you ve got to get big donors. if you want to bring in tuition down, the way to do it is get the government out of subsidizing tuition. you ll see it fall very quickly. i tend to agree with that. victoria, in point effect, tuition and fees in four-year schools have gone up 300% from 1990 to 2011. inflation during that time was just 75%. so more than three times as fast as inflation. something is wrong. something is wrong. and the increase in tuition prices has tracked exactly with the increase and burden of student debt. so the student debt is the debt that thanks to the government, we ve created this wonderful system where it s fueling the fire and tuition rates continue to go up. meanwhile, college accessibility is not really the issue in this country. when you rank us globally, we re doing wonderfully. but our graduation rates stink. so colleges need to lower tuition just because they re absurdly high and then they need to do a better job actually getting kids to graduate. bill
colleges just to step forward themselves? i understand the cause, government s role, et cetera. but just they ve got all this new cash, apply it to tuition to keeping tuitions down. let s not be naive. let s understand prestigious universities for what they are, giant profit making businesses whose general partners happen to be tenured professors, state supported institutions like the university of virginia. businesses, if they re smart businesses, charge whatever the traffic will bear. steve, you got five girls. all went to college. wouldn t you have liked to have seen those tuition rates go down a little based on their enendowment? spend some money to lower cost? then the way you get that done is, again, by what john wants to do and that is remove government subsidies because when subsidies go you up, administrative bloat goes up, sticking point of that, debt goes up. and bay bithe way, david f they don t get their act together, even without reform, you ll see the web do the sa
guy captured crooks and people that have committed crimes, what s wrong with that? john, what s wrong with that? oh, i have major problems with this. for one, he was helping individuals keep money from reaching the government, which is good for the economy. but beyond that i like that, go ahead. you have to look at whistle blowers as modern versions of ambulance chasers. do we really want disgruntled employees to be able to team up with the force of government that has unlimited money to go after businesses? if you want to tank the economy, give individuals the right to do this, to take their company down and get paid for it. steve, ambulance chases? we don t want to pay people for doing that, right? no, we don t. first of all, if you see something being done wrong, you should do something about it. and two, you shouldn t have to be paid to obey the law. do you do it anyway. so this guy, if you ve committed a crime, should go to jail. by the way, he was in jail. he coll
cools by allowing parents to choose the school. one thing that was changed by the welfare act, in the old system before clinton signed that welfare reform act, the more people that stayed enroll in afdc, the more money it got. that changed. fixed amount of money went to the states and they weren t sort of rewarded by adding to the welfare rolls. now we re getting word from the obama administration that that may change. we may go back to the old system where, in fact, you get more money if you have more people on welfare rolls. is that right? david, i hear exactly what you re saying. look, we ve seen studies of exactly what you re saying in places like denmark. in other words, denmark cut the jobless benefits by two years and they saw the incentive for people to get to work. then when you start dropping the dollar amount of unemployment benefits, by the way, we re talking 270 a week or whatever. that is embarrassingly small already. you can t live on that already.
is actually because we don t have jobs. we don t have enough jobs and many of the jobs we do have are very poorly paying jobs. so i would make the argument that entitlements right now are something that s keeping the poverty rate from going even higher. there are a handful of reports that back me up, including the census report which showed if it wasn t for unemployment insurance and social security, the poverty rate would actually be 8% higher than it currently is. so yes, do we need to take a whack at things like welfare down the road? yes. but we need to focus on jobs first. just spent hundreds of billions of on guess what, a jobs program. some of these jobs, by the way, cost $500,000. if you lookup wind mill farm, for example, which were extravagant expenses that cost taxpayers much too much money, why don t we apply some of those jobs to some of the welfare recipients? because giving a welfare recipient a job is the best way to get them off of it. as kennedy said, why not dire