for you. But you had no fucking money. So Groag says give me your youngest daughter. You know, the cute one. You'll have one less mouth to feed.

And you say okay, but you gotta teach my son how to make some of those sharp things...

Foot-pounds and man-hours ain't free. Neither is lunch.

Even when you're a little baby at your Mama's breast. You gotta cry. And you gotta suck.

... chimpanzees, gorillas, bonobos, "work?"

In terms of today's human society, a thirty hour work week paying a living wage is possible. What's holding us back?

Things start to get a little dicey resource-wise, and you have to impose yourself on your neighboring troop's territory. Much gnashing of teeth and claws. Maybe a heavy branch upon some noggins.

You can live on a few mangoes and fat grubs with some big, broad leaves to keep you dry, I suppose.

Often we don't, in terms of working hours or tribal relationships.

Sadly our alpha males have got much larger clubs.

then it really comes off was wanting a free lunch.

... and those who needlessly live in poverty.

When half the planet is "owned" by just a few people, something is horribly wrong...

I'll think about it for public colleges too.

Why should we wait for the private sector?

And spending priorities reflect values. If a society spends far more on war than any other item, that shows more about what that society values than any rhetoric about freedom and rights.

Defense is #3 behind health care and pensions.

to hide the size. There are also associated large healthcare and pension costs to defense spending.

That hasn't been around for 20 years, but 10% of all federal spending goes on something that's non-existent? Amazing.

Whether it is food subsidies or a thousand other things the federal government does in that field. I find it interesting that people are challenging accepted figures of the federal budget. Do people think Democrats, Republicans, the CBO and everyone else is just making up stuff when it comes to budget figures?

With my work I have been around colleges all my adult life and taught at a few. At least half the people there should not be there now. They are only there because they "don't know what else to do." So they plod through college, maybe getting a degree they can't do anything with in 6 or 7 years, maybe not getting anything and drifting away. If it was made free the problem would be far worse with everyone going because it was costing nothing. It would be a total waste except it would further bloat the faculty and administration.

Despite your anecdotal analysis?

The countries that count in Europe --Germany, UK and France all have track systems which intercept students early in high school and sometimes grade school.Those that are not suited for academic college are tracked to trade schools.

I am all for what they do in Europe -- but are you????

... most certainly not the person doing the actual work.

Lower income workers are not participating in the full economy, not any more than your "don't know what else to do" college students are.

Sure they're all keeping the unemployment numbers down, but if they are working in one or two shitty jobs that barely pay the rent, have no health or retirement options, offers zero prospects for advancement, and are mind-and-spirit-killing dull, then they're not getting much in return. At least with college there is hope...

You never know when a powerful economic engine, for example a J.K. Rowling, will arise from those taxpayer funded subsidies.

Or hell, even someone like me, who remains mostly harmless in spite of being a very dangerous fellow when I don't know what I'm doing.

The value of my own education, largely subsidized by the State of California and my own blood sweat and tears as a physical laborer (nine years in all) was in learning to know when I don't know what I'm doing and not making a mess of it.

I flunked o-chem the first time because I was also working day jobs. I could make $100 a 13-16 hour day moving fragile furniture or machines, or I could go to o-chem class Tuesdays and Thursdays. A $100 was a lot of money then. Gasoline was less than a dollar a gallon. My rent in a shared apartment was $85. University fees were a little less than $400. I had an old Toyota that got 30 miles per gallon. I was fucking super-charged with testosterone. (I also grew nine inches taller after I quit high school.)

You do the math.

I'm looking at the balance sheet of my existence on this planet as an evolutionary/environmental biologist, which I am by natural inclination and some formal training. I try to keep it positive.

I don't agree with your definition of work. If it was BS it would not be making someone wealthy but I suspect you have a different view of economic relations than I do.

Sorry about that SHRED.

Hey, people, why is nobody talking about ponies or unicorns when it come time to spend $700 BILLION on the military complex but say we want to use federal money to pay for public education and HOLY FUCK that's crazy.

It's amazing what I see coming from liberals these days.

Thanks

This is what got all of the young Bernie people all up in arms by giving them unrealistic expectations. This is NOT going to happen. It should be cheaper to go to college, if states would fund them properly it would lower tuition to reasonable levels. In this country it will n ever be free. It makes our party look like the party of "free" which makes it hard to win in a lot of states.

this ain't gonna end anytime soon.

It is unfortunate, but we seem to be afraid of not being the most militarily powerful country by a factor of 100 and able to exert our influence by bullying people with bombs or threatening to withdraw our military support.

Another factory is that a lot of money flows into military bases, armaments manufacturers, mercenary recruiting and deployment companies, security, etc. There are a lot more private jobs than military positions. A lot of jobs are tied to this military charade. It's sad, but it isn't going to change any time soon. It's actually good for jobs to be bombing the hell out of innocent people, so they tell us.

Finally, some people feel it's important to support the Prez when we are supposedly at war. BS, I know, but good luck convincing those who think a strong military is the essence of America.

Kids.

LOL!

College?

OH HELL NO YOU PONY LOVER.

... and greater social rewards than a senior citizen taking an art class?

Mix a few senior citizens in with aspiring young college artists and you've got an educational system that's approaching perfection.

Giant fucking eyeroll here.

Very serious question; I have yet to get any kind of answer from anyone on this

I really don't understand how federally paid "free" college would be funded?

For instance, in the Ann Arbor/Ypsilanti area of Michigan there are three public colleges.

University of Michigan with tuition of $15,300/ yr.

Eastern Michigan University with tuition of $11,300

Washtenaw Community College at $3800

1) If the cost to the student is the same (zero) for all three, why wouldn't everyone want to go to the school with the best campus, fanciest buildings, most amenities and nationally known sports teams?

2) Since the Feds would pay the tuition costs for all three making the student pay zero, why wouldn't Eastern Michigan raise their tuition $4000 immediately to match Univ. of Michigan. For that matter, why wouldn't either raise the tuition even higher than it is now The students won't care because it won't raise their costs at all.

3) Finally, many students decide to take the first couple years at a community college like Washtenaw to make the costs much cheaper. Since the students are now paying nothing, why attend community college at all?

While I realize it's not the same thing, if I was promised that the government would buy everyone a car, I sure as hell would want an Audi A7 or Lexus instead of a Kia Rio



,