The University of Phoenix, "an online university with a reputation as a diploma mill," may benefit from funding problems faced by Florida's public universities: Universities at a loss.
In Alberta, private degree granting schools receive some provincial funds for operating - no capital funds. All 4 of them are old church run schools. I miss the point of government funds for for-profit schools as much as I miss the point of subsidizing any business.
The new Florida program sounds singularly stupid. Dennis Ruhl wrote: > I miss the point of government funds for for-profit schools If there were adequate funding for the state schools (which obviously is not the case in Florida), then I would not be opposed to a government scholarship program that allowed an occasional poor, deserving student to attend a private school. In the UK, the Conservative party had an "assisted places" scheme to give a few children scholarships to attend private schools. When the Labour party phased this out to free up the money for the state school system, Conservative leader William Hague moaned, "What a stupid thing to do!" > as much as I miss the point of subsidizing any business. Were you opposed to the creation of Amtrak and Via Rail? You're in Alberta. Did you ever patronize Woodwards? I think it was the best department store around, and its collapse was to the detriment of consumers. "Witch words" are very powerful. Once the term "corporate welfare" came into vogue, no one would admit to being in favour of it, just as universal health care was defeated in the US in large part by use of the term "socialized medicine".
Opposed to Via Rail - certainly - total waste of money. It would be cheaper if the government bought an airplane ticket for each rail passenger. Woodwards - best department store chain anywhere. Grew too fast and died but I know a dozen business people who were in the same boat. I don't believe in taxing successful business to subsidize their competition. An annual event in Canada is for an auto manufacturer to announce the closure of an plant. The federal and provincial governments then rush in and give $200 million to modernize the plant. I am sure they play the same game in Michigan and elsewhere. Bombardier, a large manufacturer of passenger rail equipment and medium sized airplanes can usually count on $200 million per year. If business can't survive without government aid, too bad.
Mark: Good grief! What, in your estimation, would be "adequate" funding? You didn't ask me but...yes. Not witch words but accurate ones. How do the weasel words of "universal health care" not equal socialized medicine? Dennis: Sounds like creative destruction. Government aid is bad money driving out good. That's destructive creation.
Which baffles me as to why so much money is being thrown into Canadian business in the form of subsidies and bail outs and the tax payers are always held accountable. Had these businesses been in New York state, they would have had their incorporation status dissolved by the local government.
As an American, I'm opposed to Amtrak. It is wasteful and unwanted by the citizenry. Unlike city buses and subways, the populace as a whole isn't served by subsidizing interstate train service. If it cannot pay for itself, it should go. Local transportation efforts ease road congestion, lower pollution, and help the poor (especially the working poor). But Amtrak? It is expensive, inconvenient, and extremely time-consuming. That's why it can't make money.
