Democrats don't know what "responsibility" means.

If the government starts writing blank checks for 'free college', those college fees are going to triple

I know what you mean. Every time a businessman files for bankruptcy and gets all of those millions of debts forgiven at the stroke of a gavel, I'm just like.... Why is this MY fault?

Another lefty uses a False Analogy to deflect from the real issue.

Unless you were invested in that particular company or held their debt, which was your choice in the hopes of making money, it doesn't cost you anything if they go bankrupt.

However, since the Federal Government holds all student debt, it will cost everyone, and we have no choice.

This guy though. Great logic on your part.

We absolutely do have a choice. We could make college free at the point of use in the first instance. We chose a loan-based approach.

No problemo, Anti we will just print money every year to send everyone to Oberlin to be gender studies majors and charge it to a future generations credit card. Until we bring the deficit under control and have a way to begin lowering the debit we need to get out of the free business.

Might as well. We are printing tons of money every year anyway.

Money is not simply printed then released into circulation. It has to 'bought' first.

Yes it's bought by the banks then lent back to the treasury at a premium interest rate. In simple terms is printed out of thin air and lent out 10 times.

Talking about the USD, I am anyways.

Fiat Currency. Look it up.

That's it in a pic, currency floating on nothing but air with gravity biding its time,,,

Yes. Do look it up and see how it works.

Money is not simply printed then released into circulation. It has to 'bought' first still.

Fiat Currency. Look it up.

No.

Fiat Currency. Look it up

Please do some research. https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/081415/understanding-how-federal-reserve-creates-money.asp

I don't think you know how taxes work. They've nothing to do with the printing system whatsoever.

Inflation.

"Free" is a misnomer. Someone has to pay. Then what do we do with the people who don't go college, but have to take a loan out to buy a welder and truck and start their own business. Do we pay for that also?

You know, after this is over and higher education becomes accessible to you, please take advantage of that yourself. I'll be proud that my tax dollars are going towards helping people like you to read more good.

"free at the point of use"

I don't think this means what you think it means.

It just means that the person getting the education doesn't pay for it. It is not free since the service still costs money to provide and that money has to come from somewhere, and that somewhere would be the taxpayer.

Since not everybody will or should go to college, then people who are getting no benefit are still paying for those who do benefit.

Free at the point of use just means college paid for by the taxpayer, not an idea supported by the majority of the country.

....yyyes they do, because it comes out of their taxes as soon as they pay any at any point in their lives.

Including sales taxes. Which students pay.

So, free at the point of use means EXACTLY what I think it means. I think you're trying to make excuses for the fact that you just didn't read it properly the first time.

"Including sales taxes. Which students pay."

Sorry, but your argument makes no sense.

Everybody pays taxes, including sales tax, so everybody would be paying for college whether they attend or not. Unless you are going to impose a special tax that only those going to college would pay.

You are trying to argue that college should be a social welfare program paid for by everybody. An idea not endorsed by the majority of people.

Well, you know what you can do, if you feel you're paying for all that college and not getting something in return?

Take a class.

You'll be eligible. Paid for through our taxes. Treat yourself. What have you always wanted to learn more about?

"But you're not. You just said you'll be taking advantage of it yourself. You're paying for yourself."

I am not asking anyone else to pay for me, including the government.

They're not. You're taking classes, you're paying taxes. You're paying for yourself. The only difference is the convenience because you pay taxes anyway, cuts out the middle man.

I already paid for all my college degrees with my own money, now you should also.

So what? Did you run out of things to learn?

"So what? Did you run out of things to learn?"

I sure hope not. In fact, I still take the occasional class, which I pay for with my own money.

Cool. So stop doing that and take it out of our taxes instead. I'm a taxpayer and I have no problem with that.

"Cool. So stop doing that and take it out of our taxes instead. I'm a taxpayer and I have no problem with that."

I and a majority of the country are also taxpayers, and we have a problem paying for other people's degrees. If you want a degree, pay for it yourself.

But you're not. You just said you'll be taking advantage of it yourself. You're paying for yourself.

Free colleges with teachers working for free is an awesome idea!

Good luck with that

How is the education supposed to be "free" then?
Wanna give it away for free but as long as you get paid?

Ahh, this brings back memories, when the running joke in the UK was that everyone was majoring in art for, like, ever back in the day while they postponed adulting - on the taxpayer shilling, natch. Minus aethetically pleasing teeth, that is.

They've told me this was no longer a thing. Gov't's been cutting back on the rest of the freebies as well in recent years.

Exactly, the debt just evaporates away at the expense of of no one because insurance compensation or tax write offs and whatever grants might be utilized to make up for the damage on the taxpayers' dime aren't a thing!

The debt doesn't evaporate, They sell off assets, reorganize and pay back over a longer time, or are bought out. I am not sure what taxpayer damage you are referring to. A bankrupt company would not generally have a tax liability.

In any case, the impact from any company would be less than the $1.4 TRILLION in student debt that would have to be supported only by taxpayers. No insurance, no grants, and no writeoffs.

"A bankrupt company would not generally have a tax liability."

Which doesn't negatively impact tax revenue by shrinking it and the taxpayer base who would have to make up for it or they can do without? Not that tax funded bailouts aren't a thing either on the occasion that the company be deemed worthy of such - for the sake of the wider economy and ye olde grater good, natch [see what I did there?]?

Not sure what bailing out student debt has to do with what I said nor how that would be different from bailing out anyone else anyways by virtue of the size of the hole they dug for themselves. But hey, TARP was justified because it was less than the damage those we bailed out with it already caused, so, yeah, supply side vampirism is ok as long as it's for the aristocracy, yes, but not the plebs?

You do know that by 2014 with the exception of AIG the TARP loans were repaid by the banks and companies that used them? AIG repaid $36B of the $40B they borrowed. Over 30% of the funds were used by Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, which are federal programs.

The banks also gave the Treasury stock warrants in their company. The Treasury sold their Citigroup warrants to cover the loan and made a $12B profit on that deal. All funds returned to the Treasury as interest, dividends, fees, or stock warrant repurchases were $754.8 billion, for a net profit of $121 billion to the Treasury.

You know, paying off your loans with interest.

Additionally, TARP was less than $633B. Student loan debt is $1.4T.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troubled_Asset_Relief_Program#cite_note-AIGrepaysTARP-50

Wait, wasn't that money that OBAMA threw away, grrrr grrrr? Love to see you remind the Righties that which they likewise know as well.

Again, not sure what bailing out student debt had to do with what I said before.
On my planet, tossing money to save those who wasted it is bad, even if instead of getting their asses saved by it for wrecking our economy they wrecked daddy's wallet instead.