It's infuriating that you treat a wealth tax as if it were some horrific, unfair burden while characterizing the bottom half of society lacking money to achieve their goals as some sort of minor inconvenience.
Here's a fundamental problem with all these arguments:
For most of them to work, they depend on the idea that what is stopping everyone/"everyone" from going to university right now is cost. This suggests both a massive injustice being perpetrated on qualifying but poor children and a massive loss of economic potential for the US, in that it's leaving a ton of potential productive workers for an advanced economy behind.
If on the other hand the limiting factor here is both cost and meeting admissions requirements, then all you are doing by making university free is stopping people who could attend university if they could afford it from being blocked from attending university.
As far as I can tell skimming through both Sanders' and Warren's plans, both of them are basically about:
- cancelling student debt
- making some amount of college free
- introducing programs to reduce inequality in the admissions process
None of this seems to support the idea that suddenly EVERYONE will go to college once this is implemented unless, again, the only limiting factor in people not going to college right now is cost.
Right. It's a giveaway to the people already best positioned to succeed in every way but money (and also the ones with money), and offers nothing if you can't for whatever reason grind out a degree. Synd said it best earlier - it's not a solution to the actual problem.
Ideas to stop degree inflation and teach people trades would be very welcome amongst the Free Money Now! plans.
I'm not sure what it's not solving or what the "actual problem" is here that it's not solving.
Or frankly what "best positioned to succeed in every way but money" even means? "Educational opportunities will only benefit people interested in getting an education" seems like a poor and incoherent criticism and yet the only way to interpret that.
Educational opportunities will only benefit people capable of getting an education.
I've got a son who full-stop can't do it, a son who disintegrated in the process of trying, and a daughter who succeeded. This plan helps one a lot, one a bit, and one not at all. So I guess fuck him?
It's infuriating that you treat a wealth tax as if it were some horrific, unfair burden while characterizing the bottom half of society lacking money to achieve their goals as some sort of minor inconvenience.
Man that is horseshit and has been this whole time. Come on.
You know what's really infuriating? People who think anything but free universal healthcare is unacceptable, but are happy to sign on to the free college train even though all the plans are half measures that don't fix core issues.
Giveaways are great vote-getters and I'm sure it'll help a lot of people. It'll put me in a great spot assuming I don't, as usual, get screwed because I borrowed money for someone else rather than them doing it themselves. A degree in every pot and all that.
Jeffe, Synd, and others have raised objections better than I have.
Free public college isn't a giveaway any more than free K-12. Much like free universal healthcare, pretty much every other first world country pulls it off just fine, Warren and Sanders are right to push for it.
Here's a fundamental problem with all these arguments:
For most of them to work, they depend on the idea that what is stopping everyone/"everyone" from going to university right now is cost. This suggests both a massive injustice being perpetrated on qualifying but poor children and a massive loss of economic potential for the US, in that it's leaving a ton of potential productive workers for an advanced economy behind.
If on the other hand the limiting factor here is both cost and meeting admissions requirements, then all you are doing by making university free is stopping people who could attend university if they could afford it from being blocked from attending university.
As far as I can tell skimming through both Sanders' and Warren's plans, both of them are basically about:
- cancelling student debt
- making some amount of college free
- introducing programs to reduce inequality in the admissions process
None of this seems to support the idea that suddenly EVERYONE will go to college once this is implemented unless, again, the only limiting factor in people not going to college right now is cost.
Right. It's a giveaway to the people already best positioned to succeed in every way but money (and also the ones with money), and offers nothing if you can't for whatever reason grind out a degree. Synd said it best earlier - it's not a solution to the actual problem.
Ideas to stop degree inflation and teach people trades would be very welcome amongst the Free Money Now! plans.
I'm not sure what it's not solving or what the "actual problem" is here that it's not solving.
Or frankly what "best positioned to succeed in every way but money" even means? "Educational opportunities will only benefit people interested in getting an education" seems like a poor and incoherent criticism and yet the only way to interpret that.
Educational opportunities will only benefit people capable of getting an education.
I've got a son who full-stop can't do it, a son who disintegrated in the process of trying, and a daughter who succeeded. This plan helps one a lot, one a bit, and one not at all. So I guess fuck him?
Again, this is like complaining free college doesn't solve the immigration crisis or global warming too.
It is by definition a plan designed to help all the people for whom the cost of education is a bar to their ability to access it. Because the current system is failing people who can't find a way to pay for school they could otherwise attend and financially retarding people who can but end up saddled with massive debt afterward.
You want to characterize this as a "giveaway". As if the poor kid who can't afford to go to university is some fucking fat cat riding high on their ... poorness?
Here's a fundamental problem with all these arguments:
For most of them to work, they depend on the idea that what is stopping everyone/"everyone" from going to university right now is cost. This suggests both a massive injustice being perpetrated on qualifying but poor children and a massive loss of economic potential for the US, in that it's leaving a ton of potential productive workers for an advanced economy behind.
If on the other hand the limiting factor here is both cost and meeting admissions requirements, then all you are doing by making university free is stopping people who could attend university if they could afford it from being blocked from attending university.
As far as I can tell skimming through both Sanders' and Warren's plans, both of them are basically about:
- cancelling student debt
- making some amount of college free
- introducing programs to reduce inequality in the admissions process
None of this seems to support the idea that suddenly EVERYONE will go to college once this is implemented unless, again, the only limiting factor in people not going to college right now is cost.
Right. It's a giveaway to the people already best positioned to succeed in every way but money (and also the ones with money), and offers nothing if you can't for whatever reason grind out a degree. Synd said it best earlier - it's not a solution to the actual problem.
Ideas to stop degree inflation and teach people trades would be very welcome amongst the Free Money Now! plans.
I'm not sure what it's not solving or what the "actual problem" is here that it's not solving.
Or frankly what "best positioned to succeed in every way but money" even means? "Educational opportunities will only benefit people interested in getting an education" seems like a poor and incoherent criticism and yet the only way to interpret that.
Educational opportunities will only benefit people capable of getting an education.
I've got a son who full-stop can't do it, a son who disintegrated in the process of trying, and a daughter who succeeded. This plan helps one a lot, one a bit, and one not at all. So I guess fuck him?
Again, this is like complaining free college doesn't solve the immigration crisis or global warming too.
It is by definition a plan designed to help all the people for whom the cost of education is a bar to their ability to access it. Because the current system is failing people who can't find a way to pay for school they could otherwise attend and financially retarding people who can but end up saddled with massive debt afterward.
You want to characterize this as a "giveaway". As if the poor kid who can't afford to go to university is some fucking fat cat riding high on their ... poorness?
The current system is failing people by demanding they get a degree at all. Without fixing that bit, it just feeds the problem and fucks your grandkids. We're OK Boomering ourselves!
And it's a better look to just own it rather than cloaking yourself in morality. It's a giveaway! It's a gift, gratis, free college c/o the USA.
I'm for free college for everyone because then we would have an educated public that would hopefully not vote for petty, lying, orange racist. It would also have knock on effects for so many other problems. UBI, vaccines, automation, climate change, etc. would be so much more solvable with a population that is more able to think.
Free college for everyone with mandated civics and critical thinking courses. My god, it would be beautiful.
Here's a fundamental problem with all these arguments:
For most of them to work, they depend on the idea that what is stopping everyone/"everyone" from going to university right now is cost. This suggests both a massive injustice being perpetrated on qualifying but poor children and a massive loss of economic potential for the US, in that it's leaving a ton of potential productive workers for an advanced economy behind.
If on the other hand the limiting factor here is both cost and meeting admissions requirements, then all you are doing by making university free is stopping people who could attend university if they could afford it from being blocked from attending university.
As far as I can tell skimming through both Sanders' and Warren's plans, both of them are basically about:
- cancelling student debt
- making some amount of college free
- introducing programs to reduce inequality in the admissions process
None of this seems to support the idea that suddenly EVERYONE will go to college once this is implemented unless, again, the only limiting factor in people not going to college right now is cost.
Right. It's a giveaway to the people already best positioned to succeed in every way but money (and also the ones with money), and offers nothing if you can't for whatever reason grind out a degree. Synd said it best earlier - it's not a solution to the actual problem.
Ideas to stop degree inflation and teach people trades would be very welcome amongst the Free Money Now! plans.
I'm not sure what it's not solving or what the "actual problem" is here that it's not solving.
Or frankly what "best positioned to succeed in every way but money" even means? "Educational opportunities will only benefit people interested in getting an education" seems like a poor and incoherent criticism and yet the only way to interpret that.
Educational opportunities will only benefit people capable of getting an education.
I've got a son who full-stop can't do it, a son who disintegrated in the process of trying, and a daughter who succeeded. This plan helps one a lot, one a bit, and one not at all. So I guess fuck him?
Again, this is like complaining free college doesn't solve the immigration crisis or global warming too.
It is by definition a plan designed to help all the people for whom the cost of education is a bar to their ability to access it. Because the current system is failing people who can't find a way to pay for school they could otherwise attend and financially retarding people who can but end up saddled with massive debt afterward.
You want to characterize this as a "giveaway". As if the poor kid who can't afford to go to university is some fucking fat cat riding high on their ... poorness?
The current system is failing people by demanding they get a degree at all. Without fixing that bit, it just feeds the problem and fucks your grandkids. We're OK Boomering ourselves!
And it's a better look to just own it rather than cloaking yourself in morality. It's a giveaway! It's a gift, gratis, free college c/o the USA.
I mean Sanders wants to massively increase unionization, raise minimum wage, expand safety nets etc its not like hes telling people who cant go to college to go fuck themselves.
Was having a conversation with a girl in my fifth hour who cannot afford the school she wants to go to. So some of this is pretty surreal.
If the issue is affordability rather than ideological, tuition free college is an inferior way to address this unless you assume she can afford living costs but not tuition, she wants to go to a public university and that a federal loan program would disqualify her for some reason. That's my point. She would have access to the college and if things go well she would pay for some of it if and when she benefited
I had a free tuition and fees my freshmen year at a state school but housing, food etc was not trivial. If you had a large s cale federal loan program that would let people pay for those expenses and pay them back based on their income she would almost certainly benefit more in the short run and if it meant she became affluent she would then pay more to society, which is also good.
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
It’s entirely possible to believe that many jobs should not require a college degree and that everybody who wants to should go to college for their own edification as a human being and for the good of society.
I'm for free college for everyone because then we would have an educated public that would hopefully not vote for petty, lying, orange racist. It would also have knock on effects for so many other problems. UBI, vaccines, automation, climate change, etc. would be so much more solvable with a population that is more able to think.
Free college for everyone with mandated civics and critical thinking courses. My god, it would be beautiful.
Free College as govt indoctrination into a progressive political mindset is probably the worst possible argument for it, don't say that out loud!!
better primary education would help people who aren't going to college no matter how free it is due to some factors common in poor people
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Was having a conversation with a girl in my fifth hour who cannot afford the school she wants to go to. So some of this is pretty surreal.
If the issue is affordability rather than ideological, tuition free college is an inferior way to address this unless you assume she can afford living costs but not tuition, she wants to go to a public university and that a federal loan program would disqualify her for some reason. That's my point. She would have access to the college and if things go well she would pay for some of it if and when she benefited
I had a free tuition and fees my freshmen year at a state school but housing, food etc was not trivial. If you had a large s cale federal loan program that would let people pay for those expenses and pay them back based on their income she would almost certainly benefit more in the short run and if it meant she became affluent she would then pay more to society, which is also good.
Maybe cut out the middle steps and just tax the affluent and dont try to claw back every dollar we spend on workers
better primary education would help people who aren't going to college no matter how free it is due to some factors common in poor people
Toddlers don't vote and can't organize for shit, it'll never fly.
primary and secondary education then
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Here's a fundamental problem with all these arguments:
For most of them to work, they depend on the idea that what is stopping everyone/"everyone" from going to university right now is cost. This suggests both a massive injustice being perpetrated on qualifying but poor children and a massive loss of economic potential for the US, in that it's leaving a ton of potential productive workers for an advanced economy behind.
If on the other hand the limiting factor here is both cost and meeting admissions requirements, then all you are doing by making university free is stopping people who could attend university if they could afford it from being blocked from attending university.
As far as I can tell skimming through both Sanders' and Warren's plans, both of them are basically about:
- cancelling student debt
- making some amount of college free
- introducing programs to reduce inequality in the admissions process
None of this seems to support the idea that suddenly EVERYONE will go to college once this is implemented unless, again, the only limiting factor in people not going to college right now is cost.
Right. It's a giveaway to the people already best positioned to succeed in every way but money (and also the ones with money), and offers nothing if you can't for whatever reason grind out a degree. Synd said it best earlier - it's not a solution to the actual problem.
Ideas to stop degree inflation and teach people trades would be very welcome amongst the Free Money Now! plans.
I'm not sure what it's not solving or what the "actual problem" is here that it's not solving.
Or frankly what "best positioned to succeed in every way but money" even means? "Educational opportunities will only benefit people interested in getting an education" seems like a poor and incoherent criticism and yet the only way to interpret that.
Educational opportunities will only benefit people capable of getting an education.
I've got a son who full-stop can't do it, a son who disintegrated in the process of trying, and a daughter who succeeded. This plan helps one a lot, one a bit, and one not at all. So I guess fuck him?
Again, this is like complaining free college doesn't solve the immigration crisis or global warming too.
It is by definition a plan designed to help all the people for whom the cost of education is a bar to their ability to access it. Because the current system is failing people who can't find a way to pay for school they could otherwise attend and financially retarding people who can but end up saddled with massive debt afterward.
You want to characterize this as a "giveaway". As if the poor kid who can't afford to go to university is some fucking fat cat riding high on their ... poorness?
The current system is failing people by demanding they get a degree at all. Without fixing that bit, it just feeds the problem and fucks your grandkids. We're OK Boomering ourselves!
And it's a better look to just own it rather than cloaking yourself in morality. It's a giveaway! It's a gift, gratis, free college c/o the USA.
It's no different than demanding a high school degree. Lots of jobs require it, many of them don't really need it. We're all better as individuals and a society by letting people do it if they so choose regardless of their financial circumstances. You may as well be someone in the 1870's lamenting high school as a wasteful giveaway when all it's going to do is cause businesses to expect high school diplomas.
I'm for free college for everyone because then we would have an educated public that would hopefully not vote for petty, lying, orange racist. It would also have knock on effects for so many other problems. UBI, vaccines, automation, climate change, etc. would be so much more solvable with a population that is more able to think.
Free college for everyone with mandated civics and critical thinking courses. My god, it would be beautiful.
Free College as govt indoctrination into a progressive political mindset is probably the worst possible argument for it, don't say that out loud!!
It's not really a good idea to try to find a middle ground between training people to make good decisions and ensuring people will make bad decisions.
Here's a fundamental problem with all these arguments:
For most of them to work, they depend on the idea that what is stopping everyone/"everyone" from going to university right now is cost. This suggests both a massive injustice being perpetrated on qualifying but poor children and a massive loss of economic potential for the US, in that it's leaving a ton of potential productive workers for an advanced economy behind.
If on the other hand the limiting factor here is both cost and meeting admissions requirements, then all you are doing by making university free is stopping people who could attend university if they could afford it from being blocked from attending university.
As far as I can tell skimming through both Sanders' and Warren's plans, both of them are basically about:
- cancelling student debt
- making some amount of college free
- introducing programs to reduce inequality in the admissions process
None of this seems to support the idea that suddenly EVERYONE will go to college once this is implemented unless, again, the only limiting factor in people not going to college right now is cost.
Right. It's a giveaway to the people already best positioned to succeed in every way but money (and also the ones with money), and offers nothing if you can't for whatever reason grind out a degree. Synd said it best earlier - it's not a solution to the actual problem.
Ideas to stop degree inflation and teach people trades would be very welcome amongst the Free Money Now! plans.
I'm not sure what it's not solving or what the "actual problem" is here that it's not solving.
Or frankly what "best positioned to succeed in every way but money" even means? "Educational opportunities will only benefit people interested in getting an education" seems like a poor and incoherent criticism and yet the only way to interpret that.
Educational opportunities will only benefit people capable of getting an education.
I've got a son who full-stop can't do it, a son who disintegrated in the process of trying, and a daughter who succeeded. This plan helps one a lot, one a bit, and one not at all. So I guess fuck him?
Again, this is like complaining free college doesn't solve the immigration crisis or global warming too.
It is by definition a plan designed to help all the people for whom the cost of education is a bar to their ability to access it. Because the current system is failing people who can't find a way to pay for school they could otherwise attend and financially retarding people who can but end up saddled with massive debt afterward.
You want to characterize this as a "giveaway". As if the poor kid who can't afford to go to university is some fucking fat cat riding high on their ... poorness?
The current system is failing people by demanding they get a degree at all. Without fixing that bit, it just feeds the problem and fucks your grandkids. We're OK Boomering ourselves!
And it's a better look to just own it rather than cloaking yourself in morality. It's a giveaway! It's a gift, gratis, free college c/o the USA.
It's no different than demanding a high school degree. Lots of jobs require it, many of them don't really need it. We're all better as individuals and a society by letting people do it if they so choose regardless of their financial circumstances. You may as well be someone in the 1870's lamenting high school as a wasteful giveaway when all it's going to do is cause businesses to expect high school diplomas.
No, that is incorrect because high school education is clearly and obviously different than college. You can't make the argument that because we give the baseline for free, we should also give away the DLC. We have a marketplace where college education isn't necessary, but a college degree is. Giving away the degree doesn't solve the problem in the market - it just fucks your kids as they need to pay for a master's instead.
Here's a fundamental problem with all these arguments:
For most of them to work, they depend on the idea that what is stopping everyone/"everyone" from going to university right now is cost. This suggests both a massive injustice being perpetrated on qualifying but poor children and a massive loss of economic potential for the US, in that it's leaving a ton of potential productive workers for an advanced economy behind.
If on the other hand the limiting factor here is both cost and meeting admissions requirements, then all you are doing by making university free is stopping people who could attend university if they could afford it from being blocked from attending university.
As far as I can tell skimming through both Sanders' and Warren's plans, both of them are basically about:
- cancelling student debt
- making some amount of college free
- introducing programs to reduce inequality in the admissions process
None of this seems to support the idea that suddenly EVERYONE will go to college once this is implemented unless, again, the only limiting factor in people not going to college right now is cost.
Right. It's a giveaway to the people already best positioned to succeed in every way but money (and also the ones with money), and offers nothing if you can't for whatever reason grind out a degree. Synd said it best earlier - it's not a solution to the actual problem.
Ideas to stop degree inflation and teach people trades would be very welcome amongst the Free Money Now! plans.
I'm not sure what it's not solving or what the "actual problem" is here that it's not solving.
Or frankly what "best positioned to succeed in every way but money" even means? "Educational opportunities will only benefit people interested in getting an education" seems like a poor and incoherent criticism and yet the only way to interpret that.
Educational opportunities will only benefit people capable of getting an education.
I've got a son who full-stop can't do it, a son who disintegrated in the process of trying, and a daughter who succeeded. This plan helps one a lot, one a bit, and one not at all. So I guess fuck him?
Again, this is like complaining free college doesn't solve the immigration crisis or global warming too.
It is by definition a plan designed to help all the people for whom the cost of education is a bar to their ability to access it. Because the current system is failing people who can't find a way to pay for school they could otherwise attend and financially retarding people who can but end up saddled with massive debt afterward.
You want to characterize this as a "giveaway". As if the poor kid who can't afford to go to university is some fucking fat cat riding high on their ... poorness?
The current system is failing people by demanding they get a degree at all. Without fixing that bit, it just feeds the problem and fucks your grandkids. We're OK Boomering ourselves!
And it's a better look to just own it rather than cloaking yourself in morality. It's a giveaway! It's a gift, gratis, free college c/o the USA.
It's no different than demanding a high school degree. Lots of jobs require it, many of them don't really need it. We're all better as individuals and a society by letting people do it if they so choose regardless of their financial circumstances. You may as well be someone in the 1870's lamenting high school as a wasteful giveaway when all it's going to do is cause businesses to expect high school diplomas.
No, that is incorrect because high school education is clearly and obviously different than college. You can't make the argument that because we give the baseline for free, we should also give away the DLC. We have a marketplace where college education isn't necessary, but a college degree is. Giving away the degree doesn't solve the problem in the market - it just fucks your kids as they need to pay for a master's instead.
Here's a fundamental problem with all these arguments:
For most of them to work, they depend on the idea that what is stopping everyone/"everyone" from going to university right now is cost. This suggests both a massive injustice being perpetrated on qualifying but poor children and a massive loss of economic potential for the US, in that it's leaving a ton of potential productive workers for an advanced economy behind.
If on the other hand the limiting factor here is both cost and meeting admissions requirements, then all you are doing by making university free is stopping people who could attend university if they could afford it from being blocked from attending university.
As far as I can tell skimming through both Sanders' and Warren's plans, both of them are basically about:
- cancelling student debt
- making some amount of college free
- introducing programs to reduce inequality in the admissions process
None of this seems to support the idea that suddenly EVERYONE will go to college once this is implemented unless, again, the only limiting factor in people not going to college right now is cost.
Right. It's a giveaway to the people already best positioned to succeed in every way but money (and also the ones with money), and offers nothing if you can't for whatever reason grind out a degree. Synd said it best earlier - it's not a solution to the actual problem.
Ideas to stop degree inflation and teach people trades would be very welcome amongst the Free Money Now! plans.
I'm not sure what it's not solving or what the "actual problem" is here that it's not solving.
Or frankly what "best positioned to succeed in every way but money" even means? "Educational opportunities will only benefit people interested in getting an education" seems like a poor and incoherent criticism and yet the only way to interpret that.
Educational opportunities will only benefit people capable of getting an education.
I've got a son who full-stop can't do it, a son who disintegrated in the process of trying, and a daughter who succeeded. This plan helps one a lot, one a bit, and one not at all. So I guess fuck him?
Again, this is like complaining free college doesn't solve the immigration crisis or global warming too.
It is by definition a plan designed to help all the people for whom the cost of education is a bar to their ability to access it. Because the current system is failing people who can't find a way to pay for school they could otherwise attend and financially retarding people who can but end up saddled with massive debt afterward.
You want to characterize this as a "giveaway". As if the poor kid who can't afford to go to university is some fucking fat cat riding high on their ... poorness?
The current system is failing people by demanding they get a degree at all. Without fixing that bit, it just feeds the problem and fucks your grandkids. We're OK Boomering ourselves!
And it's a better look to just own it rather than cloaking yourself in morality. It's a giveaway! It's a gift, gratis, free college c/o the USA.
It's no different than demanding a high school degree. Lots of jobs require it, many of them don't really need it. We're all better as individuals and a society by letting people do it if they so choose regardless of their financial circumstances. You may as well be someone in the 1870's lamenting high school as a wasteful giveaway when all it's going to do is cause businesses to expect high school diplomas.
No, that is incorrect because high school education is clearly and obviously different than college. You can't make the argument that because we give the baseline for free, we should also give away the DLC. We have a marketplace where college education is necessary, but a college degree is. Giving away the degree doesn't solve the problem in the market - it just fucks your kids as they need to pay for a master's instead.
Yes, it is different. High school is also not the baseline and different from elementary school.
You're making literally identical arguments to those who were against public high school. In the late 1800's conservatives railed against just giving away high school education and lamented the glut of diplomas it would create.
Besides, I'm all for providing people free education up to a doctorate if they so choose, so your last point doesn't mean much. More just an admission that society's standards are rising and you're opposed to it.
Here's a fundamental problem with all these arguments:
For most of them to work, they depend on the idea that what is stopping everyone/"everyone" from going to university right now is cost. This suggests both a massive injustice being perpetrated on qualifying but poor children and a massive loss of economic potential for the US, in that it's leaving a ton of potential productive workers for an advanced economy behind.
If on the other hand the limiting factor here is both cost and meeting admissions requirements, then all you are doing by making university free is stopping people who could attend university if they could afford it from being blocked from attending university.
As far as I can tell skimming through both Sanders' and Warren's plans, both of them are basically about:
- cancelling student debt
- making some amount of college free
- introducing programs to reduce inequality in the admissions process
None of this seems to support the idea that suddenly EVERYONE will go to college once this is implemented unless, again, the only limiting factor in people not going to college right now is cost.
Right. It's a giveaway to the people already best positioned to succeed in every way but money (and also the ones with money), and offers nothing if you can't for whatever reason grind out a degree. Synd said it best earlier - it's not a solution to the actual problem.
Ideas to stop degree inflation and teach people trades would be very welcome amongst the Free Money Now! plans.
I'm not sure what it's not solving or what the "actual problem" is here that it's not solving.
Or frankly what "best positioned to succeed in every way but money" even means? "Educational opportunities will only benefit people interested in getting an education" seems like a poor and incoherent criticism and yet the only way to interpret that.
Educational opportunities will only benefit people capable of getting an education.
I've got a son who full-stop can't do it, a son who disintegrated in the process of trying, and a daughter who succeeded. This plan helps one a lot, one a bit, and one not at all. So I guess fuck him?
Again, this is like complaining free college doesn't solve the immigration crisis or global warming too.
It is by definition a plan designed to help all the people for whom the cost of education is a bar to their ability to access it. Because the current system is failing people who can't find a way to pay for school they could otherwise attend and financially retarding people who can but end up saddled with massive debt afterward.
You want to characterize this as a "giveaway". As if the poor kid who can't afford to go to university is some fucking fat cat riding high on their ... poorness?
The current system is failing people by demanding they get a degree at all. Without fixing that bit, it just feeds the problem and fucks your grandkids. We're OK Boomering ourselves!
While I think free college is ultimately a good thing, there is some truth to what you say. I think the attractiveness of free college is that it would solve the problems of extreme income disparity, severe lack of options for upward mobility, things like that. Thing is, it wouldn't. We ultimately need to disassociate employment from worthiness, money from value. That's not something my country is ready to tackle. Sanders and Yang show that we're getting closer, but we're not there yet.
And it's a better look to just own it rather than cloaking yourself in morality. It's a giveaway! It's a gift, gratis, free college c/o the USA.
Eh, I'd say it's an investment by society. "Free" college means more people to do specialized and highly valuable labor, more people pay taxes, and in general make society better.
And please don't use trivilializing phrases like "cloaking yourself in morality" spool. I know you're prone to cynicism, but most of us genuinely believe the things we're saying.
the fun thing about living in a society is that even if you, as an individual, are for whatever reason not capable of going to school, you still benefit from the people around you being more educated
I grew up in a country with free college education (I.e no tuition). The degree creep some people have claimed as a guaranteed outcome haven’t happened yet.
And please don't use trivilializing phrases like "cloaking yourself in morality" spool. I know you're prone to cynicism, but most of us genuinely believe the things we're saying.
true, and it's rude af of me. Apologies.
I'm gonna leave off because I'm driving us wildly offtopic here. I just want to wrap this back by saying that I wish the candidates were looking to solve systemic issues in this realm, and in particular Bernie's plan feels like a bandaid designed to reap votes rather than an honest attempt at a solution.
I grew up in a country with free college education (I.e no tuition). The degree creep some people have claimed as a guaranteed outcome haven’t happened yet.
It does exist already but in the sense that as society develops, automation increases, and median wealth rises, people are going to have increased opportunities to improve themselves.
Like, if the worst case scenario is 40 years down the line a master's becomes the new baseline much like a bachelor's has now, I'm cool with that.
Here's a fundamental problem with all these arguments:
For most of them to work, they depend on the idea that what is stopping everyone/"everyone" from going to university right now is cost. This suggests both a massive injustice being perpetrated on qualifying but poor children and a massive loss of economic potential for the US, in that it's leaving a ton of potential productive workers for an advanced economy behind.
If on the other hand the limiting factor here is both cost and meeting admissions requirements, then all you are doing by making university free is stopping people who could attend university if they could afford it from being blocked from attending university.
As far as I can tell skimming through both Sanders' and Warren's plans, both of them are basically about:
- cancelling student debt
- making some amount of college free
- introducing programs to reduce inequality in the admissions process
None of this seems to support the idea that suddenly EVERYONE will go to college once this is implemented unless, again, the only limiting factor in people not going to college right now is cost.
Right. It's a giveaway to the people already best positioned to succeed in every way but money (and also the ones with money), and offers nothing if you can't for whatever reason grind out a degree. Synd said it best earlier - it's not a solution to the actual problem.
Ideas to stop degree inflation and teach people trades would be very welcome amongst the Free Money Now! plans.
I'm not sure what it's not solving or what the "actual problem" is here that it's not solving.
Or frankly what "best positioned to succeed in every way but money" even means? "Educational opportunities will only benefit people interested in getting an education" seems like a poor and incoherent criticism and yet the only way to interpret that.
Educational opportunities will only benefit people capable of getting an education.
I've got a son who full-stop can't do it, a son who disintegrated in the process of trying, and a daughter who succeeded. This plan helps one a lot, one a bit, and one not at all. So I guess fuck him?
Again, this is like complaining free college doesn't solve the immigration crisis or global warming too.
It is by definition a plan designed to help all the people for whom the cost of education is a bar to their ability to access it. Because the current system is failing people who can't find a way to pay for school they could otherwise attend and financially retarding people who can but end up saddled with massive debt afterward.
You want to characterize this as a "giveaway". As if the poor kid who can't afford to go to university is some fucking fat cat riding high on their ... poorness?
The current system is failing people by demanding they get a degree at all. Without fixing that bit, it just feeds the problem and fucks your grandkids. We're OK Boomering ourselves!
And it's a better look to just own it rather than cloaking yourself in morality. It's a giveaway! It's a gift, gratis, free college c/o the USA.
It's no different than demanding a high school degree. Lots of jobs require it, many of them don't really need it. We're all better as individuals and a society by letting people do it if they so choose regardless of their financial circumstances. You may as well be someone in the 1870's lamenting high school as a wasteful giveaway when all it's going to do is cause businesses to expect high school diplomas.
No, that is incorrect because high school education is clearly and obviously different than college. You can't make the argument that because we give the baseline for free, we should also give away the DLC. We have a marketplace where college education is necessary, but a college degree is. Giving away the degree doesn't solve the problem in the market - it just fucks your kids as they need to pay for a master's instead.
Yes, it is different. High school is also not the baseline and different from elementary school.
You're making literally identical arguments to those who were against public high school. In the late 1800's conservatives railed against just giving away high school education and lamented the glut of diplomas it would create.
Besides, I'm all for providing people free education up to a doctorate if they so choose, so your last point doesn't mean much. More just an admission that society's standards are rising and you're opposed to it.
Were they wrong? Cause it seems at least plausible that they were right on that one particular point. As more people got high school diplomas, more jobs starting requiring them. We've definitely seen it happen with college diplomas.
To tie this back to the primary, it would be nice for the candidates to acknowledge the potential downsides of free college. I think it's a good idea but feel reassured when someone discusses the totality of their plans, warts and all.
Here's a fundamental problem with all these arguments:
For most of them to work, they depend on the idea that what is stopping everyone/"everyone" from going to university right now is cost. This suggests both a massive injustice being perpetrated on qualifying but poor children and a massive loss of economic potential for the US, in that it's leaving a ton of potential productive workers for an advanced economy behind.
If on the other hand the limiting factor here is both cost and meeting admissions requirements, then all you are doing by making university free is stopping people who could attend university if they could afford it from being blocked from attending university.
As far as I can tell skimming through both Sanders' and Warren's plans, both of them are basically about:
- cancelling student debt
- making some amount of college free
- introducing programs to reduce inequality in the admissions process
None of this seems to support the idea that suddenly EVERYONE will go to college once this is implemented unless, again, the only limiting factor in people not going to college right now is cost.
Right. It's a giveaway to the people already best positioned to succeed in every way but money (and also the ones with money), and offers nothing if you can't for whatever reason grind out a degree. Synd said it best earlier - it's not a solution to the actual problem.
Ideas to stop degree inflation and teach people trades would be very welcome amongst the Free Money Now! plans.
I'm not sure what it's not solving or what the "actual problem" is here that it's not solving.
Or frankly what "best positioned to succeed in every way but money" even means? "Educational opportunities will only benefit people interested in getting an education" seems like a poor and incoherent criticism and yet the only way to interpret that.
Educational opportunities will only benefit people capable of getting an education.
I've got a son who full-stop can't do it, a son who disintegrated in the process of trying, and a daughter who succeeded. This plan helps one a lot, one a bit, and one not at all. So I guess fuck him?
Again, this is like complaining free college doesn't solve the immigration crisis or global warming too.
It is by definition a plan designed to help all the people for whom the cost of education is a bar to their ability to access it. Because the current system is failing people who can't find a way to pay for school they could otherwise attend and financially retarding people who can but end up saddled with massive debt afterward.
You want to characterize this as a "giveaway". As if the poor kid who can't afford to go to university is some fucking fat cat riding high on their ... poorness?
The current system is failing people by demanding they get a degree at all. Without fixing that bit, it just feeds the problem and fucks your grandkids. We're OK Boomering ourselves!
And it's a better look to just own it rather than cloaking yourself in morality. It's a giveaway! It's a gift, gratis, free college c/o the USA.
It's no different than demanding a high school degree. Lots of jobs require it, many of them don't really need it. We're all better as individuals and a society by letting people do it if they so choose regardless of their financial circumstances. You may as well be someone in the 1870's lamenting high school as a wasteful giveaway when all it's going to do is cause businesses to expect high school diplomas.
No, that is incorrect because high school education is clearly and obviously different than college. You can't make the argument that because we give the baseline for free, we should also give away the DLC. We have a marketplace where college education is necessary, but a college degree is. Giving away the degree doesn't solve the problem in the market - it just fucks your kids as they need to pay for a master's instead.
Yes, it is different. High school is also not the baseline and different from elementary school.
You're making literally identical arguments to those who were against public high school. In the late 1800's conservatives railed against just giving away high school education and lamented the glut of diplomas it would create.
Besides, I'm all for providing people free education up to a doctorate if they so choose, so your last point doesn't mean much. More just an admission that society's standards are rising and you're opposed to it.
Were they wrong? Cause it seems at least plausible that they were right on that one particular point. As more people got high school diplomas, more jobs starting requiring them. We've definitely seen it happen with college diplomas.
To tie this back to the primary, it would be nice for the candidates to acknowledge the potential downsides of free college. I think it's a good idea but feel reassured when someone discusses the totality of their plans, warts and all.
They were absolutely wrong that it would be an actual problem. I consider the near ubiquitous existence of high school degrees to be a positive for society and don't understand why anyone would contend associate's and bachelor's wouldn't be as well.
The more realistic worst case scenario is professional shortages as people can't afford to spend 6 years in training separate from a guaranteed job offer.
I don't think colleges are overall terribly good at giving the subpopulation who has difficulty thriving in a college environment / bad stuff happening at home that they can't escape a good career. It's easier to drop out of college than high school - a whole heck of a lot easier, making the investment risk higher.
If we have enough money from the wealth tax or whatever to fund free college, fund it. I think that the dollar value of improving pre-college education is just better though
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
+1
Options
ceresWhen the last moon is cast over the last star of morningAnd the future has past without even a last desperate warningRegistered User, Moderatormod
Get back on topic now.
And it seems like all is dying, and would leave the world to mourn
better primary education would help people who aren't going to college no matter how free it is due to some factors common in poor people
Hey, guess who has plans for that too! Cause if you guessed "Both the major candidates that are also for free college" then you'd be right!
Free college is a policy to address one issue, not all issues. They have other policies to address other issues.
Both of the most left-wing candidates have fairly holistic views on education reform. I'm less familiar with Sanders but he is at least aware of and wants to deal with the situation on a broader level.
To try to wrangle us back on topic, the reason I prefer Warren is that she has a more comprehensive and holistic approach to solving societies problems while being more practical and realistic about the society she's trying to convince she is the best option. Bernie has a lot of very similar ideas, ideas that I like, but too often he talks about an uprising or wave of support that will overwhelm opposition and I don't see that happening at all.
Was having a conversation with a girl in my fifth hour who cannot afford the school she wants to go to. So some of this is pretty surreal.
If the issue is affordability rather than ideological, tuition free college is an inferior way to address this unless you assume she can afford living costs but not tuition, she wants to go to a public university and that a federal loan program would disqualify her for some reason. That's my point. She would have access to the college and if things go well she would pay for some of it if and when she benefited
I had a free tuition and fees my freshmen year at a state school but housing, food etc was not trivial. If you had a large s cale federal loan program that would let people pay for those expenses and pay them back based on their income she would almost certainly benefit more in the short run and if it meant she became affluent she would then pay more to society, which is also good.
But you have still yet to explain why the free college plan is inferior to loans. A loan compared to just free tuition does not effect someone's ability to go to school and then make money and then pay taxes back to society.
To try to wrangle us back on topic, the reason I prefer Warren is that she has a more comprehensive and holistic approach to solving societies problems while being more practical and realistic about the society she's trying to convince she is the best option. Bernie has a lot of very similar ideas, ideas that I like, but too often he talks about an uprising or wave of support that will overwhelm opposition and I don't see that happening at all.
Edited due to mod warning
The health care timeline she put forward the other week basically rules out single payer
To try to wrangle us back on topic, the reason I prefer Warren is that she has a more comprehensive and holistic approach to solving societies problems while being more practical and realistic about the society she's trying to convince she is the best option. Bernie has a lot of very similar ideas, ideas that I like, but too often he talks about an uprising or wave of support that will overwhelm opposition and I don't see that happening at all.
Edited due to mod warning
The health care timeline she put forward the other week basically rules out single payer
I don't see how. Her plan, as far as I understand it, is to pass a public option as fast as possible via budget reconciliation and then push for Medicare-For-All a few years later, once most people have switched over to the public option. That's the opposite of ruling it out.
Was having a conversation with a girl in my fifth hour who cannot afford the school she wants to go to. So some of this is pretty surreal.
If the issue is affordability rather than ideological, tuition free college is an inferior way to address this unless you assume she can afford living costs but not tuition, she wants to go to a public university and that a federal loan program would disqualify her for some reason. That's my point. She would have access to the college and if things go well she would pay for some of it if and when she benefited
I had a free tuition and fees my freshmen year at a state school but housing, food etc was not trivial. If you had a large s cale federal loan program that would let people pay for those expenses and pay them back based on their income she would almost certainly benefit more in the short run and if it meant she became affluent she would then pay more to society, which is also good.
But you have still yet to explain why the free college plan is inferior to loans. A loan compared to just free tuition does not effect someone's ability to go to school and then make money and then pay taxes back to society.
I have several times.
1 The barriers are not just the cost of college but costs involved with studying instead of working. Loans address this, free tuition - especially if limited to only public schools - does not.
2 The downside of loans is you have to pay them back. For people who are doing well that's entirely reasonable because their education provided a private benefit (or advantage) to them. For others it may not be. By indexing the repayment to a fixed term and percent of income you can allow those who are earning less or working in situations we wish to essentially subsidize to not be heavily burdened while essentially progressively taxing those who are earning more.
3 Free college programs only apply to state run public institutions. This creates a pretty clear delineation between private and public institutions and the former will appear superior in quality. Additionally you have to deal with state governments which are often shitty and undermining. A federal loan program applies to all universities and requires no middle man. And without bankruptcy protections for other loans, the levers on cost will be stronger than there would be on state governments.
4 It simply is more cost efficient. We shouldn't subsidize the affluent when it can be avoided. Every dollar spent on a guy who will be working on Wall Street next year could go to a teacher working on a Reservation. We don't know which student will be which so you have them pay for the program later at a rate that is affordable. And every dollar you get back from the college educated who make up almost the entire upper portions of economic society can pay for school lunches or fight climate change or fund PBS or pay for healthcare.
Tl;dr It better addresses the problems with college access due to economic hardship, is cheaper and is more just.
I know it is seen as a vote getter by Bernie and Warren but I think it hurts them among the people who they need
To try to wrangle us back on topic, the reason I prefer Warren is that she has a more comprehensive and holistic approach to solving societies problems while being more practical and realistic about the society she's trying to convince she is the best option. Bernie has a lot of very similar ideas, ideas that I like, but too often he talks about an uprising or wave of support that will overwhelm opposition and I don't see that happening at all.
Edited due to mod warning
it may or may not materialize when all is said and done
but it has to happen, basically. thinking you can right the ship now without building some kind of large, energized voter base that will keep coming out over the long term is nuts. advocating for good policy, sweeping policy, is the only way to get there.
Posts
It's infuriating that you treat a wealth tax as if it were some horrific, unfair burden while characterizing the bottom half of society lacking money to achieve their goals as some sort of minor inconvenience.
Educational opportunities will only benefit people capable of getting an education.
I've got a son who full-stop can't do it, a son who disintegrated in the process of trying, and a daughter who succeeded. This plan helps one a lot, one a bit, and one not at all. So I guess fuck him?
This is what I agree with:
https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/comment/41897990/#Comment_41897990
https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/comment/41898120/#Comment_41898120
Man that is horseshit and has been this whole time. Come on.
You know what's really infuriating? People who think anything but free universal healthcare is unacceptable, but are happy to sign on to the free college train even though all the plans are half measures that don't fix core issues.
Giveaways are great vote-getters and I'm sure it'll help a lot of people. It'll put me in a great spot assuming I don't, as usual, get screwed because I borrowed money for someone else rather than them doing it themselves. A degree in every pot and all that.
Jeffe, Synd, and others have raised objections better than I have.
Again, this is like complaining free college doesn't solve the immigration crisis or global warming too.
It is by definition a plan designed to help all the people for whom the cost of education is a bar to their ability to access it. Because the current system is failing people who can't find a way to pay for school they could otherwise attend and financially retarding people who can but end up saddled with massive debt afterward.
You want to characterize this as a "giveaway". As if the poor kid who can't afford to go to university is some fucking fat cat riding high on their ... poorness?
The current system is failing people by demanding they get a degree at all. Without fixing that bit, it just feeds the problem and fucks your grandkids. We're OK Boomering ourselves!
And it's a better look to just own it rather than cloaking yourself in morality. It's a giveaway! It's a gift, gratis, free college c/o the USA.
Free college for everyone with mandated civics and critical thinking courses. My god, it would be beautiful.
I mean Sanders wants to massively increase unionization, raise minimum wage, expand safety nets etc its not like hes telling people who cant go to college to go fuck themselves.
No bill or program can solve every problem.
If the issue is affordability rather than ideological, tuition free college is an inferior way to address this unless you assume she can afford living costs but not tuition, she wants to go to a public university and that a federal loan program would disqualify her for some reason. That's my point. She would have access to the college and if things go well she would pay for some of it if and when she benefited
I had a free tuition and fees my freshmen year at a state school but housing, food etc was not trivial. If you had a large s cale federal loan program that would let people pay for those expenses and pay them back based on their income she would almost certainly benefit more in the short run and if it meant she became affluent she would then pay more to society, which is also good.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
Free College as govt indoctrination into a progressive political mindset is probably the worst possible argument for it, don't say that out loud!!
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Maybe cut out the middle steps and just tax the affluent and dont try to claw back every dollar we spend on workers
Toddlers don't vote and can't organize for shit, it'll never fly.
primary and secondary education then
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
It's no different than demanding a high school degree. Lots of jobs require it, many of them don't really need it. We're all better as individuals and a society by letting people do it if they so choose regardless of their financial circumstances. You may as well be someone in the 1870's lamenting high school as a wasteful giveaway when all it's going to do is cause businesses to expect high school diplomas.
It's not really a good idea to try to find a middle ground between training people to make good decisions and ensuring people will make bad decisions.
No, that is incorrect because high school education is clearly and obviously different than college. You can't make the argument that because we give the baseline for free, we should also give away the DLC. We have a marketplace where college education isn't necessary, but a college degree is. Giving away the degree doesn't solve the problem in the market - it just fucks your kids as they need to pay for a master's instead.
Okay, make the master's free.
Yes, it is different. High school is also not the baseline and different from elementary school.
You're making literally identical arguments to those who were against public high school. In the late 1800's conservatives railed against just giving away high school education and lamented the glut of diplomas it would create.
Besides, I'm all for providing people free education up to a doctorate if they so choose, so your last point doesn't mean much. More just an admission that society's standards are rising and you're opposed to it.
I get to do mine for free! I may never actually use it!
I admit I'm biased here but I'm reaching the point where I feel like "just use military benefits as a baseline" seems like a really good idea.
Eh, I'd say it's an investment by society. "Free" college means more people to do specialized and highly valuable labor, more people pay taxes, and in general make society better.
true, and it's rude af of me. Apologies.
I'm gonna leave off because I'm driving us wildly offtopic here. I just want to wrap this back by saying that I wish the candidates were looking to solve systemic issues in this realm, and in particular Bernie's plan feels like a bandaid designed to reap votes rather than an honest attempt at a solution.
It does exist already but in the sense that as society develops, automation increases, and median wealth rises, people are going to have increased opportunities to improve themselves.
Like, if the worst case scenario is 40 years down the line a master's becomes the new baseline much like a bachelor's has now, I'm cool with that.
Were they wrong? Cause it seems at least plausible that they were right on that one particular point. As more people got high school diplomas, more jobs starting requiring them. We've definitely seen it happen with college diplomas.
To tie this back to the primary, it would be nice for the candidates to acknowledge the potential downsides of free college. I think it's a good idea but feel reassured when someone discusses the totality of their plans, warts and all.
They were absolutely wrong that it would be an actual problem. I consider the near ubiquitous existence of high school degrees to be a positive for society and don't understand why anyone would contend associate's and bachelor's wouldn't be as well.
I don't think colleges are overall terribly good at giving the subpopulation who has difficulty thriving in a college environment / bad stuff happening at home that they can't escape a good career. It's easier to drop out of college than high school - a whole heck of a lot easier, making the investment risk higher.
If we have enough money from the wealth tax or whatever to fund free college, fund it. I think that the dollar value of improving pre-college education is just better though
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Hey, guess who has plans for that too! Cause if you guessed "Both the major candidates that are also for free college" then you'd be right!
Free college is a policy to address one issue, not all issues. They have other policies to address other issues.
Both of the most left-wing candidates have fairly holistic views on education reform. I'm less familiar with Sanders but he is at least aware of and wants to deal with the situation on a broader level.
Edited due to mod warning
Warren's plan, btw, also addresses those outside costs.
https://medium.com/@teamwarren/im-calling-for-something-truly-transformational-universal-free-public-college-and-cancellation-of-a246cd0f910f
It's not like nobody knows the costs aren't just about tuition.
But you have still yet to explain why the free college plan is inferior to loans. A loan compared to just free tuition does not effect someone's ability to go to school and then make money and then pay taxes back to society.
The health care timeline she put forward the other week basically rules out single payer
I don't see how. Her plan, as far as I understand it, is to pass a public option as fast as possible via budget reconciliation and then push for Medicare-For-All a few years later, once most people have switched over to the public option. That's the opposite of ruling it out.
I have several times.
1 The barriers are not just the cost of college but costs involved with studying instead of working. Loans address this, free tuition - especially if limited to only public schools - does not.
2 The downside of loans is you have to pay them back. For people who are doing well that's entirely reasonable because their education provided a private benefit (or advantage) to them. For others it may not be. By indexing the repayment to a fixed term and percent of income you can allow those who are earning less or working in situations we wish to essentially subsidize to not be heavily burdened while essentially progressively taxing those who are earning more.
3 Free college programs only apply to state run public institutions. This creates a pretty clear delineation between private and public institutions and the former will appear superior in quality. Additionally you have to deal with state governments which are often shitty and undermining. A federal loan program applies to all universities and requires no middle man. And without bankruptcy protections for other loans, the levers on cost will be stronger than there would be on state governments.
4 It simply is more cost efficient. We shouldn't subsidize the affluent when it can be avoided. Every dollar spent on a guy who will be working on Wall Street next year could go to a teacher working on a Reservation. We don't know which student will be which so you have them pay for the program later at a rate that is affordable. And every dollar you get back from the college educated who make up almost the entire upper portions of economic society can pay for school lunches or fight climate change or fund PBS or pay for healthcare.
Tl;dr It better addresses the problems with college access due to economic hardship, is cheaper and is more just.
I know it is seen as a vote getter by Bernie and Warren but I think it hurts them among the people who they need
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
but it has to happen, basically. thinking you can right the ship now without building some kind of large, energized voter base that will keep coming out over the long term is nuts. advocating for good policy, sweeping policy, is the only way to get there.