I have heard quite a few dem politicians and candidates that have campaigned on the idea of having fully paid for college educations for the poor...not just Edwards.
Neither one of my children have a college education...they chose not to go...
My son went to a different type of school, and now manages a flight school..owns his own plane...and is doing quite well at 27.
My daughter went to work as a receptionist at a title company and has now worked herself up to escrow assistant and closer...and is making very good money.
If THEY can do it without a government paid college education....so can anyone else.
Besides, from what I have seen about the professors in these colleges and universities, I wouldn't WANT my children getting their education there...and I certainly wouldn't want my MONEY to pay for it..(although it does, in taxes, darn it)
Quite wise, and no, many do not need a college education to do well, and it may actually harm them.
Just who are these so-called "poor?" The brief AEI study that I ref'd in a recent post to a different thread, demonstrates how lousy our "poverty" stats are. Edwards really needs to be called on his misleading use of "the poor." "...Recently, Rush Limbaugh cited a study by a scholar from AEI (Nicholas Eberstadt) who demonstrated that today's "poverty" standards are equivalent to US middle class living standards of the 1960s. Transfer payments aren't included in calculating "poverty income," etc....