2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumBill Clinton: People like me and Hillary can afford to go to college. The govt can't help everyone.
Yes, you and Hillary can Bill, but lots of Americans can't. (And does anyone think their grandchildren will go to a public college or university? Chelsea didn't so she would not have been covered under Bernie's plan.)
---------
Without mentioning Mr. Sanders by name, Mr. Clinton dismissed one of his main campaign pledges, to provide free college tuition for all. “She does not agree that tuition should be free for everybody,” he said of his wife. “People like me and Hillary can afford to go to college. The government can’t help everyone. We should have money to put into jobs and infrastructure.”
http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/01/22/faint-praise-for-bernie-sanders-from-bill-clinton-his-slogans-are-easier-to-say/
So we can't help everyone...
BUT OUR GOVT CAN HELP BILLIONAIRES ACCUMULATE OBSCENE AMOUNTS OF WEALTH
Just one example of how our govt helps billionaires:
George Soros has a long record of avoiding paying taxes, while undermining political regimes. But he is not alone in avoiding taxes. Bankers Anonymous outlines how the game is played.
“A manager with Soros’s track record who started with $12 million from investors, took 20 percent of the profits, and reinvested that money tax-free over 40 years, would end up with $15.9 billion. If that same manager paid federal, state, and local taxes on the fees and related investment gains before reinvesting them, the figure would shrink to $2.4 billion…”
(Will he and the other billionaires ever pay their deferred tax bill?)
Congress closed the loophole in 2008 and ordered hedge fund managers who used it to pay the accumulated taxes by 2017. A New York-based money manager such as Soros would be subject to a federal rate of 39.6 percent, combined state and city levies totaling 12 percent, and an additional 3.8 percent tax on investment income to pay for Obamacare, according to Andrew Needham, a tax partner at Cravath, Swaine & Moore. Applying those rates to Soros’s deferred income would create a tax bill of $6.7 billion.”
Note that the deadline for payment is 2017, just after the next election. Image the next puppet taking office using an executive order to further delay or water down the actual collection of the Soros tax obligation. It should be self-evident that the weight of Wall Street influence will be enormous in the 2016 Presidential coronation.
http://www.silverdoctors.com/george-soros-6-7-billion-tax-bill/
BUT AS BILL REMINDS US - WE CAN'T AFFORD TO HELP EVERYONE
'Jorge Villalba was a construction worker when the housing market began slowing in 2005, so the Glendale resident changed jobs and decided to invest in his future by going to college.
So far, the investment hasn't paid off.
Villalba, 34, owes $158,000 in student loans for his four-year degree in multimedia, 3-D animation and graphic design at ITT Technical Institute. He isn't earning enough to keep up with the payments, so the amount keeps rising with interest.
He figured he'd get a great job and pay off the loans.
"It hasn't happened that way," said Villalba, who is married with two young children but can't afford to move from their cramped one-bedroom apartment.
http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/01/22/faint-praise-for-bernie-sanders-from-bill-clinton-his-slogans-are-easier-to-say/
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)i have mine, the rest of you go screw
always knew you had it in ya, bill
nc4bo
(17,651 posts)Or Bill and Hillary Clinton.
If the shoe fits, a big fuck-you to you and yours.
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)(brother/sister) nc4bo!!!!!!!
merrily
(45,251 posts)Right before get Poppy Bush's NAFTA passed, lobbying hard for repeal of Glass Steagall and the Commodities Futures Modernization Act, signing the Telecommunications Act, triumphantly ending "welfare as we know it," passing DADT and DOMA, escalating extraordinary rendition, etc.
Still In Wisconsin
(4,450 posts)Little people and all that.
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)
bvar22
(39,909 posts)President Bill Clinton, 1996 State of the Union Address.
subtext: We are going to turn over all our government social programs to For Profit corporations.
yeoman6987
(14,449 posts)Middle class kids is who they think should go free but not rich kids.
secondwind
(16,903 posts)
dsc
(53,387 posts)free at public universities (including places like Berkeley, Univ of Mich, UNC, Ohio State, etc) all of which attract a whole fuckload of rich people.
pinebox
(5,761 posts)Bernie's plan is light years ahead of Hillary's with education, it's not even funny.
it is for white middle class people but for people of color and the poor it isn't. Poor, inner city kids would remain in their shit ass high schools while white middle class people would get tuition paid by those very same people. And the few who actually could get into college will still go massively in debt to pay for room and board since there will be no funds to help them out in that regard because we will be too busy paying the tuition for doctors and lawyers kids.
Autumn
(48,952 posts)in their shit ass high schools" go to college?
Armstead
(47,803 posts)Making it possible for people of low income to go to college is Racist?
Jesus, Mary and Joseph. I've got a great idea. Let's close all public schools too. Then no kids will have a chance for a public education (except well-off preppies, of course).
Then it would be equal opportunity denial of education, no "racism" involved.
arcane1
(38,613 posts)Did you even read this before posting it??
daleanime
(17,796 posts)a "fuckload" more of the rest of us.
Now if some rich idiot is willing to come down to our level and let his offspring compete with the rest of us, I have no problem with it.
It would be worth the tuition to make them rub elbows with the rest of us, who knows? They might just start thinking of the rest of us as human beings.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)If this "middle class" plan is passed, the line for "middle class" will be dropped repeatedly. Which will make it unpopular. Which will kill it.
Instead, "pay rich kids to go to school free". And tax them more than the tuition costs. Whether you don't spend the money or recover the money via taxes doesn't really matter.
As an added bonus, there is no cut-off to lower in order to sabotage the program, making it much, much harder to kill.
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)based on a means test? and lets not forget that hillary wants the poor kids to work 10 hours a week that the rich kids won't. and her plan calls for "incentives" for schools..read: more goodies from the govt to profitable institutions that will barely trickle down to the students
when they present a real plan that benefits real students and not their university president buddies, i will be more than happy to take a look.
sulphurdunn
(6,891 posts)at public universities. Most seriously rich kids don't attend public universities. Neither did the Clintons. Bill needed and got public scholarships to attend Georgetown, a private university, but hey!.. "the government can't help everyone." Neither Clinton, to the best of my knowledge, has ever suggested that middle class kids go to college for free.
GeorgeGist
(25,570 posts)It is free to rich kids you know.
nolabels
(13,133 posts)One of the biggest problems is the rich folks are indoctrinated into an idea and culture that gives them the notion that us poor folks are something that needs to be screwed over.
There is no more prey or herds to stock for the hunter-man so he has turned to own kind for a place to hone his skills.
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)TM99
(8,352 posts)We don't have special fire people or police for the rich.
We don't bar the rich from using public transit if they so desire or public roads.
We don't bar them from K-12 education if they so desire.
We still give them Social Security and Medicare if they have paid into it.
So his argument is bullshit.
merrily
(45,251 posts)college free. Third, what about poor kids going to college for fre? Aside from Bernie, most politicians don't mention poor people much anymore, but they still exist. In fact, their numbers/proportion have probably increased. Fourth, as another poster indicated, the Trumps are not going to want Baron going to SUNY or a community college free. Even if he's dumb as a post, Daddy will make sure he goes to Wharton as a legacy or some Ivy League to which Daddy has made a yooge donation.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)private ivy leagues or Stanford, etc.
Rich kids and the extremely bright scholarship students go to the top private schools.
The group that really needs help is the group of pretty good students who need a college education and need to go to state schools. I do not mean to suggest that state schools are not as good as private schools. But rich kids with good grades have the choice to go to private colleges and universities. It's kids like my neighbors who are going to the California universities and colleges (where tuition was free prior to Reagan) who need the free tuition so that they can get on with their lives when they graduate.
And, by the way, the idea of land grant colleges which should be offering free college in gratitude for the gift of land from the people of the United States was Lincoln's.
The whole thing about the plan to provide free tuition at state schools is that everyone who earns a pretty good income pays via taxes for the tuition of all the students in state schools. Those who can afford to pay cover the cost with their slightly higher tax rates and pay for that education over the course of their working lives.
The tuition isn't really free. It's paid for in a different way. Administrative costs are reduced. Schools don't need so many employees to work in the student loan office. That's a good thing.
I question singling out poor and middle class kids to have to "work" at some sort of post-college job to repay the money given to them by the government in the form of free tuition because if the tuition is paid for by tax revenue collected from all taxpayers, then the poor and middle class kids are being asked to pay twice. First they pay by working to repay the money for their tuition. And then they pay by paying back taxes. The wealthy in this country as well as all who work and pay taxes should pay the tuition costs.
If we audit our defense department and end programs that do not serve us well anymore, we can probably get a good start on saving money to help us fund free college and university for more American kids.
Same for single payer. The healthcare is not "free." The administrative costs again are reduced, strongly reduced. Everyone who is working and earning a decent income will pay for the insurance. All the tax money earmarked for healthcare goes into a single pot and the proceeds are paid for the healthcare.
There are many ways to pay out the proceeds. You can pay it to for-profit or non-profit companies. In my view, non-profits make the most sense if you choose that route. The money can also be distributed directly to hospitals and providers. Currently, Medicare provides a choice. You can have the Medicare program that is run directly by the government. Or you can have Medicare pay an insurance company and then you pay an additional amount. I am on Medicare but get my healthcare services through Kaiser.
Bill Clinton's statement about paying for college is another lie. He just is misrepresenting the choices.
Hillary's campaign sucks, and even her supporters know it. She is on the negative now and trying to make Bernie look negative. It isn't going to work. Bernie will stay positive and Hillary will have to eat her words and face defeat.
I just spoke to a neighbor this morning about Bernie and Hillary. Like me, she is so disgusted with Hillary that she will vote for the other Democrats on her ballot but not for Hillary. That's two of us, and I'm sure that there are many, many more. I am a lifelong Democrat, but enough is enough of the DNC and the rightward lunge they are making right now.
As for Bernie and Cuba and the statements being made about Bernie being soft on Cuba????? Last I knew, we established diplomatic relations with Cuba under Obama and worked with Cuban doctors to fight Ebola in Africa.
We have a problem with Russia right now but it isn't because of the Communists. It's because of the oligarchs and Putin.
Pulling the Socialist and Communist cards on Bernie is no longer very relevant. What a bunch of fools, especially Claire McCaskill.
The problem with Hillary is that she is not very inspired or inspiring. She does not seem to be able to think of creative, innovative ways to solve America's problems. Bernie is way ahead of her on this.
As for the complaints about racism and Bernie? Ridiculous. I watched Hillary talk to the Black Lives Matter group. And we have seen Bernie's reaction to Black Lives Matter and the changes that need to be made in our justice system to end the racism. Bernie is far more engaged, far more serious. African-Americans who don't see how engaged and enthusiastic Bernie is about listening to them and finding ways to change racism to acceptance in our country are hurting themselves and all people of color. It's their choice.
awoke_in_2003
(34,582 posts)I cannot wait until the primaries are over.
KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)over the execution of a cognitively disabled inmate to prove he was "tough on crime"?
they.dont come much lower or slimier than bill Clinton.
Skwmom
(12,685 posts)that spoke volumes about who the real Bill Clinton is.
bluestateguy
(44,173 posts)Un. Believable.
I guess the Hutu militias will get a pass.
Skwmom
(12,685 posts)http://www.democracynow.org/2014/4/7/refusing_to_call_it_genocide_documents
On the dvd they showed how the state dept pushed to pull out the peace keepers, the press secretary debated what the word genocide means, then it showed Clinton saying we can never let this happen again. It was chilling. n/t
bluestateguy
(44,173 posts)dredging up a the execution of a remorseless murderer from 24 years ago.
Good lord.
You do know that Ricky Ray Rector was fully mentally competent when he committed the murder? He then tried to kill a cop. Subsequently, he tried to commit suicide, but failed to blow his own brains out, and was then lobotomized.
KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)IQ of 70.
I hope you're proud of yourself.
paleotn
(22,182 posts)...a very talented one, but an operator nonetheless. Hillary is cut from the same cloth. It's not about what's best for the country or its people. If our interests coincide, great, but that's not a requirement for them. Power and prestige are what it's about and at all costs. I think this is HRC's last shot. So if you think it's nasty now, just wait. It gets worse.
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)I don't have enough money to send my daughter to college, but she is going. And she is studying to be a molecular biologist. She gets so genuinely excited about what she is learning. It is a great site to behold. What does Bill say about all the promising young minds out there that can't afford college? Should we just shrug our shoulders and say oh well, we can't help everybody? Is my daughter not worth as much as a bridge Mr. President?
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)in the clintonian empire economy.
oh, and they'll get cake!
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)They should just understand that Hillarity wants more H1B Visa and foreign workers.
And who cares if that displaces or kills the prospects of your aspiring daughter?!
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/on-small-business/wp/2015/04/13/what-a-hillary-clinton-white-house-could-mean-for-businesses/
Currently, the number of H1-B visas is limited to 65,000 per year. In recent years, applications have blown past the limit in matter of weeks, prompting members of Congress from both parties to call for an expansion. Labor groups have pushed back, warning that lifting the cap will result in a flood of cheap foreign labor that will take even more jobs away from American workers.
“Let’s face the fact that foreign skilled workers contribute greatly to what we have to do to be innovators,” Clinton said at the event.
It’s worth noting that the limit was temporarily raised twice by Congress in the late 1990’s, first to 115,000 per year and then as high as 195,000. Both times, the increase was the result of legislation signed by then-President Bill Clinton.
Yep. They're out of touch, and could give a shit about the American workforce, and so cares at that point if she is for a living wage when the top jobs are farmed out to other countries or are awarded to foreign workers in the USA.
9/11 was used as an excuse to dump American tech workers and use cheaper foreign labor.
The practice of making employees train their foreign replacements, as a condition of severance, is humiliating at best and just aa pure evil business practice that should be stopped.
bluestateguy
(44,173 posts)you'll see that he was saying the government should not help people in the Clintons' income category pay for college.
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)kids to work to help pay for college. She is out of touch. First of all, she doesn't understand just how expensive college has become. Working a few hours a week won't pay for tuition or for books for that matter. It will barely pay for lunch at the cafeteria. Secondly, rich people already use the system to their advantage just as they use every other facet of our economic system to their advantage. To say that middle class and poor students shouldn't get tuition free college because rich people would take advantage of it is stupid and naive.
hobbit709
(41,694 posts)Skwmom
(12,685 posts)In the midst of an uproar over his and his wife’s activities, Bill Clinton insists he is going to keep giving speeches “to pay the bills.” You wonder if he would even stop were Hillary to win the presidency. Even though we know many speeches were not disclosed, Bill falsely insists everything is out there for us to assess his conduct. Not quite.
On one level, who can be surprised? The idea of “enough is enough” does not cross the Clintons’ minds, nor do they understand the notion of foregoing personal enrichment. On the other hand, the degree to which average people may find their conduct piggish may be underestimated. You do wonder how long her Democratic opponents will resist attacking them both for their excess and their disdain for ethical boundaries.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2015/05/04/bill-clinton-i-gotta-pay-our-bills/
Divernan
(15,480 posts)The tangled web of the Clinton Family's political and profiteering interests are currently one hot mess. If she became President - it would be a nuclear meltdown, including non-stop congressional investigations. Because you KNOW, neither of them can ever say "no" when an opportunity presents itself to increase their wealth.
Skwmom
(12,685 posts)
Tien1985
(923 posts)This is why I find Clinton to be tone-deaf.
PDittie
(8,322 posts)and completely oblivious to it. There's a comparison to be made here (but it's far too possible to be alerted on and then hidden).
Still In Wisconsin
(4,450 posts)They are entitled, elitist, greedy, and loathsome.
OK Hillbots, alert away. I'm one post away from being banned anyway.
Le Taz Hot
(22,271 posts)How's Russ Feingold doing? Has he endorsed a presidential candidate yet? PLEEEEEAAAAASE tell me he at least hasn't endorsed Hillary.
Still In Wisconsin
(4,450 posts)We were all hoping he would run for Governor against Walker but he wants to go back to the senate. He should be able to defeat Ron "Senator Dumbass" Johnson, who won in the Republican/tea party wave of 2010 that also brought Walker to power.
If I know Russ he will NOT endorse during the primary. He hasn't in the past.
Le Taz Hot
(22,271 posts)We need more progressives in the Senate. I'm glad he hasn't endorsed. Too many of our California "Democrats" have endorsed Hillary, including Kamala Harris, the woman pegged to take over Boxer's seat. She lost my vote forever more when she did that.
Divernan
(15,480 posts)It has been a rough week for Mrs. Clinton. But rather than seek distance from the “establishment” mantle, Mrs. Clinton has tightly embraced it. Whether that will work in an election cycle characterized by so much voter anger remains to be seen.
http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/01/22/faint-praise-for-bernie-sanders-from-bill-clinton-his-slogans-are-easier-to-say/
Skwmom
(12,685 posts)HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)I am not at all sure that is not the real Bill Clinton.
Clinton is a master of wordplay. Rather than doubt him, I scratch my head wondering why he thinks this is a good approach to addressing the too high cost of higher education. He's the guy who insisted the US had moved into a post-industrial information based age.
Now he's suggesting it's time to intentionally leave some people behind.
Punkingal
(9,522 posts)I decided a long time ago that he is an empty suit...long on charm (although I no longer see him as charming) but lacking in real empathy or a desire to really help people. For the Clintons, it's all about the Clintons.
Divernan
(15,480 posts)Tom Rinaldo
(23,187 posts)(Note: I'm not going to the source story because I am saving up my free NY Time story views for the month)
I also assume that Bill wishes he had stated his point differently. I will bet good money that when called on to "clarify" this he will stress the context of his full remarks, that people like him and Hillary who have plenty of money don't need tax payer dollars to help pay for their education. I also assume that he doesn't advocate means testing for free public high school education but no one asked him about that. Regardless, Bill still said what he said. “People like me and Hillary can afford to go to college. The government can’t help everyone." Was it a Freudian slip? Voters will all decide for themselves of course but it makes for a horrible sound bite regardless.
I wonder if the Clinton supporters, who jumped all over Sander's initial comment about a political establishment and Planned Parenthood leaders etc as proof that Sanders doesn't support Planned Parenthood etc, can admit that here Bill Clinton seems at least to imply that we can't afford to offer a free college education to all in an era when a college degree now is the equivalent of what a high school degree was thirty years ago - when just as remains so today, a public high school education was free to all.
Skwmom
(12,685 posts)helping their rich buddies, speaks volumes about Bill and Hillary Clinton.
And yes, I copied it from the NY Times. I only abbreviated govt.
Comparing that to the fake outrage on Bernie's comment on planned parenthood, etc. - is like comparing apples to oranges. But it's not like you have a lot to work with.
Tom Rinaldo
(23,187 posts)I was underlining, not opposing, your first assertion when I spoke of the "Freudian Slip" nature of what Bill actually said.
I could have said more about the other point I suppose. I think what Bill said also shows how he is slipping on the campaign trail. He is becoming a liability not an asset to the Clinton campaign. I have no problem admitting that Bernie's initial off the cuff answer to Maddow required a clarification, if only because in a highly charged political environment it was easy to predict the line of attack that Clinton would take in response to those initial comments. In a 24/7 media political environment, no politician makes every point they want to make in a perfectly bullet proof manner initially, but I think Bernie is doing better at that than the supposed political master messaging guru, Bill Clinton.
I think Sanders did a perfect job of clarifying his original comment, taking away a potential weapon for Hillary to use against him, while at the same time scoring solid points for his intended message. It shows both the consistency of his positions and his political chops.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Their Outrage Attack switch must be stuck in the on position.
MADem
(135,425 posts)And people here -- only here -- find FAULT with that?
smh!
FWIW, you can open up an incognito window and NYT won't know who you are. It's like a clean slate.
Skwmom
(12,685 posts)I must have missed that.
MADem
(135,425 posts)Why that 'ires' you, I have no idea.
Does this mean you're in favor of giving "free college" money to rich people?
And you have Google, if you REALLY wanted to know where Clinton stood on making college affordable, you'd have looked it up rather than snarking at me and lowering the level of discourse even further.
But let me google that for you: http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/10/politics/hillary-clinton-college-affordability/
Tom Rinaldo
(23,187 posts)That is the logical extension of the Clinton position, either that or he is making a case that is not of the same importance now for society to offer a free public college education today to all of its citizens as it was to offer a free public high school education to all of our citizens 30 years ago. You can't have it both ways. Sanders is embracing the traditional American position on essential public education, updated for the 21t century. There are many potent political reasons for why it would be a non starter to propose means testing for public education at any other level, and they are essentially the same reasons why throwing up that smoke screen now regarding public colleges is a way of deflecting away from any viable proposal to ensure that all of our children have access to a free college education.
Skwmom
(12,685 posts)didn't think the rich should get their college paid for which would infer that he has no problem with the non rich getting their college paid for. Of course, he then clarified that the government can't help everyone which blew away that inference.
Tom Rinaldo
(23,187 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)Because trying to screw yourself round into a position where you could INVENT that load of "imagination" had to hurt like hell!!! Logical extension? You could not possibly be more illogical in your argument.
The first public high school in Massachusetts--in fact, in all of America-- was Boston English. You go look up when it was founded. From that beginning, public high school became the paradigm from sea to shining sea.
Are YOU advocating that we could possibly go BACKWARDS? Is THAT what you are saying?
See how stupid that sounds when I say it?
smh.
I hate to tell you this, but high school was free way more than thirty years ago--we weren't going to the one room schoolhouse with bare feet with a nickel to pay the teacher!
How OLD are you that you would even say something like that? I always had the impression that you were older than you apparently are, if you can't remember just a few decades back.
Trying to equate a college education today to a high school education a scant thirty years ago is a bridge too far. You embarrass yourself with that kind of silliness. Even if you went back sixty years, you'd still embarrass yourself.
When you have to work so hard to put words in people's mouths in order to generate some sort of faux outrage, you're losing the battle.
Bill Clinton is saying "Don't give shit to RICH people who don't need it." RICH. As in "stinking rich." That's all he's saying.
Of course, it doesn't really matter at the end of the day. Sanders' plans have as much chance of passing as pigs flying.
Tom Rinaldo
(23,187 posts)Are you saying then that means testing for public education is socially backwards? But what of all the savings to tax payers? Those same saving that Bill seems so concerned about in opposing free public college education to all?
As to the 30 years ago reference, that is simple. For the sake of argument I am willing to concede that at some time in the past having a college diploma was not as essential a level of educational achievement as it is today to remain viable on the job market. I could have said 20 years ago, or 40 years ago. I simply used 30 years ago. You do agree don't you that 80 years ago one did not need a high school degree as much as people need a college degree today in order to remain employable in the prevailing job market?
MADem
(135,425 posts)You can want it REAL hard, and REAL bad, and you can point your finger and accuse people of being (fill in the blank--Republican!!! "Turd" Wayer!!! Name your insult!!!), but at the end of the day, you are not gonna get what you want.
You're just not. And all the "Now, now" -ing in the world ain't gonna change that reality.
What a Presidential candidate promises, and what a Congress delivers, are OFTEN--not always, but OFTEN--two different things. When the price tag on that promise is massive, you can be pretty damn sure that compromises--like that "means testing" you are whining about like it is The Worst Darn Thing EVER, I TELL YOU!!!-- or even a (shock) MINIMUM GPA requirement!!! (oooh nooo--unfair to those who are Less Academically Endowed!!!) will happen...and that's IF you see your desired program AT ALL.
In the case of "free college," I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you. This Congress--full of entrenched incumbents--ain't gonna cough it up. Nor will the next one, or the one after that--at least not "for all." Stand by--if it even comes to pass--for exceptions, caveats, qualifiers, and all sorts of hoops to jump through and roadblocks!
Oddly enough, what we are calling "college" these days is rather fluid. People go to post-secondary education (Tech Schools) for things that used to be learned, forty, fifty, sixty or even eighty years (or more) ago-- via apprenticeships. Plumbers, builders, draftsmen, paralegals, air conditioning repairmen, even that poor hapless idiot mentioned in this thread with his massive loans from ITT TECH....all that is regarded as "college" when it's really something else, in the "old school" definition of the term. But hey, times change.
A lot of that stuff used to be learned--rigorously, painstakingly, bit-by-bit, day-by-day, ON THE JOB. I had (RIP) relatives who went into professions (architecture and the law) following fairly lengthy apprenticeships. They started out as (quaint term) "office boys." The thing is, university wasn't their immediate post-high school future--making money (some of which was put aside for future education) in an "earn as you learn" scenario came first. Curiously, "colleges" are going BACK to an oddball version of that "apprenticeship" meme (while continuing to rake in money in the process).
Many universities' programs are five years --not 4--now, and studded with two or more "internships" where the student lives in the dorm (ka ching), eats at the dining facilities (ka ching), pays the library, security, and other oddball university fees (ka ching), but goes out for "x" weeks or months earning an actual paycheck in an internship. This gives them a resume upon graduation, which is thought to give them a leg up. And the "college experience" is not the bare bones thing that it used to be when Bernie Sanders was going to school. The spartan cinder block dorms have been replaced at many schools by luxe "apartments" with full kitchen facilities, dining halls that serve restaurant quality meals, and amenities that people of my vintage couldn't even imagine--and the price tag reflects all that.
And then, there's life long learning. I recently went to the university graduation of a loved one, who made the decision, after a year of knocking around community college, to put off college for a year or two--and that year or two turned into five. He finally got his motivation going and at the tender age of 28 (working and going to school) graduated magna cum laude--and he's the first to admit if he'd made the jump immediately to university, he wouldn't have done as well because he just wasn't grown up enough. He needed to be a little immature, to get a schleppy job and achieve a few short term goals, to realize that his longer term goals needed a serious attitude. But here's the upshot--he was by NO means the oldest one in his class. There were people in their forties, fifties, sixties and seventies in that massive auditorium picking up degrees--it was a very cool thing!
And finally, there's the idea that high schools might add an extra "post graduate" year, for children who aren't prepared to go to a community college environment or a four year university. Some places are exploring this--it's a common approach in private schools (again, the extra year of tuition/fees, room and board), it gives the child an extra year to mature, and given the helicopter parenting some kids endure, some of 'em need it. The courses offered would be the very basic "College 101" courses that are mandatory pretty much everywhere and they'd be transferable to a post high school college or uni for credit.
Children ARE less mature than they were in years past--and I don't think that is necessarily a bad thing, given what we've learned about how the brain matures. Little fourteen year old kids left school for the factory back in the bad old days out of utter and dire necessity--because Mama needed the money and there was no SNAP or WIC or social security or any of those safety net programs.
So long as I'm spouting off about how I'd change the world, I don't think it's a bad idea to raise the military enlistment age, either--at least for deployment overseas. I really think 21 is soon enough to make that kind of commitment, but I doubt I'll get much backing for that idea -- there's value in youth in terms of how easily they can be molded and their relative athleticism.
Tom Rinaldo
(23,187 posts)I had to leave for a job before and couldn't read it earlier, and unfortunately I have to leave for the airport to pick up a friend soon. So I can't give you as full and thoughtful a reply now as your post deserves. I will try to later, please excuse me if I forget to by the time I am free enough that I otherwise might.
The simplest thing I can say quickly in the few minutes that I have is that major social changes always take a long time when institutional inertia (like in this instance a stacked Congress against it for one thing) lines up heavily against it, starting with the real bigge, abolishing slavery. Same thing for a woman' right to vote. It took turning around attitudes inside essentially all male institutions elected by all men to get a constitutional amendment through those all male institutions. The 40 hour work week was not born instantly ether. It initially was part of a Socialist Presidential platform.
But change moves at its slowest when none advocate forcefully for the most just and necessary course forward.
Beyond saying that, writing more about the tactical process ahead and the many other points you raised above would take a lot longer than I have time for now.
KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)Tom Rinaldo
(23,187 posts)dsc
(53,387 posts)college has admission standards, admission standards that favor white, middle class and wealthy people (in some cases by design in others by accident) but they do favor them. High schools do not have admission standards. We have no business whatsoever paying for doctors kids and lawyers kids etc to go to state flagship universities while our inner city (nearly all people of color) go to literal shitholes for their high school.
MADem
(135,425 posts)She was a citywide Teacher of the Year on more than one occasion, and had opportunity to leave for easier, cushier places, but she didn't want to abandon "her" kids. It was a perpetual struggle. It wasn't just about insufficient nutrition (and that was a problem), it was about kids coming to school unprepared in terms of clothing (no coat in winter), living in unsafe homes, or living in no home at all. These are the kids who need, desperately, to be lifted up--and I wish it would start way EARLIER than community college.
KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)(at public institutions) should be available to everyone free and on demand, much like elementary and high school is now.
MADem
(135,425 posts)Because they--not any Presidential candidate--will be the ones to approve that measure.
Or not.
My money, given the makeup of this Congress, and the slow turnover rate of elected officials, is on NOT. For quite a while, too.
KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)They aren't complicated, either,
Because they--not any Presidential candidate--will be the ones to approve that measure.
Or not.
My money, given the makeup of this Congress, and the slow turnover rate of elected officials, is on NOT. For quite a while, too.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)"Free" education is subsidized education.
Under a progressive system of taxation, the rich would be paying a significantly greater share of the bill for that education and, yes, the point of things like progressive taxation and public resources is to have a more egalitarian society in which wealth does not grossly distort opportunities, liberties and obligations of civic life.
So, fuck yes, if everyone gets it, then God-dammit, that means everyone. Just like social security. Just like public education.
Some kid has dickhead wealthy parents who won't pay for a private college, and you would shut the door of the public one, just to "punish" people for being wealthy.
That's not the fucking point.
MADem
(135,425 posts)You're not the Rude Pundit. Don't quit your day job!
A simple "I disagree with his premise" would have worked, too!
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)the rich kid with "less than supportive" (better?) parents should get a chance to go to college, too. and means tests are a road to disaster. they will encourage the repubs to change the definition of middle class and start taking away everything.
i disagree with the premise stated above. 
MADem
(135,425 posts)File his own taxes, take away that little tax deduction from them. Once you're eighteen you're an adult. If you're on your own, you aren't an extension of your rich parents.
The kids who live at home with ma and pa, and drive that fancy late model car they got for getting through high school, though, they can go to the back of the line.
Sorry. I'm more worried about the least of our brethren than those with the most. It's just how I prioritize.
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)and it concerns me, too. but college FA always wants to know the income of parents. i wonder if such kids would have to completely emancipate in order to be eligible for the tuition.
free for all would solve that problem and the ivy leaguers would still likely go to harvard, et al.
MADem
(135,425 posts)Then, their parents can't claim them.
Some parents are cheap--they figure if they can 'get over' on the government, they will--even if they can easily afford a private school.
I knew a stinking rich family that sent the BOYS to BC and BU, and the GIRLS to Bridgewater and Salem State. They could have easily afforded private for all, and the children were all smart enough, with good enough grades to push through the admissions process, but they discriminated based on gender because of outmoded stereotypes about women's roles. And this was in recent years, too--I was flummoxed.
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)i hope the girls made the most of their college anyway. i know plenty of people who have gone to state schools and went on to great careers. hope it worked out for them.
amazing the gender thinking that still exists. ironically, i have seen it in families of significant means, like the people you knew.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)...if it means some tiny fraction of well-off kids benefit.
It's just a foolish position
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)mommy and daddy want their silver spooner to get only the best....harvard, etc
means tests always fail. and yet here we are again.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)I was booked to fly out of the fucking Philly airport on god damned Saturday at 11 AM on a fucking direct flight to Cayman and had already been upgraded to first.
The god damned fucking blizzard is shutting down the fucking airport and I found out at midnight last fucking night after an hour on hold that they could get me to Miami on a flight leaving at fucking 6 AM this morning. So I threw all my shit in a bag dragged my ass to the airport at 3:30 AM for a flight that was like the DC departure scene in Independence Day, and now I'm at MIA until 6 PM for the connection to Cayman. My bank freaks out when I travel, disabled all my cards when I changed my hotel booking and screwed up my breakfast. It's raining cats and dogs here and you have to walk forever to find a place outside where you can just sit down, drink a cup of overpriced coffee and have a smoke.
I have two kids in college, it's costing a god damned fortune, and I am not in the mood to be told we can't have a decent post secondary education system like every fucking civilized country on the planet because, oh my fucking God, some rich kid might benefit from it too.
So I'm dressed for freezing weather in a tropical rainstorm on a bench in a noisy parking garage with a couple of pigeons who keep circling me and eyeing my coffee cup with suspicion and anticipation.
Not everyone can qualify for admission to college, and not everyone admitted can get through it. But we can surely educate everyone who is capable of trying.
I picked the wrong week to quit snorting meth.
azmom
(5,208 posts) MADem
(135,425 posts)is just so beyond imagination that it's not even on the bucket list?
It's those families that I think should be in line for the free college first. If I am prioritizing, well, there ya go---that's what I'm doing. I also think people should be able to demonstrate sufficient academic rigor to succeed in college before they are admitted. If they need remedial education, that could be made available to them but they shouldn't matriculate as a university student unless they can do the work.
And I understand how brutal college fees are these days. Not every kid is a genius who can get a scholarship, either. The prices have gone up astoundingly, and most of the "value added" isn't academic--it's "amenities." Pools, fancy dining, upscale dormitories, jazzy student centers with giant screen tvs--it's a very different world these days, and students are expecting this as "the norm" nowadays. It ain't cheap.
I have gotten in the habit of WARNING my bank when I am going to travel outside my usual footprint. It just saves agita I have found--too late for you this trip, but it might be a thought for your next foray. And you need to get yourself some nicorette when you travel, too--it is not a substitute for the joy of smoking but will take the edge off. If you can't do the candy or gum, try the patch. What I won't suggest to you is that you quit. No one wants to hear that--it's a personal decision and bugging people to fall in the ex-smoker line usually has the opposite effect!
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)But getting all the paraphernalia through airports and across borders is a hassle. Can't take the liquid through, and the devices look like bombs.
I don't know of any families for whom sitting in a poorly air conditioned room for a week in an office building in tropical heat to review contracts, audit IP licenses, and work on patent applications ten hours a day is on their bucket list. You must know really know some odd families. I'd have rather stayed home in the snow.
MADem
(135,425 posts)Still, at this time of year....there are worse places to work!!!!
They really should sell nicorette in the airports (do they? I honestly don't know; I've never had call to look for it when I'm going through). They could jack the price up a fair chunk and probably still do good business!
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)There are indeed worse places to work, but I really like working at home in my jammies instead of having to get dressed and go to an office in the morning, regardless of the weather. Aside from which, my partner is also my spouse, but this is a solo trip, and we really, really don't like being apart for any reason or length of time.
(and, incidentally, it is a tech compan thoroughly and totally unconnected with the financial shenanigans that go on down there)
What's really jarring is that - throughout the year - sunset is never much later than 6:30 or 7:00, and its amazing how your body associates warm weather with long days. No matter when you go, there are never long twilight evenings. If it's past 7:30, it's dark out. It messes with my head, and would drive me truly insane over time (look what it's done to Malaise, for example ).
If I was to take a vacation, I'd be headed north to ski, which I haven't done in ages. And I guess that sort of feeds into it as well... I'm surrounded by people who are off to party (and which they do at the hotel to all hours).
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)The bank screwup was because I had a few hours notice to get out of dodge before the storm, having originally been scheduled later. But, honestly, I'd prefer a root canal to this trip.
MADem
(135,425 posts)jberryhill
(62,444 posts)I was just explaining my momentary crankiness. My work takes me lots of places, and travel hassles are what they are. It's a living, and one I'm grateful for thanks to:
A state funded university,
Federal research grants during grad school,
A scholarship to law school,
and on and on and on....
Any professional who required an education to get where they are, and does not recognize that those institutions would not have existed without public support, is simply delusional. They climbed the ladder and they want to pull it up behind them.
No way I could have paid for any of that. I didn't build any of that. There was a lot of luck, circumstance, and opportunity - none of which was my doing. Those opportunities need to be expanded, and it will benefit everyone.
MADem
(135,425 posts)I also worked, and it didn't kill me. Uncle Sam paid for my postgraduate education in exchange for a few more years of blood, sweat and tears.
But to expect Congress to hand out money for college like it's candy to all comers is not a realistic hope. There will be limits, there will be caveats, there will be intelligence tests and means tests. While it's important to be as inclusive as we can manage, we shouldn't bend over backwards so that Richie Rich or Huey, Dewie and Louie can access this hoped-for program, at the cost of killing it before it takes its first breath as being too over-arching and ambitious.
See, we need to start scaling back the dreams--rather like that "reparations" dream that was seen as "VERY divisive" and thus a nonstarter at this point in time....
Politics is the art of the POSSIBLE. Not the impossible.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)How does Germany manage, do you suppose?
I went to grad school with engineering graduates from around the world who were shocked at the way we run post-secondary education.
Your "handing it out like candy" statement can be applied to pre-k to 12 as well. There are countries where NO education is a right. And there are people who MAKE that argument about k-12 public education.
There is nothing magic about 12 academic grades.
MADem
(135,425 posts)If they had to actually DEFEND themselves, for real -- hey, Germany, you manage that Fulda Gap on your own, there, sports!--there'd be a lot less frou-frou and a lot more Merkel Youth!
We have made the decision as a nation to be leaders of the world. It comes at a price. I know there are some people who think we should bow out and let China run the show--I'm not in that corner. I think we are the globe's melting pot and we're in the best position to understand the priorities of all nations. Granted we don't always get it right--we often make mistakes--but at least we have the advantage of having people holding blue passports who can relate to the people with whom we are dealing.
More to the point, we're wasteful--we'd do well to hire an army of accountants, give them limited commissions, and set them to work to march into the Pentagon on extraordinary orders and start cleaning house.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)The Red Menace isn't what it used to be. As much as we all miss the Cold War, the notion of a mass tank formation coming through the Fulda Gap is just not a realistic scenario anymore.
There's a difference between spending and investing.
But, even though it's a windy day, I am significantly less cranky after a night's sleep... and an accidental soaking this afternoon....
MADem
(135,425 posts)The "Fulda Gap" scenario is not as unimaginable as you think.
Putin is building his Navy back up; he's opened back up his Middle Eastern base in the Med, he wants to get the old Union of Socialist Soviet Republics back together. He has already consolidated the media under one of his lackeys--and he's serious.
It's a good idea to never say never. And Putin? He ain't about "Red" at all. He's all about raw power!
jeff47
(26,549 posts)If you means test the program, then Republicans and centrist Democrats will fuck with the line, gradually lowering it in real terms.
That turns the program into something for "those people". Which then means you can kill it like Bill Clinton killed Welfare.
Instead, go ahead and give that free college to people who are rich. And get the money back by taxing them. No line to mess with, so the program becomes much harder to kill.
Anyone who claims political savvy should notice the difference between how easy it was to kill Welfare and how hard it has been to kill Social Security.
MADem
(135,425 posts)Colleges discriminate against students--they require them to have a certain level of intelligence and education to be admitted.
There's nothing wrong with programs for "those people." The GI BILL was a wonderful post WW2 "program for those people" who happened to come back from War. It was so damn good of a program for "those people" that we kept it, and have improved it substantially. But you don't get to partake of that program unless you are one of "those people" who wore a uniform.
Nothing wrong with giving people a leg up. You can't get SNAP or WIC unless you're in a "those people" category either--should we hand those programs out to everyone, just because?
I find it funny that "To each according to his need" (to quote old Karl) is a BAD thing when it comes to this issue!
jeff47
(26,549 posts)that taxing back the money you give the rich means you didn't actually give them money.
MADem
(135,425 posts)And people who CAN afford things, and get them for free, devalue them.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)I used to be in favor of means testing SS, and I still think some kind of scaled improvement could be made.
But I have come around to your point of view on this. There should be a set of things that are simply part of the package of being a member of society. Education is certainly one, because it benefits us all.
Nobody would make this argument about k-12 education, precisely because it is available to all.
Dustlawyer
(10,539 posts)pay for single payer, public and collage education, and still have the biggest military in the freaking world! TPTB use the military budget to funnel our taxes to the Plutocrats. They have "lost" trillions of dollars that they cannot even account for, and yet they say we must cut social programs for lack of money. The MSM will not talk about this!
Old Codger
(4,205 posts)I also assume that Bill wishes he had stated his point differently. I will bet good money that when called on to "clarify" this he will stress the context of his full remarks, that people like him and Hillary who have plenty of money don't need tax payer dollars to help pay for their education.
that is my read on it also, he is saying that more well to do don't need the help, so use it to help those that need it ..
Oilwellian
(12,647 posts)It seems to be a policy point that both Clinton's have now made. Hillary said something similar when she said she didn't think it was right that taxpayers should have to pay to send Trump's kids to college.
I don't think he misspoke, at all.
MADem
(135,425 posts)This op takes the cake, though!!! Who knew that "Direct the taxpayer's dollars towards the poorer people who need the benefits" would somehow generate outrage, anger, resentment and harsh words.
And then, to flip to crabbing about Soros...like they're a borg, or something?
Isn't Clinton saying that the money needs to go to those who NEED it?
If you have a problem with Soros, take it up with CONGRESS--they write tax law, not "Bill Clinton."
smh.
And I feel sorry for ANYONE who is stupid enough to throw bad money after more bad money at that ITT TECH money pit. It's a shit "degree" and it is worthless. That poor fool would have been better to go to his local community college--he probably would have gotten a better education, too.
But that's NOT Bill Clinton's fault! He hasn't been named as "College Recommender in Chief" by any governmental or non-governmental agency.
So long as there are predatory, for profit "institutions of higher learning," there will be people who get ripped off by them. It's unfortunate, and maybe, along with sex education and gym class, we'd do well to squeeze in a few "common sense" lessons in high school about how NOT to get ripped off by predatory lenders--a little "financial sense" would probably be useful to a lot of people going out in the world.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)
FSogol
(47,613 posts)Who's next, Michael Moore?
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)Sometimes it needs a little help.
MADem
(135,425 posts)It kind of helps you understand where the talking points are originating.
FSogol
(47,613 posts)I can't decide whether it is bizarre, ridiculous or both. Definite RW skeeviness going on around here.
Skwmom
(12,685 posts)lending, ripping off minorities. Is it the fault of the borrowers who were preyed upon? Nothing like blaming the victim... But hmmm... it seems like some people have a long history of doing that.
MADem
(135,425 posts) : Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)public institution at no or very low cost don't you think those people would be less vulnerable to the predatory for profit scams that flourish today in part because they finance you like a shady car dealer?
And 'people like Bill and Hillary' do not send their kids to public colleges and universities, they go top drawer and they would do so even if others who could not afford that went to state campuses for free. Chelsea- Stanford, Oxford, Colombia. Private all the way. Does Bill expect me to believe her choices would have changed if my niece could do to a public university for nothing? That Chelsea would have lined up for SUNY? Get real.
MADem
(135,425 posts)a community and four year state school...and he probably wouldn't have needed anywhere near that much as an in-state student.
So what was your point, again? That we should feel sorry for this poor stupid guy who made a bad loan bargain with a predatory school....because HILLARY?
And Bill isn't saying anything of the sort, but let me tell you something. A kid from a VERY rich family killed one of my relatives a few years ago with his fancy sports car that cost more than a year's tuition at a private school. The family spent enough money on lawyers to delay the process and try to "blame the victim" to put a kid through Harvard. Guess what? The little murderer was attending PUBLIC college at the time. So yeah, it happens. Maybe you need to "get real" and understand that all Bill Clinton was saying was "Take care of the people who NEED it--don't be giving shit to rich people."
Try again.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)between not giving rich people the money, and giving rich people the money then recovering it via taxes.
Making the program means-tested at all makes it easy to kill. The definition of "middle class" will be screwed with until it no longer covers a large part of the electorate. That makes the program something for "those people", which makes the program easy to kill. Like Bill Clinton killed welfare.
Instead, go ahead and give the money to rich people. Then recover the money via taxes. No line to screw with, so the program is much harder to kill. Like Social Security.
MADem
(135,425 posts)It's not "money." It's tuition paid to a college--the rich person doesn't get the "money," they get the seat in the class. A seat they can afford to pay for, that is taken from someone who can't afford it.
aggiesal
(10,780 posts)said another well known 1%'er.
Let's not give the cake to the rich, let's give it to those who don't have any cake, instead.
That's what he's saying.
aggiesal
(10,780 posts)"... The government can’t help everyone." statement is
his "Let them eat cake." moment.
He follows that by saying
"We should have money to put into jobs and infrastructure."
I believe Bill is saying that instead of having free college for everyone,
we should put some of the money into jobs and infrastructure.
But "free college for everyone" is infrastructure.
I don't believe everyone should get a full ride scholarship to the most
expensive public universities in the country, but if you're accepted into
that university then yes, it should be free.
If you can only get into a community college then that should be free.
Whatever public school you get accepted into, should be free.
When I graduated from college, the government paid for everything except
$700+. I paid more in taxes just last year alone then what my college
education cost.
So I believe that was an extremely good investment.
MADem
(135,425 posts)I think "free college for those who otherwise could not afford it" is infrastructure, but "free college to the wealthy who can easily afford it" is a mis-allocation of funds that could be directed to other places where there is actual need.
bluestateguy
(44,173 posts)Good points, all.
CharlotteVale
(2,717 posts)antigop
(12,778 posts)
deutsey
(20,166 posts)
merrily
(45,251 posts)Bernie is proposing only that public institutions of higher learning be tuition free. They can't fit "everyone," nor will "everyone want or try to attend them.
Will they ever stop distorting?
stillwaiting
(3,795 posts)
Jarqui
(10,906 posts)(no, not being sexist - Bill's just had the slicker way of handling himself over the years)
RoccoR5955
(12,471 posts)Bill should sit down and shut the hell up already.
He's becoming one of the, "No we can't" folks now, I see.
Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)think they feel the only way to gain ground is to head on attack the message and Bernie leaves lots of room on the right from which they can crawl into their bunker and lob "no new taxes" and "free unicorns for commies" attacks at Bernie's message. What I find particularly infuriating is that they throw progressive principles under the bus in exchange for the mere hope of personal political gain. The one good thing about it is that we're talking issues rather than personality. Unfortunately, her campaign will set the cause back decades if she gains traction via the sacrifice of these progressive lambs.
RoccoR5955
(12,471 posts)And it seems to be the tack that the DNC is on, and has been on for some time now.
blackspade
(10,056 posts)First of all, even if Sander's plan were to cover all families, it would only cover them for public colleges.
Second, how many families are we even talking about here? Hillary likes to bang the "Trump's kids" drum, but how many of these super rich are there? 1000? chump change compared to the benefits to Tens of Thousands of others.
Third, how many of these kids will even go to a public college anyway? My guess...Zero, just like things are today.
So the idea that Sander's plan should be shit on, leaving Tens of Thousands fucked with debt that they can never pay off just to score some political points is bottom of the ocean low.
bluestateguy
(44,173 posts)but they tend to be elite flagship state universities like UNC, UVA, Michigan, Berkeley, UCLA, Texas or Penn State.
blackspade
(10,056 posts)bluestateguy
(44,173 posts)You said, "Third, how many of these kids will even go to a public college anyway? My guess...Zero, just like things are today."
I was countering that claim.
blackspade
(10,056 posts)But, you are still are willing to sacrifice the future of tens of thousands poor and middle class kids to deny the few rich kids that might go to 'elite' public schools anyway.
Got it.
magical thyme
(14,881 posts)Seriously, Bill, how stooopid do you think we are?
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)jeff47
(26,549 posts)Then we get the money back via taxes, because they're rich and we have progressive taxation.
MuseRider
(35,176 posts)that great for them?
Say goodbye to your dreams people. Just put your silly heads down, don't look up or out and get yourself back to your minimum wage jobs.
Where has wanting better for your country ever gotten us anyway?
We used to say we were #1 (yes, I know we are surely not and always hated that bragging thing anyway). Even though it was an odd thing to say and very pretentious of us we were close enough to be proud of many things we did here and at least would strive for that #1 position.
Now the striving is being discouraged. I just do not get it. People are not happy or even what they want to be, productive, if all they can hope for is one more bite of gruel. Incremental change moves in the right direction but it is so slow and so far between changes that it might as well be backwards.
Nothing kills faster than having no hope for a better future for yourself, your children or your country.
I vote for the person who changes the dialog. Will he get much done with this legislature? Probably not but at least he speaks to our hearts and encourages those who have nothing left to not give up and to help him get things done for them. THAT will make a big difference in this country, a motivate and encouraged populace.
Punx
(474 posts)There's always money for those at the top. Or more war.
Sigh...
secondwind
(16,903 posts)pinebox
(5,761 posts)Hey Bill, it's not the 90s anymore bro, wake the fuck up! People get their news online and things are known within seconds. You just did #FeelTheBern a huge favor, thanks.
Bleacher Creature
(11,504 posts)He's just saying that he's wealthy enough to pay his own way. He says the same thing about taxes - i.e., that he can afford to pay higher taxes for the greater good. It's classic Bill Clinton - reminding people that now that he's wealthy, he hasn't forgotten what it was like growing up poor in Arkansas.
Disagree all you'd like over policies, but this is just pure nonsense.
Oilwellian
(12,647 posts)She doesn't think taxpayers should have to pay to send Trump's kids to college.
Was she just recognizing Trump's wealth and his ability to pay his children's college tuition? It wasn't interpreted that way at the time.
INdemo
(7,024 posts)Sense he would know that rich kids go to private schools.Bernie's plan is for public iniversities.
Just remember something Bill it was Democrats that elected you but it was the Republicans that made you rich,because of your actions as President.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)The repeal of Glass-Steagall in 1999 spelled disaster in the 2008 Bankster Bailout. The Democratic president who signed it into law was working in a spirit of bi-partisanship with his Republican Senate colleague to encourage new areas of banking by deregulating the financial industry cough gutting the New Deal protections of the Wall Street casino from using taxpayer-backed bank deposits.
Some familiar names on this list:
No shame is right. They now work together at UBS -- which received uncounted billions in bailout money -- to specialize in some kind of "Weath Management."
PS: Forensic economist and former Fed regulator William K. Black wrote it reminds him of what happened during the Savings and Loans Crisis of the late 80s and early 90s. At the time, that was the greatest bank heist in history. The president then said "America has more will than wallet."
Gman
(24,780 posts)And they need to pay something. I did. Many others have. It should not be free simply because it would be a waste of money on many because they are not "college material". Those who are should receive assistance and pay according to their means.
Skwmom
(12,685 posts)jeff47
(26,549 posts)not trying to turn money into a very poor proxy for admission standards.
Gman
(24,780 posts)
Stargazer99
(3,515 posts)Where one can barely keep up paying basic living expenses much less medical and dental care you advocate everyone pays? You've not lived in a low income community have you?
Get out of your ivory tower and start learning about the reality for many on the low income level and start CARING about others and maybe you will help create a better nation.
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)Some people need to take a couple of remedial math classes before they jump into calculus or maybe they struggle with writing so they need a couple of remedial English classes before jumping into a composition class. I myself have taken a couple of remedial math classes and have done very well moving on to more advanced math classes. There is nothing wrong with that. Others have learning or cognitive disabilities. My son is autistic. There is a program at a local community college that is designed for cognitive and learning disabilities. Thanks to this program I am confident my son will go to college. For others that want to go to school but don't want to go to a university there are vocational schools. Some community colleges even have apprenticeship programs. The biggest problem with our education system is we expect our students to be robots and clones. We expect them to all learn the exact same material at the same exact speed. Just because we are not all robots and some of us have a different learning style or at a different speed than others does not mean that they are not college material.
Gman
(24,780 posts)Or Linux certified. They'll make twice the money in half the time as someone out of college. If your son is into computers
, he'd probably excel at this
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)Does anyone in this thread realize there are countries other than the United States on this planet?
Do you know what you pay for a university education in most developed countries?
Response to Skwmom (Original post)
Hiraeth This message was self-deleted by its author.
Javaman
(65,686 posts)way to go bill 
thereismore
(13,326 posts)Money makes you out of touch with 99% of humanity, and there is no defense against it. Ask Bill Clinton.
Not Sure
(735 posts)Greed, ambition, hubris, entitlement: these are not the ways I remember President and Secretary Clinton. Their disdain for my family, my coworkers and my neighbors is daily being exposed through their confessions that they mistakenly believe to be successful attacks on a primary opponent. The drama unfolds and we are helpless to stop it.
daleanime
(17,796 posts)Piss me off as much as it does.
peacebird
(14,195 posts)figure out that we're running a giant scam with the corporations. You know, Ronnie's trickle down economics and job creators bullhockey? Yeah, we can't have you peons figuring out that it's just a ploy to pick your pockets and fill ours.
Stargazer99
(3,515 posts)
raindaddy
(1,370 posts)They were able to amassed a huge fortune over the years as have Wall Street and the global corporations. Unfortunately the poor and middle class haven't fared so well. NAFTA and Wall Street deregulation hasn't helped everyone either!
DefenseLawyer
(11,101 posts)It's not "mandatory" free tuition for everyone. It's making it available for anyone who needs it. "I got accepted to Harvard but then Bernie Sanders made me go to community college! Curse you Bernie Sanders!"
doc03
(39,075 posts)but I couldn't wait to get out of school. I went into industry and made more money and have a
good pension probably better than many people that went to college. More spending
for infrastructure or vocational training would create jobs. I know lots of people that have
a college education and owe thousands of dollars in student loans that are stuck in minimum wage jobs.
treestar
(82,383 posts)Going into debt at the beginning of one's life.
I wouldn't go today - I'd work and then go to a community college. I had some loans but back then they could be paid off.
What's with the assumption one will get a job to pay them off so easily right away?
We go into debt to own homes and cars. At least there is an asset there that is for certain. Going into debt for education is not a good thing. An idea that needs to be laid aside.
noamnety
(20,234 posts)It's pretty clear the intent is "the government can't pay everyone's way, and people who are rich like me don't need their help - so let's not subsidize the rich."
Distorting the intent isn't helpful.
LibDemAlways
(15,139 posts)those on the lower end of the economic spectrum who take out big loans to attend them and get very little in return except a bill they can't pay back. Mr. Villalba's degree isn't worth the paper it's printed on.
As I understand it, Bernie's plan would be limited to public colleges and universities. If it had the effect of steering students away from the vultures at the for profits, that's a good thing, an excellent thing.
The Clintons are elitists who sent their own daughter to one of the most prestigious private schools in the country for her undergraduate education. I know Bill meant that he doesn't think free tuition for the wealthy is a good idea. But the fact remains that Hillary is opposed to Bernie's plan. Provide public school college tuition for the masses who otherwise coudn't afford it? Let them eat cake.
Shadowflash
(1,536 posts)A LOT of other first-world industrialized nations manage it.
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)Isn't that a Republican meme?
Will he be calling for smaller government next?
Remember.... "Government IS the problem!"
I think one Dem President who admires Ronald Reagan is enough.
Omaha Steve
(109,147 posts)Hillary Clinton says she and Bill were 'dead broke': http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2014/jun/10/hillary-clinton/hillary-clinton-says-she-and-bill-were-dead-broke/
By Jon Greenberg on Tuesday, June 10th, 2014 at 6:18 p.m.
Hillary Clinton is walking the line between being remarkably successful and yet still in touch with the lives of ordinary people. The former secretary of state and potential 2016 presidential candidate has found herself trying to limit blowback to her claim that she and husband Bill were "dead broke" when they left the White House.
She made the comment during an interview with ABC’s Diane Sawyer. Sawyer pressed Clinton on a reported haul of $5 million in speaking fees.
"You have no reason to remember, but we came out of the White House not only dead broke, but in debt," Clinton said. "We had no money when we got there, and we struggled to piece together the resources for mortgages for houses, for Chelsea's education. It was not easy. Bill has worked really hard. And it's been amazing to me. He's worked very hard."
Republicans called the claim laughable and the next day Clinton clarified, again on ABC, that she and Bill had done very well over the past 14 years.
FULL story at link.
Shadowflash
(1,536 posts)First she (and her daughter) comes out against single payer, saying we CAN'T do it, now her husband comes out against providing advanced education for everybody, saying we can't do it.
Most other first-world industrialized countries provide one if not BOTH of these benefits. And the U.S. can't?
Just another reason not to vote for HRC. I used to say that, even if Clinton is the eventual Dem nominee, I'd vote for her, but she is now the candidate of 'No we can't'. I'm not so sure, now. I'm not going to vote for a candidate who campaigns on the promise of 'Sorry, we can't do that, so we're not gonna try'. I'm going to vote for the candidate who will at least ATTEMPT to put forward some progressive ideals.
The very fact that HRC believes that the U.S. isn't as good as other industrialized countries and we are just not up to accomplishing the things to advance the population, is a good reason NOT to vote for her. I'm not voting for someone who is throwing progressive ideas under the bus before she's even nominated. Not gonna happen.
bluestateguy
(44,173 posts)1) As he was saying, it makes no sense for the government to pick up the tab for people in his income category to go to college. And contrary to popular myth, not all rich kids go to private univerisities. UVA, Michigan, Berkeley, UCLA and UNC have plenty of rich kids. And they don't need help from Bernie, thank you, to go to school there.
2) And this is more my point: a good many kids are, I'm sorry, just not college material. They goofed off in high school, and didn't earn the right to go to college, or maybe (how can I gently say this?) they just aren't very bright.
retrowire
(10,345 posts)Last edited Fri Jan 22, 2016, 01:02 PM - Edit history (1)
get to go to college? Don't you think there will be criteria for getting that free college?
also, what's wrong with helping wealthy kids get into college as well? we don't hate the wealthy, we just tax them fairly. so their parents will be paying higher taxes to balance it out.
did they goof off on the governments dime and fail? expulsion and no more gov assistance is the solution. easy.
harun
(11,381 posts)Would need to be met to have the tab picked up.
College success has nothing to do with how bright someone is. It's about discipline, work ethic and organization. The final ingredient being knowing how the game is played. This is the secret ingredient most rich families teach their kids themselves or with prep schools before they get to college.
Bernie wants to knock down those barriers.
You are perpetuating the myth that colleges are full of just the "bright" kids that are getting an opportunity to move up the economic ladder. It is just that, a myth.
Nanjeanne
(6,578 posts)hated the idea of "means testing" - because it turned programs into welfare programs - and thus much more able for Congress to demonize and get rid of said programs. It's why Dems used to always be against means testing for SS, Medicare, etc. Same goes for Sanders program to include public colleges in his program for ALL. The wealthy in most cases aren't going to take advantage of this program - but they are allowed to because it's a program for ALL the citizens of the United States - including the wealthy. Sounds right to me. But then, I'm speaking as an old-time Democrat - not the third way kind of Dem.
Fast Walker 52
(7,723 posts)turbinetree
(27,488 posts)it's a different kind of greed and they are afraid .................................
And has for the college costs----------------------------look at what they do in Germany, Denmark, Sweden-----------------they pay a tax, the entire countries population pays a tax for "free education" so that the parents / children don't have that burden of the costs, the entire country takes on that burden for the good of the parents and the children, that's what Democratic-Socialists countries do-----------for the good for everyone in the economic system
Honk------------------for a political revolution
It is about getting a Progressive President, U.S. Supreme Court, Congress, State and Local Legislatures
Democracy begins with you-------------------------tag your it-----------------------Bernie Sanders to Thom Hartmann
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)It's really rather pathetic when they try to identify with the proletariat.
SoapBox
(18,791 posts)The millionaire Clintons...they make me sick.
snagglepuss
(12,704 posts)Even if this is what he believes there are "better" (that is, less in-your-face) of expressing it especially since Hillary is depending on the AA vote. OTOH maybe their own polling is showing AA's joining the Sanderstorm in huge numbers so now the Clinton's are focusing the most RW of their base.
LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)Feels like we just walked into a Republican convention here.
GeorgeGist
(25,570 posts)Problem solved.
Hiraeth
(4,805 posts)liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)left out. And what about all those students who just need a little help to get to that next level? Our college education should be like the K-12 system; payed for with taxes and open to everybody. I don't understand why we restrict access to information in this country. If libraries and the internet have taught us anything it is that information should be accessible to everybody.
Hiraeth
(4,805 posts)All should be accessible to those who want it regardless of expense.
azmom
(5,208 posts)Fucking disgusting.
harun
(11,381 posts)EndElectoral
(4,213 posts)This issue of only the rich being able to financially go to college without "fall out" is something I have seen expanding over the years. The cost of tuition and inequity in interest rates for students as opposed to rates the market has receivied have made college become more and more trade schools, rather than places of higher education. "Security" is the catch word rather than education, and the pursuit of dreams relegated to the back burner. I don't think it says much about our society at present.
We are told mixed messages. "Pursue your dream." "You can be anything you desire if you give your heart to it." The problem is this society doesn't give people that opportunity unless you can afford to fail. Wealthy people can do that. Middle class and poorer kids are left like Mr. Villalba, now stuck for the rest of their lives chasing down debt.
We are all entitled to the "pursuit of happiness". It's just got a lot more expensive nowadays.
I like Bernie's approach to higher education. He's a visionary who makes policies that puts hope into action, rather than the Clinton mantra of "let's be real", "we're progressive pragmatists", "we're the grown-ups", "no, we can't" kind of nonsense that would have never got this country started.
xynthee
(477 posts)I halfway assumed this was taken horribly out of context or something, but NOPE! 
I used to think the Clintons were decent people who merely lacked courage and conviction, but now I'm starting think they're actually BAD people.
last1standing
(11,709 posts)They have no moral right to object to this until NoHope Hillary quits lying and fires all of her trained monkeys, including Chelsea, who have lied about Bernie's proposals.
Orsino
(37,428 posts)Rosa Luxemburg
(28,627 posts)
MisterP
(23,730 posts)
Dawson Leery
(19,568 posts)The top 5% should not get free college as they can afford it on their own.
Strange how the Bernites decry all the wealthy have, yet want to give them more stuff.
randys1
(16,286 posts)you do that you create a welfare type situation and cons will NEVER stop trying to destroy it.
But, I dont see that part of what he said in the article.
Has to be there, right?
Armstead
(47,803 posts)The GOP loves those means-tested programs because they can demonize then by saying "they're taking your money to help someone else."
Harder to say that if everyone is entitled to the benefit.
randys1
(16,286 posts)He would make an argument for means testing, which I disagree with.
I looked at the article, something is missing, this doesnt make sense.
When Clinton criticized Bernie's plan he said he didn't think the rich should get their college paid for which would infer that he has no problem with the non rich getting their college paid for. Of course, he then clarified that the government can't help everyone which blew away that inference (that he had no problem with the non rich getting their college paid for).
The Velveteen Ocelot
(130,465 posts)at the most expensive colleges in the country. $250K for an hour and a half speech - that would get a student through Harvard. It would get them through college and grad school at a public university.
ViseGrip
(3,133 posts)
SusanCalvin
(6,592 posts)He actually said exactly that???? Unless something hijacked my link to the NYT, he actually said:
“People like me and Hillary can afford to go to college. The government can’t help everyone. We should have money to put into jobs and infrastructure.”
"People like me and Hillary"??? As opposed to what kind of people, exactly????
Fuck you, Bill. Just fuck you.
I don't normally cuss, I almost did the symbol thing, but I am very, very angry.
OK, upon reading replies here, maybe he meant rich people don't need government money. (My aside - yeah, they get enough from tax breaks, sharp lawyers and cheating.)
Nevertheless, it sounded *terrible.*
colsohlibgal
(5,276 posts)Not only that there should be an adjustable stipend too.
I am also coming around on a base income for everyone.
To get anywhere near any of this we must educate the electorate so we can take the US back from the Oligarchy.