Yeah, but that would have cost the taxpayers even more than a Pell Grant.
But you would have earned that money by serving your country, instead you seem to think you ought to just be given a check by the government, paid for by taxes confiscated by the government.
Ask yourself, would it have been right for you to go around your town and steal $20 from each citizen to pay for your education? If your answer is no, then why do you think it is right for the government to take that money on your behalf?
I've repaid all that and much more since I graduated. And I don't mind being on the giving end now. It's a great investment and one of the very few things the government does right.
Yeah, but that would have cost the taxpayers even more than a Pell Grant.
We've got more than enough people who joined for the college money, thanks.
While you are right in a sense that the logic of investing in people's educations, if taken to an extreme, could be uesd to justify all sorts of things, I think it is one of the smartest things we do.
A more educated citizenry benefits society far beyond how much money you can make off of taxing them. This is especially true in light of how poorly our public schools perform at preparing kids to be adults (which is also taxpayer supported).
Whereas most welfare, subsidies, and handouts are for the benefit of individuals, I think a strong case could be made that supporting the education of others is an investment that benefits all of us.
As for where to draw the line, common sense will have to come into play. Worrying about what a certain strand of logic can do if taken to an absolute extreme can destroy every good idea there is.