2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumI Will Die With Student Loan Debt
It is one of many reasons that Hillary's College Education Plan is Insulting and unworkable.
The wealthy will have it easy. They are going to ivy league and other top tier universities. No life-crushing debt.
The poor and middle class, people like me, not so easy right now. Life-crushing debt. Potentially life-long debt that can never be paid off before they die. Like me. I will likely die with unpaid student loan debt.
Her system is a poor improvement. In fact it is, in many ways, worse.
Let us look how a University education is done in many places in Europe:
Oxford University, Tier-1, world class University: $6,224/year for home and EU students (at current exchange rates. Grants for full tuition are easy to come by for EU students)
Kings College, Tier-1, world class University: $6,224/year for home and EU students (at current exchange rates. Grants for full tuition are easy to come by for EU students)
University of Amsterdam, Tier-1, world class University: $3,502/year for home and EU students (at current exchange rates. Grants for full tuition are easy to come by for EU students)
Trinity College of Dublin, Tier-1, world class University: ~$3-4000 /year* for home and EU students (at current exchange rates. *most meet the Irish government's requirements to qualify for tuition-free education. Most Irish and EU students go to college free.)
Germany- All German universities are tuition-free to all home, EU and International students.
That is a small sample set of tier-1, world class universities in Europe. These are the "ivy league" colleges of Europe.
What does The Clinton Education plan cover? State and community colleges. U.S.-based top tier, world class universities will still be out of reach for the majority of graduating U.S. seniors due to cost and accessibility.
We haven't even touched on the most disturbing aspect of this plan. The worst part of it is she is setting a 2-tier system for higher education. Her plan states "we're going to humiliate you to get your education paid for."
I say it like that because, in our current system, you may end up in mountains of debt but no one knows you are any different than any other student at the college or university. In her system, they will.
The poor and middle class, in her system, to get this great benefit, will be reduced working as a slave 10 hours a week without pay as a requirement to maintain their financial aid. Who cares if you need living money in a real job. Who cares if you are carrying a full load and doing your best to get good grades. Your poor, you lost the sperm and egg lottery, so you have to work harder.
Want a college eduction? I guess you will be scrubbing the toilets of rich kids like Chelesa 10 hours a week, carrying a full class load and hoping you still manage to pass.
#poorshaming
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
daleanime
(17,796 posts)hill2016
(1,772 posts)about the two tiers. How would that develop?
Don't we already have two tiers of people today - those with student debt and those without?
Rich people have always had it better, whether it's education or housing.
Other countries have strict admission policies on who qualifies for free tuition. Should we do this as well?
angrychair
(8,697 posts)I suggest you do a little more research. Admission requirements are not that different than those in the United States.
Free tuition is automatic in Germany. There are some minor fees that vary based on region but average about $100 or so a year.
In Ireland and the Netherlands and Britain, there is a process but it is specific and completed before admission. No more difficult than a FAFSA application.
As far as the "2-tier" system, I mean that by forcing students using the program to work 10 hours a week for free, you are poor shaming them and drawing attention to the fact that they have to work for free in order to go to college. It is no different than the proposal by some republicans of forcing poor children that cannot afford lunch or breakfast in grade school to work for it by sweeping floors or cleaning toilets at their school (why I made the toilet cleaning reference).
pnwmom
(108,977 posts)grades and graduation rates than those who don't. And they aren't working "for free." They're helping to pay for a fraction of the cost of their education.
SickOfTheOnePct
(7,290 posts)Especially if that work is helping pay for your school.
Students do that now, so what's the difference?
pinebox
(5,761 posts)As far as "Other countries have strict admission policies "
Hi ACT's and SAT's.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)(Also, it's not strictly "free" since IIRC 2006, but the fees are nominal and can be waived for hardship.)
They pretty consistently let the top third or so of their students go to college, and nobody else (this isn't in the chart, but they have one of the highest completion rates in the world, up in the 90s I think).
Also, students are "tracked" for either college or trade school very early, at age 10 when they decide whether to go to Gymnasium or Realschule or Hauptschule (the first is university-track, the second is possibly university track, the third is going to a trade school or apprenticeship).
pinebox
(5,761 posts)I'm guessing not.
In Germany one doesn't have to go to college to actually live a nice life, a college education isn't required like it here and one can work in fast food and live comfortably. Try that here, in fact try doing that with any shift work here, it won't happen. In Germany, it does.
Do you know why else they don't go to college that much? Trade schools. Something which is sorely lacking in America. The education system is entrenched in Germany and if someone doesn't care to go to college they can go to a trade school and find work right away.
http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/articles/2013-04-29/what-germany-can-teach-the-u-dot-s-dot-about-vocational-education
They know wtf they are doing. And Germans aren't enslaved in debt the rest of their lives.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)I have no idea why you think I didn't; I've lived there.
VulgarPoet
(2,872 posts)I joined the military so I could go to college without having massive debt weighing on me like so many of my friends and peers. I graduated in the top 50 of a senior class of about 300; the salutatorian(however the bloody hell you spell that) somehow has a good $60,000 debt. Probably just because we are from El Paso or something, and have a record for not having great schools. I dunno.
But I decided to sell my conscience for college, and sold my body to the government. And I've watched Syria and Libya go up in flames under a feckless Secretary of State. I like to assume ignorance rather than malice, and I'm trying to not be cynical-- but I don't think anyone can blame me. Since I was able to actually vote, I've tried hitting the streets to put Democrats in power, without really researching what they were about. Fuck, when Clinton announced she was running for President, that first day, I had a momentary Pavlovian reaction. I heard the bell, and I started drooling.
But then I started researching. The more I dug up, the more disgusted with myself I felt. Here I am, a biracial black and white guy in El Paso, Texas-- now stationed out in Virginia-- reading about all the shit Clinton has done that I can't condone, and I felt disgusted. Name recognition alone nearly made me sell my conscience for the second time in 3 years.
Given her foreign policy track record? If Clinton or any other Republican comes into power, there's a good chance that I will be expected to kill. Terrorists, I have no issue with. Hell, we made that bed in the Seventies, if not earlier-- it's fucked up that the younger generation has to contend with that, sins of the father kind of thing-- or in this case, I suppose it's more "sins of the country". But what I can't abide, is that we may be sent to kill innocents. She's voted for that kind of thing before. Slinging around military power is the heaviest thing that a President could consider doing-- and I'll be goddamned if I vote for someone who might put myself or my countrymen and women back in the situation of having to kill innocents and be told we're making America a safer place, only to be lining some fuckin' bureaucrat's pockets. I'll close with an excerpt from a track that just seems to sum up the days I'm living in.
"You are the smoldering vessel of punishment born to do nothing but justify us;
Give us your empathy we’ll give you lust, let yourself go my son time to grow up.
Give up your childish obsession with questioning anything we don't tell you is irrelevant;
Everything you've ever been is replaced by the metal and fire of the weapon you clutch."
NobodyHere
(2,810 posts)I just graduated from college debt free.
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)VulgarPoet
(2,872 posts)eom
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)reformist2
(9,841 posts)backtomn
(482 posts)....I dug myself a big hole and I need someone to bale me out of it.
TIME TO PANIC
(1,894 posts)
PonyUp
(1,680 posts)onecent
(6,096 posts)NobodyHere
(2,810 posts)liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)onecent
(6,096 posts)Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)
JustABozoOnThisBus
(23,339 posts)pinebox
(5,761 posts)Seriously, is this DU or is it Ayn Rand World?
PonyUp
(1,680 posts)Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)
Orrex
(63,203 posts)LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)He had no replies at the time of the initial alert. That post deserves to be called out, not hidden.
Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)NobodyHere
(2,810 posts)Mostly because of Hillary's Iraq War vote.
Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)Trajan
(19,089 posts)This Bernie supporter finds you despicable ...
We are degraded by your presence, which shall not continue much longer ...
Lorien
(31,935 posts)and misery loves company. He/she/ it just wants to make others feel as shitty about life as he/she/it does. Best to ignore their trolling.
Orrex
(63,203 posts)As long as you had the vanishingly rare good fortune to make it through college without being bound into indentured servitude, the rest of those assholes should just suck it up for the next few decades.
The important thing is that you get to keep your disgusting air of entitled self-satisfaction, and if you get to scold the victims of a rigged game, so much the better!
Duppers
(28,120 posts)Seriously? No snapping, just a simple question.
redwitch
(14,944 posts)
MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)In fact, it's downright degrading.
retrowire
(10,345 posts)Trajan
(19,089 posts)Childish selfishness ...
Gone
progressoid
(49,988 posts)
mac56
(17,566 posts)dsc
(52,160 posts)But he doesn't want me to be a slave for 10 hours a week to get an education.
brush
(53,771 posts)Is that what Clinton is proposing? Is that the extent of if or are there other strings attached?
Went I was in college they had a thing call "work study". You had a part-time job on campus, usually minimum wag. You did get a paycheck put it didn't get close to paying all expenses. Student loans or scholarships or family, if able, covered the rest.
Ten hours a week of working, what is that 2 hours a day, for free college (normally in the tens of thousands of dollars) doesn't seem horrible.
Pls explain.
Of course, on the other matter IMO, it is crucial that something be done to alleviate those burdened with crushing college loans now.
angrychair
(8,697 posts)Yes, that is a component of her plan.
This is working for "free" i.e. not getting paid, as a requirement for the program. While also carrying a full class load. While also likely needing a part-time job for other expenses.
Do people get an education under tougher circumstances than this? Yes. I doubt they enjoy it. The point is if you can set a student up to be as successful as possible, you improve their chances for a positive and stress free educational experience.
Yes, I am sure people walked 5 miles, up hill, in 3 feet of snow to get to school, both ways. What you could drive them. Get them to school, dry, clean and not sweating from a long hard walk, why would you not do that? Would it not set them up for a more successful school experience?
It is also not a requirement in tuition-free programs in any other country. It is not a requirement in Sanders plan. We have to think smarter about how to be successful. "Tough like my grandpa did it" is not a plan.
brush
(53,771 posts)You listed that there were but even you, I hope, would admit that working 10 hrs a week for a college education worth tens of thousands of dollars a year instead of tons of debt would be something to jump on.
That is not the case however, which was all I was trying to find out.
I wanted the facts, not the attitude.
AZ Jim
(70 posts)The things we work hardest for are in the end more valued by ourselves and others.
dsc
(52,160 posts)then he makes you work too.
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)Board is not covered by his free TUITION plan but since there are plenty of colleges close enough to commute to that shouldn't be a problem. And he isn't getting rid of the help for board and supplies that are already in place for disadvantaged students.
dsc
(52,160 posts)the very two things the OP is upset about when he has to do them. But the poor, it is perfectly fine for them.
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)
Skidmore
(37,364 posts)two children. I worked full-time at a day job as a secretary and went to college at a state university part-time in the evening to complete my undergraduate degree. I got grants and scholarships here and there as I could. We lived frugally, understanding that this was an investment in the future. My kids were fed and clothes and had a roof over their heads. Our entertainment was events that were free in the community. When I started graduate school, I negotiated to take vacation time for any class hours I needed during the work day and took a leave of absence to do my internship. I was fortunate to have a stipend to cover part of the second year of graduate school. I worked to keep employed and I kept employed to live and raise my children. Granted, there was a couple of years during which I was averaging 2-3 hours of sleep a night during time when school was in session. My priorities were to get my education and to see my children were provided for. I graduated with $10K in student debt loan which I paid off at double payments every month, settling that debt within five years of graduation. It was not easy. I was not a slave to get an education. I was investing in my own future and the future of my children, who both went onto complete their educations.
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)dsc
(52,160 posts)so if her program is awful then sho is his.
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)Try taking on some of the other points made.
TeddyR
(2,493 posts)But I made the choice to take on that debt and don't expect someone to bail me out.
angrychair
(8,697 posts)Corporate bailouts of billionaires is ok?
Unsustainable college debt, the second largest type of consumer debt in the United States, the only debt that cannot be written off in a bankruptcy, the answer for that debt is "fuck you"?
I didn't make a bad choice at a casino or a car. I was making the best choices I could, on debt that never goes away and I got screwed.
The debt I am accumulating is profit to the government. My educational aspirations should not be a profit center for my government.
VulgarPoet
(2,872 posts)
metroins
(2,550 posts)Elmergantry
(884 posts)Before anyone takes on debt for education, a good cost/benefits analysis is in order.
Liberals arts degrees are worthless IMHO. Get a STEM degree or learn a trade.
Not everyone can go to college, not everyone should. If we would ever get "free" tuition,(nothing is free really) then it should go to only those who can pass a rigorous entrance exam. Too many in college who shouldnt be there. That is why it is so expensive.
This country has too many people who look down on the trades and hard physical work.
angrychair
(8,697 posts)I'm sure the average 18 year old can do a cost benefit analysis of their educational goals. Very few young people have their life goals that planned out.
I know all I need to know about you with this statement:
"Liberals arts degrees are worthless IMHO"
(to assuage your curiosity, I have an A.S., B.A. and 3 classes from an M.B.A.)
NobodyHere
(2,810 posts)then maybe they shouldn't have a high school diploma.
It's idiotic to take out 50k without any planning.
Elmergantry
(884 posts)Lets see: cost of education is x, expected income from education is y. discuss.
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)My son is autistic (in special education classes at high school) and yes he is going to go to college. Almost everybody can and should go to college and it should be tuition free.
SammyWinstonJack
(44,130 posts)and health care for EVERYONE and not just those who can afford either or, some Americans are their own worst enemy
.
Why is that? Ah yes, it's that rugged individualism claptrap from the Reagan yrs.
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)My husband and I both have several degrees between us. Three of our four children have degrees. One went to a technical school to learn a trade instead of college. Guess who makes the most money of the 4? I don't need an accountant to do my taxes but I damn sure need my plumber and my heat and air technician and my electrician.
Elmergantry
(884 posts)I can muddle along, but I envy the guys/gals who can turn a wrench, weld, etc. I have four girls, and they perish the thought of learning any of the male dominated trades. Unfortunately the female dominated trades don't pay much. I told them if you want my help in going to college, I will not subsidize basket weaving degrees and you go to the local state university so you can live at home and save money.
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)Better for girls these days to live at home anyway. Guys too I think.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)There are 6 STEM graduates for every STEM job opening.
So the 5 people who followed your advice and couldn't get a STEM job should....what, exactly?
Elmergantry
(884 posts)You may be right on the STEM ratio, but sure its much worse for Womyn Studies Grads...
jeff47
(26,549 posts)There's out of work plumbers too. Building trades get hammered every recession.
Your position requires every 18-year-old to perfectly read the job market for the next 10-20 years. If you expect that to be possible, well then it's time for you to take out a student loan and go learn some things.
Elmergantry
(884 posts)Except death and taxes. You make the best decisions you can at the time. You base them on solid reasoning. One of them is that if you decide to take on a college loan, it should be for a field that gives you the best chances of success. It isn't basket weaving.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Your argument above is that choosing the "right" major makes student loans not a big deal. Inherent in that argument is choosing the "right" major guarantees a job.
You're going to need to pick one: "Nothing is guaranteed" or "picking the right major is guaranteed".
Elmergantry
(884 posts)if you pick a major that has better odds of getting oneself a good job. Yes its a judgement call with no guarentees. But no one is pointing a gun at your head to sign the loan papers.
whatthehey
(3,660 posts)A Bachelors gets you 64% higher median income (and a 42% lower probability of being unemployed).
http://www.bls.gov/emp/ep_chart_001.htm
Only 35% are in STEM fields so if they are the only ones worth anything, by definition the median graduate earner has a "worthless" liberal arts degree since they are at the 50th percentile.
Assume average working life of 35 years (lower than most, which will lower NPV in turn) and additional $22,520 annual pay and 3% annual inflation and it shows that median, likely non-STEM degree is worth about $484k in today's money. Let's be insanely generous to HS grads and add back in 4 years of pay at $668 a week but ignore the college grad's likelihood of better benefits and work conditions and discoiunt that college degree by 668 * 208 or $139k.
Which means at median rates, college is worth $345,000 right now.
I'm sure plenty of people are bemoaning they don't make that extra $433/week. They should recall what median means. I worked without a degree and then with one, and well over 20 years ago the pay difference was over $500/week.
tblue37
(65,340 posts)on some of the private college loans, that was changed in 2005 when the bankruptcy reform bill passed. Unfortunately, most of them have no idea of those bankruptcy restrictions—and neither do their parents! For most of them I am the first person to tell them about those bankruptcy rules, and also the first who has even brought up the issue of whether it is worth it to incur such heavy, non-dischargeable debt to attend a 4-year college when they have more limited job prospects than earlier generations did when we graduated, especially since so many careers no longer pay as well as they used to, even if one can wrangle a job offer in the first place.
For most of my students I am also the first person to suggest that maybe they should take as many of the general education credits as they can at a community college while living at home to save on living expenses and working to help pay for those credits. Community colleges offer flexible schedules to accommodate the needs of working adults with families, so it is not hard to handle a part time or even a full time job while accumulating needed credits. Best of all, the credits at a community college cost only ⅓
to ½ of what they would cost at a 4-year school. I have discovered that few of my students realize how much cheaper those credits could be, but even worse, many have been actively discouraged by teachers, counselors, and even their families from attending a community college to complete their distribution requirements.
Our whole society pushes them to attend a 4-year college and to do so immediately after graduating, rather than taking a gap year or even a few years to make sure they really know what they want and are mature enough not to crash and burn during their first year in college.
I wrote a long comment about all this in another thread. Forgive me, but I think this issue is so important that I can't resist pasting that comment here. I am sorry that it is so long, but I keep hoping that if I spread the word, more adults will join me in offering more reasonable advice to naive kids and their parents.
As someone who teaches college, I wish we didn't shove most of our high school grads into college, especially now that they must go deeply into debt from the very start to attend.
About 65% of our high school graduates go right to college, but 30% of freshmen drop out or flunk out without ever seeing their second year! They are thus saddled with thousands of dollars of debt (which they can't discharge through bankruptcy!), with little hope of getting a decent job to pay it off.
Most American college students are ill prepared to handle college-level work. They lack foundational knowledge and skills, and most also lack maturity and do not really value education. They come to college because of ignorance and social pressure.
The ignorance I refer to is their lack of knowledge about what college costs, how much they're accumulating in non-dischargeable debt (most don't even know college loan debt can't be escaped through bankruptcy!), how much more demanding college courses are, how much more rigorous the grading standards are, and how unlikely they are to find a job after college that pays well enough to enable them to pay off the huge debts they will be burdened with.
The social pressure comes from all sides. Their teachers and school counselors assume most of their school's students can and should go to college right after high school. The parents do, too, and recoil with embarrassment if their child resists the pressure and says he doesn't want to go to college, or that he wants to go eventually, but plans to take a gap year, or several gap years, first. Their friends are all excited about their college application process, about which schools they're getting acceptances from, about getting ready and then leaving for college. The kid who isn't going right after high school is left out of this excitement, and he is also subjected to the disapproval and/or pity of his peers, who can't help considering him either a loser or a fool.
If the kid is going right to college but plans to start at a community college, where he can accumulate required credits at ⅓ to ½ to cost of the same credits at a 4-year college, and where he can schedule classes in a way that allows him to work a job to help pay for school, he has marked himself as "lower class." And if he saves money by living with his family while attending college, whether it's a 2-year or a 4-year school, then he's viewed as pathetic.
The kid who postpones college for a semester or a year misses out on a lot of scholarship opportunities, so he feels pressure from that angle, too.
Another aspect of the social pressure is found in the (false) way college life is represented in popular culture. Young people want the experience they've been led to expect from campus life and cannot bear to think of missing out on it.
There are a lot of other ways to train young people for adult careers, but our society blocks many of them while insisting on a 4-year degree as the only route to adult success. Furthermore, most of the options that we do allow are marked as déclassé—even if they offer a more likely route to financial security. I know a LOT of people who have become quite affluent by training and working in a trade rather than by going to college, yet they always act embarrassed and apologetic about their lack of a college degree. Even worse, I know a lot of people with degrees, especially those with advanced degrees, who look down on even very successful people with valuable skills if those people don't have college degrees.
Unfortunately, most of the students who pour into our colleges and universities every year really are not ready for college-level study when they get here, and many never will be. We would be doing them a favor if we didn't push them into 4-year colleges, but only if we stopped requiring a 4-year degree for any sort of entry-level employment or for admission to professional schools in fields for which the distribution requirements comprising the first two years of most college majors are simply irrelevant.
One of the courses I teach, "Introduction to Poetry," fulfills a distribution requirement. I love teaching poetry, and most of my students really enjoy the course and learn to enjoy poetry. But if I ever need a brain surgeon or a lawyer, I don't care whether he knows the difference between iambic pentameter and trochaic hexameter. Nor should the employment certification for architects and engineers require them to incur extra debt to jump through such requirement hoops before being permitted to train and work in those fields.
I truly believe in the value of general knowledge of that sort, and I believe kids should be getting a whole lot more of such knowledge in their K-12 schooling. But we are stupidly (and expensively) using college for remedial education in essential reading, writing, and math skills, as well as for basic knowledge in history, culture, and the physical and social sciences. If our kids were learning foundational knowledge and skills (including time management and personal responsibility) in K-12 classes, employers and professional schools wouldn't need to require a 4-year college degree as a substitute sign that applicants might not be too ignorant, immature, and irresponsible to hire or to admit for professional training.
Then our 4-year colleges could be used for educating those with an interest in and aptitude for a specific kind of academic study, not for unnecessarily expensive remedial education and vocational training.
[font color = "red" font size = "+2"]----------------------------------------------------------------[/font]
[font color = "red" font size = "+2"]*[/font]BTW, none of this even gets into the issue of price gouging, which is what is going on with the fact that tuition increases at about 2½ to rate of inflation and that textbook pricing is a scam. The cost of attending public colleges used to be reasonable, because an educated populace was recognized as a public good, and other countries still recognize that fact.
[font color = "red" font size = "+2"]*[/font]Oh, and also BTW, the interest rate on federally insured loans also used to be much lower, more outright grants used to be available for students who needed financial aid, and the grants that were available, like Pell grants, used to cover a much larger portion of the cost of attending college:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/27/pell-grants-college-costs_n_1835081.html
The federal Pell Grant program was designed to help college students coming from low-income families afford the high cost of going to college without getting buried in debt. But the Pell Grant now covers less than one-third of the cost of attendance at public four-year university, the lowest in its history.
Where the maximum Pell Grant once covered the entire cost of obtaining a two-year degree and 77 percent of the cost at a public university in 1980, it now covers only 62 percent of the cost of a two-year degree and 36 percent towards a public four-year degree.
Even though the Pell Grant has never covered such a small fraction, it's been subject to repeated attempts to cut it and make sure it continues to shrink in the future. At the same time, the cost of college is projected to increase faster than inflation.
<SNIP>
TeddyR
(2,493 posts)Did someone lie to you or misrepresent the terms of your loans? If not then I don't see how you got anything other than what you signed up for. I took out a ton of loans to pay for my education, recognizing I'd have to repay those loans. Nobody else is to blame for my loans.
Corporate bailouts are a different subject. This is about who should pay for college education.
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)There is nothing left of what used to be the Democratic party.
TeddyR
(2,493 posts)Why should college be free? I'm not aware of ANY other Democrat who thinks college should be free to everyone or is calling for massive tax increases to pay for that plan. A college education isn't a "right" and it isn't something is for everyone.
HeartoftheMidwest
(309 posts)Ooooops, you let Hillary's talking point slip out. If all the people who are evading paying taxes pay their fair share, if all the financial transactions in this country carried a FRACTIONAL ( less than one cent ) fee***, if all the subsidies to the wealthiest Americans weren't handed out like so much welfare, and if we stopped blowing BILLIONS and TRILLIONS in military WASTE and fraud, we would have more than enough money for everything this country needs...social programs, educational support, etc.
It isn't a matter of MONEY, it's a matter of PRIORITIES.
In all her conversations about education last night, and in other subjects, I don't ever remember hearing Hillary mention the POOR once. Not once.
*** I believe Sen. E. Warren discusses this as a real possibility.
Mnemosyne
(21,363 posts)TeddyR
(2,493 posts)Is someone's "fair share" of taxes? Would a flat tax be fair? If not, then why not?
So you want to tax every "financial transaction" regardless of who makes it? Sounds like a flat tax to me.
Do you have any evidence for the claims that we are blowing "trillions" on military waste? I don't even think we are spending trillions on the military.
HeartoftheMidwest
(309 posts)but:
1) Flat tax? Many kinds.
A flat tax (short for flat tax rate) is a tax system with a constant marginal rate, usually applied to individual or corporate income. A true flat tax would be a proportional tax, but implementations are often progressive and sometimes regressive depending on deductions and exemptions in the tax base. There are various tax systems that are labeled "flat tax" even though they are significantly different. ( from Wikipedia, Flat Tax. ) Not gonna get into that discussion here.
2) https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/04/23/how-elizabeth-warren-would-have-stopped-a-panic-on-wall-street/
A financial transaction tax used to be charged about 20 years ago; not necessarily a bad idea to revisit it.
3) http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-01-14/navy-s-fast-sealift-ships-can-t-stand-buffeting-from-high-seas
also: re: aircraft programs:
The aircraft's radar-absorbing metallic skin is the principal cause of its maintenance troubles, with unexpected shortcomings -- such as vulnerability to rain and other abrasion -- challenging Air Force and contractor technicians since the mid-1990s, according to Pentagon officials, internal documents and a former engineer.
While most aircraft fleets become easier and less costly to repair as they mature, key maintenance trends for the F-22 have been negative in recent years, and on average from October last year to this May, just 55 percent of the deployed F-22 fleet has been available to fulfill missions guarding U.S. airspace, the Defense Department acknowledged this week. The F-22 has never been flown over Iraq or Afghanistan.
Sensitive information about troubles with the nation's foremost air-defense fighter is emerging in the midst of a fight between the Obama administration and the Democrat-controlled Congress over whether the program should be halted next year at 187 planes, far short of what the Air Force and the F-22's contractors around the country had anticipated.
"It is a disgrace that you can fly a plane [an average of] only 1.7 hours before it gets a critical failure" that jeopardizes success of the aircraft's mission, said a Defense Department critic of the plane who is not authorized to speak on the record. Other skeptics inside the Pentagon note that the planes, designed 30 years ago to combat a Cold War adversary, have cost an average of $350 million apiece and say they are not a priority in the age of small wars and terrorist threats.
That quote is from: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/09/AR2009070903020.html
Add to just those few examples of misspent monies and wasted dollars, many, many more similar bad projects, and the trillions of dollars wasted on unnecessary wars for oil in the Mideast, and you get the picture, if you're willing to see it.
TeddyR
(2,493 posts)You raised all the extraneous issues. Nothing you posted supported your statement that we wasted "trillions" of dollars on military spending. Do you actually have something to support that or are you aggregating every dollar spent on the military over the last 20 years?
HeartoftheMidwest
(309 posts)We have numerous fair ways to pay for free tuition for higher education. It is obscene that people will be in debt for the rest of their lives, and that the U.S. is falling farther and farther behind in world measures of quality of life.
We spend WAY too much on unnecessary military projects and on privatized functions for the military, and just wasted over 4 trillion dollars on a war to steal the Iraqi oil fields. I didn't mean that we spent that in one year.
angrychair
(8,697 posts)I didn't get your happy ending. A college education is the "end all, be all" in high school. It was then. It is now. What options do you have? The "sell" on a college education is it is the only true path to financial security. Earnings charts are put out all the time, by the government, that relate the more education you have the more you earn.
Education=success. So, either you sign the damn loan documents or you muddle through life on minimum wage, labor-intensive occupations (fyi, while I am paraphrasing a little-don't remember the whole sell-, that is what I was told when I signed my second round of loan papers)
During the time leading up to this I was homeless or part-time homeless during some of these periods. I didn't have a stable, loving family. I had been working a series of mainly outdoor, labor-intensive jobs like installing siding on houses, electrician helper or landscaping, I was bad at all of it and did not enjoy it. Plus the pay sucked. An education was my way out of that.
And it was, to a certain degree.
What they don't tell you is that, often, it isn't just the education. It is where you went to college, the type of degree, It is who you know, where you live (local economy, infrastructure and so on) and the stability of the US economy as a whole that are huge factors on your success, from the moment that degree hits your hand.
So, am I better off with a degree? Yes. Was it worth the price I am paying and the huge profits the department of education will get from interest in my loan? No. I got screwed. No "cost-benefits analysis" would have helped me figure that out.
Elmergantry
(884 posts)So how did you get "screwed"?
angrychair
(8,697 posts)better off than being homeless and working crappy, minimum wage jobs. Didn't say I was successful enough to sustain a family and pay off $100,000 in student loan debt.
Mind you, it didn't start that way. My first degree and first job was as an electronics technician. The company I worked for started to modernize and my job was fading away. I was literally the last man standing in my department. I started doing some desktop support IT work as my other job duties faded. To do that job full time and get better pay, I would need more education. Had to go back to college.
Long story short, It is never as straight forward as "get an education, get a job and 30 years later get a cake and a gold watch". Life is just not that simple.
Elmergantry
(884 posts)>>Long story short, It is never as straight forward as "get an education, get a job and 30 years later get a cake and a gold watch". Life is just not that simple.
Well no shit; but I don't see where you were "screwed". You took out more loans to go further into IT. You know what that pays, you know how much it would cost. You got what you wanted I presume. So how did you get "screwed"?
TeddyR
(2,493 posts)And what would you change? Nobody said it was straightforward.
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)unfortunately I can believe it.
pinebox
(5,761 posts)I switched from indy to caucus for Bernie.
Seriously, after reading the replies here I doubt I'll stick around. No wonder both parties are bleeding.
RiverLover
(7,830 posts)What a wake up call this past year has been, here at DU. I've learned I'm too liberal for my own party.
Bizarre, and not a little sad.
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)farm workers were forced to purchase their food and other needs at inflated prices, too?
How about indentured servants? Do you support that too?
You should be ashamed of that post!!!!
TeddyR
(2,493 posts)"Company stores" and what does that have to do with college debt? I didn't HAVE to take on college debt, nor did I HAVE to go to college at all. Moreover, I could have gone to a less expensive college and thus had less debt. I CHOSE to go to college and I took on student debt to pay for it. By doing so, I took on an obligation to repay that debt.
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)If you make a debt, you should pay it. Congrats for paying and sticking with it.
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)Only other countries can have them!!!
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)RiverLover
(7,830 posts)But I had to move to TX where it was only $5/semester hour. (After living there a yr)
But I'm in my late 40s.
It's a whole lot more now. I couldn't do it today.
progressoid
(49,988 posts)In the 80's I too worked my way through. I could work a summer construction job and have a work study job at school to barely make ends meet. But the cost of school was lower then. Today the average State University cost is over 23 thousand a year.
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)progressoid
(49,988 posts)https://cei.org/blog/mind-boggling-increase-tuition-1960-even-students-learn-less-and-less
brooklynite
(94,513 posts)FREE tuition doesn't translate to "college for all"; there's a finite capacity for matriculating students.
Bradical79
(4,490 posts)Germany has a far superior vocational school system too. Here I see a lot of vocational school type programs handled by colleges (especially community college). But they get a lot of students getting put into other forms of post secondary education that are just as good as the college degrees.
Press Virginia
(2,329 posts)I started at the local community college, paid cash, for the first 2 years.
when I transferred, I took loans for what I couldn't pay in cash and then worked while going full/part time.
Graduated in 5 years with less than 20K in debt.
There are ways to reduce the debt amount before it's incurred
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)while going to school but statistically most people that work and go to college don't graduate. I'm all for community college but for a lot of people even that is out of reach. We have fallen a long way in the past 30 to 40 years. People are struggling to pay rent and buy food and prescriptions. We need tuition free college just like we need single payer health care.
Waldorf
(654 posts)the credits he was taking were transferrable), then went two years to a university to get his degree. Think he owed about $19k when it was all said and done.
Press Virginia
(2,329 posts)backtomn
(482 posts)....you should have chosen a more lucrative major at a cheaper college.
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)Democrats talk about education like this anymore. It is time to use my ignore button and clean house.
backtomn
(482 posts)....in biochemisty, make 6 figures, and have no college debt. So, by living prudently, I am a right-wing fanatic? Please.
Admiral Loinpresser
(3,859 posts)
laundry_queen
(8,646 posts)Unreal to see it here.
Dems2002
(509 posts)If this is really a thread full of Democrats, I am flabbergasted. Thirty years of republican talking points have clearly been successful. Taking away empathy and speaking on rank practicality, it's sheer stupidity for a service based economy to mire its youth in crushing debt. I wonder how much that has negatively impacted GDP and growth rates over the past twenty years.
Here's what people don't seem to understand...this debt negatively impacts every choice these kids are going to make after graduation. We need our youth to take risks! That's what moves us forward. A risk adverse youth is not in our nation's best interest. But that's what you get when you saddle them with massive debt loads at 22. They're old before they're young.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Which kinda demonstrates the problem both in your moronic response, as well as the fact that we do not need H1B visas.
treestar
(82,383 posts)when taking out the loan, I suppose. If it's not a good job market, it's surprising the banks even hand out the loans.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)We stopped paying banks to be the middlemen. At least for the vast majority of student loans.
backtomn
(482 posts)......if you are asking, they should be given out based on this country's needs, which would mean zero if your stat on STEM graduates is true. Why is it that people make smart choices keep paying for those that don't? Why is that either moronic or rabidly conservative? When you give free education, universities will only jack up tuition, like they have done because of the ubiquitous student loans, and someone has to pay the $40,000+ for each person. It won't be government, because they don't have any money.
Admiral Loinpresser
(3,859 posts)of economies of scale or collective purchasing power.
Elmergantry
(884 posts)Give everyone money to go to school, the tuitions go up. Supply and demand.
Same thing with ACA. Give everyone money to get insurance, guess what happens to insurance rates?
jeff47
(26,549 posts)In fact, there are precisely zero degree programs that are in such demand that a degree guarantees a career in that field.
Every single one is a gamble. Some are worse gambles, and some are better. But your claims are based on there being a "sure thing" or near-"sure thing".
Arazi
(6,829 posts)As the state's have withdrawn funding, that's the primary reason tuition has gone up.
Restoring state funding will restore accountability and costs will go down.
It's what's happened in places that have free college such as the Scandinavian countries, Germany etc
Sanders' plan is to tax EFT stock transactions at .001% which will be enough to fund public institutions and fully fund Head Start.
treestar
(82,383 posts)I'd go to a community college. Train for a specific job.
At the time I went, I had loans, but they were low interest and were about $20K total and that included Law school. By age 35 or so I had paid it back. I think it was in the $200-300 per month range.
The amounts borrowed today shock me.
We shouldn't treat this the way we do houses and cars. We're willing to go into debt for those. But nobody should start out with such a huge debt. There's no guarantee of a job that will pay it back.
bluestateguy
(44,173 posts)Not every student should go to college: they may not be bright enough or serious enough of a student. I am all for technical and specialized trade school education, and government support for it.
Not every student needs to attend an expensive private university, when they can major in the same subject, at a public university.
Some college majors (and I'm not going to name names here) are just not lucrative for a career, and are NOT worth taking out massive loan debt to finance.
Also, there is a lot to be said for taking a year or two off after high school, working and banking some money before going to college.
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)He then went on to become a telecom engineer. Who decides who is a serious student? And what about all those students who live in poverty or have an alcoholic parent and struggle in school? Does that mean they don't deserve to go to school because they struggle due to family and economic problems? And as far as bright enough. My son is autistic. He struggles in some of his classes, but he is passing and does plan on going to college. There is a fantastic community college that has a program specifically designed for people with cognitive and learning disabilities and I can't wait for him to go to that school. The fact that Democrats would throw away the potential of so many because they don't look or act like everybody else is disgraceful. There is a reason why so many are abandoning the two parties. It is because the two parties are abandoning them. I once was a proud Democrat. Now, I am proud to say I am an Independent and a Democratic Socialist.
Beacool
(30,247 posts)I'm glad that you found a college that fits your son's needs. Good luck to him.
Elmergantry
(884 posts)SheilaT
(23,156 posts)so many take on, with seemingly little thought of what sort of a job they're going to get after school.
There's also a lot of misunderstanding out there, especially on the part of the parents, as to what exactly is in any financial aid package, and how much of it is loaned money, rather than grants.
I also agree that more students should start at the local community college, especially if they can commute. Get those first two years out of the way relatively cheaply, then have a firm idea what you want to major in what what you'll do for a job before you transfer to complete your Bachelor's degree. Unfortunately, for about fifty years the idea that everyone should get a college degree has been pushed, and not enough people ever question that idea.
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)the problems in this country. It is not the average American's fault. It is the system. They system is broken and corrupt.
SheilaT
(23,156 posts)People need to be practical about the choices they make, including how much debt to undertake for college. The students are not being forced to take out the loans, nor are they forced to major in things that have zero job prospects. All schools have some kind of a student job center (they go by various names) where kids can find out about jobs in their majors. Often these centers will help kids get internships. The biggest complaint they have is that so few students ever bother to seek them out.
Look, I'm the adult who constantly tells young people to go ahead and major in what they love, but never lose sight of the fact that they're going to have to earn a living at the end.
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)potential. If someone wants to major in something that will make them money, that is fine. What about those who want to be a social worker or a teacher? Incomes for those jobs suck big time right now. Do we want people not to go into those professions just so they can have less debt and more income?
SheilaT
(23,156 posts)But a lot of the student debt problem isn't with the kids who go into social work or teaching, but there's an awful lot of kids who major in things like, say, 17th century French poetry, or any one of the many majors out there that are intellectual interesting, but there are no jobs in that field. And not only do the kids not have a clue, but their parents don't either, and the professors and the school itself doesn't tell them, which is downright criminal, if you ask me. But those career centers do exist, and maybe there ought to be a requirement that the students visit them at least once every semester they are enrolled, and then more of them would choose a more practical major.
But in the end it comes back to the students and the parents, although if the schools gave them the sort of actual career and financial advice they deserve, then a lot of this would go away, even with the current cost of college.
TexasMommaWithAHat
(3,212 posts)None of our 5 children have graduated with more than $20,000 worth of debt. Three graduated with less than $10,00 worth of debt, one with about $18,000 worth of debt, and one with none due to large scholarships.
How did they do it?
Simple. We refused to fill out FAFSA forms until they completed junior college. (Although we did fill the the FASFA for our child who got a free ride; we had to do so.) We weren't going to help them acquire $75,000 worth of debt. Period. We simply said, "No!"
Sure, we were the meanest parents (to a couple of them) going in, but the smartest parents in the world the day they graduated.
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)TexasMommaWithAHat
(3,212 posts)We helped when we could because it was very important to us that they not acquire a lot of debt, so that was the deal. "You start your junior year with no debt." We aren't rich, but we drove old cars and did without to help them. A couple of them did have small scholarships as transfer students, as well.
Do I feel sorry that my kids couldn't go away as freshmen? Not really. Honestly, they were all much more involved as transfer students than most kids. They were older and more mature, and not so worried about what was cool or not.
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)community college and she lives at home. She is working on getting a job but has an anxiety disorder. So do I. But major changes have to be made to our education system. Used to be in previous decades before Reagan, federal and state funding for higher education was much higher and cost of education and cost of living were lower. We need to get back to a time before Reagan. Reagan royally screwed up this country and the Democrats have gone along with it.
TexasMommaWithAHat
(3,212 posts)I don't think we are every going to have a situation where everyone gets a free 4-year ride. It would be a great start to have free (at the point of delivery) junior colleges and free state technical schools, for starters. Imo, tuition should be a lot cheaper like the "old days" when you could work yourself through school, and there should be more academic scholarships and grants.
taught_me_patience
(5,477 posts)Many of us worked a lot more than that to pay for college.
TexasMommaWithAHat
(3,212 posts)Surely, there is a middle ground between being in debt slavery and expecting everything on a silver platter for four years?
I think junior college and state technical schools should be free at at the point of delivery for all regardless of high school grades. Free tuition for 4 year universities should be available to a certain percentage of students - top 50%...I don't know. Yeah, it would be nice if we could send everyone to college for free, but that's not going to happen. It certainly doesn't happen in other countries. Even Germany doesn't pay for living expenses.
senz
(11,945 posts)It has worked in the past, so it can work again.
It is not an impossible dream.
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)delete the whole damn thread.
SheilaT
(23,156 posts)My older brother chose to go to New Mexico State University in 1960 over any state university in New York State, where we lived at the time and even though he had a Regent's Scholarship, because NMSU was going to be cheaper, even including the cost of transportation out there in the first place.
They were a lot cheaper than they are now, but hardly free.
senz
(11,945 posts)Nevertheless, what was California doing at the time that allowed free public colleges, and why can't we do it now?
yeoman6987
(14,449 posts)It was tough to get in. I'd be ok with paying for college if it was a very selective admission and strict requirements to keep it free. B average, no skipping class, ect.
eridani
(51,907 posts)--61.2% in 2000.
http://www.postsecondary.org/last12/1131101Age.pdf
Recursion
(56,582 posts)And in California, where they were free, people got tired of paying for them
dlwickham
(3,316 posts)Schools like Berea which offer free education require students to work at least ten hours
JPnoodleman
(454 posts)But a growing exodus of college aged young people will trigger even greater problems for this country. College education is practically a necessity. If we do not deal with this issue we will have near permanent anemic economics for the duration of a generation or two and almost assuredly the crippling decline in fertility among millennials will drain future economic demand.
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)JPnoodleman
(454 posts)We have generally short memories and very poor sense of time.
The saying goes 100 miles is a short distance in America, but 100 years is a long time,
But 100 miles is leagues away in Britain, but 100 years is like yesterday.
Indeed all western Core capitalist industrial countries are facing the problems of demographic shift and Winter with rapidly aging populations and no solutions to fix it. Apparently the glorious free market Capitalist Utopia isn't great enough to motivate us to make more humans to enjoy this alleged rich and bountiful harvest.... not enough to sustain a healthy balance between young and old.
The incredible financial burden on the young will create two problems. One will be the uneducated poor slaving away in dwindling jobs and living in increasing misery. The others will be the educated who simply won't pay and will leave to greener pastures elsewhere. This burdened will create a brain drain and a youth exodus in America unprecedented in this new nations history. As a History major I actually can't immediately think of any historical precedent.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Let's even the playing field for talented students. Make the rich pay more in taxes and educate all young people for free. Let students work for their room and board and maybe borrow some for that. But tuition should be paid for out of tax money.
Let's audit some of the departments in our government especially the Defense Department and find the money for higher education.
Let some of the European countries pay a little more toward defense costs.
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)JPnoodleman
(454 posts)There are lots of weapons systems and junk that simply is never going to get used and might as well be recycled for scrap. Heck half the nuclear arsenal is practically useless drain on staffing and maintenance fees.
seaglass
(8,171 posts)For example UMass Lowell:
Undergraduate 2014-2015
In-state Tuition & Fees $12447 --
In-state Tuition $1454 --
In-state Flat Fee $10993 --
Community colleges in MA have 33% off tuition with a 2 year CC transferable degree - sounds great until you see the fees.
The other thing to note is that US students are subsidizing textbook costs for students outside the US.
Students Find $100 Textbooks Cost $50, Purchased Overseas
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/21/us/students-find-100-textbooks-cost-50-purchased-overseas.html?pagewanted=all
Supreme Court Backs Student In Textbook Copyright Case
WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that textbooks and other goods made and sold abroad can be re-sold online and in discount stores without violating U.S. copyright law.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/19/supreme-court-copyright-textbooks_n_2912490.html
So maybe international universities/students could pay a fairer share of textbook costs.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)FairWinds
(1,717 posts)are just a small part of a much larger attack on the working class and
middle class - you've also got your rent-to-own, loans on car titles, sub-prime
home loans, attacks on unions, theft of retirement systems, TPP, etc.
And by the way, Goldman Sacks [!] makes money on most of those scams.
Bernie gets this folks, but it looks like most of you do not.
And note for you righties - Higher Ed scams (U. of Phoenix, etc.) are
everywhere, and they are targeting your neighbors. Sounds to me like
you are fine with that.
Paper Roses
(7,473 posts)I'm an old timer who was lucky to be able to get a college education. Back in the early 1960's, I went to school with funds left to me by a relative. My parents were poor. I was lucky. Used all of a $4,000 inheritance to pay room, board and tuition. My parents paid the rest from limited savings.
When my children were of college age, my late husband and I said we would pay for their 4 years with the agreement that they would work summers and save for school. They were also required to take 'at school' jobs to help. We were thankful that somehow we managed to get them through without student loans. We went without so the kids could start their lives without burden. We took the loans and paid the bank for years.
My Point! This could never happen today. The costs of education are so far out of reach of 'every-man' that it is beyond the means of most people. Parents taking loans to help, great if you can do it.
Young people need an education in order to move forward in this very pressured world. My opinion? Go to a state trade school, get real training, maybe get your hands dirty but find a trade that will always be in demand. Costs are far less, the demand will always be there. Far less need for big loans. Secure future. The world will always need a plumber or any other viable trade.
The days of elite careers seems to be waning. Earn a living, forget the big degree career.
My opinion only but I feel strongly that the young need to reassess their goals. Life is more than a title. You need to be able to afford to live.
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)teachers, social workers, business owners. There are major problems in this world and we need to invest in our children so we can answer them. Climate change and how we adapt to the ever changing environment for example is a major problem. We need educated people who can work on this problem. Income inequality, clean water for all, curing the Zika virus. All important issues that won't just go away.
angrychair
(8,697 posts)But your assessment is a sad future for our country.
So, the poor and middle class should be resigned to their lot in life and be happy with manual labor and getting by in life.
The wealthy and elite, they won the sperm and egg lottery and me they deserve it.
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)Rights Movement, and Civil Rights had a hard, tough fight but they were willing to fight for it because it was worth it. And they won. Anytime anyone tells me we can't I just remind them we already have. We just have to do it again.
taught_me_patience
(5,477 posts)
zappaman
(20,606 posts)That's horrible.
Roy Ellefson
(279 posts)fairly old guy that will go to his death with his own student loans and parent loans...time for a bailout.
Beacool
(30,247 posts)then you will die with that college debt. This is not Europe, I have lived in more than one European country, Sanders has zero chance of getting it through Congress. I know, I know, the revolution is coming and millions of people will take to the streets demanding free college and single payer. Does anybody think that this is remotely realistic?
His goals are lofty, but talking is cheap.
Roy Ellefson
(279 posts)exactly, why even try?
workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)As soon as I look out my window and see the thousands and thousands of people marching for Bernies revolution.
I'm not holding my breath.
HeartoftheMidwest
(309 posts)What is more likely to happen is that millions of enthusiastic voters will vote for Sanders AND for most, if not all, of the Democrats down-ticket from him. Barring election fraud and voter suppression and gerrymandered districts, that would mean more Democrats in the House and Senate, and in state and local office. THAT'S how "zero chance" becomes "good chance."
Beacool
(30,247 posts)I've read several articles where Democratic candidates running this year are nervous of Sanders as nominee. They think that it won't help them, particularly those who are fighting for reelection in red states.
' "Bernie Sanders has claimed that if he were to become the Democratic Party’s presidential nominee it would be a windfall for his party in down-ballot elections, saying he would energize young people and other base voters who don’t regularly show up. But some operatives tasked with electing Democrats in red and purple states aren’t just concerned a Sanders nomination would make an already difficult job impossible – they fear a “nightmare” scenario.
-------
But several campaign managers and other senior operatives currently working on down-ballot campaigns, all whom spoke only on condition of anonymity, said that while they don’t doubt Sanders can drive turnout in liberal areas, he would make life difficult outside blue states. Instead, they favored front-runner Hillary Clinton, who they said can appeal to more moderate voters and especially those concerned about national security.
“I don’t know how you run a campaign in a southern or red state with a democratic socialist at the top of the ticket,” said the campaign manager for one red state Democrat. “It becomes near impossible to separate yourself enough to win over the conservative independents you need to win.” '
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/would-bernie-sanders-be-nightmare-red-state-democrats
PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts)Half of what I currently owe is just interest on my initial loan amounts.
Kang Colby
(1,941 posts)I don't get that. I went to a community college and then on to a public university.
RiverLover
(7,830 posts)That's the point of going to college, the good job you'll get afterwards.
Now there aren't enough good jobs that pay enough to repay the student loans.
....I can't believe I'm not talking to a republican right now.
God, this whole thread is depressing.
See you, Kang Colby.
Kang Colby
(1,941 posts)if someone takes out a 50-150K dollar loan for a degree in a minimally marketable major and then can't repay it...who is to blame? Sure, I think the banks should seriously cut down the loan maximums for non engineering/computer science/reputable business programs or medicine. Even those should be limited to other factors like the quality of the program and the students performance. However, I can not overlook that there are people who will spend 100K on a third tier private education in "the humanities" and then act shocked and blame the cruel world when they aren't making more than minimum wage. Perhaps the poor state of our STEM programs in our high schools is the reason why people take out biblical sums of money for degrees that will provide little ROI.
I realize that comes across as harsh, but I hope someone reads that and thinks twice about jeopardizing their future for a 150K dollar art degree.
BlueStateLib
(937 posts)
Orangepeel
(13,933 posts)Neither Clinton nor Sanders are advocating free tuition to private universities. The both support increasing the affordability of state and community colleges (On a sale from better than it is now to free).
Also, currently, many students with federal financial aid are "work-study students" with campus jobs. There is nothing shameful about that.
Beacool
(30,247 posts)Her dad paid for Wellesley, but she paid for law school. One summer she worked in a cannery in Alaska, not exactly a glamorous job. In life we all do what we have to do to get ahead. Why disparage Chelsea? It's not her fault that she's the daughter of a president.
bluestateguy
(44,173 posts)Chelsea went to Little Rock public schools from K-7th grade.
Beacool
(30,247 posts)
greymattermom
(5,754 posts)My daughter, who is a Canadian dual citizen, went to McGill. Check out the tuition there, and it's a world class University.
mike_c
(36,281 posts)Yup. I've been repaying for almost 20 years. My principle has declined by about 5%. I'm three, maybe four years from retirement. I'm wearing out.
Ms. Yertle
(466 posts)to expect that people who are getting free tuition do something to give back. Ten hours per week is nothing.
People who feel that they have earned what they have tend to value it more than those who don't.
noamnety
(20,234 posts)Hillary's buddies the Waltons alone could be taxed enough to cover public education through the associates degree at public schools, and they would still be disgustingly filthy rich enough to scrape by. I am definitely in favor of public schools actually being open to the public.
Given that this is NOT the current state of affairs, it makes sense for people taking out the loans to do a risk analysis before signing up for that much debt, and in many cases make better choices, living frugally while incurring the debt instead of having their head in the sand and acting shocked that when they graduate, they have to pay back the loans.
The media is part of the problem, because they try to drum up sympathy for the people living beyond their means - perhaps under the theory that this is who we all relate to. I am really sick of news stories about people who decide to take out student loans not just for the cost of tuition, but for the perk of living in their own apartment or dorms when their parents offer free housing in the same town, buying meals out instead of cooking for cheap, buying big screen tvs with their loan money (I saw that in an article recently that was supposed to make us sympathetic!), then whining about how unfair it is that they have to eventually pay for the tv. It's up there with another media theme, people with $200k+ salaries whining about how hard it is to make ends meet when they can barely pay for their twice annual overseas vacations and their nanny, etc.
I wish instead the media would put out more of the stories of people with student debt who lived frugally during and after college and still can't get ahead of their debt. There are plenty of people who made reasonably sound financial decisions and still can't get past the obstacles to success, whether because of medical reasons, day care costs, etc. Those are the stories that would help promote progressive plans for free tuition, not the sob stories of people who have excess money but can't figure out a budget that prioritizes paying down the loan principle over eating out.
angrychair
(8,697 posts)Have you or did you ever have student loans?
noamnety
(20,234 posts)I paid for my BA with a combo of scholarships and loans to cover the gap. Edit to add work study while in college, I forgot about that. Then I ran away and joined the army which qualified me for loan repayment. But that benefit wasn't used because I didn't tell my parents I was enlisting, knowing they'd flip out about that. In the miscommunication they paid the loans off with their savings without telling me, not knowing it was unnecessary. Tens of thousands of dollars down the drain because I wasn't straight with them. So I'm not sure how to answer your question, because I had loans and made arrangements to pay them off myself and financially I'm in the same place as I would have been if the army had paid them off. (I don't believe people should have to risk their lives and endanger others by being in the army to pay for college! I'm just saying that was how I had it covered.)
I understand the point of your question is to hint that I'm perhaps too privileged to understand what it is to have to sacrifice enough to pay back astronomical loans. And the answer to the implied question there is again, yes and no. Yes, because I have my health, and was able to qualify for the military service so I knew I had a means to pay them back, and despite being in a shitty rural school district where only one or two graduating students a year went to college, I had parents who read to me and gave me a strong enough intellectual start in life that I could earn scholarships. And No, because many many people who claim they can't possibly pay their loans off also can't even conceive of dropping the privileges they take for granted that I've given up to make ends meet to avoid going into debt. Enlisting, of course - and I've been without health insurance, and been on public assistance (WIC). But also I lived for most of a year without running water or electricity or a phone, cooking on just a single burner coleman stove using a "disposable" ez foil pan to boil everything in. I'm adept at foraging for food - I would say 75% of my lunches have been foraged since October, and I'm good at funding other groceries with bottle deposits from cans I pick up while biking to work, etc. In the past I've posted some about my food/grocery bills here - I'm at about $1.25 per person per day for food, shampoo, toilet paper, over the counter meds, all the grocery stuff combined. I have good friends who say they will die with still unpaid college loans, but they go out to eat several times a month, and often spend as much in one or two meals as I spend for an entire month for food.
They also drive everywhere, even when they live less than half the distance to work as me. I only ditch the bike if there's a threat of lightening or wiping out on black ice, or if a meeting before or after normal work hours would put me biking for an hour or more in full darkness. I did one of my 24 mile round trip commutes by bike last month when it was 12 degrees out.
That sort of living is what allowed me to pay it forward on the loans my parents paid off - I was able to cover my daughter's tuition and in turn I expect her to pay for her son's. But more importantly I passed my frugal ways onto her. She's almost 30, she and her husband don't own a car, they both commute by bike and her husband is the master of dumpster diving for food.
Zorra
(27,670 posts)It's the truth.
Republicans are generally ignorant, and oblivious to reality, and their minds are in full control of Faux News RW media. Yuppie centrist DINOs need to keep us down so that we will scrub their toilets and mow their lawns for as little cost to them as possible. Or better yet, force us into joining the military for lack of opportunity, so we'll fight their wars for their planet killing imperialist free market and further enrich them. All Good Americans every last one of them, worshiping daily at the Temple of the Global Free Market.
The thing is, they don't really care if we live or die, as long as their money keeps rolling in. Some pretend to care, but their phoniness is exposed by their actions of continually supporting and maintaining the very status quo that keeps us underneath their economic Sword of Damocles.
.
If political revolution cannot work, then more serious non-violent direct action revolution is Occupy, Phase 3.
Lorien
(31,935 posts)we have no entrance standards beyond "must have a high school or undergraduate degree" (GPA unimportant), our graduation rate is subpar, and our job placement rate is also well below average (the school refuses to release the numbers on it). It's a privately owned for profit University that has made the family that owns it extravagantly wealthy. Why do I still teach there? The pay is poor, but *someone* has to try to give students an education that will improve their skill level and give them a shot at making it post graduation. Too many instructors phone it in because of the lousy salaries, so basically everyone is getting screwed except the owners of Capital.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)AZ Jim
(70 posts)When I left high school, I could not afford college, I had no rich parents, instead I went to work in a gas station. I spent 30 years with General Dynamics and had college grads classified as Analysts working for ME!!!!
redstateblues
(10,565 posts)Commute to an affordable state university so she wouldn't be saddled with debt. Hopefully Bernie will have a reimbursement plan for middle-class parents like me that have made it work. It only seems fair. I cannot understand why someone would borrow $160,000 to get a useless BA in Sociology( my degree) or English Lit or something even less marketable. I worked when I was in college. There are ways to get a good degree without making a foolish financial decision. I signed on for a mortgage I couldn't afford- was able to get a deed in lieu of foreclosure and and ruined my credit for 8 years. I have been trying not to do stupid stuff any more. I consider high dollar student loans foolish except maybe for careers that have good earning potential. It just doesn't make sense.
TeddyR
(2,493 posts)I legitimately do. I am trying to help pay for my kids' college, though they will certainly take some loan. But why should we get reimbursed for helping to send our kids to college? College isn't a right, nor is it necessary to succeed. And I definitely agree that many students take out silly loans.
Roy Ellefson
(279 posts)the same crowd that cheered on the bank bailouts mock the millions of American's with crippling student loan debt. Is this Free Republic?
TeddyR
(2,493 posts)Have to do with someone who knowingly took on student loan debt, whether $100 or $100,000? Wouldn't you agree that someone who took school loans to pay for their college should repay those loans?
Response to angrychair (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
