General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsBernie Sanders Just Introduced His Free College Tuition Plan
Last edited Tue Apr 4, 2017, 01:21 AM - Edit history (1)
Bernie Sanders Just Introduced His Free College Tuition Plan
Joining with Elizabeth Warren, Sanders wants students to organize around the legislation.
https://www.thenation.com/article/bernie-sanders-just-introduced-his-free-college-tuition-plan/
President Donald Trump doesnt appear willing nor interested in addressing astronomical student debt levels, which long since crested above $1 trillion. In fact, his administration has made it easier for for-profit colleges to rip off students, and recently scrapped Obama-era regulations that limited rates loan guarantee agencies can charge people who defaulted on student loans. His budget also proposed cutting $5 billion in higher education funding for low-income Americans. Perhaps thats not surprising from a president who just finalized a $25 million settlement stemming from his scam for-profit university.
Thats a financial tragedy for the millions who hold student loan debt and the students who will matriculate while Trump is president. But Trumps unwillingness to even motion towards a student debt plan creates a massive political opening for Democrats.
Senator Bernie Sanders stepped into that breach Monday afternoon, introducing a bill with Senator Elizabeth Warren, Representatives Keith Ellison, and several other members of Congress. The College For All Act which aims to eliminate college tuition and fees at public four-year colleges and universities for students from families that make up to $125,000 per year. The bill would make community college tuition-free for all income levels.
Bernie is still fighting for an idea he proposed and fought for in 2015
--------------
Bernie Sanders issues bill to make 4-year colleges tuition-free
By Ethan Stoetzer,Michael Schramm, University of Michigan 11:47 am EDT May 19, 2015
Senator Bernie Sanders has officially introduced a bill that would eliminate undergraduate tuition. Titled the College for All Act, the bill would eliminate the $70 billion dollar tuition costs at all 4-year public colleges and universities.
Under the plan, the Federal Government would cover 67% $47 billion dollars each year of the costs.
States would be required to produce the remaining 33% of the costs, or 23 billion dollars.
To qualify for the federal government grants, the states would also have to meet a variety of requirements. Some of these requirements include ensuring universities maintain or increase expenditures on students each year, maintaining or increasing operation expenditures each year and guaranteeing that after 5 years on this program, at least 75% of instruction is taught by tenured or tenure-track professors.
PatrickforO
(14,604 posts)And Warren. And all those who would like to use OUR tax dollars that WE pay in to OUR government that is supposed to be of, by and for US, the people, used for things that actually benefit us instead of line the pockets of the wealthy.
Blue_Warrior
(135 posts)Bernie is doing such amazing work. He's showing folks what they'll get by supporting progressives. He's constantly keeping progressive policies and bills in the limelight and not letting them get twisted by republican propaganda.
Bernie is setting us up to win BIG in 2018z he's a true progressive hero.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)The public is behind us on this. Not to mention where would we be if progressive senators and congresspeople didn't even try to get what at the time seemed like impossible legislation passed?
Where would we be if we had said:
Women's right to vote? Never gonna happen, let's not even try.
Civil rights legislation? Won't make it to the president's desk. Why even bother?
The ACA? Insane! We'll never have enough votes.
No one thinks this bill is going to make it out of the Senate but if we want progressive legislation to pass in the future we have to be willing to start somewhere.
Kudos to senators Sanders, Warren, Harris, Blumenthal, Murphy, Gillibrand and their progressive colleagues in the house.
Wellstone ruled
(34,661 posts)williesgirl
(4,033 posts)TimeToGo
(1,366 posts)I'm not against this idea, but it would cost a lot of money. We can say it's worth it (I believe that), but the idea that it would save the VA money is kind of odd.
LuvNewcastle
(16,867 posts)Up until now we've seen an uninterrupted stream of poor kids joining the military so they can get their GI Bill. Now a lot of those kids won't have a reason to join, which will hurt recruitment efforts. We make people risk their lives for college education in this country, dammit!
Permanut
(5,705 posts)to apply to Trump University. I coulda lost a lot of money.
George II
(67,782 posts)Hassin Bin Sober
(26,356 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)tammywammy
(26,582 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)..and living in New York, except for nominal registration fees both the City University of New York and State University of New York (CUNY and SUNY) there was no tuition.
As it turned out I was awarded a full scholarship (academic) to a private college.
This is not a novel idea, glad to see Governor Cuomo is pressing for this once again.
countryjake
(8,554 posts)Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo of New York at LaGuardia Community College on Tuesday. Mr. Cuomo unveiled a plan to provide free college tuition to hundreds of thousands of middle- and low-income New Yorkers. Credit Sam Hodgson for The New York Times
And read the article from the day he announced the plan:
Cuomo Proposes Free Tuition at New York State Colleges for Eligible Students
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/03/nyregion/free-tuition-new-york-colleges-plan.html?_r=0
It's a real good idea, don't ya think?
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)I remember it wasn't quite as well received when Bernie proposed it back then but I'm thrilled more people are finally coming around.
Yay Bernie!!!
synergie
(1,901 posts)was advocating, it's free up to a certain income level.
I'm glad all those that were poo-pooing it are now on board. I'm thrilled that people have come around to a more practical version. Free community college and free tuition for those making under $125,000.
When Clinton released an updated tuition plan after the primary was over, it borrowed many of Sanders subsidized tuition elements, but also had a $125,000 income threshold. This is essentially what Sanders is now proposing, though Clintons proposal made the initial cutoff $85,000 per year and raised it incrementally to $125,000. The College for All Act starts at $125,000 outright. (This is similar to a plan New York Governor Andrew Cuomo introduced this year, which Sanders also backed.)
Yay Senators Elizabeth Warren, Kamala Harris, Richard Blumenthal, Chris Murphy and Kirsten Gillibrand! So glad they got Bernie on board with practical income limits, that HRC advocated. This is how you make progress, by working together and introducing common sense into these pie in the sky dreams, that's how they get to be reality.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/video-photos-rush-transcript-governor-cuomo-presents-1st-proposal-2017-state-state-making
No wonder Gov. Cuomo invited Bernie to speak, he knows Bernie's the one who first made this a campaign issue and inspired young people. He was indeed ahead of his time.
How could this not be a good thing?
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)By Ethan Stoetzer,Michael Schramm, University of Michigan 11:47 am EDT May 19, 2015
Senator Bernie Sanders has officially introduced a bill that would eliminate undergraduate tuition. Titled the College for All Act, the bill would eliminate the $70 billion dollar tuition costs at all 4-year public colleges and universities.
Under the plan, the Federal Government would cover 67% $47 billion dollars each year of the costs.
States would be required to produce the remaining 33% of the costs, or 23 billion dollars.
To qualify for the federal government grants, the states would also have to meet a variety of requirements. Some of these requirements include ensuring universities maintain or increase expenditures on students each year, maintaining or increasing operation expenditures each year and guaranteeing that after 5 years on this program, at least 75% of instruction is taught by tenured or tenure-track professors.
http://college.usatoday.com/2015/05/19/bernie-sanders-issues-bill-to-make-4-year-colleges-tuition-free/
Eventually people realized it was a great idea and free tuition became part of our platform.
So thanks, Bernie! You're a visionary.
synergie
(1,901 posts)taking nice ideas and putting them into a bill that is practical and achievable. Free college for all is a nice thing to dream of, and perhaps someday we'll get there, but for now, we have a bill that has an actual chance of doing good now!
I'm so proud of our Democratic Senators, and the 14 Democratic representatives in the House who are working together to get past the visionary phase and propose workable and achievable plans to address the crisis in higher education.
So, thanks Elizabeth Warren, Kamala Harris, Chris Murphy, Richard Blumenthal, Chris Murphy and Kirsten Gillibrand in the Senate, and Reps. Bobby Scott (D-Va.), Keith Ellison (D-Minn.), Raúl Grijalva (D-Ariz.), Rick Nolan (D-Minn.), Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas), Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.), Nydia Velázquez (D-N.Y.), John Conyers (D-Mich.), Peter Welch (D-Vt.), Mark Pocan (D-Wis.), David Cicilline (D-R.I.) and Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) and Pramilla Jayapal!
We're so grateful for the competence and intelligence and strength of the Democrats that can take a great idea that Bernie introduced by himself, and add the common sense policy details that would address the real issues facing students, that were so popular on Hillary's platform and bring it all together.
Way to go team! Thanks for all the hard work to ALL of the 20 senators and Representatives who are making the policies the party ran on, into a reality, I'm so glad people realized how to actually implement ideas. See what happens when instead of going it alone, Democrats work together to get things done?
This does indeed look like the plan Bernie and Hillary put together! It's important to acknowledge ALL of the people whose hard work went into this, it would not be in its current form without Hillary and all the other wonderful Democrats that are frequently ignored. It's time we thank them ALL.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)"Stronger Together" was more than just a campaign slogan for the GENERAL ELECTION... it's an axiom that I wish everyone understood.
LiberalLovinLug
(14,179 posts)Together is more than one person, but at the same time together is made up of accepting the help of a whole lot of "one person"s that want to help.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)... instead of pretending like other haven't contributed. I wish that was a more common trait. It reminds me that I used to work for someone like that and that attitude caused people to shut down and clam-up. It was the old "every-man-for-himself" philosophy and it caused division within every department. There was no teamwork, just everyone trying to out-do the other.
Again, in my previous work life, there was ALWAYS someone who'd march in and pretend they knew EVERYTHING there was to know. One lucky promotion, or assignment and suddenly they were just OFF THE CHARTS in their level of arrogance. Totally unwilling to listen to any other ideas. They were even willing to "steal" someone's ideas, or take credit for someone else's work ... but if you tried to make a suggestion or point out a mistake, well, not many of my coworkers made that mistake more than once.
Did you ever see the movie "Nine to Five"? ... think of the "Mr. Hart" character... it was a lot like that.
So, yeah, at my old job back in the ??ties, we were physically "together" on the same department, but nobody was on the same page. Everyone just did their own thing and when deadlines drew near, and when a client's project was due, we all just hoped and prayed that everything would come together at the last moment. That's why I said (above) that just because someone wants to help, as Democrats, we must make sure that everyone who "wants" to help is serious about helping, and that they're willing to stick to the vision and plan of the party.
Great photo of Hillary and Bernie. Thanks for sharing it.
LiberalLovinLug
(14,179 posts)I really don't see anyone in this story trying to "steal" anything here though. I see a working together. I don't see any one person running up to the mic to claim some kind of first prize for being the grand author. But also I think that isn't even important to me or to them.
Bernie is an enigma, a lone wolf, a free radical... Even though he works with Democrats 99% of the time. I know this irks a few and some just can't seem to get past that. But he will not be changing any time soon. He's an old man set in his ways. So one can either hang on to that resentment or accept his help (which could also include some constructive criticism) and use his personal popularity to help push positive opinion towards the Democrats.
I'd love to see Bernie and Hillary back up on the stage together like that again, fighting side by side.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)[hr][font color="blue"][center]"If you're bored then you're boring." -Harvey Danger[/center][/font][hr]
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)It's actually Cuomo's proposal...
That's as silly as thinking Bernie can intoduce legislation in Vermont and asking why we don't have free tution there.
R B Garr
(17,011 posts)?
George II
(67,782 posts)Why do you find Cuomo's proposal a laughing matter?
R B Garr
(17,011 posts)around answering directly. Bernie can't introduce legislation in New York, either, but he showed up for the press in New York.
George II
(67,782 posts).... and not Governor, yet he's praised for sharing the stage with Cuomo when the NY Governor introduced a plan for free tuition.
Ironic, isn't it?
LiberalLovinLug
(14,179 posts)and give a little positive energy instead trying to find any minuscule negative angle you can scrape up on a man that is working tirelessly with Democrats, who obviously do not share you and your cohorts relentless contempt?
QC
(26,371 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)JTFrog
(14,274 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)FYI, I have been "working tirelessly with Democrats" for decades, to the degree that I've been one of my local Democratic leaders and have run for office six times (winning four times), and I've done it as a Democrat. Plus I've been a delegate to our state Democratic Convention the last six times.
I DO, I don't talk!
What I have, as you characterize it, "contempt" for is those who take credit for the work of others and criticize the Democratic Party at every turn.
sheshe2
(84,057 posts)Response to George II (Reply #139)
Post removed
Thank you George!
LiberalLovinLug
(14,179 posts)It would just be nice to steer all that contempt and anger at the real enemy
George II
(67,782 posts)...is "contempt and anger"?
LiberalLovinLug
(14,179 posts)R B Garr
(17,011 posts)Fake news is what got us Trump.
LiberalLovinLug
(14,179 posts)Its Rovian like brilliance, or probably just that its so easy, that they used and continue to use fake news stories to attack Democrats and then scream "fake news!" whenever a bonifide story comes out that is negative to them. It confuses the easily confused...better known as the Republican base.
R B Garr
(17,011 posts)Reality only matters if it benefits one politician who is never held accountable.
Everyone else is expected to discard reality and live in the sparkle bubble. After all, his own stated method of revolution is to call people and bug them until you get results. Surely he knows all Vermont's politicians and how to reach them.
synergie
(1,901 posts)will bother voting for it. When a bill lacks cosponsors, it's mostly due to something wrong with it. It's a vanity project or some other pointless thing that a politician can point to, which looks like s/he did something, when no one with any clue as to what's going on knows that's its pretty much just theater.
The way the US system works is that senators and Representatives get together and write these bills, they convince others to sign on, co-sponsor and advocate for them so that they make it through committees and onto the floor, then and only then does it have a prayer of becoming law.
Its silly to pretend that a single senator writing a bill by his lonesome and failing to get his colleagues on board is anything but a vanity project or a political calculation. These are not new ideas, but when someone takes stuff that is out there in the ether and doesn't do his due diligence on funding etc. and will not work with his fellow senators, no one can seriously call this attempt a "try" at all. Unless the concept and meaning of the word "try" is changed completely.
seaglass
(8,173 posts)is good enough.
George II
(67,782 posts)zentrum
(9,866 posts)synergie
(1,901 posts)This is the bill Hillary ran on, that she worked together with Bernie to produce, and is the culmination of the work of TWENTY (20!!) men and women.
Let's acknowledge that work of all of those whose leadership we've got working for us in congress!
George II
(67,782 posts)"Joining with Elizabeth Warren, Sanders wants students to organize around the legislation."
Love HER leadership!
zentrum
(9,866 posts)BainsBane
(53,127 posts)Except I think her income limit was $250k rather than $125k.
SunSeeker
(51,797 posts)Such a coincidence!
BainsBane
(53,127 posts)Is that within the past week we see a complete turn about on policies Clinton proposed, assailed as corporatist and incrementalist at the time. Yet suddenly those same proposals are met with applause because of the name attached them. One can't help wondering if policy matters at all.
SunSeeker
(51,797 posts)JCanete
(5,272 posts)I thought her original plan was debt free college...not exactly the same thing? Either way, who gives a fuck, some of our bickering here is stupid. This sounds good to everybody? Great! No primary in effect right now, we can be happy that this seems like a plan Democrats and liberals are in agreement with.
synergie
(1,901 posts)This version has the important parts she was talking about, with the income limits, that the one Bernie ran on and introduced in 2015 by himself, did not.
Her original plan was indeed debt free college, free community college, and help with tuition for those who had incomes under a certain amount. Unfettered free college is not fiscally feasible at the current time.
So, no it's not the same thing as what Bernie was suggesting, due to financial realities. But the bill that everyone worked on together put what Hillary and Bernie put together and built upon it.
We do have reason to cheer, it seems silly and somewhat petty to only pick out one of a crowd doesn't it? We've got 20 wonderful Democrats sponsoring this along with Bernie, no need for divisiveness here. This is actually how bills are supposed to be written, not one person doing their own thing, but everyone working together putting their bits in, and balancing everything out into a cohesive whole.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)just as frequently, that's not the order of things either. I say we take the win though, and it should be a kumbaya moment.
synergie
(1,901 posts)We're fact based, and we're fair. It's how you can tell the difference between us and the other side.
The order of things is to support the reality and fact based narratives. I know that the opposing forces really like to repeat things they know to be false, it's almost like it's an article of faith with them, not about facts.
It's why we're STILL pushing back on the various lies, like Benghazi, emails and speeches, Obama's birth certificate, what the ACA actually is, the various fictions pushed by the anti-choice wing etc.
They're intolerant to facts, but how does letting lies and obviously faulty stories to stand help matters? I say the order of things should be to challenge the lies, confront the folks pushing the propaganda and NOT letting these things take root and fester, we see the harm that does, and it ain't pretty.
Let's take the win, work together on pushing it further (like getting these bills to the floor, not just to the committees), and save the kumbaya til we've actually made some progress. This is a great start and an example of what happens when we work together.
We're going to need everyone on board to deal with all the anti-choice crap that's being shoved through congress, the attacks on Planned Parenthood etc. (did you see what they're passing in Iowa and Texas?????), we're going to need to armor up and get ready to push back together. We don't win when we let propaganda, outright lies and total fiction stand without correction. We have facts on our side, we stand together and we win.
yardwork
(61,772 posts)We're going to have to elect a lot more Democrats to Congress before any such plan is made law.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)in favor of the same thing, being entirely aligned? I get that it isn't going anywhere if the GOP can help it(and currently they can), but we can keep preaching this and the people will start to believe its doable and that it should be done...the way it took time for us to attempt health-care again after the campaigns and documentaries, etc. that started making people aware that there was a problem. That we are on this, and pushing progressively forward is good. We can build momentum on promises that help people in tangible ways, to the point of them becoming not just feasible, but politically politically possible.
yardwork
(61,772 posts)The assholes who refused to vote for Democrats in the last election made this bill and anything like it impossible for now.
synergie
(1,901 posts)Clinton supporters and Sanders supporters have been working together without friction or issues or nastiness since July. The field organizers in my state were Bernie supporters, who put their heart and soul into Hillary.
This not a religion, and preaching to people isn't really a good way to win anyone over. Ask anyone subjected to missionaries. We already know it's doable, and we already now it needs to be done, these are issues that the Democrats have been working on for years. Literally everyone knew that healthcare access was a problem, anyone alive in the 90's saw Hillary working on it and getting even more attention due to the butthurt of the Republicans and the media that she would DARE do something other than host tea parties.
We've been on this, and have been progressively pushing forward, that's how progress is made, one step after the other. The sloganeering of the past election where people who clearly had never paid attention and didn't know words were spitting "incrementalism" as if it were some epithet was just silly.
We need to build momentum by working together not tearing each other down, we've never been the party engages in the cult of personality, that's the other side. It's time to put all that stuff behind us, and realize how actual progressives work, and stop inserting all this divisive garbage. Bernie wasn't doing this before he ran, he wasn't doing it when he ran, he did little to stop the vocal folks on the internet and the impetuous guys on the college campuses, (mostly, I think because he wasn't paying attention and didn't know what was going on). Even his own campaign for the most part wasn't engaging in this. The divisive forces on the internet, taking advantage of people's ignorance, their personal prejudices and the mob mentality of echo chambers on the internet were responsible.
We're fine. Bernie is fine, the Democrats are fine. And we've never been about anything other than helping people in tangible ways. All that "corporate shill" and "DINO" crap is coming from outside forces, not Democrats, progressives and liberals. Real ones that is. Stop buying into the media narratives and the letting the online trolls seeking to sow discord gain traction.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)Last edited Tue Apr 4, 2017, 10:05 PM - Edit history (1)
philosophies over this proposal, here at DU. We all seemed to like the result, so taking it as something we could all be proud of seemed like something that should be galvanizing here.
I'm not sure what your referring to regarding preaching. I'm not promoting preaching, I'm promoting making good ideas part of the public discourse...breaking down the initial reactionary, "common sense", rejections of things, often because of dogmatic, unexplored assumptions. Those can change.
I'm perfectly willing to show dissatisfaction for Democrats who don't seem to be working towards the right goals though. There is no loyalty oath to our candidates. Our job is to hold their feet to the fire, as it is to hold our elected officials of all parties to the fire. We do need to be circumspect about our criticism, and not immediately jump to the worst conclusions, but I'm not going to be proud of the Joe Lieberman's any time soon.
Corporate shill or not--agreed that the term is unfair when applied to Democrats in general--money in politics is a problem. It can't just be a problem when it infuses Republicans. It either has power or it doesn't, and how that influences, or who that rises up because of alignment on certain ideas, matters. We can't simply ignore that issue when it comes to our own.
We could get into the divisiveness in the campaigns..though maybe we shouldn't. From my perspective though(so that we don't get into a war of facts, I'll leave this only as my own interpretation), divisiveness was a two-way street, and I think it would be helpful to acknowledge it on all sides.
synergie
(1,901 posts)one path to achieving X goal, usually by pushing the stance of a single person, for example. Coverage for all Americans is a goal and reducing the costs of healthcare. Anything other than the trademarked "Medicare for all" is seen as heresy, and anyone who does not follow this dogma is attacked.
This is just an example, I'm not going to debate the topic, just an illustration
Medicare for all is one way to achieve that goal, it's not Single payer, but the dogma doesn't recognize this. Also, there are many different ways that single payer can be and is implemented and they each have their pros and cons. But we can't ever have that discussion, because Bernie says Medicare for all, and anyone who detracts from that must be silenced and called names, as people call them shills, paid off by big pharma etc.
Reactionaries won't allow debate to happen and they won't educate themselves on the issues, they resort to punishing what they see as heresy.
There shouldn't be a problem with showing dissatisfaction with Democrats or the two Independents who caucus with us. But literally anything less than adulation of a single man is not tolerated by some elements. Our job should be to hold EVERYONE's feet to the fire, when they say and do things that justly should be criticized. I'm not going to be proud of anyone who thinks we should not "be so rigid about women's basic rights". That's a deal breaker and it's not liberal, Democratic, progressive or anything that we on the left stand for.
But if I should criticize that, I'm attacked, on a Democratic site, when the person who said it isn't officially a member of the party.
Literally, who isn't saying that money in politics isn't a problem, even Republicans are on board with that. Who is ignoring that issue with anyone? I see a lot of people who don't understand how FEC reporting works and who choose apply different standards. For instance when people who work for a company give money to Cory Booker or HRC, they're derided as corporate shills, when the same reports show that the same individuals who work for the same companies give to Bernie, it's somehow a totally different thing. Double standards and a lack of basic understanding. There were people here who were accusing Hillary Clinton of being pro Citizens United. The group that literally was created to attack her, and whose name was a misogynistic insult directed at her. We simply cannot ignore the issues when the people using these attacks claim to be on our side.
I'm not even going to get into the all the craziness about David Brock who wasn't a part of the campaign and who was literally, as a superpac which can't coordinate with the campaign, running around correcting the sheer propaganda that was being dished out on all sides here. No one was trying to discredit Bernie, literally, he faced zero attacks from his Democratic opponents and the Republicans were doing their best to boost him. He wasn't vetted, he wasn't touched, he wasn't ever attacked.
Nope, the divisiveness was very much a one way street, with all the wars that were happening here, twitter and various liberal sites, that was evident. I think it would be helpful to acknowledge facts and not brush things away by dismissing them with patently baseless bothsiderism. The silencing worked one way, and it was malicious. If someone is being rude, calling names, being disrespectful they should be given time to cool off, or invited to post elsewhere, but as we've seen the standards were on a hair trigger with one, while the vilest and most nasty things were allowed for the other. That's not a two way street at all.
The lack of adulation is not an attack, repeating RW lies actually is, but that seems lost on those determined to deny what's going on even now. Think of it, just a week or so ago, it wasn't like this, and all of a sudden the bad old days are back.
We literally have no time for this. Bashing Obama, Hillary and Democrats really doesn't help anyone, and it doesn't belong here. There are plenty here doing that, while reacting with outrage at anyone who suggests that Bernie is not the end all and be all. These are not equivalent.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)to rehash that right now, but I'm sure I'll be drawn into it again in the future. You do illustrate your earlier points though, that we both see the world through our own biases.
Issues of how the campaigns were run is a fair discussion. I'm not saying it should not be retreaded, just that I've done it too many times to want to jump into it again, and it could certainly bring out the elements on both sides. I will say this though. It is complicated. I'm not saying there was no boosting of Sanders at any point. But it was a strange ebb and flow. The media was good about keeping him under wraps when states were coming up. It was good at either ignoring or remembering to emphasize that he had already lost, nearly from day one, by calculating in super-delegates, etc. It was good at literally recording an empty trump podium rather than to cut to a Sanders primary victory. When the purpose was to bloody Clinton, oh hell yeah. They wanted to tear her down. They certainly didn't want her to lead a democratic "coup" by bringing a majority into the house and Senate on her coat-tails.
But this is a society where there is little interest, I think you'll agree on this, by the people in power to elect a socialist to the White House. I don't think it would have been particularly keen to have him in the GE. Corporate Media's owners certainly have no interest in that. Clinton would have worked within Washington, rather than making things a complete referendum on corporations. I have no doubt she wanted to do good work and make America better, and provide a better safety net and better justice for all, but I have equally no doubt that her approach is not as distasteful as the Sander's approach to CEOs and big shareholders. There is no incentive to amplify a dramatically anti-corporate message.
In-fact, regardless of it being post election and there being 2 years before another major one, it worries me that all of a sudden it's popular to put him on TV, even with him taking shots at the system as is. I understand doing it post primary, even if Sanders was campaigning for Clinton at that point... I honestly don't know what to make of them doing it now, except that it makes it harder to say that the media doesn't put liberal anti-establishment voices on, and that the expectation is that he's going to fade away and the things he's giving a megaphone to are not going to take hold. That's pretty depressing.
And of course, they are using it to strengthen a narrative, which is a bastardization of what Sanders is saying, that we need to listen to the interests of the white working class. They've already attempted to flip the point of that argument to make it about bathrooms and human rights. That isn't what was being said, and Sanders remains steadfast and usually ahead of his time on civil rights. He's not suggesting we pander or roll them back. It was about not speaking specifically to their financial woes. It was about language that did not foster confidence that there would be change in the right direction that would effect these people's lives. That doesn't excuse a vote for Trump. Clearly we were better on this. Clinton was so much better. How could any issue that Trump espoused rather than his outright lie about bringing coal jobs and auto jobs, etc. back, be a winner if that was what they were voting on? As it gets said here often enough, it isn't what they were voting on. I think the point is, had we made a clearer argument, promoted a more tangible, less complicated set of promises that stimulated the imagination of these people about how legislation, if passed could directly and almost immediately affect their lives for the better, it could have been.
I agree, the lack of adulation is not an attack. It is lost on people on both sides as well. Criticism is not an attack per say either. Getting into the intentions of people is usually where it gets ugly here, again on both sides. Not looking to our own, or seeing our own hypocrisy is another place.
I appreciate that you trust super-pacs to not do any coordinating, since that is so damn easy to track and prove one way or another. I'm certainly not accusing the Clinton camp of coordinating. Its just such a black box, I'm not going to make such assumptions, about anybody, including Sanders. That is one of the problems with Super Pacs. Colbert has done a pretty good job of showing that in the past.
Yes, there are more people starting Bernie adulation threads by far than previously. There have consistently been plenty of posts opened up to criticize something Sanders has said..(this is totally fair for any public figure)...and sometimes that comes with Sanders hate within the OP, but either way, it always inevitably opens the door for impugning motives of him, DNC, each other...etc. Now the Sanders cheerleading is met by other posts that find different leaders to laud, intentionally leaving his name off, etc. Its a silly game both are playing. I've no doubt there is actually celebration of one's favored politician in these threads, but you've shown its not so hard to recognize the other people on the list, who's names are literally adjacent to a persons' favorite. I wish Sanders fans would do this, and it really doesn't matter whether they think he's the reason for something or not, it is impolitic and impolite as well as incorrect, to not be generous about the credit.
BainsBane
(53,127 posts)You obviously never paid attention to what she said or read her site. Her plan was Always means tested, and Community college was always free, just like the bill discussed in the OP.
I'll be happy if Bernie can convince Paul Ryan to bring it up for a vote. Absent that, what does it matter if liberals agree or not? Though it is interesting to see people support policies they once maligned or, like you, never bothered to informed themselves on.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)and said something else entirely on her website? She was not for free college tuition. Her public zinger reasoning was that she didn't want Donald Trump's kids to get that benefit.
This is a plan rolled out that is providing free college tuition. That sounds like something she arrived at after the primaries to me. I have no idea how this could be solely built on her original plan given that it did not do this.
BainsBane
(53,127 posts)Read about the bill above. It does not provide Rich people free tuition since it is capped at $125k incomes. CC tuition is publicly-funded (free is an absurd term). I'm not aware of her changing the plan after the primaries, and you conclusion makes no sense since the GE electorate is more conservative than the primary electorate. Perhaps you heard it differently? Your entire focus appears to be on the word free rather than the substance of the plans.
I don't suppose it occurred to you than serious plans can't be entirely conveyed in 2 min. Segments? That is why politicians post policy proposals on their websites. I went to both candidates' sites repeatedly to try to learn more about their proposals.
You can still go to issues section of her website and read them now. Access a cached copy of the higher ed policy to see for yourself. Or if you can't do that, find a third party analysis (preferably not Kremlin-generated) of differences between the two plans.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)July. You skirt around that little fact and continue to pretend this is all her somehow, when she wasn't looking to do this prior to that conciliatory move. Yes, Sanders was okay with the cap. They clearly got on the same page. I'm fine with free. I have no problem with that language at all. It conveys the benefit...that it is included in the Government's budget, which yes, people pay into in taxes, but more is coming from the rich to do so. And I'm fine as fuck with that.
You have got to be kidding. You do know that Clinton still needed to shore up our base right? That is why she did it, and there is nothing about this move that was going to be politically dangerous in terms of the rhetoric the GOP could bring, or in terms of what the public absolutely did not want. It was an effort to strengthen progressive support for her and her platform, and I think it worked.
BainsBane
(53,127 posts)I am not skirting around the issue. Did you access a cache from last spring? I attended events during the primary, one with Chelsea, where she talked about how the difference between the plans was that her mom's wouldn't cover people making over $250k. That was before our caucus on March 1. How do you imagine low to middle-income students come out of college debt free without having tuition paid? I remember arguing with people here at the time that Clinton's plan required students to work 10 hours a week. Some more privileged Democrats considered it an outrage that they should have to work at all. As someone who has worked from age 10 and had w-2 income from age 13, I found their complaints stunning.
I thought you said it didn't matter anyway? Yet suddenly you insist it does, even though your entire knowledge of it comes from soundbites at debates. You never took time to inform yourself, yet now claim absolute knowledge of it.
I remember at the platform committee there was much noise about Sanders getting a "win" on education, when it turned out it was the same, or pretty damn close, to what she had been talking about for most of that year.
The other thing she proposed was dealing with the rampant inequality in K-12, which cements generations of poverty. She understands that without addressing school quality in low-income communities, they can't be in a position to take care of publicly funded college tuition benefits. I grew up in such a neighborhood and was the one I knew who went to college.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Issues and budget cuts endangering people's lives. Timing is everything and this is not he time.
Info he wants to make a symbolic move - getting money out of politics would be good, as would requiring nominees to show full tax returns.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)Last edited Tue Apr 4, 2017, 05:39 PM - Edit history (2)
public. Sander's is uniquely visible now, in contrast to any other point in his storied career, and these ideas are in my opinion, the kind of thing that we need to infuse the public with, while the GOP will continue to show their contempt for the people in their willingness to take and to deprive.
It is doing the work of making the "fantasy" possible to people. That helps it to become a political reality, if not now, perhaps in 4 years. This is hardly a distraction from the other fights we are taking up. That you actually take issue with it is strange to me.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Priorities should be Nat Security and Russian interference, economic corruption and dark money, stripping reproductive rights from women and saftey and healthcare fro m all citizens
JCanete
(5,272 posts)proposing real things while the GOP struggles to do the same, and can only manage ridiculously transparent tax giveaways to their rich friends.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Is more of what we need now. Honestly the erosion of basic human rights were seeing should be a bigger priority.
George II
(67,782 posts)synergie
(1,901 posts)Bernie's original had no income limit, it was just free tuition for all. Her point was that it didn't make sense that in cases like Chelsea and the Trump kids, that they too should be included. Money is a finite resource after all.
She thought that a contribution on the part of the family (paying some percentage) and/or the student (work study) was important. Sort of like sweat equity. Which makes sense an there is an excellent argument for students doing better when they're making some contribution themselves to their own education.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)It was so well received by young voters Hillary even came up with her own modified version.
From another article:
http://www.attn.com/stories/16133/bernie-sanders-new-free-college-bill-has-backup
I'm grateful Bernie is still fighting for this. He could have joined the paid speech circuit but instead he chose to roll up his sleeves and fight even harder. (oops, my bad - I've been informed that senators cannot collect speaking fees. I would edit this out but then the next post wouldn't make sense. My apologies for any feathers that were ruffled.)
Bravo Bernie, Elizabeth, Keith and our other wonderful hard working progressives! Keep up the good work!
betsuni
(25,789 posts)It's prohibited for Senators and representatives to accept money for speeches.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Aren't you thrilled others are finally on board with Bernie's plan? It was originally met with quite a bit of resistance and it still might not stand a chance.
But together they're trying to make it happen!
Capt.Yellowbeard
(11 posts)How does Sanders get this through the GOP controlled Congress and get Trump to sign it into law?
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)I'm thankful suffragettes didn't give up, and civil rights proponents in the 60s.
Not to mention that doesn't sound like a good way to convince voters that we're the party fighting for them and that they should support us in 2018 and 2020.
Capt.Yellowbeard
(11 posts)Yep, this exactly like Suffragette and Civil Rights movement. 😒
You might suggest to Sanders that he acually join the party he seems to want to run from absentia.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Because No We Can't!!! is such a powerful slogan.
Face it, nothing we propose is going to pass but that shouldn't stop us from reminding voters that we're still the party of the people - and that Trump doesn't give a shit about them. The point is that even when it looked like civil rights didn't stand a chance legislators kept fighting for them anyway.
And why on earth would I want to tell Bernie to change his affiliation? You really think I care that Bernie is an independent? That this is news to me?
ZOMGWTFBBQ???? Bernie's not a Dem??? Say it ain't so! That does it, he's DEAD to me!
QC
(26,371 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)QC
(26,371 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Eventually the rest of the crowd will stop digging in their heels and catch up.
Two years ago this legislation was called a pony and very few people supported it, now Bernie has plenty of cosponsors and colleagues in the house who are willing to sign their names to this bill.
That's Progress. And it all started with one senator.
And I'll repeat what I've posted several times already in this thread:
Thank you Elizabeth, Keith and every other progressive who is trying to make this happen! These bills are the work of many, not just one. We are fortunate to have them working for us.
QC
(26,371 posts)Rhiannon12866
(206,725 posts)LiberalLovinLug
(14,179 posts)It seems like we have to deal with little children in here every day. Yes mommy gave one of the lollypops she bought at the supermarket to that nice older neighbor boy. Who cares if he is going to help you with your homework, he's NOT ONE OF YOU!
George II
(67,782 posts)SunSeeker
(51,797 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)By Ethan Stoetzer,Michael Schramm, University of Michigan 11:47 am EDT May 19, 2015
Senator Bernie Sanders has officially introduced a bill that would eliminate undergraduate tuition. Titled the College for All Act, the bill would eliminate the $70 billion dollar tuition costs at all 4-year public colleges and universities.
Under the plan, the Federal Government would cover 67% $47 billion dollars each year of the costs.
States would be required to produce the remaining 33% of the costs, or 23 billion dollars.
To qualify for the federal government grants, the states would also have to meet a variety of requirements. Some of these requirements include ensuring universities maintain or increase expenditures on students each year, maintaining or increasing operation expenditures each year and guaranteeing that after 5 years on this program, at least 75% of instruction is taught by tenured or tenure-track professors.
http://college.usatoday.com/2015/05/19/bernie-sanders-issues-bill-to-make-4-year-colleges-tuition-free/
Hillary realized it was extremely popular and eventually developed her own version. Good for her!
Bernie's plan finally made it into our platform and here he is, still fighting for it.
Go Bernie!
SunSeeker
(51,797 posts)Some folks here said it sucked because it had an income cap and Bernie's didn't. Night and day they said; Bernie's plan was free college for all, so the two weren't even comparable.
But look who now proposes an income cap college plan!
Nice to have him on board.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)I'm so thankful people finally realized Bernie's plan is a winner.
We're all grateful to Bernie for coming up with the original bill and his continued leadership in this and other important issues.
Nice to have all of you onboard the Bernie train!
Toot toot!
SunSeeker
(51,797 posts)We're all thankful everyone finally realized Hillary's income cap plan was a winner.
Nice to have all of you onboard the Hillary train!
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Even with the caps it's still a great idea.
It's truly wonderful to see you're appreciative that Bernie is still out there fighting for tuition free college two years later!
Thank you for supporting Bernie's second free college tuition bill!
SunSeeker
(51,797 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Note how they're both called the College For All Act"?
That's a good indication that this bill is similar to Bernie's original legislation.
So again - thank you for supporting Senator Bernie Sanders continued efforts to provide tuition free college, you're a sport!
It's better late than never I always say, and now that we're all onboard with Bernie's idea we can move forward.
SunSeeker
(51,797 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Hillary never sponsored a free college tuition bill, did she?
And the fact that Bernie sponsored both is a clear indication that they're both Bernie's bills, right?
Joining with Elizabeth Warren, Sanders wants students to organize around the legislation.
https://www.thenation.com/article/bernie-sanders-just-introduced-his-free-college-tuition-plan/
Senator Bernie Sanders stepped into that breach Monday afternoon, introducing a bill with Senator Elizabeth Warren, Representatives Keith Ellison, and several other members of Congress. The College For All Act which aims to eliminate college tuition and fees at public four-year colleges and universities for students from families that make up to $125,000 per year. The bill would make community college tuition-free for all income levels.
By Ethan Stoetzer,Michael Schramm, University of Michigan 11:47 am EDT May 19, 2015
Senator Bernie Sanders has officially introduced a bill that would eliminate undergraduate tuition. Titled the College for All Act, the bill would eliminate the $70 billion dollar tuition costs at all 4-year public colleges and universities.
Under the plan, the Federal Government would cover 67% $47 billion dollars each year of the costs.
http://college.usatoday.com/2015/05/19/bernie-sanders-issues-bill-to-make-4-year-colleges-tuition-free/
So to sum up: Bernie Sanders introduced two bills for free college tuition, one in 2015 and one in 2017.
Both are called the 'College for All' Act.
In other words this wasn't just a campaign proposal.
Bernie walked the walk in 2015 and he's still walking it.
Of course he had plenty of help from Warren, Ellison and others this time around but that's to be expected from our current progressive leadership. They won't lose focus or quit fighting for what's important.
So thank you again for recognizing Bernie's dedication to making this bill a reality. He couldn't do it without you.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)a means of galvanizing the Sanders base behind her. Yes, she had a plan previous to that. I'm pretty sure she was the one saying in the debates that she didn't think free college tuition was right because...Donald's kids. The lower cap was the compromise and I think her and Sanders were both in agreement on that arrangement, and we can all be fucking happy that that is what our Democrats and liberal Senators are pushing for.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)I don't understand why people don't see the similarities in both bills.
SunSeeker
(51,797 posts)And it involved an income cap, like the bill Bernie is putting his name to now.
http://time.com/money/3990445/hillary-clinton-college-plan/
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)We're all behind Bernie's new bill now, right?
That's all that matters - supporting our current progressive leaders and opposing Trump and the GOP.
SunSeeker
(51,797 posts)That article was from August 2015, but her plan had been out for quite some time before that. I see Bernie realizes Hillary had the better plan and is now putting his name on a bill that has an income cap.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Just because Bernie's latest 'College for All' act has a cap doesn't mean it's not Bernie's bill, that's just silly.
This quibbling over who's name is on the legislation is silly as well, I supported Bernie's original 'College for All' act and we both support Bernie's new 'College for All' act.
That's all that matters.
So have a good night.
And go Bernie! And go Elizabeth, Keith and every other senator who agreed we need to make it possible for more kids to attend college.
Our progressive leaders rock!
SunSeeker
(51,797 posts)JCanete
(5,272 posts)synergie
(1,901 posts)to galvanize HER base, which was the parents and professors of Bernie's Kids who knew how economics work. Yes, he did have the idea of free college for all, but had you been paying attention in the debate, you'd have understood that she thought if people had the means, they should be contributing to tuition. Because it's horrendously expensive to make ALL college FREE for EVERYONE.
Bernie saw reason there, and took what he and Hillary worked and refined it a bit with the rest of the Democratic colleagues and produced this bill.
Even if they won't be able to do much with it with the GOP being their oh-so-coopertive selves, we've achieved a realistic framework for future ways to attack this problem. That's kind of how incrementalism works, and we've got dedicated and energized and STRONG democrats, LOTS of them who will be working on this.
Our Democratic senators and reps are indeed liberal and progressive and if we can resist the divisive nonsense from external forces that seek to sow discord, we're on our way to achieving actual progress. Let's not let the troublemakers destroy our coalition. We know they've spent a lot of time trying to figure out how to create problems against us, but we see them for what they are and we don't need to let them affect us.
Let the Albanians, Macedonians et al. dedicate their efforts to delivering fiction to the Trumpkins, Liberals/progressives/Democrats are too smart to fall for that. 68 million folks proved that
JCanete
(5,272 posts)frankly, if we're taxing properly they can have their free tuition, they would be paying in way more than they would be getting out, but I will not lose sleep about the arrangement Sanders and Clinton came to. It was a perfect solution, and as you say, they both saw a reasonable way forward together.
edit: perfect is probably overstated...but it was a good solution.
synergie
(1,901 posts)Pretty much that wealthy families are able and should contribute to tuition. I think her point is that people tend to value things that they contribute to more. Sort of the sweat equity thing, she had planks in her plan to make everyone put something into getting an education, be it family contributions of a certain percentage, work-study opportunities etc.
There are lots of ways to achieve affordable education for our students to make us more productive and competitive in the world. I think some people are so mired in the team sports and the adulation (or just the argument) that they forgot that Bernie and Hillary were not enemies, they were actually working together for years.
Elections bring all these other factors into the mix, politics and egos get involved, and not just for the candidates (usually not so much the candidates in normal cycles), and this one was pretty nasty if only due to the online needling by outside forces whose goal was chaos.
We've all managed to rub along together, occasionally bickering and disagreeing but also learning from one another. How boring would it be if we only ever agreed. We'd be like those brainwashed folks on the other side. <shudder>
Enough with letting the people who come in here to provoke nastiness get their own way, they're merely seeking entertainment and don't really care about the issues we're all facing. Especially now, we don't have time for these games. We've got some treasonous incompetent idiots to deal with, we must not let them distract us.
synergie
(1,901 posts)I know you're extremely excited about giving thanks to Bernie, but in the interest of fairness, it might be good to understand the differences between Bernie's plan of 2015 and what the he and his 20 co sponsors introduced.
Here is an excellent article on the two plans. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/09/opinion/how-mrs-clinton-would-pay-tuition-bills.html
I'm so thankful that you are so very excited about Hillary's plan, which this current bill is most like, it does look like it's a winner, and it's so wonderful that we can put all that divisiveness behind us and get all excited about Hillary's plan that the numerous Senators and Representatives have tweaked to produce this plan that you're so on board with.
We really are grateful that Bernie listened to Hillary and together with Democratic colleagues has brought this bill to the committees in both houses. We really do have so much to thank Hillary and the other Democrats for, with all the great policy ideas etc.
Bernie and his supporters are most welcome on the Democratic train, he does caucus with our party after all, and he can toot the horn if he'd like. These little actions do entertain the masses and the kids that got super excited at the thought of free college, though they didn't quite understand how to bring that about. Hillary took his ideas and filled in the policy details that make the plan workable, and Elizabeth Warren and John Conyers who are very knowledgable on the subject and know how to put together bills, certainly did an excellent job here along with their Democratic colleagues.
That John Conyers is really quite the leader on this issue, he even authored that medicare for all bill that so many of Bernie's fans were so excited about, he's got a lot of practice, since he introduces one every year with his colleagues.
Now, let's all enjoy tooting the horn and then get back to figuring out how to work together to ensure that 2018 will give us a congressional makeup that will take bills like this from intellectual exercises in the committees to the floor, where we can do the needful to make them into laws.
Nice of you to get on board the Democratic train, it's by working with us that all those disappointed folks who left the party that we actually make progress. Toot toot, the Democratic train is chugging along, so glad you're aboard!
JCanete
(5,272 posts)tuition was not Clinton's original plan, and she came about that after the primaries, why would you say at one point they worked together to arrive at this, and then here add fuel to the fire that it was Clinton's plan and Sanders is welcome on board? I'm just a little surprised given the tone of your other posts.
synergie
(1,901 posts)community college. Look at the time stamps and the post I was replying to.
I think you're reading that wrong, I was adding no fuel to the the fire that was set here, merely addressing the incorrect facts and playing along with that rather provoking "train" analogy.
Why is welcoming Bernie on board the Democratic "train" a bad thing? Insisting that it's some sort of one man show is designed to be divisive, I merely corrected that. He's working with his colleagues, and that's the way it should be. In a less messed up world, we would be doing this with Republicans as well, not just King and Sanders.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)previous to early July, as far as I'm seeing here.
That is admirable. We could do better and she and Sanders and everybody else did. You do say in your post that Sanders had this idea and she filled it in with the actual policy. Fine. The policy is important, and doesn't exist without the idea, heard and championed by the people. I'm glad she did it, but I see nothing better about you handing all credit to her when she literally stood in opposition to the idea of free tuition on certain ground...NOT to free tuition for those making under 125,000 or that would have been a really easy way to put the differences to bed in the primary. That she adopted this idea, and that she crafted legislation to make it happen is a testament to her, but it can't be taken out of context of the timing.
Posts that give credit to Sanders and Sanders alone are not helpful I agree. Your effort to correct the record, seemed stilted in my opinion, given that you did not balance your presentation. " Clinton's plan", "Sander's listened". That doesn't gel with complete history now does it?
I mean, you literally talk about how the one man show irks you, but then intentionally repeat "Hillary's plan" "Hillary's plan", "must thank Hillary and others,"...do you see any irony in that? Yes, your post gets more diverse as it goes. The first couple paragraphs are pretty loaded, to say nothing of the snarky way you diminish Sanders worth as a horn tooter.
synergie
(1,901 posts)Bernie's plan was 100% free tuition, that was his idea, for everyone. She thought there should be a contribution from the family, and then edited that, and moved to the income cap.
The idea didn't originate with Bernie, he didn't create it out of thin air. This is a problem that has been known and discussed for decades.
I think you're looking through some biased eyes here, I'm not giving all credit to one person. That's what the person I'm responding to does, in all things.
She didn't literally standing opposition to the idea of free tuition, she thought that there should be some form of contribution, as I stated rather clearly, and she's been talking about free community college for some time, many people have neither candidate created things whole cloth, and the insistence that they did is rather disturbing. I'm not sure why people keep insisting that Bernie invented everything, or pretend that anyone ever said Hillary created things. That's a bit black and white and not even remotely fair. There is literally no one making that claim on Hillary's side, nor is Bernie saying these things, even when he speaks less than artfully. These are plans, policies and ideas that are out there. Politicians take this research and distill it down to a plan, with funding planks and points to address concerns.
You do understand that she and Bernie were working together after the primary on these things? And that I said so numerous times, while the post I was responding to was squeeing about how it was all Bernie, all the time and the originator of all things? That's a silly thing to say, but something that seems to be an article of faith for some people.
I didn't take anything out of context, I literally mentioned the timing and who worked on it several times. Posts that claim that Bernie is the alpha and the omega and meant to be divisive. I've been attacked several times for poking fun at the silliness of them. What record was I trying to correct exactly? That whole construction is a bit stilted, inn my opinion and your interesting reading of what I wrote, doesn't really gel with the actual content of my post, does it?
I mean, I literally kept mentioning Hillary an ALL the other names of ALL the other people who crafted this plan, and yes we must thank Hillary, and the other 20 names I painstakingly posted. Do you see any irony in quoting my including "others" and conveniently forgetting the numerous times I inserted 20 names into various paragraphs and posts to make my point?
I mean, if you're going to nitpick, go on about irony etc, perhaps don't do so when my actual posts goes OUT OF ITS WAY to credit a whole lot of people, and specifically mentions how Bernie and Hillary worked together to address a post that was literally all about the Bernie Train. Do you see why making such statements that deliberately ignore the actual content of my post and what you typed out in quotes is rather ... well, disingenuous?
JCanete
(5,272 posts)invented socialism. But he campaigned on it. Others said it was in the realm of unicorns.
I amended my post to be more clear about what I was responding to in yours, but you may not have seen the adjustments. You start front-loaded on Hillary, wouldn't you say. You make it a point to say "hillary's plan", "Hillary's plan," we should thank "hillary"...and finally.... "-nameless- others..." "Thankfully Sanders listened to her." "He's welcome to come on board." And I'll repeat it here incase you missed it, you literally reduce sanders down to somebody who toots his horn, and you think that is conciliatory and come-together language?
Yes, later you start to name other names. That opening is inflamatory in the context, and I wouldn't bring it up except that you yourself suggested previously that you were interested in coming together and not being divided.
I do understand that they were working together. I thought we both did.
Yes, Clinton evolved on the issue. Sanders evolved on the issue. Do you see at any point you recognizing her evolution in your previous post, especially in those first paragraphs I distilled down here?
synergie
(1,901 posts)I replied to, apparently Bernie invented many things, and everything is due to his benevolence alone.
I would suggest that you take a look at the post that was a response to a particular, it's odd that you acting like it was a stand alone and wasn't addressing a specific post that literally erased Hillary whose plan this was, it was what she ran on, and the many democrats who worked on this.
I was countering a "All thanks to Bernie, peace be upon him, from whom all things come" post, by mocking it. You seem to have made it a point to ignore what I was responding to, which was very much an all Hail Bernie, the only person who exists in Congress and to whom all thanks is owed.
I'll repeat it, since your issue seems to be, "how dare I point out the ludicrousness" of those who ignore everyone else and poke fun at the "Bernie Train". Where did I literally do that? I quite literally keep saying that it's not BERNIE doing the tooting, but his acolytes and followers who seem to be doing that. I literally called out the silliness of doing so, and you literally chose to ignore all that to pretend that I was doing what the poster I replied was literally doing.
I understand the need to defend your friends from ridicule, but attacking me to do so is rather silly, especially when my post and the one it responded to and made fun of is visible. ALL the words, including context and tone. Pretending I said or did something that I clearly did not is poor argument.
I don't see you taking all the Bernie heavy nonense to task, but when I point out ALL the other people who worked on this in ADDITION to Bernie, that's somehow equivalent to "bow down and give thanks to Bernie and Bernie alone, without whom nothing is possible"? Please.
Thank you for admitting that I did indeed name names, including the woman whose plan it was, the one who ran on it, spoke about it during town halls and debates, and whose name is left out and vilified.
There was nothing "inflammatory" in my post, but the numerous others where all other names are erased, THOSE are inflammatory, but you don't seem to have a problem with that, odd, right?
I thought you were objecting to this silliness, but instead you're acting as if the post I wrote BEFORE I conversed with you, and which addressed actual inflammatory nonsense, but pointing out how ridiculous it was, is somehow a crime.
Um, she didn't evolve on the issue, nor did he. That's not evolution means. They worked together with all the other Dems and the people who do their policy research to come up with a plan, in early July.
I fail to see your need to selectively "distill" portions of a post that was a response to a highly inflammatory, divisive one, that you chose to ignore. That's not "distilling' it's called Cherry picking. I find that tactic, particularly the way its' being used here, to be rather disingenuous.
Why is erasing Hillary's role in this so important, why is including the 20 other people so offensive? I countered a ridiculous post by emphasizing the contribution of others, something that the timeline supports, and included Bernie and gave him his due. You seem to be upset that Hillary was also given HER due. Toot on whatever train you'd like, that seems to be an odd obsession among the divisive posters whose sole aim is to inflame and irritate. Balancing it out by pointing out the silliness seems to be really upsetting when someone mentions Hillary, and the fact that she was talking about this throughout.
The woman is known for her in depth review of issues at hand, for doing her homework, for getting down to the details AND working with others to put together workable plans, she was attacked for this. She worked with Bernie too, the same way she's worked with others, but when she's erased, that's fine, when she's put back in, THAT's offensive.
Do you see any point in pretending to be conciliatory when giving credit where credit is due is seen as inflammatory? I'd suggest less cherry picking, and attempts to distill things, that requires greater proficiency at understanding the nature of the thing you're trying to distill and an even handed approach that's devoid of bias. The bias taints the distillation process, and when you have no idea what's coming out when, your final product isn't pure and you end up making errors.
I'm guessing you've never taken Organic Chemistry lab? Distilling stuff can yield all sorts of things, but when you have an error in process, your end product isn't what's its supposed to be. Distillation is an art and a science, but you can end up with a whole bunch of impure "stuff" that simply doesn't pass the most basic verification tests.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)As to the rest, as I said, I wouldn't have brought it up had you not suggested different goals than returning tit for tat, which is what now you say you were doing in the post. You were dressing it down by mocking it. There is plenty of that on both sides, and I totally get that impulse. I also did acknowledge that the OP wasn't helpful, and I agree with you that at least much of your posting in this thread has been more balanced.
I don't feel like I was selectively doing anything. I took your first mentions of Clinton and sanders over the course of the first few paragraphs. I didn't drop any to falsely illustrate a point. And you actually do say, if Bernie wants to toot the horn, that's fine. About him, not his supporters. But okay, this IS getting silly, on my part.
I have no problem with you mentioning the other contributors. Not sure how you got that from my post. I get a distinct sense that you don't value Sander's efforts very much, and that is fine, but it resulted in a certain disdain and dismissiveness entering into the post in question...and the only reason I first queried you about it was because of our other exchanges-... but as you say, you weren't trying to be conciliatory in the context of addressing the poster you were responding to.
As to the time stamp of your post, that does matter. I didn't pay close enough attention, and I thought it was a newer post when I first encountered it. had I, I wouldn't have responded to your post. So look, with that in mind, I take blame for making this into a thing. Where we have common agreement is a good thing. I'm clearly not above letting myself get drawn into the muck over perceived slights/mischaracterizations, what have you, and I will try to do better.
synergie
(1,901 posts)Not sure why that's an issue with you, I saw untruths and I corrected them. I was indeed mocking it, and I was also correcting the misinformation of that inflammatory post. It wasn't the OP, it was the numerous posts that pushed this false narrative that erased Hillary and all the other Democrats on this bill. It's dishonest to say that the bill Hillary espoused, defended and spoke about wasn't hers.
Well, that's the thing with bias, one is unaware of their own. You cherry picked out of context and then then came to some false conclusions by deliberately ignoring the post as a whole and acting as if it were free standing and not a point by point reply to an inflammatory post. You did actually, you cherry picked.
I've been saying that all along, but people who are blinded by their bias choose to ignore that by taking paragraphs and words out of context, in the instances where they bother with actually addressing what I actually said. I've been attacked by people who prefer their own strawmen to the content or words in the post they're replying to.
Well you seem to be all upset that I mentioned Hillary, despite the fact that it was actually her version of the bill, with the income limits and the numbers she spoke of.
I get the distinct impression that you wish to believe that anyone who isn't engaging in over the top adulation of Bernie is equivalent to "not valuing Sanders very much". I don't OVERVALUE him by attributing all things to him, which is not the same thing at all. I can't help how you choose to color what you read, but once again your own bias is reading a lack of worship as "disdain, dismissiveness" etc. That's on you, that's not what any objective reader would get from my posts, but it there seems to be a hypersensitivity whenever Bernie is mentioned by certain people. I'm pretty sure that some of the more vitriolic posts to me are written by people who didn't even bother reading what I wrote, as their posts make clear.
I don't see why we need to be conciliatory to people who are being deliberately inflammatory. Disagree with Bernie is not attacking him. He's a politician and not the best talker, he says stuff that is down right cringeworthy at times and I treat him like any other politician, Democrat or otherwise.
I did mention the timestamp in the first reply. It's really time we stop letting these bad actors foment division where it doesn't actually exist. We've never been a party that required that adherence to dogmatic faith based devotion to a personality or a single person, that's not what we are. Some people seem to be determined to create that, and were successful for a time, with punishing what they saw as apostasy.
We need to wake up to what these people are doing and their motivations for doing so. There were some nasty actors during the last cycle who were pulling some crazy crap, be it for political reasons, to serve foreign interests or who were just greedy for clicks and the money that comes with them.
It wasn't this toxic here even a couple of weeks ago. Something brought all that back though. Seems like these little flare ups come where there is bad news in the general cycle. Someone lobs some inflammatory stuff and instead of paying attention to things like the coordinated fake news efforts, the latest instance of WTF coming out of the White House, or distract from what the GOP is doing in Congress and in the state houses, we're dealing with this nonsense.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)that is what I'm referring to. Granted, that isn't what my post said that you read before I fixed. BUT, yes, as I've said, my post didn't have to exist and shouldn't have, and I was being overly sensitive.
Again, I don't have a problem with Clinton getting credit for crafting solid policy for this proposal. I'm not upset with her being brought up. I think both of us at various points now have acknowledged Sanders and Clinton, and as you say, you have acknowledged many of the other contributors to the shaping of this proposal at this point.
We both see biased language/perspective being imparted by one another. That's probably to be expected, since we all have our biases.
BainsBane
(53,127 posts)Last edited Tue Apr 4, 2017, 03:55 PM - Edit history (1)
and agreeing to get on board with a compromise solution. It's nice to see the hard word Hillary did on policy pay off. Even though this can't pass in the current congress, it's a blueprint for future legislation.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)R B Garr
(17,011 posts)fake. It's not reality. Even your contrived swipe at Hillary about the speech circuit wasn't real. We shouldn't be spreading fake news here.
synergie
(1,901 posts)like the income limits etc. to make it a fiscally feasible plan. This one is so popular that even Economists and people who understand how funding and government spending works are all on board. They were not happy with the original version, because we simply could not afford it (not when we have Republicans around anyway).
Students, their parents and their professors all like this plan, which is an even more modified version of what Hillary proposed.
I'm grateful for all the Democrats and Hillary for taking what sounded like a great idea and putting the work to make it something that wasn't just nice sounding words and figured out how to make it work.
Sitting Senators cannot join the paid speech circuit, that's against the law. But I'm glad he did decide to work with others and not just do stuff by himself as he was wont to do in the past.
Bravo Hillary! And Reps. Bobby Scott (D-Va.), Keith Ellison (D-Minn.), Raúl Grijalva (D-Ariz.), Rick Nolan (D-Minn.), Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas), Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.), Nydia Velázquez (D-N.Y.), John Conyers (D-Mich.), Peter Welch (D-Vt.), Mark Pocan (D-Wis.), David Cicilline (D-R.I.) Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) and Pramilla Jayapal!
Not to mention Senators Kamala Harris (D-Calif.), Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) and Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.).
All the people who worked hard on this final version of the bill seem to be getting lost, Bernie didn't do this alone, and everyone should get credit for their work, no?
fun n serious
(4,451 posts)synergie
(1,901 posts)Thank goodness for Hillary, Elizabeth, Kamala and all the others who did the work and had the knowledge to put together good policy.
The nitty gritty hard work never gets the accolades, but without it, we wouldn't actually achieve any progress. All those people decrying incrementalism never quite figured out that's the method by which progress happens!
One step at a time!
JCanete
(5,272 posts)even that step becomes the furthest most overreach of liberal ideals and gets mauled by the media and doesn't have the enthusiasm to survive. It also gives away our room to demonstrably compromise(even if it comes to nothing) since we've already done so. Promote the ideal, show the people it is possible and pragmatic and sane, and then get the steps towards it.
For that reason, I think assuming we decry incrementalism is I think, a fundamental misunderstanding. I'm fine with incrementalism, as in, I will take a step in the right direction if that's all we can get. I'm not fine with campaigning on less impactful, less inspiring ideals when there is very little reason at this point to do so. I actually think it suppresses the political imagination of the American public. Since we need that to be engaged to push forward on big ideas, even if its just a step, I see no reason to undersell the possibilities, and to not force the Republicans to defend their position of obstructing them.
To add to your praise though, credit all around to the people who push the vision and the people who understand how to survive in the system we have in far harder to maintain seats than others, and to those who do the very hard work of crafting the complicated legislation. In Clinton's case that's double credit.
synergie
(1,901 posts)done. I don't know what you're trying to say. I think this is some other veiled attack on Hillary for stating the obvious that certain things will get nowhere with Republicans in power, that last sentence is literally what Hillary got slammed for doing. Literally attacked on the promotion, while pragmatic and sane policies were derided as incrementalism and the steps she presented ignored completely as corporate something something.
I think if one doesn't want people to fundamentally misunderstand one, one should not use words that literally mean 'incrementalism is bad'. I'm glad you're not on that bandwagon but it's perhaps not valid to state that those were not what were said specifically, repeatedly and with the intent to smear.
I believe that every step in the right direction is a good thing, it may be all we can get, but it doesn't mean that's what anyone is aiming for. I'm not fine with campaigning on things that we cannot deliver right now, while waving over those ways we get there.
Seems a bit like those underpants gnomes on South Park. That phase 2 is sort of important.
I think that filling Americans with vague rhetoric without doing one's homework or fleshing out the "HOW", does more to harm American and their participation in politics. Imagination doesn't get votes, educating and partnering with voters does. They can smell BS political double talk pretty easily. I see no reason to OVERsell them either, that's what causes people to be disillusioned with politics. That actually just plays into their narratives that we're seeking something crazy and not well researched, fact based achievable solutions.
We're dealing with people who think that Paul Ryan is a "policy wonk" as he claims while ignoring his failure to actually grasp how policy works.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)No, it was no more a veiled criticism of Hillary than saying "incrementalism is a good thing" is a veiled criticism of anybody, myself included, who wants us to campaign bigger because we think the message getting out changes the political realities over time. That we want that doesn't mean we won't take what we can get, but we think it makes that more possible. People constantly post here..."so now that the primaries are over I guess Bernie's okay with incrementalism," which is characteristic of this very misunderstanding or misrepresentation of the position in the first place.
As an example, many people weren't frustrated at Obama for getting Obamacare through, they were frustrated that he started negotiating from that incremental step with the Republicans. Would it have mattered? I have no reason to believe they were going to budge an inch, and we may have ended up with the same plan, but maybe if they were afraid we were going to get that better bill through, some would have crossed over for a lesser one. But we didn't put something like a public option on the table.
But look, that is an area I just differ on the President with. I may very well be wrong, and I respect his hard work and his achievements, including the ACA. Philosophically, I prefer a different approach, and I think it would be more effective.
You are right that you shouldn't oversell what you can deliver. You don't make vague promises about how you're going make America great again and how everything's going to be wonderful, "just trust me." That's Trumpspeak nonsense. You sell the message. You say, we want this. You want this. Lets fight for it together. If we fight for it we can get it.
That's not overselling. That's saying lets change the political realities together. By promoting it, we get more people to want it. It is very important to distinguish those political realities from actual mechanical feasibility.
We should campaign on the latter, and arrive at the former, which hopefully shifts in our direction for the effort.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)https://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/college-for-all-act-introduced
Thanks Donkees for the video and link.
And thank you to all of our progressives in the House and Senate. You continue to inspire us.
This should have hundreds of recs! Come on people!
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)How about "no immunity"? Or "no Gorsuch"?
Response to ucrdem (Reply #52)
QC This message was self-deleted by its author.
QC
(26,371 posts)Bernie Sanders (I-VT) reads Coretta Scott King's letter protesting Jeff Sessions (R-AL) from the Senate floor.
Bernie Sanders Blasts Through The Republican BS On Sessions And Goes Straight For Trump
Bernie Sanders calls for investigation into Michael Flynn's Russia links during Donald Trump's election campaign
This guy lies all of the time!: Bernie Sanders rails against pathological liar Trump
Bernie Sanders calls Trump pathological liar again
Sanders: Trump is 'delusional,' says he could move US into 'authoritarian mode'
Trumps morally repugnant budget must be defeated: Sen. Bernie Sanders
Sanders on Trump: 'This guy is a fraud'
Bernie Sanders Comes Out Fighting Against Trump and Trumpism: We are not going silently into the night, says the senator. The stakes are too high.
Bernie Sanders blasts Donald Trump's "Cabinet of billionaires"
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Excellent research, I thoroughly enjoy seeing posts like this.
QC
(26,371 posts)ucrdem
(15,512 posts)Link to tweet
I'm glad he thinks so but many have already expressed similar sentiments in stronger language. I notice a pattern here where the headlines oversell the substance.
Mike Nelson
(9,984 posts)...too bad he's not working with President Clinton.
Tribalceltic
(1,000 posts)This has NO chance of passing either house, and certainly the "so called president" will never sign it. Just more grandstanding and fodder for Berniebros.
This also detracts from the much more urgent matter of finding a way out of this mess. Our election was stolen!
democrank
(11,112 posts)I'm really grateful to all those in our history who ignored the naysayers and continued fighting for what was right.
If forward-thinking people haulted every effort because someone else thought it would fail, women wouldn't be able to vote, a black man would never have run for president, and children with disabilities would not have been "mainstreamed" in public schools....to name a few examples.
Blue_Warrior
(135 posts)Bernie is doing our party an incredible service by keeping a steady stream of progressive bills in the news. People love progressive policies - when they're not tainted by fake news propaganda. By showing folks what they COULD have by supporting progressives like Bernie, he's setting us up for future wins.
Tribalceltic
(1,000 posts)Passing a bill to repeal the ACA 50 times with no chance of it getting past the president? No thanks we need to pick our battles and this is not one that deserves attention or effort.
Hassin Bin Sober
(26,356 posts)Voters punished the republicans for voting that bill 50 plus times.
Vinca
(50,326 posts)I applaud Bernie for trying, but it's like trying to bicycle cross country on a stationary Schwinn.
MichMan
(12,002 posts)While an admirable goal, I really don't understand how this would work in practice. I asked this same question last year and got no response.
I live in Michigan, not all that far from three colleges that are located very close to each other.
Washtenaw Community College has tuition of $2400/yr., Eastern Michigan Univ. is $11,200/yr., and University of Michigan is $14,400/yr.
If the tuition costs to the student are all zero, why wouldn't students all want to attend the schools with more amenities and huge sports programs? Why go to Washtenaw Community College if all three are free? Why wouldn't Eastern Mich raise their tuition rates $3000/yr to match U of Michigan since their students no longer care what the costs are.
Do the states have the $$ to contribute the 33% ?
TexasMommaWithAHat
(3,212 posts)Older two had large scholarships, so they bypassed junior college, but we're not paying for the younger two, and we're not allowing them to get into debt, either. Since a number of their friends are seeing the wisdom of starting their collegiate junior year without debt, they are not alone.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)especially since this would create an infusion of college attendies, and be a cash boon for these institutions. I would assume though, that colleges have a capacity. Not everybody is going to go to the same school. Some will be turned away. I expect that this might result in the need to fund more colleges.
Long-term it's just smart to educate our people and keep us ahead of the curve. It's inefficient not to do this or something like this, especially as the world gets more and more tech heavy, and skilled and unskilled labor diminishes.
MuseRider
(34,136 posts)Keep it all out there. Working for us.
randome
(34,845 posts)Also, it's 'Spring Forward', right? And don't forget to change those smoke alarm batteries.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]All things in moderation, including moderation.[/center][/font][hr]
LWolf
(46,179 posts)part of the solution, or we're part of the problem, or we ARE the problem.
Sanders is always about the solution. It's clear, reading through this thread, who are part of the solution and who are part of the problem.
Republicans win by keeping their proposals on the table, no matter how far out they are. The erosion of opposition over time eventually makes them more mainstream, and allows them to erode gains we've made, to make progress on their own agenda. It works for them. Repeatedly.
It's a strategy used by establishment neoliberals to keep the left down to constantly tell us, in that patronizing tone, that anyone trying to do the right thing, trying to keep issues on the table, and move forward, "can't" be successful. It excuses their preferred neoliberal politicians from actually standing and acting for us in any substantial way.
tallahasseedem
(6,716 posts)It may be what he's calling it, but the majority of it is other people's work.
mainer
(12,037 posts)I was just on a business trip there, and heard from a young man who even got the stipend while studying abroad. No wonder the Danes are so well-educated.
brooklynite
(94,950 posts)Last edited Tue Apr 4, 2017, 04:55 PM - Edit history (1)
"Free" doesn't translate to "universal".
TexasMommaWithAHat
(3,212 posts)Free junior college would be great. If you don't want to attend junior college, then you get a discount equal to junior college tuition off the cost of your university tuition the first two years.
Otherwise, we're going to have to ration "who" goes to university.
RandiFan1290
(6,261 posts)He didn't just disappear and decide to write another book.
sheshe2
(84,057 posts)And yes Bernie just wrote a book and has been on tour...
Bernie Sanders will embark on a national book tour starting Monday, November 14th in New York City. His book OUR REVOLUTION: A Future to Believe In goes on-sale nationwide on Tuesday, November 15th.
11/14 New York, NY
Barnes & Noble 5th Avenue
Ticket info
11/16 Washington, DC
Politics & Prose at George Washington University, Lisner Auditorium
Ticket info
11/17 Baltimore, MD
Johns Hopkins University
Ticket info
11/18 Chicago, IL
Andersons Bookshop at North Central College
Ticket info
11/19 Miami, FL
Miami Book Fair
More info
11/20 Boston, MA
Brookline Booksmith at Berklee Performance Center
Ticket info
11/21 Portland, ME
Books-A-Million
Ticket info
11/21 Concord, NH
Gibsons at Capitol Center for the Arts
Ticket info
11/22 Manchester, VT
Northshire Bookstore at Burr & Burton Academy
Ticket info
11/22 Montpelier, VT
Bear Pond Books
More info
11/22 Burlington, VT
Phoenix Books
Ticket info
11/28 Philadelphia, PA
Philadelphia Free Library
Ticket info
11/29 Pasadena, CA
Vromans at All Saints Church
Ticket info
11/30 Seattle, WA
University Bookstore at University Temple
Ticket info
12/1 Portland, OR
Powells City of Books
Ticket info
12/2 Berkeley, CA
DIESEL, a Bookstore in Oakland, and Mrs. Dalloways Bookstore at First Presbyterian Church
Ticket info
12/2 San Francisco, CA
Book Passage at Dominican University of California
More info (SOLD OUT. waitlist available)
Please note the events may or may not be held at the host bookstore. There are a limited number of pre-signed copies of the book available at these events. There will not be book signings during the appearances. See the listings above for more information, dates and venues.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Political_Revolution/comments/5czvxq/bernie_sanders_book_tour/
mcar
(42,465 posts)Who might you be alluding to?
QC
(26,371 posts)Higher ed has taken up the Walmart model of labor--now about 2/3 of college faculty are contingent workers with no benefits and no hope for tenure. As costs have gone up and state appropriations have gone down, administrators have taken up the slack by hiring even more adjuncts. (They've also hired a hell of a lot more administrators...grrrrr.)
Without a provision requiring otherwise, governing boards and administrators will just default to their customary University, Inc. thinking and hire more part-timers and increase class sizes while using the new funds to take on more assistant associate deans and put up more buildings.
Requiring that colleges put the new funds into the classroom is key.