So frustrated with the Democrats
There's no such thing as "free" college. Someone has to pay, whether it's the student / student's family or taxpayers paying on that student's behalf.
I believe "free" college is pie in the sky, not to mention a bad idea.
ml1 said:
they should call it "affordable college."
I believe that is what Hillary was talking about.
https://www.cnn.com/2015/08/10/politics/hillary-clinton-college-affordability/index.html
Morganna said:
drummerboy said:Thanks db, I have a new toy.
Not sure where to post this, so I'll put it here.
NYT has an amazing electoral map of the 2016 election. Interactive, down to the precinct level.
pretty neat huh?
Smedley said:
There's no such thing as "free" college. Someone has to pay, whether it's the student / student's family or taxpayers paying on that student's behalf.
wow.
really?
Is such snark necessary?
Someone breezily mentioned "free college" as if it were a thing -- I made a point that it wasn't.
It seems you already knew that, so there was no need for you to weigh in on that specific point.
Smedley said:
Is such snark necessary?
Someone breezily mentioned "free college" as if it were a thing -- I made a point that it wasn't.
It seems you already knew that, so there was no need for you to weigh in on that specific point.
Well, everyone knows that, so there's no real need to bring it up at all.
HoBo said:
LOST said:Free college and a living wage? Sounds great! Unfortunately, among the many reasons that so many people have little faith in the democratic party. Sounds great, but everything is so idealistic and wonderful, but unrealistic and disorganized.
nan said:
Anyway, the best way to win is to have a great platform with the kind of things that Americans want like Medicare for All, free college, support for unions and a living wage.
There is PLENTY of money for free college. We are the richest country in the world. Other, much poorer nations provide free college. When Trump asked for a big raise for the military why did no one ask, "Can we afford that? Who is going to pay for that? That's unrealistic!" No one said that and even all the Democrats went and voted yes. They even gave him more money than he asked for. So, let's stop pretending that free college is unrealistic and start demanding it cause the money should stop going to others and start going to us. Trump's last tax giveaway to the rich could have paid for it right there.
ridski said:
Smedley said:Well, everyone knows that, so there's no real need to bring it up at all.
Is such snark necessary?
Someone breezily mentioned "free college" as if it were a thing -- I made a point that it wasn't.
It seems you already knew that, so there was no need for you to weigh in on that specific point.
Uh, perhaps not.
Smedley said:
There's no such thing as "free" college. Someone has to pay, whether it's the student / student's family or taxpayers paying on that student's behalf.
I believe "free" college is pie in the sky, not to mention a bad idea.
Done properly, it's a good investment. Perhaps the government can link college tuition grants to in demand skills such as nursing.
A different aspect of paying for college is the extent to which college loans have taken pressure off of colleges to be cost competitive. What would tuition be today if there was no government involvement whatsoever in the student loan industry? What if student loans received no protections from personal bankruptcy and no special interest rate treatment? Colleges would adapt.
It would be interesting to see how colleges in the US stack up to foreign ones in terms of outlay of funds. For example, it seems, anecdotally, that most of the jobs and high salaries at the college level are administrative. Colleges also seem to be, in every discipline, trying to keep faculty adjunct so that they can pay them 35$ a class, instead of a living wage, forcing professors to piece together gigs at many different institutions, with no benefits. Again, I'm going on my experience and that of my friends at institutions across the country and across many fields.
The two areas that should be protected from profiteers are health and education. And a no brainer to offer them for free! Won’t the masses come flocking? Problem is that some of the same people who could most benefit are not interested in this type of progressive platform. They just aren’t. Racism is apparently a far more powerful attraction.
tjohn said:
Done properly, it's a good investment.
I don’t disagree with that statement. I’m just highly skeptical that any broad-based federal “free” college program, the type the Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez Democrats favor, would be done properly. I think it would much more likely be a boondoggle.
Smedley said:
tjohn said:I don’t disagree with that statement. I’m just highly skeptical that any broad-based federal “free” college program, the type the Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez Democrats favor, would be done properly. I think it would much more likely be a boondoggle.
Done properly, it's a good investment.
That's why I couldn't get behind Bernie. It just didn't seem realistic.
Smedley said:
tjohn said:I don’t disagree with that statement. I’m just highly skeptical that any broad-based federal “free” college program, the type the Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez Democrats favor, would be done properly. I think it would much more likely be a boondoggle.
Done properly, it's a good investment.
What does that even mean?
Are you aware that free (or practically free) college was part of our common experience just a few decades ago? My SUNY tuition in '75 was, I believe, less than $400 a semester. City College in NYC was free for the longest time to NYC residents.
Yes. And NYC almost went bankrupt in 1975 and had to slash everything to the bone.
Terrified the Dems are going to pile on the identity politics, and then we're screwed.
So if I summarize this thread, the fact that the Republicans are in control of every arm of Government is the fault of Hillary, DNC, and all Democrats in general, with the specific exception of all the people on this thread, because we all know better. Did I get that about right?
Smedley said:
Yes. And NYC almost went bankrupt in 1975 and had to slash everything to the bone.
The Republican government could have bailed them out as they did to the bankers years later, but instead decided to let them suffer. Remember "Ford to City: Drop Dead." As usual the poor were blamed for the crisis and they were the ones to suffer the most. And the rich, including Donald Trump, used the crisis to benefit themselves. We need to stop doing that. We have plenty of money such as in the military budget that no one asks about. No one says, "Are you sure we can afford that war or those 900 military bases?"
How Bankers & Technocrats Used The 1975 Fiscal Crisis To Permanently Reshape NYC
drummerboy said:What does that even mean?
Are you aware that free (or practically free) college was part of our common experience just a few decades ago? My SUNY tuition in '75 was, I believe, less than $400 a semester. City College in NYC was free for the longest time to NYC residents.
Times have changed. In 1975, a high school graduate had the ability to get a job that paid well and might lead to a career in some field.
Now, we are living in the fantasy world where it is necessary for EVERYBODY to go to college and, if they do, they will magically find good jobs. The reality is that for a lot of people, a more vocational focus makes sense. And by vocational education, I mean a course of education that leads to a particular job ranging from carpenter/electrician/plumber to RN or PA and many others.
Government support for in-demand vocations makes sense to me. Free education in general? Not so much.
nan said:
Smedley said:The Republican government could have bailed them out as they did to the bankers years later, but instead decided to let them suffer. Remember "Ford to City: Drop Dead." As usual the poor were blamed for the crisis and they were the ones to suffer the most. And the rich, including Donald Trump, used the crisis to benefit themselves. We need to stop doing that. We have plenty of money such as in the military budget that no one asks about. No one says, "Are you sure we can afford that war or those 900 military bases?"
Yes. And NYC almost went bankrupt in 1975 and had to slash everything to the bone.
How Bankers & Technocrats Used The 1975 Fiscal Crisis To Permanently Reshape NYC
http://gothamist.com/2017/04/21/fear_city_interview_nyc.php
OK, so do you believe the right course of action back in 1975 was to bail out NYC, but also for NYC to continue with its very generous social services including free college?
That would have just resulted in recurrent bailouts which is not a sustainable situation.
(BTW, I read this book over the winter, I recommend:
https://www.amazon.com/Fear-City-Fiscal-Austerity-Politics/dp/080509525X)
One can have wonderful ideals and vision but at some point the math supersedes everything, and then everyone is screwed -- rich and poor, black and white, Republicans and Democrats, Trump haters and Trump supporters.
And as far as the "Republican government bailing out the bankers", it actually was a bipartisan effort that in retrospect has been acclaimed as a great move that averted an economic collapse.
From
"Even before taking office in January 2009, Obama had signed on to the previous Bush administration's drastic, but politically unpopular, plan to directly infuse up to $700 billion in taxpayer-backed loans into the U.S. banking industry.
Without providing that liquidity, working capital and credit lines to healthy businesses, big and small, would have dried up. That would have translated into no money for producing products, making payroll, hiring vendors, keeping the lights on and nearly anything else you can think of as essential to operating a company and the economy.
Even a short-term credit disruption could have been devastating.
As a Democrat taking over from a Republican administration, Obama could have made a political calculation to let the opposing party stew in its own troubles. Instead, he realized the country was facing an extraordinary financial crisis and that a massive infusion of cold hard cash from the Federal Reserve, which acts as bank lender of last resort, was the fastest way to break the fever."
tjohn said:
drummerboy said: What does that even mean?Times have changed. In 1975, a high school graduate had the ability to get a job that paid well and might lead to a career in some field.
Are you aware that free (or practically free) college was part of our common experience just a few decades ago? My SUNY tuition in '75 was, I believe, less than $400 a semester. City College in NYC was free for the longest time to NYC residents.
Now, we are living in the fantasy world where it is necessary for EVERYBODY to go to college and, if they do, they will magically find good jobs. The reality is that for a lot of people, a more vocational focus makes sense. And by vocational education, I mean a course of education that leads to a particular job ranging from carpenter/electrician/plumber to RN or PA and many others.
Government support for in-demand vocations makes sense to me. Free education in general? Not so much.
Agree 100%.
I think too many kids go to college rather than vocational/trade schools already, and a broad-based "free college" program would exacerbate this. Sure it would help some people who legitimately could use the help, but also I can only imagine the slackers who would opt in for a free ride because they don't know what else to do.
Sign up for some liberal arts basket-weaving courses on Uncle Sam and party it up? Rock on!
CUNY tuition is still relatively affordable, at about $6700 a year. Certainly compared to Rutgers, where tuition is more than double that. Affordable college is certainly achievable. The proposal from Hillary Clinton for "free college" was estimated at roughly $75bn per year. For perspective, the proposed 2019 military budget is almost 10 times that amount.
Our country can absolutely do this, we just don't want to. We'd rather saddle an entire generation with hundreds of billions of dollars in debt, and then blame them as feckless because they are putting off marrying and buying homes longer than previous generations. They're not feckless, they're being responsible and waiting until they get themselves economically stable.
Smedley said:
tjohn said:Agree 100%.
drummerboy said: What does that even mean?Times have changed. In 1975, a high school graduate had the ability to get a job that paid well and might lead to a career in some field.
Are you aware that free (or practically free) college was part of our common experience just a few decades ago? My SUNY tuition in '75 was, I believe, less than $400 a semester. City College in NYC was free for the longest time to NYC residents.
Now, we are living in the fantasy world where it is necessary for EVERYBODY to go to college and, if they do, they will magically find good jobs. The reality is that for a lot of people, a more vocational focus makes sense. And by vocational education, I mean a course of education that leads to a particular job ranging from carpenter/electrician/plumber to RN or PA and many others.
Government support for in-demand vocations makes sense to me. Free education in general? Not so much.
I think too many kids go to college rather than vocational/trade schools already, and a broad-based "free college" program would exacerbate this. Sure it would help some people who legitimately could use the help, but also I can only imagine the slackers who would opt in for a free ride because they don't know what else to do.
Sign up for some liberal arts basket-weaving courses on Uncle Sam and party it up? Rock on!
Um... as someone who went to college for free, you still have to pass that basket-weaving course, or you end up having to pay back your tuition.
nan said:There is PLENTY of money for free college. We are the richest country in the world. Other, much poorer nations provide free college.
One thing to keep in mind when comparing other nations' more subsidized college education is that many of those countries tend to track strictly their students' educational levels, sometimes at a pretty young age, so the free college is limited to those who were placed on the college path several years prior. Here in the U.S. we have the more egalitarian view that "everyone should go to college", which one can debate and discuss at length. I'd be curious to compare what percentage of the population in such countries attend the subsidized colleges against the percentage of kids in the U.S. who attend U.S. colleges.
Don't get me wrong -- I'm all for more state support for college education. But if the trade-off is more tracking and limiting admissions, not so much. Comparing us to other developed countries in this respect may not be a good apples-to-apples comparison.
nan said:
HoBo said:There is PLENTY of money for free college. We are the richest country in the world. Other, much poorer nations provide free college. When Trump asked for a big raise for the military why did no one ask, "Can we afford that? Who is going to pay for that? That's unrealistic!" No one said that and even all the Democrats went and voted yes. They even gave him more money than he asked for. So, let's stop pretending that free college is unrealistic and start demanding it cause the money should stop going to others and start going to us. Trump's last tax giveaway to the rich could have paid for it right there.
LOST said:Free college and a living wage? Sounds great! Unfortunately, among the many reasons that so many people have little faith in the democratic party. Sounds great, but everything is so idealistic and wonderful, but unrealistic and disorganized.
nan said:
Anyway, the best way to win is to have a great platform with the kind of things that Americans want like Medicare for All, free college, support for unions and a living wage.
The U.S. spent $598 billion dollars on the military in 2015.
You could give every graduating high school senior in the U.S. $20,000 and it would cost ~$72 billion. Take that out of the defense budget and we could still spend well over $500 billion a year on the military.
Or you could give every single kid in college $10,000 a year and it would only dent the military budget by a third.
ridski said:
Smedley said:Um... as someone who went to college for free, you still have to pass that basket-weaving course, or you end up having to pay back your tuition.
Sign up for some liberal arts basket-weaving courses on Uncle Sam and party it up? Rock on!
As someone who signed up for liberal arts basket-weaving courses (Intro, Marxist Plaiting, and Gap Stitch Dialectics), I appreciated the time they gave me to think up new cliches. Rocks for Jocks? That was one of mine.
For Sale
Sponsored Business
Promote your business here - Businesses get highlighted throughout the site and you can add a deal.
Free college and a living wage? Sounds great! Unfortunately, among the many reasons that so many people have little faith in the democratic party. Sounds great, but everything is so idealistic and wonderful, but unrealistic and disorganized.