Hillary Clinton Embraces Ideas From Bernie Sanders’s College Tuition Plan

ludin · Jul 8, 2016

Lafayette said:
Hillary Clinton Embraces Ideas From Bernie Sanders’s College Tuition Plan

Wow. So she got that idea from Bernie?

Wonder where he got that idea from?

Europe, that's where - every EU country offers free tertiary education. Every damn one, all 28 ...

NB: Next step, Universal Health Care - which will put America on a par with the EU. Finally, 22 years after "Harry and Louise". After all, why not, if Congress gets a total Health Care package free, gratis and for nothing ... ?
__________________

It is only free if you qualify to get in.
Such a system would not work here.

It would be rated racist or bigoted or discriminatory.

Why because they only thing they care about is your entrance test score.
You either make it or you don't. If you don't then sorry about your luck you will pay for school.

Lafayette · Jul 8, 2016

ludin said:
It is only free if you qualify to get in.
Such a system would not work here. It would be rated racist or bigoted or discriminatory.

You can't know that till you try.

And given that it works very well for 700 million Europeans, I think you are dead wrong ...
___________________________

ludin · Jul 8, 2016

Lafayette said:
You can't know that till you try.

And given that it works very well for 700 million Europeans, I think you are dead wrong ...
___________________________

So what do you do with the millions of students that don't get it free?
Not all student get in free. That is what people don't seem to understand.

Only the top 20% of students get in free.

Ps way to ignore everything else that was said.

Lafayette · Jul 9, 2016

METHINKS

ludin said:
So what do you do with the millions of students that don't get it free?
Not all student get in free. That is what people don't seem to understand.

Only the top 20% of students get in free.

Ps way to ignore everything else that was said.

Look, the millions of students you are talking about "get it free" in Europe.

They sign up, they pay a modest tuition, and they attend classes at state-schools. The state schools are massive, meaning each state has at least vocational, 2- or 4-year degree programs. Yes, France has some "elitist" schools. But, not because they have high tuition costs, because they don't. France has a silly notion that "elitist children" (in terms of IQ) should be given "elitist education", and I could not disagree more.

Time will show that whether going to Harvard or the University of Massachusetts in Amherst will ultimately be of any real economic consequence in terms of life-style for most people. Unless we want it to be that way. I have seen personally numerous instances where "your schooling" was a key factor to getting a job. I never did understand why, having subsequently worked with such individuals and having found them perfectly "normal" in their mental acuity and ability to contribute meaningfully to any work-objective.

Unless we bring out the "notoriety millionaires" to show the difference. Like Zuckerberg who went to Harvard. Or Page and Brin (Google billionaires) who went to Stanford. Zukerberg simply replicated on the Internet something called a Facebook (which the Rotary Club has had for decades). Page and Brin took already well-known Indexing Software and applied it to Internet searching. These key ideas are an adaptation of usage, they break no new ground scientifically or in the engineering sense. Though they result in products that are successful and employed by the population.

However, all three individuals (who are innovative people) became Immensely Rich, which seems embedded in "the American Dream". (And I cannot understand why.)

Getting rich is not be the be-all and end-all of any Social Democracy. When everybody is a millionaire, your caffé-latte will cost you $2000.

We have made higher-education elitist purporting that "you get a better education". I am not at all sure of that result. What you get is this: When trying to get from Point A to Point B, doing so in BMW is a lot more prestigious than a Chevy. But, the fact of the matter is this: What is key is not how you get to Point B, but that you get to Point B - and the Chevy gets you there just as well.

And if state education will get more of our children to "Point B" in their learning of skills/competencies, then so much the better for all of us. We should care less about our "elitists" who make a megabuck, and more about our "non-elitists" who simply want to make a Decent Living. Which only a free Tertiary Education will allow them.

Methinks ...
_________________________

ludin · Jul 9, 2016

Lafayette said:
METHINKS

Look, the millions of students you are talking about "get it free" in Europe.

They sign up, they pay a modest tuition, and they attend classes at state-schools. The state schools are massive, meaning each state has at least vocational, 2- or 4-year degree programs. Yes, France has some "elitist" schools. But, not because they have high tuition costs, because they don't. France has a silly notion that "elitist children" (in terms of IQ) should be given "elitist education", and I could not disagree more.

Time will show that whether going to Harvard or the University of Massachusetts in Amherst will ultimately be of any real economic consequence in terms of life-style for most people. Unless we want it to be that way. I have seen personally numerous instances where "your schooling" was a key factor to getting a job. I never did understand why, having subsequently worked with such individuals and having found them perfectly "normal" in their mental acuity and ability to contribute meaningfully to any work-objective.

Unless we bring out the "notoriety millionaires" to show the difference. Like Zuckerberg who went to Harvard. Or Page and Brin (Google billionaires) who went to Stanford. Zukerberg simply replicated on the Internet something called a Facebook (which the Rotary Club has had for decades). Page and Brin took already well-known Indexing Software and applied it to Internet searching. These key ideas are an adaptation of usage, they break no new ground scientifically or in the engineering sense. Though they result in products that are successful and employed by the population.

However, all three individuals (who are innovative people) became Immensely Rich, which seems embedded in "the American Dream". (And I cannot understand why.)

Getting rich is not be the be-all and end-all of any Social Democracy. When everybody is a millionaire, your caffé-latte will cost you $2000.

We have made higher-education elitist purporting that "you get a better education". I am not at all sure of that result. What you get is this: When trying to get from Point A to Point B, doing so in BMW is a lot more prestigious than a Chevy. But, the fact of the matter is this: What is key is not how you get to Point B, but that you get to Point B - and the Chevy gets you there just as well.

And if state education will get more of our children to "Point B" in their learning of skills/competencies, then so much the better for all of us. We should care less about our "elitists" who make a megabuck, and more about our "non-elitists" who simply want to make a Decent Living. Which only a free Tertiary Education will allow them.

Methinks ...
_________________________

what you think is not based in reality.

they start weeding out kids as far as middle school as to whether or not they can go to college.
do you honestly think that would pass in this society?

hell they were complaining about a question on a test that asked what would you see on a camel ride.
they said it wasn't fair that kids don't know what a camel is.

that is the stupidity that we have reached when it comes to education in this country.

when you get to graduate you have to take an entrance exam. every school has a score in order to get into it.
if you don't make a high enough score then you get to go to trade school.

do you honestly think that would fly here? it amazes me that lack of knowledge that people have on this subject.

Lafayette · Jul 9, 2016

ludin said:
what you think is not based in reality.

Bollocks to that notion.

The reality of hundreds of millions of European children is that the get A TERTIARY EDUCATION THAT IS FREE, GRATIS AND FOR NOTHING.

Just like Primary and Secondary Education is in the US. And, it seems, we shall have all the same problems undertaking Free Tertiary Education as we did Free Primary/Secondary Education*.

Because of some people are constantly afraid of change ...

*See here. But if we want to send a man to the moon, oh yeah, "That's great! Go for it!"

________________

imagep · Jul 9, 2016

James972 said:
Since Europe has what even Krugman calls Eurosclerous (sick economies) we should do the opposite of what they do, obviously. How odd Silicon Valley is in USA not Europe where everyone is on the dole or trying to get on it. Let's have a 30 hour work week and make it impossible to fire a bad employee!!!

No one is suggesting that we should have a 30 hour work week or unfireable bad employees. What they are suggesting is that we should have a healthy and well educated workforce.

Why is it that every time universal healthcare and universal college/trade school comes up that conservatives do the straw man thing?

ludin · Jul 9, 2016

Lafayette said:
Bollocks to that notion.

The reality of hundreds of millions of European children is that the get A TERTIARY EDUCATION THAT IS FREE, GRATIS AND FOR NOTHING.

Just like Primary and Secondary Education is in the US. And, it seems, we shall have all the same problems undertaking Free Tertiary Education as we did Free Primary/Secondary Education*.

Because of some people are constantly afraid of change ...

*See here. But if we want to send a man to the moon, oh yeah, "That's great! Go for it!"

________________

If you are not going to address my post then why bother responding.
You ignored pretty much all he facts and strawmanned.

If you can't be honest then that is fine at least admit it.

Anyone can get into college here or even community college.

It is only free if you can get a high enough score if you can't then it isn't free.
If you can't then you either have to pay or go to trade school.

You evidently do not understand how there system works even though it has been explained To you.

ludin · Jul 9, 2016

imagep said:
No one is suggesting that we should have a 30 hour work week or unfireable bad employees. What they are suggesting is that we should have a healthy and well educated workforce.

Why is it that every time universal healthcare and universal college/trade school comes up that conservatives do the straw man thing?

The only people that strawman are liberals.
Government has failed at healthcare and given the constant state of our education system they have failed at that.

Also the fact they don't educate themselves about how their system works doesn't help.

Helix · Jul 9, 2016

Lafayette said:
Hillary Clinton Embraces Ideas From Bernie Sanders’s College Tuition Plan

Wow. So she got that idea from Bernie?

Wonder where he got that idea from?

Europe, that's where - every EU country offers free tertiary education. Every damn one, all 28 ...

NB: Next step, Universal Health Care - which will put America on a par with the EU. Finally, 22 years after "Harry and Louise". After all, why not, if Congress gets a total Health Care package free, gratis and for nothing ... ?
__________________

yeah, we're really shooting ourselves in the foot putting a massive debt wall in front of tertiary education. i support single payer, too.

Lafayette · Jul 9, 2016

ludin said:
If you are not going to address my post then why bother responding.

It is only free if you can get a high enough score if you can't then it isn't free.
If you can't then you either have to pay or go to trade school.

Too many "ifs". Eighty-seven percent of high-schoolers are graduating with a degree. And of that 13% remaining take one more year.

The major impediment to transiting from secondary- to tertiary-education is the cost. Such an impediment that only 52% of high-school graduates obtain a Tertiary-Level Degree (39% a 4-year degree, and 13% a 2-year or vocational degree*). That's only a bit more than half the student population in an age when skills/competencies are the sole mobility upwards out of poverty.

Today about half of all American students graduating have an average $30K debt to repay. What sort of incentive is that to obtain a tertiary level diploma?

My proposition is quite simple and I was proposing it long before Bernie because he got it from the same place - Europe.

State postsecondary (vocational, 2- & 4-year programs) schools that are inexpensive and Federally subsidized based upon parents' income could be sufficient. In France, regardless of income, a parent pays $1K a year to send his kids to a tertiary institute of learning plus $3/4K for room 'n board. Otoh, for the US (from the DofE):

For the 2013–14 academic year, annual current dollar prices for undergraduate tuition, fees, room, and board were estimated to be $15,640 at public institutions, $40,614 at private nonprofit institutions, and $23,135 at private for-profit institutions.

As I have said, either we make the investment early on in their lives, or we (as taxpayers) will almost certainly be paying Unemployment Insurance to those without a job.

Or worse. I also think that Tertiary Education could have a profound affect upon crime rates resulting in the present incarceration rate in America, which is six-to-ten times higher per capital than most European countries):

*From OECD Education at a glance
_______________________

ludin · Jul 9, 2016

Lafayette said:
Too many "ifs". Eighty-seven percent of high-schoolers are graduating with a degree. And of that 13% remaining take one more year.

The major impediment to transiting from secondary- to tertiary-education is the cost. Such an impediment that only 52% of high-school graduates obtain a Tertiary-Level Degree (39% a 4-year degree, and 13% a 2-year or vocational degree*). That's only a bit more than half the student population in an age when skills/competencies are the sole mobility upwards out of poverty.

Today about half of all American students graduating have an average $30K debt to repay. What sort of incentive is that to obtain a tertiary level diploma?

My proposition is quite simple and I was proposing it long before Bernie because he got it from the same place - Europe.

State postsecondary (vocational, 2- & 4-year programs) schools that are inexpensive and Federally subsidized based upon parents' income could be sufficient. In France, regardless of income, a parent pays $1K a year to send his kids to a tertiary institute of learning plus $3/4K for room 'n board. Otoh, for the US (from the DofE):

As I have said, either we make the investment early on in their lives, or we (as taxpayers) will almost certainly be paying Unemployment Insurance to those without a job.

Or worse. I also think that Tertiary Education could have a profound affect upon crime rates resulting in the present incarceration rate in America, which is six-to-ten times higher per capital than most European countries):

*From OECD Education at a glance
_______________________

Average Salary With A Bachelor's Degree

that is why.

How Much More Do College Graduates Earn Than Non-College Graduates?
that is why.

non-degree holders could expect to earn 75% less than bachelor's degree holders, who could expect to earn $2.7 million over their lifetimes. However, since 1999, bachelor's degree holders can now expect to make 84% more than high school graduates.
In general, earning a college degree allows a person to have more earning potential overall, regardless of other factors.

yep no reason to get a degree at all. where do you guys come up with this stuff from?

You also ignore the fact that if you don't score high enough on the test then you don't get that free college.
so why don't you address that instead of ignoring it.

You will be paying unemployment anyway regardless if it is free or not. so that is a moot argument.

ksu_aviator · Jul 9, 2016

ludin said:
Average Salary With A Bachelor's Degree

that is why.

How Much More Do College Graduates Earn Than Non-College Graduates?
that is why.

non-degree holders could expect to earn 75% less than bachelor's degree holders, who could expect to earn $2.7 million over their lifetimes. However, since 1999, bachelor's degree holders can now expect to make 84% more than high school graduates.
In general, earning a college degree allows a person to have more earning potential overall, regardless of other factors.

yep no reason to get a degree at all. where do you guys come up with this stuff from?

You also ignore the fact that if you don't score high enough on the test then you don't get that free college.
so why don't you address that instead of ignoring it.

You will be paying unemployment anyway regardless if it is free or not. so that is a moot argument.

You do understand that if the percentage of people that obtain a degree goes up, the amount of money that a degree holder will earn will go down? Don't you? Why should we pay more in taxes to devalue our education and experience?

ludin · Jul 9, 2016

ksu_aviator said:
You do understand that if the percentage of people that obtain a degree goes up, the amount of money that a degree holder will earn will go down? Don't you? Why should we pay more in taxes to devalue our education and experience?

So far there has been little evidence of this.
It also depends on other economic factors.
Some degree's will always hold their value.

Also you need to read what I was responding to.

The question was why would someone pay 30k for a degree.
I posted examples as to why.

imagep · Jul 9, 2016

ludin said:
The only people that strawman are liberals.....

Bullcrap.

When the topic is about free college, and someone brings up "unfireable bad employees", that's a strawman.

A strawman argument is used to divert attention from the subject at hand just long enough to get someone to agree to the new topic, and then the strawman presenter tries to apply that agreement to the original topic as if the person agreeing with the strawman argument has changed his/her position on the original topic.

Skeptic Bob · Jul 9, 2016

ksu_aviator said:
You do understand that if the percentage of people that obtain a degree goes up, the amount of money that a degree holder will earn will go down? Don't you? Why should we pay more in taxes to devalue our education and experience?

So if we stop funding secondary school then fewer people will be able to afford to graduate high school and then those of us who did graduate high school will be worth more? Sweet! I got mine already, let's do it!

ludin · Jul 9, 2016

imagep said:
Bullcrap.

When the topic is about free college, and someone brings up "unfireable bad employees", that's a strawman.

A strawman argument is used to divert attention from the subject at hand just long enough to get someone to agree to the new topic, and then the strawman presenter tries to apply that agreement to the original topic as if the person agreeing with the strawman argument has changed his/her position on the original topic.

not at all liberals do that on a consistent basis in fact it is one of the foundations for pretty much all of their arguments.
That doesn't change how people that keep wanting so called free college (which is a joke)
do not understand how it works in Europe.

nice mantra but all the same.

Lafayette · Jul 10, 2016

ludin said:
You also ignore the fact that if you don't score high enough on the test then you don't get that free college.
so why don't you address that instead of ignoring it.

You will be paying unemployment anyway regardless if it is free or not. so that is a moot argument.

Who's ignoring it? I keep telling you: With a government subsidized Tertiary Education there IS NO ENTRY TEST. All you need is a high-school diploma to enter a state-provided tertiary-level program. If a student then fails the exams, they do not obtain a tertiary degree. It could not be more simple.

Perhaps they lower their sites, and turn to a vocational level program. Whatever, they get some additional skills, which is better than none.

Besides, you are avoiding the final fact - Europeans despite a cataclysmic WW2 have reached (and some surpassed) the same level of tertiary education as the US: OECD Tertiary Level Educational Attainment

Note the US is at 45.7%*, surpassed by some, but ahead of most. (Our goal should be to attain a level of 75%. Which is not Mission Impossible in time.)

'Nuff said .... ?

*The younger set (25/34 year olds). The older set have done much better because Europe was rebuilding for 15/20 years after WW2.
__________________________

Lafayette · Jul 10, 2016

ksu_aviator said:
You do understand that if the percentage of people that obtain a degree goes up, the amount of money that a degree holder will earn will go down? Don't you? Why should we pay more in taxes to devalue our education and experience?

Piffle. You are pretending something that might happen only in a down economy as has indeed occurred since the Great Recession. The next Great Recession (if not a Depression) will not take 120 years to repeat itself if it follows itself historically. Another two generations will do nicely, since history in America is what happened 5 minutes ago and ancient history was yesterday. So, 120 years go is what happened on some other planet.

Moreover, and far more importantly, those who are educated historically not only earn more but much more. From the Census Bureau:

Earnings and Unemployment Rates by Educational Attainment (2015).jpg

And given this breakdown, nonsense such as "... if the percentage of people that obtain a degree goes up, the amount of money that a degree holder will earn will go down" has never happened except at times when "all incomes descended due to a Great Depression". In fact, in our own Great Recession, the hardest impacted were also the poorest.

Those with a postsecondary degree were also affected, since the causes for layoffs were widespread:
*Normal productivity loss due to lesser demand for goods/services.
*Offshoring of those production jobs that were too expensive to compete with the China Price, and
*Firing disguised as lay-offs (where the motive varies but includes the above and it is generalized in an industry, as in automotive.

But, this group was also the one that came back most strongly. Median income during the Great Recession suffered across the spectrum except in the top decile (10Percenters). But it came back fastest in the upper-income groups that tend to be the more skills/competency related and therefore higher-salaried. This conclusion from a study entitled: Heterogeneity in the Impact of Economic Cycles and the Great R
Effects Within and Across the Income Distribution

Conclusion: In this paper, we have comprehensively examined the effects of the business cycle on the distribution of income-to-poverty. We find that effects are more cyclical at very low levels of income-to-poverty, and then become increasingly smaller as one goes up the income distribution. This gradient has become steeper in the Great Recession (when compared to the early 1980s recession), with the most disadvantaged being relatively more affected (compared to higher income levels) in the Great Recession.

We also have explored differences across groups, finding large distinctions between the cyclical effects for children and prime age adults and correspondingly little evidence of cyclicality for the elderly. There were few significant differences across other demographic groups such as race/ethnicity, gender or marital status of the family heads.

Lafayette · Jul 10, 2016

BrewerBob said:
So if we stop funding secondary school then fewer people will be able to afford to graduate high school and then those of us who did graduate high school will be worth more? Sweet! I got mine already, let's do it!

No, no, no! We start at kindergarten - make it so damn expensive that only the 10Percenters can get their kids into it.

Which has a roll-on effect upon Primary, then Secondary ... and Magic! We have a nation of ignoramuses - all with home-bunkers and Kalashnikovs to "protect themselves"!

Very easy to manipulate - on any given election day, just make sure there's plenty of H'wood action-movies on TV all day long.

That'll keep 'em home ... :roll:

ludin · Jul 10, 2016

Lafayette said:
Who's ignoring it? I keep telling you: With a government subsidized Tertiary Education there IS NO ENTRY TEST. All you need is a high-school diploma to enter a state-provided tertiary-level program. If a student then fails the exams, they do not obtain a tertiary degree. It could not be more simple.

Besides, you are avoiding the final fact - Europeans despite a cataclysmic WW2 have reached (and some surpassed) the same level of tertiary education as the US: OECD Tertiary Level Educational Attainment

Note the US is at 45.7%*, surpassed by some, but ahead of most. (Our goal should be to attain a level of 75%. Which is not Mission Impossible in time.)

'Nuff said .... ?

*The younger set (25/34 year olds). The older set have done much better because Europe was rebuilding for 15/20 years after WW2.
__________________________

That is not how it works in Europe which is what you stated how you wanted it to work.
You haven't mapped out how to pay for it neither has Bernie. Between all his spending and tax increase he still has
A huge deficit.

I can't afford Bernie sanders and neither can other working Americans.

I haven't ignored anything. That has nothing to do with the topic.
Perhaps they lower their sites, and turn to a vocational level program. Whatever, they get some additional skills, which is better than none.

Lafayette · Jul 10, 2016

ludin said:
You haven't mapped out how to pay for it neither has Bernie

With an upper-income flat-rate taxation at 30% you don't know how to increase taxes?

Wow! All that money that can be used to pay for universal Tertiary Education is going to wealthy families who can afford a Harvard/Stanford education for their children a hundred times over.

We are collectively idiots to let that happen ...
______________

James972 · Jul 10, 2016

Lafayette said:
We are collectively idiots to let that happen ...

idiots to believe in freedom but geniuses to steal money from the rich at the point of a gun?? Why does liberalism always involve more and more govt violence?

ludin · Jul 10, 2016

Lafayette said:
With an upper-income flat-rate taxation at 30% you don't know how to increase taxes?

Wow! All that money that can be used to pay for universal Tertiary Education is going to wealthy families who can afford a Harvard/Stanford education for their children a hundred times over.

We are collectively idiots to let that happen ...
______________

Even f you raised it to 50%
It wouldn't cover the cost.

As I said Bernie comes up a lot short on his ideas

ksu_aviator · Jul 10, 2016

ludin said:
So far there has been little evidence of this.
It also depends on other economic factors.
Some degree's will always hold their value.

Also you need to read what I was responding to.

The question was why would someone pay 30k for a degree.
I posted examples as to why.

So by saying some will hold their value, you are admitting that others will lose their value. Why do you support a policy that will reduce the income of the middle class?

Hillary Clinton Embraces Ideas From Bernie Sanders’s College Tuition Plan

ludin

Lafayette

ludin

Lafayette

ludin

Lafayette

imagep

Villiage Idiot

ludin

ludin

Helix

Lafayette

ludin

ksu_aviator

Democrats are the fascists

ludin

imagep

Villiage Idiot

Skeptic Bob

ludin

Lafayette

Lafayette

Lafayette

ludin

Lafayette

James972

ludin

ksu_aviator

Democrats are the fascists