"Its a benefit in exchange for work .... how can you not understand that? the answer is right in the statement."
I can understannd it, but it's wrong.
"In exchange for" is attempting to apply some sort of after-the-fact transactional financial framework to this issue. Like there was a commercial exchange, the consumer did something, the state-vendor gave something in return.
So, I understand it, but it's wrong.
This has been a vehicle for you and others to sort of moralize that the government shouldn't provide benefits to people who don't work.
But that's not an argument based in anything other than your wish that the government wouldn't provide so many benefits, and specifically not to people who don't work.
You're relying on the fact that you don't think the government should provide benefits to people who don't work to argue against free tuition.
You haven't discussed free tuition as its own issue, you're just saying that the government shouldn't provide benefits to people who don't work, and since free tuition would be such a thing, you're against it.
You haven't said why, other than the obvious, which is you're opposed to the government providing benefits to people who don't work.
One more thing: Calling the actions undertaken by those who served in WW2 "work" is not a fair description or a fair comparison. It's also not the case that they willfully signed up to serve in exchange for the GI Bill later. Most of them simply got drafted, and the GI Bill didn't come about until 1944.
But let me put it to you this way: We shouldn't need a war to raise a crop of college educated high-tech workers.
Let me also put it to you this way: Would you rather there be more Americans or highly qualified foreigners working with H1-B Visas in America's high tech sector? If you said "More Americans," can't you see how free college tuition works towards that goal?