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 Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
Joe BidenCongratulations to our presumptive Democratic nominee, Joe Biden!
 

Eugene

(62,178 posts)
Fri Apr 5, 2019, 01:16 PM Apr 2019

Pete Buttigieg argues against free college. This is why progressives can't agree about subsidizing t

Source: Washington Post

Pete Buttigieg argues against free college. This is why progressives can’t agree about subsidizing tuition.

What is a college education for, and who benefits from it?

By Elizabeth Popp Berman April 5 at 10:50 AM

South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg wants you to know he doesn’t believe in free college. He said as much on Wednesday night — to an audience of college students, no less:

Americans who have a college degree earn more than Americans who don’t. As a progressive, I have a hard time getting my head around the idea a majority who earn less because they didn’t go to college subsidize a minority who earn more because they did.

Buttigieg isn’t the first progressive to argue against ending tuition. In fact, the argument that tuition-free college is regressive was, until the past few years, pretty standard on the wonkish left. But by thinking about college education in terms of human capital, it misses out on important aspects of providing public goods. This explains why Buttigieg’s proposal has raised questions from many progressives.

The origins of the Buttigieg position about college

The Buttigieg argument goes like this: College increases the incomes of those who complete it. But the people who go to college are typically already better off. By charging them less than the actual cost of their education, we’re using the tax dollars of poorer non-college-goers to pay for the education of their richer counterparts — whose earning potential will only increase with their shiny new bachelor's degree.

-snip-


Read more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/04/05/pete-buttigieg-argues-against-free-college-this-is-why-progressives-cant-agree-about-subsidizing-tuition/
If I were to vote in a presidential
primary today, I would vote for:
Joe Biden
49 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Pete Buttigieg argues against free college. This is why progressives can't agree about subsidizing t (Original Post) Eugene Apr 2019 OP
So much wrong with this: Merlot Apr 2019 #1
He does say college costs should be lower, so you are in agreement there. marylandblue Apr 2019 #7
So much wrong with the TITLE. We don't HAVE to agree on Hortensis Apr 2019 #30
I thought that's why we had campaigns and primaries. We OregonBlue Apr 2019 #2
Community college should be made easily accessible. MH1 Apr 2019 #3
Princeton uses it's large endowment to foot tuition for kids from Blue_true Apr 2019 #43
Kind of a dumb argument jberryhill Apr 2019 #4
Yes, he does realize that, but he's asking if that's the best use of our money. marylandblue Apr 2019 #8
That's still ridiculously simplistic jberryhill Apr 2019 #21
Yours is a long but simplistic response to an intentionally short post. marylandblue Apr 2019 #25
I like your reasoning on this. Blue_true Apr 2019 #45
For as smart as Mayor Pete is... Politicub Apr 2019 #37
One thing that can be done with tuition debt is Blue_true Apr 2019 #46
That's what I thought. LuvNewcastle Apr 2019 #41
Every economically-based argument in the world always has two sides ... mr_lebowski Apr 2019 #5
The concept of free college is great and hard to object to, but The Velveteen Ocelot Apr 2019 #6
One solution is to have shorter courses, maybe 6 or 10 weeks. greymattermom Apr 2019 #27
But they'd still have to take enough cumulative classes to have learned something The Velveteen Ocelot Apr 2019 #29
Let's focus on the dire priority of healthcare first. dubyadiprecession Apr 2019 #9
Back when I went to college (1960s), there was no tuition at the state colleges MineralMan Apr 2019 #10
So in summary it costs a lot so only people Voltaire2 Apr 2019 #11
Not everyone is cut out for college, but you can't get a well-paying job without it. marylandblue Apr 2019 #14
But oddly enough filthy rich bastards Voltaire2 Apr 2019 #17
No, we shouldn't allow people to commit felonious fraud, and marylandblue Apr 2019 #35
How about we let them figure that out without Voltaire2 Apr 2019 #36
I don't disagree. But any solution has social costs as well as benefits. marylandblue Apr 2019 #38
As a concept: free college its fine. Practically speaking, what does that actually mean? tymorial Apr 2019 #12
Would high school be okay at 11 grades? What about 13? jberryhill Apr 2019 #24
That makes no sense what so ever. Nt tymorial Apr 2019 #31
What makes it okay to fund education for 12 years, but not 16? jberryhill Apr 2019 #33
Oh, I understand now. Rather than debate my argument you resort to strawman tymorial Apr 2019 #34
This is the 21st century. dogman Apr 2019 #13
Even in the 21st century, we can't all work in STEM or management. marylandblue Apr 2019 #16
And in today's labor market they need training. dogman Apr 2019 #19
I agree. We need more of that. marylandblue Apr 2019 #20
That's why Bernie wants to make Unionization easier. dogman Apr 2019 #23
Not everyone is cut out for kindergarten Voltaire2 Apr 2019 #18
Nope, they want you to be able to tie your shoes first. dogman Apr 2019 #22
Seriously? jberryhill Apr 2019 #26
My grandsons had homework in kindergarten. greymattermom Apr 2019 #28
It should be free or significantly subsidized for those whose families cannot afford it Buckeyeblue Apr 2019 #15
I agree with subsidizing. People should pay something because it is a thing of value. If you UniteFightBack Apr 2019 #40
Well, I worked at a major corporation and we (in my area) hired IT professionals out of ... SWBTATTReg Apr 2019 #32
Missing the education angle jaceaf Apr 2019 #39
It doesn't make you rich, it does get you in the door. Voltaire2 Apr 2019 #48
I see his point. Blue_true Apr 2019 #42
A problem easily resolved by making community college free ecstatic Apr 2019 #44
He is looking at the bigger picture. WeekiWater Apr 2019 #47
Free college tuition at public colleges means Mr Tibbs Apr 2019 #49
 

Merlot

(9,696 posts)
1. So much wrong with this:
Fri Apr 5, 2019, 01:23 PM
Apr 2019
But the people who go to college are typically already better off. By charging them less than the actual cost of their education, we’re using the tax dollars of poorer non-college-goers to pay for the education of their richer counterparts — whose earning potential will only increase with their shiny new bachelor's degree.


Personally, I don't think college should be free, but it should be affordable to anyone who wants to go. Prices have gone up so much in the past 20 years. The higher pricetag discourages those from lower economic situations who would like to improve their lives.

How many college graduates are working at starbucks these days? You call that increasing earning potential?
If I were to vote in a presidential
primary today, I would vote for:
Undecided
 

marylandblue

(12,344 posts)
7. He does say college costs should be lower, so you are in agreement there.
Fri Apr 5, 2019, 01:36 PM
Apr 2019

But I think you should be able to get a good paying job without college.

If I were to vote in a presidential
primary today, I would vote for:
Joe Biden
 

Hortensis

(58,785 posts)
30. So much wrong with the TITLE. We don't HAVE to agree on
Fri Apr 5, 2019, 03:06 PM
Apr 2019

the details, certainly not something as complex with as many ways of approaching solutions as funding higher education. What matters is that we all agree on the tremendous value of education, the rights of the people to fulfill themselves through education, and the need to fix this huge national funding problem. And that the Republicans oppose it.

Republicans are actually trying to change us to a nation in which fewer are educated and then only in subjects and to a level that will serve the needs of employers. Forget taking a class in renaissance history because it appeals. If those controlling some red states have their way, in future nothing like that will even be offered at their state colleges. HUGE, existential difference from what all of us believe is right and necessary.

Frankly, compared to the Republicans' and business's corrupt product of requiring college students to go into crippling debt for sometimes decades, affordable college and free college are practically the same thing. I remember when I was young, lived very modestly and had little money to spare, and still paid for a full semester of classes the way I'd write a check for the week's groceries.

We'll get the power to make it happen and work out the details. Tennessee is making some college and university free and some affordable, and state and community college students there are 100% better off than in predatory states.

If I were to vote in a presidential
primary today, I would vote for:
Joe Biden
 

OregonBlue

(7,779 posts)
2. I thought that's why we had campaigns and primaries. We
Fri Apr 5, 2019, 01:24 PM
Apr 2019

don't all agree about everything?

If I were to vote in a presidential
primary today, I would vote for:
Joe Biden
 

MH1

(17,885 posts)
3. Community college should be made easily accessible.
Fri Apr 5, 2019, 01:25 PM
Apr 2019

By low or free tuition, especially for remedial work to be able to take classes with actual college-level substance.

Doing this would give an opportunity to lower income students with outstanding performance to qualify for scholarships at 4 year schools for the last two years of a bachelor degree.

I don't think 4 year school tuition should generally be free. However some of the best colleges (Princeton, for example) have a policy that if a student earns admission, they should be able to attend even if they can't afford the normal tuition. I don't know the details of Princeton's policy but it sounded good on the surface. Problem is that students from low-income areas generally miss out on the opportunities to get academic preparation needed to qualify for an elite school like that.

If I were to vote in a presidential
primary today, I would vote for:
Joe Biden
 

Blue_true

(31,261 posts)
43. Princeton uses it's large endowment to foot tuition for kids from
Fri Apr 5, 2019, 11:41 PM
Apr 2019

families that can't afford to pay.

If I were to vote in a presidential
primary today, I would vote for:
Joe Biden
 

jberryhill

(62,444 posts)
4. Kind of a dumb argument
Fri Apr 5, 2019, 01:26 PM
Apr 2019

"I have a hard time getting my head around the idea a majority who earn less because they didn’t go to college subsidize a minority who earn more because they did."

Does he realize that the higher income earners pay more taxes, thus "subsidizing" a shitload of stuff used by the lower income earners?

Really kind of a dumb argument which fails to follow its own logic to a conclusion.

If I were to vote in a presidential
primary today, I would vote for:
Joe Biden
 

marylandblue

(12,344 posts)
8. Yes, he does realize that, but he's asking if that's the best use of our money.
Fri Apr 5, 2019, 01:40 PM
Apr 2019

People go to college to earn more money. But even if you made college free, poor people would not be able to go because they can't afford not to work. So why don't we spend our money helping people make a good living without college?

If I were to vote in a presidential
primary today, I would vote for:
Joe Biden
 

jberryhill

(62,444 posts)
21. That's still ridiculously simplistic
Fri Apr 5, 2019, 02:14 PM
Apr 2019

"People go to college to earn more money"

...which means that they are going to pay more taxes. But it goes well beyond that as well.

This statement is a sad reflection on the way that everything in society has been reduced to a matter of self-interest, but the fact of the matter is that having educated persons is a general social benefit.

That's the entire proposition behind public schools. Quite frankly, a lot of poor people could benefit more directly by having their ten year olds work to earn money in sweatshops. They gain nothing by having their kids in school through 12th grade.

This sounds a lot like "Why do I pay taxes for schools when I don't have kids?"

But it is simply arbitrary to say, "Well, yes, of course we all benefit by having people educated through 12th grade, but if we provided a single day more, it would be bad for people at the lower economic end."

What nonsense - we require children to go to school up to age 18 as a mandatory proposition in most states. Above that, it is usually discretionary whether to admit a child older than that, but the point remains the same. All you are doing is simply drawing a line at 18 years of age, or at 12 grades, and saying that there is some reason other than your arbitrary line that there is no further public benefit.

It is of tremendous benefit - even to persons who do not pursue further education - to have educated people. Someone from an underprivileged background who completes, say, a business degree and goes on to become an entrepreneur is GOING TO EMPLOY OTHER PEOPLE.

Additionally, those higher income earners are also higher income spenders - for goods and services in the local economy that come from other people in it.

Pure nonsense. To imagine that college education is merely a vehicle for those individuals to earn more money, misses the entire point of why we have public education at all.
If I were to vote in a presidential
primary today, I would vote for:
Joe Biden
 

marylandblue

(12,344 posts)
25. Yours is a long but simplistic response to an intentionally short post.
Fri Apr 5, 2019, 02:33 PM
Apr 2019

The whole issue is net benefits. The actual cost-benefit ratio of college is going down as costs go up faster than the income gains from going to college. This is true whether the government pays for it or you pay. Meanwhile, as good paying blue collar jobs disappear, the disadvantage of not going to college increases. So we are paying more and more for college education to provide more education to more people while the social benefit of education is decreasing.

And yes, the 18 year old cut off is arbitrary. But that doesn't mean it should automatically go up. Maybe we end at 16 and send everybody to national service for two years? Or offer two of trade school for those not going to college? I'M NOT advocating for these, they are just ideas that could work for some people better than what we have now.

Free college is a simplistic solution to a complex problem. We really need a range of solutions and a detailed discussion that is difficult to do by internet post or sound bite.

So lets not assume somebody is being "simplistic" just because they didn't write a treatise on their entire thought process in five minutes.

If I were to vote in a presidential
primary today, I would vote for:
Joe Biden
 

Blue_true

(31,261 posts)
45. I like your reasoning on this.
Fri Apr 5, 2019, 11:54 PM
Apr 2019

I think that you also touched on the key issues with free college. 4 year College campuses are heavily populated by middleclass and above kids. Those kids have parents that push them toward college. If we don't provide suitable paths for kids that don't have the family support for higher education, then we are only going to increase the income gap in the country, and that gap will have a big racial component.

I like the idea of a mandatory 4 years of national service after high school or age 19, whichever criteria is met. Kids get a chance to mature before making important career decisions. Some kids may find that a trade is better for them, while others may conclude that college and professional school is better for them. Regardless of the choice, 23 or 24 year old young people will go off to training that would then be free to them because of their national service. I think it would be win-win, more mature disciplined kids studying for their future and kids studying for a range of occupations that benefit the country down the road.

If I were to vote in a presidential
primary today, I would vote for:
Joe Biden
 

Politicub

(12,172 posts)
37. For as smart as Mayor Pete is...
Fri Apr 5, 2019, 05:10 PM
Apr 2019

his argument is patronizing and dismissive. So many people are drowning in college debt.

I don't know what the answer is, but it's not closing the door on a path to a fully-funded college education. I'm happy with starting with community colleges and making those tuition free. And then, perhaps public universities would be a public option for people who want it. And, and increase in federal help like Pell Grants.

The private universities can keep doing what they're doing, even though their high costs are unethical.

If I were to vote in a presidential
primary today, I would vote for:
Joe Biden
 

Blue_true

(31,261 posts)
46. One thing that can be done with tuition debt is
Fri Apr 5, 2019, 11:59 PM
Apr 2019

the government pays it off for kids that chose certain fields like teaching, nursing, doctors, in exchange for them giving a portion of their career years to public service. For example, doctors and nurses would serve in community clinics or poorly staffed hospitals. They still get salaries applicable to their field along with tuition debt relief. They can choose to stay in those jobs or move on once they have meet their time obligation.

If I were to vote in a presidential
primary today, I would vote for:
Joe Biden
 

LuvNewcastle

(16,925 posts)
41. That's what I thought.
Fri Apr 5, 2019, 08:59 PM
Apr 2019

I doubt the lower income people are doing much subsidizing, anyway. He's a smart guy, but he hasn't thought this through. Sounds rather ignorant to me.

If I were to vote in a presidential
primary today, I would vote for:
Joe Biden
 

mr_lebowski

(33,643 posts)
5. Every economically-based argument in the world always has two sides ...
Fri Apr 5, 2019, 01:27 PM
Apr 2019

The one thing that's indisputable is ... very, very little, when it comes to good/services exchanges between non-family members or good friends ... is 'free'.

So I do understand objecting to the 'Free College' terminology. I think it's dumb, politically, frankly.

THAT BEING SAID, there's a fairly simple argument to be made by any progressive, Mayor Pete included, that lowering the tuitions for ALL higher education, including trade schools and things of that nature, and building more colleges, thus allowing a larger % of young people to attend ... paid for by raising taxes on the top 1%, and by MASSIVELY reducing the military budget (rather than 'making poorer people pay for it', as he's implying as the inevitable result) ... is a viable and reasonably fair option.

The top 1% will end up benefiting as well from this policy in the form of a larger pool of more qualified workers to aid them in their quest for infinite riches, houses, yachts, etc.

If I were to vote in a presidential
primary today, I would vote for:
Joe Biden
 

The Velveteen Ocelot

(117,440 posts)
6. The concept of free college is great and hard to object to, but
Fri Apr 5, 2019, 01:31 PM
Apr 2019

it's too simple. For years I worked as an adjunct faculty member at a state university whose students were mostly working adults, including a lot of immigrants. Almost all of them were trying to go to college while working full-time and/or taking care of families. Their biggest obstacle to staying in school wasn't tuition - the tuition was relatively low and many students had financial aid, like the GI Bill, scholarships or grants - but the burden of juggling the rest of their lives with their course work. The main reason students dropped out wasn't the tuition but the demands of their jobs and families. If their employer changed their work schedules or a child got sick the student couldn't come to class. There are on-line classes that somewhat assuage schedule difficulties but even they don't solve these problems completely, since the students also have to do off-line work. Until there's a realistic way to help these students - who need help a lot more than the teenaged children of middle-class families - just paying their tuition isn't going to ensure they can complete their college educations. Maybe there should be funding for child care on campus, or grants in cooperation with employers that allow the students to take a leave of absence from their jobs. More and different solutions are needed besides paid tuition.

If I were to vote in a presidential
primary today, I would vote for:
Joe Biden
 

greymattermom

(5,777 posts)
27. One solution is to have shorter courses, maybe 6 or 10 weeks.
Fri Apr 5, 2019, 02:55 PM
Apr 2019

So students earn credit if they can attend for a shorter time period. Then they wouldn't have to attend for a whole semester to earn something.

If I were to vote in a presidential
primary today, I would vote for:
Joe Biden
 

The Velveteen Ocelot

(117,440 posts)
29. But they'd still have to take enough cumulative classes to have learned something
Fri Apr 5, 2019, 03:03 PM
Apr 2019

qualifying them for a degree, and the longer a student strings out their education the more likely they are either to have forgotten their first courses or never to graduate at all. Most colleges require students to finish within seven years, and there's a good reason for that.

If I were to vote in a presidential
primary today, I would vote for:
Joe Biden
 

dubyadiprecession

(5,919 posts)
9. Let's focus on the dire priority of healthcare first.
Fri Apr 5, 2019, 01:42 PM
Apr 2019

The ACA needs more attention, we can’t afford to let republicans tear it down. Americas health is more important, actual living people need this and can’t live without it.

Tuition free college is ideal, but it should be a fight for a later day.

If I were to vote in a presidential
primary today, I would vote for:
Joe Biden
 

MineralMan

(146,562 posts)
10. Back when I went to college (1960s), there was no tuition at the state colleges
Fri Apr 5, 2019, 01:47 PM
Apr 2019

in California. You still had to pay for room and board, books, and other expenses, and there was a modest fee each semester, but very modest.

The taxpayers of the state paid the rest. At the time, California has a progressive income tax, so wealthy people paid a higher percentage in taxes on their income. At the time, getting into a state college pretty much required a 3.0 GPA, as well. Room and board in my Freshman year was $600 total for each 3-month quarter. Books were expensive, but I bought used texts or used the textbooks in the library. My parents covered part of the expenses and my summer job covered the rest.

Not everyone went to college. I had been accepted at Cal Tech, but my parents simply said they couldn't afford that. No problem. The state college was good, too.

A lot of students went for two years at the local community college, or "Junior College" as it was called at the time. Then, if they did OK there, they'd transfer to one of the state schools. Kids with parents who were more affluent went to one of the many private colleges and universities. The University of California was another option. It cost somewhat more, and admission standards were higher. I chose a state college that was just a three-hour drive from my home town.

College was tuition free then, at least at state colleges in California. Getting that education, of course, was not completely free, and not everyone went to college.

My point here is that college was never free. In some places, like California, though, the state college system was primarily funded from income tax revenues in a progressive taxation system. The rich paid more. The poor paid nothing. I stayed in a dorm. Other students found other places to stay. Some students lived at home and went to a state college nearby. Many worked full-time jobs to pay for school, and you could do that in that economy. There was a way to go to college if you had a 3.0 GPA and some ingenuity. For those who didn't have the academic qualifications, Junior College for two years was how you could increase your GPA and gain admission.

Was the system fair? I don't know. It was what it was. That system no longer exists, though. More's the pity, I think.

If I were to vote in a presidential
primary today, I would vote for:
Joe Biden
 

Voltaire2

(13,919 posts)
11. So in summary it costs a lot so only people
Fri Apr 5, 2019, 01:49 PM
Apr 2019

who can afford to give their kids the benefit of a college education use it, so we shouldn’t make it available to everyone because then wtf mumble yadda yadda.

If I were to vote in a presidential
primary today, I would vote for:
Undecided
 

marylandblue

(12,344 posts)
14. Not everyone is cut out for college, but you can't get a well-paying job without it.
Fri Apr 5, 2019, 01:59 PM
Apr 2019

So the whole college thing just reinforces the inequities. It used to be you could get a good job, without college. If we made blue-collar and service industry jobs pay better, fewer people would need or want to go to college, but more lives would be improved.

If I were to vote in a presidential
primary today, I would vote for:
Joe Biden
 

Voltaire2

(13,919 posts)
17. But oddly enough filthy rich bastards
Fri Apr 5, 2019, 02:03 PM
Apr 2019

are committing felonious fraud and spending hundreds of thousand to get their unqualified brats into college.

So again, putting unqualified kids through college is only for the rich, and we shouldn’t change that.

If I were to vote in a presidential
primary today, I would vote for:
Undecided
 

marylandblue

(12,344 posts)
35. No, we shouldn't allow people to commit felonious fraud, and
Fri Apr 5, 2019, 04:50 PM
Apr 2019

as a matter of fact, we don't.

And it isn't even really just about free tuition. Why should ANYBODY be encouraged to pay the opportunity cost of not working to study subjects they hate when they'd really rather be a barista?

If I were to vote in a presidential
primary today, I would vote for:
Joe Biden
 

Voltaire2

(13,919 posts)
36. How about we let them figure that out without
Fri Apr 5, 2019, 05:05 PM
Apr 2019

putting them under a mountain of debt.

If I were to vote in a presidential
primary today, I would vote for:
Undecided
 

marylandblue

(12,344 posts)
38. I don't disagree. But any solution has social costs as well as benefits.
Fri Apr 5, 2019, 05:52 PM
Apr 2019

And we should be clear on what those are before we implement it.

If I were to vote in a presidential
primary today, I would vote for:
Joe Biden
 

tymorial

(3,433 posts)
12. As a concept: free college its fine. Practically speaking, what does that actually mean?
Fri Apr 5, 2019, 01:52 PM
Apr 2019

Does free college degree mean all programs or only those that generate sufficient revenue for the institution? Will state universities slash departments with fewer matriculating students or divert funding for improvements to those departments? For many students who wish to study traditional liberal and performing art subjects, state school is their only avenue due to cost. I've known some absolutely amazing and talented individuals who came from poor backgrounds and their only opportunity was a state college. Some were talented enough to secure acceptance at larger private institutions (often with some scholarship) but that was only after proving their worth and value. Many others simply just wanted to study music, art, theatre, or literature etc accepting that they would never find positions within those fields post grad. Some became teachers but others (like myself) went in different directions. We had no choice.

This was 20 years ago and almost across the country many states have reduced their funding even more. All of this has occurred while tuition rises. Many facilities receive more funding from the federal government than they do their own state. What is common today however is students are paying more for their education than is contributed by the state. In truth one of the reasons why state schools should be less expensive is because local taxes subsidize the cost. This is no longer the case in many areas around the country.

So if we make education free, what does that mean? I know more than a few people who rage at college kids studying "useless degrees." This is an argument that is not political, I've heard it from both sides. Back when I was a trauma nurse I had a coworker who was a "lever puller" as we called it back then. He said he would pay for his kids to go to college but only if they studied something that guaranteed him a job. I reminded him that I had a music degree first and it was a few years before I decided to go back to school. It didn't shake him. It doesn't matter that I would never trade those years for anything. They may not have contributed to society or to the loans that I had to take out but they were a big part of my life. Some of my favorite times in my life.

I fear for a model where private schools are the only locations where one can study these subjects and as such studying art, music, theatre and literature would be afforded to only those with privilege and wealth sufficient to afford those subjects. Quite frankly that's already happening in some places already.

If I were to vote in a presidential
primary today, I would vote for:
Undecided
 

jberryhill

(62,444 posts)
24. Would high school be okay at 11 grades? What about 13?
Fri Apr 5, 2019, 02:32 PM
Apr 2019

How about 16 grades?
If I were to vote in a presidential
primary today, I would vote for:
Joe Biden
 

tymorial

(3,433 posts)
31. That makes no sense what so ever. Nt
Fri Apr 5, 2019, 03:07 PM
Apr 2019
If I were to vote in a presidential
primary today, I would vote for:
Undecided
 

jberryhill

(62,444 posts)
33. What makes it okay to fund education for 12 years, but not 16?
Fri Apr 5, 2019, 04:14 PM
Apr 2019

Where we draw the line on "public education" is entirely arbitrary.
If I were to vote in a presidential
primary today, I would vote for:
Joe Biden
 

tymorial

(3,433 posts)
34. Oh, I understand now. Rather than debate my argument you resort to strawman
Fri Apr 5, 2019, 04:25 PM
Apr 2019

Yes, I know. It's much easier. Too bad, I have no interest in playing this game. eom.

If I were to vote in a presidential
primary today, I would vote for:
Undecided
 

dogman

(6,073 posts)
13. This is the 21st century.
Fri Apr 5, 2019, 01:54 PM
Apr 2019

In the 20th century we did K-12. It is time to adapt to higher standards that will make people more employable and raise their asset level. The 12+ curriculum is already available at many community colleges and trade schools. It is time to expand this opportunity to all. In line with his argument, should we be paying for high school education on the backs of drop outs? As a society we need to decide what future we want. Again, this is the 21st Century.

If I were to vote in a presidential
primary today, I would vote for:
Undecided
 

marylandblue

(12,344 posts)
16. Even in the 21st century, we can't all work in STEM or management.
Fri Apr 5, 2019, 02:01 PM
Apr 2019

But we still need plumbers and carpenters.

If I were to vote in a presidential
primary today, I would vote for:
Joe Biden
 

dogman

(6,073 posts)
19. And in today's labor market they need training.
Fri Apr 5, 2019, 02:11 PM
Apr 2019

As a Union Electrician, I received certification from my local community college upon completion of my apprenticeship. That was 40 years ago. My plumber and carpenter friends had similar programs. Some won't require anything if that is there career choice. Opportunity is the key.

If I were to vote in a presidential
primary today, I would vote for:
Undecided
 

marylandblue

(12,344 posts)
20. I agree. We need more of that.
Fri Apr 5, 2019, 02:14 PM
Apr 2019

When I was young, I worked in a non-union warehouse for half the pay of a union shop with no benefits. But I couldn't get a job in the union shop.

If I were to vote in a presidential
primary today, I would vote for:
Joe Biden
 

dogman

(6,073 posts)
23. That's why Bernie wants to make Unionization easier.
Fri Apr 5, 2019, 02:19 PM
Apr 2019

If you and your fellow workers wanted union wages and benefits, you should have been afforded the right to unionize simply through a card check.

If I were to vote in a presidential
primary today, I would vote for:
Undecided
 

Voltaire2

(13,919 posts)
18. Not everyone is cut out for kindergarten
Fri Apr 5, 2019, 02:04 PM
Apr 2019
If I were to vote in a presidential
primary today, I would vote for:
Undecided
 

dogman

(6,073 posts)
22. Nope, they want you to be able to tie your shoes first.
Fri Apr 5, 2019, 02:14 PM
Apr 2019
If I were to vote in a presidential
primary today, I would vote for:
Undecided
 

jberryhill

(62,444 posts)
26. Seriously?
Fri Apr 5, 2019, 02:36 PM
Apr 2019

I wouldn't have made the cut.
If I were to vote in a presidential
primary today, I would vote for:
Joe Biden
 

greymattermom

(5,777 posts)
28. My grandsons had homework in kindergarten.
Fri Apr 5, 2019, 02:58 PM
Apr 2019

Like reading and simple math.

If I were to vote in a presidential
primary today, I would vote for:
Joe Biden
 

Buckeyeblue

(5,548 posts)
15. It should be free or significantly subsidized for those whose families cannot afford it
Fri Apr 5, 2019, 02:00 PM
Apr 2019

It gives those who have the motivation and talent an opportunity to break the cycle of poverty.

In general it should be more affordable. I'm fine with paying higher taxes to drive down the cost at the state universities.

If I were to vote in a presidential
primary today, I would vote for:
Joe Biden
 

UniteFightBack

(8,231 posts)
40. I agree with subsidizing. People should pay something because it is a thing of value. If you
Fri Apr 5, 2019, 08:47 PM
Apr 2019

pay your own money too you tend to value it more. But on a sliding scale of course and really affordable.

If I were to vote in a presidential
primary today, I would vote for:
Joe Biden
 

SWBTATTReg

(22,714 posts)
32. Well, I worked at a major corporation and we (in my area) hired IT professionals out of ...
Fri Apr 5, 2019, 03:08 PM
Apr 2019

school for the most part. You would be amazed at how much remedial training we still had to provide these kids coming out of college. Too many in my viewpoint, especially when you have to teach them how to write, read, etc., all of the basics. And this was at a major corporation no less.

It wasn't everyone but it was enough to make you wonder if these kids with the degrees really knew what the values of these degrees are? I have seen too many times where the kids seem to think that college is all about spring break, going to Florida and partying, etc. We have all seen the parents bribing college admissions officials to get their kids into school (who didn't have the grades or scores to get in otherwise) and the kids themselves admit that they don't study and to them, it's all fun and games.

For kids like this, I wouldn't pay a single dime for their college. Not one dime. They don't respect the value of a higher education and seem to think it's party time. If you have to pay for school, and/or had scholarships (earned via high grades in high school, etc.), then you know the value of these degrees, and thus, more likely to put lots more effort into it. Now, this isn't all kids, but the kids who do care, are already out there in the marketplace, working to save up the money for school, and doing everything they can in order to go. They are not going to Florida to party either.

If I were to vote in a presidential
primary today, I would vote for:
Joe Biden
 

jaceaf

(89 posts)
39. Missing the education angle
Fri Apr 5, 2019, 08:22 PM
Apr 2019

We would be a better society with better education. Republicans want an ignorant country.

Nevermind the false economics that a college education somehow makes you rich.

If I were to vote in a presidential
primary today, I would vote for:
Undecided
 

Voltaire2

(13,919 posts)
48. It doesn't make you rich, it does get you in the door.
Sat Apr 6, 2019, 07:06 AM
Apr 2019
If I were to vote in a presidential
primary today, I would vote for:
Undecided
 

Blue_true

(31,261 posts)
42. I see his point.
Fri Apr 5, 2019, 11:38 PM
Apr 2019

A society needs skillsets of all types. We need plumbers, electricians, toilet and floor cleaners, doctors, nurses, lawyers, ect. College is not for everyone, so any plan must be designed to cover as many people as possible. A college degreed person SHOULD pay more in taxes over a working career, but with tax payment avoidance by some, there is no certainty that society will get it's free tuition investment back, with extra dividends. So, if society pays for one kid's college, what do we give the kid that takes a job at McDonalds after high school because he or she was not into college? In theory the second kid ends up helping to pay the way for the first kid. Do we give the first kid $30,000 dollars tax free?

Any assistance system is going to have some unfairness associated with it. How do we minimize that unfairness? One method would be to offer life-long educational assistance that can be utilized once, kid 1 may use that assistance for college right out of high school. Kid 2 May wait until 30 to think about a better future for himself or herself. The issue that I have with free tuition is that it ends up favoring people that already have an advantage, kids whose family recognize the value of a good college degree, it does nothing for kids that don't have that support. Free college most likely will increase racial income disparities also.

If I were to vote in a presidential
primary today, I would vote for:
Joe Biden
 

ecstatic

(33,225 posts)
44. A problem easily resolved by making community college free
Fri Apr 5, 2019, 11:50 PM
Apr 2019

Will the rich and well off attend community colleges?

If I were to vote in a presidential
primary today, I would vote for:
Joe Biden
 

WeekiWater

(3,259 posts)
47. He is looking at the bigger picture.
Sat Apr 6, 2019, 12:24 AM
Apr 2019

Voters are more receptive to simplicity in arguments. Going around blurting out the BS free college line will always resonate more than discussing the encompassing impacts of going with or without continuing education.

If I were to vote in a presidential
primary today, I would vote for:
Joe Biden
 

Mr Tibbs

(539 posts)
49. Free college tuition at public colleges means
Sat Apr 6, 2019, 07:45 AM
Apr 2019

Anyone who goes to those college's don't pay tuition regardless of income. Not sure what his issue is.

"Can't have it because someone from a wealthy family might go too" is a weak argument.

If I were to vote in a presidential
primary today, I would vote for:
Undecided
Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»Democratic Primaries»Pete Buttigieg argues aga...