Bernie Wants Tuition-Free Public College.

[MineralMan]

Last edited Wed May 18, 2016, 03:27 PM - Edit history (1)

So do I. I had it in California back in the 1960s and into the early 1970s when I finally graduated after four years in the USAF. It was great. Still had to pay for room and board and books, etc., but no tuition, just a modest fee per semester. I also had $256 per month from the GI Bill, which helped in the very late 60s and early 70s. But I earned that.

Know who killed that off? Guess? You're right. It was Ronald Freaking Reagan. He got rid of that free college stuff, kicked the mentally ill out on the street and did lots of fun Republican things. He was a real trend-setter, he was. Pretty soon, the same thing happened everywhere and he got to be President.

What will bring it back? Well, probably not Bernie Sanders, even if he gets elected. See, that free college was paid for through taxation, back in the 50s and 60s. Today? Well, doing that will cost a pretty penny more than it did back then, for sure. And the only way to pay for it will be through taxation once again.

Republicans figured something out. People who vote like having their taxes cut. They hate having their taxes increased. In fact, they don't like to vote for people who want to raise taxes, even if those taxes don't affect them personally. The Republicans figured that out, way back in the 1970s. Cut taxes and get elected.

We've gotten used to that sort of thing now. 50 years later, putting things like free college back in place will demand some pretty hefty increases in taxation on someone, for sure. Who? Well, logically, it would be the 1%, Wall Street and corporations. That'd be great, if you could pull it off. But, there's the rub.

Bottom line, there is zero sentiment out there among a majority of voters for free colleges or anything else that will cost more in taxation. It doesn't matter if the taxes are on them or not. They don't want to hear about more taxes. Congress won't vote for such taxes. Heck, House members have to run every two years. They're not going to pass that stuff. And then, the states would have to raise some taxes to pay for their share of those free colleges. They have the same problem with already strapped voters. Voters don't like talk about raising taxes. They won't vote for people who want to do that. They just plain don't like the idea.

That's why Bernie can't deliver tuition-free public colleges. He can talk about it. People like the idea of free college. That's not surprising. But people also know how free public colleges happen. Nothing's free. They can hear "taxes" in that. They don't like it. They don't want their congress members, their governors or their state legislators starting to talk about more taxes. They won't re-elect people who do that.

And there it is. No tuition-free college is going to happen anytime soon, if ever. Ronald Reagan killed that real dead.

[RufusTFirefly]

1. Good point. We might as well just give up. We're doomed.

We've as much chance of getting free public colleges as we have of witnessing the fall of the Berlin Wall.

[MineralMan]

3. I think you're missing my point here.

But that's OK.

[CountAllVotes]

2. I remember when they were free too

Or a nominal fee, like $15.00 for a class.

This helped me greatly. I did not have to pay money to take the classes one needs for a B.A. degree at a community college rather than the much higher State university cost.

There were satellite campuses set-up all around where I live and this was in the 1990's which made it particularly convenient being many of the classes I needed were offered at night as I worked full-time during the day.

It was good for those that had no other way to go which was my case.

& recommend.

[MineralMan]

11. See, I want that back, too, for all the young people who need it.

I won't even mind paying more taxes for it. Lots of people agree with us on that. However, those people are far from a voting majority in this country and in our individual states. A candidate who calls for things like that simply isn't going to get a majority of the votes, and even if he or she does, legislators won't go along, since they have to run, too.

I want a lot of things. I want single payer healthcare. I want paid medical and parenting leave. I want absolute equal pay for equal work. I want free public colleges. I want a peaceful world free from warfare, too, and the destruction of all nuclear weapons. I want solar power to provide 100% of our energy needs and the end of burning fossil fuels. I want every worker to be paid a living wage. I want lots of stuff.

I'll bet you want the same things, among others. But, there's not a majority of voters out there who will vote for all that, since they know for an absolute certainty how it all will be paid for. We all do. I'm willing to pay for my share of it, but you'll find that people who are willing make up a pretty small minority of the population.

And there's the rub. We have to win those things by electing people who will support them. That means convincing a majority that it's in their best interests to support them. We're far, far from that goal today. So far that anyone who is voicing those ideas is going to lose elections and lose badly. We're going to either have to educate people or sneak up on them with those things. Either way, it's not going to happen simply because an enlightened minority knows they're a good idea. The minority doesn't really rule here. It never has.

[Yavin4]

46. You have to defeat the racism first

White people make up a majority of the voting public. As a whole, they won't vote for programs that will benefit other races. Until that goes away somehow, your agenda won't move forward.

[azurnoir]

4. we have a program for that in community collages in Mpls-St Paul

haven't heard many complaints

[MineralMan]

14. Yes we do. Minneapolis St. Paul is a reasonably enlightened community.

On the other hand, we have a crumbling elementary and secondary school system in both cities, especially in low income neighborhoods. We do OK with some stuff, but not so much with other stuff. The U of M is far from tuition-free, as are the other state four year colleges.

The community colleges are doing OK, though. For now. As long as we keep the state legislature and Governor in Democratic hands, we can probably keep those going. But, we keep flipping and flopping in mid-term elections, and end up being set back again and again. It's the same dilemma.

And then there are all of those other states and cities where things aren't so hot. Detroit's public schools are bankrupt and crumbling. Literally crumbling. Mississippi is still a backwater when it comes to just about everything.

It's a big country. When you're talking about national elections and Congress, well, it gets complicated as Hell.

[msongs]

5. he wants F-35s too and votes to spend billions for them. nt

[JCanete]

6. Give us something we can get! Give us something we can get!

I want a T-shirt that says "I'm with her!"

When do we want it? "whenever!"

[Downwinder]

7. Wasn't that in the 1964 Democratic platform?

Last edited Wed May 18, 2016, 06:02 PM - Edit history (1)

Shows how far right we have come.

By the way, there at least five tuition-free colleges.

[anotherproletariat]

8. Sanders knew this all along, but it was the quickest way to get a devoted following...

and very few of them realize even now that they have been used.

[Go Vols]

9. "We've gotten used to that sort of thing now"

Not all of us have.It still pisses me off.

In the late 1970s, as large corporations turned into transnational giants, they pumped huge amounts of cash into the political system. This largesse lured, first, the Republican Party, in the 80s, followed by the Democratic Party in the ‘90s, and precipitated a rightward political shift as both parties rewrote their policies to compete for the same corporate contributions.

Before this, 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

[MineralMan]

22. Again, I give you Ronald Freaking Reagan.

Along with Newt Gingrich and his merry band. Reagan screwed up California royally and then took his destruction to DC.

The 1970s were the beginning of the decline. How we pull ourselves back up is anyone's guess, but it won't be by electing Bernie Sanders. He would not win if he were the nominee, I'm 100% certain. And Donald Freaking Trump would be even worse than Ronald Reagan was. He's nucking futs. His way is the road to total destruction.

We must win in 2016. We must win the White House and we must regain control of the Senate. We must. If we don't, well, people other than me will pay the price. I'm 70 years old. I'll be dead before we can turn things back around.

Hillary Clinton is just stopgap. She's just a preventive measure. She can win in November. Bernie can't, for the reasons I described in my original post. I guarantee it. The Republicans have been giving him a pass so far. That will stop the moment he's the nominee. Fortunately that seems unlikely. We can get Clinton elected. We can't get Bernie elected, I believe. We must win the White House and Senate this year. If we don't, we won't get either back for a very long time, if ever.

Such are the opinions of this doddering old fool.

[Go Vols]

32. "Hillary Clinton is just stopgap. She's just a preventive measure."

Lets hope.

I most likely will not live long enough to see it get turned around either,took 30+ years to get to where we are,don't think I have 30 more in me.But at least I did get to live part of my life with real Dem's in power.

[CrowCityDem]

10. Here's the discrepency:

We keep hearing that the anger fueling populism is because people can't get ahead. They don't have jobs, or they don't have jobs that pay enough. They keep falling behind, and can't live the American dream.

So how can you claim that, and at the same time advocate raising taxes on most of those people, as Bernie's plan does? The two thoughts don't seem to fit together at all.

[apnu]

16. I would rather shift DoD costs to fund this and other things

We spend way too much on our military, its been an outrage since the 1980s. We grossly over pay for it. Do we need six carrier groups around the world? How much does the F-35 cost?

There are ways to find funding for things internally without raising taxes as the first option.

[CrowCityDem]

25. I agree.

But this has been an impossible conversation to have. Every time I have tried to point out some things in Bernie's plans that make it hard for me to support them, like these tax increases on the poor, the rhetoric immediately jumps to "now we can't", and "you're not progressive".

I appreciate being able to actually talk about these details respectfully.

[apnu]

43. Yes, it is a chore. I have a theory about that.

I've followed presidential campaigns seriously since 2004. I've been an active voter since 1992, but didn't follow the nuances and details of campaigns leading up to election day. I left all that to providence in my youth.

I've learned that the candidate projects an aura and their supporters, to a certain extent, reflect that aura and amplify it.

Look at 2008. That was a bitter primary, as bitter as this one, maybe more. But Obama projects a sunny, warm, and pleasant disposition and many of his followers did also. I can't say what of that is conscious or not, but the end result is many Obama supporters were positive in the face of bitter disappointment form Hillary supporters.

Hillary is Hillary in 2008 and here in 2016. She's aloof and distant, and very personally guarded (I don't blame her after the hell Republicans put her though in the 90s). She's also sarcastic and sharp witted. Her supporters tend to be quite snarky and sharp. I see many of the same things said of her by her supporters in Hillary's defense now as I did in 2008.

Now Bernie. He thinks himself as an outsider, despite the fact that he's caucused with the Democrats for decades. He is, effectually a Democrat without the name. But by not being in the party he goes it along, in terms of campaigning and has a real "I'll do this myself" vibe. He's also cantankerous and feisty, he likes to politically brawl. His supporters also are that way, quick to jump in a fight and very pissed off and negative. Bernie talks a positive political policy but his tone and actions are one of combat and frustration.

When you look at how Bernie supporters project themselves, they are quick to argue have a "we're on our own" vibe which makes it difficult to have a discussion. When the other side starts with "with us or against us", listening goes out the window fast. Now that Bernie is all but done, they are going through the beginnings of the stages of grief. There is a thick mix of disbelief and anger in GDP right now.

We need to be patient with them as they go through this process. It also behooves us to find ways to include them. Their core ideals are not wrong, and their energy will be needed later on. Bernie has good points, its in the Democratic Party's best interests to listen to them and incorporate them into the platform.

[MineralMan]

27. Yes, exactly. The fear of falling further behind is

the thing that drives resistance to additional taxation. It's actually a real risk for many people. They can't see past the next five years, and those five years are scary as hell while things sort themselves out. They will absolutely vote against what they fear, even if their vote means even worse things they don't recognize.

We've done a poor job of educating people. That's what's needed. We have to show them, in real terms how this will all go and that it will not bankrupt them, send them further down the rabbit hole or outright kill them. I'm not seeing much of that going on, and unless it does, they will reject the ideas out of fear.

It's some scary shit. We can elect Clinton. She can serve as a stopgap while we try, once again, to educate people on where we can go if we want to. Right now, nobody's listening.

[TheSarcastinator]

12. NO WE CAN'T!!!

Thanks, MM. As always, you are a fine representative for Team Status Quo.

[iloveObama12]

13. Maybe later but not now.

[nadinbrzezinski]

15. Forget about colleges

when the roads start to need new paving and there is no money, and water pipes fail, then maybe selfish people will get it. Or maybe when they call 911... "this telephone has been disconnected."

By the way, are you a fast trader? Just wondering, his plan involved that, not taxing you.

I got mine... you know the rest.

[apnu]

18. Kinda like Illinois?

Have you seen the roads in Chicago?

[nadinbrzezinski]

19. I just need to get out my door

it is an election year, I live by a major road, so it got fixed, sort of... mayor is actually running on that crap

[MineralMan]

28. The roads and bridges in Minnesota are also falling apart.

Even when we have democrats in control of both the Governor's mansion and the state legislature, we cannot fund the necessary work that is needed.

I'm no kind of trader. I'm a freelance writer on Social Security. Frankly, I'm not worried about increased taxes. I don't have much to tax. My property taxes are the highest taxes I pay, frankly.

I don't got mine. I'm barely keeping what I have. In fact, I just sold a bunch of stuff to pay this year's property taxes, including some things I was pretty attached to.

Go accuse someone else of what you're attempting to accuse me of, thanks. You don't know me or my life situation at all.

[nadinbrzezinski]

31. Well I did not accuse you of anything

but it proves to me you never bothered to read how that plan was going to be funded.

I know policy is hard.

Oh and by the way, what you wrote about both parties, it is not a bug, it is a feature.

[MineralMan]

38. You know, I did read about that funding.

Guess what? I'm a rare individual to have done that. Most folks have neither the time nor the inclination to go look that up, you see. All they will see is "free college." Then they'll wonder, "Who's going to pay for that?" Experience has taught them that they will be paying for that. It has happened over and over again. Why would they think otherwise.

Politically, we're very bad at explaining things to people. Usually, we don't even bother. So, they figure it out as best they can. They don't go Google things. They don't have time. So, they look at their experience and end up saying BOHICA.

Every proposal needs to be balanced with an explanation of how it is funded in the same sentence. Every time. People know that stuff costs money. We neglect to tell them how its funded, sadly, because it will usually end up being funded out of their pockets. That's what has happened again and again, and everyone knows it.

[nadinbrzezinski]

39. Then you should know it involved zero taxes

on you and me, why spread that then? It was not taxes, since you said you read it I will take you at your word.

And I gave up on the system by the way. I am too stubborn to just give up on the waste of time that is voting, but I expect nothing i from my vote. I expect my ballot to go the shredder if not properly filled.

[MineralMan]

44. You're free to be as cynical as you wish.

I choose not to be so cynical. I realize that change is possible, but major, immediate change is not. The President cannot impose a tax on equity trades. That is not within the powers of the Executive Branch. Period. Congress won't do it. So, it won't get done.

[SheenaR]

17. Disagree

On the notion that there is zero sentiment due to taxation. I, like many other Bernie supporters would gladly pay my share for the greater good. That's something that we (you know, those selfish egotistical privileged Sanders supporters) are ok with. And if said taxes were explained to the general public (as in how they would actually benefit long-term) more people would be on board. There is far too much misinformation out there.

I will agree there is zero sentiment due to taxation from Sec. Clinton's supporters. But I'd like to see how she will get to debt-free college herself.

[tularetom]

20. I got a tuition free degree from one of the most prestigious state universities in 1966

Uncle Sam helped with my living expenses, as did a working wife and two part time jobs. Not only did I not owe anything upon graduation, I had money in the bank.

Today, 50 years later, my grandson pays something like $50 fees per credit at frickin community college. He expects to transfer to university in the fall, but he will probably need help from his parents, and grandma and myself, to pay for it.

The problem, as you point out, is that Reagan was so effective at spreading the tax cutting gospel, that a whole generation of Democratic leaders has come of age believing that voters are willing to pay more for their kids education so that rich people can keep more of their tax dollars. It's not only Republicans anymore. Bernie Sanders is the first national candidate to advocate increasing taxes in at least 25 years.

It will take time for this message to sink in, even if Sanders is elected, but we need to invest public funds in education if we as a country expect to remain competitive on world markets over the next few decades.

[Downwinder]

21. Tuition-free college would hurt military recruitment.

[peace13]

30. Which brings up another important point.

If the one percent doesn't want to pay taxes then our troops will have to stay home. * never paid a penny for his wars and the rest of us have been paying ever since. President Obama had to dig us out of a hole. The costs of war include money!

[MoonRiver]

23. If taxes are not raised or raised enough, entrance criteria will become very tough.

This is the case in much of Europe. Countries with free tuition simply can't afford to let everybody with the minimum qualifications enroll.

[stuffmatters]

24. Bernie needs to do a better job of explaining a transaction tax & the funding

Right now Wall street buys and sells stocks without any type of "sales tax." Think of all the ordinary essentials we all pay sales tax on.

Why should the purchase of stocks be immune to sales tax? Bernie needs to explain this is a sales tax (and an extremely minimal rate at that) on a fairly luxury item. Also an item whose profits are taxed at a lesser rate under capital gains. And finally that a sales tax on stocks would also help to stabilize the markets and ease some of the harm of flash trading.

Bernie always says that "America bailed out Wall Street, now it's Wall Street's turn to bail out the middle class." The real truth is that it's Wall street's time to Pay Back(!) the American taxpayers for all the money it has stolen, evaded, skimmed from us.

A sales tax on their transactions to pay for public universities is a small start for Wall Street to pay back the trillions that they owe us.

[MineralMan]

40. Everyone needs to do a better job of explaining that stuff.

Every time they propose something. Free public college has a strong appeal, but only to a minority of voters. To everyone else, it's a big worry. What? You mean I'm going to be paying for that? That's the question they ask, and if nobody is explaining it each and every time its proposed, they're automatically against it.

Sure, a equity trading transaction tax is a great idea. So push that at the same time, and with the same frequency. The people who will not see a benefit from tuition-free public colleges aren't going to support that unless they understand and BELIEVE that they aren't going to be paying for it.

[aikoaiko]

26. "No we can't" -- an example of HRC pragmatism

[mike_c]

29. I'm a career educator at a state university that used to be tuition free....

When I began work here in the 1990s student tuition covered about 20% of the cost of attendance. Today students pay for about 50% of that cost. Taxes didn't go down in the interim-- the legislature simply had other spending priorities, so they used the lean recession years after 2007 to justify disinvestment in public higher education. State coffers have refilled now that the recession is over, but once funding is lost it is seldom restored unless there is significant reform.

It's ironic that many of the state legislators who are busily transferring the cost of public universities onto the backs of students and their parents were themselves the direct beneficiaries of tuition free or exceedingly low tuition higher ed back in their own youth.

The key to achieving a a more equitable society is to reform institutions rather than simply making excessive demands of the ones already in place. We won't achieve tuition free college if it's paid for by piling further burden on the backs of middle and working class Americans. We can achieve it by reforming spending priorities (sorry, Pentagon) and by enacting progressive taxation of wealth and corporate productivity. It's important to remember that we have accomplished this in the past, so there are very good models already available to guide reform. Many public universities were tuition free or very low tuition 40 years ago.

We need to tax wealth in a way that discourages its accumulation, or just flat out prevents it, and we need to demand that all businesses either reinvest their profits to improve productivity or pay taxes on them sufficient for the public to reinvest in the public interest, including the costs of college attendance, single payer health care, and so on. The top 1% in this country is wealthier than the bottom 50%-- it makes no sense to add greater tax burdens to the middle and working classes because they command only a small fraction of the available wealth. They not only feel the burden disproportionately, but also have much, much less to give.

Wealth should not be permitted to simply generate greater wealth for the fortunate few who can accumulate it. It should be used to drive the economic engine of society at large, whether the wealthy want to do their part or not.

[MineralMan]

34. We don't disagree. It's the majority of voters who disagree.

They're scared. They don't have a clue how those things will be paid for, and they're used to seeing their taxes go up, on their gasoline, their car tabs, their sales tax, their property taxes, their cigarettes and booze. That's how government's been sneaking funding into their overall tax bill for some time now. They know it. They don't want any more of it.

They're scared, because they're already in trouble. Before we can get their votes for these improvements, we're going to have to show them that they're not going to be saddled with all of those costs. We're not doing that job of education well at all. In fact, we've been teaching them how we'll sneak some more taxation in there without their consent.

We have to win elections. People won't vote for people who promise stuff but aren't exactly forthcoming about how it will get paid for. I guarantee that the Republicans will explain how they'll be the ones paying for it during the campaign. They've been doing that for decades now, and people believe them. They see their taxation increasing. They believe the Republicans, even though it's all lies.

It's not easy to provide the education that's needed, and we Democrats don't seem to be that interested in education really.

[firebrand80]

33. I disagree that we can't get there again

If we are to get there, it won't be through sweeping change.

We are a lot closer today to universal healthcare than we were 8 years ago. Had Obama demanded single payer, we would have ended up with nothing. What we got was very far from perfect, but it stood for the principle that what we were doing with healthcare was not working, and that the Government should change the law to make the system work better. At first the GOP wanted to abolish it, now they have to come to the realization that they have to work to help iron out the problems. Once there is acceptance of the system, then we can work to advance it.

The same can happen with free college. The sensible thing to do is to start with the more attainable goal of free community college, working to ease student load burdens, and low-debt/debt-free college moving forward. Once we get society to accept that as the norm, we can move forward on ways to make college more and more attainable.

Viva la Incrementaliso!

[MineralMan]

35. Yes, exactly.

It's going to require incremental changes, because the crap we have now came incrementally.

Anyone who campaigns on wholesale change is going to lose. People know that's not possible without screwing them over even more.

Here in Minnesota, we're almost finished building a new $1 billion stadium for our crappy Minnesota Vikings football team. The "people" are paying for about 1/3 of the cost. Guess who's paying. Smokers. They glommed a big new tax on tobacco products to pay for the stadium, where, of course no smoking will ever be allowed.

Yes, people should quit smoking, but the State of Minnesota doesn't want them to. They want them to keep paying that big new tax.

People know they're being screwed. They don't want any more of it. We're going to have to educate them by showing them other ways of paying for this stuff.

[bluestateguy]

36. I' d rather see the states make college free, not the feds

Federal free college just means more federal control, more federal mandates and more federal rules that the universities would have to follow. And that would likely result in the schools having to hire more administrators just to keep up with the many new federal regulations.

[MineralMan]

41. Well if things go as they usually do, the states

will end up having to fund most of it anyhow, but the Feds will give them some money and pile on a bunch of bureaucracy to go along with it.

People understand that, too. They really do. They've seen it all before.

[Warren Stupidity]

37. Yes certainly voting for a candidate who is opposed

to tuition free public college is the most sensible way to get tuition free public college.

[MineralMan]

42. Clinton is an incrementalist. She knows that proposing a

wholesale change is a poor way to campaign. She's right.

The reality is that tuition-free public college cannot be put in place for many years. First, it has to get through Congress, and then the state funding portion has to get through 50 state legislatures.

It's a mistake to promise what cannot be delivered. People have grown weary of that and won't vote for candidates who make such promises. Not in the majority, anyhow, and that's a requirement. You need a majority of votes to become President.

[Yavin4]

45. Back in the 50s, people were more receptive to higher taxes because the benefits went to...

White people. As long as African Americans and other racial minorities are discriminated against from receiving the government provided service, then a majority of Whites will support the program.

Leftists refuse to see the role that racism plays in America when it comes to their agenda.