Democrats propose free college tuition and debt forgiveness!

Lord of Planar said:

Yep.

Simple supply and demand economic. As long as the loans and grants insure 100% enrollments, colleges keep jacking up the prices.

All this will do is line the pockets of those who control education, indoctrinate more kids, and make no skill jobs require a college degree.

Click to expand...

Objective claims require evidence. Do you have any?

JasperL said:

Objective claims require evidence. Do you have any?

Click to expand...

Does economic common sense require evidence?

Just look at how prices have skyrocketed since the 60's.

jimbo said:

iI never said you were a leech. I don't know your financial position well enough to make that statement.

Again, though, another diversion.

Click to expand...

Maybe coming at me instead of focusing on the topic is also another diversion.

Lord of Planar said:

Does common economic sense require evidence?

Just look at how prices have skyrocketed since the 60's.

Click to expand...

Yes, it does, because what you're calling 'common economic sense' is nothing of the sort.

For example, you correctly point out the total cost of attending college has increased - about 145% or so - since the 1960s, but correctly noting that something has increased in price does not provide ANY evidence on why the price has increased. You're making an actually unproved correlation (is there even a correlation between federal aid and total cost of attending college?) = causation argument. That's not enough to prove causation, which is your entire claim.

For example, the GI Bill post WWII, funded free college for millions of veterans. That expired in 1956. Why did the Feds funding college for millions of vets not drive up the cost of college but federal aid starting in the 1960s (presumably) DID?

JasperL said:

Yes, it does, because what you're calling 'common economic sense' is nothing of the sort.

For example, you correctly point out the total cost of attending college has increased - about 145% or so - since the 1960s, but correctly noting that something has increased in price does not provide ANY evidence on why the price has increased. You're making an actually unproved correlation (is there even a correlation between federal aid and total cost of attending college?) = causation argument. That's not enough to prove causation, which is your entire claim.

For example, the GI Bill post WWII, funded free college for millions of veterans. That expired in 1956. Why did the Feds funding college for millions of vets not drive up the cost of college but federal aid starting in the 1960s (presumably) DID?

Click to expand...

It's gone up much more than 145%.


Mind-boggling Increase in Tuition Since 1960 Even as Students Learn Less and Less | Competitive Enterprise Institute

I'm pretty sure it's gone up at least 500%.

Lord of Planar said:

It's gone up much more than 145%.

Click to expand...

It depends on how it's measured. Tuition has increased higher than that because state funding of public colleges has declined over time. Private college tuition is rising much faster than public. So there's a difference in measuring the total COST/year of attending college versus the student's share of it, or tuition. If you have better numbers, I'm interested in seeing them. No so interested in comments limited to - Nuh UH!

And none of that rescues your baseless correlation ==> causation argument. Nice try avoiding the issue, though!

Just for example:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...part-iii-the-three-reasons-tuition-is-rising/

Public community colleges, the largest category of higher education institution, have seen real, per full-time student spending fall from 2000 to 2010. So they’re actually spending less.

And yet, over that same period, community colleges saw tuition revenue per full-time student increase by about 40.7 percent in real terms. Perversely, the powers that be at community colleges have been cutting what they spend on students, and then making those students pay even more for a cheaper-to-produce product.

At public master’s and bachelor’s schools — that is, public institutions that offer traditional four-year curricula but aren’t research schools — spending has been basically stagnant over the past decade. What’s more, most years in the 2000s actually saw spending decline relative to 2000, not increase, even though tuition rose.

Click to expand...

Where spending and tuition are increasing are the big research institutions. You can see that in this graph:



From what I see at UT and hear from people there, a big part of what's driving that are the rankings games. Every big state school wants to be Top 10 or Top 25, and so there's a bit of a bidding war for top faculty, and nicer facilities and better dorms and all the rest. It's a vanity project, and it's not driven by federal aid so much as rich people vanity projects in a lot of cases, all while STATE funding for UT drops.

So it's not a simple - Federal aid!! Government!!! WHY HAVE YOU FAILED US!?? which is your argument.

Lord of Planar said:

It's gone up much more than 145%.

There has been a truly mind-boggling increase in college tuition since 1960. For example, law school tuition has risen nearly 1,000 percent after adjusting for inflation: around 1960, "median annual tuition and fees at private law schools was $475 ... adjusted for inflation, that's $3,419 in 2011 dollars.
​

Mind-boggling Increase in Tuition Since 1960 Even as Students Learn Less and Less | Competitive Enterprise Institute

I'm pretty sure it's gone up at least 500%.

Click to expand...

OK, I missed this addition to your original reply, 1) the amount (145% or 300% or whatever) wasn't my argument, but just an illustration, and 2) but as I explain in another post, this doesn't support your correlation (federal aid/loans) = causation (higher tuition) argument. It also focuses on tuition (and just law school tuition, which has different issues than higher education in general) and not the total cost per student at the typical college or university.

If Tennessee cuts taxpayer funding per student at UTK and the other state schools by $3,000/student per year, and tuition goes up by $3,000 to offset the cuts in state funding, how is that the fault of federal aid or federal loan programs?

JasperL said:

OK, I missed this addition to your original reply, 1) the amount (145% or 300% or whatever) wasn't my argument, but just an illustration, and 2) but as I explain in another post, this doesn't support your correlation (federal aid/loans) = causation (higher tuition) argument. It also focuses on tuition (and just law school tuition, which has different issues than higher education in general) and not the total cost per student at the typical college or university.

If Tennessee cuts taxpayer funding per student at UTK and the other state schools by $3,000/student per year, and tuition goes up by $3,000 to offset the cuts in state funding, how is that the fault of federal aid or federal loan programs?

Click to expand...

My God man.

It's simple supply and demand. Proven in all economic cases.

Linc said:

Serious question; one of 25 questions I’ll be reporting on this evening. ‘Do you think the government should award college scholarships to children whose mothers or fathers have sacrificed their lives in the global war on terrorism’? On a scale of 1-10 with 10 being very important.

Last month, I also mentioned to our membership that our next meeting would be on 9/11, and put it out there that the same question should be asked for children who lost their parents on 9/11, whether first responders or actual workers in the twin towers. Everyone’s input is welcome and important.

If families can’t afford to send their children to a four-year school right away, they should send them to a community college. That’s my opinion, based on over four decades of experience in education. As a retired teacher of Chem/Physics, I can tell you that CC requirements and rigor have greatly improved over the last few decades. The AA degree at a CC transfers In Toto to 4-year schools.

We’re also not talking about every other type of education after high school to prepare our teenagers for a job/profession in which they know there are openings, and in which they really love doing.

Click to expand...

If you want a serious answer. I'd put both at a 2 or 3 at best.

Thousands of people have trouble every day that limits or precludes college entry. Why should one person be singled out and another be eliminated? 9/11 was tragic, but so was daddy falling off the tower while it was being built. A death or even divorce can make college entry difficult.

As you say, there are any number of ways of getting through college without emerging with prohibitive debt. The most obvious being the military. Or go to a community or junior college, then on to a local state school. then a semester at Harvard. You have a Harvard degree.

Within a short drive of my home there are two choices. A community college and a junior college. Successfully graduating from the junior guarantees you entry into William and Mary. Last I checked Bland has a live in program at roughly $8K/year.

Lord of Planar said:

My God man.

It's simple supply and demand. Proven in all economic cases.

Click to expand...

First of all, I'm not ignorant about economics so throwing out fact free, evidence free talking points isn't going to work here. Correlation does NOT imply or demonstrate causation, and you haven't even bothered to demonstrate any correlation, you've asserted it without evidence.

What's driving demand?

Has demand for admission slots at four year research institutions gone up because of federal funding for loans or grants, or because in an economy dominated by service jobs, having a good education from a prestigious research institution is seen as the price of admission for many good jobs that families are willing to pay without regard to the overall increases in tuition and other costs? If that's the price of admission, is it any wonder families are willing to pay it?

Perhaps that's why the total annual costs/student at community colleges has DECLINED, and is flat at non-research four year institutions (institutions that also get lots of students getting federally backed loans and grants) but HAS increased at the most prestigious schools, and at better private schools.

JasperL said:

The overall cost of college has been going up for a lot of reasons. One of them for public colleges is states have reduced their share of funding, which increases the amount that must be paid for through tuition and fees. Overall, there's not a lot of evidence federal aid causes higher tuition. E.g. Does More Federal Aid Raise Tuition Costs? Not For Most Students, Research Says : NPR

But the problem is if lots of jobs in a service economy require a degree as a minimum qualification, and many DO, what's the better alternative to 1) loans, or 2) more direct government funding of higher education? Should the poor or just middle class just not get a shot at all? If they're going to have a chance to compete, what's your alternative suggestion?

And your last sentence is unclear. "those who qualify" for what? If you mean qualify academically to attend some fairly high-standard 4 year college, then why not fund no-cost community college or technical training for the non-academically qualified? Doesn't make sense to limit education subsidies to ONLY those who are the smartest and/or excel in academics.

Click to expand...

By those who qualify, I think you may have to be a state resident for community college. For Richard Bland there is a grade and HS grad policy. I think that any Bland(W & M feeder) graduate bypasses the normal acceptance requirements.

I think our community college system is very low cost.

I'm saying that there are alternatives to emerging with a degree in women's studies and a 6 figure loan. Prospective students should make the investigation before committing to 4 years and a very large loan.

JasperL said:

That's kind of dumb. You're conditioning support for Program X on fully funding, what, UHC for kids, but only at those hospitals? I agree that kids shouldn't have to beg for funds to treat ANY ailment, not just those treated at Shriners Hospitals, but how is that an argument for or against 'free college?'

Click to expand...

Because there is no such thing as 'free college.' Someone has to pay for it. And before we try to devise ways to pay for privileged kids to attend party schools, lets fund kids in need first. Once the needs of those physically and mentally incapable of caring for themselves are met, then come talk to me about free college. There is no reason for your kids to be sitting on the street corner with a tin cup while mine are sleeping off a hangover at OSU on the government dime. Whats ironic is that liberals used to think this way. Now it is me, a libertarian, who has to pick up the torch for the disabled that you guys tossed aside.

The total donations to Shriners Hospitals in 2017 were about the cost of 2 F-22s, or about $300 million. Why not condition funding for one of those new fighter jets on fully funding those admirable institutions, and others like them such as St. Judes, and the hundreds of other children's hospitals treating everything from bad illness to cancer to burns to diabetes?

Click to expand...

Why should these kids be at the mercy of private donations while your healthy privileged kids are going to college tuition free? Whats wrong with this picture?

americanwoman said:

Maybe coming at me instead of focusing on the topic is also another diversion.

Click to expand...

Anything to say concerning free college tuition and debt forgiveness?

americanwoman said:

Aha, so you want to solve the healthcare issues before we even try to tackle education. Why not simultaneously?

Click to expand...

Because there are limited funds. And why should your tax dollars go to fund my kids secondary education while your child has to panhandle on TV for funds to help keep him alive? I am old enough to remember when liberals actually cared about the children. Not any more.

The hypocrisy never ends. People are endlessly told they MUST get a college degree - because if they do they will earn lots and lots more money across their lifetime.

Now, at the same time, we are told that someone with a college degree can't even pay of a lone no higher than if they bought a decent new car - and with much more forgiving terms than car payments.

It is sickening to think they want to take money out of blue collar workers and social security checks to seniors to pay for the educations of what they themselves claim will be top income earners. But, then, the Democratic Party has made no secret of their contempt and often hatred of blue collar workers without college degrees and old people, who they want to die off.

jimbo said:

By those who qualify, I think you may have to be a state resident for community college. For Richard Bland there is a grade and HS grad policy. I think that any Bland(W & M feeder) graduate bypasses the normal acceptance requirements.

I think our community college system is very low cost.

I'm saying that there are alternatives to emerging with a degree in women's studies and a 6 figure loan. Prospective students should make the investigation before committing to 4 years and a very large loan.

Click to expand...

OK, I still don't understand this part of your quote - "There is actually a better argument for no cost higher education for those who qualify than a loan for those who don't."

Overall I tend to agree, and said so in this post.

The TL/dr version is not everyone should attend, say, UTK, which is the state's public research institution, or Vandy, but I fully support state funding of post K-12 education to the point of 'free' for at least community college or trade school. So does the GOP and the business community and the residents here.

jimbo said:

If you want a serious answer. I'd put both at a 2 or 3 at best.

Thousands of people have trouble every day that limits or precludes college entry. Why should one person be singled out and another be eliminated? 9/11 was tragic, but so was daddy falling off the tower while it was being built. A death or even divorce can make college entry difficult.

As you say, there are any number of ways of getting through college without emerging with prohibitive debt. The most obvious being the military. Or go to a community or junior college, then on to a local state school. then a semester at Harvard. You have a Harvard degree.

Within a short drive of my home there are two choices. A community college and a junior college. Successfully graduating from the junior guarantees you entry into William and Mary. Last I checked Bland has a live in program at roughly $8K/year.

Click to expand...

First, I do think this thread discussion is much better than most these days. Second, I appreciate your constructive presentation. Third, I’m glad you expanded the discussion on junior and community colleges. Many of our HS graduates simply haven’t made a life-long choice of who and what they’re going to be yet.

It doesn’t make any sense to pay top dollar for general education credits. Besides, we now have real PhD professors in subjects like Physics at the CC level.

Many CC students where I live are still at home, work a job, get their AA, and figure out who and what they are during these two years. Saves a lot of money. As well, many students are coming out of HS with a considerable # of CC credits, some even with the AA.

Here’s a few more Veteran/Military questions. Does the government do enough to support Military families? Expanding a bit here on another question, should we assist Veterans in transitioning to civilian life by putting them through some form of advanced education? Even teacher training! We have a huge shortage of police officers and teachers across the Nation.

There is also a bi-partisan plan in place to to forgive student loans for Veterans. As with everything these days, though, it’s been caught up in politics.

joko104 said:

The hypocrisy never ends. People are endlessly told they MUST get a college degree - because if they do they will earn lots and lots more money across their lifetime.

Now, at the same time, we are told that someone with a college degree can't even pay of a lone no higher than if they bought a decent new car - and with much more forgiving terms than car payments.

It is sickening to think they want to take money out of blue collar workers and social security checks to seniors to pay for the educations of what they themselves claim will be top income earners. But, then, the Democratic Party has made no secret of their contempt and often hatred of blue collar workers without college degrees and old people, who they want to die off.

Click to expand...

The kids of blue collar workers can ALSO get free college, community college or trade school. Rural, GOP leaning folks here in Tennessee actually kind of like free college, because they know it helps either them or their children get better jobs without going deep into debt.

Fletch said:

Because there are limited funds. And why should your tax dollars go to fund my kids secondary education while your child has to panhandle on TV for funds to help keep him alive? I am old enough to remember when liberals actually cared about the children. Not any more.

Click to expand...

It's hard to tell if you're being sarcastic or are really making this bad of an argument.

Fletch said:

Because there is no such thing as 'free college.' Someone has to pay for it. And before we try to devise ways to pay for privileged kids to attend party schools, lets fund kids in need first. Once the needs of those physically and mentally incapable of caring for themselves are met, then come talk to me about free college.

Click to expand...

How about we do that BEFORE we give out a couple $trillion in tax cuts to the donor class, if we're talking about priorities here? I know the answer - we don't worry about deficits or debt when it comes to handing out tax cuts, or funding a $trillion in defense and related spending so that all those defense contractors in $7 figure houses around D.C. get paid, just when it comes to spending for the poor like on education.

And I know there is no such thing as 'free' which is why I generally write it just like that to fend off BS arguments like this one. We're not idiots, and we all know taxes fund government programs, but you just have to state the obvious. In this case, obviously, the left in general and Democrats specifically have been trying to fund healthcare for those poor kids AND their parents. It's the GOP who can't get off their lazy, incompetent asses and do anything but throw bricks at what Democrats do while trying to tear it down and replace it with nothing.

But the final point is funding for healthcare for the children really doesn't say ANYTHING about the merits or demerits of expanding federal and/or state funding for post K-12. It's just a red herring in this discussion.

There is no reason for your kids to be sitting on the street corner with a tin cup while mine are sleeping off a hangover at OSU on the government dime. Whats ironic is that liberals used to think this way. Now it is me, a libertarian, who has to pick up the torch for the disabled that you guys tossed aside.

Click to expand...

WTF are you talking about? Where/when/how are "liberals" abandoning the disabled or the sick by, for example, pushing for UHC that would pay for healthcare for the disabled without regard to their awful pre-existing conditions, and the children, and their parents? How do you suggest we fully fund healthcare for the sick children? Where's the GOP or libertarian plan for that, or is all you can do is throw out BS criticisms of what Democrats suggest?

Why should these kids be at the mercy of private donations while your healthy privileged kids are going to college tuition free? Whats wrong with this picture?

Click to expand...

If you can tell me who's pushing for that, we can condemn them together!

JasperL said:

It's hard to tell if you're being sarcastic or are really making this bad of an argument.

Click to expand...

Whats wrong with the argument?

Fletch said:

Whats wrong with the argument?

Click to expand...

Let me just ask the question - when did libertarians or the GOP (since there are no elected libertarians in the federal government) care about the children? What solutions do the right wing propose to care for them? I know what the Democrats are running on, and it's expanding access to healthcare not making it less accessible and telling those kids (with pre-existing conditions, FWIW) that if mom doesn't have a good job they can go screw themselves, or beg, which seems to be the overall attitude of the right wing in Congress to children and adults who get sick.

That's what a "free market" healthcare system looks like. If you don't like that answer - children of poor and middle class parents begging for dollars to get their burns treated because they are uninsured - then what big government socialist programs do you as a libertarian favor?

JasperL said:

OK, I still don't understand this part of your quote - "There is actually a better argument for no cost higher education for those who qualify than a loan for those who don't."

Overall I tend to agree, and said so in this post.

The TL/dr version is not everyone should attend, say, UTK, which is the state's public research institution, or Vandy, but I fully support state funding of post K-12 education to the point of 'free' for at least community college or trade school. So does the GOP and the business community and the residents here.

Click to expand...

I think we're mostly on the same page. Overall I prefer low or no cost higher education for students over $50-100K student loans. I do not, however, that college entrance should be for everybody. Some would be better served pursuing other options. For those that prove me wrong, go to a community or junior school. Get your grades and test scores up. Try again. You have a better shot at finishing the degree with a higher earning potential and a lower student loan burden.

I like the Bland - W & M concept. The best of both worlds.

JasperL said:

How about we do that BEFORE we give out a couple $trillion in tax cuts to the donor class, if we're talking about priorities here? I know the answer - we don't worry about deficits or debt when it comes to handing out tax cuts, or funding a $trillion in defense and related spending so that all those defense contractors in $7 figure houses around D.C. get paid, just when it comes to spending for the poor like on education.

And I know there is no such thing as 'free' which is why I generally write it just like that to fend off BS arguments like this one. We're not idiots, and we all know taxes fund government programs, but you just have to state the obvious. In this case, obviously, the left in general and Democrats specifically have been trying to fund healthcare for those poor kids AND their parents. It's the GOP who can't get off their lazy, incompetent asses and do anything but throw bricks at what Democrats do while trying to tear it down and replace it with nothing.

Click to expand...

Thats not even remotely true. Democrats are not trying to 'fund health care for poor kids and their parents.' Thats called Medicaid, its been around for 50 years and you still have handicapped kids out with tin cups. No, the dems want to take control of health care for everyone. Its power they want, not to help kids :roll:

But the final point is funding for healthcare for the children really doesn't say ANYTHING about the merits or demerits of expanding federal and/or state funding for post K-12. It's just a red herring in this discussion.

Click to expand...

False. It isnt a red herring at all. The left wants to create a new entitlement program for privileged youth while putting the care of unhealthy children on the back burner.

WTF are you talking about? Where/when/how are "liberals" abandoning the disabled or the sick by, for example, pushing for UHC that would pay for healthcare for the disabled without regard to their awful pre-existing conditions, and the children, and their parents? How do you suggest we fully fund healthcare for the sick children? Where's the GOP or libertarian plan for that, or is all you can do is throw out BS criticisms of what Democrats suggest?

Click to expand...

Again, I am suggesting that before you roll out a new vote-buying entitlement program to solve a problem you guys created in the first place, take care of those who cant take care of themselves first You guys just care more about buying of the millennial vote with freebies then you do about the handicapped.

JasperL said:

Let me just ask the question - when did libertarians or the GOP (since there are no elected libertarians in the federal government) care about the children? What solutions do the right wing propose to care for them? I know what the Democrats are running on, and it's expanding access to healthcare not making it less accessible and telling those kids (with pre-existing conditions, FWIW) that if mom doesn't have a good job they can go screw themselves, or beg, which seems to be the overall attitude of the right wing in Congress to children and adults who get sick.

That's what a "free market" healthcare system looks like. If you don't like that answer - children of poor and middle class parents begging for dollars to get their burns treated because they are uninsured - then what big government socialist programs do you as a libertarian favor?

Click to expand...

I dont support the government doing anything. Nor am I calling for the government to confiscate your property to pay for my kids education. Thats what YOU advocate. I am simply pointing out that your priorities are f'ed up and you should demand that your nanny state take care of the those in need before it drops a trillion+ on those who are not.