and many LGBT youth are not accepted by their families, rich or poor. If my schooling is all about my father's income, then Dad's in charge of my choices at least to some extent.

So what are her provisions for kids who don't want to be associated with their wealthy parents, or who are rejected by them or abused by them?

And it's a discussion I will not engage in since you clearly are only here to disrupt this Group and that I will not tolerate that.

have a nice day.

means tested just like everyone else. If you are a minor you can emancipate.

They pay it because they want the kid to have it and want them to go right away or to a college too expensive to work their way through.

Most wealthy people are going to purchase their own health insurance and pay for their kids to attend a private colleges, and even if they don't they will be paying a higher percentage of their income on taxes.

Many kids of wealthy families attend PRIVATE institutions like people in Trumpfs category as you say.

sense.. and is more Progressive since it can get Done.

more Believeable!

wherein there are many upon many threads on the DU allowing such.

I'm liberal/progressive and so is HRC, period, and BS supporters ain't never going to change my mind nor my vote.

thanks

You didn't come here by accident many of you BS supporters come here on purpose.

This OP is on the main page. Maybe the "all hillary, no dissent allowed" group should somehow make it so their stories dont end up viewable to the entire site.

All the threads about Bernie Sanders that make it to the front page Hillary supporters don't have a problem staying out of those.

I guess that just one other thing we are better at when it comes to understanding.

The lack thereof from them is an understatement.

in here should wake up and realize where they actually are and not be in such a hurry to spout off about BS. They have the whole rest of the board for that.

When any member posts in the BS Group who doesn't belong there they get Blocked, too.. There are just more Hillary Supporters who respect that group and know where they are.

I took Skinner's Advice and trashed it.

iPhone. Then I see all the posts from all the people I've put on ignore, too, but on my phone, it doesn't bother me as much.

I don't have one of those "phones" nor do I need one.. so you've given me one more perk!

Yeah, I need it for work and the 6-plus is larger for my fading eyes to see without having to put on my reading glasses. That's the ONLY reason I buckled and got one of those giant phones.

into it since the dial-up.

Glad you got something that works for You!

How we went from this:



to this:



in just two decades! It still blows my mind.

Glad you got something that works for You!

Nice antique phone! I'd love to have one of those since I still have a landline - just to have one. lol Call me sentimental.

I was thinking about my daughter when I posted those pictures. She had a Princess phone that looked exactly like that and in that color, too! And now she has the gold iphone 6-plus but she's now eyeing the 6s! lol Good thing I no longer have to pay for that stuff now that she has her own career!

Cool your daughter had a Princess phone all of her own and now she has her own career to buy her own latest technology!

What a world, eh? memories~

Good!

In particular, more wealthy and powerful people support it, because they get a benefit, too.

Not having means testing for state colleges and universities would mean the same thing. More people would support it because they, too, benefit.

In addition, I think it would be a great thing if the uberwealthy sent their kids to school with everyone else. Having the children of the rich seeing how regular people live, and struggle to survive, and making friends among the poor and middle class would have benefits for society as a whole. It might even awakened empathy among a fraction of the 1 %. In reality, people like Trump would probably chew their arm off before they would send their kids to a public university.

Another reason not to means test is that people who look rich on paper are sometimes poor in fact. Consider farmers who own land, yet eek out a living. Should their kids be considered rich because if their parents sold their land and livelihood, they could put them through college? What about kids of divorced parents where a wealthy, but non-supportive parent's income also has to be listed?

PS. I saw this post listed on Trending Now, not in the Hillary group.

a couple of thousand dollars a month that is taxed as income. It is meaningless and no wealthy person has ever endorsed S.S. because they want to cash in on that pittance.

that way anyone can see where they are.

The OP is right .. it makes Hillary More Progressive because her proposals can actually get DONE.

Thank you for respecting our Group.

I prefer her proposals, which are possible and achievable, rather than pie in the sky that we will NEVER see!

That it should be available to rich or poor. Would that fit into the democratic socialist bag as well?

For pragmatism.

He's light on explaining the consequences of his wish list.

which means, he is other-worldly, along with his proposals...that can't be paid for and will never get past the GOP...

What a waste of time all this wishful thinking is....we still have to run a government, for Pete's sake! Which means pragmatism, hard choices, common sense, and a lot of negotiating to even get a crumb out of the GOP....

You don't get it: free in-state tuition is supposed to be a RIGHT. It's about expanding public education from K-12 to K-16.

You are falling for this dumb-jumbo New Democrat incremental jiujitsu.

During the 1980's and 1990's, the Democrats became Republicans on all the issues relating to economics. The past 30 years have been about great "social arguments" - Gay Marriage, Abortion, Gun Control - it was only on those issues that you could tell a Democrat from a Republican - and meanwhile, no one was looking out for the Middle Class anymore. Americans were divided against each other, battling the so-called “culture wars”, while BOTH parties conspired to transfer wealth from the middle class upward, and to feather their respective nests with donations from their billionaire “donors”…

Hillary Clinton is the very epitome, the poster-child, for the "New Democrat" ideals her husband championed with his deregulation of Wall Street, his destruction of the Welfare system, and his "tough on crime" legislation that has led DIRECTLY to the problems of mass incarceration that we see today. All the while collecting over $MILLIONS in speaking fees and campaign donations from the big banks on Wall Street.

Bernie is here to take us back to where we were a thriving country, with a robust middle class, where we all did better when we all did better. Back to the idea that America is great because of its middle class.

Bernie is no more of a socialist than FDR was with his New Deal, or Lyndon Johnson was with his Great Society. And in that sense, BERNIE IS THE TRUE DEMOCRAT.

Bye bye

can be accomplished and makes the most sense.

I know too many liked to mock "pragmatic" about President Obama.. well, that's their problem.. he gets things done too.


All BS does is criticize.. don't see him ever accomplishing anything.