More Income Distribution; Thanks Tennessee GOP

[anygunanywhere]

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/01/b ... 14094.html

But administration officials insisted on a call with reporters Thursday evening that “this is a proposal with bipartisan appeal.”

Case in point: Republican Gov. Bill Haslam, whose brainchild Tennessee Promise program strongly influenced Obama’s proposal. Beginning this year, any high school graduate in that state is eligible for two years of free community college tuition under the Tennessee Promise.

The GOP will save us.

The democrat wing of the GOP doing their best to further the collectivist cause.

[The Annoyed Man]

I can't expect democrats to be truthful. They simply don't have it in them to be so. But I REALLY wish republicans would stop using the word "free" in any other way than referencing an individual's liberty. Literally NOTHING is free. SOMEBODY is paying for that tuition, SOMEWHERE along the line.

It used to be that people were willing to pay - even a small amount - and do the work that it takes to improve themselves. It was called "pulling yourself up by the bootstraps", and it was an ethic that built the nation. Private grant organizations existed to provide financial aid to students who needed it. I myself took advantage of a Hinson-Hazelwood grant to help me pay for my tuition at Texas A&M. I paid for the rest with a student loan......because that is what it took. Americans have nobody to blame but themselves for why student loans are harder to get - because they cheesed out and didn't pay their debts - because they felt in the end like they were entitled to keep the bank's money - because they were no longer willing to pay the price of pulling themselves up by the bootstraps.

Who taught them that ethic? Democrats, that's who.

But it is a sad day when republicans aid and abet the behavior. If a republican ever tells you that something is "free", you should ALWAYS demand to know then how it is paid for, because somebody always pays, and then point out to that sack of poo that it isn't free to that person, and to stop acting like it is, or you will organize support for his challenger in the next election. Who gives a crap if he changes party allegiance as a result? If he is voting democrat anyway, what does it matter?

For me, it is not even about the money. IF republicans can make a compelling argument for why it is necessary to provide college tuition to students without expecting reimbursement, then make the argument and educate the voters......or at least try to. If the truth of the argument is self-evident, then people will get it. But don't LIE about how it is "free". Lying about cost, and treating it like a shell game simply makes you a democrat with an "R" after his name...... a republican in name only.

It used to be that the republican party stood for conservative values, particularly conservative FISCAL values.

[Cedar Park Dad]

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/01/b ... 14094.html

But administration officials insisted on a call with reporters Thursday evening that “this is a proposal with bipartisan appeal.”

Case in point: Republican Gov. Bill Haslam, whose brainchild Tennessee Promise program strongly influenced Obama’s proposal. Beginning this year, any high school graduate in that state is eligible for two years of free community college tuition under the Tennessee Promise.

The GOP will save us.

The democrat wing of the GOP doing their best to further the collectivist cause.

I know right. Its terrible that the government might facilitate people trying to lift themselves up by their bootstraps.

[b322da]

...I know right. Its terrible that the government might facilitate people trying to lift themselves up by their bootstraps.

Or, as said in The Borowitz Report, in The New Yorker yesterday:

"Republicans Expose Obama’s College Plan as Plot to Make People Smarter."

http://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz ... le-smarter" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Irony is a form of utterance that postulates a treble audience, consisting of one party that realizes that the utterance is irony and is amused by it; another who does not realize that it is irony, and is offended by it; and another who realizes that it is irony, and is offended by it.

Jim

[anygunanywhere]

...I know right. Its terrible that the government might facilitate people trying to lift themselves up by their bootstraps.

Or, as said in The Borowitz Report, in The New Yorker yesterday:

"Republicans Expose Obama’s College Plan as Plot to Make People Smarter."

http://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz ... le-smarter" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Jim

Wait...what??

[The Annoyed Man]

...I know right. Its terrible that the government might facilitate people trying to lift themselves up by their bootstraps.

Or, as said in The Borowitz Report, in The New Yorker yesterday:

"Republicans Expose Obama’s College Plan as Plot to Make People Smarter."

http://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz ... le-smarter" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Jim

Jim,

College won't make them smarter, it will make them more educated. Not necessarily the same thing. I've met plenty of janitors who had more wisdom in their pinky fingers than the current president ever had on his best day, and the president is a well-educated person. The politician who is selling this is an educated man, but that doesn't make him a wiser and better person.

And I want to reiterate what I said in my previous post: I may not even have a problem with tuition subsidy for qualified students, and I certainly have no problem with getting an education; but I damn sure have a problem with a politician lying about something being free......because nothing in life is free except the love of Jesus for those who want it....and even that cost Him something.......and I have a REAL problem with throwing good money after bad. So my message to politicians is to STOP trying to sell your ideas as "Free", because lying about funding is destructive to the interests of a free society. It is THAT fundamental of an issue. The professors are not working for free. The electricity that keeps the lights on is not free. The heating and air-conditioning that help to make a classroom into a learning environment is not free. The buildings are not free. The administrative costs are not free. The flowing water that keeps the bathrooms habitable and functional is not free. NONE of it is free. STOP lying about it.

So Mr. Politician, be HONEST. Which Peter are you going to rob to pay Paul? Are you going to cut money out of the existing budgets of other programs to pay for this? Are you going to raise income taxes to pay for this? Are you going to add 1% to the sales tax to pay for this? Are you going to raise a bond to pay for this? Are you going to raise the tuition of those students who aren't getting it for free, so as to offset the lost tuition of those who are getting their tuition paid for? Which Peter are you going to rob to pay Paul? I want to know; and until you will be honest and tell me, I will not support your program - even if it is a good idea in principle - because you think that you have to tell a lie to sell it. IF you have to lie to sell it, then how good is it?

Please just be honest with us.

THAT is my problem with this proposition........not whether or not subsidizing tuition is a good idea or a bad idea. There is no way to know if it is a good idea until we know how it will be paid for. Road to hades.....bones of the well-intentioned.....and all that.....even if I am somewhat sympathetic to tuition subsidies for academically qualified students. ("Academically qualified" helps to ensure that we are not throwing the lottery ticket buyer's money into the toilet........a second time...... Without qualification, this is just another hand out, not a hand up.)

Grown ups ask those kinds of questions, and they expect an answer. Grown ups can and will answer the question without obfuscation. Children can't give the answer, and crooks dodge the answer. Will you trust the education of our youth to children and crooks? Or, should the grown ups be in charge for once?

Governor Bill Haslam, answer the question. Who will pay for this, because it for sure ain't free. I've just been to the official website for Tennessee Promise (the name of Tennessee's program) - http://tennesseepromise.gov/about.shtml. There is not even ONE mention, ANYWHERE on the website of how this is to be paid for.

It turns out that there is an answer, but I had to exercise a little Google-Fu to find out:

http://republic3-0.com/tennessee-promis ... -students/

R3.0: How is the Tennessee Promise scholarship different from the state’s currently offered Hope Scholarship?

Krause: The Hope scholarship is a merit scholarship and is awarded based on a student’s academic qualifications. The Promise Scholarship is awarded regardless of a student’s academic qualifications.

It is also being paid for with a net cost to the state of zero. Gov. Haslam is utilizing the lottery reserve that has built up over the years and is putting that into an irrevocable trust that now provides interest earnings. Those interest earnings fund the scholarship. It’s an incredibly innovative and fiscally conservative way to approach this issue.

R3.0: How many scholarships can you fund with just the interest income from the reserve?

Krause: We are not funding a student’s full cost of higher education – it’s a last-dollar scholarship. The way this works is that a student would enroll in one of our institutions, and they would receive aid from Tennessee Promise after all other financial aid – such as Pell [Grants] and the [Tennessee] Hope scholarship. We fill in that last dollar gap. That results in a much lower expense to the state, and it leverages the student’s entire financial aid package.

Because we’re taking that approach, the Governor can make a really powerful statement that community college is free when you graduate from high school. For students who may not have considered higher education and were telling themselves, “Well, I just can’t afford college,” we can tell them, “You can afford college, and we’re going to help you.”

Aaaaahhhh, so it is being paid for primarily by the poor, who are statistically the largest socio-economic group of lottery ticket buyers. What will you do if they stop buying tickets? Governor, why won't you talk about this. Why won't you even explain it on the official website? This is a sham.

In fact, a little more Google-Fu reveals this: http://statelaws.findlaw.com/tennessee- ... -laws.html

Lotteries Laws in Tennessee

Until 2003, the Tennessee Constitution outlawed a state lottery. The Constitution was amended to allow for a lottery implemented by the Tennessee Education Lottery Corporation with all net proceeds from the lottery allocated to state K-12 educational projects and early learning programs. The Tennessee lottery offers interstate games like Powerball and Mega Millions, as well as state-specific games Cash 3, Cash 4, and Tennessee Cash. While some states earmark lottery income to a general fund, the majority of Tennessee’s lottery revenue goes to fund scholarships and grants for Tennessee students attending state public and private schools.

So there's the Peter being robbed to pay Paul.....nice! They are stealing from K-12 and early learning programs, to provide tuition subsidy to the academically unqualified. Has it occurred to anyone that taking money away from K-12 and early learning will actually increase the number of academically unqualified applicants for Tennessee Promise? How stupid do you have to be to A) believe this makes it "free", and B) that it can't fail? And this guy calls himself a republican. It's guys like this that made me leave the party.

It's not that hard to poke a few holes in the logic of this thing......

1. "Regardless of a student's academic qualifications"? If you cannot qualify academically for other academic aid, and if Tennessee Promise (TP, going forward) is a "last dollar" subsidy, then how can one avail ones self of the subsidy.........unless they are academically qualified?
2. If one is not academically qualified for other financial aid, then does TP cover ALL tuition, not just the "last dollar"?
3. If (b) is true, then is not Tennessee squandering this resource on the academically unqualified?
4. What makes anyone think that someone who could not even get a "C" average in high school will suddenly be academically successful in college?
5. Wouldn't it make much more sense for the academically unqualified to use this resource to subsidize tuition to a vocational school? A "D" student is not likely to ever become a teacher or lawyer or an MBA (college/university type goals), but he or she CAN become a superb plumber, carpenter, or mechanic (or janitor).........and they can earn themselves a nice middle-class income.

And Obama wants to emulate this program at the national level.......where there is almost literally no accountability.

Brilliant.

I don't believe that a national department of education is in any way part of the Constitutional mandate, but even if it were, as a nation we HAVE to get past the idea that a college education is the universal panacea for upward mobility. It simple isn't.......universally. Who has more dignity in life, career satisfaction, and is more productive: the clichéd liberal arts graduate serving french fries, or the plumbing business owner who lives in a fine house, drives a nice car, has a lake house and a speedboat, and can afford to send his kids to a private school? Granted, education doesn't always follow that paradigm, and some liberal arts graduates end up in good careers; but the clichéd liberal arts failure is a cliché exactly because it is a common occurrence. To insist that college is the only/best solution universally is to set up a significant portion of the nation's youth for failure, and that is just plain wrong.

I am for getting an education, but I am against the idea of college as the one-size-fits-all answer to how "education" is defined. That dog won't hunt. And stealing from funds paid for largely by the poor, allocated by law to K-12 and early learning, and using the stolen funds to subsidize tuition for the academically unqualified is not only dishonest as hades, it is also dumber than a bag of hammers.

[Abraham]

I haven't read all the posts in this thread.

I have a question: Are trade schools covered?

A liberal arts degree won't fix your Plumbing/A.C./Auto and we need Pipefitters and many other areas of trade who can competently make or fix things.

Or, is this socialist idea of paying for two years of college only for degrees like gender studies, etc.?

[b322da]

TAM,

I suspect that, while there is a time difference, your post and my edit of my post crossed in the mail. I.e., before your post I added a sentence at the end of mine in hopes of less chance of the irony, or sarcasm, if you will, being missed by my audience. (You, of course, need no such warning when Borowitz is heard from.)

Of the three alternatives I have no difficulty placing you.

Happy New Year, annoyed old man. I suppose you realize, of course, that if more conservatives become mature, educated and as intelligent as you obviously are, one or both of our major political parties are going to have a problem. :)

Jim

[baldeagle]

I know right. Its terrible that the government might facilitate people trying to lift themselves up by their bootstraps.

Please show us where in the Constitution it says it's the government's job to help people. The legacy of government "help" is helpless people who are completely dependent upon the government for housing, food, medicine and transportation. You have to be pretty cynical to call that help.

Worst of all, when the government runs out of money (and we're headed that way very fast now), those dependent people will be among the first to die, because they have no idea how to fend for themselves.

[b322da]

I know right. Its terrible that the government might facilitate people trying to lift themselves up by their bootstraps.

Please show us where in the Constitution it says it's the government's job to help people. The legacy of government "help" is helpless people who are completely dependent upon the government for housing, food, medicine and transportation. You have to be pretty cynical to call that help.

Worst of all, when the government runs out of money (and we're headed that way very fast now), those dependent people will be among the first to die, because they have no idea how to fend for themselves.

O.K., I'll bite.

The reasons our government was formed and our Constitution was established are laid out in the Constitution's first words, its preamble:

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish the Constitution for the United States of America."

Section 8 of Article 1, in line with the intention of our Founders as expressed in the Preamble, grants to the Congress the power to promote the general welfare, and power to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for promoting the general welfare.

Jim

[anygunanywhere]

I know right. Its terrible that the government might facilitate people trying to lift themselves up by their bootstraps.

Please show us where in the Constitution it says it's the government's job to help people. The legacy of government "help" is helpless people who are completely dependent upon the government for housing, food, medicine and transportation. You have to be pretty cynical to call that help.

Worst of all, when the government runs out of money (and we're headed that way very fast now), those dependent people will be among the first to die, because they have no idea how to fend for themselves.

O.K., I'll bite.

The reasons our government was formed and our Constitution was established are laid out in the Constitution's first words, its preamble:

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish the Constitution for the United States of America."

Section 8 of Article 1, in line with the intention of our Founders as expressed in the Preamble, grants to the Congress the power to promote the general welfare, and power to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for promoting the general welfare.

Jim

That does not mean making a welfare nanny state. Try again.

[Dave2]

And I want to reiterate what I said in my previous post: I may not even have a problem with tuition subsidy for qualified students, and I certainly have no problem with getting an education; but I darn sure have a problem with a politician lying about something being free......because nothing in life is free except the love of Jesus for those who want it....and even that cost Him something.......and I have a REAL problem with throwing good money after bad. So my message to politicians is to STOP trying to sell your ideas as "Free", because lying about funding is destructive to the interests of a free society. It is THAT fundamental of an issue. The professors are not working for free. The electricity that keeps the lights on is not free. The heating and air-conditioning that help to make a classroom into a learning environment is not free. The buildings are not free. The administrative costs are not free. The flowing water that keeps the bathrooms habitable and functional is not free. NONE of it is free. STOP lying about it.

So Mr. Politician, be HONEST. Which Peter are you going to rob to pay Paul? Are you going to cut money out of the existing budgets of other programs to pay for this? Are you going to raise income taxes to pay for this? Are you going to add 1% to the sales tax to pay for this? Are you going to raise a bond to pay for this? Are you going to raise the tuition of those students who aren't getting it for free, so as to offset the lost tuition of those who are getting their tuition paid for? Which Peter are you going to rob to pay Paul? I want to know; and until you will be honest and tell me, I will not support your program - even if it is a good idea in principle - because you think that you have to tell a lie to sell it. IF you have to lie to sell it, then how good is it?

Please just be honest with us.

THAT is my problem with this proposition........not whether or not subsidizing tuition is a good idea or a bad idea. There is no way to know if it is a good idea until we know how it will be paid for. Road to hades.....bones of the well-intentioned.....and all that.....even if I am somewhat sympathetic to tuition subsidies for academically qualified students. ("Academically qualified" helps to ensure that we are not throwing the lottery ticket buyer's money into the toilet........a second time...... Without qualification, this is just another hand out, not a hand up.)

Grown ups ask those kinds of questions, and they expect an answer. Grown ups can and will answer the question without obfuscation. Children can't give the answer, and crooks dodge the answer. Will you trust the education of our youth to children and crooks? Or, should the grown ups be in charge for once?

[...]

I don't believe that a national department of education is in any way part of the Constitutional mandate, but even if it were, as a nation we HAVE to get past the idea that a college education is the universal panacea for upward mobility. It simple isn't.......universally. Who has more dignity in life, career satisfaction, and is more productive: the clichéd liberal arts graduate serving french fries, or the plumbing business owner who lives in a fine house, drives a nice car, has a lake house and a speedboat, and can afford to send his kids to a private school? Granted, education doesn't always follow that paradigm, and some liberal arts graduates end up in good careers; but the clichéd liberal arts failure is a cliché exactly because it is a common occurrence. To insist that college is the only/best solution universally is to set up a significant portion of the nation's youth for failure, and that is just plain wrong.

I am for getting an education, but I am against the idea of college as the one-size-fits-all answer to how "education" is defined. That dog won't hunt. And stealing from funds paid for largely by the poor, allocated by law to K-12 and early learning, and using the stolen funds to subsidize tuition for the academically unqualified is not only dishonest as hades, it is also dumber than a bag of hammers.

TAM for president!

[MeMelYup]

I know right. Its terrible that the government might facilitate people trying to lift themselves up by their bootstraps.

Please show us where in the Constitution it says it's the government's job to help people. The legacy of government "help" is helpless people who are completely dependent upon the government for housing, food, medicine and transportation. You have to be pretty cynical to call that help.

Worst of all, when the government runs out of money (and we're headed that way very fast now), those dependent people will be among the first to die, because they have no idea how to fend for themselves.

O.K., I'll bite.

The reasons our government was formed and our Constitution was established are laid out in the Constitution's first words, its preamble:

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish the Constitution for the United States of America."

Section 8 of Article 1, in line with the intention of our Founders as expressed in the Preamble, grants to the Congress the power to promote the general welfare, and power to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for promoting the general welfare.

Jim

I think you are reading something into the preamble that isn't there. I think promote the general Welfare means; "the state of doing well especially in respect to good fortune, happiness, well-being, or prosperity." A person must look out for their own welfare. I do not believe the Constitution requires me to provide support for another being. Family is different and you do not want to get me started there.

[baldeagle]

I know right. Its terrible that the government might facilitate people trying to lift themselves up by their bootstraps.

Please show us where in the Constitution it says it's the government's job to help people. The legacy of government "help" is helpless people who are completely dependent upon the government for housing, food, medicine and transportation. You have to be pretty cynical to call that help.

Worst of all, when the government runs out of money (and we're headed that way very fast now), those dependent people will be among the first to die, because they have no idea how to fend for themselves.

O.K., I'll bite.

The reasons our government was formed and our Constitution was established are laid out in the Constitution's first words, its preamble:

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish the Constitution for the United States of America."

Section 8 of Article 1, in line with the intention of our Founders as expressed in the Preamble, grants to the Congress the power to promote the general welfare, and power to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for promoting the general welfare.

Jim

That's a valiant try, but it fails. I understand why you did it though. It's "common knowledge" nowadays.

Note the words; "promote" not "provide" and "general" not "specific" welfare. If the purpose of the Constitution was, in part, to provide a living for individual citizens or to a specific group of citizens selected by some arbitrary criteria, it would have said provide the citizens' welfare not promote the general welfare.

When someone promotes a rock concert, do they provide the concert? No. They advertise it. They encourage people to attend. They try to make the concert attractive so people will attend. They may even provide the venue, the security and the ticket sales apparatus. But they do not provide the concert. The band does that.

What does "general" welfare mean? Can it be understood to mean Suzy's welfare? Or poor people's welfare? No, because general refers to the whole, not to a subset. Think of the phrase, "In general I agree, but there are specific parts with which I disagree". General is clearly understood to refer to the entire proposal, not to any of its specifics.

The phrase "to promote the general welfare", therefore, means to advertise, to make known, to encourage those things that inure to the benefit of society as a whole not to one individual. When one promotes the general welfare, will some still suffer? Of course! Because no two men are alike. Given the same circumstances one may rise the heights of society while the other descends to the depths of depravity.

Words have meaning and must be understood for their meanings, not distorted to change their meaning. As Madison points out, in Federalist Paper 41 this is a distortion of the understanding of normal writing construction.

But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon? If the different parts of the same instrument ought to be so expounded, as to give meaning to every part which will bear it, shall one part of the same sentence be excluded altogether from a share in the meaning; and shall the more doubtful and indefinite terms be retained in their full extent, and the clear and precise expressions be denied any signification whatsoever? For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars. But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity, which, as we are reduced to the dilemma of charging either on the authors of the objection or on the authors of the Constitution, we must take the liberty of supposing, had not its origin with the latter.

The point is that the phrases in the Preamble are articulated with great specificity in the body of the Constitution. For example, establish Justice is expounded upon in an entire Article (Article III). The establishment of Justice is not left to the imagination. It is spelled out. In great specificity. To "provide for the common defense" is spelled out. The President can make treaties, but the Senate must approve them. The President can make war, but Congress must declare it and fund it. The President can establish the Department of Defense, maintain a standing army and utilize it to provide for the common defense, but Congress oversees its operations, funds them and can shut them down if they so chose. The general welfare clause encompasses the entire Constitution. An impartial Justice system, a strong military, a sound legislative system and a well-functioning Executive department that does not overstep its bounds ALL contribute to the general welfare of the nation.

What is not articulated is not within the government's power, as the Tenth Amendment specifically states. (It's interesting to me that, despite the fact that (as Madison points out) normal writing construction points to the answer, our founders felt it necessary to clarify that with the Tenth Amendment, to remove all doubt what power the federal government had and what powers it did not have.)

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

The misinterpretation of this phrase, whether through deliberate obfuscation or well-meaning ignorance, has been used to excuse the passing of all sorts of unconstitutional legislation, including gun legislation such as the NFA. It's one of the most abused phrases in the Constitution. (And yes, to the lawyers in the crowd, I know the NFA "leans on" a misinterpretation of the Commerce Clause, but the Commerce Clause (like the entire Constitution is rooted in the general welfare clause.)

[Texas_Blaze]

Conservatives are running out of options for representation.