Stossel is a far right propagandist these days.

My theory is they waste money by offering loans for the first two years at major private universities....knowing that the classes are designed to weed out >75% of students before their Jr year. Jr colleges aren't designed to fail or burn out most students, class sizes are exponentially smaller, and the teachers are often better, certainly more accessible to students.
By offering to loan the money they knowingly set up that 75% for failure and long term debt for nothing. By paying for those two years at Jr colleges they could let students figure out if they are capable of a full degree without the enormous expense. As long as the Jr colleges are qualified, 4 year universities will usually transfer credits already.

As to trades...yes perhaps professionals can, under some circumstances, make as much as some white collar professional, even lawyers, but that certification takes years of low paid apprenticeship to qualify for. I welded for years, I built bridges, water tanks, construction tools, industrial ovens, crash attenuatiors, race cars, boats, .... my average wage in that time was barely over $10 an hour, and never over $20. It takes a long time to start earning a real living wage in most cases.

After 25 years it's forgiven? Only if you've paid every single payment in full and on time for 25 years without a single late, deferred, or partial payment ever which would leave no balance....so I call bullshit. My 75+ year old mother in law is still paying hers.

But @bobknight33 is anti education, so not a surprise he's uneducated on the facts here.

Jr College is about $1000 for a full year, that's what's going to be free, not Stanford and Harvard. These credits usually transfer, so successful students get freshman and sophomore year cheap then can go to an expensive four year university for only two years, unsuccessful students don't waste the time and money. I just kept going to Jr college to learn for 10+ years because I didn't care about a diploma, just the knowledge. I studied under some of the highest ranked teachers in America for pennies.
Even welders and plumbers need education, Bob. I know, I was a welder/fabricator before I retired. Physics and math were tools I used daily.

Such stupidity, Bob. You think college isn't worth it if society pays for it, but is definitely worth it and something to brag about and lord over the uneducated if daddy paid for it. Incredibly unAmerican, comrad, and stupid.

An educated public is far more productive. This helps the entire country.

This video has been seconded as a duplicate; transferring votes to the original video and killing this dupe - dupeof seconded with isdupe by w1ndex.

This video has been nominated as a duplicate of this video by newtboy. If this nomination is seconded with *isdupe, the video will be killed and its votes transferred to the original.

This video has been nominated as a duplicate of this video by lucky760. If this nomination is seconded with *isdupe, the video will be killed and its votes transferred to the original.

Watching the opening statements today, it seems there are far more than one example of former officials being tried for impeachment after leaving office, including one tried by the founding fathers themselves with unanimous consent, solidifying the notion that their intent was to allow trying former officials constitutionally even though they could not remove them since they were already out of office, but they could bar them from holding any office in the future.
When the people who wrote the constitution interpret it that way, I think that’s game over. No one knows their intent better than they did, and their actions of trying a senator, one who had already been removed from office, in an impeachment trial is unambiguous, more so when you read what they wrote about it.

We shall see if today’s senate cares more about constitutional obligations or blind loyalty to an individual. It’s a forgone conclusion that they won’t convict out of blind loyalty, but exposing the criminality they’re going to excuse still serves a purpose.

Edit: one purpose it serves is setting precedent....if this president can attempt to stop the peaceful (or not peaceful) transfer of power to the president elect by instructing a rabid armed violence prone crowd to “stop the steal” “you can’t let them certify Biden or your country is lost” “fight hard” “I’ll be there with you” without a single repercussion, so can the next one....and now the perpetrators know many of the weak points thanks to this disorganized coup attempt. Republicans should be terrified of that, enough to send a message by convicting. If they don’t, they invite every president that loses an election to attempt a January coup, precedent will protect them, so they would be obligated to try.

This video has been declared a duplicate by the original submitter; transferring votes to the original video and killing this dupe - dupeof declared by Mordhaus.

This video has been seconded as a duplicate; transferring votes to the original video and killing this dupe - dupeof seconded with isdupe by eric3579.

This video has been nominated as a duplicate of this video by ant. If this nomination is seconded with *isdupe, the video will be killed and its votes transferred to the original.

This video has been nominated as a duplicate of this video by Zawash. If this nomination is seconded with *isdupe, the video will be killed and its votes transferred to the original.

I didn't come up with it. It was the conclusion of the 9/11 commission. If you disagree , your beef is with them.

I'm sorry you are so ill informed. Perhaps out might try being less dismissive and insulting about your ignorance....but likely not.

Apparently it wasn't enough time for him to grasp the seriousness. It was barely enough time to staff the NSA. They briefed him a few times, but the "Osama Bin Laden preparing to attack" report went unread or at best unheeded. Again, this is according to the bipartisan Senate commission set up to determine what actually happened.

Edit: Andy Card, Bush's chief of staff - “The 9/11 Commission had said if there had been a longer transition and there had been cooperation, there might have been a better response, or maybe not even any attack,” the former chief of staff said.
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/11/11/former-bush-chief-of-staff-cites-9/11-warns-about-slow-transition.html

The 9/11 Commission Report noted:
"[T]he 36-day delay cut in half the normal transition period. Given that a presidential election in the United States brings wholesale change in personnel, this loss of time hampered the new administration in identifying, recruiting, clearing, and obtaining Senate confirmation of key appointees."
The point is that delaying these processes such as obtaining background checks can create significant later delays in putting new officials into place and in some cases obtaining Senate confirmations. Delays in the transference of information with the incoming team can also obstruct the next administration’s ability to carry out existing and new policies.
Perhaps you're unaware, the Bush administration, like others before it, did not have its full national security team on the job until at least six months after it took office.

Plans like watch for groups of middle eastern men who suddenly have funds to move to America, especially those who want to learn to fly, but not take off or land. Plans like track Bin Laden's money and deny people he funds from entering the country. Plans like focus on his communications to learn what his plans were. Plans like take him out before he attacks. There were many plans, I'm sure most were classified but many just common sense.

Really, you never heard the intelligence community makes plans to deal with threats?! They might not have been successful at stopping an attack, but at least could have tried.

This video has been seconded as a duplicate; transferring votes to the original video and killing this dupe - dupeof seconded with isdupe by oblio70.

This video has been nominated as a duplicate of this video by newtboy. If this nomination is seconded with *isdupe, the video will be killed and its votes transferred to the original.

Oh yes, I remember last times, 2001 and 2008-9. They've used 96% of cash flow to buy back stock, now they want another. Oddly enough, it's the free market believers that insist they should get more free money instead of letting the market decide, and that's why our airline industry is one of the worst, most despised industries where customer service is non existent. Why waste time serving customers when the government will give you more money for nothing? Not for stocks, cash, promises to keep employees, promises to upgrade aging fleets, just free money. It was a near guarantee they wouldn't improve anything, but CEO compensation would skyrocket....and that's what happened.

I would be ok with bailouts if there were stipulations freezing ANY buybacks or bonuses, requiring improvements in service and planes, and ownership of the companies equal to the bailout amount accepted as collateral that transfers permanently if they don't meet all the stipulations or miss any payments on the loan, no handout. Not going to happen, so neither should a third bailout in under 20 years. Let them fail, service will improve.