Not true. The "money" I was talking about was government spending that serves no useful purpose for which I have given several examples. That does not include most Pell grants funds since they do benefit many students (although less than half graduate). However, the other spending and students receiving Pell grants that make no effort pass classes do provide zero return to society.
But you don't know who those people are, and you can never know! You insist it's true, but provide nothing but anecdotes that you also refuse to verify. So you say government spending that serves no useful purpose, but the definition of "useful purpose" is
subjective and ever-changing. You are trying to establish your own shitty judgment as the standard, but no one gave you that entitlement. Everything you're saying here is filtered through the prism of your bias, which we all know is against the institutions of government. So there is no bar that government can meet that will satisfy you because of the fake personal standards you set and then adjust depending on how your argument is faring at any given time.
I think Pell Grants and many other spending programs could be done more efficiently and cheaply by changing the way they operate.
Right...it's always the same story from people like you; you think you can do it better, so you end up voting for people who share your point of view, only to find out that they don't, can't, and/or won't "do it better" because like you, they have an inherent bias against the government that prods them to view it negatively in any circumstance because government is merely a reflection of all of us, and you hate society because it won't indulge your unearned entitlement. Like for instance, setting a standard of "wasteful" that is neither a standard, nor something that you set. It's a bar you move continually in order to post-hoc your argument into better shape. That's why everything you say is always vague and ambiguous. You leave yourself room to wiggle within the parameters. Total
bad faith.
Too many government spending programs reward the agencies for spending more
What do you even mean here? How are agencies "rewarded" for spending more? What is the reward? They're not operated for profit, so what are you even talking about? Should people not be rewarded for doing their jobs effectively? Should those people not be paid at all?
Too many government spending programs reward the agencies for spending more so there is little incentive to turn away students who have been making F's in every class for a year.
Again with these random, weird, vague, imaginary circumstances you're conjuring on the spot! How do these agencies get "rewarded"? What are you even talking about? This is incoherent babble.
There are requirements that students maintain certain averages, but there are always loopholes which allow them to enroll.
So Pell Grant students
have to keep their grades up. The "loophole to enrollment" has nothing to do with the requirements to maintain averages...how are the two connected? You should have used a semicolon in that sentence because as it is currently written, it is incoherent.
Your idea of free college could to some extend be accomplished by allowing eligible students to attend free when classes had empty spaces. At most non-selective schools many courses are canceled every semester because they don't get minimum enrollment and many other classes are small. Since these instructors have already been paid it costs the college nothing more to have students use those empty seats. Whether they also get money from the state for these students could be debated.
Why do those schools have empty spaces in the first place? Because students can't afford the costs. So if public colleges were free, just like public schools, then enrollment would increase and enrollment at private schools would decrease.
