There are no free colleges in California. In state residents don't pay tuition but do pay enrollment fees. When I attended 15 years ago that cost was $1500 per quarter ($6000 per year) which was very affordable. Today, the resident tuition is $13,500 per year. We don't need free college, the cost of college has to be gotten under control. But targeting healthcare and education as necessities that should be provided by mommy and daddy government is arbitrary. The most important thing people need in life is food and water, yet we are forced to pay for those. Why not the argument that such actual life sustaining necessities like food and water should be provided for free by mommy and daddy government? Those are things we actually need to survive, so it's arbitrary and merely appeals to emotion to target education and healthcare that should be free. What is the logical reason for those to be free prevent the fairness of mommy and daddy government from also providing our food and water?
Well people do propose that things like food and water be provided by the government in the case of welfare assistance. But there's a lot of bitching about that. I imagine you are one of them
First of all I'm truly sorry for whatever happened to you to give you such mommy and daddy issues; not everyone should be a parent. Second food stamps pay for food and water for the less fortunate.... Now that that's out of the way, let's work on higher education.
But they aren't provided for all people so food stamps and welfare doesn't equate to free education for all. Additionally, your example of Harvard and Yale don't validate the argument for free education because those are private universities capitalizing on what they provide their students. Capitalize.. Capitalism. See the correlation. They are simply realizing their economic benefit indirectly and are privately raising the funds of operation for the schools. Private business. Private financial benefit. Private funding. Free government education isn't free when everybody is forced to pay for it. Unless you are advocating that people have the option to donate to this government fund just like the Harvard and Yale backers do. You just have to shut your eyes and pretend it is free to argue it would be otherwise. I say this over and over again -- logic is not dictated similarities but comparing arguments absent of differences. It's why an apple ain't a fire truck just because it's red. You have to ignore a lot if difference to try and compare food stamps for some to college for all. Unless you want to argue that the government provide food stamps for all since we all need to eat. Surely the 1% could afford to feed us all.
This was a good read. A little dated but a good read. http://m.prospect.org/article/five-things-government-does-better-you-do
Nothing about the idea of "free" college for all equates to providing assistance to poor people for actual necessities to live. Is composing a logical argument that difficult?
You said that before the government pays for college and healthcare, they should first make food and water free. I assumed you meant for the less fortunate but I see you mean for everyone. So you want everyone to get approx $175/month in food stamps? (That's about the average now for SNAP depending on family size etc.) Maybe it could be in the form of a tax credit? I'm on board!! You've sold me!!
Please. Republicans LOVE putting money in the hands of the general public. "increased spending helps the economy". Think of it as a tax cut. http://www.metro.us/news/cruz-plans-to-give-tax-cuts-to-wealthy-analysis/zsJpbq---4jfKco3tRhoFk/ http://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-plan-cuts-taxes-for-millions-1443427200
You're absolutely right. Giving people "actual necessities" to live is money down a hole, more or less. Giving them a debt-free college education would do more to create economic growth than any tax incentives, both in terms of more money to spend directly and a more productive/educated workforce. Or at least, that's the logical argument. You can argue about whether or not that is really what happens and to what degree and whether it would be worth it.
Wtf is this horseshit debate on CNN??? They keep interrupting Bernie "30 seconds" "Your time is up" "Thank You, we need to move on" "Goodbye" These moderators are such shit
The whole bilingual thing was inventive and original, however having to listen to the translation at the same time its being said in espanol is annoying.
Clinton's attacks are falling flat in this debate, and Sanders is doing better than I thought he would in rebutting them given the limited response time. I'm surprised someone hasn't whispered into her ear to stop picking losing battles like the auto bailout, or Sanders not criticising Bush. Edit: Sanders just got a standing ovation at the end of the debate lol.
I'm a New Zealander . Bernie's plan is for free tuition in public colleges, given you achieve the entrance grades. Yale, Harvard, etc. would still be off the table, and free to do what they want as private entities. From the sounds, they're giving free tuition anyway to people who qualify in their eyes, probably because their funding and profits are obtained elsewhere (research/patent based funding? I'm not sure). With regards to tuition here, it's not free (it used to be, or close to, during my parents' day), but we can get an interest-free loan from the government for the costs, which are much lower than in USA (Bachelors in Engineering over 4 years cost less than 25 grand). Then it automatically comes off our wages in a PAYE system, which pretty much all companies here have incorporated into their financial/tax systems. Unless you own your own business, you don't have to do your own taxes, which is probably a blessing. We also have a progressive tax system like Sanders is suggesting, though our highest bracket is only 33 % for anything earned over $70k. There seems to be a huge misunderstanding of progressive tax systems in USA from some of what I have read here, and elsewhere. For example, 50 % for earnings over 100k doesn't mean you get taxed half your money if you earn over 100k. What you earned up to that 100k is taxed based on their respective tax brackets. Usually you're looking at closer to 20 or 30 % unless you're way up there. I'm with you on Hilary. The only other candidates that have interested me during all of this are O'Malley, and on the Republican side Rand Paul. When I listened to Jeb Bush, he had some good points it seemed, but really lacked charisma. A lecturer who makes you think, rather than clap.
