Decent argument against Sanders tuition free college plan here

[BootinUp]

From the San Diego Union-Tribune's endorsement of Clinton:

But we find Sanders far less appealing than his admirers. What feels like idealism to some people looks like grandstanding on closer examination.

Consider his signature proposal to make tuition free at state-supported colleges, with the federal government picking up two-thirds of the cost and individual states one-third. State participation is not mandatory.

At the least, it would have the effect of forcing all participating states to radically reshape their budgets — making free college the top priority over public safety, health care, K-12 education, road repairs and more. States that wanted to maintain existing programs at current levels would have to sharply raise taxes.

States aren’t going to do this. Free college tuition may be the top priority for college students and their parents, but not everyone else. Valuing free tuition over kindergarten and grade school education, for the most obvious example, makes no sense.

No wonder Sanders doesn’t have the support of a single senator for his plan.


Complete Opinion piece at San Diego Union Tribune

[seabeyond]

1. And here on Du. Very informative, and informed. I appreciated the info.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=2122071

[JonLeibowitz]

2. Apparent contradiction from one paragraph to the next? Or am I misreading this?

Consider his signature proposal to make tuition free at state-supported colleges, with the federal government picking up two-thirds of the cost and individual states one-third. State participation is not mandatory.

At the least, it would have the effect of forcing all participating states to radically reshape their budgets — making free college the top priority over public safety, health care, K-12 education, road repairs and more. States that wanted to maintain existing programs at current levels would have to sharply raise taxes.

[BootinUp]

10. Correct me if I am wrong. but people in states that do not

take advantage of the program are SOL.

[JonLeibowitz]

12. Correct, if by SOL you mean status quo (that would be admitting the status quo is broken, though)

If a state opts out then they can keep their current funding levels funded via tuition etc.

[Jitter65]

81. If you are talking about "states" ok. But you are really talking about people who are affected by

state's decisions like with Obamacare. Real people suffer when states don't help them.

[BootinUp]

14. No, its not a contradiction

Either big cuts have to made to OTHER government programs or taxes have to be raised.

[JonLeibowitz]

19. But if a state doesn't want in, they don't have to do so.

The article claims "States that wanted to maintain existing programs at current levels would have to sharply raise taxes", but that is contradicted by the fact that they could simply opt out as a way to avoid doing anything.

Right?

[BootinUp]

24. Sure, I think it matters what the expected participation level would be.

Wouldn't make sense to do a federal program that had very low participation imho.

[JonLeibowitz]

26. Sure, and that's a reasonable point. I just think the logical flaws in that editorial are glaring.

That too that the contradictions occur in consecutive paragraphs.

Myself, I never thought free public tuition for qualified students is anything but an aspirational goal. Politics is messy; but it helps to have a clear goal of what we're fighting for. Compromise isn't a dirty word, but compromising on one's ideals is.

[BootinUp]

47. Still waiting for you to make the case for logical flaws and contradictions.

The editorial is saying States wouldn't do it, Senators don't back it. I interpret that to mean it has very low support. The points about taxes are pretty straightforward.

[JonLeibowitz]

53. I'm comfortable with how I've presented my case. I never expected to satisfy you.

[larkrake]

83. Just stoping corporate welfare would pay it all and more

[BootinUp]

84. I am referring to States budgets not Federal. And I admit that

I do not know how many States would go along with it. But judging from the plans support in the US Senate, I am doubtful it would be widely employed. What Sanders needs to do I think, is somehow demonstrate that States would use this program.

[larkrake]

88. I think states will fall into line when students dont enroll in their colleges

parents would be delighted to send them where college is basically free.

[BootinUp]

89. Isn't it usually the case that out-of-state students don't qualify for

support from state funded programs?

[larkrake]

109. so dont be out of state, move there in May after HS graduation

where there is a will, there is a way. I'm sure the plan would create a corridor for out of state kids if their state didnt join the plan

[trudyco]

123. Most states require 1-2 years residency without going to school in order to qualify as in-state /nt

[larkrake]

129. not any states I have lived in, or worked in its an obvious problem,so I think the plan would cover

that

[blackspade]

137. Not in most Southern States.

Most have reciprocity agreements that give instate tuition for students that want to attend particular programs.

[Fresh_Start]

51. you are misreading this.

1) not all states will participate
2) states which participate will have to sharply raise taxes or cut other important programs

[JonLeibowitz]

52. But since states don't have to participate...

it isn't immediate that they have to make that choice you describe in (2).

[larkrake]

112. again, start a lottery or remove corporate welfare in the state

there is always fat to trim and parents will fight for kid friendly candidates in state races bypass that new stadium when the old one is fine. It doesn't have to be social programs that are cut

[Orangepeel]

76. The next sentence in the quoted material resolves it.

"States aren't going to do this."

First paragraph: states don't have to do it
Second paragraph: it wouldn't make sense for states to choose to do it
Third paragraph: states aren't going to do it

[QC]

3. The Union-Tribune is a "hard right" newspaper,

according to David Brock's outfit, Media Matters.

https://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/04/29/u-t-san-diegos-alleged-pro-gop-campaign-ad-pric/193825

There are some intelligent arguments against tuition-free college (and I have mixed feelings on the issue), but this isn't one of them.

[PowerToThePeople]

6. If it is hard right compared to Brock

What the hell does that make it?

We need a stronger telescope to see that far.

[QC]

28. Yeah. If even he thinks they're right wing.... n/t

[tonyt53]

4. An analysis has already been done about funding this and healthcare.

Taxes will have to be raised for everyone, even those most unable to pay them. Free college tuition for a worthless degree is utter nonsense. Far too many are choosing areas of study that will never be in demand. When about 1/3 will never complete their degree, it becomes even more useless.

[JonLeibowitz]

11. I didn't realize that a college education was entirely a jobs program

The analyses of his healthcare have shown that most receive a net benefit from the program, especially poorer individuals. It is meaningless to focus only on taxes, you have to look at the benefits one receives; that is the individual health spending that is no longer needed.

[tonyt53]

30. Did I go into healthcare? Nope. I simply stated an analysis that has already been done on both.

You just chose to go off in a separate direction for some odd reason. And yes, there has to be a focus on ALL aspects of any plan and who it will adversely affect. To ignore that fact is the same as Bernie implying that the southern voters do not matter. Also, if a college education cannot be equated to a jobs program, then exactly what is it? I looked at my college education as a way out of poverty with a good job. I do not know of anybody that goes just for the hell of it, but then I'm over 25.

[JonLeibowitz]

33. You certainly mentioned it.

tonyt53 (1,020 posts)
4. An analysis has already been done about funding this and healthcare.

So I cannot respond in kind to something you raised?

And speaking of people going off in a separate direction

To ignore that fact is the same as Bernie implying that the southern voters do not matter.

Good bye. No honest discourse to be had here.

[tonyt53]

39. No, there is not. You clearly have an agenda that is counter to what the poor need.

[JonLeibowitz]

40. LOL!!!!!!!!!!

[HERVEPA]

63. Poor have no need for the liberal arts I guess, huh? Bread and Roses, Bread and Roses.

[larkrake]

91. no it is suppose to be a career program, not a jobs program

but today kids are required to take classes they do not need to get a degree, rather than focusing on their primary interest.

For example, As a Physics major, I did not need more Engish Lit than I got in High school, but at CU, it was required of me. This was not a problem I had in Santa Fe Community College where I could handpick my degree classes and shed the un-necessary garbage.The time I got back enabled me to work on two degrees at once.

The health care Bernie proposes eliminates the insurance companys altogether, and yes, your taxes rise, but is exceedingly less than the insurance premium had been. Everyone benefits.

[actslikeacarrot]

55. Fuck yeah! "Worthless degrees". Go Le STEM...

...or GTFO! Am I right, fellas? Or am I right?

[Wilms]

67. Even those unabale to pay?

So, show us what right wing site claimed that.

Fact is, it will raise taxes on those who CAN afford that.

But Repukelicans don't like that idea. Among "others".

[larkrake]

87. they should be closing their football succubus programs as well. College football should be a

seperate entity- it has nothing to do with education .The other sports as well.
I agree about worthless degrees, outdated degrees, and electives not pertaining to degrees, the educational system has been haywire for decades. Graduate studies are what form careers. College has been a joke for some time with just a few exceptions'

The colleges are just as corrupt as the Congress, and are subsidized by corporations or dying religion groups

[Orsino]

111. Taxes never *have* to be raised on everyone to provide new services.

It's only a question of mustering the political will for more progressive taxation schemes, and of electing officials who aren't heavily invested in protecting regressive taxation.

It will be ours when enough of us want it badly enough, and not before then.

[trudyco]

124. You sound like you are repeating RW talking points.

OF COURSE you can come up with money without taxing "even those most unable to pay them".
God, just start taxing the .01% at a fair rate. Get rid of Corporate welfare. Put in state banks that give better rates and keeps the money in the state (and don't do risky investment behavior). Legalize pot and tax it. Start taxing big box companies that promised jobs in exchange for tax breaks and then didn't deliver.

So many possibilities. I can't believe you bought the "OMG the poor, they will be taxed!" bit.

[B Calm]

5. Next thing will be, every developed country in the world will be wanting free college.

[elleng]

13. Imagine THAT!

[BootinUp]

16. Its a question of how to make progress or not. nt

[Recursion]

73. Most don't want it enough to inplement it

It's like free health care: a few countries do it; most just make it much cheaper than we do.

[B Calm]

80. Don't tell that to Brazil, Germany, Finland, France, Norway, Slovenia and Sweden

because they don't agree.

[Recursion]

135. They agree 7 countries is not "most"

So, yeah, you agree with me: most countries charge tuition, and it's generally much cheaper than in the US.

[larkrake]

92. they already have free college and have extended their hand to american students

[CrowCityDem]

7. I've been making the same point about the states, only to be told I'm a conservative.

[Hoyt]

56. Conservatives, Establishment, Neo-liberal, Reagan -Democrat, Corporatist, etc.

The "progressives" believe they are such wonderful people with the solutions to all our problems. We do need to figure out solutions for education, healthcare, etc., but wild promises aren't solutions, especially with the current Congress.

[Henhouse]

64. Admits to auto ignoring anyone who uses the terms Corporatist or Oligarch....

Normal people don't talk like that.....Shakes head.....

[Octafish]

8. On closer examination, that's propaganda.

For example, from the editorial:

States aren’t going to do this. Free college tuition may be the top priority for college students and their parents, but not everyone else. Valuing free tuition over kindergarten and grade school education, for the most obvious example, makes no sense.

Bernie doesn't mention defunding public education K-12 as a federal priority. He's dedicated his adult life to advancing public education for ALL, not just the turds who can afford it.

San Diego Union Tribune is thinking of the GOP: They're the Party who brags about eliminating the Department of Education.

I'd mention the GOP also is the Party in favor of Charter Schools, but nowadays, thanks to the New Democrats, so are we.

[Live and Learn]

18. +10,000 nt

[MichMan]

21. His proposal still has the States responsible for 1/3

If the States are responsible for funding 1/3 of "free" college, they have to get the money from somewhere. Either raise taxes or cutting existing state funding of other services.

[BootinUp]

29. Has nothing to do with propaganda. Question is funding and whether States

are interested in doing this or not. If the Democratic Senators are not, I suspect they know their States are not.

[lunamagica]

9. K&R.

[emulatorloo]

15. Free tuition at public universities is a great goal. Sanders plan doesn't rely on states to pay for

all of it. It is mostly paid for by more taxes on Wall Street.


FWIW HRC is also proposing free tuition at the Jr College level. I think that editorial is wrong headed.

[MichMan]

23. His plan requires states to pay 1/3 n/t

[emulatorloo]

25. Thanks! will correct to say Sanders does not put full burden on state, more on Wall Street

Just edited it.

[aikoaiko]

125. Yes but most states are already contributing that much for the cost of attendance

Even GA is still providing 50% of the cost of attendance.

[Thinkingabout]

41. The tax plan out forth by Sanders will not cover thev cost of tuition.

Sanders agenda will increase the debt by $17 Trillion in ten years.

[emulatorloo]

44. That doesn't negate the fact that free tuition at public universities is a worthy goal

Somewhere somehow someday, somebody will come up with a solid plan to cover the costs. And the political roadmap that it will take to get there.

[Thinkingabout]

46. Student loan refinancing, community service and programs like Peace Corp

In exchange for tuition aid would be good programs. There are military programs which provide tuition assitance.

[emulatorloo]

49. It would be great if there were a domestic program like the Peace Corp

[Thinkingabout]

72. It has been before and can be again.

[emulatorloo]

86. Indeed. Just gotta kick the Republicans out of Congress so we can get it done

[greatauntoftriplets]

118. There is such a program.

https://www.cityyear.org/

[emulatorloo]

119. Thanks!

[Henhouse]

75. K&R

Plus all of those programs will garner bi-partisan support and truly help the people who most need it....

[CrowCityDem]

58. Yes, and criticizing Bernie's plan doesn't mean you don't agree with the goal.

There are other ways of getting there that are just as, if not more, valid and possible.

[SheilaT]

17. A couple of points.

There was a time when public universities and colleges were far less expensive than they are now. In California some of them, as I understand it, really were free. In the 1960's, when I first went off to college, many public universities cost very little. A student could work a minimum wage over the summer, and if she lived at home and saved most of that money, could pay tuition and fees. That's not possible today.

It's quite telling to me that those who denigrate the very idea of free public college either went to school when it was relatively cheap, or come from families where the cost simply wasn't an issue. The real standard: "I got mine, and screw you" stuff we hear all the time from those in power.

[BootinUp]

31. You don't explain why THIS plan makes sense though. nt

[larkrake]

116. Our children cant even spell. education is the door to the future

and no one can afford it. Student debt is a racket

[BootinUp]

117. Sorry to repeat myself, but,

You don't explain why THIS plan makes sense though.

[SheilaT]

133. Not sure what you mean by THIS plan, unless

what's presented in the OP.

What makes sense is that people can get a college education for little or no cost. Kind of like they do in a lot of other first world countries. Instead, we have a system that means wealthy families can send their kids to whatever school they can get in, no worry about the cost, and lots of others wind up saddled with grotesque debt.

Personally, I don't think the debt makes sense. Maybe you do. Apparently Hillary feels that way also. The Hillary supporters keep on claiming she's totally on the side of women and children, but somehow that doesn't include low-cost education or a free health care system. She's also on the record as being willing to compromise on a woman's right to control her own body. And I strongly suspect that under a President Hillary Clinton Social Security and Medicare will be steadily whittled away. Yep, that's being on the side of women, children, the elderly and the poor.

[QC]

35. I always think of this graphic...

...when I hear people of a certain age griping about how those damn kids want everything handed to them.

I went to college in the 80s, when the right wing assault on public goods was underway but not so advanced. You could still get an affordable education then. Now the situation is completely different but many people still think you can just work part-time at Baskin-Robbins and pay the tuition.

[Thinkingabout]

43. University and college staff members has had increase in wages.

[kiva]

108. Look at any college or university budget

if you think that's why tuition rates have soared. If my pay as a professor had matched the growth of tuition, I'd be making many times the salary that I currently make.

[Thinkingabout]

134. If you are making five dollars now I would agree there has not been much increases in salaries.

My thinking if we want well qualified professors teaching in our higher education facilities thenpay them to keep them. I get concerned when the idea of "free" college tuition is put into place we will lose our good professors and the quality of higher education will dimimish.

[Live and Learn]

20. We can't have an educated populace. It would eliminate the excuse to bring in cheap labor. nt

[Vinca]

22. I don't know why everyone isn't demanding this . . . it's back to the future.

In the 1960's, when only a high school diploma was required for many jobs, tuition was free at many public universities. Now, when a college degree has replaced the high school diploma as a requirement, college is so expensive people go into debt for a lifetime or take a lesser position with fewer opportunities. K-12 is considered the norm for publicly-funded education, but it should be K-16.

[MichMan]

27. Still don't understand how?

I have asked multiple times and can't get anyone that supports Sanders to explain it to me.

Even within public colleges, the tuition costs can vary rather substantially. In Michigan for example, University of Michigan is $14K per year while nearby Eastern Michigan Univ. is $10K. In comparison, Washtenaw Community College (also very close geographically to the other two) is under $4K per year.

If Sander's College tuition plan will pay the tuition costs for all three, why wouldn't EMU immediately raise their tuition $4k/year to match what their neighbor, UM charges?

Why would a student ever desire to attend a Community College, if a well known 4 year school, with a great campus atmosphere,would cost the same amount to the student; zero tuition?

Finally, would there be situations where grade inflation would occur? If it was required to obtain a 2.5 GPA to keep the free tuition checks coming, would professors get a lot of pressure from both administrators and students to make sure everyone qualifies.

IMO, the availability of loans has what has caused college costs to skyrocket. People are not deterred by the costs, they just borrow more, so there is no incentive by colleges to not keep raising it. Would that situation be exacerbated if the government is footing the bill?

[BootinUp]

32. Cost incentive is an issue. Good questions. nt

[tonyt53]

34. All his supporters heard was "free".

[thesquanderer]

37. re 1 of your questions, "Why would a student ever desire to attend a Community College"

The same reason many do today... they do not have the academic qualifications to get into the 4 year school they want to go to. Proximity is another issue... community colleges are more often commuter schools. Free tuition still leaves you with the cost of room and board, so a community college will often be cheaper even if both are "free."

[larkrake]

93. most do have the qualifications, they just dont have the money

[kiva]

115. No, many students don't have qualifications that are competative enough for that.

Countries that have free or reduced tuition don't just open their doors to everyone - the academically elite colleges have very demanding standards regarding grades, recommendations, entrance exams, etc. You don't just say, I think I'll go to Oxford or the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zurich or the University of Edinburgh or any other top university, you need the creds to get accepted.

If you don't have those qualifications you look elsewhere, the same as many student now do in the U.S. - smaller schools, community colleges lack the prestige but often provide solid educations.

[larkrake]

121. You are talking about ivy league, that is not what Bernie is talking about

yes we have many kids who dont qualify because they were not given a good education. I know HS students who cant write or read cursive. States have stripped school programs. Those kids can catch up at night school before applying to colleges. Community colleges accept anyone also to help those people and career changers too. CCs are a step up to the plate before colleges and their degrees do qualify graduates for 4yr colleges, where they can qualify to be accepted bythe Swiss Fed Ins. of Technology. It is a longer road, but he gets there.

Who gives a shit about Oxford or Yale or Harvard? An education is an education. If you have the $$$$$, then go there.

[dmosh42]

36. Just another "No, we can't" from the third way gang. Imagine if JFK & LBJ were like that?

[BootinUp]

38. You think that argument convinces people?

Both JFK and LBJ were President at a time when government at both State and Federal were not as strapped for money. It was a different economy then. They had their own battles and government is never easy.

[dmosh42]

66. Oh, I well remember, but people were creative in trying to make it happen, like going to the moon...

And I do remember people thinking "no, we can't" when the USSR was the first in space, and JFK suggested we can make a committment.

[2cannan]

79. Kind of like this?

?1463354979

[larkrake]

122. very good

[larkrake]

94. So true, a republican chant that proves to me Clinton is repug- lite, maybe not so lite

[Skwmom]

42. Do you idiots realize that STATES already budget money for higher education and might welcome the

help.

[BootinUp]

45. Thread win... for incivility. How many States like the plan?

[emulatorloo]

48. They do.. And Republican State legislatures are doing their best to shrink the budgets to nothing.

[Orangepeel]

78. The plan isn't to replace the money states already spend. It is to replace tuition

On average, 21% of public university budgets come from tuition, 21% from state funding, and 16% from federal funding (in the form of Pell grants, research grants, and veteran's benefits).



http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/issue-briefs/2015/06/federal-and-state-funding-of-higher-education

[larkrake]

95. Only hard core Repug Governors would veto this, and their colleges will be abandoned by students

[ContinentalOp]

50. I didn't realize that his proposal allows states to opt out. How would that work?

Is tuition not free for out of state students from opt-out states? Otherwise if CA opts in and say TX doesn't, then California residents are paying to subsidize 1/3rd of the tuition of a student from Texas who goes to a UC school. That's not right.

And what's the actual goal here? Do we want more people going to college? Or do we just want to ease the burden of student loans? If it's the latter, why not address student loans directly? That way it also benefits all of the people who are already out of college but still have lots of student loan debt.

[David__77]

54. I support financially free tuition if one performs social service in exchange.

I think the government could establish a sort of work corps of public and private positions that are designated as "socially useful," and someone could be required to work in such a position for some time period in return for the financially free education. I imagine that the wages of such positions would be below market, and that value could be returned to society in that way.

[larkrake]

98. why should this land on the kids? Their social service is getting proficient at their careers

they don't have time to work, and after graduation, will want a good paying job, not a prison sentence

[David__77]

101. They won't be kids.

Also, there's the matter of the kids of tomorrow's tomorrow. I'm not necessarily opposed to simply having free tuition, to be clear.

I am personally a beneficiary of heavily subsidized higher education.

[danimich1]

57. You Clinton supporters

Are all about "we can't." If I lived my life that way I'd be flipping burgers at McDonald's. That's sad. You're simply existing, accepting what is in front of you without question, leeching off the planet.

I'm not willing to live that way. I want to live each day, try to make things better, have hope and enjoy each moment. I feel sorry for all of you "I can't" people. Sadly, you're sucking the entire country down with you because you refuse to work for and have hope for change. I guess you deserve Clinton, but the rest of us don't.

[BootinUp]

60. Sure, and we would say Sanders and SOME of his supporters

won't deal with the difficult details.

[larkrake]

102. they have dealt with difficult details for over 200 years which is why we have SS, Medicare,

education and minimum wage in this country. The 3rd way's attitude of CAN"T will lead to the death of Democracy

[BootinUp]

110. Mainstream Democrats really don't buy that far left frame you know.

It WAS and IS mainstream Democrats that fight the conservatives for those programs. It WAS and IS the far left that attacks the mainstream D Party.

Back in the 80's and 90's and even into the 21st century "liberals" was a dirty word. I remember when Wesley Clark who I supported in '04, talked about that and wanted to turn that around more.

The mainstream D party was always on the front lines, not just in a safe state like Vermont.

When Sanders talks about the influence of corporate money, there is a lot of truth. But he is blaming the wrong party and leaving out the discussion of RW propaganda and economic problems of the 70's that caused a shift in the whole country on economic issues. He and his supporters don't talk about losing 5 of 6 Presidential elections before Clinton in '92.

So, you don't have to convince me that we have been on the wrong track for a long time. It is the actual causes and solutions where I must differ.

The far left can't run and win except in Vermont, and they want to blame the mainstream D's? Give me a break. You gotta have Senators and Congressman that support Sanders programs for him to do any of them.

Looking forward, it is clear that the D party is more liberal now than 8 years ago. Clintons platform is more liberal than any D party nominee since 84. The future looks bright.

[larkrake]

126. He blames corrupt politicians of both partys

why do you think he blames just Ds? You seem to be suffering from tunnelvision. He bashed Repug every day of his life, chose to caucus with Ds for decades.

We do need to get the cockroaches out of our party before we attempt to annihilate the Republican brand

Politics will not work if we cannot see the errors of our party. Because he points them out he is the enemy? No, Not buying it Bootin.

[QC]

65. I campaigned for Bill in 92 because of his optimism.

Having graduated into a nasty recession in the late 80s, presided over by a reasonably nice but rich and clueless old man who said we couldn't do anything about it (except cut the capital gains tax, of course), I was blown away by the guy campaigning on the theme of change--Bill Clinton.

He was young and bright, just like his wife, one of the top attorneys in the country. One of the proudest moments of my life at the time was meeting her at a rally and shaking her hand. She was an excellent campaigner--very open and a fine speaker.

Now, of course, it's as you say. The campaign is all about how everything is as good as it's going to get because change is too hard.

They have become George and Barbara Bush.

It's very sad, and it makes me feel old.

[BootinUp]

70. Peoples perceptions differ, I must point out.

For example, to ME, the Clinton campaign IS about optimism for the future and about staying on the positive (but hard) path we are on. Sanders message seems angry and unrealistic. I would like him to do a better job of getting more support from Congressman and Senators so shit can actually be passed (changed).

[QC]

97. I guess it depends on where we are in life.

I could easily write off people's concerns as irrational anger, I guess. I make a modest but secure living at a job I enjoy. I have a house, also modest but affordable. I got vested in my state's pension plan a few years before our reptilian fascist of a governor forced new hires into 401ks. I'll never be rich, but all in all, I have little reason to complain.

But when I think of my students and the world they are headed into, things look different. They live in a nation where family incomes have been stagnant for over forty years. Decent jobs are harder to find and housing costs so much that even a modest apartment is more than most of them can manage. So many graduate and then move right back in with their parents. It's the new normal.

The smart, high-achiever types are majoring in STEM fields, just as they're told to do, but what are we doing to STEM workers in America? Shipping their jobs out of the country or forcing them to train their indentured servant replacements. Very few want to be teachers anymore, because they hated their own time under the test 'n punish regime. (Because of that same way of "teaching," many are intellectually handicapped and hate learning anyway.)

I could go on, but you get the picture. Things are hard enough for young people in this country that I don't think incrementalism will do the job. (And in practice incrementalism usually means "keep doing what we're doing but somewhat more slowly.&quot

I don't think the Clintons --or many other national political figures -- have that sense of urgency. The system has worked for them, so they figure the system works. I don't think they're hateful, awful people or anything like that--just isolated from the world most people live in. Wealth and power do that to even the best people.

Nice chatting with you!

[larkrake]

131. Thank you Q

[larkrake]

130. hes angry but not unrealistic. I'm angry, my neighbors are angry, my state is angry

and my country is angry. A CAN'T person is not going to quell the anger. Parents. farmers, students, small business and the masses are angry.

The moment Hillary cowtows to Free Trade deals, oil or wall street, she will ignite an explosion. She is willing to put our children at risk . That will not come to pass

[larkrake]

103. Makes me wonder what happened to Bill and Hill. Did life beat them into submission.

[QC]

120. I think the witch hunts of the 90s changed them--

how could they not? It was an ugly time. I do think she was much more open, less controlled, then.

But a big part of it is the way that wealth and power isolate people. The very rich live in an entirely different world.

[larkrake]

100. can't = fear of success. I run into this even with my most talented students, they are programed

to fear growth and expansion. This is prevalent in the US, to a startling larger degree than other countries I have lived in

[CentralMass]

59. Yes, investing in the future of the down trodden masses would be too liberating.

Better to keep them in eternal debt so that they can be indentured servants for the rest of their working lives. Out tax dollars should go into funding new wars and helping the rich, and covering the the losses of financial institutes.

[BootinUp]

62. No effort to justify his approach specifically?

[danimich1]

69. I thought presidents had advisors and cabinet members

And committees to work out the finer details. Other countries provide a lot more to their ctizens than we do. If the country's leader believes that change can happen and is willing to work for it, the possibility of that change happening is much much greater than the "we can't" answer from Clinton.

It's all about the attitude and the ethics. Sanders has some great ideas and he has plans to make those ideas a reality, or at least work towards that reality. I have never felt or heard that from Clinton. She is bought and paid for by people who like the way things are.

Clinton can publish policy after policy proposals that she can justify, and she can tell us that her ideas will work all she wants. But her policy proposals don't mean anything if they don't address the change that this country needs and if her soul has already been purchased by the corporations and individuals who don't want change.

[BootinUp]

71. You wave away over a trillion dollars in new proposals from Clinton awfully easily. nt

[larkrake]

104. because they are Corporate friendy proposals

[BootinUp]

113. Nope. They are not. And she will be rolling out more on her corporate tax plans in the near future.

[larkrake]

128. I hope you are right, I really do, but historically, she is in a bubble against the middle class

and the poor, and minorities

[danimich1]

114. And even if they weren't,

We can't trust a corporate-owned politician to actually do anything to help people who won't pay her. I sure would love to hear what she said in her Wall Street speeches. I think most of us have a good idea, though.

[CentralMass]

68. Here is a CNN article about Sander' plan

Last edited Sat Jun 4, 2016, 05:17 PM - Edit history (1)

http://money.cnn.com/2016/04/26/pf/college/tuition-free-college-bernie-sanders/

The executive summary of is is that Sanders plan would cover tuition and fees for state schools which is probably about a 1/4 of the cost of college for students living on campus. It would certainly be very beneficial to students who commute.

The plans call for provisions to insure that a family does not have to pay more then it can afford for the remaining costs via Federal grants etc..

However, how did we get to the point in this country where this is a bad idea ? Why are we even discussion having to worry about funding our decaying public education system and helping with secondary education with a country with this kind of wealth.

When did investing in the public become a bad idea to both parties ?

[larkrake]

106. when profit margins became more important

[actslikeacarrot]

61. I agree. We NEED "gatekeepers" such as...

...high costs, even if artificially high, to keep the poors from interacting with special snowflake 1 and special snowflake 2.

[larkrake]

107. you are right. This is true in Ivy League colleges world wide

[Rosa Luxemburg]

74. Bringing up RW talking points from a RW newspaper

[bkkyosemite]

77. This is pure bull. CA had free tution and I went to college with it.

[warrprayer]

82. No We Can't

Nope.

[glowing]

85. Here's the thing, states need to start taxing

One of the reasons state funding for college education has declined is due to the decrease in state tax revenues... These states are giving away money to big box stores, their wealthy inhabitants, large corporations, etc. it's truly about priorities!!!! Do we subsidize Walmart to pay shitty wages and sell items manufactured over seas? Or do we find the future ingenuity and competition with the world?

Basically this article is saying, screw the future, give the Walmart heirs another billion or two!

[2cannan]

90. LA Times has a different opinion.

Bernie Sanders' idea for free tuition at public colleges deserves an A
http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-sac-skelton-bernie-sanders-college-20160509-story.html

snip

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.

snip

How’d it happen? The state money pot has remained basically the same size, adjusted for growth and inflation. But there are more programs gobbling the money.

Medi-Cal — healthcare for the poor — didn’t exist before 1966. Now it consumes nearly 16% of the state general fund.

In 1978, voters passed Proposition 13, dramatically cutting local property taxes. Before that, property taxes paid for two-thirds of K-12 school costs; the state one-third. Afterward, the state-local burdens were reversed.

snip

“Bernie’s not nuts,” former Assembly Speaker John A. Pérez, a member of the UC Board of Regents, told me.

“But the question is how do you get there? It’s only possible to have free tuition if you get a new state revenue stream.... And UC has to look at stark reality and make spending’ adjustments.”

Pérez suggests adopting a progressive tuition system based on a family’s ability to pay.

To paraphrase Robert F. Kennedy, Sanders dreams of things the way they were — at least in California — and asks why not again?

Actually, there’s no good reason.

[BootinUp]

96. That is one reporters opinion. And although he makes some points

worth considering, none of them answer the issues raised in the OP. In fact he actually points out that a new state revenue stream would be needed. The reason some people didn't buy Sanders solution is because he hasn't convinced folks he can get enough support for it at either the State or the Federal level, imho.

[JackRiddler]

99. Dear GOD, this scheme would cost 10% of a Pentagon!

Horrors!!!

[WDIM]

105. No We Can't!

The motto of the democratic party. We need to dream big and achieve bigger.

[trudyco]

127. You probably should have some way to dampen tuition price tags.

College tuition keeps going up above the rate of inflation. Never really heard a good explanation for that, especially as I'm seeing the number of professors with decent salaries and tenure going way down.

[forjusticethunders]

139. Administrative costs nt

[EndElectoral]

132. I don't benefit from free college. I'm 63/no kids. But it's the ethical thing to do. I support it.

[blackspade]

136. That's not even an argument

The opinion piece rests on an obvious lack of understanding of State and Federal budget processes.

[TheFarS1de]

138. No We Can't .

Inspirational stuff right there . Good thing all those wars are free .