From "Statista" here Total Post-secondary Tuition Costs: The Hillary-Bernie provision for a public post-secondary level education (for any family earning below the Average National Income of about $54K a year), was to assume the above stated costs for public state institutions only. How much would the above cost the US Secretary of Education budget? Who cares? A lot less than the DoD-budget of $640B. Nonetheless, from here the cost-estimate (by Bernie): Diminishing the DoD budget by $70B to compensate without any change in the total Discretionary Budget would mean a reduction of about 13%. Wow, just 13% of the DoD budget to send our kids annually to a tertiary-level educational program. That is, vocational, associate, bachelor, or doctorate levels. Moreover, if in Europe the cost covered is not 67% but in most countries close to 100%, who cares? Just what is it that we want? -A DoD that costs about 50% of the TOTAL NATIONAL DISCRETIONARY BUDGET, or -Slashing it to pay for post-secondary education that will assure 100% of our kids the competencies necessary for a decent salary and living standard? As well as a better chance for a better life in a better US of A ... PS: I frankly would not care one iota if the DoD-budget were slashed in half. I have no fear whatsoever that China will send us nuclear-bombs. What idiot-country would do that to their biggest trading-customer? As for Russia, ditto.
We're still deluded by this monetary game... In "the game" if you paid for everyone's education, demand would rise thus increasing price. If there some way to decouple monetary policy from a nation's interest... you might be able to do it...
The US could provide free tertiary education if it didn't have to pay the interest on its National Debt. Just something to consider. If you keep spending more money you don't have, eventually there'll have to be more cuts.
Yes govt is spending $8 trillion ($75,000 per family) most of it on welfare entitlement programs. If it worked we'd be fat and happy now instead liberals always want another Stalinist 5 year plan to correct the last one that did not work.
see why say liberalism is based in 100% pure ignorance? Idiot countries throughout human history have always started wars!!
This made me laugh, given its liberal political economy that gave us understanding of the military industrial complex and the tendency towards 'accidental' wars.
Quite right. It is a shame the American people don't understand that simple rule. And it aint Donald Dork who is going to change anything in the present budget-equation - except to (yet again) reduce upper-income taxation. Because, he says, that entices more investment by the super-rich. Yeah, right ...
So, do we not agree that banks giving out subprime mortgage loans to people with no possible way of paying the loan back was a bad thing and made the housing bubble because the government would back these loans up by government funds? So why the hell do we want to do the same thing for college loans which can't be repossessed, have far more people getting degrees in areas that will never give them a high enough paying job to pay back the loans? Oh, that's right, cause we have already been doing this for some time now and hence why tuition for any college has ballooned faster than the housing costs ever did at a rate mush larger than inflation. But hey, lets put the government in charge of yet another facet of private businesses and believe they will for once in the history of mankind actually run something efficiently. My bet is the will still be 0 for infinity on managing anything properly.
Nobody pays for high-school and yet you seem unsurprised by the 6% who do not graduate! And so what?!? It's like any investment that one makes in mankind. The payback is often enormous, and especially as regards higher-education. The six percent who do not graduate are on the loss-side, and we have to try to get them back into the education cycle. So they don't end up a Macdonalds shifting BigMacs to obese eaters? QUOTE="Wildjoker5, post: 1069435037, member: 54842"]So why the hell do we want to do the same thing for college loans which can't be repossessed, have far more people getting degrees in areas that will never give them a high enough paying job to pay back the loans?[/QUOTE] Because they are investments in people making them better human beings - obviously a notion that you cannot comprehend. And probably the real reason why you are so ignorant of the facts! QUOTE="Wildjoker5, post: 1069435037, member: 54842"]Oh, that's right, cause we have already been doing this for some time now and hence why tuition for any college has ballooned faster than the housing costs ever did at a rate mush larger than inflation.[/QUOTE] If tuition has ballooned that's the fault of who? The students? Nope, the manner in which tertiary-education is being run in private-schools. The public-schooling tertiary education remains acceptable (at $12K a year) as a cost! So, let's consider it a $12K investment (over a period of 2 to 4/6 years) that we make in bettering our kids and allowing them upon graduation a really good job at a decent pay with which to bring up their families? Where is the ill in that? Huh? Tell me! Just what the hell makes you think education is "private business"? Yet another set of blinders you're wearing. Is it private business at the secondary-school level? No, and it need not be at the tertiary level either. Because it is "free"! That's what making you twitch ... !
Well, lets not make some straw men here. And everybody pays for high school, so if youre going to compare high school with college, then are you for the nationalization of colleges to reign in the costs in line with what it costs to run a high school where the college professors only get paid $60k a year? Many people who graduate with worthless degrees can't payback their loans. Who is "worse off", the high school drop outs who have no debt, or the liberal arts woman studies in classical poetry graduate with $100k debt? They are both working at McDs. Fat people need to eat too. Are you fat shaming? The dropouts can also work construction or migrant work on farms. Same reasoning for giving subprime loans for homes, that didn't end well did it? Both housing and college debts are backed by government "guarantees". We saw how well that worked for housing loans market, why don't you think that will happen in the college loans market as well? Difference though, the housing defaults meant people could walk away from those loans, the college loans are for life. QUOTE="Wildjoker5, post: 1069435037, member: 54842"]Oh, that's right, cause we have already been doing this for some time now and hence why tuition for any college has ballooned faster than the housing costs ever did at a rate mush larger than inflation.[/QUOTE] The government for giving out these gov backed loans. Its only natural that the schools would naturally raise tuition when the government raises its cap on what the guarantee. $12k a year is "acceptable" to you? Trade schools will get you a certification for a $50-75k a year job for a total of $12k. Depends on what they are studying. Not all college degrees are going to have the same value as others. The schools, lenders, and government should be excluding certain degrees based off what their average income once those people have degrees in certain fields of study. College education is a private business. No college is regulated by the state to pay their teachers a set rate. Ever wonder why the "public college" of FSU pays their football coach in the Millions? All the college has to do, is spend just about everything is has in profits each year, from teacher pay to sports equipment, to facility improvements. Not a single college in America is working under constrained budgets like public high, middle and elementary schools do, and there are many more people paying into public secondary schools than colleges. But please, show me why all college tuitions go up 10x the rat of inflation each year. Is the education getting that much better. Is the cost for books that much more? No one is taking out a loan to put their kids through high school, stop conflating the two. "Free"? I don't think that word means what you think it does. Unless you want to nationalize college and university, then make it mandatory that everyone goes, which devalues college degrees to the point of high school diplomas, just say so.
I'm not opposed to this in fact it might be a good idea however we must include apprenticeships, trade schools and technical colleges and the government needs to block grant the money and insist on the education be meaningful. I'm not opposed to a student studying Gender Studies but a State School should offer so many seats a year to entering Freshmen say twelve and lock them into that major. And should have a say in preferring marketable employment skills so business, STEM and practical majors would likely get more funding and spaces for students. It's not a loan anymore the taxpayers are funding the degree so they should get a say in what is offered and how many work on a given degree. And I would eliminate all the fluff the dorms would be basic dorms, the food service standard fare, no big money sports, solid if basic laboratories and such and it would be pretty much boring you go to school to study. And I would limit admissions based on High School Grades, test scores and to only the top students. The exceptions if any would be for military veterans who could enter on a GI Bill Standing. And I would eliminate the requirement models an English major doesn't need to take mathematics and likely sciences so eliminate the 'breadth' requirements and chop off a year for a three year degree that's paid for a terminal bachelors if one wants to go for one for graduate school pay and why not merge the degree and a professional one? Enter at 17, take a pre-med track and go right to medical school after three years but again you would need to earn a seat and the government could decide your specialty.
Sounds like the high school experience of olden days with shop, auto mechanic, home ec, ect where they taught trade skills and people didn't need to go to college to get started in the work force. But, that was before the liberals took over and took that stuff away because too many minorities were learning a skill and able to provide for themselves right out of high school without being locked down by debt and giving credit to the left for the affirmative action laws that allowed unqualified minorities into colleges they couldn't pass.
Where the hell did you come up with that notion (in red above). This is what I've said: *I have argued that free tertiary-education be made available at publicly run state colleges/universities. *And that they be subsidized by the government - as was the idea proposed by first Bernie and then Hillary. *And they should cover all post-secondary education (vocational, associates degree, bachelors, doctorate) at state-run universities. Or private institutions that accept the funding at the same level as the state-schools to offer courses to those unable to afford them otherwise. *All families, regardless of income, will benefit from the offer of sending their kids to state-run post-secondary institutions of learning. *And that we shift one-third of that HUGE BUNDLE OF EFFING-MONEY THAT IS WASTED ON THE DOD ($675B, see here), and employ it towards the cost necessary for the above proposal. The US is off on the wrong track, and it is smack in the middle of age-change - from the Industrial Age to the Information Age. Do you understand that only 12.6% of all US jobs are found today in manufacturing*? Methinks not. Services industries are now the major employers (80.3%*) and most of them require upper-end talents and abilities only obtained by additional post-secondary education ... ! *From here, Bureau of Labor Statistics: Employment by major industry (Goods-producing, 2016)
My point is, how do you stop the inflation of tuition at "state ran" schools. Are you asking for new colleges to be built and ran by the state or for the "state" to take over some of the colleges already in place. Or do you think there are state ran schools already and I would love to see an example of the ones you are talking about.
Why is it that libcommies always have yet another welfare program in mind? Govt is never big enough until it is communist-right?
we're not worried at all since employment in 97%. Companies train who they need or they go bankrupt. Govt schools would have no idea how to train workers.
The military taught me well in the field of electronics and electrical work and theory so I don't agree.
Many positions that never needed a degree by corporations now want you to have a degree. I have found through the experience of twenty years of college that much of the requirement for a degree is to keep certain folks out of that profession because of the cost to get a degree. College is just one way to obtain knowledge although you do not need a degree to increase your knowledge. It is just a formality of buying into a position. I earned 70k a year in the 1990's with the knowledge that speed and production running my own business was just as valuable as a degree.
This has alsways been encouraged in capitalism. To maximise rent, the firm employs a hierarchy. Changes to wage structures reflect changes in justification for that hierarchy. This ensures that education plays a dual role: certification and human capital.
