• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Democrats propose free college tuition and debt forgiveness!

Dans La Lune said:
I'd like for a conservative, any conservative, to explain why it used to be almost free to attend college/university 40-50 years ago and now people have to be TENS of thousand in debt just to get a decent education. Debt which, thanks to conservatives and corporate democrats, cannot be jettisoned even through bankruptcy. Explain to me how THAT system is better than the system from several decades ago.

Ready, Set, Go.
Click to expand...

When I enrolled in college 48 years ago it was definitely not free.
 
marke said:
How exiting! The new wave of democrat morons running for president have proposed bankrupting the American economy by stupidly abolishing student loan debts and paying excessively high priced college tuition for everyone. What a boon for democrat college administrators and officials. I see huge bonuses and higher salaries and benefits for everyone in the education business, thanks to democrats.

I also see the massive increase of fiscal stupidity exposed in these new dummass ideas being promoted by the new wave of moronic democrat politicians.

Student loan experts sound alarm on 'trillion-dollar blackhole'
Click to expand...

First, let's be clear on a couple of things. First and foremost...student debt forgiveness already exists in both the private and public sectors. On top of that, there are private and public programs that help make your repayment more manageable. So, you may reasonably ask, why are talking about this? Well, because of two things. One is that engaging in these programs will take 10 to 25 years to work and the other is that one only has to default on one payment once and they are automatically ineligible for these programs or are immediately kicked off if already in the program.

So, the loan entities faces two options for those with student debt who engage in these programs. First, if they choose the forgiveness route, that means that the student still pays some of that loan back in cash, but most of it is worked out in "trade" or "service". So, after ten years or more of working at the same job with no chance of promotion, the loan entities do not get their money back, but recoup in labor. In terms of taking decades of paying back the loan, the interest increases (even if slowly with some of these programs) which usually keeps the person in debt even longer and the loan entities don't get their money back for a long time...and then wind up taking losses when the student defaults

All of that is to say, the money isn't being collected from those in student debt, anyway.

So, the idea if quick debt forgiveness goes back to the beginning of our nation when the federal government under Washington and Hamilton allowed the federal government to take on the wartime debt of the states and forgave them of that debt....or else allowing the states to default and be bankrupt (states, at the time, were too big to fail). Here's the part of forgiving the student debt that sucks: higher taxes to pay it off. Benefit: it pays off the deb in far less time (2 to 5 years), ends the vicious cycle and allows the government and the tax payer the ability to start at zero debt. The students become the last generation of those who had to suffer school debt and are able to use current and future revenues to inject into the US economy (hopefully by investing).

Here's the other assumption that needs to be dropped. Providing free education is not a socialist agenda item. Don't get me wrong, socialists will tout it as such....but education for free as paid for by the tax payers is no more socialist than having an army paid for by tax payer dollars, or paying for infrastructure with tax payer dollars, etc. Free education isn't socialist. It's just another benefit of what taxes can do. Also, it isn't socialist for another reason, and a little fact that the right seems to gloss over...

A free education, meaning college, only applies to those who earn the right to attend college, community college or a university by achieving good academic scores. Not everybody gets to go to higher education if they don't pass muster.

A free education also doesn't just mean academics in a four-year institution. Free education can mean a trade school, learning skills, giving a student the ability to not only fend for themselves in life...but to contribute to society. And creates a solid value behind wealth and investment.

Think of free education and debt forgiveness as an investment in the nation's future. There would be a monetary return for the nation. It would strengthen us as a nation, and we wouldn't suffer from brain drain as we do now. Like any investment, the immediate payment is painful, but the rewards could far out weigh the risks.
 
marke said:
When I enrolled in college 48 years ago it was definitely not free.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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

College Costs 50 Years Ago | Paying for College

Princeton University: $2,260

Harvard University: $2,370

Yale University: $2,300

Look at Princeton and Harvard. That's less than HALF the price of a low-end course at community college that gets you a certificate of achievement and a happy face sticker.
 
Jason Warfield said:
First, let's be clear on a couple of things. First and foremost...student debt forgiveness already exists in both the private and public sectors. On top of that, there are private and public programs that help make your repayment more manageable. So, you may reasonably ask, why are talking about this? Well, because of two things. One is that engaging in these programs will take 10 to 25 years to work and the other is that one only has to default on one payment once and they are automatically ineligible for these programs or are immediately kicked off if already in the program.

So, the loan entities faces two options for those with student debt who engage in these programs. First, if they choose the forgiveness route, that means that the student still pays some of that loan back in cash, but most of it is worked out in "trade" or "service". So, after ten years or more of working at the same job with no chance of promotion, the loan entities do not get their money back, but recoup in labor. In terms of taking decades of paying back the loan, the interest increases (even if slowly with some of these programs) which usually keeps the person in debt even longer and the loan entities don't get their money back for a long time...and then wind up taking losses when the student defaults

All of that is to say, the money isn't being collected from those in student debt, anyway.

So, the idea if quick debt forgiveness goes back to the beginning of our nation when the federal government under Washington and Hamilton allowed the federal government to take on the wartime debt of the states and forgave them of that debt....or else allowing the states to default and be bankrupt (states, at the time, were too big to fail). Here's the part of forgiving the student debt that sucks: higher taxes to pay it off. Benefit: it pays off the deb in far less time (2 to 5 years), ends the vicious cycle and allows the government and the tax payer the ability to start at zero debt. The students become the last generation of those who had to suffer school debt and are able to use current and future revenues to inject into the US economy (hopefully by investing).

Here's the other assumption that needs to be dropped. Providing free education is not a socialist agenda item. Don't get me wrong, socialists will tout it as such....but education for free as paid for by the tax payers is no more socialist than having an army paid for by tax payer dollars, or paying for infrastructure with tax payer dollars, etc. Free education isn't socialist. It's just another benefit of what taxes can do. Also, it isn't socialist for another reason, and a little fact that the right seems to gloss over...

A free education, meaning college, only applies to those who earn the right to attend college, community college or a university by achieving good academic scores. Not everybody gets to go to higher education if they don't pass muster.

A free education also doesn't just mean academics in a four-year institution. Free education can mean a trade school, learning skills, giving a student the ability to not only fend for themselves in life...but to contribute to society. And creates a solid value behind wealth and investment.

Think of free education and debt forgiveness as an investment in the nation's future. There would be a monetary return for the nation. It would strengthen us as a nation, and we wouldn't suffer from brain drain as we do now. Like any investment, the immediate payment is painful, but the rewards could far out weigh the risks.
Click to expand...

Any government which spends itself into unsustainable debt so it must then force its citizens to pay substantial portions of their income and submit to stringent government regulations and restrictions because of the indebtedness are leaning towards communism if not already fully communist.
 
Dans La Lune said:
Mind-boggling Increase in Tuition Since 1960 Even as Students Learn Less and Less | Competitive Enterprise Institute

College Costs 50 Years Ago | Paying for College

Princeton University: $2,260

Harvard University: $2,370

Yale University: $2,300

Look at Princeton and Harvard. That's less than HALF the price of a low-end course at community college that gets you a certificate of achievement and a happy face sticker.
Click to expand...

If you want to live a life of ease and enjoy the expensive pleasures afforded to those who can pay for them, getting a cushy job teaching at a leading university is one avenue for success. When the government moves in to subsidize the costs students pay then raises are in order for all those making a good living on staff of these rich institutions.
 
marke said:
If you want to live a life of ease and enjoy the expensive pleasures afforded to those who can pay for them, getting a cushy job teaching at a leading university is one avenue for success. When the government moves in to subsidize the costs students pay then raises are in order for all those making a good living on staff of these rich institutions.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you didn't read my post. Let me refresh your memory:

Princeton University: $2,260

Harvard University: $2,370

Yale University: $2,300
Click to expand...

That's adjusted for inflation.
 
Dans La Lune said:
Perhaps you didn't read my post. Let me refresh your memory:
That's adjusted for inflation.
Click to expand...

Harvard touted Pocahontas Warren as their first very own minority woman of color college professor. She was paid upwards of $400,000 for teaching just one class. And she still has the nerve to criticize rich white people for being greedy.

Elizabeth Warren - one-time prof paid $400k to teach single class - calls Trump 'greedy' - The American MirrorThe American Mirror
 
marke said:
When I enrolled in college 48 years ago it was definitely not free.
Click to expand...

If you were a citizen of NYC at the time and had good grades it would have been.
 
washunut said:
If you were a citizen of NYC at the time and had good grades it would have been.
Click to expand...

Did NYC have to raise taxes to cover the costs? I have noticed Pocahontas refuses to say whether her trillion dollar healthcare plan will mean middle class taxes will go up.
 
marke said:
Did NYC have to raise taxes to cover the costs? I have noticed Pocahontas refuses to say whether her trillion dollar healthcare plan will mean middle class taxes will go up.
Click to expand...

Well it was 50 years ago and the system had been in place for a long time prior. I would say no at the time. Also need to look at the benefit to the city of having a well educated population that helped make NYC the financial capital of the world.
 
marke said:
Sadly, too many Americans will buy into the stupid idea because, as democrat insiders know, too many Americans will believe just about any lie the propagandist leftist news media preaches.
Click to expand...

Lessons should of been learned by now after the disastrous obama regime. I believe the American voter will do the right thing by putting our President Trump back in office for 2020.So many doors closed by the lowly liberal/Demo are starting to open as our economy continues in the positive direction.
 
washunut said:
Well it was 50 years ago and the system had been in place for a long time prior. I would say no at the time. Also need to look at the benefit to the city of having a well educated population that helped make NYC the financial capital of the world.
Click to expand...

Educated people from all over the world are attracted to NYC for the wealth, implying widespread greed. It is also true that graduates from NYC universities are hired all over the world in a greater percentage than numbers from schools elsewhere. But NY has the highest cost per student secondary education system in the country, with some of the lowest test scores anywhere. That spells failure to me in education coupled with excessively tax expense to produce that failure rate.
 
marke said:
Educated people from all over the world are attracted to NYC for the wealth, implying widespread greed. It is also true that graduates from NYC universities are hired all over the world in a greater percentage than numbers from schools elsewhere. But NY has the highest cost per student secondary education system in the country, with some of the lowest test scores anywhere. That spells failure to me in education coupled with excessively tax expense to produce that failure rate.
Click to expand...

Materially different than 50 years ago. There was only free four year college for kids qualified to get in. Sorry you don't know or understand the history of NYC.
 
Dans La Lune said:
I'd like for a conservative, any conservative, to explain why it used to be almost free to attend college/university 40-50 years ago and now people have to be TENS of thousand in debt just to get a decent education. Debt which, thanks to conservatives and corporate democrats, cannot be jettisoned even through bankruptcy. Explain to me how THAT system is better than the system from several decades ago.
Click to expand...

Damn, that should be obvious.

That is because the Government started throwing more and more money at those institutions, and they got greedy and raised their fees more and more.

At one time it was damned cheap to go to college. But then we had to get into the business of financing it instead of people paying for it themselves. That meant even more money floating around, which in turn raised fees, it became a giant circle.

Most colleges are supposed to be "non-profit". But when you have professors and administrators making higher wages than most CEOs, then it should be obvious where the problem is. It literally is a system where they control everything, and they charge as much as they are able to get away with. Which is literally as much as the Government will pay them to educate students.

Maybe this will help you figure out the runaway costs.
 
Oozlefinch said:
Damn, that should be obvious.

That is because the Government started throwing more and more money at those institutions, and they got greedy and raised their fees more and more.

At one time it was damned cheap to go to college. But then we had to get into the business of financing it instead of people paying for it themselves. That meant even more money floating around, which in turn raised fees, it became a giant circle.

Most colleges are supposed to be "non-profit". But when you have professors and administrators making higher wages than most CEOs, then it should be obvious where the problem is. It literally is a system where they control everything, and they charge as much as they are able to get away with. Which is literally as much as the Government will pay them to educate students.

Maybe this will help you figure out the runaway costs.
Click to expand...

Do democrats need to tax the rich to pay for trillion dollar new deals? They could try tapping into Harvard, which is sitting on something like $50 billion in extra cash, with the government still pouring in more from American taxpayers.
 
marke said:
If the government has unlimited money then why not just give low IQ citizens plenty of money to live comfortably for the rest of their lives and let them forget college?
Click to expand...
Because very conservatives do not contribute to the betterment of society, only educated people do.
 
Fixing the college problem is actually pretty simple. We ended up throwing a BUNCH of money at colleges when we started to federally back student loans. This caused colleges to
raise their prices. Been to a college lately? They are BEAUTIFUL. The money that American colleges waste on looking good and paying high wages have made college VERY expensive.
Bring back junior colleges (very cheap to run) and let everyone stay at home and get a two year degree. Only those who want to finish up a 4 year degree should be going off to a university.
And they should have to have SHOWN that they can do it. Have you seen the failure rate at US Universities? Too much easy money has raised prices and allowed people who shouldn't be going to college to go.
Stop wasting money...
 
prometeus said:
Because very conservatives do not contribute to the betterment of society, only educated people do.
Click to expand...

Yea, this is typical of what I see in the Far-Left. They make the mistake of equating education with intelligence, and also politics.

Is why I do not joke when I say that in general, Liberals tend to be the most bigoted and prejudicial bunch I have ever seen in my life. They have these fantastic beliefs, and they actually pat each other on the back when another shares that same belief.

And they totally fail to grasp that most of us just laugh at them, and consider them to be retarded twits. Who do not even realize that they are retarded.

And BTW, I am using Retarded in this case as a verb, not as an adjective.
 
Oozlefinch said:
Yea, this is typical of what I see in the Far-Left. They make the mistake of equating education with intelligence, and also politics.
Click to expand...
You just proved my point and have no idea.

And they totally fail to grasp that most of us just laugh at them, and consider them to be retarded twits.
Click to expand...
Of course you do. Projection is the best you can do.
 
prometeus said:
You just proved my point and have no idea.
Click to expand...

Which only proves something I have stated many times. "The Left" has the vast majority of bigoted and prejudiced people. And they somehow justify it because of politics.
 
prometeus said:
Because the very conservatives do not contribute to the betterment of society, only educated people do.
Click to expand...

Saying they do nothing right seems to be at the very least an exaggeration. For example, conservative people tend to donate more generously as a fraction of their income in the United States. If my memory serves me well, this holds even when you account for the difference in religiosity across both groups. I would say that using some of your income and some of your time to help out those in need contributes to the betterment of society.

Moreover, why are you disparaging people who do not have extensive formal training? Plumbers tend to not be extremely educated, yet their contribution to maintaining high standards of hygiene and fending off infectious diseases is indisputable. Many people about whom you will never hear a word toil and sweat so that the widespread comfort of modern life is possible. I don't see how anyone could consider that any of this is not a valuable contribution.

Finally, do you seriously think educated people never are conservatives? The conservatives you have in your head are a caricature and as long as you keep trying to paint them as a caricature, no one will not take you seriously.
 
TheEconomist said:
Saying they do nothing right...
Click to expand...
That is true, but since I said nothing like that what is your point?

Moreover, why are you disparaging people who do not have extensive formal training?
Click to expand...
If I am disparaging someone with little training it is so because with that little training, they should stick to the little they know and not pretend to have answers in areas that is way beyond their capability. It seems that you also lack some reading skills, as you art making a blanket baseless accusation

Plumbers tend to not be extremely educated
Click to expand...
Actually I know many that are and clearly you know nothing about plumbing

Finally, do you seriously think educated people never are conservatives?
Click to expand...
Where did I say that? You really need to be able to read in context, to be taken seriously.
 
TheEconomist said:
Finally, do you seriously think educated people never are conservatives? The conservatives you have in your head are a caricature and as long as you keep trying to paint them as a caricature, no one will not take you seriously.
Click to expand...

It is because if they do not agree with them, they must by default be stupid. Obviously one who equated intelligence with how much they agree with them.

prometeus said:
If I am disparaging someone with little training it is so because with that little training, they should stick to the little they know and not pretend to have answers in areas that is way beyond their capability.
Click to expand...

Ahhh, in other words peasants and peons STFU, and do whatever it is you say.

Sorry, that is not how it works in this country. And what if the individual happens to have more training, can they then tell you to shut up, and not to meddle in things beyond your capacity?

Yea, am not surprised at this. Simply belittling anybody that you see as inferior. And of course that is purely based upon your own beliefs and nothing else.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom