You are either an AI bot, a paid propagandists, or an uneducated fool. Not paying for something is not the same as denying you the right to do it. The pay wall is not insurmountable. There are lots of cheap colleges that cost less than $5,000 a year.

Federal scholarships are not the only source of scholarships. States routinely offer them (and there are states that hate the liberals and states that hate the conservatives). In addition there are LOTS of private charities that already offer scholarships.

Also, the schools already deny the people the right to an education. You try getting into college if they deem you below their standards.

Finally, you are a damn fool for thinking we should give them to everyone. Why this would be a bad idea:

1)Such an attempt would not only be doomed to failure by the Republicans, it is the kind of dumb ass thing they use as propaganda making all liberals look foolish.
2) It would be too expensive. There is only so much money to go around.
3) Some people fail out of college already, if all went then it would be a massive waste of money.
4) College is not only used to educate the population, but also to grade them. We need ways to tell between those that are good people but not highly qualified and those that are highly qualified. While we could use their GPA, it is much easier to just ask "is she a college graduate?"

I believe education is a right for all, but we also have the right to choose who we help with our limited assets. If you can't convince another to charitably pay for it, you should have to earn the $5000 per year to do it yourself.

But this only works if it is relatively easy for both the 10% smartest and the 10% who came from literally nothing but still did well in high school can get educated without crippling themselves financially.

It's been done. Quite messy.

No, they aren't. A percolator cycles water through the grounds continuously. A moka pot forces water through the grounds once.

We really should abandon the Student Loan idea.
1) It is not reasonable to expect people that by definition have NOT had a college education to make good decisions about student loans. Some of their parents may have collage degrees, but not all.

2) They are long term loans that cannot be refinanced. If interest rates rise, the borrowers make out like a bandit. But if they fall, they get screwed.

3) Scholarships are better ideas.

Why scholarships are better:

You can quite easily pick the person who really needs it and/OR the person that most benefits from it.

You can get much stricter on which education institutions qualify for them. This will end a bunch of scams, such as the schools that if graduate from get a $60,000 per year job but cost $900,000 to go to.

You can put in grade requirements for continuing them for next year.

Scholarships fight educational inflation, while loans encourage it. If schools know the main government scholarships only pay Y on average, they will have immense pressure to keep their costs below Y. The government can easily set the values of the scholarships to discourage inflation because they do not want to pay more.

But banks will always be willing to increase the amount they loan to the students. To them, the cost of education is a GOOD thing because larger loans means larger profits.

That's an Elon Musk smear, as in the Elon Musk who claimed in court that calling someone a paedophile is just a generic insult and not defamatory. It's not wise to believe or repeat anything he says.

Garbage regulations like IP create these behemoths. If you want freedom, stop regulating monopolies into existence.

They got immunity for things they published and pushed on people on the grounds that others said it, they were just the promoters and publishers.

We finally figured out how to sue them not for publishing, but for their massive and unethical attempts to push and promote what others said.

So now they ask for immunity.

No.

They are the problem. They are guilty. Note, they didn't HAVE to be the problem. They could have promoted things based on truth and value rather than how much attention they got by being outrageous and dishonest.

The small nuclear reactor people believe:

1) The major business problems with nuclear reactors are caused by the time it takes to get regulatory approval rather than actual safety, actual science, or even by complying with the actual safety regulations.

2) That if they make a nuclear reactor small enough, they can get a generic regulatory approval once and use it multiple times, all while satisfying the regulations and by being safe.

3) That it will be easier to ramp up, ramp down, fix problems, and dispose of after end of life of small nuclear reactors as opposed to large ones.

#1 is probably true. It is clear that nuclear power plants take a LOT of time to satisfy the regulators they are safe, but people can and do succeed in doing it.

#2 is up for debate. A lot of people think that the 'small' nuclear reactors they propose will still be large enough to take a lot of regulatory approval for the geographic locations and they will never get a generic approval to build model 1 and ship it everywhere.

#3 is also questionable. If you have even 4 active reactors, you can probably schedule the ramping up and ramping down on a continuous schedule for maintance. But the fixing of problems may take MORE time because they are shrinking it. And a lot of people think the size they are describing will not be easier to dispose of at end of life.

If they cannot get a generic regulatory approval for use in 'most' places, it may never be a good idea to build small nuclear reactors (except on vehicles like an aircraft carrier, submarines, rockets, etc).

You are either an AI bot, paid to lie or a totally clueless human being.. It is clearly a FIVE percent tax, not a FIFTY percent control.

And they specifically state that no one has to give up any control. You have been reading lies paid for by the billionaires rather than the actual wording of the bill.

You can learn about it here on the far right Fox news:

https://www.foxbusiness.com/po...

They are one of the plutocrats that pretend they are capitalists.

Their products come with anti-capitalist contracts that basically try to own the customer instead of having the customer own the product.

This is why their business is failing. As long as they think they can:

Access any contentâ"published or notâ"that users had created to train its new machine learning AI.

Use, reproduce, publicly display, distribute, modify, create derivative works based on, publicly perform, and translate users creations

Charge huge cancelation fees for subscriptions. ... without notifying them when they sign up ... without informing them they are signing up for a subscriptions.

I do.

No one WANTS a multiple time tax.

If you do it one time and never do it again then:

1) The billionaire flight from California will be small. Some (more) will leave, but not everyone will give up the gorgeous weather, views, and the huge number of pretty young things willing to move to California and do anything the billionaires want.

If you do it multiple times, the rich will flee like rats leaving a sinking ship.

Also note, a lot of people in California would LIKE some of the rich people to leave. It would bring down the real estate prices.

CA has about 125 billionaires (give or take a few), Texas has 73. (NY has about 123)

20 % of 125 = 25. If those 24 leave CA and all go to Texas, then:
CA: has 100 billionaires
Texas has 98

The problem was these idiots thought there was a difference between 'climate science' and the science of "meteorological conditions (including temperature, precipitation, and wind) and ocean conditions (including temperature, waves, evaporation)"

So they thought they could get rid of that evil climate science without pissing off everyone that is concerned about:

Tornadoes
Blizzards
Hail
Fishing
off shore oil
Rain Storms
Tsunamis

etc. etc.

Turns out everyone except them disagrees and knows climate science is real, not a hoax, and stopping studying it means stopping protection from the more immediate climate issues.

Basically, they are wrong about everything they believe and the US will not let them do stupid shit and force us to find out.

Statism creates billionaires.

Rather than guillotining anyone, the solution ought to be regulating the growth-rate of data centers so that they don't eat the economy. There's no reason to allow them to grow "as fast as possible" when it's not even clear how useful they'll be long-term. Unregulated capitalism leads to violent boom/bust cycles which cause economic pain.