Stanford tuition-free if family earns < $125,000

[AuntPeggy]

Last week, Stanford University announced that more accepted students won’t have to pay anything for tuition, which normally runs nearly $46,000 a year.

Students whose families make less than $125,000 a year and have assets worth $300,000 or less, including home equity but excluding anything that they have saved in retirement accounts, won’t have to pay tuition. Students whose families make less than $65,000 also won’t have to pay for room and board, which can run about another $14,100. Scholarships or grants will cover the costs instead, and the school has a $21 billion endowment. The thresholds were previously $100,000 for free tuition and $60,000 for free room and board.

Students will still have to contribute at least $5,000 a year from part-time work during the school year, working during the summer, and/or savings.
http://secondnexus.com/social-comme...-earn-less-125000-per-year/?ts_pid=2&ts_pid=2

 

[gov98]

Last week, Stanford University announced that more accepted students won’t have to pay anything for tuition, which normally runs nearly $46,000 a year.

Students whose families make less than $125,000 a year and have assets worth $300,000 or less, including home equity but excluding anything that they have saved in retirement accounts, won’t have to pay tuition. Students whose families make less than $65,000 also won’t have to pay for room and board, which can run about another $14,100. Scholarships or grants will cover the costs instead, and the school has a $21 billion endowment. The thresholds were previously $100,000 for free tuition and $60,000 for free room and board.

Students will still have to contribute at least $5,000 a year from part-time work during the school year, working during the summer, and/or savings.
http://secondnexus.com/social-comme...-earn-less-125000-per-year/?ts_pid=2&ts_pid=2

Just so we understand, if you diligently save for your child's education and put away money to provide for college you have to fork over an extra $45,000/annum. BUT if you waste assets and buy/lease a new depreciating vehicle every 3 years and keep your total equity (exc. 401k) <300K you save 46K /annum. Is it any wonder that people do not save. Saving, frugality, prudence are punished in this society. It's despicable.

This is one of the biggest problems in today's society. It used to be that being partial to rich or poor was wicked ...Leviticus 19:15, dishonest "weights" were of great concern, Proverbs 20:23

Saving is punished and profligacy is rewarded, with such incentives is it any wonder what we will get more of and what we will get less of.

 

[kgruber]

Back in the 60s, in-state tuition was free at USC. What and when did that change?

 

[RJM62]

They're a private university, so as long as there's no increased cost to taxpayers, more power to them. It doesn't change the fact that undergraduate higher education in the United States is a scam and a racket just begging for a RICO indictment, but at least they're making the scam more affordable.

Rich

 

[overdrive148]

ERAU was $675 per 9-week class when I first started my Aeronautics degree in 2010 - when I finished last year it was up to $1075.

This was at a Worldwide campus, so really all they had was a small rented office or suite, a projector and laptop, and an instructor that drove in after their day job once a week for a 5 hour class.

 

[Bob Noel]

Just so we understand, if you diligently save for your child's education and put away money to provide for college you have to fork over an extra $45,000/annum. BUT if you waste assets and buy/lease a new depreciating vehicle every 3 years and keep your total equity (exc. 401k) <300K you save 46K /annum. Is it any wonder that people do not save. Saving, frugality, prudence are punished in this society. It's despicable.

This is one of the biggest problems in today's society. It used to be that being partial to rich or poor was wicked ...Leviticus 19:15, dishonest "weights" were of great concern, Proverbs 20:23

Saving is punished and profligacy is rewarded, with such incentives is it any wonder what we will get more of and what we will get less of.

yep - sometimes (usually?) there are unintended consequences.

otoh - kudos to Stanford for providing assistence.

 

[JCranford]

Wow, students have to provide a WHOLE $5000 to their education!??

I hope there is a contract stating that if they do not graduate they have to pay back the entire tuition

 

[JeffDG]

Wow, students have to provide a WHOLE $5000 to their education!??

I hope there is a contract stating that if they do not graduate they have to pay back the entire tuition

I would also hope they insist on students not taking majors like "<<XXX>> Studies" where <<XXX>> is some grievance-mongering group.

 

[gov98]

They're a private university, so as long as there's no increased cost to taxpayers, more power to them. It doesn't change the fact that undergraduate higher education in the United States is a scam and a racket just begging for a RICO indictment, but at least they're making the scam more affordable.

Rich

No, not more power to them...less power to them. I agree they are free as a free association to charge how much and how they want...but as purveyors of stars on bellies they should have less power and called out not for their generosity but instead called to for their desire for power over people's life that they desire to invade privacy for an opportunity to get a star on your belly. They deserve opprobrium and shame not kudos, they encourage deceit in how much people have in income or assets; should a "family" get a paper divorce to meet the qualifications...would they be prosecuted for fraud, how will they choose who they prosecute?

No I say no! Less power to them, less kudos. Call them out for the carnival barkers they are (with due respect for carnival barkers for they are at least open in their profession with what they are trying to do).

 

[cowman]

Just so we understand, if you diligently save for your child's education and put away money to provide for college you have to fork over an extra $45,000/annum. BUT if you waste assets and buy/lease a new depreciating vehicle every 3 years and keep your total equity (exc. 401k) <300K you save 46K /annum. Is it any wonder that people do not save. Saving, frugality, prudence are punished in this society. It's despicable.

This is one of the biggest problems in today's society. It used to be that being partial to rich or poor was wicked ...Leviticus 19:15, dishonest "weights" were of great concern, Proverbs 20:23

Saving is punished and profligacy is rewarded, with such incentives is it any wonder what we will get more of and what we will get less of.

I agree with you on the point of how irritating it is, if you're one of the people who was frugal and careful with their assets, to see other people just given a pass when you had to work and suffer for it. Believe me, it makes me mad every time I pay the nauseatingly high tax bill I get every quarter.

OTOH, what if you're the kid who no fault of your own who was born into that irresponsible family? It's kind of nice to give that kid the education he wants I think. Also what if the family was hard working and frugal but the breadwinner got injured in a bad accident and the family ate through all their assets paying for medical bills?

I don't mind helping a young person out with getting an education which should(hopefully) lead them to being a productive citizen later on. A lot more worthwhile than what they waste most of the money on IMO.

 

[RJM62]

No, not more power to them...less power to them. I agree they are free as a free association to charge how much and how they want...but as purveyors of stars on bellies they should have less power and called out not for their generosity but instead called to for their desire for power over people's life that they desire to invade privacy for an opportunity to get a star on your belly. They deserve opprobrium and shame not kudos, they encourage deceit in how much people have in income or assets; should a "family" get a paper divorce to meet the qualifications...would they be prosecuted for fraud, how will they choose who they prosecute?

No I say no! Less power to them, less kudos. Call them out for the carnival barkers they are (with due respect for carnival barkers for they are at least open in their profession with what they are trying to do).

Are you using some really extreme hyperbole that's going over my head, or are you just a wacko? (Either is fine with me, by the way.)

Rich

 

[PeeGee]

hate to break it to the folks that didn't read the article, it's been free to families that earn under 100k for who knows how long. They just raised the threshold to 125k.

 

[RJM62]

I agree with you on the point of how irritating it is, if you're one of the people who was frugal and careful with their assets, to see other people just given a pass when you had to work and suffer for it. Believe me, it makes me mad every time I pay the nauseatingly high tax bill I get every quarter.

OTOH, what if you're the kid who no fault of your own who was born into that irresponsible family? It's kind of nice to give that kid the education he wants I think. Also what if the family was hard working and frugal but the breadwinner got injured in a bad accident and the family ate through all their assets paying for medical bills?

I don't mind helping a young person out with getting an education which should(hopefully) lead them to being a productive citizen later on. A lot more worthwhile than what they waste most of the money on IMO.

It also bears mentioning that for the majority of working-class families, two parents' incomes barely pay the current costs of living, much less leave very much for savings.

I don't think most people in the income ranges that allow for flying have any idea how poor most working people are, despite hard work and frugality. It's easy to blame a lack of savings with laziness or irresponsibility, but that's not always the case.

Rich

 

[gov98]

OTOH, what if you're the kid who no fault of your own who was born into that irresponsible family? It's kind of nice to give that kid the education he wants I think. Also what if the family was hard working and frugal but the breadwinner got injured in a bad accident and the family ate through all their assets paying for medical bills?

I don't mind helping a young person out with getting an education which should(hopefully) lead them to being a productive citizen later on. A lot more worthwhile than what they waste most of the money on IMO.

My preference is that they examine exactly the circumstances you speak of on a case by case basis and then...give the money to the person they desire to help. If they fail to do their due diligence and get taken advantage of, then nothing can happen it was their failure to do their due diligence, if they don't want to give then they don't have to. But it doesn't encourage systemic deceit and cheating and all sorts of second order problems, and then on balance reduce the listed price appropriately for everyone.

Are you using some really extreme hyperbole that's going over my head, or are you just a wacko?

Kind of both. My allusion is to The Sneetches by Dr. Suess, which is a wonderful short story about the human condition. I highly suggest you read it. Whether it is Coach handbags vs. Michael Kors, Racism, or Stanford vs. Podunk Community College, there is so much of value in understanding that McBean is just selling status, and Stanford is doing nothing else. If the Sneetches could adequately understand that McBean is getting rich for doing absolutely nothing, the Sneetches could be investing in flying and actually doing something with their lives ;-).

But I'm also a little wacko. I'm exceedingly tired, of the deceit our society encourages, whether it's claiming to be of Cherokee Descent, or Mindy Kaling's brother claiming to be something he's not to get ahead. Our society punishes people who believe honesty is a virtue and then chooses who to punish for dishonesty based upon political bases. Someone can delete thousands of e-mails and depending on party affiliation it could be the end of the world, or passing gas in the wind.

 

[RJM62]

OTOH, what if you're the kid who no fault of your own who was born into that irresponsible family? It's kind of nice to give that kid the education he wants I think. Also what if the family was hard working and frugal but the breadwinner got injured in a bad accident and the family ate through all their assets paying for medical bills?

I don't mind helping a young person out with getting an education which should(hopefully) lead them to being a productive citizen later on. A lot more worthwhile than what they waste most of the money on IMO.

My preference is that they examine exactly the circumstances you speak of on a case by case basis and then...give the money to the person they desire to help. If they fail to do their due diligence and get taken advantage of, then nothing can happen it was their failure to do their due diligence, if they don't want to give then they don't have to. But it doesn't encourage systemic deceit and cheating and all sorts of second order problems, and then on balance reduce the listed price appropriately for everyone.

Are you using some really extreme hyperbole that's going over my head, or are you just a wacko?

Kind of both. My allusion is to The Sneetches by Dr. Suess, which is a wonderful short story about the human condition. I highly suggest you read it. Whether it is Coach handbags vs. Michael Kors, Racism, or Stanford vs. Podunk Community College, there is so much of value in understanding that McBean is just selling status, and Stanford is doing nothing else. If the Sneetches could adequately understand that McBean is getting rich for doing absolutely nothing, the Sneetches could be investing in flying and actually doing something with their lives ;-).

But I'm also a little wacko. I'm exceedingly tired, of the deceit our society encourages, whether it's claiming to be of Cherokee Descent, or Mindy Kaling's brother claiming to be something he's not to get ahead. Our society punishes people who believe honesty is a virtue and then chooses who to punish for dishonesty based upon political bases. Someone can delete thousands of e-mails and depending on party affiliation it could be the end of the world, or passing gas in the wind.

Fair enough. I'm more than a bit of a wacko myself, so I can relate.

But because Stanford is not a public school, I really can't muster up much emotion over it. They can do whatever they like with their money, as far as I'm concerned. If some kids benefit from it, all the better. Even if their parents were irresponsible, it wasn't the kids' faults.

I also believe, however, that colleges and universities are right up there with hospitals as being the only institutions that as a whole are more corrupt than government: So I take anything that they do or say magna cum grano salis.

Rich

 

[gov98]

Fair enough. I'm more than a bit of a wacko myself, so I can relate.

But because Stanford is not a public school, I really can't muster up much emotion over it. They can do whatever they like with their money, as far as I'm concerned. If some kids benefit from it, all the better. Even if their parents were irresponsible, it wasn't the kids' faults.

I also believe, however, that colleges and universities are right up there with hospitals as being the only institutions that as a whole are more corrupt than government: So I take anything that they do or say magna cum grano salis.

Rich

Sounds like we're actually very much on the same page.

 

[JOhnH]

Part of me agrees completely agrees with you.
On the other hand, there are two things that make me feel this is ok.

One,
This is (I think) a private school and are not using Federal Funds for this.
Two,
True that the parents failed to save to provide for the kids education, but you can't really fault the kids for this.

If I had the personal resources, I would love to be able to help some poor kids that wanted an education but it was out of their parents reach. The keyword is that the kids "WANT" the education, and not just the free ride.

Just so we understand, if you diligently save for your child's education and put away money to provide for college you have to fork over an extra $45,000/annum. BUT if you waste assets and buy/lease a new depreciating vehicle every 3 years and keep your total equity (exc. 401k) <300K you save 46K /annum. Is it any wonder that people do not save. Saving, frugality, prudence are punished in this society. It's despicable.

This is one of the biggest problems in today's society. It used to be that being partial to rich or poor was wicked ...Leviticus 19:15, dishonest "weights" were of great concern, Proverbs 20:23

Saving is punished and profligacy is rewarded, with such incentives is it any wonder what we will get more of and what we will get less of.

 

[KeithASanford]

You actually have to have the grades and strength of application to actually get accepted to Stanford, so it's not like it's an unearned freebie.

 

[weilke]

So its just a standard number. 1 kid, 5 kids doesnt matter. 125k p.a. you are 'rich' and you have to pay whether you feed 4 kids and your handicapped brother from your paycheck or whether 20k of your wifes job get eaten by childcare expenses. Its all one, 125k and you are apparently independently wealthy. Idiots.

 

[Jeff Oslick]

Before you all get apoplectic over what Stanford is offering, you might care to do a modicum of research yourself:

http://financialaid.stanford.edu/undergrad/how/parent.html

And yes, you have to be pretty freakin' bright to even have a shot at getting in:
http://admission.stanford.edu/basics/selection/profile.html

 

[gov98]

Part of me agrees completely agrees with you.
On the other hand, there are two things that make me feel this is ok.

One,
This is (I think) a private school and are not using Federal Funds for this.
Two,
True that the parents failed to save to provide for the kids education, but you can't really fault the kids for this.

If I had the personal resources, I would love to be able to help some poor kids that wanted an education but it was out of their parents reach. The keyword is that the kids "WANT" the education, and not just the free ride.

Look look, let me break this out. I'm not calling for people to ban Stanford from doing this, I don't want that at all, it is their money. In that sense it is "okay." BUT I do think it's obnoxious to use these income/asset lines.

In 1975, when everyone pretty much paid the same price, tuition at the UC was ~$647/yr. As the UC has engaged in better "price discrimination" through more and more varied "tuition aid" programs tuition is substantial multiples higher nearly $12,000 / yr. Baby boomers went to school when education was affordable for all, and a middle class family could save and remain independant of the tentacles of the federal govt and disclosing all ones personal income and assets to the university. Now that they've "gotten theres" they create this obnoxious labyrinth of financial aid and lines and every bit of it.

No one is saying it's an unearned freebie, what I am saying is that it is an obnoxious intrusion into the lives of the middle class, and it's effect is to punish those who played by the old rules, of save and prudence. The UC's have a very similar middle-class "scholarship" program, and let me be blunt, if my children end up going to UC or CSU (not because they actually create value but because they do end up as a necessary marker in this absurd economy) I will almost certainly qualify for the middle class scholarship, but when people ask "Why is GA dying?" These are the reasons why, instead of charging a fair rate, they charge an insane price make you jump through hoops to get a better rate, instead of just treating people fairly. And that deserves to be called out on.

It's the same thing as GM "licensing" their on-board computer software so that you can't modify your car without violating the DMCA. It's frankly why I love aviation, because it's the last place where you can go experimental and do what you want with your plane, it's old freedom. It's going, and when it's gone most won't even miss it, because they're content on their planned obsolete iPads.

Finally, don't for a minute think you have to be "pretty bright" to get into Stanford, you have to be compliant with your schoolteachers and appropriately capable of complying with all the absurd projects they have you come up with, but intelligence and Compliance with Authority are two entirely different things.

 

[EppyGA]

One question, who's paying for it?

 

[Chip Sylverne]

Greater than 50% of all students in the Ivy League receive some sort of financial assistance, averaging somewhere in the neighborhood of half tuition and fees. Stanford has a $28 billion dollar endowment, they can afford to be generous.

First, the top schools decide if they want you. They only accept 5% of applicants, they don't need the business. If they want you, they will make it possible for you to attend, regardless of your family's ability to pay. But you have to have the academic goods.

 

[Norman]

They're a private university, so as long as there's no increased cost to taxpayers, more power to them. It doesn't change the fact that undergraduate higher education in the United States is a scam and a racket just begging for a RICO indictment, but at least they're making the scam more affordable.

Rich

AMEN! I know a retired college dean who also says that. Now, if high schools taught like they did in the fifties, employers wouldn't demand a four year degree.

 

[timwinters]

In the fall of 1978, my first semester at college, a full load cost me less than $500. Why? Because the boomers hadn't started running the country yet and the generation in charge cared about making things better for the next generation.

But now my generation is in charge and we don't care about anything but our own back pocket. Gov98's post are a testament to this.

I'd continue but I gotta go...kids are on my lawn that need chasing off.

 

[N801BH]

In the fall of 1978, my first semester at college, a full load cost me less than $500. Why? Because the boomers hadn't started running the country yet and the generation in charge cared about making things better for the next generation.

But now my generation is in charge and we don't care about anything but our own back pocket. Gov98's post are a testament to this.

I'd continue but I gotta go...kids are on my lawn that need chasing off.

Love it....


For people saying Stanford is private and gets NO guvmint funding.. You are slightly incorrect..... They get hundreds of millions each year from the guv in the form of Grants for research and other BS.. Like studying the mating habits of Caterpillers, or methods for basket weaving for tree hugging native Americans....

 

[frfly172]

After sending two kids to college,with no assistance because my wife and I chose to work,I actually had multiple jobs. We got to pay the full boot. Not crazy about my tax money paying others tuition. Let the colleges take some of the hit,and lower the tuition for all.

 

[overdrive148]

I'd continue but I gotta go...kids are on my lawn that need chasing off.

 

[SkyDog58]

One question, who's paying for it?

Nobody! Didn't you read? It's FREE!!!!!!

 

[timwinters]

hate to break it to the folks that didn't read the article, it's been free to families that earn under 100k for who knows how long. They just raised the threshold to 125k.

That was clearly stated in the OP.

 

[RJM62]

AMEN! I know a retired college dean who also says that. Now, if high schools taught like they did in the fifties, employers wouldn't demand a four year degree.

With precious few exceptions (mainly any sort of Engineering degree), undergraduate degree programs are designed to assure that Bachelors degrees will always be utterly useless for any purpose other than attending graduate school. The only reason Engineering degrees are exceptions is because ABET won't let the schools get away with diluting them.

In England, undergraduate students actually spend their time studying their majors -- and little else. That's why most British physicians have only Bachelors degrees in medicine: They spent their undergrad years actually studying medicine. No big mystery there.

Bachelors degrees are also the standard for most other professions in England. Very few jobs other than academic ones require Doctorates, and most Masters degrees are meaningless, usually being awarded by one's alma mater to students who managed stay employed and out of jail for five years after receiving their Bachelors.

In this country, the opposite is the case. Most licensed professions (and many unlicensed ones) require at least a Masters degree, and many require doctorates. Why? Because the American education industry would rather take your money for six or eight years than four, and they'd rather charge you two or three times the tuition per credit to take often-identical courses at the graduate level.

That's something else that a lot of people don't know, by the way. Many upper-level undergrad courses can also be taken as 500- or 600-level grad courses. I'm talking about the same courses, in the same classrooms, at the same times, taught by the same instructors. The undergrad's Psych 425 becomes the grad student's Psych 625, and the cost per-credit doubles or triples. Otherwise, the courses are identical.

The other part of the scam has to do with the actual cost of tuition. When I started college about 35 years ago, my total tuition and fees were $925.00/year. Nowadays, the absolute bare minimum tuition and fees to attend a SUNY college is $7303.00 / year.

Had the cost of college tuition increased at the same rate as the CPI, the tuition would have increased from $925.00 when I started college to $2,669.53 today. Where did the other $4,633.47 increase come from?

It's a racket. If I had it to do over again, I would skip the degrees and just take the courses that are actually useful. As it stands now, there are courses on my undergrad transcripts that I don't even remember having taken, much less what they were about. (Even scarier, I aced most of them.)

Rich

 

[Van Johnston]

The other part of the scam has to do with the actual cost of tuition. When I started college about 35 years ago, my total tuition and fees were $925.00/year. Nowadays, the absolute bare minimum tuition and fees to attend a SUNY college is $7303.00 / year.

Had the cost of college tuition increased at the same rate as the CPI, the tuition would have increased from $925.00 when I started college to $2,669.53 today. Where did the other $4,633.47 increase come from?


Rich

I am from the same era. I don't remember the total bill, but it was comparable to that. I do remember the tuition was $4/hr and that rate was set by the legislature and was the same across the state. Somewhere I have notes where I calculated that my 4 yr aerospace engineering degree cost me (the USAF actually) around $7k, not including room and board. (Or misc items like like boxes of punch cards). HOWEVER, the state budget greatly subsidized the public universities here, so the true cost was masked.

Over the years the level of state support has gone down, and at the same time they deregulated tuition rates and let the different universities set their own tuition rates.

When I went to school I stayed in an unair conditioned dorm room on campus and ate in a cafeteria with one main course selection per meal. One kid on the floor had a 12" black and white TV that got the 4 channels in town. We spent sat and sun nights in the basement vying for washers and dryers. Now the norm seems to be apartments where kids have cable, kitchens to cook, and their own w/d. If they do have meal plan, the cafeteria looks like the food court at the mall.

So don't blame it on the schools being greedy. There are a lot of factors. The schools compete against each other, and and have no real incentive to lower costs if it seems to devalue their diplomas. Like any good business they will allso try to charge what they think the market will bear. The explosion of grants and loans over the years served to put much more money in the market.

 

[timwinters]

HOWEVER, the state budget greatly subsidized the public universities here, so the true cost was masked.

Over the years the level of state support has gone down, and at the same time they deregulated tuition rates and let the different universities set their own tuition rates.

This is the part that the boomer tea party members don't want to admit to. They don't want to pay taxes for anything even though they benefited greatly when they were young from the generation before them doing so...and doing so without screaming and bitching and moaning and whining like boomers do.

 

[jtheune]

This is the part that the boomer tea party members don't want to admit to. They don't want to pay taxes for anything even though they benefited greatly when they were young from the generation before them doing so...and doing so without screaming and bitching and moaning and whining like boomers do.

Sorry Tim but I'm throwing the BS flag on your post. Try reading a little more and ranting BS a little less. It might make some of your posts reasonable.

 

[Henning]

Just so we understand, if you diligently save for your child's education and put away money to provide for college you have to fork over an extra $45,000/annum. BUT if you waste assets and buy/lease a new depreciating vehicle every 3 years and keep your total equity (exc. 401k) <300K you save 46K /annum. Is it any wonder that people do not save. Saving, frugality, prudence are punished in this society. It's despicable.

This is one of the biggest problems in today's society. It used to be that being partial to rich or poor was wicked ...Leviticus 19:15, dishonest "weights" were of great concern, Proverbs 20:23

Saving is punished and profligacy is rewarded, with such incentives is it any wonder what we will get more of and what we will get less of.

You read wrong, savings and income are two different things. Now you have freed up that savings.

 

[Henning]

This is the part that the boomer tea party members don't want to admit to. They don't want to pay taxes for anything even though they benefited greatly when they were young from the generation before them doing so...and doing so without screaming and bitching and moaning and whining like boomers do.

Taxes would be completely unnecessary if we didn't privatize natural resources. If we nationalized just energy, the profits would pay for the whole country.

 

[timwinters]

Sorry Tim but I'm throwing the BS flag on your post. Try reading a little more and ranting BS a little less. It might make some of your posts reasonable.

I live in a county dominated by tea party boomers and they just, last April, successfully defunded our county library. "We don't need no education."

And the leader of the movement is a big rice farmer who gets tens...if not hundreds...of thousands of dollars every year in gov't subsidies.

But give back?

That same scenario is being repeated all across the nation both on the local and national levels by today's generation in charge. Short sighted, selfish people.

All you are is just...

another brick in the wall.

 

[N747JB]

Taxes would be completely unnecessary if we didn't privatize natural resources. If we nationalized just energy, the profits would pay for the whole country.

There wouldn't be any profits if the government ran it, it would actually require a tax increase to pay for the bureaucracy!

 

[Henning]

I live in a county dominated by tea party boomers and they just, last April, successfully defunded our county library. "We don't need no education."

And the leader of the movement is a big rice farmer who gets tens...if not hundreds...of thousands of dollars every year in gov't subsidies.

But give back?

That same scenario is being repeated all across the nation both on the local and national levels by today's generation in charge. Short sighted, selfish people.

All you are is just...

another brick in the wall.

Me the person in the United States, in order to form a more profitable business, establish markets, insure domestic disharmony, provide for speculators, promote the bank's welfare, and secure the blessings of Ponzi to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain to evade this Constitution of the United States of America.

 

[Henning]

There wouldn't be any profits if the government ran it, it would actually require a tax increase to pay for the bureaucracy!

Wrong model, the only reason our government is the way it is is because it's meant to protect big business. Run government under a Co-Op model and the entire dynamic changes. It's simple to self fund and I can prove it, I just need the funding to run a proof of concept project. I already have the perfect property lined up. The only problem is it makes everybody money instead of one.