Accounting for interest, and inflation, the average tuition will at least double in 20 years. 40 grand sounds about right, as, tuition around 2028 at a public institution should be around 80,000 by then. She needs a new economist on her staff.
2007-10-01 05:35:34 · 16 answers · asked by alphabetsoup2 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
That's hilarious dude !!
And the answer is still. . . NO . LMAO .
2007-10-01 05:38:51 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 8⤊ 1⤋
Hillary's brazen pandering to the greedy is even more unattractive than Rosie O'Donnell's posterior.
First of all, many kids either do not want to attend University, or are not qualified to do so. Guaranteeing a college "education" must means that kids will be going to some "University" that is nothing more than remedial high school.
What about the incentive to excel academically in order to get a scholarship? Her plan would destroy that incentive.
What about parents being responsible with their money and actually saving for their child's education themselves? Why should I pay for little Bobby's college "education" when he never cracked a book? Talk about wasted money.
Let's hope Hillary's pandering will blow up in her face.
2007-10-01 13:36:56 · answer #2 · answered by pachl@sbcglobal.net 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
2028 is a long ways away. By then I'm sure the world will be a completely different place. For example: the human population will have grown exponentially, easily doubling the 7 billion we have now. Survival will come before education. We're looking realistically at 30 billion people assuming we can feed the population we have right now in order to continue growing.
I think this political year should be more focused on the future that will eventually bite us right in the rump if we ignore it properly.
2007-10-01 12:45:46 · answer #3 · answered by Gareth 1 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Already a college degree now is not worth a high school diploma of a century ago. A B.A. is not worth 2 years of college in Italy; why further cheapen a degree? College should be reserved for those with the matching I.Q.; we don't need more degreed people working for McDonald's or Wal-Mart.
In otherwords, don't give ANY money away. Besides, for those who took Econ 101, you know the money has to come from somewhere; mostly it comes from the poor.
2007-10-01 14:52:46 · answer #4 · answered by Nothingusefullearnedinschool 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
And I got me a piece of land in the river denial. Hillarious. Pomp and circumstance and no depth, reality tax increases? Y'ello!
What's the 65 cent tax on cigarettes going to do if some quit smoking? Better yet the Mexican and even pals in Venezuela just import more cheaper smokes. Heck Native Americans can grow on their lands... Wal Mart and China imports?
Follow the money trail. All leads back to the Clinton Machine.
She needs a magic wand (don't go there). Poof it's all smoke and mirrors. I said what? You are on point here. SHe just cares less that numbers add up just that it sounds, like Mr Food says, "OOOOOOH, It's So Good". tm
Thank you.
2007-10-01 12:51:15 · answer #5 · answered by Mele Kai 6 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Well that's a bigger discussion regarding how much the US gov't should deal with and help with the rising cost of tuition.
2007-10-01 12:38:52 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
I'd prefer she stop trying to give my money away to anyone, even a child. Its just fundamentally not the right way to run a country the entitlement system is destroying our country.
If you want to help a child, let their parents keep more of their hard earned money, let communities solve problems they do a much better job than governments, invest more in education, and teach them that American is not a country of handouts.
2007-10-01 12:43:18 · answer #7 · answered by Darin H 2 · 7⤊ 1⤋
Sure, and lets give EVERYONE in the United states and Mexico a million dollars too, That would be great huh. Then milk would 9000 dollars a gallon
2007-10-01 12:44:10 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
Sure. At the rate we're going, we'll be paying that much for a loaf of bread (including the interest)... LOL
I like your thinking!
2007-10-01 12:52:25 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
why worry about it either way??! that is a long way off. First the parents of those children, which will be our own children, are going to have to pay Bush's debts. hillary will be long out of office by the time that is accomplished, assuming that she gets in.
You are stressing over the pipe-dreams of certain candidates while buying the pipe-dreams of others. please wake up.
2007-10-01 12:50:13 · answer #10 · answered by Boss H 7 · 0⤊ 3⤋
Why stop there? If we could legistlate wealth, why not Harvard? Lets shoot for a million.
Of course you can't legistlate wealth, if you could, everyone in business would be running for office.
2007-10-01 12:40:42 · answer #11 · answered by midnyteryder1961 7 · 4⤊ 1⤋