Buried in an article on the healthcare bill

"Democrats were still debating how to handle a few items and whether to include a large student loan reform bill in the health care reconciliation package"

so tell me, what the hell does a student loan bill have to do with healthcare? NOTHING!!

but just just like the stimulus, the Dems are like sharks at a whale kill packing in all kinds of crap to a bill we already cannot afford.
OBAMA IS A LIAR!!!!!

it guarantees the health of the Faculty and its students

and all those JOBS that are waiting for them when they graduate.

I guess the pubs never do that either as they are known as the party of integrity:smash:. All these clowns in Washington should be flushed term limits on all of them period!!

I guess the pubs never do that either as they are known as the party of integrity:smash:. All these clowns in Washington should be flushed term limits on all of them period!!

are you paying attention to the massive debt we now have and the massive expense of this bill? MASSIVE EXPENSE

Nope, the pubs never did it and no what? neither have the dems! Noone has spent this much money EVER!
A bill we cant afford, that most of the country is against, now packed with pork! What a deal.
Have to say it - Hope! Change!

With the way his first year is going, and what we have to look forward to for the next 3 years, it almost makes you want to look forward to 2012.

Is it just me, or does it look like Obama is doing just about everything he can do to destroy our country?
(I mean, just short of pushing the launch button and ending it all at once.)

It's gotten to the point that whenever I hear his voice, I turn off whatever device it is coming from, be it tv or radio.
I feel the same way about our good for nothing Governor as well.
When I see him open his mouth to speak, all I hear is "I'm an idiot, I want your money, there's nothing you can do about it, take it and like it because I'm a democrat and we're always right."

Basically, when Patrick and Obama open their mouths, if they aren't putting their foots in them, crap is coming out of them.
If only more politcians would ACTUALLY keep just ONE of their campaign promises, then I'd be a little less skeptical, but that has as much chance of happening as me meeting bigfoot in the Blue Hills Reservation!

are you paying attention to the massive debt we now have and the massive expense of this bill? MASSIVE EXPENSE

Nope, the pubs never did it and no what? neither have the dems! Noone has spent this much money EVER!
A bill we cant afford, that most of the country is against, now packed with pork! What a deal.
Have to say it - Hope! Change!

That money has not been spent yet as it has not passed but what has the cost been for all these wars we have been fighting?

That money has not been spent yet as it has not passed but what has the cost been for all these wars we have been fighting?

Do you mean the wars that had bi-partisan congressinal approval and that the majority of the country was for? :uhuh:
end the wars, tomorrow, the dems can do it, why havent they?

Buried in an article on the healthcare bill

"Democrats were still debating how to handle a few items and whether to include a large student loan reform bill in the health care reconciliation package"

so tell me, what the hell does a student loan bill have to do with healthcare? NOTHING!!

About as much as the articles about being able to carry firearms on federal park lands that the Republicans required to be included in the CARD Act.

Adding completely unrelated articles to bills happens in just about every piece of legislation - it's a bipartisan issue.

it is a mess and it's bipartisan

it is a mess and it's bipartisan

Bingo!!!

Funny, RIJIMMY doesn't even know how Congress works :jester:

-spence

If only more politcians would ACTUALLY keep just ONE of their campaign promises, then I'd be a little less skeptical, but that has as much chance of happening as me meeting bigfoot in the Blue Hills Reservation!


Obama is keeping his campaign promise...he promised to "remake America"...:uhuh: and there was ample evidence as to how he'd remake it...many just chose to ignore evidence and jump on the Hopey Change bandwagon because it felt good...

I'm glad thigs are going this way...it's going to really hurt but it's probably the jolt that we needed to move away from this progressive slide toward socialism...McCain is a progressive lite...if he were elected it would have just been a slower slide...these current dirt bags are full speed ahead pedal to the metal progressive creeps...they used to try to disguise it but it's all out there now...this is the worst bunch that this country has ever elected...hopefully we've hit botom and can "recover"....but I think there's still a bottom left to hit unfortunately...:uhuh:

Obama is keeping his campaign promise...he promised to "remake America"...:uhuh: and there was ample evidence as to how he'd remake it...many just chose to ignore evidence and jump on the Hopey Change bandwagon because it felt good...

I'm glad thigs are going this way...it's going to really hurt but it's probably the jolt that we needed to move away from this progressive slide toward socialism...McCain is a progressive lite...if he were elected it would have just been a slower slide...these current dirt bags are full speed ahead pedal to the metal progressive creeps...they used to try to disguise it but it's all out there now...this is the worst bunch that this country has ever elected...hopefully we've hit botom and can "recover"....but I think there's still a bottom left to hit unfortunately...:uhuh:

Essentially, anyone who isn't hard-lined Conservative must be out for a socialist take-over.

Essentially, anyone who isn't hard-lined Conservative must be out for a socialist take-over.

There is some evidence of Government taking over private companies, restricting our daily lives and regulating more and more what eveyone can and can't do. You do live in Ma. don't you JD?

Essentially, anyone who isn't hard-lined Conservative must be out for a socialist take-over.

not what I said...you little Hopey Change dupe.. you...:rotf2::rotf2:

Funny, RIJIMMY doesn't even know how Congress works :jester:

-spence

whats funny is morons like you thought Obama was goign to change things. Whats even funnier is that hes telling us he wants to reduce the deficit yet they'll pack the bill full of pork! remember no earmarks!!!

whats funny is morons like you thought Obama was goign to change things. Whats even funnier is that hes telling us he wants to reduce the deficit yet they'll pack the bill full of pork! remember no earmarks!!!

Let's not lower ourselves to their level. It's a terrible bill and I hope it does not pass either the house or senate ever.

whats funny is morons like you thought Obama was goign to change things. Whats even funnier is that hes telling us he wants to reduce the deficit yet they'll pack the bill full of pork! remember no earmarks!!!

We'll see if the 2011 budget contains any earmarks, the 2010 budget was already in play when he took office.

And thanks to Obama I'm going to see a $2500 tax credit for my step-son's college tuition this year and next.

Gotta love it when the POTUS listens to the people and gives them back their hard earned money to invest as they see fit. :humpty:

-spence

We'll see if the 2011 budget contains any earmarks, the 2010 budget was already in play when he took office.

And thanks to Obama I'm going to see a $2500 tax credit for my step-son's college tuition this year and next.

Gotta love it when the POTUS listens to the people and gives them back their hard earned money to invest as they see fit. :humpty:

-spence

How does giving you a $2500 tax credit for your step-son's tuition make happy the vast majority of those who don't have a child in college, or who payed for tuition previously? Selective redistribution of tax money for a few at the expense of others, like cash for clunkers, college tuition credits, free college . . .just pisses off those who have to pay for the goodies. How about giving back EVERYBODY'S hard earned money. Better yet, how about not taking so much of it away in the first place.

How does giving you a $2500 tax credit for your step-son's tuition make happy the vast majority of those who don't have a child in college, or who payed for tuition previously? Selective redistribution of tax money for a few at the expense of others, like cash for clunkers, college tuition credits, free college . . .just pisses off those who have to pay for the goodies. How about giving back EVERYBODY'S hard earned money. Better yet, how about not taking so much of it away in the first place.

And i pay for my son's tution because of some silly law 'the anti-aid' law passed in this fine state in 1847 by the 'no-name' party!
can't even get a friggin voucher system in this country for education of choice.

Gotta love it when the POTUS listens to the people and gives them back their hard earned money to invest as they see fit. :humpty:

-spence

I don't have a child or step child in college. Do I still get money? Funny that you say he's listening to the people because most people don't want this porky pig health care legislation passed.

With 8,907 posts here I don't believe it was really hard earned money but, hey lets not quibble or spin too much.

TT

It's gotten to the point that whenever I hear his voice, I turn off whatever device it is coming from, be it tv or radio.

RAVEN: thats where i am too.... can no longer stand to hear even his voice


as much chance of that happening as me meeting bigfoot in the Blue Hills Reservation!

he don't like OBAMA either :grins:

How does giving you a $2500 tax credit for your step-son's tuition make happy the vast majority of those who don't have a child in college, or who payed for tuition previously? Selective redistribution of tax money for a few at the expense of others, like cash for clunkers, college tuition credits, free college . . .just pisses off those who have to pay for the goodies. How about giving back EVERYBODY'S hard earned money. Better yet, how about not taking so much of it away in the first place.
Nice, so education is = a shiny new car?

That's a stretch. Personally I'm all for Government assistance to help with education.

-spence

With 8,907 posts here I don't believe it was really hard earned money but, hey lets not quibble or spin too much.

TT
Your post count is already off, get with the program snarky.

-spence

I don't have a child or step child in college. Do I still get money?
It takes a village.

This money is going right back towards his education, to help build a stronger country.

-spence

It takes a village.

This money is going right back towards his education, to help build a stronger country.

-spence

Be honest, Spence. How much of that money are you taking out to buy yourself a new European carryall?

Be honest, Spence. How much of that money are you taking out to buy yourself a new European carryall?
I already have two nice weekend bags and can't seem to justify a third.

Besides, he really needs the money.

-spence

Nice, so education is = a shiny new car?

That's a stretch. Personally I'm all for Government assistance to help with education.

-spence

Actually, making "education" another one of those many select goodies to help a small slice of the population at the expense of the rest does make it, in that sense, equal to a shiny new car. Tuition help for you (at the expense of the rest), a shiny new car for him (at the expense of the rest), an abortion for her (at the expense of the rest), etc., etc., etc. . . . . And the votes come rolling in from those who want their drip from the public tit.

Whenever the Government "assists" anything, it magically becomes more expensive, therefore becoming more in need of assistance, hence, again, becoming even more expensive, and, thereby, becoming even more in need of assistance, and so on. Not to mention how the Government, then, gradually becomes the director and controller. The Government "investment" in education in the past half century has spawned a very expensive education industry that spits out less educated, more needy and helpless tit suckers, so that the Government has needed to "assist" the abortion industry to keep that unsustainable portion of the population to a barely sustainable number of voters who keep the program going.

How's that for "nice."

Actually, making "education" another one of those many select goodies to help a small slice of the population at the expense of the rest does make it, in that sense, equal to a shiny new car. Tuition help for you (at the expense of the rest), a shiny new car for him (at the expense of the rest), an abortion for her (at the expense of the rest), etc., etc., etc. . . . . And the votes come rolling in from those who want their drip from the public tit.

Whenever the Government "assists" anything, it magically becomes more expensive, therefore becoming more in need of assistance, hence, again, becoming even more expensive, and, thereby, becoming even more in need of assistance, and so on. Not to mention how the Government, then, gradually becomes the director and controller. The Government "investment" in education in the past half century has spawned a very expensive education industry that spits out less educated, more needy and helpless tit suckers, so that the Government has needed to "assist" the abortion industry to keep that unsustainable portion of the population to a barely sustainable number of voters who keep the program going.

How's that for "nice."
It's quite a handsome little rant.

Unfortunately there's this thing called reality...The US higher educational system you so despise is also regarded as the finest in the world.

I'm not sure how many abortions it takes to keep this radical educational enterprise humming along, but I'll bet it's less than the number of taxpayer subsidized cars purchased every year.

-spence

It's quite a handsome little rant.

Unfortunately there's this thing called reality...The US higher educational system you so despise is also regarded as the finest in the world.

I'm not sure how many abortions it takes to keep this radical educational enterprise humming along, but I'll bet it's less than the number of taxpayer subsidized cars purchased every year.

-spence

US higher education has been regarded among the best in the world for a long time--long before it became a "system" that tries to squeeze into it thousands of "students" that are not interested, nor major in those disciplines that make our universities and colleges "fine." Our universities were regarded as among the finest before our Federal Government began to massively invest in them. They were considered among the finest when they were relatively affordable for those who were truly interested in a "fine" education and were willing to sacrifice a bit of time and money to acquire it. Our higher education was considered among the finest when university and college administrations were willing to operate more as businesses who would charge market affordable rates and pay market sustainable salaries rather than basing their rates on a willing and seemingly bottomless Government pocket. Government "investment" in education has not made it finer. It has just made it more expensive.

Your being "all for Government assistance in education" is being all for making education ever more expensive and endlessly requiring Government assistance.

I'm not sure how many abortions it takes to keep this radical educational enterprise humming along, but I'll bet it's less than the number of taxpayer subsidized cars purchased every year.

-spence

The education industry to which I referred was not simply higher education. It also encompasses K-12. It is the huge Government investment in that portion that has made it labor intensive as opposed to service oriented. And with the monetary investment, of course, came the directives of what and how to teach. I don't think that our lower education is considered to be the finest in the world. Actually, it has been losing the prestige it had before the big government "assistance."

And this K-12 is the portion that spits out the less educated, less ready for higher ed., less prepared for an independant, unassisted life.

Federally assisted abortion doesn't keep the education system humming along, it helps to keep down the amount of those that the Government has to "assist"--especially the poorly educated and poorly prepared for an independant life. There is a limit to how many unproductive people that a "village" can sustain.

And, the more you assist poor education, poor preparation, and the expectation that big mama Guv will provide, the more you encourage it. I can see why the Guv wants to keep Federally paid abortion in the health "care" bill.

US higher education has been regarded among the best in the world for a long time--long before it became a "system" that tries to squeeze into it thousands of "students" that are not interested, nor major in those disciplines that make our universities and colleges "fine." Our universities were regarded as among the finest before our Federal Government began to massively invest in them. They were considered among the finest when they were relatively affordable for those who were truly interested in a "fine" education and were willing to sacrifice a bit of time and money to acquire it. Our higher education was considered among the finest when university and college administrations were willing to operate more as businesses who would charge market affordable rates and pay market sustainable salaries rather than basing their rates on a willing and seemingly bottomless Government pocket. Government "investment" in education has not made it finer. It has just made it more expensive.
This isn't really true.

Without Federal assistance to create land grand universities we probably wouldn't have the system we do today. I think this started back in the 19th century (I went to Iowa State, one of the big ones) so I'm not sure who the system was catering to before then aside from perhaps the upper crust.

Your being "all for Government assistance in education" is being all for making education ever more expensive and endlessly requiring Government assistance.
Perhaps the better solution is a taxpayer funded "public option" to compete with those over priced private institutions :devil2: :hihi:

-spence

This isn't really true.

Without Federal assistance to create land grand universities we probably wouldn't have the system we do today. I think this started back in the 19th century (I went to Iowa State, one of the big ones) so I'm not sure who the system was catering to before then aside from perhaps the upper crust.
-spence

It really is true that we had some of the finest universities before the Federal Gov. provided MASSIVE monetary funding. Although some of them, as far back as the 17th century, did provide some private scholarships to "worthy" students that couldn't afford the tuition, it is true that they were not accessible to the masses. But for the first 70 years in this nation's history the Feds followed the Constitution and allowed the states and local communities to provide education--which included two land grant colleges. These were the models for the first Federal intrusion--the Federal Govt. providing of Federal land to the states to build land grant colleges. The purpose was laudable, to provide education to many that was relevant to their daily lives--basically agricultural and industrial. And there was no negative impact on the Federal budget. That slowly expanded to providing actual funds for creation of agricultural experiment stations for scientific research. It took another 80 years for a new Fed wrinkle, the GI Bill to accomodate WWII Vets. Then another 15 years, in response to Sputnik, for the National Defense Education Act that provided aid to all public and private levels of education, though still basically aimed at improving technical studies, but far larger in scope than the original land grant idea, and far more expensive (notice the trend). Then enter the 1960's. The War on Poverty. New Deal II. New Deal #1 being interrupted by the post-war boom, now came the opportunity to expand further into the area reserved to the states, started by the GI Bill. Now followed a plethora of acts and revisions of acts to provide Federal assistance that has blossomed (mushroomed), with a slight pullback during the Reagan Administration, and intruded into education as the Feds have done into every aspect of our lives.

Although it is not the only reason, several studies have found a correlation between the rise in Federal Aid to the rise in tuition, including, interestingly enough vis-a-vis your little gift from POTUS, not only direct assistance, but tax credits as well.

F. King Alexander, a president of Murray State U., said "ironically, Federal Programs in totality give incentive for institutions to increase tuition and to set high sticker prices." This succinctly expresses the sentiments of many others.

Of course, with the support of the Federal purse, comes an attached suggestion or mandate and direction of how and what is taught, and not taught. This reminds of Hayek's caveat--"the conception that Government should be guided by majority opinion makes sense only if that opinion is independent of Government."

I am not anti-government. We are the government. Those we vote for merely represent us. When they begin to brazenly dictate to us, not only in the most extreme and real crisis, but on a constant and all pervading basis, we must, to sustain a democratic process, be educated, informed, and independent from that government. The more we depend on a central government, distant from us in space, and in values, that enforces a cookie cutter education, a one size fits all as you referred to what you think health care should be, the less we can contribute diverse, new, re-generative ideas and solutions. We can thus be transformed from a large, truly diverse society connected by a desire to be free, that generates a robust hurly-burly of growth and innovation from the bottom up, to the anomoly of passive, polite, correct, adolescents waiting for the next Federal spending bill to cure our ills. And we will be taught, by institutions, dependent on Government largesse.

Of course, the saving grace is that the Government is broke, has been broke, is getting broker and broker, and there are still enough adults that understand this.

every time that Spence and Det engage in one of their "Battle of the Brains"...Spence crawls away with a massive concussion:uhuh::rotf2:

Spence....you make a repulsive Gimme Girl.....

It really is true that we had some of the finest universities before the Federal Gov. provided MASSIVE monetary funding. Although some of them, as far back as the 17th century, did provide some private scholarships to "worthy" students that couldn't afford the tuition, it is true that they were not accessible to the masses. But for the first 70 years in this nation's history the Feds followed the Constitution and allowed the states and local communities to provide education--which included two land grant colleges.
For the first 70 years of our history we were still primarily a nation of farmers, and as you've stated higher education was mostly for the elite. The majority of colleges founded early on were short-lived religious based institutions that served a particular sect rather than a local population.

The influx of government spending which started in the last 1/2 of the 19th century and continued into the 20th was a direct response to a transforming industrial base as well as shifting demographics.

These macro trends (like conflicting civilizations, radical advances in technology or transforming economies) aren't going to be solved by States providing local educational assistance alone, and the free market certainly isn't going to solve the issue. These are national issues and in some cases might require national solutions.

Is education too expensive? Sure it is, but I don't need Glenn Beck's chalkboard to understand this. Has government exacerbated the issue? I'd think it has, although that alone doesn't invalidate the benefits...

Put simply, I'm not sure America would have been able to rise to dominance during the 20th century had we not had the infrastructure to enable the people to keep pace with the opportunities.

K-12 is another issue, one I don't have time for this morning...

-spence

every time that Spence and Det engage in one of their "Battle of the Brains"...Spence crawls away with a massive concussion
If so I can only hope to one day be beaten down to your level, but if so Butch has a lot of work to do :devil2: :hihi:

-spence

If so I can only hope to one day be beaten down to your level, but if so Butch has a lot of work to do :devil2: :hihi:

-spence

a Gimme Girl Narcissist...even more repulsive :uhuh:

For the first 70 years of our history we were still primarily a nation of farmers, and as you've stated higher education was mostly for the elite. The majority of colleges founded early on were short-lived religious based institutions that served a particular sect rather than a local population.

Yes, free and independent people will do what is necessary and beneficial.

The influx of government spending which started in the last 1/2 of the 19th century and continued into the 20th was a direct response to a transforming industrial base as well as shifting demographics.

Yes, the Feds joined (unconstitutionally--but that's ok) what the States were already starting. The States and local districts were, and are, still providing nearly all the money.

These macro trends (like conflicting civilizations, these are not going to be resolved by K-12 or higher education. If the educational institutions of the the conflicting civilizations have different philosophies--which is probably why they are conflicting civilizations--the resolution may take place in a different arena. radical advances in technology Our private sector in conjunction with State run institutions have done this quite well or transforming economies Our free market is no slouch at this.) aren't going to be solved by States providing local educational assistance alone, and the free market certainly isn't going to solve the issue. These are national issues and in some cases might require national solutions.

The Federal "issue" was intended originally to be defense, foreign relations, and interstate commerce, the last of which has so distortedly been "interpreted" that it covers all of life. If the Federal Government isn't checked in its intrusion in State affairs (probably too late) then, indeed, all issues will be national issues.

Is education too expensive? Sure it is, And Federal loans, grants, and tax credits will ensure that it stays expensive. but I don't need Glenn Beck's chalkboard to understand this. Unfortunately, our education industry has failed to the extent that a great many do need the chalkboard to understand why. Has government exacerbated the issue? I'd think it has, although that alone doesn't invalidate the benefits...

The benefits would be validated if the Federal Guv could have stayed at a low key, well directed "assistance" level" with which it started. But its intrusion has grown too large and undirected. Aid is no longer for "useful" degrees, but for whatever your heart desires. And its money has a powerful influence against the true diversity of thought. Not to mention the pernicious choosing of winners and losers in the Federal give-away lottery which is growing at an unsustainable rate. Let the people keep money that is now spent to cull votes. Let the States compete for business, for educational excellence, for good, free market, constitutional governance, and let the Feds maintain a powerful national defence with an open but guarded relation with the rest of the world, and we might have what the founders envisioned.

Put simply, I'm not sure America would have been able to rise to dominance during the 20th century had we not had the infrastructure to enable the people to keep pace with the opportunities.

K-12 is another issue, one I don't have time for this morning...

-spence

America rose to dominance with military and productive might. The Great institutions of higher learning are a beneficiary of that might. And the influence of collective, anti-capitalist thought beginning to dominate those institutions, may be a Trojan Horse to "fundamentally change" this country.

Yes, free and independent people will do what is necessary and beneficial.
Are people any less free to start private or religious based institutions today? I think the real question is why these early colleges failed. One might ask if they were really delivering what the people needed.

Yes, the Feds joined (unconstitutionally--but that's ok) what the States were already starting. The States and local districts were, and are, still providing nearly all the money.
Starting well? Perhaps the feds saw a good thing and accelerated it's progress. I don't think there were more than a few state sponsored colleges before 1860. Good thing too because the industrial revolution was just getting going.

these are not going to be resolved by K-12 or higher education. If the educational institutions of the the conflicting civilizations have different philosophies--which is probably why they are conflicting civilizations--the resolution may take place in a different arena.
Not resolved by, but definitely influenced. As for different philosophies, there are many different conflicts for many different reasons.

Our private sector in conjunction with State run institutions have done this quite well
Via a lot of Federal grants mind you, one area of investment that the taxpayer has seen a good ROI.

The Federal "issue" was intended originally to be defense, foreign relations, and interstate commerce, the last of which has so distortedly been "interpreted" that it covers all of life. If the Federal Government isn't checked in its intrusion in State affairs (probably too late) then, indeed, all issues will be national issues.
The evolution of the global economy has shown that our behavior as a nation is quite important. The Federal issue was smaller in scope as many of the Founding Fathers didn't believe the US would or should be running a global economy...which we still do today. Could they even imagine what the US Navy does to control shipping lanes around the entire planet? I don't think so...

And Federal loans, grants, and tax credits will ensure that it stays expensive.
A lot of this is private institutions setting the pace. More access to education creates more competition.

Unfortunately, our education industry has failed to the extent that a great many do need the chalkboard to understand why.
Not why, but a solution perhaps.

The benefits would be validated if the Federal Guv could have stayed at a low key, well directed "assistance" level" with which it started. But its intrusion has grown too large and undirected. Aid is no longer for "useful" degrees, but for whatever your heart desires. And its money has a powerful influence against the true diversity of thought. Not to mention the pernicious choosing of winners and losers in the Federal give-away lottery which is growing at an unsustainable rate. Let the people keep money that is now spent to cull votes. Let the States compete for business, for educational excellence, for good, free market, constitutional governance, and let the Feds maintain a powerful national defence with an open but guarded relation with the rest of the world, and we might have what the founders envisioned.
Also there's the evolution of education where a college degree is the minimum for most non-trade skill work. Hell, even a MS or MBA isn't considered that special any more...to a large degree because of the rapid advancement of the global economy and technology.

We're competing against a larger and smarter global workforce. Yes the corporate world can respond by becoming more global (more access to markets and sources of revenues) but that doesn't mean our people will be the source of their productivity, not if they're not ready. I don't expect any state to think at this level.

America rose to dominance with military and productive might. The Great institutions of higher learning are a benefactor of that might. And the influence of collective, anti-capitalist thought beginning to dominate those institutions, may be a Trojan Horse to "fundamentally change" this country.
One could also argue that without an educated people would we have been able to harness our resources and geographic fortune to rise to such military and productive might? The Federal land grant program was precisely to encourage such industrial education versus a more classical one. The rise of the liberal arts college isn't a Trojan horse but rather a blessing of our strength that bolsters the sciences.

-spence

Are people any less free to start private or religious based institutions today? I think the real question is why these early colleges failed. One might ask if they were really delivering what the people needed.

Probably various reasons for failure. Some didn't fail, and grew to larger institutions. Many come and go today.

Starting well? Perhaps the feds saw a good thing and accelerated it's progress. I don't think there were more than a few state sponsored colleges before 1860. Good thing too because the industrial revolution was just getting going.

Who's to say that the growth of State Colleges wouldn't have grown as well or better without the Feds. In some ways the Federal involvement has hampered diversity as well as contributed to raising costs.

Via a lot of Federal grants mind you, one area of investment that the taxpayer has seen a good ROI.

The Federal grants are mostly returning a portion of the money that was taken from the States in the first place. If the Federales would stay out of what is State business, the amount of money the national government would need would be greatly reduced, and the States could would have a great deal more to do their business, and do it without Federal mandates.

The evolution of the global economy has shown that our behavior as a nation is quite important. The Federal issue was smaller in scope as many of the Founding Fathers didn't believe the US would or should be running a global economy...which we still do today. Could they even imagine what the US Navy does to control shipping lanes around the entire planet? I don't think so...

The Founders didn't believe Federal Gov. should be running a global economy, nor that even the States should, I suppose. But if the citizens of a given State voted to allow their State to run some global business, I guess that would have been OK. I believe the Founders wanted business to be in the hands of the private market. I don't recall if they proposed a ban on global business. Quite the contrary, not only cotton, but even industrial goods, maybe some foodstuff was sold to foreign markets, and a good deal, if not all, of the Federal income was tariffs on incoming goods. Nobody could have forseen how huge the world market would become, but I don't think that would have changed their view that the market is in the private sector. The Navy is a legitimate, constitutional arm of the Federal Government, and its use to protect Americans and American interests is not an infringement on States Rights.

A lot of this is private institutions setting the pace. More access to education creates more competition.

The private institutions have to follow the inflated pace that government intervention creates.

Also there's the evolution of education where a college degree is the minimum for most non-trade skill work. Hell, even a MS or MBA isn't considered that special any more...to a large degree because of the rapid advancement of the global economy and technology.

This is another ill effect of Government promoting the value of higher ed. We are told that college is the necessary path to good employment. So more go to college. Colleges need to expand. Govt. "invests". Costs go up. An excess of graduates that are truly needed for traditionally college required jobs are now available, so employers, to weed out applicants, can require a degree for jobs the hadn't previously required degrees. Most occupations, that are not highly technical and in need of strong preparation of math and some form of science education, are actually learned on the job, and the degree that was required to get the job is superfluous.

We're competing against a larger and smarter global workforce. Yes the corporate world can respond by becoming more global (more access to markets and sources of revenues) but that doesn't mean our people will be the source of their productivity, not if they're not ready. I don't expect any state to think at this level.

All this is being, and has been done by State and private institutions. All the Federal Gov. does is "invest" a pool of money that it doesn't have and that should have stayed in the States. Thus artificially raising costs. The State and private institutions are the ones to "think at that level." And they do.

One could also argue that without an educated people would we have been able to harness our resources and geographic fortune to rise to such military and productive might? The Federal land grant program was precisely to encourage such industrial education versus a more classical one. The rise of the liberal arts college isn't a Trojan horse but rather a blessing of our strength that bolsters the sciences.

-spence

Again, the Federal influence is not necessary. The college and university personnel will be the same without the Federal Government. The State and private institutions do the hiring. Again, the Federal influence is inflationary as to cost and restrictive to diversity. If the Federal Government was, as is constitutionally mandated, restricted to defence, foreign relations, interstate commerce (as originally intended--not as currently "interpreted"), it might need only collect a fifth to a third of the taxes that it does. Government funding, now, is topsy turvy. The States should be collecting the lions share of revenue, not the Federal Government. And the States would create more diverse solutions to health and welfare problems and have the money to do so. And they would have to be more responsive to their constituents than the Federal Government is. The current health "care" that may be about to befall all of us, would be approached in a more diverse, innovative, and necessarily more responsive way, if it was in State hands.

And the Trojan Horse to which I referred, is not the liberal arts college but its antithesis--an anti-liberal, undiverse, restrictive, close-minded, collectivist, anti-capitalist mindset that pervades public education. It is a mindset that detests military might and sees production primarily as a result of labor more than a gift of capitalist, or free market ingenuity. A mindset that is about class struggle, so-called "social justice," redistribution of wealth, all of which, intended or not, will not only "fundamentally change" this society, but remove the foundations of what made it great.