GOP senator admits vouchers could pay for wealthy Iowans' college
- Thread starter THE_DEVIL
- Start date
I didn't get vouchers to pay for my college, so why should they?
That's how that goes, right?
That's how that goes, right?
And again, public funds shouldn't go to private schools. You want to pull your kid from public school, fine, go ahead. Foot the bill yourself.
This program is only available to 2% of the student population. It's not geared to help the poor. And it's not geared to help those with the fewest educational options. So what's the point?
So Congresspeople and connected donors don't have to pay for their kid's college of course.
Considering the methods used to grant those loans used to be illegal until the GOP changed that, yeah, I'm fine with it.
I'd be fine forgiving more than what he did. Why? Because the GOP did it purely to benefit banks...who we then bailed out about 2 years later. Were you fine bailing out banks? Auto manufacturers? I'd rather every dime that went to those two would have gone to forgive student loans.
Last edited:
Projection. Why do you only care about free shit for the wealthy and nothing goes back to the middle class? How do you not see this?
Another guy who loves socialism….for the top 1%.
WTF are you even talking about?
I said the voucher bill will not get passed and you make this garbage response.
Yes. Yes it will.
Where were you a few months ago? Since the next legislative session will occur in a non election year, Republicans will cave to Dim Kim.
She "primaried" 8 of the 10 Republicans that vetoed it last session. Jane Bloomngdale of Northwood and one other were the only "no" votes that survived.
Yep, and the people who continue to support her, rural voters, are the ones who will continue to be hurt by her policies. It will kill rural schools.
You projected boogeyman. Plus, Kim will get it passed…because her donors want it passed. She grifts…like your party is phenomenal at.
Colleges as well? Cause you can use Pell money to attend a private school. Fundamentally, what’s the difference here? This from a person that opposes this program. I don’t oppose it on the grounds that money shouldn’t go to a private school but that the state should be in the business of providing primary education. One primary education. Dividing the money up dilutes its effectiveness.
I'm talking about elementary/secondary schools that rely solely on public funding.
I am not okay with it, and it is looking like the courts may overturn this. However, I do think something needs to be done to decrease the cost of college education. I also would be okay with 5-10 K for college loans forgiving those with incomes under 50,000 or the ability to claim bankruptcy on the college loan if they are unable to pay.
There is not an easy answer to solve that question. However there is an easy choice to Reynolds proposed school voucher program and it is absolutely NO NO NO.
Another thing regarding college expenses is that it's not easy graduating in just four years because of class availability and scheduling. At least at public universities.
The whole controversy is tied into poor folk resenting kids that have the goals of getting the very best jobs available and those poors stuck doing what their ancestors did.
@NorthernHawkeye
Kimmie put a bullet in the back of any Republican who opposed her. She and the evangelicals are going to hammer this thing through.
This basically describes a large portion of supporters for the GOP. Have to give the GOP credit for successfully pulling the wool over their eyes. Its like sheep opening the gates for coyotes.
