A little less than that, but yes, students get a stipend during the period when they're full-time university students (bachelors or masters, up to 6 years maximum). It's currently 2500 DKK (€350) for students who live with parents, and 5850 DKK (€780) for those who don't.

Some details: http://www.su.dk/English/Sider/agency.aspx

I was part of the last generation in the UK to get a stipend ("student grant"), although it wasn't that generous and it was over 15 years ago.

There are something like 17 million enrolled higher education students in the US, and with the current exchange rate, that would equal about 24 billion USD in stipends. Not really sure such a thing is politically tractable, not to mention the quality of the product (the degree) varies highly by college.

For reference, it appears Denmark has about 230,000 enrolled college students.

Denmark spends about 0.7% of GDP on the "SU" student support system [1]. The same proportion of American GDP would be $110 billion; $24 billion would be a mere 0.15% of GDP. So I don't think there's a feasibility issue; it's clearly possible to spend as much as 0.7% of GDP on such a scheme. The U.S. has many more students, but also a much larger economy. I agree that such a scheme would be politically difficult to pass in the United States, though. I suspect the U.S. will end up spending a pretty large amount of money anyway, but on a more haphazard scheme rather than direct grants, such as occasional student-loan amnesties, or more heavily subsidized loan interest rates.

[1] Somewhat outdated figures, but I believe still roughly accurate: http://www.sustyrelsen.dk/udst/in_english/cost_of_study/kap4...

But if higher education was already free, why would the poor go to war for corporate America, defending big oil wherever needed around the world ?

So, I googled for "24 billion" to get an example of the sort of thing the US government spends that kind of money on without a second thought. I was expecting to find some piece of military hardware. No, it's even more ridiculous:

http://money.cnn.com/2013/10/16/news/economy/shutdown-econom...

$24bn is the estimated cost (to the economy as a whole, rather than the government as a specific billed item) of the totally unnecessary government shutdown last year. It is literally the amount of money Congress can waste without thinking, or while trying very hard to avoid thinking.

I'm aware of how the government spends on other inane things - my point was that spending the 24B on this is probably not going to happen in the current political climate, regardless of whether or not you think it is a good investment.

I think it would sell well, assuming you're raising someone else's taxes or cutting an unpopular budget line item.

The only taxes you're allowed to raise in the US any more are on poor people.

Which taxes on poor people have been raised?

Why are you comparing absolute numbers? Eyeballing it, it doesn't seem like the proportion of college students compared to the rest of the population is very different between the two countries.

You are right, they aren't terribly far apart in proportional terms (I had a decimal place off in my initial calculation that threw me off... hadn't had my coffee yet). I agree that this is economically feasible and may even be a good investment, but is probably a no-go given the current state of US politics, i.e., broken.