Democratic Nomination Thread

That's what happens when you're a pandering weasel

 

These 2 are unbelievable. Lol @ a legit attack on a democrat being that one was opposed to allowing illegal immigrants to have drivers licenses. Is this real life?

 

Giving people debt free living arrangements would do the same, so should the government just give away free houses to everyone. Same for debt free automobiles or any other expense people go into debt for.

The problem is that colleges have raised prices tremendously in the past 15 years -- the solution of which is to reduce it to make it affordable, not free. But once you argue one source of debt should be given for free you can't rationally argue against another. The argument is arbitrary.

 

I agree to the extent your argument is that the notion of free college is stupid if you are also concerned about the overall cost of college education. Without addressing the latter, saying the government will pay for it if anything will only escalate the cost of college.

Another example of Bernie Pandering.

 

Absolutely the cost of college is out of hand. That needs to be gotten under control. It's easy to blame the banks for handing out the loans but the schools are the ones that have been skyrocketing costs because they knew every perspective student would find the money somewhere to pay it.

If private schools want to do so that's fine. But state schools doing so is a huge problem. That's what needs to be fixed. College should be affordable. Maybe some loans will be needed but you should be able to work and pay for a reasonable portion of it.

But the other thing that needs to change is the deluded entitlement from students that they have a right to an idea of an experience -- living on campus, parties, and not working -- if they can't afford it. And part of affording it is can you pay for whatever debt you accrue when you graduate? Many students throw caution to the wind in that regard.

 

Except state run/state funded institutions shouldn't be operated under the directive to maximize revenue growth. That has to be balanced against its social purpose.

In California, if USC wants to do so, so be it. They are a private University. But the UC system should not be.

 

^
Austerity driven state legislatures have been jacking up the cost of state college tuition for several decades now. California used to have a no tuition payment approach, but that has gradually eroded. For example.

I do not think there is a simple solution to the cost of a college education, to be clear. State funding for state schools probably should go up since it is in the public interest of each state to have a viable and accessible public college education available. That is not a matter of ideology, but simply business realities. But the cost itself, public or private? I don't believe the cost has gone up solely to fund the salaries of administrators, for example and as I know some have posited. In fact by some measures the tuition payment at colleges is only a fraction of the actual cost of educating the students, the balance of which cost is covered by the endowments and the profits gained from running them.

Imo part of the problem ends up being a truly mixed bag. For all the problems the US has in world markets selling this or that product, the desirability of attending a top US university is recognized world wide. US colleges totally dominate the list of the best in the world. But that has a couple of effects. US students compete with applicants from all over the world in applying to such institutions, and I would expect a significant number of such foreign applicants have plenty of money to spend. In addition the world market angle creates an incentive for top universities to spend on their "product" in order to maintain their ranking and presence in the world's perceptions.

It's a complex dynamic, in short. And in order to fix one aspect of the problem, we should be careful of unintended consequences that will be adverse.

 

Exactally!!!! I agree 100%! This is exactly why health care and education shouldn't be handled by "businesses". Whew, I'm glad we could bridge that divide. Welcome to the blue side.

 

By create you mean acknowledge, correct?
Did we create health care, environment, gun control, disenfranchisement problems or are those just things that you refuse to acknowledge?
Just cuz you don't want to acknowledge a bus heading in my direction doesn't mean it's not there and it certainly doesn't mean I created the bus. Maybe we disagree at the speed of the bus and the importance of taking action or the degree of the action we take but the bus is there.

 

So, the govt should not help students who need loans to get loans??? Just because you see some adverse consequence doesn't mean that the net result is overall a bad one.

 

I'd assume the likely consequence would be that less students would get loans. The likely consequence of that is that less people would go to college. The likely consequence is that less people would have real opportunities to better themselves in today's economy. But hey my grandpa said the world needs truck drivers, right?

 

And costs would go down and hopeful students would find more pragmatic ways to pay for college rather than go into debt.

The primary problem is the false ideology that there aren't other ways for students to pay for college beyond loans, and thus loans create the only means for these students to afford college.

 

I agree. If tuitions were free then the stripper industry would completely collapse.

 

and thugs everywhere would pass the Bar exam.

 

Are you saying that the field of law would be filled with morally questionable individuals? haha they'd fit right in!