Try the political quiz
@ISIDEWITHQuestionsEducationStarted 7yrs agoActive 54mins ago

Should the federal government pay for tuition at four-year colleges and universities?

A 2017 College Board study estimated that the cost of college has increased 100% since 2001. The St. Louis Federal Reserve Bank estimates that U.S. college tuition debt has increased from $480 billion in 2006 to $1.5 trillion in 2018. Several 2020 Democratic Presidential Primary candidates have argued that the cost of college is out of control and that the government should pay for tuition. Opponents argue that the government cant afford it and point to estimates from the Committee for a Responsible Federal budget that estimate programs would cost the government $80 billion a year.

+
Expand
+ Settings

Filter by type

Narrow down which types of responses you would like to see.

Filter by author

Narrow down the conversation to these participants:

:

:

:

:

State:

Congressional District (2014-2024):

DMA:

State Senate District:

County:

Assembly District:

City:

Zipcode:

55.6k Replies

  @TruthHurts101 from Washington  answered…3yrs3Y

Most certainly not. The Article 1, Section 8 General Welfare Clause that Staists often cite to justify their radical expenditures like free college does not grant the government any authority to do anything under the sun it otherwise couldn't do. In fact, the Founding Fathers were very clear that your interpretation was precisely what the general welfare clause does not mean. For example, in Federalist #41, James Madison explains that the General Welfare Clause is most certainly not an unlimited granter of power but rather than it merely means that the Constitution was enacted for the…  Read more

 @swimmersteve from New York  agreed…3yrs3Y

An interesting historical example to consider when discussing the General Welfare Clause is the National Bank debate between Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson. Hamilton argued that creating a national bank fell under the General Welfare Clause, while Jefferson believed it was not an enumerated power and therefore unconstitutional. This debate highlights the differing interpretations of the General Welfare Clause and its potential impact on the scope of federal power.

As for the concern about government indoctrination through free college, do you think there are any ways to promote access to higher education without compromising individual liberties or overstepping the boundaries of the Constitution?

  @TruthHurts101 from Washington  commented…3yrs3Y

Plus 99% of what the federal government does today is unconstitutional because of this; one of the most atrociously anti-freedom examples I can think of is Biden's student loan "forgiveness" plan, which is really a nefarious plan calculated to bribe college students into support for the Democrat Party. Of course, Joe himself is too senile to think of such conspiracies himself; it's really the work of Soros, Xi Jinping, Jill, Fauci, and whoever else he takes his orders from.

 @Ujustgotjosephd answered…1yr1Y

No, the schools should be required to co-sign student loans which would drive down attendance costs instead.

 @33TT8J7Democrat from Georgia  answered…2yrs2Y

Yes, but only for public colleges. Not private, "for profit" colleges. Trade schools should also receive more funding for grants and scholarships.

 @9S3DH7ZConstitution from Texas  answered…2yrs2Y

The government needs to get out of college tuition as the government involvement only artificially increases prices

 @9RL3PD8Libertarian from Kansas  answered…2yrs2Y

No, but grants should be provided for students in STEM, medical, business or similar degree programs

 @9MHMQ8R from California  answered…2yrs2Y

With all the taxes taken from us, college should be free just like highschool and elementary school, because we have already paid for it through taxation.

 @9MFZWXP from Texas  answered…2yrs2Y

No, the government should not be involved in student loans. Increased government involvement led to the student loan crises.

 @9G4T2XX from Iowa  answered…3yrs3Y

if the person provides value to the government its acceptable. EX: if the person is also in the national guard.

 @9D4NL52 from Kentucky  answered…3yrs3Y

Only for in-demand degrees that are specifically relevant for national interest

 @96PX96KLibertarian from Florida  answered…4yrs4Y

No, open it up to the free market so colleges have to compete and lower tuition.

 @96BRK9FConstitution from Arizona  answered…4yrs4Y

No, and lower interest rates on student loans to 0%

 @958LKV9 from Connecticut  answered…4yrs4Y

The state should not concern itself with education.

 @948X2G9 from Arizona  answered…4yrs4Y

No, and remove government backed insurance from loan providers so they make better decisions on who to lend to.

 @93RVK2G from North Carolina  answered…4yrs4Y

No, and privatize the student loan system

 @93M33YQ from Oklahoma  answered…4yrs4Y

NO! It should be responsibility of the person attending, they chose to attend.

 @93JHGYXRepublican from Ohio  answered…4yrs4Y

No, and the federal government shouldn't pay for any individual person

 @92ZD3WB from Illinois  answered…4yrs4Y

No, and the government should not be in charge of student loans

 @8ZS8PXP from Texas  answered…4yrs4Y

The federal government does not pay for anything. The people of the united states do through taxes. There is never a good reason to increase taxes.

 @8ZN6G5DLibertarian from Missouri  answered…4yrs4Y

No, and the fees to attend college and universities that are state run should be drastically reduced.

 @8Z6QTS6 from California  answered…4yrs4Y

Costs for college tuition should be regulated and made affordable for families

 @8Z6HDWN from California  answered…4yrs4Y

Schools need to refactor their administrative costs. This is what really drives cost to go to college.

 @8Z62LHX from Utah  answered…4yrs4Y

Yes, they already do if you join the military.

 @8Z5FR5RIndependent from Florida  answered…4yrs4Y

Help reduce costs.

 @8YZQ5JX from Idaho  answered…4yrs4Y

Lower the price of college. Its ridiculously overpriced.

 @8YTP83XRepublican from Texas  answered…4yrs4Y

The state government should set a price ceiling on ALL college tuitions that correlate with the minimum wage.

 @8YJQWY8 from Minnesota  answered…4yrs4Y

No, the government should not be in the business of giving loans for anything, as they do not have money of their own to lend, only the money they already take from the working class

 @8YH8T9L from New York  answered…4yrs4Y

No, Pay for it yourself

 @8Y5DRNJRepublican from Massachusetts  answered…4yrs4Y

No, education should be privatized and allow more opportunities for home schooling or private schools and school choice by removing education from being publicly funded

 @8Y48BZQ from Ohio  answered…4yrs4Y

No, but should an individual serve the country in some way for two years after high school, then they should have education paid for.

 @8Y2T96Q from Texas  answered…4yrs4Y

The federal government should eliminate guarantees on student loans so universities must charge based on value.

 @8XV6DF5 from Oregon  answered…5yrs5Y

Not from the Federal level, but if states want to that's fine.

 @8XPS4FZLibertarian from Massachusetts  answered…5yrs5Y

No, should cap what universities can charge based on income

 @8XJY5TCRepublican from California  answered…5yrs5Y

Tuition assistance should reflect need in the workplace

 @8VZHNKG from Texas  answered…5yrs5Y

No, make universities with large endowments pay more towards tuition.

 @8VXVGN6 from Virginia  answered…5yrs5Y

The USA already does, it is called the Montgomery GI bill. Service for college is a fair trade.

 @8VQF5F3 from Massachusetts  answered…5yrs5Y

The government shouldn't control student loans

 @8TWK7WM from Maryland  answered…5yrs5Y

No, and the federal government should not pay for any tuition

 @8TFZD7M from New York  answered…5yrs5Y

No, But Free Community College and Free Trade Schools

 @8TF86KBRepublican from Indiana  answered…5yrs5Y

No, and government shouldn’t pay for this

 @8TCPFK2 from Wisconsin  answered…5yrs5Y

no, Besides the military

 @8TBHVZZLibertarian from Georgia  answered…5yrs5Y

School is just indoctrination

 @8T9LYRL from Minnesota  answered…5yrs5Y

Yes but only if they are recruiting for a job and the person willing accepts as part of payment for a job

 @8T8KM98 from Massachusetts  answered…5yrs5Y

No, but only if you served as a employee of the government, or covered by the GI bill

 @8SZNZZDLibertarian from Utah  answered…5yrs5Y

Yes, but only through select programs that require participants to work for the government.

 @8SQPCXY from Indiana  answered…5yrs5Y

No, it’s not the government paying for it and instead it’s US THE TAXPAYERS

 @8SF8TS6Libertarian from Texas  answered…5yrs5Y

Public school cost are too high. Lower the cost of public education.

 @8S6GVNY from Virginia  answered…5yrs5Y

Provide more opportunities for high scoring SAT or other tests of knowledge ability without handicap adjustment for race, sex or other minority identity.

 @8RJ2NS6 from Nevada  answered…5yrs5Y

Need to find a way to make colleges lower prices within the institution.

 @8QPVZ5T from Missouri  answered…5yrs5Y

Only society helping degree and technical programs. BS degrees should be eliminated.

 @8QP38C8 from Utah  answered…5yrs5Y

Forces state four-year colleges and universities to lower tuition and fees to a more reasonable amount. It shouldn’t be run like a for profit business

 @8QLM97L from Kentucky  answered…5yrs5Y

No, but they should offer more scholarship opportunities for middle class children

 @8QKZF2N from Iowa  answered…5yrs5Y

No, but action should be taken to lower the price of higher education

 @8QGMWYJ from North Carolina  answered…5yrs5Y

No, but the government should be out of student loans all together. Student loans should be gotten through the private sector and not the government. I also would like to see all scholarships based on merit and grades of the student rather than race/income/family background ect.

 @8QFWN32 from Maine  answered…5yrs5Y

No, Government should be removed entirely from the field of education and hand over the responsibility to the free market.

 @8PNLBZF from North Carolina  answered…6yrs6Y

No, schools have take advantage of any financial opportunity. Schools have to be reformed first.

 @8P9VBCJRepublican from Florida  answered…6yrs6Y

No but college should be more affordable

 @8MSGV2BLibertarian from New Jersey  answered…6yrs6Y

No, and the government should not be involved in education past grade 12

 @8MQKGP9 from Arizona  answered…6yrs6Y

Free for 2 year community colleges only. On your own after that

 @8MF873M from Connecticut  answered…6yrs6Y

No, you want college, you and/or family should pay for it - not the American people through their tax money.

 @8KJXJG2Republican from Washington  answered…6yrs6Y

Only for students who achieve high grades and need help.

 @8K9Y9MQ from Virginia  answered…6yrs6Y

Create a cap on tuition coats to students or require each state to do so.

 @8K8MWSDRepublican from Pennsylvania  answered…6yrs6Y

Public schools should have tuition capped

 @8H9QMK5 from South Carolina  answered…6yrs6Y

Universities should get over themselves and reduce costs without the government feeding them the money.

 @8H4VWZZ from Texas  answered…6yrs6Y

I think there should be public colleges just like there are public schools

 @8FYPZV7 from Florida  answered…6yrs6Y

Yes, but it should not be based by race

 @8DFKNHT from Connecticut  answered…6yrs6Y

No, and remove all government student loans.

 @8D8GSJBLibertarian from New York  answered…6yrs6Y

Yes, but only for STEM and other services that can reinvest in our economy

 @6K5JPLNLibertarianfrom Illinois  answered…6yrs6Y

No, government subsidies cause college tuition rates to increase

 @9CXBPXHLibertarian from Illinois  answered…3yrs3Y

No. And make schooling cheaper.

  @TruthHurts101 from Washington  answered…3yrs3Y

No, and all conservative States nullify this stupid and unconstitutional edict and/or immediately secede from the Union.

 @@Cal_Lackner from GU  answered…3yrs3Y

Allow government funding, and research grants to continue, but do not allow for student loans to be federally insured, and do not allow for non grant/merit based government sponsorship IE, low income. It is important to create a situation in which the colleges don't always get their money so that they are forced to drop prices to a more affordable rate.

 @2QP68QDIndependentanswered…3yrs3Y

No, but audit tuition and other expenses for students, as they have been increasing drastically faster than inflation.

 @9BGVD89 from Utah  answered…3yrs3Y

regulate college prices to reasonable ammounts

 @9B5HR3N from New York  answered…3yrs3Y

This is the stupidest thing ever

 @97S9B4C from Utah  answered…4yrs4Y

No. The government doesn't pay for anything. The money comes from tax payers.

 @97JVWQC from Minnesota  answered…4yrs4Y

No, but tuition price regulations should be put into place to keep all schools relatively cost effective.

 @97D4YJJRepublican from Illinois  answered…4yrs4Y

Forgive the interest rate and have the person who took out the loan pay off the principal amount.

 @96SQ9WB from North Carolina  answered…4yrs4Y

Yes, but only if they are from a low-income family, or have good grades

 @8W8MX2N from California  answered…5yrs5Y

More scholarships should be made available to all income classes

 @8RLRYQZ from Oklahoma  answered…5yrs5Y

universities should lower their tuition, government shouldn't be involved

 @8G4GH26Libertarian from Ohio  answered…6yrs6Y

Government getting involved was what raised the price of tuition in the first place. Get government out of it

 @8FMMCZW from California  answered…6yrs6Y

Yes, if they abolished collegiate sports

 @8FMC7ND from Florida  answered…6yrs6Y

Need to get colleges to reduce their tuition

 @8DCG6FD from Texas  answered…6yrs6Y

No, and cease the Student Loan Program.

 @8PVYR47Independent from Virginia  answered…5yrs5Y

No, instead provide incentives for colleges to use ISA loans.

 @88LK76JAmerican from Michigan  answered…6yrs6Y

No lower the cost of public college

 @88LK76JAmerican from Michigan  answered…4yrs4Y

Yes but only if they need it at public colleges

 @88LK76JAmerican from Michigan  answered…4yrs4Y

No and defund public colleges

 @88LK76JAmerican from Michigan  answered…4yrs4Y

No and abolish public universities

 @88LK76JAmerican from Michigan  answered…6yrs6Y

No lower the tuition at public colleges and universities

 @36DLLNTLibertariananswered…5yrs5Y

Yes, but only after reworking the current budget to allocate funding to universal college.

 @624Z7BSLibertarian from Missouri  answered…6yrs6Y

Yes (or heavily helped) after verification of research on pragmatic outcome of your chosen degree; no useless degrees and reduced compensation for extremely saturated degrees (liberal arts degrees).

 @88LK76JAmerican from Michigan  answered…5yrs5Y

Yes but only for public college and don’t fund it through taxes.

 @88LK76JAmerican from Michigan  answered…5yrs5Y

Yes but only for partial tuition at public colleges and universities

 @88LK76JAmerican from Michigan  answered…6yrs6Y

Yes but only to those who need it at public colleges and universities

 @88LK76JAmerican from Michigan  answered…5yrs5Y

Yes, but only for partial tuition At public colleges and universities

 @88LK76JAmerican from Michigan  answered…5yrs5Y

Yes, but only At public colleges and universities

 @88LK76JAmerican from Michigan  answered…5yrs5Y

Yes but only at public colleges and universities and don’t fund it through taxes

Demographics

Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion

Loading data...

More conversations

Join in on more popular conversations.

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…2yrs2Y

Israeli Bombings Kill 2,300 In Lebanon in 3 weeks

Lebanese authorities say Israeli bombing has killed more than 2,300 people and injured almost 11,000, mostly in the past three weeks, with Israeli attacks reaching areas far beyond Hizbollah’s traditional bastions of support in the south.The Israeli military has ordered people living in more than a quarter of Lebanon to flee, according to a UN calculation, as its fight with the Iran-backed Shia militant group Hizbollah threatens to engulf the Mediterranean country.Lebanese authorities say Israeli bombing has killed more than 2,300 people and injured almost 11,000, mostly in the past three weeks, with Israeli attacks reaching areas far beyond Hizbollah’s traditional bastions of support in the south.More than 1mn people have fled their homes in Lebanon in under a month, according to its government, a dramatic forced movement of the population in a country of only about 5mn inhabitants with a land mass smaller than the US state of Connecticut. Israeli forces began a ground offensive in south Lebanon two weeks ago, in their fourth invasion of the country in under five decades. They had already destroyed large parts of the densely populated southern Beirut suburb where Hizbollah had its headquarters, and killed many top militant commanders in air strikes, including former leader Hassan Nasrallah.Rema Jamous Imseis, Middle East director of UNHCR, told journalists in Geneva that “over 25 per cent of [Lebanon is] under a direct Israeli military evacuation order”. “People are heeding these calls to evacuate and they’re fleeing with almost nothing,” she added, saying that 80 per cent of the shelters opened by the Lebanese government — mostly in schools — were now full.

▲  1012 replies

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…2yrs2Y

A Moment of Darkness': Washington Post's No-Endorsement Decision Ignites Media Firestorm

Even though the presidential race between former President Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris is neck and neck, The Washington Post has decided not to make a presidential endorsement for the first time in 36 years, the publisher and CEO announced Friday."We are returning to our roots of not endorsing presidential candidates," Will Lewis wrote in an opinion piece published on the paper's website. He referenced the paper's policy in the decades prior to 1976, when, following the Watergate scandal that the Post broke, it endorsed Democratic nominee Jimmy Carter. The last time the Post did not endorse a presidential candidate in the general election was 1988, according to a search of its archives.Colleagues learned the news from the editorial page editor, David Shipley, at a tense meeting shortly before Lewis' announcement. The meeting was characterized by someone with direct knowledge of discussions on condition of anonymity to speak about internal matters.Shipley said that he told other editorial board leaders Thursday by management that there would be no endorsement, though he has known for weeks. He added that he "owns" this decision. The reason he cited was to create "independent space" where the newspaper does not tell people for whom to vote.Colleagues were said to be "shocked" and uniformly negative. Post corporate spokespeople have not responded to multiple messages left by NPR on the subject.Former Washington Post Executive Editor Martin Baron, who led the newsroom to acclaim during Trump's presidency, denounced the decision starkly."This is cowardice, a moment of darkness that will leave democracy as a casualty," Baron said in a statement to NPR. "Donald Trump will celebrate this as an invitation to further intimidate The Post’s owner, Jeff Bezos (and other media owners). History will mark a disturbing chapter of spinelessness at an institution famed for courage."A similar decision by Los Angeles Times owner Patrick Soon-Shiong led this week to the resignations of the paper's editorials editor and two editorial board members. Soon-Shiong said that he had asked the editorial board to draft a "factual analysis" of Trump and Harris' policies and plans. In her resignation letter, editorials editor Mariel Garza said the decision made the paper look “craven and hypocritical,” given its past reporting and editorials on Trump.

▲  1013 replies