|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On May 20 2015 13:38 darthfoley wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2015 13:02 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 20 2015 12:39 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Sen. Bernie Sanders’ plan for making public college tuition more affordable is relatively straightforward: He wants the government to pay for it. All of it.
On Tuesday, the Democratic presidential candidate and independent senator from Vermont introduced legislation intended to eliminate tuition fees for undergraduates at all public colleges and universities. Annual tuition costs at those institutions add up to roughly $70 billion, according to a fact sheet from Sanders' office. The proposed legislation would require the federal government to compensate for two-thirds of that sum, with the states making up the additional third.
“It is a national disgrace that hundreds of thousands of Americans today do not go to college, not because they are unqualified, but because they cannot afford it,” Sanders said Tuesday at a news conference. “This is absolutely counter-productive to our efforts to create a strong economy and a vibrant middle class. This disgrace has got to end."
College tuition costs have skyrocketed since the middle of the 20th century, rising by 1,120 percent between 1978 and 2012. This has forced each successive generation of students to take on ever-increasing debt: The recently graduated college class of 2015 has an average debt burden of $35,051 per student, the highest of any time in U.S. history.
As a result, college affordability has emerged as a major policy issue in Washington and on the 2016 campaign trail. Hillary Clinton, the presumptive presidential frontrunner in the 2016 Democratic primary, will reportedly soon announce her own plan for mitigating rising student loan debt.
President Barack Obama has tried to get ahead of the issue as well, introducing a proposal in January to offer students two years of free community college. Sanders described that plan as “an important step forward” — but not all that needs to be done.
Sanders’ proposal has little chance of succeeding in Congress, but it provides him with another opportunity to contrast himself with Clinton and potentially to exert some leftward pressure on her campaign platform. Since announcing his presidential run late last month, Sanders has also introduced legislation intended to break up “too big to fail” banks. “Too big to fail” is a delicate issue for Clinton, who is widely perceived to be Wall Street’s favored candidate in the Democratic race. Source As an educator I'll be the first (or millionth, more accurately) to love this idea, but how exactly would the government pay for it? It's really easy to say that the government should be footing the bill the same way that other (much smaller) countries do, but where is the $70 billion going to come from? Has Sanders explained that part? I'd assume that it would come from raising taxes on the super rich, as well as cutting into the defense budget, as GreenHorizons alluded to. One of my best friends dropped out of our costly, prestigious, private liberal arts college after the first year because he didn't have the luxury of "finding himself" while accumulating thousands of student loan debt. He's now taking classes at a local Chicago community college and works at Chipotle. This is an issue that I take personally and I think will resonate with a lot of college students and parents. It's simply abhorrent.
There are much worse stories for students that have to start at the community college level. Even worse if they got suckered into one of those for-profit scams. If it weren't for Obama all those students that got suckered into wyotech would be even more hosed than they are.
Forgive the source (they compiled the information but you can check it on your own) but you can see what the potential Republican candidates thought about scams like Wyotech.
Scott WalkerWisconsin Gov. Scott Walker’s budget contained a proposal to remove oversight of for-profit colleges, which would make it the only state without those protections. It would get rid of the state’s Educational Approval Board, which monitors for-profit colleges and redirect that oversight to the Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection. According to the Capital Times, which interviewed David Dies, the director of the EAB, in about 60 percent of complaints against schools, the school is at fault. The proposal has since been introduced separately from the budget at the governor’s request, with two Republican legislators, Roger Roth and Joan Ballweg, taking the lead. + Show Spoiler +Jeb Bush
Last June, former Florida Governor Jeb Bush was the keynote speaker at a Las Vegas annual convention of the trade association for for-profit colleges, The Association of Private Sector Colleges and Universities. Their members include ITT, Kaplan University, Corinthian Colleges and Career Education Corp. He told the convention that President Barack Obama’s “gainful employment” rule was a “sledgehammer to the entire field of higher education.”
The rule required that to qualify for federal student aid, for-profit colleges would have to show that they prepare students for “gainful employment in a recognized occupation,” and the regulation sought to define this with a debt-to-income ratio.
Mike Huckabee
In 2010, former Governor of Arkansas Mike Huckabee accepted a position as chancellor of Victory University Foundation. Huckabee was also paid for his work at the Significant Federation, which bought Victory University, formerly known as Crichton College, and began running it as a for-profit college.
Ted Cruz
Ted Cruz announced his presidential bid from Liberty University, a private Christian college that has embraced the model of for-profit colleges. Liberty University graduates also have trouble furthering their careers after college, as it is considered one of the “worst value” colleges in the U.S. CollegeFactual reported that the average cost of a degree is $126,000 and that, with an average starting salary of $32,000, graduates would struggle to catch up with the earnings of a high school graduate before mid-career.
Rand Paul
Kentucky Senator Rand Paul hasn’t been very vocal on the issue of for-profit colleges’ responsibilities toward students but he has received money from them in the past. To be fair, however, so did Nancy Pelosi and some other Democrats. But one of Paul’s talking points has been to abolish the U.S. Department of Education, stands in conflict with maintaining oversight of for-profit colleges.
Bobby Jindal
Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal has been one of the most vocal supporters of for-profit schools, opposing the president’s “gainful employment” rule. He wrote in a column for the Washington Examiner, “The first programs to disappear under the ‘gainful employment’ regulations will be the ones that try to give Americans their first rung on the higher education and career ladders … It is tantamount to redlining educational opportunities for low-income and minority youths.”
His brother, Nikesh Jindal, is an attorney at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLC, represents the schools’ association, The Association of Private Sector Colleges and Universities.
For all of his concerns about what he calls liberal elitism and its reduction of opportunities for less-advantaged students, Jindal proposed as much as $300 million in cuts for public colleges and universities. Lousiana State University began the process of filing for “financial exigency,” which essentially means filing for bankruptcy, last week.
Chris Christie
New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie formerly worked with private practice firm Dughi, Hewit & Palatucci, which represented the well known for-profit University of Phoenix. Apollo Group, which owns the University of Phoenix, was a leader in the fight against the “gainful employment” regulation effort by the Obama administration. The Apollo Group has also contributed campaign donations to members of Congress who have sponsored legislation that seeks to block the regulations, like Rubio.
It isn’t just the presidential candidates, and soon-to-be candidates, making their support for for-profit colleges known. Republicans on Capitol Hill, such as, Senator John McCain, Arizona Senator Jeff Flake, and Utah Senator Orrin Hatch, as well as some Democrats, including Florida Rep. Alcee Hastings, have also pushed for legislation seeking “transparency” on gainful employment regulations — legislation that actually sought to meddle in the process.
On May 20 2015 14:34 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2015 12:39 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Sen. Bernie Sanders’ plan for making public college tuition more affordable is relatively straightforward: He wants the government to pay for it. All of it.
On Tuesday, the Democratic presidential candidate and independent senator from Vermont introduced legislation intended to eliminate tuition fees for undergraduates at all public colleges and universities. Annual tuition costs at those institutions add up to roughly $70 billion, according to a fact sheet from Sanders' office. The proposed legislation would require the federal government to compensate for two-thirds of that sum, with the states making up the additional third.
“It is a national disgrace that hundreds of thousands of Americans today do not go to college, not because they are unqualified, but because they cannot afford it,” Sanders said Tuesday at a news conference. “This is absolutely counter-productive to our efforts to create a strong economy and a vibrant middle class. This disgrace has got to end."
College tuition costs have skyrocketed since the middle of the 20th century, rising by 1,120 percent between 1978 and 2012. This has forced each successive generation of students to take on ever-increasing debt: The recently graduated college class of 2015 has an average debt burden of $35,051 per student, the highest of any time in U.S. history.
As a result, college affordability has emerged as a major policy issue in Washington and on the 2016 campaign trail. Hillary Clinton, the presumptive presidential frontrunner in the 2016 Democratic primary, will reportedly soon announce her own plan for mitigating rising student loan debt.
President Barack Obama has tried to get ahead of the issue as well, introducing a proposal in January to offer students two years of free community college. Sanders described that plan as “an important step forward” — but not all that needs to be done.
Sanders’ proposal has little chance of succeeding in Congress, but it provides him with another opportunity to contrast himself with Clinton and potentially to exert some leftward pressure on her campaign platform. Since announcing his presidential run late last month, Sanders has also introduced legislation intended to break up “too big to fail” banks. “Too big to fail” is a delicate issue for Clinton, who is widely perceived to be Wall Street’s favored candidate in the Democratic race. Source I'm laughing at this Sanders guy. If you see an education bubble with skyrocketing tuition costs and stagnant or falling ROI for degrees, the worst thing you can do is to make it free (with seven asterisks). Just look at that average $35,051 per student debt ... anybody even thinking how much a plan of this size would cost? At least he's an avowed socialist (as others have already noted). That's a point in his favor for being up-front with his desires and motivations.
Guess it's good he want's to eliminate the motivation for tuition to grow out of control too. Like stopping for-profit scams schools duping people by telling them they will find them jobs, and then after they are saddled with that massive debt you describe and a semi-useless degree/certification, they find out they were just straight out lying.
I mean he's not calling regulations that say colleges can't do that and actually have to have a decent ROI's on degrees, dumbass names and defending their 'freedom' to scam people and saddle them with that debt you mentioned.
|
On May 20 2015 14:34 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2015 12:39 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Sen. Bernie Sanders’ plan for making public college tuition more affordable is relatively straightforward: He wants the government to pay for it. All of it.
On Tuesday, the Democratic presidential candidate and independent senator from Vermont introduced legislation intended to eliminate tuition fees for undergraduates at all public colleges and universities. Annual tuition costs at those institutions add up to roughly $70 billion, according to a fact sheet from Sanders' office. The proposed legislation would require the federal government to compensate for two-thirds of that sum, with the states making up the additional third.
“It is a national disgrace that hundreds of thousands of Americans today do not go to college, not because they are unqualified, but because they cannot afford it,” Sanders said Tuesday at a news conference. “This is absolutely counter-productive to our efforts to create a strong economy and a vibrant middle class. This disgrace has got to end."
College tuition costs have skyrocketed since the middle of the 20th century, rising by 1,120 percent between 1978 and 2012. This has forced each successive generation of students to take on ever-increasing debt: The recently graduated college class of 2015 has an average debt burden of $35,051 per student, the highest of any time in U.S. history.
As a result, college affordability has emerged as a major policy issue in Washington and on the 2016 campaign trail. Hillary Clinton, the presumptive presidential frontrunner in the 2016 Democratic primary, will reportedly soon announce her own plan for mitigating rising student loan debt.
President Barack Obama has tried to get ahead of the issue as well, introducing a proposal in January to offer students two years of free community college. Sanders described that plan as “an important step forward” — but not all that needs to be done.
Sanders’ proposal has little chance of succeeding in Congress, but it provides him with another opportunity to contrast himself with Clinton and potentially to exert some leftward pressure on her campaign platform. Since announcing his presidential run late last month, Sanders has also introduced legislation intended to break up “too big to fail” banks. “Too big to fail” is a delicate issue for Clinton, who is widely perceived to be Wall Street’s favored candidate in the Democratic race. Source I'm laughing at this Sanders guy. If you see an education bubble with skyrocketing tuition costs and stagnant or falling ROI for degrees, the worst thing you can do is to make it free (with seven asterisks). Just look at that average $35,051 per student debt ... anybody even thinking how much a plan of this size would cost?At least he's an avowed socialist (as others have already noted). That's a point in his favor for being up-front with his desires and motivations.
Well yeah... the article says about $70B annually as of right now. That's a drop in the bucket in terms of military spending.
|
On May 20 2015 14:35 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2015 13:38 darthfoley wrote:On May 20 2015 13:02 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 20 2015 12:39 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Sen. Bernie Sanders’ plan for making public college tuition more affordable is relatively straightforward: He wants the government to pay for it. All of it.
On Tuesday, the Democratic presidential candidate and independent senator from Vermont introduced legislation intended to eliminate tuition fees for undergraduates at all public colleges and universities. Annual tuition costs at those institutions add up to roughly $70 billion, according to a fact sheet from Sanders' office. The proposed legislation would require the federal government to compensate for two-thirds of that sum, with the states making up the additional third.
“It is a national disgrace that hundreds of thousands of Americans today do not go to college, not because they are unqualified, but because they cannot afford it,” Sanders said Tuesday at a news conference. “This is absolutely counter-productive to our efforts to create a strong economy and a vibrant middle class. This disgrace has got to end."
College tuition costs have skyrocketed since the middle of the 20th century, rising by 1,120 percent between 1978 and 2012. This has forced each successive generation of students to take on ever-increasing debt: The recently graduated college class of 2015 has an average debt burden of $35,051 per student, the highest of any time in U.S. history.
As a result, college affordability has emerged as a major policy issue in Washington and on the 2016 campaign trail. Hillary Clinton, the presumptive presidential frontrunner in the 2016 Democratic primary, will reportedly soon announce her own plan for mitigating rising student loan debt.
President Barack Obama has tried to get ahead of the issue as well, introducing a proposal in January to offer students two years of free community college. Sanders described that plan as “an important step forward” — but not all that needs to be done.
Sanders’ proposal has little chance of succeeding in Congress, but it provides him with another opportunity to contrast himself with Clinton and potentially to exert some leftward pressure on her campaign platform. Since announcing his presidential run late last month, Sanders has also introduced legislation intended to break up “too big to fail” banks. “Too big to fail” is a delicate issue for Clinton, who is widely perceived to be Wall Street’s favored candidate in the Democratic race. Source As an educator I'll be the first (or millionth, more accurately) to love this idea, but how exactly would the government pay for it? It's really easy to say that the government should be footing the bill the same way that other (much smaller) countries do, but where is the $70 billion going to come from? Has Sanders explained that part? I'd assume that it would come from raising taxes on the super rich, as well as cutting into the defense budget, as GreenHorizons alluded to. One of my best friends dropped out of our costly, prestigious, private liberal arts college after the first year because he didn't have the luxury of "finding himself" while accumulating thousands of student loan debt. He's now taking classes at a local Chicago community college and works at Chipotle. This is an issue that I take personally and I think will resonate with a lot of college students and parents. It's simply abhorrent. There are much worse stories for students that have to start at the community college level. Even worse if they got suckered into one of those for-profit scams. If it weren't for Obama all those students that got suckered into wyotech would be even more hosed than they are. Forgive the source (they compiled the information but you can check it on your own) but you can see what the potential Republican candidates thought about scams like Wyotech. Show nested quote +Scott WalkerWisconsin Gov. Scott Walker’s budget contained a proposal to remove oversight of for-profit colleges, which would make it the only state without those protections. It would get rid of the state’s Educational Approval Board, which monitors for-profit colleges and redirect that oversight to the Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection. According to the Capital Times, which interviewed David Dies, the director of the EAB, in about 60 percent of complaints against schools, the school is at fault. The proposal has since been introduced separately from the budget at the governor’s request, with two Republican legislators, Roger Roth and Joan Ballweg, taking the lead. + Show Spoiler +Jeb Bush
Last June, former Florida Governor Jeb Bush was the keynote speaker at a Las Vegas annual convention of the trade association for for-profit colleges, The Association of Private Sector Colleges and Universities. Their members include ITT, Kaplan University, Corinthian Colleges and Career Education Corp. He told the convention that President Barack Obama’s “gainful employment” rule was a “sledgehammer to the entire field of higher education.”
The rule required that to qualify for federal student aid, for-profit colleges would have to show that they prepare students for “gainful employment in a recognized occupation,” and the regulation sought to define this with a debt-to-income ratio.
Mike Huckabee
In 2010, former Governor of Arkansas Mike Huckabee accepted a position as chancellor of Victory University Foundation. Huckabee was also paid for his work at the Significant Federation, which bought Victory University, formerly known as Crichton College, and began running it as a for-profit college.
Ted Cruz
Ted Cruz announced his presidential bid from Liberty University, a private Christian college that has embraced the model of for-profit colleges. Liberty University graduates also have trouble furthering their careers after college, as it is considered one of the “worst value” colleges in the U.S. CollegeFactual reported that the average cost of a degree is $126,000 and that, with an average starting salary of $32,000, graduates would struggle to catch up with the earnings of a high school graduate before mid-career.
Rand Paul
Kentucky Senator Rand Paul hasn’t been very vocal on the issue of for-profit colleges’ responsibilities toward students but he has received money from them in the past. To be fair, however, so did Nancy Pelosi and some other Democrats. But one of Paul’s talking points has been to abolish the U.S. Department of Education, stands in conflict with maintaining oversight of for-profit colleges.
Bobby Jindal
Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal has been one of the most vocal supporters of for-profit schools, opposing the president’s “gainful employment” rule. He wrote in a column for the Washington Examiner, “The first programs to disappear under the ‘gainful employment’ regulations will be the ones that try to give Americans their first rung on the higher education and career ladders … It is tantamount to redlining educational opportunities for low-income and minority youths.”
His brother, Nikesh Jindal, is an attorney at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLC, represents the schools’ association, The Association of Private Sector Colleges and Universities.
For all of his concerns about what he calls liberal elitism and its reduction of opportunities for less-advantaged students, Jindal proposed as much as $300 million in cuts for public colleges and universities. Lousiana State University began the process of filing for “financial exigency,” which essentially means filing for bankruptcy, last week.
Chris Christie
New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie formerly worked with private practice firm Dughi, Hewit & Palatucci, which represented the well known for-profit University of Phoenix. Apollo Group, which owns the University of Phoenix, was a leader in the fight against the “gainful employment” regulation effort by the Obama administration. The Apollo Group has also contributed campaign donations to members of Congress who have sponsored legislation that seeks to block the regulations, like Rubio.
It isn’t just the presidential candidates, and soon-to-be candidates, making their support for for-profit colleges known. Republicans on Capitol Hill, such as, Senator John McCain, Arizona Senator Jeff Flake, and Utah Senator Orrin Hatch, as well as some Democrats, including Florida Rep. Alcee Hastings, have also pushed for legislation seeking “transparency” on gainful employment regulations — legislation that actually sought to meddle in the process.
Ughhh I hate the entire business model of for-profit "universities".
There's a list of them here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_for-profit_universities_and_colleges
|
On May 20 2015 14:38 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2015 14:34 Danglars wrote:On May 20 2015 12:39 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Sen. Bernie Sanders’ plan for making public college tuition more affordable is relatively straightforward: He wants the government to pay for it. All of it.
On Tuesday, the Democratic presidential candidate and independent senator from Vermont introduced legislation intended to eliminate tuition fees for undergraduates at all public colleges and universities. Annual tuition costs at those institutions add up to roughly $70 billion, according to a fact sheet from Sanders' office. The proposed legislation would require the federal government to compensate for two-thirds of that sum, with the states making up the additional third.
“It is a national disgrace that hundreds of thousands of Americans today do not go to college, not because they are unqualified, but because they cannot afford it,” Sanders said Tuesday at a news conference. “This is absolutely counter-productive to our efforts to create a strong economy and a vibrant middle class. This disgrace has got to end."
College tuition costs have skyrocketed since the middle of the 20th century, rising by 1,120 percent between 1978 and 2012. This has forced each successive generation of students to take on ever-increasing debt: The recently graduated college class of 2015 has an average debt burden of $35,051 per student, the highest of any time in U.S. history.
As a result, college affordability has emerged as a major policy issue in Washington and on the 2016 campaign trail. Hillary Clinton, the presumptive presidential frontrunner in the 2016 Democratic primary, will reportedly soon announce her own plan for mitigating rising student loan debt.
President Barack Obama has tried to get ahead of the issue as well, introducing a proposal in January to offer students two years of free community college. Sanders described that plan as “an important step forward” — but not all that needs to be done.
Sanders’ proposal has little chance of succeeding in Congress, but it provides him with another opportunity to contrast himself with Clinton and potentially to exert some leftward pressure on her campaign platform. Since announcing his presidential run late last month, Sanders has also introduced legislation intended to break up “too big to fail” banks. “Too big to fail” is a delicate issue for Clinton, who is widely perceived to be Wall Street’s favored candidate in the Democratic race. Source I'm laughing at this Sanders guy. If you see an education bubble with skyrocketing tuition costs and stagnant or falling ROI for degrees, the worst thing you can do is to make it free (with seven asterisks). Just look at that average $35,051 per student debt ... anybody even thinking how much a plan of this size would cost?At least he's an avowed socialist (as others have already noted). That's a point in his favor for being up-front with his desires and motivations. Well yeah... the article says about $70B annually as of right now. That's a drop in the bucket in terms of military spending. The article quotes a fact sheet from Sanders' office. Forgive me if I wait for another source to confirm.
I also don't get all warm and fuzzy cutting military spending to subsidize college education, like others do. And if we're comparing what amounts to a drop in the bucket to military spending, let us remember military spending is a drop in the bucket compared to entitlements. Political fashionability is no substitute for full budget considerations.
|
On May 20 2015 15:42 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2015 14:38 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 20 2015 14:34 Danglars wrote:On May 20 2015 12:39 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Sen. Bernie Sanders’ plan for making public college tuition more affordable is relatively straightforward: He wants the government to pay for it. All of it.
On Tuesday, the Democratic presidential candidate and independent senator from Vermont introduced legislation intended to eliminate tuition fees for undergraduates at all public colleges and universities. Annual tuition costs at those institutions add up to roughly $70 billion, according to a fact sheet from Sanders' office. The proposed legislation would require the federal government to compensate for two-thirds of that sum, with the states making up the additional third.
“It is a national disgrace that hundreds of thousands of Americans today do not go to college, not because they are unqualified, but because they cannot afford it,” Sanders said Tuesday at a news conference. “This is absolutely counter-productive to our efforts to create a strong economy and a vibrant middle class. This disgrace has got to end."
College tuition costs have skyrocketed since the middle of the 20th century, rising by 1,120 percent between 1978 and 2012. This has forced each successive generation of students to take on ever-increasing debt: The recently graduated college class of 2015 has an average debt burden of $35,051 per student, the highest of any time in U.S. history.
As a result, college affordability has emerged as a major policy issue in Washington and on the 2016 campaign trail. Hillary Clinton, the presumptive presidential frontrunner in the 2016 Democratic primary, will reportedly soon announce her own plan for mitigating rising student loan debt.
President Barack Obama has tried to get ahead of the issue as well, introducing a proposal in January to offer students two years of free community college. Sanders described that plan as “an important step forward” — but not all that needs to be done.
Sanders’ proposal has little chance of succeeding in Congress, but it provides him with another opportunity to contrast himself with Clinton and potentially to exert some leftward pressure on her campaign platform. Since announcing his presidential run late last month, Sanders has also introduced legislation intended to break up “too big to fail” banks. “Too big to fail” is a delicate issue for Clinton, who is widely perceived to be Wall Street’s favored candidate in the Democratic race. Source I'm laughing at this Sanders guy. If you see an education bubble with skyrocketing tuition costs and stagnant or falling ROI for degrees, the worst thing you can do is to make it free (with seven asterisks). Just look at that average $35,051 per student debt ... anybody even thinking how much a plan of this size would cost?At least he's an avowed socialist (as others have already noted). That's a point in his favor for being up-front with his desires and motivations. Well yeah... the article says about $70B annually as of right now. That's a drop in the bucket in terms of military spending. The article quotes a fact sheet from Sanders' office. Forgive me if I wait for another source to confirm. I also don't get all warm and fuzzy cutting military spending to subsidize college education, like others do. And if we're comparing what amounts to a drop in the bucket to military spending, let us remember military spending is a drop in the bucket compared to entitlements. Political fashionability is no substitute for full budget considerations.
In 2012 and 2013 it was between 60 and 70 billion, and it has been increasing, according to:
- http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2013/2013183.pdf
- http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/01/heres-exactly-how-much-the-government-would-have-to-spend-to-make-public-college-tuition-free/282803/
- http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2015/01/14/free_college_here_s_how_much_public_college_students_pay_in_tuition.html
- The rest of Google 
|
On May 20 2015 15:42 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2015 14:38 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 20 2015 14:34 Danglars wrote:On May 20 2015 12:39 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Sen. Bernie Sanders’ plan for making public college tuition more affordable is relatively straightforward: He wants the government to pay for it. All of it.
On Tuesday, the Democratic presidential candidate and independent senator from Vermont introduced legislation intended to eliminate tuition fees for undergraduates at all public colleges and universities. Annual tuition costs at those institutions add up to roughly $70 billion, according to a fact sheet from Sanders' office. The proposed legislation would require the federal government to compensate for two-thirds of that sum, with the states making up the additional third.
“It is a national disgrace that hundreds of thousands of Americans today do not go to college, not because they are unqualified, but because they cannot afford it,” Sanders said Tuesday at a news conference. “This is absolutely counter-productive to our efforts to create a strong economy and a vibrant middle class. This disgrace has got to end."
College tuition costs have skyrocketed since the middle of the 20th century, rising by 1,120 percent between 1978 and 2012. This has forced each successive generation of students to take on ever-increasing debt: The recently graduated college class of 2015 has an average debt burden of $35,051 per student, the highest of any time in U.S. history.
As a result, college affordability has emerged as a major policy issue in Washington and on the 2016 campaign trail. Hillary Clinton, the presumptive presidential frontrunner in the 2016 Democratic primary, will reportedly soon announce her own plan for mitigating rising student loan debt.
President Barack Obama has tried to get ahead of the issue as well, introducing a proposal in January to offer students two years of free community college. Sanders described that plan as “an important step forward” — but not all that needs to be done.
Sanders’ proposal has little chance of succeeding in Congress, but it provides him with another opportunity to contrast himself with Clinton and potentially to exert some leftward pressure on her campaign platform. Since announcing his presidential run late last month, Sanders has also introduced legislation intended to break up “too big to fail” banks. “Too big to fail” is a delicate issue for Clinton, who is widely perceived to be Wall Street’s favored candidate in the Democratic race. Source I'm laughing at this Sanders guy. If you see an education bubble with skyrocketing tuition costs and stagnant or falling ROI for degrees, the worst thing you can do is to make it free (with seven asterisks). Just look at that average $35,051 per student debt ... anybody even thinking how much a plan of this size would cost?At least he's an avowed socialist (as others have already noted). That's a point in his favor for being up-front with his desires and motivations. Well yeah... the article says about $70B annually as of right now. That's a drop in the bucket in terms of military spending. The article quotes a fact sheet from Sanders' office. Forgive me if I wait for another source to confirm. I also don't get all warm and fuzzy cutting military spending to subsidize college education, like others do. And if we're comparing what amounts to a drop in the bucket to military spending, let us remember military spending is a drop in the bucket compared to entitlements. Political fashionability is no substitute for full budget considerations.
I think the point being people are done with empty arguments from the right like "we can't afford it", "it's a job killer", etc... Particularly when we have evidence of them not being true or they just sound like bs.
Minimum wage increases come to mind.
In this case the "can't afford it" lines are bs. It's a matter of priorities and responsibility. A pretty easy way to pay for it would be to tie it to a change in social security and shit for the people who would directly benefit. Any changes are always for people 55 and under anyway, make a change for people 35 or under or even younger. So in exchange for free college for them/their kids and the rest of the generations to come, they agree to accept some reasonable reforms to social security when they get older.
They are already skeptical as shit it will exist at all so it wouldn't be hard to get them to bargain it away. If it works well, they won't even need SS as much and more changes can be made when the younger ones reach the 55ish range.
|
On May 20 2015 15:42 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2015 14:38 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 20 2015 14:34 Danglars wrote:On May 20 2015 12:39 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Sen. Bernie Sanders’ plan for making public college tuition more affordable is relatively straightforward: He wants the government to pay for it. All of it.
On Tuesday, the Democratic presidential candidate and independent senator from Vermont introduced legislation intended to eliminate tuition fees for undergraduates at all public colleges and universities. Annual tuition costs at those institutions add up to roughly $70 billion, according to a fact sheet from Sanders' office. The proposed legislation would require the federal government to compensate for two-thirds of that sum, with the states making up the additional third.
“It is a national disgrace that hundreds of thousands of Americans today do not go to college, not because they are unqualified, but because they cannot afford it,” Sanders said Tuesday at a news conference. “This is absolutely counter-productive to our efforts to create a strong economy and a vibrant middle class. This disgrace has got to end."
College tuition costs have skyrocketed since the middle of the 20th century, rising by 1,120 percent between 1978 and 2012. This has forced each successive generation of students to take on ever-increasing debt: The recently graduated college class of 2015 has an average debt burden of $35,051 per student, the highest of any time in U.S. history.
As a result, college affordability has emerged as a major policy issue in Washington and on the 2016 campaign trail. Hillary Clinton, the presumptive presidential frontrunner in the 2016 Democratic primary, will reportedly soon announce her own plan for mitigating rising student loan debt.
President Barack Obama has tried to get ahead of the issue as well, introducing a proposal in January to offer students two years of free community college. Sanders described that plan as “an important step forward” — but not all that needs to be done.
Sanders’ proposal has little chance of succeeding in Congress, but it provides him with another opportunity to contrast himself with Clinton and potentially to exert some leftward pressure on her campaign platform. Since announcing his presidential run late last month, Sanders has also introduced legislation intended to break up “too big to fail” banks. “Too big to fail” is a delicate issue for Clinton, who is widely perceived to be Wall Street’s favored candidate in the Democratic race. Source I'm laughing at this Sanders guy. If you see an education bubble with skyrocketing tuition costs and stagnant or falling ROI for degrees, the worst thing you can do is to make it free (with seven asterisks). Just look at that average $35,051 per student debt ... anybody even thinking how much a plan of this size would cost?At least he's an avowed socialist (as others have already noted). That's a point in his favor for being up-front with his desires and motivations. Well yeah... the article says about $70B annually as of right now. That's a drop in the bucket in terms of military spending. The article quotes a fact sheet from Sanders' office. Forgive me if I wait for another source to confirm. I also don't get all warm and fuzzy cutting military spending to subsidize college education, like others do. And if we're comparing what amounts to a drop in the bucket to military spending, let us remember military spending is a drop in the bucket compared to entitlements. Political fashionability is no substitute for full budget considerations.
Military spending should probably be slashed heavily regardless of where those funds are funneled into. Between the Military and Healthcare the US is horribly bad at efficiency and are definitely seeing a large amount of diminishing returns.
|
On May 20 2015 16:15 Slaughter wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2015 15:42 Danglars wrote:On May 20 2015 14:38 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 20 2015 14:34 Danglars wrote:On May 20 2015 12:39 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Sen. Bernie Sanders’ plan for making public college tuition more affordable is relatively straightforward: He wants the government to pay for it. All of it.
On Tuesday, the Democratic presidential candidate and independent senator from Vermont introduced legislation intended to eliminate tuition fees for undergraduates at all public colleges and universities. Annual tuition costs at those institutions add up to roughly $70 billion, according to a fact sheet from Sanders' office. The proposed legislation would require the federal government to compensate for two-thirds of that sum, with the states making up the additional third.
“It is a national disgrace that hundreds of thousands of Americans today do not go to college, not because they are unqualified, but because they cannot afford it,” Sanders said Tuesday at a news conference. “This is absolutely counter-productive to our efforts to create a strong economy and a vibrant middle class. This disgrace has got to end."
College tuition costs have skyrocketed since the middle of the 20th century, rising by 1,120 percent between 1978 and 2012. This has forced each successive generation of students to take on ever-increasing debt: The recently graduated college class of 2015 has an average debt burden of $35,051 per student, the highest of any time in U.S. history.
As a result, college affordability has emerged as a major policy issue in Washington and on the 2016 campaign trail. Hillary Clinton, the presumptive presidential frontrunner in the 2016 Democratic primary, will reportedly soon announce her own plan for mitigating rising student loan debt.
President Barack Obama has tried to get ahead of the issue as well, introducing a proposal in January to offer students two years of free community college. Sanders described that plan as “an important step forward” — but not all that needs to be done.
Sanders’ proposal has little chance of succeeding in Congress, but it provides him with another opportunity to contrast himself with Clinton and potentially to exert some leftward pressure on her campaign platform. Since announcing his presidential run late last month, Sanders has also introduced legislation intended to break up “too big to fail” banks. “Too big to fail” is a delicate issue for Clinton, who is widely perceived to be Wall Street’s favored candidate in the Democratic race. Source I'm laughing at this Sanders guy. If you see an education bubble with skyrocketing tuition costs and stagnant or falling ROI for degrees, the worst thing you can do is to make it free (with seven asterisks). Just look at that average $35,051 per student debt ... anybody even thinking how much a plan of this size would cost?At least he's an avowed socialist (as others have already noted). That's a point in his favor for being up-front with his desires and motivations. Well yeah... the article says about $70B annually as of right now. That's a drop in the bucket in terms of military spending. The article quotes a fact sheet from Sanders' office. Forgive me if I wait for another source to confirm. I also don't get all warm and fuzzy cutting military spending to subsidize college education, like others do. And if we're comparing what amounts to a drop in the bucket to military spending, let us remember military spending is a drop in the bucket compared to entitlements. Political fashionability is no substitute for full budget considerations. Military spending should probably be slashed heavily regardless of where those funds are funneled into. Between the Military and Healthcare the US is horribly bad at efficiency and are definitely seeing a large amount of diminishing returns.
you can cut military down to a mere 1% and pour the rest into healthcare and education but all that money will just go straight into the administrators', insurance companies' and bureaucrats' pockets.
First step is we need to eliminate the stupid and unnecessary health care insurance industrial complex.
|
On May 20 2015 22:24 ref4 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2015 16:15 Slaughter wrote:On May 20 2015 15:42 Danglars wrote:On May 20 2015 14:38 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 20 2015 14:34 Danglars wrote:On May 20 2015 12:39 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Sen. Bernie Sanders’ plan for making public college tuition more affordable is relatively straightforward: He wants the government to pay for it. All of it.
On Tuesday, the Democratic presidential candidate and independent senator from Vermont introduced legislation intended to eliminate tuition fees for undergraduates at all public colleges and universities. Annual tuition costs at those institutions add up to roughly $70 billion, according to a fact sheet from Sanders' office. The proposed legislation would require the federal government to compensate for two-thirds of that sum, with the states making up the additional third.
“It is a national disgrace that hundreds of thousands of Americans today do not go to college, not because they are unqualified, but because they cannot afford it,” Sanders said Tuesday at a news conference. “This is absolutely counter-productive to our efforts to create a strong economy and a vibrant middle class. This disgrace has got to end."
College tuition costs have skyrocketed since the middle of the 20th century, rising by 1,120 percent between 1978 and 2012. This has forced each successive generation of students to take on ever-increasing debt: The recently graduated college class of 2015 has an average debt burden of $35,051 per student, the highest of any time in U.S. history.
As a result, college affordability has emerged as a major policy issue in Washington and on the 2016 campaign trail. Hillary Clinton, the presumptive presidential frontrunner in the 2016 Democratic primary, will reportedly soon announce her own plan for mitigating rising student loan debt.
President Barack Obama has tried to get ahead of the issue as well, introducing a proposal in January to offer students two years of free community college. Sanders described that plan as “an important step forward” — but not all that needs to be done.
Sanders’ proposal has little chance of succeeding in Congress, but it provides him with another opportunity to contrast himself with Clinton and potentially to exert some leftward pressure on her campaign platform. Since announcing his presidential run late last month, Sanders has also introduced legislation intended to break up “too big to fail” banks. “Too big to fail” is a delicate issue for Clinton, who is widely perceived to be Wall Street’s favored candidate in the Democratic race. Source I'm laughing at this Sanders guy. If you see an education bubble with skyrocketing tuition costs and stagnant or falling ROI for degrees, the worst thing you can do is to make it free (with seven asterisks). Just look at that average $35,051 per student debt ... anybody even thinking how much a plan of this size would cost?At least he's an avowed socialist (as others have already noted). That's a point in his favor for being up-front with his desires and motivations. Well yeah... the article says about $70B annually as of right now. That's a drop in the bucket in terms of military spending. The article quotes a fact sheet from Sanders' office. Forgive me if I wait for another source to confirm. I also don't get all warm and fuzzy cutting military spending to subsidize college education, like others do. And if we're comparing what amounts to a drop in the bucket to military spending, let us remember military spending is a drop in the bucket compared to entitlements. Political fashionability is no substitute for full budget considerations. Military spending should probably be slashed heavily regardless of where those funds are funneled into. Between the Military and Healthcare the US is horribly bad at efficiency and are definitely seeing a large amount of diminishing returns. you can cut military down to a mere 1% and pour the rest into healthcare and education but all that money will just go straight into the administrators', insurance companies' and bureaucrats' pockets. First step is we need to eliminate the stupid and unnecessary health care insurance industrial complex.
and replace it with what?
|
On May 20 2015 22:31 puerk wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2015 22:24 ref4 wrote:On May 20 2015 16:15 Slaughter wrote:On May 20 2015 15:42 Danglars wrote:On May 20 2015 14:38 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 20 2015 14:34 Danglars wrote:On May 20 2015 12:39 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Sen. Bernie Sanders’ plan for making public college tuition more affordable is relatively straightforward: He wants the government to pay for it. All of it.
On Tuesday, the Democratic presidential candidate and independent senator from Vermont introduced legislation intended to eliminate tuition fees for undergraduates at all public colleges and universities. Annual tuition costs at those institutions add up to roughly $70 billion, according to a fact sheet from Sanders' office. The proposed legislation would require the federal government to compensate for two-thirds of that sum, with the states making up the additional third.
“It is a national disgrace that hundreds of thousands of Americans today do not go to college, not because they are unqualified, but because they cannot afford it,” Sanders said Tuesday at a news conference. “This is absolutely counter-productive to our efforts to create a strong economy and a vibrant middle class. This disgrace has got to end."
College tuition costs have skyrocketed since the middle of the 20th century, rising by 1,120 percent between 1978 and 2012. This has forced each successive generation of students to take on ever-increasing debt: The recently graduated college class of 2015 has an average debt burden of $35,051 per student, the highest of any time in U.S. history.
As a result, college affordability has emerged as a major policy issue in Washington and on the 2016 campaign trail. Hillary Clinton, the presumptive presidential frontrunner in the 2016 Democratic primary, will reportedly soon announce her own plan for mitigating rising student loan debt.
President Barack Obama has tried to get ahead of the issue as well, introducing a proposal in January to offer students two years of free community college. Sanders described that plan as “an important step forward” — but not all that needs to be done.
Sanders’ proposal has little chance of succeeding in Congress, but it provides him with another opportunity to contrast himself with Clinton and potentially to exert some leftward pressure on her campaign platform. Since announcing his presidential run late last month, Sanders has also introduced legislation intended to break up “too big to fail” banks. “Too big to fail” is a delicate issue for Clinton, who is widely perceived to be Wall Street’s favored candidate in the Democratic race. Source I'm laughing at this Sanders guy. If you see an education bubble with skyrocketing tuition costs and stagnant or falling ROI for degrees, the worst thing you can do is to make it free (with seven asterisks). Just look at that average $35,051 per student debt ... anybody even thinking how much a plan of this size would cost?At least he's an avowed socialist (as others have already noted). That's a point in his favor for being up-front with his desires and motivations. Well yeah... the article says about $70B annually as of right now. That's a drop in the bucket in terms of military spending. The article quotes a fact sheet from Sanders' office. Forgive me if I wait for another source to confirm. I also don't get all warm and fuzzy cutting military spending to subsidize college education, like others do. And if we're comparing what amounts to a drop in the bucket to military spending, let us remember military spending is a drop in the bucket compared to entitlements. Political fashionability is no substitute for full budget considerations. Military spending should probably be slashed heavily regardless of where those funds are funneled into. Between the Military and Healthcare the US is horribly bad at efficiency and are definitely seeing a large amount of diminishing returns. you can cut military down to a mere 1% and pour the rest into healthcare and education but all that money will just go straight into the administrators', insurance companies' and bureaucrats' pockets. First step is we need to eliminate the stupid and unnecessary health care insurance industrial complex. and replace it with what?
you guys seem to do fine without health insurances so we'll follow your steps.
|
On May 20 2015 22:36 ref4 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2015 22:31 puerk wrote:On May 20 2015 22:24 ref4 wrote:On May 20 2015 16:15 Slaughter wrote:On May 20 2015 15:42 Danglars wrote:On May 20 2015 14:38 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 20 2015 14:34 Danglars wrote:On May 20 2015 12:39 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Sen. Bernie Sanders’ plan for making public college tuition more affordable is relatively straightforward: He wants the government to pay for it. All of it.
On Tuesday, the Democratic presidential candidate and independent senator from Vermont introduced legislation intended to eliminate tuition fees for undergraduates at all public colleges and universities. Annual tuition costs at those institutions add up to roughly $70 billion, according to a fact sheet from Sanders' office. The proposed legislation would require the federal government to compensate for two-thirds of that sum, with the states making up the additional third.
“It is a national disgrace that hundreds of thousands of Americans today do not go to college, not because they are unqualified, but because they cannot afford it,” Sanders said Tuesday at a news conference. “This is absolutely counter-productive to our efforts to create a strong economy and a vibrant middle class. This disgrace has got to end."
College tuition costs have skyrocketed since the middle of the 20th century, rising by 1,120 percent between 1978 and 2012. This has forced each successive generation of students to take on ever-increasing debt: The recently graduated college class of 2015 has an average debt burden of $35,051 per student, the highest of any time in U.S. history.
As a result, college affordability has emerged as a major policy issue in Washington and on the 2016 campaign trail. Hillary Clinton, the presumptive presidential frontrunner in the 2016 Democratic primary, will reportedly soon announce her own plan for mitigating rising student loan debt.
President Barack Obama has tried to get ahead of the issue as well, introducing a proposal in January to offer students two years of free community college. Sanders described that plan as “an important step forward” — but not all that needs to be done.
Sanders’ proposal has little chance of succeeding in Congress, but it provides him with another opportunity to contrast himself with Clinton and potentially to exert some leftward pressure on her campaign platform. Since announcing his presidential run late last month, Sanders has also introduced legislation intended to break up “too big to fail” banks. “Too big to fail” is a delicate issue for Clinton, who is widely perceived to be Wall Street’s favored candidate in the Democratic race. Source I'm laughing at this Sanders guy. If you see an education bubble with skyrocketing tuition costs and stagnant or falling ROI for degrees, the worst thing you can do is to make it free (with seven asterisks). Just look at that average $35,051 per student debt ... anybody even thinking how much a plan of this size would cost?At least he's an avowed socialist (as others have already noted). That's a point in his favor for being up-front with his desires and motivations. Well yeah... the article says about $70B annually as of right now. That's a drop in the bucket in terms of military spending. The article quotes a fact sheet from Sanders' office. Forgive me if I wait for another source to confirm. I also don't get all warm and fuzzy cutting military spending to subsidize college education, like others do. And if we're comparing what amounts to a drop in the bucket to military spending, let us remember military spending is a drop in the bucket compared to entitlements. Political fashionability is no substitute for full budget considerations. Military spending should probably be slashed heavily regardless of where those funds are funneled into. Between the Military and Healthcare the US is horribly bad at efficiency and are definitely seeing a large amount of diminishing returns. you can cut military down to a mere 1% and pour the rest into healthcare and education but all that money will just go straight into the administrators', insurance companies' and bureaucrats' pockets. First step is we need to eliminate the stupid and unnecessary health care insurance industrial complex. and replace it with what? you guys seem to do fine without health insurances so we'll follow your steps.
wait what? who is you guys?
Germany has mandatory health insurance for over 120 years now.....
|
He means whiteout privately run for profit insurance companies.
|
We also have those but most are private non profit.
|
On May 20 2015 22:40 puerk wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2015 22:36 ref4 wrote:On May 20 2015 22:31 puerk wrote:On May 20 2015 22:24 ref4 wrote:On May 20 2015 16:15 Slaughter wrote:On May 20 2015 15:42 Danglars wrote:On May 20 2015 14:38 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 20 2015 14:34 Danglars wrote:On May 20 2015 12:39 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Sen. Bernie Sanders’ plan for making public college tuition more affordable is relatively straightforward: He wants the government to pay for it. All of it.
On Tuesday, the Democratic presidential candidate and independent senator from Vermont introduced legislation intended to eliminate tuition fees for undergraduates at all public colleges and universities. Annual tuition costs at those institutions add up to roughly $70 billion, according to a fact sheet from Sanders' office. The proposed legislation would require the federal government to compensate for two-thirds of that sum, with the states making up the additional third.
“It is a national disgrace that hundreds of thousands of Americans today do not go to college, not because they are unqualified, but because they cannot afford it,” Sanders said Tuesday at a news conference. “This is absolutely counter-productive to our efforts to create a strong economy and a vibrant middle class. This disgrace has got to end."
College tuition costs have skyrocketed since the middle of the 20th century, rising by 1,120 percent between 1978 and 2012. This has forced each successive generation of students to take on ever-increasing debt: The recently graduated college class of 2015 has an average debt burden of $35,051 per student, the highest of any time in U.S. history.
As a result, college affordability has emerged as a major policy issue in Washington and on the 2016 campaign trail. Hillary Clinton, the presumptive presidential frontrunner in the 2016 Democratic primary, will reportedly soon announce her own plan for mitigating rising student loan debt.
President Barack Obama has tried to get ahead of the issue as well, introducing a proposal in January to offer students two years of free community college. Sanders described that plan as “an important step forward” — but not all that needs to be done.
Sanders’ proposal has little chance of succeeding in Congress, but it provides him with another opportunity to contrast himself with Clinton and potentially to exert some leftward pressure on her campaign platform. Since announcing his presidential run late last month, Sanders has also introduced legislation intended to break up “too big to fail” banks. “Too big to fail” is a delicate issue for Clinton, who is widely perceived to be Wall Street’s favored candidate in the Democratic race. Source I'm laughing at this Sanders guy. If you see an education bubble with skyrocketing tuition costs and stagnant or falling ROI for degrees, the worst thing you can do is to make it free (with seven asterisks). Just look at that average $35,051 per student debt ... anybody even thinking how much a plan of this size would cost?At least he's an avowed socialist (as others have already noted). That's a point in his favor for being up-front with his desires and motivations. Well yeah... the article says about $70B annually as of right now. That's a drop in the bucket in terms of military spending. The article quotes a fact sheet from Sanders' office. Forgive me if I wait for another source to confirm. I also don't get all warm and fuzzy cutting military spending to subsidize college education, like others do. And if we're comparing what amounts to a drop in the bucket to military spending, let us remember military spending is a drop in the bucket compared to entitlements. Political fashionability is no substitute for full budget considerations. Military spending should probably be slashed heavily regardless of where those funds are funneled into. Between the Military and Healthcare the US is horribly bad at efficiency and are definitely seeing a large amount of diminishing returns. you can cut military down to a mere 1% and pour the rest into healthcare and education but all that money will just go straight into the administrators', insurance companies' and bureaucrats' pockets. First step is we need to eliminate the stupid and unnecessary health care insurance industrial complex. and replace it with what? you guys seem to do fine without health insurances so we'll follow your steps. wait what? who is you guys? Germany has mandatory health insurance for over 120 years now.....
oh sorry I meant like UK's system, or European countries that uses the government as the sole financier of health care instead of health insurance companies.
|
On May 20 2015 22:45 ref4 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2015 22:40 puerk wrote:On May 20 2015 22:36 ref4 wrote:On May 20 2015 22:31 puerk wrote:On May 20 2015 22:24 ref4 wrote:On May 20 2015 16:15 Slaughter wrote:On May 20 2015 15:42 Danglars wrote:On May 20 2015 14:38 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 20 2015 14:34 Danglars wrote:On May 20 2015 12:39 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:[quote] Source I'm laughing at this Sanders guy. If you see an education bubble with skyrocketing tuition costs and stagnant or falling ROI for degrees, the worst thing you can do is to make it free (with seven asterisks). Just look at that average $35,051 per student debt ... anybody even thinking how much a plan of this size would cost?At least he's an avowed socialist (as others have already noted). That's a point in his favor for being up-front with his desires and motivations. Well yeah... the article says about $70B annually as of right now. That's a drop in the bucket in terms of military spending. The article quotes a fact sheet from Sanders' office. Forgive me if I wait for another source to confirm. I also don't get all warm and fuzzy cutting military spending to subsidize college education, like others do. And if we're comparing what amounts to a drop in the bucket to military spending, let us remember military spending is a drop in the bucket compared to entitlements. Political fashionability is no substitute for full budget considerations. Military spending should probably be slashed heavily regardless of where those funds are funneled into. Between the Military and Healthcare the US is horribly bad at efficiency and are definitely seeing a large amount of diminishing returns. you can cut military down to a mere 1% and pour the rest into healthcare and education but all that money will just go straight into the administrators', insurance companies' and bureaucrats' pockets. First step is we need to eliminate the stupid and unnecessary health care insurance industrial complex. and replace it with what? you guys seem to do fine without health insurances so we'll follow your steps. wait what? who is you guys? Germany has mandatory health insurance for over 120 years now..... oh sorry I meant like UK's system, or European countries that uses the government as the sole financier of health care instead of health insurance companies.
Europe is not homogeneous. Many different healthcare approaches exist, and almost all are better than the US system. To my knowledge the German one seems to be closest to yours in implementability.
But from the rest of your posts i would not have thought that you wanted to go full socialized medicine, that is why i asked.
|
On May 20 2015 22:51 puerk wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2015 22:45 ref4 wrote:On May 20 2015 22:40 puerk wrote:On May 20 2015 22:36 ref4 wrote:On May 20 2015 22:31 puerk wrote:On May 20 2015 22:24 ref4 wrote:On May 20 2015 16:15 Slaughter wrote:On May 20 2015 15:42 Danglars wrote:On May 20 2015 14:38 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 20 2015 14:34 Danglars wrote:
[quote]
I'm laughing at this Sanders guy. If you see an education bubble with skyrocketing tuition costs and stagnant or falling ROI for degrees, the worst thing you can do is to make it free (with seven asterisks). Just look at that average $35,051 per student debt ... anybody even thinking how much a plan of this size would cost?
At least he's an avowed socialist (as others have already noted). That's a point in his favor for being up-front with his desires and motivations. Well yeah... the article says about $70B annually as of right now. That's a drop in the bucket in terms of military spending. The article quotes a fact sheet from Sanders' office. Forgive me if I wait for another source to confirm. I also don't get all warm and fuzzy cutting military spending to subsidize college education, like others do. And if we're comparing what amounts to a drop in the bucket to military spending, let us remember military spending is a drop in the bucket compared to entitlements. Political fashionability is no substitute for full budget considerations. Military spending should probably be slashed heavily regardless of where those funds are funneled into. Between the Military and Healthcare the US is horribly bad at efficiency and are definitely seeing a large amount of diminishing returns. you can cut military down to a mere 1% and pour the rest into healthcare and education but all that money will just go straight into the administrators', insurance companies' and bureaucrats' pockets. First step is we need to eliminate the stupid and unnecessary health care insurance industrial complex. and replace it with what? you guys seem to do fine without health insurances so we'll follow your steps. wait what? who is you guys? Germany has mandatory health insurance for over 120 years now..... oh sorry I meant like UK's system, or European countries that uses the government as the sole financier of health care instead of health insurance companies. Europe is not homogeneous. Many different healthcare approaches exist, and almost all are better than the US system. To my knowledge the German one seems to be closest to yours in implementability. But from the rest of your posts i would not have thought that you wanted to go full socialized medicine, that is why i asked.
ha! I would rather pay my government the $80-100 each month that I am paying my shitty insurance company right now and have my government cover all my procedures for full instead of having shitty deductibles.
I am all for small government but I hate and distrust insurance companies even more.
|
Last summer, two Republican-appointed federal judges ruled, against the furious dissent of the Democratic appointee, in favor of what had theretofore been viewed as an outlandish lawsuit designed to blow up Obamacare. The unexpected progress of the lawsuit, hatched by anti-Obamacare activists at a right-wing think tank, filled conservatives with sudden Schadenfreude. They had lost every previous opportunity to finish off universal health care: a 2009 vote in the House, a 2009 vote in the Senate, another 2010 House vote, and, in 2012, both a lawsuit and a presidential election. Now they had yet another chance to drive a stake through the hated centerpiece of Barack Obama’s domestic legacy.
Next month, the Supreme Court will rule on King v. Burwell. If all five Republican appointees support the plaintiffs (there’s no chance any of the Democrat-appointed justices will take the lawsuit seriously), some 7 million Americans will quickly lose their insurance. The prospect that this will occur has induced a wave of panic — not among the customers at risk of losing their insurance, who seem largely unaware, nor even among Obamacare’s Democratic supporters, but among Republicans. The chaos their lawsuit would unleash might blow back in a way few Republicans had considered until recently, and now, on the eve of a possible triumph, they find themselves scrambling to contain the damage. It is dawning on the Grand Old Party that snatching health insurance away from millions of helpless victims is not quite as rewarding as expected.
Unlike the Obamacare lawsuit that failed three years ago, the latest case is not based on a radical legal theory. Instead it is based on a novel reading of legislative history. The law allows states to set up their own exchanges to sell insurance to those who don’t have it through employer coverage, Medicare, or Medicaid. If states don’t establish an exchange, the federal government sets one up for them and, as it does with the state exchanges, offers customers tax credits. The trouble is that the law authorizing tax credits defines the exchange as “established by the state.” This ambiguity — does “by the state” not also mean the federal government? — was a technical omission. Many other parts of the law indicate its intent to make tax credits available to customers on the federal and the state exchanges alike.
Source
|
On May 20 2015 02:17 Wolfstan wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2015 01:47 Stratos_speAr wrote:On May 20 2015 01:32 Wolfstan wrote:On May 19 2015 22:00 farvacola wrote:On May 19 2015 21:52 MtlGuitarist97 wrote:On May 19 2015 21:06 farvacola wrote:
So tell me, why isn't it a good idea? Do you think it has a chance of getting passed or helping him gain voter support? I honestly don't think it will do either of those and would drive away some of the less leftist voters. I don't like Hillary much and I'd rather vote for Sanders in a heartbeat, but if Sanders makes it so that he has no shot of winning and just ends up stealing votes from Hillary as a third party candidate (I believe he has stated that if he doesn't win the primary he will run as an independent), it wouldn't really help anybody. It doesn't have a chance to pass, really, but I do think that an intelligent discussion of why countries like Germany are straight up better at educating their citizens for less money can do a lot to swing voters towards assisting students, which, I'll add, are a bigger and bigger demographic every day. Students and those sympathetic to their plight were and are a big part of the Democratic ground floor. So throwing more of other people's money at it is the solution? 3 things I'd like to see are: Move education into state jurisdiction up from counties and down from federal. Discourage unmarketable degrees like art history majors and encourage trades.Spending on college sports is a huge misallocation of resources. Implement reforms along those lines and wait for data before proceeding. Unfortunately, this is a generational problem where solutions implemented will not be seen for decades, thus there is little political willpower to implement solutions. The bold part is such an incredibly annoying stereotype that floats around traditional conservative circles. These "useless" majors (art history, gender studies, etc.) are not anywhere near the most popular degrees at most institutions. http://college.usatoday.com/2014/10/26/same-as-it-ever-was-top-10-most-popular-college-majors/http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2014/05/09/310114739/whats-your-major-four-decades-of-college-degrees-in-1-graphThe most popular degrees continue to be business, science, and healthcare-related. The most popular humanities degrees, English and History, are both incredibly useful in a wide variety of settings. The idea that students are getting too many "useless" degrees is a myth that is used as a lazy excuse to explain away the debt and employment problems that college graduates are facing because people don't want to face the reality of the situation. I am obviously pro-education and agree with you that the vast majority of degrees are a value added investment. Still, reducing the few who do enter the workforce with crippling student debt with very little earnings premium is only a part of the solution. The problem with English, History and similar degrees is a supply and demand one. Upon graduation, they are all chasing the same education jobs putting downward pressure on salaries. It also leads to bad teachers, but that's another issue entirely.
English, History, and Philosophy all actually have very positive outlooks coming out of college. The writing/research/speaking/communication skills that these degrees give you go a LONG way towards getting jobs in law, business, politics, etc.
You're alluding to the extremely niche degrees, like art history, gender studies, etc. However, pretty much any degree has significant cultural value (unless your degree is in something that complete bullshit; e.g. a bogus degree so that you can just play college football). The problem is that we just need to reduce the cost of college. Period. There's no excuse when so many other countries in the world are able to make it so much more affordable and still have the same quality of education.
I'm going to be honest, one of the reasons the arts/liberal arts parts of a college education have been so devalued is because of the ridiculous partisanship among professors, and how badly that bleeds into their curriculum.
This is, again, an overblown stereotype. I got my bachelor's from a private, liberal arts institution, and I am now at a prestigious, liberal public research university in a very liberal urban area, and I have never seen this and it's never been a problem except for one class; my macroeconomics class.
It's not about forcing, it's about providing options. I mean, how many vocational training was introduced to you while you were in high school? The closest thing I could think about was a livestock and farm training course in another high school in my district.
A lot.
Now this highlights a problem; you guys keep talking about how our public education is shit. However, I had fantastic public education, and every public school in my area is pretty damn great. We also have a couple awesome community colleges in the area.
The problem is the disparity. Some parts of the country have really shitty public education, and some have great education. It's like gambling with your child's future based on where you raise them.
|
American college students represent America's future upper class. The only demographic better off than college graduates in America today will be college graduates in America's future. These are the last people who need government subsidies. If the degrees they are earning are not "scams" and actually lead to the good jobs that they should, then they should have no trouble paying off $40K in debt. I cannot imagine any moral argument for denying benefits to the poor to subsidize the future upper class.
|
On May 20 2015 08:23 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2015 08:04 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 20 2015 07:37 cLutZ wrote:On May 20 2015 07:24 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 20 2015 07:14 cLutZ wrote:
Just FYI, it's free to take tons of university courses so long as you don't care about the " piece of paper " at the end. You look up the schedule and sit down.
People don't do that because they aren't worth the time if you aren't getting the future increases in earnings as a result of graduating. Would it theoretically be that hard to assess peoples ability to have acquired and properly learned the coursework as if they had attended an accredited university? Would it be so bad to offer people a lower cost version than even online coursework which just made the coursework information available and people could go through it as fast or slow as they want and then assess whether they got it or not? Assessments don't have to be limited to multiple choice type tests either. You could basically only be paying for the part of someone reviewing your work and assessing it. People who hate bureaucracy and people who want more access to education should be able to find common ground there? Well, in the United States, it would be. A big part of the higher education boom over the last 30-40 years is due to the fact that employers aren't really allowed to give tests to applicants in the way you are describing due to the way the civil rights employment law has shaken out. So college degrees are essentially signalling mechanisms for employers. I forget the cases that really elaborate on this (Duke Energy is an old case that lays the groundwork). But if you give an employment test and its results don't reflect the population (sex and race) you can be sued, and have to provide really good documentation and justifications for the exam. In many ways, the college boon can partially be seen as students paying for this liability risk. But all those things you propose could work, AP testing for high schoolers already does this (although more and more colleges aren't accepting those because it loses them money). The most likely way this could happen is if there was a university that basically did this, but faculty would obviously revolt, and administrators wouldn't propose it because it loses them money. So it would have to be some sort of edict by the state government (Like say, Cuomo sets it up for a NY University). There is a ton of money in the way stopping this sort of thing though, just because they are non-profits, doesn't mean they aren't greedy. I'm talking about the testing happening within the educational setting not the professional world. If we want to make money off of education by squeezing margins out of people who try and fail, it will be a hard, but if we just accept educating our population is a social responsibility that we all have to pay for, progress should be easy. Some teachers (mostly the ones who have been doing it for a while) have a pretty sweet deal in the current system and will be hesitant towards change. But most new teachers have a pretty raw deal and would happily embrace ideas that could make their profession more efficient. Really our educational system needs a foundation up remodel, funding, pay, curriculum, what constitutes a 'classroom', and soo much more. The people the new system hoses the most are the colleges where the real value isn't in the education, it's in the access and networking made available (which is part of the secret behind the problem with degrees), and the associated prestige. It would expose them as the private clubs they really are as opposed to the idea of primarily an institute of higher education. This becomes more obvious when you see a lecture given in an Ivy League shcool, some of them are brilliant by comparison, others you might find a better one from a community college instructor, especially for 101 courses. I think you are highlighting (along with the obvious bias of many professors) reasons why conservatives have consistently been so reluctant to funnel more money into higher ed. All it really does now is give tenured professors more pay for fewer classes, expands the fitness center on campus, and lets them hire a bunch of additional administrators. Similarly, this is also an issue in K-12 where spending more money does not appear to achieve any real results outside of the poorest of schools (mostly rural schools where they need the money for basics like air conditioning or running water). Most of the "inner city" schools that perform poorly are actually very well funded (the DC school system, for instance), but they are poorly managed, and face problems not really fixable with money.
The professors are not the ones that are benefiting from higher college costs.
Professor positions and benefits are being constantly cut, with more adjunct professors (who make well under minimum wage for the amount of work they do) working than ever.
The idea that professors are just making more money and teaching less classes is absolutely ridiculous.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
