Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

kstewart33

(6,551 posts)
Tue Feb 16, 2016, 06:02 PM Feb 2016

Big problems with free college.

Bernie says that the free college plan requires states putting up 33% of the total cost which in total amounts to many, many billions of dollars.

Given that most state legislatures are Republican controlled, and a growing number of states have serious budget problems, what legislatures are going to pony up a few billion dollars each to pay their fair share to give students a free ride?

Bernie's home state Vermont is again facing a huge budget deficit this year due to Medicaid costs and other expenses.

I wonder: How is Bernie is going to convince his own state to shell out a few billion for free college when they cannot even pay the bills that are coming due?

College students who are packing Bernie's rallies understandably are happy about free college. But no one has an answer for how to pay for it.

Perhaps Bernie supporters have ideas, besides raising state taxes which is DOA.

85 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Big problems with free college. (Original Post) kstewart33 Feb 2016 OP
There ARE no ideas. cosmicone Feb 2016 #1
Project much? Katashi_itto Feb 2016 #8
"Promising Free stuff." You know who also makes statements like that? think Feb 2016 #30
you sound just like Rush Limbaugh and the other talking heads on the right krawhitham Feb 2016 #73
NO WE CAN'T LondonReign2 Feb 2016 #2
Not surprised. Bernie doesn't have any ideas either. kstewart33 Feb 2016 #4
He has no ideas AND impossible promises, eh? LondonReign2 Feb 2016 #5
London, snark is not helping your cause. kstewart33 Feb 2016 #16
Disingenuousness isn't really helping yours. frylock Feb 2016 #44
Off-topic snark doesn't help. nt kstewart33 Feb 2016 #53
Lots of admonishments for snark today. frylock Feb 2016 #57
As there should be. kstewart33 Feb 2016 #69
I'm sorry, what was the question? frylock Feb 2016 #70
Maybe you should try logic then LondonReign2 Feb 2016 #83
So many problems with this Post..... berniepdx420 Feb 2016 #3
Berniepdx, thank you for your response. kstewart33 Feb 2016 #7
a rebuttle... berniepdx420 Feb 2016 #13
Thank you for your followup. kstewart33 Feb 2016 #15
This message was self-deleted by its author ladjf Feb 2016 #67
My household pays almost 3 k for free K-12 schools. Kalidurga Feb 2016 #6
Won't work. kstewart33 Feb 2016 #14
Don't tell me when I am being snarky. Kalidurga Feb 2016 #21
There's a key difference. kstewart33 Feb 2016 #42
They benefit they receive is living in a more educated society Qutzupalotl Feb 2016 #59
you know the difference between 3k and 15k? Kalidurga Feb 2016 #66
Property taxes don't end when your mortgage is paid off so I am unclear what kelly1mm Feb 2016 #75
You are paying far more to house people in private prisons than you would be to educate them. onecaliberal Feb 2016 #80
Yay! The Hillary camp must've just sent out the talking points for the day!! This is the second jillan Feb 2016 #9
Jillan, if you have some ideas related to the topic, good. kstewart33 Feb 2016 #17
Maybe not being so obvious would help your case. jillan Feb 2016 #36
Post removed Post removed Feb 2016 #63
omg - are you seriously saying that I do not have a college degree? That I am not financially set? jillan Feb 2016 #64
I didn't say that wilt the stilt Feb 2016 #65
States already have expenditures for public universities.. TheProgressive Feb 2016 #10
They do, but nationally this year, states are cutting their higher ed budgets. kstewart33 Feb 2016 #20
Do you have a link for the 'states are cutting higher ed budgets'? TheProgressive Feb 2016 #25
My state cut funding bravenak Feb 2016 #28
Do you have some sort of link/proof...? TheProgressive Feb 2016 #34
Look up the Alaska budget crisis. bravenak Feb 2016 #35
No, I am asking *you* for proof/link for *your* statement... TheProgressive Feb 2016 #40
I never said multiple years, you ADDED that to suit your needs. Is your google broken? bravenak Feb 2016 #45
Thanks for the link... TheProgressive Feb 2016 #49
Probably? bravenak Feb 2016 #51
Some of us believe in the power of the people... TheProgressive Feb 2016 #55
TP, please see my response to your earlier request for proof. nt kstewart33 Feb 2016 #60
Yes. kstewart33 Feb 2016 #58
Yes, because they raised *tuition* costs... TheProgressive Feb 2016 #61
So did WI--over and over. riversedge Feb 2016 #39
Oy! Scott Walker, ew. bravenak Feb 2016 #41
If the steps are possible, we should do it. kstewart33 Feb 2016 #47
Well, I am inclined to believe that once the college program is in place.... TheProgressive Feb 2016 #52
Getting the program in place is key. kstewart33 Feb 2016 #79
So, what you are saying is... TheProgressive Feb 2016 #81
No. kstewart33 Feb 2016 #84
OK, thanks for playing... TheProgressive Feb 2016 #85
Just cut the bloated defense budget lancer78 Feb 2016 #11
You're right and I'd do that first. kstewart33 Feb 2016 #22
Your big point is that the republicans won't do a damn thing... TheProgressive Feb 2016 #29
That's a big bill. kstewart33 Feb 2016 #23
This was yesterday's meme. Today is superdelegates. Try to keep up. nt TBF Feb 2016 #12
It's an issue, not a meme. kstewart33 Feb 2016 #24
These threads come out one after the other TBF Feb 2016 #71
Belittling a DU members real concern over an issue is wrong. riversedge Feb 2016 #38
"real concern" frylock Feb 2016 #46
There's no such thing DemonGoddess Feb 2016 #18
I've never had any kids, and never will. Fuddnik Feb 2016 #56
I expect university admission standards to rise to limit what's going to be paid for... HereSince1628 Feb 2016 #19
His dumping is a terrible idea. kstewart33 Feb 2016 #68
I'm not in favor of dumping general studies requirements HereSince1628 Feb 2016 #72
My state is in budget crisis and would not pay regardless bravenak Feb 2016 #26
My Take on this kennetha Feb 2016 #27
You have done a great analysis. Should be a separate OP. riversedge Feb 2016 #37
here kennetha Feb 2016 #54
Vermont abandoned Single Payer when they found up how much they'd have to increase taxes. Hoyt Feb 2016 #31
Wright Junior College was almost free back in the late 40s. raging moderate Feb 2016 #32
The GI Bill. kstewart33 Feb 2016 #48
gov Walker CUT our University budget. He would Never agree this Sanders plan riversedge Feb 2016 #33
Can we all agree that Walker is a reprehensible snake? kstewart33 Feb 2016 #50
No, se puede!111!1! Le Taz Hot Feb 2016 #43
You have to attribute quotes... catnhatnh Feb 2016 #74
LOL! Le Taz Hot Feb 2016 #82
The big problem with free college tuition is that rich kids would no longer have ladjf Feb 2016 #62
Every time Billions jump from one off shore to another we make a dime, simple . orpupilofnature57 Feb 2016 #76
but college administrations need to grow? 6chars Feb 2016 #77
We ultimately MADE money with the investment we made in the "free rides" of the GI Bill earlier... cascadiance Feb 2016 #78
 

cosmicone

(11,014 posts)
1. There ARE no ideas.
Tue Feb 16, 2016, 06:13 PM
Feb 2016

It is all about winning by promising free stuff and smears. Bernie's campaign is devious and deceptive.

krawhitham

(4,634 posts)
73. you sound just like Rush Limbaugh and the other talking heads on the right
Tue Feb 16, 2016, 09:38 PM
Feb 2016
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/11/08/1162831/republicans-claim-obama-won-re-election-because-blacks-and-hispanics-wanted-more-handouts/


— BILL O’REILLY: “The white establishment is now the minority. And the voters, many of them, feel that the economic system is stacked against them and they want stuff. You are going to see a tremendous Hispanic vote for President Obama. Overwhelming black vote for President Obama. And women will probably break President Obama’s way. People feel that they are entitled to things and which candidate, between the two, is going to give them things?” [Fox News, 11/6/2012]

— RUSH LIMBAUGH: “It’s just very difficult to beat Santa Claus. It is practically impossible to beat Santa Claus. People are not going to vote against Santa Clause especially if the alternative is being your own Santa Claus. [The Rush Limbaugh Show, 11/7/2012]

— SEAN HANNITY: “One other thing that we need to come to terms with as a result of last night. What appears to have happened is that the liberal welfare state in this country has now grown. More and more Americans have become dependent on that welfare state. As they have, they have found themselves siding with the party of government.” [Fox News, 11/7/2012]

— STUART VARNEY: “With Obama’s victory, the takers have taken over. The makers are clearly in the minority.” [Fox Business, 11/7/2012]

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/11/08/1162831/republicans-claim-obama-won-re-election-because-blacks-and-hispanics-wanted-more-handouts/

LondonReign2

(5,213 posts)
5. He has no ideas AND impossible promises, eh?
Tue Feb 16, 2016, 06:21 PM
Feb 2016


Stick to repeating Hillary's No We Can't mantra, its easier than trying to make a cogent argument.

LondonReign2

(5,213 posts)
83. Maybe you should try logic then
Wed Feb 17, 2016, 01:01 PM
Feb 2016

Seriously, trying to simultaneously tell us Bernie has no ideas AND he makes promises? You make it clear you have no idea what you are talking about and your only purpose is to criticize Bernie, whether your criticism makes the least bit of sense or not.

berniepdx420

(1,784 posts)
3. So many problems with this Post.....
Tue Feb 16, 2016, 06:18 PM
Feb 2016

First, do you think public highschool is a "free ride" The world has changed.. to compete we need to adapt

Second, do you expect Repubs to support and agree with Progressive paradigm changes ? NO... we have to fight

Third, the question of being able to afford it ? Take a look at concentration of wealth, look at tax rates on capital investment compared to tax on income, take a look at which giant companies pay no tax at all, take a look at how much it cost to wage our wars and manufacture our weaponry, ect...ect..

Fourth, raising state and federal taxes is DOA? I disagree... if the case is consistently and intelligently made to the majority of working and unemployed Americans about how the system is rigged, how large corporations often pay little or no tax, how corporations get around paying taxes at all by stashing their earnings offshore, how the concentration of wealth in a few hands is threatening our democracy, how reapportioning, the stolen trickle down economic's wealth over the last 40 years, by raising the top tax brackets and placing a tax on wall street transactions is a reinvestment of our money to our children and our society.

We need to break the Trickle Down Paradigm of scarcity...

kstewart33

(6,551 posts)
7. Berniepdx, thank you for your response.
Tue Feb 16, 2016, 06:38 PM
Feb 2016

No personal attacks! Thank you!

Some thoughts:

Public high school really isn't a free ride. In most states, most if not all of the property taxes that everyone who has a mortgage has to pay, go to fund public education. I pay about $3,000 to our public schools each year. (Not rich - got lucky about 20 years ago, bought a small house on land that subsequently became worth a lot).

We do have to fight for paradigm change, but the question is HOW do we do it? I'm convinced that Bernie is not the candidate to lead this fight. He's a good man but he hasn't shown the kind of leadership skills in Congress or elsewhere that's required to lead this extremely difficult and complex effort. But I don't think he'll get a chance because the Republicans will consume him in the general campaign. Take a good look at his biography. Look at his history from a rabid Republican strategist point of view. There's a treasure load to work with. So far, they haven't said word about Bernie but they're spending millions in ads against Hillary. They want Bernie to win the nomination.

We can boost taxes on the rich and corporations, but it won't be near enough to foot the entire cost of Bernie's platform. And we can cut military spending but both steps presently are impossible to achieve with a Republican-controlled Congress. And because of gerrymandering, almost ALL of the Republican districts have an overwhelming percentage of Republicans, so I don't expect the Dems will win the House.

Your last point is right on, but the selling job is very complicated. And right now, raising taxes on the middle class is political suicide. And they will have to be raised to pay for Bernie's platform. Dems at the federal and state level just won't do it. For the most part, their political hides are more important to them than staging a Revolution. In today's environment, that is the reality for both parties.

Sad but true.





berniepdx420

(1,784 posts)
13. a rebuttle...
Tue Feb 16, 2016, 06:52 PM
Feb 2016

First.. saying "free ride" is a misrepresentation... as I said before it will be paid with raising the top tax brackets and placing a surcharge on Wall Street transactions. So no free ride..

I completely disagree with you about Bernie not being the one to lead the fight...to the contrary .. he is by far the best person to lead this fight...evidence...follows...

Bernie Sanders - Through The Years...




As for the total cost for "Bernie's platform" I am sure you have not run the numbers yourself ... nor have I.. but we as a country have an enormous amount of money and wealth...unfortunately it is concentrated in a few hands. And the amount of money it takes to fight and support all these wars is tremendous... so lets not out of hand say we can't afford to educate our people..to rebuild our infrastructure.. lead the world in green energy.. some good info follows...

www.feelthebern.org

I would implore you to take an honest look at where the Clintons took our Party and our Nation.. they moved us to the Right and played a major part in the redistribution of our wealth to the top... Nafta, China trade agreement and the Telecommunications act of 1996 to name a few..





kstewart33

(6,551 posts)
15. Thank you for your followup.
Tue Feb 16, 2016, 07:18 PM
Feb 2016

Let me join the crowd in saying that Hillary is far, far from the perfect candidate.

But I believe that her strengths outshine her weaknesses both past and present. But on this point, we respectfully disagree.

We want the same thing. I agree that inequality is terrible in this country. A recent study by Princeton University concluded that we are no longer a democracy because our country is essentially controlled by the extreme wealthy and that is absolutely true. I agree that our GI Joe approach to the military has cost us way, way too much in lives and money. I am so tired of a Congress that is controlled by people whose views are not supported by the majority of Americans. This whole situation is infuriating.

But I'm a realist. Shooting for the moon instead of incremental change is invigorating and exciting. But in today's environment, moon shooting is a dream. The Republicans have too many structural advantages (they run most of the states today) and Bernie's plans cost simply too much money without excessively burdening the middle class. You are correct. I haven't run the numbers, but other people have. And Bernie's plans financially don't wash.

Is Bernie the guy to lead the Revolution? He is an exceptionally skilled advocate. If we owned both Congressional houses by a large margin and most of the Dems in Congress supported his policies, he'd likely do well as a domestic president. But we don't and they don't. And the Republicans in today's Congress surely don't.

We need a deal maker. I've taken a close look at Bernie's biography and his actual results in Congress. Bernie is not a skilled dealmaker. And Hillary is. So we deal with the reality instead of shooting for the moon. The moon is IMHO, beyond our reach in the present political environment. We shoot for progress where the odds are in our favor and set aside moon shooting which IMHO, will ultimately set back the progressive cause for many years.

Sorry for the long winded answer and thanks for engaging.

Response to berniepdx420 (Reply #3)

Kalidurga

(14,177 posts)
6. My household pays almost 3 k for free K-12 schools.
Tue Feb 16, 2016, 06:22 PM
Feb 2016

But, that isn't how college is going to be paid for. But, lets say it was with actual taxes we would probably be paying another 3k in taxes. But, then all 3 of our children would be going to college for free. But, now they are all paying well over 5 k a year in tuition so... help me out here is 3 k more or less than 15 k?

kstewart33

(6,551 posts)
14. Won't work.
Tue Feb 16, 2016, 06:53 PM
Feb 2016

Kali, please drop the snark. Doesn't help.

Why would people who don't have kids or don't have kids in college want to pony up $3,000 a year for a college freebie for someone's else's kids?

How are we going to convince Republican-controlled legislatures to pass this legislation when they go absolutely ballistic over raising any taxes that provide any benefits for people who aren't at least financially comfortable? In other words, change that benefits other people but not them?

We could say let's tax only the families with kids going to college but that doesn't make sense. There'd end up being no financial advantage at all. Or it could be the kind of advantage that you speak about, but then someone else is going to have to fund your kid's college and that's not going to happen in today's political landscape. Also consider that in most states, most 4-year universities charge more than $5000 a year in tuition.

We could stage a Revolution, but until Bernie lays out the specifics on how that will happen besides promising enthusiastic supporters a lot of free stuff, a goodly number of us remain skeptical.





Kalidurga

(14,177 posts)
21. Don't tell me when I am being snarky.
Tue Feb 16, 2016, 07:30 PM
Feb 2016

I am full aware of when I am doing that. And we are paying for kids that aren't ours right the hell now. All of my kids are grown and the property tax bill is still coming. And further more at one point if you got free college then at some point it's not terrible to have to pay something back into the system that is how that works. Right now I am paying for someone else's SS. At some point I will get SS. I paid in and I will get some out. That is how that works. But, selfish ****s be like that all they care about is what someone might be taking out and not what they take out. Nor do they care if someone actually needs help, because of course it's all about them.

kstewart33

(6,551 posts)
42. There's a key difference.
Tue Feb 16, 2016, 08:00 PM
Feb 2016

Today, our society views K-12 education as required. If you're born in this country, you go to school. Everyone pays for everyone else's kids and for their own through property taxes (at least those who have a mortgage). For those who don't have kids, their parents and other people paid for their K-1 education when they were kids. We pay money in this great big pot and we and our kids get the education. Social security works the same way. We all pay in; we all get benefits.

College is different. It is a choice. There are many, many kids who do not go to college, and for a goodly number of them, it's by choice. Because not everyone goes to college, there are a great number of people who will be paying for a benefit that they and their kids will not receive. I'd wager that many won't support that. So politically, the choice difference makes a big difference. Especially in Republican-controlled state legislatures which presently dominate state government in the US.

So in a way, the college free is a non starter. Congress won't pass it and Republican state legislatures certainly won't pass it. But there is another way. Certainly not as exciting as free college. But we can work on cutting the costs of college by taking a good look at how colleges are run and staffed. As a retired college prof, I have a gazillion ideas about how to do this. Here, we can make some progress and we should try.

I do know the difference between 3k and 15k. And your asking is snark.



Qutzupalotl

(14,230 posts)
59. They benefit they receive is living in a more educated society
Tue Feb 16, 2016, 08:23 PM
Feb 2016

which collectively makes better decisions.

I am childless by choice, but I pay taxes that fund K-12. So I am paying for a benefit I will not receive directly, but I know that creating smarter teens who have a future means I'm less likely to get mugged or outvoted into a theocracy, and more likely to benefit from future inventions and innovations.

Greater access to higher ed is a good thing for everyone, whether you yourself attend or not.

Kalidurga

(14,177 posts)
66. you know the difference between 3k and 15k?
Tue Feb 16, 2016, 08:54 PM
Feb 2016

Then why is it that you pretend you don't. Why is it you assume people will object to paying that when they know the outcome of not paying it is that their children will not be able to attend college or they won't be able to attend college or that they will be saddled with crushing debt?

If you love the current system just the way it is fine vote to keep it that way. If you don't love the current system then voting to keep it is nuts.

kelly1mm

(4,719 posts)
75. Property taxes don't end when your mortgage is paid off so I am unclear what
Tue Feb 16, 2016, 10:10 PM
Feb 2016

your phrase &quot at least those who have a mortgage)" is for. You may be trying to separate property owners from renters maybe (although renters pay the rent that pays the property taxes so they pay property taxes indirectly also).

jillan

(39,451 posts)
9. Yay! The Hillary camp must've just sent out the talking points for the day!! This is the second
Tue Feb 16, 2016, 06:41 PM
Feb 2016

thread on this topic today.

Lots more coming later, I'm sure.

kstewart33

(6,551 posts)
17. Jillan, if you have some ideas related to the topic, good.
Tue Feb 16, 2016, 07:22 PM
Feb 2016

Snark isn't helping your case. So otherwise, no.

Response to jillan (Reply #9)

jillan

(39,451 posts)
64. omg - are you seriously saying that I do not have a college degree? That I am not financially set?
Tue Feb 16, 2016, 08:47 PM
Feb 2016

That I don't pay taxes?

Wow. Just wow!!

 

wilt the stilt

(4,528 posts)
65. I didn't say that
Tue Feb 16, 2016, 08:50 PM
Feb 2016

i said that you tell us that can't think for ourselves. true or not true?

Who insulted who first? who dissed who. Did we take the aggressive position or did you take the aggressive position. ever learn manners?
you Bernies supporters on this site are so freakin' rude. ill mannered jerks.

kstewart33

(6,551 posts)
20. They do, but nationally this year, states are cutting their higher ed budgets.
Tue Feb 16, 2016, 07:26 PM
Feb 2016

Especially in Republican-controlled legislatures which are most of the states. Cutting higher ed funds has been an easy first-to-go in the last few years.

 

TheProgressive

(1,656 posts)
25. Do you have a link for the 'states are cutting higher ed budgets'?
Tue Feb 16, 2016, 07:38 PM
Feb 2016

Here is one procedure:

1. Declare the USA will have tuition free public JCs and universities.
2. Provide federal funding
3. States provide funding.
4. Implement procedures for states having a hard time financially.


 

bravenak

(34,648 posts)
35. Look up the Alaska budget crisis.
Tue Feb 16, 2016, 07:50 PM
Feb 2016

They limited state scholarships. Obviously since we are billions in the red.

 

TheProgressive

(1,656 posts)
40. No, I am asking *you* for proof/link for *your* statement...
Tue Feb 16, 2016, 07:59 PM
Feb 2016

Please be specific - a link showing your Alaska's public university funding levels for multiple years...

 

bravenak

(34,648 posts)
45. I never said multiple years, you ADDED that to suit your needs. Is your google broken?
Tue Feb 16, 2016, 08:03 PM
Feb 2016
http://www.alaskajournal.com/business-and-finance/2015-08-26/ua-prioritizes-its-way-through-budget-cuts


And we are still in budget crisis. We do not expect any raise in funding since budget cuts are on the way. Thx!!!
 

TheProgressive

(1,656 posts)
49. Thanks for the link...
Tue Feb 16, 2016, 08:13 PM
Feb 2016

I mentioned multiple years to get a feeling as to the nature of Alaska's education budget.

From the article you referenced, looks like a $23 million cut - about 2.9% of the total university budget.

Also note that Alaska's budget issues are because of falling crude oil prices. This represents a problem
for Alaska's budget in general.

Sander's free tuition for universities would probably have clauses to adapt to these shortfalls - just like
every other federal program...

kstewart33

(6,551 posts)
60. TP, please see my response to your earlier request for proof. nt
Tue Feb 16, 2016, 08:24 PM
Feb 2016

The problem appears to be a nationwide trend.

kstewart33

(6,551 posts)
58. Yes.
Tue Feb 16, 2016, 08:23 PM
Feb 2016

There are many, many links on Google. Here's one:

"Years of Cuts Threaten to Put College Out of Reach for More Students"

[link:http://www.cbpp.org/research/state-budget-and-tax/years-of-cuts-threaten-to-put-college-out-of-reach-for-more-students|

And some facts:

Forty-seven states — all except Alaska, North Dakota, and Wyoming — are spending less per student in the 2014-15 school year than they did at the start of the recession.
States cut funding deeply after the recession hit. The average state is spending $1,805, or 20 percent, less per student than it did in the 2007-08 school year.
Per-student funding in Alabama, Arizona, Louisiana, Pennsylvania, and South Carolina is down by more than 35 percent since the start of the recession.
 

TheProgressive

(1,656 posts)
61. Yes, because they raised *tuition* costs...
Tue Feb 16, 2016, 08:25 PM
Feb 2016

Maybe, you missed the main point of 'tuition-free public universities'...

kstewart33

(6,551 posts)
47. If the steps are possible, we should do it.
Tue Feb 16, 2016, 08:09 PM
Feb 2016

But they aren't. Most state legislatures are controlled by Republicans. They will not raise taxes to implement steps 3 and 4.

As a retired college prof, I know a little something about this. States are cutting higher ed because not all of their constituents went to college, or are or will go to college. In fact, in many states, very few attend college. So cuts don't affect most constituents.

Also, universities fund a lot of activities, especially research, with federal grants and grants from charitable foundations. States figure that universities can simply apply for more grants and make up the shortfall. That's nonsense but that's the thinking.

 

TheProgressive

(1,656 posts)
52. Well, I am inclined to believe that once the college program is in place....
Tue Feb 16, 2016, 08:16 PM
Feb 2016

...even republican state governments will comply. Or students will move out of those states.

It's more of a 'yes we can' than a 'no we can't' thing...

kstewart33

(6,551 posts)
79. Getting the program in place is key.
Tue Feb 16, 2016, 10:38 PM
Feb 2016

And that is up to a Republican-controlled Congress that, because of gerrymandering by the Republicans, won't happen.

With gerrymandering, almost all of the Republicans in the House are in districts where over 60% of the eligible voters are Republicans. In some gerrymandered districts, 90% of the eligible voters are Republicans.

No Revolution can beat this advantage at least in the near term. The best we can hope for is that a handful of seats may switch to Democrats, but given the huge lead that the Republicans have in the House, those victories won't make much of a difference.

Gerrymandering is the work of state legislatures and Republicans control most of the state legislatures. Democrats in Democratic-controlled legislatures have also gerrymandered but the Republicans have been much more successful at it.

 

TheProgressive

(1,656 posts)
81. So, what you are saying is...
Tue Feb 16, 2016, 10:52 PM
Feb 2016

...is that we need to vote for a republican to get *anything* done - right?

According to you, Sanders won't be able to do anything. Clinton won't be able
to get anything done.

What, I believe, you are trying to tell me is that we just have to give up the entire
United States of America to the oligarchy... Right?

kstewart33

(6,551 posts)
84. No.
Wed Feb 17, 2016, 04:59 PM
Feb 2016

I'm saying that as unexciting as it is, incremental change is much more likely to happen IF you have a president who knows how to get it done.

I don't see how any of Bernie's platform has a chance of getting passed. I do believe that improving Obamacare and making it stronger can happen but it will take a skilled negotiator who has the skills and relationships in Congress to get results.

I don't see anything in Bernie's Congressional experience that he has the skills or the relationships to do it. He is an immensely talented advocate for change. But he is not a deal maker, and striking deals is what it takes to get anything done in Congress. The Founding Fathers built compromise into the Constitution. That's why they established the system of checks and balances.

People in Congress have observed Bernie's work for many years. It is puzzling to me that he has only one endorsement.

It confounds logic that 533 members of Congress are bought-off and corrupt. What about the liberal members who have worked with Bernie and have not endorsed him? Are all of them bought-off too?

kstewart33

(6,551 posts)
22. You're right and I'd do that first.
Tue Feb 16, 2016, 07:30 PM
Feb 2016

But a Republican-controlled Congress won't. Some Dems in Congress won't do it either if there is a military base or large military hardware supplier (tanks, planes, ships, weapons) in their state that provides jobs and revenues. That's why we continue to make military hardware that is no longer used - the negative economic impact on the states where these companies and bases reside.

 

TheProgressive

(1,656 posts)
29. Your big point is that the republicans won't do a damn thing...
Tue Feb 16, 2016, 07:42 PM
Feb 2016

Yes you are currently correct.

However, you will have a President like Mr. Sanders demanding Congress carryout the
will of the people (in this case tuition free college). The people will demand this as well.
It could take a few election cycles to remove bad congressional actors, but in the end,
America will have this tuition free public college.

Its a matter of 'yes we can' than 'no we can't - not even going to try'. Get it?

kstewart33

(6,551 posts)
23. That's a big bill.
Tue Feb 16, 2016, 07:32 PM
Feb 2016

And I'd wager that it's a good bit more than that. But cutting defense spending? Very few in Congress - Dems and Repubs - will touch that.

TBF

(31,922 posts)
71. These threads come out one after the other
Tue Feb 16, 2016, 09:17 PM
Feb 2016

on the same day and we can't figure that out?

We are going to handle college exactly how we handle K-12. It's truly not that difficult. Unless you are very wealthy and would rather spend money on yachts.

DemonGoddess

(4,640 posts)
18. There's no such thing
Tue Feb 16, 2016, 07:23 PM
Feb 2016

as a free ride. You know the "free" public schools? I can remember when my children were still young enough to BE in school, the extra expenses. Lab fees, locker fees, textbook fees, this fee, that fee. I EASILY spent $200+ per high school child, just in FEES. Grade schools weren't much cheaper, maybe 1/2 that per child. But no, certainly not free.

Heh, that's not even accounting for the local taxes which SUPPORT these schools, so that they can be "free".

Fuddnik

(8,846 posts)
56. I've never had any kids, and never will.
Tue Feb 16, 2016, 08:18 PM
Feb 2016

But I've always paid property taxes. And I felt it was worth it, because I understand that these kids are the future, and I want them educated enough to take care of our society.

I believe it was Lyndon Johnson who said, "People don't mind paying taxes, if they feel like they're getting something worthwhile for their money". I agree. We're all in this together.

HereSince1628

(36,063 posts)
19. I expect university admission standards to rise to limit what's going to be paid for...
Tue Feb 16, 2016, 07:26 PM
Feb 2016

and I suspect that this could include high stakes European style exams at the beginning of secondary school to put kids on tracks that will go to technical training post hs vs paths that could lead to a bachelor's degree. In the end, that would mostly reinforce the effect of institutionalized racism on higher ed, and I fear that's exactly where Fitzgerald and Vos would like to take it.

The WI legislature is already looking at dumping university general studies requirements into secondary ed. as a way to cut college costs

If that's done for tech students as well, most community/technical colleges here will be awarding training certificates that mostly take 3 semesters, or less, to complete. And just on the face it, you have to admit three semesters is -a lot- cheaper than 9 or 10, and with none of that leftwing propaganda.


kstewart33

(6,551 posts)
68. His dumping is a terrible idea.
Tue Feb 16, 2016, 09:01 PM
Feb 2016

Currently many colleges and universities are burdened by staffing a rising number of remedial courses for freshman to bring them up to the required freshman-level competence in math, reading, and writing.

Many high schools are already failing to prepare students for a college-level education. And the schools are expected to cover university general studies requirements?

Ridiculous.

Leftwing propaganda? A tired Republican meme.

HereSince1628

(36,063 posts)
72. I'm not in favor of dumping general studies requirements
Tue Feb 16, 2016, 09:31 PM
Feb 2016

I'm of the opinion that it's important for communities and community organizations to have members, and leaders, who have understanding of topics outside their careers.

That understanding doesn't have to come from formal education, but formal education is effective at giving people elementary understanding.

And yes it's quite true that many students come to college with deficiencies. I taught undergraduate biology from 1983-2009 and the biggest problem I encountered was students who came to college lacking academic vocabulary and consequently elementary level collegiate reading ability.

kennetha

(3,666 posts)
27. My Take on this
Tue Feb 16, 2016, 07:41 PM
Feb 2016

The US is unlike other countries that have free college in many different ways. One way is having both a private and state Universities. Another is having a highly federal system, in which state colleges and universities are run not by the federal governments but by the individual states, with individual states setting admissions policies, expenditure rates, etc so that universities in different states are funded at very different levels.

So you have to ask, how this plan works and what are its consequences in the peculiar setting of higher education that you find in America.
Once you start thinking about how this actually works and its actual effects and then you take a look at the actual proposal -- at least to the extent it reflects the legislation he introduced last year -- you get the feeling that he has thought through very little of this. Here is his actual bill.

http://www.sanders.senate.gov/download/collegeforall/?inline=file


I don't pretend to know the answers to all the questions I raise below. But it does seem that Sanders proposal would be highly disruptive and would vastly alter the landscape of American Higher education in ways that he does not seem to fully anticipate. Perhaps for the good, perhaps not. It's much more than a "free tuition" plan. It's a plan to radically alter the educational landscape in America.

First, start with the fact that it's a plan for public Colleges and Universities only.

Here's a chart that shows the relative number of students who attend public and private Universities and Colleges both historically and projected out to 2024.


http://www.statista.com/statistics/183995/us-college-enrollment-and-projections-in-public-and-private-institutions/

Obvious point, since Sanders program applies to PUBLIC universities and colleges only, the cost (to students) gap between public and private universities is bound to significantly increased. And that suggest that the DEMAND for spaces in public universities will significantly increase. Unless SPACES in public universities increase as well, that means COMPETITION for spaces in public universities will become more intense.

How will that competition be managed? Will admission standards go up? Will we become like European Countries in which you have very restricted choices as to where you go to school. Part of the "bargain" that you get in Europe from free college is often that a single test determines if you go to college and where you go to college. America, by the way, has a MUCH more free and open University system than any country in Europe.

The analogy with public secondary education is a false one. We GUARANTEE places in a public school (supposedly an equally good public school, but that's a fantasy we all know) to every single child. Will we really guarantee a place in a public University to EVERY SINGLE STUDENT OF AGE? Doubt it. But if we do and if we lack the capacity, we must then develop the capacity to educate all students. States won't be able to ship excess students off to another state. And won't be able to say to some -- out of luck you have to "pay for a private school." (although some students no doubt still will, but you can worry about whether this will drive many especially lesser and financially precarious private schools out of business -- is that the plan, perhaps?).

We don't currently make such guarantees for colleges and universities -- though with the multi-faceted but highly tiered system in America (elite research universities, public and private, large state U systems that are multitiered, junior colleges, etc, most people can find a place.. Here in California, though, many, many, campuses in the Cal State system are "impacted." That is, they MUST turn away many many eligible students. So that's a big question, how do we manage the likely to be much increased competition for spaces in public colleges and universities? To every qualified student? How will we determine who is qualified and who is not or who among the qualified gets in? Is that to be left to the states? Will the be federal constraints on how states manage the increased competition? Sanders bill is silent on this.

One thing to note is that Sanders proposal only requires that states guarantees free tuition to In State students. States must, according to bullet point (2) of the legislation:

(2) ensure that tuition and required fees for in- State undergraduate students in the State’s public
higher education system are eliminated


I suppose that they are free to do the same for out of state students. But the proposal doesn't require them to do so and doesn't really incentivize them to do so either, as far as I can tell.

This is another thing, then, that seems to have the potential to significantly alter the incentive structure for students. It will incentivize more students to stay in State. Not only will it will make staying in state a a much more attractive option to both parents and students, but it will make it harder for state Universities to attract the much desired "out of state student" unless they can afford to make tuition free to out of state students too. But since the taxpayers of each state are still asked to kick in much of the cost of this, it is not clear that they will want to do this. In California, those already impacted Cal State campuses -- which accept almost not out of state students anyway (indeed, they accept almost no students from outside of what's called their local service area) -- will perhaps be even more impacted, as competition to get in them is only intensified.

Currently, some states, like probably Ohio, which was many, many more Universities than California, with many fewer students to attend them, may have a relative under-capacity. But California clearly has an under capacity. California exports lots of its students to public and private universities around the country. Ohio imports lots of students from other states. What will happen to this flow of students from state to state? Will Ohio have to cut capacity, while California grows capacity?

And what, more generally, about controlling costs? With greater demand and increased competition, you either have to grow capacity or restrict access. Growing capacity costs money. Sanders proposal makes no mention of this. Restrict access seems to be against the spirit of the proposal. We could go down the European route -- indeed there seems to build in pressure to go down that route from this proposal. Students are heavily tracked into college vs. vocational options. Mandatory entrance exams basically determine their entire fate. A high degree of government control over access is the cost you pay for having the government foot the entire bill.

Notice that what Sanders actual bill requires states to do along the line is the following:

(1) ensure that public institutions of higher
education in the State maintain per-pupil expenditures on instruction at levels that meet or exceed the
expenditures for the previous fiscal year;

(2) ensure that tuition and required fees for in-State undergraduate students in the State’s public
higher education system are eliminated;

(3) maintain State operating expenditures for public institutions of higher education, excluding the amount of funds provided for a fiscal year under this section, at a level that meets or exceeds the level of such support for fiscal year 2015;

(4) maintain State expenditures on need-based financial aid programs for enrollment in public institutions of higher education in the State at a level
24 that meets or exceeds the level of such support for fiscal year 2015;

(5) ensure public institutions of higher edu- cation in the State maintain funding for institutional need-based student financial aid in an amount that is equal to or exceeds the level of such funding for the previous fiscal year;

(6) provide an assurance that not later than 5 years after the date of enactment of this Act, not less than 75 percent of instruction at public institu- tions of higher education in the State is provided by tenured or tenure-track faculty;

(7) require that public institutions of higher education in the State provide, for each student en- rolled at the institution who receives for the max- imum Federal Pell Grant award under subpart 1 of part A of title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1070a et seq.), institutional stu- dent financial aid in an amount equal to 100 percent of the difference between—

(A) the cost of attendance at such institu- tion (as determined in accordance with section 472 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1087ll)), and
(B) the sum of the amount of the maximum Federal Pell Grant award; and
(ii) the student’s expected family con- tribution; and
(8) ensure that public institutions of higher education in the State not adopt policies to reduce enrollment.


Nowhere are the tradeoffs -- which are many and I have highlighted just a few of them -- addressed.

Here's another one. Administrative cost in universities keep increasing -- and not just to pay for presidents salaries. Think of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Title IX and whole host of mostly FEDERAL regulations that impose significant administrative costs on Universities and colleges. Sanders proposal doesn't allow states to use federal money to meet any such costs. Will his proposals make administrative costs go up? Not clear. But I'd be surprised if not.

One way that public universities have tried to control cost is by the use of part-time and adjunct faculty. Sanders proposal requires that at least 75% of teaching faculty at state universities be tenure and tenure track. Currently about 41% of faculty at all American Universities combined are adjuncts (i.e. not tenure or tenure track.) So this would be a major and costly sea change. And by the way, those adjuncts are much more likely to teach at underfunded state universities. Perhaps for the best, that's not what I am saying. But it's an increased cost. How will that cost be paid? By putting downward pressure on regular faculty wages, perhaps? Again, that's IS one of things that happens in Europe. European academic salaries are SIGNIFICANTLY lower, on average than American Academic Salaries.

All in all, not really sure what to make of this bill. It seems like a sort of half-baked, half thought-out proposal to remake the American Higher educational landscape in the image of Europe. It's kind of what you'd expect from a Social Democrat of European vintage though. The dude has a serious case of Europe envy, I'd say.
 

Hoyt

(54,770 posts)
31. Vermont abandoned Single Payer when they found up how much they'd have to increase taxes.
Tue Feb 16, 2016, 07:46 PM
Feb 2016

Yeah, I know it might have been cheaper than premiums for some and the single payer might have provided better care -- but the Democratic governor decided he ain't standing up and telling people taxes will increase substantially, folks will have only one choice of health plans, etc.

raging moderate

(4,281 posts)
32. Wright Junior College was almost free back in the late 40s.
Tue Feb 16, 2016, 07:46 PM
Feb 2016

My mother's three brothers, after their WWII service, all attended Junior College. One of them would up with four years of Junior College credits.

kstewart33

(6,551 posts)
48. The GI Bill.
Tue Feb 16, 2016, 08:13 PM
Feb 2016

For WW2 veterans, a free ride through college, all expenses paid. And they surely deserved it.

ladjf

(17,320 posts)
62. The big problem with free college tuition is that rich kids would no longer have
Tue Feb 16, 2016, 08:27 PM
Feb 2016

an almost total monopoly in college education opportunities and the benefits that follow. Rich people love exclusiveness and they will fight to keep it. Fifty years ago, universities all over the Country were virtually tuition free for in-state students. Why were we able to afford it then but not now? Answer: because the rich are raking in all the money and intend to keep doing so unless they are stopped.

These following statements are Newton's three laws of motion.


I. Every object in a state of uniform motion tends to remain in that state of motion unless an external force is applied to it.

(The inequity flow)
The rate of the inequity flow will continue to move from the less wealthy unless an external force is applied to it.

II. The relationship between an object's mass m, its acceleration a, and the applied force F is F = ma. Acceleration and force are vectors (as indicated by their symbols being displayed in slant bold font); in this law the direction of the force vector is the same as the direction of the acceleration vector.

(The acceleration of the flow)

The forces that are causing the inequity flow (F) are increasing, therefore the acceleration of the inequity flow problem will continue exponentially in the same direction. In other words, the rate at which the rich are acquiring the wealth is accelerating exponentially.


III. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

(The relationship between action and reaction.)

Concurrent to the accelerating acquisition of more wealth by the rich, the victims who are being fleeced are getting increasingly uncomfortable, then irritated, then angry and finally reactionary. When the collective power of the victims exceeds that of the thieves and the victims are aware of that, the victims will do whatever it takes to stop the unfair process.

In the case of the French Revolution, there were at least 25 major significant steps leading up to the full blown Revolution and 52 years of time. At some point in American History, the victims will realize that they have enough resources to prevail against the oppressors and will do what it takes to achieve a re-balance. Some of the significant steps have already occurred.

Unfortunately, the American masses have been systematically beaten down by ruthless professional propagandists and are
extremely fragmented philosophically. Nothing about this correction will be easy.

6chars

(3,967 posts)
77. but college administrations need to grow?
Tue Feb 16, 2016, 10:15 PM
Feb 2016

where will the funds come from for the new Assistant Vice Provosts for cost containment?

 

cascadiance

(19,537 posts)
78. We ultimately MADE money with the investment we made in the "free rides" of the GI Bill earlier...
Tue Feb 16, 2016, 10:28 PM
Feb 2016

When the additional tax revenue made from higher salaries from the beneficiaries of that program ultimately had us getting more money back for what we invested in those that received that education.

I also don't think it was a coincidence that Silicon Valley was where the initial push fir the high tech world started, in the same state where they had free state college tuition for in state residents.

If you give smart kids free college, the smart ones will come, and grow the local industrial sector more than other parts of the country.

If Republican states don't want to invest in their kids' educations, the only big job industries they will have in their states will be to flip burgers.

Now we can continue to corrupt our nation's economy with the BULLSHIT free trade programs and guest worker programs that lets industry outsource jobs to other countries instead of investing in people here, but Bernie and the Trumps and Cruz's now saying no to this crap is a sign of the populist movement in both parties that will ultimately shut down this capitulation to greedy oligarchs!

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»Big problems with free co...