If DOGE continues finding billions, and possibly trillions, of dollars in fwa, which could help lower taxes that ultimately allows your paychecks to be bigger, then why are y'all (your voting party and elected officials), so against Elon Musk. Im seriously having a hard time connecting the dots here.
Dems please explain something to me about FWA
7,921 Views |
119 Replies |
Last: 10 days ago by oh no
Becuase they want to destroy America. The ends justify the means. Really that simple.
I actually welcome their idiocy. Continue letting them show how out of touch they are with reality. They will continue to lose voters acting like spoiled children mad at the exposing of FWA rather than being upset about the actual FWA
I have absolutely no problem with rooting out and eliminating FWA. I welcome it, and this happens to be an area where I can truly appreciate that Trump has the determination and ambition to do what career politicians did not have the political willingness to do.
I do, however, disagree with some of the methods, specifically taking the approach of wholesale elimination of entire departments rather than identifying certain programs to eliminate. My fear is that wholesale elimination of entire departments like DoEd can have really harmful consequences to actual people that may not be outweighed by the savings from eliminating FWA. Whether or not it's worth it is a subjective measure, and I'm glad I'm not the one who has to make that decision.
With that in mind, there is a very large population of Dems who oppose all of it just because it's Trump and they are anti-everything Trump does. I disagree with that approach as well, because there will always be issues where we can - and should - agree on things that ultimately benefit all of us.
I do, however, disagree with some of the methods, specifically taking the approach of wholesale elimination of entire departments rather than identifying certain programs to eliminate. My fear is that wholesale elimination of entire departments like DoEd can have really harmful consequences to actual people that may not be outweighed by the savings from eliminating FWA. Whether or not it's worth it is a subjective measure, and I'm glad I'm not the one who has to make that decision.
With that in mind, there is a very large population of Dems who oppose all of it just because it's Trump and they are anti-everything Trump does. I disagree with that approach as well, because there will always be issues where we can - and should - agree on things that ultimately benefit all of us.
Ryan the Temp said:
I have absolutely no problem with rooting out and eliminating FWA. I welcome it, and this happens to be an area where I can truly appreciate that Trump has the determination and ambition to do what career politicians did not have the political willingness to do.
I do, however, disagree with some of the methods, specifically taking the approach of wholesale elimination of entire departments rather than identifying certain programs to eliminate. My fear is that wholesale elimination of entire departments like DoEd can have really harmful consequences to actual people that may not be outweighed by the savings from eliminating FWA. Whether or not it's worth it is a subjective measure, and I'm glad I'm not the one who has to make that decision.
With that in mind, there is a very large population of Dems who oppose all of it just because it's Trump and they are anti-everything Trump does. I disagree with that approach as well, because there will always be issues where we can - and should - agree on things that ultimately benefit all of us.
The federal govt doesn't have the power to even HAVE a Dept of Education.
But it does have a Dept of Education, and it's been around long enough that just saying *POOF* it's gone will have lots of unintended and harmful consequences. There should be a well-designed plan to sunset it that accounts for and reallocates those functions which do serve a valid and valuable purpose in our society. As of yet, I haven't seen anyone in the Trump administration willing to take a more pragmatic approach.BigRobSA said:Ryan the Temp said:
I have absolutely no problem with rooting out and eliminating FWA. I welcome it, and this happens to be an area where I can truly appreciate that Trump has the determination and ambition to do what career politicians did not have the political willingness to do.
I do, however, disagree with some of the methods, specifically taking the approach of wholesale elimination of entire departments rather than identifying certain programs to eliminate. My fear is that wholesale elimination of entire departments like DoEd can have really harmful consequences to actual people that may not be outweighed by the savings from eliminating FWA. Whether or not it's worth it is a subjective measure, and I'm glad I'm not the one who has to make that decision.
With that in mind, there is a very large population of Dems who oppose all of it just because it's Trump and they are anti-everything Trump does. I disagree with that approach as well, because there will always be issues where we can - and should - agree on things that ultimately benefit all of us.
The federal govt doesn't have the power to even HAVE a Dept of Education.
"Burn it all down" might make Trump and his supporters feel good, but it isn't pragmatic.
Ryan the Temp said:But it does have a Dept of Education, and it's been around long enough that just saying *POOF* it's gone will have lots of unintended and harmful consequences. There should be a well-designed plan to sunset it that accounts for and reallocates those functions which do serve a valid and valuable purpose in our society. As of yet, I haven't seen anyone in the Trump administration willing to take a more pragmatic approach.BigRobSA said:Ryan the Temp said:
I have absolutely no problem with rooting out and eliminating FWA. I welcome it, and this happens to be an area where I can truly appreciate that Trump has the determination and ambition to do what career politicians did not have the political willingness to do.
I do, however, disagree with some of the methods, specifically taking the approach of wholesale elimination of entire departments rather than identifying certain programs to eliminate. My fear is that wholesale elimination of entire departments like DoEd can have really harmful consequences to actual people that may not be outweighed by the savings from eliminating FWA. Whether or not it's worth it is a subjective measure, and I'm glad I'm not the one who has to make that decision.
With that in mind, there is a very large population of Dems who oppose all of it just because it's Trump and they are anti-everything Trump does. I disagree with that approach as well, because there will always be issues where we can - and should - agree on things that ultimately benefit all of us.
The federal govt doesn't have the power to even HAVE a Dept of Education.
"Burn it all down" might make Trump and his supporters feel good, but it isn't pragmatic.
Getting rid of it immediately is a well defined plan. Cut out the cancer at the root and move on.
I agree that is, in fact, well-defined, but I didn't use that word.SociallyConditionedAg said:Ryan the Temp said:But it does have a Dept of Education, and it's been around long enough that just saying *POOF* it's gone will have lots of unintended and harmful consequences. There should be a well-designed plan to sunset it that accounts for and reallocates those functions which do serve a valid and valuable purpose in our society. As of yet, I haven't seen anyone in the Trump administration willing to take a more pragmatic approach.BigRobSA said:Ryan the Temp said:
I have absolutely no problem with rooting out and eliminating FWA. I welcome it, and this happens to be an area where I can truly appreciate that Trump has the determination and ambition to do what career politicians did not have the political willingness to do.
I do, however, disagree with some of the methods, specifically taking the approach of wholesale elimination of entire departments rather than identifying certain programs to eliminate. My fear is that wholesale elimination of entire departments like DoEd can have really harmful consequences to actual people that may not be outweighed by the savings from eliminating FWA. Whether or not it's worth it is a subjective measure, and I'm glad I'm not the one who has to make that decision.
With that in mind, there is a very large population of Dems who oppose all of it just because it's Trump and they are anti-everything Trump does. I disagree with that approach as well, because there will always be issues where we can - and should - agree on things that ultimately benefit all of us.
The federal govt doesn't have the power to even HAVE a Dept of Education.
"Burn it all down" might make Trump and his supporters feel good, but it isn't pragmatic.
Getting rid of it immediately is a well defined plan. Cut out the cancer at the root and move on.
Ryan the Temp said:But it does have a Dept of Education, and it's been around long enough that just saying *POOF* it's gone will have lots of unintended and harmful consequences. There should be a well-designed plan to sunset it that accounts for and reallocates those functions which do serve a valid and valuable purpose in our society. As of yet, I haven't seen anyone in the Trump administration willing to take a more pragmatic approach.BigRobSA said:Ryan the Temp said:
I have absolutely no problem with rooting out and eliminating FWA. I welcome it, and this happens to be an area where I can truly appreciate that Trump has the determination and ambition to do what career politicians did not have the political willingness to do.
I do, however, disagree with some of the methods, specifically taking the approach of wholesale elimination of entire departments rather than identifying certain programs to eliminate. My fear is that wholesale elimination of entire departments like DoEd can have really harmful consequences to actual people that may not be outweighed by the savings from eliminating FWA. Whether or not it's worth it is a subjective measure, and I'm glad I'm not the one who has to make that decision.
With that in mind, there is a very large population of Dems who oppose all of it just because it's Trump and they are anti-everything Trump does. I disagree with that approach as well, because there will always be issues where we can - and should - agree on things that ultimately benefit all of us.
The federal govt doesn't have the power to even HAVE a Dept of Education.
"Burn it all down" might make Trump and his supporters feel good, but it isn't pragmatic.
I'm not a Trump supporter. He's too liberal, fiscally, for me. This is basic unconstitutional powers usurped over the years being dealt with the way it all should be, with extreme haste and vitriol.
There's 50 well designed plans with their own Departments of Education that can absorb those functions....where they belong.Ryan the Temp said:But it does have a Dept of Education, and it's been around long enough that just saying *POOF* it's gone will have lots of unintended and harmful consequences. There should be a well-designed plan to sunset it that accounts for and reallocates those functions which do serve a valid and valuable purpose in our society. As of yet, I haven't seen anyone in the Trump administration willing to take a more pragmatic approach.BigRobSA said:Ryan the Temp said:
I have absolutely no problem with rooting out and eliminating FWA. I welcome it, and this happens to be an area where I can truly appreciate that Trump has the determination and ambition to do what career politicians did not have the political willingness to do.
I do, however, disagree with some of the methods, specifically taking the approach of wholesale elimination of entire departments rather than identifying certain programs to eliminate. My fear is that wholesale elimination of entire departments like DoEd can have really harmful consequences to actual people that may not be outweighed by the savings from eliminating FWA. Whether or not it's worth it is a subjective measure, and I'm glad I'm not the one who has to make that decision.
With that in mind, there is a very large population of Dems who oppose all of it just because it's Trump and they are anti-everything Trump does. I disagree with that approach as well, because there will always be issues where we can - and should - agree on things that ultimately benefit all of us.
The federal govt doesn't have the power to even HAVE a Dept of Education.
"Burn it all down" might make Trump and his supporters feel good, but it isn't pragmatic.
What's being done won't change. The only change is who is doing it and the who will be more in touch with our needs. Plus what Rob said, it's an overreach at the federal level.Ryan the Temp said:But it does have a Dept of Education, and it's been around long enough that just saying *POOF* it's gone will have lots of unintended and harmful consequences. There should be a well-designed plan to sunset it that accounts for and reallocates those functions which do serve a valid and valuable purpose in our society. As of yet, I haven't seen anyone in the Trump administration willing to take a more pragmatic approach.BigRobSA said:Ryan the Temp said:
I have absolutely no problem with rooting out and eliminating FWA. I welcome it, and this happens to be an area where I can truly appreciate that Trump has the determination and ambition to do what career politicians did not have the political willingness to do.
I do, however, disagree with some of the methods, specifically taking the approach of wholesale elimination of entire departments rather than identifying certain programs to eliminate. My fear is that wholesale elimination of entire departments like DoEd can have really harmful consequences to actual people that may not be outweighed by the savings from eliminating FWA. Whether or not it's worth it is a subjective measure, and I'm glad I'm not the one who has to make that decision.
With that in mind, there is a very large population of Dems who oppose all of it just because it's Trump and they are anti-everything Trump does. I disagree with that approach as well, because there will always be issues where we can - and should - agree on things that ultimately benefit all of us.
The federal govt doesn't have the power to even HAVE a Dept of Education.
"Burn it all down" might make Trump and his supporters feel good, but it isn't pragmatic.
Here's just one example - Dept of Ed administers federal student aid. Completely eliminating the federal student aid program overnight has an immediate negative impact on more than 13 million students. Let's be generous and say half of them could somehow afford to stay in school without federal aid - That's still 6.5 million people dumped into the workforce in the blink of an eye, which would DOUBLE the rate of unemployment in the US. What will inevitably happen is those people end up on some other form of public assistance when they can't find work. Some of them will turn to crime to get by. It becomes a cascading set of societal problems.
Ryan the Temp said:
I have absolutely no problem with rooting out and eliminating FWA. I welcome it, and this happens to be an area where I can truly appreciate that Trump has the determination and ambition to do what career politicians did not have the political willingness to do.
I do, however, disagree with some of the methods, specifically taking the approach of wholesale elimination of entire departments rather than identifying certain programs to eliminate. My fear is that wholesale elimination of entire departments like DoEd can have really harmful consequences to actual people that may not be outweighed by the savings from eliminating FWA. Whether or not it's worth it is a subjective measure, and I'm glad I'm not the one who has to make that decision.
With that in mind, there is a very large population of Dems who oppose all of it just because it's Trump and they are anti-everything Trump does. I disagree with that approach as well, because there will always be issues where we can - and should - agree on things that ultimately benefit all of us.
If losing the DOE will do so much harm the, as you say, there must be something that the DOE is accomplishing.
Name 5 positive accomplishments of the DOE in the past 10 years
I will wait.
Ryan the Temp said:
Here's just one example - Dept of Ed administers federal student aid. Completely eliminating the federal student aid program overnight has an immediate negative impact on more than 13 million students. Let's be generous and say half of them could somehow afford to stay in school without federal aid - That's still 6.5 million people dumped into the workforce in the blink of an eye, which would DOUBLE the rate of unemployment in the US. What will inevitably happen is those people end up on some other form of public assistance when they can't find work. Some of them will turn to crime to get by. It becomes a cascading set of societal problems.
Federal student aid and federally backed loans has been the single biggest contributor to the massive increase in tuition costs which has led to millions of students being perpetually in debt and the development of useless degree programs with no real world applications and the virtual indentured servitude of millions of Americans.
Getting rid of it would create short term pain but long term would fix alot of the problems we are seeing.
I'm not here to sing their praises, so don't wait up all night, but my example of student aid is an area where I have seen incredibly positive impact on the lives of people who were only able to get their college education because federal student aid was available to them. Lots of people I know are positively contributing to their communities and wouldn't be doing that if it weren't for grants and student loans.
Perhaps I'm in the minority here for thinking our nation benefits from that, but I spent a lot of time with a certain former president who constantly impressed upon me that people should believe in their communities, in their states, and in their country. This is just one way our nation has helped people achieve that goal.
Tell me - what is the alternative in the long run? What does our society look like with more financial barriers to higher education?
Perhaps I'm in the minority here for thinking our nation benefits from that, but I spent a lot of time with a certain former president who constantly impressed upon me that people should believe in their communities, in their states, and in their country. This is just one way our nation has helped people achieve that goal.
Tell me - what is the alternative in the long run? What does our society look like with more financial barriers to higher education?
Student Loans - aka federal financial aid - will be returned to the banks or Universities themselves. Doing so will help eliminate useless degrees and cut back on the diploma mills.
I have been publicly advocating for student loan reform on this board for close to 20 years, in large part due to the reasons you point out. To be clear - I haven't said it cannot or should not be eliminated, just that if it is, it should be done in a way the minimizes the negative impacts. That's all I'm saying, but I know some on this board will naturally decide that my remarks mean I'm the biggest DoEd cheerleader who ever existed.Ags4DaWin said:Ryan the Temp said:
Here's just one example - Dept of Ed administers federal student aid. Completely eliminating the federal student aid program overnight has an immediate negative impact on more than 13 million students. Let's be generous and say half of them could somehow afford to stay in school without federal aid - That's still 6.5 million people dumped into the workforce in the blink of an eye, which would DOUBLE the rate of unemployment in the US. What will inevitably happen is those people end up on some other form of public assistance when they can't find work. Some of them will turn to crime to get by. It becomes a cascading set of societal problems.
Federal student aid and federally backed loans has been the single biggest contributor to the massive increase in tuition costs which has led to millions of student being perpetually in debt and the development of useless degree programs with no real world applications and the virtual indentured servitude of millions of Americans.
Getting rid of it would create short term pain but long term would fix alot of the problems we are seeing.
He can't; in fact, the actual results tell the tale. The % of eighth graders who can't even read, abandoning actually useful classes (home economics, wood shop, metal trades, automotive-related classes, etc) & the elimination of teaching cursive (but advocating for dumbing down actual lessons thru the use of liberal approaches like the allowance of ebonics) has doomed GENERATIONS!!! Our nation can't wait upon this department & its employees to finally get their **** in order; instead, it's time they face the music for their DECADES of failures!!!
Ryan the Temp said:
I'm not here to sing their praises, so don't wait up all night, but my example of student aid is an area where I have seen incredibly positive impact on the lives of people who were only able to get their college education because federal student aid was available to them. Lots of people I know are positively contributing to their communities and wouldn't be doing that if it weren't for grants and student loans.
Perhaps I'm in the minority here for thinking our nation benefits from that, but I spent a lot of time with a certain former president who constantly impressed upon me that people should believe in their communities, in their states, and in their country. This is just one way our nation has helped people achieve that goal.
Tell me - what is the alternative in the long run? What does our society look like with more financial barriers to higher education?
Back in the 70's kids could work their way through college- hold down a part time job and not graduate with a loan the size of a house mortgage. The only problem was that it took a little more dedication and you couldn't spend 3/4 of your college day drinking, or sitting by the pool at your college country club.
Then they could start working, start a family, and afford a home within a few years after graduation. Kids now will be lucky to have their first home by the time they are 40. Some never will.
I say we go back to the pre-federal student aid model.
As corrupt as our government has shown to be, I'm amazed ANYONE would be deducting style points right now. It's time to raze the crony system
And OP, the answer to your question is simple. They do not think. They do as they're told.
And OP, the answer to your question is simple. They do not think. They do as they're told.
There shouldn't be federal student aid. We're broke. You can fund it all you want.
Tear it down. It is not a legitimate function of government. We are way beyond representative government at this point.
Tear it down. It is not a legitimate function of government. We are way beyond representative government at this point.
the DoED should no longer exist.Ryan the Temp said:
I have absolutely no problem with rooting out and eliminating FWA. I welcome it, and this happens to be an area where I can truly appreciate that Trump has the determination and ambition to do what career politicians did not have the political willingness to do.
I do, however, disagree with some of the methods, specifically taking the approach of wholesale elimination of entire departments rather than identifying certain programs to eliminate. My fear is that wholesale elimination of entire departments like DoEd can have really harmful consequences to actual people that may not be outweighed by the savings from eliminating FWA. Whether or not it's worth it is a subjective measure, and I'm glad I'm not the one who has to make that decision.
With that in mind, there is a very large population of Dems who oppose all of it just because it's Trump and they are anti-everything Trump does. I disagree with that approach as well, because there will always be issues where we can - and should - agree on things that ultimately benefit all of us.
The money that was being collected from taxpayers should be remitted back to State Education Depts and Local school districts with haste.
But I respect your last paragraph a lot. Everyone should hate waste.
Once student loans shifted to the government, it was like the universities suddenly became sidewalk vendors offering all kinds of useless goodies. The shoppers lapped it up and the money poured in. We the taxpayers funded all of this of course and got double-screwed by FJB & the Democrats by forgiving the loans that we were backing with borrowed money to begin with. Amazing if you step back and look at it.
Schools immediately started adding more and more useless layers of administrators and paying profs ridiculous salaries, the perfect scheme which matches our Fed government - bloated, far left and arrogant. Trade schools were for losers and here we are, with college-educated baristas, 35 year olds living with mom and dad, and oh yeah, no skilled workers.
Hell of a deal.
Schools immediately started adding more and more useless layers of administrators and paying profs ridiculous salaries, the perfect scheme which matches our Fed government - bloated, far left and arrogant. Trade schools were for losers and here we are, with college-educated baristas, 35 year olds living with mom and dad, and oh yeah, no skilled workers.
Hell of a deal.
Ryan the Temp said:I have been publicly advocating for student loan reform on this board for close to 20 years, in large part due to the reasons you point out. To be clear - I haven't said it cannot or should not be eliminated, just that if it is, it should be done in a way the minimizes the negative impacts. That's all I'm saying, but I know some on this board will naturally decide that my remarks mean I'm the biggest DoEd cheerleader who ever existed.Ags4DaWin said:Ryan the Temp said:
Here's just one example - Dept of Ed administers federal student aid. Completely eliminating the federal student aid program overnight has an immediate negative impact on more than 13 million students. Let's be generous and say half of them could somehow afford to stay in school without federal aid - That's still 6.5 million people dumped into the workforce in the blink of an eye, which would DOUBLE the rate of unemployment in the US. What will inevitably happen is those people end up on some other form of public assistance when they can't find work. Some of them will turn to crime to get by. It becomes a cascading set of societal problems.
Federal student aid and federally backed loans has been the single biggest contributor to the massive increase in tuition costs which has led to millions of student being perpetually in debt and the development of useless degree programs with no real world applications and the virtual indentured servitude of millions of Americans.
Getting rid of it would create short term pain but long term would fix alot of the problems we are seeing.
I think getting rid of the ED by ripping the bandaid off and dealing with the short term pain is the answer. It's the answer to a lot of these worthless, wasteful, government departments. I believe that a lot of them are so corrupt now that reforming them is pointless. The idea of slowly phasing them out is nice, but dems would just stop it once they got back in power.
Because they are morons that were brainwashed by this corrupt conspiracy.
I'm left wondering when all those homosexual concentration camps start filling up. Seriously, we have a family member that truly believed that.
I'm left wondering when all those homosexual concentration camps start filling up. Seriously, we have a family member that truly believed that.
But I know no matter what the waitress brings
I shall drink it and always be full, yeah I will drink it and always be full
I shall drink it and always be full, yeah I will drink it and always be full
Nor has it been effective. They've been pushing social engineering instead of reading, writing, sciences, math.BigRobSA said:Ryan the Temp said:
I have absolutely no problem with rooting out and eliminating FWA. I welcome it, and this happens to be an area where I can truly appreciate that Trump has the determination and ambition to do what career politicians did not have the political willingness to do.
I do, however, disagree with some of the methods, specifically taking the approach of wholesale elimination of entire departments rather than identifying certain programs to eliminate. My fear is that wholesale elimination of entire departments like DoEd can have really harmful consequences to actual people that may not be outweighed by the savings from eliminating FWA. Whether or not it's worth it is a subjective measure, and I'm glad I'm not the one who has to make that decision.
With that in mind, there is a very large population of Dems who oppose all of it just because it's Trump and they are anti-everything Trump does. I disagree with that approach as well, because there will always be issues where we can - and should - agree on things that ultimately benefit all of us.
The federal govt doesn't have the power to even HAVE a Dept of Education.
There's nothing that the States can't do to replace the DOE.
And you don't think States will have a student aid program?Ryan the Temp said:
Here's just one example - Dept of Ed administers federal student aid. Completely eliminating the federal student aid program overnight has an immediate negative impact on more than 13 million students. Let's be generous and say half of them could somehow afford to stay in school without federal aid - That's still 6.5 million people dumped into the workforce in the blink of an eye, which would DOUBLE the rate of unemployment in the US. What will inevitably happen is those people end up on some other form of public assistance when they can't find work. Some of them will turn to crime to get by. It becomes a cascading set of societal problems.
The dept of Ed started in late 70's or about the time the US started falling in the education rankings
I promote that stuff to every liberal "friend". Love seeing their reaction.General Jack D. Ripper said:
Because they are morons that were brainwashed by this corrupt conspiracy.
I'm left wondering when all those homosexual concentration camps start filling up. Seriously, we have a family member that truly believed that.
Ryan the Temp said:
Here's just one example - Dept of Ed administers federal student aid. Completely eliminating the federal student aid program overnight has an immediate negative impact on more than 13 million students. Let's be generous and say half of them could somehow afford to stay in school without federal aid - That's still 6.5 million people dumped into the workforce in the blink of an eye, which would DOUBLE the rate of unemployment in the US. What will inevitably happen is those people end up on some other form of public assistance when they can't find work. Some of them will turn to crime to get by. It becomes a cascading set of societal problems.
College rolls have become bloated since the Obama admin strongly encouraged so many kids enroll and get an education. So many have opted to attend school that we are now short on people working in skilled trades. There is plenty of opportunity and job availability to quickly remedy any short term spike in unemployment. Going to college is not for everyone and it's an even larger burden on those who borrow yet never complete their degree. They still have to pay their debt with nothing to show for it. Long term positive change and gains will always come with some short term pain.
Conspiracies are the norm, not the exception.
Lower taxes? We have a LONG way to go to just get to a balanced budget. I'd love to pay lower taxes too, but we first need to reign in the spending.Harry Stone said:
If DOGE continues finding billions, and possibly trillions, of dollars in fwa, which could help lower taxes that ultimately allows your paychecks to be bigger, then why are y'all (your voting party and elected officials), so against Elon Musk. Im seriously having a hard time connecting the dots here.
DOGE should be the number 1 priority. IMO, the debt is the single largest threat to our continued prosperity as a nation.
CuZ TrUmP's a FaScIsT!!!!!
Dept of Ed...created in 1980 I believe as Carter was on the way out . The only thing that has grown under them is their personnel count and the money they take. Academic scores have remained flat that WHOLE TIME
You do not have a soul. You are a soul that has a body.
We sing Hallelujah! The Lamb has overcome!
We sing Hallelujah! The Lamb has overcome!
**** em'. Teach em' to code. Amirite.Ryan the Temp said:
Here's just one example - Dept of Ed administers federal student aid. Completely eliminating the federal student aid program overnight has an immediate negative impact on more than 13 million students. Let's be generous and say half of them could somehow afford to stay in school without federal aid - That's still 6.5 million people dumped into the workforce in the blink of an eye, which would DOUBLE the rate of unemployment in the US. What will inevitably happen is those people end up on some other form of public assistance when they can't find work. Some of them will turn to crime to get by. It becomes a cascading set of societal problems.
Oh... some will "turn to crime"? Lol. Turn? Turn? They're experts.
It would be nice if the acronym FWA was defined from the get go....
Featured Stories
See All