Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

Playinghardball

(11,665 posts)
Mon May 9, 2016, 06:23 PM May 2016

Bernie Sanders' idea for free tuition at public colleges deserves an A

Bernie Sanders wants everyone to be offered a tuition-free college education and he’s called crazy. America can’t afford it, naysayers scoff. He’s just pandering to young voters.

But too many of us in California forget: This state did provide tuition-free college for generations.

That helped California achieve greatness by broadening the middle class and providing opportunities for upward mobility not available in other states.

It was an economic engine. In return for investing in higher education, California gained a widening pool of professionals, entrepreneurs and innovators who repaid the state many times over with tax payments, consumer buying and product creation. It set California apart.

So Sanders’ idea is not loony.

Another noteworthy thing about the Vermont senator’s intriguing race for the Democratic presidential nomination is that he doesn’t seem to have been significantly tarnished by the mark of “socialist.” He would have been a few years ago.

“The next time you hear me attacked as a socialist,” Sanders told Georgetown University students in December, “remember this: I don’t believe government should take over the grocery store down the street or own the means of production.

“But I do believe the middle class and working class of this country who produce the wealth … deserve a decent standard of living.”

Of course, it’s easier to tout socialism when you’re running in Democratic primaries. It’s not the same as a general election.

“President Obama has been called a socialist by Republicans for eight years,” says California pollster Ben Tulchin, who has conducted surveys for Sanders. “That has diluted the brand. If Obama is a socialist, all Democrats are socialists.”

Moreover, Tulchin adds, “It’s a negative implication that is lost on almost everyone under 50.”
The USSR — and all its socialist republics — no longer exists. The Cold War ended while millennials were in elementary school. The Iron Curtain crumbled.

These days, Tulchin says, “capitalism” is likely to be as dirty a word as “socialism” among young voters. Blame Wall Street greed, corrupt mortgage lenders and the widening income gap.

Paul Mitchell, who crunches voter stats for Political Data Inc., says: “When I grew up in the ‘80s, I didn’t want nuclear war. That forged my political view.

“Kids these days, their dominant political struggle is that their parents may lose their jobs, their house. Millennials go to sleep at night worried about not finding work or being laid off. They’re ticked about economic insecurity.”

That brings us back to free college. It’s no wonder the 74-year-old Sanders’ brand of socialism appeals strongly to young voters.

More here: http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-sac-skelton-bernie-sanders-college-20160509-story.html

72 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Bernie Sanders' idea for free tuition at public colleges deserves an A (Original Post) Playinghardball May 2016 OP
I also remember how California's deficits spiraled out of control. Trust Buster May 2016 #1
Wasn't that due to some insane tax law that passed under Reagan? glowing May 2016 #2
You are correct, Prop 13 nadinbrzezinski May 2016 #40
Do you have a point? rhett o rick May 2016 #5
I think my point was clearly fiscal responsibility. Trust Buster May 2016 #7
And how does that relate to educating our children? rhett o rick May 2016 #9
Those over the age of 17 are not children and should not be treated as such IMO. Trust Buster May 2016 #10
I agree, again what's your point? OK OK let me guess your point. You want to insinuate that rhett o rick May 2016 #13
They're young adults and not children. Teaching them dependency is not doing them any favors. Trust Buster May 2016 #19
Public schools teach dependency??? basselope May 2016 #20
You are purposefully deflecting. We're talking about young adults and college tuition. Trust Buster May 2016 #24
We are talking about PUBLIC SCHOOLS. basselope May 2016 #25
My first thought as well... deathrind May 2016 #52
I have to pay for K-12 schools Go Vols May 2016 #57
Thank you. deathrind May 2016 #61
Do they have "holes in their souls"? Matariki May 2016 #28
It is a message board for Democrats Demsrule86 May 2016 #29
Don't fall for that Right wing trick. Fiscal responsibility is NOT the exclusive domain of Repubs. Trust Buster May 2016 #31
No but "fiscal responsibility" has long been used by conservatives as code for rhett o rick May 2016 #36
This message was self-deleted by its author rhett o rick May 2016 #35
And increased tax revenue from higher paying jobs... scscholar May 2016 #30
Yes, AFTER PROP 13 was passed nadinbrzezinski May 2016 #39
We haven't forgotten. ucrdem May 2016 #3
His idea of making the wealthy pay their fair share isn't new, but certainly unpopular with rhett o rick May 2016 #8
It's not the idea, but his plan, that is patently absurd. CrowCityDem May 2016 #4
Yes the conservatives don't like the idea of taxing the wealthy for helping educate the rhett o rick May 2016 #6
Not that your right wing talking points deserve a response... CrowCityDem May 2016 #14
And she is the only candidate that said Iraq had WMD and harbored al queda. She has rhett o rick May 2016 #15
... and she's the only candidate who's shown some type of correct thinking on wrong votes Sanders? uponit7771 May 2016 #18
Yeap, and making college even partially free for Trumps kids would be pretty shitty uponit7771 May 2016 #17
An FTT is absurd? We had one in the US from 1918-1966. basselope May 2016 #21
It's "absurd" because it's mostly taxing the Richie Riches Art_from_Ark May 2016 #37
This promise is pure fantasy. kstewart33 May 2016 #11
States ALREADY pay that amount. basselope May 2016 #22
Right, which means they would have to double their current education budgets Recursion May 2016 #53
No. basselope May 2016 #55
No, this is additional spending. Seriously, you should actually read the plan Recursion May 2016 #66
No. basselope May 2016 #67
Right, he's asking for new spending roughly equal to current spending Recursion May 2016 #69
No. basselope May 2016 #70
I agree, you should read the plan, because you clearly haven't Recursion May 2016 #71
You should read the plan, because you clearly haven't basselope May 2016 #72
And most of those community colleges are not even in the same league as state universities Corporate666 May 2016 #12
It worked fine for years and works in Europe. Making money off our college students is criminal rhett o rick May 2016 #16
You're wrong Corporate666 May 2016 #49
Many countries offer free college or very inexpensive college, like Brazil, Finland, Germany, rhett o rick May 2016 #54
So when you said Corporate666 May 2016 #64
I recognize you. Blame the victim. Just tell them to get a job and pull themselves up rhett o rick May 2016 #65
What nonsense Art_from_Ark May 2016 #38
You failed to respond to what I wrote Corporate666 May 2016 #50
You realize that UC Berkeley and UCLA did this for literally decades nadinbrzezinski May 2016 #41
I agree, ignorance is at incredible depths Corporate666 May 2016 #56
K&R. nt silvershadow May 2016 #23
K & R AzDar May 2016 #26
Who doesn't want meaningful college help for young people? Demsrule86 May 2016 #27
Sanders has put a specific proposal on the table to expand college access. jonestonesusa May 2016 #34
Most of the great ideas in history have been labeled as absurd at one time. Indpndntfrombirth May 2016 #32
No! An "F" ProgressiveEconomist May 2016 #33
As an economists, a progressive one no less, I am sure nadinbrzezinski May 2016 #42
Did you even read my post ProgressiveEconomist May 2016 #43
Yes I did nadinbrzezinski May 2016 #44
One important difference ProgressiveEconomist May 2016 #45
And in the US we would like to privatize everything nadinbrzezinski May 2016 #46
Which plan will reduce ProgressiveEconomist May 2016 #47
My view is that Sanders will nadinbrzezinski May 2016 #48
I get it--because ProgressiveEconomist May 2016 #62
Well I get it because well HRC is the bestest candidate ever nadinbrzezinski May 2016 #63
The "progressive" "economist" endorses the republican plan. arcane1 May 2016 #51
You mean President Obama's ProgressiveEconomist May 2016 #59
What have we become? deathrind May 2016 #58
Kicked and recommended. Uncle Joe May 2016 #60
kr Norrin Radd May 2016 #68
 

glowing

(12,233 posts)
2. Wasn't that due to some insane tax law that passed under Reagan?
Mon May 9, 2016, 06:32 PM
May 2016

I thought that was the "real" culprit.

 

rhett o rick

(55,981 posts)
13. I agree, again what's your point? OK OK let me guess your point. You want to insinuate that
Mon May 9, 2016, 06:53 PM
May 2016

providing college educations to Calif children directly cause their debt. About next you will saying "they need to pull themselves up by their bootstraps." You know this is a message board for "politically liberals" right?

deathrind

(1,786 posts)
52. My first thought as well...
Tue May 10, 2016, 07:41 PM
May 2016

Going to school makes one dependent...?!?!?

If that is the case I guess grades K-12 are really really bad....

/facepalm

Go Vols

(5,902 posts)
57. I have to pay for K-12 schools
Tue May 10, 2016, 07:58 PM
May 2016

and I have no children in them,pay for 4 more years wont bother me.

from 1932-1976, the Democratic Party as a whole was far more progressive. The issues and approaches advocated today by Bernie Sanders were considered mainstream Democratic ideas by Franklin D. Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy, and Lyndon Johnson, and even many moderate Republicans. It was common to support strict financial regulation, liberal immigration, social services for the poor, and progressive tax policies.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tony-brasunas/there-is-a-moderate-republican-in-this-race_b_9704194.html

deathrind

(1,786 posts)
61. Thank you.
Tue May 10, 2016, 08:04 PM
May 2016

I pay for them also and do not have nor ever will have children and I have no problem with that.

To paraphrase:

I do not mind taxes. It buys a civilized society with roads, water/electric/sewage infrastructure, parks, emergency aid, education...etc, etc, etc...

Demsrule86

(68,347 posts)
29. It is a message board for Democrats
Mon May 9, 2016, 08:12 PM
May 2016

And don't think you represent Democratic thinking or even that Bernie does because it is not so.

 

rhett o rick

(55,981 posts)
36. No but "fiscal responsibility" has long been used by conservatives as code for
Tue May 10, 2016, 12:11 AM
May 2016

cutting programs for the 99% while keeping a high defense budget, for example.

Response to Demsrule86 (Reply #29)

 

scscholar

(2,902 posts)
30. And increased tax revenue from higher paying jobs...
Mon May 9, 2016, 08:19 PM
May 2016

will fix that. Too bad the Republicans want instead to depress wages and thus tax revenue.

 

nadinbrzezinski

(154,021 posts)
39. Yes, AFTER PROP 13 was passed
Tue May 10, 2016, 12:27 AM
May 2016

well after Reagan ended these free colleges. By the way, people who actually understand budgets and taxes said that passage of Prop 13 would do that.

I suspect you would have voted for Prop 13... call it a suspicion of mine.

 

rhett o rick

(55,981 posts)
8. His idea of making the wealthy pay their fair share isn't new, but certainly unpopular with
Mon May 9, 2016, 06:44 PM
May 2016

Goldman-Sachs and Clinton.

 

rhett o rick

(55,981 posts)
6. Yes the conservatives don't like the idea of taxing the wealthy for helping educate the
Mon May 9, 2016, 06:43 PM
May 2016

countries youth. Even though their businesses need educated workers. Conservatives like Clinton want the working class to pay via taxes. Conservatives don't like taxing the wealthy at all. Most really really want to be wealthy.

 

CrowCityDem

(2,348 posts)
14. Not that your right wing talking points deserve a response...
Mon May 9, 2016, 06:54 PM
May 2016

But Hillary is he only candidate who ha pledged not to raise taxes on the middle class. Your assertion is pure bunk.

 

rhett o rick

(55,981 posts)
15. And she is the only candidate that said Iraq had WMD and harbored al queda. She has
Mon May 9, 2016, 06:58 PM
May 2016

an integrity issue. Do you think her transcripts tell the bankers they need to pay more taxes? She is close to the bankers and not the working class.

uponit7771

(90,225 posts)
18. ... and she's the only candidate who's shown some type of correct thinking on wrong votes Sanders?
Mon May 9, 2016, 07:04 PM
May 2016

... not so much, just doesn't have the character to be president

kstewart33

(6,551 posts)
11. This promise is pure fantasy.
Mon May 9, 2016, 06:51 PM
May 2016

It will never pass Congress. State legislatures must pay for one third of the total cost. Republicans control most of the state legislatures.

DOA in Congress and the states.

Recursion

(56,582 posts)
53. Right, which means they would have to double their current education budgets
Tue May 10, 2016, 07:43 PM
May 2016

What states are spending right now on higher education is roughly what Sanders's plan asks them to increase spending by to get rid of tuition.

 

basselope

(2,565 posts)
55. No.
Tue May 10, 2016, 07:51 PM
May 2016

They spend the same and the FTT makes up the difference, leaving them with 1/3 of the total bill (which is roughly what they already pay today).



Recursion

(56,582 posts)
66. No, this is additional spending. Seriously, you should actually read the plan
Tue May 10, 2016, 08:56 PM
May 2016

He's asking states to kick in 1/3rd of the cost over and above their current funding levels.

 

basselope

(2,565 posts)
67. No.
Tue May 10, 2016, 09:17 PM
May 2016

The amount he is asking is equal to their current spending with the ftt making up the 2/3 currently covered by the people

Recursion

(56,582 posts)
69. Right, he's asking for new spending roughly equal to current spending
Tue May 10, 2016, 09:58 PM
May 2016

Or roughly doubling the states' higher ed budgets.

If you don't even take this plan seriously enough to read it why do you expect anyone else to?

Recursion

(56,582 posts)
71. I agree, you should read the plan, because you clearly haven't
Tue May 10, 2016, 10:11 PM
May 2016

if you think that this isn't new state spending he's asking for.

 

basselope

(2,565 posts)
72. You should read the plan, because you clearly haven't
Wed May 11, 2016, 12:45 AM
May 2016

If you think that this is new state spending he's asking for.

Corporate666

(587 posts)
12. And most of those community colleges are not even in the same league as state universities
Mon May 9, 2016, 06:53 PM
May 2016

Sorry to burst people's bubble... but there is no way to have your cake and eat it too.

Community colleges in the CA system (and nationwide) are nowhere even close to places like UCLA and UC Berkeley. It is simply not possible for the government to make some of the best universities in the country "free", and pay for it, and have the universities remain as good as they are now.

It's just not possible.

If UCLA was "free", enrollment would skyrocket. And they would have to become super-selective, and only the very top 1% (or likely less) would be accepted. And since that 1% would be the academic cream of the crop, they would be the ones least likely to need free university because they would be able to get grants and scholarships to most any university they wanted.

Bernie is advocating a juvenile fantasy in claiming college can be free, and be just as good as it is now, and everyone who wants to go can go, and it won't harm the private colleges, and it is all able to be paid for without causing an economic implosion. He's flat-out lying about it.

 

rhett o rick

(55,981 posts)
16. It worked fine for years and works in Europe. Making money off our college students is criminal
Mon May 9, 2016, 07:01 PM
May 2016

and why it is so appealing to conservatives like Goldman-Sachs. And may community colleges have connected with state universities and give out full degrees.

Corporate666

(587 posts)
49. You're wrong
Tue May 10, 2016, 07:33 PM
May 2016

There are only a few countries that offer free college education. Believing "Europe" has free college is like believing "America" bans abortion. It's just not true.

And as for the few countries that DO offer free college, their colleges are pathetically ranked compared to those in the USA. Not even in the same ballpark.

 

rhett o rick

(55,981 posts)
54. Many countries offer free college or very inexpensive college, like Brazil, Finland, Germany,
Tue May 10, 2016, 07:48 PM
May 2016

France, Slovenia, Sweden, Mexico, and more. The conservatives like to make profits off our college students. It's all about greed.

Corporate666

(587 posts)
64. So when you said
Tue May 10, 2016, 08:15 PM
May 2016

that it worked (free college) for years and years in Europe, what you actually meant was that a few countries in Europe had low cost college?

Not exactly the same thing.

Take a look at the ranking of those free institutions and you will see they score badly. The reason is mostly because they are being run on a budget which denies them access to the latest facilities, materials and tools and of course denies them access to the top educational faculty.

Furthermore, even the countries where it's "free", it's not free.. you still have to pay for room and board, which comes out to around $10k/year.

Now, we have plenty of very low cost state universities in the USA. Florida State Jacksonville is $2,500 per year. New Mexico state is less than $1,800/year. Arkansas State is $2,500/year. These are very affordable schools, and I don't think there are many people who can't afford to go there (the vast majority could easily get loans, grants and scholarships to go).

The problem is that people don't want to go there. They want to go to top schools like Penn State, UCLA, Virginia Tech, Chapel Hill, Georgia tech and the like... and they don't want to have to pay for it.

Life just doesn't work that way. The reason the latter schools are so good is because they are expensive and they can afford top facilities and teaching talent.

People want their cake and to eat it too - that's the problem. And Bernie is right there telling them they CAN have their cake and they CAN eat it too. And people believe it because confirmation bias and because they would like it to be true.

 

rhett o rick

(55,981 posts)
65. I recognize you. Blame the victim. Just tell them to get a job and pull themselves up
Tue May 10, 2016, 08:23 PM
May 2016

by their boot-straps. Yea, that's the ticket. This is intended to be a "politically liberal" message board not "politically conservative."

Art_from_Ark

(27,247 posts)
38. What nonsense
Tue May 10, 2016, 12:24 AM
May 2016

My in-state tuition in the '70s-'80s was essentially free-- undergraduate tuition was roughly $300 a semester, and just a Pell Grant would cover the entire fee. And grad school was free, with a little stipend included, for students with teaching assistantships. I took out a small NDSL loan as a financial cushion, but the 3% interest didn't start accruing until 9 months after I had left school for good. In the meantime, I was getting 5% bank interest with the loan, which helped to pay for some incidental expenses.

So I was a beneficiary then of what you're pooh-poohing today.

Corporate666

(587 posts)
50. You failed to respond to what I wrote
Tue May 10, 2016, 07:37 PM
May 2016

I never said college was never inexpensive for anyone, so I really have no idea why you are responding to that.

I said the free colleges that existed then (and now) are nowhere near the level of current state universities. That is a fact. If you don't believe me, look up where UCLA or UC-Berkeley are ranked on a national scale. Then look up any of the "free" California colleges.

They aren't even in the same ballpark - they are not even comparable.

It is simply not possible to make a school like UCLA "free" without

-Unprecedented costs
-Incredibly strict acceptance criteria
-Harming private colleges

For Sanders or anyone else to suggest otherwise is like saying you can eat as much pizza and ice cream as you want for every meal, and you will end up with the body of a greek god.

Sure, anyone can say it - but that doesn't make it true.

 

nadinbrzezinski

(154,021 posts)
41. You realize that UC Berkeley and UCLA did this for literally decades
Tue May 10, 2016, 12:32 AM
May 2016

and became the powerhouses they did... becuase of that right?

Ignorance is at incredible depths these days.

Corporate666

(587 posts)
56. I agree, ignorance is at incredible depths
Tue May 10, 2016, 07:52 PM
May 2016

Your post is a prime example.

UCLA and UC-B were not free for "literally decades". Even when it was "free" for residents, they charged much higher tuition to out-of-state students to cover it being "free" to residents. I put "free" in quotes, because there were tuition costs - except they just weren't called tuition. It really doesn't matter what you call it - the fact is one had to pay money to go there and if one did not pay, they did not go.

So your premise that they did it for 'literally decades' and this is what built them up to where they are is just completely wrong.

They were charging people to go there 100 years ago and have charged people every year since - on an increasing basis. As a matter of fact, back in the 50's they were charging non-residents about the same (on an adjusted historical monetary value basis) as they are charging today.

In the 70's, the state was paying about 1/3rd of the school's total costs, and 10 years ago it was about half of that. What elevated UC's status and ranking as a school was the amount of money they were bringing in which let them build superior facilities and hire top academic talent to teach.

The school was never free, and even if it was, the claim that being free was what let them become the powerhouse they are is just nonsense. Correlation is not causation, but there isn't even correlation.

Demsrule86

(68,347 posts)
27. Who doesn't want meaningful college help for young people?
Mon May 9, 2016, 08:07 PM
May 2016

However, I am sick and tired of Bernie acting like he is the only Dem who wants this. Some of us look at a GOP House and see it won't happen. Promises and more promises from Bernie...and it won't happen. You can't use public opinion against the house because they are safe in their cozy districts and unless the gerrymander lawsuit winding its way to SCOTUS succeeds (another reason courts are so important)or we take back governorships and states houses by 2020. It will continue for another 10 years. Hillary beat Bernie by millions of votes.The supers will not overturn the will of the voters: She has more delegates. I look at the math and know he has no path. This is why I am so angry with him...he risks the general at a critical time in our history. I just can't believe someone who would risk a Trump president and knowingly criticise Hillary with words that Trump uses against is sincere in his beliefs. The president is one person and to expect him/her to be able to carry out the Democratic agenda without congress shows that you have no idea how the system works. So you people can post about pie in the sky...I will continue to look at what is actually doable. Bernie should concede and help with the heavy lifting needed to beat Trump...to do otherwise is unthinkable. It is at times like this that we can judge someone's character or lack thereof.

jonestonesusa

(880 posts)
34. Sanders has put a specific proposal on the table to expand college access.
Mon May 9, 2016, 10:09 PM
May 2016

Beyond Bernie vs. Hillary, the obsession of the moment - the college proposal most definitely deserves discussion!! It has a reasonable and significant mechanism for funding (trading tax), and it addresses a significant social issue of high debt among students, limited college access for a whole lot more students, and low investment in public colleges and universities. Why not encourage the party's leaders to put the election politics aside for long enough to give full consideration this proposed solution to a significant pubic issue? All we hear lately is that the primary is over - why didn't we have a robust discussion, as a party, about this proposal?

The objections to the college access proposal from a whole segment of the Dem party show perfectly why Dem party identification is shrinking, since the national party has no clue at this point how to to strengthen its natural appeal to liberals, young adults, and pre-voting age youth. Is this a party with core values focused on expanded opportunity? Not now - not as long as the voting Dem majority is paralyzed by fear of change and fear of Donald Trump in equal parts, so it can't even have a real debate about ideas like the college proposal. If HRC holds on - she's been the favorite from the beginning, OBVIOUSLY - she still faces high levels of dissent within her own party and she still loses primaries, even after five months of constant declarations that the race is over! Feel the excitement yet?

Less vision, more meh - that's how you win those young voters!!

My challenge to all Dems: debate the college access proposal on its merits. Can we all manage that?

32. Most of the great ideas in history have been labeled as absurd at one time.
Mon May 9, 2016, 08:30 PM
May 2016

Dare to dream. Even if Hillary is elected and true (non-corporatist) progressivism must go underground for 4-8 years, the current only runs one way.

ProgressiveEconomist

(5,818 posts)
33. No! An "F"
Mon May 9, 2016, 08:52 PM
May 2016

for not thinking it through and making unanticipated consequences inevitable.

Trillions of tax dollars would be wasted on those whose families already can afford tuition anywhere, " fixing" what's not broken.

Families of those kids as well as families that could afford to pay part of the freight at private colleges would swarm Berkeley, Michigan, UVa, and other public university jewels, endangering the fiscal health of private colleges.

Most poor students would have an even harder time competing for public colleges than they do now. And even if they were admitted, they likely would not live within commuting distance, and could not afford room and board.

In comparison, HRC advocates an affordable $100 billion a year program called "America's College Promise" (Google it) that is targeted on those who cannot now afford college and avoids all the traps SBS's plan falls into.

In addition, HRC's plan, unlike SBS's sucker-bait for well-off white millenials, already has shown itself to be politically feasible. A version implemented by a Republican governor in very red TN has proved very popular with employers as well as with voters. Unlike SBS's plan, ACP is guaranteed to increase the supply of post-secondary degreed workers, as well as to decrease poverty.

 

nadinbrzezinski

(154,021 posts)
42. As an economists, a progressive one no less, I am sure
Tue May 10, 2016, 12:36 AM
May 2016

you realize that the funding mechanism proposed by the Sanders campaign is one successfully used in Europe at the current time, right? That be fast trades. There is another aspect to this proposal, prior to Raegan's assault on public education in CA, including basic primary and secondary education, as well as the passage of Prop 13, CA did this. They paid for kids, in state kids, to attend college.

It was, again, you are a progressive economist. an engine of economic growth. I am also positive you are familiar with the increasing linkage between great depressions and economic inequality, or maybe that is just a cute handle.

ProgressiveEconomist

(5,818 posts)
43. Did you even read my post
Tue May 10, 2016, 12:57 AM
May 2016

before responding?

A basic principle of efficient subsidies is that they should increase the supply of what is being subsidized. HRC's "America' s College Promise" does just that, while SBS's boondoggle mainly would induce those already bound for private colleges to switch to public, wasting trillions with little effect on the output of workers with post-secondary degrees.

I presume the "fast transaction tax" you mentioned is a generalization of the "Tobin tax" a Nobelist economist proposed decades ago. Why would it be politically feasible now, after all these years of not being implemented? And if it were somehow enacted into law, why would it not be used for non-wasteful higher priority policies such as infrastructure banks or universal pre-K?

IMO SBS's "free college tuition" plan is a cynical bid for millenials' votes from a sleazy, clueless pol who is running against Democrats in Congress.

 

nadinbrzezinski

(154,021 posts)
44. Yes I did
Tue May 10, 2016, 12:58 AM
May 2016

and I also read both plans... and I know one is feasible economically since it is being done already. (Of course in Europe where they do not believe the No We Can't mantra of right wing trickle down US economics)

ProgressiveEconomist

(5,818 posts)
45. One important difference
Tue May 10, 2016, 01:21 AM
May 2016

between the US and Europe is that Europe already has implemented higher-priority policies such as high quality universal preschool and primary school.

Another important difference is that in Germany or England, it is virtually only the elites who can pass the tough tests used to steer early teenagers to university rather than blue collar apprenticeships.

In Europe, "party schools" like UWV are hard to find, let alone subsidized the way they are here.

Apples and oranges.

 

nadinbrzezinski

(154,021 posts)
46. And in the US we would like to privatize everything
Tue May 10, 2016, 01:36 AM
May 2016

And get rid of all public services, while increasing income innequality.

We will pay for this as a society. I am glad, I am dead serious, that I do not have kids, or would be looking for a way out of the asylum.

But on a very serious note, the US used to have "free universities" like in California. The level of ROI was significant. It is far from a coincidence that since we stopped doing that, and gutted education, CA is no longer leading in national statistics.

The fact that conservatives, yes, conservatives, keep making these arguments...

By the way, the self interest theory of having rich kids attend Cal State San Marcos because it is cheaper than oh USD, local example, is stupid. Why? For the same reason kids attend private schools instead of public school. Why? The name of the school in the diploma and the connections made are far more important than how cheap or expensive a school is at that level.

If you think kids will attend Berkley instead of Harvard...again proof and pudding. Kids still attended Harvard, even when Berkley was free. But hey, YMWV

And we will pay for this no we wan't attitude.

ProgressiveEconomist

(5,818 posts)
47. Which plan will reduce
Tue May 10, 2016, 01:50 AM
May 2016

poverty while simultaneously increasing the proportion of US workers with postsecondary degrees the most, with least waste of scarce federal revenues?

That is the bottom-line policy question relevant on this thread, IMO.

My answer is HRC's. What's yours?

 

nadinbrzezinski

(154,021 posts)
48. My view is that Sanders will
Tue May 10, 2016, 12:40 PM
May 2016

Last edited Tue May 10, 2016, 08:12 PM - Edit history (1)

Hers is a band aid. Incidentally just like her climate plan

 

nadinbrzezinski

(154,021 posts)
63. Well I get it because well HRC is the bestest candidate ever
Tue May 10, 2016, 08:13 PM
May 2016

and well... she is a woman... yes, that is the level of dismissive thinking you just engaged in. Thanks for confirming though that yours is just a funny handle.

deathrind

(1,786 posts)
58. What have we become?
Tue May 10, 2016, 07:59 PM
May 2016

We argue about everyone getting an education. This is not Democratic in any sense of the word.

BTW for those who think this idea of education for all is "pie in the sky tomfoolery". Remember over the last decade we as tax payers have dropped over a trillion dollars on ONE single plane.....that still cannot fly reliably for the nation defense.

I wont even mention non defense related corporate welfare or..............TARP.... oh wait, dang.

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»Bernie Sanders' idea for ...