Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

MADem

(135,425 posts)
43. The Little Fauntleroys I was talking about were fifth graders.
Fri May 31, 2013, 02:12 PM
May 2013

They weren't living in apartments. They were expected to quit school and get their asses into the factories to WORK to help support the family.

When someone left home, they took stress OFF the family. One less mouth to feed, one less back to clothe. It's why Joe Moakley joined the Navy--three hots and a cot, and to take a bit of the pressure off his parents.

My point is that things that require a bit of personal investment are valued. Things that are handed to people free are not. I do not think this personal investment should be spirit crushing or onerous, and I also think campus housing, for those going to school full time, is a good esprit de corps builder.

And I really wish you would just read what people write before you get all hot breathed and hectoring with a dramatic response. Talk about a straw man! What part of the word AFFORDABLE is unclear to you? How can I help you come to an understanding that "affordable" does not mean expensive tuition, nor does it mean "high interest rate" or "paying on them for half of the rest of one's life..."

That kind of loan expenditure is the OPPOSITE of "affordable." Most would call that "usurious." What I advocate is AFFORDABLE tuitions, with payback forgiveness options for public service. Where do you get huge interest rates and loan service for half a lifetime from that? Please, eluciate!

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Kick. More ... Scuba May 2013 #1
This is why free college is so important newfie11 May 2013 #2
Free, or the availability of affordable loans and grants for tuition geckosfeet May 2013 #3
No grants newfie11 May 2013 #13
So did I. Students often can't even buy used textbooks any more Hekate May 2013 #25
That's terrible, I can't imagine the price of new books today newfie11 May 2013 #38
My son wants to take a class at the local CC this summer. MissB May 2013 #32
Your son and others coming up are the future of this country newfie11 May 2013 #37
Just wondering... whathehell May 2013 #5
The union did give my mom $250.00 newfie11 May 2013 #11
Wouldn't the Social Security have at least helped whathehell May 2013 #12
Lol newfie11 May 2013 #14
That bad, huh? whathehell May 2013 #16
I can't remember the exact amount newfie11 May 2013 #18
Oh, definitely not with today's tuition costs...I get that. n/t whathehell May 2013 #20
There used to be an SS college benefit for all dependent children of beneficiaries. HiPointDem May 2013 #21
I bet it is newfie11 May 2013 #22
yeah, it's getting hard to believe such things ever existed in these times. but they did, and not HiPointDem May 2013 #24
You know Ryan's family is wealthy, yes? Hassin Bin Sober May 2013 #35
I wasn't sure...I'd heard that he was, but then wondered why whathehell May 2013 #36
"have to" is the operative phrase here. Hassin Bin Sober May 2013 #39
Yes, that appears to be the case. whathehell May 2013 #40
I don't agree. MADem May 2013 #27
nyc had free college for ages, and california had near free college, and the people who benefited HiPointDem May 2013 #29
I'm not saying it should be over-the-top expensive, I think it should MADem May 2013 #30
that people 'back in the day' appreciated it demonstrates that being free doesn't make goods HiPointDem May 2013 #31
Well, back in the day, someone DID pay. MADem May 2013 #33
plenty of students lived on their own, and paid for their own lodging and food. HiPointDem May 2013 #34
The Little Fauntleroys I was talking about were fifth graders. MADem May 2013 #43
you made a claim: that people didn't appreciate free goods. i said that is not necessarily HiPointDem May 2013 #44
I don't agree. Zoeisright May 2013 #46
You do realize we pay for that. MADem May 2013 #48
From the article: in the US social mobility has decreased, in Canada and Europe it has increased. pampango May 2013 #4
harlem children's zone isn't a 'public investment'. it's part of education deform & privatization. HiPointDem May 2013 #23
One thing is certain Generic Other May 2013 #6
Boy, did you just describe the 'hipsters' who populate my nabe, closeupready May 2013 #47
"What are you going to DO, suckers? You NEED this piece of paper to even get yer foot in the door!" HughBeaumont May 2013 #7
+1 xchrom May 2013 #8
Access to tutoring TrogL May 2013 #9
A must read. JDPriestly May 2013 #10
Indeed. CanSocDem May 2013 #19
so the Mackenzie brothers had it right all those years ago hfojvt May 2013 #15
Take off, ya hoser ;) n/t PasadenaTrudy May 2013 #42
Reminds me of this right winger who called Thom Hartmann alp227 May 2013 #17
kick to read later nt grasswire May 2013 #26
Canada isn't looking for immigrants without skills. You've got to bring something to the table MADem May 2013 #28
k&r for the truth, however depressing it may be. n/t Laelth May 2013 #41
I'd love to. Worth considering, IMO - I love Canada. closeupready May 2013 #45
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Want the American Dream? ...»Reply #43