James Carville being hypocritical about "free college tuition"

[bluewater]

Link to tweet

So he's criticizing our Democratic candidates over "free college tuition" when he only had to pay $50 a year?

I mean, even adjusting for inflation since 1962, that is just $428 per YEAR.



Side Note: I was a little surprise to see James is 75 years old now. My, how time flies.

[Rebl2]

1. Never really

cared for Carville.
I also think somehow college sports teams cause the price of college to go up. Don’t ask me how.

[whathehell]

2. I never really cared for him either..

He strikes me as less than principled.

[sheshe2]

3. Well the price of gas in 1960 was .31 cents.

Minimum wage was $1.

The average salary for Americans age 55-64 is $994.50 per week, $51,714 per year. Earnings in this age bracket are slightly lower than in the 45-54 age bracket. There are also fewer total workers in this age bracket.

Apples/Oranges

[bluewater]

4. Adjusted for inflation $50 in 1962 is still only $428 per YEAR in 2020 dollars.

So, no, it's apples to apples.

As you pointed out, the minimum wage was $1 per hour. So in little over a 40 hour week of work, a person could have paid for a YEAR of college tuition.

That's not true for minimum wage earners in 2020.

[sheshe2]

5. Okay.

You are talking about tuition adjustment.

How have salaries changed?

Tried to give you some info. You can do your own research and claim it to fit your story.

[bluewater]

7. I used your $1 an hour minium wage number.

That mean in a little over a week in 1962, a person could have paid for college tuition for the YEAR working a minimum wage job.

The Federal minimum wage in 2020 is $7.25 per hour. In fifty hours, the time it took to pay that $50 yearly college tuition in 1962, that comes to only $363 in 2020 earnings.

Today, LSU instate Tuition alone is $2,828 per semester or $5,656 per year.

That's 19.5 weeks of work at a minimum wage job in 2020. Big difference in affordability there compared to the 8 days it took to earn in 1962.

[gollygee]

6. He isn't talking about his own experience

He's talking about public opinion and what is making people not want to vote Dem. I don't think he's 100% on, but he raises good points. Bill Clinton won because of the "it's the economy, stupid" thing. They kept on what would win and stopped going on about everything else. And Democrats let themselves get drawn into false dichotomies too easily. The Republicans say we're socialists, and we talk about socialism rather than point out that there's a lot of room between radical free-market capitalism, and socialism. We need to stop getting dragged into losing debates by the Republicans.

I think "free college" is a great idea but a losing battle. I have a kid about to start college and I love the idea, but he's right about most people's reaction to that. Maybe no-interest student loans is a winning battle? We need to be more specific and frame it better and explain adequately how it'll be paid for, whatever it is. People are worried they'll pay more in taxes for someone else's kids to go to school. We can't win if people are worried about that. We'll be lucky if we even still have free K-12 schools if Trump gets re-elected, so getting him out has to be the top priority.

[bluewater]

8. Of course he isn't, back in his day college was affordable. He fails to point that out.

That is what makes Carville hypocritical, he wants to ignore how it used to be affordable for average people like himself.

[gollygee]

15. That's totally beside the point

He's talking about how voters feel about it, and about sound campaign strategy. He isn't talking about his own experience because voters don't care about that.

[bluewater]

16. It's not beside my point that he is being hypocritical

by not explaining the other side of the issue, the side he actually benefitted from himself.

I realize there are 2 sides to this issue. But we do not know yet which argument is the winning one.

Carville should at the very least be pointing out how affordable college was for him, and not just arguing how it's a "losing" issue now to talk of affordable college and forgiving student debt.

That would seem balanced.

Thanks for the discussion.

[Buckeyeblue]

17. Excellent post!

Carville isn't saying free college is bad. He's saying that in this election the first priority should be to beat Trump. The second should be to win the Senate.

Carville's point is that free college is not a game changer, so we shouldn't get bogged down arguing about it.

Carville is a strategic thinker who knows how to win elections.

[octoberlib]

9. The university of California system used to be free until Reagan stopped it as Governor.

A person could attend Berkeley for a $300 . a year administrative fee.I think currently New Mexico and Georgia have free college for in state students. In Georgia , they have to maintain a certain grade point average in HS to qualify. I'm not sure how they would legislate this federally without the states raising hell,though.

[Voltaire2]

10. Hey there's 1.5 trillion in rent on those students

the interests of billionaires have to be protected.

[brooklynite]

11. He's criticizing candidates who advocate things that might cause us to lose...

[bluewater]

12. Alternatively, he could be criticizing candidates who advocate things that might cause us to win...

Like advocating for affordable college and forgiveness of student debt.

It comes across like he's pulling up the ladder after himself in this regard. College was affordable, almost free, for him. It can and should be again for average working people.

[brooklynite]

13. Which candidate is doing well on the basis of this proposal?

[bluewater]

14. um, Sanders? Remember him? He did well in Iowa, I hear. ;)

As the race for president heats up, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), who are both 2020 presidential candidates, have shared competing visions for student loan debt forgiveness. The latest student loan debt statistics show that more than 44 million borrowers collectively owe about $1.6 trillion in student loan debt.

Both Sanders and Warren believe that wide-scale student loan forgiveness would, among multiple other benefits, free millions of Americans from debt so they can buy a home, save for retirement, launch a new business, and start a family. Some critics believe that, among other observations, these are wealth redistribution plans and are unfair to federal taxpayers and former borrowers who already paid off their student loans.

The Sanders plan is simple and straightforward: everyone gets student loan forgiveness. If you earn $10,000 or $10 million a year, you would receive student loan forgiveness for your federal and private student loans. The Warren plan would cancel student loan debt for more than 95% of borrowers, and would entirely cancel student loan debt for more than 75% of borrowers. Unlike the Sanders plan, if a borrower earns more than $250,000 a year, that borrower would not be eligible to receive student loan forgiveness.

Polls also show Sanders doing well head to head versus Trump. So he count's as a credible winning candidate, right?

Regardless of the candidate, I believe our party should support affordable college and student loan debt forgiveness.

Time will tell on this issue, but I believe the arc of social justice bends towards this goal.